| Literature DB >> 33207625 |
Amit Kumar Bhardwaj1, Arunesh Garg1, Shri Ram1, Yuvraj Gajpal2, Chengsi Zheng3.
Abstract
The term "green products" is used commonly to describe the products that seek to protect or enhance the environment during production, use, or disposal by conserving resources and minimizing the use of toxic agents, pollution, and waste. Hence, green products offer potential benefits to the environment and human health. Therefore, environmentally conscious consumers have shown an enhanced inclination for them. Consumer preferences, environmental activism, and stringent regulations have forced sustainability-oriented firms to shift their focus to producing green products. The present study uses bibliometric tools and various indicators to discern research progress in the field of green products over the period 1964-2019. Further, VOSviewer software is applied to map the main trends. A total of 1619 publications during the study period were extracted from the SCOPUS database using different keywords related to the green products. The data analysis indicates that the field of green products has experienced significant growth since 1964, especially in the last 14 years. In terms of publications and citations, the United States is the leading country. The field of research concerning green products has evolved from the early debates on sustainable design, green marketing, sustainable development, and sustainability. The topic seems to be advancing into a variety of green themes related to consumer trust and purchase intentions, branding and loyalty, and environmental and health consciousness.Entities:
Keywords: bibliometric analysis; green marketing; green product; literature review; sustainability; sustainable development
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33207625 PMCID: PMC7697954 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Data collection and analysis approach.
Keyword phrases related to the green product.
| Keyword | Response from SCOPUS | Keyword | Response from SCOPUS | Keyword | Response from SCOPUS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Green Product” | 2834 | “Sustainable Brand” | 70 | “Environmental Design” | 4305 |
| “Green Service” | 148 | “Sustainable Branding” | 9 | “Environmental Symbol” | 13 |
| “Green Good” | 57 | “Sustainable Package” | 22 | “Environmental Logo” | 3 |
| “Green Offering” | 13 | “Sustainable Packaging” | 376 | “Environmental Signage” | 2 |
| “Green Brand” | 160 | “Sustainable Label” | 22 | “Environmental Signboard” | 0 |
| “Green Branding” | 45 | “Sustainable Labelling” | 10 | “Eco-Brand” | 17 |
| “Green Package” | 53 | “Sustainable Labeling” | 10 | “Eco-Label” | 812 |
| “Green Packaging” | 268 | “Sustainable Design” | 4007 | “Eco-Branding” | 19 |
| “Green Label” | 171 | “Sustainable Symbol” | 0 | “Eco-Labelling” | 703 |
| “Green Labelling” | 61 | “Sustainable Logo” | 1 | “Eco-Labeling” | 703 |
| “Green Labeling” | 61 | “Sustainable Signage” | 0 | “Eco Brand” | 17 |
| “Green Design” | 1331 | “Sustainable Signboard” | 0 | “Eco Label” | 812 |
| “Green Symbol” | 11 | “Environmental Product” | 776 | “Eco Branding” | 19 |
| “Green Logo” | 5 | “Environmental Brand” | 14 | “Eco Labelling” | 703 |
| “Green Signage” | 1 | “Environmental Branding” | 2 | “Eco Labeling” | 703 |
| “Green Signboard” | 0 | “Environmental Package” | 26 | “Renewable Product” | 148 |
| “Sustainable Product” | 2174 | “Environmental Packaging” | 42 | “Renewed Product” | 9 |
| “Sustainable Service” | 521 | “Environmental Label” | 170 | “Recyclable Product” | 131 |
| “Sustainable Good” | 87 | “Environmental Labelling” | 220 | “Recycled Product” | 659 |
| “Sustainable Offering” | 16 | “Environmental Labeling” | 220 | “Recycled Offering” | 2 |
Figure 2Year-wise research production and their total citation.
Top ten most productive countries in the field of Green product research.
| Country | TP | R (%TP) | R (TC) | R (ACPP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 418 | 1 (25.82) | 1 (7022) | 3 (16.80) |
| United Kingdom | 155 | 2 (9.57) | 5 (1110) | 7 (7.16) |
| India | 116 | 3 (7.16) | 8 (578) | 9 (4.98) |
| Australia | 96 | 4 (5.93) | 4 (1261) | 5 (13.14) |
| Germany | 80 | 5 (4.94) | 7 (844) | 6 (10.55) |
| China | 77 | 6 (4.76) | 23 (191) | 10 (2.48) |
| Canada | 64 | 7 (3.95) | 3 (1369) | 2 (21.39) |
| Taiwan | 58 | 8 (3.58) | 2 (1706) | 1 (29.41) |
| Italy | 55 | 9 (3.40) | 6 (880) | 4 (16.00) |
| Malaysia | 55 | 9 (3.40) | 17 (312) | 8 (5.67) |
(TP: Total Publications; R: Rank; TC: Total Citations; ACPP: Average Citation Per Paper).
Figure 3Progression of the research publications by the top five countries.
Figure 4Authorship pattern of green product research.
Most productive authors in the field of green products.
| Author | Affiliation | (TP) | R (TC) | PY_Start | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M Charter | University for the Creative Arts (UCA), | 6 | 2 (69) | 5 | 2008 |
| J. Thøgersen | Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark | 5 | 1 (542) | 5 | 2000 |
| N. Pandey | National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India | 5 | 12 (18) | 2 | 2018 |
| P. Castka | University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand | 4 | 3 (66) | 3 | 2016 |
| A. Lobo | Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia | 4 | 4 (62) | 3 | 2017 |
| J.J. Zhang | University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada | 4 | 5 (62) | 3 | 2012 |
| U. Tischner | Ec[o]ncept, Germany | 4 | 6 (55) | 3 | 2017 |
| P. Cozens | Curtin University, Perth, Australia | 4 | 7 (40) | 3 | 2016 |
| S. Kajalo | Aalto University, Espoo, Finland | 4 | 8 (36) | 4 | 2010 |
| A. Lindblom | Aalto University, Espoo, Finland | 4 | 9 (36) | 4 | 2016 |
| H.J. Wang | Fo Guang University, Jiaosi, Taiwan | 4 | 10 (26) | 3 | 2016 |
| F. Rubik | Institut für Ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin, Germany | 4 | 11 (21) | 3 | 2008 |
| V. Sima | Universitatea Petrol-Gaze din Ploiesti, Ploiesti | 4 | 13 (10) | 1 | 2009 |
(TP–Total Publications, TC–Total Citations, h-index-Hirsch Index, PY_Start–Publication Starting Year).
Most productive journals in the field of green products.
| Journal | TP | TC | IF2019 | PY_Start |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal of Business Ethics | 37 | 2455 | 4.141 | 2004 |
| Journal of Business Research | 19 | 975 | 4.874 | 2000 |
| Quality Access to Success | 16 | 41 | - | 2013 |
| Journal of Consumer Marketing | 15 | 798 | - | 2009 |
| International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education | 14 | 237 | 2.000 | 2000 |
| Benchmarking | 12 | 108 | - | 2012 |
| Journal of International Consumer Marketing | 12 | 559 | - | 1996 |
| Marketing Intelligence and Planning | 10 | 230 | - | 2009 |
| Industrial Marketing Management | 9 | 65 | 4.695 | 2017 |
| Journal of Consumer Policy | 9 | 10 | - | 2017 |
(TP–Total Publications, TC–Total Citations, IF2019–2019 Journal Impact Factor, PY start–Publication Starting Year).
Figure 5Yearly growth of top sources in the field of green products.
Most productive institutes in the field of green products.
| Affiliation | TP | TC | ACPP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of California, Berkeley, USA | 12 | 650 | 54.17 | 7 |
| Aalto University, Finland | 12 | 84 | 7.00 | 6 |
| Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia | 11 | 136 | 12.36 | 5 |
| Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong | 10 | 534 | 53.40 | 8 |
| Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Norway | 10 | 30 | 3.00 | 4 |
| The Ohio State University, USA | 9 | 458 | 50.89 | 9 |
| University of Canterbury, New Zealand | 9 | 81 | 9.00 | 2 |
| Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania | 9 | 13 | 1.44 | 2 |
(TP–Total Publications, TC–Total Citations, ACPP–Average Citation per Publications, h-index–Hirsch Index).
Topmost productive articles in the field of green products.
| Authors | Article | TC0 | TC2019 | TC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. (2006) [ | The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan, | 4 | 108 | 481 |
| Daily and Huang (2001) [ | Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management, | 1 | 60 | 392 |
| Egri and Herman (2000) [ | Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations, | 1 | 36 | 383 |
| Tanner and Kast (2003) [ | Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Determinants of Green Purchases by Swiss Consumers, | 0 | 73 | 380 |
| Dangelico and Pujari (2010) [ | Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability, | 1 | 81 | 364 |
| Hall et al. (2010) [ | Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions, | 1 | 73 | 363 |
| Luchs et al. (2010) [ | The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference, | 0 | 63 | 336 |
| Chen (2010) [ | The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green satisfaction, and green trust, | 1 | 80 | 333 |
(TC0–Citations in the year of Publication; TC2019–Citations in the year 2019; TC–Total citations).
Figure 6The citation life cycle of the highly cited articles in green products. (TC–Total Citations, ACPY–Average Citations per Year).
Figure 7Network diagram based on the mean value of co-occurrence of keywords.