Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

Green innovation: A systematic literature review

Salim Karimi Takalo a, Hossein Sayyadi Tooranloo b, *, Zahra Shahabaldini parizi c
a
Assistant Professor of Management Faculty, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran
b
Associate Professor of Management Faculty, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran
c
Master Science of Management, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Green innovation (GI) literature over the past decades has evolved and expanded, because of its wide-
Received 4 February 2020 spread and essential applications along with the environmental awareness and service delivery of green
Received in revised form products and applications. The aim of this article is to provide GI methods from a comprehensive
22 May 2020
overview, analyze articles and bibliographic information through a systematic literature review (SLR). In
Accepted 23 May 2020
Available online 18 July 2020
this study, 178 articles on GI between 2007 and 2019 were selected and reviewed. After reviewing the
articles, the outcome was that in the field of GI articles on topics such as Benefits of GI implementation
Handling editor: Prof. Jiri Jaromir Kleme
s had the highest share. The articles were divided on the basis of study area, the sector of industries had
more than one industry and the largest share was of manufacturing industries. In the Section of research
Keywords: method, the mathematical modeling has had the most use in the articles reviewed. The results of the
Green innovation study showed that the Journal of Cleaner Production, Business Strategy and the Environment had the
Systematic literature review highest number of publications on GI. Clustering of articles was done using the Cite space tool and the
Research profiling articles were cited using the CiteNetexplor tool and the density mapping of the co-authoring network of
Research area clusters
researchers was done by using VOS viewer software. In addition, some future research opportunities
were suggested and discussed in this article. Universities, organizations, those involved in companies can
benefit from these useful reviews and conduct research.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methodological aspects of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SLR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Research contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Importance of GI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.2. Green operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. Other contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Research areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Industrial sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Other areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Research cross-reference analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2. Limitations of existing research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Final considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Declaration of competing interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.karimi@vru.ac.ir (S. Karimi Takalo), h.sayyadi@meybod.ac.ir
(H. Sayyadi Tooranloo), Zahrashahab1395@yahoo.com (Z. Shahabaldini parizi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122474
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1. Introduction Roy and Khastagir, 2016; Yan, 2015), giving a lift to economic per-
formance (Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Olsen et al., 2014), designing
Green innovation (GI), as a key factor in maintaining environ- and producing eco-friendly products or services (green product
mental management (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, design) (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013;
2013; Arenhardt et al., 2016; Chen, 2008; Chen et al., 2012; Yang Arenhardt et al., 2016; Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Huang et al.,
et al., 2016)), is of vital importance for organizations and commu- 2019; Li et al., 2017; Saudi et al., 2019; Stanovcic et al., 2015; Tseng
nities; investigations in this domain have mainly witnessed a rising et al., 2013b; Zhang et al., 2017), bringing about ecological reputa-
trend over recent years. Moreover, environmental degradation has tion (Dangelico, 2017; Hsu et al., 2011), as well as diminishing use of
turned into a major threat to human survival. A large number of hazardous products and non-operational technologies (Roy and
organizations and communities have been directed towards GI as a Khastagir, 2016; Stanovcic et al., 2015). Therefore, GI is an impor-
strategy to achieve environmental protection and economic tant tool that can help society, organizations and companies to
growth. Environmental sustainability and economic profitability achieve environmental sustainability and plays an important role in
are also of great significance (Fliaster and Kolloch, 2017), GI can lead achieving competitive advantage (Chu et al., 2019), and improves
organizations towards attaining sustainable competitive advan- economic performance, facing GI challenges and the environment.
tages (Hur et al., 2013). Today, GI has become an important tool for On the other hand, GI prevents opportunities for imitation (Albort-
businesses to increase their market share and stay alive in the long Morant et al., 2018b). Mentioning these things add to the impact of
run. A successful GI improves the market position, attracts cus- this important factor in organizations, companies and even in the
tomers, provides green services and gain competitive advantage. whole community. However; organizational success in terms of
Because of these benefits, GI is on the agenda of managers of many innovation requires acceptation of green methods (Chou, 2014;
organizations and researchers. Innovation studies are generally Huang and Li, 2017), implementing corporate culture through ex-
based on the theory of Schumpi innovation. According to change of knowledge, experience and skills among employees (Roy
Schumpeter (1942), GI helps meet the demands of customers to and Khastagir, 2016; Stanovcic et al., 2015; Tseng et al., 2013b),
protect the environment in which there are (Guerlek and Tuna, practicing green corporate culture (Chu et al., 2019; Guerlek and
2018). “Green innovation” or “Eco-innovation” and can be defined Tuna, 2018), having organizational collaboration for implementa-
as a process that contributes to the creation of new production and tion of innovation (Bigliardi et al., 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Burki and
technologies with the aim of reducing environmental risks, like Dahlstrom, 2017; Galia et al., 2015; Messeni Petruzzelli et al.,
pollution and negative consequences of resource exploitation (e.g. 2011; Zailani et al., 2014; Zhang and Liang, 2012; Zhu et al., 2017),
energy) (Castellacci and Lie, 2017). Innovation has been divided into demonstrating commitment by senior management (Burki and
product/service innovation and process innovation. The ultimate Dahlstrom, 2017; Dangelico, 2016; Qi et al., 2010; Roy and
goal of product/service innovation is to improve the functioning of Khastagir, 2016; Tantayanubutr and Panjakajornsak, 2017; Tseng
products and services for customers and clients. The Innovation et al., 2013b), integrating internal and external knowledge
process has resulted in building up cost efficiency and organiza- (knowledge sharing) due to system characteristics and technolog-
tional flexibility (Albort-Morant et al., 2018a; Kam-Sing Wong, ical uncertainties (Dangelico, 2016; Roy and Khastagir, 2016;
2012), which both can contribute to mitigating environmental Shamah, 2012; Stanovcic et al., 2015; Wong, 2013; Zimmerling
risks (Castellacci and Lie, 2017), augmenting resource efficiency et al., 2017) and putting environmental regulations into effect
(Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Leenders and (Chiou et al., 2011; Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Lee and Kim,
Chandra, 2013; Wang et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2011; Rubashkina et al., 2015; Wakeford et al., 2017; Wong, 2013;
2017), creating new opportunities for environmentally friendly Yang et al., 2016) all highlight the importance of GI implementation
practices (Albort-Morant et al., 2018b), reducing pollution rates in organizations and communities. Nevertheless, implementation
(Albort-Morant et al., 2018b; Amore and Bennedsen, 2016; of these factors is facing numerous challenges such as green new
Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Chang, 2011; Chen, 2008; Corrocher and technologies and their environmental problems (Gerstlberger et al.,
Solito, 2017; Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Forsman, 2013; 2014), risk of failure in implementation process (Lee and Kim,
Galia et al., 2015; Huang and Li, 2017; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011), high costs of research and development (Kunapatarawong
2011; Stanovcic et al., 2015), increasing recycling (Aguilera- and Martínez-Ros, 2016; Martinez-Ros and Kunapatarawong,
Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013; Aid et al., 2017; Chang, 2019; Rubashkina et al., 2015), difficulties in data collection
2011; Chen, 2008; Huang et al., 2019; Stanovcic et al., 2015), (Schweitzer, 2015), increased workload and job dissatisfaction
saving energy (Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chapple et al., 2011; among employees (Iranmanesh et al., 2017), insufficient funds for
Chen et al., 2017; Chiou et al., 2011; Corrocher and Solito, 2017; implementation of green projects (Wakeford et al., 2017), negative
Cosimato and Troisi, 2015; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; Wang impact of external knowledge (Zimmerling et al., 2017), lack of risk-
et al., 2017; Wong, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017), achieving competi- taking in organizations (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-
tive advantages (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013; Mandojana, 2013), inadequate understanding of green initiatives
Arenhardt et al., 2016; Chen and Hung, 2014; Chiou et al., 2011; (Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017), as well as inefficient government
Dangelico, 2016; Du et al., 2018; El-Kassar, A.-N. and Singh, S.K., support (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013), which
2019; Huang et al., 2009; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Weng et al., 2015; can direct organizations and communities towards GI imple-
Zimmerling et al., 2017), improving environmental performance mentation. This study reviewed GI literature in organizations to
(Roy and Khastagir, 2016; Weng and Lin, 2011; Zailani et al., 2014), meet the following objectives: (a) increase in the number of sci-
supporting strategic goals (Yang et al., 2016), enhancing positive entific publications in this field (a total number of 178 articles on
performance in an organization (Olson, 2014; Roy and Khastagir, this topic, which used the keyword “green innovation” were
2016), upgrading quality of service provision (Chiou et al., 2011; searched in the databases of Web of Science and Scopus published
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
between 2007 and 2019 were retrieved; (b) review of the related
literature was done to deal with aspects that had not been exam-
ined in previous studies. These objectives that is the systematic
literature review (SLR) from 2007 to 2019 were to address the
following questions: (a) “What were the common methods used by
authors to develop their research in the field of GI?” and (b) “What
Sections have been used by researchers for their articles?”, “What is
a bibliometric profile (often-used keywords by authors and jour-
nals)?“, “Who are top authors in this field?” and “What are the most
important GI research area clusters?” To what extent the research
on GI has been evolved in the past decade?
This study was organized in six Sections: Section one is a pre-
liminary introduction along with a description of research objec-
tives. Sections two, three and four focus on research method,
literature review and research specifications, respectively. Section
five illustrates results and discussion, conclusion and in Section six
future perspectives on GI is given followed by references.
2. Methodological aspects of the research
To address the research questions, the research process was
explained in eight steps as shown in the following Fig. 1.
Initially, relevant articles were retrieved using an advanced
search of “green innovation” as the keyword in the titles and the
keywords of articles in two databases of Web of Science and Scopus
published from 2007 to 2019. The basis for selecting these data-
bases was the fact that they could contribute to literature search
and bibliographic information analysis. Accordingly; “green inno-
vation”, “innovation” and “sustainable development” were found to
be the most often-used keywords considered in the related litera-
ture on GI from 2007 to 2019. Besides, it became clear that the use
of these keywords in the field of GI was on a rising trend, while the
utilization of other keywords such as “supply chain management”,
“green product innovation” and “environmental protection” were
on a decline or were not of utmost importance.
Four formal stages of analysis have been used to select the
articles.
Stage one:
The first Step was the usage of “green innovation” in the title
and keywords of the articles.
Within this search, articles with titles (a) sustainable and green
engine and climate policy, (b) carbon innovation and global sus-
tainability, (c) climate change, international market
Fig. 1. Research steps/Source: Authors.
3
competitiveness and green sustainable shipping and (d) project-
based market competition and factors affecting technology, etc.
were excluded. Taking the aforementioned topics into account, a
total number of 4879 articles, were extracted. A summary of the
search process is presented in Table 1.
Raw research data were filtered using the following criteria; (A)
the articles published from 2007 to 2019, (B) the articles published
in journals and (C) the articles in English.
Stage three:
In the next step, the articles were examined and the duplicate
ones were omitted out.
Stage four:
After reviewing the articles, it was revealed that the keyword of
“green innovation” might have other connotations in some articles
such as research on regional differences and spatial impact of GI,
poly-substituted, dihydropyridines, financializing desalination,
ultrasound-mediated GI for synthesis, etc. After identifying these
articles, they were omitted and the results have been shown in
Table 2.
From this step onwards, the study was divided into two parts;
(a) SLR and (b) research profiling. The purpose of the SLR was to
organize GI literature published over the last ten years. With regard
to research profiling, the main objective of this study was to pro-
vide a research map through the review of publications to address
the following questions; “Which authors have mostly pointed out
GI?“, “Where does the largest volume of articles come from?“,
“What are the most important GI research area clusters?“, “What
are the main GI research areas?” and “What are the most often-
used keywords?”
This study was not conducted to comprehend all the in-
teractions and relationships in the field of GI, but it was to easily
realize its various aspects. On the whole, a total number of 178
articles were tabulated and categorized based on research contexts,
areas and methods adopted. The research area was related to study
setting and content focus, split into three main groups; (a) impor-
tance of GI, (b) green operations and (c) other areas. In this study, a
three-clustered classification was used (Srivastava, 2007). In terms
of SLR, research classification by Srivastava (2007) was employed in
this study. This method was based on three parts; (a) empirical
studies (in the form of field studies) i.e. practical tests performed on
a phenomenon using interviews, questionnaires, case studies and
laboratory experiments, (b) mathematical modeling and (c) litera-
ture review, including a theoretical study fulfilled through exami-
nation of bibliographic information to analyze a specific topic.
Within research area division, i.e. study setting or scenario where
the studies had been performed in, consisted of two parts; (a) in-
dustrial sectors and (b) other areas. A summary of the research map
has been presented in Fig. 2.
The data extracted in this study was analyzed according to the
indexed research questions.
The data was uploaded on the Microsoft Excel software, three
software tools were employed to address the questions related to
research profiling, i.e. CiteNetExplorer, to map cited networks;
CiteSpace, to identify research area clusters and VOSviewer, to
identify the most often-used keywords and a co-authorship
network density map in the field of GI.
3. SLR
The literature related to GI is growing and deforming discon-
tinuously. To expedite in a systematic, iterative review, the present
4 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Table 1
Scopus database search summary (2007e2019).

Keywords Field Type of document Language Quantity

“green innovation" All All All 4879

“ green innovation" All All English 4766
“ green innovation" All Journal articles English 3705
“ green innovation" Title, abstract, keywords All All 641
“ green innovation" Title, abstract, keywords All English 619
“ green innovation" Title, abstract, keywords Journal articles English 462

Source: Authors.
Stage two:

Table 2
Number of articles by database.

Quantity of Article

Data base 2nd stage 3rd stage 4th stage

Scopus 462 389 102
Web of Science 178 164 76
Total 640 553 178

Source: Authors.

Fig. 2. Systematic literature review map/Source: Authors.

study has adopted the SLR approach to gain a future perspective 3.1. Research contexts
and knowledge gap in this area. In this Section; the results of the
SLR, were presented and organized based on the map, which has 3.1.1. Importance of GI
been shown in Fig. 2. Green innovation has been recognized as one of the key factors
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 5

affecting environmental and economic success in organizations and authors regarding importance of GI have been shown in Fig. 3 in a
communities and also as a corporate response to environmental descending order. The most common issue was “benefits of GI
regulations (Lee and Kim, 2011). In this regard, numerous studies implementation,” (44%) which included steps and considerations
have been conducted to examine importance and benefits, barriers for implementing GI practices in organizations. In the next ranking
and challenges, as well as financial and economic impacts on GI. financial and economic impacts on GI implementation, public and
Accordingly, 35% of the articles analyzed in this study met this private sectors by 10% and 5% frequency values were also placed.
classification. In the given articles, the most important factors were
to improve overall quality of life (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-
3.1.2. Green operations
Mandojana, 2013; Amore and Bennedsen, 2016), to achieve
Because of the increasing environmental pressure, GI has
further profitability (Dangelico, 2016), to reduce costs through
become one of the most important strategic tool to achieve envi-
increasing awareness of environmental responsibilities (Tseng
ronmental and economic success in organizations and commu-
et al., 2013b), to invest in research and development (Castellacci
nities (Kawai et al., 2018; Lee and Kim, 2011). In the past,
and Lie, 2017; Chen et al., 2012), to conduct green strategic plan-
investment in environmental activities was not a necessity; how-
ning (Aid et al., 2017; Woo et al., 2014), to increase organizational
ever, strict environmental regulations have changed environmental
productivity (Yan, 2015), to reduce or eliminate use of toxic factors,
principles and competitive patterns in organizations and commu-
pollution and waste (Dangelico, 2017), The positive impact of forced
nities (Chang, 2011). Senior management support through match-
and normative pressure on GI implementation was (Chen et al.,
ing knowledge management practices with their performance
2018; Du et al., 2018), to employ active environmental strategies
strategies (Stanovcic et al., 2015), development of resources and
in response to environmental challenges (Hsu et al., 2011), to
capabilities (Dangelico, 2016), creation of green corporate culture
establish a strong relationship between environmental compati-
among employees and managers (Chou, 2014), build GI System and
bility, green products development and services (Lee and Kim,
upgrade GI performance (Huang et al., 2019). The regulatory
2011), to utilize eco-friendly equipment and technologies and to
framework or so called “the effect of regulatory pull pressure” for
invest in environment protecting measures (Qi et al., 2010), build-
environmental policies (Martinez-Ros and Kunapatarawong, 2019),
ing corporate trust (Linder, 2012; Shamah, 2012; Tantayanubutr
identification of regulations and customer demands as the main
and Panjakajornsak, 2017), to achieve technological advances
drivers of GI (Hur et al., 2013), management factors and power
(Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013) to be respon-
balance for collaborative relationships (Lin and Ho, 2008), organi-
sive and to demonstrate organizational commitment to stake-
zational encouragement, human resource quality, environmental
holders in order to increase demands for GI implementation
uncertainty and government support (Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar,
(Tantayanubutr and Panjakajornsak, 2017).
2017), expected economic benefits, as well as collaboration and
External environmental pressures (politics pressures and mar-
involvement of stakeholders (including customers, suppliers and
ket pressures) and internal environmental driving forces (innova-
employees) in GI implementation (Fliaster and Kolloch, 2017;
tion resources and innovation capability) make it possible for
Melander and Pazirandeh, 2019; Tantayanubutr and
organizations and companies to select GI strategies with the impact
Panjakajornsak, 2017) were among the factors affecting imple-
of modifying environmental awareness of senior management (Cao
mentation of GI in organizations and communities. Among the
and Chen, 2019). On the other hand, a group of scholars in their
above mentioned factors, regulations and customer demands were
research have pointed out that GI strategies indirectly influence GI
specified as the main factors (Huang et al., 2016). In addition, Saudi
through green organizational identification and environmental
et al. (2019) in their studies have referred to the positive and sig-
organizational legitimacy (Soewarno et al., 2019). Therefore,
nificant impact of economic performance and environmental per-
effective use of innovative capacity in organizational activities
formance on green product innovation and green process
could promote GI (Chen and Hung, 2014). Issues proposed by
innovation.

Fig. 3. Topics on importance of GI. Source: Authors.

6 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
It has high contribution for resolving environmental issues, GI is
also increasingly being used in organizations enabling them to
differentiate themselves from competitors to gain competitive ad-
vantages (Albort-Morant et al., 2017; Arenhardt et al., 2016; Chen
and Hung, 2014; Dangelico, 2016). On the one hand, the more the
entrepreneurs have commitment to environmental protection, the
more innovative they will be in implementing green innovations
(Suasana and Ekawati, 2018).
After reviewing the related articles, it was revealed that green
operations constituted 34% of all the articles. As shown in Fig. 4,
collaboration and effect of stakeholders was also introduced as the
most common element in the articles, which accounted for 20% of
all reviewed articles. It was concluded that GI was able to increase
organizational entrepreneurship. Besides, Innovation efficiency by
8% indicated that very little research had been done on this issue,
despite the fact this subject is of utmost importance in the field of
GI.
3.1.3. Other contexts
As environmental problems become more serious, researchers’
attitudes towards innovation management and new economy
gradually changed; so much more attention is being paid to the
value of technological innovations from the ecological point of view
rather than analyzing the importance of technological innovations
from the perspective of economic value. Through improved pro-
ductivity resources use (Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen et al.,
2012; Lee and Kim, 2011; Leenders and Chandra, 2013; Wong,
2013) and reduction in environmental impacts (Zhang and Liang,
2012; Zhang et al., 2017), GI is also being employed as a key fac-
tor to deal with economic and environmental challenges (Wang
et al., 2017). Therefore, implementing environmental manage-
ment such as green management, marketing, production and
innovation (Chen and Hung, 2014; Chen, 2008) via implementation
of rules and regulations (Lee and Kim, 2011) can mitigate negative
impacts on the environment (Dai et al., 2017). Social impacts and
perceived behavioral control (Chen and Hung, 2014; Chou, 2014;
Huang and Li, 2017; Zhang and Liang, 2012) knowledge manage-
ment in GI (Abbas and Sag san, 2019; Ben Arfi et al., 2018), increased
Organizational capacity and Human capital (El-Kassar, A.N. and
Singh, S.K., 2019), can be thus regarded as factors affecting GI
implementation. Three different concepts of “green, ecological and
environmental” innovation are widely used, while sustainable
Fig. 4. Topics on Innovation operations. Source: Authors.
innovation extends the concept and entails social aspects.
Characteristics of perceived innovation, attitudes toward green
practices (Chou, 2014), social influences and perceived behavioral
control for GI acceptance, managers’ attitudes and internal and
external environments (Kawai et al., 2018), including social aspects
have positive and direct effects on social attitudes (Chou et al.,
2012). Sustainable innovation was understood as an improvement
in a product, service or process system that offers improved eco-
nomic performance and has less social and environmental risks
(Nielsen et al., 2016).
Albort-Morant et al. (2018), in his studies has emphasized the
importance of environmental innovation among other innovations.
The development of innovative environmental products and pro-
cesses depends not only on internal resources but also on a wide-
spread set of knowledge-related capabilities. Collaboration and
sharing knowledge among employees (Abbas and Sag san, 2019)
and formulation of an active environmental strategy in organiza-
tions, research and development (Kunapatarawong and Martínez-
Ros, 2016) and collaboration with innovation providers promotes
this innovation on a larger scale than other types of innovations.
The above mentioned characteristics are due to the complexity of
environmental innovations, which extends by blending of a com-
mon set of knowledge and competencies of experts in
organizations.
In Fig. 5, a review of other classifications has been shown,
including 31% of the articles. In addition, the results showed that
33% of the articles were related to green research and development
in organizations and senior management was support by 22% was
of utmost importance since it could be the origin of environmental
changes. Attention to product innovation, job creation and the
future vision of GI had been only covered by 4% of the articles,
which required researchers’ attention.
3.2. Research areas
3.2.1. Industrial sector
Totally, 81% of the articles reviewed in this study were related to
the industrial sector in which manufacturing industries, energy and
foodstuff by 15%, 10% and 8% were among the most important is-
sues respectively. Saving energy or reducing energy consumption
(Forsman, 2013; Galia et al., 2015), mitigates negative impacts on
the environment through the use of renewable energy systems in
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
Fig. 5. Topics on other contexts.Source: Authors.
order to provide the electrical energy needed (Burki and Dahlstrom,
2017; Chiou et al., 2011; Kapoor et al., 2014; Kumar and Rahman,
2015; Nesta et al., 2014), having technological advances (Zhang
et al., 2017), implementing environmental regulations for energy
conservation (Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013;
Weng et al., 2015) and producing the lowest amount of waste by
limiting the complications of the environmental effects to the
lowest levels (Roy and Khastagir, 2016) were among the most sig-
nificant achievements in this area. Although previous studies had
demonstrated the positive effects of GI on the performance of the
manufacturing industries, GI might be in conflict with job satis-
faction. A directly positive effect on work intensity and a negative
and indirect impact on job satisfaction through work intensity,
might be observed, which in turn could have a negative effect on
performance and productivity; since employees are required to
spend much more time doing their jobs and they would feel
dissatisfied with them (Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Zailani et al., 2011).
Knowledge sharing in this Section could also provide eco-friendly
services, with a positive impact on provision of green services as
well as more successful implementation of green projects within
organizations (Lin et al., 2019; Stanovcic et al., 2015; Wong, 2013).
The findings of some of these studies indicated that government
pressure to implement GI was often viewed as an essential element
to meet environmental goals which included competitive pressure
(Chen et al., 2012; Shamah, 2012), environmental pressure (Chang,
2011; Weng and Lin, 2011), customer pressure (Chiou et al., 2011;
Huang et al., 2016; Weng and Lin, 2011) and competitor pressure;
has a significant impact on GI training and a direct role in its per-
formance. Customer pressure could similarly have a significant and
positive impact on investment and development of collaboration
networks (Huang et al., 2016). Through the analysis of variance on
existing variables, some researchers have come to the conclusion
that green process innovation and green product innovation both
significantly (positively) predict the performance of firms and or-
ganizations (Tang et al., 2018).
Hao et al. (2019) in this study, regression analysis was used to
discuss the positive impacts of managers on green manufacturing
innovation performance. This work examined the impact of
managerial relationships and environmental regulation on positive
7
relationships between managers and GI performance in
manufacturing industries. Li (2019) Environmental management
systems are positively associated with corporate GI and environ-
mental regulation reinforces this relationship. Guerlek and Tuna
(2018), in his studies, pointed out that hotels need to develop a
green corporate culture. In addition, if they want to gain a
competitive advantage, they must invest more in GI activities.
Topics related to industrial sectors have been presented in Fig. 6
in which multiple industries by 38% and then manufacturing in-
dustries, energy and foodstuff respectively by 15 and 10% and 8%
frequency values were placed in the first to fourth rankings. It
should be noted that manufacturing industries, energy and elec-
tronics and power system were remarkable and they were among
favorite areas for future research. Multiple industries also included
extensive research in more than two industrial sectors.
3.2.2. Other areas
Totally, 19% of the articles reviewed in this study were about
other areas. The results of some research studies suggested that
competitor pressure and government pressure along with
employee behavior all had positive impacts on GI activities. In
addition, the mediating effect of innovation orientation was only
observed on the relationship between green product innovation
practices and employee behavior (Weng et al., 2015; Weng and Lin,
2011). Some other studies had also compared the success of
ecosystem innovations and other factors and concluded that both
similarities and differences could have impacts on successful fac-
tors of innovation (Lee and Kim, 2011). Several other researchers
had further shed light on the effects of GI in telecommunication
industry and considered increased green image (Kumar and
Rahman, 2015), level of satisfaction (Hsu et al., 2011) and trust
and environmental training for employees (Chou, 2014; Liao, 2017)
as important advancements for this topic (Linder, 2012). Moreover,
in this regard research on the effect of GI on supply chain man-
agement had provided an approach to addressing environmental
compatibility and adopting strategies (Corrocher and Solito, 2017)
and sustainability for the supply chain (Cosimato and Troisi, 2015).
Other researchers also introduced the relationship between envi-
ronmental compatibility and GI (Chiou et al., 2011) as well as
8 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Fig. 6. Topics on industrial sectors.Source: Authors.

strategic relationship between environment suppliers and their
involvement in provision of green products/services as the most
significant factors affecting economic and commercial success (Lee
and Kim, 2011). Topics in sectors entitled as other areas have been
illustrated in Fig. 7. In this regard, “no specifications” included 82%
of the articles and various fields were included in GI research.
3.3. Research methods
The research methods used in the reviewed articles included
literature review, empirical studies and mathematical modeling,
which were identified in this Section. To extract the commonalities
of the research areas and contexts, the articles under study were
coded in the Microsoft Excel software. The results are presented in
Table 3.
Classification of the articles based on empirical studies and
literature review has been illustrated in Table 4. Empirical studies
and literature reviews respectively constituted 29% and 5% of the
articles in this study.
The empirical studies performed by the researchers were
classified in Table 5. Most of the articles were questionnaire-based
research and case studies.
66% of the authors have used different types of mathematical
modeling. As shown in Table 6, regression and structural equation
modeling were the most commonly used methods in majority of
the articles. Bootstrapping has also been utilized as an alternative
statistical method for analyzing the effects of time delay and data
for discrete-event simulations. It should be noted that boot-
strapping is a non-parametric method for estimating statistical
sampling distribution using repetitive sampling plan by replacing a
main sample, used for project selection and prioritization. Even-
tually, fuzzy programming had been employed for modeling.
3.4. Research cross-reference analysis
In this Section, information on research areas, contexts and
methods were used. In Table 7, research methods were associated
research contexts and the authors at each cross-reference of this
dimension were highlighted.
The relationship between research methods used and research

Fig. 7. Topics on other sectors. Source: Authors.

 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 9

Table 3
Authors by area of research and research context.

-Research Area

Research Industrial sector Other Sectors

context

Importance (Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Fliaster and Kolloch, 2017; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; (Corrocher and Solito, 2017; Tariq et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhu et al.,
of GI Li and Huang, 2017; Muscio et al., 2017; Wang et al.,, 2017; Arenhardt et al.,, 2017; Francisco J S
aez-Martínez et al., 2016; Dangelico, 2016; Díaz-García
2016; Chou, 2014; Galia et al., 2015; Hur et al., 2013; Jensen and Govindan, et al., 2015; Cosimato and Troisi, 2015; Forsman, 2013; Cooke, 2012;
2014; Kapoor et al., 2014; Kumar and Rahman, 2015; Li et al., 2013; Nesta Andereck, 2009; Dangelico, 2017; Lampikoski et al., 2014; Li et al., 2017; Hou
et al., 2014; Olsen et al., 2014; Schweitzer, 2015; Zailani et al.,, 2015; Chapple et al., 2017; Mazzucato, 2016; Saunila et al., 2018; Chu et al., 2019)
et al., 2011; Qi et al., 2010; Zhang and Liang, 2012; Aguilera-Caracuel and
Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013; Weng and Lin, 2011; Huang et al., 2016; Lin et al.,
2014; Song et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017; Tseng et al., 2013;
Wakeford et al., 2017; Wakeford et al., 2017; Wu, 2013; Halila et al., 2017;
Yan, 2015; Yang et al., 2016; Francisco Jose  Sa
ez-Martínez et al., 2016;
Handayani et al., 2017; Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Wicki, 2015; Zhang and
Zhu, 2019; Yao et al., 2019; Song et al., 2018; Rossiter and Smith, 2018;
Mellett et al., 2018; Wong, 2013; Soewarno et al., 2019; Galbreath, 2019;
Dangelico et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2018; Lin and Ho, 2008; Khan and Johl,
2019; Stanovcic et al.,2015; Abimbola et al., 2010)

Green (Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Ba et al., 2013; (Fiott, 2014; Tseng, Tan, and Siriban-Manalang, 2013; Linder, 2012; Mourad
operations Gerstlberger et al., 2014; Hillestad et al., 2010; Hsiao and Chuang, 2016; and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Halila and Rundquist, 2011; Franceschini,
Kunapatarawong and Martínez-Ros, 2016; Lee and Kim, 2011; Leenders and Faria, and Jurowetzki, 2016; Bernauer, Engel, Kammerer, and Sejas Nogareda,
Chandra, 2013; Olson, 2015; Olson, 2015; Soltmann et al., 2015; Woo et al., 2007; Shi and Lai, 2013; Bigliardi, Bertolini, Yarahmadi, and Higgins, 2012;
2014; Yan, 2015; Zailani et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2012; De Caiazza et al., 2016)
Laurentis, 2012; Lee and Kim, 2012; Gluch et al., 2009; Andereck, 2009;
Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Koh et al., 2007; Yarime, 2007; Tietze et al., 2017;
Hsu et al., 2011; Dai et al., 2017; Bergquist and So €derholm, 2011; Huang and
Li, 2017; Khaksar et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2016; Hottenrott et al., 2012; Leal-
Millan et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2018; Arfi et al., 2018; Gürlek and Tuna, 2018;
Arfi et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2019; He and Jiang, 2019; Hao et al., 2019; Albort-
Morant et al., 2018; Wang, 2019; Tang et al., 2018; Leyva-de la Hiz et al.,
2019; Bai et al., 2019; Wu, 2013; Aragon-Correa and Leyva-de la Hiz, 2016)
Others (Chen and Hung, 2014; Olson, 2014; Rubashkina et al., 2015; Thurner and (Zimmerling, Purtik, and Welpe, 2017; Zailani et al., 2014; Wossink and
Proskuryakova, 2014; Chen, 2008; Hsu et al., 2011; Gluch et al., 2009; Denaux, 2004; Reinl and Kelliher, 2015)
Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2009; Urashima et al., 2012;
van der Ploeg, 2011; Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen and Chang, 2013;
Chen and Chen, 2017; Gupta and Barua, 2017; Liao, 2017; Nanath and Pillai,
2017; Albort-Morant et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2017; de Azevedo Rezende
et al., 2019; Melander and Pazirandeh, 2019; Du et al., 2018; Suasana and
Ekawati, 2018; Chang, 2011; Ardito et al., 2019; Aldieri et al., 2019; Bigliardi
et al., 2012; Wei et al., 2015)

Table 4
Research methods.

Methods Articles

Literature (Tariq et al., 2017; Dangelico, 2016; Díaz-García et al., 2015; De Laurentis, 2012; Chapple et al., 2011; Tietze et al., 2011; Bergquist and So € derholm, 2011;
review Franceschini et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2018)
Empirical (Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Fliaster and Kolloch, 2017; Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Li and Huang, 2017; Muscio et al., 2017;
studies Zhu et al., 2017; Zimmerling et al., 2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Ba et al., 2013; Chen and Hung, 2014; Chou, 2014; Cosimato and Troisi, 2015; Hillestad
et al., 2010; Hsiao and Chuang, 2016; Huang et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2013; Jensen and Govindan, 2014; Lee and Kim, 2011; Schweitzer, 2015; Soltmann
et al., 2015; Li, 2014; Yan, 2015; Zailani et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2012; Lee and Kim, 2012; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Vergragt and Brown,
2012; Thøgersen and Zhou, 2012; Chen, 2008; Hsu et al., 2011; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Koh et al., 2007; Gluch et al., 2009; Qi et al., 2010; Huang et al.,
2009; Halila and Rundquist, 2011; Urashima et al., 2012; Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Yarime, 2007; Zhang and Liang, 2012; Tantayanubutr and
Panjakajornsak, 2017; Aid et al., 2017; Weng and Lin, 2011; Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen and Chang, 2013; Chen and Chen, 2017; Cuerva et al.,
2014; Dai et al., 2017; Dangelico, 2017; Huang and Li, 2017; Huang et al., 2016; Lampikoski et al., 2014; Liao, 2017; Nanath and Pillai, 2017; Chen et al.,
2016; Yang et al., 2017; Wakeford et al., 2017; Wu, 2013; Halila et al., 2017; Khaksar et al., 2015; Wicki, 2015; Leal-Milla n et al., 2016; Rossiter and
Smith, 2018; Gürlek and Tuna, 2018; Wong, 2013; Arfi et al., 2018; Melander and Pazirandeh, 2019; Du et al., 2018; Albort-Morant et al., 2018;
Dangelico et al., 2019; Wang, 2019; Suasana and Ekawati, 2018; Chang, 2011; Lin and Ho, 2008; Ardito et al., 2019; Bigliardi et al., 2012; Bigliardi et al.,
2012; Wei et al., 2015)

Source: Authors.

areas developed are presented in Table 8.
In this Section, the results of GI studies are based on information
extracted from the Microsoft Excel software, CiteSpace and Cit-
eNetExplorer, inaddition VOSviewer software tools were applied to
address the following questions:
1. Who are the most productive authors? - Table 9
2. What periodicals publish most articles in the area studied? -
Table 10
3. What are the most referenced periodicals? - Table 11
4. When were the largest volumes of articles in the given area
published? - Fig. 8
5. What are the most-often used keywords? - Table 12
6. Which are the most relevant citation networks? - Fig. 9
10 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Table 5
Types of Empirical Studies used by authors.

Empirical method Articles

Questionnaire (Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Li and Huang, 2017; Muscio et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Chen
and Hung, 2014; Chou, 2014; Huang et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2013; Lee and Kim, 2011; Schweitzer, 2015; Yan, 2015; Zailani et al., 2014; Mourad and
Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Vergragt and Brown, 2012; Thøgersen and Zhou, 2012; Chen, 2008; Hsu et al., 2011; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Qi et al.,
2010; Huang et al., 2009) , )Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Amore and Bennedsen, 2016; Weng and Lin, 2011; Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen and
Chang, 2013; Chen and Chen, 2017; Cuerva et al., 2014; Dai et al., 2017; Dangelico, 2017; Huang and Li, 2017; Huang et al., 2016; Liao, 2017; Nanath
and Pillai, 2017; Chen et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017; Wakeford et al., 2017; Wu, 2013; Khaksar et al., 2015; Leal-Mill
an et al., 2016; Arfi et al., 2018;
Gürlek and Tuna, 2018; Wong, 2013; Du et al., 2018; Albort-Morant et al., 2018; Wang, 2019; Suasana and Ekawati, 2018; Chang, 2011; Lin and Ho,
2008; Ardito et al., 2019; Caiazza et al., 2016)
Interview (Hillestad et al., 2010; Soltmann et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2012; Gluch et al., 2009; Aid et al., 2017; Gupta and Barua, 2017; Lampikoski et al., 2014;
Wicki, 2015; Mellett et al., 2018; Arfi et al., 2018; Dangelico et al., 2019)
Case study (Fliaster and Kolloch, 2017; Zimmerling et al., 2017; Ba et al., 2013; Cosimato and Troisi, 2015; Jensen and Govindan, 2014; Li, 2014; Chen et al.,
2012; Lee and Kim, 2012; Halila and Rundquist, 2011; Urashima et al., 2012; Yarime, 2007; Zhang and Liang, 2012; Halila et al., 2017; Rossiter and
Smith, 2018; Melander and Pazirandeh, 2019)
Laboratory (Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Koh et al., 2007)
experiment

Source: Authors.

Table 6
Mathematical models used.

Method Articles

Statistical analysis ANOVA/ (Corrocher and Solito, 2017; Muscio et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Francisco J Sa ez-Martínez et al., 2016; Hsiao and Chuang, 2016; de
Regression Azevedo Rezende et al., 2019; Kunapatarawong and Martínez-Ros, 2016; Yan, 2015; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Chen, 2008;
Gluch et al., 2009; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; Qi et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2009; Amore and Bennedsen, 2016; Weng and Lin, 2011;
Chen and Chen, 2017; Cuerva et al., 2014; Dai et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2017; Wakeford et al., 2017; Zhang and Zhu, 2019;
Yao et al., 2019; Song et al., 2018; Saunila et al., 2018; Wong, 2013; Li et al., 2019; He and Jiang, 2019; Hao et al., 2019; Galbreath, 2019;
Du et al., 2018; Chu et al., 2019; Leyva-de la Hiz et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2019; Lin and Ho, 2008; Ardito et al., 2019; Wu, 2013)
Structural Equation Modeling (Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Chen and Hung, 2014; Huang et al., 2016; Lee and Kim, 2011; Olson, 2015; Schweitzer, 2015; Gluch et al., 2009;
Thøgersen and Zhou, 2012; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Hsu et al., 2011; Wu, 2013; Singh et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2016; Handayani et al.,
2017; Leal-Millan et al., 2016; Gürlek and Tuna, 2018; Soewarno et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2019; Albort-Morant et al., 2018; Chu et al., 2019;
Wang, 2019; Suasana and Ekawati, 2018; El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Chang, 2011)
Descriptive Statistics (Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Chou, 2014; Galia et al., 2015; Olsen et al., 2014; Rubashkina et al., 2015; Woo
et al., 2014; Aguilera-Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013; Li et al., 2017; Roper and Tapinos, 2016; Hottenrott et al., 2012)
Variance/AVE (Li and Huang, 2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Hur et al., 2013; Zailani et al., 2014; Dangelico, 2017; Huang and Li, 2017; Huang et al.,
2016; Nanath and Pillai, 2017; Chen et al., 2016; Francisco Jose  S
aez-Martínez et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2018)
Data envelopment analysis (Wang et al., 2017; Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Song et al., 2015; Yangjun and Chuanxu, 2016; Bernauer et al., 2007)
(DEA)
Differential (Zhang et al., 2017)
Analytic network processing (Hsu et al., 2011; Tseng et al., 2013)
(ANP)
Analytic hierarchy process (Khaksar et al., 2015)
(AHP)
FUZZY programming (Chen and Chang, 2013; Gupta and Barua, 2017)
Bootstrap (Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017)
Others (Arenhardt et al., 2016; Forsman, 2013; Nesta et al., 2014; Goeschl and Perino, 2009; Khaksar et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2017; Aldieri et al.,
2019; Khan and Johl, 2019)

Source: Authors.

