Page 26 - Hojnik, Jana. 2017. In Persuit of Eco-innovation. Drivers and Consequences of Eco-innovation at Firm Level. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 26
In Pursuit of Eco-innovation
of the Porter hypothesis, empirical support has been found – all (e.g., use
of export flows of environmental goods, environmental policies, public
R&D expenditures and all patenting activities) induce competitive ad-
vantages of green exports (Mazzanti and Costantini 2010). In addition,
the overall impact of environmental policies does not negatively affect
export competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, and the strong ver-
sion of the Porter hypothesis is confirmed – specific innovation efforts
and energy tax policies positively affect export flows dynamics (Costanti-
ni and Mazzanti 2012). Researchers also found support for the narrowly
strong version, arguing that environmental policies foster green exports
(Costantini and Mazzanti 2012). In contrast, Rexhäuser and Rammer
(2013) have come to somewhat opposite findings, arguing that the strong
version of the Porter hypothesis does not hold in general, but rather de-
26 pends on the type of environmental innovation.
Defining eco-innovation
Eco-innovation is a type of innovation that steers companies towards re-
duction of environmental impact, whether this effect is intentional or
not (Machiba 2010; Fawzi and Rundquist 2011). Fleiter et al. (2012) dis-
cussed the fact that the introduction of eco-innovation is not necessarily
dependent on environmental harm reduction. Therefore, if technology is
less environmentally harmful than its conventional alternative, it can be
defined as eco-innovation (Kemp and Foxon 2007). Laperche and Picard
(2013) suggest that firms, through eco-innovation, try to transform con-
straints into opportunities, which can results in cost reduction, enjoy-
ment of better reputation and gain of new markets.
Eco-innovation observatory (2010 in EIO 2013a) proposed a defi-
nition of eco-innovation as: “introduction of any new or significantly
improved product (good or service), process, organizational change or
marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including
materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful
substances across the lifecycle”. Given this broad definition, we can rec-
ognize that the emphasis is put on different types of eco-innovation, such
as product, process, marketing and organizational innovation, which in-
duce a reduction of the use of natural resources and the release of harmful
substances, highlighting the entire lifecycle of it. Hence, the environmen-
tal benefits should pertain to the production of goods or services within
companies as well as the after-sale use of the end-user (Arundel and Kemp
2009; Doran and Ryan 2012; Horbach et al. 2012). More information
about eco-innovation definitions will follow in section 2.2.1.
of the Porter hypothesis, empirical support has been found – all (e.g., use
of export flows of environmental goods, environmental policies, public
R&D expenditures and all patenting activities) induce competitive ad-
vantages of green exports (Mazzanti and Costantini 2010). In addition,
the overall impact of environmental policies does not negatively affect
export competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, and the strong ver-
sion of the Porter hypothesis is confirmed – specific innovation efforts
and energy tax policies positively affect export flows dynamics (Costanti-
ni and Mazzanti 2012). Researchers also found support for the narrowly
strong version, arguing that environmental policies foster green exports
(Costantini and Mazzanti 2012). In contrast, Rexhäuser and Rammer
(2013) have come to somewhat opposite findings, arguing that the strong
version of the Porter hypothesis does not hold in general, but rather de-
26 pends on the type of environmental innovation.
Defining eco-innovation
Eco-innovation is a type of innovation that steers companies towards re-
duction of environmental impact, whether this effect is intentional or
not (Machiba 2010; Fawzi and Rundquist 2011). Fleiter et al. (2012) dis-
cussed the fact that the introduction of eco-innovation is not necessarily
dependent on environmental harm reduction. Therefore, if technology is
less environmentally harmful than its conventional alternative, it can be
defined as eco-innovation (Kemp and Foxon 2007). Laperche and Picard
(2013) suggest that firms, through eco-innovation, try to transform con-
straints into opportunities, which can results in cost reduction, enjoy-
ment of better reputation and gain of new markets.
Eco-innovation observatory (2010 in EIO 2013a) proposed a defi-
nition of eco-innovation as: “introduction of any new or significantly
improved product (good or service), process, organizational change or
marketing solution that reduces the use of natural resources (including
materials, energy, water and land) and decreases the release of harmful
substances across the lifecycle”. Given this broad definition, we can rec-
ognize that the emphasis is put on different types of eco-innovation, such
as product, process, marketing and organizational innovation, which in-
duce a reduction of the use of natural resources and the release of harmful
substances, highlighting the entire lifecycle of it. Hence, the environmen-
tal benefits should pertain to the production of goods or services within
companies as well as the after-sale use of the end-user (Arundel and Kemp
2009; Doran and Ryan 2012; Horbach et al. 2012). More information
about eco-innovation definitions will follow in section 2.2.1.
