Eco-innovation in Waste Recycling Industry in Ghana: Modeling the Upper Echelon Behavioral Drivers of Grass Root Innovation Among SEED Award Winners

Abstract

Although recent, eco-innovations are increasingly adopted by businesses of all sizes including SMEs in the recycling industry. However, as compared to well-known barriers and obstacles to eco-innovate that are unique to recycling industry, the drivers or determinants are rarely explored. The focus of this study is to investigate socio-psychological drivers of eco-innovation through the combine lens of the upper echelon theory (UET), and firms internal/external factors. The empirical study was based on data obtained from 200 waste recycling entrepreneurs’ founders and co-founders in Ghana who were winner of supporting entrepreneurs for environment and development (SEED) Award from 2010 to 2019. With the implementation of a regression analysis technique, the estimation effects of multiple variables on eco-innovation was made possible. The results confirm the positive effect of regulation and market opportunity on the environmental innovation of SMEs along with two other determinants that are essential for promoting eco-innovation in the startup including; (1) top executive’s self-efficacy, level of education, and experience that reflect the socio-psychological cognitive base toward pro-environmental behavior and (2) the firm’s sustainability identity. The study is first to focus on the subjective drivers perceived by SMEs top executive in waste recycling to eco-innovation and to reveal their specificities compared to other industries. Therefore, these findings can serve as a basis for identifying individual-level characteristics crucial in supporting eco-innovation performance in the waste recycling sector.

Keywords

eco-innovation waste recycling upper echelons theory

Introduction

Sustainable development concerns all actors and industries including public authorities, communities, individuals, service or manufacturer companies (Adebayo Bello & Bin Ismail, 2016; ;Debrah et al., 2022; Strydom, 2018b; Tandoh-Offin, 2011; Tjahjadi et al., 2020). Recently, a growing collective consciousness at all levels of society argues that, the current production and consumption behaviors are unsustainable in the long term and may have subsequent impact on the future of our planet and its population (Panapanaan et al., 2014). Such alert to preserve the environment is reflected by the increased interest among academicians to find out the determinants of eco-innovations in the service and manufacturer industries (Adu-Boahen et al., 2014; Debrah et al., 2022; Lissah et al., 2021; Samwine et al., 2017). In the same vein, sustainable innovation has become an unavoidable choice in gaining a competitive edge at the market place (Amegbe et al., 2017; Shabbir et al., 2020). Eco-innovation was first defined as the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or management or business methods that is novel to the organization (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution, and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives (Y. S. Chen, 2008; da Silva & Bolson, 2018; Ebrahimi & Mirbargkar, 2017; Saunila et al., 2018).

Although the sudden increase in environmental protection awareness and the recurring call for eco-innovation, the drivers and the integration process of sustainable development (SD) issues into business practices are relatively new in general specially for small firms in developing countries (Y. S. Chen, 2008; de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Leenders & Chandra, 2013).The mainstream distinguishes three groups of motivations to eco-innovate which are; government measures, technological pressures and market pressures (Y. S. Chen, 2008; Leenders & Chandra, 2013). Some of these studies have specifically analyzed industrial companies (Ali et al., 2021; Fernández et al., 2021; Rennings, 2000). Others have taken an interest in this same question, studying the high-tech industries with particular focus on the traditional technology-based sector like automobile (Faria & Andersen, 2017; W. Wang et al., 2020; Y. Wu et al., 2020) and petrochemical (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). However, no proper consideration has been given for grass root type innovation which is of specific interest to developing countries (de Jesus & Mendonça, 2018; Eryigit & Özcüre, 2015). Little is known about the drivers of community based, co-created innovations, founded upon grassroots knowledge, values, and institutions, that are offering a good fit to the local sustainability needs in developing countries (Y. S. Chen, 2008; Hazarika & Zhang, 2019; Leenders & Chandra, 2013). Given that, in the recent past, big companies’ capacity to affect ordinary people’s lives through a range of goods and services has not increased (Gupta, 2009), it is now realized that mere reliance on government measures, technological pressures and market pressures will not work to fill eco-innovation gaps or for disseminating eco-innovation ideas, products, services among disadvantaged segments of the population. Our study focuses on the drivers of grass root eco-innovation among waste recycling entrepreneurs in Ghana.

Eco-innovation is context relative in term of its nature and its impact (it is always compared to available alternative). On the one hand, there is a distinction between innovation and green/environmental/sustainable/eco-innovation (although these words are used interchangeably in certain research) (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Rennings, 2000; Singh et al., 2016).That is, in addition to all features of an innovation ( new product, process, service or technology), eco-innovation embraces the environmental and social components (Hazarika & Zhang, 2019). On the other hand, eco-innovation can be categorized into three spearheads including (1) practice-based innovation activities, (2) Eco-design, and (3) clean tech or environment-friendly technologies according to the nature of the innovation (Panapanaan et al., 2014). Furthermore, eco-innovation impacts are location specific (Al-ajlani & Es-sadki, 2021; Saunila, 2017 ). Meaning: the benefits to the environment and the economy are not intrinsic to certain technology, but rather are co-produced by the actions of all economic players and boundary circumstances (Kemp & Pearson, 2007; Saunila et al., 2018). It is here that grassroots knowledge, values, and institutions can perhaps come to our rescue. In developing countries, numerous grassroots innovations are significant not just because they are affordable and locally sustainable, but also because they provide fresh approaches to problem-solving that may be used in another context (Del Giudice et al., 2019; Song et al., 2019). Thus, if social inclusion is to occur, several presumptions ingrained in the current eco-innovation developmental models must be altered, and the roles of the government, businesses, and civil society must be reconsidered (Gupta, 2009). However, by their very nature, grass root eco-innovation, can be dispersed and often below the radar of policy makers and hence difficult to standardize and diffuse (Ilgin & Gupta, 2010). In this research, we focus on local entrepreneurs in the recycling industry in Ghana that have been celebrated for their grass root eco-innovation so that; by highlighting their sustainable innovations, their ideas can be combined with the formal sector’s scientific and technological know-how to create new goods and services with added value.

Ideally, academicians argue that, small start-ups are able to lead in green innovation as compared to large organization because they are able to make quicker decisions considering their limited resources and operational flexibility (Ebrahimi & Mirbargkar, 2017; Roper & Tapinos, 2016). In relation to the current increase in awareness for environmental, eco-innovation will support start-up: (1) survival and competitiveness as it projects an acceptable image of the company to stakeholders (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016), (2) develops the sustainability of the company by lowering material purchasing cost (Kemp & Pearson, 2007; Maier et al., 2020), and (3) creates social benefits (Al-ajlani & Es-sadki, 2021). However, the waste recycling firms in developing countries face a high level of informality across all activities from waste collection to segregation and disposal, and across stakeholders such as waste pickers and middlemen. These backdrops have prevented research findings on factors leading to eco-innovation in large organization or other industries to find fruitful application in waste recycling. Undoubtably, in the midst of an entrepreneurial boom in waste recycling sector, and at the time when waste recycling entrepreneurs’ environmental and economic benefits are often underestimated or perceived as roadblocks to effective solid waste management (SWM) (da Silva & Bolson, 2018; Rogerson, 2001), this type of research is essential to identify eco-innovation drivers from the few firms who have achieved sustainable innovation. Specifically, what firms’ internal factors including creativity, competency and sustainability identity affect its’ eco-innovation performance? Understanding how local waste recycling entrepreneurs eco-innovate will uncover the sector complex and extraordinary setting and prevent the over-generalization of findings that is normally the case in literature for developing countries.

In SME, the chief executive officer (CEO) or top management team are major player responsible for corporate initiatives, particularly those linked to corporate social responsibility (Y. S. Chen, 2008; Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Quartey & Miskolci, 2017). In this context, the management system is global; that is the goals, the environment, the organization and the activities cannot be analyzed separately (Arici & Uysal, 2022; Dalvi-Esfahani et al., 2017; Ren et al., 2021). The entrepreneur plays a predominant role: the smaller the company, the less formalized the management and the more the decisions are centralized at the level of the entrepreneur (Ebrahimi & Mirbargkar, 2017). Thus, an SME’s commitment to sustainable development depends on the position of its manager with regard to the issue (Yu & Chen, 2016). So that; the personality of the leaders, their beliefs as well as their perception of the environment determine the strategy of the company and guide the decisions (Neely et al., 2020). It is therefore relevant to question the values specific to SME managers in order to consider their commitment to sustainable development, but also to analyze more specifically their contribution to the transition of the territory toward a green economy. (Arena et al., 2018; Demirel & Parris, 2015; Huang et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2017; Liao et al., 2019; Oh et al., 2016; W. Wu et al., 2020). Without doubt, not all CEOs are equally conscious about global warming and that the worsening of the natural environment are serious issues that threaten people’s security and are enthusiastic to take steps to mitigate them. Consistent with this view, presuming that the CEO’s understanding of the importance of sustainability issues leads to a favorable attitude toward eco-innovation, the current research attempts to find out whether there is a particular shared entrepreneurial profile among the SEED award winners, specific conditions from their country of origin that make them and their firms more eco- innovative than others. Specifically, we ought to identify the prominent psychological drivers of entrepreneurs’ pro-environmental behavior (entrepreneurs’ traits and characteristics), external factors such competitor’s pressure, perceived public policies support, perceived market availability and the sociological cultural factors and firm’s internal drivers such as creativity and competence influence on green innovation performance as suggested by Y. S. Chen (2008), Ebrahimi and Mirbargkar (2017)Leenders and Chandra (2013), and Quartey and Miskolci (2017). Evidently, because of the lack of enough empirical evidences supporting the impact of these variables on firm’s green innovation in developing countries, this research adds to the scholarly discussion over the causes and effects of eco-innovation. Moreover, obtaining empirical results from a developing country is a start to close the gap in research and encourage further investigation in this area.

