The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations: the role of universities and research institutions María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos Business Department, School of Economics and Business, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Edifici B, Bellaterra (Barcelona), 08193, Spain. mariateresa.bolivar@uab.cat Environmental innovation has become a cornerstone for companies and societies nowadays, given its potential to promote sustainable growth and development. To undertake environ- mental innovations, firms traditionally rely on their own resources such as corporate sci- ence, that is, basic scientific research that induces the development of the knowledge and capabilities required to sustain long-­term strategies. Notably, coupled with corporate sci- ence, collaborations with universities and research institutions can also be important when seeking to promote environmental innovations, as these institutions continuously engage in R&D projects and increasingly adopt an eco-­friendly vision toward innovation. The results of this longitudinal study, based on a sample of Spanish firms, confirm that corporate sci- ence investments spur environmental innovations. Yet, only collaborations with universi- ties positively moderate the relationship between corporate science and environmental innovation. 1. Introduction There is a growing agreement in the literature that the development of environmental innovations N owadays, countries and firms around the world are taking serious actions to promote environmentally friendly strategies that help tackle leads to a ‘win-­win’ situation where both economic and social actors benefit (Zhang and Walton, 2017; Horbach, 2019). On the one hand, firms may be societal challenges, such as climate change or re- better positioned to improve competitiveness and source efficiency, among others. To illustrate, on a sustainability, which can translate into higher global scale, Europe invested 76 billion US dollars financial performance, increased reputation and on energy-­efficient products and services in 2018, improved image (Aragón-­Correa and Sharma, 2003; while China spent 61 billion US dollars and North Duanmu et al., 2018). Similarly, governments America 47 billion US dollars (IEA, 2019). More call for environmentally responsible practices to specifically, in the European Union context, firms improve social well-­being and sustainable growth are supplying one third of the market for green tech- (Bansal, 2002; Aguilera-­Caracuel and Ortiz-­de-­ nologies, a market whose value is €1 trillion and Mandojana, 2013; Borghesi et al., 2015). This is which is expected to double within 5 years (European why environmental innovation has become a central Commission, 2020a). topic in both public and private agendas (Jové-­Llopis © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 503 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos and Segarra-­Blasco, 2018; Arroyave et al., 2020; for the firm’s internal constraints for environmen- Leyva-De la Hiz and Bolívar-Ramos, 2022). tal innovation, but they also connect the firm with To develop environmental innovations, managers environmentally responsible actors embedded in sus- can use different strategies, such as strengthening tainable and eco-­oriented innovation systems (Del the technological capabilities of the firm (Cainelli et Río et al., 2015; Ghisetti et al., 2015; Petersen and al., 2012; Kesidou and Demirel, 2012). As a result, Kruss, 2021). For example, Apple collaborates with several studies have explored the role of R&D invest- Aarhus University (Denmark) to conduct research ments in driving eco-­innovation (Horbach, 2008; Del on biomass energy generation obtained from agri- Río et al., 2015; Ghisetti et al., 2015). Yet, previous cultural waste products, given the long tradition of research has not specifically tackled how corporate this university in this field (Apple, 2019). Little is science –­that is, ‘basic scientific knowledge devel- known, however, about how the interplay between oped by for-­profit firms’ (Zahra et al., 2018, p. 156) the knowledge from universities and research institu- –­affects environmentally friendly innovations, a tions and the scientific research developed by means topic of great importance given that corporate sci- of corporate science trigger environmental innova- ence is key for firm competitiveness, innovation, tions (Arroyave et al., 2020). In a context in which and sustained growth (Brown, 1991; Pellens and eco-­friendly innovations emerge from multifaceted Della Malva, 2018; Zahra et al., 2018). As environ- knowledge interactions, this issue requires further mental innovations usually require firms to master investigation (Scarpellini et al., 2012; Ghisetti et novel knowledge and diverse competences outside al., 2015). the current domain, that often are associated with The objective of the research is twofold: first, breakthrough technological outcomes (Barbieri et it seeks to clarify and understand whether firms’ al., 2020), investing in basic research may be a key investments in scientific research –­that is, the pri- input in the process. mary input for sourcing novel, codified, and complex Sometimes firms are not able to develop envi- knowledge –­has a positive impact on environmental ronmental innovations because of their lack of innovations; and second, it explains how allying with experience in dealing in a novel and creative way universities and research organizations may influ- with environmental problems (Horbach, 2008). ence the conversion of basic science investments into Compared to nonenvironmental innovations, eco-­ environmentally friendly innovations. This aspect innovations are particularly original, involve long-­ matters as recent literature calls for deeper explana- term exploration with uncertain outcomes (Peters tions on the role of collaborations for eco-­innovation, and Buijs, 2022), deal with more complex techno- given that ‘eco-­innovation studies that consider inter- logical issues, and demand new discoveries and rad- active effects among different external partners on ical changes (De Marchi, 2012; Leyva-De la Hiz and firms’ eco-­innovation outcomes have been few and Bolívar-Ramos, 2022). For this reason, corporate far between. Moreover, their results are contradic- science may play a crucial role in nurturing eco-­ tory’ (Acebo et al., 2021, p. 2,672). Notably, much innovation given that it creates fundamentally new remains to be done in the environmental innovation knowledge through basic science that, over time, can literature to comprehend how cooperations with dis- result in solutions that improve sustainable innova- tinct actors influence the firm’s propensity to eco-­ tions (Zahra et al., 2018). innovate (González-­Moreno et al., 2019; Araújo and Another important factor to consider is that as the Franco, 2021; De Marchi et al., 2022); which par- essence of environmental innovations make firms ticularly applies to knowledge organizations such deal with a great variety of complex techno-­economic as universities and research institutions (Arroyave problems that require diverse types of knowledge et al., 2020). Thus, in line with previous arguments (Ghisetti et al., 2015; Barbieri et al., 2020), estab- and research gaps, this article addresses two specific lishing collaborations with external partners can research questions: (1) does corporate science influ- be decisive to eco-­innovate (Messeni Petruzzelli et ence the development of environmental innovations, al., 2011; De Marchi, 2012; Díaz-­García et al., 2015; and (2) how does collaborating with universities and Acebo et al., 2021). In this realm, different authors research institutions impact the relationship between have pointed out that collaborations with universities corporate science and environmental innovations? and research institutes are particularly important for This study contributes to the literature in dif- firms to successfully achieve eco-­friendly innova- ferent ways. To begin with, the research advances tions (De Marchi, 2012; Triguero et al., 2013; Jové-­ the literature on environmental innovation with its Llopis and Segarra-­Blasco, 2018). Remarkably, these focus on corporate science as a key internal driver organizations not only undertake research activities that has still been largely understudied (Penders and may transfer intangible inputs that compensate et al., 2009; Zahra et al., 2018). Notably, as 504 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations eco-­innovations represent a new technological fron- –­for example, the Environment Action Program to tier that tend to involve radical changes (Leyva-De 2020, in the European Union –­that calls for the la Hiz and Bolívar-Ramos, 2022), investing in sci- need to understand how to promote innovations entific knowledge may be key, as it induces the that help to protect the natural environment. creation of novel knowledge. Thus, this article The article is structured as follows. Section 2 pres- provides a deeper understanding of the topic, con- ents the theory and hypotheses of the study. Then, sidering that ‘the issue of sources of information Sections 3 and 4 explain the research methodology, and knowledge used in eco-­ innovative activities empirical analyses, and results. The last two sections is rarely treated in the eco-­innovation literature’ discuss the main conclusions and implications of the (Horbach et al., 2013, p. 528; Ghisetti et al., 2015, study, as well as its main limitations. p. 1,080). Using the lens of the knowledge-­based view (Grant, 1996), the results of this study show that investments in basic science, the primary input 2. Theoretical background and for sourcing novel knowledge, has a positive effect hypotheses on the development of environmental innovations, a source of competitive advantage. In addition to Environmental innovation1 refers to ‘the develop- that, the research contributes to understanding the ment of products, processes, and services aimed role that universities and research institutions play at reducing environmental harm by using new in strengthening the relationship between corporate methods for treating emissions, recycling or reus- science and environmental innovation. Previous ing waste, finding cleaner energy sources, and so literature has paid attention to how organizations on’ (Brunnermeier and Cohen, 2003; Berrone et source scientific knowledge from universities and al., 2013, p. 891). Typically, environmental innova- research institutions and how these interactions tions involve the introduction of new or improved may result in greater (or lower) knowledge cre- goods or services, processes, marketing solutions, ation and the development of high-­impact inno- or organizational changes that lower the utiliza- vations (Fini et al., 2019). This study, moving a tion of natural resources (e.g., materials, water, step forward, explores whether collaborations with energy, and land) and reduce the release of haz- universities and research institutions contribute ardous substances throughout the life cycle (Eco-­ to complement corporate science investments by Innovation Observatory, 2011; Leyva-­de la Hiz et enhancing knowledge-­generation processes in an al., 2019). These types of innovations tend to be eco-­innovative context. This aspect requires fur- affected by internal and external drivers, which ther attention due to the intrinsic characteristics include technology push, market pull, and institu- of environmental innovations, that is, greater com- tional factors (Horbach, 2008, 2016; Triguero et plexity, novelty, and radicalness compared to non- al., 2013; Borghesi et al., 2015; Jové-­Llopis and environmental ones, since eco-­innovations tend to Segarra-­Blasco, 2018). build upon novel knowledge and competences far It is generally accepted that environmental inno- from the current business domain that are expected vation adds value for society and firms in a world to involve radical changes (Ardito et al., 2019; in which the protection of the environment has Barbieri et al., 2020). Due to their high degree of become critical (Aguilera-­Caracuel and Ortiz-­de-­ novelty and originality, collaborations with sci- Mandojana, 2013; Berrone et al., 2013; Del Río entific partners may be critical for enhancing the et al., 2015; Zhang and Walton, 2017; European development of environmental innovations. Thus, Commission, 2020a; Acebo et al., 2021). To illus- this research contributes to the recent literature on trate, let us consider the investments in clean ener- eco-­innovation that calls for the need to analyze in gies over the last years, mainly dominated by solar depth how the interactions with different collabo- and wind energies. The wind power sector alone rators and open-­innovation strategies affect firms’ got over 131 billion US dollars in 2018. In a sim- eco-­innovation (Acebo et al., 2021), with a focus ilar way, global investments in solar energy tech- on scientific partners (i.e., universities and research nologies increased from 10.7 billion US dollars in institutions). In doing so, the research also con- 2004 to approximately 141 billion US dollars in tributes to advancing the current underdeveloped 2018, with Europe, China, and the United States area of research on how green outputs from public taking the lead (Statista, 2020a). Moreover, insti- research institutions may stimulate firms’ genera- tutions are doing considerable efforts to support tion of environmentally friendly outcomes (Ardito eco-­ innovation and sustainable growth through et al., 2019). Last, this article addresses an increas- different strategies and political measures, such ing demand in public policies around the world as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 505 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos Goals (SDGs), the Eco-­ innovation Action Plan and technologies (Zahra and George, 2002; Arora (Eco AP, 2011), and the Europe 2020 Strategy et al., 2015, 2018). Consequently, firms tend to be (European Commission, 2020b), which in turn is better positioned to introduce radical inventions that giving firms additional incentives to develop and promise higher financial returns and competitive uptake eco-­friendly innovations. advantage (Simeth and Cincera, 2015). In an envi- In a business context, environmental innovations ronmental context, scientific knowledge has to be a help companies achieve competitive advantage either decisive force to create solutions to the challenges through cost leadership or differentiation (Díaz-­ faced by society, including climate change and García et al., 2015). Moreover, the exploitation of environmental protection, which justifies research eco-­innovations can increase benefits based on a rise actions as a top priority for achieving eco-­innovation in sales, a better positioning in the market (Triguero results (European Union, 2020). This is why compa- et al., 2013; Doran and Ryan, 2016), and improve- nies such as Tesla and other vehicle manufacturers ments in financial performance, firm competitive- undertake R&D plans in order to develop cars that ness, and growth (Bansal and Gao, 2006). A clear produce lower polluting emissions, enhance energy example is Tesla, a pioneer in the manufacture and efficiency, and decrease the adoption of fossil fuels sale of fully electric vehicles, which has become a in transportation (EU R&D Scoreboard, 2019). brand associated with energy saving. It had revenue As corporate science differs from traditional R&D of $17.6 billion US dollars from vehicle sales in 2018 activities, because it is specifically directed toward and delivered globally 112,000 units by the end of the creating fundamentally new knowledge and sustain- fourth quarter of 2019 alone (Statista, 2020b). ing long lead time and riskier projects that define It is important to note that firms’ commitment to the firm’s key strategic objectives (Rosenbloom and develop environmental innovations is highly condi- Kantrow, 1982), exploring the connection between tioned by managers’ attitudes and motivation toward corporate science and the development of eco-­ implementing an eco-­friendly and sustainable orien- friendly innovations requires further attention. tation within firms (Lampikoski et al., 2014; Díaz-­ As mentioned previously, it is important to note García et al., 2015). In this sense, the literature has that environmental innovations happen in fast-­ paid attention to some of the most common strate- changing business environments that entail contin- gies firms undertake to promote eco-­ innovation, uous resource configurations and the engagement highlighting the role that R&D investments and col- of other agents and institutions to overcome firms’ laborations play (Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; internal limitations (Triguero et al., 2013; Watson De Marchi, 2012; Del Río et al., 2015; Acebo et et al., 2018; Arroyave et al., 2020). For this reason, al., 2021), as discussed next. environmental innovations usually require greater The contribution of R&D investments to environ- collaborative effort since developing products or ser- mental innovation is well accepted in the literature. vices with lower environmental impact represents a Horbach (2016) showed that enhancing techno- technological frontier; it is a quite complex task that logical capabilities through internal R&D invest- usually involves new, distant knowledge and skills, ments improves eco-­innovation. Similarly, Ghisetti unfamiliar to the firm, in a context of high market et al. (2015) found that firm’s engagement in R&D and technological uncertainty (Messeni Petruzzelli activities increases their likelihood of developing et al., 2011; De Marchi, 2012; Díaz-­ García et environmentally friendly innovations. In a similar al., 2015; Acebo et al., 2021). In this scenario, and way, Jové-­Llopis and Segarra-­Blasco (2018) proved from all the potential external knowledge sources, that by increasing the pool of knowledge available previous scholars have emphasized that collabo- in the firm, R&D efforts stimulate eco-­innovation. rations with universities and research institutions These studies provide important empirical insights tend to be particularly valuable for introducing eco-­ consistent with the innovation literature but do innovations (De Marchi, 2012; Triguero et al., 2013; not sufficiently articulate what the specific role of Jové-­Llopis and Segarra-­Blasco, 2018; Arroyave et corporate science is in nurturing environmental al., 2020). To illustrate, the European Green Vehicle innovations. Initiative (EGVI) is a collaborative project that Corporate science refers to ‘business compa- unites 82 members from industry, research insti- nies’ funded, officially sanctioned and supported, tutes, and academia, with the objective of accel- discovery-­driven research aimed at developing basic erating the research and development required to new knowledge’ (Zahra et al., 2018, p. 157). Generally, boost the transition to greener road transportation firms invest in scientific research not only to facili- (European Commission, 2020c). Within industry tate the creation of new products and processes but members, there are companies from the automotive also to improve the absorption of external knowledge industry, some others devoted to engineering, the 506 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations production of smart systems, and the deployment provide a few examples, companies’ R&D invest- of smart electricity grids. In relation to the research ments are critical to creating more efficient wind members, research institutes and universities work- turbines to generate more energy, to develop ing in the field of road transport technologies improved batteries to be implemented in electric develop an active role (EGVI, 2020). So, although cars, or to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas eco-­innovation may be undertaken by firms, col- emissions (EU R&D Scoreboard, 2019). Yet, as laborations with universities and research institu- noted in the innovation literature, ‘R’ and ‘D’ can tions can accelerate the process and reduce risk and have differential effects on innovation (Barge Gil uncertainties, thereby contributing to successful and López, 2014a). For this reason, the corporate results (Scarpellini et al., 2012). Yet, few studies science literature addresses the role of firms’ scien- in the literature have provided enough evidence tific research investments in driving strategic long-­ on how cooperation with universities and research term purposes (Rosenbloom and Kantrow, 1982; organizations can affect environmental innovations Nelson, 1987; Arora et al., 2015), such as environ- (Watson et al., 2018). The reason for analyzing mental innovation activities. these two institutions is that, along with the private As Barbieri et al. (2020) have recently discussed, sector, they tend to conform to the national system based on the results of a study on a large sample of science, technology, and innovation in different of patents filed over the period 1980–­2012, green countries (OECD, 1997), and, as such, not only are technologies are more complex and also involve a they knowledge-­creating entities, but they also con- greater degree of novelty than nongreen technol- tribute to the transformation of inventions into final ogies, given that they typically entail a new tech- products. nological frontier that requires significant changes In sum, consistent with the innovation literature, due to the absence of technological trajectories. there is broad consensus on the fact that research In other words, green patents are characterized by investment and engagement in collaborations are integrating more novel and diverse technological key drivers of eco-­innovations, although a more inputs and components than their nongreen coun- novel and specific approach to analyze how they terparts (Ghisetti et al., 2015; Leyva-De la Hiz and affect environmentally friendly innovations is Bolívar-Ramos, 2022). Usually, the development still required (Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; of environmentally friendly products is a complex Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017). In fact, little is activity that is built upon diverse knowledge bases known about how these internal and external fac- that fall outside the traditional industry knowledge tors interact and potentially constitute environmen- domain (De Marchi, 2012). Thus, eco-­innovation tal innovation drivers (Ghisetti et al., 2015). To be requires greater exploration in new technologi- more concrete, the next section analyzes what the cal dimensions that goes beyond the well-­known role of investments in basic science is in fostering and already exploited technologies (Zhang and environmental innovation. Thus, the study sheds Walton, 2017). Considering that companies may some light on how knowledge resources affect struggle when facing these radical and complex eco-­innovation outcomes, considering the pau- environmental challenges that imply the need to city of empirical research on the topic (Zhang and develop novel knowledge and capabilities (Cecere Walton, 2017). Further, it also explains how collab- et al., 2014), investing in corporate science may act orations with universities and research institutions as a critical input for the development of new tech- may moderate such relationships, as scientific part- nologies (Arora et al., 2018), in this case, environ- ners may stimulate firms’ efforts to generate novel mental ones. environmental technologies (Ardito et al., 2019; In general terms, and to what the ‘technology-­ Arroyave et al., 2020), that require fundamentally push’ effect refers, environmental innovations have new approaches. Overall, the study contributes to a been typically associated with a firm’s knowledge more general goal: understanding under what con- capital (Horbach, 2008; De Marchi, 2012; Doran ditions firms develop environmental innovations and Ryan, 2016; Kiefer et al., 2019). By investing (Berrone et al., 2013). in basic science, firms support the development of discoveries that provide solutions to unsolved 2.1. The impact of corporate science on problems and create knowledge that informs new recombinations that breed innovation and a environmental innovation firm’s competitive advantage and growth (Zahra R&D spending plays a key role in the realization et al., 2018). For instance, the German company of environmental innovations (Horbach, 2008; Bosch, while acknowledging climate change as Borghesi et al., 2015; Ghisetti et al., 2015). To one of the megatrends that affects our current © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 507 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos lives, indicates that ‘without research, there can Science Report, 2015). Currently, firms are aware be no progress. And without progress, we can- that eco-­innovations can bring benefits to society not improve the quality of people’s lives’ (Bosch and firms (Díaz-­ García et al., 2015; Arroyave et Research, 2020). To keep that commitment, the al., 2020), and that may provide an incentive to invest company has developed research centers that work in corporate science as a necessary input to promote on topics such as intelligent energy management, discovery and guide these long-­term strategic objec- among others, in strategic locations, and supports tives. Indeed, investments in basic science condition researchers working on scientific publications the direction of innovations and guide new initiatives published in top-­tier journals as a basic input for that exploit unmet customers’ demands, creating innovation. first-­ mover advantages and improvements in firm Corporate science also builds scientific capa- reputation in contexts in which the protection of the bilities that facilitate the understanding of com- natural environment is required (Kiefer et al., 2019). plex technological landscapes (Arora et al., 2018), Thus, thereby improving the appraisal of applied findings in a more accurate way (Fleming and Hypothesis 1 Investments in corporate science are Sorenson, 2001; Pellens and Della Malva, 2018). positively associated with environmental innovation. Given that environmental innovations are less path-­ dependent than other types of innovations (which makes existent knowledge difficult to apply), firms 2.2. The moderating role of collaborations may need to promote new knowledge development with universities and research to a greater extent (Ghisetti et al., 2015; Kiefer institutions in relation between et al., 2019; Barbieri et al., 2020), which can be corporate science and environmental achieved through investments in scientific research. In fact, corporate science may be key to the devel- innovation opment of eco-­innovative technologies, as in many Previous research has pointed out the importance cases these are at the earlier stages of their life of networking with other partners and research cycle (Consoli et al., 2016) and therefore require institutions for eco-­ innovation development novel knowledge inputs to face multifaceted and (Cainelli et al., 2012; Díaz-­ García et al., 2015; recent problems (Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017; Norberg-­Bohm, 2000; Watson et al., 2018). In fact, Leyva-De la Hiz and Bolívar-Ramos, 2022). engaging in collaborations that promote external It is important to note that managers’ vision knowledge acquisition tends to be even more rel- can condition how much companies invest in pro- evant for environmental innovations than for other moting eco-­ friendly innovations (Lampikoski types of innovations (Horbach, 2016; Acebo et et al., 2014; Díaz-­ García et al., 2015). Agency al., 2021). This can be explained by the high uncer- problems (among manager-­owners, or managers-­ tainty, complexity, and degree of newness associ- scientists) may determine the extent to which firms ated with environmentally friendly innovations, are willing to spend on basic science to pursue sci- that go beyond firm’s traditional knowledge base entific challenges associated with lower environ- and core competences (Jové-­Llopis and Segarra-­ mental impacts (Baysinger and Hoskisson, 1990; Blasco, 2018; Barbieri et al., 2020). Environmental Leyva-­de la Hiz et al., 2019), as managers may innovations require firms to face different techno-­ feel tempted to give priority to short-­term goals economic problems, such as the adoption of par- rather than riskier and more demanding projects. ticular engineering knowledge, compliance with Further, previous studies have indicated that com- environmental standards, the development of sus- panies do not invest enough in research projects tainable inputs, among others, that entail knowl- and rely more on external sources, which can be edge requirements hard to satisfy exclusively by explained by the low productivity they associate means of internal sources (Foster and Green, 2000; with in-­house research investments (Scarpellini et Ghisetti et al., 2015). This is why the complemen- al., 2012; Arora et al., 2015, 2018), thus also affect- tarities between internal research efforts and exter- ing eco-­innovative initiatives. This, in turn, could nal collaboration strategies can be considered a key weaken the link between corporate science invest- factor to succeed (De Marchi, 2012; Doran and ments and environmental innovations development. Ryan, 2016). Despite previous arguments, there is evidence that Despite the broad range of collaborations in investments in basic research are crucial to keep pro- which firms can engage to pursue environmen- ducing cutting-­edge technologies and innovations to tal innovations, the literature shows that univer- address world sustainability challenges (UNESCO sities and research institutions are among the 508 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations most valuable partners to achieve this goal (De with universities are critical to promoting all kinds Marchi, 2012; Triguero et al., 2013; Arroyave et of eco-­innovation, and this is why public authorities al., 2020). To provide an example, Telefónica, a promote networks between firms and universities to Spanish telecommunications group serving around support this goal (such as the European Innovation 350 million customers, considers critical to collab- Partnership). In particular, by investing in corporate orate with public and private research institutions, science, firms make substantial contributions to the as well as universities, to promote initiatives ori- scientific knowledge required to approach complex ented toward developing innovations that meet the environmental problems. However, it is the interplay United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, with universities’ engagement that may potentiate including environmental targets (Telefónica, 2020). environmental innovations, given that firms can mate- Certainly, many eco-­innovative fields, such as elec- rialize science into successful outcomes through col- tro mobility or renewable energies are relatively laborations with scientific partners that allow them to new, and this makes them especially dependent on access cutting-­edge technologies and advanced R&D basic research activities and external knowledge activities, human capital, and infrastructures, thereby inputs provided by universities and research institu- diminishing the costs of internalizing them (Acebo tions (Horbach, 2016). It is worth mentioning that, et al., 2021). Further, green technologies developed in situations in which, in occasions, firms seem to by public research organizations, such as universi- be reluctant to pursue eco-­innovation goals, uni- ties, reflect the public environmental knowledge and versities and research institutes may constitute key opportunities that firms can acquire to complement partners to promote connections between the private internal research efforts, thus facilitating the subse- sector and society needs (Scarpellini et al., 2012). quent technological development and fostering the Yet, little is known on how these two internal and transition of firms toward more eco-­friendly innova- external sources interact, in part because of the tive activities (Ardito et al., 2019). Thus, over the last previous unavailability of data to study corporate years, the number of research collaborations between science; a basic component within R&D (Ghisetti universities and firms have grown considerably, as et al., 2015; Kiefer et al., 2019). firms can enhance their research performance by Universities have been traditionally conceived as gaining access to the best scientific and engineering institutions that work hard to create innovative solu- minds, which is key to eco-­innovate (Arroyave et tions (Perkmann et al., 2013; Fischer et al., 2019), al., 2020). that have a positive impact on society at large, Yet, the process of acquiring the knowledge empower world citizens, protect the natural environ- and experience provided by universities for eco-­ ment, and fuel the economy (European University innovative practices may not be successful. This, Association, 2019). To illustrate, Harvard University, in turn, could interfere in the success of corpo- through the Sustainability Plan 2015–­2020, has set rate science initiatives for environmental purposes. clear objectives in the fields of emissions and energy, As Scarpellini et al. (2012) discuss, there is still a nature and ecosystems, and encourages faculty considerable gap between firms and universities as and staff to pilot sustainable solutions by applying researching organizations, and their different motiva- Harvard’s leading-­ edge research and teaching to tions affect environmental innovations. More specif- solve world challenges (Harvard University, 2020). ically, these authors indicate that universities usually Thus, it is hardly surprising to see that leading com- present complex structures, making it complicated panies that promote environmental innovations cur- for firms to connect with the right expert to acquire rently engage in collaborations with universities to specific knowledge. In addition, sometimes firm pro- achieve this goal. Such is the case of Iberdrola, one fessionals do not rely on university research, which of the most important players in Spain in the field is perceived as ‘disconnected’ from the private world of renewable energies, which collaborates with the (Sjöö and Hellström, 2021). Also, in relation to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to sup- firm, the scarcity of managerial competences for pro- port innovation in the field of clean energies. cessing green-­specific inputs could pose important As previously introduced, firm investments in challenges to environmental innovation processes R&D and participating in collaborations with uni- (Ghisetti et al., 2015). versities have traditionally been associated with Although there may be different plausible expla- an improvement in environmental innovation out- nations, the reality shows that the interaction between comes (Cainelli et al., 2012; Scarpellini et al., 2012; internal and external sources of knowledge tends to Doran and Ryan, 2016; Acebo et al., 2021). Drawing be critical for eco-­innovation, as firms can develop upon a database that covers 27 European countries, internally tacit and codified knowledge, which is dif- Triguero et al. (2013) showed that collaborations ficult to transfer, but can also absorb externally distant © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 509 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos knowledge (Kiefer et al., 2019). In particular, invest- raw materials in order to exploit the maximum poten- ments in basic scientific research can nurture and tial of their research activities (ICB, 2018). support long-­term environmental innovation objec- As discussed, by investing in basic scientific tives (Leyva-­de la Hiz et al., 2019). Simultaneously, research, firms develop a source of knowledge and collaborations with universities may strengthen the capabilities that define the basis for their long-­term success of these organizational processes, as univer- strategies (Pellens and Della Malva, 2018; Hartmann sities make an important contribution by developing and Henkel, 2020). In that context, collaborations a sustainable orientation, teaching and training staff with research institutions may be critical to influence on how to conduct basic research, and generating a firm’s strategic orientation toward environmental scientific knowledge that can be transferred to an innovation for different reasons. First, research insti- ecosystem in which multiple stakeholders participate tutions can provide important knowledge require- (Ferraris et al., 2018; Petersen and Kruss, 2021). In ments, such as the scientific knowledge that firms general, over the last decade, firms have increased need in relation to the materials to be used in envi- their cooperation with universities to transform their ronmental innovations (Ghisetti et al., 2015), while basic knowledge and scientific research into applied also training researchers and applying for patents in knowledge to create value for society through sus- green fields. In addition, research institutions some- tainable projects (Acebo et al., 2021). Thus, times present a multidisciplinary approach that can also benefit the multifaceted nature of environmen- Hypothesis 2 The positive association between tal innovations (Triguero et al., 2013). Moreover, corporate science and environmental innovation research institutions traditionally pursue economic strengthens when firms collaborate with universities. and social development, so these organizations can play a key role in supporting ‘green’ initiatives research institutions, whether public or private, through grants, research programs, or collabora- also constitute knowledge-­ generating entities that tions with the private sector, in an attempt to boost spur innovation activities. As specified in the Oslo their development by stimulating the basic scientific Manual (2018), a public research institution/orga- knowledge underlying them (Wagner, 2007; Zahra et nization is one that ‘performs R&D as a primary al., 2018). economic activity (research); and (ii) it is controlled We cannot ignore that the potential contributions by government (formal definition of public sector)’ of firms to scientific knowledge that spurs environ- (p. 140). Besides public research organizations, it is mental innovations may not be without problems. In useful to account for private research institutes since particular, concerns about the appropriability of basic these are typically highly dependent on direct or indi- research outcomes coupled with the difficulties asso- rect government funds for their R&D plans. Thus, in ciated with developing environmental innovations, this study, the term ‘research institutions’ was inclu- namely, greater risks, complexity, and uncertainty sive of these two organizations. (Berrone et al., 2013; Leyva-­de la Hiz et al., 2019), Over the last years, research institutions have been may discourage firms from engaging in these initia- supporting sustainable goals while simultaneously tives (Arora et al., 2015). Consequently, firms may connecting with firms to speed up the development find additional incentives to pursue short-­term inno- of eco-­innovations. Let us illustrate this by looking vations that are incremental in nature (Lazonick and at ‘ICB’ (The Carbon Chemistry Institute), which Tulum, 2011; Arora et al., 2015), and they may use is one of the institutes that integrates the ‘CSIC’ their collaborative efforts to this end. Aside from that, (National Council of Scientific Research) in Spain. in the basic research stage, R&D project managers ICB’s research activities involve great social sensi- may encounter administrative barriers that can trans- tivity (CO2 capture/climate change, waste recovery), late into constraints regarding funding (i.e., grants), according to new technological challenges (produc- which in turn can negatively affect the selection of tion of hydrogen and renewable fuels) and cutting-­ environmental projects and the success of collabora- edge applications (nanoscience and nanotechnology, tions with research institutions (Polzin et al., 2016). development of new sensors, batteries, fuel cells, Despite the persistence of some contradic- etc.) (ICB, 2020). This institute has five research tory arguments, the interplay between corporate groups; it is currently executing 96 research projects science and collaborations with research institu- and possesses 69 patents that signal the knowledge tions may still result in positive effects for envi- transfer activities of this organization. As a result, ronmental innovations (Arroyave et al., 2020). firms such as SISENER have collaborated with the Notably, research institutions play a key transla- ICB to develop new processes focused on increasing tional role in connecting basic and applied research waste recovery and improving the value of certain (Popp, 2017). Along these lines, agencies and 510 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations research institutions have been found to positively to point out is that PITEC has been widely used influence material and energy eco-­processes inno- in innovation studies that analyze environmen- vations (Horbach et al., 2013; Triguero et al., 2013). tal strategies (Horbach, 2016; Jové-­ Llopis and In addition, research institutions can shape and Segarra-­Blasco, 2018). affect firms’ corporate science investments in In this research, the firm constituted the unit of order to promote environmentally friendly innova- analysis. The sample of this study was restricted tions with high potential and social value (Zahra et to Spanish innovative firms (i.e., reporting posi- al., 2018). When firms invest in the development tive intramural R&D expenditures), as the aim of of eco-­innovations, they may be able to benefit the research required companies to be engaged in from network externalities as well in the form of research and development activities (Barge Gil and environmental-­knowledge spillovers that, in turn, López, 2014b; Gimenez-­Fernandez et al., 2020). affect the incentives for eco-­ innovation (Fritsch The dataset used in this study was obtained from and Franke, 2004; Cainelli et al., 2012). Thus, the combination of six panel waves of PITEC (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016), that covered Hypothesis 3 The positive association between the period 2010–­2016. It is important to note that corporate science and environmental innovation the questionnaire for each survey wave in time t strengthens when firms collaborate with research included data from time t-­2 to t. To illustrate, in institutions. the wave of 2016, there is data on the firm’s busi- ness year 2016, although some items also collected information on a 3-­year period (e.g., collaborations 3. Methodology with universities, from 2014 to 2016). When this was the case, specific information has been pro- 3.1. Data vided in the description of variables and measures. This study was based on the panel data obtained After the filtering process mentioned before, the from PITEC (Panel de Innovación Tecnológica), result was an unbalanced panel of 4,064 firms and collected by the National Statistics Institute of 15,208 observations, which ensured a representa- Spain in line with the guidelines of the Community tive sample of Spanish firms, in line with recent Innovation Survey. The reason for choosing Spain eco-­innovation studies in this context (Acebo et as the geographical context of the research and al., 2021). Regarding firm characteristics, 78.53% this specific database is justified by different rea- of them represented small-­and medium-­ sized sons. First, previous studies have pointed to the enterprises, whereas 21.47% were large firms (i.e., increasing importance of environmental issues in possess more than 250 employees). Yet, only 6.11% the Spanish economy, making this setting appro- constituted new ventures (i.e., less than 10 years), priate to explore and analyze eco-­ innovation in contrast with 93.89% for established firms. In dynamics (De Marchi, 2012; Del Río et al., 2015; terms of the firms’ international scope, 75.73% do Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017). Second, one of not engage in international collaborations, while the main difficulties encountered in studying cor- 24.27% cooperate with foreign partners in a sin- porate science is the scarcity of data (Díaz-­García gle geographical area (16.31%) or two or more et al., 2015). However, PITEC is useful in over- areas (7.97%).2 It is also worth noting that 49.87% coming this limitation, as it contains separate infor- belong to a group. Finally, as Table 1 displays, over mation about the amounts of scientific research the 2010–­2016 period, around 12% of the firms and development. Further, this panel database in the sample invested in corporate science, and offered a wide range of variables related to tech- approximately 58% had introduced environmental nological and eco-­innovation activities (explained innovations. Notably, just focusing on the group of in the next section), which allowed us to test the eco-­innovators, around 65% of the firms reported empirical model proposed. An additional aspect expenditures on basic scientific research. Table 1. Sample statistics (proportion of firms per year) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Firms with corporate science 12.44% 13.04% 11.49% 10.16% 10.78% 12.71% 12.17% Firms that eco-­innovate 59.39% 56.95% 56.75% 58.39% 58.78% 58.32% 58.96% Eco-­innovators that invest in corporate 66.9% 62.7% 62.6% 66.13% 70.30% 65.20% 65.85% science1 1 Percentage of firms with respect to the group of environmental innovators. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 511 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos 3.2. Variables PITEC that reflects whether firms collaborated with research institutions (public/private) in the 3.2.1. Dependent variable preceding 3 years, coded as 1 and 0 if not (De 3.2.1.1. Environmental innovation Marchi, 2012). In line with recent research, this study measured envi- ronmental innovation using a PITEC question that 3.2.3. Control variables asks firms to indicate on a 4-­item scale to what extent The study also included a set of control variables the firm has introduced any innovations aimed at that could affect the relationships proposed (Barge reducing environmental impact. The responses were Gil and López, 2014a; Doran and Ryan, 2016). First, then coded into a binary variable that took the value 1 the analysis controlled for industry effects, consid- if the firm introduced any innovation with a medium ering firms in high, medium-­high, medium-­low, and or strong reduction in environmental impact in the pre- low technology industries, in line with the OECD ceding 3 years; and 0 if not (Acebo et al., 2021). This ISIC Rev.3 technology intensity definition, in an dependent variable and measure are consistent with approach that has already been followed by past previous studies and existing literature on the topic research on eco-­innovation (Triguero et al., 2013; that also used PITEC and followed a similar approach Acebo et al., 2021). Second, firm age was consid- (De Marchi, 2012; Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017). ered because older and younger firms tend to pres- Further, using a dummy as a dependent variable, it ent different innovative behaviors (Huergo and was possible to compare the results of the study with Jaumandreu, 2004). Firm age was measured by the previous research on the topic using Community number of years the firm had been operating since it Innovation Survey (CIS) datasets (De Marchi, 2012; was founded (in logarithms). Third, another variable Martínez-­Ros and Kunapatarawong, 2019). For the taken into account was firm’s exports, measured by empirical analyses, the longitudinal nature of the data the natural logarithm of the export investments, as made it possible to introduce a 2-­year lag between all the literature suggests that a high export performance the independent variables and the firm’s environmen- can induce environmental innovations (Ghisetti et tal innovation to lessen concerns over endogeneity al., 2015). Fourth, along with it, the study controlled and account for the time that has elapsed since firms for the international scope of collaborations, as it is invested in corporate science until they might be able becoming common that firms cross their national to introduce eco-­innovations. frontiers to acquire knowledge inputs that reside in other countries and can be useful in generating 3.2.2. Independent and moderator variables eco-­innovations. This variable captures the number 3.2.2.1. Corporate science of distinct geographical areas in which firms have Corporate science has been recently defined as ‘busi- international partners, considering Europe, U.S.A., ness companies’ funded, officially sanctioned, and China/India, and other countries, as established by supported, discovery driven research aimed at devel- the PITEC questionnaire (Arranz et al., 2020). Fifth, oping basic new knowledge’ (Zahra et al., 2018, p. the study included a binary control variable that took 157; Hartmann and Henkel, 2020). This conceptual- the value of 1 when the firm belonged to a group, ization distinguishes corporate science from corpo- and 0 otherwise. Sixth, the analysis controlled for rate R&D, as the former focuses on the discovery of the total personnel working on R&D, measured by basic scientific knowledge by firms. Thus, consider- the logarithm of the number of employees working ing the availability of data, and this conceptualiza- specifically on R&D activities. In addition to that, tion, the variable corporate science was measured the training expenditures were also considered. This using the logarithm of the basic research intensity; variable was measured by the logarithm of the total that is, basic research investments divided by the expenditures devoted to training programs aimed at number of employees. increasing employees’ abilities to develop new or sig- 3.2.2.2. Cooperation with universities nificantly improved products. Notably, researchers To measure this specific collaboration, the study and their training and skills not only affect the quality relied on the binary variable provided by PITEC that of research discoveries (Zahra et al., 2018), but also reflects whether firms collaborated with universities influence environmental innovations because the in the preceding 3 years, coded as 1 and 0 if not (De education of the workforce is expected to exert a pos- Marchi, 2012). itive impact on environmentally proactive strategies (Keshminder and del Río, 2019). Another control 3.2.2.3. Cooperation with research institutions variable included was external R&D intensity, that In line with the approach mentioned before, the is, the ratio of the total external R&D expenditures study relied on the binary variable provided by divided by the number of employees (in logarithms). 512 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations The reason is that, typically, the higher the pool of problem that characterizes binary data panel models knowledge resources and technological capabilities (Croissant and Millo, 2018). Initially, the base model available within the firm, the higher the probability simply included the control variables. Then, model 2 of introducing environmental innovations (Doran added the independent variables. Finally, given the and Ryan, 2016). This is why the number of patents need to test for the moderation effects, interaction in logarithms was added as another control variable. terms were introduced in models 3, 4, and 5. Table 3 Moreover, the analysis accounts for firm size, using shows the results of the empirical analyses. the logarithm of the firm turnover (Leyva-­de la Hiz In the base model (model 1) in Table 3, we can et al., 2019). Firm size may condition environmental observe that medium-­ high and medium-­ low tech- innovations because SMEs tend to have lower lev- nology sectors, international scope of collabora- els of resources than large firms, which can affect tions, personnel working on R&D activities, training eco-­innovative activities that are usually quite costly. expenditures, patents, firm size, past environmental As an additional control variable, the inclusion of innovations, environmental regulation, and other past environmental innovations was also relevant R&D expenditures, as control variables, had a pos- because past eco-­innovation behavior is usually a itive and significant impact on environmental inno- driver of current environmental innovations (Acebo vation. However, although the level of exports is et al., 2021). This was measured by a binary vari- likely to affect the likelihood of being an innovative able that took the value of 1 when the firm had devel- firm, it did not affect eco-­innovations (Marzucchi oped environmental innovations in the three previous and Montresor, 2017). Moreover, external R&D did years, and 0 otherwise. Further, the study controlled not have a significant impact on environmental inno- for environmental regulation, which is one of the key vation, which is in line with the results obtained by policy factors that affects a firm’s eco-­innovation Doran and Ryan (2016) in the sense that extramural activities. Specifically, this is a binary variable that R&D does not always positively affect all types of equals 1 when the firm innovation objective has a eco-­innovation. Finally, firm age and belonging to a strong or medium orientation toward meeting envi- group did not exert a significant effect on the intro- ronmental regulation requirements and 0 if not (Jové-­ duction of environmental innovations. Llopis and Segarra-­Blasco, 2018). In addition, other In model 2, the results show that investments R&D expenditures, including applied research and in basic scientific research positively and signifi- technological development, were also set as a control cantly affected environmental innovation (β = 0.012, variable, by taking the total amount of other R&D P < 0.05). Hence, Hypothesis 1, which stated that expenditures divided by the number of employees corporate science is positively associated with (in logs). Finally, the analyses included a set of year environmental innovation, was supported. The new dummies to control for time. knowledge and discoveries induced by corporate sci- ence investments are thus key to increasing the likeli- hood of developing environmental innovations. 4. Analysis and results The moderating role of collaborations with uni- versities and research institutions on the relationship Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics, includ- between corporate science and environmental inno- ing the means and standard deviations, and also the vation was analyzed in the next models. In particular, correlation matrix. As expected, corporate science, model 3 tested the moderating effect of collabora- cooperation with universities, and cooperation with tions with universities, that can only be confirmed research institutions are positively and significantly if (and only if) this interaction term is significant correlated with environmental innovation. Moreover, (Dawson, 2014, p. 2). As the coefficient of the inter- in relation to the rest of the correlations, none of action term was positive and significant (β = 0.017, them is excessively high. Variance inflation factors P < 0.1), Hypothesis 2 was supported. Thus, coop- were computed and confirmed that collinearity was erating with universities strengthens the association not a problem, as the factors were between 1.06 and between corporate science and environmental inno- 2.8 and therefore below the acceptable threshold of vation. However, as model 4 shows, the moderating five or 10 (O’Brien, 2007). effect of collaborations with research institutions Since the dependent variable (environmental inno- was positive but not significant (β = 0.006), which vation) is a binary variable, estimations were done means that Hypothesis 3 was not supported. In other using probit regressions, which is consistent with words, and contrary to what was expected, engaging past research (Horbach, 2016). As the study relies on in collaborations with research institutions did not panel data, the random effects model was an appro- strengthen the relationship between corporate sci- priate technique for solving the incidental parameter ence and environmental innovation. Specifically, the © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 513 514 Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations Variables Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (1) Environmental 0.59 0.49 1.000 María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos innovation R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 (2) High-­tech 0.24 0.43 −0.143* 1.000 (3) Medium-­high tech 0.27 0.44 0.090* −0.325* 1.000 (4) Medium-­low tech 0.14 0.34 0.051* −0.220* −0.237* 1.000 (5) Firm age_lg 3.33 0.55 0.105* −0.265* 0.153* 0.107* 1.000 (6) Total exports_lg 11.61 6.74 0.117* −0.162* 0.246* 0.156* 0.255* 1.000 (7) International scope 0.39 0.79 0.129* 0.112* −0.007 −0.035* 0.026* 0.149* 1.000 (8) Group 0.51 0.49 0.091* −0.075* 0.017* 0.043* 0.130* 0.198* 0.194* 1.000 (9) Personnel in R&D_lg 2.38 1.09 0.137* 0.205* −0.050* −0.080* 0.092* 0.184* 0.381* 0.307* 1.000 (10) Training 1.72 3.61 0.081* 0.056* −0.007 −0.039* 0.021* 0.025* 0.163* 0.050* 0.167* 1.000 expenditures_lg (11) External RD_lg 2.65 3.51 0.085* 0.099* −0.019* −0.031* −0.030* 0.064* 0.229* 0.101* 0.273* 0.118* 1.000 (12) Patents (number)_lg 0.25 0.64 0.088* 0.073* 0.056* −0.012 0.033* 0.147* 0.269* 0.100* 0.326* 0.099* 0.178* 1.000 (13) Size_lg 16.28 2.13 0.193* −0.271* 0.066* 0.097* 0.415* 0.384* 0.207* 0.499* 0.441* 0.086* 0.080* 0.146* 1.000 (14) Environmental 0.61 0.49 0.662* −0.118* 0.118* 0.033* 0.084* 0.120* 0.126* 0.061* 0.106* 0.089* 0.078* 0.094* 0.148* 1.000 regulation (15) Other R&D 12.77 1.59 −0.001 0.335* 0.013* −0.123* −0.238* −0.031* 0.157* −0.115* 0.283* 0.041* 0.229* 0.131* −0.367* 0.016* 1.000 expenditures_lg (16) Corporate science 1.35 3.75 0.051* 0.115* −0.023* −0.033* −0.025* −0.007 0.112* −0.020* 0.134* 0.064* 0.084* 0.114* −0.020* 0.050* 0.022* 1.000 (17) Cooperation with 0.22 0.41 0.110* 0.120* −0.091* −0.081* −0.059* −0.006 0.377* 0.070* 0.295* 0.121* 0.259* 0.188* 0.086* 0.098* 0.158* 0.093* 1.000 universities (18) Cooperation with 0.43 0.20 0.075* 0.049* −0.057* −0.038* −0.031* −0.009 0.258* 0.056* 0.184* 0.102* 0.164* 0.115* 0.078* 0.075* 0.085* 0.076* 0.247* 1.000 research institutions *P < 0.05. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations Table 3. Probit models results –­Dependent variable: Environmental innovation Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 High-­technology −0.331*** −0.337*** −0.339*** −0.337*** −0.339*** (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) Medium-­high technology 0.208*** 0.222*** 0.223*** 0.222*** 0.223*** (0.062) (0.062) (0.063) (0.062) (0.063) Medium-­low technology 0.144* 0.159** 0.158** 0.159** 0.158** (0.076) (0.075) (0.076) (0.076) (0.076) Firm age_lg 0.053 0.058 0.057 0.058 0.057 (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) (0.045) Total exports_lg 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) International scope 0.105*** 0.071** 0.069** 0.071** 0.069** (0.029) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) Group −0.079 −0.073 −0.072 −0.073 −0.072 (0.050) (0.050) (0.050) (0.050) (0.050) Personnel in R&D_lg 0.094*** 0.077*** 0.078*** 0.077*** 0.078*** (0.028) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) Training expenditures_lg 0.012** 0.011** 0.011** 0.011** 0.011** (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) External R&D_lg 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) Patent (number)_lg 0.060* 0.051 0.050 0.051 0.050 (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) Size_lg 0.104*** 0.106*** 0.105*** 0.106*** 0.105*** (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) Past environmental innovation_lg 0.791*** 0.788*** 0.788*** 0.788*** 0.788*** (0.051) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051) (0.051) Environmental regulation 0.257*** 0.252*** 0.252*** 0.252*** 0.252*** (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) (0.044) Other R&D expenditures_lg 0.029* 0.032* 0.031* 0.032* 0.031* (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) Corporate science 0.012** 0.006 0.011** 0.006 (0.005) (0.006) (0.005) (0.006) Cooperation with universities 0.149*** 0.125** 0.149*** 0.124** (0.048) (0.050) (0.048) (0.051) Cooperation with research 0.036 0.033 0.024 0.034 institutions (0.059) (0.059) (0.063) (0.064) Corporate science × Cooperation 0.017* 0.017* with universities (0.010) (0.010) Corporate science × Cooperation 0.006 −0.000 with research institutions (0.011) (0.012) Year Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant −2.908*** −2.908*** −2.871*** −2.905*** −2.871*** (0.374) (0.374) (0.375) (0.374) (0.375) Observations 15,208 15,208 15,208 15,208 15,208 Number of ident 4064 4064 4064 4064 4064 Standard errors in parentheses. ***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 515 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos results confirmed that universities are more valuable a robustness test consisting of taking an alternative partners to increase the benefits of corporate science measure of the dependent variable ‘environmental investments for environmentally friendly innovations. innovation’. In particular, ‘environmental innova- These findings support the critical role of universities tion 2’ considered whether firms reported whether in environmental innovations, as already discussed innovations that reduced environmental impact and by Cainelli et al. (2012) and De Marchi (2012) but complied with regulatory environmental standards differ in relation to the role of research institutions. were important/high in time ‘t + 2’ (coded as 1) or not The reason may be that although both types of orga- (coded as 0) (Loredo et al., 2019). Using a different nizations complement a firm’s internal knowledge specification, this eco-­innovation variable allowed resources that spur innovation activities, research us to mitigate potential problems and to test whether institutions may still fall behind universities in pro- the results of the analyses were robust (Martínez-­Ros moting environmental objectives. and Kunapatarawong, 2019). Finally, an additional test with the two interac- As we can observe in Table 4, the main results of tion terms was performed (model 5). Results show the study regarding the impact of corporate science on that under these circumstances, only the moderating environmental innovation and the moderating role of role of collaborations with universities was positive collaborations with universities and research institu- and significant (β = 0.017, P < 0.1). Thus, these find- tions remained unchanged. That is, corporate science ings corroborate that universities are more relevant has a positive and significant effect on the likelihood partners in increasing the chances of developing of developing environmental innovations. However, environmental innovations from corporate science only collaborations with universities positively and investments. significantly affected the relationship between cor- In addition to previous results, as it is difficult to porate science and environmental innovations. interpret an interaction term in nonlinear models, such as Probit (Ai and Norton, 2003; Zelner, 2009), it is necessary to compute and plot the marginal effects. 5. Discussion and conclusions This is what Figure 1 reflects, in relation to the mod- erating role of collaboration with universities. As we Over the last years, the literature has shown that can observe, the plot confirms that corporate science firms pursuing environmental innovations can investments positively affect the likelihood to eco-­ improve their financial performance and corporate innovate, and this propensity is even stronger when image, increase sales, achieve competitive advan- firms cooperate with universities. This provides fur- tage, exploit opportunities in new markets, and ther support for Hypothesis 2. contribute to sustainability goals (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Aguilera-­Caracuel and Ortiz-­de-­ Mandojana, 2013; Doran and Ryan, 2016; Duanmu ​4.1. ​Rob​ust​ness tests et al., 2018). For these reasons, firms and gov- To evaluate the robustness of the results reported, ernment organizations are including environmen- additional analyses were carried out. Table 4 reports tal innovations as one of their key strategic lines Figure 1. The moderating effect of collaboration with u​niv​ers​iti​es.​ 516 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations Table 4. Robustness test –­Dependent variable: Environmental innovation 2 Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 High-­technology 0.253*** −0.261*** −0.263*** −0.261*** −0.263*** (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) (0.070) Medium-­high technology 0.308*** 0.321*** 0.322*** 0.321*** 0.322*** (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) Medium-­low technology 0.163** 0.176** 0.175** 0.176** 0.175** (0.079) (0.079) (0.079) (0.079) (0.079) Firm age_lg 0.083* 0.087* 0.087* 0.087* 0.087* (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) Total exports_lg 0.006* 0.007** 0.007** 0.007** 0.007** (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) International scope 0.071** 0.041 0.038 0.041 0.038 (0.029) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) Group −0.083 −0.077 −0.075 −0.077 −0.075 (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) (0.052) Personnel in R&D_lg 0.089*** 0.071** 0.073** 0.071** 0.073** (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) (0.029) Training expenditures_lg 0.017*** 0.016*** 0.016*** 0.016*** 0.016*** (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) (0.005) External R&D_lg 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) Patent (number)_lg 0.057* 0.049 0.048 0.049 0.048 (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034) Size_lg 0.093*** 0.096*** 0.095*** 0.096*** 0.095*** (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) Past environmental innovation_lg 0.617*** 0.612*** 0.613*** 0.612*** 0.613*** (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) (0.046) Environmental regulation 0.374*** 0.371*** 0.370*** 0.371*** 0.370*** (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) (0.047) Other R&D expenditures_lg 0.033* 0.038** 0.036** 0.037** 0.036** (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) (0.017) Corporate science 0.015*** 0.008 0.014*** 0.009 (0.005) (0.006) (0.005) (0.006) Cooperation with universities 0.121** 0.095* 0.121** 0.094* (0.049) (0.051) (0.049) (0.051) Cooperation with research institutions 0.066 0.063 0.058 0.069 (0.059) (0.059) (0.063) (0.063) Corporate science × Cooperation with 0.018* 0.019* universities (0.010) (0.010) Corporate science × Cooperation with 0.004 −0.003 research institutions (0.011) (0.012) Year Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant −3.145*** −3.145*** −3.098*** −3.142*** −3.098*** (0.383) (0.383) (0.384) (0.383) (0.384) Observations 15,208 15,208 15,208 15,208 15,208 Number of ident 4,064 4,064 4,064 4,064 4,064 Standard errors in parentheses. ***P < 0.01, **P < 0.05, *P < 0.1. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 517 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos (Zhang and Walton, 2017; Jové-­Llopis and Segarra-­ cooperate with universities. However, contrary Blasco, 2018). Given that knowledge-­based factors to what it was expected in Hypothesis 3, the find- and collaborations play a prominent role in promot- ings of the research reveal that collaborating with ing environmentally friendly innovations (Triguero research institutions does not positively moderate et al., 2013; Horbach, 2016; Acebo et al., 2021), this the relationship between corporate science and envi- study has explored the following research questions: ronmental innovations. Indeed, environmental inno- does corporate science affect the development of vations require more basic research and external environmental innovations, and how do collabora- sources of knowledge, given their association with tions with universities and research institutions influ- relatively new technologies (Del Río et al., 2015; ence the relationship between corporate science and Barbieri et al., 2020). The fact that only collabora- environmental innovations? tions with universities reinforce the corporate science In line with Hypothesis 1, the results of the and environmental innovation relationship could be empirical analyses confirm that firms investing in explained by their unique role in promoting basic corporate science are more likely to undertake envi- scientific research, education, and highly talented ronmental innovations. Recent research has already personnel committed to assisting firms in devel- tackled how ‘research’ and ‘development’ invest- oping sustainable innovative solutions (European ments, taken separately, affect innovative outcomes, University Association, 2019). On the contrary, it with a special emphasis on how investments in basic may be plausible that research institutions, despite science affect product/process or incremental/radical offering valuable knowledge and guidance for firms, innovations (Barge Gil and López, 2014a). However, may help companies in developing innovations that this study moves a step forward, as it discusses how do not necessarily pursue environmental objectives corporate science, the primary driver of discovery, to a greater extent. This result may be surprising, affects environmental innovations. In comparison given that research institutes, for example, CSIC in with standard innovations, eco-­ innovations typi- Spain, are becoming top organizations in promoting cally rely on more novel knowledge inputs, which sustainable goals framed within policy programs depart from current technological trajectories and such as Horizon 2020 in the European Union. Yet, it which demand original and radically new solutions is still partly consistent with past research, as Doran (Barbieri et al., 2020). Thus, understanding how and Ryan (2016) found that public links (universities investments in basic science may induce eco-­friendly and research institutions) have no significant impact innovations requiring a higher degree of exploration, on eco-­innovations. Overall, the results of this study and capable of being nurtured by scientific research, provide a more fine-­grained explanation by showing merit special attention. Further, this topic is critical how universities and research institutions can dif- nowadays, since preserving the natural environment ferently affect/condition a firm’s long-­term research through innovation has become a key goal for mul- goals and environmental strategies. In this sense, cor- tiple stakeholders in modern societies (Fliaster and porate science investments may be more valuable in Kolloch, 2017; Watson et al., 2018; Leyva-De la Hiz fostering environmental innovation when their devel- and Bolívar-Ramos, 2022) and has inspired numer- opment occurs along with university support, which ous policies worldwide (e.g., SDGs, Eco-­Innovation is consistent with the idea that most basic research Action Plan, and so on). In particular, the study has originates in universities. shown that despite its uncertain outcomes, fostering From a theoretical standpoint, this study extends corporate science improves the chances to develop the knowledge-­based view literature (Grant, 1996) eco-­innovation, because it helps delineate long-­term by showing how intangible, complex, and valuable goals, that require particularly creative and novel knowledge assets embedded in corporate science solutions based on new knowledge recombinations can contribute to developing environmental innova- that move away from existing knowledge and lead tions, which are sources of competitive advantage to innovations that reduce environmental hazards. for firms in modern societies (Zahra et al., 2018). These results thus contribute to a greater understand- Remarkably, only recently has research focused on ing of how some internal firm resources –­that is, cor- explaining how different types of knowledge inputs porate science –­impact environmental innovation, a that firms obtain or develop affect eco-­ friendly topic that has been rarely considered due to the lack innovations (Cainelli et al., 2015; Marzucchi and of available data to perform econometric analyses Montresor, 2017; Acebo et al., 2021). Moreover, the (Díaz-­García et al., 2015). study also contributes to understanding under what In line with Hypothesis 2, the results show that conditions firms benefit from collaborations with the relation between corporate science and environ- research organizations that can provide novel knowl- mental innovations becomes stronger when firms edge inputs for eco-­friendly innovations while also 518 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations supporting an environmentally responsible culture with recent policy programs, such as the European (Arroyave et al., 2020). Specifically, our findings are Innovation Partnership, a specific action that belongs consistent with previous research which highlights to the Eco-­innovation Action Plan, and whose main that external knowledge inputs do not always lead to goal is to boost cooperation between public and a ‘one-­size-­fits-­all’ strategy in the environmental lit- private stakeholders to enhance eco-­ innovations erature (Ghisetti et al., 2015) given that only collab- (Triguero et al., 2013). orations with universities strengthen a firm’s ability to develop environmental innovations through corpo- rate science investments. 6. Limitations and future research Aside from the theoretical contributions previ- ously discussed, this study also presents several This study presents some limitations that offer implications for managers and policymakers. In rela- opportunities for future research. First, as envi- tion to managerial implications, as corporate science ronmental innovation is context-­ specific, future drives environmental innovations, it is important that research should analyze the proposed model in dif- managers willing to implement eco-­friendly innova- ferent countries (Díaz-­García et al., 2015) other than tions adopt a vision that supports corporate science Spain. This would help us understand how context/ spending as a strategic goal (Díaz-­García et al., 2015; country-­specific characteristics affect the relation- Leyva-­de la Hiz et al., 2019). This tends to be one of ship between corporate science and environmental the greatest obstacles to the success of corporate sci- innovation as well as the moderating role of collabo- ence programs. Moreover, to reap more benefits from rations with research organizations. research investments in environmental innovations, In addition, although the variable that measures firms need to work more closely with universities, environmental innovation has been previously used which is consistent with past studies’ results (Cainelli in the literature (Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017; et al., 2012; De Marchi and Grandinetti, 2013; Acebo et al., 2021), which is helpful to provide Triguero et al., 2013). It is important to note that as comparative studies that enrich this field (Martínez-­ the collaborations between universities and firms Ros and Kunapatarawong, 2019), it neither gives us are not exempt of misalignments, technology cen- information on how many environmental innovations ters (that link public and private firms) can play the firms develop nor on whether these innovations are role of environmental vectors since these institutions radical or incremental, or related to product or pro- facilitate speeding up a firm’s innovative process cess innovations. Thus, to measure eco-­innovation, while reducing uncertainty and risks (Scarpellini et future research should include variables that capture al., 2012). In this way, firms may be better positioned realized environmental innovations with a more spe- to acquire, understand, and absorb the knowledge cific focus, beyond the classical approach of studies sources these valuable institutions provide, which in using CIS surveys that consider firm’s environmen- turn will complement corporate science outputs. tal objectives in technological-­innovative activities, Regarding policy implications, identifying the in order to provide a richer and useful extension of modes of knowledge that lead to environmental inno- this work. Also, to deepen our knowledge about the vation can help policymakers make decisions to sup- relationship between corporate science and environ- port firms in pursuing this goal (Ghisetti et al., 2015). mental innovation and to advance overall the envi- Environmental innovations’ positive effects extend ronmental innovation literature (Horbach et al., 2013; beyond firm boundaries since they contribute to Kiefer et al., 2019). Another interesting point is that reducing environmental challenges for society, since the information provided by PITEC to mea- including global warming and declining resources sure collaborations with research organizations (i.e., or pollution, among others (Leyva-De la Hiz and universities and research institutions) is based on a Bolívar-Ramos, 2022). Given that governments fund binary variable, future research should consider how research projects developed by institutions such as intense or frequent these collaborations are to shed universities, laboratories, and the private sector, the some light on this relevant topic. insights from this study can be helpful to inform Finally, this research specifically focuses on how where public research funds should be targeted to the interplay between corporate science and exter- promote green initiatives (Popp, 2017). Specifically, nal knowledge sources provided by universities and the findings suggest that public authorities should research institutions influence firms’ environmen- not only stimulate firms’ environmental innovation tally responsible innovation activities. However, it efforts through corporate science but should also would be interesting to explore the moderating role encourage interactions with universities to improve of collaborations with other partners, such as suppli- successful results. These findings are consistent ers or competitors, which can also contribute to open © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 519 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos eco-­ innovation practices (Doran and Ryan, 2016; Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M., Li, J., and Fernandez de Horbach, 2016). As previously discussed, recent Arroyabe, J.C. (2020) Innovation as a driver of eco-­ studies have underlined the need to investigate the innovation in the firm: an approach from the dynamic ca- sources of knowledge that breed eco-­ innovations, pabilities theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29, 3, 1494–­1503. a topic that is underestimated in the environmental Arroyave, J.J., Sáez-­Martínez, F.J., and González-­Moreno, innovation literature (Ghisetti et al., 2015). Á. (2020) Cooperation with universities in the devel- opment of eco-­ innovations and firms’ performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–­9. Acknowledgements Bansal, P. (2002) The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16, I thank Shaker A. Zahra for his help and excellent 122–­131. comments that contributed to significantly improve Bansal, P. and Gao, J. (2006) Building the future by look- this article. I would also like to thank the anonymous ing to the past: examining research published on organi- reviewers for their valuable suggestions. This work zations and environment. Organization & Environment, was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, 19, 4, 458–­478. Industry and Competitiveness (grant numbers Barbieri, N., Marzucchi, A., and Rizzo, U. (2020) ECO2017-­87885-­P, ECO2017-­86054-­C3-­1-­R, and Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inven- tions: do green technologies differ from non-­green ones? PID2020-­114460GB-­C31). Research Policy, 49, 2, 103901. Barge Gil, A. and López, A. (2014a) R versus D: estimat- ing the differentiated effect of research and development Data availability statement on innovation results. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24, 1, 93–­129. Research data are not shared. Barge-Gil, A. and López, A. (2014b) R&D determinants: accounting for the differences between research and de- velopment. Research Policy, 43, 9, 1634–­1648. REFERENCES Baysinger, B. and Hoskisson, R.E. (1990) The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: effects on Acebo, E., Miguel-­ Dávila, J.Á., and Nieto, M. (2021) corporate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15, External stakeholder engagement: complementary and 1, 72–­87. substitutive effects on firms’ eco-­innovation. Business Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., and Gomez-­Mejia, Strategy and the Environment, 30, 2671–­2687. L.R. (2013) Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inven- Aguilera-­Caracuel, J. and Ortiz-­de-­Mandojana, N. (2013) tions: institutional pressures and environmental innova- Green innovation and financial performance: an insti- tions. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 8, 891–­909. tutional approach. Organization & Environment, 26, 4, Borghesi, S., Cainelli, G., and Mazzanti, M. (2015) Linking 365–­385. emission trading to environmental innovation: evidence Ai, C. and Norton, E. (2003) Interaction terms in logit and from the Italian manufacturing industry. Research probit models. Economic Letters, 80, 1, 123–­129. Policy, 44, 3, 669–­683. Apple. (2019) Environmental Responsibility Report, 2019. Bosch Research. (2020) [online] Available from https:// Aragón-­Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003) A contingent www.bosch.com/resea​rch/ resource-­based view of proactive corporate environ- Brown, J.S. (1991) Research that reinvents the corporation. mental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28, Harvard Business Review, 68, 1, 102–­111. 1, 71–­88. Brunnermeier, S.B. and Cohen, M.A. (2003) Determinants Araújo, R. and Franco, M. (2021) The use of collabora- of environmental innovation in US manufacturing in- tion networks in search of eco-­innovation: a systematic dustries. Journal of Environmental Economics and literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, Management, 45, 2, 278–­293. 127975. Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., and Grandinetti, R. (2015) Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A.M., and Ghisetti, C. (2019) Does the development of environmental innovation re- The impact of public research on the technological quire different resources? Evidence from Spanish man- development of industry in the green energy field. ufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 211–­220. 25–­35. Cainelli, G., Mazzanti, M., and Montresor, S. (2012) Arora, A., Belenzon, S., and Patacconi, A. (2015) Killing Environmental innovations, local networks and in- the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate ternationalization. Industry and Innovation, 19, 8, R&D, NBER Working Paper 20902. Cambridge, MA: 697–­734. National Bureau of Economic Research. Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C., and Ozman, M. Arora, A., Belenzon, S., and Patacconi, A. (2018) (2014) Lock-­in and path dependence: an evolutionary The decline of science in corporate R&D. Strategic approach to eco-­innovations. Journal of Evolutionary Management Journal, 39, 1, 3–­32. Economics, 24, 5, 1037–­1065. 520 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations Consoli, D., Marin, G., Marzucchi, A., and Vona, F. (2016) European Union. (2020) Valorisation. Making Results Do green jobs differ from non-­green jobs in terms of Work for Society. [online] Available from https://ec.eu- skills and human capital? Research Policy, 45, 5, ropa.eu/info/sites/​info/files/​resea​rch_and_innov​ation/​ 1046–­1060. strat​egy_on_resea​rch_and_innov​ation/​docum​ents/ec_ Croissant, Y. and Millo, G. (2018) Panel Data Econometrics. rtd_valor​isati​on_facts​heet.pdf Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. European University Association. (2019) [online] Available Dawson, J.F. (2014) Moderation in management research: from https://eua.eu/118-­uncat​egori​sed/731-­eua-­focus​ what, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and -­group​-­on-­unive​rsiti​es-­in-­innov​ation​-­ecosy​stems​-­apply​ Psychology, 29, 1, 1–­19. -­now.html De Marchi, V. (2012) Environmental innovation and R&D Ferraris, A., Belyaeva, Z., and Bresciani, S. (2018) The cooperation: empirical evidence from Spanish manufac- role of universities in the Smart City innovation: mul- turing firms. Research Policy, 41, 3, 614–­623. tistakeholder integration and engagement perspectives. De Marchi, V. and Grandinetti, R. (2013) Knowledge Journal of Business Research, 119, 163–­171. strategies for environmental innovations: the case of Fini, R., Rasmussen, E., Wiklund, J., and Wright, M. Italian manufacturing firms. Journal of Knowledge (2019) Theories from the lab: how research on science Management, 17, 4, 569–­582. commercialization can contribute to management stud- De Marchi, V., Molina-­Morales, F.X., and Martínez-­Cháfer, ies. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 865–­894. L. (2022) Environmental innovation and cooperation: a Fischer, B.B., Schaeffer, P.R., and Vonortas, N.S. (2019) configurational approach. Technological Forecasting Evolution of university-­industry collaboration in Brazil and Social Change, 182, 121835. from a technology upgrading perspective. Technological Del Río, P., Peñasco, C., and Romero-­Jordán, D. (2015) Forecasting and Social change, 145, 330–­340. Distinctive features of environmental innovators: Fleming, L. and Sorenson, O. (2001) Technology as a an econometric analysis. Business Strategy and the complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Environment, 24, 6, 361–­385. Research Policy, 30, 7, 1019–­1039. Díaz-­García, C., González-­Moreno, Á., and Sáez-­Martínez, Fliaster, A. and Kolloch, M. (2017) Implementation of F.J. (2015) Eco-­innovation: insights from a literature re- green innovations –­the impact of stakeholders and their view. Innovation, 17, 1, 6–­23. network relations. R&D Management, 47, 5, 689–­700. Doran, J. and Ryan, G. (2016) The importance of the Foster, C. and Green, K. (2000) Greening the innovation diverse drivers and types of environmental innova- process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9, 5, tion for firm performance. Business Strategy and the 287–­303. Environment, 25, 2, 102–­119. Fritsch, M. and Franke, G. (2004) Innovation, regional Duanmu, J.L., Bu, M., and Pittman, R. (2018) Does mar- knowledge spillovers and R&D cooperation. Research ket competition dampen environmental performance? Policy, 33, 2, 245–­255. Evidence from China. Strategic Management Journal, Ghisetti, C., Marzucchi, A., and Montresor, S. (2015) The 39, 11, 3006–­3030. open eco-­innovation mode. An empirical investigation Eco AP. (2011) The Eco-­Innovation Action Plan. [online] of eleven European countries. Research Policy, 44, 5, Available from https://ec.europa.eu/envir​onmen​t/ecoap/​ 1080–­1093. about​-­actio​n-­plan/objec​tives​-­metho​dology Gimenez-­Fernandez, E.M., Sandulli, F.D., and Bogers, M. Eco-­Innovation Observatory (2011) The Eco-­Innovation (2020) Unpacking liabilities of newness and smallness Challenge: Pathways to a Resource-­Efficient Europe. in innovative start-­ups: investigating the differences in Brussels: EIO. innovation performance between new and older small EGVI. (2020) European Green Vehicle Initiative: Full firms. Research Policy, 49, 10, 104049. Members. [online] Available from https://egvi.eu/who-­ González-­ Moreno, Á., Triguero, Á., and Sáez-­ we-­are/membe​rship/ Martínez, F.J. (2019) Many or trusted partners for EU R&D Scoreboard. (2019). The 2019 EU Industrial eco-­innovation? The influence of breadth and depth R&D Investment Scoreboard. of firms’ knowledge network in the food sector. European Commission. (2020a) Eco-­ Innovation at the Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, Heart of European Policies. [online] Available from 51–­62. https://ec.europa.eu/envir​onmen​t/ecoap/​about​-a­ ctio​n-­ Grant, R.M. (1996) Toward a knowledge-­ based theory plan/objec​tives​-­metho​dology_en of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, S2, European Commission. (2020b) Europe 2020. A European 109–­122. Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Hartmann, P. and Henkel, J. (2020) The rise of corporate [online] Available from https://ec.europa.eu/eu202​0/pdf/ science in AI: data as a strategic resource. Academy of COMPL ​ E T%20EN%20BAR ​ ROSO%20%20%20007​ Management Discoveries, 6, 3, 359–­381. %20-­%20Eur​ope%20202​0%20-­%20EN%20ver​sion.pdf Harvard University. (2020) Harvard Sustainability Plan European Commission. (2020c) Public-­Private 2015–­2020. [online] Available from https://green.harva​ Partnerships in Energy. [online] Available from https:// rd.edu/campa​ign/our-­plan ec.europa.eu/info/resea​rch-a­ nd-i­ nnov​ation/​resea​rch-­ Horbach, J. (2008) Determinants of environmental innova- area/energ​y-­resea​rch-­and-­innov​ation/​publi​c-­priva​te-­ tion –­New evidence from German panel data sources. partn​ershi​ps-­energy_en Research Policy, 37, 1, 163–­173. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 521 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos Horbach, J. (2016) Empirical determinants of eco-­ Loredo, E., Lopez-­Mielgo, N., Pineiro-­Villaverde, G., and innovation in European countries using the commu- García-­Álvarez, M.T. (2019) Utilities: innovation and nity innovation survey. Environmental Innovation and sustainability. Sustainability, 11, 4, 1085. Societal Transitions, 19, 1–­14. Martínez-­Ros, E. and Kunapatarawong, R. (2019) Green Horbach, J. (2019) Determinants of eco-­innovation at the innovation and knowledge: the role of size. Business firm level. In: Handbook of Sustainable Innovation. Strategy and the Environment, 28, 6, 1045–­1059. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Marzucchi, A. and Montresor, S. (2017) Forms of knowl- Horbach, J., Oltra, V., and Belin, J. (2013) Determinants edge and eco-­innovation modes: evidence from Spanish and specificities of eco-­innovations compared to other manufacturing firms. Ecological Economics, 131, innovations –­an econometric analysis for the French 208–­221. and German industry based on the community innova- Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Maria Dangelico, R., Rotolo, D., tion survey. Industry and Innovation, 20, 6, 523–­543. and Albino, V. (2011) Organizational factors and techno- Huergo, E. and Jaumandreu, J. (2004) How does probabil- logical features in the development of green innovations: ity of innovation change with firm age? Small Business evidence from patent analysis. Innovation: Organization Economics, 22, 3–­4, 193–­207. & Management, 13, 3, 291–­310. ICB. (2018) [online] Available from https://www.icb. Nelson, D. (1987) “Corporate science” [Review of the csic.es/en/notic​ias/ramon​-­muril​lo-­parti​cipa-­en-­el-­lanza​ making of American industrial research: science and mient​o-­de-­un-­nuevo​-­trata​mient​o-­de-­resid​uos/ business at GE and bell]. Reviews in American History, ICB. (2020) The carbon chemistry institute. [online] 15, 1, 105–­108. Available from https://www.csic.es/en/inves​tigac​ion/ Norberg-­Bohm, V. (2000) Creating incentives for environ- insti​tutos​-­centr​os-­y-­unida​des/carbo​n-­chemi​stry-i­ nsti​ mentally enhancing technological change: lessons from tute 30 years of US energy technology policy. Technological IEA (2019, November 5) Value of investments in energy Forecasting and Social Change, 65, 2, 125–­148. efficiency technologies worldwide from 2014 to 2018, O’Brien, R.M. (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb by region (in billion U.S. dollars)* [graph]. In: Statista. for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41, [online] Available from https://www.stati​sta.com/stati​ 5, 673–­690. stics/​73194​7/globa​l-­energ​y-­effic​ient-­inves​tment​s-­by-­ OECD. (1997) National innovation systems. [online] regio​n/ [Accessed 18 March 2020] Available from http://www.oecd.org/scien​ce/inno/21017​ Jové-­Llopis, E. and Segarra-­ Blasco, A. (2018) Eco-­ 33.pdf innovation strategies: a panel data analysis of Spanish Oslo Manual. (2018) Guidelines for collecting, reporting manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the and using data on innovation. Environment, 27, 8, 1209–­1220. Pellens, M. and Della Malva, A. (2018) Corporate science, Keshminder, J.S. and del Río, P. (2019) The missing links? firm value, and vertical specialization: evidence from The indirect impacts of drivers on eco-­ innovation. the semiconductor industry. Industrial and Corporate Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Change, 27, 3, 489–­505. Management, 26, 5, 1100–­1118. Penders, B., Verbakel, J.M., and Nelis, A. (2009) The social Kesidou, E. and Demirel, P. (2012) On the drivers of eco-­ study of corporate science: a research manifesto. Bulletin innovations: empirical evidence from the UK. Research of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 6, 439–­446. Policy, 41, 5, 862–­870. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Kiefer, C.P., Del Río González, P., and Carrillo-­Hermosilla, Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, J. (2019) Drivers and barriers of eco-­innovation types R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., for sustainable transitions: a quantitative perspective. Lissoni, F., Salter, A., and Sobrero, M. (2013) Academic Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 1, 155–­172. engagement and commercialisation: a review of the Lampikoski, T., Westerlund, M., Rajala, R., and Möller, K. literature on university–­ industry relations. Research (2014) Green innovation games: value-­creation strate- Policy, 42, 2, 423–­442. gies for corporate sustainability. California Management Peters, K. and Buijs, P. (2022) Strategic ambidexterity Review, 57, 1, 88–­116. in green product innovation: obstacles and implica- Lazonick, W. and Tulum, Ö. (2011) US biopharmaceuti- tions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), cal finance and the sustainability of the biotech business 173–­193. model. Research Policy, 40, 9, 1170–­1187. Petersen, I.H. and Kruss, G. (2021) Universities as Leyva-De la Hiz, D.I. and Bolívar-Ramos, M.T. (2022) The change agents in resource-­poor local settings: an em- inverted U relationship between green innovative activ- pirically grounded typology of engagement models. ities and firms’ market-based performance: The impact Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, of firm age. Technovation, 110, 1–­10. 120693. Leyva-­de la Hiz, D.I., Ferron-­Vilchez, V., and Aragon-­ Polzin, F., von Flotow, P., and Klerkx, L. (2016) Addressing Correa, J.A. (2019) Do firms’ slack resources influence barriers to eco-­innovation: exploring the finance mobil- the relationship between focused environmental inno- isation functions of institutional innovation intermediar- vations and financial performance? More is not always ies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, better. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 1215–­1227. 34–­46. 522 R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 14679310, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/radm.12574 by Readcube (Labtiva Inc.), Wiley Online Library on [09/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License The impact of corporate science on environmental innovations Popp, D. (2017) From science to technology: the value of framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental knowledge from different energy research institutions. innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Research Policy, 46, 9, 1580–­1594. 35, 2, 254–­279. Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. (1995) Green and com- Zahra, S.A. and George, G. (2002) Absorptive capacity: a petitive. Harvard Business Review, 73, 5, 120–­134. review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Rosenbloom, R.S. and Kantrow, A.M. (1982) Nurturing of Management Review, 27, 2, 185–­203. corporate research. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved Zahra, S.A., Kaul, A., and Bolívar-­Ramos, M.T. (2018) from https://hbr.org/1982/01/the-nurtu​ring-of-corpo​rate- Why corporate science commercialization fails: inte- research grating diverse perspectives. Academy of Management Scarpellini, S., Aranda, A., Aranda, J., Llera, E., and Marco, Perspectives, 32, 1, 156–­176. M. (2012) R&D and eco-­innovation: opportunities for Zelner, B. (2009) Using simulation to interpret results closer collaboration between universities and companies from logit, probit and other nonlinear models. Strategic through technology centers. Clean Technologies and Management Journal, 30, 12, 1335–­1348. Environmental Policy, 14, 6, 1047–­1058. Zhang, J.A. and Walton, S. (2017) Eco-­innovation and Simeth, M. and Cincera, M. (2015) Corporate science, in- business performance: the moderating effects of environ- novation, and firm value. Management Science, 62, 7, mental orientation and resource commitment in green-­ 1970–­1981. oriented SMEs. R&D Management, 47, 5, E26–­E39. Sjöö, K. and Hellström, T. (2021) The two sides of the coin: joint project leader interaction in university-­ industry collaboration projects. R&D Management, 51, Notes 5, 484–­493. Statista. (2020a) Global investment in solar energy technol- 1 In this article, the terms ‘environmental’, ‘eco’, or ogies from 2004 to 2018. [online] Available from https:// ‘green’ innovation will be used interchangeably for www.stati​sta.com/stati​stics/​18682​3/globa​l-­inves​tment​ two main reasons: (a) this is the approach followed by -­in-­solar​-­techn​ology​-­since​-­2004/#stati​sticC​ontainer a considerable number of researchers, and (b) ‘envi- Statista. (2020b) Number of Tesla Vehicles Delivered ronmental’, ‘green’, and ‘eco-­innovation’ all focus on Worldwide from 4th Quarter 2015 to 1st Quarter 2020. innovations that aim to reduce the negative impact of [online] Available from https://www.stati​sta.com/stati​ economic activities in the environment (Díaz-­García et stics/​50220​8/tesla​-­quart​erly-­vehic​le-­deliv​eries/ al., 2015). Telefónica. (2020) [online] Available from https://www. 2 telef​onica.com/web/negoc​io-­respo​nsabl​e/-­/conte​nido-­ PITEC differentiates collaborations with partners in five empre​ndimi​ento-­innov​acion different geographical areas: national (Spain), Europe, Triguero, A., Moreno-­ Mondéjar, L., and Davia, M.A. U.S.A., China/India, and others. (2013) Drivers of different types of eco-­innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92, 25–­33. María Teresa Bolívar–­Ramos is Associate Professor UNESCO. (2015) UNESCO Science Report: Towards in the Business Department at the Autonomous 2030. [online] Available from http://www.unesco.org/ University of Barcelona. Her research focuses on new/en/membe​r-­state​s/singl​e-­view/news/what_is_the_ the fields of technology strategy and innovation, optim​al_balan​ce_betwe​en_basic_and_appli​ed_resea​r/ Wagner, M. (2007) On the relationship between environ- collaborations, and international business. Her work mental management, environmental innovation and has been published in different international jour- patenting: evidence from German manufacturing firms. nals, such as Academy of Management Perspectives, Research Policy, 36, 10, 1587–­1602. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Watson, R., Wilson, H.N., Smart, P., and Macdonald, Technovation and Journal of Management and E.K. (2018) Harnessing difference: a capability-­based Organization, among others. © 2023 The Author. R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. R&D Management 53, 3, 2023 523