Eco‐innovation and eco‐design strategies are associated with firms' innovation capabilities. Moreover, they may impact on access to public subsidies and on financial performance. In this respect, the agri‐food industry is especially vulnerable, because in general, this sector has less experience of technological innovation, and managers are more likely to be averse to such projects. On the other hand, the board may promote a proactive environmental approach to defend the interests of investors and other stakeholders, taking the view that these strategies reduce the environmental impact of the firm's products and its production processes and are therefore beneficial. Our study aim is to identify the profile of directors who may be favourable to eco‐design and eco‐innovation strategies, focusing on the traits of independence, gender diversity and environmental specialisation. The results obtained, from a dependence model based on panel data supplied by 321 agri‐food companies for the period 2002–2017 (unbalanced panel data with 4878 observations), show that independent directors play a crucial role in implementing eco‐innovation and eco‐design projects. However, neither the diversity nor the specialisation of directors is a significant factor in this regard.

Within innovation strategies, ecodesign and ecoinnovation are becoming very relevant in recent years as they seek to reduce the environmental impact of both products and production processes by using new technologies and ways of working that contribute to sustainable development and at the same time help to promote the competitiveness of companies. In this framework, the objective of this paper is to analyze the impact that the strategies of environmental innovation in products and processes have on the profitability and the market value of the companies, considering the moderating role that the munificence of the industry has in this relationship. Using the generalized method of moments, the results obtained from a sample of 6,454 international companies during the period 2002–2017 show that although environmental innovation strategies do not entail higher returns, they are well valued by the capital market. This was especially true in environments with greater economic growth and availability of resources, that is, in munificent environments.