Business Strategy and the Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.638

Environmental Strategies and Green

Product Development: an Overview on
Sustainability-Driven Companies
Vito Albino, Azzurra Balice and Rosa Maria Dangelico*
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Gestionale, Politecnico di Bari, Italy

ABSTRACT
To respond effectively and efciently to the environmental sustainability challenge, an
important role can be played by companies, through appropriate strategies and operations,
such as green processes and product development. In this paper, we investigate whether
the development of green products is supported by the environmental strategic approaches
adopted by sustainability-driven companies, and whether there are economic sector or
geographical area specicities. To this purpose, rst we develop a taxonomy of environmental strategies and we dene measurable proxies for both the environmental strategic
approaches identied and the green product development. Then, we study a sample represented by the companies included in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSWI).
The methodology used is based on the content analysis of companies websites and relevant documents, such as environmental and sustainability reports. The main result is that
the levels of adoption of different environmental strategic approaches are higher for green
product developers than for green product non-developers. Moreover, the most implemented strategic approaches for green product developers vary depending on the economic
sector, while a more homogeneous behaviour is found from the geographical perspective.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 30 April 2007; revised 12 December 2007; accepted 25 March 2008
Keywords: environmental strategies; green product development; sustainability-driven companies; economic sectors; geographical areas

Introduction

VER THE PAST DECADES, INCREASING ATTENTION HAS BEEN GIVEN WORLDWIDE TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
Several studies have highlighted the growing challenges posed by the growth of human population and
industrial production, and the consumption of non-renewable resources, with a consequent increase
of related environmental impacts (Meadows et al., 1972; Keytz, 1989; Brown et al., 1994; Hart, 1995).
One of the most concerning impacts is represented by climate change, which may cause several disruptions, such
as rising ocean levels and desertication (Schneider, 1989; Kolk and Pinkse, 2005).

* Correspondence to: Rosa Maria Dangelico, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica e Gestionale, Politecnico di Bari, Viale Japigia 182, 70126
Bari, Italy. E-mail: r.dangelico@poliba.it
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

84

V. Albino et al.

Nevertheless, a condition of ecological and economic stability and of social equity sustainable far into the future
can be reached by means of responsible behaviours of both society and companies (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; WBCSD, 1998; Commission of the European Communities, 2001a; IPCC,
2007). In particular, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, underlines the key role of industrialized countries in
climate change and highlights the responsibility of companies towards the natural environment. Then, a growing
number of companies, aiming at integrating environmental concerns in their business operations and in their
interactions with stakeholders, is embracing environmental sustainability into business strategies (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002). The reasons that push rms to go green can be very different and based on diverse approaches
(Elkington, 1994, 1997; Shrivastava and Hart, 1995; Bowden et al., 2001; Gonzlez-Benito and Gonzlez-Benito,
2006). Bansal and Roth (2000) distinguish three main categories of motivation: legitimacy, competitiveness and
social responsibility.
Legitimacy includes complying with legislation, establishing an environmental committee, conducting environmental audits and developing networks with the local communities. During the last two decades a number of
declarations and regulations for environmental protection have followed one another. Let us think of the restriction
on chlorouorocarbon (Montreal Protocol, 1987), the restriction on CO2 (Kyoto Protocol, 1997), the Sustainable
Development Announcements (Johannesburg World Summit, 2002), the Restriction of the Use of Certain
Hazardous Substances in EEE (RoHS) and the Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) Directive
effective since 2006. This fact has determined, and is determining, growing impacts on industries, compelled
to green their processes and products.
Nevertheless, environmental sustainability should not be seen as an additional cost for companies, but as an
opportunity to improve competitiveness in a winwin logic (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). The literature highlights
several benets that can arise from integrating environmental sustainability issues into business operations:
increased efciency in the use of resources, return on investment, increased sales, development of new markets,
improved corporate image, product differentiation and enhanced competitive advantage (Fierman, 1991; Engleberg, 1992; Peattie, 1992; Miles and Munilla, 1993; Shrivastava, 1995; Berry and Rondinelli, 1998; Henriques and
Sadorsky, 1999; Kolk, 2000). Chen et al. (2006) investigate, through a survey on Taiwanese companies operating
in the information and electronics industries, the role of green innovation in corporate competitive advantage. The
authors found that the performance of both green product and green process innovation is positively correlated
to competitive advantage.
Beyond legitimacy and competitiveness another important reason for companies to go green is social responsibility, deriving from the concerns that companies have for social obligations and values (Welford, 1997; Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002).
Companies that embrace the concept of sustainability in their strategies are usually referred to as sustainabilitydriven companies. In this context, sustainable products can assume a strategic role, being sustainable offerings in
environmental, social and economic terms (Maxwell et al., 2006).
In this paper, only the environmental dimension of sustainability in terms of both strategy and product is considered. These issues are mutually related. In fact, diminishing the environmental impact of products has become
an important focus of corporate environmental strategies (Boons, 2002). Then, companies are committed to
develop green products, i.e. goods or services that minimize their impact on the environment at each phase of
their life cycle. In the literature, research on green product development is growing in interest (Baumann et al.,
2002; Pujari, 2006); nevertheless, the relationships between green product development and environmental strategic approaches have not been exhaustively analysed. The aim of this paper is to empirically investigate this
relationship in the case of sustainability-driven companies.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, the literature review is carried out in order to identify a
suitable taxonomy for environmental strategies. Similarly, based on the literature review, distinctive features of
green product development are identied. Then, the research questions and the used methodology are described.
Finally, result analysis is carried out and the main ndings are discussed.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

85

Environmental Strategies
The competitive scenario around environmental issues is continuously changing because of new regulations and
standards, stakeholders pressures and technology updating. In order to face this dynamic scenario, companies
implement specic strategies. In the literature, several classications have been proposed, adopting different perspectives. In particular, Hart (1997) identies three strategies to address the environmental sustainability challenge, namely pollution prevention, product stewardship and clean technology. More recently, Orsato (2006) has
suggested a classication scheme for categorizing generic types of competitive environmental strategies: eco-efciency, beyond compliance leadership, eco-branding and environmental cost leadership. Focusing their attention
on business responses to climate change, Kolk and Pinkse (2005) identify emergent strategies considering two
dimensions of choice, namely the organizational level and the main aim of the strategy. The resulting strategic
options are process improvement, product development, new product/market combinations, internal transfer of
emission reductions, acquisition of emission credits and supply-chain measures. Then, environmental strategy
and business performance can be jointly considered.
Even though different classications of environmental strategies have been suggested, similarities among them
can be found. Moreover, environmental strategic approaches can be grouped into process oriented and organization oriented.
Cleaner production is used to achieve environmental sustainability in production processes (Baas, 1995; Kjaerheim, 2005), and it has allowed industrial production to nd a place in the environmental sustainability vision,
highlighting the potentialities of technologies to be materials conserving, energy efcient, non-polluting and low
waste (Hart, 1997; Geiser, 2001). In this perspective, material eco-efciency has been indicated as a key strategic
approach (von Weizscker et al. 1997; Ryan, 2004; Orsato, 2006). In particular, Porter and van der Linde (1995)
highlight the role of material savings and better utilization of by-products in order to promote resource productivity, so being at the same time resource and cost efcient. Similarly, energy efciency is another important strategic approach. In fact, the Green Paper on Energy Efciency (EUs Director-General for Transport and Energy,
2005) states that it may represent one of the quickest ways to achieve environmental sustainability goals, among
them the Kyoto target. In particular, several studies identify renewable energy technologies and efcient energy
utilization as the most effective potential solutions to current environmental issues (Lee et al., 1992; Hollander
and Schneider, 1996; Dincer, 1999).
Other environmental strategic approaches more focused on organizational aspects (both intra and inter-organizational) have been identied, in the literature. In particular, Florida and Davidson (2001) highlight the importance
of an environmental management system (EMS) to manage business goals and environmental performance in
order to be lean and green. Moreover, environmental strategies can be extended to the supply chain (Hall, 2000;
Hagelaar and van der Vorst, 2002; Sarkis, 2003; Ravi et al., 2005). In particular, Beamon (1999) investigates the
environmental factors leading to the development of an extended environmental supply chain, and to its achievement and maintenance.
Environmental strategic approaches have also been investigated analysing companies belonging to different
economic sectors and geographical areas (see, for instance, Buil-Carrasco et al., 2008; Epstein and Roy, 2006;
Frondel et al., 2007). However, the literature seems restricted to some studies related to specic economic sectors
or geographical areas.

Green Products
Recently, the attention of corporate environmental management has been shifting from clean technologies and
pollution prevention to products (Pujari, 2006; Chung and Tsai, 2007). This shift is due to different factors, among
which are the fact that products could be regarded as sources of environmental burden, and their environmental
characteristics are inuenced by a variety of different stakeholders (de Bakker et al., 2002). Moreover, environmental policies are increasingly focusing on products. In particular, the Commission of the European Communities (2001b, p. 3) underlines the key role of green products in moving towards a new growth paradigm and a
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

86

V. Albino et al.

higher quality of life, through wealth creation and competitiveness. Actually, through the efcient use of resources,
low impacts and risks to the environment, and waste generation prevention since their conception stage, green
products offer high quality and low overall costs to the consumer and society.
A wide terminology for environmental issues related to products has been developed. Several attempts have
been made in the literature to dene a green product; nevertheless, there is still much confusion on what constitutes an environmentally friendly product (Baumann et al., 2002). In particular, the transition from green or eco
to sustainable represents a broadening of scope, but the terms are often used in an interchangeable way.
In this paper, a green product is referred to as a product designed to minimize its environmental impacts
during its whole life-cycle. In particular, non-renewable resource use is minimized, toxic materials are avoided and
renewable resource use takes place in accordance with their rate of replenishment (Robert, 1995).
The effective development of green products has an essential role in creating successful environmental strategies, and in helping companies and economies towards environmental sustainability (Pujari et al., 2003).
The number of companies working on the environmental performance of their products and addressing their
environmental effort early in the supply chain is increasing (de Bakker et al., 2002). Concepts such as design for
environment, eco-design, extended producer responsibility and product stewardship are becoming more and more
common in corporate culture.
Design for environment has been dened as the systematic process through which products are designed in an
environmentally conscious way (Lenox et al., 1996), while for eco-design the environment becomes a co-pilot in
product development (Brezet and van Hemel, 1997). Often the two expressions design for environment (DfE)
and eco-design are used in an interchangeable way, although they seem to be American and European expressions, respectively (Charter, 1997). One of the most important analytical tools used in the design phase is life cycle
assessment (LCA) (Baumann et al., 2002). It is an approach used to assess the environmental burden of a product
during its whole life-cycle (Keoleian and Menerey, 1993). Product stewardship is an approach used by companies
focusing on minimizing all environmental impacts associated with the full life cycle of a product (Hart, 1997; de
Bakker et al., 2002).
To impose responsibility for the end-of-life environmental impact of products on the original producer of that
product, extended producer responsibility policies can be adopted (Lindhqvist, 2000). They represent an incentive
for producers to improve design in order to reduce waste and material usage, and enhance recyclability and
reusability.
Information about green characteristics of a product can be obtained from different sources: producers claims,
information from consumer organizations and third party veried eco-labels (Commission of the European
Communities, 2001b).
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), on the basis of guidelines and general principles
stated in ISO 14020:2000, created a framework of different types of eco-label. In particular, three distinct types
have been identied: ISO Type I, ISO Type II and ISO Type III. Third party veried products labels (ISO Type I)
are eco-certications of environmental excellence of products. They distinguish the more environmentally friendly
products from less environmentally friendly ones, setting, at the same time, a high standard for different kinds of
products. Green claims (ISO Type II) contain a lot of environmental information on products in the form of selfdeclarations. Product environmental declarations (ISO Type III) consist of quantied environmental data on all
signicant impacts of the product, presented in a standardized way, and are based on results from a life cycle
study.
Eco-certication programs have been developed in different countries. They can either encompass several categories of goods and cover a wide range of environmental impacts (such as, for example, the German Blue Angel,
the US Green Seal, the Nordic Council White Swan, the Canadian Environmental Choice, the European Eco-Label
and the Japan Eco Mark) or be addressed to a specic category of products (such as timber product certications,
textile certications and food labels) or to a specic type of environmental impact (such as energy labels).
When applied, eco-labels make the green product clearly recognizable.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

87

Research Questions and Methodology

The literature review shows that environmental strategies and green product development represent two research
elds that are becoming more and more relevant. Some attempts to integrate green product development within
environmental strategies have been made (Hart, 1997; Kolk and Pinkse, 2005; Orsato, 2006). Nevertheless, in
these cases the relationship between the development of green products and other environmental strategic
approaches has not been exhaustively investigated.
Then, we intend to empirically investigate whether companies developing green products (henceforth green
product developers) adopt environmental strategic approaches to different degrees with respect to non-developers,
and whether this different behaviour is specic for economic sector or geographical area.
To this purpose we will answer the following research questions: does the green product development modify
the adoption level of environmental strategic approaches? Does this fact show distinctive features related to the
economic sector or the geographical area to which the sustainability-driven companies belong?
In order to answer the research questions, we rst investigate to what extent sustainability-driven companies
develop green products, and then we analyse the environmental strategic approaches adopted by sustainabilitydriven companies.
The empirical investigation is restricted to the case of all companies included in the Dow Jones Sustainability
World Index (DJSWI) and classied into different sectors,1 namely basic materials, consumer, energy, healthcare,
industrial, technology, telecommunication and utilities (Figure 1). These companies belong to 21 different
countries, which can be grouped into four geographical areas, namely America, Asia, Europe and other countries
(Figure 2).
All these companies are assumed to be sustainability driven because of the strong commitment to apply and
belong to the DJSWI.
The signicant information for this research has been taken from companies public web sites and, when available on line, from their environmental/sustainability reports (data collection was carried out between November
2006 and January 2007). For each environmental strategy and for the green product development, measurable
Utilities
Telecommunication 7%
3%

Basic Materials
8%

Technology
13%

Consumer
34%

Industrial
22%

Healthcare
8%

Energy
5%

Figure 1. Percentage of companies for each sector (DJSI Review, September 2004)
1

The classication of sectors is the one used in the DJSWI and the sample is represented by companies listed in the DJSWI referred to September 2004: http://www.sustainability-indexes.com/
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

88

V. Albino et al.
Other Countries
4%
America
30%

Europe
51%
Asia
15%
Figure 2. Percentage of companies for each geographical area (DJSI Review, September 2004)

actions, assumed to be indicative of their implementation, are identied. The evaluation of the measurable actions
related to the environmental strategies and the green product development is carried out through content analysis
(Krippendorf, 2004). This methodology is based on the number of occurrences of keywords in the analysed
documents.
In order to have a comprehensive framework, the different environmental strategic approaches emerging from
the literature review have been integrated and synthesized into four strategic approaches (the rst two more process
oriented, and the last two more organization oriented): (i) improvement of material eco-efciency; (ii) improvement
of energy efciency; (iii) implementation of green management; (iv) implementation of green supply chain management. In particular, in this paper material eco-efciency is considered as a strategic approach focused on the
reduction of resources used to produce unitary output. Energy efciency is a strategic approach aiming at increasing energy savings, and the use of renewable energy sources. Green management is considered as a strategic
approach aiming at the development of a systematic and comprehensive mechanism to improve environmental
and business performance inside a company. A green supply chain is a strategic approach addressed to extend
environmental measures to the whole supply chain. Based on the literature review, the signicant items to be
measured for each environmental strategy are dened in the following.
Material eco-efciency is measured through the reduction of environmental performance key indicators. In particular, the trends of basic materials use are considered (GRI, 2006). Moreover, the existence of production waste
recycling initiatives is evaluated.
Energy efciency is evaluated through the existence of initiatives to use renewable energy sources and to increase
energy efciency, as well as direct and indirect energy use (GRI, 2006). Moreover, the trends in emissions of
greenhouse gas in the last years are considered.
Green management is evaluated through the use of techniques for assessing the environmental impacts of new
processes, the managerial commitment towards the development of process eco-innovations and clean technologies, and the implementation of EMS ISO 14001 or EMAS certication.
A green supply chain is evaluated through the existence of procedures to close the loop along the supply chain,
such as the operations designed for end-of-life product and packaging recovery, collection and reuse, the assessment of suppliers environmental impacts and the sharing of information about environmental issues with
suppliers.
Regarding the development of green products, some signicant items to be measured are dened based on the
literature. In particular, the green product development involvement of companies is evaluated by means of the
existence of green products. They, in turn, are recognized through product stewardship declarations, eco-labels,
green product awards, use of green packaging, product eco-innovations developed, compliance with environmental
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

89

product standards, implementation of design for environment, eco-design and use of related tools, such as
LCA.
In order to evaluate the implementation level (low or high) of each strategic approach and of green product
development, the content analysis is applied to companies public websites and environmental/sustainability
reports.
Each signicant item is measured in terms of occurrence number of related keywords. Then, the evaluation of
each strategic approach and of green product development is high when the total number of keyword occurrences
is above the sample average, while the evaluation is low otherwise.
In particular, on the basis of the implementation level of green product development (low or high), companies
are classied as green product non-developers or green product developers, respectively.

Results Analysis
The rst result of the analysis is that in the whole sample, represented by the 255 companies included into the
DJSWI, the percentage of green product developers exceeds the percentage of green product non-developers. The
same result is obtained in almost all sectors, except for the healthcare and the consumer sectors (Table 1). In
particular, for the healthcare sector, this result can be related to the strict national and international norms and
regulations to which products are subjected to keep in line with quality and safety standards. This fact could represent for companies a constraint in their actions addressed to green product innovation. For the consumer sector,
the result can be explained by the fact that this sector encompasses both goods and services producers; actually,
considering only goods producers, the percentage rises by almost ve percentage points.
Also from the geographical area point of view, the percentage of green product developers is always greater than
that of green product non-developers (Table 1).
Another important result is represented by the percentage of companies that adopt the different environmental
strategic approaches for each sector, each geographical area and for the whole DJSWI sample (Table 2).
From a geographical point of view, there is not an area with signicantly higher percentage of adoption of environmental strategic approaches. An exception is represented by other countries, referring to energy efciency,
where more than 90% of companies adopt this approach. This is due to the fact that all Australian companies
show a high implementation level of energy efciency. At the whole DJSWI level, green supply chain is less implemented than other strategic approaches (Table 2).
Sector

Green product developers (%)

Green product non-developers (%)

57
45
57
43
64
56
57
53

43
55
43
57
36
44
43
47

Green product developers (%)

Green product non-developers (%)

53
57
52
55
53
53

47
43
48
45
47
47

Basic materials
Consumer
Energy
Healthcare
Industrial
Technology
Telecommunication
Utilities
Geographical area
America
Asia
Europe
Other countries
America
DJSWI

Table 1. Percentage of green product developers and non-developers both in each sector and in each geographical area
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

90

V. Albino et al.

Sector

Green management (%)

Material eco-efciency (%)

Energy efciency (%)

Green supply chain (%)

76
66
79
48
84
65
86
88

67
71
64
71
71
53
86
71

95
67
71
71
77
65
86
82

52
48
43
67
54
74
86
24

Green management (%)

Material eco-efciency (%)

Energy efciency (%)

Green supply chain (%)

77
68
71
64
72

62
68
72
64
68

73
68
74
91
73

52
46
56
64
54

Basic materials
Consumer
Energy
Healthcare
Industrial
Technology
Telecommunication
Utilities
Geographical area
America
Asia
Europe
Other countries
DJSWI

Table 2. Percentage of companies implementing each strategic approach both in each sector and in each geographical area
Green product developers

Green product non developers

100%
90%

89%
85%

84%

80%
69%

70%
62%
60%

55%

54%

50%
38%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Green management

Material eco-efficiency

Energy efficiency

Green supply chain

Figure 3. Percentage of companies adopting each strategic approach in the whole DJSWI, distinguishing between green product
developers and non-developers

In order to analyse the inuence of green product development on the adoption of environmental strategic
approaches, the considered sample of 255 companies is divided into two sub-samples, based on the results of
the content analysis: the green product developers (135 companies) and the green product non-developers (120
companies).
Let us consider the different behaviours. Figure 3 shows that, considering the whole sample, the percentage of
green product developers adopting a specic strategic approach is greater than the percentage of green product
non-developers in all cases. This result suggests that the green product development is signicantly supported by
environmental strategies.
A test of hypothesis has been carried out to analyse collected data. The test aims at investigating whether green
product developers and green product non-developers, from the environmentally strategic point of view, belong to
two different populations. To this purpose, for both green product developers and green product non-developers,
the number of companies implementing the different strategic approaches at low or high level has been counted,
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

91

respectively. Then, assuming as the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the adoption of environmental
strategic approaches between developers and non-developers, the test of hypotheses is applied to the difference
between the corresponding sub-samples, referring to each sector, to each geographical area and to the whole DJSWI
(Table 3).
Considering the whole DJSWI, the green product developers and the non-developers adopt environmental strategic approaches to different degrees.
Moreover, results show that, in almost all sectors, the green product developers and the non-developers are
characterized by different adoption degrees of the environmental strategic approaches (Table 3). This means that
the green product developers are more supported by the adoption of environmental strategies.
Two exceptions are represented by the basic materials and the industrial sectors. In particular, in the basic
materials sector, the green product developers and the non-developers show similar behaviour referring to material eco-efciency. This may be due to the fact that, in this sector, the only material eco-efciency strategic actions
performed by rms are referred to initiatives of production waste recycling, which are not specic for green products. On the other hand, in the industrial sector, the green product developers and the non-developers show
similar behaviour referring to both green management and material eco-efciency. Concerning material eco-efciency,
similarly to the basic materials sector, the most common action is production waste recycling. Concerning green
management, this environmental strategic approach represents a key factor in the industrial sector, particularly
focused on production processes, and so companies adopt it independently from involvement in green product
development. In both the basic materials and the industrial sectors, the negative values of Z statistics mean that
energy efciency is more adopted by the green product non-developers. This may be due to the fact that these companies aim at minimizing the impact of their products focusing on energy efciency of the processes related to
traditional products rather than developing new green products.
On the other hand, also in each geographical area, the green product developers and the non-developers show
different behaviours in all environmental strategic approaches. Consistent with the sector analysis, the results in
Table 3 conrm that the green product developers are more supported by the adoption of environmental strategies
within each geographical area.
A particular case of different strategic approach between green product developers and non-developers is the
adoption level of the green supply chain in other countries. In fact, while the green product developers show a
Sector
Basic materials
Consumer
Energy
Healthcare
Industrial
Technology
Telecommunication
Utilities
Geographical area
America
Asia
Europe
Other countries
DJSWI

Green management

Material eco-efciency

Energy efciency

Green supply chain

6.754*
7.726*
9.708*
8.419*
0.362**
9.359*
1.195#
6.182*

0**
7.421*
9.006*
8.817*
0.392**
9.408*
1.195#
6.799*

3.117*
6.985*
11.757*
8.817*
2.411*
9.359*
1.195#
2.902*

2.215*
5.360*
12.074*
6.572*
2.130*
10.835*
1.195#
8.347*

Green management

Material eco-efciency

Energy efciency

Green supply chain

7.121*
5.046*
6.293*
11.041*
6.543*

6.556*
4.139*
4.210*
10.133*
5.223*

7.026*
3.523*
3.874*
4.267*
4.845*

6.882*
6.278*
5.210*
4.267*
5.445*

Table 3. Statistics for the difference between the proportions of green product developers and non-developers for each sector
and for each geographical area
* Null hypothesis rejected at the 5% level of signicance in a two-tailed test.
** Null hypothesis not rejected at the 5% level of signicance in a two-tailed test.
#
Null hypothesis rejected at the 5% level of signicance in a two-tailed t-test.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

92

V. Albino et al.

greater adoption level of all the other environmental strategic approaches, the green product non-developers are
more committed to the green supply chain, even though without green product implication.
Furthermore, the shares of green product developers and non-developers do not show signicant differences
among geographical areas, meaning that there is no geographical area more oriented to the green product development than the other areas (Table 1). The result can be explained through the fact that the analysed companies are
mostly multinational companies, with world-wide located production sites, and so they show a similar behaviour,
with global rather than regional features.
Table 4 shows the environmental strategic behaviour for the green product developers at both sector and geographical area levels.
From a geographical perspective, the most implemented strategic approach is green management in all areas,
except for other countries, where the most adopted strategic approach is material eco-efciency.
Green product developers (%)
Sector
Basic materials
Consumer
Energy
Healthcare
Industrial
Technology
Telecommunication
Utilities
Geographical area
America
Asia
Europe
Other countries

Green management

Material eco-efciency

Energy efciency

Green supply chain

92
89
100
78
83
89
100
100

67
87
88
100
72
79
100
89

92
84
100
100
72
89
100
89

58
63
75
89
58
100
100
44

Green management

Material eco-efciency

Energy efciency

Green supply chain

90
95
88
67

78
81
84
83

88
86
85
67

68
76
70
33

Table 4. Percentage of green product developers implementing each strategic approach both in each sector and in each geographical area

Basic Materials

Green Management

Consumer

Green Management

Energy

Green Management

Healthcare Material eco-efficiency

Industrial

Green Management

Technology

Green supply chain

Telecommunication
Utilities

Energy efficiency

Energy efficiency
Energy efficiency

Green Management Material eco-efficiency

Energy efficiency

Green supply chain

Green Management

Figure 4. Most implemented strategic approaches for green product developers in different sectors
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

93

Sector-specic guidelines are provided in Figure 4. In both basic materials and energy sectors, the environmental strategic approaches most adopted by the green product developers are green management and energy
efciency. In the consumer sector, the most adopted environmental strategic approach is green management. In
the healthcare sector, material eco-efciency and energy efciency are generally the most adopted. The industrial
and the utilities sectors are mainly focused on the adoption of green management, while the telecommunication
sector adopts all strategic approaches.
Finally, the only sector in which the most adopted strategic approach is the green supply chain is the technology
sector. This may be due to the fact that companies mainly assemble supplied components in their products, and
so the green product features are strictly related to the green features of their components.

Methodology Discussions
Details and limitations of the methodology used should be discussed.
First of all, attention should be devoted to the different meanings that green product development assumes
depending on the specic sector. In particular, from the sample analysis, it has emerged that in the energy and
utilities sectors green product development is mainly referred to renewable energy offerings and technologies,
while in the basic materials, industrial and consumer sectors it is mainly concerned with the use of recycled
materials, the adoption of a life cycle approach and green packaging. Moreover, in the healthcare sector it is
mainly related to green packaging, while in the technology and telecommunication sectors to energy efcient
products or to services that replace physical mobility.
Further discussion has to be devoted to the data collection method. In particular, the evaluation of implementation levels of both strategic approaches and green product development is made by means of information on
websites and environmental/sustainability reports, which could seem to have an element of public relationship
rather than factual truth. Nevertheless, data in companies websites and reports are considered affordable, due to
the particular considered sample, being made up of companies listed in the DJSWI. In fact, the identication of
sustainability leaders for the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices is based on the Corporate Sustainability Assessment
of SAM Research. The source of information includes company and third-party documents (websites and reports)
as well as personal contacts between the analysts and companies, and the SAM questionnaire, which is completed
by companies participating in the annual review. Moreover, these companies are mainly large multinational companies, whose reports are generally reviewed by third parties.
Finally, the validity of comparing companies behaviour from a geographical/cultural perspective should be
discussed. Being the companies in the sample mainly large multinational companies, each of them has websites
and reports in English, so that common language and terms are supposed to be used. Moreover, in order to cover
any variation in the use and understanding of terms by different countries (as well as sectors), for each strategic
approach and for green product development several items and keywords have been used. This fact makes it
possible to compare the behaviour of companies from a geographical perspective.

Conclusions
In this paper, we focus on the environmental dimension of sustainability, in terms of both product development
and strategic approaches. We empirically investigate whether the environmental strategic approaches adopted by
sustainability-driven companies that develop green products are different from those adopted by companies that
do not develop green products.
Analysing the collected data, it has been pointed out that more than 50% of companies develop green products,
both at the sector level, except for the healthcare and the consumer sectors, and at the geographical area level,
where there is no geographical area more oriented to green product development than the others.
Moreover, more than 70% of the DJSWI companies adopt at a high level green management, material eco-efciency
or energy efciency. In particular, energy efciency and the green supply chain are the most and the least adopted
strategic approaches, respectively. Only in the technology sector green supply chain is the most adopted approach.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

94

V. Albino et al.

From the geographical point of view, the percentage of European companies adopting environmental
strategic approaches is above the sample average, while the percentage of Asian companies adopting environmental strategic approaches is below the sample average. In contrast, there are no signicant differences in the
percentages of green product developers among the considered geographical areas.
The main result is that the green product developers are supported by the adoption of environmental strategic
approaches at a higher degree than green product non-developers. This has been proven to be valid for the whole
sample of companies belonging to DJSWI, for all the geographical areas and for almost all sectors. Two exceptions
are represented by the basic materials and the industrial sectors, where companies show similar strategic behaviour referring to material eco-efciency, in both sectors, and to green management in the industrial sector only.
An important outcome of the analysis carried out is that the strategic approaches adopted by green product
developers depend on the sector. Then, for each sector, the strategic approaches most implemented have been
identied. This represents a strategic guideline for companies that wish to develop green products in different
sectors, giving directions on strategic approaches to which address greater attention and investments. In particular,
green management is one of the most implemented strategic approaches for almost all sectors, except for technology and healthcare. It is important to notice that, in the technology sector, the most implemented strategic
approach is the green supply chain, as a demonstration of the importance of the environmental friendliness of
components to make technology products green (for example the essential role of processors to make computers
energy efcient).
In contrast, fewer differences in terms of strategic approaches adopted by green product developers have been
identied at the geographical area level, where green management is again one of the most implemented strategic
approaches.
The homogeneous behaviour emerging from analysing the sample from a geographical perspective may be due
to the fact that the considered companies are mostly multinational companies, with world-wide located production
sites.
The study carried out may be particularly useful for companies that want to address environmental sustainability issues giving particularly attention to the development of green products. In fact, this study gives sector
specic directions in terms of strategic approaches most implemented by green product developers. Given that
companies in the sample belong to the DJSWI, they are leaders in sustainability. Therefore, their behaviour can
be considered as a benchmark for other companies.
Further research should be devoted to extend the analysis to companies operating in the same sectors and geographical areas as those analysed in this paper, but that are not sustainability driven.

References
Baas LW. 1995. Cleaner production: beyond projects. Journal of Cleaner Production 3(1/2): 5559.
Bansal P, Roth K. 2000. Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 717748.
Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A. 2002. Mapping the green product development eld: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal
of Cleaner Production 10(5): 409425.
Beamon BM. 1999. Designing the green supply chain. Logistics Information Management 12(4): 332342.
Berry MA, Rondinelli DA. 1998. Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial revolution. Academy of Management Executive 12(2): 3849.
Boons F. 2002. Greening products: a framework for product chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 10(5): 495505.
Bowden AR, Lane MR, Martin JH. 2001. Triple Bottom Line Risk Management: Enhancing Prot, Environmental Performance, and Community
Benets. Wiley: New York.
Brezet H, van Hemel C. 1997. Ecodesign. A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. TU Delft.
Brown L, Kane H, Roodman D. 1994. Vital Signs. Norton: New York.
Buil-Carrasco I, Fraj-Andrs E, Matute-Vallejo J. 2008. Corporate environmentalism strategy in the Spanish consumer product sector:
a typology of rms. Business Strategy and the Environment 17(6): 350368.
Charter M. 1997. Managing eco-design. UNEP Industry and Environment 20(1/2): 2931.
Chen YS, Lai SB, Wen CT. 2006. The inuence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics
67(4): 331339.
Chung Y, Tsai C. 2007. The effect of green design activities on new product strategies and performance: an empirical study among high-tech
companies. International Journal of Management 24(2): 276288.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

Environmental Strategies and Green Product Development

95

Commission of the European Communities. 2001a. Green Paper Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. http://
ew.eea.europa.eu/Industry/Reporting/cec__corporate_responsibility/com2001_0366en01.pdf/ last accesss March 2008
Commission of the European Communities. 2001b. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/2001
developments.htm last access March 2008
de Bakker FGA, Fissher OAM, Brack AJP 2002. Organizing product-oriented environmental management from a rms perspective. Journal
of Cleaner Production 10(5): 455464.
Dincer I. 1999. Environmental impacts of energy. Energy Policy 27(14): 845854.
Dyllick T, Hockerts K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11(2): 130141.
Elkington J. 1994. Toward the sustainable corporation: winwinwin business strategies for sustainable development. California Management
Review 36(2): 90100.
Elkington J. 1997. Cannibals With Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone: Oxford.
Engleberg D. 1992. Is this the best community relations program in the country? Environmental Manager 3: 6.
Epstein MJ, Roy MJ. 2006. Implementing a corporate environmental strategy: establishing coordination and control within multinational
companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 16(6): 389403.
EUs Director-General for Transport and Energy. 2005. Green Paper on Energy Efciency or Doing More with Less. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/
efciency/doc/2005_06_green_paper_book_en.pdf last access March 2008
Fierman J. 1991. The big muddle in green marketing. Fortune 123: 91101.
Florida R, Davison D. 2001. Gaining from Green Management: environmental management systems inside and outside the factory. California
Management Review 43(3): 6481.
Frondel M, Horbach J, Rennings K. 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions
across OECD countries. Business Strategy and the Environment 16(8): 571584.
Geiser K. 2001. Cleaner production perspectives 2: integrating CP into sustainability strategies. UNEP Industry and Environment JanuaryJune:
3336.
Gonzlez-Benito J, Gonzlez-Benito O. 2006. A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(2): 87102.
GRI. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/
0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf last access March 2008
Hagelaar GJLF, van der Vorst JGAJ. 2002. Environmental supply chain management: using life cycle assessment to structure supply chains.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 4(4): 399412.
Hall J. 2000. Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner Production 8(6): 455471.
Hart SL. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the rm. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 9861014.
Henriques I, Sadorsky P. 1999. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance.
Academy of Management Journal 42(1): 8799.
Hollander J, Schneider T. 1996. Energy-efciency: issues for the decade. Energy 21(4): 273287.
IPCC. 2007. Assessment Report Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg3.htm last access March 2008
Keoleian G, Menerey D. 1993. Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH.
Keytz N. 1989. The growing human population. Scientic American September: 119126.
Kjaerheim G. 2005. Cleaner production and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(4): 329339.
Kolk A. 2000. Green reporting. Harvard Business Review 78(1): 1516.
Kolk A, Pinkse J. 2005. Business responses to climate change: identifying emergent strategies. California Management Review 47(3): 620.
Krippendorf K. 2004. Content Analysis: an Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd edn. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lee S, Myers S, Howarth R, Steiner R. 1992. Energy Efciency and Human Activity: Past Trends and Future Prospects. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Lenox M, Jordan B, Ehrenfeld J. 1996. Diffusion of design for environment: a survey of current practice. In Proceedings of the IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics and the Environment 68 May 1996, pages: 2530.
Lindhqvist T. 2000. Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production, IIIEE Dissertation 2000:2. IIIEELund University: Lund.
Maxwell D, Sheate W, van der Vorst R. 2006. Functional and systems aspects of the sustainable product and service development approach
for industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(17): 14661479.
Meadows DH, Meadows, DL, Randers J. 1972. The Limits to Growth: a Report for the Club of Romes Project on the Predicament of Mankind.
Potomac AssociatesUniverse Books: New York.
Miles MP, Munilla LS. 1993. The eco-orientation: an emerging business philosophy. Marketing Theory and Practices 1: 4351.
Orsato RJ. 2006. Competitive environmental strategies: when does it pay to be green? California Management Review 48(2): 127143.
Peattie K. 1992. Green Marketing. Pitman: London; 6478.
Porter M, van der Linde C. 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review SeptemberOctober: 120133.
Pujari D. 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the inuences on market performance. Technovation 26(1):
7685.
Pujari D, Wright G, Peattie K. 2003. Green and competitive. Inuences on environmental new product development performance. Journal of
Business Research 56: 657671.
Ravi V, Shankar R, Tiwari MK. 2005. Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 48(2): 327356.
Robert KH. 1995. The natural step. Timeline March/April: 124.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse

96

V. Albino et al.

Ryan C. 2004. Digital Eco-Sense: Sustainability and ICT a New Terrain for Innovation. Lab 3000: Melbourne.
Sarkis J. 2003. A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 11(4): 397409.
Schneider S. 1989. The changing climate. Scientic American September: 7079.
Shrivastava P. 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 16(special issue): 183200.
Shrivastava P, Hart S. 1995. Creating sustainable corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment 4(3): 154165.
von Weizscker E, Lovins A, Lovins H. 1997. Factor Four: Doubling Wealth Halving Resource Use. Allen and Unwin: Sydney.
Welford R. 1997. Hijacking Environmentalism: Corporate Responses to Sustainable Development. Earthscan: London.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 1998. Meeting Changing Expectations: Corporate Social Responsibility. WBCSD:
Geneva.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: New York.

Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Bus. Strat. Env. 18, 8396 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/bse