Social Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance in the Spanish Wine Sector
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review: Wine Sector, Eco-Innovation and Social Economy
2.1. The Spanish Wine Industry: Background
2.2. Eco-Innovation in the Wine Sector
3. Cooperativism in the Wine Sector
4. Aim and Hypotheses
5. Materials and Methods
5.1. Sample Selection and Data Collection
5.2. Measures
5.3. Data Treatment
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Construct Generation and Validation
- (1)
- The first factor was called “Factor 1.1. Internal operations and selection of agents in the value chain” because the variables with the highest loadings were all those related to decisions and actions undertaken in the scope of operations along the value chain. It contains items referring to the selection of suppliers and distributors and also includes prior assessments of possible environmental impacts across all production stages, product design, processes and selection of technologies;
- (2)
- The second factor was named “Factor 1.2. Environmental commitment of strategy”, which encompassed variables referring to the consideration of environmental issues across all the firm’s activities, prioritizing environmental questions as a prevailing value. In addition, the factor includes variables indicating that the company designs specific environment-related policies, strategies and aims, which they communicate to the market and measure results and undertake continuous checks;
- (3)
- The third factor, “Factor 1.3. Structure, participation and environmental training” brings together the organizational design variables, the formalization of management positions in the company structure to take responsibility for environmental questions and the participation of these managers in the company’s overall strategy. It also includes information on encouraging the participation of workers and improving their environmental training;
- (4)
- The fourth factor, given the name of “Factor 1.4. Collaboration with external interest groups”, includes two variables: sponsorship of environmental events and collaboration with environmental associations.
6.2. Comparison of Environmental Proactivity on Cooperative Firms versus Non Cooperative Firms
6.3. Environmental Proactivity Patterns on Cooperative Firms
6.3.1. Patterns Environmental Proactivity
6.3.2. Comparison of Motivation, Eco-Innovation and Performance in Different Environmental Proactivity Patterns
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- De Steur, H.; Temmerman, H.; Gellynck, X.; Canavari, M. Drivers, adoption and evaluation of sustainability practices in Italian wine SMEs. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 744–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilinsky, A., Jr.; Newton, S.K.; Vega, R.F. Sustainability in the global wine industry: Concepts and cases. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santini, C.; Cavicchi, A.; Casini, L. Sustainability in the wine industry: Key questions and research trends. Agric. Food Econ. 2013, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Broccardo, L.; Zicari, A. Sustainability as a driver for value creation: A business model analysis of small and medium enterprises in the Italian wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grimstad, S. Developing a framework for examining business-driven sustainability initiatives with relevance to wine tourism clusters. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 62–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Bilali, H. Research on agro-food sustainability transitions: A systematic review of research themes and an analysis of research gaps. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer-Lorenzo, J.R.; Maza-Rubio, M.T.; Abella-Garces, S. Business model and performance in the Spanish wine industry. J. Wine Res. 2019, 30, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, R.S.; Cordano, M.; Silverman, M. Exploring Individual and Institutional Drivers of Proactive Environmentalism in the Wine Industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2005, 14, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisson, L.; Waterhouse, A.L.; Ebeler, S.E.; Walker, A.; Lapsley, J.T. The present and future of the international wine industry. Nature 2002, 418, 696–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, M.; Silvestri, R.; Conto, F.; Pellegrini, G. Understanding the relationship between green approach and marketing innovations tools in the wine sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 4085–4091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, A.; Battaglene, T. Trends in Environmental Assurance in Key Australian Wine Export Markets; Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, National Wine Centre: Adelaide, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Flores, S.S. What is sustainability in the wine world? A cross-country analysis of wine sustainability frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2301–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pel, B.; Bauler, T. A Transition studies perspective on the social economy; Exploring institutionalization and capture in Flemish ‘insertion’ practices. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2017, 88, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castilla-Polo, F.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sánchez-Hernández, M.I.; Ruiz-Rodríguez, M.C. Cooperatives as Responsible and Innovative Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Smart Territories: The Olive Oil Industry in the South of Spain. In Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurial Development and Innovation within Smart Cities; Carvalho, L., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 459–491. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzales, V.; Phillips, R. (Eds.) Cooperatives and Community Development; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wanyama, F.O. Cooperatives and the Sustainable Development Goals A Contribution to the Post-2015 Development Debate; International Labour Organisation Enterprises Department Cooperatives Unit (I.L.O.): Geneva, Switzeland, 2014; ISBN 978-92-2-128731-5. [Google Scholar]
- Mozas, A. Contribución de las Cooperativas Agrarias al Cumplimiento de os Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Especial Referencia al Sector Oleícola; CIRIEC-España: Valencia, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Giannakas, K.; Fulton, M. Process innovation activity in a mixed oligopoly: The role of cooperatives. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 406–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Álvarez Coque, J.M.; Pérez Ledo, P.; Santarremigia Casañ, E. Perfiles innovadores en la agricultura valenciana. Cuadernos de Estudios Agroalimentarios (CEA) 2014, 6, 153–169. [Google Scholar]
- Fearne, A.; García Álvarez-Coque, J.M.; Usach, M.; López-García, T. Innovative firms and the urban/rural divide: The case of agro-food system. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 1293–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basterretxea, I.; Martinez, R. Impact of management and innovation capabilities on performance: Are cooperatives different? Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2012, 83, 357–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombo, L.A.; Pansera, M.; Owen, R. The discourse of eco-innovation in the European Union: An analysis of the Eco-Innovation Action Plan and Horizon 2020. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A. Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environmental. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 556–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Hurtado-Torres, N.; Sharma, S.; García-Morales, V.J. Environmental strategy and performance in small firms: A resource-based perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ketchen, D.J.; Shook, C.L. The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: An analysis and critique. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somogyi, S. Grape grower and winery relationships: A segmentation approach. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2013, 25, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamann, R.; Smith, J.; Tashman, P.; Marshall, R.S. Why Do SMEs Go Green? An Analysis of Wine Firms in South Africa. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 23–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesselhauf, L.; Fleuchaus, R. What about the environment? A choice-based conjoint study about wine from fungus-resistant grape varieties. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2020, 32, 96–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cashaldi, R.; Cholette, S.; Husain, M. A Country Level Analysis of Competitive Advantage in the Wine Industry, DEIAgra Working Paper. 2006. Available online: http://ideas.repec.org/p/bag/deiawp/6002.html (accessed on 26 May 2020).
- Harrington, R.J.; Ottenbacher, M.C. Contradictions of traditions and change in German winemaking: An exploratory study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2008, 20, 276–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbara, I. The evolving global wine market. Bus. Econ. 2014, 49, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viviani, J.L. Capital structure determinants: An empirical study of French companies in the wine industry. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2008, 20, 171–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Medina Albadalejo, F.J.; Martínez-Carrión, J.M.; Ramón Muñoz, J.M. The world wine market and the competitiveness of the Southern Hemisphere countries. Am. Lat. Hist. Econ. 2014, 21, 1961–2010. [Google Scholar]
- COGECA. The European Agri-Food Cooperatives Monitor, 2019. CCC (19) 9923: 2. Available online: https://www.copa-cogeca.eu/Menu.aspx?lang=en (accessed on 10 January 2020).
- Briz, J. Competitividad y estrategias comerciales en el sector vínico español. Cuad. Agric. Pesca Aliment. 1999, 19, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
- Melián, A.; Millán, G. El cooperativismo vitivinícola en España. Un estudio exploratorio de la Denominación de Origen Alicante. REVESCO 2007, 93, 39–67. [Google Scholar]
- Juliá, J.F. La concentración en el cooperativismo agroalimentario. Cuad. Agric. Pesca Aliment. 1999, 6, 27–33. [Google Scholar]
- Rojas, J.L.; del Real, J.M. (Director) El cooperativismo agroalimentario de Castilla-La Mancha en cifras. El modelo de negocio que vertebra el medio rural; Fundación CooperActiva: Ciudad Real, Spain, 2017.
- Simón, K.; Castillo, J.S.; García, M.C. Economic performance and the crisis: Strategies adopted by the wineries of Castilla-La Mancha. Agribusiness 2014, 31, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. EU Agricultural Outlook for Markets and Income 2019—2030; DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Analysis and Outlook Uni: Madrid, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sellers-Rubio, R. Evaluating the economic performance of Spanish wineries. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2010, 22, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkin, T.; Gilinsky, A.; Newton, S.K. Environmental strategy: Does it lead to competitive advantage in the US wine industry? Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2012, 24, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guthey, G.T.; Whiteman, G. Social and ecological transitions: Winemaking in California. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2009, 11, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Barber, N.; Taylor, C.; Strick, S. Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase. Int. J. Wine Res. 2009, 1, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Merli, R.; Preziosi, M.; Acampora, A. Sustainability experiences in the wine sector: Toward the development of an international indicators system. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3791–3805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabzdylova, B.; Raffensperger, J.F.; Castka, P. Sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 992–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, R.; Graci, S.; Walker, L. What drives environmental sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry? An examination of driving factors and practices. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2013, 25, 164–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte Alonso, A. How “green” are small wineries? Western Australia’s case. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, P.; Akoorie, M.E.M. Sustainable environmental practices in the New Zealand wine industry: Analysis of perceived institutional pressures and the role of export. J. Asia-Pac. Bus. 2010, 11, 50–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berns, M.; Townend, A.; Khayat, Z.; Balagopal, B.; Reeves, M.; Hopkins, M.S.; Krushwitz, N. The Business of Sustainability: What It Means to Managers Now. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 19–26. [Google Scholar]
- Carrillo-Hemosilla, J.; del Rio, P.; Könnöla, T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1073–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Pearson, P. Final Report MEI Project about Measuring Eco-Innovation; UM Merit: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2007; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2019).
- Frondel, M.; Horbach, J.; Renning, K. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison on environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2007, 16, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cai, W.; Zhou, X. On the drivers of eco-innovation: Empirical evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 79, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horbach, J. Determinant of environmental innovation-new evidences from German panel data sources. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Facheux, S.; Nicolai, I. Environmental technological change and governance in sustainable development policy. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 27, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duchin, F.; Lange, G.M.; Kell, G. Technological change, trade and the environmental. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 14, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marín, G. Do eco-innovations harm productivity growth through crowding out? Results of an extended CDM model for Italy. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mazzanti, M.; Zoboli, R. Environmental efficiency and labour productivity: Trade-off or joint dynamics? A theoretical investigation and empirical evidence from Italy using NAME. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1182–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghisetti, C.; Renning, K. Environmental innovations and profitability: How does it pay to be green? An empirical analysis on the German innovation survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 75, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Annunziata, E.; Pucci, T.; Frey, M.; Zanni, L. The role of organizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustainability practices and economic performance: Evidence from Italian wine industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1300–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.; Yang, C.L.; Sheu, C. The link between eco-innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lanoie, P.; Laurent-Luchetti, J.; Johnstone, N.; Ambec, S. Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the porter hypothesis. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2011, 20, 803–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horbach, J. The impacts of innovations activities on employment in the environmental sector-empirical results for Germany at the firm level. J. Econ. Stat. 2010, 230, 403–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horbach, J.; Renning, K. Environmental innovation and employment dynamics in different technology fields-an analysis based on the German Community Innovation Survey 2009. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunt, C.B.; Auster, E.R. Proactive environmental management: Avoiding the toxic trap. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 1990, 31, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
- Wartick, S.L.; Cochran, P.L. The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1986, 10, 758–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peraza, E.; Aleixandre Mendizábal, G.; Gómez García, J.M. Los factores determinantes del comportamiento innovador de las cooperativas: Un análisis para el caso de Castilla y León. REVESCO Rev. Estud. Coop. 2016, 122, 252–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernández Moreno, M.V.; Peña García-Pardo, I.; Hernández Perlines, F. Factores Determinantes del éxito Exportador. El papel de la Estrategia Exportadora en las Cooperativas Agrarias. CIRIEC Esp. Rev. Econ. Pública Soc. Coop. 2008, 63, 39–64. [Google Scholar]
- Águila Obra, A.R.; Padilla Meléndez, A. Factores Determinantes de la Innovación en Empresas de la Economía Social. La Importancia de la Formación y la Actitud Estratégica. CIRIEC Esp. Rev. Econ. Pública Soc. Coop. 2010, 67, 129–155. Available online: http://www.ciriec-revistaeconomia.es/banco/6706_Aguila_y_Padilla.pdf (accessed on 21 June 2020).
- Morales Gutiérrez, A.C. La economía social y las políticas de innovación: Especial referencia al caso andaluz. In La Economía Social en las Políticas Públicas en España; Chaves, R., Ed.; CIRIEC-España: Valencia, Spain, 2007; pp. 202–222. [Google Scholar]
- Carchano, M.; Carrasco, I. La Economía Social y la industria agroalimentaria como factores de resiliencia de la población en Castilla-La Mancha. In Despoblamiento y Desarrollo Rural. Propuestas desde la Economía Social; Fajardo, G., Escribano, J., Eds.; IUDESCOOP and CIRIEC-España: Valencia, Spain, 2020; in press. [Google Scholar]
- Ward, B. The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism. Am. Econ. Rev. 1958, 48, 566–589. [Google Scholar]
- Pérotin, V. Entry, exit, and the business cycle: Are cooperatives different? J. Comp. Econ. 2006, 34, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buendía-Martínez, I.; Carrasco, I. El Impacto de los Factores Institucionales en la Actividad Emprendedora: Un Análisis del Cooperativismo Europeo. Rev. Econ. Mund 2014, 38, 175–200. [Google Scholar]
- Carrasco, I.; Buendía-Martínez, I. Political Activism as Driver of Cooperative Sector. Voluntas 2020, 31, 601–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arando, S.; Peña, I.; Verheul, I. Market entry of firms with different legal forms: An empirical test of the influence of institutional factors. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2009, 5, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coque Martínez, J.; López Mielgo, N.; Loredo Fernández, E. Recuperación de Empresas por sus Trabajadores en Contextos de Crisis: ¿qué Podemos Aprender de Experiencias Pasadas? CIRIEC Esp. Rev. Econ. Pública Soc. Coop. 2012, 76, 97–126. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/174/17425849005.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2020).
- Birchall, J. Resilience in a Downturn the Power of Financial Cooperatives; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzeland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Medina-Albaladejo, F.J. Co-operative wineries: Temporal solution or efficient firms? The Spanish case during late Francoism, 1970–1981. Bus. Hist. 2015, 57, 589–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinnane, T.W. Cooperatives as Information Machines: German Rural Credit Cooperatives, 1883–1914. J. Econ. Hist. 2001, 61, 366–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gide, C. The wine crisis in South France. Econ. J. 1907, 17, 370–375. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2220475?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (accessed on 26 March 2020). [CrossRef]
- Gide, C. Les Associations Cooperatives Agricoles; Cours: Collège de France, décembre 1924-mars 1925; Hachette Livre BNF: Paris, France, 1926. [Google Scholar]
- Mandeville, L. Étude sur les Sociétés Coopératives de Vinification du midi de la France. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculté de Droit, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France, 1914. [Google Scholar]
- Simpson, J. Cooperation and Cooperatives in Southern European Wine Production. The nature of successful institutional innovation, 1880–1950. Adv. Agric. Econ. Hist. 2000, 1, 5–126. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández, E.; Simpson, J. Product quality or market regulation? Explaining the slow growth of Europe’s wine cooperatives, 1880–190. Econ. Hist. Rev. 2017, 70, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chevet, J.M. Cooperative cellars and the regrouping of the supply in France in the Twentieth Century. In Exploring the Food Chain. Food Production and Food Processing in Western Europe, 1850–1990; Segers, Y., Bieleman, J., Buyst, E., Eds.; Brepols: Turnhou, Belgium, 2009; pp. 253–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiffoleau, Y.; Dreyfus, F.; Ewert, J.; Touzard, J.M. The wine cooperatives face the demand for quality: Call for a renewed solidarity in Languedoc (France) and in the Western Cape (South Africa). In Local Society & Global Economy: The Role of Cooperatives; Karafolas, S., Spear, R., Stryjan, Y., Eds.; Editions Hellin: Naoussa, Greece, 2002; pp. 381–394. [Google Scholar]
- Loubère, L.A. The Wine Revolution in France. The Twentieth Century; Princenton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Vanek, J. The Economics of Worker Management: A Yugoslav Case Study; George Allen and Unwin: London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Ner, A. The Life Cycle of workers-owned Firms in Market economics. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1988, 10, 287–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentil, D. Organisations coopératives et l’Etat. Afrique francophone (1960–1985). Mondes Dev. 1988, 61, 113–126. [Google Scholar]
- Carrasco, I. Razones históricas y sociológicas de la evolución de las cooperativas: La dinámica de los movimientos sociales y la herencia del pasado. In Sociedades Cooperativas: Régimen Jurídico y Gestión Económica; Prieto, J.A., Ed.; Ibídem ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 1999; pp. 211–227. [Google Scholar]
- Vienney, C. Les rapports entre les coopératives et l’État. Coop. Dév. 1988, 20, 13–38. [Google Scholar]
- Gaye, M. Les cooperatives agricoles au Sénégal et l’expérience de la responsabilistaion. Coop. Dév. 1988, 20, 121–141. [Google Scholar]
- Medina-Albaladejo, F.J.; Planas, J. Las bodegas cooperativas y la comercialización del vino en España durante el siglo XX. Investig. Hist. Econ. 2020, 16, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcuello Servós, C.; Saz Gil, M.I. Los principios cooperativos facilitadores de la innovación: Un modelo teórico. REVESCO Rev. Estud. Coop. 2008, 94, 59–79. [Google Scholar]
- Vézina, M.; Malo, M.C.; Ben Selma, M. Mature social economy enterprise and social innovation: The case of Desjardins Environmental Fund. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2017, 88, 257–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ole-Borgen, S.; BerntAarset, B. Participatory Innovation: Lessons from breeding cooperatives. Agric. Syst. 2016, 145, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sexton, R.J.; Iskow, J. What do we know about the economic efficiency of cooperatives: An evaluative survey. J. Agric. Coop. 1993, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Morales, V.G.; Torres, N.H. Un modelo explicativo de las estrategias medioambientales avanzadas para pequeñas y medianas empresas y su influencia en los resultados. Cuad. Econ. Dir. Empresa 2005, 25, 29–51. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=807/80717237002 (accessed on 23 June 2020).
- Rueda-Manzanares, A.R.; Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Martín-Tapia, I. La medición de las capacidades organizacionales de la empresa: Validación de un instrumento de medida de la gestión medioambiental proactiva. Span. J. Financ. Account. 2006, 35, 563–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Vredenburg, H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, O. Environmental proactivity and business performance: An empirical analysis. Omega 2005, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.K.; Govindarajan, V. Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Acad. Manag. J. 1984, 27, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, R.G.; Kleinschmidt, E.J. Performance typologies of New Product Projects. Ind. Mark. Manag. 1995, 24, 439–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dess, G.; Robinson, R.B., Jr. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wineries | % | Production | % | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Castilla and León | 574 | 14.02 | 1960 | 5.97 |
Catalonia | 575 | 14.05 | 2922 | 8.9 |
Galicia | 415 | 10.14 | 460 | 1.4 |
Basque Country | 436 | 10.65 | 599 | 1.83 |
Castilla–La Mancha | 420 | 10.26 | 17,049 | 51.95 |
La Rioja | 389 | 9.5 | 1627 | 4.96 |
Andalusia | 290 | 7.09 | 1013 | 3.09 |
Valencian Community | 197 | 4.82 | 1967 | 5.99 |
Madrid | 173 | 4.23 | 77 | 0.23 |
Extremadura | 128 | 3.13 | 2750 | 8.38 |
Aragón | 122 | 2.98 | 973 | 2.97 |
Rest | 374 | 9.14 | 1419 | 4.35 |
4093 | 100% | 32,816 | 100% |
Population Size | 4093 Wineries Located in Spain (540 Cooperatives) |
---|---|
Sampling method | Questionnaire for the complete population (first contact in FENAVIN: Spanish Wine Fair) |
Final sample size | 251 companies (51 cooperatives) |
Subsample analyzed | 51 cooperatives |
Response rate | 13% (9.4%) |
Sampling error | 6% (13.06%) |
Data collection | Electronic questionnaire |
Collection period | 2017–2018 |
Environmental Proactivity |
Prioritizes environmental questions |
Explicit definition of company environmental policy |
Existence of environmental aims and plans |
Measurement of environmental performance |
Internal environmental reviews |
Existence of management positions for environmental issues |
Participation of director of environmental issues in definition of company strategy |
Employee participation in environmental training programs |
Assessment of environmental impact of products in the different stages of the value chain |
Environmental criteria considered in product design |
Use of clean technology |
Environmental criteria considered in process design |
Environmental criteria considered in selection of suppliers |
Suppliers are required to comply with environmental standards |
Environmental criteria considered in distribution |
Emphasis on commitment to the environment in marketing campaigns |
Collaboration with environmental organizations |
Sponsorship of environmental events |
Motivations |
Expand product range |
Expand markets |
Improve profitability |
Improve competitiveness |
Adapt to legal framework |
Adapt to demand conditions |
Leverage public incentives |
Respond to pressure groups and associations |
Follow industry associations’ guidelines |
Technological eco-innovation |
Leadership in product eco-innovations |
Number of product eco-innovations |
Intensity of change in product eco-innovations |
Leadership in process eco-innovations |
Number of process eco-innovations |
Intensity of change in process eco-innovations |
Financial and market performance |
Importance of sales level |
Importance of sales growth |
Importance of market share |
Importance of profitability |
Importance of gross profit margin |
Importance of operating profit |
Importance of achieving objectives |
Satisfaction with sales level |
Satisfaction with sales growth |
Satisfaction with market share |
Satisfaction with profitability |
Satisfaction with gross profit margin |
Satisfaction with operating profit |
Satisfaction with achieving objectives |
Environmental Proactivity | Factors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Factor 1.1 | Factor 1.2 | Factor 1.3 | Factor 1.4 | |
Prioritizes environmental questions | 0.158 | 0.819 | 0.215 | 0.227 |
Explicit definition of company environmental policy | 0.312 | 0.789 | 0.36 | 0.152 |
Existence of environmental aims and plans | 0.301 | 0.807 | 0.343 | 0.134 |
Measurement of environmental performance | 0.365 | 0.645 | 0.316 | 0.231 |
Internal environmental reviews | 0.43 | 0.645 | 0.335 | 0.13 |
Existence of management positions for environmental issues | 0.067 | 0.254 | 0.853 | 0.045 |
Participation of director of environmental issues in definition of company strategy | 0.368 | 0.312 | 0.695 | −0.065 |
Employee participation in environmental training programs | 0.31 | 0.324 | 0.699 | 0.147 |
Assessment of environmental impact of products in the different stages of the value chain | 0.667 | 0.449 | 0.197 | 0.104 |
Environmental criteria considered in product design | 0.731 | 0.401 | 0.127 | 0.285 |
Use of clean technology | 0.594 | 0.477 | 0.038 | −0.019 |
Environmental criteria considered in process design | 0.753 | 0.397 | 0.099 | 0.209 |
Environmental criteria considered in selection of suppliers | 0.738 | 0.18 | 0.373 | 0.359 |
Environmental standards required from suppliers | 0.733 | 0.182 | 0.478 | 0.151 |
Environmental criteria considered in distribution | 0.781 | 0.175 | 0.311 | 0.319 |
Emphasis on commitment to the environment in marketing campaigns | 0.512 | 0.6 | 0.141 | −0.027 |
Collaboration with environmental organizations | 0.222 | 0.131 | −0.085 | 0.906 |
Sponsorship of environmental events | 0.2 | 0.182 | 0.187 | 0.864 |
% variance explained | 26.16 | 23.86 | 15.53 | 11.94 |
Total variance explained | 77.54 | |||
KMO | 0.916 | |||
Bartlett sphericity: | ||||
X2 | 3648.85 | |||
Gl | 153 | |||
Sig. | 0.000 |
Strategic Motivation | Factor 2.1 |
Expand product range | 0.898 |
Expand market | 0.954 |
Improve profitability | 0.91 |
Improve competitiveness | 0.949 |
Adapt to demand conditions | 0.906 |
% Explained variance | 85.3 |
KMO | 0.91 |
Bartlett’s sphericity: | 1.239.67 |
X2 | 10 |
Gl | 0 |
Sig. | |
Compliance with Norms and Incentives | Factor 2.2 |
Adapt to legal framework | 0.96 |
Public incentives | 0.96 |
% Explained variance | 92.248 |
KMO | 0.5 |
Bartlett’s sphericity: | 292.257 |
X2 | 1 |
Gl | 0.000 |
Sig. | |
Response to Social Pressure | Factor 2.3 |
Action of organizations and pressure groups | 0.942 |
Local industry associations | 0.942 |
% Explained variance | 88.729 |
KMO | 0.5 |
Bartlett’s sphericity: | 213.939 |
X2 | 1 |
Gl | 0 |
Sig. |
Product Eco-Innovation | Factor 3.1 |
Leadership in product eco-innovations | 0.98 |
Quantity of product eco-innovations | 0.993 |
Intensity of product eco-innovation | 0.993 |
% Explained variance | 97.75 |
KMO | 0.757 |
Bartlett’s sphericity: X2 | 1495.64 |
Gl | 15 |
Sig. | 0 |
Process Eco-Innovation | Factor 4.1 |
Leadership in process eco-innovations | 0.979 |
Quantity of process eco-innovations | 0.994 |
Intensity of process eco-innovation | 0.98 |
% Explained variance | 96.85 |
KMO | 0.706 |
Bartlett’s sphericity: X2 | 1266.284 |
Gl | 3 |
Sig | 0 |
Assessment of Financial Performance | Factor 5.1 | Factor 5.2 |
---|---|---|
Importance of sales level | 0.833 | 0.221 |
Importance of sales growth | 0.953 | 0.076 |
Importance of market share | 0.857 | 0.051 |
Importance of profitability | 0.94 | 0.087 |
Importance of gross margin of profit | 0.968 | 0.048 |
Importance of operating profit | 0.971 | 0.051 |
Importance of goal achievement | 0.915 | 0.077 |
Satisfaction with sales level | 0.062 | 0.779 |
Satisfaction with sales growth | 0.121 | 0.796 |
Satisfaction with market share | 0.116 | 0.784 |
Satisfaction with profitability | 0.067 | 0.928 |
Satisfaction with gross margin of profit | 0.07 | 0.935 |
Satisfaction with operating profit | 0.07 | 0.938 |
Satisfaction with goal achievement | 0.05 | 0.922 |
% Explained variance | 42.75 | 38.54 |
% Total de explained variance | 81.29 | |
KMO | 0.841 | |
Bartlett’s Sphericity: | 4637.76 | |
X2 | 91 | |
Gl | 0 | |
Sig. |
Environmental Proactivity | Cronbach’s Alpha * | Mean | Standard Deviation |
Environmental commitment | 93.4% | 19.39 | 3.62 |
Prioritizes environmental questions | 92.6% | 3.49 | 0.72 |
Explicit definition of company environmental policy | 91.0% | 3.32 | 0.72 |
Existence of environmental aims and plans | 91.0% | 3.32 | 0.68 |
Measurement of environmental performance | 92.2% | 3.03 | 0.68 |
Internal environmental reviews | 92.0% | 3.00 | 0.69 |
Marketing based on environmental commitment | 93.8% | 3.24 | 0.67 |
Structure, participation and training | 81.6% | 7.38 | 1.77 |
Existence of management positions for environmental issues | 75.0% | 2.20 | 0.65 |
Participation of director of environmental issues in definition of company strategy | 72.8% | 2.79 | 0.73 |
Employee participation in environmental training programs | 76.2% | 2.39 | 0.67 |
Internal operations | 93.0% | 21.60 | 3.56 |
Assessment of environmental impact of products in the different stages of the value chain | 92.3% | 2.99 | 0.60 |
Use of environmental criteria in product design | 91.5% | 3.04 | 0.56 |
Use of clean technology | 93.7% | 3.70 | 0.65 |
Use of environmental criteria in process design | 91.6% | 3.12 | 0.58 |
Use of environmental criteria in selection of suppliers | 91.4% | 2.95 | 0.57 |
Suppliers comply with environmental criteria | 91.8% | 2.85 | 0.64 |
Use of environmental criteria in distribution | 91.4% | 2.94 | 0.60 |
External collaboration | 86% | 2.63 | 1.32 |
Collaboration with environmental associations | – | 1.18 | 0.67 |
Sponsorship of environmental events | – | 1.45 | 0.73 |
Motivations | Cronbach’s Alpha * | Mean | Standard Deviation |
Strategic motivation | 95.6% | 12.00 | 3.24 |
Expand product range | 95.2% | 2.54 | 0.70 |
Expand market | 93.8% | 2.39 | 0.69 |
Improve profitability | 95.0% | 2.28 | 0.66 |
Improve competitiveness | 94.0% | 2.40 | 0.71 |
Adapt to demand conditions | 95.1% | 2.38 | 0.73 |
Compliance with regulations and subsidies | 91.4% | 6.72 | 1.63 |
Adapt to legal framework | – | 3.45 | 0.81 |
Leverage public incentives | – | 3.26 | 0.89 |
Response to social pressure | 87.0% | 2.75 | 1.32 |
Respond to pressure groups and associations | – | 1.33 | 0.70 |
Follow industry associations’ guidelines | – | 1.42 | 0.70 |
Technological Eco-Innovation | Cronbach’s Alpha * | Mean | Standard Deviation |
Product eco-innovation | 98.8% | 3.82 | 2.01 |
Leadership in product eco-innovations | 98.5% | 1.26 | 0.66 |
Numbers of product eco-innovations | 97.6% | 1.28 | 0.68 |
Intensity of change in product eco-innovations | 97.6% | 1.28 | 0.69 |
Process eco-innovation | 98.3% | 3.93 | 2.24 |
Leadership in process eco-innovations | 98.0% | 1.28 | 0.72 |
Numbers of process eco-innovations | 96.0% | 1.28 | 0.77 |
Intensity of change in process eco-innovations | 98.0% | 1.33 | 0.78 |
Financial Performance | Cronbach’s Alpha * | Mean | Standard Deviation |
Importance of financial performance indicators | 97.0% | 30.1 | 4.25 |
Sales level | 97.0% | 4.42 | 0.64 |
Sales growth | 96.3% | 4.31 | 0.61 |
Market share | 97.0% | 4.21 | 0.71 |
Profitability | 96.3% | 4.29 | 0.67 |
Gross profit margin | 96.1% | 4.26 | 0.65 |
Operating profit | 96.1% | 4.26 | 0.66 |
Achieving objectives | 96.6% | 4.36 | 0.65 |
Satisfaction with financial performance | 94.3% | 20.59 | 3.76 |
Sales level | 94.0% | 3.31 | 0.64 |
Sales growth | 94.0% | 2.81 | 0.73 |
Market share | 94.0% | 2.54 | 0.71 |
Profitability | 92.9% | 2.97 | 0.57 |
Gross profit margin | 92.9% | 2.97 | 0.53 |
Operating profit | 92.8% | 2.98 | 0.55 |
Achieving objectives | 92.9% | 3.02 | 0.58 |
Groups (1 = Cooperative; 0 = Non-Cooperative) | Mean | Standard Deviation | Standard Error Mean | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental commitment | 1 | 0.0171 | 0.846 | 0.120 |
0 | −0.005 | 1.044 | 0.081 | |
Structure, participation and training | 1 | 0.437 | 0.818 | 0.116 |
0 | −0.131 | 1.014 | 0.079 | |
Internal operations | 1 | −0.309 | 0.818 | 0.116 |
0 | 0.092 | 1.032 | 0.080 | |
External collaborations | 1 | −0.109 | 0.448 | 0.064 |
0 | 0.032 | 1.110 | 0.086 | |
Strategic motivation | 1 | −0.148 | 0.827 | 0.118 |
0 | 0.041 | 1.041 | 0.078 | |
Compliance with regulations and subsidies | 1 | −0.037 | 0.946 | 0.133 |
0 | 0.009 | 1.016 | 0.074 | |
Response to social pressure | 1 | −0.110 | 0.693 | 0.097 |
0 | 0.030 | 1.068 | 0.078 | |
Product eco-innovation | 1 | −0.113 | 0.893 | 0.125 |
0 | 0.031 | 1.027 | 0.075 | |
Process eco-innovation | 1 | −0.150 | 0.791 | 0.110 |
0 | 0.042 | 1.048 | 0.077 | |
Performance: Importance indicators | 1 | −0.571 | 0.990 | 0.142 |
0 | 0.161 | 0.941 | 0.071 | |
Performance: Importance indicators | 1 | −0.134 | 1.025 | 0.146 |
0 | 0.038 | 0.992 | 0.075 |
t | Sig. (Bilateral) | Difference in Means | Difference in Standard Error | 95% of Mean Difference Confidence Interval | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inferior | Superior | |||||
Environmental commitment | 0.556 | 0.579 | 0.091 | 0.164 | −0.232 | 0.415 |
Structure, participation and training | 3.855 | 0.000 | 0.544 ** | 0.141 | 0.264 | 0.825 |
Internal operations | −2.437 | 0.016 | −0.395 * | 0.162 | −0.715 | −0.075 |
External collaborations | −1.305 | 0.194 | −0.141 | 0.108 | −0.355 | 0.072 |
Strategic motivation | −1.178 | 0.240 | −0.190 | 0.161 | −0.508 | 0.127 |
Compliance with regulations and subsidies | −0.295 | 0.769 | −0.047 | 0.159 | −0.361 | 0.267 |
Respond to social pressure | −0.891 | 0.374 | −0.140 | 0.158 | −0.452 | 0.170 |
Product eco-innovation | −0.912 | 0.363 | −0.144 | 0.158 | −0.456 | 0.167 |
Process eco-innovation | −1.425 | 0.157 | −0.192 | 0.135 | −0.461 | 0.075 |
Performance: Importance indicators | −4.748 | 0.000 | −0.733 ** | 0.154 | −1.037 | −0.428 |
Performance: Satisfaction indicators | −1.071 | 0.286 | −0.173 | 0.161 | −0.492 | 0.145 |
Environmental Proactivity | Cluster | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Environmental commitment ** | 0.87045 | 0.02963 | –0.65916 |
Structure, participation and training * | 0.77141 | 0.61303 | 0.08357 |
Internal operations and relationships with agents in the value chain ** | –0.45874 | –3.79201 | 0.12527 |
Collaboration with external interest groups | –0.10433 | 0.52487 | –0.16662 |
Number of cases | 22 | 2 | 24 |
Sum of Squares | Root Mean Square | F | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Strategic motivation (1 > 3) * | Between groups | 4.884 | 2.442 | 3.816 * |
Within groups | 27.514 | 0.640 | ||
Total | 32.398 | |||
Compliance with regulations and subsidies (1 > 2,3) ** | Between groups | 11.590 | 5.795 | 7.998 ** |
Within groups | 31.881 | 0.725 | ||
Total | 43.471 | |||
Respond to social pressure (1 < 2) * | Between groups | 3.287 | 1.644 | 3.651 * |
Within groups | 20.262 | 0.450 | ||
Total | 23.549 | |||
Product eco-innovation | Between groups | 3.541 | 1.770 | 2.204 |
Within groups | 36.145 | 0.803 | ||
Total | 39.686 | |||
Process eco-innovation | Between groups | 2.848 | 1.424 | 2.265 |
Within groups | 28.296 | 0.629 | ||
Total | 31.144 | |||
Importance of performance (2 > 3) * | Between groups | 5.533 | 2.766 | 3.490 * |
Within groups | 34.087 | 0.793 | ||
Total | 39.619 | |||
Satisfaction with performance | Between groups | 2.042 | 1.021 | 0.957 |
Within groups | 45.872 | 1.067 | ||
Total | 47.914 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Calle, F.; González-Moreno, Á.; Carrasco, I.; Vargas-Vargas, M. Social Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155908
Calle F, González-Moreno Á, Carrasco I, Vargas-Vargas M. Social Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):5908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155908
Chicago/Turabian StyleCalle, Félix, Ángela González-Moreno, Inmaculada Carrasco, and Manuel Vargas-Vargas. 2020. "Social Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance in the Spanish Wine Sector" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 5908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155908
APA StyleCalle, F., González-Moreno, Á., Carrasco, I., & Vargas-Vargas, M. (2020). Social Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability, 12(15), 5908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155908