# When corporate environmentalism backfires: unpacking the double-edged effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth

Mahabubur Rahman, M Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano, Md Tareq Bin Hossain

► To cite this version:

Mahabubur Rahman, M Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano, Md Tareq Bin Hossain. When corporate environmentalism backfires: unpacking the double-edged effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth. Journal of Business Research, 2025, 201, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115670. hal-05280178

HAL Id: hal-05280178

https://hal.science/hal-05280178v1

Submitted on 24 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# When corporate environmentalism backfires: unpacking the double-edged effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth

Mahabubur Rahman<sup>a, *, &</sup>, M. Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano<sup>b</sup>, Md. Tareq Bin Hossain<sup>c</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Environmental product innovation

Firm growth

Marketing intensity

Deviant corporate practices

Sustainability disclosure

## ABSTRACT

While prior studies broadly explored the consequences of environmental innovation, the implications of environmental product innovation for firm performance have received relatively scant research attention. Past studies theorizing that environmental product innovation has a linear effect on firm performance have reported mixed results, indicating that the association between the two is far more complex than conceptualized by earlier research. Drawing on the natural resource-based view of the firm and the resource dependence theory, this study theorizes that the impact of environmental product innovation on firm growth follows a curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) pattern. It is also posited that this curvilinear relationship is moderated by marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy and a firm's propensity to engage in deviant corporate practices. Using a sample of U.S.-based firms and employing an endogeneity-robust econometric modelling technique, this study demonstrates that the effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth is initially positive but subsequently becomes negative. Further, this research shows that this curvilinear relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's sustainability disclosure strategy (the curve flattens), marketing intensity (the curve flattens) and by a firm's level of engagement in deviant corporate practices (the curve steepens). The results are robust to additional sensitivity analyses.

## 1. Introduction

Firms in all industries strategize and execute a spectrum of value creation activities to heighten contemporaneous performance and foster long-term growth (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003). One salient value creation activity in which firms are increasingly investing significant resources is environmental product innovation (Khan et al., 2021) which is defined as the propensity of firms to marshal and allocate resources to innovate and introduce products and services with minimum or no adverse impact on the biophysical environment. For instance, Levi's has innovated and introduced a number of "water<less" products that have far less adverse impact on the natural environment. Firms marshal different types of resources (e.g., financial resources, natural resources) from various external sources and deploy them to execute value creation processes (i.e., environmental product innovation) (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). These resources emanate from two broad external sources: natural sources and non-natural sources (e.g., stock and bond markets) (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Hart, 1995). In essence, firms rely on

entities that control resources to execute the strategies they use to enhance their performance and growth potential (Davis & Cobb, 2010; Rahman, 2023).

Considering firms' ever-increasing engagement as well as investment of significant resources in environmental product innovation, scholars from diverse disciplines have started investigating this crucial topic (Khan et al., 2021). Previous studies on this topic can be classified into two broad strands: examinations of the antecedents of environmental product innovation and investigations of its consequences (Dangelico, 2016; Khan et al., 2021). Notably, the former outnumbers the latter, the strand to which the current study contributes. It is noteworthy that extant research on the performance outcomes of environmental product innovation has yielded mixed findings. Some studies have documented that environmental product innovation positively impacts firm financial performance, while others have reported the reverse, leaving the actual effect of environmental product innovation on firm performance unresolved (Dangelico, 2016; Khan et al., 2021; Van Doorn et al., 2021). Recent review articles (e.g., Khan et al., 2021; Dangelico, 2016) on this

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Rennes School of Business, 2 Rue Robert d'Arbrissel, 35065 Rennes, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Department of Business Management and Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Seville, Spain</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Phra Nakhon, Bangkok 10200, Thailand</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: mahabubur.rahman@rennes-sb.com (M. Rahman), mariangeles@us.es (M.Á. Rodríguez-Serrano), hossain@tbs.tu.ac.th (Md.T.B. Hossain).</footnote>
topic concluded that further studies are warranted to disentangle the mixed results of prior studies. Additionally, existing research has primarily investigated the *linear* effects of environmental product innovation on firm financial performance; however, their mixed findings suggest a more complex relationship may exist between the focal variables. Furthermore, previous studies have overlooked theoretically pertinent boundary conditions. However, it is important to incorporate other firm-specific strategies when examining the effect of value creation strategies (Han et al., 2017; Mizik & Jacobson, 2003). In essence, further research is warranted to uncover the true impact of environmental product innovation on firm performance.

Departing from prior research, this study puts forth a curvilinear model that incorporates a set of internal boundary conditions. Building on the natural resource-based theory and resource dependence theory, the current study develops a conceptual model positing an inverted-U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth. Specifically, this research theorizes that the impact of environmental product innovation on firm growth is initially positive but turns negative after an inflection point. Furthermore, this study identifies and incorporates three theoretically linked firm-specific internal boundary conditions: marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy, and deviant corporate practices. The proposed conceptual model was tested using a sample of 2,210 U.S.-based firms representing 344 industries over a period of nearly two decades (2002–2020) and an endogeneity-robust instrumental variable modelling technique. The results confirm that there is an inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth that is moderated by marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy and deviant corporate practices. The results are robust to additional sensitivity analyses.

Our results generate granular insights and make significant contributions to the literature. Unlike previous studies that examined the linear effect of environmental product innovation on performance, the current study demonstrates that the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern: environmental product innovation has a positive effect on firm growth up to an inflection point and then becomes negative. We also explored the impact of theoretically linked internal boundary conditions on the curvilinear effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth, such as marketing intensity and sustainability disclosure strategy, which were overlooked by prior studies. Proactive strategies to invest in marketing activities and disseminate sustainability-related information to various stakeholders help firms to reap more rewards from environmental product innovation. Also, our findings confirm that a firm's propensity to engage in deviant corporate practices counteracts the positive effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth. Specifically, the positive impact of environmental product innovation on firm growth becomes negative more quickly if a firm engages in controversial corporate practices in other operational areas.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we outline the motivation for the current research in light of findings from prior studies. The second section explains the theoretical background and develops a set of hypotheses. The third section describes the methodology employed in this study. The fourth section presents the findings of the research. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for theory and practice, the limitations of the study, and suggest potential directions for future research.

## 2. Research motivation

Considering the increasing investment of firms’ resources in innovation of environmentally friendly products and services, scholars from diverse disciplines have started investigating this topic from various perspectives. Scholars, however, have used different terminologies, such as environmental product innovation, green product innovation, eco-product innovation (Adomako et al., 2023; Ioannou et al., 2023; Khan

et al., 2021). Studies examining the consequences of innovation of environmental products have reported mixed findings. Although some studies report a positive impact of environmental product innovation on firm performance, others have documented the opposite effect. For instance, Rahman (2023) has demonstrated that innovation of green products impacts a firm’s financial constraints, subsequently affecting firm performance. Also, corporate brand equity moderates the nexus between green product innovation and financial constraints. He also reported that green product innovation serves as both a driver and outcome of firm performance. Wang et al. (2021) have shown that green product innovation indirectly impacts economic performance. They also showed that green process innovation heightens green product innovation. Furthermore, they reported that green product innovation enhances a firm’s market competitiveness. Zhang et al. (2021) reported that the association between green product innovation and financial performance is mediated by environmental and social performance. They also demonstrated that green product innovation has a positive influence on both social and environmental performance.

Conversely, Haddoud et al. (2021) documented that a firm’s strategic commitment to environmental initiatives enhances process innovation but not product innovation. Also, product innovation does not lead to improvement in performance, as measured by export intensity. Yao et al. (2019) showed that both eco-product and eco-process innovation have a negative impact on firm value. García-Sánchez et al. (2020) investigated the impact of environmental innovation in processes and products on a firm’s profitability and market value and reported mixed results. They demonstrated that while environmental innovations do not engender higher returns, such innovations are valued by the stock market. In a recently published comprehensive review article, Khan et al. (2021) concluded that the performance implications of green product innovation are inconclusive. In essence, while some prior studies on the effect of green product innovation reported a positive impact on firm performance, others found the opposite. Consequently, the true effect of environmental product innovation on corporate outcomes remains unresolved, warranting further rigorous empirical investigation.

## 3. Theory and hypotheses

Drawing on the natural-resource-based view (Hart, 1995) and resource dependence theory (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005), we argue that firms initially benefit from environmental product innovation, but this innovation’s positive impact on firm growth continues only up to an inflection point before becoming negative. Particularly, we theorize that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth, the direction of which changes depending on how a firm uses three theoretically interlinked strategies: marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy, and deviant corporate practices.

### 3.1. *Environmental product innovation and firm growth*

Firms rely on the natural environment for resources such as water (Hart, 1995; Wood et al., 2020); however, 60 percent of the planet's natural environment has been degraded in the last few decades (Mariadoss et al., 2011). This seemingly perpetual environmental degradation is prompting governments and intergovernmental bodies to act to protect the planet, presenting both challenges and opportunities for commercial entities (Hart, 1995). Companies across industries are increasingly adopting corporate environmentalism to address the rising concern for the natural environment expressed by various stakeholder groups, including customers, suppliers, and lenders. For instance, U.S.-based automobile company Ford Motors works only with ISO 14001 (environmental management system) certified suppliers (Darnall, 2006). Firms are increasingly adopting such pro-environmental corporate practices, including environmental innovation (Rahman et al., 2020). Implementation of such a pro-environmental agenda, as well as
other firm strategies, requires the acquisition of non-natural resources (e.g., financial resources) that are owned and controlled by external institutions (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). For example, firms depend on banks and stock markets for financial resources. In essence, a firm's contemporaneous performance and long-term growth depend on its capability to gather the natural and non-natural resources it needs in an efficient and cost-effective manner (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005).

