Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657 – 671

Green and competitive

Influences on environmental new product development performance
Devashish Pujaria,*, Gillian Wrightb, Ken Peattiec
a
Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
b
Liverpool Business School, John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
c
Cardiff Business School, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

This article reports the findings of a large-scale research project on environmental new product development (ENPD) within British
manufacturers. A major contribution of this article is the attempt to integrate new product development (NPD) and environmental
management philosophies in order to develop and empirically test a theoretical framework for ENPD and performance. As such, it is one of
the first studies to go beyond the anecdotal evidence in the extant literature, to empirically research ENPD activities and their impacts. This
contributes to the debate about the potential for firms to be ‘‘green and competitive’’ by examining the relationship between ENPD activities
and market and eco-performance for environmental new products. Contrary to the popular perception, the results suggest that there is more
synergy than conflict between the conventional and environmental product development paradigms.
D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: New product development; Green marketing; Manufacturing firms

1. Introduction ‘‘Design-for-X,’’ where ‘‘X’’ represents a specific set of pro-

Present years have witnessed accelerating rates of change
in consumer tastes and a shortening of product life cycles.
This has made effective new product development (NPD)
increasingly crucial to corporate success (Calantone et al.,
1995). There has been an increasing amount of research into
NPD in a variety of organizations and across several
disciplines, including marketing, technology, organizational
theory, and engineering.
The essence of effective NPD lies in creating products
whose core attributes (which deliver the basic benefits
sought by customers) and auxiliary attributes (which help
to differentiate between products) meet the needs of custom-
ers and other internal and external stakeholders. The stake-
holder needs to be considered in developing a new product
may be many and varied, and involve trade-offs between
conflicting needs. Government and consumer groups may
press for increased product safety, while customers demand
ease of use and low prices. Selecting an appropriate set of
product attributes is achieved by a narrowing process called
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-905-525-9140x27635.
E-mail address: pujarid@mcmaster.ca (D. Pujari).
duct attributes over and above basic functionality, such as
‘‘easeofuse,’’‘‘quality,’’or‘‘safety’’(Gatenby andFoo,1990).
A key ‘‘X factor’’ during the last decade has been ‘‘design-
for-environment,’’ defined as ‘‘a practice by which environ-
mental considerations are integrated into product and pro-
cess engineering design procedures’’ (Keoleian et al., 1995).
In some markets such as the car industry, environmental
considerations have had a fundamental impact on product
development processes with the quest for energy-efficient,
low/zero-emission vehicles (Thornton, 1999). In particular
markets, a large proportion of new product introductions
involve products marketed at least partly on the basis of
their environmental performance. In the USA, the propor-
tion of green products among new product introductions
rose from 1.1% in 1986 to a high of 13.4% in 1991 (Ottman,
1998). Tighter regulations and consumer skepticism have
since led to a reduction in such introductions, but in markets
such as paper towels, dishwasher liquids, and diapers,
steady market growth for green brands has continued
(Speer, 1997). In 1997, green products accounted for 10%
of all new US product introductions, with the highest
proportion in the ‘‘household products’’ category, account-
ing for 30% of product introductions (Fuller, 1999). This
phenomenon is also not limited to manufacturers and the

0148-2963/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00310-1
658 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
design of physical products. Eco-tourism products and
green and ethical investment products address fast-growing
segments of the tourism and financial services markets.
The challenge of responding appropriately to concern
about the natural environment has changed many aspects of
the way businesses operate and has become an integral part
of purchasing, marketing, and corporate strategy (Wong et
al., 1996; Shrivastava and Hart, 1994; Menon and Menon,
1997). Where once environmental responsiveness was
viewed as involving compliance, expense, and trade-offs
with other corporate goals, increasingly, it is being por-
trayed as an opportunity. Although the ‘‘win – win’’ logic of
being ‘‘green and competitive’’ (Porter and van der Linde,
1995) is disputed by others (e.g., Walley and Whitehead,
1994), the literature points to external benefits that arise
from environmental improvement, including:
 increased sales (Fierman, 1991);
 improved customer feedback (Frankel, 1992);
 closeness to customers (Dean et al., 1995);
 enhanced competitiveness (Miles and Munilla, 1993;
Porter and van der Linde, 1995); and
 improved corporate image (Engleberg, 1992; Kolk,
2000).
Menon and Menon (1997) argue that there is an
emerging consensus among business leaders that the
goals of social good and business success are no longer
an either/or proposition but are being increasingly inter-
woven into an ‘‘ecopreneuring’’ paradigm. Porter and van
der Linde (1995) also point towards an underlying logic
linking the environment, resource productivity, innova-
tion, and competitiveness. This means tackling the socio-
environmental impacts of marketing strategies, both in
terms of nonmarket outputs (through pollution prevention
and more sustainable sourcing) and market outputs
(through innovative products and a product stewardship
orientation) (Ottman, 1994). Product stewardship efforts
encompass all aspects of managing products and their
performance and impacts, through both the product’s
economic and physical (cradle to grave) life cycles.
The effective development of new, environmentally
improved (or greener) products will clearly be crucial
in creating successful environmental strategies, and in
helping to move companies and economies towards
environmental sustainability.
Despite the importance of integrating an envir-
onmental perspective into the NPD process, the discus-
sion in the academic literature to date has been largely
prescriptive or based on anecdotal evidence. This article
aims to further the understanding of environmental new
product development (ENPD) through a review of lit-
erature, through the presentation of a conceptual frame-
work of ENPD, and by presenting and discussing the
results of a quantitative study of 151 managers involved
in ENPD projects.
1.1. The research questions
ENPD is defined here as product development into which
environmental issues are explicitly integrated in order to
create one of the least environmentally harmful products a
firm has recently produced. This also includes the redesign of
existing products to reduce their environmental impact in
terms of materials, manufacture, use, or disposal. Product
performance is usually discussed in either technical or
financial terms, often with a strong relationship between the
two. Environmental concern has created the concept of eco-
performance, which encompasses the socio-environmental
impacts that a product has beyond the company and its
marketplace (Peattie, 1995). In previous decades, if eco-
performance was discussed at all, it was usually in terms
of the trade-offs involved with technological or economic
performance. Today, these three dimensions are increas-
ingly viewed as interrelated. For the purposes of this
article, two dimensions of a product’s performance will
be discussed—market performance and eco-performance.
The logic of the design-for-environment approach means
that ENPD is not a radically different process to conven-
tional NPD, but involves adding a further level of com-
plexity into the NPD process. This process must continue
to deliver core benefits to customers, while also addressing
stakeholder needs for improved eco-performance, and
manage any necessary trade-offs with existing core or
auxiliary product benefits. Addressing eco-performance,
and its emphasis on nonmarket outputs and consequences,
within product development decisions does imply some key
differences between ENPD and conventional NPD, includ-
ing the following.

A broader consideration of customer satisfaction.
Environmental concerns are leading to new customer
requirements beyond conventional functionality, quality,
and cost, relating to how products are made, how long they
last, and how they can be disposed of (Peattie, 1999).

A focus on physical product life cycles. ENPD requires
questions to be asked about the physical consequences of
production and consumption. Addressing questions about
where the raw materials going into products come from, and
what happens to products post-use, reflect a physical
‘‘cradle-to-grave’’ product life cycle perspective (Sharman
et al., 1997).

A focus on design for post-use applications. A dis-
tinguishing feature of much ENPD activity is the attention
given to the fate of products post-use, and particular design
for the ‘‘Five R’s’’ of repair, reconditioning, reuse, recyc-
ling, and remanufacture (Wheeler, 1992).

An augmented supply chain perspective. While much
early ENPD work employed a design-for-environment
approach, which emphasized the reduction of the post-use
environmental burden, more recently, there has been an
increased emphasis on the ‘‘embodied’’ environmental bur-
dens of the materials used (Simon et al., 2000). Suppliers
have an important role in determining all aspects of product
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
quality including eco-performance. ENPD requires a detailed
understanding of the socio-environmental impacts of the
whole supply chain, down to the simplest ingredient, which
may previously have been perceived as standardized and
unlikely to pose quality problems. Concern for the envir-
onmental impacts of suppliers can be seen in the introduction
of the ISO 14000 series of environmental management
systems (EMS) quality standards to complement the ISO
9000 series. It can also be seen in the requirement of many
businesses that their suppliers undergo environmental audits
(Sinding, 2000).
Relatively few studies to date have looked empirically
into the impact or performance of companies’ envir-
onmental products (e.g., Prothero and McDonagh, 1992;
Pujari and Wright, 1996; Chao-tung, 1994; Ryding, 1994).
There is, however, frequently quoted anecdotal evidence of
the market success of greener products such as Body Shop’s
range, P&G’s Lenor concentrated fabric softener and
ARCO’s environmentally reformulated gasoline. Many
authors, groups, and public agencies have pushed the
business case for ‘‘going green.’’ Although well intentioned,
such advice is often simplistic and flawed (Scarlett, 1992),
creating credibility problems. As Guimaraes and Liska
(1995) put it, ‘‘There is a need for research addressing the
aggregate impact of such action, and whether or not the
business organizations involved are benefiting from their
environment-oriented measures.’’ Similarly, Buchholz et al.
(1995) state that no scholars have systematically studied the
processes that businesses go through in responding to
environmental concerns. This article aims to address this
lack of empirical research in ENPD by presenting a theor-
etical framework and reporting the findings of an empirical
study, focusing on two main research questions:
i. What are the underlying dimensions of ENPD and its
performance?
ii. What is the relative influence of various managerial,
process, and interface variables on performance of
ENPD?
2. ENPD and performance
For environmentally orientated products to succeed, they
will need to be effective in terms of their marketplace
performance. The most advanced environmental technolo-
gies will not contribute to the pursuit of sustainability unless
they can wrestle market share away from conventional
products and change the market’s agenda for product devel-
opment and marketing. Similarly, such products are unlikely
to be able to sustain long-term success in the market, unless
they can demonstrate underlying efficiency in their eco-
performance. Crul (1994) regards the intro-duction of ENPD
as a process-oriented change in the mental attitude and
activities of a business, embedded in the process of product
innovation. It requires an understanding of the product’s
659
environmental impact and an ability to envisage the options
available to make improvements in this area. Though various
models of the NPD process have long been proposed,
tested, and applied (e.g., Urban and Hauser, 1980; Wind,
1982), envi-ronmental imperatives have been neglected. It
can be argued conversely that the environmental manage-
ment literature does not adequately address the increasing
complexities, intricacies, and uncertainties of the business
and market environment facing those responsible for
developing new products. Polonsky and Ottman (1998)
argue for closer relationships with a wider than usual range
of stakeholders in the ENPD process, not only for envi-
ronmental excellence but also for achieving competitive
advantage. Consumer skepticism is already mounting in
the face of products marketed on an environmental basis
that proved to have less than convincing underlying
environmental credentials (Gray-Lee et al., 1994). Fig. 1
summarizes the key influences on the performance of new
products in the market, and in environmental terms, as
determined by the following review of the environmental
management and NPD literatures.
2.1. Environmental management focus issues
2.1.1. Environmental policy
Hegarty and Hoffman (1990) contend that successful
ENPD needs to be underpinned by an environmental prod-
uct strategy that is explicit, clearly defined, and linked into
the overall strategy of the firm. Early researchers in NPD
have found a positive association between new product
strategy and success and have argued that it is critical to
identifying product and market opportunities (Booz, Allen
and Hamilton, 1982; Dwyer, 1990). This would involve
defining product/market areas to be served, and thus form-
alizing the necessary organizational structures for imple-
mentation (Hegarty and Hoffman, 1990). An explicit
product innovation strategy enables management to plan
for, and make sufficient resources available for, specific
product development (Gupta and Wilemon, 1990). When
considering the product with regard to the environment,
Fig. 1. Influences on the performance of environmental new product.
660 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
management needs to go beyond considering environmental
impacts relating to product use or disposal. A product
stewardship orientation means considering the ‘‘life cycle’’
of environmental impacts from product design and devel-
opment, through manufacture, storage, packaging, use, and
disposal (Beaumont et al., 1993).
Hypothesis 1: An explicit environmental policy positively
influences the level of eco-performance of ENPD.
2.1.2. Top management support
Top management support and involvement has a crucial
impact on any major company initiative, and NPD is no
exception (Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Booz, Allen and
Hamilton, 1982; Hegarty and Hoffman, 1990; Johne and
Snelson, 1988). This is perhaps even more vital in ENPD
since the integration of environmental concerns into the
business process can be a major challenge to the existing
culture and can require changes that will not occur without
the clear leadership and active support of the company’s top
management. Previous ENPD research has suggested the
importance of a senior manager or management committee
in coordinating environmental activities (Pujari and Wright,
1996) and the need for senior managers to communicate to
the corporation that environmental concerns are ‘‘everyone’s
job’’ (Cahan and Schweiger, 1993/1994). The NPD process
depends upon the willingness of top management to commit
resources to new projects (Dwyer, 1990; Hegarty and Hoff-
man, 1990). Creating greener products to address increas-
ingly environmentally sensitive markets requires a significant
investment in appropriate technologies and capabilities
(Hutchinson, 1992). Successful ENPD is unlikely without
top management support, involvement, and resource com-
mitment.
Hypothesis 2: A higher degree of top management support
for ENPD will positively influence the level of eco-per-
formance of ENPD.
2.1.3. Role of environmental manager/coordinator
One strand of the NPD literature concerns the particular
roles within the NPD process and the skills ideally pos-
sessed by the people filling them. Roberts (1981) identified
five major work roles critical to innovation:
1. idea generating;
2. entrepreneuring and championing;
3. project leading;
4. gatekeeping and sponsoring; and
5. coaching.
Within the ENPD process, the relevance and role of the
‘‘environmental coordinator’’ is a subject of debate. The
challenges environmental professionals are facing today are
as varied as they are daunting (Cole, 1993), and many are
the result of intransigent forces such as the economy,
government action (or inaction), regulatory mandates, and
the inherent complexity of environmental issues. Others
reflect the relative youth of the field and the subsequent
lack of tried-and-true, off-the-shelf solutions (Cole, 1993).
Barrett’s (1993) research suggests several scenarios in
which environmental mangers/coordinators work.
1. ‘‘Business-as-usual’’ approach, wherein environmental
manager deal with environmental pressures as they arise
while causing minimal disturbance to line management.
2. ‘‘Gamekeeper’’ approach, involving closer central con-
trol of the eco-performance of line management and
promoting the distinct auditing role of the environmental
manager/coordinator.
3. ‘‘Sharing the Burden’’ approach, in which responsibility
for environmental protection is integrated into line
management. Greater emphasis is placed on self-assess-
ment against specific targets and objectives, with the
environmental manager acting as a facilitator by provid-
ing guidance, data, and verification.
The majority of Barrett’s respondent firms appeared to be
moving towards the central position, reflecting a growing
appreciation among larger companies that the environment
is a strategic issue, requiring the attention of a dedicated
individual. Within ENPD, the ‘‘environmental manager’’
may be a member of every NPD team or may participate
from ‘‘outside’’ by issuing guidelines to comply with, or by
conducting environmental audits or reviews at every stage
gate of the process. Recent researchers also point to internal
management sources (Drumwright, 1994; Fineman, 1997)
and indeed individuals within the organization contributing
as providers of environmental solutions or ideas that can be
communicated to the environmental coordinator.
Hypothesis 3: A higher degree of integration of envir-
onmental coordinator in ENPD process positively influences
the level of eco-performance of ENPD.
2.1.4. Supplier involvement
Purchased materials and components from suppliers
heavily influence the quality, competitiveness, cost depend-
ency, lead times, development cycles, development risks,
and market availability of manufacturer’s products (O’Neal,
1993; Burt and Soukup, 1994; Bertodo, 1991; Asmus and
Griffin, 1993). Therefore, purchasing’s role in the NPD
process should often precede the concurrent engineering
team’s formation (O’Neal, 1993). Bonaccorsi and Lipparini
(1994) highlight the benefits of early supplier involvement
in NPD, including:
 reduced development costs;
 higher quality with fewer defects;
 reduced time to market; and
 supplier-originated innovation.
Managing vendor relationships is moving away from an
emphasis on negotiation and cost reduction to become a key
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
managerial and technical challenge. Experience shows that
more long-term, collaborative arrangements mutually bene-
fit both the customer and the supplier (Burt and Soukup,
1994). A manufacturer’s eco-performance is largely deter-
mined by ‘‘upstream’’ environmental impacts. Already, many
writers have commented on the need for the monitoring/
auditing/assessment of suppliers in the management of the
value chain (Gillett, 1993; Lloyd, 1994; Robinson, 1992) and
have published guidelines to assist procurement departments
to work in partnership with their suppliers to include envir-
onmental factors in their supply operations (e.g., CIPS,
1995). Although much of the published work on supplier
involvement is prescriptive, there has been some empirical
evidence suggesting that suppliers are becoming more
involved in ENPD initiatives (e.g., work by Geffen,
1997, and Rothenberg, 1999, on paint use in the auto-
motive industry).
Hypothesis 4: A higher degree of supplier involvement
positively influences eco-performance of ENPD.
2.2. Process and technical issues
2.2.1. Effective groundwork and product testing
New product projects are born as ideas, which move
through screening, project definition, and business analysis
steps and, eventually, product development. These early up-
front predevelopment, or groundwork, activities are another
key success factor (Cooper, 1988, 1994). Clear project
definition, good market analysis, marketing research and
sales forecasting to gain a clear understanding of users’
needs and wants are all crucial for successful new products
(Cooper, 1979, 1988, 1994; Rothwell et al., 1974). The
importance of effective groundwork within ENPD is under-
lined by the high degree of uncertainty surrounding the
extent and nature of consumers’ environmental concerns
and their impact on behavior (Peattie, 1999), and by the
relatively high rate of failure among recent green products in
meeting customer needs (a 1992 McCann Erickson/Harris
survey of European consumers found that 31% had been
‘‘disappointed’’ by a green product).
Hypothesis 5a: A higher degree of effective groundwork
positively influences market performance and eco-perform-
ance of ENPD.
Hypothesis 5b: A higher degree of product testing and
experimentation for environmental impact positively influ-
ences market performance and eco-performance of ENPD.
2.2.2. Environmental database for life cycle analysis (LCA)
Good information and its dissemination, evaluation,
and integration into the decision-making process is
acknowledged as critical for successful NPD (Cooper,
1979; Rothwell et al., 1974; Rubenstein et al., 1976;
Craig and Hart, 1992). Though the putative role of
661
information in cross-functional integration in NPD is
examined by several researchers (e.g., Gupta et al.,
1986; Pinto and Pinto, 1990), their research tends not to
be specific about what kind of information (market,
technological, or environmental) is important. The envir-
onmental management literature stresses the need for an
effective environmental database in the company to meas-
ure environmental impact at process and product devel-
opment level. Despite this, the cost-effective provision of
objective, mission-critical, environmental management
information remains elusive for almost all large enterprises
(Orlin et al., 1993/1994). The lack of environmental data
on specific product processes constitutes a particular
obstacle to ‘‘design for environment.’’ Overcoming this
requires the development of an integrated database con-
cerning regulations, processes, chemicals, and materials
(including human health and ecological effects) to inform
the design decisions that account for environmental risks
and costs. Ideally, it should be user friendly and electron-
ically accessible over existing networks internally and
externally to include suppliers and customers (e.g., Micro-
electronics and Computer Technology Corporation’s sys-
tem described in Ferrone and O’Brien, 1993). The life
cycle concept (LCC) for developing environmental prod-
ucts highlights that ENPD is as much an information
management challenge as a technical, engineering chal-
lenge. This is evident from the growth in tools, business
guides, and software for managing environmental informa-
tion (Keoleian, 1994).
Hypothesis 6: A high degree of integration of envir-
onmental impact databases in existing information systems
positively influence the market performance and eco-per-
formance of ENPD.
2.3. Interface issues
2.3.1. Environmental benchmarking
In their research on NPD, Cooper and Kleinschmidt
(1995) suggest that benchmarking (both internally and
versus other firms) provides the insights necessary to identify
the critical success factors that set the most successful firms
apart from their competitors. There is also an increasing
emphasis in the environmental management literature on
eco-performance measurement, usually in terms of ‘‘in
company systems’’ (Azzone and Manzini, 1994; Hocking
and Power, 1993; Eckel et al., 1992; Wolfe and Howes,
1993; Peacock, 1993). Some companies are increasingly
incorporating quantitative environmental data into their
benchmarking activities as part of their efforts to improve
environmental performance. It is also reflected in the avail-
ability of information, services, and partnership opportun-
ities in environmental benchmarking. Some examples are
International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, Investor
Responsibility Research Center, and Global Environmental
Management Initiative (Kleiner, 1994; Namimon, 1994).
662 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
Eckel et al. (1992) stress the need to develop dynamic
systems linked into overall corporate planning and control
systems that address:
 developing environmental product objectives and re-
sponses;
 developing consistent performance measures:
 emphasizing measurable quantifiable metrics;
 designing systems to collect and report information;
 implementing the ongoing monitoring program; and
 developing and implementing responses to performance
results.
These measures of environmental product performance
may be orientated towards: (i) regulatory compliance,
(ii) risks, and (iii) upstream impacts for virgin-resource use.
James (1994) notes that until now environmental benchmark-
ing has been impeded by the perceived sensitivity of eco-
performance and a lack of comparative data. However, in the
USA, Toxic Release Inventory data has reduced the need for
secrecy and created a standardized basis for benchmarking.
One well-documented example is the joint benchmarking by
AT&T and Intel (Klafter, 1992; James, 1994) who in 1991
combined to benchmark ‘‘best-in-class’’ performance in
pollution prevention. This exercise involved preliminary data
collection of five companies—3M, Dow, Du Pont, Xerox,
and H.B. Fuller—identified as ‘‘best-in-class’’ in the area.
Hypothesis 7: A higher level of environmental benchmark-
ing positively influences market performance and eco-per-
formance of ENPD.
2.3.2. Cross-functional coordination
Cooper (1994) argues that since product innovation cuts
across traditional functional boundaries and barriers, it
requires a cross-functional team approach. Recent research
by Song and Parry (1997) has shown that cross-functional
integration enhances the diffusion of market and customer
knowledge among all members of the project team, not just
during development, but also at later stages of test market-
ing and commercialization. Key elements of such a team
would be drawn from marketing and marketing research,
engineering, R&D, production, purchasing, and finance
(Craig and Hart, 1992). Cooper (1994) further concludes
that studies of NPD success consistently cite the importance
of interfaces between R&D and marketing, coordination
among key internal groups, multidisciplinary inputs into the
new product project and the role of teams and team leaders.
For example, Langrish (1972) found poor cooperation or
communication among different functional areas as one of
the main factors that hampers product innovation.
In case of ENPD, cross-functional coordination will be a
key element because processes such as LCA, designing-in
environmentally benign materials and designing-out environ-
mentally harmful materials, and environmental impact ana-
lysis will inevitably involve several functional areas. These
functions are typically represented by design professionals,
environmental professionals and product managers. There is
also some empirical work that demonstrates such coordina-
tion. Sullivan and Ehrenfeld’s (1992/1993) survey found that
marketers were actively involved in physical LCA in envi-
ronmentally active companies. They suggest that to foster
environmental product innovation, life cycle work should be
integrated with marketing practices like market research and
other management practices to encourage teamwork and to
help identify product characteristics capable of satisfying
customers and enhancing the firm’s competitiveness.
Hypothesis 8: A higher degree of cross-functional coordi-
nation positively influences market performance and eco-
performance of ENPD.
3. Methodology
3.1. Operationalization, the questionnaire and the scales
The survey questionnaire was designed following 14 in-
depth interviews with environmental managers and product
development executives in six international companies,
exploring issues relating to the environment NPD process.
Multi-item themes (namely: environmental product policy,
effective groundwork and product testing, top management
support, cross-functional coordination, supplier involvement,
environmental database use, environmental coordinator, and
environmental benchmarking) were conceptualized to for-
mulate a list of 36 statements, each tested on 5-point Likert
scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). For the
ENPD performance construct, two multi-item themes
(effective market performance and efficient eco-perform-
ance), involving eight statements were developed and
tested on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a great
extent). All questions were precoded and pretested with
managers and academics.
3.2. Sample and data collection
The population for this study is large UK manufacturers,
and a sampling frame of 1000 such companies was obtained
via a database supplier. The self-administered questionnaire
was mailed to the environmental coordinator or person
responsible for environmental issues within NPD for all
1000 firms. These respondents were sought as the likely
‘‘champions’’ or ‘‘thought leaders’’ with respect to integrat-
ing an ecological orientation into product development in
their organizations (see Table 1 for summary statistics of the
sample). Of the 178 questionnaires returned, 151 were
considered valid and usable. An effective response rate of
15.1% is low, but not exceptional for a lengthy question-
naire sent to large companies. A telephone follow-up
revealed several reasons for nonresponse, such as a lack
of time to complete the questionnaire, the seriousness of the
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
Table 1
Summary statistics of sample (n = 151)
Number of employees Frequency (%) Annual sales turnover
($ million)
< 50 8 (5.3) < 50
50 – 199 43 (28.5) 50 – 199
200 – 499 45 (29.8) 200 – 499
500 – 699 17 (11.3) 500 – 699
700 – 999 18 (11.9) 700 – 999
1000 – 1299 6 (4.0) 1000 – 1299
1300 – 1499 4 (2.6) 1500 and more
1500 and more 10 (6.6)
questionnaire and the thought and time it would require,
company policies towards questionnaires, a lack of envir-
onmental focus at product level, an environmental focus
only on waste management and facilities, not being directly
involved in the project, and a lack of interest from custom-
ers. Therefore, the response was largely from companies
who consider environmental concerns to be important in
relation to product development. Firm size (sales turnover),
number of employees, and industry type were chosen as
demographic variables for checking differences between
respondents and nonrespondents. No significant differences
were found between respondents and nonrespondents. Fur-
ther, t tests were applied between a sample of early
responses and very late responses. The results did not
provide significant differences on most of the variables.
Only 3 out of 36 items found differences, but we kept these
items in the study for analyses as it was a very minor
proportion of total items. The sample covered a range of
industries including automobiles, chemicals, textiles, com-
puters, electronics, food and drink, furniture, paper, pack-
aging, and cosmetics.
Most of the environmental coordinators/managers had a
dual role in their organization, and therefore cannot be
considered as ‘‘isolated’’ in any respect. Their additional
responsibilities were related to fields such as quality, tech-
nical development, law, R&D, operations, product safety,
managing directorship, and training. Most (over 80%) of the
respondents were postgraduates or graduates. In terms of
experience in environmental affairs in their present com-
pany, most of the environmental personnel respondents had
held the post for at least 1 year, with 38% having been in the
environmental management job for 1 –3 years.
4. Results
Prior to reporting the testing of hypotheses, attention is
given to validity and reliability. Content validity was
established by pretesting the questionnaire with managers
and academics, prior to collection of data, for their under-
standing of the content of the questions. Any adjustments
relating to the wording of the questions were made as per
the views expressed by the managers involved in pretesting.
663
Frequency (%) Respondent Frequency (%)
49 (32.7) Environmental Director 7 (4.6)
67 (44.7) Environmental coordinator 78 (51.6)
13 (8.7) Development and Environment Affairs 31 (20.5)
12 (8.0) R&D Director 7 (4.6)
4 (2.7) Quality Manager 7 (4.6)
4 (2.7) Operations/Technical Director 11 (7.2)
2 (1.3) Engineering/Manufacturing Director 8 (5.2)
Chief Chemist 2 (1.3)
Once the data were collected, convergent validity and
reliability were measured.
4.1. Development of environmental new products
An exploratory factor analysis was performed on inde-
pendent variables (comprising environmental management
focus issues, interface issues, and technical and process
issues), using principal component analysis (varimax
method). Appendix A shows the results that produced nine
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for
76.5% of the variance (K – M – O statistic .83, Barlett
statistic 4088, significance .000). An analysis of Scree plot
also shows a nine-factor solution. The first factor shows the
variables having a common underlying dimension of set-
ting benchmarks and eco-performance measurement issues,
named ‘‘Environmental Benchmarking and Measurement.’’
Variables loading heavily on this factor are setting envir-
onmental benchmarks for ENPD within and across coun-
tries and industries, and measuring upstream environmental
impact of virgin-resource use. The second factor, named
‘‘Effective Groundwork,’’ includes the variables relating to
predevelopment activities. The main variables, which load
heavily on this factor, are detailed market research, detailed
preliminary market assessment, definition of target market,
and financial analysis among others. The third factor,
‘‘Cross-Functional Coordination’’ describes the issues relat-
ing to development of multiskills for environmental excel-
lence through strategic orientation, environmental education
and training of NPD managers, and functional coordination
between environmental specialists and NPD development
team members. The fourth factor, ‘‘Environmental Database
Use for LCA’’ captures the common underlying theme of
environmental database use to assess life cycle impacts of
materials and other design-for-environment issues, in addi-
tion to its accessibility to product development teams. The
fifth factor is labeled ‘‘Supplier Involvement’’ wherein
variables loaded heavily are information exchange and
sharing with suppliers, joint initiatives with suppliers,
involvement of key suppliers in design process, seeking
partnerships with key customers, and supplier assessment/
evaluation for environment. The sixth factor is ‘‘Envir-
onmental Policy/Legitimation,’’ which addresses themes
664 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671

of explicit environmental policy in the company and com-
pliance issues such as risk and environmental impacts.
Three other factors emerging with relatively low variance
were ‘‘Top Management Support and Involvement,’’ ‘‘Prod-
uct Experimentation,’’ and ‘‘Environmental Coordinator.’’
The factor scores of these nine factors are then saved as
independent factors for the purpose of regression analysis.
4.2. ENPD performance
To test convergent validity, exploratory factor analysis
was performed on the eco-performance scale and on the
market performance scale. The results produced a single
factor for each scale by specifying eigenvalues greater than
1. Thus, for each ENPD performance scale, the variables
seem to converge onto that scale, giving evidence of
convergent validity. The results are available from the lead
author. After establishing the convergent validity, an explor-
atory factor analysis was performed on all eight ENPD
performance variables using principal component analysis
(varimax method). Results produced a two-factor solution,
but one item, ‘‘enhanced product quality,’’ cross-loaded
evenly on both factors. This item was removed and factor
analysis was run again. Appendix B shows the results that
produced two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1,
accounting for 77.5% of the variance (K – M– O statistic
.863, Barlett statistic 665, significance .000). An analysis of
Scree plot also shows a two-factor solution. The factor
analysis results support the theory that NPD performance
is multidimensional (Cooper, 1983, 1986; Cooper and
Kleinschmidt, 1995; Rubenstein et al., 1976; Griffin and
Page, 1993), which is also true for ENPD, which extracted
two factors. Factor 1 is named here as ‘‘Effective Market
Performance (MARPERF),’’ which include variables relat-
ing to market, competitiveness and financial measures. The
variables, which load heavily on this factor, are increased
market share, creation of new domestic and international
markets, achieving competitive advantage, and good return
on investment. This finding is similar to a recent work on
new product performance by Cooper and Kleinschmidt
(1995) combining financial, market, technical, and success
rate variables into a single performance factor. The second
factor here shows variables having a common dimension of
nonfinancial performance, primarily relating to envir-
onmental aspects of product performance. This factor is
named as ‘‘Efficient Eco-Performance’’ (ECOPERF). Vari-
ables loading heavily on this factor are enhanced envi
ronmental image of the firm and overall reduction in
environmental impact of product.
4.3. Reliability
The reliability of the market performance scale and the
eco-performance scale was tested using Chronbach’s coef-
ficient, alpha. For the market performance scale, alpha is
.93, and for the eco-performance scale, it is .70, which are
within acceptable limits (Churchill, 1979). These are also
consistent with scale made up of a relatively small number
of items (Norusis, 1990).
4.4. ENPD and its performance: discussion of
regression results
In this study, for both regression equations, MARPERF
and ECOPERF, hierarchical regression method (Cohen and
Cohen, 1983) is applied for specifying regression models
(see Table 2). The issue of multicollinearity in regression
analysis was resolved because factor analyses were run
with varimax method. Further, the tolerance value and
variance inflation factor measures confirm the same (Hair
et al., 1995).
For the MARPERF model, the first set of results show
process/technical factors such as effective groundwork,
product experimentation, and environmental database for

