November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

International Journal of Innovation Management

Vol. 13, No. 4 (Dec. 2009) pp. 683–713
© Imperial College Press

SUSTAINABILITY INNOVATION
CUBE — A FRAMEWORK TO EVALUATE
SUSTAINABILITY-ORIENTED INNOVATIONS

ERIK G. HANSEN∗ , FRIEDRICH GROSSE-DUNKER†

and RALF REICHWALD‡
Institute for Information, Organisation and Management
TUM Business School, Technische Universität München
Leopoldstraße 139, D-80804 Munich, Germany
∗[email protected]
†[email protected]
‡[email protected]

Corporations increasingly subscribe to the principles of corporate sustainability, which is

generally described as the integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions.
Concerning innovation management, this emphasises the role of sustainability-oriented
innovations (SOI). SOI is considered a tool both to address sustainability issues and to tap
into new customer segments and markets. Yet SOI are very risky: both their market success
and non-economic sustainability are uncertain. This paper presents a generic model termed
the “Sustainability Innovation Cube” (SIC) for structuring innovations’ sustainability effects
in order to better inform corporate decision-makers about how to minimize the directional
risk of SOI. The model includes the three dimensions: target, life cycle and innovation type.
A qualitative expert study reveals the opportunities and challenges related to the developed
model. Finally, practical implications are derived, limitations are discussed and a brief
outlook is given.

Keywords: Sustainability innovation; product innovation; sustainable development; decision

framework; life cycle assessment.

Introduction
It is widely accepted that innovation is key for business success (Cooper, 2001;
Totterdell et al., 2002; Zhang and Doll, 2001). Besides others, this is represented by
the large body of literature on new product development (NPD) and especially on
success factors for product innovations (Cooper 2001; Lynn and Reilly, 2002; Ernst,
2002; Hauschildt, 1991; Radnor and Noke, 2006). In the past, innovation success
has been measured predominantly in the economic sphere (e.g. market success).

683
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

684 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

However, recently the non-economic sphere has increasingly become a matter of

corporate management and, thus, of innovation management (e.g. Christiansen and
Buen, 2002; Preuss, 2007; Roth, 2009). For example, some companies have begun
to measure their innovation pipeline according to environmental criteria (Fitzgerald
et al., 2006; Adamzcyk et al., 2009).
The recognition of non-economic aspects in management has been strongly
influenced by the vision of sustainable development. The concept of sustainabil-
ity was initially defined by the Brundtland Report in 1987 as a political concept:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present with-
out compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
(Brundtland Commission, 1987).
Since then, extensive discussions have unfolded over the question of how such
a broad and politically-charged concept could be adapted and operationalised from
an economic perspective. In business, it is often interpreted as the so-called “triple
bottom line”, arguing for the integration of economic, social, and environmental
aspects (Elkington, 1998). Interpreted as types of capital, the “constant capital rule”
(Pearce and Atkinson, 1998) regards only those business activities as sustainable
which lead to a retention or increase of a company’s overall capital stock.
Applying sustainability to innovation management is important, both from a
moral and a business perspective (Salzmann et al., 2008). From a (normative) moral
perspective, researchers stress the role of corporations in solving global societal
and environmental challenges (e.g. climate change, pollution, income disparity).
After all, such global problems are too complex to be solved solely by political
actors. According to the “iron law of responsibility” (Davis, 1973, p. 314), large
corporations are both responsible and capable of engaging in these challenges due
to the large amount of resources available to them and their global reach. Cor-
porate research and development (R&D) capacities are especially instrumental in
this regard and could direct new areas of innovation like clean technologies and
bottom-of-the-pyramid markets (Hart, 1997; Prahalad and Hart, 2002).
From a business perspective, there is wide agreement that the challenges of sus-
tainability offer significant potential for innovations and related business oppor-
tunities. Two arguments support this view. First, new regulations and laws in
social and environmental matters increase the pressure for innovativeness (“regu-
latory push”) (Fichter, 2006; Hockerts, 2008; Preuss, 2007). Second, sustainability
presents a new source of ideas and visions leading to new business opportunities
(“vision pull”) (Hart, 1997; Day, 1998). A number of empirical studies have iden-
tified positive correlations between sustainability and business success (Wagner
and Schaltegger, 2003). In general, six market potentials can be distinguished
(Hockerts, 2008; McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Paech, 2005a): reduction of costs
through increase of efficiency, reduction of risks, planning reliability, assurance of
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 685

legitimacy, attraction of new customer segments and development of new product

and business segments.
In sum, sustainability puts a normative demand on innovation to become more
environmentally and socially benign and, at the same, provides a new source of
innovations and competitive advantage.
Both moral and business cases therefore point to the need to recognise sustain-
ability in innovation management. However, recent studies show that only a minority
of businesses consider sustainability as a source of innovation (Hockerts and Mors-
ing, 2008). The reluctance in advancing sustainability innovations can arguably be
attributed to the high risks involved in this kind of innovation (Hall, 2002). These
risks include not only the product’s economic success (Cooper, 2001), but also the
direction of innovations’ environmental and social sustainability effects, i.e. whether
they contribute positively or negatively to sustainability. In the following, the latter
type of risk is termed “directional risk” (Paech, 2005b). For instance, environmental
innovations can lead to negative societal impacts as the case of bio-fuels demon-
strates (Kölsch and Saling, 2008; Rennings and Zwick, 2002). On the other hand,
conventional innovation projects sometimes result in innovations with positive sus-
tainability effects (Fichter and Arnold, 2003). Due to the multi-dimensionality of
sustainability targets (social, environmental and economic targets) and the disper-
sion of innovation sustainability effects, the assessment of innovations with respect
to sustainability is considered highly complex (Fichter, 2005).
Based on the observation that directional risk is a major barrier for sustainability
innovations, we want to address the following research questions: (1) Which are
the main constituent dimensions for assessing sustainability effects of innovations
and how can they be integrated into a generic model? (2) How can companies be
supported in selecting the optimal method for assessing sustainability effects of
innovations on a detailed level?
The paper is structured as follows. First, we introduce the concept of
sustainability-oriented innovations as a means to define the type of innovation this
paper is based on. Second, we review the literature with regard to the constituent
dimensions to analyze the sustainability effects of product-related innovations and
develop a generic model termed the “Sustainability Innovation Cube” (SIC). Third,
we describe and subsequently discuss the results of an expert study conducted to
validate the theoretical model. Fourth, we derive management implications. Finally,
limitations and further research is presented and a brief conclusion is given.

The Concept of Sustainability-Oriented Innovations

Most research in innovation focuses on new product development (i.e. technolog-
ical innovations). This paper is initially based on product innovations, however,
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

686 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

which transcends this focus to also recognise innovative product-service systems

(Mont, 2006) and even more radical business model innovations (Chesbrough, 2007;
Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008), which eventually lead to new products. Hence, this paper
focuses on product-related innovations and product-related innovation projects and
their potential effects on sustainability. By product innovations we refer to the defi-
nition by Hauschildt and Salomo (2007), describing innovations as qualitatively new
products which differ significantly from a comparable condition. By product inno-
vation projects we refer to potential product ideas and innovation concepts which
are not yet introduced to the market (Bullinger, 2008). The focus on product-related
innovation projects is necessary because the assessment of sustainability poten-
tials ideally takes place within the innovation process and by that considers effects
even before the market launch (Blomquist and Sandström, 2004). Furthermore, sus-
tainability considerations may also be the origin of new innovation projects (Hart,
1997). Figure 1 depicts the conceptual differentiations at the basis of this paper.
Applying the sustainability concept of the constant capital rule on the field
of innovation, it is arguable that sustainability innovations are innovations which
maintain or increase the overall capital stock (economic, environmental, social)
of a company. Hence, Wagner describes “sustainability-related innovations” as
better-managed innovations, “[. . .] where more target criteria are integrated and
made mutually compatible” (Wagner and Llerena, 2008).
Yet a definition which refers to the firm’s capital stock leads to severe issues
in practice: choosing the net effect of an innovation with regard to the overall

t
Market introduction
Innovation process

Innovation ideas
“Innovation projects”
Innovation concepts
Innovations

Sustainability impact
Sustainability potentials
Innovations at t0
(Market introduction) t0

Sustainability Sustainability
Innovation at t1 effects potentials
(Already positioned on market)
t1

Holistic perspective on sustainability

Impacts of innovations

Fig. 1. Conceptual basis.

