Worse still, from a commercial and strategic point of view, it is better to stifle (denigrating, buying a patent, ...) an invention that questions the activity (and profits) of an industry rather than to question themselves, review their operation and embark on the exploitation of a more respectful product.
Unfortunately, for having followed a commercial training, the school cases where a good idea is buried by commercial strategy are legion.
Besides, it is unfortunately false to say that if a product is good, good, economical and that it attracts end users, it will be successful. Commercial success still depends almost exclusively on the commercial energy produced to market it!
It's like speeches (especially in politics!): Someone who has nothing to say but who says it well will be more listened to and applauded than someone who says very interesting things in a mediocre and clumsy way!
This is another debate, but today's industry will only start exploiting eco-friendly ideas when they are forced and forced to do so, either by law or because they have ended up banging your head in the wall (that's kind of what's happening in the auto industry right now).
)