Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers
Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, i...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Rao, Vikram M. [verfasserIn] Francis, Royce A. [verfasserIn] Tanir, Jennifer Y. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Clean Products and Processes - Springer-Verlag, 2001, 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:21 ; year:2018 ; number:2 ; day:22 ; month:11 ; pages:395-411 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR008731977 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR008731977 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519093319.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201005s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR008731977 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Rao, Vikram M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Decision making |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Decision analysis |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Multi-criteria decision analysis |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Chemicals |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Alternatives assessment |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Francis, Royce A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tanir, Jennifer Y. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clean Products and Processes |d Springer-Verlag, 2001 |g 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 |w (DE-627)SPR008711836 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:21 |g year:2018 |g number:2 |g day:22 |g month:11 |g pages:395-411 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 21 |j 2018 |e 2 |b 22 |c 11 |h 395-411 | ||
| author_variant |
v m r vm vmr r a f ra raf j y t jy jyt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
raovikrammfrancisroyceatanirjennifery:2018----:nlznceiasbtttodcsosmnceiaad |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y doi (DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rao, Vikram M. verfasserin aut Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Francis, Royce A. verfasserin aut Tanir, Jennifer Y. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes Springer-Verlag, 2001 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 (DE-627)SPR008711836 nnns volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA AR 21 2018 2 22 11 395-411 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y doi (DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rao, Vikram M. verfasserin aut Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Francis, Royce A. verfasserin aut Tanir, Jennifer Y. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes Springer-Verlag, 2001 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 (DE-627)SPR008711836 nnns volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA AR 21 2018 2 22 11 395-411 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y doi (DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rao, Vikram M. verfasserin aut Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Francis, Royce A. verfasserin aut Tanir, Jennifer Y. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes Springer-Verlag, 2001 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 (DE-627)SPR008711836 nnns volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA AR 21 2018 2 22 11 395-411 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y doi (DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rao, Vikram M. verfasserin aut Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Francis, Royce A. verfasserin aut Tanir, Jennifer Y. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes Springer-Verlag, 2001 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 (DE-627)SPR008711836 nnns volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA AR 21 2018 2 22 11 395-411 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y doi (DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rao, Vikram M. verfasserin aut Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 Francis, Royce A. verfasserin aut Tanir, Jennifer Y. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes Springer-Verlag, 2001 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 (DE-627)SPR008711836 nnns volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA AR 21 2018 2 22 11 395-411 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Clean Products and Processes 21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411 volume:21 year:2018 number:2 day:22 month:11 pages:395-411 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Decision making Decision analysis Multi-criteria decision analysis Chemicals Alternatives assessment |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Clean Products and Processes |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Rao, Vikram M. @@aut@@ Francis, Royce A. @@aut@@ Tanir, Jennifer Y. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-11-22T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR008711836 |
| id |
SPR008731977 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR008731977</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519093319.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR008731977</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rao, Vikram M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Decision making</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Decision analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multi-criteria decision analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chemicals</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alternatives assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Francis, Royce A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tanir, Jennifer Y.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clean Products and Processes</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR008711836</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:395-411</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">395-411</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Rao, Vikram M. |
| spellingShingle |
Rao, Vikram M. misc Decision making misc Decision analysis misc Multi-criteria decision analysis misc Chemicals misc Alternatives assessment Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| authorStr |
Rao, Vikram M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR008711836 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers Decision making (dpeaa)DE-He213 Decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Multi-criteria decision analysis (dpeaa)DE-He213 Chemicals (dpeaa)DE-He213 Alternatives assessment (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Decision making misc Decision analysis misc Multi-criteria decision analysis misc Chemicals misc Alternatives assessment |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Decision making misc Decision analysis misc Multi-criteria decision analysis misc Chemicals misc Alternatives assessment |
| topic_browse |
misc Decision making misc Decision analysis misc Multi-criteria decision analysis misc Chemicals misc Alternatives assessment |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Clean Products and Processes |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR008711836 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Clean Products and Processes |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR008711836 |
| title |
Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR008731977 (SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e |
| title_full |
Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| author_sort |
Rao, Vikram M. |
| journal |
Clean Products and Processes |
| journalStr |
Clean Products and Processes |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
395 |
| author_browse |
Rao, Vikram M. Francis, Royce A. Tanir, Jennifer Y. |
| container_volume |
21 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Rao, Vikram M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| title_auth |
Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| abstract |
Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA |
| container_issue |
2 |
| title_short |
Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Francis, Royce A. Tanir, Jennifer Y. |
| author2Str |
Francis, Royce A. Tanir, Jennifer Y. |
| ppnlink |
SPR008711836 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T22:50:32.008Z |
| _version_ |
1803600036713463811 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR008731977</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519093319.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2018 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR008731977</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s10098-018-1643-y-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rao, Vikram M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Analyzing chemical substitution decisions among chemical and product manufacturers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Chemical and product manufacturers, spurred by recent environmental and sustainability initiatives, are seeking to embrace alternatives assessment to identify suitable alternative chemicals that are safer and more sustainable for use in consumer and/or specialty products. In this process, it is important to understand potential tradeoffs concerning final product design and redesign decisions. The objective of the present study is to characterize such tradeoffs using a set of six factors affecting product design: business strategy, economic considerations, functionality and performance, health/environmental endpoints, public perception, and regulatory factors. These factors were further disaggregated into 33 attributes distributed across the six factors. We assessed (i) tradeoff weights for each factor and (ii) the degree of influence of factors and attributes on a recent product design or redesign using a survey targeted at chemical and product manufacturers. Results from 33 completed surveys show that two factors are statistically different from equal weighting across the six factors: health/environmental endpoints and regulatory factors. Important attributes (and their factors) include: product price (economic considerations), product performance (functionality and performance), meeting desired specifications (functionality and performance), and company reputation (public perception). Principal component analysis yields nine principal components explaining 79% of the variance in the attribute scores dataset. These components load heavily on attributes such as public awareness of human and environmental health concerns, company reputation, product performance, and product price. The broader implications of our study include a realization that the context of the decision may dictate how business and economic concerns may be addressed differently than health and environmental endpoint concerns with the goal of navigating decision tradeoffs among manufacturers. Graphical abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Decision making</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Decision analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Multi-criteria decision analysis</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Chemicals</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Alternatives assessment</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Francis, Royce A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tanir, Jennifer Y.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clean Products and Processes</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2018), 2 vom: 22. Nov., Seite 395-411</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR008711836</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2</subfield><subfield code="g">day:22</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:395-411</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1643-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">2</subfield><subfield code="b">22</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">395-411</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4019375 |