Advertisement

The Impact of Resource Efficiency Measures on the Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

  • Jens HorbachEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Sustainability and Innovation book series (SUSTAINABILITY)

Abstract

The profitability of green investment is crucial for the diffusion of the resulting technologies but the knowledge about these performance effects is still limited. Positive performance effects may be based on cost savings stemming from the introduction of cleaner production processes connected with lower material and/or energy use. The present paper empirically analyzes the effects of environmentally active behavior on the performance of a firm. The analysis is based on the 2013 wave of the Eurobarometer data for small and medium-sized firms (SMEs). Looking at SMEs is particularly interesting since small firms might be especially affected by the financial burden of introducing resource efficiency measures, which are costly in the short run. The results of a bivariate probit model show that a high investment in resource efficiency measures increases the overall performance of a firm. A high self-perceived greenness of the firm and a high share of green employment are positively correlated to performance. In fact, not all measures for improving resource efficiency are connected with positive performance effects: An increased use of renewables leads to higher performance whereas measures to reduce water consumption are negatively correlated to turnover development.

References

  1. Barbieri, N., Ghisetti, C., Gilli, M., & Nicolli, F. (2016). A survey of the literature on environmental innovation based on main path analysis. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30, 596–623.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belitz, H., & Lejpras, A. (2014). Financing patterns of innovative SMEs and the perception of innovation barriers in Germany. DIW discussion paper 1353, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Colombelli, A., Krafft, J., & Quatraro, F. (2015). Eco-innovation and firm growth: Do green gazelles run faster? Microeconometric evidence from a sample of European firms. GREDEG working papers 2015-12, Nice.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission. (2003). Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. Official Journal of the European Union (notified under document number C (2003) 1422), Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361&from=EN.
  5. European Commission. (2014). Flash eurobarometer 381: Small and medium enterprises, resource efficiency and green markets. September 2013. TNS Political & Social [Producer].Google Scholar
  6. Franco, C., & Marin, G. (2017). The effect of within-sector, upstream and downstream environmental taxes on innovation and productivity. Environmental and Resource Economics, 66(2), 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gagliardi, L., Marin, G., & Miriello, C. (2016). The greener the better? Job creation effects of environmentally-friendly technological change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(5), 779–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. GESIS Data Archive: ZA5874. (2014). Dataset version 1.0.0.  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11869.
  9. Ghisetti, C., & Rennings, K. (2014). Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the German innovation survey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 75, 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghisetti, C., Mazzanti, M., Mancinelli, S., & Zoli, M. (2017). Financial barriers and environmental innovations: Evidence from EU manufacturing firms. Climate Policy, 17(Supplement 1), 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Horbach, J. (2015). The role of environmental policy for eco-innovation: Theoretical background and empirical results for different countries. In F. Crespi & F. Quatraro (Eds.), The economics of knowledge (pp. 348–360). Routledge: Innovation and Systemic Technology Policy.Google Scholar
  13. Horbach, J., & Janser, M. (2016). The role of innovation and agglomeration for employment growth in the environmental sector. Industry and Innovation, 23(6), 488–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horbach, J., & Rennings, K. (2013). Environmental innovation and employment dynamics in different technology fields – An analysis based on the German community innovation survey 2009. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hottenrott, H., Rexhäuser, S., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Organisational change and the productivity effects of green technology adoption. Resource and Energy Economics, 43, 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaffe, A., & Palmer, K. (1997). Environmental regulation and innovation: A panel study. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 10, 610–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lanoie, P., Laurent-Lucchetti, J., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the Porter hypothesis. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(3), 803–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leoncini, R., Marzucchi, A., Montresor, S., Rentocchini, F., & Rizzo, U. (2016). Better late than never’: A longitudinal quantile regression approach to the interplay between green technology and age for firm growth. SEEDS Working paper series 16/2016, Ferrara.Google Scholar
  19. Lotti, F., & Marin, G. (2017). Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents. Industrial and corporate change, 26(1), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marin, G., Marzucchi, A., & Zoboli, R. (2015a). SMEs and barriers to eco-innovation in the EU: Exploring different firm profiles. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 25(3), 671–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marin, G., Pellegrin, C., & Marino, M. (2015b). The impact of the European emission trading scheme on multiple measures of economic performance. SEEDS working paper series 20/2015, Ferrara.Google Scholar
  22. Mohnen P., & Van Leeuwen, G. (2013). Revisiting the Porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the Netherlands. UNU-MERIT working paper series 2, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  23. Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rennings, K., & Rammer, C. (2011). The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance. Industry and Innovation, 18(3), 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rexhäuser, S., & Rammer, C. (2014). Environmental innovations and firm profitability: Unmasking the Porter hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57(1), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., & Verdolini, E. (2015). Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors. Energy Policy, 83, 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soltmann, C., Stucki, T., & Woerter, M. (2015). The impact of environmentally friendly innovations on value added. Environmental and Resource Economics, 62, 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. StataCorp. (2015). The STATA manual 2015. Texas: Stata.Google Scholar
  29. Tiwari, R., & Buse, S. (2007). Barriers to innovation in SMEs: Can the internationalization of R&D mitigate their effects? Hamburg University of Technology working paper no. 50, Hamburg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessAugsburg University of Applied SciencesAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations