## 5 Results
### Descriptive Results
On the contrary, extended product life (ECOEXT, 15.0%) and facilitated recycling of product after use (ECOREA, 15.2%) were the least considered impacts to address with innovation. Furthermore, among the 8651 firms responding to types of environmental innovation, 43.2%, 33.8%, 25.7, and 11.9% reported that the environmental benefits were due to process innovation, product innovation, organizational innovation, and marketing innovation, respectively. There were 62,030 firms that replied on whether they won a public contract, 17.52% of them claimed to provide goods or services to domestic public sectors, and 2.3% to foreign public sectors. Figure 3 (left) shows innovative enterprises introducing innovation with at least one kind of environmental benefit in each country. Portugal, Germany, and the Czech Repub \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Obs.** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev.** & **Min.** & **Max.** & **Variables** & **Obs.** & **Mean** & **Std. Dev.** & **Min.** & **Max.** \\ \hline ECOINNO & 26,339 & 0.47 & 0.50 & 0 & 1 & CO1 & 36,253 & 0.13 & 0.34 & 0 & 1 \\ PUBPRO & 62,005 & 0.18 & 0.38 & 0 & 1 & CO2 & 36,253 & 0.20 & 0.40 & 0 & 1 \\ RD & 56,799 & 0.10 & 1.47 & 0 & 98.23 & CO31 & 36,253 & 0.13 & 0.33 & 0 & 1 \\ EMPRD & 90,004 & 2.65 & 1.84 & 0 & 6 & CO32 & 36,253 & 0.046 & 0.21 & 0 & 1 \\ ENVMG & 51,792 & 0.20 & 0.40 & 0 & 1 & CO4 & 36,253 & 0.076 & 0.26 & 0 & 1 \\ CO & 36,253 & 0.36 & 0.48 & 0 & 1 & CO5 & 36,253 & 0.11 & 0.31 & 0 & 1 \\ COMPET & 87,087 & 0.097 & 0.30 & 0 & 1 & CO6 & 36,253 & 0.14 & 0.35 & 0 & 1 \\ SIZEI & 98,747 & 4.77 \(\times\) 10\({}^{6}\) & 6.58 \(\times\) 10\({}^{9}\) & 0 & 7.32 \(\times\) 10\({}^{10}\) & CO7 & 36,253 & 0.12 & 0.32 & 0 & 1 \\ SIZE2 & 91,253 & 1.47 & 0.23 & 1 & 4 & CO4 & 36,253 & 0.32 & 0.47 & 0 & 1 \\ FUND & 52,012 & 0.23 & 0.42 & 0 & 1 & COB & 36,253 & 0.15 & 0.36 & 0 & 1 \\ FUNDOC & 52,012 & 0.074 & 0.26 & 0 & 1 & COC & 36,253 & 0.037 & 0.19 & 0 & 1 \\ FUNDCMT & 52,013 & 0.16 & 0.36 & 0 & 1 & COD & 36,253 & 0.023 & 0.15 & 0 & 1 \\ FUNEU & 52,012 & 0.086 & 0.28 & 0 & 1 & COE & 36,253 & 0.032 & 0.18 & 0 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: authors’ elaboration. RALLAX and TURN14 are continuous variables. RALLAX is the ratio of innovation expenditure out of turnover. EMPRD and EMP14 are ordinary variables. EMPRD: 0 (%); 1 (1–4%); 2 (5–9%); 3 (10–24%); 4 (25–49%); 5 (50–74%); 6 (75–100%). EMP14: 1 (1–50); 2 (50–249); 3 (250–499); 4 (\(\geq\)500). Others are dummy variables. Please refer to Table 2 for variable descriptions.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive results. Figure 2: Percentage of enterprises answering “yes” or “no” for each eco-innovation and public contract participation, 2012–2014. Source: author’s elaboration. Please refer to Table 1 for the label meanings. lic were the top three countries where innovative firms accounted for the highest proportion out of all companies (above 60%), while, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Estonia possessed the least three ratios of innovative companies, lower or around 20%. Figure 3 (right) displays companies' participation in public procurement. The percentage of companies that had a contract to provide goods or services for domestic public sectors ranged from 7.7% to 34.1% in countries, that for foreign public sectors was 0.6-5.7%.