Exploring Differences in Green Innovation among Countries with Individualistic and Collectivist Cultural Orientations

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the extent to which individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations are essential for green innovation. In this context, we also examine the extent of green innovation in countries at different levels of socioeconomic development. All data were collected for the latest available year (2020). This research was carried out on a sample of 60 selected countries, using parametric tests to identify statistically significant differences between variables and descriptive statistics to examine statistically significant differences in-depth. The results show that, on average, countries with prevailing individualistic cultural orientations and high levels of socioeconomic development perform better in green innovation than countries with prevailing collectivist cultural orientations. On average, countries with a prevailing individualistic cultural orientation scored moderate on green innovation, while countries with a prevailing collectivist orientation scored low. However, the level of socioeconomic development, including designing and implementing green policies, was recognized as essential to green innovation in both national cultures with prevailing individualistic orientations and national cultures with prevailing collectivist orientations.

1. Introduction

Strategic green orientation is vital in a modern economy striving for green growth. Green technologies have long R&D cycles, risks, and complexity and, therefore, require extensive investment in innovation [1,2]. Green innovation is linked to energy efficiency, controlling carbon emissions, waste management, the circular economy, and environmental protection in a broader sense [3,4]. It encompasses multiple dimensions in products and processes, management, and marketing [5,6].

Previous studies [5,7] confirm that innovation strongly supports socioeconomic development, but this requires the creation of an appropriate institutional environment. Since innovation supports socioeconomic development and vice versa, these relations also apply to green innovation. Societies with socioeconomic development based on a green economy will favor, support, and provide the resources and means for green innovation [8]. Previous research has also highlighted the critical role of national cultural characteristics in a country’s innovation performance [9,10,11]. Most of these studies focused on general innovation and innovation outcomes. However, several authors also confirmed that national culture influences green innovation behavior and socially responsible investments [9,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20].

Our research focuses on the individualistic and collectivist dimensions of national cultures [21,22]. Several authors (e.g., [18]) found that countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations achieve higher levels of socioeconomic development than countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations. In countries with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation, individuals are more oriented towards pursuing their own rather than shared interests. Individuals in these countries also exhibit risk-taking behavior, and countries achieve higher R&D investment [18,23,24]. Castellani [12] found that individualism provides strong incentives for innovation and thus promotes long-term growth.

On the other hand, in countries with a prevailing collectivist culture, individuals are more inclined to pursue common interests rather than their own. Individuals in these countries are concerned with “how their actions can benefit the collective” [18]. Authors such as Boubakri et al. [23] claim that collectivism does not support innovation. For example, according to Confucian collectivism, managers should prioritize common interests and forgo individual adventurism [25]. Prevailing collectivist societies emphasize strong informal ties between groups and rely on informal networks and relationships rather than formal institutions to protect against opportunism [26]. As a result, investment in innovation is limited in collectivist societies because the cultural value system does not support it.

In our research, we address differences in the development of green innovation in countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist cultural orientations. Previous studies (e.g., [5]) have examined the link between green innovation and organizational performance, highlighting the impact of leadership and governance in organizations. By contrast, our study is focused on differences between national cultural orientations and the impacts of these differences on green innovation. Lopez-Cabarcos and co-authors [10] examined in 37 countries whether Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and entrepreneurship influence country innovation. In our study, we examine the differences between individualistic and collectivist countries concerning green innovation in a sample of 60 countries. Xu et al. [27] investigated how national culture is related to green innovation in 20 Asian countries. Compared to this study, our research is based on a sample of 60 countries from different continents with varying cultural environments.

In our research, we explore whether there are statistically significant differences among countries with prevailing individualistic- and collectivist-oriented national cultures regarding green innovation and socioeconomic development and among countries with different levels of socioeconomic development regarding green innovation. The research results provide information relevant to the design of policies and strategies in countries aiming to create an appropriate environment for developing green innovation and promoting green growth.

The rest of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background against which the hypotheses were formulated. Section 3 presents the data and research methodology we used. Section 4 presents the main results of parametric tests and descriptive statistics and discusses the results obtained. In Section 5, we present the conclusions, including the limitations of our study and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

National culture comprises shared values, beliefs, wisdom, and goals that govern human behavior and distinguish a particular group of individuals from others [28,29,30]. Escando-Barbosa and co-authors [31] and Gallego-Alvarez and Pucheta-Martinez [32] argue that culture is one of the most critical factors contributing to the emergence of innovation at national and international levels. North [16] identified that national culture impacts the direction and scope of innovative activities within a national innovation system, determining overall innovation performance. Tekic and Tekic [33] define a national innovation system as one that is shaped by a national culture, embedded in a broader socio-cultural environment, and influenced by the prevailing cultural values that shape its institutions, imposing norms on individual action in the process of creating and disseminating new knowledge. Consequently, national innovation systems with the same structure of formal institutions but embedded in different cultural environments may produce different innovation-related outcomes. The innovation ecosystem supports green innovation as a complex process of collaboration and knowledge sharing between organizations such as companies, universities, research institutes, and governments, helping to respond to environmental change and disruption [34].

Individualism is a characteristic of a national culture that emphasizes personal freedom and achievement [21,22,28]. The values of individuals in countries with a prevailing individualistic national culture are self-interest orientation, individual ownership of resources, education that determines the economic value of an individual, concern for human rights, freedom over equality, and self-fulfillment [22,28]. Individualistic cultures attribute great importance to personal autonomy, and individuals in these societies are more confident, optimistic, and willing to take risks [35,36]. In countries with a prevailing individualistic culture, personal achievements such as significant discoveries, innovations, and other acts that make an individual stand out are given great importance [37].

Collectivism emphasizes the interests of individuals for the common good [21,22,28]. The values of individuals in societies with prevailing collectivist cultures are group orientation, sharing resources and assets with the group, education enabling entry into higher-status groups, equality over freedom, and harmony in the collective over self-fulfillment [22,28]. Collectivism encourages group membership, loyalty, and respect for superiors and discourages individuals from dissent [37,38]. Collectivist societies expect stronger cooperation between members of a particular group who care for each other [22,28].

