LABR Eco-Innovations 2013

This article was downloaded by: [Université du Québec à Montréal]
On: 07 March 2014, At: 09:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Latin American Business Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlab20
Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-

Innovations in the Pulp, Paper, and Paper
Products Industry in Brazil
a b
Marlete Beatriz Maçaneiro , Sieglinde Kindl da Cunha & Zandra
c
Balbinot
a
State University of Midwestern Paraná , Guarapuava , Brazil
b
Federal University of Paraná , Curitiba , Brazil
c
University of Montreal , Montreal , Canada
Published online: 21 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Marlete Beatriz Maçaneiro , Sieglinde Kindl da Cunha & Zandra Balbinot (2013)
Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products Industry in Brazil,
Latin American Business Review, 14:3-4, 179-208, DOI: 10.1080/10978526.2013.833465
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2013.833465
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Latin American Business Review, 14:179–208, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1097-8526 print/1528-6932 online
DOI: 10.1080/10978526.2013.833465
Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-Innovations

in the Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products
Industry in Brazil
MARLETE BEATRIZ MAÇANEIRO

Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 09:48 07 March 2014
State University of Midwestern Paraná, Guarapuava, Brazil
SIEGLINDE KINDL DA CUNHA

Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
ZANDRA BALBINOT
University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada
ABSTRACT. This study analyzes the production of knowledge in

the field of eco-innovation, checking its state of the art in order to
discuss topics of future research. Specifically, it assesses the pulp,
paper, and paper products industry in Brazil in order to examine
the drivers of the adoption of eco-innovation strategies. The study is
essentially a review of the literature, with a methodology based on
exploratory research, and using the documental and bibliographi-
cal qualitative method. The empirical research was based on a
quantitative approach using the strategy of a cross-sectional survey
by means of a self-administered online questionnaire. It was veri-
fied that the studies related to eco-innovation are still preliminary
and that the subject lacks specific research with empirical data
from survey and in-depth case studies. The following topics were
checked for studies on innovation in environmental issues on con-
ceptual and theoretical discussion; models and indicators for eval-
uating the eco-innovation; types; and political arguments for their
development, with the proposition of research lines within this con-
text. The results of the empirical research allow us to conclude that
factors such as environmental regulation, the use of environmen-
tal incentives and innovation, reputation effects, top management
Received May 31, 2012; revised January 23, 2013; accepted May 6, 2013.
Address correspondence to Marlete Beatriz Maçaneiro, UNICENTRO-Universidade
Estadual do Centro-Oeste do Paraná, Rua Padre Salvador, 875, Guarapuava, PR, CEP 85015-
430, Brazil. E-mail: marlete.beatriz@yahoo.com.br
179
180 M. B. Maçaneiro et al.
support, technological expertise, and environmental formalization

in the context of domestic enterprises are crucial to the adoption of
eco-innovation. Further, the higher the extent to which companies
embrace an environmental and innovative culture, the greater the
internalization of eco-innovative practices.
RESUMEN. Este estudio analiza la producción de conocimiento

en el campo de la ecoinnovación a través de la verificación de su
estado actual, con el objeto de discutir temas que serán investigados
en el futuro. Con el propósito de examinar los factores que impulsan
la adopción de estrategias ecoinnovadoras, el mismo evalúa
específicamente el sector de pulpa, papel y productos de la industria
de papel en Brasil. Se caracteriza por representar una revisión de

la literatura, cuya sistemática está basada en una investigación
exploratoria que emplea un método cualitativo bibliográfico y
documental. Basada en un enfoque cuantitativo, la investigación
empírica se realizó por medio de un cuestionario de amplio
espectro, autoadministrado online. Se comprobó que los estudios
relacionados a la econinnovación se encuentran aún en su etapa
preliminar, y que el tema no cuenta con una investigación
específica con datos empíricos obtenidos a través de encuestas y
estudios de caso exhaustivos. Verificamos los siguientes tópicos
sobre cuestiones ambientales e innovación: discusión teórica y
conceptual; modelos e indicadores necesarios para evaluar la
ecoinnovación; tipologías; debates políticos para su desarrollo, así
como una propuesta indicando líneas de investigación dentro de
este contexto. Los resultados de la investigación empírica nos
permiten concluir que factores tales como las regulaciones
ambientales, el uso de incentivos ambientales y la innovación, los
efectos sobre la reputación, el apoyo de la alta administración, la
pericia tecnológica y la formalización ambiental en el contexto de
las empresas son cruciales para la adopción de la ecoinnovación.
Cuantas más empresas tengan una cultura innovadora y
ambiental arraigada, mayor será la internacionalización de las
prácticas de la ecoinnovación.
RESUMO. Este estudo analisa a produção de conhecimento no

campo da ecoinovação e verifica o seu estágio atual com o objetivo
de debater tópicos para pesquisas futuras. Ele trata especificamente
do setor de celulose, papel e produtos de papel no Brasil para
examinar os fatores que motivam a adoção de estratégias
ecoinovadoras. Caracteriza-se por ser uma revisão da literatura em
que a metodologia está fundamentada na pesquisa exploratória
com método qualitativo bibliográfico e documental. A pesquisa
Eco-Innovations in the Pulp, Paper, and Paper Products Industry 181
empírica está alicerçada em uma abordagem quantitativa que usa

a estratégia de levantamento de corte transversal por meio de um
questionário on-line autoadministrado. Verificou-se que os estudos
relacionados à ecoinovação ainda são preliminares e que o tema
carece de pesquisa específica com dados empíricos de levantamentos
e de estudos de caso aprofundados. Foram verificadas as possíveis
dimensões para estudos sobre questões ambientais e inovação, nos
temas de: discussão teórica e conceitual; modelos e indicadores de
avaliação da ecoinovação; tipologias; e discussões políticas para o
seu desenvolvimento, com a proposição de linhas de pesquisa dentro
deste contexto. Os resultados da pesquisa empírica permitem
concluir que fatores como a regulamentação ambiental, o uso de

incentivo ambienta e à inovação, os efeitos de reputação, o apoio
da alta administração, a competência tecnológica e a formalização
ambiental no contexto interno dos empreendimentos são cruciais à
adoção da ecoinovação. Quanto mais as empresas tiverem essa
cultura inovadora e ambiental enraizada, maior a internalização
das práticas de ecoinovação.
KEYWORDS. eco-innovation, pulp, paper, and paper products

industry, technological innovation
INTRODUCTION
Authors studying the field of innovation with environmental purposes

emphasize that there is relatively little research and actions that investigate
the intersection between the themes of innovation and environmental sus-
tainability, resulting in theoretical, methodological, and political uncertain
implementations and efforts toward this (Andersen, 2006, 2008; Andrade,
2004; Baumgarten, 2008; Kemp & Arundel, 2009). Thus, although the area is
a field still unexplored, especially in Brazil, it has been gaining increasing
attention in the international literature, especially in the countries of the
European Union. According to Rennings (1998), studies in the area of inno-
vation must be complemented by additional studies on eco-innovation, since
it plays a fundamental role in the politics of sustainability.
Innovation is characterized in the Oslo Manual (Organization for
Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2005, p. 23) as changes
“on the potential of significant products and services. Included are all new
goods and services and major improvements to existing products. Process
innovations represent significant changes in methods of production and
distribution.”
On the other hand, sustainability is treated with a variety of connota-
tions; Sachs (1993) disaggregated sustainability in the dimensions of social,
economic, ecological, and cultural space. To Blackburn (2008), sustainability

is not a passing fad but has been gaining momentum in Europe, the United
States, and several other regions, both in governmental and business areas—
the concept is here to stay. In this sense, innovation constitutes a key factor
for organizations to establish standards of sustainability in the dimensions
mentioned, but these innovations should be characterized by a systematic
basis. In addition, they must be fair with the support of natural resources,
introducing new products that meet the multiple dimensions of sustainability
(Barbieri, 2007b).
It is in this context that sustainability innovations arise—so-called
eco-innovations,1 which are defined as innovations with an emphasis on
sustainable development, resulting in lifelong cycle commitment to reduce

environmental risks, pollution, and other negative impacts of resource
use, compared to existing alternatives (Kemp & Arundel, 2009; Rennings,
1998).
In light of the need to establish a vision for studies addressing the rela-
tionship and importance of technological innovation, combined with the
issue of environmental sustainability, this article presents a literature review
of these areas. The objective was to analyze the production of knowledge on
the subject of eco-innovation, thereby producing a summary of the major
theoretical and empirical studies in order to propose and discuss topics for
future research. Additionally, we study the Brazilian industry of pulp, paper,
and paper products to better understand how the current applications of
eco-innovation in manufacturing industries affect the drivers of the adoption
of eco-innovation strategies.
Thus, this study first presents the concepts related to the topic addressed
and the context of integration, and then provides a treatment of the state of
the art relevant to eco-innovations. The next section presents the methodol-
ogy and introduces the case study of the Brazilian industry of pulp, paper,
and paper products. Later, in the final considerations, there is a discussion
on the issues of research for future studies.
THE RISE OF ECO-INNOVATION AND ITS