By using a sample of 14 waste recycling start-ups firms in Ghana championed by the SEED award competition in green innovation, we find strong support to test our hypotheses. Taking advantage of the fact that each SEED award winner is chosen by an independent international jury based on the company’s ability to scale up its contributions to poverty eradication and environmental sustainability while spearheading the transition to a green economy, the selected firms’ founders and co-founder are considered as green innovators. In this vein, we hypothesis that entrepreneur’s pro-environmental behavior is an accidental factor of green innovation, and variables that impact the behavior such as firms’ external and internal factors (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016) are able to have a direct influence on the performance made by the behavior. As a result, the goal of this article is to uncover the key determinants of green innovative performance among chosen SEED award winners using UET leans. Subsequently, our research contributes in the literature: (1) by presenting empirical evidence of the impact that individual-level factors play in influencing company environmental proactive initiatives, (2) by showing that CEO personality traits are positively linked to eco-innovation, and (3) exploring the drivers of green innovation from firms ’internal and external factors filter from the CEO perspective. Based on a review of the literature, this study offers a research model and hypothesis testing utilizing a multiple regression analysis model based on individual-level data from Ghanaian waste recycling enterprises nominated for the (SEED) award from 2010 to 2019.

Literature Review

Building up from the assumption that, in small and medium enterprises, “the levers of power are uniquely concentrated in the hands of the CEO/TMT/Entrepreneur,” exploring the firm internal and external conditions along with the entrepreneur psychological drivers of green innovation from the lens of UET yields a better understanding of the factors that results into the firm green innovation performance.

Eco-Innovation in Ghana Waste Recycling Industry

Ghana’s waste management industry is made of a heterogeneous population of entrepreneurs which have been very active in waste collection and recovery (Quartey et al., 2015; Samwine et al., 2017). As a nation, Ghana’s goal for the next few years is to become a middle-income country (The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2019). Green economy practices clearly play a critical part in different development strategies and initiatives aimed at reaching this national objective, and this cannot be overstated (Elagroudy et al., 2016; Lissah et al., 2021). So far, waste generation and management are among the most serious environmental challenge (Kyere & Addaney, 2019). The country’s fast population expansion and urbanization are the primary issues impeding efficient solid waste management (Achim, 2015), lack of waste transportation systems (Ali et al., 2021; Quartey & Miskolci, 2017), low public awareness (Ali et al., 2021; Amegbe & Hanu, 2016), weak enforcement of environmental regulations and most importantly low technical know-how on proper solid waste management processes (The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2019). Additionally, the majority of small business that are engaged in waste recycle are characterized by low organizational levels, erratic income sources, poor working conditions, including high exposure to health risks, child labor, and high vulnerability to unfair business relationships as a result of their precarious income conditions (Lissah et al., 2021; The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2019). Over the years, Ghana has developed policies, strategies, and plans that directly impact green economy transformation. This includes renewable energy policies, low carbon development strategies (LCDS), national climate change policies, forest and wildlife policies, and the forest investment program (FIP). Despite the country’s great capacity for establishing essential regulations, strategies, and tactics, as well as passing international agreements, little has been done in terms of actual execution, which is the most important stage in any reform program. As a result, Ghana’s macroeconomic and environmental indices have been on a downward trajectory in recent years. For example, GDP decreased from 15% in 2011 to 7.9% in 2012, then to 5.4% in 2013 (Achim, 2015).

Yet a lot is going on Ghana which perfectly fit the term eco-innovation though the general concept is relatively unknown to the public. A small group of entrepreneurs have demonstrated a great potential through creativity of sustainable innovation (Dorcas et al., 2021; The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2019). Their initiatives, when compared to the so called 10 “R- strategies” (R0 = “refuse,” R1 = “rethink,” R2 = “reduce,” R3 = “re-use,” R4 = “repair,” R5 = “refurbish,” R6 = “remanufacture,” R7 = “repurpose,” R8 = “recycle,” R9 = “recover”) depict low R ranking strategies of selected eco-innovation initiatives which are preferred options from a sustainability point of view (The Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2019). For instance, Ghana recycling initiative by private entrepreneurs (GRIPE) scores a R2 for offering five-seater toilet facilities in Kumasi made from the first plastic adapted concrete. In a similar vein, Switch Africa’s industrial symbiosis initiative for three Ghanaian areas (Ashanti, Greater Accra, and Western Region) is categorized as R3 due to its unique operation approach in which one company’s waste is used as a resource by another. The list is by no means complete. City Waste Recycling, Enviroment360 and Safi Sana to cite just a few demonstrate the change that the eco- economy is now taking shape in Ghana and this can be stimulus for supplementary ideas to encourage the eco-innovation.

The particularity of the Ghanaian SME context is that, the founder(s) who is also the CEO exercises a tremendous power which influences all activities of the firm. His or her attitude, motives, knowledge, and values are likely to have a bigger influence on the firm’s structure, management, and efficiency since he or she is typically closer to the decision-making process. So far, Ghanaian policymakers, academics, and practitioners have so far extrapolated findings from abroad scholarships as if the two worlds were the same. However, considering the importance of green innovation in economic growth and the paucity of local academic investigations that offer direction for successful eco innovation in the waste recycling process, this study examines the impact of entrepreneur’s trait/characteristic, the external and internal factors of the firm on green innovation in the Ghanaian context.

Upper Echelon Theory

The UET is based on the idea that in a decision-making circumstance, the CEO/manager team/enterprise founder contribute their own values and cognitive bases (Bowen & Siehl, 1997). As a result, these top executives will perceive the conditions and options they confront in very customized ways, which will impact their decisions (Neely et al., 2020). In other words, the driver of the organization strategy perspective is a reflection of top executive’s personalities, experiences and values (Nielsen & Huse, 2010). In small firms, this underlying strategy premise is highly visible. In this context, the founder and co-founder of the start-up generally runs all managerial positions to cut down expenses. Undoubtfully, the decision that leads to eco-innovation is based on these top executives’ interpretation of environmental strategy through their own particular experiences, values, and personalities (Hambrick, 2016; López-Muñoz & Escribá-Esteve, 2017). The top executives often have a restricted “field of vision” of the pending situation because their perceptions are limited in the way that, they “selectively perceives” only the phenomena included in the field of vision (Huffman, 1993). Furthermore, the processing of the selected information is filtered by one’s cognitive and values before “the interpretation” (G. Wang et al., 2016; You et al., 2020). In this line, research imply that because people’s decisions are impacted by how they interpret situations, top managers solve challenges based on three sorts of characteristics including (1) values, beliefs, and cognitions are some of their psychological characteristics. (Huffman, 1993), (2) age, gender, employment experience, and country—are all visible traits (Ensley & Hmieleski, 2005; Yang & Wang, 2014), and (3) the internal condition to the firm and environmental factors (Latan et al., 2018).

Drivers of Eco-Innovation in Waste Recycling Entrepreneurship

Eco-innovation is defined as an enhancement in products or processes that can reduce environmental constraints and lead to long-term sustainability (Rennings, 2000). It differs to the general concept of innovation, however, the drivers of both types of innovations may be the same (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016). Eco-innovation, according to the literature, has three distinct goals: (1) the double externality problem, (2) the regulatory push/pull impact, and (3) the growing significance of social and institutional innovation (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Rennings, 2000). Environmental innovation may be divided into two categories: (1) process innovation, which includes the adoption of environmental management practices or a clean manufacturing process and (2) product innovation, which uses natural and ecological resources (Ebrahimi & Mirbargkar, 2017; Ye et al., 2020). The SAMPO model, which aims at the integration and enactment of eco-innovation’s main areas (environment, design, and innovation), emphasizes that practice-based innovation activity drivers begin from a very applied context that can be found in firms or public sector organizations, where an organization or individual worker is confronted with a situation, they have no control over. They begin to alter long-standing patterns of behavior, perhaps leading to a novel and innovative conclusion. Managers’ role in this situation is to create conditions that encourage eco-innovation (Panapanaan et al., 2014). Eco-design, on the other hand, refers to efforts aimed at reducing environmental consequences through improved product design from a life-cycle viewpoint (Panapanaan et al., 2014). These types of innovation are very common in waste recycling because most of this organization don’t have a separate department of R&D activity. Furthermore, green innovation performance is measured using SEED essential success criteria and performance indicators for start-up social and environmental companies including (1) business performance, or whether the start-up enterprise’s financial viability has improved, (2) social performance, or whether the start-up enterprise has provided revenue or service to community recipients, and (3) role to community livelihood and well-being; and (4) environmental performance; which means contribution to preservation and sustainable administration of resources in the area (Boyer et al., 2008). Related to abovementioned criteria, research findings indicate that, while exploring triggering drivers of eco-innovation, they appear through three institutional isomorphisms (Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). Including (1) coercive pressure related to “regulative pillar” for example, Government agencies, (2) mimetic pressures related to the imitation of business leaders and finally, and (3) normative pressure exerted by internal or external stakeholders (Li, 2014; Zhu et al., 2012). Consistent with this view, we trace the drivers of eco-innovation in Ghana recycling industries (Figure 1) from entrepreneurs’ pro-environmental behavior (entrepreneurs’ traits and characteristics), the firm’ creativity and capability and external factors including perceived public policies support, perceived market availability, policy regulations, competitor’s pressure (G. Chen et al., 2000).

Figure 1.

Graphical presentation of the proposed model.

Entrepreneurs’ Socio-Psychological Drivers of the Eco-Innovation

Entrepreneur’s Self-Efficacity and the Altruistic Value

Self-efficacity can be simply defined as motivation construct that impacts individual’s choices, objectives, persistence and personal performance in various settings (Najib et al., 2020). In most literature, the term self-efficacy is often used to define entrepreneurial interest and behavior 8371(Ahmed et al., 2020; Najib et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2013). Ajzen compared the internal and external perceived behavioral controls of self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991). The research demonstrates that, whereas external circumstances—situational problems outside the person—may build self-efficacy, internal ones—individual dispositional factors driven by personal values—are the basic foundations of self-efficacy (Dalvi-Esfahani et al., 2017). In the same vein, Thøgersen (1996) further argued that, environmental issues should be categorized as moral rather than economic in light of the fact that, human values are a significant driver of pro-environmental action (Ozaki, 2011). In other words, people’ environmental conduct should be assessed in terms of good and wrong which explains why the value of altruism is frequently mentioned as having a considerable impact on individual behavior (Hörisch et al., 2015; Thøgersen, 1996; Y. Wang et al., 2013). Altruistic value may be a part of a person’s personal value framework, which serves as their compass and motivates them to advance the welfare of others. Findings suggest that, altruistic value and self-efficacy will influence managers’ inclination to engage in green innovation (Dalvi-Esfahani et al., 2017; Ye et al., 2020). Additionally, it was discovered that an altruistic attitude has a significant impact on customers’ environmental consciousness (Akehurst et al., 2012; Clark et al., 2003) and a considerable impact on green behavior (Hörisch et al., 2015). In combination with self-efficacy, Ye et al. (2020) results showed that altruism value influence the development of eco-innovation entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, we hypothesis that:

H1. Entrepreneurs’ Self-efficacy/Personal value of altruism have a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

Entrepreneurs’ Internal Locus of Control

According to the studies of Trevino (1986) and Stead et al. (1990), the most significant and significant factors on moral behaviors of individuals in an organizational setting were found to be locus of control. These findings are in line with UET that posits that, manager takes to an managerial situation its’ observable or socio demographic characteristics (Neely et al., 2020). The level at which an individual believes that consequences are the result of his or her own behavior rather than external forces that may occur independently of his or her own action is referred to as locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Locus of control influences on ethical actions vary when it comes to waste management. On the one hand, research suggests that locus of control is an important factor in determining how ethically one should behave toward green entrepreneurship (Fielding & Head, 2012; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014) and innovation performance (Dorcas et al., 2021). But at the other hand, some studies argue that locus of control has an insignificant impact on ethical decision-making process or environmental behaviors (Abeliotis et al., 2010; Alhirz & Sajeev, 2015). These contradictory findings call for more investigations. According to Rauch and Frese (2007) findings using the number of patents and associated citation, entrepreneur’s with high internal locus of control make greater innovation results. Therefore, we hypothesis that:

H2. Entrepreneurs’ internal locus of control has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

Entrepreneurs’ Education

Education can help people and the planet attain new kinds of entrepreneurship, citizenship, and government that are focused on their current and future well-being (UNESCO, 2016). Integrative, inventive, and creative thinking, fostered collaboratively by schools, governments, civil society groups, and businesses, is required for the transition required for a cleaner, greener world. A person’s degree of knowledge, competence, and cognitive ability may be determined by their education. The quantity of formal education, the type of education (most often an MBA or another degree), and the quality of education (the reputation of the university) are the three most significant aspects of CEOs’ educational backgrounds. All three of these factors have been linked to firm innovation performance (You et al., 2020). With the exception of Barker and Mueller (2002) who find no link between a CEO’s level of education and firm innovation after they have earned a college diploma, findings from comparable studies, businesses run by better educated entrepreneurs are more likely to innovate (Bolli et al., 2016; Curado et al., 2018; Ibidunni et al., 2018). Hernandez (2010), for example, discovered a link between an entrepreneur’s educational degree and the amount of new/improved products/patents registered. They claim that entrepreneurs with higher education have more cognitive complexity, implying that they are better equipped to acquire and interpret complicated facts and make quicker decisions. Therefore, we hypothesis that:

H3: Entrepreneurs’ educational level has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

Entrepreneurs’ Experience

Findings in the literature concur on the idea that an entrepreneur’s related knowledge and expertise is a crucial element in their entrepreneurial purpose (Ye et al., 2020). In general, the two most significant indicators of a CEO or entrepreneur’s experience are tenure and functional knowledge. Top executives make decisions based on their understanding of the strategic situations they face (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Their tenure (e.g., Liao et al., 2019), influences their understanding, which is a reflection of their skills, education, and cognitive style (Barker & Mueller, 2002). Interestingly, studies on the effectiveness of CEO tenure as a predictor of eco-innovation have shown mixed results. Some studies show no link between CEO tenure and green innovation (Barker & Mueller, 2002), while others find a negative (Balsmeier et al., 2014) or inverted U-shaped connection (Balsmeier et al., 2014). Some results suggest that, entrepreneurs with no tenure in the industry are better able to induce significant strategic changes (Hambrick, 2007).

However, scholars have shown a strong correlation between an executive’s professional path and his or her decision-making (Barker & Mueller, 2002). Based on Barker and Mueller (2002), top executives personal diversity has a favorable influence on a firm’s innovation approach and outcome. According to previous research findings on the link between top executive backgrounds and firm performance, those with experience in “output” functions like marketing, R&D, product design, and sales place a greater emphasis on growth-oriented actions like new chances because they understand the worth of such actions (Hambrick, 2007).Experienced entrepreneurs can easily identify market opportunities through prior business experience or failed entrepreneurship (Alam, 2011). They have a better knowledge of the requirements, wants, and expectations of the target consumer group since they can integrate seemingly unconnected information that a rookie cannot absorb and perhaps execute more inventive options. According to H. Chen et al. (2018) is a vital aspect in adopting entrepreneurship since it allows entrepreneurs to develop entrepreneurial thinking and detect opportunities. Hörisch et al. (2015) revealed that experience has a major impact on the adoption of environmental and sustainability management in businesses, particularly in small and medium-sized organizations (SME). In the same vein, Y. Wang et al. (2013) posited that necessary experience is the basis for changing into an ecologically sound society. Also the absence of related knowledge and experience is considered as one of the obstacle for applying green innovation project (Chan et al., 2018). Moreover, according to Burke et al. (2018) entrepreneurial past job experience, regardless of the area in which the experience was gained, is an important factor of creativity in small businesses. Therefore, we hypothesis that

H4: Entrepreneurs’ work experience has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

Relating Firm Internal and External Factors Drivers of Eco-Innovation

The purpose of this part is to establish the interrelationships between the many elements identified as significant by the literature in order to create a solid foundation for empirical research of eco-innovation process drivers at the firm level.

Internal Drivers of Eco-Innovation

The Resource-Based-View (RBV) of the firm contends that a firm’s competitive advantage and innovation efforts are heavily reliant on the company’s valuable, unique, and non-substitutable resources or skills (Russo & Fouts, 1997). Three main concepts are used by this approach including (1) resource/sustainability identity which are firm’s specific tangible and intangible asset whose value are context dependent (Katkalo et al., 2010), (2) competences/capability which are resources that arise from activities that are repeated in a business (Russo & Fouts, 1997), and (3) creativity an organization’s ability to intentionally develop, expand, and alter its resource base (Helfat, 2007). Firms are diverse in terms of their endowments of resources/capabilities, which are difficult to transfer between organizations, according to the RBV (Helfat, 2007). At the internal firm level, the first difficulty is relating the internal factors to one another. Firm’s competences and creativity, the presence of resources within the corporate, and the capacity to assemble, integrate, and manage those resources all influence the company sustainability identity. Sustainability identity, in turn, have a direct impact on firm strategy and company performance (Del Río et al., 2016).

