Search results

Interest in reverse innovation (RI) is increasing. According to the authors’ review, more than 350 reliable sources (scientific publications, academic books and working papers) examine or at least discuss the concept. As RI gains popularity among academic authors, some discrepancies have started to appear. This wealth of publications could impact prior advancements related to understanding of the phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to decrease fragmentation and focus on identifying and understanding RI.

A systematic review of RI was conducted. The review conformed to a rigorous set of core principles: it was systematic (organized according to a method designed to address the review questions), transparent (explicitly stated), reproducible and updatable, and synthesized (summarized the evidence relating to the review question).

This systematic review provides an improved theoretical and practical framework for the concept of RI. In terms of theory, the authors have demonstrated that the idea behind the concept is not entirely new. A consensus on the definition of RI is not reached in the literature, and descriptions in organizational theory contexts are sometimes misleading. The authors analyzed all the various definitions provided in the literature. From a practical point of view, the authors have explained the academic interest in RI in relation to organizational strategy, in particular the context in which strategies are adopted. The concept of RI has significant managerial implications, and the authors have proposed a conceptual framework to help managers understand and grasp the implications of RI. Finally, the authors have provided suggestions for future research on RI.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first exhaustive literature review on RI.

Ecolabels will undoubtedly play a central role in promoting more sustainable production methods and consumption behaviors. Although numerous recent studies have explored consumer awareness, interpretation and preferences toward ecolabels and certifications, little is yet known about how they perceive the regulatory schemes that underpin them.

Data were collected using a survey answered by a representative random sample of 1,032 Canadian consumers. Unconstrained partial-proportional odds models were used to perform statistical analyses.

The results suggest that consumers generally do not differentiate between regulatory schemes for organic, local and non-GMO products. The level of perceived control and strictness appears to be influenced by multiple variables involving risk perception, trust and motivations, although this influence varies across labels.

In addition to geographical specificities, this survey includes self-reported variables that might be subject to desirability biases and intention variables which do not necessarily predict behavior. Finally, this study does not consider interaction effects, since claims and ecolabels have not been studied in relation to specific products.

These misperceptions about ecolabels' regulatory schemes could be addressed through better communication about schemes and certifications, although the authors agree that information alone would not be enough to deal with the trust issue suggested by the results. Deliberative and behavioral approaches might be more efficient to embed consumers' values, perceptions and concerns related to food labeling and certifications into the policymaking process.

This work explores the role played by risk perceptions, trust, egoistic and altruistic motives, and the importance of third-party certifications in the consumer's understanding of ecolabels' regulatory schemes.