November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 687

capital stock as the constitutional attribute requires methods for aggregating and
substituting the innovations’ effects on the different types of capital. Aggregating
economic, ecological and social effects inevitably leads to trade-offs and is limited
due to current methodological constraints (Callens and Tyteca, 1999; Rennings,
2007). Furthermore, such a balancing process always includes ethical as well as
cultural considerations which lead to different conclusions in different contexts
(Victor and Cullen, 1988). Hence, objective and specific “labelling” of innovations
as being sustainable can only be achieved within a collective and social discourse.
Being aware of these issues, we introduce the concept of sustainability-oriented
innovations (SOI). This concept builds on Wagner and Llerena (2008) and consid-
ers SOI not as a qualitatively new form of innovation, but as innovations with a
positive net effect on the overall capital stock. The concept takes on the notion that
the objective and absolute evaluation of an innovation’s sustainability effects is cur-
rently unfeasible. Therefore, we define SOI as innovations which are individually
perceived as adding positive net value to the overall firm’s capital stock. However,
such positive value must always be related to a comparable condition. In this man-
ner, the concept of SOI expresses only an individual declaration of intent. A priori,
the direction of the actual effects of an innovation to sustainable development is
unknown. The risk of such an innovation is termed as the previously introduced
“directional risk”.
Due to common market risks and the directional risk of sustainability-oriented
innovations, SOI are considered highly risky. Yet, such innovations are of great
interest to business and society. Therefore, generic methods are needed to reduce
the directional risk of sustainability-oriented innovations. In particular, methods to
assess innovations’ sustainability effects are attractive to companies when spurring
the development of sustainability-oriented innovations. Such methods must tackle
two subsequent steps. First, they have to define focal areas and issues where potential
sustainability effects are analysed (Epstein, 2008; Elkington, 1994), subsequently
called “search focus”. Second, they have to identify and quantify the relevant sus-
tainability effects. While many methods are able to identify and quantify sustain-
ability effects of products with regard to specific sustainability-related issues (e.g.
social audits, eco-efficiency indicators), they largely omit the first step of defining
the appropriate search focus.
A company’s decision of defining the best possible search focus can be inter-
preted as a cost-benefit consideration: A more broadly-defined search focus reduces
the risk of direction but increases search costs and vice versa. In general, current
assessment methods have a pre-defined search focus, in which they identify and
quantify sustainability effects. Accordingly, these methods do not enable businesses
to perform cost-benefit considerations. As a result, current practice does not allow
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

688 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

firms to select the most appropriate method for sustainability assessment. A “meta-
method” is needed, matching the firm’s risk awareness and its defined search focus
with existing assessment methods (and their pre-defined search focus) in order to
direct the firm to the most appropriate method.

Sustainability Innovation Cube — A Generic Model

When assessing and structuring innovations’ sustainability effects, generic dimen-
sions are essential. Therefore we structured the literature on sustainability-oriented
innovation assessment according to three interrelated dimensions. Firstly, by fol-
lowing the concept of sustainability development from a business perspective, we
harness the triple bottom line concept differentiating economic, environmental and
social effects (target dimension). However, this dimension alone would be too vague
and thus inadequate to structure sustainability effects. Hence, it becomes necessary
to embrace effects of products and technologies within the different phases of their
physical life cycles (Klöpffer, 2008; Saling et al., 2002), which we call the life
cycle dimension. Thirdly, literature reveals that by increasing their service content,
products induce significant positive sustainability effects (Mont, 2006). Hence, a
purely technological perspective would be too narrow for assessing innovations’
sustainability potentials. We relate to this aspect in the innovation type dimension
by transcending the technological level to higher service contigents. Each of the
three dimensions is further elaborated below.

The target dimension

The target dimension analyses innovations’ effects according to their impacts on
sustainability targets. In doing so, this approach requires a sufficient operationalisa-
tion of sustainability. Here, we use the triple bottom line concept (Elkington, 1994,
1998). Although sometimes criticized (e.g. Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Pfriem,
2004), this concept is widely accepted among business executives (Gray, 2006). As
we aim at developing a generic model which is highly communicable and accessible
for business executives, we selected this concept as the most appropriate for our
purpose. Figure 2 illustrates these different types of capital.
In the following, we focus on social and ecological types of capital because
previous decades of research on the relation between innovation and economic
capital (e.g. economic success factors) already suggest a mature state. Ecologi-
cal capital is affected by the level of consumption of renewable and non-renewable
resources and the influences on the ecosystem (Fichter, 2005; Dyllick and Hockerts,
2002). Several studies show that the efficiency of current use of resources must
increase by a factor of about 10 to 50 in order to achieve sustainability (Tukker
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 689

Fig. 2. Overview of different types of capital of a firm (Fichter, 2005).

and Tischner, 2006). Such efficiency leaps require radical new solutions and high-
light the role of sustainability-oriented innovations. These needs are exceedingly
inherited by businesses. For instance, quality management increasingly considers
environmental criteria in product specification (Masui et al., 2003). Moreover, inno-
vation management focuses to a large extent on eco-products and clean technologies
(Christiansen and Buen, 2002; Dewick and Miozzo, 2002; Hart, 1997; Preuss, 2007;
Williander, 2006c). One of the most familiar corporate initiatives to spur environ-
mental technologies is “Ecomagination” by GE (Epstein, 2008; Mirvis and Googins,
2006).
Social capital should receive particular attention as sustainability effects fre-
quently arise in this area and have a major impact on the directional risk of SOI.
Social capital can be regarded as supportive capital which is established in relation-
ships with people (Dreyer et al., 2006) and thus, to stakeholders inside and outside
the company (Achterkamp and Vos, 2006; Chuan and Raghavan, 2004). Accord-
ingly, the identification of important stakeholder groups is essential for assess-
ing social impacts (Hall and Vredenburg, 2003). Moreover, scholars have recently
become interested in the social impacts of innovations, such as the employment
impacts (Rennings and Zwick, 2002) or development impacts by innovations tar-
geting the bottom of the pyramid (Prahalad and Hart, 2002).
Although the separate illustration of the three capital types implies that they are
discrete, they rather overlap. For example, product take-backs have both economic
and environmental effects (Preuss, 2007). The case of bio-fuels highlights the inter-
related impacts on environmental and social capital. More generally, eco-efficiency
describes the bid for concurrent reduction of (economic) costs and environmental
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

690 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

impact mitigation in products and processes (Saling et al., 2002). Current literature
comprehensively highlights the interrelations of the three capital types (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002; Spangenberg, 2002).
To summarize, the target dimension distinguishes three assessment criteria of
innovations’ effects (which are sometimes related): economic effects, ecological
effects and social effects.

The life cycle dimension

The target dimension by itself is insufficient to provide an assessment structure
for sustainability effects as sustainability effects of innovations are widely spread
over time and space (Fichter, 2005). For example, bio-fuels reduce environmental
impact during use, but have critical effects during production (Kölsch and Sal-
ing, 2008). Accordingly, literature concerned with sustainability effects of prod-
uct innovations especially emphasizes the role of the life cycle, i.e. extraction of
raw materials, design and production, packaging and distribution, use and main-
tenance, reuse and recycling, and incineration and disposal (Gauthier, 2005). This
life cycle refers to the physical life cycle (“from cradle to grave”) in contrast to
the market-oriented life cycle (Dyllick, 1992; Klöpffer, 2008). Scholars incorpo-
rate life cycle perspectives into all elements of the target dimension: an economic
focus is taken with life-cycle costing. Non-economic capitals are considered by
broader methods of life cycle assessment (LCA) including environmental LCA
(Mont, 2004b; Nissinen et al., 2007), social LCA (Jørgensen et al., 2008; Klöpf-
fer, 2008; Dreyer et al., 2006) and overall sustainability LCA (Spillemaeckers and
Vanhoutte, 2006; Gauthier, 2005; Andersson, Eide and Lundqvis, 1998). Notably,
the assignment of social effects to the life cycle of products is difficult, as social
effects frequently arise due to organisational activities and not due to material
flows (Spillemaecker and Vanhoutte, 2006). Hence, organisational-level assess-
ments combined with conversion factors are commonly used (Dreyer et al., 2006;
Klöpffer, 2008).
In the following, we briefly illustrate sustainability effects along the phases of the
life cycle. Due to constraints of space, we focus on the major phases only, including
manufacture (materials, suppliers, producer, logistics), use and end-of-life (Dreyer
et al., 2006).
Manufacturing is an essential aspect of sustainability as it depicts the essen-
tial phase of material flows and transformation (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Preuss,
2007; Seuring et al., 2008). This area is most closely related to research in cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR) focused on sustainability-oriented analysis on
the organisational and operational level (Carroll, 1979, 1991; Wood, 1991). Still,
where CSR predominantly focuses on responsibilities within corporate boundaries,
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 691

a life-cycle orientation requires consideration of the entire supply chain including

sites of suppliers (Preuss, 2007). Whilst recognising that the influence of the pro-
ducer decreases when moving further upstream (Dreyer et al., 2006), the assessment
of supplier’s occupational health and safety and overall working conditions is still
possible.
Further downstream, the use phase of products is increasingly integrated in
sustainability-oriented assessments (Klöpffer, 2008). Frequently, usage patterns
and consumer behaviours significantly influence sustainability effects of products
(Töpfer, 2007). However, such considerations involve difficulties as manufactur-
ers may not have full access and control over specific usage patterns of customers
(Dreyer et al., 2006; Williander, 2006b, p. 57). Environmental aspects during the use
phase comprise, for example, energy efficiency as well as possible energy sources.
Social aspects in the use phase include such issues as customer health and safety
and complaint handling (Jørgensen et al., 2008). Considering these non-economic
aspects in the use phase implies increased responsibility for innovation management
to more strongly integrate such aspects. Correspondingly, the automotive industry
is under huge pressure to make car-based mobility more environmentally-friendly
(Kemp and Rotmans, 2008) and thus engages in alternative drive systems.
The end-of-life phase frequently affects environmental and economic aspects.
From an environmental perspective, intelligent products should enable recycling,
re-manufacturing, or re-use. In cases where this is not possible, “safe disposal“
requires avoidance of dangerous materials (Preuss, 2007). From an economic per-
spective, these issues are equally important, as, to date, environmental laws increas-
ingly prescribe companies to take back products (Hart, 1995, 1997). Thus, it is in
the company’s vested interest to engage in this field. An overview of the phases is
given in Table 1.

The dimension of innovation types

In this article, we set out from the basic innovation type of technological innovations.
By technological innovations we refer mainly to product innovations. Exemplary
technological innovations, which have already been highlighted in this paper, are
eco-efficient products and clean technologies. However, according to the life-cycle
dimension and the consideration of product-related sustainability effects in life-
cycles phases such as manufacture, (product-related) process innovations are also
part of the technological level (Armbruster et al., 2008; Cooper, 1998; Moors and
Vergragt, 2002; Preuss, 2007).
Whilst technological innovations are important, they have been overempha-
sized — especially in isolated form — with regard to their sustainability poten-
tials (Dillon, 2005). In fact, their sustainability potential is naturally limited as of
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

692 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Table 1. Sustainability of products/technologies related to the physical life-cycle.

Target dimension Life-cycle phases

Manufacture Packaging/distribution Use/maintenance End of life

Economic Production Efficient (Technical) Costs of

efficiency packaging; quality take-back/
efficient disposal/
logistics landfill
Environmental Use of Reduce Durability; Dangerous
environmental packaging energy materials;
friendly resources; consumption recycling,
materials and minimised re-make, or
processes transports re-use
Social Occupational Customer health Health
health and and safety; threats of
safety; child complaint landfills
work; wages; handling
benefits
Source: Based on Gauthier (2005); Jørgensen et al. (2008); Klöpffer (2008).

their root in the physical life-cycle. This is most obvious for environmental capi-
tal. Product development may achieve an incredibly efficient product; however, its
production is still linked to natural resource consumption and related to negative
environmental impacts. In order to understand possible advancements beyond the
technological level, it is important to consider the process of fulfilling customer
needs (Paech, 2005a). Whilst on a technical level, needs are satisfied through new
(more sustainable) physical products, on the level of usage patterns, products and
services describe new routines of how needs are fulfilled. On the cultural level,
needs are changed or new types of needs are created. Each of the described levels
relates to a different type of innovation, as presented in Fig. 3.
The figure above introduces product-service systems and business model inno-
vation as innovation types beyond the technological level. Product-service systems
(PSS) received considerable attention from research in sustainability (Epstein, 2008,
p. 211; Mont, 2001; Baines et al., 2007; Paech, 2005a; Grayson et al., 2008). They
are combinations of products and services and are thus related to non-technological
innovations (Roth, 2009). PSS help to improve environmental characteristics in the
use and end-of-life phase. A good example of PSS is given by the case of Interface
which originally focused on selling carpets, but was later involved in leasing car-
pets; then, instead of replacing entire carpets, the company only replaces worn tiles
(Olivia and Quinn, 2003). As the example of car sharing shows, PSS sometimes
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 693

Example Process of need Influencing dimensions Innovation type

fulfillment of innovations

(1)
Music
Want

Radio, concerts,
(2)
sound carrier, Cultural level Business
Need
etc. model

MP3 services,
(3) Level of usage
rental services, Product-
Usage system system
etc. service system

(4)
CDs, MP3s, Technical Technological
Physical
tapes, etc. level
production

Fig. 3. The link between innovation type and need fulfilment process (based on Paech, 2005a).

even reduces aggregate consumption on a macro level because shared use requires
a smaller amount of absolute products (Mont, 2004b).
Still, also PSS is limited as it only attenuates negative sustainability impacts of
product innovations (Weaver et al., 2000; Blowfield and Visser, 2007; Paech, 2005a).
Although such improvements are welcome and beneficial, they omit the opportu-
nity to tackle the root causes of such negative impacts — namely, the way current
customer demands are fulfilled. Indeed, today’s need structures and lifestyles are
deemed one of the major causes for sustainability issues (Belz, 2006). By challeng-
ing current lifestyles and ways of fulfilling customer needs, innovations may have
significant potentials for improving sustainability effects by developing alternative
solutions to customer demands (e.g. how can the need for mobility be fulfilled in
an alternative way). Such understanding extends the principle of customer orienta-
tion — as a crucial success factor for new products (Ernst, 2002; Lilien and Yoon,
1989) — to not only understanding, but also innovating current ways of fulfilling
costumer needs. Related to the example in the figure above, a producer of music
discs could also satisfy the need for music by providing some form of concerts. This
means that companies have to tap into entirely new ways of doing business, that is,
to innovate their business models (Chesbrough, 2007). At the same time, deploying
such alternative business models often involves cultural adaptations of customers.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

694 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Hence, innovation management may regard customer demands and current ways of
need fulfilment not as given and exogenous. Rather the development of alternative
solutions and lifestyles can be considered as a source of innovation with positive
sustainability potentials (Hockerts, 1999; Mont, 2001).
We argue that innovations have higher sustainability potentials the earlier they
influence the process of fulfilling consumer needs, as the solution space for such
innovations is significantly extended. However, the innovation’s market risk and
directional risk increases accordingly. This implies, that radical innovations and
regime shifts (e.g. electrical cars) offer significantly higher sustainability potentials.
This notion was already highlighted in diverse literature (Tukker and Tischner, 2006;
Haan and Mulder, 2002; Moors and Vergragt, 2002; Christiansen and Buen, 2002;
Kemp, Schot and Hoogma, 1998; Kemp and Rotmans, 2008).
In summary, the process of fulfilling customer needs make clear that innova-
tions may impact the process on different levels and thus have different sustain-
ability effects. Hereby, we consider mainly innovations which eventually lead to
new products (e.g. new products within a business model innovation). Accordingly,
we identified the dimension of innovation types as a third assessment dimension
consisting of three criteria: technological innovations, PSS innovations, as well as
business model innovations.

The Sustainability Innovation Cube (SIC)

Based on these three constitutional dimensions, we developed a generic model
termed “Sustainability Innovation Cube” (SIC). The SIC unfolds into 27 individual
areas which indicate where sustainability effects potentially arise. These sustain-
ability areas can be regarded as targets to be addressed by innovation management.
Figure 4 depicts the sustainability areas.
The SIC illustrates 27 different areas in which sustainability effects may occur.
In order to minimize the directional risk of an innovation, ideally all 27 areas are
analyzed. However, each additional sustainability area to be assessed also increases
the assessment costs. Hence, companies face a cost-benefit analysis when defining
the appropriate search focus, i.e. when they select which of the 27 areas should be
assessed. By transparently illustrating all major sustainability areas, the SIC model
supports companies in pursuing such cost-benefit-considerations.
The SIC model, however, does not yet enable companies to identify and quantify
sustainability effects in each of the 27 sustainability areas because it does not define
specific criteria nor procedures. The selection of such criteria is highly dependent
on the innovation being assessed, the company that pursues such an analysis, and
the chosen assessment method (Griesshammer et al., 2007). Due to these factors,
the selection of sustainability criteria is highly diverse and needs to be specifically
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 695

Innovation type dimension

Business model

Product-service
system Target dimension

Ecological effects

Social effects
Technology
Economic effects

Life cycle dimension

re
tu

fe
ac

-li
uf

of
an

d-
Us
M

En

Fig. 4. The Sustainability Innovation Cube (SIC).

adapted to each assessment situation. By not defining specific criteria, the SIC is
a generic model which is applicable to all kind of innovations, companies, and
situations. Nevertheless, the quantification of innovations’ sustainability effects is
essential if such assessments are to provide a basis for decision-making within
innovation management (i.e. answering which innovation project should be contin-
ued) (Spillemaeckers and Vanhoutte, 2006). In a second step, we therefore assigned
existing assessment methods to the 27 areas of the SIC model. This is necessary
as current assessment methods diverge significantly in their internally pre-defined
search focus. While some methods, for instance, only take into account environ-
mental effects (e.g. ecological balance sheet), other methods focus exclusively on
the life cycle phase of manufacture.
In total, we assigned 76 existing methods to the 27 sustainability areas of the SIC
model. We therefore distinguish two groups of methods. While “support methods”
enable companies to assess sustainability effects ex ante, i.e. over the course of the
innovation process, “methods for analysis” focus on established products on the
market and assess their sustainability impacts in an ex post manner. The assignment
of methods is depicted exemplarily in Fig. 5 (this depicts a two-dimensional slice
of the SIC model leaving aside the dimension of innovation types; an exhaustive
list is given in the Appendix in Fig. A1 and Table A1).
Therewith, the SIC model follows the two subsequent steps mentioned above.
By depicting all major sustainability effects, the SIC model supports companies in
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

696 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Methods of analysis Support methods

(exemplary) (exemplary)

4 5 6
Ecological
1 2 3 effects Social Impact Assessment Social Audit
Social Life Cycle Assessment,
Social Stakeholder Dialogue
4 5 6 Social balance sheet
effects
Fair-Trade Label Stakeholder Value Added
Economic
7 8 9 effects
1 2 3
Manufacture

End-of-Life

Product Carbon Footprint Eco-Audit

-
Use

Environmental Investment
BEES
Appraisal
MIPS

Fig. 5. Assignment of sustainability assessment methods to SIC areas (exemplary).

defining their search focus. By assigning current assessment methods to the individ-
ual sustainability areas within the SIC model, indications for appropriate methods
and tools are provided to identify and quantify the relevant sustainability effects.
The SIC model itself is therefore not a sustainability assessment method but rather
a meta-method which guides companies to the right choice of assessment tools.

Research Methodology
So far, this paper has presented a normative research approach to determine the con-
stituent dimensions for assessing innovations’ sustainability effects. Starting from
a systematic literature review, we identified the constituent dimensions of assess-
ing the sustainability effects of product-related innovations and developed the SIC
model. In a second step, we conducted qualitative research using semi-structured
interviews (Mayring, 2002; Silverman, 2009) to validate the SIC model and its
dimensions. As previous research in the area of sustainability suggests addressing
high-level corporate officers to get the most accurate information (Weaver et al.,
1999), we interviewed 12 high-level sustainability experts from leading organisa-
tions in Germany in the second half of 2008. These experts belong to two groups:
corporate experts (8 executives) and research experts (4 senior researchers). These
organisations reflect a variety of different industry sectors (e.g. logistics, finance,
consulting). The diverse selection of interview partners guarantees a holistic per-
spective on the topic and uses very different experiences and opinions in the field of
sustainability. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed with quali-
tative data analysis (Silverman, 2008).
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 697

Findings
During the interviews we received vast feedback on the SIC model and its potential
implementation in innovation management. We recorded both broad agreement and
controversial opinions on the constituent dimensions of the SIC model.

The target dimension

We experienced broad agreement on the triple bottom line concept among
researchers and business executives, which underlines the high diffusion and accep-
tance of this concept. However, applying this concept on a product level we
observed highly controversial views on “sustainability innovations”. Some inter-
viewees claimed that truly sustainable innovations must not have negative impacts
on any of the three bottom lines: “Only regional products can be regarded as truly
sustainable. Other products cause transportation efforts and therefore cannot be
regarded as sustainable.”
Others, however, criticised this narrow definition of sustainability as too the-
oretical: “Innovations can never create positive sustainability effects on all target
dimensions. Such an innovation would be a bonanza.”
Still others argued, somewhat less strictly, that balancing the various effects
on the triple bottom line lies at the core of defining sustainability innovations.
According to the interviewees, one should consider more than just one of the three
capitals when talking about sustainability innovations:

“Considering the traditional definition of innovation [i.e. that the

term innovation implies success on the market], many people argue
that every innovation can be regarded as sustainable [because they
are economically successful]. However, I think that we also need
to build in non-economic criteria into the definition.”

However, one academic expert criticised the triple bottom line concept as too
simple. It was argued that the capital types were not discrete but rather embedded.
For example, dangerous chemicals have effects on both environment and on human
beings. More generally, environmental harm ultimately leads to negative impacts
on people. These diverse and sometimes controversial viewpoints underline the
difficulties when trying to operationalise the concept of sustainability.

The life cycle dimension

In this dimension we observed broad acceptance among corporate and research
experts. It was highlighted that a life cycle assessment implies a more holistic
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

698 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

approach to sustainability:

“The integration of a life cycle consideration is beneficial when

outlining subsequent sustainability effects, e.g. during the usage of
products. Still, these effects are hardly considered.”

This observation adds to the fact that life cycle considerations are commonly known
and integrated in numerous business concepts and theoretical concepts. Still, some
of the experts raised concerns about the assessment of social effects along the life
cycle phases as being too indistinct.

The innovation type dimension

Most of the corporate experts concurred with the level of technological innova-
tions. They referred to various examples of current products or innovation projects
addressing eco-efficiency and clean technologies.
Considering product-service systems, researchers generally acknowledged the
usefulness of this innovation type in assessing product-related sustainability. Cor-
porate statements were, however, less frequent. One corporate expert reported
the use of product-service systems, however, with a sole focus on economic
benefits:

“We offer leasing of our power tools to business customers for

several years. Our goal is to increase the share of leasing in overall
sales as it is good business. At the end of the leasing contract, tools
are taken back and destroyed. This is somewhat part of the leasing
construct. Environmental considerations are not really part of this
business model. That is, we do not involve in product re-make or
reuse. Also, our company does not really want an emerging market
for used tools.”

Moreover, results on business model innovations were very controversial. As stated

above, we regard business model innovation as a measure to redirect needs and
satisfy them in an alternative way. Research experts perceived this perspective as
crucial given that current need structures are considered a driving factor of sustain-
ability problems. However, business executives disagreed on whether or not this
dimension offers significant business opportunities. Some questioned whether the
modification of need satisfaction through new business models may offer significant
business opportunities: “Changing needs does not reflect any source of differentia-
tion for businesses.”
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 699

On the other hand, others outlined the “creative destruction” of current need
structures as a major business opportunity:

“Companies need to change current need structures to make sus-

tainable products look ‘cool’. This would have a major impact on
sustainability and offers great potential for businesses.”

Overall, the acceptance by business executives decreased while moving up the

innovation type dimension.

Implementation in innovation management

All interviewees outlined the advantage of the SIC model as an orientation frame-
work for sustainability effects. Often, the model was considered particularly helpful
when employees needed to be introduced or sensitized to the concept of sustain-
ability. Corporate experts initially criticized the lack of possibilities to quantify
sustainability effects within the sustainability areas, but acknowledged later on the
SICs role as a meta-method. These observations underscore two facts. First, busi-
nesses seek accurate information on innovations’ sustainability effects as a basis for
decision-making. Second, large companies may have already built up their toolbox
of assessment methods and may not necessarily take advantage of the SIC as a
meta-method. Small and medium sized enterprises (SME), on the contrary, might
not have enough resources to engage in the field of sustainability assessment. Here,
the SIC model as a meta-method could significantly support companies in providing
guidelines to appropriate assessment methods. Yet the particular value of the SIC
model for SMEs extends the scope of this paper and is a suitable subject for further
research.
To summarize, the SIC model gained significant support in illustrating all major
sustainability effects of product innovations. As an orientation framework and intro-
duction to the field of sustainability, it adds value to innovation management.

Discussion
We begin by first discussing each dimension separately and then debate the overall
model.

Single dimensions
The results regarding the target dimension are multifaceted. The critique that con-
sidering three capitals as discrete categories is shared by other authors (Dyllick and
Hockerts, 2002; Spangenberg, 2002). As an extension of the three capitals, some
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

700 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

of these authors propose to additionally consider socio-economic, environmental-

economic, and socio-environmental aspects (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002;
Spangenberg, 2002).
Regarding the life-cycle dimension, the broad acceptance by experts reflects
the increasing availability in literature (e.g. Spillemaeckers and Vanhoutte, 2006;
Gauthier, 2005; Andersson et al., 1998). The concerns about the social assessment
are also reflected in prior research (Dreyer et al., 2006; Jørgensen et al., 2008;
Klöpffer, 2008). Still, at the same time, the method of social LCA has apparently
evolved into a more mature state.
The results concerning the dimension of innovation types were also dis-
cussed. The broad acceptance of sustainability-oriented technological innovations
is reflected by several other studies (Fichter and Arnold, 2003; Weaver et al., 2000;
Wagner and Llerena, 2008). However, critical comments on the remaining innova-
tion types indicate that a movement from mainly technological innovations towards
product-service systems and business model innovations remains a challenging
task. This confirms prior research: Mont (2004b) identifies several obstacles with
regard to PSS, of which the most important one is that engagement into PSS leads
to reduced profits from selling products. Also, Brunner (2003) finds that industry
usually resists changing business models.

Overall model
We introduced the concept of sustainability-oriented innovations by arguing that
such innovations pose a high directional risk. Hence, generic methods are needed
which reduce the directional risk and thus tackle two subsequent steps. First, such
methods should support the definition of an appropriate search focus. Second, they
must enable decision makers to identify and quantify innovations’ sustainability
potentials. We argued that the proposed SIC model grants relief in both steps. Fur-
thermore, the SIC model consolidates current research on sustainability and inno-
vations into a coherent framework and clarifies existing relations in such fields.
In contrast, prior literature in the course of innovation and sustainability can be
regarded as highly fragmented, as the focus so far lies primarily on particular sus-
tainability areas, e.g. environmental burden (ISO, 1997), technological innovation
(Altshuller and Altov, 1996) or supply chain issues (Preuss, 2007). Accordingly,
present sustainability assessment methods frequently quantify only particular sus-
tainability effects and, by predefining the sustainability effects to quantify, largely
omit the step of defining an appropriate search focus.
By enabling the definition of an appropriate search focus and subsequently
linking it to existing methods, the SIC model serves as a meta-method. It there-
fore significantly differs from other established sustainability-oriented innovation
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 701

methodologies, among others QFDE (Masui et al., 2003) or TRIZ (Chang and Chen,
2004). The proposed model does not quantify sustainability effects, but rather qual-
itatively depicts areas of sustainability potentials and subsequently builds on the
current body of innovation methodologies. Such a generic conception facilitates its
application to a wide field of businesses and products while at the same time enabling
decision-makers to tailor the model by applying existing assessment methods.

Practical Implications for Innovation Management

Businesses with an interest in driving SOI should try to eliminate negative and
encourage positive sustainability effects in each of the 27 sustainability areas. The
structure of the SIC model and the discussion on the concept of sustainability-
oriented innovations proposed several implications for innovation management.
Each is discussed in the following.

Integration of sustainability criteria

The highest potential of shaping and designing innovations lies in the early stages
of the innovation process. This applies especially to the sustainability potential of
innovations. While the SIC model suggests possible target areas for SOI, this alone
would not positively affect the creation of SOI. Rather, sustainability criteria must be
integrated into the innovation process to guide the development and creation of inno-
vations and assure that sustainability potentials are taken into consideration along
the way. Examples of including eco-environmental criteria in the innovation process
were highlighted (Blomquist and Sandström, 2004; Donelly et al., 2004; Johansson,
2002). Our interviewees confirmed that companies like 3M or Henkel AG already
use such sustainability criteria within their innovation management. Notably, BASF
developed its own methodology “SEEbalance” to integrate eco-efficiency criteria
(Saling et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2004). The generation of sustainability-related infor-
mation in the very early stages of the innovation process will pose challenges to
innovation management, as the innovation idea is comparatively undefined (Sakao,
2007). However, the earlier such information is considered and integrated into the
innovation development, the better the innovation can be shaped towards a positive
sustainability impact (this does not neglect the fact that innovations achieved without
systematic sustainability assessment sometimes also lead to sustainability-related
innovations).

Integration of stakeholders and users

Currently stakeholders are very loosely integrated in the innovation process (Hall
and Vredenburg, 2003). Yet, in the context of sustainability, stakeholder integration
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

702 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

offers major advantages for innovation management (Hockerts and Morsing, 2008):
First, social effects of innovations can most accurately be assessed by integrating
the affected stakeholders directly into the assessment process. Possible instruments
are consultation of external experts, stakeholder dialogues and stakeholder advisory
boards. Second, the integration of stakeholders reduces the risk of being the sole
party accused if subsequently sustainability problems arise. Third, the integration
of stakeholders’ complementary implicit knowledge into the innovation process
can inspire new innovations. The concept of “GreenFreeze” technology, which was
an innovation driven by Greenpeace, exemplifies the sustainability potentials of
stakeholder innovations (Stafford and Hartman, 2001).
Sustainability effects frequently arise in the usage phase. Usage patterns of prod-
ucts have significant influence on innovations’ sustainability potential; therefore,
they should be taken into account as early as during the innovation process. Hence,
new concepts of integrating users into the innovation process (e.g. open innovation,
mass customization, etc.) gain significant importance in the course of sustainabil-
ity. The methodology of “Living Labs”, conducted by Wuppertal Institute and its
partners (e.g. BASF, Procter & Gamble), depicts one example of how information
on usage patterns is derived and integrated in innovation management (Eriksson,
2006).

Increasing the service content of products

A purely technological understanding of SOI cannot harness all sustainability poten-
tials of innovations. Rather, enhancing the service content of products additionally
spurs the development of SOI. By illustrating increasing sustainability potentials
along the dimension of innovation types (technological innovations, PSS, business
model innovation), the SIC model indicates generic development paths for inno-
vation management to boost SOI, thus giving normative suggestions to decision-
makers. Enhancing service content can be achieved through various forms, including
leasing, pooling, production on demand, and selling solutions, among others (Mont,
2001). Although the increase of service content can lead to a reduced number of
absolute product sales, profits generated by additional service content can outweigh
such downturns.

Sustainability marketing as driver for sustainability-oriented

innovations
The integration of the dimension of innovation type into the SIC model demonstrates
that technological solutions do not suffice to drive sustainability-oriented innova-
tions. Hence, a sole technological understanding of innovation management might
preclude sustainability potentials. Rather, innovation management will be more
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 703

and more challenged to create and design new sustainable needs and change current
lifestyles (Blowfield and Visser, 2007) in order to nurture more service-oriented
products and business models. Accordingly, sustainability marketing (Belz, 2006,
2009) constitutes a major driver for SOI, as it increases the understanding and suc-
cess potentials of current ways of fulfilling need structures. Notably, sustainability
marketing is supportive of all innovation types depicted in the SIC, hence illustrat-
ing a crucial tool for innovation management. The example of Toyota Prius, which
turned environmentally-friendly cars into desirable products and thus spurred mar-
ket success, demonstrates the impact of sustainability marketing to SOI (UNEP &
UNGC, 2005).

Sensitization in the context of sustainability

The concept of SOI highlights that the evaluation of sustainability-related innova-
tions is highly distinct on an individual basis. Sensitising those decision-makers
involved in the innovation process to sustainability issues is therefore crucial to
the creation of SOI. The more decision-makers are sensitised, the better they can
identify and estimate sustainability potentials and varying views of important stake-
holder groups. Hence, the sensitisation of decision-makers may lead to a reduction
of directional risks of SOI. This requires the provision of training and develop-
ment. Some multinational corporations already offer teaching units for SOI; often
they are delivered by the corporate responsibility function (Hansen, forthcoming).
The SIC model may serve as a teaching tool in development and training initia-
tives (e.g. in case studies in the area of SOI). Beyond such technical development
initiatives, companies should also leverage “vertical development” (Cook-Greuter,
2004) aiming at a change of mindsets. An illustrative example is PriceWaterHouse’s
leadership development programme “Ulysses” (Pless and Schneider, 2006) which
sends top talents into social projects in developing countries in order to get directly
exposed to sustainability issues.
To summarize, the development of SOI may pose major challenges to innovation
management. A purely technical, internal understanding must give way to a more
open, interactive understanding of innovation management in order to fully exploit
the potentials that sustainability-oriented innovations have to offer. Adoption of
supporting instruments like training and development play a major role in this
transformation.

Limitations and Further Research

The SIC model is limited in several ways. First, the purpose of this work was to
develop a generic framework which illustrates all major sustainability effects of
product innovations. Although the sustainability areas of the SIC models may serve
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

704 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

as target dimensions within innovation management, it remains unclear how these

dimensions can be incorporated into innovation process models, for example, the
Stage Gate Model (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1986). Accordingly, current research
on innovation management has been identifying success factors for new products by
measuring merely the financial success of innovations (Cooper, 2001; Ernst, 2002;
Radnor and Noke, 2006). However, the SIC model implies that such an approach is
too narrow for SOI. Thus, future research might review established success factors
and their applicability to SOI. Furthermore, in order to better apply the SIC to
business practice, further research could address how to integrate the model into a
process model. This also applies to the process of defining an appropriate search
focus, for which the SIC might serve as an ideal basis.
Second, the focus of this work lies in the assessment of innovations linked to
new products, as products offer major business opportunities and sustainability
potentials. However, immaterial products and services promise to be interesting for
further research as these decouple economic growth from material flows. Whether
some of the constituent dimensions identified in this work also apply to immaterial
products and pure service and business model innovations is a subject for further
research.
Third, we interviewed sustainability experts from leading organizations within
our qualitative study as these organizations are highly engaged in corporate sustain-
ability and SOI. However, the SIC model may also add value to SMEs by supporting
their efforts in driving corporate sustainability. This particularly applies to the SIC
model serving as a meta-method (as described above). The implementation of the
SIC model in SMEs may thus be an interesting field for further research.

Conclusion
The paper adds to the growing body of literature on sustainability-oriented inno-
vation and on methods and tools for their assessment. We started this paper by
arguing that SOI are of great interest both from a moral and business perspective.
By introducing the term of SOI, we highlighted the fact that objective evaluation
methods for defining absolute sustainability of innovations do not currently exist
due to the multidimensionality of sustainability. Instead, SOI are innovations which
are individually perceived as adding positive value to sustainable development.
We introduced the constituent dimensions to assess sustainability effects of SOI.
We further presented a generic model termed the “Sustainability Innovation Cube”
illustrating all major sustainability effects of product-related innovations.
The SIC offers an orientation framework for sustainability effects and enables
business decision-makers to define their appropriate search focus for sustainability
effects. Based on the search focus which a firm seeks to analyze, indications for
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 705

appropriate methods and tools are provided. In this regard, the SIC model does
not constitute a sustainability assessment method but rather a meta-method which
guides companies to the appropriate assessment method. Limitations of the model
and areas of further research also have been addressed. By depicting all major
sustainability effects of product-related innovations, the SIC reduces the directional
risk for innovations and enables companies to drive SOI.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge funding received by the Peter Pribilla Foundation. Fur-
thermore, all participants of the interviews provided valuable insights and feedback
for which we are very thankful. We also thank Stephanie Bergbauer, Lilli Hantke,
Christine Weisserth, Angelika Bullinger and Anne-Katrin Neyer for their excellent
support and feedback. Finally, we appreciated feedback of the anonymous reviewers.

Appendix

Ecological
1 2 3 effects

Social
4 5 6 effects

Economic
7 8 9 effects
Manufacture

End-of-Life
Usage

Fig. A.1. Reference for assessment areas.

Table A.1. Assignment of sustainability assessment methods to SIC sustainability areas∗ .

Area Methods of analysis Support methods

4 Social Accountability SA 8000

OHSAS 18001
Corporate Social Accounting
Social checklist
Community Advisory Panel
Cost-Risk Dialogue
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

706 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Table A.1. (Continued.)

Area Methods of analysis Support methods

1 Environmetal Information System EMAS

ISO 14001
Environmental Budgeting
Eco-checklist
Green Supply Chain Management
1, 7 Life Cycle Management
1, 4, 7 Sustainability management systems
Sigma Guidelines
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Sustainable Supply Chain Management
AT Kearney Sustainability Card
4, 5, 6 Social Impact Assessment Social Auditing
Social Life Cycle Assessment Stakeholder Dialogue
Fair-Label Stakeholder Value Added
Social Balance Sheet
2, 5, 8 Living Labs
Integrated Roadmapping
Lead User Method
Toolkits
User Communities
1, 2, 3 Eco-Auditing Ecological footprint
Environmental Investment Appraisal Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental Risk Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment, Ecological balance sheet
Eco Compass
Eco-Label
Integrative Product Policy (IPP)
Resource productivity
Eco-Efficiency
Product Carbon Footprint
BEES
MIPS
Environment Effect Analysis (EEA)
ENVRIZ
1-3, 7-9 Eco-Efficiency Analysis Quality Function deployment for Environment
(QFDE)
Eco-Value Analysis (Eco-VA)
Green Quality Function Deployment II
(GQFD II)
7, 8, 9 Traditional Innovation Management
Life Cycle Costing
∗ The “area” column makes reference to Fig. A.1; this overview does not claim completeness.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 707

References

Achterkamp, M and J Vos (2006). A framework for making sense of sustainable inno-
vation through stakeholder involvement. Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management, 6(6), 525–538.
Adamczyk, S, EG Hansen and R Reichwald (2009). Measuring Sustainability By Environ-
mental Innovativeness: Results from Action Research at a Multinational Corporation
in Germany. Paper presented at the International Conference and Doctoral Consor-
tium on Evaluation Metrics of Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility,
Lyon, France.
Andersson, K, MH Eide and U Lundqvist (1998). The feasibility of including sustainability
in LCA for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 6(3), 289–298.
Altshuller, G and H Altov (1996). And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared — TRIZ, the Theory
of Inventive Problem Solving. Worcaster, MA: Technical Innovation Center.
Armbruster, H, A Bikfalvi et al. (2008). Organizational innovation: The challenge of mea-
suring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, 28(10), 644–657.
Baines, TS, HW Lightfoot et al. (2007). State-of-the-art in product-service systems. Pro-
ceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — Part B — Engineering Manu-
facture, 221(10), 1543–1552.
Belz, FM (2006). Marketing in the 21st century. Business Strategy and the Environment,
15(3), 1–5.
Belz, FM and K Peattie (2009). Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective.
Chichester: Wiley.
Blomquist, T and J Sandström (2004). From issues to checkpoints and back: Managing
green issues in R&D. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13(6), 363–373.
Blowfield, M and W Visser (2007). Sustainability Innovation: Mapping the Territory. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brundtland Commission (1987). Our Common Future. Brussels: World Commission on
Environment and Development.
Brunner, M (2003). Automobile Industry. Sector Report. CSM/WWF Research Project: The
Business Case for Sustainability. IMD Working Paper Series. Rheingau, Germany.
Online: http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/csm/ (14.12.2007).
Bullinger, AC (2008). Innovation and Ontologies. Structuring the Early Stages of Innovation
Management. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Callens, I and D Tyteca (1999). Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms:
A productive efficiency perspective. Ecological Economics, 28, 41–53.
Carroll, AB (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
Carroll, AB (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Carter, CR and DS Rogers (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 38(5), 360–387.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

708 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Chesbrough, HW (2007). Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology
anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.
Christiansen, AC and J Buen (2002). Managing environmental innovation in the energy
sector: The case of photovoltaic and wave power development in Norway. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 233–256.
Cook-Greuter, SR (2004). Making the case for a developmental perspective. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 36(7), 275–281.
Cooper, JR (1998). A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation. Manage-
ment Decision, 36(8), 493–502.
Cooper, RG (2001). Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to
Launch, 4th ed. Cambridge MA: Perseus.
Cooper, RG and EJ Kleinschmidt (1986). An investigation into the new product process:
Steps, deficiencies and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, 71–85.
Chang, H and L Chen (2004). The conflict: Problem-solving CAD software integration
TRIZ into eco-innovation. Advanced Engineering Software, 35, 553–566.
Chuan, TK and V Raghavan (2004). Incorporating concepts of business priority into quality
function deployment. International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(1), 21–35.
Davis, K (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.
Day, RM (1998). Beyond Eco-Efficiency: Sustainability as a Driver for Innovation. Wash-
ington: World Resources Institute Sustainable Enterprise Initiative.
Dewick, P and M Miozzo (2002). Factors enabling and inhibiting sustainable technologies
in construction: The case of active solar heating systems. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 6(3), 257–276.
Dillon, TA, RK Lee and D Matheson (2005). Value innovation: Passport to wealth creation.
Research Technology Management, 48(2), 22–36.
Donnelly, K, A Salemink et al. (2004). A product-based environmental management system.
Greener Management International, 46, 57–72.
Dreyer, L, M Hauschild and J Schierbeck (2006). A framework for social life cycle impact
assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2), 88–97.
Dyllick, T (1992). Ökologisch bewusste Unternehmensführung. Bausteine einer Konzep-
tion. Die Unternehmung, 46(6), 391–413.
Dyllick, T and K Hockerts (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
Elkington, J (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies
for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.
Elkington, J (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.
Epstein, MJ (2008). Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measur-
ing Corporate, Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Epstein, MJ and MJ Roy (2001). Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the
key performance drivers. Long Range Planning, 34(5), 585–604.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 709

Eriksson, M, V Niitamo, S Kulkki and KA Hribernik (2006). Living labs as a multi-

contextual R&D methodology. Proc. of the ICE Conference 2006.
Ernst, H (2002). Success factors of new product development: A review of the empirical
literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 1–40.
Fichter, K (2005). Interpreneurship. Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen in interaktiven Perspek-
tiven eines vernetzenden Unternehmertums. Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.
Fichter, K (2006). Nachhaltigkeitskonzepte für Innovationsprozesse. Wiesbaden, Germany:
Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Fichter, K and M Arnold (2003). Nachhaltigkeit als strategischer Faktor. Oldenburg, Ger-
many: Universität Oldenburg.
Fichter, K and R Pfriem (2007). Leading innovations to sustainable future markets. In
Innovations Towards Sustainability, M Lehmann-Waffenschmidt (ed.), pp. 103–116.
Heidelberg, Germany: Physica.
Fitzgerald, DP, JW Herrmann and LC Schmidt (2006). Improving environmental
design using TRIZ inventive principles. Working paper. University of Maryland,
College Park.
Gauthier, C (2005). Measuring corporate, social and environmental performance: The
extended life-cycle assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1–2), 199–206.
Gray, B (2006). Does sustainability reporting improve corporate behaviour? Wrong ques-
tion? Right time? Accounting & Business Research, 36, 65–88.
Grayson, D, Z Jin, M Lemon, MA Rodriguez, S Slaughter and S Tay (2008). A New Mindset
for Corporate Responsibility. Whitepaper.
Griesshammer, R, M Buchert, CO Gensch, C Hochfeld, A Manhart and I Rüdenauer (2007).
PROSA — Product Sustainability Assessment. Leitfaden. Freiburg, Germany: Öko-
Institut e.V.
Haan, A and K Mulder (2002). Sustainable air transport: Identifying possibilities for tech-
nological regime shifts in aircraft construction. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 6(3), 301–318.
Hall, J (2002). Sustainable development innovation: A research agenda for the next 10
years. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 195–196.
Hall, J and H Vredenburg (2003). The challenges for innovating for sustainable develop-
ment.MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 61–68.
Hansen, EG (forthcoming). Responsible Leadership Systems: Integrating Corporate
Responsibility in Leadership Systems. An empirical study in Multinational Corpo-
rations. Dissertation. Technische Universität München, Germany.
Hauschildt, J (1991). Zur Messung des Innovationserfolges. Zeitschrift für Betrieb-
swirtschaft, 61(4), 451–476.
Hauschildt, J and S Salomo (2007). Innovationsmanagement, München, Germany: Vahlen
Franz GmbH.
Hart, SL (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management
Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Hart, SL (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business
Review, 75(1), 66–76.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

710 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Hockerts, K (2008). Managerial Perceptions of the Business Case for Corporate Social
Responsibility. CBS Working Paper Series, no. 03-2007. Frederiksberg: Copenhagen
Business School.
Hockerts, K and M Morsing (2008). A Literature Review on Corporate Social Repsonsibility
in the Innovation Process. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.
ISO (1997). ISO 14040 — Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Prin-
ciples and Framework. International Organisation for Standardisation.
Johansson, G (2002). Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development:
A review of state of the art. Environmental Management and Health, 13(1), 98–107.
Jørgensen, A, AN Le Bocq and M Hauschild (2008). Methodologies for social life cycle
assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 96–103.
Kemp, R, J Schot and R Hoogma (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes
of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–195.
Kemp, R (2008). Transition management for sustainable consumption and production. In
System Innovation for Sustainability 1: Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustain-
able Consumption and Production, A Tukker (ed.), pp. 369–390. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Kemp, R and J Rotmans (2008). Managing the transition to sustainable mobility. In Recent
Developments In Ecological Economics, J Martinez-Alier and I Ropke (eds.), pp. 487–
517. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Klöpffer, W (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89–95.
Kölsch, D and P Saling (2008). How to measure social impacts? A socio-eco-efficiency
analysis by the SEEBALANCE method. International Journal of Sustainable Devel-
opment, 11(1), 1–23.
Lilien, GL and E Yoon (1989). Determinants of new industrial product performance: A
strategic reexamination of the empirical literature. Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement, 36(1), 3–10.
Lynn, GS and RR Reilly (2002). Blockbusters. The Five Keys to Developing Great New
Products. New York: HarperBusiness.
Masui, K, T Sakao, M Kobayashi and A Inaba (2003). Applying quality function deployment
to environmentally conscious design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 20(1), 90–106.
Mayring, P (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qual-
itativem Denken. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Studium.
McWilliams, A and D Siegel (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
Miles, MB and AM Huberman (2008). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source-
book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mirvis, P and B Googins (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management
Review, 48(2), 104–126.
Mont, O (2001). Introducing and Developing a Product-Service System (PSS) Concept in
Sweden. IIIEE Reports, 2001:6. Lund, Sweden: IIIEE, Lund University.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 711

Mont, O (2004a). Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based on shared

use. Ecological Economics, 50(1–2), 135–153.
Mont, O (2004b). Reducing life-cycle environmental impacts through systems of joint use.
Greener Management International, 45, 63–77.
Mont, O (2006). Product-service systems: Reviewing achievements and refining the research
agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(17), 1451–1454.
Moors, EH and PJ Vergragt (2002). Technology choices for sustainable industrial produc-
tion: Transitions in metal making. International Journal of Innovation Management,
6(3), 277–299.
Nissinen, A, J Grönroos et al. (2007). Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life
cycle assessment-based environmental information on products, services and con-
sumption patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 538–549.
Olivia, R and J Quinn (2003). Interface’s Evergreen Services Agreement. Harvard Business
School Case 603112.
Paech, N (2005a). Nachhaltigkeit als marktliche und kulturelle Herausforderung. In Nach-
haltige Zukunftsmärkte, K Fichter et al. (eds.), pp. 51–88. Marburg, Germany:
Metropolis.
Paech, N (2005b). Richtungssicherheit im nachhaltigkeitsorientierten Innovationsmanage-
ment. In Nachhaltige Zukunftsmärkte, K Fichter et al. (eds.), pp. 327–352. Marburg,
Germany: Metropolis.
Pearce, D and G Atkinson (1998). The concept of sustainable development: An evaluation
of its usefulness ten years after Brundtland. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics,
134(3), 251–269.
Pless, NM and R Schneider (2006). Towards developing responsible global leaders: The
Ulysses experience. In Responsible Leadership. T Maak and NM Pless (eds.), pp. 213–
226. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Oxon: Routledge.
Prahalad, CK and SL Hart (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid.
strategy+business, 26, 1–14.
Preuss, L (2007). Contribution of purchasing and supply management to ecological inno-
vation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 515–537.
Radnor, ZJ and H Noke (2006). Development of an audit tool for product innovation: The
innovation compass. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 1–18.
Rennings, K (2007). Messung und Analyse nachhaltiger Innovationen. In Neue Wege statis-
tischer Berichterstattung, Statistisches Bundesamt (2007), pp. 122–138. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.
Rennings, K and T Zwick (2002). Employment impact of cleaner production on the firm
level: Empirical evidence from a survey in five European countries. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 319–342.
Roth, S (ed.) (2009). Non-Technological and Non-Economic Innovations: Contributions to
a Theory of Robust Innovation. Switzerland: Lang.
Sakao, T (2007). A QFD-centric design methodology for environmentally conscious product
design. International Journal of Production Research, 45(19), 4143–4162.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

712 E. G. Hansen, F. Grosse-Dunker & R. Reichwald

Saling, P, A Kicherer et al. (2002). Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: The method. Inter-
national Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(4), 203–218.
Salzmann, O, U Steger, and A Ionescu-Somers (2008). Determinants of corporate sustain-
ability management: An empirical contingency approach. In Zeitschrift für Betrieb-
swirtschaft, J Schwalbach (ed.), pp. 1–22. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler.
Schmidt, I, M Meurer and P Saling (2004). Managing sustainability of products and pro-
cesses with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF. Greener Management Inter-
national, 45, 79–94.
Seuring, S, J Sarkis, M Müller and P Rao (2008). Sustainability and supply chain manage-
ment — An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15),
1545–1551.
Silverman, D (2008). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and
Interaction, 3rd Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Silverman, D (2009). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 3rd Ed. London:
Sage.
Spangenberg, JH (2002). Environmental space and the prism of sustainability: Frame-
works for indicators measuring sustainable development. Ecological Indicators, 2(3),
295–309.
Spillemaeckers, S and G Vanhoutte (2006). A Product Sustainability Assessment. In Man-
agement Models for Corporate Social Responsibility, J Jonker and M de Witte (eds.),
pp. 257–264. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Stafford, E and C Hartman (2001). Greenpeace’s ‘Greenfreeze’ campaign. In Ahead of
the Curve: Case Studies of Innovation in Environmental Management, K Green et al.
(eds.), pp. 107–131. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stubbs, W and C Cocklin (2008). Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”.
Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.
Töpfer, K (2007). Globale Umweltveränderungen. Konsequenzen für Technikentwicklung
und Technikfolgenabschätzung. In Technology Assessment in der Weltgesellschaft,
A Bora (ed.), pp. 39–50. Berlin.
Totterdell, P, D Leach, K Birdi, C Clegg and T Wall (2002). An investigation of the con-
tents and consequences of major organizational innovations. International Journal of
Innovation Management, 6(4), 343–368.
Tukker, A and U Tischner (2006). New Business for Old Europe: Product-Service Devel-
opment, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publications.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), UNGC (UN Global Compact) and
Utopies (2005). Talk the Walk. Advancing Sustainable Lifestyles through Marketing
and Communications. Paris: United Nations Environment Programme.
Victor, B and JB Cullen (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125.
Wagner, M and P Llerena (2008). Drivers for Sustainability-Related Innovation: A Qual-
itative Analysis of Renewable Resources, Industrial Products and Travel Services.
Document de Travail, n◦ 2008–22. Working paper.
November 21, 2009 15:20 WSPC/150-IJIM 00247

Sustainability Innovation Cube 713

Wagner, M and S Schaltegger (2003). How does sustainability performance relate to business
competitiveness? Greener Management International, 44, 5–16.
Weaver, GR, LK Treviño and PL Cochran (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control
systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(1), 41–57.
Weaver, P, L Jansen, G van Grootveld, E van Spiegel and P Vergragt (2000). Sustainable
Technology Development. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Williander, M (2006a). Fading eco-benign networks: The causes found at Volvo Car Corpo-
ration and Ford Motor Company. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1),
92–107.
Williander, M (2006b). On green innovation inertia: An insider research perspective on the
automotive industry. Dissertation. Gothenburg: Chalmers Reproservice.
Williander, M (2006c). Path-dependent thinking and eco-products. In Managing the Busi-
ness Case for Sustainability: The Integration of Social, Environmental and Economic
Performance, S Schaltegger and M Wagner (eds.), pp. 493–515. Sheffield: Greenleaf.
Wood, DJ (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16(4), 691–718.
Zhang, Q and WJ Doll (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product development:
A causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), 95–112.