Yvonne de Zeeuw
5733723
Master Business Studies
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor:
dr. Mark van der Veen
Second Examiner:
dr. Jonatan Pinkse
Date of submission: 18.08.2009
Master Thesis
Ecodesign Strategy
Development
This thesis contains confidential material
ECODESIGN STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
A case study at Bugaboo International B.V.
The author declares that the text and work presented in this Master thesis is original and no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating
this Master thesis.
Master Thesis Yvonne de Zeeuw 5733723
Master Business Studies
Faculty of Economics and Business University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: dr. Mark van der Veen
Second Examiner: dr. Jonatan Pinkse
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the past few years, the growing concern over the environment has been a major driver for many companies to examine their impact on the environment. Large discrepancies characterize the environmental management of different organizations; some companies are actively trying to reduce their impact, while others continue to pollute the environment. One proactive way of cleaning up is by implementing ecodesign; a method to (re)design products to reduce their total environmental impact early in the product development process, including the reduction of resource consumption as well as emissions and waste. It is important to gain a deeper
understanding of the way an ecodesign strategy is developed. A better insight into this process, its stimuli and the obstacles that must be overcome can be used to understand why some companies are environmentally proactive and why some are not.
This thesis aims to explore how and why companies develop an ecodesign strategy, resulting in a better understanding of the events that must occur to make organizations proactively reduce their negative impact on the world. This will be done by applying and testing relevant theory to a case study: Bugaboo International B.V. A case study was used as a research design because this longitudinal, in-depth examination was ideal to study the relatively unknown phenomenon of ecodesign strategy development. The main research question is phrased as follows;
“How and why do companies develop an Ecodesign strategy?”
A theoretical framework has been developed based on three fields of literature. First the Environmental Management literature was reviewed, to examine why firms take certain approaches towards the environment. Two of the determinants of the theoretical framework are derived from this literature, namely the influence of external and internal stakeholders on the ecodesign strategy development process. A third determinant, the influence of culture, was derived from the Strategy Development literature. The literature in this field of research was examined to explore further influences on the strategy process and its context. The third and last field of literature that was reviewed is that responsible for researching ecodesign. This topic was explored to examine the concept of ecodesign itself, and both the incentives for and the barriers hindering strategy development and implementation. Within this framework, internal and external
stakeholders also have positive and negative effects on ecodesign.
In order to answer the research question, semi-structured interviews were used to collect the data. At Bugaboo International B.V., 9 internal stakeholders were interviewed, including the Design Manager, the Marketing Director, the Chief Innovation Officer, the Chief Operations Officer, the Managing Director Asia, two shareholders and two designers. An additional questionnaire was designed to gather information from the consumers and their opinions on an environmentally friendly Bugaboo product. The questionnaire results were not intended to answer any research questions, and have not been analyzed thoroughly. These results were used to provide Bugaboo
with some extra information on their most important external stakeholder, and were only used to aid practical recommendations.
Combining the interview data with the reviewed literature provided some interesting research conclusions. Due to the specificity of this research, the results cannot be generalized.
It was found that at Bugaboo internal stakeholders were perceived to have much more influence on ecodesign strategy development than external stakeholders. The development of an ecodesign was, in this case, not driven by coercive or mimetic isomorphism.
The most important internal stimuli (Hemel, 2000) experienced by Bugaboo were the reduction of environmental impact, the creation of value, and a synergy with the brand. The reduction of environmental impact alone did not seem enough to justify implementation; the ecodesign strategy only becomes relevant if accompanied by another type of value creation.
Bugaboo faces some significant barriers towards the implementation of ecodesign. The company does not regard investments in redesigning the products viable, and is mostly interested in applying ecodesign to new products and product updates. Another, very relevant barrier is the fact that the design department lacks sufficient knowledge to implement ecodesign. A final barrier, responsible to a large degree for the slow progress on ecodesign strategy development, is that the company has lacked sufficient time, but this last barrier has recently become less relevant.
Bugaboo has a strong company culture. In this case, it can be confirmed from the literature that this cultural paradigm, or ‘the way we do things around here’, has an important influence on decision making. The interviews also showed that the shareholders have an important influence on both culture and decision making.
In accordance with the literature, top management is considered essential in ecodesign strategy development, internal communication and motivation between departments are likely to be motivating and effective, and external discussions with representatives from other companies could enrich the project.
The literature also stated that coordination and integration of all organizational functions is essential. It was found that, in the case of Bugaboo, this can not be confirmed. Coordination and integration can be considered important, but not equally so for all organizational functions.
The answer to the question, ‘How do companies develop an ecodesign strategy?’, reveals that good intentions are not enough at Bugaboo. Ecodesign at this company is as yet unrealized. Internal events at Bugaboo need to create a ‘widely shared consensus for action’ for ecodesign to progress towards implementation. For this, impetus is essential, and some level of formal planning is needed.
The answer to the question, 'Why do companies develop an ecodesign strategy?', seems in the Bugaboo case to depend upon internal factors. Internal stimuli such as reducing environmental impact, new market opportunities, a synergy with the brand, and a long term innovation opportunity all feature: while the first was considered most important by the design department, other internal stakeholders saw opportunities in the other elements as well. In particular, ecodesign was perceived to fit well with company culture, putting a human face on the decision to develop such a strategy.
The following practical recommendations are directed at Bugaboo International B.V. and are not generalizable to other companies.
It can be concluded that ecodesign strategy development has made slow progress throughout the years. The reasons for this slow progress are that 1) the project has had insufficient priority, 2) the design department did not have the knowledge to make the trade-offs needed to present an appealing business case to top management, which, together with 3) insufficient communication on the topic of ecodesign between the design department, the shareholders and top management, resulted in 4) an absence of top management awareness and support, which is needed to set goals, provide a sense of direction, and allow the department to spend time and resources on this project. This is a difficult situation, because top management support is needed to increase priority, and knowledge is needed to convince top management, but to invest in this knowledge, top management support is needed first.
Both internal and external communication can provide the key to these problems. Internal
communication between top management, the design department and the shareholders is needed to create the widely shared consensus for action that is needed to move towards implementation. Top management needs to decide whether it wants to invest in the knowledge that is needed to present an appealing business case, without first knowing what the return on investment will be. External communication could help in accumulating the know-how that is needed.
The most interesting questionnaire results can be summarized as follows; the consumers were very interested in an environmentally friendly Bugaboo product, but would not be willing to pay a high price premium for this. When it comes to product criteria, they value safety and quality above all other criteria, and environmental friendliness was not considered an important factor in buying a stroller. The open questions in particular revealed that the respondents were very positive about an environmentally friendly Bugaboo product. Durability was not primarily associated with
environmental friendliness. Materials, especially recycled materials and fabrics, were considered most relevant requirements for an environmentally friendly Bugaboo product. Most respondents did not want to see changes compared to a regular Bugaboo product. There was also a significant group that only wanted to see a change in natural fabrics, or a small tag that showed the difference. From a consumer perspective, then, the results of the questionnaire show interesting opportunities in: a) linking ecodesign to quality and safety, b) environmentally friendly (recycled) materials and c) environmentally friendly fabrics.
PREFACE
First and most importantly I owe a great debt to Mark van der Veen, who rewarded my initial enthusiasm by providing enormous assistance with finding a topic. When I told him that I was very interested in ecodesign, he did not hesitate to connect me with Bugaboo’s design manager, who had himself approached Mark for help only weeks before our first meeting. I would like to thank Mark for his guidance, patience and dedication. Without such support, I would never have learned as much as I have now.
The people at Bugaboo were so cooperative and positive about my research. Each company visit was very motivating because of the sincere interest people showed in my thesis. I would like to thank the design manager and his department for providing me with all the information I needed, the interviewees for their precious time, and the marketing department for providing useful documents and their help in creating a questionnaire. Due to privacy reasons I should not name them personally, but this does not make their contributions any less important.
I would like to thank Dr. Arnold Tukker at TNO Delft, who helped me to make a list of topics to address during the interviews; meeting him aided me considerably in structuring them to get the results that I needed.
The questionnaires were translated into English, Spanish, and German, which would not have been possible without the help of Dominique Jans, Julia van Schieveen, and Matthias Tölle. I am grateful for their assistance; their efforts have resulted in interesting responses from all over the world. I would also like to thank Ian Goh for checking my grammar, and for making me aware of my endemic semi-colon problem.
A final word of appreciation goes to my dad for showing an interest, reading my results and pretending to understand them. To discuss my work with someone outside the scope of this research was very stimulating.
Yvonne de Zeeuw Amsterdam, August 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………. 2
1. INTRODUCTION………... 8
1.1. Background and Relevance………..8
1.2. Research Questions………...9
1.3. Outline………... 9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK……...……….. 10
2.1. Environmental Management…...………. 10
2.1.1. An Introduction to Environmental Management………... 10
2.1.2. An Institutional Perspective…………... 10
2.1.3. A Resource-based Perspective………... 11
2.1.4. Corporate Environmental Management Models………... 12
2.1.5. Conclusion……… 14
2.2. Strategy Development………... 16
2.2.1. Strategy Development Perspectives…...……..………... 16
2.2.2. Strategic Change………...……….………. 18
2.2.3. Conclusion……….... 20
2.3. Ecodesign……… 20
2.3.1. The Importance of Design………... 20
2.3.2. Defining Ecodesign………... 22 2.3.3. Ecodesign Strategies……….. 22 2.3.4. Conclusion……… 26 2.4. Theoretical Framework………. 28 3. METHODOLOGY………... 29 3.1. Research Design………..….………. 29
3.2. Data Collection and Procedures………... 30
3.2.1. Semi-Structured Interviews……… 30 3.2.2. Questionnaires………... 31 3.2.3. Company Documents…..……… 31 3.3. Analysis..………. 32 3.3.1. Semi-Structured Interviews……… 32 3.3.2. Questionnaire………... 32
4. RESULTS……… 33 4.1. Results Interviews………..………... 33 4.1.1. Company Profile……. .………... 33 4.1.2. Corporate Strategy……….. 34 4.1.3. Ecodesign at Bugaboo..………... 35 4.1.4. Culture………... 38
4.1.5. Stimuli and Barriers………...……….. 39
4.1.6. The Business Case………....………... 42
4.1.7. Implementation……….………... 45
4.2. Results Questionnaire……….. 50
4.2.1. Description of Sample Questionnaire………... 50
4.2.2. Closed Questions……… 50
4.2.3. Open Questions……….. 54
5. CONCLUSIONS………. 59
5.1. Research Conclusions……….. 60
5.2. Practical Recommendations………. 64
6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH……… 66
6.1. Limitations……… 66
6.2. Suggestions for Further Research………... 66
REFERENCES... 68
LIST OF KEYWORDS………...………... 72
APPENDIX A: Interview topics……… 74
APPENDIX B: Questionnaires……… 75
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and Relevance
William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002) made a list of design parameters that would be needed to design the industrial revolution in retrospect, including the following:
1) Put billions of pounds of toxic material into the air, water and soil
2) Produce materials so dangerous they would require constant vigilance by future generations 3) Create prosperity by cutting down natural resources and then burying or burning them, resulting
in gigantic amounts of waste
4) Erode the diversity of species and cultural practices.
It is hard to believe that these design parameters were created intentionally, because back then nobody was fully aware of the damage it would cause. Today, however, even though we are aware of our destructive behavior, many companies are still working with the same design parameters. Fortunately there are exceptions, companies that are aware of the impact they have on the environment, and that are proactively trying to improve their environmental performance.
One pro-active way of cleaning up is done through ecodesign: a method to (re)design products to reduce their total environmental impact early in the product development process, including the reduction of resource consumption as well as emissions and waste. Only a small number of the industrial companies in the world have implemented ecodesign strategies. It can be quite an investment, and requires structural changes within a company. Despite these requirements, there are companies that seem dedicated to invest in this, even when it is far beyond compliance with the rules and regulations that the government imposes. So why do they do this? What return do companies expect on their ecodesign investment, or is it simply considered an altruistic gesture? What makes top managers committed to this cause, and how does ecodesign reach the corporate agenda?
It is important to gain a deeper understanding of the way an ecodesign strategy is developed. A better insight into this process and its stimuli and barriers can be used to understand why some companies are environmentally proactive and why some are not. This thesis will explore the paths that companies may take to move towards the implementation of design parameters, different from those mentioned above, that take the environment into account. It aims to explore how and why companies develop these ecodesign strategies, resulting in a better understanding of the events that are needed to make organizations proactively reduce their negative impact on the world. This will be done by applying and testing relevant theory to a case study: Bugaboo International B.V. A case study was used as a research design because this longitudinal, in-depth examination was ideal to study the relatively unknown phenomenon of ecodesign strategy development.
1.2. Research Questions
In this thesis, the development of an ecodesign strategy plays a key role. The central research question can therefore be phrased as follows;
“How and why do companies develop an ecodesign strategy?”
The ‘how-question’ treats the means whereby ecodesign strategies are incorporated, structured, managed, diffused and implemented within an organization; the ‘why-question’ aims to offer a better understanding of the rationale firms use to engage in ecodesign strategy implementation. The main research question will be answered with help of the following sub-questions;
1. How do internal stakeholders affect ecodesign strategy development? 2. How do external stakeholders affect ecodesign strategy development? 3. How does company culture affect ecodesign strategy development? 4. How is ecodesign prioritized in the strategy development process?
5. How does the company plan to structure and manage the implementation of an ecodesign strategy?
1.3. Outline
To answer the research questions, academic literature needs to be reviewed. Chapter 2 reviews the literature involving the concept of Environmental Management, Strategy Development, and Ecodesign itself. The literature review aims to give an overview of the relevant contemporary knowledge and provides the reader with the necessary theoretical background. Chapter 2 ends with a construction of the theoretical framework.
Chapter 3 will explain the research methodology. This chapter begins with an explanation of the research design, and this will be followed by a detailed description of the data collection, the procedures and the analyses that were used for both the interviews and the questionnaire. The results of the interviews and questionnaires are presented in Chapter 4. The first subchapter starts with a brief description of Bugaboo International B.V., and the results of the interviews follow. The second subchapter describes the results of the questionnaire.
The results and analyses are combined in Chapter 5, and translated into research conclusions, strategic conclusions and practical recommendations.
Chapter 6 gives some suggestions for further research.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Environmental Management
2.1.1. Introduction Environmental Management
In the past few years, the growing concern over climate change has been a major driver for many companies to examine their impact on the environment. The topic of climate change has recently increased the attention of businesses to the environment, but there were other environmental issues that received a business response ‘before climate change’, like the release of toxic substances, the depletion of the ozone layer and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources (Pinkse, 2006). Many firms are now spending both time and resources to environmental management due to these developments. Shrivastava (1995) stresses the importance of
environmental management, because it allows the industry to contribute to ecologically sustainable developments through total quality environmental management processes, redesign of products or manufacturing technologies.
Environmental management literature is dealing with questions such as; which approach do companies take towards the environment? Why do they implement proactive environmental strategies? What implications does environmental management have for economic performance? (Pinkse, 2008) These questions can be answered from two different perspectives, an Institutional Perspective and a Resource-Based Perspective. Institutional theory emphasizes the role of external pressures and asks questions such as: why do firms tend to resemble each other closely? and to what extend is firm behavior determined by rational choices or conventions habits and routines? (Scott, 1995). Resource-based theory emphasizes competitive opportunities in relation to internal organizational attributes (Pinkse, 2008) and asks why some firms are unique and perform better than others (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993).
2.1.2. Environmental Management: An Institutional Perspective
Institutional theory states that an organization does not only interact through exchange relationships, but also imitates the context of their organizational structure (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), which means that part of that context will become institutionalized within the firm. The process of firms starting to resemble institutions is called isomorphism, which can be divided into competitive and institutional isomorphism (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). Dimaggio and Powell (1983) argue that competitive isomorphism is focusing on the external context of firms, where they are competing for resources and customers, while in addition, institutional isomorphism is focusing on political power and organizational legitimacy as well. North (1994, pp. 360) defines an institution as humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction and consist of formal constraints (e.g. rules, laws, regulations), and informal constraints (e.g. norms of behavior) and their
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) discuss three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism: coercive, mimetic and normative. Coercive isomorphism results from formal and informal pressures exerted on an organization by another organization or by cultural expectations within society, e.g. the government or pressure groups. Industries with a negative environmental reputation are more likely to face coercive pressures. Mimetic Isomorphism is driven by uncertainty and happens when organizations are modeling themselves on other organizations. This can happen intentionally by modeling themselves to more successful organization, but it can also happen unintentionally, e.g. by employee transfer or consulting firms. Normative Isomorphism stems from professionalization: the collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work (Larson, 1977. pp. 49-52).
According to Pinkse (2006) the institutional literature that discusses the drivers of environmental management can be divided into two main themes. The first theme examines the effect of institutional drivers on the organizational structure, looking for which actors in the external context influence environmental management. The second theme examines different ways in which firms respond to institutional pressures. Pinkse (2006), states that the institutional drivers that affect environmental management can be either formal or informal, and that different enforcement mechanisms can be used. One way to examine the institutional drivers is to adopt a stakeholder perspective, focusing on the different actors in the institutional context that can influence the environmental management of a firm. Every stakeholder has a different relation with the firm, and therefore not all stakeholders have the same amount of influence. The stakeholder perspective is mainly occupied with classifying the stakeholders according to their power of the level of influence they have. Another way of examining the institutional drivers is to look at the influence of regulative (legal), normative (social) an cognitive (cultural) pressures, as researched by Hoffman (1999).
It is possible that all firms in an industry face fairly identical institutional pressures, but have adopted very different environmental management practices. The reason for this is that the way they respond to them can differ from firm to firm, because each has different incentives and barriers during the institutionalization process. One of the questions that can be asked in this perspective is as follows: under what circumstances do firms adopt voluntary measures to reduce environmental impact? (Pinkse, 2006)
2.1.3. Environmental Management: A Resource-Based Perspective
Resource-based perspectives on environmental strategies have their roots in the Resource-based view (RBV), which originated in the 1980’s and evolved during the 1990’s as one of the most dominant theories of strategic management. According to the RBV, competitive advantage is not determined by the choice of product-market combination, but by deploying unique resources and capabilities that explain why some firms perform better than others (Pinkse, 2006). According to Amit and Schoemaker (1993) resources are the stocks of available factors that are owned or controlled by the firm, while capabilities can be defined as the capacity of a firm to deploy resources, using organizational processes. Teece et al. (1997) criticized the RBV, arguing that it
neglects the need to build new competitive advantages in response to the changing environment, introducing the dynamic capabilities view. This view stresses the importance of renewing
resources and capabilities to keep up with the changing business context.
The resource-based perspective has mainly focused on the environmental management practices of a firm in relation to its competitors, looking for distinctive organizational processes that firms have developed to reduce environmental impact. In contrast to institutional perspectives, the resource-based perspective is emphasizing distinctiveness of the environmental management practices compared to competitors, instead of the converging management practices. Resource-based studies on environmental management are guided by two main themes; one of them examines the resource-based drivers related to environmental management and the second theme examines the development process of resources and capabilities (Pinkse, 2006). The theme of resource-based drivers asks which environmental management practices in the organization lead to competitiveness, because only those practices can be labeled resources and capabilities. Pinkse (2006) divided them into two categories, the ones that aim directly to reduce a firm’s environmental impact, called ‘green’ resources and capabilities, and the ones that indirectly lead to reductions in environmental impact but do not have this as a main goal, named complementary resources and capabilities. The second theme is about developing/acquiring green resources and capabilities. This theme accepts the external context as a potential source for developing
resources and capabilities; therefore it is closer to institutional perspectives compared to the resource-based drivers theme. It is also very compatible with the dynamic capabilities view, because it considers the implications for environmental management in a changing context. (Pinkse, 2006)
2.1.4. Corporate Environmental Management (CEM) Models
Most environmental management frameworks provide a three- to five-stage path of development for firms to progress from a reactive to proactive strategy over time, increasing levels of
environmental activity within the organization (Winn and Angell, 2000). CEM models can be divided into two types, continuums and typologies (Pinkse, 2006). Continuums consist of mutually exclusive stages, where an organization sequentially goes from one stage to another. A typology is an interrelated set of an ideal type, without predetermined sequential stages, which means that a firm can be situated between stages as well (Doty and Glick, 2004). A typology is mostly
conceptualized as a matrix.
One type of continuum that is often used in environmental management has its origins in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It describes a development over time, while the degree of pro-activity is deciding the stage a firm is in at the moment, applied in an RDAP-scale. RDAP describes corporate attitudes to societal issues in four stages – Reactive, Defensive,
Accommodative, Pro-active – reflecting both strategy formulation and implementation (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003). Hart (1995) developed a typology based on the resource-based view,
prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development. Pollution prevention changes the products and production processes in order to reduce pollution below legal requirements. Product stewardship implies product differentiation, where manufacturing and product processes are designed to minimize pollution during the entire life cycle. Hart argues that an Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) has to be implemented to achieve product stewardship. Sustainable development aims for the development of clean technologies to minimize pollution, requiring a long-term vision and strong moral leadership, which is a rare resource according to Hart. The last stage of Hart’s typology has been criticized by several scholars. To reach sustainable development, a firm has to have a concern for developing countries. It doesn’t seem to be true that all companies are striving to reach this stage. (Pinkse, 2006)
In a study of Buysse and Verbeke (2003) it is mentioned that Hart (1995) has made a distinction between five ‘resource domains’, that firms can change to become more environmentally friendly. These five domains are:
1. Investments in green competencies related to product and manufacturing technologies. 2. Investment in employee skills.
3. Investments in organizational competencies.
4. Investments in formal management systems and procedures, at the input (e.g. a written environmental plan), process (some form of LCA) and output (internal and external environmental reports) sides.
5. Reconfiguration of the strategic planning process, considering environmental issues and letting environmental managers participate in corporate strategic planning.
Typologies describe environmental management at a certain point in time. Steger (1993) came to four different environmental strategies by looking at the ‘market opportunities through
environmental protection’, and to the ‘level of firm environmental risk’. With these two dimensions as the two axes of a matrix, Steger came to four types of strategies: offensive, innovative, indifferent and defensive. Many typologies focus on both market opportunities and environmental risk, because firms need to act strategically to both of them (Pinkse, 2006).
Most typologies and continuums have not been empirically derived or tested. One of the studies that was tested in a systematic way was conducted by Winn and Angell (2000), who developed a typology of ‘corporate greening’. By combining theory from Corporate Social Performance (CSP) Models, Strategy Process Models, and Environmental Management Models, and conducting a factor analysis with the collected data, they came to two dimensions: approach to implementing environmental management activities (passive/reactive), and policy commitment to environmental issues (low/high). This results in a matrix with four profiles (figure 2.1.): deliberate reactive greening, unrealized greening, emergent active greening and deliberate proactive greening.
Figure 2.1. Factor-based model of corporate greening (Winn and Angel, 2000)
Winn and Angell note the top-down bias in process theory, both in CEM models as in strategy process models. According to them, the integration and coordination of all organizational functions is critical to achieve a structural change within the company, and highlights the importance of raising ecodesign to a strategic level (Russo and Fouts, 1997; Winn and Angell, 2000). Top management commitment, reflected in the corporate vision and mission, is considered essential for the process of making ecodesign strategic (Shrivastava, 1995; Winn and Angell, 2000). Winn and Angel have questioned the dominant assumption that policy precedes implementation, and one of their main findings is that policy commitment to, and implementation of CEM activities are independent dimensions. This has been a very relevant contribution to typologies in the CEM literature.
2.1.5. Conclusions
The environmental management literature can provide a better understanding of the reasons why organizations take a certain approach towards the environment. Proactive environmental management can result in the implementation of ecodesign, which is why the literature reviewed can help in answering the main research question, how and why do companies implement an ecodesign strategy? From an institutional perspective it is interesting to look at the mechanisms that influence a company’s institutional isomorphism. Is proactive environmental management, or the development of an ecodesign strategy, driven by coercive, mimetic or normative isomorphism? Are there any external drivers or institutional pressures that affect environmental management? To
answer these questions, it is essential to determine which stakeholders are most influential. The institutional perspective will be used as a guide for answering the question how internal and external stakeholders affect ecodesign strategy development. The literature also acknowledges that companies tend to respond differently to institutional pressures; therefore it might be interesting to study a company’s unique response to the perceived sources of pressure that influence the implementation of ecodesign.
The environmental management literature that has adopted the resource-based perspective reveals that, to answer the main research question, it might be interesting to look at whether a company believes ecodesign will bring distinct organizational processes that result in unique resources or capabilities. Is ecodesign expected to add to competitive advantage? Does the company intend to develop ‘green’ resources and capabilities, or complementary resources and capabilities? The answers will give a deeper understanding of the ‘why’ behind the ecodesign strategy process and implementation.
Not many environmental management models have yet combined strategy process literature with environmental management literature. For this research, the most relevant environmental
management model that was reviewed came from Winn and Angell (2000), because they combine Corporate Social Performance Models, Strategy Process Models, and Environmental Management Models. The relevance of this model lies in the opportunity to compare the case study results of Bugaboo International B.V to Winn and Angell’s conclusions. Is it critical to integrate and coordinate all organizational functions to achieve a structural change within the company? Does policy precede implementation? The answers will give a better understanding of the ‘how’ behind the ecodesign strategy process and implementation.
2.2. Strategy Development
2.2.1. Strategy Development Perspectives
To answer the main research question, ‘how and why do companies develop an ecodesign strategy?’, it is important to review strategy development literature. This literature focuses on the strategy process, and provides insights on the relationship between strategies and their contexts. The strategy development literature covers strategy in general, and will be linked to the strategic management of ecodesign in the conclusions.
In order to discuss the process of strategy development, it is important to define strategy. According to Foss (1997, pp.52):
‘Corporate strategy is the pattern of decisions in a company that determines and reveals it objectives, purposes , or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature of the economic or non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and communities.’
Foss (1997) explains that ‘corporate strategy’ concerns the entire enterprise, selecting the businesses in which a company will compete, while ‘business strategy’ applies to product-market combinations, i.e. individual businesses within the firm, and their positioning among competitors.
Mintzberg (1987), believes that strategic management cannot afford to rely on a single definition and provides five definitions of strategy: 1) strategy as a plan, an intended course of action to deal with a situation, 2) strategy as a pattern, as a stream of actions, 3) strategy as a position, between the internal and external context, 4) strategy as perspective, a way of perceiving the world, 5) strategy as a ploy, as a manouvre to outwit competitors. According to Mintzberg, these 5 P’s are interrelated to each other.
What overall processes give rise to organizational strategies? In other words, how do strategies develop? According to Johnson et al. (2008) there are two broad explanations: deliberate and emergent strategies (figure 2.2). Deliberate strategies are more rational and analytic, expressing a desired strategy as deliberately formulated or planned by managers. Emergent strategies occur through everyday routines, activities and processes in decisions that become the long-term direction of an organization in a more incremental way. These two processes are not mutually exclusive, but nonetheless very contrasting. Next to these two strategies, companies can also face externally imposed strategies, e.g. by a powerful stakeholder like the government.
When addressing emergent or deliberate strategy, strategic planning is a term that inevitably comes up. Strategic planning is defined by Johnson et al. (2008) as a process that may take the
shape of systematized, step-by-step, chronological procedures to develop or coordinate the strategy of an organization. Mintzberg (1994) and Ansoff (1994) did not share opinions on this topic. In ‘Rethinking Strategic Planning Part 1: Pitfalls and Fallacies’, Mintzberg (1994) describes why strategic planning is an oxymoron (meaning self-contradictory). According to Mintzberg planning induces resistance to change, while flexibility is needed for strategy-making. Planning also seems to be subjective and political, while strategy needs to be objective. Another factor that makes planning seem unsuitable for strategy-making is the constantly changing, complex environment that does not willingly accept schedules. In defense, Ansoff (1994) stated that Mintzberg did not pay attention to the changes strategic planning had gone through since the 1990’s, and that it is now able to cope with the complex and constantly changing environment. But then, can it still be called ‘planning’? Ansoff was evidently approaching strategy from an intentional perspective, while Mintzberg favored the emergent strategy perspective.
Figure 2.2. Intended, deliberate, unrealized, emergent, and realized strategy. (Mintzberg, 1994)
Another important part of the discussion between Mintzberg and Ansoff covered the contrast between ‘prescriptive’ and ‘descriptive’ strategy literature. According to Ansoff, strategic management must deliver specific guidelines for management, while Mintzberg believes that strategic management can only be described after the fact, as an non-deliberate pattern (Idenburg, 1993). The prescriptive schools of thought believe that strategy is consciously deliberated by top management (e.g. Chandler, 1962), while the descriptive schools of thought suggest that strategy can also be emergent from lower levels in the organization (e.g. Mintzberg and Waters, 1985), incrementally guided from the top (Quinn, 1980).
One of the patterns often mentioned when discussing strategy development is ‘Logical Incrementalism’: the deliberate development of strategy by experimentation and learning from partial commitments (Johnson et al. 2008), which causes small changes instead of major shifts in direction. Quinn (1978), a leading scholar in this particular area, agues that de development of strategy does contain some fragments of formal strategic planning, but that the real strategy evolves as internal decisions and external events merge together to create a ‘widely shared consensus for action’ among the key members of the top management team. According to Quinn
(1978) logical incrementalism is not ‘muddling through’, but can be a purposeful, conscious and proactive executive practice. The concept of logical incrementalism can bridge the processes of intention and emergence. Developing a strategy this way has many advantages; it minimizes resistance to change because it happens gradually, and the experimental approach makes it easier to adjust to the environment (Johnson et al. 2008).
Culture is another factor responsible for influencing strategy development. Edgar Schein (1985) described organizational culture as ‘the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has
invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems’. The cultural explanation of strategy development is that it occurs as the outcome of the
taken-for-granted assumptions and behaviors in organizations. It influences the way people are expected to behave and act, which has impact on both emergent and incremental development of strategy (Johnson et al. 2008).
2.2.2. Strategic Change
Gerry Johnson (1992) has studied the links between the development of strategy in organizations, dimensions of corporate culture and managerial action. His paper presents frameworks and explanations which managers can use to recognize strategic inertia and barriers to strategic change. He states that organizational strategies develop incrementally, through long periods of time, and that fundamental shifts do not happen frequently. In his paper, it is emphasized that logical incrementalism is a pattern heavily influenced by ‘the paradigm’ of an organization (figure 2.3.): a core set of beliefs, values and assumptions enclosed in the managerial and organizational culture.
This paradigm gives guidance to strategy; it is the filter that manager’s use for internal and external stimuli. It may be more easily perceived by outsiders, because those inside the organization might take these assumptions for granted; it is how they respond to describing ‘the way we do things around here’. This paradigm creates a relatively homogeneous approach to the interpretation of the complex reality that the organization has do deal with. Johnson (1992) explains that it seems likely that top management are the ones most closely linked to the key constructs of the paradigm, which makes it hard to believe that this core set of beliefs, values and assumptions can be seen separately from organizational action.
Figure 2.3. The ‘cultural web’ of an organization (Johnson, 1992)
By looking at strategic management through this ‘paradigm-perspective’, incremental strategy development can be explained in a different way: ‘strategic management can be seen as an
organizational response over time to a business environment which is essentially internally constructed rather than objectively understood’ (Johnson, 1992, pp. 33). If managerial action is
required outside ‘the way we do things around here’, it may be required to change the paradigm. This is not easily done and may lead to heavy resistance unless it happens through a.) slow, evolutionary change, or b.) a common understanding of the necessity for action, e.g. declining performance. If an organization refuses to implement the necessary change to stay in line with its environment, ‘strategic drift’ is likely to occur, meaning that the company moves further and further away from the ideal fit to the environment, which eventually creates the need for radical change.
Long before Johnson (1992) and his theory on strategic drift and organizational culture, Lewin (1952) introduced a three-step model to achieve successful change. The first step consisted of
unfreezing, because human behavior had to be driven out of its quasi-stationary equilibrium to
unlearn, before new behavior could be accepted. The second step was called moving: unfreezing should create motivation to change, to move from a less acceptable to a more acceptable set of behaviors. The third step consists of refreezing, to stabilize the new quasi-stationary equilibrium. This analytic approach was heavily criticized throughout the years.
According to Johnson, the analytic planning approach to strategy and change can function as a
thinking device for strategic management, but fails to address the process of strategic choice or
change, because it doesn’t acknowledge the importance of paradigm shifts to facilitate strategic change. He emphasized the importance of creating a climate for change, interventions by outsiders to bring different perspectives and providing signals and symbols to signal change.
2.2.3. Conclusion
The strategy process literature covers strategy in general, but provides valuable research opportunities for the strategy development of ecodesign as well. It will be interesting to research whether ecodesign strategies are developed in an emergent or an intended way. Is there much planning involved in developing an ecodesign strategy? Or does a part of the process evolve in a spontaneous, emergent way? Or is it an incremental process, creating a ‘widely shared consensus for action’ among top management? It will be interesting to find out if the process initially starts from the top-down or maybe bottom-up. The strategy process literature provides valuable keys to answering how companies develop an ecodesign strategy.
The literature on the importance and influence of culture in strategic change seems very relevant to this case study. Gerry Johnson (1992) states that strategic change is heavily influenced by ‘the paradigm’, or ‘the way we do things around here’, of an organization. It will be interesting to compare how the case study of Bugaboo International B.V. is influenced by this paradigm in strategic decision making. Does ecodesign fit the paradigm? This fit is likely to be an important factor in making ecodesign strategic. Exploring the influence of culture on the ecodesign strategy process will be an important component in answering both how and why companies develop an ecodesign strategy.
2.3. Ecodesign
2.3.1. The Importance of Design
Designers make important choices about objects and their utilities. They pick the materials that will be used to make it, choose a manufacturing process, decide the length of the object’s useful life and what would happen to it after this useful life is over. Each year, half a trillion tons of resources are pulled from the earth, put through several activities, get molded into a form, and then thrown away. Less than one percent of all this ‘stuff’ is still in use six months after it was sold; everything else is waste. In the past, design has mainly focused on appearance, but today this focus is shifting towards better solutions to the world’s needs, towards a view that great design can be beautiful, meaningful and sustainable. (Shedroff, 2009)
Sustainability is defined by the UN Brundtland Commission (1987) as: ‘development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, this includes human, financial and environmental issues. It is not easy to design
sustainable products, because balancing inputs and outputs often requires compromising (Shedroff, 2009). For example, increased recyclability can reduce the product life and sustainable materials can be more expensive, driving up cost, resulting in a product that may not get
The design process is responsible for creating the possibilities and opportunities in a product’s life cycle, and today’s world is in need of designers who realize that contributing to sustainable design is important. There are several approaches to design that incorporate sustainability into the design process, two of them, Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle, will be discussed below.
Natural Capitalism (Hawkin, Lovins and Lovins, 2002) is a framework for changing social and natural values in business, describing four types of capital: Natural Capital, Human Capital, Manufactured Capital and Financial Capital. The framework promotes four primary shifts that are needed:
1. Radical Resource Productivity: increase the productivity of natural resources, reduce (toxic) materials, reduce energy intensity, design efficient solutions.
2. Ecological Redesign: shifting to perspectives and processes that are inspired by nature. 3. Service and Flow Economies: shift from products to services and from objects to
outcomes, like rental cars or downloadable music.
4. Investing in Natural Capital: building a stronger resource base. Stop looking at natural resources as if they are infinite.
Natural Capitalism (also called eco efficiency) focuses on efficiency and the reduction of waste, using technologies we already know. This ‘doing more with less’-approach caught the attention of industry, because is can also reduce costs. However, Natural Capitalism has been criticized for being a linear one-way model, also called Cradle 2 Grave. It is meant for reducing, reusing, recycling and regulating, but not for terminating the initial problem: waste.
Cradle to Cradle is a popular movement in the field of sustainable design; its approach does not accept the concept of waste. William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2002) introduce eco-effectiveness as being superior to eco-efficiency. According to them, eco-efficiency comes down to releasing fewer toxic substances into the air, producing fewer dangerous materials and results in smaller amounts of useless waste. Eco effectiveness, on the other hand, creates buildings that produce energy, factories that produce effluents cleaner than its inputs, products that become food when their useful life is over – a world of abundance without pollution or waste. McDonough and Braungart argue that in nature waste equals food, and that humans should stop reducing and reusing, but should create and use materials that can be used indefinitely. These materials can be either technical or natural; the technical nutrients can be used in the technosphere, useful for industrial processes, and the natural nutrients can be used in the biosphere, resulting in a circular economy. According to McDonough and Braungart, these two spheres shouldn’t be mixed, because that will create the ‘monstrous hybrids’ that are omnipresent in the unsustainable reality we live in today. The Cradle to Cradle approach is very inspirational and has already resulted in many sustainable products and projects, but is criticized as well.
One of the main points of critique is that this circular economy is very hard to achieve. To recycle, energy and transport are needed, two industries that are nowhere near Cradle to Cradle at the
moment. Another issue is that the technosphere is likely to grow faster that the biosphere, because ‘monstrous hybrids’ seem inevitable. Some critics also don’t like the unrealistic idea that Cradle to Cradle is making infinite growth possible, while nobody has to change their lifestyle. (Martens en Amelung, 2007)
Cradle to Cradle and Natural Capitalism provide inspirational frameworks, but both lack detail, and do not describe a development process. Yet, there is a method that explains in more detail how to reduce the impact on the environment though design. This method appears under a variation of terms, but EcoDesign and Design for Environment (DfE) are mostly used.
2.3.2. Defining Ecodesign
Designing greener products can improve the environmental performance of an organization. It does not only change the products, but it also changes the resources used, the effects of disposal after use and has an impact on the production process. (van der Veen, 2007) Changing an organization’s environmental impact through design shifts the focus from so called “end-of-pipe” solutions to a more proactive approach: preventing waste and pollution from the start by taking environmental considerations into account during product development (Johansson, 2002).
The literature on ecodesign (in the US often called ‘Design for Environment’) shows many different definitions, with different levels of ambition. Tischner and Charter (2001, pp. 121) define ecodesign and DfE as ‘strategies that aim to integrate environmental considerations into product design and development’. This definition is quite broad, while van Hemel (1998) defines DfE much narrower and more ambitious: ‘The environmental aspects in each stage of the product development process, striving to achieve products which have the lowest possible environmental impact throughout their entire life cycle.’ This definition does not mention other product criteria and is mainly focused on the environment. Johansson (2002, pp. 98), includes other criteria as well, he explains that the term ecodesign ‘refers to actions taken in product development aimed at minimizing a product’s environmental impact during its whole life cycle, without compromising other essential product criteria such as performance and cost’. In this definition, performance and cost are added, which makes it different from the other two definitions. In this thesis a definition from DANTES (Demonstrate and Assess New Tools for Environmental Sustainability) is used: ‘Design for Environment (DfE) or Ecodesign are methods supporting product developers in
reducing the total environmental impact of a product early in the product development process. This includes reducing resource consumption as well as emissions and waste’.
2.3.3. Ecodesign Strategies
All ecodesign definitions have in common that the organizations can lower their environmental impact in the process of product development. Hemel (1998) defined eight ecodesign strategies: 1) selecting low-impact materials, 2) reducing materials usage, 3) optimizing production techniques, 4) optimization of distribution system, 5) reduction of impact during use, 6) optimizing initial life
time, 7) optimizing end-of-life system and 8) new concept development. These strategies are displayed in figure 2.4., showing 33 ecodesign principles. Van Hemel (2002) compared these 33 ecodesign solutions in a study on the ecodesign behavior in 77 Dutch small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s). The study concluded that the most frequently suggested ecodesign principles were also the most successful ones, as can be seen in the right part of figure 2.5. The article also analyzed the stimuli and barriers that play an important role in the success or failure of ecodesign in organizations. Hemel has not defined the term ‘ecodesign strategy’.
Hemel’s research (2002) concluded that ecodesign improvements can only be successful if it is supported by stimuli other than the environmental benefit alone. The 33 principles have to be supported by several strong external and internal stimuli, and it should not be blocked by no-go barriers (figure 2.5.). Another finding was that internal stimuli are a stronger driving force for ecodesign than external stimuli.
Figure 2.4. The ecodesign strategy wheel. (Hemel, 2002)
Internal Stimuli (reasons why ecodesign option is interesting, regardless of the influence of external parties):
1. The company expects a reduction of the environmental impact (commitment to reduce the environmental impact)
2. The company expects a reduction of costs (lower cost-price of the product) 3. The company expects an image improvement (leading to competitive advantage)
4. The company expects new market opportunities (competitive advantage: increasing actual market share/access to new markets)
5. The company expects an increase of the product’s functional quality
6. The company expects a synergy with product requirements other than functional quality demands or low costs
7. The company expects a commercial benefit, other than those mentioned in 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (e.g. synergy with care systems, risk reduction,
8. increased efficiency in production, storage, distribution, etc.)
9. The company regards the option as an interesting long-term innovation opportunity 10. The company perceives another internal stimulus
External stimuli (direct influence of external parties, their attitude and/or activities): 1. The option is subject to legislation and government regulations, actual or pending 2. The option is subject to environmental pressure from industrial organizations 3. The option is subject to the environmental demands of customers at the consumer,
industrial or institutional market
4. The option is subject to negative media attention (by environmental action groups) 5. Suppliers offer newly developed eco-efficient materials or components related to the
specific option
6. Competitors have already applied the specific ecodesign option to their products 7. Another external stimulus is perceived for the option
Barriers standing in the way of the suggested ecodesign improvement options: 1. Doubt about the environmental benefit of the option suggested 2. The company does not feel responsible for realizing the option
3. The option only becomes relevant if supported by environmental legislation 4. The option only becomes relevant if supported by market demands 5. The option creates a commercial disadvantage for our company
6. The option creates a conflict in connection with actual functional product requirements 7. The option is not a challenging technological innovation opportunity for our company 8. Realization depends on available technical possibilities; no alternative available 9. The company does not regard new investments in redesigning the product viable 10. The company lack sufficient time to realize the option in question
11. The company lacks sufficient knowledge to realize the option in question 12. The company perceives another type of barrier
Figure 2.5. The most influential stimuli/barriers, and the most successful ecodesign principles (Hemel, 2002)
Establishing an environmental baseline for the existing products and gathering data necessary to influence the design of new products is important when implementing ecodesign. This information can be gathered through a Life Cycle analysis (LCA). An LCA identifies environmental aspects on three levels (Donnelly et al. 2006):
1. The Product Assembly Level, to set targets for environmental new product improvements, like recyclability or material reduction).
2. The Component Level, as an aid to material selection.
3. As a Benchmarking Tool, to confirm whether to product has improved its carbon footprint. According to Donnely et al. (2006), the following five steps are needed to apply the LCA: an inventory analysis, an impact analysis, the identification of significant aspects, an analysis of the results and improvement recommendations. They state that the results of the LCA can compare the environmental impacts of a product or its assemblies to the progress towards sustainability and continual improvement of product design. An LCA provides valuable information, but it can be very costly, difficult, time-consuming and it is virtually impossible to conduct in the design and prototype stages of new product development, because a great deal of information is not known beforehand (Shedroff, 2009).
Tischner and Nickel (2003) have researched a test case for implementing ecodesign in small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s). The aim of the research was to develop innovative and effective tools that were easy to implement, and would lead to environmentally optimized products and financial advantages. The project followed five steps to implement this ‘Life Cycle Thinking’ into the company:
1. Identification and collection of environmentally relevant background information such as the environmental demands of different stakeholders.
2. Identification of environmentally relevant weaknesses and strengths of the products (e.g. an LCA).
3. Implementation of the results into the development of new products.
4. Systematic integration of the results into strategic management, product development and design. Specific tools were selected and created: an ecodesign handbook (with checklists, instructions and information), ecodesign guidelines, instructions for disposal, internal communication, information and motivation tools and external communication and information tools.
5. Green marketing activities. Carefully integrating it into the marketing strategy. Ecodesign can find a new market positioning and increase market share. Additional ideas for a green marketing strategy: price policy, communication policy, distribution policy, corporate identity.
During this test case Tischner and Nickel found some other important factors. The integration of top and strategic management into the process was considered very valuable. Internal
communication between the persons responsible for ecodesign is found to be motivating and effective, as well as the involvement from experts from various departments. It was also found to be valuable to use a pragmatic approach, characterized by short steps with quick wins. They also stated that external discussions with representatives from other companies enriched the project, and that the optimization of environmental characteristics of the products resulted in economic advantages.
Boks (2005) stresses that communication and cooperation are key issues that make ecodesign successful. He emphasizes that there must be a ‘variety of sociological, psychological, emotional and perhaps intangible factors’ on business and departmental levels that have to be researched as well to make integration of ecodesign effective. He refers to these factors as ‘the soft side of ecodesign’, in contrast with the ‘hard’ design/engineering aspects. Boks (2005) has found that the most important obstacles are social-psychological issues, like organizational complexities or lack of cooperation, especially in the early stages of the product development process. In later stages the major obstacle that was found was the lack of market demand.
2.3.4. Conclusions
The literature shows that complicated tradeoffs seem inevitable in sustainable design. Besides environmental impact, the implementation of ecodesign can also influence cost, quality, product life, functionality etc. It seems important to ask a company how far it wants to take ecodesign. What are the priorities? Will it aim for eco-efficiency, or is eco-effectiveness an option as well? Which concessions are expected and are they allowed? The answers to these tradeoffs will give a better understanding of how ecodesign is prioritized in the strategy development process.
A definition of ‘ecodesign strategy’ was not available in the literature. Hemel (2000) did define eight ecodesign strategies. This does not seem sufficient to define what an ‘ecodesign strategy’ is, therefore Hemel’s ecodesign principles will be linked to Mintzberg’s (1987) 5 P’s of strategy (taken from chapter 2.2.). For this research, an ecodesign strategy will be considered a combination of both; it includes 1) a plan that defines an intended course of action, choosing which of Hemel’s
(2000) ecodesign principles will be implemented by the company and what their purpose is, 2) an intended course of action towards the implementation of these principles, 3) a position between internal and external contexts that explains how the ecodesign strategy defines its fit with the company environment, 4) a company-unique perspective that combines company culture and values with the chosen ecodesign strategies, and 5) a ploy, defining the competitive advantage that might be created with the implementation of an ecodesign strategy. The overall processes that give rise to these five aspects of ecodesign strategy can be considered ‘ecodesign strategy development’.
Hemel’s ecodesign strategy wheel (2000) is very useful for this research, because it defines all possible ecodesign principles. The internal and external stimuli and barriers defined by Hemel can help to enrich the analysis of the case study by setting guidelines for exploring the reasons why certain ecodesign strategy seems interesting to a company, which internal or external stakeholders affect the implementation, and what the priorities are. This is valuable information in researching the ecodesign strategy process. Hemel (2000) concluded that ecodesign improvements can only be successful if supported by stimuli other than the environmental benefit alone, and that internal stimuli are a stronger driving force for ecodesign than external stimuli. The case study of Bugaboo International B.V. will be compared to Hemel’s conclusions.
The pragmatic test case for implementing ecodesign at SME’s conducted by Tischner and Nickel (2003) is suitable for comparing to the case study of Bugaboo International B.V. because the research had a longitudinal approach of studying the ecodesign implementation process. It will be interesting to compare whether the integration of top and strategic management is considered valuable, whether internal communication between the persons responsible for ecodesign are found to be motivating and effective, as well as the involvement from experts from various departments. Another finding was that external discussions with representatives from other companies enriched the project, and that the optimization of environmental characteristics of the products resulted in economic advantages. Boks (2000) also found that communication and cooperation are key issues that make ecodesign successful. The relevance of comparing these findings to the case study will lie in a deeper understanding of how a company plans to structure and manage the implementation of an ecodesign strategy.
2.4. Theoretical Framework
The research questions will be answered by testing and applying theory to the case study of Bugaboo International B.V. The theory reviewed in this chapter was used to create the theoretical framework presented in figure 2.6. This figure provides a schematic representation of the
relationships under investigation. The research will explore the process of ecodesign strategy development by investigating three factors that might influence this process: external stakeholders, internal stakeholders, and company culture. After reviewing the literature, these three factors were chosen because they are considered most likely to influence decision-making, strategic change and strategy development.
Figure 2.6. Theoretical framework
Subchapter 4.1.1. and 4.1.2. both cover the strategic management of Bugaboo International B.V. The case study results on internal and external stakeholders, as well as Hemel’s (2000) external and internal stimuli can be found in subchapters 4.1.3., 4.1.5., and 4.1.6., where the interview results display some of the most important influences on the relationship between strategic management and ecodesign strategy. Results on company culture can be found in subchapter 4.1.4, and is interwoven in all responses by the interviewees, dispersed over chapter 4. These results describe the relationship between culture and strategic management in the process of ecodesign strategy development. Subchapter 4.1.7. covers additional information on what the interviewees perceive as the steps needed to implement ecodesign, including the influence of key decision makers.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Design
The objective of this research is to obtain a deeper understanding of ecodesign strategy development. Not many scholars have yet studied this complex phenomenon, which is why a longitudinal, qualitative case study seems to fit the research objective best. According to Baxter and Jack (2008) case study methodology can be used by researchers as a tool to study complex phenomena within their contexts, using a variety of data sources. Data collection can be from archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations. To understand the dynamics present within single settings, case study data may be qualitative, quantitative, or both. The data collection techniques used in this case study are semi-structured interviews and questionnaires, both qualitative.
This case study will explore the complex phenomenon of ecodesign strategy development in the context of Bugaboo International B.V. A case study can have various aims: to provide description, to test theory, or to generate theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). The main aim of the Bugaboo case study is to provide a description of the process of ecodesign strategy development. The theory from the literature review will be applied, tested and compared to the case of Bugaboo.
The semi-structured interviews conducted in this case study are used to gain a deeper understanding of internal Bugaboo stakeholders, interviewing top managers, shareholders and designers. The semi-structured interviews are non-standardized; a list of themes and questions will be covered, but may vary from interview to interview (Saunders et al, 1007). The interviews will provide the data to answer all research questions.
The questionnaire is used to gain a deeper understanding of Bugaboo’s main external stakeholder: the consumer. The questionnaire results have only been subjected to descriptive statistics, and are not extensively analyzed. The reason for this is that the questionnaire was never intended to help answering any research questions, but to provide Bugaboo with some interesting information on how their consumers respond to ecodesign. Questionnaires are usually not particularly good for exploratory research, but for explanatory or descriptive research (Saunders at al, 2007). The questionnaires used in this research are, however, for a large part exploratory because of the open-ended questions included. Open-ended questions are useful when a detailed answer is required. In this case the questionnaire provides detailed opinions of the Bugaboo consumers on environmentally friendly Bugaboo products. The open questions have the advantage of not limiting the response choices; the respondents can reply in their own words and bring up new issues, answering from their own frame of reference, describing ‘real world’ terminology instead of academic jargon (McDaniel and Gates, 1999). The downside of open questions is that this data is more difficult to code.
