Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Eco-Innovation pp 28–50Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Barriers to eco-innovation

  • Chapter

Abstract

Although many potentially significant eco-innovations exist, many of them leading to competitive gains and social and environmental benefits, they are underused, that is, they do not diffuse easily and quickly in the economy. Many factors (barriers and/or absence of drivers) contribute to this.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Rennings, K. (2000) ‘Redefining innovation: Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics’, Ecological Economics, 32: 319–332;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Del Río, P. (2004) ‘Public policy and clean technology promotion: The synergy between environmental economics and evolutionary economics of technological change’, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7 (2): 200–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Erdmann, G. (2005) ‘Innovation, time and sustainability’ in M. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp (eds), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (Berlin: Springer), p. 199.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, for example, Arthur, W. B. (1988) ‘Competing technologies: an overview’ in Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory (London: Pinter), 590–607.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2006) ‘A policy approach to the environmental impacts of technological lock-in’, Ecological Economics, 58 (4): 717–742;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. and Unruh, G. C. (2006), ‘Technology stability and change: An integrated evolutionary approach’, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. XL, No. 3: 707–42;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Unruh, G. C. and Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2006) ‘Globalizing Carbon Lock-in’, Energy Policy, 34 (10): 1185–1197;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Könnölä, T., Unruh, G. C. and Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2006). ‘Prospective voluntary agreements for escaping techno-institutional lock-in’, Ecological Economics, 57 (2): 239–252;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Del Río, P. and Unruh, G. C. (2007) ‘Overcoming the lock-out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: the cases of wind and solar electricity’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 11 (7), 1498–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. and Könnölä, T. (2008) ‘Towards a sustainable development through eco-innovation’ in R.A. López (ed.), Progress in Sustainable Development Research (New York: Nova Science Publishers), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Del Río, P. (2002) Industry, Technological Change and Sustainable Development: Patterns Of Adoption of Cleaner Technologies in the Paper Industry, unpublished PhD thesis (in Spanish) (Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid);

    Google Scholar 

  12. Del Río, P. (2005) ‘Analysing the factors influencing clean technology adoption: a study of the Spanish pulp and paper industry’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 14: 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. See, in this respect, the overview of the literature between 1990 and 2007 carried out by Montalvo, C. (2008) ‘General wisdom concerning the factors affecting the adoption of cleaner technologies: A survey 1990–2007’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 7–13;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Del Río, P. (2007) ‘An overview of the empirical literature on the determinants of innovation and adoption of sustainable technologies’, in R. A. López (ed.), Progress in Sustainable Development Research (New York: Nova Science Publishers), 37–71;

    Google Scholar 

  15. Del Río, P. (2008) ‘The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda’, Ecological Economics (forthcoming), identifies knowledge gaps in and proposes several lines of future research.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kemp, R. and Volpi, M. (2008) ‘The diffusion of clean technologies: a review with suggestions for future diffusion analysis’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ashford, N. (2005a) ‘Government and environmental innovation in Europe and North America’ in Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. (eds) Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (Germany: Springer), 159–174.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. However, other authors claim that the relationship between firm size and eco-innovation follows a U-shape: the largest and the smallest firms are the most environmentally innovative (Hemmelskamp, J. (2000) Environmental Taxes and Standards: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact on Innovation in: Hemmelskamp, J., Leone, F. and Rennings, K. (eds) Innovation-oriented Environmental Regulation: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Analysis (Heidelberg, Germany: Physica Verlag), 303–330.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Seroa da Motta empirically assesses the relevance of foreign ties (origin of capital) on environmental performance, showing a positive relationship (Seroa da Motta, R. (2006) ‘Analyzing the environmental performance of the Brazilian industrial sector’, Ecological Economics, 57: 269–281).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wagner also considers the variable ‘firm legal structure’, that is, whether the company is in sole proprietorship or not. However, a priori, it is difficult to find any causal relation between this variable and eco-innovation (Wagner, M. (2008) ‘Empirical influence of environmental management on innovation: evidence from Europe’, Ecological Economics, 66(2–3), 392–402).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garrod, B. (1998) ‘Are economic globalization and sustainable development compatible? Business strategy and the role of the multinational enterprise’, International Journal of Sustainable Development 1 (1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. For example, in an empirical analysis of Portuguese firms, Conceicao et al show that development of environmental innovation is positively associated with the firm’s exports share (Conceicao, P., Heitor, M. and Vieira, P. (2006) ‘Are environmental concerns drivers of innovation? Interpreting Portuguese innovation data to foster environmental foresight’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 73, 266–276).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Berkhout, F. (2005) ‘Technological Regimes, Environmental performance and innovation systems: Tracing the links’ in M. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp (eds) Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (Berlin: Springer), 57–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Smolny, W. (2003) ‘Determinants of Innovation Behaviour and Investment: Estimates for West-German Manufacturing Firms’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12, p. 449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Horbach, J. (2008) ‘Determinants of Environmental Innovation–New Evidence from German Panel Data Sources’, Research Policy, 37 (1), p. 165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Doonan, J., Lanoie, P. and Laplante, B. (2005) ‘Determinants of environmental performance in the Canadian pulp and paper industry: an assessment from inside the industry’, Ecological Economics 55 (1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Luken, R. and Van Rompaey, F. (2008) ‘Drivers for and barriers to environmentally sound technology adoption by manufacturing plants in nine developing countries’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koefoed, M. and Buckley, C. (2008) ‘Clean technology transfer: A case study from the South African metal finishing industry 2000–2005’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 78–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Visser, R., Jongen, M. and Zwetsloot, G. (2008) ‘Business-driven innovations towards more sustainable chemical products’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fresner, J. Sage, J. and Wolf, P. (2002) ‘A benchmarking of 50 Austrian companies from the galvanizing and painting sector: Current implementation of cleaner production options and active environmental management’ (ERCP, Cork, Ireland).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sartorius, C. (2008) ‘Promotion of stationary fuel cells on the basis of subjectively perceived barriers and drivers’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cagno, E. and Trucco, P. (2008) ‘Cleaner technology transfer in the Italian galvanic industry: economic and know-how issues’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 32–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yüksel, H. (2008) ‘An empirical evaluation of cleaner production practices in Turkey’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Many authors have proposed taxonomies on the environmental strategies followed by the firms. According to Faucheux et al (1998), firms which do not react to new environmental challenges follow an inactive (or passive) strategy and those firms which see environmental issues as an additional cost that should be minimized (and not as a business opportunity) follow a defensive (or reactive) strategy and usually invest a significant amount of money and efforts to challenge environmental regulation. Finally, proactive firms mostly view environmental issues as a business opportunity and usually anticipate the implementation of environmental regulation (Faucheux, S., Nicolai, I and O’Connor, M. (1998) ‘Globalisation, competitiveness, governance and environment: What prospects for Sustainable Development?’ in Faucheux, S., Gowdy, J. and Nicolai, I. (eds) Sustainability and Firms: Technological Change and the Changing Regulatory Environment (Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar), 1–40).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press).

    Google Scholar 

  36. ADL (2005) ‘The Innovation High Ground’, Arthur D. Little, http://www.adl.com/ (home page), date accessed 14 November 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Frondel, M., Horbach, J. and Rennings, K. (2005) ‘What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence from Germany’, European Congress of Environmental and Resource Economics, Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Horbach, J. (2005) ‘Methodological aspects of an indicator system for sustainable innovation’ in J. Horbach (ed.) Indicator Systems for Sustainable Innovation (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag), 1–20.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Könnölä, T. and Unruh, G. C. (2007) ‘Really Changing the Course: The Limitations of Environmental Management Systems for Innovation’, The Journal of Business Strategy and the Environment, 16 (8), 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kivimaa, P. (2007) ‘The Determinants of Environmental Innovation: the impacts of Environmental Policies on the Nordic Pulp, Paper and Packaging Industries’, European Environment, 17: 92–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Visser, R., Jongen, M. and Zwetsloot, G. (2008) ‘Business-driven innovations towards more sustainable chemical products’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), S85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lanjouw, J. and Moddy, O. (1996) ‘Innovation and the international diffusion of environmentally responsive technology’, Research Policy, 25, 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. The relevance of the user-supplier relationship in encouraging eco-innovation has been empirically tested and confirmed (see Dupuy, D. (1997) ‘Technological change and environmental policy: The diffusion of environmental technology’, Growth and Change, 28, 49–66;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. and Van Dijken, K. et al (1999) Adoption of Environmental Innovations (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers)).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Cabezudo, S., Cadenas, A. and Del Río, P. (2000) ‘Las fuerzas del cambio empresarial en medio ambiente’, Ekonomi Gerizan, 7, 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Visser, R., Jongen, M. and Zwetsloot, G. (2008) ‘Business-driven innovations towards more sustainable chemical products’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bergmann, A., Hanley, N. and Wright, R. (2006) ‘Valuing the attributes of renewable energy investments’, Energy Policy, 34 (9), 1004–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ashford, N. A. (2005b) ‘Pathways to Sustainability: Evolution or Revolution?’ in M. van Geenhuizen, D. V. Gibson, and M. V. Heitor (eds) Regional Development and Conditions for Innovation in the Network Society (Purdue University Press), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Faucheux S. and Nicolai I. (1998) ‘Les firmes face au dévelopment soutenable: changement technologique et gouvernance au sein de la dynamique industrielle’, Revue d’Economie Industrielle, 83: 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Kemp, R. (1994) ‘Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability’, Futures, 26(10), 1023–46; Dupuy (1997), op. cit.; Del Río (2008), op. cit.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kerr, S. and Newell, R. (2001) ‘Policy-induced technology adoption: evidence from the US lead phasedown’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 51 (3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jaffe and Stavins found that adoption decisions were more sensitive to up-front cost considerations than to longer term operating expenses. The costs of the technology had a significant and negative impact on adoption and this influence was three times as large as that of energy prices. In much the same vein, Anderson and Newell (2003) observed that 40 per cent of plants were more influenced by the impact of initial costs than by annual cost savings–especially for SMEs (Jaffe, A. B. and Stavins, R. N. (1995) ‘Dynamic incentives of environmental regulations: The effects of alternative policy instruments on technology diffusion’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, S43–S63).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Colombo, M. G. and Mosconi, R. (1995) ‘Complementarity and cumulative learning effects in the early diffusion of muliple technologies’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 43 (1), 13–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Unruh, G. C. (2000) ‘Understanding Carbon Lock-in’, Energy Policy, 28, 817–30;

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IE Business School, Spain

    Dr Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla

  2. Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Spain

    Dr Pablo Río del González

  3. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), Spain

    Dr Totti Könnölä

Authors
  1. Dr Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dr Pablo Río del González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr Totti Könnölä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2009 Javier Carrillo-Hermosilla, Pablo del Río González & Totti Könnölä

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del González, P.R., Könnölä, T. (2009). Barriers to eco-innovation. In: Eco-Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244856_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation