MSc. thesis Technology Management
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Modifying the roadmap for
Philips Shavers
Linking sustainability to the market
by Thomas van Roosmalen
s1680145Tel: +31 (0)6 46 07 17 60
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sustainability is a topic receiving major attention in Philips Shavers. Current technology allows for improvements in shaver sustainability, but little is known about the actual communication of sustainability to the market. This thesis is the result of a research project in Philips Shavers on the subject of sustainability directions and the linkage to the market; hence the main question is How can
the technology roadmap for Philips Shavers be modified by identifying new sustainability directions and their linkage to the market?
The focus is on the technology roadmap and on communicating sustainability to the market and is investigated using the DOV methodology. First a diagnosis is performed in which the theoretical background is explored and research methods are discussed in detail. Technological possibilities are investigated in order to surface future directions for the roadmap. Furthermore, a market analysis is performed through exploring competitor movements and sustainability directions in other companies. Also a theoretical contribution is made about communicating sustainability to the market and about grading products on a Cradle2Cradle aspect. The results of the diagnosis lead to a twofold design in which a the current technology roadmap for Philips Shavers is expanded as practical result on one hand, and a SWOT analysis is drawn up (see figure) together with the development of a grading tool in order to create new input for sustainability claims to the market as conceptual result on the other.
Philips Shavers is heading in the right direction with respect to sustainability, based on the market analyses. Hence focusing on eliminating hazardous substances such as PVC and BFR, complying with energy star requirements, using alternative materials in the shaver and packaging is recommended. Moreover, attention needs to shift to establishing sound recycling and disposal models since movements in legislation and competitor activities are present and will eventually force Philips to implement.
4
PREFACE
The thesis you are about to read is the result of a research project in Philips Shavers’ development department during March 2009 to July 2009. The research is conducted as graduation project for Technology Management at the faculty of Economics & Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. It displays a carefully crafted combination of practical and theoretical implications.
This thesis has been created during the research at the Philips Shavers manufacturing site in Drachten, The Netherlands. I am very thankful to Philips in general and to the engineers at the Packaging Development Department Drachten in particular for providing a very comfortable environment for me to work in. Especially Kor van der Molen, as my leading supervisor in Philips, has helped me conduct the research in a pleasant and efficient way. Further, Peter van de Witte and Ton van Veen provided direction and great help in the early stages of my project, for which I am thankful.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my leading supervisor Michiel Hillen, University of Groningen, for his encouraging and professional guidance during this project. Furthermore, I thank my co-assessor Niels Faber for his co-operation during the start and finalization of the project.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and especially my girlfriend Joanna, although located on the other site of the globe, for her affectionate encouragements.
6
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 PREFACE 4 1. INTRODUCTION 9 2. RESEARCH DESIGN 112.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT & RESEARCH QUESTION 11
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL 11
2.3 OPERATIONALIZATION 12
2.4 DEMARCATION & SUB-QUESTIONS 13
2.5 METHODOLOGY 13 2.6 DATA COLLECTION 14 2.7 SUMMARY 14 3. DIAGNOSIS 15 3.1 TECHNOLOGY 15 3.1.1 INTRODUCTION 15 3.1.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 15 3.1.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 16 3.1.4 PACKAGING 17
3.1.5 RECYCLING & DISPOSAL 17
3.1.6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 17 3.2 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY 17 3.3 MARKET 18 3.3.1 INTRODUCTION 18 3.3.2 OBJECTIVES 19 3.3.3 ASSUMPTIONS 20 3.3.4 STRATEGY 20 3.3.5 CAPABILITIES 20 3.3.6 WEBSITE ANALYSIS 20
3.4 COMMUNICATING SUSTAINABILITY TO THE MARKET 21
3.5 CRADLE2CRADLE 25
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION 25
3.5.2 THE C2C CONCEPT 26
7
3.5.4 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR A GRADING TOOL 28
3.6 SUMMARY 29
4. DESIGN 30
4.1 TECHNOLOGY 30
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 30
4.1.2 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS 30
4.1.3 TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS 31
4.2 MARKET 32 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION 32 4.2.2 STRENGTHS 33 4.2.3 WEAKNESSES 34 4.2.4 OPPORTUNITIES 35 4.2.5 THREATS 37
4.3 CRADLE2CRADLE GRADING TOOL 39
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION 39
4.3.2 PRINCIPLES RANKED 40
4.3.3 KEY QUESTIONS AND MATURITY LEVELS 41
4.3.4 ‘BEST-IN-CLASS’ COMPANIES 41 4.3.5 DETERMINE ‘PRINCIPLE-GRADE’ 42 4.3.6 CRADLE2CRADLE GRADE 42 4.4 SUMMARY 42 5. CONCLUSIONS 43 6. DISCUSSION 45 REFERENCES 46 APPENDIX 49
1. STEPWISE MODEL FOR WEBSITE ANALYSIS 49
2. ROADMAP FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS 50
3. MARKET ANALYSES 51
4. CARBON OFFSETTING FOR PHILIPS SHAVER PRODUCTION 68
5. THE 12 PRINCIPLES OF GREEN ENGINEERING 69
6. KEY QUESTIONS FOR C2C GRADING TOOL 72
7. MATURITY LEVELS FOR C2C GRADING TOOL 74
8
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PHILIPS GREEN FOCAL AREAS (GFAS) 10
FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL 12
FIGURE 3: DOV-MODEL 14
FIGURE 4: ROADMAP FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS (EXAMPLE) 16
FIGURE 5: LITERATURE STUDY SUMMARIZED 25
FIGURE 6: THE C2C METABOLISMS, BIOLOGICAL (GREEN) AND TECHNICAL (BLUE) 26
FIGURE 7: BIOLOGICAL (L) AND TECHNICAL (R) METABOLISM EXAMPLES 27
FIGURE 8: ADAPTED FROM ANASTAS & ZIMMERMAN (2003, P. 96A) 29
FIGURE 9: TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS 32
FIGURE 10: PHILIPS' OWN ENVIRONMENTAL LOGO 33
FIGURE 11: PANASONIC'S WWF LOGO 34
FIGURE 12: EUROPEAN UNION ECO LOGO USED BY SAMSUNG 34
FIGURE 13: PANASONIC'S COMPREHENSIVE ECO LABEL 35
FIGURE 14: ENERGY STAR LABEL FOR ADAPTERS 36
FIGURE 15: C2C CERTIFICATION LABEL 36
FIGURE 16: STRENGTHS 38
FIGURE 17: WEAKNESSES 38
FIGURE 18: OPPORTUNITIES 39
9
1. INTRODUCTION
“Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy (…) threaten our planet”, as spoken by
Barack Obama in his inaugural speech, are words in which a powerful message is hidden to all human beings in the world and all corporations employing those human beings. Our generation is encouraged to think about the next generations with respect to living standards, for example. The business term concealed in the quote above is sustainability. It is a subject enjoying huge amounts of attention recently. Due to the exploitation of depleting sources and worsening environmental conditions, many corporations focus on this area. As global provider of health and well-being solutions, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips) has a strong focus on sustainability as well. Within Philips sustainability has been defined as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”1. Sustainable development is considered to be the path to sustainability and entails the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, social equity and environmental quality. Philips materializes this in the establishment of a trustful basis where all products reach a certain level in relevant Green Focal Areas (GFAs; see figure 1). Furthermore, with the development of so called Green Products Philips tries to differentiate on sustainability. The next step is to have breakthrough products that show Philips’ leadership on eco-innovation. In 2007 Philips launched an action program, EcoVision 4, as part of the corporate sustainability strategy. Explicit targets were set for the five years ahead with respect to less harmful operations and increasing sales of Green Products. By creating a sustainability roadmap for the years to come, Shaving & Grooming department (Philips Shavers) maps future projects and their respective goals in certain GFAs (for Philips Shavers: Energy efficiency, Hazardous substances, Packaging, and Recycling & Disposal) for shavers (this project limits to shavers). There is, however, need for expanding this roadmap with new projects and additional axes. Shavers are believed to be optimally developed with respect to ecological aspects, hence the development department has the feeling it reached a certain ceiling. In addition, understanding about how to communicate new (break-through) features to the market is desirable. This leads to the goal of the project:
Indicate possible directions for Philips shaver sustainability by modifying the current roadmap with new axes to create input for eco-innovations
1
This project intends to explore new venues in sustainability to provide a foothold for modifying the current roadmap for Philips Shavers
next chapter, in which the research design is presented. The subsequent chapter contains a literature study on the relevant concepts, after which the findings will be presented and discussed. Finally conclusions can be drawn up and avenues for further research are indica
This project intends to explore new venues in sustainability to provide a foothold for modifying the Philips Shavers. The goal will be narrowed down to a problem statement in the n which the research design is presented. The subsequent chapter contains a literature study on the relevant concepts, after which the findings will be presented and discussed. Finally conclusions can be drawn up and avenues for further research are indicated.
Figure 1: Philips Green Focal Areas (GFAs)
10
This project intends to explore new venues in sustainability to provide a foothold for modifying the
11
2. RESEARCH DESIGN
In this chapter the outline of the research will be presented. First, the problem statement and main research question are formulated. Second, a conceptual model is presented in which relevant concepts and their relations are modeled. From the conceptual model sub-questions will be derived to structure and demarcate the research. Finally, the methodology and data collection are discussed.
2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT & RESEARCH QUESTION
As stated in the introduction a roadmap for shavers exists for relevant GFAs. In Philips Shavers, however, management requests an investigation on new aspects for shaver sustainability and how the market would receive them. Examples are Cradle2Cradle (C2C) and carbon offsetting. The roadmap could be modified with these examples to create new inputs (axes). The new (key) axes in a roadmap are subjects under investigation and this leads to the problem statement:
Missing understanding of new possible directions for sustainability and linkage to the market in the technology roadmap for Philips Shavers
From this problem statement the research question is extracted:
How can the technology roadmap for Philips Shavers be modified by identifying new sustainability directions and their linkage to the market?
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Philips has introduced six GFAs, based on essential elements of sustainability. Green Products perform significantly better on (at least) one of the elements, compared to a reference product2. Philips Shavers focuses on four GFAs: Hazardous substances, Energy Efficiency, Packaging, and Recycling & Disposal. Probert et al. (2003) propose inputs for generic technology roadmaps. They provide useful building bricks for a conceptual model to give a complete overview of the composing axes of a technology roadmap. The axes under investigation, however, are chosen from a combination of management request and strategic movement within Philips. Moreover, it is a combination of internal (in Philips) and external factors. Available technology and sustainability strategy are internal aspects since they are determined by the competences and possibilities within the company itself. The market is external to Philips and therefore categorized as external component in the model. Finally, specific C2C literature is brought in as an external component to offer a new part for the roadmap.
2
12
The market situation is not transparently mapped for Philips Shavers and hence will be included in the roadmap. Additionally, Philips has launched EcoVision 4 as action program of the corporate sustainability strategy and appointed Cradle2Cradle as possible strategic direction for eco-innovations. This leads to the conceptual model in figure 2.Figure 2: Conceptual Model
2.3 OPERATIONALIZATION
This section presents an explanation of the concepts in the conceptual model:
Technology Roadmap for Philips Shavers: a transparent framework in which future projects are mapped along certain axes;
Market: the force field surrounding Philips with respect to certain areas;
Competition: objectives, assumptions, strategies and capabilities of certain competitors and certain other companies in vicinity of Philips;
Customers: trade component of the market and their expectations with respect to sustainability for Philips Shavers (for example, retailers such as Wal-Mart);
Consumers: expectations and requirements of the end users regarding sustainability for Philips Shavers;
13
EcoVision 4: action program as part of Philip’s corporate sustainability strategy;Shaver Technology: technological competencies which are present in Philips now as well as in the future;
Hazardous Substances, Energy Efficiency, Packaging and Recycling & Dispose: the selected GFAs for Philips Shavers;
Cradle2Cradle: design paradigm focusing on eco-effectiveness and closed material loops (McDonough & Braungart, 2002a);
Green Engineering: specific design principles leading to C2C design (McDonough et al., 2003); Philips Shavers: the physical product as component of the roadmap;
Other Resources: miscellaneous sources of input for roadmap, e.g. finance, science, organization (Probert et al., 2003).
2.4 DEMARCATION & SUB-QUESTIONS
In the conceptual model several relations are presented. Each relation represents an influence on the technology roadmap. Due to available time and resources, a selection is made that will be dealt with in a sub-question to demarcate the research. This leads to the following sub-questions:
1. What are the current and future technical possibilities in shaver development? 2. How do future projects fit the corporate sustainability strategy?
3. What are the movements on the related and unrelated markets with respect to sustainability? 4. What is the best way to communicate new sustainability claims on shavers to the market? 5. How can a C2C grade be assigned to future projects?
With question 1 and 2 a practical modification is sought for the roadmap, while the other sub-questions contribute to a conceptual modification for Philips Shavers to apply and implement.
2.5 METHODOLOGY
Applying the ‘Diagnose-Ontwerp-Verandering’ methodology (DOV), described by De Leeuw (2005), the research will be conducted. The first two stages will be executed as part of this research project due to scope and available time (figure 3).
In chapter 4 the diagnosis is transformed in
roadmap, a SWOT analysis for Philips Shavers
Furthermore a method for grading projects with respect to C2C is
2.6 DATA COLLECTION
To perform the diagnosis internet, corporate reports the data. Performing the competitor analysis Investigating the technical possibilities is done in
employees. Relevant concepts are studied in literature to support the developme tool.
2.7 SUMMARY
This chapter described the research design. The data will be collected using internet,
main research question is: How can the technology roadmap for
identifying new sustainability directions and their linkage with the market?
Diagnosis ch. 3 Design ch. 4 Implementation
In chapter 4 the diagnosis is transformed into a (re)design. This entails an expansion of the current Philips Shavers based on the competitor analysis and literature study. method for grading projects with respect to C2C is developed.
, corporate reports, interviews, and academic literature will provide competitor analysis a framework is developed, based on Porter (1980) Investigating the technical possibilities is done in Philips Shavers using the knowledge
ts are studied in literature to support the development of the
the research design. Applying the DOV methodology the research
internet, corporate reports, interviews, and academic literature
How can the technology roadmap for Philips Shavers identifying new sustainability directions and their linkage with the market?
Figure 3: DOV-model Diagnosis ch. 3 •Investigating technical possibilities in 4 GFAs •Competitor analysis •Literature study Design ch. 4 •Roadmap Shavers •SWOT analysis sustainability •C2C grading tool Implementation •beyond scope
14
an expansion of the current r analysis and literature study.and academic literature will provide a framework is developed, based on Porter (1980). using the knowledge and expertise of nt of the C2C grading
Applying the DOV methodology the research is conducted. and academic literature. The
15
3. DIAGNOSIS
In this chapter the relevant concepts are investigated in depth and used methods are presented. Section 3.1 describes the roadmap as it currently exists and how it is expanded in order to offer a practical modification for the roadmap of Philips Shavers supported by the sustainability strategy of Philips (section 3.2). The other sections prepare the reader for the conceptual modification; hence in section 3.3 the method to analyze competitor and other companies will be explained. A literature study on communicating sustainability to the market is performed in section 3.4 in order to build a scientific foundation for recommendations to Philips Shavers. Finally, the concepts for developing a C2C grading tool are discussed (3.5) and the chapter is summarized (3.6).
3.1 TECHNOLOGY
3.1.1 INTRODUCTION
A major part in a technology roadmap is the technology itself. In the technology roadmap for Philips Shavers technology is divided in the four GFAs (Hazardous Substances, Energy Efficiency, Packaging, and Recycling & Disposal) and contains specifics regarding each GFA. In a GFA multiple projects are spread out over time and the roadmap hereby creates a transparent overview of the milestones ahead. Other roadmaps exist as well, such as a green product roadmap where solely products are mapped against time. The technology roadmap, subject under discussion in this research, directly influences this product roadmap in the sense of providing the input. When new technological competencies are available, new (green) products can be developed and hence the product roadmap will receive input.
This section provides a general picture of the roadmap (see figure 4), shortly explains each GFA, and presents the method to explore future directions in order to expand the roadmap.
3.1.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
16
is a comprehensive list of restricted and relevant substances. In Philips Shavers a few detailed initiatives exist to phase-out specific chemicals such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), brominated flame retardants (BRFs), arsenic, phthalates, and antimony.Figure 4: Roadmap for Philips Shavers (example)
3.1.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
17
3.1.4 PACKAGING
The third GFA, Packaging, is rated as very important since consumers immediately come across one of the environmental aspects in a product after purchasing it. Packaging, furthermore, counts for two things: (1) the packaging itself which accounts for 20-40% of the environmental impact, and (2) the logistics which accounts for 60-80% of the environmental impact. The goal in this GFA is to decrease the volume and weight of packaging for Philips products. Furthermore, a strong focus is on material choice, where recycled and alternative sources of material are explored to use for packaging.
3.1.5 RECYCLING & DISPOSAL
Finally, the fourth GFA is Recycling & Disposal. This GFA addresses the end of a product’s life cycle in which the consumer no longer uses the product. Principles such as Design for Recyclability and Design for Disassembly are examined and used in the early stages of product development in order to prepare products for their end-of-life.
3.1.6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Through interviews with development engineers the roadmap is expanded with future projects (specific) and directions (general). The interviews are open and through using the existing roadmap as a start, additions are surfaced. To map the future projects and directions, the existing roadmap is used and expanded (figure 4).
3.2 SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY
Philips, as global provider of health and well-being solutions, aims to improve the quality of people’s lives through the timely introduction of meaningful innovations3. The corporate strategy clearly indicates a drive for innovation. These innovations are meaningful because they promote sense and simplicity for the user, in the experience and advancement. Next to promoting sense and simplicity all innovations must reach a certain sustainability level. A sustainability strategy in general often prescribes development with respect the triple bottom line sustainability: people, profit and planet (e.g. McDonough & Braungart, 2002b). As mentioned in the introduction Philips translated this into social equity, economic prosperity and environmental quality. The latter aims to preserve the planet Philips operates on. As an electronics manufacturer Philips leaves an ecological footprint and through the launch of Green Products an attempt is made to reduce this footprint. Philips has set specific targets
3
18
with respect to Green Products in their EcoVision 4 action program. This program is part of the sustainability strategy and contains the following goals4:30% of total revenue generated from Green Products; Double investment in Green Innovations to €1 billion;
Further increase the energy efficiency of operations by 25% and reduce operational carbon footprint by 25%, both compared to 2007.
As becomes clear from the goals in EcoVision 4 the ‘green movement’ is strong. Philips wants to stay ahead of the competition by sustaining the launch of Green Products and discover new applications to enhance the environmental quality. Eco-innovations receive major interest and C2C is designated to be the driving philosophy to guide this process. C2C receives strong management support and therefore is investigated in great detail on how to implement it in current business propositions.
3.3 MARKET
3.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Sub-question 3 deals with the movements of competitor and other companies with respect to sustainability. Performing a competitor analysis provides useful insights in the behavior of competing firms in the vicinity of the own company. The procedure, however, requires a structured and systematic character in order to gain in depth knowledge about competitors so decisions can be based on it. Porter (1980) presents such a framework for analyzing competitors in which he defines four areas; the objectives, assumptions, strategy and capabilities of the competitor. The objectives and assumptions indicate what drive the competitor. Strategy shows what the competitor is doing and capabilities provide where the competitor might be in the future. A competitor analysis based on Porter’s (1980) framework is performed focusing on sustainability, using information on websites and sustainability reports (if available) as well as an international strategic marketing intelligence gateway ‘Euromonitor International’.
Besides competitors other companies (related and non-related to Philips Shavers) are investigated, to explore activities regarding sustainability and identify best practices on how these activities are communicated to the market and what aspects are emphasized specifically. In this way opportunities and novel approaches can be surfaced, aiding Philips Shavers in taking direction in future sustainability
4http://www.philips.com/about/sustainability/environmentalresponsibility/ecovision4program/index.page
19
topics. Corporate main websites and specific sustainability websites, as well as sustainability report (if available) are used as vehicle to conduct this investigation.The use of the sources mentioned above requires some additional review. According to Cerin (2002) caution must be kept in dealing with information derived from corporate sustainability reports. Many companies may steer the attention only toward the positive directions and therefore away from the actual problems. Moreover, there is a great variety in the content of what is reported since multiple reporting standards exist. In the use of corporate sustainability reports it must be verified which standard is used to secure a common ground for comparison. With respect to the use of websites as information source, Smith (1997) points to the necessity of evaluating these websites and provides criteria for doing this. The appropriateness can be judged on scope, content, graphic design, purpose and audience, reviews, workability, and cost. For the intended analysis scope, content, and purpose and audience are reviewed.
In the execution of the analysis, first an agreement on the companies under investigation must be sought. The collection of companies, evolved from this activity, will be set as foundation for the in depth investigation of the variable ‘Market’. Second, objectives of the competitors are explored (section 3.4.2), followed by the assumptions (3.4.3). Strategies (3.4.4) and capabilities (3.4.5) are presented to complete the analysis. Thirdly, to execute the website analysis a flow model is developed for guidance (3.4.6). Finally, as a result a SWOT analysis can be presented in which possible opportunities can be found for Philips to market sustainability aspects (chapter 4).
3.3.2 OBJECTIVES
20
3.3.3 ASSUMPTIONS
Gaining knowledge about the assumptions of a competitor can be an intricate process due to its subjective nature. Experience with past projects, believes of the own competitive position, regional factors, and industry trends can reveal a competitor’s assumptions.
3.3.4 STRATEGY
A company’s strategy often is displayed in two ways: what is said and what is done. The former is presented periodically in official reports and press releases, while the latter is a collection of activities performed by the company. Activities such as R&D projects, hiring, promotion, and merger & acquisitions (partially) expose a company’s strategy. It is important to emphasize on both demonstrations of strategy, since they often differ from each other (Cerin, 2002).
3.3.5 CAPABILITIES
By analyzing the objectives, assumptions and strategy of a competitor, predictions can be made what response can be expected on a competitive movement. Capabilities, however, reveal the ability to respond effectively. In order to map the competitor’s capabilities, internal and external factors are taken into account. Internal factors are e.g. company image, organizational structure, access to natural resources, operational capacity, market share, and financial resources. External factors are e.g. customers, competitors, social changes, technology, and economic environment.
3.3.6 WEBSITE ANALYSIS
From selected companies the websites are analyzed. This section presents a flow model that prescribes the sequence of steps in order to retrieve information from the websites with respect to sustainability. The model that is developed can be found in the appendix. It contains the following steps:
1. Action: Entry on main company website (.com or .net) 2. Decision: Is sustainability subject immediately shown?
a. Yes, proceed to page (step 5)
b. No, proceed to ‘about company’ page (step 3) 3. Action: Entry on ‘about company’ page
4. Decision: Is sustainability subject available? a. Yes, proceed to page (step 5) b. No, end of search
21
This stepwise approach ensures all company websites are analyzed in the same way. Competitor and other company websites are analyzed using this approach.Sustainability subjects contain evidence of the triple bottom line: people, profit, and planet. If sustainability is mentioned on the main website it signals a major importance in that specific company. No availability of sustainability subjects, however, can reveal a lack of interest in that specific company.
3.4 COMMUNICATING SUSTAINABILITY TO THE MARKET
Sustainability and marketing have been widely argued opposites (e.g. Jones et al., 2008). Where marketing is often seen as one of the drivers for consumption, sustainability seeks to do the same with less to not compromise future generations in their quality of life. Various aspect, however, trigger an interest in this relationship within companies and consequently a growing number of these companies have recognized sustainability as an integral part of the business strategy; aspects such as an increasing number of legislations and regulations, depleting resources, growing public awareness, and a general change in social attitudes and values (Jones et al., 2008). Still, marketers struggle with the actual conveying of a company’s sustainability message to the market despite the obvious link between marketing and sustainability. The link is the way companies are looking to emphasize their commitment to sustainability as differentiator between competitors and as enhancement of the corporate brand and reputation. There is, however, doubt whether marketing has the power to promote a radical change that a truly sustainable future demands. To help marketing in this challenge of promoting somewhat unchartered territories an initiative of the Chartered Institute of Marketing led to the development of the SIGMA Sustainability Marketing Guide (Sigma Project, n.d.). From this guide it becomes clear that sustainability marketing is an issue that requires caution in dealing with. As sustainability is promoted more strongly, companies will find themselves subject of more scrutiny and more vulnerable to imputations of ‘green washing’, especially if it appears claims are found wanting. Moreover, sustainability marketing is not the only thing to focus on. The conventional marketing activities should be kept running, because ‘feel good’ claims will not overcome the fact that products are ineffective or overpriced.
22
needed to offer green marketing more substantive progress. Marketing elements required to change are the definition of the product, willingness to change markets, emphasis on the benefits from product use instead of ownership, marketing communications that aim to inform rather than impress, and companies taking more responsibility. In a redefinition of the product the emphasis should not be limited to the product solely, but on the production and broader activities of the producer as well. Companies must urge a sense of willingness to change the current markets as a whole instead of just the new product development process, in order to create closed material flows supported by extensive take-back and recycle activities. Product use should be promoted over product ownership and, furthermore, should be supported with the opportunities to lease a product for its service; hereby using less material and creating less waste. Communicating environmental features needs to be preceded by educating the consumer. Finally, companies need to take more responsibility for their actions and should try to guide the consumers to more sustainable behavior.
23
All marketing tools interact in the positioning of a brand, with marketing communications in an accentuated role; this because of the relevance in the process of shaping perceptions by the consumer (Hartmann et al., 2005). The main vehicle to communicate is using logos and labels on packaging. They are used to bring the functional and emotional attributes under the attention of the consumer. According to Prothero et al. (1997), however, most green communication is unclear, uninformative, and misleading. The key issues around the value and credibility of green communication are the degree of openness and the disclosure of meaningful information to the general public, at both a corporate and product level. At corporate level companies are expected to publicly display their organizational environmental strategies. At product level, consumer awareness and interest group pressure, such as Greenpeace, are forcing companies to address issues of environmental disclosure and communication. On-pack communications is a very appropriate means but has its own issues, nevertheless. Trust is the major issue, since consumers can get confused over the credibility of the labels used on the packaging when it is unclear a company’s own label has been officially endorsed or not. Furthermore, a contemporary trend in packaging is a reduction of physical quantity and a growing level of detail regarding environmental information, simultaneously. As Prothero et al. (1997) argue it is important not just to make claims and denials or even disclose relevant information. It is better to actually explain the issues and information to consumers. Means to do that are in-store information sources, for example. In this fashion on-pack information can be linked with other information provided by the company such as in-store leaflets. The result is that environmental attributes are highlighted, allowing on-pack information to be explained in more depth in the leaflets and hence create a better understanding by the consumer. Examples of environmental attributes which can be communicated to the market are lead-free and halogen-free products. As Nie et al. (2007) discuss electronics manufacturers are striving to label their products as such for market share opportunities, since consumers have reacted positively to environmentally considerate products.
24
consumer. Also, consumers’ attention is drawn by a myriad of logos and labels and therefore no clear comparison can be made between them. Ottman (2009) even encourages competitors to use the same logo in industry, making the message to the consumer more transparent.As brought up several times above, third party involvement and endorsement is important in conveying sustainability messages to consumers. It influences the effectiveness of green claims. Kong et al. (2002) underline the importance of NGO involvement in influencing behavioral change of consumers, especially on labels. Moreover, manufacturers find a true incentive to use such labeling because through NGO campaigning and education programs retailers and consumers become increasingly aware of sustainability and hence create demand for environmentally conscious products. As can be concluded NGOs are focusing on market forces that will create a green demand and hereby drive changes in supply. Effectiveness of green claims is determined by other causes as well, as Manrai et al. (1997) indicate. From their research it appears claim strength (strong vs. weak) interacts with country disposition (attitude of consumers regarding a certain country). Green claims should be moderate of strength and the higher consumers rate a country with respect to its environmental practices, the more effective these claims are. Also company image is supporting the effectiveness of green claims. Furthermore, differentiation in segments concerning green claims is not considered necessary since the effectiveness will not differ between segments (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995).
25
Figure 5: Literature study summarized3.5 CRADLE2CRADLE
3.5.1 INTRODUCTION
26
reflect on their current way of working and use of certain materials, for example. Hence, a proactive search for alternative material and energy sources could be the result.In the following section the C2C concept is discussed briefly (3.5.2). In section 3.5.3 the C2C paradigm is directly connected with the 12 principles of Green Engineering. Section 3.5.4 presents a development proposal for the tool. Finally, in chapter 4 the tool will be developed.
3.5.2 THE C2C CONCEPT
C2C is advocated as a huge paradigm shift and is discussed in parallel with the industrial revolution of the 19th century (McDonough & Braungart, 2002a). The concept has a focus on eco-effectiveness instead of eco-efficiency and proposes a new design approach in which material loops are closed. C2C is inspired by nature and is constituted of three tenets (or principles): ‘waste equals food’, ‘use current solar income’, and ‘celebrate diversity’.
Through the principle of ‘waste equals food’ all materials used in products become input for new products at the end of their useful lives (‘nutrients are nutrients’, as this principle originally was coined). Two separate metabolisms are established through which all products (materials) flow in subsequent life cycles; the biological and technical metabolism. Materials in the biological metabolism are consumed during their life cycle by humans or by nature (biodegraded and composted) and therefore called consumption products, while materials in the technical metabolism are truly recycled (reuse without loss of material-quality) or even ‘upcycled’ (reuse in application of higher value) after each useful life and therefore called service products (see figure 6). In the C2C paradigm consumers do not buy products anymore, they buy a service instead. Examples are shown in the following figure (figure 7). The t-shirt is manufactured and after its useful life composted to become new cotton, which serves as a nutrient for new t-shirts. The chair, in contrast, is manufactured according the design for disassembly principle, offered as service (a seat or a decoration), taken back and disassembled to reuse the components again.
27
Figure 7: Biological (l) and technical (r) metabolism examples‘Use current solar income’ advocates using energy from renewable solar sources such as the sun (thermal as well as photovoltaic), wind, and tide; this because the amount of energy produced by the sun is (more than) sufficient to meet current energy demand. Examples are solar panels and wind turbines. The materials used in these applications, however, must be technical nutrients in order to be recycled.
As nature does not design for a ‘one size fits all’, so does C2C ‘celebrate diversity’. Diversity in C2C means products or systems are being mass customized to meet local demands. As such local materials are used, for example.
The goal of C2C is ‘doing good’ instead of ‘being less bad’. The relation with sustainability is, according to McDonough & Braungart (2002b), operating on the triple top line instead of excelling on one of the three pillars of sustainability.
3.5.3 THE 12 PRINCIPLES OF GREEN ENGINEERING
C2C is regarded a new paradigm, a novel philosophy. Specific directions, however, are not presented and therefore a more tangible and complementary contribution is desirable. As argued in McDonough et
al. (2003) the 12 principles of Green Engineering provide such a contribution and are a powerful means
to implement C2C design since the authors state “C2C sets a course for ‘what do I do?’ and the principles
answer with ‘how do I do it’” (p. 437A). This finding serves as catalyst for the process of developing a
grading tool.
28
3.5.4 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR A GRADING TOOL
The 12 principles of Green Engineering serve as solid foundation for the grading tool, for they are supported by relevant literature. The use for communication is supported by Segars et al. (2003) who argue the principles may be important in analyzing products and processes claiming sustainable green design. To use the principles as an ‘environmental trigger’ for designers is discussed in García-Serna et
al. (2007) who state the 12 principles of Green Engineering are adequate for framing activities and,
more important, especially designers are found to be the target audience to use them. The principles do, however, need some customization as argued by Boks and Stevels (2007). Since principles are only sentences stating a certain ideal, more detail is desired in order to use them appropriately and not create counterproductive results.
To develop the tool the following steps have been identified based on the literature findings:
1. Identify the relevant principles for Philips. This way a weighted average can be calculated to determine the final C2C-grade. For instance, the grade for principle 3 counts for 100%, while the grade for principle 10 only counts for 40% etc.;
2. Draw up key-questions for each principle in order to create more tangibility for the principle. In posing key-questions shortcomings of some principles, according to Boks and Stevels (2007), are eliminated. The answers to the key-questions provide the maturity level input for the actual grading;
3. In order to grade an aspect, some sort of comparison is needed. For each principle a ‘best-in-class’ company needs to be found which excels in the specific content of that specific principle. This ‘best-in-class’ does not necessarily have to be a competitor or industry-related company. A 10-point scale is implemented, in which the ‘best-in-class’ receives a 7 or 8 (e.g.).
Furthermore, a ‘worst-in-class’ needs to be established with grade 2 or 3 (optional);
4. As stated above, the answers to the key-questions reveal the current status of the own company. This is then compared to the ‘best-in-class’ based on grading levels showing the maturity level of a product. The difference is investigated between the own company and the ‘best-in-class’ regarding a specific principle to determine a ‘principle-grade’;
5. Finally a final C2C-grade can be calculated from all ‘principle-grades’ and for example used as input for the creation of a sustainability claim.
29
3.6 SUMMARY
As first part of the DOV methodology (de Leeuw, 2005) a diagnosis is performed in order to collect input for a twofold (re)design. This chapter has provided these inputs by discussing the current roadmap for Philips Shavers and its GFAs on one hand as practical contribution to the roadmap. On the other hand the sustainability strategy, a method to perform competitor and market analyses, relevant literature on communicating sustainability to the market, and
finally the concepts for developing a C2C grading tool have been presented as foundation for a conceptual contribution to the roadmap for Philips Shavers. In chapter 4 the current roadmap is expanded, a SWOT analysis based on the literature and company analyses is presented, and a C2C grading tool for shavers is developed.
30
4. DESIGN
After performing the diagnosis in chapter 3, this chapter combines all findings into the twofold design regarding the roadmap for Philips Shavers (4.1) as practical result, and a SWOT analysis on sustainability for Philips Shavers (4.2) and a C2C grading tool to conceptually contribute to the roadmap (4.3). The sections all provide answers to certain sub-questions in order to finally answer the main research question in the next chapter (5).
4.1 TECHNOLOGY
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
After interviewing development engineers in the development department of Philips Shavers, future projects have been identified. The first and second sub-question will be answered in this section. These questions are:
1. What are the current and future technical possibilities in shaver development? 2. How do future projects fit the corporate sustainability strategy?
4.1.2 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS
Philips strives to launch Green Products with a high pace in order to reach or even exceed the goals of EcoVision 4. The directions in the four GFAs for Philips Shavers display a strong commitment to this vision and are therefore logical contents of the technology roadmap.
Starting with Hazardous substances, Philips Shavers is busy phasing out specific substances and is searching for alternative materials. This is in line with current trends in industry as manufacturers in general and in electronics specifically are showing initiatives in alternative material usage. This trend is rising due to regulations; as Nie et al. (2007) and Jones et al. (2008) argue regulations worldwide will drive environmental changes in industry to a large extent. Moreover, research has indicated electronics manufacturers recognize that environmentally motivated changes are beneficial in terms of waste minimization, for instance. These changes are, however, costly and are the main issue not to implement at this moment, as Nie et al. (2007) recognize as well.
31
the use of renewable energy sources instead of further reducing the standby and no-load power, since the gains are marginal and the consumer does not value this for an electric shaver (GfK, 2009).For Packaging the attention is on the use of recycled materials as well as minimizing the directions for use’s (DFU) size. To show Philips’ involvement with sustainability packaging has been recognized as a frontrunner and this is supported by e.g. Prothero et al. (1997) who indicate packaging is a strong means to communicate the sustainability message. Future directions contain concepts of ‘no packaging’ to eliminate the concept of waste (strongly influenced by the C2C paradigm) and the use of alternative materials.
The contents for Recycling and Disposal show no projects and, moreover, this GFA is not even implemented in the current roadmap. However, as becomes clear from e.g. Nie et al. (2007) legislation and regulation in the European Union as well as the rest of the world will oblige manufacturers to take responsibility. With respect to future directions, contact with the consumer is believed to be vital in order to establish a successful recycling policy. Furthermore, a take-back and recycle business model is looked into at this moment to preemptively fulfill with coming legislations.
As presented above, the future directions for Philips Shavers all are supported in literature to a certain extent. Moreover, as becomes clear from GfK (2009) Energy efficiency, Hazardous substances and recyclability of product and packaging (covering the GFAs Packaging and Recycling & Disposal) belong to the most important product choice criteria for consumers. This shows a strategic fit between the technology roadmap and the Philips sustainability strategy in general and with EcoVision 4 specifically, since investment in eco innovations is promoted to boost the development (and eventually sales) of Green Products.
4.1.3 TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FOR PHILIPS SHAVERS
32
In the representation of the roadmap the general contributions, as discussed above, are implemented and this results in figure 9. Specific projects are presented in appendix.Figure 9: Technology roadmap for Philips Shavers
4.2 MARKET
4.2.1 INTRODUCTION
As outlined in chapter 3 the market analyses serve as basis for a SWOT analysis. Philips competes with Braun, Panasonic and Remington in the electric shaving market. The competitor analysis limits to Proctor & Gamble (P&G) for Braun, Panasonic, and Spectrum Brands for Remington consequently. The available corporate sustainability reports used in the analysis all were composed according to the Global Reporting Initiatives’ G3 standards, hence fit for a comparison (Cerin, 2002). Additionally, the argued gap between what companies report and in fact showcase in their products (Cerin, 2002) does not exist for the competitors of Philips. This appears from competitor research on product level within Philips Shavers.
33
sustainability programs, pose strong sustainability claims, use smart/unconventional market communications, or develop breakthrough innovations.All company websites are found to be appropriate for the intended investigation (Smith, 1997), and although some bias can be expected in terms of overemphasizing in promoting their own cause this is not viewed as a compromising factor according to the researcher.
The detailed results of the competitor and website analyses can be found in the appendix. Combining this information with the literature study, performed in section 3.4, leads to the following SWOT analysis for Philips Shavers with respect to sustainability (sections 4.2.2 – 4.2.5). The content of this analysis provides an answer to the third and fourth sub-question. The sub-questions are:
3. What are the movements on the related and unrelated markets with respect to sustainability?
4. What is the best way to communicate new sustainability claims on shavers to the market?
4.2.2 STRENGTHS
As appeared from the company analyses and literature the electronics industry is moving toward an entirely green business proposition. Philips, as shown in section 3.2, has recognized this and is part of the movement by actively seeking new solutions to environmental issues and launching Green Products, based on GFAs. In most of the analyzed companies, (more or less) the same GFAs were found. Furthermore, Philips is the only competitor in the electric shaving segment that is ranked on the Greenpeace Electronics Guide. This could lead to positive recognition since NGO influence is paramount in green communications (Kong et al., 2002).
Compared to its competitors Philips has a very strong brand image (GfK, 2009) and is worldwide leader in the electric shaving segment. In this segment environmental activities are not performed by all competitors, however. For example P&G shows no evidence of PVC/BFR free initiatives in their shavers and it is, therefore, not surprising Braun’s shavers show no affiliation with sustainability; neither do Panasonic’s and Remington’s. This strength provides fruitful inputs for sustainability claims to the market, supported by Jones et al. (2008) in their argument of how
sustainability becomes a differentiator between competitors. Furthermore, a specific feature in Philips shavers (lead-free) provides such input as well (Nie et al., 2007).
As stated by Peattie and Crane (2005) green marketing needs policies and
34
hence government support to create society wide excitement. Government engagement toward sustainability and novel concepts is noticeable in the Netherlands5 and Philips can benefit from it when communicating to the market. Additionally, active involvement of the Dutch government might improve the image of the Netherlands as an environmentally conscious country (is already moderate; the Netherlands are positioned 55th out of 149 on the Yale EPI ranking6), which will make green claims from Dutch companies more credible (Manrai et al., 1997). An example of a possible claim for Philips Shavers is the high extent of vertical integration in the supply chain which can be exploited. Since Philips still manufacturers its shavers in its own facilities, carbon neutrality can be partly reached through this fact. Timberland partly uses their high vertical integration as well to claim carbon neutrality (see section 4.2.4 for further exploitation of high vertical integration).The Philips environmental logo, ‘asimpleswitch.com’ in figure 10, is the only logo for all segments. This is, according to Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), a sufficient means to reach all segments because the effectiveness of green claims will not differ between segments. Although the ‘asimpleswitch.com’-logo does result in a considerable weakness for Philips (in general) at the same
time.
4.2.3 WEAKNESSES
As referred to several times in literature, endorsed and third-party certified logos and labels in contrast to company-own logos and labels are more effective due to higher credibility and consumer recognition (e.g. Kong et al., 2002; Ottman, 2009). This means ‘asimpleswitch.com’, when compared to Panasonic’s WWF logo (figure 11) or the EU eco logo as used by Samsung (figure 12) for example, will receive less recognition from consumers and (more
importantly) less credibility. Since Panasonic is a direct competitor in the electric shaving market, this fact could be considered a significant threat. Panasonic, however, does not use this logo on their shavers and it therefore is considered a weakness, for Philips does not have such logos at all.
Panasonic, as competitor, has clearly stated a drive of corporate responsibility concerning sustainable behavior of its consumers. The company wants consumers to adopt environmentally sustainable products and tries to reach
5 http://greeneconomy.wordpress.com/2007/10/27/micahael-braungart-interview/ (accessed 28-05-’09) 6 http://epi.yale.edu/Home (accessed 11-06-’09) Figure 11: Panasonic's WWF logo
35
this through marketing, advertisement and campaigns. This overwhelming corporate engagement is furthermore supported by Panasonic’s own eco-technology centers, recycling plants and ‘product-to-product’ initiatives. Philips does not have such facilities and conveys a less strong corporate responsibility. Another example of overall company involvement to sustainability is Nokia with eco-research centers and the launch of C2C-like products such as the Nokia ‘Remade’. Moreover, as becomes clear from Prothero et al. (1997) and Peattie and Crane (2005) marketing communications should inform rather than impress and therefore consumer education is important to implement in a company’s sustainability strategy and activities. Panasonic tries to educate their (future) consumer and customers by means of inviting them to the eco-technology centers, the EcoRelay program, and comprehensive labels as shown in figure 13. Timberland for example uses extensive eco labels on their products as well (see appendix). BIC has launched ‘bio-shavers’ and the on-pack communication is rather comprehensive in informing the contents used in the products (see appendix), perhaps inspired by Prothero et al. (1997) and Peattie and Crane (2005).4.2.4 OPPORTUNITIES
Above in section 4.2.2 the exploitation of the strength concerning high vertical integration in Philips shaver production was suggested. This could be taken further in the use of carbon offsetting programs where Philips partners with specialized foundations. As other competitors do not have such programs, Philips even could use the carbon offsetting as differentiator (Jones et al., 2008). The concept of carbon offsetting is widely used across several industries (e.g. Nokia, Ben & Jerry’s, BIC, Dell) and hence should be recognized by consumers. An example of a calculation of offsetting shaver production is provided in the appendix. Next to carbon offsetting, tree planting is used in several companies (e.g. Panasonic, Dell, Timberland). In order to reduce the environmental footprint of operations, these companies stimulate and fund tree planting projects. Both examples discussed here are aiming at climate change issues and
36
are connected to the consumer’s willingness to pay more fora sustainable product (GfK, 2009). Philips Shavers can exploit this if consumers rate a competing product as more contributing to climate change and, at the same time, Philips offers a sustainable version. As appears from market research
the electric shaver does not contribute significantly to climate change in the eye of the consumer (GfK, 2009). Blade shaving, in contrast, does harm the environment significantly due to (heavy) water consumption. Communicating this is encouragement of the consumer and is promoted by Grant (2008). Currently Philips Shavers is not communicating their sustainability features to the market and, as put in section 4.2.2, the competitors do neither. Using the appropriate label Philips can exploit this to become a fruitful opportunity. Energy efficiency is the sustainability criterion closest to consumer’s minds (GfK, 2009), hence using Energy Star for instance (figure 14) could provide an edge over the competition and is credible as well (e.g. Ottman, 2009). Additionally, partnering with influential NGOs (e.g. with Greenpeace; like Ben & Jerry’s does) can show strong commitment to sustainability and will be considered credible (Kong et al., 2002).
As C2C becomes more widely celebrated in industry and academia, partnering with the creators can provide benefits for the company and even be used as communication means (see section 4.3 as well). As Herman Miller has fully embraced the C2C paradigm as leading design principle, they also use the expert knowledge in material selection using the C2C-materials assessment tool, for instance. Furthermore, Herman Miller conveys its sustainability message using the ‘C2C certified’ label (figure 15).
Trust is a major issue in the use of green marketing communications (Prothero et al., 1997). Honesty might raise the level of trust and credibility in communicating sustainability features to the market. Companies such as Innocent clearly express themselves as imperfect with respect to the environmental impact of their operations, but assure the consumer they work as hard as possible to improve the situation. On product labels the message is very clearly one of imperfection (see appendix). According to Grant (2008) this is a more active and engaging way of conveying a sustainability message to the market. As Philips embraces the C2C paradigm to a greater extent, imperfectness will unavoidably be part of the journey toward 100% ‘doing good’ (McDonough & Braungart, 2002a). With Innocent, pioneer in ‘honest-communication’, as example Philips Shavers can exploit this imperfectness (see section 4.3 for further materialization of this opportunity) and even create a sense of ‘feeling good’ for the consumer
Figure 14: Energy Star label for adapters
37
(Hartmann et al., 2005; Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2006; Srinivasan et al., 2009). The consumer in fact does receive a sense of ‘feeling good’ because Philips offers strong environmental benefits, a next life cycle for materials, an assurance of quality of life for next generations; for example. Moreover, when a stronger emphasis is put on product use instead of ownership (Peattie & Crane, 2005; Grant, 2008), as C2C advocates, the sense of ‘feeling good’ can be increased.As Ottman (2009) proposed, industries should use the same logos and labels in order to create a common ground for comparison by the consumer. As Braun has received an Energy Star certification once in 2007, Philips should use this same label in future shavers to communicate low energy consumption.
Inspired by Nokia’s extensive environmental engagement, Philips Shavers could offer eco-declarations along with all products transparently disclosing information on materials, energy and recycling of the appliance (as offered by Samsung as well). Moreover, granting the consumer the choice whether or not to purchase a new adapter can demonstrate involvement with sustainability as well.
Finally, as practiced by Nokia and Samsung, in-store drop boxes to take back obsolete appliances reveal corporate responsibility. In addition, they can be used to provide in-store information about the company and the product at the same time (Prothero et al., 1997). This information about the company must emphasize the producer’s broader activities, such as social programs and carbon offsetting (Peattie & Crane, 2005).
4.2.5 THREATS
38
According to market research there is generally limited willingness to pay a premium for sustainable appliances. Moreover, current economic conditions worsen this. For shavers in particularly this willingness is very low (GfK, 2009) and hence new sustainability projects need to make sure no cost increase is implied.The use of a company’s own logo might cause heavy scrutiny from pressure groups, such as Greenpeace (Ottman, 2009). Philips’ ‘asimpleswitch.com’ is an example of this and may therefore become prey to scrutiny and criticism.
The preceding sections can be depicted in a summarized SWOT analysis (figures 16 – 19).
Strengths
± Same GFAs used across industries
Philips only competitor on Greenpeace Electronics list Philips has a very strong brand image
Competitors very few sustainability activities in shavers Philips shavers are lead-free
Government support for sustainability in general and C2C specifically in the Netherlands is high
The Netherlands pretty fair position on EPI (55/149) High vertical integration in shaver production Singel eco logo for all market segments
Threats Opportunities
Weaknesses
Figure 16: Strengths
Weaknesses
No use of third-party endorsed logos
Philips owns no eco-technology and recycling centers No consumer education from Philips Shavers through on-pack information or sustainability programs
Threats Opportunities
Strengths
39
Figure 18: OpportunitiesThreats
Current economic climate Increased earnings P&G
Panasonic’s primary focus on Chinese market, supported with myriad labels (if used for shavers)
No consumer willingness to pay premium for shaver Sustainability improvements leading to cost increase (price increases)
Philips’ own logo receiving heavy scrutiny and criticism
Weaknesses Strengths
Opportunities
Figure 19: Threats
4.3 CRADLE2CRADLE GRADING TOOL
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
40
(Grant, 2008). All together, a C2C grading tool will provide a welcome contribution to the roadmap for Philips Shavers.Six development steps are defined, as outlined in section 3.5.4 as well. The first is to identify the relevant principles from the 12 principles of Green Engineering in order to determine a weighted average as final grade (4.3.2). Then the customization is extended through maturity levels using key-questions for each principle (4.3.3), followed by the presentation of ‘best-in-class’ companies (4.3.4). The current status is compared to grading levels and the difference with respect to the ‘best-in-class’ determines the ‘principle-grade’ (4.3.5). Finally, a C2C grade is calculated from all ‘principle-grades’ and hereby the fifth sub-question is answered and graphically presented (4.3.6):
5. How can a C2C grade be assigned to future projects?
4.3.2 PRINCIPLES RANKED
In different industries (and even companies) different aspects are emphasized regarding environmental issues. Hence, the grading tool is using a weighted average to calculate the final grade and in weighing the principles the tool is customized. In this section the tool is customized for Philips Shavers in particular, while in general the tool can be customized for different applications in the same way. The following table contains the ranking of the principles along with a short explanation.
Table 1: Weighing the principles
Principle Weight Explanation
1. Inherent rather than circumstantial 1 From an environmental point of view it is paramount to know what the content of a product is and if it is safe. Furthermore, actively searching for alternative materials is strongly encouraged.
2. Prevention instead of treatment 0.8 It is important to take the entire life-cycle into account and incorporate the prevention of waste in the early stages; however, a shaver is a very small appliance and therefore has a small contribution to waste build-up.
3. Design for separation 1 The C2C paradigm partly has its roots in disassembly.
4. Maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency
0.4 A shaver is a very small appliance.
5. Output-pulled versus input-pushed 1 Considered a principle of great importance in the electronics industry (Boks & Stevels, 2007).
6. Conserve complexity 0.6 A shaver is produced against relatively low cost. Therefore it is questionable whether recycling would be commercially attractive.
7. Durability rather than immortality 1 As advocated in the C2C paradigm, products should be offered as services and therefore have targeted life-times.
8. Meet need, minimize excess 0.8 A shaver is a very small appliance; however, different segments are in place.
9. Minimize material diversity 1 Applying this principle would facilitate (easier) recycling and is therefore considered a root principle for new business models, for instance.
10. Integrate local material and energy flows
0.4 More focused on system level, instead of product level.
11. Design for commercial “afterlife” 1 Reflects a core value of the C2C paradigm
