Key drivers of green innovation in family firms: a machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to find the key drivers of green innovation in family firms by examining firm characteristics and geographical factors. It seeks to develop a conceptual framework that explains how internal resources and external environments influence environmental innovation practices in these businesses. Design/methodology/approach Using machine learning (ML) methods, this study develops a predictive model for green innovation in family firms, drawing on data from 3,289 family businesses across 27 EU Member States and 12 additional countries. The study integrates the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Location Theory to analyze the impact of firm-level resources and geographical contexts on green innovation outcomes. Findings The results show that both firm-specific resources, such as size, digital capabilities, years of operation and geographical factors, like country location, significantly influence the likelihood of family firms engaging in environmental innovation. Larger, technologically advanced firms are more likely to adopt sustainable practices, and geographic location is crucial due to different regulatory environments and market conditions. Research limitations/implications The findings reinforce the RBV by showing the importance of firm-specific resources in driving green innovation and extend Location Theory by emphasizing the role of geographic factors. The study enriches the theoretical understanding of family businesses by showing how noneconomic goals, such as socioemotional wealth and legacy preservation, influence environmental innovation strategies. Practical implications Family firms can leverage these findings to enhance their green innovation efforts by investing in technology, fostering sustainability and recognizing the impact of geographic factors. Aligning innovation strategies with both economic and noneconomic goals can help family businesses improve market positioning, comply with regulations and maintain a strong family legacy. Originality/value This research contributes a new perspective by integrating the RBV and Location Theory to explore green innovation in family firms, highlighting the interplay between internal resources and external environments. It also shows the effectiveness of machine learning methods in predicting environmental innovation, providing deeper insights than traditional statistical techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".