IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfe/zbefri/v39y2021i1p9-37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy orientation, knowledge dynamic ability and green innovation: A mediation model based on China provincial panel data

Author

Listed:
  • Li Fang

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology, School of Intellectual Property, science technology policy and management, No. 200, Xiaolingwei Street, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China, 210094)

  • Zhang Sheng

    (Xi’an Jiaotong University, School of Public Policy and Administration, science technology policy and management, NO. 28, Road Xianning West, Beilin District, Xi’an City, Shannxi Province, China, 710049)

Abstract

Environmental supervision and government subsidy are important tools for government to promote green innovation. The influence of these two policy orientations on green innovation performance is spreading widely, but the specific indirect mechanism of policy orientation inducing green innovation needs further exploring. This paper introduces the knowledge-dynamic ability (knowledge production ability, knowledge acquisition ability, knowledge integration ability) into the analysis framework of enterprise green innovation, and studies the mediating effect of the knowledge-dynamic ability on policy orientation and green innovation. Based on the panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2000 to 2015, the empirical findings are as follows: Firstly, the knowledge-dynamic ability plays a remarkable mediating role in promoting between policy orientation and green innovation, which indicates that improving the knowledge-dynamic ability is a core mechanism of policy orientation to induce enterprise green innovation. Secondly, the knowledge-dynamic ability plays a complete mediating role in the relationship between environmental supervision and green innovation. Environmental supervision promotes green process innovation by enhancing knowledge acquisition ability and induces green product innovation by enhancing knowledge production ability. Thirdly, the knowledge-dynamic ability plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between government subsidy and green innovation. Government subsidy improves enterprise green process innovation by enhancing knowledge acquisition ability and knowledge integration ability, and induces enterprise green product innovation by enhancing knowledge production ability and knowledge integration ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Fang & Zhang Sheng, 2021. "Policy orientation, knowledge dynamic ability and green innovation: A mediation model based on China provincial panel data," Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci/Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, vol. 39(1), pages 9-37.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfe:zbefri:v:39:y:2021:i:1:p:9-37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.efri.uniri.hr/upload/Zbornik%201_2021/04-Fang-Sheng-2021-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clara Villegas-Palacio & Jessica Coria, 2010. "On the interaction between imperfect compliance and technology adoption: taxes versus tradable emissions permits," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 274-291, December.
    2. Paul Lanoie & Michel Patry & Richard Lajeunesse, 2008. "Environmental regulation and productivity: testing the porter hypothesis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 121-128, October.
    3. Zhijun Feng & Wei Chen, 2018. "Environmental Regulation, Green Innovation, and Industrial Green Development: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Spatial Durbin Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Sascha Rexhäuser & Christian Rammer, 2014. "Environmental Innovations and Firm Profitability: Unmasking the Porter Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(1), pages 145-167, January.
    6. Stucki, Tobias & Woerter, Martin & Arvanitis, Spyros & Peneder, Michael & Rammer, Christian, 2018. "How different policy instruments affect green product innovation: A differentiated perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 245-261.
    7. Daria Volchek & Ari Jantunen & Sami Saarenketo, 2013. "The institutional environment for international entrepreneurship in Russia: Reflections on growth decisions and performance in SMEs," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 320-350, December.
    8. Wagner, Marcus, 2007. "On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1587-1602, December.
    9. Yu-Shan Chen & Shyh-Bao Lai & Chao-Tung Wen, 2006. "The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 331-339, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Rosa Maria Dangelico & Devashish Pujari & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2017. "Green Product Innovation in Manufacturing Firms: A Sustainability‐Oriented Dynamic Capability Perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 490-506, May.
    12. Dirk Czarnitzki & Federico Etro & Kornelius Kraft, 2014. "Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: An Empirical Test," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(321), pages 117-139, January.
    13. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H. & Toole, Andrew A., 2000. "Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 497-529, April.
    14. Davide Antonioli & Alberto Marzucchi & Sandro Montresor, 2014. "Regional Innovation Policy and Innovative Behaviour: Looking for Additional Effects," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 64-83, January.
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Cindy Lopes-Bento, 2014. "Innovation Subsidies: Does the Funding Source Matter for Innovation Intensity and Performance? Empirical Evidence from Germany," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 380-409, July.
    16. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Market Structure and Environmental Innovation," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 5(2), pages 1-33, November.
    17. W. Reed Walker, 2011. "Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation: Evidence from the Clean Air Act," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 442-447, May.
    18. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    19. Bronzini, Raffaello & Piselli, Paolo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on firm innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 442-457.
    20. Ambec, Stefan & Barla, Philippe, 2002. "A theoretical foundation of the Porter hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 355-360, May.
    21. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    22. Chaminade, Cristina & Vang, Jan, 2008. "Globalisation of knowledge production and regional innovation policy: Supporting specialized hubs in the Bangalore software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1684-1696, December.
    23. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Mustar, Philippe, 2009. "Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1517-1533, December.
    24. Chintrakarn, Pandej, 2008. "Environmental regulation and U.S. states' technical inefficiency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 363-365, September.
    25. Yu-Shan Chen & Ching-Hsun Chang, 2013. "The Determinants of Green Product Development Performance: Green Dynamic Capabilities, Green Transformational Leadership, and Green Creativity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 116(1), pages 107-119, August.
    26. Zhu, Pingfang & Xu, Weimin & LUNDIN, Nannan, 2006. "The impact of government's fundings and tax incentives on industrial R&D investments--Empirical evidences from industrial sectors in Shanghai," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 51-69.
    27. Deeds, David L. & Decarolis, DONA & Coombs, Joseph, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 211-229, May.
    28. Holger Görg & Eric Strobl, 2007. "The Effect of R&D Subsidies on Private R&D," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(294), pages 215-234, May.
    29. Wu, Kuo-Jui & Liao, Ching-Jong & Chen, Chih-Cheng & Lin, Yuanhsu & Tsai, Chuck F.M., 2016. "Exploring eco-innovation in dynamic organizational capability under incomplete information in the Taiwanese lighting industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(PB), pages 419-440.
    30. Yingyuan Guo & Xingneng Xia & Sheng Zhang & Danping Zhang, 2018. "Environmental Regulation, Government R&D Funding and Green Technology Innovation: Evidence from China Provincial Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, March.
    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. Henryk Dzwigol & Aleksy Kwilinski & Oleksii Lyulyov & Tetyana Pimonenko, 2023. "Renewable Energy, Knowledge Spillover and Innovation: Capacity of Environmental Regulation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, January.

    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. Xinpeng Xing & Tiansen Liu & Lin Shen & Jianhua Wang, 2020. "Linking Environmental Regulation and Financial Performance: The Mediating Role of Green Dynamic Capability and Sustainable Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Shuai Shao & Zhigao Hu & Jianhua Cao & Lili Yang & Dabo Guan, 2020. "Environmental Regulation and Enterprise Innovation: A Review," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 1465-1478, March.
    3. Quan Guo & Min Zhou & Nana Liu & Yaoyu Wang, 2019. "Spatial Effects of Environmental Regulation and Green Credits on Green Technology Innovation under Low-Carbon Economy Background Conditions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-16, August.
    4. 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).
    5. Ying Guo, 2023. "External Knowledge Acquisition and Green Innovation in Chinese Firms: Unveiling the Impact of Green Dynamic Capabilities," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    6. Yanwei Lyu & Jinning Zhang & Fei Yang & Di Wu, 2022. "The “Local Neighborhood” Effect of Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation Efficiency: Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Xingshuai Wang & Ehsan Elahi & Zainab Khalid & Mohammad Ilyas Abro, 2023. "Environmental Governance Goals of Local Governments and Technological Innovation of Enterprises under Green Performance Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Andong Liu & Xuesong Gu, 2020. "Environmental Regulation, Technological Progress and Corporate Profit: Empirical Research Based on the Threshold Panel Regression," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Wu, Haitao & Hao, Yu & Ren, Siyu, 2020. "How do environmental regulation and environmental decentralization affect green total factor energy efficiency: Evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    10. Yuan, Baolong & Cao, Xueyun, 2022. "Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green innovation? The mediating role of green dynamic capability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Xinfei Li & Chang Xu & Baodong Cheng & Jingyang Duan & Yueming Li, 2021. "Does Environmental Regulation Improve the Green Total Factor Productivity of Chinese Cities? A Threshold Effect Analysis Based on the Economic Development Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Garcés-Ayerbe, Concepción & Cañón-de-Francia, Joaquín, 2017. "The Relevance of Complementarities in the Study of the Economic Consequences of Environmental Proactivity: Analysis of the Moderating Effect of Innovation Efforts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 21-30.
    13. Yanli Li & Jiayuan Li & Luyao Gan, 2022. "A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Environmental Regulations and Competitiveness and Conditions for Its Realization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-12, June.
    14. Die Hu & Yuandi Wang & Yu Li, 2017. "How Does Open Innovation Modify the Relationship between Environmental Regulations and Productivity?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 1132-1143, December.
    15. Xing Shi & Yanrui Wu & Dahai Fu & Xiumei Guo & Huaqing Wu, 2019. "Effects of National Science and Technology Programs on Innovation in Chinese Firms," Asian Economic Papers, MIT Press, vol. 18(1), pages 207-236, Winter/Sp.
    16. Wang, Yan & Shen, Neng, 2016. "Environmental regulation and environmental productivity: The case of China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 758-766.
    17. Wen, Shiyan & Jia, Zhijie, 2022. "The energy, environment and economy impact of coal resource tax, renewable investment, and total factor productivity growth," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Kozluk, Tomasz & Kruse, Tobias & Nachtigall, Daniel & de Serres, Alain, 2019. "Do Environmental and Economic Performance Go Together? A Review of Micro-level Empirical Evidence from the Past Decade or So," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 1-118, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Achi, Awele & Adeola, Ogechi & Achi, Francis Chukwuedo, 2022. "CSR and green process innovation as antecedents of micro, small, and medium enterprise performance: Moderating role of perceived environmental volatility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 771-781.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    policy orientation; knowledge dynamic ability; green innovation; environmental supervision; government subsidy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rfe:zbefri:v:39:y:2021:i:1:p:9-37. 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: Danijela Ujcic (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efrijhr.html .

    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.