Proactive Environmental Strategy, Technological Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance—Case of Poland
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Proactive Environmental Strategy and Technological Eco-Innovation
2.2. Proactive Environmental Strategy and Firm Performance
2.3. Technological Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance
2.4. Mediating Role of Technological Eco-Innovation in the Relationship between Proactive Environmental Strategy and Firm Performance
2.5. Interdependence of Firm Performance
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
Characteristics | Survey Sample | |
---|---|---|
N | % | |
Size of firm | ||
Small-sized | 150 | 51.4 |
Medium-sized | 95 | 32.5 |
Large-sized | 47 | 16.1 |
Total | 292 | 100.0 |
Sector | ||
Food Products and Beverages | 41 | 14.0 |
Wood and Paper Products | 16 | 5.5 |
Chemicals and Chemical Products | 26 | 8.9 |
Textiles | 15 | 5.2 |
Basic Metals and Metal Products | 37 | 12.7 |
Non-Metallic and Mineral Products | 34 | 11.6 |
Machinery and Equipment | 29 | 10.0 |
Electrical Machinery and Apparatus | 17 | 5.8 |
Motor Vehicles and Transportation | 22 | 7.5 |
Electricity Production and Supply | 21 | 7.2 |
Environmental protection | 28 | 9.6 |
Others | 6 | 2.0 |
Total | 292 | 100.0 |
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Proactive Environmental Strategy (PES)
3.2.2. Technological Eco-Innovation (TEI)
3.2.3. Operational Performance (OP)
3.2.4. Financial Performance (FP)
3.2.5. Control Variables
3.3. Methods Specification
4. Results
4.1. The Measurement Model Assessment
Construct | Item | Mean | SD | Standardized Loading | C-α | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P&O-PES | PES-1 | 4.860 | 1.740 | 0.777 | 0.923 | 0.937 | 0.651 |
PES-2 | 4.750 | 2.038 | 0.850 | ||||
PES-3 | 4.641 | 2.064 | 0.863 | ||||
PES-4 | 4.596 | 1.981 | 0.815 | ||||
PES-5 | 4.589 | 2.116 | 0.749 | ||||
PES-6 | 3.997 | 2.382 | 0.757 | ||||
PES-7 | 4.795 | 1.986 | 0.834 | ||||
PES-8 | 4.195 | 2.131 | 0.800 | ||||
O-PES | PES-9 | 3.990 | 2.018 | 0.738 | 0.916 | 0.932 | 0.633 |
PES-10 | 4.955 | 1.798 | 0.860 | ||||
PES-11 | 5.127 | 1.591 | 0.732 | ||||
PES-12 | 4.904 | 1.670 | 0.855 | ||||
PES-13 | 4.774 | 1.821 | 0.854 | ||||
PES-14 | 4.705 | 1.839 | 0.775 | ||||
PES-15 | 4.339 | 1.892 | 0.740 | ||||
PES-16 | 4.531 | 1.877 | 0.799 | ||||
TEI | TEI-1 | 3.247 | 1.727 | 0.765 | 0.903 | 0.926 | 0.674 |
TEI-2 | 3.661 | 1.637 | 0.849 | ||||
TEI-3 | 4.014 | 1.727 | 0.837 | ||||
TEI-4 | 3.264 | 1.702 | 0.782 | ||||
TEI-5 | 4.106 | 1.699 | 0.844 | ||||
TEI-6 | 4.209 | 1.652 | 0.846 | ||||
OP | OP-1 | 4.914 | 1.185 | 0.849 | 0.703 | 0.871 | 0.769 |
OP-1 | 4.935 | 1.238 | 0.904 | ||||
FP | FP-1 | 4.267 | 1.251 | 0.783 | 0.861 | 0.906 | 0.707 |
FP-2 | 3.990 | 1.418 | 0.889 | ||||
FP-3 | 3.962 | 1.368 | 0.861 | ||||
FP-4 | 3.976 | 1.296 | 0.826 |
Construct | P&O-PES | O-PES | TEI | OP | FP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
P&O-PES | 0.651 | ||||
O-PES | 0.526 | 0.633 | |||
TEI | 0.356 | 0.447 | 0.674 | ||
OP | 0.044 | 0.074 | 0.111 | 0.769 | |
FP | 0.054 | 0.050 | 0.079 | 0.190 | 0.707 |
4.2. The Structural Model Assessment
Hypothesis | Relationship | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value | R2 | Q2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1. | PES→TEI | 0.682 | 15.888 | <0.001 | R2 (TEI) = 0.465 | 0.31 |
H2a. | PES→OP | 0.063 | 0.829 | 0.408 | R2(OP) = 0.114 | 0.07 |
H3a. | TEI→OP | 0.291 | 3.843 | <0.001 | ||
H2b. | PES→FP | 0.077 | 1.074 | 0.284 | R2(FP) = 0.214 | 0.14 |
H3b. | TEI→FP | 0.102 | 1.386 | 0.166 | ||
H5. | OP→FP | 0.381 | 6.871 | <0.001 |
4.3. The Analysis of the Direct Effects
4.4. The Analysis of the Indirect Effects
Relationship | Indirect Effect Path | Direct Effect β | Indirect Effect β | Total Effect β | Indirect Effect Confidence Interval | Total Effect Confidence Interval |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PES→OP | PES→TEI→OP | 0.063 | 0.199* | 0.262* | (0.042; 0.328) | (0.093; 0.407) |
PES→FP | PES→TEI→OP→FP | 0.077 | 0.169* | 0.246* | (0.026; 0.297) | (0.080; 0.389) |
TEI→FP | TEI→OP→FP | 0.102 | 0.111* | 0.213* | (0.030; 0.201) | (0.015; 0.390) |
4.5. Control Variables
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix
Construct | Early Respondents (n = 88) | Late Respondents (n = 88) | t-Value | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |||
P&O-PES | 4.537 | 1.598 | 4.353 | 1.773 | 0.831 | 0.407 |
O-PES | 4.566 | 1.457 | 4.518 | 1.543 | 0.213 | 0.831 |
TEI | 3.699 | 1.451 | 3.613 | 1.405 | 0.396 | 0.693 |
OP | 5.051 | 0.959 | 5.001 | 1.179 | 0.316 | 0.753 |
FP | 4.148 | 1.234 | 4.102 | 1.059 | 0.262 | 0.793 |
Variable Code | Definition of Question Items for the Analyzed Measures |
---|---|
Proactive environmental strategy | |
PES-1 | Environmental issues are high priorities in our organization’s objectives and strategy |
PES-2 | We have explicitly defined and documented environmental policy |
PES-3 | We have clearly defined and documented environmental objectives and long-term environmental plans |
PES-4 | Our top management regularly measures and assesses the environmental performance |
PES-5 | We conduct periodic environmental reviews and internal audits |
PES-6 | Our organizational structure includes management representative responsible entirely for environmental issues |
PES-7 | We have management representative responsible for environmental issues actively participating in formulation of firm’s objectives and strategy |
PES-8 | Our employees participate in environmental trainings |
PES-9 | We conduct periodical environmental impact assessments of products with regard to all stages of their life cycle |
PES-10 | We take into account environmental criteria in design and development of products |
PES-11 | We use cleaner technology and environmental friendly processes |
PES-12 | We take into account environmental issues in design and development of production methods, maintenance and logistics |
PES-13 | We take into account environmental criteria during suppliers selection |
PES-14 | We require our suppliers and subcontractors to improve environmental activities and to keep relevant environmental standards |
PES-15 | We consider environmental issues during selection of mode of transport and distribution channels |
PES-16 | We emphasize commitment to environmental protection in marketing activities |
Technological eco-innovation (during last 3 years as compared to key competitors) | |
TEI-1 | We usually were the first on the market to introduce new eco-innovative products |
TEI-2 | We have introduced more products that are eco-innovative |
TEI-3 | We have introduced products that are more eco-innovative |
TEI-4 | We usually were the first to introduce new, environment friendly methods of manufacturing, maintenance and logistics |
TEI-5 | We have introduced more new or significantly improved processes bringing environmental benefits |
TEI-6 | We have been improving environmental parameters of our processes more effectively |
Operational performance (during last 3 years as compared to key competitors) | |
OP-1 | Product quality |
OP-2 | Customer satisfaction |
Financial performance (during last 3 years as compared to key competitors) | |
FP-1 | Increase in market share |
FP-2 | Profit growth |
FP-3 | Return on sales |
FP-4 | Return on investment |
Causal Path | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Model (X→Y) | |||
PES→OP | 0.277 | 4.904 | <0.001 |
Model (X→M) | |||
PES→TEI | 0.687 | 16.112 | <0.001 |
Model (X, M→Y) | |||
TEI→OP | 0.280 | 3.707 | <0.001 |
PES→OP | 0.082 | 1.083 | 0.280 |
Model (X→M; M→Y; X→Y) | |||
PES→TEI | 0.686 | 16.044 | < 0.001 |
TEI→OP | 0.291 | 3.820 | < 0.001 |
PES→OP | 0.065 | 0.851 | 0.396 |
Causal Path | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Model (X→Y) | |||
PES→FP | 0.258 | 4.554 | <0.001 |
Model (X→M) | |||
PES→TEI | 0.687 | 16.112 | <0.001 |
Model (X, M→Y) | |||
TEI→FP | 0.224 | 2.931 | <0.01 |
PES→FP | 0.107 | 1.405 | 0.161 |
Model (X→M; M→Y; X→Y) | |||
PES→TEI | 0.686 | 16.038 | <0.001 |
TEI→FP | 0.225 | 2.918 | <0.01 |
PES→FP | 0.101 | 1.306 | 0.192 |
Relationship | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Size × PES→TEI | −0.138 | −0.643 | 0.520 |
PES→TEI | 0.680 | 14.422 | <0.001 |
Size × PES→OP | −0.535 | −1.599 | 0.111 |
Size × TEI→OP | 0.259 | 0.958 | 0.339 |
PES→OP | 0,098 | 1.201 | 0.231 |
TEI→OP | 0.266 | 3.487 | <0.001 |
Size × PES→FP | 0.010 | 0.309 | 0.757 |
Size × TEI→FP | 0.215 | 0.791 | 0.430 |
Size × OP→FP | −0.216 | −0.702 | 0.483 |
PES→FP | 0.053 | 0.686 | 0.493 |
TEI→FP | 0.071 | 0.910 | 0.364 |
OP→FP | 0.401 | 6.744 | <0.001 |
Relationship | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Pollution Int. × PES→TEI | −0.042 | −0.212 | 0.831 |
PES→TEI | 0.704 | 12.378 | <0.001 |
Pollution Int. × PES→OP | 0.189 | 0.694 | 0.488 |
Pollution Int. × TEI→OP | 0.212 | 0.897 | 0.371 |
PES→OP | 0.113 | 1.082 | 0.280 |
TEI→OP | 0.241 | 2.484 | <0.01 |
Pollution Int. × PES→FP | 0.072 | 0.280 | 0.780 |
Pollution Int. × TEI→FP | 0.032 | 0.133 | 0.895 |
Pollution Int. × OP→FP | 0.477 | 2.002 | <0.05 |
PES→FP | 0.097 | 0.989 | 0.323 |
TEI→FP | 0.100 | 1.005 | 0.316 |
OP→FP | 0.475 | 6.612 | <0.001 |
Relationship | Estimate | t-Value | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Market × PES→TEI | 0.021 | 0.450 | 0.653 |
PES→TEI | 0.672 | 14.693 | <0.001 |
Market × PES→OP | −0.395 | −1.564 | 0.118 |
Market × TEI→OP | 0.342 | 1.356 | 0.176 |
PES→OP | 0.077 | 0.982 | 0.327 |
TEI→OP | 0.263 | 3.356 | <0.001 |
Market × PES→FP | 0.076 | 0.286 | 0.775 |
Market × TEI→FP | 0.230 | 0.848 | 0.397 |
Market × OP→FP | −0.224 | −1.033 | 0.302 |
PES→FP | 0.052 | 0.672 | 0.502 |
TEI→FP | 0.076 | 0.979 | 0.328 |
OP→FP | 0.381 | 6.370 | <0.001 |
References
- King, A.A.; Lenox, M.J. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental and financial performance. J. Ind. Ecol. 2001, 5, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, E.; Rey-Maquieira, J.; Lozano, J. The economic impacts of voluntary environmental performance of firms: A critical review. J. Econ. Surv. 2009, 23, 462–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Claver-Cortés, E.; López-Gamero, M.D.; Tarí, J.J. Green management and financial performance: A literature review. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1080–1100. [Google Scholar]
- Delmas, M.; Hoffman, V.; Kuss, M. Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy and competitive advantage. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 116–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.J.; Yang, C.L.; Sheu, C. The link between eco-innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutz, P.; Ioppolo, G. From Theory to Practice: Enhancing the Potential Policy Impact of Industrial Ecology. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2259–2273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buysse, K.; Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hart, S.L. Natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar]
- Hart, S.L.; Dowell, G. Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm fifteen years after. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1464–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Vredenburg, H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christmann, P. Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost competitiveness: The role of complementary assets. Acad Manag. J. 2000, 43, 663–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 71–88. [Google Scholar]
