Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Drivers of Climate Change Innovations: Evidence from the Australian Wine Industry

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

Abstract

This study examined the drivers of climate change innovations and the effects of these innovations on firm outcomes in a sample of 203 firms in the South Australian wine cluster. The results of structural equation modeling analysis suggest that absorptive capacity has a direct effect on climate change innovations, and stimulates knowledge exchanges (KEs) between firms in the cluster. KEs between firms in the cluster in turn directly affect the climate change innovations. The findings suggest a perhaps counterintuitive interrelationship between firm- and cluster-level impacts, in which KEs between firms in the cluster play a partial mediating role in the innovation process. The study further finds that climate change innovations are related to firm performance (FP) and reductions in greenhouse gases (GHGs): mitigative innovations lead to greater GHG reductions while adaptive innovations impact on FP. Contributions of the findings are discussed, as are future research directions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The frequencies for each of the knowledge type exchanges were as follows: technical (79.1 percent), industry (77.6 percent), market (69.9 percent), organizational (69.4 percent), marketing (65.8 percent), and strategy (70.8 percent). Percentages include any level of knowledge exchange by type. They do not include “no exchange.”.

  2. 4-point scale where 1 = no exchange; 2 = very little exchange; 3 = moderate exchange; and 4 = very high exchange.

  3. 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

  4. Item eliminated based on refinement procedure.

  5. 7-point scale were 1 = not applicable; 2 = not considering; 3 = future consideration; 4 = assessing suitability; 5 = planning to implement; 6 = implementing now; and 7 = implemented.

  6. 7-point scale were 1 = not applicable; 2 = not considering; 3 = future consideration; 4 = assessing suitability; 5 = planning to implement; 6 = implementing now; and 7 = implemented.

  7. 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

  8. Item eliminated based on refinement procedure.

References

  • Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1–34). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin, T., Gilinsky, A, Jr, & Newton, S. K. (2012). Environmental strategy: Does it lead to competitive advantage in the US wine industry? International Journal of Wine Business Research, 24, 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1998). Agglomeration and the location of innovative capacity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14, 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aylward, D. (2007). Innovation and inertia: The emerging dislocation of imperatives within the Australia wine industry. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 3, 246–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, N., Taylor, C., & Strick, S. (2009). Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase. International Journal of Wine Research, 1, 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belliveau, S., Smit, B., & Bradshaw, B. (2006). Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: Evidence from the grape industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 16, 364–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besio, C., & Pronzini, A. (2014). Morality, ethics, and values outside and inside organizations: An example of the discourse on climate change. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. A., & Boal, K. B. (1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boal, K. B., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 515–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14, 177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camagni, R. (1991). Local milieu, uncertainty and innovation Networks: Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. In R. Camagni (Ed.), Innovation Networks (pp. 121–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capello, R. (1999). Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux: Learning versus collective learning processes. Regional Studies, 33, 353–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caple, S., Ballantyne, D., & Thyne, M. (2010). Diversity and convergence in regional know-how: The case of Central Otago Pinot Noir. Proceedings of the 5th International Academy of Wine Business Research Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

  • Carrell, S. (2012). Climate change ‘a moral issue’. Retrieved January 23, 2013, from http://dawn.com/2012/04/09/climate-change-a-moral-issue.

  • 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 

  • Cooper, B. (2007). Just-drinks’ review of 2007: Management briefing: Wine. Retrieved May 15, 2013, from http://www.just-drinks.com.

  • Delmas, M., Hoffmann, V. H., & Kuss, M. (2011). Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Business and Society, 50, 116–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulus, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and the sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science, 35, 1504–1511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D., & McMahon, K. (2012). Industry clusters and environmental performance. Paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA.

  • Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R. J., & Jiang, Y. (2012). Success factors of product innovation: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2005). Which resources matter to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25, 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2009). Addressing sustainability: A strategy development framework. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 1, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2011). To what extent is business responding to climate change? Evidence from a global wine producer. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J. (2014). Climate change response: Exploratory evidence from the Margaret River wine region of Australia. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23, 89–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath, J., & Oczkowski, E. (2013). Determinants of climate change innovation in the wine industry: A study of meso- and micro-level perspectives. Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference Proceedings, Hobart, Tasmania.

  • Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertler, M. S. (2004). Manufacturing culture: The institutional geography of industrial practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2007). The wine industry: Persistence of tacit knowledge or increased codification? Some implications for catching-up countries. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 3, 138–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2013). Clusters, networks and firms’ product success: An empirical study. Management Decision, 51, 1135–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P. C., & Hill, C. W. L. (1995). The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah, L., Roehrdanz, P. R., Ikegami, M., Shepard, A. V., Shaw, M. R., Tabor, G., Zhi, L., Marguet, P. A., & Hijmans, R. J. (2013). Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 110(17), 6907–6912.

  • Hoffmann, V. H., Sprengel, D. C., Ziegler, A., Kolb, M., & Abegg, B. (2009). Determinants of corporate adaptation to climate change in winter Tourism: An econometric analysis. Global Environmental Change, 19, 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, L., & Gibson, J. (1997). SMEs in the metal manufacturing, construction and contracting service sectors: Environmental awareness and action. Eco-Management and Auditing, 4, 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). From the Editors: Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 615–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, F. (2012). On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: Personal knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster. Regional Studies, 46, 1169–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A mediation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 140–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBISWorld. (2013). Industry insight. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.ibisworld.com.au/newsletter/news.aspx?id=fe63c5d1-925b-43f7-9168e703e93b45cc&mgs1=9289bOFFUp#aIndustry1.

  • IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1996). Economic analysis of research spillovers. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeswani, H. K., Wehrmeyer, W., & Mulugetta, Y. (2008). How warm is the corporate response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17, 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. V., White, M. A., Cooper, O. R., & Storchmann, K. (2005). Climate change and global wine quality. Climatic Change, 73, 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies, 33, 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou, E., Caniels, M. C. J., & Romjin, H. A. (2009). Local knowledge spillovers and development: An exploration of the software cluster in Uruguay. Industry and Innovation, 16, 247–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N, Rubel, H., Reeves, M., & Fuisz-Kehrbach, S.-K. (2013). Sustainability’s next frontier. Report by MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group.

  • Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “short-termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21, 825–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model. Research Policy, 39, 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepoutre, J., & Heene, A. (2006). Investigating the impact of firm size on small business responsibility: A critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45, 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., & Massini, S. (2003). Knowledge creation and organizational capabilities of innovating and imitating firms. In H. Tsoukas & N. Mylonopoulos (Eds.), Organizations as knowledge systems: Knowledge, learning and dynamic capabilities (pp. 209–237). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science, 22, 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, M. H. (1995). Multiple regression and correlation. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 19–64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34, 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N., & Rice, J. (2010). Analyzing emission intensive firms as regulatory stakeholders: A role for adaptable business strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-del-Río, J., & Céspedes-Lorente, J. (2014). Competitiveness and legitimation: The logic of companies going green in geographical clusters. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographic cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 921–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 709–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melnyk, S., Sroufe, R., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the impact of environmental management systems on corporate and environmental performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21, 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Krammer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of the theory and research (pp. 166–195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes and failures in network organizations. California Management Review, 34, 72–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Burgess, J., & Waterhouse, J. (2010). Proximity and knowledge sharing in clustered firms. International Journal of Globalization and Small Business, 4, 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murovec, N., & Prodan, I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29, 859–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, K. A., & Durham, W. H. (2012). Farm-scale adaptation and vulnerability to environmental stresses: Insights from winegrowing in Northern California. Global Environmental Change, 22, 483–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovation effort. Technovation, 25, 1141–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okereke, C. (2007). An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management: The UK FTSE 100. European Management Journal, 25, 475–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okereke, C., & Russel, D. (2010). Regulatory pressure and competitive dynamics: Carbon management strategies of UK energy-intensive companies. California Management Review, 52, 100–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petts, J., Herd, A., Gerrard, S., & Horne, C. (1999). The climate and culture of environmental compliance with SMEs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 14–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piergiovanni, R., Santarelli, E., & Vivarelli, M. (1997). From which source do small firms derive their innovation outputs? Some evidence from Italian industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 12, 243–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Reinhardt, F. L. (2007). A strategic approach to climate. Harvard Business Review, 85, 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouder, R., & St. John, C. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1192–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Dillard, J. (2010). Sustainability practices in food supply chains: How is wine different? Journal of Wine Research, 21, 35–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli, E., & Khessina, O. M. (2005). Regional industrial identity: Cluster configurations and economic development. Organization Science, 16, 344–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romar, E. J. (2009). Snapshots of the future: Darfur, Katrina, and maple sugar (climate change, the less well-off and business ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, S. A. (1997). Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development. European Planning Studies, 5, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. (2008). Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 800–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian, A.-L. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaper, M. (2002). Small firms and environmental management: Predictors of green purchasing in Western Australian pharmacies. International Small Business Journal, 20, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33, 1537–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. A. (2013). On explaining individual and corporate culpability in the global climate change era. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J.-C. (1989). Industry recipes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D., & Macy, M. M. (2001). In search of excellence: Fads, success stories, and adaptive emulation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29, 258–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, F. (1999). The gap between environmental attitudes and the environmental behavior of small firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 238–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, F. (2000). Small firm environmental ethics: How deep do they go? Business Ethics: A European Review, 9, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (2010). Networks of learning with the English wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 10, 685–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21, 931–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Weltzien Høivik, H., & Shankar, D. (2011). How can SMEs in a cluster respond to global demands for corporate responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, L. B., Whetton, P. H., & Barlow, E. W. R. (2007). Modelled impact of future climate change on the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 13, 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, L. B., Whetton, P. H., Bhend, J., Darbyshire, R., Briggs, P. R., & Barlow, E. W. R. (2012). Earlier wine-grape ripening driven by climatic warming and drying and management practices. Nature Climate Change, 2, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, L. B., Whiting, J., Watt, A., Hill, T., Wigg, F., Dunn, G., et al. (2010). Managing grapevines through severe heat: A survey of growers after the 2009 summer heatwave in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Wine Research, 21, 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinhofer, G., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2010). Mitigating climate change—How do corporate strategies differ? Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winetitles, (2012). The Australian and New Zealand wine industry directory (30th ed.). Prospect East, South Australia: Winetitles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M., Kirchgeorg, M., Griffiths, A., Linnenluecke, M. K., & Günther, E. (2011). Impacts from climate change on organizations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuyts, S., Colomb, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur-environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 449–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curtin Graduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, 78 Murray Street, Perth, WA, 6000, Western Australia

    Jeremy Galbreath

  2. Lincoln Business School, College of Social Science, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK

    David Charles

  3. School of Accounting and Finance, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2678, Australia

    Eddie Oczkowski

Authors
  1. Jeremy Galbreath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Charles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eddie Oczkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Galbreath.

Appendix: Variable Measurement

Appendix: Variable Measurement

Knowledge Exchange in the ClusterFootnote 2

  1. 1.

    Technical knowledge Insight on technologies, technical enhancements, vineyard, and/or winery techniques that relate to climate change.

  2. 2.

    Industry knowledge Know-how gained from peak industry bodies, specialist sources, or employees/peers on addressing industry requirements or government policies on climate change.

  3. 3.

    Market knowledge Knowledge about the size of opportunity for consumer markets sensitive to producers’ environmental credentials, retailer purchasing trends of organic and biodynamic wine, impacts of climate change on grape yield, quality, and price.

  4. 4.

    Organizational knowledge How your company has coordinated and supervised organizational resources and processes so that climate change impacts are addressed efficiently and effectively.

  5. 5.

    Marketing knowledge How your company specifically addresses customer preferences, marketing and branding, and new product development as they relate to any climate change requirements.

  6. 6.

    Strategy knowledge Insight on your company’s strategy, planned competitive moves, long-term business plans, and ability to manage change as related to climate change.

Absorptive CapacityFootnote 3

  1. 1.

    Our business experiences difficulties in implementing changes required to meet market demands (reverse coded).

  2. 2.

    Our business quickly recognizes the usefulness of new external knowledge to existing knowledge.

  3. 3.

    Our business regularly reconsiders technologies and adapts them accordant to new knowledge.

  4. 4.

    Practical experiences are rarely shared in the business (reverse coded).Footnote 4

  5. 5.

    We regularly interact with other wine producers in the South Australian wine cluster to acquire new knowledge.

  6. 6.

    Newly acquired knowledge is documented and stored for future reference.

  7. 7.

    Our business regularly considers the impact of changing market demands in terms of new products and/or modifications of existing ones.

  8. 8.

    We have difficulty in grasping opportunities for our business from new external knowledge (reverse coded).

  9. 9.

    We constantly consider how to better exploit knowledge.

  10. 10.

    Staff periodically meet to discuss the consequences of market trends to the business (see Footnote 4).

Mitigative InnovationsFootnote 5

  1. 1.

    Use of alternative energy sources (e.g., ‘green’ power, solar, wind) in the overall production of wine.

  2. 2.

    Use of alternative packaging to bottle wine (e.g., use of lightweight glass bottles, plastic PET bottles, recycled bottles).

  3. 3.

    Reduction of refrigeration loads (e.g., night-time air cooling, timing of loads).

  4. 4.

    Energy efficient technology in buildings (e.g., variable speed devices, computer-controlled lighting, use of thermal efficient materials).

  5. 5.

    Minimizing the use of agrichemicals (e.g., petiole analysis, optical weed spray controllers).

  6. 6.

    Alternative fuel use (e.g., biodiesel, ethanol) to power tractors, utility vehicles, machinery, etc.

  7. 7.

    Carbon sinks/sequestering (e.g., reduced tillage, use of compost, planting of shrubs, hedgerows, or trees).

Adaptive InnovationsFootnote 6

  1. 1.

    Sales of hotter climate varieties.

  2. 2.

    Water-saving techniques in the winery (e.g., water treatment and reuse).

  3. 3.

    Canopy management techniques that address potential increases in temperature (e.g., sprawl trellis systems, leaf-canopy shading, inter-row swards).

  4. 4.

    Establishing vineyards in locations predicted to be less vulnerable to climate risks.

  5. 5.

    Application of vineyard orientations that address potential temperature increases (e.g., east–west row orientation, vineyards planted at angles).

  6. 6.

    Water-saving techniques in the vineyard (deficit irrigation techniques, partial root zone drying).

  7. 7.

    Growing grape varieties that are better suited to hot temperatures.

Firm OutcomesFootnote 7

  1. 1.

    Our sales have improved.

  2. 2.

    We have served new markets in Australia.

  3. 3.

    Customer satisfaction and loyalty have improved.

  4. 4.

    Our company’s image and reputation have improved.

  5. 5.

    We have increased our access to international markets.Footnote 8

  6. 6.

    Product quality has improved (see Footnote 8).

  7. 7.

    We have successfully introduced new products.

  8. 8.

    Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced.

  9. 9.

    Some of our input costs have decreased (see Footnote 8).

  10. 10.

    Company profitability has increased.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galbreath, J., Charles, D. & Oczkowski, E. The Drivers of Climate Change Innovations: Evidence from the Australian Wine Industry. J Bus Ethics 135, 217–231 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2461-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2461-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation