Accepted Manuscript

A crossroads for bioplastics: Exploring product developers’ challenges to move

beyond petroleum-based plastics

Sebastian Brockhaus, Moritz Petersen, Wolfgang Kersten

PII: S0959-6526(16)30241-4
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.003
Reference: JCLP 7005

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 8 December 2015

Revised Date: 1 March 2016
Accepted Date: 5 April 2016

Please cite this article as: Brockhaus S, Petersen M, Kersten W, A crossroads for bioplastics: Exploring
product developers’ challenges to move beyond petroleum-based plastics, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.003.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Words (Text of Manuscript only): 7,551

A CROSSROADS FOR BIOPLASTICS: EXPLORING PRODUCT DEVELOPERS’

CHALLENGES TO MOVE BEYOND PETROLEUM-BASED PLASTICS

Sebastian Brockhaus1, Moritz Petersen2, and Wolfgang Kersten3

PT
1
John B. Goddard School of Business & Economics, Weber State University, 1337 Edvalson St, Dept
3802, Ogden, Utah 84408-3802, USA, sbrockhaus@weber.edu

RI
2
Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Business Logistics and General Management, Am
Schwarzenberg-Campus 4, 21073 Hamburg, Germany, m.petersen@tuhh.de (Corresponding Author)

SC
3
Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Business Logistics and General Management, Am
Schwarzenberg-Campus 4, 21073 Hamburg, Germany, logu@tuhh.de

U
AN
Abstract

Bioplastics play an increasingly important role for consumer products. These new materials might
increase product sustainability but they are currently confined to niche markets. While research has
M

gained important insight into the technical challenges, few studies to date explore the behavioral
aspects for product developers as they move to employ bioplastics in their development efforts. This
manuscript reports the findings of a grounded inductive study based on interview data with 32
D

product developers in the consumer goods industry. The Theory of Planned Behavior is employed to
TE

guide the research and provide a theoretical background to derive implications. The study finds that
behavioral challenges impede the increased use of bioplastics. Product developers experience a lack
of perceived behavioral control and struggle with doubts about the environmental benefits and
incurring trade-offs of bioplastics with respect to the Triple Bottom Line. While product developers
EP

are intrinsically motivated to make more use of bioplastics, they often refrain from bringing products
to the mass market due to uncertainties of customer receptiveness and fears of greenwashing
allegations. Implications for industry and research are detailed.
C

Keywords
AC

Sustainability; bioplastics; theory of planned behavior; consumer goods; product development;

behavioral research

1. INTRODUCTION

Are bio-based polymers (bioplastics) going to replace petroleum-based polymers in our everyday
products – and would this be good news for the environment? Global production capacities for
bioplastics are expected to increase by 300% until 2018 – then reaching 6.73 million tons (European
Bioplastics, 2013). While this is still a minuscule amount compared to the global production of
petroleum-based plastics (280 million tons), it does seem to represent a significant shift in focus for
1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
industry to experiment with these new materials. Consumers generally view the use of bioplastics
favorably despite limited knowledge about its origins, usability for products, and overall ecological
performance (Kainz et al., 2013; Kurka, 2012). For firms, bioplastics might pose a great opportunity to
increase the environmental sustainability of their products (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012; Karana,
2012). However, bioplastics products are still rare and struggling to gain a share in the market (Iles
and Martin, 2013; Yates and Barlow, 2013).

Even though numerous divergent definitions on bioplastics exist, they are generally understood as
plastics in which the carbon stems from renewable resources like corn starch or cellulose (Álvarez-

PT
Chávez et al., 2012; Karana, 2012). Thus, most bioplastics – at least theoretically – can be composted
in a short period of time – compared to petroleum-based plastics which decompositions after
roughly 450 years. Given the gigantic amount of plastics used for products today (often in packaging)

RI
bioplastics may be a way to get a handle on our overwhelming waste problem. Moreover, bioplastics
are considered to be more environmental friendly as their production often uses less energy and
causes no toxic by-products (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012; Papong et al., 2014). However, the current

SC
recycling and waste-treatment processes are not designed to handle bioplastics appropriately
(O´Connor, 2011; Rosato, 2012). Also, recent studies question the ecological merits of bioplastics
from a life cycle perspective (e.g. Rossi et al., 2015 analyze two bioplastics used for packaging;

U
Tsiropoulos et al., 2015 compare bioplastics from sugarcane ethanol to their petrochemical
counterparts). Furthermore, depending on the source of the biomass, competition with food
AN
production may lead to questionable social impacts (Morone et al., 2015; Song et al., 2011).The
debate is often parallel to the questions that the increased use of ethanol as a source of fuel raises.
M

In the light of these conflicting positions, industry is challenged to evaluate ecologically, socially and
economically if and how bioplastics should be integrated into products (Álvarez-Chávez et al., 2012).
Specifically, bioplastics become highly relevant as companies attempt to increase sustainability. In
D

the business context, sustainability is most often defined through the Triple Bottom Line put forward
by Elkington (1998). It describes sustainability as long-lasting balance between the economic,
TE

environmental, and social aspects of a business and is applied to a variety of domains (e.g. Gmelin
and Seuring, 2014a; Winter and Knemeyer, 2013).
EP

As we originally set out to explore the challenges of pursuing higher sustainability in product
development, bioplastics quickly emerged as a hot topic in our early discussions with product
developers. Based on these initial responses, we decided to conduct an explorative study based on
C

interview data to shed a light on the role of bioplastics for developing more sustainable products.
This issue emerged as highly relevant to businesses and the expected increase in production
AC

capabilities over the coming years makes this a timely topic. During sampling we focused on the non-
food consumer goods industry because (1) consumer goods are bought by a high variety of individual
customers with subjective attitudes towards product sustainability and (2) getting engaged with
sustainability is therefore deemed more important for consumer goods companies than for other
industries (Hayward et al., 2013, p. 22; KPMG, 2012, p. 5). Thirdly, bioplastics are assumed to be a
highly visible aspect of consumer goods compared to other industries’ products.

Of note, this manuscript limits its focus to look into the use of bioplastics as a way to improve
product sustainability from a behavioral standpoint. Behavioral issues in sustainable product
development have only recently received increasing attention by researchers (e.g. Verhulst and Boks,
2014, 2012). There is a vast body of valuable literature examining product sustainability from a more
“technical” perspective. However, a lack of attention is given to behavioral aspects; thus this

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
research is novel and addresses an important gap in the literature. A thorough analysis of the
literature was conducted prior to data collection to provide a solid background and understanding of
the issue. A heavily abbreviated summary of this literature analysis is provided in the appendix.
However, the information was only used to guide the research process and will not be featured in a
more in-depth discussion. As emerged from our data collection and analysis, behavioral aspects to
the development of more sustainable products with the use of bioplastics in particular prove to be a
rich field of inquiry and can provide important implications for theory and practice. Therefore, the
research question for the study emerged: “What behavioral challenges do product developers face
when attempting to replace petroleum-based polymers with bioplastics?”

PT
Specifically, this manuscript makes three distinct contributions:

RI
1. Categorize and classify the types of drivers and challenges product developers face when
using bioplastics based on interview data.
2. Utilize and elaborate the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore how the interplay of

SC
attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control influences the decision-making of
product developers with respect to bioplastics.
3. Derive managerial implications based on a deeper understanding how the challenges for

U
product developers to use bioplastics may become roadblocks and how they could
potentially be overcome.
AN
2. THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR

The Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991, 1985) was developed in order to facilitate the
M

prediction and explanation of human behavior as resulting from intention which in turn is
determined by three conceptually independent factors. Only if these three factors support the
D

intention to perform a behavior, individuals are likely to actually do so. First, the attitude toward the
behavior reflects how favorable the individual evaluates performing the behavior. Second, subjective
TE

norm refers to the social pressure the individual perceives in terms of performing or not performing
the behavior. Third, the intention to perform a behavior is determined by the individual’s perceived
behavioral control. It refers to the individual’s anticipation of impediments that might influence the
EP

ease of performing the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Taken together, individuals intend to perform a
behavior only if they have a positive evaluation of it, if they perceive to be compliant with social
norms, and if they perceive to possess the necessary resources in order to successfully perform the
C

behavior. A schematic depiction of the Theory of Planned Behavior is shown in Figure 1.

AC

Since its development the Theory of Planned Behavior has been tested empirically multiple times in a
variety of behavioral domains (Ajzen, 2005): In the frame of sustainability it has been successfully
employed to explain and predict consumers’ behavior (e.g. Moser, 2015 for consumer goods; van
Birgelen et al., 2011 for air travel) as well as managers’ behavior in a company context (e.g. Cordano
and Hanson Frieze, 2000 for pollution reduction; Ferdous, 2010 for sustainable marketing). In the
following, the Theory of Planned Behavior will be used as a theoretical framework to investigate the
dynamics related to decisions about using bioplastics for consumer products. The current study is
inductive in nature and thus does not attempt to test the theory but uses it as informative guidance
for the research process. The theoretical background was selected after the initial data collection
because of its fit with the emerging findings, not in an effort to empirically question or confirm the
Theory of Planned Behavior.

3. METHODOLOGY
3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
We used a grounded inductive methodology (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) to gain an understanding of
the unexplored dynamics of making sustainability-related decisions about bioplastics in product
development.

3.1 Sampling and Data Collection

Theoretical sampling was employed to build theory on the complexity of considering bioplastics for
consumer goods (Breckenridge and Jones, 2009). Therefore, we selected case companies with the
objective of providing new insights to the study (Charmaz, 2006; Goulding, 2002). For this study,

PT
sampling was driven by the goal of composing different perspectives on and approaches towards
product sustainability and bioplastics within the German consumer goods industry. In most cases the
interviewees head the product development department of their companies and have an

RI
engineering or natural sciences background. Table 1 lists the study’s participants. After each round of
data collection, we assessed which kind of additional data could further inform the research. For
example, we sampled two participants developing power tools (#26 and #27) in order to compare

SC
their experiences to other electrically powered consumer goods like consumer electronics or
domestic appliances. Overall, our sample ensured that different perspectives towards developing
more sustainable products are represented. Figure 2 illustrates the sample composition with respect

U
to the companies’ annual turnover, the number of employees, and product category. It can be seen
that more than half of the interviewees represent small or medium-sized companies. This
AN
distribution coincides with the actual structure of the German consumer goods industry (Kern, 2010).
Further ex post sampling criteria incorporate companies’ competitive strategy (differentiation or cost
focus) and ownership (family-owned or publicly traded).
M

For data collection, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted. We developed an interview
protocol to structure the discussion and operationalize the research question while allowing for the
D

exploration of emerging themes and topics (Charmaz, 2006; Eisenhardt, 1989). The protocol
consisted of 15 open-ended questions and was divided into three thematic sections. First, the
TE

development process characteristics were inquired. Afterwards, the questions covered the
understanding and drivers for sustainability on the corporate level. Finally, the implementation of
sustainability in product development and the role of bioplastics were investigated. However, care
EP

was taken to always follow wherever interviewees led us. Overall, we conducted 32 interviews
between June 2013 and March 2015. They lasted between 25 and 140 minutes with a median of 68
minutes. If possible, we conducted the interviews at the respective companies. To avoid selective
C

information sharing and to create informal atmosphere, interviewees were assured of anonymity
(Gioia et al., 2012). All but two interviews were recorded after asking for approval. The recordings
AC

were then transcribed verbatim for analysis by the authors. Supplementary data on sustainable
product development and the role of bioplastics within the sampled companies was collected from
publically available sources (e.g. from the corporate websites, sustainability reports, and magazine
articles). In several cases the interviewees provided internal documentation on specific sustainability
issues or product development aspects. These secondary data sources provided an ample context for
understanding the dynamics of decision making with respect to bioplastics.

3.2 Data Analysis

Being interrelated, the activities of sampling, data collection, and data analysis were carried out
simultaneously (Gioia et al., 2012; Suddaby, 2006). Transcripts of the interviews were used for both
within-case and cross-case analyses (Eisenhardt, 1989). First, each company was analyzed
individually to gain insight into the companies’ understanding of product sustainability and the
4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
dynamics that foster or prevent the selection of bioplastics for consumer products. Then, cross-case
analysis was employed to identify and match patterns across the sample (Eisenhardt, 1991).
Following the inductive research process, we travelled back and forth between the data and the
theoretical arguments to develop a more robust and comprehensive theoretical picture (Corbin and
Strauss, 2008; Locke, 2001). Data analysis was carried out individually by multiple researchers in
order to reduce the impact of potential individual biases and thus improve validity (Corbin and
Strauss, 2008). The analysis followed the recommendations established by Charmaz (2006), Corbin
and Strauss (2008), and Gioia et al. (2012). It consisted of three steps as follows.

PT
Step 1: Establishing First-Order Concepts. Analysis started with breaking down the transcripts into
manageable fragments. In doing so we identified statements from the interviewees regarding their
views on 1) the role and relevance of sustainability within their organizations, 2) enablers and

RI
barriers for incorporating sustainability into consumer products, and 3) the meaning of bioplastics for
promoting product sustainability. Common ideas were then categorized and distilled into 1st order
concepts. The structure of the findings as informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior is provided in

SC
Figure 3. An example for 1st order concepts are statements about the participants’ personal interest
to employ bioplastics in products as this product developer shared with us: “I am personally engaged
here because this is a topic close to my heart. I want to see us use compostable materials to package

U
all of these products.” (#31: Leisure and Sports Equipment)
AN
Step 2: Using Axial Coding to Create Categories. Following the guidance by Charmaz (2006) we then
elaborated the 1st order concepts to form categories. In order to create meaningful categories, we
analyzed all quotes from the interview that were coded into each of the 1st order concepts and then
M

identified common themes to adequately name the categories. For example, we found many
statements from product developers that mentioned trade-offs between environmental and social
goals that may impede the more widespread use of bioplastics. This comment by one participant:
D

“We shouldn't rush to conclusions here and just dub everything with "bio" in it as sustainable.
Everything has side effects. If we for example move to making all of our products from Canola,
TE

everything here will be yellow but we are out of food.” (#28: Home and Garden Commodities) was
categorized as a 1st order concept that establishes a category that deals with the Triple Bottom Line
Trade-Offs of bioplastics.
EP

Step 3: Delimiting Theory to Build a Theoretical Framework. In a third step, the categories were
aggregated to inform the theoretical dimensions as established by the Theory of Planned Behavior.
C

Each of the theoretical dimensions is comprised of multiple categories. For example, the categories
Public Perception, Industry/Supplier Pressure and Internal/External Customer Requirements make up
AC

the theoretical dimension Subjective Norm. This third step is the highest level of aggregation of the
current analysis and serves as the guiding framework for the following presentation of the findings.
We propose that the three established theoretical dimensions emerge from the data analysis and
inform the decision making process of product developers when considering the use of bioplastics in
their daily work. As suggested by the Theory of Planned Behavior, these three dimensions will lead to
an intention to act that drives behavior (Ajzen, 1985). In our case, most participants are also actually
able to execute their intended behavior. As a majority of the companies in the sample are small or
medium-sized, most of their product development departments are rather small and consist of
several experts each from different fields. Thus, in most cases a decision about bioplastics would be
an individual decision. However, in some larger companies from the sample such decisions are group
decisions.

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4. FINDINGS

As introduced in the previous sections, the Theory of Planned Behavior establishes a framework that
emerges as a natural structure for the findings of our analysis. It is displayed in Figure 3. In the
following, we will discuss the three dimensions individually and provide support from the interviews
through the use of power and proof quotes (Pratt, 2008). The power quotes are embedded in the
discussion while the proof quotes can be found in the figures, corresponding to each theoretical
dimension.

PT
4.1 Attitude Toward the Behavior

At the beginning of the discussion about the role of bioplastics for their product development efforts,
each participant was asked to share thoughts about bioplastics as an input for consumer goods.

RI
During the analysis process, we found that those comments could be differentiated into the
categories Personal Intrinsic Motivation, Company Motivation, and Pioneer Products. The structure

SC
and corresponding proof quotes are displayed in Figure 4.

