Page 101 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 101
Consequences of Eco-innovation Adoption 101
et al. 2013a), environmental innovation strategy (Eiadat et al. 2008) and
green product innovation performance (Huang and Wu 2010; Ar 2012;
Lin et al. 2013a) were all positively associated with firms’ financial per-
formance. Several researchers (Rexhäuser and Rammer 2013; Ghisetti
and Rennings 2014) found that environmental innovations that improve
firms’ resource efficiency (in terms of material or energy consumption per
unit of output) demonstrate a positive and significant effect on firm prof-
itability, while this effect on firms’ profits is not valid for environmental
innovations, which do not improve firms’ resource efficiency.
In more detail, Fraj-Andrés et al. (2009) found that environmental
marketing positively affects firms’ operational and commercial perfor-
mance, and such improvement affects their economic results. We should
stress that the effect of environmental performance on financial perfor-
mance is a long-term project that brings long-term benefits. Horváthová
(2012) found that the relationship between financial performance and en-
vironmental performance was negative after one year and turned positive
after two years. Meanwhile, another study based on hotel tourism (Mo-
lina-Azorin et al. 2009) has also found a positive relationship between
environmental management and firm performance, with the conclu-
sion that environmentally proactive hotels have higher levels of financial
performance. Meanwhile, the results of a study focused on green supply
chains (Rao and Holt 2005) indicate that greening the supply chain can
lead to competitiveness and economic performance. Therefore, the com-
panies can exploit substantial cost savings and new market opportunities
(which lead to greater profit margins), enhance sales, and increase market
share, and most of the captured benefits result in improved firm perfor-
mance (Rao and Holt 2005).
Furthermore, De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. (2013) emphasized in their
analysis and survey that researchers adopt different measures, which con-
sequently lead to different conclusions. After a review of contradictory
research works, they have broken down the environmental variables into
three different concepts: environmental activities (environmental man-
agement), environmental strategic orientation (environmental proactivi-
ty) and the real impact on the natural environment (environmental per-
formance). The results of their survey (De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013)
found that the correlation between environmental management and fi-
nancial performance is not significant, while it turned out to be positive
and significant for environmental proactivity and environmental perfor-
mance. This implies that firms with good environmental performance
(especially environmentally proactive firms) tend to have positive finan-
cial performance (De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013).
et al. 2013a), environmental innovation strategy (Eiadat et al. 2008) and
green product innovation performance (Huang and Wu 2010; Ar 2012;
Lin et al. 2013a) were all positively associated with firms’ financial per-
formance. Several researchers (Rexhäuser and Rammer 2013; Ghisetti
and Rennings 2014) found that environmental innovations that improve
firms’ resource efficiency (in terms of material or energy consumption per
unit of output) demonstrate a positive and significant effect on firm prof-
itability, while this effect on firms’ profits is not valid for environmental
innovations, which do not improve firms’ resource efficiency.
In more detail, Fraj-Andrés et al. (2009) found that environmental
marketing positively affects firms’ operational and commercial perfor-
mance, and such improvement affects their economic results. We should
stress that the effect of environmental performance on financial perfor-
mance is a long-term project that brings long-term benefits. Horváthová
(2012) found that the relationship between financial performance and en-
vironmental performance was negative after one year and turned positive
after two years. Meanwhile, another study based on hotel tourism (Mo-
lina-Azorin et al. 2009) has also found a positive relationship between
environmental management and firm performance, with the conclu-
sion that environmentally proactive hotels have higher levels of financial
performance. Meanwhile, the results of a study focused on green supply
chains (Rao and Holt 2005) indicate that greening the supply chain can
lead to competitiveness and economic performance. Therefore, the com-
panies can exploit substantial cost savings and new market opportunities
(which lead to greater profit margins), enhance sales, and increase market
share, and most of the captured benefits result in improved firm perfor-
mance (Rao and Holt 2005).
Furthermore, De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. (2013) emphasized in their
analysis and survey that researchers adopt different measures, which con-
sequently lead to different conclusions. After a review of contradictory
research works, they have broken down the environmental variables into
three different concepts: environmental activities (environmental man-
agement), environmental strategic orientation (environmental proactivi-
ty) and the real impact on the natural environment (environmental per-
formance). The results of their survey (De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013)
found that the correlation between environmental management and fi-
nancial performance is not significant, while it turned out to be positive
and significant for environmental proactivity and environmental perfor-
mance. This implies that firms with good environmental performance
(especially environmentally proactive firms) tend to have positive finan-
cial performance (De-Burgos-Jiménez et al. 2013).
