2.1. Eco-Innovation
Eco-innovation appeared for the first time in the literature about 20 years ago [
20], but despite a growing interest in the topic, research in this field is still scarce due to the limited number of authors addressing the subject up to 1990 [
21]. The term eco-innovation was first used by Fussler and James [
22] in the book entitled “Driving Eco-Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and Sustainability”.
Later, in the mid-2000 s, eco-innovation became established as a popular subject in the scientific community [
21], and subsequently, in 2008, it was recognised by the business community [
23]. Although a relatively new concept [
24], it has been approached from different angles of research, namely, innovation, management, engineering, and economics, among others [
20].
For Porter and Linde [
25] and Rennings [
26], eco-innovations differ from other innovations in that the externalities and motivators for their introduction are involved, highlighting principally the importance of regulation policies for their development.
Therefore, eco-innovation can be defined as all processes, techniques, practices, systems, and products that are new or modified and which avoid or reduce environmental damage [
27].
This concept also includes all changes in the product portfolio or production processes that follow sustainability goals, such as waste management, eco-efficiency, the reduction of emissions, recycling, eco-design, or any other action implemented by companies that goes towards measuring and, then, reducing their ecological footprint.
Hellström [
28] shares the views of Rennings [
26], according to which eco-innovation is a process to develop new ideas, behaviour, products, and processes that contribute to reducing environmental effects or to ensure a greater harmony with environmental goals.
Andersen [
29] adopts an evolutionary perspective of industrial dynamics and defines eco-innovation as an innovation able to attract green income in the market, focusing research efforts on the degree of integration of environmental questions in the economic process.
In this study, we adopt the definition of eco-innovation originally presented by Kemp and Pearson [
30] and complemented by Horbach et al. [
17] stating that eco-innovation is the production, application, or exploitation of goods, services, production processes, organizational structures, or management methods that have a novelty character for the company or user throughout its life cycle, representing the reduction of environmental risks and pollution, including a reduced negative impact of resource use, for example, energy, compared to relevant alternative options. To this definition, we couple the adoption of lean principles; advancing with our own definition thus exposed that eco-innovation is the production, application, or exploitation of goods, services, production processes, organizational structures, or management methods that are new to the company or user and exposed that, on an ongoing basis, we must focus on increasing efficiency, flexibility, and productivity, as well as eliminating more waste, following the logic of circular sustainability.
Reid and Miedzinski [
30] consider eco-innovation as the creation of new, competitive efforts in products, processes, systems, services, and procedures conceived to satisfy human needs in order to improve the quality of life, through a minimal use of the lifecycle of natural resources, implying a minimal release of toxic substances.
Arundel and Kemp [
31] underline that the benefits of eco-innovation should be accompanied by a change in company values in the same way that the reduction of environmental impacts requires a change in company management.
According to the OECD [
32], eco-innovation is, first of all, an innovation in which the concept reflects explicitly the emphasis placed on reducing environmental impacts, whether intentionally or not, and, secondly, is not limited to innovations in products, processes, and organisational methods but also includes innovation in terms of social and institutional structures. Sarkar [
33] also includes all forms of (technological and non-technological) innovation, new products, services, and new business models that contribute to developing new business opportunities that protect the environment.
Eco-innovation is also positioned as a wide-ranging way to address future environmental problems, through reducing energy, resources, waste, and consumption, tending to stimulate sustainable economic activities [
2,
28]. This view recognises that eco-innovation contributes to creating eco-companies [
34] and can, therefore, be defined as a subclass of innovation, aiming to improve economic and environmental development [
35,
36].
According to Eurostat [
37], the concept of eco-innovation has been subject to review, considering here all services, products, resources, and processes that go towards lessening some of the most significant environmental impacts, simultaneously optimizing natural resources. Eco-innovation reduces greenhouse gas emissions, can stimulate the use of recyclable materials, and favours the implementation of more environmentally friendly production processes and services.
For Nuij [
38] eco-innovation is a response by the industry and the academic community to the development of new products and services in order to satisfy consumers in more eco-efficient contexts.
For Sarkar [
33], the resulting benefits can be classified as direct and indirect. Considered as direct benefits are all the operational advantages, i.e., corresponding to economic gains arising from a more effective use of resources and better logistics. In turn, indirect benefits include an improved company image; relationships with suppliers, clients, and authorities; as well as strengthening the business innovation capacity in general.