Personal Intrinsic Motivation emerged as a key factor that leads to the forming of an attitude
towards bioplastics. Specifically, a personal intrinsic motivation by the product developers to

U
enhance the sustainability of products lead to openness towards considering all kinds of inputs and
novel materials: “When a new material appears on the market, that's always exciting. All the existing
AN
stuff is just the same old, same old, you know? When something new rolls around, we always
question our old solutions and get curious.” (#8: Household Articles) The desire to make products
more environmentally friendly and socially acceptable creates an atmosphere of creativity and
M

willingness to experiment that leads to an open-minded attitude towards exploring unmarked

terrain: “We always try to reserve about 10% of our time to experiment with new things and
D

sustainability certainly is a driver here.” (#12: Household Commodities) Bioplastics in particular were
mentioned by our participants as an area that invoked an excitement and in a hope to foster
TE

innovation as this product developer shared with us: “I have been experimenting for two years with
all those novel and different materials, some are based on wood, some are plastics made from potato
or corn starch, all these new possibilities!” (#17: Toys) Another participant directly tied her efforts to
EP

the intrinsic desire to create a sense of ownership in the new material development: “I am even
personally considering making this the next project, my personal pre-design-research-pet-project if
you will. Finding new ways to introduce that notion of sustainability to our products.” (#30: Consumer
C

Electronics)

Moreover, data analysis showed different Company Motivations to pursue sustainability that
AC

translate into different environments for product developers to use alternative materials.
Sustainability is seen as a trend that will continue to grow and many companies are trying to make
sure they are not caught empty handed when prices for petroleum-based commodities start to rise:
“This is clearly a strategy to ensure survival for companies. Those firms that don't look into
alternatives will be in trouble. Even though it may not make monetary sense just yet, because of the
long development lead times, it is wise for us to start looking into this now.” (#28: Home and Garden
Commodities) Product developers are always concerned with staying on top of the latest
developments to make sure their companies remain competitive: “We are always keeping up with
the state-of-the-art, visiting trade shows and conferences that deal with biopolymers. We try to
establish relationships with material developers and suppliers for bioplastics.” (#19: Leisure and
Sports Equipment) Across the board, our participants reported openness from the side of their

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
companies to look into the use of bioplastics. However, no participant indicated being strongly
incentivized in any way to go beyond just monitoring the development. For now, executives seem to
be content with knowing that their product developers are not losing sight of the possibilities but are
not a driving force to become early adopters. We could make out a sense of “actively standing-by”
for many firms in the sample – no financial commitment to push bold new moves but always ready to
act if something happens to come along.

The third main factor for the attitude development emerged to be Pioneer Products that are already
in the market. Participants repeatedly pointed out that firms’ efforts to bring new products with

PT
bioplastics to market affected their attitude in a twofold manner: (1) They helped them build
awareness in their own companies for the possibilities and (2) reduced the perceived risks when
exploring the opportunities to use bioplastics. The first effect is very nicely illustrated by this

RI
anecdote, one of the participants shared with us: “When I started to experiment with bioplastics
three or four years ago, the material had a terrible odor to it, that didn't work so well. But now we
have these biopolymers made from corn or bamboo. To get my team fired up and to get the pundits

SC
to come around I just casually placed bioplastics dinnerware that I found in the supermarket in our
company kitchen and people thought it looked cool. And when I tell them then that it's bioplastics
they are all really psyched about it. It helped to show them that it can be done.” (#30: Consumer

U
Electronics) The second important influence is the effect on risk taking as this participant pointed
out: “Now there are all these products out there which show that bioplastics are a possibility. That
AN
really helps to work up the courage to try for yourself.” (#3: Household Commodities) Between those
two effects on attitude towards bioplastics, pioneer products play an important role in growing the
market and achieving a wider recognition of the possibilities.
M

To summarize, our findings indicate that there is generally a positive attitude towards experimenting
with bioplastics among product developers in our sample. Especially the personal intrinsic motivation
D

for product developers to increase the sustainability of the products they design and see through to
production is a strong driver to consider bioplastics. Companies are also open to new ideas, even if
TE

they are hesitant to committing to allocating additional budget towards these efforts. However,
pioneer products can help to increase awareness and reduce the risks associated with spending time
and money to explore bioplastics further. Based on the tenets of the Theory of Planned Behavior, we
EP

conclude that the “light” for attitude is set to green and contributes positively to creating an intent
that leads to behavior.
C

4.2 Subjective Norm

AC

The second lever or “light” that is detailed in the Theory of Planned Behavior is the Subjective Norm
that product developers see towards using bioplastics. In our findings, it comprises of the three
categories Public Perception, Industry/Supplier Pressure, and Internal/External Customer
Requirements. The structure and the corresponding proof quotes are displayed in Figure 5.

As indicated in the introduction to this manuscript, there generally is a positive Public Perception
about the use of recyclable and bio-based inputs for products. However, when engaging in
discussions about public perception of bioplastics, we encountered a much higher level of skepticism
and hesitation than expected. “We have looked at using the castor bean to make bioplastics for our
products but that is a very delicate topic. Not because it doesn't work but because a good idea can
turn into a PR disaster in no time.” (#21: Body Care Products) When asked to elaborate what causes
this unexpected skepticism towards public reaction to bioplastics, several participants referred to the
public backlash yoghurt manufacturer DANONE faced in 2011 when introducing their new plastics
7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
cups from the corn-based bioplastics PLA (Femers, 2012; Resch, 2011). This is how one participant
remembers the incident: “What made all of us cautious was that DANONE case. That was tarnished
as greenwashing, they had to pull it from the market. Even though they were using bioplastics, it
turned out not to be fully biodegradable and because of the production and recycling mechanisms
and the resource requirements, it wasn't better for the environment at the end of the day. Right now,
you are playing with fire when you introduce something like this to the market at large.” (#10:
Household Articles) The fact that several participants were very familiar with this particular
anecdote, leads us to conclude that it severely impacted the stands of bioplastics in the minds of
product developers. It not so much led them to discarding the topic as a bad solution in general or

PT
them scrapping their experiments with the materials but it dampened the hopes to market
bioplastics to the consumer as a “green” alternative. Despite this public backlash, product developers
are still looking at bioplastics as an option, they just shy away from touting the environmental

RI
friendliness on a broader scale.

The second category that informs the subjective norm is Industry and Supplier Pressure. Firms that

SC
use plastics in their products are subjected to trends and new materials that influence their
development processes. In some cases, the push to consider bioplastics comes from the supplier side
as this participant explains: “Bioplastics are a typical thing for material suppliers. They approach us

U
with this new material and brag about the great compost-ability features. 'Wouldn't this be great for
your products?' they say. And they come equipped with these graphic images of the world's oceans
AN
littered with plastics waste. Well, how could I not look into this at that point?” (#21: Body Care
Products) Another important aspect to the use of new materials is scale. Our participants pointed
out to us that they could easily make a big step forward if they worked with the big material
M

suppliers to find opportunities to use bioplastics for mass production: “I have a good relationship
with [major material supplier]. They'll show you their design lab and it's worth 20,000 materials. They
D

can make whatever you want, you just have to be able to specify it. Currently, pretty much everything
is possible (...) you just have to place an order large enough.” (#17: Toys) Despite the positive push
TE

from the suppliers’ side, our participants also mentioned that opportunities are foregone because
particularly new start-up firms with innovative materials still lack the clout to successfully sell their
product. All in all, it seems that the market for bioplastics is currently undergoing major change with
EP

the big players at the forefront. The opportunity to make big leaps is more limited by a larger scale
demand than supply, which bring us to our third component – customer requirements.

Product developers in our sample shared a common feeling about a certain inertia from the
C

consumer side with respect to Customer Requirements about bioplastics. While customers are
generally in favor of more sustainable products – including the use of bioplastics – there is an
AC

overwhelming lack of willingness to pay: “It's actually really simple and I'll put this bluntly, customers
are not willing to pony up extra cash for the use of bioplastics. (…) People just don't care enough.”
(#26: Home and Garden Tools) Obviously, this is concern not limited to product sustainability efforts
around bioplastics. The clear indication of research in this area suggests that while consumers favor
more sustainable products and will claim in surveys to be willing to pay extra (e.g. Nielsen, 2015),
when faced with higher prices in the store, only very few walk the talk (Prothero et al., 2011).
Secondly, there is concern inside the organizations as well. For a company heavily relying on plastics
for many of their products, praising bioplastics as more sustainable leads to a significant conundrum
as this product developer explained to us: “And then we had the pundits in our own organization
weigh in. I mean you really have to be careful. We have 500 products – all of them are plastics and

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
then you bring this bioplastics product to market that is more sustainable. Well, and the rest of our
products are all garbage now?” (#17: Toys)

To summarize these findings in the subjective norm dimension: The feedback product developers get
from forces inside and outside the organization is characterized by a high level of ambiguity. On the
one hand, customers and industry at large have a favorable opinion of more sustainable products
and they view bioplastics as a potential way of achieving this goal. On the other hand, both inside the
organizations as well as from the market the willingness to take risks or to pay extra is very limited.
Now, this is not a dilemma that is specific to bioplastics, many product sustainability initiatives are

PT
“plagued” with a severe social desirability bias (e.g. Luchs et al., 2010) – people claim to want it but
they are not willing to make any sacrifices to move the needle at the end of the day. Especially, the
problem that pushing bioplastics in high-visibility test-products raises questions about the use of

RI
traditional petroleum-based plastics for the rest of the product portfolio emerges as a major caveat
for companies to act as early adopters. However, our research also indicates that several of these
roadblocks can potentially be overcome if the market size expands and firms can leverage economies

SC
of scale to decrease the burden of higher costs for enhanced sustainability through bioplastics.
Therefore, we conclude that the “light” for subjective norm towards product developers’ use of
bioplastics is currently set to yellow. Generally, the desire to increase the use of bioplastics is

U
evident, but until the market can outgrow its niche size, we will only see few mass market products
come to fruition.
AN
4.3 Perceived Behavioral Control
M

The third theoretical dimension that forms an intention that can lead to behavior with respect to the
use of bioplastics is the behavioral control the product developers perceive to have. It is important to
note that in the forming stage of the intention, the decision makers assess their control beyond their
D

own person (Ajzen, 1985). In our case, the product developers ponder the influence of their decision
to use bioplastics as it goes both up and down the supply chain. The perceived behavioral control can
TE

be split up into the three different categories Triple Bottom Line Trade-Offs, Behavioral Readiness for
Change, and Technology Shortfalls and Cost Increases. The structure and the corresponding proof
quotes are displayed in Figure 6.
EP

In our conversations with product developers, a majority of the participants shared skepticism about
the actual ecological and social performance of bioplastics – the Triple Bottom Line Trade-Offs. Our
participants questioned for example the conflict between food production and using the same
C

resources to make bioplastics: “I am constantly faced with the question if it makes sense to use food
AC

production resources to make our products, or are we keeping someone from growing the food they
need? There are so many up and down sides, this is far from the silver bullet as things currently
stand.” (#1: Household Commodities) This notion lead participants to question the ecological and
social merit of bioplastics on a larger scale: “One material we could use is made from grains, which is
food! So we could make our packaging from this and then people throw it in the trash? I can't see
how that could be sustainable.” (#18: Home and Garden Commodities) Further, participants pointed
out that the food vs. bioplastics conundrum is exacerbated by the fact that many of the plants usable
for bioplastics come from regions already short on food supplies: “There is a material on the market
we could use, however I find myself in a dilemma here because that is actually a food item and if I use
it, people can't eat it. Often this comes from countries that are short on food as it is. I can't justify this
from an ethical perspective.” (#21: Body Care Products)

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Another issue that leads to questions regarding the ecological merit of bioplastics is the current lack
of adequate recycling and waste treatment processes for these products. As this product developer
points out, most material suppliers will now tout the usability of biopolymers but shy away from
making promises about the end of life phase because of inferior performance: “I can use this
biopolymer and it will be great for production but you won't find a supplier out there who tells you
that they are also up to snuff with respect to recycling. Quite to the contrary actually: They all openly
say, they have no idea how to recycle this stuff yet.” (#19: Leisure and Sports Equipment) Another
participant pointed out that the issue actually extends beyond the material suppliers and also
concerns our infrastructure to process waste and recycling: “The waste treatment plants currently

PT
aren't ready to deal with bioplastics. They have to sort all of it out because it wrecks their equipment
in the long run. They just end up burning it. For us, bioplastics makes no sense right now; I just don't
consider it sustainable in the current situation until the recycling issue changes.” (#10: Household

RI
Articles)

Secondly, the notion of the expected Behavioral Readiness for Change emerged as a stumbling block

SC
for the use of bioplastics by product developers. Our participants suggested that they feel they have
little influence on the use of the products by consumers and thus felt uneasy if bioplastics could
really achieve the desired effect. If the customer for example is not adequately informed about the

U
role of bioplastics in the product and its implications for recycling, the positive bottom line impact of
using renewable resources may quickly evaporate or even turn negative as this participant shared:
AN
“Our issue is that the consumer is stoked to have trash bags from bioplastics and thinks 'I'm super
sustainable' and they go on to use it for all kinds of trash. The problem is: the bag was designed to
compost with the organic waste in it. Now it ends up in the regular garbage treatment and wrecks
M

havoc on the entire recycling process.” (#1: Household Commodities) Because of the novelty of
bioplastics in every-day items, product developers worried that consumers are lacking the education
D

and experience with respect to the use conditions and end of life. As this product developer told us,
these worries are by no means unsubstantiated: “With our first bioplastics based products, customers
TE

had no idea what to do with it once they were done using it. How do I discard this? Can I put this on
my compost, in the organic waste bin, should I burn it? There was a lot of confusion.” (#17: Toys) As
these two comments illustrate, there was a general mistrust of the consumers with respect to their
EP

knowledge and willingness to treat bioplastics correctly during and after use of the product. This
seemed to be a strong barrier, holding product developers back from employing bioplastics on a
broader scale.
C

Finally, our research uncovered a strong feeling of uncertainty and skepticism on the side of the
product developers towards the technical performance and the implications for production costs of
AC

bioplastics products. Several product developers shared with us that the technological solutions for
using bioplastics still fall short of what they could achieve with conventional inputs. As this
participant shared, he struggles to meet established quality standards when using bioplastics: “We
looked at many alternative materials, renewable ones. We tested everything we could find but we
couldn't get it to work yet. It just won't meet quality standards.” (#20: Stationery) Product
developers are also skeptical about the consequences of bioplastics for the durability and
performance of their final product: “Our product performance can suffer. The durability of the
product decreases and we would get all kinds of customer complaints.” (#21: Body Care Products)
Secondly, product developers in our sample across the board mentioned the higher costs for
alternative bio-based plastics: “The thing is that in our case the biopolymers are way more expensive
than conventional polyethylene.” (#13: Stationery) Cost concerns and technological performance can
also be interrelated. Because the technological performance of bioplastics often lacks behind
10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
conventional materials, developers are forced to use more material to achieve comparable results.
Obviously, this drives up the costs.

In summary, our study finds a low level of perceived behavioral control with respect to bioplastics on
the side of product developers. They doubt the technical performance and are held back by higher
prices, consumers are often overwhelmed with the implications of bioplastics and don’t use it
correctly and finally the virtue of bioplastics for the ecological and social bottom line is anything but
established beyond reasonable doubt. Given the high level of uncertainty and possible ambiguity,
product developers don’t feel in control of the behavior after their decision making. We thus

PT
conclude that the “light” for perceived behavioral control is currently set to red. The fact that
product developers consider the Triple Bottom Line impact of bioplastics to be still questionable –
especially before the background of the current lack of an adequate recycling system – emerges as

RI
the most important stumbling block towards a more widespread use.

5. Discussion and Implications of the Findings

SC
In our manuscript, we employed empirical data to gain insight into the behavioral process of
intention-development by product developers towards the use of bioplastics. It is our goal to

U
establish the driving forces as well as the hindering factors that pertain to a more widespread use of
the new materials. The Theory of Planned Behavior helps us understand that personal attitude,
AN
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control inform the development of intention that leads to
behavior. We find that while the attitude dimension fosters an environment that could lead to a
more pervasive adoption of the materials, both the subjective norm as well as behavioral control
M

hinder this behavior from occurring. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the findings and
establish implications for theory and practice. In order to create a concise reading experience, the
implications are also summarized in a bullet-point-form in Table 2.
D

The desire and willingness of product developers to experiment with new materials emerges to be
TE

directly influenced by the intrinsic motivation of the participants to achieve higher product
sustainability. Our analysis suggests that companies are well advised to create room for product
developers to freely experiment without stifling pressure to only work on products that can be
EP

brought to market quickly. The respondents clearly indicated that they believe bioplastics are worth
“playing” with and firms should allocate resources to give them the freedom to be creative. Many of
the projects might have longer lead times but if given the opportunity, product developers can arrive
C

at innovative solutions that can turn out to be transformative. This finding and conclusion is
supported by the literature on product development which finds room for creativity to be a critical
AC

resource for innovation (e.g. Llerena and Wagner, 2008; Pettersen, 2015). Several participants shared
positive feedback about the willingness of executives in their firms to provide them with the
necessary freedom and trust to explore new creative solutions. Firms should continue to progress in
this way.

However, other influence factors emerged to hinder creative bioplastics solutions. Specifically, the
skepticism towards the overall benefit of bioplastics from a Triple Bottom Line perspective leads to a
lack of perceived behavioral control which keeps many product developers from pursuing the
bioplastics option more aggressively. Because the respondents in our sample frequently referred to
the DANONE case, this incident and its fallout warrants a more in-depth analysis. This example is
interesting because we see how the existence of subjective norm as a theoretical dimension
influences the perceived behavioral control. As it turns out, DANONE was not really directly criticized

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
for the use of bioplastics but rather for the flamboyant marketing pitch that their new packaging
from bioplastics was more sustainable overall (Femers, 2012). Assessing the ecological merit of an
alternative to petroleum-based plastics through the entire supply chain from growing the plant-
based inputs to recycling and waste treatment is highly complex. Faced with ambiguous results from
an analysis DANONE itself commissioned by the ifeu-Institute (Kauertz et al., 2011), DANONE gave in
to the temptation of abbreviating their “proof” of the enhanced sustainability in a way that may have
excluded evidence to the contrary (Resch, 2011). When called out on the lax handling of data to back
up its claim the company finally had to retreat (Resch, 2011).

PT
Now, for this analysis, the anecdote is very telling because it exemplifies the perception that product
developers have about the control they can exercise over the outcomes of their work. In the light of
the luring danger of bioplastics efforts getting caught in a greenwashing blunder, they shy away from

RI
engaging in it in the first place. Importantly, this is not actually caused by first-hand experiences they
have had themselves but based on third-hand information about another company’s misfortune.
Further, several of the references made to the DANONE story by our participants actually turned out

SC
to be gross generalizations or even factually incorrect. Beyond this particular case, our study revealed
that there is a persistence of smattering among product developers about bioplastics. Several of our
participants referred to alleged “scientific” findings about the food vs. materials conflict. While some

U
research does indicate that this is not entirely a non-issue if assuming a wide-spread use of
bioplastics in the future (Detzel et al., 2012), today there is little evidence of an actual competition
AN
between food production and raw materials for bioplastics (European Bioplastics, 2013). The jury is
still out on the actual magnitude of the dilemma and this warrants more research. However, the
issue exemplifies the importance of the behavioral influence because the food vs. materials conflict is
M

such an “intuitive” narrative. Despite the lack of compelling scientific data, it is easy to raise doubts
about the social and environmental merit of bioplastics due to this potential conflict because it easy
D

to imagine. Behavioral research on the heuristics decision makers employ in lieu of established facts
shows that arguments that are easy to imagine and rationalize can have decisive influence (Kliger and
TE

Kudryavtsev, 2010; Sherman et al., 1985). The current analysis is a good illustration of this
phenomenon.

Our analysis thus shows the importance of outside factors, public perception and, for lack of a better
EP

word, “feelings” when it comes to decision-making in the product development process. Especially
for a novel and only insufficiently explored topic such as bioplastics, our study suggests that it is not
technological shortfalls or actually higher costs that cause some of the hesitancy to act but rather the
C

fear of not exercising full control over the outcomes of the action. This is an insightful contribution
because while technological improvements and use of bioplastics on a larger scale can bring costs
AC

down and remove more tangible stumbling blocks, the psychological inhibitors can still remain. We
conclude from this that the subjective norm as it leads to perceived behavioral control is of crucial
importance for developing intention and in our case is actually often even used as an “excuse” to
explain a lack of action despite an existing intrinsic personal motivation. We do not aspire to criticize
product developers here in any way but rather attempt to expose the underlying psychological
process that can be explained using the Theory of Planned Behavior.

For theory and research our findings imply that while the extensive work on frameworks and tools on
a technical level can support the increased use of bioplastics, they fall short of tackling the pervasive
behavioral roadblocks. As our review of the extant literature shows, behavioral elements to
developing more sustainable products are currently largely neglected. We therefore suggest to more
intensively look into the environment product developers find themselves in with respect to making
12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
more sustainable products, also beyond just bioplastics. Furthermore, our study shows the
applicability of the Theory of Planned Behavior to this issue and we suggest that it should be used
more widely to understand decision-making processes. We found empirical evidence of all three
theoretical dimensions as established by the theory to inform these processes and suggest that the
theory be further elaborated and adapted to be used by other research projects.

6. Limitations and Further Research

The grounded inductive methodology employed has provided comprehensive insights into the

PT
dynamics of making sustainability-related decisions about bioplastics in product development.
However, there are some limitations to this approach. Since the interview sample was composed
through theoretical sampling, it is not necessarily representative of the underlying population. Thus,

RI
the results of this study cannot be generalized without further ado for companies not included in the
sample. Also, the consumer goods industry acts within a unique business environment. It is possible
that the same research setup will yield different results for other industries.

SC
Since sustainability is an evolving topic driven by different stakeholders and innovation cycles in
consumer goods companies are rather short, it is possible that some companies from the sample

U
revisit their approach towards bioplastics in the near future. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis with
multiple points of data collection could be of value. Additionally, the findings of this study lend
AN
themselves to empirical validation through quantitative analysis. A large-scale empirical data set (e.g.
surveys or behavioral experiments) may be used to understand if the current conclusions hold true
for other industries, geographical regions, or different kinds of alternative materials. We believe
M

there is value in exploring the role of behavior in product development at large and invite
researchers using different methodologies to further pursue this topic.
D

Another opportunity for further research is to untangle and inform the food vs. materials debate.
Rather than “blaming” product developers for a lack of action, we suggest that the findings imply the
TE

need for additional inquiry both from researchers as well as material suppliers. They can provide
product developers with rigorously established metrics about the social and environmental benefits
of bioplastics. We currently see product developers rushing to conclusions about the Triple Bottom
EP

Line impact of bioplastics and a tendency to doubt their benefits based on feelings. Therefore, we
suggest that this inhibitor can be overcome with compelling scientific evidence. We call on
researchers and industry to fill the void. Many product developers in the consumer goods industry
C

are motivated and have the resources to experiment with bioplastics solutions if they can get access
to materials that are of high quality as well as actually beneficial for society and the environment.
AC

7. Conclusions

In summary, this manuscript suggests that we are at a crossroads for bioplastics. Product developers
in the consumer goods industry are standing by to expand their use for the market but they are
“dancing in the dark”. So far, only few pioneer products have come to fruition and many solutions
are stuck in an experimental phase. Only if product developers can be supplied with sustainably
produced materials and adequate recycling options can they help make the successful transition
from petroleum-based materials. Rigorous research documenting the positive Triple Bottom Line
impact of bioplastics is crucial to fill the void currently left to smattering. Industry and researchers
have to come together to help move the needle on the topic.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
APPENDIX

The literature review we conducted was aimed at mapping the state of research on sustainable
product development and provided us with a solid background and understanding for the
subsequent study of bioplastics consideration. We deliberately limited the search field in order to
exclude related concepts like ecodesign or design for the environment. Traditional databases like
EBSCOhost but also the literature catalogues compiled by ResearchGate and Mendeley were
searched through using adequate search terms. The search resulted in 173 individual articles. Due to
the multidisciplinary character of the field these articles stem from around 80 different outlets as

PT
illustrated in Figure A.1.

All articles were read and classified by the authors. Most articles deal with developing and testing

RI
methods and tools that are intended to help product developers in designing more sustainable
products. Only very few articles deal with the behavioral aspects of deciding if and how to foster
product sustainability. A heavily abbreviated summary of this literature analysis is provided in Table

SC
A.1.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References

Ajzen, I., 2005. Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 2nd ed. Open University Press, Maidenhead.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I., 1985. From Intentions to Actions - A Theory of Planned Behavior, in: Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J.
(Eds.), Action Control - From Cognition to Behavior. Springer-Verlag, Berlin et al., pp. 11–39.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

PT
Alblas, A., Peters, K., Wortmann, H., 2014. Fuzzy Sustainability Incentives in New Product
Development - An Empirical Exploration of Sustainability Challenges in Manufacturing
Companies. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34, 513–545. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0461

RI
Álvarez-Chávez, C.R., Edwards, S., Moure-Eraso, R., Geiser, K., 2012. Sustainability of Bio-Based
Plastics - General Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Improvement. J. Clean. Prod.
23, 47–56. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.003

SC
Armstrong, C.M., LeHew, M.L.A., 2011. Sustainable Apparel Product Development - In Search of a
New Dominant Social Paradigm for the Field Using Sustainable Approaches. Fash. Pract. 3, 29–
62. doi:10.2752/175693811X12925927157018

U
Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business Models for Sustainable Innovation - State-of-the-Art and
Steps towards a Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9–19. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007
AN
Breckenridge, J., Jones, D., 2009. Demystifying Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory Research.
Grounded Theory Rev. 8, 113–126.
M

Buchert, T., Kaluza, A., Halstenberg, F.A., Lindow, K., Hayka, H., Stark, R., 2014. Enabling Product
Development Engineers to Select and Combine Methods for Sustainable Design. Procedia CIRP
15, 413–418. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.025
D

Byggeth, S., Broman, G., Robèrt, K.-H., 2007. A Method for Sustainable Product Development Based
on a Modular System of Guiding Questions. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1–11.
TE

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.02.007
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory - A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.
SAGE Publications, London.
EP

Clancy, G., Fröling, M., Svanström, M., 2013. Changing from Petroleum to Wood-Based Materials -
Critical Review of How Product Sustainability Characteristics Can Be Assessed and Compared. J.
Clean. Prod. 39, 372–385. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.027
C

Cooper, T., 1999. Creating an Economic Infrastructure for Sustainable Product Design. J. Sustain.
Prod. Des. 7–17.
AC

Corbin, J., Strauss, A.L., 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks et al.
Cordano, M., Hanson Frieze, I., 2000. Pollution Reduction Preferences of U.S. Environmental
Managers - Applying Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 627–641.
doi:10.2307/1556358
Dangelico, R.M., Pontrandolfo, P., Pujari, D., 2013. Developing Sustainable New Products in the
Textile and Upholstered Furniture Industries - Role of External Integrative Capabilities. J. Prod.
Innov. Manag. 30, 642–658. doi:10.1111/jpim.12013
de Silva, N., Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O., Russell, M., 2009. A New Comprehensive Methodology for the
Evaluation of Product Sustainability at the Design and Development Stage of Consumer
Electronic Products. Int. J. Sustain. Manuf. 1, 251–264. doi:10.1504/IJSM.2009.023973

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Detzel, A., Kauertz, B., Derreza-Greeven, C., 2012. Untersuchung der Umweltwirkungen von
Verpackungen aus biologisch abbaubaren Kunststoffen. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.
Deutz, P., Neighbour, G., McGuire, M., 2010. Integrating Sustainable Waste Management into
Product Design - Sustainability as a Functional Requirement. Sustain. Dev. 18, 229–239.
doi:10.1002/sd.469
Diegel, O., Singamneni, S., Reay, S., Withell, A., 2010. Tools for Sustainable Product Design - Additive
Manufacturing. J. Sustain. Dev. 3, 68–75. doi:10.5539/jsd.v3n3p68
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1991. Better Stories and Better Constructs - The Case for Rigor and Comparative

PT
Logic. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16, 620–627. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4279496
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532–550.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

RI
Ekins, P., 2010. Eco-Innovation for Environmental Sustainability - Concepts, Progress and Policies. Int.
Econ. Econ. Policy 7, 267–290. doi:10.1007/s10368-010-0162-z

SC
Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks - The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century
Business. Environ. Qual. Manag. Autumn, 37–51. doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106
European Bioplastics, 2013. Bioplastics Facts and Figures. European Bioplastics, Berlin.

U
Femers, S., 2012. Die Begriffe Akteure, Zielgruppen, Stakeholder & Co und ihre Implikationen für das
Beziehungsmanagement, in: Boltres-Streeck, K., Femers, S. (Eds.), Finanztango. VS Verlag für
AN
Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 17–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19296-3_3
Ferdous, A.S., 2010. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explain Marketing Managers’
Perspectives on Sustainable Marketing. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 22, 313–325.
M

doi:10.1080/08961530.2010.505883
Gerstlberger, W., Praest Knudsen, M., Stampe, I., 2014. Sustainable Development Strategies for
Product Innovation and Energy Efficiency. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 23, 131–144.
D

doi:10.1002/bse.1777
TE

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2012. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research - Notes
on the Gioia Methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16, 15–31. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory - Strategies for Qualitative
EP

Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Gmelin, H., Seuring, S., 2014a. Determinants of a Sustainable New Product Development. J. Clean.
Prod. 69, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.053
C

Gmelin, H., Seuring, S., 2014b. Achieving Sustainable New Product Development by Integrating
Product Life-Cycle Management Capabilities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 154, 166–177.
AC

doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.023
Goulding, C., 2002. Grounded Theory - A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market
Researchers. SAGE Publications, London et al.
Hallstedt, S., Thompson, A.W., Lindahl, P., 2013. Key Elements for Implementing a Strategic
Sustainability Perspective in the Product Innovation Process. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 277–288.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.043
Hayward, R., Lee, J., Keeble, J., McNamara, R., Hall, C., Cruse, S., Gupta, P., Robinson, E., 2013. The
UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study on Sustainability 2013 - Architects of a Better World.
UN Glob. Compact Reports 5, 1–60. doi:10.5848/UNGC.5720.2014.0015
Hynds, E.J., Brandt, V., Burek, S., Jager, W., Knox, P., Parker, J.P., Schwartz, L., Taylor, J., Zietlow, M.,
2014. Research-on-Research - A Maturity Model for Sustainability in New Product

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Development. Res. Technol. Manag. 57, 50–57. doi:10.5437/08956308X5701143
Iles, A., Martin, A.N., 2013. Expanding Bioplastics Production - Sustainable Business Innovation in the
Chemical Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.008
Inoue, M., Lindow, K., Stark, R., Tanaka, K., Nahm, Y.E., Ishikawa, H., 2012. Decision-Making Support
for Sustainable Product Creation. Adv. Eng. Informatics 26, 782–792.
doi:10.1016/j.aei.2012.07.002
Kainz, U., Zapilko, M., Decker, T., Menrad, K., 2013. Consumer-Relevant Information about
Bioplastics, in: Geldermann, J., Schumann, M. (Eds.), First International Conference on Resource

PT
Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen, pp. 391–
402.
Karana, E., 2012. Characterization of “Natural” and “High-Quality” Materials to Improve Perception

RI
of Bio-Plastics. J. Clean. Prod. 37, 316–325. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.034
Kauertz, B., Detzel, A., Volz, S., 2011. Ökobilanz von Danone Activia-Verpackungen aus Polystyrol und
Polylactid. ifeu Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH, Heidelberg.

SC
Kern, C., 2010. Die Konsumgüterindustrie, in: Meinhardt, S., Kern, C., Kauffmann, K., Jahraus, J. (Eds.),
Innovative Gestaltung von Geschäftsprozessen in Der Konsumgüterindustrie. dpunkt.verlag,
Heidelberg, pp. 3–63.

U
Kliger, D., Kudryavtsev, A., 2010. The Availability Heuristic and Investors’ Reaction to Company-
AN
Specific Events. J. Behav. Financ. 11, 50–65. doi:10.1080/15427561003591116
KPMG, 2012. Consumer Markets - Trends im Handel 2020. KPMG AG, Hamburg.
Kurka, S., 2012. Biomasse-basierte Produkte aus Konsumentensicht - Ausgewählte europäische
M

Länder im Vergleich. Technische Universität München.

Llerena, P., Wagner, M., 2008. Drivers for Sustainability-Improving Innovation - A Qualitative Analysis
of Renewable Resources, Industrial Products and Travel Services, in: Wagner, M. (Ed.),
D

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 130–148.

doi:10.9774/GLEAF.978-1-907643-47-7_8
TE

Locke, K.D., 2001. Grounded Theory in Management Research. SAGE Publications, London et al.
Luchs, M.G., Walker Naylor, R., Irwin, J.R., Raghunathan, R., 2010. The Sustainability Liability -
EP

Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference. J. Mark. 74, 18–31.

doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.18
Luthe, T., Kägi, T., Reger, J., 2013. A Systems Approach to Sustainable Technical Product Design -
C

Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Virtual Development in the Case of Skis. J. Ind. Ecol. 17,
605–617. doi:10.1111/jiec.12000
AC

Maxwell, D., van der Vorst, R., 2003. Developing Sustainable Products and Services. J. Clean. Prod. 11,
883–895. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00164-6
Mayyas, A.T., Qattawi, A., Mayyas, A.R., Omar, M., 2013. Quantifiable Measures of Sustainability - A
Case Study of Materials Selection for Eco-Lightweight Auto-Bodies. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 177–189.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.039
Metta, H., Badurdeen, F., 2013. Integrating Sustainable Product and Supply Chain Design - Modeling
Issues and Challenges. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 60, 438–446. doi:10.1109/TEM.2012.2206392
Morone, P., Tartiu, V.E., Falcone, P., 2015. Assessing the potential of biowaste for bioplastics
production through social network analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 43–54.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.069
Moser, A.K., 2015. Thinking Green, Buying Green? Drivers of Pro-Environmental Purchasing Behavior.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
J. Consum. Mark. 32, 167–175. doi:10.1108/JCM-10-2014-1179
Nielsen, 2015. The Sustainability Imperative - New Insights on Consumer Expectations. The Nielsen
Company, New York.
Ny, H., Hallstedt, S., Ericson, A., 2013. A Strategic Approach for Sustainable Product Service System
Development, in: Chakrabarti, A. (Ed.), CIRP Design 2012 - Sustainable Product Development.
Springer, London et al., pp. 427–436. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4507-3_41
Ny, H., Hallstedt, S., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., 2008. Introducing Templates for Sustainable Product
Development. J. Ind. Ecol. 12, 600–623. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00061.x

PT
O´Connor, M.C., 2011. The Bioplastics Burden. Waste Age 42, 44–49.
Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., Wenunun, P., Chom-In, T., Nithitanakul, M., Sarobol,
E., 2014. Comparative Assessment of the Environmental Profile of PLA and PET Drinking Water

RI
Bottles from a Life Cycle Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 539–550.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.030

SC
Pettersen, I.N., 2015. Towards Practice-Oriented Design for Sustainability - The Compatibility with
Selected Design Fields. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8, 206–218. doi:10.1080/19397038.2014.1001468
Pratt, M.G., 2008. Fitting Oval Pegs into Round Holes - Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing

U
Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals. Organ. Res. Methods 11, 481–509.
doi:10.1177/1094428107303349
AN
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K., Thøgersen, J., 2011.
Sustainable Consumption: Opportunities for Consumer Research and Public Policy. J. Public
Policy Mark. 30, 31–38. doi:10.1509/jppm.30.1.31
M

Resch, J., 2011. Deutsche Umwelthilfe stoppt irreführende Werbekampagne von Danone [WWW
Document]. URL http://duh.de/2536+M5f5fc91f0d1.html (accessed 10.9.14).
Rosato, D., 2012. Ever Evolving Bioplastics Landscape - Bioplastics Redefined. Pop. Plast. Packag. 57,
D

40–46.
TE

Rossi, V., Cleeve-Edwards, N., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Dubois, C., Humbert, S., Jolliet, O., 2015.
Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Options for Two Biodegradable Packaging Materials -
Sound Application of the European Waste Hierarchy. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 132–145.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.049
EP

Sherman, S.J., Cialdini, R.B., Schwartzman, D.F., Reynolds, K.D., 1985. Imagining Can Heighten or
Lower the Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease - The Mediating Effect of Ease of
Imagery. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 11, 118–127. doi:10.1177/0146167285111011
C

Song, J., Kay, M., Coles, R., 2011. Bioplastics, in: Coles, R., Kirwan, M. (Eds.), Food and Beverage
AC

Packaging Technology. Blackwell Publishing, Chichester, pp. 295–319.

Subic, A., Mouritz, A., Troynikov, O., 2009. Sustainable Design and Environmental Impact of Materials
in Sports Products. Sport. Technol. 2, 67–79. doi:10.1002/jst.117
Suddaby, R., 2006. From the Editors - What Grounded Theory is Not. Acad. Manag. J. 49, 633–642.
doi:10.1111/risa.12274
Thompson, A.W., Larsson, T.C., Broman, G., 2011. Towards Sustainability-Driven Innovation through
Product-Service Systems, in: Hesselbach, J., Herrmann, C. (Eds.), Functional Thinking for Value
Creation - Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP International Conference on Industrial Product Service
Systems. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg et al., pp. 117–122. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19689-8_22
Tingström, J., Swanström, L., Karlsson, R., 2006. Sustainability Management in Product Development
Projects - The ABB Experience. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 1377–1385. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.027

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tsiropoulos, I., Faaij, A.P.C., Lundquist, L., Schenker, U., Briois, J.F., Patel, M.K., 2015. Life Cycle
Impact Assessment of Bio-Based Plastics from Sugarcane Ethanol. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 114–127.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.071
van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., Behrens, P., 2011. Explaining Pro-Environment Consumer Behavior in
Air Travel. J. Air Transp. Manag. 17, 125–128. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2010.12.013
Verhulst, E., Boks, C., 2014. Employee Empowerment for Sustainable Design. J. Corp. Citizsh. 55, 73–
101. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2014.se.00008
Verhulst, E., Boks, C., 2012. The Role of Human Factors in the Adoption of Sustainable Design Criteria

PT
in Business - Evidence from Belgian and Dutch Case Studies. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 6, 146–
163. doi:10.1504/IJISD.2012.046943
Winter, M., Knemeyer, A.M., 2013. Exploring the Integration of Sustainability and Supply Chain

RI
Management - Current State and Opportunities for Future Inquiry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 43, 18–38. doi:10.1108/09600031311293237
Yates, M.R., Barlow, C.Y., 2013. Life Cycle Assessments of Biodegradable, Commercial Biopolymers -

SC
A Critical Review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 78, 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.06.010

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure and Table Captions
Fig. 1: Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2005)

Fig. 2: Sample Composition

Fig. 3: Structure of the Findings

Fig. 4: Attitude Toward the Use of Bioplastics

Fig. 5: Subjective Norm Toward the Use of Bioplastics

PT
Fig. 6: Perceived Behavioral Control over the Use of Bioplastics

Fig. A.1: Distribution of Reviewed Articles on Outlets

RI
Tab. 1: Overview of the Sample

SC
Tab. 2: Summary of the Implications

Tab. A.1: Condensed Results of Literature Review on Sustainable Product Development

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tab. 1

# Consumer Goods Category Respondent Position

1 Household Commodities
2 Apparel
3 Household Commodities
4 Leisure and Sports Equipment
5 Medical and Therapeutic Products
6 Household Commodities
(1) General Manager and (2) Marketing Manager
Procurement and Sustainability Manager
Head of Product Development
Head of Product Development
Head of Product Development
Vice President Product Management

PT
7 Domestic Appliances (1) Head of Product Development and (2) Designer
8 Household Articles Head of Product Development
9 Domestic Appliances Head of Research & Development

RI
10 Household Articles Product Manager
11 Furniture and Lighting Director Product & Sourcing

SC
12 Household Commodities Head of Product Development
13 Stationery Director Research & Development
14 Personal Items Head of Design
15 Stationery Head of Research & Development

U
16 Personal Items Chief Executive Officer
AN
17 Toys Senior Manager Product Development
18 Home and Garden Commodities Head of Product Development
19 Leisure and Sports Equipment Head of Product Development
M

20 Stationery Head of Product Development

21 Body Care Products Team Leader Product Development
22 Domestic Appliances Head of Product Development
D

23 Federal Authority Expert for Sustainable Consumption

24 Body Care Products Manager Basic Research
TE

25 Consumer Electronics Director of Product Development

26 Home and Garden Tools Head of Product Development
27 Home and Garden Tools Head of Research & Development
EP

28 Home and Garden Commodities Head of Product Development

29 Consulting Consultant for Sustainable Products
30 Consumer Electronics Head of Product Design
C

31 Leisure and Sports Equipment Manager Product Development

32 Body Care Products Manager Research & Development
AC

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tab. 2

Category Implication

Behavioral aspects play a major role in moving from a motivation to behavior with respect to the more
widespread use of bioplastics.
The lack of credible research on the Triple Bottom Line impact of bioplastics makes room for
behavioral heuristics and “opinions” that inform decision-making.
Theoretical
The Theory of Planned Behavior can inform research on the product development process of more
sustainable products.

PT
Research should consider the behavioral aspects of the product development process in more detail to
augment the existing frameworks and tools.
Product developers are intrinsically motivated to explore bioplastics. Companies should provide them
with the freedom and resources to experiment and invite creativity.

RI
There is the potential for material suppliers to push the use of bioplastics if they can establish a
rigorous proof of their ecological and social benefit.
Managerial

SC
Consumers are skeptical of bioplastics with respect to quality and design. Products that build on a
more holistic concept and include end-of-life solutions can be more successful.
Recycling solutions for bioplastics are inadequate. Managers from the waste-treatment sector need to
step up to the plate and provide smart alternatives.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tab. A.1
Focus Aspects Number Research Objectives and Examples
of Papers
Development Supporting 105 Developing conceptual support for sustainable product development in
process methods and form of quantitative approaches for comparing product alternatives (e.g. de
tools Silva et al., 2009; Inoue et al., 2012) or more qualitative approaches for
identifying sustainability opportunities (e.g. Byggeth et al., 2007; Ny et al.,
2008). Reviewing and classifying extant methods (e.g. Buchert et al., 2014).
Implementation 21 Investigating how sustainable product development is implemented in
issues practice (e.g. Alblas et al., 2014; Gmelin and Seuring, 2014b) and which

PT
success factors should be observed (e.g. Hallstedt et al., 2013). Developing
tools in order to benchmark the level of implementation across companies
(e.g. Hynds et al., 2014).
Behavioral 4 Exploring the role of human factors like resistance against change or

RI
issues employee empowerment for the implementation of sustainable product
development (e.g. Verhulst and Boks, 2014, 2012).
More Product-Service 5 Investigating how products can be complemented by services in order to

SC
sustainable Systems get to more sustainable solutions (e.g. Maxwell and van der Vorst, 2003; Ny
products et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2011).
Material issues 8 Analyzing the sustainability performance of specific materials (e.g. Subic et
al., 2009 for sports equipment materials like composites or synthetic fibers;

U
Tsiropoulos et al., 2015 for bioplastics from sugarcane ethanol). Developing
measures for selecting between material options (e.g. Clancy et al., 2013;
Mayyas et al., 2013).
AN
Product 4 Analyzing the challenges and success factors linked to the development of
examples actual more sustainable products (e.g. Luthe et al., 2013 for skis; Tingström
et al., 2006 for a capacitor).
M

Intra-company Business model 5 Investigating how strategies to foster sustainable product development are
relations of generation effected by extant business models and how the emergence of more
sustainable sustainable business models can be facilitated (e.g. Boons and Lüdeke-
product Freund, 2013).
D

development 5
Links to other Analyzing the interrelations of sustainable product development practices
functions and other corporate functions like production (e.g. Diegel et al., 2010
TE

investigate additive manufacturing technologies; Gerstlberger et al., 2014

investigate energy efficiency efforts).
Extra-company Supply chain 5 Investigating how decisions in product development and supply chain
relations of context design can be coordinated (e.g. Metta and Badurdeen, 2013). Analyzing
EP

sustainable how specific supply chains can benefit from external capabilities or
product experiences from other fields (e.g. Armstrong and LeHew, 2011; Dangelico
development et al., 2013 for textile supply chains).
Policy making 11 Analyzing the potential effect of policy interventions on sustainability
C

and economics considerations in product development (e.g. Deutz et al., 2010; Ekins, 2010).
context Investigating the economic preconditions for sustainable product
development (e.g. Cooper, 1999).
AC

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Journal of Cleaner Production

International Journal of Sustainable Engineering

PT
RI
Proceedings of CIRP Conferences

U SC
Proceedings of ICED Conferences

AN
M
D
TE
Number
24 17 14 7 4 4 3 3 2

EP
of Articles

C
AC
2 each 1 each
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Attitude
Toward the
Behavior

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Subjective
Intention Behavior

M
Norm

D
TE
EP
C
AC

Perceived
Behavioral
Control
 Annual Turnover Employees Product Classification
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13%

PT
17% 13%
23%

RI
27% >10,000 Both

SC
>1 bn 1-100
< 50 m

U
AN
13%
27% 50%

M
0.5- 37%

D
1,001- Durable

TE
1 bn 13% Non-
10,000 Goods

EP
50- Durable

C
Goods

AC
30% 100 m 37%
100-500 m 101-1,000
[EUR]
 1st Order Concepts Categories
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Theoretical
Dimensions
Statements about the product
Personal Intrinsic
developers’ personal interest in
Motivation
the topic

Statements about company Attitude

Company
policy/goals as a driver to use bio Toward the
Motivation

PT
plastics Behavior

Statements about how pioneer

RI
products excite developers and Pioneer Products

SC
facilitate risk taking

U
Statements about outside non-
business forces that drive Public Perception
implementation AN
M
Statements about supplier forces Industry/ Subjective
that push bioplastics innovation Supplier Pressure Norm
D
TE

Statements about customer Internal/ External

requirements to improve Customer
EP

sustainability Requirements
C

Statements about trade offs, Triple Bottom

AC

evasion tactics and “excuses” Line Trade-Offs

Statements about customers’ Behavioral Perceived

skepticism of bioplastics and Readiness for Behavioral
inability to process information Change Control

Technology
Statements about inferior quality
Shortfalls and
and higher raw material prices
Cost Increases
 Personal Intrinsic Motivation
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“I personally moved to put bioplastics on the agenda for us

because I thought it could be a great fit for making toys.” (#17:
Toys)

“You know, I have been in my job for a dozen years now...and

frankly, our products aren't the sexiest thing on the planet. This

PT
would have long gotten boring if it weren't for new challenges
and sustainability is exactly that for me. Making our products

RI
more sustainable keeps me excited and on my toes. ” (#12:

SC
Household Commodities)

U
Company Motivation

AN
“Bioplastics products are a growing market for us and they
provide a solid revenue; that's important for our company.”
M
Attitude
(#1: Household Commodities)
Toward the
D

“We obviously see an emerging trend here with those new Behavior
TE

materials. It would be negligent in a way if we didn't consider

this for our product portfolio and make this a reality. ” (#13:
Stationary)
EP

Pioneer Products
C
AC

“I monitor the trends on the market closely and look for smart
bioplastics solutions. Some ideas out there are pretty dull, they
look "greener" but it's just marketing. However, I have seen
other firms with more holistic concepts, they integrate a
recycling solution. Marketing has a compelling story to tell but
the products themselves don't try to have that overt "green"
look to them. That's what I call a smart solution. ” (#19:
Leisure and Sports Equipment)
 Public Perception
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“Public perception is something we monitor very closely. We

have seen that happen with other firms out there, DANONE for
example with their PLA cups. There is someone with a good
idea to begin with and then it all blows up in their face because
the environmental performance is questioned. That really gave
bioplastics a poor image. ” (#13: Stationery)

PT
“And then there is the DANONE case we are all still recovering
from. Someone is trying to use bioplastics and then they are

RI
scolded from all sides because they didn't pay attention to the
whole production and recycling process. It's a complicated

SC
issue.” (#9: Domestic Appliances)

U
Industry/ Supplier Pressure
AN
“We need materials to package our products. And we are
approached by our suppliers time and time again with bio-
M
based plastics and things from renewable resources. It's
constantly an issue.” (#18: Home and Garden Commodities) Subjective
D

Norm
“One of our suppliers approached us with a new material and
TE

asked us if we had ideas. We got them to get us some samples

that we could take to our customers. The results came out well,
and we got ourselves a new product. ” (#1: Household
EP

Commodities)
C

Internal/ External Customer Requirements

AC

“We surveyed our customers about their material preferences

and they clearly indicated that they couldn't care less - just
keep the price down. ” (#6: Household Commodities)

“It's our goal to use those new materials in the market place
but we are facing resistance. We need to pay attention to the
bottom line, you know. Sustainability is important and all but
what do you do if no one buys your products?” (#5: Medical
and Therapeutic Products)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Triple Bottom Line Trade-Offs

“We looked into using bioplastics for some of our bags but the
recycling systems can't handle them and it creates a mess, that
killed the project. ” (#1: Household Commodities)

“Well, if I replace a synthetic granulate with a renewable

PT
resource, I really have little insight how much good I am
actually doing, I doubt it. ” (#25: Consumer Electronics)

RI
Behavioral Readiness for Change

SC
“It's up to the consumer to demand more bioplastics and

U
industry will follow suit. But in reality, the consumer has no

AN
idea how this stuff really works and how 'green' it really is. And Perceived
I can't blame them, it's complicated. ” (#19: Leisure and
M Behavioral
Sports Equipment) Control
D
“Actually, I would suggest that consumers at large are skeptical
TE

towards plastics from alternative sources. There is so much

uncertainty. ” (#20: Stationery)
EP

Technology Shortfalls and Cost Increases

C
AC

“The material didn't behave like we had thought it would. We

had a much larger variability than expected, specs were a huge
problem. ” (#17: Toys)

“The material that I can use that is from corn or potato starch
is three to four times more expensive than normal polyethylene.
How am I supposed to sell this to the customer?” (#1:
Household Commodities)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bioplastics are confined to niche markets and struggle to break the mainstream.

Study based on interview data with 32 product developers of consumer goods.

Product developers are intrinsically motivated to make more use of bioplastics.

The Theory of Planned Behavior explains product developers’ behavior.

They often refrain from using bioplastics due to several behavioral roadblocks.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC