HBP# NA0760
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Creating Waves of Change:
Grove Collaborative, the Problem of
Plastics, and Innovation for Corporate
and Environmental Sustainability
Alexander Glosenberg, Loyola Marymount University
Beth Ritter, North Carolina State University
David Choi, Loyola Marymount University
“I’ll clean it up!” exclaimed Stuart Landesberg as he hopped up from the sofa. A slice
of pizza had just fallen on the floor as he and his wife were shocked by a surprise
ending to a TV show they were watching on a cold February evening in San Francisco
in 2020. Landesberg walked to the kitchen and grabbed a plastic bottle of all-purpose
cleaner – a product that was sold by his company, Grove Collaborative (Grove). Grove
was both an online marketplace offering household and personal-care products, and a
manufacturer of over 100 of the approximately 2,000 products it sold on that
marketplace. After cleaning up the pizza, Landesberg stared down at the plastic bottle
in his hand with conflicted feelings. This conflict stemmed from contrasting realities:
on the one hand, the sale of single-use plastic goods like this bottle was partly
responsible for his company being the third fastest-growing private consumer
packaged goods (CPG) company in the United States between 2014 and 20171 –
helping it to attain a “unicorn” private valuation of over $1 billion2 (see Exhibit 1 for
additional facts about Grove in early 2020). On the other hand, the proliferation of
plastic waste was a serious environmental problem3 that was devastating the ocean,
impacting fisheries, tourism, and biodiversity.4
Landesberg had found himself absorbed with the plastics issue since reading a
report in January 2020 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
detailing that the world was not on track to meet an important 2025 goal to reduce the
use of plastics in commercial packaging and products.5 Without meeting this goal,
plastic pollution could continue to accelerate and become a truly unsolvable
environmental problem. The UNEP needed more companies in the CPG sector to
quickly make substantial progress toward plastic-reduction targets. This gave
Landesberg a sense of urgency to help save the environment, and he was devoted to
doing something no similar company his size had yet done before: eliminate plastic
from all products sold on its marketplace. Landesberg also felt a sense of urgency
because some of Grove’s major competitors had just made moves to enhance their
environmental sustainability. While these moves were good for the environment, it was
possible that Grove might be losing its status as an environmental leader in the CPG
industry. Even though Landesberg was intent on eliminating plastics within
approximately five years, he wondered whether he should make its ambitious goals
public. He had the option of making a public pledge to go “plastics free” by 2025 which
could send positive signals to customers valuing sustainability, make it easier for him
----------------------------Copyright  2022 by the Case Research Journal and by Alexander Glosenberg, Beth Ritter and David
Choi
Creating Waves of Change:
1
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
to rally his company for the change, and motivate competitors to make similar moves.
However, this pledge could scare away certain customers and third-parties selling on
Grove’s marketplace; moreover, if Grove did not meet the pledge – due to
technological difficulties or institutional inertia – it could damage Grove’s reputation
as a company.
GROWING GREEN
Landesberg’s journey to founding Grove started early in his life. Growing up in the
Hudson Valley north of New York City, his parents inculcated in him a concern for
both environmental and social justice. His family were early adopters of products from
Seventh Generation, a natural household products company started in the 1980s with
a mission to “transform the world into a healthy, sustainable, and equitable place for
the next seven generations.”6 After college, Landesberg joined, and then left, Lehman
Brothers, a global financial services firm that ceased operations in 2008. He reflected
that “my time at Lehman Brothers left me with an ache to do something more.”
Landesberg expressed strong beliefs about the role of social and environmental values
in business. Reflecting on a company’s approach to the triple bottom line of people,
planet, and profit, he explained: “I have a visceral negative reaction to the proposition
that pursuing both profit and social/environmental value is problematic or tenuous,
instead, I believe it’s the best way to run a business.”
In 2012, Landesberg thought he had spotted a market opportunity in the category
of household and personal-care products. At the time, household/personal-care
products were typically purchased directly from retail stores and were often
manufactured by large international conglomerates. Landesberg felt “there was a gap
in the market – an unfulfilled demand for products to be provided in a way that
supported consumer’s individual needs and values.” To attempt to fill this gap, he
founded the company, known then as ePantry, that would eventually become known
as Grove Collaborative. In its early days, ePantry emphasized the potential for CPG
delivery to be convenient, cheap, and easy. However, his personal passion for
sustainability and early customer feedback oriented Landesberg to the importance of
offering more environmentally-sustainable products. Critically, Landesberg believed
that many people did not purchase “green” products because of perceptions that they
were too expensive and were inferior in terms of effectiveness; he aimed to be able to
offer cheap and effective products that were also sustainable. Accordingly, Landesberg
began gradually rebranding the company toward a more sustainable image (including
the use of the word “grove” in the company’s name) – a process that continued up to
the year 2020 when he could point to multiple initiatives at Grove to benefit
environmental welfare (see Exhibit 2 for illustrative examples of marketing from the
company prior to and following its transition from ePantry to Grove). As an example
of a greater focus on sustainability, Grove developed its own brand, Seedling, offering
bamboo-based toilet paper and paper towels, capitalizing on the fact that bamboo was
more environmentally sustainable than cutting down slower-growth trees for paper.7
In addition, Grove instituted environmental and ethical standards on all products sold
on its e-marketplace. Such standards included limits on toxic ingredients, an emphasis
on plant-based formulas, ingredient transparency, cruelty-free production, and ethical
supply chains. Beyond simply not sourcing components for its own products that did
not meet these standards, Grove had successfully worked with a variety of third party
brands to help their products adhere to Grove’s standards.
2
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Grove’s close work with its third party brands highlighted the importance of them
to the company’s growth. Indeed, approximately 50% of the products Grove sold in
terms of volume were from third-party brands. Out of the 100 brands offered on the
online marketplace, only five of those brands were owned or produced by Grove itself.
Approximately 33% of Grove’s third party sales came from large companies – in
contrast, 25% of sales came from small third parties offering only a handful of
products. Over time, the number of all products sold increased in line with the
company’s rapid year-over-year growth (see Exhibit 1). In 2019, Grove had made
about 450,000 shipments per month to approximately 2 million customers – generating
approximately $170 million in revenue.
Beyond the previously mentioned focus on environmental sustainability,
Landesberg made a decision early in the company’s growth to ensure accountability for
the company’s environmental impact. In 2014 Grove became a certified B Corporation
(B Corp). According to the not-for-profit organization, B Lab, B Corps were
“businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental
performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and
purpose.”8 As part of the B Corp certification process, B Lab issued a public “report
card” on Grove’s environmental sustainability efforts. Landesberg reasoned that such
a report card might help the company to differentiate itself from other companies
engaging in so-called “greenwashing,” wherein business practices were presented as
environmentally friendly, but in reality they did little good, or actually caused
environmental harm. Landesberg believed that Grove could do well as a company by
becoming a B Corp. However, on a day-to-day basis, Landesberg admitted that the
accountability and constraints of being a B Corp were at times difficult and timeconsuming. Nevertheless, such accountability and constraints helped him and his
employees focus on issues of ethics and sustainability, especially when such choices
required short-term sacrifices. For example, Grove was required to conduct an
extensive audit of the greenhouse gas emissions tied to its operations and the
operations of its suppliers. While this was something that Landesberg admitted he
would have likely done eventually, the B Corp regulations had helped to justify the
significant expense and time required and helped to prioritize this issue alongside other
priorities with clearer short-term impacts on financial growth and profitability.
THE PROMISE AND PROBLEM OF PLASTICS
Collecting his thoughts after cleaning up the spilled pizza, Landesberg reflected on the
benefits and downsides of plastics in CPG products like the one he had just used.
Plastics, or synthetic organic polymers, had many benefits to a CPG company like
Grove, including extending the shelf life of perishable products, allowing convenient
and sanitary storage options, and providing a strong, lightweight, and cheap packaging
option. Likely due to such benefits, the production of plastics in the world increased
from 15 million tons (15 billion kilograms) in 1964 to 311 million in the second decade
of the 21st century.9 Major consumer uses of plastic were for components of durable
and non-durable household and personal products (e.g., mops and cleaning-fluid
containers).10
Despite their benefits, Landesberg had learned that plastic products posed multiple
environmental problems. Indeed, there were problems associated with plastics across
their lifespan (that is, from their creation to decomposition). At the beginning of their
lifespan, the extraction and transport of petrochemicals for the production of plastics
created significant amounts of greenhouse gases.11 Toward the end of their lifespan,
Creating Waves of Change:
3
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
there were other potential problems. The proper disposal of plastic waste presented a
challenge as plastic was sometimes not directed to landfills but instead entered
ecosystems where its slow degradation was identified as an environmental threat.12 The
amount of plastic waste that entered the ocean each year at the start of the 21st century
was roughly equivalent to one garbage truck driving into the ocean every minute.13 If
this trend continued, it was estimated that by 2050 there would be more plastic by
weight in the world’s waters than fish. Plastic waste often entered the ocean through
rivers,14 both polluting river banks15 and posing a threat to life in the ocean,16,17
tourism,18 and to human health through the possible ingestion of plastic fragments.19
Moreover, even non-mismanaged plastic components (those deposited into landfills)
likely produced damaging environmental effects by leading to the leaching of toxic
chemicals20 as they degraded across the course of years, decades, or centuries.
Especially in the CPG sector, many plastics were single use. Unlike reusable plastic
products, single-use plastics had a shorter useful “lifespan” and quickly became
relegated to waste. Out of a total of 8.3 billion metric tons (8.3 trillion kilograms) of
plastic produced from 1950 to 2015, it was estimated that 5.8 billion metric tons were
only used once.21 The recycling of plastic waste was highlighted by some as a way to
turn a short “linear” product lifespan (going straight from creation to discard) into a
longer “circular” lifecycle through reuse or recycling. However, analyses indicated that
nearly 80% of plastics eventually ended up in the environment or in landfills – and only
9% of the world’s plastic was recycled due to a variety of factors, including a lack of
recycling capability.22 Thus, there was often a great reliance on new and unrecycled, socalled “virgin” plastic. Furthermore, when plastic was recycled, it was downgraded in
quality – inevitably leading to a point where it could no longer be recycled for use in
other products.23
CONSIDERING BOTH ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
AND INNOVATION
Given the problems with plastic that the UNEP reported on, it became clear to
Landesberg in early 2020 that he had to aggressively remove plastic from all products
sold on the company’s online marketplace, which he hoped he might be able to
accomplish in approximately five years. What remained for Landesberg was the
question as to whether Grove should make a public pledge to remove plastic within
that timeframe (by 2025). The prospect of such a pledge had raised in his mind at least
two sets of considerations: considerations for the environment and considerations for
Grove as an innovative company in the CPG sector.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
To Landesberg, an important concern was how a pledge would fit with Grove’s past
environmental sustainability efforts relating to plastics. Starting in 2017, Grove had
sought to begin addressing the issue of plastic pollution in three ways. First, Grove had
ensured that all of its shipping materials (e.g., the boxes that products were shipped in)
were contained in fully recyclable materials – primarily paper. Second, Grove had
undertaken a major effort to measure the amount of plastic contained in each of the
products sold on its online marketplace – both those from its own brands and third
party brands - which had amounted to a plastic “audit” and facilitated a deeper
understanding of the severity of the company’s reliance on the substance (see Exhibit
4
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
3). Third, Grove tried to tackle plastic pollution by working with Plastic Bank, a social
enterprise working to accelerate the reduction of plastic waste. By providing funds to
Plastic Bank to accelerate reclamation and recycling, the company had become “plastic
neutral” by offsetting its own production of plastic-based products that might not be
recycled. However, thanks to insights from his Director of Sustainability, Danielle
Jezienicki, Landesberg came to realize that such plastic offsets could only be partial
and imperfect solutions to mitigating plastic pollution as they did not limit Grove’s
own output of plastic products. Without a more comprehensive approach to the
plastics crisis, such offsets might leave the company vulnerable to claims of
greenwashing. While a greater reliance on alternative plastics (e.g., recycled or
“bioplastic” that degrades more easily) was an option for Grove, Landesberg was aware
of limitations to this approach, including claims that it avoided long term solutions. He
had read that the United Nations General Assembly believed that “to beat plastic
pollution, we need to entirely rethink our approach to designing, producing and using
plastic products.”24 Moreover, some environmental organizations like Greenpeace and
the National Resources Defense Council were working to eliminate their use of plastic
products entirely, thus breaking away from a “plastic-based” economy.25,26 Indeed, by
2019, certain countries, including India, had begun working to ban single-use plastics.27
Landesberg was motivated by a set of UNEP goals to help the CPG industry to,
by 2025, move away in a meaningful ways from not only virgin plastic, but plastic more
generally.28 Landesberg realized Grove was in a unique position in the CPG industry
as it could both make changes in relation to its own products and help influence third
party products sold on its online marketplace. Despite its size and rapid growth though,
Grove’s potential impact on the CPG industry was relatively small. As an illustration,
Unilever, the owner of the formerly independent brand Seventh Generation, which
produced multiple products on Grove’s marketplace, generated approximately $36
billion in sales from beauty, personal care, and home care products, overwhelmingly
through sales outside of Grove’s marketplace.29 If Grove were able to influence
Unilever to reduce the composition of plastic in even a small share of Unilever’s
products, that change could result in a major impact by driving larger-scale innovation.
INNOVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Beyond environmental considerations, Landesberg was aware that it would require
innovation to ensure that Grove products and third party products were free of plastic.
While Grove had some success in developing select plastic-free products (e.g.,
replacing plastic straws with bamboo straws) it was relatively inexperienced in this form
of innovation. To understand what plastic-free innovation across a wider number of
products might entail, especially the potential effects of a plastic-free pledge,
Landesberg had turned Jezienicki and the company’s Senior Vice President of Product
Development and Merchandising, Jon Silverman, to present him with a variety of
important considerations. Silverman often provided Landesberg insight on product
development while Jezienicki frequently advised on best practices and the
implementation of social and environmental sustainability projects. Together, the two
had outlined for Landesberg four sets of issues to consider about a plastic-free pledge:
technical/financial issues that Grove would encounter in plastic-related product
innovation, the preferences/potential-reactions to such innovation by customers, the
impact of such innovation on Grove’s position relative to competitors, and jointly
innovative and environmental considerations.
Creating Waves of Change:
5
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ISSUES IN INNOVATION
Based upon Grove’s plastic audit led by Jezienicki and her team, Landesberg learned
that in the preceding six months, the company had shipped over 1,000 tons (1 million
kilograms) of plastic to its customers. Among the products that included plastic, only
9% were reusable while 17% of plastics sold on the platform contained recycled plastic.
In addition, only 15% of products sold on the company’s marketplace were plasticfree. Among several own-brand products, a reliance on plastics was often lower than
among third party brands. For example, the company’s own-branded products were
25% plastic-free – in comparison to the overall percentage of 15% of products sold on
the site. In addition, select Grove brands like Seedling were developed in a way to be
even more free of plastic (99% plastic-free), and acquired brands, like Sustain Natural
(maker of natural/organic health products), were either also largely plastic-free or used
primarily recycled or plant-based plastics. Jezienicki held strong beliefs about the need
to move beyond plastic and emphasized it was important to “move our industry and
the world forward.” Nevertheless, Jezienicki estimated that only 0-5% of third-party
brands on Grove’s marketplace would relatively easily meet a five-year plastic-free
deadline. Yet, the reasons for this differed based upon the type of third party. For
smaller companies that had plastic products, Jezienicki believed that the problem was
finding the budget and time to retool and reconfigure their products; for larger
companies, she estimated the problem was finding the willpower to make investments
in new versions of products with uncertain appeal to mainstream customers and
potentially lower gross margins.
Beyond insight from the plastic audit, Landesberg had turned to Silverman for
additional insights. Silverman had overseen the development of many Grove products
and his vision had been to eliminate any plastic components – to reach what Silverman
called “0% plastic.” To Silverman, 0% plastic was an “opportunity to lead the
consumer packaged goods industry in making the world a better place and to avoid
greenwashing.” However, he told Landesberg that “the company does not quite have
a viable pathway to accomplish a 0% plastic goal.” According to him, there were
important technical issues to address – for example, he stated “it can be challenging to
go about manufacturing the hand pump and trigger mechanisms in spray bottles
without plastic or to create plastic-free film pouches to hold liquids that would be light,
durable, and cheap.” Silverman estimated that in order to make a single product with
major plastic components (e.g., a product with a plastic handle and base) plastic-free,
it would take a team of two to three people with expertise in design, packaging, and
procurement six months, and capital costs for expenses such as retooling of
manufacturing machinery. However, sometimes, it was not possible to remake plastic
products in non-plastic versions similar in form and function.
