Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 2015

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.1886

Green Product Innovation: Where we are and Where

we are Going
Rosa Maria Dangelico*
Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Rome,
Italy

ABSTRACT
Green product innovation (GPI) is becoming more and more relevant for policy makers,
companies and society as a whole. As a result, over the last few years the number of studies
on GPI development has increased substantially, thus prompting the need to analyse and
synthesize the results of these studies. With this aim, this study reviews the body of knowl-
edge on the topic. In particular, a systematic review of the literature is conducted, guided by
three main research questions. Specifically, this paper identifies the antecedents, the out-
comes and the success factors for GPI development. 63 studies are included in the review.
Results show that many factors drive the development of GPI, both internal and external
to the firm. Among internal factors, the most important are the prospect of competitive ad-
vantage, cost reduction, market benefits, improved reputation and opportunities for innova-
tion. Among external factors, the most important are environmental regulations – current
and/or expected – and market demand. In terms of outcomes, this study provides evidence
that the most relevant ones are cost savings, achievement of competitive advantage, in-
creased market share, increased sales, increased turnover, higher profits, better reputation,
increased exports and higher productivity. Finally, this study highlights that many factors can
influence the successful development of GPI, such as top management commitment, build-
ing networks of collaborations as well as enhancing knowledge flows, both within and out-
side the firm, cross-functional integration and development of resources and capabilities.
This study provides important implications for companies, policy makers and scholars.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Received 11 June 2014; revised 20 November 2014; accepted 9 December 2014

Keywords: green product; green innovation; systematic review; sustainable development

Introduction

S
INCE THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, HELD IN STOCKHOLM IN 1972, GLOBAL ENVI-
ronmental problems have been discussed at policy level and environmental sustainability has entered the
political agenda of most countries. Within this context, companies can play a key role. One way in which
companies can contribute to the achievement of environmental sustainability objectives is the development

*Correspondence to: Rosa Maria Dangelico, Sapienza University of Rome, Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering, Rome,
Italy. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
 R. M. Dangelico

of green products. Green products, defined as products that ’use less resources, have lower impacts and risks to the
environment and prevent waste generation already at the conception stage’ (Commission of the European Commu-
nities, 2001, p. 3), have been recognized as the engine of a ’new growth paradigm and a higher quality of life
through wealth creation and competitiveness’ (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, p. 3).
Despite the fact that environmental issues had been relegated to minor roles in the innovation research agenda
for many years, sustainability has now been acknowledged as a key driver of innovation (Nidumolu et al., 2009) and
green product innovation (GPI) research has rapidly grown over the last few years.
This prompts the need to analyse and synthesize results of the many studies that have been conducted over the
years. A first important work in this direction is that by Baumann et al. (2002), who reviewed 650 articles (ranging
from 1970 to 1999) dealing with green product development from three different disciplines, namely engineering,
management and policy studies. More recently, Pereira and Vence (2012) conducted a review of the literature on the
determinants of eco-innovation (without a specific focus on product innovation), analysing 14 studies from 2006 to
2011. Adams et al. (2012), on behalf of the Network for Business Sustainability, conducted a broad systematic review
on so called sustainability-oriented innovation, analysing 100 articles from 1992 to 2012. However, their effort was
directed towards innovation in general, without a specific focus on product innovation. de Medeiros et al. (2014) con-
ducted a systematic review of the literature, within 32 selected journals, and analysed 67 studies to identify factors
and variables driving market success of environmentally sustainable product innovation. However, the combina-
tions of keywords used appear to be limited, leaving outside the search domain important keywords, such as ’green
product’, ’green product innovation’ or ’eco-innovation’.
Despite these relevant attempts to analyse and synthesize past studies on green innovation, up-to-date and com-
plete review studies, with a specific focus on green product innovation, simultaneously addressing antecedents, out-
comes and success factors for GPI development, are missing so far. The aim of the paper is to provide a complete
picture of the research that has been conducted on GPI, to provide future research directions on the topic and to
encourage GPI development by giving clear suggestions to policy makers and to companies in terms of their inno-
vation strategies.
With this aim, a systematic review of the relevant body of knowledge on GPI will be conducted, guided by three
main research questions.
• RQ1. What are the antecedents of GPI development?
• RQ2. What are the outcomes of GPI development?
• RQ3. What are the success factors for GPI development?
The focus will be on empirical studies dealing with manufacturing industries, published in scientific peer-
reviewed journals, in English, adopting a managerial/organizational perspective (with a focus within the company).
No time limits were established. The upper limit was determined by the time when the search was performed, i.e.
May 2013.
In Figure 1, the theoretical framework of this study is represented. In particular, the central box represents GPI

Figure 1. Theoretical framework of the study. Each arrow represents the positioning of one of the three research questions

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

development, with the left arrow representing its antecedents (inputs), the right arrow the outcomes (outputs) and,
finally, the bottom arrow the success factors. Each arrow thus represents one of the three research questions.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, methodological details are provided. Then, results are pre-
sented in terms of characteristics, objectives and theories of studies included in the systematic review. After that,
results related to the research questions are reported and then analysed through the resource-based view lens. Fi-
nally, implications and future research directions are provided.

Methodology
This study uses the systematic review methodology. A systematic review tries to collect all empirical evidence fitting
previously identified eligibility criteria, with the aim to answer specific research questions. Systematic methods are
used to collect and analyse data to provide reliable results (Higgins and Green, 2011).

Data Collection
Studies to be included in the review were identified by searching the following databases: EBSCO, Scopus and Web
of Science. Descriptions of these databases and of search options are provided in Table 1.
All databases were searched using combinations of selected keywords. In Table 2, keyword combinations are re-
ported along rows while databases are reported in the columns. Thus, in each table cell there is the number of re-
sults obtained for each keyword combination within each database. In the last row, the total numbers of retrieved
papers in each database and across databases are reported.

