IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p2011-d152491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Vinícius P. Rodrigues

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
    Insper, Rua Quatá 300, Vila Olímpia, 04546-042 São Paulo, Brazil)

  • Daniela C. A. Pigosso

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Jakob W. Andersen

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Tim C. McAloone

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

Abstract

The business benefits attained from ecodesign programs in manufacturing companies have been regularly documented by several studies from both the academic and corporate spheres. However, there are still significant challenges for adopting ecodesign, especially regarding the evaluation of these potential business benefits prior to the actual ecodesign implementation. To address such gap, this study proposes an exploratory and theory-driven framework based on logic models to support the development of business cases for ecodesign implementation. The objective is to offer an outlook into how ecodesign implementation can potentially affect key corporate performance outcomes. This paper is based on a three-stage research methodology with six steps. Two full systematic literature reviews were performed, along with two thematic analyses and a grounded theory approach with the aim of developing the business case framework, which was then evaluated by seven industry experts. This research contributes to the literature of ecodesign especially by laying out an ecodesign-instantiated logic model, which is readily available to be adapted and customized for further test and use in practice. Discussions on the usefulness and applicability of the framework and directions for future research are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:2011-:d:152491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2011/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/2011/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salzmann, Oliver & Ionescu-somers, Aileen & Steger, Ulrich, 2005. "The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability:: Literature Review and Research Options," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 27-36, February.
    2. Driva, H. & Pawar, K. S. & Menon, U., 2000. "Measuring product development performance in manufacturing organisations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 147-159, January.
    3. Subramanian, Nachiappan & Gunasekaran, Angappa, 2015. "Cleaner supply-chain management practices for twenty-first-century organizational competitiveness: Practice-performance framework and research propositions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 216-233.
    4. Millar, Annie & Simeone, Ronald S. & Carnevale, John T., 2001. "Logic models: a systems tool for performance management," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 73-81, February.
    5. Alena Kocmanová & Iveta Šimberová, 2014. "Determination of environmental, social and corporate governance indicators: framework in the measurement of sustainable performance," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 1017-1033, November.
    6. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    7. Vergidis, K. & Turner, C.J. & Tiwari, A., 2008. "Business process perspectives: Theoretical developments vs. real-world practice," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 91-104, July.
    8. Adri Smaling, 1992. "Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity — the relations with qualitative and quantitative research, and with objectivity," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 169-180, May.
    9. Joao Victor Rojas Luiz & Daniel Jugend & Charbel José Chiappeta Jabbour & Octaviano Rojas Luiz & Fernando Bernardi Souza, 2016. "Ecodesign field of research throughout the world: mapping the territory by using an evolutionary lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 241-259, October.
    10. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    11. Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Mariana Ferraz & Cláudia Echevenguá Teixeira & Henrique Rozenfeld, 2016. "The Deployment of Product-Related Environmental Legislation into Product Requirements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    13. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    14. Thomson, Hilary & Thomas, Sian, 2015. "Developing empirically supported theories of change for housing investment and health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 205-214.
    15. Su-Yol Lee & Young-Hoon Kim, 2015. "Antecedents and Consequences of Firms’ Climate Change Management Practices: Stakeholder and Synergistic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Thomas Dyllick & Kai Hockerts, 2002. "Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 130-141, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raphaëlle Stewart & Faheem Ali & Casper Boks & Niki Bey, 2018. "Architect, Catalyst, Advocate, and Prophet: A Four-Lens View of Companies to Support Ecodesign Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Louise Lindkvist Haziri & Erik Sundin & Tomohiko Sakao, 2019. "Feedback from Remanufacturing: Its Unexploited Potential to Improve Future Product Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Fabio Neves Puglieri & Aldo Roberto Ometto & Rodrigo Salvador & Murillo Vetroni Barros & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Izabella Morré Rodrigues & Octavio Diegoli Netto, 2020. "An Environmental and Operational Analysis of Quality Function Deployment-Based Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    4. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    5. Maria Björklund & Helena Forslund, 2019. "Challenges Addressed by Swedish Third-Party Logistics Providers Conducting Sustainable Logistics Business Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Mara Del Baldo & Maria-Gabriella Baldarelli, 2017. "Renewing and improving the business model toward sustainability in theory and practice," International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Fabien Martinez, 2014. "Corporate strategy and the environment: towards a four-dimensional compatibility model for fostering green management decisions," Post-Print hal-02887618, HAL.
    8. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    9. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    10. Antje Bierwisch & Lucas Huter & Juliana Pattermann & Oliver Som, 2021. "Taking Eco-Innovation to the Road—A Design-Based Workshop Concept for the Development of Eco-Innovative Business Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2010. "Trade‐offs in corporate sustainability: you can't have your cake and eat it," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 217-229, May.
    12. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    13. Frank Figge & Andrea Stevenson Thorpe & Siarhei Manzhynski & Melissa Gutberlet, 2022. "The us in reUSe. Theorizing the how and why of the circular economy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 2741-2753, September.
    14. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    15. Renáta Myšková & Petr Hájek, 2018. "Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility in the Text of Annual Reports—The Case of the IT Services Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    16. Shu-Ping Chen & Wen-Pin Chang & Bryan Fleet & Santoch Rai & Steve Panteluk & Alberto Choy & DeAnn Hunter, 2021. "Is a Forensic Cohabitation Program Recovery-Oriented? A Logic Model Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Andrea C. Martinez‐Lozada & Angela Espinosa, 2022. "Corporate viability and sustainability: A case study in a Mexican corporation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 143-158, January.
    18. Martina Sukitsch & Sabrina Engert & Rupert J. Baumgartner, 2015. "The Implementation of Corporate Sustainability in the European Automotive Industry: An Analysis of Sustainability Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-28, August.
    19. Pornanong Budsaratragoon & Boonlert Jitmaneeroj, 2021. "Corporate Sustainability and Stock Value in Asian–Pacific Emerging Markets: Synergies or Tradeoffs among ESG Factors?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    20. Patrizia Gazzola & Roberta Pezzetti & Stefano Amelio & Daniele Grechi, 2020. "Non-Financial Information Disclosure in Italian Public Interest Companies: A Sustainability Reporting Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:2011-:d:152491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.