Page 157 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 157
Results 157
cated one factor as an appropriate number. Further, one factor explains
59.816% of variance.
After consideration of each item’s communality index and its contri-
bution, we retained all the items (the lowest communality after extrac-
tion was 0.331). In the process of analysis, usually researchers delete or ex-
clude the items that have low communalities after extraction – below the
threshold of 0.20.
Further, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in order to val-
idate the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, which resulted in one
factor composed of four items. This has also been confirmed by the con-
firmatory factor analysis. The eco-innovation determinant of manageri-
al environmental concern comprises four items. All the coefficients were
found to be positive, high and significant, and are indicated in Table 26
and Figure 6.
Table 26: Standardized coefficients and their squares (Managerial environmental concern)
Eco-innovation is an important component of the company’s environ- Standard. coeff. R-square
mental management strategy. 0.58 0.34
0.79 0.62
Most eco-innovations are worthwhile. 0.85 0.72
Eco-innovation is necessary to achieve high levels of environmental 0.71
performance.
Eco-innovation is an effective environmental management strategy. 0.84
Note: Standard. coeff. = Standardized coefficients; R-square = Coefficient of Determinati-
on.
Statistical information of the construct managerial environmen-
tal concern, pertaining to reliability (reliability coefficients) and conver-
gence (goodness-of-fit model indexes) based on the overall sample (N =
223), is indicated in Figure 6. The construct of managerial environmen-
tal concern showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.836). Also,
the goodness-of-fit indexes are shown in Figure 6 (NFI = 0.909; NNFI
= 0.724; CFI = 0.909; SRMR = 0.058; RMSEA = 0.29). NFI and CFI
showed good fit (over the threshold of 0.90), while NNFI and RMSEA
showed slightly worse fit.
cated one factor as an appropriate number. Further, one factor explains
59.816% of variance.
After consideration of each item’s communality index and its contri-
bution, we retained all the items (the lowest communality after extrac-
tion was 0.331). In the process of analysis, usually researchers delete or ex-
clude the items that have low communalities after extraction – below the
threshold of 0.20.
Further, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in order to val-
idate the findings of the exploratory factor analysis, which resulted in one
factor composed of four items. This has also been confirmed by the con-
firmatory factor analysis. The eco-innovation determinant of manageri-
al environmental concern comprises four items. All the coefficients were
found to be positive, high and significant, and are indicated in Table 26
and Figure 6.
Table 26: Standardized coefficients and their squares (Managerial environmental concern)
Eco-innovation is an important component of the company’s environ- Standard. coeff. R-square
mental management strategy. 0.58 0.34
0.79 0.62
Most eco-innovations are worthwhile. 0.85 0.72
Eco-innovation is necessary to achieve high levels of environmental 0.71
performance.
Eco-innovation is an effective environmental management strategy. 0.84
Note: Standard. coeff. = Standardized coefficients; R-square = Coefficient of Determinati-
on.
Statistical information of the construct managerial environmen-
tal concern, pertaining to reliability (reliability coefficients) and conver-
gence (goodness-of-fit model indexes) based on the overall sample (N =
223), is indicated in Figure 6. The construct of managerial environmen-
tal concern showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.836). Also,
the goodness-of-fit indexes are shown in Figure 6 (NFI = 0.909; NNFI
= 0.724; CFI = 0.909; SRMR = 0.058; RMSEA = 0.29). NFI and CFI
showed good fit (over the threshold of 0.90), while NNFI and RMSEA
showed slightly worse fit.
