# Conservatives, Progressives and Transformers: The Influence of Marketers' Biases on Sustainable Innovation

Sophie Richit, Aurélie Hemonnet-goujot

► To cite this version:

Sophie Richit, Aurélie Hemonnet-goujot. Conservatives, Progressives and Transformers: The Influence of Marketers' Biases on Sustainable Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2025, 10.1111/caim.70027. hal-05389626

HAL Id: hal-05389626

https://amu.hal.science/hal-05389626v1

Submitted on 30 Nov 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>

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

OPEN ACCESS

# Conservatives, Progressives and Transformers: The Influence of Marketers' Biases on Sustainable Innovation

Sophie Richit ID | Aurélie Hemonnet-Goujot ID

Aix-Marseille Université, CERGAM, IAE, Aix-en-Provence, France

**Correspondence:** Sophie Richit (sophie.richit@iae-aix.com)

**Received:** 20 December 2024 | **Revised:** 30 September 2025 | **Accepted:** 4 November 2025

**Keywords:** decision-making bias | marketing role | new product development (NPD) | sustainable innovation

## ABSTRACT

The inherent uncertainty of the innovation process, amplified by the complexity of the Anthropocene, means that marketers are likely to be subject to decision-making biases that can affect sustainable product innovation. In parallel, new approaches to sustainability and innovation management are emerging, aiming to mitigate such biases and accelerate the sustainable transition. Yet, research into the critical role of individual decision-making in innovation management is still in its early stages. Drawing on the theoretical fields of behavioural strategy, innovation management and sustainability, and using 19 case studies, our research reveals the existence of three profiles of marketers based on their attitude towards sustainable innovation: ‘conservatives’, ‘progressives’ and ‘transformers’. We demonstrate that these profiles are linked to specific decision-making biases and explore how these biases shape the sustainability level of a new product. From a theoretical perspective, by bridging sustainability and innovation management through the lens of behavioural strategy, this paper improves our understanding of why fundamental differences in sustainable innovation processes and outcomes exist. Our research contributes to the existing literature on the topic by developing a typology of marketers towards sustainable innovation, and by identifying new cognitive biases in marketing practices. It reveals which biases hinder sustainable innovation and which ones positively influence the sustainability of new products.

## 1 | Introduction

Sustainable product innovation, defined as the implementation of a new product or the modification of an existing product that significantly reduces a firm's impact on the natural environment, is recognised as a strategic lever for firms (Varadarajan 2017). It offers both competitive advantages and environmental benefits, and its importance is supported by the fact that 80% of a product's environmental impact is determined during the design phase (European Commission 2014). Moreover, sustainable product innovation aligns with growing societal expectations. In the context of the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2006), ecological awareness is growing among consumers, and 90% of marketers (i.e., marketing practitioners) have expressed a desire

to improve their company's sustainability practices (WFA and Kantar 2023).

However, despite this alignment of motivations and potential benefits, sustainable products remain underrepresented on the market, and one of the obstacles to sustainable consumption is the lack of available options (Nguyen et al. 2019). This paradox puts a spotlight on the role of marketers, who are central actors in new product development (NPD) projects in the consumer goods industry (Crawford and Benedetto 2020; McAlister et al. 2023). While marketers have the potential to support sustainable innovation and enhance the environmental accountability of marketing (O'Cass and Heidenreich 2023; Volle and Schouten 2022), the marketing function still appears

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *Creativity and Innovation Management* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
to contribute to environmental degradation (Kantar and AFM 2022), and further research is needed into how marketing can affect environmental sustainability (Marketing Science Institute 2022).

One promising avenue for understanding this paradox lies in the cognitive dimension of decision-making. Marketers operate in a complex and uncertain environment (Biyalogorsky et al. 2006; Wierenga 2011), which is inherent to the NPD process (Jalonen 2011; Marzi 2022) and amplified by the challenges of the Anthropocene (Bocken et al. 2025). In such a highly uncertain context, marketers are prone to cognitive biases (Casenave 2013; Pham 1996; Tversky and Kahneman 1974; Wierenga 2011).

The growing urgency of environmental challenges calls for more research into new approaches to sustainability and innovation management, which are crucial for accelerating the sustainable transition (Marullo et al. 2024). Although innovation management research has traditionally focused on macro-level factors, there is growing recognition of the major role played by micro-level factors in driving innovation (Palmié et al. 2023). This has brought attention to the ‘human side’ of innovation management, which requires further exploration (Weiss et al. 2022). In this regard, recent studies have highlighted the central role of individual managers in NPD (Cortellazzo et al. 2025; Gurtner et al. 2025), and attention is increasingly being paid to their cognitive biases (Kranzle and Sharratt 2025; Pinkow 2023; Vuculescu et al. 2021). At this level, cognitive factors are indeed particularly significant: they can shape an organisational strategy (Powell et al. 2011) and are necessary for the successful implementation of innovation (Valtonen et al. 2023). Yet, deeper investigations regarding the cognitive approaches of managers, and particularly managers, would be beneficial for promoting environmentally sustainable thinking and thereby driving innovation (O’Cass and Heidenreich 2023).

While recent studies have examined what drives sustainable innovation on an individual level (Cristofaro, Giardino, et al. 2024b; Engler et al. 2019), questions are also emerging as to how cognitive biases can limit the formulation and execution of strategic decisions (Acciarini et al. 2020; Rau and Bromiley 2025), exposing the need for more empirical insights into cognitive biases in NPD (Marzi et al. 2023). Although the influence of some cognitive biases in NPD, such as anchoring bias, planning fallacy and sunk-cost fallacy, is already recognised (Marzi et al. 2023), understanding how decision-making biases manifest specifically for marketers involved in NPD projects, or the influence of these biases on the development of sustainable innovations, is still limited.

This paper aims to fill the gap in the existing literature by addressing the following research questions: first, what are the decision-making biases of marketers involved in the NPD process, and second, how do they affect the sustainability level of the new product? By bridging sustainability and innovation management research through the lens of behavioural strategy, this paper aims to explore marketers' decision-making biases in sustainable product innovation.

Our research is based on a multiple-case-study methodology, combining interviews with marketers who participated in innovation projects and the collection of extensive secondary data. The analysis of 19 case studies reveals the different attitudes of marketers towards the various dimensions of sustainable innovation and the sustainability of a product. This paper contributes to the existing literature by developing a typology of marketers within sustainable innovation and identifying new biases in marketing practices. Our research reveals which biases hinder sustainable innovation and which ones positively influence the sustainability of new products.

From a theoretical perspective, this paper extends existing research on sustainability and innovation management, bridging these fields through the lens of behavioural strategy (Powell et al. 2011). By uncovering how marketers' decision-making biases shape the sustainability of a new product, our research explores the individual-level dynamics at play in innovation management (Palmié et al. 2023; Weiss et al. 2022), offering a deeper understanding of the interplay between individual cognitive factors and NPD outcomes. Additionally, this paper refines the understanding of marketing practices within the context of sustainable innovation, bridging the gap between marketing's role in innovation and sustainability, and contributes to the existing literature on marketing decision-making in innovation.

This paper is organised as follows: First, the literature review takes an interdisciplinary approach to exploring the fields of behavioural strategy, sustainability and innovation management, and the key role of marketers in innovation. Next, the methodology is detailed, followed by the presentation and discussion of results in relation to the literature. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications, and the limitations of this study, are discussed.

## 2 | Theoretical Background

To enhance our understanding of the influence of biases in sustainable innovation marketing decisions, we adopt a behavioural strategy lens for examining NPD and marketers' decisions.

### 2.1 | Behavioural Strategy, Decision-Making in NPD and Cognitive Biases

#### 2.1.1 | Foundations of Behavioural Strategy

> *If we want to understand why organizations do the things they do, or why they perform the way they do, we must consider the biases and dispositions of their most powerful actors – their top executives.*

*(Hambrick 2007, 334)*

Closely related to the microfoundations movement (Foss et al. 2024), which seeks to understand the impact of individual-level factors on organisational outcomes (Felin et al. 2015), behavioural strategy specifically examines
complex executive judgements (Hodgkinson et al. 2023) and
introduces a behavioural perspective to organisational strategy
(Gavetti 2012).

Powell et al. (2011) define behavioural strategy as follows: ‘Behavioral strategy merges cognitive and social psychology with strategic management theory and practice. Behavioral strategy aims to bring realistic assumptions about human cognition, emotions, and social behavior to the strategic management of organizations and, thereby, to enrich strategy theory, empirical research, and real-world practice’ (p.1371). Since this seminal contribution, the field has gained momentum, as evidenced by the growing volume of publications in recent bibliometric analyses (Anwar et al. 2022; Urío et al. 2022).

Behavioural strategy builds on diverse theoretical roots, in-
cluding bounded rationality (Simon 1947), behavioural theory
of the firm (Cyert and March 1963), the heuristics and biases
programme and behavioural decision theory (Kahneman and
Tversky 1979; Tversky and Kahneman 1974), and upper eche-
lons theory (Hambrick and Mason 1984) (see Cristofaro, Augier
et al. (2024) for a chronological overview).

Given the diversity of its theoretical foundations, behavioural
strategy addresses various levels of analysis (Sibony et al. 2017)
and mobilises a large range of methodologies. It encompasses
three main schools of thought: reductionism (focusing on
individual-level decisions), pluralism (examining managerial
behaviour in organisational settings) and contextualism (em-
phasising perceptions) (Powell et al. 2011). Our research adopts
a reductionist approach, as it explores the individual level of
strategic decision-making (Cristofaro, Giardino et al. 2024a),
specifically in the context of NPD.

2.1.2 | Decision-Making and Heuristics in NPD

Although innovation management research has traditionally
focused on macro-level factors, a growing stream of studies has
adopted a behavioural perspective, recognising the major role
played by the individual members of an organisation in driving
innovation (Cortellazzo et al. 2025; Palmié et al. 2023; Weiss
et al. 2022).

This shift highlights the need to better understand individual
decision-making in innovation contexts (Marzi et al. 2023),
particularly as decision-making serves as a key connector be-
tween the fields of innovation management and organisational
behaviour (Weiss et al. 2022). Among the different types of
organisational decisions, NPD represents a particularly stra-
tegic decision (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki 1992; Kandemir and
Acur 2012; Moenaert et al. 2010), as it is key to the long-term
development of the firm (Artz et al. 2010).

In the NPD process, decision-making is often influenced by
non-rational factors, particularly in the early stages, and can be
shaped by the socio-political dynamics that emphasise the role
of individual actors within the process (Royer 2002). NPD deci-
sions are further complicated by a high level of uncertainty and
complexity (Jalonen 2011; Marzi 2022; O'Connor and Rice 2013;
Royer 2002). In response to this complexity, there is a need to

integrate both rational analysis and intuition, framed as a heu-
ristic, to improve the quality of decision-making in the NPD pro-
cess (Annosi et al. 2024).

Indeed, decision-makers frequently rely on heuristics, which are
cognitive shortcuts that simplify complex judgement tasks. The
seminal work of Tversky and Kahneman (1974) identifies three
primary heuristics: representativeness,¹ availability² and ad-
justment from an anchor.³ The affect heuristic⁴ was introduced
later (Finucane et al. 2000; Slovic et al. 2007). In NPD, the rep-
resentativeness, availability and anchoring heuristics in partic-
ular have been observed (Marzi et al. 2023; Vazquez-Hernandez
et al. 2024) (see Appendix 1).

Alternative conceptions of heuristics have also been explored
in the existing literature, most notably ‘fast and frugal heu-
ristics’, also known as ‘simple rules’ (Hodgkinson et al. 2023).
While Kahneman (2012) focuses on a dual system of thought,
this single-system approach emphasises the positive side of heu-
ristics in real-world contexts (Gigerenzer et al. 2022). Several
studies applying this approach in the NPD context have shown
that a CEO’s use of heuristics is linked to innovation (Atanasiu
et al. 2023) and positive NPD outcomes (Kruse et al. 2023).
Studies also show that heuristics allow senior managers to make
faster decisions while maintaining accuracy during the NPD
project screening phase (West et al. 2020), and that experienced
industrial designers use heuristics to avoid overdesign and un-
necessary product features (Belvedere et al. 2013). However,
compared to the heuristics and biases programme, the fast and
frugal heuristics research stream remains relatively recent, and
it calls for further empirical validation to assess the actual extent
to which these heuristics are being used in managerial decision-
making (Hodgkinson et al. 2023).

2.1.3 | Cognitive Biases in NPD

Heuristics are often helpful in uncertain and complex decision-
making contexts, but they can lead to systematic and predictable
errors, known as cognitive biases, which reflect dysfunctions
in reasoning (Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Among the many
biases identified in the literature, one of the most extensively
studied is overconfidence (Berthet 2022; Cristofaro, Augier,
et al. 2024; Hodgkinson et al. 2023). While the overconfidence
of CEOs is linked to firm performance (Burkhard et al. 2023)
and innovativeness (Galasso and Simcoe 2011; Hirshleifer
et al. 2012; Rau and Bromiley 2025), in NPD, overconfidence
may lead decision-makers to overforecast new product sales,
resulting in poor project selection and continuation decisions.
These errors can weaken the product pipeline and increase the
rate of product failures, which can be detrimental to the firm
(Markovitch et al. 2015).

Other cognitive biases also influence managerial decision-
making in NPD. These include anchoring bias (reliance on
initial information), planning fallacy (underestimation of time
and resources) and sunk-cost fallacy (continuing investment in
projects that are unlikely to succeed). Such biases can lead to
suboptimal NPD outcomes (Marzi et al. 2023) and affect var-
ious stages of NPD. Biases can have a negative impact on cre-
ativity by preventing serendipity in NPD (Trott et al. 2024) and
interfering with creative thinking (Pinkow 2023), or they can
have a positive impact by enhancing research and development
(R&D) employees' creativity and thereby improving new prod-
uct performance (Cristofaro et al. 2022). During the idea evalu-
ation stage, in-group bias can hinder the adoption of promising
ideas (Reitzig and Sorenson 2013), while similarity bias may
lead evaluators to favour ideas from individuals with compara-
ble hierarchical status (Schweisfurth et al. 2023). In this stage,
experts can also display framing and anchoring biases, affect-
related biases, underestimation of originality and biases against
novelty (Kranzle and Sharratt 2025). Globally, in the pre-launch
stages of NPD, biases may drive overfeaturing, resulting in prod-
ucts that exceed user needs and increasing the risk of failure
(Marzi 2022).

To help managers identify the biases most likely to affect high-
stakes decisions, Kahneman et al. (2011) developed a checklist
covering 12 recurrent biases.⁵ Several studies have applied this
checklist in different organisational contexts. For example,
Hristov et al. (2022) found that self-interest bias, affect heu-
ristics and saliency bias are particularly influential in the im-
plementation of performance management systems. Similarly,
Cristofaro (2017) highlighted the presence of affect heuristics,
the halo effect, saliency bias and overconfidence in decision-
making within complex organisations.

These findings highlight the influence of cognitive biases in the
uncertain context of NPD. The challenges of the Anthropocene
add further layers of uncertainty and complexity into innovation
processes (Polasky et al. 2020), and there is a growing pressure
to integrate sustainability objectives into corporate strategies,
particularly within innovation processes (Marullo et al. 2024).
The next section therefore focuses on sustainable innovation
decision-making, where cognitive mechanisms remain a central
factor.

## 2.2 | Sustainable Innovation Decision-Making

2.2.1 | Sustainable Innovation

Sustainable innovation aims to create social, ecological and eco-
nomic value (Adams et al. 2016; Bstieler et al. 2018; Lubberink
et al. 2017). In this paper, we focus on environmentally sustain-
able product innovation, defined as the ‘implementation of a
novel idea for alleviation of environmental degradation into a
new product or significant improvement of an existing product
that creates economic value for the innovating firm, functional
value for users of the product, and environmental value for soci-
ety’ (Varadarajan 2024, 710).

Integrating sustainability into NPD is critical for enhancing
a firm's performance (Marullo et al. 2024). Sustainability is a
major driver of innovation, and sustainable product innova-
tion has a positive impact on the environmental and market-
ing performance of the firm, which in turn leads to improved
financial performance (Varadarajan 2017). Firms with a
strong sustainability orientation not only increase their per-
formance in terms of innovation (Anzola-Román et al. 2024),
but also achieve greater NPD success (Claudy et al. 2016). An
eco-friendly product development strategy increases NPD

effectiveness (Katsikeas et al. 2016), and most notably, inno-
vative products have the potential to meet all triple-bottom-
line objectives simultaneously (Ahmad et al. 2024). Despite
creating significant opportunities, integrating these objectives
into innovation processes can often create tension (Bechtel
et al. 2025), as doing so requires organisations to balance mul-
tiple and sometimes conflicting objectives. Strategic initia-
tives frequently aim to integrate sustainability and innovation
principles simultaneously, but achieving this balance remains
a complex challenge (Marullo et al. 2024).

2.2.2 | Sustainable Decisions and Cognitive Biases

In this evolving context, understanding how managers make
decisions about sustainable innovation is essential (O'Cass and
Heidenreich 2023), and there is a growing body of research
exploring how individual-level characteristics shape organisa-
tional sustainability outcomes. For example, Engler et al. (2019)
identify that cognitive biases can hinder sustainable decision-
making. Using an explicit behavioural strategy lens, Cristofaro,
Giardino et al. (2024b) apply Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist
to empirically identify a wide range of cognitive biases that un-
dermine the development of sustainable performance manage-
ment systems, including self-interest bias, confirmation bias,
availability bias, the halo effect, saliency bias, overconfidence
bias, anchoring bias, status-quo bias and loss aversion.

While prior studies in innovation and decision-making have ex-
amined various organisational actors, such as CEOs (Atanasiu
et al. 2023; Burkhard et al. 2023; Galasso and Simcoe 2011;
Hirshleifer et al. 2012; Kruse et al. 2023; Lesage et al. 2025),
managers (Annosi et al. 2024; Marzi 2022; O'Cass and
Heidenreich 2023; West et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2022), designers
(Belvedere et al. 2013) and R&D employees (Antioco et al. 2008;
Cristofaro et al. 2022), marketers have received comparatively lit-
tle attention. Yet, marketers are frequently responsible for major
NPD decisions, while working with incomplete information and
under conditions of uncertainty (Biyalogorsky et al. 2006). As
sustainability becomes a strategic priority in NPD, it is essen-
tial to examine marketers as key decision-makers in innovation
contexts.

2.3 | Marketers as Decision-Makers in Sustainable
Innovation

2.3.1 | The Key Role of Marketers in Innovation

Innovation is a key part of marketing (Dahl et al. 2025),
and as marketing capabilities include product management
(Morgan 2012), the marketing role is uniquely positioned to con-
tribute to innovation management (Hauser et al. 2006). Through
strategic decision-making, marketing generates product-based
positional advantages such as innovative features, superior
product quality, improved packaging and greater convenience
(Morgan 2012).

In practice, marketers play a crucial role throughout the en-
tire innovation process, particularly in the consumer goods
industry, in which they often lead NPD projects (Crawford
and Benedetto 2020; McAlister et al. 2023) and assume prod-
uct manager responsibilities. Marketers define innovation
priorities, are accountable for a product's success and act as
'mini-CEOs' in orchestrating cross-functional collaboration
to ensure that product outcomes align with both consumer
needs and firm objectives (Shulman et al. 2023). This coor-
dination role is essential, and cooperation between market-
ing and R&D has a positive effect on all stages of NPD (Ernst
et al. 2010). Additionally, marketers directly affect the NPD
process through the selection of appropriate external partners
(Hemonnet-Goujot et al. 2019).

Beyond managing innovation processes, marketers contribute directly to the performance of a new product (Crawford and Benedetto 2020; Drechsler et al. 2013) by managing the connections between the organisation and its customers (Moorman and Rust 1999) and enhancing the firm's innovativeness (Lee et al. 2024; Verhoef and Leeflang 2009). As product managers, marketers can drive alignment across the organisation to ensure the 'market fit' of new products (Shulman et al. 2023), and create cross-functional linkages (Smits et al. 2015). This influential behaviour in innovation decisions positively impacts product performance in the market (Nijssen and van Bommel 2024).

Building on its broader role in innovation, marketing also plays
a key role in driving and supporting sustainability-focused
innovation strategies (Mariadoss et al. 2011; O'Cass and
Heidenreich 2023).

2.3.2 | Marketing's Role in Addressing Sustainability Challenges

Sustainability challenges are reshaping and expanding the mar-
keting role, which increasingly includes promoting sustainable
consumption and driving societal change (Kotler 2011; Volle and
Schouten 2022; White et al. 2019). Chandy et al. (2021) advocate
for ‘better marketing for a better world’, arguing that marketing
should not only serve the firm’s interests and business profits,
but also contribute positively to the wider world. Thus, new
sustainable performance metrics are needed (Kotler et al. 2021;
Kumar and Stewart 2021; Volle and Schouten 2022), including
within the context of innovation. Building on these principles,
Dahl et al. (2025) introduce the concept of ‘better world inno-
vation’, where innovation goals extend beyond profit-seeking to
integrate social and environmental impacts, and environmental
constraints can be turned into a creative catalyst for innovation.

Accordingly, marketing practices must adapt, particularly those
related to product decisions. Marketers are now increasingly
expected to consider environmental impact throughout NPD,
including the selection of materials, their sourcing and carbon
footprint, and the design of biodegradable or recyclable packag-
ing (Kotler 2011). This shift reinforces the strategic relevance of
marketing in sustainable innovation.

2.3.3 | Marketers' Decision-Making Biases

Marketing decisions are unique due to the nature of the field,
which combines ‘hard data and soft judgment’ (Wierenga 2011,

91). Marketing decisions inherently grapple with uncertainty,
which can lead to biases and errors (Wierenga 2011), and these
biases may negatively affect the NPD process.

Marketing literature highlights the presence of heuristics and biases among marketing managers (see Appendix 2), including the representativeness and availability heuristics (Mowen and Gaeth 1992; Pham 1996), the adjustment and anchoring heuristic (Casenave 2013; Hoch 1988; Mowen and Gaeth 1992; Pham 1996), the subjective valuation heuristic (Mowen and Gaeth 1992), confirmation bias, excessive product attachment and risk aversion (Casenave 2013), as well as biases that arise from the use of the exemplar-based heuristic (Hutchinson et al. 2010).

However, this list is not exhaustive, and these marketers' bi-
ases have not yet been examined within the specific context
of environmentally sustainable NPD characterised by a larger
uncertainty (Bocken et al. 2025). In this highly uncertain en-
vironment, it becomes increasingly important to identify the
decision-making biases of marketers involved in the NPD pro-
cess and to understand how they affect the level of sustainability
of a new product.

Building on these theoretical foundations, the following sec-
tion outlines the methodological approach adopted to identify
specific cognitive biases that shape marketers' decision-making
in NPD.

3 | Methodology

3.1 | Research Design

Our research focuses on the decision-making biases of market-
ers during the sustainable NPD process, which is a newly ex-
plored phenomenon. We have chosen an exploratory, qualitative
research design, as recommended for investigating subtle and
poorly understood phenomena (Yin 2017). Qualitative research
is also recommended for understanding the consequences of
decision-makers' actions (Nutt 2011), and the analysis of man-
ager interviews and corporate documents can be a beneficial
contribution to behavioural strategy research (Hesselbarth
et al. 2023). We adopted a multiple-case-study methodology
to gain a precise understanding of the decision-making pro-
cess of marketers in sustainable NPD and to generate new in-
sights (Eisenhardt 1989). The unit of analysis is the individual
marketer involved in an NPD project, because marketers play
a critical role in innovation, as detailed in the theoretical sec-
tion of this paper. While contextual information at the firm and
project level was collected to enrich interpretation, the core an-
alytical focus remains on the marketer within a defined NPD
project. To enhance methodological rigour and the quality and
robustness of our case study, we assessed the various steps of
our empirical study with the Case Study Evaluation Template
for research in innovation management (Goffin et al. 2019), as
shown in Appendix 3. The overall data collection and analysis
process is summarised in Table 1. In particular, we (i) developed
a semi-structured interview guide, (ii) identified the sample of
respondents, (iii) collected data through marketers' interviews
and documents, and (iv) analysed and triangulated the data.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 | Data collection and data analysis phases.</caption><thead><tr><td>Phase</td><td>Activity</td><td>Outcome</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(i) Interview guide development</td><td>Designed a semi-structured interview guide to explore marketers' decision-making during the NPD process. Themes included project framework, team composition, decision-making at each stage, obstacles and difficulties encountered, and outcomes. Questions adapted from Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist were integrated to identify potential decision-making biases.</td><td>Semi-structured interview guide with general prompts and specific follow-up questions.</td></tr><tr><td>(ii) Sample identification</td><td>Identified potential participants through public innovation awards and press coverage. Applied theoretical and snowball sampling to select diverse marketers who were directly involved in launching consumer goods within the past 4 years.</td><td>Final sample of 19 marketers from 19 firms, occupying diverse hierarchical roles (brand manager to CMO).</td></tr><tr><td>(iii) Data collection</td><td>Conducted and transcribed semi-structured interviews with selected participants. Collected external and internal archival material related to the firms and innovations studied.</td><td>19 interviews conducted (average duration: 40 min), 100,000 words transcribed. 85 secondary documents collected in total (corporate communication, press articles, internal visuals).</td></tr><tr><td>(iv) Data analysis</td><td>Conducted thematic intra- and inter-case analysis using NVivo 14. Performed open coding to capture variations in marketers' attitudes towards sustainable innovation. Assessed the sustainability level of each innovation, using Varadarajan's (2017) environmental performance framework, triangulated with interview and document data. Applied deductive coding to identify decision-making biases, using Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist.</td><td>Development of a typology of marketers ('conservatives', 'progressives' and 'transformers') based on their attitudes towards sustainable innovation and decision-making biases during NPD.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3.2 | Interview Guide

We designed an interview guide organised around several key themes: project framework, team composition, decision-making processes at each stage of the innovation process, obstacles and difficulties encountered, and outcomes.

To identify potential common decision-making biases among marketers, we utilised the checklist proposed by Kahneman et al. (2011) and included adapted questions from the checklist in the decision-making section of the interview guide. This approach is consistent with prior applications in NPD research (Cristofaro 2017; Cristofaro, Giardino, et al. 2024b; Hristov et al. 2022). The questions covered a range of biases: affect bias, saliency bias, groupthink, availability bias, confirmation bias, sunk-cost fallacy, overconfidence/planning fallacy and disaster

neglect. For example, to evaluate saliency bias (i.e., being influenced by an analogy with a memorable success), we asked, 'To what extent were you inspired by a previous successful launch?'