Table 2
ENPD performance: results from regression analysis
Factors MARPERF ECOPERF
Effective Groundwork .255 (.003) .257 (.001) .207 (.013) .204 (.011) .204 (.004)
Product Experiment .053 (.526) .052 (.481) .019 (.816) .018 (.817) .018 (.794)
Environmental Database for LCA .171 (.042) .172 (.022) .286 (.001) .285 (.000) .285 (.000)
Environmental Benchmarking .332 (.000) .103 (.196) .103 (.143)
and Measurement
Cross-Functional Coordinator .297 (.000) .242 (.003) .242 (.001)
Top Management Support – .354 (.000)
Environmental Product Policy – .051 (.472)
Supplier Involvement – .136 (.050)
Environmental Coordinator – .227 (.002)

R2 .097 .297 .125 .194 .392

Adjusted R2 .076 .269 .105 .162 .348
F 4.648 (0.004) 10.795 (0.000) 6.178 (0.001) 6.148 (0.000) 8.876 (0.000)
n 134 134 134 134 134
Numbers in parentheses show significance values.
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
LCA. This shows an adjusted R2 of .076 with an F value
of 4.648 ( P < .004). The second set is added having
interface factors such as environmental benchmarking
and functional coordination. The results are very encour-
aging. The net increment in the variance of interface
factors over process/technical factors is 17%. The adjusted
cumulative R2 has gained from .076 to .269. F value after
adding the interface factors is 10.795 ( P < .000). Table 2
shows that except for product experimentation, all the
coefficients are significant.
For the ECOPERF model, the first set of results feature
effective groundwork, product experimentation and envir-
onmental database for LCA to show the gross effects of
process/technical factors on efficient eco-performance. This
shows an adjusted R2 of .11 with an F value of 6.18
( P < .001). The second set adds interface factors such as
environmental benchmarking and functional coordination.
The results show a cumulative adjusted R2 of .194 with an F
value of 6.148 ( P < .000). There is a net increment in
variance of interface over technical/process factors of 6%.
We then added a set of environmental focus factors such as
top management support, environmental product policy,
supplier involvement, and environmental coordinator. The
results are very encouraging. Table 2 shows a cumulative
adjusted R2 of .348 with an F value of 8.88 ( P < .000).
There is a net increment in variance of environmental focus
factors over interface factors of 19%.
Analyzing the coefficients in Table 2, Hypothesis 1,
stating, ‘‘An explicit environmental policy positively influ-
ences the level of eco-performance of ENPD,’’ could not be
supported in this study. This was not an expected result,
given the emphasis that many companies place on envir-
onmental policy development and the role that such pol-
icies could be expected to play in developing an
organizational climate in which activities such as ENPD
can flourish. The result may reflect the lack of a perceived
direct connection between such a policy and the relatively
operational issue of a specific product’s eco-performance;
and it may also reflect the tendency of many such state-
ments to be perceived as ‘‘little more than a bit of judicious
PR’’ (Shimnel, 1991, p. 10). Hypothesis 2, stating, ‘‘A
higher degree of top management support for ENPD will
positively influence the level of eco-performance of
ENPD,’’ is supported. This confirms that the important
role of top management in the market performance of new
products (Maidique and Zirger, 1984; Booz, Allen and
Hamilton, 1982) is duplicated in relation to the eco-per-
formance of environmental products. This reflects Johne
and Snelson’s (1988) view that clear messages from the top
about the importance of ENPD can become a critical
success factor.
Hypothesis 3, stating, ‘‘A higher degree of integration of
environmental coordinator in ENPD process positively
influences the level of eco-performance of ENPD,’’ is also
supported. This result further emphasizes the need for a
more integrated role for the environmental coordinator in
665
the ENPD process. This role may involve issuing envi-
ronmental guidelines to ENPD teams and contributing in the
implementation process and conducting environmental
assessment at every stage gate of the ENPD process.
Environmental coordinators can be agents of change in the
firms and can certainly facilitate environmental product
stewardship programs (Barrett, 1993).
Hypothesis 4, stating, ‘‘A higher degree of supplier
involvement positively influences eco-performance of
ENPD,’’ is also supported. This further supports the aug-
mented supply chain view of the ENPD wherein adverse
environmental attributes can be removed by monitoring/
auditing or even partnering with suppliers. It is now increas-
ingly being accepted that it would require consideration of
whole supply chain of materials and inputs required to make
an environmental new product.
Hypothesis 5a, stating, ‘‘A higher degree of effective
groundwork positively influences market performance and
eco-performance of ENPD,’’ is also supported. This result
confirms Cooper’s (1988) findings on the general import-
ance of groundwork for market performance and shows that
it also affects the eco-performance of ENPD. However,
Hypothesis 5b, stating, ‘‘A higher degree of product testing
and experimentation for environmental impact positively
influences market performance and eco-performance of
ENPD,’’ could not be supported. This may indicate that
companies have not yet developed testing procedures ori-
entated towards measuring eco-performance.
Hypothesis 6, stating, ‘‘A high degree of integration of
environmental impact databases in existing information
systems positively influence the market performance and
eco-performance of ENPD,’’ is also accepted. Effective
management of environmental information should be fed
into ENPD projects by assessing life cycle impacts of
materials used. The environmental database ideally should
become a part of existing information system and be
accessible to the ENPD team. Moreover, this information
can eventually lead to developing accurate environmental
claims, thereby earning credibility and gaining success in
the marketplace (Wallace and Suh, 1993; Orlin et al.,
1993/1994).
Hypothesis 7, stating, ‘‘A higher level of environmental
benchmarking positively influences market performance
and eco-performance of ENPD,’’ is accepted for MARPERF
but could not be supported for ECOPERF. This only
partially supports those authors who have argued that
environmental benchmarking will lead to effective market
and efficient eco-performance (Peacock, 1993; James, 1994;
Klafter, 1992; Azzone and Manzini, 1994). Systematic and
detailed environmental benchmarking and performance
measurement processes are important, not just for ENPD,
but also to create an organization behind the products,
which pursue continuous environmental improvement and
progress towards sustainability.
Hypothesis 8, stating, ‘‘A higher degree of cross-func-
tional coordination positively influences market performance
666 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
and eco-performance of ENPD,’’ is supported. This suggests
a need to integrate LCA work conducted by environmental
professionals with other functional activities within the
ENPD process (Vigon and Curran, 1993; Sullivan and
Ehrenfeld, 1992/1993).
5. Managerial and theoretical implications
This research has a number of direct implications for
management involved in ENPD. In particular, it establishes
a set of measurement instruments to test the relative import-
ance of key factors for the success in ENPD, and provides a
balanced ‘‘measure,’’ which can help to predict both the
market and eco-performance of ENPD, with a high degree
of reliability.
The main theoretical implication of this study is the
development of an empirically based and testable frame-
work of ENPD, which integrates the NPD literature with
that of environmental marketing and management. This
framework includes ENPD activities, related organizational
issues, and ENPD performance. This is significant because,
so far, there is no empirically based theory related to ENPD
and its performance. This study therefore contributes to a
better understanding of the underlying dimensions of
environmental responsiveness in product development
decisions and ENPD performance. Development of the
measurement instrument involved an integrative review of
literature, qualitative work, operationalization of variables,
pretesting and piloting, and purification of measures to
achieve high reliability. Using F test and hierarchical
regression analysis, theoretical links between ENPD activ-
ities and organizational issues and ENPD performance
were mapped. This research has lent further support to
much of the theory regarding the relationship between
several ENPD activities, key organizational issues and
ENPD performance.
Many of the keys to success in ENPD would also apply
to other types of product. Effective cross-functional coor-
dination, effective groundwork, or enthusiastic top man-
agement support would be welcomed by any manager
responsible for NPD. However, in view of the additional
layers of complexity, and the need for cultural change that
an environmentally related strategy brings, perhaps a
manager responsible for ENPD would find these factors
even more crucial. In achieving effective market perform-
ance and efficient eco-performance, process/technical
issues are important to start with. The gathering of environ-
mentally related information and effective groundwork
contribute to both marketplace success for environmental
products and efficiency of eco-performance (in the sense of
reducing inputs, pollution, waste, and environmental
impact). However, performance also depends upon inter-
face management activities such as coordination across
functions, benchmarking and LCA. In addition to these
technical process-based and interface management chal-
lenges, there are also management challenges in terms of
creating an environmental focus and legitimizing the
ENPD process. The need for legitimation is something
that conventional NPD processes rarely need (unless within
a highly conservative company wedded to a ‘‘classic’’
product). Within ENPD, the situation is different, since
many managers have yet to embrace the ‘‘win – win’’ logic
of the enviropreneuring paradigm. Legitimation of the
ENPD process is achieved through the explicit support
and involvement of top management and by the appoint-
ment of an environmental manager to act as coordinator.
Van Hemel (1998) has found in his study that the strong
performance in ENPD is predicted more by the presence of
a formal EMS than the general environmental concern.
This suggests that formalizing environmental responsive-
ness through policies and processes positively impacts
ENPD performance. Further, Lenox and Ehrenfield
(1997) find that ENPD is more likely to be hampered by
organizational barriers than technical/process barriers. This
reinforces the point that although factors such as cross-
functional coordination, benchmarking, and top manage-
ment support were all seen as important for successful
ENPD in the study, and these would be welcomed by any
form of NPD manager, they are particularly important
within ENPD where organizational barriers have been
shown as more likely to hamper implementation than
technical/process barriers.
ENPD projects also have wider ramifications in terms of
augmented supply chain management, highlighting the
importance of supplier involvement. Mistakes in supplier
choice and management could ruin the reputation of an
otherwise laudable product and its producer. Companies
developing environmental products therefore need to work
closely with suppliers and employ techniques such as
environmental audits and supplier screening.
This study demonstrates the relevance of research into
conventional NPD to the success of ENPD and that there
is more synergy than conflict between the conventional
and ENPD paradigms. The biggest challenge for academ-
ics and practitioners, however, is the effective ‘‘integ-
ration’’ of these two paradigms. This is particu-
larly true for firms who wish to respond to environmental
challenge in a proactive way. Though the general frame-
work of NPD and its activities are still relevant within
ENPD, managers and academics must also meet the
challenge of ‘‘balancing’’ market success and envir-
onmental excellence. This is because of the unique require-
ments of ENPD to reduce the environmental impact at all
the physical life cycle stages of the product.
6. Limitations and directions for future research
As with all empirical studies, there are a number of
limitations and directions for future research. First, the
usual caveats associated with using a postal questionnaire
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
survey to collect data apply. In spite of precautions taken
to avoid any bias, there may still be some effect in the
data. Secondly, due to a relatively low response rate, care
should be taken while generalizing the results. From a
methodological perspective, future researchers may be able
to find ways to increase the response rate, to create a larger
sample size, and create the opportunity to apply further
validity tests to make the results more generalizable.
Thirdly, other marketing mix themes and variables that
are not included in this study may provide directions for
future research. Opportunities exist to further advance this
research theme beyond this study’s limitations. For this
study, managers involved in ENPD and with envir-
onmental responsibility were questioned, and it would be
interesting to contrast their perspectives with those of
managers who were also involved, but without explicit
environmental responsibility. The assessment of market
and eco-performance reflected respondents’ perceptions,
and this could be compared to some more objective forms
of measurement of these performance dimensions. While
this study used a cross-industry sample, future researchers
could examine specific industries in greater depth, perhaps
complementing the quantitative approach with qualitative
interviews. Future research on ENPD could be more
specific in how new environmental products are defined.
For example, it could distinguish between innovative
products (new to the world) and improvements to existing
products. It could also distinguish between products whose
environmental benefits are linked to product features or
use, and those related to production process improvements
or clean technology initiatives. Future research could also
include marketing mix or commercialization variables in
the process of ENPD.
Future research could also look into the possibility of
identifying the antecedents of ENPD, which need not be
limited to the drivers of environmental responsiveness.
They may relate to issues such as corporate environmental
orientation, managerial interpretations of the environ-
mental issue cycle, or corporate culture. Further, the impact
of organization size, target market, nature of business on
both ENPD activities and also on ENPD performance could
be analyzed.
7. Conclusions
This study explores the relationship between ENPD
activities and the performance of ENPD, and identifies
which activities were important for predicting better
performance. Statistically significant relationships between
market performance of ENPD and several independent
factors such as environmental benchmarking and perform-
ance measurement processes, effective environmental
database management, effective groundwork, and cross-
functional coordination were found. Hierarchical regres-
sion analysis showed a net gain of 17% in variance of
667
interface factors over process/technical factors. The cumu-
lative adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) was
found to be .27. This result supported that the high
degree of previously mentioned significant factors would
lead to better market performance of ENPD. One of the
reasons of relatively low adjusted R2 is that none of the
marketing mix variables such as advertising, pricing,
positioning, and distribution strategies were within the
scope of this study. Nevertheless, these results have
supported empirically the views of many authors on
environmental marketing and management, particularly
those concerning the development of more environmen-
tally responsible products.
Statistically significant relationships between eco-per-
formance and several independent factors such as effective
groundwork activities, top management support and involve-
ment, functional coordination, supplier involvement and
environmental database management for LCA activities,
and role of environmental coordinator were found. The
cumulative adjusted coefficient of determination (R2) was
found to be .35. The hierarchical regression analysis has
shown an increment of 6% for interface factors over process/
technical factors. This analysis also showed further a net gain
of 19% in variance of environmental focus over interface
factors. This result supported that higher degree of previ-
ously mentioned factors would positively influence eco-
performance of ENPD. These results have also empirically
supported several authors’ views and propositions.
The initial reaction of many companies in the late
1980s to the challenge posed by environmental concern
and the need to move towards sustainability was often
relatively superficial change to products and marketing
communications approaches. With the emergence of the
enviropreneuring paradigm, and the acceptance of the
business logic, which underpins the need to consider
eco-performance, more substantive changes could be
expected. This research suggests that a notable ‘‘paradigm
shift’’ is underway towards environmental responsiveness
at product development level among UK manufacturers.
Most companies have a written corporate environmental
policy, and, in most cases, this explicitly addresses envir-
onmental protection within their product development
decisions. The survey results showed that for many com-
panies, consideration of eco-performance is not an after-
thought being tackled through ‘‘end-of-pipe’’ solutions.
Instead, it is being built into the entire NPD process,
beginning with the gathering of environmental information
and its consideration during ‘‘groundwork’’ activities. Top
management support for, and involvement in, envir-
onmental product development was also found to be
present in the majority of organizations, which is very
encouraging.
This study reflects the current process by which envir-
onmental concerns are being integrated into the conven-
tional NPD paradigm. Although it is a significant step
forward from the traditional, reactive, compliance-driven
668 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671

approach, it is still an incremental development in the
evolution of product development theory and practice, add-
ing environmental performance issues as a new ‘‘X factor.’’
As such, the emphasis is currently on the amelioration of the
environmental damage done by conventional products and
technologies, rather than on the creation of sustainable
products. Ultimately, the emphasis in NPD will need to
move from this transitional stage to a quest for genuinely
sustainable products and technologies, with a far greater
emphasis on reengineering, radically different ‘‘clean’’ tech-
nologies and fundamental changes to the ways products are
purchased, used, and disposed of. As Srivastava (1994)
points out, since the current management paradigm is itself
environmentally hostile, eventually, it must also shift
towards something more radically different. As managers
and academics progress further in the quest to develop
sustainable enterprises, the NPD process itself may have
to be more fundamentally reevaluated. In conceptual terms,
the eco-performance of a product is not something repre-
sented solely by the product itself, but also by the envir-
onmental impact of the production system, the organization
behind it, and its supply chain (Peattie, 1995). This trans-
formation of the product concept into something that
encompasses and transcends elements of the entire company
will be a profound challenge for the NPD process. It will
call for even closer integration in future of the work of
managers responsible for product development, marketing,
and the environment.
For the present, this study’s empirical results for the
first time have shown the underlying dimensions of
ENPD activities, and thereby can enrich our knowledge
and understanding of environmental management within
manufacturers at product development. A better under-
standing of these activities will help in integrating envir-
onmental issues effectively into companies’ NPD process,
and can therefore contribute something to the pursuit of
sustainability. The factors underlying ENPD may further
be used for identifying the critical success factors for both
market success and improved eco-performance, an area
that the authors’ research is exploring further. The authors
feel that there is a strong need for more research in this
relatively neglected, but important, area of management.
Irrespective of how many corporate environmental policies
and waste reduction systems are implemented, little pro-
gress towards sustainability will be made without signific-
ant improvements in the eco-performance of companies’
market outputs.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the Head of the Envi-
ronment Unit of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)
for endorsing the research project, Commonwealth Scholar-
ship Commission, London for financial support, and all the
respondents who participated in the survey.

Appendix A. Dimensions underlying ENPD

Factor name Variables loading on factor Selected sources Variable Mean (S.D.)
(% of variance loadings
explained)
1. Environmental We measured environmental standards against Case studies and .873 3.02 (1.09)
Benchmarking and ‘‘best in the class’’ in our industry worldwide. Klafter (1992)
Measurement (36.6%; We measured environmental standards against .856 3.03 (1.10)
reliability = .92) ‘‘best in the class’’ in our industry within
the country.
We measured environmental standards against .841 2.73 (0.92)
‘‘best in the class’’ across industries within
the country.
We measured environmental standards against .830 2.72 (0.91)
‘‘best in the class’’ across industries worldwide.
We measured upstream environmental impacts .612 2.97 (0.97)
for virgin-resource use.
2. Effective We undertook detailed market research. Case studies and .812 3.34 (1.13)
Groundwork (8.8%; We established target market in market assessment. Cooper (1988) .820 3.57 (0.99)
reliability = .88) Preliminary market assessment was made before .814 3.61 (1.04)
resources were put.
Financial analysis was undertaken on new .799 3.49 (1.11)
product objectives.
Business analysis was done before formal .772 3.48 (1.09)
‘‘go/no-go’’ decision. .698 3.62 (1.12)
We obtained customers’ view of the product idea.
3. Cross-Functional ENPD team members were continuously encouraged Case studies and .780 3.02 (1.09)
Coordination (7.2%; to participate in developing environmental Cooper (1979)
reliability = .89) product strategies.
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671 669

Appendix A (continued)
Functional specialists were encouraged to take .751 2.95 (1.10)
environmental initiatives in the project.
A senior executive was assiged to steer the .607 3.14 (1.22)
ENPD project.
Environmental knowledge among environmental .572 2.91 (1.09)
specialists and ENPD team was shared.
Environmental manager was a member of specific .561 2.91 (1.02)
ENPD project.
Coordinator for environmental product development .537 3.06 (1.23)
project represented the top management.
Component supplier’s evaluation/assessment for .536 3.03 (1.16)
environment was done.
4. Environmental Enough time was spent on assessing the Case studies and .747 3.04 (0.93)
Database for LCA environmental impact of materials. Cooper (1979)
(5.3%; reliability = .83) Environmental database was made accessible to the .732 3.11 (1.11)
product development team.
Assessment of life cycle impact of design material .663 2.96 (0.97)
features was done.
The environmental database was part of the existing .660 3.03 (1.07)
management information system.
Significant amount of time spent on design-for- .580 3.20 (1.03)
environment issues.
5. Supplier Key suppliers were involved in design process to Case studies and .812 3.02 (1.14)
Involvement (4.9%; integrate environmental issues. Bonaccorsi and
reliability = .87) Joint R&D projects with key suppliers were Lipparini (1994) .809 2.69 (1.06)
undertaken for measuring environmental impact of
product materials/components.
Environmental information was shared and .780 3.11 (1.07)
exchanged with key component suppliers.
6. Environmental Written environmental product policy exists in Case studies, Dwyer .759 3.49 (1.36)
Product Policy/ the company. (1990), and Hegarty
Legitimation Corporate environmental policy explicitly addresses and Hoffman (1990) .744 3.65 (1.18)
(3.9%; reliability = .76) the environmental issues in NPD decisions.
We measured risk related environmental issues. .607 3.56 (0.97)
We measured compliance-related impacts .584 3.75 (0.89)
of products.
7. Top Management Explicit top management support was gained for Case studies, .822 3.64 (1.05)
Support (3.7%; developing environmentally responsive packaging. Maidique and Zirger
reliability = .87) Explicit top management support gained for (1984), and Johne .818 3.57 (0.97)
developing environmentally responsive products. and Snelson (1988)
8. Experimentation Several revisions of design were made after Case studies and .793 3.19 (1.04)
(3.2%; reliability = .70) technical testing of the product. Cooper(1988)
Product testing was done on experimentation basis. .658 3.04 (0.93)
9. Environmental The environmental manager issued environmental Case studies, .846 3.27 (1.05)
Coordinator (2.9%; guidelines to ENPD team. Roberts (1981),
reliability = .73) The environmental manager reviewed every and Cole (1993) .584 2.55 (0.96)
‘‘stage-gate’’ of ENPD project.
Reliability is based on measuring Cronbach’s alpha.
S.D. = Standard Deviation, Env. = Environment, LCA= Life Cycle Analysis

Appendix B. Dimensions underlying ENPD performance

Factor name Variables loading on factor Selected sources Factor Mean (S.D.)
(% of variance explained) loadings
ENPD project:
1. MARPERF Increased market share. Case studies and .899 2.92 (1.15)
(61.29%; reliability = .93) Created new markets in Britain. Cooper (1986) .882 2.66 (1.13)
Created new international markets .860 2.63 (1.07)
Created competitive advantage .837 2.85 (1.19)
Good return on investment (ROI) .809 2.86 (1.18)
2. ECOPERF Enhanced environmental image. Case studies .872 3.31 (0.98)
(16.25%; reliability = .70) Reduced overall environmental impact. and Peacock (1993) .838 3.45 (1.05)
Reliability is based on measuring Cronbach’s alpha.
670 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
References
Asmus D, Griffin J. Harnessing the power of your suppliers. McKinsey Q
1993;3:63 – 79.
Azzone G, Manzini R. Measuring strategic environmental performance.
Bus Strategy Environ 1994;3(1):1 – 14.
Barrett J. The future for environmental managers. ENDS—Environ Manag-
ers Bus 1993;82 – 7 (November).
Beaumont JR, Pederson LM, Whitaker BD. Managing the environment.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993. p. 141.
Bertodo R. The role of suppliers in implementing a strategic vision. Long
Range Plann 1991;24(3):40 – 8.
Bonaccorsi A, Lipparini A. Strategic partnerships in new product develop-
ment. J Prod Innovation Manage 1994;11:134 – 45.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton. New products management for the 1980s. New
York: Booz, Allen and Hamilton, 1982.
Buchholz RA, Marcus AA, Post JE, editors. Managing environmental is-
sues: a case book. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1995.
Burt DN, Soukup WR. Purchasing’s role in new product development. In:
Clark K, Wheelwright SC, editors. The product development challenge.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994. p. 333 – 45.
Cahan J, Schweiger A. Product life cycle—the key to integrating EHS into
corporate decision making and operations. Total Qual Environ Manage.
1993/1994;141 – 50 (Winter).
Calantone RJ, Vickery SK, Droge C. Business performance and strategic
new product development activities: an empirical investigation. J Prod
Innovation Manage 1995;12:214 – 26 (June).
Chao-tung (Jordan) W. Integrating environmental management into product
development: promises and limits at McDonald’s, Procter and Gamble,
and Warner-Lambert. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy (NY), 1994.
Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. J Mark Res 1979;16:64 – 73 (February).
CIPS. Supply chain—the environmental challenge. Stanford (UK): Char-
tered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, 1995.
Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, 1983.
Cole S. Pushing the envelope—how environmental professionals are meet-
ing the challenges of the 1990s. Environ Sci Technol 1993;11G – 4G.
Cooper RG. The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. J
Mark 1979;43(3):93 – 103.
Cooper RG. The impact of new product strategies. Ind Mark Manage
1983;14(3):243 – 56.
Cooper RG. New product performance and product innovation strategies.
Res Manage 1986;17 – 25 (May – June).
Cooper RG. Pre-development activities determine new product success. Ind
Mark Manage 1988;17:237 – 47.
Cooper RG. New products: the factors that drive success. Int Mark Rev
1994;11(2):60 – 76.
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. Benchmarking the firm’s critical success
factors in new product development. J Prod Innovation Manage 1995;
12:374 – 91.
Craig A, Hart S. Identifying the major themes in NPD research. Eur J Mark
1992;26(11):18, 27, 34.
Crul MRM. Milieugerichte produktontwikkeling in de praktijk. Promise.
1994;151 – 7.
Dean TJ, Fowler DM, Miller A. Organizational adaptations for ecological
sustainability: a resource-based examination of the competitive advant-
age hypothesis. Working paper, Department of Management, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville (TN), 1995.
Drumwright M. Socially responsible organizational buying: environmen-
tal concern as a non-economic buying criterion. J Mark 1994;58(3):
1 – 19.
Dwyer LM. Factors affecting the proficient management of product inno-
vation. Int J Tech Manage 1990;5(6):721 – 30.
Eckel L, Fisher K, Grant R. Environmental performance measurement.
CMA Mag 1992;66:16 – 23.
Engleberg D. Is this the best community relations program in the country.
Environ Manager 1992;3:6.
Ferrone R, O’Brien CM. Environmental assessment of computer worksta-
tion. IEEE Int Symp Electron Environ, Arlington, VA. 1993;43 – 8.
Fierman J. The big muddle in green marketing. Fortune 1991;123:91 – 101.
Fineman S. Constructing the green manager. Br J Manage 1997;8:31 – 8.
Frankel C. Blueprint for green marketing. Am Demogr 1992;14:34 – 8.
Fuller D. Sustainable marketing: managerial – ecological issues. Thousand
Oaks (CA): Sage, 1999.
Gatenby DA, Foo G. Design for X (DFX): key to competitive, profitable
products. AT&T Tech J 1990;2 – 13 (May – June).
Geffen C. Innovative environmental technologies in automotive painting:
the role of suppliers. Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge (MA), 1997.
Gillett J. Ensuring suppliers’ environmental performance. Purchasing Sup-
ply Manage 1993;28 – 30 (October).
Gray-Lee JW, Scammon DL, Mayer RN. Review of legal standards for
environmental marketing claims. J Public Policy Mark 1994;13:
155 – 9 (Spring).
Griffin A, Page A. An interim report on measuring product development
success and failure. J Prod Innovation Manage 1993;10(4):291 – 308.
Guimaraes T, Liska K. Exploring the business benefits of environmental
stewardship. Bus Strategy Environ 1995;4:9 – 22.
Gupta AK, Wilemon D. Improving R&D/marketing relations: R&D per-
spective. R&D Manage 1990;24(4):277 – 90.
Gupta AK, Raj SP, Wilemon D. A model for studying R&D – marketing
interface in the product innovation process. J Mark 1986;50:7 – 17
(April).
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis
with readings. 4th ed. London: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
Hegarty WH, Hoffman RC. Product/market innovations: a study of top
management involvement among four cultures. J Prod Innovation Man-
age 1990;7:186 – 99.
Hocking RWD, Power S. Environmental performance: quality, measure-
ment and improvement. Bus Strategy Environ 1993;2(4):19 – 24.
Hutchinson C. Corporate strategy and the environment. Long Range Plann
1992;25(4):9 – 21.
James P. Quality and the environment: from total quality management to
sustainable quality management. Greener Manage Int 1994;6:62 – 70.
Johne A, Snelson P. Auditing product innovation activities in manufactur-
ing firms. R&D Manage 1988;11(2):227 – 33.
Keoleian G. Summary report of the critical review on sustainable develop-
ment by design: review of life cycle design and related approaches. J
Air Waste Manage Assoc 1994;44:1083 – 8.
Keoleian GA, Kock JE, Menerey D. Life cycle design framework and
demonstration projects Washington (DC): U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1995.
Klafter B. Pollution prevention benchmarking: AT&T and Intel working to-
gether with the best. Total Qual Environ Manage. 1992;27 – 34 (Autumn).
Kleiner BM. Benchmarking for continuous performance improvement:
tactics for success. Total Qual Environ Manage 1994;3(3):283 – 95.
Kolk A. Green reporting. Harv Bus Rev 2000;78(1):15 – 6.
Langrish (1972), quoted in Barclay I, Benson, M. Success in new product
development: the lessons from the past. Leadership Organ Dev J 1990;
11(6):4 – 12.
Lenox M, Ehrenfeld J. Organizing for effective environmental design. Bus
Strategy Environ 1997;6:187 – 96.
Lloyd M. How green are my suppliers? Buying environmental risk. Pur-
chasing Supply Manage. 1994;36 – 9 (October).
Maidique MA, Zirger BJ. A study of success and failure in product inno-
vation: the case of the US electronics industry. IEEE Trans Eng Manage
1984;EM-31:192 – 203.
Menon A, Menon A. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence
of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. J Mark 1997;61:
51 – 67.
 D. Pujari et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 657–671
Miles MP, Munilla LS. The eco-orientation: an emerging business philos-
ophy. Mark Theory Pract 1993;1:43 – 51.
Namimon JS. Benchmarking and environmental trend indicators. Total
Qual Environ Manage 1994;3(3):269 – 81.
Norusis MJ. SPSS statistics guide. Chicago (IL): SPSS, 1990.
O’Neal C. Concurrent engineering with early supplier involvement: a cross-
functional challenge. Int J Purchasing Mater Manage 1993;3 – 9 (Spring).
Orlin J, Swalwell P, FitzGerald C. How to integrate information strategy
planning with environmental management information systems—Part 1.
Total Qual Environ Manage 1993/1994;193 – 202 (Winter).
Ottman JA. Green marketing: challenges and opportunities. Lincolnwood
(IL): NTC Business Books, 1994.
Ottman J. Green marketing: opportunity for innovation. 2nd ed. Lincoln-
wood (IL): NTC/Contemporary Books, 1998.
Peacock M. Developing environmental performance measures. Ind Eng
1993;20 – 2 (September).
Peattie K. Environmental marketing management—meeting the green chal-
lenge. London: Pitman, 1995.
Peattie K. Trappings versus substance in the greening of marketing plan-
ning. J Strategic Mark 1999;7:131 – 48.
Pinto MB, Pinto JK. Project team communication and cross functional co-
operation in new program development. J Prod Innovation Manage
1990;7:2000 – 12.
Polonsky M, Ottman J. Stakeholders in green product development process.
J Mark Manage 1998;14:533 – 57.
Porter ME, van der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harv Bus Rev 1995;120 – 33 (September – October).
Prothero A, McDonagh P. Producing environmentally acceptable cosmet-
ics? The impact of environmentalism on the United Kingdom cosmetics
and toiletries industry. J Mark Manage 1992;8(2):147 – 66.
Pujari D, Wright G. Developing environmentally-conscious product strat-
egy (ECPS): a qualitative study of selected companies in Britain and
Germany. Mark Intell Plann 1996;14(1):19 – 28.
Roberts EB. Staffing the innovative technology-based organization. Sloan
Manage Rev 1981;22:19 – 34 (Spring).
Robinson K. Product life cycle assessment. Purchasing Supply Manage.
1992;33 – 4 (July).
Rothenberg S. Is lean green? The relationship between manufacturing
processes and environmental performance within different regulatory
contexts. Doctoral thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-
bridge (MA), 1999.
Rothwell R, Freeman C, Horsely A, Jervis VIP, Robertson AB, Townsend J.
SAPPHO updated—Project SAPPHO Phase II. Res Policy 1974;3:
258 – 91.
Rubenstein AH, Chakrabarti AK, O’Keefe RD, Souder WE, Young HC.
Factors influencing innovation success at the project level. Res Manage
1976;19(3):15 – 20.
671
Ryding S. International experiences of environmentally sound product de-
velopment based on life cycle assessment (LCA). Final report. AFR
Report 36. Swedish Waste Research Council, Stockholm, 1994.
Scarlett L. A guide to environmental myths and realities. Consum Res Mag
1992;11 – 6 (January).
Sharman M, Ellington RT, Meo M. The next step in becoming ‘green’: life-
cycle orientated environmental management. Bus Horiz 1997;40(3):
13 – 22.
Shimnel P. Corporate environmental policy in practice. Long Range Plann
1991;24(3):10 – 7.
Shrivastava P, Hart S. Greening organizations—2000. Int J Public Adm
1994;17(34):607 – 35.
Simon M, Poole S, Sweatman A, Evans S, Bhamra T, McAloone T. Envi-
ronmental priorities in strategic product development. Bus Strategy
Environ 2000;9(6):367 – 77.
Sinding K. Environmental management beyond the boundaries of the firm:
definitions and constraints. Bus Strategy Environ 2000;9(2):79 – 91.
Song XM, Parry ME. A cross-national comparative study of new product
development processes: Japan and the United States. J Mark. 1997;
1 – 18 (April).
Speer T. Growing the green market. Am Demogr 1997;19(8):45 – 50.
Sullivan MS, Ehrenfeld JR. Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts: an
industry survey of emerging tools and programs. Total Qual Environ
Manage 1992/1993;143 – 57 (Winter).
Thornton E. Enviro-cars: the race is on. Bus Week 1999;8:74 – 5 (February).
Urban G, Hauser JR. Design and marketing of new products. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Van Hemel CG. EcoDesign empirically explored. PhD thesis, Delft Uni-
versity of Technology, 1998.
Vigon BW, Curran MA. Life-cycle improvement analysis: procedure devel-
opment and demonstration. Proc IEEE Int Symp Electron Environ,
VA. 1993;151 – 6 (May).
Wallace DR, Suh NP. Information-based design for environmental problem
solving. Ann CIRP 1993;42(1):175 – 80.
Walley N, Whitehead B. It’s not easy being green. Harv Bus Rev. 1994;
46 – 52 (May – June).
Wheeler WA. The revival of reverse manufacturing. J Bus Strategy 1992;
13(4):8 – 13.
Wind YJ. Product, policy: concepts, methods, and strategy. Boston (MA):
Addison-Wesley, 1982.
Wolfe A, Howes HA. Measuring environmental performance: theory and
practice at Ontario Hydro. Total Qual Environ Manage 1993;355 – 66
(Summer).
Wong V, Turner W, Stoneman P. Marketing strategies and market prospects
for environmentally-friendly consumer products. Br J Manage 1996;7:
263 – 81.