Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Gratifications on Consumers’ Emotions and Continuance Use Intention: An Empirical Study of Weibo in China
Previous Article in Journal
An Assessment of the Implementation of the European Tourism Indicator System for Sustainable Destinations in Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/su10093161
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Classification and Measurement of the Firms’ Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View Perspective

by
Pilar Portillo-Tarragona
1,
Sabina Scarpellini
2,
Jose M. Moneva
1,
Jesus Valero-Gil
3,* and
Alfonso Aranda-Usón
2
1
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Zaragoza, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain
2
Department of Accounting and Finance and CIRCE Institute, University of Zaragoza, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain
3
Department of Management and CIRCE Institute, University of Zaragoza, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(9), 3161; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093161
Submission received: 29 June 2018 / Revised: 31 August 2018 / Accepted: 31 August 2018 / Published: 4 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Interest from academics, policy–makers and practitioners in eco-innovation has increased as it enables the optimization of the use of natural resources improving competitiveness and it provides a conceptual framework for corporate sustainability. In this context, this paper provides an in-depth analysis and a wide classification of the specific indicators for the integrated measurement of eco-innovation projects in business from a resource-based view (RBV). The specific metrics were tested to measure the economic-financial and environmental resources and capabilities applied by five Spanish firms to eco-innovation projects, selected as case studies.

1. Introduction

In recent years, a growing number of studies have been undertaken to analyse eco-innovation projects and those aspects linked to the exploitation of natural resources and the reduction of the ecological footprint of industrial production [1,2,3]. The term eco-innovation is commonly associated with the development of new ecological products, the consumption of renewable or more sustainable sources and the reduction of waste through technological innovation based on or pursuing eco-efficiency [4], which was derived from the search for an increase in competitiveness through environmental improvement [5]. In fact, the increasing importance of environmental issues for companies can be driven through eco-innovation, generating competitive advantages [6] and, ultimately, economic and environmental efficiency [7].
Nevertheless, eco-innovation remains difficult to implement in business [8] and how firms might manage it to gain a competitive advantage is still under discussion among academics [9], as eco-innovation attempts to obtain overall improvements in economic performance and environmental areas simultaneously, in the transition to new business models such as the circular economy [10]. Despite the fact that corporate management plays an important role to accelerating eco-innovation [11] in many European countries, eco-innovation projects are not common in industries due to significant barriers and a negligible culture of excluding eco-innovation from an organization’s strategy [12]. Thus, to elucidate external and internal factors that can encourage companies to invest more in eco-innovation projects can explain part of the main dilemma of achieving equilibrium between economic and environmental efficiency in business [13].
In the last decade, external factors such as regulation, barriers and drivers for eco-innovation in firms have been analysed [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], within the theoretical framework of institutional theory [22,23] or stakeholder theory [24,25,26].
Internal business factors, such as resources and capabilities related to eco-innovation have also been analysed within the resources-based view (RBV) [8,27,28,29,30,31,32,33] to understand the systemic process of eco-innovation. However, these contributions only provide fragmented evidence of some of the resources needed for such projects, and resources applied to eco-innovation by business are sometimes measured in tangents with capabilities without a thorough explanation of how they complement one another.
To the best of our knowledge, the debate on the specificity of the applied resources and their integrated measurement for eco-innovation is still ongoing [34,35] because there are a limited number of studies specifically measuring the wide types of resources applied by companies to eco-innovation and the output generated by these investments. Resources, capabilities and eco-innovation outcomes have been addressed in the literature but they have not been analysed and combined in the same integrated measurement framework.
Based on these premises, the main objective of this study is to define, classify and measure the specific resources and capabilities applied to the eco-innovation investments by the firms in order to provide an integrated measurement of eco-innovation and to analyse the influence of businesses’ financial and environmental resources and capabilities in the eco-innovation projects.
In this context, as the internal factors of companies are affected, their active collaboration in classifying and measuring the specific resources and capabilities that are applied to perform investments in eco-innovation is required. Thus, a qualitative analysis of five case studies of eco-innovation projects in manufacturing firms in Spain was carried out to test the endogenous inputs (resources and capabilities) used when investing in eco-innovation and the interrelations with the obtained outcomes.
In summary, the definition, classification and application of integrated indicators represents one of the contributions of this study to analyse the relevance of the specific economic-financial and environmental resources and capabilities available for eco-innovation in firms which has remained relatively unexplored in the eco-innovation literature in the framework of RBV. The development of these metrics has not been achieved in previous studies in this field to the same degree of specificity and range, differentiating the resources of the capabilities and of the obtained results, being in turn classified among those that primarily refer to the economic factors of the environmental ones.
In this paper, after the introduction, a review of the literature and the study background are summarized to identify the gap in the knowledge of the RBV. The applied methodology and the analyses of the cases are described in a specific section that introduces the obtained results. Finally, in the conclusion, a brief discussion is provided to summarize the principal results obtained in this study and to suggest future lines of research.

2. Background

Although the literature on the interrelated subjects, eco-innovation, project management and RBV, is too vast to be cited in this paper, it is important to highlight the principal authors of interest to in this field.
Eco-innovation has systemic conditions and is generally developed in a fast-changing environment that has fomented an ongoing debate in the literature based on different theoretical positions about the internal factors that allows for the competitive improvement of companies that carry out eco-innovative investments. The seminal contribution of Penrose [36], who considered that firms needed to organize their resources and capabilities in order to become more competitive, was followed by Barney [37,38] and other authors that have endorsed the RBV as a valid theoretical framework from which to undertake analyses of the resources and capabilities necessary for eco-innovation [22,28,29,39,40,41]. Nevertheless, some authors, such as Priem and Butler [42], have discussed whether the RBV theory provides additional insight over traditional organizations’ understandings. Although several authors have advocated the value of the RBV [38,43,44,45], the debate is still open [46].
In this field, the implementation of environmental management systems has been widely analysed [41,47,48,49,50], as well as the implementation of certifications such as the ISO 14001 or EMAS [14,51] because they are considered resources and capabilities related to the environmental performance of firms. The technological capabilities for R&D and the link between eco-innovation and competitiveness has also been also studied [48,52,53,54].
Some authors have analysed the organizational resources that firms strategically use for innovation [55,56,57]. Financial resources, access to capital and the availability of public funds for the environmental improvement of a firm have been also analysed [25,29,58,59], as well as the size of the firms that has often been considered as a necessary resource for innovation [18,60,61,62]. However, it can be stated that there is a tendency in the literature to apply the RBV without differentiating between the resources and the capabilities of firms in empirical analyses of eco-innovation [8,27,29,30,31,32,63].
Taking another approach, it has been demonstrated that environmental R&D investment or internal R&D activity facilitate eco-innovation in business [40,59,64,65,66] and both have been related to patent registration and ongoing innovation activity [2,22,67]. Human resources [68,69,70], knowledge for innovation [71] and intellectual capital have been included among resources for eco-innovation as partial replacements for raw material input and human capital [29,72,73,74].
In summary, the capabilities that are traditionally indicated for eco-innovation processes are age [75], experience and the know-how associated with ‘routine’ firm activities [76,77,78,79,80,81]; this is the case for internally or for externally developed knowledge [82]. In this sense, Muller et al. [83] noted that the ability of firms to combine several process innovations (productive efficiency) or to produce different innovative products is relevant when developing eco-innovations [84,85], as is their ability to anticipate regulation changes [86].Technological and dynamic capabilities have been studied by several authors [87,88,89,90,91,92,93], as well as the capabilities related to businesses’ environmental proactivity [94]. Furthermore, the leadership for environmental changes [74,95] and the attitude of management towards the environment and CSR have been considered of interest [28,96,97,98,99] because they allow for an organization to align itself with changes in its natural and business environments and to combine external information with the organization’s internal knowledge [100].
Collaborative capabilities have been considered significant by several authors; because of these capabilities, firms actively collaborate with research institutes, agencies and universities; participate in networks; or collaborate with all agents of the value chain. Additionally, these collaborative capabilities can mean that organizations gain a significant advantage in eco-innovation and a greater ability to absorb external knowledge sources for innovation is also a result [1,2,28,88,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109].
Based on these premises, our main research question concerned the differentiation and the specific measurement of resources and capabilities mainly applied to the eco-innovation project management and to classify them into two, as summarized in the following matrix (Table 1). It is important to point out that the available data regarding how strategic resources are allocated in firms for investment in eco-innovation are scarce [40]. For this reason, data on the investment, profitability and the economic-financial resources of eco-innovative companies are one of the contributions of this paper.
Regarding organizational capabilities for eco-innovation, the definition of Penrose [36] has been adopted, according to which capabilities are unique combinations of organizational processes that collate strategic knowledge and lead to better firm performance [110]. This definition addresses the idea that competitive advantage not only arises from the possession of resources but also from the manner in which resources are used. After defining the primary resources of the firm and its capabilities for eco-innovation investment projects, a qualitative methodology was developed for the holistic analysis of the eco-innovation conducted by firms. This analysis is described in the following sections.
One of the major criticisms of RBV revolves around its lack of practical solutions and their testing at the empirical level. Among the serious drawbacks for empirical testing is the complexity of the RBV concepts [111]. Considering that the literature at its early stage distinguished between resources and capabilities as potential sources of a firms’ competitive advantage [111], the integrated measurement of internal factors applied to eco-innovation, focused on their measurement and control can be useful for the decision-making process. Thus, the selected metrics were tested to measure economic-financial and environmental resources and capabilities applied by five Spanish firms to eco-innovation projects, selected as case studies and described in the following section.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Selection of the Methodological Approach

There is no doubt that interesting results have been achieved in numerous quantitative and econometric studies that aimed to determine the resources required and capabilities for eco-innovation [9,112].
Nevertheless, empirical studies based on quantitative analysis have some limitations because statistical data, whether national or European, do not provide sufficient detail on environmental orientation or investments made by firms. Eco-innovation project management involves a complex set of factors and processes. In this context, the qualitative analysis has been applied for the study of eco-innovation per other authors [113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120] provides insight into project management and allows for theoretical conceptualization in a field that is still growing [121,122,123,124,125,126].
The qualitative research was performed in the following phases:
  • Phase (I): Definition of the matrix for variable selection
  • Phase (II): Data collection, measurement and classification
  • Phase (III): Cross-tabulation analysis: analysis using pivot tables to determine the most frequent situations in the five case studies
  • Phase (IV): Integrated qualitative analysis
As a result of the literature review, in phase I the most relevant firm resources and capabilities applied to eco-innovation were defined, separating the economic-financial capabilities needed for any innovation process from the specific capabilities that are directly linked to environmental improvements that are intrinsic to eco-innovation projects and their outcomes, as detailed in the Tables 3–5. In order to maintain a proportion in the matrix, the most relevant indicators related to eco-innovation projects were analysed, refined and classified. A total of 30 variables were distributed into three analysis areas (ten variables for each category of indicators: resources, capabilities and project results) according to their typology, economic-financial or environmental (five in each one). The matrix of indicators was tested in the selected five case studies that enabled to the development of an applied formulation of the qualitative analysis described in the following section.

3.2. Case Studies

The selection of case studies considered appropriate for this research was carried out within the framework of a collaborative project for the promotion of business eco-innovation in a Spanish region. Next, a complete information for the selected case studies was available both for the firms in where the projects were conducted and for the investments in eco-innovation made were offered.

3.2.1. BSH Electrodomésticos España

  • Appliances Industry: 5074 employees.
The project was the eco-design of a new fastening system for one of the primary parts of the company’s washing machine models. This was able to produce a reduction in product weight and in the amount of material required for its manufacturing, which implied74% reduction of the environmental impact of the specific component. This was a short-term project with a low investment level.

3.2.2. General Motors España

  • Automotive Industry: 6230 employees.
This firm carried out the design of a new primary painting and finishing process for automobiles using the resource saving principles. The project allowed for an important reduction in the amount of paint applied per product unit and a reduction in the solvents (149,000 L of paint and solvents per year), the power saved for the process was 4680 MWh/year and a significant reduction in process waste was also achieved with also an interesting and significant incensement in paint quality. This was a mid-term project with a low investment level (considering the total assets of the company).

3.2.3. MAC PUAR

  • Elevator Industry: 533 employees
This firm carried out an eco-design project for a new lift model, using the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology. The new product obtained a relevant energy saving during the use of the lift (40% less than previous models), a reduction in the use of raw materials in the manufacturing process (20% less than previous models) as well as a reduction in the product’s weight. This was a mid-term project with a low investment level.

3.2.4. Mondo Tufting

  • Other Manufacturing: 81 employees.
The R&D department of this company designed a new specific process for the recovery and recycling of artificial grass products in sporting pitches at the end of their use life. The new manufacturing process offers the possibility of reducing raw materials by recycling plastic materials and a decrease of 90% in the environmental impact of the product’s life cycle. This was a short-term project with a low investment level.

3.2.5. SAICA

  • Paper Industry: 1573 employees.
This company installed a new energy recovery plant using its own waste and plastic waste as fuel. The new energy plant allowed a reduction in the environmental impact of the waste management process, in the waste energy use and the generation of renewable energy for the primary plant use. This project implies a decrease of 520,000 t/year of CO2e approx. in the company’s production line. This was a long-term project with a high investment level.

3.3. Data Collection and Methodology

The selected firms provided detailed information on their eco-innovation projects during a public workshop that was collected using a specific form and brief semi-structured interviews that were answered by managers of the firms, conducted to obtain detailed information on the eco-innovation projects that could not be addressed using other available sources. The outline of the data collection and the brief interviews is detailed in Appendix B. Moreover, financial-economic data of the companies were collected from the SABI database and supplemented by complementary information obtained from other available public sources, such as CSR reports and other documents. The data sources are detailed in Table 2.
The set of indicators elaborated to measure the main resources of firms needed for eco-innovation projects are listed in the Table 3.
As it can be observed, tangible and intangible resources were taken into consideration [27] and the economic-financial resources that are needed to achieved the environmental improvements of eco-innovation were detailed.
The following table shows the indicators to measure the capabilities of the firms in relation to eco-innovation and the main authors who analysed these variables in other studies in the environmental management field (Table 4).
The indicators selected to measure the eco-innovation project outcomes are summarized in Table 5 below.
Some of the proposed variables have been widely analysed in previous studies to date but the economic outcomes of eco-innovation projects have been analysed by a limited number of studies due to the difficulty of obtaining data on investments made by firms.
At the end of the data collection phase, the obtained information was depurated and classified in order to define the level of the firms’ resources and capabilities available for eco-innovation projects. The complete formulation of the selected variables is detailed in the Appendix A. A double qualitative analysis was carried out using both, the dichotomy formula and the three-level classification of the obtained data.
This process enabled the development of a matrix in where the variables were distributed into three analytical areas according to their economic-financial or environmental typology: resources, capabilities and project results.

4. Main Results

Cross-tabulations were developed to detect differences among the five study cases (For reasons of confidentiality, these are detailed randomly and do not coincide with the alphabetical order used in Table 4). The initial results presented in Table 6 indicated some differences, which were not significant of the typologies of resources. Case 5 presented the highest level of financial resources (FR), followed by Case 3 and Case 1. Although this pattern was maintained in general terms for environmental resources (ER), Case 2 was ahead of Case 1 for these types of resources.
In terms of economic and structural capabilities (FC), Cases 4 and 5 were at the top level, followed by Case 1 and 2, although nearly all cases exhibited a similar level of capabilities. The order was slightly different in environmental capabilities (EC), as Cases 1, 3 and 4 exhibited a higher level, with a greater difference being noted with regard to Cases 5 and 2, as can be observed in Table 7.
The heterogeneity of the resources available for the five projects did not allow for the identification of clear patterns of combinations of resources and capabilities. The low liquidity indexes (below average for the sector) were common to all cases. Technological and environmental management (environmental standards and CSR) had higher levels in larger firms, in where the three executive positions were linked to the implementation of eco-innovative projects in firms (directors of the departments: environmental management, energy and resources management and the R&D or innovation management). It should be noted that the studied firms had a low level of human resources dedicated specifically to eco-innovation.
Analysing the results obtained in these projects, in general terms, the highest values were identified in Case 4, followed by Case 5 and Case 1. When the nature of these results is analysed, the ranking is altered for the environmental outcomes. Thus, Case 4 as in first position, then Case 2 and followed by Case 5, as seen in Figure 1.
If the level of available resources and capabilities of the firms was compared with the projects’ outcomes in each case study, it can be observed that these levels were coherent with the projects’ outcomes in three of the five cases and, in general terms, the level of the firms’ capabilities was higher than the obtained results (Figure 2).
In this phase of analysis, the study of the projects demonstrated relatively balanced levels of resources and capabilities, with the economic-financial ones slightly predominant.
The analysed firms all implemented eco-innovation solutions at different levels of the value chain; all had advanced environmental management systems and ISO 14001, ISO 50001, or EMAS standards. Furthermore, in four of the five cases, a medium level was identified when investigating their capability to align eco-innovation with the corporate strategy in order to improve their competitiveness, in their level of ability to overcome the regulation barriers, in their managerial capability for eco-innovation and in their ability to collaborate fin R&D with R&D Institutes.
An in-depth analysis of the projects revealed a clear relation between the firms’ resources and capabilities and a high level of the outcomes obtained in four of the projects, such as the reduction of raw materials or resources, emissions reduction, or the replacement of resources or raw materials with other renewable or recycled ones. These results were obtained from large companies with low liquidity indexes that had specific human capital and held green patents, although not in high numbers. Moreover, certain relations were detected among the capabilities related to strategy and to managerial proactivity in environmental terms and the capabilities to overcome legislative barriers and to comply with CSR.
This extended analysis classified the relevance of the available economic-financial resources and capabilities and compared them with the environmental ones. In a high number of cases the financial indicators, such as present net value, payback time, internal rate of return and return on investment [161] continued to be the most common decision-making factors in firms because of the risk level associated with innovation projects [162]. Nevertheless, in Figure 3 it can be observed that the environmental resources and capabilities represented an important percentage of the total resources in almost all of the analysed cases.
A comparison of all of the case study variables revealed a balanced situation, in global terms, between economic-financial and environmental variables (Table 8).
In summary, the integrated measurement of the factors related to the analysed eco-innovation projects can be observed in the Figure 3.
In general terms, the analysis of the resources did not allow for the identification of clear patterns of the combinations of resources and capabilities but it can be noted that eco-innovation projects do not necessarily represent a high investment for companies on their total assets. In addition, the projects’ profitability could be demonstrated in all cases as one of them was also profitable if grants were considered. One of the companies could not demonstrate specific environmental capabilities but the outcomes of its project obtained a clear environmental improvement. As a general consideration, the comparison of resources and capabilities of different companies that are supposed to be unique and inimitable from the perspective of RBV is an arduous task.
The qualitative analysis carried out in this study could be applied to different companies, in the attempt to measure, jointly and proportionally (through the matrix), the specific environmental aspects of eco-innovation with respect to those that are linked to the pursuit of profitability intrinsic to conventional innovation. The matrix allowed us to verify first of all that the indicators selected from the literature could be applied to undoubtedly eco-innovative projects. This can be considered a result that allows replicability to other projects.
Regarding the methodological simplification done for the projects comparison, it can be stated that the results described the projects in a reliable way and that they represented an approximation of interest for the comparison of the different projects of a company or of projects from different companies. Nevertheless, it has to be considered as a qualitative analysis that can only be carried out through the internal measurement of the factors.
In the following section, a brief discussion is included in order to relate the methodological development achieved in this study and its contribution to the knowledge of eco-innovation in the framework of the RBV that is a field of inquiry under development.

5. Discussion

It could be considered that the design of some empirical RBV studies suffers limitations due to the use of single factors to explain variation in firm performance and because most of them have been focused on a sample of firms from a single industry and they often measure each performance separately [46]. In response to this consideration, in this study, it was developed and tested an integrated set of indicators specifically designed to differentiate the resources from the capabilities that could be applied to firms from different industries. In general terms, some of the criticisms of RBV that set around its lack of practical solutions and their testing at the empirical level due to the complexity of RBV concepts [111], were overcome in this study by using differentiated metrics as proposed in the carried out case studies.
In another field of inquiry, the results suggested a potential interrelation of the firms’ resources and the firms’ capabilities to manage the eco-innovative projects suggested an overlap of eco-innovation resources and those resources used for conventional innovation, according to Kraaijenbrink [30] and Song [163]. The importance of the dynamic capabilities indicated by other authors [89,90,92] was also corroborated in this study, as was the relevance of managerial proactivity for eco-innovation projects [28,164] and the relevance of the ability to implement advanced environmental management systems [14,26,47].
Regarding firms’ resources that were applied to the eco-innovation projects, age was clearly pertinent, which was in line with the results obtained by several authors [2,12,41,54,109,121,123,124,125,165]. The importance of human capital was also corroborated, in this specific case for eco-innovation projects [29,62,73,74] and the fact that four out of the five companies had green patents confirmed that continuous innovation is a relevant capability for eco-innovation, in line with other authors [2,62].
Regarding the projects outcomes, the main environmental result obtained by the companies was the reduction of raw materials and the resource saving. This was also in line with previous results reported in several studies [2,100,110,124,125,142,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155]. The project time frame can be considered as relevant, as has been noted previously in works on project management [60]. In addition, it can be noted that the eco-innovation projects do not necessarily involve high levels of investment and that their profitability is clear in all the cases studied.
As a general remark, implications of a resource-based approach may be seen at the project management level, such as in R&D projects and in total business management [166]. For the decision-making process, the management control is regarded as dealing with the total operations of the company; the various stages or processes of the “value creation” of the company and on various levels of the company. Thus, the obtained results demonstrated that RBV theory can provide additional insight over traditional organizations’ understandings, in response to the doubts exposed by some authors, in particular regarding the specific internal factors allocated to eco-innovation projects.

6. Conclusions

In summary, through the analysis of five applied eco-innovation projects, selected as case studies, the relevance of the specific economic-financial and environmental resources and capabilities available for eco-innovation in firms were analysed in order to test an integrated measurement method. The method was developed in this study to differentiate and classify a wide number of eco-innovation indicators from an RBV perspective.
The achieved results increased the knowledge about how to measure the impact on the eco-innovation projects’ outcomes of the resources and capabilities of firms to empirically analyse their specificity for eco-innovation investments. This is a line of inquiry that is still relatively unexplored in the literature within the RBV because resources, capabilities and eco-innovation outcomes have not previously been combined in the literature in the same integrated measurement framework. In fact, the main methodological contribution of this paper is related to the definition and classification of a wide range of indicators specifically designed for eco-innovation projects that have been empirically tested from a management control point of view for the decision-making process by understanding the influence that these two types of resources and capabilities exert on the projects’ outcomes.
As a general remark, it can be stated that the analysis of the eco-innovative projects carried out by firms suggests an overlap of specific resources applied to eco-innovation and those resources used for conventional innovation, with levels of resources and capabilities being relatively balanced for eco-innovation projects results the economic-financial ones was slightly predominant, despite the fact that the analysed projects did not necessarily involve high levels of investment.
The age of the firms, the availability of specialized human capital and the project time frame can also be considered as relevant internal factors for eco-innovation. The reduction in the raw materials or resources needed was one of the results frequently obtained by the projects; their profitability was also clear in all of the study cases.
This enhanced understanding about the internal factors applied by companies to eco-innovation investments is of interest to academics in the field of project management from the perspective of RBV. The results are also useful for practitioners, as they will more fully understand the application of resources to the eco-innovation projects and the strategic capabilities of their companies. For the decision-making process, measurement and control is regarded as dealing with the total operations of the company and the various stages or eco-innovation processes. In addition, these indicators can be used by companies for sustainability reporting and assurance.
A relevant limitation of this study concerns the measurement of eco-innovation projects level of detail that is required to precisely define the obtained results. A long-term plan of research and longitudinal data from a greater number of firms from other countries or sectors would improve this line of research.
Other possible methodological approaches may compare conventional innovation projects with eco-innovation projects in the same firms in order to specifically analyse the overlap of resources and capabilities in conventional innovation and in eco-innovation projects in the field of project management control.

Author Contributions

All the authors have contributed substantially and equally to the work reported in this paper.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, Project [ECO2013-45599-R]. The eco-innovation campaign described in this paper was co-financed by the Regional Government of Aragón (Spain) and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness within the framework of the project entitled ‘Plan de Fomento de la Eco-innovación Empresarial en Aragón conducted by CIRCE, Research Centre for Energy Resources and Consumption, www.fcirce.es. The elaboration of the final version of the paper was co-financed by the Regional Government of Aragón—Research Group Ref.: S33_17R. and in the framework of the Project “Conta-Circular” ECO2016-74920-C2-1-R.

Acknowledgments

We particularly appreciate the contributions of the firms analysed in the case studies: BSH Electrodomésticos España, S.A.; General Motors España, S.L.U.; MAC Puar, S.A.; Mondo Tufting, S.A. and Sociedad Anónima Industrias Celulosa Aragonesa (SAICA).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Variables for measuring the firms’ resources: Classification into three levels of resources and into dichotomies.
Table A1. Variables for measuring the firms’ resources: Classification into three levels of resources and into dichotomies.
Resources of Firms
VariablesDescription of Variables (3 Levels)Description of Dichotomous Variables
RF_SIZE = Size of the firms (average of 3 years, 2012–2013–2014)Low: Less than 50 employees.
Medium: 49–249 employees.
High: 250 or greater employees.		1: Greater than 250 employees.
0: Fewer than 250 employees.
RF_LIAB = Debt structure of the firms—LIAB_ST (average of 3 years, 2012–2013–2014)Low: Less than sector average value.
Medium: Sector average value.
High: Greater than sector average value.		1: Greater dependency on external resources with short-term maturity.
0: If the reliance is on external resources over the long term.
RF_LRV = leverage ratio of the firms—LRV (average 3 years 2012–2013–2014)Low: Less than sector average value.
Medium: Sector average value.
High: Greater than sector average value.		1: Greater reliance on external resources.
0: Internal resources predominate.
RF_ROE = ROE of the firms—(average 3 years 2012–2013–2014)Low: Less than sector average value.
Medium: Sector average value.
High: Greater than sector average value.		1: Positive profitability.0: Negative profitability.
RF_CR = Liquidity ratio of the firms (average 3 years 2012–2013–2014)Low: Less than sector average value.
Medium: Sector average value.
High: Greater than sector average value.		1: More than 2.
0: Less than 2.
RE_RHDIR = managerial staff for eco-innovation (environmental, innovation and resource management departments, at the end of 2014)Low: One position is covered.
Medium: Two positions are covered.
High: All the three positions are covered.		1: All the three positions are covered.
0: All the three positions are not covered.
RE_RH = High level of human resources devoted to eco-innovation related activities (% of human resources available in the environmental, innovation and resource management departments)In the five cases, the percentage was between 0.5% and 7.5%. Thus:
Low: Less than 2.83%.
Medium: 2.83–5.16%.
High: More than 5.16%.		1: More than 3.75%.
0: Less than 3.75%.(3.75% is half of the highest percentage).
RE_INV = Level of investment in environmental R&D (% of the total investment in R&D in 2014 of the total annual incomes)In the five cases, the percentage was between 2% and 6%. Thus:
Low: Less than 2%.
Medium: 2–3.9%.
High: More than 3.9%.		1: There is investment in eco-innovation.
0: If there is not investment in eco-innovation.
RE_GRANT = public subsidies and grants received by the firms for the environmental R&D investmentsIn the five cases, the percentage was between 2 and 28. Thus:
Low: Less than 10.
Medium: 10–19.
High: More than 19.		1: There are grants for environmental investment.
0: There are not grants for environmental investment.
RE_GP = Green Patents registered by the firmsIn the five cases, the percentage was between 0 and 62. Thus:
Low: Less than 20.
Medium: 21–41.
High: More than 41.		1: There are green patents.
0: There are not any green patent.
Table
Table A2. Variables used to measure the firms’ capabilities: Classification in three levels of capabilities and dichotomies.
Table A2. Variables used to measure the firms’ capabilities: Classification in three levels of capabilities and dichotomies.
Capabilities of Firms
VariablesDescription of Variables (3 Levels)Description of Dichotomous Variables
CF_STRA—Capability to align the business strategy with the regional policy for eco-innovation (Strategy-Likert Scale)Low: Likert scale 0–3.
Medium: Likert scale 4–6.
High: Likert scale 6–10.		1: Likert scale 6–10.
0: Likert scale 0–5.
CF_AGE—Age of the firmLow: Less than 10 years.
Medium: 10–49 years.
High: Older than 50 years.		The average age of the five companies analysed was 36. Thus:
1: More than 36 years.
0: Less than 36 years.
CF_REG—Firm capabilities to overcome the legislation barriers (Likert scale)Low: Likert scale 0–3.
Medium: Likert scale 4–6.
High: Likert scale 6–10.		1: Likert scale 6–10.
0: Likert scale 0–5.
CF_MANAG—Managerial capabilities and leadership for eco-innovation (Likert scale) Low: Likert scale 0–3.
Medium: Likert scale 4–6.
High: Likert scale 6–10.		1: Likert scale 6–10.
0: Likert scale 0–5.
CF_COL—Capability to collaborate for environmental R&D and public/private communication for eco-innovation (Likert scale)Low: Likert scale 0–3.
Medium: Likert scale 4–6.
High: Likert scale 6-10.		1: Likert scale 6–10.
0: Likert scale 0–5.
CE_INTENS—Eco-innovation activity intensity (average implementation of eco-innovation measures—14 items—Likert scale)Low: Likert scale 0–3.33.
Medium: Likert scale 3.34–6.66.
High: Likert scale 6.67–10.		1: Likert scale 6–10.
0: Likert scale 0–5.
CE_SCOPE—Technological capabilities to achieve the scope of the eco-innovation projects (4 areas—product, process, supply chain and management)Low: One area affected by the measures.
Medium: 2–3 areas affected by the measures.
High: All areas (4) affected by the measures.		1: Various areas affected.
0: Only one area affected.
CE_ENVS—Advanced environmental management systems’ implementation (energy audits, environmental management system of reduced scope and advanced environmental management system).Low: Energy audits or environmental management system of reduced scope.
Medium: Energy audits and environmental management system of reduced scope.
High: Energy audits and advanced environmental management system.		1: The firm has reached the maximum level of energy auditing and environmental management system
0: The firm has not reached the maximum level of these capabilities.
CE_QUAL—Environmental quality standards (ISO 14001; ISO 50001; EMAS)Low: Only one standard.
Medium: Two standards.
High: All the three standards.		1: 2–3 standards.
0: 0–1 standards.
CE_CSR—RSC report and environmental accounting activities (1.RSC report; 2. Accounting practices that differentiate env. topics were considered important; 3. Accounting in specific sub-accounts for env. Expenditures)Low: Only one activity.
Medium: Two activities.
High: Three activities.		1: Three activities.
0: One or two activities.
Table
Table A3. Variables measuring the eco-innovation project outcomes: classification into three levels of results and dichotomies.
Table A3. Variables measuring the eco-innovation project outcomes: classification into three levels of results and dichotomies.
Eco-Innovation Project Outcomes
VariablesDescription of Dichotomous Variables
PF_PROFIT—Profitability index = net present value/investment of the project1: The project NPV recovers the initial outlay at least once.
0: The project NPV not recovers the initial outlay at least once.
PF_IRR—Internal rate return of the investment project1: The project profitability is above 5%.
0: The project profitability is not above 5%.
PF_INV—Level of investment (% project investment/total assets)1: Higher than 3.5%.
0: Lower than 3.5%.
PF_TIME—Time frame of the project1: Higher than 10 years.
0: Lower than 10 years.
PF_PB—Payback of the investment1: The recovery period is during the first half of the economic horizon
0: The recovery period is not during the first half of the economic horizon.
VariablesDescription of Variables (3 Levels)Description of Dichotomous Variables
PE_RRM—Decrease in resources/raw materials obtained through the eco-innovation projectClassified as low, medium or high according to the approximate percentage of raw materials or resources saved.1: There is a reduction.
0: There is not reduction.
PE_RW—Decrease/recovery of waste obtained through the eco-innovation projectClassified as low, medium or high according to the approximate percentage of waste saved or recovered.1: There is a reduction.
0: There is not reduction.
PE_EMIS—Reduction in emissions obtained through the eco-innovation projectClassified as low, medium or high according to the approximate percentage of emissions saved.1: There is a reduction.
0: There is not reduction.
PE_REPL—Replacement of materials/resources through the eco-innovation projectClassified as low, medium or high according to the approximate percentage of raw materials or resources replaced by other renewable or recycled materials.1: There is a replacement.
0: There is not replacement.
PR_ECOD—Eco-design for environmental improvements in the phase of use or end of lifeLow, medium, or high level of modifications for environmental improvements (eco-design) in the product (or process) performed (approximated).1: There is a product eco-design.
0: There is not product eco-design.

