Performance of Global New Product Development Programs: A Resource-Based View

Gaining a competitive edge in today's turbulent business environment calls for a commitment by firms to two highly interrelated strategies: globalization and new product development (NPD). Although much research has focused on how companies achieve NPD success, little of this deals with NPD in the global setting. The authors use resource‐based theory (RBT)—a model emphasizing the resources and capabilities of the firm as primary determinants of competitive advantage—to explain how companies involved in international NPD realize superior performance. The capabilities RBT model is used to test how firms achieve superior performance by deploying organizational capabilities to take advantage of key organizational resources relevant for developing new products for global markets. Specifically, the study evaluates (1) organizational NPD resources (i.e., the firm's global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, top‐management involvement, and NPD process formality); (2) NPD process capabilities or routines for identifying and exploiting new product opportunities (i.e., global knowledge integration, NPD homework activities, and launch preparation); and (3) global NPD program performance. Based on data from 387 global NPD programs (North America and Europe, business‐to‐business), a structural model testing for the hypothesized mediation effects of NPD process capabilities on organizational NPD resources was largely supported. The findings indicate that all four resources considered relevant for effective deployment of global NPD process capabilities play a significant role. Specifically, a positive attitude toward resource commitment as well as NPD process formality is essential for the effective deployment of the three NPD process routines linked to achieving superior global NPD program performance; a strong global innovation culture is needed for ensuring effective global knowledge integration; and top‐management involvement plays a key role in deploying both knowledge integration and launch preparation. Of the three NPD process capabilities, global knowledge integration is the most important, whereas homework and launch preparation also play a significant role in bringing about global NPD program success. Tests for partial mediation suggest that too much process formality may be negative and that top‐management involvement requires careful focus.     

Determinants of New Product Development Team Performance: A Meta‐analytic Review

New product development (NPD) has become a critical determinant of firm performance. There is a considerable body of research examining the factors that influence a firm's ability to successfully develop and introduce new products. Vital to this success is the creation and management of NPD teams. While the evidence for the use of NPD teams and the factors that determine their success is accumulating, there is still a lack of clarity on the team‐level variables that are most impactful on NPD success. This meta‐analytic study examines the effects of NPD team characteristics on three different measures of success: effectiveness (market success), efficiency (meeting budgets and schedules), and speed‐to‐market, requiring incorporation of a broader set of team variables than previous studies in order to capture more factors explaining NPD outcomes. Unlike a typical empirical study that considered no more than two team variables to predict NPD performance, this study combines research spanning eight team variables including team input variables (team tenure, functional diversity, team ability, and team leadership) and team process variables (internal and external team communication, group cohesiveness, and goal clarity). Results from 38 studies were aggregated to estimate the meta‐analytic effect sizes for each of the variables. Using the meta‐analytic results, a path analytic model of NPD success was estimated to isolate the unique effects of team characteristics on NPD effectiveness and efficiency. Results indicate that team leadership, team ability, external communication, goal clarity, and group cohesiveness are the critical determinants of NPD team performance. NPD teams with considerable experience and led by a transformational leader are more successful at developing new products. Effective boundary spanning within and outside the organization and a shared understanding of project objectives are paramount to success. Group cohesiveness is also an important predictor of NPD outcomes confirming the importance of esprit de corps within the team. The findings provide product development managers with a blueprint for creating high‐performance NPD teams.     

