Page 302 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 302
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
proach. Our study is a case of quantitative research (i.e., survey analysis),
which means that the relative strength of the so-called “driver” is being
studied, while its decisiveness remains a topic for further analysis (Ho-
jnik and Ruzzier 2015).
Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study’s methods and de-
sign were suitable for realizing the study’s goal and also delivering the im-
portant contributions discussed in the previous sections.
Future research directions and opportunities
The main goals of this study were as follows. First, we wanted to devel-
op an eco-innovation construct with three dimensions – product, pro-
cess and organizational eco-innovation – and empirically test it based on
a sample of 223 Slovenian companies. Second, we wanted to develop and
302 empirically test a construct-level model of eco-innovation, by adopting
an integrative approach and exploring eco-innovation’s drivers and con-
sequences. Further, drivers and outcomes were also explored for the dif-
ferent eco-innovation types (product, process and organizational), thus
delivering insights that are more detailed and provide a deeper under-
standing. We believe that our study delivers important insights and con-
tributions and, to the best of our knowledge, presents the first integrative
study in this research field in the Slovenian environment. However, many
research gaps still remain open, as discussed below.
The measures of the eco-innovation construct in our study encompass
three dimensions and differentiate between product, process and organ-
izational eco-innovation. Data analyses demonstrate good psychometric
characteristics, also including sufficient discriminant validity, although
the product and process eco-innovation dimensions do correlate with
each other to a higher level than with organizational eco-innovation di-
mension. Thus, these dimensions could be further refined and improved.
Furthermore, the eco-innovation construct measure should also be vali-
dated on samples of foreign companies in different countries. Moreover,
the distinction or division of eco-innovation dimensions could be also
more specific and go into more detail, in the sense that process eco-in-
novation could be divided into externality-reducing innovations and re-
source-reducing innovations (e.g., Ghisetti and Rennings 2014), or end-
of-pipeline technologies and cleaner production technologies (as is more
commonly done). This distinction could bring other important insights
regarding the drivers and outcomes of different process eco-innovation
types.
proach. Our study is a case of quantitative research (i.e., survey analysis),
which means that the relative strength of the so-called “driver” is being
studied, while its decisiveness remains a topic for further analysis (Ho-
jnik and Ruzzier 2015).
Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study’s methods and de-
sign were suitable for realizing the study’s goal and also delivering the im-
portant contributions discussed in the previous sections.
Future research directions and opportunities
The main goals of this study were as follows. First, we wanted to devel-
op an eco-innovation construct with three dimensions – product, pro-
cess and organizational eco-innovation – and empirically test it based on
a sample of 223 Slovenian companies. Second, we wanted to develop and
302 empirically test a construct-level model of eco-innovation, by adopting
an integrative approach and exploring eco-innovation’s drivers and con-
sequences. Further, drivers and outcomes were also explored for the dif-
ferent eco-innovation types (product, process and organizational), thus
delivering insights that are more detailed and provide a deeper under-
standing. We believe that our study delivers important insights and con-
tributions and, to the best of our knowledge, presents the first integrative
study in this research field in the Slovenian environment. However, many
research gaps still remain open, as discussed below.
The measures of the eco-innovation construct in our study encompass
three dimensions and differentiate between product, process and organ-
izational eco-innovation. Data analyses demonstrate good psychometric
characteristics, also including sufficient discriminant validity, although
the product and process eco-innovation dimensions do correlate with
each other to a higher level than with organizational eco-innovation di-
mension. Thus, these dimensions could be further refined and improved.
Furthermore, the eco-innovation construct measure should also be vali-
dated on samples of foreign companies in different countries. Moreover,
the distinction or division of eco-innovation dimensions could be also
more specific and go into more detail, in the sense that process eco-in-
novation could be divided into externality-reducing innovations and re-
source-reducing innovations (e.g., Ghisetti and Rennings 2014), or end-
of-pipeline technologies and cleaner production technologies (as is more
commonly done). This distinction could bring other important insights
regarding the drivers and outcomes of different process eco-innovation
types.
