Development of a framework for green product development

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.

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW FOR GREEN PRODUCT TERM: FROM DEFINITION TO EVALUATION

“…Furthermore, the meaning of green depends on the field of research (Saha and Darnton, 2005;Durif et al, 2010). For instance, there exists a terminological gap between business management (that considers greenness as waste-minimization practices) and environmentalists-to whom greenness coincides with sustainability (Chen, 1993;Jasti et al, 2015). There is also a terminology divergence among studies that focus on different industries.…”

“…In that sense, his definition is considered to be the first sign of life-cycle approach. Nevertheless, although it has been acknowledged since then life-cycle thinking is still not included in some of the recent terminologies (e.g., Espínola-Arredondo and Muñoz-García, 2015;Jasti et al, 2015;Moser, 2016;Saluja, 2016;de Medeiros and Ribeiro, 2017). Ottman (1998, p. 89) provides an early, relatively proper definition and is the first to acknowledge that "green is relative", implying the dynamic relationship that is seldom mentioned (see also Driessen et al, 2013).…”

“…() argue that green and eco in terminology are used interchangeably. Present research depicts similar cases where the same erroneous method is used between green and sustainable (for instance, Osada, ; Pickett‐Baker and Ozaki, ; Jasti et al ., ; Biswas and Roy, ; de Medeiros and Ribeiro, ). The term sustainability shows a broadening in scope, taking into consideration the so‐called three pillars of sustainable development: economic vitality, environment, and social fairness (also often referred to as triple bottom line; Albino et al ., ).…”

“…An increasing number of companies are working on the development of environmentally friendly products that will function as a differentiation tool, aiming at competitiveness (Chen and Chang, ). Consequently, concepts such as design for the environment (US term)/ eco‐design (European term)/ environmental conscious design / environmental design (van Weenen, ; Tukker et al ., ; Baumann et al ., ; Tien et al ., ), green product development (Jasti et al ., ), green product design (Chan, ), green product innovation (Kam‐Sing Wong, ; Wahid and Lee, ), green supply‐chain management (Shrivastava, ), integrated environmental management (Margerum, ), integrated product policy (Commission of the European Communities, ), product‐oriented environmental management (de Bakker et al ., ), product stewardship (de Bakker et al ., ), etc., have come to the forefront and are researched in academia. At the same time, there has been the development of new methodologies for the evaluation of environmental characteristics and impacts such as Environmental Management Systems , Life‐Cycle Analysis , Strategic Environmental Assessment , and many more (Baumann et al ., ; de Bakker et al ., ; Albino et al ., ; Finnveden et al ., ).…”

“…In that sense, his definition is considered to be the first sign of life‐cycle approach. Nevertheless, although it has been acknowledged since then life‐cycle thinking is still not included in some of the recent terminologies (e.g., Espínola‐Arredondo and Muñoz‐García, ; Jasti et al ., ; Moser, ; Saluja, ; de Medeiros and Ribeiro, ).…”