Advertisement

Adoption of Product and Process Eco-innovation for Developing Low Carbon Economy: A Rough Set Theory Based Analysis

  • Chiranjit DasEmail author
  • Sanjay Jharkharia
Chapter

Abstract

Adoption of different environmental policies and regimes to reduce the economic externalities has been mainly studied in institutional economics. Effectiveness of environmental management system has witnessed a positive relationship with economic performance in the literature. Therefore, institutions adopted several eco-innovation practices to gain long term sustainability. This paper addresses the relative importance’s of different eco-innovation practices such as product and process eco-innovation; incremental and radical eco-innovations for improving eco-efficiency. Conditional attributes and decisional attributes criteria have been identified through the review of extant literature. Rough set theory based analytical model is applied for finding the most important innovation strategies and their relative importance. Industry experts’ opinions have been collected through telephonic interview. Product stewardship, Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of product innovation, cleaner technology, and radical product eco-innovation are the most important strategies for developing low carbon economy. These results will be useful for organizations to adopt the effective eco-innovation strategies for improving eco-efficiency.

Keywords

Eco-innovations Eco-efficiency Rough set theory 

References

  1. Abernathy W J, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review 64(7):254–228. Available at: http://teaching.up.edu/bus580/bps/Abernathy%20and%20Utterback,%201978.pdf.
  2. Atkinson G, Mourato S (2008) Environmental cost-benefit analysis. Annual review of environment and resources 33: 317–344. Available at: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.020107.112927. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  3. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Green supplier development: analytical evaluation using rough set theory. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(12): 1200–1210. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.016. Accessed 04 September 2016.
  4. Bithas K (2011) Sustainability and externalities: Is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability?. Ecological Economics 7(10):1703–1706. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.014. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  5. Cleff T, Rennings K (1999) Determinants of environmental product and process innovation. European environment 19(5):191–201. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0976(199909/10)9:5%3C191::AID-EET201%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  6. Cropper M L, Oates W E (1992) Environmental economics: a survey. Journal of economic literature 30 (2): 675–740. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2727701?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  7. Curran MA (1996) Environmental life-cycle assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 1(3):179–179. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02978949?LI=true. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  8. Damanpour F, Gopalakrishnan S (2001) The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of management studies, 38(1): 45–65. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6486.00227/abstract. Accessed 02 July 2016.
  9. Demirel P, Kesidou E (2011) Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological Economics 70(8):1546–1557. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.019. Accessed 04 August 2016.
  10. Dewar R D, Dutton J E (1986) The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science 32 (11): 1422–1433. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  11. EACI/ECO/2013/001 (2016) Analysis of results achieved by CIP Eco-innovation market replication projects EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Executive Agency for Competitiveness & Innovation (EACI), Brussels. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/sites/easme-site/files/1_executive_summary.pdf.
  12. Ekins P (2010) Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability: concepts, progress and policies. International Economics and Economic Policy 7(2–3):267–290. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10368-010-0162-z. Accessed 13 August 2016.
  13. Elbasha EH, Roe T L (1996) On endogenous growth: the implications of environmental externalities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3(2): 240–268. Available at: doi: 10.1006/jeem.1996.0043. Accessed 13 August 2016.
  14. Ettlie J E, Bridges W P, O’keefe R D (1984) Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management science 30(6): 682–695. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682. Accessed 10 August 2016.
  15. Foxon T J (2011) A co-evolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecological Economics 70 (12):2258–2267. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.014. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  16. Frondel M, Horbach, Rennings K (2004) End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries: 04–082. Available at: ftp://193.196.11.222/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp0482.pdf.
  17. Hart S L (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review 20(4):986–1014. Available at: http://amr.aom.org/content/20/4/986.short. Accessed 02 July 2016.
  18. Hellstrom T (2007) Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: the structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustainable Development-Bradford 15 (3): 148. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.309/abstract. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  19. Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Peer reviewed: economic input–output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environmental science & technology 32(7): 184A–191A. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es983471i. Accessed 30 June 2016.
  20. Herring H (2006) Energy efficiency—a critical view. Energy 31(1):10–20. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2004.04.055. Accessed 28 July 2016.
  21. IPCC (2013) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.
  22. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
  23. Jänicke M (2008) Ecological modernisation: new perspectives. Journal of cleaner production 16(5): 557–565. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.011. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  24. Juett R Cooper (1998) A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Management Decision 36 (8): 493–502. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810232565. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  25. Kemp R, Pearson P (2007) Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. UM Merit, Maastricht, 32(3):121–124. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf.
  26. Klassen R D (2000) Exploring the linkage between investment in manufacturing and environmental technologies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(2): 127–147. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570010304224. Accessed 09 January 2016.
  27. Klassen R D, Whybark D C (1999) The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal 42(6):599–615. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256982?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Accessed 09 January 2016.
  28. Liang J, Shi Z (2004) The information entropy, rough entropy and knowledge granulation in rough set theory. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 12(01): 37–46. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218488504002631. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  29. Machiba T (2010) Eco-innovation for enabling resource efficiency and green growth: development of an analytical framework and preliminary analysis of industry and policy practices. International Economics and Economic Policy 7(2–3): 357–370. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10368-010-0171-y. Accessed 28 July 2016.
  30. Manual O (2005) The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD Publishing. Paris. Available at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oslo-manual_9789264013100-en.
  31. OECD/IEA/NEA/ITF (2015), Aligning Policies for a Low-carbon Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264233294-en.
  32. Patterson M G (1996) What is energy efficiency?: Concepts, indicators and methodological issues. Energy policy 24(5): 377–390. Available at: doi: 10.1016/0301-4215(96)00017-1. Accessed 28 July 2016.
  33. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences 11(5): 341–356. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01001956. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  34. Pawlak Z (1997) Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support. European journal of operational research 99(1):48–57. Available at: doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00382-7. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  35. Pawlak Z (1998) Rough set theory and its applications to data analysis. Cybernetics & Systems 29(7): 661–688. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/019697298125470. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  36. Pawlak Z (2002) Rough sets and intelligent data analysis. Information Sciences 147(1):1–12. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(02)00197-4. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  37. Rennings K (2000) Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological economics 32(2):319–332. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  38. Shyng J Y, Wang F K, Tzeng, G H, Wu K S (2007) Rough set theory in analyzing the attributes of combination values for the insurance market. Expert Systems with Applications 32(1):56–64. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.11.002. Accessed 25 September 2016.
  39. Unnikrishnan S, Hegde D S (2007) Environmental training and cleaner production in Indian industry—A micro-level study. Resources, conservation and recycling 50 (4):427–441. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.07.003. Accessed 13 August 2016.
  40. Utterback J M, Abernathy W J (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6): 639–656. Available at: doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7. Accessed 23 July 2016.
  41. Worrell E, Bernstein L, Roy J, Price L, Harnisch J (2009) Industrial energy efficiency and climate change mitigation. Energy Efficiency 2(2):109–123. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-008-9032-8. Accessed 28 July 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Operations ManagementIndian Institute of Management, Rohtak, M. D. University CampusRohtakIndia

Personalised recommendations