Why do services and manufacturing firms envision environmental innovation differently? A path-model comparison

• Autorzy: Peiro-Signes A. , Segarra-Ona M.-d. V. , Alvarez C. M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Innovation and environmental awareness are crucial issues that actually build a firm’s competitive advantages. In terms of manufacturing industries, several studies have been carried out to disentangle the variables that help companies to orientate more effectively their innovations toward sustainability. In comparison, although the service industry is increasing its economic weight, little research has been carried out in this domain. In the present paper, we analyze the differences of eco-innovative behavior between Service and Manufacturing industries. We retrieved 6,253 firms’ data from the Spanish panel of innovative activities (PITEC database) and deployed a structured equations model (EQS) for each group to compare what variables are influencing the willingness to be eco-innovative for each type of industry. Results show the differences in impact that product orientation has on eco-orientation. The relationship between product-orientation and ecoorientation in service firms is significantly different to that in manufacturing firms. In fact, product-orientation impact is lower in service firms. Thus, while manufacturing firms show a similar impact of product and process orientation on eco-orientation, process-orientation in service firms almost doubled the relative impact of product-orientation on eco-innovation. These results may allow both policy makers and managers to make the correct decisions regarding national, industrial and company strategy.

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 23
• Numer: 5
• Opis fizyczny: p.1691-1697,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Peiro-Signes A.

• Management Department, 7D building, Cno. de Vera s/n, Universitat Politecnica, 46022 Valencia, Spain

autor

Segarra-Ona M.-d. V.

• Management Department, 7D building, Cno. de Vera s/n, Universitat Politecnica, 46022 Valencia, Spain

autor

Alvarez C. M.

• Department of Applied Statistics, Operational Research, and Quality Department, 7A building, Cno. de Vera s/n, Universitat Politecnica, 46022 Valencia, Spain

Bibliografia

• 1. BLISCHWITZ R., GILJUN S., KUHNDT M., SCMIDT, B. Eco-innovation: Putting the EU on the path to a resource and energy efficient economy. Wuppertal Institute. Brussels. 2009.
• 2. KEMP R. Eco-innovation: Definition, Measurement and Open Research Issues. Economia Politica. 3, (97), 420, 2010.
• 3. KEMP R., OLTRA V. Research Insights and Challenges on Eco-Innovation Dynamics. Industry and Innovation. 18, (3), 249, 2011.
• 4. SULLIVAN R. Being sustainable...be specific, Eng. Manage. J., 12, (5), 220, 2002.
• 5. ESTY D.C., WINSTON A.S. Green to Gold, How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. John Wiley & Sons, Hokoben, New Jersey. 2006.
• 6. NIDUMOLU R., PRAHALAD C., RANGASWAMI M. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Bus Rev. 87, 57, 2009.
• 7. POHORYLES R J. Europe in the making - what role envi- ronmentalism; and, why should sustainable development be less than environmentalism? Innovation. 23, 319, 2010.
• 8. KONECZNA R., KULCZYCKA J. Export Competitiveness of Polish Environmental Products in Select Manufacturing Sectors. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 20, (6), 1531, 2011.
• 9. MONDEJAR-JIMENEZ J., VARGAS-VARGAS M., MONDEJAR-JIMENEZ J .A. Measuring environmental evolution using synthetic indicators. Environ. Eng. Manage. J. 9, 1145, 2010.
• 10. BENGOETXEA-USATEGI C. Sustainable development: An integrated vision. DYNA. 82, (7), 342, 2007 [In Spanish].
• 11. TENDERO R., GARCIA DE VIEDMA M. Building process for sustainable development: a modal activity. Inf. Constr. 63, (521), doi:10.3989/ic.09.034, 2011 [In Spanish].
• 12. WAGNER M. Empirical influence of environmental man­agement on innovation: Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 66, 392, 2008.
• 13. DE MARCHI V. Environmental innovation and R&D coop­eration: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy. 41, (3), 614, 2012.
• 14. DEL RÍO P., TARANCÓN M., CALLEJAS F. Analysing the determinants of environmental technology investments. A panel-data study of Spanish industrial sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 19, (11), 1170, 2011.
• 15. LAY G., COPANI G., JAGER A., BIEGE S. The relevance of service in European manufacturing industries. Journal of Service Management. 21, (5), 715, 2010.
• 16. SEGARRA-OÑA M., PEIRÓ-SIGNES A. Eco-innovation determinants in service industries. Dirección y Organización. 50, 5, 2013.
• 17. SEGARRA-OÑA M., PEIRÓ-SIGNES A., MONDÉJAR- JIMÉNEZ J., VARGAS-VARGAS M. Service vs. manufac­turing: how to better address eco-innovation, public policies by disentangling the different characteristics of industries. Innovation. DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2013.863705, 27, (2), 134, 2014.
• 18. SEGARRA-OÑA M., PEIRÓ-SIGNES A., ALBORS- GARRIGÓS J., MIRET-PASTOR L. Impact of Innovative Practices in Environmentally Focused Firms: Moderating Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. 5, (2), 425, 2011.
• 19. KESIDOU E., DEMIREL P. On the drivers of eco-innova­tions: Empirical evidence from the UK. Res. Policy. 41, (5), 862, 2012.
• 20. JAFFE A.B., PALMER K. Environmental regulation and innovation: a panel data survey, Rev. Econ. Stat. 79, 610, 1997.
• 21. PEIRÓ-SIGNES A., SEGARRA-OÑA M., MIRET-PAS­TOR L., VERMA R. Eco-innovation attitude and industry's technological level. An important key for promoting effi­cient vertical policies. Environ. Eng. Manage. J. 10, (12), 1893, 2011.
• 22. FORSMAN H. Innovation capacity and innovation develop­ment in small enterprises. A comparison between the manu­facturing and service sectors. Res. Policy. 40, (5), 739, 2011.
• 23. SIRILLI G., EVANGELISTA R. Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys. Res. Policy, 27, 881, 1998.
• 24. SEGARRA-OÑA M., PEIRÓ-SIGNES A., PAYÁ- MARTINEZ A. Factors influencing automobile firms' eco- innovation orientation. Eng. Manage. J. 26, (1), 52, 2014.
• 25. SEGARRA-OÑA M., PEIRÓ-SIGNES A. Determinants of the eco-innovation orientation at the Spanish tile industry. DYNA. 89, (1), 2014 [In Spanish].
• 26. JOVANE J., YOSHIKAWA H., ALTING L., BOER C.R., WESTKAMPER E., WILLIAMS D., TSENG M., SELIGER G., PACI A.M. The incoming global technologi­cal and industrial revolution towards competitive sustain­able manufacturing, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology. 57, (2), 641, 2008.
• 27. JOHNSTONE N., LABONNE J. Why do manufacturing facilities introduce environmental management systems? Improving and/or signaling performance. Ecol. Econ. 68, (3), 719, 2009.
• 28. BURCIU A., BOSTAN I., CONDREA P., GROSU V Financing the environmental policies in the communitarian space. Environ. Eng. Manage. J. 9, (9), 1179, 2010.
• 29. POHORYLES R.J. Sustainable Development, Innovation and Democracy: What role for the regions? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 20, (3), 183, 2007.
• 30. PIRANI E., SECONDI L. Eco-Friendly Attitudes: What European citizens say and what they do. Int. J. Environ. Res. 5, 425, 2011.
• 31. RINGLE C.M., WENDE S., WILL A. SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). www.smartpls.de, Hamburg. 2005.
• 32. ANDERSON J.C., GERBING D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two- Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411, 1988.
• 33. BAGOZZI R., YI Y. On the evaluation of structural equation Models. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 18, (1), 74, 1988.
• 34. BARCLAY D., HIGGINS C., THOMPSON, R. The Partial Least Square (PLS). Approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 2, (2), 2 85, 1995.
• 35. CHIN W.W., MARCOLIN B.L., NEWSTED P.R. A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measur­ing interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simula­tion study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Inform. Syst. Res. 14, (2), 189, 2003.
• 36. CHIN W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. 295, 1998.
• 37. TENENHAUS M., VINZI V., CHATELIN J., LAURO C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data An. 48, (1), 159, 2005.
• 38. NUNNALLY J., BERNSTEIN I. Psychometric Theory (3th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill. 1994.
• 39. FORNELL C., LARCKER D. Evaluating structural equa­tions models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18, 39, 1981.
• 40. WIXOM B., WATSON H. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25, 17, 2001.
• 41. FALK R., MILLER N. A primer on soft modelling. (Ed.) The University of Akron Press, Akron, 1992.
• 42. HENSELER J., RINGLE C.M., SINKOVICS R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing. 20, 277, 2009.
• 43. STONE M. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of sta­tistical predictions. J. Roy. Stat. So.c B Met. 36, 111, 1974.
• 44. GEISSER S. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika. 61, (1), 101, 1975.
• 45. HENSELER J. A new and simple approach to multi-group analysis in partial least squares path modeling. In: H. Martens, T. Nss & M. Martens (Eds), PLS'07 international symposium on PLS and related methods - causalities explored by indirect observation. Oslo. 2007.
• 46. SARSTEDT M., HENSELER J., RINGLE C.M. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path mod­eling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 2011.
• 47. EFRON B. Nonparametric estimates of standard error: the jackknife, the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika. 68, (3), 589, 1981.