Green innovation refers to product, process, and service innovations such as energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling, green product design, and environmentally responsible corporate governance [39,40]. Shamsuzzoha and co-authors [41] define green innovation as “a process that contributes to the creation of new production and technologies to reduce environmental risks such as pollution and the negative consequences of the exploitation of non-renewable energy resources”. Green innovations are related to resource efficiency (technologies that require fewer resources, energy-efficient technologies, new materials, and more recyclable materials), climate change mitigation (cleaner energy supplies, electric vehicles, climate-friendly materials, etc.), climate-resilient products and processes that are suited to changing environments (e.g., improved early warning system processes), more sustainable crop and livestock production, a more productive use of biodiversity, and ecosystem protection [42]. Chen [43] and Zeng et al. [44] described green innovation as product and process innovation in energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling, green product design, and corporate environmental management. Green building refers to both the structure and the application of environmentally responsible processes and resource-efficient processes throughout the life cycle of a building, from design, construction, operation, maintenance, and renovation to demolition [45].

The most relevant policies and strategies for supporting green innovation are related to R&D in science and technology linked to green innovation; facilitation of the acquisition of patents and their financing; implementation of appropriate legislation, e.g., the introduction of specific standards, industry regulations, tax incentives, and market guidelines (e.g., emissions taxes, feed-in tariffs); investment; and financing SMEs that contribute to the development of innovation in general and green innovation in particular [46].

Previous studies (e.g., [47]) have found that national culture significantly impacts environmental/green innovation. Individualistic national cultural characteristics encourage the emergence of environmental stakeholder activities and greater organizational capacity to respond to environmental problems [35,48,49]. Besides fostering organizational cooperation and teamwork in countries with prevailing collectivist national cultures [47,50,51], managers in these societies also demonstrate environmental performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure [47].

Based on previous research findings, we assume that countries with different national cultures can foster green innovation differently depending on their cultural orientations. Therefore, the first main hypothesis is the following:

H1. 

There are statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations.

Most previous studies focus on the relations among individualistic national cultures and innovations/green innovations, while paying little attention to the state of these indicators in collectivist national cultures. However, some studies also discuss the relations among collectivist national cultures and different aspects of environmental behavior. Escando-Barbosa et al. [31] argue that, in Asian countries, collectivism is essential in achieving the highest innovation performance globally. Zhang et al. [52] found that leaders in collectivist cultures tend to make green decisions. They argue that collectivist cultures strongly influence individuals’ environmental attitudes and behaviors. Gallen and Peraita [53] argue that researchers have different views on the impacts of individualistic and collectivist national cultures on corporate social responsibility and hypothesize that individualism harms environmental innovation. They emphasize that, on the one hand, collectivist societies are more sensitive to the impact of business on society and the interests of stakeholders; on the other hand, these societies are more corrupt and ethically insensitive, which could mean that in these countries, companies invest more often in green innovations to increase their reputation. In collectivist societies, however, creating new ideas and inventing may go against collectivist norms, unlike in individualistic societies, where individuals feel free to create something new, have more space to express their views, are generally more free-thinking, are thus more inclined to innovate and adopt new ideas/approaches, etc. In individualistic countries, there is also more funding for innovators, which generally encourages innovation development [54,55]. Therefore, it can be concluded that individualism is more conducive to innovation, including green innovation, suggesting that individualistic countries are arguably more successful than collectivist countries in developing green innovation. The first sub-hypothesis is, therefore, the following:

H1a. 

Countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations perform better in green innovation than countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations.

Socioeconomic development includes economic, social, and environmental aspects [56]. Green innovation can be a valuable instrument for socioeconomic development, since it promotes new socioeconomic development models [41]. Cultural orientations can play an essential role in the socioeconomic development of countries. Individuals’ attitudes towards innovation and institutional support for innovation vary according to their country’s level of socioeconomic development. Developing countries do not have a solid institutional environment that can effectively and efficiently enforce regulations. In addition, developing countries lack the skilled workforce and technological know-how essential for innovation. Due to low disposable incomes, individuals in developing countries are more concerned about meeting basic needs than individuals in developed countries [47]. This means that due to the still high poverty level in these countries, more environmentally friendly products are less accessible to individuals [47].

The United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Growth, created in 2030, has set 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address the world’s most pressing challenges. These goals comprise environmental, economic, and societal pillars [56,57]. The environmental pillar includes environmental sustainability and characterizes the engagement of individuals with their environment through several products, with the dual goals of improving the quality of human life and solving the most critical environmental issues. Economic sustainability refers to any activity or practice, monetary or otherwise, that promotes sustained economic expansion while considering environmental and social considerations. The societal pillar refers to development compatible with the harmonious evolution of civil society, fostering an environment conducive to the harmonious coexistence of culturally and socially diverse groups while promoting social integration through quality improvements of life for all segments of the population [57]. According to Duxbury et al. [58], culture is critical to the success of sustainable development policies, as it is an integral part of human development. Culture is the foundation for the dynamic formation of individual and collective identities and contributes to ecological progress in several ways. For example, as Duxbury and co-authors [58] claim, local culture can promote the development of society and sustainable development, as it is the basis of cultural and creative industries, via activities that are intertwined with the social, cultural, and economic spheres. Cultural activities can be seen as a driving force for inclusive economic and social development, and cultural diversity can be linked to ecological progress and become economically “productive” [58]. We can see that culture affects social and economic development differently, affecting the countries’ environmental conditions. As Zheng and co-authors [59] claim, cultural values influence and play an essential role in the realization of sustainable development goals, in solving problems from all dimensions of social sustainability, in influencing the achievement of goals related to environmental sustainability, and in influencing goals aimed at welfare. Also, achieving the goals of sustainable development, most of which are in the social and economic fields, promotes cultural development. Understanding the dimensions of well-being is dominated by the theory of modernization, which assumes that socioeconomic development, including urbanization, industrialization, technological progress, and economic globalization, is accompanied by changes in norms and values, i.e., culture. Dangelico and co-authors [60] found that socioeconomic development variables complement cultural variables in studying environmental aspects and can directly and indirectly influence the research results.

As we have seen, national cultures with different orientations have different impacts on development’s social, economic and environmental pillars. Based on previous research, we have already hypothesized that individualistic national cultures perform better than collectivist-oriented national cultures concerning the environmental pillar. Guo et al. [61] also argue that individualistic national cultures perform better than collectivist cultures regarding social trust, contributing to greater national welfare. Maurya and Sahu [62] emphasize that the most essential characteristic of an individualistic culture is that it values freedom and rewards successful individuals with recognition and financial rewards. A society that embraces and provides freedom and the motivation to introduce new ideas can have an advantage when producing complex products, and this offers a favorable environment for the emergence of economic complexity, which contributes to development. All these arguments show that individualistic countries are more successful in development than collectivist ones, as they combine their various pillars to achieve better results that benefit both the individuals and society. Therefore, the second main hypothesis and its sub-hypothesis are the following:

H2. 

There are statistically significant differences in the levels of socioeconomic development between countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations.

H2a. 

Countries with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation achieve higher levels of socioeconomic development.

According to Strato-Strelet et al. [63], green process innovation is a strategic factor in supporting sustainable development. Innovative company resources are key to progress in sustainable development [64]. According to Domarack et al. [65], entrepreneurs in less developed countries face difficulties in developing green products and services because they can establish sustainable business models with their creativity and good education but lack capital and resources. Technological progress is significant in developed countries and is pursued in an innovation-oriented manner, where inventions matter. Therefore, these countries provide the right environment to support innovation [66]. Empirical studies [67,68,69] argue that most environmental innovation activities occur in developed economies. According to Popp [70] and Sharif and co-authors [67], developed countries have achieved higher-quality natural environments due to new advanced green technologies that have significantly reduced pollution and improved environmental conditions.

Additionally, a study by Liu et al. [71] shows that the socioeconomic goals proposed and formulated by the government in its development will impact the allocation of resources and, thus, green innovation [67]. We can see that the country’s socioeconomic development level affects the creation of green innovations, as it provides the environment necessary for creating these innovations. Socioeconomic development and national culture influence innovations and the attitude toward them.

Al-Emran [57] claims that to achieve development in the social, economic, and environmental fields, superior technologies that promote economic growth and development, artificial intelligence that checks productivity and economic growth, and environmentally friendly technologies or technological innovations are needed. Technological innovation in various forms and applications has shown significant potential in strengthening the three pillars of sustainable development. On the environmental front, advanced technologies have enabled us with renewable energy systems, smart grid infrastructure, and precision agriculture techniques that help us decarbonize our economies, increase resource efficiency, and protect biodiversity. Managing these technologies represents a unique opportunity to help society implement strategies that can lead to sustainable development [57]. Our third main hypothesis and its sub-hypothesis are therefore the following:

H3. 

There are statistically significant differences in green innovation between countries with different levels of socioeconomic development.

H3a. 

Socioeconomically more developed countries perform better in green innovation.

3. Data and Methodology

Our research is based on a non-random sample of 60 countries on six continents. The countries included in this research are from all over the world—3 from Africa, 10 from the Americas, 14 from Asia, 31 from Europe, and 2 from Oceania (Table 1). These countries were selected due to the available freely accessible secondary data on national green innovation indicators.

Data for all indicators were collected for the latest available year (2020) when we started our research. Since the data for indicators on national cultural orientations could not be collected for several years, as they are not updated annually, we collected the data for all indicators in our research for one year, which was the latest available year. The scores/values for all our indicators are described in the Notes under Table 1.

The national cultural orientation of individualism and collectivism was measured by using the data from the Hofstede Insights website [72]. First, data in Hofstede’s study were collected by IBM between 1967 and 1973 for more than 70 countries, out of which the data for 40 countries were used. Later, this number was expanded to 50 countries. In Hofstede’s research since 2001 [28], the data are available for 76 countries. Hofstede’s scores are based on surveys, starting with his initial studies between 1967 and 1973. Over time, due to the development of research methods, the cultural dimensions in his research were supplemented, and new ones were added [72].

Data for the green innovation indicator were collected from the Global Green Growth Index (GGGI) for 2020 [73]. According to this index, green innovation is measured by the share of patent publications in environmental technologies to total patents (7 year average value). Green patents are related to environmental protection and sustainable development and the promotion of the development and usage of environmentally friendly technologies [73]. Companies stimulate economic development and gain technological advantages by green patent applications [73,74]. Therefore, the share of green patents to all patents is a crucial indicator for researching green innovation.

Table 1. Countries included in this research.