## 3.3 | Sampling Approach

To select the cases included in the study, a theoretical sampling approach was adopted, rather than a statistical approach (Eisenhardt 1989). We chose to focus on marketers involved in the launch of new consumer goods on the market, as this industry is very dynamic in terms of innovation: marketing plays a major role in the innovation process, there is a large number of launches every year and there is strong pressure to innovate, particularly from retailers (Kotler et al. 2021). Following Eisenhardt (2021), we carefully selected the cases and aimed
for case designs that could enhance theory development by highlighting both similarities and differences across cases. Participants were identified through public innovation awards and press articles. We identified additional marketers through the technique of snowball sampling (Denzin and Lincoln 2011), asking each interviewee to recommend additional participants, which allowed us to expand our sample. In this exploratory approach, participants were selected to assure diversity in terms of company size (across small and medium-sized enterprises and large firms), sector (e.g., food, beauty/body care and health products) and hierarchical level (brand manager to chief marketing officer). All the respondents held a marketing position in their organisation and had played an active role in a product innovation project launched within the past 4 years. Product innovation can involve either the introduction of a new product into the market or the modification of an existing one. Following Varadarajan's (2017) approach, we included innovations related to packaging (reduction, elimination or substitution) within the broader category of product innovation.

For confidentiality reasons, we have omitted the specific names of products, managers and companies. Instead, each case is identified by a letter from A to S. The detailed characteristics of the sample are presented in Appendix 4.

## 3.4 | Data Collection

Having multiple sources is important in qualitative research to ensure triangulation and to strengthen the internal validity of the research (Yin 2017), so we mobilised data from several sources. For each case, we supplemented the interview with archival documents.

### 3.4.1 | Interviews

Data were collected through 19 semi-conducted interviews with marketers from 19 different firms, using our interview guide. Participants had an average of 12 years of professional experience and had played a significant role in an innovation project within their respective firms. The interviews, lasting 40 min on average, were conducted using videoconferencing software and were recorded and transcribed for subsequent data analysis. So as not to influence the participants, we deliberately avoided using the term 'bias' during initial contact or subsequent interviews. Instead, the study was presented as an examination of the role of marketing in sustainable innovation.

### 3.4.2 | Secondary Data

We collected public external material related to the innovative product and the firm being studied. This material included a wide array of corporate communications, such as official websites, detailed product sheets, technical reports and press releases, as well as articles from trade journals and industry-related publications. Additionally, we obtained some internal visual material related to packaging projects. In total, 85 documents were gathered. These secondary data helped us gain general background and market knowledge, and a better understanding of

the innovation project and its key stakes. Data collection ended when theoretical saturation was reached and no new major insight emerged from additional interviews (Eisenhardt 1989).

By combining original interview data with archival data, we adopted a data triangulation approach (Gibbert et al. 2008). This approach allowed us to augment and validate the information shared by interviewees, particularly regarding key aspects such as product launch dates, partnerships and the company's corporate social responsibility commitments. In addition, we focused on product characteristics, with a particular emphasis on their sustainable attributes. For instance, in Case K, we accessed product sheets detailing environmental qualities and characteristics, particularly the incorporation of recycled material and the recyclability of the packaging for each product code. By integrating multiple data sources, we ensured a comprehensive and robust evaluation of the sustainability level of the new product.

## 3.5 | Data Coding and Analysis

Our analytical approach to the cases combined within-case and cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt 1989). Each case was first analysed individually to gain a solid understanding, after which we compared the 19 cases with each other. In accordance with guidelines for qualitative data coding and analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994), we conducted a thematic analysis of our corpus using the software NVivo 14, and double-coded. Following the methodology used in previous research (Fauchart and Gruber 2011) and Doty and Glick's (1994) principles, we developed a typology of marketers.

The first step of the analysis focused on understanding marketers' attitudes towards sustainable innovation. Three key dimensions emerged from the coding: their approach to sustainable innovation, their motivation to innovate and their mission as marketers involved in NPD (see Appendix 5).

In the second step, we assessed the environmental sustainability of the new products discussed, using both interview material and secondary data. We relied on Varadarajan's (2017) model, which distinguishes the four core elements of a new product's environmental performance: (1) a reduction in CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, water consumption and waste disposal; (2) a reduction in the amount of material used in the product and packaging; (3) an increase in the substitution of non-renewable energy for renewable energy; and (4) an increase in the substitution of non-renewable materials for renewable materials.

Third, we iteratively compared the sustainability level of the product with the three attitudinal dimensions identified in the marketers. This led us to develop a typology consisting of three profiles of marketers. We labelled them 'conservatives', 'progressives' and 'transformers' to reflect their attitude towards sustainable innovation (see below).

In the fourth stage, we analysed cognitive biases in marketers' decision-making. Using the checklist proposed by Kahneman et al. (2011), we conducted a deductive coding of the interviews to identify decision-making biases among our respondents. For instance, during the interviews, managers were asked questions
such as: ‘Were there dissenting opinions within the team? If yes, were they explored?’ If dissenting opinions were not considered, we could reasonably suspect a groupthink bias, as suggested by the authors.

Finally, we cross-referenced the identified biases with our marketer typology. This allowed us to highlight the most salient biases associated with each marketer type.

## 4 | Findings

In this section, we present a typology of marketers based on their attitudes towards sustainable innovation and the environmental sustainability level of the products they develop. We then examine the cognitive biases that shape their decisions regarding sustainable innovation.

### 4.1 | Typology of Marketers Regarding Sustainable Innovation

Following the data analysis procedure detailed in the methodology section, we performed open coding to capture variations in marketers' attitudes towards sustainable innovation. The aggregated themes highlight three dimensions that define a marketing manager's attitude towards sustainable innovation: (1) their approach to sustainable innovation, (2) their motivation to innovate and (3) their mission as a marketer involved in NPD.

#### 4.1.1 | Approach to Sustainable Innovation

Practitioners vary in their definitions of what constitutes sustainable innovation: (1) For some practitioners, sustainable innovation consists of developing a product that will remain on the market for an extended period of time; (2) for others, it means eco-design and sustainability throughout the product's life cycle; and (3) for still others, it means the durability of the product and environmental responsibility.

#### 4.1.2 | Motivation to Innovate

Our coding reveals diverse motivations driving innovation among marketers: (1) Some highlight the objective of extending the product portfolio of the company without specifically integrating sustainability goals; (2) some incorporate specific sustainable aspects in their innovation strategy to achieve group objectives or enhance brand image; and (3) some aim to meet a consumer need with the most sustainable product possible.

#### 4.1.3 | Mission as a Marketer Involved in NPD

The marketer's perceived mission also varies: (1) For some practitioners, the emergence of sustainability issues does not alter their way of innovating; (2) others focus on gradually integrating sustainable aspects while preserving profitability; and (3) some managers challenge innovation habits to the utmost to achieve maximum product sustainability.

#### 4.1.4 | Sustainability Level of the New Product

The level of sustainability of the new product varies significantly across cases (see Appendix 6). Three main dimensions emerge: (1) The newly developed product has no sustainable dimension, or the sustainable aspects turn out to be an unexpected consequence of the development; (2) the product achieves a moderate level of sustainability mainly by improving recyclability or leveraging packaging reduction; or (3) the level of sustainability is very high in all aspects of the product and packaging.

Our analysis of the differences in attitude towards sustainable innovation and the various levels of sustainability in the new products revealed three types of marketers: the ‘conservatives’, the ‘progressives’ and the ‘transformers’ (Table 2). The level of sustainability of new products varies across types: Products launched by conservatives have the lowest sustainability level, while those launched by transformers have the highest.

In line with Pratt (2008), we present the most compelling data, referred to as ‘power quotes’, within the body of the paper, while data used to demonstrate the prevalence of a point, or ‘proof quotes’, are presented in tables.

#### 4.1.5 | Conservatives

The first type of NPD marketer we observed in our sample is the conservatives. In our sample, this group typically works in medium-sized companies, particularly in the healthcare sector, where there is a strong regulatory dimension. Their approach to sustainability is cautious and often secondary to other priorities. First, conservatives tend to define a sustainable product less in environmental terms and more in terms of market longevity.

> It's a product that stays on the market for several years, well that's the first thing. It's a product that's also anchored in consumer practices and habits, and that meets real expectations for me.

(Case O)

We observed that conservatives had been involved in product innovations, including one radical example, but sustainability did not play any real role in the development of the new product.

> No, I didn't have any sustainable development objectives [...] I think the pharma industry is still a bit behind on this.

(Case O)

This cautious attitude is further reflected in a broader lack of clarity about what sustainability entails in practice. One conservative marketer expressed the ambiguity of the concept itself.

> I think it's starting to be part of common practice, but it's true that it's a bit vague as a concept, sustainable development, right? What do we include under that?
<table><caption>TABLE 2 | Typology of marketers involved in NPD.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Conservatives</th><th>Progressives</th><th>Transformers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Approach to sustainable innovation</th><td>Ensuring the product remains on the market</td><td>Embedding eco-design and sustainability across the entire product life cycle</td><td>Prioritising product durability, full environmental responsibility</td></tr><tr><th>Motivation to innovate</th><td>Expanding the portfolio without targeting sustainability</td><td>Including some sustainable elements to align with brand image or meet group-level goals</td><td>Innovating with the goal of meeting consumer needs through sustainable solutions</td></tr><tr><th>Mission as a marketer involved in NPD</th><td>Maintaining conventional innovation practices</td><td>Promoting incremental sustainability while ensuring alignment with existing business models</td><td>Leading innovation by challenging existing business practices to prioritise sustainability</td></tr><tr><th>Sustainability level of the new product</th><td>Low or incidental sustainability; environmental features arise as unintended outcomes</td><td>Moderate sustainability achieved through targeted improvements like better recyclability and reduced packaging</td><td>High sustainability intentionally pursued; every component is critically examined to optimise sustainability</td></tr></tbody></table>

What is a company that does sustainable development?

What is the ... well, the definition?

(Case O)

Regarding sustainability level, some of the new products meet Varadarajan's (2017) first dimension (reduction in CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, water consumption and waste disposal), but when the product does have sustainable aspects, they tend to emerge more as an unintended consequence than a deliberate strategic choice.

Nobody thought about it. And there was just the washability thing, which was done and which we insisted on as we went along, because we said to ourselves, it's still a lot, a lot of waste.

(Case M)

More broadly, conservative marketers often demonstrate a limited ambition to go further in terms of sustainability. These efforts are mostly peripheral—for example, targeting advertising materials rather than the product itself—and are often framed as emerging initiatives.

I know that we are starting to move toward a kind of sustainable development approach, more in terms of point-of-sale advertising [...] We're still at the beginning, though, until now we haven't done much.

(Case I)

Finally, the conversation below illustrates that conservatives are not particularly driven by a desire to go further in terms of product sustainability or product improvement.

[Interviewer]: In terms of sustainable development, do you think you could have gone further with this product?

[Respondent]: I think you can always go further, but you have to pick your battles sometimes: if you think the product is fine as it is, do you really need to improve it? (Case I)

### 4.1.6 | Progressives

The second type of marketing manager is the progressive. In our sample, progressive marketers work in a variety of industries and business sizes and are the most represented type. Half of them were involved in product innovation, while the others participated in packaging innovations. They define sustainable innovation as the creation of a product that is sustainable at every stage, from production to disposal. They therefore emphasise eco-design and life cycle analysis.

Right from the design stage, we'll be thinking about what's going to happen next, whether the packaging can be recycled ... From the start, we anticipate whether the product can be reused.

(Case E)

A product with packaging characteristics that enable it to have a low CO₂ rate, or to have packaging components, whether cardboard, plastic or other, that are environmentally friendly throughout its production chain, so we often talk about life cycle analyses. In fact, we analyse the product in its entirety, from its production to its final use and disposal.

(Case F)

The motivations for sustainable innovation are to integrate sustainable aspects with business goals to improve brand image, or to meet group objectives, especially in response to changes in regulations.
> There are launches that are there for the brand image and to respond to a segment of consumers that may be smaller, more niche, but which are also important because in the end it's the Group's vision, it's the future and it also enables us to transmit our values.

(Case C)

> We're fairly well known in the industry for our strong commitment to responsibility and we make strong group commitments on these dimensions of sustainability, recyclability etc. For example, like many groups, we have commitments for 2020, 2025, 2030 ... I think in 2025, we must no longer have any plastic single pack.

(Case P)

Progressive managers are involved in innovations with a moderate level of sustainability, and they focus on packaging improvements and increasing recyclability. In particular, the products they create mainly meet the second dimension (reduction in the amount of material used in product and packaging) or the fourth dimension (increase in the substitution of non-renewable materials for renewable materials) of Varadarajan's (2017) environmental performance model.

> We're happy when it shows on the pack itself, when you go from a big plastic-wrapped box to a small one.

(Case Q)

> By switching from plastic to paper straws, we have saved a hundred tonnes [of plastic] a year, after all!

(Case K)

Progressive managers working in companies with tight financial constraints are forced to make concessions on sustainability to maintain profitability, and they stress the need for compromise.

> The business margin argument, what I would call concept luxury, and the element of 'premiumness', these three elements are often decisive, at the expense of the sustainable part.

(Case J)

Finally, progressive marketers highlight their companies' efforts and incremental progress towards sustainability.

> The important thing is the journey, not the arrival. Well, it's the arrival too, but ... if not the arrival, it's already good to be on the way.

(Case L)

### 4.1.7 | Transformers

The third type of marketer we observed is the transformer. In our sample, these individuals work in start-ups or small companies that are highly committed to sustainable development, and they are involved in radical or technological product

innovations. They see sustainable innovation through the lens of environmental responsibility and product durability.

> [The product] necessarily integrates a dimension of responsibility in its impact. So it's supposed to last because it's supposed not to be replaced. In other words, it's meant to break away from the logic of the consumable. In that sense, it's sustainable, but it has to be sustainable in terms of responsibility.

(Case S)

> It's a product that will be designed, for us, to take care of, to nourish people, therefore to take care of people's health, in an accessible way and without compromising the future of living beings.

(Case R)

They start with a consumer need and seek to meet it with the most sustainable product possible.

> To come up with the product that best meets consumer expectations, because we have to create a product that meets a need, and which is as environmentally friendly as possible.

(Case B)

The products created by transformers have a very high level of sustainability, and some even manage to fulfil three dimensions of Varadarajan's (2017) environmental performance model simultaneously: the first dimension (reduction in CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, water consumption and waste disposal), the second dimension (reduction in the amount of material used in the product and packaging) and the fourth dimension (increase in the substitution of non-renewable materials for renewable materials).

> We work with Seaqual, which is an association that collects plastics at sea [...] to have a product that is 100% made from recycled materials. [...] We offer packaging exclusively in recycled PET [polyethylene terephthalate] or kraft.

(Case G)

Managers achieve this high level of sustainability by challenging every aspect of the product, including raw materials, formulation, packaging and product end-of-life. They desire to change industry standards and to communicate about sustainability efforts.

> Really, what drove me was to reconcile the beauty industry and ecology in the long term, which meant pushing the eco-design cursor as far as possible. [...] And in the long term, I'm working hard to create supply chains for raw materials from regenerative agriculture, a set of farming methods that are highly sustainable and responsible for the land.

(Case S)
For these highly committed managers who are determined to transform sustainable innovation, the challenge lies in reconciling having a very high level of sustainability with maintaining consumer appeal.

> What triggers the act of purchase is not that the product is perfectly eco-designed, but rather it's a bonus. It's a second level of message to the consumer, who's already making a committed purchase, but it's above all a pleasure purchase. I think that when you're developing a committed cosmetics brand, you shouldn't get your priorities wrong. Even if what really motivates me is eco-design, in the end, for the story to continue, it still has to be very desirable.

(Case S)

Finally, transformers are not among the most junior in terms of career experience. In our sample, most of them had prior industry experience. They subsequently created or joined start-ups as a way to initiate change after an ecological awakening, thereby realigning professional choices with environmental concerns.

> I am the founder of [Company R], a dad. I say a dad because my children have contributed a lot to questioning me about what food innovation should be, or even food itself. I am a pure product of the agri-food industry [...] and then I set up [Company R] about ten years ago with the mission, I would say, of putting as much health as possible on people's plates without completely disrupting their habits [...] When I make products, I very often say to myself that these are things I want to make for my children.

(Case R)

> For the record, when I left [leading cosmetics company] in 2020, I took a course at Cambridge on sustainability in business. That's really why I left, because I felt there was a real disconnect between my environmental awareness, let us say, and the world of cosmetics.

(Case S)

Three distinct types of marketers thus emerged from our analysis of attitudes towards sustainable innovation.

## 4.2 | Marketers' Decision-Making Biases in Sustainable Innovation

We then investigated whether marketers were subject to decision-making biases that could explain the difference in the sustainability levels of the products created. As described in the methodology section, we assessed marketers' decision-making biases in the NPD process based on their responses and Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist.

Our results reveal that, globally, marketers in our sample are subject to eight decision-making biases from the checklist: affect bias, saliency bias, groupthink, availability bias, confirmation bias, sunk-cost fallacy, planning fallacy and disaster neglect. Table 3 shows the definition of each bias from Kahneman et al.'s (2011) article, the code(s) we used to assess the bias and quotations from our respondents. The count for each type is presented in Appendix 7.

Finally, we compared the marketers' typology and the decision-making biases identified. Certain biases can be found in all types of marketers involved in NPD, while other biases are particularly salient for either conservative or transformer marketers. Progressive marketers, positioned between the two, exhibit a mix of biases, sharing some similarities with transformers, such as affect bias, while also displaying biases common to conservatives, such as confirmation bias (Table 4). This is why we will focus on the conservative and transformer profiles more specifically.

In addition to being susceptible to affect bias, groupthink, sunk-cost fallacy and planning fallacy, conservatives tend to have strong confirmation bias. Indeed, they explore very few sustainable alternatives during the NPD process, compared with transformers, who frequently challenge and question the established practice.

> We took the product as it was and did not try to improve things so far. (Case I)

Transformers show several prominent biases too, on top of saliency bias, sunk-cost fallacy and planning fallacy. First, they show strong affect bias; they reported that they were very attached to their NPD projects. This excessive emotional attachment to the product can lead to difficulties in recognising risks.

> They're all close to my heart, because we're a small company and they're my little babies! Because we believe in them, we put a lot of energy into them, and since we work on them we know the impact they can have.

(Case B)

Transformers also show availability bias: market or consumer data were not frequently mobilised to assist in making decisions, and greater importance was given to intuition and gut feeling.

> Intuition is a power that we believe in a lot, and that we no longer listen to enough. In other words, there is a tendency to put our mind, and therefore our rationality, at the service of vision, instead of putting intuition at the service of vision. Vision and intuition come from the heart, and are very often right.

(Case R)

Finally, we observed disaster neglect among transformers, as several of them do not establish business cases or worst-case scenarios, instead basing strategic decisions on non-formalised estimates and approximate forecasts.
<table><caption>TABLE 3 | Assessment of the decision-making biases.</caption><thead><tr><th>Bias</th><th>Meaning (Kahneman et al. 2011)</th><th>Codes used to assess biases</th><th>Proof quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Affect bias</td><td>When people evaluate something they like, they tend to minimise the risks and exaggerate the benefits.</td><td>Attached to the project a lot</td><td>'They're my little babies every time!'<br>Case B [Transformer]<br>'All the projects are very close to my heart, and... when I make products, I very often say to myself that these are things I want to make for my children.' Case R [Transformer]<br>'There's been a lot of attachment to this product, which for me is one of the most successful. It's the one I'm most proud of [...] I love it, and so does the team!' Case H [Progressive]</td></tr><tr><td>Saliency bias</td><td>A decision can be overly influenced by an analogy with a memorable success, but the analogy may be less relevant than it seems.</td><td>Inspiration from an internal launch</td><td>'The year before, we had launched our dishwashing soap and washable sponge on Ulule, so regarding the launch of a crowdfunding campaign, we relied on that because the first one was a real hit.' Case B [Transformer]<br>'It was our second product, and we built on what we had learned from the first.' Case H [Progressive]</td></tr><tr><td>Groupthink</td><td>Groups have a tendency to minimise conflict by converging on a decision. This is particularly likely when the team has little diversity of background and viewpoints and/or when divergent opinions are not explored.</td><td>No dissenting opinions<br>Low team diversity</td><td>'We never had any conflicts. I think we knew the direction we wanted to take, and there were not too many of us [...] even if I do not completely agree, I say to myself: "It's their job, they'll probably do it better than me," so I leave it to them..." Case H [Progressive]<br>'The team was me and a trainee!' Case O [Conservative]</td></tr><tr><td>Availability bias</td><td>Our intuitive mind forms a cohesive story using the available evidence. This often leads to people overlooking what is absent and filling in the gaps themselves. Decision-makers must check that they have all the information they need.</td><td>Data used: feeling, intuition<br>Data used: no market studies<br>Data used: no consumer studies</td><td>'We leave a great part to our intuition, for what it's worth, but in the end, I have the impression that when we put our intuition to work, up there... it's a way of bringing together everything you have experienced, it's really about feeling, and feeling does not just fall out of the sky: we amalgamate all our past experiences to come up with something afterwards.' Case H [Progressive]<br>'Theoretically, we should be doing more in-depth qualitative and quantitative market research, but we do not because we do not have the budget for it, nor the time.' Case S [Transformer]</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continues)
<table><caption>TABLE 3 | (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Bias</th><th>Meaning (Kahneman et al. 2011)</th><th>Codes used to assess biases</th><th>Proof quotes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Confirmation bias</td><td>People often formulate a believable hypothesis when trying to solve a problem and selectively seek out evidence that reinforces it. Less plausible alternatives then enhance the appeal of the chosen hypothesis. Alternative recommendations have to be considered.</td><td>Alternatives explored: absence</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sunk-cost fallacy</td><td>Decision-makers tend to evaluate options in reference to a past starting point instead of the future. When considering new investments, people should disregard past expenditures that do not affect future costs or revenue.</td><td>Project abandonment envisaged: no</td><td>'No, no, no, because it's not just the future of our company, it's the future of our planet! [...] It would be silly to say, "We're stopping sourcing recycled materials, because it's not working well enough." No, the ambition is to say: OK, we have not succeeded in convincing our customers, so we are going to rework our sales pitch and go back to them, and re-explain the necessity, the need and the benefits of sourcing products made from recycled materials." Case G [Transformer]<br>'No, never, never, never!' Case H [Progressive]<br>'No, because we had to meet the requirements, so we had to do it no matter what.' Case K [Progressive]</td></tr><tr><td>Overconfidence: Planning fallacy</td><td>This is the tendency to underestimate the time needed for a project due to an inside view.</td><td>Actual NPD duration > planned duration</td><td>'Overall, it was a project that took a year and half. Whereas a project to change packaging usually takes eight months.' Case N [Progressive]<br>'Oh dear, years! The development of medical devices is becoming almost as long as that of a bandage. I think it took us a good 10 years to develop it! [...] It took longer [than expected].' Case M [Conservative]</td></tr><tr><td>Disaster neglect</td><td>The worst-case scenario developed to help strategic decision-making is rarely bad enough (if there is a worst-case scenario).</td><td>Worst-case scenario: no</td><td>'We do not have the maturity, the company seniority to really be able to do that. So, no, not really [...] it's a bit of a guesstimate.' Case B [Transformer]<br>'No, I actually produce to MOQ. That means Minimum Order Quantity. So I'm quite aware that, despite everything, when I produce to MOQ, it stocks me up for a very long time.' Case S [Transformer]'</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 4 | Marketing manager types and biases in NPD decisions.</caption><thead><tr><th>Decision biases</th><th>Conservatives</th><th>Progressives</th><th>Transformers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Affect bias</td><td>—</td><td>Personally very attached to their innovation project</td><td>Personally very attached to their innovation project</td></tr><tr><td>Availability bias</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>Little data used to make decisions, leaving a lot to intuition</td></tr><tr><td>Confirmation bias</td><td>Few alternatives explored</td><td>Few alternatives explored</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Disaster neglect</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>No worst-case scenario, approximate forecasts</td></tr></tbody></table>

> We don't have the maturity, the company seniority to really be able to do that. So, no, not really [...] it's a bit of a guesstimate.

(Case B)

We have therefore established a typology of marketers, showing how each profile presents specific decision-making biases.

## 5 | Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of this research was to identify decision-making biases affecting marketers in the NPD process and estimate their impact on the sustainability level of the product created. Building on the literature on sustainability and innovation management, and looking through the lens of behavioural strategy, the analysis of 19 case studies of marketers involved in product innovation revealed the variety of attitudes held by marketers towards the various dimensions of sustainable innovation. This difference led us to draw up a typology of marketers with regard to sustainable innovation; we labelled the three types 'conservatives', 'progressives' and 'transformers'. The products launched by conservatives are the least sustainable and those launched by transformers are the most sustainable. Conservative marketers show prominent confirmation bias, while transformers tend to show affect bias, availability bias and disaster neglect, which influence their decisions.

This research contributes to the literature by developing a typology of marketers based on their attitudes towards sustainable innovation, and by identifying new biases in marketing practices. It reveals which biases hinder sustainable innovation and which ones positively influence the sustainability of new products.

### 5.1 | Theoretical Implications

At a theoretical level, this research proposes an integrative perspective on sustainability and innovation management and addresses the need to seize emerging opportunities to accelerate the transition towards greater sustainability (Marullo et al. 2024). By examining the differences between distinct types of marketers and their decision-making biases through a multiple-case study approach, our research extends the understanding of how decision-making biases influence sustainable innovation. This approach supports theory development and adds to the existing literature in four major ways.

First, this research contributes to bridging the gap between the fields of sustainability and innovation management by focusing on sustainable innovation (Varadarajan 2017) through the lens of behavioural strategy (Powell et al. 2011). Considering the increasing urgency of addressing environmental challenges, advancing the field of research into innovative approaches to sustainability and innovation management is essential to accelerate the transition to a more sustainable society (Marullo et al. 2024). This paper also responds to calls for a deeper exploration of how cognitive biases can impact strategic decision-making in the context of environmental transformation (Acciarini et al. 2020; Cristofaro, Giardino, et al. 2024b). This study contributes to the understanding of the 'human side' of innovation management (Palmié et al. 2023; Weiss et al. 2022). By focusing on product innovation, it complements previous work on cognitive biases and sustainable practices (Cristofaro, Giardino, et al. 2024b; Engler et al. 2019) and shows how marketers' attitudes towards sustainable innovation and the resulting decision-making biases influence the environmental sustainability of the products they develop.

Second, our findings contribute to the literature on behavioural strategy (Powell et al. 2011) by illustrating how individual-level decision-making processes influence strategic outcomes in the context of sustainable NPD, at the intersection with marketing and sustainability. While prior research on behavioural strategy has focused largely on top executives (Hambrick 2007; Hodgkinson et al. 2023), our study introduces marketers as key actors in the strategic innovation process. The study focuses on cognitive biases and deepens our understanding of the underpinnings of behavioural strategy, particularly in regard to individual characteristics moderated by general environmental factors (Cristofaro, Augier, et al. 2024). By examining decision-making in the context of NPD, this paper is also part of the literature on heuristics and biases, specifically within the dual-processing framework of Kahneman (2012). Moreover, NPD literature has historically underexplored cognitive limitations within managerial decisions (Markovitch et al. 2015), and our study builds on the work of Cristofaro et al. (2022), Marzi (2022) and Trott et al. (2024) to explore cognitive biases in NPD. More precisely, while overconfidence, anchoring bias, planning fallacy and sunk-cost fallacy had already been identified as significantly impacting decision-making in NPD processes (Marzi et al. 2023), our study empirically reveals the presence of six other specific biases in this context: affect bias, saliency bias, groupthink, availability bias, confirmation bias and disaster
neglect, which all have an impact on decision-making in the context of sustainable NPD.

Our study also contributes to this literature by identifying particular combinations of cognitive biases that co-occur in specific marketer profiles. This configuration may be explained theoretically by the existence of common antecedents of individual cognitive biases at the industry, firm, group or individual level (Rau and Bromiley 2025). Individual-level factors, such as personal awareness or life events, can serve as antecedents of affect bias. While this paper primarily focuses on individuals, contextual factors may also play a role. Industry background and firm-level practices (Rau and Bromiley 2025) may act as antecedents of confirmation bias among conservatives. Finally, the distribution of types is unlikely to be uniform across sectors, echoing Fauchart and Gruber's (2011) observations.

Third, this research contributes to the emerging literature on decision-making in sustainability contexts. While several studies have suggested that biases in NPD lead to suboptimal outcomes (Marzi et al. 2023), our findings show that certain biases, such as affect bias, availability bias and disaster neglect, can positively influence the sustainability of innovation, particularly within the transformers category of marketers. This insight is in line with the argument of Busenitz and Barney (1997) that under conditions of high environmental uncertainty and complexity, heuristics and biases can function as efficient and adaptive decision-making tools. The challenges of the Anthropocene create precisely such a context (Polasky et al. 2020). By showing that biases can sometimes lead to favourable strategic outcomes, such as the development of more sustainable products, our study responds to recent calls to revisit the conventional view of biases as detrimental (Cristofaro, Augier, et al. 2024; Hodgkinson et al. 2023). While this positive approach relates more to the 'fast and frugal heuristics' approach (Cristofaro, Giardino, et al. 2024b; Gigerenzer et al. 2022; Hodgkinson et al. 2023), it also remains consistent with Kahneman's view of the ambivalence of heuristics – 'In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors' (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974, 112) – and biases: 'Optimistic bias can be both a blessing and a risk' (Kahneman 2012, 248).

Fourth, this research contributes to our understanding of innovation marketing and sustainable marketing. Our findings emphasise the role of marketers as key decision-makers in sustainable product innovation, contributing to ongoing discussions on how marketing can enhance the environmental impact of innovation, as encouraged by O'Cass and Heidenreich (2023). This research also responds to Shulman et al.'s (2023) call for research to help product managers make better decisions. This study builds on previous work on cognitive biases in marketing decisions (Casenave 2013; Hoch 1988; Mowen and Gaeth 1992; Pham 1996; Wierenga 2011), which identified several heuristics (representativeness, availability, adjustment and anchoring) and biases (confirmation bias, excessive product attachment and risk aversion) in marketing practices. Our findings contribute by identifying six additional biases in the context of marketing decisions: affect bias, saliency bias, groupthink, sunk-cost fallacy, overconfidence/planning fallacy and disaster neglect. Finally, we engage

with the growing body of literature on sustainable marketing (Plangger et al. 2025) by examining how marketing can integrate sustainability principles into the product dimension of the marketing mix (Bharadwaj et al. 2024). Our findings support the idea that marketers play a critical role in addressing consumer demand for environmentally friendly products, which leads us to make managerial recommendations.

## 5.2 | Managerial Implications

From a managerial perspective, sustainable product innovation has been shown to enhance firm performance and offer a competitive advantage (Varadarajan 2017). Despite broad acknowledgement of its importance, with 90% of marketers supporting a shift towards sustainability (WFA and Kantar 2023), there are still relatively few sustainable products in the consumer goods market. This gap highlights a key managerial challenge: aligning the sustainability goals of marketers with tangible outcomes in the NPD process.

Our findings demonstrate the influential role of the marketing function in shaping innovation outcomes. Marketers are not only central actors in NPD decision-making; they also significantly influence the sustainability level of new products through their individual cognitive biases. These biases, depending on the marketer's profile and attitude towards sustainable innovation, can act either as obstacles or as drivers to sustainable innovation. While cognitive biases are commonly perceived as detrimental in organisations (Cristofaro et al. 2022), our study reveals that some biases may have a positive effect on innovation sustainability.

Given their significant impact, the question of how to mitigate cognitive biases has received increasing attention (Fasolo et al. 2025). Proposed debiasing approaches include 'design thinking' techniques (Liedtka 2015), structured 'decision architectures' (Sibony et al. 2017), organisational-level tools (Kahneman et al. 2011) or a combination of a checklist and Myers-Briggs Type Indicators (MBTI) to improve the quality of decisions (Cristofaro 2017). Our study adds to this existing literature by providing a dedicated decision-support tool tailored for marketers involved in NPD (Table 5). This practical tool is intended to help reduce the intention-action gap in sustainable NPD, by encouraging marketers to identify which profile they fall into and to become aware of the cognitive biases that may influence their decisions. Building on Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist, we also offer targeted questions and recommendations that can support reflection and improve the quality of a marketer's strategic decision-making in this context.

We suggest that there is significant strategic value in identifying the managerial profiles best suited to creating highly sustainable products, and the decision-making biases that best support sustainable innovation. As consumer demand for sustainable supply grows, having sustainable products can be a competitive advantage for a company and contribute to increased revenue, particularly in combination with premium pricing strategies. An increase in the sustainability of NPD will therefore be a positive outcome for both the firm and society at large.
<table><caption>TABLE 5 | Managerial implications.</caption><thead><tr><th>Manager's objectives</th><th>Recommendations from the research</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Extend the brand portfolio, sustainability is not a core objective. Focus on conventional innovation practices.</td><td>Likely to exhibit confirmation bias, which can hinder the inclusion of sustainable options by reinforcing existing beliefs and limiting exploration.<br/>→ Check for confirmation bias by asking a third party to pose the question: 'Are credible alternatives included along with the recommendation?' and mitigate the bias by encouraging the inclusion of more sustainable viable options.</td></tr><tr><td>Integrate some sustainable features in the product to improve brand image and/or to meet group objectives, while maintaining profitability.</td><td>Likely to exhibit confirmation bias, which can hinder the inclusion of sustainable options by reinforcing existing beliefs and limiting exploration.<br/>→ Check for confirmation bias by asking a third party to pose the question: 'Are credible alternatives included along with the recommendation?' and mitigate the bias by encouraging the inclusion of more sustainable viable options.<br/>Also likely to show affect bias, with a strong attachment to their NPD project. This bias can support sustainable innovation by minimising the risks and exaggerating the benefits.<br/>→ Check for affect bias by asking a third party to pose the question: 'Has the team fallen in love with its proposal?' and apply decision quality control to maintain balance.</td></tr><tr><td>Achieve the highest level of sustainability, challenging all aspects of the product and business practices.</td><td>Likely to show affect bias, with a strong attachment to their NPD project. This bias can support sustainable innovation by minimising the risks and exaggerating the benefits.<br/>→ Check for affect bias by asking a third party to pose the question: 'Has the team fallen in love with its proposal?' and apply decision quality control to maintain balance.<br/>Likely to rely on availability bias, only using available information and leaving a lot to intuition.<br/>This bias can support sustainability when intuition is aligned with environmental values.<br/>→ Check for affect bias by asking a third party to pose the question: 'If you had to make this decision again in a year's time, what information would you want, and can you get more of it now?' Use checklists of the data needed for NPD decision-making to complement intuitive reasoning.<br/>May also be subject to disaster neglect, where the worst-case scenario is not bad enough or there is no worst-case scenario. Yet in sustainability contexts, optimism can be constructive.<br/>→ Check for disaster neglect by asking a third party to pose the question: 'Is the worst case bad enough?'<br/>Use pre-mortem techniques to enhance reflection on risk, but avoid stifling ambition.</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 5.3 | Societal Contributions

In the context of climate change and increasing environmental awareness, marketing must reinvent itself to be more sustainable (Kotler 2011). This transformation also involves introducing new sustainable products to the market. Our findings align with the principles of 'responsible research in marketing', which advocates for research that creates value not only for firms and their stakeholders, but also for society and the planet (Haenlein et al. 2022). This study also echoes the call from Chandy et al. (2021) for 'better marketing for a better world', which urges marketing to contribute positively to long-term societal outcomes and not solely to business performance. Similarly, it resonates with the recent notion of 'better world innovation' proposed by Dahl et al. (2025), in which innovation is guided by goals that extend beyond profit to include social and environmental impact. Our research is situated in the sustainable marketing tradition, although it acknowledges recent calls to transition towards a more radical approach adapted to pressing global needs, known as 'Marketing in the Anthropocene' (Bocken et al. 2025).

This paper makes a societal contribution by identifying the conditions under which marketers promote the development of sustainable products. It allows firms to ensure that customers are provided with a broader selection of environmentally friendly options, ultimately encouraging choices that will benefit the planet. Driving change at the meso level—in this case, the managerial level—offers the greatest potential to reshape industries and address core environmental challenges in the most effective and timely way, according to Nenkov (2024).

Finally, at a broader level, innovation is a crucial driver for developing sustainable solutions to address the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Azmat et al. 2023; Tarba et al. 2024). This paper aligns with SDG 12, 'Responsible Consumption and Production', and responds to the call from Grewal et al. (2024) to explore the links between the SDGs and marketing practices, and to address grand challenges through a marketing lens.

## 5.4 | Limitations and Further Research

Our study has several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, it is based on a theoretical sample with a limited number of cases. Accessing a field of innovation experts with questions concerning confidential data is difficult. Replicating this study with a larger sample size would provide the opportunity to validate our findings and obtain more cases for each marketer profile, especially for the conservative and transformer profiles, which would be particularly beneficial. Moreover, the case studies are limited in both geographical and sectorial scope, where marketing has a strong influence, which limits our ability to generalise our findings across different industries and regions. Consequently, our outcomes encourage further research to confirm our findings, expand on them to encompass broader settings and identify further beneficial mechanisms.

Second, following authoritative studies, we assessed the biases of Kahneman et al.'s (2011) checklist. It would be interesting to

expand the range of biases and heuristics, as they can play a relevant role in influencing marketers' decisions in NPD. To complement this exploratory approach, other methodologies could be employed in future research, such as incorporating a more comprehensive set of questions for each type of bias, observing decision-making behaviours or outcomes, or conducting implicit association tests (IAT) or experiments to capture the full complexity and nuances of the phenomenon. In particular, this work could be extended through quantitative research, contrasting sustainable and non-sustainable innovations. This would help to confirm the link between the marketer typology and product sustainability, measure the precise influence of each bias and identify other contributing factors.

Third, our findings suggest that marketers' profiles should not be regarded as fixed categories, but rather as dynamic states, where individuals may transition over time from one type to another. Preliminary evidence indicates that individual-level triggers, such as personal awareness or life events, may foster transitions from progressive to transformer, while contextual factors, such as regulatory constraints or corporate sustainability agendas, may similarly drive transitions from conservative to progressive. Longitudinal studies would be valuable to examine these dynamics more systematically, strengthen the explanatory depth of the typology and help identify strategies for companies to guide conservative or progressive profiles towards the more sustainable innovation practices of the transformer.

Finally, our focus is primarily centred on the individual and psychological dimension of individual marketers. Further research could integrate the influence of multiple decision-makers in the innovation process and explore how group dynamics, cultural norms and organisational practices may impact the emergence of biases. Comparative and longitudinal designs would therefore be valuable, offering promising paths for future research.

**Data Availability Statement**

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

**Funding**

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

**Endnotes**

<footnote n="1">¹ Estimation of the probability that an object belongs to a particular category, based on the similarity between that object and an object considered typical of that category.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Estimation of frequency or probability, based on the ease with which examples come to mind.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Numerical prediction from an initial value (anchor), which is adjusted to obtain the final response.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Evaluation of risks and benefits from the affective reactions to the stimulus.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Self-interest bias, affect heuristics, groupthink, saliency bias, confirmation bias, availability bias, anchoring bias, halo effect, sunk-cost fallacy, overconfidence/planning fallacy, disaster neglect and loss aversion.</footnote>
## References

Acciarini, C., F. Brunetta, and P. Boccardelli. 2020. "Cognitive Biases and Decision-Making Strategies in Times of Change: A Systematic Literature Review." *Management Decision* 59, no. 3: 638-652. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2019-1006.

Adams, R., S. Jeanrenaud, J. Bessant, D. Denyer, and P. Overy. 2016. "Sustainability-Oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review." *International Journal of Management Reviews* 18, no. 2: 180-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068.

Ahmad, W., S. Saeed, K. Janovská, L. T. Dat, I. Rizomyliotis, and S. Ahmed. 2024. "Radical Product Sustainability Oriented Innovation (SOI) and Triple-Bottom-Line (3BL) Performance: Findings From Malaysian and Singaporean B2B Firms." *Industrial Marketing Management* 117: 457-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.01.020.

Annosi, M. C., F. Brunetta, F. P. Appio, N. Watcharakomenkul, and F. Platania. 2024. "Integrating Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision-Making Processes: Insights From Product Development in Multinational Corporations." *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management* 71: 8402-8416. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3395014.

Antioco, M., R. K. Moenaert, and A. Lindgreen. 2008. "Reducing Ongoing Product Design Decision-Making Bias." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 25, no. 6: 528-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00320.x.

Anwar, J., A. Bibi, and N. Ahmad. 2022. "Behavioral Strategy: Mapping the Trends, Sources and Intellectual Evolution." *Journal of Strategy and Management* 15, no. 1: 140-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2021-0002.

Anzola-Román, P., T. Garcia-Marco, and F. Zouaghi. 2024. "The Influence of CSR Orientation on Innovative Performance: Is the Effect Conditioned to the Implementation of Organizational Practices?" *Journal of Business Ethics* 190, no. 1: 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05406-z.

Artz, K. W., P. M. Norman, D. E. Hatfield, and L. B. Cardinal. 2010. "A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of R&D, Patents, and Product Innovation on Firm Performance." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 27, no. 5: 725-740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00747.x.

Atanasiu, R., R. Ruotsalainen, S. N.Khapova, and S. 2023. "A Simple Rule Is Born: How CEOs Distill Heuristics." *Journal of Management Studies* 60, no. 5: 1064-1104. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12808.

Azmat, F., W. M. Lim, A. Moyeen, R. Voola, and G. Gupta. 2023. "Convergence of Business, Innovation, and Sustainability at the Tipping Point of the Sustainable Development Goals." *Journal of Business Research* 167: 114170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114170.

Bechtel, J., L. Sabini, and A. Kock. 2025. "When Do Sustainability Tensions Harm or Benefit Innovation Portfolios? A Paradoxical Perspective." *Journal of Product Innovation Management*. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12792.

Belvedere, V., A. Grando, and B. Ronen. 2013. "Cognitive Biases, Heuristics, and Overdesign: An Investigation on the Unconscious Mistakes of Industrial Designers and on Their Effects on Product Offering." In *Behavioral Issues in Operations Management*, edited by I. Giannoccaro, 125-139. London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4878-4_6.

Berthet, V. 2022. "The Impact of Cognitive Biases on Professionals' Decision-Making: A Review of Four Occupational Areas." *Frontiers in Psychology* 12: 802439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439.

Bharadwaj, N., A. Gustafsson, and J. N. Sheth. 2024. "Sustainable Marketing and Innovation—Call for Papers." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*.

Biyalogorsky, E., W. Boulding, and R. Staelin. 2006. "Stuck in the Past: Why Managers Persist With new Product Failures." *Journal of Marketing* 70, no. 2: 108-121. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.2.108.

Bocken, N. M. P., L. Niessen, M. Gossen, A. Das, and M. Zielińska. 2025. "Marketing in the Anthropocene: A Future Agenda for Research and Practice." *AMS Review*. 15: 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-025-00300-5.

Bstieler, L., T. Gruen, B. Akdeniz, et al. 2018. "Emerging Research Themes in Innovation and new Product Development: Insights From the 2017 PDMA-UNH Doctoral Consortium." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 35, no. 3: 300-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12447.

Burkhard, B., C. Sirén, M. Van Essen, D. Grichnik, and D. A. Shepherd. 2023. "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained: A Meta-Analysis of CEO Overconfidence, Strategic Risk Taking, and Performance." *Journal of Management* 49, no. 8: 2629-2666. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221110203.

Busenitz, L. W., and J. B. Barney. 1997. "Differences Between Entrepreneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Biases and Heuristics in Strategic Decision-Making." *Journal of Business Venturing* 12, no. 1: 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00003-1.

Casenave, E. 2013. "Decision-Maker's Impact on Marketing's Financial Accountability: Proposals for Improving Managerial Decision Making." *Décisions Marketing* 72: 121-137. https://doi.org/10.7193/dm.072.87.121.137.

Chandy, R. K., G. V. Johar, C. Moorman, and J. H. Roberts. 2021. "Better Marketing for a Better World." *Journal of Marketing* 85, no. 3: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429211003690.

Claudy, M. C., M. Peterson, and M. Pagell. 2016. "The Roles of Sustainability Orientation and Market Knowledge Competence in New Product Development Success." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 33, no. S1: 72-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12343.

Cortellazzo, L., S. Bonesso, J. M. Batista-Foguet, and F. Gerli. 2025. "At the Early Stage of the Ideation Process: Measurement, Antecedents and Outcomes of Individual Exploratory Behaviours." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 34, no. 3: 706-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12663.

Crawford, C. M., and C. A. D. Benedetto. 2020. *New Products Management*. 12e édition ed. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Cristofaro, M. 2017. "Reducing Biases of Decision-Making Processes in Complex Organizations." *Management Research Review* 40, no. 3: 270-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2016-0054.

Cristofaro, M., M. Augier, D. Lovallo, G. Abatecola, and L. Leoni. 2024. "Behavioral Strategy in Evolution: A Review and Conceptual Framework." *European Management Journal*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2024.10.002.

Cristofaro, M., P. L. Giardino, R. Camilli, and I. Hristov. 2024a. "Understanding Behavioral Strategy: A Historical Evolutionary Perspective in "Management Decision."" *Management Decision* 62, no. 13: 426-455. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2023-0072.

Cristofaro, M., P. L. Giardino, R. Camilli, and I. Hristov. 2024b. "Unlocking the Sustainability of Medium Enterprises: A Framework for Reducing Cognitive Biases in Sustainable Performance Management." *Journal of Management & Organization* 30, no. 3: 490-520. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.55.

Cristofaro, M., L. Leoni, and P. L. Giardino. 2022. "Cognitive Biases' Influence on Employees' Product Creativity and Product Performance: Evidences From Italian Manufacturing Technology Firms." *Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management* 33, no. 4: 675-695. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2020-0414.

Crutzen, P. J. 2006. "The "Anthropocene."" In *Earth System Science in the Anthropocene*, edited by E. Ehlers and T. Krafft, 13-18. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26590-2_3.
Cyert, R., and J. March. 1963. *A Behavioral Theory of the Firm*. Prentice Hall.

Dahl, D. W., C. H. Noble, M. Schreier, and O. Toubia. 2025. "Better Innovation for a Better World." *Journal of Marketing*. 89: 100-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429251322774.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2011. *Handbook of Qualitative Research*. SAGE.

Doty, D. H., and W. H. Glick. 1994. "Typologies as a Unique Form of Theory Building: Toward Improved Understanding and Modeling." *Academy of Management Review* 19, no. 2: 230-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/258704.

Drechsler, W., M. Natter, and P. S. H. Leeflang. 2013. "Improving Marketing's Contribution to new Product Development." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 30, no. 2: 298-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.01010.x.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. "Building Theories From Case Study Research." *Academy of Management Review* 14, no. 4: 532-550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 2021. "What Is the Eisenhardt Method, Really?" *Strategic Organization* 19, no. 1: 147-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020982866.

Eisenhardt, K. M., and M. J. Zbaracki. 1992. "Strategic Decision Making." *Strategic Management Journal* 13, no. S2: 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130904.

Engler, J.-O., D. J. Abson, and H. von Wehrden. 2019. "Navigating Cognition Biases in the Search of Sustainability." *Ambio* 48, no. 6: 605-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1100-5.

Ernst, H., W. D. Hoyer, and C. Rübsaamen. 2010. "Sales, Marketing, and Research-and-Development Cooperation Across new Product Development Stages: Implications for Success." *Journal of Marketing* 74, no. 5: 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.5.080.

European Commission. D.-G. for E., Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry 2014. *Ecodesign Your Future: How Ecodesign can Help the Environment by Making Products Smarter*. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2769/38512.

Fasolo, B., C. Heard, and I. Scopelliti. 2025. "Mitigating Cognitive Bias to Improve Organizational Decisions: An Integrative Review, Framework, and Research Agenda." *Journal of Management* 51, no. 6: 2182-2211. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241287188.

Fauchart, E., and M. Gruber. 2011. "Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries: The Role of Founder Identity in Entrepreneurship." *Academy of Management Journal* 54, no. 5: 935-957. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0211.

Felin, T., N. J. Foss, and R. E. Ployhart. 2015. "The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory." *Academy of Management Annals* 9, no. 1: 575-632. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1007651.

Finucane, M. L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson. 2000. "The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits." *Journal of Behavioral Decision Making* 13, no. 1: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S.

Foss, N. J., A. Mazzelli, and L. Weber. 2024. *Behavioral Strategy: Exploring Microfoundations of Competitive Advantage*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009566759.

Galasso, A., and T. S. Simcoe. 2011. "CEO Overconfidence and Innovation." *Management Science* 57, no. 8: 1469-1484. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1374.

Gavetti, G. 2012. "Perspective: Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy." *Organization Science* 23, no. 1: 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0644.

Gibbert, M., W. Ruigrok, and B. Wicki. 2008. "What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study?" *Strategic Management Journal* 29, no. 13: 1465-1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722.

Gigerenzer, G., J. Reb, and S. Luan. 2022. "Smart Heuristics for Individuals, Teams, and Organizations." *Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior* 9, no. 1: 171-198. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-090506.

Goffin, K., P. Åhlström, M. Bianchi, and A. Richtnér. 2019. "Perspective: State-Of-The-Art: The Quality of Case Study Research in Innovation Management." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 36, no. 5: 586-615. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12492.

Grewal, D., P. K. Kopalle, and J. Hulland. 2024. "Addressing the Greatest Global Challenges (UN SDGs) With a Marketing lens." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 52, no. 5: 1263-1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-024-01049-2.

Gurtner, N., S. Gurtner, and M. Schaarschmidt. 2025. "Uncovering the Paradox of Affordable Innovation: The Divergent Effect of Innovativeness on Managers' Attitudes Toward Affordable Innovation." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 34, no. 2: 443-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12648.

Haenlein, M., M. J. Bitner, A. K. Kohli, K. N. Lemon, and D. J. Reibstein. 2022. "Guest Editorial: Responsible Research in Marketing." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 50, no. 1: 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-021-00812-z.

Hambrick, D. C. 2007. "Upper Echelons Theory: An Update." *Academy of Management Review* 32, no. 2: 334-343. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159303.

Hambrick, D. C., and P. A. Mason. 1984. "Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its top Managers." *Academy of Management Review* 9, no. 2: 193-206. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277628.

Hauser, J., G. J. Tellis, and A. Griffin. 2006. "Research on Innovation: A Review and Agenda for "Marketing Science"." *Marketing Science* 25, no. 6: 687-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0144.

Hemonnet-Goujot, A., D. Manceau, and C. Abecassis-Moedas. 2019. "Drivers and Pathways of NPD Success in the Marketing-External Design Relationship." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 36, no. 2: 196-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12472.

Hesselbarth, I., A. Alnoor, and V. Tiberius. 2023. "Behavioral Strategy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Framework." *Management Decision* 61, no. 9: 2740-2756. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2021-1274.

Hirshleifer, D., A. Low, and S. H. Teoh. 2012. "Are Overconfident CEOs Better Innovators?" *Journal of Finance* 67, no. 4: 1457-1498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01753.x.

Hoch, S. J. 1988. "Who Do We Know: Predicting the Interests and Opinions of the American Consumer." *Journal of Consumer Research* 15, no. 3: 315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209169.

Hodgkinson, G. P., B. Burkhard, N. J. Foss, et al. 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future." *Journal of Management Studies* 60, no. 5: 1033-1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12937.

Hristov, I., R. Camilli, and A. Mechelli. 2022. "Cognitive Biases in Implementing a Performance Management System: Behavioral Strategy for Supporting Managers' Decision-Making Processes." *Management Research Review* 45, no. 9: 1110-1136. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2021-0777.

Hutchinson, J. W., J. W. Alba, and E. M. Eisenstein. 2010. "Heuristics and Biases in Data-Based Decision Making: Effects of Experience, Training, and Graphical Data Displays." *Journal of Marketing Research* 47, no. 4: 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.4.627.
Jalonen, H. 2011. "The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature." *Journal of Management Research* 4, no. 1: 1-47.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v4i1.1039.

Kahneman, D. 2012. *Thinking Fast and Slow*. Penguin.

Kahneman, D., D. Lovallo, and O. Sibony. 2011. "Before You Make That big Decision." *Harvard Business Review* 89, no. 6: 50-60.

Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk." *Econometrica* 47, no. 2: 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.

Kandemir, D., and N. Acur. 2012. "Examining Proactive Strategic Decision-Making Flexibility in New Product Development." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 29, no. 4: 608-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00928.x.

Kantar, and AFM. 2022. "What Representations do the French Have of Marketing?" https://www.kantar.com/fr/inspirations/research-services/2022-afm-image-du-marketing.

Katsikeas, C. S., C. N. Leonidou, and A. Zeriti. 2016. "Eco-Friendly Product Development Strategy: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Contingent Effects." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 44, no. 6: 660-684.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0470-5.

Kotler, P. 2011. "Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative." *Journal of Marketing* 75, no. 4: 132-135. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.132.

Kotler, P., K. Keller, and A. Chernev. 2021. *Marketing Management, Global Edition*. 16e édition ed. Pearson Education Limited.

Kranzle, T., and K. Sharratt. 2025. "Evaluating Creative Output With Generative Artificial Intelligence: Comparing GPT Models and Human Experts in Idea Evaluation." *Creativity and Innovation Management*. 34: 991-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.70007.

Kruse, S., D. Bendig, and M. Brettel. 2023. "How Does CEO Decision Style Influence Firm Performance? The Mediating Role of Speed and Innovativeness in New Product Development." *Journal of Management Studies* 60, no. 5: 1205-1235. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12913.

Kumar, V., and D. W. Stewart. 2021. "An Integrative Framework for Marketing Accountability of Marketing and Nonmarketing Outcomes." In *Marketing Accountability for Marketing and Non-Marketing Outcomes*, edited by V. Kumar and D. W. Stewart, vol. 18, 3-13. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-643520210000018001.

Lee, B., S. Misra, and C. Haon. 2024. "Marketers on Board: The Influence of Marketing-Experienced Board Members (MEBMs) on Firm Innovativeness Inputs and the Moderating Roles of CEO Job Characteristics." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 52, no. 3: 859-891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00950-6.

Lesage, K. C., F. Schweitzer, M. Palmié, C. Haon, and S. Misra. 2025. "Red, Blue, and Green? The Association Between Ceos' Political Ideologies and Green New Product Introductions." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 42, no. 2: 392-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12761.

Liedtka, J. 2015. "Perspective: Linking Design Thinking With Innovation Outcomes Through Cognitive Bias Reduction: Design Thinking." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 32, no. 6: 925-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163.

Lubberink, R., V. Blok, J. Van Ophem, and O. Omta. 2017. "A Framework for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: Lessons From Responsible-, Social- and Sustainable Innovation." In *Responsible Innovation* 3, edited by L. Asveld, R. Van Dam-Mieras, T. Swierstra, S. Lavrijssen, K. Linse, and J. Van Den Hoven, 181-207. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64834-7_11.

Mariadoss, B. J., P. S. Tansuhaj, and N. Mouri. 2011. "Marketing Capabilities and Innovation-Based Strategies for Environmental

Sustainability: An Exploratory Investigation of B2B Firms." *Industrial Marketing Management* 40, no. 8: 1305-1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.006.

Marketing Science Institute. 2022. "2022-24 Research Priorities." https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/MSI-2022-24-Research-Priorities-Final.pdf.

Markovitch, D. G., J. H. Steckel, A. Michaut, D. Philip, and W. M. Tracy. 2015. "Behavioral Reasons for New Product Failure: Does Overconfidence Induce Overforecasts?" *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 32, no. 5: 825-841. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12252.

Marullo, C., L.D.N. Gambi, E. Annunziatac, and D. van Dund. 2024. "Bridging Innovation and Sustainability Management Research: Theoretical and Managerial Challenges and Opportunities—Call for Papers." *Creativity and Innovation Management*.

Marzi, G. 2022. "On the Nature, Origins and Outcomes of Over Featuring in the New Product Development Process." *Journal of Engineering and Technology Management* 64: 101685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101685.

Marzi, G., M. Balzano, S. Magistretti, and J. Liedtka (2025). "Guest Editorial:Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in the New Product Development Process—A Call for More Empirical Evidence". *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management* 72, 980-986 https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2025.3533563

McAlister, L., F. Germann, N. Chisam, P. Hayes, A. Lynch, and B. Stewart. 2023. "A Taxonomy of Marketing Organizations." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 51, no. 3: 617-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00911-5.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. *Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook*. SAGE.

Moenaert, R. K., H. Robben, M. Antioco, V. D. Schamphelaere, and E. Roks. 2010. "Strategic Innovation Decisions: What You Foresee Is Not What You Get." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 27, no. 6: 840-855. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00755.x.

Moorman, C., and R. T. Rust. 1999. "The Role of Marketing." *Journal of Marketing* 63: 180-197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252111.

Morgan, N. A. 2012. "Marketing and Business Performance." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 40, no. 1: 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0279-9.

Mowen, J. C., and G. J. Gaeth. 1992. "The Evaluation Stage in Marketing Decision Making." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 20, no. 2: 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723457.

Nenkov, G. Y. 2024. "Shifting Focus in the Fight Against Core Environmental Challenges." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 52, no. 5: 1273-1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-01001-w.

Nguyen, H. V., C. H. Nguyen, and T. T. B. Hoang. 2019. "Green Consumption: Closing the Intention-Behavior Gap." *Sustainable Development* 27, no. 1: 118-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1875.

Nijssen, E. J., and T. van Bommel. 2024. "How Marketers Influence Product Platform Decisions: A Configurational Approach." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 41, no. 3: 600-622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12723.

Nutt, P. C. 2011. "Making Decision-Making Research Matter: Some Issues and Remedies." *Management Research Review* 34, no. 1: 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171111096441.

O'Cass, A., and S. Heidenreich. 2023. "Setting up new Product Development for Environmentally Sustainable Innovation—Call for Papers." *Journal of Product Innovation Management*.

O'Connor, G. C., and M. P. Rice. 2013. "A Comprehensive Model of Uncertainty Associated With Radical Innovation." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 30, no. S1: 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12060.
Palmié, M., S. Rüegger, and V. Parida. 2023. "Microfoundations in the Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation: Definitions, Systematic Literature Review, Integrative Framework, and Research Agenda." *Journal of Business Research* 154: 113351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113351.

Pham, M. T. 1996. "Heuristics and Decision-Making Biases in Marketing." *Recherche et Applications en Marketing* 11, no. 4: 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737019601100403.

Pinkow, F. 2023. "Creative Cognition: A Multidisciplinary and Integrative Framework of Creative Thinking." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 32, no. 3: 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12541.

Plangger, K., M. Montecchi, K. De Ruyter, D. I. Keeling, M. L. Scott, and D. W. Dahl. 2025. ""We Could Be Heroes": Reflections on Reimagining Marketing Strategies for a Better World." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 53, no. 2: 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-025-01099-0.

Polasky, S., A.-S. Crépin, R. Biggs, et al., eds. 2020. "Corridors of Clarity: Four Principles to Overcome Uncertainty Paralysis in the Anthropocene." *BioScience* 70, no. 12: 1139–1144. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa115.

Powell, T. C., D. Lovallo, and C. R. Fox. 2011. "Behavioral Strategy." *Strategic Management Journal* 32, no. 13: 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.968.

Pratt, M. G. 2008. "Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals." *Organizational Research Methods* 11, no. 3: 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303349.

Rau, D., and P. Bromiley. 2025. "A Review of Cognitive Biases in Strategic Decision Making." *Long Range Planning* 58, no. 3: 102529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102529.

Reitzig, M., and O. Sorenson. 2013. "Biases in the Selection Stage of Bottom-Up Strategy Formulation." *Strategic Management Journal* 34, no. 7: 782–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2047.

Royer, I. 1996. "Escalating Commitment to New Product Development." *Recherche et Applications en Marketing* 11, no. 3: 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/076737019601100301.

Royer, I. 2002. "Decision Rules in the Procedure of the Development of New Products." *Revue Française de Gestion* 139, no. 3: 7–25.

Schweisfurth, T. G., C. P. Schöttl, C. Raasch, and M. A. Zaggl. 2023. "Distributed Decision-Making in the Shadow of Hierarchy: How Hierarchical Similarity Biases Idea Evaluation." *Strategic Management Journal* 44, no. 9: 2255–2282. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3497.

Shulman, J. D., O. Toubia, and R. Saddler. 2023. "Editorial: Marketing's Role in the Evolving Discipline of Product Management." *Marketing Science* 42, no. 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1428.

Sibony, O., D. Lovallo, and T. C. Powell. 2017. "Behavioral Strategy and the Strategic Decision Architecture of the Firm." *California Management Review* 59, no. 3: 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617712256.

Simon, H. A. 1947. *Administrative Behavior*. Free Press.

Slovic, P., M. L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. 2007. "The Affect Heuristic." *European Journal of Operational Research* 177, no. 3: 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.

Smits, A., G. Vissers, and B. Dankbaar. 2015. "Marketing Activities to Support 'Moderately Novel' Product Innovation: Insights From the Chemical Industry." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 24, no. 3: 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12117.

Tarba, S. Y., M. F. Ahammad, D. Gregory-Smith, C. L. Cooper, and F. Bauer. 2024. "The Role of Innovation in for-Profit Firms' Tackling of Grand Challenges: Special Issue Editorial." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 41, no. 2: 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12728.

Trott, P., P. Ellwood, and D. Baxter. 2024. "How Cognitive Bias Prevents Serendipity in new Product Development (and What to Do About It)." *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management* 71: 11269–11281. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3407515.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases." *Science* 185, no. 4157: 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.

Urío, S., R. Redondo, and D. Gavilan. 2022. "The Intellectual Structure of Behavioral Strategy: A Bibliometric Study." *Strategic Management* 27, no. 1: 4–21. https://doi.org/10.5937/StraMan2110005U.

Valtonen, A., J.-P. Kimpimäki, and I. Malacina. 2023. "From Ideas to Innovations: The Role of Individuals in Idea Implementation." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 32, no. 4: 636–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12577.

Varadarajan, R. 2017. "Innovating for Sustainability: A Framework for Sustainable Innovations and a Model of Sustainable Innovations Orientation." *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science* 45, no. 1: 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0461-6.

Varadarajan, R. 2024. "Mitigating the Definitional Quagmire in Innovation Research: An Inclusive Definition of Innovation as a Template for Defining Various Types of Innovations Uniformly." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 41, no. 4: 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12729.

Vazquez-Hernandez, C., M. Garbuio, and B. Szkudlarek. 2024. "How Do Stereotypical Representations Affect Judgments of New Product Success? An Empirical Investigation." *IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management* 71: 8503–8516. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3385359.

Verhoef, P. C., and P. S. H. Leeflang. 2009. "Understanding the Marketing Department's Influence Within the Firm." *Journal of Marketing* 73, no. 2: 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.14.

Volle, P., and J. Schouten. 2022. *Marketing (Plus) Durable*. De Boeck Supérieur.

Vuculescu, O., M. Beretta, and C. Bergenholtz. 2021. "The IKEA Effect in Collective Problem-Solving: When Individuals Prioritize Their Own Solutions." *Creativity and Innovation Management* 30, no. 1: 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12416.

Weiss, M., M. Baer, and M. Hoegl. 2022. "The Human Side of Innovation Management: Bridging the Divide Between the Fields of Innovation Management and Organizational Behavior." *Journal of Product Innovation Management* 39, no. 3: 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12624.

West, D. C., O. A. Acar, and A. Caruana. 2020. "Choosing Among Alternative New Product Development Projects: The Role of Heuristics." *Psychology & Marketing* 37, no. 11: 1511–1524. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21397.

WFA, and Kantar. 2023. "Sustainable Marketing 2030: A Sustainable Growth Framework for Marketing." https://www.kantar.com/campaigns/sustainable-marketing-2030.

White, K., R. Habib, and D. J. Hardisty. 2019. "How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to Be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework." *Journal of Marketing* 83, no. 3: 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649.

Wierenga, B. 2011. "Managerial Decision Making in Marketing: The Next Research Frontier." *International Journal of Research in Marketing* 28, no. 2: 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.03.001.

Yang, M. M., W. Chen, and Y. Wang. 2022. "What Explains Managers' Escalating Behaviors in a Failing NPD Project? The Impact of Managerial Perceptions of Opportunities and Threats in a Stage-Gate Process." *Journal of Small Business Management* 60, no. 3: 541–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1719297.

Yin, R. K. 2017. *Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods*. 6th ed. SAGE.
# Appendix 1

## Heuristics and biases in innovation decisions identified in the literature

<table><thead><tr><td>Authors</td><td>Heuristics/biases</td><td>Impact on innovation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>West, Acar and Caruana (2020)</td><td>Heuristics (13 identified)</td><td>Using heuristics allows making faster decisions during the screening phase, and these decisions are as accurate as relying on the analytical method.</td></tr><tr><td>Annosi et al. (2024)</td><td>Intuition (as heuristic)</td><td>Integrating intuition and rationality improves the quality of decision-making in NPD.</td></tr><tr><td>Vazquez-Hernandez, Garbuio & Szkudlarek (2024)</td><td>Representativeness heuristic</td><td>Reliance on stereotypical representations can distort innovation managers' judgements about new product success.</td></tr><tr><td>Liedtka (2015)</td><td>Cognitive biases (nine identified)</td><td>Innovation outcomes can be improved by implementing design-thinking methodology, which can reduce cognition biases.</td></tr><tr><td>Antioco, Moenaert & Lindgreen (2008)</td><td>Decision-making bias</td><td>Functional membership influences employees' willingness to make product design modifications. To reduce bias in product design decisions, the ideal product team should be composed of experts and non-experts from different departments to avoid team member similarity.</td></tr><tr><td>Markovitch et al. (2015)</td><td>Overconfidence bias</td><td>Overconfidence impacts forecasts: decision-makers subject to overconfidence bias overestimate new product sales.</td></tr><tr><td>Marzi et al. (2023)</td><td>Overconfidence bias</td><td>Overestimation of the understanding of customer needs results in insufficient research and misaligned product features.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Royer (1996)</td><td>Anchoring bias</td><td>Heavy reliance on initial estimates (cost, time, resources) limits creativity and exploration of alternative solutions.</td></tr><tr><td>Planning fallacy</td><td>Underestimation of time and resources leads to unrealistic project timelines and inadequate contingency planning.</td></tr><tr><td>Sunk-cost fallacy</td><td>Reluctance to abandon a project leads to continuing to invest in failing projects despite evidence of poor viability.</td></tr><tr><td>Reitzig and Sorenson (2013)</td><td>Evaluation bias</td><td>Stopping the NPD process when negative information calls into question its profitability can be difficult due to an 'escalation of commitment'. Psychological determinants of this phenomenon are linked to biases in the processing of information and/or in the pursuit of action.</td></tr><tr><td>Schweisfurth et al. (2023)</td><td>In-group bias</td><td>In-group bias in the bottom-up idea selection phase can lead to failure to adopt an idea: employees systematically undervalue ideas proposed by members of the organisation outside their subunit.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hierarchical similarity bias</td><td>Evaluators prefer ideas from ideators who are hierarchically similar to them, as long as they are not so close as to be rivals.</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Appendix 2

### Heuristics and biases in marketers' decision-making identified in the literature

<table><thead><tr><th>Heuristics/biases</th><th>Authors in marketing</th><th>Definition</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Representativeness heuristic</td><td>Mowen and Gaeth (1992), Pham (1996)</td><td>Estimation of the probability that an object belongs to a particular category, based on the similarity between that object and an object considered typical of that category (Tversky and Kahneman 1974).</td></tr><tr><td>Availability heuristic</td><td>Mowen and Gaeth (1992), Pham (1996)</td><td>Estimation of the frequency of a class or the probability of an event, based on the ease with which examples come to mind (Tversky and Kahneman 1974).</td></tr><tr><td>Adjustment and anchoring heuristic</td><td>Mowen and Gaeth (1992), Pham (1996), Hoch (1988), Casenave (2013)</td><td>Numerical prediction from an initial value (anchoring), which is adjusted to obtain the final response (Tversky and Kahneman 1974).</td></tr><tr><td>Subjective valuation heuristic</td><td>Mowen and Gaeth (1992)</td><td>Estimation of the value of an outcome by referring to one's own subjective feeling response to the event (Mowen and Gaeth 1992).</td></tr><tr><td>Exemplar-based heuristic</td><td>Hutchinson, Alba & Eisenstein (2010)</td><td>Attempt to imitate success by basing future decisions on the parameters that produced the best results in the past (Hutchinson et al. 2010).</td></tr><tr><td>Confirmation bias</td><td>Casenave (2013)</td><td>Seeking information that confirms one's opinions (Casenave 2013).</td></tr><tr><td>Risk aversion</td><td>Casenave (2013)</td><td>In risky decisions, the desire to avoid losses is stronger than the desire for gain (Kahneman et al. 2011).</td></tr><tr><td>Excessive attachment</td><td>Casenave (2013)</td><td>Excessive attachment to a product that leads to overvaluing the possibilities of success (Casenave 2013).</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Appendix 3

### Assessment of the case study quality (Goffin et al., 2019)

Author(s)

Article title

Conservatives, progressives and transformers:

Journal

Creativity and Innovation

Year of publication

Number of cases
Note the number of cases studied in the article

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

The influence of marketers' biases on sustainable innovation

Management

Number of data sources

i. interviews (face to face, including unstructured/semi-structured/structured interviews and informal conversations)

iv. internal documents

ii. surveys

v. secondary data

iii. observations (including site visits, workshops, ethnography, data feedback sessions)

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Evaluation criteria</th><th>Explanation of measure</th><th>Anchoring Statements</th><th>Score (0/1)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Research Design</td><td>Theoretical foundation</td><td>Was a clear explanation given of why the case method was the most appropriate method to adopt?</td><td>0 = "No": no explicit argument was given for why the case method was adopted in the research.<br>1 = "Yes": there was an explicit argument for why the case method was adopted in the research.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Pilot study</td><td>Was there a pilot study proceeding the main study?</td><td>0 = "No": there was no pilot study.<br>1 = "Yes": a pilot study was conducted before the main study.</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Data Collection</td><td>Theoretical sampling</td><td>Was an explanation provided of which case(s) were chosen and why?</td><td>0 = "No": no explicit argument was given about how the case(s) was/ were selected.<br>1 = "Yes": case(s) were selected for theoretical purposes, example ranges from a discussion on why case(s) were chosen to a discussion on the selection of polar extremes where cases exhibited extremely high or extremely low value on the constructs of interest.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Triangulation</td><td>Was the research based on multiple sources of data?</td><td>0 = "No": the research was based on only one source of data<br>1 = "Yes": the research was based on more than one source of data</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Data Collection</td><td>Review and validation of evidence</td><td>Was the evidence reviewed and validated by external parties?</td><td>0 = "No": the evidence was not reviewed and validated. The article did not explicitly state if the evidence is reviewed and validated.<br>1 = "Yes": the evidence was reviewed and validated by the interviewee and/or the company (e.g. through data feedback-sessions); or by fellow researchers not part of the primary data collection.</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Transparency of data collection</td><td>Was it made clear how the data collection process was conducted?</td><td>0 = "No": the data collection process was not clear and transparent because there was not sufficient information about the origin and the contents of the data collected (in terms of areas, topics, themes or constructs), which would allow replication.<br>1 = "Yes": the data collection process was clear and transparent because interview themes, questions and/or research instruments such as research protocols specifying data collection circumstances were reported, which would allow replication.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Data Analysis</td><td>Inter-coder agreement</td><td>Were the data coded by multiple investigators?</td><td>0 = "No": the data were not coded by multiple investigators working independently, or there was no information about how inter-coder agreement was achieved.<br>1 = "Yes": the data were coded by multiple investigators working independently, and there was an explanation about how an acceptable inter-coder agreement was achieved.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Case presentation</td><td>Were findings and empirical evidence presented in a way that made it clear how the author(s) reach their conclusions?</td><td>0 = "No": The way in which the author(s) reached their conclusions based on the case data was neither clear nor documented. Their focus was on "telling the story" and not "showing the evidence", and any quotes used were selected to support the authors' conclusions.<br>1 = "Yes": The article was explicit and clear in demonstrating how the empirical data were used to arrive at the conclusions, providing a clear "trail of evidence" (through the use of approaches such as tables, data displays, coding schemes and other visual aids).</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Post-hoc</td><td>Case interpretation</td><td>Did the case analysis move beyond description and conceptual ordering?</td><td>0 = "No": The results from the case analysis were mostly descriptive and/or simply consisted of condensing data into patterns and concepts.<br>1 = "Yes": The interpretation moved beyond description and conceptual ordering, to the generation of meaning and of the conceptual significance of the case facts. This was achieved by, for example, developing a conceptual framework or model from the case(s), formulating propositions to be tested by future research, and/or systematically discussing results in relation to existing literature.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Reflecting on validity and reliability</td><td>Was there a discussion about the quality of the research?</td><td>0 = "No": there was no explicit discussion about the quality of the research.<br>1 = "Yes": there was an explicit discussion reflecting on the quality of the research (either in the section on research design stage or in the consideration of limitations), which covered one or more dimensions of validity and reliability, showing that authors were aware of the need to ensure rigor.</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"></td><td>Overall quality score (out of 10)</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Appendix 4

## Detailed sample characteristics

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Case</th><th rowspan="2">Position</th><th colspan="2">Professional</th><th colspan="3">Company</th><th colspan="3">Product</th></tr><tr><th>Total career years</th><th>Company seniority (years)</th><th>Business size</th><th>Employees in France</th><th>Type of product</th><th>Industry</th><th>Innovation</th><th>Distribution channels</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>Marketing manager<br>South-West Europe</td><td>24</td><td>24</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>2500</td><td>Hygiene paper</td><td>Home products</td><td>Washable textile pants for bladder weakness</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>Marketing manager</td><td>5</td><td>3.5</td><td>SME</td><td>12</td><td>Home products</td><td>Home products</td><td>Washable paper towels</td><td>Ulule, organic stores, garden centres, kitchen stores, concept stores, company website</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>Junior brand manager</td><td>4</td><td>0.5</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>2800</td><td>Body care</td><td>Beauty/body care</td><td>High-tolerance shower gel</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td>Product development assistant</td><td>3.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>2000</td><td>Luxury fashion</td><td>Fashion</td><td>3D-printed shoes</td><td>Brand boutiques, department stores</td></tr><tr><td>E</td><td>Brand manager</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>SME</td><td>250</td><td>Electronic toys</td><td>Games/toys</td><td>Packaging for children's fashion jewellery</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets, toy stores</td></tr><tr><td>F</td><td>International project and packaging manager</td><td>9</td><td>6</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>50,000</td><td>Retailer's beauty brand</td><td>Beauty/body care</td><td>Facial cream with refill pots</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>G</td><td>Marketing manager</td><td>5</td><td>3.5</td><td>SME</td><td>50</td><td>High-end bed linen</td><td>Home products</td><td>Eco-responsible bedding made from recycled materials</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets, company website, hotels</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>President and co-founder, chief marketing officer</td><td>6.5</td><td>6.5</td><td>SME</td><td>25</td><td>Disconnected objects for meditation</td><td>Games/toys</td><td>Disconnected objects to help children calm down</td><td>Specialised supermarkets, company website</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>Product manager</td><td>16</td><td>2</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>2400</td><td>Pharmaceutical</td><td>Health</td><td>Phytotherapy medicine for sinusitis</td><td>Pharmacies</td></tr><tr><td>J</td><td>Fragrance marketing director/head of brands consultant</td><td>15</td><td>2</td><td>SME</td><td>1</td><td>Fragrances</td><td>Beauty/body care</td><td>Refillable licenced fragrance range</td><td>Perfume stores, department stores, e-commerce</td></tr><tr><td>K</td><td>Senior product manager</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>9000</td><td>Dairy (milk)</td><td>Food</td><td>Cardboard straw for flavoured milk carton</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>L</td><td>Group marketing director, France and international</td><td>22</td><td>1.5</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>1500</td><td>Dairy</td><td>Food</td><td>Glass packaging for desserts</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>M</td><td>Head of innovation</td><td>21</td><td>21</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>1200</td><td>Pharmaceutical</td><td>Health</td><td>Unique washable compression band</td><td>Pharmacies</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Case</th><th rowspan="2">Position</th><th colspan="2">Professional</th><th colspan="3">Company</th><th colspan="2">Product</th></tr><tr><th>Total career years</th><th>Company seniority (years)</th><th>Business size</th><th>Employees in France</th><th>Type of product</th><th>Industry</th><th>Innovation</th><th>Distribution channels</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>N</td><td>Category specialist/ product manager</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>SME</td><td>250</td><td>Coffee</td><td>Food</td><td>More responsible coffee packaging</td><td>B2B (hospital, hotel, universities, wholesalers, e-commerce)</td></tr><tr><td>O</td><td>Operational and strategic marketing director</td><td>22</td><td>10</td><td>SME</td><td>200</td><td>Pharmaceutical</td><td>Health</td><td>Patch for muscle and joint pain with natural active ingredients</td><td>Pharmacies</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>Global innovation brand manager</td><td>6.5</td><td>5.5</td><td>Large enterprise</td><td>1900</td><td>Dairy (cheese)</td><td>Food</td><td>More recyclable packaging for a range of processed cheeses</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets, food service suppliers</td></tr><tr><td>Q</td><td>Marketing coordinator</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>SME</td><td>150</td><td>Board games</td><td>Games/toys</td><td>Relaunch of a board game</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets, specialised supermarkets and game shops</td></tr><tr><td>R</td><td>Founder, CEO/CMO</td><td>29</td><td>15</td><td>SME</td><td>15</td><td>Sauces and condiments</td><td>Food</td><td>Sustainable alternative to ketchup</td><td>Hypermarkets/ supermarkets</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>Founder, CEO/CMO</td><td>15</td><td>3.5</td><td>SME</td><td>2</td><td>Beauty care</td><td>Beauty/body care</td><td>Serum balm with 100% natural formula and packaging</td><td>Concept stores, lifestyle stores, beauty stores, pharmacies, beauty institutes</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: At the time of the interview.

## Appendix 5

### Attitude towards sustainable innovation of marketers involved in NPD

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# Appendix 6

## Environmental performance of the new product for each type

Dimensions of environmental performance (Varadarajan 2017).

(1) Reduction in CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, water consumption and waste disposed.

(2) Reduction in the amount of material used in product and packaging.

(3) Increase in the substitution of non-renewable energy with renewable energy.

(4) Increase in substitution of non-renewable materials with renewable materials.

<table><thead><tr><th>Environmental performance of the product</th><th>Conservatives</th><th>Progressives</th><th>Transformers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dimension 1 + Dimension 2 + Dimension 4</td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Dimension 1 + Dimension 4</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Dimension 1</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dimension 2</td><td></td><td>4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dimension 3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dimension 4</td><td></td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

# Appendix 7

## Decision-making biases for each type of marketer

<table><thead><tr><th>Profile count</th><th>3</th><th>12</th><th>4</th></tr><tr><th>Decision bias</th><th>Conservatives</th><th>Progressives</th><th>Transformers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Affect bias</td><td>1</td><td>7</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Saliency bias</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Groupthink</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Availability bias</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Confirmation bias</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sunk-cost fallacy</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Overconfidence: planning fallacy</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Disaster neglect</td><td></td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>