European Journal of Marketing

Making the world a better place by making better products: Eco-friendly

consumer innovativeness and the adoption of eco-innovations
Nicholas G. Paparoidamis, Huong Thi Thanh Tran,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nicholas G. Paparoidamis, Huong Thi Thanh Tran, (2019) "Making the world a better place by
making better products: Eco-friendly consumer innovativeness and the adoption of eco-innovations",
European Journal of Marketing, [Link]
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

[Link]
Downloaded on: 02 March 2019, At: 20:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 124 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@[Link]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 36 times since 2019*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:409222 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit [Link]/authors for more information.
About Emerald [Link]
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
[Link]/[Link]

Making the
Making the world a better place world a better
by making better products place

Eco-friendly consumer innovativeness

and the adoption of eco-innovations
Nicholas G. Paparoidamis
Received 22 November 2017
Léonard-de-Vinci Pôle Universitaire, Research Center, Revised 19 April 2018
Paris La Défense, France, and 20 July 2018
Accepted 9 September 2018
Huong Thi Thanh Tran
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Department of Marketing and Negotiation,

IESEG School of Management, Lille, France

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine whether consumers respond differently to different types of eco-
innovations and to explore how and under what conditions eco-friendly consumer innovativeness (ECI)
impacts consumers’ perception and adoption intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Two online experiments with real consumers in the USA were
conducted to test the hypothesized relationships. Two eco-innovation products were examined: a connected
vacuum cleaner (Study 1) and an innovative smartphone (Study 2).
Findings – First, consumers tend to express more positive product beliefs, higher preferences and stronger
adoption intentions toward resource use elimination innovations compared with the other types of eco-
innovations across two product categories. Although consumers are not willing to pay more, they would
adjust their payment equity by increasing consumption levels for resource use elimination innovations.
Second, this research demonstrates ECI affects adoption intentions via formulating consumer perceptions of
product eco-friendliness. Perceived trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and product effectiveness
strengthens the positive effect of ECI while weakening the impact of perceived product eco-friendliness on
adoption intentions.
Research limitations/implications – Future studies may validate and extend the results for
marketing communication to different types of eco-friendly innovative consumers to determine which
marketing messages best match the perceptions and preferences of certain eco-friendly innovative
consumers.
Practical implications – This study offers useful insights for strategic research-and-development
investment and decision-making processes in selecting the best-suited approaches to developing eco-
innovations and maximizing their success in the commercialization phase. Specifically, firms should place
greater emphasis on resource use elimination innovation, which could evoke more positive consumer
responses than resource use efficiency innovations and resource use substitution innovations. Moreover, it is
important to improve the segmentation of the early adopters in the eco-innovation market with respect to
specific types of eco-innovations so that marketers can distinctively address eco-friendly innovative
consumers that best fit the potential user profile of their products.
Originality/value – The current research is novel as neither an empirically nor a theoretically
founded framework has been suggested to examine how and why consumers respond differently to
different types of eco-innovations. The findings shine new lights on eco-innovation research by
providing useful insights into the underlying mechanisms and the conditions under which ECI affects
consumers’ responses.
European Journal of Marketing
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Consumer innovativeness, Green issues © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0888
 EJM Introduction
Recent times have been marked by growing environmental challenges, including global
warming, energy security and resource scarcity, resulting in mounting pressures to
minimize the human ecological footprint by shifting to more sustainable production and
consumption (Kotler, 2011). In response, firms have accelerated their efforts to transform
eco-friendly ideas into new and “greener” processes, technologies, and products/services
(Katsikeas et al., 2016). However, despite a modicum of progress toward the goal of more
sustainable development, current efforts fall far short of addressing the myriad pressing
environmental challenges (OECD, 2009; United Nations, 2013). For example, the report of
Baldé et al. (2017) reveals that more than 52 million metric tons (Mt) of electronic waste,
mainly small electronic devices, will be disposed of worldwide by 2021, compared with the
40 million Mt generated in 2014. Due to the ongoing trend of electrifying nonelectrical
equipment and low recycling rates, the substantial rise of electronic waste poses
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

disproportionately more serious problems than other waste substances, such as food and
textiles (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012).
Given these foreboding realities, a big challenge for firms concerns optimizing growth
potential whilst reducing its negative environmental impact (European Commission, 2012).
A promising answer to this question – which should be at the heart of government policies
and industry practices – is the eco-innovation concept in which new products have both
innovative and eco-friendly features. Being innovative and environmentally sustainable
unleashes a new potential for economic benefit and competitive advantage across many
businesses and industries (European Commission, 2012; Iyer and Reczek, 2017) and renders
innovations less vulnerable to the threat of obsolescence (Majid and Russell, 2015), but firms
need further guidance on how to proceed in terms of both developing new products and
reaching consumers.
As with all innovations, eco-innovations face a high rate of technology failure (Chan and Ip,
2010). Indeed, 46 per cent of all resources allocated to new product development in US firms are
spent on products that failed to reach broad commercialization (Cooper et al., 2001). Moreover,
estimates of new product failures among consumer packaged goods (fast-moving goods) are
around 75 per cent (Schneider and Hall, 2011) and 72 per cent of new products do not meet
profitability goals (Carmichael, 2014). While new product failure statistics do not provide a
complete picture of the reasons why so many new products fail in the market, existing research
attributes this phenomenon to inappropriate product designs (Celhay and Trinquecoste, 2015)
and insufficient levels of consumer demand (Hauser et al., 2006; Heidenreich et al., 2017). Our
research addresses these issues in the context of eco-innovation introduction.
First, with regard to new product design, it is widely acknowledged that an eco-
innovation orientation is an inevitable reality for sustainable growth and differentiation (Du
et al., 2016; Kotler, 2011). In recent years, a plethora of environmental sustainability issues
have been incorporated into new product development, such as recycling (Giebelhausen
et al., 2016), carbon emission reduction (Heidenreich et al., 2017), renewables (Claudy et al.,
2013), energy saving (Tangari and Smith, 2012) and natural or locally supplied ingredients
(Bodur et al., 2014). However, scant attention has been devoted to investigating whether
different approaches to “greening” new product designs trigger different psychological and
behavioral responses in consumers’ adoption processes. The lack of empirical work on this
front requires immediate attention as firms have increasingly faced challenges relevant to
their eco-friendly product development strategy, including making strategic investments in
specific areas of research and development as well as marketing decisions about brand
extensions and product positioning (Katsikeas et al., 2016). Therefore, the first aim of our
 study is to examine if consumers respond differently to different types of eco-friendly Making the
attributes in eco-innovative product designs. world a better
Second, the success of eco-innovation in the marketplace depends on how effectively firms
target the consumers who are most likely to be interested in learning about and adopting a new
place
product concept (Hoffman et al., 2010). A significant body of the innovation literature suggests
that consumer innovativeness (CI), as an individual’s desire or willingness to take the risk of
adopting new products, underlies the difference in adoption speed between innovators (early
adopters) and imitators (Im et al., 2003; Li et al., 2015; Manning et al., 1995). In the sustainability
literature, recent studies have adopted trait-based approaches to highlight the potential role of
CI in reducing the intention–behavior gap in sustainable consumption across different product
categories (Englis and Phillips, 2013; Hahnel et al., 2014).
Despite significant progress to date, two major limitations in the current research on CI
warrant further consideration. First, given the complex adoption dynamics and diffusion
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

processes of eco-innovations (Janssen et al., 2006; Wiedmann et al., 2011), only few research
efforts have shed any light on the relationship between CI and consumers’ adoption of eco-
innovative offerings (Heidenreich et al., 2017; Jansson, 2011). Second, and more important,
the limited empirical research on this topic only investigates CI as an innate general trait,
including such concepts as “need for stimulation” (Jansson, 2011) and “need for uniqueness”
(Heidenreich et al., 2017), rather than focusing on a domain-specific level of abstraction in the
CI conceptualization. It is thus crucial to understand the nature of domain-specific consumer
innovativeness (DSI) in the context of eco-innovation and its effects on consumers’ product
beliefs and adoption intentions.
The present study addresses the shortcomings in eco-innovation research and makes
three main contributions. First, as the introduction of eco-innovation is challenged by
pervasive uncertainty due to its long take-off phase and the value-action gap of sustainable
consumption, we specify which the best approaches to “greening” new product designs
should be from the consumer perspective. By grounding our main thesis on the
categorization theories (Moreau et al., 2001b; Viswanathan and Childers, 1999) with the focus
on the distinctiveness of eco-friendly benefits integrated in new product designs, we provide
a rigorous answer as to whether particular types of eco-innovation provoke more positive
consumer responses than other alternatives. In doing so, we offer useful guidelines on which
types of eco-friendly attributes should be emphasized in new product development. Second,
we propose a new conceptualization of CI at a domain-specific level of abstraction by
adapting the DSI concept of Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) to the realm of sustainable
innovation consumption, so called eco-friendly consumer innovativeness (ECI). To further
validate the ECI scale, we demonstrate that the ECI scale predicts consumers’ perceptions
and adoption intentions across different types of eco-innovation. Third, we contribute by
specifying the unique mechanism through which ECI affects consumers’ psychological and
behavioral responses. More specifically, we suggest that consumers with stronger ECI
increase adoption intentions towards eco-innovation through more favorable evaluations of
the environmental aspect of an innovation. Furthermore, because of the way ECI interacts
with perceived trade-offs between environmental benefits and product effectiveness, our
analysis provides new insights into the complex dynamics linking consumers’ traits to their
product beliefs and behavioral intentions in the context of sustainable innovation.

Theoretical background
Conceptualization of eco-innovative product designs
The integration of ecological consciousness into new product development and innovation
design has risen in importance for academic researchers and practitioners (Goodman et al., 2017;
 EJM Katsikeas et al., 2016; Pujari et al., 2003). While advanced technologies and skillful industrial
designs facilitate the rapid development of innovative products, this changing landscape also
requires a faster pace of product upgrading, triggers shorter replacement cycles and creates a
greater fear of obsolescence, ultimately leading to negative consequences for the environment
(Calcott and Walls, 2005). Guiltinan (2009) identifies two aspects of new product development
that drive these environmental issues: the frequent introduction of replacement products and the
recyclability of new products. These two aspects exacerbate environmental problems if firms
only emphasize producing and marketing innovations without any focus on sustainability.
The eco-innovation concept, which incorporates both innovative and eco-friendly attributes
in a new product design, reflects a proactive orientation toward positive sustainability in
product design rather the reactive elimination of environmentally problematic features (Pujari,
2006). Halila and Rundquist (2011) refer to eco-innovation as either new products, process, and
practices or modifications to existing ones that aim to reduce or avoid environmental harm.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Taking a broader and more practical approach, the European Commission (2012, p. 2) defines
eco-innovation as “all forms of innovation – technological and non-technological – that create
business opportunities and benefit the environment by preventing or reducing their impact, or
by optimizing the use of resources.” Building on the extant innovation and sustainability
literature, Varadarajan (2015) concludes that while a variety of definitions of eco-innovation
have been suggested, the literature contains no widely accepted and broadly sound
conceptualization as well as robust operationalization of eco-innovation, especially with regard
to the consumer market. This inhibits the comparability and generalizability of findings across
product categories and industries. The current work examines the design of eco-innovation
from the consumer perspective and defines an eco-innovative product design “as a firm’s new
product design that is perceived by consumers to be innovative and eco-friendly based on their
evaluation of product attributes”.
Many scholars argue that a defining component of an eco-innovation is positive
ecological attributes that have been purposely designed into (i.e. embedded in) the new
product development process (Adams et al., 2012; Fuller and Ottman, 2004). In line with this
notion, we contend that the success of an eco-innovative product design depends mainly on
how consumers understand and value the ecological benefits of the innovation based on its
product attributes. This key perspective remains insufficiently addressed and therefore
requires deeper attention in the innovation and sustainability literature.

Types of eco-friendly attributes in eco-innovative product designs

Eco-friendly attributes (a subset of ethical attributes) are defined as product characteristics that
have positive implications for protecting (or not harming) the environment (Bodur et al., 2014;
Bodur et al., 2016; Irwin and Naylor, 2009). Prior studies have suggested various approaches to
classifying eco-friendly attributes. For example, Irwin and Naylor (2009) investigate product
eco-friendliness as “protected” or “sacred” values (e.g. boycotting a firm with egregious ethical
violations) and argue that consumers explicitly reject unethical items and avoid making trade-
offs between ethical values and other attributes, no matter what the benefits of doing so may be
(p. 235). With another approach, Bodur et al. (2016) posit that eco-friendly attributes are either
product-related (they directly affect product performance and quality) or symbolic (they
indirectly address environmental issues, such as cause-related marketing).
In the context of sustainable innovations, Varadarajan (2015) categorizes the
sustainability-related benefits of an innovation into two main groups: physical
differentiation attributes (resource use efficiency, elimination, or substitution during the
production stage) and experienced differentiation attributes (resource use efficiency,
elimination or substitution during the product usage stage). The most recent study of Iyer
 and Reczek (2017) emphasizes the importance of understanding the two approaches: Making the
mitigating (i.e. reducing resource consumption) and creating (i.e. introducing alternative world a better
fuels and energy resources or pro-environmental values). In line with previous studies and
building on interviews with managers and consumers, we contend that there are three key
place
types of eco-friendly attributes that can be integrated into new product development and
marketing activities:
(1) resource use reduction/efficiency features;
(2) resource use elimination features; and
(3) resource use substitution features.

We discuss each in turn.

Resource use reduction or efficiency innovations. The development of these innovations
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

aims to improve productivity and efficiency in the use of resource inputs in the
manufacturing and consumption processes of the eco-innovation (European Commission,
2013; Varadarajan, 2015). In other words, natural resources should be processed and
consumed in a more efficient and sustainable way over the whole life cycle of the product
(Schandl, 2011). This type of eco-innovation is often designed to minimize energy use and
maximize carbon reduction. For example, smart metering provides real-time energy
consumption feedback to consumers and can generate a sustained reduction in energy
consumption of 5-10 per cent (HM Treasury, 2005). Another example is the smart Nebia
shower system, which reduces water consumption by 70 per cent without affecting people’s
shower experience (Mitchell, 2015).
Resource use elimination innovations. The goal of this eco-innovation type is to eliminate
the use of natural resources or harmful ingredients as an input for manufacturing and
consumption processes while maintaining the same levels of product functionality and
performance (Malhotra, 2016). According to Varadarajan (2015, p. 8), there are three
approaches to developing resource use elimination innovations:
(1) excluding ecologically harmful ingredients;
(2) excluding filler ingredients from a product; and
(3) excluding the need to use a complementary product.

The possibility of eliminating potentially hazardous materials largely depends on the

availability of safer alternatives that ideally perform at least the same or even better
functions. A recent example is the Quanthor cell phone, which is based on Fibonacci
sequence technology to eliminate the emission of electromagnetic radiation. The innovative
XO Laptop for children containing no hazardous materials is also a good illustration of this
type of eco-innovation.
Resource use substitution innovations. Resource use substitution innovations are
developed by substituting:
 nonrenewable resources with renewable resources;
 ecologically harmful nonrenewable resources with less/non harmful nonrenewable
resources;
 less abundant nonrenewable resources (subject to the substitution not having a
negative impact on the overall sustainability profile of the product) with more
abundant nonrenewable resources; or
 mined raw materials with above-ground ones (Varadarajan, 2015, p. 8).
 EJM This type of eco-innovations is considered as the key to reduce costs and raise the efficiency,
performance and deployment levels of renewable energy usage (e.g. solar, wind, modern
biomass, hydro, geothermal) on a regional, sectional and global scale (Saygin et al., 2015). A
good example of this type of innovation is the Immortus car (by EVX Ventures in
Melbourne), which is powered by solar energy captured by photovoltaic paneling along the
vehicle’s exterior (Mitchell, 2015). Another example is Trinity, an innovative portable micro
wind turbine from Janulus, which generates power at low wind speeds for charging small
devices and even electronic cars.

Eco-friendly consumer innovativeness

The CI concept was first introduced in the early 1970s by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) as
“the degree to which an individual is relatively early in adopting an innovation than other
members of his system.” This definition, which focuses on the actual time of adoption, has
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

initiated a lasting debate on the conceptualization and measurement of CI in the marketing

field (Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Since its introduction, CI has become an important
concept in innovation and marketing communications research (Goldsmith et al., 1995;
Heidenreich and Kraemer, 2016).
During the early phases of CI’s conceptual development, it was regarded as actual
adoption behavior within a particular product category or across several categories
(Summers, 1972; Venkatraman and Price, 1990). In the late 1970s, the academic and
intellectual debate was extended to focus on conceptualizing and operationalizing CI at a
higher level of abstraction. Specifically, several researchers developed a cross-sectional
measurement of CI, which offers a deeper and more abstract understanding of CI as a
cognitive style (Kirton, 1976) and as an individual personality trait (e.g. innate
innovativeness [see Midgley and Dowling (1978)] or inherent innovativeness [see Hirschman
(1980)]).
Since the 1990s, rationalizing the CI concept in a specific domain has become more
attractive to marketing researchers, providing a pragmatic approach for the vast majority of
academic research to focus on (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991). Over the last decade, CI has
continued to garner significant attention (Bartels and Reinders, 2011; Heidenreich et al.,
2017; Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010). Specifically, the past decade has witnessed the
development of the CI conceptualization at three different levels of abstraction: general
personality trait innovativeness, domain-specific innovativeness and actualized
innovativeness. These diverse classifications and operationalizations of CI (see Appendix 1)
aggravate the findings’ comparability and generalizability as well as prevent cumulative
knowledge development and disciplinary maturity.
In several pivotal publications, researchers have argued that the intermediate level of
abstraction of CI (i.e. DSI) is more effective in predicting innovation adoption behaviors than
global innovativeness, which represents as high level of abstraction (Goldsmith et al., 1995;
Hoffmann and Soyez, 2010; Klink and Athaide, 2010). The first DSI scale proposed by
Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) has been empirically tested and shows good validity,
favorable psychometric properties, and a high correlation with actual adoption behaviors
across various settings (Goldsmith et al., 1995; Roehrich, 2004). Furthermore, Bartels and
Reinders (2011) posit that DSI is the most popular approach to measuring CI in the existing
literature. Following prior work, we focus on DSI in the specific domain of eco-innovative
products (i.e. ECI) and investigate its impact on consumers’ perceptions and adoption
behaviors. Inspired by Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991), we thus define ECI as the consumer’s
tendency to be knowledgeable about and adopt innovative products and services that are
beneficial to the natural environment. In other words, ECI is nested within the DSI concept
 with respect to the sustainable innovation product category. We believe that the uptake of Making the
eco-innovation – that is, when consumers pay more attention to environmental aspects of an world a better
innovation, overlook the perceived trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and product
effectiveness, and ultimately adopt eco-innovative offerings – is a sign of ECI in the context
place
of sustainable innovation consumption.

Hypothesis development
Types of eco-friendly attributes in eco-innovative product designs and consumer responses
Our main hypothesis is that consumers might respond differently to different types of eco-
friendly attributes, as consumers tend to form categorizations, evaluations, and expectations
of eco-innovation based on prior product knowledge and experience (Moreau et al., 2001a;
Moreau et al., 2001b). We base our main hypothesis on categorization theories (i.e. the
categorization-based knowledge transfer for new products and the fuzzy set theory).
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

The categorization theory postulates that “individuals naturally categorize and

spontaneously name objects” according to the richness (number of attributes) and
distinctiveness (differentiating attributes) of product categories (Sujan and Dekleva, 1987,
p. 372). In the case of really new products, Moreau et al. (2001b) argue that consumers face
the challenge of using cues from multiple categories to understand the innovation and
develop their new product expectations and preference. As a result, consumers are likely to
categorize a new product into the category that is first cued and then use this category label
to make inferences about the product and purchase decisions.
Other researchers have adopted the “fuzzy set” theory to investigate product categories
as sets without clear boundaries that separate category members from nonmembers
(Ahmad and Richard, 2014; Viswanathan and Childers, 1999). In a fuzzy set, the category
membership of a product depends on the degree to which it possesses a particular attribute
or a set of attributes. Drawing on this theory, Viswanathan and Childers (1999) suggest that
consumers evaluate the gradedness of category membership at the level of individual
attributes, which are then combined to reach overall measures of category membership
gradedness for a whole product. Applying these theories in the context of eco-innovation, in
which both innovative and eco-friendly attributes are included in a new product design, we
focus on the distinctiveness aspect of the categorization approach, in which knowledge is
transferred from multiple categories (innovativeness and eco-friendliness) to formulate a
new representation of an eco-innovation and form their expectations and preferences.
In the marketing and sustainability literature, numerous studies have provided a deeper
understanding of consumer psychology with a focus on both mitigating negative impacts of
consumption and creating/promoting pro-environmental values and behaviors across a
wide range of product/service categories and national markets (Iyer and Reczek, 2017).
Specifically, eco-friendly attributes can affect consumers’ overall brand attitudes and
evaluations (Bodur et al., 2016; Olsen et al., 2014), purchase intentions (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996;
Gleim et al., 2013; Gonçalves et al., 2016; Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012; Karmarkar
and Bollinger, 2015; Newman et al., 2014; Peyer et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2015),
willingness to pay (Haws et al., 2014; Irwin and Spira, 1997; Kazeminia et al., 2016), product
preferences (Cornelissen et al., 2008; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Han et al., 2017; Peloza et al.,
2013; Van der Wal et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2011), satisfaction (Giebelhausen et al., 2016) and
adoption intentions (Moon et al., 2016).
Our extensive review of the current literature reveals mixed and contradictory results,
triggering an ongoing debate about the mechanism underlying the impact of eco-friendly
product attributes on consumer responses (Appendix 2). The current major streams of
sustainability research directly identify specific boundary conditions under which the
 EJM inclusion of eco-friendly attributes can either enhance or diminish consumers’ product
evaluation and behavioral intentions, such as attribute strength (Luchs et al., 2010), attribute
centrality (Gershoff and Frels, 2014) or firm intentionality (Newman et al., 2014). However,
prior studies in these research streams have examined specific types of eco-friendly
attributes in conventional products in a separate manner (Appendix 2). Thus, it remains
unknown whether consumers respond differently to different eco-friendly attribute types
incorporated in innovative product designs.
We extend this research stream by exploring which types of eco-friendly benefits
integrated in new product designs should be emphasized to encourage consumers to adopt
eco-innovation across the consumption contexts. We contend that categorization-based
transfer, triggered by offering consumers different eco-friendly attributes in eco-innovation,
leads to different products’ category membership (i.e. types of eco-innovations). Depending
on purchase situations and product knowledge, consumers may assign different weights to
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

different types of new eco-friendly attributes (Moreau et al., 2001a). Once the categorization
and evaluation process of the eco-innovation’s category membership gradedness occurs,
consumers then use the cues and assign weight of the respective category to make inductive
inferences about product quality. These inferences influence consumers’ preferences,
adoption intentions and willingness to pay for eco-innovations. Thus, we put forward the
following hypotheses:

H1. Different types of eco-friendly attributes (i.e., resource use reduction, elimination
and substitution features) yield significant differences in consumers’ (a) product
quality perceptions, (b) preferences, (c) adoption intentions and (d) willingness to
pay with respect to eco-innovative product designs.

ECI and consumer responses to eco-innovations

Based on cognitive identity theory, Grewal et al. (2004) posit that because social identity
facilitates the acceptance of an individual in a social group to which they are emotionally
attached, the individual is more likely to adopt an innovation in a specific domain to
demonstrate their in-group belongingness. Prior research has revealed the strong predictive
power of DSI for consumers’ product beliefs and their adoption behaviors across various
settings and product categories (Goldsmith et al., 1998; Goldsmith et al., 1995; Hofstetter
et al., 2013; Mowen, 2004). Yet, until now, neither an empirically nor a theoretically grounded
framework has been offered to explain the mechanism underlying the effect of the DSI on
consumer responses in the domain of sustainable innovation consumption. We propose that
ECI – representing an individual’s innovativeness in the specific domain of interest
regarding environmental protection and mindfulness – might lead consumers to have
positive responses to new sustainable products (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Hirschman,
1980).
To further validate the new ECI scale developed in this study, we examine how ECI
affects consumers’ responses to eco-innovation not only to provide evidence of predictive
validity of ECI but also for practical implications. For example, marketers could identify and
target specific types of consumers who may be more likely to buy certain eco-innovations
with appropriate marketing messages. Accordingly, we propose that because an eco-
innovation may help consumers high in ECI express their willingness and desire to try new
products with positive environmental attributes, these consumers put more emphasis on the
eco-friendly aspects of the innovation. This, in turn, results in higher perceived product eco-
friendliness and ultimately stronger adoption intentions toward an eco-innovation. In other
words, we aim to test both direct and indirect effects of ECI on adoption intentions through
 perceived product eco-friendliness across different types of eco-innovation. Formally, we Making the
test the following two hypotheses: world a better
H2. ECI is positively related to perceived product eco-friendliness. place

H3. Perceived product eco-friendliness mediates the positive effect of ECI on adoption
intentions.
In addition, when purchasing eco-friendly products, consumers often face trade-offs between
environmental benefits and other important attributes, such as functional performance,
aesthetic design, price and safety (Luchs et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2014). Such trade-offs can
have a negative impact on consumers’ perceptions and actual adoption, regardless of their
concerns about environmental issues (Bamberg, 2003; Carrington et al., 2014; Olson, 2013).
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Therefore, we examine the role of these perceived trade-offs in explaining the effects of ECI
on adoption intentions. From a managerial perspective, a better understanding of this
mechanism will enable marketers to design appropriate marketing messages that target
early adopters by focusing on information about perceived trade-offs in eco-innovation
product designs.
To the best of our knowledge, no empirical research has not yet explored the moderating
effect of the trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and overall product effectiveness in the
context of eco-innovation. First, we argue that consumers’ perception of these trade-offs
weakens the relationship between perceived product eco-friendliness and adoption
intentions. Specifically, when consumers hold stronger (vs weaker) perceptions of trade-offs,
they will be more (vs less) reluctant to adopt an eco-innovation with higher (vs lower)
perceived product eco-friendliness. Second, drawing on the costly signaling theory, we
propose that when high-ECI consumers are aware that environmental benefits of a product
may compromise overall product effectiveness, they are more likely to adopt an eco-
innovation for the desirable status it signals. Costly signaling theory suggests that
consumers will consider engaging in activities that are increasingly costly (in terms of
resources, energy, risk, or time) as a way to signal their ability and willingness to incur
certain inconveniences for a given cause and to compete for status (Zahavi and Zahavi,
1999). In other words, a person can gain status if he or she is willing and able to sacrifice
certain resources for others (Cole and Chaikin, 1990). Applying this theory in the sustainable
consumption context, Griskevicius et al. (2012) posit that green marketing efforts should
make consumers who engage in self-sacrificing behaviors feel comfortable and easy to be
socially visible, thus drawing attention to their status and their sacrifice as a way to
encourage the voluntary adoption of more sustainable practices.
In this study, through eco-innovation adoption, high-ECI consumers effectively convey to
their peers that they are willing to incur costs (i.e. they will sacrifice product convenience or
effectiveness for environmental benefits), thereby increasing their relative status. ECI
enables consumers to overcome past negative experiences with eco-friendly products and
motivates them to embrace the trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and product
effectiveness as a means to signal their own inherent innovativeness (Heidenreich et al.,
2016). Conversely, low-ECI consumers are not willing (or at least are more reluctant) to make
trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and other attributes (e.g. product functionality).
Low-ECI consumers may be less susceptible to the benefits of sustainable innovations and
more sensitive to trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits and product effectiveness due to
an inherent hesitation to take certain risks (Klink and Athaide, 2010). In summary, we
expect different moderating roles of perceived trade-offs not only on the relationship
 EJM between perceived eco-friendliness and adoption intentions but also on the link between ECI
and adoption intentions.

H4. Perceived trade-offs between environmental benefits and product effectiveness

negatively moderate the positive effect of perceived eco-friendliness on adoption
intentions.

H5. Perceived trade-offs between environmental benefits and product effectiveness

positively moderate the positive effect of ECI on adoption intentions.

Method
To test the hypothesized relationships, we conducted two online experiments with real
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

consumers in the US market to provide empirical evidence that consumers respond

differently to different types of eco-friendly attributes that are integrated in high-tech
products – in particular, Internet-of things (IoT)-based products. We used IoT-based
products due to their increasing popularity and considerable impact in many spheres of life
and society in recent years (Ng and Wakenshaw, 2017). Despite their benefits and
advantages, the pervasiveness of IoT-based devices and networks on a large scale
accelerates the rapid growth of electronic waste, resource and energy consumption and
greenhouse emissions. Due to growing ecological challenges and mounting pressures to
reduce humanity’s ecological footprint, the idealized vision of IoT inevitably includes its
potential to bolster economic and environmental sustainability to improve the well-being of
humankind (Maksimovic, 2017). This vision could be more fully realized by introducing the
eco-innovation concept into the IoT technology development, such that new products offer
both “smart” functions and eco-friendly benefits.
More specifically, we examined two eco-innovation products: a connected vacuum
cleaner (Study 1) and a smartphone (Study 2). We selected connected vacuum cleaners and
smartphones because they are familiar products to our participant population, amenable to
the incorporation of eco-friendly attributes, and compatible with the experimental method.
Eco-friendly attributes have increasingly been found in various product descriptions of
home appliance manufacturers (e.g. Samsung CycloneForce, with its ultra-low-power
bagless cylinder technology) and innovative smartphone companies (e.g. Fairphone 2, with a
10/10 reparability score). In addition, these product categories are often characterized by
highly innovative product designs and shorter product lifecycles (Mahadevan, 2015).
Finally, purchase decisions for these product categories are often associated by high
involvement and rational decision criteria, suggesting a need for deep cognitive information
processing with respect to various product dimensions (Ratchford, 1987). In high-
involvement scenarios, consumers experience strong feelings of personal relevance toward
specific products, resulting in a greater motivation to attend to and comprehend the salient
product information (i.e. product innovative and eco-friendly attributes) (Celsi and Olson,
1988).
However, these product categories are distinct in the sense that one (the connected
vacuum cleaner) is a privately consumed product that is used inside the house/private places
and thus offers low social distinction, while the other (the smartphone) is a more symbolic
and socially visible product that will be noticed and can thus express one’s status relative to
others (Weaver et al., 2015). Therefore, the contexts provide relevant and fertile ground for
theoretical research and strong managerial implications.
 Pretest Making the
We conducted two separate pretests with marketing students who did not participate in the world a better
main studies. In the first pretest, we recruited 44 postgraduate students (35 per cent male,
Mage = 21.59, SD = 1.82) with adequate eco-friendly product knowledge and experience
place
(M = 4.40, SD = 0.86), as measured on a seven-point Likert scale adapted from Gershoff and
Frels (2014) (a = 0.70). The students received the definitions of different types of eco-
innovation and were asked to classify a list of the ten most popular innovative and eco-
friendly features of vacuums and smartphones into four categories:
(1) innovative features;
(2) resource use reduction features;
(3) resource use elimination features; and
(4) resource use substitution features, with an optional answer of “I don’t know”.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

To control for any assumptions participants might make about the types of eco-friendly
features, we used the words “reduce,” “eliminate” and “substitute” in the descriptions of
resource use reduction, resource use elimination, and resource use substitution features,
respectively.
We selected the features that the majority (i.e. 55 per cent or more) of participants
classified as being typical for each specific type. The majority of respondents categorized
“remotely controlled by a smartphone app” (81 per cent) and “home automation” (89 per
cent) as innovative features. Most of the respondents (95 and 66 per cent, respectively)
classified “50 per cent less energy consumption” and “a 10/10 reparability score” as resource
use reduction features. “Canisters” and “eliminating radiation emission” were classified as
resource use elimination features by 81 and 75 per cent of the respondents, respectively.
Finally, “solar vacuum tube” and “solar phone charger” were classified as resource use
substitution features by 68 and 59 per cent of respondents, respectively.
In the second pretest, we asked a different pool of marketing students (n = 30, 43.3 per
cent male, Mage = 21.87, SD = 1.20) to evaluate the eco-friendliness of the selected features
from the first pretest on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all”; 7 = “extremely”). We also
measured eco-friendly product knowledge and experience with the same scale adapted from
Gershoff and Frels (2014) (a = 0.79). Participants displayed adequate knowledge about eco-
friendly products (M = 4.05, SD = 1.26). We then conducted one-sample t-tests to compare
each attribute with respect to the scale midpoint of four. In line with the first pretest,
respondents rated the eco-friendly attributes as significantly higher than the scale midpoint
value: resource use efficiency (tvacuum(29) = 5.64, p < 0.001; tphone(29) = 5.76, p < 0.001),
resource use elimination (tvacuum(29) = 5.71, p < 0.001; tphone (29) = 6.42, p < 0.001) and
resource use substitution (tvacuum(29) = 5.01, p < 0.001; tphone(29) = 7.05, p < 0.001).
However, the innovation attributes were not rated significantly higher than the scale
midpoint (p > 0.30). Based on the results of the pretests, we created four manipulations for
each product category (Appendix 3).
To develop our ECI scale, we modified the original DSI scale of Goldsmith and Hofacker
(1991) and the ethical consumption innovativeness scale of Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and
Wooliscroft (2016) in the context of eco-innovation. To ensure conceptual compatibility and
meaningful equivalence, we invited two experienced marketing scholars and eight doctoral
candidates (37.50 per cent male, Mage = 30.05, SD = 4.66) to review our scale by evaluating
the representation of each item based on our definition of ECI on a five-point Likert scale
(1 = “does not fit at all”; 5 = “good fit”). Based on data analysis from this pretest, we finalized
the structure and the content of the ECI scale with a five-item self-reported scale to measure
 EJM ECI within the specific domain of environmental interests (MFit score  3), while eliminating
the item “I will buy a new [product name] even if I have not heard of it before” due to its low
fit (MFit score < 3) (Table I).
Because IoT-based products are designed as dynamic service platforms with high
flexibility and heterogeneity in consumption, there are more opportunities to differentiate
these products, moving competition away from price alone (Ng et al., 2015). In this sense, it
can be argued that the price component is no longer the most substantial hindrance to
adopting several types of IoT-enabled products. Indeed, according to Accenture (2015),
consumers are more likely to pay more for smart devices that offer safety (e.g. a smart
smoke alarm, a smart security system) or novelty (e.g. smart cars, smart shoes).
In this study, instead of actual selling prices, we focused on consumers’ willingness to
pay (WTP), defined as the minimum price at which or below the consumer will purchase the
new product, as an important construction of price response functions (Völckner, 2008) to
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

provide guidance for implementing suitable pricing instruments for eco-innovative

products. To avoid a potentially biasing impact of pricing information on respondents’
answers for WTP, we did not present actual selling prices or signal price differential across
conditions in our experiments. Finally, to control for the effects of brand names, we used
fictitious brand names for a connected vacuum and a smartphone in all the conditions.

Study 1: different types of eco-friendly attributes in eco-innovative product

designs
The purpose of Study 1 is to explore whether consumers respond differently to different
types of eco-friendly attributes in an eco-innovative product design (H1a-H1d). To test these
hypotheses, we used a connected vacuum cleaner, a privately consumed product, as our

Ethical consumption
Domain-specific innovativeness (DSI) innovativeness (ETCI) Eco-friendly consumer
Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) and Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and innovativeness (ECI)
Goldsmith et al. (1995) Wooliscroft (2016) The current study

In general, I am among the last in my In general, I am among the In general, I am among the
circle of friends to buy a new [product first in my circle of friends to first in my circle of friends to
name] when it appears. (r) undertake an ethical adopt eco-innovative products
If I heard that a new [product name] was consumption behavior If I hear about new ideas/
available in the store, I would be If I hear about a new ethical products on environmental
interested enough to buy it consumption issue, I am issues, I am interested to find
Compared to my friends, I own a few interested to find out more out more
[product name]. (r) Compared to my friends, I Compared to my friends, I
In general, I am the last in my circle of make a lot of consumption make a lot of consumption
friends to know the names/information of choices on an ethical basis choices that are good for the
the latest [product name]. (r) In general, I am the first in my environment
I will buy a new [product name] even if I circle of friends to know about In general, I am the first in my
Table I. have not heard of it before ethical consumption issues circle of friends to know about
The DSI, ECI, and I know the names of new [product name] I know about ethical eco-friendly consumption
before other people do consumption issues before issues
modified scales of other people do I know about environmental
eco-friendly issues before other people do
consumer
innovativeness Notes: (r) = reverse scored
 innovative product category to test whether different types of eco-friendly attributes elicit Making the
different product beliefs and adoption intentions in the consumers’ psyche. world a better
place
Sample and design
One hundred thirty-one consumers (42 per cent male; Mage = 43.47, SD = 12.93) were recruited
through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to complete an online study in exchange for
nominal compensation. The sample was biased toward the upper end of the income brackets,
with over 60 per cent of respondents reporting medium ($50,000-$74,999), high ($75,000-
$100,000) and very high (>$100,000) annual incomes. The majority of respondents (86.30 per
cent) had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
four versions of a survey and were roughly evenly distributed across the conditions. We used a
four between-subjects design, including a control condition and three eco-friendly attribute
types in eco-innovative product designs (i.e. types of eco-innovations): resource use efficiency,
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

resource use elimination and resource use substitution versions of a connected vacuum cleaner.

Procedure and measures

All participants were given a short description of a connected vacuum cleaner. They were
then told that the description was from an online store dedicated to connected vacuum
cleaners and that they were considering purchasing one. On the following page, all
participants were randomly assigned to one condition and were given an advertisement
with the same picture of a connected vacuum cleaner and its respective descriptions
according to the conditions.
To measure the extent to which participants evaluated the connected vacuum cleaner as
innovative and eco-friendly, we used a seven-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 =
“strongly agree”) of perceived product innovativeness (5 items, a = 0.95) (Goode et al., 2013)
and perceived product eco-friendliness (3 items, a = 0.95) (Gershoff and Frels, 2014).
Participants then reported their relative preferences (4 items, a = 0.95) (Jhang et al., 2012),
adoption intentions (3 items, a = 0.94) (Hassan et al., 2014) and willingness to pay
(respondents were asked to answer the open-ended question “How much would you be
willing to pay for this product?” [measured in USA dollars]). We also measured product
quality with a single item based on a seven-point Likert scale: “How do you rate the quality
of the product?” (1 star = “extremely bad”; 7 stars = “extremely good”). For psychometric
properties of the measures, see Appendix 4.

Results
Manipulation check. Two separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) analyses demonstrated
that the manipulations in terms of eco-friendliness and innovativeness were correctly
operationalized. Participants evaluated the product as more eco-friendly in the resource use
efficiency condition (M = 4.79, SD = 1.07), the resource use elimination condition (M = 5.83,
SD = 0.88), and the resource use substitution condition (M = 5.57, SD = 1.08) than in the
control condition (M = 4.13, SD = 1.16; F(3, 127) = 18.13, p < 0.001). Perceived product
innovativeness scores were not significantly different among the four conditions (F(3, 127) =
2.49, ns.). Overall, we found that the product descriptions successfully manipulated
participants’ perceptions of the product’s eco-friendliness and innovativeness.
Consumer responses. After the manipulation check, we eliminated the control condition
(n = 37) from the dataset and focused on comparing the means of three types of eco-
innovation. We conducted an ANOVA modeling consumer responses (product quality,
product preferences, adoption intentions and WTP) as a function of the eco-innovation-type
conditions. In support of our hypotheses, we found significant effects of the eco-innovation-
 EJM type conditions on consumer responses. In particular, we found evidence of a significant
effect of eco-innovation types on product quality (F(2, 91) = 7.07, p < 0.01), preferences for
eco-innovations (F(2, 91) = 5.86, p < 0.01) and adoption intentions (F(2, 91) = 5.41, p < 0.01),
in support of H1a, H1b and H1c, but no significant effect on WTP (F(2, 91) = 1.25, ns), thus
rejecting H1d. These significant results suggest that participants respond differently to
different types of eco-friendly benefits in an eco-innovative product design. Moreover, in
paired comparisons, we found that consumers’ responses were significantly different across
each of the three eco-innovation-type conditions. As Table II shows, participants in the
resource use elimination and resource use substitution innovation conditions reported
higher scores for product quality, product preference and adoption intentions than those in
the resource use efficiency condition.

Discussion
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

The results demonstrate that different types of eco-friendly attributes in an eco-innovative

product design triggered significant differences in consumers’ psychological and behavioral
responses. It is evident, that although participants responded more positively to resource
use elimination and resource use substitution innovations, they were reluctant to pay more
for these types of eco-innovation. The implications of these findings hold particular
importance for managers, who must make decisions about what types of eco-friendly
benefits should be included in eco-innovative product designs as well as decisions about
brand extensions and product positioning in the context of privately consumed products
such as vacuum cleaners.

Study 2: effects of ECI on consumer perceptions and adoption intentions

The objectives of Study 2 are to replicate and confirm the primary results found in Study 1 –
namely, that consumers respond differently to different types of eco-innovations – in the
context of a publicly consumed product category, innovative smartphones. We also examine
the underlying mechanism of the effects of ECI on consumer responses and test whether this
mechanism varies across different types of eco-innovations (H2-H5).

Sample and design

The usable sample for Study 2 comprised 222 consumers (39 per cent male; Mage = 42.18,
SD = 12.88) recruited through MTurk to complete an online study in exchange for nominal
compensation. Their annual incomes were distributed across low ($25,000-$50,000; 34.90 per
cent), medium ($50,000-$74,999; 27.22 per cent), high ($75,000-$100,000; 20.71 per cent) and
very high (>$100,000; 10.65 per cent) income brackets. More than 80 per cent of the

Table II.
Differences in Product Product Adoption Willingness
consumer responses quality preferences intentions to pay
to types of eco- Types of eco-innovations M SD M SD M SD M SD
friendly features in
eco-innovative Resource use efficiency innovation 5.13a 1.01 5.52a 1.34 4.39a 1.54 192.39a 112.35
product designs Resource use elimination innovation 6.03b 0.91 6.33b 0.76 5.45b 1.23 227.74a 114.36
based on tukey HSD Resource use substitution innovation 5.79b 1.06 6.17b 0.80 5.41b 1.58 189.03a 92.48
post hoc test (context:
Notes: Subscripts should be interpreted only within columns. Means with the same subscript are not
a connected vacuum significantly different from each other. Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p <
cleaner) 0.05
 respondents had at least a bachelor’s degree. Participants were randomly assigned to one of Making the
four versions of a survey and were roughly evenly distributed across the conditions. We world a better
used a four between-subjects design that included four conditions:
place
(1) control;
(2) resource use efficiency;
(3) resource use elimination; and
(4) resource use substitution versions of an innovative smartphone.

Procedure and measures

All participants received a short description of an innovative smartphone in the market.
They were told that it was from an online store dedicated to smartphones and that they were
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

considering purchasing one. On the following page, all participants were randomly assigned
to one condition and were given an advertisement with the same picture of an innovative
smartphone and its respective product description according to the condition. We used the
same measurement scales for perceived product innovativeness, perceived eco-friendliness,
product quality, product preferences, adoption intentions and willingness to pay as in Study
1. Finally, we asked participants to predict what their consumption level (measured in
hours) would be if they bought this product. We measured ECI with five items (a = 0.94)
based on a seven-point Likert scale (1= “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) (Table I).
We assessed the explicitness of participants’ beliefs in the trade-offs between environmental
benefits and product effectiveness by eliciting their agreement with the following two items:
(1) “There is no way to include eco-friendly attributes into eco-innovative products
without sacrificing their effectiveness”; and
(2) “Eco-innovations with eco-friendly attributes are rarely effective” (Lin and Chang,
2012) (a = 0.82).

For psychometric properties of the measures, see Appendix 4.

Results
Manipulation check. Participants in the control condition reported lower scores of product
eco-friendliness (M = 3.84, SD = 1.68; F(3, 218) = 12.71, p < 0.001) than those in the resource
use efficiency condition (M = 4.92, SD = 0.95), the resource use elimination condition (M =
5.23, SD = 1.18), and the resource use substitution condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.05). Moreover,
participants evaluated the product at the same level of innovativeness among the four
conditions (F(3, 218) = 2.09, ns). Therefore, the manipulation of eco-friendly attribute type
and innovativeness was successful.
Consumer responses. After the manipulation check, we compared the means of three
types of eco-friendly attributes in an eco-innovative product design by eliminating the control
condition (n = 53) from the data set. The results of the ANOVA tests, using product quality,
product preferences, adoption intentions, willingness to pay, and predicted consumption
levels as dependent variables, revealed that there were significant differences in consumers’
responses among different types of eco-innovations, confirming the findings of Study 1.
More specifically, we found that different types of eco-innovations significantly affect
product quality perceptions (F(2, 166) = 3.98, p < 0.05), adoption intentions (F(2, 166) = 4.14,
p < 0.05) and predicted consumption level (F(2, 166) = 5.00, p < 0.01), in support of H1a and
H1c. However, the results indicate that consumer preferences for eco-innovations (F(2, 166) =
 EJM 0.50, ns.) and their willingness to pay (F(2, 166) = 0.20, ns.) were not significantly different
among different types of eco-friendly attributes, thus rejecting H1b and H1d. Furthermore, in
paired comparisons (Table III), we found that participants in the resource use elimination
condition not only scored higher for product quality but also expressed stronger adoption
intentions and higher level of estimated product consumption than those in the resource use
substitution and resource use efficiency conditions. Consistent with the findings in Study 1,
the results confirm that compared with other types of eco-innovation, resource use
elimination is regarded as the more favorable option by creating more positive perceptions of
product eco-friendliness and product quality, evoking stronger adoption likelihood and even
increasing higher predicted product consumption levels.
The influence of ECI on perceived product eco-friendliness and adoption intentions. We
conducted a mediated moderation analysis using Model 15 from PROCESS macro in SPSS
for each eco-innovation type (Hayes, 2013). In the mediated moderation model, we entered
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

ECI as the independent variable, perceived trade-offs as the moderator, perceived product
eco-friendliness as the mediator, and adoption intentions as the dependent variable. We also
controlled the effects of participants’ demographic characteristics (age, gender, income and
prior product experience [measured by the number of smartphones owned]) in the analysis.
Following the bootstrapping procedure recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004), we
applied 5,000 iterations to derive a 95 per cent confidence interval for the indirect effect of
ECI on adoption intentions through perceived product eco-friendliness. None of the control
variables had significant effects on the dependent variables. Examining the conditional
indirect effects, we found that across the three types of eco-innovations, the 95 per cent
confidence interval excluded zero and z-values were significant (Table IV), indicating a
significant indirect effect of ECI on adoption intentions through perceived product eco-
friendliness, in support of H2 and H3. As Figure 1 shows, there was full mediation for the
relationships of ECI and adoption intentions in the resource use elimination innovation and
resource use substitution innovation conditions, while there was partial mediation in the
case of the resource use efficiency innovation.
Regarding the moderating effects of perceived trade-offs between eco-friendly benefits
and product effectiveness, the results indicate that perceived trade-offs significantly and
negatively moderated the positive effects of perceived eco-friendliness on adoption
intentions (interaction effect = –0.38; 95 per cent CI = [–0.66, –0.10]), in support of H4, in the
resource use efficiency condition. We also found a significant and positive moderating effect
of perceived trade-offs on the link between ECI and adoption intentions (interaction effect =
0.45; 95 per cent CI = [0.21, 0.69]), in support of H5, in the resource use efficiency condition

Predicted
Table III. Product Product Adoption Willingness consumption
Differences in quality preferences intentions to pay levels
consumer responses Types of eco-innovations M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
to types of eco-
friendly features in Resource use efficiency innovation 5.37a 0.88 5.86a 0.94 5.01a 1.43 327.89a 202.06 4.35a 3.20
eco-innovative Resource use elimination innovation 5.84b 1.07 5.97a 1.06 5.57b 1.22 307.26a 176.69 6.41b 5.35
product designs Resource use substitution innovation 5.78b 0.97 5.80a 0.83 4.90a 1.36 326.69a 206.97 4.35a 3.02
(context: an Notes: Subscripts should be interpreted only within columns; Means with the same subscript are not
innovative significantly different from each other. Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p <
smartphone) 0.05
 (Figure 2). However, we did not find any significant moderating effect of perceived trade-offs Making the
in the other two conditions. world a better
place
Discussion
Study 2 replicates key findings from Study 1 in a publicly consumed product context (an
innovative smartphone) while exploring the underlying mechanism of the effect of ECI on
adoption intentions across different types of eco-innovation. More specifically, Study 2
confirms that participants responded differently to different types of eco-friendly attributes
included in an eco-innovative product design. Resource use elimination innovations
triggered the highest perceived quality, the strongest adoption intentions and the highest
level of estimated consumption, followed by resource use substitution and resource use
efficiency innovations. The results support the generalizability of our findings in Study 1
across product categories.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

The primary objective of Study 2, however, was to demonstrate how ECI affects adoption
intentions across the different types of eco-innovation. The results reveal that stronger ECI
enhanced consumers’ perceptions of product eco-friendliness, which, in turn, affected their
adoption intentions toward an eco-innovation. The indirect effect of ECI on adoption
intentions was significant across three different types of eco-innovations. We found that the
moderating effects of perceived trade-offs occurred only in the case of the resource use
efficiency condition and not in the resource use elimination or the resource use substitution
conditions. The pattern of the results underscores that trade-offs between eco-friendly
attributes and product effectiveness play an important role in strengthening the impact of
ECI while weakening the effect of product eco-friendliness on consumers’ adoption
intentions in the context of resource use efficiency innovations.

General discussion
How do consumers respond to different types of eco-friendly attributes included in an eco-
innovative product design? No singular set of studies has yet provided a rigorous answer to
this question, but the current study attempts to illuminate one tenable explanation: because
an eco-innovation, as a really new product, consists of both innovative and eco-friendly
attributes, it requires consumers to transfer information from the repository of their past
experiences across multiple product categories to perceive and evaluate the new offerings
(Moreau et al., 2001b). In other words, different types of eco-innovations can elicit different
consumer responses, depending on how consumers use cues from multiple categories to
understand innovation and develop their expectations, preferences, and adoption intentions.
To facilitate consumers’ categorization and learning processes, marketers need to
understand and delineate the appropriate information that emphasizes the distinctiveness
(differentiating attributes) of the new product categories that should be transferred from
each domain.

Indirect effect Sobel Bias-corrected bootstrap Table IV.

Types of eco-innovations of ECI Boot SE test 95% confidence interval The indirect effect of
ECI on adoption
Resource use efficiency innovation 0.19 0.10 1.96 [0.02, 0.41]
Resource use elimination innovation 0.20 0.10 2.27 [0.04, 0.45]
intentions via
Resource use substitution innovation 0.19 0.09 2.38 [0.05, 0.43] perceived product
eco-friendliness (the
Note:  Significant at p < 0.05 mediator)
 EJM Perceived product Perceived trade-offs
Resource use efficiency innovation
n = 57 eco-friendliness × ECO
***
(ECO) 0.65
0.24*
–0.38**

0.23*
Eco-friendly consumer Adoption intentions
innovativeness (ECI)
***
0.45
Control variables:
Perceived trade-offs Age, gender, income, number of
× ECI smartphones owned

R 2 = 0.67
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Resource use elimination innovation Perceived product Perceived trade-offs

n = 58 eco-friendliness × ECO
0.40** (ECO) 0.49***
0.01ns

–0.14ns
Eco-friendly consumer Adoption intentions
innovativeness (ECI)
0.07ns
Control variables:
Perceived trade-offs
Age, gender, income, number of
× ECI
smartphones owned

R 2 = 0.34

Resource use substitution Perceived product Perceived trade-offs

innovation eco-friendliness
***
× ECO
n = 54 0.38*** (ECO) 0.49
0.15 ns

–0.02ns
Eco-friendly consumer Adoption intentions
innovativeness (ECI)
ns
0.04
Figure 1. Control variables:
Perceived trade-offs
The standardized × ECI Age, gender, income, number of
results for the smartphones owned
mediated moderation
analyses across R 2 = 0.41
different types of eco-
innovations
Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns = non-significant

Theoretical contributions
Our paper broadens and deepens the current understanding of consumer adoption of eco-
innovation in several ways. First, it is evident that the inclusion of different types of eco-
friendly attributes in new product designs can provoke different psychological and
behavioral responses among consumers. In the sustainability literature, prior work has
identified numerous factors that influence consumers’ categorization, expectations,
 perceptions, and purchase behaviors across various conventional eco-friendly product Making the
categories (e.g. shampoos, detergents) (Bodur et al., 2016; Irwin and Naylor, 2009; Lim, 2017; world a better
Sharma and Jha, 2017). As relatively new in the market, eco-innovations tend to defy
straightforward categorization (Moreau et al., 2001b). Thus, it is questionable how
place
consumers transfer relevant knowledge from multiple sources to better comprehend them.
Whereas most studies on eco-innovation are centered on the organizational perspective, we
extend this research area by focusing on the consumer perspective. In response to the
repeated calls from innovation and marketing researchers (Iyer and Reczek, 2017; Kotler,
2011; Rennings, 2000), our empirical study uncovers how consumers respond to the
introduction of different eco-innovation types.
We add to this stream of research by focusing on the distinctiveness of eco-innovation
categories – that is, by differentiating the types of eco-friendly attributes included in eco-
innovative product designs. Our results show that there are significant differences in
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

consumers’ psychological and behavioral responses toward different types of eco-

innovations. In Study 1, which used a connected vacuum cleaner as a research context,
participants expressed more positive perceptions of product eco-friendliness and product
quality as well as stronger preferences and adoption intentions toward resource use
elimination and resource use substitution innovations. However, they were not willing to
pay a higher price for these types of eco-innovation. The findings could be explained by the
fuzzy set theory, which posits that consumers assess gradedness of category membership at
the attribute level and then combine across attributes for the overall gradedness score of a
product (Viswanathan and Childers, 1999). Based on consumers’ evaluation, resource use
elimination and resource use substitution innovations possess higher gradedness of the eco-
innovative product category via creating new alternative resources, which led to more
positive consumer responses. Conversely, resource use reduction innovations, with a focus
on the mitigation approach, have lower gradedeness of the eco-innovative product category,
which could decrease consumers’ product evaluation and adoption intentions.
Study 2 confirms the findings of Study 1 in a publicly consumed product context (an
innovative smartphone). Similarly, we find that participants expressed more positive
responses to resource use elimination innovations than to the other types of eco-innovation.
In the context of innovative smartphones, although respondents were still not willing to pay
more for the resource use elimination innovation, they would adjust their sense of payment

Figure 2.
The moderating
effects of perceived
trade-offs on the
relationship between
ECI and adoption
intentions (Panel a)
and on the
relationship between
perceived product
eco-friendliness and
adoption intentions
(Panel b) in the
context of resource
use efficiency
innovations
 EJM equity by increasing the predicted consumption levels for this type of eco-innovation. The
results could be explained by the lay theory which indicates that consumers increase the use
of eco-friendly products as they consider pro-environmental products as being less effective
than traditional products (Lin and Chang, 2012; Luchs et al., 2010). We further suggest that
the higher level of product eco-friendliness consumers perceive, the more they consume the
product in comparison with other eco-friendly alternatives.
Second, drawing on a trait-based approach, we takes an initial step toward better
understanding the concept of DSI in the sustainable innovation consumption domain by
conceptualizing and operationalizing the concept of ECI to emphasize the specific facets and
motivational reasons behind this complex construct in the case of eco-innovation adoption.
We note that our ECI concept and measurement focus on the overall patterns of consumers’
tendency to adopt innovative ideas/products for environmental protection, rather than
capturing varying motivations for general ethical consumption. We further validate the
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

predictive ability of ECI on consumer responses to eco-innovation by highlighting its strong

and positive effect on consumers’ perception and adoption intentions across different types
of eco-innovations. The results further substantiate the findings of prior researchers
(Heidenreich et al., 2017; Jansson, 2011) who have posited that CI, a general and static trait,
exerts a significant influence on alternative fuel vehicle adoption. Importantly, the results
provide additional evidence that a domain-specific conceptualization and operationalization
of CI may be superior to a global CI approach (i.e. CI as a general trait) in predicting and
explaining how consumers respond to eco-innovation. Therefore, we suggest that our ECI
scale is an important part of a broader individual difference factor that can help future
researchers understand how consumer traits impact sustainable innovation adoption.
Third, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to uncover the underlying
mechanism driving the effect of ECI on consumer adoption across different types of eco-
innovation. Specifically, instead of solely investigating the direct effect of ECI on adoption
intentions, as previous studies have done (Goldsmith et al., 1998; Heidenreich et al., 2017), we
provide further insights into how ECI affects adoption intentions by factoring in consumer
perceptions of product eco-friendliness. In other words, when consumers have a strong
tendency to adopt innovative products as a means to support environmental protection, they
tend to pay more attention to the eco-friendly aspects of the innovation, which results in
higher perceived product eco-friendliness and ultimately stronger adoption intentions.
The results pertaining to the moderating roles of perceived trade-offs between
environmental benefits and product effectiveness in the context of resource use efficiency
innovations offer new insights for eco-innovation research. In particular, the findings
demonstrate how perceived trade-offs strengthen the positive effects of ECI but weaken the
impact of perceived product eco-friendliness on adoption intentions. On the one hand, our
study confirms the findings of prior studies (Luchs et al., 2012; Olson, 2013) that have
emphasized the negative effects of perceived trade-offs in consumers’ decisions to buy eco-
friendly products. In line with existing literature, we find that the higher the perceived trade-
offs, the more reluctant consumers are to adopt an eco-innovation when they perceive the
innovation to be eco-friendly. On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, our
findings uncover the positive moderating effect of perceived trade-offs on the link between
ECI and adoption intentions. Because individuals with high ECI levels are more concerned
about the eco-friendly dimension of an innovation, they are more likely to sacrifice product
effectiveness for environmental benefits as a means to signal their own innovativeness,
environmental concerns, and status relative to others. The more explicit they believe these
trade-offs to be, the more they are willing to take greater risks in adopting an eco-innovation
(Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992).
 However, the moderating effects of perceived trade-offs were significant only in the Making the
context of resource use efficiency innovations. The pattern of results reveals that consumers world a better
tend to be more concerned about the trade-offs between environmental benefits and product
effectiveness when there is a reduction in a number of resource inputs in the innovation
place
consumption process. Yet this evidence is tentative in nature; thus, more research is needed
to explore the roles of perceived trade-offs in influencing consumers’ adoption intentions in
the contexts of resource use elimination innovations and resource use substitution
innovations.

Managerial implications
Our study offers useful insights for strategic research-and-development investment and
marketing-related decisions for new products, specifically in selecting the best-suited
approaches for developing eco-innovation in order to maximize their success in the
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

commercialization phase.
New product development and positioning. Our results suggest that developing and
positioning an eco-innovation as a resource use elimination innovation could evoke more
positive consumer responses than resource use substitution innovations and resource use
efficiency innovations. Specifically, firms should place greater emphasis on advanced
technologies for eliminating the need to use a complementary product (e.g. Samsung
CycloneForce, with its ultra-low-power bagless cylinder). They should also develop
complementary product carryover innovations – for example, iPhone Qi-certified chargers,
based on wireless technology and universal charging standards, can be used for all the latest
version of iPhones in cars, cafés, hotels, and furniture. Another possible approach is to
invest in innovative materials to replace ecologically harmful components (e.g. the
innovative XO Laptop for children, which contains no hazardous materials or new Samsung
LED LCD TVs are free of mercury, a toxic metal). However, our results suggest that as
consumers are generally not willing to pay more for resource use elimination innovations,
the price for this type of eco-innovation should remain the same as that of other innovations.
Segmentation. Although previous researchers (Heidenreich et al., 2017) have argued that
companies can target different types of consumer segments to accelerate the diffusion process,
this study emphasizes the fact that the “right” consumers must be addressed during the early
phases of eco-innovation development to ensure its success in the market. Our findings suggest
that consumers with differing degrees of ECI respond differently to innovations, indicating that
ECI may be used as an effective segmentation tool to identify and profile early adopters who
have a strong tendency to try eco-friendly innovative ideas/products. In Study 2, we found that
consumers high in ECI are more likely to infer higher product eco-friendliness and express
stronger adoption intentions than low-ECI consumers. It is important to improve the
segmentation of the early adopters with high ECI in the eco-innovation market with respect to
specific types of eco-innovations so that marketers can distinctively address eco-friendly
innovative consumers that best fit the potential user profile of their products.
Customizing marketing communication strategy. Our results also reveal that, for
resource use efficiency innovations, making the trade-offs between environmental benefits
and product effectiveness easily perceivable is a key to harness the power of ECI to motivate
consumers’ adoption intentions. High-ECI consumers can then explicitly exhibit their choice
to sacrifice some degree of functional performance for sustainability as a way to signal their
innovativeness and commitment to environmental protection. For example, to target high-
ECI consumers, marketers of resource use efficiency innovations could explicitly
communicate the trade-offs between environmental benefits and product effectiveness while
emphasizing the product’s superior innovativeness and eco-friendliness over traditional
 EJM products. Conversely, when promoting eco-innovations to segments of the market that are
not as strongly dedicated to innovative ideas for sustainability (i.e. the mass market), it is
more important to find effective ways (e.g. Facebook groups, online forums, online review
ratings) for early adopters to share their experiences with the late majority who normally
have low ECI. However, in both cases, it is critical to reassure consumers that the new
product meets a minimum acceptable threshold of functional performance (Luchs et al.,
2012).
For resource use elimination and resource use substitution innovations, firms do not need
to address the trade-offs in eco-innovative product designs but instead should focus on
simply promoting the environmental benefits of these innovations to encourage consumers
with high ECI to learn more about and adopt new product concepts. Marketers might
visualize the unique features of these innovations for consumers while emphasizing the
superiority of an innovation compared with existing products, especially in terms of the
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

product’s ecological impacts.

Limitations and future research

Our study has several limitations that offer directions for future research. First, we only
consider eco-innovation across two product categories and in the context of the USA market.
Previous studies argue that consumers’ eagerness for new products varies substantially by
nationality and product category (Tellis et al., 2009). Thus, it is questionable whether our
findings are generalizable to different high-tech product categories and other cultural contexts.
Consequently, it would be appropriate to replicate the research across different high-tech
product categories and across national contexts to test whether product-related and cultural
characteristics moderate the effects of ECI on consumers’ adoption behaviors. Second, we focus
on manipulating types of eco-friendly attributes in eco-innovative product designs while
controlling for other factors (e.g. brand names and aesthetic design), while prior researchers
have underscored the important role of brand innovativeness (Shams et al., 2015) and aesthetic
design (Luchs et al., 2012) in consumers’ product evaluations and adoption timing. Including
these factors in a research model would also be a worthwhile extension that could provide
valuable insights into individual adoption behavior toward eco-innovations.
Third, in our studies, the subjects were not exposed to any pricing information. However,
price is still an important choice criterion for consumers considering ethical and eco-friendly
purchases (Gleim et al., 2013). Research addressing how consumers form their internal
reference prices for eco-innovation as really new products (e.g. through their expected prices
or price last paid for other eco-friendly products) and how they compare their internal
reference prices with actual selling prices to evaluate price fairness, infer product quality
and make adoption decisions would be an intriguing research avenue. Further research is
needed to test the effects of price promotions (e.g. coupons, rebates) and price changes as
well as individual differences (e.g. price sensitivity, price consciousness) on consumer
responses to eco-innovation. Future studies might also consider the consequences of our
results for marketing communication to different types of eco-friendly innovative
consumers. A targeted approach to determining which marketing messages best matches
the perceptions and preferences of certain eco-friendly innovative consumers may
significantly increase communication effectiveness in the eco-innovation diffusion.
Finally, we defined individual adoption as an intention to adopt an eco-innovation, WTP
and estimated product consumption levels. As many marketing scholars have stated
(Carrington et al., 2010; Hassan et al., 2014), there is an intention–behavior gap in a
sustainable consumption context. Actual adoption behavior (i.e. the first trial) and actual
consumption (i.e. actual usage levels) may be a better manifestation of the adoption decision
 because early adopters might have strong adoption intentions but feel reluctant to actually Making the
purchase an eco-innovation. Therefore, a promising direction for further research is to world a better
measure actual adoption and postadoption usage of eco-innovation in a customer
management context.
place
Eco-innovation is about more than simply new products; it is about the creation and
diffusion of innovative manufacturing processes and consumption behaviors with a greater
environmental sustainability focus. Eco-innovation is also not just about supporting
business development; it is vital to address pressing environmental challenges, such as
pollution, climate change, resource scarcity and dwindling biodiversity. The widespread
uptake of eco-innovation could light the path to a better future in which innovations enable
improved resource productivity and overall well-being for people in a cleaner and healthier
living environment. However, there are no miracle technologies for a better future unless we
find effective ways to tackle the challenges of sharing, implementing and bringing to scale
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

existing sustainable innovations.

References
Accenture (2015), “The Internet of Things: the future of consumer adoption”, Accenture Interactive,
available at: [Link]/ (accessed 13 July 2017).
Adams, R., Bessant, J., Jeanrenaud, S., Overy, P. and Denyer, D. (2012), “Innovating for sustainability: a
systematic review of the body of knowledge”, Network for Business Sustainability, available at:
[Link]/knowledge (accessed 12 July 2018).
Ahmad, S.N. and Richard, M.O. (2014), “Understanding consumer’s brand categorization across three
countries: application of fuzzy rule-based classification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 278-287.
Alwitt, L.F. and Pitts, R.E. (1996), “Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive
product”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Baldé, C.P., Forti, V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R. and Stegmann, P. (2017), “The global e-waste monitor”,
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and International Solid Waste Association,
available at: [Link]/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/GEM%202017/Global-E-waste
%20Monitor%202017%[Link] (accessed 14 February 2018).
Bamberg, S. (2003), “How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related
behaviors? A new answer to an old question”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Bartels, J. and Reinders, M.J. (2011), “Consumer innovativeness and its correlates: a propositional
inventory for future research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 601-609.
Bodur, H.O., Gao, T. and Grohmann, B. (2014), “The ethical attribute stigma: understanding when
ethical attributes improve consumer responses to product evaluations”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 167-177.
Bodur, H.O., Tofighi, M. and Grohmann, B. (2016), “When should private label brands endorse ethical
attributes?”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 204-217.
Calcott, P. and Walls, M. (2005), “Waste, recycling, and ‘Design for environment’: roles for markets and
policy instruments”, Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 287-305.
Carmichael, S.G. (2014), “The silent killer of new products: lazy pricing”, Havard Business Review, available
at: [Link] (accessed 16 July 2018).
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2010), “Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk:
towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and
actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97
No. 1, pp. 139-158.
 EJM Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A. and Whitwell, G.J. (2014), “Lost in translation: exploring the ethical
consumer intention–behavior gap”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 2759-2767.
Celhay, F. and Trinquecoste, J.F. (2015), “Package graphic design: investigating the variables that
moderate consumer response to atypical designs”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1014-1032.
Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988), “The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 210-224.
Chan, S. and Ip, W. (2010), “A Scorecard-Markov model for new product screening decisions”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 7, pp. 971-992.
Claudy, M.C., Peterson, M. and O’Driscoll, A. (2013), “Understanding the attitude-behavior gap for
renewable energy systems using behavioral reasoning theory”, Journal of Macromarketing,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 273-287.
Cole, D. and Chaikin, I. (1990), An Iron Hand Upon the People: The Law against the Potlatch on the
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Northwest Coast, University of Washington, DC Press, Washington, DC.

Cooper, R., Edgett, S. and Kleinschmidt, E. (2001), “Portfolio management for new product development:
results of an industry practices study”, R and D Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 361-380.
Cornelissen, G., Pandelaere, M., Warlop, L. and Dewitte, S. (2008), “Positive cueing: promoting
sustainable consumer behavior by cueing common environmental behaviors as environmental”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Du, S., Yalcinkaya, G. and Bstieler, L. (2016), “Sustainability, social media driven open innovation, and
new product development performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33,
pp. 55-71.
Englis, B.G. and Phillips, D.M. (2013), “Does innovativeness drive environmentally conscious consumer
behavior?”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 160-172.
European Commission (2012), “Eco-innovation: the key to europe’s future competitiveness”, European
Commission, available at: [Link]
[Link] (accessed 6 March 2018).
European Commission (2013), “Science for environment policy: resource efficiency indicators”,
European Commission, available at: [Link]
newsalert/pdf/IR4_en.pdf (accessed 10 February 2018).
Fuller, D.A. and Ottman, J.A. (2004), “Moderating unintended pollution: the role of sustainable product
design”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1231-1238.
Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A. and Wooliscroft, B. (2016), “Diffusion of innovation: the case of ethical
tourism behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 2711-2720.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1985), “A propositional inventory for new diffusion research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 849-867.
Gershoff, A.D. and Frels, J.K. (2014), “What makes it green? the role of centrality of green attributes in
evaluations of the greenness of products”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H.H., Cronin, J.J., Jr and Hult, G.T.M. (2016), “Adjusting the warm-glow
thermostat: how incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs moderates their impact
on service satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 56-71.
Gleim, M.R., Smith, J.S., Andrews, D. and Cronin, J.J. (2013), “Against the green: a multi-method
examination of the barriers to green consumption”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 44-61.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, p. 209.
Goldsmith, R.E., d’Hauteville, F. and Flynn, L.R. (1998), “Theory and measurement of consumer
innovativeness: a transnational evaluation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 3/4,
pp. 340-353.
 Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. and Eastman, J.K. (1995), “The generality/specificity issue in consumer Making the
innovativeness research”, Technovation, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 601-612.
world a better
Gonçalves, H.M., Lourenço, T.F. and Silva, G.M. (2016), “Green buying behavior and the theory of
consumption values: a fuzzy-set approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 4, place
pp. 1484-1491.
Goode, M.R., Dahl, D.W. and Moreau, C.P. (2013), “Innovation aesthetics: the relationship between
category cues, categorization certainty, and newness perceptions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 192-208.
Goodman, J., Korsunova, A. and Halme, M. (2017), “Our collaborative future: activities and roles of
stakeholders in sustainability-oriented innovation”, Business Strategy and the Environment.
Grewal, R., Mehta, R. and Kardes, F.R. (2004), “The timing of repeat purchases of consumer durable
goods: the role of functional bases of consumer attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 101-115.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Griskevicius, V., Cant, S.M. and Vugt, M.V. (2012), “The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior:
implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 115-128.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010), “Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and
conspicuous conservation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, p. 392.
Guiltinan, J. (2009), “Creative destruction and destructive creations: environmental ethics and planned
obsolescence”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 89 No. S1, pp. 19-28.
Hahnel, U.J.J., Gölz, S. and Spada, H. (2014), “How does green suit me? Consumers mentally match
perceived product attributes with their domain-specific motives when making green purchase
decisions”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 317-327.
Halila, F. and Rundquist, J. (2011), “The development and market success of environmental
innovations: a comparative study of environmental innovations and ‘other’ innovations in
Sweden”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 278-302.
Han, J., Seo, Y. and Ko, E. (2017), “Staging luxury experiences for understanding sustainable fashion
consumption: a balance theory application”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 74, pp. 162-167.
Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012), “Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green
energy brands: the roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1254-1263.
Hassan, L.M., Shiu, E. and Shaw, D. (2014), “Who says there is an intention–behaviour gap? assessing
the empirical evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Hauser, J., Tellis, G.J. and Griffin, A. (2006), “Research on innovation: a review and agenda for
marketing science”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 687-717.
Haws, K.L., Winterich, K.P. and Naylor, R.W. (2014), “Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses:
green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 336-354.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Heidenreich, S. and Kraemer, T. (2016), “Innovations – doomed to fail? Investigating strategies to
overcome passive innovation resistance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 277-297.
Heidenreich, S., Kraemer, T. and Handrich, M. (2016), “Satisfied and unwilling: exploring cognitive and
situational resistance to innovations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 7, pp. 2440-2447.
Heidenreich, S., Spieth, P. and Petschnig, M. (2017), “Ready, steady, green: examining the effectiveness
of external policies to enhance the adoption of eco-friendly innovations”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 343-359.
 EJM Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-295.
HM Treasury (2005), “Energy efficiency innovation review”, HM Treasury, available at: [Link].
[Link]/[Link]?Document=EE01001_3797_FRP.pdf (accessed 12 March 2018).
Hoffmann, S. and Soyez, K. (2010), “A cognitive model to predict domain-specific consumer
innovativeness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 778-785.
Hoffman, D.L., Kopalle, P.K. and Novak, T.P. (2010), “The ‘right’ consumers for better concepts:
identifying consumers high in emergent nature to develop new product concepts”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 854-865.
Hofstetter, R., Miller, K.M., Krohmer, H. and Zhang, Z.J. (2013), “How do consumer characteristics affect
the bias in measuring willingness to pay for innovative products?”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 1042-1053.
Hoornweg, D. and Bhada-Tata, P. (2012), “What a waste: a global review of solid waste management”,
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

World Bank, available at: [Link]

pdf/[Link] (accessed 7 March 2018).
Im, S., Bayus, B.L. and Mason, C.H. (2003), “An empirical study of innate consumer innovativeness,
personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Irwin, J.R. and Naylor, R.W. (2009), “Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: weighting of
ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product
alternatives”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 234-246.
Irwin, R.J. and Spira, J.S. (1997), “Anomalies in the values for consumer goods with environmental
attributes”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 339-363.
Iyer, E.S. and Reczek, R.W. (2017), “The intersection of sustainability, marketing, and public policy:
introduction to the special section on sustainability”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 246-254.
Janssen, A., Lienin, S.F., Gassmann, F. and Wokaun, A. (2006), “Model aided policy development for the
market penetration of natural gas vehicles in Switzerland”, Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 316-333.
Jansson, J. (2011), “Consumer eco-innovation adoption: assessing attitudinal factors and perceived
product characteristics”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 192-210.
Jhang, J.H., Grant, S.J. and Campbell, M.C. (2012), “Get it?? Got it: good! Enhancing new product
acceptance by facilitating resolution of extreme incongruity”, Journal of Marketing Research
(JMR), Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Karmarkar, U.R. and Bollinger, B. (2015), “BYOB: how bringing your own shopping bags leads to
treating yourself and the environment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Katsikeas, C.S., Leonidou, C.N. and Zeriti, A. (2016), “Eco-friendly product development strategy:
antecedents, outcomes, and contingent effects”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 660-684.
Kazeminia, A., Hultman, M. and Mostaghel, R. (2016), “Why pay more for sustainable services? The
case of ecotourism”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11, pp. 4992-4997.
Kirton, M. (1976), “Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 622.
Klink, R.R. and Athaide, G.A. (2010), “Consumer innovativeness and the use of new versus extended
brand names for new products”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 23-32.
Kotler, P. (2011), “Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 132-135.
 Li, G., Zhang, R. and Wang, C. (2015), “The role of product originality, usefulness and motivated Making the
consumer innovativeness in new product adoption intentions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 214-223.
world a better
Lim, W.M. (2017), “Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: critical concepts for
place
sustainability, consumption, and marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 78, pp. 69-80.
Lin, Y.C. and Chang, C.C.A. (2012), “Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green
product usage”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 125-134.
Luchs, M.G., Brower, J. and Chitturi, R. (2012), “Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design
given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance”, Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 903-916.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R. and Raghunathan, R. (2010), “The sustainability liability:
potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74
No. 5, pp. 18-31.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Mahadevan, B. (2015), Operations Management: Theory and Practice, Pearson Education India, New Delhi.
Majid, K.A. and Russell, C.A. (2015), “Giving green a second thought: modeling the value retention of green
products in the secondary market”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 994-1002.
Maksimovic, M. (2017), “The role of green internet of things (G-IoT) and big data in making cities
smarter, safer and more sustainable”, International Journal of Computing and Digital Systemss,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 175-184.
Malhotra, N.K. (2016), Marketing in and for a Sustainable Society, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. and Madden, T.J. (1995), “Consumer innovativeness and the adoption
process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 329-345.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 229-242.
Mitchell, K. (2015), “New inventions 2015: top eco-friendly designs and innovations”, My Modern Net,
available at: [Link] (accessed
20 February 2018).
Moon, S., Bergey, P.K., Bove, L.L. and Robinson, S. (2016), “Message framing and individual traits in
adopting innovative, sustainable products (ISPs): evidence from biofuel adoption”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9, pp. 3553-3560.
Moreau, C.P., Lehmann, D.R. and Markman, A.B. (2001a), “Entrenched knowledge structures and
consumer response to new products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 14-29.
Moreau, C.P., Markman, A.B. and Lehmann, D.R. (2001b), “What is it?” categorization flexibility and
consumers’ responses to really new products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 489-498.
Mowen, J.C. (2004), “Exploring the trait of competitiveness and its consumer behavior consequences”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1-2, pp. 52-63.
Newman, G.E., Gorlin, M. and Dhar, R. (2014), “When going green backfires: how firm intentions shape
the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 823-839.
Ng, I.C. and Wakenshaw, S.Y. (2017), “The internet-of-things: review and research directions”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 3-21.
Ng, I., Scharf, K., Pogrebna, G. and Maull, R. (2015), “Contextual variety, Internet-of-Things and the
choice of tailoring over platform: mass customisation strategy in supply chain management”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 159, pp. 76-87.
OECD (2009), “Sustainable manufacturing and eco-innovation synthesis report: framework, practices
and measurement”, OECD, available at: [Link]/innovation/inno/[Link] (accessed
23 August 2017).
 EJM Olsen, M.C., Slotegraaf, R.J. and Chandukala, S.R. (2014), “Green claims and message frames: how green
new products change Brand attitude”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 119-137.
Olson, E.L. (2013), “It’s not easy being green: the effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product
preference and choice”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 171-184.
Peloza, J., White, K. and Shang, J. (2013), “Good and guilt-free: the role of self-accountability in
influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 77 No. 1,
pp. 104-119.
Peyer, M., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B. and Klemm, A. (2017), “The role of sustainability in profiling
voluntary simplifiers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 37-43.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Pujari, D. (2006), “Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on
market performance”, Technovation, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Pujari, D., Wright, G. and Peattie, K. (2003), “Green and competitive: influences on environmental new
product development performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 657-671.
Ratchford, B.T. (1987), “New insights about the FCB grid”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 24-38.
Rennings, K. (2000), “Redefining innovation – eco-innovation research and the contribution from
ecological economics”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 319-332.
Roehrich, G. (2004), “Consumer innovativeness: concepts and measurements”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 671-677.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971), Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Saygin, D., Kempener, R., Wagner, N., Ayuso, M. and Gielen, D. (2015), “The implications for renewable
energy innovation of doubling the share of renewables in the global energy mix between 2010
and 2030”, Energies, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 5828-5865.
Schandl, H. (2011), Resource Efficiency: Economics and Outlook for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations
Publications, Bangkok.
Schneider, J. and Hall, J. (2011), Why Most Product Launches Fail, Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation, Watertown, MA.
Shams, R., Alpert, F. and Brown, M. (2015), “Consumer perceived Brand innovativeness:
conceptualization and operationalization”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos No. 9/10,
pp. 1589-1615.
Sharma, R. and Jha, M. (2017), “Values influencing sustainable consumption behaviour: exploring the
contextual relationship”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 76, pp. 77-88.
Steenkamp, J.B.E. and Baumgartner, H. (1992), “The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory
consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 434-448.
Sujan, M. and Dekleva, C. (1987), “Product categorization and inference making: some implications for
comparative advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 372-378.
Summers, J.O. (1972), “Media exposure patterns of consumer innovators”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 43-49.
Tangari, A.H. and Smith, R.J. (2012), “How the temporal framing of energy savings influences
consumer product evaluations and choice”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 198-208.
Tellis, G.J., Yin, E. and Bell, S. (2009), “Global consumer innovativeness: cross-country differences and
demographic commonalities”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 1-22.
United Nations (2013), “World economic and social survey 2013: sustainable development challenges”,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, available at: [Link]
org/content/documents/[Link] (accessed 7 March 2018).
 Van der Wal, A.J., Van Horen, F. and Grinstein, A. (2016), “The paradox of ‘green to be seen’: green Making the
high-status shoppers excessively use (branded) shopping bags”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 216-219. world a better
Vandecasteele, B. and Geuens, M. (2010), “Motivated consumer innovativeness: concept, measurement, place
and validation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 308-318.
Varadarajan, R. (2015), “Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a
model of sustainable innovations orientation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
pp. 1-23.
Venkatraman, M.P. and Price, L.L. (1990), “Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness: concepts, measurement, and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 293-315.
Viswanathan, M. and Childers, T.L. (1999), “Understanding how product attributes influence product
categorization: development and validation of fuzzy set-based measures of gradedness in
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

product categories”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 75-94.

Völckner, F. (2008), “The dual role of price: decomposing consumers’ reactions to price”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 359-377.
Weaver, K., Daniloski, K., Schwarz, N. and Cottone, K. (2015), “The role of social comparison for
maximizers and satisficers: wanting the best or wanting to be the best?”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 372-388.
Wiedmann, K.P., Hennigs, N., Pankalla, L., Kassubek, M. and Seegebarth, B. (2011), “Adoption barriers
and resistance to sustainable solutions in the automotive sector”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 64 No. 11, pp. 1201-1206.
Wu, J.H., Wu, C.W., Lee, C.T. and Lee, H.J. (2015), “Green purchase intentions: an exploratory study of
the taiwanese electric motorcycle market”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 4,
pp. 829-833.
Yang, D., Lu, Y., Zhu, W. and Su, C. (2015), “Going green: how different advertising appeals impact
green consumption behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2663-2675.
Zahavi, A. and Zahavi, A. (1999), The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Zhang, T., Gensler, S. and Garcia, R. (2011), “A study of the diffusion of alternative fuel vehicles: an
agent-based modeling approach”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 152-168.

Corresponding author
Nicholas G. Paparoidamis can be contacted at: [Link]@[Link]
 EJM Appendix 1

Level of abstract Conceptualization Examples Operationalization

High Generalized trait Innovativeness as a cognitive Self-reported scales across

innovativeness style – Kirton (1976) product categories
Innate innovativeness –
Midgley and Dowling (1978)
Inherent novelty seeking –
Hirschman (1980)
Cognitive and sensory
innovativeness – Venkatraman
and Price (1990)
Motivated Consumer
Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Innovativeness – Vandecasteele
and Geuens (2010)
Intermediate Domain-specific trait Domain specific innovativeness Self-reported scales within
innovativeness Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) a specific product
Ethical consumption category
innovativeness scale –
Table AI. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and
Wooliscroft (2016)
Conceptualizations of
Low Innovative behaviors/ Innovative buying behaviors – Purchase intentions
consumer Actualized Summers (1972) Actual purchase behavior
innovativeness used innovativeness/ Use Actualized innovativeness: – Relative time of adoption
within the marketing innovativeness Hirschman (1980) Ownership of an
field innovative product
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Type of eco-friendly attributes studied

Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings Appendix 2
Alwitt and Pitts USA Disposable diapers x Purchase intentions General environmental concern has
(1996) only an indirect effect on purchase
intentions for environmentally
relevant products through
environmentally relevant attitudes
Irwin and Spira USA Automobiles An x x Perceived eco- The specific type of eco-friendly
(1997) orthogonal array friendliness attributes (i.e., recycled content)
Willingness to pay has a negative impact on consumer
Purchase intention responses.
Recycled content did not show a
strong embedding effect on the
consumers’ perception of eco-
friendliness
Pujari et al. (2003) USA Light bulbs x Product choice Consumers lower in elaboration are
Product preferences more likely to choose an energy-
Perception of purchase efficient product when perceived
timing distance is proximal versus distal
Cornelissen et al. Spain Light bulbs, and x x Product choice The cueing of common ecological
(2008) detergents Attitudes towards behaviors leads participants to
Product preferences choose environmentally friendly
products with greater frequency
and even to use scrap paper more
efficiently.
Cueing people with common
environmental behaviors affects
their pro-environmental self-
perception more strongly than
cueing with uncommon
environmental behaviors
Luchs et al. (2010) USA Shampoos, detergent, x Product preferences The positive effect of product
automobile tires, and sustainability on consumer
hand sanitizers preferences is reduced when
strength-related attributes are
valued, thus sometimes even
resulting in preferences for less
sustainable product alternatives

(continued)

consumption
Table AII.
place

on sustainable
Selected studies of
world a better
Making the

the existing research

 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

EJM

Table AII.
Type of eco-friendly attributes studied
Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Wiedmann et al. Germany Natural gas vehicles x Resistance to NGVs Financial, performance
(2011) (NGVs) (technological), time, social, and
psychological risk positively affect
consumers’ innovation resistance
to NGVs
Zhang et al. (2011) USA Alternative fuel x Diffusion of eco- Technology push can be an
vehicles (AFVs) innovations important mechanism for speeding
the diffusion of AFVs.
Market pull has a positive impact
on the diffusion of AFVs and
increases the social good as well as
higher willingness to pay for
AFVs.
Governmental push leads to a
decrease in the social good
Griskevicius et al. Mexico Cars, household x x Product preferences Activating status motives
(2010) cleaners, dishwashers encourage people to choose green
backpacks, batteries, products over more luxurious non-
and lamps green products
Status motives increased desire for
green products when shopping in
public and when green products
cost more than non-green products
Hartmann and Spain A fictitious green x Brand attitude Utilitarian benefits of green
Apaolaza-Ibáñez energy brand Purchase intention products have positive effects on
(2012) purchase intentions
Nature experience evoked by
advertising has the strongest
influence on brand attitude but no
effect on purchase intention
Lin and Chang USA Hand sanitizer x Product usage Consumers who are more
(2012) environmentally conscious overuse
a green product driven by
perceptions of a product’s
effectiveness

(continued)
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Type of eco-friendly attributes studied

Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Luchs et al. (2012) USA Shoes and phones x x Product choice Consumers tend to choose the
product with superior functional
performance over the product with
superior sustainability
characteristics
The effective use of product
aesthetic design can improve the
relative choice likelihood of
sustainable products
Gleim et al. (2013) USA Shower cleaner x Satisfaction Price is a significant barrier, but
Purchase intentions expertise also appears to be a
significant impediment to the green
product consumption
Consumers experienced poor product
quality with a previous purchase and
thus were reluctant to purchase a green
product again
Number and form of informational cues
that educate consumers about green
products overcome purchase barriers
Olson (2013) Norway Cars and x Product preferences Strong preferences for green
televisions Purchase intention products are found when trade-offs
are not apparent, but preferences
shift significantly to less green
alternatives when the actual
attribute trade-offs are considered
Peloza et al. (2013) USA Juice, coffee, tea, x Product preferences Situational factors that heighten
crackers consumers’ self-accountability lead
to increased preferences for
products promoted through their
ethical attributes
The subtle activation of self-
accountability leads to more
positive reactions to ethical appeals
than explicit guilt appeals

(continued)

Table AII.
place
world a better
Making the
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

EJM

Table AII.
Type of eco-friendly attributes studied
Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Haws et al. (2014) USA Bags, detergent x Relative preference Stronger green consumption
dresses, shirts Willingness to pay values increase preference for
Likelihood to environmentally friendly products
buy through more favorable
evaluations of the environmental
attributes
Newman et al. (2014) USA A dish soap and x Purchase intention Consumers are less likely to
household cleaner purchase a green product when
they perceive that the company
intentionally made the product
better for the environment
compared with when the same
environmental benefit occurred as
an unintended side effect
Olsen et al. (2014) USA Household products, x Brand attitude New green product introductions
food, beverages, and can improve brand attitude
personal care Brand and category’s positioning
positively affects the introduction of
new green products
Gershoff and Frels USA Mattress, panini and x Perceived greenness If a central attribute offers a green
(2014) waffle maker, CPU, PM benefit, the product is perceived as
monitor more environmentally friendly
than when a peripheral attribute
provides an identical
environmental benefit
Karmarkar and USA Shopping bags, x Purchase intention Bringing one’s own bags positively
Bollinger (2015) organic products affects the purchase of indulgent
items
The increased likelihood of
purchasing organic when bringing
one’s own bag is reduced by larger
price premiums

(continued)
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Type of eco-friendly attributes studied

Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Majid and Russell USA Cars x Value retention Hybrid (i.e., green) vehicles lose
(2015) value faster than their nonhybrid
counterparts
Pure green brands (e.g., the Prius),
whose ability to express greenness
is more salient, lose value at a
slower rate than green brand
extensions
Pure green brands are also less
vulnerable to the threat of
obsolescence from technological
innovations
Wu et al. (2015) Taiwan Electric vehicles x Purchase intention Image has a positive effect on value
and purchase intention
Risk has a negative effect on
purchase
Perceived usefulness and value
have a positive effect on purchase
intention
Yang et al. (2015) China Natural drinks x x Purchase intention Abstract (concrete) appeal is more
Cars effective in generating green
purchase intentions than concrete
(abstract) appeal in situations
where the benefit association of
green products is other (self)
Public self-awareness and identity
salience moderate the effect of
appeal type and benefit association
on green purchase intentions
Van der Wal et al. The Netherlands Shopping bags x Product preference Shoppers of a high-status
(2016) organic products sustainable grocery chain display
sustainable shopping more by
using branded shopping bags than
shoppers of a lower-status chain

(continued)

Table AII.
place
world a better
Making the
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

EJM

Table AII.
Type of eco-friendly attributes studied
Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Bodur et al. (2016) USA Chips and juices x Brand evaluation The positive effect of ethical
attributes on consumer evaluations
of high-priced private label brands
(PLBs) and PLBs associated with
lower retail reputation was
mediated by consumers’ quality
perceptions
Consumers with negative resource
synergy beliefs evaluated PLBs
with ethical attributes and
associated with a low reputation
retailer particularly unfavorably
Gonçalves et al. Portugal Biological products x Purchase intention Functional value is almost always
(2016) necessary but is not sufficient by
itself for predicting green buying.
In contrast, the absence of the
functional value is a sufficient
condition for not green buying.
Moon et al. (2016) USA and New high-tech biofuel x Adoption intention Consumer traits positively
Australia associated with the adoption of
bio-butanol are environmental
consciousness, prosocial behavior,
and openness to new experiences,
whereas vertical individualism
discourages such adoption
Han et al. (2017) Korea Female clothes x Sustainable fashion Fashion consumers’ limited
consumption (SFPC) awareness and knowledge about
sustainable fashion products may
promote negative sentiments
toward SFPC
Developing and staging consumer-
centered experiences help balance
the psychological attitude–
behaviors gap between
sustainability concerns and SFPC

(continued)
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Type of eco-friendly attributes studied

Resource use Resource use
Resource use elimination (e.g. substitution (e.g. General claims (e.g. Consumer behavior
reduction (e.g. harmful chemical renewable better for the aspects examined
Study Context Product categories energy efficiency) elimination) energy) environment) (dependent variable) Major findings

Peyer et al. (2017) Germany Consumer durable x Purchase intention Voluntary simplifiers buy more
goods Consciousness for green products, exhibit a greater
sustainable environmental and economic
consumption sustainability consciousness, and
share more universalistic values
Heidenreich et al. Germany Alternative fuel x Adoption intention AFV adoption relates positively to
(2017) vehicles consumer innovativeness, and this
effect can be intensified by
providing external policies such as
infrastructure, incentives, and
communication policies
This study USA IoT-based products x x x Product quality Consumers tend to express more
(high-tech products) Product preferences positive product beliefs, higher
Adoption intention preferences, and stronger adoption
Willingness to pay intention toward resource use
Predicted level elimination innovations compared
consumption with the other types of eco-
innovations across two product
categories

Table AII.
place
world a better
Making the
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

EJM

innovative
cleaner and

smartphone
Table AIII.

manipulations
Connected vacuum
Appendix 3

Resource use reduction Resource use elimination Resource use substitution

Conditions Control condition innovation innovation innovation

Study 1 Connected vacuum Connected vacuum cleaner B: A Connected vacuum cleaner C: Connected vacuum
cleaner A: A new new eco-friendly vacuum for our A new eco-friendly vacuum for cleaner D: A new eco-
vacuum for our daily life planet our planet friendly vacuum for our
planet
Innovative features Remotely controlled by Remotely controlled by a Remotely controlled by a Remotely controlled by a
a smartphone app smartphone app smartphone app smartphone app
Eco-friendly attributes 50% less energy consumption Vacuum cleaners with Solar vacuum tube
based on the compression canisters whose contents can enabling renewable energy
technology be directly emptied into a substitute
wastebasket, thus eliminating
the use of disposable bags
Study 2 Smartphone A: A new Smartphone B: A new eco- Smartphone C: A new eco- Smartphone D: A new eco-
smartphone for an friendly smartphone for a new friendly smartphone for a new friendly smartphone for a
enjoyable life lifestyle lifestyle new lifestyle
Innovative features Home automation: Home automation: connected to Home automation: connected Home automation:
connected to home home applications to home applications connected to home
applications applications
Eco-friendly attributes A 10/10 reparability score for all Eliminating radiation emission Solar phone charger
components to reduce resource based on the new technology enabling renewable energy
usage and electronic waste substitute
 Downloaded by University of Texas at Dallas At 20:59 02 March 2019 (PT)

Appendix 4
Study 1 (n = 131) M SD CR AVE MSV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Perceived product eco-friendliness 5.03 1.25 0.95 0.87 0.29 1

2. Perceived product innovativeness 5.60 1.24 0.95 0.79 0.28 0.39  1
3. Product preferences 5.88 1.05 0.95 0.84 0.39 0.31  0.26  1
4. Adoption intentions 4.81 1.59 0.95 0.86 0.39 0.33  0.31  0.30  1
5. Product quality 5.63 1.05 – – – 0.31  0.33  0.31  0.30  1
6. Willingness to pay (U.S. dollar) 198.96 105.25 – – – 0.16 0.18 0.24  0.17 0.35  1
7. Age 43.47 12.93 – – – 0.00 0.00 –0.21 –0.26  –0.24  –0.19 1
8. Income 5.95 3.06 – – – –0.02 0.02 –0.08 0.06 0.00 –0.04 –0.16 1
9. Prior experience 1.91 0.72 – – – 0.15 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.03 –0.11 0.16 1
10. Gender – – – – – –0.01 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.02

Study 2 (n = 222) M SD CR AVE MSV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Perceived product eco-friendliness 4.68 1.33 0.95 0.87 0.37 1
2. Perceived product innovativeness 5.23 1.22 0.95 0.79 0.32 0.36  1
3. Product preferences 5.71 1.11 0.95 0.83 0.33 0.37  0.35  1
4. Adoption intentions 4.92 1.48 0.93 0.82 0.33 0.37  0.25  0.39  1
5. ECI 4.03 1.37 0.94 0.77 0.14 0.39  0.27  0.22  0.35  1
6. Perceived trade-offs 3.11 1.42 0.82 0.70 0.04 –0.05 –0.09 –0.16 –0.15 –0.15 1
7. Product quality 5.54 1.14 – – – 0.34  0.36  0.38  0.32  0.23  –0.14 1
8. Willingness to pay (U.S. dollar) 301.82 201.18 – – – 0.22  0.25  0.36  0.37  0.11 –0.04 0.20  1
9. Predicted consumption levels (hours) 5.09 4.12 – – – 0.09 0.18  0.14 0.19  0.18  0.02 0.12 0.20 1
10. Age 42.18 12.88 – – – 0.02 0.01 0.03 –0.15 –0.03 –0.09 –0.07 –0.03 –0.22  1
11. Income 5.55 7.73 – – – –0.13 –0.06 –0.07 –0.02 –0.02 –0.01 –0.07 0.12 0.01 –0.02 1
12. Prior experience 3.27 1.23 – – – 0.06 0.13 0.10 0.18  0.07 –0.06 0.14 0.20  0.13 –0.07 0.07 1
13. Gender – – – – – 0.04 0.20  0.10 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.08 –0.05 –0.01
 
Notes: Significant at p < 0.01 (two-tailed); significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed)

deviations,
place

maximum shared
(AVE) scores,
Means, standard

variance (MSV), and

Table AIV.

variance extracted
reliabilities, average
world a better

correlations
Making the