Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations orientation

Sustainable innovation and sustainable product innovation definitions

Sustainable innovation frameworks

Classification schemas, lists, and frameworks have been proposed in the literature as roadmaps for firms to identify potential sustainable innovation opportunities. Ambec and Lanoie (2008) broadly classify sustainable innovations as cost reduction oriented (cost of materials, energy, labor, and capital) and revenue growth oriented innovations (sustainable innovations as an enabler of differentiation and access to certain markets; sale/licensing of proprietary sustainability-related technology). Mariadoss, Tansuhaj, and Mouri (2011) broadly classify sustainable innovations as technical (incremental and radical new products) and non-technical (new marketing programs and new managerial programs) innovations. Hansen, Große-Dunker and Recihwald (2009) propose a sustainability innovation cube as a framework for structuring the sustainability effects of innovations. Here, the authors distinguish between three types of innovations (business model, product-service system, and technological) across three lifecycle stages of a product (manufacture, use, and end-of-life), and their sustainability effects (ecological, social, and economic).

In their synthesis of scholarly research on sustainable innovations, Adams et al. (2012, pp. 33–34) group sustainable design strategies into eight broad categories: (1) new concept development, (2) selection of low-impact materials, (3) reduction of material usage, (4) optimization of production techniques, (5) optimization of the distribution system, (6) reduction of impact during use, (7) optimization of initial lifetime, and (8) optimization of end-of-life system. They also enumerate a number of sub-strategies. For instance, cleaner materials, renewable materials, recycled materials, and recyclable materials are identified as potential sub-strategies of selection of lower impact materials as a sustainable design strategy, and reduction of material weight and reduction of volume in transportation as potential sub-strategies of reduction of material usage as a sustainable design strategy. Notwithstanding the overlap between some of the above categories—e.g., substitution with low impact materials (sustainable design strategy # 2) is a potential avenue for sustainable innovation during the production, distribution, and consumption/use stages (sustainable design strategies # 4, 5, and 6) of the lifecycle of a product—compared to other classification schemas and frameworks previously proposed, Adams et al. present a relatively more extensive list of potential avenues for sustainable innovations.

Although resource constraints are likely to limit the number of sustainable innovation opportunities that a firm can pursue, analogous to the importance of quantity of new product ideas generated during the idea generation stage, identifying a large number of potential opportunities for sustainable innovations with the aid of multiple frameworks can be conducive to superior sustainable innovations performance. In this context, the framework for sustainable innovations proposed in this paper complements the classification schemas (e.g., Ambec and Lanoie 2008), lists (e.g., Adams et al. 2012), and frameworks (e.g., Hansen et al. 2009) for sustainable innovations proposed in literature and also ameliorates some of their limitations. The proposed framework specifically focuses on resource-centric sustainable innovations and delineates a relatively large number of fine-grained sustainable innovation opportunities available to firms.

Sustainability-related organizational constructs and models

Of the sustainability-related organizational constructs summarized in Table 2, of particular relevance to the construct that is the focus of this paper (i.e., sustainable innovations orientation) are environmental innovation, sustainable market orientation, and market-oriented sustainability. In their research, Berrone et al. (2013) operationalize environmental innovation (i.e., environmental innovation performance) as the total number of citations received by the patents granted each year to the firm. Mitchell, Wooliscroft and Higham (2010) propose a conceptual model of sustainable market orientation, and Crittenden et al. (2011) present a conceptual model of market-oriented sustainability. A limitation of the model proposed by Mitchell, Wooliscroft and Higham (see Fig. 1, p. 161) is the conceptual overlap between the focal construct (i.e., sustainable market orientation) and its antecedents and outcomes. They conceptualize sustainable market orientation as having four components (objectives, strategies, processes, and benefits) and as institutional marketing management where the firm uses sustainable management principles to apply profitable and socially and environmentally responsible value systems (conceptual overlap with antecedents), and to generate positive, long-run outcomes in economic, social, and environmental terms (conceptual overlap with outcomes).

In Crittenden et al.’s (2011) market-oriented sustainability framework, stakeholder involvement is modeled as moderating the relationship between an organization’s DNA and performance management. They note (p. 75): “Metaphorically, a company’s tendency toward sustainability is a result of its DNA. That is, the DNA holds the deeply rooted set of values and beliefs that provide behavioral norms that trigger or shape sustainability activities.” This premise is also reiterated in some of the propositions. For instance, propositions P1a and P1b (p. 75) are stated with the following lead in: “Organizations founded upon a core ideology that embraces the triumvirate of environmental integrity, social equity, and economic prosperity ….” In contrast to the organizational DNA perspective of Crittenden et al.’s framework, the proposed model of sustainable innovations orientation focuses on institutional pressures, firm-related factors, and industry-related factors that predispose firms to be more versus less sustainable innovations oriented.

Sustainable innovation and sustainable product innovation: definitions

Building on extant definitions of innovation, sustainability, sustainable innovation, product, and product innovation, sustainable innovation and sustainable product innovation are defined as follows: Sustainable innovation is a firm’s implementation of a new product, process, or practice, or modification of an existing product, process, or practice that significantly reduces the impact of the firm’s activities on the natural environment. Sustainable product innovation is a firm’s introduction of a new product or modification of an existing product whose environmental impact during the lifecycle of the product, spanning resource extraction, production, distribution, use, and post-use disposal, is significantly lower than existing products for which it is a substitute. A brief discussion of the rationale underlying specific terms and phrases used in the proposed definitions follows.

Sustainable innovations: conceptual framework

Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for sustainable innovations. The framework broadly distinguishes between three sustainable innovation types (resource use reduction or resource use efficiency innovations, resource use elimination innovations, and resource use substitution innovations) and five major sustainable innovation opportunity stages (upstream supply chain, production, downstream supply chain, use or consumption, and post-use or post-consumption). For the three broad innovation types, nine finer gradations of sustainable innovation types are shown in the framework (A1.1 through A3.4). In the interest of simplicity, similar finer gradations of specific innovation stages are not shown in the framework. For instance, Hansen and Große-Dunker (2013) conceptualize supply chain (upstream supply chain in Fig. 1) as encompassing all raw materials, pre-manufactured components, parts, and modules sourced from third-party suppliers—both direct or from first-tier suppliers as well from n-tier suppliers—further upstream. While the proposed framework offers a fine-grained roadmap of a large number of resource-centric sustainable innovation opportunities that may be available to firms, a number of sustainable innovation opportunities exist outside the scope of the framework—e.g., sustainable business model innovation opportunities such as servicization of goods (decoupling ownership of tangible goods from the benefits consumers derive from using them) and collaborative consumption]. A brief discussion of the proposed framework follows.

Open image in new window

In the interest of simplicity, inter-dependencies between sustainable innovation types and innovation opportunity stages are not shown in Fig. 1; for instance, designing a product for ease of dis-assembly during the production stage (stage B2), through its positive effect of the extent of above-ground mining of raw materials during the post-use or post-consumption stage (stage B5), having a positive impact on resource use substitution innovation (innovation type A3.4)—that is, substitution of a below-ground mined raw material with an above-ground mined raw material during the production, distribution, or use stage.

The portfolio of sustainable innovation opportunities pursued by most firms is likely to be comprised of some whose scope is limited to specific innovation types in specific innovation opportunity stages (e.g., cell “A1.2, B2”: nonrenewable resource use reduction innovation during the production stage) and others whose scope spans multiple innovation types and/or innovation stages. The latter types of sustainable innovation opportunities are illustrated in Fig. 1 with representative arrows from cell “A1, B1” leading into other cells. Illustrative of sustainable innovations within the domain of a single cell in Fig. 1 are innovations in the automobile industry focused on greater resource use efficiency during the use or consumption stage (cell “A1, B4” in Fig. 1) such as greater fuel efficiency, engine oil change at less frequent intervals, and replacement of spark plugs at less frequent intervals.

Illustrative of a sustainable product innovation whose sustainability impact spans multiple lifecycle stages is the digital camera as a substitute for film-based cameras. Compared to the amounts of various resources consumed during the manufacturing, distribution, use, and post-use stages of the lifecycle of film-based cameras (e.g., resources used in the manufacture of cameras, photo film, photo printing paper, chemicals used for processing of film and printing of photographs on paper, resources wasted on film and paper on poor quality pictures that are subsequently discarded, and fossil fuel used to drive to a retail outlet to drop-off the film for processing and later to pick-up the processed pictures), substantially lesser amounts of various resources are likely to be used during the manufacturing, distribution, use, and disposal stages of the lifecycle of digital cameras (e.g., online storage and viewing of pictures taken; selective printing of photographs as opposed to printing the complete roll used in a film camera). Although sustainability considerations may not have been the impetus underlying the development of digital cameras (i.e., the positive sustainability effects of the emergence of digital cameras as a substitute for film cameras may be serendipitous), it’s conceivable that similar opportunities might exist in other product markets. Furthermore, as pointed out by Halila and Rundquist (2011), sustainable innovations includes both innovations developed with the explicit aim of reducing environmental harm and those developed without the explicit aim of reducing environmental harm (see Table 1). What matters is, ex post, the innovation resulting in reduced environmental harm. The above observations concerning the sustainability impact of digital cameras relative to film-based cameras should be viewed as tentative. A number of studies provide insights into the mechanics of quantitative data based environmental lifecycle assessment of products (see, for example, Hawkins et al. 2013).

A resource use efficiency innovation during a particular stage of the lifecycle can have either a positive or a negative effect during another stage of the lifecycle of the product. Illustrative of the former is the introduction of concentrated formulations of liquid detergents (an innovation focused on resource use efficiency during the production stage of the lifecycle: reduced amount of use of water in the liquid detergent and plastic resins for the detergent containers) also having a positive sustainability effect during the distribution stage of the lifecycle (e.g., lower storage and transportation costs). Illustrative of the latter is a recent comparative environmental lifecycle assessment study of conventional and electric vehicles (Hawkins et al. 2013). The study reports that for a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 km, electric vehicles (EVs) powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10 to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles. The study further notes that while for conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), the use phase accounts for the majority of the GWP impact, with the production phase accounting for about 10% of the GWP impact, the production phase is more environmentally intensive for EVs than for ICEVs for nine of the ten environmental impact categories (e.g., global warming potential, human toxicity potential, freshwater sustainable toxicity potential, mineral resource depletion potential, and fossil resource depletion potential) considered in the study. Drawing attention to the sensitivity of the results to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedule for the EV, the authors caution that it may be counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily generated from coal, lignite, or oil combustion. In such a scenario, the authors note that, at best, EVs would aggregate emissions to a few point sources (power plants, mines, etc.) from millions of mobile sources (tail pipe emissions from ICEVs).

The proposed framework (Fig. 1) builds on lifecycle analysis literature to distinguish between sustainable innovations opportunity stages (i.e., upstream supply chain, production, downstream supply chain, use or consumption, and post-use or post-consumption). Notwithstanding some conceptual overlap, a complementing framework that distinguishes between sustainable innovation opportunity stages based on a firm’s primary value chain activity stages (inbound logistics, production, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, and after-sales service; see Porter 1985) can aid in unearthing additional sustainable innovation opportunities. In reference to the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility (CSR), Porter and Kramer (2006) note that organizations, rather than merely acting on well-intentioned impulses or reacting to outside pressure, should set an affirmative CSR agenda that produces maximum social benefits as well as gains for the business. As a decision aid for integrating social considerations more effectively into business strategy and operations, they propose a social impact map for identifying the positive and negative social impact of the activities comprising a business’ value chain, and in turn undertaking initiatives to eliminate as many negative value chain social impacts as possible. Although sustainable innovations are not the explicit focus of Porter and Kramer’s social impact map, by serving as a frame of reference for identifying the environmental sustainability-related negative social impacts of a business’ value chain activities, it can provide an impetus for sustainable innovations to mitigate the negative impacts.

Sustainable product innovation opportunities: exposition of the sustainable innovations framework

Sustainable product innovations focused on resource use efficiency, resource use elimination, or resource use substitution during the production stage of a product (see Fig. 1) manifest as physical differentiation attributes (e.g., concentrated liquid detergent, compact fluorescent light bulb). Sustainable product innovations focused on resource use efficiency, elimination, or substitution during the use stage of a product manifest as experienced differentiation attributes (e.g., lower power consumption of a compact fluorescent light bulb compared to a tungsten filament light bulb, greater fuel efficiency of a hybrid car relative to a comparable internal combustion engine based car). In general, in a sustainable product innovation, the product’s attributes undergirding the reduction of its environmental impact are potential bases for differentiating the innovation from competing offerings in the marketplace. With respect to resource elimination–based sustainable product innovations, “what’s not in the product” (e.g., phosphate-free detergent), as opposed to “what’s in the product,” is integral to product differentiation (as well as positioning, market segmentation, and target marketing) and the customer value proposition.

Sustainable innovations orientation: definition

Siguaw, Simpson and Enz (2006) note that innovation orientation is conceptualized in literature as an organizational trait that is broad in scope, encompassing the total enterprise and all functional areas rather than a single functional area such as R&D or marketing. In a similar vein, sustainable innovations orientation is conceptualized here as broad in scope, encompassing the total enterprise and all functional areas. Siguaw, Simpson and Enz’s review of extant definitions of innovation orientation shows an organization’s actual behavior and/or behavioral predisposition (commitment, inclination, propensity, or tendency) to be the focus of most definitions (e.g., an organization’s beliefs and understandings about innovation; an organization’s beliefs and understandings underlying its actions in the realm of innovation; an organization’s understandings that manifest as specific innovation-enabling behaviors; an organization’s common standards and beliefs about learning and knowledge that pervade and guide all functional areas toward innovation; organizational climate, organizational philosophy, organizational propensities, organizational practices, strategic direction of organization; and strategies and actions of an organization).

Building on extant literature, as a behavioral construct, sustainable innovations orientation is defined as a firm’s relative extent of involvement in intra-organizational and inter-organizational activities within specific organizational functions and spanning multiple organizational functions toward the development of new products, processes, and practices, and modifications of existing products, processes, and practices, with the goal of significantly reducing the impact of its activities on the natural environment. As a behavioral predisposition construct, sustainable innovations orientation can be defined as a firm’s relative level of commitment to involvement in intra-organizational and inter-organizational activities within specific organizational functions and spanning multiple organizational functions toward the development of new products, processes, and practices, and modifications of existing products, processes, and practices, with the goal of significantly reducing the impact of its activities on the natural environment. All else being equal, the sustainable innovations resource outlay of larger firms will be greater than that of smaller firms. Hence, the proposed definition of sustainable innovations orientation refers to the relative extent of a firm’s involvement. Illustrative of the relative extent of a firm’s involvement is the ratio of the R&D expenditures of a firm on sustainable innovations during a specific time frame divided by the sales revenue of the firm during the same time frame, a proxy for sustainable innovations orientation.

Sustainable innovations orientation: conceptual model and propositions

Sustainable innovations orientation as an organizational phenomenon of interest brings to fore two inter-related questions: (1) What explains the predisposition of firms, in general, to make resource commitments to sustainable innovations (i.e., demonstrate a sustainable innovations orientation)? (2) What explains differences between firms in their sustainable innovations orientation (i.e., heterogeneity in sustainable innovations orientation), and with what consequences? The first question can be explained from an institutional theory perspective. Institutional theory posits that institutional pressures (coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures) lead firms to adopt similar strategies, structures, and processes (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Institutional pressures originate from a firm’s environment and include pressures exerted by regulators and policymakers, stakeholders (investors, customers, suppliers, employees, etc.), and competitors. Coercive pressures are pressures to conform that are exerted on an organization by other organizations upon which it depends for critical resources, and by institutions that uphold the cultural expectations of the society in which it functions. Mimetic pressures are those experienced by an organization to model itself after other organizations in its field when faced with uncertainty over goals, technologies, means-ends relationships, etc. Normative pressures are pressures faced by an organization to comply with the collective norms shared by other organizations in its field, in their attempts to define the conditions and methods of their work (see Heugens and Lander 2009, Table 1, p. 68).

