Eco Innovations

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm
EJIM
14,3 The development and market
success of eco-innovations
A comparative study of eco-innovations and
278 “other” innovations in Sweden
Fawzi Halila and Jonas Rundquist
School of Business and Engineering, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The study, which compares the success factors for eco-innovations with those factors for
other innovations, is intended to improve understanding of how eco-innovations achieve market
success.
Design/methodology/approach – A case study design is used. Six eco-innovations cases and six
other innovations cases are compared. Data were obtained mainly from interviews with the
eco-innovators and the other innovators, written materials about the innovations, and secondary data
from an earlier quantitative study.
Findings – The study shows that there are both similarities and differences in the success factors for
the two types of innovations. One similarity is that a network with diverse competences supports
successful innovators. However, for eco-innovators the network is used more for solving technological
problems. Other innovators use the network to a greater extent for assistance with financing and
marketing. In addition, eco-innovators have greater difficulty than other innovators in attracting
venture capital for development.
Research limitations/implications – The results indicate that an interesting approach for future
research would be to take a life-cycle perspective that identifies the factors that influence the further
growth and development of eco-innovative firms.
Practical implications – The identification of the success factors for eco-innovations’ development
may improve their chances of success. Furthermore, the results can help policy-makers improve the
support system for commercialization of eco-innovations.
Originality/value – As a comparative study of success factors for eco-innovations and other
innovations, the study presents a new way to identify such factors for eco-innovators.
Keywords Innovation, Eco-innovation, Environmental innovation, Sustainable innovation,
Green innovation, Sustainable development, Sweden, Environmental management
Paper type Case study
Introduction
The term, eco-innovation (environmental innovation, green innovation or sustainable
innovation), is often used to identify those innovations that contribute to a sustainable
environment through the development of ecological improvements. Support for the
development and diffusion of more ecologically fit products, processes, organizational
models and systems can lead to improvements in the living conditions of present and
European Journal of Innovation future generations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has
Management concluded that reductions of at least 50 percent in global CO2 emissions from the 2000
Vol. 14 No. 3, 2011
pp. 278-302 levels will be necessary by 2050 in order to prevent dangerous climate change.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited However, recent developments show that eco-innovations are not only environmentally
1460-1060
DOI 10.1108/14601061111148807 important, but also have an important impact on economical development. It is even
claimed that the eco-industry has the capability to help the world recover from Eco-innovations
economic crises. According to the International Energy Agency (WBCSD, 2010), in Sweden
annual investments of approximately 750 billion USD until the year 2030 and more
than 1.6 trillion USD between 2030 to 2050 are required to reach this 50 percent
reduction in CO2 emissions, At the industry level, one example of such developments is
the wind power industry in Germany that grew by 500 percent between 2000 and 2009
and employed 85,000 people in Germany in 2006 (Neddermann, 2010). Eco-innovations 279
are also economically important at the level of individual firms. For example,
Guagnano (2001) found that over 86 percent of consumers are willing to pay extra for a
common household product that is less harmful ecologically. Tsen et al. (2006) support
this finding in their study of consumers who were willing to pay a premium for green
products.
Despite their importance for society, eco-innovations appear to experience greater
difficulty in reaching the market than “other” innovations. For example, a recent study
of eco-innovations’ diffusion shows that eco-innovations are less successful on the
market than other innovations (Halila, 2007; Hörte and Halila, 2007).
Previous research on the diffusion of eco-innovations has mostly focused on policy
activities and governmental interventions (e.g. Cantono and Silverberg, 2009; Jänicke,
2008). For example, Jänicke (2008, p. 558) concludes, “the most important implication is
that eco-innovations invariably require political support”. Other studies, however,
show that eco-innovations may very well achieve success without political support if
the right innovator, innovation, development process and/or market surroundings are
present (Hörte and Halila, 2007).
In a comparison of success factors for eco-innovations and other innovations, this
study aims to increase our understanding of how eco-innovations succeed in the
market. In particular, the study focuses on the reasons eco-innovations have greater
difficulty in reaching the market than other innovations. The study addresses the
following research question: what are the main reasons for the differences in the
success of eco-innovations and other innovations?
The article is structured in five sections, including this introduction. The second
section discusses the theoretical framework and introduces an analytical model. The
third section presents the research design.. The results are presented in the fourth
section. The final section presents the conclusions and offers suggestions for further
research.
Theoretical framework and the analytical model

Innovation success is defined in various ways (e.g. successful patent application,
achievement of a certain level of technology or a positive environmental effect). In this
article we define innovation success as market success that includes, for example, a
successful product launch and a profitable return on sales. In this section we first
explain the meaning of market success for innovations. Then we review previous
research on the success factors for innovations. We also develop an analytical model
based on the current literature in the field of innovation research.
Market success for innovations

An innovation can be regarded as one phase in the innovation development process.
One theory about successful innovation development is the competence bloc theory
EJIM (Eliasson and Eliasson, 1996). This theory proposes a minimum set of competent actors
14,3 is necessary to maximize the exposure of each innovation project to a varied
competence base. In this way, the occurrence of two selection errors is minimized: that
winners are rejected and losers are kept too long. The actors in the competence bloc
perform critical economic functions, namely the identification (creation), selection,
expansion and exploitation of business opportunities.
280 Eliasson and Eliasson (1996) identify the following actors in the competence bloc:
.
customers with receiver competence, for example, in situations when the
government demands high-technology products;
.
inventors who integrate technologies in new ways to solve existing problems;
.
entrepreneurs with the ability to implement innovations/technological solutions
in the market;
.
venture capitalists who recognize and finance entrepreneurs in early phases of
the innovation process;
. actors in the well-functioning second-hand or exit markets who facilitate
ownership change and provide financing at later stages of the innovation
process; and, finally
.
industrialists who know how to manage large-scale production and marketing.
All these actors are necessary for large-scale economic development and growth. Both
economic development and growth are links in a chain of events that begins with an
invention’s introduction (innovation), and then, as the innovation spreads, affects the
economy. Each event’s results are dependent upon the competence of the actors
involved. If, in any phase, one competence is lacking or underdeveloped, then the
development may slow of even cease. The chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
Our study is inspired by the competence bloc theory. We take into consideration the
distinction between invention and innovation as well as the transformation of an
invention into an innovation so that it can be launched as a product in the marketplace.
An invention is a product or service, or a combination of both, that offers a solution to a
problem. The inventor may apply for a patent on the invention. An innovation is an
invention that can be used. The individual who succeeds in transforming an invention
into an innovation is an innovator. Although the inventor and the innovator may be the
same person, they need not be (Halila, 2007).
The business and entrepreneurial literature classifies innovation as the second of
three phases of technological change. These phases occur in the following sequence:
invention, innovation and diffusion (Edquist, 1977; Eliashberg and Chatterjee, 1986;
Hall, 2005). In this tradition, innovation is the refinement of inventions into practical
technologies that are useful to society. Usually it is assumed that such refinement
occurs within companies and results in new products and services that meet market
needs (Roback, 2006).
The entrepreneur is the individual who is able to sell the innovation in the
marketplace. A successful innovation for a company may lead to growth and even a
public offering of shares. The industrialist is the individual who is able to produce the
innovation on an industrial level, often at a large and publicly-owned company.
Complementing these individuals is the investor who, as shareholder or creditor,
provides the venture capital to build a company around the innovation.
There are several stages in the above simplified trajectory from an invention to a Eco-innovations
successful innovation. At any one of these stages, the original idea may either be in Sweden
developed further or be abandoned. Not all inventions become innovations, not all
innovations result in companies, and not all companies are traded on stock exchanges.
In this study, we conceive of the successful innovation as the invention that has
completed the passage through more than one stage of the development process. An
invention that never develops into a successful innovation is a failure. 281
There are four factor groups in our analytical model related to the market success of
an innovation. One group relates to the innovator. The innovator may be an individual
or a team. The second group relates the innovation per se. The third group relates to the
development process of the innovation. The forth group relates to the introduction,
diffusion and adoption of the innovation in the market. An innovation is not developed
in isolation since its success depends on these factors in its surroundings. In the next
section we examine the four factor groups in our analytical model.
Eco-innovation. The general definition of innovation is neutral in terms of content of
the change. However, if the emphasis in defining innovation is on sustainable
development, it loses its neutrality and focus the reduction of environmental burdens
(Rennings, 2000).
The OECD emphasizes the systemic nature of eco-innovations. In the past,
environmental technology referred to pollution controls or end-of-pipe technologies.
Today, however, integrated solutions are more common, and all technologies can be
considered environmental when they are used to reduce negative environmental
impact. Furthermore, eco-innovations may develop in industries other than those in the
environmental goods and service sectors. Innovations in a broad range of industries
now have significant environmental effect. These observations point to the fact that
complex environmental innovations involve many areas of knowledge and many
different industrial sectors (Vinnova, 2001).
One of the many ways to define an eco-innovation is to focus on its effects.
According to Hemmelskamp (1997), an eco-innovation is an innovation that prevents or
reduces environmental burdens, deals with clean-up damage, or diagnoses and
monitors environmental problems. In this study we use Beise and Rennings’s (2003)
broad definition of eco-innovations:
Eco-innovations consist of new or modified processes, techniques, practices, systems and
products to avoid or reduce environmental harms. Eco-innovations may be developed with or
without the explicit aim of reducing environmental harm. They also may be motivated by the
usual business goals such as reducing costs or enhancing product quality.
It is important to note that an innovation’s effects rather than its intention determine
whether an innovation is environmental.
Success factors of innovations

There is a vast amount of literature on success in innovation, new product
development and research and development (R&D) projects. According to Balachandra
and Friar (1997), many of these research studies have attempted to identify the key
factors that predict the success or failure of such projects. These studies show that
there are a large number of influential factors. Because of space limitations, we have
selected the following factors for analysis:
EJIM .
factors related to the innovator;
14,3 .
factors related to the innovation;
.
factors related to the development process; and
.
factors related to the market surroundings.
282 We decided on these factors mainly based on our reading of articles about new product
development (NPD) and innovation (e.g. Balachandra and Friar, 1997; Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1995; Ernst, 2002; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Montoya-Weiss and
Calantone, 1994; Rundquist and Chibba, 2004; Wejnert, 2002).
In this section we develop our analytical model that can be used to explain and
compare the successes of eco-innovations and other innovations. Our model (Figure 1)
is based on Hörte and Halila’s (2007) model and on other researchers’ identifications of
success factors for innovations.
Factors related to the innovator. Inventors are important sources of innovation and
economic renewal in society (Schumpeter, 1934). The four success factors in this group
are: “individual’s characteristics”, “education” “competence” and “network”.
Researchers have studied individual characteristics for decades. The Aston
measures developed during the 1960s to study such differences are well known. Caird
(1994) showed that the innovator’s stubbornness and goal orientation are important
traits in the early phases of product development. However, some researchers have
challenged the personal trait perspective on successful innovators. For example,
Gartner (1989) recommended a combination of trait and action perspectives as a more
fruitful way to study innovators. In his study, actions are also viewed as factors related
to the development process.
According to many researchers, two other success factors are the innovator’s
education and competence in different areas (e.g. Caird, 1994). The ideal innovation
team includes members with varied expertise and education who can make substantial
contributions to the development of a new product (Griffin, 1997; Pinto and Pinto, 1990)
or innovation project. As a project leader who devotes significant attention to the
Figure 1.
The analytical model
project (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1995), the innovator must demonstrate these Eco-innovations
necessary qualifications (Balbontin et al., 1999). in Sweden
A fourth factor related to the innovator is the network. An innovator seldom works
alone. Instead, the innovator works with other actors in some form of network (e.g.
Johannisson, 2000). It is often said that the innovator is embedded in a network and
that the development of the innovation should be described from a system perspective
(Eliasson and Eliasson, 1996; Freeman, 1991; Granovetter, 1985; Lundvall, 1992: 283
Rothwell and Zegveld, 1985; Valente, 1995, 1996). According to Brown and Eisenhardt
(1995), intensive communication among the actors involved in NPD increases the
amount and variety of internal information flow and thus improves the development
process performance (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995).
Factors related to the innovation. Three factors we view as essential for an
innovation’s success are its “market newness”, its “technological level” and its
“cost/price”. Successful products provide customer value because of their superior
technical performance, low cost, reliability, quality and novelty.
The most successful new products are those that take advantage of a perceived yet
unfulfilled need (Zirger and Maidique, 1990). Many researchers have noted that a clear
orientation towards market demand, mainly through market research and analysis of
the competition, positively influences the success of a new product (Ernst, 2002).
Utterback (1974) and Cooper (1981) observe that a new product introduced in a
growing market has a greater chance of success. Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1987)
emphasize that products introduced into markets with low overall intensity of
competition are likely to be more successful.
Superiority in scientific innovation (the technological level) generally contributes to
the success of products owing to their novelty. With their unique features that
competitive products lack, such projects offer special advantages to buyers and
therefore enjoy greater success than “me too” products. Consumers soon recognize that
these novel products meet their needs better than competing products (Cooper, 1993;
Henard and Szymanski, 2001). Many studies (e.g. Cooper, 1979; Mahajan and Wind,
1992; Maidique and Zirger, 1984) have found that an innovative product has a greater
chance of success in the market. Other studies point to the patentability of the product,
or at least to its powerful technology, as an important success factor (Carter, 1982;
McGinnis and Ackelsberg, 1983; Rubenstein et al., 1976; Souder, 1987).
The third factor related to innovation is the cost/price. According to Porter (1985), a
new innovation that is introduced as a low price alternative may win new customers.
The price decision, however, also involves consideration of the cost of changing to a
new supplier (e.g. contract costs, new investments). One strategy used to persuade
customers to buy a product promising new and improved performance is to sell it at a
higher price than its competitor product. Such performance features may include, for
example, positive short-term environmental effects (e.g. lower emissions) or long-term
life cycle effects (e.g. Aragón-Correa and Sharma, 2003; Shrivastava, 1995). If the price
is higher than the established alternative, the assumption is that customers may
perceive the greater value of the new innovation.
Factors related to the development process. These factors refer to the elements
associated with the broad range of activities in the innovation process. The
development of an innovation is a sensitive process where much may go wrong. In this
study we focus on two elements. The first is “access to resources” such as knowledge
EJIM and man-hours. The second is “access to capital” through banks or venture capital
14,3 and/or through selling company shares.
The resources that innovation developers require are man-hours and competences
as well as management, technological and marketing skills. To better manage projects,
most innovators split their projects into a number of stages (Crawford, 1991). The first
stage is the planning stage, followed by brainstorming, screening and evaluation,
284 development and market research. These stages culminate in the product launch in the
market.
A sufficient number of man-hours are needed in the innovation’s predevelopment
stage since this stage is critical to the success of the innovation. The steps that precede
the design and development of a product make the difference between winning and
losing. Successful firms, compared to less successful firms, spend about twice as much
time and money on the following five predevelopment activities:
(1) initial screening;
(2) preliminary market assessment;
(3) preliminary technical assessment;
(4) marketing research; and
(5) business and financial analysis (Cooper, 1996).
Second, innovators’ better access to capital explains why certain innovations are more
successful than others (Ahrens, 1992). It is difficult for innovators to gain ready access
to capital in general and to bank financing in particular, especially in the early stages
of the innovation process. One possibility for raising capital is through association
with venture capitalists who invest in young companies, often high-risk,
technology-based firms. In the venture capital market of private investors –
alternatively known as “business angels” – there are investors who provide equity and
near-equity capital directly to new and growing businesses in which they have no
family connection (OECD, 1996).
According to Gompers and Lerner (2001), venture-backed firms grow more quickly
and create far more value than non-venture-backed firms. Besides providing funding,
venture capitalists often offer their specialized knowledge of a particular industry, their
experience and their access to a network of contacts that may include managers,
partners and customers. In short, venture capitalists provide the controls, expertise,
and financial strength that make it more likely a young firm will succeed. It is therefore
not surprising that the venture capitalist is generally regarded as an indispensable
actor in the competence bloc that Eliasson and Eliasson (1996) describe.
Factors related to the surroundings. Innovations are not created in an empty room; it
is the context around the innovator and the innovation that influences the development
of the innovation (Eliasson and Eliasson, 1996; Lundvall et al., 2002; Rogers, 1995;
Wejnert, 2002). Utterback (1994) states that innovation is a central determinant of
success and failure for firms, and that successful companies are generally effective at
responding to evolutionary changes in their markets. (We caution the reader that by
surroundings, we mean business/market surroundings and not ecological
surroundings.)
In this research we look at two factors related to the surroundings that Van de Ven
et al. (1999, 2000) identify as important in their analysis of the creation and
development of innovation. The first factor is the innovator’s view of the regulatory Eco-innovations
system as it relates to the development of the innovation. The second factor deals with in Sweden
the external support for the development of the innovation.
It is widely recognized that a variety of governmental regulations and institutional
arrangements facilitate as well as inhibit the emergence of new technologies and
industries (Van de Ven et al., 1999). Several empirical studies show that a regulatory
framework, especially environmental policy, has a strong impact on eco-innovations 285
(Beise and Rennings, 2003; Green et al., 1994; Kemp, 1997; Porter and van der Linde,
1995a, b). Eco-innovations, in contrast with other technologies such as microelectronics
and telecommunications, are normally not self-enforcing. Because the forces of
technological push and market pull alone are not strong enough to support market
success, eco-innovations may require specific regulatory support (Rennings, 2000).
In innovation development, the private sector is the tip of the iceberg as far as the
forces that affect innovation and technological change in the economy. Beneath the
surface are the public entities that are typically underappreciated – governments,
universities, non-profit foundations, voluntary membership organizations and other
institutions. Such entities offer incentives to and define opportunities for the private
sector (Feldman and Kogler, 2008). They also provide resources through their funding
of research and development activities. In 2003, the governments of OECD member
countries funded about 30 percent of R&D expenditures in (OECD, 2005).
Local government levels also contribute to innovation development. The literature
widely acknowledges the importance of regional economies as fundamental units in
social life and policy-making (Storper, 1995, 1997). A substantial body of literature has
also identified the importance of cities and localities as primary sites for the production
of knowledge and innovation (Crevoisier, 1999).
Universities are public entities that contribute to technological advance and
innovation through the production and dissemination of knowledge as well as through
the education of students. Salter and Martin (2001) identify six ways universities
influence innovation and technology change:
(1) increasing the stock of knowledge;
(2) training and educating graduates;
(3) creating new instrumentations and methodologies;
(4) facilitating the formation of problem-solving networks;
(5) increasing the capacity of problem-solving; and
(6) creating new firms.
Research design
We tested our analytical model using case studies for two main reasons: first, the
complexity of the phenomenon in focus (Yin, 1994) with its many factors, and second,
the lack of knowledge about the limits of the phenomenon (Benbasat et al., 1987). The
process of innovation is indeed complex. With its many influential factors, it is difficult
to define the specific boundaries of what to include or exclude in the analysis.
Therefore, case studies seemed the most suitable approach since they can be used for
different purposes, including acquiring information or creating theories about a
phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989).
EJIM In this study, each of the 12 cases is defined as an innovation. We used theoretical
14,3 sampling (Eisenhardt, 1989) rather than random sampling for the selection of these
cases. Our sample was based on quantitative data from a larger sample of innovations
selected by Hörte and Halila (2007). The innovations in this study differ in two
dimensions. The first dimension is eco-innovation vs other innovations. (Other
innovations are those that are not ecologically-oriented). The second dimension is the
286 success or failure of the 12 innovations. The less successful innovations are those that
have been unable to secure a market position and those that are not supported by an
active company. The successful innovations are those that have gained a market
position and are backed by an active company. The information relative to the
selection of our cases is contained in the secondary data and survey data from the
earlier study (Hörte and Halila, 2007).
There are two groups of cases in this study: a group of six eco-innovations and a
group of six other innovations. There are three successful cases and three less
successful cases in each group. With this selection of cases we hoped to identify
cross-case patterns (Eisenhardt, 1989) both within and between the two groups. The 12
cases are described briefly in the following section.
Our most important method for data collection was interviews. We conducted
interviews with the innovators (each interview was approximately two hours) who
were the primary sources for information about the innovations over time. We
conducted these interviews between June and October of 2005. We used a
semi-structured approach for the interviews including open-ended conversations
conducted partly in accordance with an interview guide based on our analytical model.
In using this guide for initial questions, main areas of investigation, and follow-up
questions, we felt confident all relevant areas were covered while still allowing the
innovators to speak candidly.
We analyzed the interviews in three steps. The first step was a within-case analysis
(Eisenhardt, 1989) in which we described and examined each case. We used
triangulation between the interviews and the quantitative data from the earlier study
(Hörte and Halila, 2007) to strengthen the reliability of the within-case analysis. Each
case was also presented to its innovator so that he could confirm, correct and comment
on the content. Finally, each case was compared to publicly available secondary data
(e.g. annual reports, business databases) to determine if there were any major errors in
the factual data collected.
In the second step, we conducted a within-group analysis of the two groups – the
eco-innovations and the other innovations. This analysis allowed us to identify
patterns within each group such as similar factors and similar properties. The internal
validity of each group was mainly supported by continuous comparison of the
empirical material with theory and with previous findings in the field.
In the third step, we conducted a between-groups analysis where patterns of
similarities and differences were identified and described. We found that some patterns
identified in this analysis were important for one group but not for the other group. We
also found different factor properties between the two groups. We used our analytical
model in this step as our guide.
External validity is always problematic in case study analysis. A selection of a
limited number of cases offers more opportunity for in-depth observation (Voss et al.,
2002), whereas a selection of a larger number of cases may provide more generalizable
results in support of the same conclusion (Meredith, 1998). In this study, we chose 12 Eco-innovations
cases in order to make an in-depth analysis of each case and a cross-case comparison in Sweden
rather than to strive for greater generalizability. However, external validity was to
some extent achieved by comparison with the literature in the field (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Presentation of the cases

Each interviewed innovator approved the case study of his innovation. The 12 cases 287
are briefly presented next. For a deeper description of the cases, see Halila (2007).
1) Gas turbines’ cleaning systems. Gas turbines are becoming a more common source
of energy for airplanes, boats, thermal power plants and other industrial applications.
Pollution from the enormous amount of air rushing through the engine leaves a
coating. If not removed regularly, this coating may decrease the speed of the operation,
or even stop it. However, there has been difficulty in finding effective cleaning
methods. Generally, chemicals are just poured into the engine and flushed out with
plenty of water. The cleaning method that the innovator developed uses nozzles that
spray atomized high-pressure water into the engine while it is operating. The
microscopic drops of water are sucked into the airflow and the complete engine is
soaked and cleaned effectively.
The new cleaning method has several advantages over other methods. One
advantage is that less water and fewer chemicals are required. Another advantage is
that since the airflow inside the engine is utilized, the engine may continue to operate
during the cleaning. In addition, with more regular cleaning, the engine uses less
energy and thus creates less air pollution.
2) ED-Beams. This innovation, which has taken about ten years to develop, is a
prefabricated system of concrete joists that requires 40-55 percent less concrete than
used in traditional systems for housing joists. The system, called ED-Beams, can
support large spans that decrease the need for vertical, load-bearing constructions.
Therefore layout plans are simplified, as are future reconstructions. Vertical bearing
constructions and foundations can be reduced owing to the savings on concrete.
Since ED-Beams can be manufactured in countries with limited access to
technology, the innovator thinks the system is of great value for developing countries.
As this system of joists contains less mass and is significantly easier to stabilize than
other systems, it can also withstand earthquakes better than conventional solutions.
Applications can be made to most properties such as private homes, large apartment
houses and commercial buildings.
3) Moulded Flexible Polyester. The fact that different polyesters melt at different
temperatures sparked the idea that was developed into a finished product. If strands of
polyester with different melting points are joined as layers, the strands with the lowest
melting point melt first. This melting can be used to tie the layers together. This
innovation can replace products made from a significantly more toxic material called
polyurethane, PUR (also called plastic foam). Products made from PUR are common in
the auto and other industries.
By replacing polyurethane with polyester fibres the work environment will improve
because discharge of the toxic substance isocyanate is completely eliminated.
Moreover, the polyester fibres can be recycled into new products. Besides these
environmental benefits, the innovation also has great economic potential owing to the
low material and energy costs incurred in the development process.
EJIM 4) Biorega. Recently there has been attention on the environmental problems related
14,3 to methane gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. When cleaned, biogas, which
is comprised mainly of methane and carbon dioxide, can be used as a biofuel with the
carbon dioxide and water burnt off.
Originally, the innovation was a new product that washed away the carbon dioxide
from biogas. Later it was developed so that it washes the methane gas from the carbon
288 dioxide, pressurizes it, and dries it. At that point, the product can be used as vehicle
fuel. The target customers for this fuel are farmers of medium to large-size farms who
could become self-sufficient producers of their fuel.
5) Green printed circuit. Most printed circuit boards today are made from layers of
fibreglass, epoxy plastic and copper. The copper is used as a conductor. The traditional
manufacturing technology requires the raw materials to be completely plated with
copper. If there is no need for a conductor, the copper is etched off. Many
environmentally harmful chemicals, such as etch liquids, are used in this chemical
process. The innovation, the so-called green printed circuit board, uses an insulated
material without copper or with copper conductors only where they are needed. This
technology, which is patented, leads to a significant decrease in the use of copper and
other environmentally harmful substances in the development phase. The copper
conductors adhere well to the insulated materials.
This new technology also makes it possible to create much more complex and dense
boards because there are smaller distances between conductors. There are other
functional advantages at high frequencies. The boards are also easier to manufacture
since several processing steps are eliminated. The manufacturing process rationalizes
the production so that more boards can be produced in the same time it takes to
produce boards by today’s methods.
6) Vibisol. A problem for existing and planned railway tracks is the vibration and
noise created by the trains. Such vibration and noise in surrounding land areas
contribute to significant environment and health problems in industrialized countries.
The Vibisol innovation is similar in theory to noise reduction shields along railway
tracks. However, the Vibisol innovation is placed underground. The technology is
based on installing gas-filled cushions in trenches. These cushions, constructed of
plastic film and a layer of aluminium, are filled with carbon dioxide. They are then
buried at depths of 5 to 10 meters, creating a permanent vibration screen in which up to
80 percent of the vibration is reflected to its source. The product lifespan of these
cushions is at least 50 years.
The Vibisol innovation can also be used for earthquake protection or as shock
absorbers in underwater constructions or underground shelters. Although the
innovation can be used to control vibration from reproducing in the ground and in
water, its main use is for control of railway traffic vibration and noise.
7) Axsensor. For several years vehicle manufacturers have searched for a fluid level
sensor without mechanical, flexible parts that is more reliable than other sensors.
Axsensor is electronic and is based on an acoustic method of measuring fluid levels.
The technique of measuring fluid levels acoustically has been known for a long time,
but the Axsensor has a new way of making the measurements of fuel levels in cars.
This sensor is patented.
8) Cysgen. Cysgen is a new process used to analyse the gene that causes cystic
fibrosis. If a child is born with cystic fibrosis, this diagnosis is usually not made until
the child is three or four years old. Some 30-40 years ago, people with cystic fibrosis Eco-innovations
had a lifespan of between 20 to 30 years. Commonly, premature death was caused by in Sweden
pneumonia resulting from the increased production of mucus in the lungs. With earlier
diagnosis of cystic fibrosis, the patient can begin medications earlier, and thus may
have a longer lifespan.
Cysgen uses a sampling procedure in which 3-4 ml of blood are taken to determine
the patient’s DNA. Cysgen is a more effective way of analysing the complete gene by 289
scanning 99-100 percent of the mutations described in the gene. The current process in
use scans only 70-80 percent of the gene mutations. Thus treatment, following the use
of Cysgen, may begin earlier in the patient’s life.
9) High-efficiency transistor. The constant demand in the telecommunications
industry is for high power at high frequencies, especially for cellular phones and
cordless data communications (including radar applications) where cheap and fast
microwave transmitters are needed. Many materials, such as gallium nitride and
silicon carbide, have been tested in the search for materials that meet these
requirements. The old silicon carbide transistors cannot be used at high frequencies
since typically they cannot handle high voltages. This deficiency was particularly
noticeable in high-frequency electronics where the distances were short.
The innovator, working in research group, developed a new silicon carbide
transistor that solves this problem. This transistor can handle high voltage as well as
high frequencies, making it possible to use it in high-frequency and high-efficiency
situations, such as base stations for cellular phones and radar.
10) Illuminatelabs. This innovation makes it possible to create realistic 3D
environments faster, more cheaply and with better quality than ever before. It is a
software programme that begins with a three-dimensional computer design, such as a
CAD drawing, to create an artificial picture. The picture is so life-like it cannot be
distinguished from a photograph. This technology is used to create special effects for
movies, computer games and visualizations of industrial design projects in certain
fields such as architecture and airplane and auto manufacturing. High speed and
reliable functionality are necessary if the innovation is to enjoy market success.
11) Alfasensor. The presence of moisture creates severe problems in several areas.
One area is in construction when moisture is trapped inside new construction and
remodelling projects. Another area is the pharmaceutical industry where medication
may be ineffectual or even dangerous if exposed to moisture. A third area is the food
industry where excess moisture means food products must be discarded.
The Alfasensor is a moisture gauge that measures dampness in a new and unique
way. The early warnings signals in the gauge detect the moisture in products before
damage occurs. An active component is an indicator element that records how long the
product has been exposed to humidity over a certain level. By logging this information,
false alarms are avoided since there is no reaction to momentary humidity increases.
Sensors in current use do react to such temporary humidity changes. The innovation,
based on HTI technology, has a patent pending.
12) NetClean. The innovation is a computer programme that detects child
pornographic pictures on the web. The programme operates like a virus protection
programme in that it compares downloaded computer pictures to illegal child
pornography pictures in the national criminal police archives.
EJIM The innovation is a combination of a product and a service. The product is the
14,3 CD-ROM that contains the software. One challenge for the innovation is explaining to
customers what action to take when child pornography is detected.
Analysis and results

