The relationship between R&D subsidy and R&D cooperation in eco-innovative companiesan analysis taking a complementarity approach

  1. Manuel Guisado-González 1
  2. María del Mar Rodríguez-Domínguez 2
  3. Mercedes Vila-Alonso 3
  4. Encarnación González-Vázquez 3
  1. 1 University of Extremadura,
  2. 2 University of Vig
  3. 3 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

Revista:
European Research on Management and Business Economics

ISSN: 2444-8834

Ano de publicación: 2021

Volume: 27

Número: 3

Páxinas: 38-48

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1016/J.IEDEEN.2021.100170 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: European Research on Management and Business Economics

Indicadores

Citas recibidas

  • Citas en Scopus: 8 (25-02-2024)
  • Citas en Web of Science: 6 (25-10-2023)
  • Citas en Dimensions: 6 (23-12-2023)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Ano 2021
  • Factor de impacto da revista: 4.75
  • Factor de impacto sen autocitas: 4.432
  • Article influence score: 0.775
  • Cuartil maior: Q1
  • Área: ECONOMICS Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 57/381 (Edición: SSCI)
  • Área: MANAGEMENT Cuartil: Q2 Posición na área: 107/228 (Edición: SSCI)
  • Área: BUSINESS Cuartil: Q3 Posición na área: 80/154 (Edición: SSCI)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Ano 2021
  • Impacto SJR da revista: 1.035
  • Cuartil maior: Q1
  • Área: Business and International Management Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 73/459
  • Área: Strategy and Management Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 92/491
  • Área: Marketing Cuartil: Q2 Posición na área: 57/213
  • Área: Economics and Econometrics Cuartil: Q2 Posición na área: 176/732

Índice Dialnet de Revistas

  • Ano 2021
  • Factor de impacto da revista: 4,340
  • Ámbito: ECONOMÍA Cuartil: C1 Posición no ámbito: 2/164

CIRC

  • Ciencias Sociais: A+

Scopus CiteScore

  • Ano 2021
  • CiteScore da revista: 9.3
  • Área: Economics and Econometrics Percentil: 95
  • Área: Business and International Management Percentil: 93
  • Área: Strategy and Management Percentil: 92
  • Área: Marketing Percentil: 90

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

  • Ano 2021
  • JCI da revista: 1.38
  • Cuartil maior: Q1
  • Área: MANAGEMENT Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 74/393
  • Área: ECONOMICS Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 84/572
  • Área: BUSINESS Cuartil: Q1 Posición na área: 53/296

Dimensions

(Datos actualizados na data de 23-12-2023)
  • Total de citas: 6
  • Citas recentes (2 anos): 6
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 4.46

Resumo

We analyze whether eco-innovation has a positive or negative influence on the business performance of companies and, through the complementarity approach, whether the joint implementation of R&D subsidy and R&D cooperation increases or decreases the sum of their respective individual impacts on the business performance. If the joint implementation is substitutive, business performance will be lower than potentially possible, so granting R&D subsidies under the condition of establishing R&D cooperation would not be an adequate policy to promote eco-innovation. The analyses were performed using data from the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC) of 2013 for Spanish manufacturing companies. Our findings indicate that an eco- innovation-oriented strategy positively affects the labor productivity of companies and that receiving public aid as a consequence of establishing R&D cooperation agreements has a lower effect on labor productivity (non-eco-innovative companies), or the same effect (eco-innovative companies), compared to the sum of the individual impacts of R&D cooperation and R&D subsidy. Consequently, in non-eco-innovative companies the use of subsidized R&D cooperation is inadvisable, while their use in eco-innovative companies is neutral.

Información de financiamento

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aerts, K., & Czarnitzki, D. (2006). The impact of public R&D-funding in flanders. Brussels, Belgium: IWT Study No. 54.
  • Ambec, S., Cohen, M., Elgie, S., & Lanoie, P. (2013). The porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7, 2–22.
  • Amores-Salvad o, J., Martin de Castro, G., & Navas-L opez, J. E. (2015). The importance of the complementarity between environmental management systems and environ- mental innovation capabilities: A firm level approach to environmental and busi- ness performance benefits. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 96, 288–297.
  • Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., Galia, F., & Salter, A. (2015). The fateful triangle. Complementar- ities between product, process and organizational innovation in the UK and France. Research Policy, 44, 217–232.
  • Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evi- dence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33, 209–223.
  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2006). Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization, 28, 401–426.
  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M. A., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004a). Heteroge- neity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organaniza- tion, 22, 1137–1263.
  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M. A., & Lokshin, B. (2004b). Cooperative R&D and firm perfor- mance. Research Policy, 33, 1477–1492.
  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innova- tions. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 891–909.
  • Boons, F., & Wagner, M. (2009). Assessing the relationship between economic and eco- logical performance: Distinguishing system levels and the role of Innovation. Eco- logical Economics, 68, 1908–1914.
  • Bower, J. L., & Hout, T. M. (1988). Fast cycle capability for competitive power. Harvard Business Review, 66, 110–118.
  • Broekel, T. (2015). Do cooperative research and development (R&D) subsidies stimu- late regional innovation efficiency? Evidence from Germany. Regional Studies, 49, 1087–1110.
  • Broekel, T., & Graf, H. (2012). Public research intensity and the structure of German R&D networks: A comparison of 10 technologies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 345–372.
  • Broekel, T., Schimke, A., & Brenner, T. (2011). The effects of cooperative R&D subsidies and subsidized cooperation on employment growth.Working Paper Series in Eco- nomics, No. 34.
  • Burnett, R., Hansen, D., & Quintana, O. (2007). Eco-efficiency: Achieving productivity improvements through environmental cost management. Accounting and the Pub- lic Interest, 7, 66–92.
  • Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. (2015). Does the development of environ- mental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 211–220.
  • Caloghirou, Y., Ioannides, S., & Vonortas, N. (2003). Research joint ventures. Journal of Economic Surveys, 17, 541–570.
  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D co-operation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92, 1169–1184.
  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strat- egy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52, 68–82.
  • Chang, C. H. (2011). The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of Green innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 361–370.
  • Chatterjee, R., Chattopadhyay, S., & Kabiraj, T. (2018). Spillovers and R&D incentive under incomplete information. Studies in Microeconomics, 6, 50–65.
  • Cheng, C. C. J., Yang, C. L., & Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco-innovation and busi- ness performance: A Taiwanese industry context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 81–90.
  • Christainsen, G. B., & Haveman, R. H. (1981). The contribution of environmental regula- tion to the slowdown in productivity growth. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 8, 381–390.
  • Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663–680.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
  • Collins, E., Lawrence, S., Pavlovich, K., & Ryan, C. (2007). Business networks and the uptake of sustainability practices: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Pro- duction, 15, 729–740.
  • Coombs, R., Harvey, M., & Tether, B. S. (2003). Analysing distributed processes of provi- sion and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 1125–1155.
  • Cordeiro, J. J., & Sarkis, J. (1997). Environmental proactivism and firm performance: Evi- dence from security analyst earnings forecasts. Business Strategy and the Environ- ment, 6, 104–114.
  • Czarnitzki, D., Ebersberger, B., & Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D collabo- ration, subsidies and patenting activity: Empirical evidence from Finland and Ger- many. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 1347–1366.
  • Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness: Challenges for developing countries. UnitedNations, Industrial development for the 21st century: Sustainable development perspectives UnitedNations. (pp. 29−83). New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.
  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26, 31–61.
  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An inte- grated framework. Organization Studies, 22, 251–283.
  • d’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1137.
  • De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evi- dence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 41, 614–623.
  • De Marchi, V. D., & Grandinetti, R. (2013). Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: The case of Italian manufacturing firms. Journal of Knowledge Manage- ment, 17, 569–582.
  • Del Río, P., Pe~nasco, C., & Romero-Jord an, D. (2015). Distinctive features of environ- mental innovators: An econometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 361–385.
  • Del Río, P., Romero-Jord an, D., & Pe~nasco, C. (2017). Analysing firm-specific and type- specific determinants of eco-innovation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 23, 270–295.
  • Ebersberger, B., & Herstad, S. (2013). The relationship between international innova- tion collaboration, intramural R&D and SMEs innovation performance: A quantile regression approach. Applied Economic Letters, 20, 626–630.
  • Edler, J. (2008). Creative internationalization: Widening the perspectives on analysis and policy regarding international R&D activities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 337–352.
  • Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F., & Eyadat, H. (2008). Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. Journal of World Business, 43, 131–145.
  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Scoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alli- ances formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7, 136–150.
  • European Commission. (1995). Green paper on innovation. Luxembourg: Office for offi- cial publications of the european communities.
  • Faems, D., de Visser, M., Andries, P., & Van Looy, B. (2010). Technology alliance portfo- lios and financial performance: Value-enhancing and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 785–796.
  • Feichtinger, G., Hartl, R. F., Kort, P. M., & Veliov, V. M. (2003). Environmental policy, the Porter hypothesis and the composition of capital: Effects of learning and technolog- ical progress. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 50, 434–446.
  • Filbeck, G., & Gorman, R. F. (2004). The Relationship between the environmental and financial performance of public utilities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 29, 137–157.
  • Fornahl, D., Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. A. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Papers in Regional Science, 90, 395–418.
  • Ghisetti, C., Mancinelli, S., Mazzanti, M., & Zoli, M. (2017). Financial barriers and envi- ronmental innovations: Evidence from EU manufacturing firms. Climate Policy, 17, 131–147.
  • Gollop, F. M., & Roberts, M. J. (1983). Environmental regulation and productivity growth: The case of fossil-fueled electric power generation. Journal of Political Economy, 91, 654–674.
  • Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Coca-P erez, J. L., & Guisado-Gonz alez, M. (2018). The contribution of technological and non-technological innovation to environmental performance. An analysis with a complementary approach. Sustainability, 10(11), 4014. doi:10.3390/su10114014.
  • Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Vila-Alonso, M., & Guisado-Gonz alez, M. (2019). Exploring the complementarity between foreign technology, embedded technology and increase of productive capacity. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25, 39–58.
  • Graevenittz, G. (2004). Spillovers reconsidered: How optimal R&D subsidies depend on the spillover process. Mimeo: Department of Economics, University College London.
  • Gray, W. B. (1987). The cost of regulation: OSHA, EPA and the productivity slowdown. American Economic Review, 77, 998–1006.
  • Gray, W. B., & Shadbegian, R. J. (2003). Plant vintage, technology, and environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 384–402.
  • Greenstone, M. (2002). The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activ- ity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 clean air act amendments and the census manufacturers. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1175–1219.
  • Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (1991). Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Guisado-Gonz alez, M., Gonz alez-Blanco, J., & Coca-P erez, J. L. (2017). Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21, 1142–1162.
  • Guisado-Gonz alez, M., Gonz alez-Blanco, J., Coca-P erez, J. L., & Guisado-Tato, M. (2018). Assessing the relationship between R&D subsidy, R&D cooperation and absorptive capacity: An investigation on the manufacturing Spanish case. Journal of Technol- ogy Transfer, 43, 1647–1666.
  • Gussoni, M., & Mangani, A. (2009). The impact of public funding for innovation on firms' R&D investments: Do R&D cooperation and appropriability matter? Department of Economics, University of Pisa Discussion papers, 90.
  • Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, 477–492.
  • Hall, B. H., Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2010). Measuring the returns to R&D. In B. H. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (pp. 1034−1076). Amsterdam and New York: Elsevier.
  • Harris, R., Krenza, A., & Moffata, J. (2019). The impacts of absorptive capacity in the European Union. Online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333388489
  • Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica : jour- nal of the Econometric Society, 47, 153–161.
  • Hennart, J. F. (1988). A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 9, 361–374.
  • Hollanders, H., & Es-Sadki, N. (2013). Innovation union scoreboard 2013. Maastricht eco- nomic and social research institute on innovation and technology. Maastricht, The Netherlands: UNU-MERIT.
  • Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation-New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy, 37, 163–173.
  • Horbach, J., Oltra, V., & Belin, J. (2013). Determinants and specificities of eco-innova- tions compared to other innovations-An econometric analysis for the French and German industry based on the community innovation survey. Industry and Innova- tion, 20, 523–543.
  • Hottenrott, H., & Lopes-Bento, C. (2014). (International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes. Research Policy, 43, 1055–1066.
  • Inkpen, A. C. (1998). Learning, knowledge acquisition and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, 16, 223–229.
  • Jaffe, A., Newell, R., & Stavins, R. (2005). A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics, 54, 164–174.
  • Jaffe, A. B., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel data study. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 610–619.
  • Jorde, T. M., & Teece, D. J. (1990). Innovation and cooperation: Implications for compe- tition and antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 75–96.
  • Jov e-Llopis, E., & Segarra-Blasco, A. (2017). Eco-innovation: Spanish service and manufacturing firms. Spain: Universitat Rovira i Virgili Document de treball, n.09.
  • Jov e-Llopis, E., & Segarra-Blasco, A. (2018). Eco-innovation strategies: A panel data analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1209–1220.
  • Kamien, M. I., Muller, E., & Zang, I. (1992). Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. American Economic Review, 82, 1293–1306.
  • Katz, M. L. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 527–543.
  • Katz, M. L., & Ordover, J. A. (1990). R&D cooperation and competition. In M. N. Baily, & C. Winston (Eds.), Brookings papers on economic activit: Microeconomics (pp. 137 −203). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  • Khanna, T. (1998). The scope of alliances. Organization Science, 9, 340–355.
  • Klassen, D., & Whybark, D. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 599–615.
  • Konar, S., & Cohen, M. (2001). Does the market value environmental performance? Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 281–289.
  • Kristrom, B., & Riera, P. (1996). Is the income elasticity of environmental improvements less than one? Environmental and Resource Economics, 7, 45–55
  • . L opez, A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26, 113–136.
  • Lui, S. S., & Ngo, H. Y. (2004). The role of trust and contractual safeguards on coopera- tion in non-equity alliances. Journal of Management, 30, 471–485.
  • Luo, Y. (2002). Contract, cooperation, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 903–919.
  • Marcus, A., & Geffen, D. (1998). The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution pre- vention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1145–1168.
  • Markides, C. C., & Williamson, P. J. (1996). Corporate diversification and organizational structure: A resource-based view: 39 (pp. 340−367). Academy of Management Jour- nal.
  • Martin, S. (2002). Spillovers, appropriability, and R&D. Journal of Economics, 75, 1–32.
  • Mayer, K. J., & Salomon, R. M. (2006). Capabilities, contractual hazards, and governance: Integrating resource-based and transaction cost perspectives. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 49, 942–959.
  • Mazzanti, M., & Zoboli, R. (2009). Embedding environmental innovation in local pro- duction systems: SME strategies, networking and industrial relations: Evidence on innovation drivers in industrial districts. International Review of Applied Economics, 23, 169–195.
  • Mazzi, A., Toniolo, S., Manzardo, A., Ren, J., & Scipioni, A. (2016). Exploring the direction on the environmental and business performance relationship at the firm level. Les- sons from a literature review. Sustainability, 8, 1–25.
  • Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technol- ogy, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, 80, 511–528.
  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An inte- grated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481–1499.
  • Mistri, M., & Solari, S. (2001). Social networks and productive connectance: Modeling the organizational form of the industrial district. Human System Management, 20, 223–236
  • . Mohnen, P., & R€oller, L. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy. European Eco- nomic Review, 49, 1431–1450.
  • Molero, J., & Buesa, M. (1996). Patterns of technological change among Spanish innova- tive firms: The case of the Madrid region. Research Policy, 25, 647–663.
  • Monteverde, K., & Teece, D. J. (1982). Appropriable rents and quasi-vertical integration. Journal of Law and Economics, 25, 321–328.
  • Mooty, S., & Kedia, B. (2014). R&D partnership portfolio strategies for breakthrough inno- vation: Developing knowledge exchange capabilities. In R. Culpan (Ed.), Open inno- vation through strategic alliances (pp. 219−252). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Munodawafa, R. T., & Johl, S. K. (2019). A systematic review of eco-innovation and per- formance from the resource-based and stakeholder perspectives. Sustainability, 11, 6067.
  • Park, N. K., Mezias, J. M., & Song, J. (2004). A resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 30, 7–27.
  • Pearce, D., & Palmer, C. (2001). Public and private spending for environmental protec- tion: A cross-country policy analysis. Fiscal Studies, 22, 403–456.
  • Pons, M., Bikfalvi, A., & Llach, J. (2018). Clustering product innovators: A comparison between conventional and green product innovators. International Journal of Pro- duction Management and Engineering, 6, 37–46.
  • Porter, M. (1991). America's green strategy. Scientific American, 264, 168.
  • Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment- competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 97–118.
  • Posch, A. (2010). Industrial recycling networks as starting points for broader sustain- ability oriented cooperation? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14, 242–257.
  • Pujari, D. (2006). Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation, 26, 76–85.
  • Quan Zhang, K., & Hung Chen, H. (2017). Environmental performance and financing decisions impact on sustainable financial development of Chinese environmental protection enterprises. Sustainability, 9, 2260.
  • Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-per- formers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Econom- ics, 33, 35–58.
  • Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation - eco-innovation research and the contribu- tion from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32, 319–332.
  • Rexh€auser, S., & Rammer, C. (2014). Environmental innovations and firm profitability: Unmasking the Porter hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 145–167.
  • Roxburgh, C., Labaye, E., Thompson, F., Tacke, T., & Kauffman, D. (2012). Investing in growth: Europe’s next challenge. McKinsey Global Institute. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/»/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Europe/ Investing%20in%20growth/MGI_Europe_Investing_Executive_Summary_Dec2012. ashx.
  • S aez-Martínez, F. J., Díaz-García, C., & Gonzalez-Moreno, A. (2016). Firm technological trajectory as a driver of eco-innovation in young small and medium-sized enter- prises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, 28–37.
  • Sakakibara, M. (2001). The diversity of R&D consortia and firm behavior: Evidence from Japanese data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 49, 181–196.
  • Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU Framework Programme. Annals of Regional Science, 46, 247–266.
  • Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry −university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37, 1283– 1295.
  • Shadbegian, R. J., & Gray, W. B. (2005). Pollution abatement expenditures and plant-level productivity: A production function approach. Ecological Economics, 54, 196–208.
  • Shakina, E., & Barajas, A. (2020). Innovate or Perish?: Companies under crisis. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 26, 145–154.
  • Stoll, M. L. (2011). Green chemistry meets green business: A match long overdue. Jour- nal of Business Ethics, 99, 23–28.
  • Suzumura, K. (1992). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in an oligopoly with spill- overs. American Economic Review, 82, 1307–1320.
  • Teece, D. J. (1981). The Market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458, 81– 96.
  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integra- tion, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
  • Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947–967.
  • Topkis, D. M. (1978). Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, 26(2), 305–321.
  • Triguero, A., Moreno-Mond ejar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92, 25–33.
  • Van Leeuwen, G., & Mohnen, P. (2017). Revisiting the porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of Green innovation for the Netherlands. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 26, 63–77.
  • Waddock, S., & Graves, S. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial perfor- mance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303–319.
  • Wagner, M., Phu, N. V., Azomahou, T., & Wehrmeyer, W. (2002). The relationship between the environmental and economic performance of firms: An empirical analysis of the European paper industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi- ronmental Management, 9, 133–146.
  • Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and greenwashing: Corpo- rate actions and communications on environmental performance and their finan- cial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 227–239.
  • Walley, N., & Withehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review46–52 May -June.
  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.
  • Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 405–431.
  • Wooldridge, J. M. (1995). Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 115–132.
  • Yip, G. (1992). Total global strategy: Managing for worldwide competitive advantage. Eng- lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Zhang, J. A., & Walton, S. (2016). Eco-innovation and business performance: The mod- erating effects of environmental orientation and resource commitment in green- oriented SMEs. R&D Management, 47, 26–39.