Appendix B

Table
Table A4. Project data ‘sheets’ used to collect details about the eco-innovation projects.
Table A4. Project data ‘sheets’ used to collect details about the eco-innovation projects.
Company *:LOGO of Photo *
Eco-Innovation *:
Website *
☐ Finished     ☐ Ongoing (months):________  Place:______________
Starting date *:_________   Final date: _________
Type of Eco-Innovation *:☐Product
☐Marketing		☐Process
☐ Organizational		Total Investment:_______________€
Activity *:☐ Material or resources saving
☐ Waste recovery
☐ Emissions saving		☐ Material or resources substitution
☐ Industrial Symbiosis
☐ Waste recycling
Main goal *:☐ Costs saving
☐ Market improvement		☐ Environmental improvement
☐ Green product
Project management *:☐ The idea has been developed by the company (approx.):________%
☐ Collaboration with R&D Centers (approx.): ________%
Results *:
☐ Energy saving (approx.):________%    ☐ Raw material saving (approx.): _______%
☐ Emission saving (approx.):______%   ☐ Waste saving (approx.): ______%
☐ Costs saving (approx.): ______%   ☐ Waste recovery (approx.): ______%
☐ Recycling improvement (approx.):_______%  ☐ Other:____________________%
Short description of the eco-innovation process or product *:
Technical Characteristics (technology, equipment, process) *:
* Information contained in an asterisk * will be published on the project website http://www.reco-inno.fcirce.es. The remaining information is confidential.
Table
Table A5. Questions of the brief interviews that were conducted with the managers of the firms in the framework of the eco-innovation campaign.
Table A5. Questions of the brief interviews that were conducted with the managers of the firms in the framework of the eco-innovation campaign.
Questions *Variables
In your opinion, is the regional policy for eco-innovation relevant for your business and is your company able to compete in the region in the framework of the regional policy?CF_STRA—Capability to align the business strategy with the regional policy for eco-innovation (Strategy)
In your opinion, are the barriers to eco-innovation for your business relevant and is your company able to overcome the legal barriers?CF_REG—Firm capabilities to overcome the legislation barriers
In your opinion, are the firm’s managers directly involved in eco-innovation projects and are leading them?CF_MANAG—Managerial capabilities and leadership for eco-innovation
In your opinion, is the firm collaborating with R&D centers at a regional level and is it able to manage the communication activities for the eco-innovation promotion?CF_COL—Capability to collaborate for environmental R&D and public/private communication for eco-innovation
* Note: Respondents were asked to give an answer to each question and also to define their perception using a Likert scale.

References

  1. Díaz-García, C.; González-Moreno, Á.; Sáez-Martínez, F.J. Eco-innovation: Insights from a literature review. Innovation 2015, 17, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Doran, J.; Ryan, G. Regulation and firm perception, eco-innovation and firm performance. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 421–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Mele, C.; Russo-Spena, T. Eco-innovation practices. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2011, 28, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Aranda-Usón, A.; Ferreira, G.; Mainar-Toledo, M.D.; Scarpellini, S.; Llera Sastresa, E. Energy consumption analysis of Spanish food and drink, textile, chemical and non-metallic mineral products sectors. Energy 2012, 42, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kemp, R.; Oltra, V. Research insights and challenges on eco-innovation dynamics. Ind. Innov. 2011, 18, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Porter, M.E.; Van der Linde, C. Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Long Range Plan. 1995, 28, 128–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scarpellini, S.; Valero-Gil, J.; Rivera-Torres, P.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C. Analysis of the generation of economic results in the different phases of the pro-environmental change process. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 1473–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. López, F.J.D.D.; Montalvo, C. A comprehensive review of the evolving and cumulative nature of eco-innovation in the chemical industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 102, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. He, F.; Miao, X.; Wong, C.W.Y.; Lee, S. Contemporary corporate eco-innovation research: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 502–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shih, D.H.; Lu, C.M.; Lee, C.H.; Cai, S.Y.; Wu, K.J.; Tseng, M.L. Eco-innovation in circular agri-business. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Daddi, T.; Testa, F.; Frey, M.; Iraldo, F. Exploring the link between institutional pressures and environmental management systems effectiveness: An empirical study. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Scarpellini, S.; Valero-Gil, J.; Portillo-Tarragona, P. The ‘economic-finance interface’ for eco-innovation projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1012–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Valero-Gil, J.; Scarpellini, S.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Rivera-Torres, P. Environment and innovation in spanish business: Bridging the gap between academics and practitioners. Univ. Bus. Rev. 2017, 54, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Demirel, P.; Kesidou, E. Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1546–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Doran, J.; Ryan, G. The Importance of the Diverse Drivers and Types of Environmental Innovation for Firm Performance. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2016, 25, 102–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ekins, P. Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability: Concepts, progress and policies. Int. Econ. Econ. Policy 2010, 7, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hojnik, J.; Ruzzier, M. The driving forces of process eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Insights from Slovenia. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 812–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Leitner, A.; Wehrmeyer, W.; France, C. Management Research Review The impact of regulation and policy on radical eco-innovation: The need for a new understanding. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 33, 1022–1041. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tseng, M.-L.; Huang, F.; Chiu, A.S.F. Performance drivers of green innovation under incomplete information. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cai, W.; Li, G. The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kiefer, C.P.; Carrillo-Hermosilla, J.; Del Río, P.; Callealta Barroso, F.J. Diversity of eco-innovations: A quantitative approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 1494–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aragon-Correa, J.A.; Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I. The Influence of Technology Differences on Corporate Environmental Patents: A Resource-Based Versus an Institutional View of Green Innovations. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2016, 25, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Coenen, L.; Díaz López, F.J. Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: An explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paraschiv, D.M.; Voicu-Dorobantu, R.; Langa Olaru, C.; Laura Nemoianu, E. New models in support of the eco-innovative capacity of companies—A theoretical approach. Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2012, 5. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wagner, M. On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1587–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Amit, R.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Del Río, P.; Carrillo-hermosilla, J.; Könnölä, T.; Bleda, M. Resources, capabilities and competences for eco- innovation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 274–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Halila, F.; Rundquist, J. The development and market success of eco-innovations: A comparative study of eco-innovations and “other” innovations in Sweden. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2011, 14, 278–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kraaijenbrink, J.; Spender, J.-C.; Groen, A.J. The RBV: A Review and Assessment of its Critiques. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 349–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. May, G.; Taisch, M.; Kerga, E. Assessment of sustainable practices in new product development. In Advances in Production Management Systems. Value Networks: Innovation, Technologies, and Management; HAL: Lyon, France, 2012; pp. 437–447. ISBN 3642339794. Available online: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01524233/document (accessed on 4 September 2018).
  32. Ramanathan, R.; Ramanathan, U.; Zhang, Y. Linking operations, marketing and environmental capabilities and diversification to hotel performance: A data envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 176, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Del Río, P.; Romero-Jordán, D.; Peñasco, C. Analysing firm-specific and type-specific determinants of eco-innovation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2017, 23, 270–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ahola, T.; Ruuska, I.; Artto, K.; Kujala, J. What is project governance and what are its origins? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1321–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Srivannaboon, S.; Milosevic, D.Z. A two-way influence between business strategy and project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 493–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Penrose, E.T. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1959; ISBN 0199573840. [Google Scholar]
  37. Barney, J.B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barney, J.B. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. De Marchi, V.; Grandinetti, R. Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: The case of Italian manufacturing firms. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, K.H.; Min, B. Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kesidou, E.; Demirel, P. On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 862–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Priem, R.L.; Butler, J.E. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Barney, J.B. Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Peteraf, M.A. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource Based View. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Helfat, C.E.; Peteraf, M.A. Understanding dynamic capabilities: Progress along a developmental path. Strateg. Organ. 2009, 7, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carmeli, A.; Tishler, A. Resources, capabilities, and the performance of industrial firms: A multivariate analysis. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2004, 25, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Horbach, J. Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel data sources. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Horbach, J.; Rammer, C.; Rennings, K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rave, T.; Goetzke, F.; Larch, M. The Determinants of Environmental Innovations and Patenting: Germany Reconsidered. 2011. Available online: https://www.cesifo-group.de/DocDL/IfoWorkingPaper-97.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2018).
  50. Wagner, M. Empirical influence of environmental management on innovation: Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mazzanti, M.; Zoboli, R. Economic instruments and induced innovation: The European policies on end-of-life vehicles. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 318–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Andersen, M.M. Entrepreneurship and Innovation—Organizations, Institutions, Eco-innovation—Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory. In DRUID 25th Conference 2008 on Entrepreneurship and Innovation; DIME Accademy: Aalborg, Denmark, 2008; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  53. Belin, J.; Horbach, J.; Oltra, V. Determinants and Specificities of Eco-Innovations: An Econometric Analysis for the French and German Industry Based on the Community Innovation Survey. 2011. Available online: http://cahiersdugretha.u-bordeaux4.fr/2011/2011-17.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2018).
  54. Kammerer, D. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation. Empirical evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2285–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Crossan, M.M.; Lane, H.W.; White, R.E. An Organizational Learning Freamwork: From Intuition to Institution. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 522–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adams, R.; Bessant, J.; Phelps, R. Innovation management measurement: A review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2006, 8, 21–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Keupp, M.M.; Palmié, M.; Gassmann, O. The Strategic Management of Innovation: A Systematic Review and Paths for Future Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 367–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Johnson, D.K.N.; Lybecker, K.M. Paying for green: An economics literature review on the constraints to financing environmental innovation. Electron. Green J. 2012, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cruz-Cázares, C.; Bayona-Sáez, C.; García-Marco, T. You can’t manage right what you can’t measure well: Technological innovation efficiency. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Grimsey, D.; Lewis, M.K. Evaluating the risks of public private partnerships for infrastructure projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Schumpeter, J.A. The Economics and Sociology of Capitalism; Swedberg, R., Ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1942; ISBN 978-0691003832. [Google Scholar]
  62. Segarra-Oña, M.V.; Peiró-Signes, A.; Albors-Garrigós, J.; Miret-Pastor, P. Impact of innovative practices in environmentally focused firms: Moderating factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2011, 5, 425–434. [Google Scholar]
  63. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J.; Del Río, P.; Könnölä, T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1073–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ding, M. Supply chain collaboration toward eco-innovation: An SEM analysis of the inner mechanism. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, SOLI 2014, Qingdao, China, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  65. Parthasarthy, R.; Hammond, J. Product innovation input and outcome:moderating effects of the innovation process. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2002, 19, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Triguero, A.; Moreno-Mondéjar, L.; Davia, M.A. Leaders and Laggards in Environmental Innovation: An Empirical Analysis of SMEs in Europe. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2016, 25, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Peiró-Signes, Á.; Segarra-Oña, M.d.V.; Miret-Pastor, L.; Verma, R. Eco-innovation attitude and industry’s technological level—An important key for promoting efficient vertical policies. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2011, 10, 1893–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Rubio-López, E. Proactive Corporate Environmental Strategies: Myths and Misunderstandings. Long Range Plan. 2007, 40, 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, Ó. A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2006, 15, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sharma, P.; Sharma, S. Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Bus. Ethics Q. 2011, 21, 309–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pons, D. Project management for new product development. Proj. Manag. J. 2008, 39, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kemp, R.; Pearson, P.; Arundel, A.; Borup, M.; Dorronsoro, I.C.; Andersen, D.; De Vries, F.; Lázaro, J.E.; Foxon, T.; Sedano, J.A.G.; et al. Final Report MEI Project about Measuring Eco-Innovation. 2007. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed on 4 September 2018).
  73. Kijek, T.; Kasztelan, A. Eco-innovation as a factor of sustainable development. Probl. Ekorozwoju 2013, 8, 103–111. [Google Scholar]
  74. Paraschiv, D.M.; Nemoianu, E.L.; Langa, C.A.; Szabó, T. Eco-innovation, responsible leadership and organizational change for corporate sustainability. Amfiteatru Econ. 2012, 14, 404–419. [Google Scholar]
  75. Richardson, G.B. The organisation of industry. Econ. J. 1972, 82, 883–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chandler, A.D. Organizational capabilities and the economic history af the industrial enterprise. J. Econ. Perspect. 1992, 6, 79–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chiesa, V.; Frattini, F.; Lazzarotti, V.; Manzini, R. An exploratory study on R&D performance measurement practices: A survey of Italian R&D intensive firms. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2009, 13, 65–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 1982, 11, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Grant, R. Toward a knoweldge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nelson, R.; Winter, S. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Available online: http://inctpped.ie.ufrj.br/spiderweb/pdf_2/Dosi_1_An_evolutionary-theory-of_economic_change..pdf (accessed on 4 September 2018).
  81. Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2011, 20, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Frondel, M.; Horbach, J.; Rennings, K. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2007, 16, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Muller, A.; Välikangas, L.; Merlyn, P. Metrics for innovation: Guidelines for developing a customized suite of innovation metrics. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2005, 33, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Oltra, V.; Jean, M.S. The dynamics of environmental innovations: Three stylised trajectories of clean technology. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2005, 14, 189–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Biedenbach, T. The power of combinative capabilities: Facilitating the outcome of frequent innovation in pharmaceutical R&D projects. Proj. Manag. J. 2011, 42, 63–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Taylor, P.L.; Murray, D.L.; Raynolds, L.T. Keeping trade fair: Governance challenges in the fair trade coffee initiative. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 13, 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kemp, R.; Soete, L. The greening of technological progress. An evolutionary perspective. Futures 1992, 24, 437–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pereira, Á.; Vence, X. Key business factors for eco-innovation: An overview of recent firm-level empirical studies. Cuad. Gest. 2012, 12, 73–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strateg. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gabler, C.B.; Richey, R.G.; Rapp, A. Developing an eco-capability through environmental orientation and organizational innovativeness. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 45, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Georg, S.; Røpke, I.; Jørgensen, U. Clean technology—Innovation and environmental regulation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1992, 2, 533–550. [Google Scholar]
  92. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Winn, S.F.; Roome, N.J. R&D management responses to the environment: Current theory and implications to practice and research. R&D Manag. 1993, 23, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. Resource-Based View of Proactive Corporate Environmental. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ar, I.M. The Impact of Green Product Innovation on Firm Performance and Competitive Capability: The Moderating Role of Managerial Environmental Concern. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 62, 854–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cameron, K. Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Cheng, C.-F.F.; Chang, M.-L.L.; Li, C.-S.S. Configural paths to successful product innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2561–2573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Groves, K.S.; LaRocca, M.A. An Empirical Study of Leader Ethical Values, Transformational and Transactional Leadership, and Follower Attitudes Toward Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Pless, N.; Maak, T. Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 98, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. De Marchi, V. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Freel, M.S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 751–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. McCann, P.; Simonen, J. Innovation, knowledge spillovers and local labour markets. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2005, 84, 465–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Roper, S.; Du, J.; Love, J.H. Modelling the innovation value chain. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 961–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cainelli, G.; Mazzanti, M.; Zoboli, R. Environmental innovations, complementarity and local/global cooperation: Evidence from North-East Italian industry. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 2011, 11, 328–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cao, M.; Zhang, Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hammar, H.; Löfgren, Å. Explaining adoption of end of pipe solutions and clean technologies-Determinants of firms’ investments for reducing emissions to air in four sectors in Sweden. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3644–3651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Petruzzelli, A.M.; Dangelico, R.M.; Rotolo, D.; Albino, V. Organizational factors and technological features in the development of green innovations: Evidence from patent analysis. Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 2011, 13, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Triguero, A.; Moreno-Mondéjar, L.; Davia, M.A. The influence of energy prices on adoption of clean technologies and recycling: Evidence from European SMEs. Energy Econ. 2014, 46, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ketata, I.; Sofka, W.; Grimpe, C. The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R&D Manag. 2014, 45, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ljubica, V.B.; Cvelbar, K. Resources and Capabilities Driving Performance in the Hotel Industry. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 22, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Park, M.S.; Bleischwitz, R.; Han, K.J.; Jang, E.K.; Joo, J.H. Eco-innovation indices as tools for measuring eco-innovation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Blaikie, N.W.H. Methods for Answering Research Questions: Data Gathering and Analysis. In Designing Social Research: The logic of Anticipation; Polity Press and Blackwell Pubblishers: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 199–220, 264–265. ISBN 0745643388. [Google Scholar]
  116. Akbar, H.; Mandurah, S. Project-conceptualisation in technological innovations: A knowledge-based perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 759–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Maçaneiro, M.B.; da Cunha, S.K.; Balbinot, Z. Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products Industry in Brazil. Lat. Am. Bus. Rev. 2013, 14, 179–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Russo-Spena, T.; Mele, C. ‘Five Co-s’ in innovating: A practice-based view. J. Serv. Manag. 2012, 23, 527–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Stosic, B.; Milutinovic, R.; Zakic, N.; Zivkovic, N. Selected indicators for evaluation of eco-innovation projects. Innovation 2016, 29, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Machiba, T. Eco-innovation for enabling resource efficiency and green growth: Development of an analytical framework and preliminary analysis of industry and policy practices. Int. Econ. Econ. Policy 2010, 7, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Santolaria, M.; Oliver-Sol, J.; Gasol, C.M.; Morales-Pinzón, T.; Rieradevall, J. Eco-design in innovation driven companies: Perception, predictions and the main drivers of integration. The Spanish example. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1315–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Berkhout, F.; Hertin, J.; Jordan, A. Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: Using scenarios as ‘learning machines’. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002, 12, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Biondi, V.; Iraldo, F.; Meredith, S. Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: The role of SMEs. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2002, 24, 612–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Dong, Y.; Wang, X.; Jin, J.; Qiao, Y.; Shi, L. Effects of eco-innovation typology on its performance: Empirical evidence from Chinese enterprises. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014, 34, 78–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Galia, F.; Ingham, M.; Pekovic, S. Incentives for green innovations in French manufacturing firms. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 14, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Przychodzen, J.; Przychodzen, W. Relationships between eco-innovation and financial performance℄Evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wagner, M. Sustainability and Competitive Advantage: Empirical Evidence on the Influence of Strategic Choices between Environmental Management Approaches. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2005, 14, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bartlett, D.; Trifilova, A. Green technology and eco-innovation: Seven case-studies from a Russian manufacturing context. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010, 21, 910–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Chen, C.-J.; Huang, J.-W. Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance—The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Arundel, A. Measuring eco-innovation. Account. Financ. 2009, 20, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Aschhoff, B.; Sofka, W. Innovation on demand-Can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Res. Policy 2009, 38, 1235–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Hurtado-Torres, N.E.; Aragón-Correa, J.A. Does international experience help firms to be green? A knowledge-based view of how international experience and organisational learning influence proactive environmental strategies. Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 21, 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Berrone, P.; Fosfuri, A.; Gelabert, L.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Markatou, M. Studying innovation persistence in Greece: A patent data approach of ‘heavy innovators’. In Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: From Regional Development to World Economies, Proceedings of the 18th International Business Information Management Association Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 9–10 May 2012; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 575–582. [Google Scholar]
  135. Triguero, A.; Moreno-Mondéjar, L.; Davia, M.A. Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Négré, P.; Brusciotti, F.; Parra, M.B.; Durán, A.; Martín, Y.C.; Hamon, L.; Halut, J. Ecoprot, eco-friendly corrosion protecting coating of aluminium and magnesium alloys, an ECO innovation project. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2014, 41, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Albino, V.; Balice, A.; Dangelico, R.M. Environmental strategies and green product development: An overview on sustainability-driven companies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2009, 18, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Esty, D.; Winston, A. Why Environmental Initiatives Fail. In Green to Gold: How Smart Companies Use Environmental Strategy to Innovate, Create Value, and Build Competitive Advantage; Yale University Press: London, UK, 2009; pp. 235–259. ISBN 0470393742. [Google Scholar]
  139. Mylan, J.; Geels, F.W.; Gee, S.; McMeekin, A.; Foster, C. Eco-innovation and retailers in milk, beef and bread chains: Enriching environmental supply chain management with insights from innovation studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Scarpellini, S.; Aranda, A.; Aranda, J.; Llera, E.; Marco, M. R&D and eco-innovation: Opportunities for closer collaboration between universities and companies through technology centers. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2012, 14, 1047–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Scarpellini, S.; Valero-Gil, J.J.; Rivera-Torres, P.; Garcés Ayerbe, C.; Scarpellini, S.; Valero-Gil, J.J.; Rivera-Torres, P.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Scarpellini, S.; et al. Proactive environmental strategy development: From laggard to eco-innovative firms. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2016, 29, 1118–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Klewitz, J. Intermediaries driving eco-innovation in SMEs: A qualitative investigation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 442–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Lee, S.Y.; Rhee, S.-K. The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Manag. Decis. 2007, 45, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Fleiter, T.; Hirzel, S.; Worrell, E. The characteristics of energy-efficiency measures—A neglected dimension. Energy Policy 2012, 51, 502–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Leenders, M.A.A.M.; Chandra, Y. Antecedents and consequences of green innovation in the wine industry: The role of channel structure. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2013, 25, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Lenny Koh, S.C.; Rosa, P. Recycling of WEEEs: An economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Cluzel, F.; Yannou, B.; Millet, D.; Leroy, Y. Identification and Selection of Eco-Innovative R&D Projects in Complex Systems Industries. In Proceedings of the 12th International Design Conference—DESIGN 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 21–24 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
  148. Issa, I.I.; Pigosso, D.C.A.A.; McAloone, T.C.; Rozenfeld, H. Leading product-related environmental performance indicators: A selection guide and database. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Lin, C.Y.; Ho, Y.H. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2008, 3, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  150. Seroa da Motta, R. Analyzing the environmental performance of the Brazilian industrial sector. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Shuaib, M.; Seevers, D.; Zhang, X.; Badurdeen, F.; Rouch, K.E.; Jawahir, I.S. Product sustainability index (ProdSI): A metrics-based framework to evaluate the total life cycle sustainability of manufactured products. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 491–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Chen, Y.S. The driver of green innovation and green image—Green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J.R.; Shimamoto, K. Industrial characteristics, environmental regulations and air pollution: An analysis of the UK manufacturing sector. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2005, 50, 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Doonan, J.; Lanoie, P.; Laplante, B. Determinants of environmental performance in the Canadian pulp and paper industry: An assessment from inside the industry. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 55, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hellström, T. Dimensions of environmentally sustainable Innovation: The structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Doran, J.; Ryan, G. Eco-Innovation—Does additional engagement lead to additional rewards? Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2014, 41, 1110–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Jasch, C. Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2000, 8, 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ziegler, A.; Seijas Nogareda, J. Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Calik, E.; Bardudeen, F. A Measurement Scale to Evaluate Sustainable Innovation Performance in Manufacturing Organizations. In Procedia CIRP; Elsevier B.V.: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 40, pp. 449–454. [Google Scholar]
  160. Hur, T.; Lee, J.; Ryu, J.; Kwon, E. Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 75, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Graham, J.R.; Harvey, C.R. The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. J. Financ. Econ. 2001, 60, 187–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Žižlavský, O. Net Present Value Approach: Method for Economic Assessment of Innovation Projects. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 156, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Song, M.; Di Benedetto, C.A.; Nason, R.W. Capabilities and financial performance: The moderating effect of strategic type. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 35, 18–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Chang, C.-Y. A critical analysis of recent advances in the techniques for the evaluation of renewable energy projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 1057–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Berkhout, F. Eco-innovation: Reflections on an evolving research agenda. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 2011, 11, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Boström, P.S. Impact from the Resource-Based Approach on Strategy and Control; A new Framework for Empirical Research based on the “European Excellence Model”. In Proceedings of the 11th QMOD Conference, Quality Management and Organizational Development, Helsingborg, Sweden, 20–22 August 2008; pp. 395–405. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 10 03161 g001 550
Figure 1. Comparative level of projects’ outcomes for economic-financial and environmental variables in studied cases.
Figure 1. Comparative level of projects’ outcomes for economic-financial and environmental variables in studied cases.
Sustainability 10 03161 g001
Sustainability 10 03161 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparative level of firms’ resources and capabilities and the eco-innovation project outcomes in each of the studied cases.
Figure 2. Comparative level of firms’ resources and capabilities and the eco-innovation project outcomes in each of the studied cases.
Sustainability 10 03161 g002
Sustainability 10 03161 g003 550
Figure 3. Percentages of the available resources and capabilities of firms and the project outcomes. They are classified according to two typologies variables: economic-financial and environmental.
Figure 3. Percentages of the available resources and capabilities of firms and the project outcomes. They are classified according to two typologies variables: economic-financial and environmental.
Sustainability 10 03161 g003
Table
Table 1. Definition of resources, capabilities and outcomes for eco-innovation projects.
Table 1. Definition of resources, capabilities and outcomes for eco-innovation projects.
Resources of FirmsCapabilities of FirmsEco-Innovation Project Outcomes
Economic-financial Characteristics of InnovationRF—Financial resources of firmsCF—Innovation capabilities of firmsPF—Investment cost/benefit outcomes of projects
Environmental Aspects of Eco-innovationRE—Environmental resources of firmsCE—Environmental capabilities of firmsPE—Environmental improvement outcomes of projects
Table
Table 2. Sources of the data obtained from the case studies for each area of analysis.
Table 2. Sources of the data obtained from the case studies for each area of analysis.
Data SourcesResources of FirmsCapabilities of FirmsEco-Innovation Outcomes
Economic-financial CharacteristicsEconomic-financial settings databaseSemi-structured interviewsProject data ‘sheets’ and public presentations
Environmental AspectsQuestionnaires and other sources
Table
Table 3. Variables considered when measuring the resources of firms applied to the eco-innovation projects and the authors who have studied these variables in other studies in the environmental management field.
Table 3. Variables considered when measuring the resources of firms applied to the eco-innovation projects and the authors who have studied these variables in other studies in the environmental management field.
VariablesAuthors
Economic-financial Resources *RF_SIZE = Size of the firms [2,12,41,54,60,109,121,122,123,124,125]
RF_LIAB = Debt structure of the firms—LIAB_ST[40]
RF_LRV = leverage ratio of the firms—LRV[12,40,126,127]
RF_ROE = ROE of the firms[12,29,126,127]
RF_CR = Liquidity ratio of the firms[124]
Environmental ResourcesRE_RHDIR = managerial staff for eco-innovation (Departments: environmental management, innovation, resources management)[128,129]
RE_RH = HIGH intensity of human resources devoted to eco-innovation related activities (% of human resources available in the departments of environmental management, innovation and resources management)[2,29,59,74,109,130]
RE_INV = Level of investment in environmental R&D (% of the total investment in R&D)[40,64,110]
RE_GRANT = Public subsidies and grants received by the firms for environmental R&D investments[2,31,100,110,125,131]
RE_GP = Green patents registered by the firms[50,108,130,132,133,134]
Table
Table 4. Variables used to measure the capabilities of firms, their eco-innovation projects and the authors who have studied these variables in other studies in the environmental management field.
Table 4. Variables used to measure the capabilities of firms, their eco-innovation projects and the authors who have studied these variables in other studies in the environmental management field.
VariablesAuthors
Innovation CapabilitiesCF_STRA—Capability to align the business strategy with the regional policy for eco-innovation (strategy)[135]
CF_AGE—Age of the firm[105,121]
CF_REG—Firms’ capabilities to overcome legislation barriers[136]
CF_MANAG—Managerial capabilities and leadership for eco-innovation [74,128,137,138]
CF_COL—Capability to collaborate for environmental R&D and public/private communication for eco-innovation[47,64,128,135,139,140]
Environmental CapabilitiesCE_INTENS—Eco-innovation activity intensity[97,141,142,143]
CE_SCOPE—Technological capabilities to achieve the scope of the eco-innovation projects [141,143]
CE_ENVS—Advanced environmental management systems’ implementation[41,50,109,141,144]
CE_QUAL—Environmental quality standards[2,31,51,64,135,144,145]
CE_CSR—RSC, reporting and environmental accounting[25,31,32,41]
Table
Table 5. Variables for measuring the projects’ outcomes and some of the authors who have analysed these variables.
Table 5. Variables for measuring the projects’ outcomes and some of the authors who have analysed these variables.
VariablesAuthors
Economic-financial OutcomesPF_PROFIT—Profitability index = net present value/investment of the project[72]
PF_IRR—Internal rate return of the investment project[72,144,146]
PF_INV—Level of investment (% project investment/total assets)[12,144]
PF_TIME—Time frame of the project[12,144,147]
PF_PB—Pay back of the investment[144,146]
Environmental OutcomesPE_RRM—Decrease in resources/raw materials obtained through the eco-innovation project[100,110,124,125,128,142,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155]
PE_RW—Decrease/recovery of waste obtained through the eco-innovation project[64,97,119,124,125,156]
PE_EMIS—Reduction in emissions obtained through the eco-innovation project[125,128,142,149,151,152,156,157]
PE_REPL—Replacement of materials/resources through the eco-innovation project[64,124,128,153,156,158]
PR_ECOD—Eco-design for environmental improvements in the phase of use or end of life[63,148,159,160]
Table
Table 6. Qualitative measurement of firms’ resources for the eco-innovation projects in the studied cases.
Table 6. Qualitative measurement of firms’ resources for the eco-innovation projects in the studied cases.
RESOURCESCASE 1CASE 2CASE 3CASE 4CASE 5
RF_SIZEHighMediumHighHighHigh
RF_LIABHighLowHighLowMedium
RF_LRVHighLowLowLowHigh
RF_ROELowLowHighHighHigh
RF_CRLowLowLowLowLow
RE_RHDIRHighMediumHighHighHigh
RE_RHLowHighLowLowMedium
RE_INVHighMediumMediumHighMedium
RE_GRANTLowMediumMediumLowHigh
RE_GPLowLowHighLowLow
Table
Table 7. Qualitative measurement of firms’ capabilities for the eco-innovation projects in the studied cases.
Table 7. Qualitative measurement of firms’ capabilities for the eco-innovation projects in the studied cases.
CAPABILITIESCASE 1CASE 2CASE 3CASE 4CASE 5
CF_STRAHighHighMediumHighHigh
CF_AGEMediumMediumMediumHighMedium
CF_REGHighHighMediumHighHigh
CF_MANAGHighHighHighHighHigh
CF_COLMediumMediumHighMediumHigh
CE_INTENSHighMediumHighHighMedium
CE_SCOPEHighMediumHighHighMedium
CE_ENVSHighLowHighHighMedium
CE_QUALHighLowMediumMediumLow
CE_CSRMediumLowHighMediumMedium
Table
Table 8. Frequency of the same levels of firms’ resources and capabilities vs eco-innovation projects’ outcomes in the analysed cases.
Table 8. Frequency of the same levels of firms’ resources and capabilities vs eco-innovation projects’ outcomes in the analysed cases.
PE_RW HighPE_ EMIS HighPE_REPL HighPE_ECOD High
RF_CR Low3333
RF_SIZE High3333
RF_ROE High2222
RE_RHDIR High3333
RE_RH Low111--
RE_GP Low3333
CF_STRA High3333
CF_REG High3333
CF_MANAG High3333
CE_CSR Medium3333

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Portillo-Tarragona, P.; Scarpellini, S.; Moneva, J.M.; Valero-Gil, J.; Aranda-Usón, A. Classification and Measurement of the Firms’ Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View Perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093161

AMA Style

Portillo-Tarragona P, Scarpellini S, Moneva JM, Valero-Gil J, Aranda-Usón A. Classification and Measurement of the Firms’ Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View Perspective. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093161

Chicago/Turabian Style

Portillo-Tarragona, Pilar, Sabina Scarpellini, Jose M. Moneva, Jesus Valero-Gil, and Alfonso Aranda-Usón. 2018. "Classification and Measurement of the Firms’ Resources and Capabilities Applied to Eco-Innovation Projects from a Resource-Based View Perspective" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093161

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop