Chinese Wisdom on Eco-Innovation Management
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to find out theoretical ground to improve the eco-innovation performance in enterprises from traditional Chinese ecological point of view.
Design/methodology/approach: Implications of traditional Chinese ecological thoughts on eco-innovation performance were analyzed textually. Based on it, both business and societal benefits as output indicators were proposed to evaluate the eco-innovation performance in enterprises and the theoretical framework was established. To test it, the survey data were collected from 10 electronic and communication equipment manufacturers in P.R.C. and the DEA models were used.
Findings: The estimated results show that it is more efficient to evaluate eco-innovation performance by outputs including business and societal benefits than by solely economic benefits and eco-innovation performance in most selected enterprises is DEA inefficient. The sample study shows the managerial measures of improvement to a DEA inefficient eco-innovative enterprise.
Research limitations/implications: A large samples from high-tech industrial enterprises, as well as multi-industrial samples are more revealing to test the evaluation system than samples from Electronic and Communication Equipment manufacturers. In addition, according to the DEA theory, relative efficiency rather than absolute efficiency of eco-innovative performance is calculated, so the managerial suggestions of the sample study could be weakened.
Practical implications: The ecological values embedded in traditional Chinese wisdom could be applied to guide ecological development of innovation performances in Chinese enterprises. Chinese enterprises should pay same attention to societal benefits as well as business benefits in their eco-innovations, and explore the strength from traditional Chinese wisdom to be sustainable and competitive.
Originality/value: It explains a Chinese characteristic way of evaluating eco-innovation performance by exploring implications from the traditional Chinese ecological ideas.
Allenby, B. (1994). Integrating environment and technology: Design for environment. In B. R. Allenby, & D. J. Richards (Eds.), The greening of industrial ecosystems (pp.137-148). Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.
Anthony, S., Chiu, F., & Geng, Y. (2004). On the industrial ecology potential in Asian Developing Countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12( 8/10), 1037-1045.
Boulding, & Kenneth, E. (1968). The organizational revolution: A study in the ethics of economic organization. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Chris, F. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation (2nd ed.). London: Printer.
Dennis, K. M., & Cynthia, S. (1996). Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50-72.
Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research Policy, 32, 1365-1379.
Isenmann R. (2002). Further efforts to clarify industrial ecology’s hidden philosophy of nature. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6(3/4), 27-48.
James, P. (1997). The sustainability circle: A new tool for product development and design. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2, 52-57.
Jean, G. S., & Edward, S. (2000). Eco-enterprise strategy: Standing for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(4), 313-329.
Jia, J. F. (1998). Science of technological innovation (1st ed.). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Jian, Z. X., & Li, J. W. (2010). Correlation analysis of technology innovation ability and ecological level. Soft Science, 24(10). 10-15.
Jo, D., & Herman, V. L. (2008). Exergy: Its potential and limitations in environmental science and technology. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(7), 2221-2232.
Jouni, K. (2004). Industrial ecology in the strategic sustainable development model: Strategies applications of industrial ecology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(8/10), 809-823
Kristan, C. (2004). Innovative industrial ecology education can guide us to sustainable paths. Technological Choices for Sustainability, 77-90.
Mansfield E. (1968). Industrial research and technological innovation : An econometric analysis. New York: Norton.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: Harper Business.
Robert, U. A. (2004). On the life cycle metaphor: Where ecology and economics diverge. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 425-438.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20, 936-960.
Starik, M. & Rands, G. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908-935.
Tian, S. (2002). Ecological economics in China: Origins, dilemmas and prospects. Ecological Economics, 41(1), 5-20.
Urmila, D. (2005). Green process design, industrial ecology, and sustainability: A systems analysis perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 44(3), 215-235.
Welford, R., & Gouldson, A. (1993). Environmental management and business strategy. London: Pittman.
Wu, L. (2009). The evaluation of enterprise eco-technological innovation performance based on DEA method. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 26(18), 114-117.
- There are currently no refbacks.
If you have already registered in Journal A and plan to submit article(s) to Journal B, please click the CATEGORIES, or JOURNALS A-Z on the right side of the "HOME".
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Research & Development Centre of Sciences and Cultures
Address: 730, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138