The role of new product development briefs inimplementing sustainability: A case study

Effrosyni Petala a, Renee Wever a,*, Chris Dutilh b, Han Brezet a

a Design for Sustainability Section, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15,2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlandsb Sustainable Development Section, Unilever Benelux, Prins Henrikkade 141, 1011 AS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

1. Introduction

Sustainable development has been described as the ‘‘ability of current generations to meet theirneeds without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs’’ (WCED, 1987).However, this definition of sustainable development fails to clarify what exactly is supposed to bedone by companies particularly with regards to the new product development (Pujari, 2006). The‘‘triple bottom line’’ (Elkington, 1998), having economic, social and environmental dimensions, hasfacilitated the companies’ approach towards the sustainable development challenge, to address it in aproactive manner. Still, incorporation of sustainability into new product development processesremains challenging, and it is not a one-step change.

J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 27 (2010) 172–182

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Available online 15 July 2010

JEL classification:

L66

O31

Q56

Keywords:

Sustainable development

Design brief

Fuzzy front end

Innovation process

FMCG industry

Unilever

A B S T R A C T

Organizations face challenges with regards to the incorporation of

sustainability in the early stages of their new product development

processes (NPD). This paper explores these challenges in order to

understand the barriers for incorporating well-defined sustainabil-

ity targets in NPD briefs. The study is based on a content analysis of

202 new product development briefs within the FMCG industry, in

particular Unilever. The paper concludes that the incorporation of

sustainability in the new product development briefs does not

guarantee results. Furthermore, there are several organizational

issues which could function either as success or failure factors for

the entire process.

� 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 152782120.

E-mail address: r.wever@tudelft.nl (R. Wever).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman

0923-4748/$ – see front matter � 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2010.06.004

Tingstrom and Karlsson (2006) distinguish two primary ways to incorporate sustainability intoproduct development. One alternative is to develop products with lower environmental impact,replacing existing ‘‘ordinary’’ products in a company’s portfolio. Another alternative is to incorporateenvironmental considerations into the regular development process for all products included in acompany’s portfolio, as an integrated part of the mandatory design criteria and methods. These twoways of incorporation may indicate different levels of environmental ambition, with the latter beingmore ambitious.

Alakeson and Sherwin (2004) distinguish four stages of integrating sustainable development intoinnovation:

(1) The single issue approach, where companies address specific sustainability issues but have nosystematic way of addressing the full range of economic, environmental and social impacts.

(2) The ad hoc approach, where companies take sustainable development under consideration buthave no formal tools or processes to ensure the consistency of approach.

(3) Sustainability tools, where companies develop tools to integrate social, environment and economicissues in a consistent manner.

(4) The strategic integration, where sustainable development itself provides a framework forinnovation.

A similar classification is proposed by Tien et al. (2005). They classify the environmental strategiesthat the companies follow, using the approach of Winsemius and Guntram (1990). They haveidentified:

(1) Reactive responses, where enterprises strictly abide by laws and regulations but do not necessarilyprefer to do so.

(2) Receptive responses, where enterprises believe that they should do the job and do it well.(3) Constructive responses, where enterprises go beyond their initially defined business scope to

consider environmental issues, work with suppliers, customers and even competitors to handleproblems that may arise in a products’ lifecycle.

(4) Proactive responses, where only a few enterprises are willing to forecast the environmental changesthat are becoming more complicated, understand any changes that may result in customerdemands and prepare corresponding preventive measures.

This paper deals with the fourth level of both categorizations, where companies have a proactiveresponse towards sustainable development, integrating sustainability into the early stages of the newproduct development (NPD) process; those parts towards conceptualization, where it is about findingrelevant information related to environmental issues, getting people’s awareness and motivation asfar as sustainability is concerned and where sustainability activities are not yet directly related to adistinct product (Boks, 2006). In stage-gate terminology (Cooper, 2008), these are the early stages ofthe idea-to-launch process, the ‘‘fuzzy front end’’, where it is about idea screening and scoping of theproject.

Proficient groundwork and early product development decisions play a crucial role in determininga product’s environmental impact (Tischner and Charter, 2001; Pujari, 2006). They could alsodetermine a product’s competitive advantage, for example in terms of cost reduction or differentiation(Tien et al., 2005). This paper focuses on the organizational issues that arise when it comes to theintegration of sustainability in the new product development process with a particular focus on thenew product development briefs (also known as design briefs), where groundwork and productdevelopment decisions are actually being reflected.

2. Literature review

Based on data collected from major electronics multinationals in Japan and South Korea, Boks(2006) identifies obstacles and success factors regarding the integration of sustainability

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182 173

considerations in particular at the early stages of the product development process. The authorconcludes that the most important obstacles are:

(1) The big gap between eco-design proponents and those that have to execute it (feedingenvironmental information to business units, is often perceived by the latter as criticism).

(2) Organizational complexities as well as lack of appropriate infrastructure.(3) Lack of cooperation between departments.

Additionally, the author identifies the most important success factors regarding the integration ofsustainability considerations in the early stages of the product development process:

(1) Customized eco-design tools tailor-made for the company’s needs.(2) The use of environmental checkpoints, reviews, milestones and roadmaps.(3) Good management commitment and support, which is perceived to be in the form of making

public statements about environmental issues, as well as giving environmental issues the sameweight as other, traditional business issues, such as quality procurement/assurance in particular.

Another interesting insight regarding the success of eco-design implementation comes from thestudy of Pascual et al. (2003a) with a focus on communicating eco-efficiency in industrial contexts.Based on case studies of successful eco-design implementation and development at the Europeanelectrical and electronics industry, the authors state that an important issue which dramaticallyimproves eco-design implementation is that eco-design tools are developed into a company’scommon language. The use of an accepted and known language by all actors of the process improvescommunication efficiency and therefore eco-design’s applicability.

In their report including key conclusions from sustainable innovation conferences in the periodbetween 2003 and 2006, Charter and Clark (2007) conclude as well that language is an importantparameter for the successful implementation of sustainable innovation in organizations. In order forbusinesses to ensure implementation, it is also essential to sell the commercial benefits of eco-innovation such as cost reduction and product differentiation, or broader sustainable innovationapproaches in the language of different business functions, e.g. to marketing in marketing language;‘‘if projects are only sold in sustainability/environmental language they will hit the green wall andmove no further’’.

Particularly for the function of marketing, Charter and Clark (2007) identify obstacles in regardwith the successful implementation of sustainable innovation in organizations. The authors concludethat marketing has a potential pivotal role to play in the sustainable innovation debate as they sit inthe interface of consumption and production decisions in the firm. They recognize that there is a weakinteraction between marketing and sustainability/environmental professionals and a poorunderstanding of each other’s respective roles and challenges. The authors conclude as well thatthe relationship between marketing-sales and sustainability-environmental professionals is under-researched and, given the number of people employed in the profession worldwide, this is a major gapin the literature.

3. Research context and research questions

A large part of the insights gained regarding the organizational issues that arise when it comes tothe integration of sustainability in the new product development process is derived from researchconducted at the electric and electronic industry. This study has been conducted with a focus on theFMCG industry, in particular Unilever, which has been ranked as the world sustainability leader in the‘‘Food Producers’’ sector for the last 11 consecutive years, according to the Dow Jones SustainabilityIndex.

Unilever is a multi-national corporation that owns many of the world’s consumer product brandsin foods, beverages, cleaning agents and personal care products. The company operates in 100countries around the globe with 174.000 employees at the end of 2008. Unilever had a turnover of

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182174

40.523 million euro in 2008, compared to 40.187 million euro in 2007. The company is the globalmarket leader in all the food categories in which it operates. They are also global market leader in Skinand Deodorants, and have very strong positions in other Home and Personal Care categories (Unileverannual report, 2008).

For Unilever, one of the areas where sustainable development plays a major role is the actualproduct development process (PDP). Hence since 2003, in its template for formulating new productdevelopment briefs, the company has included a section devoted to the impact of a new product onenvironment/sustainability which should be completed in every new product development brief.

As such Unilever is leading the industry, as will be addressed in the following sections. However,Unilever does simultaneously acknowledge that the incorporation of sustainability in design briefsdoes not guarantee results. Hence this evaluation project was executed, having a main research

question;

How to incorporate sustainability in the early stages of the NPD process in order to obtain well-defined performance targets with resulting products.

Focusing on Unilever, this study explores the extent to which the company’s section devoted to theimpact of projects on environment/sustainability is being used, and the type of problems encounteredby the people who formulate the new product development briefs. The study also explores whetherthere is a need for improving the guidelines provided for the completion of the relevant section, inorder to optimize the efficiency of incorporating sustainability in Unilever’s innovation process; theoptimal situation is the one where Unilever achieves its own level of ambition towards sustainabledevelopment.

4. Research design

4.1. Pre-study: benchmarking

In order to assess Unilever’s stage of incorporating sustainability, a qualitative benchmark studyhas been conducted based on information publicly available in the environment/sustainability reportsof 8 FMCG organizations, including Unilever, which represent both global players and major localplayers on the Dutch market.

Following research by Pascual et al. (2003b), the studying of the environmental reports has beenconducted with a focus on:

(1) Whether the organizations claim in their environmental reports that they use eco-design in theirproduct development process.

(2) Evidence is being presented of doing so (examples of eco-designed products).(3) Whether the organizations mention qualitative or quantitative targets to be reached in regard with

sustainability (e.g. reduction of our water consumption by 2012 vs. 6% reduction of our waterconsumption by 2012).

At this point, it should be mentioned that the term ‘‘eco-design’’ is rarely met in the environmentalreports of the companies studied; in their research, Pascual et al. (2003b) also mention that there is alot of diversification of terminology among the organizations. However, they suggest that anyorganization that sets up a program to reduce its environmental load, that benchmarks its products inorder to develop new ones with lower environmental load every time, or that uses specific tools withthat objective, fits as well under the concept of eco-design.

4.2. Results

The results of the benchmarking are presented on Table 1. According to the categorization fromPascual et al. (2003b), Unilever (Sustainable Development Report, 2007) and FMCG 4 belong to thecluster of ‘‘relative mature organizations’’ working hand in hand with academia, developingmethodologies and tools to facilitate implementation and testing academic developments on real

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182 175

business operations. FMCG 1 and FMCG 7 belong to the cluster of ‘‘on the way to maturity’’, beingproactive on the eco-design field, however without compromising themselves to achieve aquantitative goal. FMCG 2 and FMCG 2 belong to the cluster ‘‘starters with a good intent’’; theyare starting with the discipline, however there is not enough expertise on the organization to launch ordemonstrate that they applied the discipline (therefore they do not show examples) and as a startingpoint (good intent) they define qualitative targets. Regarding FMCG 3 and FMCG 6, which claim to useeco-design and set-up quantitative targets, Pascual et al. (2003b) do not identify a cluster with suchcharacteristics in their research. Potentially, these companies could as well fit under the cluster ‘‘onthe way to maturity’’; the fact that they set-up quantitative targets might mean that they have a goalas a whole to reach, however the fact that they do not publish examples might mean that they are stillworking on how to reach the goal.

It should be noted that this assessment is specifically related to product development processesand by no means is an assessment of the total sustainability (in)maturity of the corporationsinvolved.

4.3. Pre-study: workshop

In order to validate the findings of the benchmarking (Pre-study 1) and the literature research, a1.5h session was organized with representatives from the food industry (FMCG 3, FMCG 6, FMCG 7and Unilever) and academia (Design for Sustainability, TU Delft).

The participants were presented with key findings and conclusions regarding the integration ofenvironmental considerations in the innovation process of Unilever foods. During the workshopseveral topics were covered, such as the importance of integrating environmental considerations inthe early beginning of the new product development process, the determination of clear targets forproject teams to reach, the need of increasing the communication between project members fromdifferent disciplines (marketing, R&D, supply chain, etc.) regarding the integration of environmentalconsiderations in project, as well as the role of higher management in the process in the sense ofproviding clear guidelines and stressing priorities.

4.4. Workshop session discussion

The session validated the findings from the benchmark, in the sense that Unilever is indeed a leaderin the FMCG industry regarding the integration of sustainability in the NPD process. This makesUnilever an interesting context for studying the research question.

A general outcome from the workshop was that integrating environmental considerations in thenew product development process depends a lot on a company’s culture and whether companies‘‘breathe’’ sustainability. Receiving motivation from higher management, having a rewarding systemfor example, was also considered to be an important aspect. In fact, all parameters that werementioned to be important are found as well in the literature to be success factors for the integrationof sustainability in the innovation processes of organizations (Boks, 2006).

Table 1Benchmarking FMCG organizations based on their environment/sustainability reporting.

