Page 303 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 303
Conclusion 303
As abovementioned, in our study we have not differentiated between
the adoption/implementation and innovation/development stages of
eco-innovation (as strongly emphasized in various literature reviews un-
dertaken by several researchers, e.g., del Río 2009; Hojnik and Ruzzier
2015). Great differences can emerge when exploring drivers of eco-innova-
tion in these two different stages. These differences might also be present
in the outcomes of eco-innovation (i.e., whether a company develops or
adopts eco-innovation). Thus, future research could explore which driv-
ers work better, which are most effective in the different stages of eco-in-
novation (development and adoption), for different types of eco-innova-
tion (product, process and organizational), and also how the outcomes
of different eco-innovation types differ in different eco-innovation stag-
es. Future research should address the following questions: Is it better for
companies to adopt or develop eco-innovation? Which is more benefi-
cial – contributing to better company performance, providing competi-
tive benefits or providing possible entry or expansion on foreign markets?
Do first-mover advantages really occur, and are the companies that devel-
op eco-innovations able to seize the benefits from them?
Another future research direction pertains to the exploration of driv-
ers and outcomes of radical and incremental innovations. Researchers
(Kemp and Pearson 2008; Kemp and Pontoglio 2011) have argued that
within the innovation literature, a distinction is made between incre-
mental innovations and radical innovations. Incremental innovations are
only minor modifications of already existing processes or products, while
radical innovations present a technological discontinuity based on a
break with existing competencies and technologies (Kemp and Pontoglio
2011). Based on a detailed literature review encompassing mixed-method
studies and meta-analyses, Kemp and Pontoglio (2011) stressed that reg-
ulation is generally believed to motivate merely the diffusion of environ-
mental technology; further, the common wisdom sees market-based in-
struments as superior to regulations when aiming to solicit innovative
responses. However, based on their literature review, Kemp and Ponto-
glio (2011) conclude that there is more evidence of regulations inducing
radical innovation than of market-based instruments doing so. Therefore,
in future research it would be beneficial to explore which drivers trig-
ger incremental eco-innovation and which trigger radical eco-innovation
(i.e., what are the relative strengths of different drivers and which ones
work best for which type), as well as the outcomes of the different types
at the firm level. It would also be interesting to explore and control for the
As abovementioned, in our study we have not differentiated between
the adoption/implementation and innovation/development stages of
eco-innovation (as strongly emphasized in various literature reviews un-
dertaken by several researchers, e.g., del Río 2009; Hojnik and Ruzzier
2015). Great differences can emerge when exploring drivers of eco-innova-
tion in these two different stages. These differences might also be present
in the outcomes of eco-innovation (i.e., whether a company develops or
adopts eco-innovation). Thus, future research could explore which driv-
ers work better, which are most effective in the different stages of eco-in-
novation (development and adoption), for different types of eco-innova-
tion (product, process and organizational), and also how the outcomes
of different eco-innovation types differ in different eco-innovation stag-
es. Future research should address the following questions: Is it better for
companies to adopt or develop eco-innovation? Which is more benefi-
cial – contributing to better company performance, providing competi-
tive benefits or providing possible entry or expansion on foreign markets?
Do first-mover advantages really occur, and are the companies that devel-
op eco-innovations able to seize the benefits from them?
Another future research direction pertains to the exploration of driv-
ers and outcomes of radical and incremental innovations. Researchers
(Kemp and Pearson 2008; Kemp and Pontoglio 2011) have argued that
within the innovation literature, a distinction is made between incre-
mental innovations and radical innovations. Incremental innovations are
only minor modifications of already existing processes or products, while
radical innovations present a technological discontinuity based on a
break with existing competencies and technologies (Kemp and Pontoglio
2011). Based on a detailed literature review encompassing mixed-method
studies and meta-analyses, Kemp and Pontoglio (2011) stressed that reg-
ulation is generally believed to motivate merely the diffusion of environ-
mental technology; further, the common wisdom sees market-based in-
struments as superior to regulations when aiming to solicit innovative
responses. However, based on their literature review, Kemp and Ponto-
glio (2011) conclude that there is more evidence of regulations inducing
radical innovation than of market-based instruments doing so. Therefore,
in future research it would be beneficial to explore which drivers trig-
ger incremental eco-innovation and which trigger radical eco-innovation
(i.e., what are the relative strengths of different drivers and which ones
work best for which type), as well as the outcomes of the different types
at the firm level. It would also be interesting to explore and control for the
