Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
Exploratory examination of whether marketers include stakeholders
in the green new product development process
Michael Jay Polonsky
a
a,*
, Jacquelyn A. Ottman
b
Department of Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW 2308, Australia
b
J. Ottman Consulting, Inc., 1133 Broadway, New York, NY 10010, USA
Abstract
Many firms are attempting to make their products less environmentally harmful. However, marketers and others within the firm
often have limited environmental expertise. When attempting to ‘green’ its products, it is therefore important that the firm include
a broader set of stakeholders in the green new product development (NPD) process, as this ensures that all relevant environmental
issues are considered. This paper examines US and Australian marketers’ perceptions of stakeholders’ involvement in the green
NPD process to determine whether stakeholders with this broader environmental expertise are included. It also examines the specific
strategies US marketers within the study used to involve these groups in the green NPD process. It was found that the strategies
used were basic in nature and some additional strategies are suggested.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: New product development; Stakeholders; Green marketing
1. Introduction
It has been suggested that the 1990s is the decade of
the environment. Going green is not only good for the
environment, but it also provides a competitive advantage for businesses [1,2]. While an increased interest in
the environment has important ramifications for all
aspect of business, it may also require a substantial shift
in corporate culture [3], thus ensuring that environmental
objectives are core issues of consideration.
The literature suggests that marketers traditionally
play an active role in the development of all new products, green and non-green alike [4–6]. While this paper
assumes that marketers are key players in the new product development (NPD) process, it also recognises that
there are other key internal players as well. Given marketers’ zeal to market new innovative products and ideas,
it is therefore not surprising that they have been quick
to jump on the green bandwagon [7], developing and
promoting the environmental ‘benefits’ of their products
[5,6,8]. This has resulted in the development of new pro-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61-2-4921-5013; Fax: 61-2-49216911; E-mail: mgmjp@cc.newcastle.edu.au
0959-6526/98/$19.00  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 6 4 - 4
ducts, refinement of existing products or simply ‘promoting’ existing goods differently. However, in the past
many of these ‘new’ green products have failed in the
marketplace. This has occurred because: (1) they do not
substantively improve the product’s environmental performance; (2) the product’s environmental ‘benefit’ is
questionable; or (3) the product does not perform as well
as traditional products.
This is not to suggest that there are no truly environmentally innovative firms. Some firms and their products
have been recognised as less environmentally harmful
by leading environmental groups, as well as by various
industry associations. For example, within the American
Marketing Association’s (AMA) Edison Awards for new
product development, there is a special category for
recognising leading environmentally oriented products
[9,10]. The fact that there are a growing number of
entrants in this award category is one indication that
‘real’ environmental changes are taking place. Marketers
and others involved in the NPD process are integrating
the environment into the corporate culture and are not
simply tacking it on as an afterthought [9].
For ‘real’ environmental improvements to occur, marketers need to consider the environmental impacts of all
activities before the product is designed or modified
270
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
[5,6]. However, marketers will most likely will be
unfamiliar with all of the environmental intricacies of
their firm’s activities and would therefore need to obtain
input from various stakeholders with environmental
expertise [8]. As this information may not even be available within the firm, marketers may be forced to rely
heavily on a broad set of external stakeholders for
environmental input. Simply focusing on customers and
suppliers will be insufficient, as these groups frequently
do not have all the essential environmental information
needed to ensure that a product’s environmental harm
is reduced.
Some firms already involve a broad set of stakeholders
in their green NPD processes, including environmental
groups [11–13]. For example, in their quest to replace
polystyrene clamshell packaging, McDonalds consulted
with the Environmental Defense Fund. In another situation the Canadian retailer Loblaws asked Pollution
Probe to assist them in developing a range of environmental products [13,14], and it was an environmentalist
who first suggested to Church and Dwight that their Arm
and Hammer Brand could be used as an environmentally
preferable cleaning product.
These external groups usually have a better understanding of the relevant environmental issues and can
thus assist organisations in producing less environmentally harmful products. The involvement of more stakeholders in the formulation of environmental marketing
strategy should enable marketers to consider all of the
relevant environmental issues. However, including
additional stakeholders may result in product development and implementation processes becoming more
complex.
This paper is an exploratory examination of marketing
managers’ perceptions, to identify which stakeholders
they believe should be ‘involved’ in green product development and how they have involved these groups. This
is done through an examination of two separate samples.
The first involves an in-depth examination of US marketing managers whose products have won the Environmental Edison Award during 1993–1996. The second
involves examining Australian marketers’ attitudes
towards stakeholders in the green product development.
It is envisaged that the results will provide information
that can be used by marketing managers to include
environmental marketing stakeholders in green product
development in the future.
2. Background
New product literature identifies that there are many
areas where stakeholders can assist with NPD, with most
of the research examining the generation of new product
ideas. Traditionally, a broad range of stakeholders are
involved in the NPD process, including: buyers, cus-
tomers, R&D departments, company executives (e.g.
marketing, finance, manufacturing), competitors, freelance
investors,
government,
suppliers,
and
universities/scientific community [5,15,16]. Some
research has suggested that different types of industries
(high verses low technology industries) require the
involvement of different stakeholders [16]. The interaction between stakeholders and the firm is growing and
becoming more complex. To ensure that innovative products are developed, it is therefore necessary that firms
form strategic alliances with their stakeholders [17]. In
the green product area there are many ‘real world’
examples of where firms have worked with stakeholders
to develop such environmentally improved products
[11–14].
The degree of stakeholder involvement will vary by
situation and, while some stakeholders are not directly
involved in generation of new ideas, it is important for
them to be involved if the product is to succeed. For
example, financial bodies may be willing to share the
risk of developing a new product in return for a higher
stake in the investment [17]. While these stakeholders
may be essential to the NPD process, it is unclear
whether they play an active role in the generation of
new ideas. Furthermore, it is unclear whether marketers
traditionally consider how the firm could interact with
these ‘other’ stakeholders and thereby ensure the successful development of these new green products.
The involvement of internal stakeholders is also discussed extensively in the new product literature, with
some authors focusing on the use, management and
structure of new product or innovation teams [18,19].
Much of this work focuses on the specific types of structures that enable the firm to bring products to the market
more quickly, cheaply, or efficiently. Firms regularly
involve internal stakeholders who control key resources
or have specific expertise that makes the process more
effective, and there is no reason that the same
approaches could not be applied to deal with external
stakeholders [20].
The green NPD process appears to extensively involve
those external stakeholders [11–14]. One reason for this
is that environmental issues have traditionally not been
a ‘core’ function for most firms and even if they wanted
to be leaders in the environmental area they would not
have the necessary expertise to do so. External assistance
allows firms to keep pace with rapidly changing environmental technology and environmental regulation.
While it is recognised that a broad set of stakeholders
are important to green NPD, the authors have not found
any research that examines how these groups could or
should be incorporated into this process. However, there
is some work that examines specific cases [14,21].
Should organisations simply open lines of communication with stakeholders, actively include them in the
planning process, or form formal strategic alliances to
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
achieve some common objective? Alternatively, organisations could simply choose to ignore these environmental stakeholders and thus not incorporate them into the
process at all. Polonsky has suggested that there are four
broad types of approaches that can be adopted to include
stakeholders or address their interests [22]. Firms can
adopt a(n):
1. isolationist approach, where the firm attempts to
minimise the impact of a given stakeholder, without directly interacting with the stakeholder;
2. aggressive approach, where the firm attempts to
directly change the stakeholder’s views or ability
to influence organisational outcomes;
3. adapting approach, where the firm modifies its
behaviour according to the stakeholder’s interests; and
4. cooperative approach, where the firm attempts to
work with the stakeholder to achieve a desired set
of outcomes.
Furthermore, Polonsky [21] has suggested that stakeholders can affect marketing behaviour/development in
three ways: directly threaten, directly cooperate, and
indirectly influence others to act. He also noted that at
any one time each stakeholder has varying levels of all
three influencing abilities [22]. Whether stakeholders
exert those abilities is another matter. Organisational
behaviour and strategy are therefore largely dependent
on how stakeholders behave [8,22]. A stakeholder who
has a low cooperating, low threatening and low indirect
influencing ability might only require that the firm monitor the stakeholder for changes in their behaviour.
Whereas if a stakeholder has a high level of these three
influencing abilities, the firm might be more likely to
formally include the stakeholder in the development process, or adopt behaviours consistent with the stakeholder’s concerns, thus getting them or keeping them
on-side.
3. Methodology
Two different samples were examined to determine
whether marketers believe that stakeholders have the
ability to influence green marketing activities and green
NPD processes. One sample was examined in more
depth to determine what specific strategies marketers use
to address stakeholders’ interests in the green NPD process.
