WHAT
INNOVATION MEANS FOR THE ADOPTION OF ECO-INNOVATION IN A CHEMICAL COMPANY?

O QUE A INOVAÇÃO SIGNIFICA PARA A ADOÇÃO DA ECOINOVAÇÃO
EM UMA EMPRESA QUÍMICA?

ABSTRACT

There are internal and external
factors that influence companies on the implementation of eco-innovation. This
article aims to analyze what leads a chemical company from an emerging country
to adopt eco-innovation. We developed a qualitative case study based on
external and internal factors. The results indicate that the company focused
mainly on Research and Development (R&D) and product innovation,
emphasizing that innovation can bring advantages in the integration of
eco-innovation in its processes. In relation to the drivers for adopting
eco-innovation, the influence is more external, based on normative pressures,
cooperation and technology. The main challenge is to align sustainable concepts
with company strategy, while integrating innovation across departments, this
did not drive eco-innovation strategies. Background research on eco-innovation
can help policymakers guide and predict corporate behavior and develop
mechanisms to encourage environmental management.

Keywords: Eco-Innovation. Chemical Industry. Sustainability.

RESUMO

Fatores internos e externos podem influenciar a implementação de
ecoinovação nas empresas. Este artigo tem como objetivo analisar o que leva uma
empresa química de um país emergente a adotar uma ecoinovação. Por meio de um
estudo de caso qualitativo, com base nos fatores externos e internos, observou-se
que a empresa é focada principalmente em Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (P&D) e
inovação de produto, enfatizando que inovação pode trazer vantagens na
integração da ecoinovação em seus processos. Em relação aos direcionadores para
adoção da ecoinovação, a influência é mais externa, pelas pressões normativas,
cooperação e tecnologia. O principal desafio é alinhar sustentabilidade à
estratégia da empresa. A inovação é transversalmente integrada nos
departamentos, mas isso não impulsionou estratégias de ecoinovação. Pesquisas
sobre antecedentes da ecoinovação podem ajudar os formuladores de políticas a
orientar e prever o comportamento das empresas e desenvolver mecanismos para
estimular uma gestão ambiental.

Palavras-chave: Ecoinovação.
Indústria Química. Sustentabilidade.

1 INTRODUCTION

Companies are under pressure to
apply sustainable development (SD) in its organizational practices, what turns
latent the need for a reassessment of innovation and technological change
(SMITH; VOß; GRIN, 2010). Innovation represents a relevant
factor behind sustainability, stimulated by the advent
of sustainable thinking that tries to integrate the
economy and the environment (MAZZANTI, 2018).
In this sense, innovations with reduced negative impacts on the environment,
called eco-innovations
(BITENCOURT et al., 2020) are crucial to create synergies between sustainability and competitiveness towards a green economy (MAZZANTI, 2018).

Under these circumstances, Boons and
Lüdeke-Freund (2013) refer to eco-innovation studies
as the search of new technologies and new social practices that make society
more sustainable. Horbach, Rammer and Rennings (2012, p. 119) define eco-innovation: “Innovations
leading to a noticeable reduction in environmental burdens. Positive
environmental effects can be explicit goals or side-effects of innovations.
They can occur within the respective companies or through customer use of
products or services.” Froehlich,
Mello and Engelman (2017) synthesize that eco-innovations represent new or
improved processes, new organizational forms, as well as new products or
technologies that are beneficial to the environment.

Although there are barriers to overcome, many
companies invest in successful eco-innovation and is considered as a key tool
towards sustainable development (CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015). Understand what are
the motivations for the adoption of eco-innovation is extremely important to
help policy makers at guiding and predicting companies’ behavior and develop
accurate mechanisms to prompt a more environmental management. In addition, for
businesses, it is important to clarify what are the main factors that deserve
its attention to expand strategies on sustainability and on innovation.

A company, to be considered sustainable, must
integrate sustainability in its main abilities, skills and capabilities in most
areas, such as corporate strategy, governance and stakeholders, clients and
products, human resources and financial results (PARASCHI et al., 2012). Demirel and Kesidou (2011)
analyzed determinants for different eco-innovations, from incremental
innovation, with less impact to higher impact
as integrated technologies, cleaner production, environmental research
and development (R&D).

One driver that has been stood out is the
essential role played by top managers as key player for adoption of
eco-innovation, acting as a trigger for the introduction of relevant
environmental management practices (AZZONE; NOCI, 1998). Horbach
(2008) also highlights its importance, and Weng and Lin (2011), in the same way,
emphasize the influence from quality of human resources, organizational and
government support and demand and regulatory pressures.

Having an environmental management
system (EMS) can positively influence the adoption of eco-innovation, depending
on the maturity level of this system. Another important determinant for
eco-innovation is the participation of other areas within the company, with
strong emphasis on the R&D area. The learning process can be important for
product innovation and implementation of an EMS (RENNINGS et al., 2006).

Stricter regulations tend to lead to
the adoption of more eco-innovations (CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015), but this is not
always true. In emerging and developing countries with less stringent
regulations, leading companies tend to invest in eco-innovations for other
reasons than only to comply with regulations (DING; JIANMU, 2015).

A central argument in this research
is that there are certain determinants (drivers) both internal and external to
companies that influence the adoption of eco-innovation. These drivers have
been identified and assembled in Bossle et al. (2016)
in a systematic review of literature. In that sense, studying what drives
companies in emerging countries to adopt eco-innovation and what is the
influence of leadership innovation in the adoption of sustainable practices
should be further explored. Within this context, by expanding the analysis in Bossle et al. (2016), the research problem proposed in this
study is presented. The aim of this study is to analyze the influent drivers
for adoption of the eco-innovation in a company from the chemical industry in
an emerging country.

Choosing the chemical industry to
analyze eco-innovation is justified by its high impact in the environment. The
Environmental risk factors in the chemical industry are those related to the
following agents: physical (heat, noise, ionizing and non-ionizing, vibration,
and luminance) and chemicals and biological (virus, bacteria, fungus, etc.). In
addition, it is worth to highlight that all chemical substances may cause
damage to the environment when concentrations is above acceptable levels.
Special attention should be given to POPs (persistent organic pollutants) that
are persistent, i.e., slow to decompose, are volatile and therefore are
distributed around the globe. Damage can occur both in the human population,
and in animals, plants and even the assets. This damage can range from minor
injuries to death and extinction of animal and plant species (FREITAS, 2000).

In
this context, eco-innovation is a concept that simultaneously generate economic
benefits and favors the protection and conservation of the environment
mitigating the environmental risks of chemicals.

2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Sustainable development also means
to put together growing concerns with environment and socio-economic issues
(HOPWOOD; MELLOR; O’BRIEN, 2005). Economics must be a function of society and
environment, not the other way around. Thus, sustainable should be based on the
relationship between environment and society, with feedbacks’ cycles for both
sides, in which social and environmental equality are fundamental ideals
(HOPWOOD; MELLOR; O’BRIEN, 2005).

Due to an increasing level of public
concern and environmental regulations, companies are raising awareness with
socio-environmental issues (BANERJEE, 2003). That is, regulatory pressures
(macro level) influence public opinion, what ends up shaping companies behaviour (micro level). Sustainable development requires
an economic and social progressive transformation (WCED, 1987). Considering
this, sustainable development must be a continuous process of change, which may
be related to system innovations that require an integrated redesign of
products, lifestyle, process and structure. In that sense, Wals
and Schwarzin (2012) worries include finding a way to
include people, organizations and communities in these transitions, while recognising all benefits of doing things in a more
sustainable way.

During 1990s two great movements
took emphasis on sustainable development discussions, one concerned with how to
measure sustainable development, and the other with economic growth boundaries
towards sustainable development (ROBINSON, 2004). Therefore, there is an
attempt to close this gap between ideas and practical/applicable issues, to
turn the theoretical concept into pro-sustainable development actions, grounded
on environmental, economic and social pillar. Nevertheless, this is a great
challenge since our society and companies are, traditionally driven by the economic
pillar.

In that
sense, Iyer-Raniga and Treloar (2000) stress some important issues about sustainable
development: a) interdisciplinary approach, needed due to the complex nature of
the subject; b) environmental damages can be caused by slow changes, so it is
necessary to be aware and attentive to these changes, since its outcome and
effects can be drastic and devastating; and c) natural and social environment,
in constant change and interrelated. In that way, sustainable development is a
constructive process of a given goal, and not a state, that is, it is necessary
to follow a long way towards (IYER-RANINGA; TRELOAR, 2000).

Banerjee (2003) identified different
levels of strategical focus in companies when investigating entrepreneurs’
perception of sustainable actions undertaken in their companies. Some companies
seem to integrate environmental issues in higher levels of strategy than
others. Top managers recognize the importance on acknowledge their companies’
impact on the environment, and the urgent need for mitigating theses effects.
They agree that is necessary to be sensitive to environmental problems and to
take into account external stakeholders, undertaking action for the local
community and being good corporate citizens. So, although their actions usually
aim at economic benefits, they recognize their responsibility. The
environmental orientation seems to reflect managers’ awareness about
environmental issues related to their companies and their responsibility
(responsiveness) towards external stakeholders (BANERJEE, 2003).

Considering that society, companies
and governments’ needs are dynamic and the process of change proposed by
sustainable development concept is continuous, emerges the need for approaching
the innovation concept.  Leadership in
innovation can elucidate why some companies can improve industrial and
environmental performance easily, as they are better able to respond to the
dynamics of the competitive environment, taking advantage of new opportunities
for innovation (CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015).

In addition to the importance of
including environmental concepts in corporate strategy, the environmental
awareness of consumers is also a relevant variable for the production and
consumption of sustainable products (HORBACH, 2008). Successful companies
include environmental and social management as a central part of its strategic
plan and integrate these issues in innovation practices (CHANG; CHEN, 2013).

Sustainability requires several
changes and innovations, not only within the company, but generally for
society. Technological change towards more sustainable systems is linked to
structural and cultural changes, requiring some important transformations and
transitions (ELZEN; WIECZOREK, 2005; SMITH; VOß; GRIN,
2010).

Bringing together innovation and
sustainability comes the eco-innovation, which includes innovation as a
contribution to the advancement of sustainability (FERNANDO; JABBOUR; WAH, 2019). Eco-innovation is essential in
guiding companies towards sustainable development (LEE; WU; TSENG, 2018), since
it is seen as multi and interdisciplinary approaches, that is, which
encompasses activities of production, assimilation or exploitation of a
product, production process, service or management or business method that is
novel to the organization and which results in a reduction of environmental
risk, pollution and other negative impacts to relevant alternatives (KEMP;
PEARSON, 2008).

Eco-innovation is still a recent
topic and has been discussed in the literature, both in relation to its
definition (CARRILLO-HERMOSILLA; DEL RÍO; KÖNNÖLÄ, 2010; BOSSLE; BARCELLOS;
VIEIRA, 2015; DEL RÍO; PEÑASCO; ROMERO-JORDÁN,
2016), and in relation to the need of having a specific theoretical
framework for their study (DEL RÍO; PEÑASCO; ROMERO-JORDÁN, 2016). Being
successful in the market is essential to socio-environmentally friendly
products contribute to a transition towards sustainable development (DANGELICO,
2015; PUJARI, 2006).

Eco-innovation implies
environmental improvements, while providing additional value for organizations,
developing new business niches and better competitive behavior
(ARRANZ;
ARROYABE; FERNANDEZ DE ARROYABE, 2019).

Because eco-innovation has
particular characteristics, different drivers must be included in their
strategies (JOVÉ-LLOPIS; SEGARRA-BLASCO, 2018). In this sense, former papers
address environmental innovation as an “action to comply with the law and other
regulations” (AZZONE; NOCI, 1998; GREEN; MCMEEKIN;
IRWIN, 1994). Although regulation keeps its main role in the adoption of
eco-innovation, other drivers that influence the adoption have been
incorporated in the studies about companies’ motivation (CHASSAGNON; HANED,
2015). It depends not only on internal factors, but also on external pressures
(CAI; LI, 2018), and these should be investigated to identify whether they are
relevant in different contexts, e.g. emerging and developed countries and among
different industries (CAI; LI, 2018). At this point, Bitencourt et al. (2020) in his
meta-analytical study found that in countries that promote greater sustainable
competitiveness by natural, social and intellectual capital, resource
management and governance efficiency, they perform better in eco-innovative
practices.

Specifically in a Latin American
context, the concept of eco-innovation has been the subject of debates not only
among researchers, but also in the process of formulating public policies, as
found by Graf (2015) who analyzed innovation plans in three countries:
Argentina, Brazil and Mexico focusing on the link between ecology, innovation
and renewable energies.

Considering the importance of
studying drivers for adoption of eco-innovation, both strategically to the
company to increase its environmental performance and to policy-makers to
implement mechanisms to stimulate eco-innovation (DEL
RÍO; PEÑASCO; ROMERO-JORDÁN, 2016), Bossle et
al. (2016) proposed a theoretical framework with the main drivers from the
literature to be empirically investigated. According to the framework, external
factors and internal factors can influence the adoption of eco-innovation by
the companies, and increase its environmental performance and also postulate
that the pressure from external drivers can push changes internally, pushing
the company to act more environmentally friendly (BOSSLE et al., 2016).

Based on this framework,
external factors cover regulatory pressures, government support, regulatory
pressures, cooperation and environmental technology. Regulatory pressures
relate to environmental regulation and concerns (CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015),
being typically exercised by the government (CAI; LI, 2018). So, companies that
can exceed minimum compliance with environmental regulations can take advantage
of pioneering innovation (CAI; LI, 2018; CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015).

In this context,
governments can act by driving eco-innovations by developing a supportive
infrastructure, regulations, and incentives that encourage the adoption of
green activities (FERNANDO; JABBOUR; WAH, 2019; DORAN; RYAN, 2012).

Normative pressures, in
turn, concern the pressures exerted by its stakeholders, such as customers and
suppliers (CAI; LI, 2018). Cooperation, on the other hand, appears to be an
important driver, since eco-innovations require more external knowledge than
traditional innovations, and for this reason, organizations seek in cooperation
to access external sources of information (HOJNIK; RUZZIER, 2016).

Finally, Fernando and
Wah (2017) argue that the implementation of technologies is fundamental for
eco-innovation, because, according to the authors, the development of new
technologies requires investments in research and development, which
consequently induce additional innovations.

At the same time,
internal factors derived from assets within a company also determine the choice
of eco-innovations, including efficiency, environmental capability, and
environmental management concerns, including environmental leadership, human
resource quality, and environmental strategy, including company culture.
Efficiency is reported as a driver for eco-innovations, as it is linked to
factors such as cost reduction, motivations to update equipment, investments in
R&D and EMS Systems (Organizational Capacity) (BOSSLE et al., 2016). Environmental
capacity refers to a company's ability to adopt eco-innovative responses,
integrating, coordinating, building and reconfiguring their skills and
resources for appropriate environmental practices (CAI; ZHOU, 2014; BOSSLE et
al., 2016).

In addition, Arranz et al. (2020) demonstrated
that there is a parallel between
the knowledge and skills necessary for the development of eco-innovation and innovation, highlighting the interrelationship between the two processes, which makes companies
that have already developed innovations more likely to develop eco-innovations.

Associated with this,
there is evidence in the literature that the environmental managerial concern,
that is, the concern of managers regarding environmental issues, is also an
important issue. So, the support of top executives drives the adoption of
eco-innovation (EIADAT, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to have environmental
leadership, that is, a leader who is able to influence other individuals in
favor of environmental practices (BOSSLE et al., 2016). Also relevant is the
quality of human resources, as well as the adoption of strategies that signal
the commitment of the organization to the environment, including in its culture
behaviors and processes that denote this concern (BOSSLE et al., 2016).

Given the above, this study aims at
investigating the influence of those drivers in a company from the chemical
industry, including the influence of innovation on the adoption of
eco-innovation (see Figure 1). Companies and innovation process are path
dependent, what can a priori turn
companies that were innovative in the past to be considered as potential
innovators in the present (HORBACH, 2008). According to Tsai and Liao (2017), the influence of
innovation on eco‐innovation varies according to the
level of customer’s demand for environmental products, environmental awareness
of markets, regulations and government support.

What “new” or “newness” is dependent
on the context where the company or the market takes place (CARRILLO-HERMOSILLA;
DEL RÍO; KÖNNÖLÄ, 2010), and innovation strategies bear to increasingly
comprise environmental features with different intensities and rates (FRONDEL; HORBACH; RENNINGS, 2007).
Nevertheless, while innovation leadership can be a driver for adoption of
eco-innovation (CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015), innovation process can also be
refrained by path dependency, what can turn certain aspects of innovation
dependent on a given industry, company or technological field (PAVITT, 2005).

Firms need to innovate, so, in
response to demands and consumer’s lifestyles changes, and to take advantage of
the opportunities offered by technology and markets, structures and dynamics
also changes. Maybe this is an important point that eco-innovation concept now
encompasses and that makes it a special type of innovation. Not all innovations
are eco-innovations, but all eco-innovations are innovations, with some
important features that set them apart.

Figure 1 – Framework for analyzing the influence of innovation and other
drivers for adoption of eco-innovation

Source:
Adapted from Bossle, Barcellos
and Vieira (2015).

3 METHODOLOGY

A qualitative case study
was employed for this research. This approach is justified due to the need to
refine an existing theory, which allows new relationships to be investigated
and reveals complex processes, in this way illustrating the influence of social
context (SHAH; CORLEY, 2006).

An attempt was made to
identify a representative company that met the following criteria: a)
recognized in the market for its innovative capacity; b) innovation must be a
deliberate organizational strategy; c) the enterprise should embody an
innovation-oriented culture (innovation should be part of the mission, vision
and organizational values of the enterprise). The company selected stands out
from the competition because a) it is widely recognized in the different
segments it operates; b) innovation is part of its mission and values; c) it
produces product and process patents; d) innovation is part of its social
reporting.

To guide data collection, a protocol was developed which is a strategy recommended by Yin (2005), which was built from the categories identified in the theoretical framework: (1) External factors: regulatory pressures, government support, cooperation, normative pressures, technology ; (2) Internal factors: efficiency, environmental capability, adoption of certifications, environmental managerial concern, environmental strategy, human resources. After the construction of the protocol, a semi-structured interview script was developed, the questions sought to investigate how each of these categories occurred in the target company of the study. The interview script was validated by a researcher professor specialized in the subject.

The semi-structured and
in-depth interviews were conducted with different levels and areas, indicated
by the company. Thus, the choice criterion adopted was related to the leaders
at the strategic level. Data
on the different areas represented by the managers was validated using
triangulation. All interviews were recorded with the consent of the
participants and then transcribed for analysis so that any doubts could be
clarified and potential misinterpretations eliminated. This contributes to
ensuring the integrity and reliability of the analysis of the data collected.

To protect the identity
of the participants, they were randomly assigned a sequential identifier
(Participant 1 - E1, Participant 2 - E2 and so on). Table 1 summarizes the participants’
profiles.

Table 1 – Participants’ profiles

Job/position

Time with the company

Education

(E1)
Technology Manager

13
mo.

Chemistry
technician. BSc Chemistry. MSc Organic Chemistry. PhD Materials Engineering.

(E2)
Technology Projects Coordinator

7
yrs

Chemistry
technician. BSc Chemistry. MBA Business and Project Management.

(E3)
Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Coordinator

3
yrs

Chemistry
technician. BSc Environmental Engineering. BSc OSH. International MBA
Environmental Management.

(E4)
Management and innovation Analyst

5
yrs

Chemistry
technician. BSc Production Engineering (in progress).

(E5)
Planning and New Businesses Manager

17
yrs

BSc
Commercial Engineering.

(E6)
Coordinator of the Francisco Xavier Kunst Foundation

3
yrs

BA Social
Science. Specialist, HR Planning and Management. MA Education.

(E7)
Environmental Analyst

2
½ yrs

Chemical
Engineering.

(E8)
Internal and Institutional Marketing Coordinator

1
yr

Journalism.

(E9)
Development Consultant

6
yrs

BA
Business. MBA Strategy and Innovation.

(E10)
Organizational Development Director

3
yrs

BSc
Accounting. MBA Business Management. MBA Social Technology.

Source: developed by the authors.

The total number of
interviews (10) fulfilled the saturation criteria, i.e. the repetition of the
data collected indicated that further interviews were not required. An
additional methodological precaution was the triangulation of data, which in
this study was based on the different managerial areas and positions of the
participants and on the different data collection formats used (interviews and
documentary analysis).

Secondary data were
obtained from documents supplied by the company. Overall, documentary
information is relevant in case study approaches (YIN, 2005), as the main
purpose of information obtained from documents is to strengthen and support
other sources of evidence, particularly to supply details. The following
company’s documents were examined: a) the company’s social report; b)
commemorative book of company’s anniversary; c) company’s portal; d)
environmental management system handbook; e) articles printed in the company’s
monthly newsletter.

All data collected were
processed using qualitative content analysis, a method by which the key
elements are broken down into categories that match the theoretical framework
adopted. Categorization is identified by Selltiz,
Jahoda and Cook (1965) as an effective technique for data organization and
reduction as the information is grouped into a limited number of categories.
The following categories were used in this study: (1) External factors:
regulatory pressures, government support, cooperation, normative pressures,
technology; (2) Internal factors: efficiency, environmental capability,
adoption of certifications, environmental managerial concern, environmental
strategy, human resources.

These categories were
created following the recommendations of Bardin (2010), by which elements are
first isolated and then grouped together according to the following
characteristics: (a) mutually exclusive, i.e. each element belongs to a single
category; (b) homogeneity: the mutually exclusive principle depends of the
homogeneity of the categories, so a single criterion should be used to
determine how the category is organized; (c) pertinence: a category is
considered pertinent when it is adapted to the material of analysis selected
and when it belongs to the selected theoretical framework, i.e. it is suitable
to the research aim; (d) objectivity and reliability, i.e. the categories
should be clearly defined to eliminate any doubts concerning the allocation of
elements; (e) productivity: a set of categories is productive is it provides
elements that are rich in inference indexes, new assumptions and concrete data.

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Results are discussed in
this section, mainly based on the perceptions of different employees from the
studied company and secondary data (social reports, websites and other
reports).

Although the company
states that sustainability is one of its main core values, as could be seen in
the interviews, including sustainability in the strategy and integrating it in
all departments within the company is still a challenge. The company mainly
eco-innovates in products, both in terms of reducing impact on the environment
and in reducing risks for workers who will handle with the adhesives they
produce.

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY

The decision for
adopting sustainability (and eco-innovation) is linked to a long-term vision,
in which they must predict impacts and needs from the environment and plan its
strategy, products, location of plants, etc. (E3). The company is also
concerned with social issues and wellbeing of employees, that should feel happy
while at work (E3). These social concerns are also related to the safety of the
workers who will manipulate their products and should be protected from harmful
products (E5).

The main drivers for
investing in sustainability are related to growth and long-term vision of
business, environment protection and improvement of stakeholders’ wellbeing.
Suppliers are also evaluated in terms of compliance with environmental law and
in relation to sustainability (E7). E10 highlights three aspects of
sustainability that are included in the company’s practices:

a) Adoption
of environmental management system, ISO 14001, internal awareness campaigns,
and development of human resources’ practices; b) Having a stablished
Foundation with social projects and activities for the community; c) Applying
sustainability principles in products, such as the use of ecological fibers,
alternative materials for solvent in the adhesive, etc. (E10).

Although the company
does not apply specific indicators for assessing sustainability, environmental,
social and even cultural (as a 4th pillar of sustainability) precepts are taken
into account when developing a new product, mainly when it is related to a
radical innovation. Payoff (economic aspect) is crucial for the final decision,
but social issues related to internal factors, such as workers’ wellbeing are
considered, as well as environmental efficiency through a better use of
resources.

The company is very well
developed in terms of innovation, with 29 patents and 28 innovation awards only
in 2012. According to the results from interviews, the company developed an
innovation culture that permeates all departments through an integrative and
professional management (E1 and E2). Nevertheless, its family management
origin, turn this process much more top-down, being a response from the board
of directors’ (management board) guidance (E1). This strong focus in innovation
started as a strategy in 1997 when the company developed its first strategic
plan, building up four strategic guidelines, incorporating innovation and
internationalization. The company has developed a strong culture of innovation
and incorporating a new campaign, claiming that innovation and internationalization
belongs to company’s DNA (E5). Sustainability is much more recent, the company
has started to include this as a value around 2011. Next, the main drivers for
adoption of eco-innovation are analyzed.

4.2 EXTERNAL DRIVERS

4.2.1    Regulation

Regarding
regulation, it was pointed out in the interviews that the company belongs to
the chemical industry, considered with a high environmental impact, regulations
are already very strict. At this point, Wagner and Llerena
(2011), when comparing different sectors of the industry, found that, with
respect to eco-innovation, there can be great variation among the sectoral
contexts. Even though, the interviewees affirm in the company studied the
environmental actions go beyond mere compliance with legislation (E3).
Considering its accentuated focus in innovation, the company tries to
anticipate market and regulatory trends, even though it is still seen that
Brazilian market and regulation are not very demanding in that sense.

This result is confirmed
by the literature that points to regulation as an important element for
eco-innovation (HORBACH; RAMMER; RENNINGS,
2012), where it can offer a competitive advantage in the face of pioneering
(CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015).

4.2.2 Normative
pressure

Normative pressure is
maybe one of the most relevant drivers for adoption of eco-innovation in this
company. Normative pressure is related to legitimacy, when companies try to
anticipate to the requirements from the market, or they observe other companies
and try to behave according its institutional field (BOSSLE et al., 2016).
Normative pressures is also related to market demand
and demand from different stakeholders (CAI; LI, 2018). Adopting eco-innovation
was encouraged by pressure from banks and funding agencies, since sustainability
is one of the issues they assess when a loan is needed. Funding will be
provided accordingly, the more sustainable, more funding with more interesting
interest (E3).

4.2.3 Governmental support

The perception from
interviews is that government support is still very incipient in Brazil, does
not pushing companies to act more pro-actively towards sustainable development.
E3 thinks that in Brazil should have more sustainable public policies to turn
the whole society more sustainable. So, there is a need for the government to
realize the importance of eco-innovative activities, since according to a study
developed by Doran e Ryan (2012) eco-innovation in the European Union was
responsible for stimulating economic growth and development, and this type of
innovation is seen as a means to help countries recover from the financial
crises (DORAN; RYAN, 2012).

4.2.4 Cooperation

The company considers
cooperation as an important strategy to further develop innovation projects and
new product development. They stablish networks and cooperative relationships
not only with other companies, but also looking for resources from governmental
research agencies, such as CNPq, SENAI and Finep. By doing this, the company raise awareness of the
importance of collaborating with research agencies (E1). They also have
important partnerships with universities, mainly from the region (southern
Brazil), but also with other universities, to develop and to test new products
(E1). There is also collaboration with other companies, for example, to assess
technical feasibility of a product, when a specific machine is required (E1).

Partnership and
collaboration with other companies (clients and suppliers) is a strong driver
for innovation. These partnerships are mainly due to technological agreement,
when they need to use an equipment, for example, and go to the market to seek
for a company that possesses the equipment, know how, knowledge, products
(HOJNIK; RUZZIER, 2016).

4.2.5 Technology

Sustainability is highly
correlated with product eco-innovation, it is not integrated in companies’
strategy nor is it taken into account by all
departments within the company. Research & Development department is the
department that is usually in charge of finding a renewable resource for using
as a raw material, or reusing residual components from other industries or
plants (E6 and E7).  The problem of using
residuals from other plants is the uncertainty in relation to the offer (E7),
what can bring difficulties to keep using this kind of raw material. These
results corroborate with the statements of  Fernando and Wah (2017) who report that
investments in research and development are drivers of eco-innovation.

The
company was leader in Latin America in developing alternatives that could replace
chemical solvents by water-based adhesive technologies, with less environmental
impacts. Going further, they developed hot melts adhesives, and the powder
adhesive, that is a breakthrough eco-innovation for the company (E1 and E7).
Although they are investing in alternatives solvents still represent 36% of
sales, while hot melt is 31%, water-based adhesives, 29%, others (3,7%), and
powder only 0,3%. According to E10, the powder has a more complex process,
requiring from clients investments in new equipment and development of new
process. To overcome these barriers, partnerships with large companies are
under development to spread product insertion on the market (E10).

The concept
of the powder adhesive was born internally, driven by research and development
(R&D) in 2006. At the time, our focus was the shoes sector, but we realized
that to innovate, we should go beyond. The idea was born from the vision of a
critical commercial and technical analysis for identifying business
opportunities in the light of sustainability (E4).

Cooperation with other
companies and with universities is boosted by the development of new
technologies, at the same time that helped to push the company to increase
investments in more eco-innovative products.

Research and
tests with new raw materials in adhesives have been made even without the
existence of a machine. The initial results were beyond expectations, but to
innovate in an exclusively collage process unique it was necessary to start a
technology partnership in 2008 to improve the bonding process using the powder
adhesive (E5).

Other partnerships were
developed in 2009 e 2010, with companies that would apply the powder adhesives.
These phases of validation and test were successful and the process was
approved by clients. “We did a partnership with a large shoe’s company that
produced around two million shoes using this new system for bonding shoes. So
before launching in the market, we were already sure that the product works,
and this helped commercially” (E5).

4.3 INTERNAL DRIVERS

4.3.1 Environmental managerial concern

Regarding
top management support the results suggest that the main challenge for the
company to increase sustainability and eco-innovation is to align these
sustainable concepts with the company's vision (E10). That is to really
integrate sustainability in the company’s strategy. What was inferred from the
interviews is that top managers and the executive committee are not very
concerned with those issues and therefore, sustainable policies are not spread
throughout the company. The managerial performance in the case analyzed
contrasts the assumptions of the literature that points out the importance of
the support of the main executives drives the adoption of eco-innovation
(EIADAT, 2008).

It
became clear that sustainability is directly associated with the development of
sustainable products. Nevertheless, disseminating a culture focused on
eco-innovation is still hard to be done by top managers in this company. The
awareness for sustainability and dissemination of eco-innovation culture is
presented in reports and in processes regarding to new product development, but
not in the business model. A culture of innovation is widespread, but the
culture that influence eco-innovation is not. It is necessary to improve the
awareness of managers towards sustainability to align sustainability with the
business model, and expand this culture of sustainability beyond the scope of
products and processes.

Usually the start to
produce and pay royalties for the companies they negotiate with (E5).

4.3.2 Certifications

Certifications and other
quality programs are also important drivers to push the company to adopt
eco-innovation (HOJNIK; RUZZIER, 2016). In the studied company, the adoption of
the ISO 14001 certification was an example that pushes the company for a more
sustainable management. In addition, it was developed in the company, an
information software to integrate all demands required by different
certifications, or ISOs. This integrated system, allows the management of all
procedures required to comply with ISOs 9001 and 14001, as well as with a
quality program that the company belongs to (PGQP), increasing efficiency and
avoiding rework (E4). These programs also require the assessment of sustainable
impact of some areas and departments.

4.3.3 Environmental strategy and culture

In terms of strategy, it
was possible to observe from the data collected that, in the case studied,
sustainability is still very incipient, with some one-off actions, being part
of their values and management policy, but only as one of the values, not as a
main core business.  They are starting to
introduce some projects, but it is not embedded in their strategy. It is maybe
more a result of external pressure from suppliers, marketing, etc: “the company invests a lot in sustainability, but it
is a disassociated from investment an investment plan” (E3).  “We do not have explicitly in the strategic
plan anything about sustainability, we work to create value, not only for
economic aspects” (E4).

Even if social reports
have been published since 2006 (only available online from 2009), with
approaches such as eco-efficiency and environmental impact, environmental
issues are not embedded in companies’ culture.

4.3.4 Human resources

As for human resources,
it can be verified that in the company studied, in 2010, with new guidelines in
the strategic plan to create and consolidate “high performance teams”, it was
created what is called University Company, with training programs coordinated
by organizational development area. The aim of these programs is to promote
excellence in management and innovation through valuing people, development of
systemic thinking, strategic leadership, long-term vision and generation of
value.

Employees are
incentivizing to provide ideas to increase efficiency through an
institutionalized program (E4). Most of the ideas, around 60-70% are related to
process improvements. They receive around 500 ideas every year, and employees
receive rewards according to the amount and quality of their ideas. These
results confirm statements in the literature that point out qualified human
resources as antecedents of eco-innovation (BOSSLE et al., 2016).

4.3.5 Performance

Environmental goals are
assessed since 2010 and are related to increasing efficiency through better use
of resources: “Water and energy savings, reducing the generation of hazardous
waste, increasing treatment of effluents and reducing emissions. When the established
goals are not met, an action plan is drew up. Usually,
it comes from assessment of ISO 14001’s management” (E7).

5 DISCUSSION

From the analysis
presented some perceptions were evidenced, it is clear that the chemical
company analyzed in this study is very strong in its innovation capacity, what
might have influenced the adoption of sustainable practices, but these
practices are still under development. This suggests that the knowledge
required for eco-innovations is more complex and uncertain than for the
adoption of traditional innovations (KETATA;
SOFKA; GRIMPE, 2015). Besides that, for this type of innovation the
environmental, economic and social dimensions must be connected, thus requiring
a socio-environmental management approach to be employed (OLIVEIRA; IPIRANGA,
2009).

It is evidenced by the
results, eco-innovation was identified in some specific products, but it is not
included in the company strategy and culture, nor is it integrated throughout
all areas within the company, even if they are implementing. Surprisingly the
company states in its reports that they develop eco-innovation, but none of the
interviewees supported this as a core value.

Although the regulation
is a facilitator for the adoption of eco-innovations, in the company studied,
this point seems not to be the main motivator, since this search adopts a
position of pioneering in its sector. Such involvement can ensure a competitive
advantage vis-à-vis competitors (CAI; LI, 2018; CHASSAGNON; HANED, 2015). It is
also apparent that, although not linked to its main strategy, some
environmentally sustainable initiatives have been adopted. At this point, it is
noted that these are mainly due to external influences.

It is evidenced by the
results that sustainability is very incipient for this company, mainly focused
in research and development, and concentrated in the main product developed,
the adhesive powder. Therefore, being an innovative company can bring some
advantages to start to integrate eco-innovation in its processes, but it is not
determinant. The process of developing the adhesive powder was influenced by
the willingness of acquiring competitive advantage in relation to its
competitors, acting as a first mover to assure economic profitability and
market share. This product is not as (economic) profitable as the others but
being more sustainable can guarantee new markets’ niches.

At this point, Lazzarotti et al. (2014) in their case study at a pulp
company found that from an immediate view environmental investment may not be
as attractive. Investments only started to show returns in the medium and long
term, thus generating higher financial performance over the years.

At
the same time, Fernando, Jabbour and Wah (2019) argue
that many companies focused on green technology concentrate mainly on product
creation, neglecting other dimensions of innovation, such as service innovation
for example. From the study developed by the authors with Malaysian companies
it can be verified that the innovation capacity of services acted as a mediator
in improving the transition from eco-innovation to sustainable business
performance. Thus, increasingly manufacturing firms are not only focusing on
the development of new products, but also seeking to understand the servitization as a core function and incorporating it in
their business models.

In
addition to the long-term strategy to include sustainability as a goal, the
introduction of sustainable products and processes is due to the company’s
willingness to protect workers’ health and wellbeing, considering the injuries
that chemical products can cause during its manipulation, as highlighted in
Freitas (2000). The main challenge for the company to increase sustainability
and eco-innovation is to align sustainable concepts with the company’s vision.
In relation to the drivers for adoption of eco-innovation, the influence is
more external, from normative pressures, cooperation and technology. Another
interesting issue is the relationship between cooperation and technology, since
the development of new technologies and products by the company influenced the
enhancement of collaboration with other companies and universities.

The investigation on what is behind the adoption of eco-innovation can
help policy makers at guiding and predicting companies’ behavior and develop
accurate mechanisms to prompt a more environmental management. A company, to be
considered sustainable, must integrate sustainability in its main abilities,
skills and capabilities in most areas, such as corporate strategy, governance
and stakeholders, clients and products, human resources and financial results (PARASCHIV
et al., 2012).

Although the company has
integrated innovation transversally throughout all departments, this has not
pushed eco-innovation strategies. The fact of being a family business in the
origin and the top-down decisions structure are more determinant and this
environmental aspect has apparently not been incorporated. This result is in
consonance with Dangelico (2017), whose study
indicated that family firms are better than non‐family firms to increase innovation in their businesses, both in terms
of firm capability and by product differentiation. Nevertheless, as indicated
by Dangelico (2017), further research is needed to
understand drivers for adoption of eco-innovation by family businesses.

Besides
that, although the importance of the role of managers in the impact of
eco-innovation activities was evidenced in the literature, this dominant role
was not found in the studied company. Such positioning can have disadvantages
in relation to the company's orientation towards sustainable actions. Since the
manager's inclination to incorporate sustainability aspects into business is
seen as a key factor that will differentiate truly sustainable and innovative
innovators with attention to environmental and/or social aspects (KETATA; SOFKA; GRIMPE, 2015).

6 FINAL CONSIDERATION

This
article aimed to analyze what leads a chemical company from an emerging country
to adopt eco-innovation. Thus, the external and internal factors that may
influence the adoption of eco-innovation were analyzed. It was found that the
company is mainly focused on Research and Development (R&D) and product
innovation, emphasizing that innovation can bring advantages in the integration
of eco-innovation in its processes. Regarding the drivers for adopting
eco-innovation, the influence is more external, due to normative pressures,
cooperation and technology.

The
results show that the main challenge faced by the studied company is to align
eco-innovation with the company's strategy. Although it has been identified
that innovation is integrated into departments, this fact has not driven
eco-innovation strategies. These findings have implications for policymakers.
Research on the background of eco-innovation can help policy makers to guide
and predict the behavior of companies and develop mechanisms to encourage more
environmental management.

Finally,
the results of this study provide insight into the points that must be
investigated within the organization to shape its capacity for eco-innovation,
since understanding the mechanisms before it enables more efficient and
effective actions to be taken. Given the importance of this topic and
considering the infancy of the studies in this field, it is expected that
further research will be carried out under this scope, especially with regard
to longitudinal studies since the decision to adopt eco-innovations is linked
to a long-term vision.

However,
some limitations of this study must be noted. It is recognized that the case of
this study was selected based on the reasons of adequacy and not of
representativeness, so it cannot be guaranteed the generalization of the
findings. Future research is needed to include more samples with idiosyncratic
characteristics to allow more comprehensive assumptions about innovative
features that affect eco-innovation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

"This study was
financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) -
Finance Code 001"

REFERENCES

ARRANZ,
N.; ARROYABE, M.; LI, J.; ARROYABE, J. Innovation as a driver of eco-innovation
in the firm: An approach from the dynamic capabilities theory. Business
Strategy and the Environment, Jan. 2020.

ARRANZ,
N.; F. ARROYABE, C.; FERNANDEZ DE ARROYABE, J. C. The effect of regional
factors in the development of eco-innovations in the firm. Business Strategy
and the Environment, v. 28, n. 7, p. 1406-1415, 2019.

AZZONE,
G.; NOCI, G. Seeing ecology and “green” innovations as a source of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
v. 11, n. 2, p. 94-111, 1998.

BANERJEE,
S. B. Who sustains whose development?
Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, v. 24, n. 1, p. 143-180, 2003.

BARDIN, L. Análise
de Conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70,
2010.

BITENCOURT,
C. C.; SANTINI, F. O.; ZANANDREA, G.; FROEHLICH, C.; LADEIRA, W. J. Empirical
generalizations in eco-innovation: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of
Cleaner Production, v. 245, p. 118721, 2020.

BOONS,
F.; LÜDEKE-FREUND, F. Business models for
sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research
agenda. Journal of Cleaner production, v. 45, p. 9-19, 2013.

BOSSLE,
M. B.; BARCELLOS, M. D.; VIEIRA, L. M.; SAUVÉE, L. The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner
production, v. 113, p. 861-872, 2016.

BOSSLE,
M. B.; DE BARCELLOS, M. D.; VIEIRA, L. M. Eco-innovative
food in Brazil: perceptions from producers and consumers. Agricultural
and Food Economics, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-8, 2015.

CAI, W.; LI, G. The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on
performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.
176, p. 110-118, 2018.

CARRILLO-HERMOSILLA,
J.; DEL RÍO, P.; KÖNNÖLÄ, T. Diversity of
eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of
cleaner production, v. 18, n. 10-11, p. 1073-1083, 2010.

CHANG,
C. H.; CHEN, Y. S. Green organizational identity
and green innovation. Management
Decision, v. 51, n. 5, p. 1056-1070, 2013.

CHASSAGNON, V.; HANED, N. The relevance of innovation leadership for
environmental benefits: A firm-level empirical analysis on French firms. Technological
Forecasting and social change, v. 91, p. 194-207, 2015.

DANGELICO,
R. M. Green product innovation: where we are and
where we are going. Business
Strategy and the Environment, v. 25,
n. 8, p. 560-576, 2016.

DANGELICO,
R. M. What drives green product development and
how do different antecedents affect market performance? A survey of Italian
companies with eco‐labels. Business
Strategy and the Environment, v. 26, n. 8, p. 1144-1161, 2017.

DEL RÍO, P.; PEÑASCO, C.; ROMERO-JORDÁN, D. What drives eco-innovators?
A critical review of the empirical literature based on econometric
methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 112, p. 2158-2170, 2016.

DEMIREL, P.; KESIDOU, E. Stimulating different types of eco-innovation
in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological
Economics, v. 70, n. 8, p. 1546-1557, 2011.

DING, M.; JIANMU, Y. Eco-innovation determination based on structural
equation modeling: identifying the mediation and moderation effect. Science
and Business Administration, v. 16, 2015.

DORAN, J.; RYAN, G. Regulation and firm perception, eco-innovation and
firm performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, v. 15,
n. 4, p. 421-441, 2012.

EIADAT, Y.; KELLY, A.; ROCHE, F.; EYADAT, H. Green and competitive? An
empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation
strategy. Journal of World Business, v. 43, n. 2, p. 131-145,
2008.

ELZEN, B.; WIECZOREK, A. Transitions towards sustainability through
system innovation. Technological forecasting and social change, v.
72, n. 6, p. 651-661, 2005.

FERNANDO, Y.; JABBOUR, C. J. C.; WAH, W. X. Pursuing green growth in
technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and
sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, v. 141, p. 8-20, 2019.

FERNANDO, Y.; WAH, W. X. The impact of eco-innovation drivers on
environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector
in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, v. 12, p. 27-43,
2017.

FROEHLICH, C.; MELLO, D.; ENGELMAN, R. Inovação
e sustentabilidade: um olhar
sobre a produção científica publicada em eventos da Associação
Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa
em Administração. Gestão e Desenvolvimento,
v. 14, n. 2, p. 19-32, 2017.

FRONDEL, M.; HORBACH, J.; RENNINGS, K. End‐of‐pipe or cleaner production? An
empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD
countries. Business strategy and the environment, v.
16, n. 8, p. 571-584, 2007.

GRAF, P. Eco-innovation–a new paradigm for Latin América? Gestão e Desenvolvimento, v. 12, n. 1, 2015.

GREEN, K.; MCMEEKIN, A.; IRWIN, A. Technological trajectories and
R&D for environmental innovation in UK firms. Futures, v. 26,
n. 10, p. 1047-1059, 1994.

HOJNIK, J.; RUZZIER, M. What drives eco-innovation? A review of an
emerging literature. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
v. 19, p. 31-41, 2016.

HOPWOOD, B.; MELLOR, M.; O'BRIEN, G. Sustainable development: mapping
different approaches. Sustainable
development, v. 13, n. 1, p. 38-52, 2005.

HORBACH, J. Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from
German panel data sources. Research policy, v. 37, n. 1, p. 163-173, 2008.

HORBACH, J.; RAMMER, C.; RENNINGS, K. Determinants of eco-innovations by
type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push
and market pull. Ecological economics, v. 78, p. 112-122, 2012.

IYER-RANIGA, U.; TRELOAR, G. A context for participation in sustainable development.
Environmental management, v. 26, n. 4, p. 349-361, 2000.

JOVÉ‐LLOPIS, E.; SEGARRA‐BLASCO, A. Eco‐innovation strategies: A panel
data analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the
Environment, v. 27, n. 8, p. 1209-1220, 2018.

KEMP,
R.; PEARSONN, P. (eds.). Final report of
the project Measuring Eco-Innovation. Maastricht, 2008. Disponível
em: http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/index.php.

KETATA, I.; SOFKA, W.; GRIMPE, C. The role of internal capabilities and
firms' environment for sustainable innovation: evidence for G ermany. R&d
Management, v. 45, n. 1, p. 60-75, 2015.

LAZZAROTTI, F.; PAVÃO. Y. M. P.; SHENEM, S.; ALBERTON, A. Tecnologias ambientais e os impactos no desempenho
econômico-financeiro: o caso da Celulose Irani S/A. Contextus
– Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão, v. 12, n. 1, 2014.

MAZZANTI, M. Eco-innovation and sustainability: dynamic trends,
geography and policies. Journal of environmental planning and management, v. 61, n. 11, p. 1851-1860, 2018.

OLIVEIRA, L. G. L.;
IPIRANGA, A. S. R. A inovação sustentável e a dinamização do sistema local do
agronegócio do caju cearense. Contextus
– Revista Contemporânea de Economia e Gestão, v. 7, n. 1, 2009.

PARASCHIV, D. M. et
al. Eco-innovation,
responsible leadership and organizational change for corporate
sustainability. Amfiteatru Economic
Journal, v. 14, n. 32, p. 404-419, 2012.

PAVITT,
K. Innovation Processes. In:
FAGERBERG; MOWERY; NELSON (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, p. 86-114, 2005.

PUJARI, D. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the
influences on market performance. Technovation,
v. 26, n. 1, p. 76-85, 2006.

RENNINGS, K.; ANKELE, K.; ZIEGLER, A.; HOFFMANN, E. The influence of
different characteristics of the EU environmental management and auditing
scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic performance. Ecological
Economics, v. 57, n. 1, p. 45-59, 2006.

ROBINSON, J. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of
sustainable development. Ecological Economics, v. 48, n. 4, p. 369-384, 2004.

SELLTIZ, C.; JAHODA, M.; COOK, S. W. Métodos de pesquisa nas relações sociais.
São Paulo: EPU, 1965.

SENG, M. L.; WANG, R.; CHIU, A.S.F.; GENG, Y.; LIN, Y.H. Improving
performance of green innovation practices under uncertainty. Journal of
Cleaner Production, v. 40, p. 71-82, 2013.

SHAH, S. K.; CORLEY, K. G. Building better theory by bridging the
quantitative–qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, v. 43,
n. 8, p. 1821-1835, 2006.

SMITH, A.; VOß, J.-P.; GRIN, J. Innovation
studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level
perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, v. 39, n. 4, p. 435-448,
2010.

TSAI, K.‐H.; LIAO, Y. C.
Innovation capacity and the implementation of eco‐innovation: Toward a
contingency perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, v. 26,
n. 7, p. 1000-1013, 2017.

WAGNER, M.; LLERENA, P. Eco-innovation through integration, regulation
and cooperation: comparative insights from case studies in three manufacturing
sectors. Industry and Innovation, v. 18, n. 8, p. 747-764, 2011.

WALS, A. E. J.; SCHWARZIN, L. Fostering organizational sustainability
through dialogic interaction. The Learning Organization, v. 19, n. 1, p. 11-27, 2012.

WCED,
U. Our common future. World
Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University
Press, 1987.

YIN, R. K. Estudo
de Caso: planejamento e métodos. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2005.