sustainability

Article
Mapping the Field: A Bibliometric Analysis of
Green Innovation
Gema Albort-Morant 1, *, Jörg Henseler 2,3 , Antonio Leal-Millán 1 and Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión 1
1 Department of Business Management & Marketing, Universidad de Sevilla, Av. Ramón y Cajal, 1,
41018 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] (A.L.-M.); [email protected] (G.C.-C.)
2 Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Postbus 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands;
[email protected]
3 Nova Information Management School, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus de Campolide,
1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 24 April 2017; Accepted: 8 June 2017; Published: 12 June 2017

Abstract: The topic of green innovation (GI) has increasingly attained organizational relevance due to
its contribution to the satisfaction of environmental needs while concurrently enabling companies to
differentiate themselves from their competitors, and hence attain sustainable competitive advantages.
In this context, we conducted a detailed analysis of 618 papers on green innovation from the Web of
Science (WoS) database for the 1971–2015 period. This paper develops a bibliometric analysis with
the aim of assessing the key papers in the field and identifying the most substantive contributions to
the literature. This study presents the following findings: (i) the chronological development of the
discipline; (ii) the research trends and popular issues in this field; (iii) the antecedent variables acting
as key drivers of GI in these studies; and (iv) the main outcomes of GI. Therefore, this paper provides
the past, the present and the potential future of this specific topic and serves as an orientation and
guide for researchers who are new to the topic of GI; it also enhances their knowledge concerning
which journals, authors and articles they may consult while creating their theoretical framework or
designing future research models.

Keywords: green innovation; sustainability; bibliometric analysis; Web of Science

1. Introduction
In recent years, the growing global concern about environmental issues, the strict regulations
on international conventions for sustainability and environmental protection, and an increase in
the number of pro-environmental consumers have led industries to dedicate significant efforts to
developing green practices. Until a few years ago, however, the academic community had paid little
attention to the organization’s role in protecting the environment.
In this way, and despite many researchers’ recent attempts to understand and explain this topic,
the green innovation (GI) construct remains open to interpretation regarding even its most necessary
aspects, including the definitions or types of innovation and measurement. This ambiguity has led
to a significant escalation in the number of working papers, conference sessions and workshops on
GI throughout the world. Special Issues focused on GI are starting to appear in academic books and
journals. The wide variety of studies contributes to the vitality and affluence of research on GI but also
creates some confusion regarding the construct’s meaning and utility. Several studies provide insights
with a literature review of GI (e.g., [1,2]), but the field of GI is beginning to split into distinct branches
because of researchers’ different foci of study.
Recently, some studies have applied the bibliometric methodology to the field of eco-innovation
(e.g., [3]). Yet, these studies only rely on the use of such a methodology to complement a theoretical

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011; doi:10.3390/su9061011 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 2 of 15

article, with graphs and tables showing the distribution of papers per year or a group of journals
involving a certain degree of specialization on the topic.
By contrast, this research applies bibliometric techniques to explore the way in which scholarly
literature on GI is being developed. The bibliometric methodology makes it possible to give shape,
structure and direction to the research domain as it develops and advances. Therefore, this study
analyzes the chronological development of the discipline, the research trends and popular issues in the
field of this study, the antecedent variables acting as key drivers, and the main outcomes of GI.
To do so, this article uses the Web of Science database (WoS), which lists up to 2350 publications
until the end of 2015. This study focuses exclusively on analyzing the publications related to the topic
of green innovation in the business economics research area from 1971 to 2015 in order to assess their
scholarly impact. This period of time comprises 618 publications devoted to investigating GI.
Hence, the main aim of this study is to use the bibliometric methodology in the GI field to identify
and analyze the critical literature on this topic, based on the publication impact on the scholarly
community to know the past, the present, and the future of this field of research. To learn about this
field’s past, the study shows the stages through which the discipline has been reflected. The analysis
of the most cited studies brings to light the most important concerns or debates that shape this topic.
Finally, after reviewing the latest empirical papers in the area, this study may offer insights concerning
the best way to face future research gaps. This study could guide researchers through the concept
of GI because it shows the literature that has to be included in further analyses. Furthermore, this
study might serve as a point of reference and a preliminary approach for new researchers seeking to
familiarize themselves with the GI literature and trends.
The structure of this study is as follows: The second section presents a review of the GI literature
to show the impact of this topic on the management field and delineate its domain. In the third section,
the study describes the methodology. The fourth section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis.
Finally, the fifth section provides conclusions, limitations and possible avenues for future study.

2. A Review of the Green Innovation Concept

In general, different terms are used to explain the type of innovation aimed at minimizing
the negative effect that organisations can have on the environment, such as “eco”, “sustainable”,
“environmental” and “green” [4], with several differentiations and similarities between them.
Subsequently, we briefly review some of the most accurate definitions in this regard.
According to Kemp and Pearson [5], the term “eco-innovation” consists of constructing,
assimilating or exploiting a product, production process, service, or managerial method that is novel
to the organization that is developing or adopting it. It must also result (throughout its life cycle)
in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution, and other negative impacts of the use of resources
(including energy use) compared with relevant alternatives. “Environmental innovation” comprises
a set of techniques, systems, products and/or new or modified processes that serve to prevent or
reduce environmental damage [6]. Finally, “sustainable innovation” is defined as “the integration of
conservation and development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival
and well-being of all people” [7] (p. 30).
The term “environmental innovation” emerges as the predominant term. It is frequently replaced
by “eco-innovation”, which has been the most commonly used term in this regard for the past
decade [3]. However, this study focuses on the term “green innovation”, which is the least developed
because of the scarcity of clear and precise definitions in the literature. Thus, a clarification of this
concept is essential [3]. According to Schiederig [8], the increase in the use of the different terms
depends on the aspects of different definitions (i.e., innovation object, market orientation, phase,
impulse or level).
Although several authors, including ([9,10]), have already defined green innovation, a clarification
of the concept is necessary for the purposes of this study.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 3 of 15

We initially define the concept of green innovation (GI) as a type of innovation whose main
objective is to mitigate or avoid environmental damage while protecting the environment and enabling
companies to satisfy new consumer demands, create value, and increase yields.
Some previous references to the concept can be found in the literature. Authors such as [8,11]
suggest that green innovation may increase firms’ productivity and maximize their use of resources.
The firms become more competitive as a result of the gain in and sustainment of competitive
advantages rooted in the corporate image improvement and the development of new markets,
while satisfying the requirement of environmental protection [12,13]; this has generated a growing
flow of research on this particular topic, and it marks the first time a clear concept of GI has
appeared. Chen [10] (p. 332) define “green innovation” as “hardware or software innovation
that is related to green products or processes, including the innovation in technologies that are
involved in energy-saving, pollution-prevention, waste recycling, green product designs, or corporate
environmental management”. In their efforts to carry out environmental actions, companies might
develop new products, processes, and/or managerial innovations that are designed to increase
companies’ levels of efficiency and/or effectiveness [14]. These authors also suggest that GI is
involved in waste recycling, green product designs, energy saving, pollution prevention and corporate
environmental management.
Chang [13] (p. 363) states that green innovation “can enhance the performance of environmental
management to satisfy the requirements of environmental protection. A company devoted to
developing green innovation can not only meet the environmental regulations but also build up
barriers to other competitors.” Leenders and Chandra [15] argue that green innovation is a product or
process innovation that includes the development of new technologies focused on pollution prevention,
waste recycling, energy saving and eco-efficient design. Recently, Hashim [4] posited that this kind
of innovation seeks to reduce the impact of the firm’s activity on the environment by including
transformations in corporate strategies, product-designing methods, production processes, resource
consumption, and waste-disposal procedures.
Thus, GI is sustained to exert a positive effect on competitive advantage (e.g., [8,9]). If companies
are ready to carry out GI, they might reap the advantages of differentiation and challenge existing
competitive rules. GI has become a core strategic concern for firms, which may be described as a
combination of abilities and knowledge that makes it possible to generate commercial innovations
without harming the environment [16]. Hence, companies would commercialize sustainable products
(protection of the environment in the design and packaging of products), which might increase
the differentiation advantages ([9,11]). Moreover, the adoption of proactive, environment-oriented,
managerial strategies will allow firms to avoid facing sanctions or protests by environmentalists [17].
The pioneers in implementing GI can sell green products and services at higher prices, enjoy higher
profits, improve their corporate image, sell their innovative environmental technologies and even
create new markets ([8,18]) that address the needs of the most demanding customers. In this way, GI
increases companies’ productivity and efficiency in assigning resources, along with their environmental
management performance in order to meet the requirements of environmental protection [12] that
simultaneously create barriers to competitors [19].
Next, Table 1 shows the green innovation definition approach.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 4 of 15

Table 1. Green innovation definition focus.

Author Focus
[20] Continuous innovation, new market opportunities, wealth creation.
[11] Quality of life, very profitable, not only in terms of efficiency.
[8] Corporate image, successful companies.
[21] Environmental burden.
[22] Concerns not only the process but also the product.
[12] Environmental management, requirement of environmental protection.
Hardware or software innovation, green products or processes, innovation in technologies,
[9] energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling, green product designs, corporate
environmental management.
Great effort in environmental management, avoiding the trouble of protests or punishment about
[23]
environmental protection, corporate images, develop new markets, competitive advantages.
Satisfy the requirements of environmental protection, devoted to developing green innovation,
[13]
environmental regulations, barriers to other competitors.
[1] Enhance product value, offset the costs of environmental investments.
Minimization of environmental impacts, management innovation, process innovation, product
[24]
innovation, technological innovation.
Technological improvements, save energy, prevent pollution, waste recycling, green product
[10]
design, corporate environmental management.
Development of new technologies, energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling,
[15]
eco-efficient design.
[4] Type of innovation reduced impact on the environment.
[16] Strategic need for firms, great opportunity to prevent buyers’ harming the environment.
[25] Mitigate or avoid environmental damage, responsible and optimal use of available resources.

3. Method

3.1. Technical Support and Tools

In order to develop the objectives that we have explained in the introduction, we use Bibliometric
analysis. This technique was introduced by Garfield [26], who claimed that it collects a set of
mathematical methods and statistics used to analyze and measure publications (i.e., articles, books,
and book chapters, among others). It consists in applying statistical methods to establish qualitative
and quantitative changes within a given scientific research topic to detect the profile of publications on
the topic and to pinpoint trends within a discipline ([27–29]).
Bibliometric analyses examine bibliographical material that is useful in order to exploit, organize
and analyze the information in a particular field [30] for experts seeking to assess scientific activity [31].
It represents an innovative methodology with respect to traditional theoretical framework building [32].
Hence, bibliometric analyses will make it possible to know the past, understand the advances of the
investigations and enhance future research. Moreover, the research trends and popular issues in the
study fields may be identified by employing such a method. The resulting information is also useful in
decision making [33].
Finally, to illustrate our study we use two software tools. Bibexcel is frequently used to
perform bibliometric and network analysis and Pajek used for the analysis and visualization of large
networks [34].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 5 of 15

3.2. Database Choice

The first step of a bibliometric analysis is to identify the databases that would be useful for the
purpose of the research. Bibliometric analysis is limited by the information available. Therefore,
the information sources must be reliable and suitable to perform the analysis and to make the best
decisions [35], hence the importance of choosing an appropriate database. The ISI, Scopus and Google
Scholar databases are available and up-to-date, and therefore their use in the literature is very prevalent.
This study uses the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database (WoS) (formerly the ISI Web of
Knowledge), which is an online scientific information supporter. This database gives scholars access to
material available from scientific journals, books, and other academic papers in all scientific fields. All
journals in the WoS have an impact factor in the Journal Citation Report (JCR), which makes it possible
to classify journals as top-tier or lower-tier journals. The bibliometric analysis of studies within the
WoS provides data on output, collaboration, dissemination, and impact [27].

3.3. Indicators
After choosing the database, the second step is to select the indicators to evaluate the sample
obtained. Few studies provide a description of the methodology that should be applied for a
bibliometric analysis (the appropriate indicators, their measurement and their graph representation
or their interpretation) [36]. As a result, the literature presents different types of bibliometric
indicators [33,37]. According to [33], there are three types of bibliometric indicators: (i) quantity
(to measure the productivity); (ii) quality (to measure the impact); and (iii) structural (to measure the
connections) indicators.

3.4. Codification Process

This study examines the research area of business economics, which comprises more studies on
green innovation than other areas (618 research studies). Our analysis was performed in January 2016
using the WoS database. This study analyzes scientific studies for the period 1971–2015. The starting
year is 1971, and the date of publication of the first study on GI is listed in the WoS.
This bibliometric analysis includes the most common knowledge areas, the most prolific authors,
the journals with the most publications, the most productive countries and the most cited studies. The
search term used is “green innovation”, and the results were filtered according to the indicators used.
The WoS webpage allows filtering the results and collecting the publications using the keyword “green
innovation” in the titles, abstract, and/or keywords.

4. Results
This section presents the results of the bibliometric analysis of GI. Given that the aim of this study
is to gain an overall perspective of the development of research on GI, the analysis is not limited to any
specific language, document type, or country. This study examines research works published between
1971 and 2015. The study titled Elements of Induced Innovation–Historical Perspective for Green Revolution
by Yujiero Hayami [38] was the first document to be published on the topic that is listed in the WoS.
The 618 studies on green innovation in the business economics field are made up of 383 articles,
200 proceedings papers, 14 reviews, two editorial materials, three book reviews and one note, one
reprint, and one discussion.
The bibliometric variables applied in this study are as follows:

• The number of publications on GI per year between 1971 and 2015.

• The most cited papers published on GI.
• The most frequent trends and topic words.
• The number of empirical studies that assess GI variable, as well as the drivers and outcomes
variables of GI.
 Table 2 presents the annual number of citations of GI studies. The results show that, over the
past few years, the increase in citations has been significant, reaching a record of 1282 citations in
2010. The high number of citations corresponding to 1997 (1012) is due to the publication of A
Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance and Profitability by Russo and Fouts
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 6 of 15
[39], which has received 943 citations. This is the article on GI with the highest number of citations.
Similarly, out of the 1165 citations from 2000, 582 citations belong to a single article: Why Companies
Go Evolution
4.1. Green: A Model of Ecological
of Publications and Responsiveness,
Citations Structurewritten by Bansal and Roth [40].
Table 2 also provides the results for the number of articles that have 100 or more, 50 or more,
and Figure
20 or more1 shows the accumulation
citations. The results of the number
show that onlyof16.16%
studiesofpublished about
the studies GI since
obtain more1971
thanand 100
reveals
citations, 25.38% obtain more than 50, 61.50% more than 20, almost 57.59% more than 10, 65.40% 1971
three stages in the publication trend. The first stage corresponds to the period between more
and
than1999,
five when the and
citations, volume of studies
the rest of the was lesshave
studies thanreceived
20 studies per than
more year.one
Thecitation.
second stage covers the
periodInfrom 2000 to 2007, when research grows moderately. The annual
the past few decades, we observe a significant increase in the number volume was 19 of
studies. Finally,
publications.
during the third stage, from 2008 to 2015, the number of publications has increased
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) might have enabled this increase, as they have considerably.
The annual the
facilitated volume for this period
introduction is between reference
of bibliographic 60 and 90 tools
studies,
andthe record
online number (e.g.,
databases beingScopus
92 in 2015.
and
Figure
WoS). 1 also reveals the number of citations per year that these studies have obtained.

1400 TP accum. TC

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1971 1987 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Figure1.1.Total
Figure Totalpublications
publications(accumulated)
(accumulated)and
andtotal
totalcitations
citationson
ongreen
greeninnovation
innovation(GI)
(GI)between
between1971
1971
and2015.
and 2015.

Table 2. General citation structure of GI literature according to (Web of Science) WoS.

Table 2 presents the annual number of citations of GI studies. The results show that, over the past
few years,Year
the increase Total
in citations
Studieshas been significant,
Total Citations reaching
>100 a>50 record>20
of 1282>10
citations
>5 in 2010.
>1 The
high number 1971of citations corresponding
1 to 1997
6 (1012) is due
0 to the
0 publication
0 0 of A Resource-Based
1 0
Perspective1981 2
on Corporate Environmental 17 and Profitability
Performance 0 0 Russo
by 0 and Fouts
1 0 which
[39], 1 has
received 943 citations. This is the article on GI with the highest number of citations. Similarly,0out of
1987 1 10 0 0 0 1 0
1989
the 1165 citations from 2000,1582 citations belong 0 to a single0 article:
0 Why Companies
0 0 Go Green:
0 A0Model
1990 1 68 0 1 0 0 0 0
of Ecological Responsiveness, written by Bansal and Roth [40].
1991 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
Table 2 also provides the results for the number of articles that have 100 or more, 50 or more, and
1992 1 48 0 0 1 0 0 0
20 or more1993citations. The results
1 show that only212 16.16% of 1the studies
0 obtain
0 more
0 than0100 citations,
0
25.38% obtain
1994 more than 50, 461.50% more than 38320, almost 57.59%
1 more
0 than
1 10, 65.40%
0 more
0 than
2 five
citations, and
1995the rest of the studies
2 have received
42 more than 0 one citation.
0 1 1 0 0
In the past few decades,
1996 4 we observe 322 a significant 1increase2 in the0 number0 of 0publications.
1
1997 4 1012 1 0 0
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) might have enabled this increase, as they 1 1 0 have
facilitated the introduction of bibliographic reference tools and online databases (e.g., Scopus and0 WoS).
1998 4 137 0 1 1 1 1
1999 3 116 0 1 1 0 0 0
2000 6 1165 2 0 1 0 0 0
2001 7 191 1 0 1 3 2 0
2002 7 167 0 1 4 1 1 0
2003 9 512 1 3 3 0 1 0
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 7 of 15

Table 2. General citation structure of GI literature according to (Web of Science) WoS.

Year Total Studies Total Citations >100 >50 >20 >10 >5 >1
1971 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0
1981 2 17 0 0 0 1 0 1
1987 1 10 0 0 0 1 0 0
1989 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1990 1 68 0 1 0 0 0 0
1991 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1
1992 1 48 0 0 1 0 0 0
1993 1 212 1 0 0 0 0 0
1994 4 383 1 0 1 0 0 2
1995 2 42 0 0 1 1 0 0
1996 4 322 1 2 0 0 0 1
1997 4 1012 1 0 0 1 1 0
1998 4 137 0 1 1 1 1 0
1999 3 116 0 1 1 0 0 0
2000 6 1165 2 0 1 0 0 0
2001 7 191 1 0 1 3 2 0
2002 7 167 0 1 4 1 1 0
2003 9 512 1 3 3 0 1 0
2004 6 539 1 0 3 1 0 0
2005 11 117 0 1 0 1 1 1
2006 15 580 2 1 3 1 1 1
2007 19 226 1 0 1 3 1 2
2008 40 795 1 7 2 5 3 2
2009 31 431 0 2 7 3 4 2
2010 65 1286 4 4 7 3 6 7
2011 55 727 0 2 13 10 10 1
2012 61 386 0 0 4 10 11 15
2013 77 505 0 0 7 12 19 20
2014 87 198 0 0 2 0 4 10
2015 92 43 0 0 0 1 0 21
Total 618 10,244 17 26 63 59 67 87
Percentage 100 100 16.60 25.38 61.50 57.59 65.40 84.93

4.2. The Most Cited Publications

This section presents the 20 most cited studies found in the WoS (Table 3). Publications were
collected using the search string “green innovation” in the abstract, keywords, and/or title, including
all studies published in the business economics discipline.
The most cited article, with almost 950 citations, is A Resource-Based Perspective on Corporate
Environmental Performance and Profitability, written by Russo and Fouts [39], whose authors argue that
there is a positive relationship between environmental performance and economic performance and
that industry growth moderates this link. They carry out a longitudinal analysis to test their hypotheses
on a sample of 243 companies. Their results reveal that being green pays off and that the link between
environmental performance and economic performance boosts higher-growth industries. In second
place, Bansal and Roth [40] Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness, has been
cited 582 times. This study sought to disentangle the motivations and contextual factors underlying
corporate ecological responsiveness. The authors gathered qualitative data from 53 companies in
the UK and Japan. Their results revealed three main motivations (competitiveness, legitimation, and
ecological responsibility), influenced by three contextual conditions (field cohesion, issue salience,
and individual concern). A study by Zhu and Sarkis [41] appears in third place with 393 citations. In
this work, the authors investigate how two principal managerial operations philosophies—quality
management and just-in-time (or lean) manufacturing—influence the relationship between green
supply chain management practices and business performance. The first two works were published
in the Academy of Management Journal, one of the most prestigious research journals in the field of
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 8 of 15

management. Most studies on this list are from the 1990s and 2000s, although some recent studies also
make an appearance.

Table 3. The 20 most cited studies on GI.

Rank TC Title Author Journal

A resource-based perspective on corporate
1 943 [39] Academy of Management Journal
environmental performance and profitability
Why companies go green: A model of ecological
2 582 [40] Academy of Management Journal
responsiveness
Relationships between operational practices and
performance among early adopters of green supply
3 393 [41] Journal of Operations Management
chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises
4 341 It’s not easy being green [20] Harvard Business Review
Extending green practices across the supply chain—The International Journal of Operations
5 233 [42]
impact of upstream and downstream integration and Production Management
Technological Forecasting and
6 206 The adoption of agricultural innovations—A review [43]
Social Change
The influence of green innovation performance on
7 126 [9] Journal of Business Ethics
corporate advantage in Taiwan
Information systems innovation for environmental
8 107 [44] MIS Quarterly
sustainability
Design for the environment: A quality-based model for
9 99 [45] Management Science
green product development
Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green Supply Chain Management—An
10 92 [46]
suppliers International Journal
Green and competitive—Influences on environmental
11 90 [47] Journal of Business Ethics
new product development performance
Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized Supply Chain Management—An
12 88 [48]
suppliers in green supply chain initiatives International Journal
The driver of green innovation and green image—Green
13 85 [23] Journal of Business Ethics
core competence
14 79 Managing ‘green’ product innovation in small firms [22] R&D Management
The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image,
15 75 [49] Journal of Business Ethics
Green Satisfaction, and Green Trust
Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and
16 69 [50] Journal of Business Ethics
How Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability
The effects of customer benefit and regulation on
17 59 environmental product innovation. Empirical evidence [51] Ecological Economics
from appliance manufacturers in Germany
The positive effect of green intellectual capital on
18 56 [52] Journal of Business Ethics
competitive advantages of firms
The influence of greening the suppliers and green Transportation Research Part
19 53 innovation on environmental performance and [53] E—Logistics and Transportation
competitive advantage in Taiwan Review
Why and how to adopt green management into business
20 48 organisations?: The case study of Korean SMEs in [54] Management Decision
manufacturing industry

4.3. Large Networks

Based on Pajek tools for the visualization of large networks, as shown in Figure 2, which includes
the most frequent topics addressed within this field, we can observe that there exist some certainly
large nodes that represent the main terms or topics that shape this field: innovation, sustainability,
sustainable development, environmental, and GI.
Sustainability 2017,9,9,1011
Sustainability2017, 1011 99of
of15
15

Figure 2. Most frequent topic words.