An organization’s sustainability identity can assist in organizing employee behavior toward the cultivation of new sustainable ideas, methods, and activities. When a company’s identity declares itself to be environmentally conscious, it influences collective efforts to adopt and execute sustainable practices (Chen-Feng & Liang-Pang, 2011). In this context, common values and beliefs affect the design and development of innovative items. Employees’ mentality are impacted by their shared worldview and commitment to acquiring fresh, useful insights meant to lessen the adverse effects of organizational products on the environment and society (Y. S. Chen, 2008). Research findings suggest that, firms’ sustainability identity is dependent on internal resources, creativity and competencies, as well as senior management’s environmental commitment (Del Río et al., 2016; Katkalo et al., 2010). Therefore, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H5: The firm’s creativity has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

H6: The firm’s sustainability identity has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

H7: The firm’s compentancy has a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced based innovation and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

External Drivers of Eco-Innovation

Government laws and their enabling ability to modify environmental technology have been the most mentioned external forces as significant drivers of green innovation (Requate, 2005; Vollebergh, 2011). Regulatory environment, also known as formal and informal norms or incentives that constrain and govern person and company conduct, has lately been implemented in a variety of sectors (Bossle et al., 2016; Kesidou & Demirel, 2012). In the early research, neoclassical economists thought that environmental restrictions are frequently damaging to companies’ competitiveness as a strategy for achieving specific environmental goals (Rugman & Verbeke, 2018). However, it has been proposed that if environmental policy is well constructed, it might lead to the accomplishment of competitive advantages for the most dynamic businesses through the promotion of innovation (Porter & Linde, 1995). According to Wan et al. (2014), the effectiveness of government policy toward green behavior in Hong Kong is critical for the public. In the same vein, Zhang (2019) posited that, government stimulus encourages people to engage in “green” activities. Furthermore, the regulatory environment would have a big influence on the sort of entrepreneurship that companies do (Gómez-Haro et al., 2011). The willingness to engage in green entrepreneurship is also influenced by views of the regulatory environment (Urban, 2013; Urban & Kujinga, 2017). However, other researchers have found that there is a strong link between regulation and environmental innovation, which can make policy regulation a key obstacle to initiating and promoting green innovation (da Silva & Bolson, 2018; Saunila et al., 2018).

On the other hands, every firm is motivated by the prospects of increasing its turnover; hence, when making related decisions on which investments to engage and at which level, the firm takes into consideration the market sensitivity to its products (Y. S. Chen, 2008). Recently, green companies, as a new type of business, have emerged as a result of environmental concerns. Green economy has been linked to issues such as unmet social demands and financial crises green entrepreneurship, and green markets. Thus, green productions are in high demand these days since the notion of sustainability has progressively gained acceptance by the general public. In an empirical study, Cai et al. (2017) looked at whether “green” labeling may result in market opportunity for green furniture manufacturers. They found that, the green entrepreneurship that intersects among environment, social, and economic goals (ONeill & Gibbs, 2014) are major driver of long-term economic growth and innovation (Vatansever & Arun, 2016). According to Rave et al. (2011), eco-innovations in the electrical and optical equipment sectors are pursued more aggressively in order to secure market shares or establish new markets, which also drives innovation continuity. In comparison to self-reported eco-innovations, it was found that, the ability to establish new markets is a more essential factor of eco-patenting. Furthermore, nowadays, it is fashionable to project an ecological, green image that is environmentally conscious. This has sparked a surge in interest in corporate social responsibility (CSR), the adoption of environmental management and auditing systems, and the marketing of products with green qualities. Therefore, we hypothesis that:

H8. External factors (competitor’s pressure, perceived public policies support, perceived market availability and the cultural antecedents) have a positive effect on eco-innovation performance (practiced innovation based and eco-design) of waste recycling firms.

Methodology

Data Collection Procedure and Sample

The empirical data used in this study was part of the data collected on individual level for bigger project (Dorcas et al., 2021) surveying entrepreneurs’ founders, and co-founders of waste recycling firm in Ghana using a structured questionnaire. The recycling firms (Small and Medium Businesses) SMBs were from the finalist of the SEED award nominees of the year 2010 to 2019. Furthermore, the process used to choose the sample filters recycling firms in Ghana was based on the information available for the eco-friendly innovation drivers to be estimated in the empirical models. Because the poll was conducted online, a portion of the information linked to the entrepreneurs’ founders and co-founders was gathered from the company’s website, personal profile on Facebook, and Linkedin.com.

The sample consisted 200 founders, and co-founders from 24 waste recycling SMBs for analysis out of 30 firms nominated for the SEED award competition. The SEED Awards for eco-friendly development entrepreneurship is a yearly worldwide award program that try to find local innovative and talented start-up eco-inclusive firms in developing and emerging nations. The purpose of the survey was to look at the green creative performance drivers of waste recycling companies from the perspectives of the founders, co-founders, and shareholders.

Measurement of the Constructs

In assessing research hypotheses, a theoretical founded and empirically supported scales to measure the study variables were used. Multiple regressions were executed to measure the influence of independent variables, entrepreneurs self-efficacy and altruism value, internal locus of control, educational level of recycling entrepreneurs, recycling entrepreneur’s experience, external factors (competitor’s pressure, perceived public policies, perceived market availability and the sociological cultural) and internal factors (creativity, recycling competencies and sustainability identity) on green innovation (practice based innovation and eco-innovation) performance. The constructs items were mainly adapted from previous studies and modified for use in an green-innovation context.

The dependent variable measurement of eco-design and practiced based innovation was adapted from Potting et al. (2018) indicators of eco-innovation using Morseletto (2020) 10 R strategy scale. These 10 indicators were then grouped into three categories using an ordinal variable with values ranging from 0 to 3, which identifies if environmental innovation initiatives have been applied by the firm in the area of: (1) the use of practice-based innovation activities in their manufacturing processes, (2) a sustainable environmental process in product design and production, and (3) the creation, manufacture, and distribution of ecologically friendly products. These factors represent a firm’s total level of environmental innovation as it relates to several forms of eco-innovation. Thus, if the firm only engages in one type of green-innovation, this variable will have the value 1; if the firm engages in two types, the variable will have the value 2; and if the firm engages in all three types of eco-friendly innovations, the variable will have the highest value of 3. Following the SEED Award selection criteria (Boyer et al., 2008), related to practice based innovation performance for example one of the item was, “the firm has a business plan in place, reviewed and updated regularly for it innovation activities” to show that the firm is achieving its goals, developing product lines, establishing supply networks, determining revenue targets, and investing in eco-innovation. In order to measure social performance, one item included “the firm provide income or employment to the community” to reflects that the company provision of employment or sharing of revenue. Finally, environmental performance was assessed with items such as “The company delivers environmental awareness, training and education,”“the company product or service contribute to the conservation and sustainable management of resources in the area” to determine environmental benefits of the products or service proposed by the company.

Given that one of the roles of the CEO or Top executive in a SME is to approve corporate plans and supervise the management team, many variables indicating COE characteristics were added as independent variables in the models. For instance, entrepreneurs educational level and recycling experience were dummied [0 = Degree and below, 1 = Masters and above] and [0 = less than 5 years and 1 = 5 years+] respectively. The number of working years in different field was employed for measurement of experience following Hubbard et al. (2017) All other latent variables were monitored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree), 4 (agree), 3 (neutral), 2 (disagree), and 1 (strongly disagree).

The construct of self-efficacy was assessed using a common self-efficacy scale created by Newman et al. (2018). To measure and understand self-efficacy beliefs, this scale was made of 10 questions adapted from Khar Kheng et al. (2013) to rate and comprehend self-efficacy beliefs. A few examples of the questions for self-efficacy are, “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough” and “no matter what comes my way, I’m usually able to handle it.” The scale had a high level of reliability (=0.93). The internal locus of control was assessed using the locus of control of behavior scale. This 16 questions scale assesses how much an individual feels their behaviors are a result of their behavior. An action that is attributed to human efforts is referred to as an internal control. A sample of the items of locus of control (α = .91) includes “when I make plans, I’m almost certain that I can make them work.”

External factors (competitor’s pressure (α = .88), perceived public policies (α = .86), perceived market availability(α = .82) and the sociological cultural (α = .82) were measured using five questions derived from Hubbard and Christensen (1996) to assess environmental organization capacities (α = .95). According to Hojnik and Ruzzier (2016), the command and control instrument, as well as the market-based instrument, may be measured by three components. We use four items from Agan et al. (2013) to measure consumer green demand, and three items from Li (2014) to quantify competitive pressure. Internal factors (creativity (α = .90), recycling competencies (α = .91), and Sustainability Identity (α = .90) were adopted from Del Río et al. (2016). The study employed the following control variables, family support, and family ownership of the start-up coded as [0 = Otherwise, 1 = Yes].

