Barriers and trade-offs

While sourcing and developing PFAS alternatives remains one of today’s most significant challenges, it also demonstrates imperatives apparent across the nonwovens sector. For example, achieving the balance between sustainability and cost efficiency. Bio-based polymers can be more expensive to produce than conventional petroleum-based alternatives, and there are often performance trade-offs compared to traditional materials. However, some of these can be addressed by an interrogation of the product, through critical reassessment of product specifications and identifying where materials are over-engineered to redefine performance baselines. Questions of cost-effectiveness can be countered by the growing public awareness of the PFAS problem and consumer demand for sustainability. For example, a recent report from First Insight shows that 73% of Gen Z consumers will pay more for sustainable products, as compared to 50% of Baby Boomers.¹ That said, and particularly during an economic downturn, consumer pricing sensitivity still governs development and commercial decisions for manufacturers. In this sense, sustainability is no longer purely a compliance or branding exercise, it is increasingly a strategy for long-term cost stability and supply resilience.

Availability of raw materials impacts innovation, while supply chain disruption can hinder both the development and testing of new products. However, when looking to the issue of alternatives to petroleum-based materials, there is an opportunity for the longer-term: innovative materials may help decouple development and production from some punitive market volatility—where global oil prices currently impact materials’ costs. 

But, while this may be an opportunity, there are still risks impacting companies’ appetite for innovation—for investment in R&D, given market vagaries and volatility, and the cost of innovation and need for clear investment rationale. Capital expenditure to accommodate novel materials’ production can be prohibitive. And high manufacturing costs—especially with rising energy bills—can mean that cashflow prohibits investment. There is a degree of pragmatic risk-aversion, particularly for high-volume/low-margin products.

In this environment, traditional R&D models are often too slow, capital-intensive, and risk exposed. Companies must adopt alternative innovation frameworks that enable faster validation, lower upfront investment, and clearer commercial justification.

Stay up to date with all Nonwovens Industry content by subscribing to our newsletter.

From start-up to scale-up: how MVP can improve your product pipeline

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) can be a productive way to approach the gap between idea and commercial product, helping companies avoid the “Valley of Death”, especially when looking to innovation, risk, and investment. As a simplified product, an MVP can reduce complexity by allowing companies to test ideas rapidly, to validate market demand—including aligning the product with customer requirements—and to minimise commercial risk. And this can be effective, whether your development is in novel fibres and fabrics, or in utilising these for new products.

Beyond a prototype, an MVP can be an invaluable tool for validation, helping mitigate the barriers to innovation noted above: cost pressures; market volatility, and risk-aversion. And this is true both for start-ups and for established businesses. Two aspects underpin a successful MVP: defining economic value, and testing critical assumptions. To define economic value, you need to quantify, realistically, your value proposition: does the innovation reduce cost, improve product performance, or address specific needs not already met in the marketplace? At this stage, a clear proposition, based on establishing economic value, can create a compelling stakeholder / investor proposition, and guide the development process.

Critical assumptions may be different, specifically for start-ups or established businesses. A start-up may best focus on market validation: is there is an appetite for your innovation? Does it solve a real-world problem? Where resources are stretched and funding precarious, overcommitting before validating market demand risks the “Valley of Death”, whereby ideas stall when investors do not see proof of a concept’s viability. Here, a strong MVP enables the testing of assumptions, ideas can be refined through iterations, and a compelling case can be built for future investment to take concept to development. 

For established businesses, commercial drivers are of a different magnitude and the risks in scaling innovation can be greater. Integrating MPVs into existing development pipelines while protecting investment can prove challenging, where the demand is to take products rapidly to market. Scalability is critical. Misalignment between technical feasibility and market demand, or between the risks of cost of scaling unproven technologies while negotiating performance and regulatory standards, can be complex. Taking the MPV approach fosters rapid iteration, while allowing you to focus on the alignment of business goals and market expectations. 

For all businesses, an MVP is a dynamic tool: iterative, with on-going refinement, feedback loops ensure it meets technical and market demands. And market validation is equally constant: prior to a commitment to production, shadow testing can play a vital role where pre-orders, pilot programmes, and small-scale deployments can all play a part in validation without committing to major upfront costs.

Measuring your innovation: why NPVI is a valuable metric

While there are, undoubtedly, barriers to innovation in the current climate, new concept and product development is critical for businesses to sustain growth and maintain market position. Understanding and measuring innovation is crucial and the New Product Vitality Index (NPVI) can offer valuable insight into innovation performance.

Operating over a specific timeframe—generally three to five years—the NPVI is a key performance indicator that allows your business to measure the proportion of revenue generated from products launched within a defined period. This helps determine how effectively investment into R&D translates into product innovation—and financial returns.

Where a NPVI is high, this indicates a strong R&D pipeline that demonstrates healthy ROI. Where low, it can signal a need to refocus innovation strategies or pivot effort to products that generate returns. And, for companies seeking investment or preparing for merger or acquisition, NPVI highlights an appetite and drive for innovation, while indicating potential for growth.

As with MPV, using a MPVI metric can foster innovation: ensuring your R&D aligns with market demand; enabling a strong argument for resource allocation to high-impact projects when competition for these resources may be fierce; and enabling you to focus on developing the right new products where there is clear market demand.

De-risking the path to innovation: a collaborative, partnership approach

Innovation is a continuous process. Leveraging NPVI and taking the iterative process of the MVP can help companies maintain a competitive edge and take advantage of the opportunities available in a changing regulatory landscape. Collaboration is increasingly central to de-risking innovation. The objective is not to completely eliminate risk, but manage it intelligently.

Working with an external partner can help address some of the most pressing issues: scarcity of resources and in-house expertise; specialist facilities to test novel approaches; and access to market insight and validation. Testing and validation—where MVP performance is evaluated under real-world conditions and compliance with industry standards can be ensured—is a critical step for innovation. And external scalability planning can be particularly valuable for established businesses, where products are prepared for commercialisation through addressing manufacturing, cost, and market challenges. 

Companies that combine structured validation (through MVP approaches), measurable performance (through NPVI), and strategic collaboration will be best positioned to reduce risk, accelerate development, and bring commercially viable products to market. The challenge is no longer whether to innovate, but how to do so with clarity, confidence, and control.

[email protected]

+44 (0)113 350 3829

www.nirigroup.com

Reference
1. https://www.firstinsight.com/white-papers-posts/gen-z-shoppers-demand-sustainability