Skip to main content

Underlying Factors of Green Innovation Adoption Among Indonesian Batik Enterprises

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Open Innovation in Small Business

Abstract

The literature on innovation management indicates the rise of the green innovation topic recently, which emphasises how companies adopt and implement advanced friendly technology to achieve environmental sustainability as a part of sustainable development goals. Most of the studies were conducted in the context of large manufacturing companies. Little attention has been paid to the setting of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as the backbone of the economy in many countries (e.g. Takalo et al. 2021). In Indonesia, the contribution of SMEs is significant for absorbing 97% of the total workforce and generating 60.4% of total investment, according to the Coordinating Ministry for the Economy in 2021. Our study uses institutional theory as a point of reference. It aims to understand various factors that drive organisations to seek legitimacy or social fitness when they want to adopt or make a decision (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983; Oliver, 1991), which in this context is adopting green innovation. The study deployed qualitative multiple case studies by conducting in-depth interviews for 11 SMEs (14 participants) in batik sectors in Indonesia who were already implementing green innovation (from only green, a combination of brown and green and green until brown to green). SMEs in the batik sector were selected as a sample because batik is well known as traditional clothing from Java and is considered the original cultural heritage of Indonesia by UNESCO (Wang, 2019). Batik faces fierce competition due to mass and fast production from larger companies and the issue of chemical dyes and synthetic colours (Raya et al., 2021). Validity in this research was supported by the triangulation method combined with member checking. Data were analysed using a content analysis method referring to the procedure by Miles et al. (2014) to answer the research question. The current study shows the pressure of external forces, namely regulatory/coercive force, cognitive pressure and normative pressure, are the motives for organisational decisions and actions to adopt green innovation. Our findings substantiate and broaden the institutional theory (Bruton et al. 2010; Rui and Lu, 2020) by providing empirical evidence regarding SMEs in the batik sector in Indonesia. Limitations of the study are highlighted, which align with suggestions for future research avenues. Potential practical implications are also discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abbas J, Sağsan M (2019) Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and corporate sustainable development: a structural analysis. J Clean Prod 229:611–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abdelzaher DM, Abdelzaher A (2015) Beyond environmental regulations: exploring the potential of ‘“Eco-Islam”’ in boosting environmental ethics within SMEs in Arab markets. J Bus Ethics 145:357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aboelmaged M, Hashem G (2019) Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: the mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities. J Clean Prod 220:853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilera-Caracuel J, Ortiz-de-Mandojana N (2013) Green innovation and financial performance: an institutional approach. Organ Environ 26(4):365–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albort-Morant G, Leal-Millán A, Cepeda-Carrión G (2016) The antecedents of green innovation performance: a model of learning and capabilities. J Bus Res 69(11):4912–4917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arfi WB, Hikkerova L, Sahut JM (2018) External knowledge sources, green innovation and performance. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 129(January):210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boohene R, Gyimah RA, Osei MB (2020) Social capital and SME performance: the moderating role of emotional intelligence. J Entrep Emerg Econ 12(1):79–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruton GD, Ahlstrom D, Li HL (2010) Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep: Theory Pract 34(3):421–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Capasso M, Hansen T, Heiberg J, Klitkou A, Steen M (2019) Green growth–a synthesis of scientific findings. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 146(June):390–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chekima B, Azizi S, Syed W, Wafa K, Igau OA, Chekima S, Sondoh SL (2015) Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: does premium price and demographics mattern to green purchasing? J Clean Prod 112(4):3436–3450

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen YS (2008) The driver of green innovation and green image-green core competence. J Bus Ethics 81(3):531–543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng CCJ (2020) Sustainability orientation, green supplier involvement, and green innovation performance: evidence from diversifying green entrants. J Bus Ethics 161(2):393–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNN Indonesia (2022) https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20220613155729-293-808397/freeport-indonesia-raih-penghargaan-sustainable-business-awards. Accessed 4 Dec 2022

  • Creswell JW, Poth CN (2018) Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches, vol 1. Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuerva MC, Triguero-Cano Á, Córcoles D (2014) Drivers of green and non-green innovation: empirical evidence in Low-Tech SMEs. J Clean Prod 68:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X, Jian W, Zeng Q (2014) Corporate environmental responsibility in polluting industries: does religion matter? J Bus Ethics 124:485–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimi P, Mirbargkar SM (2017) Green entrepreneurship and green innovation for SME development in market turbulence. Eurasian Bus Rev 7(2):203–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Kassar A, Singh SK (2019) Green innovation and organizational performance: the influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 144(July):483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks. Capstone Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Firmansyah A (2020) The study of soga brown colour visual digitization from classical batik of yogyakarta. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol 924(1), pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleim MR, Smith JS, Andrews D, Cronin JJ (2013) Against the green: a multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. J Retail 89(1):44–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guoyou Q, Saixing Z, Chiming T, Haitao Y, Hailiang Z (2013) Stakeholders’ influences on corporate green innovation strategy: a case study of manufacturing firms in China. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 20(December):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horbach J, Rammer C, Rennings K (2012) Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact-the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol Econ 78:112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang XX, Hu ZP, Liu CS, Yu DJ, Yu LF (2016) The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J Clean Prod 112:3423–3433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Indrayani L, Triwiswara M, Evtriyandani (2020) Prinsip efisiensi energi untuk mewujudkan industri batik yang berkelanjutan (sustainable industry). In: Prosiding seminar nasional industri kerajinan dan batik, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Journeault M (2016) The Integrated Scorecard in support of corporate sustainability strategies. J Environ Manage 182:214–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun W, Ali W, Bhutto MY, Hussain H, Khan NA (2021) Examining the determinants of green innovation adoption in SMEs: a PLS-SEM approach. Eur J Innov Manag 24(1):67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova T (1997) Country institutional profiles: concept and measurement. Acad Manag Proc 1:180–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusumawati N, Rahmadyanti E, Sianita MM (2021) Batik became two sides of blade for the sustainable development in Indonesia. In Green chemistry and water remediation: research and applications. Elsevier Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi PA, Hunga AIR, Sidabalok H (2021) Reviewing batik with natural coloring based on the clean production theory with an ecofeminist perspective (Case Study: Putri Kawung Batik Community in Klaten). Salasika: Indones J Gend Women Child Soc Incl Stud 4(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Li D, Zheng M, Cao C, Chen X, Ren S, Huang M (2017) The impact of legitimacy pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: evidence from China top 100. J Clean Prod 141:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu F, Lai K, Cai W (2021) Responsible production for sustainability: concept analysis and bibliometric review. Sustainability 13:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):145–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng H, Shen N, Ying H, Wang Q (2021) Can environmental regulation directly promote green innovation behavior ?—based on situation of industrial agglomeration. J Clean Prod 314(June):128044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qi G, Jia Y, Zou H (2021) Is institutional pressure the mother of green innovation? Examining the moderating effect of absorptive capacity. J Clean Prod 278:123957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raya AB, Andiani R, Siregar AP, Prasada IY, Indana F, Simbolon TGY, Kinasih AT, Nugroho AD (2021) Challenges, open innovation, and engagement theory at craft SMEs: evidence from Indonesian batik. J Open Innov: Technol Mark Complex 7(121):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruef M, Scott WR (1998) A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Adm Sci Q 43(4):877–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rui Z, Lu Y (2020) Stakeholder pressure, corporate environmental ethics and green innovation. Asian J Technol Innov 29(1):70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer F, Meng Y (2022) How collaborating with NGOs makes green innovations more desirable. Bus. Soc., 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh SK, Chen J, Giudice MD, El-Kassar A (2019) Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: role of environmental training. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 146(May):203–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takalo SK, Tooranloo HS, Parizi ZS (2021) Green innovation: a systematic literature review. J Clean Prod 279:122474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullah R, Ahmad H, Rehman FU, Fawad A (2021) Green innovation and Sustainable Development Goals in SMEs: the moderating role of government incentives. J Econ Adm Sci (a-head-of-print)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang CY (2019) Building a network for preserving intangible cultural heritage through education: a study of Indonesian batik. Int J Art Des Educ 38(2):398–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widjojo H, Gunawan S (2020) Indigenous tradition: an overlooked encompassing-factor in social entrepreneurship. J Soc Entrep 11(1):88–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods. Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Liang G, Feng T, Yuan C, Jiang W (2019) Green innovation to respond to environmental regulation: how external knowledge adoption and green absorptive capacity matter? Bus Strateg Environ 29(1):39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Sun J, Yang Z, Wang Y (2020) Critical success factors of green innovation: technology, organization and environment readiness. J Clean Prod 264:121701

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nurul Indarti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kusuma, G.H., Indarti, N., Manik, H.F.G.G. (2023). Underlying Factors of Green Innovation Adoption Among Indonesian Batik Enterprises. In: Rafiki, A., Dana, LP., Nasution, M.D.T.P. (eds) Open Innovation in Small Business. Contributions to Environmental Sciences & Innovative Business Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5142-0_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics