thesis on eco innovation

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Green innovation practices and its impacts on environmental and organizational performance.

• 1 School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
• 2 Lahore Business School, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

This study aims to investigate the impact of stakeholders’ views on the practices of green innovation (GI), consequent effect on environmental and organizational performance (OP), and moderating influence of innovation orientation. A quantitative method was employed for the sample size of 515 responses. To accumulate the data from the respondents, convenient random sampling was used. Data were collected from manufacturing and services firms through a field survey by using a closed-ended questionnaire based in the Punjab province of Pakistan. The analysis was done using the structural equation model of the partial least square analysis method. Our findings proved a positive and significant link between stakeholders’ views on GI practices. A significant association has been found between GI practices and environmental and OP. The moderating effect was found to be negative but statistically significant. This research offers numerous contributions and provides decision-making insinuations.

Introduction

Resource limitations and environmental concerns have made sustainable operations of assets and environmental pollution one of the major global issues. The economy’s overall development may not go “hand in hand” with the reduction of pollution and sustainable management of resources ( Wang and Song, 2014 ). Building a sense of balance among high resource consumption and development of economy relics is a constant challenge that forces organizations to run-through eco-friendly professional deeds having high economic worth ( Chan et al., 2012 ). Many organizations are forced to adopt activities that generate and increase economic value ( Porter and Kramer, 2019 ).

The excessive use of non-renewable resources prompted by speedy economic development has hurt the atmosphere and elevated various environmental worries ( Atlin and Gibson, 2017 ). To preserve energy and lessen emissions of carbon, numerous countries have established agencies and regulations for environmental sustainability and its protections; examples comprise limitations on “chlorofluorocarbons, the sustainable development announcements of the Johannesburg world summit,” and limits on the usage of few hazardous materials “electrical and electronic equipment requirements, the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive” ( Weng et al., 2015 , p. 4998). Such impositions of rule and regulations have drawn the attention of environmental supervisors ( Zhu and Sarkis, 2004 ; Claver et al., 2007 ); they also have the same outcome in varying the management and competition practices between the organizations ( Feng and Chen, 2018 ). To adhere to the new eco-friendly regulations, to have a positive branding image ( Chen, 2008a ; Hillestad et al., 2010 ), to improve their firms’ performance and to have a competitive advantage ( Claver et al., 2007 ; Rusinko, 2007 ), organizations have had to accept eco-friendly practices ( Afridi et al., 2020 ).

Numerous investigations examined factors altering green innovations (GI) practices, such as environmental regulations, ethics, legal systems, and supply chain ( Feng and Chen, 2018 ; Gao et al., 2018 ; El-Kassar and Singh, 2019 ; Seman et al., 2019 ). Studies have also examined an increase in awareness, the general public, and stakeholder pressure linked to green environmental issues ( Foo, 2018 ). Moreover, literature provides evidence of optimized pressure from society, customers, and government bodies to practice GI. However, the literature lacks findings on the relationship of stakeholders’ pressure [competitor’s pressure, government pressure, and employee conduct (EC)] about GI practices. The manufacturing sector faces higher stakeholder pressure due to possibly the highest waste-producing sector ( Chen, 2008b ; Chang, 2011 ). The single industry was studied for GI practices ( Cordano et al., 2010 ; Lin and Ho, 2011 ). This study fills the gap in investigating these constructs in the manufacturing and service industries to enrich existing GI practices and stakeholder pressure literature. Moreover, stakeholder pressure (customer) was examined for GI in third party logistic firms ( Chu et al., 2019 ), as well as in express companies ( Zhang et al., 2020 ), and in manufacturing firms ( Song et al., 2020 ). Those three studies were conducted in China’s context, which highlights the issue of conducting and focusing on the stakeholder pressure in the manufacturing and service industries of Pakistan being a developing economy in the initial stages of GI practices adoption ( Shahzad M. et al., 2020 ).

“Go-green” is an initiative mainly employed by firms to deal with eco-friendly problems. Approaches to attain green abilities and emerging eco-friendly practices have focused on attention and discussion in the management sciences’ discipline over the years ( Ullah, 2017 ). To ease the acceptance of GI, firms must consider the significant factors and precursors in their business entities ( Arfi et al., 2018 ). These comprise apprehensions of consumers ( Zhu et al., 2017 ), preferences of professionals and owners ( Huang et al., 2009 ), competency of suppliers and partners ( Chiou et al., 2011 ), government regulating authorities and their regulations ( Kammerer, 2009 ), and the environmental, technological, and organizational factors of GI practices ( Lin and Ho, 2011 ). Green technologies consist of GI practices (e.g., green product, process, managerial, and marketing innovation) and the execution of green human resource management practices (e.g., green training and development, administrative support and culture, recruitment and selection, compensation, and benefits). GI is a significant strategic enabler to acquire justifiable development, as it practices energy-saving, environment-protecting, waste-recycling, and pollution-preventing methods ( Albort-Morant et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, GI can be divided into green product, green marketing, green processes, and green management that are intended for eco-friendly environment, decreasing consumption of energy and increasing efficient use of the resource, control over pollution emission, and waste recycling, improving the performance of the organization and providing the pollution-free environment to society at large scale ( Seman et al., 2019 ).

Previous studies have witnessed some proofs of the impacts of numerous drivers such as corporate environmental ethics ( El-Kassar and Singh, 2019 ), environmental regulations ( Feng and Chen, 2018 ), the legal system ( Gao et al., 2018 ), and green supply chain management practices ( Seman et al., 2019 ) on GI practices. To date, some systematic and comprehensive investigations of the precursors and factors of GI have been performed. Foo (2018) proposed that the increase in awareness and pressure from the stakeholders and the general public have necessitated organizations to be more transparent in facing and handling green environmental issues of their supply base execution. Hence, it is critical to focus on stakeholders’ views in an organization on establishing and sustaining GI abilities and practices. Then executives of organizations are involved in examining the essential factors necessary for creating GI practices. Are there pressures from established institutions’ regulations and competitor’s critical factors of GI? How should firms have dealt with the concerns of both internal and external stakeholders?

Furthermore, previous studies have concentrated on the manufacturing sector as it is one of the most critical waste producers that upset the balance of an environment. With rising trepidations on global pollution, this industry is facing increasing pressures from customers, society, and governing agencies to save energy, resources, protect the eco-friendly environment and maintain its sustainability ( Chen, 2008b ; Chang, 2011 ) or on a single industry (e.g., Cordano et al., 2010 ; Lin and Ho, 2011 ). It would be beneficial to offer an all-purpose model to investigate issues about GI for both the service and manufacturing firms. Therefore, in this study, we borrowed help from the “stakeholder theory” ( Freeman, 2010 ) to aid in our investigation methodology. This theory has been utilized to get a comprehensive view of a particular organization to examine stakeholders’ influence (participants) on GI practices. To answer the stakeholders’ pressure, organizations should focus on an overall strategic plan that involves and satisfies both internal and external stakeholder groups ( Bryson, 2018 ).

Review of Literature

Stakeholder view (sv).

The word “stakeholders” was initially used by the “Stanford Research Institute” in 1963 and was defined as “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” ( Friedman and Miles, 2006 ). While this concept was first brought into a “strategic discipline” in 1984 by Freeman (1984) , stakeholders were not only separate from shareholders but also involved in the decision-making process ( Donaldson and Preston, 1995 ; Mitchell et al., 1997 ). In an academic view, the “stakeholder theory” holds a unique perspective for the organizations and offers a diverse description of a firm’s structure and everyday actions ( Sulkowski et al., 2018 ). The stakeholder theory, founded on four indispensable grounds ( Jones and Wicks, 1999 ), first suggests that organizations have associations with several procedures, all of which are upset or pretentious by their results ( Laplume et al., 2008 ; Co and Barro, 2009 ). Second, such links are recognized in the firms’ procedures and results and their stakeholders’ firms’ views.

Third, stakeholders’ inherent value, and comforts cannot be permitted to override the safeties of others ( Clarkson, 1995 ; Co and Barro, 2009 ). Fourth, the decision making of the organizations is the central point ( Alrowwad et al., 2017 ). Stakeholder theory has been accepted for numerous ecological scholarships in that it has been active in persuading both company environmental sensitivity ( Crane and Livesey, 2017 ) and environmental policies ( Salem et al., 2018 ). Although the outcomes have been mixed, and the stakeholders’ views on ecological management have been unpredictable. For example, Jaaffar and Amran (2017) found that the organizations’ board of directors is involved in deciding eco-friendly strategies and policies while small business entities and proprietors decide GI ( Huang et al., 2009 ). In addition, in manufacturing organizations in Germany, stakeholders have affected the firms’ selections concerning ecological response forms ( Murillo-Luna et al., 2008 ), and they were confidently related with unproved GI ( Wagner, 2007 ); in contrast, the association among eco-friendly policies and stakeholders’ administration was not perfect in Belgian organizations ( Buysse and Verbeke, 2003 ). The review paper by Seman et al. (2018) concludes that the stakeholders’ views have a more considerable influence on GI practices.

Green Innovation (GI)

Works of GI are commonly divided into two types. The first describes GI as a firm’s abilities ( Gluch et al., 2009 ), whereas the second defines GI as an organization’s environmental practices ( Lin and Ho, 2008 ; Ho et al., 2009 ). When it comes to organizational practices, GI is described as “the hardware or software innovation related to green products or processes” ( Song and Yu, 2018 ); it is proposed that GI comprises management practices and technological advancements that expand the environmental and organizational performance (OP) and provide a competitive edge to the firms ( Rennings, 2000 ). Other researchers recommend that GI consists of unique or altered systems, processes, products, and practices that provide an advantage to the environment and subsidize firms’ sustainability ( Xie et al., 2019 ).

A recent study expresses GI as “the new or modified products and processes, including technology, managerial, and organizational innovations, which helps to sustain the surrounding environment” ( Ilvitskaya and Prihodko, 2018 ). Moreover, GI may refer to “a creative initiative that reduces negative environmental impacts or that yields environmental benefits as it creates value in the market” ( Chen et al., 2006 ). GI is divided into two kinds, such as “green product innovations” (providing new green products to consumers) and “green process inventions” or “greening” business procedures ( Tang et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, due to the growing customer-centered apprehensions concerning environmental protection, ecological management has become a critical part of many firms’ strategic policies and tactical plans ( Chiou et al., 2011 ; Khan et al., 2019 ).

Regulations related to an environment may lead toward a “win-win situation” ( Chan et al., 2018 ) since they can perform dual tasks, increase profits and lessen pollution; It is proposed that GI should be categorized distinctively from other innovative maneuvers since it harvests not only a spillover consequence for exploration and expansion efforts but also optimistic external possessions such as enlargements in the atmosphere ( Kammerer, 2009 ). A study by Feng et al. (2018) on the Chinese industry’s manufacturing firms has shown that internal and external environmental orientation is significantly associated with GI practices. The utilization of GI practices inside and outside the firms’ restrictions are vital for impacting both economic and ecological performance goals ( Khan and Qianli, 2017 ; Saeed et al., 2018 ). Moreover, Lee et al. (2018) found that stakeholders’ pressure, organizational support, and societal expectations were significant factors for the motivation to adopt GI practices and corporate environmental responsibility ( Shahzad F. et al., 2020 ). Moreover, the study of Fernando et al. (2019) showed that GI, regulation, supplier intervention, and technology have a strong influence on sustainable performance mediated by service innovation capabilities. The study by Famiyeh et al. (2018) also supported eco-friendly practices, showing that environmental management practices have direct and indirect positive effects on environmental performance. Xie et al. (2019) used green product innovation as a moderator for the green process innovation and OP, but the study did not find the supported results.

Proposed Framework and Hypothesis Development

Proposed framework.

This study involves the three dimensions of stakeholders’ view (e.g., competitor pressure, government pressure, and employees conduct) as independent variables. Organizational and environmental performance are used as dependent variables. Moreover, GI practices (e.g., green product and green process) are used as mediators, and the moderating role is performed by innovation orientation (IO). A total of six hypotheses have been suggested and showed in Figure 1 .

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study.

Hypothesis Development

We followed “Freeman’s stakeholder framework” ( Freeman, 2010 ). We used three stakeholders’ dimensions to view the government’s and competitors’ pressure as external and employees’ conduct as internal stakeholders. However, there are various other dimensions, such as customer, community, and supplier pressure. This study also treats both aspects of stakeholder’s views as factors that are employing pressure on the organizations and motivating the firms to improve environmental practices. Identifying eco-friendly business practices are becoming critical elements as organizations are confronted with “both internal and external forces/pressures from environmental agencies, governmental regulations, stakeholders, competitors, customers and employees” ( Wang and Song, 2014 ). Singh and El-Kassar (2018) conclude that the stakeholders’ view (e.g., pressure by the government, competitors, employees, customers, society, and suppliers, respectively) positively influences the GI practices.

Competitors Pressure (CP)

Organizations generally act in response to the movements of rivals and the operating industry. When competitors accept or implement new eco-friendly practices, organizations in the same sector will feel overstretched to reconfigure the structures and policies ( Durand and Georgallis, 2018 ). In short, organizations need to be attentive to their competitor’s products/services, actions, and norms and regulations of the industry they are part of so that their innovation abilities are similar to others in the industry. For instance, organizations must be conscious of new energy-saving, waste-recycling, pollution-preventing methods, and changes in processes used for the implementation and paraphernalia that are accessible in the market. They are required to have an eye on the methods their competitors have adopted to lessen energy costs while restructuring process and reconfiguring their manufacturing facilities to overtake/perform equivalent to/better than their rivals. Thus, to endure competitive spots, organizations may emulate competitors’ environmental practices and actions, especially the front-runners in their industries ( Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993 ). Singh and El-Kassar (2018) found a positive relationship between stakeholders’ views and GI practices. Furthermore, a study on 442 Chinese firms also confirmed that competitors’ pressure provides organizations with more significant incentives to adopt GI practices ( Cai and Li, 2018 ). In another study ( Yu, 2019 ), the results revealed that formal and informal environmental regulation and pressures have strong influences on food-making companies’ GI activities. Thus, hypothesis 1 is established:

H 1 : Competitor’s pressure has a significant impact on GI practices.

Governmental Pressures (GP)

Various scholarships have explored the association among regulatory rules and environmental practices and have proposed that governmental pressures (GP) is a crucial factor of external stakeholders ( He et al., 2018 ). Variations in regulations and implementation of these changes by the government disturb organizational activities concerning environmental management ( Yakubu, 2017 ). In particular, to compete internationally, organizations must keep an eye on both international and national laws to overcome any obstacle. The consistency of the rules and organizations’ insights into the severity of the regulations will define the degree to which firms essentially execute environmental prevention practices ( Bernauer et al., 2007 ). The appropriate governance mechanisms and structural design can successfully manage and supervise the association between nature and mankind ( Famiyeh et al., 2018 ). Moreover, Tirabeni et al. (2019) showed that organizations are reevaluating their manufacturing processes in response to “societal and governmental” pressures concerned with eco-friendly well-being. Furthermore, the degree to which the government enforces/supports the regulations has a substantial influence on the firms’ environmental strategies ( Lindell and Karagozoglu, 2001 ; Zeng et al., 2011 ), creating a significant task to examine. A study by Zhang et al. (2019) on 224 firms of the manufacturing industry found that institutional pressure significantly affects green supply chain management practices and business performance. In a study by Huang et al. (2016) , results show that customer and regulatory pressure encourage green response and increase performance. A survey by Fernando and Wah (2017) , based on Malaysian firms, concluded that compliance with government regulations impacts environmental performance. Hence, we suggest hypothesis 2:

H 2 : Governmental pressure has a significant impact on GI practices.

Employee Conduct (EC)

Top management identifies the significance of environmental prevention and their responsibility to impact strategic planning and long-term goals related to environmental management. Steady appreciation and consideration of environmental drivers by the management should produce improved innovation and overall performance. Additionally, an organization’s future direction of ecological practices/activities mostly depends on the top management’s commitment toward the utilization of green practices and whether the executives can motivate employees to actively contribute to environmental management ( Tang et al., 2018 ). The same circumstances exist between employees. In a business, workforces are often the originators of environmental practices ( Daily and Huang, 2001 ). Organizations will strain to achieve ecological goals if the personnel/workforce do not contribute to their policies and strategies ( Zhu et al., 2008 ). Thus, firms must arrange and offer workshops and training on environmental concerns, include suitable employees, and improve their obligation to eco-friendly practices ( Reinhardt, 1999 ). Yen and Yen (2012) investigate the inside drivers motivating organizations to utilize green activities such as the top management commitment and relationships with vendors. The authors found a direct association between the proposed constructs of the study.

Furthermore, Gholami et al. (2013) examined senior managers’ perceptions about situations and the significances of using green practices. They presented that green technology acceptance, top management attitude, and apprehension for potential concerns are significantly interrelated. Moreover, they found an optimistic connection between the adoption of green practices and overall performance. The results from Cao and Chen (2018) study show that when the top management’s awareness increases, the association between coercive policies and GI strategy becomes stronger. Soewarno et al. (2019) propose that executives are responsible for making GI strategies that have to be implemented by employees. Such innovation strategies positively influence GI if applied appropriately. Thus, we propose hypothesis 3:

H 3 : EC has a significant impact on GI practices.

Environmental Performance

In this study, we have assessed the firms’ overall performance into two types: environmental and organizational. Environmental performance (EP) can be defined as “the environmental impact of a company’s activities on the natural surroundings” ( Klassen and Whybark, 1999 ). OP includes numerous elements, both financial and non-financial (e.g., market share, reputation, sales volume, stakeholders satisfaction, etc.) ( Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986 ).

Environmental performance encompasses the inclusion of eco-friendly ingredients in products, less pollution, reduced carbon emissions and waste at the source, advancements in energy-savings, efficiency in utilization of resources, reduction in the use of environmentally hazardous elements, etc. ( Zhu et al., 2010 ). Related to long-term ecological impacts, an organization’s regulatory methods, processes, practices including pollution protection, as well as resource utilization and waste lessening, are more fruitful than “end-of-pipeline solutions” ( Sarkis and Cordeiro, 2001 ; De Giovanni, 2012 ; Khan et al., 2019 ). Previous scholarships proposed that advancement in the production process and efficiency will upsurge opportunities to advance environmental performance ( Montabon et al., 2007 ). Along with these, a study by Seman et al. (2019) on the 123-manufacturing industry showed that GI practices significantly improve environmental performance. Hence, we established hypothesis 4:

H 4 : GI practices have a significant impact on environmental performance.

Organizational Performance

Organizational performance can be assessed both “financially and non-financially” ( Gounaris et al., 2003 ). To control environmental costs, organizations raise their productivity by adopting GI practices ( de Burgos-Jiménez et al., 2013 ). Similarly, organizations can establish new markets and upsurge their market share by employing and adopting environmental activities and practices ( Berry and Rondinelli, 1998 ; Berrone et al., 2017 ). A long-term organization goal, advancement into non-monetary performance can be demonstrated by enlarged customer loyalty, newly joined customers, and an improved image and reputation of an organization ( Blazevic and Lievens, 2004 ). Chen (2008a) suggested that innovators in GI will gain the “first-mover advantage,” which indicates an improved firm image, higher product prices, competitive advantages, and new market opportunities. A study by Tang et al. (2018) shows that GI practices have positive effects on OP. Moreover, a study by Zhang and Walton (2017) on 83 New Zealand firms concludes that GI has a positive influence on the firms’ performance. Thus, hypothesis 5 is constructed:

Hypothesis 5: GI practices have a significant impact on OP.

This study used IO as a moderator. It tested its effect on the association among EC and GI practices because the variable is allied with organizations’ policy settings and culture, which primarily correlate to the firm’s employees.

Innovation Orientation

Innovation orientation is a strategic orientation that disturbs firms’ innovation practices and functions as a guiding standard for making strategy and enactment to increase an organization’s innovativeness ( Chen et al., 2011 ; Stock and Zacharias, 2011 ). It defines a firms’ “openness to new ideas, technologies, skills, resources, and administrative systems” ( Zhou et al., 2005 ) and a knowledge-sharing system that unites a learning viewpoint, strategic guidelines, and trans -functional acclimation within a firm to encourage innovation ( Siguaw et al., 2006 ). IO is a crucial factor in overwhelming competitors and advancing an organization’s capability to effectively execute new products, services, systems, and processes ( Oke, 2007 ). Organizations with a new innovative environment and management will motivate and encourage employees to commence innovative conduct ( Ramus, 2018 ). Thus, we assume that an IO can advance the association between EC and GI practices, as exemplified in hypothesis 6:

H 6 : IO significantly moderates EC on GI practices.

Research Methodology

Based on a review of the literature, we considered a structured closed-ended questionnaire with 7 s. The first section includes the demographical information of respondents. The second to seventh sections include the measurement items related to specific construct’s competitors’ pressure, governmental pressure; EC; IO; GI practices; environmental performance, and OP. To ensure the validity of the questionnaire and data, two pilot studies were conducted. After that step, we adopted a field survey on a large scale. All of the construct’s items were measured using “five-point Likert-type scales in which 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree.”

Data Collection and Sample

Data were collected from January 2019 to July 2019 from the manufacturing and services firms of Punjab province in Pakistan that have adopted GI practices. Convenient random sampling techniques were adopted for selecting areas of the country. Most of the organizations are based in Lahore, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura, Gujranwala, and Multan. Data collected by field surveys targeted the population, including the executives of different departments such as marketing, human resource, productions, operations, and other functional managers. After the pilot study’s conduction, 550 questionnaires were distributed among the respondents, out of which 520 were filled and returned. This resulted in a response rate of 94.54% from a random sampling method for data collection. Five forms were removed from the analysis due to incomplete information, and the remaining 515 were used in the analysis.

Measures of the Constructs

This study adopted a quantitative research technique and a closed-ended questionnaire used for data collection. All of the variables were assessed with multiple-item scales. In total, 46 question items, mainly related to the constructs, were used. Competitor pressure was appraised by acclimating four items from preceding studies ( Christmann, 2004 ). GP were measured by four items scale adapted from the studies of Zeng et al. (2011) and Qi et al. (2010) . EC was measured by four items scale taken from Lindell and Karagozoglu (2001) studies and López-Gamero et al. (2008) . IO was measured by seven items scale gained from the studies of Hurley and Hult (1998) ; Zhou et al. (2005) , and Siguaw et al. (2006) . In this study, GI practices were measured by nine items scale taken from the study of Chiou et al. (2011) . OP measured by eight items scale adapted from the study of Blazevic and Lievens (2004) and Avlonitis et al. (2001) . Moreover, the environmental performance was measured by six items scale adapted from Lin (2013) studies.

Common Method Bias

We used Harman’s single factor test to check the issue of common method bias in the data. As per Harman’s methodology, if all the factors merged into factor analysis, and the first factor explains more than 50% of the data variance, there is an issue of common method bias. Therefore, we used the dimension reduction method in SPSS and merged all the factors into one factor using a rotation matrix. The first factor’s results explained 38.23% of the total variance, which is less than 50% of the variance. Thus, common method bias is not considered as the problem in this study.

Data Analysis and Results

This study used the partial least squares (PLS) procedure of structural equation modeling using Smart-PLS Version 3.0 to assess the research model. This procedure was designated due to the investigative nature of the study ( Hair et al., 2011 ). As recommended by Hair et al. (2013) , this research applied a two-step method for statistical analysis. In the first step, the measurement model was analyzed. In the second step, the structural relationships among the latent constructs were assessed. This tactic was used to conclude both the reliability and validity of the theoretical variables before the model’s structural relationship was tested. Furthermore, Smart-PLS’s main reason includes the extensive popularity and acceptability of its application ( Hair et al., 2012 ). It also includes comprehensive information about the variables ( Hair et al., 2011 ).

Sample Demographics

A sample of 515 employees represents the telecommunication sector population in China, and demographical representation was shown in Table 1 . 392 (76.1%) respondents are male, and the rest, 123 (23.9%) respondents are female. Also, 246 (47.8%) respondents fall in the range of 31–40 years, followed by 219 (42.5%) in 20–30 years. From the education perspective, 291 (56.5%) respondents have a master’s degree, followed by 216 (41.9%) with a graduation degree, and the remaining (1.6%) with higher than master degree education, respectively. Furthermore, 218 (42.3%) respondents have a job in the sales and marketing department, 209 (40.6%) selected “other options,” apart from the HR and finance department. As for work experience, 260 (50.5%) respondents have 5–10 years of experience, followed by 127 (24.7%) with 1–5 years and the rest (24.3%) with 11–15 years of experience, respectively. As mentioned in the table below, 168 (32.6%) respondents have a monthly income of more than 60,000 rupees. Out of 515 respondents, 333 (64.7%) are married, and the rest, 182 (35.3%), are single.

Table 1. Demographical information.

Measurement of Model

The partial least square method was used to measure the reliability and validity of the respective constructs. The constructs’ internal reliability was evaluated by “Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), and Composite reliability.” According to Gefen et al. (2000) and Hair et al. (2013) , CA should be greater than 0.7. Moreover, Hinton (2014) categorized four ranges of CA. First, if the value falls in the range of 0.9, it falls in the area of excellent reliability. Second, if it falls between 0.7 and 0.9, it will have high reliability. Third, if it is in the range of 0.5 to 0.7, it will fall into the moderate area. Fourth, if it is <0.5, it will be categorized as low. Table 2 shows that all of the variables have values (e.g., CP = 0.851; GP = 0.829; EC = 0.851; IO = 0.764; GIP = 0.829; EP = 0.799; and OP = 0.892) which fall into the range of high reliability. Furthermore, to evaluate the convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) is used. Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Bagozzi and Yi (1988) propose that AVE’s value should be greater than 0.5. As per results found in the table, all the values of constructs (0.691; 0.654; 0.627; 0.585; 0.598; 0.651; and 0.650) satisfied the rule of thumb. Chin (1998) recommended that loadings have a value greater than 0.5 because it indicates the constructs’ reliability. The item’s value can be between 0.4 and 0.7, as the value is also used by Umrani et al. (2018) . Hence, all the loading values are found in the range of 0.477 to 0.894. Hence, it is proved that all the values satisfied the rule of thumb established by the scholars.

Table 2. Measurement model.

Two methods were used to evaluate the discriminant validity (e.g., used to measure either construct used in the study well defined). Each construct is pure and not any multicollinearity involved. The dependent variable was evaluated by considering the correlations between the measures of hypothetically intersecting variables) of the variables. First, it was ensured that the cross-loadings of indicators should be greater than any other opposing constructs ( Hair et al., 2012 ). Second, according to the criterion of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and Fornell and Larcker (1981) , the “square root of AVE for each construct should exceed the inter-correlations of the construct with other model constructs” ( Table 3 ). Hence, both methods ensured the satisfaction of the results and validity. All the results found in the study meet satisfactory status.

Table 3. Discriminant validity coefficients.

Another essential technique of partial least square to assess the model’s validity and multicollinearity includes the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio. According to Henseler et al. (2015) . HTMT is the ratio of trait correlation to within correlation. The belief that if the HTMT value is going to increase >0.9, it will lack the discriminant validity, as mentioned in Table 4 . Furthermore, it is considered one of the most crucial technique to measure the multicollinearity.

Table 4. Heterotrait – Monotrait (HTMT) ratio.

Structural Model

The table given below contains the values of the coefficient of determination. It shows the percentage change in the dependent variable incurred because of independent variables. Hair et al. (2010) defined it as the proportion determined by independent variables. In other words, it tells how much change in dependent variable incurs because of the independent variable. Table 5 shows three models. In the path – 1: R 2 of GI practice, have a positive coefficient 0.716, and adjusted R 2 0.713. It entails that 71.6% of changes in GIP incur because of all the independent variables. Path – 2 exhibited a 31.7% change in EP. While path – 3 showed a 31.6% change in OP incurred because of all the independent variables. According to Hair et al. (2011) and Henseler et al. (2015) , three values of the coefficient of determination, 0.75, 0.5, or 0.25, which are called substantial, moderate, or weak, respectively. If the co-efficient of determination falls within the range of 0.75 or greater, it will become significant. If it is between 0.25 and 0.75, it will become moderate. If it falls below 0.25, it will be considered weak. Hence, the study’s value, which is shown in the table underneath, falls in a moderate range.

Table 5. Analysis of R 2 .

Analysis and Discussion

The competitors’ pressure, governmental pressure, EC, and GI practices are concentrated on environmental and OP. The manufacturing and servicing industries of the country were examined, which account for greater than 70% contribution to the GDP of the country. A cohesive framework was developed under the investigation of theory, and it stated that the stakeholders’ dimensions have positive and significant effects on the GI practice, and which, in turn, has positive and significant impacts on environmental and OP.

In the study, six hypotheses were constructed. Among them, five were a direct hypothesis, and one was proposed for the moderation effect. As exhibited in Table 6 and Figure 2 , the first direct hypothesis H 1 related to the influence of competitor pressure on GI practices. The findings show that competitive pressure positively and significantly impacts GI practices with a coefficient value of 0.271, t -value 5.543 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. The hypothesis results were found consistent with the study of El-Kassar and Singh (2019) . Moreover, we tested H 2 governmental pressure positively related to GI practices. The results indicate that governmental pressure positively and significantly impacts GI practices with a positive coefficient value of 0.123, t -value 4.598 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. The second direct hypothesis H 2 , won the vote of support and was consistent with the results from a previous study of Sezen and Çankaya (2013) and Fernando and Wah (2017) . Our third hypothesis, H3, is associated with EC and GI practices. The output illustrates that EC positively influenced GI practices with coefficient value of 0.185, t -value 4.368 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. Hypothesis results were found consistent with the study of Yen and Yen (2012) , Gholami et al. (2013) , and Soewarno et al. (2019) .

Table 6. Path coefficients and hypothesis testing.

Figure 2. Structural model of the study.

Furthermore, we discussed the H 4 the direct effect of GI practices on OP. The findings show that GI practices positively and significantly affect OP with a positive coefficient value of 0.563, t -value 14.653 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. Hypothesis results were consistent with the previous study of Seman et al. (2019) . Besides, we tested the direct effect of GI practices on environmental performance. We found that GI practices positively related to environmental performance with a positive coefficient of 0.562, t -value 16.15 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. The hypothesis was supported and consistent with the studies of Zhang and Walton (2017) and Tang et al. (2018) . Finally, the sixth hypothesis H 6 was constructed for moderation interaction effects, and its results were found statistically significant with a negative coefficient value of −0.063, t -value 3.137 > 2, and p -value 0.000 < 0.05. In conclusion, the results of all direct hypotheses were found with a positive path coefficient and statistically significant with a t -value > 2 and p -value < 0.05 and the interaction graph presented in Figure 3 . However, the moderation hypothesis was found statistically significant, with a negative coefficient value. Therefore, it is proven that all the variables used in the study affect GI practices and the firms’ overall performance.

Figure 3. Interaction graph EC × IO and GIP.

Conclusion and Implications

“Go green” has been forcing internationally dynamic organizations to improve their green competencies endlessly, execute GI practices to prevent the environment from degrading further, and advance overall firms’ performance. Therefore, this study aims to identify the key factors affecting on the GI practices and its impact on OP from stakeholders’ perspectives. From the results, it is concluded that competitive pressure has a positive and significant impact on GI practices ( Abrahamson and Rosenkopf, 1993 ; Cai and Li, 2018 ; Durand and Georgallis, 2018 ; Singh and El-Kassar, 2018 ; Yu, 2019 ) as well as that governmental pressure has a positive and significant impact on GI practices ( Lindell and Karagozoglu, 2001 ; Bernauer et al., 2007 ; Zeng et al., 2011 ; Huang et al., 2016 ; Fernando and Wah, 2017 ; Yakubu, 2017 ; Famiyeh et al., 2018 ; He et al., 2018 ; Tirabeni et al., 2019 ; Zhang et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, it can be seen from our results that employee’s conduct is positively influenced by GI practices ( Reinhardt, 1999 ; Daily and Huang, 2001 ; Zhu et al., 2008 ; Yen and Yen, 2012 ; Gholami et al., 2013 ; Cao and Chen, 2018 ; Tang et al., 2018 ; Soewarno et al., 2019 ). Also, our results conclude that GI practices have a positive and significant effect on OP ( Berry and Rondinelli, 1998 ; Gounaris et al., 2003 ; Blazevic and Lievens, 2004 ; Chen, 2008a ; de Burgos-Jiménez et al., 2013 ; Berrone et al., 2017 ; Zhang and Walton, 2017 ; Tang et al., 2018 ). The findings of the study suggest that GI practices positively related to environmental performance. From the findings, it is also concluded that the moderation effect of IO was found statistically significant but with a negative coefficient value. The study also describes significant implications and suggestions to the managers and policymakers.

Implications

The present study delivers numerous researches “contributions and managerial implications.” First, this study presented that GI practices disturb not only EP but also OP. GI should be seen not only as responsive contentment of management requirements but as a pre-emptive exercise to advance a competitive advantage and the firm’s performance ( de Burgos-Jiménez et al., 2013 ). This pragmatic sign proposes that when organizations generously emphasize GI practices, they can promote both “financial and non-financial” performance. Top management executives can play a crucial role in carrying the significance of GI to all stakeholders. Second, both industrial and service organizations were investigated in the model. The data collected from both the sectors/industries showed no difference, and the results were the same. “Go green” is a significant issue for both divisions. GI practices need to be endlessly accepted in the product, process, marketing, management innovation, or all, regardless of industry. Finally, this study showed a statistically significant moderation effect of IO on EC concerning GI practices. However, we propose that the top management or executives accentuate innovation and inventiveness in their firm’s culture. The effort to raise the constituents of innovation is critical to the existence and sustainability of firms.

Limitations and Further Research

Although this research study delivers valuable intuitions, some limitations should fuel further investigations. First, the study was conducted in Pakistan, which only included significant areas of the country; small cities were ignored in the research. Second, an executive’s insights into GI practices and consequences are stranded in specific-industry norms. However, to focus on the conclusions’ larger generalizability, we invite scholars to replicate our study but in diverse perspectives and countries. Future studies should include other dimensions of the stakeholders’ view with the mediation of market innovation and management innovation. HR practices can also moderate the relationship between stakeholders’ views and GI practices. Last, the mediation effects need to be explored further.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association (APA). All participants gave written consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Lahore School of Business, University of Lahore, Pakistan. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

MK, HW, and DA: the provision of materials (i.e., questionnaires) and principal manuscript writing. MM, FS, and FA: data collection and manuscript revision and proofreading. MK and HW: data analysis plan. FS and FA: data analysis. All authors contributed to definition of research objectives, models, and hypotheses and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abrahamson, E., and Rosenkopf, L. (1993). Institutional and competitive bandwagons: using mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18, 487–517. doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.9309035148

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Afridi, S. A., Afsar, B., Shahjehan, A., Khan, W., Rehman, Z. U., and Khan, M. A. S. (2020). Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employee’s extra role behaviors: moderating role of ethical corporate identity and interpersonal trust. Corpor. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manage. 2020, 1–14.

Google Scholar

Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Millán, A., Cepeda-Carrion, G., and Henseler, J. (2018). Developing green innovation performance by fostering of organizational knowledge and coopetitive relations. Rev. Manage. Sci. 12, 499–517. doi: 10.1007/s11846-017-0270-z

Alrowwad, A. A., Obeidat, B. Y., Tarhini, A., and Aqqad, N. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational performance via the mediating role of corporate social responsibility: a structural equation modeling approach. Int. Bus. Res. 10, 199–221. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v10n1p199

Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bulletin 103:411. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Arfi, W. B., Hikkerova, L., and Sahut, J.-M. (2018). External knowledge sources, green innovation and performance. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 129, 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.017

Atlin, C., and Gibson, R. (2017). Lasting regional gains from non-renewable resource extraction: the role of sustainability-based cumulative effects assessment and regional planning for mining development in canada. Extr. Ind. Soc. 4, 36–52. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2017.01.005

Avlonitis, G. J., Papastathopoulou, P. G., and Gounaris, S. P. (2001). An empirically-based typology of product innovativeness for new financial services: Success and failure scenarios. J. Prod. Innovation Manage. 18, 324–342. doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1850324

Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 16, 74–94.

Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., and Sejas Nogareda, J. (2007). Explaining green innovation: ten years after Porter’s win-win proposition: how to study the effects of regulation on corporate environmental innovation? Politisc. Vierteljahresschrift 39, 323–341.

Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., and Gelabert, L. (2017). Does greenwashing pay off? Understanding the relationship between environmental actions and environmental legitimacy. J. Bus. Ethics 144, 363–379. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9

Berry, M. A., and Rondinelli, D. A. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental management: A new industrial revolution. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 12, 38–50. doi: 10.5465/ame.1998.650515

Blazevic, V., and Lievens, A. (2004). Learning during the new financial service innovation process: antecedents and performance effects. J. Bus. Res. 57, 374–391. doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00272-2

Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Buysse, K., and Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Manage. J. 24, 453–470. doi: 10.1002/smj.299

Cai, W., and Li, G. (2018). The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: evidence from China. J. Cleaner Prod. 176, 110–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109

Cao, H., and Chen, Z. (2018). The driving effect of internal and external environment on green innovation strategy-The moderating role of top management’s environmental awareness. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 10, 342–361. doi: 10.1108/nbri-05-2018-0028

Chan, H. K., He, H., and Wang, W. Y. (2012). Green marketing and its impact on supply chain management in industrial markets. Ind. Marketing Manage. 41, 557–562. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.002

Chan, H.-L., Shen, B., and Cai, Y. (2018). Quick response strategy with cleaner technology in a supply chain: coordination and win-win situation analysis. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 3397–3408. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1278283

Chang, C.-H. (2011). The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: the mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 104, 361–370. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0914-x

Chen, J.-S., Tsou, H.-T., and Ching, R. K. (2011). Co-production and its effects on service innovation. Ind. Marketing Manage. 40, 1331–1346. doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.03.001

Chen, Y.-S. (2008a). The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 81, 531–543. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1

Chen, Y.-S. (2008b). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. J. Bus. Ethics 77, 271–286. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9349-1

Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B., and Wen, C.-T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67, 331–339. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 295, 295–336.

Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., and Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 47, 822–836. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.05.016

Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: determinants of global environmental policy. Acad. Manage. J. 47, 747–760. doi: 10.5465/20159616

Chu, Z., Wang, L., and Lai, F. (2019). Customer pressure and green innovations at third party logistics providers in china. Int. J. Logist. Manage. 30, 57–75. doi: 10.1108/ijlm-11-2017-0294

Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 92–117. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

Claver, E., Lopez, M. D., Molina, J. F., and Tarí, J. J. (2007). Environmental management and firm performance: a case study. J. Environ. Manage. 84, 606–619. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Co, H., and Barro, F. (2009). Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 29, 591–611. doi: 10.1108/01443570910957573

Cordano, M., Marshall, R. S., and Silverman, M. (2010). How do small and medium enterprises go “green”? A study of environmental management programs in the US wine industry. J. Bus. Ethics 92, 463–478. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0168-z

Crane, A., and Livesey, S. (2017). “Are you talking to me?: stakeholder communication and the risks and rewards of dialogue,” in Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2 , eds J. Andriof, S. Waddock, B. Husted, and S. S. Rahman (New York, NY: Routledge), 39–52. doi: 10.9774/gleaf.978-1-909493-32-2_4

Daily, B. F., and Huang, S.-C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 21, 1539–1552. doi: 10.1108/01443570110410892

de Burgos-Jiménez, J., Vázquez-Brust, D., Plaza-Úbeda, J. A., and Dijkshoorn, J. (2013). Environmental protection and financial performance: an empirical analysis in wales. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 33, 981–1018. doi: 10.1108/ijopm-11-2010-0374

De Giovanni, P. (2012). Do internal and external environmental management contribute to the triple bottom line? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 32, 265–290. doi: 10.1108/01443571211212574

Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20, 65–91. doi: 10.2307/258887

Durand, R., and Georgallis, P. (2018). Differential firm commitment to industries supported by social movement organizations. Organ. Sci. 29, 154–171. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1170

El-Kassar, A.-N., and Singh, S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: the influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 144, 483–498. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016

Famiyeh, S., Adaku, E., Amoako-Gyampah, K., Asante-Darko, D., and Amoatey, C. T. (2018). Environmental management practices, operational competitiveness and environmental performance: empirical evidence from a developing country. J. Manuf. Technol. Manage. 29, 588–607. doi: 10.1108/jmtm-06-2017-0124

Feng, L., Zhao, W., Li, H., and Song, Y. (2018). The effect of environmental orientation on green innovation: do political ties matter? Sustainability 10:4674. doi: 10.3390/su10124674

Feng, Z., and Chen, W. (2018). Environmental regulation, green innovation, and industrial green development: an empirical analysis based on the spatial durbin model. Sustainability 10:223. doi: 10.3390/su10010223

Fernando, Y., Jabbour, C. J. C., and Wah, W.-X. (2019). Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resour. Conserv. Recyl. 141, 8–20. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.031

Fernando, Y., and Wah, W. X. (2017). The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: empirical results from the green technology sector in malaysia. Sustainable Prod. Consumption 12, 27–43. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002

Foo, M. Y. (2018). Green purchasing capabilities and practices towards triple bottom line performance: Moderating effects of institutional pressure/. Foo Meow Yee. Phd Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Marketing Res. 18, 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312

Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Stakehold. Manag. Framew. Phil. 2, 267–299.

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.

Friedman, A. L., and Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gao, Y., Tsai, S.-B., Xue, X., Ren, T., Du, X., Chen, Q., et al. (2018). An empirical study on green innovation efficiency in the green institutional environment. Sustainability 10:724. doi: 10.3390/su10030724

Gefen, D., Straub, D., and Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Comm. Assoc. Info. Sys. 4:7.

Gholami, R., Sulaiman, A. B., Ramayah, T., and Molla, A. (2013). Senior managers’ perception on green information systems (IS) adoption and environmental performance: results from a field survey. Inf. Manag. 50, 431–438. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.01.004

Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M., and Thuvander, L. (2009). An absorptive capacity model for green innovation and performance in the construction industry. Constr. Manage. Eco. 27, 451–464. doi: 10.1080/01446190902896645

Gounaris, S. P., Papastathopoulou, P. G., and Avlonitis, G. J. (2003). Assessing the importance of the development activities for successful new services: does innovativeness matter? Int. J. Bank Marketing 21, 266–279. doi: 10.1108/02652320310488448

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., and Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7). In. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Marketing Theory Prac. 19, 139–152. doi: 10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range plan. 46, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., and Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range plan. 45, 320–340. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008

He, Z.-X., Shen, W.-X., Li, Q.-B., Xu, S.-C., Zhao, B., Long, R.-Y., et al. (2018). Investigating external and internal pressures on corporate environmental behavior in papermaking enterprises of China. J. Clean.Prod. 172, 1193–1211. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.115

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8

Hillestad, T., Xie, C., and Haugland, S. A. (2010). Innovative corporate social responsibility: the founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate brand through “green innovation”. J. Prod. Brand Manage. 19, 440–451. doi: 10.1108/10610421011085758

Hinton, P. R. (2014). Statistics explained. Abingdon: Routledge.

Ho, Y.-H., Lin, C.-Y., and Chiang, S.-H. (2009). Organizational determinants of green innovation implementation in the logistics industry. Int. J. Organ. Innov. 2, 3.

Huang, X.-x, Hu, Z.-p., Liu, C.-s., Yu, D.-j., and Yu, L.-f. (2016). The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 3423–3433. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.106

Huang, Y.-C., Ding, H.-B., and Kao, M.-R. (2009). Salient stakeholder voices: family business and green innovation adoption. J. Manage.Organ. 15, 309–326. doi: 10.5172/jmo.2009.15.3.309

Hurley, R. F., and Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J. Marketing 62, 42–54. doi: 10.1177/002224299806200303

Ilvitskaya, S., and Prihodko, V. (2018). Innovative technologies in the field of topography, land management, territorial planning, construction and architecture. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 365:022030. doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/365/2/022030

Jaaffar, A. H., and Amran, A. A. (2017). The influence of leaders’ past environmental-related experiences and positive deviance behaviour in green management practices. J. Pengurusan 51, 1–18.

Jones, T. M., and Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad.Manage. Rev. 24, 206–221. doi: 10.2307/259075

Kammerer, D. (2009). The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation.: empirical evidence from appliance manufacturers in germany. Ecol. Eco. 68, 2285–2295. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.016

Khan, M. A. S., Ali, M., Usman, M., Saleem, S., and Jianguo, D. (2019). Interrelationships between ethical leadership, green psychological climate, and organizational environmental citizenship behavior: the moderating role of gender. Front. Psychol. 10:1977. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01977

Khan, M. A. S., Jianguo, D., Saleem, S., Boamah, K. B., Javed, U., and Usman, M. (2019). Rejuvenating the concept of work alienation through job demands-resources model and examining its relationship with emotional exhaustion and explorative and exploitative learning. Psychol. Res Behav. Manage. 12, 931. doi: 10.2147/prbm.s204193

Khan, S. A. R., and Qianli, D. (2017). Impact of green supply chain management practices on firms’ performance: an empirical study from the perspective of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollu. Res. 24, 16829–16844. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9172-5

Klassen, R. D., and Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Acad. Manage. J. 42, 599–615. doi: 10.5465/256982

Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., and Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves us. J. Manage. 34, 1152–1189. doi: 10.1177/0149206308324322

Lee, J. W., Kim, Y. M., and Kim, Y. E. (2018). Antecedents of adopting corporate environmental responsibility and green practices. J. Bus. Ethics 148, 397–409. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3024-y

Lin, C.-Y., and Ho, Y.-H. (2008). An empirical study on logistics service providers’ intention to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manage.Innov. 3, 17–26.

Lin, C.-Y., and Ho, Y.-H. (2011). Determinants of green practice adoption for logistics companies in China. J. Bus. Ethics 98, 67–83. doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0535-9

Lin, R.-J. (2013). Moderating effects of total quality environmental management on environmental performance. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5, 8088–8099. doi: 10.5897/AJBM10.1399

Lindell, M., and Karagozoglu, N. (2001). Corporate environmental behaviour–a comparison between nrdic and US firms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 10, 38–52. doi: 10.1002/1099-0836(200101/02)10:1<38::aid-bse269>3.0.co;2-c

López-Gamero, M. D., Claver-Cortés, E., and Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2008). Complementary resources and capabilities for an ethical and environmental management: a qual/quan study. J. Bus. Ethics 82, 701–732. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9587-x

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad. Manage. Rev. 22, 853–886. doi: 10.2307/259247

Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., and Narasimhan, R. (2007). An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. J. Oper. Manage. 25, 998–1014. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.003

Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., and Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Manage. J. 29, 1225–1240. doi: 10.1002/smj.711

Oke, A. (2007). Innovation types and innovation management practices in service companies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 27, 564–587. doi: 10.1108/01443570710750268

Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R. (2019). Creating shared value. In Managing sustainable business. New York, NY.: Springer, 323–346.

Qi, G., Shen, L., Zeng, S., and Jorge, O. J. (2010). The drivers for contractors’ green innovation: an industry perspective. J. Cleaner Prod. 18, 1358–1365. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.04.017

Ramus, C. A. (2018). Employee environmental innovation in firms: Organizational and managerial factors. Abingdon: Routledge.

Reinhardt, F. L. (1999). Bringing the environment down to earth. Harvard Bus. Rev. 77, 149–149.

Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Eco. 32, 319–332. doi: 10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00112-3

Rusinko, C. (2007). Green manufacturing: an evaluation of environmentally sustainable manufacturing practices and their impact on competitive outcomes. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 54, 445–454. doi: 10.1109/tem.2007.900806

Saeed, A., Jun, Y., Nubuor, S., Priyankara, H., and Jayasuriya, M. (2018). Institutional pressures, green supply chain management practices on environmental and economic performance: a two theory view. Sustainability 10, 1517. doi: 10.3390/su10051517

Salem, M. A., Shawtari, F., Shamsudin, M. F., and Hussain, H. B. I. (2018). The consequences of integrating stakeholder engagement in sustainable development (environmental perspectives). Sustainable Dev. 26, 255–268. doi: 10.1002/sd.1699

Sarkis, J., and Cordeiro, J. J. (2001). An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and firm performance: pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. European J. Oper. Res. 135, 102–113. doi: 10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00306-4

Seman, N. A. A., Govindan, K., Mardani, A., Zakuan, N., Saman, M. Z. M., Hooker, R. E., et al. (2019). The mediating effect of green innovation on the relationship between green supply chain management and environmental performance. J. Cleaner Prod. 229, 115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.211

Seman, N. A. A., Zakuan, N., Rashid, U. K., Nasuredin, J., and Ahmad, N. (2018). Understanding Stakeholder Pressures in Adopting Environmental Management Practices Based on Stakeholder Theory: A Review. Int. J. Res. 05, 1530–1545.

Sezen, B., and Çankaya, S. Y. (2013). Effects of green manufacturing and eco-innovation on sustainability performance. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 99, 154–163. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.481

Shahzad, F., Du, J., Khan, I., Shahbaz, M., Murad, M., and Khan, M. S. S. (2020). Untangling the influence of organizational compatibility on green supply chain management efforts to boost organizational performance through information technology capabilities. J. Cleaner Prod. 266, 1–13.

Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Javed, S. A., Zafar, A. U., and Rehman, S. U. (2020). Relation of environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: A case of Pakistani manufacturing industry. J. Cleaner Prod. 253, 119938. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119938

Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., and Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research. J. Prod.Innov. Manage. 23, 556–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00224.x

Singh, S. K., and El-Kassar, A.-N. (2018). Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 144, 483–498.

Soewarno, N., Tjahjadi, B., and Fithrianti, F. (2019). Green innovation strategy and green innovation: the roles of green organizational identity and environmental organizational legitimacy. Manage. Decis. 57, 3061–3078. doi: 10.1108/md-05-2018-0563

Song, M., Yang, M. X., Zeng, K. J., and Feng, W. (2020). Green knowledge sharing, stakeholder pressure, absorptive capacity, and green innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Bus. Strategy Environ. 29, 1517–1531. doi: 10.1002/bse.2450

Song, W., and Yu, H. (2018). Green innovation strategy and green innovation: The roles of green creativity and green organizational identity. Corporate Social Responsibility Environ.Manage. 25, 135–150. doi: 10.1002/csr.1445

Stock, R. M., and Zacharias, N. A. (2011). Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 39, 870–888. doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0225-2

Sulkowski, A. J., Edwards, M., and Freeman, R. E. (2018). Shake your stakeholder: Firms leading engagement to cocreate sustainable value. Organ. Environ. 31, 223–241. doi: 10.1177/1086026617722129

Tang, M., Walsh, G., Lerner, D., Fitza, M. A., and Li, Q. (2018). Green innovation, managerial concern and firm performance: An empirical study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 27, 39–51. doi: 10.1002/bse.1981

Tirabeni, L., De Bernardi, P., Forliano, C., and Franco, M. (2019). How can organisations and business models lead to a more sustainable society? A framework from a systematic review of the industry 4.0. Sustainability 11:6363. doi: 10.3390/su11226363

Ullah, M. (2017). Integrating environmental sustainability into human resource management: a comprehensive review on green human resource management. Maghreb Rev. Eco. Manage. 423, 1–17. doi: 10.4324/9781315768953-1

Umrani, W. A., Kura, K. M., and Ahmed, U. (2018). Corporate entrepreneurship and business performance: the moderating role of organizational culture in selected banks in pakistan. PSU Res. Rev. 2, 59–80. doi: 10.1108/prr-12-2016-0011

Venkatraman, N., and Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11, 801–814. doi: 10.2307/258398

Wagner, M. (2007). On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: evidence from german manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 36, 1587–1602. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.004

Wang, S.-H., and Song, M.-L. (2014). Review of hidden carbon emissions, trade, and labor income share in china, 2001–2011. Energy Policy 74, 395–405. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.038

Weng, H.-H. R., Chen, J.-S., and Chen, P.-C. (2015). Effects of green innovation on environmental and corporate performance: a stakeholder perspective. Sustainability 7, 4997–5026. doi: 10.3390/su7054997

Xie, X., Huo, J., and Zou, H. (2019). Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: a content analysis method. J. Bus. Res. 101, 697–706. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010

Xie, X., Zhu, Q., and Wang, R. (2019). Turning green subsidies into sustainability: how green process innovation improves firms’ green image. Bus. Strategy Environ. 28, 1416–1433. doi: 10.1002/bse.2323

Yakubu, O. (2017). Addressing environmental health problems in ogoniland through implementation of united nations environment program recommendations: environmental management strategies. Environments 4:28. doi: 10.3390/environments4020028

Yen, Y.-X., and Yen, S.-Y. (2012). Top-management’s role in adopting green purchasing standards in high-tech industrial firms. J. Bus. Res. 65, 951–959. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.05.002

Yu, M. (2019). Impact of environmental regulation on green innovation practice of food enterprises: regulating effect of environmental awareness of different executives. Rev. Facult. Agr. Univ. Zulia 36, 149696095.

Zeng, S., Meng, X., Zeng, R., Tam, C. M., Tam, V. W., and Jin, T. (2011). How environmental management driving forces affect environmental and economic performance of SMEs: a study in the northern china district. J. Cleaner Prod. 19, 1426–1437. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.002

Zhang, H., He, J., Shi, X., Hong, Q., Bao, J., and Xue, S. (2020). Technology characteristics, stakeholder pressure, social influence, and green innovation: empirical evidence from chinese express companies. Sustainability 12;2891. doi: 10.3390/su12072891

Zhang, J. A., and Walton, S. (2017). Eco-innovation and business performance: the moderating effects of environmental orientation and resource commitment in green-oriented SME s. R&d Manage. 47, E26–E39.

Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Wang, Q., and Ma, Z. (2019). “Relationship Between Institutional Pressures, Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Business Performance: An Empirical Research on Automobile Industry,” in Paper presented at the International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management. San Francisco: ICMSEM.

Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., and Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in china: antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. J. Bus. Res. 58, 1049–1058. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.02.003

Zhu, Q., and Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manage. 22, 265–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005

Zhu, Q., Feng, Y., and Choi, S.-B. (2017). The role of customer relational governance in environmental and economic performance improvement through green supply chain management. J. Cleaner Prod. 155, 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.124

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., and Hashimoto, S. (2010). Green supply chain management in leading manufacturers: case studies in japanese large companies. Manage. Res. Rev. 33, 380–392. doi: 10.1108/01409171011030471

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J. J., and Lai, K.-H. (2008). Firm-level correlates of emergent green supply chain management practices in the chinese context. Omega 36, 577–591.

Descriptive statistics.

Keywords : innovation orientation, competitor pressure, employees’ conduct, green innovation, environmental performance, organizational performance

Citation: Wang H, Khan MAS, Anwar F, Shahzad F, Adu D and Murad M (2021) Green Innovation Practices and Its Impacts on Environmental and Organizational Performance. Front. Psychol. 11:553625. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.553625

Received: 19 April 2020; Accepted: 03 November 2020; Published: 18 January 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Wang, Khan, Anwar, Shahzad, Adu and Murad. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, [email protected] ; Farooq Anwar, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Advertisement

Eco-innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): a Systematic Literature Review

• Published: 27 April 2023

Cite this article

• Huma Sikandar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7777-2314 1 ,
• Umar Haiyat Abdul Kohar 1 ,
• Grigorie Sanda 2 ,
• Asma Salman 3 ,
• Teodor Cilan 4 ,
• Malik Shahzad Shabbir 5 &
• Carlos Samuel Ramos-Meza 6  

713 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

In recent years, there has been a surge in interest in eco-innovation among SMEs. So, there is a need to gain a better understanding of the most recent advances in academic research as well as recent practical organizational efforts. This was accomplished through a systematic review of the eco-innovation literature pertaining to small and medium businesses (published between 2002 and 2020). To conduct this systematic literature review, we used data from one of the most comprehensive databases, the Scopus database. This study analyzed 80 articles from a total of 205 articles. The data selected for this paper is guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagrams. This paper provides a descriptive overview of a selected article in the field of eco-innovation, analyzing the growth trend of published articles, popular methodologies used, most productive regions, top journals, and industries in which eco-innovation is studied mostly. This study also identifies the key research areas in the body of literature, classifying the main factors influencing and impeding the adoption of eco-innovations, the prevailing theories, as well as the effects and outcomes of eco-innovation adoption in SMEs. The findings of this study provide crucial information on eco-innovation for academicians and professionals, enabling them to advance the research agenda in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Author’s creation, adapted from Prieto-Sandoval et al. ( 2019 )

Source: Moher et al. ( 2009 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Digital transformation: a review, synthesis and opportunities for future research

Research Methodology: An Introduction

The role of digitalization in business and management: a systematic literature review

Aboelmaged, M. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation, environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance: An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184 , 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.192

Article   Google Scholar  

Aboelmaged, M., & Hashem, G. (2019). Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: The mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220 , 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.150

Almalki Sultan Musaad, O., Zhuo, Z., Almalki Otaibi Musaad, O., Siyal, Z. A., Hashmi, H., & Shah, S. A. A. (2020). A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis of barriers and policy strategies for small and medium enterprises to adopt green innovation. Symmetry , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12010116

Ardito, L., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Albino, V. (2015). From technological inventions to new products: A systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling factors. European Management Review, 12 (3), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12047

Arslan, Z., Kausar, S., Kannaiah, D., Shabbir, M. S., Khan, G. Y., & Zamir, A. (2021). The mediating role of green creativity and the moderating role of green mindfulness in the relationship among clean environment, clean production, and sustainable growth.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–15

Astuti, M., Prawoto, P., Irawan, Y. S., & Sugiono, S. (2018). The eco-innovation variables which influence the performance of creative industries center of natural stone crafts. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 19 (1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/79446

Bai, D., Jain, V., Tripathi, M., Ali, S. A., Shabbir, M. S., Mohamed, M. A., & Ramos-Meza, C. S. (2022). Performance of biogas plant analysis and policy implications: Evidence from the commercial sources. Energy Policy, 169 , 113173.

Ben Amara, D., & Chen, H. (2020). Investigating the effect of multidimensional network capability and eco-innovation orientation for sustainable performance. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 22 (6), 1297–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01871-6

Biondi, V., Iraldo, F., & Meredith, S. (2002). Achieving sustainability through environmental innovation: The role of SMEs. International Journal of Technology Management, 24 (5–6), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2002.003074

Bitencourt, C. C., de Oliveira Santini, F., Zanandrea, G., Froehlich, C., & Ladeira, W. J. (2020). Empirical generalizations in eco-innovation: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245 , 118721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118721

Bocken, N. M. P., Farracho, M., Bosworth, R., & Kemp, R. (2014). The front-end of eco-innovation for eco-innovative small and medium sized companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 31 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2013.10.004

Buttol, P., Buonamici, R., Naldesi, L., Rinaldi, C., Zamagni, A., & Masoni, P. (2012). Integrating services and tools in an ICT platform to support eco-innovation in SMEs. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 14 (2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-011-0388-7

Cao, Y., Tabasam, A. H., Ali, S. A., Ashiq, A., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Jain, V., & Shabbir, M. S. (2022). The dynamic role of sustainable development goals to eradicate the multidimensional poverty: Evidence from emerging economy.  Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja , 1–12.

Ceptureanu, S. I., Ceptureanu, E. G., Popescu, D., & Orzan, O. A. (2020). Eco-innovation capability and sustainability driven innovation practices in Romanian SMEs. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 12 (17). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177106

Chen, Y. S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image – Green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81 (3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1

Chen, Y. S. (2008). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77 (3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9349-1

Chistov, V., Aramburu, N., & Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2021). Open eco-innovation: A bibliometric review of emerging research. In Journal of Cleaner Production . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127627

Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. In Annals of Internal Medicine . https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: A literature review of guidance and supporting studies. In BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3

Cuerva, M. C., Triguero-Cano, Á., & Córcoles, D. (2014). Drivers of green and non-green innovation: Empirical evidence in Low-Tech SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68 , 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.049

Da Rocha, A. C., Neto, P. J. S., Cunha, J. C., de Lara, L. M. M., & Halick, Z. (2017). Eco-innovation and organizational strategy: A bibliometric study in the last 15 years (2001–2015). Rebrae, 10 (3), 478. https://doi.org/10.7213/rebrae.10.003.ao09

de Jesus Pacheco, D. A., ten Caten, C. S., Jung, C. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., Navas, H. V. G., & Cruz-Machado, V. A. (2017). Eco-innovation determinants in manufacturing SMEs: Systematic review and research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142 , 2277–2287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.049

de Jesus Pacheco, D. A., ten Caten, C. S., Jung, C. F., Navas, H. V. G., & Cruz-Machado, V. A. (2018). Eco-innovation determinants in manufacturing SMEs from emerging markets: Systematic literature review and challenges. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 48 (April), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.04.002

De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41 (3), 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002

Del Brío, J. Á., & Junquera, B. (2003). A review of the literature on environmental innovation management in SMEs: Implications for public policies. Technovation, 23 (12), 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00036-6

Demirel, P., & Danisman, G. O. (2019). Eco-innovation and firm growth in the circular economy: Evidence from European small- and medium-sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28 (8), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2336

Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A., & Sáez-Martínez, F. J. (2015). Eco-innovation: Insights from a literature review. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, 17 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060

Ehsan, S., Tabasam, A. H., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Ashiq, A., Jain, V., Nazir, M. S., ... & Gohae, H. M. (2023). Does zero-leverage phenomenon improve sustainable environmental manufacturing sector: Evidence from Pakistani manufacture industry?.  Global Business Review , 09721509221150876.

Fatoki, O. (2019). Sustainability-oriented innovation and performance of small and medium enterprises in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism . https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v10.1(33).23

Fernando, Y., Shaharudin, M. S., & Wahid, N. A. (2016). Eco-innovation practices: A case study of green furniture manufacturers in Indonesia. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 23 (1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2016.073289

Fernando, Y., Xin, W. W., & Gani, A. B. D. (2016). Five drivers of eco-innovation. International Journal of Disease Control and Containment for Sustainability, 1 (1), 12–31. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdccs.2016010102

Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, F. A. (2020). Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150 , 119770.

Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., Veiga, P. M., & Caputo, A. (2022). The interactions of entrepreneurial attitudes, abilities and aspirations in the (twin) environmental and digital transitions? A dynamic panel data approach. Technology in Society, 71 , 102121.