Following our analytical model, we analyse the success factors related to the innovator,
290 the innovation, the development process and the surroundings. Our analysis focuses on
the importance of these factors as far as the success of six eco-innovations and six
other innovations. In the following analysis, we analyse these factors in the order they
were presented in the theoretical section of this article.
Factors related to the innovator

Individual characteristics. A recurrent theme among all the innovators is the
importance of persistence. They say it is hard work to build a firm based on an
innovation because of the many disappointments and obstacles. One successful
innovator explains the necessary characteristics an innovator must have to achieve
success:
One characteristic is stubbornness. There are so many obstacles and so many pitfalls, but still
you must continue.
Two other successful innovators agree.
Individual entrepreneurs must be very, very strong and very, very driven in their own beliefs
and also very stubborn. I think that 99 of 100 entrepreneurs die before they reach their goal.
You have to be extremely stubborn and really believe in the idea yourself. If you do not
believe in it yourself, it will not work.
It takes most innovators a long time to develop their innovation. This requires
persistence. Some innovators have worked with an idea for 15-20 years; others for ten
years. Generally this development work takes place alongside other creative activities
and other ideas. One innovator has a binder with hundreds of ideas, of which the best
have become developed innovations. Other innovators have worked with one idea only.
No clear pattern emerges between the successful and less successful innovators. All the
innovators are stubbornly goal-oriented and willing to pursue an idea despite many
difficulties. Both successful and less successful innovators have this characteristic.
Education. Ten of the 12 innovators have university degrees. Of these, four
innovators have doctoral degrees. However, only one innovator with a doctorate has
been successful with his innovation. The innovators have different views on the value
of university education. Some innovators believe their education was insufficient and
others think that formal education plays a limited role as far as innovative creativity.
Two innovators comment:
Yes, I guess that education is always good and that’s my handicap. I do not speak English
because I have had only six years of elementary school (less successful innovator).
I went to college and 90 percent of what I learned has not been useful (successful innovator).
Competence. Innovators refer to the competences needed for their work. These
competences include expertise in legal and technological areas as well marketing skills.
They say while an innovator need not possess all these competences, he or she should Eco-innovations
have access to people who do. When the innovation development enters a new stage, in Sweden
new competences from new actors are needed. The ability to build a company, to
access the necessary funds, and to industrialize a product requires that someone other
than the innovator take the role of the entrepreneur or the industrialist.
Three innovators with doctoral degrees have been less successful with their
innovations. Because of their academic careers, they have not focused strongly on 291
promoting their innovations. They view their main role as the solver of complicated
technical problems and are less interested in building the company or gaining market
share. They say they have neither the time nor the marketing skills to promote their
innovations.
Of the two innovators with only elementary school education (both eco-innovators)
one has been very successful with his innovation. He had led his company for a long
time and has been involved with all the development and marketing of the products.
Network. It is more common for innovators to highlight the greater importance of
access to a network than to have all the necessary competences for the development
work, regardless of whether these competences are technical, financial or
market-related. Among the network associates they value are their customers, their
suppliers, public advisory institutions, investors/venture capitalists and university
professionals. An innovator states:
I have an informal network with skills because it is necessary (successful innovator).
Another innovator states:
When I started with this, I felt very lonely. I had no network. I did all the administration, such
as accounting and financial reports, in the beginning, all to save money.
Innovators also mention the loneliness that results from working alone in the process
of developing the innovation. Sometimes they feel they work in environments where
others are sceptical of their work. One innovator states, “It is a bit suspect to be an
innovator” where he works. Therefore he emphasizes the importance of the social
context for innovation work. A social network of family and friends supports the
innovator.
For all the innovators, both business and social networks are necessary. They
believe the two networks play an important role in the development of the innovation.
Although the innovators rely to varying degrees on these networks, the more
successful innovators take a more active role in the business networks. Two successful
innovators state:
And there is another important thing with the network. It is a perishable commodity and you
can only have a certain number of networks. It is important to maintain the quality of the
network (successful innovator).
Now we have a very good network. We manage very well in Gothenburg, but there are more
networks in Stockholm (successful innovator).
There are also innovators who take a more passive approach to networking. Such
innovators do not actively search for network associates or try to build networks. Two
less successful innovators state:
EJIM If you are an innovator or entrepreneur it is important to have access to at least some
connections that can take care of different activities (less successful innovator).
14,3
I need some encouragement, but I have not needed any support in the details from a network
(less successful innovator).
The successful innovators, working in larger networks, seem to have the ability to
292 exploit these networks throughout the innovation development from idea to market.
The less successful innovators, working in smaller networks, use the network actors
only in the later stages of innovation development. The innovators with doctoral
degrees, who are mostly less successful, would seem to have the advantage of the
university network. Yet some research-oriented networks are not always
innovation-oriented, especially if the innovation is commercialized. The philosophy
of research is not necessarily the same as that of innovation.
For the eco-innovators, access to a network is especially important for solving
technical problems in the innovation process. Unless the innovator understands the
specific technology needed, he has to find an expert in the network. Other innovators
add that in addition to finding the technical problem-solving expertise, it is essential to
find financial and marketing expertise.
Factors related to the innovation

Cost/price. The innovators think selling price is one factor that influences the
innovation’s success. However they do not think low prices alone lead to success. Many
agree new products should not be launched at higher prices that competitors’ prices.
An innovator states:
We try to keep the price down to make it profitable for the consumer. In order to make the
product attractive the goal is to get component prices down a few hundred thousand
(successful innovator).
However, the significance of the price decision varies greatly among the different cases
according to industry and innovation type. According to the innovators, some
industries are very price sensitive. For example, innovators in the vehicle and
electronics industries face fierce price competition. However, it seems that product
price is of less importance for innovators who sell to the public sector, such as local or
regional governments or the defence industry, or when the innovation is only a small
part of the overall firm investment. Price is also less important when the quality of the
innovation is an essential concern. For example, computer software has a relatively
small cost in relation to the cost of the entire system. The innovators also offer the
airline industry as an industry where high quality is more important than price.
While most eco-innovators think price is an important factor for success, the other
innovators do not emphasize this factor. However, both successful and less successful
innovators recognize that price considerations are relevant. Probably industry
conditions and the type of innovation play a bigger role.
Technological level. The importance of the technological level may be discussed from
a patent or a research perspective. According to the Swedish Patent Office guidelines,
an innovation is patentable if it is “significantly different” from what is previously
known. There are two conditions that must be met for an innovation to be patentable. It
must be new and it must have a sufficient level of innovativeness.
Most of the innovators claim that patenting is an important factor in innovation Eco-innovations
success. However, there is one disagreement between the eco-innovators and the other in Sweden
innovators. Eco-innovators believe that patents are needed to protect their work,
particularly when an innovation is introduced on the global market. Other innovators
highlight the importance of having a patent when seeking venture capital. These
innovators comment on the importance of having a patent:
The patent is actually aimed towards the venture capitalist. It is a proof that this idea is 293
unique. It is a kind of monitoring technique indicating that this is really something new and
unique (successful innovator).
It would be impossible for venture capitalists to invest if there were no patent protection (less
successful innovator).
Some innovators, however, think the patent process may delay the work of the
innovation. A patent application gives the innovation visibility, which in turn creates a
risk that competing firms may exploit the innovation description in the patent
documents. The innovators raise another problem with patents: the costs involved with
the application may not be justified. It may be more profitable to simply sell the
unpatented technical know-how. An innovator states:
Now there are, of course, some people who say that the patent is worthless because it is so
easy to circumvent it. Probably it depends on what you are working with (less successful
innovator).
Most of the innovators agree that the existence of the research behind the innovation is
a success factor in itself. Innovators (the scientists and researchers) think innovations
are improving, especially technical innovations. Other innovators who are not
scientists or researchers think innovations based on research give customers greater
confidence in the innovations, thus improving the probability of market success.
Market newness. Most innovators, the other innovators in particular, point to
market newness as an important success factor. The successful eco-innovators believe
that an innovation must have a high degree of market newness to achieve market
success, while the less successful eco-innovators believe that market newness is not as
important.
However, the importance of newness to the innovators tends to be
industry-dependent. In some industries it is more difficult to gain acceptance for
newness in a product that differs greatly from existing products. A high degree of
market newness is not always an advantage. There are innovators who think that too
much change may even influence the development of an innovation negatively. One
innovator, with a radically new innovation, states:
Yes, it is radical. There is a big difference in the way it operates. And this is a problem. It
means teaching the market about these new capabilities (successful innovator).
The meaning of market newness among the innovators varies as well. Some innovators
state that newness means the innovation solves customer problems much faster and
more cheaply than existing solutions. For other innovators, market newness means the
product is completely new to the market. An example is when IT is an important
component of innovation. An innovator states:
The method is there, but this way of doing it is completely new (less successful innovator).
EJIM Factors related to the development process
14,3 Access to capital. All the more successful innovators state that access to venture capital
plays an important role in success. However, there is a clear difference of opinion
between the eco-innovators and the other innovators. The eco-innovators believe that
venture capitalists are needed in the later phases of the development process. Ideally,
the venture capitalists provide funding when the innovation is complete and fully
294 developed and when there is a good market for the product. At this point the
eco-innovators think they are in a better position to negotiate the terms of cooperation.
Venture capital is not desirable in the early phases of development since at that stage
the innovator wants to maintain control of the innovation.
Many of the other innovators, by contrast, do not object if venture capitalists are
involved early in the development process. They believe, in some cases, venture
capitalists are needed at this stage. Such innovators, with their wide knowledge of the
venture capital market, know that venture capitalists are not a homogeneous group. It
is possible to find a venture capitalist who is useful even in the early phase of the
development process. The challenge is to find a venture capitalist who wants to invest
long-term and, most important, has the right contacts and needed competences.
At the same time there is ambivalence towards venture capitalists, even among the
other innovators. All innovators think that the involvement of external actors, such as
venture capitalists or people from different authorities, means giving up some power
and influence in the development process. Many innovators find this situation
troublesome. An innovator states:
It’s such a power play and role-play between officials and venture capitalists. In some sense
they want to transform the innovator to something different than he is. The plan is that the
innovator shall not run the project. He, who took the idea all the way, will be a child and will
be more or less controlled in their world. At the same time there’s a huge contradiction in that.
On the one hand, you are given a child’s role. On the other hand, you should run the project.
And it is such an ambivalent situation and basically you just play along. And try to adapt to
their view of the world, which is not good. It is about giving the venture capitalist, who is
your official contact for a successful project, a chance to make money. It is always convenient
to take the child’s role. Now I avoid responsibility. I just deal with the technology and “mom”
takes care of all the management activities. That is a dream scenario (successful other
innovator).
The innovators who primarily see themselves as researchers do not believe access to
venture capital is so important. They talk about the need for research funding. Without
such funding, it is not possible to achieve success.
We conclude that, in general, the innovators say access to capital is a critical success
factor. The difference between the eco-innovators and the other innovators is in the
timing of this capital injection. While the eco-innovators need development funding
they do not want to give up control of the innovation. The other innovators who need
venture capital are willing to surrender some ownership control.
Access to resources. All the innovators recognize that a great deal of time is required
in the development of an innovation. However, the amount of other resources required
varies widely depending on the innovation and the targeted customers. Innovations
that require extensive testing require the most physical resources, such as expensive
lab equipment. The automotive, aerospace and electronics industries, for example,
require numerous resources and a long development time.
Factors related to the market surroundings Eco-innovations
Regulations. The innovators point to the regulatory system where various laws and in Sweden
standards influence innovation development. The eco-innovators in particular are
concerned with the regulatory requirements related to the environment. By contrast,
the other innovators refer to the laws that set taxes and other fees.
The eco-innovators believe that the regulatory system supports their work. These
innovators point specifically to environmental laws. Most eco-innovators also argue 295
that the regulatory system is crucial for the development and diffusion of their
innovations. They note, however, that politicians are better at passing environmental
legislation than at enforcing such laws. By contrast, the other innovators are little
concerned with such environmental legislation.
Surroundings’ support. A total of 11 innovators believe that their business
surroundings are important for innovation marketing success. The 12th innovator, an
eco-innovator, has worked alone on his innovation for ten years with only minor
market success. He accepts no grants or aid since he prefers to solve problems on his
own.
The other innovators mention the importance of the support of business incubators.
They value the proximity to universities and colleges, with their opportunities for
incubators that build networks. All the successful other innovations, for example,
began as incubator activities, while none of the eco-innovations had a link to an
incubator.
The innovators mention other types of support. The successful innovators name
government innovation support bodies (such as Almi, Tillväxtverket and VINNOVA
(http://almi.se/ALMI-in-English/; http://www.tillvaxtverket.se/; www.vinnova.se/en/_)
among the groups who have contributed to the innovations’ success.
Those innovators whose innovations are science-related are critical of public
authorities’ requirements as far as the planning times for innovation projects. They
think governmental agencies fail to understand that it is often difficult for innovators
to give a specific date when the innovation will be ready technically for market launch.
Summary of the results

Table I presents a summary of the analysis of the results of this study.
Factors related to
the . . . Eco-innovations Other innovations
Innovator Networks are important, and are Networks are important for solving
mainly used to solve technical technical problems, but focus also on
problems finance and marketing aspects
Innovation The price is very important The price is less important
Development Venture capital or other funding is Venture capital or other funding is
process needed for situations where the needed for situations where the
investor provides funds without investor may share control of the
claiming control of the development development process of the innovation Table I.
process of the innovation Differences between
Market Laws and regulations support success Laws and regulations are less eco-innovations and other
surroundings important innovations
EJIM Conclusions, contributions, and suggestions for further research
14,3 This study shows there are few differentiating success factors for eco-innovations and
other innovations. Moreover, there are only small differences in the success factors for
successful and less successful innovations. The differences, such as they are, relate more
to how the innovators use these factors than to the relative importance of specific factors.
Hence, there are some areas where the opinions of the two groups of innovators differ.
296 Our study shows that two factors are especially important to the market success of
eco-innovations: “access to capital” and “network”.
Access to capital is sometimes pointed to as one of the most important explanations
of innovation success (Ahrens, 1992; Barth, 2004). According to Berggren et al. (2001),
entrepreneurs and owners of small companies have an ambivalent attitude toward
venture capitalists. On the negative side, venture capitalists want to have a large
influence on the business; on the positive side, they provide important financial
resources and market knowledge. Our research shows that eco-innovators, who
acknowledge the importance of access to capital and the difficulty in finding investors,
require development capital. With such development capital, however, they wish the
investor to provide funding but not at the expense of surrendering firm ownership or
control. On the other hand, other innovators require development capital in the very
early stages of development. Typically, such investments mean surrender of some
ownership of the firm or some control over the innovation.
Our research agrees with other research on necessity of access to capital and the
relationship of venture capital and firm ownership. Wiklund (1998), among other
researchers, has established that companies with more diversified ownership grow
more quickly. Berggren et al. (2001) show that growth-oriented companies are more
accepting of new partners. Storey (1994) has established that entrepreneurs who
oppose dilution of their ownership are forced to seek short-term financing. This
solution negatively influences the firm’s growth possibilities.
For the innovator, a network is more than a resource for acquiring competences and
gaining access to capital. For example, the network is important for the eco-innovators
mainly in the early phases of the innovation process where the focus is on solving the
technological problems. For the other innovators, the network is most important in the
final phases where the focus is on the market instead of the technological problems.
However, the more successful innovators work harder than the less successful
innovators at developing their networks, regardless of which group they belong to.
Many researchers have addressed the special roles played by business networks in
the start-up and (early) growth of technology-based firms (e.g. Aldrich and Zimmer,
1986; Birley, 1985; Johannisson, 2000). A business network is one of the most powerful
assets any individual possesses; it provides access to information, opportunities,
capital, power, and other networks (Uzzi, 1996, 1997). The more developed the network,
in terms of the number and quality of the ties, the more beneficial it is to a start-up firm
(Larson and Starr, 1993).
Granovetter (1973, 1982) describes the intensity and diversity of such relationships
(i.e. the difference between strong and weak ties) using four criteria: the frequency of
contacts, the emotional intensity of the relationship, the degree of intimacy, and the
reciprocal commitments between the actors. Strong ties tend to bind similar people in
long-term and intense relationships. Affective ties with close friends and family
members may provide a shortcut to, or even preclude, the search for useful knowledge
and access to critical resources. Weak ties refer to a diverse set of persons working in Eco-innovations
different contexts with whom one has some business connection and infrequent or in Sweden
irregular contact. These loose and non-affective contacts increase diversity and may
provide access to various sources of new information and offer opportunities to meet
new people. Both strong and weak ties are useful and contribute to the emergence and
growth of firms, although they are beneficial in different ways and at different stages
of a company’s development. Therefore, the ideal network includes a particular mix of 297
strong and weak relationships (Uzzi, 1997).
The eco-innovators in our study do not use their social networks actively, but they
agree on the importance of business networks. Innovators seldom develop innovations
that are unconnected to their business networks. They believe their relationships with
parties who possess complementary knowledge are important since it is necessary to
have access to several different competences at various stages. Researchers have often
argued that such development should be managed as a cooperation between the
different actors who possess the complementary knowledge in some kind of innovation
system (Edquist, 1997; Lundvall, 1992; Nilsson and Uhlin, 2002).
Our study also shows that many differences between the eco-innovators and the
other innovators relate to the individual innovator’s perceptions and behaviour. Many
of the results related to the innovation, the development process, and the market
surroundings describe rather the innovators’ perception of these factors than the factor
per se. We associate these results with the upper echelon theory (Carpenter et al., 2004;
Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Hambrick and Mason argue that managers’
characteristics (e.g. demographics and behaviour) influence their decisions and
actions. In our study, this refers to importance of the individual characteristics of the
innovators. One dimension of interest is the locus of control, where the eco-innovators
seem to have a greater external locus of control (e.g. Rotter, 1966). This means that they
perceive that forces outside the control of the innovator mainly determine outcomes.
This observation may explain why the eco-innovators consider the factors of low price,
difficulty with venture capital and need for product novelty more important than the
other innovators. If the eco-innovators had a greater internal locus of control, they
would have a higher regard for their own ability to achieve success with the
innovation. Furthermore, they would feel they are less the victims of external factors
that have seem to affect innovation success in general (e.g. Mueller and Thomas, 2001)
and emerging industries in particular (e.g. Duchesneau and Gartner, 1990).
This research makes both academic and practical contributions. The practical
contribution of this research is its identification of the success factors (business
networks and access to capital) that may improve the possibility of success for
eco-innovations. It is important for eco-innovators to understand the result of
renouncing the funding of venture capitalists that may also mean a loss of access to
knowledge and other resources. Similarly, not taking advantage of business networks
has a negative result.
The main academic contribution is our identification of the main factors that may
explain the greater difficulties eco-innovators have, compared to those of other
innovators, in achieving success. An area for further research, using organization theory
as a point of departure, is to develop a frame of reference for the study of how small,
eco-innovative firms develop into larger companies with industrial-scale production and
EJIM distribution using Eliasson and Eliasson’s (1996) competence bloc model. Our results
14,3 indicate that eco-innovators are less inclined to fully exploit external competences.
A second area for further research is to study the ties (strong and weak) according
to Granovetter’s (1982) framework when building networks among innovators. This
research could add to our understanding of the ambivalence eco-innovators have about
the participation of external actors.
298 Third, since most of the differences we found between the eco-innovators and the
other innovators relate to the innovators’ perceptions and behaviour, additional
in-depth comparative studies of eco-innovators and other innovators are warranted.
The effect of each innovator’s characteristics on innovation success has been studied
(e.g. Caird, 1994), but the focus has been on properties such as education and
background rather than on behaviour. Therefore, more knowledge about the specific
perceptions and behaviours of eco-innovators and other innovators is needed.
References
Ahrens, T. (1992), Tillväxtföretagets drivkrafter, Almqvist & Wiksell Ekonomiförlagen, Malmö.
Aldrich, H.E. and Zimmer, C. (1986), “Entrepreneurship through social networks”, in Sexton, D.
and Kasarda, J. (Eds), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA.
Aragón-Correa, J. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive
corporate environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 71-88.
Balachandra, B. and Friar, J.H. (1997), “Factors for success in R&D projects and new product
innovation: a contextual framework”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 276-87.
Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R. and Souder, W.E. (1999), “New product development
success factors in American and British firms”, International Journal of Technology
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 259-80.
Barth, H. (2004), “Barriers to growth and development in small firms”, PhD dissertation, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå.
Beise, M. and Rennings, K. (2003), Lead Markets of Environmental Innovations: A Framework for
Innovation and Environmental Economics, Centre for European Economic Research
(ZEW), Mannheim.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. and Mead, M. (1987), “The case research strategy in studies of
information systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-86.
Berggren, B., Lindström, G. and Olofsson, C. (2001), “Tillväxt och finansiering i mindre företag”,
in Davidsson, P., Delmar, F. and Wiklund, J. (Eds), Tillväxtföretagen i Sverige, SNS Förlag,
Stockholm.
Birley, S. (1985), “The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 107-17.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995), “Product development: past research, present findings,
and future directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-78.
Caird, S. (1994), “How important is the innovator for the commercial success of innovative
products in SMEs?”, Technovation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Cantono, S. and Silverberg, G. (2009), “A percolation model of eco-innovation diffusion:
the relationship between diffusion, learning economies and subsidies”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 487-96.
Carpenter, M.A., Geletkanycz, M.A. and Sanders, W.G. (2004), “Upper echelons research Eco-innovations
revisited: antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 749-78. in Sweden
Carter, D.E. (1982), “Evaluating commercial projects”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 26-30.
Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 93-103. 299
Cooper, R.G. (1981), “An empirically derived new product project selection model”, IEEE
Transactions of Engineering Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 54-61.
Cooper, R.G. (1993), Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Cooper, R.G. (1996), “Overhauling the new product process”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 465-82.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987), “New products: what separates winners from losers?”,
Journal of Product Innovation and Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 169-84.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995), “Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in
product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 5,
pp. 374-91.
Crawford, C.M. (1991), New Products Management, Irwin, Boston, MA.
Crevoisier, O. (1999), “Innovation and the city”, in Malecki, E. and Oinas, P. (Eds), Making
Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Duchesneau, D.A. and Gartner, W.B. (1990), “A profile of new venture success and failure in
emerging industries”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 297-321.
Edquist, C. (1977), Teknik, samhälle och energi, Cavefors Bokförlag, Lund.
Edquist, C. (1997), Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter,
London.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eliashberg, J. and Chatterjee, R. (1986), “Stochastic issues in innovation diffusion models”,
in Mahajan, V. and Wind, Y. (Eds), Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product
Acceptance, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Eliasson, G. and Eliasson, Å. (1996), “The biotechnological competence bloc”, Revue d’Economie
Industrielle, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 7-26.
Ernst, H. (2002), “Success factors of new product development: a review of the empirical
literature”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Feldman, M.P. and Kogler, D.F. (2008), “The contribution of public entities to innovation and
technological change”, in Shane, S. (Ed.), Handbook on Technology and Innovation
Management, Wiley, Chichester.
Freeman, C. (1991), “Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues”, Research Policy,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 499-514.
Gartner, W.B. (1989), “Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Gompers, P. and Lerner, J. (2001), The Money of Invention: How Venture Capital Creates New
Wealth, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Granovetter, M. (1973), “The strength of weak ties”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78 No. 6,
pp. 1360-80.
EJIM Granovetter, M. (1982), “The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited”, in Marsden, P.V.
and Lin, N. (Eds), Social Structure and Network Analysis, SAGE Publications, Beverly
14,3 Hills, CA.
Granovetter, M. (1985), “Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness”,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 481-510.
Green, K., McMeekin, A. and Irwin, A. (1994), “Technological trajectories and R&D for
300 environmental innovation in UK firms”, Futures, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1047-59.
Griffin, A. (1997), “PDMA research on new product development practices: updating trends and
benchmarking best practices”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 429-58.
Guagnano, G.A. (2001), “Altruism and market-like behavior: an analysis of willingness to pay for
recycled paper products”, Population and Environment, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 425-38.
Halila, F. (2007), “The adoption and diffusion of environmental innovations”, PhD dissertation,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå.
Hall, B. (2005), “Innovation and diffusion”, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. and Nelson, R. (Eds),
The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its
top managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 93-106.
Hemmelskamp, J. (1997), “Environmental policy instruments and their effects on innovation”,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 177-94.
Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001), “Why some new products are more successful than
others”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-75.
Hörte, S.Å. and Halila, F. (2007), Är miljöinnovationer mindre framgångsrika än andra
innovationer?, NUTEK, Stockholm.
Jänicke, M. (2008), “Ecological modernisation: new perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 557-65.
Johannisson, B. (2000), “Networking and entrepreneurial growth”, in Sexton, D.L. and
Landström, H. (Eds), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Blackwell, Oxford.
Kemp, R. (1997), Environmental Policy and Technical Change, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Larson, A. and Starr, J.A. (1993), “A network model of organization formation”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London.
Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E.S. and Dalum, B. (2002), “National systems of
production, innovation and competence building”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 213-31.
McGinnis, M.A. and Ackelsberg, M.R. (1983), “Effective innovation management: missing link in
strategic planning?”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-66.
Mahajan, V. and Wind, Y. (1992), “New product models: practice, shortcomings and desired
improvements”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 128-39.
Maidique, M.A. and Zirger, B.J. (1984), “A study of success and failure in product innovation:
the case of the US electronics industry”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 192-203.
Meredith, J. (1998), “Building operation management theory through case and field research”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-54.
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Calantone, R. (1994), “Determinants of new product performance: Eco-innovations
a review and meta analysis”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 397-417. in Sweden
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001), “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 51-75.
Neddermann, B. (2010), Wind energy use in Germany – Status 31.12.2009, Deutsches 301
Windenergie Institute (DEWI), Wilhelmshaven.
Nilsson, J.E. and Uhlin, Å. (2002), Regionala innovationssystem. En fördjupad kunskapsöversikt,
Vinnova VR 2002:3, Vinnova, Stockholm.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1996), Venture Capital and
Innovation, OECD, Paris.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005), Main Science and
Technology Indicators, OECD, Paris.
Pinto, M.B. and Pinto, J.K. (1990), “Project team communication and cross-functional cooperation
in new program development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 200-12.
Porter, M.E. (1985) in Porter, M.E. (Ed.), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995a), “Towards a new conception of the
environment-competitiveness relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 97-118.
Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995b), “Green and competitive: ending the stalemate”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 120-34.
Rennings, K. (2000), “Redefining innovation – eco-innovation research and the contribution from
ecological economics”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 169-336.
Roback, K. (2006), “Medical device innovation – the integrated processes of invention, diffusion
and deployment”, PhD dissertation, Linköping University, Linköping.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1985), Reindustrialization and Technology, Longman, Harlow.
Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcements”, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 No. 609.
Rubenstein, A.H., Chakrabarti, A.K., O’Keefe, R.D., Sounder, W.E. and Young, H.C. (1976),
“Factors influencing innovation success at the project level”, Research Management,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 15-20.
Rundquist, J. and Chibba, A. (2004), “The use of processes and methods in NPD – a survey of
Swedish industry”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Salter, A.J. and Martin, B.R. (2001), “The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research:
a critical review”, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 509-32.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Shrivastava, P. (1995), “Environmental technologies and competitive advantage”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16, S1, pp. 183-200.
Souder, W.E. (1987), Managing New Product Innovations, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Storey, D. (1994), Understanding the Small Business Sector, Routledge, London.
EJIM Storper, M. (1995), “The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus
of untraded interdependencies”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3,
14,3 pp. 191-222.
Storper, M. (1997), The Regional Word: Territorial Development in a Global Economy, Guilford
Press, London.
Tsen, C., Phang, G., Hasan, H. and Buncha, M.R. (2006), “Going green: a study of consumers’
302 willingness to pay for green products in Kota Kinabalu”, International Journal of Business
and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 40-54.
Utterback, J.M. (1974), “Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology”, Science, Vol. 183
No. 4125, pp. 620-6.
Utterback, J.M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Uzzi, B. (1996), “The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance
of organizations: the network effect”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61 No. 4,
pp. 674-98.
Uzzi, B. (1997), “Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 35-67.
Valente, T.W. (1995), Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations, Hampton, Cresskill, NJ.
Valente, T.W. (1996), “Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations”, Social
Networks, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 69-89.
Van de Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M.S. (Eds) (2000), Research on the Management of
Innovation, The Minnesota Studies, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R. and Venkataraman, S. (1999), The Innovation Journey,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Vinnova (2001), Drivers of Environmental Innovation, Vinnova (The Swedish Agency for
Innovation Systems), Stockholm.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-291.
Wejnert, B. (2002), “Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework”,
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 297-326.
Wiklund, J. (1998), “Small firm growth and performance”, PhD dissertation, Jönköping
International Business School, Jönköping.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2010), Innovation for Green
Growth – Drivers of Private Sector RD&D, WBCSD, Geneva.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Zirger, B.I. and Maidique, M. (1990), “A model of new product development: an empirical test”,
Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 867-83.
Corresponding author
Jonas Rundquist can be contacted at: joru@hh.se
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Eco Innovations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eco Innovations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Theoretical framework and the analytical model

Market success for innovations

Success factors of innovations

Presentation of the cases

Analysis and results

Factors related to the innovator

Factors related to the innovation

Summary of the results

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like