Page 163 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 163
Results 163
Statistical information of the construct expected benefits, pertain-
ing to reliability (reliability coefficients) and convergence (goodness-of-
fit model indexes) based on the overall sample (N= 223), is as follows.
The construct expected benefits showed good reliability (Cronbach’s al-
pha= 0.914), while the goodness-of-fit indexes also improved and are as
follows: NFI = 0.957; NNFI = 0.945; CFI = 0.967; SRMR = 0.033; RM-
SEA = 0,119. We can see that CFI, NFI and NNFI all showed good fit
(over the threshold of 0.90), also SRMR showed good fit (less than 0.05),
while RMSEA showed slightly worse fit; however, the fit is better than it
was initially for all nine items.
Environmental policy instruments
The driver called environmental policy instruments is divided into two
separate dimensions (see Table 31): the command-and-control instru-
ment and the economic incentive instrument. We followed Li (2014) in
distinguishing these two separate dimensions in order to obtain more val-
uable and detailed insights. The command-and-control instrument cov-
ers regulations, while the economic incentive instrument covers preferen-
tial tax policy, subsidies and government’s promotion of environmental
protection. In this way, we can test individual effects of both on eco-in-
novation in order to see if the alleged superiority of the economic incen-
tive instrument over the command-and-control instrument really holds.
We can see (Table 31) that, when focusing on the command-and-con-
trol instrument, all of the listed statements had high average values, ex-
pressing high levels of respondents’ agreement with the statements. The
command-and-control instrument focuses on regulations. Respondents
agreed at the highest level with the statement that their production pro-
cesses should meet the requirements of national environmental regu-
lations (mean value of 6 on a seven-point Likert scale), followed by the
statement that products should meet the requirements of national en-
vironmental regulations (M = 5,99). The highest level of agreement was
therefore found for statements pertaining to the national environmen-
tal regulations, followed closely by the mean values of the statements
that focus on international and/or EU environmental regulations. This
can be expected, because more than two thirds of the analyzed compa-
nies (67.7%) are operating on foreign markets and therefore have to com-
ply with the foreign regulations of those markets. Therefore, respondents
also agreed with the statements that production processes should meet
the requirements of international and/or EU environmental regulations
Statistical information of the construct expected benefits, pertain-
ing to reliability (reliability coefficients) and convergence (goodness-of-
fit model indexes) based on the overall sample (N= 223), is as follows.
The construct expected benefits showed good reliability (Cronbach’s al-
pha= 0.914), while the goodness-of-fit indexes also improved and are as
follows: NFI = 0.957; NNFI = 0.945; CFI = 0.967; SRMR = 0.033; RM-
SEA = 0,119. We can see that CFI, NFI and NNFI all showed good fit
(over the threshold of 0.90), also SRMR showed good fit (less than 0.05),
while RMSEA showed slightly worse fit; however, the fit is better than it
was initially for all nine items.
Environmental policy instruments
The driver called environmental policy instruments is divided into two
separate dimensions (see Table 31): the command-and-control instru-
ment and the economic incentive instrument. We followed Li (2014) in
distinguishing these two separate dimensions in order to obtain more val-
uable and detailed insights. The command-and-control instrument cov-
ers regulations, while the economic incentive instrument covers preferen-
tial tax policy, subsidies and government’s promotion of environmental
protection. In this way, we can test individual effects of both on eco-in-
novation in order to see if the alleged superiority of the economic incen-
tive instrument over the command-and-control instrument really holds.
We can see (Table 31) that, when focusing on the command-and-con-
trol instrument, all of the listed statements had high average values, ex-
pressing high levels of respondents’ agreement with the statements. The
command-and-control instrument focuses on regulations. Respondents
agreed at the highest level with the statement that their production pro-
cesses should meet the requirements of national environmental regu-
lations (mean value of 6 on a seven-point Likert scale), followed by the
statement that products should meet the requirements of national en-
vironmental regulations (M = 5,99). The highest level of agreement was
therefore found for statements pertaining to the national environmen-
tal regulations, followed closely by the mean values of the statements
that focus on international and/or EU environmental regulations. This
can be expected, because more than two thirds of the analyzed compa-
nies (67.7%) are operating on foreign markets and therefore have to com-
ply with the foreign regulations of those markets. Therefore, respondents
also agreed with the statements that production processes should meet
the requirements of international and/or EU environmental regulations
