Managerial Implications

Besides their theoretical implications, the findings of the current analysis also have several important implications for the management of product development in practice. First, the analysis has demonstrated the importance of aligning the corporate sustainability approach with the product portfolio management. For example, if a company considers itself as being truly dedicated to sustainability, it should refrain from introducing a separate “green” product line into the market, as this does not appear credible. Product developers should instead extend their sustainability initiatives to the entire product range. If a company is not known for any sustainability efforts, a line of “green” products is also not credible. However, some participants reported about such test balloons, which were started to fit the spirit of the time

Implications of the Qualitative Analysis 107

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. If, for example, a company offers a range of cheap plastics products and suddenly introduces a more sustainable product from bioplastics, retailers have problems promoting it under the traditional brand name because (1) consumers that care about sustainability do not look for such products with that brand and (2) the company’s traditional consumers do not care about sustainability. Only in rare cases did participants declare their test balloons as being test beds, and thus being part of an overall strategy to stepwise improve the sustainability of the entire product range.

Second, the analysis underlines that significantly increasing product sustainability is not something many companies can realize alone. In fact, it requires the effective alignment of the entire backend of the supply chain to achieve success. Especially SME depend on resources outside the firm to improve product sustainability, and most interviewees from the sample were acutely aware of their dependence. However, there is a lack of collaborative behavior both up- and downstream the supply chain. Big retailers, in particular, try to leverage power over their suppliers to “bully” them into improving sustainability without equal sharing of costs and benefits, rather than working as partners. Moreover, participants from SME indicated feeling stuck between “a rock and a hard place” because big material suppliers are only seldom interested in working with them on specific solutions, as their order quantities are usually below the suppliers’ attention thresholds. In fact, a recent study reveals that compared to most other industries, consumer goods companies are unlikely to collaborate around sustainability (Kiron et al. 2015). This behavior impedes more successful joint sustainability efforts and harms progress in product sustainability. The analysis illustrated that currently, only existing, long-term, and trusted relationships are broadened to include sustainability considerations. This is illustrated by some examples of Sustainable Traditionalists or True Believers that are collaborating closely with their suppliers: they educate their suppliers, for example, about sustainability potentials they see for their existing products, and in return get educated about new materials, process technology, or other more unconventional ways to improve product sustainability. Some Test Balloonists and Reactors, on the other hand, are trying to walk the talk on their own without being aware that they sometimes try to reinvent the wheel. Close collaboration with old and especially new partners like material start-ups or consulting engineers could act as a catalyst to improved product sustainability.

Third, companies should not halt their efforts after having made sustainability one of their strategic business objectives. For actually gearing a company towards sustainability,

corporate claims have to be translated into clear guidelines for the operational reality. For product development, this implies that sustainability has to be introduced into development projects through mandatory, product-specific, and quantified requirements. Only then can the sustainability of a product be increased step by step. One Sustainable Traditionalist from the sample follows this route, and recently implemented an internal sustainability scoring model for its products. For each of the pillars of the TBL and for each life-cycle phase, they defined a number of quantifiable measures that are consolidated into one scale.

The current product generation was then evaluated as a benchmark. Each of the following generations is expected to improve on all three pillars by a specified order of magnitude.

However, such a system cannot be developed overnight. In fact, the interviewee indicated that they had to dedicate considerable workforce for a thorough analysis of all sustainability-related aspects throughout the product’s life-cycle before deciding about any of the measures. Most companies from the sample could benefit from such an approach because it creates transparency about their products’ sustainability performance and forces them to clearly define their product sustainability roadmap.

Finally, the analysis recommends that companies should create opportunities for product developers to freely experiment with more sustainable solutions. For example, several interviewees shared that they believe bioplastics deserve more attention and their companies should allocate resources for exploring the use of such novel materials. Many of these projects might have long lead times, but if provided with the opportunity, product developers can arrive at innovative and possibly transformative solutions. The example of Google supports this notion. Until changing its strategy in 2013, Google allowed its engineers to use up to 20 percent of their working time for developing individual projects (Walker 2011, p. 369 f.). Even though most of these projects were not successful, today a handful of them (e.g. Google Maps, Gmail, Google News, and AdSense) make up a large share of Google’s profit. Also, other companies known for their innovativeness like 3M have comparable programs in place (Peter & Frey 2016, p. 1021). One of the sampled companies follows a similar route by allocating around 10 percent of their developers’ time to issues that are not yet linked to a specific development project. Since this company combines clearly codified sustainability goals with sufficient room for experiments, it is not surprising that they are sustainability frontrunners in their product category. Other interviewees shared positive experiences about their executives providing them with resources and trust to explore innovative solutions. More companies should take this route. Most interviewees, however, expose a desire and willingness to experiment with new materials or innovative product concepts, but they also feel they find only little to no time for such topics within their

Implications of the Qualitative Analysis 109

daily working routine. Summing up, the findings of the qualitative data analysis lead to the following managerial implications:

 [M1] Establish a credible corporate sustainability approach: Companies wanting to get engaged in fostering product sustainability first need to establish a suitable corporate approach to sustainability since the success of a more sustainable product in the marketplace eventually depends on the credibility of the company’s efforts. This also means refraining from halfheartedly introducing separate “green” product lines to fit the spirit of the time.

 [M2] Collaborate with supply chain partners: Product sustainability is something most companies cannot improve on their own since a product’s entire supply chain has to be considered. Thus, companies should collaborate more closely to benefit from external resources.

 [M3] Set clear goals: The corporate approach to sustainability has to be codified into clear and measurable objectives for product development. Product developers need to be offered guidance on how far they have to, or rather are allowed to, push product sustainability.

 [M4] Allow for experiments: Companies should provide their product developers with resources for experimenting to find more sustainable solutions that question established product concepts, and thereby also might pose opportunities to gain competitive advantage.

To facilitate their consideration in practice, the managerial implications derived above are matched with the phases of the product development process and the departments involved (see Figure 32). While the establishment of a credible corporate sustainability approach is clearly a task that involves all departments before or during the planning phase of development projects, collaborating with supply chain partners is an advice product development managers should consider during all phases of the development process.

Further, setting clear goals for sustainability efforts of developers is a task product development and marketing should jointly work on during planning and concept development. Finally, product development managers should allow for experiments their development teams might want to pursue until the detail design phase.

Figure 32: Matching of Managerial Implications, Departments, and Development Process Phases