In the past decade a stream of studies has analyzed the determinants of eco‐innovation. Four main clusters of drivers have been identified in the literature: “technology push,” “market pull,” “regulatory push‐pull,” and “firm specifi...
http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=O120634878
2018년
-
0964-4733
1099-0836
SCOPUS;SSCI
학술저널
1093-1103 [※수록면이 p5 이하이면, Review, Columns, Editor's Note, Abstract 등일 경우가 있습니다.]
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
In the past decade a stream of studies has analyzed the determinants of eco‐innovation. Four main clusters of drivers have been identified in the literature: “technology push,” “market pull,” “regulatory push‐pull,” and “firm specifi...
In the past decade a stream of studies has analyzed the determinants of eco‐innovation. Four main clusters of drivers have been identified in the literature: “technology push,” “market pull,” “regulatory push‐pull,” and “firm specific factors.” Nevertheless, the empirical quantitative and comparative analysis of those clusters is rare, scattered and inconclusive. This article aims to fill this gap by analyzing the determinants of eco‐innovation on the basis of a meta‐analytic study of quantitative empirical studies published over the period 2006 to 2017—a meta‐analysis which accounts for a total of 211,123 firms. The findings show that firms with collaborative networks and/or more environmental concern are more prone to eco‐innovate, emphasizing the role of “technology push” as the main cluster of determinants, regardless of whether a typology of eco‐innovation is included as a moderator in the meta‐analysis. Based on the results of the meta‐analytic study, the paper discusses several courses of action to foster eco‐innovation and achieve environmental benefits.
Employee wellbeing and human sustainability: Perspectives of managers in large Japanese corporations