IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2023i2p962-d1036330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Eco-Innovation and Green Economy in EU Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Lucia Domaracká

    (Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 04200 Košice, Slovakia)

  • Andrea Seňová

    (Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnologies, Technical University of Košice, Letná 9, 04200 Košice, Slovakia)

  • Dominik Kowal

    (Faculty of Management, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland)

Abstract

A businesses with a green label is associated with resources that are sustainable. This business is linked to the green economy, which can be described as a form of economy that is responsible in relation to the environment and economic growth, and thus complementary. In this type of economy, viable products are created, but also solutions and practices that take the environment into account. It is well known that eco-innovation activities are closely linked to the development of an eco-business. The research sample consisted of 10 countries, namely the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, and Finland, which were selected by purposive sampling. In this article, we look at eco innovations in selected countries, specifically ranking them, where we have divided countries into different levels, from countries that are at the super eco-innovation level, to countries that are in the middle zone, to countries that are significantly lagging in this trend. To classify countries into each level, we looked at the following variables: eco-innovation inputs, eco-innovation activities, environmental outcomes, socio-economic outcomes, and the eco-innovation index itself. Taking these sub-results into account, we determined where countries are, in other words, which level they have reached. We found that there are significant differences between countries. As we conclude, there are several reasons for this, but one of them is the lack of communication, coordination, and synergy between institutions, government, and SMEs, which are the drivers of eco-innovation. The supporting quantitative data collection method was data collection and structured observation, which is more precise and therefore provides more detailed information about the reality under study. For the purpose of this thesis, data were obtained from the Statistical Office of the European Union, that is, Eurostat, which is responsible for publishing pan-European statistics and indicators that allowed us to compare countries. In the survey, we compared the five most recent years for which Eurostat data were available, namely 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. The overall score of a European Union member state is calculated as the unweighted average of 16 sub-indicators. It shows how well each Member State performs in terms of eco-innovation compared to the European Union average of 100.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucia Domaracká & Andrea Seňová & Dominik Kowal, 2023. "Evaluation of Eco-Innovation and Green Economy in EU Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:962-:d:1036330
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/2/962/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/2/962/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davide Strusani & Georges Vivien Houngbonon, 2019. "The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Supporting Development in Emerging Markets," World Bank Publications - Reports 32365, The World Bank Group.
    2. Antonioli, Davide & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2013. "Is environmental innovation embedded within high-performance organisational changes? The role of human resource management and complementarity in green business strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 975-988.
    3. Barbara Kowal & Daria Włodarz & Edyta Brzychczy & Andrzej Klepka, 2022. "Analysis of Employees’ Competencies in the Context of Industry 4.0," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Pelin Demirel & Qian Cher Li & Francesco Rentocchini & J. Pawan Tamvada, 2019. "Born to be green: new insights into the economics and management of green entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 759-771, April.
    5. Krzysztof Wójcicki & Marta Biegańska & Beata Paliwoda & Justyna Górna, 2022. "Internet of Things in Industry: Research Profiling, Application, Challenges and Opportunities—A Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Larissa Batrancea & Marcel Ciprian Pop & Malar Maran Rathnaswamy & Ioan Batrancea & Mircea-Iosif Rus, 2021. "An Empirical Investigation on the Transition Process toward a Green Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, November.
    7. Andrzej Czyżewski & Andrzej Grzyb & Anna Matuszczak & Mariola Michałowska, 2021. "Factors for Bioeconomy Development in EU Countries with Different Overall Levels of Economic Development," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jim Andersén, 2023. "Green resource orchestration: A critical appraisal of the use of resource orchestration in environmental management research, and a research agenda for future study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5506-5520, December.
    2. Caroline Danièle Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2017. "Persistent openness and environmental innovation: An empirical analysis of French manufacturing firms," Post-Print hal-01609129, HAL.
    3. Ren, Shenggang & Hu, Yucai & Zheng, Jingjing & Wang, Yangjie, 2020. "Emissions trading and firm innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Doctor S. Nkosi & Thembani Moyo & Innocent Musonda, 2022. "Unlocking Land for Urban Agriculture: Lessons from Marginalised Areas in Johannesburg, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    6. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    7. Helmi Issa & Rachid Jabbouri, 2022. "Green Innovation in the MENA Healthcare Industry: A Knowledge-Based View," International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), IGI Global, vol. 18(1), pages 1-26, January.
    8. Soana, Maria Gaia, 2024. "Environmental strategies, environmental performance and board sustainability committees: Are financial and non-financial companies different?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    9. Shuang Ren & Guiyao Tang & Susan Jackson, 2018. "Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 769-803, September.
    10. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Paglialunga, Elena, 2018. "The employment impact of private and public actions for energy efficiency: Evidence from European industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 250-267.
    11. Grazia Cecere & Massimiliano Mazzanti, 2015. "Green jobs, innovation and environmentally oriented strategies in European SMEs," SEEDS Working Papers 2115, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Dec 2015.
    12. Iftikhar Hussain & Mehrab Nazir & Saadia Bano Hashmi & Assunta Di Vaio & Imrab Shaheen & Muhammad Arfaq Waseem & Adeel Arshad, 2021. "Green and Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Mediation-Moderation Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Jaros³aw Brodny & Magdalena Tutak, 2023. "The level of implementing sustainable development goal "Industry, innovation and infrastructure" of Agenda 2030 in the European Union countries: Application of MCDM methods," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(1), pages 47-102, March.
    14. Antonioli, Davide & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2017. "Towards a green economy through innovations: The role of trade union involvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 286-299.
    15. Rogério João Lunkes & Fabricia Silva da Rosa & Januário José Monteiro & Daiane Antonini Bortoluzzi, 2020. "Interactions among Environmental Training, Environmental Strategic Planning and Personnel Controls in Radical Environmental Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    16. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Stéphane Lhuillery & Antoine Schoen, 2017. "The determinants of cleaner energy innovations of the world’s largest firms: the impact of firm learning and knowledge capital," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 311-333, May.
    17. Li, Guangpei & Wang, Xiaoyu & Wu, Jinhua, 2019. "How scientific researchers form green innovation behavior: An empirical analysis of China's enterprises," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 134-146.
    18. Régis Y. Chenavaz & Alexandra Couston & Stéphanie Heichelbech & Isabelle Pignatel & Stanko Dimitrov, 2023. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Entrepreneurial Ventures: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-30, May.
    19. Martina Pilloni & József Kádár & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2022. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Energy Start-Up Companies: The Use of Global Financial Crisis (GFC) as a Lesson for Future Recovery," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, May.
    20. Jay Sheppard & Maral Mahdad, 2021. "Unpacking Hybrid Organizing in a Born Green Entrepreneurial Company," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-30, October.

    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:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:962-:d:1036330. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.