Database Description Search options

EBSCO Business Source Complete is a wide database with • Search in: TI, title; KW, author
(Business content from peer-reviewed, business-related journals. supplied keywords; AB, abstract or
Source Complete) Besides full text, it includes indexing and abstracts for author-supplied abstract
the most important scholarly business journals, • Limit to: peer-reviewed
dating back as far as 1886. Searchable cited academic publications
references are provided for more than 1300 • Document type: article –
journals. academic publication peer reviewed
• Source type: academic journal
• Data range: all years to May 2013
• Language: English
Scopus Scopus is the world’s largest abstract and citation • Search in: article title, abstract,
database of peer-reviewed literature. It contains keywords
over 20 500 titles from 5000 publishers worldwide • Document type: article
and 49 million records. • Source type: journal
• Subject area: social science
and humanities
• Data range: all years to May 2013
• Language: English
Web of Web of Science is a research platform to find, analyse, and • Search in: topic
Science (WoS) share information in the sciences, social sciences, arts and • Document type: article
humanities. It uses cited reference search to track prior • Citation databases: all
research and monitor current developments, including 2.6 except ’Conference Proceedings’
million records and backfiles since 1898. • Data range: all years to May 2013
• Language: English

Table 1. Description of searched databases and search options

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

a
Keyword combinations Scopus EBSCO WoS Scopus + EBSCO + WoS

• ’green product’ 203 89 145

• ’green new product’ 6 4 2
• ’sustainable product’ 121 69 99
• ’sustainable new product’ 2 0 1
• ’environmental product’ 73 62 92
• ’environmental new product’ 3 4 2
• ’environmentally friendly product’ 68 5 19
• ’environmentally friendly new product’ 0 0 0
• ’eco-friendly product’ 23 4 6
• ’eco-friendly new product’ 0 0 0
• ’eco-product’ 6 2 6
• ’eco new product’ 0 0 0
• ’environmental innovation’ AND product 45 12 33
• ’eco-innovation’ AND product 33 8 40
• ’green innovation’ AND product 15 5 16
• ’sustainable innovation’ AND product 17 9 13
• ’eco-friendly innovation’ AND product 0 0 0
• ’environmentally friendly innovation’ AND product 1 1 2
Total 616 274 476 1366

Table 2. Keywords and keyword combinations employed in the literature search and number of results for each database
a
Due to the peculiarities of search options in EBSCO, where there is an AND between two keywords (X AND Y), I searched X in Title
AND Y in Abstract + X in Title AND Y in Keywords.

Study Selection
The study selection process took place in several steps. First, all duplicate articles, within and across databases, were
discarded. Then, the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were reviewed for a first analysis of their relevance to
the research questions and the non-relevant articles were excluded. After this process, 138 potentially relevant arti-
cles were retained and included in the full-text search. For eight of them full text was not available. For the others the
full text was reviewed for an in-depth analysis of relevance. 72 of the reviewed studies were evaluated as non-relevant
after the full-text analysis, leading us to retain 58 relevant studies. Further, the bibliography of these studies was
analysed to check for other articles potentially relevant to the research questions and this led to the identification
of five relevant articles. At the end of the process, 63 articles were included in the systematic review.
During the selection process, non-relevant articles were identified as follows. First of all, all studies in which the
searched terms had a meaning different from the intended one (e.g., many chemistry studies use the term ’green
product’ to mean a product with a green colour) were discarded. Then, articles that did not adopt a
managerial/organizational perspective (with a focus within the company) were discarded. Thus, studies focusing only
on regulatory issues, such as studies dealing with the effect of the introduction of specific policies, taxes and regulations
on green product innovation, or adopting a consumer behaviour/marketing perspective, were excluded. Also articles
dealing with specific technologies, methods or tools (such as life cycle assessment), eco-design, sustainability or corpo-
rate social responsibility in general, or exclusively focusing on supply chain management, were discarded. Further,
studies without an empirical basis were excluded. Finally, due to the review focus on green innovation in manufacturing
industries, studies conducted within service sectors, such as studies on green hotels or green banking, were discarded.

Data Extraction
For each study, data from the full text were extracted. These data included author(s), publication name, year of pub-
lication, title, type of study (qualitative, quantitative or hybrid), data collection methodology (for quantitative studies),
case study methodology type – single versus multiple (for qualitative studies), sample size, country/countries where

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Publication name Number of articles

Business Strategy and the Environment 8

Journal of Cleaner Production 5
Ecological Economics 5
Journal of Business Ethics 4
European Environment 3
International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 3
Research Policy 3
European Journal of Innovation Management 2
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2
Management Decision 2
Other journals (one article per journal) 26
Total 63

Table 3. Name of publications where studies included in the review were published, with number of articles

the study was conducted, adopted theory, this study’s research question(s) that have been addressed and main re-
sults relating to this study’s research question(s).

Analysis of Results
Selected Studies’ Characteristics
Table 3 reports the names of the publications where the reviewed studies have been published. The journal where
most studies included in the review have been published is Business Strategy and the Environment, followed by Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, Ecological Economics and Journal of Business Ethics.
Figure 2 depicts the evolution of the number of studies over time. The first study included in the review dates
back to 1991. Since then, there has been a fluctuating, but overall growing, trend of the number of studies published
each year, with a quite rapid increase over the past eight years.
Figure 3 reports the partitioning of studies based on study type, distinguished into qualitative, quantitative or hy-
brid (employing both qualitative and quantitative methods). 32 studies (corresponding to 51%) are quantitative in
nature and 28 (corresponding to 44%) are qualitative, whereas three (corresponding to 5%) are hybrid.
In terms of data collection methodology in quantitative studies, 30 studies (corresponding to 94%) used surveys,
whereas two of them (corresponding to 6%) used content analysis of company reports. With regard to sample size
in quantitative studies, the smallest one is 68, whereas the largest one is 5476.

Figure 2. Distribution of articles over the years

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

Figure 3. Number and percentage of studies using different types of methodology

Most qualitative studies (18, corresponding to 64%) adopted a multiple case study methodology (with number of
cases quite variable, with a maximum of 26 cases), whereas ten of them (corresponding to 36%) adopted a single
case study methodology.
With regard to countries where studies have been conducted, as shown in Figure 4, most studies (51, correspond-
ing to 81%) were conducted in a single country, seven studies (corresponding to 11%) were conducted in two coun-
tries and five studies (corresponding to 8%) were conducted in three or more countries.
As shown in Figure 5, eight of the multi-country studies, (corresponding to 13% of the total number of studies)
were conducted in countries belonging to the same continent, whereas four of them (corresponding to 6% of the
total number of studies) were conducted in countries belonging to different continents.
Table 4 reports the countries where the reviewed studies have been conducted.1 As a general result, most studies
have been conducted in European countries and the top three most represented countries are Germany, UK, and the
Netherlands. Further, there is a scant presence of studies in developing countries.

Objectives of the Studies

With regard to the objectives of the studies included in the review, their relevance to this study’s research questions
was analysed. Table 5 shows that the most addressed research question is that related to antecedents of GPI (with 38
studies addressing it), followed by success factors for GPI (with 33 studies addressing it) and outcomes of GPI (with
18 studies addressing it).
With regard to the number of this study’s research questions addressed, Table 6 shows that most studies (40)
address just one research question, whereas 20 simultaneously address two research questions and only three stud-
ies simultaneously address the three research questions.

Theories Used
With regard to theories adopted, few studies explicitly rely on established organizational and managerial theories,
such as the stakeholder theory (Guoyou et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2009; Polonsky and Ottman, 1998), the
resource-based view (RBV) (Kammerer, 2009; Ziegler and Seijas Nogareda, 2009), the entrepreneurship theory
(Larson, 2000; Stafford et al., 2000), the innovation theory (e.g. Horbach, 2008; Ray and Ray, 2010; Rennings
and Rammer, 2009) and the social network theory (Conway and Steward, 1998). Most studies refer to literature

1
In this analysis, two studies (Albino et al., 2009, 2012) have not been included, since they refer to companies’ geographical area without spec-
ifying countries.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Figure 4. Studies divided into single versus multi-country, which on turn are distinguished into two and three or more countries’ studies

Figure 5. Studies divided into single versus multi-country, which on turn are distinguished into single-continent and multi-conti-
nent studies

streams that could be general, such as new product development (e.g. Driessen et al., 2013; Kivimaa, 2008;
Magnusson and Berggren, 2001), R&D (Foster and Green, 2000; Noci and Verganti, 1999), supply chain manage-
ment (de Carvalho and Barbieri, 2012; Lee and Kim, 2011, 2012), or specific to the environmental context, such as
corporate environmental management (e.g. Chang, 2011; Chen, 2008), corporate sustainability (e.g. Bos-Brouwers,
2010), green product development (e.g. Dangelico and Pujari, 2010) and green marketing (Langerak et al., 1998;
Leonidou et al., 2013).

Antecedents of GPI
Antecedents of GPI can be distinguished into antecedents internal to the firm, which also include firm characteris-
tics, and antecedents external to the firm.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

Country Total number of studies (single + multi-country)

Germany 16
UK 11
The Netherlands 10
Taiwan 7
USA 6
Sweden 4
Canada 4
Italy 3
China 3
Belgium 3
Korea 2
Australia 2
France 2
Hungary 2
Norway 2
Switzerland 2
Finland 2
India 1
Japan 1
Austria 1
Brazil 1
Vietnam 1
South Africa 1
New Zealand 1

Table 4. Number of studies with a focus on different countries

Research question Number of studies addressing each research question

Antecedents of GPI 38
Outcomes of GPI 18
Success factors for GPI 33

Table 5. Number of studies addressing each research question

Number of addressed research questions Number of studies

1 40
2 20
3 3
Total 63

Table 6. Number of studies addressing one, two or three research questions

Internal
Among internal antecedents, there are the prospect of competitive advantage (Lee and Kim, 2011; Liu et al., 2011;
Pujari and Wright, 1999; Tötzer and Ömer-Rieder, 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a), cost reduction
(for example, through energy savings) (Horbach et al., 2012; Keskin et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2011; Tötzer and Ömer-
Rieder, 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008b), market benefits (such as potential market opportunities,
opening of new markets, increase of market share) (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Green et al., 1994; Keskin et al.,
2013; Pujari and Wright, 1999; Rennings et al., 2006; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a; van Hemel and

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Cramer, 2002) and profits (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010). Important antecedents of GPI development are also the
expectation of improvement of corporate reputation and image (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Pujari and Wright,
1999; Rennings et al., 2006) as well as opportunities to create innovations and increase the quality of products
(Keskin et al., 2013; Rennings et al., 2006; van Hemel and Cramer, 2002).
Other internal antecedents are linked to values and culture, such as entrepreneurs’ personal values, ecological
responsibility (deriving from company concerns for social obligations and values), corporate environmental ethics
and culture (Chang, 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Keskin et al., 2013; Pujari and Wright,
1999). The existence of specific policies and strategies also drives GPI development. These include green company
policies (in terms of the level of commitment that a firm demonstrates to initiatives limiting its environmental im-
pact), environmental product policies (in terms of corporate environmental policies explicitly addressing environ-
mental issues in new product development decisions) and environmental strategic approaches (such as green
management, material eco-efficiency, energy efficiency and supply chain management) (Albino et al., 2009, 2012;
Driessen et al., 2013; Green et al., 1994; Pujari et al., 2004).
Further, pressures exerted by internal stakeholders (such as top management, shareholders, managers and em-
ployees) (Blomquist and Sandström, 2004; Chen et al., 2012; Green et al., 1994; Huang et al., 2009; Pujari et al.,
2004; Pujari and Wright, 1999) also positively impact on GPI development.
Green capabilities, in terms of ’a firm’s abilities to integrate, coordinate, build, and reconfigure its competences
and resources to accomplish environmental management and environmental innovations’ (Chen et al., 2012, p. 375),
technological capabilities (in terms of R&D activities and high qualification of employees) and green design activi-
ties (Horbach, 2008; Kammerer, 2009; Rehfeld et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2012) are also important antecedents of GPI.
Other antecedents are environmental leadership (conceived as the process through which an individual involves
other people in the achievement of environmental goals) (Chen et al., 2012) and the search for a technological lead
(Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008b).
Other factors stimulating GPI are uncertainty avoidance and risk aversion (Leonidou et al., 2013; Wagner, 2009)
as well as marketing orientation, eco-labelling activities, informing consumers about the environmental quality of
products, conducting market research (Tsai et al., 2012; Wagner, 2008, 2009) and scrutinizing customers and com-
petitors (Driessen et al., 2013).
Finally, creating environmental awareness (Keskin et al., 2013) and establishing a long-term, strategic partnership
with a focal company or a buying company in the supply chain (Lee and Kim, 2011) favour the development of GPI.
Some studies also highlight the influence of firm characteristics on GPI. The existence of slack resources posi-
tively affects GPI development (Leonidou et al., 2013). With regard to the influence of the existence of an environ-
mental management system (EMS) within the company, there are contrasting results. Some studies highlight
that the existence of an EMS (Leenders and Chandra, 2013; Rehfeld et al., 2007), environmental management tools
(Horbach, 2008), and the learning processes activated by the EMS (Rennings et al., 2006) positively impact on GPI
development, whereas other studies find that EMS is not significant (Rennings et al., 2006; Wagner, 2008, 2009).
There are contrasting results also with regard to firm international characteristics and size. Cainelli et al. (2011) high-
light that foreign ownership has a positive influence on GPI, whereas Guoyou et al. (2013) find that foreign owner-
ship has a significant effect only on process innovation. Leonidou et al. (2013) and Rehfeld et al. (2007) highlight that
firm size has a positive impact on GPI, whereas Wagner (2007, 2008, 2009) and Horbach (2008) find that firm size
is not significant.

External
With regard to antecedents external to the firm, the one most often mentioned is represented by environmental reg-
ulations and policies – current and/or expected (Blomquist and Sandström, 2004; Chen et al., 2012; Conway and
Steward, 1998; Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Foster and Green, 2000; Green et al., 1994; Horbach et al., 2012;
Huang et al., 2009; Kammerer, 2009; Kivimaa, 2007; Langerak et al., 1998; Lee and Kim, 2011; Leenders and
Chandra, 2013; Liu et al., 2011; Noci and Verganti, 1999; Pujari and Wright, 1999; Rehfeld et al., 2007; Tötzer
and Ömer-Rieder, 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a; van Hemel and Cramer, 2002; Visser et al.,
2008), followed by market demand and market stakeholder pressures (Chen et al., 2012; Conway and Steward,
1998; Foster and Green, 2000; Green et al., 1994; Horbach et al., 2012; Huang et al., 2009; Kivimaa, 2007;

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

Langerak et al., 1998; Lin et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2011; Pujari and Wright, 1999; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer,
2008a; Tsai et al., 2012; van Hemel and Cramer, 2002; Visser et al., 2008).
Other external drivers are technological developments derived from R&D activities conducted outside the com-
pany (Conway and Steward, 1998; Kivimaa, 2007) as well as the political and cultural environment (in terms of en-
vironmental awareness and concern of public bodies, government and the general public) (Conway and Steward,
1998; Noci and Verganti, 1999), and media attention on the environmental impact of company activities (Pujari
and Wright, 1999; Visser et al., 2008). A contrasting result is that obtained by Guoyou et al. (2013), finding that com-
munity and regulatory stakeholder pressures have no effect on GPI.
Further, even networking activities positively influence GPI development. In particular, these are discussions in
professional networks, industrial sector initiatives (van Hemel and Cramer, 2002; Visser et al., 2008), cooperation
with environmentally concerned stakeholders (Cainelli et al., 2011) and networking with other firms and institutions
(Wagner, 2007).
Finally, competitive intensity and rival green products appearing (Conway and Steward, 1998; Green et al., 1994;
Langerak et al., 1998) as well as customer pressures (Guoyou et al., 2013; Pujari and Wright, 1999) and the potential
for customer benefit (Kammerer, 2009) also stimulate GPI.

Outcomes of GPI
Market, economic and financial outcomes are the most often mentioned outcomes of GPI development. These in-
clude cost savings (Langerak et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2011; Rennings and Rammer, 2009, 2011; Triebswetter and
Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), achievement of competitive advantage (Chang, 2011; Chen et al., 2006; Triebswetter
and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), increased market share (Leonidou et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2011;
Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), increased sales (Leenders and Chandra, 2013; Leonidou et al.,
2013; Lin et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2011), increased turnover (Horbach et al., 2012; Langerak et al., 1998; Triebswetter
and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), higher profits (Cainelli et al., 2011; Leenders and Chandra, 2013; Lin et al.,
2013), higher ROI (Leenders and Chandra, 2013) and better reputation (Chen, 2008; Driessen et al., 2013; Lin
et al., 2013).
Other outcomes include increased exports (Liu et al., 2011; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b) and
higher productivity (Cainelli et al., 2011; Leenders and Chandra, 2013; Rennings and Rammer, 2009, 2011). Con-
trasting results are those by Driessen et al. (2013) finding that GPI is associated with low financial performance,
and those by Liu et al. (2011) highlighting that integrated environmental innovations (process innovation and prod-
uct innovation) lead to an increase in costs. Further, Driessen et al. (2013) find that GPI is associated with low cus-
tomer performance, in terms of sales and market share.
Despite being partially included in broader market performance, in terms of sales and market share, customer
outcomes of GPI development are highlighted to be relevant in the literature. This dimension of performance in-
cludes the acquisition of new customers (Liu et al., 2011; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), better cus-
tomer satisfaction (Leonidou et al., 2013) and increased willingness to pay a premium price (Langerak et al., 1998).
Another category of outcomes refers to innovation performance. This includes the development of patents (Liu
et al., 2011; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b), the development of new products (Rennings and
Rammer, 2009, 2011) and better product quality (Wong, 2012).
Finally, other outcomes are Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) certification (Ziegler and Seijas
Nogareda, 2009), employment growth, higher skill level of employees and long term employment (Cainelli et al.,
2011; Liu et al., 2011; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008a, 2008b).

Success Factors for GPI

First, adapting the classification proposed by Sandström and Tingström (2008), success factors for GPI are divided
into factors relating to management, relationships, resources and capabilities, and development process. Then, the
results are analysed through the RBV lens.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Management
With regard to the management category, the literature highlights that top management and company commit-
ment (Conway and Steward, 1998; Curwen et al., 2013; Huang and Wu, 2010; Pujari et al., 2003; Sandström
and Tingström, 2008), considering environmental aspects from the start, and having environmental champions
(Sandström and Tingström, 2008) are key success factors for GPI development. Further, having teams that coor-
dinate the environmental management within the company (Pujari and Wright, 1996), formalizing environmen-
tal policies and targets for products (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Pujari and Wright, 1996) and widening the
focus of a GPI strategy to the whole organization (Blomquist and Sandström, 2004) also represent important suc-
cess factors.

Relationships
In contrast to what is proposed by Sandström and Tingström (2008), the category ’consumer relationship’ has been
enlarged to include any type of relationship. In turn, relationships have been distinguished into collaborations and
knowledge flows (as proposed by Dangelico et al., 2013).2
Collaborations with different types of actor have been identified as success factors for GPI. These include collab-
orations with suppliers (Bos-Brouwers, 2010; de Carvalho and Barbieri, 2012; Green et al., 1994; Lee and Kim, 2011;
Pujari, 2006; Pujari et al., 2003; Rennings and Rammer, 2009; Roy and Whelan, 1992; Sandström and Tingström,
2008), collaborations with customers (Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Green et al., 1994; Rennings and Rammer, 2009; Roy
and Whelan, 1992; Sandström and Tingström, 2008), collaborations with environmental groups and NGOs
(Glasbergen and Groenenberg, 2001; Stafford et al., 2000; Westley and Vredenburg, 1991), collaborations with
knowledge institutions and local government (Bos-Brouwers, 2010), collaborations within the company’s own enter-
prise group (Rennings and Rammer, 2009) and collaborations with business partners and research partners (Tötzer
and Ömer-Rieder, 2007). Finally, cultivation and leadership of a network of players (Larson, 2000), external valida-
tion of the opportunity (i.e. presenting product ideas to a professional audience for feedback) and network orienta-
tion (Keskin et al., 2013) have been highlighted as success factors.
Knowledge flows from and towards external actors have also been identified as success factors for GPI develop-
ment. In particular, these include extensive communication between the firm and its stakeholders (customers, sup-
pliers, employees, stockholders, special interest groups and top management) (Polonsky and Ottman, 1998), search
for innovation impulses from a variety of knowledge sources (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Rennings and Rammer,
2009), exploitation of the local knowledge base and creation of local innovation clusters (Ray and Ray, 2010), crea-
tion of knowledge networks (Noci and Verganti, 1999) and educating users (in terms of passing them environmen-
tal information) (Foster and Green, 2000).

Development Process
There is a well-grounded amount of literature that looks at new product development as a process, analyses its dif-
ferent steps and identifies its success factors (e.g. Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1986, 1987, 1995).
Adopting this perspective, several of the reviewed studies identify the characteristics of the development process
that are key for a successful GPI development. The one most often mentioned in the literature relates to putting in
place cross-functional teams, cross-functional integration and coordination (Conway and Steward, 1998; Curwen
et al., 2013; Huang and Wu, 2010; Kivimaa, 2008; Pujari, 2006; Pujari et al., 2003; Sandström and Tingström,
2008), followed by the implementation of eco-design and life cycle assessment practices (Dangelico and Pujari,
2010; Kivimaa, 2008; Pujari, 2006; Pujari et al., 2003; Sandström and Tingström, 2008). Other important charac-
teristics of the development process are intense communication and knowledge flows, both within the company and
with external actors (Curwen et al., 2013; Dangelico and Pujari, 2010; Magnusson and Berggren, 2001), market
focus/orientation (in particular, establishing specific target market for greener products and assessing market
needs) (Keskin et al., 2013; Pujari, 2006), effective groundwork (in terms of screening of product ideas, project def-
inition and business analysis) (Pujari et al., 2003), up-front testing (Magnusson and Berggren, 2001) and manage-
ment providing positive feedbacks and encouragement to employees (Sandström and Tingström, 2008; Verhulst

2
Although relevant to this review, the study of Dangelico et al. (2013) has not been included, since at the time of data collection it had not yet been
published.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

and Boks, 2012). Further issues emerging as relevant are setting clear environmental targets, criteria and practices
(Kivimaa, 2008; Magnusson and Berggren, 2001; Sandström and Tingström, 2008), conducting environmental
benchmarking (Huang and Wu, 2010; Pujari et al., 2003) and involving individuals directly in the development pro-
ject (Conway and Steward, 1998).

Resources and Capabilities

In contrast to what was proposed by Sandström and Tingström (2008), the category ’competence’ has been enlarged
and named ’resources and capabilities’. According to the RBV, firms can be conceived as a combination of re-
sources. Resources can be defined as ’stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the firm’ whereas
capabilities refer to ’a firm’s capacity to deploy resources usually in combination, using organizational processes,
to effect a desired end’ (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993, p. 35). When resources are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable
and non-substitutable, they can be a source of sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Thus, managers’
challenge is to identify, enhance, protect and exploit key resources and capabilities (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993).
This study’s results identified key firm resources and capabilities for the success of GPI. These include internal
R&D (in terms of increased investments and reorganization of aims) (Green et al., 1994; Horbach et al., 2012;
Huang and Wu, 2010; Rennings and Rammer, 2009), human resources (in terms of education and training of per-
sonnel as well as presence of environmental specialists) (Keskin et al., 2013; Kivimaa, 2008; Sandström and
Tingström, 2008), innovative capacity of the firm and innovation management skills (Driessen et al., 2013; Horbach
et al., 2012; Keskin et al., 2013).
Other success factors in this category include the capability to develop new materials/components (Green et al.,
1994), green core competencies (in terms of environmental capabilities, technologies or know-how that are valuable,
rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable) (Chen, 2008), the presence of intelligence systems (to scan for op-
portunities and threats, key competencies and key technologies) (Noci and Verganti, 1999) and a company green
image, a key resource for firms (Noci and Verganti, 1999).