Spurring Cross‐Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective*

Spurring integration among functional specialists so they collectively create successful, or high‐performing, new products is a central interest of innovation practitioners and researchers. Firms are increasingly assembling cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams for this purpose. However, integration of team members' divergent orientations and expertise is notoriously difficult to achieve. Individuals from distinct functions such as design, marketing, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) are often assigned to NPD teams but have contrasting backgrounds, priorities, and thought worlds. If not well managed, this diversity can yield unproductive conflict and chaos rather than successful new products. Firms are thus looking for avenues of integrating the varied expertise and orientations within these cross‐functional teams. The aim of this study is to address two important and not fully resolved questions: (1) does cross‐functional integration in NPD teams actually improve new product performance; and if so, (2) what are ways to strengthen integration? The study began by developing a model of cross‐functional integration from the perspective of the group effectiveness theory. The theory has been used to explain the performance of a wide range of small, complex work groups; this study is the first application of the theory to NPD teams. The model developed from this theory was then tested by conducting a survey of dual informants in 206 NPD teams in an array of U.S. high‐technology companies. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that cross‐functional integration indeed contributes to new product performance as long conjectured. This finding is important in that it highlights that bringing together the skills, efforts, and knowledge of differing functions in an NPD team has a clear and coveted payoff: high‐performing new products. In answer to the second question, the findings indicate that both intra‐ (or internal) and extra‐ (or external) team factors contribute and codetermine cross‐functional integration. Specifically, social cohesion and superordinate identity as internal team factors and market‐oriented reward system, planning process formalization, and managerial encouragement to take risks as external team factors foster integration. These findings underscore that spurring integration requires addressing the conditions inside as well as outside NPD teams. These specialized work groups operate as organizations within organizations; recognition of this in situ arrangement is the first step toward better managing and ensuring rewards from team integration. Based on these findings, managerial and research implications were drawn for team integration and new product performance.     

Bricolage as a Path to Innovativeness for Resource‐Constrained New Firms

Evidence suggests that both nascent and young firms (henceforth: “new firms”)—despite typically being small and resource‐constrained—are sometimes able to innovate effectively. Such firms are seldom able to invest in lengthy and expensive development processes, which suggests that they may frequently rely instead on other pathways to generate innovativeness within the firm. In this paper, we develop and test arguments that “bricolage,” defined as making do by applying combinations of the resources at hand to new problems and opportunities, provides an important pathway to achieve innovation for new resource‐constrained firms. Through bricolage, resource‐constrained firms engage in the processes of “recombination” that are core to creating innovative outcomes. Based on a large longitudinal dataset, our results suggest that variations in the degree to which firms engage in bricolage behaviors can provide a broadly applicable explanation of innovativeness under resource constraints by new firms. We find no general support for our competing hypothesis that the positive effects may level off or even turn negative at high levels of bricolage.     

Consequences of New Product Development Speed: A Meta‐Analysis

Five meta‐analyses previously have been published on the topic of new product development involving the concept of new product development speed. Three of these studies have investigated antecedents to new product development success, of which just one was new product development speed. The other two studies used new product development speed as the dependent variable, and analyzed antecedents to achieving speed. This article extends previous empirical generalizations in this domain by using a meta‐analytic methodology to understand the link between new product development speed and new product success at a more granular level. Specifically, it considers the relationship with different dimensions of success as measured overall or compositely, operationally (i.e., the process measures of decreasing development costs and proficiently managing market entry timing and the product measures of technical product performance and product competitive advantage), and relative to external success outcomes (i.e., customer based and financial success). While the results indicate that, in general, new product development speed is associated with improving success outcomes, those relationships may diminish or even disappear depending upon a number of methodological design decisions and research contexts. A subsequent meta‐analysis of the antecedents of development speed provides a more holistic picture of development speed. These results are broadly consistent with those produced by another recent meta‐analytic investigation of the issue. Together, these findings have important implications for academics pursuing further research in this domain, as well as for managers considering implementing a program to increase new product development speed.     

Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous empirical research on new product performance has provided considerable evidence that a wide variety of antecedent factors can influence the outcomes of new product development activity. Mitzi Montoya-Weiss and Roger Calantone conducted a comprehensive review of this literature and observed a wide variety of study designs and methodological approaches. They developed quantitative comparisons of the results, which, although cumbersome, provide a look at the persistent exploratory nature of this research. They report a wide variation in results that are surprisingly nonconvergent. Recommendations for broadening the range of factors considered and other approaches for accelerating the forward movement of the discipline are provided.     

The Determinants of Seller‐Buyer Interactions during New Product Development in Technology‐Based Industrial Markets

A growing body of literature indicates that the new product development (NPD) process in technology‐based, industrial markets is characterized by collaborative seller‐buyer relationships. Unfortunately, the extant literature is deficient in some significant ways. For example, there is no theoretical framework that explicates the content of these relationships. Also, there is little empirical research on the antecedents or consequences of these relationships. Therefore, managers seeking guidance on how to manage their NPD relationships have lacked appropriate insights. Not surprisingly, ineffective relationship management is a major contributor to new product failure in such settings. Against this background, this study develops and tests a model of seller‐buyer interactions during NPD. The model is based on the relationship marketing literature and is rooted in Transaction Cost Analysis (TCA). It was tested using data from 296 small to mid‐sized firms in a variety of technology‐based, industrial markets. It specifies product co‐development, education, and post‐installation product knowledge generation as three key behavioral dimensions that characterize seller‐buyer interactions during NPD. Our results indicate that the intensity with which these dimensions are undertaken vary with buyer‐related (i.e., perceived buyer knowledge and prior relationship history) and innovation‐related (i.e., product customization and innovation discontinuity) characteristics. For example, perceived buyer knowledge has a positive impact on product co‐development while innovation discontinuity has a positive impact on education. Further, we find that a seller's satisfaction with undertaking these behaviors is moderated by the technological uncertainty in the seller's industry. As a case in point, satisfaction with undertaking product co‐development is reduced when technological uncertainty is high. Collectively, the overall support we find for our model can help NPD managers optimize their relationships with buyers during NPD.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Speed-to-Market and New Product Performance Trade-offs

When pressed to accelerate a development effort, more than a few managers have responded in terms such as “Good, fast, cheap … Pick any two.” Time-to-market decisions clearly play an important role in determining the ultimate success or failure of a new product. Just as clearly, however, speed to market is not the sole determinant of success. The seemingly offhanded “Pick any two” response points to the tradeoffs that product development managers must make in their decisions about development time and costs. Barry Bayus discusses the relationship between product development time and costs, and he fomulates a mathematical model that simultaneously considers the decisions regarding time-to-market and product performance levels. He applies the model to two competitive scenarios, and he identifies the optimal entry timing and product performance decisions for various market, demand, and cost conditions. In the first scenario, a firm must decide whether to accelerate development efforts to catch a competitor that has just introduced a new product. Analysis of the tradeoffs among the various parameters in the model suggests that fast development of low-performance products is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively short window of market opportunity, a weak competitor, and relatively high development costs. For example, if the competitor is weak, high performance levels are not necessary and the firm can safely reduce time-to-market. Under the same scenario (that is, accelerating development to catch a competitor), the analysis suggests that fast development of products with high performance levels is optimal under conditions of relatively high sales and relatively flat development costs. In the second scenario, the firm must decide whether to speed development efforts to beat the competition to market. Analysis of the various tradeoffs for this scenario suggests that first-to-market status for a product with a high performnace level is optimal under the following conditions: a relatively long window of market opportunity, relatively high sales, and relatively flat development costs. With a long product lifecycle, stable margins, and high sales, the firm can generate sufficient revenue to offset the increased cost incurred in speeding a high-performance product to market. Beating a competitor to market with a low-performance product is never optimal for the cases considered here.     

Uses of Agent‐Based Modeling in Innovation/New Product Development Research*

Little has been written in the new product development literature about the simulation technique agent‐based modeling, which is a by‐product of recent explorations into complex adaptive systems in other disciplines. Agent‐based models (ABM) are commonly used in other social sciences to represent individual actors (or groups) in a dynamic adaptive system. The social system may be a marketplace, an organization, or any type of system that acts as a collective of individuals. Agents represent autonomous decision‐making entities that interact with each other and/or with their environment based on a set of rules. These rules dictate the behavioral choices of the agents. In these simulation models, heterogeneous agents interact with each other in a repetitive process. It is from the interactions between agents that aggregate macroscale behaviors or trends emerge. The simulated environment can be thought of as a “virtual” society in which actions taken by one agent may have an effect on the resulting actions of another agent. This article is an introduction to the ABM methodology and its possible uses for innovation and new product development researchers. It explores the benefits and issues with modeling dynamic systems using this methodology. Benefits of ABMs found in sociology and management studies have found that as the heterogeneity of individuals increase in a system or as network effects become more important in a system, the effectiveness of ABMs as a methodology increases. Additionally, the more adaptive a system or the more the system evolves over time, the greater the opportunity to learn more about the adaptive system using ABMs. Limitations to using this methodology include some knowledge of computer‐programming techniques. Three potential areas of research are introduced: diffusion of innovations, organizational strategy, and knowledge and information flows. A common use of ABMs in the extant literature has been the modeling of the diffusion process between networked heterogeneous agents. ABMs easily allow the modeling of different types of networks and the impact of these networks on the diffusion process. A demonstrative example of an agent‐based model to address the research question of how should manufacturers allocate resources to research (exploration) and development (exploitation) projects is provided. Future courses of study using ABMs also are explored.     

Cross‐Cultural Creativity: Conceptualization and Propositions for Global New Product Development

In today's global business environment, where multinational companies are pressed to increase revenues in order to survive, creativity may hold the key to ensuring their new product development (NPD) efforts lead to innovations with worldwide appeal, such as Apple's iPad and Gillette's Fusion Razor. To leverage creativity for effective global NPD, businesses want to know how cultures differ in their concepts of creativity and the impact of those differences on approaches to developing new products. Because global new products are increasingly developed in, by, and for multiple cultures, a particular need is for a culturally reflective understanding, or conceptualization, of creativity. While creativity is believed to be culturally tied, the dominant framework of creativity used in business and management assumes that creativity is culturally indifferent or insensitive. This knowledge gap is addressed by studying the role of creativity in NPD practices in a cross‐cultural or global context. The study begins by first developing a culturally anchored conceptualization of creativity. Called cross‐cultural creativity, the concept draws on creativity insights from the field of art and aesthetics. The concept specifies two modes of creativity, neither of which is superior to the other, called the spontaneous or S route and the divergent or D route. The S route emphasizes adaptiveness, processes, intuitiveness, and metamorphism, while the D route focuses on disruptiveness, results, rationality, and literalism. Next, this new concept is applied to NPD by positing how creativity in distinct cultures may shape NPD practices, as illustrated by Japanese and U.S. firms. Research propositions are formulated to capture these patterns, and thereafter, theoretical and practical implications of the framework and propositions are discussed. The implications center on global NPD, which is a complex enterprise involving typically more than one culture to design and develop new products for several geographic markets. The study is of interest to researchers needing a globally situated, culturally attached framework of creativity for international NPD studies, and managers seeking to exploit creativity in multinational and multicultural innovation projects.     

Modified Stage‐Gate® Regimes in New Product Development*

The purpose of this research was to explore the nature of the Stage‐Gate^®process in the context of innovative projects that not only vary in new product technology (i.e., radical versus incremental technology) but that also involve significant new product development technology (i.e., new virtual teaming hardware‐software systems). Results indicate that firms modify their formal development regimes to improve the efficiency of this process while not significantly sacrificing product novelty (i.e., the degree to which new technology is incorporated in the new offering). Four hypotheses were developed and probed using 72 automotive engineering managers involved in supervision of the new product development process. There was substantial evidence to creatively replicate results from previous benchmarking studies; for example, 48.6% of respondents say their companies used a traditional Stage‐Gate^®process, and 60% of these new products were considered to be a commercial success. About a third of respondents said their companies are now using a modified Stage‐Gate^®process for new product development. Auto companies that have modified their Stage‐Gate^®procedures are also significantly more likely to report (1) use of virtual teams; (2) adoption of collaborative and virtual new product development software supporting tools; (3) having formalized strategies in place specifically to guide the new product development process; and (4) having adopted structured processes used to guide the new product development process. It was found that the most significant difference in use of phases or gates in the new product development process with radical new technology occurs when informal and formal phasing processes are compared, with normal Stage‐Gate^®usage scoring highest for technology departures in new products. Modified Stage‐Gate^®had a significant, indirect impact on organizational effectiveness. These findings, taken together, suggest companies optimize trade‐offs between cost and quality after they graduate from more typical stage‐process management to modified regimes. Implications for future research and management of this challenging process are discussed. In general, it was found that the long‐standing goal of 50% reduction in product development time without sacrificing other development goals (e.g., quality, novelty) is finally within practical reach of many firms. Innovative firms are not just those with new products but also those that can modify their formal development process to accelerate change.     

Resource‐based strategy and managerial power in networks of internationally dispersed technology units

A linking of the Resource Based View of the firm, Resource Dependency Theory and the Vroom‐Yetton model of leadership is used to show that when important technical (R&D) resources are located offshore for strategic and efficiency reasons, resource‐based power goes with them. The extra‐national technology units that embody those strategically important resources should be managed with inclusive methods that respect that power shift. Theoretical, empirical and managerial implications are drawn from this analysis. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Back‐loading: A Potential Side Effect of Employing Digital Design Tools in New Product Development

Over the past 20 years, the use of digital design tools such as Computer‐Aided‐Design (CAD) has increased dramatically. Today, almost no product development project is conducted without the use of CAD models. Major advantages typically ascribed to using CAD include better solutions through broader exploration of the solution space as well as faster and less expensive projects through faster and earlier iterations. This latter effect, the shifting of simulation and testing traditionally accomplished with the help of physical prototypes late in the process—a slow and expensive activity—to doing similar activities with virtual prototypes faster and earlier in the process, has been identified as a key aspect of front‐loading, an activity shift promising to enable superior product development (PD) performance. Given CAD's recent pervasive use, the research questions for this paper became “how has CAD use actually changed the way in which product development is conducted, and through which mechanisms and pathways can CAD impact PD performance, especially with respect to the idea of front‐loading?” This paper addresses these questions by studying in a longitudinal comparison in detail two similar product development projects, one conducted in 2001, the other in 2009. The projects were carefully selected to isolate the substantially higher levels of CAD use of the second project while controlling for most other input factors that influence project performance. The project with substantially higher use of CAD exhibited significant improvements in prototyping costs but only marginal changes in project time and project engineering labor cost relative to the project with lower CAD use. In‐depth intra‐project analysis on the phase level reveals that the use of CAD affected how the product development was executed, with both positive and negative consequences. In addition to, and separate from positive aspects of front‐loading, unintended consequences in the form of back‐loading work are also observed. Back‐loading can occur in two places in the product development process: First, the availability of CAD systems can cause an early jump into detail design, effectively shortcutting concept development. Second, the ability to relatively quickly conduct small changes virtually to the design can erode process discipline; late changes are made simply because they are possible. Both of these effects back‐load work in the opposite direction of the positive front‐loading. The theoretical implications of our observations are discussed, and a simple framework to convert our findings into managerial advice is proposed.     

Getting More from Cross‐Functional Fairness and Product Innovativeness: Contingency Effects of Internal Resource and Conflict Management

This research investigates how organizations' internal resource and conflict management influence the relationship between cross‐functional fairness and product innovativeness. It considers two contextual dimensions of both internal resource management (job rotation and internal rivalry) and conflict‐handling mechanisms (integrating and avoiding) as key components of the firm's ability to convert fair interactions, across departments, into product innovativeness. The tests of the study's hypotheses, based on a sample of more than 200 Canadian‐based firms, confirm that the cross‐functional fairness–product innovativeness relationship is amplified at higher levels of job rotation and integrative conflict handling but suppressed at higher levels of internal rivalry and avoidance of conflict handling. The authors discuss the study's implications and future research directions.     