CONTEXT: GREEN INNOVATION AS A FACTOR
FOR SYSTEMIC CHANGE
Capacity development for innovation management is accomplished through

various instruments, such as public policies, regulatory framework, financing
mechanisms, public awareness, participation of stakeholders and interested
parties, and the choice of technology. It is in this context that innovation is
let into; a choice of appropriate technologies and inherent processes covers
various aspects related to an innovation system, which integrates a number
of propellants of countries and regional developments.
The concept of eco-innovation is relatively new, arising from recent

discussions and concerns about environmental impacts. Fussler and James
first used the term “eco-innovation” in “Driving Eco-Innovation,” published
in 1996. According to James (1997), eco-innovation is considered a new
product or process that adds value to the business and the customer, signifi-
cantly reducing environmental impacts.
The definition of eco-innovation differs from that of innovation for
being related to the reduction of environmental loads, that is, an innova-
tion that consists of changes and improvements in environmental perfor-
mance within a dynamic of greener products, processes, business strate-
gies, markets, technology, and innovation systems. In this context, it is
defined by Rennings (1998), Kemp and Foxon (2007), and Kemp and
Arundel (2009) as the production, application, or exploitation of an
asset, service, production process, organizational structure, or manage-
ment or method business that is new to the company or user. The results,
during its life cycle, are for a reduction of environmental damage, pollu-
tion, and negative impacts of resource use, compared to existing alterna-
tives. According to Ekins (2010, pp. 269–270), “environmental innovation
means changes that benefit the environment in some way … [but] can
only be judged on the basis of improved economic and environmental
performance.”
Freeman (1996) and Machiba (2010) warned that with increasing con-
centration of pollutants on the “greenhouse effect,” more attention has been
given to institutional change (economic incentives and sanctions) and less
attention to technical change and systemic innovation. However, the reversal
of most risks to the environment depends not only on methods of regulation,
economic incentives, and other institutional changes, but also on continuous
technological change and systemic innovation. Some technical innovations
in renewable energy sources can make a big difference in future prospects:
“Incremental improvement is not enough to meet such challenges. Industry
must be restructured and existing and breakthrough technologies must be
more innovatively applied to realize green growth” (Machiba, 2010, p. 358).
For Geels (2010, p. 498), “‘green’ technology leaders may benefit from first
mover advantages […] that create favorable positions in future ‘green’ inno-
vation races.” Therefore, eco-innovation is characterized by the greening of
the innovation cycle, which is the focus on the development of innovations,
organizational structures, institutions, and practices appropriate to reduce
carbon prints and environmental impacts. This process, more than just a
replacement for low-carbon technologies, is evidence of new learning involv-
ing the creation of new knowledge, search for values, rules and capabilities,
as well as creative destruction of old practices and capabilities (Foxon &
Andersen, 2009). Importantly, because studies concerning eco-innovation
are relatively recent, uncertainties and questions remain as regards various
research issues.
STATE OF THE ART ABOUT ECO-INNOVATION
In this section, we present the state of the art on the theme of Eco-Innovation
from published authors in the area. For this analysis, studies were included
in topics identified as relevant, as follows.
Conceptualization and Theoretical Discussion

In this section, we present the studies of Rennings (1998), Foxon and
Andersen (2009), Andersen (2008), and Kemp and Foxon (2007) in order to
discuss a theory relevant to the study of eco-innovation. In this sense, two
economic approaches are highlighted in the context of eco-innovation,
namely neoclassical theory and evolutionary theory.

Rennings’ article (1998) was pioneering in terms of theoretical discus-
sion on the theme of innovation for environmental sustainability. He discussed
“the potential contribution of neoclassical and (co-)evolutionary approaches
from environmental and innovation economics” (Rennings, 1998, p. 2), and
developed some basic concepts in innovation and sustainability issues. The
work aims to address the gap between theory and policy on the processes
of innovation for sustainability in its various dimensions, complex feedback
mechanisms, and interrelationships. The author pointed out that a theoretical
and methodological framework is needed and “should be able to give some
guidelines about how to analyze these processes in their different character-
istics and phases, to identify promising examples as well as bad ones, and to
give some idea about their transferability to other contexts” (Rennings, 1998,
p. 2). The author’s conclusion is that
Both neoclassical and (co)-evolutionary approaches have their merits and

limits concerning a theory and policy of eco-innovation. Neoclassical
methods are most elaborated to analyze the efficiency of incentive systems
which seems to be essential for stimulating innovation. […] Evolutionary
approaches are more appropriate for analyzing long-term, radical techno-
logical changes including path-dependencies, technological irreversibility,
transition processes, discontinuous and unpredictable events. (Rennings,
1998, p. 14)
Along the same line of thought, the study of Foxon and Andersen
(2009) proposed a paradigmatic explanation of eco-innovation based on a
combination of both a thinking innovation system and an evolutionary
capacity approach in the context of evolutionary economic theory. The
authors noted, “The central challenge of climate change mitigation is how to
achieve a radical transition to low-carbon systems of production and con-
sumption in such a way that social and economic costs of the transition are
minimized and social and economic benefits are maximized” (Foxon &
Andersen, 2009, p. 4).
However, despite the significant activities and institutional changes that

have occurred, the discourse of a new green industrial revolution was not
accompanied by measures to encourage radical innovation, which will be
needed to meet the challenge of long-term goals of reducing emissions.
They argued that this problem is a result of the climate being dominated by
neoclassical economic thought of the linear innovation, which is centered on
short-term issues, using models based on rational factors in a perfectly fore-
seen scenario, thus forming “an inadequate basis for addressing long-term
environmental problems, in which actors need to make decisions in the face
of high levels of risk and uncertainty, both in relation to outcomes of current
actions and the potential for the development of alternatives” (Foxon &
Andersen, 2009, pp. 5–6).

The study by Andersen (2008) aimed to contribute to the construction
of the theory of eco-innovation, with a definition and taxonomy, and to sug-
gest important foci for future research, with questions not yet addressed in
the study area. The author stressed that the problem of orthodox economic
theory (neoclassical theory) is that the environmental response of the com-
pany was treated as a pure case of regulation, the environment being seen
as a burden for companies, which require environmental policy to force
them to bear the additional costs: “As a result, competitiveness and greening
have been seen as opposites. This notion has not only penetrated policy-
making but has also been widely shared by companies which severely has
hampered a shift from reactive towards proactive environmental strategies in
companies” (Andersen, 2008, p. 4).
On the other hand, Kemp and Foxon (2007) proposed a definition of
innovation, which does not restrict its orientation for the reduction of envi-
ronmental damage, but which constitutes an innovation that contemplates
environmental benefits and changes to a greening systems in the context of
evolutionist theory. This is because the definition of eco-innovation is often
used as a specific environmental innovation, being limited to innovations
aimed at reducing environmental damage, and excluding those that are envi-
ronmentally friendly and not specially designed to reduce pollution and
waste: “It is important to note that the widespread use of eco-innovations
does not guarantee overall improvements in environmental quality. Cost-
saving technologies give rise to increases in real wealth that will translate in
extra consumption and associated emissions and resource use (rebound
effect)” (Kemp & Foxon, 2007, p. 3; authors’ emphasis). Therefore, the study
contributes theoretically with a broader definition for eco-innovation, since
it includes normal innovations, which are beneficial to the environment
because they constitute an important category, studies about which are
scarce.
In summary, neoclassical economic theory is considered by the authors
cited to be unsuitable in the end for the analysis of the innovative process,
which is more conducive to the efficiency analysis of incentives for innovation.
An alternative approach, one supported by the evolutionary theory of innova-

tion, introduces the environment as an important element of this system, con-
sidering that greening is best explained by the precepts of the innovation
systems approach. Here, companies, institutions, and individuals are advised
to change strategic posture in order to minimize social and economic costs in
relation to environmental issues. This requires a proactive position by all those
involved in production processes and regulatory changes and portrays eco-
innovation as an ally in the development of preventive technologies and ade-
quate sustainability practices.
Models and Indicators for Evaluating Eco-Innovation