Company Claiming

to use

eco-design

Publishing

examples

Set-up

quantitative

targets

Set-up

qualitative

targets

Categorization

Unilever X X X Relative mature organization

FMCG 1 X X X On its way to maturity

FMCG 2 X X Starter with a good intent

FMCG 3 X X

FMCG 4 X X X Relative mature organization

FMCG 5 X X Starter with a good intent

FMCG 6 X X

FMCG 7 X X X On its way to maturity

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182176

4.5. Analysis of Unilever product development briefs

The focus of this study has been on Unilever food products since they have less experience withsustainable innovation compared to the home and personal care products so there is more potentialfor improvement for Unilever Foods. Additionally, the Unilever food products account for a slightlybigger turnover ($ 21.926 million for 2008) and a larger environmental impact than the Unilever homeand personal care products ($ 18.597 million for 2008) (Unilever annual report, 2008).

Unilever Foods consists of 5 different product categories: Dressings, Ice Creams, Savoury,Beverages and Spreads & Cooking Products. For the purpose of this study a random selection ofproduct development briefs was made from 2 product categories: Dressings and Savoury. The‘‘Dressings’’ product category includes products such as flavoured dressings, mustard, ketchup,vinegar and mayonnaise and brands such as Calve, Hellmann’s, Maille and Amora. The ‘‘Savoury’’product category includes products such as meat-based meals, seasonings, soups (wet and dry),sausages and bouillons and brands such as Unox, Knorr, Bertolli and Conimex.

In Unilever, the standard template for formulating project briefs includes 14 chapters devoted tomarketing- and branding-related issues, supply chain execution, risk management, etc. The sectiondevoted to the impact of projects on environment and sustainability is a subsection of ‘‘Research andDevelopment execution’’ chapter. This section additionally includes sections about capabilityand technology, label requirements, resources requirements and relevant timing, patents, trademarksand issues about food legislation. For every innovation project, there is one Project Leader assigned whohas the overall responsibility of the project. In Unilever, Project Leaders are in most cases representativesfrom the Marketing discipline.

The section devoted to the impact of projects on environment and sustainability, being a part of the‘‘Research and Development execution’’ chapter, should be completed by the R&D member(s) involvedin a project. Unilever provides the R&D members involved in innovation projects with specificguidelines for the completion of the section devoted to the impact of projects on environment andsustainability. The essence of these guidelines is that, for every innovation project, the R&D projectmembers should enhance sustainability via design for consumer usage, raw materials (product,packaging) selected and/or means of manufacture, including any project/brand/category targets to bemet.

In Unilever, there are three phases, ‘‘gates’’, that a project brief has to pass through in order for theproposal for a new product to be approved and as a result the product to reach the launch stage. Forevery project, a ‘‘gate-keeper’’ is assigned, who evaluates and who eventually should approve theproject. Initially, there is the so called ‘‘charter’’ gate, where the project team makes the proposal but inthis phase not all the information which is actually necessary to approve the new product’s launchmight be available. The ‘‘charter’’ phase works as the first step to show the goal of making a newproduct, as well as to show intentions of how to reach this goal. The next phase is the ‘‘contract’’ phase;this is the phase where a project proposal should be completed and justified in all relevant levels. Inthe final phase, the ‘‘market ready’’ phase, the product has been already approved for launch and onlysome details are usually added, mostly in terms of communication strategies. If a brief is written forthe ‘‘charter gate’’ then an empty section is acceptable, although it would still indicate thatsustainability is not a top-of-mind issue of the person drafting the brief.

For any alteration in Unilever’s product portfolio the formulation of a product development brief isnecessary, irrespective whether this is a packaging modification, or the introduction of a new flavourin an existing product line, or a radical innovation such the introduction of a completely new product.

In total, 202 innovation briefs were studied; 112 from Dressings and 90 from Savoury. Allinnovation briefs from Dressings were European-based. By ‘‘European-based’’, it is meant that theproducts were targeted to European regions such as South-Eastern European countries for example, orthey were country-specific proposals. Out of the 90 innovation briefs from Savoury, 70 wereEuropean-based and 20 were Global-based. By ‘‘Global-based’’ it is meant that the product has a globalreach.

The innovation briefs from Dressings had target launch dates between 2007 (Q1) and 2009 (Q2).The European-based innovation briefs from Savoury had target launch dates between 2008 (Q1) and2009 (Q4) and the Global-based innovation briefs between 2007 (Q3) and 2010 (Q3). By ‘‘target launch

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182 177

date’’, it is meant the date on which the final proposed product would have been ready for launch,while the product proposal had been made in most cases about a year before launch. The number ofinnovation briefs studied from Dressings compared to the total number for the specified period was64%. The number of the European-based innovation briefs and of the Global-based project briefsstudied from Savoury compared to the total number for the specified periods was 36% and 61%accordingly. Among the 112 innovation briefs from Dressings, 55 were ‘‘charter’’, 27 were ‘‘contract’’and 30 were ‘‘market ready’’. Among the 90 innovation briefs from Savoury, 45 were ‘‘charter’’, 26were ‘‘contract’’ and 19 were ‘‘market ready’’.

4.6. Additional findings

Among 112 briefs that were studied from Dressings, the section devoted to the impact of projectson environment and sustainability was completed in 16, i.e. in 85% of the Dressings innovation briefsthe relevant section remained empty. Regarding the 16 innovation briefs for which the relevantsection was found to be complete, it was observed that in 12 of them, the content did not fully complywith the provided guidelines. In general, in 4 out of 112 innovation briefs from Dressings, there wereactions to ‘‘enhance sustainability via design for consumer usage, raw materials selected and/or meansof manufacture’’ (Unilever template for formulating NPD briefs). Furthermore, in all 112 innovationbriefs, no project/brand/category targets to be met were included. Additionally, it was observed that in11 out of the 16 innovation briefs where the relevant section was complete, it was (similarly) statedthat no impact on environment/sustainability existed because no new technology, ingredients orpackaging had been used.

In regard with the innovation briefs from Savoury with slightly later launch dates, among 20global-based briefs that were studied, the section devoted to the impact of projects on environmentand sustainability was completed in 14, i.e. in 70% of the briefs the relevant section was completed.Regarding the European-based innovation briefs from Savoury, among 70 that were studied, therelevant section was completed in 10 of them, i.e. in 87% of the briefs, the relevant section was empty.However, similarly to the European-based innovation briefs from Dressings, the content of therelevant section did not comply with the relevant guidelines for 8 out of 10 innovation briefs that hadbeen completed. For the global-based innovation briefs from Savoury though, it was observed that thecontent of the relevant section complied with the provided guidelines in 7 out of the 14 completedinnovation briefs.

It was observed that, when formulating an innovation brief, in terms of environmentalconsiderations, the focus is placed almost exclusively on the last stage of the supply chain, i.e. thestage where the products are ready to be sold to the consumers (food ingredients harmful to health,packaging ingredients harmful for the environment). Out of the 112 innovation briefs from Dressings,only 4 contained elements about previous stages in the supply chain (new raw materials/sources andprocessing techniques, changes in energy consumption in production plants, storage andtransportation of new packaging proposals), and what the influence of proposed changes in earlierstages of the supply chain is on the environment. Additionally, no comparisons were offered in orderto monitor what the advantages or disadvantages of a new proposal are over the existing practices,especially when it came to the environmental performance of products.

This difference observed between global-based and European-based briefs could not lead to acertain conclusion that when it comes to projects with global reach rather than regional,environmental considerations exist in a larger scale. The sample of the global-based project briefswas small compared to the sum of European-based project briefs from both categories. However it isan indication, and there might be a connection with what Boks (2006) mentions as an obstacle when itcomes to the successful integration of eco-design in organizations: The further top-down the eco-design process, the harder it becomes to control it and the more it depends on local circumstances.Potentially, the more regional project teams are, the less they are acquainted or even motivated to takeenvironmental parameters into consideration, with regional market trends, consumer insights andconsumption patterns to be the dominant factors of project proposals.

For the European-based innovation briefs from Savoury, taking into consideration Unilever’s threepillars for sustainable development, it was observed that the innovation briefs that were studied had a

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182178

focus on the first two pillars: (1) more personal vitality and (2) more social value. The third pillarreferring to less environmental impact (less waste, less water, less greenhouse gas emissions and moresustainable raw materials) so far receives no focus in the studied innovation briefs.

5. Follow-up interviews

5.1. Interviews with project leaders

The observations described in the previous section were supplemented with semi-structuredinterviews with project leaders. The purpose was to gain direct insights from the people who wereleading the projects regarding the reason why the relevant section devoted to the impact of projects onenvironment and sustainability was not complete in the majority of the product development briefs.The project leaders who were interviewed, were selected depending on the number of projects theyhad led (it was assumed that the more projects they had led, the more insights could be gained).

Another selection criterion was the level of innovation proposed by a project. This was decidedbecause in cases where the level of the proposed innovation was low, in the section devoted on theimpact on environment/sustainability it was often stated that ‘‘due to the level of innovation beinglow, no impact on the environment/sustainability is expected’’. Additionally, it was also observed thatin projects where the level of innovation was higher and the impact on the environment/sustainability(either negative or positive) was more obvious, the relevant section was still often found to be empty.

Additionally, the country where the project leaders were based was also one parameter that hadbeen taken under consideration; practices followed by different regions could have led to differentinsights. The semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone, with four European-basedproduct managers in several countries. Questions covered the following:

(1) Their level of experience with the completion of innovation briefs.(2) Whether they had received special instructions and/or attended seminars for the completion of

innovation briefs.(3) The extent to which they consult other departments (R&D, supply chain, sales etc.) for the

completion of innovation briefs.(4) The aspects which they take into consideration for assessing whether a project proposal has

environmental implications, either positive or negative.(5) Their reasoning why the section devoted to the impact of projects on environment/sustainability is

not efficiently used.

5.2. Findings from interviews

The interviews were conducted with 4 project leaders covering 15 projects in total. All projectleaders had experience with the completion of innovation briefs, since they had been involved in theprocess for approximately 5–6 years. Only one project leader claimed that had received training andspecial instructions for the completion of innovation briefs. Being representatives of the marketingdepartment, all project leaders claimed that the completion of the section devoted to the impact ofproject on environment/sustainability is a responsibility of the R&D members who participate in eachproject. The project leaders claimed no responsibility for that specific section. One project leaderexplained that after the kick-off meeting for a project proposal, all project members takeresponsibilities for completing the relevant sections in the innovation briefs depending on theirdepartment (marketing, R&D, supply chain, finance etc).

Regarding the integration of environmental/sustainability considerations in the innovation process,there were insights such as: ‘‘sustainability is not yet integrated as a parameter in the whole process’’, ‘‘Ifeel that I need to do it, but it is not a working practice’’, ‘‘sustainability is not a scope, it only now comes asa scope for projects that we prepare for 2010’’, ‘‘it is not efficiently communicated among employees’’,and ‘‘global teams should communicate more efficiently sustainability among employees’’.

Since the project leaders interviewed claimed R&D project members to be responsible for thecompletion of the section devoted to the impact of projects on environment/sustainability, three R&D

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182 179

members were interviewed. One R&D project member stated: ‘‘We generally do not fill this section asit is mainly for the Home & Personal Care category. In foods however, we do consider growingpractices (no GM modification etc.) and also recyclable packaging’’.

The practice of incorporating sustainability in all NPD briefs demonstrates the commitment/ambition of the Unilever Corporation. At this point in time, not all individuals within the organizationshare this commitment yet. While others do share this commitment, but they do not always feel fullyempowered to deal with it. By evaluating first experiences with a sustainability section in NPD briefs,and identifying the obstacles the effectiveness of the approach can be improved.

5.3. Unilever eco-innovation tools

As a reflection of its vitality mission and recognizing that ‘‘the successful brands of the future willbe those that not only satisfy consumer needs but also address their concerns as citizens’’ (BrandImprint Planning Toolset, 2007), Unilever developed in 2005 the Brand Imprint tool as a strategicpriority for its major brands. The company links the tool directly to innovation; ‘‘its purpose is to helpbrands not to just small, incremental improvements, but transformational changes to the wayUnilever products are sourced, formulated, manufactured, packaged and marketed’’ (Brand ImprintPlanning Toolset, 2007). The Brand Imprint tool is ‘‘a rigorous, diagnostic 3608 process that analyseshow much social and economic value the brand is adding and which negative impacts it is causing. Italso generates insights into consumers’ concerns as citizens and the various market forces that areshaping the SEE (Social-Economical-Environmental) agenda’’ (Brand Imprint Planning Toolset, 2007).

Additionally, in 2008 Unilever started the process of developing one framework, common for all itsproduct categories, with one of the objectives to be to lessen Unilever’s portfolio environmentalimpact in relation to 4 key areas: water, waste, greenhouse gases and sustainable sourcing of rawmaterials. Once the process is complete, there will be clear targets for all Unilever categories to reachwithin a specific period of time, allowing breakdowns by brand and prioritization. The overall intentwith ‘‘Environmental Metrics’’ is environmental impact reduction at a total Unilever level; hence thecategories and related brands will not necessarily have to reduce their impact in all areas. Thecompany has clear definitions of these measurements in order to ensure clarity and commonunderstanding across categories. The implementation of both these tools will empower individualsdrafting NPD briefs in setting clearer targets.

6. Conclusion and implications

This paper focuses on the organizational issues that arise when it comes to the integration ofsustainability in the new product development process with a particular emphasis on the new productdevelopment briefs (also known as design briefs) of a large multinational FMCG organization such asUnilever.

One of the main findings derived is that organizations need to communicate clearly and efficiently toproject teams, as well as to senior management, what the company’s goal is by including a sectiondevoted to the impact of projects on environment and sustainability, i.e. what is the level of sustainabilityambition? In general, if project teams know what a company wants to achieve through such a section andwhy it is important, then they will obtain a clearer picture about why putting effort and time into thissection; either in order to complete it (project teams), or in order to evaluate it and respectively approve/disapprove the project proposal (senior management-gate keepers). The lack of a clear goal has beenidentified as an obstacle regarding the successful integration of sustainability considerations in theproduct development processes of organizations and in particular in the early stages (Boks, 2006).

The differences in goals that organizations want to achieve towards sustainable development placedifferent challenges for the integration of sustainability considerations in the innovation process. Incase a company wants for example to make all its brands sustainable and move to what Alakeson andSherwin (2004) state as ‘‘strategic integration of sustainability, where sustainable development itselfprovides the framework for innovation’’, then radical sustainable innovations are needed for everybrand. Or in case a company wants to make all its brands less unsustainable, then incrementalsustainable innovations are needed for every brand.

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182180

In the specific case of Unilever, taking into consideration what the company currently works on(Brand Imprint process, Environmental Metrics), there is an indication of a goal: sustainableinnovations in order to reduce the impact of Unilever brands on environment/sustainability,depending on clear target setting for each product category and identified priorities for Unileverbrands (Brand Imprint is an on-going process). The development of Unilever customized eco-innovation tools is additionally an indication of achieving the integration of environmental andsustainability considerations in a consistent manner (Alakeson and Sherwin, 2004) in order Unileverto succeed in its mission to ‘‘add vitality to life’’.

Whatever a company’s goal is in regard with its desired level of sustainable innovation, a sectiondevoted to the impact on environment/sustainability is definitely an element where the company’sgoal should be reflected upon and a unique way to achieve consistency in integrating environmentaland sustainability considerations in the new product development process.

Another important conclusion derived from this project is a gap between the development ofsustainability tools and their actual usage and implementation. In the case of Unilever, the tool is therebut it is not yet reflected on the new product development process. This paper argues that the successfactor is not just the development of customized eco-design tools tailor-made for a company’s needs(Boks, 2006) or the development of an integrated sustainability tool for the product developmentprocess (Charter and Clark, 2007); the success factor is actually the stage after development, i.e. theefficient implementation of the tools in the innovation process.

For Unilever in particular, it is important that the company takes advantage of the full potential ofthe ‘‘Brand Imprint’’ customized eco-design tool, developed into the company’s common language. Itis sensible that Unilever communicates efficiently the ‘‘Brand Imprint’’ outcomes among the projectteams, so that these are taken already into consideration at the initial conception of project proposals.The fact that Unilever has developed eco-innovation tools but they have not been communicatedefficiently among project teams concurs with what Boks (2006) has identified as an obstacle; the gapbetween the sustainability proponents and those who have to integrate it in the innovation process oforganizations.

Additionally, an important conclusion which was derived from the workshop as well (Pre-study 2)is that project teams should be provided with clear targets to reach. From the literature review, the useof environmental-sustainability milestones, roadmaps and checkpoints has been identified as asuccess factor for the integration of sustainability considerations in the integration processes oforganizations (Boks, 2006). In the case of Unilever, both Brand Imprints and Environmental Metricscan be used as such. Furthermore, it is important that the companies provide continuous education toproject teams in regard with how to reach the targets and what actions they could take across thesupply chain in order to do so.

An important conclusion as well is that there is a need for increasing the cooperation among thedifferent disciplines which are involved in the formulation of product development briefs in regardwith the impact of projects on environment and sustainability. Cross-functional teamwork and goodcontacts among departments have been identified in the literature as success factors for theintegration of sustainability considerations in the innovation process of organizations (Boks, 2006). Inthe case of Unilever, for a holistic supply chain approach towards sustainability considerations, theR&D project members should not be the only ones responsible for completing the relevant section; forexample, supply chain project members are equally responsible (selecting raw materials,transportation practices).

Project leaders who lead the whole project and are responsible for it should therefore make surethat the relevant section is completely fulfilling the purpose of its existence. In the case of Unilever, theinterviewed project leaders, who are Marketing representatives, claimed no responsibility for therelevant section, even though they were leading the entire project as their function suggests For thisspecific issue, there is a reflection of what Charter and Clark (2007) identify as an obstacle in regardwith the integration of sustainability in the innovation process; that there is a weak interactionbetween marketing and sustainability/environmental professionals and a poor understanding of eachother’s respective roles and challenges. However, as the authors conclude, marketing has a potentialpivotal role to play in the sustainable innovation debate as they sit in the interface of consumption andproduction decisions in the firm.

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182 181

Undoubtedly, if the whole organization ‘‘breathes’’ a clear goal towards the integration ofsustainability considerations in the innovation process, then the involvement and motivation ofproject teams will be higher. The role of senior management (gate keepers) in this case could be reallydecisive. If they insist on improving the environmental impact of products, then the project teams,which desire the approval of projects, will be more motivated to do so. In the case of Unilever, therewere no specific guidelines for gate keepers in regard with what they should require from projectteams to achieve when it comes to the impact of projects on environment/sustainability. The lack ofmanagement commitment and support has been identified in literature as an obstacle regarding theintegration of sustainability considerations in the innovation processes of organizations (Boks, 2006).

This study concludes that incorporating sustainability in the new product development briefs doesnot guarantee results. There are several organizational issues which could function either as success oras failure factors for the entire process. Further research can be conducted to identify howsustainability could efficiently be incorporated in the early stages of the NPD process of organizationsof different types and structures. Incorporating sustainability in the NPD process is definitely relevantto a lot of organizations at this point in time since the market for sustainable innovation grows rapidly.Potentially SME’s (Small & Medium Enterprises) provide an interesting field of research as they play akey role in developing the low carbon economy of the future.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Erik Jan Hultink for his help and comments.

References

Alakeson, V., Sherwin, C., 2004. Innovation for sustainable development. Forum of the Future.Boks, C., 2006. The soft side of eco-design. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1346–1356.Brand Imprint Planning Toolset, 2007, Unilever (internal document).Charter, M., Clark, T., 2007. Key Conclusions from Sustainable Innovation Conferences 2003-2006 Organized by the Centre for

Sustainable Design. Centre of Sustainable Design, University College for the Creative Arts, http://www.cfsd.org.uk.Cooper, R.G., 2008. Perspective: the stage-gates idea-to-launch process—update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. The Journal

of Product Innovation Management 25, 213–232.Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes World, 2008.Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek,

CT.Pascual, O., Boks, C., Stevels, A., 2003a. Communicating eco-efficiency in industrial contexts: a framework for understanding the

(lack) of success and applicability of eco-design. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment 303–308.

Pascual, O., Stevels, A., Boks, C., 2003b. Measuring implementation and performance of eco-design in the electronics sector. IEEEInternational Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing 192–197.

Pujari, 2006. Eco-innovation and new product development: understanding the influences on market performance. Technova-tion 26, 76–85.

Tien, S., Chung, Y., Tsai, C., 2005. An empirical study on the correlation between environmental design implementation andbusiness competitive advantages in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation 25, 783–794.

Tingstrom, J., Karlsson, R., 2006. The relationship between the environmental analyses and the dialogue process in processdevelopment. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1409–1419.

Tischner, U., Charter, M., 2001. Sustainable product design. In: Charter, M., Tischner, U. (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: DevelopingProducts and Services for the Future. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK, pp. 118–139.

Unilever Sustainable Development Report, 2007.Unilever annual report and accounts, 2008; adding vitality to life.WCED, 1987. The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New

York, NY.Winsemius, P., Guntram, U., 1990. Responding to the environmental business challenge, Business Horizons, 35, pp. 12-20

(tracked in Tien, S., Chung, Y., Tsai, C., 2005).

E. Petala et al. / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 27 (2010) 172–182182