INTRODUCTION

Sustainability has become an increasingly dominant practice for industrial enterprises. In particular, the food industry has focused on sustainable practices and ecoinnovations for gaining competitive advantage (Darkow, Heiko and von der Gracht, 2015). Organizations and society are sensitized towards that the environment is finite and their use inadequate will lead to a global collapse (Rosa et al, 2014).

Sustainability arouses intense debate, mobilizing hearts passionately and minds of environmental movements, communities, governments and business managers. The transition from traditional management models for sustainable business strategies is done by devious ways. The challenges that Companies face are many, even because issues such as global environmental degradation, hunger, social inequality and armed conflict They have never been incorporated into the agenda of the organization private institutions or occupied second place in corporate strategies (Teodósio & Barnieri & Scillag, 2006).

Pagell and Wu (2009) note that there is a need to incorporate the three dimensions of sustainability— economic, social and environmental supply chain—for achieving a more sustainable performance. Seiffert (2011) mentions that practices that have been adopted frequently in the supply chain are reverse logistics; changes in the production process; replacement/modification of the product; the use of inputs and raw materials in the process; the implementation of infrastructure improvements in the process; preventive approach to waste control; capacity building (training and awareness) for environmental control; environmental monitoring and performance indicators of the establishment; and the adoption of continuous improvement tools. Xue (2014) also points out that since the 1990s studies concerning production have focused on the introduction of the green manufacturing concept in the supply chain—namely: a) the concept of a green manufacturing process; b) green technologies and manufacturing processes; c) applied research in green manufacturing; d) evaluation of the green production system. However, Morali and Searcy (2013) argue that corporations have come to consider the product lifecycle and have introduced into their production processes various management principles and practices such as cleaner production, Valdez Principles, environmental management systems, and the guidelines of the technical standard ISO 14001.

research in green manufacturing; d) evaluation of the green production system. However, Morali and Searcy (2013) argue that corporations have come to consider the product lifecycle and have introduced into their production processes various management principles and practices such as cleaner production, Valdez Principles, environmental management systems, and the guidelines of the technical standard ISO 14001.

In addition, Morali and Searcy (2013) point out that the integration of social and environmental principles within a company and its suppliers requires integration upstream or downstream with other organizations in the supply chain. This integration can be implemented at an operational or strategic level and helps generate risks and environmental and social standards management measures such as ISO 14001 for environmental and SA8000 for social purposes and accountability.

The aspect of risk management is vital for companies in a global economy, where increasing integration demands have increased the supply chain definition. This is because the brand enterprises, their image and competitiveness in the market may be dependent practices of its suppliers, defying the principles of sustainability.

Sustainability is driven by legislation, public interest and competitive opportunities (Zaabi, Dhaheri and Diabat, 2013). It is difficult for industries to eradicate all barriers in the early stages of adoption of sustainable concepts (Zaabi, Dhaheri and Diabat, 2013). The following barriers are described by Carboni, Moatti and Vinzi (2012):

1. § Very high cost for the disposal of hazardous waste.

   § Cost of environmentally friendly packaging.

   § Lack of clarity on sustainability.

   § Cost of economic conditions and sustainability.

   § Lack of sustainability standards and appropriate regulations.

   § The short-term misalignment and long-term strategic targets.

   § Lack of effective assessment of sustainability.

   § Lack of training and education on sustainability.

   § Complexity of design to reduce the consumption of resources and energy.

   § Improper installation of adoptions reverse logistics practices.

   § Lack of implementation IT.

   § Inadequate industrial self-regulation.

   § Lack of top management commitment to start sustainability efforts.

In this context, the literature also introduces the concept of eco-innovation and sustainable innovation. Eco-innovation is the creation of new merchandise at competitive prices, as well as new processes, systems, designed services and procedures to meet human needs and provide a better quality of life for all, with emphasis on lifecycle assessment, minimum use of natural resources (materials including energy and surface area) per unit of output, and a minimal release of toxic substances (Reid and Miedzinski, 2008). According to Garcia-Pozo, Sánchez-Ollero and Marchante-Lara (2015), this definition has traditionally been used in studies developed in industrial sectors.

Therefore, all new processes that are more efficient in their use of resources are eco-innovations. All new solutions that are more environmentally benign than the relevant alternative is eco-innovations. The alternative may be relevant technology now in use in an industry or technology (e.g. power plants and coal gas for electricity generation). In this case, innovations in coal burning technology can be described as eco-innovations to reduce emissions.

To measure eco-innovation in Brazilian industrial firms, a questionnaire was prepared with a list of environmental, social and economic practices derived from theoretical studies previously developed on the subject. Respondents were asked about the stage of adoption of these practices in their production processes. Alternatives allowed each question to be rated from one to seven, one meaning the company never adopted the practice and seven when it was fully adopted.

To analyse the mapped eco-innovations, the typology proposed by EIO (2013) and replicated by Dias (2014) was used. It consists of an eco-innovation typology widely quoted in international studies and classifies the innovations adopted by organizations in the following types: products, processes, marketing, organizational and social systems.

This paper contributes to research in three ways, namely by addressing the following research areas:

1. 1. 1 Implementation stage of eco-innovations in Brazilian industries, highlighting the importance of sustainability in the supply chain of companies’ research;

   2 Motivators, hindrances and benefits arising from the adoption of sustainable and eco-innovated practices in industrial companies;

   3 Creating a schedule of eco-innovative practices for incorporation into industrial enterprises through the mapped weaknesses.

Sustainable Practices and Eco-Innovation

The emergence of sustainability as a competitive advantage generation factor involves new ways of thinking and acting for society and businesses, as sustainable practices and eco-innovations are not static and linear (Galvão, 2014). Rammell (2003) points out that this competitive environment is forcing companies to change their practices in terms of processes, technologies, products and new forms of sustainable business. Nidomolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami (2009) emphasize that the essential element contributing to progress in the issue of sustainability is a focus on innovation. Companies that incorporate sustainability as a strategic factor need to develop new skills to place them ahead of their competitors. In addition, sustainability becomes an integral part of economic development.

Still, Díaz-García, González-Moreno and Sáez-Martínez (2015) emphasize that eco-innovation is a young area of research. However, it has attracted the attention of policy makers, academics and professionals. In their bibliometric study, Díaz-García, González-Moreno and Sáez-Martínez (2015) found that most existing studies focus on the pioneers, the early adopters of eco-innovative practices. Analysis of studies shows contemplation of elements at macro, meso and micro levels.

At the macro level, as well as different policy instruments, the literature highlights the relative importance of regional factors. This includes the so-called ‘transition regions’, with decentralized governance in economic development and innovation issues and industrial districts where innovation density, level of knowledge and externalities are concentrated. These particular contexts foster the development, implementation and diffusion of eco-innovations. These specific contexts and their parts should be noted by policy makers and other stakeholders who are willing to learn from the successful development of eco-innovations achieved by early adopters. At the meso level, market dynamics, pressure groups and networks are key elements in promoting innovations aimed at reducing the negative impact of economic activity on the environment. Finally, at the micro level, visionary management and managerial concerns are considered two of the most important factors for the development of ecoinnovations, along with key features and capabilities such as qualified personnel, networking, capacity to absorb and green organizational identity (Díaz-García, GonzálezMoreno and Sáez-Martínez, 2015).

Based on these prior studies on eco-innovation, some typologies are highlighted, as can be seen in Tables 1 and 2.

In addition, the typology proposed by EIO (2013, p.3) and replicated by Dias (2014, p.137–138) is very often adopted in theoretical and empirical studies and is described in Table 2.

The study of eco-innovation is complex because of the various relationships, types and determinants. For this reason, there are different methodologies to assess its spread. In addition to the aforementioned, the OCDE (2009) presents the main ways to measure ecoinnovations as being input measures, interim output measures, direct output measures and indirect impact measures. This is also a methodology widely quoted in international studies. However, it remains an issue that strengthens studies, especially in companies that pioneered the adoption of eco-innovations. Examples include the studies of Triguero, Moreno-Mondéjar and Davia (2015), Garcia-Pozo, Sánchez-Ollero and Marchante-Lara (2015), Duran-Romero and Urraca-Ruiz (2015), Martínez-Pérez, García-Villaverde and Elche (2015), Melece (2015), Kijek (2015) and Cecere et al. (2014), among others.

Methodology

This research analyses data from 300 companies affiliated to the Federation of Santa Catarina State Industries (FIESC), Brazil. The questionnaire was administered by telephone by the Agribusiness Studies Centre of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.

It consists of a survey questionnaire that made use of climbing itemized measurement. The indicators, ranging from never to always, were assigned a numerical score from one to seven for the purposes of evaluation. The questionnaire was formed through the theoretical basis of studies in literature on eco-innovation and sustainable practices. Thus, the descriptive analysis evaluated the distribution frequency of the answers, ascertaining whether they obtained the central tendency and dispersion for scalar variables and frequency distribution for categorical variables. Data analysis was performed based on the frequency distribution, mean, standard deviation and variance. Kurtosis and skewness were also calculated to understand the nature of the data distribution.

The relevant elements were analysed to identify sustainable practices in the production process of industrial companies and along the supply chain, considering stage of adoption of eco-innovations; difficulties in implementing sustainable practices; motivators for the adoption of sustainable practices; and benefits derived from the adoption of sustainable practices. Based on the mapped results, an action agenda is proposed for incorporating eco-innovations and organizational brand products where eco-innovation is incipient and/or non-existent in the companies surveyed.

Presentation and Analysis

In this section the survey data are described and analysed. The first four tables present elements related to the characterization of the surveyed organizations. Table 3 shows the field of activity of the companies surveyed.

In this study there was a predominance of food product industry and metallurgy companies surveyed, totalling 90 per cent of the sample. The dominance of these companies was intentional, since the state of Santa Catarina stands out in these two sectors, seen as complementary. The two consolidated sectors went against the premise that these organizations would be more likely to have incorporated sustainable practices. The following Table 4 presents the number of employees in the companies surveyed.

It is noted in Table 4 that 72.33 per cent of the surveyed sample consists of companies with up to 100 employees. Only 25 companies have over 500 employees and these are internationalized companies which have branches in different countries. The standard deviation for the number of employees in the companies surveyed is 63.42; the company which has the largest number of employees has 3,000 employees and the one with the lowest number has just one employee. Table 5 highlights the profile of the companies surveyed.

Note in Table 5 that 92 per cent of companies surveyed were the industry headquarters staff and only in eight per cent of cases was the questionnaire applied to a person belonging to a branch of the company.

As can be seen in Table 6, 56.33 per cent of the sample studied does not have branches, but 131 of the companies surveyed do have branches, ranging from one to 133 affiliated units. The following Table 7 shows the degree of importance of environmentally friendly practices in production processes of the companies surveyed.

It is important to be mentioned that the sequence of environmental practices presented to researchers and described in Table 7 includes reverse logistics; cleaner production; waste separation; 5Rs (reduce, rethink, refuse, reuse and recycle); industrial wastewater treatment; recycling water; water reuse; pollution control; eco-efficiency; eco-innovation; biotechnology; environmental management system; clean energy; ecodesign; composting; incineration; sustainable consumption; zero waste (internal recycling); prevention and control integrated pollution; green chemistry; use of environmentally friendly packaging; audits to suppliers; auditing of internal processes; environmental audits in production processes and management of effluents and waste; use of surface water in the process; environmentally sound management of hazardous waste; technology process that reduces waste levels; mitigation of environmental impacts; the use of fuels derived from renewable sources; using technology to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases; assessment of the lifecycle of products; and voluntary environmental agreements.

It can be seen in Table 7 that indicator 3 (waste separation) had the highest average importance of all indicators analysed as perceived by managers, corresponding to 5.99. Second is indicator 4 (5Rs), averaging 5.26, followed by indicator 2 (cleaner production) with an average of 5.05, indicator 30 (process technologies that reduce waste level) averaging 4.31, and indicator 23 (audits of internal processes) that scores 4.27.

At the other extreme is the indicator 16 (incineration—mass burn) which obtained the lowest average, amounting to a value of 2.09 followed by indicators 15 (composting) and 20 (green chemistry), where both had an average of 2.5 according to the perception of the subjects. Indicators of skewness and kurtosis were also calculated.

According to Hair et al. (2005), asymmetry is the degree of deviation or departure from the symmetry of a distribution. It is positive for asymmetric distributions to the right and negative for those to the left. For symmetric distributions, the value is zero. Note in Table 7 that there was a predominance of deviation in asymmetric distributions to the right, resulting in predominantly positive asymmetry indicators. Therefore, a distribution has positive skewness when there is a concentration of values in the lower sample values. In the study, indicators 16 (incineration), 26 (use of water, underground processes) and 20 (green chemistry) obtained the most positive asymmetry index, being respectively 1.51, 1.1 and 0.96. Indicators 3 (waste separation), 4 (5Rs) and 2 (cleaner production) were the ones with the higher negative asymmetry indicators, being respectively -1.73, - 1 and -0.8. Table 8 shows the degree of importance attributed by respondents to the indicators depicting social practices.

Table 8 describes the social responsibility indicators: labour practices based on internationally recognized universal standards; hiring employees discriminating quotas; granting benefits to regular full-time employees of the organization; monitoring and recording types of injury; training sessions related to health and safety at work; training sessions related to the handling of hazardous waste; conducting training on accident prevention in the workplace; conducting training on aspects of human rights relevant to the organization's operations; hiring indigenous tribal employees; formal reporting procedures for complaints and claims by local communities; reporting significant risks related to corruption identified on the basis of risk assessments; communicating the anticorruption policies and procedures adopted by the organization; monitoring the number of complaints and claims of customers and suppliers; observation of ergonomic aspects in processes; communicating sustainable performance to stakeholders via specific reports; green marketing; communicating ethical principles and values of the company.

In the perception of the subjects surveyed, indicators 6 (training sessions related to health and safety at work), 9 (eco-efficiency) and 2 (labour practices based on universal standards recognized internationally) obtained the highest values, with an average respectively of 5.51, 5.5 and 5.41. At the other end, with lower average values, were positioned indicators 11 (biotechnology), 18 (zero waste) and 3 (waste separation) being respectively 1.85, 2.8 and 3.64. Table 9 shows the level of importance of indicators depicting economic practices.

The evaluated indicators described in Table 9 consist of monitoring the cost per unit of output; monitoring the rework and rework index; monitoring the loss ratio in the process; monitoring risks and opportunities for the organization’s activities due to climate change; identifying the significant indirect economic impacts, both positive and negative; and prioritizing spending on local suppliers.

According to Table 9, indicators that obtained the highest average from the perception of the subjects surveyed were indicators 1 (monitoring of cost per unit produced), with an average of 5.81; 3 (monitoring the loss ratio in the process) at 5.58; and 2 (monitoring of rework index and reprocessing) at 5.46. The indicators that had the lowest averages were 4 (monitoring of risks and opportunities for the organization's activities due to climate change) at 4.28; 5 (identifying the significant indirect economic impact of the organization) with an average of 5; and 6 (prioritizing spending on local suppliers) with an average of 5.07. Note that there was a wide variation in the block of indicators related to economic practices. This contributed to the standard deviation of this block being only 0.55. Above all, the economic sustainability of a region also runs through the endogenous conditions sufficiency of resources (Silva & Pereira & Costa, 2014). The following Table 10 shows the length of time that the research subjects had worked in the company.

Note in Table 10 that 64 per cent of researchers had been working for up to ten years in the company and 16.33 per cent had worked for over 21 years. This indicator is important in the context of the research because it highlights the degree of knowledge of the company and its processes that respondents have. It starts from the assumption that the more company experience the subject has, the more information he possesses and so is better able to contribute consistent information for the development of a qualitative research.

Table 11 shows that the position held by respondents varies widely. It is necessary to consider that companies of different sizes were surveyed and that they therefore have different hierarchical structures. Overall, 49 per cent of the sample surveyed were professionals working in administrative positions and company management at the strategic level. In addition, 44.32 per cent occupy management positions or are analysts on a technical level.

Among the other practices cited were: Oeko-Tex; Pass; Sun Program Manufacturing Practices; NQS; TS 2008; ABVTEX; ANVISA; Ministry of Agriculture; Good Manufacturing Practices (BPS); FATMA; WASP International Standards; IBAMA rules; rules of the Federal Police; environmental items TS 16949; Standard FAO N.R.12; NS and NT. Note that these are predominantly legal requirements related to service specific legislation for the sector of activity of the companies surveyed. Table 13 presents the associated hindering the implementation of sustainable practices.

Leading the ranking for hindering the implementation of sustainable practices are the need to invest in new machinery and equipment, the difficulty of measuring and corporate culture. It is curious that 55 respondents indicated that they did not understand sustainable practices, which could mean a need to disseminate the best practices that currently exist.

Motivations for the implementation of sustainable practices are dominated by regulatory concerns, awareness of managers of their necessity and importance, and operational efficiency, as shown in Table 14.

The benefits observed in adopting sustainable practices predominantly are to improve the quality, image and management, as shown in Table 15.

It is noted from Table 16 that in the perception of the subjects, not very innovative practices predominate (38.33 per cent), followed by fairly innovative (36.67 per cent). Only 3.33 per cent believe that their organizations adopt the best practices for the industry. The results of crossing the data resulting from this survey with the types of eco-innovation advocated by Dias (2014) and EIO (2013) are shown in Table 17.

The analysis described in Table 17 shows that the surveyed companies have increased their investment in the social and marketing areas, according to the perception of the subjects. Were evaluated the types of eco-innovation that obtained the highest average and lower standard deviations in the notes.

Such observations may imply that companies follow sustainable global trends to meet customer requirements, to have shocked the image and management. However, managers even acknowledge that these practices are not very innovative. What is your level of contribution to the sustainability of the planet and the balance of social, environmental and economic? The practices are aligned with the global guidelines of the United Nations Organization Units, which released guidelines for companies to become sustainable leaders?

Consistent with the assumptions of the report Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation: Framework, Practices and Measurement ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC prepared by CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD, 2009)? Evidence mapped allow inferring that no effective concern for managers in making a difference with their actions.

There is rather a concern with regulatory issues and operational efficiency of industries - which are key elements to generate competitive advantage and contribute to cost reduction.

The main practical contribution that this study brings is to note that despite the different existing metrics to measure sustainability, highlighting the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), managers still consider to be a major constraint to implement sustainability practices difficulty to measure their results. It had also highlighted the need for investments in infrastructure and corporate culture. From this perspective, a practical implication of this study allows to emphasize that the political interest in sustainability is a key element in promoting agile and effective changes. If the federal government of the country to impose provisional measures they enact benefits for industrial companies that choose to invest in sustainable practices, either through reduction of taxes paid, payment for services environmental services, other tax benefits, changes will occur in a rapid manner. Just the public involvement in decision-making spheres and creating policies that benefit society and not too much burden on entrepreneurs to promote change. Surely this kind of initiative will be vital to create a culture committed to sustainability. That way we will build a society that takes sustainability as a fundamental guideline for the management of competitive industries and create leaders in sustainability.

And so will distort the concept that sustainable practices are adopted to meet legal requirements and to promote businesses via marketing.

In need of improvement is innovation in products, as the average lowest and highest variance, followed by the organizational dimension.

Consideration of these findings of the study means it is relevant to propose an agenda of actions that can contribute to the promotion of the dimensions of ecoinnovation that currently have weaknesses. Thus, Table 18 shows the recommended improvements for the companies surveyed.

Final Considerations

The purpose of this study was to analyse the level of adoption of sustainable practices and eco-innovations deployed in the processes of industrial companies. The main conclusion of this research is that there is concrete evidence of adoption of sustainable practices and ecoinnovations in industrial companies. However, it was found that the adoption stages ranged from incipient adoption to full adoption. The subjects predominantly perceive little innovative practice (38.33 per cent) followed by fairly innovative practice (36.67 per cent). Only 3.33 per cent believe that their organization adopts the best practices for the industry. These results are in accordance with other studies on this subject, like Carter and Dresner (2001); Walker, Di Sisto and McBain (2008); Mont and Leire (2009); Mollenkopf et al. (2010); Bjorklund (2011) and Meixel and Luoma (2015).

The key drivers of the adoption of sustainable practices are improving the quality, image and management of the organization. Another conclusion of the research is that the motivations for the implementation of sustainable practices are dominated by regulatory concerns, awareness of managers of their necessity and importance, and operational efficiency. Motivation for implementation consists primarily of reactive practices that focus on meeting the assumptions of applicable laws for the industrial sector of activity. There are already signs of awareness of the need by managers and commitment to sustainability—and, of course, operational efficiency, which emphasizes reducing waste and cost in companies.

However, that sustainable practices and mapped ecoinnovation are directed towards social and marketing types shows a business concern in meeting assumptions regarded as relevant by the stakeholders and disseminating the results of their actions to the community. More fledgling practices were mapped in the product and organizational areas: thus, they listed actions construed as relevant to consolidate this kind of ecoinnovation in enterprises.

Despite care over the rigour of scientific study, studies starting from the perceptions of the subjects surveyed do not have full capacity to measure the organizational reality of companies. Each subject has a perception of certain elements from according to their trajectory, their experiences, their training and their level of knowledge.

Thus, it is understood as a limitation of the study to measure the stage of adoption of sustainable practices and eco-innovations from the perception of only one subject from each research firm. It is known that this is a limitation of all research surveys working with databases from multiple businesses.

Future research could apply a multivariate structural equation in the data mapped in the study herein described to test hypotheses about relationships between latent and observed variables. Also, it may be useful to apply a cluster analysis technique to assess the sustainable performance of companies of different sizes.

References

Andersen, M.M. (2008), “Eco-innovation towards a taxonomy and theory. 25th Celebration Conference 2008 on Entrepreneurship and Innovation: organizations, institutions, systems and regions”, Copenhagen, 2008, available at: http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php? id=3150&cf=29 (accessed 2 January 2016).

Bjorklund, M. (2011), “Influence from the business environment on environmental purchasing: drivers and hinders of purchasing green transportation services”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 11-22.

Carbone, V., Moatti, V. and Vinzi, V.E. (2012), “Mapping corporate responsibility and sustainable supply chains: an exploratory perspective”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 21, 475-494.

Carter, C.R. and Dresner, M. (2001), “Purchasings role in environmental management: cross-functional development of grounded theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 12-27.

Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C. and Ozman, M. (2014), “Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations”, J Evol Econ, Vol. 24, pp. 1037-1065.

Darkow, I.L., Heiko, F.H. and von der Gracht, A. (2015), “Sustainability in food service supply chains: future expectations from European industry experts toward the environmental perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Iss. 2, pp. 163- 178.

Dias, R. (2014). Eco-inovação: caminho para o crescimento sustentável, Atlas, São Paulo.

Díaz-García, C; González-Moreno, A; and SáezMartínez, F.J. (2015), “Eco-innovation: insights from a literature review”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 6-23.

Durán-Romero, G. and Urraca-Ruiz, A. (2015), “Climate change and eco-innovation. A patent data assessment of environmentally sound technologies”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 115-138.

EIO [Eco-innovation observatory] (2013), Europe in transition: paving the way to a green economy through eco-innovation, European Commission/DG Environment, Brussels.

Galvão, H.M (2014), Influencia da gestão socioambiental no desempenho da eco-inovação empresarial, Tese de doutorado (Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, 237p.

García-Pozo, A; Sánchez-Ollero, J.L; and MarchanteLara, M. (2015), “Eco-innovation and management: an empirical analysis of environmental good practices and labour productivity in the Spanish hotel industry”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 58-68.

Hair Jr, J.F., Babin, B., Money, A.H. and Samouel, P. (2005), Fundamentos de métodos de pesquisa em administração, Porto Alegre Bookman, Tradução Lene Beron Ribeiro.

Kijek, T. (2015), “Modelling of eco-innovation diffusion: the EU eco-label”, Comparative Economic Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.65-79.

Martínez-Pérez, A., García-Villaverde, P.M. and Elche, D. (2015), “Eco-innovation antecedents in cultural tourism clusters: external relationships and explorative knowledge”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-57.

Meixell, M.J. and Luoma, P. (2015), “Stakeholder pressure in sustainable supply chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Iss. ½, pp. 69- 89.

Melece, L. (2015), “Eco-innovation and its development in Baltic states”, Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 415-414.

Mollenkopf, D., Stolze, H., Tate, W.L. and Ueltschy, M. (2010), “Green, lean, and global supply chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 40 Nos. 1/2, pp. 14-41.

Mont, O. and Leire, C. (2009), “Socially responsible purchasing in supply chains: drivers and barriers in Sweden”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 388-407.

Morali, O. and Searcy, C. (2013), “A review of sustainable supply chain management practices in Canada”, J Bus Ethics, Vol.117, pp. 635-658.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009, September), “Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, No.87, pp.57-64.

OCDE. (2001, May), “Organisation for economic cooperation development”, Hacia el crescimiento verde: um resumen para los diseñadores de políticas. Disponible in: .Acessed in 2 jan. 2016.

Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of ten exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol.45 No.2, pp.37-56.

Rammel, C. (2003), “Sustainable development and innovations: lessons from the Red Queen”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol.6 No.4, pp.395416.

Reid, A. and Miedzinski, M. (2008), “Systematic innovation panel on eco-innovation: final report for sectorial innovation watch”, available at: www.technopolis-group.com (accessed 16 September 2015).

Rosa, L. A. B., Gomes, C. M., Kneipp, J. M., & Bichueti, R. S. (2014). O poder de inovação e a implementação da estratégia para a sustentabilidade no setor mineral brasileiro. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, 13(1), 49-63.

Seiffert, M.E.B. (2011), ISO 14.001 – Sistemas de gestão ambiental: implantação objetiva e econômica, 4th edn, Atlas, São Paulo.

Teodósio, A. D. S. S., Barbieri, J. C., & Csillag, J. M. (2006). Sustentabilidade e competitividade: novas fronteiras a partir da gestão ambiental. Revista IberoAmericana de Estratégia, 5(1), 37-49.

Silva, T., Pereira, M. F., & Costa, A. M. (2014). Desenvolvimento e sustentabilidade na América Latina: velha história, novos caminhos. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, 13(2), 117-129.

Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L. and Davia, M.A. (2015), “Eco-innovation by small and medium-sized firms in Europe: from end-of-pipe to cleaner technologies”, Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 24-40.

Walker, H., Di Sisto, L. and McBain, D. (2008), “Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and private sectors”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-85.

Xue, C. (2014, January), “Diffusion behavior and analysis of the green manufacturing mode under the influence of government”, Journal of Computers, Vol. 9 No. 1.pp.89-94

Zaabi, S.A., Dhaheri, N.A. and Diabat, A. (2013), “Analysis of interaction between the barriers for the implementation of sustainable supply chain management”, Int J Adv Manuf Technol, Vol. 68, pp.895905