The Business of ‘Behaviour Change’: Analyzing the consumer-oriented corporate
sustainability journey of low-temperature laundry
Dr Josephine Mylan Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester 188 Waterloo Place, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK [email protected]
Abstract
This article contributes to the literature on corporate sustainability management by
investigating corporate-led consumer ‘behaviour change’ initiative designed to promote
sustainable consumption. This is done through an in depth longitudinal case study of Procter
and Gamble’s (P&G) low temperature laundry initiative as it unfolded over a ten year period
to become an industry-wide campaign with broad societal acceptance and institutional
support by 2013. The analysis is guided by concepts from three prominent organizational
theories used in the study of corporate sustainability (stakeholder theory, institutional theory,
and the resource based view of the firm). The case demonstrates that a successful behaviour
change initiative involves far more than providing information or incentive for consumers,
entailing changes in regulation, technology, product design, mental models and legitimacy.
P&G’s management strategy can be viewed as an emergent and open-ended innovation
journey that took time, required resources and involved adjustments in goals as mental
models evolved.
Key words
Innovation journey; eco innovation; sustainable consumption and production; behaviour
change; climate change; consumer practice; Corporate sustainability management.
1. Introduction
This article aims to contribute to the literature on sustainability management (Montiel and
Delgado-Ceballos, 2014; Schaltegger et al., 2013; Starik and Kanashiro, 2013), within which
1
four types of firm strategy can be distinguished: 1) cleaner production, which addresses
internal production processes, for example, reducing waste, enhancing efficiency, and closing
material loops (Frondel et al., 2007), 2) environmental supply chain management, which
focuses on greening supply arrangements and practices of suppliers (Seuring and Müller,
2008), 3) the design and development of greener products and services (Kemp and Oltra,
2011), and 4) sustainable consumption, which is a consumer-oriented approach. This paper
aims to make a contribution to this last strategy, which is less prominent than the other three
types, but has gained visibility in recent years in OECD countries and embodies high hopes
for delivering sustainability outcomes (Spaargaren and van Koppen, 2009).
Firms’ tactics for promoting ‘sustainable consumption’ usually aim to persuade
consumers to purchase greener alternatives (such as energy efficient light bulbs or hybrid
cars) through provision of information (via labels e.g. Young et al. 2009) or appeal to
consumer ethics or values (via ‘social marketing’ e.g. Peattie and Peattie, 2009). So, most
firm initiatives to promote sustainable consumption equate consumer ‘behaviour change’
with the purchase of greener products. While this is an important step, the literature on
sustainable consumption and production (Geels et al., 2015, Tukker et al., 2008) also
highlights the importance of the actual use of greener products, and their incorporation into
daily life, for delivering sustainable outcomes (Ozaki et al., 2013).
While firms rarely try to change how consumers use products, there are some recent
instances where they have attempted to intervene in domestic practices to promote
sustainable consumption. UK supermarkets, for instance, have been instrumental in initiatives
which aim to reduce domestic food waste (Evans and Welch, 2015). Another example is
initiatives by branded clothing companies, including retailers and jeans brands, to stimulate
reuse of clothing (Armstrong et al., 2016). This paper aims to further develop the
understanding of corporate sustainable consumption initiatives that attempt to engage more
deeply with peoples’ everyday lives, by investigating the case of ‘low temperature laundry’,
which attempted to alter how people do domestic laundry.
Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) ‘low-temperature laundry’ initiative aimed to change
consumer behaviour from washing clothes at 40, 60 or 900C to laundering at lower
temperatures (i.e. 300C or lower). Low-temperature laundry is viewed as a green initiative,
because it reduces the carbon footprint associated with domestic washing. Pioneered by P&G
in the early 2000s, through their leading detergent brand Ariel, the initiative subsequently
gained support from the wider detergents industry (including the industry body AISE1), 1 International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products
2
washing machine manufacturers, regulators, NGOs, and consumer organizations. By the early
2010s, washing clothes at lower temperatures was also endorsed by policymakers as desirable
green consumer behaviour. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), for
example, highlights ‘low-temperature laundry’ as one of five ‘behavioral’ energy efficiency
measures which could contribute to reductions of domestic energy required to meet UK
climate change targets (DECC, 2012). In 2013, the European Commissioner for Climate
Change, Connie Hedegaard, endorsed the launch of a Europe wide consumer information
campaign on the issue as part of the ‘Climate You Like’ program, stating:
‘I very much welcome the “I prefer 30°” campaign by A.I.S.E. This is an example of
partnership at its best and is fully in the spirit of the Commission’s aim to encourage
multi-stakeholder action in the fight against climate change. If we all make small changes
to our daily habits, together we CAN make a big difference. Let’s work together for a
better climate - one machine wash at a time!’
Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action (AISE, 2013: 2)
While ‘behaviour change’ as a corporate sustainability strategy might initially look like a
relatively straightforward matter of educating consumers about environmental impacts of
their behaviour and persuading them to act differently, this paper demonstrates that this is not
the case. Instead of simply persuading consumers to turn down the dial on the washing
machine, the case study will demonstrate the co-evolutionary and multi-actor nature of the
initiative, which entailed changes in technology, regulation, organizational identity, mental
models and legitimacy within the detergent industry and beyond. As such, P&G’s
management of the initiative was not a straightforward process of goal identification,
planning and implementation. Rather, the initiative is better viewed as an emergent and open-
ended ‘innovation journey’ (Van de Ven et al., 1999), which was initiated by P&G, and
entailed management on multiple dimensions, including organizational capabilities,
interpretations, and stakeholders, but ultimately entailed processes beyond the sphere of
influence of the corporation.
The paper addresses the empirical question: How did P&G manage the low-
temperature laundry initiative as it grew from a general idea in the late 1990s to an industry-
wide campaign with broad societal acceptance and institutional support by 2013? To answer
this question, an in-depth longitudinal case study of P&G’s initiative is presented, using a
range of data including publicly available documents and semi-structured expert interviews
with representatives from P&G and the detergents industry (see section 3 for a further
3
discussion of methods). To address the co-evolutionary complexity of the innovation journey,
which entailed management on multiple dimensions, insights from three key perspectives
used in the corporate sustainability management literature (Starik and Kanashiro, 2013;
Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos, 2014) are mobilized to guide the case study and analysis:
stakeholder theory, the resource-based view of the firm and institutional theory.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents guiding concepts from three
analytical approaches. It discusses the general idea behind each perspective and its relevance
for sustainability management and the particular case. Section 3 describes the methodology
and data-collection methods. Section 4 presents a longitudinal case study of the low-
temperature laundry initiative organized in four phases highlighting the key developments
from 1999 to 2012. Section 5 provides a deeper analysis of the innovation journey, explicitly
using concepts from the three analytical approaches, and exploring their interaction. The
paper ends with conclusions and broader implications in Section 6.
2. Guiding concepts from three analytical approaches
The engagement of corporations with the specific sustainable consumption strategy of
‘behaviour change’ (aimed at changing people’s daily practices) is relatively new, and the
limited amount of work on it means that I cannot draw on ready-made conceptual
frameworks. In order to identify and explain the most interesting aspects of the multi-
dimensional phenomenon, my strategy is therefore to use guiding concepts from established
perspectives in corporate sustainability management research. Recent reviews (Starik and
Kanashiro, 2013; Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos, 2014) identified three prominent
organizational theories applied to understanding sustainability management: stakeholder
theory, the resource-based view of the firm and institutional theory. Each of these theories
offers a different perspective on the factors that are important for understanding firms’
engagement with sustainability. I therefore mobilize key concepts from these three
perspectives to analyze the innovation journey of P&G’s low-temperature initiative, and
highlight the most interesting aspects of this corporate-led sustainable consumption strategy.
The following section first describes the general orientation of each perspective and discusses
its relevance for sustainability management in turn. The section ends with a summary of the
key guiding concepts mobilized in the analysis of the case.
2.1. Stakeholder theory
4
The general point of stakeholder theory is to broaden the view of corporate performance
beyond economic considerations and shareholders to also include social and ethical
performance (Carroll, 1979; Freeman, 1984) and relations with stakeholders such as local
communities, consumers, NGOs and wider publics. Focusing on the relationships between
the organization and its stakeholders, stakeholder theory presents a broad understanding of
value, beyond purely financial considerations, in which firms incorporate non-economic
considerations into business activities, such as quality of life, community cohesion or low
carbon (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).
In the context of sustainability management, stakeholder theory is often used to draw
attention to various external stakeholder pressures that help explain why firms go green, e.g.
demands from activists (Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007), policymakers (Demirel and
Kesidou, 2011), NGOs (Doh and Guay, 2006) and local communities (Kassinis and Vafeas,
2006). The literature on stakeholder management (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Mahon, and
Wartick, 2003) further suggests that firms can also pro-actively engage with stakeholders in
the development and implementation of environmental strategies. Relevant aspects of
stakeholder management include: developing networks in order to consult stakeholders and
learn about concerns, framing problems and solutions in a way that attracts interest from
stakeholders, and negotiating about the design of environmental solutions. This literature is
relevant for the case study because P&G’s initiative entailed multiple changes beyond its
direct control. The initiative therefore required them to engage with a range of different
stakeholders.
2.2. Resource-based view
The general point of the resource-based view of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984) is that
competitive advantage stems from a bundle of resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to
imitate and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991).2 Subsequent work in this tradition increasingly
came to emphasize the importance of knowledge and capabilities as crucial resources (Teece,
1986; Grant, 1996).
In the context of sustainability management, the resource-based view has been used to
identify strategic capabilities that are important for sustainability management, such as
pollution prevention, product stewardship, clean technology (Hart, 1995; Shrivastara and
2 This emphasis on internal resources was developed in contrast to Porter (1980), who argued that competitive advantage derived from a firm’s position in external environments.
5
Hart 1998). The literature on eco-innovation3 (Kemp and Oltra, 2011; Mylan et al., 2015)
further emphasizes the importance of learning processes to build or acquire the required
capabilities for green technologies. For more radical eco-innovations, which face more
uncertainty and non-linearity in innovation journeys, this literature also emphasizes the
experimental and open-ended character of learning processes which require sequences of
learning-by-doing (Geels et al., 2008; Schot and Geels, 2008). These broader learning
processes not only involve the build-up of new knowledge and capabilities, but also the
development of new interpretations, beliefs and mental models (Schön, 1983; Gavetti and
Levinthal, 2000). Accumulation of information within existing cognitive frames constitutes
first-order learning, while alteration of cognitive frames constitutes second-order learning
(Argyris, 1976). Although most of the eco-innovation literature focuses on green
technologies, some of the broader notions of learning are likely to also hold relevance for
consumer-oriented green initiatives such the P&G case.
2.3. Institutional theory
The general point of institutional theory is that firms operate not just in an economic
environment, but also in an institutional environment which affects them in non-economic
ways: ‘In institutional environments, organizations compete for social fitness rather than
economic efficiency’ (Powell, 1991: 184). The selection criterion for social fitness is
legitimacy, which Suchman (1995: p. 574) defines as: ‘a generalized perception or
assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some
socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions’. So, institutions exert
external selection pressure, because firms are supposed to conform to the expectations
sustained by existing institutions. Failure to do so may lower their legitimacy in the eyes of
wider publics, consumers, and policymakers.
In the context of sustainability management, scholars using institutional theory have
emphasized various institutional pressures that stimulate firms to go green, e.g. formal-
regulatory pressures (Hoffman, 1999), mimetic pressures from other organizations
(Campbell, 2007; Husted and Allen 2006) or normative pressures from public opinion (Hajer,
1995). While institutional theory often emphasizes the existence of external isomorphic
pressures acting on organizations, the idea of institutional entrepreneurship (e.g. Battilana et
al., 2009) suggests that organizations can also actively attempt to change norms, beliefs or 3 The EU-funded Eco-Innovation Observatory defines eco-innovation as “innovation that reduces the use of natural resources and decreases the release of harmful substances across the whole life-cycle” (http://www.eco-innovation.eu/).
6
regulations. Important tactics include story-telling and the development of favorable
narratives about the organization or initiative (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001; Bansal and
Clelland, 2004), the use of analogies with well-established practices to make new things look
more familiar (Etzion and Ferraro, 2010; Hargadon and Douglas, 2001), the use of
established brands and reputations to confer trust, and the creation of coalitions with trusted
actors. This literature is relevant for the case, because P&G’s initiative initially faced the
‘liability of newness’ (Freeman et al., 1983). Establishing legitimacy via institutional
entrepreneurship was therefore an important dimension of the innovation journey.
2.4. Key guiding concepts
Since the three theories discussed above represent large and diverse bodies of literature, I will
reduce their complexity to guide the empirical description and subsequent analysis. Focusing
on the most relevant insights from the different theories, I will use the following three
guiding concepts: 1) stakeholder networks (and activities involved in building networks such
as consultation and negotiation about design specifics, efforts to persuade and enrol
stakeholders; 2) learning processes (including first-order learning, second-order learning and
changes in mental models); and 3) institutional entrepreneurship (including activities such as
lobbying, story-telling, framing).
3. Methodology
The ‘behaviour change’ strategy was explored through a longitudinal case study. The
approach was chosen because the research was exploratory in nature and many of the guiding
analytical concepts, discussed above, are qualitative and unfold over time. The case was
developed through several iterations of data collection and interpretation, triangulating data
from documentary analysis and in-depth expert interview.
The first-round analysis reviewed corporate sustainability reports of firms (including
producers and retailers of detergents, washing machines and clothing), market research data
and UK and EU energy policy documents, in order to develop a general understanding of the
scope of the initiative and the engagement of different actors. The second-round analysis
served to both sharpen the research question and deepen the understanding of P&G’s role in
the initiative through key informant interviews with European and UK detergent trade
associations (AISE and UKCPI). In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to gain
insight into industry dynamics with respect to sustainability and the role of P&G in the
7
evolution of the initiative. The third-round involved the triangulation of the emerging account
with information in the public domain. This was done through an extensive survey of
publicly available documents making reference to low-temperature laundry. Documents were
collected using internet searches and snowballing from suggestions by interviewees, and
included UK and EU regulations and policies, corporate and NGO websites. A content
analysis of all public material produced by the European Detergent Industry body AISE
1995-2013 was conducted.
The fourth-round developed a deeper understanding of how P&G’s engagement with
the initiative developed over time. This included a systematic content analysis of P&Gs
sustainability and social responsibility reports 1999-2013 and key informant interviews with
representatives of P&G. In-depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with
individuals working in marketing, sustainability and R&D departments of P&G. Interviews
explored P&Gs organizational practices, key events and responses related to the evolution of
the initiative. Ten people were interviewed in total (6 face-to-face and 4 by telephone),
lasting between 30mins and 1.5hrs (see Appendix 1 for details). Interviews were recorded,
transcribed and coded using the conceptual categories outlined in section 2. Interviewees
were also asked to provide additional contextual documentation with relevance for the
understanding of P&Gs activities, which several did. Additionally, site visits were conducted
to P&G headquarters in Geneva Switzerland in 2012 and the R&D laboratories in Newcastle
UK in 2013, which enabled informal conversations. I also attended AISE-run industry events
in Brussels during 2012, which enabled further conversations with representatives from a
range of organizations (including Unilever, Henkel and Electrolux), during which emerging
impressions from the research were shared and opinions elicited.
4. Case study: How P&G pioneered green washing
Section 4.1 first describes the (provisional) end point of the innovation journey, by presenting
evidence of the societal acceptance of ‘low-temperature laundry’ as a green consumer
behaviour in the UK, the first country where the initiative was rolled out. The subsequent
sections then present the case chronologically, explaining how the initiative unfolded through
different periods from 1999 to 2013, initially within the corporation and subsequently with
greater involvement of external stakeholders. To signpost the unfolding process, Figure 1
presents a timeline of key events in the initiative.
8
Figure 1: Timeline of key events in the low-temperature laundry initiative
4.1. Land of soap and glory: Societal acceptance of low-temperature laundry in the UK
In the UK ‘low-temperature laundry’ is established as an environmentally sustainable
solution, which reduces household energy use. ‘Low-temperature laundry’ behaviour is
included in the UK Department of Energy and Climate (DECC) emissions reduction
pathways as one of five ‘behavioral efficiency measures’ through which domestic activities
can be rendered more energy efficient. UK consumers report increasing use of low
temperatures for laundry. This includes a rise in the number of households reporting washing
at 300C or lower and greater frequency of use compared to hotter machine settings. In a
survey conducted in 2007 17% of households reported using low temperatures, a figure
which had risen from 2% in 2002 (Defra, 2011). By 2011, European data indicated that 32%
of all laundry loads in the UK were being washed at low temperatures (AISE, 2011), and
26% of British people claimed to ‘always’ wash at low temperatures. These data are based on
self-reporting surveys from different sources and should therefore be treated with some
caution, particularly with respect to interpreting a correlation with the P&G initiative.
Nevertheless, the data do suggest that low temperature laundry is increasingly recognized
(and reported) as part of normal everyday laundry practice. This data, alongside its inclusion
in official climate change projections indicates that ‘low temperature laundry’ is firmly
established as a low-carbon solution in the UK.
4.2. The foundations of a ‘fresh’ approach to sustainability: 1999-2002
This section describes the changes that created the context for P&Gs ‘Cool Clean Initiative’
which ran in the UK from the mid-2000s. During this period changes in the organizational
structure of P&G, the orientation of the wider detergent industry and the appliance sector
(which manufactures washing machines), were all underway – laying the foundations for the
unfolding and the acceptance of the initiative over the following decade.
During the mid-1990s P&G underwent significant organizational change (Dyer et al.,
2004). This coincided with the rise of climate change on the public agenda. Taking notice of
the public mood, P&G decided to link its CSR strategies more directly to its corporate and
commercial strategies. Toward the end of the 1990s efforts to more effectively embed
sustainability concerns into the business were underway. This included the creation of a new
department for Corporate Sustainable Development in 1999, and the replacement of the
annual Environmental Progress report with a Sustainability Report intended to showcase
9
P&Gs contribution to the sustainability agenda. Until then, P&G’s environmental and social
contributions had been organized around ideas of corporate social responsibility and acts of
philanthropy, particularly focusing on responding to the Millennium Development Goals on
education and health in developing countries. According to P&G the changes during this
period were intended to ‘mark the strategic decision to more closely align our business with
the more holistic concept of sustainability’ (P&G, 1999: 3).
An important development within P&G was also underway at this time – the re-
structuring of operations known as the “Organization 2005” project. This entailed a move
from a structure based on ‘Geographical Business Units’, which organized business functions
in terms of world regions, to ‘Global Business Units’, organized around product areas such as
‘Homecare’, which included detergents. As a result of this reorganization, accountability for
sustainability objectives moved from the plant or factory level to the newly created business
units based on product categories. This created the organizational context for the subsequent
low-temperature laundry initiative.
At the same time the industry body which represents the interests of the European
detergents industry (AISE) was also undergoing a reorientation of its identity and goals. In
1999 AISE launched the ‘Code of Good Environmental Practice’, the first voluntary scheme
for reducing the environmental impact of the detergent industry. The scheme was partly a
response to recommendations by the European Commission that the industry should pay
more attention to environmental impact. Nevertheless, it also signaled the beginning of a shift
by the industry body to a more proactive stance on the environment. The new code embodied
targets across a wide range of criteria, which included the consideration of energy use per
laundry load. Following this, AISE began to develop its “Washright” program of
engagement, which was the first initiative aiming to improve sustainability by engaging with
consumers. The Washright program aimed to educate consumers on detergent use through
on-pack information and television adverts and included washing temperature as one message
among several. A similar shift in attention to the role of consumers in the sustainability of
products was also emerging in the washing machine manufacturing industry. In 1999 the EU
Eco-label directive was introduced requiring all washing machines to be sold with
instructions on how to minimize the environmental impacts of use. Similar to the detergent
industry, temperature was only one among several criteria included in consumer
communications.
Large detergent producers (including P&G) have long-standing relationships with one
or more washing machine manufactures which contribute to the development and testing of
10
new products. However, at this time there were no formal platforms for the two industries to
jointly address the sustainability challenge, a factor which contributed to the initial
differences in the orientations of the two industries. On the one hand, P&G was beginning to
realize the importance of consumers in achieving reductions in energy use. P&Gs first
sustainability report noted: “major impacts depend in part on the habits and practices of
consumers, for example whether water is hot or cold are habits which influence the energy
use for clothes” (P&G 1999: 36). On the other hand, machine manufactures were focused on
how washing machines could operate more efficiently at normal, hotter settings (60 and
40oC) with no interest in low temperature washing or consumer behaviour. During this period
P&G was already developing ideas around cold water washing. However, this was presented
in the context of enabling improvements around health and hygiene in developing countries
by offering products effective with “little access to water, or water which is salty, or cold
water” (P&G, 1999). Low-temperature washing was not presented in context of energy
saving until 2002.
In sum, this early period saw several organizational changes which paved the way for
P&Gs future engagement around influencing consumers to adopt low-temperature washing.
These included a rise in the importance of environmental sustainability in both the washing
machine and detergent industries, and an increased recognition of the role of consumers in
achieving this. Although there was recognition that lowering washing temperature had
sustainability implications, it remained only one issue among several and no agreement on
any specific initiative had been established.
4.3. P&G test the water: 2003-2007
In the context of increasing pressure on businesses to engage with the problem of climate
change and the organizational changes underway at P&G, a new position of Global
Sustainability Director was created. The new role enabled a more comprehensive view of the
challenges and opportunities for promoting sustainability across the functions of the business.
In 2003 P&G published a product-category based life-cycle assessment of the energy use of
the business. The study highlighted the importance of consumer use in the carbon footprint of
P&G products. Specifically they drew attention to the energy ‘hotspots’ occurring at the point
of use of laundry and showering products, associated with heating water (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Lifecycle study of P&G operations, Source: P&G
11
A year after the lifecycle studies had been published, following initial trialing with a small
number of consumers in France, P&G launched its first commercial low-temperature washing
initiative ‘Ariel Cool Clean’ in the UK. Similar versions followed in the United States (Tide
Coldwater), Canada and France (Ariel ‘Actif-a-froid’) in 2005. The initiative was understood
by P&G as a ‘commercial innovation’ because it did not alter the existing product, but instead
promoted the characteristic of low-temperature capability through the existing detergent
brand. The launch was accompanied by consumer information campaigns, which
communicated the benefits of lower temperatures and urged consumers to change their
behaviour, offering assurance that cleaning performance would not suffer.
The initial trials and first product launch showed mixed results, indicating that the
traditional market research methods, which had been developed to understand purchase
decisions and brand attachment, were not entirely suited to understanding actual product use
as embedded within the wider activity of laundering (which includes separation of clothing
types, assessment of soiling, and understandings of cleanliness). As explained by the P&G’s
Global Sustainably Director: “first of all, it started as [a] commercial project, which is we
don’t change the technology, this was good, this makes things simple when we first do the
testing, first in France […] when it came back from the trials, with the results in this case,
using the lower temperatures, it was not so easy, we realized this would take some more
thinking, we needed to get more creative in our approach”. The initial trials helped P&G
realize that promoting behaviour change would require a deeper understanding of how
consumers used temperature to achieve different aspects of cleanliness (e.g. hygiene,
freshness, absence of visible dirt and contamination), and why these understandings might
remain stable despite the availability of new information.
P&G therefore developed new methods to generate information about consumer
behaviour in the home (e.g. small-scale ‘real-world’ experiments) as well as a new model of
consumer laundry behaviour. Instead of categorizing individuals on the basis of shared
demographic or attitudinal characteristics (as was common in traditional behavioral models
of purchase decisions), P&G developed new understandings of how the orientation of
consumers varied as a function of different types of laundry (e.g. soiling, materials, colours,
and use of clothing). These new understandings and mental models formed the basis of a
productive consumer engagement strategy that encouraged consumers to adopt low-
temperature laundry by moving successively from ‘safe’ types of laundry (at the bottom of
Figure 3) to more ‘sensitive’ kinds of laundry (at the top of Figure 3) The trialing and small-
scale experiments also enabled P&G to learn about consumer communication, both with
12
regard to which kinds of information should be presented and how. This led P&G to replace
their assertions with evidence of ‘real’ benefits. P&G also learned to communicate these
benefits by presenting quantified savings in money or energy in culturally specific forms. For
example, in the UK energy savings were translated as ‘cups of tea’ and in Italy in terms of
lighting up a piazza.
Figure 3: P&Gs Model of Consumer Laundry Habit Change, Source: P&G
During the period following initial trials the messages to consumers were honed and
consumer responses were monitored as successive campaigns were rolled out. The second
wave ‘Turn To 30°’ was launched in 2006, followed by the third ‘Do A Good Turn’ in 2007.
During this period P&G used existing capabilities around market research to monitor
consumer responses to different communication strategies. A new model of laundry
behaviour was developed based on different types of laundry, rather than different types of
consumers (see Figure 3). This model, along with four lessons from the campaigns
undertaken during this period, shaped the subsequent strategy for communicating with
consumers. These lessons were in place before the launch of the first low-temperature
product innovation (a gel designed to dissolve in cold water) in 2008.
Alongside efforts to communicate with consumers P&G continued to develop the
technological capability of detergents. The cleaning performance of detergents results from
how particular ingredients (enzymes, surfactants, polymers) are combined. Formulations
function best in certain conditions, and are designed accordingly. Innovation and
reformulation of detergent products is an ongoing process, much of which is ‘hidden’ from
consumers. As described by one of P&G’s senior engineers with responsibility for detergent
innovation: “we are always making improvements in our formula, we are always working on
improving everything, from how it interacts with the machines, the textiles, the consumer
environment, it’s an ongoing process, and it’s all science and testing, and re-testing, and
improving, so we have a stock of knowledge and possible avenues we can take, which we can
take advantage of in the future”. Figure 4 illustrates this continuous improvement in
detergent formulations, showing how the inclusion of enzymes, the key to modern detergent
chemistry, has grown steadily since their introduction 50 years ago - much of which has been
unannounced to consumers. The R&D facilities and programs that are used to develop and
13
adjust detergent formulations reflect P&Gs position as a global company producing
detergents for use around the world. Detergent formulations differ according to brand and
region (reflecting differences in washing needs and contexts). Laboratories consisting of
hundreds of washing machines designed to mimic conditions from across the world are in
continuous operation refining detergent formulations. Machines simulate an extensive range
of washing conditions (e.g. water chemistry), program specifications (e.g. spin speeds, rinse
mechanisms), soiling conditions (e.g. different organic and inorganic stains according to
regional eating and working practices) and drying and use conditions (e.g. sunlight strength,
humidity). Light rooms simulate the effects of different qualities of sunlight, testing the
interaction with optical brighteners and bleaching agents included in detergents to produce
whiteness and brightness. Specially selected and trained personnel act as ‘sniffers’ to
compare aromas of laundry at different phases, in order to optimize the design of the
fragrances emitted from wet and dry laundry and clothing between washes. P&G invests
significant expertise and resources in the development and improvement of detergent
formations and capabilities on a number of fronts.
Figure 4: Introduction of enzymes into detergent formulations, Source: AISE 2012:11
During this period washing machine manufactures had not yet embraced the idea of
low-temperature washing, instead focussing on machine efficiency at standard washing
temperatures. Consequently many new machines did not include low-temperature programs
for everyday washing. It became clear to P&G and the industry body AISE that this lack of
alignment between the washing machines available to consumers and the advice offered with
detergents would act as a barrier to consumer behaviour change. In recognition of this
problem the EU Eco-Design Directive 2005 (updated 2009) set out a requirement for the
inclusion of low-temperature settings on all new washing machines. However, despite the
directive, this was not straightforwardly implemented by the manufacturers. Instead, several
firms responded by producing machines which technically met the new criteria by including
30oC programmes designed for delicate items, but did not adapt cycles suitable for everyday
washing. While the manufacturers resisted engaging with consumer behaviour the detergent
industry was increasingly aware of the importance of consumers in responding to the
sustainability challenge. In 2005 AISE, continuing its identity transformation toward a
coordinating body for sustainability initiatives, launched the ‘Charter for Sustainable
Cleaning’ as new guiding framework for the cleaning products industry. The new Charter
14
adopted a ‘lifecycle’-based framework to promote a common industry approach to
sustainability and emphasized the importance of sustainable consumer behaviour.
4.4. A winning formula: 2007-2012
By 2007 the low-temperature laundry initiative was hailed as a success within P&G and was
included, for the first time, in the CEO statement on the front of P&Gs sustainability report4.
Statistics were released indicating that change in consumer behaviour, particularly among
Ariel consumers, was underway (see Table 1) and the first product innovation was launched.
30 degrees and lower 40 degrees and higher2002 3% 97%2007 17% 83%2007 (Ariel customers only) 28% 73%
Table 1: Uptake of low-temperature washing (Source: P&G/Ipsos Habit and Practices study
2002 & 2007)
The perceived success of the initiative contributed to momentum around engagement with
consumer behaviour and the focus on ‘sustainability without compromise’, which aimed to
incorporate sustainability into the value proposition for mainstream consumers. This
approach, which was a departure from the previous focus on sustainable production and
operations, formed the basis of the new P&G sustainability strategy launched in 2007. The
‘2020 Goals and Visions’, which communicated the new approach, included a target to
convert 70% of domestic washing loads to low-temperatures by 2020. P&G’s Fabric Care
Sustainability Brand Manager explained how the adoption of the specific target for
stimulating behaviour change, emerged following signs of success “we know it is working
now, we know consumers are changing, so, there are some washing that we think will never
be cold, but we want all our customers to adopt it [the lower temperature] for the washing
that they can wash…so this is the aim, this is the 70%, so it will be every person, but not
every washing [load]”. The same goal (70% low-temperature washing) was subsequently
adopted by Unilever, P&Gs primary competitor, indicating the enrolment of the wider
detergent industry around low-temperature laundry was underway.
During this period the initiative continued to gain momentum as other actors,
including retailers and clothing manufactures began to align behind the message. In 2007
4 “We’re helping to save energy and reduce greenhouse emissions through products such as Tide Coldwater and Ariel Cool Clean that reduce energy use through coldwater washing” (P&G 2007: 2).
15
M&S, a popular British clothing retailer, introduced the label “Think Climate Wash at 30”. In
2008, Asda (one of the ‘big four’ UK supermarkets) also announced the inclusion of ‘Wash at
30’ labels in its clothing line. Observing the growing interest in the initiative, several key
washing machine manufactures became more enthusiastically committed. By 2009 following
consultation with the appliance industry, an amendment to the Eco-Design Directive for
washing machines was made, requiring a standard 30oC-setting to be clearly visible on all
machine fascia. The regulation of detergents via the Ecolabel was also amended at this time,
altering the scope of the existing criteria to enable “promotion of products that can be used at
lower temperatures (≤ 30° C)” (Ecolabeling Denmark, 2011: 10). By the end of the decade
the appliance industry, detergents producers, eco-regulators and some retailers were aligning
around the effort to change consumer laundry behaviour.
Toward the end of the period, the success of the initiative began to give rise to the
problem of ‘washing machine gunge’ experienced by consumers as bacterial biofilms took
hold in the absence of hot washes. The lack of compatibility between the new technology and
the system used for its delivery was causing unforeseen consequences. P&G and the
detergent and washing machine industry more widely, responded by introducing more
nuanced instructions for consumers such as promoting the need for regular ‘service washes’
above 60oC to maintain machine functioning. Communicating the skills required for effective
use of the new technology while simultaneously promoting a clear message for behaviour
change, remains a concern for the detergent industry.
4.5. Soaking up success? 2012 onwards
By 2012 the detergent industry had established a partnership with the appliance industry and
was promoting low-temperature laundry as the most eco-friendly laundry option. Engaging
with consumers to change behaviour was a key topic of the annual AISE detergent industry
conference attended by high-level representatives from the detergent and appliance industries
(including the CEO of Unilever and the Director of Electrolux), as well as several high-level
political figures including members of the European Parliament and the European
Commission. Regulations had been developed in both the appliance and detergent industries
to ensure the availability of these technologies to consumers.
Overall, P&G are satisfied that change of consumer behaviour is underway and are
optimistic that further conversion of behaviour is possible. Drawing from their own consumer
research and studies undertaken in partnership with academics and government departments
(e.g. UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the challenge is viewed as
16
‘scaling up’ behaviour change to match the success achieved in small-scale experiments. The
puzzle remains around precisely how to achieve this, with the main barrier being interpreted
as a lack of constant advertising to promote the benefits of cold washing. Lessons are also
being drawn from the previous era as resources are committed to developing capabilities for
communicating the skills and know-how to consumers, including judging soiling levels,
contexts for higher temperatures and machine maintenance. This is considered key to
reducing the perceived ‘risks’ for consumers, which are understood to constrain behaviour
change.
P&Gs innovation efforts are focussed on optimising detergent formulation so they
perform better in cold water than they do in hot water. This includes innovation in ‘fresh
bloom’ (the aroma produced when the washing machine door is opened), and ‘bleach
activator’ which produces whiteness and brightness. The problem of greasy stain removal is
being addressed by design of products for direct application to stains. Research and
development around fiber coatings to reduce dirt absorption, and disinfectants to clean
machines are underway. So, while the washing machine manufactures and detergent
producers are on board with the message of consumer behaviour change, the washing
machine technology remains somewhat incompatible.
Low-temperature washing has been adopted as a flagship sustainability initiative for
the detergent industry in Europe. 2012 marked the beginning of the new AISE-led, multi-
stakeholder campaign ‘I prefer 30°’ which was launched to consumers in the UK, France,
Italy, Belgium and Denmark at the beginning of 2014. The campaign is designed to reinforce
the message by delivery through multiple communication channels (social media, product
packaging, advertising), and contexts (around machines, detergents, clothing).
Representatives from all key players across detergent industry, appliance manufactures,
sustainability NGOs, consumer groups and government have been enrolled behind promoting
the message to consumers in an attempt to reduce the average washing temperature in key
European countries (AISE, 2013: 5). Efforts are also underway to more effectively engage
with the textiles industry, including the launch of the international campaign at Milan fashion
week. This sector remains ambiguous in the drive toward low-temperature washing,
operating its ‘Clevercare’ information program (which includes information on low
temperatures) outside the GINETEX international standard for clothing labeling. So, while
the textiles and fashion industry is supporting the AISE campaign, it is also continuing with
its own smaller-scale initiative, rather than incorporating it into the mainstream consumer
labeling program. In contrast, the pan-European consumer information campaign led by
17
AISE has been endorsed by the European Commission initiative ‘A world you like with a
climate you like’, indicating high-level political support for the promotion of behaviour
change. Low-temperature laundry is firmly established as a mainstream green consumer
solution, with commercial and political support.
5. Analysis
The case shows that the successful behaviour change initiative involved far more than
providing information to persuade consumers to alter behaviour. It entailed product
innovation in detergents (e.g. new enzyme combinations, development of aroma formulations
to enhance ‘fresh bloom’, new packaging design and application procedures to promote stain
removal at low temperatures), changes in washing machines (e.g. new wash programs, new
dials), changes in clothes and clothing labels (promoting washing at 30°C), organizational
change in P&G, identity change in the industry association AISE (from a regulatory
orientation to sustainability orientation), regulatory change (to persuade machine
manufactures to include new settings) and new consumer skills (e.g. knowing how to deal
with stains and de-gunge the washing machine). The following section makes a deeper
analysis of how relevant developments came about, initially guided by the concepts
introduced in Section 2, and then by exploring the interactions between them.
5.1 Stakeholder management
Stakeholders were crucial, because the innovation journey was a multi-actor process. But
while stakeholder theory emphasizes ‘outside-in’ influences (external stakeholders exerting
pressure for change), the case showed more ‘inside-out’ dynamics (stakeholders
progressively becoming more enrolled in the initiative). These dynamics initially occurred in
response to efforts by P&G, but subsequently were propelled forward by industry-wide
activities and increasing visibility of the initiative, which stimulated more stakeholders to
join.
Consumers were obviously important stakeholders in the initiative, playing more
active roles than in most corporate sustainability accounts (where they usually appear as
buyers of green products). The initiative entailed deeper and recurrent interactions with
consumers, which led P&G to alter its consumer engagement strategy to increase acceptance
and trust. This was achieved via partnerships with additional stakeholders (such as the Energy
Savings Trust), whose endorsements strengthened the credibility of P&G’s claims. So,
additional stakeholders were enrolled to overcome challenges as they emerged.
18
Washing machine manufacturers were initially more difficult to enroll in the
initiative, because washing at lower temperatures conflicted with their own sustainability
efforts (which focused on energy efficiency improvements in washing machines operating at
normal temperatures). P&G first tried to persuade the manufacturers with their narrative of
addressing ‘difficult but important challenges’, but only a few washing machine firms joined
P&G, while others initially adopted avoidance strategies. When these avoidance strategies
became clear, P&G successfully lobbied another external stakeholder (the European
Commission) for changes in the European Eco-Directive legislation, which forced washing
machine manufacturers to make low-temperature programs available. So, when the existing
stakeholder management strategy was unsuccessful, P&G used additional networks to
influence the formal institution. This tactic generated attention that signaled the broader
importance of the low-temperature initiative, raising its profile with other stakeholders (such
as the European Commission), as well as providing first-mover advantages for those
manufactures who had already aligned with P&G in providing low temperature washing
settings.
In sum, this analysis shows that the successive enrollment of external stakeholders
was an important contributor to the increasing momentum of P&G’s initiative. It also shows
that P&G’s engagement strategies varied between stakeholders and that new stakeholders
were mobilized to overcome emerging problems with other stakeholders. However, P&G did
not control and manage the entire process, cajoling external stakeholders at will. As the
initiative gained momentum and visibility, stakeholders also joined because it suited their
own interests and strategies (the Energy Savings Trust and European Commission were
already interested in consumer-oriented climate solutions; AISE was already changing its
identity and therefore happy to work with P&G). Ultimately, as more stakeholders joined,
P&G lost exclusive control of the multi-actor coalition that collectively drove the initiative
forward.
5.2 Learning processes
Although P&G had very sophisticated technical and marketing capabilities, there was no
clear template for implementing their behaviour change sustainability strategy. Learning
processes and development of new capabilities were therefore crucial throughout the
innovation journey. The type of learning changed as the initiative unfolded, moving from an
initial focus on generating new data and information (first-order learning) to subsequent
development of new understandings, mental models and consumer engagement practices
19
(second-order learning). The most difficult challenges, which required the deepest learning,
were not technological, but related to the understanding of domestic practices. A key moment
in the initiative was the realization that existing understandings were failing and that new
conceptual models were required. P&G’s external networks were crucial at this stage, since
the development of new understandings of what drove consumer behaviour drew on expertise
and knowledge from beyond the organization. By the later stages of the journey, when the
initiative was judged a success, the existing technological and product development
capabilities again became important to capitalize on new commercial opportunities created
through consumer behaviour change.
In sum, the innovation journey started with existing capabilities and first-order
learning processes, which generated useful data and information. But subsequent progress
and deepening of P&G’s initiative crucially required second-order learning, which
transformed the understanding and perception of consumer behaviour.
5.3 Institutional entrepreneurship
P&G engaged in institutional entrepreneurship in two important ways. The first was that
P&G shaped what was considered possible and desirable in addressing the sustainability
challenge. The idea of attempting to change consumer behaviour for the purposes of
sustainability was relatively new in the detergents and laundry industry, and work was needed
to alter expectations about what was possible and what was worthwhile. This process was
originally driven by a small group within P&G, who endeavored to ‘educate’ the rest of the
corporation, developing the new narrative about addressing “difficult but important
challenges”. The narrative was initially important in generating motivations within the
company as well as subsequently contributing to establishing legitimacy with other industry
actors (including competitors), and helping to stake P&G’s claim as frontrunners in this area.
Its adoption was aided by the concurrent transformation underway within the industry,
exemplified by the ongoing identity transformation underway by the industry body AISE,
which changed from a coordinating body that reacted to regulatory requirements to a
proactive coordinating organization with a sustainability remit. This meant AISE
enthusiastically aligned with the new initiative, increasing its legitimacy. So, while P&G
played an important pioneering role in the legitimation of the new consumer-oriented
approach, its ultimate success depended on responses from other organizations.
The second important instance of institutional entrepreneurship was P&G’s strategy to
encourage adjustments in the European Eco-Directive. This change in the formal regulatory
20
institution required machine manufacturers to re-design low-temperature settings on their
machines. This policy change also happened because of broader awareness within the
industry and the industry body AISE that there was a lack of alignment between the efforts to
stimulate consumer behaviour change and the regulations governing the design of domestic
appliances. So, the formal regulatory changes built on industry-wide cultural-cognitive
changes that had established low-temperature laundry behaviour change as a legitimate and
worthwhile sustainability solution.
5.4 Relative importance and sequential interaction between guiding concepts
The three guiding concepts not only offered useful analytical lenses, but also interacted over
time and varied in importance. Abstracting from the empirical details, I suggest that the case
showed the following temporal pattern: In the nascent period, external institutional pressure
(from the broader climate change discourse) provided a contextual impulse. P&G responded
with strategic statements and internal network changes (to align CSR with commercial
strategy). In the second period, internal capability building and first-order learning were most
important. P&G generated lifecycle data about environmental impacts, which led to
recognition of the importance of consumer use. This led P&G to develop the idea of low-
temperature laundry, which was further elaborated using existing marketing capabilities and
initial trials. In the third period, stakeholder engagement and second-order learning were
most important. In fact, it was the deeper engagement with stakeholders (particularly
consumers) that prompted P&G to recognize flaws in their mental models, which, in turn, led
them to develop new conceptual models of consumer behaviour and consumer engagement
(including how to deliver messages). Deeper engagement with other stakeholders (e.g.
Energy Savings Trust, machine manufacturers, AISE) also stimulated learning processes
about relevant dimensions of the low-temperature initiative (e.g. trust, machine programs,
standards). Meanwhile, cultural-cognitive institutions were also changing at the wider
industry level (e.g. increasing concerns about climate change, policy recognition of the role
of consumers in climate mitigation), which created a positive context for P&G’s initiative as
well as stakeholder interest. In the fourth period, when the core ideas of P&G initiative had
stabilized, institutional entrepreneurship and stakeholder engagement were most important.
More actors supported the initiative (P&G competitors, AISE, European Commission) and
lobbied for formal regulations that supported and institutionalized the initiative, which, in
turn, led more actors to join the coalition. There was also some on-going learning in this
period (to solve problems with washing machine gunge, develop auxiliary products), but
21
mainly of an incremental (first-order) nature. This analysis suggests that the three analytical
lenses interacted in a particular way in the unfolding of the innovation journey.
6. Conclusions
The paper has aimed to make a contribution to the sustainability management literature by
analyzing the innovation process behind the corporate sustainability strategy of consumer
‘behaviour change’. A key conclusion is that a ‘behaviour change’ strategy is more
challenging than it initially appears (i.e. providing information about the ‘right’ behaviour),
and involves a considerable amount of innovation, which requires resources and time. The
case study showed that P&G’s low-temperature laundry initiative involved multiple actors,
who interacted in various ways. It required product innovation in detergents, changes in
washing machine design, new clothing labels, organizational change in P&G, identity change
in the industry association AISE, regulatory change and new consumer skills. I therefore
suggest that the case should not be seen as a narrow ‘behaviour change’ initiative, but as an
unfolding process that entails substantial reconfigurations in both user practices and systems
of provision (Geels et al., 2015).
Another conclusion is that P&G’s initiative was not a straightforward managerial
process of goal identification, planning and implementation. Instead, the initiative was
managed on several fronts (internal and external networks, capabilities, beliefs, legitimacy,
trust) and was adjusted as learning occurred and new understandings emerged. P&G’s
management strategy can be seen as an emergent and open-ended innovation journey that
took time, required resources, and involved adjustments in goals as mental models evolved.
The further analysis of P&G’s management of the initiative was guided by concepts
from three established frameworks: stakeholder theory, resource-based view (capabilities)
and institutional theory. This analysis showed that the unfolding journey was managed
through successive rounds of stakeholder management, institutional entrepreneurship and
learning, including learning about consumer responses, learning how to learn about consumer
responses and, finally, the re-innovation of the product. The alignment of these processes
generated momentum, and contributed to shared perceptions of ‘success’ by P&G, the
detergent industry, regulators, NGOs and consumers. A key conceptual finding is that the
relative power of the three analytical lenses waxed and waned, and interacted in different
ways, over time. The analysis of interactions suggested a pattern which started with
prominent external institutional pressure, was followed by first-order learning drawing on
existing capabilities, then showed deeper stakeholder interaction and second-order learning,
22
and, finally, included institutional entrepreneurship combined with stakeholder support. The
case thus highlights the usefulness of an investigation through multiple analytical lenses to
explore dynamics over time.
A final conclusion is that P&G’s influence changed over the course of the innovation
journey. In the early stages, P&G had substantial control as it internally developed the
strategy and appropriate capabilities. The initiative’s diffusion and industry-wide uptake,
however, resulted not only from P&G’s direct actions, but also from processes of
institutionalization and wider societal support. These processes depended on strategic
decisions by multiple actors, which were beyond P&G’s immediate control (although they
did, of course, try to influence them). P&G’s influence thus evolved from direct control to
participation in more distributed multi-actor governance.
I advance three observations about the wider relevance of ‘behaviour change’ as a
sustainability strategy. Firstly, although this strategy requires substantial efforts, it may be
attractive to firms, because of win-win potential. P&G not only developed the initiative to
address a sustainability problem, but also benefitted from it commercially. The initiative
generated value for the firm through positive reputational benefits and good will resulting
from its concerted effort to enable more sustainable behaviour among consumers. Value was
also created for the Ariel brand which was ‘greened’ without disruption to existing brand
identity of high performance and reliability. This is also likely to bring longer-term benefits
in line with P&G’s aim of increasing consumer attachment to the P&G parent brand in
addition to existing product brands (such as Ariel). The diffusion of low-temperature washing
has also opened up opportunities for new products lines and auxiliary products (such as stain
removal at lower temperatures). This offers additional commercial opportunities, which P&G
are well-placed to exploit. The initiative has therefore been beneficial for the corporation in
terms of reputation, customer brand trust, and new commercial opportunities. This suggests
that ‘behaviour change’ as a sustainability strategy may offer both environmental and
commercial benefits. Secondly, ‘behaviour change’ strategies entail more than information
provision via labels or advertising campaigns. The P&G initiative, for example, also included
technical change, which means there may be some overlap with eco-innovation strategies.
Thirdly, ‘behaviour change’ strategies are likely to be more effective if they are supported by
a broad range of actors. This suggests that industry bodies or associations (like AISE in this
case) may play particularly important roles in stimulating, coordinating and legitimizing such
strategies. Early inclusion of consumer-oriented organizations (like the Energy Savings Trust
23
in this case) is also advisable, since they can offer relevant expertise and enhance consumer
trust in ‘behaviour change’ initiatives.
The paper has some limitations, which suggest topics for future research. One
limitation is that the three analytical lenses were used independently. Although the empirical
analysis pointed to interactions between the lenses, future work could try to conceptualize
these interactions theoretically. This effort could speak to a bigger debate in the business and
management literature about how institutions, networks and knowledge interact to generate
change (Beckert, 2010). A second limitation is that the paper analyzed the innovation journey
from the vantage point of P&G. Instead of a focal organization approach, future research
could analyze behavior change initiatives from an ecological or inter-organizational
perspective, in order to more symmetrically follow the strategies and responses of multiple
organizations.
7. References
AISE, 2013, The Case for the ‘A.I.S.E. Low Temperature Washing Initiative’
Substantiation Dossier June 2012
Argyris, C., 1976, 'Singe-loop and double loop models in research on decision-making',
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363-375
Armstrong, C.M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C. and Kujala, S., 2015. A Use‐Oriented Clothing
Economy? Preliminary Affirmation for Sustainable Clothing Consumption Alternatives.
Sustainable Development, 24 18-31
Barney, J.B., 1991, ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of
Management, 17, 395-410
Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenhaum, E., 2009, ‘How actors change institutions: Towards a
theory of institutional entrepreneurship’, The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1),
65-107
Beckert, J., 2010, How do fields change? The interrelations of institutions, networks, and
cognition in the dynamics of markets, Organization Studies, 31(5), 605-627
Bansal, P. and Clelland, I., 2004, Taking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and
unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment, Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 93-103
Buysse, K. and Verbeke, A., 2003, Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder
management perspective, Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453-470
24
Campbell, J. (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An
institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
32, 946-967
Carroll, A.B., 1979, ‘A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance’,
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505
DECC, 2012, Energy Efficiency Statistical Summary, Department of Energy and Climate
Change
Defra, 2011, Sustainable clothing roadmap: Progress report 2011. Department for the
Demirel, P. and Kesidou, E. (2011): Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK:
Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological Economics, 70(8): 1546-1557
Den Hond, F. and de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007) Ideologically motivated activism. How activist
groups influence corporate social change activities Academy of Management Review, 32,
901-924
Doh, J., and Guay, T. R. (2006) Corporate social responsibility, public policy and NGO
activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective.
Journal of Management Studies 43, 47-73
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E., 1995, ‘The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications’, Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91
Dyer, D, Dalzell, F. and Olegario, R. 2004 Rising Tide: Lessons from 165 years of brand
building at Procter & Gamble. Harvard Business Review Press
Etzion, D. and Ferraro, F., 2010, The role of analogy in the institutionalization of
sustainability reporting, Organization Science, 21, 1092-1107
Evans, D. and Welsh, D., 2015, Food Waste Transitions: Consumption, Retailers and
Collaboration towards a Sustainable Food System, Sustainable Consumption Institute,
Manchester, UK
Eco-Innovation Observatory website http://www.eco-innovation.eu/ accessed 20/04/16
Freeman, J.H., Carroll, G.R. and Hannan, M.T., 1983, 'The liability of newness: Age
dependence in organizational death rates', American Sociological Review, 48(5), 692-
710
Freeman, R.E., 1984, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, MA: Pitman
Frondel, M., Horbach, J. and K. Rennings, K., 2007, End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An
empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries.
Business Strategy and the Environment 16 (8): 571-584.
25
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D., 2000, 'Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and
experiential search', Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113-137
Geels, F.W., Hekkert, M. and Jacobsson, S., 2008, 'The dynamics of sustainable innovation
journeys: Editorial', Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536
Geels, F.W. McMeekin, A., Mylan, J. and Southerton, D. 2015 ‘A critical appraisal of
sustainable consumption and production research: The reformist, revolutionary and
reconfiguration positions’ Global Environmental Change, 34, 1-12.
Grant, R., 1996, 'Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm', Strategic Management
Journal, 17 (Winter special issue), 109-122
Hajer, M.A., 1995, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and
the Policy Process, Clarendon Press: Oxford
Hargadon, A.B., and Douglas, Y., 2001, 'When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the
design of electric light', Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476--501
Hart, S.L., 1995, ‘A natural-resource-based view of the firm’, Academy of Management
Review, 20: 986
Hoffman, A. (1999) Institutional Evolution and Change: Environmentalism in the U.S.
chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-372
Husted, B. W. and Allen, D. B. Corporate social responsibility in the multinational
enterprise: Strategic and institutional approaches’ Journal of International Business
Studies (2006) 37, 838–849
Kemp, R. and Oltra, V., 2011, Research insights and challenges on eco-innovation dynamics,
Innovation and Industry, 18(3): 249–253
Kassinis, G. and Vafeas, N. (2006) Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance.
Academy of Management Journal 49, 145-159
Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A., 2001, 'Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and
the acquisition of resources', Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 545-564
Mahon, J.F. and Wartick, S.L., 2003, ‘Dealing with stakeholders: How reputation, credibility
and framing influence the game’, Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 19-35
Montiel, I. and Delgado-Ceballos, J., 2014, Defining and measuring corporate sustainability:
Are we there yet?, Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113-139
Mylan, J., Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Gee, S., and Foster, C., 2015, Eco-innovation and
retailers in milk, beef and bread chains: Enriching environmental supply chain
management with insights from innovation studies, Journal of Cleaner Production,
107, 20-30
26
Peattie, K. and S. Peattie (2009). "Social marketing: A pathway to consumption reduction?"
Journal of Business Research 62(2): 260-268.
Porter, M., 1980, Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors, Free Press, New York
Porter, M. and Kramer, M., 2011, ‘Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism; and
unleash a wave of innovation and growth’, Harvard Business Review, 89(1-2), 62-77
Powell, W.W., 1991, 'Expanding the scope of institutional analysis', in Powell, W.W. and
DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, pp. 183-203
Schön, D.A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New
York: Basic Books.
Schot, J.W. and Geels, F.W., 2008, 'Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda and policy', Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554
Seuring, S. and Müller, M., 2008, ‘From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(5), 1699-
1710
Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M. and Hansen, E. G., 2013, ‘Transdisciplinarity in Corporate
Sustainability: Mapping the Field’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 22 219-229
Shrivastara, P. and Hart, S., 1995, Creating sustainable corporations, Business Strategy and
the Environment, 4(3), 154-165p
Spaargaren G. 2003, Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy
perspective. Society and Natural Resources 16: 687–701.
Spaargaren, G. and van Koppen, C.S.A. 2009, Provider Strategies and the Greening of
Consumption Practices: Exploring the Role of Companies in Sustainable Consumption.
Lang, H and Meier, L. (Eds.) The New Middle Classes Springer
Starik, M. and Kanashiro, P., 2013, Toward a theory of sustainability management:
Uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious, Organization & Environment, 26(1), 7-
30
Suchman, M.C., 1995, 'Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches',
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-611
Teece, D., 1986, ‘Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305
27
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, G. and Venkataraman, S., 1999, The Innovation
Journey, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wernerfelt, B., 1984, ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 5,
171-180
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S. and Oates, C.J., 2010. Sustainable consumption: green
consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable development, 18(1), pp.20-
31.
Appendix 1 Organisation Role Interview conductedInternational Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (AISE )
Director Sustainability and Communications
July 2012 (telephone)October 2012 (face to face)
UK Cleaning Products Industry Association (UKCPI)
Director General June 2012 (telephone)
P&G Global Sustainability Brand Director
November 2012
P&G Global Fabric Care Sustainability Brand Manager
November 2012 (face to face)
P&G Fabric Care Product Research
November 2012 (telephone)
P&G Scientific External Relations
October 2012 (face-to face) November 2012 (telephone )
P&G Fabric Care External Relations and communications
November 2012 (face to face,)
P&G Alliance Innovation Team, Section Head
January 2013 (face to face)
P&G Alliance Innovation Team, Principal researcher
January 2013 (face to face)
P&G Alliance Innovation Team, Fabric care lead
January 2013 (face to face)
Table 2: Details of interviews
28