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 Josephine.mylan@mbs.ac.uk

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