Page 305 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 305
Conclusion 305
activities on product eco-innovation. Moreover, as aforementioned, not
only the rate of R&D but also the stage of eco-innovation should be con-
trolled, in order to see and gauge what kind and amount of investment
the adoption of eco-innovation or the development of a certain eco-in-
novation type require and when the return on investments occurs. With
these insights, we could suggest to companies which eco-innovation type
is best for them to adopt or implement using their limited resources, as
well as what period of time is predicted for a return on their investment.
In addition, the outcomes of different eco-innovation types should also
be examined in more detail – that is, when, whether, and which eco-in-
novation types deliver benefits to the company. In sum, return on invest-
ment and estimated time of payoff related to different eco-innovation
types present further research directions, which would be of great help
not only for companies but also for potential investors and policy mak-
ers, in order to make it easier for them to plan the development and appli-
cation of different environmental policy instruments.
Researchers (Hojnik and Ruzzier 2015, 1) have stressed that a stim-
ulus can act as a motivation-based factor (e.g., regulatory pressure, vari-
ous expected benefits to be derived from eco-innovation implementation,
profiling of company as environmentally friendly, competitive pressure,
customer demand) or a facilitating factor (e.g., EMS, financial resourc-
es, technological capabilities). In our study, we defined and examined the
drivers of eco-innovation as motivation-based factors, and thus the role of
drivers that work as facilitating factors of eco-innovation remains a top-
ic of future research. Thus, another interesting aspect to explore would
be the effect of EMS (ISO 14001 and EMAS), because several research-
ers have found a positive effect of EMS on different eco-innovation types.
Specifically, researchers have found a positive association between EMS
(ISO 14001 and EMAS accreditation) and environmental product inno-
vation (Rehfeld et al. 2007), environmental process innovations (Wag-
ner 2008), and increased investments in eco-innovation (Kesidou and
Demirel 2012). When tested separately, ISO 14001 exerted a positive and
significant influence on environmental product and process innovation
(Ziegler and Rennings 2004), as well as on end-of-pipeline technologies
(Demirel and Kesidou 2011). In future research, it would be interesting
to test the association between various types of EMS (such as ISO 14001
and EMAS) and different eco-innovation types (e.g., product, process
and organizational eco-innovation). Moreover, we could also control the
time of accreditation and the effect of accreditation on eco-innovation in
the stages of adoption and development.
activities on product eco-innovation. Moreover, as aforementioned, not
only the rate of R&D but also the stage of eco-innovation should be con-
trolled, in order to see and gauge what kind and amount of investment
the adoption of eco-innovation or the development of a certain eco-in-
novation type require and when the return on investments occurs. With
these insights, we could suggest to companies which eco-innovation type
is best for them to adopt or implement using their limited resources, as
well as what period of time is predicted for a return on their investment.
In addition, the outcomes of different eco-innovation types should also
be examined in more detail – that is, when, whether, and which eco-in-
novation types deliver benefits to the company. In sum, return on invest-
ment and estimated time of payoff related to different eco-innovation
types present further research directions, which would be of great help
not only for companies but also for potential investors and policy mak-
ers, in order to make it easier for them to plan the development and appli-
cation of different environmental policy instruments.
Researchers (Hojnik and Ruzzier 2015, 1) have stressed that a stim-
ulus can act as a motivation-based factor (e.g., regulatory pressure, vari-
ous expected benefits to be derived from eco-innovation implementation,
profiling of company as environmentally friendly, competitive pressure,
customer demand) or a facilitating factor (e.g., EMS, financial resourc-
es, technological capabilities). In our study, we defined and examined the
drivers of eco-innovation as motivation-based factors, and thus the role of
drivers that work as facilitating factors of eco-innovation remains a top-
ic of future research. Thus, another interesting aspect to explore would
be the effect of EMS (ISO 14001 and EMAS), because several research-
ers have found a positive effect of EMS on different eco-innovation types.
Specifically, researchers have found a positive association between EMS
(ISO 14001 and EMAS accreditation) and environmental product inno-
vation (Rehfeld et al. 2007), environmental process innovations (Wag-
ner 2008), and increased investments in eco-innovation (Kesidou and
Demirel 2012). When tested separately, ISO 14001 exerted a positive and
significant influence on environmental product and process innovation
(Ziegler and Rennings 2004), as well as on end-of-pipeline technologies
(Demirel and Kesidou 2011). In future research, it would be interesting
to test the association between various types of EMS (such as ISO 14001
and EMAS) and different eco-innovation types (e.g., product, process
and organizational eco-innovation). Moreover, we could also control the
time of accreditation and the effect of accreditation on eco-innovation in
the stages of adoption and development.