- Rennings, K. Redefining innovation—Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 32, 319–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oltra, V. Environmental Innovation and Industrial Dynamics: The Contributions of Evolutionary Economics. Working Papers of GREThA, (28). 2008. Available online: http://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/wpegrt/2008–28.html (accessed on 10 October 2015).
- Rehfeld, K.M.; Rennings, K.; Ziegler, A. Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horbach, J. Determinants of environmental innovation—new evidence from German panel data sources. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triguero, A.; Moreno-Mondéjar, L.; Davia, M.A. Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 92, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marchi, V. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 614–623. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y. Environmental innovation practices and performance: Moderating effect of resource commitment. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, H.-H.R.; Chen, J.-S.; Chen, P.-C. Effects of Green Innovation on Environmental and Corporate Performance: A Stakeholder Perspective. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4997–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.S. The driver of green innovation and green image—green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics. 2008, 81, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yarahmadi, M.; Higgins, P.G. Motivations towards environmental innovation: A conceptual framework for multiparty cooperation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 400–420. [Google Scholar]
- Del Río, P.; Peñasco, C.; Romero-Jordán, R. What drives eco-innovators? A critical review of the empirical literature based on econometric methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2158–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EIO. Europe in transition: Paving the way to a green economy through eco-innovation. 2013. Available online: http://www.eco-innovation.eu/images/stories/Reports/EIO_Annual_Report_2012.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2015).
- OECD. Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation. Framework, Practices and Measurement. 2009. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/innovation/inno/43423689.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2015).
- González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, O. Environmental proactivity and business performance: An empirical analysis. Omega-Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2005, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, C.B.; Auster, E.R. Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1990, 31, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
- Roome, N. Developing environmental management systems. Bus. Strat. Environ. 1992, 1, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A. Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carballo-Penela, A.; Castromán-Diz, J.L. Environmental Policies for Sustainable Development: An Analysis of the Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategies in the Service Sector. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2015, 24, 802–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fussler, C.; James, P. Driving Eco-Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and Sustainability; Pitman Publishing: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, R.; Pearson, P. Final Report MEI Project about Measuring Eco-Innovation. Maastricht. 2008. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2015).
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Innovation for a Sustainable Future—The Eco-Innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP). 2011. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52011DC0899 (accessed on 5 September 2015).
- Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd ed.; OECD: Paris, France, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegler, A.; Nogareda, J.S. Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: Exploring the causal relationship. Res. Policy 2009, 38, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Ciraolo, L. Industrial ecology and environmental lean management: Lights and shadows. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6362–6376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menguc, B.; Ozanne, L.K. Challenges of the “green imperative”: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation-business performance relationship. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarkson, P.; Li, Y.; Richardson, G.; Vasvari, F. Does it really pay to be green? Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies. J. Account. Public Pol. 2011, 30, 122–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Gamero, M.D.; Molina-Azorin, J.F.; Claver-Cortés, E. The whole relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: Competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 3110–3121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ghisetti, C.; Rennings, K. Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the German innovation survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 75, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Rubio-López, E.A. Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Plan. 2007, 40, 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahba, H. Does the market value corporate environmental responsibility? An empirical examination. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, M. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: Corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 76, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watson, K.; Klingenberg, B.; Polito, T.; Geurts, T. Impact of environmental management system implementation on financial performance. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2004, 15, 622–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klassen, R.D.; Whybark, D.C. The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 42, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvadó, J.A.; de Castro, G.M.; López, J.E.N.; Verde, M.D. Environmental Innovation and Firm Performance. A Natural Resource-Based View; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Boons, F.; Wagner, M. Assessing the relationship between economic and ecological performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of innovation. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1908–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, C.G.; Gursoy, D. Employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, and financial performance: An empirical examination. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y. Organisational learning, product quality and performance: The moderating effect of social ties in Chinese cross-border outsourcing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murillo-Luna, J.L.; Garcés-Ayerbe, C.; Rivera-Torres, P. Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 1417–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Liu, B.; Shishime, T.; Yu, Q.; Bi, J.; Fujitsuka, T. An empirical study on the driving mechanism of proactive corporate environmental management in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 1707–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singh, N.; Jain, S.; Sharma, P. Determinants of proactive environmental management practices in Indian firms: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Wang, N. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8899–8908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirel, P.; Kesidou, E. Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1546–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Tapia, I.; Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Rueda-Manzanares, A. Environmental strategy and exports in medium, small and micro-enterprises. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Do environmental management systems improve business performance in an international setting? J. Int. Manag. 2008, 14, 364–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cainelli, G.; Mazzanti, M.; Montresor, S. Environmental innovations, local networks and internationalization. Ind. Innov. 2012, 19, 697–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez, G. PLS Path Modeling with R. Berkeley, 2013, Trowchez Editions ed. Available online: http://gastonsanchez.com/PLS_Path_Modeling_with_R.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2015).
- Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire, UK, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; Thompson, R. The Partial Least Squares (PLS). Approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technol. Stud. 1995, 2, 285–309. [Google Scholar]
- Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, A.F. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun. Monogr. 2009, 76, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Henseler, J.; Chin, W.W. A Comparison of Approaches for the Analysis of Interaction Effects Between Latent Variables Using Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. Struct. Equ. Model. 2010, 17, 82–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schroder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quart. 2009, 33, 177–195. [Google Scholar]
- Baran, J.; Janik, A.; Ryszko, A. Knowledge based eco-innovative product design and development—Conceptual model built on life cycle approach. In Proceedings of International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2014, Albena, Bulgaria, 1–9 September 2014; Volume 1, pp. 775–787.
- Baran, J.; Janik, A.; Ryszko, A.; Szafraniec, M. Making eco-innovation measurable—Are we moving towards diversity or uniformity of tools and indicators? In Proceedings of 2nd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM2015, Albena, Bulgaria, 26 August–1 September 2015; Volume 2, pp. 787–798.
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.; Lee, J.; Podsakoff, N. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venkatraman, N.; Ramanujam, V. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 11, 801–814. [Google Scholar]
© 2016 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ryszko, A. Proactive Environmental Strategy, Technological Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance—Case of Poland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020156
Ryszko A. Proactive Environmental Strategy, Technological Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance—Case of Poland. Sustainability. 2016; 8(2):156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020156
Chicago/Turabian StyleRyszko, Adam. 2016. "Proactive Environmental Strategy, Technological Eco-Innovation and Firm Performance—Case of Poland" Sustainability 8, no. 2: 156. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020156