Page 295 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 295
Conclusion 295
trol instrument and the economic incentive instrument exert a smaller
(though still significantly positive) effect on all eco-innovation types. The
command-and-control instrument and the economic incentive instru-
ment seem to be effective in motivating eco-innovation implementation,
while the economic incentive instrument plays an even smaller role than
the command-and-control instrument in spurring eco-innovation imple-
mentation in Slovenian companies. Policy makers could benefit from our
results, as our findings revealed that the command-and-control instru-
ment plays the most effective role in spurring process eco-innovation, fol-
lowed by product eco-innovation, while it has the least effect on organi-
zational eco-innovation. In addition, the economic incentive instrument
is most effective in spurring implementation of product eco-innovation,
followed by organizational eco-innovation, and, lastly, process eco-inno-
vation. We believe that the economic incentive instrument in the Slo-
venian environment is not developed enough, and therefore should be
more emphasized, especially for eco-innovations that deliver higher val-
ue for the environment and economy and are related to large investments,
which require more time to pay off and consequently hamper company
performance in the meantime. It is likely that developing greater flex-
ibility in the command-and-control instrument and combining it with
the economic incentive instrument would deliver better results and gain
more success in spurring eco-innovation. As stressed by other researchers
(Rennings et al. 2006), for a long time it was assumed that the economic
incentive instrument is more effective than and thus superior to the com-
mand-and-control instrument for triggering eco-innovation, whereas the
findings of our study demonstrate the opposite result for all eco-innova-
tion types. As argued by Oltra and Saint Jean (2009), we stress, based on
the obtained findings, that the economic incentive instrument cannot
entirely substitute for the command-and-control instrument, and by it-
self is not sufficient for spurring eco-innovation. Therefore, the use of dif-
ferent instruments may vary depending on the context and eco-innova-
tion type, while the combination of both seems to be most effective.
However, a significant insight of this study is that the most impor-
tant driver of implementation of eco-innovation is not the environmen-
tal policy instruments but rather competitive pressure, which forces com-
panies to become more environmentally friendly, be more eco-efficient in
their use of resources (e.g., material, energy, water, etc.), and provide/of-
fer to consumers more environmentally friendly solutions. According to
the results of this study, competition is the strongest driving force of all
eco-innovation types tested in this study (product, process, organization-
trol instrument and the economic incentive instrument exert a smaller
(though still significantly positive) effect on all eco-innovation types. The
command-and-control instrument and the economic incentive instru-
ment seem to be effective in motivating eco-innovation implementation,
while the economic incentive instrument plays an even smaller role than
the command-and-control instrument in spurring eco-innovation imple-
mentation in Slovenian companies. Policy makers could benefit from our
results, as our findings revealed that the command-and-control instru-
ment plays the most effective role in spurring process eco-innovation, fol-
lowed by product eco-innovation, while it has the least effect on organi-
zational eco-innovation. In addition, the economic incentive instrument
is most effective in spurring implementation of product eco-innovation,
followed by organizational eco-innovation, and, lastly, process eco-inno-
vation. We believe that the economic incentive instrument in the Slo-
venian environment is not developed enough, and therefore should be
more emphasized, especially for eco-innovations that deliver higher val-
ue for the environment and economy and are related to large investments,
which require more time to pay off and consequently hamper company
performance in the meantime. It is likely that developing greater flex-
ibility in the command-and-control instrument and combining it with
the economic incentive instrument would deliver better results and gain
more success in spurring eco-innovation. As stressed by other researchers
(Rennings et al. 2006), for a long time it was assumed that the economic
incentive instrument is more effective than and thus superior to the com-
mand-and-control instrument for triggering eco-innovation, whereas the
findings of our study demonstrate the opposite result for all eco-innova-
tion types. As argued by Oltra and Saint Jean (2009), we stress, based on
the obtained findings, that the economic incentive instrument cannot
entirely substitute for the command-and-control instrument, and by it-
self is not sufficient for spurring eco-innovation. Therefore, the use of dif-
ferent instruments may vary depending on the context and eco-innova-
tion type, while the combination of both seems to be most effective.
However, a significant insight of this study is that the most impor-
tant driver of implementation of eco-innovation is not the environmen-
tal policy instruments but rather competitive pressure, which forces com-
panies to become more environmentally friendly, be more eco-efficient in
their use of resources (e.g., material, energy, water, etc.), and provide/of-
fer to consumers more environmentally friendly solutions. According to
the results of this study, competition is the strongest driving force of all
eco-innovation types tested in this study (product, process, organization-
