SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
, Susanne Durst , Wolfgang Dieter Gerstlberger Sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) is an increasingly important means for manufacturing firms to address environmental and social challenges while securing economic returns. Manufacturers exposed to similar sustainability pressures respond to them in strategically different ways. In this study, we examine this variation through the lens of behavioral strategy, focusing on the cognitive foundations of strategic reasoning about SOI. More specifically, we ask what mental representations underlie decision-makers’ reasoning about SOI, how these are updated, and how they are associated with patterns of strategic search. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of interview data from export-oriented wood manufacturing firms in Estonia, we identify three recurring representations of sustainability: inherent and operationally settled, externally prescribed, and evaluatively unsettled. In turn, these representations are translated into judgments about specific alternatives through three evaluative filters: definition, relevance, and feasibility. As new pressures arrive, they typically reinforce the criteria already in use rather than alter the representations themselves, so firms’ search for new options remains incremental. This study operationalizes insights from behavioral strategy for SOI, locating the source of its incrementalism less in what firms attend to but in the evaluative criteria through which decision-makers judge possible responses.
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D. and Overy, P. 2016. Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(2), 180–205.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12068
Afeltra, G., Alerasoul, S. A. and Strozzi, F. 2023. The evolution of sustainable innovation: from the past to the future. European Journal of Innovation Management, 26(2), 386–421.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2021-0113
Barnett, M. L. 2008. An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 606–628.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.32465698
Becker, P. B., Laureiro-Martinez, D. and Zagorac-Uremović, Z. 2026. Thirty years of managerial mental representations: a review guiding conceptualization and future research. Journal of Management, 52(1), 331–368.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251318260
Cristofaro, M., Giardino, P. L., Malizia, A. P. and Mastrogiorgio, A. 2022. Affect and cognition in managerial decision making: a systematic literature review of neuroscience evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 762993.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.762993
Csaszar, F. A. and Levinthal, D. A. 2016. Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 37(10), 2031–2049.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2440
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Dalalah, D., Khan, S. A., Al-Ashram, Y., Albeetar, S., Ali, Y. A. and Alkhouli, E. 2022. An integrated framework for the assessment of environmental sustainability in wood supply chains. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 27, 102429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102429
De Vass, T., Nand, A. A., Bhattacharya, A., Prajogo, D., Croy, G., Sohal, A. et al. 2023. Transitioning to a circular economy: lessons from the wood industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 34(3), 582–610.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2022-0200
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Zbaracki, M. J. 1992. Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S2), 17–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130904
Gavetti, G. 2012. Perspective ‒ toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science, 23(1), 267–285.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0644
Gavetti, G. and Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 113–137.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2666981
Gerstlberger, W., Küttim, M., Niine, T., Hurt, U., Hartšenko, J., Tuisk, T. et al. 2023a. Metalli- ja masinatööstuse ettevõtete motiveerimise võimalused rohepöörde elluviimise kontekstis. Uuringu aruanne (Opportunities for motivating companies in the metal and machinery industry in the context of implementing the green transition. Research report).
https://doi.org/10.11590/taltech.metal.industry.report.2023
Gerstlberger, W., Küttim, M., Niine, T., Hurt, U., Tuisk, T., Hartšenko, J. et al. 2023b. Puidu- ja mööblitööstuse ettevõtete motiveerimise võimalused rohepöörde elluviimise kontekstis. Uuringu aruanne (Opportunities for motivating companies in the wood and furniture industry in the context of implementing the green transition. Research report).
https://doi.org/10.11590/taltech.wood.industry.report.2023
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K. G. 2000. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63‒81.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/259263
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G. and Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. and Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
Hansen, E. G., Grosse-Dunker, F. and Reichwald, R. 2009. Sustainability innovation cube ‒ a framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(4), 683–713.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919609002479
Hansen, E. G., Wicki, S. and Schaltegger, S. 2022. Sustainability-oriented technology exploration: managerial values, ambidextrous design, and separation drift. International Journal of Innovation Management, 26(5), 2240004.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919622400047
Harsanto, B., Kumar, N. and Michaelides, R. 2024. Sustainability-oriented innovation in manufacturing firms: implementation and evaluation framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(6), 5086–5108.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3740
Hartung-Geyer, L., Klein, S. P. and Spieth, P. 2026. Turning mental models around: boundary objects as enablers of sustainable business model innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 35(4), 5490‒5513.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70441
Heaton, J. 2008. Secondary analysis of qualitative data: an overview. Historical Social Research, 33(3), 33–45.
https://doi.org/10.12759/HSR.33.2008.3.33-45
Hermundsdottir, F. and Aspelund, A. 2021. Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124715.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124715
Iñigo, E. A. and Albareda, L. 2016. Understanding sustainable innovation as a complex adaptive system: a systemic approach to the firm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 126, 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.036
Iritani, D. R., Silva, D. A. L., Saavedra, Y. M. B., Grael, P. F. F. and Ometto, A. R. 2015. Sustainable strategies analysis through life cycle assessment: a case study in a furniture industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 308–318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.029
Kennedy, S., Whiteman, G. and van den Ende, J. 2017. Radical innovation for sustainability: the power of strategy and open innovation. Long Range Planning, 50(6), 712–725.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.05.004
Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E. G. 2014. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.017
Korteling, J. E., Paradies, G. L. and Sassen-van Meer, J. P. 2023. Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1129835.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835
Kotov, A. 2024. Patterns of attention towards circular economy practices: insights from the metal industry in Estonia. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 32(2), 2085.
https://doi.org/10.46585/sp32022085
Küttim, M., Niine, T., Kull, M., Kotov, A., Gerstlberger, W., Hartšenko, J. et al. 2024. Growing green processes and sustainable business ‒ mapping company-level motives to initiate sustainable practices based on the wood and metal industries in Estonia. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Series D: Faculty of Economics and Administration, 32(2), 2087.
https://doi.org/10.46585/sp32022087
Markard, J., Geels, F. W. and Raven, R. 2020. Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), 081001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9468
Martins, L. L., Rindova, V. P. and Greenbaum, B. E. 2015. Unlocking the hidden value of concepts: a cognitive approach to business model innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 99–117.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1191
Matoh, S., Russell, S. V., Roelich, K. and Randles, S. 2024. Circular business model innovation and cognitive framing: addressing the “missing micro”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 8656–8667.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3938
McKenzie, J., Woolf, N., Van Winkelen, C. and Morgan, C. 2009. Cognition in strategic decision making: a model of non-conventional thinking capacities for complex situations. Management Decision, 47(2), 209–232.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910938885
Ministry of Climate of the Republic of Estonia. Green Reform 2025.
https://kliimaministeerium.ee/en/green-reform (accessed 2026-04-07).
Nadkarni, S. and Barr, P. S. 2008. Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1395–1427.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.717
Palmucci, D. N. and Ferraris, A. 2023. Climate change inaction: cognitive bias influencing managers’ decision making on environmental sustainability choices. The role of empathy and morality with the need of an integrated and comprehensive perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1130059.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1130059
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D. and Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.968
Raffaelli, R., Glynn, M. A. and Tushman, M. 2019. Frame flexibility: the role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1013–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3011
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F. et al. 2023. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Sandberg, B. and Aarikka-Stenroos, L. 2014. What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8), 1293–1305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.08.003
Sawe, F. B., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A. and Agrawal, R. 2021. Assessing people-driven factors for circular economy practices in small and medium-sized enterprise supply chains: business strategies and environmental perspectives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 2951–2965.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2781
Silverman, D. 2020. Interpreting Qualitative Data. 6th ed. SAGE Publications, London.
Simon, H. A. 1947. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. Macmillan, New York.
Taneja, A., Goyal, V. and Malik, K. 2023. Sustainability-oriented innovations ‒ enhancing factors and consequences. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(6), 2747–2765.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2513
Trizotto, R. C. A., Nascimento, L. da S., da Silva, J. P. T. and Zawislak, P. A. 2024. Sustainability, business strategy and innovation: a thematic literature review. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(6), 1338–1377.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2023-0136
