approaches towards improving product …€¦ · are essential for every successful development...

This is an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Please also refer to the final version: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2914262

© 2019 This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1

HOW CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AFFECTS PRODUCT DEVELOPERS’

APPROACHES TOWARDS IMPROVING PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY

Moritz Petersen

Kühne Logistics University - Wissenschaftliche Hochschule für Logistik und

Unternehmensführung, Großer Grasbrook 17, 20457 Hamburg, Germany,

[email protected] (Corresponding Author)

Abstract

Human factors, such as an individual’s competences and attitudes, have a decisive impact on the

results of product development processes, especially in companies with small product

development teams. Sustainability considerations further amplify this impact as such a multi-

faceted issue results in an extra layer of product requirements and hard-to-make decisions on

trade-offs. This paper explores the interplay of corporate sustainability and the individual

approaches product developers exhibit towards improving product sustainability. For this

purpose, a Grounded Theory study in the German consumer goods industry is conducted. Thirty-

two expert interviews with product development managers and extensive secondary data are

collected and analyzed. It is found that the corporate sustainability approach heavily influences

how developers comprehend sustainability and how they conceptualize it for their product

portfolio. Explicitly, the products considered for sustainability improvements, their innovation

level, and the use of design stereotypes to signal sustainability improvements emerge as key

decision levers. The findings emphasize that the human factors in the context of product




development, specifically concerning sustainability, warrant more academic attention. Also, it is

demonstrated that companies need to be aware of the organizational environment which they are

providing for their developers when pushing for product sustainability.

Managerial Relevance Statement

It is acknowledged that most companies struggle to effectively implement sustainability

considerations in their product development processes beyond self-evident cost-saving measures

that also improve the environmental performance of a product. Existing research mostly focuses

on providing tools and methods to support the implementation. However, it does not take into

account how human factors can affect the outcome of product development processes. This

paper, grounded in primary empirical data collected from product development managers in the

German consumer goods industry, suggests that a company’s overall sustainability approach

distinctively shapes how individual product developers comprehend sustainability and how they

implement it on a product level. It is shown that companies have to be aware of the organizational

environment they provide for their developers and its effect on them. Behavioral aspects of

developing more sustainable products should be acknowledged and managed proactively if a

company wants to effectively translate its corporate sustainability approach into a serious and

long-term push towards product sustainability.




1. INTRODUCTION

It was no stroke of fate that domestic appliance manufacturer Miele won the 2017 German

Federal Ecodesign Award for their latest generation of dishwashers. Instead, it was the result of

an explicit strategic sustainability focus paired with extensive engineering efforts and creativity.

This dishwasher is developed and tested to have a service life of at least 20 years. Through a heat

accumulator, it utilizes heat from rinse water to preheat fresh water and to beat the best energy

class by an additional 20%. Further, it consists of almost no composite materials, and it features

a high degree of recyclability. In saving mode, it only needs 6.5 liters of water, which is good

news for the environment and the finances of its users [1]. Are Miele’s product sustainability

efforts a blueprint for other consumer goods companies? Miele belongs to a special breed of

companies. It is a Germany-based, family-owned, premium domestic appliance manufacturer.

For decades, Miele has been known for its high-end appliances that are geared relentlessly

towards longevity and reduced water and energy consumption. For Miele, product sustainability

is highly tangible, and something consumers explicitly value. This becomes apparent through a

repurchase rate of 90% [2]. Miele puts forward a clear corporate sustainability vision and

translates it into an integral part of their product strategy while tapping the creativity of hundreds

of engineers that continuously improve a comparably small product portfolio.

While Miele can be considered a sustainability role model, this company is not a complete

representation of the German consumer goods industry. Despite containing large internationally

recognized companies like Miele or Adidas, this industry as a whole is characterized by a

majority of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) [3]. Based on official data from 2009,

Kern calculates the average consumer goods manufacturer in Germany to achieve an annual

turnover of EUR 28 million and to employ 110 people [3]. Such company characteristics are

shown to affect sustainability efforts and their success [4], [5]. It can be assumed that the average

German consumer goods manufacturer employs only a handful of product developers. It could




be argued their development processes are less standardized, and that implicit knowledge and

individual perspectives and attitudes are essential determinants of product development practice;

such human factors are increasingly being acknowledged as affecting the outcome of any

development project. Even though it is often assumed that people act fully rational, actual

behavior proves that rationality is bounded [6]. Thus, people and their behavior are critical

components of complex social systems like product development [7]. Further, the sustainability

performance of developers’ products is only seldom as tangible as it is for a dishwasher—take

apparel, crayons, or screwdrivers as examples. It is also likely that these companies’ customers

do not belong to the small share of truly conscious consumers valuing sustainability. As a result,

other than Miele, corporate management might not be too excited about sustainability beyond

the existing regulations. Such a corporate environment (i) might shape the individual product

developers’ take on sustainability that in turn (ii) might have a considerable effect on product

sustainability—to the better or, the worse. Thus, while Miele is a sustainability frontrunner, its

unique situation and approach cannot be used as a blueprint for other companies without further

ado.

Before this background, the research question of this paper emerges: “How does corporate

sustainability affect product developers’ decisions on improving product sustainability?” As

introduced above, this topic is both timely and relevant. The research question is addressed using

an inductive Grounded Theory (GT) approach which implies constructing a theory based on

qualitative data. This study contributes to the literature around sustainable product development

through (1) providing a typology on corporate sustainability approaches, (2) exploring how these

approaches affect the individual perception of developers’ in regard to sustainability and (3)

exploring how they affect developers’ key decisions towards developing more sustainable

products.




2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW: DEVELOPING SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS

The present study concentrates on the intersection of product development, sustainability, and

behavioral issues. This section intends to provide a theoretical lens for the inductive study

through giving an overview of the extensive literature body it is meant to contribute to. It should

not be mistaken for a systematic review.

Product development resembles the “transformation of a market opportunity and a set of

assumptions about product technology into a product available for sale” [8]. It is considered a

cross-functional supply chain process not only covering all engineering activities but also

extending to functions like marketing and operations management [9]. Sustainable products are

defined as having or aiming at “an improved environmental and social quality” while selling in

the marketplace [10]. This definition is increasingly scrutinized for its overemphasis of

incremental improvements over more fundamental changes to the design [11]. However, it still

appropriately characterizes most practical implementations of product sustainability and

academic thought. An extensive body of literature deals with the question of how to effectively

integrate sustainability into product development processes—a task that is generally perceived

as challenging and long-term-oriented [12], [13]. Thomé et al. [14] identify more than 1,500

peer-reviewed publications in this field. Such a strong academic interest can be explained by the

eclectic aspects of sustainability in the product development context, ranging from simply

omitting toxic materials to designing inclusive products that are universally accessible. Further,

the multidisciplinary nature of product development makes the field appealing to researchers

from diverse domains.

For the literature overview, sustainable product development is specified concerning (1)

sustainability-related scopes and targets, (2) support through processes, tools, and methods, and

(3) sustainable design expertise and human aspects [15].




(1) Scope and targets: A clear project scope and quantifiable sustainability targets define the

design space, thereby allowing projects to be steered and managed effectively [15], [16]. Targets

are essential for every successful development project [17]. Thus, many authors focus on

evaluating existing or developing new indicators that could be used for setting quantifiable

targets. For example, Rodrigues et al. [18] identify the staggering amount of 787 process-related

sustainability indicators from a literature review. Hallstedt develops an approach to identify

sustainability criteria as well as a sustainability compliance index meant to support the search

for the most sustainable product alternative [19]. With a similar rationale, Clancy et al. [20]

develop an approach to select case-specific sustainability indicators. However, only selecting

them is not enough, as indicators have to be operationalized through clear targets. Empirical

studies show that companies face huge difficulties breaking down high-level sustainability

visions into operational targets for product development [15], [21], [22]. This is mainly due to

the fact that sustainability is a multidimensional concept and, thus, could only be approximated

by a range of individual indicators and targets. In addition, these targets often provoke trade-offs

with other product aspects like functionality, quality, appearance, and costs [23], [24].

(2) Processes, methods, and tools: The largest part of the literature pertains to developing and

advancing processes, methods, and tools meant to support the development of sustainable

products. A recent review revealed that around 60% of the reviewed papers are such conceptual

contributions [25]. They range from simple checklists to sophisticated expert systems. For

example, Johansson [26] proposes a checklist of product properties that should be considered for

efficient disassembly. Ny et al. [27] introduce templates that allow developers to gain a quick

overview of major sustainability challenges and opportunities with respect to a specific

development project. In terms of more complex methods, Schöggl et al. [28] develop a

qualitative assessment based on a set of 50 questions and an iterative sustainability improvement




process. Zarandi et al. [29] put forward a material selection expert system that supports filtering

of material alternatives. In fact, the variety of methods and tools has gotten so large that reviews

and even tools for selecting methods have become their own field of research [30], [31].

However, literature also reports that besides a handful of well-known approaches like life-cycle

analysis or Design for Environment, almost none of the methods proposed in the literature are

deployed in companies [22], [32], [33]. Many of them require vast amounts of input data and are

too complex for everyday use [15], [34] or are not otherwise adaptable to specific company needs

and therefore are difficult to implement into established development processes [20], [35]. If

they are actually employed, most companies use them for reporting purposes rather than for

improving their products [33]. Also, in order to be useful, methods and tools need to be fed with

specific scopes and targets—aspects many companies have a hard time defining [15], [21], [22].

(3) Sustainable design expertise and other human aspects: A range of papers illuminate

aspects of sustainable design expertise (e.g., internal knowledge management or knowledge

acquisition from external sources) and other human aspects (e.g., values and attitudes of product

developers) in product development. For example, Aschehough & Boks [36] argue that the

availability of sustainability information is a prerequisite for building sustainability expertise.

They develop a framework for synthesizing a wide variety of relevant information categories.

Strömberg et al. [37] analyze which opportunities exist for product developers to induce

sustainable product uses through their design. Since the behavior of an organization is in part

defined by individuals and their interpretation of the organization [38], the success of

implementing sustainability depends on the people making the design decisions. Human factors

like resistance against change can thwart or even prevent considerations of sustainability. The

spirit of individual developers can also act as a decisive impulse for improving product

sustainability. Thus, they are considered among the most important success factors for




sustainable product development in practice [33]. Despite their apparent importance, only a small

part of the literature explicitly covers them. Verhulst & Boks investigate the influence of

employee empowerment [39] and employees’ resistance to change [40] on the successful

implementation of sustainable development practices. Sihvonen & Partanen [32] focus on

environmental considerations and find proof that individual attitudes of the employees generally

influence product development practices. In a subsequent study, they find further proof that

employee’s interpretations of sustainability efforts affect the success of their implementation

[41]. Short et al. [42] demonstrate that developers’ risk-taking attitudes can act as a roadblock

for broader sustainability considerations. Further, Jabbour et al. [43] develop a conceptual

framework explicitly linking human factors to sustainability activities in product development.

In summary, the literature overview shows that most research focuses on developing and

evaluating methods and tools. Implicitly, it is assumed that any company could implement them,

and company-specific or human factors play no decisive role. However, the usefulness of tools

and methods that do not account for the limitations of human behavior is questionable. Seminal

works, e.g. on overconfidence [44] or anchoring effects [45], illustrate that rational behavior of

individuals is strongly limited [7]. Despite a handful of valuable articles, the product developers’

perceptions and attitudes towards the implementation of sustainability as well as influencing

factors have so far been largely ignored. This also holds true for the entire operations

management disciple [7], [46]. However, the existing contributions showcase the importance of

considering human factors in the context of sustainable product development. Further

investigations which shed light on the interplay of human factors and development practices are

warranted [32], [40]–[43].




3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Procedures and Data Sources

A qualitative research method and more specifically a GT approach [47] is adopted for shedding

light on the research question. GT links well to practice and is considered especially suitable for

investigating work situations like decision-making, change, or individual behavior [48]. GT fits

the research question well as it focuses on exploration rather than verification [49]. It is preferred

over other less explorative qualitative research methods like qualitative content analysis [50].

For this study, the rather pragmatic GT approach shaped by Corbin & Strauss [47] is preferred

over Glaser’s [51] more puristic approach that objects to using any tools or previous knowledge.

The collection of data, analysis, and presentation of the findings were geared towards the criteria

sets put forward by Flint et al. [52] and Mayring [50] to ensure the validity of the research process

and high quality of the findings.

Following Charmaz [53], an initial sample of six diverse companies with the purpose of

achieving a high contrast between the cases was composed. After the sixth case, the sampling

strategy was changed to theoretical sampling [47]. Table 1 introduces the cases in chronological

order. Following the principles of theoretical sampling, it was assessed which kind of additional

data was needed to further advance the research right after every round of data collection. For

example, two power tools manufacturers (#26 and #27) were sampled to match their experiences

and approaches to experiences previously shared about other electrically powered consumer

goods. 30% of the sampled manufacturing companies are SME. Another 15% is just above the

thresholds as defined by the European Commission [54]. This distribution is similar to the

structure of the consumer goods industry in Germany [3]. However, the sample is composed to

be representative from a theoretical perspective.




Table 1: Overview of Case Companies

# Consumer Goods Category

Respondent Position Company

Turnover [€] Company Employees Product Exemplar

1 Household Commodities

(1) General Manager and (2) Marketing Manager

100 – 500 m 1 – 100 Garbage bags

2 Apparel Procurement and Sustainability Manager

0.5 – 1 bn 1,001 – 10,000 Trousers


Head of Product Development

< 50 m 1 – 100 Cleaning agents

4 Leisure and Sports Equipment


< 50 m 1 – 100 Bicycles

5 Medical and Therapeutic Products


> 1 bn > 10.000 Vision aids


Vice President Product Management

100 – 500 m 1,001 – 10,000 Kitchen rolls

7 Domestic Appliances (1) Head of Product Development and (2) Designer

100 – 500 m 101 – 1,000 Kitchen blenders

8 Household Articles Head of Product Development

< 50 m 101 – 1,000 Storage systems

9 Domestic Appliances Head of Research & Development

0.5 – 1 bn 1,001 – 10,000 Coffee machines

10 Household Articles Product Manager 50 – 100 m 101 – 1,000 Plastic boxes

11 Furniture and Lighting

Director Product & Sourcing 50 – 100 m 101 – 1,000 Kitchen furniture



100 – 500 m 101 – 1,000 Cleaning agents

13 Stationery Director Research & Development

100 – 500 m 101 – 1,000 Felt-tips

14 Personal Items Head of Design < 50 m 1 – 100 Travel bags

15 Stationery Head of Research & Development

100 – 500 m 1,001 – 10,000 Crayons

16 Personal Items Chief Executive Officer < 50 m 1 – 100 Baby equipment

17 Toys Senior Manager Product Development

0.5 – 1 bn 1,001 – 10,000 Toy cars

18 Home and Garden Commodities


50 – 100 m 101 – 1,000 Wallcovering



< 50 m 1 – 100 Bicycles

20 Stationery Head of Product Development

50 – 100 m 101 – 1,000 Ballpoint pens

21 Body Care Products Team Leader Product Development

> 1 bn > 10.000 Shower gel

22 Domestic Appliances Head of Product Development

> 1 bn > 10.000 Washing machines




# Consumer Goods Category

Respondent Position Company

Turnover [€] Company Employees Product Exemplar

23 Federal Authority Expert for Sustainable Consumption

n/a n/a n/a

24 Body Care Products Manager Basic Research > 1 bn > 10.000 Tooth brushes

25 Consumer Electronics

Director of Product Development

0.5 – 1 bn 1,001 – 10,000 Headsets

26 Home and Garden Tools


100 – 500 m 101 – 1,000 Drills

27 Home and Garden Tools

Head of Research & Development

100 – 500 m 101 – 1,000 Saws

28 Home and Garden Commodities


> 1 bn 1,001 – 10,000 Paint

29 Consulting Consultant for Sustainable Products

n/a n/a n/a

30 Consumer Electronics

Head of Product Design < 50 m 101 – 1,000 Headphones


Manager Product Development

< 50 m 1-100 Water sports equipment

32 Body Care Products Manager Research & Development

100 – 500 m 1,001 – 10,000 Skin cream

3.2 Interviews

Key informants were selected based on their involvement in product development projects in the

German consumer goods industry. In almost all cases, the interviewees manage product

development departments. Thus, they are responsible for the overall development process and

the integration of different functional disciplines. Based on an initial literature overview, an

interview protocol was developed. It supported the framing of the discussion while also leaving

room for the exploration of emerging themes [53]. It is displayed in Table 2. The protocol

included 15 open-ended questions organized into three thematic sections. First, the

characteristics of the product development processes were inquired. Afterward, the questions

dealt with the understanding, strategic role, and drivers for sustainability on the corporate level.

Finally, the transfer of sustainability principles into actual products was investigated. Despite the




protocol, care was taken in following where the participants led the discussion. The questions

were adapted, and new aspects were incorporated depending on the interview progress.

Table 2: Interview Protocol

Section Questions

Introduction Please provide a brief overview of your company and your responsibilities within the company.

Organization of Product Development Process

How do you structure your product development process?

How do you make fundamental development decisions? How is the decision-making authority distributed among product development members?

How do you integrate supply chain partners into your product development process? What challenges do you face?

Sustainability

How do you define “sustainability” within your company?

Why and how is your company getting involved with sustainability? How are activities related to sustainability institutionalized within your company?

Who can be seen as major driving force for sustainability activities within your company?

Development of Sustainable Products

How do you define “sustainable products”? What makes a product sustainable?

Can you share an example of a sustainable product your company has brought to market?

How do you integrate sustainability into your product development process? How do include supply chain partners in joint development efforts? What challenges and barriers do you face in collaborative development of sustainable products?

How do you identify trade-offs with respect to sustainable products? How do you manage these tradeoffs?

Overall, thirty-two interviews were conducted from June 2013 to March 2015. They lasted

between 25 and 140 minutes with a median of 68 minutes. Potential interviewees were primarily

identified and contacted through the German business network XING. Whenever possible, the

interviews were conducted at the case company’s sites. However, due to long distances and

scheduling conflicts, 20 interviews had to be conducted via telephone. The interviewees were

assured of anonymity and confidentiality, to create an informal atmosphere and avoid selective

information sharing [47], [55]. All but two interviews were recorded with the participants’

agreement. The recordings were then transcribed verbatim for analysis. Also, relevant “off the

record” post-interview comments were documented after the interview.




The initial data collection was finalized after conducting and analyzing thirty-two interviews.

The last five interviews revealed only limited new insights and the categories had clearly

emerged and formed a coherent picture of how corporate sustainability and human factors

interact with respect to improving product sustainability. Also, the categories’ properties and

dimensions appeared to be consistent. Thus, the main indicators for theoretical saturation were

satisfied [47], and it was decided that theoretical saturation had been achieved.

An additional follow-up study was conducted in August and September 2018. Five of the

participants were interviewed again to explore if and how different approaches have evolved

since the collection of the original data. Experts with a broad overview of the industry’s

sustainability activities (e.g., through chairing working groups or providing consultancy

services) were chosen and interviewed by phone.

3.3 Secondary Data Sources

For increasing rigor of GT studies, it is advised to triangulate multiple data sources [49], [52].

Thus, supplementary data on sustainable product development within the sampled companies

was collected before each interview from sources which were publicly available like corporate

websites, sustainability reports, or magazine articles. In several cases, the interviewees

themselves provided additional internal documentation (e.g., development guidelines or material

analyses). Overall, 216 documents of different nature and scope were collected. These secondary

data sources supplied a rich context for the analysis—also beyond the companies from the

sample.

3.4 Analytic Approach

Data analysis followed the guidelines established by the Straussian school of GT [47]. It was

conducted through coding activities and constant comparison parallel to data collection. Parts of




the data analysis were supported by another experienced researcher, to avoid potential biases of

individual researchers [47].

The coding activities followed the three steps of open, axial, and selective coding [47]. During

open coding, interview transcripts, as well as supplementary data, were each analyzed line-by-

line resulting in around 5,500 coded paragraphs. During axial and selective coding, groups of

similar codes were analyzed jointly and compared to each other traveling back and forth between

different data sources. Thus, codes were consolidated and grouped into more theoretical and

abstract categories. At the end of this consolidation process, around 1,800 first-order codes

remained. Subsequently, issues linking the different categories were investigated to gain an

understanding of how the emerging themes were interrelated. Memo writing was employed

throughout the data analysis to capture emerging ideas and interpretations. Once the theoretical

model was established, the data was reexamined to make sure the theoretical perspective is

supported. At the end of the data analysis, interviews with an overall length of more than 35

hours resulting in about 700 standard pages of transcript as well as 216 documents with

secondary data had been coded. To support the organization and analysis of the interview data

and supplementary material, the software MAXQDA was used. Specifically, it facilitated the

coding, memo writing, organization, and sorting of codes as well as the visualization of code-

relations.

4. FINDINGS

In this section, parts of the analyses’ findings are presented and discussed. Figures or so-called

concept maps providing an initial overview are advised for a well-structured and coherent

description of the findings of qualitative research [56]. Accordingly, the concept map that

emerged throughout the coding process is depicted in Figure 1 and will be used to structure the

subsequent introduction of the findings.




Figure 1: Concept Map Structuring the Findings

Based on the characteristics of several internal and external conditions, six general approaches

towards sustainability on a corporate level are distinguished. These approaches determine the

handling of sustainability in product development. Specifically, they directly influence product

developers’ individual perception of product sustainability. It is shaped by expectations towards

the future relevance of product sustainability, and the leverage product developers believe to

have on product sustainability. The nature of this comprehension, in turn, determines how

conceptual key decisions concerning product sustainability for a companies’ product portfolio

are made. The product range considered, the way the exterior is designed, and the level of

innovation emerged from the data as such conceptual key decisions.

Of note, the follow-up study found that some companies have gradually adapted their approach

to sustainability as the overall industry slowly moves in the direction of more sustainable

products while toning down the sustainability rhetoric. However, the participants from the

second round agree that the study’s results still reflect the state of the industry.

In the following sections, the findings of the GT study are detailed in keeping with the structure

depicted in Figure 1. In each subsection, excerpts of data and the respective interpretations are

presented side by side as recommended by Pratt [56] and Gioia et al. [55]. Additional to the

Product Development

Developers’ Perception of Sustainability

Future Relevance

Leverage

Developers’ Conceptual Key Decisions

Product Range

Stereotyping

Innovativeness

Corporate Sustainability Approach

MinimalistsTest

BalloonistsReactors

Premium Manufacturers

Sustainable Traditionalists

True Believers




quotes presented in the narrative below, the Appendix contains further representative data to

support the conceptualization.

4.1 Corporate Sustainability Approach

Throughout the interviews, participants emphasized the outstanding importance of the corporate

approaches towards sustainability for the alignment of all product development activities. The

corporate approach is found to be resulting from several internal conditions (e.g., competitive

strategy, ownership, and commitment of top management) as well as external conditions (e.g.,

consumer expectations, competitors’ activities, and regulations). A company typology was

crafted based on the GT coding to characterize their effect on product development in a nutshell

[57]. Typologies are particularly useful for categorizing extensive explorative material without

setting aside detailed case explanations [50]. One way to develop a typology of different cases

is to construct a feature space of characteristic properties and systematically combining these

features [58]. For typifying companies’ sustainability approaches, codes from the GT analysis

were used as features. Table 3 lists them.

Table 3: Codes Considered for Crafting the Typology

Code Families Codes

External conditions Governmental interventions pertaining to sustainability

Competitors’ sustainability activities

Consumers’ expectations towards corporate sustainability

Influence of media on corporate sustainability

Influence of NGO on corporate sustainability

Internal conditions Relevance of sustainability aspects for corporate strategy

Driving forces of sustainability within the company

Organizational implementation of responsibility for sustainability

Since eight codes along with their respective parameter values are the foundation of the typology,

a comprehensive aggregation of similar feature combinations was necessary [57]. As the ultimate




result of this stepwise process of so-called functional and pragmatic reduction (i.e., first, feature

combinations not observed are deleted, then groups of existing feature combination are

condensed into classes based on contextual similarity), six principal groups of parameter

combinations emerged from the data. These groups resemble six different types of corporate

sustainability approaches as observed during the interviews: Minimalists, Test Balloonists,

Reactors, Premium Manufacturers, Sustainable Traditionalists, and True Believers. The

typology was mirrored with similar typologies from the literature [59], [60] as well as publicly

available data on consumer goods companies’ corporate sustainability efforts (also beyond the

sample) to improve its validity. Figure 2 shows a summary of the typology along with a

categorization of the companies from the sample.

Figure 2: Summary of Typology and Categorization of Case Companies

The typology is developed based on approaches that were observed during the interviews.

However, it has to be kept in mind that the types do not occur mutually exclusive in practice.

Nevertheless, the typology provides a suitable foundation for linking product development

MinimalistsTest

BalloonistsReactors



True Believers

Increasing Level of Continuous Sustainability Effort

… have a cost focus and account for sustainability if this improves operational efficiency

… are driven by regulation to improve sustainability

… think their consumers are not interested in product sustainability

… are externally driven through retailers, public opinion, or media

… account for sustainability beyond minimum standards regulated by law

… always flank their sustain-ability activities by strong public relation activities

… experience little external pressure regarding their sustainability activities

… consider selected sustain-ability aspects on a trial basis

… try to target conscious consumers through product design and communication

… pursue a differentiation strategy through brand or product functions

... focus on longevity; sustainability has little relevance for products

… emphasize sustainability in other areas like energy efficient buildings or CSR

… evolve their traditional business model towards sustainability

… focus on credibility by avoiding greenwashing or stereotypes

… experience their customers to be not too interested in product sustainability

… are grounded in the sustainability concept

… have their founders as the main driver for sustainability

… account for sustainability intuitionally in all business functions to a great extent

#5, #7, #11, #14, #18, #27, #31

#1, #2, #21, #24#3, #10, #13, #17, #30

#4, #19, #20, #25, #26, #28

#6, #9, #12, #15, #22

#8, #16, #32




practices to the corporate sustainability approach. In the following, the six types are characterized

with a focus on clearly delineating them from each other.

4.1.1 Minimalists

Minimalists pursue a cost leadership strategy for durable consumer goods. They target

consumers looking for the lowest product price: “The consumers we want to address are not

interested in sustainability at all. The purchasing decision is entirely driven by the product’s

price.” #7. Domestic Appliances. Thus, increasing energy efficiency in production or cutting

down on the material is a day-to-day cost-saving routine. Lower environmental impacts resulting

from these activities are more or less unintended by-catch as sustainability plays no decisive role:

“We are certainly a cost-accounting-driven company, and I am not aware of any area where

sustainability plays a major role for us.” #5. Medical and therapeutic products. If Minimalists

further improve sustainability, these activities are driven by policymakers: “To be honest, the

main drivers are the laws; the laws and regulatory constraints, because in most cases we would

not do this voluntarily.” #27. Home and garden tools. Focusing on costs, Minimalists often

move their production to low-cost countries. Thus, social aspects like labor conditions receive

high attention. Accordingly, avoiding sweatshops and scandals with foreign workers are seen as

risk management measures and insurance against reputation damages: “For us, it would be the

worst publicity possible to find our products associated with child labor or some questionable

factory without any labor standards.” #5. Medical and therapeutic products. While

Minimalists are not striving towards becoming any more sustainable beyond minimum

standards, interviewees also report that they are not perceived as being unsustainable companies.

Thus, public attention or rather the lack thereof is not providing an incentive for sustainability

initiatives.




4.1.2 Test Balloonists

Test Balloonists are often medium-sized companies not standing in the spotlight of public

attention and also not experiencing any consumer requirements regarding sustainability: “I think

the automotive industry is much more focused on publicly. And also, the huge clothing

companies—or whoever passes a certain threshold—they are much more in the spotlight than

we are.” #17. Toys. Other than Minimalists, Test Balloonists start to implement sustainability

beyond mere cost-saving measures. However, they do not cater to actual market demands.

Sustainability is rather seen as being a fuzzy and abstract, yet important business trend that

should be followed somehow: “We obviously see an emerging trend here (…). It would be

negligent in a way if we didn’t consider this for our product portfolio and make this a reality.”

#13. Stationery. Test Balloonists tend to focus their sustainability activities on clearly

demarcated areas of their business. Often, they set up separate product lines incorporating some

sustainability features beyond the inevitable efficiency-focused win-win measures: “With this

line of sustainable products, we want to show that we care about sustainability also beyond our

internal processes.” #10. Household articles. These products are separated from the rest of the

product portfolio, targeting conscious consumers willing to pay extra for product sustainability.

Once on the market, Test Balloonists often realize that the number of conscious consumers is

much lower than they expected. As a result of poor market performance, many companies

canceled their test balloons after just a short time: “We developed an eco-line one time where we

very much emphasized sustainability. (…). However, it is not that consumers reward that in any

way.” #3. Household commodities. In most cases, short-lived experiments do not have the

chance to act as a stimulus for considering sustainability across the entire organization.




4.1.3 Reactors

Companies standing in the spotlight of public attention often cultivate a reactive approach to

managing sustainability. These Reactors’ activities towards being more sustainable receive a

high amount of public attention for instance because of the companies’ size or their products.

Reactors do consider sustainability to a limited extent for all processes and products—frequently

driven by external stakeholders. Dealing with sustainability and talking about it are seen as

suitable countermeasures to negative publicity: “We had a case of child labor years ago (…) and

that, of course, unleashed high waves. In this context, we got engaged with sustainability.” #2.

Apparel. Also, powerful retail chains can drive reactors to engage in product sustainability:

“There is a dynamic coming from the media and consumers demanding more

sustainability. (…) And then the retailers jump on the bandwagon. They are all over this thing

and are touting their efforts: ‘Everyone look here! All this sustainability is happening because

of us!’ And then they are slapping this onto their private labels like there is no tomorrow.” #1,

Household commodities. Another motivation to consider sustainability aspects is the media.

Especially test magazines like Öko-Test or Stiftung Warentest drive Reactors towards exceeding

regulations: “The ranges defined by REACH are sometimes large as barn doors. Regarding

ingredients, Öko-Test is driving us to have an even better look at what actually goes into our

products.” #21, Body care products. Reactors seem to perceive sustainability as something they

are more or less forced to consider and, thus, strategically emphasize sustainability issues and

staff them with considerable workforce. The resulting excess of sustainability-related public

relations is also considered a risk management strategy.

4.1.4 Premium Manufacturers

Premium Manufacturers are well-established, medium-sized companies and produce expensive

durable goods. Their products stick out regarding functionality, design, brand image, and above




all product quality. For them, sustainability is mainly understood as an effort to improve quality

and expand product lifetime: “Our products get passed on from one to the next generation. That

is certainly an important part of our brand. And that is also what we in product development

understand as sustainability.” #19. Leisure and sports equipment. Sustainability efforts

beyond that are not appreciated as often consumers are somewhat skeptical towards these issues:

“Sustainability is of no importance in our business. And if you discuss it, then the consumer says:

Well, don’t you have any other issues?” #26. Home and garden tools. However, Premium

Manufacturers often promote sustainability in other business areas like energy efficiency of

corporate buildings or the well-being and satisfaction of employees. Also, they are loyal to their

native region and emphasize local CSR activities: “Companies considering themselves as being

premium suppliers do try to give something back regarding social issues.” #4. Leisure and

sports equipment. Unlike Reactors or Test Balloonists, the emergence of the sustainability

concept had little effect on Premium Manufacturers as many related issues have always been

core company values. Sustainability initiatives expounded on by competitors are seen as myopic

reactions to ambiguous public expectations. Thus, they keep a rather low profile concerning

communicating about sustainability.

4.1.5 Sustainable Traditionalists

Sustainable Traditionalists are established companies that have learned to appreciate

sustainability as being a long-term competitive advantage. They aim at progressively adjusting

their products and processes according to sustainability principles and abandon questionable

practices long before the regulatory hammer falls. Sustainability as being something that is every

employee’s responsibility and not something to be taken care of by a designated functional unit:

“Our executive director says that sustainability must not be assigned to a staff function. Then

everyone in the company would say: ‘Let them take care of it.’ For him, it is clear that it starts




from the top—with him.” #12. Household commodities. Like Test Balloonists, Sustainable

Traditionalists face little market demand for more sustainable products. They want to target mass

markets but sense difficulties in communicating their commitment. “We will have to put forward

that we are actually working in that field. I think many medium-sized companies have that

problem. They put comparatively high effort into it but talk too little about it.” #9. Domestic

Appliances. Sustainable Traditionalists face little to almost no external pressure in caring about

sustainability. Accordingly, Sustainable Traditionalists invest in sustainability as a source of

long-term competitive advantage, coping with higher expenses and lower margins in the short-

term: “We would go for the more sustainable option even if this implied having 10 percent or

20 percent lower margins on our products. We would put up with that; this is a clear directive

from our management.” #15. Stationery. Sustainable Traditionalists’ sustainability efforts are

not only supported but explicitly driven by management. These companies are often family-

owned and run. Thus, there is no need to justify margin sacrifices for the sake of sustainability

improvements to external shareholders like Reactors’ management would have to do.

4.1.6 True Believers

Companies grounded in the sustainability principles are True Believers. Typically, they are

SMEs and run by their founders. True Believers do not perceive sustainability as negotiable but

as a core value for all company activities: “Sustainability is something anchored deep inside the

company and not something driven by some trend or greenwashing activity.” #32. Body care

products. True Believers take a firm, non-negotiable stance towards sustainability. They are

deeply rooted in their native region and aware of their responsibility as a company. They often

partner with their immediate neighborhood even though this incurs higher costs: “When we run

out of material, then I call our local carpenter (…). And I am sure that he will be 30 or 40 percent

more expensive than some carpenter at the Czech border. However, we are really into this




regional thinking.” #16. Personal items. Even though True Believers set high standards for

sustainability, they do not aggressively promote themselves as being superior sustainable like

Test Balloonists or Reactors would. That is why some fear the loss of their pioneer halo in the

eye of the consumer: “We have been eco-freaks for years, and now suddenly this topic is hot.

And now, large enterprises start their planned campaigns. Sometimes I get the feeling that they

will pass us on the left and the right because they do it systematically. It always felt natural for

us, and it has always been this way. And therefore, we struggle to leverage it.” #8. Household

articles. True Believers do not need regulations, public interest, or other external pressure to

embrace sustainability truly. However, since they were founded on sustainability principles, they

have different prerequisites than all “traditional” companies trying to embed sustainability into

established business models and organizational structures.

4.2 Developers’ Perception of Sustainability

This section covers the perceptions of the individual interviewees’ of product sustainability,

shifting the focus from the corporate level to product development. It results from their

company’s approach towards sustainability as well as individual values and attitudes. It is

characterized by the interplay of two aspects: future relevance and leverage on product

sustainability. Figure 3 gives an introductory overview of how the corporate approach to

sustainability is reflected in the developers’ perception of sustainability.

Figure 3: Overview of Developers’ Perception in Relation to the Corporate Sustainability

Approach

MinimalistsTest

BalloonistsReactors



True Believers

Entirely driven by external forces

Mostly driven by regulation and customers

Important trend that should be followed

Important trend that should be followed

Superior product sustainability is a source of future competitive advantage

Future Relevance

LeverageDevelopers feels to have little leverage to improve product sustainability (lack of corporate guidance and necessary resources)

Developers feel to have high leverage; improving sustainability is a daily routine with high priority




4.2.1 Future Relevance

Across all company types, participants are aware that sustainability is a multidimensional

concept collating economic, environmental, and social aspects. However, most interviewees are

not overly concerned with terminology or the academic discourse about relative and absolute

understandings of sustainability. Instead, they quickly illustrate their definitions through

examples from their daily work. While interviewees in charge of non-durable goods also

emphasize aspects related to the logistics or packaging of their products, developers of durable

goods focus mostly on material issues or working conditions in low-cost countries. Overall,

participants reveal a hands-on take on sustainability with economic and environmental factors

outweighing the social aspects of sustainability. While discussing terminology, participants

brought up their expectations for the future relevance of product sustainability. Almost all

interviewees anticipate sustainability in the long run to become an increasingly important factor.

Those working for Sustainable Traditionalists and True Believers comprehend sustainability as

a significant possibility to gain a competitive advantage within mature markets. Most other

interviewees grasp sustainability at least as an upcoming trend that is here to stay: “I believe

sustainability is an emerging trend. And if you miss jumping on this trend, in five years, you

might stand there with the egg on your face if you are not on top of the game by then.” #30.

Consumer electronics. Most interviewees expect sustainability to become crucial to their

consumers’ purchasing behavior eventually. However, they are not able to articulate why and

when this change of mind should occur. Product developers seem to share the looming feeling

that the sustainability discourse might suddenly pick up speed and that they might miss the bus

if they procrastinate on their efforts: “Altogether, the consumers are moving into a direction

where sustainability gets more important and will also be necessary for our products someday.

This is by no means to be ignored.” #21. Body care products. Additional proof of the growing




relevance of product sustainability is viewed in the tightening of laws and regulation. Some

interviewees, particularly from Reactors and Test Balloonists, indicate that regulations have

already moved sustainability-related issues up on their agendas. Also, interviewees not yet

affected by specific sustainability regulations expect them to become relevant sooner or later.

Again, they are not able to explain why and when this should happen but share the vague fear of

falling behind: “In the long-term with 100 percent certainty, there will be legislative

requirements; I truly believe that. And most of the time the industry reacts like a pile of headless

chicken. Everyone suddenly dashes off.” #17. Toys. Taken aside growing external pressure, all

interviewees share the belief that technological progress will yield new possibilities that should

be addressed: “This is clearly a strategy to ensure survival for companies. Those firms that don’t

look into alternatives will be in trouble. […] It is wise for us to start looking into this now.” #28.

Home and garden commodities.

4.2.2 Leverage

Several interviewees from Reactors, Premium Manufacturers, Minimalists, and Test Balloonists

appear skeptical about actually possessing exercisable leverage for the improvement of product

sustainability. Their doubts are less based on unpredictable consumer behavior or technological

feasibility but more a result of different company-specific inhibitors. For example, some

participants stated that options for considerably improving their established product concept are

rare. Hence, their efforts might not even move the needle on overall product sustainability: “I

want to see us use compostable materials to package all of these products. However, that is more

like a drop in the bucket. That does not make the product sustainable.” #31. Leisure and sports

equipment. This concern is exacerbated when product developers experience decisions made

out of their area of influence that have a strong negative impact on overall product sustainability.

This is particularly the case if companies are not deeply committed to sustainability but




initiatives to improve product sustainability are driven by individual developers. Some

interviewees appeared to be discouraged by such examples as this developer from a Premium

Manufacturer explains: “Even if you consider a blister packaging that is not exactly favorable

for the environment: how big is its impact compared to air transportation of the products to

Europe?” #25. Consumer electronics. An even more important issue is the lack of purchasing

power. Around half of the sampled companies are SMEs or just a little larger, and most of them

experience difficulties in sourcing intermediate goods they deem more sustainable. Horizontal

or vertical collaboration is an opportunity to overcome such roadblocks. However, close

collaboration is the exception rather than the rule throughout the sample. Even when it comes to

only source material, sustainability requests do not always resonate well with the supplier base,

even for a well-known player in the international furniture markets: “If we would like to source

chipboard made exclusively from Western European spruce, then we are allowed to ask for it…

however, it is not like that is going to happen.” #11. Furniture and lighting.

4.3 Developers’ Conceptual Key Decisions

It was discussed further with all participants how they do or at least would implement the notion

of sustainability into their products. It was found that—on a conceptual level—interviewees

determine product sustainability through three key decisions. By “conceptual” it is expressed

what interviewees make of sustainability for their entire product range without referring to

specific development practices or sustainability improvements. The conceptualization of product

sustainability is characterized by three key decisions on product range, stereotyping, and

innovativeness. Figure 4 gives an introductory overview of how the corporate approach to

sustainability is reflected in developers’ conceptual key decisions.




Figure 4: Overview of Developers’ Conceptual Key Decisions in Relation to the Corporate

Sustainability Approach

4.3.1 Product Range

Two distinct positions emerge on the decision of whether sustainability is considered for all

products. First, several interviewees indicate that they focus their attention on a small number of

products developed and promoted as being more sustainable compared to the rest of the product

range (this mirrors the approach taken by Test Balloonists but also holds true for most Reactors).

This approach is also deemed appropriate for companies with a low sustainability track record.

This interviewee plans to start a test balloon to gain experiences: “We are lucky in a way because

we can fly under the radar to some extent. As a smaller company, we can launch a test product.

And if it does not work in the marketplace, we just scrap it and move on.” #30. Consumer

electronics. Companies which introduce separate product lines might put considerable effort

into their development but do not plan to extend this to other products. Most of the interviewees

realize that this would be desirable. However, since they also perceive their exercisable leverage

as small, they sometimes resort to a “better than nothing” mentality: “It is still a small share of

the collection that actually is made from organic cotton. But at least we are doing something,

right?” #2. Apparel. Only some interviewees leverage their more sustainable product lines as

an opportunity to test new technologies, raw materials, and product concepts. Through truly

MinimalistsTest

BalloonistsReactors



True Believers

Product Range

Stereo-typing

Innovative-ness

No specific focus

Focus on dedicated lines of more sustainable products Focus on entire product portfolio

Avoiding sustainability signaling

Tendency to signal sustainability improvements through design stereotypes for non-durable goods, avoiding such a strategy for durable goods

Low; rather incidental improvements

Low; focus on "greening" existing products

Low; focus on improving longevity

High; questioning own established solutions

High; replacing conventional offerings by competitors




challenging their existing products they report having learned a lot about possibilities and limits

of sustainability improvements. Some identified options are then rolled out onto the overall

product range. This participant indicates that his test balloon (even though only mildly successful

from a commercial point of view) offered a valuable starting point for more extensive

sustainability considerations: “Until now sustainability has been a base criterion only for the

eco-line. And through the experience we gained, we now say: we want to expand that to other

products as well.” #13. Stationery. Second, an entirely different position is advocated by

Sustainable Traditionalists and True Believers. Such companies are concerned about credibility

and demonstrate their true commitment in all of their products: “We consider sustainability for

every single product. Otherwise, we would be asked: why don’t you do that for the other products

as well?” #6. Household commodities. Even Minimalists try not to appear to be selling special

products with an emphasis on sustainability. If they achieve some sustainability improvements,

they refrain from actually talking about it. This aspect brings together the attitude of Minimalists

and True Believers: both are afraid of tarnishing their credibility through promoting single

products as being superiorly sustainable. However, the consequences they draw from this

concern are completely different. True Believers consider all products while Minimalists would

not even talk about any improvement: “When we improve certain things, we discuss if we want

to communicate it or not. And often we say that we do not want to make a fuss about it […].

Because then it would look like the other collections have nothing to them.” #14. Personal items.

4.3.2 Stereotyping

Communicating sustainability through a stereotyped exterior design emerged as a hot and

polarizing topic throughout the interviews. Some interviewees are much for satisfying

sustainability clichés through muddy colors and earthy materials. Other participants firmly

oppose such an approach. Surprisingly, these positions cannot be assigned explicitly to the




different types of corporate approaches: “We share the perception that there are big

corporations out there with some established product lines and that try to somehow introduce

an eco-design product as well. Often they tend to add ‘eco’ to the product name and choose

green as exterior color so that it becomes very obvious that this product is different from others.”

#23. Federal authority. Some interviewees share experiences from their actual products and

explain how they decided upon the exterior design. In the case featured below, an interviewee

from a Test Balloonist explains that their material is not dyed in earthy colors intentionally.

Instead, the natural color resulting from using mixed recycled plastics is embraced to

communicate a higher level of product sustainability: “Fine feathers make fine birds. If I see a

blazing red product next to our eco-line, then the eco-line certainly is a bit unattractive.

However, if I care about doing something for the environment, I will buy the eco-line.” #10.

Household articles. Several interviewees name products they worked on that were specifically

designed to look environmentally friendly. Most of the time, these are examples of durable

consumer goods developed during the eco-design wave around the turn of the millennium. It

emerges that today this approach is especially common for non-durable consumer goods.

Participants attribute this to impulsive and rather uninformed decisions that consumers make

when purchasing such goods. Accordingly, the stereotyped appearance of products or their

packaging is mainly used to stick out and to attract consumers’ attention. “And then there will

be some—well, actually the majority—they do not have much time to deal with sustainability

issues. Some of these consumers might buy products having an eco-look and say: Well, instead

of doing nothing I’ll start here.” #19. Leisure and sports equipment. Some participants

compare eco-looking products to private labels. These products—or rather their packaging—

also feature a minimalistic and rather unambitious exterior design. However, in the case of

private labels, the minimalistic design is not supposed to signal sustainability but to signal low




prices. Thus, consumers are not distracted by design aspects and are driven only to see the price

advantage.

4.3.3 Innovativeness

Interviewees report that they can either modify existing products to the extent that enables better

sustainability performance or they can develop entirely new product concepts with a particular

focus on sustainability. The latter option often aims at replacing existing products, a strategy

regularly pursued by True Believers: “The main focus of our product development is to replace

products that are harmful to the environment like aluminum foil or plastics through paper-based

products. That is what we are working on at the moment.” #6. Household commodities.

Developing new product concepts results in higher levels of innovativeness and can yield large

sustainability improvements. It is evident that such an approach offers higher degrees of freedom

for developers than if they have to stick to long-standing product concepts and attempt to retrofit

their sustainability. However, this is not standard procedure in industry: “What we experience—

especially with big companies—is that they always focus on one specific area. This may be

materials or an improvement of energy efficiency. They really focus on one area and try to

achieve improvements there.” #23, Federal authority. Some sampled companies are quite

successful in improving existing products as they undertake numerous small steps that together

represent a significant sustainability push. However, most participants working in companies

that are not profoundly committed to sustainability, especially Test Balloonists and Reactors,

report seeing little opportunity to improve product sustainability radically. Since none or only a

little time is allotted for identifying and implementing sustainability improvements, product

developers are left with adapting existing product concepts. This leaves no room for

experimental runs: “We always have to develop new products quickly. That is why we often build

on existing products and adapt them. If you truly want to make a product more sustainable, you




have to pursue this with more time on your hands and with another approach.” #17. Toys.

Another finding concerns the development of product service systems. Some interviewees voice

quite idealistic and truly radical ideas on how sustainability could be enforced, e.g., by policies

trimming entrepreneurial freedom. However, more realistic approaches like combining products

with supplementary services are not mentioned as an opportunity to foster sustainability. While

this is not surprising for non-durable consumer goods, there actually might be options for durable

consumer goods as is already demonstrated by several of today’s sharing economy offerings

5. DISCUSSION

This study’s findings provide insight into how the corporate sustainability approach of consumer

goods companies influences the individual developers’ perception of product sustainability and

how this is reflected in their behavior and decision-making.

Concerning the developers’ perception of sustainability, it was first identified that product

developers across the sample share the vague belief that product sustainability is to gain

importance by means of changing consumer behavior and tightened regulations. It is a vague

belief since only a few interviewees have a clear idea of how and when this will happen. Second,

it was found that, despite the expected importance in the future, many product developers from

the sample believe to have little exercisable leverage to enhance product sustainability in their

routine development tasks. This is especially the case for developers working at Minimalists,

Test Balloonists, Reactors, and Premium Manufacturers—companies not intrinsically

subscribed to sustainability on a corporate level. This finding seems a bit puzzling: if the people

developing the products expect product sustainability to become more critical and at the same

time experience few degrees of freedom to push sustainability, the question “Who else could

make a difference then?” emerges. At the same time, interviewees from all company types often

voiced (sometimes quite radical) ideas on how product sustainability could be improved. Then




again, they seem to be unsatisfied about the gap between their personal interests and their actual

activities when regarding product sustainability and tend to blame it on issues that are allegedly

“out of their reach,” be it non-receptive customers, non-cooperative suppliers, or technological

hurdles. This interpretation is supported by the fact that participants working for Sustainable

Traditionalists or True Believers perceive their influence on product sustainability as rather high.

To them, improving sustainability is a high-priority routine and not some task detached from

their daily work. While their companies expose an entirely different corporate take on

sustainability, these developers most probably face the same difficulties about technological

feasibility, consumer behavior, or material sourcing but manage to cope with them. Thus, this

study seconds previous findings that a well-thought-out corporate sustainability approach is a

major success factor for sustainable product development [33]. Only if companies expose an

intrinsic push for sustainability are they able to translate sustainability effectively to the

operational level [15]. As previous research shows that sustainability can only be a strategic

advantage for a company if its sustainability measures cannot easily be matched by competitors

[61], companies should make sure their product developers are enabled to go beyond harvesting

low-hanging fruits. This study also provides support that the effect of human factors with respect

to product sustainability impacts the result of development processes. Product development

departments are complex social systems focused on highly complex tasks with human behavior

being a central driver [7]. However, behavioral issues can swing both ways as they can either

obstruct or promote the implementation of product sustainability [32], [39]–[41].

Concerning the developers’ conceptual key decisions, it was found that developers that are

starting to get involved with product sustainability often exclusively focus on separate product

lines. This is an approach often seen in practice: companies try to demonstrate their sustainability

commitment with a new brand and product introductions. Many of those separate products seem

to be one-off designs as they are often terminated not long after their introduction. Thus, they do




not have the chance to act as a stimulus for considering sustainability across the entire

organization. However, the study’s findings also show that some developers consider their

separate products to be long-term opportunities to gain technological know-how regarding new

materials or production technologies and to learn about sustainability opportunities related to

their products. They put a considerable amount of effort into these test balloon products and have

come to terms with low sales figures for the time being. The long-term goal is to set sustainability

up as a base criterion for the entire product range. Test balloons are seen as a necessary first step

in this direction. Further, this study found that product developers tend to signal sustainability

improvements of consumer goods through a stereotyped exterior design—especially for separate

products. Also, many developers tend to improve the sustainability performance of existing

product concepts instead of questioning their own solutions. This often yields in somewhat

incremental changes. Most of these conceptual key decisions are not a result of a coherent

corporate strategy towards sustainability but happen more or less by chance and result from the

developers’ approaches and ideas. Taking the question of whether to stereotype the exterior

design as an example, companies should carefully consider how much untuned activity they want

to allow [62]: whether earthy colors or natural looking materials contribute to aesthetic

perception depends not only on the individual consumer but also on the product category in

question [63]. In general, it is established that especially the product color is a signal of different

aspects like product quality or ease of use—whether developers intend to signal such information

or not [64]. Serving assumed stereotypes can seriously hurt the product’s success probability.

Also, it limits innovation and ultimately the positive impact more sustainable products could

have. There is an indisputable need to achieve higher levels of innovation than are realized by

most of today’s more sustainable products [11]. Thus, literature calls for more radical

sustainability innovation [65], [66]. Most companies would likely second this. However, their




corporate sustainability approach (or rather the lack of a coherent one) is often reflected in their

products.

6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The GT approach employed has proven to provide comprehensive insights into the research

question. However, there are some limitations to this approach as the nature of a GT study does

not allow to generalize the findings without further ado for companies outside of this rather

specific sample of product development experts from German consumer goods companies.

Further, only one interview per company was conducted at a specific point in the past.

Sustainability is a constantly evolving topic, and companies might have changed their take on

this topic. This encourages further research. For example, it appears promising to investigate the

different trajectories companies follow while adapting their corporate sustainability approaches,

e.g., through evolving from a Minimalist to a Test Balloonist. Further, it would be valuable to

investigate the role of human factors in the outcome of a product development project in other

cultural settings.

7. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, this paper suggests that the corporate sustainability approach distinctively shapes

how individual product developers comprehend sustainability and how they conceptualize it for

their product portfolio—be it the product range considered, the innovativeness, or the nature of

the exterior design. For theory and research, the findings imply that the predominant focus on

providing methods and frameworks should be reconsidered. Contemporary conceptual work falls

short of tackling behavioral issues. In fact, behavioral aspects of developing more sustainable

products are largely neglected. For managing the product development process, the findings

emphasize the importance of aligning the corporate sustainability approach with the management




of the product portfolio. Some of the participants reported about test balloon products which

were started to fit the spirit of the time instead of being part of a serious corporate push for

enhanced product sustainability. Since such a product strategy is not credible in the eye of the

consumer, these products commonly face a lack of market demand and tend to remain short-

lived experiments. Granted, not every company can or wants to become an award-winning

sustainability frontrunner like Miele. However, no matter how far companies want to push

product sustainability, they have to be aware of the organizational environment they provide for

their developers and its effects on their behavior and decision-making.

APPENDIX

Table 4: Further Quotes Supporting the Conceptualization

Theme Quote

Future Relevance

At some point, one had the impression that sustainability is so worn out that people cannot bear to hear it anymore. However, it is actually going in the opposite direction. If you do not jump on the bandwagon and progress into this direction, then you will be outpaced in no time. #1, Household commodities

I think sustainability considerations will become obligatory; I truly believe that. (…) Also, the gap between the cost-driven companies and the strong brands will further emerge. And those companies in the spotlight of public attention will definitely have to prove their actions regarding sustainability. #17, Toys

We all witnessed the policy efforts to limit the power consumption of vacuum cleaners. Because more power does not mean that they actually perform better. I can image that in the long run such regulation will also be in place for power tools. #26, Home and garden tools

I believe this topic will become more important in the future. Especially when the standard of living improves further throughout the big Asian countries. (…) Things will change, I truly believe that. #27, Home and garden tools

We know what our products are made of. And these fossil raw materials will become scarce in the near future. Whatever may still sound absurd today will be mandatory tomorrow when everything else gets more and more expensive. It has always been this way. #28, Home and garden commodities

Leverage

I am sure it has something to do with our size...or lack thereof. We are completely at the peril of the suppliers and dare we say we want something more sustainable. They just give us the boot. I really miss suppliers pitching ecologically sustainable products to us. #3, Household commodities

Everyone is always looking to the automotive sector to see how it is done. But they have a wholly different level of influence on their suppliers. If one of the big brands approaches a supplier to get something changed, say a material, then the supplier jumps to action. We come in with a request, and they might listen politely, but that is the end of that. #11, Furniture

Sadly, our standard material is still polyester, and we will not be able to change that. I mean, it is not toxic or anything. However, without polyester, we probably wouldn’t have any product. #14, Personal items

When we first got involved in this sustainability effort, we approached the supplier with the goal to make 100 or 200 units. If you suggest engaging in a joint development effort with these kinds of numbers, people laugh at you. We actually had that happen to us. #16, Personal items

If a company like Bosch approaches BASF because they want to have a new material for a switch they produce 20 million times, sure BASF will assign 10 of their people to find something as soon as possible. If we approach our supplier for plastic injection molding parts and ask for a new material for our annual 10,000 valves, they will not care. Even though we are by far the biggest player on our market, we always have to struggle with minimum order quantities. #31, Leisure and sports equipment




Theme Quote

Product Range

We developed an eco-line one time, where we very much emphasized sustainability. Basically, the maximum you can do. The bottle was made from 100 percent recycled material, all ingredients were made from renewable resources, everything was certified. However, it is not that consumers reward that in any way. #3, Household commodities

I find it interesting to observe companies developing a line of more sustainable products. And when these products do not meet their sales expectations, they are killed. Sure, you can kill an entire product line because you made a mistake or something, but you cannot kill the idea of product sustainability, right? But that happens a lot. Then it becomes clear that sustainability was not really at these companies’ hearts. #8, Household articles

With this line of sustainable products, we want to show that we care about sustainability also beyond our internal processes. #10, Household articles

We know similar concepts from the toys industry. For example, one manufacturer of sandbox toys recently introduced a “green” line of products. The products are rather pastel-colored and are made from biopolymers. #19, Leisure and sports equipment

For many of the larger firms, I can’t shake the impression of greenwashing. They just pick one little issue out of the buffet of options to enhance sustainability and implement it as a quick win for a new product line because they really lack the commitment to systematically overhaul their entire production #23, Federal authority

Stereotyping

These eco-products you find in the supermarket and their packaging are green for a reason, right? Most of the time also the detergent itself is green. That happens for a reason. #11, Furniture and lighting

I would try to visually differentiate such a sustainable product line. People should have the chance to recognize it. For example, if I would make a wooden product, then it should look like wood. Today, eco-products definitely have to have that eco-look on them. #14, Personal items

You try to follow the market if you design a separate eco-line that looks odd. The reason is that not all consumers can already decode such products. #19, Leisure and sports equipment

In my company, nobody would accept a product that looks stereotyped eco-friendly. They would say: ‘Thanks for your effort, but we cannot sell that.’ #30, Consumer electronics

A product is a successful product if it is designed in an attractive way. Whether this means choosing brown or rather pink as the color is another question. At least for me a product does not have to be colored in earthy tones to give me a feeling of environmental friendliness. #31, Leisure and sports equipment

Innovativeness

Unlike us, our competitors do not go down that road far enough. They do not truly embrace sustainability. They just change the material of one component and still use the old material for the rest of the product. #16, Personal items

What we did as some first steps were pretty easy things. (…) We focused on areas that are easily measurable and where changes are easy to implement. #17, Toys

I know about projects with the goal of doing something really environmentally friendly. However, actually all of these projects got nowhere near far enough from my point of view because they are only focused on material issues. #19, Leisure and sports equipment




REFERENCES

[1] I. Krauß, Winners of the 2017 German Federal Ecodesign Award. Berlin: Bundespreis ecodesign, 2017.

[2] H. Simon, Hidden Champions of the Twenty-First Century: The Success Strategies of Unknown World Market Leaders. New York: Springer, 2009.

[3] C. Kern, “Die Konsumgüterindustrie,” in Innovative Gestaltung von Geschäftsprozessen in der Konsumgüterindustrie, S. Meinhardt, C. Kern, K. Kauffmann, and J. Jahraus, Eds. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag, 2010, pp. 3–63.

[4] S. Schrettle, A. Hinz, M. Scherrer-Rathje, and T. Friedli, “Turning Sustainability into Action: Explaining Firms’ Sustainability Efforts and their Impact on Firm Performance,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 147, pp. 73–84, 2014.

[5] R. M. Dangelico, “Green Product Innovation: Where We Are and Where We Are Going,” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 560–276, 2016.

[6] H. A. Simon, Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley, 1957. [7] F. Gino and G. Pisano, “Toward a Theory of Behavioral Operations,” M&SOM, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.

676–691, 2008. [8] V. Krishnan and K. T. Ulrich, “Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature,”

Management Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–21, Jan. 2001. [9] J. D. Townsend, M. M. Montoya, and R. J. Calantone, “Form and Function: A Matter of

Perspective,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 374–377, 2011. [10] S. Seuring and M. Müller, “From a Literature Review to a Conceptual Framework for Sustainable

Supply Chain Management,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 16, pp. 1699–1710, 2008. [11] T. Dyllick and Z. Rost, “Towards True Product Sustainability,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.

162, pp. 346–360, 2017. [12] R. M. Dangelico, P. Pontrandolfo, and D. Pujari, “Developing Sustainable New Products in the

Textile and Upholstered Furniture Industries - Role of External Integrative Capabilities,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 642–658, 2013.

[13] S. Eppinger, “The Fundamental Challenge of Product Design,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 399–400, 2011.

[14] A. M. T. Thomé, A. Scavarda, P. S. Ceryno, and A. Remmen, “Sustainable New Product Development: A Longitudinal Review,” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 2195–2208, 2016.

[15] A. Alblas, K. Peters, and H. Wortmann, “Fuzzy Sustainability Incentives in New Product Development - An Empirical Exploration of Sustainability Challenges in Manufacturing Companies,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 513–545, 2014.

[16] S. Hallstedt, A. W. Thompson, and P. Lindahl, “Key Elements for Implementing a Strategic Sustainability Perspective in the Product Innovation Process,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 51, no. 15, pp. 277–288, 2013.

[17] D. Kammerl, D. Schockenhoff, C. Hollauer, D. Weidmann, and U. Lindemann, “A Framework for Sustainable Product Development,” in Sustainability Through Innovation in Product Life Cycle Design, M. Matsumoto, K. Masui, S. Fukushige, and S. Kondoh, Eds. Singapore: Springer, 2017, pp. 21–32.

[18] V. P. Rodrigues, D. C. A. Pigosso, and T. C. McAloone, “Process-Related Key Performance Indicators for Measuring Sustainability Performance of Ecodesign Implementation into Product Development,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 139, pp. 416–428, 2016.

[19] S. Hallstedt, “Sustainability criteria and sustainability compliance index for decision support in product development,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 251–266.




[20] G. Clancy, M. Fröling, and M. Svanström, “Changing from Petroleum to Wood-Based Materials - Critical Review of How Product Sustainability Characteristics Can Be Assessed and Compared,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 39, pp. 372–385, 2013.

[21] J. Schulte and S. I. Hallstedt, “Challenges and Preconditions to Build Sustainability Capabilities in Product Innovation,” in 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, 2017, pp. 1–10.

[22] C. A. L. Vanegas, G. A. Cordeiro, C. P. de Paula, R. E. C. Ordoñez, and R. Anholon, “Analysis of the utilization of tools and sustainability approaches in the product development process in Brazilian industry,” Sustainable Production and Consumption, vol. 16, pp. 249–262, Oct. 2018.

[23] P. H. Driessen, B. Hillebrand, R. A. W. Kok, and T. M. M. Verhallen, “Green New Product Development: The Pivotal Role of Product Greenness,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 315–326, 2013.

[24] R. F. de Magalhães, Â. de M. F. Danilevicz, and J. Palazzo, “Managing trade-offs in complex scenarios: A decision-making tool for sustainability projects,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 212, pp. 447–460.

[25] M. Petersen, “Considering Sustainability in the Development of Consumer Goods,” 2017. [26] G. Johansson, “Product Innovation for Sustainability: On Product Properties for Efficient

Disassembly,” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 32–41, 2008. [27] H. Ny, S. Hallstedt, K.-H. Robèrt, and G. Broman, “Introducing Templates for Sustainable Product

Development,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 600–623, 2008. [28] J. P. Schöggl, R. J. Baumgartner, and D. Hofer, “Improving Sustainability Performance in Early

Phases of Product Design: A Checklist for Sustainable Product Development Tested in the Automotive Industry,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 140, pp. 1602–1617, 2017.

[29] M. H. F. Zarandi, S. Mansour, S. A. Hosseinijou, and M. Avazbeigi, “A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable product design,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 885–903, Dec. 2011.

[30] T. Buchert, F. A. Halstenberg, J. Bonvoisin, K. Lindow, and R. Stark, “Target-Driven Selection and Scheduling of Methods for Sustainable Product Development,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 161, pp. 403–421, 2017.

[31] S. Ahmad, K. Y. Wong, M. L. Tseng, and W. P. Wong, “Sustainable product design and development: A review of tools, applications and research prospects,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 132, pp. 49–61, May 2018.

[32] S. Sihvonen and J. Partanen, “Implementing Environmental Considerations within Product Development Practices: A Survey on Employees’ Perspectives,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 125, pp. 189–203, 2016.

[33] M. Held et al., “Current challenges for sustainable product development in the German automotive sector: A survey based status assessment,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 195, pp. 869–889.

[34] M. S. Hopkins, “How Sustainability Fuels Design Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2010.

[35] E. Petala, R. Wever, C. Dutilh, and H. Brezet, “The Role of New Product Development Briefs in Implementing Sustainability: A Case Study,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, vol. 27, no. 3–4, pp. 172–182, 2010.

[36] S. H. Aschehoug and C. Boks, “Towards a Framework for Sustainability Information in Product Development,” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 94–108, 2013.

[37] H. Strömberg, A. Selvefors, and S. Renström, “Mapping Out the Design Opportunities: Pathways of Sustainable Behaviour,” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 163–172, 2015.

[38] J. W. Forrester, “System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years,” in A Systems-based Approach to Policymaking, K. B. De Greene, Ed. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 1993, pp. 199–240.




[39] E. Verhulst and C. Boks, “Employee Empowerment for Sustainable Design,” The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 73–101, 2014.

[40] E. Verhulst and C. Boks, “The Role of Human Factors in the Adoption of Sustainable Design Criteria in Business: Evidence from Belgian and Dutch Case Studies,” International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 146–163, 2012.

[41] S. Sihvonen and J. Partanen, “A survey of perceived prevalence of selected environmental topics in product development, and their relationships with employee’s ecological concern,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 199, pp. 1116–1129.

[42] T. Short, A. Lee-Mortimer, C. Luttropp, and G. Johansson, “Manufacturing, sustainability, ecodesign and risk: lessons learned from a study of Swedish and English companies,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 37, pp. 342–352.

[43] C. J. C. Jabbour, D. Jugend, A. B. L. de S. Jabbour, A. Gunasekaran, and H. Latan, “Green product development and performance of Brazilian firms: measuring the role of human and technical aspects,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 87, pp. 442–451.

[44] S. Oskamp, “Overconfidence in Case-Study Judgments,” Journal of Consulting Psychology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 261–265, 1965.

[45] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124–1131, 1974.

[46] R. Croson, K. Schultz, E. Siemsen, and M. L. Yeo, “Behavioral Operations: The State of the Field,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2013.

[47] J. Corbin and A. L. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks et al.: SAGE Publications, 2008.

[48] K. D. Locke, Grounded Theory in Management Research. London et al.: SAGE Publications, 2001. [49] B. Fugate, F. Sahin, and J. T. Mentzer, “Supply Chain Management Coordination Mechanisms,”

Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 129–161, 2006. [50] P. Mayring, Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung - Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken,

5th ed. Weinheim et al.: Beltz, 2002. [51] B. G. Glaser, Theoretical Sensitivity - Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press, 1978. [52] D. J. Flint, R. B. Woodruff, and S. F. Gardial, “Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers’ Desired

Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 102–117, 2002.

[53] K. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. Los Angeles et al.: SAGE Publications, 2014. [54] European Commission, User Guide to the SME Definition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the

European Union, 2015. [55] D. A. Gioia, K. G. Corley, and A. L. Hamilton, “Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes

on the Gioia Methodology,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15–31, Jul. 2012. [56] M. G. Pratt, “For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing up (and Reviewing) Qualitative

Research,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 856–862, 2009. [57] J. Fleiß, “Paul Lazarsfelds typologische Methode und die Grounded Theory,” Österreichische

Zeitschrift für Soziologie, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 3–18, 2010. [58] P. F. Lazarsfeld and A. H. Barton, “Qualitative Measurement in the Social Sciences - Classification,

Typologies, and Indices,” in The Policy Sciences - Recent Developments in Scope and Method, D. Lerner and H. D. Lasswell, Eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951, pp. 155–192.

[59] R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner, “Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profiles and Maturity Levels,” Sustainable Development, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 76–89, 2010.

[60] T. Dyllick and K. Muff, “Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business,” Organization & Environment, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 156–174, 2016.

[61] I. Ioannou and G. Serafeim, “Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy?,” Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3312191, Jan. 2019.




[62] M. G. Luchs, R. Walker Naylor, J. R. Irwin, and R. Raghunathan, “The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 18–31, 2010.

[63] M. Petersen and S. Brockhaus, “Dancing in the Dark: Challenges for Product Developers to Improve and Communicate Product Sustainability,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 161, pp. 345–354, 2017.

[64] M. E. H. Creusen, “Consumer Response to Product Form,” in Design Thinking - New Product Development Essentials from the PDMA, M. G. Luchs, K. S. Swan, and A. Griffin, Eds. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2015, pp. 303–317.

[65] R. M. Dangelico and D. Pujari, “Mainstreaming Green Product Innovation: Why and How Companies Integrate Environmental Sustainability,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 471–486, 2010.

[66] P. Llerena and M. Wagner, “Drivers for Sustainability-Improving Innovation - A Qualitative Analysis of Renewable Resources, Industrial Products and Travel Services,” in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainability, M. Wagner, Ed. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, 2008, pp. 130–148.

approaches towards improving product …€¦ · are essential for every successful development...

Documents