210
Tạp chí
Kinh tế - Kỹ thuật
demonstrates a significant effect on horizontal green product diversification. Contrary to the
developed hypotheses, both regulation stakeholders and community stakeholders have no significant
effect on horizontal and vertical green product diversification. Green product diversification is
mainly driven by economic or marketing pressures. This study enriches the literature on green
innovation and the stakeholder theory.
The results unveil two management implications. First, contrary to some previous studies that
firms respond to different stakeholders in a similar way (Murillo-Lunaet al., 2008), firms respond
selectively and differently to different stakeholder groups. Although foreign customers exert pressure
on firms to implement both horizontal and vertical green product diversification, general investors
only attribute higher weight to vertical green product diversification. In this dynamic environment,
firms should adopt differentiation strategy based on their strategic orientation. Exportation-
oriented firms should implement both horizontal and vertical green product diversification.
However, domestic-orientated firms may only respond to horizontal green product diversification
(id significant improvements of existing products).
Our findings reveal that export markets are capable of stimulating the diffusion of horizontal
and vertical green product diversification. Hence, policymakers can stipulate a prerequisite in
their global purchase program. MNEs also can stimulate their network of suppliers to adopt green
product practices. As a tool for sustainable development, many countries have established the eco-
labeling program which could encourage firms wanting to go internationalization to integrate the
eco-labeling programs.
This study has certain limitations. First, we cannot analyze the effect of business environment
on the relationship between stakeholders’ pressure and the selection of green product diversification
strategy. Uncertainty, complexity, and munificence in the business environment may moderate the
relationship between the stakeholder pressure and firms’ green innovation strategy (Rothenberg
and Zyglidopoulos, 2007). Second, although we have controlled firms’ size to reduce firms’
heterogeneity, other characteristics, such as firms’ age, R&D intensity, and advertising intensity
may also affect firms’ green product decision (Takahashi and Nakamura, 2010). Future empirical
analyses could further study the business environment and firms’ characteristics influencing green
innovation strategy.
REFERENCES
1. Albino V, Balice A, Dangelico RM. 2009. Environmental strategies and green product development:
an overview on sustainability-driven companies.Business Strategy and the Environment18:83–96.
2. Albornoz F, Cole MA, Elliott RJR, Ercolani MG. 2009. In search of environmental spillovers.
World Economy32: 136–163.
3. Amaeshi KM, Crane A. 2006. Stakeholder engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management13(5): 245–260.
4. Aragón-Correa JA. 1998. Strategic proactivity andfirm approach to the natural environment.
Academy of Management Journal41: 556–567.
5. Armbruster H, Bikfalvi A, Kinkel S, Lay G. 2008. Organizational innovation: The challenge of
measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys.Technovation28: 644–657.
6. Babiak A, Trendafilova S. 2011. CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures
to adopt green management practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management18:11–24.
7. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to
adopt green management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 11–24.
Gunningham, N. Corporate Environmental Responsibility; Ashgate: Hampshire, UK, 2009.
