Skip to main content

The Green Option Matrix to Characterize Green Products and Practices

Applications to the Upholstered Furniture and the Footwear Industries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Corporate Sustainability

Abstract

Hybrid cars, recycled products, photovoltaic cells, bioplastics: why so different products can be called ‘green’? Which practices companies willing to develop green products should implement? How companies can easily and effectively communicate to stakeholders the environmental features of their green products?

This paper tries to answer these questions, by developing a Green Option Matrix (GOM), which characterizes green products and practices along different dimensions. This matrix is then used to analyze the different features of green products as well as related green practices developed by a sample of companies belonging to two manufacturing industries, namely upholstered furniture and footwear. Green products and practices developed by each company in the sample are positioned in the matrix and results are presented and discussed for each industrial sector. The proposed matrix can be used by companies as a market tool to analyze competitors’ green products and practices and as a communication tool to effectively communicate to stakeholders the specific green features of their products and practices.

This paper is based on Dangelico, R.M., Pontrandolfo, P. (2010) From Green Product Definitions and Classifications to the Green Option Matrix, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, No. 16–17: 1608–1628.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Products with a positive impact with regard to the focus ‘materials’ recall the concept of “cradle to cradle”, since they allow a new life for materials.

  2. 2.

    Keywords: green sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear), eco sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear), environmental sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear), eco-friendly sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear), environment-conscious sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear), sustainable sofa (or upholstery or upholstered furniture or shoe or footwear).

  3. 3.

    Note that more than one choice is possible for steps 1 and 2. In such cases, all the related sections need to be considered.

References

  • Albers K, Canepa P, Miller, J (2008) Analyzing the environmental impacts of simple shoes a life cycle assessment of the supply chain and evaluation of end-of-life management options. http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/documents/SimpleShoesFinalReport.pdf

  • Bansal P, Roth K (2000) Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness. Acad Manage J 43(4):717–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A (2002) Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. J Clean Prod 10(5):409–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci L, Bodewes W (2005) Bridging environmental issues with new product development. Bus Strat Environ 14(5):272–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2001) Design for the environment: a quality-based model for green product development. Manage Sci 47(2):250–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen YS, Lai SB, Wen CT (2006) The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J Bus Ethics 67(4):331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung Y, Tsai C (2007) The effect of green design activities on new product strategies and performance: an empirical study among high-tech companies. Int J Manage 24(2):276–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (2001) Green paper on integrated product policy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0068en01.pdf

  • Dewberry E, Goggin P (1996) Spaceship ecodesign. Co-design 5(6):12–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strat Environ 11(2):130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J, Hailes J (1988) The green consumer guide. Victor Gollancz, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G (2007) ‘Green’ designs get spotlight at market, in special report stationary upholstery. Furniture Today 29:12–13 (October)

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Benito J, González-Benito O (2006) A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus Strat Environ 15(2):87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen OJ (1999) Sustainable product systems – experiences based on case projects in sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 7(1):27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaebernick H, Soriano V (2000) An approach to simplified environmental assessment by classification of products. In: Proceedings of 7th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering. Tokyo, 27–29 Nov 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner A (1991) What does it mean to be green? Harv Bus Rev 69(4):38–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorf K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan V, Ulrich K (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manage Sci 47(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ljungberg LY (2007) Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater Des 28:466–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luttropp C, Lagerstedt J (2006) EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J Clean Prod 14(15/16):1396–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonagh P, Prothero A (1996) Green management: a reader. The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace & Company Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J, Szekely F (1995) What is green? Eur Manage J 13(3):322–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murillo-Luna JL, Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P (2008) Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strat Manage J 29(11):1225–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottman JA (1997) Green marketing: opportunity for innovation. TC/Contemporary Books, Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottman JA, Stafford ER (2006) Hartman CL green marketing myopia. Environment 48(5):22–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park JH, Seo KK, Jang DS (1999) Recycling cell formation using group technology for disposal products. In: Proceedings of the first international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse manufacturing, IEEE, pp 830–835

    Google Scholar 

  • Peattie K (1995) Environmental marketing management: meeting the green challenge. Pitman Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Reinhardt FL (2007) A strategic approach to climate. Harv Bus Rev 85(10):22–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujari D (2006) Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 26(1):76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pujari D, Wright G, Peattie K (2003) Green and competitive. Influences on environmental new product development performance. J Bus Res 56(8):657–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld KM, Rennings K, Ziegler A (2007) Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 61(1):91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt FL (1998) Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate strategy. Calif Manage Rev 40(4):43–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robert K-H (1995) The natural step. Timeline March/April: 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Rombouts JP (1998) A knowledge-based system for ranking DfE-options. In: Proceedings of the 1998 I.E. international symposium on electronics and the environment, IEEE, pp 287–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose C, Beiter K, Ishii K (1999) Determining end-of-life strategies as a part of product definition. In: Proceedings of the 1999 I.E. international symposium on electronics and the environment, IEEE, pp 219–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy R, Wield D, Gardiner JP, Potter S (1996) Innovative product development. The Open University, Milton Keynes

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan CJ, Hosken M, Greene D (1992) EcoDesign: design and the response to the greening of the international market. Des Stud 13(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidheiny S, Business Council for Sustainable Development (1992) Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava P (1995) Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strat Manage J 16:183–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava P, Hart S (1995) Creating sustainable corporations. Bus Strat Environ 4(3):154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein M (1993) What does it mean to be green? Bus Soc Rev 86:16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon FL (1992) Marketing green products in the triad. Columbia J World Bus 27(3–4):268–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Sousa I, Wallace D (2006) Product classification to support approximate life-cycle assessment of design concepts. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 73:228–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wever R, Boks C (2007) Design for sustainability in the fuzzy front end. In: Proceedings of sustainable innovation 07, Farnham, 29–30 Oct 2007, pp 199–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Wever R, Boks C, Bakker C (2008) Sustainability within product portfolio management. In: Proceedings of sustainable innovation 08, Malmo, 27–28 Oct 2008, pp 219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe R (1991) The use of content analysis to assess corporate social responsibility. In: Post J (ed) Research in corporate social performance and policy, vol 13. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 281–307

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosa Maria Dangelico .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix A

figure a

Steps to characterize green products and practices

Appendix B

CHECKLIST to guide the characterization of green products and practices

  • STEP 1

In which one(s)Footnote 3 of the following focus areas does the product/practice display improved environmental performance compared to industry standards or determines environmental benefits?

  • Materials (including water) → go to the section ‘materials’

  • Energy → go to the section ‘energy’

  • Pollution/toxic waste → go to the section ‘pollution/toxic waste’

1.1 Section ‘Materials’

  • STEP 2

In which phase(s) of the product life cycle does the product/practice display improved environmental performance compared to industry standards or determines environmental benefits?

  • Before product usage → go to the section ‘before product usage’

  • During product usage → go to the section ‘during product usage’

  • After product usage → go to the section ‘after product usage’

1.1.1 Before Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice and derive the corresponding type of impact.

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Eco-efficient production processes

Less negative

Reduction of product or packaging’s size and weight

Less negative

Use of recycled materials for product or packaging

Null

Use of materials not containing harmful or toxic substances for product or packaging

Null

Use of renewable materials for product or packaging

Null

Use of environmentally certified raw materials for product or packaging

Null

Production waste recycling/reuse

Positive

Production water recycling/reuse

Positive

1.1.2 During Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Product with extended lifecycle/high durability

Less negative

Eco-efficient products, requiring/allowing the use of less materials

Less negative

Products using renewable raw materials (where competitive products use non renewable ones)

Null

Products that during use are in contact with peoples’ skin and are made of natural/certified materials

Null

Products allowing to extend lifecycle of other products

Positive

1.1.3 After Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Product or packaging partly made of biodegradable materials

Less negative

Product or packaging partly made of recyclable materials

Less negative

Product or packaging completely made of biodegradable materials

Null

Product or packaging completely reusable, remanufacturable, or recyclable

Positive

1.2 Section ‘Energy’

  • STEP 2

To which phase(s) of the product life cycle the improved environmental performance of the product or the environmental benefits determined by the product refer?

  • Before product usage → go to the section ‘before product usage’

  • During product usage → go to the section ‘during product usage’

  • After product usage → go to the section ‘after product usage’

1.2.1 Before Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Products requiring less energy to be produced or installed

Less negative

Reduction of product or packaging’s size and weight

Less negative

Use of practices reducing energy consumption in production plants

Less negative

Transport optimization

Less negative

Use of more efficient energy generation systems in production processes

Less negative

Use of renewable energy sources in production processes

Null

Use of cogeneration plants to provide electricity, heating, and cooling in production processes

Positive

Generating energy from exhaust hot gas/waste in production processes

Positive

1.2.2 During Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Energy efficient products, attachments, components

Less negative

Size and weight reduction of products used for transport

Less negative

Thermal insulating products/materials

Less negative

Energy conserving products

Less negative

Products working through energy coming from renewable sources by themselves generated

Null

Products increasing energy generation efficiency

Positive

Products generating energy from renewable energy sources

Positive

1.2.3 After Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Products or packaging that can be recycled with high energy efficient processes

Less negative

Reusing products or packaging without any processing

Null

Waste products recyclable into fuel

Positive

1.3 Section ‘Pollution/Toxic Waste’

  • STEP 2

To which phase(s) of the product life cycle the improved environmental performance of the product or the environmental benefits determined by the product refer?

  • Before product usage → go to the section ‘before product usage’

  • During product usage → go to the section ‘during product usage’

  • After product usage → go to the section ‘after product usage’

1.3.1 Before Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Reduction of emissions in production processes

Less negative

Reduction of emissions due to transportation

Less negative

Use of renewable energy sources in production processes

Null

Avoidance of the use of hazardous materials and chemicals in production processes

Null

Redevelopment of brownfield land/cleaning up of contaminated sites

Positive

Transforming production waste in fuel

Positive

1.3.2 During Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Energy efficient products, attachments, components

Less negative

Size and weight reduction of products used for transport

Less negative

Products with reduced electromagnetic waves emissions

Less negative

Products reducing pollution/release of toxic substances during their use

Less negative

Products avoiding pollution/release of toxic substances during their use

Null

Products avoiding/reducing pollution/release of toxic substances of other products

Positive

1.3.3 After Product Usage

  • STEP 3

Select the description that better reflects the product or practice:

Product or practice description

Corresponding type of impact

Products with reduced amount of toxic substances – e.g. CFCs, radioactive materials, PVC – (thus generating a reduced amount of toxic waste)

Less negative

Products avoiding the use of toxic substances (thus not generating toxic waste)

Null

Products that reduce the pollution in the environment wherein disposed

Positive

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dangelico, R.M., Pontrandolfo, P. (2013). The Green Option Matrix to Characterize Green Products and Practices. In: Taticchi, P., Carbone, P., Albino, V. (eds) Corporate Sustainability. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37018-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics