This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University *Corresponding author. E-mail: a.maciulyte-sniukiene@vilniustech.lt THE ECO-INNOVATION IMPACT ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF EU MEMBER STATES Alma MAČIULYTĖ-ŠNIUKIENĖ 1*, Dali SEKHNIASHVILI 2 1Department of Business Technology and Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Business Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio al. 11a, LT-10223 Vilnius, Lithuania 2Department of Engineering Economics, Faculty of Engineering Economics, Media Technologies and Social Science, Georgian Technical University, Kostava Str. 77, GE-0160 Tbilisi, Georgia Received 28 February 2021; accepted 18 March 2021 Abstract. Development of innovation is recognised as a most powerful tool for the economic growth of countries. However, their effects on the quality of the environment are still being debated. To achieve sustainable development, eco-innovation becomes significant. EU countries expand eco-innovation activities, but it is not clear whether its development achieves the goal of economic growth and improves the quality of the environment. Purpose  – to present how EU Member States perform in economic growth, environment and eco-innovation development and to evaluate eco-innovations impact on economic and environ- mental performance. Research methodology – the random effect regression was used for investigation relationship be- tween eco-innovation, economic growth and environmental performance. Findings – eco-innovation development influences not only EU MS economic growth but also has a positive effect on environmental performance. Research limitations – eco-innovations development and economic growth can be interdepended, but this research investigates just one-way dependence. Granger causality test can be used for relationship assessment in the future. Practical implications – the research results can be used for both the development of environmen- tal policy and the policy of business support for eco-innovation implementation. Originality/Value  – study results confirmed previous assessment results on eco-innovation and economic growth and provided new knowledge of their effect on environmental performance. Keywords: innovations, eco-innovations, economic growth, environment, Eco-Innovation Index, Environmental Performance Index. JEL Classification: O11, O31, 050, 051. Business, Management and Economics Engineering ISSN: 2669-2481 / eISSN: 2669-249X 2021 Volume 19 Issue 2: 212–228 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14497 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6661-7407 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8782-8430 https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2021.14497 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 213 Introduction In recent times, politicians, the public, and, in parallel, researchers have been paying increas- ing attention to environmental quality analysis and initiatives to improve it. In response to environmental concerns, socially responsible businesses are developing new business and management models, new services or products, and new production processes that can pro- tect and improve environmental quality. It means – implements eco-innovations to business activities. Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether ongoing eco-innovation development activities are achieving their goal and significantly improving the environment’s quality. The development of innovations is generally considered to have a positive impact on business competitiveness, and in parallel, on the country’s economic growth, through capital accumu- lation and productivity growth. Nevertheless, their development, especially eco-innovations, involves a significant investment, so it is unclear their return, especially in the short term. Moreover, the extent of eco-innovation development varies between countries, and outcomes at the macro level may vary. Analysis of previous studies revealed that most studies on eco-innovation development outcomes were conducted in developed countries (Yurdakul & Kazan, 2020), and the im- pact of eco-innovations on the economic growth and environmental performance in the EU Member States (MS) is not thoroughly studied. Scholars consider eco-innovations as a driving factor in EU member states. They analyse European eco-innovation performance from a global perspective, as well as key trends of the EU Eco-Innovation Index (Eco-Innovation Observatory, 2020), many of them assess the determinants of eco-innovation in the European Union (Andabaka et  al., 2019), especially in the new member countries, whose economies are characterised by low productivity and high intensity of greenhouse gas emissions (Bartoszczuk, 2015; Wielgórka & Szczepaniak, 2019), but there is a research gap to determine whether EU MS that develop the most eco- innovations also have the best environmental performance and whether the most developed EU MS are more eco-innovative than the less developed ones. Given the fact that assessing the effectiveness of eco-innovation in a country provides important information about which countries are leaders or lagging behind, scientists em- phasised the importance of measuring progress towards eco-innovation in different countries (Rizos et al., 2015; Loučanová & Nosáľová, 2020; Lesakova & Laco, 2020; Jang et al., 2015). Although there are no studies that assess the impact of eco-innovation on environmental performance and economic growth to identify, which EU countries are lagging in develop- ing eco-innovations, compare countries in terms of environmental performance. Taking into consideration these facts and our insights, the study aims to present how EU MS performs in economic growth, environment, and eco-innovation development and evaluate the eco- innovations impact on economic and environmental performance. To achieve this goal, we developed two Random Effects econometric models for panel data covering real GDP per capita and Environmental performance index as dependent variables, eco-innovation index as an independent variable, and control variables. This research contributes to previous studies by providing new knowledge on the eco- innovation effects. In parallel, it has a practical value by presenting recommendations 214 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... for environmental protection policy which is related to business support. As mentioned Andriušaitienė (2020), domestic socio-economic development and global economic chal- lenges and problems call for a review of the country’s economic and social policies. Given recently identified environmental quality problems, the search for ways to address them solving by adjusting environmental policies is very timely. The rest of the paper is organised as follows: The first section is devoted to the literature review. We provided concepts of eco-innovation, systemise eco-innovation components, identified eco-innovation determinant; substantiated eco-innovations importance; discussed the relationship between eco-innovation development, economic growth and environmental performance; and impact transmission mechanism. The second section provides a research methodology, including the research model and data used. It also presents compositions of Eco-innovation and Environmental performance indexes that are used in research. The third section provides and discusses research results on eco-innovation, economic growth and environmental performance comparisons in EU MS, and on the relationship between them. The last section concludes the research results and provides recommendations for environmental policy. 1. Literature review on the effects of eco-innovations 1.1. Definitions and classification of eco-innovation The requirements for eco-friendly products and services are ever-increasing throughout the world, and consequently, eco-innovations have become a quite topical issue. At the same time, it is a challenge for the countries at both micro and macro levels, as it is necessary to produce more quality products at low costs and at the same time, it is necessary to bear certain expenses to realise environmental protection measures (Fiore et al., 2018). An eco-innovation implies the reduced impact of man’s activities on the environment and maintenance of the environmental balance, better living quality, less unemployment and higher employment rates, job generation, maintenance of biodiversity, less use of natural and artificial materials and lower expenses in general (Dogaru, 2017). Consequently, eco-innovation can bring both economic and ecological benefits. This conclusion was made based on the studies by different scientists (King & Lenox, 2001; Zeng et  al., 2011; Yurdakul & Kazan, 2020), who analysed the ecological and financial-economic indices in their studies. It is clear that the companies will expand more investments in eco- friendly technologies and for environmental needs to as the social responsibility of the com- panies tends to increase customer satisfaction (Díaz-García et al., 2015). It is clear that eco-innovation has a profound on business operations as it can improve outcomes, reduce costs and increase profits, also positively impact a company’s environmen- tal performance (Costantini et al., 2017). The term “eco-innovation” is often used in the scientific literature (Schiederig et al., 2012), either in an ecological or in an economic context (Díaz-García et al., 2015), but there is still a lack of studies considering the complex characteristics of eco-innovations as a system. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 215 An “eco-innovation” concept was first developed by Fussler and James (1996) as the sup- ply of new products and processes in order to reduce the negative environmental impact and yield benefit for consumers and businesses (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016). Based on the determination of innovations, several studies (Kemp & Pearson, 2008) have defined “eco-innovation” as the development, management or use of a production or man- agement method for products and services that is an organisational novelty and leads to a reduction in environmental pollution and other negative impacts. Based on these approaches, the scientists (Kemp & Mainguy, 2011) draw the following conclusions: first, all resource- efficient processes are eco-innovations, since they are more environmentally friendly, and second, the term “eco-innovation” largely depends on the overall assessment of environmen- tal impact and risks. As per another opinion, eco-innovation is new ideas, behaviour, products and processes helping reduce an environmental load. Eco-innovation is any form of innovation to ensure sustainable development by reducing environmental impact and using natural resources more efficiently and responsibly. “The Business Case for Eco-Innovation” (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014), it was proved that eco-innovative enterprises have a high potential for growth. On the other hand, the EU Commission views eco-investments in view of sustainability, competitiveness and job creation. It was established that eco-innovation, which directly re- duces the impact of production on the environment, also exerts an indirect positive impact in other sectors by means of various market operations. For an in-depth understanding of eco-innovations, the researchers (Reid & Miedzinski, 2008) consider it necessary to use a systemic approach, which means analysing the eco- innovations at the levels of services, processes and company as well as at regional, sector, supply chain or generally, macro-economic level. As for their classification, we rely on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), where two main types of innovations are considered instead of the four types described in the previous edition, in particular, product innovations and business process innovations instead of product, process, organisational and marketing. However, despite different opinions, eco-innovations are able to respond to modern envi- ronmental challenges, in particular: climate change, decreasing biodiversity, food insufficient, land degradation, lack of resources, global warming and other global and local problems (Dogaru, 2020). In turn, eco-innovations depend on political decisions, effective legislative frame, resource availability, access to the sources of financing, the approach of the company management to eco-innovations and other factors (Pansera & Owen, 2018). The economic and social-environmental benefits of eco-innovations are extremely impor- tant both for companies and macro-economic policy, and it is not only necessary but is also an essential factor for sustainable economic development (Dogaru, 2020). Finally, it must be noted that the scientists’ (Oltra & Saint Jean, 2009; Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Tamayo-Orbegozo et  al., 2017) definition of eco-innovations incorporates two main factors: efficient and rational use of natural resources and reduction of negative environmen- tal impact. Consequently, we focus on these two aspects in our study – how the development of eco-innovation influences the economic growth and ecology of the countries. 216 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... 1.2. Relationship between eco-innovation and economic growth and environmental performance Today, many countries consider technological transformations and eco-innovations in par- ticular as the way to solve modern economic problems and respond to environmental chal- lenges. But everyone is well aware that eco-innovation has not only technological, institu- tional or economic aspects but also a cultural and political dimension. Triguero et al. (2013) concluded that the consumers’ demand for ecologically pure products might force a company to develop eco-innovations. The study by Kiefer et  al. (2017) results in evidence the importance of the consumers’ engagement and cooperation of other stakeholders for the introduction of eco-innovations. A number of scientific studies have highlighted the economic impact of eco-innovation from different perspectives (Porter & Van der Linde, 1995). They outlined that the Environ- mental Response Index can be seen as one of the leading indicators of competitiveness, as well-designed environmental standards can also stimulate eco-innovation. In addition to other driving factors such as regulation and tax incentives, there is additional revenue from the sale or licensing of technologies that stimulate eco-innovation. The next question to be explored is whether it is possible to obtain both environmental and economic benefits through eco-innovation. Yurdakul and Kazan (2020) considered this issue and concluded that eco-innovation positively affects both of them, which serves as a basis for studying the impact of eco-innovation on financial and environmental performance. Studies accomplished in different countries and sectors of the economy confirm that eco-innovation has a positive impact on all areas studied in terms of economic and envi- ronmental performance (Rabadán et  al., 2019; Rennings et  al., 2006; Nishitani et  al., 2017; Vargas-Vargas et  al., 2010; da Silva Rabêlo & de Azevedo Melo, 2019; Cheng et  al., 2014; Zhang & Rong, 2019). It was found that eco-innovation not only improves the financial performance of com- panies (Horbach et al., 2012) but also increases their competitiveness (da Silva Rabêlo & de Azevedo Melo, 2019). Consumers demand, regulatory decisions and the interest of the other stakeholders strongly influences companies’ decisions to adopt eco-innovation as they play not only an important role in the implementation of eco-innovation (Roscoe et  al. 2016; Santos et al., 2017) to improve the financial indicators of companies (Horbach et al., 2012), but it also increases their competitiveness (da Silva Rabêlo & de Azevedo Melo, 2019). As the investments in eco-innovations are stimulated by the policy instruments (law, funding, subsidies, etc.), educational policy and technological system, organisational capabili- ties, cost economy and etc. (Kiefer et al., 2017) and given the fact that countries have different regulations, funding, subsidy, monitoring systems and law, the outcomes of eco-innovations are different too. Today, the developed countries surpass the developing countries, in terms of eco-innovations, as almost all ecological and social variables of eco-innovation develop in them, while only two of six environmental and six social variables were identified in the developing countries (Lopes Santos et al., 2019). An eco-innovation has a positive impact on the ecological activity, which is reflected in by the prevention of environmental pollution, resource-saving, efficient use, recycling and engagement of waste in economic turnover and has an indirect positive impact on the com- pany’s economic and financial indicators (Cai & Guangpei, 2018). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 217 The role of eco-innovations during foreign market operations is important too. In this process, eco-innovations play an intermediary role; the internationalisation leads to eco-in- novations, and both (the internationalisation and the eco-innovations) have a positive impact on the company’s successful operation (Hojnik et al., 2018). Thus, within the context of our research, we can conclude that investing in eco-innova- tions leads to better environmental and economic performance, increased sales, profit and market share, as well as better competitive advantage and strength image of the company. Consequently, our aim is to examine the impact of eco-innovations on the economic and environmental activities of the EU countries within the given context. 2. Research methodology and data In order to evaluate and compare eco-innovation performance and development in the dif- ferent EU Member States, Eco-Innovation Observatory (2016) developed the Eco-Innovation index (Eco-II). This index covers five sub-indexes that involves 16 various indicators (see Figure 1). Eco-innovation activities Eco-innovation outputs Resource efficiency outcomes Eco-innovation inputs Governments environmental and energy Socio-economic outputs Revenues in eco-industries and circular economy (% of total revenue across all companies) ECO-INNOVATION INDEX R&D appropriations and outlays (% of GDP) Firms having implemented IA aiming at reduction of material input per unit output (% of total) Total R&D personnel and researches (% of total employment) Total value of green early stage investments (USD/capita) Firms having implemented IA aiming at reduction of energy input per unit output (% of total) ISO 14001 registered organizations (per mln. pop.) Eco-innovation related patents (per mln. pop.) Eco-innovation related academic publications (per mln. pop.) Eco-innovation related media coverage (per number of electronic media) Material productivity (GDP/ Domestic Material Consumption) Water productivity (GDP/ Water Footprint) Energy productivity (GDP/ gross inland energy consumption) GHG emissions intensity (CO2e/ GDP) Exports of products from eco-industry (% of total export) Employment in eco-industries and circular economy (% of total employment across all companies) Figure 1. Structure of Eco-innovation index (source: based on Eco-Innovation Observatory, 2016) 218 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... ENVIRONMENT PERFORMANCE INDEX ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 60% ECOSYSTEM VITALITY, 40% C li m a te c h a n g e s, I n -8 , 2 4 % B io d iv e rs it y & H a b it a t, I n -7 , 1 5 % E c o sy st e m S e rv ic e s, I n -3 , 6 % F is h e ri e s, I n -3 , 6 % W a te r re so u rc e s, I n -1 , 3 % P o ll u ti o n E m is si o n s, I n -2 , 3 % A g ri c u lt u re , In -1 , 3 % A ir q u a li ty , In -3 , 2 0 % S a n it a ti o n & D ri n k in g W a te r, In -2 , 1 6 % H e a v y M e ta ls , In -1 , 2 % W a st e M a n a g e m e n t, I n -1 , 2 % Figure 2. Structure of Environment Performance Index (source: formed by authors based Wendling et al., 2020) This index illustrates eco-innovation performance and allows for complex evaluation of eco-innovation development. The overall index score is calculated by the unweighted mean of the 16 indicators. It demonstrates how well EU MS performs in eco-innovation compared to the EU average equated with 100 (index EU = 100) (Eurostat, 2020a). Eurostat provided Eco-innovation index data for the 2000–2019 period (Eurostat, 2020a). Data from 2010 will be used for the evaluation of eco-innovations development. For assessment of EU MS environmental performance, we decided to use the Environ- mental performance index (EPI). EPI covers 32 indicators divided into 11 categories and provides countries ranking according to the health of environment and vitality of ecosystem (Wendling et al., 2020) (see Figure 2). This index is calculated every two years from 2010 onwards. Therefore, for data compat- ibility, we used 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 data for both indicators when we evaluated the impact of eco-innovations on environmental performance. Real GDP per capita we used as an indicator reflecting countries economic performance and development. Developing models for impact assessment, we included control variables in models be- cause not only eco-innovations but also other factors can influence environment perfor- mance and economic growth. One of the critical economic development sources is a new business creation (Jian et al., 2021). Since businesses are related to CO2 emissions and level of pollution, from our point of view, the number of businesses in the territory can influence the countries environment. To capture those effects, we included a new business density indicator (new business registrations per 1000 per working year (15–64 ages) people) as a control variable in both models. In case of evaluating eco-innovation effects on economic growth in base of previous stud- ies results as control variable we include: i) expenditure on research and development % GDP that reflect innovation development (Freimane & Bāliņa, 2016); ii) trade openness expressed as the ration international trade (export + import) to GDP (Fetahi-Vehapi et  al., 2015); iii) Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 219 foreign direct investment % GDP (Musah et al., 2018; Mačiulytė-Šniukienė & Davidavičienė, 2020; Cicea & Marinescu, 2021); iv) initial GDP per capita to control EU MS differences of the depended variable. Usage data expressed as a percentage of GDP allow us to eliminate the effect of EU MS size differences on results. In the first stage of empirical research, we analyse eco-innovation and environment per- formance, economic growth of EU MS, and its changes over the 2010–2019 or 2010–2020 period (depending on indicator). This analysis allowed us to identify which countries are lagging in developing eco-innovations, compare countries in terms of environmental per- formance, and make insight into the links between these indicators and economic growth. In the next stage of the research, we have ranked EU MS according to Eco-innovation and Environment Performance Indexes, as well as according to Real GDP per capita using the last available data (2019 for Eco-II and real GDP per capita, 2020 for EPI). Also, we have calculated the difference between ranks. It allows us to determine whether EU MS that de- velop the most eco-innovations also have the best environmental performance and whether the most developed EU MS are more eco-innovative than the less developed ones. The last stage of the empirical research was intended for assessing the impact of eco- innovation on environmental performance and economic growth. We used EU MS panel data, including the United Kingdom, because most of the period analysed UK was EU MS. The Random Effects Model (RE) econometric models were developed for the evaluation of the eco-innovations impact on environment performance [1] and economic growth [2]. ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )1 2 , ,, ,, ln _ ) ln ) ;i t i ti t i ti tLn EPI Eco II NBD= a +β +β + ε + ν (1) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) 1 1 , 2 3 4, , , 5 6 , ,, , _ ln _ ) ln _ ) ln ) ln & ) ln ) .ln ) t i t i t i t i t i t i ti t i t Ln GDP pc GDP pc Eco II NBD R D TO FDI −= a +β + β +β +β + β +β + ε + ν (2) where: – Logarithmic dependent variables: – Ln(EPI)(i,t) – Environment Performance Index in the country i in year t; – Ln(GDP_pc) (i,t) – real gross domestic product per capita in the country i in year t. – Logarithmic independent variable: – Ln(Eco_II) (i,t) – Eco-Innovation Index in country i in year t. – Logarithmic control variables: – ln(NBD)(i,t) ( )1 ,ln i tRGDPβ  – new business density in country i in year t; – ln(GDP_pct-1)(i,t) – previous years real gross domestic product per capita in country i in year t; – ln(R&D)(i,t)  – expenditure on research and development % GDP in country i in year t; – ln(TO)(i,t) – trade openness ((export + import)/GDP) in country i in year t; – ln(R&D)(i,t) – foreign direct investment % GDP in country i in year t. – a – constant. – 1 2 3 4, 5 6 , , , ,β β β β β β – elasticity coefficients, reflecting the impact of independent and control variables on the dependent variable. 220 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... – εi,t – random error (heterogeneity specific to a country). – νi,t – random error (specific to a particular observation). All variables will be logarithmic to obtain the coefficients of elasticity. Considering that EPI index data are available for 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, realising compiled econometric models, we used the data of all indicators of this period. 3. Research results and discussion 3.1. Results of the economic and environmental performance and eco-innovation development analysis To present the economic and environmental performance of EU Member states and how MS performs in development eco-innovations, the analysis of real GDP per capita, EPI, and Eco-II dynamics for the ten years was conducted (see Table 1). The analysis reveals that in 12 countries out of 28, real GDP per capita was higher than the EU average in 2010, and in 11 countries  – in 2019. All these countries joined the EU before 1995. The highest real GDP per capita in 2010 was generated in Luxembourg, Den- mark, and Sweden. By 2019, the situation in this group of countries has changed little – the second position in terms of real GDP per capita took Ireland, third position  – Demark. In this group of countries, real GDP per capita rose by 6–14%, except Ireland, where real GDP per capita increased by 63.64%, and Italy, where real GDP per capita fell by 0.04%. More significant changes have occurred in the new EU MS that joined the EU in 2004 and later. In this group of countries, real GDP per capita increased by 16–55%, except Cyprus, where real GDP per capita rose by 5%, and Greece, where real GDP per capita decreased by 12%. The highest growth is recorded in Lithuania (54.81%), Romania (47.10%), Latvia (46.83), Estonia (41.35%), Poland (38.30%). Although EU MS’s economic situation is improving in almost all countries, the environ- ment quality is deteriorating in some of them. The value of EPI has decreased in 13 countries over the 2010–2020 period. The biggest negative change took place in Latvia, Sweden and Slovakia, where EPI’s value respectively decreased by 10.9, 7.3, and 6.2 points. The biggest positive changes have occurred in Belgium (15.2 p.), Luxembourg (14.5 p.), Denmark (13.3). But are these changes related to the development of eco-innovation? The Eco-II value has increased in 17 EU MS, has decreased in 10 countries, and in Swe- den remained stable over the period analysed. Although countries’ position according to the value of Eco-II has changed, in the top ten positions at both 2010 and 2019 are the same countries: Luxembourg, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, UK, Italy, Nether- lands, and France. This fact allows us to suggest that countries with a better economic per- formance developing eco-innovation more intensively. This is also seen in Table 2. Table 2 provides EU MS ranking according to Eco-innovation index, Environment Per- formance Index and Real GDP per capita results, and differences between ranks. Differences between countries rank according to Eco-II and real GDP per capita reveal that most developing countries do not necessarily invest the most in eco-innovation. For example, in terms of real GDP per capita, Ireland took second place between EU MS in 2019, but in terms of Eco-II took 13th place. In terms of real GDP per capita, Cyprus took Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 221 14th place, but in terms of Eco-II took 26th place. Nevertheless, in many countries, the posi- tion according to economic and eco-innovation development does not differ much. This fact confirms the presumption of the existence of an interaction between indicators. However, it does not answer whether the outcome of eco-innovation ensures a positive return on economic growth. Table 1. Results of the real GDP per capita, EPI, and Eco-II dynamic analysis in EU MS (source: authors calculations based on Eurostat, 2020a, 2020b; Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy [YCELP], 2020; and Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center [SEDAC], 2020 data) Country GDPpcЄ, 2010 GDPpcЄ, 2019  ∆Є  ∆% EPI, 2010 EPI, 2020 ∆ Eco- II, 2010 Eco- II, 2019  ∆ Belgium 33330 35940 2610 7.83 58.10 73.30 15.2 109 85 –24 Bulgaria 5050 6840 1790 35.45 62.50 57.00 –5.5 31 34 3 Czech R. 15020 18330 3310 22.04 71.60 71.00 –0.6 74 96 22 Denmark 43840 49720 5880 13.41 69.20 82.50 13.3 149 146 –3 Germany 31940 35840 3900 12.21 73.20 77.20 4.0 134 123 –11 Estonia 11150 15760 4610 41.35 63.80 65.30 1.5 49 73 24 Ireland 36770 60170 23400 63.64 67.10 72.80 5.7 100 97 –3 Greece 20150 17740 –2410 –11.96 60.90 69.10 8.2 43 75 32 Spain 23040 25200 2160 9.38 70.60 74.30 3.7 105 104 –1 France 30690 33270 2580 8.41 78.20 80.00 1.8 109 107 –2 Croatia 10520 12450 1930 18.35 68.70 63.10 –5.6 91* 72 –19 Italy 26930 26920 –10 –0.04 73.10 71.00 –2.1 105 112 7 Cyprus 23400 24570 1170 5.00 56.30 64.80 8.5 62 56 –6 Latvia 8520 12510 3990 46.83 72.50 61.60 –10.9 51 86 35 Lithuania 9050 14010 4960 54.81 68.30 62.90 –5.4 47 82 35 Lux. 79160 83640 4480 5.66 67.80 82.30 14.5 112 165 53 Hungary 9960 13260 3300 33.13 69.10 63.70 –5.4 69 54 –15 Malta 16440 21800 5360 32.60 76.30 70.70 –5.6 67 73 6 Neth. 38470 41870 3400 8.84 66.40 75.30 8.9 117 110 –7 Austria 35390 38170 2780 7.86 78.10 79.60 1.5 127 130 3 Poland 9400 13000 3600 38.30 63.10 60.90 –2.2 40 59 19 Portugal 16990 18590 1600 9.42 73.00 67.00 –6.0 71 100 29 Romania 6200 9120 2920 47.10 67.00 64.70 –2.3 48 57 9 Slovenia 17750 20700 2950 16.62 65.00 72.00 7.0 87 94 7 Slovakia 12560 15860 3300 26.27 74.50 68.30 –6.2 43 62 19 Finland 35080 37170 2090 5.96 74.70 78.90 4.2 139 145 6 Sweden 39950 43900 3950 9.89 86.00 78.70 –7.3 143 143 0 UK 29830 32910 3080 10.33 74.20 81.30 7.1 116 118 2 Average 24164 27831 3667 20.67 69.62 71.05 1.4 100 100 8 Note: *data of 2012. 222 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... Table  2. Rank of EU MS according to Eco-Innovation Index, Environment Performance Index, and Real GDP per capita (source: authors calculations based on Eurostat, 2020a, 2020b; YCELP, 2020; and SEDAC, 2020 data) Country Eco-II, 2019 Rank according to Eco-II EPI, 2020 Rank according to EPI Diffe- rence on rank* Real GDP per capita, 2019 Rank according to GDP Diffe- rence on rank** Luxemb. 165 1 82.30 2 –1 83640 1 0 Denmark 146 2 82.50 1 1 49720 3 –1 Finland 145 3 78.90 6 –3 37170 7 –4 Sweden 143 4 78.70 7 –3 43900 4 0 Austria 130 5 79.60 5 0 38170 6 –1 Germany 123 6 77.20 8 –2 35840 9 –3 UK 118 7 81.30 3 4 32910 11 –4 Italy 112 8 71.00 15 –7 26920 12 –4 Netherl. 110 9 75.30 9 0 41870 5 4 France 107 10 80.00 4 6 33270 10 0 Spain 104 11 74.30 10 1 25200 13 –2 Portugal 100 12 67.00 19 –7 18590 17 –5 Ireland 97 13 72.80 12 1 60170 2 11 Czech R. 96 14 71.00 14 0 18330 18 –4 Slovenia 94 15 72.00 13 2 20700 16 –1 Latvia 86 16 61.60 26 –10 12510 25 –9 Belgium 85 17 73.30 11 6 35940 8 9 Lithuania 82 18 62.90 25 –7 14010 22 –4 Greece 75 19 69.10 17 2 17740 19 0 Estonia 73 20 65.30 20 0 15760 21 –1 Malta 73 21 70.70 16 5 21800 15 6 Croatia 72 22 63.10 24 –2 12450 26 –4 Slovakia 62 23 68.30 18 5 15860 20 3 Poland 59 24 60.90 27 –3 13000 24 0 Romania 57 25 64.70 22 3 9120 27 –2 Cyprus 56 26 64.80 21 5 24570 14 12 Hungary 54 27 63.70 23 4 13260 23 4 Bulgaria 34 28 57.00 28 0 6840 28 0 Differences between countries rank according to Eco-II and EPI reveal that in countries with more intensive development of eco-innovation, the environment’s quality is better. A more pronounced difference between the country’s position under the Eco-II and EPI is reor- dered only in Latvia, which took 16th place in terms of Eco-II and 26th position in terms of EPI. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that Eco-innovation development has a positive impact on the environment. This assumption is further verified by regression analysis. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 223 3.2. Results of the economic and environmental performance and eco-innovation development analysis The Random-effects model for panel data was developed for estimation eco-innovation im- pact on economic growth and environmental performance of EU MS (formula 1 and 2). The results obtained after the realisation of the models are presented in Table 3. Table 3. The results of evaluations the impact of eco-innovation on economic growth and environment performance in EU MS Random-effects (GLS), using 112 observations Random-effects (GLS), using 140 observations Included 28 cross-sectional units Included 28 cross-sectional units Time-series length: minimum 2, maximum 4 Time-series length = 5 Dependent variable: l_GDP_pc Dependent variable: l_EPI Coeffi- cient Std. Error z p-value Coeffi- cient Std. Error z p-value const −0.0173 0.1422 −0.1216 0.9032   const 3.7443 0.1435 26.1000 3.88E- 150 *** l_Eco_II 0.0685 0.0261 2.6240 0.0087 *** l_Eco_II 0.1196 0.0314 3.8000 0.0001 *** l_RD 0.0046 0.0149 0.3112 0.7557   l_NBD 0.0024 0.0121 0.2006 0.8410 l_TO 0.054 0.0148 3.6550 0.0003 ***   l_FDI_IN −0.0022 0.0042 −0.5242 0.6001   l_GDP_ pct-1 0.9468 0.0147 64.2600 <0.0001 *** l_NBD 0.0065 0.0071 0.9144 0.3605 Mean dependent var 9.894 S.D. depended var 0.62 Mean dependent var 4.28 S.D. depended var 0.14 Sum squared resid 0.3719 S.E. of regression 0.06 Sum squared resid 2.44 S.E. of regression 0.13 Log-likelihood 186.22 Akaike criterion –358 Log-likelihood 84.93 Akaike criterion –163 Schwarz criterion –338.64 Hannan-Quinn –350 Schwarz criterion –155 Hannan-Quinn –160 Durbin-Watson 1.5802 Durbin-Watson 1.82 Note: ***Indicates significance at the 1% level. The estimations results are in line to prove our presumptions because we observed that eco-innovation development has a positive effect on both economic growth and environ- mental performance. Inconsistent with previous studies on economic growth, we also find that a higher level of trade openness positively correlates with economic growth. It is not a surprising result, but surprising that we did not find evidence for a significant effect of R&D expenditure and inward FDI on economic growth. The relationship between new business density and eco- nomic growth, as well as environmental performance, is not significant. Nevertheless, the study’s main findings made it clear that the development of eco-innova- tion in the EU should be encouraged and supported. European Commission (2020) carries eco-innovation support initiatives via a variety of programs: EU Framework Programme for Research and innovation (HORIZONT 2020), EU Funding Instrument for the Environ- 224 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... ment and Climate Action (LIFE), Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and medium-sized Enterprises (COSME), European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). But these programs included support not only for eco-innovations development, and only part of the support funds is used for projects related to eco-innovation development. Considering that the EU support programming period (2014–2020) ended, and EC is set- ting new support priorities and directions, it is important to pay attention to the need for an independent eco-innovation support program. Conclusions Through literary review on empirical studies we found evidence that eco-innovations help the countries to improve growth potential, create new opportunities and help the business sector to reduce expenses, strength a company image among its customers, investors and stakeholders, improve cost proficiency, increases sales and profit, expand market share and achieve sustainable competitive advantage. Eco-innovation has a positive effect on environmental protection, on the efficient use of resources, waste recycling and their economic reuse, helps to save natural and artificial re- sources, allows companies to achieve both economic and environmental benefits through the low price, leads countries to be more competitive and achieve environmental sustainability. But there are still differences even between EU member states and sectors of the economy in promoting and introducing eco-innovations. Within this context, we evaluated the eco-innovations impact on economic and environ- mental performance in EU member states. In all EU MS, the economic situation in terms of real GDP per capita has improved over the last ten years, except Greece and Italy. The economy grew faster in the new EU countries that joined the EU in 2004 and later. These results are not surprising because new EU MS have a big potential for growth, and old EU MS have already reached a high level of develop- ment and have exploited the potential for intensive growth. Although economic prosperity is growing in almost all countries, the development of eco-innovations is intensifying just in part of countries. The value of the Eco-Innovation index has decreased in ten countries comparing 2019 with 2010. The intensity of innovation development decreased the most in Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, and Germany. Judging by Environmental Performance Index, environment quality in Belgium and Germany is satisfac- tory, but Croatia and Hungary, according to this index, is in the 23rd and 24th position among EU MS. These countries, including countries where the performance of the environment is particularly deteriorating (Latvia, Sweden, Portugal, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Malta), should develop strong policies to improve the quality of the environment and one of the ways could be the promotion of eco-innovation. Although the extent of eco-innovation development varies across the EU, the overall im- pact of its development on economic growth and the quality of the environment is significant and positive. These results broaden the knowledge about the impact of eco-innovations not only on economic indicators but also on the state of the environment. It also complements the results of previous research carried out at the micro and industry level, and highlights the importance of eco-innovation development. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 225 Considering those findings, including the fact that the environmental quality is not im- proving in all counties, the development of eco-innovation in the EU should be encouraged and supported. Although the EC supports the development of eco-innovation through vari- ous funding initiatives, EC has to initiate an independent eco-innovation support program. References Andabaka, A., Sertić, M. B., & Harc, M. (2019). Eco-innovation and economic growth in the European Union. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 22(2), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2019-0019 Andriušaitienė, D. (2020). Vocation guidance – GPS for management of human resource development: Does it work in Lithuania. Business, Management and Education, 18(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.11937 Bartoszczuk,  P.  A. (2015). Eco innovations in European countries. In Proceedings of EnviroInfo and ICT for Sustainability 2015 (pp. 19–25). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-env-15.2015.3 Cai, W., & Guangpei, L. (2018). The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109 Cheng, C. C., Yang, C., & Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco-innovation and business performance: a Taiwanese industry context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.050 Cicea, C., & Marinescu, C. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of foreign direct investment and economic growth relationship. A research agenda. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(2), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.14018 Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G., & Paglialunga, E. (2017). Eco innovation, sustainable supply chains and environmental performance in European industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.038 Da Silva Rabêlo, O., & de Azevedo Melo, A. S. S. (2019). Drivers of multidimensional eco-innovation: Empirical evidence from the Brazilian industry. Environmental Technology, 40(19), 2556–2566. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2018.1447022 Díaz-García,  M.  C., González,  M.  Á., & Saez-Martinez,  F.  J. (2015). Eco-innovation: Insights from a literature review. Innovation: Organization & Management, 17(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060 Dogaru, L. (2020). Eco-innovation and the contribution of companies to the sustainable development. Procedia Manufacturing, 46, 294–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.03.043 Dogaru, L. (2017). Environmental change and its effects. Curentul Juridic, 69(2), 38–43. https://econ- papers.repec.org/article/pmucjurid/v_3a69_3ay_3a2017_3ap_3a38-43.htm Eco-innovation Observatory. (2016). Policies and practices for eco-innovation up-take and circular economy transition (EIO bi-annual report). https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/policies-and- practices-eco-innovation-uptake-and-circular-economy-transition_en Eco-Innovation Observatory. (2020). Eco-innovation and digitalisation: Case studies, environmental and policy lessons from EU member states for the EU green deal and the circular economy (EIO Biennial Report). European Commission. (2020). Eco-innovation at the heart of European policies. Funding programmes. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-action-plan/union-funding-programmes Eurostat. (2020a). Eco-innovation index. Retrieved January 5, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rt200 https://doi.org/10.2478/zireb-2019-0019 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.11937 https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-env-15.2015.3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.050 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.14018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.038 https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2018.1447022 https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2015.1011060 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.03.043 https://econpapers.repec.org/article/pmucjurid/v_3a69_3ay_3a2017_3ap_3a38-43.htm https://econpapers.repec.org/article/pmucjurid/v_3a69_3ay_3a2017_3ap_3a38-43.htm https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/policies-and-practices-eco-innovation-uptake-and-circular-economy-transition_en https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/policies-and-practices-eco-innovation-uptake-and-circular-economy-transition_en https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/about-action-plan/union-funding-programmes https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rt200 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_rt200 226 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... Eurostat. (2020b). Real GDP per capita. Retrieved January 5, 2021, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/default/table?lang=en Fetahi-Vehapi, M., Sadiku, L., & Petkovski, M. (2015). Empirical analysis of the effects of trade open- ness on economic growth: An evidence for South East European countries. Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00004-0 Fiore, M., La Sala, P., Adamashvili, N., & Contò, F. (2018, September 17–19). ICT-based modern farm- ing and data management as drivers for sustainable agriculture. In CAP2020: Experiences and Ideas for Future Rural Areas and Development. XVI European Rural Development Network Conference, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Freimane, R., & Bāliņa, S. (2016). Research and development expenditure and economic growth in the EU: A panel data analysis. Economics and Business, 29(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/eb-2016-0016 Fussler, C., & James, P. (1996). Driving eco-innovation: A breakthrough discipline for innovation and sustainability. Pitman Publishing. Hojnik, J., & Ruzzier, M. (2016). What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging literature. Envi- ronmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.006 Hojnik, J., Ruzzier, M., & Manolova, T. (2018). Internationalisation and economic performance: The mediating role of eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 1312–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.111 Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of envi- ronmental impact – The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005 Jang, E. K., Park, M. S., Roh, T. W., & Han, K. J. (2015). Policy instruments for eco-innovation in Asian countries. Sustainability, 7(9), 12586–12614. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912586 Jian, J., Fan, X., Zhao, S., & Zhou, D. (2021). Business creation, innovation, and economic growth: Evidence from China’s economic transition, 1978–2017. Economic Modelling, 96, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.03.019 Kemp, R., & Mainguy, G. (2011). Ten themes for eco-innovation policies in Europe. Surveys and Perspec- tives Integrating Environment and Society, 4(2), 1–20. https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1169 Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2008). Final report MEI project about measuring eco innovation. https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf Kiefer,  C.  P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Del Rio, P., & Callealta Barroso,  F.  J. (2017). Diversity of eco- innovations: A quantitative approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 1494–1506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.241 King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2001). Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environ- mental and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819801753358526 Lesakova, L., & Laco, P. (2020). Using the eco-innovation index to assess the eco-innovation perfor- mance: Case of Slovakia. Journal of Innovation & Business Best Practice, 2020, 347837, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5171/2020.347837 Lopes Santos, D. F., Valente Rezende, M. D., & Cruz Basso, L. F. (2019). Eco-innovation and business performance in emerging and developed economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117674 Loučanová, E., & Nosáľová, M. (2020). Eco-innovation performance in Slovakia: Assessment based on ABC analysis of eco-innovation indicators. BioResources, 15(3), 5355–5365. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, A., & Davidavičienė, V. (2020, October 2). The impact of financial openness on eu member states productivity. In New challenges in economic and business development – 2020: Eco- nomic inequality and well-being: 12th international scientific conference proceedings (pp. 234–245). University of Latvia. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/default/table?lang=en https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_08_10/default/table?lang=en https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00004-0 https://doi.org/10.1515/eb-2016-0016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005 https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912586 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2020.03.019 https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1169 https://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.241 https://doi.org/10.1162/108819801753358526 https://doi.org/10.5171/2020.347837 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117674 Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 2021, 19(2): 212–228 227 Musah, S., Gakpetor,  E.  D., Kyei, S.  N.  K., & Akomeah, E. (2018). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), economic growth and bank performance in Ghana. International Journal of Finance and Account- ing, 7(4), 97–107. Nishitani, K., Jannah, N., Kaneko, S., & Hardinsyah. (2017). Does corporate environ-mental perfor- mance enhance financial performance? An empirical study of Indonesian firms. Environmental Development, 23, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.06.003 Oltra, V., & Saint Jean, M. (2009). Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: An application to the French automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.025 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Oslo manual. Guidelines for collect- ing, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual- 2018-9789264304604-en.htm Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Innovation for de-growth: A case study of counter-hegemonic practice from Kerala, India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(Part 2), 1872–1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.197 Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate sustainability. https://hbr.org/1995/09/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate Rabadán, A., González-Moreno, Á., & Sáez-Martínez,  F.  J. (2019). Improving firms’ performance and sustainability: The case of eco-innovation in the agri-food industry. Sustainability, 11(20), 5590. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590 Reid, A., & Miedzinski, M. (2008). Eco-innovation. Final report for sectoral innovation watch (Systematic Eco-Innovation Report, pp. 1–3). Technopolis Group. Rennings, K., Ziegler, A., Ankele, K., & Hoffmann, E. (2006). The influence of different characteristics of the eu environmental management and auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic performance. Ecological Economics, 57(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.013 Rizos, V., Behrens, A., & Taranic, I. (2015). Measuring progress in eco-innovation. NETGREEN Policy Brief No. 1. www.ceps.eu Roscoe, S., Cousins P., & Lamming, R. C. (2016). Developing eco-innovations: A three-stage typology of supply networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(3), 1948–1959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.125 Santos, D.  F.  L., Lima,  M.  M., Basso, L.  F.  C., Kimura, H., & Sobreiro,  V.  A. (2017). Eco-innovation and financial performance at companies established in Brazil. International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, 9(1), 68–89. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEM.2017.080783 Schiederig, T., Tietzer, F., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation man- agement – an exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42(2), 180–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center. (2020). Environmental Performance Index (EPI). https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/epi/sets/browse Tamayo-Orbegozo, U., Vicente-Molina, M. A., & Villarreal-Larrinaga, O. (2017). Eco-innovation strate- gic model. A multiple-case study from a highly eco-innovative European region. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(4), 134–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.174 Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.009 United Nations Environmental Programme. (2014). The business case for eco-innovation. Retrieved December, 22, 2020, from https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/10613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.025 https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm https://www.oecd.org/science/oslo-manual-2018-9789264304604-en.htm https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.197 https://hbr.org/1995/09/green-and-competitive-ending-the-stalemate https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.013 http://www.ceps.eu https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.125 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEM.2017.080783 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/collection/epi/sets/browse https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.009 https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/10613 228 A. Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, D. Sekhniashvili. The eco-innovation impact on economic and environmental... Vargas-Vargas, M., Meseguer-Santamaría,  M.  L., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J., & Mondéjar-Jiménez,  J.  A. (2010). Environmental protection expenditure for companies: A Spanish regional analysis. Inter- national Journal of Environmental Research, 4(3), 373–378. Wendling,  Z.  A., Emerson,  J.  W., de Sherbinin, A., & Esty,  D.  C. (2020).  2020 Environmental perfor- mance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy, New Haven, CT. Wielgórka, D., & Szczepaniak, W. (2019). Eco-innovation of enterprises operating in Poland against the background of EU countries. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 5(SI), 113–121. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. (2020). Environmental performance index. https://epi.yale.edu/ Yurdakul, M., & Kazan, H. (2020). Effects of eco-innovation on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Turkey’s manufacturing companies. Sustainability, 12(8), 3167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083167 Zeng,  S.  X., Meng,  X.  H., Zeng,  R.  C., Tam,  C.  M., Tam, V.  W.  Y., & Jin, T. (2011). How environmental management driving forces affect environmental and economic performance of SMEs: A study in the Northern China district. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(13), 1426–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.002 Zhang, D., & Rong, Z. J. Q. (2014). Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China resource. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64(1), 81–90. https://epi.yale.edu/ https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083167 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.002