Eco-innovation

The literature separates external and internal eco-innovation at the eco-innovation boundary. The organization’s external activities for green and sustainable activities, such as suppliers, regulators, and market demand, are all included in the external boundary of eco-innovation [20]. The practices for effectively and efficiently managing eco-innovation processes within organizations, such as organizational management [21], production process [7] and new product development, are related to the internal boundary of eco-innovation activities [22]. In this study, we concentrate on the internal limit of eco-innovation.

Researchers have also examined eco-innovation from a variety of angles, such as those related to government policy [23], stakeholders (such as clients and suppliers) [24], organizational strategies [25], organizational leadership, organizational culture, and the characteristics of the eco-innovation itself [26]. This study examines the outcomes of eco-innovation from the organizational strategic perspective, with a focus on the internal boundary of eco-innovation.

An extensive literature review was conducted to ensure inclusion of all relevant aspects of the internal boundary of eco-innovation. Eco-innovation types are classified into process/product innovation, mature/immature innovation, and radical/incremental innovation [27]. Other researchers [28, 29] studied three types of eco-innovation: eco-process, eco-product, and eco-organizational innovations. The Oslo Manual, developed by the OECD [2], identified four distinct types of eco-innovation: product innovation, process innovation, organizational innovation, and marketing innovation. Overall, for examining internal innovation, the literature seems to suggest a focus on eco-process, eco-product, and eco-organizational innovation activities [28, 29].

An innovation in an organization’s eco-process is a new component added to its eco-product production system [30]. Eco-process innovation, in general, refers to the enhancement of current production processes or the addition of new processes to lessen the impact on the environment. According to [31] innovation can take the form of additive solutions (such as smokestack scrubbers) or it can be incorporated into the production processes through input substitution, production optimization, and output reclamation. Eco-process innovation therefore alters an organization’s operational procedures and systems, lowers production unit costs, generates new or significantly enhanced eco-products, and lessens environmental impacts [30].

Given the growth that small and medium-sized businesses have seen, green innovation or eco-innovation is therefore seen as a foundation for fostering and growing them. As a result of the emergence of what is known as the "environmental responsibility," which falls on these institutions if they do not take the environmental performance into consideration, it became necessary for its commitment to achieving environmental performance after it aimed to achieve performance or economic effectiveness. The paradigm developed by calls for dynamic capacities from a resource-based perspective (RBV) for organizational, process, and product eco-innovation, which may have an impact on corporate performance [32].

Environmental innovation and performance have a positive impact on costs, sales of distinctive products, profit margins, brand value, and the company’s standing in the community in addition to lowering environmental risks. Designs that take into account economic, social, and environmental factors are among the advancements in environmental regulation [33]. However, big businesses frequently spend a lot of money on R&D, which makes it simpler to adopt changes to environmental laws. On the other side, by recycling and reusing materials, micro and small firms can apply innovation in their operations and products. Recycling of materials is a process that demonstrates environmental innovation.

Therefore, eco-advancements in manufacturing that recycle and reuse raw resources reduce production costs. The creation of an environmental innovation process requires the inclusion of elements that take into account human health, reduce environmental impacts, and abide by laws set forth by governmental bodies. The product’s life cycle is the focus of the environmental advances. By increasing productivity and enhancing the efficiency of production processes, they are able to lessen the environmental impact by using less material and energy [32].

Because of this, decision-makers need to understand that adopting environmental innovation is now the only way for businesses to develop and expand. Many local and foreign clients and buyers require that their suppliers make items that do not include harmful and poisonous substances as environmental innovation have become more crucial for businesses to enhance environmental awareness. Businesses are likewise looking for ways to produce goods with less energy and material input [34].

Last but not least, an eco-organizational innovation is the upgrading of the organization’s management processes through new and eco method in business practices [35]. Thus, eco-organizational innovations can enhance business performance by facilitating necessary adjustments, lowering administrative and transaction costs, enhancing workplace satisfaction [36], or lowering supply-chain costs [37]. Environmental impacts are typically not directly reduced by eco-organizational innovation, but it does make it easier to implement eco-process and eco-product innovations [35]. Positive attitudes towards innovations may facilitate practical implementation of new ideas and processes, which allows the business to achieve sustainable competitive advantage [38].

Eco-organizational innovations, according include eco-training programs, eco-product design programs, eco-learning techniques, or the formation of management teams to address environmental issues. Therefore, administrative efforts to update organizational practices, procedures, mechanisms, or systems to ultimately produce eco-innovations are related to eco-organizational innovations.

Business performance

There is not a comprehensive body of knowledge in the field of business performance measurement (BP) [39]. Researchers in the field of performance measurement come from a variety of management disciplines, including strategy management, operations management, human resources, organizational behaviour, information systems, marketing, and management accounting and control [39, 40]. Diverse and multidisciplinary research is interesting, but it can also lead to issues. There are numerous definitions of a BPM system as a result of the various approaches to performance measurement, and there is little agreement on its essential features.

Eco-organizational innovation has a direct and favourable impact on economic performance in the Malaysian technology industry, according to empirical research that covered 109 local and foreign-owned technology companies. Furthermore, despite the moderating effect of market turbulence in the Malaysian technology sector, the effects of eco-product and eco-process innovations on environmental performance have been confirmed [41].

According to a study, each of the three eco-innovation categories–eco-process, eco-product, and eco-organization–has a direct bearing on the various aspects of sustainable business performance. Absent the moderation of market turbulence in Ghanaian manufacturing firms, the empirical research findings support the positive effects of eco-product, eco-process, and eco-organization on environmental performance and the positive impact of eco-organization on social performance [42].

According to a study that used data from 442 Chinese companies, eco-innovation behaviour can significantly improve a company’s environmental performance. The study’s findings show that certain factors, such as technological capabilities, environmental organizational capabilities, a market-based instrument, competitive pressures, and customer green demand, contribute to the growth of eco-innovation [43].

Three hundred and sixty-six businesses in the manufacturing and service sectors were chosen as the research sample in order to examine the impact of four types of corporate culture (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, and market) on the three dimensions of a firm’s environmental innovation (eco-organizational, eco-process, and eco-product). The findings demonstrate that market and adhocracy cultures are positively related to a firm’s eco-organizational, eco-process, and eco-product innovation; clan culture has a positive impact on eco-organizational innovation while hierarchy culture has a negative impact; and the three environmental innovation dimensions all enhance a firm’s financial performance [44].

Cooperation in research and development can have a positive impact on technological eco-innovations of products and processes; cooperation enables eco-innovations to meet environmental requirements and promotes the spread of technical knowledge. 221 electrical and electronic manufacturers with operations in Brazil provided data for a study [45].

R&D capitalization shows a positive correlation with market value. In case of Korean biotech firms, capitalized R&D has a higher value relevance compared to other industries. A large amount of R&D invested in the biotech industry and its capitalization are considered as key to the future sustainable success of these firms [46].

Whether they are focused on domestic or international markets, many organizations around the world are impacted by a variety of factors, which are reflected in their levels of performance and, consequently, their level of success. Here, we will briefly discuss a few of these elements that affect the majority of businesses.

From external factors, the first to be discussed is the economic situation and the extent of its stability, whether at the national or global level. They make it challenging for many establishments to perform at their peak levels and to the fullest extent in the event that there are changes in the economy, whether local or international, in a negative way, as the existence of economic crises is typically reflected on the performance of the markets and causes in various ways. Second main factor is the group of competitors. This is an external hazard that cannot be eliminated in any manner is the growth in the number of rival businesses for the institution. As a result, many businesses are forced to spend more money to keep skilled employees on staff and stop them from defecting to other companies. It is important to note that high-performance practices like flexible rewards and positive manager-employee relationships can help to lessen or even eliminate this kind of threat [33].

From internal factors, the first and most crucial factor is the administrative method. If old administrative method does not help to compete with other modern organizations, the modern horizontal management method is one of the best solutions to raise performance, where all levels share responsibilities within their functional and specific roles, while giving it the necessary powers in order to achieve those roles.

Performance on an individual and team level is another internal aspect that could have a detrimental impact on the establishment’s ability to compete. Everyone has certain demands that the management must be aware of and considerate of, such as fair compensation for the nature and complexity of the job, training, rewards, and other perks that will motivate workers to perform their jobs well and more effectively. In terms of teamwork, the effectiveness of the team is always influenced by the number and quality of its members. For example, selecting the incorrect number of team members to complete a task may increase conflict or cause discord, which has a negative impact on the outcomes. It is crucial that the team’s members are diverse and that the right selection criteria are in place.

If work policies and procedures are not reviewed and updated, it may affect the organization’s performance as a whole, as well as the efforts of the work teams and the achievement of the desired results. It is essential to assess the regulatory standards and update those policies and procedures permanently because they must be in line with the establishment’s plan [34].

Eco-innovation and business performance

There is no sufficient research in the developing countries focusing on eco-innovation related to sustainability performance of business practices.

The resource-based view (RBV) declares that the maintaining of firms’ competitive advantage lies in having heterogeneous resources that are valued, uncommon, incomparable, and no substitutable. RBV provides a valid theoretical basis for inspecting the relationship between resources, capabilities, and performance. This theory provides an inclusive view of eco-innovation [47]. Business performance is related to accomplishing certain outcomes by transforming the inputs into outputs. The organization’s main goal is to increase their performance to meet the competitive market. There is a variance measurement developed by scholars to measure the organization performance like ROI, market share, profitability, and sales. In this research, quality management was added to performance measurement.

As market share, sales volume, and profit growth signify high growth linked with a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is a significant component of organizations’ competitive advantage, growth, and performance. Corporate performance is therefore consistent with the characteristics of an entrepreneurial orientation—innovation, risk-taking, and reactiveness. In the body of research on learning orientation, academics have emphasized the significance of an entrepreneurial orientation because it is strategically compatible with company performance and because globalization has increased corporate competition, which has resulted in an expansion of entrepreneurship in many fields. Many learning direction studies have concentrated on the critical role of best management practices as well as the role of entrepreneurial practices resulting in improved corporate performance [48].

Increased competition among businesses and organizations around the world is another manifestation of globalization’s effects. Companies prioritize optimal management practices in their quest for increased performance and productivity. Previous studies have demonstrated the significance of an entrepreneurial orientation for the success of top companies. Additionally, academics have emphasized the critical role that learning direction plays in advancing high-level generative learning, which is a crucial element of unparalleled corporate efficiency and, as a result, elevated corporate performance [49].

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) is the behavioural propensity for innovation, reactiveness, and risk-taking inside a company that improves organizational performance. EO refers to internal organizational management methods that are innovative and proactive in order to achieve improved performance and acquire a competitive advantage in the market, particularly in small and medium-sized businesses. The internal environment in which a corporation operates can affect corporate performance. These opinions suggest that because there are numerous EO characteristics that represent business performance, EO behaviour cannot be generalized across industries [50].

The readiness of a company to innovate its business operational processes is referred to as innovation. It is an organizational strategy that describes the use of fresh concepts that result in innovative products and services. A corporation can benefit from new prospects through innovation, satisfy consumer requirements with novel products and services, and pioneer a market. Innovation also has to do with the fundamental business procedures that set businesses apart and prolong their survival. Companies improve their standing in the market, which promotes business growth and performance, as a result of innovation and value addition in products and services. Additionally, it is an organizational strategy that mentions the need to take initiative in order to advance [50].

Eco-innovation is a managerial mainstream, which still need more research and investigation. At the same time, it is increasingly becoming a concern of decision makers, academics, and practitioners. Recent studies [51–53] support the notion that process innovation often arms existing production processes with advanced techniques, which, in turn, improves the capability of adding new product features to meet the market’s needs. In a nutshell, the improvement of eco-process innovations is driving force for eco-product innovations [51].

Research model

The above explanation and discussion were made the basis of the development of the proposed research model in Fig 1.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. The basic model that displays the theoretical relationship among three types of eco-innovation and business performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.g001

Sample and data collection

The samples were collected from Jordanian companies working in food processing sector outlining the following 11 sub-sectors and hundreds of products: 1) Processed and preserved meat; 2) Dairy products; 3) Processed and preserved fruits and vegetables; 4) Bakery and Arabic sweets; 5) Animal and vegetable fats and oils; 6) Products from the milling industry; 7) Cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery; 8) Processed fish and crustaceans; 9) Macaroni and pasta products; 10) Other food products; 11) Animal feed.

The data were analyzed anonymously. The study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) of the Doctoral School Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences before the study commenced.

Average annual growth (turnover) for the main subsectors was around 4.9% between 2013 and 2017. This is mainly attributed to the increase in households and the Syrian refugee population. In terms of market access, certain Jordanian products are gaining ground on the domestic level and in many cases are fully replacing imports, for example in dairy products, Arabic sweets and some processed fruits and vegetables such as dried dates. In terms of food exports, certain indicators display that Jordan has not yet exhausted its market potential, and some sub-sectors are growing at a regular pace and reaching new Western markets, such as Arabic sweets and processed fruit and vegetable sub-sectors, and in ready-to-eat food.

The drastic loss of market share in close markets such as Iraq and Syria is due to regional political instability and is being compensated by other Arab markets, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, in many priorities sub-sectors and in the processed meat subsector.

Nevertheless, the regional Arab market remains Jordan’s main export market, accounting for over 75% of its processed food exports. The remaining 25% is mainly shared between North America and Europe [19].

The findings of recent study [19] showed that the main cost factors negatively affecting the competitiveness of all the food sub-sectors were raw materials; cost of utilities such as energy and water; and economies of scale. Raw materials were often imported, which had a rather high negative influence, while scarcity of utilities was highly negatively influential. On the other hand, negative influence of economies of scale was relatively small compared to regional counterparts.

It was also found that small and informal enterprises operating in the subsectors also face other challenges at the production level, such as lack of skilled workforces, dependence on traditional methods, lack of international certification, low involvement of women, and lack of professional hygiene standards. Some challenges (e.g. lack of skilled workers, certifications) might be solved by attracting intellectual migrants to strengthen host countries [54].

Measurements

The survey method is used in this research to provide an outline of the existing eco-innovation practices and effectiveness in Jordan. 86 questionnaires were sent to MSMEs in the food processing sector, which represent approximately 20 percent of the sector. (The total number of MSMEs in the food processing, agricultural, and animal husbandry sectors is about 400 firms).

Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was applied to test the research hypotheses. Online questionnaires were sent to the manufacturing firms that were sampled. Each firm’s senior manager answered all the items on the questionnaire. The research objectives were summarized in the cover letter that accompanied the questionnaire. It was recommended that the general manager respond to inquiries directly or choose a qualified senior manager or high-level assistant on their behalf. Data gathering was conducted in December 2021 and January, February 2022.

The questionnaire included three sections: (1) the covering page with contact information, (2) a series of items on eco-process innovation, eco-product innovation, eco-organizational innovation, and business performance, and (3) demographics (firm size and age).

Eco-innovation items list used in this research was generated. The items were generated including four items measuring the eco-process construct, seven items measuring the eco-product construct, and six items measuring the eco-organizational construct. Business performance was measured using five items, four items of which were developed by Im & Workman [55]. All the items were self-reported by asking respondents to rate their market and financial performance. The ROI, sales, profit, market share and quality were added in this research compared with that of their major competitors. The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Based on the mean values of Likert scale points a rank was created, by which the importance of the different items were determined according to the answers of the respondents.

Data analysis

The results were obtained from 86 respondents. The data were gathered using a questionnaire, and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 is utilized to analyse data.

Validity

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical mechanism that was conducted to reduce factors or study items to a smaller set of factors. Based on CFA results, one can decide which items are appropriate and can be used for further analysis, and which one caused cross loading and should be excluded.

In refining the model, the rationality and consistency of the data with theoretical underpinnings in the relationship between eco-innovation and business performance were considered.

The base limits of indices utilized as a part of measuring the Goodness of fit index (GFI) of the measurement model are stipulated [32, 56, 57]. As p value less than 0.05, comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ 0.90, GFI ≥ 0.90, χ2/df (χ2/df) <5 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤0.05–0.80.

The statistics discovered a p-value of 0.000, CFI value of 0.926, GFI 0.903, χ2/df value of 3.635 and RMSEA value of 0.070. This indicated that the fit statistics are adequate and within the acceptable thresholds to establish the convergence validity of the measurement model for the relationship between eco-innovation and business performance.

Reliability

Cronbach’s’ Alpha Coefficient is a measure that was used to estimate the reliability. Cronbachs’ Alpha Coefficient value ranges between 0 and 1. If there are no variance among study instruments (i.e., are internally independent) then α = 0 but if all study items have a high covariance, then α will be close to 1. However, there is a consistence among researchers that the instrument is considers reliable and stable if α values are more than 0.7.

Table 1 shows that Cronbach’s’ Alpha Coefficient values are more than 0.7, then the instruments of questionnaire are reliable and consistent.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Reliability statistics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t001

Demographic profile

Table 2 shows that out of 86 respondents, 28 are working in organization with 5 to 25 employees, forming (32.6%) of the total respondents. Also, 14 respondents are working in organization with 25 to 50 employees, which makes (14%), while 10 are working in organization have 50 to 100 employees representing (11.6%), and 34 are working in organization have 100 and more employees forming (39.5%) of the total respondents.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Total number of employees.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t002

Table 3 illustrates that out of 86 respondents, 11 are working in organization aged between 3 to 5 years representing (12.8%), 11 are working in organization aged between 5 to 10 years forming (12.8%), while 40 are working in organization aged between 10 to 25 years, which represents (46.5%), 5 are working in organization aged between 25 to 50 years with a percentage of (5.8%), and 19 are working in organization aged between 50 to 100 years representing (22.1%).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Age of company.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t003

Table 4 shows that out of 86 respondents, 1 is working in agricultural organization representing (1.2%), 2 are working on business support organization, which represents (2.3%) and 83 are working in food manufacturing organization forming a percentage of (96.5%).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Economic activity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t004

Descriptive and ranking analysis

This section presents the descriptive analysis of the data obtained from the respondents regarding the study’s questions. The section aims to show the perceptions of the respondents regarding eco-innovation and business performance. For this purpose, the mean and standard deviation values of Likert points were used.

Eco-innovation part of the questionnaire was to assess and rank eco-innovation dimension. The respondents were asked to evaluate a set of statements related to 3 groups: eco-process, eco-product and eco-organization. Respondents were asked to rate their firms on a 5-point Likert scale according to the statements presented in Table 5. The mean values were calculated from the Likert scale points, and the rank was determined based on the mean values.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Descriptive statistics (ECO innovation).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t005

As presented in Table 5, the highest ranked group as a highest important group is “ECO Process” where the least ranked group is “ECO Organization”.

It is seen from Table 5 that ECO Innovation has a mean of 3.72 and a standard deviation of 0.61. Eco Innovation consists of three parts: ECO process, ECO product, and ECO Organization.

ECO process was ranked one as the most important factor has a mean of (3.94) and standard deviation of (0.71). On the one hand, a consensus exists when it comes to paying attention to innovatively updating manufacturing process to meet environmental law standards with a mean of (3.93), and on using innovative, energy saving technologies with a mean of (4.07) and they got a rank of two and one respectively. On the other hand, much lesser attention is paid to when it comes to keeping manufacturing processes innovatively up to date against contaminations that unexpectedly got a rank of four with a mean of (3.86), and rank three when it comes to keeping the manufacturing equipment innovatively updated in order to save energy with a mean of (3.90). This implies that firms do not make effort to keep their manufacturing processes up to date to protecting themselves from contaminations, and to save energy.

ECO product has a Mean of (3.69) and Standard deviation of (0.76). It can be concluded from the table that firm’s focal point relies on developing new eco-products to simplify their construction with a mean of (3.67), to use natural materials with a mean of (3.71), or to reduce damage from waste with a mean of (3.76), that got ranked three, two, and one respectively. However, firms give much lesser focus when it comes to developing new eco-products using new technologies to simplify packing, to easily decompose their materials, and to easily recycle their components, that got a rank of six, five, and four respectively.

ECO Organization was ranked as the least important factor of ECO innovation with a mean of (3.54) and standard deviation (0.67). It is seen in Table 5 that firm’s management place emphasis on developing new ECO-products through technologies that uses as much little energy as possible with a mean of (3.93) that was ranked one in this section and engaging in Eco-innovative activities comes in second rank with a mean of (3.58). Nonetheless, unexpectedly, spending on eco-innovative research and development is the last thing on firms’ management To-Do list with a mean of 3.31 and got the least rank of 7. Likewise, collecting information on ECO-innovation trends was ranked 6 with a mean of 0.88.

Business Performance part of the questionnaire was to assess and rank business performance items, the respondents were asked to evaluate a set of items related to their business performance during the last three years. Respondents were asked to rate their firms on a 5-point Likert scale according to the items presented in Table 6. The mean values were calculated from the Likert scale points, and the rank was determined based on the mean values.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 6. Descriptive statistics (Business performance).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t006

As displayed in Table 6, the highest ranked item as most important factor of business performance was “quality management”, second was “profit”. “Market share” and “sales” were almost similar, while the least ranked item according to the respondents was “return on investment”. Quality has a higher importance in the food sector, which is reflected by these results.

Jordanian food standards are recognized either internationally or at the regional level, according to the type of food product. The Jordan Quality Mark (JQM)is granted for food industries based on product compliance with technical specifications and the system’s agreement with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2000 and ISO 22000:2005.There are also private sector certifying bodies, such as Lloyd’s Register, Occupational Health and Safety (OHAS), ISO 14000, Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP), British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Food Safety (BRCGS), Food Safety System Certification (FSSC) 22000, in addition to several other certifications.

Hypothesis testing

This part of the study aims to examine the impact of eco-innovation on business performance by testing the following Hypotheses:

H1: The greater the firm’s eco-organizational innovation, the greater its eco-process innovation.

H2: The greater the firm’s eco-organizational innovation, the greater its eco-product innovation.

Although previous general innovation studies have provided theoretical support for the relationship between eco-process innovation and eco-product innovation, the literature does not explicitly provide empirical results for this relationship. For better results, product innovation must come before process innovation. On the other hand, product and process innovations are complementary to one another and that businesses that pursue both simultaneously would perform better [58].

Last but not least, a variety of process innovation activities, including setting up new machinery, redefining task specifications, and improving information flow could aid in the development of new products [59, 60]. In order to encourage product innovation, a functionally new manufacturing process (such as a reduction in production unit costs) is required [61]. Numerous recent studies [51–53], seem to support the idea that process innovation frequently equips existing production processes with cutting-edge techniques, which, in turn, improves the capability of adding new product features to meet the needs of the market. In other words, eco-product innovations are propelled by the advancement of eco-process innovations. Consequently, the following theory is put forth.

H3: The greater the firm’s eco-process innovation, the greater its eco-product innovation.

Successful innovations, according to many studies on the relationship between innovation and performance, enhance business performance. For instance, [62] validated the advantages of product innovation and investigated the effects of process innovation, and [63] investigated the effects of process innovation. The impact of environmental management (including all three types of eco-innovation) on business performance has also been acknowledged [64]. The connections between proactive environmental strategy (including innovation) and business performance as well as the development of organizational capabilities through environmental practices have been amply supported by numerous publications, for example [65–67]. They all backed the idea that process/product innovations and business performance are positively correlated. In light of this, we suggest that company performance.

H4: The greater the firm’s eco-process innovation, the greater its business performance.

H5: The greater the firm’s eco-product innovation, the greater its business performance.

Previous studies have also argued that eco-organizational innovations, such as innovative design, speed, or flexibility, can improve a firm’s business performance in addition to conventional organizational innovations [66]. According to strategic theories, companies that adopt innovations (such as capabilities, resources, technologies, or knowledge of the innovation) will subsequently develop a special mechanism to safeguard profit margins, allowing the company to benefit greatly [68] while another research [22] specifically linked increased business performance and organizational innovation. Consequently, the following theory is put forth.

H6: The greater the firm’s eco-organizational innovation, the greater its business performance.

The study can carefully examine both the direct and indirect effects of innovations in eco-processes and eco-organizations thanks to these research hypotheses. Particularly, innovations in eco-processes, eco-products, and eco-organizations all directly enhance business performance (H4, H5 and H6). Additionally, eco-process innovation (H1) and eco-product innovation (H2) act as mediators between eco-organizational innovation and business performance, and eco-product innovation also mediates the relationship between eco-process innovation and business performance (H3).

The performance of businesses can be indirectly improved through eco-product innovation, eco-process innovation, and eco-organizational innovation. Eco-product innovation enables a business to apply its internal innovative initiatives to creating new products or services. To improve business performance, those activities also support eco-process innovation. Therefore, it is likely that both direct and indirect effects from eco-product innovation will be included in the overall effects of eco-organizational and eco-process innovation on business performance. Previous studies have shown that other types of capabilities, such as those related to operations or marketing, can act as mediators in the capability-performance relationship [69, 70]. As far as we are aware, no studies have looked into how the three types of eco-innovation interact with one another.

Table 7 presents the structural model parameters with the hypothesized relationships and the hypothesis test results. The table illustrates that with at 95% confidence, the P-values are 0.000 which is less than α = 0.05. Therefore, the null hypotheses are rejected. In other words, there is a significant impact of eco-process, eco-product and eco-organizational on Business performance as well as a significant impact of eco-organizational on eco-process and eco-product and a significant impact of eco-product on eco-process.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 7. Hypotheses testing results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t007

Regarding the impact of eco-innovation variables on Business performance, the greatest effect is of eco-process on business performance followed by eco-product and eco-organizational respectively. Additionally, regarding the effect of eco-organizational and eco-process on eco-product, the findings show that the greatest effect is of eco-organizational on eco-product followed by the effect of eco-process on eco-product.

Table 8 illustrates the effect of each item on its variable.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 8. Items results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t008

ANOVA test

H7: There are insignificant differences of the respondents’ response toward the study’s variables regarding different organization size.

ANOVA at 95% confidence interval was conducted to test this hypothesis. As displayed in Table 9, the p values are more than 0.000. Hence, there is no statically significant difference in the respondents’ responses towards study variables regarding different organization size.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 9. ANOVA (7^th hypothesis).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t009

H₈: There are insignificant differences of the respondents’ response toward the study’s variables regarding different organization age.

ANOVA at 95% confidence interval was conducted to test this hypothesis. As presented in Table 10, the p values are less than 0.000 for eco-process. Hence, there is statically significant difference in respondents’ responses towards eco-process regarding different organization age.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 10. ANOVA (8^th hypothesis).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t010

Most food processing ventures require four or five years before they show a good internal rate of return on investment. There is also an absence of sufficient subsidized loans and grants allocated to R&D; and most of these loans currently come from external donors [19].

Post-hoc test was conducted for the hypothesis that has significant differences in order to find that these differences as shown in Table 11.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 11. Scheffe test results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281664.t011