With respect to models and indicators for evaluating eco-innovation, we next

present the studies by Kemp and Arundel (1998), Arundel, Kemp, and Parto
(2003), Andersen (2006), Könnölä, Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Gonzalez (2008),
Reid and Miedzinski (2008), Arundel and Kemp (2009), and OECD (2009).
The study by Kemp and Arundel (1998) contributed to the identification
of indicators for research on environmental innovation, aimed at developing
strategies for companies in the development, implementation, and/or usage
of this kind of innovation. They described the environmental indicators of
technological innovation and use of the latter for environment-related policy
and innovation studies. The authors looked into how the production of these
technological innovations and processes can be measured by indicators and
how indicators’ research can help policymakers to promote the develop-
ment, adoption and use of environmental innovations, and be of value to
companies as a reference of environmental performance concerning indus-
tries. Moreover, the authors proposed a questionnaire for research on envi-
ronmental innovation, which consists of questions that can be answered by
companies of all types and sizes and in all sectors of the manufacturing
industry.
In the study by Arundel, Kemp, and Parto (2003), the advantages and
disadvantages of various methods for obtaining environmental indicators
were assessed and the main issues of research policy for eco-innovation
were summarized: “The main goal is to identify indicators that could assist
public policy-makers and private firms to nurture the development, adoption
and use of environmental innovation” (p. 325). The authors noted that there
is a better indicator type of research for eco-innovation, the point being that
they all have a role in this type of study: studies should differentiate types of
environmental innovation, should not measure the policy through a single
index, and should consider the style of innovation. More specifically, the
authors present four main categories of innovation indicators, which exist in
the environment: (1) financial indicators, (2) patents, (3) research on envi-
ronmental innovation based on the Oslo Manual definition, and (4) research
grounded in method literature-based innovation output (LBIO).2 According
to Arundel, Kemp, and Parto, although the patent data and the method LBIO
provide an opportunity to develop a series of indicators, the survey data
provide a complete set of environmental indicators.
Another study that contributes to the development of indicators for
assessing eco-innovation and discussion about the availability of data sources
and measurement methods is that of Andersen (2006). The author stressed
that there is “a considerable need for conceptual as well as methodological
clarifications in order to develop eco-innovation indicators” (Andersen, 2006,
p. 5). To this end, the text provides basic information on key issues to be
considered and presented an overview of data sources as well as existing
and future methods germane to the subject. According to Andersen (2006),
indicators of eco-innovation should serve three purposes: (a) allow bench-

marking at international, national and regional levels, integrated with inno-
vation statistics; (b) encourage maximum environmental action among the
key factors in the innovation system; and (c) provide new analytical insights
to the greening of industry and economy.
A conceptual model is developed for evaluating the work of Könnölä,
Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Gonzalez (2008, p. 2), featuring:
[…] different kinds of eco-innovations and arrive at the respective impli-

cations for their management and governance […] identify and describe
different dimensions for studying innovation processes which address
environmental issues […] the different dimensions are gathered together
in the Dashboard of Eco-innovation which will be used in the case study
to assess the innovation process of an automated vacuum waste collec-
tion system.
The authors proposed an assessment of the relative change that occurred

in each of the dimensions of the process of eco-innovation, using a Likert
scale with five level scores, 1 being for incremental change, 5 for radical
change, and 0 for no change.
However, for Reid and Miedzinski (2008), the measurement of eco-
innovation is still characterized as a challenge because it requires the creation
of a coherent approach by different research traditions, including studies on
innovation and environmental economics. Therefore, it is essential to develop
indicators and statistical systems to allow further analysis of eco-innovation.
It is necessary to establish a frame of reference integrating the measurement
of innovation with the overall productivity of resources in order to contribute
to the definition of long-term goals in policies to support eco-innovation.
This task is not clear and represents a methodological challenge. In this
sense, Reid and Miedzinski (2008, p. 12) presented a frame of knowledge
needs and possible sources of data for the analysis of eco-innovation, which
“summarizes the discussion on measurement issues indicating knowledge
needs as regards different levels of eco-innovation measurements and
possible (potential) data sources and analytical tools.” Other factors of

measurement are indicated in the study in terms of determinants of eco-
innovation (facilitators and barriers) between the general factors typical of
any innovation activity and specific environmental factors.
Another study that deals with the measurement of eco-innovation is the
text of the OECD (2009), which comprised a synthesis report summarizing
the main findings of the first phase of the OECD Project on Sustainable
Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation, which was released in early 2008. It aims
to provide an overview of concepts and current practices of industry and
government, to highlight gaps in the understanding and areas that require
further analysis and coordination. According to the report, the characteristics
and impacts of eco-innovation are often opaque to companies and policy-

makers. In this sense, the quantitative measurement of these activities could
improve the understanding of the concept and practice, helping to analyze
trends and identify facilitators and barriers, and raising awareness of the
importance of eco-innovation. To explore future opportunities for measure-
ment, the project analyzed existing methodologies for measuring eco-inno-
vation at the macro-level (sectoral, regional, and national) as well as strengths
and weaknesses. The document emphasizes that it is important to collect
data on the nature of eco-innovation (targets, mechanisms, etc.), facilitators
and barriers that affect the different types, and the impacts of different types
of eco-innovations.
These studies confirm that scholars have developed indicators and
assessments and performed analyses in this direction. However, as empha-
sized by Arundel and Kemp (2009), the theme of eco-innovation is a rich and
unexplored field of research that has relevance for future investigations: “For
understanding eco-innovation there is a need to go beyond the use of exist-
ing statistics, because their scope is limited and because they are not spe-
cially set up for the purpose of measuring eco-innovation” (Arundel & Kemp,
2009, p. 24). In other words, most existing knowledge on environmental
innovation is based on case studies and research that focuses on isolated
management styles, organizations, and strategies:
Most innovation surveys have only included one or two questions on

environmental innovation. The few existing surveys that have focused on
environmental innovation are largely drawn from the management litera-
ture and examine the reasons why firms introduce environmental inno-
vations and their organisational response to environmental issues. (Kemp
& Arundel, 1998, p. 9)
Therefore, specially designed surveys could provide information on

investments in different types of eco-innovations as well as on the facilitators
and their effects, thereby allowing for further analysis of these topics. As
noted by these authors, it is important to check several of the indicators that
measure eco-innovation in order to understand the general patterns, facilita-

tors, and barriers to its development.
Typology of Eco-Innovations
It is necessary to establish an appropriate and consistent typology with orga-
nizational processes and technologies related to environmental issues in
order to measure and construct eco-innovation models. In this section, we
describe studies that have addressed this subject by authors such as Rennings
(1998), Arundel, Kemp, and Parto (2003), Andersen (2006, 2008), Könnölä,
Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Gonzalez (2008), Kemp and Foxon (2007), and
OECD (2009).
One of the first typologies that developed the theme of eco-innovation
was Rennings (1998, p. 5), who stated, “Eco-innovations can be developed by
firms or non-profit organizations, they can be traded on markets or not, their
nature can be technological, organizational, social or institutional.” The eco-
innovations can be distinguished as curative and preventive technologies:
whereas the former repairs damage to the environment, the latter tries to
prevent it from happening in the first place. The author emphasized that the
distinctions between different types of innovations cannot be very striking.
For example, just as the collective actions of families on sustainable consump-
tion patterns can be considered as institutional eco-innovations, the creation
of environmental awareness in companies can be considered as social eco-
innovations. Another factor to consider is that different types of eco-innova-
tion co-evolve; that is, actions depend on combinations such as advances in
scientific knowledge, political, social, and other institutional changes.
In the study of Arundel, Kemp, and Parto (2003), among other things,
typologies of innovation are developed in terms of technical, organizational
environmental innovation, and environmental innovation as business
strategy. The environmental innovation can be considered as “technical”
when it comes to new equipment, products, and production process; and
“organizational” when it comes to structural change within the organization
to establish new habits, routines, guidance on use of tools and environmental
programs, or to be used as business strategy: “Successful environmental
innovation may often require both technical and organizational change”
(Arundel, Kemp, & Parto, 2003, p. 325). Furthermore, the authors stressed
that, in some cases, the reduction of environmental impacts may be the only
purpose of an environmental innovation (intentional environmental
innovation); in others, environmental benefits may be an accidental product
of other innovation activities (unintended environmental innovations). The
latter, although more difficult to identify, may have even greater importance.
There are also clean consumer products, which, while often intentional
environmental innovations, must be distinguished from eco-products (goods
that are marketed as environmentally friendly).
Anderson (2006, 2008) developed an operational typology. The author

mentioned that there are few existing typologies and the one already in place
is more rooted in the history of environmental policy (normative approach)
than on the dynamics of innovation. Considering the conditions for innovation,
the typology proposes an operating taxonomy expanded into five categories:
(1) eco-innovation add-on (services and technologies for handling resources
in relation to pollution that are developed by the environmental sector); (2)
integrated eco-innovations (technological processes and cleaner products
than the similar ones, expanding coverage beyond organizations); (3) eco-
alternative product innovations (new technological paths that represent
radical innovations); (4) eco-macro-organizational innovations (new
organizational structures that require new solutions for an eco-efficient way

of organizing society); and (5) eco-innovations of general purpose (general-
purpose technologies that profoundly affect the economy and the innovation
process, defining the dominant techno-economic paradigm).
Könnölä, Carrillo-Hermosilla, and Gonzalez (2008) also presented a
typology of eco-innovation developed in a frame of dimensions that charac-
terize the different types. These different dimensions are identified and
described for the study of innovation processes that address environmental
issues, among the dimensions of design, comprised of technologies adding
components, changing subsystem and system change; of user, hence the
development of products/services and user acceptance; of product/service,
consisting of changes in service delivery/distribution of products and changes
in the processes in value networks, and of governance dimension. So, like
any innovation, eco-innovations can be identified by different dimensions of
change, which together explain the factors of success or failure. Due to the
systemic nature of innovation, it is interesting to explore the multiple dimen-
sions in combination and consider the variation of importance in the pro-
cesses of ecological innovation.
Kemp and Foxon (2007), as well as dealing with general-purpose tech-
nologies, detailed another typology into four classes: (1) environmental tech-
nologies; (2) organizational innovations for the environment; (3) innovations
in products and services that offer environmental benefits; and (4) green
system innovations. An important aspect of this classification system is that
eco-innovation is not limited to new or improved environmental technolo-
gies, but one gets the notion that each product or environmentally improved
service, and each organizational change for the environment counts as eco-
innovation. That is, the indicators should not be limited to environmentally
motivated innovations but should also include the normal innovations ben-
eficial to the environment since they constitute an important category about
which very little is known.
Thus, the OECD report (2009) presented a table of indicator categories
of sustainable production that is diverse in nature. However, the report
pointed out that there is no set among those listed that can cover everything
that manufacturing companies need to consider in order to improve their

production process and products with a view to sustainable development:
“An appropriate combination of existing indicator sets could help give com-
panies a more comprehensive picture of economic, environmental and social
effects across the value chain and product lifecycle” (OECD, 2009, p. 22).
Today, there is no set of indicators that permits the identification of system-
level impacts of new products and production process.
Analyzing the typology confirms that while the typologies of Rennings
(1998) and Arundel, Kemp, and Parto (2003) provide a macro-view of the
context of eco-innovation development, those presented by the other authors
are more specific in terms of an operations typology, with each playing a
different role in the greening of innovation systems. Overall, it seems as

though these authors define the taxonomies, typologies, and operational
dimensions that characterize and classify the different types of eco-innova-
tions. While some are similar, such similarity can better describe and/or sup-
port further research on eco-innovation.
Policies Discussion for the Development of

Eco-Innovation
Policies play a fundamental role in improving our understanding of the pre-
vailing theoretical issues, measurement models, and typologies. The authors
that have addressed this aspect, such as Rennings (1998), Arundel, Kemp,
and Parto (2003), Reid and Miedzinski (2008), Foxon and Andersen (2009),
OECD (2009), and Ekins (2010), stressed that it is necessary to define a spe-
cific policy for eco-innovation. They further stated that innovation and envi-
ronmental policies have thus far been treated separately.
Rennings (1998) also dealt with political issues in his study. He stressed
the need for a specific policy for eco-innovation, with emphasis on identify-
ing the specialty of eco-innovation and its differentiation from other innova-
tions. In this case, environmental policy and the policy of eco-innovation can
be seen in a complementary way, where innovation can help reduce the
costs of social innovation, institutional, and technological developments,
especially in the stages of invention and marketing, and, in the diffusion
stage, help improve the performance characteristics of eco-innovations. In
view of this, it is of fundamental importance that the regulatory and environ-
mental policy frame be seen as a determining factor for eco-innovative
behavior in enterprises and institutions. However,
[…] a policy fostering technological eco-innovations can not be reduced

to technological support programs nor to conventional environmental
policy measures, but has to find intelligent combinations of both. The
problem is of course to find a balance between protection and selection
pressure. However some protection may be necessary even in the dif-
fusion phase due to the degree of existing external costs not yet
internalized by environmental policy. Thus close coordination between

environmental policy and eco-innovation policy will be necessary.
(Rennings, 1998, p. 14)
In the study of Arundel, Kemp, and Parto (2003), among other issues,
the main aspects of research into environmental innovation policy were
summarized, with the aim of helping policymakers to stimulate the develop-
ment, adoption, and use of environmental innovation. Policymakers require
indicators of environmental innovation to encourage companies to minimize
their environmental impacts through innovation. The authors presented four
main policy areas of importance to be encouraged by policymakers: types of
environmental innovation, motivators and facilitators, economic effects of
environmental innovation, and knowledge sources and obstacles. In addi-

tion, as part of the study of Reid and Miedzinski (2008), a conceptual frame
was presented for analysis and policy development on eco-innovation, which
brings together available evidence and proposes a set of policies for a more
structured integration of eco-innovation. This is in reference to a definition
of innovation policy in which resources productivity and eco-efficiency are
placed as central objectives. This is because innovation policies provide an
improved competitiveness in the economy and contribute to greater eco-
nomic growth and employment, even though, in practice, they do not work
as environmental measures and are not socially sustainable.
An important aspect to be included in innovation policies is the promo-
tion of business competitiveness, but avoiding the negative environmental
effects and respecting resource limits. The study raises an important ques-
tion—that the policy needs to focus on innovation system because it involves
both the social and environmental dimension, integrating the concept of
limited resources and social sustainability. From this perspective, they
described six policy actions to implement a more sustainable model: (1)
reach agreement on the definitions and measurement methods; (2) identify
key policy challenges, which depends on the location, level of expertise and
organizations involved; (3) set long-term goals and policy goals, involving
stakeholders (including companies); (4) get suitable policy mix for the mea-
surement of eco-innovation; (5) realize policy synergy in terms of coherence,
coordination and consistency; and (6) conduct an ongoing process of politi-
cal learning to evaluate results in order to adapt and improve policy
measures.
The study by Foxon and Andersen (2009) started from the perspective
of the evolutionary approach of innovation systems, presenting important
issues for policymaking climate change mitigation. The authors suggested a
long-term policy for the creation of innovative high capacity for eco-innova-
tion among national regional and sectoral innovation systems. The article
stressed that the creation of innovation policy dealt very little with the envi-
ronmental area—widely seen as a cost to business—until recently. The
development of two types of policies, environmental and eco-innovation, go

together though with small interactions:
The reason for this is that they are rooted in different policy domains,
respectively the environmental and the innovation/industrial policy
domain. Climate and environmental policy is largely based on neoclassi-
cal economic thinking, while innovation policy is based on evolutionary
economic theory. These differences in underlying rationales are, how-
ever, little recognized, but they have major policy implications. (Foxon &
Andersen, 2009, p. 2)
Another document that highlights as crucial the integration of policies

of innovation with the environmental ones for promoting eco-innovation is

the report published by the OECD (2009), contributing to discussions on
political decisions for organizational practices:
[…] to realize its potential, eco-innovation will require actions to ensure

that the full cycle of innovation is efficient, with policies ranging from
appropriate investments in research to support for commercializing exist-
ing and breakthrough technologies. […] eco-innovation has not been a
primary objective of environmental or of innovation policy. (OECD, 2009,
pp. 27–28)
In this sense, the creation of an eco-successful innovation policy requires

an integrated understanding of interaction between supply and demand. The
OECD report (2009) presents an analysis of the results of a questionnaire
survey on the current government policies for environmental innovation in
several countries, which reveals several areas and measures for improvement:
(1) supply-side measures—equity support, research and development, pre-
commercialization, education and training, networks and partnerships, and
provision of infrastructure; and (2) demand-side measures—regulations and
standards, public procurement and demand support, and technology
transfer.
The article by Ekins (2010) examined developments in European
eco-industries in terms of the effectiveness of the environmental policies
implemented. He mentioned that “market-based and regulatory instruments
may be thought of as ‘hard’ instruments, because they impose explicit obliga-
tions, whereas voluntary and information-based instruments may be thought
of as ‘soft’ instruments, because they rely more on or seek to stimulate
discretionary activities” (Ekins, 2010, pp. 281–282).
Ekins (2010) applied five case studies in different European countries in
order to investigate the innovation dynamics induced by environmental
policy. The results showed that the types of environmental policy instruments
used have resulted in greater product innovation compared with end-of-pipe
or integrated processes. Further, “a wide range of different environmental
policies has been used in different countries, ranging in Europe across volun-
tary approaches, directives, investments, grants, bans, taxes and technical
standards. In the USA classic regulation, i.e. command-and-control, appears
most common” (Ekins, 2010, p. 284). However, the great majority of the policy
instruments used in the case studies were “hard” (market-based or regulatory)
rather than “soft.”
This section discussed aspects to be considered in the definition of
environmental policies. These aspects need to take into account the approach
of innovation systems as well as specific measures for successful eco-
innovation policy, which may incorporate improvements in both demand
and supply. It is also noteworthy that a regulatory and innovation policy
framework for sustainability is a key factor in the behavior of eco-innovative

companies as well as in making the necessary changes to the environmental
conduct of users/consumers.
METHODOLOGY
Initially, this study was characterized as a literature review, on which the meth-
odology adopted was based on exploratory research, with qualitative method
being the type of documents and literature. National and especially interna-
tional articles were analyzed on the theme of environmental innovation or eco-
innovation. The search for articles was performed through the CAPES Periodicals
Portal and PROQUEST, which allowed us access to major journals and interna-
tional conference annals. The search terms were sustainability coupled with the
term innovation, environmental innovation, and eco-innovation.
Moreover, the study is grounded in a quantitative approach, using the
strategy of a cross-sectional survey, which is characterized “by the use of
quantification both in terms of data collection and in the treatment of them
by statistical techniques” (Richardson, 2008, p. 70). This survey was carried
out with 117 companies from the pulp, paper, and paper products industry,
and data were collected from July to October of 2012.
The instrument used for data collection was a computerized question-
naire in a self-administered format (Hair, Babin, Money, & Samoel, 2005),
which was sent over the Internet using the Qualtrics® system. It was mod-
eled as an opinion poll, with respondents rating their perceptions using a
five-point Likert-type scale. Three experts and teachers tested the question-
naire in terms of content validity; three managers responsible for environ-
mental management in the sample companies and two university professors
in the field of strategy and sustainability conducted a pretest.
Six constructs were proposed for defining the drivers behind the adop-
tion of eco-innovation, comprising 28 variables. These constructs were
defined as (1) environmental regulation, (2) the use of environmental incen-
tives and innovation, (3) reputational effects, (4) top management support,
(5) technological competence, and (6) environmental formalization. The

data collection instrument and variables that comprise the constructs are
presented in Section 5.
ANALYSIS OF THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPER

PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL
The 117 sample companies in this study came from throughout Brazil. To
verify the national representativeness of this composition, we analyzed the
participation of companies in the Pesquisa Industrial Anual (PIA) Empresas
of the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2010). Specifically, we

performed a chi-square (goodness of fit) test to assess whether the fre-
quency of the sample by Brazilian state is statistically representative of the
overall population (Maroco, 2003). The results are presented in Table 1.
The PIA comprised 3147 companies, which resulted in the expected
numbers after performing the chi-square (goodness of fit) test (see Table 1).
Thus, it was possible to compare the number of sample firms by region and
to infer that the sample was representative, since we obtained a significance
level above 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences (Hair et al.,
2005).
In terms of size, the majority of responding organizations (45%) are
medium-sized, according to the Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e
Pequenas Empresas (SEBRAE, 2012) criterion. Another significant proportion
are small (34%), followed by large (17%) and micro-enterprises (4%).
The characterization of sample firms can be summarized as follows:
most are of Brazilian origin (97%) and they are controlled by domestic capi-
tal exclusively (80%). The mean time in existence is 36 years, and they oper-
ate in the domestic market only (63%). Survey respondents mostly work in
managerial positions (66%) and have worked for the company for a mean of
approximately 10 years.
TABLE 1 Representativeness of Sample Companies
Companies included in the PIA

No. of sample
Region No. of existing No. of expected companies Residual
Southeast 1.828 68.0 70 2.0

South 881 32.8 39 6.2
Northeast 291 10.8 4 –6.8
North 42 1.6 2 0.4
Midwest 105 3.9 2 –1.9
TOTAL 3.147 117
Statistical significance according to the chi-square test 0.159
(p > 0.05)
Source: Data from field research (2012) and IBGE (2010).

Next, we present the descriptive analysis of the constructs in terms of

the presentation of the measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion
(standard deviation). The mean is the most widely used measure of central
tendency for interval or ratio data. Further, dispersion measures “are used to
describe the variability in a distribution of numbers” (Hair et al., 2005, p. 272).
Standard deviation describes the dispersion of the variability of a distribution
of the sample values from the mean and it is considered the most valuable
index of the dispersion (Cooper & Schindler, 2011; Hair et al., 2005; Malhotra,
2006; Maroco, 2003).
The following presents and analyzes the means and standard deviations of
each variable used in this study. Initially, we present the descriptive statistics for
each construct, and, subsequently, analyze the general means of the constructs
in order of importance to sample firms compared with previous studies.
Analysis of the Construct “Environmental Regulation”

The construct “environmental regulation” is defined as the impact of the
rules of command and control on setting environmental strategies by firms,
and it is composed of four variables. The scale used to measure this con-
struct’s degree of relevance assumed the following values: (1) very small, (2)
small, (3) average, (4) large, and (5) very large. The mean of the first two
variables composed the construct “view regulation as a cost/threat” and the
mean of the other two variables composed the construct “view regulation as
an opportunity” (Table 2).
For this construct, mean responses are at relatively high levels on the
scale. There is practically no difference between the means of the construct
seen as a threat/cost and seen as a strategic opportunity. This indicates that
respondent companies, in general, do not consider the impact of regulations
either as costs or strategic opportunities, in contrast to the theory mentioned
(Barbieri, 2007a; Blackburn 2008, Donaire, 2007; Nidumolu, Prahalad, &
Rangaswami, 2009; Young, Podcameni, Mac-Knight, & Oliveira, 2009).
In the case of standard deviations, the values indicate a correlation
between respondents in that smaller values indicate consistent responses
(Cooper & Schindler, 2011; Hair et al., 2005). The lowest standard deviation
is found in Var03, indicating greater consistency between responses, although
other deviations are also considered to be acceptable. Var02 has the lowest
mean and largest standard deviation, indicating the greatest dispersion
among responses.
Analysis of the Construct “Use of Environmental

Incentives and Innovation”
The “use of environmental incentives and innovation” construct considered
in economic terms supports the incorporation of innovative technology and
TABLE 2 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Environmental Regulation”
Question: In the options below, evaluate the

degree of relevance of the environmental
regulations/laws on each of the following Standard
Variable variables Mean deviation
Cost / threat Var01 The regulations are important for acquiring 3.50 1.164
technology for pollution control at the end
of the production process.
Var02 The regulations are relevant to the increased 3.42 1.295
cost for tax penalties and/or administrative
liability for environmental damage,
resulting in a threat to business growth.
Opportunity Var03 The regulations have relevance in the 3.51 1.039
development or acquisition of new

products/processes/technologies for
innovative pollution prevention, involving
continuous learning and developing
organizational capabilities.
Var04 The regulations serve as a guideline for the 3.55 1.110
company to innovate, learn, and change
their practices, and this pressure is seen as
improving productivity and
competitiveness.
Overall mean 3.50
Source: Data from field research (2012).
environmental incentives. The scale used in this construct assumed the fol-
lowing values: (1) very small, (2) small, (3) average, (4) large, and (5) very
large, and it was composed of five variables (Table 3).
For this construct, the data show very low means in contrast to the first
construct, with the measures of responses at the lower end of the scale. This
TABLE 3 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Use of Environmental Incentives
and Innovation”
Question: In the options below, evaluate the degree of

relevance of each in relation to the resources effectively
obtained by the company in terms of environmental Standard
Variable issues and innovation Mean deviation
Var05 Government-subsidized resources (nonrefundable). 1.77 1.037
Var06 Government funding with special terms and rates 2.05 1.299
below the prevailing financial market rates (refund-
able resources).
Var07 Governmental support for the use of venture capital. 1.77 0.968
Var08 Tax benefits for innovation and/or environmentally 1.90 1.140
friendly products.
Var09 Financing from international investment funds, interna- 1.71 1.026
tional organizations, and agencies.
Overall mean 1.84

indicates that most sample companies do not have governmental/institu-

tional incentives for innovation and environmental activities. The highest
mean is for Var06, which shows that companies in this sector have greater
access to government financing at special terms and rates, but not to subsi-
dized resources, which has one of the lowest means. The lowest standard
deviation value is found for Var07, indicating greater consistency between
the answers in this regard. Var06 has the highest mean, by contrast, suggest-
ing no such agreement among respondents.
Analysis of the Construct “Reputational Effects”

The construct “reputation effects” is defined as the factors/agents that focus
on actions to improve the company image in the face of environmental

issues (Table 4). The scale used to measure the degree of relevance of each
factor assumed the following values: (1) very small, (2) small, (3) average, (4)
large, and (5) very large, and it was composed of six variables.
In this construct, the highest mean is for Var11, followed by Var15 and
Var10, and the lowest mean is for Var12, with acceptable levels of scale and
others less so. From these data, we can infer that sample companies have
greater concern about customers in general as well as suppliers and collabo-
rators. By contrast, they have less concern about environmentalists, associa-
tions, the media, or environmental awareness movements. In other words, in
the face of environmental issues, the biggest concern for firms is their closest
stakeholders. The standard deviations of this construct indicate less agree-
ment among respondents from the mean, but still within acceptable statisti-
cal parameters. The smallest standard deviation is for Var10 and Var11, which
have the highest means.
TABLE 4 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Reputation Effects”
Question: In the options below, evaluate the degree of

importance of each factor/agent on the company’s actions Standard
Variable to improve firm image when facing environmental issues Mean deviation
Var10 Relationships with supply chain. 3.45 1.030
Var11 Conscious consumers, industrial customers, and public 3.57 1.037
customers.
Var12 Relationships with environmental nongovernmental 2.73 1.284
organizations, business associations, or the media or
participation in movements that seek to improve the
environment or the environmental awareness of society.
Var13 Environmental performances of competitors. 2.97 1.207
Var14 Requirement of investors to maintain profitability. 2.91 1.225
Var15 Image with employees with a greater environmental 3.46 1.297
awareness.
Overall mean 3.18
TABLE 5 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Top Management Support”
Question: In the options below, evaluate the

degree of relevance of senior management on the Standard
Variable following variables Mean deviation
Var16 The top management in this organization commu- 3.38 1.291
nicates that environmental issues are crucial and
initiates environmental programs and policies.
Var17 The company’s leaders define a policy to reward 2.32 1.325
employees according to environmental
improvements.
Var18 Organizational resources are allocated for 2.73 1.243
environmental initiatives.
Var19 The company’s leaders see the environment as 3.19 1.306
highly strategic.
Overall mean 2.91
Analysis of the Construct “Top Management Support”

The construct “top management support” is defined as managers’ percep-
tions that the environment is highly relevant for business. The scale used to
measure this construct assumed the following values: (1) very small, (2)
small, (3) average, (4) large and (5) very large, and the construct was com-
posed of four variables (Table 5).
The data show that the highest mean is for Var16, followed by Var19,
with lower levels for the other two variables. This result indicates that man-
agers communicate about environmental issues and consider the environ-
ment strategic. However, the lower mean level points to the lack of rewards
for employees and the lower allocation of organizational resources to envi-
ronmental initiatives. In other words, although respondent companies believe
environmental issues to be strategic, they provide few financial resources for
the implementation of environmental policy. The mean evaluation of Var17
can be related to the mean of Var15 in that companies consider their envi-
ronmental images but do not put into practice a policy to encourage this.
Regarding the analysis of the dispersion, the scores indicate low agreement
among respondents in this construct.
Analysis of the Construct “Technological Competence”

The construct “technological competence” is defined as a statement by the
company of a propensity to invest in R&D, organizational structure, and
human resources to work in an innovative and proactive way in terms of
eco-innovation. The scale used to measure this construct assumed the fol-
lowing values: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) do not agree nor dis-
agree, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. The construct was composed of four
variables (Table 6).
TABLE 6 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Technological Competence”
Question: In the options below, evaluate the degree

by which the company can be characterized in the Standard
Variable following descriptions Mean deviation
Var20 The company is considered to be first to introduce 2.67 0.991
new technologies and new products in the sector.
Var21 The company has the human resources to develop 3.21 1.105
eco-innovations.
Var22 The company has the installation conditions and 3.57 0.959
adaptation skills for the adoption of new environ-
mental technologies.
Var23 The company engages in collaboration with other 3.11 1.251
institutions/organizations, building relationships
and strategic alliances.

Overall mean 3.14
The highest mean was for Var22, followed by Var21 and Var23, suggest-
ing that sample companies have the installation conditions and adaptation
skills as well as the human resources to create relationships and strategic
alliances for the development of eco-innovations. From these scores, it can
be inferred that although sample companies are not considered to be first to
introduce new technologies and products in the sector, they possess techno-
logical expertise for the development of eco-innovations. The standard devi-
ation values indicate a normal distribution of variables in relation to the
mean, with values lower than those in the previous construct. This suggests
greater agreement among respondents.
Analysis of the Construct “Environmental Formalization”

The construct “environmental formalization” is defined as the existence of
internal organizational structures specifically targeted to environmental
issues. The scale used to measure this construct assumed the following
values: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) do not agree nor disagree, (4)
agree, and (5) strongly agree. The construct was composed of five variables
(Table 7).
From the results, all these factors were relevant to sample companies,
with the highest mean found for Var25, followed by Var28 and Var24. This
suggests that sample companies have the position/function/sector to address
environmental concerns, have deployed a type of management system, and
that environmental policy is part of the corporate mission. However, the low
mean for Var27 indicates that respondent companies, in general, not yet have
environmental management certification.
In the descriptive analysis, the standard deviation indicates a high varia-
tion from the mean among respondents, although still statistically valid. The
TABLE 7 Mean and Standard Deviation of the Construct “Environmental Formalization”
Question: In the options below, assess the extent

to which environmental management is formalized Standard
Variable in your company Mean deviation
Var24 In the company, the environment policy is clearly 3.41 1.353
documented in the corporate mission.
Var25 The company has in its administrative office the 3.49 1.368
position/function/sector to address specific
issues related to the environment.
Var26 The company markets products with branded 3.07 1.369
ecological and environmental labeling
standards.
Var27 The company has a certified environmental 2.78 1.603
management system in line with standard ISO

14000 and/or FSC certification (Forest
Stewardship Council) and/or Total Quality
Environment Management (TQEM).
Var28 The company has deployed a type of environmen- 3.43 1.275
tal management system.
Overall mean 3.24
emphasis is on Var27, which has the lowest mean but the highest standard
deviation, suggesting less agreement among respondents.
General Analysis of the Construct Means

In the next step, the overall means of these constructs are shown in Table 8.
Note that these means should be considered in light of the scales used, bal-
anced by up to five points.
In the overall analysis of means, the construct “environmental regula-
tion” had the highest mean (3.50) on a five-point scale. This construct was
defined as the government’s actions in relation to environmental issues, such
as command and control regulations, incentives, and subsidies (Kanerva,
Arundel, & Kemp, 2009; Schmidheiny, 1992). This finding implies that
TABLE 8 Means of the Constructs of Eco-Innovation Drivers
Order of
importance Constructs No. of variables Construct mean
1 Environmental regulation 4 3.50
2 Environmental formalization 5 3.24
3 Reputational effects 6 3.18
4 Technological competence 4 3.14
5 Top management support 4 2.91
6 Use of environmental incentive 5 1.84
and innovation

regulations are a strong determinant of the actions of sample companies,

even those factors considered by theorists to represent a cost/threat as well
as those that translate into business opportunities. This result agrees with the
findings of previous studies, such as Lau and Ragothaman (1997), Passos
(2003), and Souza (2004). According to the study by Menguc, Auh, and
Ozanne (2010), greater regulation intensity has a positive effect on proactive
environmental strategies. The national study conducted by BNDES, CNI, and
SEBRAE (1998) also ranked second regulations among the main reasons for
the adoption of environmental management practices.
The construct that had the second largest mean, with 3.24 on a five-
point scale, was “environmental formalization.” This was defined as the fac-
tors that influence internal organizational structures and direct the adoption
of eco-innovations (Carrillo-Hermosilla, Könnölä, & Gonzalez, 2009; Donaire,
1996, 2007; Kemp & Arundel, 1998). This finding indicates that sample com-
panies consider environmental management to be formalized in its organiza-
tional practices in terms of holding a specific person/department responsible
and possessing an explicitly defined environmental policy. The degree of
importance of this construct was not verified in previous studies.
Similarly, “reputational effects” had a mean value of 3.18. This construct
was defined in terms of stakeholder perceptions, supply chain relationships,
the final consumer and public customers; environmental performances of
competitors, relationships with business associations and nongovernmental
organizations; and social awareness in general (Carrillo-Hermosilla,
Könnölä, & Gonzalez, 2009; Miles & Covin, 2000). This finding suggests
that such factors are relevant for defining firms’ eco-innovation strategies
in order to improve company image in the face of environmental issues.
This result is somewhat different from the findings of the studies by Lau
and Ragothaman (1997) and Passos (2003), in which this construct was
second in order of importance. This factor (“improved societal image”) was
also mentioned in the study by BNDES, CNI, and SEBRAE (1998) as the
fifth most important reason for the adoption of environmental management
practices. Lustosa (2003, p. 165) noted that in developing countries, “the
effective pressure of consumers do not encourage companies to adopt
products and processes less harmful to the environment. […] The consumer
tends to be guided by the lower price and not the quality of an
environmentally friendly product.”
A high mean was also found for “technological competence” (3.14),
which was ranked fourth in order of importance by sample companies. This
construct was defined as the absorptive capacity of companies as a result of
their innovation through investment in R&D (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) and
other factors that lay the foundation for the adoption of a proactive environ-
mental strategy (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2009; Menguc et al., 2010). This
finding demonstrates that sample companies value their propensity to
employ R&D, use the structure and resources necessary to act innovatively,
and be proactive in eco-innovation. In this case, there is no relation with

other studies in order of importance.
The construct “top management support” had an overall mean of 2.97,
which was fifth in order of importance. This support relates to the percep-
tion of leadership that the environment plays a highly relevant role for busi-
nesses, which must develop their communication accordingly in terms of
environmental programs and policies, rewards to employees for environ-
mental improvements, and organizational resources for environmental initia-
tives (Menguc et al., 2010; Souza, 2004). Respondents assessed this construct
with a lesser degree of relevance to the definition of eco-innovation strate-
gies, particularly with regard to practical actions for improvement. This result
is lower than that in the study of Lau and Ragothaman (1997), where top
management initiatives were third in order of importance. Moreover, in the
study by Donaire (1996), this aspect was considered a fundamental principle
of business.
The construct that had the lowest score was “the use of environmental
incentives and innovation” with 1.84. Incentives for eco-innovation were
defined as economic support in terms of subsidized resources, financing at
special terms and rates, governmental support for venture capital, tax relief,
and the support of international organizations (Cassiolato & Lastres, 2000;
Dosi, 1988; Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, 2012). This finding suggests
that sample companies did not receive government incentives or funding from
international organizations for environmental actions and/or innovations.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPOSALS
In this article, it was observed that the studies related to eco-innovation or

environmental innovation are still preliminary and that the subject lacks spe-
cific research with empirical data and survey-depth case studies. Indeed,
according to Andersen (2008, p. 2), “environmental innovation research is
still in its early phase, and there are worldwide very few actual innovation
researchers working with environmental issues.”
To meet the objectives proposed in this study the concepts of eco-
innovation and its context of insertion were initially treated, and then the
state of the art in the area was presented. In this regard, studies have been
merged into themes: conceptualization and theoretical discussion, models
and indicators for evaluating the eco-innovation, types of eco-innovation,
and political discussions for its development. These are the possible and
wide dimensions considered for studies on environmental innovation.
Additionally, we examined 117 Brazilian firms in the pulp, paper, and
paper products industry to better understand how the current applications of
eco-innovation in manufacturing industries influenced the drivers of the
adoption of eco-innovation strategies.
In the analysis of the constructs, “environmental regulation” had the

highest mean based on the responses of sample companies (3.50 on a five-
point scale) followed by “environmental formalization” (3.24), “reputational
effects” (3.18), “technological competence” (3.14), “top management support”
(2.91), and “the use of environmental incentives and innovation” (1.84). This
finding implies that these six constructs form the drivers of eco-innovation
that are crucial to adopting environmental strategies.
Regulations guide firm innovation, and companies should see regula-
tive pressure as a means of improving productivity and thereby competitive-
ness. Besides regulations, the environmental performances of organizations
are also determined by governmental incentives based on environmental
initiatives and innovation and organizational image. These factors should be

managed jointly and interactively to overcome any obstacles in the adoption
of eco-innovation practices so that that companies can maintain a favorable
environmental reputation.
We also analyzed the internal factors that lead to eco-innovation man-
agement, finding that the support of senior management, firm competencies
and technology absorptive capacity, and the formalization of environmental
issues are important from an internal perspective. As more companies create
an innovative and environmentally rooted culture, the internalization of pro-
active eco-innovation strategies occurs more effectively.
Finally, this study indicates some areas of possible future research that
were drawn from the studies presented by the authors here mentioned,
which come to show important lines of research for the survey of unex-
plored questions regarding eco-innovation. It is important for the topic of
eco-innovation to verify which eco-innovation strategies are being adopted
by companies and to assess the impacts of these strategies on their social,
environmental, and economic performances.
Another important issue is eco-entrepreneurship, namely the creation
of technology-based ecological-oriented companies. This topic is relevant
for demonstrating the inclusion of eco-innovation in these organizations,
defined as highly innovative companies. By allying themselves to environ-
mental management, several factors that contribute to the increase in studies
in this area can be analyzed.
Further, the analysis of information sources and relationships for tech-
nology transfer in the context of eco-innovation is also crucial in order to
explore the types of knowledge transferred, identify critical gaps in the
knowledge infrastructure, and examine what sources of knowledge are most
useful for this subject. Studies of technology transfer could also determine
the appropriability conditions in the field of eco-innovation and investigate
maintaining the secrecy of innovations or licensing to other organizations,
among other aspects.
Defining government policies is also of paramount importance to this
area in order to search for environmental policies that are conducive to
eco-innovation. Comparative studies are essential in this context, as they

bring together different effects and policy regimes on environmental innova-
tion to examine whether existing policies are offering effective incentives.
Broader policy issues could also involve the analysis of national systems of
environmental innovation on a global scale in order to verify the specific
characteristics of different systems and the innovation capabilities of differ-
ent countries.
It should be noted that the agenda for future research on eco-innova-
tion should draw attention to as yet neglected research issues, such as the
evolution of the negative externalities of production, co-evolution of policies
and technologies, the overall dynamics of changes in the techno-economic
paradigm, and great social transitions (Foxon & Andersen, 2009). These still
unexplored areas in the research show that one must consider both how to
understand environmental issues and what is known about the greening of
industry, markets, and society in general.
NOTES
1. In the literature review, it was noted that in addition to “eco-innovation,” other expressions have
also been used similarly by scholars, such as green innovation, ecological innovation, environmental
innovation, and sustainable innovation. In this study, these terms are considered to be synonymous,
based on the findings of Schiederig, Tietze, and Herstatt (2011, p. 17), who concluded, “The concept of
green innovation is closely related to three other notions. When comparing various definitions of the four
notions [of] ‘green innovation’, ‘sustainable innovation’, ‘environmental innovation’ and ‘ecological innovation’
we found only minor conceptual differences.”
2. The method LBIO consists of collecting information on constant innovation in technical journals
and specialized sectors. It is based on the assumption that companies are interested in marketing their
products and services about to be released.
REFERENCES
Andersen, M. M. (2006). Eco-innovation indicators. Copenhagen: European

Environment Agency.
Andersen, M. M. (2008, June). Eco-innovation—towards a taxonomy and a theory.
Proceedings of the DRUID Summer Conference, Denmark, Copenhagen, 25.
Andrade, T. H. N. de (2004). Inovação tecnológica e meio ambiente: A construção
de novos enfoques. Ambiente and Sociedade, 7(1), 89–106.
Arundel, A., and Kemp, R. (2009). Measuring eco-innovation. [Working Papers
Series]. United Nations University—UNU-MERIT, Maastricht.
Arundel, A., Kemp, R., and Parto, S. (2003). Indicators for environmental innovation:
what and how to measure. In: Annandale, D., Phillimore, J., & Marinova, D.
(Eds.), International handbook on environment and technology management
(pp. 324–339). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social; Confederação Nacional
da Indústria; Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. (1998).
Pesquisa de gestão ambiental na indústria brasileira. Brasília: Authors.
Barbieri, J. C. (2007a). Gestão ambiental empresarial: Conceitos, modelos e instru-

mentos (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Saraiva.
Barbieri, J. C. (2007b). Organizações inovadoras sustentáveis. In: Barbieri, J. C., &
Simantob, M. A. (Orgs.). Organizações inovadoras sustentáveis: uma reflexão
sobre o futuro das organizações. São Paulo: Atlas.
Baumgarten, M. (2008, June). Ciência, tecnologia e desenvolvimento: redes e inova-
ção social. Parcerias Estratégicas, 26, 102–123.
Blackburn, W. R. (2008). The sustainability handbook (Cap. 1 e 2, pp. 1–31). Washington:
Environmental Law Institute.
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., González, P. Del R., and Könnölä, T. (2009). Barriers to eco-
innovation. In Eco-innovation: When sustainability and competitiveness shake
hands (Cap. 3, pp. 28–50). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cassiolato, J. E., and Lastres, H. M. M. (2000, May). Sistemas de inovação: políticas e

perspectivas. Parcerias Estratégicas, 8, 237–255.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective
on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cooper, D. R., and Schindler, P. S. (2011). Métodos de pesquisa em administração
(10th ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Donaire, D. (1996, January/March). A internalização da gestão ambiental na empresa.
Revista de Administração, 31(1), 44–51.
Donaire, D. (2007). Gestão ambiental na empresa (2nd ed.). São Paulo: Atlas.
Dosi, G. (1988). Institutions and markets in a dynamic world. The Manchester School
of Economics and Social Studies, 61(2), 119–146.
Ekins, P. (2010). Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability: Concepts, progress
and policies. International Economics and Economic Policy, 7(2–3), 267–290.
Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos. (2012). Modalidades de financiamento. Retrieved
from http://www.finep.gov.br/pagina.asp?pag=20.06.
Foxon, T., and Andersen, M. M. (2009, June). The greening of innovation systems for
eco-innovation: Towards an evolutionary climate mitigation policy. Proceedings
of the DRUID Summer Conference, Denmark.
Freeman, C. (1996, September). The greening of technology and models of innova-
tion. Technological forecasting and social change, 53(1), 27–39.
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the
multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510.
Hair Jr., J. F., Babin, B., Money, A. H., and Samoel, P. (2005). Fundamentos de méto-
dos de pesquisa em administração. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2010). Pesquisa Industrial: Empresa.
Retrieved from http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/industria/
pia/empresas/2010/defaultttabpdf.shtm.
James, P. (1997). The sustainability circle: A new tool for product development and
design. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2, 52–57.
Kanerva, M., Arundel, A., and Kemp, R. (2009). Environmental innovation: using
qualitative models to identify indicator for policy [Working Papers Series].
United Nations University—UNU-MERIT, Maastricht. Retrieved from http://arno.
unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=17863.
Kemp, R., and Arundel, A. (1998). Survey indicators for environmental innovation.
[IDEA Report]. Oslo: STEP Group.
Kemp, R., and Foxon, T. J. (2007). Tipology of eco-innovation. [Project No: 044513:
Measuring Eco-Innovation]. Maastricht: European Commission.
Könnölä, T., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., and Gonzalez, P. del R. (2008, September).
Dashboard of eco-innovation. Proceedings of the DIME International Conference,
Bordeaux, France, 4.
Lau, R. S. M., and Ragothaman, S. (1997). Strategic issues of environmental manage-
ment. South Dakota Business Review, 56(2), 1–7.
Lustosa, M. C. J. (2003). Industrialização, meio ambiente, inovação e competitivi-
dade. In: May, P. H., Lustosa, M. C. J., & Vinha, V. da (Org.), Economia do meio
ambiente: teoria e prática. (pp. 155–172). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Machiba, T. (2010). Eco-innovation for enabling resource efficiency and green
growth: Development of an analytical framework and preliminary analysis of
industry and policy practices. International Economics and Economic Policy,

7(2–3), 357–370.
Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada (4th ed.).
Porto Alegre: Bookman.
Maroco, J. (2003). Análise estatística com utilização do SPSS (2nd ed.). Lisboa: Sílabo.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., and Ozanne, L. (2010). The interactive effect of internal and
external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a
firm’s performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 279–298.
Miles, M. P., and Covin, J. G. (2000, February). Environmental marketing: A source of
reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics,
23(3), 299–311.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., and Rangaswami, M. R. (2009, September). Why
sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87,
56–64.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). Manual de
Oslo: diretrizes para coleta e interpretação de dados sobre inovação. Rio de
Janeiro: OECD; Eurostat; FINEP.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). Sustainable
manufacturing and eco-innovation: Framework, practices and measurement.
Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD.
Passos, L. A. N. (2003). Gestão ambiental e competitividade: um estudo do setor
químico brasileiro (Dissertação de Mestrado). Universidade Estadual de
Maringá, Londrina, PR, Brasil.
Reid, A., and Miedzinski, M. (2008). Eco-Innovation. Final Report for Sectoral
Innovation Watch. Brussels: Technopolis Group.
Rennings, K. (1998). Towards a theory and policy of eco-innovation—neoclassical
and (co-) evolutionary perspectives [Discussion Paper n. 98-24]. Centre for
European Economic Research, Mannheim.
Richardson, R. J. (2008). Pesquisa social: métodos e técnicas (3rd ed.). São Paulo:
Atlas.
Sachs, I. (1993). Estratégias de transição para o século XXI: desenvolvimento e meio
ambiente. São Paulo: Studio Nobel.
Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., and Herstatt, C. (2011). What is Green Innovation? A quan-
titative literature review. Proceedings of the ISPIM Conference, Hamburg,
Germany, 22.
Schmidheiny, S. (1992). Mudando o rumo: uma perspectiva empresarial global sobre

desenvolvimento e meio ambiente. Rio de Janeiro: FGV.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas. (2012). Critérios e con-
ceitos para classificação de empresas. Retrieved from http://www.sebrae.com.
br/momento/quero-abrir-um-negocio/integra_bia?ident_unico=97.
Souza, R. S. de (2004). Fatores de formação e desenvolvimento das estratégias ambi-
entais nas empresas (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande
do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Young, C. E. F., Podcameni, M. G. B., Mac-Knight, V., and Oliveira, A. S. (2009).
Determinants of Environmental Innovation in the Brazilian Industry. Anais
do Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Economistas
Ambientales y de Recursos Naturales, Costa Rica, 4, Retrieved from http://
www.ie.ufrj.br/gema/pdfs/DETERMINANTS%20OF%20ENVIRONMENTAL%20
INNOVATION%20IN%20THE%20BRAZILIAN%20INDUSTRY.pdf.

LABR Eco-Innovations 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

LABR Eco-Innovations 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Université du Québec à Montréal]

On: 07 March 2014, At: 09:48

Latin American Business Review

Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10978526.2013.833465

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Drivers of the Adoption of Eco-Innovations

MARLETE BEATRIZ MAÇANEIRO

State University of Midwestern Paraná, Guarapuava, Brazil

SIEGLINDE KINDL DA CUNHA

ABSTRACT. This study analyzes the production of knowledge in

support, technological expertise, and environmental formalization

RESUMEN. Este estudio analiza la producción de conocimiento

de papel en Brasil. Se caracteriza por representar una revisión de

RESUMO. Este estudo analisa a produção de conhecimento no

empírica está alicerçada em uma abordagem quantitativa que usa

concluir que fatores como a regulamentação ambiental, o uso de

KEYWORDS. eco-innovation, pulp, paper, and paper products

Authors studying the field of innovation with environmental purposes

economic, ecological, and cultural space. To Blackburn (2008), sustainability

sustainable development, resulting in lifelong cycle commitment to reduce

THE RISE OF ECO-INNOVATION AND ITS

Capacity development for innovation management is accomplished through

The concept of eco-innovation is relatively new, arising from recent

STATE OF THE ART ABOUT ECO-INNOVATION

Conceptualization and Theoretical Discussion

namely neoclassical theory and evolutionary theory.

Both neoclassical and (co)-evolutionary approaches have their merits and

However, despite the significant activities and institutional changes that

Andersen, 2009, pp. 5–6).

An alternative approach, one supported by the evolutionary theory of innova-

Models and Indicators for Evaluating Eco-Innovation

With respect to models and indicators for evaluating eco-innovation, we next

indicators of eco-innovation should serve three purposes: (a) allow bench-

[…] different kinds of eco-innovations and arrive at the respective impli-

The authors proposed an assessment of the relative change that occurred

possible (potential) data sources and analytical tools.” Other factors of

and impacts of eco-innovation are often opaque to companies and policy-

Most innovation surveys have only included one or two questions on

Therefore, specially designed surveys could provide information on

measure eco-innovation in order to understand the general patterns, facilita-

Anderson (2006, 2008) developed an operational typology. The author

organizational structures that require new solutions for an eco-efficient way

that manufacturing companies need to consider in order to improve their

different role in the greening of innovation systems. Overall, it seems as

Policies Discussion for the Development of

[…] a policy fostering technological eco-innovations can not be reduced

internalized by environmental policy. Thus close coordination between

environmental innovation, and knowledge sources and obstacles. In addi-

development of two types of policies, environmental and eco-innovation, go

Another document that highlights as crucial the integration of policies

of innovation with the environmental ones for promoting eco-innovation is

[…] to realize its potential, eco-innovation will require actions to ensure

In this sense, the creation of an eco-successful innovation policy requires

framework for sustainability is a key factor in the behavior of eco-innovative

(5) technological competence, and (6) environmental formalization. The

ANALYSIS OF THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPER

of the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2010). Specifically, we

TABLE 1 Representativeness of Sample Companies

Companies included in the PIA

Southeast 1.828 68.0 70 2.0

Source: Data from field research (2012) and IBGE (2010).

Next, we present the descriptive analysis of the constructs in terms of