Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By exploring whether nanotechnologies have the potential to generate green innovations, we consider the paradox between the negative and positive side-effects that could come with the development of nanotechnologies. Starting from the conceptual framework of green product innovation, the potential green innovation activity of more than 14,000 firms of the nanotech sector is investigated. Using a query-search method, their patenting activity is explored. Results first show that there is an increasing trend toward the creation of fundamental green knowledge by firms involved in nanotechnologies; second, they demonstrate that energy efficiency is the main driver of green knowledge creation in the sector and third they reveal the main characteristics of nanotech firms creating green knowledge. Beyond their contribution to the debate between positive and negative outcomes of nanotechnology developments, these results also enrich the conceptual framework of green product innovation—a key route to achieving sustainability at the same time as growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See www.epo.org

  2. See www.bvdinfo.com

  3. See www.globalreporting.org

References

  • Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Hahn, T., & Holt, D. (2009). What the papers say: Trends in sustainability. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 33, 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callado, A. L. C., & Fensterseifer, J. E. (2011). Corporate sustainability measure from an integrated perspective: The corporate sustainability grid (CSG). International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation, 3(3), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattani, G. (2006). Technological pre-adaptation, speciation and emergence of new technologies: How coming invented and developed fiber optics. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(2), 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. L. (2001). Design for environment: A quality-based model for green product development. Management Science, 47(2), 250–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-S. (2008a). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 271–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-S. (2008b). The diver of green innovation and green image: Green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S. B., & Wen, C. T. (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, C., Kim, S., & Park, Y. (2007). A patent-based cross impact analysis for quantitative estimation of technological impact: The case of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1296–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Y., & Tsai, C. (2007). The effect of green design activities on new product strategies and performance: An empirical study among high-tech companies. International Journal of Management, 24(2), 276–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 471–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy & the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C., & Soete, L. (1997). The economics of industrial innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, C. (2005). Measuring corporate social and environmental performance: The extended life-cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1/2), 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genet, C., Errabi, K., & Gauthier, C. (2012). Which model of technology transfer for nanotechnology? A comparison with biotech and microelectronics. Technovation, 32, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Kraus, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Benito, J., & Gonzalez-Benito, O. (2006). A review of determinants factors of environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbiz. (2009). Green product trends: More launches, more sales. Retrieved October 12, 2010 from http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/04/23/green-product-trends-more-launches-more-sales.

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C., Frater, L., Lee, R., & Stokes, E. (2011). Is there room at the bottom for CSR? Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 525–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Scheermesser, M. (2006). Approaches to corporate sustainability among German companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13(3), 150–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S. W., & Tseng, S. C. (2010). A new framework integrating environmental effects into technology evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, S. (2008). Can nanotechnology improve the sustainability of bio based products? The case of layered silicate biopolymer nanocomposites. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(3), 474–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalpana Sastry, R., Rashmi, H. B., Rao, N. H., & Ilyas, S. M. (2010). Integrating nanotechnology into agro-food systems research in India: A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(4), 639–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S., Schenkel, A., von Krogh G., & Weber, C. (2001). Knowledge-based theories of the firm in strategic management: A review and extension. MIT Sloan Working Paper 4216-01.

  • Kautt, M., Walsh, S. T., & Bittner, K. (2007). Global distribution of micro-nano technology and fabrication centers: A portfolio analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1697–1717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondratieff, N. D. (1978). Long waves in economic life. Lloyds Bank Review, 129, 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraines, S. B., & Wallace, D. R. (2003). Urban sustainability technology evaluation in a distributed object-based modeling environment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27, 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007). Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1075–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin, V., Errabi, K., & Gauthier, C. (2011). Large players in the nanogame: Dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities? Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 640–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDinn, R. (2010). Ethical responsibilities of nanotechnology researchers: A short guide. Nanoethics, 4, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mougotov, A., & Kahane, B. (2007). Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36(6), 893–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa, Y., Shiroyama, H., Kuroda, K., & Suzuki, T. (2010). Assessment of social implications of nanotechnologies in Japan: Application of problem structuring method based on interview surveys and cognitive maps. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 615–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of Political Economy, 67(3), 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Sustainable innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottman, J. A., Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. L. (2006). Green marketing myopia. Environment, 48(5), 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C. L. (2004). Nanotechnology: From Feynman to the grand challenge of molecular manufacturing. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23(4), 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popp, D. (2005). Lessons from Patents: Using patents to measure technological change in environmental models. Ecological Economics, 54, 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pujari, D., Wright, G., & Peattie, K. (2003). Green and competitive. Influences on environmental new product development performance. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 657–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld, K.-M., Rennings, K., & Ziegler, A. (2007). Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C., Williams, R. S., & Alivisatos, P. (2000). Nanotechnology research directions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Romig, A. D., Baker, A. B., Johannes, J., Zipperian, T., Eijkel, K., Kirchhoff, B., et al. (2007). An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 1634–1642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom, R. S. (2000). Leadership capabilities and technological change: The transformation of NCR in the electronic era. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1083–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., Wield, D., Gardiner, J. P., & Potter, S. (1996). Innovative product development. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1967). The theory of economic development (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, F. L. (1992). Marketing green products in the triad. Columbia Journal of World Business, 27(3/4), 268–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Lu, Y., Wang, T., Ma, H., & He, G. (2008). Pattern of patent-based environmental technology innovation in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 1032–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SwissRe. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. Zurich: Swiss Re.

  • Tang, T. L.-P. (2010). From increasing gas efficiency to enhancing creativity: Its pays to go green. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1998). Research directions for knowledge management. California Management Review, 40, 289–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Throne-Holst, H., & Stø, E. (2008). Who should be precautionary? Governance of nanotechnology in the Risk Society. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Global Compact-Accenture. (2010). A new era of sustainability. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://unglobalcompact.org/docs/news_events/8.1/UNGC_Accenture_CEO_Study_2010.pdf.

  • van den Brink, T. W. M., & van den Woerd, F. (2004). Industry specific sustainability benchmarks: An ECSF pilot bridging corporate sustainability with social responsible investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 55, 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonglimpiyarat, J. (2005). The nano-revolution of Schumpeter’s Kondratieff cycle. Technovation, 25(11), 1349–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Geldart, A., & Jones, R. (2008). Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the financial support of ANR (ANR-09-NANO-032-01). The authors would like to thank the participants of the GEM Lab seminar at Grenoble Ecole de Management. We are grateful to Khalid Errabi and Mustapha Belkhouja for their help with statistics. Usual caveats apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM), 12 rue Pierre Sémard, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Caroline Gauthier & Corine Genet

Authors
  1. Caroline Gauthier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corine Genet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Gauthier.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1: Description of data sources for patent applications

See Fig. 6

Fig. 6
figure 6

Data sources for patent applications

Full size image

Appendix 2: Query to identify priorities in green knowledge innovation: The ‘Materials’ dimension

Appendix 3: Query to identify priorities in green knowledge innovation: The ‘Energy’ dimension

Appendix 4: Query to identify priorities in green knowledge innovation: The ‘Pollution’ dimension

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gauthier, C., Genet, C. Nanotechnologies and Green Knowledge Creation: Paradox or Enhancer of Sustainable Solutions?. J Bus Ethics 124, 571–583 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1885-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1885-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation