Integrating Environmental Concerns into the DesignProcess:

The Gap between Theory and Practice

Steven A. MelnykRobert B. HandfieldRoger J. Calantone

Department of Marketing and Supply Chain ManagementMichigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824-1122

Sime Curkovic

Western Michigan UniversityHaworth College of BusinessKalamazoo, MI 49008-3899

2

Integrating Environmental Concerns into the DesignProcess:

The Gap between Theory and Practice

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on the product design process and the role played by environmental concerns

during this critical stage. Specifically, we explore Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) as

perceived and acted on by two critical groups within this design process. The first consists of the

champions and supporters of ERM. These are the people who either formally or informally act as

advocates of ERM within the organization. The second consists of the users of ERM tools and

procedures. Typically, these people consist of product designers and design engineers. We study these

two groups by means of an exploratory research project that focuses a sample of ten firms drawn from

the “best-in-class” environmental leaders. An interesting finding reported in this paper involves the

existence of a strong gap between the ERM supporters and the users of ERM tools. The two sides were

found to be separated by expectations, perceptions and orientations towards ERM principles, practices

and tools. By understanding this gap, we may begin to better understand the difficulties that firms

experience in trying to create more environmentally friendly designs and products.

INTRODUCTION

Within the last decade, large corporations and small businesses alike have undergone unprecedented

levels of change in response to global competition. Waste reduction and process improvement initiatives

such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-in-Time (JIT), Business Process Reengineering (BPR),

Integrated Supply Chain Management and Time-based Competition have all been identified as critical to

success in the 1990s. Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) is a relatively new concept

which can be viewed as a product of the 1990s. ERM has been defined as an economically-driven,

system-wide and integrated approach to the reduction and elimination of all waste streams

associated with the design, manufacture, use and/or disposal of products and materials (Melnyk

and Handfield 1995).

This particular strategic effort is a logical extension of the previous process-focused programs

such as TQM. ERM is viewed as being TQM systems modified to deal with environmental issues.

The gradual evolution of quality to include aspects of the environment has been anticipated by

several authors (Mizuno 1988; Hanna and Newman 1995; May and Flannery 1995; Sarkis and

Rasheed 1995; Epstein 1996). The “no waste” aim of this particular strategic effort closely parallels

the TQM goal of “zero defects.” TQM focuses on waste as it applies to process inefficiencies,

whereas ERM tends to focus on concrete outputs such as solid waste and air pollution. The business

press (both academic and practitioner) validates the importance of ERM to business by publishing more

books and articles on the topic every year.

This position is being forced on American manufacturing firms by a large number of different factors.

First, there is the attraction of cost reduction. One of the major benefits of being environmentally

responsible is that of reduced costs occurring in the form of reduced waste management/disposal costs,

reduced penalties and fines, reduced future liabilities, and lower regulatory driven costs (Porter 1991; Porter

and Van der Linde 1995a, 1995b). A number of external forces also contribute to this need for change,

including:

• Governmental regulation,

• The advent of ISO 14000 (with its emphasis on international standards for environmentalcompliance),

• The potential for publicity (both good and bad),

2

• Increasing demands from customers (industrial and consumer) for goods and services that areproduced using environmentally friendly processes and designs.

The pressure to become environmentally responsible is also beginning generated by forces present within

industries (e.g., chemical and electronic) and from consumer groups (e.g., the Green Cross certification

program and Canada’s Eco Logo program) (Stratton, 1991). As a result of these and other factors, product

development managers are beginning to recognize that they are now operating in an environment which

prizes and encourages Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM).

However, being green or clean is not an easy task. The concept of ERM is surrounded by a number of

paradoxes and obstacles; not the least of these is a basic confusion over what is meant by being green! In

addition, there is the challenge of being green or environmentally responsible in an environment where the

standards and requirements are ever changing, not well defined and at times in conflict with one other. In

addition, there is the problem of identifying the most appropriate area for focusing attention when

implementing or using systems which embody ERM principles, practices and tools. Finally, there is the issue

of how to deal with the trade-offs that ERM introduces into an environment characterized by increasing

levels of complexity.

In this paper, we begin by examining current theoretical foundations on the integration of environmental

management into functional business processes. While prior theory provides some very broad guidelines,

this body of work provides almost no direction for the practicing manager to deploy environmental initiatives

into current business processes. Next, we examine the implementation of ERM specifically within the

product design process. Specifically, we focus our attention on two major categories of respondents: (1)

ERM supporters; and, (2) designers (users of ERM tools). The first set of respondents include those

individuals responsible for deploying environmental concerns into the design function, primarily by

advocating the use of ERM tools. The second set of respondents are responsible for actually carrying out the

design process, and hopefully integrating the ERM tools into their daily activities. By studying the different

goals and objectives of each group, we can develop insights into the barriers to effective integration of

environmental issues into the design process. These two types of respondents are examined within the

context of a sample of ten firms drawn from a population consisting of advanced/leading edge ERM users.

These two groups are studied in order to address the following questions:

1. How has the introduction of ERM issues into the design process been managed? That is, have

organizations made any significant changes in the existing design process to accommodate the

introduction of ERM concerns?

3

2. When environmental concerns are introduced into the design process, how do the participants define

an environmentally improved product?

3. To what extent are the goals of ERM supporters and designers similar or different?

4. What are the major obstacles of incorporating environment concerns into the product design

process?

These four questions were addressed by means of a qualitative-based study. It should be noted from the

outset that this is an exploratory study since its intent is to develop a better understanding of the process by

which ERM is implemented, measured and evaluated. The findings of this study are intended to act as a

basis for future studies in this area.

This paper is divided into four major sections. The first section provides a broad theoretical foundation

for the overall concept of ecological sustainability, and illustrates the “disconnect” between current

paradigms and the actual deployment within the product design area. In the second section, we define the

concept of ERM, and describe the major traits that are relevant to the design process. This is done in the

form of four major propositions that follow from the research questions stated earlier. The third section lays

out the research methodology while the fourth and final section summarizes the major findings of this study.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS - ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY

Ecological Sustainability Paradigms

Generally speaking, little prior theory exists which specifically relates to the role of new product

designers and environmental initiatives. The primary theoretical paradigm in use is that of the “ecologically

sustainable organization” and its role in “sustainable development.” A content analysis by Gladwin,

Kennelly, and Krause (1995) found that sustainable development is “a process of achieving human

development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, and secure manner. Inclusiveness implies human

development over time and space. Connectivity entails an embrace of ecological, social, and economic

interdependence. Equity suggests intergenerational, intrageneration, and interspecies fairness. Prudence

connotes duties of care and prevention: technologically, scientifically, and politically. Security demands

safety from chronic threats and protection from harmful disruption.” (Gladwin et. Al., 1995, p. 878).

While this definition is an interesting starting point, it provides relatively little guidance regarding the

manner in which environmental initiatives are integrated into design activities. A somewhat more

prescriptive, yet equally vague theoretical contribution is made by Starik and Rands (1995). They adopt a

4

systems approach to the ecologically sustainablility paradigm, which they define as the “ability of one or more

entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and flourish (either unchanged or in evolved forms) for

lengthy time-frames, in such a manner that the existence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is

permitted at related levels and in related systems. Such an organization can be designed by (1) selecting the

organizational pattern of structure and process that matches the set of contingencies facing the firm, and (2)

to develop structures and processes that are internally consistent (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985: 521).

Integrating Environmental Concerns into Design

With respect to how such policies might influence designers, Starik and Rands provide a few very

broad guidelines, including the following:

• Ecologically sustainable organizations (ESOs) will include ecological sustainability considerations andcriteria in job design, recruitment and selection and training and development systems.

• ESOs will design their budgeting and reward systems, communication systems, organizational structures,and decision-making systems in order to empower individuals to engage in sustainability-orientedinnovations.

• ESOs will be characterized by numerous cultural artifacts such as slogans, symbols, rituals and storieswhich serve to articulate and reinforce for their members the importance of ecologically sustainableperformance.

• ESOs will adopt marketing and procurement policies (sic) emphasizing sustainable products, in part tocreate and enlarge markets for such products.

• ESOs will work to remove anti-sustainability subsidies, and/or to institute pro-sustainability subsidies.

While this vision of an ideal organization which promotes environmental concerns above other

objectives is enlightening, the authors acknowledge that their framework provides relatively little direction in

terms of specific relationships. Moreover, they call for research that offers insights into the particular mix of

financial and nonfinancial incentives which should be offered to influence employees’ sustainability-oriented

behavior. They also note the lack of any theory for guiding organizational policies which reward compliance

versus innovation.

Shrivasta (1995) offers a set of more technical recommendations regarding how certain tools can

help create more environmentally-friendly designs. He notes that a TQEM (total quality environmental

management) approach seeks to optimize the ecological performance of the entire corporate system. This

includes applying life-cycle analysis (LCA) as a holistic approach to understanding the linkages between an

organization and its natural environment. TQEM also encourages energy and natural resource conservation

by reducing the use of energy and virgin materials through product redesign, making use of renewable

materials, off-setting energy / resource consumption with replenishment, and developing ecologically

sensitive purchasing policies and inventory-management systems. In illustrating these policies, Shrivasta use

5

examples of organizations first mentioned by Makower (1993), such as Tetrapak, Herman Miller, The Body

Shop, and Loblaws. In citing these policies, however, the author seems to imply that such managerial tools

and techniques are easily implemented, and merely require a re-structuring of the organizational policy

manual.

Studies of the Actual Design Process

In fact, our research and that of other field researchers points to the fact that tools such as Life Cycle

Analysis, green purchasing, green product re-design, and other tools are not as widely used as Shrivastava

would seem to suggest. In the past, research into the integration of environmental concerns into the product

design process could be divided into one of three major categories. The first dealt with case studies

describing the experiences of specific companies (e.g., Environment Today, 1993; Rice, 1993; Sanders, 1993).

The second has tried to offer engineers and managers specific guidelines and advice for integrating

environmental concerns into the product design process (e.g., EPA, 1994; Cattenach, Holdreith, Reinke, and

Sibik, 1995; Epstein, 1996). The third line of research has focused on the development and evaluation of

alternative tools to be used when integrating environmental issues into the design process. These tools have

two objectives: (1) to identify the true costs and benefits to be gained by designing more environmentally

appropriate products; and, (2) to help the designers identify the environmental and cost implications

associated with alternative materials or process decisions (e.g., Allenby, 1993; Graedel & Allenby, 1995).

With regard to Life Cycle Analysis, Klassen and Greis concur that “the different life cycle assessment

methodologies under development in North America and Europe are [only] beginning to reach an initial

consensus, at least for the Inventory component. According to Gloria, Saad, Breville, and O’Connel

(1995), the concerns of poor data quality, data availability, high implementation costs, subjectivity,

and a lack of standardization have sent life-cycle analysis into a state of flux. A similar consensus for

the subsequent Impact and Improvement Analysis components still remains elusive, undoubtedly in part

because the issues are very complex and the research foundation remains weak.” (p. 306). Handfield et. al.

(1997) found that very few companies considered to be “green” (including some of the companies mentioned

by Shirvastava) are truly proactive in nature, such that environmental concerns are integrated into everyday

design processes. They found that once products are in the manufacturing stage, manufacturing and

environmental engineers can do little more than minimize the end-of-pipe waste, which has only a marginal

effect on the total waste produced. Moreover, the use of design tools are few and far between, and when

applied, are often done so as an afterthought and in an ad hoc manner. Ideally, the most appropriate

place for considering environmental issues is in the design phase since the amount of waste

generated is a direct consequence of decisions made during design (Bowman 1996; Fiskel 1993,

1994). However, there is a lack of appropriate measures and tools for capturing the environmental

6

impact of designs (Van Weenen and Eeckles 1989; Allenby 1993; Graedel and Allenby 1995). For

example, there is no equivalent of Quality Function Deployment or the House of Quality.

On the other hand, recent research in the engineering literature suggests that there do exist tools

which, if implemented properly, can significantly improve new designs in terms of their impact on the

environment. A recent engineering conference identified potential tools which fell into a wide range of

categories, from relatively simple checklists or general guidelines to more complex software-based decision-

making tools (Mizuki, Sandborn, and Pitts, 1996). However, another study found that the actual use of these

tools is limited: seventy seven out of eighty one firms had a corporate environmental program, but of these,

only 30% had a “corporate program for incorporating environmental concerns into design.” (Lennox, Jordan,

and Ehrenfeld, 1996). Further, only 20% had a formal process for designs for the environment.

Disturbingly, the researchers noted that environmental databases and design software are almost never used

by designers, and that very few organizations had adopted environmental techniques such as life-cycle

analysis or full cost accounting.

Relatively ignored in this research has been the reaction of the designers to these various ERM-driven

initiatives. The degree to which ERM will be successful is greatly dependent on the extent to which the users

(in this case, the designers) are willing to embrace, accept and use the tools, principles and systems of ERM.

Developing this level of acceptance is not a foregone conclusion.

ERM issues must compete with other pressures and concerns. For example, with shorter product life

cycles, designers are now under great pressure to ensure that their products work right the first time. In

addition, designers must produce products which are acceptable to customers (even if this means that less

environmentally materials and styles must be used). Finally, designers are under pressure to improve quality,

reduce cost and improve flexibility. The corporate concerns are often reflected in the measurement systems

used to assess and monitor the performance of these designers.

The Disconnect Between Theory and Practice

Clearly, there is a disconnect between what theorists believe firms are doing in design for the

environment (DFE), and what designers are telling us is being done. As it is generally used, the term

“Design for the Environment” (DFE) means making environmental considerations an integral part

in the design of a product, process, and/or technology (Allenby 1993). The concept of DFE

originated from industry’s effort to target specific environmental objectives for design engineers to

incorporate when creating a new product. The goals of ERM can only be achieved when

environmental issues are identified and resolved during the early stages of product design, when

7

changes can be made to reduce or eliminate environmental waste (Allenby 1993). Because a

product needs to be designed before it is manufactured, the environmental effects of the product are

largely fixed at the product design phases (Van Weenen and Eeckles 1989).

Some anecdotal examples and case studies are provided where DFE has proven to be successful

(e.g., AT&T), but these are isolated and limited to a very few companies (Franke and Monroe 1995;

Shelton 1995). The literature also ignores the obvious interrelated relationship between process and

design issues. It fails to recognize that a major barrier to the integration of cleaner manufacturing

processes is that design engineers usually have little technical knowledge at the process level. The

literature does not discuss the working relationships required between process and design

engineers. It seems intuitive that designers at some level need to understand the process and be

able to influence process design; however, these issues are not addressed in the literature.

Manufacturing processes are the greatest generators of environmental waste and the greatest

opportunities for ERM practices occurs during the design stages. However, the interaction

between these two stages has not been examined.

We know that DFE tools and databases are available, but designers are generally not using them! The

paradox which emerges is hinted at by Hunt and Auster, who state that a top level commitment by

management to an environmental program is not enough. To implement real change, they note that the costs

of poor environmental management must be calculated, and then the need for good practices must be “sold”

throughout the organization. This in turn requires a talented manager, and an organization which is

restructured for visibility, accessibility, and effectiveness. As a result, we do not know the extent to which

designers see the inclusion of environmental issues and considerations into the design process as important

or whether they view these issues as simply more work and more trouble. This study intends to address this

void in the research.

Obtaining the buy-in of designers into environmental initiatives is thus much more of a task than

originally anticipated by theorists. Before organizations can undertake this process, however, engineering

managers must become aware of the different types of objections they are likely to encounter within their

design teams. In seeking to fulfill this need, the authors undertook an analytical comparison of the existing

gap which exists between proponents of environmental policy and the designers who are being asked to

adopt it into their daily activities. The resulting study thus assesses this gap, and recommends actions

required to close the gap in the future.

8

PROPOSITIONS: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO

THE DESIGN PROCESS

In order to better focus the discussion ecological sustainability, it is necessary to relate it to a set of

operational processes. Thus, we begin by defining Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) as:

a system which integrates product and process design issues with issues of manufacturing production planning

and control in such a manner as to identify, quantify, assess and manage the flow of environmental waste

with the goal of reducing and ultimately minimizing its impact on the environment while also trying to

maximize resource efficiency.

This definition provides a suitable basis for the discussion of several important assumptions and premises

regarding the integration of environmental initiatives into the design process. These premises are presented

in the form of a set of propositions that mirror the four research questions discussed earlier in the first

section of the paper. The proposition were then explored in more detail through a set of field interviews.

The propositions are drawn not only from our definition of ERM, but also from recent studies of

environmental management.

Proposition 1 – Process Integration

In general, ERM can take one of two approaches. The first is remedial. Under this approach, which is

also referred to as “end of pipe” solutions, we try to correct the environmental problems once they have been

created. In general, this approach is seen as being relatively ineffective because it does not really attack the

factors that give rise to the problem in the first place (Carpenter 1991). Rather, it attacks the symptoms. In

general, this approach is seen as short term in nature. It does nothing to eliminate the problems from taking

place initially. To do so, we must use the second approach -- preventive.

With prevention, we focus our attention on those decisions and actions which give rise to the problems

in the first place. Using Ackoff’s taxonomy of solve, resolve and dissolve (Ackoff, 1978), preventive

approaches focus on dissolving problems -- they try to prevent them from occurring in the first place. When

dealing with environmental problems, using the preventive approach forces us to focus on the

product/process design process. First, we now recognize that the most efficient and effective point at which

to catch problems is in the design stage (while the designs are still on paper). As a result of developments

such as simultaneous engineering, attention is now being focused on this stage in the process of taking a

9

product from concept to full production. Furthermore, the decisions taken at this stage greatly influence

process decisions, choice of material, number of components per item and the type and amount of

environmental waste associated with the product (its production, use or disposal). Several authors (Ashleyn,

1993; Graedel & Allenby, 1995; Makower, 1994; Sanders, 1993) have recognized the critical role played by

the design process in an effective ERM system.

This brings up an important point: whether they realize it or not, every time a new design is produced,

an environmental decision is implicitly being made. That is, one cannot separate environmental decisions

from design decisions, as they are one and the same!

Proposition 1: Every design decision is an environmental decision. Unless the formal design

process recognizes this relationship, ERM will consistently be remedial in nature.

In many organizations, there is a tendency to see environmentally responsible manufacturing as being

something that managers can decide to become involved in or not. Firms can decide to implement

environmentally responsible manufacturing or they can decide not to implement it. However, there is a

fundamental flaw with this view. Every action involving either products or processes involves

environmentally responsible manufacturing. Whether we know it or not, every manufacturing decision and

action has an impact on the environment. These decisions can be explicit (we can decide to redesign a

process so that it uses less toxic material) or the decisions can be implicit. For example, managers may select

a specific process or operating technology because it can help to generate higher quality goods faster (in less

lead time) and at lower costs. When we select that process, at that moment, we have also implicitly accepted

the environmental effects attributable to that process.

This property of environmental management is not unlike another important management strategy that

evolved ten years ago: Total Quality Management. Moreover, the ultimate goal of environmentally

responsible manufacturing is waste elimination: In its simplest and most basic form, pollution is waste

(Juran, 1987; Porter, 1991). Waste, whether it takes the form of excessive movements, too much inventory

or environmentally harmful materials, is waste. It represents the expenditure of energy without the offsetting

generation of value. However, the origin of waste (whether in the form of excess inventory, defects, or

hazardous outputs) all have their origin in decisions made in the design stage. When viewed in this light, we

can see that environmentally responsible design has much in common with Total Quality Management

(Stratton, 1991), and has even resulted in the recent development of Total Quality Environmental

Management (TQEM) (Bradley, 1993).

Proposition 2 – Measuring Environmental Impacts

10

The task of taking a product design from concept to final product is a complex activity. Inherent in this

process are a large number of decisions which must be made -- decisions involving features, performance,

the extent to which the product maps with customer expectations, technical feasibility and cost. For the

people involved, this task involves two major issues. The first is effectiveness (i.e., Does the product do

what the customer expects of it? Does the product perform consistently with our design specifications?).

The second is efficiency (i.e., Can we make the product within the performance and cost constraints set for

us? Can we eliminate non-value-adding features or processing steps without adversely affecting the product

and its performance?).

Introducing environmental concerns into this process must, by definition, further complicate this already

very complex process. By introducing these issues, we have to convert the design process from an activity

confined to a plane consisting of effectiveness and efficiency to an activity which must take place within a

cube where the three dimensions consist of effectiveness, efficiency and environmental soundness. As a

result, the number of interactions to be considered has now greatly increased. However, unless this third

dimension has a set of explicit output measures associated with it, it will largely be ignored.

Proposition 2: Environmental issues must be quantified in specific measurable units. These

metrics must be explicitly measured and recognized at major points in the design process and must

carry at least the same weight as other design metrics such as cost, quality, fit, function, etc.

Effective environmentally responsible design processes must focus on the three Ps associated with

design decisions: -- Product, Process and Packaging. These involve: (1) product design (how it is designed,

materials used in it, environmental impact of its use, environmental impact of its disposal); (2) process

(decisions made related to how the product will be produced); and, (3) packaging (the protective materials used

in delivering components to the process or in delivering the product to the customer). As such, effective

ERM systems will ascertain the impact on environmental metrics made by different configurations of the

product, process, and packaging design.

Typically, most people associate environmentally responsible manufacturing (or the lack of) with the

product and its use or the operation of the manufacturing processes. Designers often fail to understand the

impact of their decisions on process and packaging issues. For instance, a product design decision can have

a major influence on the process required to product the product in terms of its the support facilities (i.e.,

tank farms, waste water treatment, etc). In many cases, some of the worst pollution comes from these

support facilities.

11

The ultimate goal of environmentally responsible manufacturing is to eliminate rather than

environmental waste. This can only be achieved when environmental issues, concerns and problems are

identified and resolved during the early stages of the product and process design process. It is at these stages

that processes can be changed so as to reduce or eliminate environmental problems. It is also at these stages

that products can be altered (e.g., by using new material) so as to reduce waste. Furthermore, these concerns

over environmental waste have to be present all the way from product concept to prototype to full

production and finally end with the use of the product by the customer and its ultimate disposal. When in

full production, environmental issues should be monitored, evaluated and managed as part of the process of

manufacturing planning and control. However, by rendering environmentally responsible manufacturing a

process which is parallel but separate from the product and process design and development system is

ultimately ineffective. When so structured, environmentally responsible manufacturing becomes a series of

externally imposed checks which define the constraints that products and processes must meet. It is

something that is considered after the fact. When integrated, environmentally responsible manufacturing

becomes a consideration similar to that of quality or time or cost. It becomes an opportunity and something

that must be considered right from the outset.

Historical information, as well as simulation studies can be used to project the impact of design

decisions, and enable insights into the impact on such metrics. For instance, a set ofsuch tools and

associated metrics in the electronics industry (Mizuki et. al., 1996) include:

• Disassembly/Recylability Analysis (disposal costs, revenue from recycled or reused parts, and

disassembly times and costs)

• Manufacturability Analysis (proximity assessment, manual versus automatic assembly, aspect ratio,

manufacturability scores)

• Process Flow Analysis (optimization of overal system cost, quality (yield), and time)

• Other Performance Trade-off analysis (impact of technology, material, and design rule variations on

the cost and performance of products)

In another case, a set of “design scores” associated with plating processes developed to better quantify

environmental impacts of product design decisions (Kassahun et. al., 1995). Regardless of the manufacturing

processes associated with different industries, meaningful metrics of environmental performance in product,

processes, and packaging must be developed that designers can use to influence their decisions.

Proposition 3 – Understanding Functional Perspectives

12

As the previous discussion indicates, there is no shortage of environmental tools or metrics available to

ascertain the impact of design decisions on product, process, or packaging. However, getting designers to

use these tools is altogether another matter! This is the case primarily because of the variance in perspectives

implicitly held by two groups within the organization: the Environmental Supporters, and the Designers.

The most common view, typically held by designers, is that the requirements to be environmentally

responsible are imposed externally by the government and other similar regulatory bodies. Since these

requirements are driven by political and social considerations, it is difficult to justify any investments in

environmentally responsible manufacturing other than those dictated by the appropriate regulations. As a

result, the only position that a firm can take with environmentally responsible manufacturing is that of strict

compliance -- doing just what is needed to satisfy the regulations.

The second view being advocated by the Environmental Supporters in an organization is that

environmentally responsible manufacturing is ultimately a business decision. Companies able to make the

transition from strict environmental compliance to leveraging environmental issues for competitive advantage

often rely on the skills and motivation of a “policy entrepreneur”. A policy entrepreneur is defined as a

person willing to invest time, energy, money, reputation, etc., in the hope of future returns such as

environmental policy changes and promotions (Drumwright, 1994, p. 4). In the context of socially

responsible purchasing, Drumwright showed that policy entrepreneurs exert both formal and informal power

to get environmental issues on the corporate agenda. These policy entrepreneurs often bring a socially

responsible vision into the organization and then legitimize this vision through their ability to influence the

organization’s political agenda. The extent to which the products and processes possessed by a firm are

“green” (environmentally responsible) has important implications for the firm. It can affect the strategic and

cost position occupied by the firm. As a result, any decisions in environmentally responsible manufacturing

must be viewed from a rational cost/benefit perspective. That is, all of the costs and benefits associated with

being environmentally responsible must be identified and evaluated -- a point recognized by several authors

(e.g., Bemowski, 1991; Stratton, 1991).

