Sustainability 10 04206 v2

sustainability
Article
Different Ways to Access Knowledge for
Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. The Effect of
Foreign Direct Investment
Alberto Melane-Lavado * and Agustín Álvarez-Herranz *
Spanish and International Economics Department, Econometrics and History and Economic Institutions,
Castilla-La Mancha University (UCLM), 02071 Albacete, Spain
* Correspondence: Alberto.Melane@uclm.es (A.M.-L.); Agustin.Alvarez@uclm.es (A.Á.-H.)

Received: 5 October 2018; Accepted: 8 November 2018; Published: 14 November 2018
Abstract: Sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI), which displays an intention to develop a product

or service that contributes to economic, environmental, and social sustainability, has drawn growing
institutional and academic attention, due to the general consideration that innovation is an essential
part of achieving sustainability. For developments of this nature, it is considered that foreign direct
investment (FDI) helps companies to meet the requirements demanded by SOI, however, they show
different cooperation patterns, and so it is not known what path they must take to achieve it. In this
context, this paper uses comparative analysis to try to shed light on the possible differences in the
paths taken to achieve SOI by companies with and without FDI, taking into account their different
form of knowledge management. To achieve this objective, it has been necessary to build new
sustainability indicators (economic, environmental, and social) that allow the evaluation of the
sustainability of these processes, considering the sustainability objectives that guided companies
towards innovation. Using a logit model for 5897 Spanish companies during the period 2009–2014,
this paper contributes both theoretically and empirically to emerging research into the opening of
sustainable innovation. It provides a better understanding of the different channels for accessing
knowledge for SOI, and examining these channels through absorptive capacity and cooperation,
according to its age and size.
Keywords: sustainability-oriented innovation; foreign direct investment; sustainable indicators;

cooperation; absorptive capacity; size; age
1. Introduction
The literature widely expounds the idea that innovation can be driven by sustainability. However,
such innovation has great complexity, due to its increased sophistication in learning and innovation
networks [1]. This poses a challenge that companies cannot rise to by themselves, making it imperative
they search for knowledge beyond their borders [2].
Sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) has become an information- and learning-related
challenge [3]. This implies that companies with efficient knowledge management processes see these
innovations being pushed forward [4], as they have the ability to identify and access the knowledge
needed to frame the innovations within the principles of sustainability [5], thanks to their skills,
specialist staff, or because they can import specialized knowledge [6].
Current literature, therefore, focuses on understanding how companies expand and exploit their
external links in the interest of sustainability, which includes the development of cooperation with
external partners [3]. The diversity of the current channels to achieving sustainability creates a need to
integrate a large number of actors, but within a sustainable context [7].
Sustainability 2018, 10, 4206; doi:10.3390/su10114206 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4206 2 of 30
Despite this emphasis, the way in which different potential suppliers of knowledge, including
providers [8], clients [9], consultants [10], competitors [11], and universities [12], can contribute to
SOI, is not clear [13]. In addition, the intrinsic multidimensionality of sustainable goals, as well as
their scattered effects on innovation, make assessing innovations, with respect to sustainability, a
highly complex task [14]. To gain a full understanding of the complexity of sustainability requires the
construction of composite indicators, which enable its evaluation and increase its scope [15].
This paper focuses on understanding how companies expand and exploit their external links in the
interest of sustainability, answering the question: are there different ways to access knowledge for
SOI? To achieve this goal, we have developed new sustainability indicators (economic, environmental,
and social) that enable these processes to be assessed from the perspective of sustainability, considering
the sustainability goals that oriented the companies towards innovation, and determining whether
or not they influence innovation and whether or not this is enhanced by cooperation with any of the
aforementioned knowledge sources.
As has been established, when developing their innovation strategies, companies can rise to the
challenge of sustainability, and create a competitive advantage [16]. To do this, they must be capable of
meeting a series of requirements demanded by SOI, which include technological and financial capacity,
the ability to manage and create alliances and respond to market risk and directional risk, and the
absorptive capacity to recognize this as an advantage [17].
In this context, foreign direct investment (FDI) (a company is considered as having FDI, when
foreign investment exceeds 10%) can be considered as a driving factor behind sustainable development,
through its capacity to influence the wellbeing of societies [18], as it contributes knowledge assets [19],
represents a stable and resistant form of financing [20], and leads to benefits in terms of know-how
and demand creation [21]. It could also be a good catalyst for domestic investment, complement local
resources, and provide confidence [22], which results in an improved image and, in turn, financial
intermediation and credit growth [23], generating new employment opportunities and facilitating
technology transfer and management capacity [24].
Therefore, having FDI can make these companies more likely to develop this type of
innovation [17]. However, companies with FDI differ from their counterparts without it in terms of
their capacity to benefit from the different partners in R&D [25]. Given this difference, this paper
analyzes how partnerships, in the interest of sustainability, affect these companies differently. With
this in mind, this paper attempts to answer the question: how does having FDI affect the pathways
for accessing knowledge for SOI?
This comparison is interesting to study, given that there are very few studies that analyze the
multiple types of partners for innovation [26]. Furthermore, since the search strategies of companies
with FDI are determined by private aims, which orient their activities towards innovation [27],
analyzing the influence of multiple partners in SOI means that the lessons learnt from studies on R&D
cooperation may need modifying, in order to explain the behavior of both types of company.
This paper hopes to contribute, both theoretically and empirically, to emerging research into
sustainable innovation, while also providing a better understanding of the different channels for
accessing knowledge for attaining SOI. To do this, we examined these pathways in terms of absorptive
capacity and cooperation, according to company age and size, in a comparative analysis between
foreign and domestic companies in an intermediate country such as Spain.
The paper is structured as follows, in the next section, corresponding to the second section; the
conceptual framework is established through a review of the literature. The third section presents the
empirical study. The fourth section shows the results empirically and graphically. The fifth section is a
discussion on the main results obtained. The sixth and last section develops the conclusions drawn
from the study, as well as future research lines and the paper’s limitations.
2. Theoretical Framework
The belief that companies’ sustainable activities provide profit is increasingly widespread among
business managers [28]. However, these activities, as they take into account the environmental and
social dimensions, as well as the economic one, entail greater risk [29]. As indicated by Ardito and
Dangelico [30], there may be effects of different firm strategic and organizational orientations on
several dimensions of sustainable performance. This is why sustainability-oriented innovation must
be seen as the direction to follow, and not a final destination [31], thereby inherently leading us to the
understanding that a company’s innovative activity should be oriented towards sustainable goals.
Since innovations can be very recent, thereby impeding the assessment of their real impact on
sustainable development, we have decided to include, as a key assessment factor, the intention of the
company when developing a product or service, which contributes towards environmental and social
sustainability. Hence, this paper’s use of the term “sustainability-oriented innovation” or SOI, to refer
to new or significantly improved products or services which contribute to economic, environmental,
and social sustainability [32].
However, the intrinsic multidimensionality of sustainable goals, as well as their scattered effects
on innovation, make assessing innovations, with respect to sustainability, a highly complex task [14].
To gain a full understanding of the complexity of sustainability requires the construction of composite
indicators, which enable its evaluation and increase its scope [15].
These sustainable indicators allow us to quantify, analyze, and transmit information in a simple
way, optimizing the initial information [33] and informing as to whether this sustainable dimension
has been attained. To do this, these indicators must be workable, measurable, relevant, specific and
quantitative, and have data availability [34].
The sustainability indicators, constructed in this paper, have been based on a broad literary review
classified according to the three impact areas defined by this concept: economic, environmental, and
social (see Table 1).
Table 1. Review of the literature on sustainable criteria.
Factor Items Authors

Market shares
Economic sustainability criteria Production [35–47]
Commercial opportunities
Use of energy
[34–39]
Use of materials
Environmental sustainability criteria [41]
Environmental impact
[44–57]
Compliance with environmental regulations
Customer satisfaction
Employee health [34–40]
Employee security [44–46]
Social sustainability criteria
Employment creation [48–50]
Employment stability [54–58]
Qualified jobs
Source: prepared by the authors.
Together with these sustainability indicators, within the evident multidimensionality derived
from the concept of sustainable development, learning is key regarding the increase in competition
in the sphere of SOI [59]. Learning that fosters sustainability is understood as the application of the
value provided by new knowledge and its assimilation [60]. In this regard, there is a recognition of
the importance of the involvement of foreign partners, who provide new pathways and knowledge,
offering useful learning to successfully establish new foci regarding sustainability.
Along similar lines, diverse studies show a greater propensity to innovate sustainably, thanks to
external sources of knowledge and cooperation agreements [61]. The cooperation allows a company
to diversify risks, attain costly skills, and reduce development time, even in companies with strong
internal R&D activities, and with a high level of human capital [62]. However, there is no consensus
on the ideal type of cooperation for achieving each of the dimensions of sustainability (Table 2).
Table 2. Studies on the relationship between cooperation and sustainable innovation.
Authors Purpose Actors Involved Result Methodology

Research institution
For innovations to develop a
To examine open innovation Employees
sustainable product or service,
capabilities when innovations are Users Multiple-case
[7] preestablished, open
particularly focused on sustainable Suppliers study
conventional innovation
development External agents
capabilities can be used
Competitors
This paper investigates the ability of
sustainability-oriented small and Proactive approaches to
medium-sized enterprises to acquiring knowledge are Qualitative
Strategic alliances with
[63] acquire and develop explicit complemented by structured interviews and
suppliers and customers
knowledge required for an interaction with external content analyses
environmental management system stakeholders
and related tools
This paper explores the case of a
Brazilian family-owned company of
Customers Organizational survival
rubber-based products, operating in
Industry depends directly on the actions
the sectors of health, education, and
Schools in the region and the of creating new ideas and Exploratory
[64] coatings, which, based on
country innovation cycles and, single case study
organizational sustainability, uses
Health professionals moreover, allowing interaction
knowledge to develop open
Suppliers among stakeholders
innovations aimed at promoting
sustainable innovation
The interaction between
To find out the effect of Structural
Universities and Business leads
[61] university-business interactions on Universities equation
to greater productivity and sales
the performance of SOI in SMEs modelling
of SOI
Cooperation without
distinction of partner
Depth, as the number of
This paper deals with the open external sources of Both the variety and the
innovation mode in the information to which the intensity of the company’s
Hierarchical
environmental realm and company attributes a high search for external knowledge
[65] econometric
investigates the effects that degree of importance can help the decision to
models
knowledge sourcing has on firms’ Diversity, as the number of introduce an environmental
environmental innovations information sources from innovation
external companies that
depend on the company for
their innovation activities
To provide a comprehensive
framework for understanding the Green innovators seem to be
External companies or
[62] specific role of—internal, external characterised by more intensive Probit models
institutions
and hybrid—resources in external relationships
environmental innovation
Strong influence of user habits
To create a methodological
on the consumption of heating
framework to accompany the
[9] Customers energy and shows the starting Case study
innovation of sustainable product
points for the development of
services
sustainable product services
Exploratory
This paper connected responsible Responsible innovation drives
Opening capacity quantitative
[1] innovation with open knowledge openness with regard to
Diversity opening approach and
networks capacity and diversity
case study
External knowledge links play a
To integrate knowledge and key role in the integration of Regression
Collaboration networks
[2] competencies from outside of the principles of environmental analysis in two
External knowledge links
firm on green product development sustainability into the steps
manufacturing process
Table 2. Cont.
Authors Purpose Actors Involved Result Methodology

The authors’ results suggest that
the development of EIs entails a
Important as a source of
higher recourse to external
information for:
knowledge, in the form of the
Suppliers
use of external information
Clientele
sources, acquiring R&D from
This paper investigates how green Competitors
external firms and cooperation.
innovators address the knowledge KIBS
[66] Relationships with partners that ANOVA
needs that emerge when initiating a Universities
do not belong to the supply
pathway of sustainability Public research centres
chain—including KIBS,
Others
universities, research
Diversity of cooperation
institutions and
Cooperation with foreign
competitors—are far more
partners (% of companies)
important than for other
innovations
There is a strong link between
environmental compliance and
new green product
This paper explores the role of
developments. Involving key
suppliers in enhancing the
suppliers in green new product
[67] manufacturer’s ability to Suppliers Case study
development for
successfully carry out green
environmentally demanding
innovation in product development
customers and markets can
bring both environmental and
commercial success
From this literary review, companies with a greater propensity for SOI are those that go beyond
their own limits through alliances with stakeholders [68], which implies identifying, exploring, and
integrating their viewpoints [2]. Acknowledging that, the companies’ challenge is how to recreate
new managerial and organizational capabilities for innovating towards sustainability [69]. However,
this requires companies to be in a state of alert [70], and having a high enough absorptive capacity
becomes a central skill for SOI [66].
Therefore, internal knowledge will be the source of a company’s absorptive capacity, which will
be strengthened by managers through internal R&D and links with external information sources [71].
Consequently, certain studies have involved human capital when it comes to internalizing external
knowledge [72], but very few have taken into account the characteristics of this capital empirically [73].
In addition, since absorptive capacity correlates with inputs to the innovative process, the way
to isolate its role is by analyzing its moderating function in the impact of external knowledge flows
and the results of innovation [65], highlighting it as a complementary factor in the search for this
knowledge [74]. Since mere exposure to knowledge is not enough, what is required is to retain,
reactivate, and apply it to products and processes [75].
As has been established in the introduction, FDI helps companies to meet the requirements
demanded by SOI. In fact, for FDI, the search for economic performance is not the only channel, since
environmental and social concerns are also now being addressed [76]. It, therefore, does not only
cover investments in physical facilities, but also any activity that is relevant in value creation, such as
knowledge attainment [77].
It is considered that FDI seeks out strategies to increase knowledge with the aim of gaining
strategic resources for its localization [78]. This means that because of its potential to invest in
knowledge [79], its attitude towards cooperation and interest in obtaining external knowledge [80] are
technologically different, and also favors an increase in human capital and competition [81].
This strategy leads FDI to search for and develop knowledge assets through diverse channels [82].
However, the extent to which this happens is dependent on the integration of these companies, both
internally and externally [83], enabling them to become part of the local innovation system [84].
Thus, the beneficial formation of external links with other companies and institutions in their
environment allows companies to be more independent from their corporate group, as well as to be
more creative [85]. In this sense, the literature shows that there are different cooperation patterns,
in the case of innovation, not oriented by sustainable objectives with respect to national companies,
taking into account multinationality, the diversity of partners, the sector, whether it deals with internal
or external innovation, the search strategy for external knowledge, and in different settings, such as
Spain, Italy, Finland, and the Netherlands (Table 3).
Table 3. Cooperation patterns of foreign vs. national companies.
Authors Purpose Cooperation Difference Methodology

Foreign MNEs are better at R&D
cooperation with foreign partners,
To explore the effects of
but it is domestic-owned MNEs that
multinationality on the Cooperation with Italian
exhibit the highest propensity to Probit
propensity to R&D cooperation, counterparts
[86] R&D cooperation with local firms. regressions with
considering subsidiaries of Cooperation with foreign
By contrast, foreign MNEs have random effects
foreign MNEs and domestic counterparts
much the same propensity to enter
owned MNEs
local R&D cooperation as
non-MNEs
Subsidiaries may benefit more from
undertaking R&D cooperation with
customers and competitors, whose
deeper knowledge of local
To analyze how research and
conditions better complements the
development (R&D) Universities
more global knowledge base of Probit
cooperation affects product Customers
[25] subsidiaries. In contrast, domestic regressions with
innovation for subsidiaries of Suppliers
firms may benefit more from random effects
foreign multinational firms and Competitors
engaging in R&D cooperation with
domestic firms
suppliers and universities, whose
more global nature of knowledge
better complement the deeper local
knowledge base of domestic firms
To contribute a better
understanding of cooperative More intense cooperation of FS with
innovation patterns of foreign local agents in dynamic
subsidiaries in Spain, looking specialisation sectors. Cooperative
Company has cooperated
more closely at sectoral activities are influenced by
with external partners (own
[87] taxonomy. Attention is focused economic-structural factors of the Logit
business group excluded)
more on innovative intensive Spanish economy. Cooperative
located in Spain
subsidiaries and innovation and strategies of domestic firms might
structural-competitive variables also have an influence on those
are combined to explain local foreign subsidiaries
cooperation
Relevant differences between
To explore differences between
foreign subsidiaries and local
the propensity to cooperate with Probit
[88] Universities groups or companies in terms of
universities of foreign Case study
their propensity to cooperate with
subsidiaries and Spanish firms
universities
Company has cooperated
with external partners (own
To understand the relationship business group excluded) Foreign status increases the
[89] between foreign status and local located in Spain probability of local cooperation for Logit
cooperation for innovation Extent of local cooperative innovation
activities
Local R&D networks
Foreign subsidiaries show a lesser
To compare the technology propensity for external technology
sourcing of foreign subsidiaries sourcing via R&D outsourcing from
Cooperation with an
and domestic firms looking at independent firms in the host
unaffiliated partner in Spain
domestic R&D outsourcing, country, for international R&D Multivariate
[26] Cooperation with an
international R&D outsourcing, outsourcing and for international probit
unaffiliated partner in
domestic cooperation for cooperation for innovation. In
another country
innovation and international contrast, foreign subsidiaries show
cooperation for innovation a greater propensity for domestic
cooperation for innovation
Table 3. Cont.
Authors Purpose Cooperation Difference Methodology

Subsidiaries from developing
To examine how the search
countries draw upon more external
strategy for external knowledge
Companies with external knowledge sources than
differs between domestic
[27] R&D collaboration subsidiaries from developed Tobit
companies in Spain and foreign
agreements countries; while both types of firms
subsidiaries from developed
have a less intensive search strategy
and developing countries
than domestic firms
To investigate domestic and
Foreign firms in the Netherlands are
foreign innovating firms’
less likely to cooperate with
determinants of R&D R&D cooperation with
domestic public knowledge Heckman probit
[90] cooperation with domestic domestic public knowledge
institutions than domestic firms, estimates
universities and public institutions
while in Finland no significant
knowledge institutes in Finland
difference can be detected
and the Netherlands
This review shows that the patterns of cooperation differ from one company type to the other as
regards innovation, but does not inquire as to whether the intention of companies, when developing
innovation, is to contribute or not to economic, environmental, and social sustainability. This intention,
to achieve the three sustainable objectives when developing innovation, is what makes the difference
between what is considered conventional innovation and sustainability-oriented innovation. To the
best of our knowledge, there are no studies that analyze these differences for the case of SOI. We,
therefore, believe that a study in this line would be useful, bearing in mind cooperation is affected by
the complexity of SOI, since it implies moving away from the current knowledge base [69], and that
the cooperation networks are more complex [1].
3. Methodology
3.1. Database and Sample

For the study, data has been used from the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC), which
monitors innovation activities, providing anonymized data for both foreign and national companies
located in Spain. The database is managed by Spain’s National Statistics Institute (INE), and responds
to the framework of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS), used to find out the level of innovation
in the European Union and Norway (for further information on the methodology for producing,
see http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176755&
menu=resultados&secc=1254736195616&idp=1254735576669).
From the annual data contained in the panel, the period 2009–2014 has been used for this study,
which contains constant and standardized information on 5897 companies, i.e., those companies in
operation throughout the sample period, and which have consistently either received or not received
FDI. To reach this final sample, we undertook an exhaustive transformation and cleansing of data,
leaving aside public companies, research associations and institutions [26], and joint enterprises
(companies that have alternated years with and without FDI), as well as companies that were not in
operation throughout the sample period. The sample companies were, thereby, classified into two
groups, companies with foreign investment (FDI) and without it (NFDI).
This database has certain characteristics that are significant for the purposes of this paper. Firstly,
contrary to other European experiences with CIS, PITEC is designed as a panel survey, in other words,
it collects information annually from a stable sample enabling the possibility of observing a specific
company at various points in time [88]. Monitoring information on the same companies over time is
essential for a moderation analysis. Given that a properly defined mediation model establishes causal
relationships between variables, the temporal precedence of causal factors is required [91]. Secondly,
being a panel survey, the dataset enabled us to control possible endogeneity issues arising from the
omission of non-observable characteristics specific to the company [62]. Thirdly, it allowed us to obtain
information on R&D cooperation agreements in which companies participated during the period
between t − 2 and t, that is, between the reference year of the survey and the previous two [91]. Lastly,
the fact that the survey was not conducted specifically to gather information on sustainability issues
avoids the potential bias of companies looking to improve their social image [62].
Finally, the study has been focused on Spain, due to various factors which make it, empirically
speaking, the ideal stage for this research. The first is that Spain is one of the countries where R&D
investment by foreign companies is especially high [27], revealing a high degree of local integration [26].
Secondly, we are focusing on Spain as a paradigm of an intermediate country [89], so an analysis of
companies in Spain can, therefore, help to generalize outcomes for a number of countries which, like
Spain, are neither in the vanguard nor lagging behind in technological development [25]. Lastly, the
growing importance of sustainable issues makes it an interesting context for researching the dynamics
of sustainable innovation [92].
3.2. Specification of the Model

Given that the dependent variable is a dichotomous variable, a binary result model is used that
controls the possible selection bias that arises from the exclusion of the analysis of companies that are
not innovative. This method has proven to be suitable for estimating real results and more suitable than
a Heckman selection model, given that the dependent variable is binary and not continuous [8,93,94].
We, therefore, undertook a binary logistic regression analysis, through block selection, using a
forward conditional method for the selection of variables. This gave rise to a hierarchical model, so all
the variables and interactions are compiled within the table, which contribute to the model’s overall
adjustment, based on the relevance of the Rao score statistic [95].
The likelihood that a company becomes innovative is calculated using a logistic cumulative
distribution function, where the conditional probability has the following form:
0
βX
1
Z
Pi = PR ((Y = 1| Xi ) = ϕ(z)dz = , (1)
1 + e−z
−∞
where the logit model is the logarithm of the odds ratio:

Pi
Li = Ln = zi . (2)
1 − Pi
The model expressed in its general form, taking into account the groups of variables that will be
analyzed in the study, is the following:

Pi
R + D + iit = Ln = ∝0 + ϕControl.V + γISO + δCoop + θCA + µModerating.V, (3)
1 − Pi
where:
Control.V: Control variables of the model, which are the variables of the Size (Tait ) and Antiquity
(Abit ) of the companies, so Control.V = ∑4a=1 βa Sait + ∑3b=1 δb Abit .
ISO: Indicators of sustainable objectives that would be expressed in the equation as γISO =
∑3f=1 γf ISOfit . These variables are the ones that determine if the companies carry out innovations
guided by sustainable objectives.
Coop: Cooperation variables that include six types of partners with which companies can
cooperate, their expression being disaggregated in the model δCoop = ∑6d=1 δd Cdit .
CA: Variables that define the absorptive capacity of companies in two groups, Human Capital
(Peit ) and Information Sources (Icit ), so that θCA = ∑6c=1 γd Icit + ∑4e=1 µe Peit .
Moderating.V: This group is formed by the variables that reflect the moderating effect between
the variables of human capital, cooperation, and indicators of sustainable objectives.
Therefore, the Model (3) to estimate in a disaggregated way will be

h i 4 3 3 6 6 4
Pi
R + D + iit = Ln 1−Pi = ∝0 + ∑ βa Sait + ∑ κb Abit + ∑ γf ISOfit + ∑ δd Cdit + ∑ γd Icit + ∑ µe Peit
6 4
a=1 b=1
3 4
f=1 d=1
6 3
c=1 e=1
6 4 3
(4)
+ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ γf ISOfit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·γISOfit + ∑ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit ·γf ISOfit .
d=1 e=1 f=1 e=1 d=1 f=1 d=1 e=1 f=1
Lastly, as has already been mentioned, the Equation (4) has been estimated for two groups, FDI and
NFDI, based on whether or not the company has foreign direct investment, respectively (this division
has been made taking into account the content of the “company type” question, which forms the
PITEC base). We will, therefore, have different equations depending on the groups considered above:
h i
Pi
R + D + iit (FDI) = Ln 1−Pi
4 3 3 6 6 4
=∝0 + ∑ βa Sait + ∑ κb Abit + ∑ γf ISOfit + ∑ δd Cdit + ∑ γd Icit + ∑ µe Peit (5)
a=1 b=1 f=1 d=1 c=1 e=1
6 4 3 4 6 3 6 4 3
+ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ γf ISOfit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·γISOfit + ∑ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit ·γf ISOfit ,
d=1 e=1 f=1 e=1 d=1 f=1 d=1 e=1 f=1
h i
Pi
R + D + iit (NFDI) = Ln 1−Pi
4 3 3 6 6 4
=∝0 + ∑ βa Sait + ∑ κb Abit + ∑ γf ISOfit + ∑ δd Cdit + ∑ γd Icit + ∑ µe Peit (6)
a=1 b=1 f=1 d=1 c=1 e=1
4 6 3 4 6 3 6 4 3
+ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ γf ISOfit ·µe Peit + ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·γISOfit + ∑ ∑ ∑ δd Cdit ·µe Peit ·γf ISOfit .
d=1 e=1 f=1 e=1 d=1 f=1 d=1 e=1 f=1
3.3. Identification, Measurement, and Relationship of the Variables

This section presents the definitions and measurements of the variables for this study. For more
information see Appendix A.
3.3.1. Sustainability-Oriented Innovations (SOI)

The “internal innovation” (R + D + iit ) is the dependent variable of the model, measured
as a dichotomous variable, which includes the value 1, which indicates whether the company
“i” has systematically carried out creative works with the objective of developing new products
(goods/services) and new, or significantly improved, processes at the time “t”.
If such innovation has been guided by sustainable goals, we can say that it is an SOI [13]. This is
why we have incorporated “indicators of sustainable objectives” (ISOfit ) as an explanatory variable,
which includes economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
These indicators of sustainable objectives have been developed based on a principal component
analysis. This aims to reduce the volume of data and maintain the variation of the initial dataset, hence,
its transformation into a new set of variables, which are uncorrelated and classified in such a way
that the first conserves most of the variation of the rest of the original variables [96]. The results of
this technique are often expressed in terms of scores of components and loadings [97]. It also reduces
the risk of double weighting [98], making it an appropriate technique for developing sustainability
indicators [56].
The reliability of the scale was demonstrated by calculating its Cronbach’s alpha, which gave
the validity and reliability results presented in Appendix B. The result of the factor analysis supports
the validity of the three subconstructions for both groups (economic, environmental, and social
sustainability) given that the aforementioned amount of variance exceeded 50%, and the weighting
factors of all the items in each scale exceeded 0.5 [99].
3.3.2. Cooperation
The model uses information on active cooperation in innovation with external partners.
The explanatory variables (Cdit ) include cooperation for the innovation of company “i” with different
partners “d” at the temporary moment “t”. This cooperation consists in the active participation with
other companies from the group, providers, clients, competitors, consultants, universities, and research
centers, in activities of innovation. The two parties do not necessarily obtain commercial profit. Simply
subcontracting work without active cooperation was excluded [8].
3.3.3. Absorptive Capacity

Given the multidimensional nature of knowledge, we needed to distinguish between two types:
one for establishing a company’s capacity to assess external information, and a second for assessing its
capacity to use it. The first entails relatively simple knowledge while the second implies complex and
abstract knowledge [100].
We considered the two aforementioned types of absorptive capacity: the first allows a company to
scan their immediate environment for knowledge, for which we used the responses on the importance
of external information sources for innovation. These sources, contained within the “information
sources” (Icit ) variable, include clients, providers, competitors, universities, consultants, commercial
laboratories, or private R&D institutes, within a company or group of companies, departments,
employees, etc. [101,102].
As a proxy for the second type of absorptive capacity, the (Peit ) variables are used, which collect,
by quartiles, the percentage of human capital with higher education that the company “i” has at a given
moment “t”. Having this kind of employee increases a company’s ability to absorb and apply new
knowledge in their innovation processes. In addition, it facilitates the exchange of knowledge within
the organization and offers a greater capacity to find, integrate, and use new tacit knowledge [91,103].
The reason for dividing the human capital with higher education variable into quartiles is that this
allowed us to better observe the different knowledge needs that are required by companies to cooperate
in innovation with their various partners which, in turn, provide skills and different capacities [74].
Given that human capital, through training and experience, can be improved and, therefore, have
a greater capacity to absorb and use new sources of knowledge [71], we postulated that the employees
of companies with FDI, being highly qualified [85] and having to develop multicultural skills and
interact across borders, will develop a greater absorptive capacity [104], which will give them a greater
propensity for SOI.
3.3.4. Moderating Variables

In Model (4), we tried to check the moderator role of the “staff” (Peit ) and “cooperation” (Cdit )
variables in the development of SOI. A moderation hypothesis attempts to determine under what
conditions a relationship becomes stronger, weaker, disappears, or changes direction. A moderating
variable is a qualitative or quantitative variable that affects the magnitude and/or direction of a
relationship between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent variable or criterion.
The moderating effects are also called interaction effects.
Moderating variables have been introduced to verify the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Thanks to having qualified human capital, can the assimilation and exploitation of
companies’ external sources be improved, in such a way that those that have enough will be able to efficiently
manage said sources?
In this paper, this is reflected in the use of these employees in cooperation with different
partners. To assess this, we included a product term between the “cooperation” (Cdit ) and “staff” (Peit )
variables, which encompass qualified human capital used as a proxy for the second type of absorptive
capacity [102].
Companies face an important challenge in the development of SOI, since sustainability must be
understood and integrated into the innovative process [2]. In this context,
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Can staff training play a key role in guaranteeing the skills for this?
The assessment for this is carried out through a product term between the variables “indicators of
sustainable objectives” and “staff” (Peit *ISOfit ).
Given that the literature places the emphasis on knowing how companies expand and exploit
their external links as regards sustainability through cooperation with external collaborators [3],
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Can cooperation with each of the potential partners affect the different sustainable areas?
The paper measures how cooperation with each of the potential partners can affect the different
sustainable areas through the product of the “cooperation” variable and the “indicators of sustainable
objectives” variable (Cdit *ISOfit ). This, therefore, implies that a diverse range of paths can be taken to
achieve this [7].
Learning is key to increasing skills in the area of SOI, understanding it as the assimilation
and application of acquired knowledge, so that not only will the participation of external partners
be required, which provide new paths and knowledge structures but, also, human capital with
some kind of higher education, to assimilate and apply new knowledge in a company’s innovation
processes [59,60,91,101]. In this regard,
Hypothesis 4 (H4). What kind of learning will enhance sustainable objectives?
Hence, we introduced the product of the variables “cooperation”, “staff”, and “indicators of
sustainable objectives” (Cdit *ISOfit *Peit ).
3.3.5. Control Variables

The following control variables were included in this paper. Firstly, we controlled the company
“size” (Sait ) variable, in which we distinguish between large companies and SMEs [105].
This division is important because, despite as SMEs are recognized as being key for sustainable
development, their research tends to focus more on environmental issues than SOI. In addition, these
often have a lack of resources, a situation that acts as an incentive for them to cooperate with others.
In this sense, there are studies that find an inverse relationship between firm size and a proven
commitment to sustainability ideals [106].
However, few studies explore the role that the different partners play in contributing knowledge
for achieving SOI [61]. Studying the strategies of these businesses can provide a better understanding
of the tensions between firm size and sustainability goals [107].
For its part, there is ample evidence to indicate that large companies increase opportunities for
innovation, as they have more extensive resource bases [4] and have the internal capacities needed to
participate in R&D alliances [103].
Secondly, we controlled “age” (Abit ), which, like “size”, is widely used as a control variable in
studies of this nature. The company’s age can have an influence, given that having more experience
probably means a greater accumulation of knowledge, but can also become a source for generating
inertia, which enables adaptation, as well as the introduction of new developments in products and
processes [108]. It seems that older companies are better, or that they currently place more emphasis
on the integration of sustainability issues [2].
4. Result
Table 4 (for more information, see Appendix C) shows the results obtained from the binary logistic
regression for the two compared groups, FDI vs NFDI, considering their size, thereby allowing us to
carry out a comparative analysis and study the shared and disparate effects which result from this.
Four possible scenarios of how companies can achieve SOI were found (for the comparison between
variables, we need to look at the difference in the odds ratio. The odds of the event is the probability
it will occur divided by the probability that it will not. It is, therefore, interpreted as a ratio, i.e., the
number of times that something could happen over the times it might not happen).
Table 4. Results of the logistic regression.
Independent Variable SMEs NFDI SMEs FDI BIG NFDI BIG FDI
Odds Odds
R + D + iit β β Odds Ratio β β Odds Ratio
Ratio Ratio
Constant 0.56 0.57 −0.71 0.49 −0.2 0.82 −0.29 0.75
Control variables
S2 0.34 *** 1.4 0.86 *** 2.35
S3 0.57 *** 1.77 0.31 *** 1.37
S4 −0.42 *** 0.66 −0.41 *** 0.66
Indicators of Sustainable Objectives
ISO1 0.47 *** 1.6 0.38 *** 1.47 0.47 *** 1.59 0.39 *** 1.48
ISO2 0.14 *** 1.15 0.21 *** 1.23 0.14 *** 1.15 0.18 *** 1.2
ISO3 0.09 *** 1.1 0.15 ** 1.16 0.09 *** 1.09 0.15 ** 1.16
Cooperation
C4 0.67 *** 1.96 1.12 *** 3.08 0.67 *** 1.95 1.2 *** 3.32
C5 0.27 *** 1.31 0.28 *** 1.32
C6 0.64 *** 1.89 1.64 *** 5.16 0.64 *** 1.9 1.64 *** 5.14
Absorptive capacity
I1 1.1 *** 3.01 0.82 *** 2.28 1.11 *** 3.05 0.80 *** 2.24
I2 −0.35 *** 0.7 −0.33 *** 0.72
I3 0.46 *** 1.58 0.27 *** 1.31 0.45 *** 1.57 0.28 *** 1.33
I6 0.57 *** 1.76 1.01 *** 2.73 0.58 *** 1.78 1.004 *** 2.73
P1 −0.37 *** 0.69 −0.3 *** 0.74
P2 0.1 *** 1.1 0.19 ** 1.21 0.11 *** 1.12 0.21 ** 1.23
P3 0.33 ** 1.38 0.29 ** 1.34
P4 0.25 *** 1.28 −0.47 *** 0.62 0.19 *** 1.2 −0.44 *** 0.64
Moderating variables
C1 *P1 0.25 ** 1.28
C1 *P2 0.61 *** 1.84 0.61 *** 1.83
C1 *P3 −0.53 ** 0.59 −0.52 ** 0.59
C3 *P3 −0.96 ** 0.38 −1.06 *** 0.34
C6 *P1 −1.23 *** 0.29 −1.19 *** 0.3
C6 *P2 −0.93 ** 0.4
C6 *P3 2.01 ** 7.47 2.33 ** 10.24
C2 *ISO2 0.54 *** 1.72 0.50 *** 1.65
C3 *ISO2 −0.22 *** 0.8 −0.38 ** 0.68 −0.21 *** 0.81
C6 *ISO1 0.81 *** 2.25 0.79 *** 2.21
C6 *ISO3 −0.66 *** 0.51 −0.58 ** 0.56
P1 *ISO3 0.22 *** 1.25 0.23 *** 1.26
P4 *ISO3 −0.37 *** 0.69 −0.39 *** 0.68
C2 *P2 *ISO3 −0.86 *** 0.42 −0.86 *** 0.42
C2 *P3 *ISO3 0.63 ** 1.87
C5 *P1 *ISO2 0.34 *** 1.41 0.35 *** 1.42
C5 *P2 *ISO2 −0.41 ** 0.66 −0.41 ** 0.66
C5 *P4 *ISO2 1.02 ** 2.77
C5 *P1 *ISO3 −0.26 ** 0.77 −0.27 ** 0.76
C5 *P3 *ISO3 −0.42 ** 0.66 −0.39 ** 0.68
Table 4. Cont.
Independent Variable SMEs NFDI SMEs FDI BIG NFDI BIG FDI
Odds Odds
R + D + iit β β Odds Ratio β β Odds Ratio
Ratio Ratio
C6 *P2 *ISO2 1.09 ** 2.98 1.32 *** 3.73
Number of cases 28,536 5646 28,536 5646
6005.662 1576.629 5925.798 1561.328
Omnibus test 0.0E0 1.4647E-307 0.0E0 2.5953E-304
(23) (37) (21) (35)
Nagelkerke’s R2 0.334 0.424 0.330 0.420
Hosmer−Lemeshow
39.069 (8) 0.0512 46.328 (8) 0.0549 42.506 (8) 0.0533 28.804 (8) 0.0656
test
Percentage of correct
71.3 76.9 71.4 76.4
predictions:
Source: prepared by the authors. Note: ** and *** significant coefficients up to 5% and 1%, respectively.
Analyzing the results, we can see that, across the board, there is a series of direct and indirect
relationships when it comes to incentivizing innovation, which is oriented towards sustainability
through its goals.
Sustainability 2018, These relationships
10, x FOR PEER REVIEW for SMEs with FDI are represented in Figure 1. 14 of 33
Figure
Figure 1. Orientation
1. Orientation towards
towards sustainabilityfor
sustainability forSMEs
SMEswith
with foreign
foreign direct
direct investment
investment(FDI).
(FDI).Source:
Source:
prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***) significant coefficients
prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***) significant coefficients up
upand
to 5% to 5%
1%. and 1%.
Figure
Figure 1 shows
1 shows that,that, although
although being
being of aofmedium-size,
a medium-size, Company
Company (S3(S 3) increases
) increases thethe possibilities
possibilities for
for innovation, and this grows by 98% when it has a size corresponding to
innovation, and this grows by 98% when it has a size corresponding to between 10 and 50 employees between 10 and 50
(S2 )employees
(difference(Sbetween
2) (difference between odds ratio S2 and odds ratio S3), this being influenced by
odds ratio S2 and odds ratio S3 ), this being influenced by companies aged
companies aged
between 5 and 15 years between 5 and
old (A 15 years old (A2), as the other (Abit) variables are not significant.
2 ), as the other (Abit ) variables are not significant.
These SMEs will be more innovative if they have information which is from universities (I6),
These SMEs will be more innovative if they have information which is from universities (I6 ),
internal (I1), and from the client (I3), this being the order based on their odds ratios (2.73 > 2.28 > 1.31).
internal (I1 ), and from the client (I3 ), this being the order based on their odds ratios (2.73 > 2.28 >
With regard to the integration of stakeholders, we can observe how the cooperation (C6) with
competitors and universities (C4) increases innovation.
The significance of the products (C6*P3) and (C1*P2) suggests that there is better assimilation and
exploitation both of cooperation with universities (C6) and internal cooperation (C1), thanks to
qualified staff. This improvement is more than double for the case of universities, but requires
between 50% and 75% qualified staff (P3). If there is 25%–50%, qualified staff (P2), there will be an
1.31). With regard to the integration of stakeholders, we can observe how the cooperation (C6 ) with
competitors and universities (C4 ) increases innovation.
The significance of the products (C6 *P3 ) and (C1 *P2 ) suggests that there is better assimilation
and exploitation both of cooperation with universities (C6 ) and internal cooperation (C1 ), thanks to
qualified staff. This improvement is more than double for the case of universities, but requires between
50% and 75% qualified staff (P3 ). If there is 25–50%, qualified staff (P2 ), there will be an improvement
due to internal cooperation, which will increase the possibilities of innovation by 84%.
SMEs that orient their innovation goals towards sustainability have a greater propensity to
innovate, demonstrated by the significance of all the goals (ISO1 , ISO2 , ISO3 ). However, we do see that
the influence of these goals on the innovative process, aside from being direct, can be moderate.
The moderator effect of cooperation with universities (C6 *ISO1 ) and providers (C2 *ISO2 ) indicates
that these links will enhance the effect of economic and environmental sustainability, specifically
increasing innovation by 78% and 49%, respectively.
The moderator effect of staff (P1 *ISO3 ) establishes that with less than 25% qualified staff, there will
be sufficient skills to understand and efficiently integrate social sustainability, increasing innovation
by 9%.
Lastly, moderation as a whole, between cooperation with universities and qualified staff
(C6 *P2 *ISO2 ), reflects the fact that university participation can improve the effect of environmental
sustainability,
Sustainabilitybut
2018,requires
10, x FOR between 25% and 50% qualified staff, which will enable the newly
PEER REVIEW 15 acquired
of 33
knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 175%. Equally, cooperation with consultants
acquired knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 175%. Equally, cooperation with
and qualified staff (C5 *P4 *ISO3 ) reflects the fact that the participation of these can improve the effect
consultants and qualified staff (C5*P4*ISO3) reflects the fact that the participation of these can improve
of social sustainability, but requires more than 75% qualified staff, which allows newly acquired
the effect of social sustainability, but requires more than 75% qualified staff, which allows newly
knowledge
acquired to knowledge
be appliedtotobeinnovation, increasingincreasing
applied to innovation, this by 71%.
this by 71%.
Figure 2 compares
Figure 2 compares these results
these with
results withthose
thosecorresponding toNFDI
corresponding to NFDISMEs.
SMEs.
I1 I3 I6 C4 C5
A2
C6
1.76(***)
S3
1.4(***) 1.28(***)
S2 R+D P4
1.41(***)
P1 C5
1.15(***)
ISO2
1.6(***)
ISO1
1.1(***)
ISO3
SOI
Figure
Figure 2. Orientation
towards sustainability
sustainability for SMEs
for SMEs without
without foreign
foreign direct
direct investment
investment (NFDI).
(NFDI). Source:
Source:
prepared prepared
by the by Note:
authors. the authors. Note:
the value the valuethe
represents represents the (**),
odds ratio. odds(***)
ratio. (**), (***) coefficients
significant significant up
to 5%coefficients
and 1%. up to 5% and 1%.
The first difference we can observe is that which relates to size. In contrast to the previous case,
although being a small company (S2) increases the possibilities of innovation, these increase by 37%
when the company employs between 50 and 250 workers (S3) (difference between odds ratio S3 and
odds ratio S2). There is a shared trait, however, in that both are influenced by age, within the 5-to-15-
year range (A2), as the rest of the (Abit) variables are not significant.
These SMEs, like their counterparts, will be more innovative if they have information that is
The first difference we can observe is that which relates to size. In contrast to the previous
case, although being a small company (S2 ) increases the possibilities of innovation, these increase by
37% when the company employs between 50 and 250 workers (S3 ) (difference between odds ratio S3
and odds ratio S2 ). There is a shared trait, however, in that both are influenced by age, within the
5-to-15-year range (A2 ), as the rest of the (Abit ) variables are not significant.
These SMEs, like their counterparts, will be more innovative if they have information that is
internal (I1 ), and from universities (I6 ) and clients (I3 ), however, the order has been modified, with an
emphasis placed on the importance of information derived from companies of the group, department,
etc. As regards the integration of stakeholders, we can observe how cooperation with competitors
(C4 ) and universities (C6 ) increases innovations as it did with the previous SMEs, and there is now
cooperation with consultants (C5 ).
However, despite there being a direct influence of the absorptive capacity on two ranges, one
from 25–50% (P2 ) and the other from 75–100% (P4 ), there is no moderator effect with cooperation that
motivates innovation.
In this scenario, the NFDI SMEs that orient the goals of their innovation towards sustainability
are more inclined to innovate, as indicated by the significance of all the goals (ISO1 , ISO2 , ISO3 ), as
happened in the previous case. The difference can be seen in the effect of these goals, which is direct,
and isSustainability
only strengthened
2018, 10, x FORindirectly
PEER REVIEWin the case of environmental sustainability goals (ISO2 ).16 of 33
Moderation as a whole, therefore, between cooperation with consultants and staff (C5 *P1 *ISO2 )
reflects theModeration as a whole, therefore, between cooperation with consultants and staff (C5*P1*ISO2)
idea that participation of this nature can lead to improvements in the effect of environmental
reflects the idea that participation of this nature can lead to improvements in the effect of
sustainability, but this requires less than 25% qualified staff, which will enable newly acquired
environmental sustainability, but this requires less than 25% qualified staff, which will enable newly
knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 26%.
acquired knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 26%.
The results for the
The results large
for the companies
large companiesininbothbothgroups do not
groups do notdiffer
differtotothose
those
of of
thethe SMEs,
SMEs, except
except in in
the probability of certain
the probability relationships,
of certain relationships,asascan
canbe
beseen
seenbelow,
below, Figure
Figure 3.3.
I6 C4 C6 P2 P3 C1
I3 P1
P2 C1
I1
1.38(***) P3 C6
A2 R+D
1.65(**)
1.2(***) C2
ISO2
3.73(***) P2 C6
ISO1 C6
1.26(***)
P1
1.16(**)
2.77(**)
ISO3
P4 C5
SOI
FigureFigure 3. Orientation
towards sustainabilityofoflarge
sustainability large companies
companies with
withforeign direct
foreign investment
direct (FDI).
investment (FDI).
Source: prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***)
Source: prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***) significant significant
coefficients up to 5% and 1%.
What can be seen first, in Figure 3, is that there is no S4 variable, because, as can be observed in
Table 4, this variable is significant but negative, indicating that, within this group, the companies
with the fewest employees are the most innovative. On the other hand, as in the two previous cases,
innovation continues to be influenced by the age of those between 5 and 15 years (A2), since the rest
of the (Abit) variables are not significant.
These large companies are more innovative if they have information which is from universities
What can be seen first, in Figure 3, is that there is no S4 variable, because, as can be observed
in Table 4, this variable is significant but negative, indicating that, within this group, the companies
with the fewest employees are the most innovative. On the other hand, as in the two previous cases,
innovation continues to be influenced by the age of those between 5 and 15 years (A2 ), since the rest of
the (Abit ) variables are not significant.
These large companies are more innovative if they have information which is from universities
(I6 ), internal (I1 ), and from the client (I3 ), this being the order based on their odds ratios (2.73 > 2.24 >
1.33). With regard to the integration of stakeholders, we can see how cooperation with competitors
(C4 ) and universities (C6 ) increases innovation.
The significance of the products (C6 *P3 ), (C1 *P1 ), and (C1 *P2 ), indicates that there is better
assimilation and exploitation of both cooperation with universities (C6 ) and internal (C1 ), thanks to
qualified staff. This improvement will more than double in the case of university cooperation, but
requires between 50% and 75% of qualified staff (P3 ). On the other hand, there will be an improvement
due to internal cooperation that will increase the possibilities of innovation by 28%, if qualified staff is
less than 25% (P1 ), and of 83% if qualified staff amounts to more than 25% and less 50%.
Large companies that orient their innovation goals towards sustainability have a greater tendency
to innovate, which can be seen in the significance of all their goals (ISO1 , ISO2 , ISO3 ). However, we do
see that the influence of these goals on the innovative process, aside from being direct, can be moderate.
The moderator effect of cooperation with universities (C6 *ISO1 ) and providers (C2 *ISO2 ), indicates
that these links will enhance the effect of economic and environmental sustainability, specifically
increasing innovation by 73% and 45%, respectively.
The moderator effect of staff (P1 *ISO3 ), establishes that with less than 25% qualified staff, there will
be sufficient skills to understand and efficiently integrate social sustainability, increasing innovation
by 10%.
(C6 *P2 *ISO2 ), reflects the fact that participation of universities can improve the effect of environmental
sustainability, but requires between 25–50% qualified staff, which will enable the newly acquired
knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 253%. Equally, cooperation with consultants
and qualified staff (C5 *P4 *ISO3 ) reflects the fact that the participation of these can improve the effect
of social sustainability, but requires more than 75% qualified staff, which allows newly acquired
knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 161%.
As can be seen, there are behavioral patterns common to companies with FDI, regardless of size.
To see if this differs from large companies without foreign participation, we analyzed Figure 4 and
compared it with Figure 3.
What is made evident first when looking at this diagram is that there are no differences in terms
of the variable S4 , since, as can be seen in Table 4, this variable is significant, but negative, in both
cases. On the other hand, unlike in the previous cases, innovation is not influenced by the age of the
company because (Abit ) is not significant.
The second difference that can be observed is the order of importance of the sources of information,
as these companies will be more innovative if they have information that is internal (I1 ), from
universities (I6 ), and from the client (I3 ), in this order, in accordance with their odds ratios. Information
coming from companies of the group, or company departments, etc., stands out here. With regard to
the integration of stakeholders, we can see how cooperation with competitors (C4 ) and universities
(C6 ) increases innovations in the same way as it does for large companies with FDI, and there is now
cooperation with consultants (C5 ).
However, despite there being a direct influence of the absorptive capacity on two ranges, one
from 25–50% (P2 ) and the other from 75–100% (P4 ), there is no moderator effect with cooperation that
motivates innovation.
In this scenario, the NFDI SMEs that orient the goals of their innovation towards sustainability
are more inclined to innovate, as indicated by the significance of all the goals (ISO1 , ISO2 , ISO3 ), as
specifically increasing innovation by 73% and 45%, respectively.
The moderator effect of staff (P1*ISO3), establishes that with less than 25% qualified staff, there
will be sufficient skills to understand and efficiently integrate social sustainability, increasing
innovation by 10%.
(C6*P2*ISO2), reflects the fact that participation of universities can improve the effect of environmental
sustainability, but requires between 25–50% qualified staff, which will enable the newly acquired
knowledge
happened to be applied
in the previous case. to
Theinnovation,
differenceincreasing this
can be seen in by
the 253%. Equally,
effect of cooperation
these goals, which with
is direct,
consultants and qualified staff (C5*P4*ISO3) reflects the fact that the participation of these can improve
and is only strengthened indirectly in the case of environmental sustainability goals (ISO2 ).
the effect of social sustainability, but requires more than 75% qualified staff, which allows newly
Moderation as a whole, therefore, between cooperation with consultants and staff (C5 *P1 *ISO2 ),
acquired knowledge to be applied to innovation, increasing this by 161%.
reflects the Asidea
can be that participation
seen, of this patterns
there are behavioral can leadcommon
to improvements
to companiesinwith
theFDI,
effect of environmental
regardless of size.
sustainability,
To see if this differs from large companies without foreign participation, we analyzed newly
but this requires less than 25% qualified staff, which will enable Figure 4acquired
and
knowledge
compared to be applied
it with to innovation,
Figure 3. increasing this by 27%.
I6 C4 C5 C6
I3
P2
3.05(***) 1.21(***)
I1 R+D P4
1.42(***)
P1 C5
1.15(***)
ISO2
1.59(***)
ISO1
1.09(***)
ISO3
SOI
FigureFigure 4. Orientation
towards sustainabilityof
sustainability oflarge
large companies
companies without
withoutforeign direct
foreign investment
direct investment
(NFDI). Source: prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***)
(NFDI). Source: prepared by the authors. Note: the value represents the odds ratio. (**), (***) significant
significant coefficients up to 5% and 1%.
What is made evident first when looking at this diagram is that there are no differences in terms
5. Discussion
of the variable S4, since, as can be seen in Table 4, this variable is significant, but negative, in both
This
cases.study
On theproposed
other hand,researching the different
unlike in the previous channels for
cases, innovation accessing
is not influencedknowledge
by the age offor
the SOI,
examining
company them through
because (Abitabsorptive capacity and cooperation, according to company age and size, in
) is not significant.
a comparative analysis
The second betweenthat
difference foreign
can and national is
be observed companies.
the order of importance of the sources of
information,
The literatureasestablishes,
these companies willone
on the be more
hand,innovative if they have information
that the complexity that the
of SOI implies is internal (I1), of a
inclusion
from
wide set of universities
actors and, (I6),the
on andother,
fromthat
the FDI
clientenables
(I3), in its
thisrequirements
order, in accordance
to be metwith theirThis
[7,17]. odds ratios.
comparative
studyInformation
arises from coming
these from
two companies
premises, of the group,
based or company
on which we havedepartments,
found that etc., stands
such out here.gives
diversity
rise to two paths by which sustainable goals influence the innovative process, one direct and the
other moderate.
In reference to the former, and in line with the literature that establishes that innovation can
be driven by sustainability [1,16], these results go one step further by responding to the request for
greater direct monitoring of the impacts of sustainability [64]. The results show that, for both types
of company, economic sustainability has the most weight in innovation, followed by environmental
sustainability, with social sustainability having the least weight of the three.
However, if we consider this shared trait, we see that the importance of innovation for these goals
of environmental and social sustainability is greater in companies with FDI than in companies without
FDI, the opposite being the case with goals of economic sustainability.
As regards the latter, the moderator effect (Table 5), and the literature establishes that:
• To understand and integrate sustainability in the innovative process requires having qualified
staff with the skills to do so [2]. This only happens if the company has FDI, less than 25% qualified
staff, and if innovation has been oriented by social sustainability, indicating that these companies
require the second type of absorptive capacity [100].
• Cooperation with external partners in the interest of sustainability should be exploited [3].
Companies with FDI will achieve this exploitation when they cooperate with universities and
providers, improving their economic and environmental sustainability, respectively. The role of
providers, as key partners for environmental sustainability, corroborates the idea of the presence
of technological interdependencies [8].
• To achieve sustainability, learning is key, when understood as the assimilation and application
of newly acquired knowledge in SOI [59,60], in both types of company. For those that have FDI,
learning from universities can enhance environmental sustainability and learning from consultants
can enhance social sustainability, the latter requiring a greater percentage of qualified staff.
For companies without FDI there is learning from consultants, which enhances environmental
sustainability, without a significantly high percentage of qualified staff. These results run counter
to studies that establish that the level of education of workers does not affect the introduction
of environmental innovation [62], and demonstrate that the management of knowledge and
cooperation are drivers of sustainable innovation [64].
Table 5. Comparison of the moderator effect between companies with foreign direct investment (FDI)
vs without foreign direct investment (NFDI).
Innovative Companies with Foreign Direct Investment Innovative Companies without Foreign Direct
(FDI) Investment (NFDI)
Economic sustainability through cooperation with
universities
Environmental sustainability through learning from
Environmental sustainability through university-based
consultants, thanks to qualified workforce not
learning and cooperation with the provider
exceeding 25%
Social sustainability through human capital, generating
learning from consultants if this is very high
Successful sustainable innovation needs a focus on resource co-specialization that allows

companies to bring together specialized resources and competences scattered in diverse actors around
a sustainability opportunity [69].
Therefore, a greater propensity to innovate sustainably, thanks to external knowledge sources
and cooperation agreements [61], only occurs for the case of cooperation with providers, universities,
and consultants. This runs counter to the idea that a more proactive and structured relationship with
clients can foster the acquisition of sustainability-oriented knowledge [63]. This result is not surprising
given the complexity attached to these innovations.
Greater use of relationships with universities in the case of environmental sustainability indicates,
on the one hand, an interdependence between knowledge, skills, and resources, which arise in the
development of said innovations and, on the other, a need to complement the knowledge base [62].
The results of this comparative analysis align with the literature, which distinguishes the
cooperation models of foreign and national companies [25,88] and, more specifically, with those
studies that establish that companies with FDI have a greater propensity to cooperate in R&D [26,87].
However, the results run counter to the idea that this distinction, when related with aspects of
sustainability, is motivated by knowledge complementarity [25], as they show that foreign companies
are more likely to innovate if they cooperate with universities and providers. In addition, they are
contrary to the technology orientation negatively affecting environmental dimensions [30].
Finally, the positive impacts of big companies (FDI and NFDI) whose innovation is oriented by
sustainable objectives, is similar to that of SMEs (FDI and NFDI). This is contrary to the literature,
which establishes an inverse relationship between firm size and a proven commitment to sustainability
ideals [106].
6. Conclusions
The SOI cases in this study display the distinctive traits of sustainable innovation for companies
with and without FDI, in terms of the capacities required for integrating external actors and their
effects. It also provides a deeper understanding of the different channels for accessing knowledge for
SOI, as it examines the links through absorptive capacity and cooperation, according to company age
and size. It thereby contributes to the literature that analyzes the benefits of cooperation.
This paper jointly considered the effects of firm strategic and organizational orientations
(technology orientation and internally organizational orientation) on several dimensions of sustainable
performance, objectively measured, and contributes to advancing the existing knowledge on the
relationships between firms’ orientations and their sustainable performance.
It provides a useful theoretical lens for advancing knowledge of management practices for
sustainable innovation. In addition, this leads to improving practical understanding of how resources
and competences are deployed, and firms, through innovation, create sustainability value. This shows
that a company’s innovation for sustainability notably depends on how effectively the company
catches the complementary resources and competences around an innovation opportunity.
One of the most significant implications arises from not having an integrated absorptive capacity
in a construct, thereby offering the possibility of seeing the individual effect of each dimension.
Therefore, if a company wants to maximize the effect of cooperation with its partners, it should
consider that qualified staff is not the same in all cases, and depends on the type of cooperator and the
goal of the cooperation. This document sheds light on the possibilities of improving the absorptive
capacity for acquiring and assimilating knowledge on issues related to sustainability.
This study contributes to the international literature by looking, in greater depth, at the
comparative differences in behavior of foreign and national companies, analyzing how the same
elements affect their interaction and result in sustainable development. Focusing on companies with
FDI highlights the specific and intrinsic advantages associated with foreign investment, and how
those companies gain knowledge when interacting with diverse markets and institutional sources.
This shows how external links make these companies more innovative, as well as more sustainable.
This study concludes that similar efforts to orient innovation towards sustainable goals should be
more skeptical with respect to approaches that rely primarily on size differentiation. However, the fact
that sustainability-oriented knowledge is acquired and assimilated more efficiently in SMEs with FDI,
shows that FDI helps companies to meet the requirements demanded by SOI by offering the internal
capacities and cooperation structure to facilitate this.
Given the complexity of SOI, companies with FDI cooperate with universities and private
research institutes, which provide highly specialized knowledge, and with providers, because of
their understanding regarding the supply of raw materials and inputs that help to reduce resource
intensity, emissions, and waste, proof of their capacity to import specialized knowledge.
In this process, the absorptive capacity serves as a moderator, strengthening the effect of
environmental and social goals in the innovative process, becoming a core competency for IOS.
Staff will, therefore, be sufficiently qualified and have the necessary characteristics to retain, reactivate,
and apply the knowledge obtained in products and processes, confirming a company’s potential to
achieve sustainable innovations.
Therefore, FDI helps overcome the difficulty of creating learning networks derived from an
SOI process. It is different in how it cooperates and obtains external knowledge, preferring not
to look only for local knowledge, but also specialized knowledge. This is different from what the
literature establishes as its habitual behavior when undertaking unsustainable innovations, without
this difference growing due to size and age.
From a general perspective, a question that companies involved in sustainable initiatives should
address is how to reconcile cooperation with different partners. This study helps managers to get
involved in sustainable development by offering some initial guidelines that will enable them to benefit
from cooperation with different partners, and the possible effects of this on their companies’ capacity
for sustainable innovation. These guidelines will enable companies to understand how, based on
their needs, they should complement their knowledge to achieve SOI. Thus, the companies’ managers
should think of alternative, sustainably innovative routes to go, and adopt different approaches for
managing innovation for sustainability.
Limitations and Future Research

