Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A framework to evaluate eco- and social-labels for designing a

sustainability consumption label to measure strong sustainability
impact of firms/products
Ioannis E. Nikolaou Assistant Professor, Corporate Environmental Management *,
Thomas Tsalis Post Doc Research, Corporate Environmental Management
Business Economics and Environmental Technology Lab, Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas Sofias 12, 67100,
Xanthi, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many methodologies have been suggested in the current literature to facilitate scholars and consumers
Available online 7 February 2018 to select environmental friendly products. A basic weakness of such methodologies is the lack of strong
sustainability ideas and aspects which are essential for the selection procedures of environmental
Keywords: friendly products. This paper develops an evaluation framework to assist consumers/stakeholders in
Sustainable consumption making rational and effortless evaluation about the sustainability performance of firms/products. Spe-
Local sustainability
cifically, it provides a quick, clear and comprehensive signal to consumers/stakeholders concerning the
Green consumption
extent to which a firm/product contributes to sustainable development. The proposed framework con-
Green consumers
Sustainability composite indexes
sists of two parts: a) a composite index which (under the triple-bottom-line approach) indicates the
allocation of revenues to the different stakeholder groups, and assesses the social and environmental
aspects of corporate sustainability performance and b) the transformation of a composite index into a
new label which determines the strong or weak sustainability of a product/firm. This framework aims at
contributing to the current literature by addressing the weaknesses of previous methodologies which are
solely based on either corporate operational or production process labels, as well as on the weak sus-
tainability concept which have made low progress to evaluate the overall sustainable picture of firms/
products. Finally, a case study has been carried out to indicate and assess the functionality of the pro-
posed framework.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and Mahmudova, 2010), and to classify different types of green

consumers in order to advance the understanding in this field
Green consumerism has lately gained enormous momentum in (Seyfang, 2004).
western societies mainly as an important means to shift firms from This field also places emphasis on “information gap” or “infor-
conventional to environmental friendly processes. Environmental mation asymmetry” which refers to the different levels of consumers'
awareness might lead consumers to select products with less knowledge between corporate environmental performance and a
environmental impacts and force firms to adopt an environmental product's environmental status. To provide detailed information and
strategy to cover the needs of consumers (Eriksson, 2004). Some fill the gap of consumers' knowledge, a number of labels for
significant issues of green consumerism field are related to the products and firms have been suggested which focus on certain
“willingness of consumers to pay” for green products (Laroche et al., environmental characteristics (e.g. wastewater amounts, energy
2001), to examine psychological and demographic characteristics intensity). There are labels designed for certain products (such as
of green consumers, to identify factors which affect consumers’ fishery products (Iles, 2007),wood products (Veisten, 2007), energy
environmental friendly behavior (Tanner and Kast, 2003; Gerpott saving products (Mahlia et al., 2002) and labels for all products
which provide common environmental criteria such as water con-
sumption, energy use and wastewater discharges (Jackson, 1999).
* Corresponding author. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) classifies
E-mail address: [email protected] (I.E. Nikolaou). eco-labels in three general types. The first type (Type I)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.042
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
106 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113

encompasses labels which are audited and certified by indepen- firms/products by gathering data from formal (environmental and
dent bodies for a range of environmental criteria in the overall economic) corporate annual reports and firms' web sites. More
product life cycle (e.g. European Eco-Flower). The second type specifically, it provides guidelines to design a novel sustainability
(Type II) places emphasis primarily on a single environmental label suitable to offer a clear signal to consumers in order to select a
aspect which is self-certified by firms. This type is based on self- product with better spatial (“strong” or “weak”) sustainability
claims of firms such as sustainable product and recycled product. contribution. It consists of two stages: a) a sustainability index and
The last type (Type III) discloses information either about a wide b) a sustainability label. The former stage develops an index by
range of environmental aspects or about a single environmental combining financial indicators, current environmental labels and
aspect of products (e.g. carbon footprint) which are certified by corporate social impacts to evaluate the sustainability performance
independent bodies (Gallastegui, 2002). of a product/firm. The score of this stage is used as an input into the
A considerable drawback of the current eco-labels is the limited second stage of this methodology in order to develop a new label
information disclosed for spatial and local impacts on the natural evaluates the sustainability performance of firms indicating the
environment (Lenzen and Peters, 2010). Some studies have recently extent to which a product/firm contributes to “strong” and the
attempted to overcome it by providing input-output maps both to “weak” sustainable development. Finally, the proposed methodol-
quantify the economic, environmental and social impacts at the ogy was applied to a sample of chemical companies to test its
different stages of the product life cycle and to identify the con- applicability and effectiveness.
sumption pattern of a region (Lenzen and Peters, 2010; Feng et al., The rest of paper is classified in fifth sections. The following
2012). Moreover, current eco-labels have received criticism for section analyzes the proposed methodological framework utilized
their narrow focus on environmental perspective and failure to pay to design the sustainability index and the sustainability label. The
attention to the economic and social aspects of sustainability third section presents the case study whereby strengthens and
(Horne, 2009). Two very important aspects not only for achieving weaknesses of the proposed framework were identified. The fourth
tipple-bottom-line sustainability goals but also for helping societies section discusses the implications which arise from this method-
to make progress with economic and social development mainly ology about green consumption and sustainable development
during this historical period where the severe consequences of a literature. The fifth section draws some interesting conclusions
financial crisis are noticeable (Kemper and Martin, 2010). discussing some limitations as avenues for future research.
The responsibility of firms/products for financial and social
development is not a new idea. By examining classical institutional 2. Methodology e A framework to evaluate sustainable
documents of international institutions (EU, 2001), corporate products/firms
economic responsibility consists of two parts: a) within a firm's
boundaries (e.g. profitability) and b) beyond its borders to Gross The proposed evaluation framework is based on multi-step
Domestic Products (GDP). In a similar vein, many social facets are measurement performance techniques which provide gradual
suggested to determine the contribution of firms/products to progress of certain steps to assist in evaluating an organization's
society or key stakeholders (UNEP, 2009; Tsalis et al., 2017). The performance (Nikolaou and Kazantidis, 2016). The proposed
examination of social and economic impacts of products/firms are methodology consists of two consecutive stages which include
also inspired by the theory of defensive locality of consumers various steps in order to achieve the goal of this paper. The first
(Winter 2003), which is gaining momentum within EU member stage facilitates the construction of a new composite sustainability
countries due to the financial crisis and globalization. index to evaluate the basic sustainability features of products/firms,
One significant question is how consumers are informed about while the second stage provides the mechanism for transforming
eco-labels and their features. For example, there are eco-labels the sustainability index into a new label. Fig. 1 articulates the
which provide information regarding the improvement in firms' various steps of the suggested framework which is analyzed in the
environmental performance at the operational level of firms (e.g. following sections.
Environmental Management and Audit Schemes - EMAS)and
eco-labels with focus on green attributes of a product (e.g. Euro- 2.1. Step 1: some thoughts for corporate sustainability definition
pean Eco-Flower). Despite the repeated argument of an extensive
body of literature that such operational-based and product-based The initial step is to highlight some of the fundamental re-
eco-labels inform consumers about environmental friendly sponsibilities of firms. Many efforts have been made to determine
product/firms (Morrow and Rondinelli, 2002), it is unclear how the responsibilities of firms either from a financial or social context
consumers can be informed about these labels since some of them (Carrol, 1999; Marrewijk, 2003; Carriga and Mele , 2004). Before
are not allowed to be mentioned on the products' package due to describing the minimum consensus regarding corporate social re-
legal limitations (E.C, 2006). Moreover, arguments regarding the sponsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability (CS), an explanation
ability of consumers to draw information about the eco-labels of their origin is necessary. The historical roots of CSR are linked
either via web-pages of firms (Patten and Crampton, 2004) or via with the first global financial crisis (the 1929 great depression) as a
firms’ annual environmental reports before purchasing a product is response to society's criticisms of businesses' responsibilities to
not widely accepted (Yakhou and Dorweiler, 2004). market failures (Okoye, 2009). Furthermore, the sustainability
Consumers are inundated with products which not only have frenzy of politicians and scholars (as a consequence of high envi-
labels with different emphasis, but also have a number of different ronmental degradation and social problems) has shifted the dia-
certifications. Another significant question focuses on the influence logue of corporate social responsibility to absorb the key features of
of the number of labels on the purchasing decisions of consumers. the sustainability concept.
In other words, how consumers behave when they have to choose a To make clear the connection between CSR and the sustain-
product from a bunch of products which have the same quality and ability concept it is necessary to analyze the main definitions of
use but they have different number of certification and labels (e.g. them. A popular definition of sustainability describes the devel-
ISO 14001, EMAS, European Flower, Energy Star, ISO 26000, and Fair opment of society as the ability of the current generation to meet
trade). their needs by using rationally natural resources in order for future
This paper aims to answer these questions by developing a generations to be able to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). Much ink
methodological framework to evaluate the sustainability status of has been spilled regarding the accurate content of sustainability
 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113 107

step 1
Clarifications

Theories/Database/Targets

Weak Strong
Sustainability Sustainability

step 2 Social impact in financialterms

Stakeholder theory
Economic Information from formal corporate
Contribution Financial Statement

step 3 Social impact in non-financialterms

Stakeholder theory
Information from informal Social
Social Responsibility Reports
Contribution

step 4 Stakeholder Theory

1. Weak information from eco-lebels
Local 2. Strong information from indicators
Society Workers Consumers
Community

Strong
Weak Environmental
Environmental Contribution
contribution

step 5 Weak Sustainability Consumption Index

Strong Sustainability Index

Weak Strong
Sustainability Sustainability
Consumption Consumption
Index (WSCI) (SSCI)

step 6 Eco-labels
Strong Sustainability Label
Weak Sustainability Label

Fig. 1. The methodological framework.

(Mebratu, 1998; Sneddon et al., 2006) which could be divided, at processes without explicit determined thresholds (free or loose
least, in three basic components economy, environment and society substitution).
(Mog, 2004). The combination among these components results in
“strong” sustainably when their products and operation processes
two general schools of thought: a) the “strong” sustainability in
are meet three key components of sustainability and certain
which a substitution between components will be done under fixed
thresholds to protect natural environment (limited substitution).
terms and b) the “weak” sustainability which allows free trade-offs
between the three components (Dietz and Neumayer, 2007;
Nikolaou et al., 2013).
Some basic knowledge of such schools of thought has been
2.2. Step 2: corporate economic contribution
transferred at the firms’ level either through the concept of CSR or
CS (Carriga and Mele , 2004). Despite the divergences of CSR and CS
Many of the corporate sustainability measurement techniques
definitions (Van Marrewijk, 2003; Hediger, 2010), they could be
assess the economic performance mainly within the boundaries of
classified either as “weak” or “strong” sustainability with respect to
firms using indicators which measure corporate revenues, profits,
the criterion of the substitution of different types of capital (e.g.
and operational costs (Atkinson, 2000; Lee and Saen, 2012). A
human, economic and environmental capitals). Hediger (2010)
limited number of techniques have put emphasis on the value
supported that many of the current CS models which are based
added throughout the supply chain and different groups of stake-
on capital theories seem to follow the principles of “weak” sus-
holders (Keeble et al., 2003; WBCSD, 2008; GRI, 2013).
tainability and only a few authors have made an effort to determine
This step goes beyond the narrow view of profit maximization
the proper conditions under which firms could achieve the goals of
by determining several ways in which firms could contribute to the
“strong” sustainability by comparing the corporate social perfor-
local economy and society. It develops an easy, low-cost, quick and
mance with specific-defined thresholds (Figge and Hahn, 2004).
independently-calculated technique to evaluate the financial
Malovics et al. (2008) suggest an active and close collaboration
influence of firms on stakeholders. To do so, useful information is
between governments, the business community and consumers in
obtained from formal financial statements and annual reports of
order to assist firms in achieving the goals of 'strong' sustainability
firms. Firstly, it is necessary to be determined the key stakeholders
and overcome the weaknesses of eco-efficiency and social
of firms. The relative literature of management, corporate envi-
responsibility approach (e.g. rebound effect) which are deemed to
ronmental management and CSR has given many valuable and
be an appropriate response to sustainable development.
interesting typologies for stakeholder groups mainly based on their
Based on these schools of thoughts, firms could be considered as
direct or indirect influence and their internal or external orienta-
having:
tion (Welford et al., 2007; Jamali, 2008).
“weak” sustainably when certain economic, environmental and In mathematical terms, Eq. (1) denotes the economic
social goals are attained in relation to their products and operation contribution of firms to society as a composite index which
108 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113

implies the allocation of corporate financial capital in key 2.4. Step 4: corporate/product environmental contribution
stakeholders.
Unarguably, business activities could have significant impacts
X
n on the natural environment. Many of the current eco-labels
ECF ¼ ðwi FOi Þ (1) disclose limited spatial information which is important for con-
i¼1
sumers to evaluate environmental impacts of firms/products.
Moreover, the majority of techniques focus on “weak” environ-
X
n
mental sustainability, whereas a small number of techniques
WECF ¼ wn
outline some preliminary conditions to facilitate firms to contribute
i¼1
to “strong” environmental sustainability (Hahn et al., 2010). The
where weak environmental sustainability-based techniques focus on
ECF ¼ Economic contribution of firm extensive lists with environmental indicators to evaluate the per-
n ¼ Number of stakeholder groups formance of products/firms in a bundle of environmental aspects
FOi ¼ Financial outflow per stakeholder group. (e.g. water, energy, air pollution, waste management). A significant
WECF ¼ Weight factors of economic dimension. deficiency of these techniques is the lack of accurately-defined
The financial outflows are estimated from the formal financial thresholds for each environmental aspect in order to determine
statements (e.g. balance sheet, profit and loss financial statement the strong sustainability (M alovics et al., 2008; Hahn and Figge,
and cash flow statement). Some representative examples of such 2011). In contrast, the strong sustainability-based techniques
outflows are the local taxes (the responsibility of firms to local determine explicit (local or global) thresholds (e.g. tradable per-
communities) or general taxes (the responsibility of firms to State), mits) in order for firms to satisfy the needs of local societies and
repayment of loans (the responsibility of firms to the financial protect a critical natural capital which is necessary for future gen-
sector and national economic stability), staff payment for pension erations to meet their needs. For example, Velena et al. (2003)
funds (the responsibility of firms to employment and pension suggest specific thresholds for corporate environmental indicators.
funds), dividends (the responsibility of firms to shareholders) and Similarly, eco-labels play a significant role in characterizing
procurement cost (the responsibility of firms to their suppliers). environmental friendly firms and products. However, each eco-
These indicators (FOi) are estimated as a percentage of the annual label places emphasis on different characteristics and criteria in
income of firms and the weight factors are defined as the average order to respond to stakeholders’ preferences (De Boer, 2003).
scoring of consumers and experts. Therefore, consumers lose their trust in eco-labels, and they
express doubt about the ability of eco-labeled products/firms to
meet the basic principles of “strong” sustainability (Horne, 2009).
Indeed, the mission of some eco-labels is focused on operational
2.3. Step 3: the social contribution of firms/products
processes (operational-based eco-labels) and some on products
(product-based eco-labels). Obviously, a complete picture for
A wide variety of terms are associated with the social and ethical
environmental contribution of firms/products requires a combi-
norms which govern business operations placing emphasis on
nation of both types. Some indicative examples for operational-
economic, environmental, and social issues (Dahlsrud, 2008).,
based eco-labels relate to ISO 14001, EMAS and product-based
such as “corporate social responsibility, public responsibility, corpo-
eco-labels is the European Flower Label.
rate social responsibilities, corporate societal responsibility, corporate
Furthermore, it is necessary to determine whether corporate
social responsiveness, corporate social performance, corporate
environmental performance contributes to “weak” or “strong” sus-
citizenship, business citizenship, stakeholding company, business
tainability. Obviously, two distinct indexes have been developed,
ethics, sustainable company, and triple bottom-line approach” (Valor,
namely a weak and strong sustainability index. Eq. (3) shows
2005: p. 191). The most popular of them place in this context, many
environmental weak sustainability performance of firms.
measuring/benchmarking techniques have been suggested to
facilitate the assessment of corporate contribution to protect and
X
l  
advance the values of society (Weber et al., 2010), adopting mixed
ECweak ¼ ðwk EIk;LoCer þ EIk;GlCer þ EIk;Type þ … þ (3)
measurement units (e.g. financial and non-financial) to assess the
k¼1
social status of firms and their products.
The proposed framework focuses mainly on non-financial
information drawn from social labels and social responsibility X
l

