Abstract
The increasing demand for sustainability pressures companies and brands to adapt their business practices accordingly. While many green brands aim to pioneer sustainable practices, conventional brands prefer to act as followers. Yet understanding of the role of first-mover (dis)advantages for brands in sustainability is limited, especially in the context of increasing regulatory pressure. Drawing on grounded theory and 29 expert interviews, this study seeks to stimulate scholarly debate by introducing a framework identifying the pivotal moment for brand success or failure in sustainability. We shed light on the sustainability transformation of green and conventional brands and show the importance of collaboration in marketplaces to achieve a circular economy.
Introduction
Climate change has become one of the most urgent topics for humans in recent years, necessitating sustainability transformations in almost every industry (IPCC, 2023). Thus, many companies and brands are recognizing the increasing demand for sustainability from customers, shareholders, and policy-makers. However, while customers and shareholders claim that sustainability is an important buying or investment criterion, they are often not willing to make sacrifices in product price, product performance, convenience, or shareholder returns. Simultaneously, policy-makers are increasingly setting regulations that force companies and brands to behave more sustainably. The European Union, for example, implemented the European Green Deal, approved in 2020, affecting companies and brands by setting up extensive sustainability reporting standards, introducing more sustainable materials (e.g., recycled plastics) to foster circularity, and limiting the usage of green claims to fight greenwashing (European Commission, 2023).
Although some brands, such as Patagonia, qualify as green brands by making sustainability part of their brand DNA and fostering a “set of perceptions [. . .] in a consumer’s mind that is linked to environmental commitments and environmental concerns” (Chen, 2010, p. 309) these brands often remain recognized and purchased by only a niche group of customers. Green brands are characterized by their eco-friendly features and benefits, clear communication of sustainability efforts, and strong positioning as a symbol of environmental responsibility in the minds of consumers (Papista & Krystallis, 2013). By contrast, the majority of conventional brands have built their positionings around attributes such as performance, convenience, or cost-effectiveness (Keller, 2020) and, as such, are struggling to synthesize their brand positionings with the compliance of increasing sustainability demands from policy-makers. Recently, Unilever’s CEO Hein Schumacher noted that “in recent years, debate around brands’ sustainability and purpose has arguably generated more heat than light” and reflected on Unilever’s strategy of equipping all its brands with a purpose while deprioritizing to push sustainability forward on a large scale (Carroll, 2023).
Achieving sustainability on a large scale requires all brands in the marketplace to contribute. While green brands aim to pioneer sustainable practices and heavily contribute to sustainability in relation to their size, conventional brands targeting mass-market customers show lower levels of sustainability but reach more customers. Therefore, green brands are often deemed first-movers and conventional brands followers in sustainability.
Existing research has not yet fully explored the complexities of first-mover strategies in the context of sustainability: while several studies in the field of general management suggest multiple benefits for first-movers (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988), they also discuss first-mover disadvantages (Boulding & Christen, 2001), claiming that being the first with, for example, new innovations might come with several challenges. Adding sustainability to the discussion, scholars have investigated the effects of eco-innovations from pioneering firms (Cleff & Rennings, 2012), whether companies should opt for a leader or follower role in corporate social responsibility (CSR; Kopel, 2021), and whether engaging in CSR is a strategic advantage or necessity (Falkenberg & Brunsæl, 2012). However, existing research on the sequence of entry timing has produced findings that are often inconsistent or even contrasting, as highlighted by Zachary et al. (2015). These inconsistencies in the literature highlight a critical gap that requires further examination. Much of the prior research has primarily focused on either the firm or product level, as discussed by Suarez and Lanzolla (2005), thus limiting our understanding of how entry timing strategies impact broader organizational outcomes or has not considered the market entry timing as a particular source of competitive advantage (Makadok, 1998). Furthermore, there is a notable absence of a holistic or integrative perspective that connects first-mover and follower strategies specifically in the context of sustainability innovations, as emphasized by Lieberman and Montgomery (2013). This gap signifies the need for comprehensive research that bridges these perspectives, offering a more unified and thorough understanding of strategic entry timing and its implications for sustainable innovation efforts.
The debate about first-mover and follower (dis)advantages predominantly stems from a competitive viewpoint, leading companies and brands to push sustainability forward in isolation. Yet, given policy-makers’ efforts to achieve a circular economy with “a combination of reduce, reuse and recycle activities” (Kirchherr et al., 2017, p. 221). In response, companies and brands must find a balance between competition in the marketplace and collaboration with market players to adapt their business operations in line with a circular economy that “is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2023).
While competition lies at the heart of market economies, understanding the (dis)advantages of being a first-mover or follower in sustainability is essential for companies and brands not only from an outcome perspective but also from a process perspective. Furthermore, with the ongoing regulations toward a circular economy, shedding light on how regulations influence theses sustainability transformations is crucial, especially under the consideration of competition and collaboration among market players at the same time.
Our study is guided by three research questions: (a) What (dis)advantages do green brands face from pioneering sustainable practices compared with conventional brands? (b) How do sustainability regulations affect the sustainability transformation of brands? and (c) Which factors determine the future success or failure of brands in sustainability transformations?
Given the limited body of empirical research and the novelty of this phenomenon, we adopted a qualitative research approach, drawing on 29 expert interviews with managers from companies and brands undergoing sustainability transformations. Guided by grounded theory, we outline the sustainability transformations of green and conventional brands and delineate the challenges, opportunities, and strategic implications that lead to future market success for brands.
Our study makes several significant contributions to the field of sustainability transformation: First, we conceptualize the sustainability transformation of green and conventional brands, which we call the “junction of truth,” to shed light on the antecedents for building a competitive advantage with diametrically diverging market positionings. Second, we provide a more dynamic perspective on first-mover advantages in the realm of sustainability by showing sequential differences during the exploration and exploitation phases. Third, by taking the regulatory perspective into account, we show that regulations increase the urgency for companies and brands to combine mass-market congruency and sustainability compliance simultaneously. Last, we enrich the theoretical understanding of competition and collaboration in sustainability transformations by providing insights into the different levels of competition and collaboration necessary in terms of resources, technology, and customers.
We begin by synthesizing the theoretical background and explaining our exploratory research approach. Then, we present our findings and discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications. Finally, we discuss the study’s limitations and provide avenues for future research.
Theoretical Background
First-Mover (Dis)advantage and Sustainability
For decades, scholars have debated how companies and brands can build and maintain a competitive advantage (Christensen, 2001; Porter, 1985). Nurtured by the resources-based view (Barney, 1991) and debates around organizational capabilities (Knight & Cavusgil, 2004), information asymmetries (Bergh et al., 2019; Nayyar, 1990), and market entry timing (Lilien & Yoon, 1990), the concept of the first-mover advantage evolved (Kerin et al., 1992; Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). Lieberman and Montgomery (1988, p. 41) define the first-mover advantage “as the ability of pioneering firms to earn positive economic profits.” This advantage stems from a technological advantage, advanced or non-imitable resources, customer switching costs, or a combination thereof (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). Ultimately, companies aim to build up these asymmetries and defend their “superior positions in geographic space (e.g., prime physical locations), technology space (e.g., patents), or customer perceptual space” (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998, pp. 1112–1113).
The vast majority of studies support the theory that being the first-mover confers several advantages. VanderWerf and Mahon (1997) conduct a meta-analysis of empirical studies investigating the first-mover advantage and find that 54 of 66 studies support the theory of the first-mover advantage. In the same vein, Robinson and Min (2002) suggest higher survival rates for pioneering firms than early followers. More recently, scholars have investigated positive outcomes of first-movers along several metrics, including firm growth (Mueller et al., 2012), short- and long-term financial returns (Kang & Montoya, 2014), product performance (Kang & Montoya, 2014), and distribution outcomes (Nishida, 2017). Studies also suggest positive outcomes in terms of greater consumer preferences for pioneering firms (Alpert & Kamins, 1995), a high degree of consumer attention to new products (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988), and access to better placements on retailer shelves (Montgomery, 1975).
While many studies suggest positive outcomes for first-movers, other studies report unfavorable effects. These effects are associated with market and technological uncertainties, which make consumer response forecasts difficult (Robinson & Min, 2002), create free-rider effects from later entrants (Kerin et al., 1992; Li & Calantone, 1998), and possibly lead to incumbent inertia and inflexibility due to large investments (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988). As such, some scholars have even claimed that the first-mover advantage is a myth, viewing its “validity [as] almost taken for granted” (Suarez & Lanzolla, 2005, p. 121), or questioned whether it reflects a “marketing logic” or a “marketing legend” (Golder & Tellis, 1993). Others have found that first-movers in consumer and industrial industries often incur more cost disadvantages than later entrants (Boulding & Christen, 2001). Dobrev and Gotsopoulos (2010) argue that the success of first-movers is based not primarily on the timing of market entry but more dominantly on how companies can leverage their capabilities and experiences in new markets. In a similar vein, Markides and Sosa (2013) note that it is the implementation, rather than the existence, of first-mover advantages that drives success.
While the advantages of first-movers can come at the expense (or disadvantage) of followers and vice versa (Kerin et al., 1992; Lieberman & Montgomery, 1988), Lieberman and Montgomery (2013) suggest that both can exist simultaneously. They argue that especially firm heterogeneities allow a wide range of outcomes on market entry timing, thus proposing a more dynamic view (vs. the prevalent static view) on entry timing (Fosfuri et al., 2013; Lieberman & Montgomery, 2013).
Although sustainability has been on top of companies’ strategic agenda for decades (Shrivastava, 1995), few studies have discussed first-mover advantages or market entry timing in the realm of sustainability. While the majority of studies investigating first-mover advantages in the traditional sense of market and product innovations support the theory, findings on first-movers in the sphere of sustainability are less clear on its advantages. Cleff and Rennings (2012) suggest first-mover advantages for environmental innovations only under “market lead” circumstances in which the pace of technological evolution is high and that of market evolution is low (Suarez & Lanzolla, 2005), thus providing companies enough time to overcome technological uncertainties. Similarly, Kopel (2021, p. 502) argues that first-mover advantages in CSR initiatives are limited to circumstances in which CSR spillovers to other firms are low and CSR initiatives are “highly specific to a firm.” Apart from the findings on the outcome of first-mover advantages in sustainability, research agrees that building on asymmetries to benefit from strategic CSR initiatives is important (Tetrault Sirsly & Lamertz, 2008) when companies have access to sufficient capital resources and networks (Halila & Rundquist, 2011).
Building on more than two decades of management and marketing research on first-mover advantages, companies that can build up superior resources, advanced technologies, and strong customer relationships might benefit from their early market entry (Lieberman & Montgomery, 2013). Yet only a small body of research has investigated the entry timing of companies dealing with their strategy and transformation in sustainability. Prior studies, often lacking empirical evidence, widely neglect imperative circumstances that come with sustainability, such as consumers’ acceptance of sustainability innovations (Ozaki, 2011), limited product performance or convenience through sustainability product characteristics (White et al., 2019), or a limited willingness to pay (Carrington et al., 2010; Goebel et al., 2018). While prior research mainly takes the demand side into account, companies increasingly face pressure from regulatory forces to become more sustainable (McGowan, 2023; Tankersley & Friedman, 2023). Therefore, the decision on market entry timing and sustainability progress is determined no longer only by customers and shareholders but also by policy-makers. This shifting landscape suggests that while some researchers argue that environmentally sustainable policies and products can boost profitability through cost reductions and first-mover advantages in shaping regulations (Porter & van der Linde, 1995), green firms themselves can influence future regulations and secure first-mover advantages (Prakash, 2002). Understanding this relationship is crucial for fostering an environment where sustainability initiatives are economically viable across diverse industries.
Brand Transformation and Sustainability
Brands come with several important roles and functions for customers (Aaker, 2007; Dawar, 2004). Brands are used as a differentiator in competitive markets and act as a dominant buying criterion (Keller, 2012; Narayandas & Rangan, 2004). For many customers, brands serve as a quality indicator (Brucks et al., 2000), which enhances trust over the long run (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005). For many companies, brands are the most important revenue driver and help them distinguish their offerings from the competition (Aaker, 2011). Furthermore, they allow companies to target different customers or groups of customers more specifically (Davcik & Sharma, 2015) and aid in building brand loyalty (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).
To stay competitive and relevant for customers, brands need to drive category innovations and continuously improve their offerings to meet customers’ changing needs (Brexendorf et al., 2015). Multiple successful brands have made their strength in innovation an integral part of their brand equities (e.g., Apple, Audi), leading to powerful market positions (Barone & Jewell, 2013). While studies have reported incremental innovations as potentially harming a brand’s innovation leader position (Verganti, 2008), other studies have found that too radical innovations lead to customer confusion and thereby evoke negative reactions (Beverland et al., 2010). Thus, brands must find the right balance between radical and incremental innovations. Beverland et al. (2010) conceptualize four ways of creating innovations in organizations: incremental innovations that either are driven by the market or drive the market and radical innovations that either are driven by the market or drive the market. In line with the literature, they associate incremental innovations with follower brands and radical innovations with leader brands. In an effort to resolve the debates on first-movers and followers, Hauser et al. (2006, p. 688) distill the discussion to a simple rule: “The success of innovations depends ultimately on consumers accepting them.”
Brands have begun facing increasing demand for environmental, ethical, and socially compliant practices (Golob & Podnar, 2019; Kumar & Christodoulopoulou, 2014). In response, the popularity of green brands (e.g., Patagonia) has grown substantially over the years (Westley & Vredenburg, 1991). While they effectively communicate their environmental commitments and values, creating a positive image and equity in the minds of consumers and being evaluated based on their perceived environmental responsibility, consumer satisfaction, and trustworthiness (Chen, 2010), a green brand can be defined as one that embodies eco-friendly attributes and benefits, actively communicates its sustainability, and firmly establishes its identity as a symbol of environmental responsibility in consumers’ minds (Papista & Krystallis, 2013). Green brands are integral to sustainability transformation as consumers increasingly aim to build emotional connections with sustainable brands (Chen, 2010), and studies report negative consumer attitudes toward brands that do not contribute to sustainability issues (Clancy & O’Loughlin, 2002). While research has shown that brand strength is positively related to the trial probability of new products (Brexendorf et al., 2015), it has also reported that companies that engage in meaningful CSR activities bring more new products to market than less engaged companies (Luo & Du, 2012). Further research addresses the growing global awareness of environmental issues which increased the demand for eco-friendly products, leading to green marketing transformation as a powerful strategy for businesses while gaining a competitive advantage (Guerreiro & Pacheco, 2021) or the recommendation for companies to adapt to the transformation from overconsumption toward green consumption (Pimonenko et al., 2020).
Although the importance and relevance of sustainability for brands are clear, the outcomes of environmental and social compliant behavior are less so. Several studies suggest positive effects on brand differentiation and brand value (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Gupta et al., 2013), increased satisfaction (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), stronger long-term relationships between customers and the company (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001), a greater willingness to pay for the brand (Creyer & Ross, 1997), an increasing market value of the firm (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), and a positive impact on brand equity (Torres et al., 2012). Furthermore, Bhattacharya et al. (2020) demonstrate that brands benefit from CSR activities during recessions.
On the one hand, while only a few studies have investigated the process of value generation through CSR (Vallaster et al., 2012), such as by achieving sustainability progress first and economic value second (Schaltegger et al., 2019) or by treating the importance of sustainability targets and economic targets equally (Schaltegger et al., 2012), these studies assume a linear relationship between the progress of sustainability and the increase of financial returns. Challenging this assumption, Reyes-Rodríguez and Ulhøi (2022) suggest an inverted U-shaped relationship between sustainability and value generation.
On the other hand, consumers tend to evaluate environmentally friendly products as less effective or convenient than conventional products (Lin & Chang, 2012), are resistant to changing their consumption habits (White et al., 2019), and are often not willing to make other sacrifices in favor of more sustainable consumer behavior (Huang & Rust, 2011). Such decreased consumer preferences are labeled as “sustainability liability,” meaning that consumers chose less or non-sustainable brands and products when preferring performance-related attributes (Luchs et al., 2010). This is in line with Aaker et al. (2010, p. 224), who argue that “consumers perceive nonprofits as being warmer than for-profits but as less competent,” nurtured by their perception that companies engaging in CSR would shift their focus away from the core business (Friedman, 2007).
Green brands play a crucial role in driving sustainability transformation by aligning consumer preferences with environmentally responsible practices. The integration of eco-innovation within green brands not only improves sustainability performance but also enhances brand value, as consumers increasingly favor products that align with their environmental concerns (Kinnunen et al., 2022). As consumers increasingly seek products that reflect their environmental values, companies that establish strong green brands can differentiate themselves in the market, thereby enhancing their competitive advantage and attracting eco-conscious consumers (Papista & Krystallis, 2013). In contrast, conventional brands often lack this proactive engagement with sustainability, which can hinder their appeal in an increasingly eco-conscious consumer landscape. Thus, green brands serve as a bridge between consumer expectations and corporate responsibility, fostering a culture of sustainability within the marketplace.
In addition to meeting the same functional standards as conventional brands, green brands may also provide an alternative form of economic value, which has thus far received limited empirical investigation (Papista & Krystallis, 2013). Despite potentially higher initial costs, green brands can be more cost-effective over time by minimizing waste or enabling product reuse (Green & Peloza, 2011; Prakash, 2002), offering a compelling and also emotional value beyond their sustainable impact compared to conventional brands.
While the majority of conventional brands need to try to transform toward sustainability without losing their existing customer base, many green brands already (over-)comply with sustainability demands but are popular with only a niche group of customers. So, how can conventional brands become more sustainable, and how can green brands increase their customer base? The body of literature predominantly focuses on outcome variables in the context of brands, innovation, and sustainability. Yet research from a process perspective that views the sustainability transformation and transformation process of brands more dynamically is scant. Also lacking is consideration of the increasing regulatory forces that, according to Sheth and Parvatiyar (2021), will heavily affect future brand management.
Context and Method
Research Context and Sampling
Our study draws on grounded theory with the aim to generate new theory from empirical data, “systematically obtained and analyzed” (Glaser & Strauss, 2017, p. 1). As a long-term, established qualitative research method in the fields of management and marketing, grounded theory helps scholars explore social phenomena when other theories are lacking or insufficient (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Building on specific observations, researchers inductively collect and compare data, categories, and concepts “to understand the process by which actors construct meaning out of intersubjective experience” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 634). This iterative process of theoretical sampling and theorizing helps distill, develop, and confirm new emerging theories. No further data need to be collected when theoretical saturation is reached (Glaser & Strauss, 2014).
Building on recent trends, informal expert conversations, and observations in the marketplace, we recognized the need for further investigation of the transformations of green and conventional brands in the context of sustainability. Our purpose was to highlight the characteristics of green and conventional brands and how they transform themselves under current market conditions.
To understand the transformation of green brands and conventional brands, we decided to dive deeper into industries that consist of several market players ranging from smaller to larger brands reflecting the diverging market positions of green and conventional brands. We found industries consisting of several established brands, such as consumer goods, food, and fashion, as well as emerging green brands suitable for sampling. We therefore initially approached experts in these fields who are responsible for or engaged in brand transformations. Typical job titles in our sample were head of sustainability, marketing director, and sustainability manager. Because fundamental brand decisions are of a high strategic nature, most of our experts have multiple years of experience in the field and often lead teams of several dozen employees. We conducted semi-structured interviews with these experts across multiple industries, including consumer goods, retail, and food. All interviewees were based in Germany, providing a localized perspective on sustainability practices. The sample was heterogeneous in terms of industry and company size to capture diverse perspectives, as they represented a diverse range of leadership roles across marketing, sales, sustainability, corporate responsibility, environmental, social and governance (ESG), and strategy. These included Vice Presidents, Directors, and Managers with expertise in sustainability leadership, corporate responsibility, product marketing, and ESG integration, ensuring perspectives from key decision-makers at regional and global levels. Importantly, the brands the participants worked for were specifically selected for their strong sustainability propositions, ensuring that the insights gathered were rooted in organizations actively engaged in sustainability efforts. This diversity enabled us to capture a comprehensive view of sustainability practices across various organizational functions. All participants were assured of anonymity, and their responses are identified with coded labels (e.g., Interviewee 1). Table 1 provides a summary of our interviewees, their job titles, and respective industries.
Overview of Interviewees.
Source. Authors’ own table.
Data Collection and Analysis
We conducted 29 in-depth interviews during the course of 2023 with an average length of 40 min. All interviews were conducted by one researcher virtually via Zoom or Microsoft Teams and were recorded to allow for proper transcription. The first interviewees were contacted after desk research, in which we screened relevant journals, media posts, newspaper articles, or other information sources. Building on this sampling technique, we added snowball sampling to dive deeper into certain industries or topics to ensure we fully captured and understood the underlying mechanisms (Noy, 2008). The interview guidelines, which we adapted accordingly, reflected a proper mix of important aspects of the topic, while allowing flexibility to explore new aspects. We stopped the interviews when no new aspects or themes emerged, concluding that theoretical saturation was reached (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Interviews were transcribed verbatim with transcription software immediately after collection and were checked for correctness by student assistants. The authors discussed the interview outcomes promptly to grasp important aspects, emerging topics, and patterns that addressed our research questions. With support from the coding software MAXQDA, one author engaged in open coding to classify the data and to identify interesting aspects of the phenomenon; the result was 185 first-order codes. Subsequently, we discussed the data and first-order codes and refined or clarified a minority of codes to ensure that further processing would remain rigorous and stringent. This process uncovered 13 second-order themes that structure the data along the most important and revealing aspects to help understand the underlying mechanisms and theoretical patterns (Gioia et al., 2013). Last, we condensed these second-order themes into three categories consisting of “regulatory enforcement,” “market dynamics,” and “strategic orientation.” We found these categories appropriate to structure our data to address our research questions.
Findings
This section discusses the (dis)advantages of green and conventional brands from a dynamic perspective and unpacks transformational success factors for both brands. Furthermore, we provide insights into the impact of sustainability regulations for green and conventional brands and shed light on the factors that might determine the future success or failure of brands in sustainability transformations. We first describe the key determinants influencing the sustainability transformations of brands and then introduce our “junction of truth” framework, conceptualizing the different paths for green and conventional brands.
Key Determinants for Brand Transformations
We found three key determinants for brand transformations. Primary, regulatory enforcement puts increased pressure on companies to adapt their business operations for more sustainability. Second, market dynamics, or the continuously changing circumstances from the supply and demand sides, direct how companies and brands address them. Third, the strategic orientation of companies dictates the approaches green and conventional brands use to become more sustainable and explain the rationale behind their strategic decision-making.
Regulatory Enforcement
Our findings reveal that several regulatory institutions at regional and national levels have increasingly attended to sustainability regulation. Under the umbrella of the European Green Deal, several regulations have already been implemented or are due to be implemented soon. Regulation, which tends to be located on top of companies’ and brands’ agenda, essentially drives strategic decisions about brand and product management. Next to legislation, investors and shareholders have also taken action to drive sustainability from a risk perspective. A manager from a stock-listed company even considered shareholder pressure more important than regulations: I really have to say that because this investor-driven agenda looks at ESG [environmental, social, and governance] primarily from a risk perspective . . . I would definitely say that this pressure is greater than the supposed social pressure from Fridays for Future [an international climate movement] or people who are stuck [on the streets to block car traffic]. The universal investors Blackrock, Vanguard, pension funds are also there . . . and of course they also push the markets in a certain direction, perhaps much more than regulation. (Interviewee 3)
Most of our interviewees appreciate sustainability regulations because they create a standard that allows brands to be more certain about what is allowed and what is not allowed. Especially in the context of communications, many interviewees would prefer to have precise regulations in place that guide them on whether a certain sustainability claim is allowed or subject to greenwashing. By contrast, too restrictive regulations would pose difficulties in communicating sustainability achievements or ingredients of a brand or product. These mixed feelings, mentioned by several interviewees, were described by a brand manager as follows: Yes, there are two hearts beating in my chest. I think it basically makes sense, of course, to simply create a level playing field. I think that’s a good idea and a good thing . . .. But of course it’s also very much about the design, because what must not happen under any circumstances is that it ends up being so restrictive and it ends up being so difficult to make a sustainability statement at all . . .. So if we were to abandon communication now . . . ultimately we would have lost a great deal because we would not be able to take consumers with us. (Interviewee 2)
Brands and their managers are especially concerned about the commercialization of sustainability. If regulations limit the range of communication measures, a brand’s differentiation and competitiveness might be restricted and thus decrease the willingness to further invest in sustainability. In particular, a manager responsible for brands targeting a niche group of customers with advanced sustainability products described fears about prospective competitiveness: We simply see certain topics with which you could position yourself in the past, so to speak, where you were somehow better, faster, could generate a greater impact. It’s becoming incredibly difficult because the general level of what you have to do [in sustainability] and what you have to prove and how you do it is being raised to such an extent that it’s difficult to further be a step ahead of that. (Interviewee 29)
While many brands, especially conventional brands, differentiate themselves through functional or emotional value components, green brands build their value propositions on advanced sustainability. Because regulations will force all market players to be more sustainable, the level of differentiation through sustainability will melt away. Correspondingly, more regulations come with more and complex sustainability reporting, which requires additional organizational and financial resources. Therefore, companies equipped with many resources may also gain a competitive advantage by supporting regulations: And it is actually the case that it is always as good as possible for large companies to have high standards, because that keeps all the small brands out of the business. In other words, we always advocate the strictest possible regulatory conditions because we always have the opportunity to comply with them and also to shape them, because of course there is also lobbying taking place . . .. It is only good for multinational companies that the standards are set as high as possible. (Interviewee 11)
This statement reflects the ambitions of large companies to influence regulatory decision-making in their favor because they usually must access more resources to comply with regulatory requirements and reporting and, at the same time, benefit from a level playing field, which reduces the competitive advantage of green brands. Thus, sustainability regulation might be a double-edged sword; it creates effort and complexity and might limit the range for brand communications, but it also increases the overall market level of sustainability, which might reduce the competitive advantage for green brands.
Market Dynamics
In the past decade, increasingly more companies have realized the need for more sustainability. Several green brands have emerged, with the aim to provide sustainable offerings and gain a dedicated positioning in the marketplace. At the same time, conventional brands have incorporated sustainability by adapting product portfolios, developing new innovations, and including sustainability into their communications. Although the share of (more) sustainable offerings has grown, overall market economics have cooled down, predominantly because of economic and political turbulence, resulting in cost increases and high inflation rates. In response, consumers have shifted their purchasing power to lower-priced brands and products, which has led to reduced demand for several green brands. This situation has challenged brand managers in terms of adding sustainability to their brands and products: If you change packaging for more sustainable packaging, now you pay a price and consumer[s], yes, they are interested in sustainability. But you know, we are in inflation time. Are they ready to pay more for a more sustainable plastic or more sustainable packaging? Well . . . maybe not. So, you get the cost of doing things, but consumers still buy . . . you know, whatever Chinese product . . . because it’s cheaper. (Interviewee 13)
As a result, companies and brands are increasingly under pressure to pass on the higher costs for sustainability to consumers. While doing so was difficult even before high inflation, it has become almost impossible more recently. Therefore, brand managers are asking themselves about the development of these green segments: This [sustainability] part of the market is not so big . . . it’s a very small part of the market. And the question is if this will grow. I am not so sure that this part will be much bigger. And here you can succeed, but you will not be very big . . .. So my opinion is that, you know, . . . we have much more impact with our portfolio transformation on all the other [conventional] brands . . .. So . . . if you look to consumers, there is only a very small part that really want[s] green brands. (Interviewee 15)
Many of our interviewees posed the issue that, on the one hand, their companies and brands vigorously want to push their sustainability transformations forward but, on the other hand, consumers neither want to pay higher prices nor want to adapt their behavior at the expense of convenience. This situation has led some conventional brands to hold back on their sustainability efforts and put more focus on profitability. For green brands, the growth rates have often been negative, and many of them face the challenge of how to attract customers in the future. Thus, companies and brands pay more attention to the value to customer and what attributes are important for the purchase decision. One brand manager noted that sustainability rarely serves as the sole buying criterion: If you’re on the shelf and you’re more expensive just because you’re sustainable, then the consumer will choose another [product]. Because sustainability itself is not a benefit for the consumer, . . . he might take it for granted. And it’s a must, but it’s not a benefit for me’ I don’t go out because I want to buy a sustainable product. No, I go out because I want a product that also lasts well . . . and if it is also sustainable and it costs just as much as the one next to it, which is not sustainable, then I buy it. If it is sustainable and only costs more than the one next to it because it is sustainable, then I won’t buy it. (Interviewee 25)
This quote demonstrates that, although consumers value sustainability and recognize its importance, it is not the main purchase driver in most cases. Consequently, companies and brands struggle to address the sustainability concerns of consumers, shareholders, and policy-makers, while being unable to (fully) pass on their higher costs for sustainability. This dilemma raises the question of how brand and product managers should position their brands and which products they should focus on to attract customers in the future.
Strategic Orientation
Many interviewees reported that sustainability demands trade-off decisions that must be addressed. While some companies and brands have slowed down their sustainability transformation because of higher costs and, thus, reduced purchasing power by customers, others aim to strategically integrate these trade-offs into their brand and product management: That is not playing one off against the other, but sustainability is anchored in our strategies. It has to be delivered just like everything else. And that’s where the responsibility lies. If I do sustainability as an add-on, have it managed by a separate department or evaluate it separately, then I do it for as long as I can afford it. It’s like a hobby. I do it when I can. And if you’re stressed, you don’t go to the gym in the evening. But if it’s part of your daily routine, let’s say you always cycle to work, then you have to cycle to work, then you can’t cancel because you have to show up . . .. For us, [sustainability is] part of the way how we live our brand strategies. (Interviewee 14)
This respondent argues that sustainability must be an integral part of each brand’s strategy, especially when aiming to achieve a sustainable impact. Because many conventional brands are bought by a wide range of customers, even a small sustainability improvement could have a larger impact than a green brand, which is purchased by a niche group of customers. As such, the interviewee is convinced that sustainability improvements of large brands are more effective than relying on green brands. The respondent went on to say: There are always considerations in different directions. And I think we’ve seen so far that this doesn’t usually work. Since, as I said, we don’t want to have a trade-off. If we want to achieve the goals for our planet, it’s not about creating a sub-line, it’s not about creating a small niche brand. That’s really 80s or 90s style. Yes, we need quick results. We need to reach all people. But you can’t do that with niche brands. (Interviewee 14)
This approach is in line with many other companies and brands that claim that making an impact with sustainability will be achieved through large-scale projects. Green brands might push sustainability forward within categories and markets, but they ultimately cannot achieve the scale required for fundamental sustainability transformations. This also needs organizational focus, as one brand manager explained: Because we don’t need 137 Mickey Mouse projects, we need a few. Probably no more than five, but which we can then apply at scale. And the challenge there is then in the individual countries, when they have a factory: Yes, it makes sense to have a local project here, but then please. You know what you’re doing. You’re not just spending money, you’re also creating a reduction in emissions. And if that’s not the case, okay, thank you, next idea. (Interviewee 11)
Along with the discussions on creating a substantial impact with sustainability is the overall agreement on the challenge of how to pass the higher costs for sustainability on to customers. Our findings reveal that companies want to avoid sacrificing profitability for sustainability because of shareholders’ financial expectations. Thus, the importance of creating value through sustainability has dramatically increased, as indicated by a placement decision of a manager: So, I came on the role, I’ve been replacing somebody who has an expert profile. So, we really decided we replace a [sustainability] expert by a business person, which was a bit daring. And my mission is really how can we put sustainability at the core of the business? So really my two main points are retailer and consumer. I’m removing my finger from any project to make sure how [we can] valorize our sustainability credentials . . .. If we don’t manage to valorize sustainability, we cannot afford to do sustainability . . . I’m trying to make people understand. One side is a sustainability expert saying, “If you just do good for the planet.” We are not an NGO [non-governmental organization] . . . And there it’s very difficult because valorization is not only short term, it’s also long term. (Interviewee 4)
This statement reflects the importance of creating prospective value for customers, which eventually leads to a strong and competitive market position. In the same vein, companies and brands often face the decision of market timing and entry. While green brands often aim to be the most sustainable brands in a category and therefore the first in terms of new sustainable ingredients or packaging, conventional brands rather take a back seat when making sustainability innovations. With the sustainability impact in mind, a sustainability manager of a multinational company noted the following about market entry timing: So, it’s important to think about where you really have the first-mover advantage and there are simply areas where it does not exist. It’s actually important to be there in time to scale up. But you don’t necessarily have to be the first, you have to be the first that scales up properly. I think that’s the question. And we certainly want to be the first to scale up in many areas, not necessarily the very first to do something . . .. Let me give you an example: refill stations. That’s a very difficult one. We’ve already learned the hard way, we’ve already tested [them]. But unless you find a solution that really works, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to put refill stations in every store that you [have to] take out again six months later because it didn’t work. (Interviewee 14)
Owing to limited customer acceptance, especially large conventional brands seem more cautious when it comes to sustainability innovations and implementations. The interviewees also reported that certain transformations would need the commitment and investment of other market actors (e.g., retailers, competitors). One interviewee described a competitor whose technology would have reduced packaging size by 50%, and that it was interested in sharing the patent for that. Because of their first-mover position in the market, the competitor brands did not adopt the new packaging size, leading the competitor brand to withdraw its products from the market because of the inconsistency in packaging to industry standards. The interviewee further said: So probably the most important thing you learn is you cannot be a leader if there are no followers. So, there are very few areas where you have a first-mover advantage if you don’t have leaders. I mean, if you think about mobility. Is battery electric or diesel the technology of the future? Or electric or hydrogen? Or do we stick with the combustion engine? If you don’t have anyone who will go along with you, then you won’t have the infrastructure, the followers, etc. That’s why first-movers make sense if you have a strategic view, if you take your partners with you and if you can convince the others that this is the direction. (Interviewee 27)
Because sustainability often requires the acceptance and change of multiple actors in the ecosystem, the competitive aspirations of companies and brands might prevent progress in sustainability. Circularity, especially in the context of pollution, requires collaborative and integrative strategies of companies and brands to reach the full potential and close the loop.
Conceptual Framework: “Junction of Truth”
In this section, we integrate the key influencing determinants into a holistic framework of the transformation of green and conventional brands to determine how these brands can ultimately achieve market success. This study highlights the need to better understand how market entry timing strategies (first-mover vs. follower) influence the success of sustainability innovations. While entry timing has been extensively studied, its role in sustainability contexts remains underexplored, particularly in how first-mover strategies interact with regulatory landscapes and consumer expectations. We take the role of entry timing into account and call our dynamic framework of brand transformations the “junction of truth,” referring to the tipping point at which brands reach market success or fail. We conclude this section by providing an overview of past success factors and future transformational success factors of green and conventional brands.
In our framework (see Figure 1), we conceptualize brands as green or conventional. Green brands build their value propositions (predominantly) on advanced sustainability and are often the first-movers in categories or industries that engage in sustainable practices. Conversely, conventional brands are built on long-term market presence and widely target customers along traditional value attributes (e.g., performance, convenience, price). Therefore, they resist being first when it comes to disrupting markets through sustainability and rather take on the follower role.
Junction of Truth.
The 2010s were characterized by the exploration of sustainability-related (business) practices, in which new ingredients or formulations, new packaging formats, and new retail designs were developed and tested. More important, all brands’ sustainability initiatives came with the ambition to commercialize sustainability, especially under the constraint of customers’ limited willingness to pay. Over the years, green brands gained a sustainability advantage, which allowed them to credibly grow market space and to skim off niche groups of customers who were highly interested in sustainability, sometimes shifting market shares from conventional brands to themselves.
Yet our interviewees revealed that market dynamics approach a tipping point at which green brands can no longer grow and compete through “pure” sustainability; that is, they reach a plateau that requires a fundamental transformation. At the same time, conventional brands relied on their market share advantage, acting from a position of strength, but were under pressure to integrate sustainability, mainly driven by regulatory and shareholder pressure. Thus, their challenge was to comply with sustainability demands from stakeholders, while creating value from sustainability on the market side to maintain growth and profitability.
Competitive advantages represent market positions that confer brands a powerful status based on superior resources, technologies, or customer perceptions, which are then reflected by strong financial returns. However, brands can suffer from a competitive disadvantage if they are not able to meet future stakeholder demands, be it from a customer or regulatory perspective, thus suffering from low market shares and limited abilities to react to market changes.
We argue that green brands focusing solely on advanced sustainability will face challenges due to sustainability’s diminishing role as a substantial differentiator. With the accelerated speed of sustainability regulations and persistent economic turbulences flanked by high inflation and lower purchasing power, green brands must find their path toward attracting more customers beyond the niche groups. If they do not make these transitions, they will expose themselves to the power of conventional brands, weaker market positions, and tough competition.
Conventional brands, which possess substantial market shares in their categories and industries, are challenged to adapt their products toward more sustainability, while not suffering from financial declines. Moreover, these brands, which are known by their customers for performance or convenience (Keller, 2020), must integrate sustainability credibly without exposing themselves to accusations of greenwashing. While the overall regulatory development could help conventional brands by possibly reducing the relevance of the value propositions of green brands, conventional brands must be alert to comply with sustainability regulations.
Brands that manage to adapt to the new market environments will win the market and benefit from a position of market success, while brands that miss this transformation will lose the market and suffer from market failure. Although the tipping point does not have a specific time frame, it illuminates the difficulties for brands to re-position themselves and regain a competitive market position after compliance with sustainability (conventional brands) or to attract a wide customer base (for green brands). Overall, the ongoing market transformation will be characterized by exploitation, in which winning brands gain returns from successfully adapting to new market environments and losing brands miss these transformations and fail to play a prominent role in future markets. Table 2 describes factors that determine the success of green and conventional brands during the exploration phase and characterizes transformational success factors that are pivotal in determining their future competitive advantage or disadvantage.
Past and Transformational Success Factors.
Source. Authors’ own table.
Discussion
This study reveals the transformational paths of green brands and conventional brands, both of which aim to maintain and/or expand their success under changing market conditions. Drawing on grounded theory and expert interviews, we shed light on the diametrically diverging paths for green and conventional brands under the realm of market timing and regulatory pressure, and we define the “junction of truth” that urges brands to adapt their strategies accordingly. We make significant contributions to the fields of brand transformation and product innovation management and provide strong practical implications for managers and their brands.
Theoretical Contributions
Primarily, we contribute to the literature on brand management and sustainability transformation by integrating the regulatory development that fundamentally changes the perspective of brands and sustainability transformations. In contrast with previous studies that widely neglect regulatory influences and the consequences for brand transformations (Brexendorf et al., 2015; Luchs et al., 2010; White et al., 2019), we show that the ongoing implementation of sustainability regulations has made the debate on whether to work toward sustainability or not redundant, as these regulations now require companies and brands to find answers to the “how” question. Treating sustainability implicitly as optional or voluntary has different implications for brands’ strategy or resource allocations, thus challenging the validity of prior studies (Gupta et al., 2013; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Torres et al., 2012). Although many studies actively consider trade-off decisions that come with sustainability, such as the customer attitude–behavior gap (White et al., 2019), they neglect the urgency to address these decisions under the realm of regulatory pressure. Our study treats the ongoing regulatory pressure as more urgent, thus diving deeper into the consequences when companies and brands fail to manage trade-off decisions. For this reason, we conceptualize an approaching tipping point that suggests that these companies and brands will end up with a competitive disadvantage, resulting in several negative outcomes (e.g., loss of market share).
Second, we add knowledge to the literature on the commercialization of sustainability in the context of ongoing economic turbulences. While several studies have addressed the positive outcomes of sustainability, such as improved brand value (Gupta et al., 2013), increased market value of firms (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006), and positive outcomes on brand equity (Torres et al., 2012), only a few studies have investigated the process of value generation of CSR (Vallaster et al., 2012).
The majority of studies, which are predominantly of a conceptual nature, assume a linear relationship between sustainability activities and value creation. Following Reyes-Rodríguez and Ulhøi (2022), we characterize this more as an inverted U-shaped relationship; we argue that sustainability serves as a value driver up to a certain point, after which customers’ acceptance decreases dramatically. Thus, we help resolve scholarly debates on first-mover advantages and follower strategies for brands (Lieberman & Montgomery, 2013) by showcasing a dynamic framework that suggests first-mover advantages through sustainability until markets have reached a certain level of saturation. While green brands can quickly own the customer-perceptual space (Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998), they are often challenged in reaching sufficient market shares that would allow them to scale their sustainability offerings. Especially when the level of differentiation through sustainability decreases, conventional brands offer a more diverse product portfolio in terms of different value attributes or price positionings and thus have a competitive advantage. It adds to the green brand definition and research by Papista and Krystallis (2013), extending their work on the types of value or cost associated with green brands by offering clear insights into the transformation required to remain competitive. Ultimately, our study provides clear insights into the transformational paths and conceptualizes the challenges for green and conventional brands. Moreover, the findings enhance understanding of how companies and brands can pass on their costs for sustainability to customers (Carrington et al., 2010; Goebel et al., 2018; Luchs et al., 2010), especially when targeting mass-market customers. We emphasize the significance of incorporating additional functional or emotional value components to create economic value from sustainability innovations, adding to the literature of Papista and Krystallis (2013).
Third, our study reveals new perspectives on competition in the context of sustainability transformations. Prior research often conceptualizes organizational and sustainability transformations from a resources-based view, focusing on building competitiveness through non-imitable resources and capabilities, advanced technology, or exceptional customer relationships (Cleff & Rennings, 2012; Halila & Rundquist, 2011; Tetrault Sirsly & Lamertz, 2008). We confirm the legitimacy of this competitive point of view during the emergence of green market segments that we characterize as “exploration,” in which green brands and conventional brands aim to grow and win emerging sustainability segments. However, our findings reveal that companies and brands reconsider their competitive aspirations when it comes to technologies, because reaching the full potential of sustainability will only be conceivable when collaborating with other market actors in material, ingredients, packaging technologies, and so on. This collaborative lens also holds true for resources and capabilities that could be shared among competitors (e.g., offering unfilled truck capacities), which increases sustainability and also offers potential for economic returns. We found that competition is especially prevalent in attracting, converting, and maintaining customers with own sustainable offerings. Thus, we also add to the emerging literature on “coopetition,” or the relationship between organizational competition and collaboration (Bouncken et al., 2015; Ritala, 2012), as cross-sector collaborations for more sustainability have gained importance (see Ordonez-Ponce, Clarke, & Colbert, 2021 or Pedersen et al., 2021).
Practical Implications
Moving toward sustainability while maintaining and growing market relevance is an urgent challenge for companies and brands. However, managers face high levels of uncertainty when it comes to strategic decisions about a brand’s positioning and resource allocation. Our study provides clear guidance on the transformation of both green and conventional brands. The key transformational challenge for green brands is to grow their business by making their products and services attractive to a wider customer base. Thus, they must extend their value propositions and integrate value components such as performance, convenience, or fun and harmonize these attributes with sustainability. Particularly as the ongoing regulations will reduce the level of differentiation through sustainability, green brands can no longer rely on their niche. By contrast, conventional brands are increasingly under pressure by regulatory forces and shareholder agendas to increase their level of sustainability. Therefore, managers must ensure their brands’ sustainability compliance and work to create additional value, if they are to pass on higher costs to customers. We introduced a so-called tipping point to the ongoing scholarly debate, arguing that green and conventional brands must transform themselves to benefit from a competitive advantage; otherwise, market dynamics will bring these brands to their knees.
In addition, we discuss the relevance of being a first-mover or follower in sustainability transformations. While prior studies often take a static perspective and neglect differences along the timeline (Cleff & Rennings, 2012; Kopel, 2021), we show that during the exploration phase of sustainability (i.e., the early years of the emergence of new sustainability segments), green brands hold first-mover advantage and conquer the customer-perceptual space with highly innovative and sustainable products and services. Yet, during the ongoing maturation of these segments, these brands often struggle to make their offerings attractive to a wide range of customers. With ongoing regulations, the advantage will fade, unless these brands can reinvent themselves. This situation provides a rationale for followers that can gain experiences and observe technological developments without being directly engaged in sustainability. Then, they quicky adapt new sustainable formats, ingredients, packaging, or other innovations and accelerate these offerings rapidly to reach a large scale. Thus, we show that green brands can only leverage their first-mover advantage when they reinvent themselves properly and in time, while conventional brands benefit from their follower strategies when adapting brands and products accordingly.
Last, we encourage managers to shift their competitive thinking toward more collaborative thinking. While competing for customers through brand differentiation is highly reasonable, increasing the overall level of sustainability requires the collaboration of all market actors, aligning with Wasieleski et al. (2021) who highlight the need for higher collaboration across disciplines. Fostering a circular economy requires joint forces and agreements on common industry practices (e.g., use of recyclable ingredients or packaging) to close the loop (Merli et al., 2018) and enhance sustainable practices among companies and brands. We further encourage policy-makers to actively guide these sustainability transformations. Regulations should be designed to precisely target the desired effect without limiting companies and brands in their ability to market and communicate sustainability innovations. Moreover, the ability to innovate lies at the heart of all sustainability improvements, and thus regulatory bodies should support an innovation ecosystem that allows the sharing of new technologies and resources. The statement by interviewee 25 underscores a critical issue here: while sustainability is increasingly understood as an essential expectation, it is often not perceived as a sufficient standalone purchase driver. Consumers prioritize value, quality, and price parity, and will only opt for sustainable products if they offer comparable cost and utility. This dilemma points to the need for policies that, besides incentivizing companies to adopt sustainable practices, also ensure that sustainable products remain competitive in price. By addressing both economic and innovation-related challenges, policy-makers can foster an environment where companies are empowered to prioritize sustainability while ensuring that higher costs do not burden consumers. We conclude a dual role of policy-makers: fostering an innovative ecosystem and ensuring cost competitiveness for sustainable products. This alignment of corporate incentives, regulatory frameworks, collaborative thinking, and consumer expectations is crucial for driving meaningful and lasting sustainability transformations.
Limitations and Future Research Avenues
This study has limitations that offer avenues for further research. Initially, we investigate the sustainability transformations of companies and brands in Europe. Although many of these companies and brands act on a global scale, the interviewees’ perspectives and experience are predominantly based on a Western point of view. Future studies could take a more international and diverse perspective into account, collecting insights from less developed countries (e.g., the emerging markets). Doing so may provide additional insights into the strategy for brands, as for customers in other countries, sustainability might be less or more important. Moreover, future studies could view sustainability transformations from a more culturally diverse lens to show how cultural backgrounds, retail landscapes, or market conditions may influence the transformational path.
Second, our study is the first to conceptualize the sustainability transformation of green brands and conventional brands. While we took a qualitative exploratory approach, future research could quantify these paths and specify antecedents and effects that may provide further implications for academics and practitioners. It would also be beneficial to collect longitudinal data to dive deeper into different phases of sustainability transformations, as such analysis could add knowledge on the strategic implications in each phase.
Conclusion
Our study explores (a) the (dis)advantages that green brands and conventional brands experience from pioneering sustainable practices, (b) the impact of sustainability regulations on the sustainability transformations of brands, and (c) the factors that determine the future success or failure of brands in sustainability transformations. Although these issues reflect the current challenges of companies and brands in the marketplace, scholars have so far offered few insights into the sustainability transformations of green and conventional brands. Our study, based on grounded theory and 29 interviews with managers of green and conventional brands, aids us in answering our research questions.
First, we find that green brands and conventional brands possess several advantages due to their distinct characteristics. On the one hand, green brands are often characterized as first-movers in sustainability, as they quickly attract customers’ attention, especially those willing to sacrifice money, performance, or convenience for more sustainable offerings, and gain market share. On the other hand, conventional brands, which are characterized by a long heritage, existing customer bases, and major resources, tend to have higher market shares and, thus, more market power. With the ongoing acceleration of sustainability in all dimensions, both types of brands are heading toward the “junction of truth,” in which the advantages of green brands will become the disadvantages of conventional brands and vice versa. Thus, green brands are faced with the increased urgency to become mass-market congruent and conventional brands must become sustainable-compliant to have future market success.
Second, our study integrates the increasing sustainability regulations into the transformation of green and conventional brands. We find that previous studies widely neglect the idea that sustainability regulations no longer allow debate on whether brands must become more sustainable or not. We argue that this debate must shift to the “how” to help companies and brands find a path to implement sustainability into their offerings. We show that sustainability no longer serves as a (single) differentiator for brands to attract customers, as the regulations create a level playing field on which all brands must comply. Therefore, brands must find new ways to commercialize sustainability by integrating a broader range of functional and emotional value attributes to attract customers.
Third, we enrich understanding of factors that determine the future market success or failure of green and conventional brands. While green brands are equipped with a sustainability advantage and conventional brands with a market share advantage, both types of brands must adapt their offerings to attract customers and compete in the marketplace. While scholars have predominantly viewed sustainability transformation from a competitive standpoint, our study advocates for a more collaborative approach to achieve sustainability targets. With multiple improvements being made in the past decade (e.g., new packaging formats, green energy), implementing a circular economy requires collaboration among brands in, for example, ingredients, packaging, and supply chains. Our study advances a more integrative perspective of competition and collaboration among green and conventional brands.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
None.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
