IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v33y2024i6p4977-4989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does combining analytical and synthetic knowledge benefit eco‐innovation? Evidence from Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Faraimo Jay Vai

Abstract

Analytical or synthetic knowledge is widely considered beneficial for eco‐innovation (EI). For a firm, analytical and synthetic knowledge can be acquired externally through collaboration with various partners or generated internally through R&D and other internal firm activities. However, evidence supporting the assumption that both forms of knowledge are complementary and that “doing more of all” will benefit EI is unclear. We found that external analytical and synthetic knowledge and internal analytical and synthetic knowledge all positively affect EI, with internal analytical being the most prominent. However, combining analytical and synthetic knowledge may not be beneficial for EI. The interaction between analytical and external synthetic knowledge is generally substitutive. We found a particularly significant substitutive effect between internal analytical and internal synthetic knowledge, as well as between internal analytical and external synthetic knowledge. In short, we found little evidence of complementarity between analytical and synthetic knowledge, regardless of where it is acquired from. These findings advise caution to firm managers and policymakers who are considering strategies to combine different forms of knowledge from different sources to successfully achieve EI goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Faraimo Jay Vai, 2024. "Does combining analytical and synthetic knowledge benefit eco‐innovation? Evidence from Norway," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 4977-4989, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:33:y:2024:i:6:p:4977-4989
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.3734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3734
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.3734?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:33:y:2024:i:6:p:4977-4989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.