reports. Eq. (2) denotes the corporate social contribution. WEwe ¼ wk

j¼1

X
m  
SCF ¼ ðwj SIj;LoCer þ SIj;GlCer þ SIj;Type þ … þ ; (2) where
j¼1 ECweak ¼ Weak environmental contribution of a firm.
EIl,LoCer ¼ Eco-label which is certified from local organization
X
m (e.g. Eco-Label Luxembourg).
WSCF ¼ wj EIl, GlCer ¼ Label which is certified from global certification sys-
j¼1 tem (e.g. ISO 14001), EIl, Type ¼ Labels of different types: Eco-labels
type I, type II and type III.
where WEwe ¼ Weight factors of weak environmental contribution
SCF ¼ Social contribution of a firm. Eq. (3) includes some representative environmental parameters
SIj,LoCer ¼ Social-label which is certified from local organization. of eco-labels of many other parameters could be introduced in Eq.
SIj, GlCer ¼ Social-Label which is certified from global certification (3) such as the focus of labels either on several environmental
system, SIj, Type ¼ Social-Labels of different types: Social-labels type criteria (European Flower Label) or on a single environmental
I, type II and type III. aspect (e.g. carbon footprint). The primary goal of the proposed
WSCF ¼ Weight factors of social contribution. index is to evaluate corporate contribution to the natural
 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113 109

environment. Without certain thresholds, this index shows only 2.6. Step 6: sustainable eco-label
the ‘weak’ side of corporate sustainability. The score of each
sub-environmental indicator is being weighted by consumers and The final step shows the manner by which these indicators
experts mainly to point out its significance to the overall sustain- could be transformed in new labels which could be easily recog-
ability index. nized by consumers. Table 1 shows the manner in which indicators
To measure “strong” sustainability through environmental sus- are transformed to new labels. The Weak sustainability index leads
tainability index, Eq. (4) is suggested: to a light green weak sustainability label. Similarly, when strong
environmental sustainability index is less than 0 then the label
X
r
shows weak sustainability (light green). Finally, when strong sus-
ECstrong ¼ ðwt ðEIt  THt Þ; (4)
tainability is greater than 0 then the label shows strong sustain-
t¼1
ability (dark green).
X
r
WEst ¼ wn 3. Case study
t¼1

As mentioned above, a case study was designed in order to test

where
the applicability of the proposed methodology. A sample of five
ECstrong ¼ “Strong” environmental contribution of a firm
chemical international firms was selected because this sector
THt ¼Thresholds of each environmental aspect.
comes under strident criticisms due to its social and environmental
EIt ¼ Environmental indicators for both firm's operation and
impacts. To counter such criticisms, chemical industries have
product (e.g. water reduction, wastewater treatment, energy
rapidly introduced sustainability concerns into their daily opera-
saving).
tion providing valuable information regarding their sustainability
WEst ¼ Weight factors of strong environmental contribution.
management approach through formal financial, sustainability and
social reports (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000).
Table 2 presents the sources of necessary information used to
2.5. Step 5: corporate Sustainable Consumption Index
implement the application of the proposed methodology. For
confidentiality reasons, the trade names of the selected chemical
Following previous analysis, the firm/product sustainability
firms are not presented. Particularly, financial information was
index is separated in two further indexes as follows:
collected from firms’ formal financial statements and annual
A) Eq. (5) estimates “Weak” Social Consumption Index (W_SCI)
reports. As for the environmental dimension, sampled firms had
which is a sum of Eqs. (1)e(3).
various eco-labels with different orientations and characteristics
W SCI ¼ ECF þ SCF þ ECweak ; (5) (Delmas and Montiel, 2008). Also, four out of five chemical firms
have introduced Responsible Care which is a management system
where suitable for the chemical industry sector (Evangelinos et al., 2010).
Finally, social information through sustainability reports and social
WECF þ WSCF þ WEwe ¼ 1 labels (such as, ISO, 18001, ISO 26000, AA 1000, and SA 8000 re-
ports) were used to evaluate the social contribution of selected
B) Eq. (6) shows “Strong” Sustainable Consumption Index (S_SCI)
firms (Duijm et al., 2008).
which is the sum of Eqs. (1), (2) and (4).

S SCI ¼ ECF þ SCF þ ECstrong ; (6) 3.1. The corporate economic contribution

where As aforementioned, Eq. (1) measures economic contribution. It

measures the allocation of the corporate financial resources in
WECF þ WSCF þ WEst ¼ 1 various stakeholder groups which could be classified by utilizing
As pointed out, the proposed methodological framework pro- different criteria such as primary or secondary stakeholders and
vides some steps to typify a product/firm as (“strong” or “weak”) internal or external stakeholders (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003;
sustainable. Even though a “Weak” Consumption Sustainability Delmas and Toffel, 2004; Madsen and Ulhøi, 2001). Table 3 shows
Index and consequently a sustainable label seems to be easily the financial contribution of selected firms to each stakeholder
estimated, the “Strong” Sustainability Index is a very difficult task, if group.
not impossible in the current stage, to be estimated since the The selected stakeholders were divided into two groups: a)
supply chain of many firms consists of various countries with internal stakeholders (e.g. staff, managers and shareholders) and b)
diverse institutional regime and environmental quality status. external stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, competitors, community and
To avoid arbitrary and random selection of “strong” sustain-
ability status, a simple criterion is selected to categorize firms/
products in “weak” or “strong” sustainability. This criterion is based Table 1
on the work of Figge and Hahn (2004) where a threshold is Transformation of indexes to Labels.

determined as an average score of the sector. Consequently, two Types of Indicators Environmental Labels
options are expected: Values

P W SCI ¼ ECF þ SCF þ ECweak Each score

A) ECstrong ¼ rt¼1 ðwt ðEIt  THt Þ  0 when corporate environ-
mental score exceeds the average score of the sector and firm S SCI ¼ ECF þ SCF þ ECstrong ECstrong >0
achieves “strong” sustainability.
P
B) ECstrong ¼ rt¼1 ðwt ðEIt  THt Þ>0when corporate environ-
S SCI ¼ ECF þ SCF þ ECstrong ECstrong <0
mental score is equal or less to the average score of the sector
and firm achieve “weak” sustainability.
110 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113

Table 2
Data collection.

Firms Economic Contribution Environmental Contribution Social Contribution

Firm 1 Balance-Sheet 2 eco-labels, ISO 14001, Responsible Care Health and Safety Report, SA 8000, Sustainability Report
Profit-and-Loss Statements, Annual report.
Firm 2 Balance-Sheet 1 eco-label, EMAS, Responsible Care Health and Safety Report, Sustainability Report
Profit-and-Loss Statements, Annual report.
Firm 3 Balance-Sheet 3 eco-labels, EMAS, Responsible Care Health and Safety Report, sustainability report
Profit-and-Loss Statements, Annual report.
Firm 4 Balance-Sheet 1 eco-labels, ISO 14001, Responsible Care Sustainability Report, OSHA
Profit-and-Loss Statements, Annual report.
Firm 5 Balance-Sheet 2 eco-labels, local label, EMAS Sustainability report
Profit-and-Loss Statements, annual report.

Table 3
Firms' financial contribution scores.

Stakeholder Groups Weight factors (wi)a Indicators description Firm1 FOi Firm2 FOi Firm3 FOi Firm4 FOi Firm5 FOi

Internal Stakeholders
Employees 0.01 Employment cost/NIb 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.10
Managers 0.02 Management cost/NI 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Shareholders 0.02 Dividends/NI 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
External Stakeholders
Consumers 0.01 Quality þ marketing costs/NI 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.13 0.17
Competitors 0.02 R&D/NI 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.31
Local Suppliers 0.03 Suppliers 1/NI 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
National and Global Suppliers 0.03 Suppliers 2/NI 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Local Community 0.03 Taxes 1/NI 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00
National and Global Community 0.03 Taxes 2/NI 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Financial Institutions 0.02 Deptc/NI 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.03
Total 0.25 0.55 0.67 0.56 0.61 0.70
a
The score of weight factors have been rated by 5 experts and 3 association of consumers.
b
NI ¼ Net Income.
c
Dept ¼ Long-term dept þ short-term dept.

financial institutions). All the proposed financial indicators were score in economic contribution among the sampled firms followed
calculated as a percentage of annual net income (NI). For instance, by Firm 2 and 4.
the financial contribution to employees were measured as the
quotient of employment cost divided by the net income, while the 3.2. The social contribution estimation
contribution to the local community was the quotient of taxes paid
over the net income. Furthermore, it worthwhile to stress that the Table 4 displays indicators constructed to assess the social
suggested indicators not only measure the financial impact of contribution of the sampled firms. The selected indicators are in
chemical firms on a number of stakeholders, but also they provide a line with the latest trends in social dimension of sustainability
clear picture regarding the allocation of total revenue at a local or reflected upon several institutional documents (e.g. EU, 2001; GRI,
national level (Weber et al., 2010). 2013) which have pointed out that the business community should
Finally, Table 3 demonstrates also the weight factors which are contribute to local employment and to promote democratic values.
defined by a group of experts and members of consumers’ associ- Similarly, many scholars and private funds encourage firms to
ations. The results indicate that Firm 5 has achieved the highest finance their investments with alternative ways through

Table 4
Social contribution of sampled firms.

Stakeholder Groups Weight factors (wi)a Indicators description Firm1 SIj Firm2 SIj Firm3 SIj Firm4 SIj Firm5 SIj

Internal Stakeholders
Employees 0.03 Staff/local Employment 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.02
Managers 0.03 Women/Total Managers 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Shareholders 0.02 Ethical Funds/Financial Opportunities 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
External Stakeholders
Consumers 0.03 Local sales/Total sales 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04
Competitors 0.02 Eco-innovations/total innovations 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02
Local Suppliers 0.03 Local Supplies/Total suppliers 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
National and Global Suppliers 0.03 (Suppliers-Local suppliers)/Total suppliers 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Local Community 0.03 Number of Social projects (e.g. schools) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00
National and Global Community 0.03 Number of Social projects 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
Financial Institutions 0.02 Environmental and Social Lending 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 0.30 0.26 0.13 0.27 0.14 0.13
a
The score of weight factors have been rated by 5 experts and 3 association of consumers.
 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113 111

Table 5
Firms' environmental contribution rate.

Indicators Description Weight factors (wi)a Firm1 EIl Firm2 EIl Firm3 EIl Firm4 EIl Firm5 EIl

Number of Eco-labels 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.06

Local certified 0.23 0.23
Global certified 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.06
European Certified 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
Type I 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.04
Type II 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00
Type III 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
Operational direction 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02
Product direction 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.03
Total 0.43 0.28 0.25 0.42 0.19 0.33
a
The score of weight factors have been rated by 5 experts and 3 associations of consumers.

integrating into their strategic plans some ethical, social and Table 6
environmental criteria (Sparkes and Cowton, 2004). Some indica- Strong and weak sustainable consumption index.

tive examples of social indicators are the ratio of a firm's staff in Firms Weak Strong Strong Labels
relation to the local employment, the ratio of women in the board Sustainability Environmental Sustainability
of directors of firms, the investment of corporate money in ethical Scores Scores (EIl Scores
-THl)
funds.
According to Table 4, Firm 1 and 3 achieve the highest score in 1 1.10 0.01 0.80 Weak
2 1.06 0.04 0.76 Weak
relation to the social contribution.
3 1.26 0.12 0.97 Strong
4 0.96 0.10 0.66 Weak
3.3. The environmental contribution estimation 5 1.17 0.03 0.87 Strong

Environmental contribution is evaluated through information of

eco-labels which offer information for corporate environmental could achieve “strong” sustainability performance when the per-
performance either at operational (e.g. ISO 4001, EMAS, Respon- formance score is higher than the proposed threshold (e.g. the
sible Care) or at product level (e.g. European Flower Label, Acorn average score of the sector). Only two firms from the sample (40%)
scheme, Australian Forest Certification Scheme). Further differen- contribute strongly to (local or global) sustainable development.
tiations are identified for labels which put emphasis only on a Consequently, they receive dark green labels (column 5).
single environmental aspect (e.g. GHG, CO2 and waste manage-
ment) or on several environmental aspects (e.g. energy, wastewater 4. Discussion
treatment, air emissions). To facilitate consumer decisions, Table 5
provides some comprehensive indicators to measure the contri- This paper suggests a new framework to assist consumers/
bution of firms to the natural environment. Some indicators are the stakeholders and scholars in improving their understanding of the
number of firms’ certifications, the origin of certifications (e.g. local, sustainability performance of products/firms. First of all, it aims to
European or global), the type of certifications (e.g. Type I, II and III) overcome the considerable problem of asymmetric information of
and the focus of certifications either on operational processes (e.g. current eco-labels between consumers/stakeholders and firms
ISO 14001) or on production processes (e.g. recycling products). (Van Amstel et al., 2008). Particularly, it deals with a number of
They also place great emphasis on local certification schemes which significant problems of current eco-labels such as the diverse
care more for local environmental features of the firms/products. emphasis of labels (on operation or production processes), the
Table 5 shows firm 3 and firm 5 achieved the highest environ- multiple certifications of firms/products, the impact of products/
mental performance score, followed by firm 1, 2 and 4. Another firms on local or global sustainable development, and the “strong”
interesting finding is that only one firm has local labels. This or “weak” impact of firms/products on sustainability.
outcome can be explained by the fact that chemical firms design, A composite sustainable index has been designed to address the
produce and distribute products all around the world and as a above problems. Current methodologies focus mainly on exam-
result they choose well-known labels or certifications in order to ining challenges and barriers of consumers’ behavior for environ-
promote their environmental profile more easily. mental friendly products by using knowledge from a variety of
academic fields (e.g. psychology, sociology, and consumer) while
3.4. The sustainable consumption index label few studies have been conducted to analyze eco-labels from
management view (Steenis et al., 2017; Wang, 2017). Taking into
Finally, Table 6 presents the “Weak” and “Strong” sustainability consideration the limited focus of the previous studies, the
indexes. The second column estimates the “weak” sustainability proposed framework was designed to examine eco-labels from an
scores. To do so, any useful information, where possible, from third environmental management view offering much more information
body certified sources such as accounting bodies (e.g. formal to facilitate the purchasing procedures for environmental friendly
financial statements), independent non-governmental organiza- products.
tion (e.g. sustainability reports, AA 1000) and eco-labels (e.g. What is more, it also assists in selecting products which are
European Union certification) is utilized. The final scores show that certified by a range of labels. Due to the fierce criticism and pres-
some of the sampled firms achieve a better sustainability score than sure of stakeholders, the chemical sector implements many
the others. Obviously, those firms which contribute to “strong” eco-certified systems and labels (King and Lenox, 2000; De Boer,
sustainability ought to receive better rewards from consumers 2003; Evangelinos et al., 2010). Some of these are only disclosed
compared to firms with a “weak” contribution to sustainability. By on firms' web-pages and others on their products and as result
means of “Strong” Environmental Index (column 3), a firm/product consumers are not well informed about sustainability performance.
112 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113

Given that, consumers are unlikely to visit web-pages of firms c) an index to estimate the social role of products/firms in society
looking for environmental and social information about their and stakeholders.
product, the central premise of the argument that consumers From a technical point of view, the composite sustainability
ultimately endorse those firms and products with better sustain- index evaluates the combined effect of the three aforementioned
able or environmental performance (e.g. with energy label, CO2 sub-indexes. Weight factors for each dimension of the composite
label, recycling label, EMAS) is false due to consumer's limited index were calculated by using feedback from consumers’ associ-
knowledge, information and time (Horne, 2009). To overcome such ations and a group of experts in the field of corporate sustainability.
shortcomings, the proposed framework suggests some further The proposed sustainability index is based on the classical
information for eco-labels as follows: the number of labels, the techniques of composite indexes as well as on the triple-bottom-
emphasis of labels (process or product), the single or multiple line approach in order to evaluate the current status of products/
environmental impacts (e.g. Type I, Type II, and type II labels), and firms by extracting information from different types of existing
the local or global certification systems. eco-labels.
Moreover, the suggested methodology assesses the overall It is also designed a threshold in order to define which of the
contribution of firms/products to sustainable development under examined products/firms have “strong” or “weak” sustainably
the triple-bottom-thinking. Specifically, it tackles with the narrow contribution. For practical reasons, and to avoid theoretical gener-
focus of current studies on environmental aspects by suggesting alizations and hypotheses the threshold value was defined as the
various economic and social criteria (e.g. financial outcomes per average score of the sector in which the sampled firms operate.
stakeholders, and social labels) in order to improve consumers’ Consequently, a product is characterized as a “strong” sustainable
decisions (Horne, 2009; Atkinson and Rosenthal, 2014). It also of- product when its score is above the average score of the sector. In
fers for the first time the view of “weak” and “strong” sustainability the opposite case the product is characterized as a “weak” sus-
which is inspired from the corporate environmental management tainable product.
literature. It forms a sound basis for developing new indicators and Finally, a case study was carried out to test the applicability of
labels that would provide a clear signal for the real impact of firms the proposed framework. Despite the multiple numerical calcula-
and their products on environmental sustainability. Therefore, it tions, the final label (“light” or “dark” green) helps consumers and
provides a comprehensive and convincing way to overcome the stakeholders to select products/firms with better sustainable sta-
weakness of current eco-labels which avoid estimating “strong” tus. The findings show that two of the examined chemical firms
sustainability by designing two concrete criteria (e.g. the overall have strong sustainable contribution, while the others made weak
and completeness scores) (Atkinson, 2000; Horne, 2009; Nikolaou contribution to sustainable development.
et al., 2013). The useful criteria of the distinction of “weak” and Needless to say that the proposed methodology has some
“strong” sustainability assists consumers in rewarding firms with limitations. The first limitation is associated with the aggregation
better sustainability performance. effect of composite indexes which, in this case, results in the loss of
The need to integrate some local characteristics into the final a significant amount of useful data behind the proposed sustain-
label is also highlighted as it would facilitate consumers who desire ability composite index. The aggregation effect on the composite
to select products in accordance to their local characteristics. Given sustainability index might hide valuable information for evaluating
the lack of the previous labels to disclose valuable information the real progress of each sub-indicator to total index. This implies
regarding the local contribution of firms to sustainability (e.g. that the improvement in the total sustainability score may be the
improvement of local unemployment, an increase in local GDP by result of the improvement of various secondary indexes which
paying local taxes; Nilsson et al., 2004), the proposed framework exceed the deterioration of many primary sub-indicators. Despite
introduces a range of criteria to assess the local aspect of labels such this limitation, the success of the framework proposed lies in the
as certification from local organization, local recognition and needs simplicity of the final index and label which helps consumers who
of stakeholders. As for the economic perspective, the allocation of have no time and technical knowledge to understand complex
corporate profit to stakeholders seems to be more appropriate mathematical calculations and identify essential information
indicator than the classical economic indicators utilized by previ- before purchasing products.
ous methodologies. In particular, indicators which measure the However, this limitation could be a research field for future
investment of firms in workplace conditions, employment, rein- research since scholars could estimate some thresholds to sus-
vestment of part of the profits in local public goods, and protection tainability indicators in the case where they desire to keep constant
of local producers, provide valuable information for consumer a critical capital for future generations. Some studies are necessary
decisions. to recognize ways to diffuse more information of other aspects of
Another significant contribution is the integration of process- sustainability into the new label.
based eco-labels (e.g. ISO 14001, EMAS) into the final decision of Another limitation focuses on the need for a technique to esti-
consumers. Despite the common feeling that process-based labels mate weight factors that have to take into account the environ-
strengthen the image of a firm/product in the eyes of consumers, mental status of the area, the cultural and demographic
firms lose this advantage because the legal exclusion of some labels characteristics of consumers, and the different environmental
from products’ packaging (Chen, 2005). legislation regime of the area. This limitation should assist scholars
in developing new ways to assign weight factors through engage-
5. Conclusions ment of consumers or other stakeholders.
Additional studies should be conducted in different sectors in
This paper develops a new composite index to evaluate the order to draw sustainability insights for a variety of sectors. As a
overall sustainability performance of products/firms by using result of the lack of essential information, many scholars conduct
information from operational and production processes. It consists studies by selecting a sample of firms from various sectors.
of three sub-indexes: a) an index to measure economic contribu- Although this research strategy is very useful and offers remarkable
tion of products/firms to different stakeholders, b) an index to comparative results, it sacrifices considerable innovative and
provide the progress of products/firms on natural environment and practical findings.
 I.E. Nikolaou, T. Tsalis / Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 105e113 113

References Lee, K.-H., Saen, R.F., 2012. Measuring corporate sustainability management: a data
envelopment analysis approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140, 219e226.
Lenzen, M., Peters, G.M., 2010. How city dwellers affect their resource hinterland: a
Atkinson, G., 2000. Measuring corporate sustainability. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 43
spatial impact study of Australian households. J. Ind. Ecol. 14 (1), 73e90.
(2), 235e252.
Madsen, H., Ulhøi, J.P., 2001. Integrating environmental and stakeholder manage-
Atkinson, L., Rosenthal, S., 2014. Signaling the green sell: the influence of eco-label
ment. Bus. Strat. Environ. 10, 77e88.
source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust.
Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Choudhary, I.A., 2002. Theory of energy efficiency
J. Advert. 43 (1), 33e45.
standards and labels. Energy Conserv. Manag. 43 (6), 743e761.
Azapagic, A., Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a
Malovics, G., Csige  ne
, N.N., Kraus, S., 2008. The role of corporate social
general framework. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 78 (4), 243e261.
responsibility in strong sustainability. J. Soc. Econ. 37, 907e918.
Buysse, K., Verbeke, A., 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder
Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concept and definition of CSR and corporate sustainability:
management perspective. Strat. Manag. J. 24, 453e470.
, D., 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2e3), 95e105.
Carriga, E., Mele
Mebratu, D., 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical andd
territory. J. Bus. Ethics 53, 51e71.
conceptual review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 18, 493e520.
Carrol, A.B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional
Mog, J.M., 2004. Struggling with sustainability - a comparative framework for
construct. Bus. Soc. 38 (3), 268e295.
evaluating sustainable development programs. World Dev. 32 (12), 2139e2160.
Chen, C.C., 2005. Incorporating green purchasing into the frame of ISO 14000.
Morrow, D., Rondinelli, D., 2002. Adopting corporate environmental management
J. Clean. Prod. 13 (9), 927e933.
systems: motivations and results of ISO 14001 and EMAS certification. Eur.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37
Manag. J. 20 (2), 159e171.
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1e13.
Nikolaou, I.E., Kazantidis, L., 2016. A sustainable consumption index/label to reduce
De Boer, J., 2003. Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their
information asymmetry between consumers and producers. Sustain. Prod.
functions for stakeholders. Bus. Strat. Environ. 12 (4), 254e264.
Consum. 6, 51e61.
Delmas, M., Montiel, I., 2008. The diffusion of voluntary international management
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., Allan, S., 2013. A reverse logistics social
standards: responsible care ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 in the chemical industry.
responsibility evaluation framework based on the triple bottom line approach.
Pol. Stud. J. 36 (1), 65e93.
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 173e184.
Delmas, M., Toffel, M.W., 2004. Stakeholders and environmental management
Nilsson, H., Tuncer, B., Thdell, Ǻ., 2004. The use of eco-labeling like initiatives on
practices: an institutional framework. Bus. Strat. Environ. 13, 209e222.
food products to promote quality assurance - is there enough credibility?
Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., 2007. Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: concepts
J. Clean. Prod. 12, 517e527.
and measurement. Ecol. Econ. 61 (4), 617e626.
vez, C., Gerbec, M., Hauptmanns, U., Konstantinidou, M., 2008. Okoye, A., 2009. Theorising corporate social responsibility as an essentially con-
Duijm, N.J., Fie
tested concept: is a definition necessary? J. Bus. Ethics 89, 613e627.
Management of health, safety and environment in process industry. Saf. Sci. 46,
Patten, D.M., Crampton, W., 2004. Legitimacy and the internet: an examination of
908e920.
corporate web page environmental disclosures. Adv. Environ. Account. Manag.
E.C, 2006. Laying Down Rules, under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European
2, 31e57.
Parliament and of the Council, on the Use of the EMAS Logo in the Exceptional
Seyfang, G., 2004. Consuming values and contested cultures: a critical analysis of
Cases of Transport Packaging and Tertiary Packages, 2006/193/EC.
the UK strategy for sustainable consumption and production, Review of Social
Eriksson, C., 2004. Can green consumerism replace environmental regulation? e a
Economy. LXII (3) 323e337.
differentiated products example. Resour. Energy Econ. 26, 281e295.
Sneddon, C., Howartd, R.B., Norgoard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a
EU, 2001. Green paper - Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social
post-Brndtland world. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2), 253e263.
Responsibility, COM, p. 366.
Sparkes, R., Cowton, C.J., 2004. The maturing of socially responsible investment: a
Evangelinos, K.I., Nikolaou, I.E., Karagiannis, A., 2010. Implementation of responsible
review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics
care in the chemical industry: evidence from Greece. J. Hazard Mater. 177 (1e3),
52 (1), 45e57.
822e828.
Steenis, N.D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I.A., Ligthart, T.N., van Trijp, H.C., 2017.
Feng, K., Siu, Y.L., Guan, D., Huabacek, K., 2012. Analyzing drivers of regional carbon
Consumer response to packaging design: the role of packaging materials and
dioxide emissions for China: a structural decomposition analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 16
graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod.
(4), 600e611.
162, 286e298.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., 2004. Sustainable value-added measuring corporate contribu-
Tanner, C., Kast, S.W., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of
tions to sustainability beyond eco-efficiency. Ecol. Econ. 48 (2), 173e187.
green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Market. 20 (10), 883e902.
Gallastegui, I.G., 2002. The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature. Environ. Pol.
Tsalis, T., Avramidou, A., Nikolaou, I.E., 2017. A social LCA framework to assess the
Govern. 12 (6), 316e331.
corporate social profile of companies: insights from a case study. J. Clean. Prod.
Gerpott, T.J., Mahmudova, I., 2010. Determinants of price mark-up tolerance for green
164, 1665e1676.
electricity e lessons for environmental marketing strategies from a study of
UNEP, 2009. Guidelines for Social life Cycle Assessment of Products, United Nation
residential electricity customers in Germany. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (5), 304e318.
Environmental Programs, France. ISBN 987-92-807-3021-0.
GRI, 2013. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Global Reporting Initiative,
Valor, C., 2005. Corporate social responsibility and corporate citizenship: towards
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
corporate accountability. Bus. Soc. Rev. 110 (2), 191e212.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., 2011. Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate
Van Amstel, M., Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P., 2008. Eco-labeling and information
sustainability research: towards an inclusive notion of profitability. J. Bus. Ethics
asymmetry: a comparison of five eco-labels in The Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod.
104, 325e245.
16 (3), 263e276.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., 2010. Trade-offs in corporate sustainability:
Van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustain-
you can't have cake and eat it. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19, 217e229.
ability: between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2e3), 95e105.
Hediger, W., 2010. Welfare and capital-theoretic foundations of corporate social
Veisten, K., 2007. Willingness to pay for eco-labeled wood furniture: choice-based
responsibility and corporate sustainability. J. Soc. Econ. 39, 518e526.
conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. J. For. Econ. 13,
Horne, R.E., 2009. Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of
29048.
product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int. J. Consum.
Wang, H.J., 2017. Determinants of consumers' purchase behaviour towards green
Stud. 33 (2), 175e182.
brands. Serv. Ind. J. 37 (13e14), 896e918.
Iles, A., 2007. Making the seafood industry more sustainable: creating production
WBCSD, 2008. Impact Framework Methodology: Understanding the Business
chain transparency and accountability. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 577e589.
Contribution to Society, World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Jackson, P., 1999. The European union eco-labelling scheme. Surf. Coating. Int. 82
WCED, Our Common Future, the Brundtland Report, World Commission on
(4), 172e176.
Environmental and Development, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987.
Jamali, D., 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility a fresh
Weber, O., Scholz, R.W., Michalik, G., 2010. Incorporating sustainability criteria into
perspective into theory and practice. J. Bus. Ethics 82, 213e231.
credit risk management. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (1), 39e50.
Keeble, J.J., Topiol, S., Berkeley, S., 2003. Using indicators to measure sustainability
Welford, R., Chan, C., Man, M., 2007. Priorities for corporate social responsibility: a
performance at a corporate and project level. J. Bus. Ethics 44, 149e152.
survey of businesses and their stakeholders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ.
Kemper, A., Martin, R.L., 2010. After the fall: the global financial crisis as a test of
Manag. 15, 52e62.
corporate social responsibility theories. Eur. Manag. Rev. 7, 229e239.
Winter, M., 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism.
King, A.A., Lenox, M.J., 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: the
J. Rural Stud. 19, 23e32.
chemical industry's responsible care program. Acad. Manag. J. 43 (4), 698e716.
Yakhou, M., Dorweiler, V.P., 2004. Environmental accounting: an essential compo-
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
nent of business strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 13, 65e77.
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Market.
18 (6), 503e520.