Fulton, M., Nurse, A., & Plater, A. (2019). A simplified environmental assessment methodology for research projects as an alternative to life-cycle assessment. Journal of Environment and Development, 28 (4), 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496519867435

García-Quevedo, J., Jové-Llopis, E., & Martínez-Ros, E. (2020). Barriers to the circular economy in European small and medium-sized firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29 (6), 2450–2464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2513

Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ganeshkumar, P. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care . https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934

Guo, Y., Wang, L., Wang, M., & Zhang, X. (2019). The mediating role of environmental innovation on knowledge acquisition and corporate performance relationship – A study of SMEs in China. Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082315

Gupta, H., & Barua, M. K. (2018). A framework to overcome barriers to green innovation in SMEs using BWM and Fuzzy TOPSIS. Science of the Total Environment, 633 , 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.173

Hazarika, N., & Zhang, X. (2019). Evolving theories of eco-innovation: A systematic review. In Sustainable Production and Consumption , 19, 64–78. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.03.002

He, F., Miao, X., Wong, C. W. Y., & Lee, S. (2018). Contemporary corporate eco-innovation research: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174 , 502–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.314

Hojnik, J., & Ruzzier, M. (2016). What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging literature. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19 , 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.006

Jain, V., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Aslam, E., Chawla, C., Nawab, T., Shabbir, M. S., & Bansal, A. (2022). Do energy resources matter for growth level? The dynamic effects of different strategies of renewable energy, carbon emissions on sustainable economic growth.  Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy , 1–7.

Ji, G., Cheng, X., Kannaiah, D., & Shabbir, M. S. (2022). Does the global migration matter? The impact of top ten cities migration on native nationals income and employment levels. International Migration, 60 (6), 111–128.

Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Clausen, J., & Bienkowska, D. (2018). Roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205 (September), 1006–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.132

Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. In Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33 , 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.083

Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2007). Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. UM Merit, Maastricht, 32 (3), 121–124.

Google Scholar  

Ketata, I., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2015). The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R and D Management, 45 (1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12052

Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65 , 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017

Klewitz, J., Zeyen, A., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Intermediaries driving eco-innovation in SMEs: A qualitative investigation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15 (4), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272376

Liu, J., Jain, V., Sharma, P., Ali, S. A., Shabbir, M. S., & Ramos-Meza, C. S. (2022). The role of Sustainable Development Goals to eradicate the multidimensional energy poverty and improve social Wellbeing’s. Energy Strategy Reviews, 42 , 100885.

Liu, Y., Sharma, P., Jain, V., Shukla, A., Shabbir, M. S., Tabash, M. I., & Chawla, C. (2022). The relationship among oil prices volatility, inflation rate, and sustainable economic growth: Evidence from top oil importer and exporter countries. Resources Policy, 77 , 102674.

Liu, L., Bashir, T., Abdalla, A. A., Salman, A., Ramos-meza, C. S., Jain, V., & Shabbir, M. S. (2022a). Can money supply endogeneity influence bank stock returns? A case study of South Asian economies.  Environment, Development and Sustainability , 1–13.

Liu, C., Ni, C., Sharma, P., Jain, V., Chawla, C., Shabbir, M. S., & Tabash, M. I. (2022b). Does green environmental innovation really matter for carbon-free economy? Nexus among green technological innovation, green international trade, and green power generation.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29 (45), 67504–67512.

Melece, L., & Hazners, J. (2017). Factors influencing Latvian small and medium enterprises towards eco-innovation. Engineering for Rural Development, 16 , 1466–1473. https://doi.org/10.22616/ERDev2017.16.N333

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10), 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

Mousavi, S., & Bossink, B. A. G. (2017). Firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: The case of biofuel for aviation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 167 , 1263–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.146

Muñoz-Pascual, L., & Galende, J. (2020). Ambidextrous relationships and social capability as employee well-being: The secret sauce for research and development and sustainable innovation performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (9), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093072

Musa, H., & Chinniah, M. (2016). Malaysian SMEs development: Future and challenges on going green. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224 (August 2015), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.457

Oncioiu, I., Ifrim, A. M., Petrescu, A. G., & Bîlcan, F. R. (2018). Role of green innovation and business performance: Evidence from romanian smes. EEA - Electrotehnica, Electronica, Automatica, 66 (2), 129–134.

Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research and Development, 33 (3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651

Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., Santos, J., Baumgartner, R. J., & Ormazabal, M. (2019). Key strategies, resources, and capabilities for implementing circular economy in industrial small and medium enterprises. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management . https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1761

Przychodzen, J., & Przychodzen, W. (2015). Relationships between eco-innovation and financial performance – Evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90 , 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.034

Robinson, S., & Stubberud, H. A. (2013). Green innovation in Germany: A comparison by business size. Journal of International Business Research, 12 (1), 47–56.

Salim, N., Ab Rahman, M. N., & Abd Wahab, D. (2019). A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209 , 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.105

Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management – An exploratory literature review. In R and D Management, 42 (2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x

Shabbir, M. S., & Wisdom, O. (2020). The relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental investments and financial performance: evidence from manufacturing companies.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10217-0

Shafi, M., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Jain, V., Salman, A., Kamal, M., Shabbir, M. S., & Rehman, M. U. (2023). The dynamic relationship between green tax incentives and environmental protection.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research , 1–9.

Shrivastava, M., & Tamvada, J. P. (2019). Which green matters for whom? Greening and firm performance across age and size distribution of firms. Small Business Economics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9942-y

Sikandar, H., Vaicondam, Y., Parveen, S., Khan, N., & Qureshi, M. I. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of telemedicine and e-health literature. International Journal of Online and Biomedical Engineering, 17 (12), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v17i12.25483

Sikandar, H., & Abdul Kohar, U. H. (2021). A systematic literature review of open innovation in small and medium enterprises in the past decade. In Foresight: Vol. ahead-of-p (Issue ahead-of-print). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-01-2021-0030

Singh, S. K., Giudice, M. Del, Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. (2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 150 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762

Skjøndal Bar, E. (2015). A case study of obstacles and enablers for green innovation within the fish processing equipment industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 90 , 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.055

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. In British Journal of Management . https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92 , 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.009

Veronica, S., Alexeis, G. P., Valentina, C., & Elisa, G. (2020). Do stakeholder capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Research, 119 , 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.025

Vinet, L., & Zhedanov, A. (2011). A “missing” family of classical orthogonal polynomials. Journal of Physics a: Mathematical and Theoretical, 44 (8), 381. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201

Wang, G., Sadiq, M., Bashir, T., Jain, V., Ali, S. A., & Shabbir, M. S. (2022). The dynamic association between different strategies of renewable energy sources and sustainable economic growth under SDGs. Energy Strategy Reviews, 42 , 100886.

Wen, J., Mughal, N., Zhao, J., Shabbir, M. S., Niedbała, G., Jain, V., & Anwar, A. (2021). Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission. Energy policy, 153 , 112230.

Wen, Y., Shabbir, M. S., Haseeb, M., Kamal, M., Anwar, A., Khan, M. F., & Malik, S. (2022). The dynamic effect of information and communication technology and renewable energy on CO 2 emission: Fresh evidence from panel quantile regression.  Frontiers in Environmental Science , 1123.

Wielgórka, D., & Szczepaniak, W. (2019). Eco-innovation of enterprises operating in Poland against the background of EU countries. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management , 5 (Special Issue), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2019.SI.13

Yang, X., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Shabbir, M. S., Ali, S. A., & Jain, V. (2022). The impact of renewable energy consumption, trade openness, CO 2 emissions, income inequality, on economic growth. Energy Strategy Reviews, 44 , 101003.

Yang, D. (2019). What should SMEs consider to introduce environmentally innovative products to market? Sustainability (Switzerland) , 11 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041117

Yaqoob, N., Jain, V., Atiq, Z., Sharma, P., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Shabbir, M. S., & Tabash, M. I. (2022). The relationship between staple food crops consumption and its impact on total factor productivity: Does green economy matter?.  Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29 (46), 69213–69222.

Yusoff, T., Wahab, S. A., Latiff, A. S. A., Osman, S. I. W., Zawawi, N. F. M., & Fazal, S. A. (2018). Sustainable growth in SMEs: A review from the Malaysian perspective. Journal of Management and Sustainability, 8 (3), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v8n3p43

Yusr, M. M., Salimon, M. G., Mokhtar, S. S. M., Abaid, W. M. A. W., Shaari, H., Perumal, S., & Saoula, O. (2020). Green innovation performance! How to be achieved? A study applied on Malaysian manufacturing sector. Sustainable Futures, 2 , 100040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2020.100040

Zhang, M., Jain, V., Qian, X., Ramos-Meza, C. S., Ali, S. A., Sharma, P., ... & Shabbir, M. S. (2023). The dynamic relationship among technological innovation, international trade, and energy production.  Frontiers in Environmental Science ,  10 , 2431.

Zheng, L., & Iatridis, K. (2022). Friends or foes? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the relationship between eco-innovation and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment . https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2986

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Azman Hashim International Business School (AHIBS), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Huma Sikandar & Umar Haiyat Abdul Kohar

Department of Economics, University Aurel Vlaicu of Arad, Arad, Romania

Grigorie Sanda

American University in the Emirates, Dubai, UAE

Asma Salman

Teodor Cilan

Business Administration Department, Faculty of Management Sciences, ILMA University, Karachi, 75190, Pakistan

Malik Shahzad Shabbir

Department of Research Institute (IC-UAC), Universidad Andina del Cusco, Cusco, Peru

Carlos Samuel Ramos-Meza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huma Sikandar .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sikandar, H., Kohar, U.H.A., Sanda, G. et al. Eco-innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs): a Systematic Literature Review. J Knowl Econ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01367-w

Download citation

Received : 18 February 2022

Accepted : 04 March 2023

Published : 27 April 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01367-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Eco-innovation
• Green innovation
• Sustainable innovation
• Environmental innovation
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Accessibility
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by Subject Areas
• Browse by Author
• Browse by LBS Authors
• Browse by Journals
• Browse by Grant Funders
• Browse by Sustainable Development Goals
• Repository Statistics

Essays on environmental change and innovation strategy

This dissertation examines the relationship between environmental change and innovation strategy. It studies different stages of the innovation process from invention, through refinement, to adoption of technology and investigates the incentives to innovate engendered by environmental change. Empirically, I study the oil and gas and wind power industries, and use three different, novel datasets in each chapter. I build on the innovation strategy literature and use granular data at the well and windfarm level in large sample quantitative empirical analyses to test hypotheses. The first chapter investigates use of a prevalent but rarely studied form of intellectual property protection: trade secrets. We explore the effect of stronger legal trade secret protection on the use of trade secrets, and the rate and nature of secret innovation. We find substantial increases in the use of trade secrets, the generation of new trade secrets, recombination across sources, and the breadth and complexity of secret invention as the appropriability environment strengthens. The results provide rare systematic empirical evidence on actual trade secret use. The second chapter investigates the link between technology characteristics and innovation opportunities. While there is theoretical consensus on innovation possibility decline over time, empirical literature remains inconclusive. We use well-level data on two crude oil extraction technologies – conventional and unconventional – that are of different vintages to examine how innovation possibilities decline with age. We estimate the productivity impact of the 2014 oil price crash on conventional and unconventional technology wells and find that unconventional wells experienced significant productivity growth while the conventional wells did not. This chapter concludes with implications for research on innovation and the S-curves literature. The third chapter studies the link between technology choice and repurposing of complementary assets. Prior literature has investigated the role of complementary assets in technology adoption but abstracted from incentive mechanisms driving the deployment of such assets. I exploit a precipitous oil price drop in 2014 to study the effect of idle capacity on repurposing of resources and capabilities from the oil and gas industry to the wind power industry. I find evidence consistent with the argument that following a downturn, multi-business firms facing a shock in another industry repurposed complementary assets and adopted new technologies in the focal industry. The study contributes to literature on technological change by highlighting the role of industry downturns on technology evolution in related industries.

More Details

Export and share, published version - text.

• Restricted to Repository staff only
• Request a copy

Downloads from LBS Research Online

View details

Actions (login required)

Integrating Green Infrastructure For Eco-Innovation

 Green infrastructure is one of the commonly adopted strategies by leading cities in the  United States primarily for reducing the urban runoff and providing social and ecological  benefits to the community. Despite being promoted for their multifunctionality, Green  infrastructure strategies are typically implemented based on their economic benefits and  stormwater abatement. (Newell, 2013) (Kremer P. H., 2016) Hence, there is a need to  develop a framework to integrate the social and ecological benefits of green  infrastructure in the planning process.  

This research document demonstrates a scenario-based workflow to implement Green  Infrastructure strategies in the Uptown neighborhood in the city of Pittsburgh. The GIS based assessment aims to identify the key equity indicators based on the environmental,  urban and social attributes specific to the city and the neighborhood and implement  strategies for maximizing the multifunctional benefits of Green Infrastructure. The  workflow further identifies opportunities to engage stakeholders and property owners in  the planning process. The assessment of sites, stakeholder opinions, and green  infrastructure technologies are then combined to identify the synergies and trade-offs  between them.   

As a tool to prioritize or invest in green infrastructure, this document provides a unified  framework and strategies to support the decision-making process. Green infrastructure  implemented using this methodology can allow a data-informed and stakeholder informed planning process and can enhance socio-environmental equity at a  neighborhood scale. 

Degree Type

• Master's Thesis

Degree Name

• Master of Design (MDes)

Usage metrics

• Architectural Design

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Bahasa Malaysia

Show all news, opinion, videos and press releases matching →

About Eco-Business

Sustainable development goals.

• Press Releases

International Edition

After decades of underinvestment, the tide might finally be turning for water innovation in Asia

The water crisis is sparking more interest from private equity and start-ups are dishing out solutions that are less capital-intensive, observe industry watchers. the data, however, points to a picture that is more mixed, with stop-start investment cycles that are largely cyclical..

For many fast-urbanising cities across India, a continuous water supply that does not get cut in the middle of the day is a pipe dream.

In some regions, households and offices now have intermittent access to clean water, often for only about four to five hours daily. Entire business parks in Bengaluru and the wider Southern India region sometimes announce temporary shutdowns, asking their employees to work from home because they are unable to keep the premises operational due to water scarcity. 

“Unfortunately this is the reality that many businesses based out of India have to live with,” said Amrit Om Nayak, co-founder and chief executive officer of Indra Water, a clean technology start-up based out of Mumbai. The country is one of the most water-stressed in the world and its dependence on an increasingly erratic monsoon and the impacts of climate change have exacerbated the pressure on water resources. 

Many businesses pretty much operate for only three to four days a week, shared Nayak, which essentially means that they are only utilising about 60 to 70 per cent of their capacity. This hurts their bottom line and has in turn driven the demand for clean water solutions and innovations to solve the urgent problem. 

It has also significantly changed the risk-return calculations for private equity investors who traditionally shun water-related projects, previously known to be more capital-intensive with higher risk exposure. 

For example, Nayak’s Indra Water, which works with businesses and well-known brands like consumer goods multinational Unilever, India’s manufacturer Tata Steel and conglomerate Aditya Birla Group, has a patented electricity-based wastewater treatment process that allows it to build more compact and transportable water treatment systems for the recycling of industrial wastewater. What this means is that its corporate customers are able to recover and recycle the bulk of its wastewater at source in a cost-effective way, said Nayak. 

“Our case studies show that if a portable water treatment system is installed, say for the hospitality sector, the average payback period for the investment is just about 11 months now. This is shorter than that for most renewable energy investments,” he said. “And because the cost of water is so high and the demand to solve the problem so huge, once businesses have access to treated water, it directly impacts their cash flow.” 

‘Inflection point’ for water innovation?

Like many Asia-based start-ups, Indra Water started seeing capital flow more easily for its water solution in the last three to four years or as economies started opening up after the Covid-19 pandemic. When the company started operating in 2017, it obtained a small government grant and was mostly reliant on self-funding, but the “access to capital has increased dramatically” recently, said Nayak. This year, Indra Water secured US$4 million in a Series A funding round or its first institutional round of funding led by cleantech pioneer Emerald Technology Ventures and Bengaluru-based Mela Ventures. 

Indra Water operates its facility from the outskirts of Mumbai, in the provincial city of Thane. Image: Indra Water

On the co-investment deal, Emerald Technology Ventures’ investment manager Kelven Lam told Eco-Business that its partner Mela Ventures previously only operated in the software space but has moved to make its first investment in water recently. 

“Now they are proactively showing us other water projects and telling us what the good opportunities are. There is a surge in interest and it’s now very hard to still call the water sector a cleantech laggard,” he said, adding that the technological solutions that start-ups are promoting are also now less capital expenditure-intensive, which makes the barriers of entry lower for private capital to flow. 

Lam, speaking at a panel discussion that explored emerging opportunities in water innovation at the Cleantech Asia Forum in Singapore last week, also highlighted a growing “water stewardship” movement that sees corporates making “water positive” commitments that they would have to attempt to meet by actively funding clean technologies, beyond just water recycling or carbon offset efforts. 

Industry watchers also note that public water utilities across Asia have been “quietly innovating” and seeking cost-effective ways to solve the problem of water scarcity. On the same panel, Michael Toh, director of industry and technology collaboration at Singapore’s national water agency PUB, said the water industry could be at an “inflection point” where there is potential for an “explosion of opportunities”. This includes water-related investments that intersect with energy, as well as solutions that look at resource recovery, he shared. 

“By and large, as we have conversations with water authorities across Asia, we have realised that there is an increased emphasis on the water problem. The clear message is that solving this problem can also help us address the climate challenge,” said Toh.  

At Cleantech Asia Forum in Singapore, Emerald Technology Ventures investment director Kelven Lam (second from left) shared that there is a surge in interest in water innovations and it’s now very hard to still call the water sector a cleantech laggard. Image: Cleantech Group

Mixed data trends 

Globally, it has sometimes taken emergency crises to put problems in the water sector in the spotlight. Organisations such as the World Bank have repeatedly called for more coordinated flows of public, concessional and private capital to compensate for decades of underinvestment in the industry; some are trying to create a pipeline of bankable projects to attract more funding.

In an outlook analysis published early this year, research and consulting firm Cleantech Group that tracks the cleantech sector, said that it hopes to see a growing interest in water-related investments in 2024 but “do not expect significant changes” in the number or size of investment deals this year. 

Water and wastewater investment deal numbers and value in Asia from 2019 to 2024, tracked by research and consulting firm Cleantech Group. [Click to enlarge]. Source: Cleantech Group

Statistics that the group provided paint a mixed picture for cleantech investments in water. In Asia, excluding outlier deals above US$350 million, a total of seven investment deals in water and wastewater start-ups with accumulative value of nearly US$27 million were recorded in 2023, an increase from 2022, which saw four deals at a value that only slightly exceeded US$3 million. Its latest 2024 data as of May shows that total deal value is already at US$24.4 million. Yet these numbers are still significantly lower than that at pre-pandemic levels. 

Peter Kennedy, director of Silverstrand Capital, a Singapore-based family office, said that a water membrane company can still take up to 12 years to “go from lab to commercialisation”, and it might need to wait another seven or eight years to get its patent approved, which typically is a long sales cycle for impact investors. Silverstrand primarily invests in regenerative agriculture and nature-based solutions but has recently backed a United States water tech start-up. 

“We are starting to see the technology adoption that has happened in agritech replicated in the water innovation space, and we do find it promising. But it would still take time,” Kennedy said.

Did you find this article useful? Join the EB Circle!

Your support helps keep our journalism independent and our content free for everyone to read. Join our community here.

Related to this story

• Carbon & Climate
• Policy & Finance
• Asia Pacific
• desalination
• industrial parks
• infrastructure
• public-private partnership
• water security
• water treatment
• business resilience
• sustainable finance
• 9. Infrastructure

Most popular

News / Lifestyle

Chief sustainability officers are burning out. has the role become unsustainable.

News / Carbon & Climate

Four asean countries among the world’s top emitters at high risk of climate disaster.

1.5°C on a precipice: Do we need to rethink communications on warming limits?

News / Energy

Japan megabanks, government are biggest funders of southeast asia’s gas expansion.

News / Food & Agriculture

Prabowo administration signals hard stance on illegal deforestation in indonesia as it plots food estate expansion.

News / Policy & Finance

Environmentalists urge philippines to back proposed us$700 billion tax on fossil fuel giants to support loss and damage fund, featured events, 2nd philippine esg investors summit, kuala lumpur, wasted | malaysia film premiere, unlocking capital for sustainability 2024 - malaysia, guangzhou, guangdong, 2024 solar pv & energy storage world expo (formerly pv guangzhou 2024), unlocking capital for sustainability 2024 - philippines, unlocking capital for sustainability 2024.

Transforming Innovation for Sustainability Join the Ecosystem →

Receive the latest news in sustainability, daily or weekly.

Strategic organisations, let us know what you think stand a chance to win us$50 in amazon gift vouchers when you take our readers survey..