Results of an Empirical Study

Analysis

The statistical method began with the standard assessment for missing values and normality of the obtained data. The missing values were examined with SPSS (version 24), and the data entry was verified against the source data at random to guarantee correctness. For each variable, the degree of skewness and kurtosis were investigated. By comparing the first and last 25% of all participants, we used Armstrong and Overton’s advice to perform a chi-square test to examine the possible nonresponse bias on all variables. There were no significant variations in the results, suggesting that nonresponse bias isn’t a major concern in our study. To test the suggested model, we employed a two-step analytical technique. The measuring model’s reliability and validity were assessed in the first stage. In the second step, we tested our proposed model using regression analysis.

Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis tests were used to assess the relevance of each construct’s effect. Table 1 shows the relationship between exogenous and endogenous factors. The findings of the present study (Table 2) indicated that personal self-efficacy ($\beta = .090$, Std. Error = .045, t-value = 2.003, and p-value $= . 047$ ), Educational level of recycling entrepreneurs ( $β = . 328$ , Std. Error = .120, t-value = 2.714, and p-value $= . 007$ ), Recycling entrepreneur’s experience ( $β = . 954$ , Std. Error = .124, t-value = 7.671, and p-value $= . 000$ ), External factors [competitor’s pressure ( $β = . 098$ , Std. Error = .034, t-value = 2.924, and p-value $= . 004$ ), perceived public policies ( $β = . 097$ , Std. Error = .045, t-value = 2.152, and p-value $= . 033$ ), market availability ( $β = . 112$ , Std. Error = .053, t-value = 2.105, and p-value $= . 037$ ), sociological cultural ( $β = . 082$ , Std. Error = .040, t-value = 2.0053, and p-value $= . 042$ )] have positively significant effect on green innovative performance of recycling firms. Holding other factors constant, a unit increased in entrepreneurs self-efficacy, Educational level, entrepreneur’s experience, and External factors results in .090, .328, .954, and .098 increased in firm green innovative performance respectively.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistic and Correlation.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Eco-innovation performance	4.102	0.5713	1
Self-efficacy	3.486	0.7253	.0069	1
Locus of control	2.947	0.8942	.0109	−.0179*	1
Education	3.356	0.0369	.0117*	.0033	−.0327	1
Work experience	4.264	0.8145	.159*	−.0690	.051	.0365	1
Recycling creativity	3.612	0.8142	.008*	−.068	.0335*	.0201	0206	1
Recycling_Competency	3.317	0.6217	.0097	.026	−.0097	.0199	.0243	−.0082*	1
SustainabilityIdentity	3.279	0.6252	.0222*	−.01091	.0030	.0956	.194*	.243	−.0882	1
Competition pressure	3.279	0.6215	.022*	−.109	.030*	.0925	.1630	.109*	.0998	.216*	1
Perceive public policy sup	3.899	0.7890	−.0580*	−.029	.244	.0181	.060*	.054*	−.070	.050*	.109*	1
Market availability	3.706	0.9634	.025*	−.085	.075	.117	.009	.28*	−.351*	.175*	.233*	.997	1
Socio-cultural factor	3.5900	0.7187	.0220*	−.0246	−.0543	.0148	−.1027	.0787	.0876	.1378*	.0920*	.1560	.3658	1

p < .05.

Table 2.

Regression Table.

Variables	MODEL 1				MODEL 2				MODEL 3
Variables	β	SE	T	Sig	β	SE	t	Sig	β	SE	t	Sig
Family support	.170	0.055	3.082	.002	.133	0.053	2.494	.013	.106	0.054	1.955	.052
Family own. (Yes)	.383	0.054	7.044	.000	.259	0.057	4.566	.000	.226	0.057	3.970	.000
Family own. (No)	.113	0.077	1.461	.145	.042	0.075	0.556	.578	.030	0.075	0.397	.692
Self-efficacity					.201	0.070	2.866	.004	.160**	0.051	3.142	.002
Internal locus of control					.064	0.228	0.820	.015	.023	0.079	0.103	.718
Education					.048	2.055	0.041	.099	.207**	0.053	3.917	.007
Work experience					.382	0.0101	3.22	.002	.108**	0.045	2.384	.008
Recycling creativity					.143	0.195	0.74	.464	.032	0.016	1.032	.390
Recycling_Competency					.067	2.562	0.166	.067	.184**	0.052	3.545	.000
SustainabilityIdentity					.059	0.187	0.011	.059	.068	0.076	0.721	.611
Competition pressure					.13	0.6079	2.09	.038	.330**	0.059	5.595	.000
Perceive public policy sup					.108	0.045	2.384	.108	.337**	0.122	2.771	.007
Market availability					.052	3.545	0.184	.052	.199*	0.080	2.493	.015
Socio-cultural factor					.330	0.059	5.595	.330	.092	0.010	3.053	.032
Adjusted R-square	.0398				.6078				.731
Over all F-statistics	.0291				27.04				46.010
Effect of independent variables		.731

p < .05. **p < .001.

In contrast, the finding disapproved that (Table 3) entrepreneurs internal locus of control ( $β = . 130$ , Std. Error = .069, t-value = .192, and p-value $= . 848$ ), Internal factors [Recycling Creativity ( $β = . 049$ , Std. Error = .046, t-value = 1.061, and p-value $= . 290$ ), Recycling Competencies ( $β = . 111$ , Std. Error = .052, t-value = 2.120, and p-value $= . 035$ )] have positively significant effect on green-innovative performance of recycling firms. Holding other factors constant, a unit increased in entrepreneurs internal locus of control results in .130, .049, and .111increased in firm’s green innovative performance respectively. Thus, a higher internal locus of control of recycling entrepreneur has insignificant positively associated with a high level of innovative performance.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Testing.

Endogenous variable	β	SE	t-value	p	Decision
H1: Self-efficacy & altruism → Grass root eco-innovation	$0.090$	0.045	2.003	$0.047$	Supported
H2: Locus of control → Grass root eco-innovation	$0.130$	0.069	0.192	$0.848$	Not supported
H3: Education level → Grass root eco-innovation	$0.328$	0.120	2.714	$0.007$	Supported
H4: Experience Level → Grass Root Eco-innovation	$0.954$	0.124	7.671	$0.000$	Supported
H5: Creativity → Grass Root Eco-innovation	.308	0.046	4.8956	.000	Supported
H6: Sustainability identity→ Grass Root Eco-innovation	.147	0.0677	2.1814	.0303	Supported
H7: Competency →Grass root eco-innovation	.272	0.0675	4.0330	.0001	Not supported
H8: External factors →Grass root eco-innovation	$0.098$	0.034	2.924	$0.004$	Supported

Further, a bootstrapping method was performed using SPSS Process Macro to examine if sustainability identity mediated the relationship between (1) recycling creativity and firm green-innovative performance and (2) recycling competencies and innovative performance. First, the results of the regression analysis show that both the recycling creativity (independent variable) and recycling competencies were a significant predictor of sustainability identity ( $β$ = .1477, t = 2.1814, p = .0303 < .05), ( $β$ = .2722, t = 4.0330, p = .0001 < .05) respectively. Next, while controlling for sustainability identity (mediator), the results of the second regression analysis show that recycling creativity and recycling competencies were also significant predictor of firm’s green innovative performance (dependent variable ( $β$ = .3086, t = 4.8956, p = .000 < .05), ( $β$ = .5439, t = 9.2706, p = .000 < .05) respectively. The results of the indirect effect based on5,000 bootstrap samples show that at one hand a significant indirect positive relationship between recycling creativity and green-innovative performance mediated by sustainability identity (a × b = .0322, Bootstrap 95% CI [.0020, .0733]). In this case. the mediator, sustainability identity, accounted for approximately 9.45% of the total effect on eco-innovative performance of recycling entrepreneurs [ $P_{M}$ = (.0322)/(.3408)].At the other hand, the results of the indirect effect based on5,000 bootstrap samples show a insignificant indirect positive relationship between recycling competencies and green innovative performance mediated by sustainability identity (a × b = .0313, Bootstrap 95% CI [−.0011, .0727]). Because “zero” does fall within the 95% confidence interval, sustainability identity does not mediate the relationship between recycling competencies and green innovative performance.

Discussion

Despite the fact that research on the drivers of eco- innovation has gotten a lot of attention, research on how top executives characteristics impact green innovation is still in its start (Arena et al., 2018). Based on the upper echelons theory we investigate the role that top executive psychological cognitive base (entrepreneurs’ traits and characteristics), the firm’ creativity, competency, sustainability identity and external factors including perceived public policies support, perceived market availability, policy regulations, competitor’s pressure play in firms’ eco-innovation. Specially, in the Ghanaian context, we aimed to answer the following researches questions using waste recycling firms’ founders/cofounders and shareholders: (1) What top executive’s personality traits and characteristics drive eco-innovation in waste recycling? (2) What firms’ internal factors including creativity, competency and sustainability identity affect its’ eco-innovation performance? (3) What external factors including perceived public policies support, perceived market availability, policy regulations, competitor’s pressure affect eco-innovation? These issues have sparked a lot of controversy in the literature, with opposing viewpoints and contradicting conclusions.