7. What are the most important research area clusters? - Fig. 11
8. What are the most often-used keywords in this field? - Fig. 13
9. Who are the top researchers in this field? - Fig. 12
10. What are the keywords used in titles and abstracts of arti-
cles? - Fig. 14
The number of publications on GI per year is shown in Fig. 8. The
growing number of such articles since 2007 showed emphasis on
the increasing importance of this issue.
The top 10 authors with the largest number of articles published
in the field of GI are outlined in Table 9.
The largest scientific publications in the field of GI are illustrated
in Table 10.
The top 20 journals with the highest number of GI citations are
shown in Table 11.
The most often-used keywords in the field of GI are presented in
Table 12.
In order to visualize and analyze citation networks, Cit-
eNetExplorer was used; focusing on the topic of the field-
normalized citation impact indicators with 39060 citation links,
out of the 2737 GI citations of published articles from 2007 to 2019
in the database of Web of Science.
The selected journals on the basis of the most frequent citations
have been illustrated in Fig. 9. They were clustered according to
their citation relations. Accordingly, the curved lines show relations
between journals, the citation was upward, i.e. the publication
above the figure had been cited by low-level ones. These publica-
tions were also labeled by their first author’s surname (although
some labels might be displayed to prevent any overlaps). Publica-
tions dedicated to one cluster tended to be closer to each other in
the citation networks. Each group shown in Fig. 9 was related to
nine publication clusters that have been identified and the color of
publication represent groups assigned in the articles. Groups with
low publications; for example, group three with 11% frequency
value was not displayed. Chen (2008) was placed in the center of GI
publications with regard to the high citation rates.
Group 1: Blue, 140 publications
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 11

Table 7
Methods used and research context.

Research Contexts

Method used Importance of GI Green operations other Contexts

Literature (Tariq et al., 2017; Dangelico, 2016; Díaz-García
review et al., 2015; Chapple et al., 2011)
Empirical (Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Fliaster and Kolloch,
studies 2017; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Muscio et al., 2017;
Zhu et al., 2017; Cosimato and Troisi, 2015; Huang
et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2013; Jensen and Govindan,
2014; Olsen et al., 2014; Schweitzer, 2015; Aid
et al., 2017; Amore and Bennedsen, 2016; Huang
et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2016; Yang et al., 2017;
Wakeford et al., 2017; Halila et al., 2017; Wicki,
2015; Rossiter and Smith, 2018; Mellett et al.,
2018; Wong, 2013; Dangelico et al., 2019; Lin and
Ho, 2008; Wang, 2014)
Mathematical (Castellacci and Lie, 2017; Iranmanesh et al., 2017;
models Muscio et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhu et al.,
2017; Francisco J Sa ez-Martínez et al., 2016;
Arenhardt et al., 2016; Forsman, 2013; Galia et al.,
2015; Huang et al., 2016; Hur et al., 2013; Olsen
et al., 2014; Schweitzer, 2015; Thurner and
Proskuryakova, 2014; Goeschl and Perino, 2009;
Hsu and Liu, 2010; Qi et al., 2010; Aguilera-
Caracuel and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013; Amore
and Bennedsen, 2016; Huang et al., 2016; Li et al.,
2017; Lin et al., 2014; Song et al., 2015; Chen et al.,
2016; Hou et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017; Tseng,
Wang, et al., 2013; Wakeford et al., 2017; Wu,
2013; Yan, 2015; Yang et al., 2016; Francisco Jose  la Hiz et al., 2019; El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Bai
S
aez-Martínez et al., 2016; Roper and Tapinos,
2016; Chen et al., 2017; Hottenrott et al., 2012;
Zhang and Zhu, 2019; Yao et al., 2019; Song et al.,
2018; Saunila et al., 2018; Gürlek and Tuna, 2018;
Soewarno et al., 2019; Galbreath, 2019; Chen
et al., 2018; Lin and Ho, 2008; Khan and Johl,
2019)
(Kushwaha and Sharma, 2016; De Laurentis, 2012;
Tietze et al., 2011; Bergquist and So €derholm,
2011; Franceschini et al., 2016; Yin et al., 2018)
(Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Wang et al.,
2017; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Ba et al., 2013;
Chou, 2014; Hillestad et al., 2010; Hsiao and
Chuang, 2016; Leenders and Chandra, 2013;
Soltmann et al., 2015; Woo et al., 2014; Yan, 2015;
Zailani et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2012; Lee and Kim,
2012; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012;
Vergragt and Brown, 2012; Gluch et al., 2009;
Thøgersen and Zhou, 2012; Koh et al., 2007;
Yarime, 2007; Tantayanubutr and Panjakajornsak,
2017; Weng and Lin, 2011; Cuerva et al., 2014;
Huang and Li, 2017; Leal-Milla n et al., 2016; Arfi
et al., 2018; Arfi et al., 2018; Wang, 2019)
(Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar, 2017; Kam-Sing Wong,
2012; Chou, 2014; Gerstlberger et al., 2014;
Kunapatarawong and Martínez-Ros, 2016; Lee
and Kim, 2011; Leenders and Chandra, 2013;
Nesta et al., 2014; Olson, 2015; Woo et al., 2014;
Yan, 2015; Zailani et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2012;
Chen et al., 2012; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed,
2012; Thøgersen and Zhou, 2012; Andereck,
2009; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; Weng and Lin,
2011; Hsu et al., 2011; Cuerva et al., 2014; Huang
and Li, 2017; Singh et al., 2016; Leal-Milla n et al.,
2016; Lin et al., 2019; He and Jiang, 2019; Hao
et al., 2019; Albort-Morant et al., 2018; Leyva-de
et al., 2019; Aldieri et al., 2019; Wu, 2013)
(Toppinen, P€ €ri, Tuppura, and Jantunen, 2017;
ata
Wang, 2014)
(Zimmerling et al., 2017; Chen and Hung, 2014;
Chen, 2008; Hsu et al., 2011; Gluch et al., 2009;
Huang et al., 2009; Halila and Rundquist, 2011;
Urashima et al., 2012; Wossink and Denaux, 2004;
Burki and Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen and Chang,
2013; Chen and Chen, 2017; Gupta and Barua,
2017; Lampikoski et al., 2014; Liao, 2017; Nanath
and Pillai, 2017; Khaksar et al., 2015; Melander
and Pazirandeh, 2019; Chang, 2011; Ferreira et al.,
2019)
(Chen and Hung, 2014; Rubashkina et al., 2015;
Chen, 2008; Hsu et al., 2011; Gluch et al., 2009;
Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; Huang et al.,
2009; Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Burki and
Dahlstrom, 2017; Chen and Chang, 2013; Chen
and Chen, 2017; Gupta and Barua, 2017; Nanath
and Pillai, 2017; Khaksar et al., 2015; de Azevedo
Rezende et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Du et al., 2018;
Suasana and Ekawati, 2018; Ardito et al., 2019;
Khan and Johl, 2019; Shi and Lai, 2013; Toppinen e
t al., 2017)

Source: Authors.

Table 8
Methods used and research area.

Research Area

Method Industrial sector other Sectors

Literature (Dai et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2018) (Tariq et al., 2017; Dangelico, 2016; Díaz-García et al., 2015; Franceschini
review et al., 2016; Shi and Lai, 2013)
Empirical (Zimmerling et al., 2017; Chen and Hung, 2014; Kumar and Rahman, 2015; (Zhu et al., 2017; Zimmerling et al., 2017; Cosimato and Troisi, 2015;
studies Olson, 2014; Chen, 2008; Huang et al., 2009; Halila and Rundquist, 2011; Forsman, 2013; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Halila and
Urashima et al., 2012; van der Ploeg, 2011; Zhang and Liang, 2012; Gupta Rundquist, 2011; Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Dangelico, 2017; Ferreira
and Barua, 2017; Liao, 2017; Wicki, 2015; Arfi et al., 2018; Melander and et al., 2019; Fiott, 2014; Khan and Johl, 2019)
Pazirandeh, 2019; Dangelico et al., 2019; Chang, 2011)
Mathematical (Kumar and Rahman, 2015; Lee and Kim, 2011; Rubashkina et al., 2015; (Corrocher and Solito, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017; Francisco J
models Thurner and Proskuryakova, 2014; Gluch et al., 2009; Andereck, 2009; ez-Martínez et al., 2016; Mourad and Serag Eldin Ahmed, 2012; Goeschl
Sa
Chen, 2008; Hsu and Liu, 2010; Hsu et al., 2011; Iranmanesh et al., 2017; and Perino, 2009; Wossink and Denaux, 2004; Dangelico, 2017; Li et al.,
Gluch et al., 2009; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011; Urashima et al., 2012; 2017; Chu et al., 2019; Fiott, 2014)
van der Ploeg, 2011; Hsu et al., 2011; Chen and Chen, 2017; Liao, 2017;
Albort-Morant et al., 2017; Wu, 2013; Khaksar et al., 2015; Handayani et al.,
2017; Chen et al., 2017; Hottenrott et al., 2012; Zhang and Zhu, 2019; Yao
et al., 2019; Song et al., 2018; Reinl and Kelliher, 2015; Saunila et al., 2018;
Gürlek and Tuna, 2018; Soewarno et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2019; He and Jiang,
2019; Hao et al., 2019; Galbreath, 2019; Du et al., 2018; Albort-Morant et al.,
2018; Wang, 2019; Leyva-de la Hiz et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2018; Suasana
and Ekawati, 2018; El-Kassar and Singh, 2019; Bai et al., 2019; Ardito et al.,
2019; Aldieri et al., 2019; Khan and Johl, 2019)

Source: Authors.

Group 2: Green, 115 publications Then, CiteSpace was used to identify the main clusters of GI
From the central point of Chen (2008), GI knowledge orientation research. As shown in Fig. 11, the high-ranking research areas were
over ten years was obtained; as shown in Fig. 10. “dynamic regional ecosystem GI” followed by “corporate
12 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Table 9 obtained and then studied from the database of Web of Science
List of the top 10 authors who publish on GI between 2007 and using VOSviewer. In this map, researchers who had more scientific
2019.
connections with each other are displayed closer to one another
Author Publications and those with lower connections farther away. Moreover, pres-
Chen, Y. S 4 ence of a researcher in the center of the density map indicated the
Saez-Martínez, F. J 3 importance of that node in a collaborative network of researchers.
Zailani, S 3 In addition, red to blue spectrum signified higher to lower density
Iranmanesh, M 3
weight of network-forming nodes. Furthermore, cluster analysis of
Dayuan Li 3
Juanru Wang 3 the co-authorship network of GI researchers suggested that the
Jin Yang 3 given network consist of 64 distinct c56lusters. As shown, the third
Yajiong Xue 3 cluster (Chen, X.), the fifth cluster (Iranmanesh, M.), the seventh
Luigi Aldieri 2 cluster (Albort-Morant, G.), the thirteenth cluster (Chen, Y.S.) were
Sanjay Kumar Singh 2
the most important ones constituting co-authorship network of
Source: Authors.

Table 10
List of 17 journals with more publications about GI.

Journals Publications

Journal of Cleaner Production 30

Business Strategy and the Environment 22
Sustainability (Switzerland) 6
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 5
European Journal of Innovation Management 4
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 4
Journal of Business Ethics 4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 4
Industry and Innovation 3
Review of Managerial Science 2
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2
International Journal of Innovation Management 2
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2
Quality and Quantity 2
European Planning Studies 2
Innovation Management, Policy and Practice 2
International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 2

Source: Authors.

Table 11 researchers in the field of GI. Researchers’ density map in terms of

Top 20 most cited journals. scientific products of GI have been illustrated in Fig. 12.
Journal Citations The most common keywords used in the GI articles are shown in
Fig. 13. As shown, the magnitude of the circle represents further
Journal of Cleaner Production 1062
Journal of Business Ethics 481
application of that concept or keyword. As it can be seen in the
Business Strategy and the Environment 333 figure; GI, eco-innovation and environmental management were
Transportation Research Part E Logistics and Transportation Review 277 the most commonly used keywords.
European Journal of Innovation Management 145 Labeled keywords employed in the titles and the abstracts of GI
Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 127
articles have been illustrated in Fig. 14. In this respect, the magni-
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 105
Innovation Management, Policy and Practice 104 tude of the circle represented the greater use of those concepts or
Sustainability (Switzerland) 98 keywords in the description of the documents. In addition, the
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 92 color of the circle indicates clusters of concepts. In this map, the
International Journal of Hospitality Management 86
distance of the keywords denoted how much the concepts were
Management Decision 68
Tourism Management 65
related to each other and to the main concepts. The distance of the
Journal of Marketing 65 two nodes also showed the strength of their interrelationship,
Energy Policy 65 namely, shorter distance meant stronger relationship, which
Organization and Environment 62 demonstrated connections of keyword networks that have been
Construction Management and Economics 58
often analyzed in the articles. A line between two keywords rep-
Expert Systems with Applications 58
Supply Chain Management 57 resented collaboration between them.
Industry and Innovation 54

Source: Authors.
4. Discussion

governance”, “environmental management” and “corporate life
cycle dimension” in the first, second and third rankings,
respectively.
In the following, co-authorship network density map of GI re-
searchers from 2007 to 2019 was plotted through information
To what extent research on GI has been evolved in the past
decade? To respond to this question, articles were classified into
four distinct categories by time period. Subsequently the data
gathering process was by means of Excel Spreadsheet software and
as stipulated by Pareto analysis, 20% of the best articles in each time
category were selected (Tables 13e17). The review of the articles
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 13

Fig. 8. Quantity of publications per year/Source: Authors.

Table 12 technologies and senior management support for the imple-

Top 10 most used keywords.
Keywords Records
Green innovation 115
Innovation 55
Sustainable development 25
Environmental management 16
Sustainability 15
environmental regulations 9
environmental economics 8
environmental protection 8 other, coupled with the encouragement of organizations to move
Green product innovation 8 towards the implementation of GI, assessment of the growth and
Supply chain management 7 development of GI, pressures and obstacles in the way of successful
Source: Authors.
suggested an overall change in views and approaches from 2007 to
2009. GI has gained considerable way amongst communities.
Environmental innovations, offering environment-friendly services
and products, waste and pollution reduction, quality human
resource, customer pressure and lack of environmental confidence,
reduction of environmental issues and performance optimization
in organizations and enterprises are pin-pointed by authors and
researchers over the said period as unabated factors behind this
popularity. Hence, 20% of the best articles published in this period
literally addressed the impacts and the advantages of GI in practical
terms. The prominent authors in this circle are shown in Table 13.
Factors were considered with major impact on recognition and
acceptance of GI (management concern, environmental awareness,
assessment of environmental functioning) and correlation between
GI and variables such as competitive advantage, environmental
functioning, green supply chain, satisfaction derived from imple-
mentation of GI on organization level and investment in research
and development, which were the leading topics of articles in the
2010e2012 period. The eminent authors in this Section have been
introduced in Table 14.
Proposing methods for green production and process assess-
ment, assessment of GI techniques, main motives of
environmental-friendly innovations, impact of green organiza-
tional culture on personnel, importance of GI for developing and
industrial countries, pollution management processes and
mentation of GI constituted the singled out topics of the 2013e2015
period. In the majority of cases, research has focused on making
products and services environment-friendly and promoting green
methods and processes. Significant titles and topics covered by the
leading authors of this period are outlined in Table 15.
GI has experienced rapid growth in the 2016e2018 period.
Strong relationship between environmental adaptation, on one
hand and green development of products and services, on the
implementation of GI, effects of GI on employment, study of the
relationship between innovation and sustainable development,
evaluation of approaches towards GI, were key factors for rendering
success in GI and proposing GI as a crucial factor for achieving
economic and environmental success in organizations were the
main topic of concern in the 2016e2018 period. Featured authors of
this period are highlighted in Table 16.
Application of sustainability orientation, support, government
and managers encouragement and providence of government
subsidies to implement GI, utilization of internal and external
knowledge, internal and external pressures, competitive advan-
tage, green technology implementation, knowledge management
and implementation of sustainable development activities, con-
sumer pressure related to green products and service innovation,
examining of GI barriers including: external and internal pressures,
lack of organizational culture and the impact of customer’s pres-
sure, were the issues considered and presented by the researchers
during this period. In Table 17 the most important topics reviewed
and the top authors in 2019 have been shown.
Comparison of the four periods suggests a considerable increase
in the volume of studies in the recent years. The trend outlined in
Fig. 8, indicates the growth of GI methods experimentally and
academically. By the Pareto analysis, 20% of the best articles of the
2007e2009 time-span consists of eight articles, rising to 27 in
2010e2012 period, 43 in 2013e2015 period and 71 in 2016e2018
period. In 2019, the number of cases reached to 29.
By evaluating such a trend, the authors are expected to address
issues in the field of GI, which includes: applying green schemes in
14 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Fig. 9. Citation networks/Source: Authors.

Fig. 10. Citation network evolution from Chen (2008) publication/Source: Authors.

organizations and companies, adopting green business methods,
revealing some opportunities and the dangers of implementing GI,
what are the impacts that GI has on employment. So that in this
way, GI can be used as a business strategy. Mentioning these topics
will help researchers in future research.
4.1. Future research
Research showed that GI has attracted increasing attention. The
main purpose of the literature review is to identify future research
opportunities for those interested in the field. A review of the
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 15

Fig. 11. Main GI research areas/Source: Authors.

Fig. 12. Density map of researchers in terms of scientific products of GI/Source: Authors.

literature can point to the major backgrounds and consequence of
GI, but there are still many areas for research. Here some research
opportunities are defined: Existing studies are mainly related to the
multiple industries and manufacturing industries and only a few
examine the GI in the service sector. Therefore, more attention
should be given to the studies and development of new green
services. In addition, in the sector of industries there is no reference
to metallurgy, chemistry and other major industries. These are
areas that can be examined in the future research. By reviewing the
articles in this study, few articles have been found on the positive
impact that GI has on other areas. These include: the positive
impact that GI has on employment in organizations and
corporations, implementation of various GI projects in the area of
GI in organizations and companies, disclose some GI implementa-
tion barriers. These mentioned cases are some of the gaps in this
field that can be helpful for future research. Although the external
knowledge sharing practices in this study have strongly influenced
the performance of GI, other factors such as GI culture and the
support of senior managers are likely to influence projects in this
area as well. Therefore, future research will be encouraged on the
interaction between sharing external knowledge practices and
other organizational characteristics, most notably the support of
senior organizational managers and the acceptance of green orga-
nizational culture to understand more about the potential
16 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
Fig. 13. Most-often used keywords in GI literature from 2007 to 2019/Source: Authors.
conditions, which causes GI to be proposed within organizations
and companies. This study revealed the process of GI. In addition,
for academic research, GI features in this study were well described
and more research opportunities were proposed. For researchers,
this study clearly emphasizes the importance of GI.
4.2. Limitations of existing research
In this article, a systematic review of the literature (SLR) on GI
has been conducted. It should be noted that the current literature
review had some limitations. In this study the limitations have
been divided into four categories:
1 Literature review was solely restricted to the two “Scopus” and
“Web of Science” databases since other similar sources lacked
adequate information on the concern topic.
2 Efforts were focused on articles published in English academic
journals and the articles published in other languages and other
publications (e.g. conference papers) were avoided to prevent
knowledge loss.
3 Taking in consideration the search method, which was through
“keyword” (Green Innovation) that has been used in publica-
tions, it is possible that some articles that were related to the
research subject, but used different key words were omitted
from the study.
4 Differences in GI activities, differences in laws and regulations
present in this area, prevention of generalization of research
results, limitation of available resources for investment in this
field, lack of support from senior executives of organizations and
companies in implementing GI were the most important
limitations. Finally, the present study, considering the limita-
tions mentioned, has provided significant findings for academic
research.
5. Conclusion
GI for organizations, companies and the whole community is
being considered increasingly. As a result, over the past year the
number of studies on GI development has increased significantly.
Conclusions from the literature on GI were challenging, both
because it is widespread and because of the barriers and con-
straints that are present for its implementation. This study through
organized literature review and analysis of bibliography in the
papers published from 2007 to 2019 in this area, with the aim of
presenting GI practices from a holistic perspective analyzed the
subject in previous years, as a result advancing the theory the
research explored important issue. In this study, 178 papers on GI
were carefully selected. The articles were used in terms of a set of
key features including literature review, bibliographic information
extraction and the implications of GI. Based on the analysis, the
study developed a conceptual framework of GI and outlined po-
tential paths for future research centered on concepts that have
been defined or lost in the existing literature. The results indicated
that studies in this field have been on the rise in 2019, with most
studies on GI being published. In addition, surveys showed that
researchers’ main focus was on Importance of GI (about 35% of
studies). The Multiple Industrial Sectors and Manufacturing in-
dustries were the most widely used sectors in this area. In addition,
among the studies conducted more than 81% of studies were con-
ducted in industry. This indicates a lack of attention among
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 17

Fig. 14. Labeled keywords used in titles and abstracts of GI articles from 2007 to 2019/Source: Authors.

Table 13
The 20% most cited articles of the triennium 2007e2009.

Articles Research Description

Chen (2008) To eliminate environmental problems, environmental management concepts such as green management, green marketing, green production and GI are
of significant importance.
Lin and Ho GI results in the increase of environmental functioning, reduces waste, improves cost-saving and enhances performance in enterprises. Presence of these
(2008) factors are drives and motives that encourage organizations to recognize GI.
Gluch et al. Findings indicate that organizations are capable of raising their capacity to adapt with the requirements of GI and thrive their functioning by adhering to
(2009) the principals of green business (inherit, integrate, evolve).

Source: Authors.

Table 14
The 20% most cited articles of the triennium 2010e2012.

Articles Research Description

Qi et al. (2010) Environmental considerations are key factors in the recognition and acceptance of green construction. Result of the study reveals the ultimate role of
management concern in recognizing green innovational arrangements.
Hillestad et al. Introducing environmental awareness as a crucial and strategical part of business in the way of accepting GI on organizational and enterprise levels.
(2010)
Hsu and Liu (2010) Recommending the balanced score-card for better understanding of financial and non-financial, as well as, inter and intra-relationships in the
assessment of environmental functioning and control of environmental strategies.
Chiou et al. (2011) A study of the process of greening the supply chain, environmental functioning and competitive advantage.
Chou et al. (2012) Emphasizing on the impacts of environmental ethics on green product innovation and green process innovation and an overall positive influence over
competitive advantage. Proposing a solid model that combines the theory of planned behavior and theory of GI adoption. A factor that instigates the
move towards GI methods on an organizational scale.
Chen et al. (2012) Divides GI into 2 Sections. namely innovation and responsive GI. Both with an endogenic (e.g. environmental climate and potential) and exogenic (e.g.
environmental regulations and the potential to attract investment) origin.

Source: Authors.

researchers in the field of services. However, GI is very important in considering the high uncertainty of today’s environment and the
the service sector. In the Research Methods Section, most studies need for systematic thinking, it is important to pay attention to
have focused on structural equations and regressions. However, these methods. Therefore, researchers interested in this field of
18 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474

Table 15
The 20% most cited articles of the triennium 2013e2015.

Articles Research Description

Tseng et al. (2013a) Discussing methods for green supply, concepts of lean production and GI and process evaluation. Factors such as advanced green technologies,
sustainable business models and management of supply chain are introduced as future concerns over the propagation of sustainability.
Tseng et al. (2013b) Assessment of innovative methods with special emphasis on innovative management aspects, product processes and technology.
Cuerva et al. (2014) Main motives of environment-friendly innovations in small and medium entities. How technological potentials like R*D and human capital
reinforces green innovative activities.
Chou (2014) Reviews the environmental behavior of hotel personnel within the concept of green organizational climate and by using personal belief variables.
Díaz-García et al. Discusses environment-friendly innovation as a main topic of research, referring to the motives behind it as the most popular issue.
(2015)
Zailani et al. (2015) How GI is gaining gravity on the domestic and global level as a result of consumer, government and society’s increasing concern over the depletion of
natural resources and environmental pollution. It refers to the automobile industry as the leading generator of industrial waste with grave impacts
on the natural habitat.

Source: Authors.

Table 16
The 20% most cited articles of the triennium 2016e2018.

Articles Research Description

Dangelico (2016)
Gupta and Barua (2017)
Mazzucato (2016)
Li et al. (2017)
Kushwaha and Sharma (2016)
Huang et al. (2016)
Kunapatarawong and Martínez-
Ros (2016)
Zhu et al. (2017)
(Ben Arfi et al., 2018)
Franceschini et al. (2016)
Abdullah et al. (2016)
Saunila et al. (2018)
Kawai et al. (2018)
The research focuses on quantifying the outcomes and factors of success in the development of GPI green products. The findings offer
solid proof such as cost-effectiveness, achieving competitive advantage, increased share of the market and improved sales.
The study aims at selecting small and medium suppliers based on their GI potential. It is a useful source for ranking suppliers.
Organizations are offered a proposed supplier-selection criterion.
Introduction of an approach that encourages states to pursue an “intelligent” approach in leadership of GI. Findings refer to long-term
strategic investments and general policies.
Results revealing how foreign legitimacy and domestic profiting affects the entities’ GI methods.
Proposing an approach for the implementation of green plans and elaborating on how such plans contribute to the establishment of a
relationship between the enterprise functioning and sustainable development. The study discusses the facts and opportunities of green
plans for the best advantage of the entity and sustainable growth.
Reviews the effects of supervisory and customer pressure on green innovations. A conceptual model based on green organizational
responses is proposed. The model is prepared by applying structural equation method for 427 producers.
Increased concern of consumer, state and society for GI is addressed in this research. The extent of damage inflicted on natural resources
and environmental pollution has rendered weight and importance to GI on local and global scale. It refers to the automobile industry as
the leading generator of industrial waste with grave impacts on the natural habitat.
Identifies the statistical results of effective management mechanisms in terms of customer relation in order to achieve an
environmental and economic functioning by means of GSCM techniques.
The results of this study indicate that success in GI through external knowledge and convert them to internal skills, exist a positive
relationship between GI and corporate performance.
A bibliographic analysis of the relation between innovation and sustainability. Findings emphasize the existence of a meaningful
relation between environment-friendly innovation and environmental innovations.
A study of the domestic and foreign obstacles in the way of GI among manufacturers. Findings are analyzed using Partial Least Square-
PCL technique. Results suggest diverse barriers facing the green products, processes and system innovations.
The results of the regression analysis of this study showed that the more an organization or company is sustained in economic,
institutional and social sustainability, the more likely it is to invest in GI. The results also indicated that GI results from economic and
institutional pressures and such innovation can add value to social sustainability.
The findings of this study indicated that stakeholder pressures have a negative impact on green product innovation and even green
process innovation performance. This factor has been introduced as one of the most important barriers to GI in organizations and
companies.

Source: Authors.

study should pay attention to these issues and try to cover the
research gap of GI. It is expected that the results obtained from this
study can serve as an important reference for managers to identify
key factors for GI (which in turn can facilitate the formulation of
strategies for GI activities). These results showed managers that GI
can lead to better organizational performance. In addition, green
product development and cost control for green production with
the help of innovation are also essential.
6. Final considerations
Parallel to the objectives set forth in this research, 178 articles
linked to “Green Innovation” (GI) were studied. Search was made in
“Scopus” and “Web of Science” source-neutral abstract and citation
databases for articles published in the 2007e2019 time-span using
“green innovation” as title, abstract and keyword. Literature related
to GI was broadly reviewed and classified according to methodol-
ogy, field and area of research. All 178 selected articles were closely
examined and literally analyzed by taking note of items such as
field of research, author, approaches, methods and so forth
(Tables 3e12) and (Figs. 3e7). Citation networks and research
clusters were identified by means of CitNetExplorer and CiteSpace
respectively. Concurrently, use was made of VOSviewer software to
identify most-used key terms and construct the bibliometric co-
authored network of leading researchers. The following goals
were determined after examining the articles as described above:
1 Presenting a comprehensive study in the field of GI;
2 Analyzing the bibliographic characteristics of GI as addressed by
the selected articles;
3 Helping students and researchers acquire a better understand-
ing of the overall GI concepts;
4 Determination of principle areas of research in the field of GI
based on the research cluster.
Classification of articles will help identify the scientific gaps
existing in this arena and prove useful for future research. Evidence
shows GI-related issues such as implementation of green plans,
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474 19

Table 17
The 20% most cited articles of the triennium 2019.

Articles Research Description

(El-Kassar, A.-N. and Singh, S.K., This study investigates the factors influencing GI Internal and external pressures, competitive advantage, the implementation of green
2019) technologies and green supply chain management are the most important factors.
Huang et al. (2019) The results of this study indicate that government support and senior executives have been the most important executive factors of GI
in organizations and companies.
san (2019)
Abbas and Sag This study examines the role of knowledge management in GI and sustainable development activities of organizations and companies.
The analysis of the results shows the significant impact of knowledge and management on GI.
Zhang and Zhu (2019) This study examines the relationship between stakeholder’s pressures and GI. Consumer pressure related to green product and service
innovation has a more positive impact on the implementation of GI in society.
Aldieri et al. (2019) This research examines the impact of GI on employment and sustainable development. These findings point to the positive and
significant impact of GI on employment rates. As a result, the positive economic impacts of companies and organizations are leading
towards the implementation of this important factor.
Martinez-Ros and Government policies help to promote more coordination and completion of GI knowledge between the private and public sectors. This
Kunapatarawong (2019) will lead to a greater impact on the transfer of GI knowledge and a more sustainable and green economy. This will lead to a greater
impact on the transfer of GI knowledge and a more sustainable and green economy.
Bai et al. (2019) Government and managers support in implementing GI through government subsidies for GI implementation are the results of this
study.
Leyva-de la Hiz et al. (2019) The results show that organizations and companies that are weak in GI are moving towards producing environmental innovation
through the use of technological capabilities. In addition, these results also point to the severe impact of technology on the development
of GI.
Galbreath (2019) This research examines external and internal pressures, constraints and opportunities for implementation of GI in organizations and
companies.
Chu et al. (2019) Researchers have identified the pressure factors, lack of organizational culture and the impact of customer pressure as one of the most
important barriers to implementing GI in organizations and companies.
He and Jiang (2019) Researchers in this study have introduced senior management support as one of the most important factor of GI in organizations and
companies.

Source: Authors.

employment, GI performance and innovation of green products References

being less frequently addressed and this is considered a grave
challenge to the research and investigation issues in this essential
field.
“Green innovation”, “innovation” and “sustainable develop-
ment” are the most frequently used key-terms in the articles under
study. Meantime, “Chen.Y.S00 and “Saez Martinez, F.J00 were amongst
the most influential authors in this circle.
2019 period was associated with significant growth of GI. Re-
sults suggest that over 35% of research done was linked to the
Importance of GI. Hence, research in the field of GI in the service
sector can be recognized as a main topic of concern in future in-
vestigations. As to the industrial sector, manufacturing industries
were more extensively addressed, with no reference being made to
metallurgical, chemical and other major industries.
At the same time, the study revealed that, in a majority of cases,
research was based on empirical methods and data was collected
by means of questionnaire. In mathematical modelling, regression
and structural equation method were more commonly incorpo-
rated by the authors. Majority of articles were published in “Journal
of Cleaner Production”, “Business Strategy and The Environment”
and “Sustainability (Switzerland)" and the greatest number of ref-
erences to the topic of concern were also made by these publica-
tions. CitEspace and CitNetExplorer tools and software VOSviewer
were also utilized to cluster the articles, to determine citation rates
of the articles and to plot the co-authorship network density map;
respectively.
These findings can prove helpful to researchers in their search
for GI-related sources and references. The SLR-based conceptual
plan presented herein, together with the bibliographic analysis,
offers a broad profile in this field of knowledge for the best
advantage of future research and investigation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Abbas, J., Sag san, M., 2019. Impact of knowledge management practices on green
innovation and corporate sustainable development: a structural analysis.
J. Clean. Prod. 229, 611e620.
Abdullah, M., Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., Jayaraman, K., 2016. Barriers to green
innovation initiatives among manufacturers: the Malaysian case. Rev. Manag.
Sci. 10 (4), 683e709.
Abimbola, T., Lim, M., Hillestad, T., Xie, C., Haugland, S.A., 2010. Innovative corporate
social responsibility: the founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate
brand through “green innovation”. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 19 (6), 440e451.
Aguilera-Caracuel, J., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., 2013. Green innovation and financial
performance: an institutional approach. Organ. Environ. 26 (4), 365e385.
Aid, G., Eklund, M., Anderberg, S., Baas, L., 2017. Expanding roles for the Swedish
waste management sector in inter-organizational resource management.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 124, 85e97.
Albort-Morant, G., Henseler, J., Leal-Mill an, A., Cepeda-Carrio n, G., 2017. Mapping
the field: a bibliometric analysis of green innovation. Sustainability 9 (6), 1011.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A.L., De Marchi, V., 2018. Absorptive capacity and
relationship learning mechanisms as complementary drivers of green innova-
tion performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 22 (2), 432e452.
Aldieri, L., Carlucci, F., Cira, A., Ioppolo, G., Vinci, C.P., 2019. Is green innovation an
opportunity or a threat to employment? An empirical analysis of three main
industrialized areas: the USA, Japan and Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 758e766.
Amore, M.D., Bennedsen, M., 2016. Corporate governance and green innovation.
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 75, 54e72.
Andereck, K.L., 2009. Tourists’ perceptions of environmentally responsible in-
novations at tourism businesses. J. Sustain. Tourism 17 (4), 489e499.
Aragon-Correa, J.A., Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I., 2016. The influence of technology differ-
ences on corporate environmental patents: a resource-based versus an insti-
tutional view of green innovations. Bus. Strat. Environ. 25 (6), 421e434.
Ardito, L., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Pascucci, F., Peruffo, E., 2019. Inter-firm R&D
collaborations and green innovation value: the role of family firms’ involvement
and the moderating effects of proximity dimensions. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (1),
185e197.
Arenhardt, D. L, Battistella, L. F, Grohmann, M. Z, 2016. The influence of the green
innovation in the search of competitive advantage of enterprises of the elec-
trical and electronic brazilian sectors. Int. J. Manag. Innovat. 20 (1) https://
doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616500043.
Arfi, W.B., Hikkerova, L., Sahut, J.-M., 2018. External knowledge sources, green
innovation and performance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129, 210e220.
Ba, S., Lisic, L.L., Liu, Q., Stallaert, J., 2013. Stock market reaction to green vehicle
innovation. Prod. Oper. Manag. 22 (4), 976e990.
Bai, Y., Song, S., Jiao, J., Yang, R., 2019. The impacts of government R&D subsidies on
green innovation: evidence from Chinese energy-intensive firms. J. Clean. Prod.
233, 819e829.
Bergquist, A.-K., So € derholm, K., 2011. Green innovation systems in Swedish in-
dustry, 1960e1989. Bus. Hist. Rev. 85 (4), 677e698.
Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., Sejas Nogareda, J., 2007. Explaining green
20 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
innovation: ten years after Porter’s win-win proposition: how to study the ef-
fects of regulation on corporate environmental innovation? Politische Viertel-
jahresschr. 39, 323e341.
Bigliardi, B., Bertolini, M., Mourad, M., Ahmed, Y.S.E., 2012a. Perception of green
brand in an emerging innovative market. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 15 (4),
514e537.
Bigliardi, B., Bertolini, M., Wong, S.K.S., 2012b. The influence of green product
competitiveness on the success of green product innovation. Eur. J. Innovat.
Manag. 15 (4), 468e490.
Bigliardi, B., Bertolini, M., Yarahmadi, M., Higgins, P.G., 2012c. Motivations towards
environmental innovation. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 15 (4), 400e420. https://
doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272358.
Burki, U., Dahlstrom, R., 2017. Mediating effects of green innovations on interfirm
cooperation. Australas. Mark. J. 25 (2), 149e156.
Caiazza, R., Volpe, T., Stanton, J.L., Griffith, C.J., McCarthy, B., Liu, H.-B., Chen, T., 2016.
Innovations in the agro-food system. Br. Food J. 118 (6), 1334e1349.
Cao, H., Chen, Z., 2019. The driving effect of internal and external environment on
green innovation strategy-The moderating role of top management’s environ-
mental awareness. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 10 (3), 342e361. https://doi.org/
10.1108/nbri-05-2018-0028.
Castellacci, F., Lie, C.M., 2017. A taxonomy of green innovators: empirical evidence
from South Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 143, 1036e1047.
Chang, C.-H., 2011. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive
advantage: the mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 104 (3),
361e370.
Chapple, K., Kroll, C., Lester, T.W., Montero, S., 2011. Innovation in the green econ-
omy: an extension of the regional innovation system model? Econ. Dev. Q. 25
(1), 5e25.
Chen, P.-C., Hung, S.-W., 2014. Collaborative green innovation in emerging coun-
tries: a social capital perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34 (3), 347e363.
Chen, X., Yi, N., Zhang, L., Li, D., 2018. Does institutional pressure foster corporate
green innovation? Evidence from China’s top 100 companies. J. Clean. Prod. 188,
304e311.
Chen, Y., Liu, J., Li, Y., Wang, W., 2017. Mode and mechanism of green innovation
based on user involvement electronic platform under Chinese green education
context. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13 (10), 6619e6634.
Chen, Y.-S., 2008. The driver of green innovation and green imageegreen core
competence. J. Bus. Ethics 81 (3), 531e543.
Chen, Y.S., Chang, C.H., Wu, F.S., 2012. Origins of green innovations: the differences
between proactive and reactive green innovations. Manag. Decis. 50 (3),
368e398.
Chen, Y.-S., Chang, K.-C., 2013. The nonlinear effect of green innovation on the
corporate competitive advantage. Qual. Quantity 47 (1), 271e286.
Chen, Y.-S., Chang, T.-W., Lin, C.-Y., Lai, P.-Y., Wang, K.-H., 2016. The influence of
proactive green innovation and reactive green innovation on green product
development performance: the mediation role of green creativity. Sustain-
ability 8 (10), 966.
Chen, Z., Chen, G.-H., 2017. The influence of green technology cognition in adoption
behavior: on the consideration of green innovation policy perception’s
moderating effect. J. Discrete Math. Sci. Cryptogr. 20 (6e7), 1551e1559.
Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F., Chung, S.H., 2011. The influence of greening the
suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive
advantage in Taiwan. Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 47 (6), 822e836.
Chou, C.-J., 2014. Hotels’ environmental policies and employee personal environ-
mental beliefs: interactions and outcomes. Tourism Manag. 40, 436e446.
Chou, C.-J., Chen, K.-S., Wang, Y.-Y., 2012. Green practices in the restaurant industry
from an innovation adoption perspective: evidence from Taiwan. Int. J. Hospit.
Manag. 31 (3), 703e711.
Chu, Z., Wang, L., Lai, F., 2019. Customer pressure and green innovations at third
party logistics providers in China. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 30 (1), 57e75.
Cooke, P., 2012. Transversality and transition: green innovation and new regional
path creation. Eur. Plann. Stud. 20 (5), 817e834.
Corrocher, N., Solito, I., 2017. How do firms capture value from environmental in-
novations? An empirical analysis on European SMEs. Ind. Innovat. 24 (5),
569e585.
Cosimato, S., Troisi, O., 2015. Green supply chain management: practices and tools
for logistics competitiveness and sustainability. The DHL case study. TQM J. 27
(2), 256e276.
Cuerva, M.C., Triguero-Cano, A.,  Co rcoles, D., 2014. Drivers of green and non-green
innovation: empirical evidence in Low-Tech SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 104e113.
Dai, J., Cantor, D.E., Montabon, F.L., 2017. Examining corporate environmental pro-
activity and operational performance: a strategy-structure-capabilities-
performance perspective within a green context. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193,
272e280.
Dangelico, R.M., 2016. Green product innovation: where we are and where we are
going. Bus. Strat. Environ. 25 (8), 560e576.
Dangelico, R.M., 2017. What drives green product development and how do
different antecedents affect market performance? A survey of Italian companies
with eco-labels. Bus. Strat. Environ. 26 (8), 1144e1161.
Dangelico, R.M., Nastasi, A., Pisa, S., 2019. A comparison of family and nonfamily
small firms in their approach to green innovation: a study of Italian companies
in the agri-food industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (7), 1434e1448.
de Azevedo Rezende, L., Bansi, A.C., Alves, M.F.R., Galina, S.V.R., 2019. Take your
time: examining when green innovation affects financial performance in
multinationals. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 993e1003.
De Laurentis, C., 2012. Renewable energy innovation and governance in Wales: a
regional innovation system approach. Eur. Plann. Stud. 20 (12), 1975e1996.
Díaz-García, C., Gonza  Sa
lez-Moreno, A., ez-Martínez, F.J., 2015. Eco-innovation:
insights from a literature review. Innovation 17 (1), 6e23.
Du, L., Zhang, Z., Feng, T., 2018. Linking green customer and supplier integration
with green innovation performance: the role of internal integration. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 27 (8), 1583e1595.
Ebrahimi, P., Mirbargkar, S.M., 2017. Green entrepreneurship and green innovation
for SME development in market turbulence. Euras. Bus. Rev. 7 (2), 203e228.
El-Kassar, A.-N., Singh, S.K., 2019. Green innovation and organizational perfor-
mance: the influence of big data and the moderating role of management
commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 144, 483e498.
Ferreira, J.J., Fernandes, C.I., Kraus, S., 2019. Entrepreneurship research: mapping
intellectual structures and research trends. Rev. Manag. Sci. 13 (1), 181e205.
Fiott, D., 2014. Reducing the environmental bootprint? Competition and regulation
in the greening of Europe’s defense sector. Organ. Environ. 27 (3), 263e278.
Fliaster, A., Kolloch, M., 2017. Implementation of green innovationseThe impact of
stakeholders and their network relations. R D Manag. 47 (5), 689e700.
Forsman, H., 2013. Environmental innovations as a source of competitive advantage
or vice versa? Bus. Strat. Environ. 22 (5), 306e320.
Franceschini, S., Faria, L.G., Jurowetzki, R., 2016. Unveiling scientific communities
about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable
terms. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 72e83.
Galbreath, J., 2019. Drivers of green innovations: the impact of export intensity,
women leaders, and absorptive capacity. J. Bus. Ethics 158 (1), 47e61.
Galia, F., Ingham, M., Pekovic, S., 2015. Incentives for green innovations in French
manufacturing firms. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 14 (1), 3e15.
Gerstlberger, W., Præst Knudsen, M., Stampe, I., 2014. Sustainable development
strategies for product innovation and energy efficiency. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23
(2), 131e144.
Gluch, P., Gustafsson, M., Thuvander, L., 2009. An absorptive capacity model for
green innovation and performance in the construction industry. Construct.
Manag. Econ. 27 (5), 451e464.
Goeschl, T., Perino, G., 2009. On backstops and boomerangs: environmental R&D
under technological uncertainty. Energy Econ. 31 (5), 800e809.
Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2017. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their
green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J. Clean. Prod. 152,
242e258.
Gürlek, M., Tuna, M., 2018. Reinforcing competitive advantage through green
organizational culture and green innovation. Serv. Ind. J. 38 (7e8), 467e491.
Halila, F., Rundquist, J., 2011. The development and market success of eco-in-
novations. Eur. J. Innovat. Manag. 14 (3), 278e302.
Halila, F., Tell, J., Hoveskog, M., Lu, Q., 2017. The diffusion of green innovation
technology in the construction industry: European passive house knowledge
transfer to China. Progr. Indus. Ecol. Int. J. 11 (2), 164e181.
Handayani, R., Wahyudi, S., Suharnomo, S., 2017. The effects of corporate social
responsibility on manufacturing industry performance: the mediating role of
social collaboration and green innovation. Bus. Theor. Pract. 18, 152e159.
Hao, Y., Fan, C., Long, Y., Pan, J., 2019. The role of returnee executives in improving
green innovation performance of Chinese manufacturing enterprises: implica-
tions for sustainable development strategy. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (5), 804e818.
He, X., Jiang, S., 2019. Does gender diversity matter for green innovation? Bus. Strat.
Environ. 28 (7), 1341e1356.
Hillestad, T, Xie, C, Haugland, S.A, 2010. Innovative corporate social responsibility:
the founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate brand through “green
innovation”. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 19 (6), 440e451.
Hottenrott, H., Rexhauser, S., Veugelers, R., 2012. Green Innovations and Organi-
zational Change: Making Better Use of Environmental Technology. ZEW-Centre
for European Economic Research Discussion. Paper(12-043).
Hou, J., Chen, H., Xu, J., 2017. External knowledge sourcing and green innovation
growth with environmental and energy regulations: evidence from
manufacturing in China. Sustainability 9 (3), 342.
Hsiao, T.-Y., Chuang, C.-M., 2016. Creating shared value through implementing
green practices for star hotels. Asia Pac. J. Tourism Res. 21 (6), 678e696.
Hsu, C.-W., Hu, A.H., Chiou, C.-Y., Chen, T.-C., 2011. Using the FDM and ANP to
construct a sustainability balanced scorecard for the semiconductor industry.
Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (10), 12891e12899.
Hsu, Y.-L., Liu, C.-C., 2010. Environmental performance evaluation and strategy
management using balanced scorecard. Environ. Monit. Assess. 170 (1e4),
599e607.
Huang, J.-W., Li, Y.-H., 2017. Green innovation and performance: the view of orga-
nizational capability and social reciprocity. J. Bus. Ethics 145 (2), 309e324.
Huang, X.-x., Hu, Z.-p., Liu, C.-s., Yu, D.-j., Yu, L.-f., 2016. The relationships between
regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green
innovation performance. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3423e3433.
Huang, Y.-C., Ding, H.-B., Kao, M.-R., 2009. Salient stakeholder voices: family busi-
ness and green innovation adoption. J. Manag. Organ. 15 (3), 309e326.
Huang, Z., Liao, G., Li, Z., 2019. Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting
green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 144, 148e156.
Hur, W.M., Kim, Y., Park, K., 2013. Assessing the effects of perceived value and
satisfaction on customer loyalty: a ‘Green’perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 20 (3), 146e156.
Iranmanesh, M., Zailani, S., Moeinzadeh, S., Nikbin, D., 2017. Effect of green inno-
vation on job satisfaction of electronic and electrical manufacturers’ employees
through job intensity: personal innovativeness as moderator. Rev. Manag. Sci. 11
 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
(2), 299e313.
Jensen, J.K., Govindan, K., 2014. Assessment of renewable bioenergy application: a
case in the food supply chain industry. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 254e263.
Kapoor, K.K., Dwivedi, Y.K., Williams, M.D., 2014. Examining consumer acceptance
of green innovations using innovation characteristics: a conceptual approach.
Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 13 (2), 135e160.
Kawai, N., Strange, R., Zucchella, A., 2018. Stakeholder pressures, EMS imple-
mentation, and green innovation in MNC overseas subsidiaries. Int. Bus. Rev. 27
(5), 933e946.
Khaksar, E., Kahanaali, R.A., Tizroo, A., Rad, F.B., 2015. An analysis of the effective
actions on green supply chain management using ISM method (Studying the
petrochemical industry). J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 6 (7), 1987e1996.
Khan, P.A., Johl, S.K., 2019. Nexus of comprehensive green innovation, environ-
mental management system-14001-2015 and firm performance. Cogent Bus.
Manag. 6 (1), 1691833.
Koh, S.L., Birkin, F., Lewis, L., Cashman, A., 2007. Current issues of sustainable pro-
duction, eco-supply chains and eco-logistics for sustainable development. Int. J.
Global Environ. Issues 7 (1), 88e101.
Kumar, V., Rahman, Z., 2015. Zero-B: introducing green innovation in water puri-
fiers. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 4 (2), 169e181.
Kunapatarawong, R., Martínez-Ros, E., 2016. Towards green growth: how does
green innovation affect employment? Res. Pol. 45 (6), 1218e1232.
Kushwaha, G.S., Sharma, N.K., 2016. Green initiatives: a step towards sustainable
development and firm’s performance in the automobile industry. J. Clean. Prod.
121, 116e129.
Lampikoski, T., Westerlund, M., Rajala, R., Mo €ller, K., 2014. Green innovation games:
value-creation strategies for corporate sustainability. Calif. Manag. Rev. 57 (1),
88e116.
Leal-Milla n, A., Roldan, J.L., Leal-Rodríguez, A.L., Ortega-Gutie rrez, J., 2016. IT and
relationship learning in networks as drivers of green innovation and customer
capital: evidence from the automobile sector. J. Knowl. Manag. 20 (3), 444e464.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2015-0203.
Lee, K.H., Kim, J.W., 2011. Integrating suppliers into green product innovation
development: an empirical case study in the semiconductor industry. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 20 (8), 527e538.
Lee, K.-H., Kim, J.-W., 2012. Green new product development and supplier
involvement: strategic partnership for green innovation. Int. J. Innovat. Sustain.
Dev. 6 (3), 290e304.
Leenders, M.A., Chandra, Y., 2013. Antecedents and consequences of green inno-
vation in the wine industry: the role of channel structure. Technol. Anal. Strat.
Manag. 25 (2), 203e218.
Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I., Hurtado-Torres, N., Bermúdez-Edo, M., 2019. The heterogeneity
of levels of green innovation by firms in international contexts: a study based
on the home-country institutional profile. Organ. Environ. 32 (4), 508e527.
Li, B., 2014. Basin management supported by regional green innovation system and
related big data project evaluation framework in zhejiang, east China. Open
Cybern. Syst. J. 8 (1).
Li, D., Tang, F., Jiang, J., 2019. Does environmental management system foster
corporate green innovation? The moderating effect of environmental regula-
tion. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 31 (10), 1242e1256.
Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S., Huang, M., 2017. The impact of legitimacy
pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: evidence from China
top 100. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 41e49.
Li, W., Rubin, T.H., Onyina, P.A., 2013. Comparing solar water heater popularization
policies in China, Israel and Australia: the roles of governments in adopting
green innovations. Sustain. Dev. 21 (3), 160e170.
Li, Y.-H., Huang, J.-W., 2017. The moderating role of relational bonding in green
supply chain practices and performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 23 (4),
290e299.
Liao, W.-W., 2017. A study on the correlations among environmental education,
environment-friendly product development, and green innovation capability in
an enterprise. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13 (8), 5435e5444.
Lin, C.-Y., Ho, Y.-H., 2008. An empirical study on logistics service providers’ inten-
tion to adopt green innovations. J. Technol. Manag. Innovat. 3 (1), 17e26.
Lin, H., Zeng, S., Ma, H., Qi, G., Tam, V.W., 2014. Can political capital drive corporate
green innovation? Lessons from China. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 63e72.
Lin, J., Lobo, A., Leckie, C., 2019. The influence of green brand innovativeness and
value perception on brand loyalty: the moderating role of green knowledge.
J. Strat. Market. 27 (1), 81e95.
Linder, M., 2012. A problem-solving perspective on strategies for appropriating
environmental valueesome implications from considering institutional solu-
tions to social dilemmas. Int. J. Innovat. Sustain. Dev. 6 (2), 164e183.
Martínez-Ros, E., Kunapatarawong, R., 2019. Green innovation and knowledge: the
role of size. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (6), 1045e1059.
Mazzucato, M., 2016. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for
innovation policy. Ind. Innovat. 23 (2), 140e156.
Melander, L., Pazirandeh, A., 2019. Collaboration beyond the supply network for
green innovation: insight from 11 cases. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (4),
509e523.
Mellett, S., Kelliher, F., Harrington, D., 2018. Network-facilitated green innovation
capability development in micro-firms. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 25 (6),
1004e1024.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Maria Dangelico, R., Rotolo, D., Albino, V., 2011. Organiza-
tional factors and technological features in the development of green in-
novations: evidence from patent analysis. Innovation 13 (3), 291e310.
21
Muscio, A., Nardone, G., Stasi, A., 2017. How does the search for knowledge drive
firms’ eco-innovation? Evidence from the wine industry. Ind. Innovat. 24 (3),
298e320.
Nanath, K., Pillai, R.R., 2017. The influence of green is practices on competitive
advantage: mediation role of green innovation performance. Inf. Syst. Manag.
34 (1), 3e19.
Nesta, L., Vona, F., Nicolli, F., 2014. Environmental policies, competition and inno-
vation in renewable energy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67 (3), 396e411.
Nielsen, K.R, Reisch, L.A, Thøgersen, J, 2016. Sustainable user innovation from a
policy perspective: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 65e77.
Olsen, M.C., Slotegraaf, R.J., Chandukala, S.R., 2014. Green claims and message
frames: how green new products change brand attitude. J. Market. 78 (5),
119e137.
Olson, E.L., 2014. Green innovation value chain analysis of PV solar power. J. Clean.
Prod. 64, 73e80.
Olson, E.L., 2015. Green Innovation Value Chain Frame of Comparisons: Market and
Public Policy Implications.
Qi, G., Shen, L.Y., Zeng, S., Jorge, O.J., 2010. The drivers for contractors’ green
innovation: an industry perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (14), 1358e1365.
Reinl, L., Kelliher, F., 2015. The Green Innovation and Future Technologies (GIFT)
Concept, Green Innovation and Future Technology: Engaging Regional SMEs in
the Green Economy. Springer, pp. 27e40.
Roper, S., Tapinos, E., 2016. Taking risks in the face of uncertainty: an exploratory
analysis of green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 112, 357e363.
Rossiter, W., Smith, D.J., 2018. Green innovation and the development of sustainable
communities: the case of Blueprint Regeneration’s Trent Basin development.
Int. J. Enterpren. Innovat. 19 (1), 21e32.
Roy, M., Khastagir, D., 2016. Exploring role of green management in enhancing
organizational efficiency in petro-chemical industry in India. J. Clean. Prod. 121,
109e115.
Rubashkina, Y., Galeotti, M., Verdolini, E., 2015. Environmental regulation and
competitiveness: empirical evidence on the Porter Hypothesis from European
manufacturing sectors. Energy Pol. 83, 288e300.
S
aez-Martínez, F.J., Avellaneda-Rivera, L., Gonza  2016a. Open and
lez-Moreno, A.,
green innovation in the hospitality industry. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. (EEMJ) 15
(7).
S
aez-Martínez, F.J., Díaz-García, C., Gonzalez-Moreno, A., 2016b. Firm technological
trajectory as a driver of eco-innovation in young small and medium-sized en-
terprises. J. Clean. Prod. 138, 28e37.
Saudi, M.H.M., Obsatar Sinaga, G., Zainudin, Z., 2019. The effect of green innovation
in influencing sustainable performance: moderating role of managerial envi-
ronmental concern. Int. J. Sup. Chain. Mgt. 8 (1), 303.
Saunila, M., Ukko, J., Rantala, T., 2018. Sustainability as a driver of green innovation
investment and exploitation. J. Clean. Prod. 179, 631e641.
Schumpeter, J., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper, New York, 1975.
Schweitzer, F.M., 2015. The negative effect of A perceived lack of an installed base
on technology adoption. Int. J. Innovat. Manag. 19, 1550021, 02.
Shamah, R. A. M, 2012. Innovation within green service supply chains for a value
creation. J. Model. Manag. 7 (3), 357e374 doi:101746561211283313/1108.
Shi, Q., Lai, X., 2013. Identifying the underpin of green and low carbon technology
innovation research: a literature review from 1994 to 2010. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 80 (5), 839e864.
Singh, M.P., Chakraborty, A., Roy, M., 2016. The link among innovation drivers, green
innovation and business performance: empirical evidence from a developing
economy. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 12 (4), 316e334.
Singh, R., Shankar, R., Shamah, R.A., 2012. Innovation within green service supply
chains for a value creation. J. Model. Manag. 7 (3), 357e374.
Soewarno, N., Tjahjadi, B., Fithrianti, F., 2019. Green innovation strategy and green
innovation. Manag. Decis. 57 (11), 3061e3078.
Soltmann, C., Stucki, T., Woerter, M., 2015. The impact of environmentally friendly
innovations on value added. Environ. Resour. Econ. 62 (3), 457e479.
Song, M., Chen, M., Wang, S., 2018. Global supply chain integration, financing re-
strictions, and green innovation. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 29 (2), 539e554.
Song, M., Tao, J., Wang, S., 2015. FDI, technology spillovers and green innovation in
China: analysis based on Data Envelopment Analysis. Ann. Oper. Res. 228 (1),
47e64.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature
review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9 (1), 53e80.
Stanovcic, T., Pekovic, S., Bouziri, A., 2015. The effect of knowledge management on
environmental innovation. Baltic J. Manag. 10 (4), 413.
Suasana, I.G.A.K.G., Ekawati, N.W., 2018. Environmental commitment and green
innovation reaching success new products of creative industry in Bali. J. Bus.
Retail Manag. Res. 12 (4).
Tang, M., Walsh, G., Lerner, D., Fitza, M.A., Li, Q., 2018. Green innovation, managerial
concern and firm performance: an empirical study. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (1),
39e51.
Tantayanubutr, M., Panjakajornsak, V., 2017. Impact of green innovation on the
sustainable performance of Thai food industry. Bus. Econ. Horiz. 13
(1232e2017-2416), 192e209.
Tariq, A., Badir, Y.F., Tariq, W., Bhutta, U.S., 2017. Drivers and consequences of green
product and process innovation: a systematic review, conceptual framework,
and future outlook. Technol. Soc. 51, 8e23.
Thøgersen, J., Zhou, Y., 2012. Chinese consumers’ adoption of a ‘green’-
innovationeThe case of organic food. J. Market. Manag. 28 (3e4), 313e333.
Thurner, T., Proskuryakova, L.N., 2014. Out of the coldethe rising importance of
22 S. Karimi Takalo et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 279 (2021) 122474
environmental management in the corporate governance of Russian oil and gas
producers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (5), 318e332.
Tietze, F., Schiederig, T., Herstatt, C., 2011. What is green innovation?eA quantitative
literature review. In: The XXII ISPIM Conference.
Toppinen, A., Pa €ta
€ri, S., Tuppura, A., Jantunen, A., 2017. The European pulp and paper
industry in transition to a bio-economy: a Delphi study. Futures 88, 1e14.
Tseng, M.-L., Tan, R.R., Siriban-Manalang, A.B., 2013a. Sustainable consumption and
production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice. J. Clean.
Prod. 40, 1e5.
Tseng, M.-L., Wang, R., Chiu, A.S., Geng, Y., Lin, Y.H., 2013b. Improving performance
of green innovation practices under uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 71e82.
Urashima, K., Yokoo, Y., Nagano, H., 2012. S&T policy and foresight investigation-
impacts in Japan. Foresight-J. Fut. Stud., Strat. Think. Pol. 14 (1), 15e25.
van der Ploeg, F., 2011. Macroeconomics of sustainability transitions: second-best
climate policy, Green Paradox, and renewables subsidies. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. 1 (1), 130e134.
Vergragt, P.J., Brown, H.S., 2012. The challenge of energy retrofitting the residential
housing stock: grassroots innovations and socio-technical system change in
Worcester, MA. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 24 (4), 407e420.
Wakeford, J.J., Gebreeyesus, M., Ginbo, T., Yimer, K., Manzambi, O., Okereke, C.,
Black, M., Mulugetta, Y., 2017. Innovation for green industrialisation: an
empirical assessment of innovation in Ethiopia’s cement, leather and textile
sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 503e511.
Wang, C.-H., 2019. How organizational green culture influences green performance
and competitive advantage. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 30 (4), 666e683.
Wang, J., 2014. R&D activities in start-up firms: what can we learn from founding
resources? Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 26 (5), 517e529.
Wang, W., Yu, B., Yan, X., Yao, X., Liu, Y., 2017. Estimation of innovation’s green
performance: a range-adjusted measure approach to assess the unified effi-
ciency of China’s manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 919e924.
Wei, Z., Yuguo, J., Jiaping, W., 2015. Greenization of venture capital and green
innovation of Chinese entity industry. Ecol. Indicat. 51, 31e41.
Weng, H.-H.R., Chen, J.-S., Chen, P.-C., 2015. Effects of green innovation on envi-
ronmental and corporate performance: a stakeholder perspective. Sustain-
ability 7 (5), 4997e5026.
Weng, M.-H., Lin, C.-Y., 2011. Determinants of green innovation adoption for small
and medium-size enterprises (SMES). Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5 (22), 9154.
Wicki, S., 2015. Diversification through green innovations. UWF Umw. Wirtsch.
Forum 23 (4), 197e203.
Wong, S.K.S., 2013. Environmental requirements, knowledge sharing and green
innovation: empirical evidence from the electronics industry in China. Bus.
Strat. Environ. 22 (5), 321e338.
Woo, C., Chung, Y., Chun, D., Han, S., Lee, D., 2014. Impact of green innovation on
labor productivity and its determinants: an analysis of the Korean
manufacturing industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (8), 567e576.
Wossink, A., Denaux, Z.S., 2007. Efficiency and innovation offsets in non-point
source pollution control and the role of education. Int. J. Agric. Resour.
Govern. Ecol. 6 (1), 79e95.
Wu, G.C., 2013. The influence of green supply chain integration and environmental
uncertainty on green innovation in Taiwan’s IT industry. Supply Chain Manag.:
Int. J. 18 (5), 539e552.
Yan, M.-R., 2015. Project-based market competition and policy implications for
sustainable developments in building and construction sectors. Sustainability 7
(11), 15423e15448.
Yang, L.-R., Chen, J.-H., Li, H.-H., 2016. Validating a model for assessing the associ-
ation among green innovation, project success and firm benefit. Qual. Quantity
50 (2), 885e899.
Yang, Z., Sun, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., 2017. Green, green, it’s green: a triad model of
technology, culture, and innovation for corporate sustainability. Sustainability 9
(8), 1369.
Yangjun, R., Chuanxu, W., 2016. Research on the regional difference and spatial
effect of green innovation efficiency of industrial enterprises in China. Rev.
Iberica Sistemas e Tecnol. Info. (E10), 373.
Yao, Q., Zeng, S., Sheng, S., Gong, S., 2019. Green innovation and brand equity:
moderating effects of industrial institutions. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 1e30.
Yarime, M., 2007. Promoting green innovation or prolonging the existing technol-
ogy. J. Ind. Ecol. 11 (4), 117e139.
Yin, J., Gong, L., Wang, S., 2018. Large-scale assessment of global green innovation
research trends from 1981 to 2016: a bibliometric study. J. Clean. Prod. 197,
827e841.
Zailani, S., Amran, A., Jumadi, H., 2011. Green innovation adoption among logistics
service providers in Malaysia: an exploratory study on the managers’ percep-
tions. Int. Bus. Manag. 5 (3), 104e113.
Zailani, S., Govindan, K., Iranmanesh, M., Shaharudin, M.R., Chong, Y.S., 2015. Green
innovation adoption in automotive supply chain: the Malaysian case. J. Clean.
Prod. 108, 1115e1122.
Zailani, S., Iranmanesh, M., Nikbin, D., Jumadi, H.B., 2014. Determinants and envi-
ronmental outcome of green technology innovation adoption in the trans-
portation industry in Malaysia. Asian J. Technol. Innovat. 22 (2), 286e301.
Zhang, F., Zhu, L., 2019. Enhancing corporate sustainable development: stakeholder
pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28
(6), 1012e1026.
Zhang, J., Liang, X.-j., 2012. Promoting green ICT in China: a framework based on
innovation system approaches. Telecommun. Pol. 36 (10e11), 997e1013.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., Tang, W., 2017. Coordinating a supply chain with green inno-
vation in a dynamic setting. 4OR 15 (2), 133e162.
Zhu, Q., Feng, Y., Choi, S.-B., 2017. The role of customer relational governance in
environmental and economic performance improvement through green supply
chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 46e53.
Zimmerling, E., Purtik, H., Welpe, I.M., 2017. End-users as co-developers for novel
green products and servicesean exploratory case study analysis of the inno-
vation process in incumbent firms. J. Clean. Prod. 162, S51eS58.