Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração51(2016)276–287
Environmental
management
Relationship
between
eco-innovations
and
the
impact
on
business
performance:
an
empirical
survey
research
on
the
Brazilian
textile
industry
As
rela¸cões
entre
eco-inova¸cões
e
o
impacto
na
performance
empresarial:
uma
pesquisa
empírica
na
indústria
têxtil
brasileira
Las
relaciones
entre
las
ecoinnovaciones
y
su
efecto
en
el
desempe˜no
empresarial:
un
estudio
empírico
en
la
industria
textil
brasile˜na
Marcus
Vinicius
de
Oliveira
Brasil
a,∗,
Mônica
Cavalcanti
Sá
de
Abreu
b,
José
Carlos
Lázaro
da
Silva
Filho
b,
Aurio
Lucio
Leocádio
baUniversidadeFederaldoCariri,JuazeirodoNorte,CE,Brazil bUniversidadeFederaldoCeará,Fortaleza,CE,Brazil
Received23January2014;accepted28February2016
Abstract
Thisstudydrawsfromtheresource-basedtheoryandinvestigatestheinterrelationshipsbetweenthreetypesofeco-innovation(process,product, organizational)andtheirimpactonbusinessperformance.Usingastructuralequationdesignwith70samplescollectedfromtextileindustry, researchresultsshowthatbusinessperformanceisaffectedbyproductandorganizationaleco-innovations.Theprocessandproducteco-innovations significantlyinfluencetheeffectsoforganizationaleco-innovation,andthereareconnectionsbetweenprocessandproducteco-innovations.Research revealsthateachtypeofeco-innovationhasitsownattributes,determinants,andcontributionstobusinessperformance.Studyonthetextilesector broadensthediscussionofinterdependenceandco-evolutionaryrelationshipsamongdifferenttypesofeco-innovationanddemonstratesthatthe developmentofefficientinnovationprogramsrequiresaholisticviewandorganizationalandtechnologicalcapabilities.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Sustainableinnovation;Eco-innovation;Businessperformance;Textileindustry
Resumo
Esteestudousaateoriabaseadaemrecursoseinvestigaasinter-relac¸õesentretrêstiposdeecoinovac¸ão(processo,produto,organizacional)eo seuimpactonaperformanceempresarial.Comousodeumamodelagemdeequac¸õesestruturaisecomumaamostraqueenvolveu70empresas têxteis,osresultadosdapesquisaindicamqueaperformanceempresarialéafetadaporecoinovac¸õesdeprodutoeecoinovac¸õesorganizacionais. Aecoinovac¸ãoorganizacionalinfluenciasignificativamenteosefeitosdasecoinovac¸õesdeprocessoedeprodutoeexistemrelac¸õesentreas ecoinovac¸õesdeprocessosedeprodutos.Apesquisarevelaquecadatipodeecoinovac¸ãotemseusprópriosatributosedeterminanteseque
∗Correspondingauthorat:UniversidadeFederaldoCariri,CentrodeCiênciasSociaisAplicadas–CCSA,AvenidaTenenteRaimundoRocha,s/n,63048-080
JuazeirodoNorte,CE,Brazil.
E-mail:marcus.brasil@ufca.edu.br(M.V.deOliveiraBrasil).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo –FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.06.003
contribuempositivamenteparaaperformanceempresarial.Oestudonosetortêxtilampliaadiscussãosobreainterdependênciadasrelac¸ões coevolutivasentreos diferentestipos deecoinovac¸ãoedemonstra que odesenvolvimento deprogramasdeinovac¸ão eficientesrequeremo aprimoramentodascapacidadesorganizacionaisetecnológicas.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave:Inovac¸ãosustentável;Eco-inovac¸ão;Performanceempresarial;Indústriatêxtil
Resumen
Enestetrabajoseutilizalateoríabasadaenlosrecursosyseestudianlasinterrelacionesentretrestiposdeecoinnovación(proceso,producto, organizacional)ysuimpactoeneldesempe˜noempresarial.Seutilizanmodelosdeecuacionesestructurales,conunamuestrade70empresasdel sectortextil.Losresultadosindicanqueeldesempe˜nocorporativoesafectadoporlasecoinnovacionesdeproductoyecoinnovaciones organiza-cionales.Laecoinnovaciónorganizacionalinfluyesignificativamenteenlosefectosdelasecoinnovacionesdeprocesoydeproducto.Además, existenrelacionesentrelasecoinnovacionesdeprocesosydeproductos.Sesugierequecadatipodeecoinnovacióntienesuspropiosatributosy determinantes,yquecontribuyepositivamentealdesempe˜nodelaempresa.Elestudioenlaindustriatextilprofundizaeldebatesobrela inter-dependenciadelasrelacionescoevolutivasentrelosdistintostiposdeecoinnovación,ydemuestraqueeldesarrollodeprogramasdeinnovación eficientesrequiereelperfeccionamientodelascapacidadesorganizacionalesytecnológicas.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Innovaciónsustentable;Ecoinnovación;Desempe˜noempresarial;Industriatextil
Introduction
InnovationEstablishesNewFormsofCompetitionand Coop-eration,andisbasedonchangesinprocesses,product(goods andservices) and management models. Companies with dif-ferentiated technological capabilities have a set of valuable organizational resources that are rare and difficult to imitate (Atalay,Anafarta, &Sarvan, 2013).Theseresources maybe heterogeneous(i.e.inlargerquantitiesanddifferentiatedwhen compared tothe competition) and immobile (cannotbe pur-chasedeasilyonthemarket).Organizational structuredefines hierarchy,resources,capabilities,andthedecision-making pro-cess(Barney&Hesterly,2007;Cook,Bhamra,&Lemon,2006). The confluence of the discussion on innovation with the demands of a global society for sustainability derives from the concept of eco-innovation (Rennings, 2000). This type of innovation is characterized by creation of something new inordertoreduce environmentalimpacts andthus influences socialattitudesandculturalandinstitutional values (Manzini &Vezzoli,2011;OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationand Development[OECD],2009).Theuseofrenewableenergy tech-nologies,developmentofpollutionpreventionsystems,organic agriculture,creationofgreeninvestmentfundsandcarbon emis-siontechnologiesareexamplesof eco-innovation(Arundel& Kemp,2009;Ekins,2010;Kemp&Pearson,2008;Kemp,2009). Studiesoneco-innovationbycompaniesshouldtakea holis-ticviewintheirdevelopment,withtheunderstandingthatthis mayoccurindifferentways,indifferentobjectsandwith spe-cificattributes(Carrilo-Hermosilla,delRío,&Könnölä,2010; Mac¸aneiro&da Cunha,2012).In additiontodescriptiveand prescriptiveanalysisofthetypesofeco-innovation,most stud-iesfocus on the developmentand performance of individual eco-innovationprograms(e.g.,Anttonen,Halme,Houtbeckers,
& Nurkka,2013;Pujari, 2006),such as:innovation products or services (Chou, Chen, & Conley, 2012; Xing, Ness, & Lin,2013),technologicalinnovations(Moore&Ausley,2004; Tseng,Wang,Chiu,Geng,&Li,2013),infrastructureandpolicy innovations(Rehfeld,Rennings,&Ziegler,2007;Shin,Curtis, Huisingh, & Zwetsloot, 2008). Therefore, understanding the interrelationshipsthat existamongthe differenttypesof eco-innovationisvitalforitsdevelopmentandimplantation.
Cheng,Yang,andSheu(2014),inspiredbyBarney’s(1991) resource-basedview(RBV),proposedtoanalyzethe relation-shipsbetweenthetypesofeco-innovationsusingthetypology proposed by Cheng and Shiu (2012). In this typology, eco-innovationcanmanifest itselfinthreetypes:process,product andorganizational. Theeco-processes arelinked tonew pro-duction methods, including zero CO2 emissions, zero losses
and eco-efficiency in the management of natural resources. Theeco-productsincludeinnovationsviaproductimprovement or radical changes through eco-design, sustainable technolo-gies and reverse engineering to minimize the environmental impact of these products. The organizational eco-innovation, meanwhile, involvesnew programs and techniques linked to organizationalsystems,andincludelifecycleassessmenttools, cleanerproductionandsustainableconsumption.
ofchemicalwaste,afterthefabricisdyedusingrunningwater, animalrightsandtheprotectionofthelocalcommunity.
Abreu, de Castro, de Soares, and da Silva Filho (2009) pointed out that textile companies which take a responsible stance on environmental andsocial issues can increase their profitabilityandreduceoperationalcosts,whichleadstoa com-petitiveadvantage. Abreu,deCastro,deSoares,anddaSilva Filho(2012)complementthisthoughtwithconcernsregarding thehealthandsafetyofworkersandthecompetitionthatAsian lowcostproductsimpose,whichaffectthecompetitivenessof theBraziliantextileindustry.
Therehasbeenanobservedgraduallossofcompetitiveness intheBraziliantextile industry.Thenational industryof syn-theticfibersandsilkhasbeensuffocatedbystronginternational competition(Rangel,DaSilva,&Costa,2010;deSouza,Cattini, &Barbieri,2014)and,toalesserextent,theproductsproduced withnaturalfibers (i.e.cotton).Anindustrial policythat sup-portseco-innovation,thatprotectsinnovationandthatpromotes sustainablemanagementdesigns(Ekins,2010)istherefore cru-cial. This means that eco-innovation goes beyondregulatory issuesofenvironmentalprotectionandpollutionpreventionin theirprocesses,involvingthecreationofacultureofconscious consumption and the development of differentiated products (Coelho, 2015;de Ferreira &Kiperstok, 2007;Mac¸aneiro & daCunha,2012).
This study, therefore, seeks to fulfill a gap while focus-ing on a wide view of the interrelationships between the differenttypesofeco-innovationsandtheirimpactonthe per-formanceoftextilecompanies.StudiesonBraziliancompanies are stillfocused onthe definition ofthe elementsof an envi-ronmentconducivetoinnovation(MachadoNetto,Carvalho,& Heinzmann,2012);innovativecapacitiesthathavebeen accu-mulatedbasedondeliberatestrategiesoftechnologicallearning (Figueiredo,Andrade,&Brito, 2010)orevaluationof organi-zational,market and,operationalfactorsandtheperformance ofthedevelopmentprocessofnewproducts(Boehe,Milan,& Toni,2009).
In this context,we seekto answer the following research question:istherearelationshipbetweenproduct,processand organizational eco-innovations? Does the implementation of eco-innovationsaffecttheperformanceofBraziliantextile com-panies?ThisstudyhighlightstheneedfortheBraziliantextile industry toinvest inresearch andproduct development, eco-innovative processes and services, thus enabling it to meet marketrequirementsandprovideapositiveimpactonbusiness performance.Thebasicideaistotransformthechallengesof reducingenvironmentalandsocialimpactonabusiness oppor-tunitywithapositiveimpactonbusinessperformance(Boons, Montalvo,Quist,&Wagner,2013;Ekins,2010).
This study was structured as follows. The next section is a literature review of organizational, process and product eco-innovation,andtheimpactofinnovationonbusiness per-formance.Then,wepresentamethodologyforcollectingand analysing data from 70 textile companies and the analysis through structural equations. The main results are presented and the discussion focused on the comparison with the eco-innovation andperformancemodel proposed byCheng etal.
(2014), which was tested on the Thai industry. Finally, we present conclusionsand implications for waste policy devel-opment. Lastly, we have the conclusion, with the limitations of the study and its contribution to the area of sustainable innovations.
Typesofeco-innovationandtheirrelationshipwith
businessperformance
Companies shouldadopt acomprehensiveapproachtothe developmentandimplementationofeco-innovationprograms. The theory of socio-technical systems argues that the imple-mentation of innovations should include social issues and managementsystemstooptimizecorporateperformance.Lam (2005) argues that companies should be able to adjust and organizetheirinternalstructuresandactivitiestosupport tech-nologicalaspectsof eco-innovations.BrunnermeirandCohen (2003)andHorbach (2008)alsostatethattheimplementation of an efficient eco-innovation program cannot solely be the responsibility of the Research and Development Department (R&D).
Knowledgeofthetypesofeco-innovationthatcomplement eachotherisalsocriticalinorderforcompaniestoachieve bene-fitsintermsofproductivityandcompetitiveness.Morelli(2006) arguesthateco-innovationshouldalsotakeinto consideration the cultureandtheorganizationmanagementdesigns,aswell as the socialand technologicalaspects involved. Thismeans that an effective management should include decent wages, respectforestablishedworkinghoursandhumanrights, includ-inggenderequalityandtherejectionofchildlabor(Jonesetal., 2012).
Eco-innovativecompaniesmusthavetheabilitytodelay sat-isfying their priorities, which are usually financial, in favor of managing resources in order to maximize their useful-ness to a larger number of people (Hirschmann & Mueller, 2011).Thistypeofinnovativemotivationinindustrialprocesses resultsinproactivebehaviorregardingenvironmentalandsocial issues.
According to the framework developed by Cheng et al. (2014), organizational, process and product eco-innovation require dynamiccapabilitiesonaresource-basedview(RBV) andmayaffectcompanyperformance.Thesecapabilitiesshould include an organizational structure that favorsenvironmental protectionandadoptscleanandeco-efficienttechnologies.The relationship between eco-innovation and performance mani-fests itself beyond the reduction of environmentalrisks, and canalso reducecosts,increasesales withdifferentiated prod-ucts,improveprofitmargins,brandvalueandreputationofthe companywithinsociety(Klewitz,Zeyen,&Hansen,2012).
Anorganizationpromotessustainabilitywhenitencourages theincreaseofsocial,economicandenvironmentalcapitalinits policies(Dyllick&Hockerts,2002).Organizationsthatare com-mittedandqualifiedinimplementingeco-innovationsdevelop trainingandeducationalprogramsthatarefocusedon environ-mentalmanagement,designofinnovativeproducts,andthatalso includeorganizationaleffortsdesignedtoreducesocialand eco-nomicimpacts,withaviewtoreachcontinuousimprovementof processesandproductsandtheirrelationshipwithstakeholders (Cheng&Shiu,2012).
Organizational eco-innovations include, therefore, man-agement designs concerned with the economic, social and environmental dimension, which reduce administrative and transactioncostsandfurtherincreaseproductivity.Farias,Costa, Freitas, andCândido (2012) emphasize that largecompanies tendtoinvestsignificantresourcesinR&D,andthereforefindit easiertoincorporateorganizationaleco-innovations.Incontrast, microandsmallbusinessesusecreativityintheirprocessesand productsthroughrecyclingandreuseofmaterials.
Theimplementationofnewprocessesinvolvingthereduction of the environmental impact can also be called process eco-innovation,whichcanbeexemplifiedbyrecyclingmaterials,as wellaswithreplacementofinputsandrawmaterials(Cheng& Shiu,2012).Therefore,processeco-innovationsreduce produc-tioncostsbyadoptingtherecyclingandreuseofrawmaterials. Thedevelopmentof processeco-innovationrequiresthe inte-gration of materials that contemplate human health and the reductionofenvironmentalimpacts,andthatarecompliantwith regulations established by government agencies. Pujari et al. (2003)emphasize theimportanceofplanning costsand mini-mizingenvironmentalrisks.
Product eco-innovations focus on the product life cycle, seekingtoreduceenvironmentalimpactbyreducingthe con-sumptionofmaterialandenergy,whichisachievedbyincreasing productivityandincreasingalsotheefficiencyofproduction sys-tems(Cooketal.,2006).Inthissense,producteco-innovation takesintoaccounttheenvironment’sabilitytorecoverfromthe removal of material andthe finaldestination of the product. AccordingtoJanssonandMarell(2010),consumershavebeen payingspecial attention toenvironmentallyresponsible prod-ucts.Textilesusingorganiccottonandrecyclablepackagingare examplesofproducteco-innovations.
Producteco-innovationalsoincludestheredesignand devel-opment of products that use less energy, reduce waste and containloweramountsofsubstancesthatareharmfultohuman health(Ekins,2010).However,Pujari(2006)pointsoutthe diffi-cultyofreconcilingthedevelopmentofproductsthatdonotharm theenvironmentwiththosethataretechnicallyandeconomically viable.
Industrialproductsandservicesareresultofasocio-technical processthatisinfluencedbyactorswhoparticipateinit(Morelli, 2006).Thesocio-technicalsystemisestablishedbythepractices andstandardized rules that are shared by networksof actors (financial institutions, clients, suppliers and government). In general,producteco-innovationgoesagainstthepre-established socio-technical system since it transcends limits established bylegislation(Tukker&Tischner,2006).Thechange caused
by product eco-innovations influences individuals and their well-being, as well as their ability totake advantage of new technologies.
Theeco-product aimstodeliverspecial benefitstoits cus-tomers,whicharemainlyrelatedtoenvironmentalissues.The eco-product development strategy must combine economic, socialandenvironmentalobjectivesthroughoutproduction pro-cess, thereby leveraging the performance of the organization (Pujarietal.,2003).Theperformanceofthecompanydepends onuniquehistoricalconditions,suchasapioneeringspiritand thetrajectoryadopted.
Theperformanceevaluationincludesmarket,productionand environmentdimensions(Pujarietal.,2003).Regarding “mar-ket”dimension,weevaluatethecost-benefitratio,cashflowand profitability.The“production”dimensionincludesthe compo-sitionofitsproductivefactors,trainingsystems,infrastructure andtechnologyadopted.The“environmental”dimensionisthe result of the management of environmental aspects. Innova-tiveeffortintheorganizationshouldtakeintoconsiderationthe environmentalaspects,whichfocusonreducingtheimpactsof productsandprocessesbyadoptinganddevelopinglowcarbon technologies(Baumgartner&Ebner,2010).
Pujarietal.(2003)reinforcetheneedforcompaniesto incor-porate environmental indicators in their performance and to conductbenchmarkinginordertoefficientlyevaluateacomplete performance.Theseperformancedimensionsincludeincreased productivityandprofitability,preservationoftheenvironment, welfareandhealthofworkersandthecommunitysurrounding thecompanythroughtheproductionofgoodsandservicesthat meetcustomerrequirements(Atalayetal.,2013;Pujari,2006; Sezen&C¸ankaya,2013).
Performancecanbemeasuredusingvariablesthatarerelated totheresultsofinnovations,whichevaluatetheperformanceof newproductsinthecompany’soverallperformance.These out-putvariablesinvolvethepercentageofnewproducts(launched in the last3 or 5 years)in the sales or market share of the company(Brito,Brito, &Morganti,2009;Chaney, Devinney, & Winer, 1991). Companies accumulate knowledge and this organizational learningprocesscanresult inthedevelopment ofaproduct,processorservicethatisnoteasilycopiedbythe competition(Barney&Hesterly,2007;Cooketal.,2006).
Atalayetal.(2013)arguethatorganizationaland technolog-icalinnovationspositively impactperformanceandcanmake companies more profitable,which is similartothe argument byGalendeanddelaFuente(2003),whoconnectacompany’s internalfactorstoitsabilitytoinnovate.ChengandShiu(2012) and Cheng etal. (2014) demonstrate using empirical studies thatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweenthethreetypesof eco-innovation(product, processandorganizational)and per-formance, which is based on the following variables: return oninvestment,marketshareofnewproductswithlower envi-ronmental and social impact, profitability and sales of these products.
Product Eco-innovation
Business Performance Process
Eco-innovation H1
H3
H2
H4
H5 H6
Organizational Eco-innovation
Fig.1.Conceptualdesignadoptedinthefieldofresearch. Source:Chengetal.(2014).
Sezen & C¸ankaya, 2013). Based on the theoretical ground-work presented, Fig. 1 shows our structural equation model (SEM)proposedmodel andthehypotheses. InthisSEM, we observethetheoreticalrelationshipbetweenthethreetypesof eco-innovationandbusinessperformance.
H1. Thereisarelationshipbetweenorganizationalandprocess eco-innovation.
H2. Thereisarelationshipbetweenorganizationalandproduct eco-innovation.
H3. Thereisarelationshipbetweenproductandprocess eco-innovation.
H4. There is arelationshipbetween process eco-innovation andbusinessperformance.
H5. There isa relationshipbetweenproduct eco-innovation andbusinessperformance.
H6. There is a relationship between organizational eco-innovationsandbusinessperformance.
These research hypotheses make it possible to study the directandindirecteffectsof eco-innovationsonbusiness per-formance. Following the model proposed by Cheng et al. (2014),theprocess,productandorganizationaleco-innovations directly improve business performance. Organizational inno-vations indirectly affect performance via mediators, such as the eco-innovation of processes and products. The product eco-innovation enables the company to incorporate inno-vative organizational activities in the development of new products and services. Similarly, these activities also facili-tate the process eco-innovationshaving apositive impact on performance.
Researchmethod
Thisresearchisquantitative,descriptiveandexploratoryin natureandwasperformedusingasurveyoftextilecompanies. Thequestionnaireusedwastranslatedfromthestudyperformed byChengandShiu (2012)andChengetal.(2014).Thebuilt andvalidatedscalesweretheresultofameta-analysison “eco-innovation”,followedbyin-depthinterviewswithexpertsinthe areaofinnovationandfocusgroupsfordiscussionofthetopic. Theconstructbusiness performancewasbased onthestudies developedbyImandWorkman(2004),andusedthefollowing
indicators:returnoninvestment,sales,profitabilityandmarket share.Theoriginalquestionnairewastranslatedbytwoexperts in the areaof innovation andsustainability, bothwith afirm graspoftheEnglishlanguage.
The questionnairewasdivided intotwo partsbasedonthe theoreticallywell-differentiatedcategories.Thefirstcontained 29questions,groupedintheLikertscaleof1–5points,ranging from“stronglydisagree”(1)to“stronglyagree”(5),and compa-nieswereaskedtoindicateissuesrelatedtoproduct,processand organizationaleco-innovation,aswellasbusinessperformance. TheresearchquestionsusedaredescribedinTable2.The sec-ondpartofthequestionnairerequiredthefollowinginformation fromtheparticipants:locationoftheplant,periodofoperation, sizeandbusinessactivityinthetextilechain.
WiththesupportoftheBrazilianTextileIndustry Associa-tion (ABIT),thesurvey wasconductedbothelectronically,as wellas directlywithmanagersof textilecompanies.Initially, weemployedtheelectronicform,usingtheGoogleDocstoolto assemble thequestionnaire. UsingtheCustomerRelationship Management (CRM) systemfromABIT, emailswere sentto allaffiliatescontainingalinktotheelectronicform.According toCRMmanagement,inAugust2014,intotal51,931e-mails weresent,however,only3093associatesopenedtheemail,and only31questionnaireswereanswered(1%).Therewasanother attemptintheABITofCaxiasdoSul(RS)andMaringa(PR), where225questionnaireswereapplied,obtainingahigherrate ofreturn,with39(18%)completedquestionnaires.
The final sample reached 70 participants, with whom we developedamultivariatestatisticalanalysisusingSPSS20and
SmartPLS3.0software,andthelatterwasusedtoanalyzethe structural equations.The regression methodof ordinary least squares(OLS)performedusingtheSmartPLS3.0hasthe advan-tageofnotrequiringparametricdataandcanbeusedwithsmall samples.
Fortheexploratoryfactoranalysis(EFA),weusedthemethod ofthemaincomponentswithvarimaxrotation,whilethe
Cron-bach’s Alpha was calculatedto confirm the reliability of the
constructs.WealsoconductedKaiser–Meyer–Olkintest(KMO) andBartlett’ssphericityindex.Thefirstindicatesthat correla-tionsbetweenpairsarenotexplainedbyothervariables(base 0.5),whilethesecondtestchecksforanappropriateamountof significantcorrelationinthecorrelationmatrix(Corrar,Paulo, &DiasFilho,2009).
The structure obtained using the EFA was confirmed by theconfirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA).Thestructuralequation model(SEM)assumesthatthereisarelationshipbetweenasetof variables(product,processandorganizationaleco-innovations andbusinessperformance)anditslatentfactors,comingafter theCFAanalysis.
theestimatesofstructuralfactors,factorloadings,variancesof errorandcoefficientsofdetermination(Marôco,2010).
Results
The profile of the participating companies can be seen in Table 1. We studied three companies from the North, 6 companiesfromtheNortheast,1 companyfromMidwest,21 companiesfromtheSoutheastand39companiesfromtheSouth. ThereisaconcentrationofcompaniessurveyedintheSouthand Southeast(85.7%ofthesample)regionsofBrazil.Thisbiascan beconsideredsignificantandcouldpossiblyleadtotheresults moreculturally andtechnologically influenced bycompanies locatedsouthandsoutheastregions.
However,thereisnohomogeneityinthedistributionof tex-tilecompaniesinBrazil. AccordingtoBancodoNordestedo Brasil [BNB] (2014), textile companies are concentrated in Southeast(48.8%)andSouth(30.4%),andtogetherare respon-siblefor79.2%oftheBraziliantextileindustry.TheNortheast has14.3%ofthesecompanies,theMidwesthas5.5%andthe Northhasonly1%oftextilecompanies.Thus,thedistributionof thesurveyedcompaniesreflectstheirheterogeneousgeographic distributionacrossBrazil.
Thecompanies’lifetimesshowthat88.6%havebeen operat-ingforover5years,i.e.theyarematurecompanies.Companies ofallsizesthatparticipateinthetextileactivityweresurveyed. Includedwithin“otheractivities”are:bed,bathandtable,dyes manufacture andtextile auxiliaries. Therefore, the sample is characterizedby88.6%ofcompaniesthatareolderthan5years,
Table1
Demographicprofileofthesamplestudied.
Characteristics Description Frequency (N=70)
Percentage (%)
Region North 3 4.3
Northeast 6 8.6
Center-West 1 1.4
Southeast 21 30
South 39 55.7
Lifetime Lessthan1year 2 2.8 From1to3years 2 2.8 From3to5years 4 5.8 Morethan5years 62 88.6 Company
size
Micro(withupto19 employees)
24 34.3
Small(20–99 employees)
20 28.6
Medium(100–499 employees)
15 21.4
Large(with500or moreemployees)
11 15.7
Typeof activity
Confection 48 68.6
Spinning 2 2.8
Weaving 3 4.3
Hosiery 4 5.7
Textileprocessing 3 4.3
Others 10 14.3
62.9%microandsmallcompanies,68.6%thatworkinthe gar-mentindustryand55.7%thatarelocatedintheSouthregion.
Themaincomponentsmethodwasusedfortheexploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a varimax rotation. The
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) has a base of 0.5 and
indicates a correlation between pairs that are not explained byothervariables;inthiscasethevalueobtained was0.902. The KMO indicates that the factors found in the joint EFA can satisfactorily describe the variation of the original data.
TheBartlett’ssphericityindexcheckswhetheranappropriate
amount of significantcorrelation ispresent inthe correlation matrix.Thegeneralsignificancetestvalueshouldexceed0.05, for a good EFA. This criterion was also met, and its level of significance was 0.000 (Hair, Black,Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,2009).
Afterextractingthecommonalities,29variablesshowed rea-sonable explanatory power, values above 0.50, as shown in Table 2. According toHairet al.(2009),these variablescan bemaintainedandindicateagoodexplanationpowerregarding thetotalvariance.Fivefactorswereextractedbythematrixof rotatedcomponents.TheCronbach’salphawas0.972andeach constructshowedanacceptableCronbach’salphaofcloseto1– producteco-innovationfocusedoneco-design(0.943); organi-zationaleco-innovation(0.943),processeco-innovation(0.890), producteco-innovationfocusedoneco-efficiency(0.768),and business performance(0.960)–,whichdemonstratesthe reli-abilityoftheconstructs’dimensions(Corraretal.,2009).
Weobservedthat77%ofthetotalcumulativevariancecanbe explainedbythesefactors,andeigenvaluesgreaterthan1were considered. This percentageindicates that the variables were wellselectedfromaconceptualpointof view.ForHairetal. (2009,p.115),“enoughfactorstosuitaspecifiedpercentageof explainedvariance,usually60%ormore,”areneeded.Wealso submittedittotheCronbach’salphareliabilitytest,wherethe minimumvalueforexploratoryresearchis0.6.
Whileanalyzingthefactorialscoresofthe5factorsresulting fromthematrixofrotatedcomponents,allvariablespresented a score of above 0.50, which is minimum acceptable value, accordingtotherecommendationprovidedbyHairetal.(2009). Factors1and5 canbeconsideredtwopartsof thesame con-struct:producteco-innovation,sincefactor1meetsthevariables EPD1, EPD2, EPD3, EPD4, EPD5, EPD7 andfactor 5 con-gregatesthevariablesEDP10,EPD6,EPD8andEPD9.Thus, theelementsforeco-innovationintheBraziliantextileindustry involve product attributes, organization, process, and perfor-mance, whichconfirms the constructs foundby Cheng etal. (2014).
Toanalyzethestructuralequationsmodel,weinitially ver-ified the multicollinearityusing the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF),i.e.aVIFabove5.00isconsideredunacceptableand indi-catestheexistenceofmulticollinearityamongthefactors(Hair etal.,2014).TheVIFvaluesbetweenconstructsareacceptable, whereEOandEPwas1.000;EOandEPD2.298;EPandEPD 2.298;EOandPF2.416;andEPDandPF2.416.Thestructural equationmodeltestedcanbeseeninFig.2.
Table2
Combinationoffactorswiththerespectivescoresbythematrixrotatedcomponents.a
Factors Variables Meaning Score Commonalities α
Factor1–product eco-innovation focusedon eco-design
EPD1 Onseveraloccasions,thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendly productsbythecompanyismarkedbynewtechnologiestosimplifytheir packaging.
0.818 0.849 0.943
EPD2 Thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsbythecompanyis continuouslymarkedbynewtechnologiestosimplifyitsconstruction.
0.711 0.783
EPD3 Thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsbythecompanyis constantlyevidencedbynewtechnologiestosimplifyitscomponents.
0.738 0.820
EPD4 Thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsbythecompanyis successivelyemphasizedbynewtechnologiesthatcaneasilyrecycleits components.
0.782 0.859
EPD5 Thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsbythecompanyis oftenmarkedbynewtechnologiesthatcaneasilybreakdownitsmaterials.
0.724 0.770
EPD7 Thecompanyexploresnewtechnologiesthatusenaturalmaterialsinthe developmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts.
0.541 0.565
Factor2– eco-organizational
EO1 Newsystemstomanagetheeco-innovationinourcompanyareused. 0.714 0.678 0.943 EO2 Theuseofeco-innovationisoneofthemanagementpoliciesofourcompany. 0.769 0.767
EO3 Inourcompany,wecollectinformationonthetrendsofeco-innovations. 0.783 0.767 EO4 Thecompanyisactivelyinvolvedineco-innovationactivities. 0.700 0.775 EO5 Informationoneco-innovationissharedwiththeemployeesofourcompany. 0.641 0.746 EO6 Theconceptofeco-innovationhasbeenappliedtoourbusinessmanagement. 0.711 0.816 EO7 Inourcompany,weinvestsignificantportionsofResearch&Development
resourcesintoeco-innovation.
0.632 0.727
EO9 Theexperiencesofeco-innovationarecommunicatedbetweenthevarious departmentsinvolvedinthecompany.
0.593 0.756
EO8 Theorganizationseestheexternalpressureregardingtheenvironmentalissues asimportant.
0.607 0.602
Factor3–process eco-innovation
EP1 Thecompany’smanufacturingprocessesareusuallyupdatedtoprotectitfrom contamination.
0.694 0.696 0.890
EP2 Thecompany’smanufacturingprocessesarefrequentlyupdatedtomeet environmentallawstandards.
0.807 0.778
EP3 Inthecompany,newmanufacturingprocessesarecommonlyemployedsoas nottocontaminatetheenvironment.
0.839 0.811
EP6 Inthecompany,recyclingsystemsinthemanufacturingprocessesare commonlyestablished.
0.610 0.714
EP4 Inthecompany,newtechnologiesinmanufacturingprocessesareconstantly introducedtosaveenergy.
0.628 0.670
EP5 Theequipmentinvolvedinthemanufacturingprocessesarealwaysuptodate inthecompanytosaveenergy.
0.627 0.741
Factor4– business performance
PF1 Overthepastthreeyears,oureco-productshadbetterperformancewhen comparedtothecompetition,regardingreturnoninvestments.
0.671 0.850 0.960
PF2 Overthepastthreeyears,oureco-productshadbetterperformancewhen comparedtothecompetition,regardingsales.
0.718 0.881
PF3 Overthepastthreeyears,oureco-productshadbetterperformancewhen comparedtothecompetition,regardingmarketshareobtained.
0.747 0.878
PF4 Overthepastthreeyears,oureco-productshadbetterperformancewhen comparedtothecompetition,regardingprofitability.
0.754 0.927
Factor5–product eco-innovation focusedon eco-efficiency
EPD10 Thedevelopmentofnewgreenproductsisoftenhighlightedinthecompany throughnewtechnologiesthatuseaslittleenergyaspossible.
0.576 0.853 0.768
EPD6 Newtechnologiesinthedevelopmentofnewgreenproductscompanyrarely useprocessedmaterial.
0.659 0.617
EPD8 Thedevelopmentofnewenvironmentallyfriendlyproductsisthenemphasized inthecompanythroughnewtechnologiestoreducewasteasmuchaspossible.
0.738 0.824
EPD9 Thedevelopmentofnewgreenproductsissuccessivelyhighlightedinthe companythroughnewtechnologiestoreducedamagescausedbywasteas muchaspossible.
0.635 0.828
aRotationconvergedin8interactions.α,Cronbach’salpha.
coefficient(β=0.15) betweentheprocess eco-innovationand the business performanceof thecompanyis below the origi-nalvalue(β=0.42).Hairetal.(2014)assertedthatinthecase of“samplesupto1000observations,thepathcoefficientswith
their standardvaluesabove0.20aregenerallysignificant,and thoselessthan0.10areusuallynotsignificant”.
EP1
0.752 0.777
EO9 EO8 EO7 EO6 EO5 EO4 EO3 EO2 EO1
0.420
0.945 PF1
PF2
PF3
PF4 0.952
0.935
0.965 0.400
0.464
0.465
EPD1 EPD10 EPD2 EPD3 EPD4 EPD5 EPD6 EPD7 EPD8 EPD9 Product Eco-innovation
0.565
0.690
0.656
EP2 EP3 EP4 EP5 EP6
0.841 0.782 0.793 0.835
0.813 0.859
0.869 0.670 0.906
0.792 0.800 0.848
0.871
0.853
0.850 0.842 0.826 0.878 0.892 0.845 0.538 0.743 0.701 0.805 Product
Eco-innovation
Business performance Organizational
Eco-innovation
Fig.2.Structuralequationdesign(withthevaluesofCFA)fortheeco-innovationandperformanceintheBraziliantextileindustry.
eco-innovation=>businessperformance,hadap-valueof0.301, inotherwords,itwasnotsignificant.Thisrelationshipwasthus removedfromthedesign.Duringtheanalysisofthefinal struc-turalequationdesign(Fig.2),weobtainedanimprovementof theotherbetas,withtheexceptionofthelinkbetween organi-zationaleco-innovationandproducteco-innovation,asithada practicallyequalbetaofaround0.46.
Weverifiedthediscriminantvalidityofthedesignby compar-ingtherootoftheexplainedvariance(AVE)withthecorrelations (Fornell–Larckercriterion).TherootoftheAVEisdisplayedin thediagonalofthecorrelationmatrixinTable3.Therootofthe AVEofeachconstructisgreaterthanthecorrelationsbetween theconstructs; therefore,the designhas discriminantvalidity andtheresultissatisfactory.Inthedesignforthefinalanalysis, allfactorscoreswereabove0.50andthecoefficientsof deter-mination(R2)werealsoabove0.50.Inacademicresearch,such valueisconsideredrecommendableandacceptable(Hairetal., 2014).
Theaveragevarianceextracted(AVE)mustbegreaterthan 0.50. The composite reliability along withCronbach’s alpha
wasusedtoverifythattheconstructsareindeedreliable.This researchdemonstratedthattheanswersarethuslyfreeofbias.R2
indicatesthequalityofthefitteddesign,withvaluesof0.75,0.50 and0.25beingconsideredassubstantial,moderate,andweak,
Table3
Discriminantvaliditymatrix.
EO EP EPD PF
EO 0.823
EP 0.752 0.821
EPD 0.766 0.749 0.799
PF 0.775 0.721 0.785 0.950
respectively(Hairetal.,2014).Thedesignperformanceindexis showninTable4,whichincludestheExplainedVariance(AVE), thecompositereliability,thedeterminationcoefficient(R2)and thecommonalityofeachconstruct.
According to Hairet al. (2014,p. 186), the commonality (f2)makesitpossibletoevaluatethecontributionofan exoge-nousconstructtothevalueofalatentendogenousvariableR2. Thevaluesof(f2)0.02,0.15and0.35indicateaneffectonthe small,mediumorlargeconstruct,respectively.Thesevaluesare similartoevaluateredundancy(Q2).Intheresearch,weuseda defaultdistanceof9,avaluethatmustbebetween5and10.The redundancyevaluatestheaccuracyoftheadjusteddesign.The
f2andQ2valuesmustbepositive(Hairetal.,2014).Weused thebootstrappingmethodinordertoverifywhetherthedesign wasproperlyadjustedtothesampleobtained.Table5showsthe resultsofthecalculationof500subsamples,whichshowthat thevaluesobtainedforeachratiooftheconstructsarecloseto thoseoftheoriginalsample.
Wheninterpretingthe designresults,it isnecessarytotest thesignificanceoftherelationshipofthestructuraldesign,all ofwhichshowedsignificantp-valuesat5%.Afterthat,we ana-lyzed the direct,indirectand totaleffects. Table6 shows the direct, indirectand totalmediation of the structural equation design.Thegreatesteffectofthethreetypesofeco-innovations on business performanceisthe organizational eco-innovation (β1=0.775) dueto its direct effect (β2=0.420) and indirect
effects (β3=0.355) via eco-process and eco-product
innova-tions.
Table4
Performanceindex.
Factors AVE Compositereliability R2 Redundancy(Q2) Commonality(f2)
EO 0.678 0.950 0 0 0.593
EP 0.674 0.925 0.565 0.370 0.538
EPD 0.638 0.945 0.656 0.404 0.557
PF 0.902 0.973 0.690 0.614 0.816
Referencevalues >0.50 >0.70 0.25small, 0.50moderate 0.75substantial
Positive Positive
Table5
Bootstrappingmethodindex.
Original samples
Meanof samples
Standard deviation
p-value
EO→EP 0.752 0.756 0.055 0.000
EO→EPD 0.465 0.463 0.109 0.000
EO→PF 0.420 0.410 0.148 0.005
EP→EPD 0.400 0.405 0.105 0.000
EPD→PF 0.464 0.473 0.151 0.002
effectofproducteco-innovation(β1=0.464)hasagreater
influ-enceonbusinessperformancethantheprocesseco-innovation (β2=0.185),resultsthatwereoppositetothoseintheoriginal
design.Thetotaleffectonthecompany’sperformanceinthis studywas(β1=0.36)andinthestudyconductedbyChengetal.
(2014),itwas(β2=0.67).
Analyzingtheresultsofthestructuralequationmodelallows ustopointtothetestingofhypotheses.AccordingtoHairetal. (2014,p. 173) we canuse toanalyze the significance of the relationshipofthestructuraldesign“boththet-test,andthep -value,orthebootstrappingconfidenceinterval,andthereisno needtoreportonthethreetypesofsignificancetest,sinceall leadtothe sameconclusion”. In thisstudy, we optedfor the
p-valuetest,ata0.05significancelevel.
With H1 hypothesis defending the assumption that there is a relationship between organizational eco-innovation and process eco-innovation, we have it thus confirmed. The p -valueissignificant(0.000)andthepathcoefficientispositive (0.752). The H2 hypothesis was also confirmed. There is a relationshipbetween organizationaleco-innovation and prod-ucteco-innovations,sincep-valueissignificant(0.000)andthe pathcoefficientispositive(0.465).
Likewise, the positivepathcoefficient (0.400)and signifi-cantp-value(0.000) confirm theH3 hypothesis,whichstates
that there is a relationship between process eco-innovations andproducteco-innovations.However,theH4hypothesisthat thereisarelationshipbetweenprocesseco-innovationand busi-ness performancewas notconfirmed, presenting ap-value of 0.301, notsignificant, anda beta=0.15,which isconsidered low.
TheH5hypothesisthatthereisarelationshipbetween prod-uctseco-innovationsandbusinessperformancewasconfirmed, sincethepathcoefficientispositive(0.464)anditsp-valueis sig-nificant(0.002).TheH6hypothesiswasalsoconfirmed.There arelationshipbetweenorganizationaleco-innovationand busi-nessperformance,withapositivepathcoefficient(0.420)anda significantp-value(0.005).
Discussion
Thisresearchconfirmsthatorganizationalandproduct eco-innovationsdirectlyaffecttheperformanceofBraziliantextile companies.Inaddition,therearealsosignificantrelationships betweenorganizationalandprocesseco-innovations, organiza-tional and product eco-innovations and process and product eco-innovations.Theseresultsconvergealmostentirelywiththe resultsoftheeco-innovationandbusinessperformancedesign developedbyChengetal.(2014)thatwasappliedintheThai industry,asshowninTable7.
Itisimportanttoconsiderthattheoriginaldesignof struc-turalequationproposedbyChengetal.(2014)wastestedusing themethodbasedoncovariances,Covariance-Based-Structural EquationModel(CB-SEM),whilethisstudyusedthemethodof partialleastsquares,PartialLeastSquares-StructuralEquation Model(PLS-SEM).Despitethedifferenceamongthemethods, theseresultsconfirmthatthecompaniesinthetextilesectorhave apositiverelationshipbetweentheimplementationof organiza-tional eco-innovations andthe implementationof other types
Table6
Direct,indirectandtotaleffectsofeco-innovation.
Directeffects Indirecteffects Totaleffects
EO EP EPD PF EO EP EPD PF EO EP EPD PF
EO – 0.752 0.465 0.420 1 – 0.300 0.355 1 0.752 0.766 0.775
EP – – 0.400 – – 1 – 0.185 – 1 0.400 0.185
EPD – – – 0.464 – – 1 – – – 1 0.464
Table7
ComparisonbetweenthedesignsbyChengetal.(2014)testedintheThai industryandtheBraziliantextileindustry.
Hypotheses Thaiindustry Braziliantextileindustry
R2 Situation R2 Situation H1 0.59 Confirmed 0.75 Confirmed
H2 0.46 Confirmed 0.46 Confirmed
H3 0.41 Confirmed 0.40 Confirmed
H4 0.42 Confirmed 0.15 Notconfirmed
H5 0.36 Confirmed 0.46 Confirmed
H6 0.51 Confirmed 0.42 Confirmed
ofeco-innovations.Thereisalsoadirectrelationshipbetween theorganizationalandproducteco-innovationsandthebusiness performanceofthecompany.
ThemodeltestedintheBraziliantextileindustriesonly dif-feredintermsoftheexistenceofadirectrelationshipbetween processeco-innovations andbusiness performance(H4).One possibleexplanationfortherejection ofthishypothesisisthe requirementofintegrationinthetextileindustryforthe devel-opmentofprocesseco-innovations.SezenandC¸ankaya(2013) demonstratedprocesschangesthataffecttheentireproduction chainandenablethesupplyofaproductthataddsvalue.
Thelowrateofparticipationinthisresearchseemstosuggest thateco-innovationisstillincipientintheBraziliantextilechain. Thus,theeffortoftheBrazilianTextileIndustryandClothing Association(ABIT) inits priority agenda means that greater investmentinresearchanddevelopmentisrequiredinorderto bringnewprocessesandinnovativeproductstothedomestic tex-tileindustry,accordingtotheBNBreport(2014).Forexample, theclothingindustrydoesnothavethesameaccessto technolo-giesastheweavingandspinningindustry;however,theymake useof alternative processes andoperational practices (Adler, 2004;Jonesetal.,2012).
Theanalysisofthedirectandindirecteffectsofthe individ-ualtypesofeco-innovationalsoprovidesimportantinformation regardingthedevelopmentofinnovationprograms.Companies must first engage in organizational eco-innovation, develop-ing the necessary infrastructure, andachieving the necessary knowledgesotheycanimprovetheir processesandproducts. Astheorganizationaleco-innovationsoccur, the process eco-innovationsdevelopskillsthatcanbeusedtoimproveproducts, whichhavepositiveimpactonbusinessperformance.
Theresults achievedinthisresearchare importantfor the Braziliantextileindustry.Ingeneral,spinning,weaving, finish-ingandclothingcompaniessufferthesymptomsofaneconomic recession,whichreducesfinancial supportfor eco-innovation activities.AccordingtodeSouzaetal.(2014),thereisan over-allreductionofinvestmentearmarkedforexpandingproduction capacityandprofit,aswellasalackofdynamismandinvestment inresearchandinnovation.Thereisalackofenthusiasmfrom entrepreneurs,stagnationinthecreationofnewproducts,slow adaptationtonewtechnologies,andlowtechnologyin produc-tion.Additionally,theglobaltextileindustryworkswithafast fashionlogic,andthereforethereisapossibilitythatcompetition maycopyanyinnovativeproductsorprocesses.
Eco-innovative textile companies surveyed in this study developstrategicresources,whichcombineeconomiesofscale with the internalcompetencies andbenefit from the cumula-tiveeffects.Thesecompaniesareabletodevelopthetechnical knowledge and expertise to create process and product eco-innovations.Consequently,theyareabletoincreasereturnon investment,salesandachievegreatermarketsharebyoffering eco-products.ThisresearchsupportsthefindingsofKöhlerand Som(2014),whoarguethateco-innovationstrategiesmust con-formwithconsumerexpectations, inaccordance withethical, environmentalandlegalissues,andhavelowinvestmentrisks andaffordablecosts.
Asystemicviewofeco-innovationmakesitpossibletoaffirm that the eco-innovative textile companies that participatedin this study developed valuable resources. Theseresources are difficulttocopyandarenon-substitutable,whichcanboost per-formancethroughamoresustainablemanagementandimprove thetechnologicalaspectandthesocio-culturalsysteminwhich theyoperate.Thesecompanieshavedevelopedeco-efficient pro-cesses that resulted in eco-products, improved the image of thecompanyandprovidedadifferentiatedandconscious con-sumptionexperience,aspertheproposalssetoutbyGuercini (2004).
The results achieved inthis research are aligned with the findingsmade byBarney(1991),BarneyandHesterly(2007) and Klewitz et al.(2012). These authors affirm that sustain-ablecompetitiveadvantagedependsonefficientexploitationof internalcapabilitiesandresources.Thesurveyedtextile compa-nieshaveshownthatorganizationaleco-innovationsallowfor product cost reduction, risk of environmentalimpacts reduc-tion, increased profitability and increased reputation of the brand.
Conclusion
Thisresearchrevealedthateco-innovationspositivelyaffect businessperformance,andthatthereisinterdependencebetween the eco-innovations. The direct effects of organizational and producteco-innovationsintheperformancewereobserved,as weretheindirecteffectsoftheprocesseco-innovationson busi-ness performance. The process eco-innovations can serve to enhance technologicalsolutionsthat address the efficientuse ofnaturalresources,anddevelopeco-products.
Eco-innovationsaretheresultofagradualchangein man-agementandcultureandrequire effortandinvestmentwithin changing organizational and technological practices (Adler, 2004;Jones etal.,2012).Atthesametime, thisstudy points outtheneedtoestablishpublicpoliciesthatprovideincentives forcompaniestopromoteeco-innovations.Innovationstrategy shouldtakeintoaccount internalandexternalelementsofthe organization,whichultimatelydeterminetheextentofthe influ-ence ontheperformanceof thecompany(Stefan,Varmus, & Lendel,2014).
Thelimitationsof thisworkshouldbetakeninto consider-ationsuchasthefact thatonlythreetypesof eco-innovations wereexamined.Strictlytechnologicalinnovationsormarketing innovationscanbe includedinfuturestudiesthatseektouse thedesignproposedbyChengetal.(2014).Anotherlimitation relatestothesizeofthesampleandthenon-homogeneousnature Brazil’sdomestictextileindustry.AccordingtoMattar(2007), incasesofatypicalornon-homogeneousdatawhenthesample selectionisunknownandcannotbeestimated,onecanresortto inferencesonthepopulationbyinformalsamplesandarbitrary criteria.Theeffectofsample choicebyaccessibilityisthatit cannotbegeneralized.However,thesampleservedasaproxy tounderstandwhatishappeningwithintheeco-innovationand performancethemeintheBraziliantextileindustry.
Despite these limitations, this research contributes to the literature on eco-innovation from the perspective of the Resource-basedViewTheory(RBV).Innovationsarerare, valu-ableanddifficulttocopy,anditcanpositivelyimpactbusiness performance.Itisnecessarytoseeknewmanagementdesigns focus oneco-innovation,toemployprocesses andtodevelop eco-efficientproducts,aswellastoencouragesustainable con-sumption.Tothisend,theorganizationoftheBraziliantextile chain needstobe renewedwiththe establishmentof sustain-abletechnologicalabsorptiongoals,includingdevelopmentof newmaterials,reductionofnaturalresourcesconsumptionand pollutionpreventionapproach.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
Acknowledgments
ToCAPES(CoordinationforHigherEducationStaff Devel-opment) for granting a postdoctoral fellowship (PNPD) and CNPq(NationalCouncilforScientificandTechnological Devel-opment)forthefinancialsupportforthisresearchproject.Tothe BrazilianTextileIndustryAssociation(ABIT)fortheirsupport inthedatacollectionwithtextilecompanies.TotheEditorand tothereviewers for theirvaluable contributionstoimproving theinitialversionofthisarticle.
References
Abreu,M.C.S.,deCastro,O.V.,Júnior,deSoares,F.A.,&daSilvaFilho, J.C.L.(2009).EfeitodaCondutaSocialsobreaPerformanceEconômica: EvidênciasdaIndústriaTêxtilBrasileira.RevistaContabilidadeVista&
Revista, Universidade Federalde Minas Gerais.Belo Horizonte,20(1), 119–142.
Abreu,M.C.S.,deCastro,F.,deSoares,F.A.,&daSilvaFilho,J.C.L.(2012).
Acomparativeunderstandingofcorporatesocialresponsibilityoftextile firmsinBrazilandChina.JournalofCleanerProduction,20,119–126.
Adler,U.(2004).Structuralchange:Thedominantfeatureintheeconomic devel-opmentoftheGermantextileandclothingindustries.JournalofFashion MarketingandManagement,8(3),300–319.
Anttonen,M.,Halme,M.,Houtbeckers,E.,&Nurkka,N.(2013).Theotherside ofsustainableinnovation:Isthereademandforinnovativeservices?Journal ofCleanerProduction,45,89–103.
Arundel, A.,&Kemp,R. (2009).Measuringeco-innovation.UNU-MERIT WorkingPaperSeries(WorkingPaperNo.017).Netherlands:UnitedNations University,MaastrichtEconomicandSocialResearchandTrainingCentre onInnovationandTechnology.Retrievedfromhttp://www.merit.unu.edu
Atalay, M., Anafarta, N., & Sarvan, F. (2013). Therelationship between innovationandfirmperformance:AnempiricalevidencefromTurkish auto-motivesupplierindustry.Procedia–SocialandBehavioralSciences,75, 226–235.
BancodoNordestedoBrasil.(2014).Análiseretrospectivaeprospectivado setortêxtilnoBrasilenoNordeste.Fortaleza:EscritórioTécnicode Estu-dosEconômicosdoNordeste (ETENE).Informeno.2-Macroeconomia,
IndústriaeServic¸os,Year8.
Barney,J.B.(1991).Firmresourcesandsustainedcompetitiveadvantage. Jour-nalofManagement,17(1),99–120.
Barney,J.B.,&Hesterly,W.S.(2007).Administra¸cãoestratégicaevantagem competitiva.SãoPaulo:Prentice-Hall.
Baumgartner,R.J.,& Ebner,D.(2010).Corporatesustainabilitystrategies: Sustainabilityprofilesandmaturitylevels.SustainableDevelopment,18, 76–89.
Boehe,D.M.,Milan,G.S.,&Toni,D.(2009).Desempenhodoprocessode desenvolvimentodenovosprodutos:opesorelativodefatores organiza-cionais,mercadológicoseoperacionais.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,44(3), 250–264.
Boons,F.,Montalvo,C.,Quist,J.,&Wagner,M.(2013).Sustainable innova-tion,businessmodelsandeconomicperformance:Anoverview.Journalof CleanerProduction,45,1–8.
Brito,E.P.Z.,Brito,L.A.L.,&Morganti,F.(2009).Inovac¸ãoedesempenho empresarial:lucrooucrescimento?RevistadeAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,
8(1).
Brunnermeir,S.,&Cohen,M.(2003).Determinantsofenvironmental innova-tioninUSmanufacturingindustries.JournalofEnvironmentalEconomics andManagement,45,278–293.
Carrilo-Hermosilla,J.,delRío,P., &Könnölä,T.(2010).Diversityof eco-innovations:Reflections fromselectedcasestudies. Journalof Cleaner Production,18,1073–1083.
Chaney,P.K.,Devinney,T.M.,&Winer,R.S.(1991).Theimpactofnew productintroductionsonthemarketvalueoffirms.TheJournalofBusiness,
64(4),573–610.
Cheng,C.C.,&Shiu,E.C.(2012).Validationofaproposedinstrumentfor measuringeco-innovation:Animplementationperspective.Technovation,
32,329–344.
Cheng,C.C.J.,Yang,C.,&Sheu,C.(2014).Thelinkbetweeneco-innovation andbusinessperformance:ATaiwaneseindustrycontext.JournalofCleaner Production,64,81–90.
Chou,C.,Chen,C.,&Conley,C.(2012).Asystematicapproachto gener-ateservicemodelforsustainability.JournalofCleanerProduction,29, 173–187.
Coelho,M.A.(2015).Ecoinovac¸ãoemumapequenaempresadereciclagensda cidadedeManaus.RevistadeAdministra¸cãoeInova¸cão,12(1),121–147.
Cook,M.B.,Bhamra,T.A.,&Lemon,M.(2006).Thetransferandapplication ofproductservicesystems:FromacademiatoUKmanufacturingfirms.
JournalofCleanerProduction,14,1455–1465.
Corrar,L.J.,Paulo,E.,&DiasFilho,J.M.(2009).Análisemultivariada.São Paulo:Atlas.
deSouza,M.T.S.,Cattini,O.,Junior,&Barbieri,J.C.(2014).Novoshorizontes paraoperac¸õescompetitivas.RevistadeAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,54(5).
Dyllick,T.,&Hockerts,K.(2002).Beyondthebusinesscaseforcorporate sustainability.BusinessStrategyandtheEnvironment,11,130–141.
Ekins,P.(2010).Eco-innovationforenvironmentalsustainability:Concepts, progressandpolicies.InternationalEconomicsandEconomicPolicy,7, 267–290.
Farias,A.S.,Costa,D.S.,Freitas,L.S.,&Cândido,G.A.(2012).Utilizac¸ão deeco-inovac¸ãonoprocessodemanufaturadecerâmicavermelha.Revista deAdministra¸cãoeInova¸cão,9(3),154–174.
Figueiredo, P. N., Andrade, R. F., & Brito, K.N. (2010). Aprendizagem tecnológicaeacumulac¸ãodecapacidadesdeinovac¸ão:evidênciasde con-tractmanufacturersnoBrasil.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,45(2),156–171.
Galende,J.,&delaFuente,J.M.(2003).Internalfactorsdeterminingafirm’s innovativebehavior.ResearchPolicy,32(5),715–736.
Guercini,S.(2004).Internationalcompetitivechangeandstrategicbehaviorof Italiantextile-apparelfirms.JournalofFashionMarketingandManagement,
8(3),320–339.
Hair,J.F.,Jr.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.,&Tatham,R.L. (2009).Análisemultivariadadedados(A.S.Sant’Anna,Trans.)(6a.ed.). PortoAlegre:Bookman.
Hair,J.F.,Jr.,Hult,G.T.M.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sarstedt,M.(2014).Aprimeron partialleastsquaresstructuralequationmodeling(PLS-SEM).USA:SAGE Publications.
Hallenga-Brink,S.C.,&Brezet,J.C.(2005).Thesustainableinnovationdesign diamondformicro-sizedenterprisesintourism.JournalofCleaner Produc-tion,13,141–149.
Hirschmann,T.,&Mueller,K.(2011).Socialvaluecreation:Outlineandfirst applicationofaresourcemanagementapproachtoinnovation.International JournalofInnovationandSustainableDevelopment,5(2),276–294.
Horbach,J.(2008).Determinantsofenvironmentalinnovation-newevidence fromGermanpaneldatasources.ResearchPolicy,37,163–173.
Im,S.,&Workman,J.P.,Jr.(2004).Marketorientation,creativity,andnew productperformanceinhigh-technologyfirms.JournalofMarketing,68(2), 114–132.
Jansson,J.,&Marell,A.(2010).Greenconsumerbehavior:Determinantsof curtailmentandeco-innovationadoption.JournalofConsumerMarketing,
27(4),358–370.
Jones,P.,Hillier,D.,&Comfort,D.(2012).Fashioningcorporatesocial respon-sibility.EmeraldEmergingMarketsCaseStudies,2(8),1–10.
Kemp,R.(2009).Fromend-of-pipetosysteminnovation.pp.1–26.Copenhagen: DRUID Summer Conference. Retrieved from http://kemp.unu-merit.nl/ Paper%20for%20DRUID%20conference%20Kemp4.pdf
Kemp,R.,&Pearson,P.(2008).Measuringeco-innovation,finalreportofMEI projectforDGResearchof theEuropeanCommission..Retrievedfrom
http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf
Klewitz,J.,Zeyen,A.,&Hansen,E.G.(2012).Intermediariesdriving eco-innovation in SMEs: A qualitative investigation. European Journal of Innovation,15(4),442–467.
Köhler,A.R.,&Som,C.(2014).Riskpreventiveinnovationstrategiesfor emerg-ingtechnologiesthecasesofnano-textilesandsmarttextiles.Technovation,
34,420–430.
Lam,A.(2005).Organizationalinnovation.InJ.Fagerberg,D.Mowery,&R. Nelson(Eds.),TheOxfordhandbookofinnovations(pp.115–147).Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.
Mac¸aneiro,M.B.,&daCunha,S.K.(2012).Ecoinovac¸ão:umquadrode referênciaparapesquisasfuturas.RevistaInnovare,13,266–289.
MachadoNetto,D.D.P.,Carvalho,L.C.,&Heinzmann,L.M.(2012). Ambi-entefavorávelaodesenvolvimentodeinovac¸õeseculturaorganizacional: integrac¸ãodeduasperspectivasdeanálise.RevistadeAdministra¸cão,47(4), 715–729.
Manzini,E.,&Vezzoli,C.(2011).Odesenvolvimentodeprodutossustentáveis: osrequisitosambientaisdosprodutosindustriais.SãoPaulo:Editorada UniversidadedeSãoPaulo.
Marôco,J.(2010).AnálisedeEqua¸cõesEstruturais:FundamentosTeóricos, Software&Aplica¸cões.Portugal:ReportNumber.
Mattar,F.N.(2007).Pesquisademarketing(4a.ed.).SãoPaulo:Atlas.
Moore,S.,&Ausley,L.(2004).Systemsthinkingandgreenchemistryinthe textileindustry:Concepts,technologiesandbenefits.JournalofCleaner Production,12,585–601.
Morelli,N.(2006).Developingnewproductservicesystems(PSS): Methodolo-giesandoperationaltools.JournalofCleanerProduction,14,1495–1501.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Sus-tainable manufacturing and eco-innovation:Framework, practices and measurement.. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/innovation/ inno/43423689.pdf
Pujari,D.(2006).Eco-innovationandnewproductdevelopment:Understanding theinfluencesonmarketperformance.Technovation,26,76–85.
Pujari,D.,Wright,G.,&Peattie,K.(2003).Greenandcompetitiveinfluenceson environmentalnewproductdevelopmentperformance.JournalofBusiness Research,56,657–671.
Rangel,A.S.,DaSilva,M.M.,&Costa,B.K.(2010).Competitividadeda Indús-triaTêxtilBrasileira.RevistadeAdministra¸cãoeInova¸cão,7(1),151–174.
Rehfeld,K.,Rennings,K.,&Ziegler,A.(2007).Integratedproductpolicy andenvironmentalproductinnovations:Anempiricalanalysis.Ecological Economics,61,91–100.
Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation–eco-innovation research and thecontribution fromecological economics.EcologicalEconomics, 32, 319–332.
Sezen,B.,&C¸ankaya,S.Y.(2013).Effectsofgreenmanufacturingand eco-innovationonsustainabilityperformance.Procedia–SocialandBehavioral Sciences,99,154–163.
Shin,D.,Curtis,M.,Huisingh,D.,&Zwetsloot,D.(2008).Developmentofa sustainabilitypolicymodelforpromotingcleanerproduction:Aknowledge integrationapproach.JournalofCleanerProduction,16,1823–1837.
Stefan,H.,Varmus,M.,&Lendel,V.(2014).Proposalofmodelforeffective implementationofinnovationstrategytobusiness.Procedia–Socialand BehavioralSciences,109,1194–1198.
Tarnawska,K.(2013).Eco-innovations:Toolsforthetransitiontothegreen economy.EconomicandManagement,18(4),735–743.
Tseng,M.,Wang,R.,Chiu,A.,Geng,Y.,&Li,Y.(2013).Improving perfor-manceofgreeninnovationpracticesunderuncertainty.JournalofCleaner Production,40,71–82.
Tukker,A.,&Tischner,U.(2006).Product-servicesasaresearchfield:Past, presentandfuture.Reflectionfromadecadeofresearch.JournalofCleaner Production,14,1552–1556.