The findings, based on data from 200 Ghanaians’ waste recycling start-up founders, cofounders and shareholders selected for the SEED award competition finalist from 2010 to 2019 show that; drivers of eco-innovations such as clean technology, environmentally friendly manufacturing methods, design, and marketing of environmentally friendly products are all subjected to not only the effect of regulations push and pull or potential market opportunity, but most importantly to top executive having psychological cognitive base toward pro-environmental behavior. Thus, SMEs that view eco-innovation as a strategic direction tend to reap more benefits than those that invest solely to comply with regulations. As a result, while some previous research claim that eco-innovations are only driven by technology, market pull, regulatory push–pull, and corporate capabilities (Barney, 1991; Rennings, 2000), and basing upon more than 90% of theoretical interpretations have been produced (Hazarika & Zhang, 2019), we demonstrate that the top executive personal traits and characteristics can be beneficial for the firm eco-innovation initiative. Specifically, our results are in line with previous results regarding the central role of top executives with regard to SME sustainable innovation (Dorcas et al., 2021; Liao et al., 2019).

Theoretically and practically, these findings have ramifications. First, from a theoretical perspective, our study adds to the upper echelons theory by looking at an essential but understudied CEO traits/characteristics and its influence on firm’s eco-innovation. Past studies on eco-innovation drivers have focused on general innovation theory, which comprises factors of technology push, market (or demand) pull (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016), and regulatory and institutional frameworks (Rennings, 2000). However, if these theories used in the previous research are complementary, they differ in their objectives and levels of analysis. For instance, while the theory of stakeholders is positioned at the relational level, and the theory of the approach by resources favors rational (limited) actors, the upper echelon theory combines reason and emotion. Thus, the entrepreneur-manager may be thought of as the “glue” that unifies and solidly holds different methods together with regard to the objectives of decision-making.

Second, our findings provide new understandings into the drivers of eco-innovation by adding to the debate the question whether drivers for eco-innovation should be activated only through though regulations by demonstrating that top executives’ personal traits and characteristics has a positive influence on the firm’s long-term value of supporting environmental innovative projects. For the 14 waste recycling firms studied, eco-innovation activities are an integral part of their development because they are in line with the beliefs of entrepreneurs, but also and above all, they have significant economic benefits for the firm. For instance, the results from our sample, confirm that Ghanaian eco-entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy/personal altruism value (H1), has a substantial impact on innovative activities. This was shown to be correct (CR = 2,003, p = .047). According to this finding, waste recycling founders/cofounders and shareholders must inspire and persuade themselves of the importance green innovation in order to promote an eco-innovative atmosphere in their establishments. These traits and value are the foundational triggers to engage in waste recycling entrepreneurship and ensure the long-term pursued of eco-innovation. In the same vein, consistent with Thøgersen (1996) environmental issues should belong to moral behavior rather than economic ones, that is, the environmental behavior is based on individual dispositional factors determined by personal value and psychological cognitive base, our results found that top executive education level (H3), and experience (H4) are significant drivers of eco-innovation. This was shown with CR = 2,714, p = .0007 and CR = 7,671, p = .0000 respectively for education level and experience. Thus, waste recycling top executives with a high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, education and experience will set higher and more difficult goals with a motivation of the owners to work harder to meet them, resulting in improved firms’ eco- performance (Troschinetz & Mihelcic, 2009; Yan, 2002) since they have confidence in their ability to achieve such performance levels (Ivy et al., 2017). These activities included not only product development, but also service system development, technology development, program development, and waste management (Rogerson, 2001; Strydom, 2018a).

Third, the paradigm for assessing the drivers leading to eco-innovation has been broadened in this study, with a focus on developing countries. Using an elaborate conceptual framework that incorporates the condition in a developing nation, this research study has added to our understanding of eco-innovation dynamics force in waste recycling in Ghana. The study, in theory, confirms and expands on the explanation of the Porter Hypothesis by stating that regulatory measures are effective instruments for stimulating eco-innovation in Ghana’s waste recycling (H8 supported).

In terms of the practical recommendations of our research, our findings have a variety of management and policy implications. From a management standpoint, we show that, the degree of top executive pro-environmental behavior is an opportunity to increasing firms’ eco-innovation performance. Therefore, changing the behavior of entrepreneurs with regard to sustainable innovation could have positive consequences on the development of SMEs in the recycling industry and their impact. This could be accomplished through training and the use of cases that illustrate best practices as well as the challenges that are proposed.

In terms of policy implications, the findings provide policymakers confidence in the beneficial impact that policies that encourage eco-innovation may have on corporate competitiveness, and they also provide some suggestions that can help them create incentives for promoting eco-innovation. Indeed, a greater understanding of the drivers of eco-innovation might aid policymakers in developing policies that promote eco-innovation, such as boosting or at the very least not restraining the consolidation of power in the CEO figure. Furthermore, policymakers might design policies targeted at improving management awareness based on the findings of this research. Empirical data suggests that eco-innovative firms respond favorably to such initiatives. As a result, policymakers may need to give more flexible laws to encourage waste recycling firms to innovate in environmentally friendly ways. Soft instruments such as voluntary pledges, eco-audits and eco-labels, and renewable energy subsidies are examples of such policies. If correctly applied, these instruments have the ability to positively influence firms’ eco-innovative behaviors.

Conclusion

The main objective of this research was to study the values and characteristic of SME managers, the firm internal and external factors that drive eco-innovation performance in the waste recycling firms in Ghana in order to understand how they envisage their anchoring in the territory and their responsibility with regard to its development. We sought to know the specific values, traits and characteristics of the leaders of SMEs among SEED award winners in Ghana that are consistent with the values of sustainable development and if these values are likely to inspire a commitment from the leaders in the process of Ghana transition to green economy. The results have shown that; in addition to regulations, market pressure, and firms’ sustainability identity, SME managers convey their own values that they embody and share with their teams. Many of these personal traits and characteristics overlap with the values associated with sustainable development. These findings confirm that certain eco-innovation drives are integrated into the discourse of SME managers.

However, because of the inherent constraints of data from cross-sectional surveys, this study is not blind to other factors that may have an influence on the adoption of eco-innovation. Certain significant factors of eco-innovation, such as institutional innovation intermediates, roles of critical suppliers, financial performance, political economy, enterprises’ environmental strategies, and technical nature, may still persist even after correcting for certain unobserved variability. Nonetheless, from the perspective of impoverished nations, this study has made a significant contribution to understanding the drivers of eco-innovation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Bekolo Ngoa Celestin

References

Abeliotis

Koniari

Sardianou

(2010). The profile of the green consumer in Greece. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00833.x

Achim

(2015). Scoping study assessment report, Ghana. https://www.un-page.org/files/public/ge_ghana_assessmentreport_web.pdf

Adebayo Bello

Bin Ismail

M. N

. (2016). Solid waste management in Africa: A review. International Journal of Waste Resources, 6(2), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2252-5211.1000216

Adu-Boahen

Atampugre

Antwi

K. B.

Osman

Osei

Mensah

Adu-Boahen

(2014). Waste management practices in Ghana: Challenges and prospect (pp. 530–546). Jukwa Central Region.

Agan

Acar

M. F.

Borodin

(2013). Drivers of environmental processes and their impact on performance: A study of Turkish SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.043

Ahmed

Mozammel

Zaman

(2020). Impact of ecological innovation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial orientation on environmental performance and energy efficiency. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(3), 289–295.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t

Akehurst

Afonso

Martins Gonçalves

(2012). Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management Decision, 50(5), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227726

Al-ajlani

Es-sadki

(2021). EU eco-innovation index 2021 policy brief. 1.0, xx (July) (pp. 1–11).

10.

Alam

S. S.

(2011). Entrepreneur’s traits and firm innovation capability: An empirical study in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 19(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19761597.2011.578427

11.

Alhirz

Sajeev

A. S.

(2015). Do cultural dimensions differentiate ERP acceptance? A study in the context of Saudi Arabia Information Technology & People, 28(1), 163–194.

12.

Ali

E. B.

Anufriev

V. P.

Amfo

(2021). Green economy implementation in Ghana as a road map for a sustainable development drive: A review. Scientific African, 12, e00756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00756

13.

Amegbe

Hanu

(2016). Exploring the relationship between green orientation, customer based brand equity (CBBE) and the competitive performance of SMEs in Ghana. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 10(1), 80–93.

14.

Amegbe

Owino

J. O.

Nuwasiima

(2017). Green marketing orientation (GMO) and performance of SMEs in Ghana. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 11(1), 99–109.

15.

Arena

Michelon

Trojanowski

(2018). Big egos can be green: A study of CEO Hubris and environmental innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(2), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12250

16.

Arici

H. E.

Uysal

(2022). Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: A systematic review. Service Industries Journal, 42(5-6), 280–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2021.1964482

17.

Balsmeier

Buchwald

Stiebale

(2014). Outside directors on the board and innovative firm performance. Research Policy, 43(10), 1800–1815.

18.

Barker

V. L.

Mueller

G. C.

(2002). CEO characteristics and firm R&D spending. Management Science Publication, 48(6), 782–801.

19.

Barney

(1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

20.

Bolli

Renold

Woerter

(2016). Vertical educational diversity and innovation performance. SSRN Electronic Journal. 27, 395. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713623

21.

Bossle

M. B.

De Barcellos

M. D.

Vieira

L. M.

(2016). Why food companies go green? The determinant factors to adopt eco-innovations. British Food Journal, 118(6), 1317–1333.

22.

Bowen

D. E.

Siehl

(1997). The future of human resource management: March and Simon (1958) revisited. Human Resource Management, 36(1), 57–63.

23.

Boyer

Creech

Paas

(2008). Critical success factors and performance measures for start-up social and environmental enterprises. Report for SEED Initiative Research Programme. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Critical+success+factors+and+performance+measures+for+start-up+social+and+environmental+enterprises#0

24.

Burke

Millán

J. M.

Román

van Stel

(2018). Exploring the impact of different types of prior entrepreneurial experience on employer firm performance. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 90, 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.004

25.

Cai

Xie

Aguilar

F. X.

(2017). Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.001

26.

Chan

A. P. C.

Darko

Olanipekun

A. O.

Ameyaw

E. E.

(2018). Critical barriers to green building technologies adoption in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1067–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.235

27.

Chen-Feng

W. U.

Liang-Pang

(2011). Developing the environment of information technology education using cloud computing infrastructure. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(9), 864–871. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2011.864.871

28.

Chen

Gully

S. M.

Whiteman

J. A.

Kilcullen

R. N.

(2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(6), 835–847.

29.

Chen

Tsai

F. S.

Ling

H. C.

(2018). Business area changes and entrepreneurial persistence in ecology- and food-related industries: Knowledge heterogeneity and emotion perspectives. Sustainability, 10(4), 929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040929

30.

Chen

Y. S.

(2008). The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1

31.

Clark

C. F.

Kotchen

M. J.

Moore

M. R.

(2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00105-6

32.

Curado

Muñoz-Pascual

Galende

(2018). Antecedents to innovation performance in SMEs: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 89, 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.056

33.

Dalvi-Esfahani

Ramayah

Nilashi

(2017). Modelling upper echelons’ behavioural drivers of Green IT/IS adoption using an integrated interpretive structural modelling – Analytic network process approach. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.002

34.

Damanpour

Schneider

(2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x

35.

da Silva

Bolson

. (2018). Public policy for solid waste and the organization of waste pickers: Potentials and limitations to promote social inclusion in Brazil. Recycling, 3(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030040

36.

Debrah

Owusu-Manu

D. G.

Kissi

Oduro-Ofori

Edwards

D. J.

(2022). Barriers to green cities development in developing countries: Evidence from Ghana. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 11, 438–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-06-2020-0089

37.

de Jesus

Mendonça

. (2018). Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecological Economics, 145, 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.001

38.

Del Giudice

Scuotto

Garcia-Perez

Messeni Petruzzelli

. (2019). Shifting Wealth II in Chinese economy. The effect of the horizontal technology spillover for SMEs for international growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.013

39.

Del Río

Carrillo-Hermosilla

Könnölä

Bleda

. (2016). Resources, capabilities and competences for eco-innovation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1070301

40.

Demirel

Parris

(2015). Access to finance for innovators in the UK’s environmental sector. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 27(7), 782–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1019849

41.

Dorcas

K. D.

Celestin

B. N.

Yunfei

(2021). Entrepreneurs traits/characteristics and innovation performance of waste recycling Start-Ups in Ghana: An application of the upper echelons theory among seed award winners. Sustainability, 13(11), 5794. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115794

42.

Ebrahimi

Mirbargkar

S. M.

(2017). Green entrepreneurship and green innovation for SME development in market turbulence. Eurasian Business Review, 7(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-017-0073-9

43.

Elagroudy

Warith

M. A.

El Zayat

(2016). Municipal solid waste management and green economy. Global Young Academy.

44.

Ensley

M. D.

Hmieleski

K. M.

(2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34(7), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.008

45.

Eryigit

Özcüre

(2015). Eco-Innovation as modern era strategy of companies in developing countries: Comparison between Turkey and European Union. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1216–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.246

46.

Faria

L. G. D.

Andersen

M. M.

(2017). Sectoral dynamics and technological convergence: An evolutionary analysis of eco-innovation in the automotive sector. Industry and Innovation, 24(8), 837–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1319801

47.

Fernández

Torrecillas

Labra

R. E.

(2021). Drivers of eco-innovation in developing countries: The case of Chilean firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120902

48.

Fielding

K. S.

Head

B. W.

(2012). Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: The role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.592936

49.

Gifford

Nilsson

(2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Texila International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034

50.

Gómez-Haro

Aragón-Correa

J. A.

Cordón-Pozo

(2011). Differentiating the effects of the institutional environment on corporate entrepreneurship. Management Decision, 49(10), 1677–1693.

51.

Gupta

A. K.

(2009). Grassroots green innovations for inclusive, sustainable development. In López-Claros

(Ed.), The innovation for development report 2009-2010: Strengthening innovation for the prosperity of nations. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285477

52.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.

53.

Hambrick

D. C.

(2016). Upper echelons theory. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management, 32(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_785-1

54.

Hambrick

D. C.

Mason

P. A.

(1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

55.

Hazarika

Zhang

(2019). Evolving theories of eco-innovation: A systematic review. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 19, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.03.002

56.

Helfat

C. E.

(2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127007077559

57.

Hernandez

A. B.

(2010). Strategic consensus, top management teams, and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011073373

58.

Hojnik

Ruzzier

(2016). What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging literature. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.006

59.

Hörisch

Johnson

M. P.

Schaltegger

(2015). Implementation of sustainability management and company size: A knowledge-based view. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1844

60.

Huang

Liao

(2021). Do politically connected CEOs promote Chinese listed industrial firms’ green innovation? The mediating role of external governance environments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123634

61.

Hubbard

T. D.

Christensen

D. M.

(1996). Accepted articles. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13(3), 287–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-5472(96)90021-5

62.

Hubbard

T. D.

Christensen

D. M.

Graffin

S. D.

(2017). Higher highs and lower lows: The role of corporate social responsibility in CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 2255–2265.

63.

Huffman

(1993). Top management influence on innovations: Effects of executive characteristics and social culture. Journal of Management, 19(3), 549–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(93)90004-7

64.

Ibidunni

A. S.

Ibidunni

O. M.

Olokundun

M. A.

Oke

O. A.

Ayeni

A. W.

Falola

H. O.

Salau

O. P.

Borishade

T. T.

(2018). Examining the moderating effect of entrepreneurs’ demographic characteristics on strategic entrepreneurial orientations and competitiveness of SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(2), 1–8.

65.

Ilgin

M. A.

Gupta

S. M.

(2010). Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 563–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.037

66.

Ivy

Hollis

Franz

Lee

Reese

(2017). Exploring pathways to developing self-efficacy in new computer science teachers [Conference session]. 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference Exploring. http://zone2.asee.org/sessions/program/3/37.pdf

67.

Jin

Madison

Kraiczy

N. D.

Kellermanns

F. W.

Crook

T. R.

(2017). Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A meta–analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 743–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12232

68.

Katkalo

V. S.

Pitelis

C. N.

Teece

D. J.

(2010). Introduction: On the nature and scope of dynamic capabilities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1175–1186. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq026

69.

Kemp

Pearson

(2007). Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. UM Merit, Maastricht, 32(3), 121–124.

70.

Kesidou

Demirel

(2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5), 862–870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.005

71.

Khar Kheng

June

Mahmood

. (2013). The determinants of innovative work behavior in the knowledge intensive business services sector in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(15), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n15p47

72.

Kyere

Addaney

(2019). Decentralization and solid waste management in urbanizing Ghana : Moving beyond the status quo. IntechOpen, 1(2), 1–20.

73.

Latan

Chiappetta Jabbour

C. J.

Lopes de Sousa Jabbour

A. B.

Wamba

S. F.

Shahbaz

(2018). Effects of environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management’s commitment on corporate environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 180, 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.106

74.

Leenders

M. A. A. M.

Chandra

(2013). Antecedents and consequences of green innovation in the wine industry: The role of channel structure. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.759203

75.

Liao

Dong

Weng

Shen

(2019). CEOs’ religious beliefs and the environmental innovation of private enterprises: The moderating role of political ties. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(4), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1737

76.

