Sustainable consumption in Brazil: Identification of preliminary requirements to guide product development and the definition of public policies

Sustainable consumption in Brazil: Identification of preliminaryrequirements to guide product development and the definition of

public policies

Ângela Maria Marx, Istefani Carísio de Paula and Fabiane Sum

Abstract

Sustainable product development is closely related to sustainable consumption. The understanding of consumers’ purchase,use and discard behaviours may facilitate the identification of requirements to guide manufacturers in the development ofsustainable goods and services. The aim of this paper is to investigate consumers’ perception about factors that motivate ordiscourage the consumption of sustainable products to identify demands and convert them into requirements. South Braziliangreen and traditional consumers were asked to complete an exploratory qualitative questionnaire. Their answers wereorganized and compared to identify differences and similarities between the demands of these two groups. Furthermore,demands were converted into requirements for packages, products, manufactures, stores planning and discard systems. Theinterpretation of factors that motivate or discourage the purchase of sustainable products given by interviewees led to thecreation of a list of possible public policies or programmes, aiming to support sustainable consumption. The resultsdemonstrate the necessity of further quantitative investigation between consumer groups, for validation purposes.narf_1293 51..62

Keywords: Sustainable consumption; Sustainable product development; Sustainable consumption and production policies; Brazil.

1. Introduction

The significance of sustainable development was formallyacknowledged in the Brundtland report in 1987 (WCED,1987; Seyfang, 2003) leading to legal, financial and marketpressures on organizations to develop sustainable productsand services (Maxwell and Van der Vorst, 2003). Accordingto Seliger et al. (2006), sustainability strives to increaseproductivity and resource use to attend human needs,without compromising the planet’s natural limits.

In a sustainability approach, products, services andprocesses must be systemically designed considering social,environmental and economical issues in a triple bottom-line(TBL) related to their entire lifecycle (Seliger and Mertins,2007; Luttropp and Karlsson, 2001). Therefore, sustainablenew product development (NPD) is a complex task thatrequires the design of production and consumption

elements in an optimized balance, within a system thatusually includes several stakeholders. The complexity ofsustainable NPD is in part due to the large amount ofinformation that is input in the development processof goods and services. The information sources includestakeholder’s requirements, as well as political,technological, social, environmental and economicalfactors (Baxter, 1996; Marx, 2009). The input informationwill be used along the development process to generategoods and services that meet customers’ needs.

Possible stakeholders include consumers, workers andsuppliers, as well as the community and the government,among others. All of them have particular interests anddemands, which relate to distinct phases of the productlifecycle. Understanding the needs of stakeholders is centralto avoid design and market drawbacks originating fromdeficiencies in requirements elicitation and productdefinition in the early phases of product development(Tseng and Jiao, 1997; Kotonya and Sommerville, 2000;Young, 2003; Creveling et al., 2003).

The marketing assessment of potential consumers iscommonly performed by specialized agencies viainterviews, focus groups or other information assessmentmethods that are usually considered expensive. Pujari and

Ângela Maria Marx is a PhD student at the Industrial EngineeringDepartment of the Rio Grande do Sul Federal University, Brazil. E-mail:[email protected] Carísio de Paula is a Professor at the Industrial EngineeringDepartment of the Rio Grande do Sul Federal University, Brazil.Fabiane Sum is undergraduate student at the Industrial EngineeringDepartment of the Rio Grande do Sul Federal University, Brazil.

Natural Resources Forum 34 (2010) 51–62

© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 United Nations

Wright (1999) remark that the focus on consumers’ needs isessential; otherwise there is a risk that the productsdeveloped will not sell.

Maxwell and van der Vorst (2003) affirm that theincorporation of sustainability dimensions in productdesign and the development of genuinely sustainableproducts is rarely present in industrial production, since thelatter is primarily focused on environmental and economicissues (Diehl and Brezet, 2004). Labuschagne et al. (2005)affirm that the consideration of environmental and socialrequirements may impose limits to other relevant criteria.Therefore, the TBL requires a higher design expertise tomanage the large set of requirements that arise whendifferent information sources and stakeholders areconsidered in a project. Few systematic attempts to manageall this information were found in the literature (Manziniand Vezzoli, 2005; Marx, 2009).

Even when oriented by the consumers’ demands, productrequirements elicited by the marketing force are oftenfocused on the use phase of the product lifecycle and do notconsider the consumers’ needs at the purchase or disposalphases, which is problematic in a sustainable context. Forinstance, the sustainability of a product may be more relatedto its disposal phase then to its use phase, as happens withfood, when the discarding of the packaging causes a higherimpact on the environment than the discarding of the fooditself (Lee and Xu, 2005). The success of a givensustainable product development is the result of a systemiccoordination of actions and information/needs from all thelifecycle, but it also depends on the characteristics of theproduct.

Furthermore, the sustainability of a product depends onthe user, given that if it is not properly used or discarded, itsoverall sustainability may vanish. Studies have shown theexistence of a gap between environmental awareness andsustainable consumption practices. Consumers sometimeshave a clear knowledge about the correct use and discard ofproducts, but do not put this knowledge into practice (Shrumet al., 1995; Roberts, 1996; Lages and Neto, 2002; Vermierand Verbeke, 2006). In such cases, directives, policies, taxesand fees from government agencies may play an importantrole in creating sustainable consumption behaviours.

This paper gathered information that can be used in theearly phases of a sustainable NPD. South Brazilianconsumers were interviewed about factors that motivate ordiscourage the purchase, use and discard of sustainableproducts in an exploratory attempt to identify demands andconvert them into requirements.

The following questions have directed this study: whatare the factors that motivate or discourage users to practicesustainability along the whole lifecycle of a product? Dothese factors generate identifiable requirements that can beused by manufacturers to develop more efficient sustainableproducts? Would these requirements be used by publicofficials in the definition of related policies, in a systemicproject approach?

This paper is structured as follows. A literature review onsustainable product development and sustainableconsumption is presented in Section 2. The methodology ofour study is discussed in Section 3. The main results arepresented in Section 4. Section 5 concludes.

2. Sustainable consumption and sustainableproduct design

2.1. Sustainable consumption

Consumption has usually been defined by its economicdimension (Sanne, 2002). However, the effects ofoverconsumption on natural resources and the consequentpollution generated brought this concept to thesustainability agenda. At the World Summit for SustainableDevelopment (WSSD) in Johannesburg, the urgency tochange production and consumption patterns as a conditionfor sustainable development was recognized (Sanne, 2002;Hertwich, 2005). The widespread understanding is that thecurrent rate of natural resources use is unsustainable in thelong run (Heiskanen and Pantzar, 1997; WCED, 1987).Purchasing behaviour has become decisive for the planet’sconservation, and the consumer is more than an indicator ofsustainable production but has instead become an incentivefor sustainable technologies (Pujari and Wright, 1999;Layrargues, 2000). In fact, this closer relation betweenconsumption and conservation (Sanne, 2002) makes it animportant issue for the development of sustainableproducts.

OECD (2002) presents a definition for sustainableconsumption as the use of goods and services that meetbasic needs and quality of life without compromising that offuture generations. Experience demonstrates that manyenvironmental problems will be difficult to solve withoutaddressing the diverse sources of pollution and thedynamics created by consumer’s demand (OECD, 2002:17), all of which support the creation of sustainableconsumption policies. In general, these policies are focusedon actions to reduce the impacts of consumption patternsthrough changes in individual behaviour (OECD, 2002;Hertwich, 2005).

Hertwich (2005) affirms that consumption patterns aresustainable when they promote basic needs satisfaction, thedevelopment of human potential and are ‘replicable acrossthe whole globe without compromising the Earth’s carryingcapacity’. However, consumers are a large, disperse andheterogeneous group with highly variable lifestyles (OECD,2002; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Different lifestylesimpact the environment in different ways, as each isassociated with a different mix of goods and servicesrelated to direct and indirect environmental impacts throughthe use of materials, energy, water and space (van der Berghand Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 1999). Consumers’ interest in theenvironment is also variable, which is why it is more

52 Ângela Maria Marx, Istefani Carísio de Paula and Fabiane Sum / Natural Resources Forum 34 (2010) 51–62


difficult to design public policies to influence householdbehaviour than industrial policies (OECD, 2002).

Many papers highlight the existence of a gap betweenenvironmental awareness and sustainable consumption(Shrum et al., 1995; Roberts, 1996; Lages and Neto, 2002;Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006). Roberts (1996) calls attentionto this gap and to the necessity of investigating consumers’behaviour to identify current consumption problems and tocreate markets for sustainable products and services. Thisgap can be, in part, explained by the existence of manybarriers that discourage the consumption of sustainableproducts. These barriers in turn depend on a complexcombination of motivational aspects (Moisander, 2007) thatvaries within and between populations.

Some of these barriers are: the confusion ormisinformation about sustainable products; differentsustainable consumption terminology and understanding;the great importance of product price and quality; personalconvenience and individual interests; external constraints ofa cultural, infrastructural, political and economic nature inmarkets and society; low product offering; distrust inmarketing and publicity; and availability of local products(Wiener and Doescher, 1991; Schlossberg, 1991; Ottman,1994; Roberts, 1996; Niva and Timonen, 2001; Casimir andDutilh, 2003; Tanner and Kast, 2003; Collins, 2004;Moisander, 2007).

Understanding how these aspects influence consumersmay facilitate the identification of consumers’ requirementsfor sustainable products, which can be used to drive thecreation of new more efficient goods and services in termsof sustainability and market (Shiferaw et al., 2008; Takase,2005; Hammond, 2006). The requirements might also beused to guide public officials in the definition of relatedpolicies in a systemic project approach.

2.2. Sustainable product development

Sustainable products can be defined as solutions that meetsocial needs and demands while minimizing negative andmaximizing positive impacts in environmental, economic,

social and ethical dimensions, across the whole product’slifecycle (van Weenen, 1995; Luttropp and Karlsson, 2001;Diehl and Brezet, 2004). The lifecycle approach is apremise for considering a product as sustainable, becauseenvironmental sustainability is only possible if negativeimpacts of materials extraction, transformation, use,disposal and reuse processes are avoided. The central issuesin sustainable design are: (i) attention to production andconsumption volumes; (ii) emphasis in designing productsfor real demands, attending to local basic human needs; (iii)products’ lifecycle and the design of product/process tofacilitate remanufacturing; (iv) the design of relatedsystems, as packaging or logistics; and (v) environmentalcompatibility with the use of local resources and theiravailability in the long run (van Weenen, 1995; Guimarães,2006).

Figure 1 shows a product lifecycle scheme, consideringthe take back and reuse of materials after the product’send-of-life. In this approach, known as cradle-to-cradle(McDonough and Braungart, 2002), products are designedto assume another form or function after disposal. In otherwords, products and processes are characterized by artificialcycles (if not biodegradable) that will not cause significantimpacts on the environment.

The historical route towards sustainable productionevolved from pollution treatment with end-of-pipesolutions, passing by clean technologies adoptionand products eco-redesign to recent ownershipdematerialization approaches (Kazmierczyk, 2002;Johansson, 2002; Diehl and Brezet, 2004; Manzini andVezzoli, 2005). The control and improvement of processesto avoid pollution led to the creation and the adoption of aseries of guidelines to reduce environmental impacts onproduct design, production and use phases, such as theDesign for Environment (Fiksel, 1993), UNEP EcodesignManual (Brezet and van Hemel, 1997) and the ISO 14000series, focused on environmental management (ISO, 2009).In recent decades the environmental concern was expandedfor the product whole lifecycle perspective, including theextraction, consumption and disposal phases, in a holistic

Figure 1. Product lifecycle with emphasis on sustainable consumption phases.The arrows represent transportation along the process.

Source: Adapted from Hauschild et al. (2005).

53Ângela Maria Marx, Istefani Carísio de Paula and Fabiane Sum / Natural Resources Forum 34 (2010) 51–62


approach as recommended by the Zero Emissions Research& Initiative (ZERI) (Pauli, 1998), Industrial Ecology(Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989), Cradle to Cradlecertification (McDonough and Braungart, 2002) andReverse Logistics (Tibben-Lembke, 2002).

At a later phase, concerns about the social and economicdimensions were also included in NPD, e.g. in the Designfor Sustainability (DfS) (Diehl and Brezet, 2004). Recently,new business models centered on the reduction ofconsumption have emerged with the increase of servicesoffered to promote product dematerialization, such as theProduct-Service System (PSS) approach (Manzini andVezzoli, 2002; Tukker and Tischner, 2006). The evolution ofsustainable NPD approaches represents a challenge to thedesigner, who will have to deal with diverse and,sometimes, contradictory requirements related to theproduct lifecycle phases coming from the variousstakeholders.

In general, marketing focuses on the product use phase.Nevertheless, in sustainable issues, the planning andoptimization of product development with informationfrom the use phase may not be reflected in the globaloptimization of the product-system functions. This wasalready noted by Bertalanffy in his General SystemsTheory: ‘it is necessary to study not only isolated parts butthe organizing relations that result from dynamicinteraction that make the behaviour of parts different whenstudied in isolation or within the whole’ (Bertalanffy, 1957,p.58). Therefore, in a systemic project approach it isnecessary to broaden the marketing objectives andinvestigate the consumer’s needs in relation to otherlifecycle phases, other than the use, as the purchase anddiscard phases.

2.3. From marketing to product design

During the last decades, researchers and manufacturershave reinforced the marketing and engineering philosophythat the consumer is the key to the success of anorganization and its new product development (Chen et al.,2002). Akao (1997: p.6) has affirmed that the Voice ofCustomer (VOC) is the foundation for creating apartnership in which company employees acquire consumerfocused thinking through the value chain, created by theawareness that “the next process is your consumer”. In fact,many organizations have acted to develop products andservices that satisfy consumer requirements. Marketinganalysis has been treated as one of the core phases duringproduct concept development and has been consideredessential to product commercialization success, by variousauthors in the Product Development Process literature(Cooper, 1994; Baxter, 1996; Creveling et al., 2003).

Tseng and Jiao (1997) and Creveling et al. (2003) remarkthat product project failures may stem from bad needsassessment followed by inadequate conversion ofstakeholders’ needs into product requirements, as well as

poor conversion of requirements into product functions andfunctions in products systems-subsystems.

The VOC includes consumer needs that are typicallyassessed by qualitative interviews where each need is ashort phrase. Demand elicitation is made through clientsmeetings, individual interviews and focus groups, amongother tools (Carnevalli and Miguel, 2002). It is important tostay close to the consumer’s own language and resist thetemptation to modify it to achieve closer conformity tocorporate standards. Obtaining the VOC requires fourgeneric activities: immerse in context and obtain voice;clarify; structure; and characterize (Clausing, 1994).

According to the Requirements Management (RM)literature, the information collected from consumers has tobe organized and rewritten as product requirements. Theserequirements can be related to the product’s technicalfunctions (e.g. considering the case of a detergent, afunctional requirement is that the detergent mustcompletely remove the grease from surfaces) or qualitativedescriptions of the whole system, also known as non-functional requirements. These non-functionalrequirements are usually directly achieved by consumers’demands as vague descriptions about the system operationbut they are of critical importance for the product definitionphase, detailing the overall attributes of the resultingsystem; placing restrictions or constraints on the resultingsystem (e.g. in a detergent product development ‘thedetergent must not be aggressive to the skin and surfaces’ isa non-functional requirement) (Pahl and Beitz, 1996; Jiaoand Tseng, 1999; Kotonya and Sommerville, 2000; Young,2003; Parviainen et al., 2005).

Input information in the RM theory includes varioussources such as: stakeholders’ needs, organizationalrequirements, regulation and directives; and the processoutput comprises negotiated requirements, productspecifications and prototypes (Kotonya and Sommerville,2000; Young, 2003). This is a circular process in which fourstages are repeated iteratively, until there are noinconsistencies left in the requirements: requirementselicitation; analysis and negotiation, requirementsdocumentation and validation.

In the case of a sustainable NPD, needs and demandsmust also be identified and systematized in the early phases.Tools aimed at dealing with such complexity are missingfrom the literature. Bhamra et al. (1999), Baumann et al.(2002) and Kara et al. (2005) remark that researchdescribing sustainability tools is abundant but theirapplication to early stages of product development is notfrequent.

3. Methodology

The objective of this research is to derive requirements fromfactors that motivate and/or discourage green andtraditional consumers during the consumption phases of



products (purchase, use and discard). The requirements maybe used to guide manufacturers in the early phases of asustainable NPD or be used by public officials in thedefinition of related policies in a systemic project approach.The investigation was performed in five stages: (i) problemdefinition and research hypotheses and objectives; (ii)research target sample definition; (iii) qualitativequestionnaire elaboration and tests; (iv) data collection; and(v) data analysis.

3.1. Problem definition, research hypotheses andobjectives

We admit the premise that sustainable consumptiondepends on factors directly related to the consumerpractices as well as on external factors. The main researchproblem is that such factors are not clear to the developmentteam in the early phases of development. From thisproblem, emerged the following hypotheses: (i) there arefactors that motivate and/or discourage sustainable productsconsumption; (ii) these factors differ between green andtraditional consumers; and (iii) it is possible to deriveproduct requirements from the factors that motivate/discourage consumers.

3.2. Research target sample definition

The research sample consisted of South Brazilianconsumers. The research was conducted using randomsamples from two interest groups, of “green” and“traditional” consumers between the ages of 30 and 50years old. The first group, often referred to as Group A orGreen Consumers below is formed by consumers who havereceived a formal education in sustainability issues in aSouth Brazilian University — UNIPAZ SUL (http://www.unipazsul.org.br/). University attendees were chosenbecause they declared that they practice sustainableconsumption behaviour.

The second group, referred to as Group B or TraditionalConsumers, includes consumers who have not received aformal educational orientation and declared that they do notpractice sustainable consumption behaviour. This groupwas approached in supermarkets chosen by the convenienceof their location in Porto Alegre city.

The interviewees’ age was considered important for theresearch objectives, because younger consumers do notpurchase household products regularly. According to aBrazilian supermarket association, most consumers ofcleaning products in Brazil are between 26 and 50 years old,(Zanchanelli et al., 2007). In 2006, this group wasresponsible for the consumption of 76% of fabric softeners,60% of disinfectants, 53% of multi-purpose cleaner and40% of liquid detergents.

3.3. Qualitative questionnaire elaboration and tests

A qualitative questionnaire was elaborated in order tocollect information about the factors that motivate ordiscourage the sustainable purchase, use and discard ofproducts. It was structured in three blocks, according to theconsumption phases: purchase, use and discard. Thequestionnaire enquiries are summarized in Figure 2.

The final questionnaire consisted in 14 open questions,since each inquiry (Figure 2) was subdivided into‘motivate’ and ‘discourage’ questions for clarity purposes.After drafting the questions, the questionnaire was tested toverify if it could effectively address the research problem.The clarity of the questions was also evaluated and adjusted.

3.4. Data collection

Data collection was performed between June and August2009 for both sample groups. Respondents were instructedto answer the questionnaire with their personal perceptions,in writing and without interference. The questionnaireswere administered to interviewees in each group until theanswers became repetitive. According to Clausing (1994),an adequate sample for this kind of qualitative study is from10 to 100 interviews. After the 20th questionnaire, theanswers started to be recurrent, determining the end of datacollection.

3.5. Data analysis

Data analysis was performed in two steps. In step one, theanswers were analyzed and grouped by similarity accordingto the KJ Method (Creveling et al., 2003; Clausing, 1994).It is important to group the answers because the respondents

Consumption phase

Questionnaire enquiries

Purchase phase

What are the personal factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable purchasing of products?What are the sales factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable purchasing of products?

Use phase What are the technical factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable use of products? What are the aesthetic factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable use of products? What are the symbolic factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable use of products?

Discard phase What are the personal factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable discard of products?What are the external factors that motivate and discourage the sustainable discard of products?

Figure 2. Questionnaire enquiries summary.



may use different words to describe the same ideas(Clausing, 1994). The statements resulting from thisgrouping process were organized under labels for eachinterest group as Group A (green consumers) and Group B(traditional consumers).

In step two, consumers’ answers were scrubbed toachieve clarity. They were treated accordingly to theRequirements Management theory (RM) (Kotonya andSommerville; 2000; Young, 2003; Marx, 2009). Followingthe answers analysis, the statements were rewritten asrequirements and organized according to their possibleapplications, i.e., as requirements for product development,for stores planning, for packaging systems, etc. Accordingto RM theory, requirements should be written in astandardized way to avoid misunderstanding problems(Sommerville, 2007). The intention is to ensure that allstakeholders enrolled in NPD will understand therequirement and also that it matches the original demand (inthis case, the consumer’s purchase, use and discard needs)(Young, 2003; Clausing, 1994). A requirement expresses aproduct characteristic that ‘must’ be provided, reason whythe use of ‘must’ facilitates its comprehension e.g.‘Products must be easily prepared for use’ (Young, 2003;Marx, 2009). Moreover, requirements must comply with thefollowing quality attributes: clarity, consistency, non-redundancy, among others (Kotonya and Sommerville,2000).

4. Results and discussion

According to the KJ Method (Clausing, 1994), the answersconcerning motivating factors (M) were grouped andreceived a description name, called ‘statements’ in thispaper. The same procedure was used for discouragingfactors (D). Figure 3, for example, shows the grouping ofdifferent answers given by green consumers and therespective statements. These two statements are part ofPersonal factors (D) of Figure 6.

Other statements resulting from green and traditionalconsumers can be visualized in Figures 4, 5 and 6, groupedby motivating (M) and discouraging (D) factors.

In the example from Figure 3, among the answersgrouped under the statement ‘Information and knowledge’,the idea: ‘lack of information’ was repeated by severalrespondents.

From the categorization, it was possible to identifythat both groups expressed common demands. In somecases, however, green consumers expressed it as amotivating factor and traditional consumers as adiscouraging factor.

The statement ‘product shelf life’ in the Use Phasetechnical factors (D) (Figure 5) is illustrative. It is adiscouraging factor for green consumers, who believe thatgreen products have smaller shelf lives and deterioratefaster. Traditional consumers, on the other hand, see it as a

Group A statements (green consumers)

Interviewee’s answers

DInformation and knowledge

‘Lack of information about discard places and procedures’, ‘Non-existence of information in accessible places’, ‘Lack of knowledge about the correct techniques’, ‘Lack of information’, ‘Lack of conscience’

D Habits and lifestyle ‘Laziness’, ‘Laziness for separate the waste’, ‘Lack of habit’, ‘Lack of will’, ‘Wrong routine’, ‘Lack of time’, ‘Time’

Figure 3. Example of grouping answers from green consumers.

PU

RC

HA

SE

PH

AS

E

Type of Factor FACTORS STATEMENTS

Group A statements (Green consumers) Group B statements (Traditional consumers)

Sales

M

Stores’ aesthetic aspects Contact with producers Stores’ reliability Stores’ availability and publicity

CostProduct quantities/ diversityStores’ reliability Stores’ attendance quality Stores specialization Publicity

D

Stores’ reliability Stores’ availability and publicity Products distribution and visibility in stores

CostProduct quantities/ diversityStores’ availability and publicity Stores’ location

Personal

M

Personal relationship to the world Health Pleasure/well being

Personal relationship to the world Health Information and knowledge Education for sustainability Product quality

D

CostInformation and knowledge Habits and lifestyle Products distribution and visibility in stores Store accessibility

CostIgnorance of store existenceIgnorance of product existence Habits and lifestyle Lack of personal education for sustainability Organizations’ values

Figure 4. Statements related to motivating (M) or discouraging (D) factors for a sustainable purchase of products.



motivating factor, since they believe that a smaller shelf lifemeans a fresher product. Another observation is that somestatements were expressed both as motivating anddiscouraging factors. These statements are especiallyimportant because they seem to be more decisive for a givengroup of consumers. For example, in the Purchase Phase‘sales’(Figure 4), ‘low cost’ and ‘high cost” were mentioned

respectively as motivating and discouraging factors byGroup B (traditional) consumers. Interestingly, Group Amembers did not mention costs as a motivating ordiscouraging factor. In other words, it means that a lowprice is more decisive for traditional consumers to purchasea sustainable product than for green consumers, who seemto give more value to other product characteristics. During

US

E P

HA

SE



Technical

M

Preparation and use methods Health impact Packaging Quality

Preparation and use methods Product shelf life Health impact Packaging Ecological products efficiency Traditional products substitution Biodegradability Environment impact

D

Preparation and use methods Product shelf life Bad taste

Low diversity of sustainable products in comparison with traditional ones Insufficient information Preparation and use methods Ecological products efficiency Label reliability

Aesthetic

M

Packaging Product appearance Cultural paradigms Smell

Product appearance Packaging appearance

D

Packaging Product appearance Cultural paradigms Publicity

Product appearance Packaging appearance Products shapes

Symbolic

M

Information and knowledge Brands reliability Consumer image for the society Consumer image for himself

Information and knowledge Education for sustainability Brands reliability Consumer image for the society Consumer image for himself

D

Information and knowledge Brands reliability Consumer image for societyConsumer image for himself

Lack of personal education for sustainability Brands reliability Fear for deceptive marketing

Figure 5. Statements related to motivating (M) or discouraging (D) factors for a sustainable use of products.

DIS

CA

RD

PH

AS

E



Personal

M

Environmental responsibility To have information and knowledge

To have information and knowledgeTo receive education for sustainability Discard practicality Product use Economic aspects Hygiene provided by adequate garbage separation

D

Lack of information and knowledgeHabits and lifestyle Discard practicality Selfishness, does not care about society

Lack of information and knowledge Habits and lifestyle Packaging

External

M

Existence of urban selective waste collection service Accessible places to deliver the waste To have information and publicity Post-disposal information Financial benefits for the consumer

Existence of urban selective waste collection service Accessible places to deliver the waste To have information and publicity Personal financial advantages fromadequate disposal Existence of recycling organizations Existence of regulations Social projects

D

Existence of urban selective waste collection service Accessible places to deliver the waste Lack of information and publicity Need to store the waste at home before collection

Existence of urban selective waste collection service Accessible places to deliver the waste Lack of information and publicity

Figure 6. Statements related to motivating (M) or discouraging (D) factors for a sustainable discard of products.



the interviews, some green consumers informally declaredthey were prepared to pay more for green products.

Both green and traditional consumers state that they feelproud and motivated by the inherent responsibility ofsustainable consumption, even though green consumers feeldiscouraged by the prejudice other people have againstsustainable products and when sustainability is viewed as afashion event. This is shown by the answers given for‘Symbolic’ factors in Use Phase (Figure 5), under thestatement ‘Consumer image for the society’. Group Aanswers for ‘factors that motivate the use of sustainableproducts’, included: ‘To be politically correct’, ‘Feeling ofcooperation with the environment’ and ‘Responsibility’.Group B answers were: ‘Think about the consequences ofthe product use’, ‘Ecological concern’, ‘Ecologicalconsciousnesses’, ‘Conscious of doing the right thing’. Infact, the symbolic factors for the Use Phase are similar tothe personal factors for the Purchase Phase, asdemonstrated in the statements from figures 4 and 5.Answers given as discouraging factors by Group Aincluded: ‘Others’ prejudice against being politicallycorrect’ and ‘Prejudice against people who treatsustainable consumption as a fad’. Group B respondentsfeel discouraged by other factors, as shown in their answers:‘Unknown brands’; ‘Suspicious quality of unknownbrands’; ‘Not enough sustainable products from knownbrands’, etc.

Group A respondents did not express any particularconcern about the social impacts of sustainableconsumption but remained focused primarily on theenvironmental impacts. This does not mean that therespondents do not have social awareness, but that thisgroup gives more importance to environmental dimensionsof consumption. In fact, it suggests that even for people whohave a formal education, there is not a clear understandingof all the dimensions of sustainable consumption. Similarfindings were reported by Niva and Timonen (2001),Collins (2004) and Moisander (2007), who considered thisas a barrier to the development of truly sustainableconsumption. A deeper quantitative investigation wouldweigh-in the significance of environmental, economical andsocial sustainability for different consumers as a way toassess their real understanding of sustainable consumption.

Traditional consumers associated the discard anddisposal phases with concern about social matters. Group Brespondents affirmed feeling motivated to separate productsresidues when selective waste collection contributes tosocial projects. They also feel encouraged since it is morehygienic for themselves and for recyclers. This concern wasexpressed in both Personal and External factors for thediscard phase (see Figure 6). Illustrative answers were:‘Hygiene of waste’ and ‘Separate organic waste is morehygienic’, both grouped under the statement ‘Higherhygiene provided by adequate garbage separation’; and‘The return as regional investments’, ‘To help residuescooperatives’, ‘Increase poor people’s incomes’ and

‘Social projects’, all grouped under the statement ‘Socialprojects’.

While the existence of differences between the twogroups is evident (as highlighted by Figures 4, 5 and 6), it ishard to identify the real nature of these differences.Traditional consumers seem to attach more value to socialimpacts, but green consumers seem to be keener to performtrade-offs between their own demands for sustainableproducts. As an example, it was identified that greenconsumers are happy to buy a sustainable product even if itdoes not present a satisfactory appearance. Group Brespondents tend to buy a sustainable product only if itpresents a satisfactory appearance, that is, comparable tothat of traditional products. Group A respondents believethat consumers must accept that sustainable products do notalways present a good appearance, indicating that greenconsumers give more value to other product traits. This maypossibly be explained by the specific education they havereceived. Group B answers, conversely, indicated that aneducation on sustainability issues could motivate them topurchase and use sustainable products (see statementsrelated to education and information in purchase, use anddiscard phases from Figures 4, 5 and 6).

After the answers analysis, some statements wererewritten as requirements, according to the RM theory.Figure 7 demonstrates the procedure used to rewrite the‘Personal factors’ that discourage the sustainable discard ofproducts, and the resulting requirements. Requirementidentification is basically an activity of interpretation, butsometimes it is necessary to consult the originalinformation, to guarantee that the requirement expresses thereal need or demand. For example, Group B’s statement‘Packaging’ was rewritten as ‘Packages must be practicaland reduced’ based on the meaning of the originaldeclarations. Note that the requirements generated from thestatements are basically of non-functional character, i.e.,they are not related to any primary product function butrather constitute descriptions of parts of the whole system(for products, packages, production, etc.).

Not every statement from Figures 4 to 6 may be rewrittenas a requirement. Examples include ‘To feel selfish, to giveno importance to society, ‘Economic aspects’ and ‘Hygieneprovided by adequate garbage separation’. Thesestatements are not exactly needs or demands that can berelated to a particular product in the form of a system orsubsystem, as a requirement does; they are personalfeelings or perceptions. Therefore, these statements could,in a further analysis, guide public or private managers in theproposition of policies, as will be argued next.

The requirements resulting from the derivation process ofFigure 7 were organized in Figure 8 in the followingapplication blocks: requirements for the design ofsustainable products; requirements for packages,requirements for store’s planning, requirements for thediscard system and requirements for manufactures/brands.Requirements derived from statements of both consumer



FACTORS STATEMENTS (Personal Type)REQUIREMENTS

DIS

CA

RD

PH

AS

E

Group A statements (Green consumers)

Group B statements (Traditional consumers)

D/MInformation and knowledge

D/MInformation and knowledge

(RG)

Customers must receive information about proper product disposal

D Habits and lifestyle D Habits and lifestyle (RG)

Customers must adopt sustainable consumption behaviour

D/M Discard practicality M Discard practicality (RG)

Products and packaging parts must be easily separated and discarded

ssenhsifleS D (Not converted)

MEnvironmental responsibility

R(A)

Publicity must make the customer feel special as a sustainable consumer

R( esu tcudorP MB)

Producers must reuse materials and report the amount reused

R( gnigakcaP DB)

Packages must be practical and reduced

stcepsa cimonocE M (Not converted)

MHygiene provided by adequate garbage separation

(Not converted)

Figure 7. Requirements derivation from statements for personal factors of discard phase.(RA) = Requirements of Group A; (RB) = Requirements of Group B and (RG) = General requirements.

(*) General requirements (R

G)

Requirements of Group A (R

A)

Requirements of Group B (R

B)

Pro

duct

s

Products must present low costs Products and stores must be advertised Products must be easily prepared for use Products must present a long shelf life Products must not impact negatively on customers’ health Products must promote health or not damage it

Product must present quality Products must have a good taste Products must present an attractive but natural appearance Products must be advertised Products must present a good smell

Products must be available in large volumes Products must be available in large diversity Products must reflect producers’ sustainability values Products must present quality characteristics adequate to the target market segment Sustainable products quality must be equivalent to traditional products quality Products must present low environmental impacts Sustainable products must present an appearance similar to traditional products Products must have attractive shapes

Pac

kagi

ng

Product packaging must be attractive

Products must have less packaging

Product labels must be reliable Packaging must be practical and minimal Products must have practical packaging

Sale

s/ s

tore

s pl

anni

ng Stores should have low cost

sustainable products Stores must assure the information veracity of products sustainability degree There must be an increase in number of stores dedicated to sustainable products Stores must invest in publicity

Stores should facilitate the contact with producers Stores must be attractive Stores must have a clear product signingStores must be easily accessed Products must be easily found inside stores

Stores must be near the customer housesStores must be specialized in sustainable products Salesmen must be prepared to give correct information about sustainable products

Dis

card

Syst

em

Products and packaging parts must be easily separated and discarded

Buildings and streets must have collection spaces for separated waste

Man

ufac

ture

rs/

Bra

nds

Products brands must be reliable Producers must reuse materials and report the amount reused

slairetam esuer tsum srecudorPand report the amount reused Producers must provide more technical information about products

Figure 8. Requirements derived from green and tradition consumers and application blocks (*).



groups are expressed in the left column as generalrequirements (RG). These requirements can be used in thedevelopment of sustainable products for both groups ofconsumers. The other columns include requirementsderived from specific groups’ statements and can be used, inaddition to general requirements, to develop sustainableproducts targeted to green (RA) or traditional consumers(RB) market segments.

During the requirements derivation it may be necessaryto go back to the original information. As an example, in theUse Phase ‘Aesthetical’ factor, the statement ‘Productappearance’ was equally cited by green and traditionalconsumers. However they have different meanings in eachgroup. Green consumers demanded a “natural” appealwhile traditional consumers demanded products with atraditional aspect. This led to the specific green consumerrequirement (Figure 8): (RA) ‘Products must present anattractive but natural appearance’; and to the specifictraditional consumer requirement: (RB) ‘Sustainableproducts must present an appearance similar to traditionalproducts’. It is interesting to mention that in the EconomicAspects, from figure 7, traditional consumers feelmotivated by sustainable discard because in Brazil poorpeople recycle and separate garbage as a source of income.This statement was not directly converted in a requirement.

Other requirements that emerged from the research arerelated to the consumers’ education and lifestyles, and maybe considered as requirements for sustainable consumptionbehaviour. In the interviewees’ perception, this behaviour isconstrained by poor understanding of the impacts of theirchoices on the environment and society. Thus, somerequirements to develop sustainable consumption behaviourmay include:

• consumers should receive information and be stimulatedto perform an adequate selective waste separation anddisposal;

• consumers should receive information about what is atruly sustainable product;

• consumers should have the possibility to benefit fromformal education for sustainability.

Both green and traditional consumers underscored theimportance of knowledge and information in all phases ofsustainable consumption (purchasing, use anddisposal).Traditional consumers also believe that formaleducation is required for sustainability. While theserequirements cannot be attended by product manufacturers,they can, in part, guide the creation of educational/informational campaigns or public policies to promotesustainable consumption in Porto Alegre city.

Suggestions for public or private programmes andpolicies emerged from the requirements listed above as wellas from other answers to the survey. These policies werecreated from the interpretation of the answers andstatements that could not be related to any particular

product, as already discussed. For instance, the statement‘Hygiene provided by adequate garbage separation’ in theDiscard Phase ‘Personal’ (see Figure 6), demonstrates theawareness of Group B respondents with the health ofrecyclers. While this statement could not be converted intoa requirement, it suggested the need for some kind of publicprogramme or policy to incentivize the adequate discard ofproducts and selective waste collection and separation by allconsumers.

The following ideas for programmes and policiesemerged from the analysis. First, the creation ofsustainability degree scales for products, such as greenlabels, as well as specific surveillance institutions andcontrol mechanisms to monitor the sustainability ofproducts during their whole lifecycles, should becontemplated. Public authorities should also consider thecreation of educational programmes to promote sustainableconsumption behaviour, especially to stimulate theadequate discard of products and selective waste collectionand separation. More broadly, our analysis indicates theneed for public policies or programmes aiming to stimulatesustainable lifestyles, especially in relation to socialawareness. Also, marketing or educational programmesexplaining the impacts of products’ presentation couldpromote the acceptance of other aesthetic patterns forsustainable products, free from unnecessary ornaments. Inrelation to waste, facilities for household waste collectionand disposal should be provided and regulated by local,regional or national governments in order to stimulateconsumers to perform adequate selective waste separationand discard. Also, efficient urban selective waste collectionprogrammes must be implemented. Lastly, public policiesfrom local governments could facilitate the establishment ofsustainable stores, as well as stimulate the production ofnew and different sustainable products.

It is important to remark that these policies are onlysuggestions, and their relative importance and priority mustbe further analyzed. Moreover, a specific study is necessaryto confirm if these policies would effectively trigger thebehavioural changes described in the statements.

5. Conclusions

Moving towards sustainable consumption is an individualtask that depends on external factors, such as products’availability and public policies (Sanne, 2002). Accordinglyto Seyfang (2006), there are two elements related tosustainable consumption that depend on the customer: thefirst is related to the demand of green products availabilityand the second is related to lifestyle changes. In fact,sustainable production and consumption are interconnectedprinciples that cannot be treated individually. For thisreason, understanding the factors that motivate ordiscourage the consumer in the purchase, use and discardphases is a key element for the debate on sustainableconsumption.



This paper investigated the perception of South Brazilianconsumers about the factors that motivate or discouragesustainable consumption. A qualitative questionnairecompleted by green and traditional consumers indicatedtheir motivational differences. Although this is anexploratory study, it has confirmed findings from otherauthors such as: low number of products on offer; poorunderstanding about sustainable products; the importanceof product price and quality; personal convenience andindividual interests; as well as distrust in marketing andpublicity. This information is representative of a sample ofconsumers from Porto Alegre city, South Brazil, and mustbe validated by quantitative approaches in futureinvestigations.

The contributions of this paper include the requirementsderivation method presented and the broad focus on thepurchase, use and discard phases of consumption. We useda method taken from the RM literature which allowed us toderive systematically requirements that may be useful forthe development of sustainable products oriented byconsumers’ sustainability needs.

The method used in this article proved to be adequate totest our research hypothesis. There are factors that motivateand discourage sustainable consumption, and these factorsvary between green and traditional consumers, although itis not possible to affirm that the differences are statisticallysignificant in the sample analyzed here; and it was possibleto derive requirements from the motivating/discouragingfactors mentioned by interviewees, in a broader approachthat considered the purchase, use and discard phases ofproduct use.

Product design driven by consumer perceptions ofsustainability may stimulate consumers’ adherence tosustainable behaviours. From the broader investigation ofconsumers’ motivating and discouraging factors,manufacturers may project not a product but a product-system. The product-system might be designed incooperation with partners intervening at the purchase, useand discard phases, such as retailers or city halldepartments. However, it is important to note that thefindings of this article are focused on final consumers’needs. In sustainable NPD, the needs of other stakeholdersmust be considered for a systemic approach.

The interpretation of the answers to the survey led to alist of possible policies or programmes to be implementedby public managers in order to promote sustainableconsumption. Eventually, the marketing success of asustainable product is the result of an adequate coordinationof actions in the network made by manufacturers, retailers,consumers and governments.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the support provided by CNPq —the Brazilian Research Council.

References

Akao, Y., 1997. QFD — Past, present and future. In: Gustafsson, A.,Bergman, B., Ekdahl, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third AnnualInternational QFD Symposium Vol. 1, Linköping, Sweden, 19–29.

Baumann, H., Boons, F., Bragd, A., 2002. Mapping the green productdevelopment field: Engineering, policy and business perspectives.Journal of Cleaner Production, 10: 409–425.

Baxter, M., 1996. Product Design: Practical methods for the systematicdevelopment of new products. London: Chapman & Hall.

Bertalanffy, L., 1957. General system theory. In: Taylor, R.W. (Ed.), Life,Language, Law: Essays in Honor of Arthur F. Bentley. Yellow Springs:Antioch Press, pp. 58.

Bhamra T.A., Evans S., McAloone T.C., Simon M., Poole S., SweatmanA., 1999. Integrating Environmental Decisions into the ProductDevelopment Process; Part 1: The Early Stage. In: Yoshikawa, H.,Yamamoto, R., Kimura, F., Suga, T., Umeda, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings ofthe First International Symposium on Environmentally ConsciousDesign and Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, 329–337.

Brezet, H., van Hemel, C., 1997. Ecodesign: a promising approach tosustainable production and consumption. Paris: UNEP.

Carnevalli, J.A., Miguel, P.A.C., 2002. QFD application in differentcountries: A comparison of an exploratory study in Brazil with othersurveys. Product: Management & Development, 1: 5–18.

Casimir, G., Dutilh, C., 2003. Sustainability: a gender studies perspective.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27: 316–325.

Chen, C., Khoo, L.P., Yan, W., 2002. A strategy for acquiring customerrequirements patterns using laddering technique and ART2 neuralnetwork. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 16: 229–240.

Clausing, D., 1994. Total quality development: a step-by-step guide toworld-class concurrent engineering. New York: ASME Press.

Collins, A.J., 2004. Can we learn to live differently? Lessons from going togreen: a case study of Merthyr Tydfil (South Wales). InternationalJournal of Consumer Studies, 28: 202–211.

Cooper, R.G., 1994. New products: the factors that drive success.International Marketing Review, 11(1): 60–76.

Creveling, C.M., Slutsky, J., Antis, D., 2003. Design for Six Sigma intechnology and product development. Upper Saddle River: PrenticeHall PTR.

Diehl, J.C., Brezet, H., 2004. Design for sustainability: An approach forinternational development, transference and local implementation. In:Proceedings of International Conference of EnvironmentalManagement for Sustainable Universities. Monterrey: Tecnológico deMonterrey, pp. 1–10.

Fiksel, J., 1993. Design for Environment: An Integrated SystemsApproach. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and theEnvironment, Arlington, VA, pp. 126–131.

Frosch, R.A., Gallopoulos, N., 1989. Strategies for manufacturing.Scientific American, 261: 144–152.

Guimarães, L.B.M., 2006. Ergonomia do Produto. Porto Alegre: FEENG.Hammond, G.P., 2006. ‘People, planet and prosperity’: the determinants of

humanity’s environmental footprint. Natural Resources Forum, 30:27–36.

Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J., Alting, L., 2005. From lifecycle assessment tosustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Annals —Manufacturing Technology, 54: 1–21.

Heiskanen, E., Pantzar, M., 1997. Toward sustainable consumption: twonew perspectives. Journal of Consumer Policy, 20: 409–442.

Hertwich, E.G., 2005. Lifecycle approaches to sustainable consumption: acritical review. Environmental Science and Technology, 39:4673–4684.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2009. ISO 14000essentials. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_14000_essentials.Last accessed: 20 November 2009.

Jiao, J., Tseng, M.M., 1999. A requirement management database systemfor product definition. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 10(3):126–131.



Johansson, G., 2002. Success factors for integration of ecodesign inproduct development: a review of state of the art. EnvironmentalManagement and Health, 13(1): 98–107.

Kara, S., Honke, I., Kaebernick, H., 2005. An integrated framework forimplementing sustainable product development. In: Yamamoto, R.,Furukawa, Y., Koshibu, H., Eagan, P., Griese, H., Umeda, Y., Aoyama,K., (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium onEnvironmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing.Tokyo, Japan, pp. 684–691.

Kazmierczyk, P., 2002. Manual on the development of cleaner productionpolicies approaches and instruments.Vienna: Unido CP Programme.

Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I., 2000. Requirements engineering: processand techniques. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Labuschagne, A.C., Brent, A.C., Van Erck, R.P.G., 2005. Assessing thesustainability performances of industries. Journal of CleanerProduction. 13: 375–385.

Lages, N.S., Neto, A.V., 2002. Mensurando a consciência ecológica doconsumidor: um estudo realizado na cidade de Porto Alegre. Encontroanual da Anpad, 26. Salvador, Brazil.

Layrargues, F.P., 2000. Sistemas de gerenciamento ambiental, tecnologialimpa e consumidor verde: a delicada relação empresa–meio ambienteno ecocapitalismo. RAE — Revista de Administração de Empresas,40(2): 80–88.

Lee, S.G., Xu, X., 2005. Design for the environment: lifecycle assessmentand sustainable packaging issues. International Journal ofEnvironmental Technology and Management, 5(1): 14–41.

Luttropp, C., Karlsson, R., 2001. The conflict of contradictoryenvironmental targets. In: Proceedings of the Second InternationalSymposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and InverseManufacturing, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 43–48.

Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C., 2002. Product-service Systems andSustainability. Opportunities for Sustainable Solutions, Paris, France:UNEP Publisher.

Manzini, E., Vezzoli, C., 2005. O desenvolvimento de produtossustentáveis: os requisitos ambientais dos produtos industriais. USP,São Paulo.

Marx, A.M., 2009. Proposta de método de gestão de requisitos para odesenvolvimento de produtos sustentáveis (thesis), mimeo, PortoAlegre, Brazil: Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.

Maxwell, D., Van der Vorst, R., 2003. Developing sustainable products andservices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11: 883–895.

McDonough, W., Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to cradle: remaking the waywe make things. New York: North Point Press.

Moisander, J., 2007. Motivational complexity of green consumerism.International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31: 404–409.

Niva, M., Timonen, P., 2001. The role of consumers in product-orientedenvironmental policy: can the consumer be the driven force forenvironmental improvements? International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 25: 331–338.

OECD, 2002. Towards sustainable household consumption? Trends andpolicies in OECD countries, Paris: Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development.

Ottman, J.A., 1994. Green Marketing, Chicago: NTC Business Books.Pahl, G., Beitz, W., 1996. Engineering design: a systematic approach.

London: Springer.Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M., Lormans, M., Solingen, R., 2005.

Requirements engineering: dealing with the complexity ofSociotechnical Systems Development. In: Maté, J.L., Silva, A., 2005.Requirements engineering for sociotechnical systems. Hershey:Information Science Publishing. pp. 1–20.

Pauli, G., 1998. Upsizing: como gerar mais renda, criar mais postos detrabalho e eliminar a poluição. Porto Alegre: Fundação Zeri Brasil/L&PM.

Pujari, D., Wright, G., 1999. Integrating environmental issues into productdevelopment: understanding the dimensions of perceived drivingforces. Journal of Euro Marketing, 7: 43–63.

Roberts, J.A., 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s: profile andimplications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36:217–231.

Sanne, C., 2002. Willing consumers or locked-in? Policies for a sustainableconsumption. Ecological Economics, 42: 273–287.

Schlossberg, H., 1991. Americans passionate about the Environment?Critic says that’s nonsense. Advertising Age, September 16: 8.

Seliger, G., Kernbaum, S., Zettl, M., 2006. Remanufacturing approachescontributing to sustainable engineering. Gestão & Produção, 13:367–384.

Seliger, G., Mertins, K., 2007. Sustainability in production engineering.In: Proceedings of BMBF — forum for sustainability, 4. Leipzig.

Seyfang, G., 2003. Environmental mega-conferences: from Stockholm toJohannesburg and beyond. Global Environmental Change, 13:223–228.

Seyfang, G., 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption:examining local organical food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22:383–395.

Shiferaw, B., Obare, G., Muricho, G., 2008. Rural market imperfectionsand the role of institutions in collective action to improve markets forthe poor. Natural Resources Forum, 32: 25–38.

Shrum, L.J., McCarty, J.A., Lowrey, T.M., 1995. Buyer characteristics ofthe green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy.Journal of Advertising, 24: 71–82.

Sommerville, I., 2007. Engenharia de software. São Paulo: PearsonAddison-Wesley.

Takase, C., 2005. Changing consumption and production patterns — theMarrakech process. Natural Resources Forum, 29: 404–407.

Tanner, C., Kast, S.W., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption:determinants of green purchases by Swiss Consumers. Psychology &Marketing, 20(10): 883–902.

Tibben-Lembke, R.S., 2002. Life after death: reverse logistics and theproduct lifecycle. International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management, 32(3): 223–244.

Tseng, M.M., Jiao, J., 1997. A variant approach to functional requirementacquisition for evolutionary product design. Journal of EngineeringDesign, 8: 329–340.

Tukker, A., Tischner, U., 2006. Product-services as a research field: past,present and future. Reflections from a decade of research. Journal ofCleaner Production, 14: 1552–1556.

Van der Bergh, J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., 1999. Economic theories ofsustainable consumption. Research Memorandum, 55.

Van Weenen, J.C., 1995. Towards sustainable product development.Journal of Cleaner Production, 3: 95–100.

Vermier, I., Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploringthe consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” gap. Journal ofAgricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19: 169–194.

Wiener, J.L., Doescher, T.A., 1991. A framework for promotingcooperation. Journal of Marketing, 55: 38–47.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987.Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, R., 2003. The requirements engineering handbook. Norwood:Artech House.

Zanchanelli, T., Cordeiro, E., Carvalho, L., 2007. Limpeza é giro.Available at: http://www.amis.org.br/downloads/gondola/g145/limpeza.pdf. Last accessed: 20 November 2009.



Sustainable consumption in Brazil: Identification of preliminary requirements to guide product development and the definition of public policies

Documents