Search

The development of the circular economy (CE) has become a strategic priority for the EU to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. While the number of CE-based start-ups is burgeoning, established companies seem to be slower to adopt CE. Incorporating CE principles requires established firms to transform their business processes and activities from a linear to a circular approach, which often requires the introduction of significant and complementary technological and non-technological innovations, as well as significant investments that may hamper the firm’s overall performance. Thus, the disruptive nature of CE adoption may make established firms reluctant to embrace this process and underlines the need to identify its drivers and to clarify its potential benefits. Accordingly, we analyze the role of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) in promoting circular human resource management (CHRM), circular product innovation and circular manufacturing. This study is the first to define and measure CHRM and one of the few to apply the concept of EO in the context of CE. Using seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR), we find that EO promotes circular innovation directly and indirectly through CHRM. This factor represents a non-technological innovation which directly impacts on circular product innovation and circular manufacturing, whilst reinforcing the complementarity between non- technological and technological innovation. This research also addresses concerns about potential conflicts in achieving different types of CE performance simultaneously. By analyzing firm performance from a holistic perspective, our study confirms that CE implementation leads to environmental, market and social performance improvements together with the moderating role of technological turbulence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complementarities between technological and non-technological innovation are crucial determinants of firm performance. Although innovation complementarity has been extensively tested in the empirical literature, it has not been analysed in conjunction with innovation persistence. This fact is mainly due to the lack of data sets able to provide adequate longitudinal information. The capacities to develop market-oriented behaviour and introduce new organisational innovations, together with technological innovation, are the drivers of a firm’s productivity and profitability. We find that these activities complement technological innovation and that their impact is greater when they persist over time, thus introducing a more general concept of innovation persistence. We present an empirical model based on a large new panel of Italian manufacturing firms covering the period 2000-2012 which enables us to determine the precise impacts of a firm’s innovative attitude, in a broad definition that incorporates non-technological innovation and persistence, on its productivity and profitability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study identifies the conditions that, at a regional level, facilitate the emergence of technological and non-technological innovation. One of the most promising lines in the discussion of the processes of regional innovation lies in explaining the different conditions of the various forms innovation process can take. We use fsQCA methodology to test the model. QCA is a method based on set theory that assumes the influence of certain elements in a specific outcome that depend on the combination of those elements; not just on the levels of the individual elements, as in traditional methods. First, we found that the absence of a single condition appears limiting for both types of innovation, which calls for customized innovation policies tailored to the regional context. Second, we found that some sets of innovation characteristics are sufficient conditions for regions to innovate. Among the selected sets, we found that the combination of firm collaboration and public and private R&D are sufficient for both types of innovation, which should be informative for regional policy. The fsQCA also identified alternative pathways-different for both types of innovation. Collaboration seems to be relevant since it is present in all the configurations for sufficient conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]