Lissah

S. Y.

Ayanore

M. A.

Krugu

J. K.

Aberese-Ako

Ruiter

R. A. C.

(2021). Managing urban solid waste in Ghana: Perspectives and experiences of municipal waste company managers and supervisors in an urban municipality. PLoS One, 16, e0248392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248392

77.

(2014). Environmental innovation practices and performance: Moderating effect of resource commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.044

78.

López-Muñoz

J. F.

Escribá-Esteve

(2017). An upper echelons perspective on information technology business value. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 23(3), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.02.003

79.

Maier

Așchilean

Anastasiu

Gavriș

(2020). The relationship between innovation and sustainability: A bibliometric review of the literature. Sustainability, 12(10), 4083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104083

80.

Morseletto

(2020). Targets for a circular economy. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 153, 104553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553

81.

Najib

Septiani

Nurlaela

(2020). The role of innovation, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and local uniqueness on marketing performance in small and medium-sized restaurants. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 23(6), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/15378020.2020.1803687

82.

Neely

B. H.

Jr Lovelace

J. B.

Cowen

A. P.

Hiller

N. J.

(2020). Metacritiques of upper echelons theory: Verdicts and recommendations for future research. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1029–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320908640

83.

Newman

Tse

H. H. M.

Schwarz

Nielsen

(2018). The effects of employees’ creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research - Turk, 89(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001

84.

Nielsen

Huse

(2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00784.x

85.

W. Y.

Chang

Y. K.

Cheng

(2016). When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: The moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2397-z

86.

ONeill

K. J.

Gibbs

D. C.

(2014). Towards a sustainable economy? Socio-technical transitions in the green building sector. Local Environment, 19(6), 572–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.818954

87.

Ozaki

(2011). Adopting sustainable innovation: What makes consumers sign up to green electricity? Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.650

88.

Panapanaan

Uotila

Jalkala

(2014). Creation and alignment of the eco-innovation strategy model to regional innovation strategy: A case from Lahti (Päijät-Häme region), Finland. European Planning Studies, 22(6), 1212–1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.774322

89.

Porter

M. E.

Linde

C. V. D.

(1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.9.4.97

90.

Potting

Hanemaaijer

Delahaye

Ganzevles

Hoekstra

Lijzen

(2018). Circular economy: What we want to know and can measure. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL).

91.

Quartey

E. T.

Miskolci

(2017). Prospects of Green entrepreneurship as a driver for sustainable and inclusive economic growth in rural Ghana [Conference session]. 20th International Scientific Conference “Enterprise and Competitive Environment” (pp. 712–720). Mendel University.

92.

Quartey

E. T.

Tosefa

Danquah

K. A.

Obrsalova

(2015). Theoretical framework for plastic waste management in Ghana through extended producer responsibility: Case of sachet water waste. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(8), 9907–9919. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809907

93.

Rauch

Frese

(2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438

94.

Rave

Goetzke

Larch

(2011). The determinants of environmental innovations and patenting: Germany reconsidered (IFO Working Paper No. 97). IFO.

95.

Rennings

(2000). Redefining innovation — Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32, 319–332.

96.

Ren

Wang

Yan

(2021). CEO hometown identity and firm green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 756–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2652

97.

Requate

(2005). Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments—A survey. Ecological Economics, 54(2-3), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.028

98.

Rogerson

C. M.

(2001). The waste sector and informal entrepreneurship in developing world cities. Urban Forum, 12, 247–259.

99.

Roper

Tapinos

(2016). Taking risks in the face of uncertainty: An exploratory analysis of green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 112, 357–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.037

100.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

101.

Rugman

A. M.

Verbeke

(2018). Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: An organizing framework. Business Ethics and Strategy, I and II, 19, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315261102-18

102.

Russo

M. V.

Fouts

P. A.

(1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559. https://doi.org/10.5465/257052

103.

Samwine

Shen

Appiah

Yaoqi

(2017). Challenges and prospects of solid waste management in Ghana. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis, 5(4), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijema.20170504.11

104.

Saunila

(2017). “Understanding innovation performance measurement in {SMEs}.” Measuring Business Excellence, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/mbe-01-2016-0005

105.

Saunila

Ukko

Rantala

(2018). Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.211

106.

Shabbir

M. S.

Bait Ali Sulaiman

M. A.

Hasan Al-Kumaim

Mahmood

Abbas

(2020). Green marketing approaches and their impact on consumer behavior towards the environment—A study from the UAE. Sustainability, 12(21), 8977–9013. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218977

107.

Singh

M. P.

Chakraborty

Roy

(2016). The link among innovation drivers, green innovation and business performance: Empirical evidence from a developing economy. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 12(4), 316–334.

108.

Song

Qian

(2019). How do knowledge spillover and access in supply chain network enhance SMEs’ credit quality? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-01-2018-0049

109.

Spence

Pidgeon

(2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002

110.

Stead

W. E.

Worrell

D. L.

Stead

J. G.

(1990). An integrative model for understanding and managing ethical behavior in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00382649

111.

Strydom

(2018a). Applying the theory of planned behavior to recycling behavior in South Africa. Recycling, 3(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030043

112.

Strydom

(2018b). Barriers to household waste recycling: Empirical evidence from South Africa. Recycling, 3(3), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3030041

113.

Tandoh-Offin

(2011). A review of environmental entrepreneurship as an agenda for rural development: The case for Ghana. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2(2), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1520669

114.

Tan

K. L.

Suhaida

Leong

Y. P.

(2013). Self-efficacy and green entrepreneurship. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 16, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/16/1/012119

115.

The Netherlands Enterprise Agency. (2019). Market survey waste and circular economy in Ghana. Author.

116.

Thøgersen

(1996). Recycling and morality: A critical review of the literature. Environment and Behavior, 28(4), 536–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596284006

117.

Tjahjadi

Soewarno

Hariyati

Nafidah

L. N.

Kustiningsih

Nadyaningrum

(2020). The role of green innovation between green market orientation and business performance: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 6(4), 173–218. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040173

118.

Trevino

L. K.

(1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306235

119.

Troschinetz

A. M.

Mihelcic

J. R.

(2009). Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Management, 29(2), 915–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.04.016

120.

UNESCO. (2016). Planet: Education for environmental sustainability and green growth. Author.

121.

Urban

(2013). A focus on the institutional environment and social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Managing Global Transitions, 11(1), 3–25.

122.

Urban

Kujinga

(2017). The institutional environment and social entrepreneurship intentions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(4), 638–655.

123.

Vatansever

Ç.

Arun

. (2016). What color is the green entrepreneurship in Turkey? Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 8(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeee-07-2015-0042

124.

Vollebergh

H. R. J.

(2011). Differential impact of environmental policy instruments on technological change: A review of the empirical literature. SSRN Electronic Journal, 19(7), 923–936. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.991612

125.

Wan

Shen

G. Q.

(2014). The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 83, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009

126.

Wang

Holmes

R. M.

I. S.

Zhu

(2016). DO CEOs matter to firm strategic actions and firm performance? A meta-analytic investigation based on upper echelons theory. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 775–862. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12140

127.

Wang

Jiang

Zhang

(2020). Does increasing carbon emissions lead to accelerated eco-innovation? Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 251, 119690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119690

128.

Wang

Shi

Sun

Huisingh

Hansson

Wang

(2013). Moving towards an ecologically sound society? Starting from green universities and environmental higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.038

129.

Liu

C. H.

Tsai

S. B.

(2020). An empirical study on government direct environmental regulation and heterogeneous innovation investment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120079

130.

Guo

Fan

(2020). Technological capability, eco-innovation performance, and cooperative R&D strategy in new energy vehicle industry: Evidence from listed companies in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261, 121157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121157

131.

Yang

Wang

(2014). The impacts of top management team characteristics on entrepreneurial strategic orientation: The moderating effects of industrial environment and corporate ownership. Management Decision, 52(2), 378–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-03-2013-0140

132.

Yan

Y. H.

(2002). Recycling as a sustainable waste management strategy for Singapore: An investigation to find ways to promote Singaporean’s household waste recycling behaviour [thesis], Lund University.

133.

Zhou

Anwar

M. A.

Siddiquei

A. N.

Asmi

(2020). Entrepreneurs and environmental sustainability in the digital era: Regional and institutional perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041355

134.

You

Srinivasan

Pauwels

Joshi

(2020). How CEO/CMO characteristics affect innovation and stock returns: Findings and future directions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1229–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00732-4

135.

Chen

(2016). Gender moderates firms’ innovation performance and entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy and risk propensity. Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal, 44(4), 679–691. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.4.679

136.

Zhang

(2019). Deciphering the causes for the post-1990 slow output recoveries. Economics Letters, 176, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.12.003

137.

Zhu

Cordeiro

Sarkis

(2012). International and domestic pressures and responses of Chinese firms to greening. Ecological Economics, 83, 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.007