2.2. Lean Management Principles
In the business context, the Lean paradigm is associated with companies’ need to become increasingly competitive by reducing costs. Here, the focus is essentially on eliminating waste over the whole process, whether material flows or information flows, and, in this way, seeking to increase profitability, flexibility, and quality in processes. Consequently, the aim is to do more and better efficiently.
After the Second World War, in the Japanese car industry, more specifically in the Toyota Motor Corporation, the Lean thinking revolution appeared, aiming to optimize the production system. In its assembly lines, Toyota implemented the Toyota Production System (TPS) model, which was based on the philosophy of continuous improvement and focused on eliminating waste and reducing production times.
The TPS concept, designated Lean, was popularized in the book “The Machine that Changed the World” by Womack et al. [
39], becoming one of the most quoted references as a paradigm of modern production in the last decades [
40,
41]. However, the Lean concept can still seem confusing and ambiguous, with managers, consultants, and academics specialized in the subject agreeing that a common, clear, consistent, and widely accepted definition does not exist [
42].
According to Womack and Jones [
43], the
Lean Thinking paradigm, i.e.,
Lean thinking is centred on the continuous search for and elimination of all waste, aiming for an organisation’s continuous improvement. Sayer and Williams [
44], for example, defined it as being a holistic, sustainable approach aiming to maximize customer satisfaction. For Wilson [
45],
Lean is a set of techniques that, when combined and perfected, allow the reduction and elimination of waste, promoting organisations’ flexibility and response capacity. Therefore, the
Lean concept is applicable at all stages of a value chain, and the complete productive system, whether manufacturing a product or providing a service, can produce waste without affecting the value added for the target customer.
The reduction or elimination of waste alone is not an easy process, and for this reason, in Reference [
44], it is argued that the lean paradigm should follow the following five principles: (i) value; (ii) value chain; (iii) flow optimization; (iv) implementation of a pull system; and (v) seeks perfection. Following these principles not only specifies the value of a product in precise terms and that this is really what the customer wants but also, through the value chain, identifies and analyses the flow of value for each product in the sense of being able to map activities that do not add value. Moreover, lean principles suggest that, after identifying the value chain and waste, a continuous flow must be created that is characterized by the ability to produce only what is needed for the moment. Also, regarding the principles to be followed by lean, only the customer’s requests should trigger all the processes. Thus, organizations cannot produce what they think the customer will need but what is actually requested and in the exact quantity and moment, and the fact that, by encouraging a continuous improvement at all levels of the organization through the continuous listening of the client and the speed of responses, it will be possible to operate a continuous improvement of the organization [
46]. The principles to be followed by the lean paradigm are fundamentally what will allow an operation in the elimination of waste, since this is the essential focus of this paradigm. After identifying and briefly characterizing the five basic principles of lean philosophy, a diagram (see
Figure 1) is presented here to provide a better understanding of the link between the lean principles and the measurement measures adopted in this study in order to be able to assess the influence of a lean management principles adoption on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
Given the intensification of competition coupled with the fact that markets have become increasingly global, companies have realized that, in order to become more competitive, it is no longer enough to improve efficiency within the organization itself and that it is, therefore, necessary to focus on the lean management of the entire value [
47]. Therefore, as recommended in
Figure 1, the adoption of the five principles of lean management is based on the creation and management of a value chain (I), which incorporates the flows optimization (II), in the sense of being implemented a true pull system (III), tending to perfection (IV) and thus guaranteeing the creation of processes that generate value added (V). The management of lean principles requires the operationalization of measures that, in the present research, are represented through (i) quality (to improve the quality of goods and/or services by guaranteeing the highest quality of the components of the chain of value (I) and the maximum value added (V)); (ii) productivity (to increase the production capacity of goods and/or services in order to ensure the maximization of the tradeoff between the results and resources allocated throughout the entire value chain (I) and flow optimization processes (II)); and (iii) flexibility (to improve flexibility in the production of goods and/or services to ensure a greater capacity of management and response of the organization in terms of the pull system (III) and the perfection of processes and productions (IV)).
The new approach proposed here is not only a formal mechanism for implementing a lean culture in organizations but also for strengthening the pro-eco-innovation orientation, which can be influenced by achieving positive outcomes such as increased quality, productivity, and flexibility. This perspective also allows us to argue that, despite quality, productivity, and flexibility being associated with all lean principles, the selected measures can be linked to different principles, adopting a lean philosophy of maximum value added based on a dual problem: the minimization of waste and the maximization of the triad formed by quality, productivity, and flexibility.
Thus, as shown in
Figure 1, the adoption of the five lean principles in an organizational context requires the implementation of management practices that use lean measures represented by quality, productivity, and flexibility. Although the latter are an incomplete representation of these principles in view of the limited access to more detailed information, in the context of the present study, these three lean measures are used in a pioneering way to measure and test the influence of the adoption of lean principles on the pro eco-innovation orientation of companies with different levels of technological intensity.
2.3. Eco-Innovation Determinant Factors: Research Hypotheses and Conceptual Model
Many companies have implemented changes from a perspective oriented towards the environment, which in turn have a direct impact in different areas, namely R&D, production, administration, logistics, marketing, sales, and even globally in the value chain. Making the environmental question endogenous to firms’ decision-making process stimulates the search for innovative activities that, to a certain extent, allow an appropriate coexistence of economic activities and the conservation of environmental resources and services.
From the vision presented above, for Van Den Bergh et al. [
48], the main challenge is to ensure the management of production, distribution, and consumption, using renewable resources within their regeneration capacity and nonrenewable ones in accordance with the stage in their lifecycle and absorptive capacity in relation to the surrounding context. In this complex scenario, firms use eco-innovations to reduce the negative impacts of new processes or products on the environment, adopting sustainable marketing strategies and business models.
For a better understanding of the determinant factors of eco-innovation, some theoretical approaches identified in the literature follow, serving as cornerstones of this study. The small differences identified between authors arise mainly from how each one classifies the determinant factors, with being no substantial differences conceptually. Therefore, three types of determinant factors can be identified, namely (1) market-oriented factors such as market participation, competition, seeking new markets, labour costs, organisational image, and consumer demand; (2) technology-oriented factors, such as product quality, the efficiency of the material, product movement, and energy efficiency; and (3) factors caused by regulations, including current environmental legislation, occupational health and safety norms, and public and regulatory policies.
Although innovations are socially desirable, market imperfections can form barriers to development by private actors. When determinant factors stimulated by technology or by the market are not sufficiently strong, ecological innovations need to count on reinforced regulatory policies in order to ensure the desired dissemination [
49].
Bernauer et al. [
50] propose a conceptual framework to study the determinant factors of eco-innovation, dividing them in three groups:
Regulatory: emphasizing questions related to the rigour of current environmental regulations and foreseeable changes in the future;
Market: placing the emphasis on competitiveness and benefits provided to the consumer; and
Internal to the company: highlighting “green” capacities, the capacity for business innovation and company size.
Horbach [
51] carried out a study applied to the German context and proposed an alternative classification, distinguishing between
Factors on the supply side: including technological capacities (based on human capital and knowledge) and problems in appropriating the results of innovations founded on restrictive market structures (for example, monopoly), company size, and scale gains;
Factors on the demand side: considering the expectations of market demand, the development of environmental consciousness, and the preference for environmentally friendly, sustainable products; and
Political and institutional factors: covering environmental policies oriented towards stimulating innovation based on incentives or approaches of institutional regulations and structure, i.e., on the political opportunities of environmentally oriented groups, the organisation of information flows, and the existence of innovation networks.
Using a database of companies located in the United Kingdom, Kesidou and Demirel [
52] revealed that demand factors influenced investment decisions in eco-innovation, allowing the alignment of commercial practices with social and economic expectations, consumers’ requirements, and organisational capacities related to the existence of a system of environmental management, as well as corresponding to the rigour of environmental regulation policies. Regarding the last aspect, the same authors underline that the rigour of regulations affects differently the eco-innovations of less innovative companies compared to those of more innovative ones.
Horbach et al. [
17] made important contributions to the issue of the determinant factors of eco-innovation in a quantitative analysis applied to Germany, which identified the factors determining eco-innovation according to the type of environmental impact, something which had not been explored in previous studies. These authors considered as determinant factors (i) the regulations (based on the previous study by Popp [
53], where the national regulation is indicated as the main determinant factor of eco-innovations in the United States of America, Japan, and Germany); (ii) the factors stimulated by the market, referring to the contribution of Kammerer [
54], which highlights the importance of the benefits for the consumer and the tacit recognition of the lack of strong incentives for eco-innovation on the demand side besides regulations in order to overcome the problem of double externality; (iii) the factors stimulated by technology (highlighting companies’ technological capacities and environmental management systems); and (iv) the firm-specific factors (considering knowledge transfer mechanisms and an involvement in the relationship networks [
55], as well as “green” capacities [
54,
56].
In the view of Horbach et al. [
17], the still scarce literature on the determinant factors of eco-innovation has a certain complexity in relation to the mapping of supply, demand, or firm-specific factors. However, these authors emphasize the role of regulations, cost reduction, and the benefits for consumers. Current and expected regulations have effects on organisations concerning innovations related to gas reduction, water pollution, noise emission, and restrictions on dangerous substitutes, as well as on the increased possibility of recycling products. Cost reduction is important to motivate the reduction of energy and the use of materials, indicating the price of energy and materials, as well as taxation, as the main stimulants of eco-innovation. Consumers’ requirements as a source of environmental innovations are related to the improved environmental performance of products and processes that increase the efficiency of materials and reduce energy consumption and waste, besides limiting the use of dangerous substances.
In the conceptual framework of the determinant factors of eco-innovation, the contributions of Horbach et al. [
17] and Horbach [
51], in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), indicate the predominance of incremental technology in the majority of environmental innovations implemented, based on limited research and development (R&D) efforts.
According to Kesidou and Demirel [
52], organisations’ behaviour in matters of a social, ethical, and juridical nature improve the company image but not necessarily environmental matters but can have a positive effect in large firms [
55]. The certification of origin is not relevant in determining eco-innovation, since products originating from certified regions are protected by their reputation and the very concept, restricting preferences and the competition from substitute products considered unauthentic.
In relation to the role played by the allocation of public resources to promote eco-innovation, this study does not find a consensus in the literature of reference. For example, Horbach [
51] and De Marchi [
57] defend the positive influence of allocating this type of resource to promote eco-innovation. However, this perspective is refuted, among others, by Kammerer [
54] and Triguero et al. [
58]. This divergence of perspectives and results provided the opportunity for a revision of the theory to examine whether the triple helix model of Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [
59], which considers the integration of state, industrial, and academic efforts to promote innovation, is valid for eco-innovations in any circumstances or only under specific conditions.
In the study by Triguero et al. [
58] about the determinant factors of different types of eco-innovation in the context of European SMEs, the following factors were considered:
Supply side: the determinant factors are divided in those stimulated by technology (technological and management skills, cooperation with R&D institutes, agencies and universities, and access to external knowledge and information) and by cost reduction (company size, the price of materials, and energy costs);
Demand side: the factors are segmented according to those that are market-pulled (market participation and market demand for green products); and
Factors pushed/pressurized through regulations: existing regulations, future regulations, and access to existing subsidies and tax incentives.
More recently, Cuerva et al. [
60] carried out an application for Spanish food and drink companies, aiming to identify the differences between determinant factors of “green” and “non-green” innovations. The results reveal that the implementation of environmental management systems (EMS) and differentiation only explain the adoption of innovative green activities. These authors emphasize that technological capacities, such as R&D and human capital, promote smaller innovations than other innovations, contributing to the confirmation of previous empirical evidence [
55,
61,
62,
63] which highlights that financial restrictions limit green innovations to a greater extent than other innovations, as well as the development of suitable organisational capacities and the implementation of quality management systems aiming to promote ecological innovations to a greater extent than other innovations. Concerning R&D activities, the work by Trigueiro et al. [
64] analysing synergies between eco-innovation and employment using a sample of more than 6000 innovative Spanish manufacturing and service firms should be noted. The results confirmed their positive influence on eco-innovation. Also in relation to R&D activities, namely internal R&D activities, the results presented in Reference [
13] confirm that, when companies acquire knowledge from internal sources, this leads to increased innovation and sustainable performance.
Cuerva et al. [
60] also underline that, in the SME context, practices of environmental responsibility and certification of origin do not have a positive influence on “green” innovations, although the contrary is true for conventional innovations.
Also according to Cuerva et al. [
60], the cooperation among competitors, suppliers and clients, research centres, and universities does not have a significant influence on any type of innovation. Cooperation in the SME context discourages innovation in industries providing homogenous products. The results obtained by the authors open a window of opportunity to deepen the theory of open innovation of Chesbrough [
65], who defends the formation of cooperative relationships between the actors of innovation in order to investigate in what circumstances and to what extent this applies to environmental innovations. Also based on open innovation, Lee et al. [
66] empirically show the positive impact of external sources of information on innovation.