Because of the divergence between these two views, an important proposition emerges:

Proposition 3 - To successfully integrate environmental issues into the design process,environmental decisions must be viewed as strategically driven decisions which are evaluated bycomparing the relative costs and benefits. Environmental metrics must be “rolled up” into specificcost units that provide a meaningful basis for decision-making, goal-setting, and ultimately,evaluation of designer performance.

Ideally, designers would be able to consider different design alternatives that include environmental

metrics that have cost implications associated with them. The designer would then be able to alter the design

13

to the point where marginal costs and benefits are approximately equal. In many cases, this perspective may

result in a firm inventing in a higher level of environmentally related activities than those required by

regulatory pressure and requirements (as in the case of AT&T with CFC emissions, the Chemical

Manufacturers’ Association with “Responsible Care” and 3M with their “Pollution Prevention Pays”

program). When viewed from this perspective, we can see that it is now possible for a firm to underinvest

and overinvest in environmentally responsible manufacturing/design and to also overinvest in

environmentally responsible manufacturing/design. In this premise, Designers and Environmental

Supporters would be able to share a common and consistent vision: competitive advantage and corporate

profit.

Unfortunately, a number of obstacles exist to prevent this from occurring.

Proposition 4 – Resolving the Obstacles

Integrating environmental concerns into the design process is similar in many respects to the deployment

of simultaneous engineering for the first time. It requires the involvement of many people from different

parts of the organization. No one person or function can identify all of the problems or issues pertaining to

the environment. No one person or function can identify appropriate solutions. Instead, ERM involves

people from different functional areas meeting to uncover and assess environmental problems and to

formulate appropriate solutions to these problems. ERM is ultimately a cross-functional undertaking.

ERM affects all of the functional areas of a business enterprise (Kleiner 1991; Post 1991; Williams

1991). ERM brings together people from different functional areas to uncover, assess, and solve

environmental problems. As such, environmentally responsible manufacturing typically involves

participation from engineering (product, process/manufacturing and industrial), marketing (to assess

market/customer response and demands), manufacturing, cost accounting (to assess the full costs of

environmental problems), facilities/environmental engineering (to carry out cost estimates and to forward

these estimates to cost accounting and finance), human resources (because people and staff must be involved

in the management, storage and disposal of waste), industrial facilities management (where to store waste),

purchasing (acquisition and disposal of waste), legal (to assess the legal implications of new regulations and

actions being considered by the firm and its personnel) and support from middle and top management (to

assess the strategic impacts of environmentally related being considered) (Hunt & Austen, 1990; Bemowski,

1991; Juran & Gryna, 1980; Tank, 1991). Having a separate and distinct department for environmental

matters can create problems because it causes others in the organization to ignore environmentally

responsible manufacturing issues. After all, someone else (the department for environmental matters) is

responsible for those matters. This type of attitude is not consistent with effective environmentally

responsible manufacturing.

14

Proposition 4 – The primary obstacle to the integration of environmental issues into product designis a lack of coordination between functions. In order to effectively translate environmental metricsinto strategic cost/benefit implications that can be understood by all parties, the full involvement ofmultiple functions within the organization is necessary.

This statement has been echoed before in prior research (see Sarkis and Rasheed, 1995; Dechant and

Altman, 1994; Hunt and Austen, 1990). However, a resolution to this obstacle has never been fully explored.

Although we cannot hope to fully explain this process, we did seek to develop insights into the processes

used to integrate environmental issues into the design process. The research methodology used to develop

the data and explore these propositions are next described.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Since the focus of this research was exploratory in nature (rather than confirmatory), qualitative

data collection methods were used. Field-based data collection methods were used to ensure that

the important variables were identified. It also helped us develop an understanding of why these

variables might be important (Eisenhardt 1989). A small detailed sample fit the needs of the

research more than a large scale survey would have.

The method followed was similar to the grounded theory development methodology suggested

by Glasser and Strauss (1967). In addition, suggestions made by Eisenhardt (1980), Miles and

Huberman (1994), and Yin (1994) were also incorporated. The end results was a series of case

studies in which each case was treated as a replication.

In instances where there does not exist a well-developed set of theories regarding a particular branch of

knowledge, Eisenhardt (1989) and McCutcheon and Meredith (1993) suggest that theory-building can best be

done through case study research. This case-based process involves defining the question, selecting cases,

crafting instruments and protocols, analyzing data, shaping hypotheses, enfolding the literature and reaching

closure using an intentionally small group of research sites. Comparative literature reviews of research on

environmental management strategies confirm that this area is at an early stage of development (Klassen,

1993; 1995; Porter and van der Linde, 1995b). In this stage of theory building, a key objective is to develop

insights into the key processes involved in integrating environmental issues into the design process.

There are several pitfalls of case analysis, including lack of simplicity or narrow and idiosyncratic theories

(Eisenhardt, 1989). A primary disadvantage of case-based research is that it is difficult to draw deterministic

inferences, and there are limitations in terms of the external validity of the study. These limitations are often

addressed by using large sample studies, or using “before” and “after” quasi-experimental designs. (Cook and

15

Campbell, 1979). However, given the stage of theory development on ERM, it is important to ensure that the

right questions regarding its deployment are being asked. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that the researcher

develop a set of initial research questions that posit linkages between proposed key constructs. As the

analysis proceeds, questions can be modified and refined, so that future studies will be properly directed. The

research questions should also be related to a conceptual model for crafting research instruments and

interview protocols (Miles and Huberman, 1994). While causality can never be shown in case studies, analysis

of data collected from multiple sites can help support the generalizability of the results.

The researchers relied primarily on the methods of qualitative data analysis developed by Miles and

Huberman (1994), which consist of anticipatory conceptual model development, and simultaneous data

collection, reduction, display, and conclusion testing. Multiple research sites were used in order to provide a

broader taxonomy of environmental design strategies. A qualitative approach based on extensive interviews

was picked because we were interested in understanding the process by which environmental concerns were

introduced into the design process. Because this process is not well understood and because many of the

terms associated with this process and its goals are subject to confusion, a qualitative approach was better

suited as compared to alternative quantitative approaches such as surveys (Gummesson, 1991; Miles &

Huberman, 1994).

The approach developed consisted of five stages:

• Questionnaire design and testing;

• Identification of the Sample;

• Identification of the Respondents;

• Administration of the Questionnaire; and,

• Analysis of the Data.

Questionnaire Design and Testing

The questionnaire was designed around the four primary research questions (and associated

propositions) discussed in the prior section of the paper. Eisenhardt (1989) suggested that a researcher

should have a well developed interview protocol before making the site visits. A structured

interview protocol was used at all of the sites. Qualitative theory building is an iterative process

(Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 1994. Eisenhardt (1989) suggested that data

collection and data analysis should be done simultaneously. In other words, the data from one case

is collected and then analyzed before the next replication is performed. Improvements in the

protocol can be made between replications by collecting data in this manner. Important issues that

16

are raised in early cases can be included in the protocol for subsequent replications. This ability to

refine and improve upon the protocol between cases is a significant advantage of this type of

research. For the sake of clear explanation the data collection and analysis are described separately

in the following sections. However, the actual process was one where a case was collected,

analyzed, the protocol improved upon, and then the next case was collected. The constant updating

of the protocol after each visit is a foundation of grounded theory development (Glasser and Strauss

1967).

In the first stage, the questionnaire was designed and tested. The questionnaire was intended to be

administered by means of telephone interview. Specifically, the questionnaire was designed to collect

information about the following areas: (1) background of the individual (how long the person had been with

the company, current and past responsibilities, description of the objectives for the respondent’s current

position); (2) involvement of the individual with environmental issues and predisposition of the respondent

to environmental issues; (3) description of the current product design process; (4) the position of ERM in the

current design process (how it was integrated, at what stages, who was involved, how long these changes had

been in effect); (5) assessment of the current success of integrating ERM into the product design process;

and, (6) identification of current obstacles and problems. The interview protocol is available on request from

the authors.

The questionnaire consisted of a mixture of seven-point Likert-scaled questions, closed ended questions,

check-offs and open ended questionnaire. Because of concerns over the confounding influence of social

desirability (Block, 1965; Messick, 1959)1, indirect questioning was using (i.e., “How would people within

your department view the role of environmental concerns on the time it takes to design a new product?”).

Once developed, the questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of subject matter experts (in the areas of

ERM, product design and questionnaire design). This panel was drawn from both the academic community

(in the case of product design and questionnaire design issues) and the practitioner community (primarily for

ERM-related issues).

The questionnaire was designed to be administered via a three step process. In the first step, the

questionnaire was to be faxed to the respondent (to allow the respondent sufficient time in which to prepare

their responses). Next, the answers to the questions would be gathered during a telephone interview.

1 Societal desirability describes a situation where, because of strong social values attached to certain actions, therespondents will alter their answers so that the results are socially correct, rather than being factual. For example, few people wouldsee themselves as being dishonest or lacking compassion, even if they were so. If asked a question such as “How honest are you?,”most were reply either “true all of the time” or “true most of the time.” Being environmentally responsible is a topic that falls intothis category of social desirability.

17

Finally, the respondent would be asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions which were to

administered at the conclusion of the telephone interview. These questions (which the respondents had not

previously seen) would be used to gather information about the effectiveness of the ERM integration process

and the areas where future research should be devoted.

Sample Identification

The second stage identified the sample to be drawn from the targeted population. As Miles and

Huberman (1994) point out, “Sampling involves not only decisions about which people to observe or

interview, but also about settings, events, and social processes… The conceptual framework and research questions

determine the foci and boundaries within which samples are selected” (p. 37). Bearing this advice in mind,

the researchers initially set out to find a set of organizations that had experienced the process of integrating

environmental concerns in the design process. Specifically, we sought to study design activities within firms

identified as being advanced or “leading edge” adopters of environmental principles and practices within the

product design process. Although this made sense, we soon discovered that this population is rather small.

Moreover, very few organizations have made significant in-roads into successful design for the environment

approaches. We were able to find ten organizations deemed to be “leading edge”, if they met at least two or

more of the following selection criteria (external to the potential biases of the research team):

• Was used frequently as an example in the environmental management literature

• Listed on the “Who Scores Best on the Environment” report in Fortune magazine (Rice, 1993)

• Was mentioned on more than one occasion by environmental experts and consultants interviewedduring the course of the study.

• Identified as “leading-edge” in a Delphi study involving managers from General Motors, Ford, andthe Defense Logistics Center.2 These managers are members of the Manufacturing ResearchConsortium (MRC) at Michigan State University, and are part of a group involved in a three yearproject, jointly managed by the Colleges of Business and Engineering at Michigan State University,and supported actively by the project’s three industry partners. This group is engaged in an NSF-funded study of how environmental issues are being integrated in product design planning andmanufacturing.3 These managers were also helpful in pre-testing the questionnaire.

2 The managers present at this meeting included Ron Williams - Principal Research Scientist at General Motors, WayneFrancis - Design Engineer at the Ford Motor Company, Barry Bryant, Environmental manager at the Ford Motor Company, PhilLawrence-Design Engineer at the Ford Motor Company, and Robert Sroufe, Environmental Specialist at the Defense LogisticsCenter. Dale Young, Purchasing Agent at the Ford Motor Company was also consulted in framing this issue.

3 This research project is NSF ORD#64852, “Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing: Integrating EnvironmentalIssues into Product Design Planning, and Manufacturing”. Principlal Investigators: R. Lal Tummala (Engineering), Steve Melnyk(Management), Roger Calantone (Marketing), Robert Handfield (Management), Erik Goodman (Engineering), and Keith Helferich(Materials and Logistics Management Program Director). Note that this study focuses on the manufacturing/design interface, butdoes not address supply chain issues.

18

. In addition, a form of snowball or chain sampling was also used (Miles & Huberman, 1991, p. 28).

Snowball sampling is a procedure which seeks to identify cases of interest from “people who know people

who know what cases are information rich” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28). This sampling strategy was

built into the questionnaire design. At the end of each questionnaire interview, the respondents were asked if

they knew of any other firms which they considered to be advanced ERM users or successful in integrating

environmental concerns into the design process. This question was inserted for two major reasons. The first

was to determine the extent to which the sample selected for this study was adequate. The second was to

identify firms which may have been overlooked.

The decision to target the questionnaire on leading edge companies was based on several concerns.

First, by picking advanced adopters of ERM-principles, we would be talking with people who had attempted

to integrate environmental metrics and policies into the design process. Each organization approached had

already been through the process of establishing an environmental vision and emphasizing its importance,

and had already made initial attempts to get designers to adopt the metrics and policies into their design

decision. In addition, because ERM was integrated into the design process, we could approach the designers

(who were in some cases forced to change their design procedures) and get their perceptions on the impact of

environmental concerns on the overall design process. Furthermore, by limiting our attention to such

advanced users, we would be dealing with firms and people who were actually designing products that

incorporated environmental concerns. That is, these companies had attempted to implement some of the

specific tools that quantified the associated environmental impacts of different design decisions. We also

limited our attention to the product design process rather than the process design process because of

feedback received during initial stages of this study (from experts and people knowledgeable in the ERM

area) that the product design process was both better organized in most firms and a focal point of attention

for many firms’ ERM activities. For example, Ford, as part of its Ford 2000 program has announced that

that it will design cars which are more environmentally friendly.

At the end of this stage, ten firms were identified. The sample was drawn from the following industries:

office furniture (3); automotive and automotive suppliers (3); computers (2); prescription drugs (1); and,

consumer products (1). Although in diverse industries, these organizations all had a common focus: they

had all made significant in-roads into improving their design process to include environmental concerns.

Because the sample was chosen using a variety of independent selection criteria and represents a relatively

small population, it is reasonable to believe that the sample is not unbiased in nature.

19

IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

Having identified the sample firms, we next proceeded with the task of identifying two groups of

respondents from each firm (with the unit of analysis being the individual within the relevant group). Our

intent was to identify at least one ERM supporter/champion and at least one user who was actively involved

in the product design process and who was recognized as having used some of the ERM tools (e.g., life cycle

assessment, product check sheets) identified by the ERM supporter(s). An ERM supporter was any person

who was seen as being charged with the task of supporting ERM activities and in encouraging the acceptance

and use of ERM tools, systems and perspectives. Also included in this group were any people who were

identified by users as representing (championing) ERM issues and concerns during reviews. Typically, these

people were identified using three approaches: (1) departmental identification (e.g., if a person belonged to a

group such as Employee Safety and Environmental Affairs); (2) job description; and, (3) user identification.

In most cases, the person was identified as belonging to an environmental affairs department or facilities

engineering or management.

The second group consisted of designers who were actively involved in product design and who had

been exposed to ERM issues previously. The products considered involved end items as well as packaging

containers.

For every firm, at least one representative from each group was initially identified. These respondents

were contacted by telephone and the general nature of the study described to them. If they agreed to

participate, they were then sent out a copy of the questionnaire by fax (they were given between one to two

weeks in which to review the questionnaire and to prepare their answers). If a targeted respondent decided

not to participate, then they were asked to identify a replacement.

ADMINISTERING THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaires were administered over a speaker phone using a two person interviewing team (where

one person posed the questions and led the discussion while the other recorded the data and helped to

validate the responses). Within each organization, at least one “supporter” and one “designer” was

interviewed.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Two main components of data analysis included within and across case analysis. Within case

analysis helped us examine design issues in a single context, while the across case analysis served

as a form of replication (Yin 1994) where the constructs of interest in one setting were tested in

20

other settings. One concern was controlling for the affects of the researchers’ apriori beliefs as to

reasons why ERM issues were or were not embraced. This was accomplished a variety of ways.

First, the primary researcher wrote up the interview notes prior to coding. The secondary

researcher, who was also present for the interview, reviewed these notes. By using a variety of

secondary researchers (3 in total), a second unbiased person reviewed the notes.

The second step taken was intended to mitigate against confirmation bias. That is, the amount

of within case analysis performed before the cross case analysis was limited. Miles and Huberman

(1994) note that the acts of coding and data reduction are actually forms of data analysis. In other

words, the act of coding could lead to confirmation bias problems in future cases. Therefore,

coding for within case analysis was limited to categorizing the individual case on previously

identified constructs and identifying interesting new issues to pursue at future interviews. Were

more open to alternative explanations raised in future replications by avoiding comparisons and

model building early in the research.

The between case analysis consisted of looking for patterns of firms’ experiences with ERM

issues in the product design process across leading edge organizations. Between case analysis is

facilitated by using a variety of tools to reduce the amount of data and to display the data in a

meaningful fashion (Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 1994). Data reduction was done primarily

through categorization. Categories were developed in two ways. First, a number of categories were

formed based on the literature (i.e., ?, ?,?, ?). The concepts that interviewees identified as being

related to DFE were compiled (i.e., focus on measurement). Through a process of combination,

renaming, and redefining, the was reduced to main concepts that were most frequently noted as

reasons for DFE.

All responses were reviewed and analyzed using a simple form of content analysis. The goal was to

identify similarities and differences either internally (e.g., between designers working at different companies)

and externally (e.g., between designers and ERM supporters). The responses were examined for major

concerns (and for the logic of these concerns) in the case of obstacles to ERM and problems affecting the

implementation of ERM systems and tools.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

To simplify the presentation of the findings, they will be summarized by major theme or issue.

21

• Integration of ERM Issues into the Design Process is primarily limited to the use of

checkpoints and ERM-influenced exit requirements: Nearly all of the product design processes were

sequential and linear in structure. That is, they began with product concept and proceeded through a number

of stages (typically 4). While cross-functional groups were present at each stage, the ERM supporters played

a limited a role in them. Rather, the role of the ERM supporters and ERM was evident in two ways. First,

there was education and awareness. ERM supporters tried to make designers aware of the cost and benefits

of ERM. They also tried to inform designers about the different classes of materials (i.e., materials not to be

used at all because of environmental problems, materials which should be avoided whenever possible).

Second, the ERM supporters influenced the exit requirements encountered at the end of each stage.

As a product design finishes with one stage, it often must pass a checkpoint. At this checkpoint, the

design is subjected to an evaluation (typically using “yes/no” questions). Issues raised at this checkpoint

must be addressed and resolved before the design is allowed to proceed to the next step. It is here that

environmental issues are most often formally found.

Because of its placement at this point (after certain decisions had been made), designers tended to view

ERM as constraints and as a set of minimum requirements which had to be passed before proceeding to the

next stage. None of the designers interviewed saw ERM as an opportunity (i.e., a positive) when viewed

within the context of a specific design (while some mentioned that ERM was an overall opportunity for

being more creative).

An interesting feature of the typical design process was its strong sequential structure. That is, once a

stage had been completed and once the design had passed through and satisfied the exit requirements for

that stage, the designers did not want to revisit decisions made during that stage. Should an ERM-related

problem be identified that required revisiting a previous stage (in an iterative process), the typical response

was to note it down and to act on it the next time that product design underwent a major revision. While the

ERM supporters recognized the appropriateness of an iterative approach to product design, the designers did

not want to deal with such a process. One reason given was that, with the use of cross-functional teams, it

was difficult to get a consensus at each step in the design process. With an iterative process, these

agreements would have to be reforged -- something that the designers were not excited about doing.

• The major focus of ERM-related activities was material: As pointed out by Smith and Melnyk

(1996), the goal of making products more environmentally responsible can be achieved by focusing on the

material used in a product, the processes used to make these products and the interactions between material

and process. However, in the design processes studied, the major focus was on material. That is, there was a

concern about selecting and using materials which were considered to be environmentally friendly (either by

22

themselves or because they incorporated remanufactured or recycled content). Typically, the tactic

emphasized was substitution (i.e., the replacement of a less environmentally friendly material by one which

was more environmentally friendly).

To help the designers identify potential ERM-related problems, the ERM supporters focused their

activities on publishing and distributing various lists of materials (e.g., lists of materials which were not to be

used as well as substitutes for these materials; lists of materials which should not be used where possible). In

addition, the ERM supporters tried to educate the designers about the various categories of materials and the

options that were available to the designers.

When focusing on materials, the ERM supporters tried to have the designers be aware of material choice

issues when dealing with all items and at the lowest levels in the bill of materials.

• Conventional ERM tools are poorly understood and rarely used: One of the questions posed to

designers focused on the extent to which the designers were familiar with such ERM-oriented tools as Life

Cycle Analysis, risk assessment, and the AT&T environmental rating matrix (Graedels & Allenby, 1995). A

second follow-on question focused on the extent to which the designers used these tools when designing

products. While many designers recognized one or more of the tools, none expressed comfort with or

confidence in their ability to effectively and correctly use these tools. Several reasons were cited. The first

was that the designers felt that their commitment to ERM was limited to intent or desire (i.e., We are trying

to design products which are environmentally friendly whenever possible. We look for opportunities to

replace hazardous materials or processes with ones which are more environmentally friendly.) Second, many

designers had difficulty in either understanding or in applying the tools to their tasks. They also felt that the

tools were too difficult to use, too time-consuming and that their outputs did not justify the costs in terms of

time and effort. Many designers had difficulty in identifying what exactly was meant by being

environmentally friendly. Finally, some designers felt that the tools distracted them from their major task --

that of designing products.

• ERM activities are defined primarily in terms of recyclability: As Hall (1993) has pointed out,

there are a large number of options open to the designer interested in producing items which are more

environmentally responsible. The most important of these options include: redesign, substitution, reducing

material use, recycling, rebuilding, remanufacturing, reuse, internal consumption, waste segregation and

spreading of risk. However, for most of the designers interviewed, the most commonly identified option

focused on recyclability and material substitution (in order to improve the degree to which the product was

recyclable). The reason cited for this orientation was that it was an option which was under the direct control

of the designer. It was also something that was frequently measured and publicly reported (especially in the

23

case of the auto-related designers). It was also a dimension on which both the designers and ERM

supporters could agree.

Another problem focused on how to resolve unambiguously trade-offs. This problem was raised by one

designer to provided the interviewers with the following situation:

“You have two ways of building a part. One option is based on metal. Metal is heavy (thus it consumes

more resources). It also creates waste during the actual manufacturing process (in form of sludge).

However, it can be recycled when it reaches the end of its product life. In contrast, we make the product out

of graphite. This part is lighter (which means it uses less energy in use). In addition, it can be molded rather

than machined (again resulting in less waste). However, when it reaches the end of its life, it must be

disposed of in a land fill since it cannot be recycled. Which of these two options results in the greener

product?”

Resolving this trade-off was perceived as a major issue for designers.

• A large gap separates the ERM supporters from designers: When the researchers began the study,

they expected some degree of agreement to exist between the views and positions of the ERM supporters

and the product designers. After all, we were dealing with firms which had experience in the integration of

environmental issues into the design process. However, this initial position was not supported by the

interviews.

The ERM supporters shared a very similar view of ERM and product design. They believed that

everyone was basically favorably disposed to being environmentally responsible. If people were not, it was

because: (1) they had not been adequately informed and educated about ERM; (2) the designers were not

aware of the true costs and benefits associated with ERM-related actions; (3) the designers had not been

given the right measures pertaining to ERM; and, (4) the designers lacked access to the “right” set of tools

for making ERM-related decisions. As a result, ERM supporters had a very common agenda: (1) educate

users about ERM; (2) document and communicate costs and benefits associated with ERM actions; (3)

develop better ERM-related metrics; and, (4) promote the use of existing tools and develop new tools.

Many designers, however, while recognizing the need to become more environmentally responsible, had

some misgivings about the ultimate effectiveness of their attempts to incorporate environmental concerns

into product designs. Several reasons were cited for this hesitancy:

• Some designers saw ERM as being a marketing fad and, as such, it was bound to become less importantin the future;

24

• Several designers faced trade-offs between environmental concerns and market/product function issueswhich were always resolved in favor of market/product function concerns (for example, a furnituredesigner described his problems in designing a desk which was ergonomically and attractive to thecustomer. If this desk was to be designed to be environmentally friendly, then it would be either squareor rectangular. However, marketing had informed product design that customers wanted designs whichwere ergonomic which meant that they were kidney-shaped. Such a design ran counter to the avowedenvironmental goals of the firm. However, these concerns were ignored because the customers wantedand were willing to pay for kidney-shaped desks.);

• Lack of perceived top management support.• The designers saw their primary job as one of designing products (ERM was not part of their job

descriptions);• Designing environmentally responsible products would adversely affect corporate performance as

measured in terms of cost, lead time, quality and flexibility (the primary dimensions of value);• The designers were not measured on their ability to design environmentally responsible products but

rather on their ability to design new products with certain cost, quality, and lead time parameters (“If Ido a good job in designing an environmentally responsible product, who will know or care.”);

• Designing environmentally responsible products was too time-consuming and required too muchadditional work;

• The designers were not comfortable with the ERM tools (some expressed concern that to use these tools,the designers had to learn new tools and use systems different from those used in product design);

• What exactly is a green product (this refers to the same problem of resolving trade-offs between optionspreviously discussed); and,

• The designers felt that since their firms had an ERM-related department, the designers were notresponsible for the environmental content of their designs.

The resulting gap between the designers and the ERM supporters is important because we see how it

could lead to frustration and friction between the two groups (since the groups seemed to assume that the

other party viewed ERM issues in the same way that they did). Developing new tools would do very little to

address the performance measurement concerns raised by the designers.

The researchers were left at the end of the analysis section with the impression that unless this gap was

closed, the future acceptance of ERM by designers would be limited and the future growth of ERM greatly

constrained.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In this study, we have explored the orientation and perceptions of two critical parties involved in the

product design process: the ERM supporters and the product designers. We saw that there existed a major

gap between the positions of these two groups -- a gap that seemed to bring with it major implications for

the future growth and acceptance of ERM within the product design process. We also saw that ERM had

made only limited headway in terms of its influence on the process of product design. These observations

are based on a limited sample. As a result, no attempt to generalize beyond the sample is made. However,

these findings do call for further investigations. This study, while helping to clarify some of the issues

25

involved in the process of integrating environmental issues into the design stage, has raised several points

which require further study, namely:

• Defining operational the construct of “green” as in green design and green manufacturing: Aspreviously mentioned, the lack of a precise, meaningful and easy to apply definition of green was a majorstumbling block. Designers needed a standard that they could quickly and easily apply in assessingdifferent alternatives and in evaluating various trade-offs. It is not enough to rely on the use of life cycleanalysis. Life cycle analysis is often very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to use. Designers inmost cases do not have the time to wait until such an analysis has been carried out. They need standardsand guidelines which can be quickly applied.

• Validation of the results of this study through replication: In reviewing the findings and resultsreported in this study, it is not known whether the issues and concerns raised in this study are limited tothe participants or whether they are indicative of a broader set of concerns. To make such adetermination requires replication in different settings and industries (either domestic or internationally)and the development of a larger sample.

• The need for a quantitative assessment of the trade-offs between improved environmentalperformance and corporate strategic performance: One of the major concerns repeatedly raisedinvolved worries over whether doing a better job with respect to environmental wastereduction/elimination would have a negative, positive or neutral impact on cost, lead time, quality orflexibility (the elements of value). Quantifying this trade-off is both a major task and a critical researchissue.

• Assessment of the priority of the obstacles for improving integration of environmental concernsduring the design process: During the course of the study, several obstacles were identified. Theseobstacles have been treated as if they are equally important. However, there is no reason to assume thatthis is the case in practice. It would be useful to both researchers and managers if the relative priority (interms of both importance and ease of being able to overcome the obstacles) of the various obstacleswere to be assessed. This ranking would help direct attention and effort.

• Assessing the impact of the structure of the design process on the effectiveness ofenvironmental concern integration: All of the processes studied in the paper shared one importanttrait -- they were strongly sequential in structure. Environmental concerns, when introduced, took theform of checkpoints or exit requirements. As a result, when problems pertaining to environmentalconcerns were identified, the usual practice was for the designers to make the minimum level of changesnecessary to meet the objectives raised. In this case, environmental concerns effectively representedperformance floors and constraints. However, introducing environmental concerns into a setting wheretrue concurrence and multi-functional design teams are present from the outset may result in a verybehavior. Such environments should be studied in order to determine if the structure of the designprocess has an impact on how environmental concerns are dealt with and viewed by those involved.

• Examination of the impact of alternative performance measurement schemes on the acceptanceof environmental concerns as an element of performance: Performance measurement played animportant role in this study. It became essentially an obstacle because few systems measured andrewarded good performance on the environmental design. As a result, the designers either tended toignore this dimension of product development or to downgrade its importance (and hence the amount oftime devoted to this dimension). However, given the importance of performance measurement, there isa need to study alternative schemes or techniques for evaluating performance and identify those systemsor schemes which are most conducive towards encouraging designers to become more aware of theenvironmental dimension.

• Need for alternative tools: A final area fruitful for further research focuses on the development,implementation and assessing of alternative tools for identifying and quantifying the environmentalproblems and pollution flows generated by alternative designs, process layouts or production scheme.What is critical about these new tools is that they should be based on frameworks, technologies or

26

approaches familiar to the users (in this case, the product designers). As pointed out previously, many ofthe designers were aware of life cycle analysis. However, they were hesitant in using them because thismethod of analysis was based on an approach which was relatively foreign. The first step in this streamof research is to identify what traits in an environmental tool would be considered most attractive todesigners.

As can be seen, this study has shown that while there are answer in this field of study, there are even

more questions yet to be resolved. However, given the increasing importance of this field, these and other

questions must be addressed. In addressing these questions, we must recognize the importance of beginning

with design. It is at this stage that all of the critical decisions are made and the basic traits of the product (in

terms of manufacturing needs, components and use) are set.

Environmentally responsible manufacturing is dynamic: Environmentally responsible manufacturing is greatlyinfluenced by political and social issues and actions (e.g., the regulations imposed by governments). These factorsare often outside of the control of the firm. As a result, the standards and requirements that help define what isminimally acceptable from an environmental perspective should be viewed as dynamic (the reasons for thesechanges will be discussed later on in this book). They change in response to new governmental rules andregulations. When they change, they redefine the floor for environmentally responsible manufacturing, with theresult that what was considered leading edge from an environmental perspective yesterday may be consideredminimally acceptable today and unacceptable tomorrow. As a result, management must recognize the current andfuture implications of any actions they take within the firm from an environmental perspective.

27

REFERENCES

References

Drazin, R., and Van de Ven, A.H., “Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, vol. 30: 514-539, 1985, pp. 514-539.

Gladwin, Thomas N., Kennelly, James J., Krause, Tara-Shelomith, “Shifting Paradigms for SustainableDevelopment: Implications for Management Theory and Research”, The Academy of Management Review, vol.20, no. 4, October 1995, pp. 874-907.

Hunt, Christopher B., Auster, Ellen R., “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap,”Sloan Management Review, Winter 1990, pp. 7-18.

Klassen, R. And Greis, N., “Managing Environmental Improvement through Product and ProcessInnovation: Implications of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment”, Industrial and Environmental CrisisQuarterly, vol. 7, no. 4, 1993.

Lenox, Michael, Jordan, Ben, and Ehrenfeld, John, “The Diffusion of Design for Environment: A Survey ofCurrent Practice”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, 1996, pp. 25 - 30.

Mizuka, Colleen, Sandborn, Peter A., and Pitts, Greg, “Design for Environment - A Survey of CurrentPractices and Tools”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, 1996, pp. 1 - 6.

Starik, Mark, and Rands, Gordon P., “Weaving an Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectivesof Ecologically Sustainable Organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, October 1995,pp. 908-935.

Shrivastava, Paul, “The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability”, The Academy ofManagement Review, vol. 20,

Design for the Environment: Directory of EPA’s Environmental Network for Managerial Accounting andCapital Budgeting. Washington, DC: EPA, 1994 (EPA742-B-95-002).

“Electronics Engineers are Challenged to ‘Green’ their Products.” Environment Today. Vol. 4 (1993), No. 6,17.

Ackoff, Russell L. The Art of Problem Solving. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.

Allenby, Brad. “Supporting Environmental Quality: Developing an Infrastructure for Design.” Total QualityEnvironmental Management, Vol. 2 (1993), No. 3, pp. 303-308.

Ashleym, Steven. “Designing for the Environment.” Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 115 (1993), No. 3, pp. 52-53.

28

Bemowski, K. “Sorting Fact From Fiction,” Quality Progress, Vol. 24 (1991), No. 4, pp. 21-25.

Block, Jack. The Challenge of Response Sets: Unconfounding Meaning, Acquiescence, and Social Desirability in theMMPI. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.

Bronstein, S. “Southern Poll: Environment a Problem, but not a Top One,” Atlanta Journal, April 15, 1989,p. A1.

Cattanach, R.E., Holdreith, J.M., Reinke, D.P., and Sibik, L.K. The Handbook of Environmentally ConsciousManufacturing: From Design and Production to Labeling and Recycling. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin,1995.

Clark, Kim B., and Fujimoto, Takahiro. Product Development Performance. Cambridge, MA: HBS Press, 1991.

Epstein, M.J. “What Shareholders Really Want,” New York Times, April 28, 1991 p. 11.

Epstein, M.J. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practices for Costing and Managing an EffectiveEnvironmental Strategy. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1996.

Ettlie, John E., and Stoll, Henry W. Managing the Design-Manufacturing Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,Inc., 1990.

Graedel, T.E., and Allenby, B.R. Industrial Ecology (AT&T). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Gummesson, Evert. Qualitative Methods in Management Research (Revised Edition). Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, 1991.

Guttfield, R. “Eight of Ten Americans are Environmentalists, at Least so They Say,” Wall Street Journal,August 2, 1991, p. A1.

Hall, Robert . The Soul of the Enterprise: Creating A Dynamic Vision for American Manufacturing. New York, NY:Harper Business, 1993.

Hunt, C.B., and Austen, E.R. “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap,” SloanManagement Review, Vol. 31 (1990), No. 2, pp. 7-18.

Juran, J.M. “The Issues of Quality in Strategic Management,” Quality, Anniversary Issue, 1987, pp. 23Q-28Q.

Juran, J.M., and Gryna, J.F.M. Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development Through Use. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980.

Klassen, Robert D. ìThe Integration of Environmental Issues into Manufacturing: Toward an InteractiveOpen-Systems Model.î Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1 (First Quarter,1993), pp. 82-88.

29

Klassen, Robert D., and McLaughlin, Curtis P. “TQM and Environmental Excellence in Manufacturing”,Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 93 (1993), No. 6, pp. 14-22.

Makower, Joel. Beyond the Bottom Line: Putting Social Responsibility to Work for Your Business and Your World,(New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994).

Messick, Samuel. Dimensions of Social Desirability. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1959.

Meyer, Christopher. Fast Cycle Time. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1993.

Miles, Matthew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. Qualitative Data Analysis (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 1994.

Porter, Michael. ìAmericaís Green Strategy.î Scientific America. April 1991, p. 168.

Rice, Faye. “Who Scores Best on the Environment,” Fortune, July 26, 1993.

Rosewicz, B. “Americans are Willing to Sacrifice to Reduce Pollution, They Say,” Wall Street Journal, April20, 1990, p. A1.

Sanders, Tedd. Green Is Black. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1993.

Smith, Richard T., and Melnyk, Steven A. Green Manufacturing (A Blue Book). Dearborn, MI, Society ofManufacturing Engineers, 1996 (forthcoming).

Stratton, B. “Going Beyond Pollution Control,” Quality Progress, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1991, pp. 18-20.

Tank, A.G. (Ed.). Global Perspectives on Total Quality. New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1991.

Wheelwright, Steven C., and Clark, Kim B. Revolutionizing Product Development. New York, NY: The FreePress, 1992.

References from Sime

Bowman, S.A. “Design for the Environment: Tools and Techniques,” Proceedings of theDecision Sciences Institute, Orlando, FL, November 24-26, 1996.

Carpenter, G.D. “Total Quality Management: A Journey to Environmental Excellence,”Environment Today, 27, 1991, p. 45.

Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analysis issues for FieldSettings. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1979.

30

Eisenhardt, K.M. “Building Theories from Case Studies,” Academy of Management Review, 14,1989, p. 532-550.

Epstein, M.J. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practices for Costing andManaging an Effective Environmental Strategy. Montvale, NJ: The IMA Foundation forApplied Research, Inc., 1996.

Fiskel, J. “Quality Metrics in Design for Environment,” Total Quality EnvironmentalManagement, 3, 1993, p. 181-192.

Fiskel, J. Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Franke, D.L., and Monroe, K.R. “Innovative Use of Tools in the Design for the Environment,”Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment,Orlando, FL, 1995, p. 113-117.

Glasser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for QualitativeResearch. Aldine, Chicago, 1967.

Gloria, T., Saad, T., Breville, M., and O’Connel, M. “Life-Cycle Assessment: A Survey of CurrentImplementation,” Total Quality Environmental Management, 4, 1995, p. 33-50.

Hanna, M.D., and Newman, R.W. “Operations and Environment: An Expanded Focus for TQM,”International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(5), 1995, p. 38-53.

Kleiner, A. “What Does it Mean to be Green?” Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 1991, p. 38-47.

May, D.R., and Flannery, B.L. “Cutting Waste with Employee Involvement Teams,” BusinessHorizons, 38, 1995, p. 28-38.

Mizuno, S. Management for Quality Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Cambridge, MA:Productivity Press, 1988.

Porter, M.E. “America’s Green Strategy,” Scientific American, April, 1991, p. 168.

Porter, M.E., and Van der Linde, C. “Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate,” HarvardBusiness Review, September-October, 1995a, p. 120-134.

Porter, M.E., and Van der Linde, C. “Toward a New Conception of Environment-CompetitivenessRelationship,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 1995b, p. 97-118.

Post, J.E. “Managing as if the Earth Mattered,” Business Horizons, 34(4), 1991, p. 32-38.

31

Sarkis, J., and Rasheed, A. “Greening the Manufacturing Function,” Business Horizons,September – October, 1995, p. 17-27.

Shelton, R.D. “Organizing for Successful DFE: Lessons from Winners and Losers.” Proceedingsof the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Orlando, FL,1995.

Van Weenen, S.C., and Eeckles, J. “Design and Waste Prevention,” The Environmental Pressure,11, 1989, p. 231-235.

Williams, M. “Using Cross-Functional Teams to Integrate Environmental Issues into CorporateDecisions,” In GEMI Conference Proceedings, Corporate Quality/EnvironmentalManagement: The First Conference, Washington, D.C.: Global EnvironmentalManagement Initiative, 1991, p. 139-142.

Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,1994.

32

Company Q1: How haveenvironmental concernschanged the designprocess?

Q2: : How areenvironmental issuesdefined within thedesign process?

Q3: Are goals of ERMsupporters and designerssimilar?

Q4: What are the majorobstacles for integrationof environmental issuesinto design?

Representative Comments fromDesigners:

omotive

rd)

q Alternative materialsare introduced at theproduct concept stage

q Major assessments aredone in the plasticsarea (LCA) and climatecontrol (coolingproducts, hoses,lubricants, antifreeze,etc.)

q Difficult to makedissassembly easier, assuch issues aresuperseded by issuesmanufacturability,reliability, andavoidance of liability

q Smaller, lightercomponents

q Source reduction(solvents, soldering,adhesives)

q Scrap reduction

q Recycling of metaland copper, leads,brass, etc

q From designers’perspective, it is “tougherand tougher to find thelow-hanging fruit, in termsof environ mentalinitiatives which also savemoney. CFC eliminationsaved a lot of money.There are not many otherareas left.”

q “Any time you have tomeet a governmentregulation after innovationstage, it costs too muchmoney. We have usedQFD tools to integrateenvironmental concerns inthe past - the question is,can we integrate futureregulations into currentinnovations?

q Conventional metricsare used to measureenvironmental,including cost, cycletime, costperformance (5 M's),as well as allemissions, solidwaste, etc - however,these are not tiedinto individualproducts. Thismakes it difficult tojustify at the designstage.”

q “Vehicles last longertoday than they everhave before.Technology ischanging so quicklythat cars quicklybecome obsolete -the PLC (useful life)far outlasts theiractual life.”

q “Customers will not rewardyou if you areenvironmentally friendly, butwill punish you if you arenot".

q "How do I measure whetherit's green or not?"

q “Manufacturing does notlook beyond the customer'sfront door, which is wherewe deliver the product.There are no easy methodsin design. Designers shouldbe concerned with end oflife, but these responsibilitesare not designed in.Reliability and durability canno longer be associated withthe length of a car's usefullife, because of changes intechnology.”

omotive

M Powertrain)

q The divisiondeveloped a jointpublished documentwhich outlinedspecificenvironmentalconcerns for designand development

q No one is aware ofthe impact of thisdocument, nor how itis being used

q Environmentalissues definedlargely as a“checklist” ofissues that must bereviewed – noverification occurs

q Focus on reducingsignificant finesand remediationcosts associatedwith VOC’s,hazardous waste,etc.

q Input of environmentalengineer into decisions islimited to the plant level,since most decisions aremade at the design stage.

q It is difficult to substitutematerials once thevehicle is in production.

q North AmericanOperations is noteffective - they oftenask theenvironmentalengineer to providereports, but neverprovide help withproblem solving.

q Environmental inputinvolve looking forcompliance withenvironmental laws,as there is littlesupport from topmanagement.

q “My nickname at the plantlevel is "Mother Nature", and Iam often viewed as a "cop". “

q “While often handing out Igenerally only meet withsomeone because there is aproblem. There is also littlesupport, since "resourcegeneration is just not there inthe secondary markets."

omotive

lco Electronics)

ice Furniture

rman Miller)

ice Furniture

elcase)

ice Furniture

33

worth)

mputers

mputers

mputers

scription Drugs