There are certain limitations to this study that offer new research opportunities. First, the findings
of this research are based on a quantitative study. Future research should also include case studies that
take into account other actors, such as NGOs, for example, expanding the scope of this issue.
Second, we created our own measures for strategy by collecting data in the Technological
Innovation Panel (PITEC). Although this could seem to provide measures that are highly dependent
on what companies want to communicate to stakeholders, it is coherent with our aim of measuring
“orientation” [30].
Third, training employees enables companies to recognize and acquire external knowledge,
although there are studies that establish that infrastructure capacities could also be enhanced [63].
Future research, therefore, could include these within an absorptive capacity.
Fourth, by taking into account the goals that orient innovation, we controlled the relevance of the
different partners arising from the specific strategy pursued by the company. However, the relevant
partners can also vary depending on the industry, something which should be contemplated in future
studies [62].
Fifth, although this study offers a detailed vision of cooperation with diverse partners individually,
neither frequency nor depth were included, both of which are concepts that would enable cooperation
networks for sustainable innovation to become operational [71].
Sixth, it should be considered that cooperation in companies with FDI could be influenced both
by its origin and by how it entered the company, both of which are aspects that could potentially
influence a company’s motivation for seeking to complement its knowledge [25].
Seventh, an in-line analysis with a Bayesian approach using a posterior odds ratio approach
would be interesting.
Lastly, given that the interaction between universities and companies with FDI can represent
a powerful mechanism for improving the linkage between national innovation systems and global
innovation dynamics, it would be interesting to study the incentives for the financing that would
enhance this interaction [88].
Author Contributions: Main idea, A.M.-L.; Data Curation, A.M.-L.; Methodology, A.M.-L. and A.Á.-H.; Software,
A.M.-L.; Writing—original draft preparation, A.M.-L.; Writing—review and editing, A.M.-L. and A.Á.-H.;
Visualization, A.M.-L.; Supervision, A.Á.-H.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We thank two referees for their valuable recommendations to previous version of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Variables of the Model

• Dependent or explained variable:
◦ R + D + iit Company “i” undertakes or does not undertake internal innovation activity at
the point in time “t”. This variable arises from the question:
Has your company undertaken internal R&D activities in the year t?

• Independent or explanatory variables:
◦ Company size (Sait ): Takes a value of 1 if the company “i” has a size “a” at the point in time
“t” and a value of 0 if not. Where a = 1 if it is a Micro-enterprise, a = 2 if it is a Small Company,
a = 3 if it is a Medium Company and a = 4 for Large Companies (a Micro-enterprise is
considered any company with fewer than 10 employees, Small Company with between 10
and 50 employees, Medium Company between 50 and 250 and Large Companies if it has
more than 250 employees [105]).
◦ Company Age (Abit ): Takes a value of 1 if the company “i” has an age “b” at the point in time
“t” and a value of 0 if not. Where b = 1 if it is less than 5 years old, b = 2 if it is between 5 and
15 years old and b = 3 if it is more than 15 years old (given that SMEs generally have a high
mortality rate in the first five years, there is the generalized idea that this is an incubation
period, which needs to be exceeded for the company to become fully established [109].).
◦ Information source (Icit ): Variable that includes the importance of each of the sources “c”
for the innovation activities of company “i” at the point in time “t” (initially this variable was
scored on a scale of one to four depending on the level of importance (1 = High, 2 = Medium,
3 = Low and 4 = Not relevant). To facilitate the handling and interpretation of the variables,
the scale was restructured so that the values 1 and 2 take a value of 1, while the values 3 and
4 take a value of 0). This variable arises from the question:
In the period t − 2 to t, what importance have each of the following information sources
had for the innovation activities of your company?
• c = 1: Internal information (within the company or group of companies,

departments, employees . . .).
• c = 2: Providers of equipment, material, components or software.
• c = 3: Clients.
• c = 4: Competitors or other companies from its branch of activity.
• c = 5: Consultants, commercial laboratories, or private R&D institutes.
• c = 6: Universities or other higher education centers.
◦ Cooperation (Cdit ): Variable used if for the innovation activities of company “i” the company
has cooperated with partner “d” at the point in time “t”. It takes a value of 1 if it has
cooperated and 0 if not. This variable arises from the question:
In the period t − 2 to t, did your company cooperate with other companies or entities in
any of its innovation activities? Indicate what kinds of partners were involved:
• d = 1: Other companies from its own group.

• d = 2: Providers of equipment, material, components or software.
• d = 3: Clients from the private and/or public sector.
• d = 4: Competitors or other companies from its branch of activity.
• d = 5: Consultants or commercial laboratories
• d = 6: Universities or other higher education centers.
◦ Personal (Peit ): Variable that represents the percentage of human capital with higher
education, “e”, of company “i” at the point in time “t”. It takes a value of 1 if the company
has this human capital and 0 if it does not. In the model that we propose, this variable is split
into quartiles:
• e = 1: If the company has between 0% and 25% of staff with higher education.
◦ Indicators of Sustainable Objectives (ISOfit ): Variable that includes the goal “f” that has
oriented the innovation of the company “i” at the time “t”. Where f = 1 for the economic
sustainable objective indicator, f = 2 for the environmental sustainable objective indicator and
f = 3 for the social sustainable objective indicator (these three variables are the sustainable
objective indicators and have been constructed through an analysis of the main components).
This variable arises from the question:
In the period t − 2 to t, the innovative activity undertaken in your company may have
been oriented towards different objectives. Indicate the degree of importance of the
objectives (this variable was scored on a scale of one to four depending on the level of
importance (1 = High, 2 = Medium, 3 = Low and 4 = Not relevant).
Appendix B. Indicators of Sustainable Objectives

As can be seen in Table A1, the results show that the goals oriented towards economic
sustainability represent 63.48% and 63.11% of the variance, for the FDI and NFDI groups, respectively
(statistic K-M-O 0.754 and 0.753, average ratio), the goals oriented towards environmental sustainability
represent 72.89% and 71.06% of variance (statistic K-M-O 0.708 in both cases, average ratio) and, lastly,
the goals oriented towards social sustainability represent 64.02% and 62.49% of the variance (statistic
K-M-O 0.800 in both cases, satisfactory ratio). The alpha coefficients have an acceptable value that
ranges from 0.796 to 0.875 for companies with FDI and from 0.793 to 0.863 for NFDI companies, values
that are far higher than the recommended value of 0.7, which is considered satisfactory for exploratory
research [97].
Therefore, a model with these factors is suitable for assessing the sustainability of the innovative
process. The first factor, the “Economic sustainable objective indicator”, shows the variables that
have a shared underlying economic dimension. The main variables, which have a strong influence on
this factor, are those related with new markets and a greater capacity to produce and, therefore, having
a wider range to sell, which shows a relationship with innovative solutions in economic sustainability.
The second factor, known as the “Environmental sustainable objective indicator”, includes the
variables related with the environment, which means that these goals foster innovations related with
environmental sustainability. Lastly, the “Social sustainable objective indicator” includes variables
with a dual social impact: on the one hand, if it improves the quality of the products that clients receive
and, on the other, if it improves quality of life, individual wealth, new jobs are created, or there is
greater security for the worker.
Table A1. Validity and reliability results for the scale of the items of the factorial analysis of the main
components of the Indicators of Sustainable Objectives.
Factor Structure Explained

Factor Items Matrix Variance
FDI NFDI FDI NFDI
Wider range of goods or services 0.832 0.818
Penetration in new markets 0.879 0.884
Economic sustainable Higher market share 0.904 0.893
63.94% 63.15%
objective indicator Increased production or service capacity 0.526 0.528
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.755 0.753
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.800 0.793
Less material per unit produced 0.831 0.833
Less energy per unit produced 0.883 0.865
Environmental
Lower environmental impact 0.858 0.846
sustainable objective 71.95% 71.06%
Compliance with environmental regulatory
indicator 0.820 0.828
requirements
Table A1. Cont.
Factor Structure Explained

Factor Items Matrix Variance
FDI NFDI FDI NFDI
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 32
Higher quality of goods or services 0.642 0.617
Improvement in the health and safety of employees 0.753 0.706
Increase in totalIncrease in total employment
employment 0.877 0.871
0.877 0.871
Social sustainable
Increase in skilled employment
Increase in skilled employment 0.895 0.895
0.889 0.889 65.2% 62.46%
objective indicator
Job maintenance Job maintenance 0.843 0.843
0.834 0.834
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure
0.800 0.84
of Sampling Adequacy
Appendix C. Choice a Cut-Off Value for the Odds
Appendix C. Choice a Cut-Off Value for the Odds
Table A2. Curve OC FDI SMEs.
Table A2. Curve OC FDI SMEs.
Area Under the Curve
Area UnderPredicted
Test Result Variable(s): the CurveProbability
Test Result Variable(s): Predicted Probability
Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig. b Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig. b Lower Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound Upper Bound
0.844 0.006 0.000 0.832 0.855
0.844 0.006 0.000 0.832 0.855
Predicted
Predicted
Classification
Classification c c
Table
Table
RR+ +DD+ +i i
Percentage
Percentage Correct
Correct
Observed
Observed 00 11
0 0 1063
1063 323
323 76.7
76.7
R+DR ++ D
i +i
1 1 691691 2308
2308 77.0
77.0
Overall Percentage
Overall Percentage 76.9
76.9
Source: prepared by the authors. The test result variable(s): Predicted probability has at least one tie
Source: prepared by the authors. The test result variable(s): Predicted probability has at least one tie between the
between
positive actual statethe positive
group and actual state group
the negative actualand
statethegroup.
negative actual may
Statistics state be
group. Statistics
biased. maythe
(a ) Under be nonparametric
biased.
(a) Under
assumption; (b ) Nullthehypothesis:
nonparametric
trueassumption;
area = 0.5, (c( ))The
b Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5, (c) The cut value is 0.675.
cut value is 0.675.
Figure Curve
A1.A1.
Figure CurveROC
ROC FDI SMEs.
FDI SMEs.
Table A3. Curve ROC NFDI SMEs.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEERTest Result Variable(s): Predicted Probability

REVIEW 25 of 32

b SMEs.
Area Std. Error a Table A3. Curve ROC
Asymptotic Sig.NFDI
0.796 0.003 0.000 Predicted Probability
Test Result Variable(s): 0.789 0.802
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig. b Predicted
Classification Table c Lower Bound Upper Bound
0.796 0.003 0.000 R + D + i
0.789 0.802
Percentage Correct
Observed 0 Predicted 1
Classification Table c
R+D+i
0 0 4944 1959 Percentage Correct71.6
R + D +Observed
i 1
0 1 4944 4410 1959 10,873 71.6 71.1
R+D+i
1 Overall4410
Percentage 10,873 71.1 71.3
Source: prepared by the
Source: authors.
prepared The test
by the authors. Theresult variable(s):
test result variable(s): Predicted probability
Predicted probability has one
has at least at least
tie one tie between the
positive actual state group
between and the
the positive negative
actual actual
state group and thestate group.
negative Statistics
actual may
state group. be biased.
Statistics (a ) Under the nonparametric
may be biased.
assumption; (b )(aNull
) Underhypothesis: trueassumption;
the nonparametric area = 0.5; (c ) The
(b) Null cut value
hypothesis: is 0.715.
true area = 0.5; (c) The cut value is 0.715.
Figure
Figure A2. Curve
A2. Curve ROC ROC NFDI SMEs.
NFDI SMEs.
Table A4. Curve ROC FDI Big.

Table A4. Curve ROC FDI Big.
Test Result Variable(s):
Area Under Predicted Probability
the Curve
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig. b Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
b
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig.
0.843 0.006 0.000 0.831 0.855
Predicted
R+D+i
Percentage Correct
Observed 0 1
0 1064 322 76.8
R+D+i
1 715 2284 76.2
positive actual state group and the negative actual state group. Statistics may be biased. (a ) Under the nonparametric
assumption; (b ) Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5; (c ) The cut value is 0.675.
R+D+i
Percentage Correct
Observed 0 1
0 1064 322 76.8
R+D+i
1 715 2284 76.2
Source: prepared by the authors. The test result variable(s): Predicted probability has at least one tie
Sustainability 2018, 10,between
4206 the positive actual state group and the negative actual state group. Statistics may be biased. 25 of 30
(a) Under the nonparametric assumption; (b) Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5; (c) The cut value is 0.675.
Figure A3.
Figure A3. Curve ROC
Curve ROC FDI FDI
Big. Big.
Table
Table A5.A5.Curve
Curve ROC
ROCNFDI Big. Big.
NFDI
Area Std. Error a Asymptotic Sig. b
Lower Bound 95% Confidence
Asymptotic Upper Bound Interval
Area
0.793 Std. Error a
0.003 Asymptotic
0.000 Sig. b 0.787 0.800
Predicted
Classification
0.793 Table c
0.003 0.000R + D + i 0.787 0.800
Percentage Correct
Observed 0 Predicted
1
0 4919 R + D + i 1984 71.3
R+D+i Percentage
1 4354 10,929 71.5 Correct
Observed 0 1
Source:
0 4919 1984 71.3
R + Dprepared
+i by the authors. The test result variable(s): Predicted probability has at least one tie
1 4354 10,929 71.5
between the positive actual state group and the negative actual state group. Statistics may be biased.
(a) Under the nonparametric Overall Percentage
assumption; 71.4
(b) Null hypothesis: true area = 0.5; (c) The cut value is 0.715.
positive actual state group and the negative actual state group. Statistics may be biased. (a ) Under the nonparametric
(b ) Null 2018,
assumption;Sustainability hypothesis: true
10, x FOR PEER area = 0.5; (c ) The cut value is 0.715.
REVIEW 27 of 32
Figure A4.
Figure A4.Curve ROC NFDI
Curve ROC Big.
NFDI Big.
References
1. Van Geenhuizen, M.; Ye, Q. Responsible innovators: Open networks on the way to sustainability
transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2014, 87, 28–40, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.001.
2. Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Pujari, D. Developing sustainable new products in the textile and
upholstered furniture industries: Role of external integrative capabilities. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30,
642–658, doi:10.1111/jpim.12013.
References
1. Van Geenhuizen, M.; Ye, Q. Responsible innovators: Open networks on the way to sustainability transitions.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2014, 87, 28–40. [CrossRef]
2. Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Pujari, D. Developing sustainable new products in the textile and
upholstered furniture industries: Role of external integrative capabilities. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013,
30, 642–658. [CrossRef]
3. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic
review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [CrossRef]
4. Ayuso, S.; Rodríguez, M.Á.; García-Castro, R.; Ariño, M.Á. Does stakeholder engagement promote
sustainable innovation orientation? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 1399–1417. [CrossRef]
5. Bossink, B.A. The interorganizational innovation processes of sustainable building: A Dutch case of joint
building innovation in sustainability. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 4086–4092. [CrossRef]
6. Petruzzelli, A.M.; Dangelico, R.M.; Rotolo, D.; Albino, V. Organizational factors and technological features
in the development of green innovations: Evidence from patent analysis. Innov. Manag. Policy Pract. 2011, 13,
291–310. [CrossRef]
7. Behnam, S.; Cagliano, R.; Grijalvo, M. How should firms reconcile their open innovation capabilities for
incorporating external actors in innovations aimed at sustainable development? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170,
950–965. [CrossRef]
8. De Marchi, V. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish
manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 614–623. [CrossRef]
9. Liedtke, C.; Baedeker, C.; Hasselkuß, M.; Rohn, H.; Grinewitschus, V. User-integrated innovation in
Sustainable LivingLabs: An experimental infrastructure for researching and developing sustainable product
service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 97, 106–116. [CrossRef]
10. Lim, K.; Chesbrough, H.; Ruan, Y. Open innovation and patterns of R&D competition. Int. J. Technol. Manag.
2010, 52, 295–321. [CrossRef]
11. Gemünden, H.G.; Ritter, T.; Heydebreck, P. Network configuration and innovation success: An empirical
analysis in German high-tech industries. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1996, 13, 449–462. [CrossRef]
12. Cassiman, B.; Di Guardo, M.C.; Valentini, G. Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract? A
project-level analysis. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 882–892. [CrossRef]
13. Goodman, J.; Korsunova, A.; Halme, M. Our Collaborative Future: Activities and Roles of Stakeholders in
Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017, 26, 731–753. [CrossRef]
14. Matos, S.; Silvestre, B.S. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models:
The case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 61–73. [CrossRef]
15. Özdemir, E.D.; Härdtlein, M.; Jenssen, T.; Zech, D.; Eltrop, L. A confusion of tongues or the art of aggregating
indicators—Reflections on four projective methodologies on sustainability measurement. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2385–2396. [CrossRef]
16. Ayuso, S.; Rodríguez, M.A.; Ricart, J. Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic
capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2006, 6, 475–490. [CrossRef]
17. Melane-Lavado, A.; Álvarez-Herranz, A.; González-González, I. Foreign direct investment as a way to guide
the innovative process towards sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3578–3590. [CrossRef]
18. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). World Investment Report 2014: Investing
in the SDGs: An Action Plan; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
19. Haskel, J.E.; Pereira, S.C.; Slaughter, M.J. Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of
domestic firms? Rev. Econ. Stat. 2007, 89, 482–496. [CrossRef]
20. UNCTAD. Investment, Enterprise and Development Commission; UNCTAD: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
21. Albulescu, C.T.; Tămăşilă, M. The impact of FDI on entrepreneurship in the European Countries. Procedia Soc.
Behav. Sci. 2014, 124, 219–228. [CrossRef]
22. Agosín, M.R.; Machado, R. Foreign investment in developing countries: Does it crowd in domestic
investment? Oxf. Dev. Stud. 2005, 33, 149–162. [CrossRef]
23. Sayek, S.; Alfaro, L.; Chanda, A.; Kalemli-Ozcan, S. FDI Spillovers, Financial Markets and Economic Development;
(No. 3-186); International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
24. Iamsiraroj, S.; Doucouliagos, H. Does Growth Attract FDI; (No. 2015-18); Economics Discussion Papers;
EconStor: Berlin, Germany, 2015.
25. Un, C.A.; Rodríguez, A. Local and global knowledge complementarity: R&D collaborations and innovation
of foreign and domestic firms. J. Int. Manag. 2018, 24, 137–152. [CrossRef]
26. Holl, A.; Rama, R. Foreign subsidiaries and technology sourcing in Spain. Ind. Innov. 2014, 21, 43–64.
[CrossRef]
27. Fernández, J. Search Strategy for External Knowledge of Advanced and Developing Countries MNEs’
Subsidiaries in Spain. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546941
(accessed on 10 April 2018).
28. Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Reeves, M.; Goh, E. The benefits of sustainability-driven innovation. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 2015, 54, 69. [CrossRef]
29. Hansen, E.G.; Grosse-Dunker, F.; Reichwald, R. Sustainability innovation cube—A framework to evaluate
sustainability-oriented innovations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2009, 13, 683–713. [CrossRef]
30. Ardito, L.; Dangelico, R.M. Firm Environmental Performance under Scrutiny: The Role of Strategic and
Organizational Orientations. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. 2018, 25, 426–440. [CrossRef]
31. Wagner, M.; Llerena, P. Drivers for Sustainability-Related Innovation: A Qualitative Analysis of Renewable
Resources, Industrial Products and Travel Services; UDS: Strasbourg, France, 2008.
32. Halme, M.; Korpela, M. Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized
enterprises: A resource perspective. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2014, 23, 547–566. [CrossRef]
33. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.
Ecol. Ind. 2012, 15, 281–299. [CrossRef]
34. Jain, D.; Tiwari, G. Sustainable mobility indicators for Indian cities: Selection methodology and application.
Ecol. Indic. 2017, 79, 310–322. [CrossRef]
35. Veleva, V.; Ellenbecker, M. Indicators of Sustainable Production: A new tool for promoting business
sustainability. New Solut. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2001, 11, 41–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Azapagic, A. Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A general management framework.
Process Saf. Environ. 2003, 81, 303–316. [CrossRef]
37. Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2005, 43, 189–208. [CrossRef]
38. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; Van Erck, R.P. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries.
J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385. [CrossRef]
39. Kinderytė, L. Methodology of sustainability indicators determination for enterprise assessment. Environ. Res.
Eng. Manag. 2010, 52, 25–31.
40. Keskin, G.A.; İlhan, S.; Özkan, C. The Fuzzy ART algorithm: A categorization method for supplier evaluation
and selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1235–1240. [CrossRef]
41. Zhu, Q.; Dou, Y.; Sarkis, J. A portfolio-based analysis for green supplier management using the analytical
network process. Supply Chain Manag. 2010, 15, 306–319. [CrossRef]
42. Büyüközkan, G.; Çifçi, G. A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection
with incomplete information. Comput. Ind. 2011, 62, 164–174. [CrossRef]
43. Punniyamoorthy, M.; Mathiyalagan, P.; Parthiban, P. A strategic model using structural equation modeling
and fuzzy logic in supplier selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 458–474. [CrossRef]
44. Govindan, K.; Khodaverdi, R.; Jafarian, A. A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability
performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 345–354. [CrossRef]
45. Feil, A.A.; de Quevedo, D.M.; Schreiber, D. Selection and identification of the indicators for quickly measuring
sustainability in micro and small furniture industries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2015, 3, 34–44. [CrossRef]
46. Dočekalová, M.P.; Kocmanová, A. Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability. Ecol. Ind.
2016, 61, 612–623. [CrossRef]
47. Medel-González, F.; García-Ávila, L.F.; Salomon, V.A.P.; Marx-Gómez, J.; Hernández, C.T. Sustainability
performance measurement with Analytic Network Process and balanced scorecard: Cuban practical case.
Production 2016, 26, 527–539. [CrossRef]
48. Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A general framework.
Process Saf. Environ. 2000, 78, 243–261. [CrossRef]
49. Azapagic, A. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 639–662. [CrossRef]
50. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. Development of composite sustainability performance
index for steel industry. Ecol. Ind. 2007, 7, 565–588. [CrossRef]
51. Arbačiauskas, V.; Staniškis, J. Sustainability performance indicators for industrial enterprise management.
Environ. Res. Eng. Manag. 2009, 48, 42–50.
52. Erol, I.; Cakar, N.; Erel, D.; Sari, R. Sustainability in the Turkish retailing industry. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 17,
49–67. [CrossRef]
53. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J. Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set
methodologies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 124, 252–264. [CrossRef]
54. Tokos, H.; Pintarič, Z.N.; Krajnc, D. An integrated sustainability performance assessment and benchmarking
of breweries. Clean Technol. Environ. 2012, 14, 173–193. [CrossRef]
55. Zhou, L.; Tokos, H.; Krajnc, D.; Yang, Y. Sustainability performance evaluation in industry by composite
sustainability index. Clean Technol. Environ. 2012, 14, 789–803. [CrossRef]
56. Li, T.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, C.; Liu, Z.; Fan, C. A PCA-based method for construction of composite sustainability
indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 593–603. [CrossRef]
57. Shuaib, M.; Seevers, D.; Zhang, X.; Badurdeen, F.; Rouch, K.E.; Jawahir, I.S. Product sustainability index
(ProdSI). J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 18, 491–507. [CrossRef]
58. Krajnc, D.; Glavič, P. Indicators of sustainable production. Clean Technol. Environ. 2003, 5, 279–288. [CrossRef]
59. De Medeiros, J.F.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product
innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 76–86. [CrossRef]
60. Tidd, J.; Bessant, J.R.; Pavitt, K. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational
Change; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
61. Jones, J.; de Zubielqui, G.C. Doing well by doing good: A study of university-industry interactions,
innovations and firm performance in sustainability-oriented Australian SMEs. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
2017, 123, 262–270. [CrossRef]
62. Cainelli, G.; De Marchi, V.; Grandinetti, R. Does the development of environmental innovation require
different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 211–220. [CrossRef]
63. Johnson, M.P. Knowledge acquisition and development in sustainability-oriented small and medium-sized
enterprises: Exploring the practices, capabilities and cooperation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3769–3781.
[CrossRef]
64. Lopes, C.M.; Scavarda, A.; Hofmeister, L.F.; Thomé, A.M.T.; Vaccaro, G.L.R. An analysis of the interplay
between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
142, 476–488. [CrossRef]
65. Ghisetti, C.; Marzucchi, A.; Montresor, S. The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of
eleven European countries. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 1080–1093. [CrossRef]
66. De Marchi, V.; Grandinetti, R. Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: The case of Italian
manufacturing firms. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 569–582. [CrossRef]
67. Lee, K.H.; Kim, J.W. Integrating suppliers into green product innovation development: An empirical case
study in the semiconductor industry. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2011, 20, 527–538. [CrossRef]
68. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management–an
exploratory literature review. R D Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [CrossRef]
69. Mousavi, S.; Bossink, B.A. Firms’ capabilities for sustainable innovation: The case of biofuel for aviation.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 1263–1275. [CrossRef]
70. Aschehoug, S.H.; Boks, C.; Storen, S. Environmental information from stakeholders supporting product
development. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 31, 1–13. [CrossRef]
71. Najafi-Tavani, S.; Najafi-Tavani, Z.; Naudé, P.; Oghazi, P.; Zeynaloo, E. How collaborative innovation
networks affect new product performance: Product innovation capability, process innovation capability, and
absorptive capacity. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 73, 193–205. [CrossRef]
72. Lund Vinding, A. Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach. Econ. Innov.
New Technol. 2006, 15, 507–517. [CrossRef]
73. Han, S.Y.; Bae, S.J. Internalization of R&D outsourcing: An empirical study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 150,
58–73. [CrossRef]
74. Ferreras-Méndez, J.L.; Newell, S.; Fernández-Mesa, A.; Alegre, J. Depth and breadth of external knowledge
search and performance: The mediating role of absorptive capacity. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 47, 86–97.
[CrossRef]
75. Lewin, A.Y.; Massini, S.; Peeters, C. Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines.
Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 81–98. [CrossRef]
76. Cave, A. Environmentally responsible management in international business: A literature review.
Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2014, 22, 78–102. [CrossRef]
77. Cantwell, J.; Dunning, J.H.; Lundan, S.M. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business
activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2010.41, 567–586.
[CrossRef]
78. Hsu, C.W.; Lien, Y.C.; Chen, H. R&D internationalization and innovation performance. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015,
24, 187–195. [CrossRef]
79. Castellani, D.; Zanfei, A. Internationalization, innovation and productivity: How do firms differ in Italy?
World Econ. 2007.30, 156–176. [CrossRef]
80. Cantwell, J.; Iammarino, S. Multinational corporations and the location of technological innovation in the
UK regions. Reg. Stud. 2000, 34, 317–332. [CrossRef]
81. Vahter, P. Does FDI Spur Innovation, Productivity and Knowledge Sourcing by Incumbent Firms? Evidence
from Manufacturing Industry in Estonia. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1601215 (accessed on 10 September 2018).
82. Narula, R. Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion
in MNEs. Long Range Plan. 2014, 47, 4–15. [CrossRef]
83. Meyer, K.E.; Mudambi, R.; Narula, R. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and
challenges of multiple embeddedness. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 235–252. [CrossRef]
84. Guimón, J.; Chaminade, C.; Maggi, C.; Salazar-Elena, J.C. Policies to attract R&D-related FDI in small
emerging countries: Aligning incentives with local linkages and absorptive capacities in Chile. J. Int. Manag.
2017, 2, 165–178. [CrossRef]
85. Colakoglu, S.; Yamao, S.; Lepak, D.P. Knowledge creation capability in MNC subsidiaries: Examining the
roles of global and local knowledge inflows and subsidiary knowledge stocks. Int. Bus. Rev. 2014, 23, 91–101.
[CrossRef]
86. Cozza, C.; Perani, G.; Zanfei, A. Multinationals and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from the Italian
R&D survey. Econ Polit. 2018, 35, 601–621. [CrossRef]
87. García-Sánchez, A.; Molero, J.; Rama, R. Patterns of local R&D cooperation of foreign subsidiaries in an
intermediate country: Innovative and structural factors. Int. J. Technol. Transf. Commer. 2017, 15, 38–64.
[CrossRef]
88. Guimón, J.; Salazar-Elena, J.C. Collaboration in innovation between foreign subsidiaries and local universities:
Evidence from Spain. Ind. Innov. 2015, 22, 445–466. [CrossRef]
89. García-Sánchez, A.; Molero, J.; Rama, R. Are ‘the best’foreign subsidiaries cooperating for innovation with
local partners? The case of an intermediate country. Sci. Publ. Policy 2015, 43, 532–545. [CrossRef]
90. Van Beers, C.; Berghäll, E.; Poot, T. R&D internationalization, R&D collaboration and public knowledge
institutions in small economies: Evidence from Finland and the Netherlands. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 294–308.
[CrossRef]
91. Lucena, A.; Roper, S. Absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D: Linking technology alliance diversity
and firm innovation. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2016, 13, 159–178. [CrossRef]
92. Przychodzen, W.; Przychodzen, J. Sustainable innovations in the corporate sector–The empirical evidence
from IBEX 35 firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3557–3566. [CrossRef]
93. Rehfeld, K.; Rennings, K.; Ziegler, A. Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An
empirical analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 91–100. [CrossRef]
94. Kammerer, D. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation: Empirical
evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2285–2295. [CrossRef]
95. Pardo, A.; Ruiz, M.Á. SPSS 11: Guia Para el Analisis de Datos; Mc Graw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2002.
96. Hosseini, H.M.; Kaneko, S. Dynamic sustainability assessment of countries at the macro level: A principal
component analysis. Ecol. Ind. 2011, 11, 811–823. [CrossRef]
97. Shaw, P.J. Multivariate Statistics for the Environmental Sciences; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
98. Yeheyis, M.; Hewage, K.; Alam, M.S.; Eskicioglu, C.; Sadiq, R. An overview of construction and demolition
waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. 2013,
15, 81–91. [CrossRef]
99. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Pearson:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; Volume 7.
100. Arbussa, A.; Coenders, G. Innovation activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity:
Evidence from Spanish firms. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1545–1558. [CrossRef]
101. Martinez-Senra, A.I.; Quintás, M.A.; Sartal, A.; Vázquez, X.H. How can firms’ basic research turn into
product innovation? The role of absorptive capacity and industry appropriability. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
2015, 62, 205–216. [CrossRef]
102. Badillo, E.R.; Moreno, R. Does absorptive capacity determine collaboration returns to innovation? A
geographical dimension. Ann. Reg. Sci. 2015, 60, 473–499. [CrossRef]
103. Martinez, M.G.; Zouaghi, F.; Garcia, M.S. Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating
role of R&D human capital in high and low-tech industries. Technovation 2017, 59, 55–67. [CrossRef]
104. Un, C.A. Absorptive capacity and R&D outsourcing. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2017, 43, 34–47. [CrossRef]
105. European Commission. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/
enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm (accessed on 20 March 2018).
106. Howard, P.H.; Jaffee, D. Tensions between firm size and sustainability goals: Fair trade coffee in the United
States. Sustainability 2013, 5, 72–89. [CrossRef]
107. Hockerts, K.; Wüstenhagen, R. Greening Goliaths versus emerging David’s—Theorizing about the role of
incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 481–492. [CrossRef]
108. Claver-Cortés, E.; Marco-Lajara, B.; Manresa-Marhuenda, E.; García-Lillo, F.; Seva-Larrosa, P. Location
decisions and agglomeration economies: Domestic and foreign companies. Reg. Stud. 2017, 39, 99–135.
109. Calvo-Flores, A.; García, D.; Madrid, A. Tamaño, Antigüedad y Fracaso Empresarial. Working Paper. 2006.
Available online: https://www.uv.es/catedra-aeca/workshop/files/files/SP1_Calvo_Garcia_Madrid.pdf
(accessed on 20 April 2018).
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 10 04206 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 04206 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 04206 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Abstract: Sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI), which displays an intention to develop a product

Keywords: sustainability-oriented innovation; foreign direct investment; sustainable indicators;

Sustainability 2018, 10, 4206; doi:10.3390/su10114206 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Review of the literature on sustainable criteria.

Factor Items Authors

Table 2. Studies on the relationship between cooperation and sustainable innovation.

Authors Purpose Actors Involved Result Methodology

Authors Purpose Actors Involved Result Methodology

Table 3. Cooperation patterns of foreign vs. national companies.

Authors Purpose Cooperation Difference Methodology

Authors Purpose Cooperation Difference Methodology

3.1. Database and Sample

3.2. Specification of the Model

where the logit model is the logarithm of the odds ratio:

Therefore, the Model (3) to estimate in a disaggregated way will be

3.3. Identification, Measurement, and Relationship of the Variables

3.3.1. Sustainability-Oriented Innovations (SOI)

3.3.3. Absorptive Capacity

3.3.4. Moderating Variables

Hypothesis 4 (H4). What kind of learning will enhance sustainable objectives?

3.3.5. Control Variables

Table 4. Results of the logistic regression.

Successful sustainable innovation needs a focus on resource co-specialization that allows

Limitations and Future Research

Appendix A. Variables of the Model

Has your company undertaken internal R&D activities in the year t?

• Independent or explanatory variables:

• c = 1: Internal information (within the company or group of companies,

• d = 1: Other companies from its own group.

Appendix B. Indicators of Sustainable Objectives

Factor Structure Explained

Table A1. Cont.

Factor Structure Explained

Table A3. Curve ROC NFDI SMEs.

Area Under the Curve

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEERTest Result Variable(s): Predicted Probability

Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval

Table A4. Curve ROC FDI Big.

You might also like