J PROD INNOV MANAG 2013;30(4):642–658

© 2013 Product Development & Management Association

DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12013

Developing Sustainable New Products in the Textile and

Upholstered Furniture Industries: Role of External
Integrative Capabilities*
Rosa Maria Dangelico, Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, and Devashish Pujari

Environmental sustainability has become one of the key issues for strategy, marketing, and innovation. In particular,
significant attention is being paid by companies, customers, media, and regulators to development and consumption of
green products. It is argued that through the efficient use of resources, low carbon impacts, and risks to the environment,
green products can be essential to help society toward the environmental sustainability targets. The number of green
product introductions is rapidly increasing, as demonstrated by the growing number of companies obtaining eco-labels
or third party certifications for their environmentally friendly products. Hundreds of companies representing most of the
industries, such as Intel, SC Johnson, Clorox, Wal-Mart, and Hewlett–Packard, have recently introduced new green
products, underlining the need to develop products that create both economic and environmental values for the firm and
customers. A review of the literature shows that academic research on green product development has grown in interest.
However, to date, only a few empirical studies have addressed the challenge of integrating environmental issues into
new product development (NPD). Previous empirical works have mainly focused on a set of activities for the green
product development process at the project level. After years of paying no or marginal attention to environmental
sustainability issues, most of the companies now generally realize that it would require knowledge and competencies
to develop green products on a regular basis. These knowledge and competencies can be varied, such as R&D,
environmental know-how, clean technology/manufacturing process, building knowledge on measuring environmental
performance of products, etc., that may be developed internally or can be integrated through external networks.
Adopting a resource-based view of the firm, this article aims at (1) investigating the role of capabilities useful for
companies to integrate knowledge and competencies from outside of the firm on green product development in terms
of both manufacturing process and product design and (2) understanding whether green product development opens
new product, market, and technology opportunities, as well as leads to better financial performance of NPD programs.
To this end, a survey was conducted in two Italian manufacturing industries in which environmental issues are
becoming increasingly important, namely textiles and upholstered furniture. A questionnaire was sent to 700 firms, and
102 useable questionnaires were returned. Results show that (1) companies engage in developing external integrative
capabilities through the creation of collaborative networks with actors along the supply chain, the acquisition of
technical know-how, and the creation of external knowledge links with actors outside the supply chain; (2) external
knowledge links play a key role in the integration of environmental sustainability issues into the manufacturing process,
whereas capabilities such as the acquisition of technical know-how and the creation of collaborative networks prove
to be more important for integrating environmental issues into product design; and (3) the integration of environmental
sustainability issues into NPD programs in terms of product design leads to the creation of new opportunities for firms,
such as opening new markets, technologies, and product arenas, though not necessarily leading to improved financial
performance of the NPD programs.

