A Study on the Effect of Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation Performance: A Case of Green Manufacturing Enterprises in Pearl River Delta in China

Xin He, Shi-Zheng Huang, Ka-Yin Chau, Hua-Wen Shen, Yan-Liang Zhu

Ekoloji, 2019, Issue 107, Pages: 727-736, Article No: e107088

OPEN ACCESS

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

Green innovation has become the topic of corporate sustainable development. Countries in the world formulate environmental regulation to drive corporate green innovation, while enterprises are getting lost in the selection of innovation strategy in environmental regulation. This study intends to discuss the effect of environmental regulation on exploration innovation, exploitation innovation, and green innovation performance. Based on the questionnaire survey of 220 green manufacturing enterprises in Pearl River Delta in China, Structural Equation Model is used for the analysis. The empirical results reveal insignificant effects of environmental regulation on green innovation performance that environmental regulation does not directly affect green innovation performance; exploration innovation requires more support of environmental regulation than exploitation innovation, while exploitation innovation shows better green innovation performance than exploration innovation; and, dual interaction between exploration and exploitation appears positive and remarkable effects on green innovation performance. As a result, an enterprise should develop dual interaction between exploration and exploitation, and environmental regulation is the drive and guarantee of green innovation.

Keywords

environmental regulation, exploration innovation, exploitation innovation, green innovation performance, green manufacturing enterprises

References

  • Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.
  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 74-94.
  • Becker B (2015) Public R&D policies and private R&D investment: A survey of the empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Survey.
  • Bi KX, Yang CJ, Sui J (2015) Impact of MNCs’ Technology Transfer on Green Innovation Performance: Perspective of Manufacturing Green Innovation System. China Soft Science, (11): 81-93.
  • Caloghirou Y, Kastelli I, Tsakanika A (2004) Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24: 29-39.
  • Camisón C, Villar-López A (2014) Organizational innovation as an enabler of technological innovation capabilities and firm performanc. Journal of Business Research, 67(1): 2891-2902.
  • Christensen JF (1995) Asset profiles for technological innovation. Research Policy, 24(1): 727-745.
  • Czarnitzki D, Hottenrott H, Thorwarth S (2010) Industrial research versus development investment: the implications of financial constraints. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(3): 1-24.
  • Damanpour F (2010) An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(4): 996–1010.
  • Drucker P (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Feng ZJ, Chen W (2018) Environmental Regulation, Green Innovation, and Industrial Green Development: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Spatial Durbin Model. Sustainability, 223(10): 1-22.
  • Foray D (2000) Characterizing the knowledge base: available and missing indicators. In: Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. OECD.
  • Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-50.
  • Garcia-Quevedo J (2004) Do public subsidies complement business R&D? A meta-analysis of the econometric evidence. Kyklos, 57(1): 87-102.
  • Gray WB (1987) The cost of regulation: OSHA,EPA and the productivity slowdown. American Economic Review, 77(5): 998-1006.
  • Hamamoto M (2006) Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries. Resource and Energy Economics, 28(4): 299-312.
  • Hayes AF (2013) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4): 481-494.
  • Hitt MA, Ireland RD, Lee H (2000) Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introduction essay. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17(4): 231-246.
  • Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1-55.
  • Huang SZ, Chau KY, Yin F, Chen Q (2018) The effect of the economic performance of a science park on air quality: an empirical study of Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 16(6): 8105-8118.
  • Jaffe AB, Palmer K (2006) Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study. Review of Economics and Statistics, (4): 610 -619.
  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 797-811.
  • Kriecher B, Ziesemer T (2009) The environmental porter hypothesis: Theory, evidence and a model of timing of adoption. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18(3): 267-294.
  • Ma FP, Cha N (2012) The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Technological Innovation Performance —The Moderating Role of Institutional Environment. R&D Management, 24(1): 60 -66, 77.
  • March JG (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
  • Marino M, Lhuillery S, Parrotta P, Sala D (2016) Additionality or crowding-out? An overall evaluation of public R&D subsidy on private R&D expenditure. Research Policy, 45(9): 1715-1730.
  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory (3rded.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • OECD (2010) The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow. OECD, Paris.
  • Porter ME, Van Der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment - competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 94(4): 97-118.
  • Romijn H, Albaladejo M (2002) Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in Southern England. Research Policy, 31: 1053-1067.
  • Tian P, Lin B (2017) Promoting green productivity growth for China’s industrial exports: Evidence from a hybrid input-output model. Energy Policy, 111: 394–402.
  • Villegas-Palacio C, Coria J (2010) On the interaction between imperfect compliance and technology adoption: Taxes versus tradable emissions permit. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 38(3): 274-291.
  • Wang JR, Zhang Y (2018) Environmental regulation, green technologically innovative intention and green technologically innovative behavior. Studies in Science of Science, 36(02): 352-360.
  • Watson D, Tregaskis O, Gedikli C, Vaughn O, Semkina A (2018) Well-being through learning: a systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(2): 247-268.
  • Yam RC, Lo W, Tang EP, Lau AK (2011) Analysis of sources of innovation, technological innovation capabilities, and performance: an empirical study of Hong Kong manufacturing industries. Research policy, 40: 391-402.
  • Zhang CY, Lv Y (2018) Green Production Regulation and Enterprise R&D Innovation: Impact and Mechanism Research. Business Management Journal, (01): 71-89.
  • Zhang D, Li S, Zheng D (2017) Knowledge search and open innovation performance in an emerging market: Moderating effects of government-enterprise relationship and market focus. Management Decision, 55(4): 634-647.