Systematic Review - Network for Business Sustainability

Numerous previous reviews relating to SOI were
identified in the course of this research, and their
findings are summarized in Table 3. They demonstrate
a variety of perspectives on SOI or, more accurately,
eco-innovation as the social dimension appears very
late in studies. Early reviews focus on the implications
of eco-innovation, adopting a principally technological/
R&D/product development perspective: Winn and
Roome (1993) report that the literature describes R&D
for environmental considerations as a set of tools and
techniques, Johansson (2000) explores the factors
associated with the integration of eco-design into
product development and Baumann et al. (2002) focus
on product development.
The later reviews reveal how the literature has
burgeoned to reflect a better understanding of the
multidimensionality of the phenomenon, the range of
factors that drive it (Pereira & Vence, 2012) and the
complexity of its management (Klewitz & Hansen, 2011;
OECD, 2009). Although the OECD’s (2009) study notes
that eco-innovations in manufacturing still tend to focus
on technological advances, a few advanced players are
starting to adopt new business models and alternative
modes of provision (see the section on Product
Service Systems above). In developing a conceptual
framework of SOI in SMEs, Klewitz and Hansen (2011)
draw attention to SOI’s multi-dimensionality: firms
have a range of strategy options; innovation takes a
variety of forms, including degree of novelty and area
of focus (process, product business model, etc.); and,
depending on their orientation, firms’ SOI may be more
or less strongly influenced by regulators or market
conditions.
In spite of this expanded domain, it is not until
Schiederig et al.’s (2012) review and conceptual
clarification that the social dimension of sustainability
properly emerges. In the studies identified in the current
review, we also note the under-representation of the
social dimension. This neglect is being addressed
mostly by studies that consider social aspects in less
developed and developing economies, most notably
in studies related to bottom-of-the-pyramid innovation
(e.g. Anderson & Billou, 2007; Anderson & Markides,
2007; Prahalad, 2010; Prahalad & Hart, 2002; Prasad
& Ganvir, 2005). However, the social aspect remains
largely neglected in studies of SOI in developed
economies.
Since the 1990s, the literature has moved from being
largely normative and prescriptive to being more
descriptive of what firms are actually doing: only 10 per
cent of the studies included in Baumann et al.’s (2002)
review were empirically based or tested. However,
Baumann et al.’s (2002) observation that the literature is
fragmented and disjointed holds true today.
A limitation of these previous reviews is their adoption
of a relatively narrow view of innovation activity. Klewitz
and Hansen’s (2011) thematic analysis focuses on
SOI practices with regard to product and process
innovations, but it and the other reviews identified
in Table 4 do not account for the greater complexity
of SOI (Dangelico & Pujari, 2010; De Marchi, 2012;
Wagner, 2009) or its socio-technical dimension.
Innovating for Sustainability 62