The first sample surveyed US marketing managers
who had been involved in the development of products
winning the AMA’s Environmental Edison Award
[9,10]. These managers were asked to evaluate the
potential influence of 13 stakeholders in the development
and marketing of these green products (academics/
scientific community, competitors, employees/unions,
271
end customers, federal government, local community,
media, retailers/trade, shareholders/owners, special interest groups, state and local government, suppliers, top
management). Respondents were asked to rate stakeholders’ three influencing abilities on a seven-point
scale, where 1 is very high ability and 7 is very low
ability. The three questions were loosely based on the
work of Kreiner and Bhambri [23], who asked a similar
question regarding stakeholders’ attributed power [23].
The three questions asked managers to evaluate stakeholders’ direct threatening ability, direct cooperating
ability, and ability to indirectly influence others to act.
Using a seven-point scale, where 1 is very high ability
and 7 is very low ability, US respondents were also
asked to evaluate the importance of each group to the
new product process. Lastly, they were also asked to
briefly describe how they included or considered each
stakeholder or their interest when developing their green
product. In this way the US marketers provided detailed
information on specific approaches that had been used
to address stakeholders in the green NPD process.
The second sample was collected as part of a larger
study, where members of the Australian Marketing Institute in New South Wales were sent a survey relating to
stakeholder theory and its applicability to marketing.
Part of the survey asked respondents to evaluate a set of
eight stakeholders (competitors, customers, employees,
government, owners/ stockholders, special interest
groups, suppliers, top management) regarding a hypothetical scenario, in which they were responsible for the
development of a green product. The questions used to
evaluate stakeholders’ influence were similar to those
administered to US marketers. Given that this sample
was based on a hypothetical scenario, a smaller set of
stakeholders was examined and respondents were not
asked to rate stakeholders’ importance or provide a discussion of processes used to include stakeholders in the
green NPD process.
4. Results
The quantitative results of the survey are summarised
in Table 1. This lists the mean value for US respondents
for the question relating to stakeholders’ overall importance to the green NPD process (column 1), the mean
value of stakeholders’ ability to influence organisational
outcomes for both samples (columns 2–4), and the number of influencing abilities for which there was general
agreement between the two samples (column 5). The
lower the mean value, the higher the perceived influence
and importance; mean values of less than 3.5 are classified as high (H) and mean values equal to or greater than
3.5 are classified as low (L).
The US data represents responses from six of the 15
272
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
Table 1
US and Australian marketing managers’ perceptions of stakeholders’ importance and involvement; mean response and level: ⬍ 3.5 ⫽ high (H),
ⱖ 3.5 ⫽ low (L)
Stakeholder group
a
Academics/scientific
community
Competitors
Employees/unions
End customers
a
Federal government
a
Local community
a
Media
a
Retailers/trade
Shareholders/owners
Special interest
groups
State and local gov.
Suppliers
Top management
a
1. Importance 2. Direct threatening ability
USA
USA
6.3 L
5.0 L
3.8
4.7
1.5
6.2
5.7
5.5
2.3
3.8
6.2
3.7
5.8
3.3
2.5
5.7
3.7
1.8
3.7
4.7
L
L
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
5.7 L
3.3 H
3.0 H
L
Lb
Hb
H
L
L
H
L
L
4.0 L
2.8 H
1.8 Hb
AUST
3. Direct cooperating ability
4. Indirect influencing ability 5. Consistency
in influencing
abilities
(columns 2–4)
USA
USA
AUST
3.7 L
2.6 H
3.5 Lb
2.5 Hb
Lb
L
Hb
L
L
H
H
Lb
L
3.3 H
3.3 H
4.8
4.3
2.8
4.7
6.3
1.7
1.7
5.0
4.8
3.3 H
3.7 L
2.2 Hb
5.5 Lb
3.5 L
2.3 Hb
AUST
3.8 H
4.7 Lb
2.6 H
2.3 Hb
Hb
L
Hb
L
L
H
H
Lb
L
2.4 Hb
3.4 H
2.0 Hb
2 of 3
1 of 3
3 of 3
3.5 L
2.9 H
3.2
5.7
3.3
4.0
5.5
1.7
1.8
4.5
4.7
3.9 L
2.5 H
2 of 3
0 of 3
3.6 Lb
3.3 H
2.2 Hb
4.8 L
4.8 Lb
4.3 L
3.0 H
3.8 Lb
2.8 H
1 of 3
1 of 3
2 of 3
These stakeholders were not examined by the Australian sample.
Australian and US managers’ perceptions are consistent in regard to this stakeholder’s influencing ability.
b
US marketing managers (40% response rate) whose products won Environmental Edison Awards between 1992
and 1996. One responding company did not provide strategies (i.e. they did not complete the open-ended
questions) and one non-responding firm, who had won
the award twice, indicated that the information asked for
was confidential. Thus, there may, in fact, be some nonrespondent bias, as some firms may have implemented
detailed processes for dealing with their stakeholders,
but were not willing to communicate them to the authors.
When rating the importance of stakeholders (column
1) to the green NPD process, US managers felt that four
of the 13 stakeholders were important (end consumers,
retailers, suppliers, top management), which represents
three of the eight stakeholder groups that were examined
in both samples. US respondents also felt that six of the
stakeholders (scientific community, employees, local
community, owners, special interest groups, local
government) had a low influencing ability for all three
criteria (columns 2–4). The US respondents identified
that competitors, federal government and suppliers were
‘high’ on only one influencing ability. Their attitude
towards suppliers was interesting, as it would be
expected that ‘important’ stakeholders would also have
a substantial influencing ability. Of the remaining four
stakeholders, the media and top management were rated
as ‘high’ on two influencing criteria. End consumers and
retailers were rated as ‘high’ on all three influencing
abilities and were also rated as important to the green
NPD process.
The Australian sample was based on a survey of 1370
members of the Australian Marketing Institute (119
responses, 8.77% response rate). While respondents
were given the opportunity to provide additional stakeholders to this list, only nine ‘additional’ stakeholders
were identified, with none suggested by more than five
respondents. A statistical examination of early and late
respondents indicated that there was no non-response
bias.
In contrast to the US sample, on average, the Australian respondents rated all stakeholders as ‘high’ on at
least one of the three influencing abilities (columns 2–
4). Only two stakeholders are evaluated as ‘low’ on two
influencing abilities, owners (‘low’ on cooperate and
indirect influence) and suppliers (‘low’ on threat and
indirect influence). It appears that Australian marketers
believe that all eight stakeholders can influence the
development and marketing of green products, as all are
rated as ‘high’ on at least one criterion. Consequently,
these groups’ interests should be addressed in the new
product process, and one might expect that they would
participate in the green NPD process.
An examination of column 5 of Table 1 suggests that
there is broad agreement across samples regarding
respondents’ perceptions of stakeholders’ influencing
abilities. Of the eight stakeholders common to both
samples, there was agreement on at least two of the three
dimensions for half the groups. For example, respondents in both samples felt that consumers had a high
level of all three influencing abilities. While respon-
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
dents’ views are not identical, they are consistent for half
the items (12 of 24). When disagreement does occur, US
marketers who had developed green products believed
that the various stakeholders were less influential in the
green NPD process than their Australian counterparts.
In examining the detailed responses relating to specific strategies used to address stakeholders’ interests
(US sample only as Australians were not asked this
question), few concrete suggestions were put forward.
Most of the suggested strategies were generalist in nature
and broadly related to monitoring and understanding the
wider business environment. For example, regarding the
federal government, one respondent stated ‘FTC marketing advertising guidelines are the only place we pay
attention.’ In addition, the broad strategies that were suggested did not focus on the ‘important’ stakeholders. For
example, there were no suggestions made for dealing
with top management, and those relating to suppliers
were less than innovative (i.e. ‘we rely on them for
raw materials’).
Given that these products are supposed to have an
environmental ‘advantage’ over competing products, the
researchers would have expected that firms would have
actively involved stakeholders with appropriate scientific
and/or environmental expertise. In the US sample, three
of the six respondents suggested that they ‘actively’
worked with the scientific/academic community to
develop their products and none of the respondents suggested that they worked with environmental groups, who
are supposedly environmental experts, to develop the
firm’s products.
This is not to suggest that marketers did not involve
any stakeholders in the green NPD process. For example,
one firm suggested that it was their employees’ innovations that motivated the product’s development, and
another two stated they liked to involve employees in
the development process when possible. All the respondents also suggested that final customers were very
important and they tried to identify their needs and work
with them when possible. Two respondents went even
further and suggested that customers need to understand
the products’ environmental benefits. This suggests that
the firms may not be simply reacting to the business
environment, but may be proactive in their activities and
try to shape stakeholders’ perceptions.
