Eco-innovation by small and medium-sized firms in Europe: from end-of-pipe to cleaner technologies

Abstract

This paper focuses on the relevant drivers of eco-innovation in 5,135 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In particular, we study if there are differences between the determinants of end-of-pipe and adoption of cleaner technologies between small and medium firms located in 27 European countries. Using a bivariate probit, significant differences comparing small with medium firms are found. Network involvement measured by cooperation with universities and research agencies is essential in both types of eco-innovation in small firms, but not for mid-sized firms. With regard to environmental regulation, subsidies are important only for small firms, especially for the adoption of cleaner technologies. On the contrary side, existing environmental regulation is a key factor to explain the adoption of cleaner technologies for medium firms but not for smaller ones.

Environmental Regulation, Environmental Commitment, Sustainability Exploration/Exploitation Innovation, and Firm Sustainable Development

“…However, few studies addressed the important problem noted by Porter and Van Der Linde (1995) [24]-namely, how to formulate appropriate EREG and create an effective effect path that results in win-win scenarios. Prior studies also neglected the role of internal factors for firms, e.g., operations capability, managerial attitude, and strategic position in the relationship between EREG and firm performance [14,21]. It is necessary, therefore, to integrate governmental and private firms' behaviors and systematically investigate whether and how EREG will affect sustainable innovation and firm performance through these firms' internal factors.…”

“…A lots of studies investigated the controversy in terms of the effect of EREG on firm performance with a key finding being that EREG affects firms' technology innovation and various performances through three paths: promotion [6][7][8], inhibition [9][10][11], and uncertainty [12][13][14][15]. Similarly, EREG has three kinds of effects on firm performance: promotion [5], restraint [3,16,17], and uncertainty [18,19].…”

Divulgación ambiental y la interrelación de la ecoinnovación. El caso de las empresas españolas

“…Companies with less than 50 employees were discarded so as to avoid lack of environmental reporting due to scarcity of resources or motivation to do so. Besides, considering that size increases the possibilities for undertaking eco-innovation companies with 50 or more employees were selected considering the results demonstrated by other authors in this field (Dong et al, 2014;Rehfeld et al, 2007;Roda-Llorca et al, 2015;Triguero et al, 2015;Wagner, 2007). Specifically, the selected sectors were mining, heavy industry and chemical industries, the manufacturing industry, energy producers & suppliers, water supply, water intensive industry & waste management, and transport, logistics and services.…”

Differences of Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Small and Medium Enterprises: Spain and Norway

“…The results show that almost all SMEs implement some eco-innovation, but with different levels of engagement, depending on firm size, the increase of demand, lack of financial resources or the technological opportunities related to each sector. Following this line of research, Triguero et al [16] focus as well on drivers (and differences) of eco-innovation in European SMEs, but more specifically on those drivers explaining recycling and purchase and development of cleaner technologies. The results show that there are existing differences between the drivers of recycling and cleaner technology adoption (make and buy), but demand of green products and firm size are always significant factors explaining eco-innovation.…”