03 June 2024

Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna

Archivio istituzionale della ricerca

The Impact of R&D Investments on Eco-Innovation:A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Green Technology

Management

This is the final peer-reviewed author’s accepted manuscript (postprint) of the following publication:

Published Version:
The Impact of R&D Investments on Eco-Innovation:A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Green Technology
Management / Beatrice Orlando; Luca Vincenzo Ballestra; Veronica Scuotto; Marco Pironti; Manlio Del
Giudice. - In: IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT. - ISSN 0018-9391. - ELETTRONICO. -
69:5(2022), pp. 2275-2284. [10.1109/TEM.2020.3005525]

This version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/775312 since: 2023-02-18

Published:
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3005525

Terms of use:

Some rights reserved. The terms and conditions for the reuse of this version of the manuscript are
specified in the publishing policy. For all terms of use and more information see the publisher's website.

(Article begins on next page)

This item was downloaded from IRIS Università di Bologna (https://cris.unibo.it/).

When citing, please refer to the published version.
This is the final peer-reviewed accepted manuscript of:

Beatrice Orlando, Luca Vincenzo Ballestra, Veronica Scuotto, Marco Pironti, Manlio
Del Giudice. (2022). “The Impact of R&D Investments on Eco-Innovation: A Cross-
Cultural Perspective of Green Technology Management”. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, vol. 69, no. 5 (Oct), pp. 2275-2284.

The final published version is available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3005525

Terms of use:
Some rights reserved. The terms and conditions for the reuse of this version of the manuscript are
specified in the publishing policy. For all terms of use and more information see the publisher's
website.

This item was downloaded from IRIS Università di Bologna (https://cris.unibo.it/)

When citing, please refer to the published version.

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT 1

The Impact of R&D Investments on Eco-Innovation:

A Cross-Cultural Perspective of Green
Technology Management
Beatrice Orlando , Luca Vincenzo Ballestra , Veronica Scuotto , Marco Pironti, and Manlio Del Giudice

Abstract—This article originally seeks to explore the impact eco-innovation and cultural indulgence. In doing so, we adopt a
of R&D investments and societal culture on green technology motivational framework to detangle the concept of sustainable
management, by applying Hofstede’s cross-cultural perspective.
development.
At large, we investigate if green innovation is positively associated
to country cultural indulgence, as this factor indicates that basic As a matter of fact, whilst some countries seem ahead of
needs are already satisfied and there is room for looking into the sustainable development mantra, others lag far beyond. As
hierarchically higher concerns. We also argue that governments’ instance, according to The Environmental Performance Index
expenditures in green innovation tend to be more effective than (EPI), countries such as France and Denmark are among the top
those of firms, because governments are more willing to invest
five, whereas Italy ranks only 16 in this list.
and risk in radical innovations than businesses. The analysis is
conducted on a large-scale sample of data drawn from Eurostat, The EPI is a global ranking that rates the sustainability level
including information on R&D expenditures and on eco-innovation of nations by air quality, water and sanitation, heavy metals,
index from European firms and governments. The results confirm biodiversity and habitat, forests, fisheries, climate and energy,
our model hypotheses: governments’ investments largely predict air pollution, water resources, and agriculture.
eco-innovation, differently from firms’ expenditures. Moreover, as
However, the European Union shares common laws on this
supposed, country’s cultural indulgence has a positive effect on the
eco-innovation index as well. theme, and all countries may have the same access to incentives.
Therefore, the first rationale that motivated this study is the
Index Terms—Eco-innovation, green innovation, green search for factors that actually impact the sustainability of a
technology management, Hofstede’s scale, indulgence, R&D
investments, sustainable development. country.
Intuitively, societal culture may play a relevant role in this
I. INTRODUCTION sense.
Second, both firms and governments are investing in green
HIS article aims to study the impact of R&D expenditures
T and societal culture on green innovation management. In
particular, we consider how both governments’ and firms’ R&D
innovation. However, there are no information on the effec-
tiveness of those investments so far. Yet, governments may be
more forward looking than firms, because they are less biased
expenditures impact the eco-innovation index. In addition, we by factors such as uncertainty, risk aversion, or lack of capitals.
search to understand whether there is an association between Thus, the general purpose of this article is to understand what
actually impacts eco-innovation, at both micro and macro levels
Manuscript received October 18, 2019; revised February 27, 2020 and June of analysis.
10, 2020; accepted June 18, 2020. This work was supported in part by the
Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of At large, sustainable development is long been intended as a
Economics (HSE) and in part by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5- sort of utopia, a heuristic concept, such as those of equality and
100’. Review of this manuscript was arranged by Department Editor M. Dabic. freedom [65], used to identify an ideal process toward a more
(Corresponding author: Beatrice Orlando.)
Beatrice Orlando is with the Department of Economics and Management, eco-conscious behavior of governments, business, and society.
University of Ferrara, 44100 Ferrara, Italy (e-mail: [email protected]). This construct is inherently based on the idea of a trade-off
Luca Vincenzo Ballestra is with the Department of Statistical Sciences, between current and future environmental needs [13], [53], [59],
University of Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy (e-mail: [email protected]).
Veronica Scuotto is with the Pole Universitaire, Research Center, En- [67], because the current use of natural resources should be such
trepreneurship and Innovation, 92 916 Paris La Défense, France, and with the that it neither undermines the ecosystem nor it compromises the
Department of Management, University of Turin, 10134 Torino, Italy (e-mail: living conditions of future generations [68].
[email protected]).
Marco Pironti is with the Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship The concept of sustainable development, used as a synonym
ICxT Innovation Interdepartmental Center, University of Turin and Deputy of sustainability, emerged during the 80s of past century [68],
Mayor for Innovation and Smart City, 10124 City of Turin, Italy (e-mail: as the result of the environmental concern combined with its
[email protected]).
Manlio Del Giudice is with the Business Management, University of economic and social consequences. In a nutshell, the concep-
Rome “Link Campus University,” 00165 Rome, Italy, with the Paris School tion of sustainability embraces two antithetical approaches: the
of Business, 75013 Paris, France, and also with the National Research utilitarian approach and the spiritual approach [68].
University Higher School of Economics, 101000 Moscow, Russia (e-mail:
[email protected]). Accordingly, development is sustainable when it creates value
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2020.3005525 in the long run [44]. However, the spectrum of ways through

0018-9391 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

which sustainable value creation should be achieved is vast matter of fact, it was verified that the cross-cultural scale can
and resents of the inherent friction between the two alternative only be applied to Western countries [1]. Cross-cultural scale
viewpoints. Precisely, the academic debate is centered around refers to cultural distances between country culture, based on a
two disagreeing visions [68]: the eco-centric and technocentric set of specified parameters. It studies the impact of social culture
approaches [60]. on its members.
The first one puts the individual human responsibility at the Drawing on motivation theories, we argue individuals are
core of the matter. Consistently, humans have to change their atti- more environment-sensitive when the other basic needs are
tude toward the environment. Instead, for the second, pragmatic already satisfied. This is consistent with the logic of the report of
view, sustainable development can only be achieved through the World Commission on environment and development. In the
green technology efficiency. The World Conservation strategy cross-cultural framework [35], the need for enjoyment is related
[60] attempted to overcome the short-termism of the eco-centric to cultural indulgence and depends on having already satisfied
approach, focused on limiting environmental damages in the basic needs. Thus, we investigate whether there is an association
short term, by considering institutional changes required for the between cultural indulgence and the eco-innovation index. This
conservation of the environment [39]. Years later, this resulted index, released by Eurostat, expresses the green innovation
in the first report of the World Commission on environment efficiency of European member states. This way we reconcile
and development [88], where it is explicitly recognized that the two disagreeing eco-centric and technocentric approaches.
environmental preservation requires, at first, the solution of the Second, we argue that there exists a different tension be-
problem of poverty around the world. tween governments and businesses toward sustainability, which
Intuitively, according to motivation theories [32], [48], [50], is reflected by a likewise different commitment toward eco-
[78], the preservation of the environment only matters when innovation. Prior literature fails to capture the aforementioned
basic needs are already satisfied. friction and the span of its effects on the effectiveness of green
Also, the dichotomy between the two conflicting envisions technology management policies. As a matter of fact, antecedent
of sustainable development that led to vagueness in the concept studies are mostly focused on the design of eco-innovation [9],
faced up with the problem of cosmetic or fake environmentalism [23], [81], [82], [89] and on its effects on firm’s performance
[68], because of a lack of objective measures of the environ- [46]. Also, often firms suffer from fake greenery attitudes.
mental impact. An attempt to operationalize the construct and Then, our ulterior research questions are aimed at understanding
to provide unobstructed measures of sustainable development whether there is a difference between governments and firms
was made, as instance, with the Kyoto protocol. The protocol R&D expenditures in green innovation and how this impacts the
defined specific actions for saving the environment and limiting eco-innovation index.
the growth to sustainable levels. Hypotheses are tested on a large-scale sample of data drawn
Aforementioned actions are defined in conformity with the from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union.
logic of technology efficiency and they presume eco-innovation. Data refer to R&D innovation expenditures of both European
Thus, the concept of green technology management emerged firms and governments, grouped by country. Firms’ sample
rather recently. At large, it refers to those R&D investments includes either large or SME’s enterprises.
aimed at generating sustainable technological innovations, as Our finding confirms the hypotheses at level of high statis-
instance as renewable energy or clean power (e.g., bioreactors, tical significance. Indulgence and the eco-innovation index are
electric vehicles, wave energy, etc.). At the firm level, the op- associated, indeed. Also, governments are more environmental-
erationalization of the notion of sustainable development has conscious than firms. They spend more in green innovation and
set a new standard of environmental competitiveness, based on their impact is more effective than the one of firms.
innovation offsets [62], whose definition is an innovation that Our original study reconciles the different factions on the con-
“lower the net cost of meeting environmental regulations, but can cept of sustainable development. Green technology management
even lead to absolute advantages over firms in foreign countries is strictly entwined with cultural factors. Also, it requires radical,
not subject to similar regulations.” [62, p. 98]. systemic innovations. In this sense, the role of governments is
Yet, the business-based view of sustainable development re- of the paramount relevance.
flects, once again, the disagreement between the two aforemen- Rest of this article are organized as follows: first, we review
tioned approaches. In sum, the firm perspective is pragmatic, the literature on this theme, we identify the gaps, and we state
oriented toward efficiency, and, sometimes, it might hide fake our hypotheses; second, we empirically test the hypotheses and
greenery behaviors. we discuss our findings; finally, we explain the implications of
Above considerations led us to define our first research ques- the study, along with future research avenues and concludes this
tion: is green innovation related to societal culture? article.
By paraphrasing Robinson [68], we searched to understand
how it is possible to “square the root” and to provide a novel view II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
of sustainable development, which is simultaneously eco-centric
A. Motivation Theories, Cross-Cultural Factors,
and technocentric. Robinson and Tinker [69] argued that govern-
and Sustainable Behaviors
ments must reflect the value of people. To this end, we combine
the consideration of green technology management with those The transition toward a sustainable future requires a
of cross-cultural factors [32], [74] in European countries. As a widespread behavioral change [52]. A fast change in social
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

ORLANDO et al.: IMPACT OF R&D INVESTMENTS ON ECO-INNOVATION 3

vision and consequently behaviors, it is needed to avoid the related to enjoying life and having fun. In particular, low score
“ecological holocaust” [63] due to exceeding “the earth carrying in indulgence is typical of countries that suppress gratification
capacity” [52, p. 531]. In this vein, a relevant perspective sup- of needs and regulate it by means of strict norms.
ported by McKenzie-Mohr [52] suggested the idea that environ- Soyez [79] found out that the green behaviors differ cross
mental changes are driven by those actions that induce society country, in reason of the national culture. The national culture
to actively desire sustainability. As a matter of fact, financial determines the salience of each value and, thus, it influences
incentives along with knowledge dissemination programs and environmental orientation. According to Soyez [79], there is a
campaigns have proved themselves ineffective [52]. cross-country substantial difference of pro-environmental ori-
Accordingly, societal culture may be either a barrier or a factor entation, for what individualistic cultures, such as Western
fostering sustainability. ones, promote an eco-centric approach, whereas collectivistic
Consistently, a nourished stream of research studied motiva- cultures, such as Russian one, are anthropocentric and more
tional factors related to green behaviors. As instance, Griskevi- interested in the benefits for future generations. Values are
cius et al. [29] suggested that there are evolutionary reasons that defined as “desired end-states that guide action and behavior
motivate whether people adopt green behaviors or not, such as of individuals’ towards specific objects” [80, p. 178].
reasons that are inherited at social level and reflect the pro-social As a matter of fact, collectivistic cultures are those more
behavior and the group identity. The authors, then, argued that willing to share scarce resources with members of the same
“people are particularly motivated to compete for status through group [80], differently from individualistic cultures.
proenvironmental behaviors that can signal self-sacrifice” [29, In their work, Sreen et al. [80] found evidences that green
p. 121]. In addition, copying eco-behaviors determine an adap- behaviors are associated with collectivistic cultures and long-
tive advantage when the society adds value to such green attitude term orientations. Notably, prior findings proved that national
show-off [56]. Also, environmental problems are inherently a cultures influence business organizations commitment toward
social dilemma that determines the social intention [43], [90]. eco-innovation in Europe [17].
In his review work, Trudel [86] identified four categories Also, motivations are at the basis of intentions and green
of motivations for green behaviors: cognitive barriers, the self, behaviors [30].
social influence, and product characteristics. As a matter of fact, the byproduct of eco-innovation is the
Thus, apparently, the social culture has a huge influence on social value of the product.
green behaviors [9]. The social value or benefit of eco-innovation is defined in
Hofstede [36] originally proposed a cross-cultural scale. terms of human needs. Such needs drive the motivation of
According to Hofstede [33], culture can be described as a eco-behaviors. Maslow [50], [51] proposed a hierarchy of human
sort of collective programming of the mind that varies be- needs. These needs are articulated into five levels: physiological
tween groups. In his early study, he identifies four cultural needs—those goods necessary for survival, such as water or
dimensions: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; food, safety needs—the need for security, belonginess—the need
power distance (strength of social hierarchy); and masculinity- for being loved, self-esteem—the need for being esteemed and
femininity (task-orientation versus person-orientation). Later, valued by others, and self-actualization—the need for doing
two further dimensions were added: long-term orientation and good for others. As far as material and basic needs are satisfied,
indulgence [34]. the human being starts desiring the next level status. Clift [14]
Power distance measures the extent to which the less pow- argued that despite some eco-innovations may be considered
erful members in a society accept that power is not equally as a material need, the social value can be defined in terms of
distributed. Individualism measures the extent to which people self-esteem or self-actualization.
feel independent and take care of themselves, as opposed to
collectivism, which means being interdependent as members of
larger wholes. Masculinity measures the extent to which gender B. Eco-Innovation and Firms’ Green Technology Management
roles are clearly distinct: men are supposed to be assertive, tough, According to Dresner [22], the term sustainable development
and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed was first used in 1980 with reference to well-being of people.
to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Since then, this concept, which is often used as a synonym for
Uncertainty avoidance measures the extent to which a society eco- or green-innovation, rapidly evolved and assumed different
is anxious and distrustful in the face of the unknown. Countries nuances [5], [27]. So, we moved from the Andersen’s [3], [4]
with a high uncertainty avoidance adopt stiff codes of behavior, conception of eco-innovation as the attractor of green rents
guidelines, and laws and rely on the belief that only a single one to current idea of eco-innovations, as those “innovations that
truth exists. By contrast, a low score in this index shows more reduce the environmental impact of consumption and production
acceptance of differing thoughts or ideas. Long-term orientation activities” [27, p. 155].
measures the extent to which societies encourage thrift and By and large, prior research underscores the existence of
efforts in modern education, considering it as a tool for preparing different approaches to eco-innovation [4]. In this vein, An-
for the future. Countries that score low on this index are generally dersen [4] suggested a taxonomy of five categories of eco-
anchored to time-honored traditions and norms and view societal innovation: add-on eco-innovations, integrated eco-innovations,
changes with suspicion. Indulgence measures the extent to which alternative product eco-innovations, macro-organizational eco-
a society welcomes free gratification of basic human drives innovations, and general purpose eco-innovations.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

Apparently, during the last two decades, scholars were pay- most relevant studies on this theme often present conflicting or
ing an increasing attention to the debate on whether and ambiguous evidences [10], [54], [76], [77]. Interestingly, none of
how firms contribute to environmental sustainability through these research works explicitly considered cross-cultural factors
eco-innovations [6], [8], [28], [41], [61], [64]. According to and their impact on eco-innovation, at both firms and national
Hellström [31], eco-innovation refers to a three-level process— levels.
technological, social, and institutional—aimed at developing Differently, we assume that eco-innovation is strongly influ-
new products/services that contribute to reduce the environmen- enced by cultural factors.
tal burden. Notably, Hellström [31] argued that eco-innovation As instance, the European Union is showing high sensitivity
is supposed to build new social structures. In this sense, it toward sustainability, proved by ad hoc, evolving regulations
should spring from radical disruptions. Nonetheless, most eco- and continuous investments. Notably, EU developed a specific
innovations generated thus far are simply incremental. As a index to monitor environmental performance of its members:
matter of fact, the firm’s attitude toward eco innovation is shaped the eco-innovation index that is part of the Eco-Innovation
by its knowledge and culture [2]. Scoreboard (Eco-IS). The eco-innovation index uses six in-
At large, knowledge diversity within the firm is deemed the dicators grouped into five dimensions: eco-innovation inputs,
primary source of innovation [11]. When effectively managed, eco-innovation activities, eco-innovation outputs, resource effi-
knowledge, along with persistent leadership, may foster ecolog- ciency, and socio-economic outcomes.
ical innovation [16], [46]. Knowledge, as the DNA of a firm, Table I reports indicators for 2018 version of the index. This
determines its resilience and orientation toward sustainability index is dynamic and changes over time. It is weighed per coun-
[7], [20]. Thus, firm’s knowledge and culture largely influence try population and normalized using a 0–1 scale and z-scores.
the intention to invest in eco-innovation. Since the pioneer work Also, outliers are excluded. At the same time, EU is investing
of Thompson [84], the relationship between the bureaucratic large amounts of public finance to support innovation. Part of this
structure and innovative behaviors was examined in the light of investments are dedicated to green innovation. These funds add
those conditions that psychologists identified as those most con- up and work jointly with private business expenditures in R&D
ducive to individual creativity. From a cross-cultural perspective, as a whole, and for green innovation specifically. According
hedonic and utilitarian values linked to the perception of innova- to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, R&D
tions are largely affected by contingency factors [49]. Thereby, expenditure in the EU increased slightly to 2.07% of GDP
the commitment to innovation can be considered as contingent in 2017, and these funds were mostly spent in the business
of specific cultures, either in societal or organizational settings, enterprise sector. Such data include either governments or firms’
as many scholars have previously demonstrated [58], [91]. expenditures. Aforementioned statistic seems to contrast with
Notably, Zhou et al. [91] suggested that indulgence strongly some prior theoretical insights, arguing that the positive societal
influences the individual utility function. externalities of green innovation hinder firms from investing
Indulgence is one of the six cultural dimensions proposed by in sustainability [19]. Governments’ R&D investments seem
Hofstede and Minkov [35] that precisely refers to “the degree to be the key determinant of green innovation [62]. It is also
to which people emphasize pleasure as opposed to duty” [91, p. proved that “green” R&D impacts positively both the environ-
250]. A high-indulgent culture determines a pro-social behavior mental and financial performances of firms [15], [47]. Superior
that emphasizes the importance of relational capital, cohesion, innovation performance is often driven by likewise superior
and collaborative behaviors [29, 52]. Also, indulgence is deemed knowledge management capabilities [21], [26]. Clearly, eco-
to be relevant for the individual environmental concern [25]. innovation should be considered the strategic type of innovation,
rather than the adaptive one. Henceforth, considering that R&D
outsourcing is only effective when the underlying technology
C. Impact of Cross-Cultural Aspects on Eco-Innovation: The
is easily codifiable and poorly strategic [38], eco-innovation
Eco-Innovation Index and R&D Expenditures in EU
cannot be outsourced without undermining the value creation
Despite anecdotal evidences, there are few studies explor- capability of the firm.
ing how culture impacts the eco-innovation rate of firms [28]. Despite being sustainable apparently determines huge per-
Among the existing attempts, there is the study of Shane [75], formance benefits, companies are still pretty reticent in terms
who explored the impact of cultural values on innovation. of redesigning their business model for sustainability [70]. The
Shane [75] found that innovation rates may differ between missing tile, or the moderator factor, that could foster firms’
countries because of the cultural values of their citizens. sustainable innovation management may be stakeholder engage-
Thereby, cultural values may be a predictor of the innovation ment [73]. In addition, the collaboration among government,
rate along with R&D expenditures. More recently, other scholars industry, and university [71] may enormously help firms to
investigated the relationship between cultural dimensions and overcome their inertia toward sustainability through joint R&D
the degree of innovation at the national level [63], and they found efforts toward greener businesses and society.
that only three out of the six dimensions’ scale actually mat- Finally, national culture may either hinder or promote such
ter: individualism, long-term orientation, and indulgence. Other sustainable behaviors [19].
studies, based on a multiple multivariate regression method and Hence, we hypothesize the following.
on the global innovation Index, found a positive relationship 1) Hp1: R&D investments have a linear and positive effect
between innovation and individualism [66]. By and large, the on eco-innovation index.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

ORLANDO et al.: IMPACT OF R&D INVESTMENTS ON ECO-INNOVATION 5

TABLE I 2) Hp2: Indulgence has a linear and positive effect on eco-

LIST OF INDICATORS IN THE 2018 VERSION OF THE ECO-INNOVATION INDEX
innovation index.
3) Hp3: Firm’s R&D investments have a positive but smaller
effect on eco-innovation than those of governments.
Also, European firms are mostly influenced by an individ-
ualistic culture. As prior studies indicated, there is a sort of
conceptualization bias, for what new sustainable alternatives are
often seen as simply more environmental friendly than their pre-
decessors [31]. As the consequence, firms are mainly concerned
with the possibility of cost saving linked to eco-innovation
[12], [85]]. An antecedent study on the eco-innovation rate of
European firms supported the evidence that access to subsidies
and fiscal incentives has a slight impact on firm’s orientation
toward sustainable innovation [85]. Consistently, we assume that
the contribution of firms to the eco-innovation rate is positive
but scarcely significant.

III. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Background for Methodology and Sampling
Previous studies on innovation and green innovation largely
relied on the use of Eurostat data [37], [45], [83]. Besides the reli-
ability of such data, their open availability directly enables com-
parisons between studies [18]. In addition, prior studies often
adopted various kinds of regression models [18], [40], [42], [87].

B. Data
Data concerning social development are taken from the Eu-
rostat website. Let us recall that Eurostat is the statistical office
of the EU within the European Commission, whose mission is
to gather and offer statistics at the European level in various
different areas, including economics, finance, society, industry,
trade, transport, environment, and energy. It is widely recog-
nized that Eurostat provides high-quality data, as it obtained the
European Foundation for Quality Management “Committed to
Excellence” recognition in 2016.
The data that we need for our analysis are available from
year 2008 to year 2017 for all the 28 EU members. Never-
theless, data for Cyprus and Greece are very incomplete and
thus we shall exclude these two countries, so that the dataset
we consider comprises the following 26 EU members: Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Es-
tonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, and U.K. More-
over, for several of the aforementioned countries, few data are
missing as well. Therefore, for each EU members, we take the
average of every variable over the whole time-interval from year
2008 to year 2017, excluding those years for which data are
not available. Finally, for each of the 26 countries, we consid-
ered the scores for the six aforementioned Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions.

C. Dependent Variable
To measure the performance of socio-ecological innovation
Source: Adaptation from ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/indicators/index_en
at the country level, we use the so-called eco-innovation index
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

TABLE II TABLE III

VARIABLES DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

F. Regression Model
To test our research hypotheses, we used the following base-
line regression model:
ECOINN = β0 + β1 GGERD + β2 BEGERD
+ β3 PDI + β4 IDV + β5 MAS + β6 UAI
(labeled ECOINN), which, quoting from the Eurostat website,
“is based on 16 sub-indicators from eight contributors in five + β7 LTO + β8 IND + ε (1)
thematic areas: eco-innovation inputs, eco-innovation activities, where the β coefficients are computed by standard OLS estima-
eco-innovation outputs, resource efficiency outcomes and socio- tion. Following a common approach, all the variables in Table II
economic outcomes … [and] … is calculated by the unweighted are standardized, so as to be comparable with one another. More-
mean of the 16 sub-indicators … [showing] how well individual over, for comparison purposes, we also employed a generalized
Member States perform in eco-innovation compared to the EU linear model (GLM) with the same dependent and independent
average.” variables as above, with logarithmic link function and with both
the Gamma and the inverse Gaussian as family functions. In fact,
D. Independent Variables after trying several different kinds of family functions (including
the Gaussian and the power function), we found that the Gamma
The variables of which we want to test the influence on the
function and the inverse Gaussian function yield the smallest
eco-innovation index are related to the expenditure in R&D. In
Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the smallest Bayesian
particular, for each country considered, we take both the R&D
information criterion (BIC), respectively.
expenditure in the government sector (GGERD) and the expen-
diture on R&D in the business enterprise sector (BEGERD),
IV. RESULTS
measured in percentage of GDP. Quoting from the Eurostat,
“the business enterprise sector includes all firms, organisations Descriptive statistics for all the regression variables are shown
and institutions whose primary activity is the market production in Table III. As we may observe, ECOINN has a rather large vari-
of goods or services [other than higher education] for sale to ability among EU countries, since its minimum and maximum
the general public at an economically significant price, and ranges are 34.5 and 135.625, respectively. The expenditure on
the private non-profit institutes mainly serving them.” Further R&D has a high degree of variability as well, since GGERD
details can be found at the Eurostat website. varies from 0.043 to 0.404 and BEGERD varies from 0.173 to
2.253. Table IV reports the (Pearson) correlations among the
variables. In particular, we can show that ECOINN is positively
E. Control Variables correlated with both GGERD and BEGERD, which would sug-
We control for a number of variables related to culture of the gest that the expenditure on R&D could have some significant
EU countries, which, together with the R&D expenditures, could effect on the ecological innovation performance. The results of
affect the performances of each country in socio-ecological the regression analysis are reported in Table V. First of all, we
innovation. Specifically, we consider Hofstede’s six dimensions may observe that the regression is, on the overall, statistically
of culture, namely power distance (PDI), individualism (IDV), significant, as the p-value associated to the F-statistics is smaller
masculinity (MAS), uncertainly avoidance (UAI), long term than 0.01. Moreover, the proportion of the variance of the depen-
orientation (LTO), and indulgence (IND). For the reader’s con- dent variable that the chosen independent variables are capable
venience, the variables employed are listed in Table II. to predict is relatively high, as the determination coefficient R2
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

ORLANDO et al.: IMPACT OF R&D INVESTMENTS ON ECO-INNOVATION 7

TABLE IV
PEARSON’S CORRELATIONS

TABLE V TABLE VI
LINEAR REGRESSION RESULTS GLM RESULTS

analysis. In fact, using either the inverse Gaussian or the Gamma

is greater than 0.7. Finally, we performed the Breusch–Pagan family function, the only variables that are still found to have
test for heteroscedasticity as well as the Jarque Bera test for a significantly impact on the eco-innovation index are the ex-
normality. Both these tests did not reject the hypothesis that penditures in R&D in the government sector and the indulgence
residuals are homoscedastic and normally distributed, which dimension of Hofstede’s model.
confirm the validity of the regression model.
As we may observe in Table V, the coefficient of GGERD is
V. DISCUSSION AND RESEARCH LIMITS
positive and significant (p-value < 0.05), which indicates that
countries with a high governmental expenditure on R&D have The results of the analysis confirm that R&D investments pre-
also a high performance in ecological innovation. Instead, the co- dict eco-innovation. However, eco-innovation is mostly driven
efficient of BEGERD, albeit positive, is not significant (p-value by governments’ investments, whereas firm’s contribution is
> 0.1), which suggests that the expenditure on R&D incurred by still poor. Many factors may impact this result. As instance,
units in the business sector does only have a moderate impact on governments’ may be less risk adverse and more long-term
the eco-innovation index. Finally, the only cultural dimension oriented than firms.
that has a significant effect on ECOINN (p-value < 0.05) is the Also, evidences prove that eco-innovation is linked to cultural
one related to indulgence. In particular, the regression coefficient indulgence.
of IND is positive, which has the following explanation: the More precisely, the effect of indulgence on the eco-innovation
indulgence dimension measures the extent to which countries index can be explained by the fact that the level of eco-innovation
pay attention to individual needs and to the quality of life. Thus, index increases when basic needs are already satisfied. As in-
we can easily understand the positive and significant effect of the stance, the commitment toward green innovation may increase
indulgence dimension on the ecological innovation performance when firms have sufficient financial slack for financing innova-
if we think that countries scoring high in IND are also supposed tion [55].
to be concerned with the quality of the environment where Differently from Shane [75], we found that indulgence is the
citizens live. most relevant cultural dimension for eco-innovation. However,
It is interesting to observe that the results of the GLM, which as Shane [75] previously stated, cultural values vary over time.
are reported in Table VI, are perfectly in line with the above Our study also showed that the contribution of businesses to
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

the national eco-innovation rate is modest. This result can be management plays a crucial role in this process. As a matter of
addressed based on various motivations. First, firms suffer from fact, both firms and governments should invest to create ad-hoc
sunk costs linked to prior investments. The presence of sunk units and educational programs to form human resources, who
costs determines a coevolutionary lock-in an induce strategic are specialized in environmental engineering and are able to face
inertia, leading to new investments avoidance, such in the case of the sustainability challenge.
eco-innovation. As a matter of fact, eco-innovation may disrupt Finally, in line with the seminal study of Elkington [24],
firm’s businesses. On the other hand, this kind of innovation an important implication that follows the evidences presented
is characterized by extreme risk and uncertainty. These factors, in this article concerns the collaboration between public and
along with the conceptualization bias toward eco-innovation, private organizations for achieving an influential impact on eco-
may hinder firm’s propensity toward sustainable innovation innovation. Policy makers should design new ways to stimulate
because of the fear of loss. In brief, the firm perceives eco- firm’s sustainable orientation rather than offering mere monetary
innovation as poorly rewarding or excessively risky. and fiscal incentives. Since governments are leading the chase
The robustness of the employed method and the accuracy of to eco-innovation, incentivizing collaborations between public
the analysis provide strong results. However, there are some and private actors is the most effective way to increase the
limitations. First, data are drawn from experimental statistics. eco-innovation rate of a country and to put back on track firms’
Unfortunately, availability of this kind of data is still scarce. Sec- investments.
ond, the analysis is limited to EU countries. As the consequence,
we have no insights on how the same phenomenon may unravel
in different geographies. As other studies previously suggested VII. CONCLUSION
[79], anthropocentric cultures may show a different pattern. This article contributes in different ways to advance the
Finally, the adopted method offers information on mean level, knowledge in the field of green innovation management. Dif-
which means that we are not able to catch and describe the ferently from prior studies, we focused on the social dimension
over-time dynamic of the phenomenon. of eco-innovation and we provided a better understanding of
green innovation management. We originally integrated the
VI. IMPLICATIONS cross-cultural perspective into the R&D policy of European
Notably, current study has a series of important implications. firms and governments.
First, in line with the study of Shane [75], cultural values have First, according to our results, country indulgence has a pos-
proven to impact the innovation rate of countries. However, itive impact on the eco-innovation index. In brief, the wealth
differently from the aforementioned research, we noticed that of a country may predict its positive environmental attitude:
indulgence is the only relevant dimension in eco-innovation. the more people were satisfied, the more they were attentive
Perhaps, it is because countries with highest rankings of the toward the environment. As the consequence, increasing levels
quality of life are also more eco-innovative than the others. of indulgence seem to be correlated with increasing levels of
Second, this finding implies that there was a huge shift of eco-innovation.
cultural values in less than 30 years, from the Shane’s study [75]. On the one hand, this result explains why some countries, such
Probably, this is caused by the current attention toward global as developing one, are less eco-effective. On the other hand,
warming and pollution and by the fact that countries became though, an effective management of green innovation could
wealthier. become a key enabler for growth.
Third, the analysis digs to light that cultural values should Then, we provided extensive evidences of the impact of R&D
shape entrepreneurial orientation and firm’s behavior toward expenses of businesses and governments on eco-innovation. The
sustainability. In particular, our findings suggested that firms study explains that governments’ investments in eco-innovation
operating in those countries with highest rankings of indulgence are more effective than those of firms.
should invest in radical eco-innovation to fit with customers’ As the consequence, firms’ decision makers are called to
needs. rethink the role of green innovation management, by avoiding
In this vein, the study suggested that green behaviors may be fake greenery and investing in groundbreaking eco-friendly
incentivized by leveraging on the benefits for the environment. novelties. Yet, policy makers should find more effective ways
Broadly speaking, firms shall invest in green technology to stimulate firms’ green innovation.
management. In addition, we dig to light that it exists a firm’s bias in
Thereby, differently from antecedent studies, we conclude conceptualizing eco-innovation that impacts the radicalness of
that both culture and country investments matter for eco- novelties and determines a marginal impact on sustainability.
innovation. Finally, we noticed a rapid evolution of cultural values over
Another important implication concerns the radicalness of three decades. With this regard, firms mostly behave as laggards,
eco-innovation. In future, firms should increase their engage- since they appear to be less sensitive to sustainability values than
ment in sustainable innovation projects if they want to meet governments.
customers’ expectations and to be compliant with sovereign Future research should extend and corroborate our findings
regulations. This imply a huge shift in the way firms should by replicating the analysis in non-EU Countries, especially in
conceive eco-innovation: from a mere green washing to radical those collectivistic countries that are more interested in benefits
and effective environmental-conscious solutions. Engineering for the humankind as a whole.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

ORLANDO et al.: IMPACT OF R&D INVESTMENTS ON ECO-INNOVATION 9

Besides, while other disciplines, such as engineering manage- [19] M. Del Giudice, E. G. Carayannis, and M. R. Della Peruta, Eds., “Cul-
ment, already dedicate a large space to environmental sustain- ture and cooperative strategies: Knowledge management perspectives,”
in Cross-Cultural Knowledge Management. Berlin, Germany: Springer,
ability, there are relatively few managerial scholars in the field 2012, pp. 49–62.
of innovation occupied with studying eco-innovation [72]. So, [20] M. Del Giudice, Z. Khan, M. De Silva, V. Scuotto, F. Caputo, and
prospect managerial scholars should pay more attention to green E. Carayannis, “The microlevel actions undertaken by owner-managers
in improving the sustainability practices of cultural and creative small
technology management by investigating what are the drivers and medium enterprises: A United Kingdom–Italy comparison,” J. Organ.
of eco-innovation and how it impacts the wellness of society. Behav., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1396–1414, 2017.
Green technology management gained strategic relevance only [21] L. Dezi, A. Ferraris, A. Papa, and D. Vrontis, “The role of external em-
beddedness and knowledge management as antecedents of ambidexterity
recently. This new field of study is mostly underexplored, but and performances in Italian SMEs,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., to be
it appears as highly promising. Future research should focus published, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2916378.
on this new area to provide useful tools for managers and a [22] S. Dresner, The Principles of Sustainability. Evanston, IL, USA: Rout-
ledge, 2012.
meaningful impact for society as a whole. [23] P. H. Driessen, B. Hillebrand, R. A. Kok, and T. M. Verhallen “Green new
product development: The pivotal role of product greenness.” IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manage., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 315–326, May 2013.
[24] J. Elkington “Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line
REFERENCES of 21st-century business,” Environ. Qual. Manage., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 37–51,
1998.
[1] A. Acevedo, “A personalistic appraisal of Maslow’s needs theory of
[25] R. Felix, C. Hinsch, P. A. Rauschnabel, and B. Schlegelmilch, “Religious-
motivation: From “humanistic” psychology to integral humanism,” J. Bus.
ness and environmental concern: A multilevel and multi-country analysis
Ethics, vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 741–763, 2018.
of the role of life satisfaction and indulgence,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 91,
[2] A Saifi, “Positioning organisational culture in knowledge management
pp. 304–312, 2018.
research,” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 164–189, 2015.
[26] A. Ferraris, G. Santoro, and L. Dezi, “How MNC’s subsidiary es may
[3] M. M. Andersen, “Eco-innovation–Towards a taxonomy and a theory,” in
improve their innovative performance? The role of external sources and
Proc. 25th Celebration DRUID Conf. Entrepreneurship Innov. - Org. Inst.
knowledge management capabilities,” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 21, no. 3,
Syst. Regions, 2008, pp. 1–17.
pp. 540–552, 2017.
[4] M. M. Andersen, “Eco-innovation indicators,” in Proc. Workshop: Devel-
[27] C. Fussler and P. James, Eco-Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline For
oping Eco-Innov. Indicators Eur. Environ. Agency, 2006, pp. 1–28.
Innovation and Sustainability. London, U.K.: Pitman, 1996.
[5] D. Bartlett and A. Trifilova, “Green technology and eco-innovation: Seven
[28] C. Ghisetti, A. Marzucchi, and S. Montresor, “The open eco-innovation
case-studies from a Russian manufacturing context,” J. Manuf. Technol.
mode. An empirical investigation of eleven European countries,” Res.
Manage., vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 910–929, 2010.
Policy, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1080–1093, 2015.
[6] M. B. Bossle, M. D. de Barcellos, L. M. Vieira, and L. Sauvée, “The drivers
[29] V. Griskevicius, S. M. Cantú, and M. Van Vugt, “The evolutionary bases
for adoption of eco-innovation,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 113, pp. 861–872,
for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social
2016.
entrepreneurship,” J. Public Policy Mark., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 115–128,
[7] E. G. Carayannis, E. Grigoroudis, M. Del Giudice, M. R. Della Peruta, and
2012.
S. Sindakis “An exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and
[30] C. Groening, J. Sarkis, and Q. Zhu, “Green marketing consumer-level
routines in a sustainable excellence context,” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 21,
theory review: A compendium of applied theories and further research
no. 1, pp. 35–56, 2017.
directions,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 172, pp. 1848–1866, 2018.
[8] H. K. Chan, X. Wang, G. R. T. White, and N. Yip, “An extended fuzzy-AHP
[31] T. Hellström “Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: The
approach for the evaluation of green product designs,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
structure of eco-innovation concepts.” Sustain. Develop., vol. 15, no. 3,
Manage., vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 327–339, May 2013.
pp. 148–159, 2007.
[9] R. Y. Chan and L. B. Lau “Explaining green purchasing behavior: A
[32] F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work,
cross-cultural study on American and Chinese consumers,” J. Int. Consum.
2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.
Mark., vol. 14, no. 2–3, pp. 9–40, 2002.
[33] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work
[10] G. N. Chandler, C. Keller, and D. W. Lyon “Unraveling the determinants
Related Values. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 1980.
and consequences of an innovation-supportive organizational culture,”
[34] G. Hofstede “Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context,”
Entrepreneurship Theory Pract., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 59–76, 2000.
Online Readings Psychol. Culture, 2011, Unit 2, Subunit 1, ch. 8. [Online].
[11] C. L. H. Chang and T. C. Lin “The role of organizational culture
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
in the knowledge management process,” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 19,
[35] G. Hofstede and M. Minkov “Long-versus short-term orientation: New
no. 3, pp. 433–455, 2015.
perspectives,” Asia Pacific Bus. Rev., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 493–504, 2010.
[12] C. C. Cheng, C. L. Yang, and C. Sheu “The link between eco-innovation
[36] G. Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context,” J. Cleaner
Related Values. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1980.
Prod., vol. 64, pp. 81–90, 2014.
[37] J. Horbach “Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence
[13] R. Ciegis, J. Ramanauskiene, and B. Martinkus “The concept of sustainable
from German panel data sources,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 163–173,
development and its use for sustainability scenarios,” Eng. Econ., vol. 62,
2008.
no. 2, pp. 28–37 2009.
[38] Y. A. Huang, H. J. Chung, and C. Lin “R&D sourcing strategies: Deter-
[14] R. Clift, “Metrics for supply chain sustainability,” in Technological
minants and consequences,” Technovation, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 155–169,
Choices for Sustainability, S. K. Sikdar, P. Glavič, and R. Jain, Eds. Berlin,
2009.
Germany: Springer, 2004, pp. 239–253.
[39] International Union for Conservation of Nature, Natural Resources, &
[15] D. Coluccia, M. Dabić, M. Del Giudice, S. Fontana, and S. Solimene,
World Wildlife Fund, World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource
“R&D innovation indicator and its effects on the market. An empirical
Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,
assessment from a financial perspective,” J. Bus. Res., 2019. [Online].
1980.
Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.015
[40] J. M. Wooldridge, Econometrics Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data.
[16] A. Corfield and R. Paton, “Investigating knowledge management: Can KM
Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press, 2002.
really change organisational culture?” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 20, no. 1,
[41] J. Jansson, A. Marell, and A. Nordlund “Green consumer behavior: Deter-
pp. 88–103, 2016.
minants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption,” J. Consum. Mark.,
[17] A. Cotae and L. Bacali “The influence of national culture on business
vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 358–370, 2010.
organizations’ commitment to environment sustainability in the European
[42] C. P. Kiefer, P. Del Río González, and J. Carrillo-Hermosilla, “Drivers
Union,” Rev. Appl. Socio-Econ. Res., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 19–29, 2017.
and barriers of eco-innovation types for sustainable transitions: A quan-
[18] V. De Marchi “Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical
titative perspective,” Bus. Strategy Environ., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 155–172,
evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms.” Res. Policy, vol. 41, no. 3,
2019.
pp. 614–623, 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

10 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

[43] T. Kurz “The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting [67] K. W. Robert, T. M. Parris, and A. A. Leiserowitz, “What is sustainable
together pieces of the puzzle,” Analyses Soc. Issues Public Policy, vol. 2, development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice,” Environ. Sci. Policy
no. 1, pp. 257–278, 2002. Sustain. Develop., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 8–21, 2005.
[44] T. Lampikoski, M. Westerlund, R. Rajala, and K. Möller “Green innovation [68] J. Robinson “Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
games: Value-creation strategies for corporate sustainability,” California development,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 369–384, 2004.
Manage. Rev., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 88–116, 2014. [69] J. Robinson and J. Tinker, “Reconciling ecological, economic and social
[45] K. Laursen and A. Salter “Open for innovation: The role of openness imperatives: A new conceptual framework,” in Surviving Globalism. New
in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms,” York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, pp. 71–94.
Strateg. Manage. J., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 131–150, 2006. [70] S. Scarpellini, A. Aranda, J. Aranda, E. Llera, and M. Marco, “R&D and
[46] A. Leal-Millán, J. L. Roldán, A. L. Leal-Rodríguez and J. Ortega- eco-innovation: Opportunities for closer collaboration between universi-
Gutiérrez, “IT and relationship learning in networks as drivers of ties and companies through technology centers,” Clean Technol. Environ.
green innovation and customer capital: Evidence from the auto- Policy, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1047–1058, 2012.
mobile sector,” J. Knowl. Manage., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 444–464, [71] F. Schiavone, M. Romano, E. Carayannis, M. Del Giudice, and M. R. Della
2016. Peruta “Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-
[47] K. H. Lee and B. Min, “Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact industry R&D partnerships,” J. Intellect. Cap., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 611–630,
on carbon emissions and firm performance,” J. Cleaner Prod., vol. 108, 2014.
pp. 534–54, 2015. [72] T. Schiederig, F. Tietze, and C. Herstatt “Green innovation in technol-
[48] Y. Malhotra and D. Galletta, “A multidimensional commitment model of ogy and innovation management–An exploratory literature review,” R&D
volitional systems adoption and usage behavior,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., Manage., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 180–192, 2012.
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 117–151, 2005. [73] V. Scuotto, A. Garcia-Perez, V. Cillo, and E. Giacosa, “Do stakeholder
[49] M. MäNtymäKi and J. Salo, “Teenagers in social virtual worlds: Con- capabilities promote sustainable business innovation in small and medium-
tinuous use and purchasing behavior in Habbo Hotel,” Comput. Human sized enterprises? Evidence from Italy,” J. Bus. Res., 2019. [Online].
Behav., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 2088–2097, 2011. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.025
[50] A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality. Manhattan, NY, USA: Harper [74] V. Scuotto, M. D. Giudice, N. Holden, and A. Mattiacci, “Entrepreneurial
and Row, 1954. settings within global family firms: Research perspectives from cross-
[51] A. H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality. Manhattan, NY, USA: Harper cultural knowledge management studies.” Eur. J. Int. Manage., vol. 11,
and Row, 1970. no. 4, pp. 469–489, 2017.
[52] D. McKenzie-Mohr “Fostering sustainable behavior through community- [75] S. Shane, “Cultural influences on national rates of innovation,” J. Bus.
based social marketing,” Amer. Psychol., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 531–537, Ventur., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 59–73, 1993.
2000. [76] S. Shane “Uncertainty avoidance and the preference for innovation cham-
[53] D. Mebratu “Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical pioning roles,” J. Int. Bus. Stud., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 47–68, 1995.
and conceptual review,” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 18, no. 6, [77] S. Shane, S. Venkataraman, and I. MacMillan “Cultural differences in in-
pp. 493–520 1998. novation championing strategies,” J. Manage., vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 931–952,
[54] M. H. Morris, R. A. Avila, and J. Alien “Individualism and the modern cor- 1995.
poration: Implications for innovation and entrepreneurship,” J. Manage., [78] S. Sharma, “Managerial interpretations and organizational context as
vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 595–612, 1993. predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy,” Acad. Manage.
[55] N. Nohria and R. Gulati “Is slack good or bad for innovation?” Acad. J., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 681–697, 2000.
Manage. J., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1245–1264, 1996. [79] K. Soyez, “How national cultural values affect pro-environmental con-
[56] J. M. Nolan, P. W. Schultz, R. B. Cialdini, N. J. Goldstein, and V. sumer behavior,” Int. Mark. Rev., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 623–646, 2012.
Griskevicius “Normative social influence is underdetected,” Pers. Soc. [80] N. Sreen, S. Purbey, and P. Sadarangani, “Impact of culture, behavior and
Psychol. Bull., vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 913–923, 2008. gender on green purchase intention,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 41,
[57] R. L. Olson, “Sustainability as a social vision,” J. Soc. Issu., vol. 51, no. pp. 177–189, 2018.
4, pp. 15–35, 1995. [81] J. Sun, N. Sabbaghi, and W. Ashton, “Green supply chain formation
[58] L. E. Palich, P. W. Horn, and R.W. Griffeth, “Managing in the inter- through by-product synergies,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 64,
national context: Testing cultural generality of sources of commitment no. 1, pp. 70–82, Feb. 2017.
to multinational enterprises,” J. Manage., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 671–690, [82] E. M. Tachizawa, C. G. Thomsen, and M. J. Montes-Sancho, “Green supply
1995. management strategies in Spanish firms,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
[59] T. M. Parris and R. W. Kates “Characterizing and measuring sustainable vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 741–752, Nov. 2012.
development,” Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 559–586, [83] B. S. Tether, “Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical
2003. analysis,” Res. Policy, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 947–967, 2002.
[60] D. Pepper, Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction. London, U.K.: [84] V. A. Thompson, “Bureaucracy and innovation,” Administ. Sci. Quart.,
Routledge, 1996. vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 1965.
[61] F. Polzin, P. von Flotow, and L. Klerkx “Addressing barriers to eco- [85] A. Triguero, L. Moreno-Mondéjar, and M. A. Davia, “Drivers of different
innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional types of eco-innovation in European SMEs,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 92, no. 2,
innovation intermediaries,” Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change, vol. 103, pp. 5–33, 2013.
pp. 34–46, 2016. [86] R. Trudel, “Sustainable consumer behavior,” Consum. Psychol. Rev., vol. 2,
[62] M. E. Porter and C. Van der Linde, “Toward a new conception of the no. 1, pp. 85–96, 2019.
environment-competitiveness relationship,” J. Econ. Perspect., vol. 9, no. [87] J. Vega-Jurado, A. Gutiérrez-Gracia, I. Fernández-de-Lucio, and L.
4, pp. 97–118, 1995. Manjarrés-Henríquez, “The effect of external and internal factors on firms’
[63] A. L. Prim, L. S. Filho, G. A. C. Zamur and L. C. Di Serio, “The relationship product innovation,” Res. Policy, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 616–632, 2008.
between national culture dimensions and degree of innovation,” Int. J. [88] S. W. S. WCED, “Our common future,” World Commission Environ.
Innov. Manage., vol. 21, no. 1, 2017, Art. no. 1730001. Develop., vol. 17, pp. 1–91, 1987.
[64] D. Pujari “Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding [89] C. J. Yang and J. L. Chen, “Accelerating preliminary eco-innovation design
the influences on market performance,” Technovation, vol. 26, no. 1, for products that integrates case-based reasoning and TRIZ method,” J.
pp. 76–85, 2006. Cleaner Prod., vol. 19, no. 9–10, pp. 998–1006, 2011.
[65] K. Rennings, “Redefining innovation—Eco-innovation research and the [90] J. M. Zelenski, R. L. Dopko, and C. A. Capaldi, “Cooperation is in our
contribution from ecological economics,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 32, no. 2, nature: Nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally
pp. 319–332, 2000. sustainable behavior,” J. Environ. Psychol., vol. 42, pp. 24–31, 2015.
[66] T. Rinne, G. D. Steel, and J. Fairweather, “Hofstede and Shane re- [91] Z. Zhou, X.L. Jin, Y. Fang, and D. Vogel, “Toward a theory of perceived
visited: The role of power distance and individualism in national-level benefits, affective commitment, and continuance intention in social virtual
innovation success,” Cross-Cultural Res., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 91–108, worlds: Cultural values [indulgence and individualism] matter,” Eur. J. Inf.
2012. Syst., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 247–261, 2015.