While not found within the study, the literature and
popular press report many cases were firms work with
stakeholders in a range of ways to develop less environmentally harmful products. While respondents did not
suggest that they extensively involve external stakeholders with environmental expertise in the green NPD
process, there are many other firms who appear to be
taking such approaches. These include: hiring environmental stakeholders as consultants [24]; forming task
forces combining firms and green groups [12];
developing strategic alliances with green groups [13,14];
273
having stakeholders undertake lobbying to change regulations; or simply opening the tendering process to
include green groups [13].
5. Implications and conclusions
The results of this study suggest that marketers are
not necessarily learning from others (even competitors)
who are developing green products. Another possibility
is that firms are in the beginning of the greening process
and do not require external participation to make real
environmental improvements and thus develop an
environmental competitive advantage [1]. But as firms
further develop their greening activities, they will require
additional expertise to enable more substantial environmental improvements. Alternatively, it might be that
some of these activities are occurring, but are outside
the domain of marketing. If the latter suggestion is true,
it implies that marketers are not as integral to the NPD
process as the literature suggests.
From the two samples it appears that, overall, marketers believe the stakeholders examined have varying
abilities to influence the development of green products.
Consequently, it would therefore be expected that all
environmental stakeholders would be involved in the
green NPD process. However, based on the US
responses, it does not seem that marketers actively
involve these or any other groups in the green NPD process and, thus, it is unclear if the ‘green’ products on the
market are as environmentally benign as they could be.
Some marketers are attempting to ‘involve’ stakeholders in the green NPD process, by adapting their
firm’s behaviour to address stakeholders’ interests.
While on the surface this may seem to suggest that firms
have a market-oriented approach to product design, it
assumes that the stakeholders’ ‘interests’ are indeed the
most environmentally appropriate. But what if the stakeholders are wrong? For example, because of consumer
concern over greenhouse gases, McDonalds replaced its
polystyrene clamshell packaging with coated paper
[13,14]. However, there has been some scientific debate
whether this was environmentally a better decision. For
Mcdonalds it was easier to modify their behaviour to
address consumers’ interests, rather than to change consumers’ attitudes towards polystyrene.
Thus, ‘listening’ to a given stakeholder group may be
a reactive strategy, whereas working with stakeholders
to identify appropriate solutions may ensure that key
environmental issues are identified and addressed. There
are several examples where firms have worked with
green groups to develop less environmentally harmful
products [12–14,22]. In these cases the solutions do not
simply address a key stakeholder’s interests, but rather
they consider alternatives that address all groups’ objectives. Such an approach requires that stakeholders are
274
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
formally integrated into the green NPD process and not
considered as an external force. In this study none of the
strategies suggested by US marketers indicated that they
use an integrative approach to green NPD.
This study highlights that, while marketers in the US
and Australia believed various stakeholders were
important to the green NPD process, these stakeholders’
interests were not formally included in the green NPD
process. Some of the approaches suggested by US marketers suggest that they do not work in total isolation.
For example, one firm suggested they work with the
scientific community and another suggested they work
with their employees to develop green products. However, working with stakeholders may be different than
addressing their needs, especially if ‘working with’
means hiring these groups as employees and/or paid consultants. A cooperative approach would hopefully ensure
that the objectives of external stakeholders and the firm
are met. As such, a process requires that there is extensive formal communication between the parties and not
simple reaction on the part of the firm to some perceived ‘problem’.
None of the US respondents suggested that they use
innovative cooperative arrangements. As mentioned
earlier, such practices include having firms working with
stakeholders who have environmental expertise to solve
specific business problems. Interestingly, the US respondents did not believe that any of these ‘environmental
experts’ (governmental bodies, special interest groups,
scientific community) had a ‘high’ ability to influence
the green NPD process and might explain why they were
not involved. On the other hand, the Australian respondents reported that all these environmental experts could
significantly affect the firms’ green NPD process
(although this was in relation to a hypothetical scenario).
Cooperative arrangements not only ensure products
are less environmentally harmful, but have added benefits [10] that include additional credibility in the marketplace and improvement of others’ perceptions of the
firms and their products [13]. None of the respondents
suggested that stakeholders could proactively be used to
influence others in this way. This result is especially surprising given the fact that respondents believed many of
the stakeholders examined (6/8 in the Australian and
4/13 in the US) had a ‘high’ indirect influencing ability.
This is especially surprising given that this practice has
previously been successfully used by many other organisations. Thus, it appears that the respondents are not
learning from others operating in the green product area.
One would have expected that firms which had won a
green product award would be leaders, both in the development of green products and in the application of strategies to facilitate their development. Although, as was
suggested earlier, this might simply mean that firms are
making the ‘easy’ environmental improvements and thus
do not need external expertise, but will need it in the
future when they tackle the more substantial environmental problems [1].
Firms are not the only ones to benefit from these
alliances, as the resulting products and marketing programmes educate consumers and the wider population
on specific environmental issue/problems and solutions.
In addition, the alliance partners may undertake part of
the firm’s work by educating potential consumers on the
green product’s specific environmental benefits. In this
way cooperation helps the firm and its stakeholders in
achieving their objectives.
While it appears that marketers realise the importance
of some stakeholders in the development of green products, it is unclear if marketers actively involve many,
if any, of these stakeholders. Furthermore, it is not clear
that those involved in the green NPD process are
included in the most effective fashion. From this study,
it appears that firms simply try to adopt to stakeholders’
interests. Such a process may seem to be market-oriented. However, by not interacting with their stakeholders, some benefits are potentially overlooked. These
include involving these stakeholders in the marketing
process and achieving stakeholders’ objectives and
environmental objectives as well.
Acknowledgements
Earlier versions of this work have been presented at
the International Association of Business and Society
Eighth Annual Conference 1997 and the Eighth Biannual
World Marketing Congress 1997. We would also like to
thanks Professor D. Huisingh, Gary Mankelow and the
anonymous reviewers at JCP for their useful feedback
in the revision of this work.
References
[1] Porter ME, Van Der Linde C. Green and competitive: ending the
stalemate. Harvard Business Review 1995;73(5):120–34.
[2] Menon A, Menon A. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the
emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy.
Journal of Marketing 1997;61(1):51–67.
[3] Clair JA, Milliman J, Whelan K. Toward an environmentally
sensitive ecophilosphy for business management. Industry and
Environmental Crisis Quarterly 1996;9(3):289–326.
[4] Urban GL, Hauser JR. Design and marketing of new products.
Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.
[5] Bhat VN. Green marketing begins with green design. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing 1993;8(3):26–31.
[6] McDaniel SW, Rylander DH. Strategic green marketing. Journal
of Consumer Marketing 1993;10(3):4–10.
[7] Anonymous. Spurts and starts: corporate role in ’90s environmentalism hardly consistent. Advertising Age 1991;62(46):GR14–6.
[8] Polonsky MJ. A stakeholder theory approach to designing
environmental marketing strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 1995;10(3):29–46.
M.J. Polonsky, J.A. Ottman / Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 269–275
[9] Ottman JA. Mandate for the 90s: ‘green corporate image’. Marketing News 1995;29(29):8.
[10] Ottman JA. Edison award for corporate environmental achievement. Marketing News 1996;30(10):15.
[11] Bendell J, Murphy D. Strange bedfellows: business and environmental groups. Business and Society Review 1997;98:40–4.
[12] Lober DJ. Explaining the formation of business–environmentalist
collaborations: collaborative windows and the paper task force.
Policy Sciences 1997;30(1):1–24.
[13] Mendleson N, Polonsky MJ. Using strategic alliances to develop
credible green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing
1995;12(2):4–18.
[14] Stafford ER, Hartman CL. Green alliances: strategic relations
between businesses and environmental groups. Business Horizons
1996;39(2):50–9.
[15] Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies and impact. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 1986;3(1):71–85.
[16] Karakaya F, Kobu B. New product development process: an
investigation of success and failure in high-technology and nonhigh technology firms. Journal of Business Venturing
1994;9(1):46–66.
[17] Millson MR, Raj SP, Wilemon D. Strategic partnering for
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
275
developing new products. Research–Technology Management
1996;29:41–9.
Lamb W. From experience: building balanced innovation teams.
Journal of Innovation Management 1985;2:93–100.
Prasad L, Rubenstein AH. Power and organizational politics during new product development: a conceptual framework. Journal
of Scientific and Industrial Research 1994;53(6):397–407.
Harrison JS, St John CH. Managing and partnering with external
stakeholders.
Academy
of
Management
Executive
1996;10(2):46–60.
Polonsky MJ. Stakeholder management and the stakeholder
matrix: potential strategic marketing tools. Journal of Market
Focused Management 1996;1(3):209–29.
Westley F, Vredenburg H. Strategic bridging: the collaboration
between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green
products.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavioral
Science
1991;27(1):65–90.
Kreiner P, Bhambri A. Influence and information in organisation
stakeholder relationships. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 1991;12:3–36.
Ottman JA. Private groups, government act as consultants. Marketing News 1996;30(10):15.