Revista de economía mundial 67, 2024, 145-173

ISSN: 1576-0162

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/rem.vi67.8089

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd

IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

Eco-innovación En coopErativas y EmprEsas dE capital

industrialEs: un análisis comparativo

Imanol Basterretxea

Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

imanol.basterretxea@ehu.eus

Ana Fernández-Sainz

Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

ana.fernandez@ehu.eus

Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria

Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

jorge.gutierrez@ehu.eus

Josu Santos-Larrazabal

Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)

josu.santos@ehu.eus

Recibido: diciembre 2023; aceptado: mayo 2024

abstract

The study examines eco-innovation in cooperatives and investor-owned

ﬁrms, analysing their primary driving factors. After evaluating responses

from 718 industrial establishments in the Basque Country, including 57

cooperatives, we conclude that cooperative principles do not guarantee

success in eco-innovation. The voluntariness of eco-innovation is no more

relevant in cooperatives than in other ﬁrms; instead, regulatory pressures

and market forces are the primary drivers. Despite facing greater limitations,

cooperatives achieve similar environmental beneﬁts. The results reinforce the

importance of public policies for an effective ecological transition, and support

the need for a re-evaluation based on empirical evidence of certain postulates

in social economy literature.

Keywords: Eco-innovation, Innovation, Cooperatives, Ecological Transition.

rEsumEn

El estudio examina la ecoinnovación en cooperativas y empresas de

capital, analizando sus factores impulsores. Tras evaluar respuestas de 718

establecimientos industriales vascos, incluyendo 57 cooperativas, se concluye

que los principios cooperativos no aseguran el éxito en ecoinnovación. La

voluntariedad de la ecoinnovación no es más relevante en las cooperativas,

siendo las presiones regulatorias y fuerzas del mercado los principales

impulsores. A pesar de enfrentar mayores limitaciones, las cooperativas logran

beneﬁcios medioambientales similares. Los resultados refuerzan la importancia

de las políticas públicas para una efectiva transición ecológica. Así mismo,

instan a reevaluar con evidencia empírica algunos postulados de la literatura

de la economía social.

Palabras clave: Ecoinnovación, Innovación, Cooperativas, Transición

Ecológica.

JEL Classiﬁcation/ Clasiﬁcación JEL: J54; O25; O32

Revista de economía mundial 67, 2024, 145-173

1. IntroductIon

In response to several decades of globalisation, environmental sustainability

has become a central aspect among development issues. Rockstrom et al.

(2009) and subsequent studies such as those by the Stockholm Resilience

Centre show that planetary boundaries are being exceeded, demonstrating an

overall negative environmental trend.

Within this framework, the difﬁculties in combining economic and social

development with environmental sustainability are evident. In practice, the

countries with the highest rankings in the Human Development Index are also

the largest consumers of resources and generators of emissions per capita,

and the contradictions between economic growth and global development

objectives are becoming increasingly apparent (Hickel, 2019).

Thus, a transition towards other models of production and consumption is

inevitable, the question being how to address this issue fairly and based on a

vision of sustainability. The 2030 Agenda (UN, 2015) establishes in its SDG 12

the need to move towards sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Its goals make abundant references to resource and waste management, and

the adoption of sustainable business practices. In fact, SDG 9, linked to the

industry, stresses that innovation and technological progress is fundamental

for responding sustainably to economic and environmental challenges.

Given these shortcomings, eco-innovation presents itself as an interesting

tool to help reduce the use of resources, facilitate their recycling and reduce

pollution (García-Granero et al., 2018). However, eco-innovation is still a poorly

studied aspect, especially in the case of cooperatives, and warrants greater

attention from the ﬁeld of research. Current literature defends an innate ‘green’

condition of cooperatives based on their values and principles. However, highly

cited and inﬂuential papers within this body of literature are purely theoretical

and lack any evidence supporting this assumption (see, for example, Mozas

and Bernal, 2006 or Puentes and Velasco, 2009) or they simply present

the link between cooperative principles and environmental concern as a

conjecture (Novkovic, 2008). When these papers are subsequently cited by

other researchers (see, for example, Fernández et al., 2020), they are often

referred to as previous evidence of a link between cooperative principles and

environmental performance rather than conjectures. The few empirical studies

that exist are based on agricultural cooperatives (Rabadan et al., 2021; Calle et

148 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

al., 2020; Carchano et al., 2023). Thus, further research is needed to contrast

the green innateness hypothesis.

Our study considers the role of cooperatives as part of the social economy,

and their possible contribution to eco-innovation as a means of promoting the

transitions necessary to address environmental matters.

The questions that guide this study are the following: Are industrial

cooperatives contributing to an improvement in environmental impacts? What

are the reasons that drive or limit these entities to eco-innovate? Are there

differences in the above aspects between cooperatives and other companies?

Can exposure to external markets be a relevant factor in this framework?

To answer these questions, the paper begins by explaining the framework

and concept of eco-innovation, analysing its background, and looking more

closely at eco-innovation in cooperatives. We then analyse data from the 2021

Innovation Survey carried out by the Basque Institute of Statistics on industrial

ﬁrms (with a methodology common to the Community Innovation Survey of

the European Commission). This is followed by a discussion of the results and,

lastly, the conclusions, limitations, and future lines of research.

2. Eco-InnovatIon In coopEratIvEs: lItEraturE FramEWork.

2.1. Eco-InnovatIon: dEFInItIon and FramEWork

The opportunity that innovation offers for achieving sustainable

development, or for reducing the environmental impact of economic activity, is

increasingly recognised both at institutional and academic levels.

The studies and initiatives within this framework include diverse

denominations, such as “eco-innovation”, “ecological innovation”, “green

innovation”, or “environmental innovation”, as reﬂected in various

bibliographical and general studies (Afeltra et al., 2023; Bossle et al., 2016;

Díaz-García et al., 2015; García Granero et al., 2018). A broader concept,

incorporating social aspects that go beyond environmental concerns, is that of

“sustainable innovation”, which has followed its own evolutionary path (Afeltra

et al., 2023).

Although the theoretical debate is still ongoing, in this study we adopt the

widely used term “eco-innovation”, which focuses on environmental impacts,

as this corresponds to the data we use in the empirical analysis. In 2007,

based on the OECD deﬁnition of innovation, Kemp and Pearson proposed a

commonly accepted deﬁnition of eco-innovation:

“the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production

process, service or management or business method that is novel to the

organisation (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout

its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other

negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to

relevant alternatives.” Kemp and Pearson (2007: 7)

149

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

The deﬁnition includes a reduction in negative environmental consequences

as a result of these innovations. This requires a vision of new process and

product lifecycles, modifying management systems and leading to new

business models (OECD, 2009).

Along these lines, the European Commission launched the Eco-Innovation

Action Plan (EcoAP) in 2011, in which it deﬁnes eco-innovation as follows:

“any form of innovation resulting in or aiming at signiﬁcant and

demonstrable progress towards the goal of sustainable development,

through reducing impacts on the environment, enhancing resilience to

environmental pressures, or achieving a more efﬁcient and responsible

use of natural resources.” (EC, 2011: 2)

Along with the need to reduce negative impacts as stated by the OECD, the

approach by EcoAP introduces sustainable development, resilience, and the

efﬁcient use of resources as goals. More recently, the drive for eco-innovation

can be found in relevant European initiatives such as Horizon Europe or the

European Green Deal itself.

Eco-innovation has begun to attract more interest as a topic in the

innovation literature (Aboelmaged, 2018) and is recognised by the European

Union (EU) as an important contributor to green growth and sustainability

(Melece & Hazners, 2017).

The positive impact of eco-innovation on business sustainability has been

widely debated (He et al., 2018). In practice, eco-innovation can be associated

with reducing the use of water, materials or energy, with improvements related

to recycling or the use of less polluting materials, or with reducing pollution

in different ways. These environmental beneﬁts can occur in different phases

of the production and consumption process, both within the company and

during consumption or use by the end user. Along these lines, eco-innovation

measurement studies cover areas as diverse as those related to products,

processes, organisational issues and marketing (García-Granero et al., 2018)

2.2. thE drIvErs For Eco-InnovatIon

Within the framework of eco-innovation, knowing the motivation for these

processes, and their drivers, is fundamental for promoting their implementation.

It is important, therefore, to distinguish between external and internal factors,

as pointed out in studies by Bossle et al. (2016). External factors include

regulatory and normative pressures (the latter related to legitimacy and

behaviour in accordance with the standards of their ﬁeld of action), cooperation

(with suppliers, clients, etc.), expanding market, and the characteristics of

technology at industry level. Internal factors include efﬁciency, adoption of

certiﬁcations, environmental managerial concerns, environmental leadership,

culture and capability, as well as questions related to human resources and

skills.

150 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

Regulatory pressure appears as a predominant and essential driver of eco-

innovation (see Bossle et al., 2016, Horbach, 2016 and Afeltra et al., 2023,

for reviews). Speciﬁc regulatory backing is deemed essential for fostering eco-

innovation, since relying solely on the factors of technology push and market

pull is not enough (Afeltra et al., 2023). Besides actual regulations, expected

future regulations also have a signiﬁcant positive effect on the development

of eco-innovations (Díaz-García et al., 2015). Current and future legislation is

highly correlated to certain eco-innovation results such as CO2 and pollution

reduction (Horbach, 2016). Aside from regulation, market demand is the

second most cited driver of eco-innovation (Doran & Ryan, 2012; Horbach et

al., 2012; Horbach, 2016; Díaz-García et al., 2015).

A signiﬁcant variation among countries regarding their eco-regulation, the

enforcement of these regulations, technological development and demand for

eco-innovative products and services leads to divergent ﬁndings in studies that

link exports with eco-innovation.

For example, Horbach (2016) ﬁnds a negative effect of exports on eco-

innovation, particularly in relation to environmental beneﬁts from the after-

sales use of products by end users. These results can be explained by the fact

that the ﬁrms in Horbach’s sample belong to the EU. The majority of their

exports go to other EU countries with a similar regulatory environment. The

remaining exports go to countries with lower regulatory requirements and a

weaker market pull for eco-friendly products. Along the same lines, Chiarvesio

et al. (2015) ﬁnd that Italian ﬁrms engaged in export activities are less likely

to adopt eco-friendly practices, and Wang et al. (2020) also ﬁnd a negative

impact of export diversiﬁcation on CO2 emissions in G7 economies. For the

speciﬁc case of Spanish industrial ﬁrms, research offers contradictory results.

De Marchi (2012) ﬁnds that environmentally innovative ﬁrms are more likely

to export but, at the same time, serving an international market is signiﬁcantly

and negatively correlated with green innovation. However, Torrecillas and

Fernández (2022), ﬁnd a positive effect of exports on eco-innovation.

Conversely, studies in countries exporting their products to markets which

are leaders in ecological innovations ﬁnd that export ﬁrms are positively

associated with cleaner production (see Galbreath et al., 2021, and Tsai and

Liao, 2017 for the case of Taiwan, or see Hanley and Semrau, 2022, for Eastern

Europe countries).

A number of studies of key factors affecting eco-innovation identify those

linked to normative pressures and the need for efﬁciency, such as cost reduction

(Demirel & Kesidou, 2011; Horbach, 2008, 2016; Horbach et al., 2012). Other

studies cite factors such as ﬁrm size, and sector or public ﬁnancing (Bossle et

al., 2016).

Table 2 shows a summary of the drivers appearing in the survey we use for

our study. As can be seen, these are mainly external drivers.

151

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

2.3. EnvIronmEntal pErFormancE and Eco-InnovatIon In coopEratIvEs

While speciﬁc literature on cooperatives and eco-innovation is limited

to a few studies (Rabadan et al., 2021; Calle et al., 2020; Carchano et al.,

2023), research is much more extensive on the environmental performance of

cooperatives (see Candemir et al., 2021 and Liang et al., 2023, for literature

reviews). Environmental issues are also analysed in a greater number of studies

on sustainability in cooperatives (see Lafont et al., 2023, for a literature review).

A common axis of this literature is that cooperatives are socially responsible

(and thus, greener) by nature. This innate condition implies that cooperatives

are inherently sustainable, since they are based on principles and values which

differ from capitalist enterprise models (Calle et al., 2020; Henrÿ, 2017). These

researchers often cite the “concern for community” cooperative principle as

the cornerstone of this innate greener condition. This principle states that

“cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their communities

through policies approved by their members” (ICA, 2015, 86). In its guidance

notes on cooperative principles, the International Cooperative Association

explains its three-dimensional concern for sustainability (economic, social, and

environmental) and also adheres to the innate hypothesis: “It is hard-wired in

our genes. There is a clear and demonstrable advantage to cooperatives which

ﬂows from the three-dimensional commitment to the sustainable development

of the communities in which cooperatives operate” (ICA, 2015, 93).

Some researchers highlight that other cooperative principles, such as

collective ownership and democratic governance, and values, such as mutual

help, responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity, make it

“reasonable to expect that cooperatives will move towards inclusive, sustainable,

and environmentally friendly growth models” (Carchano et al., 2023, 3). While

some of these principles and values could hypothetically have an impact on

eco-innovation in certain kinds of cooperatives (for example in green energy

cooperatives created by energy consumers with a greater concern for ecology),

it is difﬁcult to see how they could signiﬁcantly inﬂuence eco-innovation in

industrial cooperatives.

In fact, the literature that defends the innate greener condition of

cooperatives does so in a naïve way: cooperatives endorse the “concern for

community” principle, therefore they have greater concern for the environment

(Mozas and Bernal, 2006; Puentes and Velasco, 2009) or at least we conjecture

that they are likely to be concerned (Novkovic, 2008).

Evidence that supports the innate environmentally-friendly condition comes

solely from limited studies of Chinese agricultural cooperatives. According to

these studies, cooperative membership signiﬁcantly improves the probability

of farmers adopting green control techniques (Yu et al., 2021; Zhang et al.,

2023); substantially inﬂuences farmers’ decisions to invest in organic soil

amendments (Ma et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2023); reduces the overuse of

chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Liu and Wu, 2022; Zhou et al., 2019); and

increases the adoption of water-saving irrigation technologies (Dong et al.,

152 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

2023). Furthermore, training and technical services provided by cooperatives

enhance farmers’ capacity and knowledge to adopt green technology (Zhang

et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2022). While most researchers ﬁnd positive effects,

Abebaw and Haile (2013) ﬁnd detrimental impacts on the environment of

belonging to an Ethiopian agricultural cooperative and Li et al. (2021) report

an insigniﬁcant relationship between cooperative membership and safe

production behaviours in the use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Despite the relevance of agricultural cooperatives all over the world, almost

all publications on their environmental performance are based on Chinese

samples. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been

conducted on other kinds of cooperatives, such as worker cooperatives.

When it comes to studies on eco-innovation and cooperatives, the scarce

research that exists again focuses on agricultural cooperatives of a single

country: Spain.

Calle et al. (2020) study 251 Spanish ﬁrms in the wine sector (51 of them

cooperatives) and ﬁnd no signiﬁcant differences between cooperative and

non-cooperative ﬁrms concerning their environmental behaviour. They also

ﬁnd that the cooperatives are divided in their commitment to these issues.

Half of the cooperatives in their sample demonstrate a strong commitment to

environmental issues by prioritising them in their strategies and organisational

structure. However, a similar proportion of cooperatives adopt a preventive

environmental approach, considering potential environmental impacts, but

this approach does not shape their core business strategies.

Carchano et al. (2023) also focus their research on eco-innovation in

Spanish wine companies, with a sample of 239 ﬁrms, 53 of them cooperatives.

They ﬁnd that cooperatives address the environmental concerns of internal

and external stakeholders to a greater degree and, consequently, they seem

to adopt a more proactive position on eco-innovation. Nevertheless, they do

not ﬁnd support for the hypothesis of “being a cooperative moderates the

relationship between eco-innovation and environmental performance”.

Rabadán et al. (2021) analyse eco-innovation in a sample of 52 olive-oil

sector ﬁrms (42 of them cooperatives) and ﬁnd that large olive oil cooperatives

producing high quality extra-virgin oil are the ﬁrms with greater involvement

in eco-innovation. These authors consider that, although being a cooperative

increases the likelihood of seeking greater eco-innovation, other causal

conditions unrelated to the cooperative nature of the ﬁrms explain these results

(large size, intense cooperation with stakeholders, high quality production, high

percentage of exports, high R&D budgets, etc.).

Departing from the broader concept of social economy, Rousselière et al.

(2024) ﬁnd, based on a survey carried out on 16,000 European ﬁrms, that

social economy enterprises (deﬁned as those with non-proﬁt orientation

and those with collective ownership) have a higher probability of developing

environmental innovation.

Despite the optimist view of much of the literature on cooperatives and

environmental sustainability, given that eco-innovation is highly correlated

153

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

with non-environmental innovation, it can be assumed that some limitations of

innovation seen in cooperatives will also be reﬂected in eco-innovation (Calle et

al., 2020). These limitations include slower decision-making due to democratic

processes, greater risk aversion among members compared to capitalist

owners, limited access to capital, and small organisational size (Basterretxea

and Martínez, 2012).

Drawing from this literature overview, the following hypotheses are

proposed:

• H1: Being a cooperative has a positive and signiﬁcant effect on eco-

innovation.

• H2: Exports have a positive and signiﬁcant effect on eco-innovation.

• H3: Regulatory pressures and market pull are the main drivers of eco-

innovation.

• H4: Voluntary initiatives for environmental good practice are more

important drivers of eco-innovation in cooperatives.

3. data and mEthodology

The analysis uses data from the 2021 Innovation Survey, carried out by the

Basque Institute of Statistics (Eustat, 2022). The survey questions are based

on the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) of the European Commission. Since

2008, the CIS questionnaire includes speciﬁc questions on eco-innovation

results and drivers, and deﬁnes eco-innovation as follows:

“An innovation with environmental beneﬁts is a new or improved

product or business process of an enterprise that generates positive

or lower negative environmental impacts, compared to the enterprise’s

previous products or processes, and that has been made available to

potential users or brought into use. The environmental beneﬁt can

be the primary objective of the innovation or a by-product of other

objectives. The environmental beneﬁts of an innovation can occur during

the production of a good or service, or during its consumption or use by

the end user.” (Eurostat, 2021)

The survey focuses on diverse business establishments across various

sectors and sizes in the Basque Country. The data pertain to the year 2021,

although speciﬁc inquiries on eco-innovation cover the 2019-2021 period.

The total sample of Eustat’s Innovation Survey includes 3,777 establishments

(196 of them worker cooperatives) in the services sector and industrial sector.

We decide not to use the total sample of 3,777 ﬁrms, focusing instead on just

industrial ﬁrms since it is easier to compare innovation drivers, practices and

outcomes in this more homogeneous sample of industrial ﬁrms.

The sample of our study encompasses 718 industrial establishments (57

of them are worker cooperatives). Within our sample, 7.94% of establishments

are afﬁliated with cooperative ﬁrms, contributing to 15.17% of the total

154 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

employment. This closely reﬂects the current proportion of cooperative

industrial employment in the Basque Country, which stands at 12.4%.

Consequently, our sample size is representative of the study universe.

Building on CIS’s deﬁnition and existing literature (Table 1), eco-innovation

is measured considering the outcomes of innovative endeavours. If innovations

generate favourable environmental impacts, they are classiﬁed as eco-

innovations. The ﬁrms were asked to respond to the following question:

“During the three years 2019 to 2021, did your enterprise introduce

innovations with any of the following environmental beneﬁts and, if yes, was their

contribution to environmental protection rather signiﬁcant or insigniﬁcant?”

Six variables measure environmental beneﬁts within the ﬁrm and four

measure beneﬁts from after-sales use of goods by the end user. These variables

are well-rooted in existing literature (see Table 1).

The questionnaire also asks about the importance of several factors in

driving the ﬁrm’s decision to introduce innovations with environmental beneﬁts.

These drivers of eco-innovation, which mainly refer to external factors, are also

well-rooted in literature (see Table 2).

We include the dummy variable Coop to consider whether the entity is a

cooperative. In addition, we take into account the level of the establishment’s

spending on R&D, both internal and external (Int-RD and Ext-RD) or the use of

perceived public funding to innovate (Pub-aid). The size of the establishment’s

parent ﬁrm (Size) is also considered. The natural logarithm of the number

of employees, commonly utilised in studies of ﬁrm innovation performance,

is used as a proxy for ﬁrm size. The questionnaire details the percentage of

tablE 1: varIablEs mEasurIng EnvIronmEntal bEnEFIts and lItEraturE WhErE mEntIonEd

Variable Sources (examples)

Reduced material or water use per unit of output

(Material) Hellstrom (2007), Alkaya & Demirer (2015).

Reduced energy use or CO2 ‘footprint’ (CO2*)

Van Hemel & Cramer (2002), Alkaya & Demirer (2015),

Doran & Ryan (2016), Castellacci & Lie (2017), Rodrí-

guez & Wiengarten (2017).

Reduced soil, noise, water or air pollution (Pollution*) Rodríguez & Wiengarten (2017).

Replaced a share of materials with less polluting or

hazardous substitutes (Substitute)

Doran & Ryan (2016), Castellacci & Lie (2017), Rodrí-

guez & Wiengarten (2017).

Replaced a share of fossil energy with renewable energy

sources (Energy) Nesta et al. (2014).

Recycled waste, water, or materials for own use or sale

(Recycled)

Van Hemel & Cramer (2002), Doran & Ryan (2016),

Castellacci & Lie (2017), Rodríguez & Wiengarten

(2017).

Facilitated recycling of product after use (Recycled) Dalhammar (2015), Castellacci & Lie (2017), Rodríguez

& Wiengarten (2017).

Extended product life through longer-lasting, more

durable products (Product life)

Van Hemel & Cramer (2002), Hellström (2007), Dal-

hammar (2015).

Source: compiled by the authors (*CO2 and pollution reduction are gauged as beneﬁts within the ﬁrm

and by the use of the end user)

155

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

turnover coming from exportation, which allows us to analyse the effect of

exports on eco-innovation.

Given the connections between variables revealed in the literature review,

and since we propose that each eco-innovation is independent of the others,

we estimate a Probit model for each eco-innovation using Maximum Likelihood

method with robust standard errors to correct possible heteroscedasticity. The

endogenous variable is deﬁned as Yi = 1, when the ﬁrm obtained environmental

beneﬁts. The model is formulated as follows (Greene, 2012, pp. 732-736):

(1) Pr(Yi = 1) = F(Xi ‘β + Zi’ γ)

(2) Pr(Yi = 0) = 1- F(Xi ‘β + Zi’ γ)

Where: Yi is the dependent variable: environmental beneﬁts.

Xi is the matrix of the explanatory variables.

Zi is the matrix of the control variables.

F( ) is the standard Normal Distribution.

It should be noted that the estimation parameters of the Probit model are

not the marginal effect. In general, the marginal effects are ∂Pr (Y=1)/∂X= f(Xi

‘β) β, and these values vary with the values of X (and Z). So, when interpreting

the estimated model, it is necessary to calculate the marginal effects at the

sample means of the data.

tablE 2: varIablEs mEasurIng drIvErs oF Eco-InnovatIon

Drivers Short name Sources (examples)

Existing environmental regulations Regulation

Demirel and Kesidou (2011), Horbach (2008), Horbach et

al. (2012), Li et al. (2020), Mahmood et al. (2022).

Existing environmental

taxes Taxes

Environmental regulations or

taxes expected in the future Future regulation

Need to meet requirements for

public procurement contracts Public contracts

Government grants,

subsidies or other ﬁnancial

incentives for environmental

innovations

Subsidies Tsai and Liao (2017), Horbach (2016).

Current or expected market

demand for environmental in-

novations

Market Doran & Ryan (2016), Horbach et al. (2012), Horbach

(2016), Díaz-García et al. (2015).

Improving the enterprise’s

reputation Reputation

Li et al. (2020), Horbach (2016).

Voluntary actions or

initiatives for environmental good

practice within the sector

Voluntary

High costs of energy, water or

materials Costs Demirel & Kesidou (2011), Horbach (2008, 2016),

Horbach et al. (2012).

Source: compiled by the authors

156 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

4. rEsults

4.1. dEscrIptIvE statIstIcs

As Table 3 shows, the percentage of industrial establishments that have

introduced innovations with environmental beneﬁts is 21% higher among

cooperative ﬁrms than among investor-owned ﬁrms.

A similar scenario is seen when considering exports and size. Establishments

with some sort of environmental beneﬁt from their innovation activities

exported more and were bigger than those without environmental beneﬁts.

These differences are statistically signiﬁcant.

tablE 3. charactErIsatIon oF thE samplE accordIng to Eco-InnovatIon practIcEs

Full Sample Cooperatives

Non-

cooperatives

Exports/turnover

(mean)

Employees

(mean)

Eco-innovative

establishments

54.32% 73.68% 52.65% 27.57% 105.55

Non eco-innovative

establishments

45.68% 26.32% 47.35% 19.47% 47.48

Total 100% 100% 100% 23.87% 79.03

Source: compiled by the authors. The differences are statistically signiﬁcant.

FIgurE 1. pErcEntagE oF Eco-InnovatIvE EstablIshmEnts accordIng to Export IntEnsIty

Figure 1. Percentage of eco-innovative establishments according to

export intensity



Source: compiled by the authors

ϱϬϬϬй

ϱϲϲϯй

ϲϰϮϵй ϲϱϯϯй

ϲϬϬϬй

ϲϲϲϳй ϲϵϮϯй

ϭϬϬϬϬй

Ϭй

ϭϬй

ϮϬй

ϯϬй

ϰϬй

ϱϬй

ϲϬй

ϳϬй

ϴϬй

ϵϬй

ϭϬϬй

΀ϬϬϮϱͿ ΀ϬϮϱϬϱϬͿ ΀ϬϱϬϬϳϱͿ ΀ϬϳϱϭͿ

^ŚĂƌĞŽĨĞǆƉŽƌƚƐŝŶƚƵƌŶŽǀĞƌ

dŽƚĂů ŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ

Source: compiled by the authors

157

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

When relating eco-innovation and export intensity, we ﬁnd that the higher

the share of turnover exported by establishments, the higher the proportion

of these establishments that introduce eco-innovation. This trend is clearer in

the case of cooperatives, and all cooperatives that export more than 75% of

their production are in the group of eco-innovative establishments (Figure 1).

Figure 2 shows the differences between cooperatives and non-cooperative

ﬁrms, using just the subsample of establishments that have achieved some

environmental beneﬁts within the enterprise, generated by innovation activities.

Looking at the trend seen in Table 3 in more detail, cooperatives show

better results in ﬁve out of the six measured environmental beneﬁts, even if

differences are not statistically signiﬁcant. The most important beneﬁts for

both cooperatives and non-cooperative ﬁrms are ‘recycled waste, water, or

materials for own use or sale’ (16.30% of the total sample) and ‘reduced

energy use or CO2 footprint’ (12.95%).

In relation to the environmental beneﬁts from after-sales use of products

by the end user (see Figure 3), cooperatives achieve better outcomes in two

out of four indicators; those of ‘extended product life through longer-lasting,

more durable products’ and ‘reduced soil, noise, water or air pollution’. Again,

the differences shown in Figure 3 are not signiﬁcant.

Figure 4 shows the importance ﬁrms give to different aspects as drivers of

eco-innovation (the percentages have been calculated on the establishments

that have actually achieved some sort of environmental beneﬁt from their

innovation activities).

FIgurE 2. EnvIronmEntal bEnEFIts WIthIn thE EntErprIsE

Figure 2. Environmental benefits within the enterprise

Source: compiled by the authors

ϭϮϮϴй

ϭϳϱϰй

ϴϳϳй ϴϳϳй

ϭϮϮϴй

ϭϳϱϰй

ϴϯϮй

ϭϮϱϲй

ϳϳϮй ϴϵϯй

ϳϮϲй

ϭϲϭϵй

Ϭй

Ϯй

ϰй

ϲй

ϴй

ϭϬй

ϭϮй

ϭϰй

ϭϲй

ϭϴй

ϮϬй

ZĞĚƵĐĞĚ

ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŽƌ

ǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĞ

ZĞĚƵĐĞĚ

ĞŶĞƌŐǇƵƐĞŽƌ

KϮ

ZĞĚƵĐĞĚ

ƉŽůůƵƚŝŽŶ

ZĞƉůĂĐĞĚ

ƉŽůůƵƚŝŶŐ

ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

ZĞŶĞǁĂďůĞ

ĞŶĞƌŐǇƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ

ZĞĐǇĐůĞĚ

ǁĂƐƚĞǁĂƚĞƌ

ŽƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

йĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ йEŽŶͲĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ

Source: compiled by the authors

158 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

FIgurE 3. EnvIronmEntal bEnEFIts From aFtEr-salEs usE oF products by thE End usEr

Source: compiled by the authors

FIgurE 4. drIvErs to IntroducE InnovatIons WIth EnvIronmEntal bEnEFIts

Figure 4. Drivers to introduce innovations with environmental benefits

Source: compiled by the authors. Significance codes: *** 0.01; ** 0.05; * 0.1

Ϯϴϱϳй

ϲϲϲϳй

ϱϵϱϮй

ϳϭϰϯй

ϱϳϭϰй

ϱϬϬϬй

ϱϵϱϮй

ϰϳϲϮй

ϲϲϲϳй

ϯϳϬϳй

ϲϰϯϳй

ϲϯϮϮй

ϲϲϬϵй

ϱϱϳϱй

ϰϭϲϳй

ϱϬϮϵй

ϰϰϴϯй

ϳϬϵϴй

Ϭй ϭϬй ϮϬй ϯϬй ϰϬй ϱϬй ϲϬй ϳϬй ϴϬй

ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐΎΎΎ

,ŝŐŚĐŽƐƚƐŽĨĞŶĞƌŐǇǁĂƚĞƌŽƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

sŽůƵŶƚĂƌǇŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞƐ

/ŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĞŶƚĞƌƉƌŝƐĞΖƐƌĞƉƵƚĂƚŝŽŶ

DĂƌŬĞƚĚĞŵĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŶǀŝƌŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ

'ƌĂŶƚƐĂŶĚƐƵďƐŝĚŝĞƐ

ZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐƚĂǆĞƐĞǆƉĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞΎΎ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƚĂǆĞƐΎ

ǆŝƐƚŝŶŐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶΎΎ

йEŽŶͲĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ йĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ

Source: compiled by the authors. Signiﬁcance codes: *** 0.01; ** 0.05; * 0.1

159

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

With regard to the total sample (including both cooperatives and non-

cooperatives), more than 70% of the industrial ﬁrms of the sample highlight

existing environmental regulation as a driver of their eco-innovations. In

second place, is improving the enterprise´s reputation (66.67% of the total),

followed by high costs of energy, water or materials (64.62%) and voluntary

good practices within the sector (62.82%). Close behind are issues such as

market demand (55.90%), environmental regulations or taxes expected in the

future (51.28%), existing environmental taxes, charges or fees (45.13%) and

subsidies and ﬁnancial incentives for environmental innovations (42.56%).

The need to meet requirements for public procurement contracts is the least

mentioned reason (36.15% of cases).

As can be seen in Figure 4, the differences between cooperatives and non-

cooperative ﬁrms in terms of the relevance given to the drivers of eco-innovation

are not substantial. The two drivers which are signiﬁcantly more relevant

for cooperatives are the existing environmental taxes and environmental

regulations or taxes expected in the future. Government grants, subsidies

and ﬁnancial incentives for environmental innovations are also mentioned by

50% of cooperatives (versus 41.67% of non-cooperative ﬁrms). In contrast,

the need to meet requirements for public procurement contracts and existing

environmental regulations seem more important drivers for non-cooperative

ﬁrms. The greater impact of taxes and subsidies on cooperatives can be

explained, theoretically, in light of the greater limitations they face in ﬁnancing

FIgurE 5. Factors hampErIng thE dEcIsIon to start or ExEcutE InnovatIon actIvItIEs

Figure 5. Factors hampering the decision to start or execute innovation

activities

Source: compiled by the authors. Significance codes: *** 0.01; ** 0.05; * 0.1



ϱϬϴϴй

ϱϲϭϰй

ϲϲϲϳй

ϱϲϭϰй

ϰϱϲϭй

ϱϮϲϯй

ϳϭϵϯй

ϲϭϰϬй

ϱϮϲϯй

ϲϰϵϭй

ϱϰϰϲй

ϰϲϭϰй

ϱϮϵϱй

ϮϵϮϬй

ϮϮϴϰй

ϯϳϴϮй

ϲϭϮϳй

ϰϴϭϭй

ϯϮϱϯй

ϰϭϳϱй

Ϭй ϭϬй ϮϬй ϯϬй ϰϬй ϱϬй ϲϬй ϳϬй ϴϬй

ŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐ

dŽŽŵƵĐŚĐŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ

hŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶŵĂƌŬĞƚ

>ĂĐŬĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞ

>ĂĐŬŽĨĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐΎΎΎ

>ĂĐŬŽĨƐŬŝůůĞĚĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐ

ŽƐƚƐƚŽŽŚŝŐŚ

ŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚŝĞƐŽďƚĞŝŶŝŶŐƐƵďƐŝĚŝĞƐ

>ĂĐŬŽĨĐƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĞƋƵŝƚǇΎΎ

>ĂĐŬŽĨŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůĨŝŶĂŶĐĞΎΎΎ

йEŽŶͲĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ йĐŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝǀĞƐ

Source: compiled by the authors. Signiﬁcance codes: *** 0.01; ** 0.05; * 0.1

160 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

their innovation (this is analysed later in the paper). Voluntary initiatives for

environmental good practices appear to be no more relevant as drivers of

eco-innovation in cooperatives than in non-cooperative ﬁrms. In fact, quite the

opposite is seen, although the differences are not signiﬁcant.

Finally, the survey asks what obstacles these industrial ﬁrms encounter

when introducing or executing innovation activities. It should be noted that, in

this case, the question refers to the factors that hinder innovation in general

(not only eco-innovation).

With regard to the total sample, the three main obstacles to innovation,

highlighted by more than half of the establishments, are high costs (62.12% of

the total), the existence of other priorities (54.18%), and demand uncertainty

(54.04%). These are followed by issues such as difﬁculties in obtaining

subsidies (49.16%), excessive competition in the market (46.94%), and lack

of internal ﬁnance for innovation (43.59%).

Figure 5 shows important differences between cooperatives and investor-

owned industrial ﬁrms. Cooperatives place more importance on nine out of

ten factors hampering innovation compared to investor-owned ﬁrms. The

differences are large and signiﬁcant when valuing certain factors such as the lack

of access to ﬁnance (both internal and external) and the lack of collaboration

partners. Two further factors which show substantial differences, although non-

signiﬁcant, are the lack of access to external knowledge and the lack of skilled

personnel. All these barriers to innovation are widely acknowledged by the

research literature on cooperatives.

In summary, Figure 5 shows that, despite greater limitations to innovation

and eco-innovation, cooperatives are in a situation of parity or even

comparative advantage when it comes to eco-innovation, as illustrated in Table

3 and Figures 2 and 3.

4.2. EstImatIon rEsults

Taking into account the connections between variables identiﬁed by the

relevant literature (with special emphasis on the study of Horbach, 2016,

based on the same questions as the Community Innovation Survey) a Probit

model is established to test our hypotheses (See Table 4).

While the percentage of industrial ﬁrms introducing innovations that

generate environmental beneﬁts is greater among cooperatives (table 3),

when we analyse solely the subsample of ﬁrms that have some sort of eco-

innovation, being a cooperative does not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence eco-innovation

performance. A similar result is seen in relation to the size of the ﬁrm, while

level of exports is only signiﬁcantly related to those innovations which achieve a

reduction in pollution. Among the control variables, external R&D expenditure

and having received public funding to innovate are the factors that positively

and signiﬁcantly affect more environmental beneﬁts.

Environmental regulations or taxes expected in the future lead to a greater

number of eco-innovation beneﬁts than actual regulations or taxes. Future

161

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

regulations have positive and signiﬁcant marginal effects on ﬁelds such as a

reduction in pollution of soil, noise, water or air (pollution), replacing fossil

energy with renewable energy sources, and recycling. Future regulations also

pre-empt a reduction in pollution from use by the end user and help to extend

product life.

Although the need to meet requirements for public procurement is the least

mentioned driver for eco-innovation (Figure 4), this has a positive and signiﬁcant

effect in 6 out of 10 environmental beneﬁts (Table 4). This is, therefore, another

key driver of eco-innovation, positively related to reduced pollution, reduced

use of material, water or energy, substitution of fossil energy with renewable

energy and extended product life.

The factor Voluntary action is positively related to two after-sales

environmental beneﬁts, but has no clear effect on beneﬁts within the ﬁrm.

Improving the enterprise’s reputation is also an important eco-innovation

driver, which is mainly achieved within the ﬁrm via reduced use of materials,

replacement of materials with less polluting substitutes and use of renewable

energies. It is also linked to extended product life.

Current or expected market demand for environmental innovation also

has positive marginal effects on eco-innovation within the ﬁrm (reduced CO2

tablE 4. EstImatEd probIt modEls

Source: compiled by the authors. Signiﬁcance codes: *** 0.01; ** 0.05; * 0.1

162 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

footprint within the ﬁrm and by the end user, replacement of materials and

recycling of materials).

Even though respondents consider costs as an important eco-innovation

driver (see Figure 5), high cost of energy, water or materials is not related to

greater environmental beneﬁts.

As mentioned earlier, ﬁrms that have actually received public funding (Pub.

aid) for their innovation activities achieve greater environmental beneﬁts.

Nevertheless, when asked about the relevance of subsidies for their eco-

innovation activities, this was among the least mentioned drivers (Figure 4),

and we ﬁnd no link between the importance given to this driver and eco-

innovation beneﬁts (Table 4).

5. dIscussIon

H1: Being a cooperative has a positive and signiﬁcant effect on eco-

innovation.

We ﬁnd partial support for our ﬁrst hypothesis. The percentage of Basque

industrial ﬁrms that have introduced innovations with environmental beneﬁts

is signiﬁcantly higher among cooperatives than among investor-owned ﬁrms.

Nevertheless, when we analyse the subsample of eco-innovative ﬁrms and

the joint effects of different variables, we ﬁnd that being a cooperative has

no signiﬁcant effect on the introduction of any kind of eco-innovation. These

results add to the evidence from previous empirical studies conducted in

agricultural cooperatives with similar results (Rabadan et al., 2021; Calle et al.,

2020; Carchano et al., 2023).

Nevertheless, it is extraordinary that industrial cooperatives achieve similar

or even better eco-innovation beneﬁts from their innovation activities, despite

facing much greater obstacles to innovation. In fact, our research ﬁnds strong

evidence of the greater relevance of factors hampering the decision to start

or execute innovation activities among cooperatives. Lack of internal ﬁnance

for innovation and lack of credit or private equity are signiﬁcantly greater

problems among cooperatives than among investor-owned ﬁrms, adding

strong evidence to a persistent theme in the literature on cooperatives (see,

for example, Basterretxea and Martínez, 2012; Bonin et al., 1993; Grashuis

and Su, 2019; Maietta and Sena, 2010). In addition, cooperatives encounter

greater difﬁculties when seeking partners to collaborate in R&D activities and

in accessing external knowledge. A possible explanation proposed by some

authors, such as Bonin et al. (1993), to explain the reluctance of creditors

and ﬁnancial markets to work with cooperatives could be the scarcity of

information about cooperatives outside their environment. This reluctance

may manifest as a lack of collaboration in innovation activities and may also

affect other stakeholders. Lack of skilled employees, which is another problem

highlighted more among cooperatives than among investor-owned ﬁrms, could

163

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

be explained by salary limitations and low wage differentials of these ﬁrms

(Basterretxea and Martínez, 2012).

While our sample is limited to Basque industrial cooperatives, we consider

that some of our ﬁndings could also apply to a much broader and more

international spectrum of cooperatives. Basque industrial cooperatives are

much bigger, on average, than industrial cooperatives elsewhere, and they have

a long tradition of inter-cooperation to create joint investment funds such as

Mondragon Inversiones and ULMA Inversiones, or banks such as Mondragon’s

bank Laboral Kutxa. But, despite this, we ﬁnd evidence that these cooperatives

are at a disadvantage in obtaining ﬁnance for their innovation activities.

This ﬁnancing would likely be even more difﬁcult to come by in industrial

cooperatives of other regions and countries where cooperatives have a weaker

presence.

We also anticipate that other factors limiting innovation in our sample

would be prevalent in international scenarios. Despite the fact that Basque

cooperatives have created a corporate university (Mondragon Unibertsitatea),

corporate vocational and management training centres and joint R&D units,

the cooperatives in our sample still highlight the lack of collaboration partners,

the limited access to external knowledge and not enough skilled personnel as

factors limiting their innovation. These limitations would likely be even greater

for industrial cooperatives elsewhere.

H2: Exports have a positive and signiﬁcant effect on eco-innovation.

H2 is partially supported by our ﬁndings.

We ﬁnd that the higher the export intensity of Basque industrial ﬁrms, the

more likely these ﬁrms are to be eco-innovative. However, when we consider

only the subsample of eco-innovative ﬁrms, we only ﬁnd signiﬁcant positive

effects of exports on eco-innovation in the form of reduced pollution.

Our results go against other studies that ﬁnd negative relationship between

exports and eco-innovation in Europe (Horbach, 2016; Chiarvesio et al.,

2015, De Marchi, 2012) and are more in accordance with those conducted

in countries with lower regulatory requirements and weaker market pull for

eco-friendly products (Galbreath et al., 2021; Tsai and Liao, 2017). Results

are also coherent with those conducted among Spanish ﬁrms (Torrecillas and

Fernández, 2022) and among Eastern European countries, where the increased

exposure to environmentally more stringent markets enhances eco-innovation

(Hanley and Semrau, 2022).

64% of Basque exports go to countries of the EU, and France and Germany

are the main markets, with almost one third of Basque exports going to those

two countries (Eustat, 2024). While eco-regulatory frameworks are similar in

EU countries, market pull for eco-friendly products (and often more expensive

products, as in the case of cars) is higher in richer countries. Exports to EU and

other countries with high eco-regulatory pressure make up the vast majority of

Basque industrial exports. In addition, the leading export sectors in the Basque

164 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

country — oil and petroleum products, cars, car parts — are heavily inﬂuenced

by actual and future eco-regulations. All these factors support the logical

assumption that there is a positive relationship between export intensity and

eco-innovation. Similar results would likely be found in other European regions

with comparable export proﬁles.

Our results also show that the relationship between export intensity and

eco-innovation is higher among Basque industrial cooperatives than among

investor-owned ﬁrms. Basque industrial cooperatives export more than

investor-owned ﬁrms and the percentage of high-intensity exporters (those

exporting more than 75% of their turnover) is four times higher among

cooperatives. All of these high-intensity cooperative exporters show some sort

of eco-innovation.

The industrial cooperatives belonging to Mondragon have enjoyed

signiﬁcant international exposure and their annual reports show that they

have been exporting a large part of their production for decades. Other

large Basque industrial cooperatives not belonging to Mondragon, such as

IRIZAR, AMPO, ORONA, ULMA, RPK or GOIZPER export most part of their

production. Thus, our ﬁndings cannot be easily projected to other regions with

fewer, smaller and less export-oriented industrial cooperatives. Nevertheless,

similar results can be seen in regions with large, high intensity, cooperative

exporters. In fact, our results are coherent with those found in Spanish olive

oil agricultural cooperatives; these cooperatives are more eco-innovative than

their non-cooperative competitors, mainly due to their larger size and higher

export intensity (Rabadan et al., 2021).

H3: Regulatory pressures and market pull are the main drivers of eco-

innovation.

As previous analyses indicate, current regulation is key to driving eco-

innovation (Bossle et al., 2016; Horbach, 2016; Afeltra et al., 2023), as well as

the effect of expected future regulations (Díaz-García et al., 2015).

In this regard, we ﬁnd that environmental regulations or taxes expected in

the future are much more important eco-innovation drivers for Basque industrial

ﬁrms than actual regulations or taxes. The importance of the oil and petroleum

products and car parts industries in the Basque country —two industries that

are facing huge changes given future eco-regulations— partially explains this

phenomenon. Basque industrial cooperatives have a strong relationship with

the car industry (both as car parts producers and as producers of machine

tools for the car industry) and, consequently, actual and future eco-regulations

and eco-taxes are clearly going to be very important drivers of eco-innovation

for these ﬁrms.

A major driver of eco-innovation is the need to meet requirements for

public procurement, yet this driver is less important for Basque industrial

cooperatives, since they work mainly for business-to-business (B2B) private

customers. The need to meet requirements for public procurement can be

165

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

more important in cooperatives operating in the service sector, where many

cooperatives operate in activities such as recycling, waste management,

housing, or care, highly dependent on public procurement. Another driver

of eco-innovation, improving the ﬁrm´s reputation, is equally important for

cooperatives and investor-owned ﬁrms.

The Basque Country is responsible for the legislative development and

execution within its territory of Spanish regulation on environment and

ecology, and the environmental challenge has been at the top of the agenda

of successive regional governments since the early 1980s (Valdaliso, 2015;

Tamayo et al. 2017). Basque public bodies also have autonomy when it comes

to regulating and taxing cooperatives, and have developed laws, tax exemption

or reduction systems and grant systems intended to help cooperatives

overcome their limitations. Despite all this local public support, we still ﬁnd

that cooperatives face more limitations when it comes to eco-innovations,

leading us to conjecture that these limitations would likely be greater in regions

with lower legal and tax support for cooperatives and for eco-innovation.

H4: Voluntary initiatives for environmental good practice are more

important drivers of eco-innovation in cooperatives

Our results are contrary to H4 and, to a great extent, contrary to the innate

greener condition of cooperatives suggested by previous researchers despite

limited empirical evidence. Voluntary initiatives as a driver for environmental

good practices have no more relevance in eco-innovation in cooperatives than

in other ﬁrms. Cooperative principles can be a potential source of positive

attitudes towards eco-innovation. However, we lack sufﬁcient empirical

evidence to afﬁrm that these principles are actually a real source of better eco-

innovation performance.

The failure of our results to support hypothesis 4 could lead us to be

critical of Basque industrial cooperatives for not fulﬁlling the prophecy of social

economy literature or, alternatively, of the social economy literature for making

theoretical predictions with scarce empirical evidence.

As Heras-Saizarbitoria (2014) highlights for the case of Mondragon

cooperatives, cooperative principles can be symbolically adopted and

decoupled from the daily activity of the cooperatives. As seen in the case of

Heras-Saizarbitoria (2014), our ﬁndings also clash strongly with the utopic

scholarly perspective described in the literature review. The drivers of eco-

innovation in Basque industrial cooperatives are similar to those of non-

cooperative ﬁrms and there is no evidence to suggest voluntary eco-innovation

is motivated by cooperative principles.

Our results are in line with the few previous empirical studies conducted in

agricultural cooperatives in Spain and in China. These studies show no clear

evidence to support the eco-innovative innate condition of cooperatives. This

emphasises the need for future advances in the social economy literature to

ensure that any statements made are based on hard evidence.

166 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

comparIson oF rEsults WIth thosE obtaInEd In othEr rEgIons and countrIEs

Based on the international framework, in which eco-innovation already

has a certain theoretical and practical background, this section compares our

results with those of other regions and countries.

Table 5 summarises the cases in which our paper adds evidence in line

with previous studies, and those in which it provides contrary results. The

information has been organised according to the study’s hypotheses, to which

we have added the question of ﬁnancing, which is key to explaining some of

the differences in terms of innovation in cooperatives. As Table 5 shows, the

tablE 5: comparatIvE rEsults In dIFFErEnt rEgIons and countrIEs

Results Adds evidence in line with previ-

ous research

Finds evidence contrary to

other studies

H1: Being a coopera-

tive has a positive and

signiﬁcant effect on

eco-innovation.

Partially supported

(cooperatives more eco-

innovative, due to their

size and other factors)

Calle et al. (2020): Spanish wine

cooperatives

Carchano et al. (2023): Spanish

wine cooperatives

Rabadan et al. (2021): Spanish

olive oil agricultural cooperatives

H2: Exports have a

positive and signiﬁcant

effect on eco-inno-

vation.

Partially supported

Galbreath et al. (2021): Taiwan-

ese manufacturing and service

companies

Hanley and Semrau (2022): 14

European countries

Rabadan et al. (2021): Spanish

olive oil agricultural cooperatives

Torrecillas and Fernández

(2022): Spanish manufactur-

ing ﬁrms

Tsai and Liao (2017): Taiwanese

manufacturing ﬁrms

Chiarvesio et al. (2015):

Italian ﬁrms

De Marchi (2012): Spanish

manufacturing ﬁrms

Horbach (2016): European

countries

H3: Regulatory pres-

sures and market pull

are the main drivers of

eco-innovation.

Supported

Key drivers present in empirical

studies worldwide (see Horbach,

2016 for European countries,

and Afeltra et al. (2023), Bossle

et al. (2016) and Díaz-García et

al. (2015): for literature reviews).

H4: Voluntary initiatives

for environmental

good practice are

more important drivers

of eco-innovation in

cooperatives

Rejected

No previous empirical

evidence, but several in-

ﬂuential academic papers

suggest a more ecological

innate condition of co-

operatives (Mozas and

Bernal, 2006; Novkovic,

2008;

Puentes and Velasco,

2009)

Lack of internal ﬁnance,

credit or private equity Supported

Basterretxea and Martínez

(2012): Basque industrial

cooperatives

Grashuis and Su (2019): Farmer

cooperatives, review of the

empirical literature.

Maietta and Sena (2010): Italian

producers´ cooperatives

Source: compiled by the authors

167

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

study reinforces in many cases the evidence from previous literature. The main

differences concern the exports effect, which is still under debate, and the

voluntary initiatives.

6. conclusIons

The need to move towards new forms of production and consumption,

reducing environmental impacts, is currently a challenge at the core of many

initiatives. Cooperatives can be a key player in this context.

Our study conﬁrms the greater presence of eco-innovation among

cooperatives compared to traditional ﬁrms. However, it raises doubts as to

whether it is precisely this issue (being a cooperative) that makes a difference,

or whether this is due to other factors, such as external R&D, or higher export

intensity.

Nevertheless, the performance of cooperatives in terms of eco-innovation

is particularly noteworthy, considering the greater difﬁculties or obstacles they

encounter.

Our results could help guide policy makers towards promoting sustainable

practices among both cooperative and non-cooperative ﬁrms. Given that

future eco-regulations and taxes are the main driver of eco-innovation (even

more so in the case of cooperatives), policymakers should provide clear signals

about upcoming changes in regulations so that ﬁrms can align their strategies

accordingly. Our study also highlights several factors which hamper innovation

activities more acutely among cooperatives: lack of internal ﬁnance, lack of

credit or private equity and lack of collaboration partners. In accordance,

grants and subsidies for innovation activities are more important drivers of

innovation among cooperatives and so policymakers should complement

actual and future eco-regulations with speciﬁc aids for cooperatives (subsidies,

access to credit, collaboration via public research partners, etc.).

7. lImItatIons and FuturE rEsEarch dIrEctIons

Among the limitations of our study, we should mention that some factors

which, according to our results, have little inﬂuence on eco-innovation could

be highly context-dependent. For example, the high cost of energy, water

or materials was not an important eco-innovation driver for the 2019-2021

period in which our data were gathered. However, surveys for the period 2021-

2023 might show this factor as being more signiﬁcant.

The Innovation Survey of the Basque Institute of Statistics from which the

data were extracted included most of the relevant drivers of eco-innovation,

but did not include some internal drivers discussed in other papers, such as

environmental leadership and managerial concern, or questions related to

human resources and capabilities. If we had developed our own ad-hoc survey,

we would have included these questions, but it would have been difﬁcult for us

to achieve a similar response rate and such rich comparative data.

168 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

An interesting research direction would be to complete an international

analysis of eco-innovation in agricultural cooperatives and investor-owned

agricultural ﬁrms. This would enable eco-innovation to be researched from an

international perspective, given that agricultural cooperatives are important in

many different countries.

While we have studied eco-innovation in industrial cooperatives versus

investor-owned ﬁrms, further studies could use the Eustat’s innovation survey

to analyse eco-innovation among cooperatives in the service sector. In fact,

this survey offers data on 3,061 establishments in the service industry (139

of them cooperatives), a large source of data which was not used in our study.

data avaIlabIlIty

Data are available for research purposes upon request to the Basque

Institute of Statistics (Eustat).

acknoWlEdgmEnts

The authors would like to thank the Basque Institute of Statistics (Eustat)

for its support in providing microdata.

This study was supported ﬁnancially by the State Programme for the

Promotion of Scientiﬁc and Technical Research of Excellence/Spanish Ministry

of Economy and Competitiveness [Refs. PID2019-105986GB-C22, TED2021-

131763A-100, PID2021-122846NB-I00]; by the Department of Education

of the Basque Government [research grant numbers IT-1508-22 and IT 1735-

22] and by the University of the Basque Country [research grant number

GIU21/011].

rEFErEncEs

Aboelmaged, M. (2018). Direct and indirect effects of eco-innovation,

environmental orientation and supplier collaboration on hotel performance:

An empirical study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 537–549. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.192

Afeltra, G., Alerasoul, S. A. & Strozzi, F. (2023). The evolution of sustainable

innovation: from the past to the future. European Journal of Innovation

Management, 26(2), 386-421. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0113

Alkaya, E. & Demirer, G.N. (2015). Reducing water and energy consumption

in chemical industry by sustainable production approach: a pilot study for

polyethylene terephthalate production. Journal of Cleaner Production. 99,

119e128. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.087

Basterretxea, I. & Martínez, R. (2012). Impact of management and innovation

capabilities on performance: Are cooperatives different? Annals of Public

and Cooperative Economics, 83(3), 357-381. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8292.2012.00467.x

169

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

Besio, C., Arnold, N. & Ametowobla, D. (2022). Participatory organizations

as infrastructures of sustainability? The case of energy cooperatives and

their ways for increasing inﬂuence. Historical Social Research/Historische

Sozialforschung, 47(4), 91-113. doi: 10.12759/hsr.47.2022.40

Bokoumbo, K., Berge, S., Johnson, K. A., Yabi, A. J. & Yegbemey, R. N. (2023).

Cooperatives and sustainability: The case of maize producers in the plateaux

region of Togo. Heliyon, 9(6). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17345

Bonin, J.P., Jones, D.C. &, Putterman, L. (1993). Theoretical and Empirical

Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will Ever the Twain Meet? Journal of

Economic Literature, 31 (3). 1290-1320.

Bossle, M. B., de Barcellos, M. D., Vieira, L. M. & Sauvée, L. (2016). The drivers

for adoption of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner production, 113, 861-

872. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.033

Calle, F., González-Moreno, Á., Carrasco, I. & Vargas-Vargas, M. (2020). Social

Economy, Environmental Proactivity, Eco-Innovation and Performance

in the Spanish Wine Sector. Sustainability, 12(15), 5908. doi: 10.3390/

su12155908

Candemir, A., Duvaleix, S. & Latruffe, L. (2021). Agricultural cooperatives and

farm sustainability — A literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys,

35(4), 1118-1144. doi: 10.1111/joes.12417

Carchano, M., Carrasco, I. & González, Á. (2023). Eco-innovation and

environmental performance: Insights from Spanish wine companies. Annals

of Public and Cooperative Economics. doi: 10.1111/apce.12421

Castellacci, F. & Lie, C.M. (2017). A taxonomy of green innovators: empirical

evidence from South Korea. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp.

1036-1047. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.016

Chiarvesio, M. De Marchi, V. & Di Maria, E. (2015). Environmental innovations

and internationalization: Theory and practices. Business Strategy and the

Environment, (24), 790–801. doi: 10.1002/bse.1846

Dalhammar, C. (2016). Industry attitudes towards ecodesign standards for

improved resource efﬁciency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 155-

166. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.035

De Marchi, V. (2012). Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation:

Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing ﬁrms. Research Policy,

41(3), 614-623. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002

Demirel, P. & Kesidou, E. (2011). Stimulating different types of eco-innovation

in the UK: Government policies and ﬁrm motivations. Ecological Economics,

70(8), 1546-1557. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.019

Díaz-García, C., González-Moreno, A. & Sáez-Martínez, F. J. (2015). Eco-

innovation: insights from a literature review. Innovation: Management,

Policy & Practice, 17(1), 6–23. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060

Dong, C., Wang, H., Long, W., Ma, J. & Cui, Y. (2023). Can Agricultural

Cooperatives Promote Chinese Farmers’ Adoption of Green Technologies?

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5),

4051. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054051

170 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

Doran, J. & Ryan, G. (2016). The importance of the diverse drivers and types

of environmental innovation for ﬁrm performance. Business Strategy and

the Environment (25), 102-119. doi: 10.1002/bse.1860

European Commission. (2011). Innovation for a Sustainable Future —

The Eco-Innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP). European Commission.

Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

do?uri=COM:2011:0899:FIN:EN:PDF (oct 2023)

Eurostat (2021). Harmonised Data Collection for the CIS 2020.

Eustat (2024). Tablas estadísticas. Comercio exterior en 2022.

Galbreath, J., Chang, C. Y. & Tisch, D. (2021). Are exporting ﬁrms linked to

cleaner production? A study of eco-innovation in Taiwan. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 303, 127029. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127029

García-Granero, E. M., Piedra-Muñoz, L. & Galdeano-Gómez, E. (2018). Eco-

innovation measurement: A review of ﬁrm performance indicators. Journal

of Cleaner Production, 191, 304-317. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.215

Grashuis, J. & Su, Y. (2019). A review of the empirical literature on farmer

cooperatives: Performance, ownership and governance, ﬁnance, and

member attitude. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 90(1), 77-

102. doi: 10.1111/apce.12205

Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 7th

Edition.

Hanley, A., & Semrau, F. O. (2022). Stepping up to the mark? Firms’ export

activity and environmental innovation in 14 European countries. Industry

and Innovation, 29(5), 672-700. doi:10.1080/13662716.2021.2021865

He, F., Miao, X., Wong, C. W. Y. & Lee, S. (2018). Contemporary corporate eco-

innovation research: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production,

174, 502–526. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.314

Hellström, T. (2007). Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation:

the structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustainable Development, 15 (3),

148-159. doi: 10.1002/sd.309

Henrÿ, Hagen. 2017. Co-Operative Principles and Co-Operative Law Across

the Globe. In The Oxford Handbook of mutual, co-operative, and co-owned

business, ed. Jonathan Michie, Joseph R. Blasi, and Carlo Borzaga. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2017.

Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2014). The ties that bind? Exploring the basic principles

of worker-owned organizations in practice. Organization, 21(5), 645-665.

doi: 10.1177/1350508414537623

Hickel, J. (2019). The contradiction of the sustainable development goals:

Growth versus ecology on a ﬁnite planet. Sustainable Development, 27,

2019, 873-884. doi: 10.1002/sd.1947

Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation — New evidence

from German panel data sources. Research policy, 37(1), 163-173. doi:

10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006

171

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

Horbach, J. (2016). Empirical determinants of eco-innovation in European

countries using the community innovation survey. Environmental Innovation

and Societal Transitions, 19, 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.005

Horbach, J., Rammer, C. & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-

innovations by type of environmental impact — The role of regulatory push/

pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112-122.

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005

ICA (2015). Guidance Notes to the cooperative principles https://ica.coop/

sites/default/ﬁles/2021-11/ICA%20Guidance%20Notes%20EN.pdf [Last

accessed 28/9/2023].

Kemp, R. & Pearson, P. (2007). Final report of the MEI project measuring

eco innovation, UM Merit Maastricht, available at: https://www.oecd.org/

greengrowth/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf.

Li, D., Tang, F. & Zhang, L. (2020). Differential effects of voluntary environmental

programs and mandatory regulations on corporate green innovation.

Natural Hazards, 103, 3437-3456. doi: 10.1007/s11069-020-04137-y

Li, M., Yan, X., Guo, Y. & Ji, H. (2021). Impact of risk awareness and agriculture

cooperatives’ service on farmers’ safe production behaviour: Evidences

from Shaanxi Province. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127724. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127724

Liang, Q., Ma, K. & Liu, W. (2023). The role of farmer cooperatives in promoting

environmentally sustainable agricultural development in China: A review.

Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics. doi: 10.1111/apce.12444

Liu, T. & Wu, G. (2022). Does agricultural cooperative membership help reduce

the overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides? Evidence from rural

China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/

s11356-021-16277-0

Luo, L., Qiao, D., Zhang, R., Luo, C., Fu, X. & Liu, Y. (2022). Research on the

inﬂuence of education of farmers’ cooperatives on the adoption of green

prevention and control technologies by members: Evidence from rural

China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

19(10), 6255. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19106255

Ma, W., Abdulai, A. & Goetz, R. (2018). Agricultural cooperatives and

investment in organic soil amendments and chemical fertilizer in China.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100: 502–520. doi: 10.1093/

ajae/aax079

Mahmood, N., Zhao, Y., Lou, Q. & Geng, J. (2022). Role of environmental

regulations and eco-innovation in energy structure transition for green

growth: Evidence from OECD. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

183, 121890. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121890

Maietta, O.W. & Sena, V. (2010). Financial constraints and technical efﬁciency:

some empirical evidence for Italian producers’ cooperatives. Annals of

Public and Cooperative Economics, 81 (1): 21–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8292.2009.00404.x

172 Imanol Basterretxea · Ana Fernández-Sainz ·Jorge Gutiérrez-Goiria · Josu Santos-Larrazabal

Melece, L. & Hazners, J. (2017). Factors inﬂuencing Latvian small and medium

enterprises towards eco-innovation. Engineering for Rural Development,

16, 1466–1473. doi: 10.22616/ERDev2017.16.N333

Mozas, A., & Bernal, E. (2006). Desarrollo territorial y economía social. CIRIEC-

España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 55, 125-140.

Nesta, L., Vona, F. & Nicolli, F. (2014). Environmental policies, competition and

innovation in renewable energy. Journal of Environmental Economics and

Management, 67(3), 396-411. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2014.01.001

Novkovic, S. (2008). Deﬁning the co-operative difference. The Journal of Socio-

Economics, 37(6), 2168-2177. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2008.02.009

Puentes, R. & Velasco, M.M. (2009). Importancia de las sociedades

cooperativas como medio para contribuir al desarrollo económico, social y

medioambiental, de forma sostenible y responsable. REVESCO. Revista de

Estudios Cooperativos, 99, 104-129.

OECE (2009). Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation. Framework,

practices and measurement. Synthesis report.

Rabadán, A., Álvarez-Ortí, M., Tello, J. & Pardo, J. E. (2021). Tradition vs. eco-

innovation: the constraining effect of protected designations of origin (PDO)

on the implementation of sustainability measures in the olive oil sector.

Agronomy, 11(3), 447. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11030447

Rodríguez, J. & Wiengarten, F. (2017). The role of process innovativeness in

the development of environmental innovativeness capability. Journal of

Cleaner Production 142, 2423-2434. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.033

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E.

F., ... & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,

461(7263), 472-475. doi: 10.1038/461472a

Rousselière, D., Bouchard, M. J., & Rousselière, S. (2024). How does the social

economy contribute to social and environmental innovation? Evidence of

direct and indirect effects from a European survey. Research Policy, 53(5).

doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.104991

Tamayo-Orbegozo, U., Vicente-Molina, M. A., & Villarreal-Larrinaga, O. (2017).

Eco-innovation strategic model. A multiple-case study from a highly eco-

innovative European region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1347-

1367. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.174

Torrecillas, C., & Fernández, S. (2022). Exports and outward FDI as drivers of

eco-innovations. An analysis based on Spanish manufacturing ﬁrms. Journal

of Cleaner Production, 349, 131243. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131243

Tsai, K. H. & Liao, Y. C. (2017). Innovation capacity and the implementation of

eco-innovation: Toward a contingency perspective. Business Strategy and

the Environment, 26(7), 1000-1013. doi: 10.1002/bse.1963

UN (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25

September 2015, 42809, 1-13.

173

Eco-InnovatIon In WorkEr coopEratIvEs and InvEstor-oWnEd IndustrIal FIrms: a comparatIvE analysIs

rEvIsta dE Economía mundIal 67, 2024, 145-173

Valdaliso, J. M. (2015). The Basque Country: Past trajectory and path

dependency in policy-and strategy-making. In Strategies for shaping

territorial competitiveness (pp. 113-130). Routledge.

Van Hemel, C. & Cramer, J. (2002). Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in

SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production. (10), 439-453. doi: 10.1016/S0959-

6526(02)00013-6

Yu, L., Chen, C., Niu, Z., Gao, Y., Yang, H. & Xue, Z. (2021). Risk aversion,

cooperative membership and the adoption of green control techniques:

evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 279: 123288. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123288

Zhang, Y., Lu, Q., Yang, C. & Grant, M. K. (2023). Cooperative membership,

service provision, and the adoption of green control techniques: Evidence

from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 384, 135462. doi: 10.1016/j.

jclepro.2022.135462

Zhou J., Yang Z., Li K. & Yu X. (2019). Direct intervention or indirect support?

The effects of cooperative control measures on farmers’ implementation

of quality and safety standards. Food Policy 86: 101728. doi: 10.1016/j.

foodpol.2019.05.011