Degradation of the natural environment, such as water scarcity and depletion of fossil fuels, has created numerous challenges for firms (Hart & Dowell, 2011), but it is equally true that such changes have also created opportunities (Hart & Dowell, 2011; Hart, 1995). Proactive firms capitalize on these opportunities through various eco-friendly initiatives, such as environmental product innovation, to gain environmental legitimacy among diverse stakeholder groups, which, in turn, facilitates firm growth (Drees & Heugens, 2013; Hart, 1995). We posit that the positive effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth linearly increases up to an optimal level. There are several underlying mechanisms driving this linear effect. The emergence of eco-conscious consumers, for instance, has created novel market opportunities to bolster firm growth. Environmental product innovation aimed at eco-conscious customers enables firms to enhance their growth potential by targeting the burgeoning green market segment. Environmental product innovation also helps firms differentiate their market offerings, which in turn helps them gain an edge over their competitors (Paparoidamis et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020). Firms that offer environmental products can also work with suppliers on relatively more favorable business terms, because suppliers also increasingly prefer doing business with environmentally responsible firms (Lewis et al., 2015). Investment in environmental product innovation also enables the focal firm to attain autonomy over the external financial resources controlling entities. Financial entities such as banks are favorable to firms that adopt and incorporate pro-environmental policies (El Ghoul et al., 2011). In fact, pro-environmental firms are able to acquire financial resources (e.g., debt) at comparatively lower costs, which positively affects firm growth (Du et al., 2017). Also, environmental product innovation makes it possible for such firms to acquire additional financial resources from the emerging green bond market (Tolliver et al., 2020). Furthermore, governments are also providing firms with various financial and non-financial incentives for environmentally friendly initiatives, which further contribute to firms' long-term growth. In essence, the capacity to acquire necessary resources helps firms with environmental product innovation initiatives to invest in gainful investment projects, which positively affects their long-term growth potential (El Ghoul et al., 2018; Du et al., 2017). Consequently, we propose that environmental product innovation positively affects firm growth, and its impact increases linearly.

We, however, also posit that environmental product innovation's linearly positive effect on firm growth lasts up to an inflection point, after which it becomes negative. More specifically, we predict that additional investment in environmental product innovation above and beyond the optimal level significantly increases cost, resulting in a convex cost curve. That is, marginal cost outstrips the marginal benefit. Hence, we postulate that there is an inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth. This is anticipated for a few reasons. The inverted U-shaped pattern of environmental product innovation's impact on firm growth can be explained by the product-market-based response—in other words, the customer perspective. While it is true that customers are increasingly becoming eco-conscious, the market size for eco-friendly products is still relatively small compared to that for non-green products (Sana, 2020), meaning that eco-friendly products still provide only limited growth opportunities for firms. Consequently, additional investment of resources in innovation of environmental products beyond an optimum level does not engender the additional expected benefit (e.g., cash flow) owing to limited market expansion opportunities. Furthermore, the price of eco-friendly products is also usually higher than that of conventional

products (Sana, 2020), and many eco-conscious customers are still very price-conscious which renders market penetration strategies less effective (D'Souza et al., 2007), stifling the additional growth opportunities for firms investing in environmental product innovation (Leyva-De la Hiz & Bolívar-Ramos, 2022; Sun et al., 2019). Also, while environmental product innovation enables the focal firm to attain autonomy over the external financial resource controlling entities to an extent, the autonomy acquired through environmental product innovation follows a diminishing pattern. The diminishing pattern of autonomy of the focal firm is driven by increasing marginal cost, and banks and other external financial stakeholders tend to be less inclined to lend to firms that invest excessively in projects with diminishing marginal returns (Hillman et al., 2009; Sun et al., 2019). That is, when firms invest in environmental product innovation beyond the optimum level, acquisition of financial resources at a favorable rate becomes difficult for the focal firm due to loss of bargaining power (lower level of autonomy) over the resource-providing entities.

In view of the foregoing, we predict an inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth and hypothesize the following:

H1: *The relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern that is initially positive (i.e., environmental product innovation increases growth) until it reaches an inflection point and becomes negative (i.e., environmental product innovation decreases growth).*

## 3.2. Environmental product innovation and firm growth: the role of marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy, and deviant corporate practices

Scholars concur that the nexus between a firm's value creating strategies and future growth potential is accentuated or attenuated by a firm's strategies in other operational business areas (Feng et al., 2017). That is, the nexus between a firm's strategy pertaining to a specific operational area (e.g., environmental innovation management) and its growth potential is either strengthened or weakened by its strategies in other operational spheres (i.e., internal boundary conditions). We investigated the role of marketing intensity and sustainability disclosure strategy because these two firm-specific strategies assist firms in capturing value from the marketplace. That is, both marketing intensity and sustainability disclosure enable firms to disseminate germane information to business-critical stakeholders, thus helping them reap greater rewards from their value-creating strategies, such as environmental product innovation. From the perspective of the resource dependence theory, these two value-capturing strategies are predicted to assist the focal firm in enhancing the level of autonomy over the external resource controlling entities. Furthermore, the role of deviant corporate practices is also investigated because firms might engage in value-creating activities (such as environmental product innovation) as well as value-destroying activities concurrently, and engagement in value-destroying activities lessens the focal firm's autonomy in the resource market and the legitimacy in the product market.

Below, we delineate how the nature and magnitude of the inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth depend on a firm's marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure, and deviant corporate practices. We argue that marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure strategy, and deviant corporate practices moderate both of the latent mechanisms: the linear benefit function and the curvilinearity of the convex cost curve, which in turn affect the U-shaped nexus between environmental product innovation and firm growth. Specifically, we postulate that a firm's level of marketing intensity and sustainability disclosure strategy affect the curvilinear relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth in such a way that it flattens the curve. Furthermore, we posit that deviant corporate practices steepen the curve.
### 3.3. Environmental product innovation and firm growth: the role of marketing intensity

Firms use complementary strategies simultaneously to reap the benefits of their synergistic interactions (Feng et al., 2017). Strategizing and executing multiple complementary strategies concurrently maximizes strategic outcomes. Scholars contend that when firms deploy value creation strategies together with value capturing strategies, they reap greater rewards (Garcia-Castro & Aguilera, 2015; Jacobides et al., 2006). Accordingly, we posit that marketing intensity plays a moderating role in the association between environmental product innovation and firm growth: While environmental product innovation enables firms to create value, marketing intensity assists firms in capturing greater value from these innovations in the form of sustaining their growth trajectory. Specifically, we propound that the moderating effect of marketing intensity is such that it flattens the curve.

Marketing intensity is defined as a firm's commitment to allocating resources to strategize and execute marketing activities aimed at capturing value from the marketplace by molding a favorable image towards the firm's products and services among diverse stakeholders' groups (Palomino-Tamayo et al., 2020). The greater a firm's marketing intensity, the more resources it invests in marketing activities relative to its overall resource base (Markovitch et al., 2020). A higher level of marketing intensity is predicted to affect the curvilinearity between environmental product innovation and firms' growth in such a manner that it will flatten the curve. First, increasing a firm's marketing intensity is expected to reduce its customers' *search cost* for eco-friendly products, thereby attracting new customers and positively affecting the firm's growth (Biswas, 2004; Palomino-Tamayo et al., 2020). Greater marketing intensity enables firms to further raise customers' awareness about the environmental and other associated benefits of eco-friendly products, which is predicted to positively affect customers' intention to purchase eco-friendly products, thereby positively impacting firms' revenue streams (Rahman et al., 2020). Second, greater marketing intensity enables firms to build positive brand associations for eco-friendly products, enhancing their overall brand image (Chen, 2010; Markovitch et al., 2020). Eco-friendly products with strong brand images enable firms to benefit more from environmental product innovation because customers consider both such products' attributes and their associated brands when making purchase decisions (Chen, 2010; Schuitema & De Groot, 2015). In essence, higher marketing intensity assists firms in building and sustaining differentiated images for associated eco-friendly products. Third, investing in marketing activities enhances a firm's brand visibility in the marketplace. Increased brand visibility heightens the focal firm's autonomy over external resource-controlling entities, which in turn facilitates acquisition of resources for investment in environmental product innovation at a relatively lower cost. Also, investors prefer working with firms with higher marketplace visibility because there is less information asymmetry between resource-seeking firms with greater visibility and the resource-providing entities (Joseph & Wintoki, 2013). Consequently, a lower level of information asymmetry enables the focal firm to acquire resources at a relatively lower cost. In essence, the focal firm can access the financial resources it needs at a lower cost, enabling it to invest in projects that accelerate its growth (Singh et al., 2005). Also, previous studies have shown that lenders and investors prefer to invest in environmentally responsible (eco-friendly) firms, which helps resource-seeking firms acquire and maintain autonomy over resource-controlling entities (Casciaro & Pis-korski, 2005; El Ghoul et al., 2018). Accordingly, the combined effect of investors' preference for firms with higher visibility and a pro-environmental agenda is expected to have a synergistic effect on the inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth. Consequently, it is hypothesized that:

**H2:** *The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's*

marketing intensity, such that the curve flattens when a firm has higher marketing intensity.

### 3.4. Environmental product innovation and firm growth: the role of sustainability disclosure strategy

Firms engaged in environmental product innovation are expected to act and behave as responsible corporate citizens in other operational areas (Du et al., 2017). Alongside their environmental product innovation activities, these firms usually also engage in various other sustainability-oriented initiatives, such as emission reduction (Cheng et al., 2014; Friske et al., 2022). We contend that the effect of a firm's strategy for proactively disseminating information pertaining to various sustainability-related initiatives flattens the curve.

Sustainability disclosure is defined as a firm's strategy to actively publicize its sustainability-related activities to its various business-critical stakeholders with a view to gaining and sustaining legitimacy as well as autonomy (Friske et al., 2022; Du et al., 2017). For instance, firms share information concerning initiatives to fight poverty, combat climate change, and reduce inequality through a number of online and offline media, including company webpages and annual reports (Friske et al., 2022; Siew, 2015). Sustainability disclosure strategies assist firms in benefiting more from their environmental product innovation by prolonging the positive effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth. Disseminating sustainability information reduces the information asymmetry between a firm and its external financial resource-controlling stakeholders, such as investors and lenders (Du et al., 2017; Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2016). Reducing information asymmetry makes a firm more attractive to financial stakeholders to do business with, thereby strengthening the firm's bargaining power and autonomy over resource-controlling entities (Hillman et al., 2009; Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2016). This increased bargaining power helps a firm acquire financial resources at relatively lower costs, thus enabling it to invest in gainful projects such as environmental product innovation, which consequently facilitates firm growth (Cheng et al., 2014; Tang, 2009).

Sustainability disclosure also signals to a firm's non-financial stakeholders (i.e., customers) that it is committed to sustainability, thus strengthening its organizational legitimacy (de Villiers et al., 2014). The legitimacy earned through sustainability disclosure helps firms further strengthen the competitive advantage they gain through environmental product innovation. In essence, the positive synergistic effect of sustainability disclosure and environmental product innovation on a firm's competitive advantage enables it to benefit more than the individual effects of these two complementary strategies. Furthermore, firms use their sustainability disclosure reports as "marketing communication tools" (Friske et al., 2022) to positively affect customers' perceptions of not only the firm's eco-friendly products but also its other sustainability initiatives (Sarkar & Bhattacharjee, 2017). This increased knowledge positively affects customers' purchase intention and loyalty, further strengthening the continuity of the firm's growth trajectory (Frank et al., 2014). In view of the foregoing, we hypothesize the following:

**H3:** *The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's sustainability disclosure strategy, such that the curve flattens when a firm has greater sustainability disclosure.*

### 3.5. Environmental product innovation and firm growth: The role of deviant corporate practices

Firms with a proactive environmental agenda may also engage in ethical transgressions (Nirino et al., 2021; Windsor, 2013). Specifically, a firm with an environmental product innovation agenda can still engage in deviant corporate practices in other areas of its business
<table><caption>**Table 1**
Hypotheses of the study.</caption><thead><tr><td>No.</td><td>Hypotheses</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>H<sub>1</sub></td><td>The relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern that is initially positive (i.e., environmental product innovation increases growth) until it reaches an inflection point and becomes negative (i.e., environmental product innovation decreases growth).</td><td>Hart, 1995; Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Rahman et al., 2020; Hart & Dowell, 2011; D'Souza et al., 2007; Drees & Heugens, 2013</td></tr><tr><td>H<sub>2</sub></td><td>The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's marketing intensity, such that the curve flattens when a firm has higher marketing intensity.</td><td>Feng et al., 2017; Garcia-Castro & Aguilera, 2015; Jacobides et al., 2006; Palomino-Tamayo et al., 2020; Schuitema & De Groot, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>H<sub>3</sub></td><td>The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's sustainability disclosure strategy, such that the curve flattens when a firm has greater sustainability disclosure.</td><td>Du et al., 2017; Friske et al., 2022; Cheng et al., 2014; Siew, 2015; Martínez-Ferrero et al., 2016; Sarkar & Bhattacharjee, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>H<sub>4</sub></td><td>The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's deviant corporate practices, such that the curve steepens when a firm engages in deviant corporate practices.</td><td>Nirino et al., 2021; Windsor, 2013; Aouadi & Marsat, 2018; Antonetti & Maklan, 2016a; Antonetti & Maklan, 2016b; Davies & Cifuentes, 2016</td></tr></tbody></table>

operations (Stäbler & Fischer, 2020; Valor et al., 2022). Deviant corporate practices are defined as a firm's propensity to engage in immoral and unethical corporate practices, such as financial manipulation and exploitation of cheap labor (Aouadi & Marsat, 2018; Nirino et al., 2021). Firms might engage in deviant practices in an array of operational spheres such as financial management (e.g., earnings management), production (e.g., labour exploitation), marketing (deceptive advertising). For instance, British Petroleum (BP) recently withdrew a misleading advertising campaign after it was accused of greenwashing by the popular media. Deviant, value-destroying corporate practices are rampant across industries, often motivated by short-termism and opportunism. We propose that a firm's deviant corporate practices moderate the inverted U-shaped pattern of the association between environmental product innovation and firm growth in such a manner that the curve steepens.

Whilst environmentally responsible business practices such as environmental product innovation improve firms' organizational legitimacy, deviant corporate practices have a countervailing effect and engender moral outrage among a firm's stakeholders (Antonetti & Maklan, 2016a). Such moral outrage may even precipitate the firm's stakeholders to undertake various actions against it (Antonetti & Maklan, 2016b; Valor et al., 2022). For instance, customers may boycott the firm and spread negative word of mouth (Antonetti & Maklan, 2016b, 2018). These

detrimental actions on the part of stakeholders negatively affect the firm's market-based assets, such as brand loyalty and its overall corporate reputation (Lin et al., 2016). The degradation of value-creating market-based assets negatively affects a firm's capacity to capture value, which in turn impacts corporate outcomes such as cash flow, growth (Nirino et al., 2021).

Furthermore, loss of marketplace reputation undermines a firm's corporate credibility among its various financial (i.e., lenders) and non-financial (i.e., suppliers) resource-providing stakeholders which in turn negatively affects the local firm's autonomy (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Davies & Cifuentes, 2016). The resulting power imbalance, due to loss of autonomy, between the focal firm and external agents in the resource market makes it more difficult for the firm to acquire the resources it needs at a favorable rate to sustain its growth (Drees & Heugens, 2013; Hillman et al., 2009). Resource constraint thus stifles firm growth. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

H<sub>4</sub>: The inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth is moderated by a firm's deviant corporate practices, such that the curve steepens when a firm engages in deviant corporate practices.

The hypotheses of the present study are summarized in Table 1.

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Operationalizations of the key variables.</caption><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Operationalizations</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Firm growth</td><td>The data used to compute firm growth were collected from Compustat which is a comprehensive corporate financial database published by Standard and Poor's. Numerous studies have used firm growth as a measure of corporate outcome (Feng et al., 2017; Hsieh et al., 2018; Jacobs et al., 2011). For this research, we measured firm growth as the yearly growth of each firm's total assets which includes current assets plus net property, plant, and equipment plus other noncurrent assets (including intangible assets, deferred items, and investments and advances. We calculated the yearly growth rate in total assets as a measure of firm growth. An alternative measure of firm growth was used to check robustness (see the robustness check section below for details).</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation</td><td>Environmental product innovation data were collected from the Refinitiv database, which is a widely used comprehensive database for firm-level environmental(E)-, social(S)-, and governance(G)-related data published by Thomson Reuters. Recent studies have used this source as a reliable data source (Hernandez-Vivanco & Bernardo, 2022; Rahman, 2023). As the sample firms of the current study market a range of products and services, the product mix of each firm was examined, appraised and rated based on the impact of the existing products and services on the natural environment. Specifically, each firm was analyzed and rated on an annual basis based on the positive impact of its products and services on the natural environment. The value of the variable ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher value denoting a greater positive environmental impact of its products and services.</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing intensity</td><td>Marketing intensity was measured as the yearly expenditure for selling, general, and administrative expenditure divided by yearly sales revenue (Markovitch et al., 2020; Palomino-Tamayo et al., 2020). Data for this variable were collected from Compustat.</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability disclosure</td><td>Data for this variable were collected from the Refinitiv database. Firms differ in terms of their propensity to share their activities pertaining to sustainability (environmental and social impact of its operations) through various media such as company webpage, annual report. Firms were analyzed and rated on a yearly basis based on their inclination to disseminate and share their sustainability-related information to various internal and external stakeholders. The value for this variable ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher value signifying a greater propensity to share sustainability-related information with the firm's various internal and external stakeholders.</td></tr><tr><td>Deviant corporate practices</td><td>Data for this variable were collected from the Refinitiv database, which has been used by similar earlier studies (Aouadi & Marsat, 2018). The measure for deviant corporate practices employed in this study encompasses three broad areas (total 10 sub-areas): environment related deviant corporate practices (natural resource use, innovation and emission), governance related deviant corporate practices (workforce, human rights, product responsibility and community) and societal deviant corporate practices (management, CSR and shareholders). Firms were rated on an annual basis based on their propensity to engage in controversial environmental, societal, and governance-related corporate practices. Each firm was rated between 0 and 100, with a higher value denoting a greater propensity to engage in controversial business practices (reverse-coded).</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Operationalizations of control variables and data sources.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Measurement</th><th>Data source</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Leverage</td><td>Long term debt divided by market value of equity</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>R&D intensity</td><td>Research and development expense divided by Sales</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>Employee productivity</td><td>Sales turnover divided by number of employees</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>Firm intangibles (Tobin's Q)</td><td>Tobin's q: Market value plus preferred stock-liquidating value plus current liabilities minus current assets plus long-term debt divided by total assets.</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>Firm efficiency</td><td>Sales divided by stockholders Equity</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>Firm financial constraint</td><td>KZ Index = -1.002 CF<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> - 39.368 DIV<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> - 1.315 C<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> + 3.139 LEV<sub>it</sub> + 0.283 Q<sub>it</sub> where CF<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> is cash flow over lagged assets, DIV<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> is cash dividends over lagged assets, C<sub>it</sub>/A<sub>it-1</sub> is cash balances over assets, LEV<sub>it</sub> is leverage, and Q<sub>it</sub> is the market value of equity (price times shares outstanding plus assets minus the book value of equity over assets).</td><td>Compustat</td></tr><tr><td>Audit committee independence</td><td>Value ranges from 0 to 100</td><td>Refinitiv</td></tr><tr><td>Board size</td><td>Total number of board members</td><td>Refinitiv</td></tr></tbody></table>

# 4. Research design

## 4.1. Data source, sample, and dataset construction

We collected data from reliable archival sources that have been used extensively in previous studies. Using archival data has two salient advantages: The data do not suffer from common method bias and managerial bias (Bhandari et al., 2022). Data pertaining to environmental product innovation, sustainability disclosure strategy, and deviant corporate practices were collected from Thomson Reuters's Refinitiv database. The Refinitiv database reports sustainability-related data, including environmental, social, and governance metrics, across multiple time periods. Specifically, the Refinitiv database provides reliable and objective assessments of a firm's ESG-related performance. The data spans environmental factors (e.g., environmental innovation, emissions), social aspects (e.g., human rights), and governance (e.g., corporate board). Numerous prior studies have used sustainability-related data from Refinitiv as a valid and reliable source (Lee & Raschke, 2023; Rahman, 2023). Data for firm growth, marketing intensity, and control variables were collected from Compustat. Compustat is a financial database provided by S&P Global that offers standardized financial statement data and has been extensively used in prior research (Price & Sun, 2017; Rahman, 2023). The sample period for this study was from 2002 to 2020. The empirical setting of this study was U.S.-based companies. For the purposes of this research, we consciously decided to evaluate firms located in a single country, the United States, because various country-level (e.g., environmental regulation) and consumer-level (e.g., attitudes towards eco-products) confounding factors would impact the association between the focal variables. In the first step, we collected data for the key independent variable, environmental product innovation. Initially, all U.S.-based firms available in the Refinitiv database were included. However, firms for which data were missing or for which there was only data from one or two years were removed from the sample. In the second step, data

for the moderating variables sustainability disclosure and deviant corporate practices, as well as some firm-level control variables, were collected from the Refinitiv database. In the third step, data for the moderating variable marketing intensity, some firm-level control variables were collected from Compustat. In the fourth step, the data collected from the two sources were merged to create the final dataset for this research. Data for some firms for some years were missing, so the panel dataset was unbalanced. The maximum number of observations was 18,035, involving 2,210 firms across 344 industries (four-digit SIC). The total number of observations for each variable is reported in Table 5.

## 4.2. Operationalization of the variables

Table 2 reports the operationalizations of the key variables of theoretical interest.

### 4.2.1. Control variables

For this study, we used a set of pertinent firm level control variables, guided by theory and earlier research (see Table 3 for details). Previous studies have demonstrated that various firm-level factors affect firm growth: for instance, a firm's size (Andries & Faems, 2013), leverage (S. Singh et al., 2018), R&D intensity (Rahman, Rodríguez-Serrano, & Hughes, 2021), employee productivity (Shan et al., 2017), intangibles, efficiency, and financial constraint (Zhang, 2020) affect its performance. Consequently, we used these variables to control for their effects. Furthermore, in keeping with previous studies that showed the performance implications of governance-related variables, we controlled for the effect of the level of the audit committee's independence (Al-Okaily & Naueihed, 2019) and board size (Singh et al., 2018). In addition, this study included year and industry dummies to control for their effect.

## 4.3. Model specification

$$ \begin{aligned} \text{FirmGrowth}_{it} = & \beta + \alpha_0 \text{FirmGrowth}_{it-1} + \alpha_1 \text{Environmentalproductinnovation}_{it} + \alpha_2 \text{Environmentalproductinnovationsquared}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_3 \text{Environmentalproductinnovation} * \text{Marketingintensity}_{it} + \alpha_4 \text{Environmentalproductinnovationsquared} * \text{Marketingintensity}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_5 \text{Environmentalproductinnovation} * \text{SustainabilityDisclosure}_{it} + \alpha_6 \text{Environmentalproductinnovationsquared} * \text{SustainabilityDisclosure}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_7 \text{Environmentalproductinnovation} * \text{Deviantcorporatepractices}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_8 \text{Environmentalproductinnovationsquared} * \text{Deviantcorporatepractices}_{it} + \alpha_9 \text{Marketingintensity}_{it} + \alpha_{10} \text{SustainabilityDisclosure}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_{11} \text{Deviantcorporatepractices}_{it} + \alpha_{12} \text{R\&Dintensity}_{it} + \alpha_{13} \text{Leverage}_{it} + \alpha_{14} \text{EmployeeProductivity}_{it} + \alpha_{15} \text{Intangibles}_{it} + \alpha_{16} \text{Fir efficiency}_{it} \\ & + \alpha_{17} \text{Financialconstraint}_{it} + \alpha_{18} \text{Auditcommitteeindependence}_{it} + \alpha_{19} \text{Boardsize}_{it} + \eta_i + \varepsilon_{it} \end{aligned} $$
<table><caption>**Table 4**
Diagnostic tests.</caption><thead><tr><th>Diagnostic test</th><th>Results</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Autoregressive model.</td><td>Scholars are unanimous that firm growth/performance may be persistent in that one period's growth might be influenced by that of the preceding periods (Rahman, Rodríguez-Serrano, & Hughes, 2021). The preceding period's growth should thus be incorporated on the right-hand side of the equation to control for its effect. This modelling technique is known as autoregressive modelling (Arellano & Bond, 1991). To check whether this was the case in the dataset used for the present study, we ran a regression incorporating the first lagged value of the dependent variable firm growth (first-order autoregressive model). The results show that it is significant (p &lt; 0.001), confirming that an autoregressive model should be used to avoid the model being underspecified.</td></tr><tr><td>Test for endogeneity</td><td>Using the second lag of the concerned variable as an instrumental variable, we used the Durbin-Wu-Hausman test (Ullah et al., 2018) to check for the endogeneity of the key explanatory variable of theoretical interest (environmental product innovation), as well as that of the three moderating variables. The results confirmed that environmental product innovation is exogenous (Chi² = 1.006, p = 0.316), while marketing intensity (Chi² = 1.76e + 03, p = 0.001), sustainability disclosure (Chi² = 5.179, p = 0.023), and deviant corporate practices (Chi² = 8.237, p = 0.004) are endogenous.</td></tr><tr><td>Test for time-fixed effect</td><td>We also tested whether to incorporate time-fixed effects in the model using the testparm command (Ma & Kuo, 2021). The results are significant (F = 15.82, p &lt; 0.001), confirming that the time-fixed effect should be included in the empirical model.</td></tr><tr><td>Serial correlation</td><td>Panel datasets usually have a serial correlation in the idiosyncratic error term, which biases the standard errors, and their results are less efficient in the presence of serial correlation (Drukker, 2003). Therefore, we used a Woolridge test and the xtserial module, the results of which (F = 47.333, p = 0.001) confirmed the presence of autocorrelation.</td></tr><tr><td>Test for unobserved firm-specific effects</td><td>We used the Hausman test (Chi² = 1988.4, p = 0.001) to test for unobserved fixed firm-specific effects (Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2021).</td></tr></tbody></table>

where *i* and *t* represent firm and year, respectively, and $\epsilon_{it}$ is the error term.

## 4.4. Preliminary diagnostic tests

Although panel datasets generate far more granular insights than other data structures, such as cross-sectional data, modelling them poses certain econometric challenges. Therefore, we conducted several diagnostic tests (Table 4) to understand the nature of the dataset's structure and select an appropriate econometric modelling technique to produce reliable and robust results.

## 4.5. The econometric modelling technique

We used the two-step system GMM estimation technique with Stata's xtabond2 module (Roodman, 2009) for several reasons. First, as explained above, we included the lagged value of firm growth to control for the effect of persistence (the autoregressive model). System GMM is especially suitable for estimating autoregressive models (Roodman, 2009). Second, as also mentioned previously, we used the Hausman test to confirm the use of the fixed effect model. System GMM includes firm fixed effects and accounts for unobserved heterogeneities. Third, the Woolridge test confirmed the presence of autocorrelation, and GMM is an appropriate analytical technique in such situations (Steigenberger & Wilhelm, 2018). Fourth, our Durbin-Wu-Hausman tests showed that the three moderating variables of the study are endogenous: System GMM generates reliable and robust regression coefficients in the presence of endogenous variables in the model (Roodman, 2009). Recent methodological advancements for testing inverted U-shaped pattern relationships suggested using instrumental variable regression (e.g., system GMM) in the presence of endogenous variables (Haans et al., 2016). Fifth, the lagged values of the endogenous variables can be used as internal instruments in system GMM (Marino et al., 2015; Steigenberger & Wilhelm, 2018).

## 4.6. Descriptives and correlation matrix

The descriptive statistics are reported in Table 5, as are the variance inflation factors for each variable. As documented in Table 5, the low variance inflation factor scores confirmed that multicollinearity is not an issue. To deal with the outliers, all variables were winsorized at 1% and

99%. Winsorization of the variables is recommended to avoid the possibility of a few extreme values impacting the nature of the relationship between the focal variables (Haans et al., 2016). The correlation coefficients are reported in Table 6.

## 5. Hypotheses testing results

The hypotheses testing results using the two-step system GMM are reported in Table 7. The full model (Model 5) incorporated the key independent variable, all moderating variables, and all control variables. However, before we explain the hypothesis testing results, we discuss the postestimation results relating to the model estimation technique used. As reported in Table 7, the lagged value of the dependent variable firm growth is significant in all five models, confirming that the decision to use two-step system GMM was appropriate because it is designed for autoregressive models. The econometric literature suggests that the number of instruments should be smaller than the number of firms, which is true for all models. The results of the Hansen J test are insignificant in all models, confirming that the instruments used to alleviate the effect of endogeneity bias are suitable and robust. Likewise, the results of the AR (2) test are also insignificant in all models. Finally, the Wald ($X^2$) is significant in all models.

Model 1 incorporated the linear and quadratic terms of environmental product innovation together with firm level control variables. Models 2, 3, and 4 incorporated the moderating variables of marketing intensity, sustainability disclosure, and deviant corporate practices, respectively. Model 5, the full model, incorporated the key explanatory variable, all moderating variables, and all control variables. We also included year- and industry-fixed effects in all models.

$H_1$ asserts that there is an inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth. According to recent methodological developments, establishing an inverted U-shaped relationship between two variables requires that four conditions be fulfilled (Haans et al., 2016): The linear term of the key independent variable should be positive and significant; the quadratic term of the key independent variable should be negative and significant; the slope of the curve needs to be sufficiently steep and significant at both ends of the data range; and the turning point must be located within the data range. As reported in Table 7 in all Models (model 1 to 5), the linear terms of environmental product innovation are positive and significant at 1%, fulfilling the first condition to establish an inverted U-shaped pattern for the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth.
<table><caption>**Table 5**

Descriptive statistics.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variable</th><th>Obs</th><th>Mean</th><th>Std. Dev.</th><th>Min</th><th>Max</th><th>Cent.10</th><th>Cent.50</th><th>Cent.90</th><th>VIF</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Firm growth</td><td>17,525</td><td>0.129</td><td>0.305</td><td>-0.326</td><td>1.879</td><td>-0.074</td><td>0.058</td><td>0.363</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation</td><td>18,035</td><td>18.745</td><td>32.886</td><td>0</td><td>92.562</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>80.682</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Deviant corporate practices</td><td>18,035</td><td>-89.559</td><td>24.215</td><td>-100</td><td>-5.545</td><td>-100</td><td>-100</td><td>-50</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability disclosure</td><td>18,035</td><td>23.827</td><td>38.155</td><td>0</td><td>89.639</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>86.231</td><td>1.38</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing intensity</td><td>14,538</td><td>0.187</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.913</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.134</td><td>0.439</td><td>1.39</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage</td><td>16,423</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.682</td><td>0</td><td>4.515</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.213</td><td>0.969</td><td>1.33</td></tr><tr><td>R&D intensity</td><td>17,400</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>5.234</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0.157</td><td>1.09</td></tr><tr><td>Employee productivity</td><td>17,279</td><td>793.858</td><td>1457.332</td><td>2.922</td><td>10834.780</td><td>142.131</td><td>370.294</td><td>1492.285</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td>Firm intangibles</td><td>17,543</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.594</td><td>0.019</td><td>9.324</td><td>0.220</td><td>1.106</td><td>3.329</td><td>1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Firm efficiency</td><td>17,028</td><td>2.138</td><td>4.03</td><td>-11.936</td><td>25.862</td><td>0.253</td><td>1.278</td><td>4.892</td><td>1.06</td></tr><tr><td>Financial constraint</td><td>17,536</td><td>0.478</td><td>1.146</td><td>-4.136</td><td>3.611</td><td>-0.746</td><td>0.462</td><td>1.752</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Audit committee independence</td><td>17,995</td><td>50.304</td><td>11.583</td><td>1.678</td><td>56.142</td><td>50.052</td><td>53.939</td><td>56.142</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td>Board size</td><td>18,019</td><td>9.81</td><td>2.452</td><td>5</td><td>17</td><td>7</td><td>10</td><td>13</td><td>1.21</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 6**

Pairwise correlations.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th><th>(13)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) Firm growth</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(2) Environmental product innovation</td><td>-0.089*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(3) Deviant corporate practices</td><td>-0.064*</td><td>0.146*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(4) Sustainability disclosure</td><td>-0.115*</td><td>0.454*</td><td>0.250*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(5) Marketing intensity</td><td>0.026*</td><td>-0.039*</td><td>-0.007</td><td>-0.088*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(6) Leverage</td><td>-0.090*</td><td>-0.014</td><td>0.059*</td><td>0.046*</td><td>-0.233*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(7) R&D intensity</td><td>0.135*</td><td>-0.077*</td><td>-0.053*</td><td>-0.091*</td><td>0.232*</td><td>-0.097*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(8) Employee productivity</td><td>-0.037*</td><td>-0.059*</td><td>-0.029*</td><td>0.014</td><td>-0.233*</td><td>0.131*</td><td>-0.077*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(9) Firm intangibles</td><td>0.218*</td><td>-0.031*</td><td>-0.034*</td><td>-0.061*</td><td>0.434*</td><td>-0.287*</td><td>0.207*</td><td>-0.117*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(10) Firm efficiency</td><td>-0.051*</td><td>0.072*</td><td>0.056*</td><td>0.075*</td><td>0.145*</td><td>0.033*</td><td>-0.077*</td><td>-0.013</td><td>-0.027*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(11) Financial constraint</td><td>-0.015</td><td>-0.066*</td><td>0.054*</td><td>-0.086*</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.320*</td><td>0.122*</td><td>-0.023*</td><td>0.156*</td><td>-0.033*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(12) Audit committee independence</td><td>-0.004</td><td>0.044*</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.046*</td><td>-0.030*</td><td>-0.033*</td><td>-0.001</td><td>0.022*</td><td>-0.014</td><td>-0.001</td><td>-0.037*</td><td>1.000</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(13) Board size</td><td>-0.143*</td><td>0.147*</td><td>0.232*</td><td>0.279*</td><td>-0.157*</td><td>0.048*</td><td>-0.150*</td><td>-0.083*</td><td>-0.230*</td><td>0.040*</td><td>-0.095*</td><td>0.027*</td><td>1.000</td></tr></tbody></table>

growth. The quadratic terms of environmental product innovation in Models 1 to 5 are negative and significant at 1 %, fulfilling the second condition. We plotted the inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth on the graph presented in Fig. 1. As shown in the graph, the curve is clearly an inverted U-shape. We used Stata's UTEST module to check whether the curve is steep enough at both ends; the result was statistically significant (t-value = 6.67, p < 0.001), confirming that the curve is sufficiently steep at both ends of the data range and fulfilling the third condition. Finally, we used Stata's nlcom command to compute the turning point of the inverted U-shaped association between environmental product innovation and firm growth. The results showed that the turning point is at 40.69, which is statistically significant (p < 0.001), and the 95 % confidence interval was 39.87 to 41.50. The value of environmental product innovation in the dataset of the current study ranged between 0 and 92.56. Our analysis thus shows that the turning point is well within the data range of the present study, fulfilling the fourth condition. In sum, the results confirmed that the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern, indicating an initial positive association between the two that becomes negative after reaching an inflection point.

H₂ asserted that marketing intensity moderates the curvilinear association between environmental product innovation and firm growth such that the curve flattens. Testing for flattening or steepening of the curve depends on the coefficient of the interaction term between moderating variable and the squared term of environmental product innovation. As reported in Table 7, in Models 2 and 5, the coefficients of the interaction term between marketing intensity and the squared term of environmental product innovation are positive and significant at 1 %, confirming flattening of the curve. Hence, H₂ is supported. To illustrate marketing intensity's moderating role, we plotted the association in the graph presented in Fig. 2, which demonstrates two levels of marketing intensity (low and high). The graph illustrates that the curve flattens as a firm's marketing intensity increases.

H₃ asserted that sustainability disclosure strategy would moderate the nonlinear relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth such that the curve flattens. As reported in Table 7, in Models 3 and 5, the coefficients of the interaction term between sustainability disclosure and the squared term of environmental product innovation are positive and significant at 1 %, which confirms that sustainability disclosure flattens the curve. Hence, H₃ is supported. To illustrate the moderating role of sustainability disclosure, we plotted the

<footnote>*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 7**
Results of two-step system GMM regression.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(Model 1)<br>Firm Growth</th><th>(Model 2)<br>Firm Growth</th><th>(Model 3)<br>Firm Growth</th><th>(Model 4)<br>Firm Growth</th><th>(Model 5)<br>Firm Growth</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Firm growth (Lag)</td><td>-0.0463***<br>(0.0108)</td><td>0.0117***<br>(0.00327)</td><td>-0.0406***<br>(0.00349)</td><td>-0.0175***<br>(0.00138)</td><td>0.0671***<br>(0.00658)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hypotheses-1</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation</td><td>0.00806***<br>(0.00121)</td><td>0.00484***<br>(0.000420)</td><td>0.00728***<br>(0.000883)</td><td>0.00374***<br>(0.000165)</td><td>0.00726***<br>(0.000876)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation Squared</td><td>-9.91e-05***<br>(1.48e-05)</td><td>-6.65e-05***<br>(5.15e-06)</td><td>-9.17e-05***<br>(1.12e-05)</td><td>-3.42e-05***<br>(2.11e-06)</td><td>-9.06e-05***<br>(1.06e-05)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hypotheses-2</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation Squared × Marketing intensity</td><td></td><td>0.000212***<br>(2.22e-05)</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.000195***<br>(3.02e-05)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hypotheses-3</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation Squared × Sustainability disclosure</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.01e-06***<br>(1.39e-07)</td><td></td><td>4.70e-07***<br>(7.86e-08)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hypotheses-4</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation Squared × Deviant corporate practices</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-2.37e-07***<br>(2.43e-08)</td><td>-2.79e-07***<br>(7.38e-08)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Marketing intensity</td><td>-0.0150***<br>(0.00182)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.0162***<br>(0.00254)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Sustainability disclosure</td><td></td><td></td><td>-8.00e-05***<br>(1.11e-05)</td><td></td><td>-3.60e-05***<br>(6.57e-06)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Deviant corporate practices</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>3.17e-05***<br>(1.91e-06)</td><td>2.27e-05***<br>(6.20e-06)</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage</td><td>-0.0515***<br>(0.00715)</td><td>-0.0433***<br>(0.00236)</td><td>-0.0250***<br>(0.00291)</td><td>-0.00947***<br>(0.000843)</td><td>-0.0248***<br>(0.00283)</td></tr><tr><td>R&D intensity</td><td>-0.000703<br>(0.00789)</td><td>0.0527***<br>(0.00193)</td><td>-0.00608***<br>(0.00213)</td><td>-0.00381**<br>(0.00192)</td><td>0.162***<br>(0.00587)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee productivity</td><td>-1.43e-06<br>(6.43e-06)</td><td>9.02e-06***<br>(1.86e-06)</td><td>7.96e-06***<br>(2.39e-06)</td><td>2.00e-05***<br>(7.41e-07)</td><td>2.79e-05***<br>(3.83e-06)</td></tr><tr><td>Tobin's Q (intangibles)</td><td>0.0583***<br>(0.00355)</td><td>0.0585***<br>(0.000873)</td><td>0.0612***<br>(0.000832)</td><td>0.0386***<br>(0.000453)</td><td>0.0287***<br>(0.00164)</td></tr><tr><td>Firm efficiency</td><td>0.000343<br>(0.000868)</td><td>3.59e-05<br>(0.000199)</td><td>-0.00104***<br>(0.000305)</td><td>0.00220***<br>(6.11e-05)</td><td>0.00299***<br>(0.000313)</td></tr><tr><td>Financial constraint</td><td>-0.00303<br>(0.00557)</td><td>-0.0136***<br>(0.00144)</td><td>-0.0225***<br>(0.00220)</td><td>-0.0183***<br>(0.000622)</td><td>0.00509**<br>(0.00219)</td></tr><tr><td>Audit committee independence</td><td>0.00151<br>(0.000970)</td><td>-0.000567**<br>(0.000259)</td><td>0.00129***<br>(0.000266)</td><td>-0.000528***<br>(9.37e-05)</td><td>-0.000814***<br>(0.000271)</td></tr><tr><td>Board size</td><td>-0.0292***<br>(0.00256)</td><td>-0.0387***<br>(0.000865)</td><td>-0.0286***<br>(0.00108)</td><td>-0.0277***<br>(0.000405)</td><td>-0.00843***<br>(0.000693)</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing intensity</td><td></td><td>-0.413***<br>(0.0182)</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.169***<br>(0.0239)</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability disclosure</td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.000236***<br>(4.87e-05)</td><td></td><td>-0.000775***<br>(4.42e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Deviant corporate practices</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>-0.00128***<br>(2.01e-05)</td><td>-1.46e-05<br>(4.99e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Year fixed effects</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Industry fixed effects</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>-24.81<br>(125.4)</td><td>10.02<br>(29.56)</td><td>-71.25<br>(53.87)</td><td>0.0729<br>(0.226)</td><td>1.724<br>(1.094)</td></tr><tr><td>AR (2) p value</td><td>0.118</td><td>0.730</td><td>0.130</td><td>0.378</td><td>0.135</td></tr><tr><td>Hansen J test p value</td><td>0.555</td><td>0.871</td><td>0.134</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.983</td></tr><tr><td>Number of instruments</td><td>700</td><td>996</td><td>982</td><td>1320</td><td>1044</td></tr><tr><td>Wald (X<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>32383.43***</td><td>1.20e+07***</td><td>220227.41***</td><td>2.18e+08***</td><td>1.66e+06***</td></tr><tr><td>No. Observations</td><td>13,450</td><td>11,692</td><td>13,450</td><td>13,450</td><td>11,692</td></tr><tr><td>Number of firms</td><td>2,210</td><td>1,878</td><td>2,210</td><td>2,210</td><td>1,878</td></tr></tbody></table>

Standard errors in parentheses ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

association in the graph presented in Fig. 3, which demonstrates two levels of sustainability disclosure (low and high). The graph illustrates that the curve flattens as sustainability disclosure increases. That is, when a firm disseminates more sustainability-related information to its various stakeholders, it reaps greater rewards from environmental product innovation.

H₄ asserted that deviant corporate practices would moderate the curvilinear relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth such that the curve steepens. As reported in Table 7, in Models 4 and 5, the coefficients of the interaction term between deviant corporate practices and the squared term of environmental product

innovation are negative and significant at 1 %, which confirms that deviant corporate practices steepen the curve. To illustrate the moderating effect of deviant corporate practices, we plotted this relationship in the graph presented in Fig. 4, which demonstrates two levels of deviant corporate practices (low and high). The graph demonstrates that the curve becomes steeper as the deviant corporate practices increase.

## 6. Robustness check analyses

We conducted additional sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of the findings reported in the previous section. As delineated in the
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. The inverted U-shaped relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. The moderating effect of marketing intensity.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. The moderating effect of sustainability disclosure.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. The moderating effect of deviant corporate practices.</figcaption></figure>

methodology section, the dependent variable of this study, firm growth, was measured as the yearly growth rate of a firm’s asset base. In order to check whether the initial results are robust to alternative measure of firm growth, we reran our analysis (Table 8) using an alternative measure of firm growth: growth in return on sales. As reported in Table 8, the linear term for environmental product innovation is positive and significant, while the squared term is negative and significant. This provides preliminary support for the inverted U-shaped pattern of the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth, assessed using an additional measure. As delineated in the preceding section, confirmation of the inverted U-shaped relationship requires that two additional criteria be fulfilled. Using Stata’s UTEST module, we found that the results were statistically significant at 1 % (t-value = 21.69) for the alternative dependent variable, confirming that the curve is steep enough at both ends of the data range and fulfilling the third condition. Subsequently, we used Stata’s nlcom command to find the turning point of the inverted U-shaped pattern of the association between environmental product innovation and the alternative measure of firm growth. The result showed that the turning point is at 42.38, which is statistically significant (p < 0.001), and the 95 % confidence interval is 41.85 to 42.91. As indicated above, the value of environmental product innovation in the dataset of the present research ranged from 0 to 92.56; our additional analysis confirmed that the turning point is well within this range, thus confirming that the fourth condition is fulfilled. The results of our robustness analysis using growth in return on sales as an alternative measure of firm growth confirmed that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the focal variables.

As reported in Table 8, the coefficient of the interaction term between marketing intensity and the squared term of environmental product innovation, as well as the interaction term between sustainability disclosure and the squared term of environmental product innovation, are positive and significant at 1 %. These results further corroborated that marketing intensity and sustainability disclosure flatten the curvilinear pattern of the association between environmental product innovation and firm growth, measured as the growth in return on sales. Furthermore, as reported in Table 8, the interaction term between deviant corporate practices and the squared term of environmental product innovation is negative and significant at 1 %. These analyses reconfirm our findings that deviant corporate practices moderate the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth, such that the curve steepens.

## 7. Discussion and conclusion

Although firms are now investing a significant amount of effort and resources in environmental product innovation, the consequences of environmental product innovation remain underexplored. While some previous studies explored the effect of environmental product innovation on firm outcomes, the results of these studies are mixed. Some reported a positive effect, and others reported the opposite (Khan et al., 2021). A few studies (e.g., Rahman, 2023; Wang et al., 2021) documented that the impact of environmental product innovation on corporate outcomes is positive. However, other studies (e.g., Haddoud et al., 2021; Yao et al., 2019) reported that the effect of the focal variable is negative. In essence, these prior studies reported mixed results, leaving the actual impact of environmental product innovation unresolved. Deviating from previous studies that theorized a straightforward linear association between environmental product innovation and firm performance, the current study theorized that the relationship between the focal variables is far more complex than previously envisioned. Specifically, the present research postulated that the effect of environmental product innovation on firm growth can be both positive and negative. Employing robust analytical method, we found that the association between environmental product innovation and firm growth is initially positive but turns negative after an inflection point—the relationship between environmental product innovation and firm growth follows an inverted U-shaped pattern. This is an important finding as it, to an extent, resolves the mixed results of prior studies. We also explored how the nature and magnitude of this curvilinear association is impacted by other firm-specific internal boundary conditions. Our results documented that marketing intensity significantly flattens the inverted U-shaped curve. This is an interesting finding in that it demonstrates that when firms bolster their commitment to marketing, they benefit more from environmental product innovation. These findings are consistent with earlier studies, demonstrating the positive impact of marketing expenditure on a firm’s corporate outcomes (e.g., Golovko et al., 2022; Markovitch et al., 2020). We also found that sustainability disclosure flattens the curve. This finding contributes to the extant literature on the nexus between sustainability disclosure and firm performance. Specifically, the extant literature on this topic reported mixed results (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022; Ting, 2021). The findings of this current research have, to an extent, helped disentangle the conflicting results of prior research on the effect of sustainability reporting on corporate outcomes. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that deviant corporate practices moderate the relationship between environmental product
<table><caption>**Table 8**
Results of robustness check (two step system GMM regression).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>(Alternative measure)<br>Firm Growth</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Firm growth (Lag)</td><td>-0.0150***<br>(0.000336)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation</td><td>0.0252***<br>(0.00638)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation squared</td><td>-0.000942***<br>(8.10e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation squared × Marketing intensity</td><td>0.00184***<br>(0.000189)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation squared × Sustainability disclosure</td><td>1.29e-05***<br>(5.49e-07)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation squared × Deviant corporate practices</td><td>-5.20e-06***<br>(5.22e-07)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Deviant corporate practices</td><td>-1.05e-06<br>(4.30e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Marketing intensity</td><td>-0.180***<br>(0.0161)</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental product innovation × Sustainability disclosure</td><td>-0.000680***<br>(3.99e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Deviant corporate practices</td><td>0.0285***<br>(0.000222)</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability disclosure</td><td>-0.00407***<br>(0.000113)</td></tr><tr><td>Marketing intensity</td><td>-4.877***<br>(0.126)</td></tr><tr><td>Leverage</td><td>0.342***<br>(0.0125)</td></tr><tr><td>R&D intensity</td><td>-6.546***<br>(0.161)</td></tr><tr><td>Employee productivity</td><td>-0.000941***<br>(4.86e-05)</td></tr><tr><td>Tobin's Q (intangibles)</td><td>-0.129***<br>(0.0117)</td></tr><tr><td>Firm efficiency</td><td>-0.0487***<br>(0.00146)</td></tr><tr><td>Financial constraint</td><td>-0.414***<br>(0.0171)</td></tr><tr><td>Audit committee independence</td><td>-0.00969***<br>(0.00149)</td></tr><tr><td>Board size</td><td>-0.314***<br>(0.00387)</td></tr><tr><td>Year fixed effects</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Industry fixed effects</td><td>YES</td></tr><tr><td>Constant</td><td>-30.49<br>(24.19)</td></tr><tr><td>AR (2) p value</td><td>0.880</td></tr><tr><td>Hansen J test p-value</td><td>0.589</td></tr><tr><td>Number of instruments</td><td>1080</td></tr><tr><td>Wald (X<sup>2</sup>)</td><td>2.19e + 08***</td></tr><tr><td>No. observations</td><td>11,669</td></tr><tr><td>Number of firms</td><td>1,870</td></tr></tbody></table>

Standard errors in parentheses *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

innovation and firm growth in such a manner that the inverted U-shaped curve steepens. By investigating the moderating effect of deviant corporate practices, we contribute to and clarify the mixed findings of earlier studies on the impact of controversial corporate behaviours on firm outcomes (Aouadi & Marsat, 2018; Nirino et al., 2021).

Since our conceptual model draws on both natural resource-based theory and resource dependence theory, our findings have important implications for both. First, natural resource-based theory posits that firms can use constraints imposed by the natural environment to enhance their competitive edge in the marketplace (Hart & Dowell, 2011; Hart, 1995). However, natural resource-based theory assumes that a firm's capacity to use these constraints will have a monotonic effect on the corporate outcomes. Specifically, natural resource-based theory assumes that a firm's pro-environmental initiatives will have a

linear and positive effect on the firm's performance outcomes. However, our results demonstrate that the impact of pro-environmental initiatives (viz. environmental product innovation) can be curvilinear (both positive and negative). Hence, this research contributes to natural resource-based theory by theorizing and empirically demonstrating that the relationship between environmental product innovation and corporate outcomes (i.e., firm growth) may be non-monotonic. Our results indicate that while environmental product innovation initially contributes to firm growth, there is an inflection point beyond which further investment yields diminishing returns. If firms continue investing in innovation of environmental products, it may lead to escalating costs, which might consequently hamper firm growth. Therefore, this research makes a significant contribution to natural resource-based theory by demonstrating that the level of a firm's eco-friendly product and service innovation does not always have a linear effect on firm growth. Second, resource dependence theory posits that firms formulate strategies to gain power and autonomy over external resource-controlling entities to facilitate acquisition of requisite resources for firm growth and survival (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). Specifically, proponents of resource dependence theory argue that firms predominantly engage in interorganizational arrangements, such as alliances, to gain autonomy. This research demonstrates that firms may engage in internal capability development initiatives, such as environmental product innovation, and may deploy them as instruments to gain autonomy and power over external resource-controlling entities, thereby facilitating the acquisition of resources necessary for growth. In essence, while resource dependence theory posits that firms gain autonomy primarily through interorganizational arrangements, this study theoretically argues and empirically demonstrates that internal strategies, such as environmental product innovation, can also enable firms to gain autonomy, which in turn facilitates firm growth by enhancing their ability to acquire necessary resources. This yields an important contribution to the resource dependence theory. Third, we identified and explored the effect of firm-specific internal boundary conditions. This study shows that, by strategizing and deploying effective value-capturing activities firms can benefit more from their eco-friendly initiatives. That is, we found that investing additional resources in marketing and proactively disseminating relevant sustainability initiatives enables firms to reap greater rewards from environmental product innovation. This insight has significant implications for natural resource-based theory, as it demonstrates that the co-deployment of strategically interrelated strategies helps firms gain greater benefit. This yields another significant contribution to the natural resource-based theory. Furthermore, firms must establish internal coordination across all operational areas to reduce the likelihood of engaging in controversial practices, as failure to do so may undermine the positive impact of pro-environmental initiatives. This has significant implications for both natural resource-based theory and resource dependence theory, as it suggests that deviant corporate practices diminish legitimacy in the product market and reduce autonomy in the resource market. Specifically, engagement in deviant corporate practices reduces a firm's bargaining power over the external resource-supplying entities which consequently hinders firm growth. Furthermore, deviant corporate practices undermine a firm's competitive advantage in the product market by diminishing its legitimacy among product-market stakeholders, such as customers. This, in turn, hampers the firm's growth trajectory.

The findings of this research have significant implications for managers. First, our results show that while environmental product innovation helps managers positively influence firm growth, its effect is not monotonic; it becomes negative after an inflection point. However, managers can adapt strategies in other operational areas to enhance the positive impact of environmental product innovation. One effective strategy is to allocate additional resources to value-capturing activities, particularly marketing, to maximize the benefits of environmental product innovation. Doing so will help build customer awareness of a firm's environmental products, which, in turn, will positively affect
brand equity. Investing resources in marketing activities, such as market research, will enable managers to better understand market trends and customers' perceptions of and expectations for environmental products, which in turn will help managers further extend the positive effects of environmental product innovation on their firm's growth. Furthermore, managers should adopt pro-sustainability strategies and actively share information about these initiatives with their internal and external stakeholders. Disseminating a firm's sustainability-focused initiatives will help managers further enhance the positive impact of environmental product innovation on firm growth. Specifically, managers should identify key stakeholders and choose appropriate communication channels (e.g., company webpage, annual report) to effectively convey sustainability-related information to them. Finally, our results underscore the importance of recognizing the adverse effects of deviant practices. To maximize the positive impact of environmental product innovation, managers should avoid controversial corporate practices across all operational areas. Ultimately, a well-coordinated and concerted effort across departments is essential to fully capitalize on the benefits of environmental product innovation.

The results of this research also have important implications for policymakers and governments. As more countries and companies worldwide commit to a pro-environmental agenda to mitigate environmental degradation, the results of this study suggest that policymakers should encourage firms to invest in environmental product innovation. Incentivizing firms to invest in environmental product innovation will positively impact their growth, which, in turn, will generate additional tax revenue. Incremental firm growth driven by environmental product innovation will also contribute positively to national economic growth (i.e., gross domestic product). Governments should provide both financial and non-financial incentives to encourage firms to adopt pro-sustainability approaches across other business areas, thereby maximizing the positive impact of environmental product innovation on firm growth.

While this study generated some granular insights, additional research is needed to further improve our understanding. Although we worked with a relatively large sample, the firms we evaluated all came from a single country, the United States. Future studies should draw samples from multiple countries to enhance generalizability. More specifically, since the institutional environment varies across countries, it is important that future studies draw sample firms from multiple countries. Future studies should also evaluate small and medium-sized firms because sustainability practices are expected to vary depending on the overall size of the firm. While our results shed light on the impact of internal firm-specific strategies on the nexus between environmental product innovation and firm growth, future studies should identify and explore other internal and external boundary conditions. For example, future studies could explore how formal and informal institutional factors accentuate or attenuate the relationship between the focal variables. Furthermore, future studies could examine how the top management and the corporate board characteristics might moderate the nexus between environmental product innovation and firm growth.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Mahabubur Rahman:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization.
**M. Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano:** Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation.
**Md. Tareq Bin Hossain:** Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

### Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

### References

Adomako, S., Simms, C., Vazquez-Brust, D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2023). Stakeholder green pressure and new product performance in emerging countries: A cross-country study. *British Journal of Management, 34*(1), 299-320.

Al Hawaj, A. Y., & Buallay, A. M. (2022). A worldwide sectorial analysis of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm performance. *Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12*(1), 62-86.

Al-Okaily, J., & Naueihed, S. (2019). Audit committee effectiveness and family firms: Impact on performance. *Management Decision, 58*(6), 1021-1034.

Andries, P., & Faems, D. (2013). Patenting activities and firm performance: Does firm size matter? *Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30*(6), 1089-1098.

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016a). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irresponsibility. *Journal of Business Ethics, 135*(3), 429-444.

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016b). Social identification and corporate irresponsibility: A model of stakeholder punitive intentions. *British Journal of Management, 27*(3), 583-605.

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2018). Identity bias in negative word of mouth following irresponsible corporate behavior: A research model and moderating effects. *Journal of Business Ethics, 149*(4), 1005-1023.

Aouadi, A., & Marsat, S. (2018). Do ESG controversies matter for firm value? Evidence from international data. *Journal of Business Ethics, 151*(4), 1027-1047.

Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. *The Review of Economic Studies, 58*(2), 277-297.

Bhandari, K. R., Ranta, M., & Salo, J. (2022). The resource-based view, stakeholder capitalism, ESG, and sustainable competitive advantage: The firm's embeddedness into ecology, society, and governance. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 31*(4), 1525-1537.

Biswas, D. (2004). Economics of information in the web economy: Towards a new theory? *Journal of Business Research, 57*(7), 724-733.

Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 50*(2), 167-199.

Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust. *Journal of business ethics, 93*(2), 307-319.

Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to finance. *Strategic Management Journal, 35*(1), 1-23.

D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P., & Peretiatko, R. (2007). Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. *International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31*(4), 371-376.

Dangelico, R. M. (2016). Green product innovation: Where we are and where we are going. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 25*(8), 560-576.

Darnall, N. (2006). Why firms mandate ISO 14001 certification. *Business & Society, 45*(3), 354-381.

Davies, G., & Cifuentes, I. O. (2016). Corporate misconduct and the loss of trust. *European Journal of Marketing, 50*(7), 1426-1447.

Davis, G. F., & Cobb, J. A. (2010). Resource dependence theory: Past and future. *Stanford's organization theory renaissance*, 1970-2000.

de Villiers, C., Low, M., & Samkin, G. (2014). The institutionalisation of mining company sustainability disclosures. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 84*, 51-58.

Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Management, 39*(6), 1666-1698.

Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. *Stata Journal, 3*(2), 168-177.

Du, X., Weng, J., Zeng, Q., Chang, Y., & Pei, H. (2017). Do lenders applaud corporate environmental performance? Evidence from Chinese private-owned firms. *Journal of Business Ethics, 143*(1), 179-207.

Du, S., Yu, K., Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2017). The business case for sustainability reporting: Evidence from stock market reactions. *Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36*(2), 313-330.

El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kim, H., & Park, K. (2018). Corporate environmental responsibility and the cost of capital: International evidence. *Journal of Business Ethics, 149*(2), 335-361.

El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C., & Mishra, D. R. (2011). Does corporate social responsibility affect the cost of capital? *Journal of Banking & Finance, 35*(9), 2388-2406.

Feng, H., Morgan, N. A., & Rego, L. L. (2017). Firm capabilities and growth: The moderating role of market conditions. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45* (1), 76-92.

Frank, B., Torrico, B. H., Enkawa, T., & Schvaneveldt, S. J. (2014). Affect versus cognition in the chain from perceived quality to customer loyalty: The roles of product beliefs and experience. *Journal of Retailing, 90*(4), 567-586.

Friske, W., Hoelscher, S. A., & Nikolov, A. N. (2022). The impact of voluntary sustainability reporting on firm value: Insights from signaling theory. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1*–21.

Garcia-Castro, R., & Aguilera, R. V. (2015). Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. *Strategic Management Journal, 36*(1), 137-147.
García-Sánchez, I. M., Gallego-Alvarez, I., & Zafra-Gómez, J. L. (2020). Do the ecoinnovation and ecodesign strategies generate value added in munificent environments? *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(3), 1021-1033.

Golovko, E., Lopes-Bento, C., & Sofka, W. (2022). Marketing learning by exporting-how export-induced marketing expenditures improve firm performance. *Journal of Business Research, 150*, 194-207.

Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. *Strategic Management Journal, 37*(7), 1177-1195.

Haddoud, M. Y., Onjewu, A.-K.-E., & Nowiński, W. (2021). Environmental commitment and innovation as catalysts for export performance in family firms. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173*, Article 121085.

Han, K., Mittal, V., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Relative strategic emphasis and firm-idiosyncratic risk: The moderating role of relative performance and demand instability. *Journal of Marketing, 81*(4), 25-44.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. *Academy of Management Review, 20*(4), 986-1014.

Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm fifteen years after. *Journal of Management, 37*(5), 1464-1479.

Hernandez-Vivanco, A., & Bernardo, M. (2022). Are certified firms more prone to eco-product innovation? The moderating role of slack resources. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 377*, Article 134364.

Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. *Journal of Management, 35*(6), 1404-1427.

Hsieh, W. L., Ganotakis, P., Kafouros, M., & Wang, C. (2018). Foreign and domestic collaboration, product innovation novelty, and firm growth. *Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35*(4), 652-672.

Ioannou, I., Kassinis, G., & Papagiannakis, G. (2023). The impact of perceived greenwashing on customer satisfaction and the contingent role of capability reputation. *Journal of business ethics, 185*(2), 333-347.

Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. *Research Policy, 35*(8), 1200-1221.

Jacobs, M., Droge, C., Vickery, S. K., & Calantone, R. (2011). Product and process modularity's effects on manufacturing agility and firm growth performance. *Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28*(1), 123-137.

Jafari-Sadeghi, V., Garcia-Perez, A., Candelo, E., & Couturier, J. (2021). Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation. *Journal of Business Research, 124*, 100-111.

Joseph, K., & Wintoki, M. B. (2013). Advertising investments, information asymmetry, and insider gains. *Journal of Empirical Finance, 22*, 1-15.

Khan, S. J., Dhir, A., Parida, V., & Papa, A. (2021). Past, present, and future of green product innovation. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 30*(8), 4081-4106.

Lee, M. T., & Raschke, R. L. (2023). Stakeholder legitimacy in firm greening and financial performance: What about greenwashing temptations? *Journal of Business Research, 155*, Article 113993.

Lewis, K. V., Cassells, S., & Roxas, H. (2015). SMEs and the potential for a collaborative path to environmental responsibility. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 24*(8), 750-764.

Leyva-De la Hiz, D. I., & Bolívar-Ramos, M. T. (2022). The inverted U relationship between green innovative activities and firms' market-based performance: The impact of firm age. *Technovation, 110*, Article 102372.

Lin, H., Zeng, S., Wang, L., Zou, H., & Ma, H. (2016). How does environmental irresponsibility impair corporate reputation? A multi-method investigation. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23*(6), 413-423.

Ma, J., & Kuo, J. (2021). Environmental self-regulation for sustainable development: Can internal carbon pricing enhance financial performance? *Business Strategy and the Environment, 30*(8), 3517-3527.

Mariadoss, B. J., Tansuhaj, P. S., & Mouri, N. (2011). Marketing capabilities and innovation-based strategies for environmental sustainability: An exploratory investigation of B2B firms. *Industrial Marketing Management, 40*(8), 1305-1318.

Marino, A., Aversa, P., Mesquita, L., & Anand, J. (2015). Driving performance via exploration in changing environments: Evidence from formula one racing. *Organization Science, 26*(4), 1079-1100.

Markovitch, D. G., Huang, D., & Ye, P. (2020). Marketing intensity and firm performance: Contrasting the insights based on actual marketing expenditure and its SG&A proxy. *Journal of Business Research, 118*, 223-239.

Martínez-Ferrero, J., Ruiz-Cano, D., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2016). The causal link between sustainable disclosure and information asymmetry: The moderating role of the stakeholder protection context. *Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23*(5), 319-332.

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. *Journal of Marketing, 67*(1), 63-76.

Nirino, N., Santoro, G., Miglietta, N., & Quaglia, R. (2021). Corporate controversies and company's financial performance: Exploring the moderating role of ESG practices. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162*, Article 120341.

Palomino-Tamayo, W., Timana, J., & Cerviño, J. (2020). The firm value and marketing intensity decision in conditions of financial constraint: A comparative study of the United States and Latin America. *Journal of International Marketing, 28*(3), 21-39.

Paparoidamis, N. G., Tran, T. T. H., Leonidou, L. C., & Zeriti, A. (2019). Being innovative while being green: An experimental inquiry into how consumers respond to eco-innovative product designs. *Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36*(6), 824-847.

Price, J. M., & Sun, W. (2017). Doing good and doing bad: The impact of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on firm performance. *Journal of Business Research, 80*, 82-97.

Rahman, M. (2023). The virtuous circle between green product innovation and performance: The role of financial constraint and corporate brand. *Journal of Business Research, 154*, Article 113296.

Rahman, M., Aziz, S., & Hughes, M. (2020). The product-market performance benefits of environmental policy: Why customer awareness and firm innovativeness matter. *Business Strategy and the Environment, 29*(5), 2001-2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bse.2484

Rahman, M., Rodríguez-Serrano, M.Á., & Hughes, M. (2021). Does advertising productivity affect organizational performance? Impact of market conditions. *British Journal of Management, 32*(4), 1359-1383.

Roodman, D. (2009). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. *The Stata Journal, 9*(1), 86-136.

Sana, S. S. (2020). Price competition between green and non green products under corporate social responsible firm. *Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55*, Article 102118.

Sarkar, S., & Bhattacharjee, T. (2017). Impact of voluntary disclosures on corporate brand equity. *Corporate Reputation Review, 20*(2), 125-136.

Schuitema, G., & De Groot, J. I. (2015). Green consumerism: The influence of product attributes and values on purchasing intentions. *Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14*(1), 57-69.

Shan, L., Fu, S., & Zheng, L. (2017). Corporate sexual equality and firm performance. *Strategic Management Journal, 38*(9), 1812-1826.

Shen, B., Cao, Y., & Xu, X. (2020). Product line design and quality differentiation for green and non-green products in a supply chain. *International Journal of Production Research, 58*(1), 148-164.

Siew, R. Y. (2015). A review of corporate sustainability reporting tools (SRTs). *Journal of environmental management, 164*, 180-195.

Singh, M., Faircloth, S., & Nejadmalayeri, A. (2005). Capital market impact of product marketing strategy: Evidence from the relationship between advertising expenses and cost of capital. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33*(4), 432-444.

Singh, S., Tabassum, N., Darwish, T. K., & Batsakis, G. (2018). Corporate governance and Tobin's Q as a measure of organizational performance. *British Journal of Management, 29*(1), 171-190.

Stäbler, S., & Fischer, M. (2020). When does corporate social irresponsibility become news? Evidence from more than 1,000 brand transgressions across five countries. *Journal of Marketing, 84*(3), 46-67.

Stegenberger, N., & Wilhelm, H. (2018). Extending signaling theory to rhetorical signals: Evidence from crowdfunding. *Organization Science, 29*(3), 529-546.

Sun, W., Yao, S., & Govind, R. (2019). Reexamining corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: The inverted-U-shaped relationship and the moderation of marketing capability. *Journal of Business Ethics, 160*(4), 1001-1017.

Tang, T. T. (2009). Information asymmetry and firms' credit market access: Evidence from Moody's credit rating format refinement. *Journal of Financial Economics, 93*(2), 325-351.

Ting, P.-H. (2021). Do large firms just talk corporate social responsibility?-The evidence from CSR report disclosure. *Finance Research Letters, 38*, Article 101476.

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2020). Drivers of green bond market growth: The importance of Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement and implications for sustainability. *Journal of Cleaner Production, 244*, Article 118643.

Ullah, S., Akhtar, P., & Zaefarian, G. (2018). Dealing with endogeneity bias: The generalized method of moments (GMM) for panel data. *Industrial Marketing Management, 71*, 69-78.

Valor, C., Antonetti, P., & Zasuwa, G. (2022). Corporate social irresponsibility and consumer punishment: A systematic review and research agenda. *Journal of Business Research, 144*, 1218-1233.

Van Doorn, J., Risselada, H., & Verhoef, P. C. (2021). Does sustainability sell? The impact of sustainability claims on the success of national brands' new product introductions. *Journal of Business Research, 137*, 182-193.

Wang, M., Li, Y., Li, J., & Wang, Z. (2021). Green process innovation, green product innovation and its economic performance improvement paths: A survey and structural model. *Journal of Environmental Management, 297*, Article 113282.

Windsor, D. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility: A positive theory approach. *Journal of Business Research, 66*(10), 1937-1944.

Wood, G., Finnegan, J. J., Allen, M. L., Allen, M. M., Cumming, D., Johan, S., Nicklich, M., Endo, T., Lim, S., & Tanaka, S. (2020). The comparative institutional analysis of energy transitions. *Socio-Economic Review, 18*(1), 257-294.

Yao, Q., Liu, J., Sheng, S., & Fang, H. (2019). Does eco-innovation lift firm value? The contingent role of institutions in emerging markets. *Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing*.

Zhang, D. (2020). How do firms overcome financial constraint anxiety to survive in the market? Evidence from large manufacturing data. *International Review of Financial Analysis, 70*, Article 101503.

Zhang, M., Zeng, W., Tse, Y. K., Wang, Y., & Smart, P. (2021). Examining the antecedents and consequences of green product innovation. *Industrial Marketing Management, 93*, 413-427.

Mahabubur Rahman holds a PhD in Marketing from the Smurfit Business School, University College Dublin, Ireland. His research primarily explores the intersection of marketing strategy, sustainability, and both financial and non-financial firm performance. Dr. Rahman employs advanced econometric modeling and data envelopment analysis (DEA), among other methodologies, in his work. He has published extensively as both a sole author and lead investigator in leading journals, including the *British Journal of Management, Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, Ecological Economics*,
*Business Strategy and the Environment, Journal of Advertising Research, International Marketing Review, and Journal of Brand Management, among others. His work has received notable recognition, including the Best Paper Award from the Journal of Advertising Research (2017) and the Outstanding Reviewer Award from the Journal of Product Innovation Management (2023). Dr. Rahman serves as Associate Editor for the International Journal of Advertising and the Journal of Global Marketing, and he sits on the editorial and advisory boards of several leading journals, including the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Corporate Reputation Review, Management Decision, and the Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing.

M. Ángeles Rodríguez-Serrano PhD is an Associate Professor of Management at the Department of Business Organization and Marketing, University of Seville, Spain. Her research focus is internationalization, as well as marketing and company performance. She also is involved actively in various research and business projects. She has published in

Journal of Business Ethics, British Journal of Management Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Brand Management and Journal of Small Business Management.

Md Tareq Bin Hossain, PhD is an Assistant Professor of International Program at Thammasat Business School, Thammasat University, Thailand. With a decade of experience in the ASEAN region, his expertise lies in teaching and researching corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability, and international business. Dr. Hossain earned his PhD with a focus on CSR within supply chains. He has secured several research grants, authored numerous academic papers, and received wide citations for his work. He has published in Social Responsibility Journal; Accounting and Finance; International Journal of Management and Financial Accounting; Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal and different other leading journals.