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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
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
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
Berchicci L, Bodewes W (2005) Bridging environmental issues with new product development. Bus Strat Environ 14(5):272–285
Chen C (2001) Design for the environment: a quality-based model for green product development. Manage Sci 47(2):250–263
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
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
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
Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strat Environ 11(2):130–141
Elkington J, Hailes J (1988) The green consumer guide. Victor Gollancz, London
Evans G (2007) ‘Green’ designs get spotlight at market, in special report stationary upholstery. Furniture Today 29:12–13 (October)
González-Benito J, González-Benito O (2006) A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus Strat Environ 15(2):87–102
Hanssen OJ (1999) Sustainable product systems – experiences based on case projects in sustainable product development. J Clean Prod 7(1):27–41
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
Kleiner A (1991) What does it mean to be green? Harv Bus Rev 69(4):38–47
Krippendorf K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Krishnan V, Ulrich K (2001) Product development decisions: a review of the literature. Manage Sci 47(1):1–21
Ljungberg LY (2007) Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater Des 28:466–479
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
McDonagh P, Prothero A (1996) Green management: a reader. The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace & Company Limited, London
Miller J, Szekely F (1995) What is green? Eur Manage J 13(3):322–333
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
Ottman JA (1997) Green marketing: opportunity for innovation. TC/Contemporary Books, Lincolnwood
Ottman JA, Stafford ER (2006) Hartman CL green marketing myopia. Environment 48(5):22–36
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
Peattie K (1995) Environmental marketing management: meeting the green challenge. Pitman Publishing, London
Porter ME, Reinhardt FL (2007) A strategic approach to climate. Harv Bus Rev 85(10):22–26
Pujari D (2006) Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 26(1):76–85
Pujari D, Wright G, Peattie K (2003) Green and competitive. Influences on environmental new product development performance. J Bus Res 56(8):657–671
Rehfeld KM, Rennings K, Ziegler A (2007) Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: an empirical analysis. Ecol Econ 61(1):91–100
Reinhardt FL (1998) Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate strategy. Calif Manage Rev 40(4):43–73
Robert K-H (1995) The natural step. Timeline March/April: 1–24
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
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
Roy R, Wield D, Gardiner JP, Potter S (1996) Innovative product development. The Open University, Milton Keynes
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
Schmidheiny S, Business Council for Sustainable Development (1992) Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Shrivastava P (1995) Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strat Manage J 16:183–200
Shrivastava P, Hart S (1995) Creating sustainable corporations. Bus Strat Environ 4(3):154–165
Silverstein M (1993) What does it mean to be green? Bus Soc Rev 86:16–23
Simon FL (1992) Marketing green products in the triad. Columbia J World Bus 27(3–4):268–285
Sousa I, Wallace D (2006) Product classification to support approximate life-cycle assessment of design concepts. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 73:228–249
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 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
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37018-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37017-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37018-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)