		NC	SED	GI			NC	SED	GI
Africa (3)	Egypt—1	25	11,763	51.7	Europe (31)	Czech Republic—31	58	40,314	57.7
	South Africa—2	65	12,482	24.6		Denmark—32	74	57,184	43.9
	Morocco—3	46	75,615	48.2		Estonia—33	60	36,710	98.2
America (10)	Argentina—4	46	22,034	20.1		Finland—34	63	48,621	75.1
	Brazil—5	38	14,652	32.5		France—35	71	46,184	42
	Chile—6	23	24,226	31.8		Greece—36	35	30,315	51.6
	Dominican Republic—7	30	18,419	14.9		Croatia—37	33	28,509	55
	Canada—8	80	49,031	31.3		Ireland—38	70	86,781	54.2
	Colombia—9	13	14,731	40.3		Iceland—39	60	55,874	100
	Mexico—10	30	19,746	28.7		Italy—40	76	42,413	14.8
	Peru—11	16	12,848	45.7		Latvia—41	70	30,830	62.3
	Uruguay—12	36	21,561	14.9		Lithuania—42	60	36,975	72.8
	USA—13	91	62,683	18.2		Luxembourg—43	60	114,482	29.9
Asia (14)	Armenia—14	22	13,654	1		Hungary—44	80	32,623	55.6
	Philippines—15	32	8908	19.4		Moldova—45	27	13,034	42.9
	Georgia—16	41	15,014	40.4		Germany—46	67	53,815	36.8
	India—17	48	6754	10.9		Netherlands—47	80	57,141	51.5
	Indonesia—18	14	11,812	1		Norway—48	69	63,633	34.9
	Japan—19	46	41,429	25.8		Poland—49	60	33,086	65.7
	South Korea—20	18	42,661	35.5		Portugal—50	27	34,798	42
	Kazakhstan—21	20	26,351	1		Romania—51	30	29,909	54.4
	China—22	20	16,117	45.7		Slovakia—52	52	32,793	67.9
	Malaysia—23	26	28,351	33.6		Slovenia—53	27	38,689	44.4
	Saudi Arabia—24	25	46,962	34.8		Spain—54	51	40,883	48.9
	Thailand—25	20	18,463	1		Sweden—55	71	53,205	76.3
	Turkey—26	37	28,167	11.7		Switzerland—56	68	68,628	24.1
	Vietnam—27	20	8041	1		Ukraine—57	25	12,810	40.6
Europe (31)	Austria—28	55	56,352	40.4		Great Britain—58	89	46,699	16.7
	Belgium—29	75	51,708	100	Oceania (2)	Australia—59	90	49,756	28.4
	Bulgaria—30	30	23,091	40		New Zealand—60	79	42,888	23.3

Sources: Nacional culture (NC): Hofstede Insights website [72]; Socioeconomic development (SED): UNDP, 2020 [75]; Green innovation (GI): GGGI 2020 [39]. Notes: National culture (NC): (1) 1–50—individualism, (2) 51–100—collectivism; socioeconomic development (SED): GDP per capita in USD PPP; (1) 1046–12,695 USD—low/middle-income countries; (2) 12,695.1–115,000 USD—high-income countries; green innovation (GI): share of patent publications in environmental technology to total patents: (1) 1–20—very low; (2) 20–40—low; (3) 40–60—moderate; (4) 60–80—high; (5) 80–100—very high.

Table 1. Countries included in this research.

		NC	SED	GI			NC	SED	GI
Africa (3)	Egypt—1	25	11,763	51.7	Europe (31)	Czech Republic—31	58	40,314	57.7
	South Africa—2	65	12,482	24.6		Denmark—32	74	57,184	43.9
	Morocco—3	46	75,615	48.2		Estonia—33	60	36,710	98.2
America (10)	Argentina—4	46	22,034	20.1		Finland—34	63	48,621	75.1
	Brazil—5	38	14,652	32.5		France—35	71	46,184	42
	Chile—6	23	24,226	31.8		Greece—36	35	30,315	51.6
	Dominican Republic—7	30	18,419	14.9		Croatia—37	33	28,509	55
	Canada—8	80	49,031	31.3		Ireland—38	70	86,781	54.2
	Colombia—9	13	14,731	40.3		Iceland—39	60	55,874	100
	Mexico—10	30	19,746	28.7		Italy—40	76	42,413	14.8
	Peru—11	16	12,848	45.7		Latvia—41	70	30,830	62.3
	Uruguay—12	36	21,561	14.9		Lithuania—42	60	36,975	72.8
	USA—13	91	62,683	18.2		Luxembourg—43	60	114,482	29.9
Asia (14)	Armenia—14	22	13,654	1		Hungary—44	80	32,623	55.6
	Philippines—15	32	8908	19.4		Moldova—45	27	13,034	42.9
	Georgia—16	41	15,014	40.4		Germany—46	67	53,815	36.8
	India—17	48	6754	10.9		Netherlands—47	80	57,141	51.5
	Indonesia—18	14	11,812	1		Norway—48	69	63,633	34.9
	Japan—19	46	41,429	25.8		Poland—49	60	33,086	65.7
	South Korea—20	18	42,661	35.5		Portugal—50	27	34,798	42
	Kazakhstan—21	20	26,351	1		Romania—51	30	29,909	54.4
	China—22	20	16,117	45.7		Slovakia—52	52	32,793	67.9
	Malaysia—23	26	28,351	33.6		Slovenia—53	27	38,689	44.4
	Saudi Arabia—24	25	46,962	34.8		Spain—54	51	40,883	48.9
	Thailand—25	20	18,463	1		Sweden—55	71	53,205	76.3
	Turkey—26	37	28,167	11.7		Switzerland—56	68	68,628	24.1
	Vietnam—27	20	8041	1		Ukraine—57	25	12,810	40.6
Europe (31)	Austria—28	55	56,352	40.4		Great Britain—58	89	46,699	16.7
	Belgium—29	75	51,708	100	Oceania (2)	Australia—59	90	49,756	28.4
	Bulgaria—30	30	23,091	40		New Zealand—60	79	42,888	23.3

Sources: Nacional culture (NC): Hofstede Insights website [72]; Socioeconomic development (SED): UNDP, 2020 [75]; Green innovation (GI): GGGI 2020 [39]. Notes: National culture (NC): (1) 1–50—individualism, (2) 51–100—collectivism; socioeconomic development (SED): GDP per capita in USD PPP; (1) 1046–12,695 USD—low/middle-income countries; (2) 12,695.1–115,000 USD—high-income countries; green innovation (GI): share of patent publications in environmental technology to total patents: (1) 1–20—very low; (2) 20–40—low; (3) 40–60—moderate; (4) 60–80—high; (5) 80–100—very high.

Socioeconomic development is measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in USD purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, which is the key indicator for comparing the socioeconomic level of development across countries. The data on GDP per capita, on PPP, and for 2020, in constant 2017 international dollars, were collected from the World Bank Database 2020 [75,76].

