Development of a framework for green product

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ 22,3

Development of a framework for green product development Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti and Aditya Sharma Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India, and

426

Shashikantha Karinka

Received 30 June 2014 Revised 23 October 2014 Accepted 23 October 2014

Department of Mechanical Engineering, NMAM Institute of Technology, Nitte, India Abstract Purpose – The concept of “green product development (GPD)” has been emerged as a global phenomenon. The main objective of GPD is to minimize the impact of industrial growth on the environment across the globe. Many researchers have actively contributed articles for developing GPD, but none of them provide direction and guidance for an effective implementation of GPD in organizations. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to identify a comprehensive list of the principles, practices, tools and techniques, and integrate them to develop and propose a new framework for GPD for effective implementation in organizations. Design/methodology/approach – The present study has examined 37 frameworks published from 1991 to 2012 in selected 23 peer reviewed journals. The study has also identified pillars of the framework with the help of comparative analysis performed on the selected GPD frameworks. The study has formed a team to identify critical elements in the field of GPD. The team consisted academicians, practitioner and consultant. Findings – The findings of the present paper bring out extremely incoherent utilization of elements for implementing GPD. The study has identified 80 unique elements and 11 pillars to propose a comprehensive conceptual framework in the field of GPD with the help of comparative analysis. Also, the present study analysis of selected research articles founds that future research in GPD should be directed towards finding a coherent set of elements that may be further employed to formulate and execution of frameworks. To achieve the required task, the study has proposed a conceptual comprehensive framework in the field of GPD with the help of extensive literature survey and comparative analysis. Originality/value – The study has conducted extensive literature survey using various online portals and sources. It has not only performed critical review on existing sample of the frameworks but also raised the issue of what is really a framework and how to identify the frameworks from the literature. The study also provides guidelines to the future researchers to propose new frameworks in the field of GPD. Keywords Manufacturing strategy, World-class manufacturing, Green product development Paper type Literature review

Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 22 No. 3, 2015 pp. 426-445 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-5771 DOI 10.1108/BIJ-06-2014-0060

1. Introduction The concept “green product development (GPD)”came into prominence in late 1980s and early part of 1990s due to increasing in attention towards the environment issues such as material scarcity, high energy consumption, rising atmospheric CO2 levels, increasing global temperatures leading to ozone depletion, population explosion, decreasing natural resources and other impacts of global industrial growth. In the year 1994, Oslo Roundtable has provided the most extensive and earliest definitions of the term “sustainable” (Aerais, 2010). Ever since, many definitions of GPD and its applications in different industries have been introduced. According to Vinodh and Rajanayagam (2010), the main objective of green production system is decreasing environmental impact by merging product and process design effects with process planning and control in order to identify, measure,

evaluate and handle the flow of environmental waste. Green product design acts as a pragmatic and a coherent path to inverse the environmental degradation while providing economic and social benefits to customers, stakeholders and companies (Fuller and Ottman, 2004). Also, the GPD includes the eco-design practice that also focuses to combine the environmental considerations and the business-oriented design goals (Karlsson and Luttropp, 2006). Howarth and Hadfield (2006) have reported that the main objective of organizations or designers should be the selection of “environmental friendly” raw materials followed by appropriate the manufacturing and distribution systems, and specify the use and disposal of the final product with less impact on environmental conditions and society also. In the present global scenario, GPD is widely presented as a startegy for providing substantial benefits. With that, many researchers have contributed to develop and explore dark area of the GPD field with focused light to enhance the field of GPD research. However, the present study has observed that there is no systematic approach available to implement within organization. Hence, many organizations were not able to implement due to lack of knowledge, research and lacking in methodology. A few organizations have implemented a trial-and-error method instead of any concrete method for its execution work in the organization. Many organizations have been facing so many difficulties in the implementation of GPD principles in the organizational operations. To implement GPD principles, many researchers have proposed various frameworks, which were lacking in any coherent set elements, consistency and comprehensive nature in the frameworks. The absence of detailed manual or pragmatic guide is a practical vault for the organizations interested in implementing GPD principles. It is one of the big gaps in the field of GPD. Hence, the objective of the present study is to review the existing literature of GPD and develop a comprehensive conceptual framework for GPD in order to provide direction and develop a coherent set of elements to implement GPD concept in the organization. The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 devotes a literature review on GPD, which concisely discusses about the importance of GPD, published articles in GPD and its focus. Section 3 discusses the research methodology adopted to perform the present study. Subsequent, Section 4 is used to discuss the classification of research articles and a critical analysis of the elements. Section 5 is used to propose a comprehensive conceptual framework of GPD based on the findings of the study. Section 6 devotes to discuss the significant findings and directions for further research. Finally, Section 7 gives the final conclude remarks of the study. 2. Literature review Business organizations and environmentalists have different opinions about “greenness”. Most of the organizations believe that “greenness” refers minimization of level of the waste operations and activities within the organizations. Whereas, environmentalists believe “greenness” is sustainability. It is defined that development of product that meets the requirement of the present without sacrificing the ability of the future generation to achieve their own requirements. It is clearly revealed that greenness contains not only minimization of waste, sustainability, which also includes maintaining bio-diversity, minimize the use of delectable resources and preservation of natural resources (Gardner, 1989). Industries and environmentalists should be realized importance of GPD and necessity of implementation green principles to save natural resources without effects on growth of economy of the countries. Industries should be noticed that minimization

Development of a framework for GDP 427

BIJ 22,3

428

of waste necessarily leading towards greenness. It is related to all the processes of manufacturing products, which starts from manufacturing to disposal. Other side of coin, environmentalists should be realized the importance of economy and its dependency. It is also important to understand relationship between universal economy and the environmental concerns. However, stopping all industrial activities is not solution to control pollutions, which will not help to provide better living standards to the future generations. Hence, all the groups have to come under one umbrella to work for better society and to save natural resources for the future generations (Chen, 1994). To control the pollution rate in all aspects, green product is one of the critical solution factors. It is focused on the entire production process and not only on product itself. It can be achieved by different ways. It should be considered all market externalities, which include cost, environmental damages and job creations. In the early 1990s, a series of issues about resources and environment are stirred by industrial growth and then Kyoto Protocol has raised this issue on the global arena. Later on, the pressure from regulatory authorities and series of awareness programs have contributed to consumers going green and also made environmental issues a top priority for the organizations (Polonsky et al., 1998). Since then, a myriad of papers linked to hypothesis and practices of GPD are published every year in several journals pertained to operations and production management, environment benign production and journals addressing sustainability. The literature related to “GPD” or allied terms is still in developing stage and unstructured. Green practices and GPD issues have emerged as critical concerns for organization to react to a growing number of green regulations (Lin, 2011). The importance of GPD has been increased due to various environment government policies. Carrión-Flores and Innes (2010) have discussed that GPD is a critical factor to reduce especially in toxic emissions that can help to bring down firm’s cost and to meet tighter government policies or consumer or NGO pollution targets. Many factors that influence on GPD in industry such as corporate environmental commitment, environmental benchmarking, research and development strength, and cross functional integration can increased industry’s green performance (Huang and Wu, 2010). Many industries have benefited by implementation of GPD that resulted cost savings, increased efficiency, increased productivity and better product quality (Chiou et al., 2011). Of late, many research studies have proved that GPD is a driving force that can helpful to correlate, in order to improve organizational performance and reduce ecological burdens in organization (Chen et al., 2006). Hence, many researchers have started to investigate various issues of GPD and started to develop various aspects of GPD. In the past two decades, since the inception of GPD strategy, it has came a long way as various researchers have contributed by proposing various associated concepts, practices and strategies. For instance, Karlsson and Luttropp (2006) have reported that for making Eco-Design tools for the product designers and for assorted working situations in product development processes. Griffiths and Petrick (2001) have reported that the effective implementation of GPD can be achieved with the help of an organization change processes and corporate architecture. Chung and Wee (2010) and Vinodh and Rathod (2010) have discussed the importance of tools and techniques such as computer aided design, computer aided manufacturing and design for manufacturing for creating green products. The same study has discussed importance of simulation tools and its role in GPD. Polonsky et al. (1998) have reported the importance of role of stakeholders in the field of GPD strategy. The same study has revealed the stakeholders should keep more focus and implement various GPD methods to get

fruitful results. In recent times, many researchers such as Bovea and Vidal (2004), Dawson and Probert (2007), Hartmann et al. (2005), Simula et al. (2009), and Mehta and Wang (2001) have proposed various theories, practices, tools and techniques for effective implementation of GPD. Many researchers have proposed various models with comprising various GPD elements. Rahimifard et al. (2010) have proposed a framework to maintain an effective energy management for producing green products. Curran (2003) has discussed a framework for life cycle assessment, which has discussed environmental loads related with the life cycles of materials and processes. These aforementioned GPD frameworks have focused very restricted area of GPD. However, very few researchers have proposed a framework to implement GPD strategy in organizations. Baumann et al. (2002) have proposed an introductory framework for environmental product development by reporting it as the internal process of the organization. The study describes it as “four level product development process”. Those are: starting with tools, business strategy and management, followed by product chain perspective involving suppliers, customers, waste handlers, etc., and finally policy-making process. Many researchers have proposed GPD frameworks with limited number of elements and incoherent in terms proposed elements in the framework. 2.1 What is a framework? The phrase “framework” has been used very repeatedly in the field of operational research. The present study has observed that the research world has struggled to differentiate what is really a framework as compared with a model. However, a limited number of researchers have investigated about a framework definition. The present study tries to trace out clear definition of framework from the existing literature in the field of operational research. Aalbregtse et al. (1991) have described the framework as a tool and it is used to discuss the complete picture of the management business goals. It is also present the complete blue print of implementation of proposed tools to attain the organizational business goals. Yusof and Aspinwall (2000) have described that generally a model has responded to answer question such as “what is” and a framework has responded to answer the query of “How to”. The framework is working as a guiding torch to the organizational employee and helping to implement any kind of new philosophy in the organization (Anand and Kodali, 2010). Recent research study, Soni and Kodali (2013) have investigated to identify frameworks in the field of supply chain management. The same research has suggested the following guidelines: •

a framework must be described the structural relationship among the proposed elements of the system instead of simply list down the elements presented in the system of proposed framework;

•

a framework must be described various stages/sequence of actions implicated for the specified purpose; and

•

a framework must be described the approachable connectivity of various elements of the system and actions corresponded in that particular framework.

If any GPD structural framework has fulfilled in all three aforesaid conditions, then the study has collected it as a framework. The present study clearly suggests that many researchers have proposed various novel models and novel frameworks with their conceptual knowledge without proper literature survey. The novel framework has generally proposed with their experience and conceptual knowledge. Whereas, adapted


BIJ 22,3

430

framework has proposed with the help of extensive literature survey. The study has observed that all the frameworks in the field of GPD have proposed based on experience and conceptual knowledge in the field of GPD. This kind of trends ultimately leads to incoherent set of elements in the field of GPD. The study also found that none of the researchers have made an attempt to propose a new framework with the help of critical review the existing frameworks in the field of GPD. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), the importance of development of the frameworks based on existing frameworks will help to derive the coherent set of elements in the field of GPD. If any field of research should be reached mature stage, it is compulsory that critical review existing literature than identify future directions of research. Otherwise, Monotonous theory building will be taken place in the field of research. Another importance observation of the present study has observed that most of the frameworks have proposed by academicians and practitioners. The contribution of consultants in the field of GPD is very limited. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), generally the framework that is proposed by combinations academicians, practitioner and consultants resulted development of more fruitful, useful and implementable frameworks. Hence, the present study has performed a complete literature survey to identify various frameworks and conducted comparative analysis to propose adapted framework in the field of GPD. The study also formed a team that contains academicians, practitioners and consultants to identify various elements from literature as well as to develop coherent set of elements in the field of GPD. The study used five steps of methodology in the present study. Subsequent sub-section discusses all the five steps. 3. Research methodology The study has observed that the importance of GPD increasing from year 1991. There were many factors to be contributed to increase importance of GPD i.e., formation various pollution restricted policies and many countries came forward to implement the proposed policies to save natural resources, to design and produce environmental friendly nature products and protect environment for the future generations. The number of articles published in the field of GPD is moderate. It is not matured enough to emerge as an established field due to limited number of researchers have performance research to fill vacuum space in the field of GPD with proper complete literature review. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), any field of any research to reach mature stage that field should review and find future directions to perform research. Otherwise, a huge number research articles build up without proper direction. The study observed that there is no article focused on literature of the field to propose a coherent theory. Hence, the study has collected GPD articles from various literature resources. All the articles were filtered out based on whether any kind GPD framework proposed in that particular research article. Figure 1 presents the methodology adopted in this paper for providing a framework for GPD. The research methodology comprises of the following five steps: (1) Time horizon: the review period for this research is taken as 22 years, starting from the 1991 to 2012. This has been done because the concept of GPD emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Aerais, 2010). The study has chosen the year 2012 as the end point to collect the articles. However, the study did not find any kind of proposed GPD frameworks during year 2011-2012 in the considered sample articles. (2) Selection of journals: since, the notion of “green” for industries came into prominence, various attempts by industries, academicians, and researchers resulted into vast development of literature. But the “GPD” topic is still at fledgling stage and

Sample literature preparation for review

Time Horizon: Assessment Period (1991-2012)

Database Selection: Publication and Journals

Development of a framework for GDP

Selection of articles

431 Determining various elements

Critical analysis and framework development

Results: GPD framework, significant findings and directions for future research

under substantial development. Therefore, the present study has confined their search to only four major engineering and management publishers. Also, in order to get the most applicable articles, search terms such as “GPD”, “sustainable production” and “green production” were used in concurrence with the various search areas such as “Title, Abstract, Keywords”, “All except full text” and “Abstract only”. (3) Selection of articles: the primary search generated a list of around 669 articles from four publishing houses, which was a big number for executing the literature review. Besides, many of these research articles were not relevant to the scope of the study. Most of the articles have focused on green manufacturing and green supply chain management. Hence, the present study has decided to cut short the size as per focus of the present research i.e., GPD. In order to restrict the scope related to papers in manufacturing industry, the present study refined the list in two passes. The study has observed that around 89 articles have focused on GPD. Finally, the total number of reviewed articles that were focusing on GPD descended to 37 published in 23 journals (for list of articles refer Appendix). Table I presents the list of journals along with the number of shortlisted articles in GPD for review. Also, the present study would like to mention that these articles do not make the standard list; but only provide a preview of the variety of research carried in GPD field because the lately introduced journals and reputed conference proceedings may contain numerous articles covering GPD elements. It is unrealistic to accomplish a complete review of all such articles. As far as in the knowledge of the present study, this attempt includes the widely acknowledged and more immediate ones. The study has projected these considered GPD framework as a sample of GPD frameworks instead of a complete set of GPD framework. Sharma and Kodali (2008a) and Anand and Kodali (2010) have followed similar kind approach to propose a new adapted frameworks in the field of manufacturing excellence and lean manufacturing, respectively. Further, in order to examine the course of research across years, the present research study also performed an analysis of the publication years vs shortlisted articles. A graphical diagram of the number of shortlisted publications over the years is given in Figure 2. The highest number “7” of the papers were published in the year 2010, followed by “4” articles in 2009. As seen in Figure 2, during the last decade 28 out of 37 (roughly 75 per cent) articles were published that evidently depicts the developing

Figure 1. Methodology adopted in this paper for providing a framework for GPD

BIJ 22,3

Journal name

Journal of Cleaner Production Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Business Strategy and the Environment International Journal of Operations & Production Management International Journal of Production Research 432 International Journal of Sustainable Engineering Journal of Business Research Marketing Intelligence & Planning Materials & Design Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics Benchmarking: An International Journal Computers in Industry Corporate Environmental Strategy Environmental Management and Health Environmental Progress International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing Journal of Consumer Marketing Journal of Design and Manufacturing Automation Journal of Marketing Management Table I. Journal of Systems and Information Technology List of journals Manufacturing Technology along with the Sustainable Development number of shortlisted articles in World Class Design to Manufacture Total GPD for review

No. of articles

%

6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37

16 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100

8 6 5 4 3 2 1 94 19 96 19 98 19 99 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 09 20 10

0 19

Figure 2. A graphical diagram of the number of shortlisted publications over sthe years

No. of articles

7

Year

trend for the concept of “GPD”. It is clearly reveals the importance of GPD strategy in the field of operational research. (4) Determining various elements: generally, the development of framework starts with identification of some fundamental but requisite elements (sometimes mentioned as factors, constructs, framework variables, focal issues, etc., in literature). Next, the relationship among the elements needs to be discovered and established for the development of a framework that will furnish approach for the organizations to implement GPD. However, the major problem is the unequal stipulation of the “elements” content domain, paired with the practice of relating multiple labels with the same element or the existence of some relationship/association among various

elements/factors. Thus, the elements cannot be adapted or followed in gradual way. To resolve these problems and for finding out the elements of GPD framework, the present study has selected the earlier mentioned method of classification. (5) Critical analysis and framework development: the analysis begin with the identification of a broad set of elements to make pillars of GPD, followed by a elaborated analysis of assorted data to attain the main aim of developing a framework with consistent arrangement of elements. These broad set of elements has identified with the help of comparative analysis. 4. Comparative analysis of GPD elements The shortlisted GPD articles from 23 reputed journals covers wide variety of sustainable product attributes, and identifies environmental challenges and prevailing issues. But, this study also aims to: •

specify what institutes GPD research;

•

what elements are mentioned by various researchers in the proposed frameworks that are particular to GPD; and

•

form the standard group of unique elements, which can be employed to make frameworks solely for GPD field of study.

Sharma and Kodali (2008a, b) and Anand and Kodali (2010) have performed similar kind of analysis to identify various standard elements and both studies also proposed a new adapted framework in the field of manufacturing excellence and lean manufacturing, respectively. This kind of approach is also generally useful to identify standard elements in the respective field of research (Soni and Kodali, 2013). Soni and Kodali (2013) have reported that the elements which are repeated more than two times than the study considered those elements have standard elements. The field of supply chain management has established and evolved over period of time. There are too many researchers have contributed to develop principles and practices in the field of supply chain management during last century. Whereas, GPD is emerging field of research and establishing it’s very rapidly due to requirements to the society and to save natural resources to future generations. The number of elements used in this field of research is very restricted. Hence, the study has considered all the unique elements proposed in the existing frameworks in the field of GPD. The present study has used comparative analysis to identify and list the unique elements from selected GPD articles. The frequency of occurrence of these elements is given in the comparative analysis shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 presents a comparative matrix of unique elements and GPD research articles. The first row shows the names of several articles selected for the study, while the first column lists the various elements that are mentioned under different research articles. This process assists in discovering the frequency of occurrence of various elements of GPD. The study has identified around 230 elements from 37 GPD frameworks. The study has observed many elements were repeated in more than one framework. The study has also observed same element appeared in different form in various frameworks. The present study have brought in the words/phrases as it is from the literature and utilized in the analysis to keep the meaning of each element. The elements with similar meaning or word(s) were merged. For instance, green procurement/green purchasing/public procurement/sustainable procurement entail the same meaning and can be clubbed together. After removing all duplications, the study has identified


Articles

BIJ 22,3

Elements

1

2

3

36

37

Frequency

Life cycle analysis (LCA) (a) / Product life-cycle 21 analysis (b)

434

Figure 3. The frequency of occurrence of these elements is given in comparative analysis

Eco-design (a) / Environmentally conscious design (b)

12

Sustainable marketing

12

Top-down involvement

1

Total quality environmental management (TQEM)

1

80 elements with the help of comparative analysis, but due to space constraint only few elements are listed to showcase the structure of table in Figure 3. However, the present study requested the readers of present research work may communicate corresponding author to get the complete table. The present study has observed that sample of the frameworks have focused limited to specific field with limited focus. The study has believed that the comparative analysis is helpful to identify unique elements and to propose comprehensive conceptual GPD framework. To perform required task, the study has identified 80 unique elements from the comparative analysis after avoiding duplications. It does not mean that all these 80 elements are mutually independent. Some relationship or association exists between these elements; therefore, these elements cannot be followed or accommodated in bit-by-bit manner. Hence, a team of two academic experts in GPD, a practitioner working as product innovation manager from a manufacturing industry and a consultant from reputed MNC was formed to find a common thread that binds these 80 elements. One of the main objectives of the comparative analysis was to develop a GPD framework with elements that can frame a path to attain GPD in the respective organization. The study has observed from comparative analysis a few elements have proposed various researcher in the frameworks in repetitive nature. The study believed that those elements are act as key pivotal points to build a path to achieve excellence in field of GPD. Similar kind of approach followed by Sharma and Kodali (2008a, b) and Mishra et al. (2006) to develop framework for manufacturing excellence and world class maintenance, respectively. The study has observed 11 elements repeated more than 20 per cent of the frameworks. Based on these 11 critical elements, the study has identified 11 critical broader areas to propose GPD frameworks after consultation with group experts.

Finally, it suggested that the elements can be grouped under 11 major pillars, which form the pillars of proposed GPD framework. The pillars of GPD and respective elements have shown in Table II. The cogent group of pillars leads to emergence of a conceptual framework for GPD as given in Figure 4. 5. A conceptual framework of GPD The demand for sustainable product is rising, particularly related to products with green attributes, coupled with wider economic and social benefits (Howarth and Hadfield, 2006). The organizations willing to be environmental friendly have to align their strategies with concept of “GPD”. The fundamental concept of the proposed framework is that the organizations need to include “green” policies in their mission and vision statement, align with the constant commitment from all the stakeholders involved. Thus, the pillar “stakeholder’s commitment” and “organization’s vision and mission” are conceived as the foundation of the framework. The other elements of GPD make the pillars which stand on the foundation or base and laid in such a way that if any practices are followed and implemented by the organization, then it will immediately contribute to the enhanced performance. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed framework of GPD. A short summary of the framework is as follows: 5.1 Foundation of the framework Since establishing a GPD is pulled by various environmental motivations, legitimacy and CSR, etc., it is essential to seek “stakeholder’s commitment” because of their high influencing abilities and expertise to impart organizational learning. Hence, the proposed framework placed on a strong foundation of stakeholder’s commitment that includes competitors, customers, employees, government, owners/stockholders, special interest groups, suppliers, and top management. It is reinforced with “organization’s vision and mission” i.e. incorporation of organization’s “green” goal in the mission and vision of a company. On the basis of this, organizations formulate business strategies which may also be cited as competitive strategy. 5.2 Pillars of the framework The roof of GPD is supported by the pillars formed from ten elements/initiatives a company takes for implementing GPD strategies, namely, environmental management systems, life cycle assessment, product and process planning and control, green manufacturing, green supply chain management, green marketing, green consumerism, technology/system/tools, design for environment (DFE), and strategic management. These pillars can be instituted only if the foundation is set up in the right manner. Therefore, the pillars stand over the foundation. 5.3 Roof of the framework The roof of proposed framework is GPD. It enhances the environmental performance of organization forms the roof of the structure. 5.4 Salient features of proposed GPD framework Some of the salient features of the proposed framework are as follows: •

The proposed framework has considered 80 elements and 11 pillars from 37 articles relating to GPD which were keyed out from a detailed literature review.


BIJ 22,3

436

Element Strategic management Strategic environmental marketing Strategy development Environmental strategic approaches Risk management Competitive advantage (a)/competitiveness (b) Competitive pressures Green management Strategic decision making Opportunity identification Green-oriented learning Regulatory compliance Organizations’ learning Innovation Environmental pressures Top management commitment Top-down involvement Design for Environment (DFE) Design for disassembly Design for disposability Design for energy minimization Eco-design (a)/environmentally conscious design (b) Design for manufacturability (DFM) Design for pollution prevention Design for reuse Design for recycling Design for remanufacturing (DFRem) Design for resource conservation and source reduction Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing (ECDM) Technology/system/tools Computer aided design (CAD) Computer-integrated manufacturing systems Testing Information technology applications Computer aided manufacturing (CAM)

Table II. The pillars of GPD and respective elements

Green consumerism Consumers’ attitudes Consumers’ environmental concerns (a)/ environmentally conscious consumers (b) Customers’ interest Customer’s involvement Green consumers Customer’s pressure (a)/Public pressure (b) Customer requirement (a)

Article no. (from Appendix) [30] [6,29] [1] [26] [1,6,18,29] [17] [1] [5] [29] [29] [24,37] [29] [2,6,13,14,22,23,24,26] [17] [2,6,18,31] [22] [5,21,30] [30] [32] [1,2,5,7,8,17,18,19,21,26,34,36] [34] [30] [30] [5] [17,30,35] [30] [5]

[8,9,34,36] [36] [29] [9] [9] [2] [12,15,24,33] [21] [18] [12,29] [9,19,26] [6,11,14,20,37]

(continued )

Element Green marketing Sustainable marketing Enviropreneurial marketing Product eco-innovation Environmentally friendly packaging and labeling (a)/green packaging (b) Eco-branding (a)/green branding (b) Green supply chain management Green procurement (a)/green purchasing (b)/public procurement (c)/sustainable procurement (d) Reverse logistics Supplier’s involvement, supplier relationship Materials selection Inventory control policy End-of-life options (EOL) Green manufacturing Reverse manufacturing Sustainable manufacturing Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery Just-in-time (JIT) Remanufacturing Material eco-efficiency Effective energy management Product and process planning and control Process planning Product planning Product positioning Product stewardship Production planning Waste management (a)/reverse waste management (b) Environmentally conscious product strategies (ECPS) Green development process (a)/sustainable development process (b) Business process improvement Process improvisation

Article no. (from Appendix) [2,5,11,12,13,15,24,27,28,29,30,31] [29] [25] [1,24]


[15,26,36] [10,11,24,26]

[26] [18,26,31] [7] [9] [20] [9] [8,35] [35] [9] [9] [1] [1,17,32] [37] [14,30] [15] [1] [34,36,37] [11,13,24] [30] [18,26] [9] [1]

Life cycle assessment Life cycle analysis (a)/product life-cycle [1,2,3,4,5,7,10,13,16,18,20,21,23,26,30,31,32,34,35,36,37] analysis (b) Ecological impact assessment (a)/environmental [3,7,8,21,30,34] impact assessment (b) Life cycle costing [37] Life cycle design [5,21] Life cycle environmental cost analysis (LCECA) [35,36]

(continued )

Table II.

BIJ 22,3

438

Element Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) Life cycle inventory (a)/life cycle inventory analysis (b) Product life cycle management/product system lifecycle Environmentally conscious quality function deployment (ECQFD) Green quality function deployment II (GQFD) Environmental management systems Product-based environmental management system (PBEMS) Total quality environmental management (TQEM) Environmental innovation (a)/eco innovation (b) ISO 14000 and related standards

Table II.

Stakeholder’s commitment Environmental regulations (a)/environmental legislation (b) Government regulations (a)/government legislation (b)/legitimacy (c) Stakeholder’s expertise Stakeholders’ pressure (a)/stakeholders’ interest (b) Corporate social responsibility Environmental awareness Motivation Environmental benchmarking Environmental concerns

Article no. (from Appendix) [10,23] [10,35] [13,29] [20,35] [23,37] [14,31,19,21,26,35] [14] [2,6,29] [14,31] [9,16,27,32] [1,4,6,11,14,19,25,26] [29] [1,16,14,19,21,27,28,30] [1,16] [4] [18] [31] [6,25]

The study believes that 11 pillars are helpful to show a path to attain excellence in the field of GPD in any organization. •

The present research has proposed a framework with the consultation of team members, which includes academicians, practitioners and consultants in the field of GPD. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), similar kind of approach will be certainly helpful to overcome the limitations of present form of the frameworks in the literature in the field of GPD.

•

It will provide an understanding to organization about the fundamental principles of GPD.

•

It also lays down guidelines for the future researchers to distinguish between prerequisites, principles and elements (tools, techniques, procedures and practices).

•

It contains a comprehensive list of unique elements in the field of GPD, which is useful to practitioners to identify as well as to implement various elements under the particular direction. The direction is given by pillars of the proposed framework.

•

The large number of elements identified in the proposed framework clearly raises its comprehensiveness and also presents it in such a manner that it is easy for any manufacturing industry to merely institute the elements required under a particular pillar to implement GPD.

Figure 4. The cogent group of pillars leads to emergence of a conceptual framework for GPD Environmental Management Systems

Life Cycle Assessment

Product & Process Planning and Control

Green Consumerism

Stakeholder’s Commitment Organization's Vision & Mission

Green Product Development

Green Supply Chain Management

Marketing Management

Technology/System/Tools

Green Manufacturing

Design for Environment (DFE)

Strategic Management

439 Development of a framework for GDP

BIJ 22,3

440

6. Discussion The objective of the present study is to focus on the development of a framework for providing directions and guidance to organizations in attaining excellence in the field of GPD. Therefore, in order to guide researchers new to this field; access to the prominent information about this framework offer useful insights for future research directions and further encourage continuous improvement. The study has shortlisted 37 GPD frameworks based on the extensive literature survey. The study has observed majority of the GPD frameworks proposed as a novel frameworks. It has also observed none of the framework has developed by using adapted framework methodology. The adapted framework has played major role to consolidate boundaries of GPD. The present study has doubted whether a unified theory of GPD will emerge or not. The study believes that this problem area requires immediate concentration of the researchers so that a unified theory of GPD can materialize and give direction to develop coherent frameworks. Hence, the study has used adapted framework methodology to develop GPD framework with the help of coherent set of elements. Cousins et al. (2006) have performed a similar kind of analysis to propose a framework with the help of coherent set of element in the field of supply chain management. The study has observed that many of the sample GPD frameworks were developed by academicians. However, the present study has expected such kind of trend due to the sample of articles considered in the study is from academic journals. The contribution of practitioner and consultants are generally very minimal. However, the study anticipates that more number of practitioner and consultants should contribute to develop GPD frameworks. If the contribution of practitioners and consultants along with academicians will increases in academic journals, most likely superior theoretically grounded, practice oriented and extensively accepted GPD frameworks may be established. To fulfill the present vacuum in the field of GPD frameworks, the study has proposed GPD frameworks after thorough consultation with academicians, practitioners and consultants. The study has observed around 230 elements were proposed under selected sample of the frameworks. After avoiding duplication and repetitive elements, the study has identified 80 unique elements from comparative analysis. The study has formed a team that consisted academicians, practitioner and consultant. Based on comparative analysis, the team has supported to identify pillars and elements to propose comprehensive GPD frameworks. The main benefit of the methodology of building framework on existing proposed frameworks is that it helps to consolidation of boundaries of the GPD discipline which in turn leads in developing coherent theory and elements. Finally, the study has proposed a GPD framework with 80 unique elements and 11 critical pillars. Similar kind of approach was followed by Soni and Kodali (2013), Sharma and Kodali (2008a, b) and Mishra et al. (2006) in the field of supply chain management, manufacturing excellence and world class maintenance, respectively. 6.1 Directions for future research • The present study does not perform any kind of validity and reliability analysis. Therefore, the validation and verification of the framework through a questionnaire survey approach is essential to find suitability of framework in the aspect of implementation. •

The proposed framework has further scope for developing a fine tuned deployment methodology for implementing it in industries.

•

The future researchers may use exploratory techniques such as principal component analysis on the pillars presented and also towards evaluating the

reliability and validity of proposed conceptual framework of GPD. This practice will surely increase the understanding of researchers in GPD towards a coherent set of elements which may be further used to develop frameworks as per particular field of manufacturing organizations. Soni and Kodali (2013) have developed framework in the field of supply chain management. The same study has developed the proposed framework by using similar kind of methodology with comprehensive list of supply chain management elements. Later, from the comprehensive conceptual supply chain management framework, the researchers have proposed various frameworks that are suitable to implement in various sectors of manufacturing industry with the help empirical investigation in that particular sector. 6.2 Limitations The proposed framework also has the following drawback beside the earlier mentioned advantages: although the proposed framework in the framework includes 80 elements and 11 pillars, but it is possible that few other elements might have been missed. Weick (1979) has explained the reason for this inadequacy in his book titled The Social Psychology of Organizing published in the year 1979 by Mc-Graw Hill by highlighting that it is difficult for a framework to be simple, accurate and general simultaneously. 7. Conclusion This paper started by highlighting the fact that global environment presents many challenges, coupled with scarcity of resources and climate change. This led to the emergence of “green” concept, and forced organizations and researchers from around the globe to address some of the fundamental and elementary research questions related to practices of GPD. Since then, many practitioners, academicians, and consultants have proposed various theories and practices for GPD. Nevertheless, no review of literature has been identified till date which has satisfactorily addressed the subject of assessment and implementation of GPD through framework. Hence, this paper comprehensively reviewed 37 research papers published in several peer reviewed journals. The present study had selected these articles from a list of 669 articles. The main focus of this study was to render the framework by carrying out the analysis to identify the elements and establish a classification scheme to categorize them. The research also proposed to determine the level of standardization of these elements in GPD sphere. Thus, 80 elements were identified and were sorted under major bodies like “green manufacturing”, “DFE”, “green marketing”, “strategic management”, “environmental management systems”, “green SCM”, life cycle assessment”, “technology/systems/tools” and few others. Moreover, these elements were consolidated and incorporated into a consistent whole for their implementation or adoption as a framework in stand-alone way. In conclusion, a framework for GPD was proposed, which is applicable in the present worldwide scenario and an elaborated account of its features and drawbacks was rendered. The proposed GPD frameworks. References Aalbregtse, R.J., Hejka, J.A. and McNeley, P.K. (1991) “TQM: how do you do it?”, Automation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-32. AERAIS (2010), “Defining green products, white paper, air quality sciences, Atlanta”, available at: www.aerias.org/uploads/Defining_Green_Products.pdf (accessed 16 April 2012).


BIJ 22,3

Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2010), “Development of a framework for implementation of lean manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Management Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95-116. Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A. (2002), “Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 409-425.

442

Bovea, M.D. and Vidal, R. (2004), “Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design”, Materials & Design, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 111-116. Carrión-Flores, C. and Innes, R. (2010), “Environmental innovation and environmental performance”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 27-42. Chen, J.Y.-C. (1994), “The economic impacts of green product development”, master thesis, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B. and Wen, C.-T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339. Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H.K., Lettice, F. and Chung, S.H. (2011), “The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan”, Transportation Part E, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 822-836. Chung, C.J. and Wee, H.M. (2010), “Green-product-design value and information-technology investment on replenishment model with remanufacturing”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 466-485. Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B. and Squire, B. (2006), “Supply chain management: theory and practice – the emergence of an academic discipline?”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 697-702. Curran, M.A. (2003), “Do bio-based products move us toward sustainability? A look at three USEPA case studies”, Environmental Progress, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 277-292. Dawson, G.F. and Probert, E.J. (2007), “A sustainable product needing a sustainable procurement commitment: the case of green waste in wales”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 69-82. Fuller, D.A. and Ottman, J.A. (2004), “Moderating unintended pollution: the role of sustainable product design”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1231-1238. Gardner, J.E. (1989), “Decision making for sustainable development: selected approaches to environmental assessment and management”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 337-366. Griffiths, A. and Petrick, J.A. (2001), “Corporate architectures for sustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1539-1552. Hartmann, P., Ibáñez, V.A. and Sainz, F.J.F. (2005), “Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29. Howarth, G. and Hadfield, M. (2006), “A sustainable product design model”, Materials & Design, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1128-1133. Huang, Y.-C. and Wu, Y.-C.J. (2010), “The effects of organizational factors on green new product success”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1539-1547. Karlsson, R. and Luttropp, C. (2006), “EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 15/16, pp. 1291-1298. Lin, R.-J. (2011), “Moderating effects of total quality environmental management on environmental performance”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 8088-8099.

Mehta, C. and Wang, B. (2001), “Green quality function deployment III: a methodology for developing environmentally conscious products”, Journal of Design and Manufacturing Automation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16. Mishra, R.P., Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2006), “Development of a framework for world-class maintenance systems”, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 141-165.

Development of a framework for GDP

Polonsky, M.J., Rosenberger, P.J. III and Ottman, J. (1998), “Developing green products: learning from stakeholders”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 1. pp. 22-43.

443

Rahimifard, S., Seow, Y. and Childs, T. (2010), “Minimising embodied product energy to support energy efficient manufacturing”, Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 25-28. Sharma, M. and Kodali, R. (2008a), “Development of a framework for manufacturing excellence”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 50-66. Sharma, M. and Kodali, R. (2008b), “TQM implementation elements for manufacturing excellence”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 599-621. Simula, H., Lehtimäki, T. and Salo, J. (2009), “Managing greenness in technology marketing”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 331-346. Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2013), “A critical review of supply chain management frameworks: proposed framework”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 263-298. Vinodh, S. and Rajanayagam, D. (2010), “CAD and DFM: enablers of sustainable product design”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 292-298. Vinodh, S. and Rathod, R. (2010), “Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 833-842. Weick, C.K. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., Mc-Graw Hill, New York, NY. Yusof, S.M. and Aspinwall, E. (2000), “Total quality management implementation frameworks: comparison and review”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-294. Further reading Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2009), “Development of a framework for lean manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 687-716. Appendix

[1] Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R.M. (2009), “Environmental strategies and green product development: an overview on sustainability-driven companies”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 83-96.

[2] Alston, K. and Roberts, J.P. (1999), “Partners in new product development: SC Johnson and the alliance for environmental innovation”, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 110-128.

[3] Alting, L., Hauschild, M. and Wenzel, H. (1998), “Elements in a new sustainable industrial culture Environmental assessment in product development”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 429-439.

[4] Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1996), “Measuring the environmental performance of new products: an integrated approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 3055-3078.

[5] Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A. (2002), “Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 409-425.

BIJ 22,3

[6] Berchicci, L. and Bodewes, W. (2005), “Bridging environmental issues with new product development”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 272-285.

[7] Bovea, M.D. and Vidal, R. (2004), “Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design”, Materials & Design, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 111-116.

[8] Chu, C.H., Luh, Y.P., Li, T.C. and Chen, H. (2009), “Economical green product design

444

based on simplified computer-aided product structure variation”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 485-500.

[9] Chung, C.J. and Wee, H.M. (2010), “Green-product-design value and informationtechnology investment on replenishment model with remanufacturing”, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 466-485.

[10] Curran, M.A. (2003), “Do bio-based products move us toward sustainability? A look at three USEPA case studies”, Environmental Progress, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 272-285.

[11] Dawson, G. F. and Probert, E.J. (2007), “A sustainable product needing a sustainable procurement commitment: the case of green waste in Wales”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

[12] Essoussi, L.H. and Linton, J.D. (2010), “New or recycled products: how much are consumers willing to pay? ”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 458-468.

[13] Fuller, D.A. and Ottman, J.A. (2004), “Moderating unintended pollution: the role of sustainable product design”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 11, pp. 1231-1238.

[14] Griffiths, A. and Petrick, J.A. (2001), “Corporate architectures for sustainability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 1539-1552.

[15] Hartmann, P., Ibáñez, V.A. and Sainz, F.J.F. (2005), “Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29.

[16] Howarth, G. and Hadfield, M. (2006), “A sustainable product design model”, Materials & Design, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 1128-1133.

[17] Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P. and Newman, S.T. (2007), “Development of design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 712-719.

[18] Johansson, G. (2002), “Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development: A review of state of the art”, Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 98-107.

[19] Johansson, G. and Magnusson, T. (2006), “Organising for environmental considerations

in complex product development projects: implications from introducing a “Green” sub-project”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 15/16, pp. 1368-1376.

[20] Kaebernick, H., Kara, S. and Sun, M. (2003), “Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements”, Robotics and ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 461-468.

[21] Karlsson, R. and Luttropp, C. (2006), “EcoDesign: what’s happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 Nos 15/16, pp. 1291-1298.

[22] Lee-Mortimer, A. (1994), “Meeting the Challenge”, World Class Design to Manufacture, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 16-20.

[23] Mehta, C. and Wang, B. (2001), “Green Quality Function Deployment III: A Methodology for Developing Environmentally Conscious Products”, Journal of Design and Manufacturing Automation, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

[24] Min, H. and Galle, W.P. (2001), “Green purchasing practices of US firms”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 9/10, pp. 1222-1238.

[25] Nash, H.A. (2009), “The European Commission’s sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 496-498.

[26] Nunes, B. and Bennett, D. (2010), “Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: An environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 396-420.

[27] Polonsky, M.J. and Ottman, J. (1998), “Stakeholders’ Contribution to the Green New Product Development Process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 533‐557.

[28] Polonsky, M.J. and Ottman, J.A. (1998), “Exploratory examination of whether marketers include stakeholders in the green new product development process”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 269-275.

[29] Polonsky, M.J., Rosenberger III, P.J. and Ottman, J. (1998), “Developing green products: learning from stakeholders”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 22-43.

[30] Pujari, D. and Wright, G. (1996), “Developing environmentally conscious product strategies: a qualitative study of selected companies in Germany and Britain”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-28.

[31] Pujari, D., Wright, G. and Peattie, K. (2003), “Green and competitive: Influences on environmental new product development performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 657-671.

[32] Rahimifard, S., Seow, Y. and Childs, T. (2010), “Minimising Embodied Product Energy to support energy efficient manufacturing”, Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 25-28.

[33] Simula, H., Lehtimäki, T. and Salo, J. (2009), “Managing greenness in technology marketing”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 331-346.

[34] Vinodh, S. and Rajanayagam, D. (2010), “CAD and DFM: enablers of sustainable product design”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 292-298.

[35] Vinodh, S. and Rathod, R. (2010), “Integration of ECQFD and LCA for sustainable product design”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 833-842.

[36] Vinodh, S. (2010), “Sustainable product design using CAD: a case study in an Indian rotary switches manufacturing organisation”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 181-188.

[37] Zhang, Y., 1999, “Green QFD-II: a life cycle approach for environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD matrices”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1075-1091. Corresponding author Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