It should also be noted that, according to Cuerva et al. [
60], company size has a positive influence on both types of innovation, confirming the empirical evidence of Cleff and Rennings [
67], Bernauer et al. [
50], De Marchi [
57], and Le Bas and Poussing [
68]. Therefore, the extra-financial resources necessary for innovation are also reason enough to suppose that large companies are more likely to innovate ecologically than small ones, above all because large firms are more likely to take on risks than SMEs. Nevertheless, some studies do not support that positive influence of company size on innovation [
50,
69], although recently, the work by Trigueiro et al. [
64] has also contributed to the current debate, defending the influence of company size on eco-innovation.
The general theory of innovation usually emphasizes the relevance of the technological impulse as one of the main determinant factors of eco-innovation. The technological capacities available lead to eco-innovations. Also in the economic literature, technological and management capacities are generally considered to increase environmental innovations and the importance of technical knowledge acquired from external sources [
51,
58]. In this respect, Cohen and Levinthal [
70] argue that the company’s absorptive capacity or its ability to recognize the value of new, external information is extremely important in determining its innovation capacity. Therefore, the absorptive capacity will also provide companies with the resources necessary to recognize the potential of eco-innovation and to achieve their development [
71].
From the above, the following research hypotheses are considered:
H1. Technology has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1a. Internal R&D activities have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1b. External R&D activities have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1c. An investment in computer equipment and software has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1d. The acquisition of external knowledge has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1e. Practices of Business Process Management (BPM) have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1f. Work organisation practices have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H1g. Sources of information have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
The changes observed in market trends are generally related to eco-innovation opportunities. Suppliers and clients reinforce the need to develop this type of innovation [
72]. Various studies observe that clients’ perceptions or requirements can explain the firm’s decision to adopt eco-innovations [
17,
73,
74,
75]. For example, Tsai et al. [
76] analyse the growing tendency to purchase green, educational toys for children. Customers have a strong environmental conscience and are concerned about protecting the environment and producing a positive network externality effect, which can mean increased demand for green toys. In addition, manufacturers are willing to adopt the perceived value of green toys for customers if they can handle the difficulties of a cooperation within the production chain and production. A usual policy recommendation is to reduce the financial restrictions for SMEs, with the final aim of encouraging eco-innovation [
60]. Johnson and Lybecker [
77] explore the forms of public and private financing, attempting to assess its effectiveness and making policy suggestions oriented to financing eco-innovation. In private companies, there are growing difficulties in the emergence of eco-innovations compared to other innovations to attract risk capital for their development [
78]. Therefore, the availability of finance is considered one of the main stimulants of eco-innovations [
77]. Pressure groups or stakeholders have also been highlighted as alternative forces that influence business in eco-innovation practices.
Guoyou et al. [
79] observe that foreign clients have a critical role in leading companies to adopt eco-innovation strategies in processes and products, although foreign investors only affect the adoption of eco-innovators.
This results in the following research hypotheses:
H2. Market characteristics have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H2a. Cost savings have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H2b. New markets have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H2c. Market participation has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation.
Jänicke [
80] argues that intelligent regulations plays an important role in the political competition for eco-innovation and can be identified as a driving force of eco-innovation. Therefore, the argument that regulation imposes high costs on firms and hinders innovation and stronger competitiveness has remained popular. At the beginning of the 1990s, however, the defendants of regulations successfully challenged the neoclassical tradition, emphasizing the existence of a positive relationship between environmental regulations and countries’ competitiveness. The same author argues that environmental regulations can create barriers for companies and industries, but they can also provide a number of advantages.
Despite the important contribution of regulation to creating and spreading eco-innovation, as shown in the literature, Mickwitz et al. [
81] argue that regulations, i.e., environmental norms and licensing conditions, have often been considered ineffective in inducing innovations. The basic, underlying argument is that regulations do not give any additional incentive to innovate after fulfilling requirements. Based on theoretical models, many economists argue that economic instruments are more useful that regulations in promoting innovation because they impose a cost for pollution, irrespective of its level, and are therefore an incentive to innovate [
82,
83]. This occurs because reduced emissions provide cost savings in the form of taxes avoided or increase income in the form of subsidies obtained or licences that can be sold. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are considered:
H3. Policies have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H3a. European, public lines of finance have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
Rusko [
84] argued that one of the main motivations for competitors to become involved in strategic cooperation agreements is based on benefiting the creation of added value and, thereby, improving economic performance. Therefore, gaining a greater added value and creating a bigger market are important factors for competing partners to become involved in this type of relationship [
84,
85,
86].
As proposed by Padula and Dagnino [
87], the cooperation strategy is influenced by the company’s knowledge structure. Firms wishing to become involved in such cooperation relationships face the need to acquire or increase their stock of internal knowledge resources [
88,
89]. Acquiring knowledge externally is extremely important for companies in order to strengthen competitiveness and innovation when they compete with their rivals. This results in the following research hypotheses:
H4. Cooperation relationships have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H4a. Cooperation with competitors has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H4b. Cooperation with universities has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
The lean philosophy and eco-innovation are often seen as compatible due to their combined focus on waste reduction. The removal of non-value-added activities suggested by the lean paradigm can provide substantial energy savings and can reduce the environmental impact of production systems by identifying opportunities for the integration of lean efforts and innovations [
90].
For Elias and Magalhães [
91], the tools developed by
lean management contribute to gaining environmental, technological, and economic benefits, thereby minimizing the need for resources, energy, y and raw material.
According to Porter and Linde [
25], when applying
lean management principles, an organisation influences the proactiveness with the purpose of adopting eco-innovation in firms, or also, the more generalized
lean production is in those organisations, the less the waste and costs are associated with the production process. Therefore, implementing a no-waste production policy in organisations influences, to some extent, the development of innovation activities, promoting a change in organisations’ performance in that area.
At the same time, since lean initiatives can ensure the necessary production flows, only a small amount of stock should be obtained, produced, transported, packaged, and handled, which also minimizes the negative environmental impacts. Regarding quality, ISO 14001 certification is the basis of a systematic approach to reduce organisations’ environmental impacts and, at the same time, acts as a snowball that influences organisations to adopt eco-innovative practices.
Considering that companies continually strive to optimize their operations in general, including the product development process, [
92] it is argued that a robust design can be considered as an integral part of such a product development. Following Reference [
92], the robust design has as a preferential focus the action of designing products with a functional performance insensitive to variation and noise. Thus, the importance of a robust design in lean management principles is recognized; however, it still seems challenging to operationalize, in empirical terms, what will be its influence in the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
It should also be underlined that there are trade-offs to consider when the
lean paradigm is associated with the determinant factors of eco-innovation. The truth is that
lean strategies involving
just-in-time deliveries of small amounts can mean greater transport, packaging, and handling costs, which may contradict an eco-innovative approach. Recognising this conflict, companies can identify compromises or develop solutions that lessen undesirable consequences. For example, firms that recognise the negative environmental impact of the
just-in-time approach can consider reusable containers and packaging or can adapt the size of the batch to optimize transport use as a means to achieve
lean objectives and eco-innovation. In this line of reasoning, in some cases,
lean can be considered a determinant factor of eco-innovation, as will be seen further on from the results obtained in the empirical analysis. Therefore, the following research hypotheses are presented:
H5. Lean management principles have a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H5a. Quality management has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H5b. Flexibility has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
H5c. Productivity has a positive influence on the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
Although the current approach to eco-innovation was founded on a previously tested set of determinant factors [
17], grouped by the dimensions technology (H1), market (H2), public policies (H3), and cooperative relations (H4), it is worth noting that this approach differs from the previous ones, since the first technology dimension represented in H1 is based on metrics of internal R&D activities, external R&D activities, equipment, software, external knowledge, business process management, labour organization, and sources of information. In relation to the market represented in H2, distinct metrics are used: cost savings, entry into new markets, and market share. When addressing public policies represented in H3, these are measured by the provision of funding lines, and with regard to the cooperation represented in H4, it is considered, above all, the relations established with universities, research structures, and competitors. The novelty here lies in the formulation and test of the dimension still unexplored of the lean principle adoption represented in H5, making use of success critical variables, such as quality, productivity, and flexibility, used to reinforce the pro-eco-innovation orientation.
Considering the review of the literature of reference and setting out from the proposal of Horbach et al. [
17], a conceptual model is proposed (
Figure 1), which is of an innovative nature inasmuch as it includes four groups of determinant factors present in the literature, namely technology, market, public policies, and cooperation relationships, added to which is a fifth group of determinants still to be explored: lean management (see
Figure 2 below).