Conceptualization and theorizing process of innovation metrics for green business practices

Chandravadan Prajapati , Indrajit Goswami , Vimal Kumar , Arpit Singh , Seema Mahlawat , Sumanjeet Singh
{"title":"Conceptualization and theorizing process of innovation metrics for green business practices","authors":"Chandravadan Prajapati ,&nbsp;Indrajit Goswami ,&nbsp;Vimal Kumar ,&nbsp;Arpit Singh ,&nbsp;Seema Mahlawat ,&nbsp;Sumanjeet Singh","doi":"10.1016/j.grets.2024.100110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This research explores the wide range of measurement techniques used to evaluate innovation in businesses. We suggest a potential method for developing theories by combining the collective knowledge of academics and practitioners with a synthesis of prior empirical findings. There are differences in opinion among experts and scholars regarding innovation measurement in the discourse. While some argue that analyzing the mechanisms promoting innovation is important, others stress the significance of analyzing its results. The discussion also touches on how much companies should develop their capacity for innovation in order to remain competitive in the marketplace. The usefulness and validity of different metrics and tools for measuring innovation remain controversial despite decades of research, with conflicting findings frequently appearing in published literature. We argue that innovation is a continuous process, as demonstrated by the results of applied research and development (R&amp;D), which are informed by engineering practices, theoretical understandings, end-user needs, sustainability, and environmental impact. This study adds to the current conversation by putting forth a nuanced viewpoint that recognizes the complexity of innovation and pushes for an all-encompassing method of measurement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100598,"journal":{"name":"Green Technologies and Sustainability","volume":"2 3","pages":"Article 100110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294973612400037X/pdfft?md5=e6ac55bb14b182cdd92073914df14437&pid=1-s2.0-S294973612400037X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Green Technologies and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S294973612400037X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research explores the wide range of measurement techniques used to evaluate innovation in businesses. We suggest a potential method for developing theories by combining the collective knowledge of academics and practitioners with a synthesis of prior empirical findings. There are differences in opinion among experts and scholars regarding innovation measurement in the discourse. While some argue that analyzing the mechanisms promoting innovation is important, others stress the significance of analyzing its results. The discussion also touches on how much companies should develop their capacity for innovation in order to remain competitive in the marketplace. The usefulness and validity of different metrics and tools for measuring innovation remain controversial despite decades of research, with conflicting findings frequently appearing in published literature. We argue that innovation is a continuous process, as demonstrated by the results of applied research and development (R&D), which are informed by engineering practices, theoretical understandings, end-user needs, sustainability, and environmental impact. This study adds to the current conversation by putting forth a nuanced viewpoint that recognizes the complexity of innovation and pushes for an all-encompassing method of measurement.

Abstract Image

绿色商业实践创新指标的概念化和理论化过程
本研究探讨了用于评估企业创新的各种测量技术。我们提出了一种潜在的方法,通过将学术界和从业人员的集体知识与先前的经验研究成果相结合来发展理论。专家学者对创新衡量的讨论存在分歧。一些人认为,分析促进创新的机制非常重要,而另一些人则强调分析创新结果的重要性。讨论还涉及企业应在多大程度上发展创新能力,以保持市场竞争力。尽管经过数十年的研究,但衡量创新的不同指标和工具的实用性和有效性仍存在争议,发表的文献中经常出现相互矛盾的结论。我们认为,创新是一个持续的过程,应用研究与开发(R&D)的成果就证明了这一点,而工程实践、理论认识、最终用户需求、可持续性和环境影响都为创新提供了依据。本研究提出了一种细致入微的观点,承认创新的复杂性,并推动制定一种全面的衡量方法,从而为当前的讨论添砖加瓦。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信