Perspective: New Product Failure Rates: Influence of Argumentum ad Populum and Self‐Interest

A persistent myth in product innovation and management is that the failure rate of new products is 80% or higher. How does this false idea continue to displace the conclusions of empirical studies since 1977 that the new product failure rate is 40% or less? We examine the influence of a fallacy that encourages people's unthinking acceptance of ideas on new product failure rates and whose appeal rests primarily on an emotional, rather than a reasoned, argument. Self‐interest also plays a major role in keeping this myth alive.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Goal Incongruity on New Product Development in Five Countries: A Marketing View

This article examines an important challenge to effective cross-functional integration: goal incongruity among marketing, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing in new product development. We examine the effect of this incongruity as perceived by the marketing function on three components of cross-functional integration: the harmony of cross-functional relationships, the quality of cross-functional information, and the level of cross-functional involvement. We also examine how two types of managerially controllable variables affect goal incongruity: (1) factors that motivate functions to develop common goals; and (2) factors that facilitate the formation of such goals. We give special attention to the effect of national culture on the formation of common goals. Data collected from marketing managers in 1,083 firms in five culturally distinct areas—-the United States, Great Britain, Japan, Hong Kong (a special administrative region of China), and mainland China—are used to test the hypothesized relationships. Our results underscore the importance of people-side issues, and of national culture, in cross-functional integration. Perceived goal incongruity among marketing, R&D, and manufacturing impairs all three components of cross-functional integration. In United States and British firms, goal incongruity generally is attributed to motivational factors and in Japan and Hong Kong to facilitative factors. Finally, our results show that the two types of managerially controllable variables interact. For example, joint rewards and job rotation strengthen each other's tendency to reduce goal incongruity in all five samples. This suggests that job rotation promotes the development of joint goals more effectively when it is accompanied by a joint reward system.     

How New Product Strategies Impact on Performance

What is involved in a successful new product program? Is it high spending on risky R&D? Is it close contact with customers? Is it the overall competitive strength of the firm? Well, it might be any of these things, and more, according to Robert G. Cooper, depending on your definition of success. In an exhaustive examination of the new product strategies and performances of 122 industrial products firms, Cooper found that the strategy that a firm elects for its new product program is closely linked to the performance results that firm achieves. But what's performance? Cooper's analysis uncovered three different and independent ways of viewing new product performance. He brings some clarity to the meaning of a “high-performance” product innovation program, but there's a catch—the strategies leading to high performance in one direction are quite different from the strategies leading to positive results by other measures. In his summing up, Professor Cooper proposes sets of generalized strategies—guides to action—that product innovation managers should consider.     

Product Choice and the Importance of Aesthetic Design Given the Emotion‐laden Trade‐off between Sustainability and Functional Performance

This paper investigates the trade‐off decision that consumers face when choosing between a product that is perceived to be more sustainable (i.e., more socially and environmentally responsible) and another product that instead is perceived to offer superior functional performance. Prior research has demonstrated that consumers often believe that there is a trade‐off between sustainability and performance, and in some cases, this trade‐off may be real and not just perceived. The objectives of the current research are to understand the mediators and moderators of this trade‐off choice and to illustrate one specific way in which to use this understanding to promote the consumption of relatively more sustainable products despite a perceived performance trade‐off. Two separate studies were conducted. The first employed a student‐based sample, whereas the second employed a nationally representative online sample. In both studies, participants were presented with a choice between two consumer products. One product was depicted as having superior sustainability characteristics (and average functional performance), and the other product was depicted as having superior functional performance (and average sustainability characteristics). Participants were asked to imagine that they were leaning toward choosing one product over the other, and then rated the degree to which they were feeling a set of possible emotions. Following these ratings, participants chose one of the products. The results suggest that consumers presented with such a trade‐off will tend to choose the product with superior functional performance over the product with superior sustainability characteristics, due to feelings of distress, until a minimum threshold of functional performance is achieved. The current research also shows that choice given this trade‐off depends upon the degree to which consumers value sustainability that, in turn, is mediated by consumers’ feelings of confidence and guilt. Further, based on an understanding of the emotions mediating choice in this context, the authors demonstrate how the effective use of product aesthetic design can improve the relative choice likelihood of sustainable products. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that superior aesthetic design has a disproportionately positive effect on the choice likelihood of sustainability‐advantaged (versus performance‐advantaged) products due to the effect that superior aesthetic design has on overcoming the potential lack of confidence in sustainable products. These findings highlight the specific value of aesthetic product design in the context of marketing sustainable products and suggest that it is especially important for firms interested in marketing sustainable products to also develop market‐leading product aesthetic design capabilities.