Figure 2. Most frequent topic words.

Innovation is the term most used, since it is the key concept from which most researchers within
4.4. Green Innovation Variable
the topic of GI begin their work. The subsequent most highlighted nodes are sustainability, sustainable
Finally, this
development, andsection presents
GI. Likewise, a list of empirical
innovation processes studies
toward that use the development
sustainable GI variable inhave
theirreceived
models
(Table 4). attention
increased This list provides
during the thelast
variables
decades. most commonlythese
Nonetheless, related to GI
terms andcontinued
have suggests where to find a
being adapted
theoretical or empirical gap in this research field.
because clear definitions to describe these topics did not exist. Nevertheless, an important proportion of the most
citedWearticles in this field involve theoretical works aimed at the conceptualization and
may also pay attention to some topics that are arising and increasingly attaining more attention, development
of GI. Inthe
although thissize
sense, onlynodes
of their 14 studies
is not yetmake
thatempirical
large. Thisuse of the
is the caseGI variable.
of topics suchThis may be
as green because
marketing,
research in GI is still in its initial stages or because there are different
green supply chain management, corporate sustainability, energy, and climate change. and interchangeable terms to
refer to the same topic. Table 4 provides the authors’ names, the journal’s title and the variables used
4.4. Green
in each Innovation
study. Variable
We assess and distinguish between the types of variables to acknowledge which role
is associated with GI: GI drivers (modeling
Finally, this section presents GI as a studies
a list of empirical dependentthatvariable),
use the GIoutcomes
variable of
in GI (modeling
their models
GI as an independent variable), and the mediating or control variable. We did
(Table 4). This list provides the variables most commonly related to GI and suggests where to find a not find moderating
variables inorthese
theoretical works.
empirical gap in this research field. Nevertheless, an important proportion of the most
cited articles in this field involve theoretical works aimed at the conceptualization and development of
Table 4. Selected empirical research on GI.
GI. In this sense, only 14 studies make empirical use of the GI variable. This may be because research
in GI is still in its initial stages or because there are different and interchangeable terms toMediating refer toorthe
Author Journal Trends in Research Drivers of GI Outcomes of GI Control
same topic. Table 4 provides the authors’ names, the journal’s title and the variables used in Variables each study.
We assess Journal
and distinguish
of
between the types of variables to acknowledgeCorporate
which role is associated with
[9] Performance competitive
GI: GI drivers (modeling GI as a dependent variable), outcomes of GI (modeling
Business Ethics
advantage
GI as an independent
variable), and the mediating or control variable.Environmental
We did not find moderating variables in these works.
regulations,
Organization and Financial
[10] Performance/drivers environmental normative
Environmental performance
levels
Environmental leadership,
environmental culture,
Management environmental capability,
[1] Drivers
Decision environmental request of
investors and clients,
environmental regulations
Corporate Social Foreign customers,
Responsibility stockholders, foreign
Industrial type,
[55] and Drivers investors, regulatory
firm size
Environmental stakeholders, community
Management stakeholders
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 10 of 15

Table 4. Selected empirical research on GI.

Outcomes of Mediating or
Author Journal Trends in Research Drivers of GI
GI Control Variables
Corporate
Journal of Business
[9] Performance competitive
Ethics
advantage
Environmental regulations,
Organization and Financial
[10] Performance/drivers environmental normative
Environmental performance
levels
Environmental leadership,
environmental culture,
Management environmental capability,
[1] Drivers
Decision environmental request of
investors and clients,
environmental regulations
Foreign customers,
Corporate Social
stockholders, foreign
Responsibility and Industrial type,
[55] Drivers investors, regulatory
Environmental firm size
stakeholders, community
Management
stakeholders
Supply Chain Environmental
Green supply chain
[56] Management: An Process/drivers uncertainty/firm
integration
International Journal size
Environmental
commitment,
Management Green organisational
[57] Drivers environmental
Decision identify
organizational
legitimacy
[58] Energy Journal Context Energy prices
Journal of Knowledge Information technology, Customer
[16] Drivers/performance
Management relationship learning capital
Business Strategy green requirements,
[59] Drivers
and the Environment knowledge sharing
Journal of Business
[23] Drivers/performance Green core competences Green image
Ethics
Environmental
Transportation performance,
[53] Drivers/performance/process Greening the supply
Research Part E competitive
advantage
Journal of Business Corporate environmental Competitive
[13] Drivers/performance
Ethics ethics advantages
Organizational support,
Asian Journal of quality of human resources,
Environmental
[60] Technology Drivers/performance/process customer pressure,
outcome
Innovation government support,
environmental uncertainty

Below, Table 5 shows the level of statistical significance of the variables included in the studies
enumerated in Table 4. The level of statistical significance (sig.) may appear with “*” whenever it is
significant. The number of “*” depends on the t-value of the variable in the hypothesis.
In this section, we also group these studies according to the classification that [3] previously used
and validated. To do so, we have read the different works and analyzed the variables of these studies.
This classification provides the trends in research. The authors cluster the works according to the
following categories:
• Performance: This category includes articles focusing on the results and outcomes of GI:
performance, customer capital, competitive advantage, etc.
• Drivers: The main interest of the articles in this category is finding the antecedents of
green innovation.
• Types: This category is shaped by articles aimed at classifying the different types of green
innovation: product, process, managerial, and technological.
• Process: This category encompasses all the articles that focus on the process of the development of
these types of innovations: green supply chain, green marketing, and green technology innovation.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 11 of 15

• Context: This category comprises articles that focus on showing the Special Issues occurring in
the context of a study such as a specific region or country, transition economies, etc. These works
tend to be comparisons.
• Policy: This category groups together the articles that focus on policy evaluation, transition
management, and the diffusion of GI through policies.
With regard to the classification of trends in this research, “performance” and “drivers” are
the most recurrent categories. On the one hand, the independent variables that act as drivers of
green innovation in these 14 studies include environmental regulations, environmental normative
levels, environmental leadership, environmental culture, environmental capability, environmental
request of stakeholders, foreign customers and investors, relationship learning, knowledge sharing,
organizational support, and information technology. On the other hand, the main outcomes of
green innovation are environmental performance, financial performance, environmental outcome,
competitive advantages, green image, and customer capital. Some repeatedly used variables are:
factors of environmental uncertainty, performance, and competitive advantage.
This second table allows deeper and more accurate insights into which of the variables are
effectively drivers or outcomes of GI.
Given the empirical evidence provided by the literature examined, it has not been demonstrated
that regulatory stakeholders, community stakeholders, organizational support, and government
support constitute drivers of green innovation, as these relationships are found not to be significant.
We may highlight that all the other variables (GI drivers and outcomes) seem to reach satisfactory
levels of statistical significance in their links with GI.

Table 5. The level of significance of variables.

Author GI Drivers GI Outcomes

[9] Corporate competitive advantage: +/sig. **
Environmental regulations: +/sig. ** Environmental normative
[10] Financial performance: +/sig. *
levels: +/sig. **
Environmental leadership: +/ sig. ** Environmental culture: +/ sig.
[1] * Environmental capability: +/ sig. * Environmental request of
investors and clients: +/ sig. * Environmental regulations: +/ sig. *
Foreign customers: +/ sig. * Stockholders: +/ no sig. Foreign
[55] investors: +/ sig. * Regulatory stakeholders: +/ no sig. Community
stakeholders: +/ no sig.
[56] Green supply chain integration: +/sig. ***
[57] Green organizational identify: +/sig. **
[58] Energy prices: +/sig. **
[16] Information technology: +/sig. *** Relationship learning: +/sig. *** Customer capital: +/sig. ***
[59] Green requirements: +/sig. * Knowledge sharing: +/sig. ***
[23] Green core competences: +/sig. ** Green image: +/sig. **
Environmental performance: +/sig. ***
[53] Greening the supply: +/sig. ***
Competitive advantage: +/sig. ***
[13] Corporate environmental: +/sig. ** Competitive advantages: +/sig. *
Organizational support: +/ no sig. Quality of human resources: +/
[60] sig. *** Customer pressure: +/ sig. * Government support: +/ no Environmental outcome: +/sig. ***
sig. Environmental uncertainty: +/ sig. ***
The level of statistical significance (sig.): * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

5. Discussion
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the literature on green innovation (GI) between 1971
and 2015, according to the publications available in the Web of Science (WoS). Our paper provides a
general overview of the recent studies on GI in order to determine the research trends and popular
issues, the antecedent variables acting as key drivers, and the main outcomes of GI. Therefore, this
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 12 of 15

study provides a review of the literature and means to summarize the available research and findings
published to date. In brief, this study offers a guide to those who are entering the green innovation
field, providing information with regard to the past, the present, and the future of this field in order to
build interesting empirical models or develop a worthy literature review.
The analysis of the evolution of publications and citations on green innovation allows us to
appreciate the evolution of the field. In addition, it enables us to know which have been the years with
the highest number of publications and/or citations.
The present study also sheds light on this field’s research trends and popular matters. The main
issues are GI, sustainability, sustainable development, and environmental. However, we also observe
that they are related with recent topics, such as green marketing, green supply chain management,
corporate sustainability, energy, and climate change.
The antecedent variables of GI found in this study are: environmental regulations, environmental
normative levels, environmental leadership, environmental culture, stakeholder’s environmental
request, relationship learning, knowledge sharing, environmental capability, and information
technology. Therefore, these variables are the ones most used currently.
Finally, the study shows a scarcity of empirical studies that use GI as one of the variables in their
research models and hypotheses. Specifically, only 14 empirical studies in the entire WoS employ GI
as a research variable. The analysis of empirical studies has allowed us to identify the variables that
are used in the models proposed and act as GI drivers and outcomes. On the basis of the conclusions
reached by the studies assessed, we can affirm that there is heterogeneity with regard to the variables
explored in these works. Therefore, the variables used enable us to have a clear view of the issues
addressed in this field, and we can contribute to generating ideas and knowledge for future research.
In this vein, most publications have used the GI variable as a dependent variable, probably
because the final objective of the model proposed in most of the studies is to identify the effects of GI
on the firms implementing it. The GI variable has also been used as a mediator of a relationship. For
instance, in the study by [53], GI positively mediates the relationship between greening the supplier
and environmental performance.
Our results also show that research on GI is relatively recent and has its roots in a very particular
framework of the literature that is entrenched in the field of environmental management. The topic is
of current relevance, and its diffusion takes place mostly in conferences and similar meetings. It seems
that publishing studies in a new field is easier because there is still much to discover.

6. Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

The field of GI has experienced substantial growth since the 1970s, especially in the last few
years, which has reflected a noteworthy impact on the literature. In any case, the emergence of an
increasingly disaggregated interest is being observed regarding this particular field of knowledge. In
conclusion, GI makes up a topic that has been very recently developed and currently entails great
relevance both for academics and practitioners. Although GI is mostly used as a dependent variable
and the theoretical background surrounding this concept remains under construction, there is a broad
heterogeneity with regard to the drivers or antecedent variables of GI. This might be explained by
the diversity of scholars approaching this issue (management, economics, engineering, biology, etc.),
which in turn reflects the strong interest that this research topic has currently attained.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the results presented and discussed above is subject to several
limitations. First, this research is based on a sample of documents published in the WoS. There are more
studies on green innovation published in non-indexed journals that are not accessible through the WoS
database. Second, the citation index and the number of publications are frequently used to measure
quality and quantity, respectively, despite the actual quality of the document. Podsakoff et al. [61]
argued that the number of articles was less significant than the number of citations, as the latter is
considered a better approach to a researcher’s impact and influence. Nonetheless, the mere fact that
an author is considered important or relevant often persuades other authors to cite that particular
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 13 of 15

author without reading his/her articles or developing a decisive or specific view of their content [62].
Third is the problem of different authors with the same names, which is a general problem in the
use of this method. Fourth, four different terms are used interchangeably in the literature to describe
innovations that contribute or are intended to reduce the organizations’ negative impact on the
environment: “green”, “environmental”, “sustainable”, and “eco”. This is a serious problem as it
results in overlapping definitions riddled with inconsistencies. Fifth, while the results give a picture
of the current situation, this situation may change over time, especially for the publications from the
past two years that still have to grow considerably in terms of the number of citations. Finally, it
should be noted that this study has been developed within a specific field: green innovation. Therefore,
researchers should be cautious about generalizing these conclusions.
For future research studies, scholars might consider conducting a bibliometric analysis using other
databases (e.g., Google Scholar or Scopus), which would contribute to gathering more information and
reaching a better understanding of the topic. Future research could also use a structural indicator, which
measures the relationships between publications, authors and areas of knowledge using sociograms.
Finally, further studies could narrow the focus of the bibliometric analysis by studying only GI
articles published in English or by comparing the terms “eco”, “sustainable”, “environmental”, and
“green” innovations with each other. In addition, it could be interesting to perform an analysis that
reflects the current topics in the field and their evolution over time.

Author Contributions: The individual contribution and responsibilities of the authors were as follows:
Gema Albort-Morant: designed the overall framework of the research, conducted literature review, method design
and analysis, and. drafted the manuscript. Gabriel Cepeda-Carrión, Jörg Henseler and Antonio Leal-Millán: data
collection, article writing and supervision of the research direction. All authors read the final manuscript and
approved it for final submission.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H.; Wu, F.S. Origins of green innovations: The differences between proactive and
reactive green innovations. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 368–398. [CrossRef]
2. Schiederig, T.; Tietzer, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management—An
exploratory literature review. R&D Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192.
3. Díaz-García, C.; González-Moreno, A.; Sáez-Martínez, F.J. Eco-innovation: Insights from a literature review.
Innov. Organ. Manag. 2015, 17, 6–23. [CrossRef]
4. Hashim, R.; Bock, A.J.; Cooper, S. The Relationship between Absorptive Capacity and Green Innovation.
World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 9, 1040–1047.
5. Kemp, R.; Pearson, P. Final report of the MEI project measuring eco innovation. UM Merit Maastricht.
2007. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf (accessed on
11 June 2017).
6. Kemp, R.; Arundel, A.; Smith, K. Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. In Proceedings of the Survey
Indicators for Environmental Innovation, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 27–29 September 2001.
7. Dresner, S. Principles of Sustainability; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2008.
8. Porter, M.E.; Van der Linde, C. Green and competitive. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134.
9. Chen, Y.S.; Lai, S.B.; Wen, C.T. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in
Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [CrossRef]
10. Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. Green innovation and financial performance an institutional
approach. Organ. Environ. 2013, 26, 365–385. [CrossRef]
11. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014.
12. Lai, S.-B.; Wen, C.-T.; Chen, Y.-S. The Exploration of the Relationship between the Environmental Pressure
and the Corporate Competitive Advantage. In Proceedings of the CSMOT Academic Conference, National
Chiao Tung University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, 22 April 2003.
13. Chang, C.H. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role
of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 361–370. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 14 of 15

14. Gluch, P.; Gustafsson, M.; Thuvander, L. An absorptive capacity model for green innovation and performance
in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 451–464. [CrossRef]
15. Leenders, M.A.; Chandra, Y. Antecedents and consequences of green innovation in the wine industry:
The role of channel structure. Technol. Anal. Strateg. 2013, 25, 203–218. [CrossRef]
16. Leal-Millán, A.; Roldán, J.L.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; Ortega-Gutiérrez, J. IT and relationship learning in
networks as drivers of green innovation and customer capital: Evidence from the automobile sector.
J. Know. Manag. 2016, 20, 444–464. [CrossRef]
17. Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions
of stakeholder importance. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 87–99. [CrossRef]
18. Peattie, K. Green Marketing; Pitman Publishing: London, UK, 1992; pp. 64–78.
19. Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [CrossRef]
20. Walley, N.; Whitehead, B. It’s not easy being green. Read. Bus. Environ. 1994, 36, 81.
21. Driessen, P.H.; Hillebrand, B. Adoption and diffusion of green innovations. In Marketing for
Sustainability: Towards Transactional Policy-Making; Bartels, G., Nelissen, W., Eds.; I.O.S. Press: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2002.
22. Noci, G.; Verganti, R. Managing ‘green’ product innovation in small firms. R&D Manag. 1999, 29, 3–15.
23. Chen, Y.S. The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81,
531–543. [CrossRef]
24. Tseng, M.L.; Huang, F.H.; Chiu, A.S. Performance drivers of green innovation under incomplete information.
Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 40, 234–250. [CrossRef]
25. Albort-Morant, G.; Leal-Millán, A.; Cepeda-Carrión, G. The antecedents of green innovation performance:
A model of learning and capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4912–4917. [CrossRef]
26. Garfield, E. Citation Indexes for Science. Science 1955, 122, 108–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. De Bakker, F.G.; Groenewegen, P.; Den Hond, F. A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on
corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance. Bus. Soc. 2005, 44, 283–317. [CrossRef]
28. Daim, T.U.; Rueda, G.; Martin, H.; Gerdsri, P. Forecasting emerging technologies: Use of bibliometrics and
patent analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2006, 73, 981–1012. [CrossRef]
29. Bouyssou, D.; Marchant, T. Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner. J. Am. Soc. Inf.
Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1761–1769. [CrossRef]
30. Merigó, J.M.; Gil-Lafuente, A.M.; Yager, R.R. An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 27, 420–433. [CrossRef]
31. Duque-Oliva, E.J.; Cervera Taulet, A.; Rodríguez-Romero, C. A bibliometric analysis of models measuring
the concept of perceived quality in providing internet service. Innovar-Rev. Cienc. AD 2006, 16, 223–243.
32. Bjork, S.; Offer, A.; Söderberg, G. Time series citation data: The Nobel Prize in economics. Scientometrics 2014,
98, 185–196. [CrossRef]
33. Durieux, V.; Gevenois, P.A. Bibliometric Indicators: Quality Measurements of Scientific Publication 1.
Radiology 2010, 255, 342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Persson, O.; Danell, R.; Schneider, J.W. How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric
analysis. In Celebrating Scholarly Communication Studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday;
Lunds University: Lund, Sweden, 2009; pp. 9–24.
35. Rueda, G.; Gerdsri, P.; Kocaoglu, D.F. Bibliometrics and Social Network Analysis of the Nanotechnology Field.
In Proceedings of the Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, OR, USA, 5–9 August 2007;
pp. 2905–2911.
36. Van Raan, A.F.J. Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by
bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 2005, 62, 133–143. [CrossRef]
37. Cadavid-Higuita, L.; Awad, G.; Cardona, F.; Jaime, C. A bibliometric analysis of a modeled field for
disseminating innovation. Estud. Gerenc. 2012, 28, 213–236.
38. Hayami, Y. Elements of induced innovation: A historical perspective for the green revolution. Exp. Econ. Hist.
1971, 8, 445. [CrossRef]
39. Russo, M.V.; Fouts, P.A. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and
profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1997, 40, 534–559. [CrossRef]
40. Bansal, P.; Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43,
717–736. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1011 15 of 15

41. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of
green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22,
265–289. [CrossRef]
42. Vachon, S.; Klassen, R.D. Green project partnership in the supply chain: The case of the package printing
industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 661–671. [CrossRef]
43. Feder, G.; Umali, D.L. The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol. Forec. Soc. Chang. 1993,
43, 215–239. [CrossRef]
44. Melville, N.P. Information systems innovation for environmental sustainability. MIS Quart. 2010, 34, 1–21.
45. Chen, C. Design for the environment: A quality-based model for green product development. Manag. Sci.
2001, 47, 250–263. [CrossRef]
46. Simpson, D.F.; Power, D.J. Use the supply relationship to develop lean and green suppliers. Supply Chain
Manag. Int. J. 2005, 10, 60–68. [CrossRef]
47. Pujari, D.; Wright, G.; Peattie, K. Green and competitive: Influences on environmental new product
development performance. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 657–671. [CrossRef]
48. Lee, S.Y. Drivers for the participation of small and medium-sized suppliers in green supply chain initiatives.
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2008, 13, 185–198. [CrossRef]
49. Chen, Y.S. The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. J. Bus.
Ethics 2010, 93, 307–319. [CrossRef]
50. Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D. Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate
environmental sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 471–486. [CrossRef]
51. Kammerer, D. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation: Empirical
evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2285–2295. [CrossRef]
52. Chen, Y.S. The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. J. Bus. Ethics
2008, 77, 271–286. [CrossRef]
53. Chiou, T.Y.; Chan, H.K.; Lettice, F.; Chung, S.H. The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation
on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transp. Res. Part E 2011, 47, 822–836.
[CrossRef]
54. Lee, K.H. Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations? The case study of Korean
SMEs in manufacturing industry. Manag. DEC 2009, 47, 1101–1121. [CrossRef]
55. Qi, G.; Zeng, S.; Tam, C.; Yin, H.; Zou, H. Stakeholders’ influences on corporate green innovation strategy:
A case study of manufacturing firms in China. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 1–14.
56. Wu, K.J.; Liao, C.J.; Chen, C.C.; Lin, Y.; Tsai, C.F. Exploring eco-innovation in dynamic organizational
capability under incomplete information in the Taiwanese lighting industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181,
419–440. [CrossRef]
57. Chang, C.H.; Chen, Y.S. Green organizational identity and green innovation. Manag. Dec. 2013, 51, 1056–1070.
[CrossRef]
58. Ley, M.; Stucki, T.; Woerter, M. The impact of energy prices on green innovation. Energy J. 2016, 37, 41–75.
[CrossRef]
59. Wong, S.K.S. Environmental requirements, knowledge sharing and green innovation: Empirical evidence
from the electronics industry in China. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2013, 22, 321–338. [CrossRef]
60. Zailani, S.; Iranmanesh, M.; Nikbin, D.; Jumadi, H.B. Determinants and environmental outcome of green
technology innovation adoption in the transportation industry in Malaysia. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2014, 22,
286–301. [CrossRef]
61. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Bachrach, D.G. Scholarly influence in the field of
management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management
literature in the past quarter century. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 641–720. [CrossRef]
62. Albort-Morant, G.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. A bibliometric analysis of international impact of business incubators.
J. Bus. Res. 2015, 69, 1775–1779. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).