Introduction

Address correspondence to: Devashish Pujari, DeGroote School of
Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West—Hamilton,
Ontario L8S4L8, Canada. E-mail: pujarid@mcmaster.ca. Tel: +1-905-525-
9140 ext. 27635.
* We sincerely thank anonymous reviewers for their critical comments,
suggestions, and insights that helped us improve the manuscript.
I
t is widely reported that integrating the environmen-
tal dimension into product or business strategy can
bring several benefits: increased efficiency in the use
of resources, return on investment, increased sales, devel-
opment of new markets, improved corporate image,
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
product differentiation, and enhanced competitive advan-
tage (e.g., Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Shrivastava,
1995). In particular, green product innovation has
received significant attention as a means to improve com-
panies’ performance (Pujari, 2006) and has been found to
be positively correlated to firm performance in high-tech
industries (Chen, Lai, and Wen, 2006; Chung and Tsai,
2007). Being an important source of differentiation-based
competitive advantage (Orsato, 2006; Reinhardt, 1998),
green product development may also become a contrib-
uting factor in rejuvenating mature manufacturing indus-
tries in developed countries.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Dr. Rosa Maria Dangelico holds a PhD in Innovation Management and
Product Development from Scuola Interpolitecnica di Dottorato (the
joint PhD program of Politecnico di Bari, Politecnico di Milano, and
Politecnico di Torino). She is currently Assistant Professor in Business
and Management Engineering at “Sapienza”–University of Rome, Italy.
She has been a visiting scholar at DeGroote School of Business
(McMaster University, Canada) and at IESE Business School (Univer-
sity of Navarra, Spain). She has been a Research Fellow of the Aspen
Institute and, currently, she is Aspen Junior Fellow of the Aspen Institute
Italia. Her main research interests concern the integration of environ-
mental sustainability into firms’ innovation strategies and new product
development. She has published in journals such as Technovation,
Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Busi-
ness Strategy and the Environment.
Dr. Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo holds a PhD in Engineering of Advanced
Manufacturing Systems. He is Full Professor in Business and Man-
agement Engineering at the Politecnico di Bari, Italy, where he is
Vice President of the board of the PhD program in Environmental
Engineering. He has been a visiting scholar at the University of
South Florida in Tampa, USA. He is a collaborator of the InterNeg
Research Centre at John Molson School of Business, Concordia Uni-
versity in Montreal, Canada. His main research interests are in supply
chain management and corporate social responsibility. He is or has
been responsible for several research projects granted by both public
institutions and companies. He has published in, among others, Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Pro-
duction Economics, International Journal of Production Research,
International Journal of Project Management, and Journal of Cleaner
Production.
Dr. Devashish Pujari is Associate Professor of Marketing in the
DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University in Hamilton,
Canada. His research interests include new product/service develop-
ment, sustainability and innovation, and technology in services. His
research is published or forthcoming in, among others, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Journal of Business Research, Indus-
trial Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing, Techno-
vation, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Services Marketing, and
International Journal of Service Industry Management. His research is
supported by prestigious funding sources such as Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ontario Research and Devel-
opment Challenge Fund, and Ontario Research Fund-Research Excel-
lence from Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 643
2013;30(4):642–658
Investigating sustainability innovation in the textile
and upholstered furniture industries is crucial because of
the scale and scope of these industries (particularly
textiles) in terms of economic, environmental, and social
impact. In economic terms, in 2000, consumers spent
around US $1 trillion worldwide buying clothes, split
roughly one third in Western Europe, one third in North
America, and one quarter in Asia (Allwood, Laursen,
Rodríguez, and Bocken, 2006).
The textile and upholstered industries seem to have
recognized that sustainability-based product innovation
should be material and design specific (e.g., alternative
material), energy efficient, nontoxic, and recycled/
recyclable. As a signal of the growing relevance of sus-
tainability issues in the textile industry, two of the world’s
largest clothing retailers, Wal-Mart and H&M, recently
agreed to work with their Chinese textile suppliers to
reduce the water, energy, and chemical use in their supply
chains.1 Other examples of sustainable “green” uphol-
stered furniture products include Cisco Home, Ekla
Home, and Lee Industries’ products.2 In other industries
too, companies have invested in creating sustainability-
based differentiation of their products and have launched
green products. For example, Ford, SC Johnson, Clorox,
and HP are integrating environmental factors into the
ingredients, materials, or design of their products in ways
that enhance value and create fewer environmental
impacts. Some of the examples include Ford’s soy-based
seat cushion foam, SC Johnson’s weeding out restricted
ingredients, Clorox’s new line of cleaning products, and
HP’s 97% cut in packaging for one of its products. There
is a growing trend of companies that obtain yearly envi-
ronmental certifications for their products. For example,
at the end of 2000, about 50 companies obtained Euro-
pean Eco-label for their products; that number grew to
more than 1000 in 2010.3
Environmental sustainability is now considered as one
of the key drivers of innovation and NPD (Hopkins, 2010;
Nidumolu, Prahalad, and Rangaswami, 2009). Develop-
ing new green products will require additional resources
to set up R&D, new activities in development process
(e.g., life cycle analysis), and new networks (e.g., reverse
logistics) for end-of-life stage of products. Firms also feel
challenged by the sheer complexity of environmental sus-
tainability issues. For example, there are no definite or
1
http://www.onearth.org/article/walmart-hm-pledge-to-help-reduce-
chinese-textile-pollution
2
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/10-of-the-best-green-furniture-
125345
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/facts-and-figures.html
644 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
easy answers on the selection of alternative energy or
replacement materials in product and packaging and sus-
tainable “green” new product is not just about product
itself but about the whole physical life cycle of the
product (manufacturing, distribution, and recycling/
disposal). Further, developing sustainable new green
products can be a market opportunity, but it is not without
risks as firms come under public scrutiny about environ-
mental and social impact, requiring communication of
additional environmental impact data of new products
(e.g., carbon footprint, material source, etc.). Finally,
sustainability-based product innovation requires satisfy-
ing multiple stakeholders who may sometimes have
conflicting motivations, purposes, and emphasis on sus-
tainability issues.
The integration of the natural environment thus adds
complexity to organizational processes. Acknowledging
that environmental issues are not generally core activities
for most firms, this imperative requires firms to enhance
their capabilities of integrating environmental knowledge
and competencies outside their boundaries. Accordingly,
adopting a resource-based view, this article aims at study-
ing the role of external integrative capabilities to integrate
environmental sustainability issues into new product
development (NPD) programs, and at investigating
whether this integration creates new markets and leads to
better financial performance. The unit of analysis of this
study is represented by NPD programs. The article is
structured as follows: first, the relevant literature on green
product development is briefly reviewed. Then, theoreti-
cal background and hypotheses are provided. The article
continues with a description of research methodology,
followed by a discussion of results. Finally, implications,
limitations, and directions for future research are
provided.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
Green Product Development
An increased attention has been given worldwide to the
natural environment over the past decades. Growing chal-
lenges are posed by the growth of human population and
industrial production, and by the consumption of nonre-
newable resources, with a consequent increase in related
environmental impacts. Environmental public policies
are also increasingly focused on products as public poli-
cymakers see development of green products as an essen-
tial element in helping companies and economies move
toward environmental sustainability. The development of
green products can have an essential role in helping com-
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
panies and economies toward environmental sustainabil-
ity, as demonstrated by the fact that environmental public
policies are increasingly focusing on products. Although
there may be additional burden of costs in developing
“green” new products, it is argued that through the effi-
cient use of resources, low carbon impacts and risks to the
environment, and waste minimization, green products
may eventually offer high quality and low overall envi-
ronmental costs.
The definition of a “green” product relates to its whole
life cycle. Ottman, Stafford, and Hartman (2006, p. 24)
state that green products “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.” This implies that the identification
of green products should be done considering multiple
environmental dimensions, in terms of life cycle phases
and main environmental impacts at product design and
manufacturing process levels.
A review of literature shows that research on green
product development has grown in interest (e.g.,
Albino, Balice, and Dangelico, 2009; Chung and Tsai,
2007; Pujari, 2006; Pujari, Peattie, and Wright, 2004;
Pujari, Wright, and Peattie, 2003). Pujari et al. (2004)
investigate the environmental responsiveness in indus-
trial NPD, finding that additional activities, in compari-
son to the traditional NPD process, are required.
Similarly, Dangelico and Pujari (2010) highlight
peculiarities of green product development, presenting
additional challenges linked to the integration of envi-
ronmental issues into NPD. Berchicci and Bodewes
(2005) discuss the complexity of “greening” and the
challenges that product development teams face to incor-
porate environmental issues into NPD. The authors high-
light that relatively little effort has been made to study
“greening” within the domains of NPD and innovation,
though a few studies investigate the relationship between
specific activities of green product development and
green products’ success or firms’ economic performance
(Chen et al., 2006; Pujari, 2006; Pujari et al., 2003).
Some researchers investigate green product development
as a network of collaboration and information exchange
among actors located both within the firm and outside
of it, highlighting that collaboration and information
exchange both with external actors and among different
departments within the firm is very crucial for green
product development (Lenox and Ehrenfeld, 1997).
Further, it is argued that design aspects of green product
development have been neglected so far. As Eppinger
(2011) notes, the challenge of environmental sustainabil-
ity of products still represents “an area where design
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
practice remains largely in the dark ages” (p. 1), high-
lighting a need to investigate how NPD integrates envi-
ronmental sustainability.
External Integrative Capabilities
The resource-based view conceptualizes the firm as
bundles of resources heterogeneously distributed across
competing firms (Wernerfelt, 1984). NPD has been
studied from the perspective of the resource-based view
(Verona, 1999), linking resources and competencies
related to technologies and customers (Danneels, 2002).
Resources needed for NPD can be material (e.g., equip-
ment, machinery) or immaterial (e.g., manufacturing
know-how, understanding of customer needs). A compe-
tence or capability is an ability to accomplish something
by deploying and coordinating a set of material and
immaterial resources (e.g., Grant, 1996). NPD in a firm
may be based on already existing resources and compe-
tencies within the firm or may require resources and
competencies that the firm does not have (Danneels,
2002). In particular, when firms do not have the resources
and competencies to innovate on their own, they rely on
external integrative capabilities. These capabilities, such
as creation of collaborative networks, allow the firm to
access external sources and act as adhesive absorbing
critical knowledge and resources (Cohen and Levinthal,
1990). This openness toward external actors and sources
is important to explain innovative performance of firms
(Laursen and Salter, 2006). In his review on the resource-
based view of product development, Verona (1999) clas-
sifies capabilities required to develop new products into
different types: external integrative capabilities, internal
integrative capabilities, technological capabilities, and
marketing capabilities.
This study investigates the role of three external inte-
grative capabilities (namely, networks of collaborations,
external knowledge links, and acquisition of know-how)
in green product development, in industries wherein
sustainability issues are considered crucial. To focus on
these capabilities is particularly important for green
product development. The environmental impact of
products takes place at many points in the value chain,
from raw material extraction to waste management. This
impact is the result of interrelated decisions made at
various stages of a product’s lifecycle even though firms
are not themselves involved in all phases of the product
life cycle. Therefore, collaboration among the various
companies in the product’s value chain and other actors
(such as government) is essential for developing green
products (Roy and Whelan, 1992). On the other hand,
J PROD INNOV MANAG 645
2013;30(4):642–658
since environmental issues are not the core activities for
most firms, firms generally do not have the environmental
knowledge and competencies needed to develop green
products. Moreover, the complexity of environmental
issues requires that firms developing green products
engage a broad range of stakeholders in the development
process (Polonsky and Ottman, 1998) for environmental
knowledge and competencies outside of the firm’s main
domain. Other studies have highlighted the importance of
integrating external stakeholders in the green product
development process (e.g., Hart, 1995), to carry out
“product stewardship strategy” that leads to successfully
developing green products and increasing environmental
reputation.
Networks of collaborations. Collaboration among
firms to manage environmental impacts of products is
crucial (Roy and Whelan, 1992). The creation of collabo-
rative networks to achieve the environmental sustainabil-
ity objectives in product development and production
processes is becoming a widespread strategy. For
example, both Clorox and Dell built partnerships to
develop new green products and achieve product
stewardship.
In the literature, it is recognized that the creation of
collaborative networks represents an important external
integrative capability in NPD (Verona, 1999). By means
of collaborations, firms can share complementary
resources and competencies, innovate (e.g., Powell,
1998), and achieve successful results, such as meeting
market needs and increased product quality (Wissema
and Euser, 1991). In a study of the textile industry,
Seuring (2004) shows that cooperation along the supply
chain is one of the key ways for companies to improve the
competitiveness while reducing environmental burdens.
It is argued that customers represent an important source
of information on green product demand and of require-
ments about products’ environmental performance,
whereas suppliers may provide information about envi-
ronmental technologies, new environmentally friendly
materials, and solutions for the reduction of environmen-
tal impacts of production processes. Several other studies
also highlight the importance of supply chain collabora-
tions to develop green solutions. For example, Hall
(2000) shows that buyer–supplier relationships play an
important role in stimulating environmental innovation,
while Lee and Klassen (2008) identify supply chain envi-
ronmental management capability as an important exter-
nally oriented capability, highlighting the relevance of
collaborations with actors along the supply chain in envi-
ronmental management.
646 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Collaborations with actors along the supply chain
positively influence the integration of environmental
issues into NPD programs, both in terms of (a) manufac-
turing process and in terms of (b) product design.
External knowledge links. Several companies have
started to leverage external knowledge sources to develop
sustainable solutions. For example, Nike and Creative
Commons created a platform called “GreenXchange,”
where companies and stakeholders can bring the network
efficiencies of open innovation to solve the problems of
sustainability, by means of networked and community-
based knowledge transfer and sharing.
NPD can be considered as a communication web
(Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995) and external communica-
tion is seen as an important external integrative capability
in NPD (Verona, 1999) that is linked to success. For
example, von Hippel (1986) finds that communication
with key customers is important for product design, while
Ancona and Caldwell (1990) show that extensive com-
munication links outside the firm lead to successful
product development. In industries in which environmen-
tal issues are becoming increasingly important, knowl-
edge exchange for NPD becomes even more important.
In fact, the acquisition of information from external
knowledge sources plays a key role for green product
development.
Lenox and Ehrenfeld (1997) highlight the relevance,
for effective environmental design, of knowledge on
environmental impacts and technologies both internal
and external to the firm, coordinated by means of infor-
mation networks. In particular, they argue that the
development of green products requires organizational
routines that enhance explorative activities to help dis-
covery and creation of new knowledge while exploiting
firm’s internal knowledge. Therefore, firms that want to
incorporate green issues into innovation projects need to
develop knowledge links with a wide range of external
parties to explore novel solutions to environmental
design problems. Several external knowledge sources
can be useful for green product development, such as
other firms, consultants, and universities and research
institutions that may be sources of technical advances or
can provide technical data, and regulators and policy-
makers that represent an important source of informa-
tion about environmental issues and constraints in green
product development (Foster and Green, 2000; Lenox
and Ehrenfeld, 1997). Lee and Klassen (2008) define
relationship environmental management capability as
the externally oriented capability aimed at sustaining
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
environmentally sound relationships with external stake-
holders through various communication methods, high-
lighting the role of information exchange with external
actors in the management of environmental issues.
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The acquisition of information from external knowl-
edge sources positively influences the integration of envi-
ronmental issues into NPD programs, both in terms of (a)
manufacturing process and in terms of (b) product
design.
Acquisition of technical know-how. In 2007, PepsiCo
claimed that it was able to significantly reduce its overall
environmental footprint in distribution, even though the
amount of shipped products increased. This result was
achieved through both technological solutions, such as
using low friction tires, streamlining vehicles, using new
trip-planning software, and putting in place a comprehen-
sive training program.4 This example highlights that
the acquisition of technical know-how (by means for
example of recruiting, training, and the purchase of
software and machineries) can be very relevant for the
integration of environmental sustainability issues into
product development. In fact, the creation of collabora-
tive networks and external knowledge links can only
partly explain the influence that the use of external
knowledge sources has on the integration of environmen-
tal sustainability issues into NPD programs. The success
in using external knowledge sources is mainly associated
with the ability of merging new knowledge with accumu-
lated knowledge (Verona, 1999). In turn, this ability is
linked to the firm’s absorptive capacity (Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990) and can be increased by means of an
effective acquisition of technical know-how and assets.
Sustainable product development represents an important
challenge for firms belonging to industries such as tex-
tiles and upholstered furniture in which sustainability
issues are of strategic importance. Product development
in these industries requires understanding and integrating
sustainability issues in the development process and
beyond. In this context, employees have been recognized
as an important source of environmental innovations
(Ramus, 2001). Moreover, the use of clean technologies
adds complexity to production requiring increased skills
from workers at all levels of the firm (Groenewegen
and Vergragt, 1991). Hence, training of employees
and acquisition of new competent staff may play an
4
http://www.pepsico.com/Download/PEPSICO_2007_Sustainability_
Report.pdf
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
important role in green product development. Similarly,
when a firm decides to develop green products, it may
need to redesign its production processes, requiring
acquisition and installation of new technologies
(Shrivastava, 1995).
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: The acquisition of technical know-how and assets
positively influences the integration of environmental
issues into NPD programs, both in terms of (a) manufac-
turing process and in terms of (b) product design.
Benefits of Going Green
The debate of being “green and competitive” has inten-
sified over the years (e.g., King and Lenox, 2001; Porter
and van der Linde, 1995; Pujari, 2006), but still remains
an under-researched field of inquiry (Ambec and Lanoie,
2008). Literature shows that by integrating the environ-
mental dimension into marketing and business strategy,
several benefits can be generated, in terms of both envi-
ronmental performance (increased efficiency in the use of
resources and reduction of pollution and waste from pro-
duction processes) and market performance (return on
investment, increased sales, development of new markets,
improved corporate image, product differentiation, and
enhanced competitive advantage) (e.g., Porter and van
der Linde, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995). In particular, green
product innovation is receiving growing attention as
means to improve companies’ market performance (e.g.,
Pujari, 2006). In fact, it may be a significant source of
competitive advantage when it allows for either product
External Integration of
integrative environmental
capabilities issues in NPD
Networks of
collaborations
Green
manufacturing
H1a-H3b
External
knowledge links
Green product
design
Acquisition of
know-how
Figure 1. A Theoretical Framework.
NPD, new product development
J PROD INNOV MANAG 647
2013;30(4):642–658
differentiation (Orsato, 2006; Reinhardt, 1998) or low
cost manufacturing (Shrivastava, 1995). Moreover, green
product development has been found to be positively
correlated to firms’ competitive advantage (Chen et al.,
2006) while green design activities have led to better
performance of NPD (in terms of cost, quality, time to
market, and market share) in high-tech Taiwanese indus-
tries (Chung and Tsai, 2007). Furthermore, integration of
environmental sustainability issues into NPD may repre-
sent an opportunity for companies to enter/create new
markets and develop new technologies, as revealed by
more than 300,000 applications for green brand names,
logos, and tag lines to the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (Dechert LLP, 2008), as well as more companies,
such as Apple, Canon, Clorox, and Fiji Water entering the
green marketplace.
Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4: The integration of environmental sustainability
issues into NPD programs, in terms of (a) manufacturing
process and (b) product design, leads to the creation of
new opportunities for the firm.
H5: The integration of environmental sustainability
issues into NPD programs, in terms of (a) manufacturing
process and (b) product design, leads to higher financial
outcomes of NPD program, in terms of sales, profitabil-
ity, and cost performance.
A proposed model is depicted in Figure 1 linking
external integrative capabilities to the integration of envi-
ronmental issues into NPD, which in turn leads to the
creation of new opportunities and financial outcomes.
Outcomes
Creation of new
opportunities
H4a-H5b
Financial
performance
648 J PROD INNOV MANAG R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
2013;30(4):642–658

Methods Table 1. Summary Statistics of the Sample (n = 102)

Frequency (%)
Sample
Size (number of employees)
Primary data for hypotheses testing were collected <50 59 (57.8)
through a survey. A sample of 700 Italian manufacturing 50–249 32 (31.4)
firms operating in two different industries, namely tex- 250–499 6 (5.9)
500+ 5 (4.9)
tiles and furniture, was drawn from the membership lists
Respondents
of the Italian Chamber of Commerce. In particular, firms Chief executive officer 48 (47.1)
sampled in the textile sector manufacture cotton, wool, Marketing director/manager 17 (16.7)
silk fibers, and broadwoven or narrow fabrics (SIC codes R&D director/manager 14 (13.7)
2211, 2221, 2231, and 2241) whereas firms sampled in Manufacturing director/manager 10 (9.8)
Product manager 6 (5.9)
the furniture industry manufacture upholstered furniture
Chief operational officer 4 (3.9)
(SIC code 2512). Others (quality, environmental manager) 3 (2.9)
The textile and upholstered furniture industries were Industry
selected because in these industries environmental sus- Textiles 37 (36.3)
tainability issues are becoming increasingly important, Upholstered furniture 65 (63.7)
and these industries represent an important part of the
Italian economy. For example, in the textile industry, Italy
is the biggest exporter in the European Union while, in recorded on a five-point scale. Some of the scales
the furniture industry, Italy is the third biggest manufac- included in the questionnaire were adapted from earlier
turer and the second biggest exporter in the world studies on NPD. To check content validity and correct
(ISTAT, 2007). Further, textiles and furniture represent any ambiguities, a draft version of the questionnaire was
two important specialized fields of the Italian manufac- pre-tested with academics and industry experts. Respon-
turing sector and have shown early responsiveness to dents were asked to fill in the questionnaire referring to
environmental sustainability issues. the NPD program inside their company. The question-
Acknowledging the role of green product innovation as naire was divided into several parts: firm’s general infor-
a potential means for companies to pursue a strategy of pro- mation, formal collaborations, external knowledge links,
duct differentiation, the growing relevance of environmen- acquisition of know-how for the development of new
tal issues in the textile and upholstered furniture industries products, integration of environmental issues into NPD
as well as the key role of these industries in the Italian with regard to manufacturing processes and product
economy, this study is focused on these two industries. design, creation of new opportunities, sales and profit-
This study attempts to investigate which capabilities are ability performance of NPD program, intensity of
useful to develop green products and whether developing internal R&D, and radicalness of innovation. The ques-
green products creates new opportunities for the firm. tionnaire was administered in companies through e-mails
Sample statistics, in terms of firm size, respondent’s after preliminary phone calls were made to identify the
type, and industry are reported in Table 1. “Key infor- most suitable respondent within the company. Single
mants” in this study included CEOs, marketing directors, informants were used as participants for the research,
R&D directors, etc. who were considered most knowl- which is consistent with past studies in marketing (e.g.,
edgeable about the issues being researched (Campbell, Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, and Salomo, 2007). After
1955). Given that a large part of the sample included multiple follow-up e-mails and phone calls, data on 102
small size firms, CEOs of these firms held multiple NPD programs were collected. The response rate of
responsibilities including product development, and were 14.6%, comparable with similar studies (e.g., Pujari
the most knowledgeable persons about NPD programs; as et al., 2003), seems acceptable for the study’s purposes.
such they were the right persons to be able to respond to Three types of bias that could affect our results were
our questionnaire. checked for common method variance, difference
between early and late respondents, and nonrespondent
Procedure bias. Following Podsakoff and Organ’s (1986) sugges-
tions, Harman’s one-factor test was conducted to test the
To collect data, a structured questionnaire consisting of presence of common method bias. Neither a single factor
close-ended questions was developed. Responses were emerged from the factor analysis nor did one general
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
factor account for the majority of the covariance among
the variables, suggesting that common method bias is
unlikely to affect our results. Difference between early
respondents (who returned the questionnaire within three
weeks) and late respondents (who returned the question-
naire after reminders) was checked for and no significant
differences on any survey constructs were found. Finally,
nonresponse bias was checked for by running a t-test for
equality of means for firm size, firm age, and industry
type (textiles and upholstered furniture) between the
group of respondents and nonrespondents. No significant
difference was found, suggesting that nonresponse bias is
unlikely to be present in the data set (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977).
Measures
In this paragraph, the scales are presented. A complete
list of items used in the questionnaire is reported in
Appendix A.
Networks of collaborations. In order to measure col-
laboration intensity, a multiple-item scale was developed
adapting items already used in previous studies. Respon-
dents were asked to indicate the intensity of formal col-
laborations undertaken with actors in the supply chain,
such as material suppliers, process suppliers, and custom-
ers (items based on Laursen and Salter, 2006).
External knowledge links. In order to measure the
intensity of external information used for NPD, a
multiple-item scale was used. Respondents were asked to
indicate the amount of information used for developing
new products and coming from different knowledge
sources outside the supply chain, such as partner compa-
nies, universities and research institutions, legislators,
conferences, meetings, and workshops (items based on
Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Laursen and Salter, 2006;
Moorman, 1995).
Acquisition of know-how. In order to measure the
acquisition of technical know-how and assets, a
multiple-item scale was developed. Respondents were
asked to indicate the extent to which the following
actions have been done for the development of new
products: hiring of new competent staff, participation of
employees to specific training courses, and acquisition
of new machineries.
Integration of environmental issues into NPD. A
multiple-item scale to measure integration of environ-
J PROD INNOV MANAG 649
2013;30(4):642–658
mental issues into NPD was developed by adapting exist-
ing scales (Sharma, 2000) reflecting specific eco-design
practices in the textile industry (Ren, 2000) and in the
upholstered furniture industry (Evans, 2007), or by inter-
viewing managers in the two industries. Environmental
performance of products has to be considered over the
whole life cycle of products (production, use, and dis-
posal), and that they can be based on different environ-
mental issues (material, energy, and pollution/waste)
(Dewberry and Goggin, 1996). To take into account these
different dimensions, several items were used to measure
the integration of environmental issues in NPD. In
particular, items relate to materials used for products
(natural, minimum amount, FSC or PEFC certified for
upholstered furniture, and Oeko-Tex, eco-label or AIAB
certified for textiles), production processes (energy effi-
ciency, use of renewable energy, waste prevention, and
pollution prevention), and the use of LCA (life cycle
analysis) tools (Evans, 2007; Ljungberg, 2007; Luttropp
and Lagerstedt, 2006; Ren, 2000; Sharma, 2000).
Creation of new opportunities. To measure creation
of new opportunities, a multiple-item scale was used
(Kleinschmidt et al., 2007). In particular, creation of new
opportunities is measured as the extent to which the NPD
program opens new markets, products, and technological
arenas to the firm.
Financial outcomes. Financial outcomes of NPD
program were measured by a multiple-item scale, encom-
passing NPD program sales and profitability (Griffin and
Page, 1996; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007).
Control variables. Responses on several control vari-
ables were collected to check for other explanations of
firm behavior. Specifically, measures for firm size
(number of employees), age (years since firm founda-
tion), and industry were included as control variables.
The theoretical rationale of including firm size and age
as control variables is linked to the debated influence
of these dimensions on green innovation (see for
details, Baylis, Connell, and Flynn, 1998; Hockerts and
Wüstenhagen, 2010; Rehfeld, Rennings, and Ziegler,
2007; Wagner, 2008). Industry was included as a dummy
variable (0 for upholstered furniture and 1 for textiles) to
check for differences between the two industries in the
integration of environmental issues in NPD as well as in
the achieved outcomes.
Other control variables were also included to check
for potentially important antecedents of the integration of
environmental issues in NPD and of related outcomes.
650 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Number of Items, and Cronbach’s a of Constructs Included in the Study
Constructs Mean
Networks of collaborations 2.62
External knowledge links 2.00
Acquisition of know-how 2.28
Green manufacturing 3.00
Green product design 2.79
Creation of new opportunities 2.93
Financial outcomes 2.81
Radicalness of innovation 3.09
These are internal R&D, in terms of intensity of informa-
tion coming from internal R&D activities and used for
NPD and radicalness of innovation, referred to the degree
of newness of the products for firm and industry, of cus-
tomers for the firm, and of technology on which products
are based (De Luca and Atuahene-Gima, 2007).
Data Analysis
The Measures
An exploratory factor analysis was carried out on items
referred to external integrative capabilities using princi-
pal component analysis (direct oblimin method) in order
to check that items loaded significantly on the expected
factor and that there was no evidence of cross-loadings.
The results show three factors, as expected, with eigen-
values greater than 1, accounting for 61.89% of the vari-
ance (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin [KMO] statistic .754; Barlett
statistic 276.53; significance .000). An exploratory factor
analysis was also carried out on items referred to the
integration of environmental issues into NPD using prin-
cipal component analysis (direct oblimin method) in
order to extract the main factors from the considered set
of items. The results show two factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1, accounting for 51.38% of the variance
(KMO statistic .767; Barlett statistic 192.21; significance
.000). The first factor is linked to the integration of envi-
ronmental issues into product development in terms of
manufacturing processes, named here as green manufac-
turing. In particular, this factor relates to the use of
energy efficient production processes, renewable energy
sources, and pollution and waste prevention in production
processes. The second factor is more directly linked to the
integration of environmental issues into product design
and is called green product design. This factor refers to
the adoption of practices to evaluate the environmental
impact of products during the whole life cycle and the
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
Standard Number Cronbach’s
deviation of items a coefficient
1.01 3 .69
.79 4 .73
1.14 3 .70
.82 4 .74
.85 4 .60
.89 3 .81
.61 3 .85
.85 4 .70
adoption of eco-design practices linked to materials used
for products.
The correlation matrix with inter-correlations among
constructs and between constructs and control variables
is reported in Appendix B. Scales are modeled as reflec-
tive scales. Thus, convergent validity of constructs was
assessed by means of item loadings and scales’ reliability.
All item loadings exceeded .50, providing evidence of
convergent validity among the measures for each con-
struct (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006).
Cronbach’s a coefficient exceeded the recommended
cutoff value of .60 (Churchill, 1979), providing good
evidence of scales’ reliability. Constructs’ mean, standard
deviation, and Cronbach’s a coefficient are reported in
Table 2.
Discriminant validity was assessed by conducting a
series of two-factor CFA models, with AMOS software
(Amos Development Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA),
involving each pair of constructs. First, the correlation
among the constructs was constrained to unit, then it was
freed. In all cases, the c2 value of the unconstrained
model was significantly lower than that of the constrained
model. A chi-difference test was also performed, showing
that the unconstrained model was always superior,
indicating discriminant validity between all constructs
(Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips, 1991).
Results of Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses were tested in two steps using regression
analysis. The first step is to study the role of external
integrative capabilities in integrating environmental
issues into NPD, which will help us identify the external
integrative capabilities that are more important for green
manufacturing and green product design. The second
step is to investigate if and to what extent integrating
environmental issues into NPD contributes to improve
firm performance. This will help us understand the
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS J PROD INNOV MANAG 651
2013;30(4):642–658

Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis

Green Green
manufacturing product Creation of new
process design opportunities Financial performance

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Control variables
LogSize .107 -.167* .245** .136 .179 .216* .170 .143
LogAge .219** .092 .003 .004 -.002 -.070 -.087 -.077
Industry .111 .212** .012 .071 .070 .008 .048 .099
Information from internal R&D activities — — .247** .213** .242** — — —
Radicalness of innovation — — — — — .069 -.013 .000
External integrative capabilities
Networks of collaborations .088 .225** .085 .042 .004 .026
External knowledge links .343*** .169* .020 .022 -.077 -.037
Acquisition of know-how .093 .332*** .268*** .263** .317*** .369***
Integration of environmental issues in NPD
Green manufacturing process -.011 -.055 .016 -.010
Green product design .218** .099 -.026 -.159
F 9.675*** 8.332*** 4.647*** 4.661*** 3.997*** .911 2.024* 1.803*
R2 .382 .347 .243 .273 .300 .059 .140 .162
Adj R2 .342 .306 .190 .214 .225 -.006 .061 .072
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01.
NPD, new product development.

impact of green manufacturing and green product design
on the creation of new opportunities and financial out-
comes. Finally, we will check whether there are direct
effects of external integrative capabilities on performance
measures as well as mediating effects of green product
design and green manufacturing process. The results of
regression analysis are reported in Table 3.
Role of external integrative capabilities in integrating
environmental issues into NPD. In order to investigate
the role of external integrative capabilities in integrating
environmental issues into NPD, regression analysis was
performed. Results are presented in model 1 and model 2
of Table 3.
Results did not find support for hypothesis H1a,
stating that networks of collaborations have a significant
effect on green manufacturing, suggesting that formal
collaborations along the supply chain may not play a
significant role in integrating environmental issues into
manufacturing processes. Similarly, results show that the
acquisition of know-how does not have a significant
effect on green manufacturing, leading to reject hypoth-
esis H3a. However, results show that external knowledge
links have a significant positive effect on green manufac-
turing, supporting hypothesis H2a. This result highlights
the important role that the degree of openness toward
external knowledge sources, such as partners, universi-
ties, and legislators, play in integrating environmental
issues in manufacturing processes. With regard to control
variables, firm’s size and industry do not have a signifi-
cant influence on green manufacturing, whereas firm age
has a significant positive influence on green manufactur-
ing, suggesting that older firms are more capable of
reducing the environmental impact of their manufactur-
ing processes.
Results show that all three types of external integra-
tive capabilities have a positive and significant effect on
green product design, providing support to hypotheses
H1b, H2b, and H3b. The capability with the most rel-
evant effect on green product design is the acquisition of
know-how, followed by networks of collaborations and
external knowledge links. This result emphasizes the
need to invest in human resources in terms of training
and recruiting, and to acquire technical know-how and
assets in order to develop green products. At the same
time, creation of formal collaborations with actors along
the supply chain plays a significant role in the develop-
ment of green products. A little less relevant seems to be
the role of information exchange with actors outside the
supply chain. With regard to control variables, firm size
has a significant and negative effect, highlighting that
smaller firms are more capable of integrating environ-
mental issues into product design. This may be due to the
fact that smaller firms are more flexible and that flexibil-
652 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
ity lets them avoid organizational inertia characterizing
larger firms and, thus, be more capable to change their
product design routines to include environmental issues.
Industry type shows a positive effect on green product
design, meaning that firms in the textile industry inte-
grate environmental issues into product design more than
do firms in the upholstered furniture. Finally, firm age
does not have significant influence on green product
design.
Creation of new opportunities and financial perfor-
mance as performance outcomes of the integration of
environmental issues into product development. In order
to investigate the impact of green manufacturing and
green product design on creation of new opportunities
and financial performance, regression analysis was per-
formed (model 3 and model 6 in Table 3).
Results show that green product design has a positive
and significant impact on the creation of new opportu-
nities, thus providing support to hypothesis H4b. This
means that the integration of environmental issues into
NPD in terms of green product design enables firms to
open new markets, technologies, and new product
arenas. On the other hand, green manufacturing doesn’t
seem to have a significant influence on the creation of
new opportunities, leading thus to reject hypothesis
H4a. With regard to control variables, our results show
that: (1) firm size has a positive and significant influ-
ence on the creation of new of opportunities, which
implies that larger firms are more capable of opening
new markets, technologies, and product arenas with
their NPD programs; (2) the amount of information
coming from internal R&D activities has a positive and
significant impact on the creation of new opportunities,
highlighting the key role of investments in R&D to
create opportunities for firms; and (3) firm age and
industry doesn’t seem to have any influence on the cre-
ation of new opportunities.
Results also show that both green manufacturing and
green product design do not have a significant impact on
financial outcomes. Therefore H5a and H5b are not sup-
ported. This means that the integration of environmental
issues into NPD programs, both in terms of manufactur-
ing processes and in terms of product design, does not
have an immediate impact on financial outcomes of NPD
programs. None of the control variables show a signifi-
cant effect on financial outcomes, except for firm size,
which displays a positive effect, highlighting that larger
firms are more capable of achieving better financial per-
formance, possibly because of a broader product portfo-
lio in their NPD programs.
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
Direct and mediating effect of external integrative
capabilities on performance outcomes. Although not
explicitly considered within the theoretical framework
(and thus not hypothesized), the direct influence of exter-
nal integrative capabilities on creation of new opportuni-
ties and financial performance was tested. Results
showed that the key external integrative capability that
has a significant effect on both creation of new opportu-
nities and financial performance is acquisition of know-
how (model 4 and model 7 in Table 3).
The mediating effects of green product design and
green manufacturing process in the link between exter-
nal integrative capabilities and performance outcomes
(models 5 and 8) were also formally tested, following
Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981).
Regression results (models 1, 2, 3, and 4) indicated that
it was worthwhile to check if there could be a mediating
effect of green product design in the relationship
between the acquisition of know-how and the creation of
new opportunities. However, when regressing the cre-
ation of new opportunities on both external integrative
capabilities and the integration of environmental issues
in NPD (model 5), the positive effect of green product
design is weakened and loses the significance, while the
acquisition of know-how still shows a significant and
positive influence. This means that green product design
does not act as a mediator in the link between acquisi-
tion of know-how and creation of new opportunities, but
green product design alone has a significant influence
to create new opportunities. Similarly, it was checked
whether there could be a mediating effect of green
product design and green manufacturing process in
the link between external integrative capabilities and
financial outcomes. Results of regression analysis
(model 8) confirm that (as expected from previous
results in models 1, 2, 6, and 7), when regressing finan-
cial outcomes on external integrative capabilities and the
integration of environmental issues in NPD simulta-
neously, only the acquisition of know-how has a signifi-
cant and positive influence.
Discussion
Environmental sustainability issues, particularly at the
product development level, are complex issues which
most of the companies find hard to measure and
manage. The greenness of a product cannot be under-
stood merely by looking at the product wrapped in a
package that is on a retail store shelf. Green products
are defined and assessed on a much larger set of envi-
ronmental impacts (e.g., material use, energy impacts,
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
carbon footprints, etc.) that occur during the design,
development, and distribution phases—well before the
products reached a retail store shelf. On top of integrat-
ing environmental sustainability issues into NPD, it is
expected that product quality is not compromised. Com-
panies find it a challenging task to address sustainability
imperatives on their own—reducing the potential envi-
ronmental impacts at each life cycle phase of the
product, which creates a differentiating customer value,
while making sure that product quality is maintained or
enhanced. These challenges make it necessary for com-
panies to look outside of the firm for knowledge and
competencies.
As this study shows, external integrative capabilities
play an important role in the integration of environmental
sustainability issues into NPD. However, some peculiari-
ties emerged in the results with regard to the extent to
which these capabilities impact greening the manufactur-
ing process and the product design process. In particular,
the integration of environmental issues at the manufac-
turing process level is enhanced by the acquisition of
knowledge from a range of external sources, such as
partners, universities and research centers, policymakers,
conferences, etc. On the other hand, the integration of
environmental issues at the product design level mainly
benefits from acquiring new technical know-how and
assets and by using external knowledge sources through
formal collaborations with actors along the supply chain.
This result seems consistent with some recent trends in
the fashion industry, where new platforms are created
with the aim of fostering collaborations and helping
designers and companies share ideas and search,
compare, and purchase more sustainable materials from
a global network of suppliers (e.g., C.L.A.S.S.).5 Less
relevant, even though influential, seems to be the
exchange of information with other actors. This may be
due to the fact that product design is more strategic than
manufacturing, which may make firms prefer to use
external integrative capabilities mainly through more
formal processes. This study also finds that green
product design creates new opportunities for the firm,
which may lead to creation of a new market, or devel-
opment of a new technology or a new product category.
This is understandable because customers would likely
buy green products if they believe that green products
have eliminated or reduced unwanted, unnatural, or toxic
materials and have used recycled or renewable materials
as well as renewable energy sources. With increased
focus on product design for environmental sustainability
5
http://www.classecohub.org/
J PROD INNOV MANAG 653
2013;30(4):642–658
and with application of green product design principles,
products and the NPD process can be transformed
(Eppinger, 2011). Interestingly, the study did not ascer-
tain that green manufacturing process or green product
design enhance financial performance. Though the litera-
ture and anecdotal evidence suggests that there could be
immense cost savings from energy efficiency in the
manufacturing process or through selling the surplus
carbon quotas, this study’s results do not confirm these
assertions. It is possible that this phenomenon is still at a
nascent stage and, in fact, it may cost more to integrate
environmental sustainability issues at the product devel-
opment level for a few years before it starts to pay off.
This study also highlights that the acquisition of new
technical know-how and assets directly affects the cre-
ation of new opportunities. However, this study did not
find any direct link between development of a network of
collaborations in the supply chain and information
exchange (with a variety of actors) with the creation of
new opportunities. With regard to the effect of external
integrative capabilities on financial performance, the
acquisition of new technical know-how and assets is the
only one to have a direct effect. These results highlight
the importance of recruiting employees with specialized
knowledge, training employees on specialized aspects of
environmental sustainability issues (e.g., dematerializa-
tion, life cycle analysis, recovery, recycling, and remanu-
facturing, etc.) as well as acquiring new machineries or
software to improve green product design and, at the
same time, create new market opportunities and increase
financial performance.
Implications, Limitations, and
Future Research
This study has several theoretical and managerial impli-
cations. Adopting a resource-based view of the firm,
this study applies this useful and rigorous theoretical
basis in understanding how environmental sustainability
issues are integrated within NPD, which in itself
includes both product design and manufacturing pro-
cesses to create differentiating environmental value for
the customers. This exploratory study provides a viable
theoretical framework to investigate the external integra-
tive capabilities and their impact on green manufactur-
ing and product design as well as impact on creating
new opportunities through greening. Green product
design has become crucial in the greening of the
product innovation process and it is becoming clear that
firms can’t alone solve all the sustainability challenges
internally, but they have to collaborate and establish
654 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
links externally to gain know-how and acquire new
knowledge. The antecedent constructs that are studied in
this article lend useful knowledge for future scholarly
work at the intersection of innovation and sustainability.
The beneficial role of the openness to external knowl-
edge sources for innovation, with particular regard to
green innovation, is highlighted, providing directions to
managers in terms of which capabilities may be impor-
tant to integrate environmental issues into NPD. New
product managers should invest in building networks of
collaborations and external knowledge links that will
help in integrating sustainability issues in the NPD
process and should pay more attention in acquisition of
know-how (technology, knowledge, expertise, etc.) from
external sources as it relates to sustainability issues. In
particular, this study shows that integrating environmen-
tal sustainability into product design or into manufac-
turing processes require different external integrative
capabilities. The most important external integrative
capabilities for greening product design are the acqui-
sition of technical know-how and assets and the creation
of external networks of collaborations, whereas the
most important capability for greening manufacturing
processes appears to be the creation of external knowl-
edge links. This result provides directions for managers
with regards to the choice of capabilities that should be
employed for greening the manufacturing process or
product design. Product managers will also appreciate
that product design is the stage where all the possible
environmentally harmful materials can be designed out
and sustainable materials can be designed that will
largely determine the final product output in terms of
creating differentiation value for customers or creating
new opportunities. One of the interesting findings of
this study is also about the impact of firm age and size.
It seems that older firms are better or currently pay
more attention toward integrating sustainability issues at
the manufacturing process stage, while smaller firms are
more effective or currently pay more attention at the
product design stage, though it should be emphasized
that integration should take place in both design and
manufacturing stages.
In addition, this article contributes to the debate on
being “green and competitive”: the integration of envi-
ronmental issues into NPD, in terms of green product
design, has been shown to have a positive effect on
firm’s performance, since it enables firms to open new
markets and technologies and has the potential to lead
firms into new product arenas. This result is consistent
with Eppinger’s suggestion (in Hopkins, 2010) that
green product design represents an opportunity for
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
companies to increase market appeal, to reduce cost,
and to innovate.
This study has some limitations that should be
acknowledged. First, cross-sectional data have been used
to derive causation. Even though increasing concerns
about its validity have been raised relating to common
method variance bias and causal inferences, this approach
is quite common among academic studies. Common-
method variance in the data set was checked for, finding
no evidence of such bias. Furthermore, Rindfleisch,
Malter, Ganesan, and Moorman (2008) suggested that,
under certain conditions, the results from cross-sectional
data exhibit validity comparable to the results obtained
from longitudinal data. Second, some concerns could be
raised about the recruitment of a single respondent per
firm. With this regard, an attempt was made to gain two
respondents, but in most cases there was only one person
in the firm knowledgeable about environmental issues.
The key informant approach is though consistent
with previous studies (e.g., Kleinschmidt et al., 2007),
some of which compared single to multiple respondent
approaches finding no differences (e.g., Atuahene-Gima,
Slater, and Olson, 2005), and is considered suitable when
the respondents own unique process insights (Ozsomer,
Calantone, and Di Benedetto, 1997). Third, only manag-
ers’ perceptions were measured and the only secondary
data from external sources are firm age, size, and indus-
try. Other secondary data with credibility and objectivity
were not available. Finally, the main focus of the research
has been studying the antecedents (in terms of external
integrative capabilities) and the outcomes (in terms of
new opportunities and financial performance) of the inte-
gration of environmental issues into NPD. Many vari-
ables, traditionally linked to NPD performance in the
literature, such as marketing task and technological task
proficiency, were outside of the scope of this study. It is
acknowledged that this could represent a limitation, but it
is recognized that this is one of the first studies investi-
gating NPD while integrating environmental sustainabil-
ity in the process.
Besides addressing these limitations, further research
could be devoted to expand the research scope. First,
internal integrative capabilities could be included along
with external integrative capabilities. Internal integrative
capabilities have been recognized as important capabili-
ties to develop new products in general and they could
be especially relevant in green product development,
given that integrating environmental issues into a
firm’s innovation activities necessitates significant cross-
disciplinary coordination and integration. Thus, studying
and comparing the role of internal and external integra-
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS
tive capabilities on green product development would
provide insights on the relative strength of their impacts
on the processes and outcomes and could provide direc-
tions for companies on how to leverage internal and
external environmental knowledge and competencies.
Moreover, a greater number of manufacturing industries
could be included in the sample, to investigate whether
and to which extent our results can be generalized. In
particular, since both textiles and upholstered furniture
are low-tech industries (OECD, 2003) characterized by
low levels of investments in R&D, it would be interesting
to extend the scope of future studies to investigate the role
of external integrative capabilities in other manufacturing
industries characterized by higher levels of investments
in R&D. It could be expected that companies in higher-
tech industries rely less on external integrative capabili-
ties to develop green products since they could be able to
create new environmental knowledge and competencies
by means of their internal R&D. Another interesting
research avenue could be studying green product devel-
opment under a contingent and dynamic capabilities per-
spective. This could be motivated by the fact that the
context of environmental sustainability has been charac-
terized by high dynamism over the past decade, as
evident from successive new types of environmental
regulations (e.g., REACH, RoHS, WEEE), uncertain
government subsidies and incentives for green products,
and seemingly high demand for green/sustainable prod-
ucts but with an unpredictable willingness to pay higher
prices for these products by customers. It could also be
interesting to identify a set of dynamic capabilities useful
to integrate environmental sustainability into product
development and understand the relative influence of
different dimensions of external turbulence, such as
market, technological, and regulatory on green product
innovation.
References
Albino, V., A. Balice, and R. M. Dangelico. 2009. Environmental strategies
and green product development: The behaviours of sustainability-
driven companies. Business Strategy and Environment 18 (2): 83–
96.
Allwood, J. M., S. E. Laursen, C. M. de Rodríguez, and N. M. P. Bocken.
2006. Well dressed? The present and future sustainability of clothing
and textiles in the United Kingdom. Cambridge, UK: University of
Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing. Available at: http://
www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/resources/sustainability/well-dressed/ (last
accessed February 2012).
Ambec, S., and P. Lanoie. 2008. Does it pay to be green? A systematic
overview. Academy of Management Perspectives 22 (4): 45–62.
Ancona, D. G., and D. F. Caldwell. 1990. Beyond boundary spanning:
Managing external dependence in product development teams. Journal
of High Technology Management Research 1: 119–35.
J PROD INNOV MANAG 655
2013;30(4):642–658
Armstrong, J. S., and T. S. Overton. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in
mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3): 396–402.
Atuahene-Gima, K., S. F. Slater, and E. M. Olson. 2005. The contingent
value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product
program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22
(6): 464–82.
Bagozzi, R. P., Y. Yi, and L. W. Phillips. 1991. Assessing construct validity
in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3):
421–58.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 51 (6): 1173–82.
Baylis, R., L. Connell, and A. Flynn. 1998. Company size, environ-
mental regulation and ecological modernization: Further analysis at
the level of the firm. Business Strategy and the Environment 7 (5):
285–96.
Berchicci, L., and W. Bodewes. 2005. Bridging environmental issues with
new product development. Business Strategy and the Environment 14
(5): 272–85.
Brown, S. L., and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1995. Product development: Past
research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 20 (2): 343–78.
Campbell, D. T. 1955. The informant in quantitative research. The Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 63: 339–42.
Chen, Y. S., S. B. Lai, and C. T. Wen. 2006. The influence of green
innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of
Business Ethics 67: 331–39.
Chung, Y., and C. Tsai. 2007. The effect of green design activities on
new product strategies and performance: An empirical study among
high-tech companies. International Journal of Management 24 (2):
276–88.
Churchill, G. A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–
73.
Cohen, W. M., and D. A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quar-
terly 42: 1–34.
Dangelico, R. M., and D. Pujari. 2010. Mainstreaming green product inno-
vation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability.
Journal of Business Ethics 95 (3): 471–86.
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm compe-
tences. Strategic Management Journal 23 (12): 1095–121.
De Luca, L. M., and K. Atuahene-Gima. 2007. Market knowledge dimen-
sions and cross-functional collaboration: Examining the different
routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing 71 (1):
95–112.
Dechert LLP. 2008. 2008 Dechert LLP Annual Report on Trends in
Trademarks. Available at: http://www.dechert.com/library/Trends_in_
Trademarks_2008.pdf (last accessed June 2011).
Dewberry, E., and P. Goggin. 1996. Spaceship ecodesign. Co-design 5/6
(January-March): 12–17.
Eppinger, S. 2011. The fundamental challenge of product design. Journal
of Product Innovation Management 28 (3): 399–400.
Evans, G. 2007. “Green” designs get spotlight at market, in Special Report
Stationary Upholstery. Furniture Today 29 (October): 12–13.
Foster, C., and K. Green. 2000. Greening the innovation process. Business
Strategy and the Environment 9: 287–303.
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal 17 (Summer Special Issue): 109–22.
Griffin, A., and A. L. Page. 1996. PDMA success measurement project:
Recommended measures for product development success and failure.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 13: 478–96.
656 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2013;30(4):642–658
Groenewegen, P., and P. Vergragt. 1991. Technology policy and the creation
of new technologies. International Journal of Technology Management
6: 75–90.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham.
2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, J. 2000. Environmental supply chain dynamics. Journal of Cleaner
Production 8: 455–71.
Hart, S. L. 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of
Management Review 20 (4): 986–1014.
Henriques, I., and P. Sadorsky. 1999. The relationship between environ-
mental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholders impor-
tance. Academy of Management Journal 42 (1): 87–99.
Hockerts, K., and R. Wüstenhagen. 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerg-
ing Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants
in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 25 (5):
481–92.
Hopkins, M. 2010. How sustainability fuels design innovation. Interview
with Steven Eppinger. MIT Sloan Management Review 52 (1): 75–
81.
ISTAT. 2007. Rapporto annuale. La situazione del Paese 2006.
Judd, C. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1981. Process analysis: Estimating media-
tion in evaluation research. Evaluation Research 5: 602–19.
King, A., and M. Lenox. 2001. Does it really pay to be green? An empirical
study of firm environmental and financial performance. Journal of
Industrial Ecology 5 (1): 105–16.
Kleinschmidt, E. J., U. de Brentani, and S. Salomo. 2007. Performance of
global new product development programs: A resource-based view.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 24 (5): 419–41.
Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness
in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing
firms. Strategic Management Journal 27 (2): 131–50.
Lee, S.-Y., and R. D. Klassen. 2008. Drivers and enablers that foster
environmental management capabilities in small and medium-sized
suppliers in supply chains. Production and Operations Management 17
(6): 573–86.
Lenox, M., and J. Ehrenfeld. 1997. Organizing for effective environmental
design. Business Strategy and the Environment 6 (4): 187–96.
Ljungberg, L. Y. 2007. Materials selection and design for development of
sustainable products. Materials and Design 28: 466–79.
Luttropp, C., and J. Lagerstedt. 2006. EcoDesign and The Ten Golden
Rules: Generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product
development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: 1396–408.
Moorman, C. 1995. Organizational market information processes: Cultural
antecedents and new products outcomes. Journal of Marketing
Research 32: 318–35.
Nidumolu, R., C. K. Prahalad, and M. R. Rangaswami. 2009. Why sustain-
ability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review 87
(9): 56–64.
OECD. 2003. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2003.
Paris: Head of Publications Service, OECD Publications Service.
Orsato, R. J. 2006. Competitive environmental strategies: When does it pay
to be green? California Management Review 48 (2): 127–43.
Ottman, J. A., E. R. Stafford, and C. L. Hartman. 2006. Green marketing
myopia. Environment 48 (5): 22–36.
Ozsomer, A., R. J. Calantone, and A. Di Benedetto. 1997. What makes
firms more innovative? A look at organizational and environmental
factors. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 12 (6): 400–
16.
R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1986. Self-reports in organizational
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4):
531–44.
Polonsky, M. J., and J. Ottman. 1998. Stakeholders’ contribution to the
green new product development process. Journal of Marketing Man-
agement 14 (6): 533–57.
Porter, M., and C. van der Linde. 1995. Green and competitive: Ending
the stalemate. Harvard Business Review September–October: 120–
33.
Powell, W. W. 1998. Learning from collaboration. Knowledge and net-
works in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California
Management Review 40 (3): 228–40.
Pujari, D. 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: Under-
standing the influences on market performance. Technovation 26 (1):
76–85.
Pujari, D., K. Peattie, and G. Wright. 2004. Organizational antecedents of
environmental responsiveness in industrial new product development.
Industrial Marketing Management 33: 381–91.
Pujari, D., G. Wright, and K. Peattie. 2003. Green and competitive. Influ-
ences on environmental new product development performance.
Journal of Business Research 56: 657–71.
Ramus, C. A. 2001. Organizational support for employees: Encouraging
creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management
Review 43 (3): 85–105.
Rehfeld, K.-M., K. Rennings, and A. Ziegler. 2007. Integrated product
policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis.
Ecological Economics 61 (1): 91–100.
Reinhardt, F. L. 1998. Environmental product differentiation: Implications
for corporate strategy. California Management Review 40 (4): 43–
73.
Ren, X. 2000. Development of environmental performance indicators
for textile process and product. Journal of Cleaner Production 8: 473–
81.
Rindfleisch, A., A. J. Malter, S. Ganesan, and C. Moorman. 2008. Cross-
sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Concepts, findings, and
guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3): 261–79.
Roy, R., and R. C. Whelan. 1992. Successful recycling through value-chain
collaboration. Long Range Planning 25 (4): 62–71.
Seuring, S. 2004. Integrated chain management and supply chain manage-
ment comparative analysis and illustrative cases. Journal of Cleaner
Production 12: 1059–71.
Sharma, S. 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational context as
predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of
Management Journal 43 (4): 681–97.
Shrivastava, P. 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal 16 (Special Issue): 183–
200.
Verona, G. 1999. A resource-based view of product development. Academy
of Management Review 24 (1): 132–42.
von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead users: A source of novel product concepts.
Management Science 32 (7): 791–805.
Wagner, M. 2008. Empirical influence of environmental management on
innovation: Evidence from Europe. Ecological Economics 66 (2–3):
392–402.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal 5 (2): 171–80.
Wissema, J. G., and L. Euser. 1991. Successful innovation through inter-
company networks. Long Range Planning 24 (6): 33–39.
DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE NEW PRODUCTS J PROD INNOV MANAG 657
2013;30(4):642–658

Appendix A. Scales

Factor
Items loading

Network of collaborations Please rate the intensity of formal collaborations undertaken for the
Based on Laursen and Salter (2006) development of new products with the following actors: [1 = very low;
5 = very high]
materials suppliers .878
process suppliers .811
customer companies .521
External knowledge links Please rate the intensity of information used for the development of new
Based on Moorman (1995); Henriques and Sadorsky products from the following sources: [1 = very low; 5 = very high]
(1999); Laursen and Salter (2006) partner companies .785
universities and research institutions .686
legislators .574
attendance of conferences, meetings, workshops .762
Acquisition of technical know-how Please rate the extent to which you did the following activities for the
New scale development of new products: [1 = to no extent; 5 = to great extent]
you hired new competent staff .770
your staff took part in specific training courses .682
you installed new machineries .832
Integration of environmental issues into product To what extent does each of the following sentences describe the
development environmental dimension in your firm’s product development? [1 = to
Based on Sharma (2000) no extent; 5 = to great extent]
Green product design You evaluate the environmental impact of products during the whole life .565
cycle (for example with LCA software)
In your products you use natural fibers as raw materials .818
The fibers and yarns you use for your products are Eco-label, Oeko-Tex, or .732
AIAB certified
Your products are designed to use the minimum amount of materials .413
Green manufacturing You use energy efficient production processes .589
You use energy from renewable sources .666
You prevent pollution during production processes .793
You prevent waste during production processes .795
Outcomes Creation of new On average, how successful was your NPD program in: [1 = not at all;
opportunities 5 = great success, many new opportunities]
Griffin and Page (1996); opening new markets to your firm? .817
Kleinschmidt et al. (2007) leading your firm into new product arenas—i.e., products you did not have .894
in the past?
introducing new technologies for your firm? .807
Financial outcomes In terms of sales (revenue) performance:
Griffin and Page (1996); how successful was your NPD program in meeting its objectives? [1 = far .903
Kleinschmidt et al. below objectives; 5 = far above objectives]
(2007) In terms of profitability:
how successful was your NPD program in meeting its profit objectives? .902
[1 = far below objectives; 5 = far above objectives]
what was the profitability of your NPD program, relative to competitors? .815
[1 = far worse than competitors; 5 = far better than competitors]
Intensity of internal R&D Please rate the intensity of information used for the development of new
New scale products from the following source: [1 = very low; 5 = very high]
internal R&D activities
Radicalness of innovation To what extent does each of the following factors describe your firm’s
De Luca and Atuahene-Gima (2007) product development? [1 = to no extent; 5 = to great extent]
The products offered are new to the firm and the industry .708
The customer or client needs served are new to the firm .810
The users of the products or services are new to the firm .733
The new products are based on revolutionary changes in technology .656
List of items used in the questionnaire, with sources and factor loadings.
658 J PROD INNOV MANAG R. M. DANGELICO ET AL.
2013;30(4):642–658

Appendix B. Correlation Matrix

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Networks of collaborations 1.000

2. External knowledge links .353*** 1.000
3. Acquisition of technical know-how .127 .262*** 1.000
4. Green manufacturing .345*** .505*** .245** 1.000
5. Green product design .390*** .384*** .362*** .413*** 1.000
6. Creation of new opportunities .274*** .276*** .349*** .275*** .278*** 1.000
7. Financial outcomes .072 .035 .318*** .057 -.010 .382*** 1.000
8. LogSize .258*** .212** .307*** .303*** .110 .337*** .218**
9. LogAge .229** .236** .094 .385*** .257*** .179* -.026
10. Radicalness .192* .163* .241** .196** .185* .476*** .100
11. Industry .388*** .292*** -.008 .350*** .324*** .232** .073
12. Internal R&D .286*** .420*** .192* .496*** .200** .376*** .241**
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01 two-tailed.