0
Article ? AI-assigned paper type based on the abstract. Classification may not be perfect — flag errors using the feedback button. Tier 2 ? Original research — experimental, observational, or case-control study. Direct primary evidence. Sign in to save

Sustainability as Strategic Differentiator: The Promise and the Problems of Using Chicle vs. Petro-Chemicals in Chewing Gum

Sustainability 2023 3 citations ? Citation count from OpenAlex, updated daily. May differ slightly from the publisher's own count. Score: 35 ? 0–100 AI score estimating relevance to the microplastics field. Papers below 30 are filtered from public browse.
Karen Paul

Summary

This study examines the competitive viability of chicle-based chewing gum as a sustainability differentiator against petro-chemical gum bases, applying Porter's strategy model to evaluate whether natural, plastic-free positioning provides sufficient market differentiation. The analysis highlights the promises and challenges facing smaller companies attempting to revive chicle gum in a market dominated by cheaper synthetic alternatives.

Chewing gum as a commercial product was traditionally based on chicle, mainly harvested by indigenous people from trees in the tropical forest of southeastern Mexico. Chicle gum base has now been replaced by a petro-chemical gum base by the major manufacturers. However, several smaller companies are again attempting to market chewing gum using a chicle gum base. The question raised here is, will the differentiation provided by chicle gum—being natural, organic, and “plastic-free”—provide sufficient differentiation for meaningful competition against the less expensive brands using a petro-chemical gum base? This case provides an interesting application of Michael Porter’s strategy model in which differentiation and value are competing strategies.

Sign in to start a discussion.

Share this paper