From an institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) perspective, sustainable innovations orientation can be explained as a dimension of the behavior of the firm embedded in the collective cognitions of its managers, in the aftermath of institutional pressures exerted on the firm. Perception among managers that sustainable innovations can have a positive influence on firm performance (environmental, economic, and/or social performance), prominent firms engaging in sustainable innovations, and sustainable innovations being acclaimed in the mass media confers legitimacy to the behavior. During the ongoing process of firms monitoring the actions of their competitors to assess threats posed by their actions, under conditions of uncertainty over goals, and means-ends relationships, they are likely to react by engaging in mimetic behavior. Firms are more likely to engage in mimetic behavior when industry leaders engage in sustainable innovations.

Berrone and Gomez-Mejia (2009) characterize enhancing or protecting organizational legitimacy by conforming to the expectations of institutions and stakeholders as the main thesis of institutional theory. They note that concern over legitimacy leads firms to adopt managerial practices that are expected to have social value, and adherence by firms to institutional prescriptions reflects an alignment of corporate and social values. The findings of a recent KPMG survey (KPMG 2013), covering 4100 companies across 41 countries, are insightful in this regard. The study reports that corporate responsibility (CR) reporting has evolved into a mainstream business practice worldwide over the last two decades. Of the 4100 companies surveyed, 71% were found to engage in global CR reporting. Among the world’s largest 250 companies, the CR reporting rate was found to be 93%. The study further notes that 78% of companies surveyed refer to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) reporting guidelines in their CR reports. Drawing attention to CR reporting becoming a standard business practice worldwide, including in geographic regions and industry sectors that until recently lagged behind, the study notes that the debate concerning whether or not companies should publish a CR report is over. Instead, firms should focus on what should be reported, and how. Although the study findings concern CR reporting and compliance with GRI reporting guidelines in CR reporting at a broad level, an integral element of CR reports is the sustainable innovations and sustainable innovations–related initiatives of firms.

Figure 2 presents a model of sustainability innovations orientation. Building on institutional theory, institutional pressures (coercive pressures, mimetic pressures, and normative pressures) are shown as predisposing firms, in general, to demonstrate a sustainable innovations orientation. Within this context, certain firm-related factors (size, globalization, reputation, and slack) and industry-related factors (relative environmental impact of the industry, sustainability initiatives of firms in upstream supplier industries and downstream customer industries, and size of end users’ customer base) are modeled to explain heterogeneity in the sustainable innovations orientation of firms. Prior research focusing on other sustainability-related phenomena from an institutional theory perspective also evidence a similar approach—that is, a focus on firm-related and industry-related factors to explain heterogeneity in organizational responses, e.g., international experience and organizational slack (Bansal 2005) and environmental impact of the industry and organizational slack (Berrone et al. 2013). Prior research focusing on other sustainability-related phenomena from an institutional theory perspective has focused on decision-maker characteristics (e.g., CEO educational background and tenure) to gain insights into heterogeneity in organizational responses. However, the focus here is on firm-related factors that are more enduring characteristics of the firm, and not the characteristics of the firm’s decision makers. In relation to prior research, the proposed model shows a larger number of firm- and industry-related factors as antecedents. Furthermore, some are more comprehensively explored (e.g., reputation). Also, in relation to prior research, in the proposed model, the outcomes of sustainable innovations orientation are more comprehensively delineated (i.e., sustainable process innovations performance, sustainable product innovations performance, environmental performance, marketing performance, financial performance, and employees’ performance).

Open image in new window

Direct positive relationships between sustainable innovations orientation and sustainable process innovations performance, sustainable product innovations performance, and employees’ performance are posited in the proposed model. Sustainable process innovations performance and sustainable product innovations performance are modeled as mediating the relationship between sustainable innovations orientation and environmental performance. Sustainable product innovations performance is modeled as mediating the relationship between sustainable innovations orientation and marketing performance. Financial performance is modeled as the net effect of the following mediated relationships: (1) sustainable product innovations performance → marketing performance → financial performance (link shown in bold arrows) and (2) sustainable process innovations performance and sustainable product innovations performance → environmental performance → financial performance (link shown in dotted arrows). In the interest of simplicity, direct links from sustainable innovations orientation to environmental performance, marketing performance, and financial performance are not shown in the figure.

The model is proposed in the context of established or legacy firms, and it does not generalize to new ventures launched with a mission to develop and market ecologically less harmful products. However, the sustainable innovations opportunities framework (Fig. 1) and the exposition of the framework in specific reference to sustainable product innovations (Table 3) are of relevance to both established firms and new ventures. In fact, the genesis of new ventures can often be traced to analyzing an industry in depth and identifying opportunities to serve specific customer needs that are either not met by incumbent firms or not met satisfactorily. A discussion of the conceptual rationale for the proposed firm effects and industry effects, and formal statements of propositions follows. The conceptual rationale advanced in support of the various propositions are in the vein of MacInnis’ (2011, p. 141) characterization of theory as a relationship that specifies why a construct affects another construct.

Sustainable innovations orientation: firm effects

On the one hand, reputation enhancement or reputation preservation motives are likely to predispose firms with an overall favorable corporate reputation (as a result of favorable reputation in a number of areas such as reputation for innovation, product quality, customer trust, and progressive organizational practices) to strive for favorable reputation in the area of environmental sustainability. On the other hand, firms suffering from an unfavorable reputation due to their past commissions and omissions that caused severe harm to the natural environment (e.g., the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico) are also likely to be strive to rebuild their image by investing in pro-environmental behaviors such as sustainable innovations. Therefore, an inverted U-type relationship can be expected between firm reputation and sustainable innovations orientation. A more detailed discussion follows.

Sustainable innovations orientation: industry effects

Relative to the size of the customer base in business-to-business (B2B) markets, the size of the end users’ customer base in business-to-consumer (B2C) markets is substantially larger (e.g., tens of millions to hundreds of millions, and even exceeding a billion at a global level). For certain products in the B2B market, at one end, the size of the customer base can be fewer than 100 (e.g., the number of commercial airlines worldwide) globally, and tens of thousands at the other end (e.g., for office equipment such as computers, copiers and telephones, and supplies such as stationary). Hence, the contextual nature of the size of the end users’ customer base across market types (e.g., B2C versus B2B), and the need to control for such differences should be borne in mind.

Sustainable innovations orientation: outcomes

The imitability of an asset stock (the length of time it might take for a competitor to imitate, and the cost it would incur) is a function of the characteristics of the process of accumulation of the asset stock. Time compression diseconomies are diseconomies associated with attempting to duplicate certain asset stocks accumulated over time by one firm by another firm over a shorter period of time (Dierickx and Cool 1989). That is, maintaining a given rate of R&D spending over a particular time interval on sustainable innovations (i.e., a certain level of sustainable innovations orientation over a period of time) resulting in a larger increment to the stock of sustainable innovations capabilities than maintaining twice the rate of spending over half the time interval. Asset mass inefficiencies refers to the impact of the initial level of an asset stock on its further accumulation (Dierickx and Cool 1989). That is, a firm’s higher level of asset stock position (i.e., sustainable innovations capabilities) at a particular point in time facilitating further asset accumulation at lower cost than a competitor attempting to build from a lower level of asset stock position at the same point in time.

However, extant literature on the gap between consumers’ sustainable products related attitudes and behaviors (see Claudy et al. 2013) and other literature serves to highlight other issues that must be taken into account. Highlighting the findings of a global survey that revealed a 36% gap between consumers’ attitudes toward sustainable products and actual behaviors (40% of the respondents indicating a willingness to buy green products, but only 4% being actual buyers of green products), a UN report on advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications (United Nations Environment Programme 2005) characterizes overcoming barriers to sustainable consumption while making a profit as a Holy Grail for marketers. Luchs, Naylor, Irwin and Raghunathan (2010) report that for products in which strength-related attributes are valued, the positive effect of sustainability attributes on consumer preferences might be reduced, and even result in a preference for alternative products that are void of sustainability attributes. They note that in such instances, firms can attenuate the potential negative impact of sustainability attributes on consumer preferences by using explicit cues about product strength. Olson (2013) notes that widespread green product adoption will likely require green tradeoff reductions and/or compensation for the tradeoff by offering important advantages on non-green attributes relative to brown product alternatives. Kronrod, Grinstein and Wathieu (2012) note that persuading consumers to engage in environmentally responsible actions poses a challenge due to the beneficiary not always being the consumer engaging in pro-environmental behavior, but other consumers, the society at large or the planet Earth.