To make certain products plastic-free (e.g., plastic pouches of cleaning liquid), and
to meet a public pledge to do so, it might require ingenuity and creativity – including
making fundamental changes to how products are conceived of and used. For example,
Silverman estimated it might be necessary to have people change the way they use
certain products (e.g., to clean in a different way) or to eliminate certain aspects of
products (e.g., removing forms of packaging). While such dramatic change had not yet
been achieved in a major Grove product, Silverman had worked to greatly reduce
plastic in one of Grove’s products by rethinking how cleaning fluids tended to be sold
and used. Instead of having consumers buy cleaning fluids in plastic bottles with premixed combinations of cleaning solution and water, Silverman worked to develop a
reusable spray bottle made mostly of glass that would be paired with small plastic tubes
6
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
of cleaning concentrate (see Exhibit 4). Customers would then combine the provided
amounts of concentrate with water inside of the spray bottle. This combination of
products reduced the amount of plastic per fluid ounce of cleaning concentrate. While
this innovation successfully reduced the amount of plastic associated with the purchase
of cleaning spray bottles, Landesberg was aware that in contrast to a single-use plastic
bottle of cleaning fluid, the need for the consumer to combine the concentrate with
water was a reduction in performance in the sense it added to the complexity of the
cleaning process, and required significant behavior change to shift to a refill model.
More broadly in other products, Silverman estimated that at least in the short term
(three to five years), such reductions in key dimensions of quality/performance for
plastic-free products were likely. However, in the longer term both Silverman and
Landesberg believed these products could help to redefine standards for how people
purchase and use household personal-care products (see Exhibit 5 for a chronological
list of innovations and developments at Grove).
To help convert products to plastic-free versions, Silverman estimated it would
likely be necessary to hire additional team members, bringing the overall costs for
transforming a single product into a plastic-free version to somewhere between
$100,000 and $500,000. However, his estimate was highly approximate for at least three
reasons. First, often the technology necessary to go plastic-free without large changes
(e.g. making them significantly heavier), for certain products, did not exist or was not
yet commercialized, potentially raising the cost and/or time required to make certain
products plastic-free. Second, it might be difficult to find manufacturers and/or
suppliers for non-plastic components, potentially raising the cost and time required.
Third, once one product was converted to a plastic-free version, the process and/or
technology that was used might be able to be used again, potentially lowering the
overall expense of plastic-free change. In contrast to going plastic-free, converting a
virgin-plastic product to one that used alternative plastics would, assuming the
availability of recycled or bioplastics, require far less expense.
ISSUES OF CUSTOMER PREFERENCES FOR INNOVATION
As with all innovations, there was the important question as to what extent customers
might value new product features. Landesberg had turned to Jezienicki to help him
characterize Grove’s existing and potential future customers, and to evaluate their likely
reactions to a potential pledge about products with less virgin plastic. Jezienicki
described Grove’s core customers in 2019 (a slight majority of overall Grove
customers) as price-conscious consumers located outside of urban and coastal areas in
the United States who placed a moderate priority on issues of environmental
sustainability. As an illustrative example, a typical Grove customer, according to
Jezienicki, was a “working mom in the Midwest who might be considering issues of
environmental sustainability for the first time – someone who is both motivated by
product effectiveness, safety, and sustainability, but also expects no (or very little)
increase in costs.” In contrast, according to Jezienicki, the remaining minority of Grove
customers placed a relatively higher priority on environmental sustainability, and were
relatively less price-conscious.
Beyond Grove’s existing customers, Jezienicki noted that environmental
sustainability was a top priority for a growing percentage of adults in the United States,
rising from 44% in 2002 to 64% in 2020.30 This was reflected in trends within the
sector as 50% of growth in the sales of CPG in the second decade of the 21st century
could be attributed to sustainable goods, demand largely attributed to younger
Creating Waves of Change:
7
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
generations.31 Thus, while a majority (57%) of respondents in a 2020 survey in the
United States reported that they preferred products delivered to them to contain less
plastic,32 this number could grow after 2020 as younger generations like Gen Z and
millennials (those born after 1980) tended to prioritize environmental sustainability at
higher levels than older generations.33 Indeed in 2019, millennials had outnumbered
the prior two generations with 72 million people.34
Despite the above trends, there were indications that the level of concern expressed
in opinion polling might not always translate to behavioral change in consumers (e.g.
to decisions to buy products that do not contain virgin plastic components). While
rates of recycling in the United States rose beginning early in the 21st century, they
peaked in 2011; in addition, rates of waste material recycled in the United States tended
to be low in states like Oklahoma and Mississippi, but higher in other states like
California.35 Reinforcing this insight, an in-depth survey of consumer residents in Ohio
(a large Midwestern state), revealed that a majority (61%) of residents with access to
recycling options could have been considered “half-hearted” or “aspiring” adherents
to recycling; that is, individuals who supported recycling in principle but admitted that
they could have improved their daily recycling practices. Meanwhile, 16% reported
being unwilling to recycle, leaving 22% that admitted to being “consistent” recyclers.36
Such numbers often tended to be broadly representative of the sort of Midwestern
communities that Grove’s core customer segment lived within.
While it was difficult for Jezienicki to perfectly predict how customers might react
to higher prices or changes in aspects of products (e.g. increased complexity) with
reduced plastic components, there were some statistics that provided insight. In a 2019
survey, 24% of American said they would pay 5% more to make coffee cups, cutlery,
and other daily use items more environmentally sustainable, 22% would pay 2% more,
while still another 20% would pay 1% extra – leaving 31% who would not pay any
additional amount.37 These numbers could be compared to the potential increase in
costs for non-plastic products as estimated by Silverman. Substitutes for plastic
components were often three to four times more expensive.38 For instance, if the price
of a virgin-plastic 20oz bottle for cleaning fluid was $0.20, a non-plastic alternative like
glass was $0.60. Assuming that the cleaning fluid product originally cost $6 and that all
added costs were passed onto customers, the non-plastic alternative would have
resulted in a price increase of approximately 7%. Importantly, these estimates excluded
increases in transportation costs (e.g., higher fuel costs associated with hauling more
weight), with non-plastic alternatives often being heavier and therefore more expensive
to ship.
While Jezienicki had at least some figures to estimate possible consumer reactions
to increases in the prices of Grove products, owing to plastic-related innovations, it
was much more difficult for her to estimate another important reaction: the possible
negative backlash from consumers if Grove did not live up to a public pledge to go
plastic-free. Despite this difficulty, there were indications that the backlash against
companies that violated environmental promises might be meaningful. For example,
in the early 21st century, environmental watchdogs like Greenpeace had monitored
company behaviors – leading to boycotts and negative press attention when the
companies were found to be engaging in problematic environmental practices.39
Furthermore, among companies that had made environmental sustainability pledges in
2015, there had been negative press coverage for companies that were not on track to
fulfill those pledges by 2020.40 Thus, Jezienicki perceived a real risk for Grove’s
reputation as a sustainability leader if it did not meet its public pledges. Jezienicki
estimated that this failure could be highlighted by news organizations, its competitors,
8
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
and/or third-party monitoring organizations like Greenpeace. Furthermore, Jezienicki
was aware that if the company eventually went public, its failure to live up to pledges
could negatively affect its stock price as more companies were increasingly being
judged by investors on their sustainability performance.41 Finally, there was the risk
that the many Grove employees who were attracted to the company for its
sustainability leadership might be demotivated by a failure, potentially leading to
diminished recruitment, performance, and/or retention.42
INNOVATION COMPETITION
Landesberg wondered to what extent developing products with less virgin plastic might
help Grove offer products that were attractive in relation to its competitors, and
whether or not a plastic pledge would help or hurt such attractiveness in relation to
such competitors. Grove’s competitors in 2020 were companies offering CPG
products and companies operating online marketplaces for CPG products. Among
online marketplaces, Landesberg was increasingly aware of the competition posed by
Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon had grown rapidly in the early 21st century to
become the dominant online marketplace in the United States; its size allowed it to
offer both low prices, speedy delivery, and a broad array of products.43 Among its
offerings of products were many plastic-free alternatives to many home and personal
care products. In late 2019, Amazon had announced a series of measures to make its
products and operations more environmentally sustainable; moreover, it had begun to
highlight products in its online marketplace that met different sustainability criteria.44
Beyond Amazon, Landesberg knew that there were smaller, often more niche, online
marketplaces. Some, like Petit Vour, focused on a specific aspect of ethics and
sustainability by only offering vegan products. Others, like DoneGood or Thrive
Market, offered a broader assortment of sustainable goods, for example ethically
sourced food and clothing, alongside home and personal care products that often
contained fewer plastic components than mainstream alternatives.
Among producers of CPG offerings there were at least three broad groups of
competitors: small and/or new entrants, medium-sized firms, and larger firms. Many
small companies and/or new entrants focused on plastic-related sustainability
innovations beyond what Grove had yet achieved. As an example, EcoRoots offered a
variety of personal care products and cleaning supplies with plastic-free and
compostable recyclable materials.45 Among companies of comparable size to Grove
were companies with a similar focus on reducing plastics. For example, The Honest
Co. had begun to emphasize a reliance on bio-based plastics. Finally, among companies
larger than Grove, sustainability offerings were more limited – and tended to focus
only on ways to offset plastic use and/or limit the use of only virgin plastics. For
example, Unilever promised to halve its use of virgin plastic by 2025, but not its overall
use of recycled or bio-based plastics (see Exhibit 6 for more information on
competing CPG manufacturers and their sustainability innovations).
Thanks in large part to Landesberg’s beliefs about the importance of corporate
collaboration in support of social welfare environmental sustainability, and the reality
that other companies making similar products to Grove also sold products on Grove’s
online marketplace, Grove’s relationship with competitors was complex. To this end,
Silverman and Jezienicki had helped Grove to join multiple industry working groups
to share best practices regarding the mitigation of plastic waste. Reflecting on this
behavior, Landesberg opined, “I think it would be great if our competitors started
copying us, because this would help to move the industry forward.” At the same time,
Creating Waves of Change:
9
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
such imitation was a threat to Grove’s differentiation from sustainability innovations
offered by competitors. For example, in 2019 the company Blueland launched a set of
tablet-based cleaning products that were meant to be added to water within reusable
spray bottles.46 This innovation was functionally similar to Grove’s development of
lower-plastic cleaning fluid concentrates paired with reusable spray bottles.
JOINTLY INNOVATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
While separate in one sense, issues of environmental sustainability and Grove’s
innovativeness as a company were intertwined. Thus, the decision to make a plasticfree pledge would need to account for both issues. To Landesberg, the synthesis of the
two issues was perhaps most tangible on a day-to-day basis via the increasing interest
of investors in devoting capital to companies that had both profitable new innovations
for customers and a positive environmental impact. The process of making
investments that generated both financial return, as well as environmental and social
value was known as impact investing,47 and the amount of capital available in the 21st
century from impact investing had grown rapidly to $2.1 trillion in 2020.48 As a rapidly
growing firm in 2020, Grove had turned to institutional investors in six separate rounds
in the preceding five years, raising over $300 million (see Exhibit 1). Outside
investment was necessary for the company to conduct research and development
(R&D) projects and to reach a greater scale. A greater scale was critical for Grove if it
hoped to be profitable, because margins for online CPG sales tended to be relatively
thin in comparison to brick-and-mortar sales (e.g., 31-35% for beauty and personal
care products via online sales versus 41-45% via brick-and-mortar stores).49 Beyond
supporting R&D and scaling, support from investors had also allowed Grove to add
innovative new offerings through the acquisition of smaller companies. Landesberg
believed Grove’s investors chose his company because of its ability to pursue both of
these aims simultaneously; nevertheless, Grove was a corporation with a charter that
required him to pursue the financial interests of shareholders, and inevitably investors
could push back on initiatives that did not clearly support growth and financial
profitability.
CHOOSING THE “GREENEST” PATH FORWARD
After cleaning up the spilled pizza, Landesberg rejoined his wife to watch TV, but his
thoughts were still focused on Grove’s future direction in relation to plastics. Based on
what he had learned from his senior staff, he believed a crucial decision was whether
or not to make a five-year public pledge for the company to eliminate all plastic
components in products sold on its online marketplace. Either way, Landesberg was
devoted to eliminating his company’s reliance on plastic, if possible within five years.
A public pledge might help the CPG sector to meet the UNEP’s 2025 goals and to
ensure that Grove would get the recognition it deserved for being the first CPG
manufacturer and marketplace its size to make such a move. However, such a pledge
would also be a “one-way door” that Grove could not retreat from. If Grove made the
public pledge, there was a risk that Grove and its third parties would miss the deadline
and violate their pledge – especially because some technologies and/or new materials
needed for cost-effective and efficient product reconfigurations (e.g., cheap substitutes
10
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
for plastic spray-bottle handles) were not yet available. Landesberg now had to decide
whether or not to make a five-year plastic-free pledge.
Creating Waves of Change:
11
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Exhibit 1: Grove Collaborative Characteristics as of early 2020
Overview & organization:
Industry: General retail (consumer packaged goods [CPG])
Year Founded: 2012
Headquarters: San Francisco, California, United States
Offerings:
Brands sold on online marketplace: ~100
Products sold on online marketplace: ~2,000
Grove-branded or Grove-owned products: ~100
Other third party products: ~1,900
Major product categories and product examples:
- Home cleaning (powder packs, dryer balls, cleaning
liquid/concentrate)
- Cleaning tools (sponges, dish cloths, reusable spray bottles,
cleaning gloves)
- Home accessories (food cutting board, dish soap dish, dish
drying mat)
- Health and personal care (hand sanitizer, shampoo,
aromatherapy oils)
Financials:*
2019
2018
2017
2016
Revenue
$170 million
$104 million
$32 million
$4 million
Employees
1,500
1,020
235
<50
Fundraising:*
Round D – 2019: $150 million
Multiple equity rounds – 2018: $104 million
Round C – 2018: $37 million
Round B – 2017: $15 million
Equity round - 2016: $6 million
Round A – 2015: $5 million
Sources: Details marked with an asterisk were drawn from PrivCo (2022) all others
were sources via personal correspondence of the authors with Grove Collaborative.
12
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Exhibit 2: Sample of marketing material from the company’s time as ePantry
(above) and Grove Collaborative (below)
Source: personal correspondence of the authors with Grove Collaborative.
Creating Waves of Change:
13
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
2.87%
0.16%
Bottle (PET)
Bottle Stopper
(Polypropylene)
No
Yes
Is a recycling system
in practice and at
scale?
Yes
Recycling of
polypropylene (#5) is
not proven to be at
scale and in practice.
Only about 1% of
polypropylene is
recycled in the US.
Source: Balance Small
Business
Supporting data, proof
points, estimates and
assumptions
In 2018, ~30% of PET
bottles were recycled in
the US. Source:
Resource Recycling
In 2018, ~30% of PET
bottles were recycled in
the US. Source:
Resource Recycling
14
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
Source: personal correspondence of the authors with Grove Collaborative.
Bottle (HDPE)
Share of plastic
packaging
portfolio by weigh
4.45%
Packaging category
100.00%
100.00%
Share that ‘fits’
recycling system
Many of these
products contain
80%-100% PCR
plastic
Comments
Exhibit 3: Sample of Grove’s measurement of plastic in products sold on its online marketplace
We are currently
transitioning to 100% PCR
plastic in all hand sanitizer
bottles. We are exploring
the possibility of aluminum
later in 2021 in these
products as well.
Next steps
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Exhibit 4: Illustration of the Grove reusable plastic bottle and cleaning
concentrate product combination (first picture) and an illustration of
combining the concentrate with water (second picture)
Source: personal correspondence of the authors with Grove Collaborative.
Creating Waves of Change:
15
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Exhibit 5: Example list of innovations/developments at Grove
Year
Innovation
2012
Company founded as “ePantry” – selling all third party products
2013
Company begins selling its own-branded products
2014
Company becomes a B Corp certified by B Lab
2016
Company rebrands as Grove Collaborative
2018
Development of concentrate-based cleaning fluid combination (see
Exhibit 3)
2018
Development of other plastic-free products including bamboo-based
straws
2019
Carbon-neutral shipments and facilities
2019
Grove launches “Roven” a clean-beauty concept emphasizing natural and
plant-based products
2019
Acquisition of Sustain Natural – maker of natural/organic and non-toxic
sexual health products
Source: personal correspondence of the authors with Grove Collaborative.
16
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Exhibit 6: Select characteristics of exemplar Grove competitors
Category
Exemplar
companies
Revenue
estimation
(*or valuation;
2018-2019)
*650 million50
All recyclable packaging and
commitment to offsetting plastic
waste in products
Petit Vour**
$3 million51
Offers a line of “zero waste”
beauty products with minimal
plastic components and vegan
ingredients
By Humankind,
Inc.
*$10 million
Blueland
*$13.5 million53
No single-use plastics and
recyclable or compostable
packaging
The Honest
Company, Inc.
$303 million54
Emphasizes bio-based plastics, and
increased recyclability of packaging
Dr. Bronner’s
Magic Soaps
$123 million55
100% post-consumer recycled
plastic packaging and 100%
recycled shipping boxes
Amazon.com, Inc.
$280 billion56
Supporting recycling infrastructure
and wider use of recycled plastic
packaging
Walmart.com
$514 billion57
Goal of 20% plastic packaging
made of recycled plastic material by
2025
S.C. Johnson &
Son, Inc.
$32 billion58
Unilever, plc
$57 billion59
Thrive Market,
Inc.**
Smaller online
marketplaces
Smaller CPG
manufacturers
Moderately-sized CPG
manufacturers
52
Larger companies with
online marketplaces
Larger CPG
manufacturers
Example plastic and/or
sustainability-related
innovations
Plastic & carbon offsets, “Earthfriendly” packaging and few singleuse plastics
Works to promote recycling,
education, & offset plastic waste
Plan to halve use of virgin plastic
by 2025 & offset plastic waste in
the meantime
Source: All references for sustainability innovations come from company websites and annual/impact
reports.
Creating Waves of Change:
17
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
NOTES
1 Business Insights Global, 2020
2 PrivCo, 2022
3 Greenpeace, 2018
4 United Nations Environment Programme, 2014
5 United Nations Environment Programme, 2020
6 Seventh Generation, 2020
7 Vogtlander et al., 2010
8 B Lab, 2020
9 MacArthur Foundation, 2016
10 American Chemistry Council, 2016
11 Center for International Environmental Law, 2019
12 Ioakeimidis et al., 2016
13 World Economic Forum, 2016
14 Schmidt et al., 2017
15 Williams & Simmons, 1996
16 Gall & Thompson, 2015
17 Lamb et al., 2018
18 United Nations Environment Programme, 2014
19 Vethaak & Leslie, 2016
20 Huang et al., 2020
21 Geyer et al., 2017
22 ibid
23 Hopewell et al., 2009
24 United Nations, 2020
25 MacArthur Foundation, 2016
26 The Economist, 2018
27 Ara, I., 2022
28 Greenpeace, 2018
29 Unilever, 2021
30 reviewer request end note?
31 Resource-Recycling, 2020
32 BBC, 2018
33 Pew Research Center, 2020
34 Forbes, 2021
18
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
35 Pew Research, 2021
36 Fry, 2020
37 Ipsos MORI, 2019
38 SWACO, 2018
39 Public Broadcasting Service, 2019
40 Still, 2014
41 Gillespie et al. 2020
42 Rockefeller Foundation, 2021
43 Aguinis & Glavas, 2012
44 BBC, 2021
45 Amazon, 2021
46 EcoRoots, 2021
47 Fast Company, 2019
48 Rockefeller Foundation, 2021
49 Lamy et al. 2021
50 PrivCo, 2022
51 Livekindly, 2021
52 PrivCo, 2022
53 Inc.com, 2019
54 PrivCo, 2022
55 Vox, 2019
56 Amazon, 2020
57 Walmart. 2019
58 PrivCo, 2022
59 Unilever, 2021
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate
social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4),
932-968.
Amazon. 2020. Amazon Form 10k. Retrieved from
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872420000004/amzn20191231x10k.htm#s8E8605F877AD5064B9C4E50BBEC6C4A4
Amazon. (2021). The Climate Pledge. Retrieved from
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/the-climate-pledge
Creating Waves of Change:
19
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
American Chemistry Council. (2016). Plastics and sustainability: A valuation of
environmental benefits, costs, and opportunities for continuous improvement.
Retrieved from plastics.americanchemistry.com
Ara, I. (2022, June, 30). This is what a radical plastic ban looks like. Time Magazine.
Arbor Day. (2018). Arbor Day foundation announces new partnership with Grove
Collaborative (Press Release). Retrieved from arborday.org
BBC. (2018). What's the real price of getting rid of plastic packaging? Retrieved
fromhttps://www.bbc.com
BBC. (2021). Amazon: The unstoppable rise of the internet giant. Retrieved from
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55927979
B Lab. (2020). About B corps. Retrieved on August, 2020 from
www.bcorporation.net
Borrelle, S. B., Ringma, J., Law, K. L., Monnahan, C. C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
... & Rochman, C. M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to
mitigate plastic pollution. Science, 369(6510), 1515-1518.
Business Insights Global. (2020). Fastest-growing private consumer products and
services companies in the U.S., 2014-2017. Retrieved August, 2020 from Business
Insights Global database.
Center for International Environmental Law. (2019). Plastic & climate: The hidden
costs of a plastic planet. Retrieved from www.ciel.org
CNN Business. (2020). This company thinks its plastic alternative can help solve
climate change. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2020/10/19/tech/plastic-dissolvingnewlight-aircarbon-climate/index.html
EcoRoots. (2020). About EcoRoots. Retrieved from www.ecoroots.us
Environmental Protection Agency (2020). Safer Choice Partner of the Year Award
Winners: Profiles. Retrieved October 2020 https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/2020safer-choice-partner-year-award-winners-profiles#tab-8
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., ...
& Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion
plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS One, 9(12), e111913.
Fast Company. (2019). The shockingly simple way to make packaging more
sustainable. Retrieved from www.fastcopmany.com
Forbes. (2021). How Done Good Creates A Purpose-Only Online Marketplace To
Connect Purpose-Minded Retailers With Purpose-Minded Consumers. Retrieved
from https://www.forbes.com/
Fry, R. (2020). Millennials overtake baby boomers as America’s largest generation.
Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org
Gall, S. C., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 92(1-2), 170-179.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all
plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782.
20
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Gillespie, T., Warren, H., & Randall, T. (2020). Time’s up on corporate America’s
2020 climate goals. Here’s the results. Bloomberg. Retrieved from
www.bloomberg.com
Greenpeace. (2018). Fighting plastic pollution. Retrieved in August, 2020 from
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/issues/fighting-plastic-pollution/
Hopewell, Jefferson, Robert Dvorak, and Edward Kosior. (2009). Plastics recycling:
challenges and opportunities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (2009): 2115-2126.
Huang, J., Nkrumah, P. N., Li, Y., & Appiah-Sefah, G. (2013). Chemical behavior of
phthalates under abiotic conditions in landfills. Reviews of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology Volume 224, 39-52.
Inc.com. (2019). These founders nearly left 'Shark Tank' without a deal. Retrieved
from www.inc.com
Ioakeimidis, C., Fotopoulou, K. N., Karapanagioti, H. K., Geraga, M., Zeri, C.,
Papathanassiou, E., ... & Papatheodorou, G. (2016). The degradation potential of
PET bottles in the marine environment: An ATR-FTIR based approach. Scientific
reports, 6(1), 1-8.
Ipsos MORi. (2018). Public concern about plastic and packaging waste is not backed up by
willingness to act. Retrieved from www.ipsos.com
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., ... &
Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223),
768-771.
Lamb, J. B., Willis, B. L., Fiorenza, E. A., Couch, C. S., Howard, R., Rader, D. N., ...
& Harvell, C. D. (2018). Plastic waste associated with disease on coral
reefs. Science, 359(6374), 460-462.
Lamy, Y., Leijonhufvud, C., & O’Donohoe, N. (2021). The next 10 year of impact
investing. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from www.ssir.org
Livekindly. (2021). This Is How Petit Vour Made Vegan Beauty Mainstream.
Retrieved from https://www.livekindly.co/how-petit-vour-made-vegan-beautymainstream/
MacArthur Foundation. (2016). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of
plastics. Retrieved from www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org
McKinsey & Company (2021). High growth low profit: The ecommerce dilemma for CPG
companies. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com
NPR. (2019) Plastic Has A Big Carbon Footprint — But That Isn't The Whole Story.
Retrieved from npr.org/
Pew Research Center. (2019). U.S. public views on climate and energy. Retrieved
from www.pewresearch.org
Pew Research Center. (2020). As economic concerns recede, environmental protection rises on the
public’s policy agenda. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org
Pew Research Center. (2021). Gen Z, Millennials stand out for climate change activism, social
media engagement with issue. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org
PrivCo. (2022). Company profiles. Retrieved August, 2020 from PrivCo database
Creating Waves of Change:
21
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.
For the exclusive use of M. Alkhaja, 2025.
Public Broadcasting Service. (2019). Most Americans would pay more to avoid using
plastic. Retrieved from www.pbs.org
Resource-Recycling. (2020). Low virgin plastics pricing pinches recycling market
further. Retrieved from https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2020/05/06/lowvirgin-plastics-pricing-pinches-recycling-market-further/
Rockefeller Foundation (2021). Unlocking capital, activating a movement.
Rockefeller Foundation. Retrieved from www.rockefellerfoundation.org
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., & Wagner,. S. (2017). Export of plastic debris by rivers into
the sea. Environmental science & technology, 51(21), 12246-12253.
Seventh Generation. (2020). Zero waste journey. Retrieved from
www.seventhgeneration.com
SWACO [Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio]. (2017). Report of research results.
Retrieved from www.swaco.org
Still, J. (2014). Five Greenpeace campaigns against companies: Lego, Barbie, and
Shell. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com
The Economist. (2018). The known unknowns of plastic pollution. Retrieved from
www.economist.com
Unilever. (2021). Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.unilever.com
United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). Valuing plastics: The business case
for measuring, managing and disclosing plastic use in the consumer goods industry.
Retrieved from wedocs.unep.org
United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). The global commitment: 2020
progress report. Retrieved from www.unep.org
United Nations. (2020). Play it out: Beat plastic pollution. Retrieved August, 2020
from https://www.un.org/pga/73/playitout/
Vethaak, A. D., & Leslie, H. A. (2016). Plastic debris is a human health issue.
Environmental Science and Technology, 50(13), 6825-6826.
Vogtländer, J., Van der Lugt, P., & Brezet, H. (2010). The sustainability of bamboo
products for local and Western European applications. LCAs and land-use. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 18(13), 1260-1269.
Vox.com. (2019). How a decades-old hippie soap brand became a touchstone of
wellness culture. Retrieved from www.vox.com
Walmart. 2019. Walmart,Inc. Form 10k. Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov
West-Rosenthal, L. B. (2020, May). 22 big companies that are getting rid of plastic for
good. Reader’s Digest. Retrieved from www.rd.com
Williams, A. T., & Simmons, S. L. (1996). The degradation of plastic litter in rivers:
implications for beaches. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 2(1), 63-72.
World Economic Forum (2016). The new plastics economy: Rethinking the future of
plastics. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from www3.weforum.org
22
Case Research Journal •Volume 42• Issue 4• Fall 2022
This document is authorized for use only by Maryam Alkhaja in TGM586: Global Sustainable Enterprise- Spring 2025 - TTH430 taught by Shirley-Ann Behravesh, Thunderbird School of Global
Management from Jan 2025 to Jul 2025.