IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v10y2022i9p178-d908564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Model of the Factors Affecting the Eco-Innovation Activity of Bulgarian Industrial Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Valentina Nikolova-Alexieva

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Food Technology, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Iordanka Alexieva

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Food Technology, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Katina Valeva

    (Faculty of Economics, University of Food Technology, 4000 Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

  • Mariana Petrova

    (Department of Information Technologies, St. Cyril and St. Methodius University of Veliko Tarnovo, 5000 Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
    D.A. Tsenov Academy of Economics, 5250 Svishtov, Bulgaria)

Abstract

In recent years, modern society has faced a number of challenges related to the achievement of global goals for sustainable development. Industrial enterprises are challenged to generate, stimulate, and demand changes in networks and supply chains, but these challenges require flexibility and innovation activity in different directions. The data for Bulgaria show that the country is last among the countries of the European Union in terms of the creation and implementation of eco-innovations. Despite this result, the pace at which the country is developing shows that in the next few years, Bulgaria has the potential to move from a modest to a moderate eco-innovator, provided that it succeeds in filling the structural gaps in the system of ecological innovation. These gaps are related not only to the need for changes in the investment of resources but also to the need for changes in individual and related systems such as science and innovation, support for SMEs, the energy system, etc. Most of the research on sustainable innovation and eco-innovation has, however, focused on firm innovation models dominated by short-term profit-maximizing approaches. Therefore, there is a need to conduct research and propose adequate strategies for modern business environments and design models that facilitate the implementation of eco-innovations in industrial enterprises. The purpose of this report is to investigate the factors influencing the development of eco-innovation activities of Bulgarian industrial enterprises, examining how they can help to achieve success through eco-innovation and improve business results. A factorial model is proposed, through which the relationships between technological, financial, organizational, informational resources, research and development activities (R&D), and company cooperation are analyzed. The PLS structural equation modeling technique was used to validate the proposed theoretical model. The survey was conducted among 380 industrial enterprises from all over the sectors of the economy in Bulgaria with the help of a specially developed questionnaire within the period of April 2019 to December 2021. The obtained results show that human resources, financial resources, and cooperation positively influence research and development activities. In addition, the achievement of a positive effect on the management of eco-innovations affects the innovation activities of industrial enterprises, their ability to carry out research and development activities, as well as their ability to manage the technical and technological resources at their disposal effectively. Finally, the innovation activity aimed at carrying out scientific research and development activity, products and processes obtained as a result of the eco-innovation activity, and adequate information management directly affect the efficiency of business processes and financial results.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentina Nikolova-Alexieva & Iordanka Alexieva & Katina Valeva & Mariana Petrova, 2022. "Model of the Factors Affecting the Eco-Innovation Activity of Bulgarian Industrial Enterprises," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:178-:d:908564
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/9/178/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/9/178/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aghion, Philippe & Howitt, Peter, 1992. "A Model of Growth through Creative Destruction," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 323-351, March.
    2. Andrey Zahariev & Anelia Radulova & Aleksandrina Aleksandrova & Mariana Petrova, 2021. "Fiscal sustainability and fiscal risk in the EU: forecasts and challenges in terms of COVID-19," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(3), pages 618-632, March.
    3. Hulya Ulku, 2007. "R&D, innovation, and growth: evidence from four manufacturing sectors in OECD countries," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 59(3), pages 513-535, July.
    4. Audretsch, David B, 1998. "Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 18-29, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saurav Chandra Talukder & Zoltán Lakner, 2023. "Exploring the Landscape of Social Entrepreneurship and Crowdfunding: A Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.

    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. Qureshi, Irfan & Park, Donghyun & Crespi, Gustavo Atilio & Benavente, Jose Miguel, 2021. "Trends and determinants of innovation in Asia and the Pacific vs. Latin America and the Caribbean," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1287-1309.
    2. Mori, Tomoya & Sakaguchi, Shosei, 2018. "Collaborative knowledge creation: Evidence from Japanese patent data," MPRA Paper 88716, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Pop Silaghi, Monica Ioana & Alexa, Diana & Jude, Cristina & Litan, Cristian, 2014. "Do business and public sector research and development expenditures contribute to economic growth in Central and Eastern European Countries? A dynamic panel estimation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 108-119.
    4. Creina Day, 2016. "Non-Scale Endogenous Growth with R&D and Human Capital," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 63(5), pages 443-467, November.
    5. Bayraktar-Sağlam, Bahar & Yetkiner, Hakan, 2014. "A Romerian contribution to the empirics of economic growth," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 257-272.
    6. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    7. Agénor, Pierre-Richard & Neanidis, Kyriakos C., 2015. "Innovation, public capital, and growth," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 252-275.
    8. Enrique Claver-Cortés & Bartolomé Marco-Lajara & Pedro Seva-Larrosa & Lorena Ruiz-Fernández & Eduardo Sánchez-García, 2020. "Explanatory Factors of Entrepreneurship in Food and Beverage Clusters in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-22, July.
    9. Yanrui Wu, 2010. "Innovation and Economic Growth in China," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 10-10, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    10. Sara Barcenilla-Visús & José-María Gómez-Sancho & Carmen López-Pueyo & María-Jesús Mancebón & Jaime Sanaú, 2013. "Technical Change, Efficiency Change and Institutions: Empirical Evidence for a Sample of OECD Countries," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(285), pages 207-227, June.
    11. A. Minniti & F. Venturini, 2014. "R&D Policy and Schumpeterian Growth: Theory and Evidence," Working Papers wp945, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. Neves, Pedro Cunha & Sequeira, Tiago Neves, 2018. "Spillovers in the production of knowledge: A meta-regression analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 750-767.
    13. Venturini, Francesco, 2012. "Looking into the black box of Schumpeterian growth theories: An empirical assessment of R&D races," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1530-1545.
    14. Jakob B. Madsen & Minoo Farhadi, 2018. "International Technology Spillovers and Growth over the Past 142 Years: The Role of Genetic Proximity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 329-359, April.
    15. Christian Schröder, 2014. "Dynamics in ICT cooperation networks in selected German ICT clusters," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 197-230, February.
    16. Edgar Morgenroth, 2003. "What should Policy Makers Learn from Recent Advances in Growth Theory and New Economic Geography?," Papers WP150, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    17. Steven Bond-Smith, 2021. "The unintended consequences of increasing returns to scale in geographical economics [Investing for prosperity: skills, infrastructure and innovation]," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(5), pages 653-681.
    18. Juhro, Solikin M. & Narayan, Paresh Kumar & Iyke, Bernard Njindan & Trisnanto, Budi, 2020. "Is there a role for Islamic finance and R&D in endogenous growth models in the case of Indonesia?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Wang, Cong, 2013. "Can institutions explain cross country differences in innovative activity?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 128-145.
    20. Paul J. Maliszewski & Breandán Ó hUallacháin, 2012. "Hierarchy and concentration in the American urban system of technological advance," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 91(4), pages 743-758, November.

    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:jrisks:v:10:y:2022:i:9:p:178-:d:908564. 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.