IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4486-d1401782.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploration or Exploitation? Corporate Green Innovation Strategy for Carbon Emission Reduction-Evidence from Pilot Enterprises in China

Author

Listed:
  • Shanshan Liu

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China)

  • Yugang Li

    (Department of Business Administration, School of Business, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China)

Abstract

Green innovation has become a key strategy for reducing emissions. However, existing research mainly examines this phenomenon through the resource and institutional perspectives, often ignoring the changes in corporate green innovation behavior under industry peer pressure. Therefore, this study draws on the policy framework of China’s carbon trading pilot and uses a multi-period difference-in-difference (DID) fixed effects model to explore how carbon trading shapes enterprises’ green innovation strategies. The survey used data from pilot enterprises from 2008 to 2019 and found that carbon trading policies are conducive to green innovation, and both exploratory green innovation and exploitative green innovation have been reflected. It is worth noting that under the influence of peer pressure, this positive effect is more prominent in exploratory green innovation. Furthermore, it was found that firms facing carbon pressure can skillfully find an equilibrium between exploratory green innovation and exploitative green innovation. The research results demonstrate the green innovation strategies and trade-offs of Chinese enterprises facing the impact of carbon trading policies, with the hope that the research conclusions will have certain theoretical reference significance for future corporate green transformation and increased investment in green innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanshan Liu & Yugang Li, 2024. "Exploration or Exploitation? Corporate Green Innovation Strategy for Carbon Emission Reduction-Evidence from Pilot Enterprises in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4486-:d:1401782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4486/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4486/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    4. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    5. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    6. Rubashkina, Yana & Galeotti, Marzio & Verdolini, Elena, 2015. "Environmental regulation and competitiveness: Empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European manufacturing sectors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 288-300.
    7. Hyunseok Park & Janghyeok Yoon, 2014. "Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: the case of Korean national R&D," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 853-890, February.
    8. Paul Lanoie & Jérémy Laurent‐Lucchetti & Nick Johnstone & Stefan Ambec, 2011. "Environmental Policy, Innovation and Performance: New Insights on the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 803-842, September.
    9. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    10. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    11. Kristel Buysse & Alain Verbeke, 2003. "Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 453-470, May.
    12. Fisch, Christian & Sandner, Philipp & Regner, Lukas, 2017. "The value of Chinese patents: An empirical investigation of citation lags," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 22-34.
    13. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    14. Giorgio Petroni & Barbara Bigliardi & Francesco Galati, 2019. "Rethinking the Porter Hypothesis: The Underappreciated Importance of Value Appropriation and Pollution Intensity," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(1), pages 121-140, January.
    15. Zhang, Gupeng & Lv, Xiaofeng & Zhou, Jianghua, 2014. "Private value of patent right and patent infringement: An empirical study based on patent renewal data of China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 37-54.
    16. Fariborz Damanpour, 1996. "Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 693-716, May.
    17. Harford, Jon D., 1978. "Firm behavior under imperfectly enforceable pollution standards and taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 26-43, March.
    18. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    19. Li, Pei & Lu, Yi & Wang, Jin, 2016. "Does flattening government improve economic performance? Evidence from China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 18-37.
    20. William P. Barnett & Henrich R. Greve & Douglas Y. Park, 1994. "An Evolutionary Model of Organizational Performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 11-28, December.
    21. Zhang, Wei & Li, Guoxiang & Guo, Fanyong, 2022. "Does carbon emissions trading promote green technology innovation in China?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    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. Aversa, Paolo & Guillotin, Olivier, 2018. "Firm technological responses to regulatory changes: A longitudinal study in the Le Mans Prototype racing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1655-1673.
    2. Orsatti, Gianluca & Pezzoni, Michele & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Where Do Green Technologies Come From? Inventor Teams’ Recombinant Capabilities and the Creation of New Knowledge," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201711, University of Turin.
    3. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    4. Dante I. Leyva-de la Hiz & J. Alberto Aragon-Correa & Andrew G. Earle, 2022. "Innovating for Good in Opportunistic Contexts: The Case for Firms’ Environmental Divergence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 705-721, April.
    5. Yuk, Hyeyeon & Garrett, Tony C., 2023. "Does customer participation moderate the effects of innovation on cost-based financial performance? An examination of different forms of customer participation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    7. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    8. Li, Yuan & Wei, Zelong & Zhao, Jie & Zhang, Chenlu & Liu, Yi, 2013. "Ambidextrous organizational learning, environmental munificence and new product performance: Moderating effect of managerial ties in China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 95-105.
    9. Nusrate Aziz & Belayet Hossain & Laura Lamb, 2022. "Does green policy pay dividends?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(2), pages 147-172, April.
    10. Cho, Sam Yul & Kim, Sang Kyun, 2017. "Horizon problem and firm innovation: The influence of CEO career horizon, exploitation and exploration on breakthrough innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1801-1809.
    11. Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada & Bengochea-Morancho, Aurelia & Morales-Lage, Rafael, 2019. "Does environmental policy stringency foster innovation and productivity in OECD countries?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Annapoornima M. Subramanian & Moren Lévesque & Vareska van de Vrande, 2020. "“Pulling the Plug:” Time Allocation between Drug Discovery and Development Projects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(12), pages 2851-2876, December.
    13. Liu, Wei & Zhao, Zhihui & Wen, Zhao & Cheng, Shixiong, 2022. "Environmental regulation and OFDI: Evidence from Chinese listed firms," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 191-208.
    14. Orsatti, Gianluca & Quatraro, Francesco & Pezzoni, Michele, 2020. "The antecedents of green technologies: The role of team-level recombinant capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    15. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    16. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    17. Fu, Tong & Yang, Siying & Jian, Ze, 2022. "Government support for environmental regulation: Evidence from China," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    18. Zhu, Xuehong & Zuo, Xuguang & Li, Hailing, 2021. "The dual effects of heterogeneous environmental regulation on the technological innovation of Chinese steel enterprises—Based on a high-dimensional fixed effects model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Hoppmann, Joern & Peters, Michael & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2013. "The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 989-1003.
    20. Khan, Zaheer & Lew, Yong Kyu & Marinova, Svetla, 2019. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in emerging economies: The role of realized absorptive capacity and learning intent," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 499-512.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4486-:d:1401782. 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.