Page 174 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 174
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
competitor can offer, others can match readily” (M= 5.39). All the state-
ments are above the central anchor, reflecting their importance and high
level of agreement.
Moreover, concerning competitive pressure, the results show that re-
spondents most agreed with the statement that they establish a compa-
ny’s environmental image compared to competitors through the green
concept (M= 4.09), and they agreed the least with the statement that they
increase a company’s market share through the green concept (M = 3.67).
Table 39: Descriptive statistics for determinant Competition (Competitive intensity and
Competitive pressure)
N Mean St. Dev. Skew St. Err. Kurt St. Err.
Skew Kurt
174
Competitive intensity
Competition in our in- 223 5.88 1.385 -1.260 0.163 0.869 0.324
dustry is cutthroat.
Anything that one com- 223 5.39 1.393 -0.745 0.163 0.206 0.324
petitor can offer others
can match readily.
Price competition is a 223 5.73 1.539 -1.261 0.163 0.793 0.324
hallmark of our industry.
Competitive pressure
We establish a company’s 223 4.09 1.662 -0.119 0.163 -0.805 0.324
environmental image
compared to competi-
tors through the green
concept.
We increase a company’s 223 3.67 1.656 0.029 0.163 -0.864 0.324
market share through
the green concept.
We improve a com- 223 4.03 1.719 -0.112 0.163 -0.976 0.324
pany’s competitive ad-
vantage over competi-
tors through the green
concept.
Note: N = number of observations; Mean = mean value on the Likert scale, which ranges
from 1 to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); St. Dev. = standard deviation; Skew =
skewness; St. Err. of Skew = standard error of skewness; Kurt = kurtosis; St. Err. Kurt = stan-
dard error of kurtosis.
An exploratory factor analysis was also conducted for these two con-
structs. As in the case of environmental policy instruments, we have in
competitor can offer, others can match readily” (M= 5.39). All the state-
ments are above the central anchor, reflecting their importance and high
level of agreement.
Moreover, concerning competitive pressure, the results show that re-
spondents most agreed with the statement that they establish a compa-
ny’s environmental image compared to competitors through the green
concept (M= 4.09), and they agreed the least with the statement that they
increase a company’s market share through the green concept (M = 3.67).
Table 39: Descriptive statistics for determinant Competition (Competitive intensity and
Competitive pressure)
N Mean St. Dev. Skew St. Err. Kurt St. Err.
Skew Kurt
174
Competitive intensity
Competition in our in- 223 5.88 1.385 -1.260 0.163 0.869 0.324
dustry is cutthroat.
Anything that one com- 223 5.39 1.393 -0.745 0.163 0.206 0.324
petitor can offer others
can match readily.
Price competition is a 223 5.73 1.539 -1.261 0.163 0.793 0.324
hallmark of our industry.
Competitive pressure
We establish a company’s 223 4.09 1.662 -0.119 0.163 -0.805 0.324
environmental image
compared to competi-
tors through the green
concept.
We increase a company’s 223 3.67 1.656 0.029 0.163 -0.864 0.324
market share through
the green concept.
We improve a com- 223 4.03 1.719 -0.112 0.163 -0.976 0.324
pany’s competitive ad-
vantage over competi-
tors through the green
concept.
Note: N = number of observations; Mean = mean value on the Likert scale, which ranges
from 1 to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree); St. Dev. = standard deviation; Skew =
skewness; St. Err. of Skew = standard error of skewness; Kurt = kurtosis; St. Err. Kurt = stan-
dard error of kurtosis.
An exploratory factor analysis was also conducted for these two con-
structs. As in the case of environmental policy instruments, we have in
