Eco-Innovation as a Positive and Happy Industry Externality: Evidence from Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Eco-innovation as a positive and happy externality of industry: evidence from Mexico

This paper wants to contribute to the literature of the drivers and effects of eco-innovation at
firm level, paying attention to Mexican industry. It is scarce the literature that analyzes these
questions for Mexico, so, in this sense, the paper could be an important contribution to studies
for Mexican industry. Nevertheless, the paper presents some weaknesses and deficiencies that
should be corrected, especially because the manuscript lacks a more developed theoretical
framework and literature review, and the data and empirical analysis is poor explained:
INTRODUCTION
- First, in the introduction is not clear the aim of the paper and it does not highlight
appropriately the contributions of the paper.
- Why do the authors only focus on product innovation? It is not justified the election of
product eco-innovation against process eco-innovation, especially, when process eco-
innovation is most usual.
- The authors do not make clear the link between eco-innovation and industry 4.0.
- In addition, they do not mention the sample, the source of the data.
LITERATURE REVIEW
- The authors aim the first paragraphs to give alternative definitions of eco-innovation. I think
this is unnecessary.
- The main problem of the paper, as I have pointed out at the beginning, is the lack of a clear
theoretical framework. Studies about the drivers of eco-innovation emphasizes the
influence of Technology push, Market pull and regulatory push/pull. In this paper, the focus
of interest is on market pull factors, although the purpose of the authors is not very clear
because they also mention the role of regulation, subsidies, governmental measures...I
recommend extending the drivers of eco-innovation to have a better vision of the possible
determinants of eco-innovation and set up an extended theoretical and empirical
framework. Alternatively, if the focus is only on market factors, it necessary to better justify
the arguments that explained why different market factors foster eco-innovation and
accompany it with a better empirical literature review about drivers of eco- innovation,
especially in emerging countries.
- In addition, the authors should better justified H2 and H3. The use of structural equation
entails that the causal relation between variables is properly justified. In particular, the
authors suppose the causal relationship in the sense that eco-innovation influences
business and market performance. I wonder if the authors have tested the inverse relation.
I mean, that the business and market performance influence the decision to be eco-
innovator. For instance, there are empirical studies that conclude that export orientation
fosters eco-innovation.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS
- This section is very poor. There is no information about the characteristics of the sample
(sectors, size, age, share of eco-innovators...). In addition, I have several doubts about the
representativeness of the sample (there are only 107 companies).
- The information about the variables used in the study is very scarce. It is difficult to
understand which variables have been used to construct the model. In addition, in table 1
business performance is omitted.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
- In the discussion and conclusion sections an effort should be done to compare the
results with the previous literature, especially for emerging economies, and include the
managerial and policy implications of the results.
- Take care with some statements.
o In the discussion the authors say that “the results show that economic viability
is not the primary driver”. The model does not show this, because in the paper
the economic viability is not consider as a driver of eco-innovation but an effect
or externality.
o In addition, the authors say that market drives eco-innovation, therefore, policy
interventions are not desired. This conclusion is risky and contrary to the
arguments employed in the Literature review section.
o In the conclusion, the authors state that one aim of the work is “to show that
eco-innovation is used as an instrument to reduce environmental impact in the
era of Industry 4.0”. I think this is not an aim of the paper because the
environmental performance has not been included in the model as an
externality of eco-innovation.
- I recommend rewriting these sections carefully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you for your comments, we appreciate your time and effort in review our proposal and we manage to answer you comments. We hope to meet your criteria and and point out the following comments:

Eco-innovation as a positive and happy externality of industry: evidence from Mexico

This paper wants to contribute to the literature of the drivers and effects of eco-innovation at firm level, paying attention to Mexican industry. It is scarce the literature that analyzes these questions for Mexico, so, in this sense, the paper could be an important contribution to studies for Mexican industry. Nevertheless, the paper presents some weaknesses and deficiencies that should be corrected, especially because the manuscript lacks a more developed theoretical framework and literature review, and the data and empirical analysis is poor explained:

We appreciate your comment and we expand our explanation in the arear you pointed our about the theory, methodology and data.

INTRODUCTION
- First, in the introduction is not clear the aim of the paper and it does not highlight appropriately the contributions of the paper.

We explain in the introduction about the aim of our paper about the introduction of eco-innovation in a product level as a stage of eco-nnovation process

- Why do the authors only focus on product innovation? It is not justified the election of product eco-innovation against process eco-innovation, especially, when process eco- innovation is most usual.

We explain our position into start by manufacturing eco-innovation products as a initial step to convert the company into a eco-innovation process company, this is the first step and we introduce this concept in the introduction section

- The authors do not make clear the link between eco-innovation and industry 4.0.

Manly the interviewed companies and the products developed are from a technology-based sector belonging to a industry 4.0 sector as define by author 

- In addition, they do not mention the sample, the source of the data.

We mention the sample size and general characteristics 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW
- The authors aim the first paragraphs to give alternative definitions of eco-innovation. I think this is unnecessary.

We modify paragraph to elimitane unnecessary text

- The main problem of the paper, as I have pointed out at the beginning, is the lack of a clear theoretical framework. Studies about the drivers of eco-innovation emphasizes the influence of Technology push, Market pull and regulatory push/pull. In this paper, the focus of interest is on market pull factors, although the purpose of the authors is not very clear because they also mention the role of regulation, subsidies, governmental measures...I recommend extending the drivers of eco-innovation to have a better vision of the possible determinants of eco-innovation and set up an extended theoretical and empirical framework. Alternatively, if the focus is only on market factors, it necessary to better justify the arguments that explained why different market factors foster eco-innovation and accompany it with a better empirical literature review about drivers of eco- innovation, especially in emerging countries.

This study is bases in market requirements and regulations, we plann to expand our study in future work updating and extending the drivers of eco-innovation to have a better vision of the possible determinants of eco-innovation and increasr our theoretical framework in our continuing work.

 
- In addition, the authors should better justified H2 and H3. The use of structural equation entails that the causal relation between variables is properly justified. In particular, the authors suppose the causal relationship in the sense that eco-innovation influences business and market performance. I wonder if the authors have tested the inverse relation. I mean, that the business and market performance influence the decision to be eco- innovator. For instance, there are empirical studies that conclude that export orientation fosters eco-innovation.

We extend our comments on SEM use in the section and will test our data in continuing studies, in this study we did not test in the way the reviewer commented.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS
- This section is very poor. There is no information about the characteristics of the sample (sectors, size, age, share of eco-innovators...). In addition, I have several doubts about the representativeness of the sample (there are only 107 companies).

We include information about sample size and characteristics and include reference about sample size.

- The information about the variables used in the study is very scarce. It is difficult to understand which variables have been used to construct the model. In addition, in table 1 business performance is omitted.

There were an error in table 1, we corrected and clarify the name were there were supose to be the variable name Business Performance

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
- In the discussion and conclusion sections an effort should be done to compare the results with the previous literature, especially for emerging economies, and include the managerial and policy implications of the results.

We modify paragraph and include recommendations

- Take care with some statements. o In the discussion the authors say that “the results show that economic viability is not the primary driver”. The model does not show this, because in the paper the economic viability is not consider as a driver of eco-innovation but an effect or externality. o In addition, the authors say that market drives eco-innovation, therefore, policy interventions are not desired. This conclusion is risky and contrary to the arguments employed in the Literature review section. o In the conclusion, the authors state that one aim of the work is “to show that eco-innovation is used as an instrument to reduce environmental impact in the era of Industry 4.0”. I think this is not an aim of the paper because the environmental performance has not been included in the model as an externality of eco-innovation.

We modify paragraph and include recommendations

- I recommend rewriting these sections carefully.

We modify paragraph and include recommendations

 

Thank you very much for your review

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The actions of manufacturers should be in line with the goals of global sustainable development as outlined by the UN in Agenda 2030. Among other things, the idea is to produce green products to reduce the amount of waste generated. Various formulations of the definition and meaning of the term "eco-innovations" affecting the planet were presented. This allowed the formulation of three research hypotheses. The evaluation of these hypotheses makes it possible to conclude that eco-innovation processes allow products to enter global markets and meet consumer demand. Based on the research presented, the Authors confirmed that it is necessary to innovate in enterprises and invest in modern technologies, which has a direct impact on environmental protection. At the same time, They pointed out that eco-innovation activities are triggered by beneficial externalities. This allows the opening of new markets and businesses. The Authors also pointed out the limitations that cause the imperfection of the method used for the companies surveyed. A study should be conducted for a specific industrial sector.

 

Detailed comments

In my opinion, an unprofessional translation of the title of the article. The title of the article should be corrected.

Line 223 is: the graph above - should be: … on the graph - figure 2

In table 5 in the second line – Measure: is SOME - should be: SRMR

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your comments and effort in reviewing our proposal.

We appreciate your time and patience.

Comments:

 

The actions of manufacturers should be in line with the goals of global sustainable development as outlined by the UN in Agenda 2030. Among other things, the idea is to produce green products to reduce the amount of waste generated. Various formulations of the definition and meaning of the term "eco-innovations" affecting the planet were presented. This allowed the formulation of three research hypotheses. The evaluation of these hypotheses makes it possible to conclude that eco-innovation processes allow products to enter global markets and meet consumer demand. Based on the research presented, the Authors confirmed that it is necessary to innovate in enterprises and invest in modern technologies, which has a direct impact on environmental protection. At the same time, They pointed out that eco-innovation activities are triggered by beneficial externalities. This allows the opening of new markets and businesses. The Authors also pointed out the limitations that cause the imperfection of the method used for the companies surveyed. A study should be conducted for a specific industrial sector.

 

Thank you for your comments

 

Detailed comments

In my opinion, an unprofessional translation of the title of the article. The title of the article should be corrected.

Titles have been changed.

 

Line 223 is: the graph above - should be: … on the graph - figure 2

The line have been changed

 

 

In table 5 in the second line – Measure: is SOME - should be: SRMR

The line have been changed

 

 

Thank you for your review