Page 300 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 300
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
not measured eco-innovation in general but rather distinguished sever-
al eco-innovation types – product, process and organizational – and fur-
ther explored drivers and outcomes of different eco-innovation types.
Some limitations in the study’s design can be also identified. This
study used cross-sectional data. A longitudinal study would enable us to
draw conclusions and causative implications regarding the effects of dif-
ferent eco-innovation determinants on eco-innovation practices, as well
as the impact of different eco-innovation types on the outcomes at firm
level. With this approach, we obtained insight into drivers and outcomes
of eco-innovation pertaining to the moment at which companies com-
pleted the questionnaire. This limitation has been partially mitigated
with the use of objective and self-reported measures concerning compa-
ny performance. Objective measures gathered from a secondary database
300 present a current state, while the self-reported measures add reflective
and subjective evaluation of eco-innovation performance and its ongoing
effect on the company’s performance.
Another limitation, which is partially related to the previous one,
pertains to informant bias (i.e., the data were collected from only one
person from each company). Since we used a single informant from each
of the companies to complete the survey, concerns of common method
variance (CMV) were addressed (Podsakoff et al. 2003) using Harman’s
single factor test, which is the most widely used method to assess the pos-
sibility of CMV. Results indicated a low threat of common method var-
iance.
Our study used mainly self-reported measures, which reflect its sub-
jective nature. It may be that different informants from the same company
would respond differently to some degree, because they perceive the same
situation and environment differently. However, we believe that this was
not a major limitation in our study, because we were interested in factors
that spur companies into implementation of eco-innovation and its out-
comes. Another limitation could occur if the person who completed the
questionnaire was not yet employed in the company when the company
began its eco-innovation implementation, as that person might not have
the necessary knowledge and insights into factors that incited the com-
pany to begin eco-innovation implementation, nor of its outcomes and
their effects exerted on company performance. We have partially avoid-
ed this limitation by asking respondents to respond only if they are the
most knowledgeable person in the company about its eco-innovations.
Moreover, we measured the outcomes of eco-innovation using objective
measures; for company growth and profitability we obtained data from
not measured eco-innovation in general but rather distinguished sever-
al eco-innovation types – product, process and organizational – and fur-
ther explored drivers and outcomes of different eco-innovation types.
Some limitations in the study’s design can be also identified. This
study used cross-sectional data. A longitudinal study would enable us to
draw conclusions and causative implications regarding the effects of dif-
ferent eco-innovation determinants on eco-innovation practices, as well
as the impact of different eco-innovation types on the outcomes at firm
level. With this approach, we obtained insight into drivers and outcomes
of eco-innovation pertaining to the moment at which companies com-
pleted the questionnaire. This limitation has been partially mitigated
with the use of objective and self-reported measures concerning compa-
ny performance. Objective measures gathered from a secondary database
300 present a current state, while the self-reported measures add reflective
and subjective evaluation of eco-innovation performance and its ongoing
effect on the company’s performance.
Another limitation, which is partially related to the previous one,
pertains to informant bias (i.e., the data were collected from only one
person from each company). Since we used a single informant from each
of the companies to complete the survey, concerns of common method
variance (CMV) were addressed (Podsakoff et al. 2003) using Harman’s
single factor test, which is the most widely used method to assess the pos-
sibility of CMV. Results indicated a low threat of common method var-
iance.
Our study used mainly self-reported measures, which reflect its sub-
jective nature. It may be that different informants from the same company
would respond differently to some degree, because they perceive the same
situation and environment differently. However, we believe that this was
not a major limitation in our study, because we were interested in factors
that spur companies into implementation of eco-innovation and its out-
comes. Another limitation could occur if the person who completed the
questionnaire was not yet employed in the company when the company
began its eco-innovation implementation, as that person might not have
the necessary knowledge and insights into factors that incited the com-
pany to begin eco-innovation implementation, nor of its outcomes and
their effects exerted on company performance. We have partially avoid-
ed this limitation by asking respondents to respond only if they are the
most knowledgeable person in the company about its eco-innovations.
Moreover, we measured the outcomes of eco-innovation using objective
measures; for company growth and profitability we obtained data from