Analysis of Results through the RBV Theoretical Lens

Even though most authors of the reviewed studies do not rely on established organizational and managerial theo-
ries, the results on the success factors for GPI development, beside those explicitly included in the sub-group ’re-
sources and capabilities’, can be explained through the theoretical lens of the RBV.
Looking at the new product development process, Verona (1999) identified four categories of capabilities relevant
for new product development: technological, external integrative, internal integrative and marketing capabilities.
In the following, I will analyse the identified success factors for GPI development in terms of capabilities, clas-
sifying them along these four categories. A synthesis of this analysis is reported in Figure 6.
Technological capabilities include a firm’s scientific expertise (R&D), manufacturing routines, design and techno-
logical complementarities (Verona, 1999). In the GPI development domain, these capabilities include the environ-
mental R&D capability (the capability to develop and manage environmental technologies), the innovation capability
(e.g. the capability to develop new materials with reduced environmental impact), the capability to scan for key green
competencies and technologies and the capability to conduct eco-design and life cycle assessment studies.
External integrative capabilities allow the firm to absorb knowledge from external sources (Verona, 1999). As
emerged from the review, in the GPI domain, these capabilities include the capability to establish and manage in-
tense communication and knowledge flows with a variety of external actors and the capability to establish and man-
age collaborations with a variety of external actors. As for conventional new product development, external actors
include customers, suppliers, employees, stockholders, special interest groups, research institutions and local gov-
ernment. Additional external actors relevant for GPI development are environmental NGOs. Another capability to
be included into this category is the capability of effective recruitment of people with environmental skills and
expertise.
Internal integrative capabilities allow the firm to organize the use of produced and absorbed technological and mar-
keting knowledge (Verona, 1999). Similarly to what happens for conventional new product development, this cate-
gory includes the capability to foster cross-functional integration, coordination and knowledge flows among product
development team members and among different functional areas of the firm. However, in the GPI development
domain, team members should include environmental specialists, and the integration of other functional areas with

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Figure 6. An RBV model of GPI development success factors. Adapted from Verona (1999) to the GPI context, based on this study
result

those devoted to environmental issues (such as environmental affairs or environment, health and safety depart-
ments) emerged as being particularly relevant. Further, this category includes the capability to provide effective en-
vironmental education and training as well as to provide positive feedbacks and encouragement to employees.
Another key capability is the development of a corporate culture that encourages environmental commitment
throughout the company. This result can be achieved through different means, including setting clear environmen-
tal targets, criteria and practices.
Marketing capabilities refer to the screening, use and dissemination of market information (Verona, 1999). In the
GPI development domain, this category includes market focus/orientation (in particular, the capability to establish a
specific target market for green products and assessing market needs), the capability to develop and manage a good
company green image and the capability to scan for opportunities and threats offered by the green market. This cat-
egory also includes the capability to conduct environmental benchmarking.
This analysis highlights the success factors for GPI development in terms of capabilities. Even though many of
them are in common with conventional new product development, it emerges that some distinctive capabilities are
required for successful GPI development, such as the capability to conduct eco-design and life cycle assessment
studies, the development of a company culture that fosters environmental commitment, and knowledge exchange
and collaboration with environmental NGOs.

Implications and Future Research Directions

This study provides in-depth analysis and synthesis of the body of knowledge so far produced in the field of GPI. As
such, it has important implications for companies, for policy makers and for scholars as well.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

With regard to companies aiming at successfully developing GPI, this study highlights what drives a company to
develop green products, what outcomes a company should expect from developing them and what the success fac-
tors of such a development are, thus providing useful directions for their innovation strategies.
In terms of antecedents, this study highlights that there are many factors driving the development of GPI, both
internal and external to the firm. Among internal factors, the most important are the prospect of competitive advan-
tage, cost reduction and market benefits and the expectation of improvement of reputation and of opportunities for
innovation as well. Thus, top management should be kept informed about the potential benefits of developing GPI
and create commitment to develop GPI throughout the company.
Among external factors, the most important are environmental regulations – current and/or expected – followed
by market demand and market stakeholder pressure. A little less relevant seems to be technology. Networking activ-
ities also proved to positively influence GPI development. The key role of environmental regulations as an anteced-
ent of GPI should make companies see them as an opportunity to innovate rather than as a constraint. In particular,
environmental regulations represent an incentive for firms to make their product offerings greener and greener.
This can result in the development of incremental innovations and/or of radical innovations whose greenness
may go far beyond that fixed by regulations. Current or expected environmental regulations may also represent
an opportunity for new businesses to be created. Market demand and market stakeholder pressure, on the other
hand, also exert an important influence on GPI development. This means that companies should give much atten-
tion to the market voice in order to set their innovation strategies. Many means are available today for this: more
conventional means coexist with new ones, such as social media, which allow companies to be very close to cus-
tomers’ opinions, needs and wishes. In terms of outcomes, this study demonstrates that the most relevant ones
are cost savings, achievement of competitive advantage, increased market share, increased sales, increased turnover,
higher profits, better reputation, increased exports and higher productivity. These results highlight that being ’green
and competitive’ (Porter and van der Linde, 1995) is actually possible, and top management should be aware of the
opportunities provided by GPI development and make GPI a key component of the company innovation strategy.
Finally, this study highlights that many factors can influence the successful development of GPI. Among mana-
gerial factors, top management commitment is key, as well as considering environmental aspects from the start,
having environmental champions and formalizing environmental policies and targets for products. Thus, manage-
rial efforts should be directed towards these activities. Further, this study demonstrates that creating and fostering
networks of collaborations as well as enhancing knowledge exchange, both within and outside the firm, is beneficial
for GPI development. In terms of the development process, cross-functional teams, integration and coordination as
well as implementing eco-design and life cycle assessment are the most important success factors. Thus, companies
willing to successfully develop green products should make networking activities, both outside and within the firm,
a key aspect of their innovation strategy, ensure a suitable level of integration and coordination among different
functional areas and put in place useful tools for eco-design. Resource and capabilities also proved to be key factors
of a successful GPI development. Thus, firms should invest in building and fostering their green capabilities as well
as adequately train employees on environmental issues so as to strengthen their human resources.
This study also provides useful implications for policy makers. In fact, it highlights that environmental regula-
tions represent the most important external driver for GPI development. Thus, public policies should be devoted
to issuing stricter and stricter environmental regulations and/or to increasing the number of industries to which
they apply so as to encourage greener innovations across all industries.
Regarding implications for scholars, since this study deeply analyses ’where we are’ in terms of research on GPI
development, providing a picture of the state of the art, it can be a useful starting point for future research in the
field, that is ’where we are going’. In particular, with regard to each research question, there are issues needing
to be deepened, linked to contrasting results.
Referring to GPI antecedents, there are contrasting results related to the influence of foreign ownership, firm
size, EMS, community and regulatory stakeholders. It would be interesting to deepen our knowledge of the condi-
tions under which there are significant and positive influences of these factors. Further, it would be useful to simul-
taneously consider different antecedents to understand their relative influence on GPI development.
With regard to GPI outcomes, contrasting results relate to financial and market performance. It would be inter-
esting to deepen our knowledge of these issues and understand under what conditions GPI development leads to
high financial and market performance and whether the results vary across industries.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Referring to success factors for GPI, future research should be more explicit in distinguishing between environ-
mental performance and market/financial performance of GPI or between incremental GPI and radical GPI.
Future studies should also be devoted to broadening research on GPI to other countries, especially developing
ones, where limited research on GPI has been conducted so far. This could be useful to understand whether ante-
cedents, outcomes and success factors are different from those found for developed countries. Further, multi-
country and multi-continent studies should be encouraged to identify differences among countries and/or
continents.
This study also analysed the success factors for GPI in terms of capabilities. Even though GPI development and
conventional new product development have many success factors in common, this study shows that some distinc-
tive capabilities are required for successful GPI development. With regard to capabilities in common with conven-
tional new product development, it would be interesting for future research to investigate whether there is a
difference between GPI development and conventional new product development in terms of relative importance
of these capabilities and in terms of their extent of use.
Referring to adopted theories, few of the reviewed studies explicitly rely on established organizational and man-
agerial theories. Further, in the analysed studies, some theories have not been used, but could be of great relevance.
These are the dynamic capability (DC) theory and the contingency theory. In particular, the DC theory could be par-
ticularly suitable to study dynamic environments such as that characterizing environmental sustainability
(Dangelico, unpublished doctoral dissertation), while contingency theory could be useful to take into account the un-
certainties linked to market, regulation and technology characterizing environmental sustainability.

Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by MIUR (Italian Ministry for Education, University and Re-
search) under the research programme “Climate Change in the Mediterranean Region: Evolutionary Scenarios, Economic Im-
pacts, Mitigation Policies and Technological Innovation” (PRIN project 2010-2011).

References
Adams R, Jeanrenaud S, Bessant J, Overy P, Denyer D. 2012. Innovating for Sustainability: a Systematic Review of the Body of Knowledge.
32 http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Innovation.pdf [9 June 2014].
Albino V, Balice A, Dangelico RM. 2009. Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability-driven compa-
nies. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 83–96.
Albino V, Balice A, Dangelico RM, Iacobone F. 2012. The effect of the adoption of environmental strategies on green product development: a
study of companies on world sustainability indices. International Journal of Management 29: 525–538.
Amit R, Schoemaker PJH. 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal 14: 33–46.
Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120.
Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A. 2002. Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of
Cleaner Production 10: 409–425.
Blomquist T, Sandström J. 2004. From issues to checkpoints and back: managing green issues in R&D. Business Strategy and the Environment 13:
363–373.
Bos-Brouwers HEJ. 2010. Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business Strategy and the
Environment 19: 417–435.
Cainelli G, Mazzanti M, Zoboli R. 2011. Environmental innovations, complementarity and local/global cooperation: evidence from North-East
Italian industry. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 11: 328–368.
Chang CH. 2011. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: the mediation role of green innovation. Journal of
Business Ethics 104: 361–370.
Chen YS. 2008. The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics 81: 531–543.
Chen YS, Chang CH, Wu FS. 2012. Origins of green innovations: the differences between proactive and reactive green innovations. Management
Decision 50: 368–398.
Chen Y-S, Lai S-B, Wen C-T. 2006. The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics
67: 331–339.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001. Green paper on integrated product policy.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
 R. M. Dangelico

Conway S, Steward F. 1998. Networks and interfaces in environmental innovation: a comparative study in the UK and Germany. Journal of High
Technology Management Research 9: 239–253.
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. 1986. An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 3: 71–85.
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. 1987. New products: what separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation Management 4: 169–184.
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. 1995. Benchmarking the firm’s critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 12: 374–391.
Curwen LG, Park J, Sarkar AK. 2013. Challenges and solutions of sustainable apparel product development: a case study of Eileen Fisher. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal 31: 32–47.
Dangelico RM, Pontrandolfo P, Pujari D. 2013. Developing sustainable new products in textile and upholstered furniture industries: role of ex-
ternal integrative capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 642–658.
Dangelico RM, Pujari D. 2010. Mainstreaming green product innovation: why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal
of Business Ethics 95: 471–486.
de Carvalho AP, Barbieri JC. 2012. Innovation and sustainability in the supply chain of a cosmetics company: a case study. Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation 7: 144–156.
de Medeiros JF, Ribeiro JLD, Cortimiglia MN. 2014. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: a systematic literature
review. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Driessen PH, Hillebrand B, Kok RAW, Verhallen TMM. 2013. Green new product development: the pivotal role of product greenness. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 60: 315–326.
Foster C, Green K. 2000. Greening the innovation process. Business Strategy and the Environment 9: 287–303.
Glasbergen P, Groenenberg R. 2001. Environmental partnerships in sustainable energy. European Environment 11: 1–13.
Green K, McMeekin A, Irwin A. 1994. Technological trajectories and R&D for environmental innovation in UK firms. Futures 26:
1047–1059.
Guoyou Q, Saixing Z, Chiming T, Haitao Y, Hailiang Z. 2013. Stakeholders’ influences on corporate green innovation strategy: a case study of
manufacturing firms in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20: 1–14.
Higgins JPT, Green S. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane
Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org (last accessed on 18th November 2014).
Horbach J. 2008. Determinants of environmental innovation – new evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy 37: 163–173.
Horbach J, Rammer C, Rennings K. 2012. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact – the role of regulatory push/pull,
technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics 78: 112–122.
Huang YC, Ding HB, Kao MR. 2009. Salient stakeholder voices: family business and green innovation adoption. Journal of Management and Or-
ganization 15: 309–326.
Huang YC, Wu YCJ. 2010. The effects of organizational factors on green new product success: evidence from high-tech industries in Taiwan.
Management Decision 48: 1539–1567.
Kammerer D. 2009. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation: empirical evidence from appliance
manufacturers in Germany. Ecological Economics 68: 2285–2295.
Keskin D, Diehl JC, Molenaar N. 2013. Innovation process of new ventures driven by sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 45: 50–60.
Kivimaa P. 2007. The determinants of environmental innovation: the impacts of environmental policies on the Nordic pulp, paper and packaging
industries. European Environment 17: 92–105.
Kivimaa P. 2008. Integrating environment for innovation – experiences from product development in paper and packaging. Organization and
Environment 21: 56–75.
Langerak F, Peelen E, Van Veen MD. 1998. Exploratory results on the antecedents and consequences of green marketing. International Journal of
Market Research 40: 323–335.
Larson AL. 2000. Sustainable innovation through an entrepreneurship lens. Business Strategy and the Environment 9: 304–317.
Lee KH, Kim JW. 2011. Integrating suppliers into green product innovation development: an empirical case study in the semiconductor industry.
Business Strategy and the Environment 20: 527–538.
Lee KH, Kim JW. 2012. Green new product development and supplier involvement: strategic partnership for green innovation. International Jour-
nal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 6: 290–304.
Leenders MAAM, Chandra Y. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of green innovation in the wine industry: the role of channel structure. Tech-
nology Analysis and Strategic Management 25: 203–218.
Leonidou C, Katsikeas C, Morgan N. 2013. ’Greening’ the marketing mix: do firms do it and does it pay off? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 41: 151–170.
Lin R-J, Tan K-H, Geng Y. 2013. Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production 40: 101–107.
Liu X, Dai H, Cheng P. 2011. Drivers of integrated environmental innovation and impact on company competitiveness: evidence from 18 Chinese
firms. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 5: 255–280.
Magnusson T, Berggren C. 2001. Environmental innovation in auto development – managing technological uncertainty within strict time limits.
International Journal of Vehicle Design 26: 101–115.
Nidumolu R, Prahalad CK, Rangaswami MR. 2009. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review 87: 56–64.
Noci G, Verganti R. 1999. Managing ’green’ product innovation in small firms. R&D Management 29: 3–15.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse
Green Product Innovation

Pereira Á, Vence X. 2012. Key business factors for eco-innovation: an overview of recent firm-level empirical studies. Cuadernos de Gestión 12:
73–103.
Polonsky MJ, Ottman J. 1998. Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Management 14:
533–557.
Porter ME, van der Linde C. 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review 73: 120–134.
Pujari D. 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 26: 76–85.
Pujari D, Peattie K, Wright G. 2004. Organizational antecedents of environmental responsiveness in industrial new product development. Indus-
trial Marketing Management 33: 381–391.
Pujari D, Wright G. 1996. Developing environmentally conscious product strategies: a qualitative study of selected companies in Germany and
Britain. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 14: 19–28.
Pujari D, Wright G. 1999. Integrating environmental issues into product development: understanding the dimensions of perceived driving forces
and stakeholders. Journal of Euromarketing 7: 43–63.
Pujari D, Wright G, Peattie K. 2003. Green and competitive: influences on environmental new product development performance. Journal of Busi-
ness Research 56: 657–671.
Ray PK, Ray S. 2010. Resource-constrained innovation for emerging economies: the case of the Indian telecommunications industry. IEEE Trans-
actions on Engineering Management 57: 144–156.
Rehfeld K-M, Rennings K, Ziegler A. 2007. Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an empirical analysis. Ecological
Economics 61: 91–100.
Rennings K, Rammer C. 2009. Increasing energy and resource efficiency through innovation: an explorative analysis using innovation survey
data. Finance a Uver – Czech Journal of Economics and Finance 59: 442–459.
Rennings K, Rammer C. 2011. The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance. Industry
and Innovation 18: 255–283.
Rennings K, Ziegler A, Ankele K, Hoffmann E. 2006. The influence of different characteristics of the EU environmental management and
auditing scheme on technical environmental innovations and economic performance. Ecological Economics 57: 45–59.
Roy R, Whelan RC. 1992. Successful recycling through value-chain collaboration. Long Range Planning 25: 62–71.
Sandström GO, Tingström J. 2008. Management of radical innovation and environmental challenges: development of the DryQ capacitor at ABB.
European Journal of Innovation Management 11: 182–198.
Stafford ER, Polonsky MJ, Hartman CL. 2000. Environmental NGO–business collaboration and strategic bridging: a case analysis of the
Greenpeace–Foron Alliance. Business Strategy and the Environment 9: 122–135.
Tötzer T, Ömer-Rieder B. 2007. Aspects of sustainability in innovation processes: results from a business survey in the Vienna region, Austria.
Progress in Industrial Ecology 4: 122–140.
Triebswetter U, Wackerbauer J. 2008a. Integrated environmental product innovation and impacts on company competitiveness: a case study of
the automotive industry in the region of Munich. European Environment: the Journal of European Environmental Policy 18: 30–44.
Triebswetter U, Wackerbauer J. 2008b. Integrated environmental product innovation in the region of Munich and its impact on company com-
petitiveness. Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 1484–1493.
Tsai MT, Chuang LM, Chao ST, Chang HP. 2012. The effects assessment of firm environmental strategy and customer environmental conscious
on green product development. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 184: 4435–4447.
van Hemel C, Cramer J. 2002. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 439–453.
Verhulst E, Boks C. 2012. The role of human factors in the adoption of sustainable design criteria in business: evidence from Belgian and Dutch
case studies. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 6: 146–163.
Verona G. 1999. A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Management Review 24: 132–142.
Visser R, Jongen M, Zwetsloot G. 2008. Business-driven innovations towards more sustainable chemical products. Journal of Cleaner Production
16: S85–S94.
Wagner M. 2007. On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: evidence from German
manufacturing firms. Research Policy 36: 1587–1602.
Wagner M. 2008. Empirical influence of environmental management on innovation: evidence from Europe. Ecological Economics 66: 392–402.
Wagner M. 2009. National culture, regulation and country interaction effects on the association of environmental management systems with en-
vironmentally beneficial innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment 18: 122–136.
Westley F, Vredenburg H. 1991. Strategic bridging: the collaboration between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green prod-
ucts. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27: 65–90.
Wong SKS. 2012. The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product innovation: empirical evidence from the
Chinese electrical and electronics industry. European Journal of Innovation Management 15: 468–490.
Ziegler A, Seijas Nogareda J. 2009. Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: exploring the causal re-
lationship. Research Policy 38: 885–893.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 2015
DOI: 10.1002/bse