Why does eco‐innovation differ in service firms? Some insights from Spain

Abstract

Although environmental innovation studies have traditionally focused on manufacturing firms, the distinctive features of eco‐innovation activities carried out by service firms require special attention. Using the Spanish Commumity Innovation Survey (CIS), this paper determines which are the main drivers of undertaking eco‐innovation and investigates the similarities and differences between service and manufacturing firms within the five sub‐groups of services (supplier dominated, scale intensive physical networks, scale intensive information networks, science‐based, and others). The results confirm that the main eco‐innovation triggers are similar—technological push factor orientation (internal R&D and persistence) and firm size—while the impact of market pull factors and public environmental legislation differ within the services sub‐groups. In addition, we find a high degree of heterogeneity within service firms. In contrast to traditional service firms, those in the groups involving R&D activities, information networks, and scale‐intensive physical networks exhibit intensive eco‐innovation performance and show a high level of green indicators.

Friends or foes? A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis of the relationship between eco‐innovation and firm performance

“…The results from our meta-analysis illustrate the generally positive relationship between different types of eco-innovation and different types of firm performance but also highlight that the relationship is not always linear. For instance, our detailed analytical approach demonstrates that eco-technological innovation does not influence operational performance, an interesting finding that contributes to the literature discussing technology push as a main trigger of ecoinnovation (Jové-Llopis & Segarra-Blasco, 2020;Zubeltzu-Jaka et al, 2018). This non-significant relationship might be attributed to the long-term nature of this type of eco-innovation, limiting its potential to influence operational efficiency in the short or medium term (Cozijnsen et al, 2000).…”

“…Our moderator analysis suggests that industry sector plays a role in the relationship between eco‐innovation and firm performance, with manufacturing firms benefiting most in terms of their economic, environmental and operational performance, while service firms benefit most from eco‐innovation in terms of social performance. At the same time, we note that previous studies (e.g., De Marchi, 2012; Jové‐Llopis & Segarra‐Blasco, 2020; Triguero et al, 2013) have not focused on wholesale and retail trade sectors, which limits our understanding of eco‐innovation's potential to instil sustainability in all major industry types. This is a significant shortcoming, as the wholesale and retail sectors are responsible for major environmental impacts that need to be addressed through eco‐innovation.…”

How do internal, market and institutional factors affect the development of eco-innovation in firms?

“…Existing literature about eco-innovation drivers has only applied simple regression models for their study (Jové-Llopis and Segarra-Blasco, 2020;Cai and Zhou, 2014;Kesidou and Demirel, 2012). Nevertheless, most regression models do not perfectly fit the available data and cannot estimate the underlying function of the data because of the intricacy of the real system.…”

External stakeholder engagement: Complementary and substitutive effects on firms' eco‐innovation

“…We tested the hypotheses presented above using data from the Spanish Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC). This panel survey is based on the CIS and is one of the most used datasets in innovation studies (e.g., Cainelli et al, 2015; De Marchi, 2012; Del Río et al, 2016; Jové‐Llopis & Segarra‐Blasco, 2018, 2020; Marzucchi & Montresor, 2017). Since 2008, PITEC includes variables related to environmental innovation objectives in each survey series following the Oslo Manual.…”

“…Since 2008, PITEC includes variables related to environmental innovation objectives in each survey series following the Oslo Manual. These variables have been used in both cross‐sectional (Arranz et al, 2019; De Marchi, 2012) and panel analyses (Jové‐Llopis & Segarra‐Blasco, 2020; Marzucchi & Montresor, 2017). Nowadays, the main advantage of the PITEC database is its time dimension, which allows us to deal with unobserved heterogeneity and simultaneity problems.…”