4.6 Article

A Systematic Review of Eco-Innovation and Performance from the Resource-Based and Stakeholder Perspectives

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11216067

Keywords

eco-innovation; cleaner production; strategy; performance; natural resource-based view; stakeholder theory

Funding

  1. Yayasan UTP Fundamental Research Grant (YUTP-FRG) [015LC0-016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The growing concerns surrounding the precarious state of the biosphere have triggered organizations to develop and implement innovations that curb environmental degradation (eco-innovation). However, eco-innovation is a risky proposition for organizations and their stakeholders, due to uncertainty of outcome. Despite the high investment risk of eco-innovation, the literature that assesses eco-innovation outcomes from an organizational performance perspective is scant. Thus, this paper uses a systematic approach to review eco-innovation and performance literature. The eco-innovation and performance literature reviewed in this paper is sourced from the Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) scientific databases. Results from this systematic review suggest that the capital market stakeholder group-an essential stakeholder group-has received little attention in the eco-innovation and performance literature. This is alarming, as this stakeholder group is expected to act in the best interests of the organization-as well as the other stakeholders-especially during strategy formulation and implementation. This paper also finds that the resource-based view and stakeholder theory are frequently utilized in explaining eco-innovation. However, the natural resource-based view is least utilized, despite growing environmental pressures. A multi-theoretical perspective can help to overcome the limitations of one theory, as well as help to unearth additional organizational factors which could potentially catalyze the eco-innovation and performance relationship.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available