SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

Eco-Innovation Indicators and Eco-Innovation Efficiency in Turkey

Türkiye’de Eko-İnovasyon Göstergeleri ve Eko-İnovasyon Etkinliği

Özlem FİKİRLİ
Hülya ÜNLÜ
Mustafa Emir YÜCEL
Pages
104–126
Publication Date
2022-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To increase the eco-innovation performance and to get ahead of the mean of Eco-IS components for EU countries, Turkey needs to increase the proportion of researchers and public spending in research and development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to evaluate eco-innovation indicators of Turkey and to determine eco-innovation efficiency.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Eco-innovation activities in Turkey decreased significantly in recent years, and moving away from active status.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To increase the eco-innovation performance and to get ahead of the mean of Eco-IS components for EU countries, Turkey needs to increase the proportion of researchers and public spending in research and development.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Eko-inovasyon · Veri Zarflama Analizi · Çevre Performansı

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate eco-innovation indicators of Turkey and to determine eco-innovation efficiency. Turkey has a better position in some of the components of Eco-IS Index than the EU countries that are known as catching up. However, in some components, Turkey lags behind these countries. Eco-innovation activities in Turkey decreased significantly in recent years, and moving away from active status. To increase the eco-innovation performance and to get ahead of the mean of Eco-IS components for EU countries, Turkey needs to increase the proportion of researchers and public spending in research and development.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’nin eko-inovasyon göstergelerinin değerlendirilmesi ve eko-inovasyon etkinliğinin belirlenmesidir. Türkiye, Eco-IS endeksi bileşenlerinden bazılarında eko-inovasyonu yakalayan AB ülkelerinden iyi konumda olmasına karşın bazılarında eko-inovasyonu yakalayan ülkelerin de gerisinde kalmaktadır. Türkiye’de eko-inovasyon etkinliği son yıllarda önemli ölçüde azalarak etkin durumdan uzaklaşılmaktadır. Türkiye’nin eko-inovasyonda etkin duruma geçebilmesi ve Eco-IS endeksi bileşenlerinde AB ülkeleri ortalamalarını yakalayabilmesi için Ar-Ge personel oranı ve kamu Ar-Ge harcamalarının artırılması gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

FİKİRLİ, Ö., ÜNLÜ, H., YÜCEL, M. E. (2022). Eco-Innovation Indicators and Eco-Innovation Efficiency in Turkey. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 104–126. https://ajindex.com/articles/383644

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Aguilera-Caracuel, J. ve Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. (2013), “Green Innovation and Financial Performance: An İnstitutional Approach”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 26, No.4: 365-385. Álvarez-Herránz, A., Balsalobre, D., Cantos, J. M., ve Shahbaz, M. (2017), “Energy İnnovations-GHG Emissions Nexus: Fresh Empirical Evidence From OECD Countries”, Energy Policy, Vol.101: 90-100.
  2. Andersen, M.M. (2006), “Eco-Innovation Indicators”, European Environment Agency.https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/115329898/2007_115_report.pdf, (Erişim:20.10.2020)
  3. Arundel, A. ve Kemp, R. (2009). Measuring Eco-Innovation. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series-017. Ashford, N.A. (1993), “Understanding Technological Responses of Industrial Firms to Environmental Problems: Implications for Government Policy”, (Ed. Fischer K. & Schot J.), Environmental Strategies For Industry: International Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications, Washington: Island Press:277-307.
  4. Atalla, T., ve Bean, P. (2017), “Determinants of Energy Productivity in 39 Countries: An Empirical Investigation. Energy Economics”, Vol.62: 217-229.
  5. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., ve Cooper, W. W. (1984), ”Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”,Management Science, Vol.30, No.9: 1078–1092.
  6. Basso L.C., Santos, D. F. L., Kimura, H. ve Braga, A. C. S. (2013), “Eco-Innovation in Brazil: The Creation of an Index”, SSRN: 2284336 Carrillo-Labella, R., Fort, F., ve Parras-Rosa, M. (2020), “Motives, Barriers and Expected Benefits of ISO 14001 in the Agri-food sector. Sustainability”, Vol.12 No.5: 1724. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2004), “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development: An Environmental Technologies Action Plan for the European Union”, COM(2004) 38 final Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., ve Rhodes, E. (1978), “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operational Research”, Vol.2: 429–444.
  7. Charter, M. ve Clark, T. (2007), ”Sustainable Innovation: Key Conclusions from Sustainable Innovation Conferences 2003–2006”, Organised by the Centre for Sustainable Design, The Centre for Sustainable Design, University College For The Creative Arts. Cooper, W. W., Li, S., Tone, K., Thrall, R. M., & Zhu, J. (2001), ”Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in DEA: Some Recent