In our research, we first determined whether the values of the selected variables have a normal distribution in order to check the data’s reliability. For this purpose, we used the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test to check whether the variable followed a given distribution in the population. The test results showed that all selected variables had a normal distribution. For this reason, we carried out parametric statistical tests using SPSS in the first part of our empirical research. In the second part of our empirical analysis, descriptive statistical analysis was carried out to gain in-depth insight into the differences among countries in our sample and to test our sub-hypotheses.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Parametric Statistics

We used parametric statistics to test our research’s main hypotheses (

Table 2. Testing the main hypotheses.

		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances (Sig.)	t-Test for Equality of Means (Sig. 2-Tailed)
H1.There are statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations.	Equal variance assumed	0.06	0.00
	Equal variance not assumed		0.00
H2.There are statistically significant differences in the levels of socioeconomic development among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations.	Equal variance assumed	0.43	0.00
	Equal variance not assumed		0.00
H3.There are statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with different levels of socioeconomic development.	Equal variance assumed	0.61	0.02
	Equal variance not assumed		0.03

Source: own research.

). Levene’s test assesses the equality of variances of a variable calculated for two or more groups. This test is used because some standard statistical procedures assume that the variances of populations from which different samples are drawn are equal. Levene’s test evaluates this assumption. It tests the null hypothesis that the population variances are equal. Suppose the p-value of Levene’s test (Sig.) is less than a specified significance level (usually 0.05). In that case, it is unlikely that the differences in sample variances obtained are due to random sampling from a population with equal variances. Thus, the null hypothesis of equal variances is rejected, and it is concluded that there is a difference between the population variances [77] when we do not have to assume equal variances and consider the second line of the t-test. When we assume equal variances, we consider the first line of the t-test.

When testing the first main hypothesis, H1, we found, with Levene’s test of equality of variances, that Sig. = 0.06 > 0.05, which means that we have to consider the first line of the t-test to assume equal variances. The results of the t-test show that, for the green innovation indicator, Sig. 2-tailed = 0.00 < 0.05. This means that there are statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations, and the first main hypothesis, H1, can be confirmed.

When testing the second main hypothesis, H2, we found, with Levene’s test of equality of variances, that Sig. = 0.43 > 0.05, which means that we have to consider the first line of the t-test to assume equal variances. The results of the t-test show that, for the green innovation indicator, Sig. 2-tailed = 0.00 < 0.05. This means that there are statistically significant differences in the levels of socioeconomic development among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations, and the second main hypothesis, H2, can be confirmed.

When testing the third main hypothesis, H3, we found, with Levene’s test of equality of variances, that Sig. = 0.61 > 0.05, which means that we have to consider the first line of the t-test to assume equal variances. The results of the t-test show that, for the green innovation, Sig. 2-tailed = 0.02 < 0.05. This means that there are statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with different levels of socioeconomic development, and we can confirm the third main hypothesis, H3.

4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

We performed a descriptive statistical analysis to obtain in-depth results of the parametric statistical analysis and test the three sub-hypotheses (

Table 3. Results of the descriptive statistical analysis.

	N	µ	σ	Min	Max
Green innovation in individualistic countries	28	49.83	25.24	15	100
Green innovation in collectivist countries	32	30.08	17.6	1	55
Individualistic countries by GDP per capita	28	50,134.79	18,981.58	12,482	114,482
Collectivist countries by GDP per capita	32	23,732.31	14,224.26	6754	76,615
Green innovation in countries with low and medium GDP per capita	6	18.1	19.03	1	51.7
Green innovation in countries with high GDP per capita	54	41.66	22.91	1	100

Source: own research. Notes: See Table 1 for the data on countries in the analysis.

). We tested if countries with an individualistic national cultural orientation performed better on green innovation and achieved higher levels of socioeconomic development than countries with collectivist-oriented national cultures and if socioeconomically more developed countries performed better in green innovation.

In our sample of 60 countries, 28 countries have individualistic national cultural orientations. On average, countries with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation achieved 49.83 patent applications in environmental technologies to total patent units. In the Green Growth Global Index (GGGI), these belonged to the countries with moderate results on this indicator. These countries have applied almost half of all of their patents to environmental technologies. Italy achieved the lowest score on this indicator among the countries with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation, with 14.8 patents units. In this group of countries, the highest share of patent applications in environmental technologies was achieved by Belgium and Iceland (100 units), which means that all of their applied patents represent the ones in environmental technologies.

Looking at the variance in green innovation (the share of applied environmental patents in all the applied patents) in countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations, we see that it is 25.24 units, which tells us that these countries are widely dispersed from the arithmetic mean concerning this indicator. The difference between the maximum and minimum values is enormous (85 units), which shows significant differences in the green innovation indicator in countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations.

In our sample of 60 countries, 32 countries have prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations. On average, these countries score 30.08 units and belong to a group of countries with low scores.

The lowest score for this green innovation indicator in countries with prevailing collectivist-oriented national cultures is unit 1, 14 units less than in the group of countries with prevailing individualistic-oriented national cultures. Five countries from this group—Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Armenia, and Kazakhstan—constitute 15.6% of all of the studied collectivist countries, with the lowest results scored on the green innovation indicator.

In the group of countries with prevailing collectivist-oriented national cultures, the variance of this green innovation indicator is 17.6 units, which means that the dispersion of countries around the arithmetic mean is large. The difference between the maximum and minimum values is 54 units, less than in countries with prevailing individualistic-oriented national cultures. However, this significant difference shows us that this group of countries achieves low and medium scores on the green innovation indicator.

Countries with prevailing individualistic-oriented national cultures score, on average, 19.75 units higher on the green innovation indicator than those with prevailing collectivist-oriented national cultures. Countries with prevailing collectivist national cultures score, on average, low on the green innovation indicator. By contrast, countries with prevailing individualistic national cultures score, on average, medium on this indicator. The highest score for green innovation achieved by countries with prevailing collectivist-oriented national cultures is 55 units. In comparison, the highest score achieved by countries with prevailing individualistic national cultures is 100 units. Herewith, we can confirm our first sub-hypothesis (H1a) that countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations perform better on green innovation than countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations.

Our further research shows that countries with prevailing individualistic-oriented national cultures achieve, on average, 50,134.79 USD GDP per capita, meaning that they belong to countries with high levels of socioeconomic development. The lowest GDP per capita (12,482 USD in PPP) in countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations belongs to South Africa, the only country with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation that belongs to the countries with low/medium GDP per capita. All other countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations achieve a high GDP per capita, representing 99% of this group of countries. The highest GDP per capita of 114,482 USD in this group of countries is achieved by Luxembourg.

Countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations achieve, on average, 23,732.31 USD GDP per capita. The lowest GDP per capita of 6754 USD among countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations is achieved by India. It belongs to a group of countries with low/medium GDP per capita. The following countries also belong to this group: Vietnam, Indonesia, Egypt, and the Philippines. Together with India, these five countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations represent 15.63% of all the countries in this group. Morocco has the highest GDP per capita (76,615 USD) among countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations. In countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations, only one country belongs to the countries with low/medium GDP per capita. Herewith, we can conclude that culturally collectivistic countries achieve, on average, lower GDPs than culturally individualistic ones.

The variance in countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations concerning their socioeconomic development, as measured by GDP per capita, is 18,981.58 units, which shows significant differences in this group of countries concerning this indicator. In the countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations, the variance in their socioeconomic development indicator is 14,224.26 units, which points to significant differences in this group. However, they seem to be lower than in the countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations. On average, countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations perform better in terms of socioeconomic development than countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations. Similarly, the group of countries with low/medium GDP per capita tends to include collectivist countries. This confirms our second sub-hypothesis (H2a) that countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations achieve higher levels of socioeconomic development.

Our further research aimed to determine whether socioeconomically more developed countries perform better on green innovation. First, we found that 6 countries out of 60 in our sample belong to countries with low/medium GDP per capita, and the other 54 countries belong to countries with high GDP per capita. We wanted to explore the situation regarding green innovation in countries with low/medium and high GDP per capita. As we have already established, one of six countries with low/medium GDP per capita has an individualistic national cultural orientation. By contrast, the other five have a collectivist national cultural orientation.

On average, countries with low/medium GDP per capita achieve a green innovation indicator score of 18.1 units and belong to the countries with very low scores in this regard (see Notes under Table 1). The minimum green innovation score in countries with low/medium GDP per capita is 1 unit in Vietnam and Indonesia; the highest score, however, is 51.7 units, which belongs to Egypt. The dispersion in the countries with low/medium GDP per capita for the green innovation indicator is 19.03 units, which tells us that countries are not widely dispersed. However, there are only six countries in this case, and this value does not tell us much. However, the difference between the maximum and the minimum values is significant (50.7 units), which means that there are considerable differences among countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations concerning green innovation.

Our research shows that countries from the same continent can achieve different cultural orientations and green innovation scores. For example, Egypt belongs to the group of countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations and achieves the highest green innovation score among countries with low/medium GDPs per capita. On the other hand, South Africa shows a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation and achieves a relatively low green innovation score—24.6 units among countries with low/medium GDPs per capita. In this case, a country with a prevailing collectivist national cultural orientation achieves better results in the green innovation indicator than a country with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation.

Observing countries with high GDP per capita, we can see that the average score on the green innovation indicator is 41.66 units. This tells us that the results concerning this indicator are moderate, i.e., these countries achieve a large share of patent publications in environmental technologies to total patents. The lowest green innovation score (1 unit) among countries with high GDP per capita is achieved by three countries with a high GDP per capita—Thailand, Armenia, and Kazakhstan—and all three countries also have a prevailing collectivist national cultural orientation. The highest green innovation score of 100 units in countries with a high GDP per capita is achieved by Belgium and Iceland, as countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations. In the group of countries with a high GDP per capita, the variance in the green innovation indicator scores is 22.91 units, which tells us that the differences in green innovation scores between countries in this group are substantial. This is confirmed by the difference between the maximum and the minimum values of the green innovation indicator score, which is the largest among all comparisons—99 units.

Countries with low/medium levels of socioeconomic development, as measured by GDP per capita, score on average 23.56 units lower on green innovation than countries with a high level of socioeconomic development. Countries with low/medium levels of socioeconomic development achieve a maximum green innovation score of 51.7 units, representing a moderate level of green innovation, while countries with a high level of socioeconomic development achieve a maximum green innovation score of 100 units, representing a very high level of green innovation. This confirms our third sub-hypothesis (H3a), that socioeconomically more developed countries perform better in green innovation.

4.3. Discussion

We tested for statistically significant differences between our variables, and examining some case studies with good and bad practice examples makes sense. These have been selected based on their scores in the green innovation indicator; for example, Iceland scored the highest, and Italy scored the lowest in this indicator among all studied countries. Thus, based on the case studies of some selected countries, we examined the differences between countries’ green orientations, looking for different approaches to support national green pathways and green innovation.

We found that among culturally individualistic countries, Iceland achieved the highest green innovation score—100 units—which tells us that all their patents are green innovations. Iceland is one of the first countries that started using renewable energy sources (in 2000), has a very high share of renewable energy sources, and has a high share of primary energy sources. In 2000, reducing municipal waste started, and the implementation of EU waste legislation has helped to increase recycling. Since 2011, the country has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, with positive environmental impacts due to the strategies and policies adopted [78]. In Iceland, companies are generally also successful in adopting and using digital technologies. Iceland’s innovative potential lies in the energy and fisheries sectors. The state also provides appropriate skills in areas important for a creative and innovative economy. In recent years, state incentives for research and development have increased, accelerating the creation of innovations in a green direction. On the other hand, Iceland has carbon emissions, but their reduction has accelerated in the past few years. The largest share of emissions in the industry consists of the activities of three large aluminum smelters and a fossil-fuel-based fishing fleet. It also has emissions from agriculture, primarily methane and nitrogen oxides. Climate change directly affects Iceland due to the melting of glaciers, which provide storage for hydropower, and the acidification of oceans, which affects fish stocks. The government has committed to reducing emissions by 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030 and regularly updates its plans and strategies for climate action and land transport [79]. Iceland’s tax policy provides incentives and restrictions for developing innovations and green innovations in companies that bring the possibility of a successful business. Using environmental regulatory mechanisms as incentives, a link can be established between ecological taxes and clean technology innovation [80,81]. Environmental regulations positively affect innovation in clean technologies, encouraging companies to innovate to reduce compliance costs [82].

Among all the countries with individualistic national cultural orientations, Italy achieved the worst score in the green innovation indicator—14.8 units—which tells us that a minimal share of Italian patents were related to environmental technologies. The case study of Italy is interesting because it is an individualistic country with a high GDP per capita with the lowest share of patents in environmental technologies. This case study aims to examine the difficulties or problems that may arise in countries when implementing environmental policies. Lessons can be learned from this case on avoiding the same problems when designing policies and strategies for green innovation and general green orientations. Italian government spending on environmental protection from 2000 to 2012 was significantly reduced at both the central and local levels. Small research and development investments (R&D) have been carried out to promote sustainable development. The modest expenditure for R&D has been recorded mainly for waste management by local authorities, followed by biodiversity conservation [83], and less on green technologies or innovation. In 2011–2012, Italy introduced some measures to improve the environmental situation—tax credits for energy-efficient building renovations, which should support economic growth, improve energy efficiency, and reduce widespread household tax evasion. In the same period, Italy pursued an active environmental taxation policy, which included increasing the tax on the ownership of high-powered motors, a tax on municipal waste management services, etc. [83]. We can see that Italy has provided tax breaks for energy-efficient renovations of buildings; however, several other taxes have been increased. The decline in R&D expenditure, which is crucial for generating knowledge to develop green innovations, and active tax increases have led to a decline in interest in green development, and the share of patents in environmental technologies to all patents has been recorded as low.

We can conclude that countries like Italy, which achieves a low share of green technology patents, would have to change their environmental policy, emphasize the importance of green orientation, increase awareness of the future, offer more opportunities for acquiring knowledge in this direction, and create an appropriate financial environment for progress in a green direction. Countries like Iceland, with a high share of patents in green technologies, recognize the need to develop a green strategy direction and understand why they need to make progress in preserving the natural environment, transitioning to a green economy, and developing innovations in a green direction.

We also found that the majority of countries (27 out of 28) with individualistic national cultural orientations belong to countries with a high GDP per capita. Most of the culturally collectivist countries (28 out of 32) also belong to countries with a high GDP per capita. For example, India, a culturally collectivist country with a green innovation score of 10.9 units, evidenced the lowest average GDP per capita among all 60 countries observed (6754 USD). The low GDP per capita is a considerable limitation for Indian green innovation ecosystem development.

It is also interesting that the highest score for green innovation in countries with a low/medium GDP per capita is 51.7 units, which is Egypt’s score, falling into the category of moderate results, which tells us that the country applies many patents related to green technologies. Egypt, as a country with a collectivist national cultural orientation, has shown much better results than Italy, which belongs to the high-GDP-per-capita group of countries and has an individualistic national cultural orientation. This tells us that collectivistic countries with a low GDP per capita can introduce and implement policies and strategies more successfully than individualistic countries with higher levels of socioeconomic development.

When analyzing the results of our research, we found that countries with a high GDP per capita achieve, on average, higher green innovation scores. Thus, we confirmed and concluded that there are statistically significant differences among countries with different levels of socioeconomic development in the green innovation indicator; that is, socioeconomic development affects the development of green innovations and even all innovations. This tells us that countries with different socioeconomic development levels must address green innovation in different ways. Strategies and policies must be developed according to the countries’ socioeconomic development levels, considering their strengths and weaknesses.

In our research, we found that the values of the green innovation indicator differ statistically significantly between the groups of countries with predominantly individualistic and collectivistic national cultural orientations regarding mean and maximum values. There are statistically significant differences in variance and dispersion within these country groups, but, otherwise, the situation is similar to that of the intergroup comparison. For example, the variance in green innovation in countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations is 25.24 units, which tells us that these countries are scattered around the arithmetic mean. In comparison, in prevailing culturally collectivist countries, the variance for green innovation is 17.6 units. Thus, we can see a statistically significant difference between the variances, but the countries are scattered around the arithmetic mean in both cases. The same is true for the relationship between socioeconomic development and national culture and the relationship between socioeconomic development and green innovation.

5. Conclusions

Green innovation is the key to a country’s green development and brings many benefits to the natural environment, companies, and society.

Previous studies, such as the study by Ahmed et al. [5], examined how green innovation affects companies’ performances. Studies such as that by Lopez-Cabarcos et al. [10] examined the relations between Hofstede’s dimensions and countries’ orientations towards innovation. In our research, however, we focused on examining differences among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations concerning green innovation.

Xu and co-authors [27] found that a higher degree of individualism in the national culture in Asian countries is positively correlated with the performance of environmental green innovations, which is corroborated by their case studies in India and Japan [27]. Looking at the results of our research, based on different indicators and research methods, Japan, for example, which has a national culture score of 46, would have achieved 25.8 units of green innovation. At the same time, South Korea, with a national culture score of 18, would score 35.5 units on green innovation. Both countries are in the moderate group of green innovators, but the difference in green innovation scores is 9.7 units. In this case, we can see that even countries that belong to prevailing collectivist-oriented national cultures score better in the green innovation indicator than more culturally individualistic countries. Our study, based on a larger sample of countries and a different dataset, shows somewhat different results about the role of the individualistic and collectivist dimensions of national culture in green innovation.

Using parametric statistical tests, in our research, we found statistically significant differences in green innovation and socioeconomic development among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national cultural orientations and statistically significant differences in green innovation among countries with different levels of socioeconomic development. Herewith, we confirmed all three main hypotheses, H1, H2, and H3.

According to the results of our descriptive statistical analysis, countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations achieve, on average, higher scores in the green innovation indicator than countries with prevailing collectivist orientations in their national cultures. Thus, we confirmed our sub-hypothesis, H1a.

Some countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations even achieved the highest value in the green innovation indicator—100 units—while in the group of countries with prevailing collectivist national cultural orientations, the highest value of the green innovation indicator, recorded in one country in this group, is 55 units.

We also found in our research that countries with culturally individualistic orientations can differ significantly in green innovation. While Belgium and Iceland have a green innovation score of 100 units, which tells us that almost all patent applications in these countries are related to green technologies, Italy has the lowest green innovation score, and there are almost no patent applications related to green innovation. In these cases, we saw differences in national policies and strategies; for example, in Iceland, the tax system contributed to the emergence of green innovations, but in Italy, it was the opposite. Likewise, in Iceland, the government invested many resources in research and development, and it offered the necessary skills to create green innovations and develop a green national orientation, which was not the case in Italy.

Countries with prevailing individualistic national cultural orientations score, on average, moderate on green innovation, which tells us that they have some space for improvement and, therefore, for an increase in profits and a reduction in costs as benefits of green innovation.

According to our research, Iceland, as a country with a prevailing individualistic national cultural orientation, has been successful as concerns green innovation. It could represent a good practice example from which other countries can learn, regardless of their cultural orientations. On average, countries with predominantly collectivistic national cultural orientations score low on green innovation, meaning they need to pay more attention to the critical factor of contemporary development and growth. In these countries, the notable motivating factors for green innovation are increased corporate reputation and contribution to national environmental benefits.

Using descriptive statistics, we also gained insight into the differences among countries with prevailing individualistic and collectivist national culture orientations concerning socioeconomic development. We confirmed our second sub-hypothesis, H2a, that, on average, individualistic countries achieved higher levels of socioeconomic development, as measured by GDP per capita. However, most countries, either those with prevailing collectivist cultural orientations or those with prevailing individualistic cultural orientations, belong to the group of high-GDP-per-capita countries. Therefore, in future research, it would be reasonable to use additional indicators to differentiate between the levels of socioeconomic development, which would improve the generalizability of the research results.

In our research, we also found that countries with high levels of socioeconomic development are, on average, more successful in green innovation than countries with low/medium levels of socioeconomic development. Herewith, we confirm our third sub-hypothesis, H3a, that socioeconomically more developed countries perform better in green innovation. However, it is essential to note that, in future research, it would make sense to include more countries with low/medium levels of socioeconomic development.

We found that green innovation requires an appropriate environment that encourages and supports green innovation. Knowledge, resources, policies, and strategies are needed to develop green innovations. According to Oltra-Badenes and co-authors [84], universities have a crucial role in raising awareness and promoting sustainable development, as they need to provide students with the necessary knowledge, and it is therefore vital that they are oriented towards sustainable development. For countries, it is a requisite to provide the necessary strategies and activities to integrate the SDGs into university education so that students can develop their future careers in light of the SDGs and, at all times, focus on contributing as much as they can to the achievement of the SDGs.

The formulation of national policies and strategies for green innovation should be based on the current state of socioeconomic development and national culture, as this will help a country take advantage of its current strengths and opportunities and gain additional advantages for its future sustainable development. For example, Stratu-Strelet and co-authors [63] claim that addressing the democratic crisis, overhauling the fundamental structure of the system from within and outside, and using modern information technologies will bring about significant changes for countries and help to expand sustainable development effectively.

It is essential for companies that green innovations, in addition to environmental benefits, also increase revenues, lower costs, and bring profits. Profitable green innovations require adequate capabilities and internal and external resources [84,85], which include developing green products, optimizing the production process, applying environmentally friendly management, and providing services that meet the needs of green consumers [84,86]. Thus, achieving green goals requires constant investment in strategic areas and persistent efforts to avoid negative interactions affecting the company’s financial performance [84,87,88,89]. Therefore, coordinating policies and strategies at the micro and macro levels is necessary for the success and development of green innovations. It would be beneficial if governments supported companies in green patent applications.

Our sample of 60 countries in the empirical analysis was based on freely available secondary data. Thus, we were limited by these data on individual indicators for all countries in the sample, influencing the choice of indicators. The secondary data in our study was collected for one year of observation. In future research, it would be helpful to look for alternative or similar indicators with available time series data measuring national cultural orientations and green innovations. Furthermore, only one national cultural orientation was used in our empirical study. In future studies, it would also be meaningful to examine the differences among countries with other prevailing types of national cultural orientations, according to Hofstede’s model of cross-cultural differences. For example, the cultural dimension of short- and long-term orientation helps to contribute to the understanding of a country’s position on sustainability, as sustainable development and the green economy are issues that show results in the long term. For example, whether individualistic and long-term-oriented countries perform better on green innovation than individualistic and short-term-oriented countries, or vice versa, could be tested. This would also help in policymaking, as the results will reflect how policy is oriented in the long or short term.

We also found that reviewing each country’s environmental policy on a country-by-country basis makes sense in order to see which parts are working well and which need updating. It also makes sense to look at environmental taxes, which are an incentive and a barrier to green innovation. It is also essential to examine how a company’s external environment influences the emergence of green innovation and where the underlying problems arise. In such research, it would be helpful to discover the country’s strengths and weaknesses, identify which environmental innovations are a requisite, and determine what limits their creation. In future research, it would be valuable to explore how much influence countries’ cultural orientations have on green innovation and to what extent other countries’ factors influence green innovation.