ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Nowadays, interest in corporate environmental strategies shifts from cleaner processes to the holistic nature of green products. The relevant literature argues that firms have the opportunity to pioneer through green product innovation, allowing them to differentiate and thus gain competitive advantage. Environmental burden of products during their entire life cycle is undeniable. Due to the weakness of the existing literature that inadequately addresses a commonly accepted green product definition, as well as the thereby caused inconclusive academic empirical results on firms' competitiveness, there are many cases of businesses greenwashing behavior. The overall contribution of this exploratory paper, on determining and evaluating the degree of greenness of a product, is twofold; first, starting with a systematic literature review, authors further contribute by proposing an integrative definition that addresses the so far existing terminological gap. Next, after reviewing the existing environmental assessment tools, authors based on the developed definition and in accordance to its dynamic dimension contribute to the existing methodology, as the paper reveals issues that need to be considered in the evaluation of green products.
Content may be subject to copyright.
doi: 10.1111/joes.12268
Evangelia Sdrolia* and Grigoris Zarotiadis
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Abstract. Nowadays, interest in corporate environmental strategies shifts from cleaner processes to
the holistic nature of green products. The relevant literature argues that firms have the opportunity to
pioneer through green product innovation, allowing them to differentiate and thus gain competitive
advantage. Environmental burden of products during their entire life cycle is undeniable. Due to
the weakness of the existing literature that inadequately addresses a commonly accepted green
product definition, as well as the thereby caused inconclusive academic empirical results on firms’
competitiveness, there are many cases of businesses greenwashing behavior. The overall contribution
of this exploratory paper, on determining and evaluating the degree of greenness of a product, is
twofold; first, starting with a systematic literature review, authors further contribute by proposing an
integrative definition that addresses the so far existing terminological gap. Next, after reviewing the
existing environmental assessment tools, authors based on the developed definition and in accordance
to its dynamic dimension contribute to the existing methodology, as the paper reveals issues that need
to be considered in the evaluation of green products.
Keywords. Environmental assessment tools; Environmental sustainability; Green product; System-
atic literature review
1. Introduction
Nowadays, multidimensional crisis calls for simultaneous economic stability, social equity, and
environmental protection pushing economic agents to actively engage and complete their corporate
social responsibility (Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2012).
The dynamic relationship between production and environment has undergone progressive change (de
Bakker et al., 2002). In the 1960s and 1970s, environmental problems were basically neglected from
firms, while in the 1980s, biophysical environment—seen as an externality and thus additional cost—led
some businesses to simple compliance with end-of-pipe technologies. Until then, the majority of US
products did not incorporate environmentally friendly characteristics with the exception of organic foods
in the food industry (Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010). After the publication of Brundtland Report (1987),
with the alongside emergence of sustainable development terminology, the 1990s were marked by the
innovative approach of Porter Hypothesis (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998; de Bakker et al., 2002). According
to Porter and van der Linde (1995), environmental innovation as response to ecological challenges may
offer multiple competitive opportunities that stem from differentiation and/or cost strategies, in a win-win
logic. Thus, companies were emboldened to take environmental strategies into consideration, which led
to green marketing emergence in late 1980s (Tseng and Hung, 2013).
Corresponding author contact email:; Tel: +30 6941592729.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Since then, green became a hot topic in academia, due to the redefinition of a new production
entrepreneurial strategy, where businesses acknowledge environmental aspects as competitive advantages.
There has been a growing number of references and researches regarding a variety of terms such as green
corporate sustainability,green innovation,green labeling,green management,green products,green
strategies, and so on (Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010).
Despite the flourishing field in theoretical (e.g., Orsato, 2006; Albino et al., 2009; L´
et al., 2009; Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010) as well as empirical investigation (e.g., Frondel et al., 2007;
ohringer et al., 2012; Costantini and Mazzanti, 2012), the state-of-the-art review confirms the absence of
a universal, effective, and well-structured definition (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ib´
nez, 2006; Durif et al.,
2010; Ritter et al., 2015). Every term including the notion green/environmental seems to totter and be
quite complex, proving that little research has addressed the definitional topic.
This deficiency and the ongoing debate of what really constitutes a green product have led to a
twofold problem. At first, there is a methodological deficiency in academic research because the term
is quite ambiguous, which is partly responsible for the ongoing mixed empirical results with respect to
the relationship between environmental variables and firms’ competitiveness: aside to those that depict
a positive relationship (e.g., Hart and Ahuja, 1996; Russo and Fouts, 1997; Judge and Douglas, 1998;
King and Lenox, 2001), there are contributions that show the opposite (e.g., Jaggi and Freedman, 1992;
Cordeiro and Sarkis, 1997; Hassel et al., 2005; McPeak et al., 2010) or no clear relationship at all (e.g.,
Cohen et al., 1997; Wagner, 2005). Thus, causing a series of debates (Eiadat et al., 2008; Iraldo et al.,
2011). The reasons for this debate have not been yet exhaustively examined (Horv´
a, 2010). There
exists a long list of environmental as well as economic variables that have been used (L ´
et al., 2009). According to Horv´
a’s (2010) meta-analysis investigation, the problem seems to merely
focus on the environmental variables. At the same time, there is a plethora of parameters (such as firm
size) and techniques that might influence the results (with multiple regression and panel data techniques
to be more objective) (Horv´
a, 2010; Iraldo et al., 2011).
Second, at the practical level, the industrial sector and third-party authorities have long started to
communicate their greenness in the market, through green claims that take advantage a variety of green
evaluation methods. For example, many companies make use of personal environmental declarations to
define green products. The absence of a universally accepted definition regarding green products may
lead them to bias research of their personal interest. Thus, there are several cases dealt with skepticism
by consumers and firms are faced with greenwashing accusations regarding their products (Albino et al.,
2009; Durif et al., 2010).
Since, “a scientific concept1really consists of three parts: a label, a theoretical definition, and an
operational definition” (Watt and van den Berg, 2002), we understand the importance of the theoretical
definition. The procedure of formulating the concept is the first and most foundational step before
defining the most essential components that will result in the selection of appropriate empirical indicators
(Hox, 1997). The label “green product” represents the basic form in which a theory can be broadly
communicated in a clear and understandable way (Watt and van den Berg, 2002). Therefore, the problem
of the lack of a common definition may lead to vague notions and thereafter confusion in its testing
and evaluation. There can be no thorough scientific investigation without a proper definition because the
existing misunderstanding causes different goals and scope within the firm and society with multiple
misunderstandings, greenwashing cases, and diversity in environmental management practices.
Therefore, the absence of a universally common term of what actually constitutes a “green product”—
thus causing no solid theoretical core—should not be underestimated. Theory plays a significant role by
giving objectivity in research and increased sense of trust regarding consumers (Udo-Akang, 2012).
As definitions are acknowledged as one basic component of the theory (Wacker, 1998), it is of no
wonder why new theoretical comprehension is thus necessary, to deal with the definitional gap that may
afterward cause ambiguous empirical researches, regarding the relationship “environmental protection
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
vs competitiveness.” So, the appropriate term should be the starting point. That is the reason why this
research turns to the very basics: what is finally a green product?
The contribution of this paper is twofold: first, it facilitates further research on new knowledge creation
with a proposal of a new, thorough yet simple green product definition. Therefore, an exhaustive and
refined analysis of existing literature is a precondition for a profound and accurate terminology. Second,
the connection of the proposed term with a suitable recording methodology is of utmost importance, in
order to deal with multiple greenwashing cases. Thus, following an overview of the existing environmental
assessment tools, this paper contributes to the relevant literature since it reveals issues that need to be
considered in the evaluation of green products.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: the second part of the present study presents the
literature review with respect to environmental management, in which the transition from green processes
to green products is presented. Thenceforth, Section 3 provides the necessary theoretical background,
in order to clearly define the concept of green product. Specifically, contributions to the field of green
product definition are identified in order to review the progress that has been made in the state-of-the-art
review, by conducting a systematic literature review. In Section 4, based upon a brief inventory of existing
environmental assessment tools, the contribution lies on further development of the assessment tools
and the methodologies for the evaluation of green products, considering the dynamic dimension of the
proposed definition. Last but not least, Section 5 summarizes this study and provides conclusions and
proposals for further research.
2. Environmental Management
The emergence of environmental management that cares for matching the goals of economic organizations
with the environment, arose in order to minimize the ongoing and conspicuous environmental degradation,
caused by the prolonged industrial production and is traced in the business slang since the beginning of
the 1990s (Chen, 2007; Lee, 2009). It became quite fashionable since the new millennium and concepts
such as corporate environmentalism,corporate environmental management,environmental strategies,
green corporate sustainability,green management, etc., have come to the forefront and have been widely
researched (de Bakker et al., 2002; Chen, 2007; Lee, 2009).
There is no universally accepted common classification among the forces that motivated the
sensitiveness of businesses and led to the acquaintance of environmental management. However, two
of them seem to be mainly addressed in the literature: the stringency of environmental legitimacy, which
took place in an international and a national scale and the rise of consumerism (Kam-Sing Wong, 2012).
Initial strategies of corporate environmental management have started to go beyond simple reactive
measures of regulatory compliance—an approach that flourished since 1960s—as the continuous
emergence and adjustment of environmental laws led to increased costs (Ross and Evans, 2002).
Subsequently, the shift that took place was from end-of-pipe pollution control technologies (e.g.,
filters) to strategies of environmental proactivity, with the pertinent literature incorporating a variety of
classifications regarding the determinant factors of this transition (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998; Gonz´
Benito and Gonz´
alez-Benito, 2006; Jabbour et al., 2012).
The progressive change that followed, next to cleaning production technologies and pollution
prevention, caused the environmental management to entail forms of product stewardship (de Bakker
et al., 2002; Albino et al., 2009). Over the last decades, the interest of corporations toward proactive
environmental protection strategies shifted from processes to products, due to stringent environmental
regulations that aim at minimizing the ecological footprint of products (Triebswetter and Wackerbauer,
2008; Albino et al., 2009). It is accepted that products can create an environmental burden during their
whole life cycle, from production to consumption and finally to disposal (Triebswetter and Wackerbauer,
2008; Albino et al., 2009). It is notable that according to Kam-Sing Wong (2012), green product innovation
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
seemed to be more influential than green process innovation concerning green competitive advantage.
There are also major markets for eco-products that require the full compliance of businesses (Kam-Sing
Wong, 2012).
Early studies also emphasized that the above transition is somewhat correlated with firm size (Bianchi
and Noci, 1998). In particular, at first, the environmental management and later on the shift from reactive
to proactive strategies initially occurred to large enterprises, since scale advantage seemed to be one of
the determinant factors (Bianchi and Noci, 1998; Gonz´
alez-Benito and Gonz´
alez-Benito, 2006; Chen,
2007; Lee, 2009). Small- and medium-sized enterprises (hereafter, SMEs) often lacked knowledge and
financial resources to keep up with the needed green alterations and cared less for long-term investments
(Bianchi and Noci, 1998; Lee, 2009). Thus, a significant body of research in business and management
literature explored the response of large enterprises to environmental issues (Lee, 2009; Brammer et al.,
2011). Later on, it became apparent that SMEs are also crucial in the transition to a more proactive
environmental management. Since they depict 80% of enterprises in a global scale, 99% of EU-firms and
account for around 2/3 of total employment in European Union, empirical investigation in SMEs became
more intense (, 2015b).
Nowadays, it has been perfectly clear that economic growth should be accompanied by minimization
of ecological degradation, as well as attention to social problems. An increasing number of companies are
working on the development of environmentally friendly products that will function as a differentiation
tool, aiming at competitiveness (Chen and Chang, 2012). Consequently, concepts such as design for
the environment (US term)/eco-design (European term)/environmental conscious design/environmental
design (van Weenen, 1995; Tukker et al., 2001; Baumann et al., 2002; Tien et al., 2005), green product
development (Jasti et al., 2015), green product design (Chan, 2011), green product innovation (Kam-Sing
Wong, 2012; Wahid and Lee, 2011), green supply-chain management (Shrivastava, 2007), integrated
environmental management (Margerum, 1999), integrated product policy (Commission of the European
Communities, 2001), product-oriented environmental management (de Bakker et al., 2002), product
stewardship (de Bakker et al., 2002), etc., have come to the forefront and are researched in academia. At
the same time, there has been the development of new methodologies for the evaluation of environmental
characteristics and impacts such as Environmental Management Systems,Life-Cycle Analysis,Strategic
Environmental Assessment, and many more (Baumann et al., 2002; de Bakker et al., 2002; Albino et al.,
2009; Finnveden et al., 2009).
3. Towards a New Definition for Green Products
3.1 The Definitional Issue
Green is a term coined within the marketing field in late 1980s–early 1990s and it became quite fashionable,
because it coincided with the environmental awakening of consumers (Tseng and Hung, 2013).
Although green caught the attention of nowadays policies (that seeks the new paradigm of green
growth) and has become mainstream in hitherto literature, there exists a definitional issue. As the present
review reveals, research in the field has been flourishing in the last decades, yet it is still considered
immature, especially with respect to the basic terminology used; the question of what really constitutes a
green product still remains unclear (Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ib ´
nez, 2006; Durif et al., 2010; Ritter et al.,
2015). That was as well empirically confirmed by Durif et al. (2010), who studied the concept of green
product in a 30-year period from three different viewpoints: academia, businesses, and consumers and
concluded that terms neither match nor even converge. The concept of green is characterized as “evocative
and powerful” (Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010). Consumers and companies seem to be attracted to this
differentiator; this is confirmed by the broad increase in sales in USA and EU of labeled green products
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
(Maniatis, 2016). No wonder why the problem regarding the terminology absence is mostly addressed in
the marketing and management field (Russo and Fouts, 1997; Chen et al., 2006).
Relevant literature contains systematic reviews (Adams et al., 2012; de Medeiros et al., 2014; Pereira-
Santos and Vence, 2015). Most recently, Dangelico (2015) synthesized 63 empirical studies to identify
antecedents, outcomes, and success factors for green product innovation development. However, their
focus remains mainly on green (product) innovation. Alternatively, Baumann et al. (2002) concentrated
on green product development reviewing 650 articles from three different disciplines; engineering,
management, and policy studies. Nevertheless, they considered only researches from 1971 till 1999.
Moreover, the keywords that have been used were not identical in all three disciplines, leaving outside
other notions, for example, eco.
However, very few have dealt specifically with products. Most recently, Durif et al. (2010) focus
precisely on the examination of green product definition, incorporating more current studies till 2009.
Nevertheless, there is still room for a more recent, updated research to fill the existing literature gap, by
reviewing this expanding body of diversifying definitions. Therefore, the upper time limit of the current
study is determined in early February 2017, incorporating almost eight more years of possible green
product definitions, in relation to Durif et al. (2010). In their methodological framework, they follow
three different viewpoints—academia, businesses, and consumers—using a descriptive meta-analysis, a
bibliographic approach and a survey, respectively, that incorporates 35 codified definitions; yet, the main
focus of the present research will be on academia because greenwashing cases and consumers’ confusion
(as mentioned by Durif et al., 2010) seem to result from the aftereffect of existing literature gap. Finally,
their keyword combinations seem to be too restrictive—only green/environmental/ecological product
excluding from the research the notions eco and sustainable. Since the lack of suitable search terms—
among others—relates to complexity of research identification and thereafter selection bias (Evans, 2002;
eet al., 2013; Haddaway et al., 2015), the proposal of specific keyword combinations is considered
to be a significant component of any research in systematic literature review (Evans, 2002). A more
comprehensive literature search minimizes the possibility to leave out any useful definition that may
lead to selection bias (Jones, 2004). Therefore, in the present study, we indicate green products in more
different ways by incorporating additional search terms—with similar meaning—and by considering
conceptual as well as empirical studies to cover a wider range, thus limiting down the possible bias and
minimizing the likelihood of any compatible studies being excluded.
Since current terminology on the field appears to be insufficient, the purpose and thereafter contribution
of this paper is to develop and establish a thorough, simple, and sophisticated definition in order to fill
the existing gap and enlighten the basic characteristics of a green product. Thus, we are specifically
concentrated on green product definitions, which are addressed relatively seldom at the literature, to fill
the existing literature gap by summarizing this expanding body of diversifying definitions and minimizing
selection bias.
3.2 Methodological Notes
This section begins with the display of the methodological framework. The present study is based on
the systematic review methodology, since it is considered the necessary research endeavor to identify the
progress that has been made in the state-of-the-art review. Systematic reviews are characterized by a more
structured and organized approach that manages to identify as many (relevant on the specific topic) studies
as possible in a transparent and responsible way, in contrast to traditional narrative literature review that
leads to selection bias (Tranfield et al., 2003; Cronin et al., 2008; de Medeiros et al., 2014). Following
Tavares Thom´
eet al. (2013), the six-step process was carried out for paper selection: computerized
database selection, identification of proper keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, first review of
abstracts followed by full-text review, and finally, review of selected references from full-text articles.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 1 . Number of Results for Each Database, Based on Initial Scope on Titles.
keyword combinations Google scholar Scopus Science direct
“Ecological product” 40 26 2
“Eco-friendly product” 20 26 3
“Eco-product” 60 35 6
“Environmentally-friendly product” 23 35 6
“Environmental product” 401 128 35
“Green product” 582 301 55
“Sustainable product” 659 348 86
Total 1785 899 193
Initially, the focus was on titles in order to identify relevant studies in the literature. Thus, building
on pertinent literature, the search terms employed (Table 1) indicated green products in different ways.
In order to avoid being too restrictive, research was not limited by the use of keywords definition and/or
scope. At the same time, keyword combinations made use of quotation marks. The aim was to search for
the concepts as a whole, thus narrow down irrelevant results.
Following the searching strategy of other researchers and based on accessibility, three academic
electronic multidisciplinar databases were used: Scopus (the largest abstract and citation database,
covering nearly 22,000 titles), Science Direct (including over 2500 journals and more than 33,000 books),
and Google Scholar (open access web search engine). All three databases are computerized screening
of journal, conference proceedings, theses, etc., only in the English language with no restriction of time
span. The upper time limit was determined by search completion, in early February 2017.
Research of alternative keywords on titles identified a considerable amount of relevant studies
(Table 1). As depicted below, most of the references regard the notion sustainable,followedbyterms
green and then environmental, while ecological, eco,and eco-friendly are not that frequently encountered.
After discarding all duplicate articles, titles were reviewed for a brief first analysis of their relevance to
the topic. From the very first moment, it became obvious that it would be a difficult procedure, because the
adjective green is used many times in relation to more specified analyses, like green product innovation,
green product development, etc. However, those titles were included in the current study in order to not
minimize terminological bias. Moreover, the present research needed to focus on conceptual as well as
empirical studies in order to cover a wider range. On the contrary, studies with much too specialized
terminology, for example, ceramic green product,green product buyers, etc., were excluded.
Since the most important studies were found, afterward, the literature review was conducted by checking
their reference lists on second stage for most important citations. Afterward, the same procedure was
followed on third level, till there was repeated bibliography signalizing that the review was nearing
completion. Next, a reverse procedure was taken into consideration: After the most important studies
were acknowledged, we searched whether they have been used as citations to other surveys, in order to
ascertain the minimization of selection bias.
3.3 Discussion of Existing Definitions
Altogether 51 articles were included in the review, published from 1975 to 2017. Table 2 provides an
overview of the different definitions used in the selected papers.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Relevant Given Definitions Concerning Green Products.
Date Author(s) Used definition
2017 de Medeiros and
Green products, also named environmentally-correct or
environmentally-sustainable products, are those capable of adding
long-term benefits, reduce client stress and relieve them from their
environmental responsibility, without, however, diminishing products’
satisfying qualities.”
2016 Biswas and Roy “The environmentally sustainable or environmental compatible or
green products entails a list of potential benefits to the environment as
they are made of environmental-friendly resources, have
resource-conservation potential, can be recycled and have least
environmental impact at all stages of its lifecycle.”
2016 Kang and Choi Sustainable products, in this study, are broadly defined as those that
embrace positive social, environmental, and ethical attributes (Luchs
et al., 2010).”
2016 Maniatis “The concept of green products is related to sustainable manufacturing
and supply chain management, which involves environment friendly,
planet friendly, and people friendly standards, technologies and
practices (Palevich, 2012). The concept of green is extended to almost
every process step of procuring raw materials, producing, storing,
packaging, shipping, and distribution of products (Palevich, 2012).”
2016 Moser “Generally, green products are defined as products that are less or not at
all harmful for the environment in comparison to a substitute of the
same product category.”
2016 Saluja “In general, green products also known as environmentally friendly
products or ecological products. Pavan (2010) stated, green products
are the products which protect or enhance the natural environment by
conserving energy or resources, recyclable and reusable, original
grown, reducing or eliminating use of toxic agents, pollution and
waste, contain natural ingredients or recycled content, do not pollute
the environment, contain approved chemicals and have not been tested
on animals. However, Peter (2011) defined that green products are
products that guarantee that they are processed, manufactured and
produced in an environmentally friendly way that minimizes a negative
or damaging impact on the environment.”
2015 Borella and
Sustainable product is the product designed to contemplate its
relationship with the environment, causing no harm to nature.
Sustainable products are conceived since the choice of raw materials
until its use and discard, through a renewing cycle that will not bring
any damage to future generations. Just as nature has a life cycle, the
products must also have. Sustainable attributes of products are
presented within the approach of 6Rs: reduce, recycle, reuse, recover,
remanufacture and redesign’, over the stages of the product life cycle.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
2015 Esmaili and Fazeli Green products contain elements that are not harmful to the
environment (Mahenc, 2008) and (Polonsky and Rosenberger,
2001) made of materials that can be recycled to provide product
(Dangelico and Pontrandolfo, 2010), (Chen and Chai, 2010). Its
production process is environmentally friendly (Gur˘
au and
Ranchhod, 2005).”
2015 Esp´
ınola-Arredondo and
The brown and green goods differ both in their attributes and in
their environmental features. A green good generates less pollution
than a brown product, which can become zero when the good is
sufficiently clean (low pollution intensity).”
2015b Environmental products are goods and services that are produced
for the purpose of preventing, reducing and eliminating pollution
and any other degradation of the environment (environmental
protection - EP) and preserving and maintaining the stock of
natural resources and hence safeguarding against depletion.”
2015 Jasti et al. “Most of the organizations believe that “greenness” refers
minimization of level of the waste operations and activities within
the organizations. Whereas, environmentalists believe “greenness”
is sustainability. It is defined that development of product that
meets the requirement of the present without sacrificing the ability
of the future generation to achieve their own requirements.”
2015 Johnstone and Tan Environmentally friendly (EF) products have been defined as
products that consumers perceive to be environmentally friendly,
whether it is due to the types of materials used, the production
process, packaging, promotion, and so on.”
2015 Mohd-Suki Green products, also known as ecologically and environmentally
friendly products, include products that incorporate recyclable
and recycled content, and contain less toxic chemical substances
which minimize the impact on the environment.”
2015 Ritter et al. “The definition of green products can highlight different aspects of
these products: the life cycle phases during which a product can
show its environmentally friendly features, the higher
environmental benefits compared to conventional products, or the
minimization of the natural resources used. In this study, a GP was
considered as a product striving to protect or to enhance the natural
environment by conserving energy and/or resources and reducing
or eliminating the use of toxic agents, pollution, and waste
(Dangelico and Pujari, 2010).”
2014 de Medeiros et al. Green products are those that hold the potential to aggregate
long-term benefits, reduce consumer stress and ameliorate
customer environmental responsibilities while maintaining its
positive qualities.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
2013 Haws et al. Environmentally friendly product: one with at least one positive
environmental attribute. An “environmental attribute” is an attribute that
reflects the impact of the product on the environment. As such,
environmental product attributes can be positive (i.e., the product has little
to no negative impact on the environment and is considered
environmentally friendly) or negative (i.e., the product harms the
2013 Driessen et al. Green products are defined as new products whose greenness is
significantly better than conventional or competitive products. Greenness
is continuous rather than dichotomous. “Green” products represent a
significant improvement in greenness, which can be either small or large,
whereas “non-green” refers to no or an insignificant improvement in
2013 Mattioda et al. Sustainable products can be defined as those that offer environmental,
social and economic benefits while protecting public health, welfare and
the environment (Lu et al., 2011).”
2013 Tomasin et al. Green products are designed to prevent, limit, reduce, and/or correct
harmful environmental impacts on water, air, and soil. Accordingly, these
products constitute at least one means of resolving problems related to
waste, noise, and general detriments to ecology while serving as an
avenue for generating beneficial products and services (OECD, 2009).”
2013 Tseng and Hung Green products, namely, environmentally friendly products or
environmentally conscious products, are referred to as products designed
to lessen the consumption of natural resources required and minimize the
adversely environmental impacts during the whole life-cycles of these
2012 Chen and Chang Green products are those that have less of an impact on the environment,
are less detrimental to human health, are formed or part-formed from
recycled components, are manufactured in a more energy conservative
way, or are supplied to the market with less packaging.”
2012 Kam-Sing Wong A green and innovative product is a product characterized by its taking
into account of the recyclability and disposal issues throughout its life
cycle; usage of materials which are recycled and recyclable and which are
less polluting, nonpolluting or non-toxic; due consideration to energy use,
human toxicity, ecological impact and sustainability issues at every stage
of its life cycle; and incorporation of a continual impact assessment and
improvement mechanism in the product development cycle.”
2012 Blengini et al. “A sustainable product could be: a product designed, manufactured, used
and disposed of according to criteria of economic, environmental and
social efficiency, which maximize net benefits across generations.
However, it should be mentioned that there is still much confusion about
what can be considered a sustainable product and what should not.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
2011 Wee et al. Green products are designed to reduce energy consumption, use less
natural resources, raise the recycled materials, and reduce or eliminate
toxic substances, which are harmful to both the environment and human
health. The development of a green product is a process within the internal
processes of a company.”
2010 Air Quality Sciences,
Environmentally friendly refers to products or services that are not
harmful to the outdoor environment or its inhabitants, the term is quite
vague and subject to multiple interpretations, “green” is “a difficult word.”
2010 Chen and Chai “In general, green product is known as an ecological product or
environmental friendly product.”
2010 Dangelico and
Green products are characterized according to their environmental impact
(less negative, null, and positive) whose meaning is slightly different
according to each of the three environmental focus (materials, energy, and
pollution). A Green Option Matrix (GOM) has been developed to
integrate this new dimension with environmental focus (materials, energy,
and pollution) and life cycle phase (before usage, usage, and after usage).”
2010 Durif et al. “A green product is a product whose design and/or attributes (and/or
production and/or strategy) use recycling
(renewable/toxic-free/biodegradables) resources and which improves
environmental impact or reduces environmental toxic damage throughout
its entire life cycle". Note that each code contains several synonymic
terminologies. Green: “environmental” or “ecological”; Attributes:
“functions”, “ideas”, “practices”, or “qualities”; Uses: “incorporates”;
Recycling: “renewable”, “toxic-free”, or “biodegradable”; Resources:
“energy”, “materials”, or “ingredients”; Benefits: “maximizes”,
“encourages”, or “contributes”; Reduces: “minimizes”, “saves”, or
“eliminates”, and Toxic damage: “pollution”.”
2010 Gao et al. Green product is a kind of product that has no or little harmful
performance on ecological environment, and has a higher rate of resource
and energy utilization. The concept of green product is a whole product’s
life cycle rather than a certain process or stage, so the information model
of green product should meet the following requirements: (1) include the
information of fundamental function and structure; (2) include the
fundamental information of the product’s life cycle; and (3) provide data
for environmental performance assessment.”
2010 Panjaitan and Sutapa Green Product is eco-friendly products or products that in their planning
and process with technique have less impact to environment, even in
production process, distribution, and consumption.”
2010 U.S. Department of
Economics and
“We defined green products or services as those whose predominant
function serves one or both of the following goals: conserve energy and
other natural resources or reduce pollution.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
2009 Albino et al. Green product: goods or services designed to minimize their
impact on the environment at each phase of their 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.”
2009 Yanarella et al. Green is typically associated with individual products and
processes. Green practices are ideologically safe practices that
do not fundamentally disturb the driving forces of economic
growth and corporate profit-making.”
2008 Pickett-Baker and Ozaki “If a product has a low environmental impact, it is regarded as an
environmentally sustainable product.
2008 Seuring and M¨
uller “Sustainable product is the term used to comprehend all kinds of
products that have or aim at an improved environmental and
social quality, which can be related back to the already
mentioned implementation of environmental and social
2007 D’Souza et al. Green products have to represent a significant achievement in
reducing environmental impact; they may also have to
incorporate strategies of recycling, recycled content, reduced
packaging or using less toxic materials.”
2007 Nimse et al. Green products may be defined as products that contain recycled
materials, reduce waste, conserve energy or water, use less
packaging, and reduce the amount of toxics disposed or
consumed. These products are less harmful on humans and their
environment compared with the traditional products in use, and
are more socially, economically, and environmentally viable in
the long run.”
2006 Hartmann and
Green product attributes may be environmentally sound
production processes, responsible product uses, or product
elimination, which consumers compare with those possessed by
competing conventional products.”
2006 Ottman et al. Although no consumer product has a zero impact on the
environment, in business the terms ‘green’or‘environmental
product’ are used commonly to describe those that strive to
protect or enhance the natural environment by conserving
energy and/or resources and reducing or eliminating use of toxic
agents, pollution, and waste.”
2005 Gur˘
au and Ranchhod Ecological product is defined as a product that was
manufactured using toxic-free ingredients and
environmentally-friendly procedures, and who is certified as
such by a recognized organization, such as SKAL in The
Netherlands; BIOKONTROL in Hungary; INAC,
OKO-GARANTI or QCLI in Germany.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
2005 Soo-Wee and Quazi Green product/ process design: Design production processes
and products in such a way that it minimizes adverse impact on
the environment. Life cycle analysis used to assess the
environmental impact of products throughout the entire life span
of the products. Products are redesigned to reduce the negative
environmental impact. Production processes are examined to
reduce the amount of waste, energy consumption and emissions.
Adopt a preventive approach and integrate environmental
concerns into the product during its design phase. Recycling
activities carried out to ensure full usage of resources.”
2003 Osada Eco-product, ecological product, green product is one that
contributes to environmental protection or preservation.”
2002 Janssen and Jager Green products are products with low environmental impacts.
They are defined as products with an alternative design such that
less physical resources are required during its life cycle.”
2001 Commission of the
European Communities
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 have been
recognized as the engine of a ’ new growth paradigm and a
higher quality of life through wealth creation and
1998 OECD Environmental goods and services include all activities that
measure, prevent, limit, minimize or correct environmental
1998 Ottman Green products are typically durable, non-toxic, made of
recycled materials, or minimally packaged. Of course, there are
no completely green products, for they all use up energy and
resources and create by-products and emissions during their
manufacture, transport to warehouses and stores, usage, and
eventual disposal. So green is relative, describing products with
less impact on the environment than their alternatives.”
1998 Reinhardt Environmental product differentiation takes place when: “a
business creates products that provide greater environmental
benefits, or that impose smaller environmental costs, than
similar products.”
1995 Nissen An eco-product should be designed in such a way that: the
chosen material is a plentiful natural resource; the
manufacturing process requires only a low consumption of
natural resources; the emission of hazardous waste in the
production process is minimal; when in use is relatively
environmentally sound; environmentally sound remanufacturing
or recycling processes can be easily applied after use; when
finally discarded, the environmental impact of the
disposal/incineration is minimal.”
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 2 . Continued
Date Author(s) Used definition
1995 Peattie Green product: when its environmental and societal performance, in production,
use and disposal, is significantly improved and improving in comparison to
conventional or competitive products offerings.”
1993 Chen Green product development should focus on the entire production process (from
manufacturing to disposal) and not just on the product itself. Businesses and
environmentalists often have different opinions on "greenness". Most companies
think "greenness" as minimizing waste, while for environmentalists is
1975 Herberger Ecological Products are products that have been identified as having an
ecological orientation. Ecology appeal, from a consumers’ perception, means
that among the product’s characteristics its viability with the environment is
recognizable, understandable and marketable.”
The literature review reveals that there is no unified definition that has prevailed. Interest on the
environment got a foothold within research in 1975, while the real intensification of definitions appears
mainly in the last decade.2At the same time, although green product concepts are frequently found in the
literature, they are not always followed by a definition within the specific paper. It is very likely that the
term green product is falsely considered as being already known. Thus, there are cases (e.g., Chen and
Chai, 2010) where green products are just defined by other terms (ecological product or environmental
friendly product).
Green products are interpreted in different ways. Synonyms abound and the most conspicuous concepts
identified in the literature are green,eco,environmental,andsustainable (analogs are also the findings
in Schiederig et al., 2012). Albino et al. (2009) argue that green and eco in terminology are used
interchangeably. Present research depicts similar cases where the same erroneous method is used between
green and sustainable (for instance, Osada, 2003; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008; Jasti et al., 2015;
Biswas and Roy, 2016; de Medeiros and Ribeiro, 2017). The term sustainability shows a broadening
in scope, taking into consideration the so-called three pillars of sustainable development: economic
vitality, environment, and social fairness (also often referred to as triple bottom line; Albino et al.,
2009). Therefore, the term sustainable product is avoided as it seems to be conceptually vague. A
product may be related to the sustainability of a system, yet in an indirect way, through the related
process that can be characterized as sustainable, in the sense of the environment or of the socioeconomic
system. According to Yanarella et al. (2009), green is a much easier and convenient term to follow,
since sustainability calls for radical changes in present growth model. That is also apparent by the
fact that green is the most commonly used notion (36 out of 51 cases) and seems to have prevailed
in recent years. Green’s supremacy is likely due to being a quick differentiator that easily indicates
Furthermore, the meaning of green depends on the field of research (Saha and Darnton, 2005; Durif
et al., 2010). For instance, there exists a terminological gap between business management (that considers
greenness as waste-minimization practices) and environmentalists—to whom greenness coincides with
sustainability (Chen, 1993; Jasti et al., 2015). There is also a terminology divergence among studies
that focus on different industries. For example, a green product in health sector might be a product that
minimizes impacts on human health, whereas in manufacturing businesses, it should combine economic
advancement and environmental protection (Saha and Darnton, 2005).
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Moreover the concept itself, which is under research, is never the same. Thus, a plethora of notions
arises. In prior literature, concepts such as green products (Chen, 1993; Albino et al., 2009; Durif et al.,
2010), green product innovation (Chen et al., 2006; Kam-Sing Wong, 2012), eco-products (Karlsson
and Luttropp, 2006), environmental innovation (Costantini and Mazzanti, 2012), and eco-innovation
(Rennings, 2000) were addressed. Each one of them aims at different aspects, such as environmental
impacts (Albino et al., 2009), parts of life-cycle analysis (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008), green core
competence (Chen, 2007), etc.
From a conceptual point of view, despite the terminology variation and vagueness, there is at least a
convergence of arguments that green product should take into consideration the environment and that
impacts are generated at each stage of product life cycle (Chen, 1993; Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010;
Kam-Sing Wong, 2012; Biswas and Roy, 2016; Maniatis, 2016). Thus, green product definition should be
holistic. Every product causes multiple ecological impacts on extraction of raw materials, energy use, air
and water consumption, production of intermediate, and end products (in general, green manufacturing,
which is further divided in end-of-pipe and integrated/clean technologies), distribution, consumption
(products generate private environmental benefits for the consumer such as cost and energy savings,
toxic free), recycling, and finally disposal (Frondel et al., 2007; Chan, 2011). This holistic approach was
apparent from the early 1990s.
Some of the most notable contributions in hitherto literature review are shortly depicted here; Chen
(1993) has presented the first reported effort that takes into account greenness discriminating between
products and processes. Therefore, in his definition, he focuses on the entire production process, rather
than the product itself. In that sense, his definition is considered to be the first sign of life-cycle approach.
Nevertheless, although it has been acknowledged since then life-cycle thinking is still not included in
some of the recent terminologies (e.g., Esp´
ınola-Arredondo and Mu˜
ıa, 2015; Jasti et al., 2015;
Moser, 2016; Saluja, 2016; de Medeiros and Ribeiro, 2017).
Ottman (1998, p. 89) provides an early, relatively proper definition and is the first to acknowledge that
“green is relative”, implying the dynamic relationship that is seldom mentioned (see also Driessen et al.,
OECD (1998) refers to goods and services, presenting the distinction between tangible and intangible
that is rare, yet both need to be included (Albino et al., 2009;, 2015aa). Later on, Yanarella
et al. (2009) incorporate the economic dimension within the term through the connection of green with
“economic growth and profitability.” However, this indication is rather unnecessary due to the fact that
referring to commodities already signifies it.
One easily concludes that there is a lack of a unified definition. Durif et al. (2010) may be the first
who provided a comprehensive, combinatory definition for green products; nonetheless, they consider
synonyms that are often inaccurate (e.g., recycling and toxic-free, energy, and materials). At the same
time, the absence of important keyword combinations that could indicate green products in different
ways (using the notions eco and sustainable) and the inclusion of only qualitative studies seems to have
restricted the results (selection bias) and be the reason for the above-mentioned inaccurate synonyms.
Altogether, existing definitions are far too extended and many times palaver, trying to overcome the
definitional gaps through exhaustive descriptions, in an effort to become as descriptive as possible.
3.4 Proposed Definition
The present paper contributes to the conceptual understanding by harmonizing the different terms to a
standardized, general one that could be implemented in all related fields. The efficient definition should
interpret the boundaries of the concept clearly, so that it will constitute as the foundation for valid
inferences. Thus, the definition must be short but at the same time exhaustive and inclusive, following the
four laws of logic (Pantazidou and Valeontis, 2009). Next, the following laconic concept of the present
study is proposed:
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Green is a product (tangible or intangible) that minimizes its environmental impact (direct and indirect)
during its whole life-cycle, subject to the present technological and scientific status.
It is important to describe in short the necessary characteristics that contribute to the holistic nature
of the proposed definition, since “characteristics play an essential role in terminology” (International
Standard ISO 704:2009, 2000). First, a positive contribution is the inclusion of both tangible products
and intangible services as well. Second, the definition overcomes a well-known controversy: in order for
a product to be green, it needs not to harm (burden) or not to affect (impact) the environment? The notion
impact is preferred in order to avoid normative judgments that may be biased due to incomplete evaluation
of all possible indirect effects. Something that nowadays is considered as a positive result, in the future,
it may have cumulative negative consequences. Instead of judging, all the impacts subject to present
knowledge of ecological principles and ecosystem mechanisms should be taken into consideration. Third,
the above proposed definition highlights both direct (caused by the action itself appearing at the same
space and time) and indirect environmental impacts (also known as secondary impacts that result later in
time but are still calculable) (Washington State Department of Transportation, 2012). Forth, the proposed
definition considers life-cycle thinking. As already mentioned above (see Section 3.3), products can have
an environmental footprint throughout the full length of their life cycle and hence must be taken into
account. Finally, the definition contributes to the literature by mentioning that green product will be
always assessed “subject to the present technological and scientific status”: on the one hand, because
present scientific status determines which impacts we can be aware of; on the other hand, because present
technological status determines the feasible minimization of impacts.
The rise of a properly developed definition, as the one proposed in this paper, will help to overcome
existing inconsistencies and at the same time will lead to proper environmental strategies. For this reason,
the definition needs to be transformed into a thorough methodology for the evaluation of greenness,an
appropriate assessment of green attributes from cradle to grave.
4. Evaluation of Green Products
The absence of a universal definition and the ongoing debate of what really constitutes a green product
have led to a twofold problem. At first, there is a methodological deficiency in academic research because
the term is quite ambiguous, which is also considered to be the main reason for conflicting empirical
results (L´
opez-Gamero et al., 2009). In praxis, on the other hand, the industrial sector and third-party
authorities have long started to communicate their greenness in the market. Thus, there are several cases
dealt with skepticism and therefore firms are accused of greenwashing their products (Albino et al., 2009;
Durif et al., 2010). Though the established eco-labeling standards and official declarations/reporting
methodologies prevent some fake environmental claims, greenwashing cases are still being multiplied.
It is remarkable that 32% of the so-called green products are fake, according to the 2010 Terra Choice
Report, depicting a 6% rise in comparison to 2009 (Air Quality Sciences, Inc., 2010).
Consequently, starting from the above proposed definition, the present paper contributes further to the
effectiveness of existing theory regarding environmental assessment methodologies that are applicable for
certification reasons. Existing literature includes a large bundle of tools that have evolved over the years,
for assessing environmental impacts. Based upon previous taxonomies (Finnveden and Moberg, 1999;
Moberg, 1999; Ness et al., 2007; Ahlroth et al., 2011; Herva et al., 2011), the following combinatory
classification list (Table 3) was developed. The specific inventory may not be exhaustive, yet it offers the
most important and most frequently addressed methodologies and tools in the literature. The classification
is based on the following characteristics:
rDistinction between procedural (for tools concerning procedures/processes) and analytical methods
(which regard technical aspects) (Finnveden and Moberg, 2005).
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 3 . Characteristics of Tools for Assessing Environmental Impacts.
analytical Type of impact Study object
outcomes Strengths Weaknesses
Cost Benefit
Analytical Economic,
Policy, Project,
Products (then
similar to LCC)
Change-orientated rWell-established
project-related tool (for
short-term projects).
rProjects’ comparability
rSimplicity due to
monetary values.
rConsiders time horizon,
through the discount of
future costs and
benefits (unlike LCA).
rComplication in
quantifying and
valuating non-marketed
goods, e.g., health.
rExpensive and
rUncertainty (lots of
Footprint (EF)
Analytical Environmental Policy, Plan,
nations, regions
Descriptive rSimplicity (single index
rEasily communicated.
rQuantification of direct
and indirect effects.
comparability of
footprints (not for
smaller regions).
rIgnores technological
rNot a dynamic
rLess relevant to certain
industries (e.g.,
rLimited data
Material and Energy Flow (MEFA)
Analysis (EA)
Analytical Environmental Policy, Plan,
nations, regions
Descriptive rInformation on the
efficiency of energy
rLife-cycle perspective.
rConsiders direct and
indirect energy
rUsage in simplified
rDifficulty in indicators’
comparisons because
they are based on
different theoretical
rLimited only to energy
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 3 . Continued
analytical Type of impact Study object
Outcomes Strengths Weaknesses
Material Flow
Analytical Environmental Policy, Plan,
nations, regions
Both rComplete
perspective of
economy’s physical
resource flows.
indicators do not
actually inform
Procedural Environmental Project (mainly) Change-orientated rStandardized tool.
comparisons among
impacts of projects
rAllows public
engagement in the
rLong-length reports
with technical
rFocused only at the
project level
(small-scale ones).
rLimited data
System (EMS)
Procedural Environmental Management of
Descriptive rInternationally
standardized tool.
improvement in
rIncreases public
rNot specific
standards for
rMainly for larger
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 3 . Continued
analytical Type of impact Study object
outcomes Strengths Weaknesses
Analytical Environmental,
Nations, regions,
sectors, product
Descriptive rCalculations require rather low
rAttempts to incorporate all
business activities and effects
on outputs, profits, and
rHighlights the relationships
across units in a company and
between companies.
rCalculations easily computed
and communicated.
rAllows cross-country
comparability using the UN’s
System of National Accounts.
rHelps quantify externalities.
rIt captures intrasector flows
(direct–indirect) without
double counting (compared to
rHigh aggregation-level causes
aggregation errors.
rUncertainty due to many
rQuite data-demanding
rRestricted to one or a few
environmental pressures, e.g.,
energy consumption and CO2
rInput–output tables must be
constantly updated to reflect
the latest information.
Analytical Environmental Products’ life
Both rExhaustive analysis.
rRelatively well-developed,
internationally standardized
rLife-cycle perspective.
rCovers a diversity of
environmental impacts.
rComparison across impact
rQuite data-demanding.
rMainly at larger enterprises.
rDifficult interpretation.
rWeighting step debated and
rAll impacts need quantitative
evaluation to a functional unit.
rSensitive to uncertainties.
rMainly a steady-state tool.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Tabl e 3 . Continued
analytical Type of impact Study object
outcomes Strengths Weaknesses
Life-Cycle Cost
Analytical Economic
(mainly), En-
Products’ life
Both rLife-cycle perspective.
rSimplicity due to monetary values.
rCan guide to proper technological
rOversimplification of
environmental problems into a
monetary dimension.
rCostly and time consuming.
rPoor data availability.
rNot internationally
Analytical Environmental Projects,
Change-orientated rLife-cycle perspective of a
chemical product/substance.
rStandardized tool.
rQuite data-demanding.
rLimited only on chemical
products/ substances.
rToo complex to perform in
product life-cycle studies.
Procedural Environmental
Policies, plans,
Change-orientated rMore flexible and proactive than
rApplied upstream (policies, plans
and programs) under conditions of
higher uncertainty, hence
empowers EIA.
rPublic engagement in
decision-making process.
rComparability among
decision-making processes.
rNeither institutionalized nor
rNot clear weighting methods.
rLack of expertise practitioners.
rWithout specific guidelines.
Systems for
and Economic
Analytical Environmental,
nations, regions Both rSingle coherent measurement
framework across the various
policy frameworks and targets.
rComparability among different
parts of society, e.g., transport,
households, etc.
rInternationally statistical
standardized tool (since 2012).
rDoes not cover the
nonmarketed services of the
natural environment.
rWithout simple valuation
rWithout inclusive natural
resource accounting.
Sources: Table 3 also contains information and characteristics that have been discussed in κουν ´ελα (2008), Abaza et al. (2004), Ackerman (2008), Brunner
and Rechberger (2004), Chang et al. (2014), Flemstr¨
om et al. (2004), Hinterberger et al. (2003), H¨
ojer et al. (2008), International Institute for Environment
and Development (IIED) (2009), Jeswani et al. (2010), Kaval (2011), Moffatt (2000), Munksgaard et al. (2008), Reap et al. (2008), and Suopaj¨
arvi (2011).
aThe abbreviations stand for TMR: total material requirement, MPIS: material intensity per unit service, SFA: substance flow analysis, EW-MFA: economy-wide
material flow accounts.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
rThe type of impact (that is generally divided in economic, environmental, and/or social).
rThe study object, thus specifying the focus area among products, projects, plans, etc. (Moberg,
rDistinction between descriptive/ex-post or change-oriented/ex-ante outcomes: whether the tool
evaluates/describes what was actually happening to a system in a specific time (e.g., environmental
reports, accounting studies that monitor the progress) or seeks to predict a future situation and thus
the consequences of an action (Moberg, 1999; Finnveden and Moberg, 2005).
rClassification based on the impact pathway of effects/ changes. Some activities create midpoint
changes, and thus have primarily effects on the environment (e.g., chemical concentration on the
atmosphere), while others have endpoint or secondary changes, which need more time to become
obvious (e.g., changes in ecosystems/human health) (Ahlroth et al., 2011).
rA brief reference is included regarding the main advantages and disadvantages of each environmental
assessment tool.
The most prominent and exhaustive analytical tool, for measuring the environmental impacts of
products, is life-cycle assessment (LCA). First proposed in late 1960s for beverage containers’ industries, it
has evolved through time and became a relatively well-developed international standardized environmental
assessment method (based on the framework of ISO 14040 and 14044) that focuses on life-cycle thinking
(Ness et al., 2007; Kloepffer, 2008; Finnveden et al., 2009). Despite its evolution that led to the maturity
and sophistication of the tool, debates still exist since multiple problems arise in each phase of LCA (Reap
et al., 2008; Chang et al. 2014). Many argue that it is a quite complex, time-, labor-, and data-intensive
process that needs a constant improvement of underlying datasets (Finnveden et al., 2009; Chang et al.,
2014). This is why it is mainly observed in large multinational companies and the industrialized world3
(Hochschorner and Finnveden, 2003; Udo de Haes and van Rooijen, 2005). Also, there are still issues
with the identification of impact categories, the inability to fully quantify all stages of products’ life cycle,
and the vagueness of the weighting step (Reap et al., 2008; Bala et al., 2010; Chang et al., 2014). Thus,
complexity among comparisons does exist.
Instead, analysts orientate themselves to more simplified semiquantified LCA matrix methods,
according to the distinction proposed by Wenzel (1998) (Hochschorner and Finnveden, 2003). One
of the first examples is the 5 ×5 semiquantitative Environmentally Responsible Product Assessment
Matrix by Greadel and Allenby (1995) in which environmental impacts are evaluated according to a
checklist, ranking from 0 to 4 (Hochschorner and Finnveden, 2003). Dewberry and Coggin (1996) present
the Ecodesign Matrix that considers the life-cycle stage (among production, use and disposal) and the
type of environmental focus (in energy, materials/ resources and pollution/ toxic waste). A more recent
contribution has been the Green Option Matrix from Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010), which is also
a simplified LCA method. Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010) propose a system for the evaluation of
environmental burden (less negative, null, or positive).
Starting from the main aspects of the proposed definition (as mentioned in Section 3.4), there are the
following notes with respect to the methodological discussion: first, in order to succeed in determining
all possible impacts in the frame of the broadly accepted life-cycle thinking, this has to be segregated into
more phases, that is, Design, Procurement, Production, Use, Disposal, and Recycling. It is likely that the
existing distinction of phases, “Before Use - Use - After Use” (proposed by Dangelico and Pontrandolfo,
2010), is quite narrow and simplistic. For example, Design may be a starting phase, yet it is of high
significance for the characteristics of products and/or processes; therefore, it cannot be overlooked (Tien
et al., 2005). These recommendations of ours respond to the claim made in the above proposed definition
to consider all the phases of the life cycle of a product.
Second, for the same reasons of intensifying the determination of environmental effects, a second
dimension of classifying possible impacts within each one of the life-cycle phases is proposed. Bear in
mind that any specific activity has to be organized and designed, next it is actually realized and finally
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
it has specific end results. In that sense, in order to exhaust the analysis of thinkable effects, one has to
consider the impacts that may occur during first, the planning and preparation processes of each life-cycle
phase that constitutes the organizational procedure, second the operational procedure that follows and
includes all processing and managing operations, and third with respect to the final outcome itself of each
specific phase. Thereby, we respond to another requirement that arises in our new suggested definition,
namely, to consider both the direct and the indirect environmental impacts.
Third, in this final section of the paper (Table 3), the review of existing methodologies and tools
showing that in many cases, there is an obvious trend in gradually quantifying the analysis and the
specified effects. The need of quantification, even though the introduction of discrete numeric variables,
truly contributes to the objectivity and the comparability of the applied evaluation. Nevertheless, in
the existing methodologies, analysts choose to do that by introducing discrete variables that refer to the
environmental burden of the specified effect; for instance, Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010) discriminate
impacts among less negative/ positive/null. This may be misleading due to the possible use of normative
evaluation that is highly related to the given limits of current relevant scientific knowledge. Therefore,
any quantification effort should rather be oriented in evaluating the intensity of the impact; instead of
focusing on the degree of the caused burden we should check the depth of the impact, for instance being
null, small or large. That is the reason why, in the presented definition, the term impact is preferred in
comparison to (positive/negative) effect.
Fourth, recall that relativity is a very important issue in the proposed definition. As already pointed
out above, the minimization of the environmental impacts is always subject to present scientific and
technological accomplishments; the first because it limits the ability to realize the existence of possible
impacts and the second because technological achievements may alter the level to which those impacts
can be realistically minimized. In order to respond to this crucial, dynamic form of our aforementioned
concept for green product, there should be a foresight that any evaluation methodology has to be ongoing
and periodically repeated. Moreover, as the dimensions of the impacts are quite complex, evaluation, even
if it gets a (quasi) quantified content, has to take the form of a benchmarking comparison. This explains
the already established use of benchmarks in all existing standards for eco-labeling. In that sense, not only
each separate evaluation, but also the definition of benchmarking needs to be an ongoing, periodically
renewed procedure.
5. Conclusion and Further Research
Multidimensional current global crisis consists of socioeconomic disparities and environmental
degradation, entailing therefore an urgent reevaluation of a new production strategy that promotes
competitive advantages in accordance with sustainability. As a result, environmental management, which
shifted over the years toward the notion of green products, is considered imperative.
Despite the progress that has been made in relevant theoretical as well as empirical investigation,
hitherto literature seems to be inconclusive with respect to the sign of the “economy vs. environment”
relationship (Eiadat et al., 2008; Iraldo et al., 2011). It is noteworthy that—despite the undeniable
achievements—the field still remains immature in relation to the basic terminology in use. There exists
a definitional gap regarding the notion green product and its characteristics. Reviewing a plurality of
definitions in the field, the current study aims to address the definitional gap by proposing a green product
definition, thus contributing to knowledge creation.
An exhaustive and refined analysis of existing literature is a precondition for a profound and accurate
terminology. Therefore, the methodological framework was based on systematic literature review. Among
other systematic researches (i.e., Adams et al., 2012; de Medeiros et al., 2014; Dangelico, 2015; Pereira-
Santos and Vence, 2015), Durif et al. (2010) were basically the only who focused precisely on the
definition of green product. Their investigation distinguished three different viewpoints—academia,
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
business, and consumers—and confirmed that there are significant terminological differences. They tried
to develop combinatory, comprehensive definition; nonetheless, they considered synonyms that were
often inaccurate.
The applied systematic review in this paper revealed altogether 51 articles, published from 1975 till
2017. It turned out that the terms regarding green product are frequently found in the 42 years lasting
academic discussion (36 out of 51 definitions), yet they are not always followed by a clear definition. Even
more, there is no unified definition that prevailed. Instead, green products were partly interpreted with
different and often false synonyms (e.g., green vs. sustainable). The meaning of greenness depended on
the field of research—it was never the same, leading to multiple notions (e.g., environmental innovation,
eco-innovation, etc.). Concluding the existing terminology is far too extended and many times uselessly
long. Therefore, this paper contributes to the state-of-the-art review by providing a holistic definition of
green products.
The proposed definition in current research argues that “green is a product (tangible or intangible)
that minimizes its environmental impact (direct and indirect) during its whole life cycle, subject to the
present technological and scientific status.” Taking into consideration the life-cycle thinking, research
managed to depict the holistic nature of the term. Moreover, it is worth mentioning the inclusion of both
tangible products and intangible services. At the same time, the consideration of environmental impacts,
rather than the thinkable negative effects, succeeds in the avoidance of any normative judgments. Last
but not least, an important contribution of the proposed term is the dynamic dimension that arises as
it takes into account the relativeness of greenness according to the present technological and scientific
Next, the present study highlighted the associating of the proposed definition with the methodology
for the evaluation of greenness. Among existing methods (shortly presented in Section 4), LCA
is the most prominent and exhaustive analytical tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of
products. Despite its evolution and robustness, debates still exist. Multiple problems arise in each
phase of LCA, showing that it remains quite complex, time-, labor-, and data-intensive. Therefore,
analysts orientate themselves to more simplified, semi-quantified LCA matrix methods to overcome such
Starting from the main aspects of the proposed definition, the following notes were mentioned with
respect to the existing methodology for the evaluation of greenness: life-cycle thinking has to be segregated
into more phases instead of the narrow distinction in Before Use – Use – After Use (proposed by Dangelico
and Pontrandolfo, 2010). Moreover, an additional dimension of classifying impacts within each one of
the life-cycle phases is needed: analysts have to consider the impacts resulting from the organization
procedures,theoperational procedures, and finally with respect to the final outcome itself. In order to
avoid normative judgments, any quantification has to be related to the intensity of the impact (e.g., null,
small or large, etc.) rather than focusing on the degree of the caused burden. Finally, bearing in mind
that greenness relates to the technological and scientific advancements, any evaluation methodology and
benchmarking have to be ongoing and periodically repeated.
Further research should focus on the enrichment of the existing checklists for the evaluation of
the environmental impacts, as well as on the quantification of the environmental footprint of green
products. Pilot applications of new evaluation methodologies and respective case study analysis in
SMEs (of goods and services) will bring improvements. At the same time, it would be important to
examine how the existing weighting methods take into consideration the changes in the technological
status. Moving to another area that needs to be studied as well, most of the research conducting
empirical analysis that focuses mainly on large enterprises. However, greater attention needs to be
paid to the integration of environmental management into SMEs. Last but not least, it would also be
important to establish benchmarking at branch level and to study these benchmarks dynamically in
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1. The concept research has already its roots on Plato (428–348 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC)
(Hjørland, 2009).
2. There exists a variety of journals and the most influential papers belong to the most frequently appeared
Journal of Cleaner Production (Dangelico and Pontrandolfo, 2010) and Innovative Marketing (Durif
et al., 2010).
3. With the exception of actions, which are applied at branch level (Udo de Haes and van Rooijen, 2005).
κουν´ελα,. (2008) Aν´αλυση τ ουοικ ολογικο´υαποτυπ ´ωματος-σ´υντομη διερ ε ´υνηση
στοντομ´εα των κτιριακ ´ων κ ατ ασ κ ευ ´ων/Analysis of the ecological footprint-short
investigation in the construction sector.ιπλωμα τ ικ ´ηEργ ασ ´ια .Tμ´ημα ολιτ ικ ´ων
Mηχανικ ´ων ,Aριστ οτ´ελειοανεπ ισ τ ´ημιοεσσαλον´ικης,. Retrieved 11 September 2015, from
Abaza, H., Bisset, R. and Sadler, B. (2004) Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental
Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach (1st edn). Geneva, Switzerland: Economics and Trade
Branch, Division of Technology, Industry, and Economics, United Nations Environment Programme.
Ackerman, F. (2008) Critique of cost-benefit analysis, and alternative approaches to decision-making. A
report to Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Retrieved 16 September 2016,
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Overy, P. and Denyer, D., (2012) Innovating for sustainability:
a systematic review of the body of knowledge. Retrieved 16 January 2016, from
Ahlroth, S., Nilsson, M., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O. and Hochschorner, E. (2011) Weighting and valuation in
selected environmental systems analysis tools – suggestions for further developments. Journal of Cleaner
Production 19(2–3): 145–156.
Air Quality Sciences, Inc. (2010) Defining green products. Retrieved 21 May 2015, from
Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R. (2009) Environmental strategies and green product development: an
overview on sustainability-driven companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 18(2): 83–96.
Bala, A., Raugei, M., Benveniste, G., Gazulla, C. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2010) Simplified tools for global
warming potential evaluation: when ‘good enough’ is best. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 15(5): 489–498.
Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A. (2002) Mapping the green product development field: engineering,
policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 10(5): 409–425.
Berry, M. and Rondinelli, D. (1998) Proactive corporate environmentalmanagement: a new industrial revolution.
Academy of Management Perspectives 12(2): 38–50.
Bianchi, R. and Noci, G. (1998) "Greening" SMEs’ competitiveness. Small Business Economics 11(3): 269–281.
Biswas, A. and Roy, M. (2016) A study of consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Journal of
Advanced Management Science 4(3): 211–215.
Blengini, G., Busto, M., Fantoni, M. and Fino, D. (2012) Eco-efficient waste glass recycling: integrated waste
management and green product development through LCA. Waste Management 32(5): 1000–1008.
ohringer, C., Moslener, U., Oberndorfer, U. and Ziegler, A. (2012) Clean and productive? Empirical evidence
from the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy 41(2), 442–451.
Borella, M. and Barcellos, P. (2015) Pro-environmental marketing and sustainable products in compliance with
regulation: a study in the south of Brazil. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World
Ecology 22(4): 324–334.
Brammer, S., Hoejmose, S. and Marchant, K. (2011) Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: practices,
pressures and perceived benefits. Business Strategy and the Environment 21(7): 423–434.
Brunner, P. and Rechberger, H. (2004) Practical handbook of material flow analysis. The International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 9(5): 337–338.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Chan, H. (2011) Green process and product design in practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 25:
Chang, D., Lee, C. and Chen, C. (2014) Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product
development. Journal of Cleaner Production 83: 48–60.
Chen, J. (1993) The economic impacts of green product development. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Chen, Y. (2007) The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence. Journal of Business
Ethics 81(3): 531–543.
Chen, Y. and Chang, C. (2012) Greenwash and green trust: the mediation effects of green consumer confusion
and green perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics 114(3): 489–500.
Chen, Y., Lai, S. and Wen, C. (2006) The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in
Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics 67(4): 331–339.
Chen, T.B. and Chai, L.T. (2010) Attitude towards the environment and green products: consumers’ perspective.
Management Science and Engineering 4(2): 27.
Cohen, M.A., Fenn, S.A. and Konar, S. (1997) Environmental and financial performance: are they related?
Working paper, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.
Commission of the European Communities. (2001) Green Paper on integrated product policy. Retrieved
13 January 2016, from
Cordeiro, J.J. and Sarkis, J. (1997) Environmental proactivism and firm performance: evidence from security
analyst earnings forecasts. Business Strategy and the Environment 6, 104–114.
Costantini, V. and Mazzanti, M. (2012) On the green and innovative side of trade competitiveness? The impact
of environmental policies and innovation on EU exports. Research Policy 41(1): 132–153.
Cronin, P., Ryan, F. and Coughlan, M. (2008) Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British
Journal of Nursing 17(1): 38–43.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M. and Khosla, R. (2007) Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on
the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention.
Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 15(2): 69–78.
Dangelico, R. (2015) Green product innovation: where we are and where we are going. Business Strategy and
the Environment 25(8): 560–576.
Dangelico, R. and Pontrandolfo, P. (2010) From green product definitions and classifications to the Green
Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(16–17): 1608–1628.
Dangelico, R. and Pujari, D. (2010) Mainstreaming green product innovation: why and how companies integrate
environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 95(3): 471–486.
de Bakker, F., Fisscher, O. and Brack, A. (2002) Organizing product-oriented environmental management from
a firm’s perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 10(5): 455–464.
de Medeiros, J. and Ribeiro, J. (2017) Environmentally sustainable innovation: expected attributes in the
purchase of green products. Journal of Cleaner Production 142: 240–248.
de Medeiros, J., Ribeiro, J. and Cortimiglia, M. (2014) Success factors for environmentally sustainable product
innovation: a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 65: 76–86.
Dewberry, E. and Goggin, P. (1996) Spaceship ecodesign. Co-Design: Interdisciplinary Journal of Design and
Contextual Studies 5/6(1–3): 12–17.
Driessen, P.H., Hillebrand, B., Kok, R.A. and Verhallen, T.M. (2013) Green new product development: the
pivotal role of product greenness. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 60(2), 315–326.
Durif, F., Boivin, C. and Julien, C. (2010) In search of a green product definition. Innovative Marketing 6(1),
25–33. (2015a) Environmental goods and services sector - Statistics Explained. Retrieved 11
November 2015, from
and_services_sector/ (2015b) Statistics on small and medium-sized enterprises - Statistics Explained.Re-
trieved 19 September 2016, from
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F. and Eyadat, H. (2008) Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating
role of environmental innovation strategy. Journal of World Business 43(2): 131–145.
Esmaili, M. and Fazeli, S. (2015) Surveying of importance of green marketing compared purchase budget and
preferred brand when buying by AHP method. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6(4): 338–394.
ınola-Arredondo, A. and Mu˜
ıa, F. (2015) An excessive development of green products? Economics
of Governance 17(2): 101–129.
Evans, D. (2002) Database searches for qualitative research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 90(3):
Finnveden, G. and Moberg, ˚
A. (2005) Environmental systems analysis tools – an overview. Journal of Cleaner
Production 13(12): 1165–1173.
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M., Ekvall, T., Guin´
ee, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D.
and Suh, S. (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management
91(1): 1–21.
om, K., Carlson, R. and Erixon, M. (2004). Relationships between Life Cycle Assessment and Risk
Assessment - Potentials and Obstacles (1st edn). Stockholm: Naturv˚
Frondel, M., Horbach, J. and 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): 571–584.
Gao, Y., Liu, Z., Hu, D., Zhang, L. and Gu, G. (2010) Selection of green product design scheme based on
multi-attribute decision-making method. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 3(4): 277–291.
alez-Benito, J. and Gonz´
alez-Benito, ´
O. (2006) A review of determinant factors of environmental
proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(2): 87–102.
Graedel, T.E. and Allenby, B.R. (1995) Industrial Ecology (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-
au, C. and Ranchhod, A. (2005) International green marketing: a comparative study of British and Romanian
firms. International Marketing Review 22(5): 547–561.
Haddaway, N.R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B. and Collins, A. (2015) Making literature reviews more reliable
through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conservation Biology 29(6): 1596–1605.
Hart, S.L. and Ahuja, G. (1996) Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between
emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 5, 30–37.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ib´
nez, V. (2006) Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24(7):
Hassel, L., Nilsson, H. and Nyquist, S. (2005) The value relevance of environmental performance. European
Accounting Review 14, 41–61.
Haws, K., Winterich, K. and Naylor, R. (2014) Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: green
consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology
24(3): 336–354.
Herberger, R. (1975) The ecological product buying motive: a challenge for consumer education. Journal of
Consumer Affairs 9(2): 187–195.
Herva, M., Franco, A., Carrasco, E. and Roca, E. (2011) Review of corporate environmental indicators. Journal
of Cleaner Production 19(15): 1687–1699.
Hinterberger, F., Giljum, S. and Hammer, M. (2003) Material Flow Accounting and Analysis (MFA): A
Valuable Tool for Analyses of Society-Nature Interrelationships. Viena: Sustainable Europe Research
Institute (SERI).
Hjørland, B. (2009) Concept theory. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 60(8),
Hochschorner, E. and Finnveden, G. (2003) Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 8(3): 119–128.
ojer, M., Ahlroth, S., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O., Hochschorner, E., Nilsson, M.
and Palm, V. (2008) Scenarios in selected tools for environmental systems analysis. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16(18): 1958–1970.
a, E. (2010) Does environmental performance affect financial performance? A meta-analysis.
Ecological Economics 70(1): 52–59.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hox, J.J. (1997) From theoretical concept to survey question. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. De
Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz and D. Trewin (eds), Survey Measurement and Process Quality (pp. 47–69).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). (2009) Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA). Retrieved 7 September 2016, from
International Standard ISO 704:2009. (2000) Terminology work — Principles and methods. Retrieved 15 June
2016, from
Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Melis, M. and Frey, M. (2011) A literature review on the links between environmental
regulation and competitiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance 21: 210–222.
Jabbour, C., Maria da Silva, E., Paiva, E. and Almada Santos, F. (2012) Environmental management in Brazil:
is it a completely competitive priority? Journal of Cleaner Production 21(1): 11–22.
Jaggi, B. and Freedman, M. (1992) An examination of the impact of pollution performance on economic and
market performance: pulp and paper firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 19: 697–713.
Janssen, M. and Jager, W. (2002) Stimulating diffusion of green products. Journal of Evolutionary Economics
12(3): 283–306.
Jasti, N., Sharma, A. and Karinka, S. (2015) Development of a framework for green product development.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 22(3): 426–445.
Jeswani, H., Azapagic, A., Schepelmann, P. and Ritthoff, M. (2010) Options for broadening and deepening the
LCA approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(2): 120–127.
Johnstone, M. and Tan, L. (2015) An exploration of environmentally-conscious consumers and the reasons why
they do not buy green products. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33(5): 804–825.
Jones, M.L. (2004) Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: practical issues. Journal
of Advanced Nursing 48(3), 271–278.
Judge, W.Q. and Douglas, T.J. (1998) Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues
into strategic planning process: an empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies 35, 241–262.
Kam-Sing Wong, S. (2012) The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management 15(4): 468–490.
Kang, J. and Choi, W. (2016) Endorsed sustainable products: the role of celebrity ethicality and brand ethicality.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(4): 303–319.
Karlsson, R. and Luttropp, C. (2006) EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of
EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(15–16): 1291–1298.
Kaval, P. (2011) Measuring and Valuing Environmental Impacts. A Systematic Review of Existing
Methodologies. London, Ontario: Network for Business Sustainability.
King, A.A. and Lenox, M.J. (2001) Does it really pay to be green? An empirical study of firm environmental
and financial performance. Journal of Industrial Ecology 5: 105–116.
Kloepffer, W. (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment 13(2): 89–95.
Lee, K. (2009) Why and how to adopt green management into business organizations? The case study of Korean
SMEs in manufacturing industry. Management Decision 47(7): 1101–1121.
opez-Gamero, M., Molina-Azor´
ın, J. and Claver-Cort´
es, E. (2009) The whole relationship between
environmental variables and firm performance: competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator
variables. Journal of Environmental Management 90(10): 3110–3121.
Lu, T., Gupta, A., Jayal, A.D., Badurdeen, F., Feng, S.C., Dillon Jr., O.W. and Jawahir, I.S. (2011) A framework
of product and process metrics for sustainable manufacturing. In G. Seliger, M.M.K. Khraisheh and I.S.
Jawahir (eds), Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing, (pp. 333–338). Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R. and Raghunathan, R. (2010) The sustainability liability: potential
negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing 74: 18–31.
Mahenc, P. (2008) Signaling the environmental performance of polluting products to green consumers.
International Journal of Industrial Organization 26: 59–68.
Maniatis, P. (2016) Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products.
Journal of Cleaner Production 132: 215–228.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Margerum, R. (1999) PROFILE: integrated environmental management: the foundations for successful practice.
Environmental Management 24(2): 151–166.
Mattioda, R.A., Canciglieri Jr., O., Fernandes, P.T. and Casela, J.L. (2013) Principle of triple bottom line in
the integrated development of sustainable products. Chemical Engineering Transactions 35: 199–204.
McPeak, C., Devirian, J. and Seaman, S. (2010) Do environmentally friendly companies outperform the market?
Journal of Global Business Issues 4: 61–66.
Moberg, ˚
A. (1999) Environmental systems analysis tools - differences and similarities including a brief case
study on heat production using Ecological footprint, MIPS, LCA and exergy analysis. Master thesis,
Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University.
Moffatt, I. (2000) Ecological footprints and sustainable development. Ecological Economics 32(3): 359–362.
Mohd-Suki, N. (2015) Customer environmental satisfaction and loyalty in the consumption of green products.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 22(4): 292–301.
Moser, A. (2016) Consumers’ purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: an empirical
analysis of German consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31: 389–397.
Munksgaard, J., Wier, M., Lenzen, M. and Dey, C. (2008) Using input-output analysis to measure the
environmental pressure of consumption at different spatial levels. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–
2): 169–185.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S. and Olsson, L. (2007) Categorising tools for sustainability
assessment. Ecological Economics 60(3): 498–508.
Nimse, P., Vijayan, A., Kumar, A. and Varadarajan, C. (2007) A review of green product databases.
Environmental Progress 26(2): 131–137.
Nissen, U. (1995) A methodology for the development of cleaner products: the ideal-eco-product approach.
Journal of Cleaner Production 3(1–2): 83–87.
OECD. (1998) The Global Environmental Goods and Services Industry. Paris: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
OECD. (2009) Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation: towards a green economy. Policy Brief, 1–8.
Orsato, R.J. (2006) Competitive environmental strategies: when does it pay to be green? California Management
Review 48(2), 127–143.
Osada, H. (2003) New product planning for environment. quality congress. ASQ’s Annual Quality Congress
Proceedings 57: 257–262.
Ottman, J. (1998) Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation (2nd edn). New York: BookSurge Publishing.
Ottman, J., Stafford, E. and Hartman, C. (2006) Avoiding green marketing myopia: ways to improve
consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development 48(5): 22–36.
Palevich, R. (2012) The Lean Sustainable Supply Chain (1st edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Panjaitan, T.W. and Sutapa, I.N. (2010, December) Analysis of green product knowledge, green behavior and
green consumers of Indonesian students (case study for universities in Surabaya). 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, pp. 2268–2272.
Pantazidou, M. and Valeontis, K. (2009) Preparing a seminar on terminology. In 7th National Conference on
Hellenic Language and Terminology,Athens.
Pavan, M.P.S. (2010) Golden rule of green marketing. Green Marketing in India: Emerging Opportunities and
Challenges 3(6): 9–14.
Peattie, K., 1995. Environmental Marketing Management: Meeting the Green Challenge (1st edn). London:
Pereira-Santos, ´
A. and Vence, X. (2015) Environmental policy instruments and eco-innovation: an overview of
recent studies. Innovar 25(58): 65–80.
Peter, P.L. (2011) The willingness to pay for green and fair trade product types. Doctoral dissertation and
Master thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Pickett-Baker, J. and Ozaki, R. (2008) Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase
decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25(5): 281–293.
Polonsky, M.J. and Rosenberger, P.J. (2001) Reevaluating green marketing: a strategic approach. Business
Horizons 44(5): 21–30.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Porter, M. and van der Linde, C. (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness
relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4): 97–118.
Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S. and Bras, B. (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13(5): 374–388.
Reinhardt, F. (1998) Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate strategy. California
Management Review 40(4): 43–73.
Rennings, K. (2000) Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological
economics. Ecological Economics 32(2): 319–332.
Ritter, ´
A., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G., Pereira, G. and Almeida, F. (2015) Motivations for promoting the
consumption of green products in an emerging country: exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers.
Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 507–520.
Ross, S. and Evans, D. (2002) Use of life cycle assessment in environmental management. Environmental
Management 29(1): 132–142.
Russo, M. and Fouts, P. (1997) A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and
profitability. Academy of Management Journal 40(3): 534–559.
Saha, M. and Darnton, G. (2005) Green companies or green Con-panies: are companies really green, or are
they pretending to be? Business and Society Review 110(2): 117–157.
Saluja, D. (2016) Customer’s attitude towards eco-friendly product. ANVESHAK-International Journal of
Management 5(2).
Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. (2012) Green innovation in technology and innovation management-an
exploratory literature review. R&d Management 42(2), 180–192.
Seuring, S. and M¨
uller, M. (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production 16(15): 1699–1710.
Sdrolia, E. and Zarotiadis, G. (2012) Green way-out from depression: insights from the EU. South-Eastern
Europe Journal of Economics 10(2): 99–111.
Shrivastava, S. (2007) Green supply chain management: a state of the art literature review. International Journal
of Management Reviews 9(1): 53–80.
Soo-Wee, Y. and Quazi, H. (2005) Development and validation of critical factors of environmental management.
Industrial Management and Data Systems 105(1): 96–114.
arvi, H. (2011) Sustainability Assessment: Principles, Frameworks, Indicators and Tools.Re-
trieved 11 August 2016, from
Tavares Thom´
e, A., Scavarda, L., Fernandez, N. and Scavarda, A. (2012) Sales and operations planning: a
research synthesis. International Journal of Production Economics 138(1): 1–13.
Tien, S., Chung, Y. and Tsai, C. (2005) An empirical study on the correlation between environmental design
implementation and business competitive advantages in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation 25(7): 783–794.
Tomasin, L., Pereira, G., Borchardt, M. and Sellitto, M. (2013) How can the sales of green products in the
Brazilian supply chain be increased? Journal of Cleaner Production 47: 274–282.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14(3): 207–222.
Triebswetter, U. and Wackerbauer, J. (2008) Integrated environmental product innovation and impacts on
company competitiveness: a case study of the automotive industry in the region of Munich. European
Environment 18(1): 30–44.
Tseng, S. and Hung, S. (2013) A framework identifying the gaps between customers’ expectations and their
perceptions in green products. Journal of Cleaner Production 59: 174–184.
Tukker, A., Eder, P., Charter, M., Haag, E., Vercalsteren, A. and Wiedmann, T. (2001) Eco-design: the state of
implementation in Europe – conclusions of a state of the art study for IPTS. The Journal of Sustainable
Product Design 1(3): 147–161.
Udo-Akang, D. (2012) Theoretical constructs, concepts, and applications. American International Journal of
Contemporary Research 2(9), 89–97.
Udo de Haes, H. and van Rooijen, M. (2005) Life Cycle Approaches: The Road from Analysis to Practice (1st
edn). UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. (2010) Measuring the
Green Economy. Retrieved 7 February 2017, from
Yanarella, E., Levine, R. and Lancaster, R. (2009) Research and solutions: "green" vs. sustainability: from
semantics to enlightenment. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 2(5): 296–302.
van Weenen, J. (1995) Towards sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 3(1–2):
Wacker, J.G. (1998) A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods
in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 16(4), 361–385.
Wahid, N.A. and Lee, T.T. (2011) Product, process and combined green innovations on firm’s competitive
advantages. Elixir International Journal 38: 4330–4334.
Wagner, M. (2005) How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate
sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental
Management 76: 105–118.
Washington State Department of Transportation. (2012) Indirect and cumulative impacts. In Environmental
Procedures Manual M 31-11.11 (1st edn) (pp. 412-1–412-7). Washington State: Publications Transmit-
tal. Retrieved 7 June 2015, from
Watt, J.H. and van den Berg, S. (2002) Elements of scientific theories: concepts and definitions. Research
Methods for Communication Science (pp. 11–22). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wee, H., Lee, M., Yu, J. and Edward Wang, C. (2011) Optimal replenishment policy for a deteriorating green
product: life cycle costing analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 133(2): 603–611.
Wenzel, H. (1998) Application dependency of LCA methodology: key variables and their mode of influencing
the method. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 3(5), 281–288.
Journal of Economic Surveys (2019) Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 150–178
2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
... CE might be a relatively new practice; however, environmentally aware processes within businesses were not unheard of. Companies have been producing products sensitive to environmental matters for a considerable time by practising environmental management (Sdrolia & Zarotiadis, 2018). Those products have various names: Sustainable products, ecological products (eco-friendly, eco-), environmental products (environmentally friendly) and green products (IAAM Sustainability Committee, 2009) (Sdrolia & Zarotiadis, 2018). ...
... Companies have been producing products sensitive to environmental matters for a considerable time by practising environmental management (Sdrolia & Zarotiadis, 2018). Those products have various names: Sustainable products, ecological products (eco-friendly, eco-), environmental products (environmentally friendly) and green products (IAAM Sustainability Committee, 2009) (Sdrolia & Zarotiadis, 2018). These terms seem similar but are not all the time interchangeable. ...
... Ecological, environmental, and green products are synonymous and are here referred to as green products. Green product is a broad and ambiguous term; in any case, all terms have the purpose of eliminating or decreasing the environmental impact from their production to their disposal (Sdrolia & Zarotiadis, 2018). In deviation to this, sustainability and sustainable products are more precisely definable. ...
Full-text available
This thesis aims to investigate the effectiveness of (Instagram) influencer marketing on Generation Z’s sustainable product buying behaviour. In the first part of the thesis, existing literature is reviewed regarding social media and influencer marketing, influencers, Instagram in the influencer marketing context, consumer buying behaviour, Generation Z, circular economy, sustainable products and sustainable buying behaviour. The second part consists of quantitative research: The collected data is discussed against the backdrop of the literature review to figure out to what extent and how Instagram influencers influence Generation Z’s sustainable product buying decision.
... Moreover, compared with regular products with unsustainable materials (Kautish et al., 2021), green products tend to use biodegradable, non-toxic ingredients and recyclable packaging (Lin and Chang, 2012). The nonrenewable resource use of the green product is minimized, toxic materials are avoided and renewable resource use takes place in accordance with their rate of replenishment (Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2019). Thus, the production process of green products is more friendly to the environment and can provide a safer living environment for human beings. ...
... Additionally, economic savings and reduction in energy consumption can be gained by recycling manufacturing and end-of-life product waste (Gaustad et al., 2018). Except for the fact that environmentally sound remanufacturing or recycling processes can be easily applied, the environmental impact of the disposal or incineration is minimal when finally discarded (Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2019). In this case, considering the benefit that green products bring to the environment in the stage of waste disposal, the researchers suggest that green products can make people feel safer. ...
Full-text available
With the increasingly crowded shopping environment, social crowding has become an important factor that affects consumers’ psychology and behavior. However, the impact of social crowding on consumers’ preference for green products hasn’t been focused on. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to empirically investigate the influence of social crowding on consumers’ preference for green products. With four studies, the present research examines how social crowding influences consumers’ preferences and uncovers the underlying psychological mechanism. The research shows that consumers prefer green products more under the condition of high social crowding than low, and safety needs mediate the impact of social crowding on green products preference. However, the impact of social crowding on the preference for products is only significant in green products. It also demonstrates the moderating effect of introversion-extraversion personality traits between social crowding and green products preference. For extraverted consumers, social crowding won’t affect their preference for green products, while for introverted consumers, social crowding is more likely to increase their preference for green products. This study contributes to marketing research by proposing and testing a new mechanism that underlies social crowding.
... Despite during the past few years several studies or reviews of studies on topics related to green products and their consumption have been conducted, literature so far lacked a systematic effort to analyse green product attributes and link them to consumer responses. Indeed, most previous studies either analysed green products from the perspective of their attributes (e.g., Dangelico and Pontrandolfo, 2010;Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2019) or focused on green consumer behaviour (e.g., Testa et al., 2020;White et al., 2019), separately. For instance, from the perspective of product characteristics, Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010), starting from an analyses of green product definitions, developed a tool to characterize them in different phases of the product life cycle. ...
... For instance, from the perspective of product characteristics, Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010), starting from an analyses of green product definitions, developed a tool to characterize them in different phases of the product life cycle. Through a review of the literature, Sdrolia and Zarotiadis (2019) analysed the different definitions of green products and the main tools to assess the environmental impact of products. From the consumer behaviour perspective, Testa et al. (2020) analysed, through a systematic review of the literature, the drivers of green consumption, while White et al. (2019) proposed several ways to encourage sustainable consumption. ...
Despite the growing scholars' attention towards green products, extant literature has so far lacked a systematic effort to analyse green product attributes (along different phase of the product life cycle) and link them to consumer preferences/behaviour. Indeed, the green product (and related processes) design and the consumer behaviour perspectives have been mostly treated separately to date. However, understanding consumer behaviour towards products as characterized by different green attributes, that may be related to different phases of product life cycle, is key for green products' market success. For these reasons, this study aims at linking the design and the consumer behaviour aspects of green product development. Specifically, through a systematic review, this study analyses extant research to provide a comprehensive list of green product attributes organized following a product lifecycle management perspective and a discussion of the effect of different green product attributes on consumers' behaviour. 82 articles were included in the review and analysed. We identified 73 individual green product attributes and categorized them into 18 attribute groups, which were associated with product life cycle management phases (production, use, and end-of-life). Our results show that, in the production lifecycle phase, there is high incidence of environmentally sustainable attributes, and they are mostly related to production efficiency. Consumers perceive less this type of attributes, probably because they are placed before consumption. In the use phase, environmentally sustainable attributes depend more on consumers' actions to realize their sustainable value and they focus on technologies to reduce consumption. Finally, end-of-life environmentally sustainable attributes are related to the after-consumption stage of products, and they depend more on external actors to realize their value. Findings from previous studies about the effect of product attributes (identified for each product lifecycle phase) on consumer behaviour (such as purchase intention or willingness to pay a premium price) are reported. Results show that, for many attributes, no study has addressed their effect on consumer behaviour and that attributes for which there is a greater amount of studies on consumer behaviour are those related to the production and use phase. A future research agenda is proposed to advance knowledge on the role of green product attributes and their effect on consumer behaviour.
... In this context, the elements of green product actualize quality energy saving, pollution prevention, waste recycling and green product designs along with implementing environmentally sensitive practices included in corporate environmental management (Chen et al., 2006). Green, products are regarded as environmentally -friendly and ecological products that are fed with the concepts of nature and sustainability (Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2019). Customers, today, are willing to pay more for green products and services that prevent environmental damage, and this is recognized as a green lifestyle (Chen et al., 2015). ...
Full-text available
The goal of this study is to find out how green product quality, green hotel image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty are interconnected. Customers staying in green hotels in Trabzon make up the population of the study. The survey approach was utilized to collect the data used in the study. The convenience sampling method was utilized in the study, and 304 people were contacted. Prior to arriving at the hospitality facility, approximately two-thirds of the participants did not know whether the facility was an environmentally-friendly hotel. Green product quality, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty are all positively related, according to the findings. Furthermore, there is a relationship among green corporate image, green customer satisfaction, and green customer loyalty. Finally, enhancing green consumer satisfaction increases green customer loyalty.
... Various researchers (Biswas & Roy, 2015a, 2015bJasti et al., 2015;Wee & Quazi, 2005), and organization and zommission (Commission of the European Communities, 2001;OECD, 1996), defined "green product," but same was not consistent. Sdrolia and Zarotiadis (2019), through meta-analysis on a large set of existing literature, proposed a holistic definition as "Green is a product (tangible or intangible) that minimizes its environmental impact (direct and indirect) during its whole life-cycle, subject to the present technological and scientific status." The presnt study follows the afore-mentioned definition of green product. ...
In the 21st century, environmental problems are wreaking havoc, and sustainability is now of primary importance. Several external factors like population growth, industrialization, development, and overexploitation of natural resources play a crucial role in environmental degradation. Thus, the present study endeavors to explore the impact of price sensitivity, governments green interventions and green product availability on green buying intention through the lenses of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of consumption values. It also intends to examine the moderating effect of demographic factors on green buying intention. A cross‐sectional study was carried out. Responses were gathered through a self‐administered questionnaire‐based survey. The final data set of 708 respondents were subjected to structural equation modeling for hypothesis testing. Price sensitivity, government green interventions, and green product availability show negative and significant interaction effects. Perceived behavioral control shows a relatively more substantial impact on green buying intention. Indian consumers from the age group of 41–50 years relatively have higher intention toward green buying. Overall, gender does not reveal any different approaches to environmentally friendly products. Green marketers must focus on communicating the availability of green products to reduce perceived difficulty.
... Humans have always contributed to developing an effective system for sustaining the land's natural resources. In recent times, consumers have shown unprecedented interest in organic products, thus drawing the attention of marketers, corporations, and stakeholders toward preserving natural resources (Sdrolia and Zarotiadis, 2019). In this study, defining sustainability includes both components that are involved in sustainable consumer behavior. ...
Full-text available
The unprecedented economic growth in recent decades has cultivated the exploitation of natural resources and over-consumption, leading to ecological deterioration and sustainability. The ever-increasing consumption in developing countries is creating a significant environmental strain. Thus, the industry and consumers’ environmental issues and their harmful effects on human health have led to concerns among researchers, scientists, academic communities, and policymakers. The present work examines the impact of different consumption value factors on sustainable consumption behavior concerning consumer choice in Pakistan and China. A cross-sectional study is conducted, and data are collected through a primary source questionnaire. A sample of 431 respondents is chosen from different cities in Pakistan, and a sample of 342 respondents is selected from China. Estimation techniques like descriptive statistics, frequency distribution, multicollinearity, R square, independent sample t-test, the coefficient of correlation, and regression analysis are used for the data analysis. The comparative results show that knowledge values (KVs) and emotional values (EMVs) significantly influence the choice behavior of respondents toward environmentally friendly products both in Pakistan and China. In contrast, social values (SVs) and conditional values (CVs) show insignificant influence. Furthermore, functional values (FVs) are significant in Pakistan while insignificant in the context of China, and environmental values (EVs) are significant in China although insignificant in Pakistan with regard to sustainable consumption behavior.
... The concept of green extends to almost every process, from acquiring raw materials, production, storing, packaging, shipping, and product distribution [24]. The primary purpose of green production is sustainability. ...
Full-text available
The recent concern on the environmental protection and COVID-19 issue is increasingly affecting the manufacturing industry. This research assessing the benefit of adopting ERP technology and practicing green supply chain management toward operational performance in manufacturing industry. The study is essential to provide insight for the manufacturing industry regarding the consequences and benefits of practicing the green supply chain and adopting ERP technology amid the current constraints of the environmental protection issue and the COVID-19 pandemic. The study has surveyed 122 companies domiciled in Indonesia. Data collection used a questionnaire designed with a seven-point Likert scale. Questionnaire created in Google form, printed and distributed using social media and postal mail. Data analysis used SmartPLS software version 3.0. The result revealed that ERP adoption enables green purchasing, production, distribution, and operational performance. Furthermore, operating performance is directly affected by green purchasing and green production. However, operating performance was not supported by green distribution. In addition, ERP adoption indirectly improves operational performance through green purchasing and green production. But ERP adoption did not affect operational performance through green distribution. This result provides essential insight for the manager in the manufacturing industry that adopting ERP in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and practicing environmental protection such as green purchasing, green production enhances operational performance. In summary, the result of this study encourages the practitioner to adopt environmental protection in running their business since it benefits the company. While there are very few studies examining the relationship between ERP adoption, green supply chain practices, and operational performance, this study is essential in terms of exploring the mediating role of green supply chain practices on the effect of ERP adoption on operational performance. Thus, these research findings could enrich the current research in the supply chain management context.
... Recycled products can be classified as green products [5]. Previous qualitative and quantitative research has extensively analyzed factors influencing consumers to purchase green products (e.g., [6,7]). ...
Full-text available
Recycling used materials is one way to deal with the depletion of natural resources available on earth. Companies increasingly integrate recycled materials into their production processes and transition towards circular business models. However, although the attitude towards sustainable products is positive, consumers still prefer to buy products made from new instead of recycled materials. Empirical research on factors influencing the purchase intention of recycled products is still limited. This study aims to examine consumers’ individual factors that are important in the decision process to buy recycled products. The Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory is explored in the context of recycled product purchase intention. Perceived risk is added to the research model as a moderator that hinders purchase intention. The different influences are analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modelling with a sample of 177 respondents from Germany. Results indicate that the causal chain of relationships between values, beliefs, and personal norm has a positive influence on recycled product purchase intention. Perceived risk, on the other hand, has a significant negative direct effect on purchase intention but strengthens the relationship between personal norms and purchase intention. Theoretical and managerial implications as well as avenues for further research are discussed.
Owing to the growing attention of consumers towards green-related issues, important number of studies has been devoted to understanding the drivers of green product purchase intention; implying a need to quantitatively synthesize the empirical body of research on the subject. In this sense, extending the theory of planned behavior, the main purpose of this study is to meta-analyze the empirical findings on green product purchase intention and its antecedents. The meta-analytic investigation was performed on 235 effects dependent upon more than 39,000 consumers (N = 39,253). The findings of the meta-analysis reveal that green product purchase intention is most strongly influenced by attitude toward product/brand, followed by brand trust and self-identity, respectively. This research considerably contributes to the pertinent literature by synthesizing and consolidating fragmented empirical evidence on the determinants of green product purchase intention.
Household chemicals have been causing toxicity in the environment and human lives for decades. European Union has banned many chemicals harmful to human life. Still, in developing countries, many hazardous household chemicals are legal or not even appropriately regulated. Even in developed countries like the U.S., only a few household chemicals are regulated or banned. Many companies in the market are producing such products that are being used in our daily life. Different chemicals and equipment such as air fresheners, insecticides, pesticides, hoses, plastic, and cosmetics are present in houses, damaging human health. Likewise, they contain endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, and reproductive system disruptors. Household chemicals affect human health and affect fetuses, infants, male and female reproductive systems. Pets and other wildlife are also being affected by them. Moreover, these household chemicals have severe adverse effects on the quality of the environment. In this chapter, we will also be discussing more reliable and safe alternatives to household chemicals. Green products can be a viable option for the improvement of human health and the environment. Awareness about eco-friendly products is rising day by day. People are switching to the green-products, forcing the manufacturers to do the same, enhancing green companies' economic role and worth. Some precautions can be adopted for the products that cannot be replaced while dealing with household chemicals.
Full-text available
Global economic crisis, along with domestic structural inefficiencies, weakens growth perspectives for the less developed and/or the financially weaker economies of Europe. On the other hand, the relevant literature that technological innovations, especially with respect to the ecological aspects of products and processes, could be an effective way-out. The present paper contributes to this discussion in two ways: first, we discuss relevant case studies of certain mulitnationals. Second, we proceed witha panel data analysis of recent intra-EU data, estimating the effect of enviromental expenditures and investments on exporting activity, considering also" gravity"-explanatory variables. We conclude that" green"-investments seem to have a positive effect, both, in the micro-as well as macro-dimension, while expenditures could affect extroversion and competitiveness adversely.
This study examines the definition of theory and the implications it has for the theory‐building research. By definition, theory must have four basic criteria: conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship‐building, and predictions. Theory‐building is important because it provides a framework for analysis, facilitates the efficient development of the field, and is needed for the applicability to practical real world problems. To be good theory, a theory must follow the virtues (criteria) for ‘good’ theory, including uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, generalizability, fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction, which apply to all research methods. Theory‐building research seeks to find similarities across many different domains to increase its abstraction level and its importance. The procedure for good theory‐building research follows the definition of theory: it defines the variables, specifies the domain, builds internally consistent relationships, and makes specific predictions. If operations management theory is to become integrative, the procedure for good theory‐building research should have similar research procedures, regardless of the research methodology used. The empirical results from a study of operations management over the last 5 years (1991–1995) indicate imbalances in research methodologies for theory‐building. The analytical mathematical research methodology is by far the most popular methodology and appears to be over‐researched. On the other hand, the integrative research areas of analytical statistical and the establishment of causal relationships are under‐researched. This leads to the conclusion that theory‐building in operations management is not developing evenly across all methodologies. Last, this study offers specific guidelines for theory‐builders to increase the theory's level of abstraction and the theory's significance for operations managers.
In a capitalist economy, the principles, values and behaviors of a great part of the population are centered on buying things, on having goods. Thus, in order to achieve sustainable development, emphasis should be given to the creation and the promotion of environmentally sustainable products. In view of that, the present study investigates consumers purchase decision process regarding environmentally sustainable products. This study sought identifying what the green product and process expected attributes are in automobile and furniture purchases, as well as what the expanded and reduced risks are in offers with these characteristics. To reach these objectives, a qualitative research was initially performed, and, subsequently, a quantitative research was carried out with the aim to confirm the mapped data. In summary, the results obtained indicate as important green attributes for automobiles items such as “economy”, “engine” and “new technologies”. Regarding furniture important green attributes, “design”, “origin label” and “origin of the raw material” were indicated as important. Furthermore, it could be verified that the purchase of green products may increase performance and time risks and mitigate financial and social risks. In short, this study allowed for advances in the theoretical comprehension regarding green products and decision-making processes with medium- and high-involvement levels. However, once external factors such as culture and ethnicity tend to influence buyers’ decision-making processes, and considering the fact that this study was executed in Brazil, distinct results may be found in other countries.
Despite the prevalence of celebrity endorsers for brands that feature sustainable products, there are few empirical studies on what factors should be considered in utilizing endorsers in marketing sustainable products. In this study, we explored the relationships between celebrity endorsers’ characteristics and consumers’ perceptions, attitudes, and purchase intentions toward a brand that markets sustainable products. The data were collected via an online survey with a total of 1,220 responses, and structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. In the results, endorser trustworthiness and endorser-brand congruity positively predicted brand credibility while endorser ethicality and endorser-brand congruity positively predicted brand ethicality. Brand ethicality positively predicted brand credibility. Brand credibility positively predicted brand attitude as well as brand purchase intention. Although brand ethicality positively predicted brand attitude, it did not predict brand purchase intention. Lastly, brand attitude positively predicted brand purchase intention. Theoretical and practical implications were discussed.
Abstrakt The Kingdom of Denmark is one of the most prosperous countries in the European Union. Denmark is leading the rankings on both the standard of living of the citizens, as well as the rankings of the best economies and most business-friendly countries. It is therefore a country that more attention should be devoted and we should draw experiences that can be implemented in Poland. The purpose of this article is to discuss the sector of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in Denmark, with a particular focus on the strengths of the SME sector as well as barriers to its development.
It has been the concern at global platform for the purpose of the preservation of the polluting and degradation of environment. Many studies have been conducted on the green marketing exploring the importance of the topic and relationship to the attitude and purchasing behavior of the consumers of ecofriendly products. In present, consumers are becoming sensitive to the need for switching to green products and services. Though the shift to "green" may appear to be expensive in the short term, it will definitely prove to be indispensable and advantageous, cost wise too, in the long run. A number of literature discuss about green marketing and pays attention to the relationship between customer's attitude and environmental strategies in relation to the company's product and services. The present research is an attempt to find out consumer's attitude towards green products. A primary research of 100 respondents in Delhi was carried out to find the various issues related to green products. Price and product features have a strong impact on the buying decision making process.