literature review methods and tools for - diva portal

Literature review

Methods and tools for environmentally friendly product design and

development

Identification of their relevance to the vehicle design context

Sofia Poulikidou

Division of Environmental Strategies Research‐fms Department of Urban Planning and Environment School of Architecture and the Built Environment KTH, Royal Institute of Technology 100 44 Stockholm www.kth.se/abe/inst/som/avdelningar/fms Centre for ECO2 Vehicle Design www.eco2vehicledesign.se/

Title: Literature review: Methods and tools for environmentally friendly product design and development. Identification of their relevance to the vehicle design context Author: Sofia Poulikidou ISSN1652‐5442 TRITA‐INFRA‐FMS 2012:2 Printed by: US AB, Stockholm 2012

i

Preface The present study is performed for the purposes of the ECO2 Structures and Materials (ECO2 SAM‐Environmental Effects) PhD project within the Centre of ECO2 Vehicle Design at KTH, Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. Moreover, it is conducted as part of the PhD program on Planning and Decision Analysis with focus on Environmental Strategies Research that is offered at the division of Environmental Strategies Research (fms) at KTH. This work is intended to be used by the industrial partners of the centre but also to serve as part of the theoretical section of the licentiate thesis of the PhD program.

Special thanks to Sara Tyskeng, Anna Björklund and Per Wennhage for their valuable comments. The Centre for ECO2 Vehicle Design is also gratefully acknowledged for the financial support of this work.

iii

Summary Systematic consideration and integration of environmental aspects during the early stages of product development can be considered very important in order for the overall environmental performance of the product to be improved (an approach known as Design for environment (DfE) or Eco‐design). A significant number of methods and tools have been developed aiming to enable this integration and provide engineer designers and product developers with information regarding the life cycle environmental performance of the product and the properties that need to be considered and improved.

The main objective of this report is to provide an overview of different DfE or eco‐design methods and tools that have been developed and are available today. For this reason a systematic literature inventory was performed. The identified tools were classified and analysed based on a set of predefined criteria and aspects covering different methodological characteristics of the tools. Additionally, the suitability and relevance of the tools to be used in the vehicle design context was qualitatively assessed taking into account parameters such as: environmental impacts and life cycle stages considered by the identified tools, possibilities of integration with existing engineering design tools, possibilities to include or monitor legislation requirements and more. The literature review resulted to approximately sixty different methods and tools presented in six generic categories such as: frameworks and guidelines, checklists, radar graphs, matrix methods, more detailed analytical methods and computer software. The identified tools varied a lot in terms of data requirements, objectives and other methodological aspects but can be generally classified in two groups; tools that provide guidance and generic recommendations on aspects that need to be considered during product design and development as well as in tools that provide qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the environmental performance of a product and assist in the identification of specific functions and properties, that need to be optimized.

The qualitative evaluation on whether the identified tools can address important aspects related to the road and rail vehicles showed that even though many of the tools include parameters that are important to be evaluated in the vehicle design context, only few of them can be regarded as suitable to provide robust results for such complex products as vehicles are. Many of the tools are too generic and cannot capture the increased level of details needed. Life cycle assessment and various similar software tools minimize those limitations although other constraints such as knowledge requirements and time arise. Product specific checklists can be considered relevant to assist vehicle designers, however additional methods are needed for a more thorough evaluation.

It has been also discussed in this report that despite the significant amount of available tools, the actual implementation level by companies seems to be low. Further research is therefore suggested on how companies (in particular vehicle manufacturers) integrate environmental criteria into the product design and development stage, how familiar they are with the identified methods and tools and which ones they actually use.

v

Table of Contents

Preface ...................................................................................................................................................... i

Summary ................................................................................................................................................. iii

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 The present study .................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Goal and objectives ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Outline of the report ............................................................................................................... 3

2 Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Defining Design for Environment, Eco‐design and related concepts ...................................... 4

2.2 The product design and development process ‐ integration of environmental aspects ........ 6

2.2.1 Decision making and trade‐off situations ....................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Levels of eco‐design innovation ...................................................................................... 8

2.3 Methods and tools for eco‐design .......................................................................................... 9

3 The vehicle design context ............................................................................................................ 11

3.1 The major life cycle stages of vehicles .................................................................................. 11

3.2 Environmental impacts associated to road and rail vehicles ................................................ 12

4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Identification and classification of eco‐design methods and tools ....................................... 14

4.2 Evaluation of relevance to the vehicle design context.......................................................... 16

5 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Presentation and general analysis of the identified eco‐design methods and tools ............ 17

5.1.1 Frameworks, guidelines and manuals for eco‐design ................................................... 17

5.1.2 Checklists and indices .................................................................................................... 22

5.1.3 Radar graphs and other schematic tools ....................................................................... 26

5.1.4 Matrix methods ............................................................................................................. 29

5.1.5 Analytical methods and tools for eco‐design ................................................................ 34

5.1.6 Software and computer based tools for eco‐design ..................................................... 39

5.2 Eco‐design methods and tools relevant to the vehicle design context ................................ 46

6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 49

6.1 General discussion on the identified methods and tools for eco‐design .............................. 49

6.2 Implementation level and identified limitations ................................................................... 50

6.3 Eco‐design methods and tools in the vehicle design context ............................................... 51

vi

7 Conclusions and future work ......................................................................................................... 53

8 References ..................................................................................................................................... 54

9 Appedix .......................................................................................................................................... 60

9.1 Ecodesign guidelines ............................................................................................................. 60

9.2 Examples of radar graphs ...................................................................................................... 61

List of figures

Figure 2‐1Hierarchy of the Design for X, Eco‐design and Sustainable Product and Service

Development (SPSD) approaches ............................................................................................................ 5

Figure 2‐2 Life cycle of a product ‐ presentation of the main stages ...................................................... 5

Figure 2‐3 Product development process ............................................................................................... 6

Figure 2‐4 Product development process ............................................................................................... 6

Figure 2‐5 A representation of the product design and development process when environmental

issues are also considered ....................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2‐6 Illustration of the parameters that need to be considered during product development

process .................................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3‐1 Main stages of a vehicle’s life cycle ..................................................................................... 12

Figure 4‐1Presentation of the methodology followed in this study‐ investigation and analysis of

results .................................................................................................................................................... 14

List of tables

Table 2‐1List of selected requirements for the eco‐design tools ............................................................ 9

Table 4‐1Presentation of the classification and analysis aspects for the identified eco‐design tools .. 15

Table 5‐1Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design frameworks, manuals and

guidelines .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Table 5‐2 Summary of the properties of the identified frameworks, guidelines and manuals for eco‐

design .................................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 5‐3 Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design checklists and indices ...... 22

Table 5‐4 Summary of the properties of the identified checklists and indices for eco‐design ............. 25

vii

Table 5‐5 Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design spider graphs and other

schematic tools ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 5‐6 Summary of the properties of the identified spider graphs and other schematic tools ....... 28

Table 5‐7 Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design matrices .......................... 29

Table 5‐8 Summary of the properties of the identified matrix tools .................................................... 32

Table 5‐9Presentation and short description of the identified analytical methods and tools for eco‐

design .................................................................................................................................................... 34

Table 5‐10 Summary of the properties of the identified analytical tools ............................................. 38

Table 5‐11Presentation and short description of the identified software and CAE tools for eco‐design

............................................................................................................................................................... 39

Table 5‐12 Summary of the properties of the identified software and CAE tools for eco‐design ........ 44

Table 5‐13 Evaluation of the identified tools in respect to the vehicles design and development

context ................................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 6‐1Reasons for low implementation and integration of eco‐design tools .................................. 51

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Any good or service resulting from a process can be defined as product (ISO/TR14062, 2002). A great variety of products is used during our everyday activities and their increasing production and consumption rate is proven to be closely related to the increasing number of environmental impacts and constraints that our societies have to face. Looking at the life cycle of a product, different environmental loads may arise through different stages. Product’s manufacturing processes and use phase can be material and energy intense with a number of direct and indirect effects on the natural environment (i.e. depletion of resources, emissions of pollutants to air and water and more). Additional concerns arise when it comes to their end of life and disposal stage due to potential loss of resources, land occupation through landfill, releases of pollutants etc. The ability to assess the life cycle environmental performance of the goods produced and used in our societies has therefore become of a great importance in order to control and minimize their impact at a local as well as global level. During the last decades, awareness related to the need to optimize the environmental performance of products has increased and different actions have been initiated from policy makers, industry as well as consumers. The result of such actions can be seen among others in increased environmental regulation, initiatives and voluntary agreements between companies as well as demands for product environmental certification and labelling (Wimmer, Züst, & Lee, 2004; Baumann, Boons, & Bragd, 2002; Wrisberg & Haes, 2002; Bras, 1997). Examples of different pro‐environmental policy measures that have been introduced at European or international level include; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPP), Integrated Product Policy (IPP), Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC), environmental certification through the ISO 14000 series or EMAS and more (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002). Regarding product specifications and waste management, additional regulation is introduced at the European level. Such legislative measures include: the ELV Directive1 for recycling and recovery of end of life vehicles, the REACH Regulation2 for the safe use of chemical substances, the RoHS Directive3 regarding the ban of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, the WEEE Directive4 on waste management of electrical and electronic equipment and more.

Based on the above, it can be admitted that there is an increased pressure on companies and industries in general, to act in a more responsible and sustainable way regarding their products and production processes, assess their overall impact on the environment, and provide more environmentally friendly goods and services. A common characteristic of the measures mentioned above is the emphasis on a cleaner life cycle performance of products which takes into consideration their composition, production methods, use phase as well as end of life management methods and final disposal.

Economic benefits that may arise when improving the environmental performance of products can be considered as an additional driver (beyond regulation, market competition and consumers’

1 EU ELV Directive 2000/53/EC 2 EU REACH Regulation EC 1907/2006 3 EU RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC 4 EU WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC

2

demand) for industries towards sustainable practices and development (Fiksel, 2011; Wimmer, Züst, & Lee, 2004).

As already mentioned, impacts on the environment may occur at all stages of the life cycle of a product. It has been acknowledged however, that many of them are introduced already during the stages of product design and development when different properties and product specifications are defined (Lewis & Gertsakis, 2001; Keoleian & Menerey, 1993). Consequently, early integration and consideration of environmental aspects during those stages can be very important. A great number of methods and tools have been developed in order to enable this integration by evaluating the environmental performance of products already during their planning and development stages. Examples of such methods and tools and a brief mapping of the available literature are presented in the following sections of this report.

1.2 The present study The study presented in this report is part of a research project between Swedish academia, vehicle manufacturers in Sweden representing road and rail transportation as well as suppliers of materials. The project deals with different aspects of vehicle design as for example the development of lighter structures and advanced materials aiming to increase the overall ecological and economic profile of vehicles. It has been recognized that an integrated product design and development process that incorporates among others the environmental dimension can be very crucial in order for this goal to be fulfilled. As a result, there is a need to investigate if and how environmental concerns are included in the product development process and product systems today especially for the companies that are involved in this particular research project. An initial step towards this direction is to identify and analyze the available environmental assessment methods and tools that exist in literature today and can provide companies and product designers and developers with relevant information. Moreover, methods and tools that can assist vehicle designers in particular need to be highlighted.

1.3 Goal and objectives Based on the above, the overall goal of this report is to provide an overview of the existing environmental assessment methods and tools that can be used during the product design and development stage and suggest the ones than are especially relevant to the vehicle design context. Moreover, the present study is part of a PhD program and for this reason it is also intended to be part of the theoretical background of future studies related to the program. Consequently, the main research questions for this report are: What methods and tools are available today for assessing the environmental performance of

a product during the design and development process? How can these methods and tools be categorized in order to make an informed choice about

the suitability of certain tools in different design contexts? Analysis and comparison of the identified tools based on a set of predefined aspects (type of tool, life cycle perspective, data and time requirements and more).

What are the aspects of vehicle design and development that should be covered by a tool to make it relevant for vehicle design and development?

Which methods and tools have been or could be used in the vehicle design context?

3

1.4 Outline of the report This first chapter provides an introduction to this study and lists the major objectives that need to be fulfilled. In turn, chapter 2 presents a number of concepts that are related to the study like for example design for environment, eco‐design, product development and more. Chapter 3 gives a brief introduction to the vehicle design context and based on findings from previous studies discusses the most significant environmental impacts that are connected to vehicles from a life cycle perspective. The methodology used for the investigation, analysis and presentation of the results is described in chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents and shortly analyzes the findings of this study while a more extended discussion follows in the 6thchapter. Finally, chapter 7 summarizes the results of the study and provides some concluding remarks and suggestions for further research.

4

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Defining Design for Environment, Ecodesign and related concepts A number of terms and concepts have been developed that define and describe the integration of environmental (and in some cases societal and economic) aspects into the product design and development process. Sustainable product design, environmentally conscious design, environmentally sound product design, eco‐design, green design, green engineering are some examples (Lewis & Gertsakis, 2001; Ritzen & Beskow, 2001; Baumann, Boons, & Bragd, 2002; Lee & Park, 2006). The emergence of those terms and concepts originates from the early 1990s (Fiksel, 2011) and based on the findings of a literature review performed by H. Baumann, F. Boons and A. Bragd (2002) an increase in publications related to those concepts is observed between the years 1995‐1999. The box below presents a number of terms and definitions related to sustainable and environmentally friendly design and development that were found in different publications. Box 2‐1 Terms and definitions for sustainable and environmentally friendly design and development

Sustainable product development “a resource, context, and future oriented product development aimed at providing elementary needs, a better quality of life, equity and environmental harmony” (Weenen, Bakker, & Keijser, 1992) Design for Environment ‘’the development of products by applying environmental criteria aimed at the reduction of the environmental impacts along the stages of the product life cycle’’ (Bakker, 1995) ‘’the systematic process by which firms design products and processes in an environmentally conscious way”(Lenox, Jordan, & Ehrenfeld, 1996) “designing products as though the environment matters and minimizing their direct and indirect environmental impacts at every possible opportunity” (Lewis & Gertsakis, 2001) “systematic consideration of design performance with respect to environmental health, and safety objectives over the full product and process life cycle’’ (Fiksel, 2011) Eco‐design “the activity that integrates environmental aspects into product design and development” (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002; ISO/TR14062, 2002) “a systematic process that incorporates significant environmental aspects of a product as well as stakeholders requirements into product design and development” (Lee & Park, 2006) “minimizing a product’s environmental impact throughout its life cycle by taking preventive measures during product development” (Johansson, 2001) “design which addresses all environmental impacts of a product throughout the complete life cycle without unduly compromising other criteria like function, quality, cost and appearance” (Poyner & Simon, 1995) Life cycle design “the design of products, by applying environmental criteria aimed at the prevention of waste and emissions and the minimization of their environmental impact, along the material life cycle of the product” (van Weenen, 1995) “a system’s‐oriented approach for designing more ecologically and economically sustainable product systems.” (Keoleian & Menerey, 1993) Green product “product that is environmentally responsible in its design, manufacture, use and end of life” (Graedel T. , 1997)

Although a variety of terms exist, the definitions presented above seem to be very similar and most of the times overlapping. Minor differences however can be identified regarding the application of the term and other properties e.g. the system considered.

5

The design for environment and eco‐design are two very similar approaches that most of the times are used as interchangeable terms. Variations may be identified in the usage of those terms based on the geographic region i.e. eco‐design is most commonly used in Europe while design for environment is preferred in the US (Baumann, Boons, & Bragd, 2002). It has also been discussed that sustainable product design incorporates a more holistic approach compared to design for environment or eco‐design which can be related more to redesign of products (Baumann, Boons, & Bragd, 2002; Wrisberg & Haes, 2002). In sustainable product design apart from environmental issues related to the product, social and economic aspects are considered as well.

Figure 2‐1Hierarchy of the Design for X, Eco‐design and Sustainable Product and Service Development (SPSD) approaches (Maxwell & Vorst, 2003)

The design for X approach is also met quite often in the literature where X can be substituted by different terms based on specific life cycle stages of the product. Design for manufacturing, design for recycling or design for disassembly, are some examples (Bras, 1997; Maxwell & Vorst, 2003).

It can be observed, that almost all definitions listed above emphasize thinking in a life cycle perspective. This refers to the consideration of all life cycle stages connected to the product i.e. from cradle to grave, during the product’s planning and development processes (Pigosso, Zanette, Filho, Ometto, & Rozenfeld, 2009; Wrisberg & Haes, 2002). Such an approach provides a holistic overview of the system that a product is embedded and minimizes the possibility to omit parameters and impacts resulting from the various activities associated to the product. A representation of the most important life cycle stages to consider is shown in the following figure:

Figure 2‐2 Life cycle of a product ‐ presentation of the main stages

From all the terms presented in Box 2‐1 design for environment and eco‐design are primarily used in this report. In addition, the focus of the study is on the assessment of the environmental performance of a product and for this reason societal or economic considerations will not be analyzed in details at this stage. However, various eco‐design methods and tools that are presented in forthcoming sections address those issues.

SPSD

Eco‐design

Design for X

Extraction of raw materials

ManufacturingUse and

maintainance End of life processes

Waste disposal

6

2.2 The product design and development process integration of environmental aspects

It can be claimed that the life cycle of a product begins already at the conception and planning level and as mentioned before, its environmental performance can be determined and influenced during that stage to a great extent. Although environmental impacts occur at various stages of a product’s life cycle, most of them are introduced and “locked in” to the product early during the design stage (Lewis & Gertsakis, 2001). Product design and development is usually a complex process that may vary a lot among different companies based on their needs, resources (monetary as well as personnel) and product specifications. It can be defined “as a combination of activities that aim to bring a product into the market and usually involve design, marketing and manufacturing functions” (Lindahl, 2005). In our days there is a transition towards integrated and more systematic product design and development processes where the involvement of multidisciplinary teams, increased collaboration and exchange of information and knowledge between the different stages as well as the use of supporting tools are among the most significant characteristics and components of such processes (Lindahl, 2005). Figure 2‐3 and Figure 2‐4 illustrate two generic models of the product development process. Although the models show a few linear steps the actual process is more complicated since different properties of the product need to be considered at the same time (technical, economic, ergonomic, environmental) and experts from various disciplines and different departments of the company are involved. It should also be mentioned that most of the products consist of a variety of parts and sub‐systems and for this reason different levels of product design need to be combined together i.e. components, parts and complete product (Bras, 1997). The majority of product development models include analysis, synthesis and continuous assessment processes in order for the final concept and product to be delivered.

Figure 2‐3 Product development process (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008)

Figure 2‐4 Product development process (Lagerstedt, 2003)

The process shown in Figure 2‐5 is adopted from the ISO 14062 standard. This model provides a more detailed illustration of the product development process focusing on design stages and indicating that environmental considerations are also part of the process. Moreover, an iterative evaluation process for continuous improvements is suggested.

Development of product

specifications

Generation of product concepts

Evaluation of concepts and selection

Evaluation for performance manufacture

assembly and cost

Documentation of results

Product Planning

Concept development

Detailed design

System‐level design

Testing and refinement

Production

7

design ideas design concept design solution prototype product

Feedback and continuous improvements Evaluation of results against environmental goals, specifications and reference products

Figure 2‐5 A representation of the product design and development process when environmental issues are also considered (ISO/TR14062, 2002)

Similar models exist in the literature. Reviews of different product design and development models where integrated sustainable product design concepts are developed, presented and compared to conventional more linear practices, are provided by (Gagnon, Leduc, & Savard, 2010; Nielsen & Wenzel, 2002). As already mentioned, product design and development is a complicated set of processes where various parameters and requirements associated to the product need to be considered and fulfilled at the same time. Figure 2‐6 presents some of those parameters and aspects that product development engineers need to take into account (Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006). It can be observed that environmental criteria represent only one share although there are other aspects that may also influence the overall environmental performance of the product (e.g. weight, materials etc).

Figure 2‐6 Illustration of the parameters that need to be considered during product development process5 (Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006)

Finally, the integration of the environmental dimension and evaluation of the environmental performance of the product can be performed at different stages of the product design and development process. It has been discussed though that early evaluation can be very beneficial since the designer has the freedom to make all necessary changes and adjustments to improve the performance of the product (Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006). On the other hand the availability of

5 Different priorities exist among the shown aspects but they are not shown in the figure

Testing DocumentationLegal

Safety

Product life span

Quantity

Materials

Standards

Aesthetics

Instalation

Performance

Time scale

Life in service

ErgonomicsProduct costProfitSizeShippingPolitics

Company constraints

Disposal

Patents

Reliability

Quality

Weight

Shelf life storage

Packing

Competition

Maintenance

Market constraints

Manufacturing facility

Environment

Planning Conceptual design

Detailed design

Testing ‐Prototype

Production and market launch

Product review

8

information and data in order to perform a thorough evaluation during those stages is relatively low (Lindahl, 2005; Lagerstedt, 2003). This situation is widely known as the design paradox (Ullman, 2002).

2.2.1 Decision making and tradeoff situations The variety of parameters and requirements that need to be fulfilled and considered by the product designer and development team, result in different types of trade‐off situations. Improvement of one aspect might sometimes decrease the performance of another. Different aspects then need to be evaluated and weighted against each other in order to make the right decisions. It is rather difficult to be aware of the type and extent of such situations in advance (Hochschorner, 2008). When performing eco‐design three main types of trade‐off situations are introduced and described in the ISO 14062 standard although a large variety of combinations may exist within these categories: Trade‐offs between different environmental aspects Trade‐offs between environmental, economic and social aspects Trade‐offs between environmental, technical and quality aspects

It can therefore be very important for the companies and more specifically for the product designers and developers to have the means to identify and overcome such situations by evaluating the different options and making the more effective compromises. 2.2.2 Levels of ecodesign innovation Optimization of products and product systems when applying the eco‐design approach may lead to different levels of innovation and efficiency improvements that can be achieved. H. Brezet (1997) suggested a model that presents four levels of eco‐design innovation: Level 1: Product improvement

Optimization of existing products by applying incremental changes Level 2: Product redesign

The concept of the product remains the same but some of the parts of the product are changed or optimized

Level 3: Function innovation Re‐design of the product’s concept: new concepts are introduced to fulfil the same function

Level 4: System innovation Refers to a holistic innovation of the product system: new products and services are developed

The level of eco‐efficiency in this model increases proportionally with the level of innovation achieved. It has to be mentioned though that all levels depend also on time which means that greater changes require longer time frames to be achieved and implemented (Brezet H. , 1997).

9

2.3 Methods and tools for ecodesign The simplest definition presented above describes eco‐design as an activity that integrates environmental aspects into the product development process (ISO/TR14062, 2002). A significant number of methods and tools have been developed in order to assist this integration and provide relevant information to engineer designers and product developers about the environmental performance of the product. Although new methods and tools for eco‐design are constantly introduced, it can be assumed that they first arose during the 1990s in line with the expansion of the design for environment and eco‐design concepts (Baumann, Boons, & Bragd, 2002).

A method in the context product development refers to the systematic way of doing something according to a predefined plan or process while a tool can be defined as the means to work in that systematic way and are usually based on methods (Lindahl, 2005). In this report both terms are used to describe the systematic way of incorporating environmental issues into the product design and development process although tools can be also related to the development of software applications for that purposes.

Different types of methods and tools exist for eco‐design. They can range from general frameworks and recommendations as “rules of thumb” to more detailed and complicated environmental assessment tools. For this reason the objectives and intended outcome may differ significantly among the existing eco‐design methods in addition to the level of accuracy and reliability which depend on the requirements and level of analysis of each method. Eco‐design checklists are tools that aim to provide guidance to engineer designers by highlighting parameters and strategies to consider, avoid, do not miss etc. Other methods suggest a more systematic evaluation of the product aiming to assess its environmental performance and based on the outcome to identify and evaluate improvement practices. Life cycle assessment is among the most commonly used methods of this category. A more detailed description and analysis of the different classification categories and identified methods and tools is performed at a later stage of this report.

The following table lists a number of requirements that such methods and tools should fulfil in order to make them relevant to the product design and development process but also more useful to the product designers. The sample of requirements presented in the following table is based on the findings of previous studies (Lofthouse, 2006; Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006; Lindahl, 2005; Bras, 1997).

Table 2‐1List of selected requirements for the eco‐design tools

Requirements on methodological and implementation aspects

Requirements on the outcome Other Requirements

Simple and easy to implement Time efficient Suitable to be used early in the product development process Standardized and uniform Able to support decision making

Provide objective, valid and reliable results Provide quantitative results Show the optimal direction to the designers

Easy to find and obtain Low cost Low set up time requirements User friendly Low education requirements Adjustable to different product and context requirements Easy to communicate benefits Include easy to understand terms

Sources: (Lofthouse, 2006; Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006; Lindahl, 2005; Bras, 1997)

10

In addition to the above, requirements and criteria on such tools from an environmental perspective may include (Pigosso, Rozenfeld, & G.Seliger, 2010; Byggeth & Hochschorner, 2006; Bras, 1997): to be inclusive and consider all life cycle stages of the product (i.e. by having a systems

perspective) to be able to assess and identify the most important environmental concerns of a product to provide support and guidance during decision making processes by for example

prioritizing impacts or improvement options to be able to identify and handle trade‐off situations etc.

11

3 The vehicle design context This section provides an introduction to the vehicle design concept by presenting a brief overview of parameters and aspects that are important to consider from a life cycle and environmental perspective. The present study focuses on road and rail vehicles including passenger cars, heavy duty vehicles, busses and trains. The findings in this section are based on previous studies and publications.

3.1 The major life cycle stages of vehicles The life cycle of a vehicle begins with the extraction of minerals and manufacturing of the raw materials that are needed for the production of the various parts and components that constitute the vehicle. Although different means of transportation are studied in this project, there are no significant variations regarding the type of the major materials needed. The amount and end use of each of material in the vehicle might however differ. Cars, trucks, busses and rail vehicles can be considered as highly complex products since they consist of a large number of components. Dominant materials in all types of vehicles included in this study are steel, aluminium and various types of polymers that are used to develop the engine, body and interior part of the vehicles (BOMBARDIER, 2011; Nemry, Leduk, Mongelli, & Uihlein, 2008; Staudinge, Keoleian, & Flynn, 2001; Weiss, Heywood, Drake, Schafer, & AuYeung, 2000; Gaines, Stodolsky, Cuenca, & Eberhardt, 1998). Other commonly found materials are copper, glass, rubber and more (ibid).

The following step of the process is the fabrication of the various components and more discrete parts (e.g. engine, body, various accessories) followed by the assembly process where all components are joined together. Painting and finishing procedures complete the vehicles production stage (EPA, 1995).

The use phase is the longer stage during the life cycle of vehicles. The average utilization stage for passenger cars and trucks may vary among 10‐15 years depending on various parameters such as the vehicle’s model, user, driving behaviour (Nemry, Leduk, Mongelli, & Uihlein, 2008; Staudinge, Keoleian, & Flynn, 2001; Weiss, Heywood, Drake, Schafer, & AuYeung, 2000). Rail vehicles have a longer lifespan that can reach 25‐30 years (BOMBARDIER, 2011). Repair and maintenance activities are necessary and included in that stage.

Similarly to all other products, vehicles reach their end of life stage where they can no longer be used. Due to regulation however especially in Europe, the recycling and recovering rates of the materials that are found in vehicles are high (more than 95% of metallic components6). A significant stream however (known also as automotive shredder residues ‐ ASR) consisting mainly from polymers and other materials that cannot be further processed and recovered, ends up in landfills (Lundqvist, et al., 2004; Staudinge, Keoleian, & Flynn, 2001).

Figure 3‐1 provides a generic representation of the major stages during the vehicles life cycle based on the so far discussion.

6 This rate refers to passenger cars but is considered to be similar for other types of vehicles as well.

12

Recycling and reuse

Waste disposal

Figure 3‐1 Main stages of a vehicle’s life cycle

3.2 Environmental impacts associated to road and rail vehicles Numerous studies have been performed in order to identify the impact on the environment resulting from road and rail vehicles as well as to determine the activities that contribute to those impacts. In brief, when it comes to road vehicles (passenger cars, busses and heavy duty vehicles) the majority of those studies conclude that direct energy use (i.e. energy required for the operation of the vehicle) and the dependency of the sector on non renewable fuels (oil, natural gas etc) are among the most significant impacts (Nemry, Leduk, Mongelli, & Uihlein, 2008; Gaines, Stodolsky, Cuenca, & Eberhardt, 1998). Emissions of a variety of pollutants to air (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulphur oxides etc.), that are related to different types of environmental impacts such as climate change, acidification, eutrophication etc. are also considerable (ibid).

From a life cycle perspective the use phase seems to be the major contributor to the impacts related to energy use while when it comes to emissions to air, operation but also other stages like production of materials that constitute the vehicle as well as vehicle’s manufacturing processes might become very important (Nemry, Leduk, Mongelli, & Uihlein, 2008; Weiss, Heywood, Drake, Schafer, & AuYeung, 2000; Gaines, Stodolsky, Cuenca, & Eberhardt, 1998). It should be mentioned though that as new operation technologies and fuels emerge (i.e. bio‐fuels or electric vehicles) the overall picture is changing accordingly.

Regarding rail vehicles similar environmental impacts are identified that are related to energy use, releases to air and water as well as resource depletion. The major contribution to the different life cycle impacts is again distributed between the operation phase and production of the vehicle. A very important aspect to consider related to rail vehicles is that the majority of rails run on electricity therefore the energy supply and resources used may vary significantly from one country to another resulting to great variations on the overall impact and environmental performance of trains (BOMBARDIER, 2011; Chester & Horvath, 2010; Stripple & Uppenberg, 2010).

Additional aspects that may affect the overall impact of all types of vehicles on the environment include the use of chemicals and other hazardous substances during materials’ production and

Extraction of

minerals

Production of

raw materials

Components

and parts

fabrication

Assembly

Use Repair and

maintenance

End of life

13

vehicles’ manufacturing stages, noise levels during the use phase as well as the waste disposal and recycling possibilities during the end of life treatment processes.

The overall picture of road and rail transportation system would be more complete when impacts related to the infrastructure are included. Energy use, land occupation, ecosystems disturbances, releases of pollutants are among them (Miliutenko, 2012; Stripple & Uppenberg, 2010). However, it should be mentioned here, that impacts related to production, use and maintenance of infrastructure are out of the scope of this study therefore not considered as issues that need to be addressed during eco‐design by the assessment methods and tools.

To conclude, it has been discussed that most of the impacts related to vehicles occur during operation and production of the vehicles. Parameters such as material choices, material composition and weight, fuel efficiency and type of fuel (i.e. technology) are of a great importance since they directly linked to those stages. Consequently, product specifications and design parameters may have a significant role in the overall environmental performance of the vehicle and need to be evaluated early during the product planning and development process.

14

4 Methodology

4.1 Identification and classification of ecodesign methods and tools One of the main objectives of this report is to identify and present different environmental assessment methods and tools that have been developed and are available today. Focus is given to the methods and tools that are developed and can be used already during the product design and development process in order to assist the integration of environmental aspects during those stages. For this reason a literature survey was performed. A number of databases and library catalogues were examined in an attempt to find relevant information in articles published in scientific journals, conference proceeding, books, doctoral dissertations and reports related to the research topic. Examples of the databases and journals examined are: the library catalogues of the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), the Journal of Cleaner Production, the Journal of Industrial Ecology, the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, the Journal of Sustainable Product Design, the Journal of Engineering design, the Journal of Production Research, the Journal of Business Strategies and the Environment, the Journal of Sustainable Development, the Journal of Materials and Design and more. Additional information was collected after personal communication with other researchers as well as through tool developer’s web pages. The investigation and analysis process followed in this study can be illustrated by the following figure:

Figure 4‐1Presentation of the methodology followed in this study‐ investigation and analysis of results

One of the most important steps of the process is to define the context of the literature survey based on the goals and objectives of the overall study. Parameters to consider in general include: searching terms, time boundaries (year of publication) etc. For this study the searched terms used during the investigation process were: eco‐design, design for the environment, green product design/development, sustainable product design/development, integrated product design/development, environmental assessment methods/tools, life cycle assessment and simplified life cycle assessment. Studies published after the year 1995 were mainly assessed although emphasis was given to more recent studies i.e. after 2000. It should be mentioned here that even though specific terms are used during the searching process the number of publications that exist is quite large and consequently it was not possible to analyze all articles or books. A screening process of the available material was therefore needed in order to select the publications that should be mainly considered for the study. These include studies that present, evaluate and analyze different environmental assessment methodologies, tools, guidelines and frameworks that can be used during the product design and development process. The investigation process resulted in a number of different methods and tools for assessing the environmental performance of a product and applying the eco‐design approach. Those methods and tools may vary significantly in terms of type, objectives, complexity of the application process, data and time requirements and more. For this reason a classification is performed followed by a short analysis of the identified tools. The classification and analysis process is based on a selection of criteria and aspects adopted from previous review studies on eco‐design methodologies (Pigosso,

Determination of searching parameters

Classification and

analysis Presentation of results

Searching and data collection

Screening and evaluation

15

Rozenfeld, & G.Seliger, 2010; Hochschorner, 2008). Those criteria are listed in the next table together with a short description:

Table 4‐1Presentation of the classification and analysis aspects for the identified eco‐design tools

Criteria and aspects for classification and analysis

Description

Type of method/tool

This aspect refers to the methodology and representation of the eco‐design method or tool. The identified types are: frameworks, general information sources, guidelines, manuals, checklists, indices, matrices, radar graphs, software, web based tools and analytical tools. It has been observed that a method or tool might be a combination of more than one type although it has been classified only under one category.

Aim of method/ tool

This aspect refers to the objective and aim of the identified method or tool. Such objectives can be: to give recommendations and suggest strategies, to assess the environmental impact of the product, to assess different product design or concept alternatives, to suggest improvements options or alternatives etc. Based on that, tools can be analytical, prescriptive or comparative.

Application of the tool

This aspect indicates whether the method or tool can be applied to all types of products or whether it is developed for specific types or product concepts.

Life cycle perspective This aspect examines whether the whole life cycle of the product (i.e. “cradle to grave”) or specific life cycle stages (e.g. material acquisition, use, recycling, end of life etc) are considered by the method or tool.

Environmental impact categories

This aspect identifies the impact categories taken into account by the respective method or tool. In some cases the impact assessment process might not be part of the studied tool but could be however recommended.

Prioritization of impacts This aspect examines if a weighting or evaluation process of the identified impacts is provided by the method.

Product ranking This aspect aims to examine whether the studied method or tool is able to assess different product concepts or alternative options in order to assist decision making processes.

Data requirements The type and amount of input and output data which needs to be defined for every tool. Data can be quantitative, semi quantitative or qualitative. Semi‐quantitative, are methods or tools that use qualitative input data but provide quantitative outcome in terms of index by applying a weighting process.

Implementation complexity and other constraints

These aspects aim to give a rough indication about the level of difficulty for implementing the tool. It is closely related to the previous aspect regarding the type and amount of data but incorporating also time, cost, knowledge requirements, access and availability level etc. The complexity level for the methods and tools in this study are indicated as low, medium or high.

16

Criteria and aspects for classification and analysis

Description

Implementation stage Depending on the application process and complexity of the tool there are different stages where it could be applied in the product development process. For example during early planning stages, design stages or later stages when the product is already developed (see also Figure 2‐3).

Qualification requirements/ possible and more suitable users

This aspects aims to provide information about the most appropriate user of the tool and the knowledge requirements that the method defines. The users can be engineer designers, environmental experts, product development managers, or multidisciplinary team depending on the complexity and data requirements of each method and tool.

Other aspects Other aspects relevant to the methods or tools can also be discussed like for instance implementation examples as well as the integration of tools into the companies system levels (strategic, operational, environmental management)

Presentation of the identified methods and tools is the final step of the process shown in Figure 4‐1 and is presented in the consecutive sections of this report. It can be observed that the identified methods and tools are listed based on their type while during the analysis there is an attempt to include all predefined aspects shown in Table 4‐1.

4.2 Evaluation of relevance to the vehicle design context The suitability of the identified methods and tools to be used by vehicle manufacturing companies is also assessed in this report. The main objectives that need to be identified and fulfilled by the methods and tools in order to make them relevant for the vehicle design concept are listed below: Objective 1: Environmental impacts The methods and tools should be able to address and evaluate the major environmental impacts related to vehicles (as they have been identified in previous studies). Such impacts include: depletion of non renewable resources for energy and fuels production but also for the production of the necessary materials, emissions of a variety of pollutants to air (especially greenhouse gas emissions, NOx, SOx, PM, NMVOC etc.), waste generation and recycling aspects, as well as the use of toxic or other hazardous materials or substances (see also Table 5‐13). Objective 2: Life cycle perspective The methods should be able to evaluate the impact of the product form a life cycle perspective and especially the stages of material production, vehicle manufacture, operation and end of life. Objective 3: Overall integration in the design process This objective is related to a number of different requirements that would be relevant to be fulfilled by the identified methods and tools to make them more applicable to the vehicle design context. Taking into account the two objectives listed above additional aspects to consider are: the complexity, data and time requirements of the tools, the possibilities of integration with existing CAD tools as well as the possibilities of monitoring compliance with environmental legislation requirements.

17

5 Results The literature review performed for the purpose of this study, resulted in a significant number and variety of methods and tools for environmentally oriented and friendly design. Generic frameworks and guidelines, checklists or more detailed analytical methods with supporting computer software are among the different types available. Although, omissions may exist, it is believed that the most commonly found methods and tools are covered and presented in this chapter. The analysis of the eco‐design methods and tools in the following sections is divided in two parts. In the first part the different identified methods and tools are presented, classified into categories according to their type and then shortly described separately. Each group is followed by a collective table where key aspects presented in Table 4‐1 are summarized. There are cases where the distinction and classification of a tool is not very obvious since it may consist of a combination of different types of tools (e.g. checklist with table etc). In such cases the respective method or tool is classified under one type only.

In the second and last part of this section the identified methods and tools are evaluated based on their relevance to the vehicle design concept. The results of qualitative assessment process are presented in a collective table where it is indicated whether the respective method or tool covers the main life cycle stages but also key environmental challenges and other aspects related to road and rail vehicles (see also section 3.2).

5.1 Presentation and general analysis of the identified ecodesign methods and tools

5.1.1 Frameworks, guidelines and manuals for ecodesign This section presents a number of frameworks, guidelines and manuals that have been developed to offer an introduction to the eco‐design and design for environment approach as well as to assist the integration of environmental aspects into the product design and development process. Such tools are usually prescriptive and consist of generic strategies and recommendations of aspects that need to be considered in order to minimize the impact of products on the environment. A number of them offer a complete and stepwise process of how to perform and apply the eco‐design approach. Although an evaluation of the environmental performance of the product is not provided directly, many of listed frameworks and manuals suggest the user to apply other qualitative or quantitative environmental assessment methods. The list of the identified frameworks, guidelines and manuals is presented in the following table:

18

Table 5‐1Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design frameworks, manuals and guidelines

Name of the method/tool

Description

ISO/TR 14062‐ Environmental management – Integrating environmental aspects into product design and development

ISO/TR 14042 is a standard for eco‐design and provides a holistic framework for the integration of environmental aspects into the product design and development process. The standard suggests practices that can be applied at a corporate, management as well as product level, and is relevant to all types of products and companies. Early integration of environmental aspects in the product design and development process is encouraged as well as considerations of all stages of the life cycle of the product. Different methods and tools are suggested and can be used at the different stages of the product development process. Source: (ISO/TR14062, 2002)

ARPI‐ Assess, Report, Prioritize, Improve

The ARPI is a stepwise framework for eco‐design initially developed within the purposes of a project for the electrical and electronic sector. The implementation process consists of four major steps. Initially an environmental assessment of the product from a life cycle perspective is performed. Then, the results and analysis of the assessment is communicated to the company in order to collect feedback. In turn, the identified environmental impacts need to be prioritized and finally improvements are suggested and implemented by the assistance of relevant tools and methods. The ARPI framework is intended to be used early in the product design and development process in order to provide the designer with all relevant information. It can be also applied at a corporate level. Source: (Simon, Poole, Sweatman, Evans, Bhamra, & McAloone, 2000)

SPSD ‐Sustainable products and/or services development

The SPSD method has been developed in order to assist companies and industries in general to integrate the sustainability perspective into their conventional product development practices and to develop products that are better form an environmental, economic and societal perspective. Life cycle thinking, sustainability impacts evaluation, consideration of supply chain dynamics and optimization of the identified impacts are the main features of the SPSD method. A checklist with recommendations and strategies can be also provided by the method. Source: (Maxwell & Vorst, 2003)

Design for Environment‐ A guide to sustainable product development

Joseph Fiksel in his book “Design for Environment‐ A guide to sustainable product development” offers an introduction to the design for environment approach. The book presents a number of guidelines for sustainable product development and finally lists seven key principles that can assist companies to integrate design for environment into their activities. In short the principles encourage thinking in a life cycle perspective as well as systemic thinking. Evaluation of the environmental performance of the product by using appropriate metrics and methods as well as inspiration by the nature during product design is also suggested together with the presentation of examples and case studies. Source: (Fiksel, 2011)

19


Description

Information‐Inspiration

Information – Inspiration is a web‐based platform that can be better described as an eco‐design source. It provides guidelines but also a list of other available eco‐design assessment methods and tools, recommendations and solutions for eco‐design as well as examples of products that are designed or redesigned based on the environmentally friendly design approach. Source: (Lofthouse, 2006; Lofthouse, 2008)

UNEP Eco‐design manual

This manual presents a step by step introduction to eco‐design. It is developed to be used by companies in order to help them understand and implement the eco‐design approach. In the manual a number of guidelines, recommendations, available methods and tools as well as examples are presented. Source: (Brezet & Hemel, 1997)

The Eco‐design Navigator

The Eco‐design Navigator provides a source of the available methods and tools for eco‐design and guides the user to the different practices. The majority of the tools developed for eco‐design are included in this handbook which was conducted for the purposes of a multidisciplinary research project (DEEDS ‐Design for Environment Decision Support). Source: (Simon, Evans, McAloone, Sweatman, Bhamra, & Poole, 1998)

The Ten Golden Rules

“Ten golden rules” consist of ten general guidelines based on a summary of recommendations for eco‐design that were collected by the developers of the tool in handbooks and other publications. The suggested guidelines are intended to be applied early during the goal and specifications stage of the product development process. At a later stage, the guidelines should be customized according to the needs of the designer and specific requirements of the product. The suggested guidelines can be found in the appendix of this report. Source: (Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006)

Eco‐design guide by Pre Consultants

This tool consists of ten generic guidelines for eco‐design which are easily accessible on the internet. The guidelines take into account all life cycle stages of the product although there is more focus on materials selection and recycling processes. Source: (Pré‐product Ecology Consultants, 2011)

The Phillips eco ‐design manual

This manual has been developed by and for the electronics sector. The information and guidelines provided by the manual are divided into six categories: material use, hazardous substances and materials, industrial processes, end of life, energy use and environmental design evaluation. The overall aim of the manual is to enable the integration of environmental aspects into the product design process and assist designers to reduce the environmental impact of products. Source: (Cramer, 1997)

Volvo environmental guidance for designers

A product specific handbook, with guidelines and practices for eco‐design. It has been developed for passenger cars by the Volvo Corporation. The availability and access to the book is however limited. Source: (Westerlund, 1997)

20

Table 5‐2 Summary of the properties of the identified frameworks, guidelines and manuals for eco‐design

Methods and Tools

List of selected properties

Name Aim and

description Application

Life cycle perspective


Prioritization of impacts7

Product ranking8

Type of data requirements Input/output

General level of complexity

(implementation time, cost, access etc)

User (knowledge/qualification

requirements)

Product development

stage

ISO /TR 14062

Prescriptive eco‐design standard and guidelines

All products Cradle to grave

Resources (for materials and energy), emissions, waste, recycling, toxic and hazardous substances, land use

Yes Yes

Quantitative and qualitative methods are recommended

High: Implementation at a company level, higher time and cost requirements

Management, Multidisciplinary team – environmental experts, designers

Product planning and development

ARPI‐ Access, report, prioritization, improve

Prescriptive framework


Depend on the method or tool used

Yes Yes


Medium: Easy access, low cost but higher time, implementation requirements

Management, Multidisciplinary team – environmental experts, designers


SPSD ‐Sustainable products/ services development

Prescriptive framework and guidelines



Yes Yes


Medium: Easy access, low cost but higher time, implementation requirements

Management, Multidisciplinary team – environmental experts

Product planning

Design for Environment

Prescriptive principles for eco‐design


Resources (for materials and energy), waste and others depending on the tool used

Yes Yes


Low: Easy access, low cost and time requirements

Management team, product development team, designers

Product planning

Information‐ Inspiration

Prescriptive web‐based eco‐design source


Resources (for materials and energy), waste and others depending on the tool used

Yes Yes



Product designers, environmental experts

Product planning

UNEP Eco design manual

Prescriptive eco‐design manual



Yes Yes


Medium: easy access, higher cost and time requirements

Product development team, product designers, environmental experts

Product planning

Eco‐design navigator

Prescriptive eco‐design manual and source



Yes Yes


Medium: easy access, higher cost and time requirements


Product planning

7 Usually frameworks and manuals developed for supporting eco‐design do not include an assessment process although the application of an assessment method (some type of life cycle analysis) is usually recommended as part of the process of eco‐design and design for environment 8 Same as above: Methods for comparison of different products are suggested

21

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and




Prioritization of impacts9

Product ranking10





requirements)

Product development

stage

Ten golden rules Prescriptive guidelines


Resources (for materials and energy) toxic substances, recycling

No No ‐11


Product designers Product planning and design

Eco‐design guide Prescriptive guidelines


Resources (for materials and energy) toxic substances, recycling

No No ‐ Low: Easy access, low cost and time requirements


The Phillips eco‐design manual

Prescriptive guidelines

Electronics Production, use and end of life

Materials, energy use, hazardous substances

No No ‐ Medium: low access, medium cost and time requirements

Management team, product development team, product designers

Product planning and design

Volvo environmental guidance for designers

Prescriptive handbook

Passenger cars

NA12

NA NA NA Qualitative Medium: low access, medium cost and time requirements


9 Usually frameworks and manuals developed for supporting eco‐design do not include an assessment process although the application of an assessment method (some type of life cycle analysis) is usually recommended as part of the process of eco‐design and design for environment 10 Same as above: Methods for comparison of different products are suggested

11 Guidelines per se do not require any type of data

12 NA: information was not available

22

5.1.2 Checklists and indices A number of eco‐design checklists have been developed that include aspects that need to be considered by the designer as well as requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to reduce the environmental impact of the product. Checklists can be very similar to guidelines and are usually qualitative or semi quantitative. The complexity level of such lists can vary from being short and generic to long and detailed. Indices can also used for evaluation or classification of a product and can be quantitative or semi quantitative. Checklists and indicators considered to be very helpful and easy to use early in the product planning process although for better and more reliable estimations the application of more inclusive quantitative assessments might be necessary. A list of the identified checklists and indices is presented below: Table 5‐3 Presentation and short description of the identified eco‐design checklists and indices


Description

Eco‐ design checklist The eco‐design checklist developed by H. Brezet and C. van Hemel (1997) is a tool that aims to help product designers to identify key areas where the most important impacts associated to the product may occur. The checklist consists of a set of questions that along with the environmental performance, functional aspects of the product are assessed. The tool examines all life cycle stages and the answers to the questions can be qualitative or quantitative. It is intended to be applied early in the product development process however some of the questions require more detailed information that can be obtained when all product design and production aspects are defined. Source: (Brezet & Hemel, 1997)

Eco‐design checklist for the electric and electronic products

This checklist has been developed by the Centre for Sustainable Design in UK to examine different aspects of the product based on the European directive on the waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE Directive). The questions listed in the checklist aim to identify whether the product is included and covered by the WEEE directive, the main environmental concerns related to the product, recycling aspects as well as possible improvement strategies. A qualitative assessment is performed since the user answer the listed questions by yes or no. Source: (CfSD, 1995)

Method for sustainable development (MSPD)

This method evaluates the total impact of the product from a sustainability perspective thus incorporating environmental, social and economic aspects. It combines a framework that suggests four principles for sustainable development and a backcasting approach together with the integrated product development model. The tool consists of three components: a suggested product development model, a sustainability product assessment process and a prioritization matrix. Initially a model for the product development process is proposed including questions for each phase of the model that the product development team is expected to answer. The product assessment part is also based on a list of questions covering all life cycle stages of the product and divided in five modules: product function, product design, material type, production process and purchase. Finally, a prioritization matrix is created in order to assess alternatives derived from the previous steps. Source: (Byggeth, Broman, & Robert, 2007)

23


Description

Eco‐design Strategy list

This tool provides a list of strategies and suggestions for every stage of the product’s life cycle that are based on a set of predefined criteria: optimize material need, optimize energy, reduce amount of land use, increase service potential, reduce pollutants, reduce waste, reduce emissions, reduce health and environmental risk. Source: (Tischner, Schmincke, Rubik, & Prösler, 2000)

VOLVO’S Black, grey and white list

Volvo Group is among the companies that have created their own manuals and checklists for eco‐design. Three types of lists have been developed and include different types of chemicals substances and compounds. The black list includes restricted substances which must not be used by the Volvo Group. The grey list refers to substances that should be used in a limited way while substances suggested in the white list are considered to be less hazardous for humans and the environment. Source: (Volvo, 2011; Volvo, 2010; Volvo, 2009)

BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION List of substances

Similarly to the previous case Bombardier Transportation has also developed a list of prohibited and restricted substances in order to identify, monitor and control chemical substances in their products by either banning specific substances or limiting their use. This list is part of a corporate standard on hazardous materials and substances that aims also to ensure compliance with European and international regulation. Source: (BOMBARDIER, 2009)

CED‐ Cumulative energy demand

CED is an indicator that can be used to estimate the direct and indirect energy requirements throughout the life cycle of a product (including also feedstock energy). CED takes into consideration all energy sources including fossil fuels (i.e. hard coal, lignite, crude oil, natural gas etc.) as well as nuclear, biomass, wind, water and solar energy and is expressed in MJ. Source: (Huijbregts, Hellweg, Frischknecht, Hendriks, Hungerbühler, & Hendriks, 2010; Ernzer & Wimmer, 2002)

Environmental performance indicators developed during the RAVEL project

A list of fifteen performance indicators is one of the outcomes of the European RAVEL (Rail Vehicle Eco Efficient Design) project between train manufacturers, train operators and universities. The project aimed to develop a DfE (Design for Environment) framework in order to improve the life cycle environmental performance or rail vehicles. The suggested indicators evaluate properties of the product related to weight, material composition, recycling rate, waste and energy use as well as aspects related to materials and components suppliers. The quantitative nature of the indicators makes it possible for comparisons among other products to be made. Source: (Vandermeulen, Dewulf, Duflou, Ander, & Zimmermann, 2003)

Eco‐products tool

The Eco‐product tool is a semi quantitative method that evaluates and rates the environmental performance of the product according to on a list of eight criteria. The eight criteria are: resource reduction, product longevity, resource recycling, ease of disassembly, ease of processing, environmental safety, energy conservation, and information provision. For every criterion the product is graded between 0 and 5. The optimal product (eco product) should get at an average score of more than 3 and a value of at least 2 in every criterion separately. Source: (Pigosso & Sousa, 2011)

24


Description

Philips fast five awareness

This qualitative tool is used in order to evaluate and compare different product concepts towards a reference product. The comparison is based on questions divided in five areas: energy, recyclability, hazardous waste content, durability/recyclability/preciousness, and alternative ways to provide product. The answer to the questions can be yes or no and based on the amount of “yes” answers a very generic strategy is suggested. Source: (Hochschorner, 2008; Meinders, 1997)

25

Table 5‐4 Summary of the properties of the identified checklists and indices for eco‐design

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and



Environmental impact

categories

Prioritization of impacts

Product ranking




User (knowledge/qualificati

on requirements)

Product development

stage

Eco‐design checklist

Prescriptive Checklist

All products Cradle to grave Resources (materials, energy, waste)

No

No

Qualitative and quantitative

Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements

Product development team, product designers


Eco‐design checklist for the WEEE directive

Prescriptive Checklist

Electric and electronic

Cradle to grave

Toxic‐hazardous materials and substances recycling, waste

No No Qualitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements



MSPD ‐ method for sustainable product development

Guiding questions Analytical


Resources (minerals, fossil fuels, waste), emissions

No Yes Qualitative and quantitative

Medium: Easy access, low cost, medium time requirements



Eco‐design Strategy list

Prescriptive List of Strategies


Materials, energy, land use, waste, emissions, human health




Volvo’s lists

Prescriptive Chemical substances list

Road Vehicles Product manufacturing

Toxic materials and substances

No No Quantitative High: Easy access, low cost, high time and data requirements


Bombardier Transportation list

Prescriptive Chemical substances list

Rail Vehicles Product manufacturing

Toxic materials and substances

No No Quantitative High: Easy access, low cost, high time and data requirements


CED‐ Cumulative energy demand

Indicator All products Cradle to grave Energy resource depletion

No Yes Quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost, high data requirements



EPI by the Ravel project

Prescriptive ‐Indicators

Rail vehicles Cradle to grave Resources (materials, energy, waste)

No Yes Quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost, medium time requirements

Product development team, designers, environmental experts


Eco products tool

Prescriptive‐comparative Index

All products Cradle to grave Resources (energy, waste)

No Yes Semi quantitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements


Product planning

Phillips fast five awareness

Comparing concepts ‐ Checklist and strategies

Electronics Not considered Resources (materials, energy, waste)



Product planning

26

5.1.3 Radar graphs and other schematic tools

This section presents tools that are very similar to checklists and provide a qualitative and very simple way to evaluate the environmental or sustainability performance of a product. The result is usually illustrated in some type of graph like for example radar or web graphs. Those tools can be used for benchmarking i.e. to compare different products or product concepts. The illustration of such comparisons makes it very easy for strengths and weaknesses of each product to be identified.

Table 5‐5 Presentation and short description of the identified eco design spider graphs and other schematic tools


Description

LiDS wheel or Eco‐design strategy wheel

LiDs Wheel is among the most known and easy to use tools for product comparisons in eco‐design. This tool lists a number of environmental improvement strategies and can be used to identify and prioritize the ones that should mainly be considered for improving the environmental performance of the assessed product. The strategies, which are related to a product’s structure, components and system in general (including also functions), are divided in eight categories: new concept development, selection of low‐impact materials, reduction of materials usage, optimization of production techniques, optimization of distribution system, reduction of impact during use, optimization of initial lifetime and optimization of end‐of‐life system. A qualitative assessment of the product can be performed by indicating in a web‐graph (see example in the appendix section) the level of its environmental performance for all strategies listed above. The performance levels can vary from 0=very bad to 5=very good. The result shows strengths and weaknesses of the product as well as key areas for improvements. Comparisons among different products or product concepts are also possible to make by entering information for more products in the same graph. Such tools can be more broadly used to generate ideas and select among different strategies. Source: (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002; Brezet & Hemel, 1997)

E‐concept Spiderweb Although very similar to the LiDS wheel, this tool can also be used to evaluate the environmental performance of a product and select strategies and solutions for improvement. The tool consists of eight criteria for evaluation which can be defined by the user according to the needs and properties of the product. Some suggestions include: resource efficiency (material efficiency and energy efficiency), fulfilment of needs, satisfaction of customer needs, sustainable use of renewable resources, avoidance of hazardous substances, waste and emissions, recyclability, cost efficiency, product aesthetic and longevity. To fill in the graph the product is evaluated based on a scale from 0 to 6 ranging from very bad to very good performance respectively. An example is shown in the appendix of this report. Again comparisons among different products or product concepts are possible. Source: (Tischner, Schmincke, Rubik, & Prösler, 2000)

Eco‐compass

Eco‐compass is another spider diagram similar to the ones presented before. It was developed by a chemicals’ producing company (Dow Europe) in collaboration with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

27


Description

The tool can be used to compare new products towards a reference one (base case) by indicating the change and differences observed. The criteria considered by this tool are: resource conservation (material and energy conservation during life time), service extension (the possibilities of service of the product throughout its life time), health and environmental risks (environmental burdens connected to the product), mass intensity (material use over life time), energy intensity (energy use over life time) and revalorization (ease of remanufacturing, reuse etc). A scale ranging from 0 to 5 is used to evaluate the performance of the compared products for every criterion. The base case scores 2 in every aspect while the product under evaluation is assessed in relation to that. To illustrate the results of the comparison a spider graph similar to the ones presented above can be created. Source: (Pigosso & Sousa, 2011; Fussler & James, 1996)

Design Abacus The design abacus is a qualitative tool that evaluates the performance of the product in terms of sustainability, therefore taking into consideration environmental, social as well as economic aspects. The evaluation criteria are defined by the user of the tool and are entered in a special form. The process begins with the identification of environmental, social and economic criteria (for example regarding the environmental aspects energy demands, emissions, materials etc. can be among the selected criteria). Then for each criterion the best situation is listed on the top of the form while the worst on the bottom (e.g. low energy demand and high energy demand etc.). The next step is to evaluate the performance of the product in a scale from ‐2 to 2 i.e. from worst to the best for every criterion. In addition the user can indicate the level of certainty or confidence regarding every criterion. Finally, two lines are drawn to connect all the scores for the criteria and confidence level, respectively. Source: (Lofthouse, 2008)

The morphological box

This tool can be used to create and combine alternative product options during the design and development process. A reference product option is broken down to its different elements e.g. product parts. For each element or part the user identifies different alternatives. The alternatives can then be combined to create various product options. The tool does not provide any evaluation of those options but it can be used as a creative process to identify alternatives. If combined with other assessment methods those alternatives can be evaluated in order to select the one with the better environmental performance. Source: (Hochschorner, 2008; Brezet & Hemel, 1997)

28

Table 5‐6 Summary of the properties of the identified spider graphs and other schematic tools

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and




categories


Product ranking





requirements)

Product development

stage

LiDS Wheel or Eco design wheel

Assessment Comparisons Strategy graph

All products Cradle to grave Resources (materials, energy, waste)


Product development team, designers

Product planning

Spider web



Resources (materials, energy, waste) Hazardous substances



Product planning

Eco ‐compass



Resources (materials, energy), human health



Product planning

Design abacus Assessment/ Comparing ‐Rate graph

All products Cradle to grave Defined by the user



Product planning

The morphological box

Comparing / Combining alternatives

All products ‐ ‐ No Yes Semi quantitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements


Product planning

29

5.1.4 Matrix methods This section presents different matrices that have been developed to provide a quick estimation and evaluation of the environmental performance of a product and assist the eco‐design process. Matrix methods are usually qualitative but also include some sort of weighting or rating. The outcome of a matrix method can be a quantitative indicator that is however estimated based on qualitative data or users’ assumptions. It is observed that matrix methods do not differ much from each other in terms of the implementation process and the parameters that are covered in every tool.

Table 5‐7 Presentation and short description of the identified eco design matrices


Description

Materials, energy, chemicals, others (MECO)

MECO is a semi quantitative assessment matrix that is used in order to identify the environmental impacts during the life cycle stages of a product. More specifically, the life cycle stages considered are: acquisition of raw materials, manufacturing, use, disposal and transport. The name MECO stands for materials, energy, chemicals and other that represent the impact categories included in the tool. Materials and energy need to be specified for every life cycle stage in terms of quantity and resources. The chemicals used during the life cycle of a product are noted as very problematic (type 1), problematic (type 2) or less problematic (type 3) while the category “others”, includes impacts that cannot be included into the previous three categories. Source: (Hochschorner & Finnveden, 2003)

MET matrix

The MET matrix is a simple to use tool that aims to present and map the different environmental impacts of a product during its life cycle and then identify the most significant ones. It can be used early in the product planning and development stage. The letters MET in the name stand for materials, energy and toxic emissions. The matrix consists of the different life cycle stages of the product: production and supply of material and components, in‐house production, distribution, utilization and end‐of‐life system which are listed in the vertical dimension and the environmental impact categories (material, energy and emissions) which are listed in the horizontal dimension. The inventory data and results of the tool can be both qualitative and quantitative (when weighting factors are applied to the impact categories). Source: (Hochschorner, 2008; Brezet & Hemel, 1997)

Environmental objectives deployment (EOD)

Environmental objectives deployment is a semi quantitative tool that aims to identify and present the links and relationships between the technical aspects of the product and specific environmental parameters. Material use and energy efficiency are considered part of the technical properties, while weight reduction practices and recyclability are some examples of environmental parameters. Evaluation and assessment of the different parameters can be introduced by the user of the tool. Source: (Karlsson, 1997)

Environmental quality function deployment (EQFD)

The environmental quality function deployment is one of the few methods that take into consideration and link the environmental performance of the product to the requirements set by stakeholders. Similarly to the previous case, this tool identifies the relationships between different

30


Description

requirements and needs like for example demands for less hazardous substance, increased energy efficiency, lightweight products etc. and environmental parameters like weight, material composition, lifetime etc. The different requirements are weighted based on their importance and an evaluation process is then performed in order to rate the relationship between the requirement and the environmental parameter. Source: (Wimmer, Züst, & Lee, 2004)

Eco functional matrix Originating from the Environmental quality function deployment method and similar approaches, this tool identifies and presents the relationships between the functional profile and the environmental profile of a product. The functional profile consists of parameters such as the physical lifetime, use time, reliability, safety, human/machine interaction, economy, technical flexibility and environmental demands of the product everyone of which is evaluated and rated on a scale from 0‐10 i.e. from less significant to very significant. The parameters considered in the environmental profile are: the number of products produced per year, the size of the product (weight/volume), the number of different materials, the material mix, scarce materials, toxic materials, energy and energy sources. Again the importance of each category is indicated by a value ranging from 0‐10. The most critical step of the method is the combination of the two profile lists in a single matrix (the relationship matrix) where initially existing relationships and correlations among the different parameters of the profiles are identified and indicated by a sign X and then those relationships are evaluated. Categories obtaining a value higher than 5 are considered among the most important ones that should be examined further. Source: (Lagerstedt, 2003)

Life cycle design structure matrix (LCDSM)

This tool originates from the design structure matrix and has been developed in order to model material, energy and emissions flows resulting during the various life cycle stages of the product as well as to identify the direction of such flows. It is a semi quantitative tool and results from LCA can be used as data to increase reliability of the outcome. The assessed life cycle stages are listed symmetrically in the tables’ rows and columns and similarly to the previous matrix, the cells cases where flows among different stages and processes exist are marked with the X sign. The next stage is to evaluate qualitatively or quantitatively the identified interactions. Source: (Schlüter, 2001)

Design for environment matrix (DfE Matrix)

Design for environment matrix is a semi‐quantitative assessment tool that aims to evaluate aspects of the product design in relation to their environmental performance. It is intended to be used by the product design team providing them with rough information about aspects and parameters of the product that might need improvements. The tool consists of two modules: a matrix and a list of 100 questions. The rows of the matrix represent the life cycle stages of the product (pre‐manufacture, product manufacture, distribution and packaging, product use and maintenance, and end of life) while the columns represent the five environmental impacts considered by the method (materials, energy use, solid residue, liquid residue, gaseous residue). The matrix is then filled

31


Description

with the individual scores that are obtained by answering the questions provided by the tool for every life cycle stage (every answer can obtain 0‐5 points). A total score for every life cycle stage and every impact can be obtained which can be used to identify and highlight areas and aspects that need to be considered and optimized by the designers of the product. Source: (Yarwood & Eagan, 1998)

Environmentally Friendly Responsible Product Assessment (ERPA)

Similarly to the previous cases the ERPA tool is a matrix where the impact from the different life cycle stages of the product are listed and evaluated. One dimension includes the five stages of the products life cycle (raw material extraction, product manufacture, packaging and transportation, product use, and product recycling and disposal) while the other dimension includes five environmental criteria (materials, energy use, solid residue, liquid residue, gaseous residue). The impact that every life cycle stage has on every environmental aspect is rated between 0 and 4 from higher to lower respectively. The estimated sum of the values of the matrix elements is an indicator (environmentally responsible product rating) ranging from 0‐100. Source: (Hochschorner & Finnveden, 2003; Graedel T. , 1998)

Environmental design strategy matrix (EDSM)

The EDSM is a qualitative matrix method that has been developed in order to provide product designers with environmental friendly strategies based on different characteristics of the product such as: life cycle length, energy consumption, resource consumption, material requirement, configuration, and disposal route. The design strategies concern the overall life cycle of the product. Source: (Lagerstedt, 2003)

Dominance matrix or Paired comparison

The aim of this tool is to present and prioritize different alternatives by identifying the relative importance among each other. A two dimensional table is created where the solutions or alternatives are listed in both dimensions. Then, a qualitative comparison is made between the different alternatives. Source: (Hochschorner, 2008)

32

Table 5‐8 Summary of the properties of the identified matrix tools

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and





Product ranking13




User (knowledge/qualification requirements)

Product development

stage

MECO matrix Analytical Environmental assessment


Materials, energy, Chemicals Others

No No Qualitative and quantitative




MET matrix Analytical Environmental assessment


Materials, energy, emissions

Yes No Qualitative and quantitative




EOD‐ environmental objectives deployment

Analytical Technical/envi‐ronmental assessment

All products Not specified

Materials, energy but more can be also defined by the user

Yes No Semi quantitative

Medium: Easy access, low cost Higher time, knowledge and data requirements



EQFD environmental quality objectives deployment

Analytical Stakeholders/ environmental assessment







Eco functional matrix

Analytical Functions/envi‐ronmental assessment







LCDSM‐Life cycle design structure matrix

Analytical Environmental assessment


Materials, energy, emissions





DfE – Design for Environment matrix



Materials, energy, solid liquid gaseous residues





13 Usually assessment tools based on matrices do not include a ranking process although product options can be compared if the tool is applied to more products.

33

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and





Product ranking





Product development

stage

ERPA matrix

Analytical–indicator‐ Environmental assessment


Materials, energy, solid liquid gaseous residues





EDSM matrix Analytical Design strategies


Resources (materials, energy, waste)




Dominance matrix or pair comparisons

Product alternatives comparison

All products Not considered

Not specified No Yes Qualitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements



34

5.1.5 Analytical methods and tools for eco design

This section lists and describes a number of analytical methods and tools that can be implemented during the product design and development process in order to have an overview of the environmental performance of the product as well as an indication of the properties that need to be improved. Analytical methods aim to provide a more detailed assessment of the product in comparison to the tools presented so far. A variety of such methods exist that can be qualitative, quantitative or both, easy or more complex to implement etc. Consequently, the optimal implementation stage may also vary depending on the complexity and data requirements of the method used. For this reason early integration and implementation may not be always preferred or possible. The identified methods included in this category are presented in the table below. Table 5‐9Presentation and short description of the identified analytical methods and tools for eco design


Description

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Life cycle assessment is a quantitative method that evaluates the environmental performance of a product during its life cycle i.e. from the acquisition of the raw materials until the end of life and disposal. For the estimation of the overall environmental impact of the product all flows going in (e.g. materials, energy and other resources) as well as coming out (e.g. emissions of substances to air and water, and waste) of the product system, need to be defined. The life cycle assessment method can be complex and time consuming since a great amount of data can be required. Software tools have been developed to assist the implementation process which consists of several steps: the goal and scope definition, an inventory process, impact assessment and finally analysis of the results. Optionally, an evaluation and weighting of the identified impacts can be also performed based on additional ready‐made valuation methods. LCA can be used to identify the hotspots in the environmental performance of the product, support decision making processes and enable comparisons among different products or other alternatives. It should be also mentioned that for the implementation of the method and analysis of the results environmental or LCA experts are needed. Source: (ISO 14040, 2006)

Simplified life cycle assessment (SLCA)

Life cycle assessment is a very useful method but as already mentioned the implementation process can be rather time and data intense. For this reason simplified life cycle assessments have been developed that reduce the amount of data required. Although the concept and methodology is the same, in SLCA, a number of parameters like for example selected life cycle stages, inventory data or certain impacts are not considered during the implementation and evaluation process. Various possible simplification alternatives exist and their selection should be based on the properties of the product. However, for the implementation of the method and analysis of the results the need for environmental experts remains. Source: (Todd & Curran, 1999; Lee & Park, 2006)

35


Description

Environmental risk assessment (ERA)

Environmental risk assessment is an analytical tool for risk management that identifies the potential risks for human health and ecosystems in general that may result from substances, processes or technologies. Risk assessment is most commonly applied to chemicals and other toxic substances. The implementation process for risk assessment consists of several steps that can vary depending on the study and practitioner. The most commonly found steps included in the assessment process are: hazard identification and formulation of the problem, identification of the consequences of the hazard, effect assessment, exposure assessment, risk evaluation and characterization. Complexity, data and environmental knowledge requirements are high for this tool. Source: (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002)

Environmental effect analysis (EEA)

The environmental effect analysis is a semi quantitative and systematic tool that can be used in order to identify the environmental impacts of a product and to propose the most relevant strategies in order to minimize those impacts. The tool is designed to be implemented by a multidisciplinary team, early in the product development process and for this reason complex data requirements are avoided. The tool evaluates the life cycle of a product from material acquisition until its final disposal. A specific form is used for the analysis part of the method where all information is included. The form consists of three main parts: inventory, evaluation and action. The inventory part includes all information about the life cycle stages of the product as well as the various activities performed in every stage. Moreover, environmental effects that are associated to those activities should be defined also in that part. In turn, there is an evaluation process where the identified environmental impacts are prioritized based on a rating scheme provided by the method. Finally the user should recommend actions for minimization of the environmental impacts. Those actions are also evaluated in order to ensure that the goals for impact minimization are achieved. Source: (Lindahl, 2000)

ABC – analysis ABC analysis is a qualitative and simple to use assessment tool. The product is evaluated based on eleven criteria: compliance with environmental regulation, social requirements, potential environmental impacts (toxicity, air pollution and water pollution), risk of accidents, raw material extraction, pre production, manufacturing and processing, use phase, end of life, recyclability and international environmental costs which can be indicated as A=problematic (action is required), B= medium (to be observed and improved) and C=harmless (no action is needed). Source: (Byggeth & Hochschorner, 2006; Tischner, Schmincke, Rubik, & Prösler, 2000)

Material intensity per unit service (MIPS)

MIPS is a quantitative tool (can be also considered as an indicator) that provides an estimation of the total amount of materials that are used directly or indirectly during the overall life cycle of the product aiming to increase the efficient use of resources. Material input refers to all materials and resources including minerals, water, fossil fuels as well as hidden flows i.e. ecological rucksacks that are required during the life cycle of the product. Material flows can be divided in five categories: abiotic raw materials, biotic raw materials, soil, water and air. The

36


Description

aggregation of the overall material input gives a rough estimation of the “ecological weight” of the product (referred also as functional unit). Source: (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002; Lagerstedt, 2003)

Environmental Efficiency potential assessment (E2 PA)

Environmental efficiency potential is a quantitative assessment tool that aims to provide product designers with information about the environmental performance of the product by indicating its potential environmental impact and support decision making. The methodology is based on the Eco‐Efficiency model by De Simone and Popoff (1997) and consists of six parameters that need to be estimated by respective mathematical equations provided by the tool. The six parameters are: Material Intensity (MI), Energy Intensity (EI), Hazardous Material Intensity (HI), Recovery Intensity (RI), Duration Intensity (DI) and Utility Intensity (UI). The tool is designed to support eco design, it considers the life cycle of the product and it is easier to use compared with other methods such as LCA. Source: (Nagata, Nohtomi, Aizawa, Asaoka, & Usami, 2001)

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) or Multicriteria assessment (MCA)

Multi criteria analysis is a method that can be used to compare and evaluate different alternatives in order to support decision making. The method quantifies the impact that a decision can have on different objectives or criteria. The importance of the different criteria is weighted by the user which allows a ranking and comparison of the alternatives. MCA is a stepwise process consisting of the following stages: establishing the decision context, identification of the alternatives to be compared, identification of the objectives and criteria, assessment of the expected performance of each option against the criteria, weighting of each of the criterion to reflect their relative importance to the decision, combination of the weights and scores for each option to derive an overall value, calculation of the overall weighted scores, analysis of the results. Multi criteria analysis can be used in combination to other analytical methods and tools in order to get more input data to the process. Supporting software tools for MCA are also available. Source: (Wrisberg & Haes, 2002)

Eco benchmarking approach or Environmental benchmark method

Environmental benchmarking can be used in order to compare the environmental performance of a product against other similar products of competitor companies. The most significant properties of the product that need to be considered from an environmental and life cycle perspective (e.g. material composition, energy use, lifetime, waste, emissions etc.) are selected and both qualitative and quantitative information regarding those properties can be collected for all products participating in the comparison. An evaluation process is then performed in order to rate the environmental performance of every product. For each one of the listed parameters the products are assigned a grade between 1 (very bad) and 5 (very good) or 0 if the parameter is not relevant. The results can show the strengths and weaknesses of the different products. Such method provides a quantitative outcome that is based on user’s assumptions and although it is easy to understand, the application process can be time intense since a significant amount of data need to be collected. Although the idea and basic concept of environmental benchmarking is the same among different studies the

37


Description

implementation and evaluation process might differ depending on the user of the tool. For example instead of a weighting process, comparisons can be also based on the inventory data for the selected properties. Source: (Wimmer, Züst, & Lee, 2004)

38

Table 5‐10 Summary of the properties of the identified analytical tools

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and




categories


Product ranking


General level of complexity (implementation time,

cost, access etc)


Product development

stage

LCA‐ Life cycle assessment



Impact categories defined by ISO 14042 (2000)

Yes Yes Quantitative

High: lower access and higher cost when software is used High time, knowledge and data requirements

Environmental experts Later stages of product development

Simplified LCA Analytical Environmental assessment

All products Defined by the user Defined by the user Yes Yes

Qualitative or quantitative

Medium: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements may vary

Product development team, environmental experts

Product planning

Environmental risk assessment

Analytical Risk identification and assessment

All products ‐

Emissions of toxic substances Human health and ecosystems quality

Yes No Qualitative or quantitative

High: easy access but high time, knowledge and data requirements

Environmental experts Later stages of product development

Environmental effect analysis

Analytical Comparative Environmental assessment

All products Cradle to grave Defined by the user Yes Yes

Semi quantitative

Medium: easy access, low cost higher time, knowledge and data requirements



ABC analysis

Analytical based on assessment criteria


Predefined environmental criteria (toxicity, air and water pollution, materials, recycling)

Yes No Qualitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements


Product planning

Material intensity per unit service

Analytical Resource use assessment


Materials and other resources

No No Quantitative Medium: easy access, low cost higher time, knowledge and data requirements


Later stages of product development

Environmental efficiency potential assessment

Analytical Efficiency assessment


Resources (materials and energy) toxic substances

No No Quantitative High: easy access, low cost, but high time, knowledge and data requirements


Later stages of product development

Multi criteria assessment

Comparative based on assessment criteria

All products Defined by the user

Defined by the user Yes Yes Semi quantitative

Medium: easy access, low cost higher time, knowledge and data requirements


Product planning

ECO ‐Benchmarking

Product comparisons


Defined by the user Yes Yes Semi quantitative

Medium: lower knowledge requirements but lower access to information higher time

Product development team

Product planning

39

5.1.6 Software and computer based tools for ecodesign

This section presents a number of software and computer aided engineering (CAE) tools that have been developed to support eco‐design. The principles and objectives are similar to the methods and tools that have been presented before. It has to be noted, that the majority of such tools are not free thus the user needs to pay a certain amount of money in order to get the license and access to use the tool. Consequently, detailed information on such tools and their methodological processes can be more limited in comparison to the other methods and tools presented so far. It can also be observed that most of the software tools have been developed in order to simplify the life cycle assessment methodology by providing ready‐made databases, structuring the input data and performing all necessary calculations during the inventory and impact assessment processes. Some examples on such tools that have been mainly developed to assist LCA processes are listed below. Table 5‐11Presentation and short description of the identified software and CAE tools for eco‐design


Description

ECO Design Pilot and Eco Design Pilot Assistant

The ECO Design Pilot (Product Investigation Learning and Optimization Tool) is a tool that provides a systematic guidance for environmentally friendly product design and development. It consists of an assessment process by using a simplified quantitative life cycle assessment (ECO Design Pilot Assistant), checklists and a web based platform for easy access and use. Stakeholder requirements can be also considered during the product modelling process. The result of the environmental assessment is qualitative, and the product is indicated with a characterization sign, ranging from A to E according to the origin of the indentified environmental impact. Guidelines and recommendations for product redesign are also offered based on the type of the identified impact. Source: (ECODESIGN PILOT, 2008; Wimmer, Züst, & Lee, 2004; Wimmer & Züst, 2003)

Eco design integration method for SMEs (EDIMS) based on the Typological environmental analysis (TEA)

This software tool is developed to be used mainly by small and medium size companies in order to enable the integration of environmental aspects in their product design and development processes and assist decision making. The tool consists of two parts. Initially an environmental assessment is performed based on a semi quantitative questionnaire that evaluates different characteristics of the product in a life cycle perspective. The results of the questionnaire are connected to an algorithm which performs the typological analysis to derive the environmental profile of the product. The second part aims to provide strategic and design alternatives to the company in order to reduce the environmental impacts associated to the product. The software provides also a database with more tools and methods for eco‐design that the companies can implement. Source: (Pochat, Bertoluci, & Froelich, 2007)

Environmental design industrial template (EDIT)

EDIT has been developed in order to evaluate the impact that different design alternatives have on the end of life stage of the product. The tool takes into consideration economic and regulatory aspects that can affect the recovery rate thus end of life management processes of the product. Input data regarding materials, parts and processes related to the studied product are required as well as information on the assembly process. The

40


Description

outcome of the tool indicates possible end of life alternatives, amount of recycled/reused material etc. thus enabling the user to make changes and monitor the impact of his/her changes on the end of life processes. Source: (Spicer & Wang, 1997)

Environmental design support tool (EDST)

The EDST is a tool that aims to evaluate the environmental performance of a product from a materials perspective focusing mainly on disassembly processes. The main components of the tool are: the disassembly model, disassembly analysis, material assessment and recyclability evaluation. Material assessment is performed based on indices regarding weight, amount of materials etc. Recyclability is assessed in terms of end of life management options e.g. reuse, recovery etc. while disassembly evaluation aspects include disassembly time, number of components etc. The different results are represented by quantitative indices which assist decision making and also make it possible for the designer to optimize specific parts of the product or evaluate different product alternatives. Source: (Yu, Zhang, & Ertas, 1999)

ECO‐it The ECO‐it software can be considered as a simplified LCA tool. It is developed by the PRé Consultants company in order to provide designers with a simple to use tool to evaluate the environmental performance a product and make design decisions. The tool includes an inventory process for the production, use and disposal stages of the products life cycle. All calculations are performed by the tool while for the environmental impact assessment the ReCiPe and carbon footprint methods are used. Source: (Pré‐product Ecology Consultants, 2011)

Green Design Advisor (GDA)

GDA is a semi quantitative, analytical CAE tool that has been developed and used mainly for electronic and electric products. The aim is to provide a tool for environmental assessment that can be integrated into the existing computer based tools (e.g. CAD) that engineer designers already use. The method consists of an inventory, evaluation and report of the results. The evaluation process is based on eight criteria: number of materials, mass, recycled content, recyclability, toxicity, energy use, time for disassembly and cost for disposal. The tool enables comparisons among products while the outcome identifies weak points of the product as well as key areas for higher improvements. Source: (Ferrendier, Mathieux, Rebitzer, Simon, & Froelich, 2002)

IdeMat IdeMat is a tool developed at the Deft University of Technology that aims to assist material selection during the product design and development stage. The main component of the tool is a database where information on different materials and their properties are presented. Such information include: technical specifications such as mechanical, physical and other properties of the material, production processes, economic information (e.g. price) as well as environmental information. The environmental performance of each material is presented in graphs derived by using the Eco‐Indicator and EPS impact assessment methods. Additionally information on all inputs and outputs for the production of each (raw materials, water, energy demands, emissions etc.) are provided. The IdeMat database can be also used in combination with other tools in order to analyze further the environmental performance of a product. Source: (IDEMAT, 2006)

41


Description

EuroMat EuroMat is a tool that can be used for the selection of materials during the product’s planning and development process by integrating technical, economic, environmental and other aspects during the assessment and selection processes. Starting by defining the technical specifications of the product a number of materials that fulfill such requirements are screened and selected. LCA, LCC, risk and work environment assessments are then performed to evaluate further the performance of the selected materials enabling the designer to compare the alternatives and finally choose the most suitable materials. Source: (Ferrendier, Mathieux, Rebitzer, Simon, & Froelich, 2002)

Environmental Information and Management Explorer (EIME®)

This tool is developed mainly for the electrical and electronic sector. It provides a simplified way of assessing the environmental performance of a product allowing not only environmental experts but also designers with low environmental knowledge to be able to use it as well. During the inventory process information about the product’s parts, components and material composition is entered while the evaluation is performed from a life cycle perspective based on eleven different criteria‐indicators covering physical aspects of the product as well as environmental (for example depletion of raw materials, energy and water, global warming, water toxicity, production of hazardous waste and more). The tool allows the user to assess and compare different design options based on a multi criteria approach as well as to have a graphical representation of the outcome for better communication to other stakeholders. Source: (CODDE, 2012; Ferrendier, Mathieux, Rebitzer, Simon, & Froelich, 2002)

Product EcologyTM Product EcologyTM is an online tool for estimating the life cycle environmental impact of a product, comparing different processes and design options as well ensuring compliance with existing regulation. It provides quick and simplified processes in order to be used by designers. It consists of three main applications: Lifecycle Designer, ecoCompareTM and Compliance Navigator. The Lifecycle Designer is used to evaluate the environmental impact resulting from all processes connected to the product i.e. from raw material extraction until end of life processes. Comparisons on CO2 emissions, water depletion and waste, among different materials and processes can be performed by using the ecoCompareTM application while the Compliance Navigator provides a review of the product based on the requirements posed by regulation. Source: (Product EcologyTM, 2012)

Green Design Tool The Green Design Tool is also one of the computer based tools developed mainly for the electronics sector. The tool considers all stages, processes and by‐products resulted during the product’s life cycle and the evaluation is based on eleven criteria or “top level greenness attributes of a product”: reusability, label, internal joints, material variety, material identification, recycled content, chemical usage, additives, surface finishes, external joints and hazard level of materials used. The outcome of the tool provides an estimation of the green performance of the product and allows for identification of the areas that need improvement. Source: (Kassahun, Saminathan, & Sekutowski, 1995; Pigosso & Sousa, 2011)

42


Description

EcologiCAD EcologiCAD is another software tool for performing simplified LCA studies and evaluating the environmental performance of products. This tool can be used in line with other CAD tools that engineer designers often use. Processes and features of the product are assessed based on a life cycle perspective while impact estimation can be based on a variety of indicators that are available in the tool’s database e.g. Eco Indicator 99 (EI99), Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), Cumulated Energy Requirements (CER), Cumulated Material Requirements (CMR), waste produced, land use etc. The tool is available on the internet and is free of charge. Source: (EcologiCAD, 2008)

ECODESIGN X Pro The ECODESIGN X‐Pro is a computer based tool that can be used to perform life cycle environmental assessment of a product. Although all life cycle stages of the product can be modelled and evaluated in the software, special focus is given to industrial processes including materials and product manufacturing in order to indentify hot spots during industrial activities. The tool is designed to be used by engineer designers that are not specialists in LCA. For the impact assessment the CML 2001 method is provided by the tool although depending on the requirements of the user other methods can be applied as well. Source: (EcoMundo, 2012; EU Joint Research Centre, 2010)

eVerdEE eVerdEE is a free to use, web based screening tool for performing simplified life cycle assessments adjusted to the needs of the company and designer. The tool is divided into two different applications. One for the industrial sector and one for the agriculture sector. Here we refer only to the first one. The methodology in general follows the principles of life cycle assessment while the impact assessment is based on ten impact categories namely: consumption of mineral resources, biomass, fresh water, non‐renewable energy and renewable energy as well as climate change, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and depletion of the ozone layer. Additionally, the amount of hazardous waste and total waste is estimated. Source: (EU Joint Research Centre, 2010)

Gabi DfX Gabi DfX is a specially developed tool for eco‐design and sustainable product development focusing on aspects such as: compliance (DfC), environment (DfE), recycling (DfR) and disassembly (DfD). Consequently, this tool not only analyses and evaluates the environmental performance of a product during its life cycle, but also takes into account different regulation schemes i.e. European directives that need to be considered and followed when developing the product’s specifications. Moreover, scenarios and alternatives can be also presented and compared by the tool. Gabi DfX can be used together with the Gabi software which is among the most commonly used tools for LCA. Source: (EU Joint Research Centre, 2010)

LCA software: SimaPro, Gabi , Gabi lite, TEAM™, eDEA etc.

As already mention a there is a significant number of software tools developed commercially and used today that aim to assist and simplify the process of inventory and impact assessment during the implementation of the LCA method. Some of the most commonly used tools are SimaPro and Gabi. A variety of databases (e.g. Ecoinvent, IdeMat etc.) are included in such tools providing all necessary information on inputs and outputs in

43


Description

order to model material and energy production, and other processes during the inventory stage. Ready‐made impact assessment and weighting methods (e.g. Impact 2000, ReCiPe, Eco‐Indicators, Global Warming Potential etc.) are also included to estimate and present the overall environmental impact of a product or process. Source: (EU Joint Research Centre, 2010)

44

Table 5‐12 Summary of the properties of the identified software and CAE tools for eco‐design

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and





Product ranking





Product development

stage

Eco‐design PILOT Environmental profile of products


Resources(materials and energy), emissions, waste

Yes Yes Quantitative and qualitative

Low :Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements

Product development team, designers, environmental experts


Eco design integration method for SMEs (EDIMS)

Environmental profile of products Tools database

All products Cradle to grave Seven predefined environmental aspects

Yes Yes Semi quantitative Low: Easy access, low cost, time and data requirements



Environmental design industrial template (EDIT)

Assessment of design alternatives to end of life stages

All products Focus on the end of life stage

Materials use and recycling

No Yes Qualitative and quantitative

Medium: Low access, medium time and data requirements



Environmental design support tool (EDST)

Assessment of design alternatives

All products

Focus on materials selection and disassembly

Materials use and recycling

No Yes Quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost. Higher data requirements



ECO it Analytical Environmental assessment

All products Cradle to grave All, based on ReCiPe and carbon footprint


Medium: Easy access higher acquisition cost Lower data and time requirements

Environmental experts Product planning and development

Green Design Advisor (GDA)


Mainly for electric and electronics

Materials life cycle

Materials use and recycling , toxicity

Yes Yes Semi quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost. Higher data requirements



IdeMat AnalyticalMaterial selection

All products Materials life cycle

Based on the Eco Indicator and EPS method

Yes Yes Quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost. Higher data requirements



EuroMat AnalyticalMaterial selection

All products Materials life cycle

Materials and energy use, emissions,

Yes Yes Quantitative Medium: Easy access, low cost. Higher data requirements



Environmental Information and Management Explorer (EIME®)



Cradle to grave

Resources (minerals and water),energy, global warming, air pollution, water toxicity, hazardous waste etc.


Medium: medium accessibility, probably acquisition cost. Lower time, knowledge and information requirements



45

Methods and Tools


Name Aim and





Product ranking





Product development

stage

Product Ecology

TM

Analytical comparative Environmental impact and compliance with regulation assessment


Comparisons on carbon dioxide emissions, water use and waste

No Yes Quantitative

Medium: Easy access, acquisition cost Lower time, knowledge and data requirements



Green Design Tool

Green performance indicator


Cradle to grave Eleven criteria regarding materials mainly

Yes No Qualitative Low: Easy access, low cost time and data requirements



EcologiCAD

Analytical Simplified LC Environmental assessment


Impacts included in the Eco‐indicator99, carbon dioxide emissions, energy demands, waste material requirements and land use


Medium: Easy access, no acquisition cost Higher data and knowledge requirements



ECODESIGN X‐Pro


All products

Cradle to gravebut focus on product manufacturing

Impact categories included in the CML 2001 method

Yes No Quantitative

Medium: Easy access, acquisition cost Lower time, knowledge and data requirements



eVerdEE



Ten criteria including: resources, energy, climate change, acidification, waste etc.

Yes No Quantitative

Medium: Easy access, no acquisition cost Higher data and knowledge requirements


Gabi DfX

Analytical Environmental and compliance with regulation assessment


Different impact assessment methods provided by the tool.


High: Easy access, acquisition cost Higher time, knowledge and data requirements


Other LCA software

Analytical Life cycle environmental assessment


Different impact assessment methods provided by each tool


High: Easy access, acquisition cost Higher time, knowledge and data requirements


46

5.2 Ecodesign methods and tools relevant to the vehicle design context In this section a qualitative evaluation is performed on the suitability and relevance of the methods and tools presented before to the vehicle design and development context. The assessment is based on the three major objectives presented in section 4.2. In brief, the aim of this evaluation is to identify whether the identified methods and tool are able to address important environmental aspects related to vehicles from a life cycle perspective. Those aspects include the depletion or resources for materials and energy production, emissions of pollutants to air, waste generation as well as the use of toxic substances. The most important life cycle stages to consider are: production of the vehicle and the materials that constitute the vehicle, the use phase as well as the end of life stage. Additionally, an estimation of the overall relevance of each method or tool to the vehicle design and development context is provided, taking into account the coverage of environmental impacts and life cycle activities as well as a number of key aspects such as: complexity and requirements of the method, possibilities to be used early in the product design stage, possibilities of integration with other engineering tools, possibilities to include or monitor legislation requirements etc. (see also section 4.2). For the collective evaluation a scale from 1 to 5 is used indicating: No relevance or suitability of the method in the vehicle design context (1) Some of the aspects might be covered but generally low relevance to the product (2) Enough relevance since many of the important aspects are covered – additional method is

needed however to capture the complexity of the product. Semi‐quantitative methods are generally in this category (3)

Relevant method to be used for vehicles design and development although limitations exist (e.g. not all aspects covered, cost or complexity constraints, the method might not be relevant for all types of vehicles). Additional method might be needed. Methods comparing alternatives can be in this category (4)

Relevant and suitable method to be used for during vehicles design and development (5)

It should be mentioned here that frameworks, manuals or tool sources are not listed in the table below, thus not considered for the evaluation, as well as methods and tools that the information available was limited.

47

Table 5‐13 Evaluation of the identified tools in respect to the vehicles design and development context

Type Name of the method/tool

Environmental impacts related to vehicles Life cycle stages Overall Relevance

Scale: 1‐5

Resources (materials)

Resources (energy use)

Emissions to air

Waste & recycling

Toxic / hazardous substances

MP14 PM15 USE EOL16

Guidelin

es

Ten golden rules X X X X X X X X 3

DfE principles X X X X X X X X X 3

Eco‐design guide X X X X X X X X 3

Phillips eco‐design manual

X X X X X X X 2

Volvo guidelines17 NA NA NA NA NA X X X X 4

Checklists and indices

Eco‐design checklist

X X

X X X X X 3

MSPD X X X X X X X X 3

Strategy list X X X X X X X X X 3

Volvo’s lists X X X X X 4

Bombardier Substance list

X X X X X 4

CED X X X X X 3

EPI (Ravel project) X X X X X X X 4

Eco products tool X X X X X X X 2

Phillips fast five X X X X 2

Graphs LiDS Wheel X X X X X X X X 3

Spider web18 X X X X X X X X 3

Eco compass X X X X X X X X X 3

Design abacus19 X X X X X X X X X 2

Matrices

MECO matrix X X X X X X X X X 3

MET matrix X X X X X X X X 3

EOD20 X X X X X X X X 3

EQFD 21 X X X X X X X X X 4

EFM X X X X X X X 3

LCDSM X X X X X X X 3

DfE matrix X X X X X X X X X 3

ERPA X X X X X X X X X 3

EDSM X X X X X X X 2

Analytical tools

LCA X X X X X X X X X 4

Simplified LCA X X X X X X X X X 3

ERA X 2

EEA X X X X X X X X X 4

ABC analysis X X X X X X X X 2

MIPS22 X X X X X X 3

EEPA X X X X X X X X 3

MCA23 X X X X X X X X X 4

ECO Benchmarking

24 X X X X X X X X X 4

14 MP: Materials production

15 PM: Product manufacturing

16 EOL: End of life

17 Sufficient information on the guidelines is not available but suitability is assumed since they have been designed from a vehicle

manufacturing company 18 The life cycle stages to apply the method are defined by the user or lifetime estimations might be made

19 Environmental impacts and life cycle stages are defined by the user

20 The life cycle stages to apply the method are defined by the user or lifetime estimations might be made



23 Environmental impacts and life cycle stages to be considered are defined by the user

24 Environmental impacts and life cycle stages to be considered are defined by the user

48

Type Name of the method/tool

Environmental impacts related to vehicles Life cycle stages Overall Relevance

Scale: 1‐5

Resources (materials)

Resources (energy use)

Emissions to air

Waste & recycling

Toxic / hazardous substances

MP25 PM26 USE EOL27

Software

Eco‐design PILOT X X X X X X X X X 3

EDIMS X X X X X X X X X 2

EDIT X X 3

EDST X X 3

ECO it X X X X X X X X X 3

GDA X X X X X X X 2

IdeMat X X 3

EuroMat X X 3

EIME® X X X X X X X X X 2

Product EcologyTM X X X X X X X X X 4

Green Design Tool X X X X X X X 3

EcologiCAD X X X X X X X X X 4

ECODESIGN X‐Pro X X X X X X X X X 4

eVerdEE X X X X X X X X X 3

Gabi DfX X X X X X X X X X 4

Other LCA software

X X X X X X X X X 4

25 MP: Materials production

26 PM: Product manufacturing

27 EOL: End of life

49

6 Discussion A variety of eco‐design methods and tools is identified and classified, where basic methodological and other aspects related to them such as data requirements, optimal implementation level etc. are also indicated. Here, a collective discussion on the identified methods and tools is provided, reflecting on methodological characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages etc. In addition, the implementation level of such tools by engineer designers is also discussed focusing on identified limitations. Finally, recalling the objectives of the PhD project that this study is part of, the suitability of the tools to assist vehicles environmental development is discussed.

6.1 General discussion on the identified methods and tools for ecodesign Two main categories of eco‐design methods and tools can be derived based on the results presented in section 5. The first one includes all type of methods and tools that provide guidance and generic recommendations to the designer on what aspects to consider during product design and development in order to minimize the environmental burdens that can appear during the life cycle of the product. The second category includes the methods and tools that provide qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the environmental performance of a product and help the designer to identify specific areas and activities related to the product that need to be optimized. Tools that compare alternatives or improvement options are also included in this category.

In both categories different types of tools have been developed (see sections 5.1.1 to 5.1.6) ranging from very simple to use to more sophisticated and complicated ones. It can be noted that among the tools of the same type there are many similarities regarding the implementation process and environmental aspects covered.

The eco‐design manuals, guidelines, frameworks and checklists are among the types of tools included in the first category (tools providing guidance). As already discussed such tools provide generic guidance to the designers of the product, acting in some cases as rules of thumb, monitoring or exclusion lists or recipes for environmentally friendly design. Although very useful at early stages of product planning, such tools miss to identify and evaluate the actual problems associated to a product and thus suggest product specific solutions. In general checklists, monitoring and exclusion lists can be quite easy to understand however, the actual implementation process can be more complicated since they may require detailed and systematic data gathering as well as continues updates and increased integration into the overall product design process.

Evaluation tools are usually analytical tools that can be represented in matrices or other forms, or be developed in computer software in order to increase possibilities for the user, systematize and increase the efficiency of the implementation process. It has been observed that the tools listed under these types may vary a lot in terms of data and time requirements, type of input and output data etc. Moreover, a number of tools consist only of an evaluation process in order for the impacts to be defined and in some cases quantified, while others provide weighting and prioritization of the identified impacts in order for the user to screen the most important issues that need to be considered. It has been recognized by academics as well as by the users of the tools that a prioritization process of the identified impacts or improvement options can be very crucial since it can assist decision making and provide guidance during trade‐off situations (Simon, Poole, Sweatman, Evans, Bhamra, & McAloone, 2000). Comparisons of different product concepts, alternatives (e.g. between different material choices) and improvement options are also offered by some of the tools listed in this category mainly by analytical and computer based tools. Matrices or

50

indices could also offer such possibilities when the same method is applied to different products or product alternatives.

It has been observed that the majority of the methods and tools (of all types listed) incorporate the life cycle perspective into their recommendations and assessment processes which fulfils the objective of the eco‐design and design for environment approaches. In regards to the environmental impacts, depletion of resources (resulting from the material composition of products as well as energy demands), ecosystems quality (from toxic and chemical substances used), emissions of pollutants and impacts from waste disposal are the most commonly addressed and assessed by the tools. Consequently, most of the recommendations and guidelines aim to improve product properties related to those issues. It should also be noted that economic aspects are considered by a limited number of those tools while other tools assess functional properties of the product in line with stakeholder’s criteria.

Early integration of the environmental aspects and assessment of environmental performance of the product in the product development process are among the core objectives of the design for environment or eco‐design approach. A number of the studied tools offer such possibilities. Tools such as guidelines and checklists are more suitable for the early planning and designing stages while for more detailed analytical tools that can be less successful due to data requirements e.g. on specific product composition, processes involved etc.

The selection of the most appropriate tool depends on many parameters such as the product itself (components and processes involved), user preferences, experiences and intended evaluation level as well as other parameters related to knowledge, availability of data, information and resources. There are tools that can be used alone although combinations of various tools of different types can be made in order to reduce possibilities for omissions.

To conclude, it can be noted that evaluation tools and in particular analytical tools especially those combined with software can be considered as the most promising to identify and minimize the environmental impacts of products in a more holistic way. Guidelines and checklists can be considered as additional support to product designers. Although complexity limitations may exist to most of the identified eco‐design methods and tools, they can be solved by better education of the user and increased information exchange and collaboration among the product development group and other disciplines such as environmental specialists.

6.2 Implementation level and identified limitations It is shown in this report and in previous similar studies that a great variety of guidelines, methods and tools exist that can assist engineer designers to fulfil the objectives of eco‐design and design for environment approaches. For a number of reasons however, the actual implementation level of such tools remains limited or not successfully integrated during early stages of product development. The responsibility can be divided into three levels: the company, the user and the tool. The table below presents some of the reasons for limited implementation and integration of eco‐design tool based on the findings of previous studies (Lofthouse, 2006; Lindahl, 2005). In this study we focus on the limitations at the tools level which will be further discussed.

51

Table 6‐1Reasons for low implementation and integration of eco‐design tools

Company level User level Tool level

Lack of a specific department responsible for environmental issues

Difficult to find the suitable user/s ‐ designer or environmental expert

Great number of available tools to select / The right tool is not always used

Unstructured product development process

Low knowledge and expertise on environmental issues

Complexity of the tools and data requirements

Size of the company ‐ Small companies have limited resources

Low knowledge on the available tools ‐ Poor assessment and selection of the most appropriate one

High implementation cost – resource consuming

Lack of awareness and motivation

Wrong use of the tool ‐ Lack of understanding the nature and objective of each tool

High implementation time

Low cooperation‐ communication among departments

Failure to communicate benefits of using such tools

Lack of clear target groups (who should use each tool and for what product concept)

Lack of communication with the developers of the tools

Too technical terms/ high knowledge requirements

Sources: (Lofthouse, 2006; Lindahl, 2005)

During the compilation of the tools that were identified in the literature study, many of those limitations were encountered. Initially the quite high number of available tools that although increase the available options, it makes it difficult for product designers or environmental experts to identify which one would be the most suitable for different product concepts and which would manage to fulfil their own requirements.

Although the objective with such tools is to assist product engineers and increase the integration of environmental aspects during the product design process, increased data and time requirements can be considered as significant obstacles for those objectives to be fulfilled but also for the tools to be actually used.

Finally, in some cases there is no clear indication, on who would be the most suitable user of tool. Environmental experts have all necessary knowledge to perform the assessments and interpret the results although engineer designers are more aware of the product specifications and possible alternative solutions. The nature of the implementation process sometimes makes it impossible for both sides to be able to use the tools. Moreover, the outcome can be difficult for everyone to understand, correctly interpret and communicate to the rest of designers or company in general.

6.3 Ecodesign methods and tools in the vehicle design context The suitability level of the tool for a specific product concept plays an important role for the successful implementation and reliability of the results obtained by each method or tool. In this report, the suitability of the identified methods and tools for eco‐design to be used in complex products such as vehicles is discussed through a qualitative assessment process. This qualitative assessment however, could only provide very generic results since other factors (such as the user or the company) may also affect the suitability of a method to a certain product concept.

Based on results from previous studies a number of environmental impacts that are associated to vehicles are collected, indicating the need for the various methods and tools to be able to address and minimize those impacts resulting from vehicles on a life cycle perspective. The ease of

52

integration of the identified methods and tools to the existing engineering tools as well as to product development process in general was also considered.

Among the identified tools, a number of analytical tools such as life cycle assessment, environmental benchmarking, environmental effect analysis or multi‐criteria analysis can be very promising and helpful for identifying areas, specific activities and properties related to vehicles that need to be optimized as well as to compare and evaluate alternatives. For higher efficiency and more systematized processes different software tools could be used that are based on the life cycle assessment method.

In regards to checklists and identified databases it has been observed that specific tools have been developed for vehicle related companies and can be therefore considered as very relevant. Such tools integrate regulation requirements and may provide a very useful support to the designers not only to monitor and minimize the impact but also to ensure compliance with existing regulation. The focus of such tools is on materials and substances that can be found in vehicles therefore additional quantitative methods are needed for a more holistic evaluation and impact specific improvements suggestion.

It can be finally observed that the number of tools that are suitable to be integrated with existing engineering design tools is limited therefore development towards this direction is needed in order for the existing tools to be able to capture the complexity of the product and provide designers with robust and reliable results.

53

7 Conclusions and future work

The main objective of this report is to provide an overview of the existing methods and tools that aim to improve the environmental performance of products and to perform this task as early as possible at the product design and development processes. After a systematic review on relevant publications approximately sixty different methods and tools are identified divided and presented into six main categories based on their type and other methodological characteristics.

It can be concluded that there are many methods and tools available that can provide guidance and relevant information to designers on aspects that should be considered already during the product design and development and that would minimize the environmental impact of products over their life cycle. Many options of analytical tools are also available that identify specific areas and properties of the product that need to be improved although they can be considered as more demanding in regards to the environmental knowledge required or the amount of data needed to provide reliable results.

Additionally, the qualitative evaluation on whether the identified tools can address important aspects related to the road and rail vehicles showed that even though many of the tools include parameters that are important to be evaluated in the vehicle design context, only few of them can be regarded as suitable to provide robust results for such complex products as vehicles are. Many of the tools are too generic and cannot capture the increased level of details needed. Life cycle assessment and various similar computer based tools minimize those limitations although other constraints such as knowledge requirements, time and cost might arise.

It has been also discussed throughout this report that despite the significant amount of available tools, the actual implementation level by companies seems to be low. Further investigation would be therefore required on how companies (in particular the industrial partners of the centre of ECO2 Vehicle Design) integrate environmental criteria into the product design and development stage, how familiar they are with the identified methods and tools and which ones they actually use. Additionally, to get the users perception on such methods and tools it would be very important to discuss the barriers or potentials that they see when using eco‐design methods and tools.

54

8 References

Bakker, C. (1995). Environmental Information for Industrial Designers. Doctoral thesis, Delft

University of Technology, Delft.

Baumann, H., Boons, F., & Bragd, A. (2002). Mapping the green product development field:

engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production , 10, 409‐425.

BOMBARDIER. (2009). Bombardier Transportation Directive on Control of Hazardous Materials and

Substances. Retrieved March 2012, from Prohibited & Restricted Substances:

http://www.csr.bombardier.com/en/products/transportation‐products/recyclability

BOMBARDIER. (2011). REGINA Intersity X55. Bombardier Inc.

Bras, B. (1997). Incorporating Environmental Issues in Product Design and Realization. Industry and

Environment , 20 (1‐2).

Brezet, H. (1997). Dynamics in ecodesign practice. UNEP IE: Industry and Environment , 20 (1‐2), 21‐

24.

Brezet, H., & Hemel, C. v. (1997). Ecodesign, A promising approach to sustainable production and

consumption . Paris : UNEP.

Byggeth, S., & Hochschorner, E. (2006). Handling trade‐offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product

development and procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production , 14, 1420‐1430.

Byggeth, S., Broman, G., & Robert, K.‐H. (2007). A method for sustainable product development

based on a modular system of guiding questions. Journal of Cleaner production , 15, 1‐11.

CfSD. (1995). The Centre for Sustainable Design (CfSD) ‐ Resources. Retrieved March 2012, from

http://cfsd.org.uk/resources/

Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2010). Life‐Cycle Environmental Assessment of California High Speed Rail.

CODDE. (2012). Centre of excellence in eco‐design and sustainable product development. Retrieved

March 2012, from http://www.codde.fr/en/

Cramer, J. (1997). Towards innovative more eco‐efficient product strategies. Journal of Sustainable

Product Design (1), 7‐16.

De Simone, L. D., & Popoff, F. (1997). Eco‐efficiency. The Business Link to Sustainable Development.

Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

ECODESIGN PILOT. (2008). Retrieved October 10, 2011, from

http://www.ecodesign.at/pilot/ONLINE/ENGLISH/INDEX.HTM

EcologiCAD. (2008). ecologiCAD ‐ Design for Environment & CAD. Retrieved March 2012, from

http://www.leibrecht.org/

55

EcoMundo. (2012). EcoMundo X‐pro software. Retrieved March 2012, from

http://www.ecomundo.eu/en/software/ecodesign/xpro.html

EPA, U. S. (1995). Profile of the: Motor Vehicle Assembly Industry. EPA Office of Compliance . EPA.

Ernzer, M., & Wimmer, W. (2002). From environmental assessment results to Design for Environment

product changes: An evaluation of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Engineering

Design , 13 (3), 233‐242.

EU Joint Research Centre. (2010). European Comission JRC‐Joint Research Centre. Retrieved March

2012, from LCA tools services and data: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/toolList.vm

Ferrendier, S., Mathieux, F., Rebitzer, G., Simon, M., & Froelich, D. (2002). Eco‐design Guide:

Environmentaly improved product design case studies of the European electrical and electronics

industry. ECOLIFE Thematic Network.

Fiksel, J. (2011). Design for the Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development (2nd ed.).

US: McGraw‐Hill.

Fussler, C., & James, P. (1996). Driving Eco Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and

Sustainability. London: Pitman Publishing.

Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., & Savard, L. (2010). From a conceptual to a sustainable engineering design

process: different shades of sustainability. Journal of Engineering Design , 1‐26.

Gaines, L., Stodolsky, F., Cuenca, R., & Eberhardt, J. (1998). Life‐Cycle Analysis for Heavy Vehicles. Air

& Waste Management Association Annual Meeting. San Diego, California.

Graedel, T. (1997). Designing the Ideal Green Product: LCA/SLCA in Reverse. International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment , 2 (1), 25‐31.

Graedel, T. (1998). Streamlined Life‐Cycle Assessment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Hochschorner, E. (2008). Life Cycle Thinking in Environmentally Preferable Procurement. Royal

Institute of Technology. Stockholm: US AB.

Hochschorner, E., & Finnveden, G. (2003). Evaluation of Two Simplified Life Cycle Assessment

Methods. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 8, 119‐182.

Huijbregts, M. A., Hellweg, S., Frischknecht, R., Hendriks, H. W., Hungerbühler, K., & Hendriks, A. J.

(2010). Cumulative Energy Demand As Predictor for the Environmental Burden of Commodity

Production. Environmental Science and Technology , 44 (6), 2189‐2196.

IDEMAT. (2006). Retrieved March 2012, from http://www.idemat.nl/

ISO/TR14062. (2002). Environmental Management‐ Integrating environmental aspects into product

design and development.

ISO14040. (2006). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework.

56

ISO14042. (2000). Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Life cycle impact

assessment.

ISO14062. (2002). Environemental Management‐ Integrating environmental aspects into product

design and development.

Johansson, G. (2001). Environmental Performance Requirements in Product Development. Doctoral

Thesis, Linköping University, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping.

Karlsson, M. (1997). Green concurrent engineering: assuring environmental performance in product

development. Licentiate thesis , Lund University .

Kassahun, B., Saminathan, M., & Sekutowski, J. C. (1995). Green Design Tool. Proceedings of the 1995

IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment ISEE.

Keoleian, G. A., & Menerey, D. (1993). Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual ‐ Environmental

requirements and the Product System. National Pollution Prevention Centre ‐ University fo Michigan.

US: EPA.

Lagerstedt, J. (2003). Functional and Environmental Factors in Early Phases of Product Development ‐

Eco Functional Matrix. Doctoral Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Machine Design, Stockholm.

Lee, K.‐M., & Park, P.‐J. (2006). ECODESIGN Best Practice of ISO/TR 14062. Korea: Eco‐product

Research Institute (ERI), Aju University.

Lenox, M., Jordan, B., & Ehrenfeld, J. (1996). Diffusion of design for environment: a survey of current

parctice. IEEE Interantional Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, (pp. 25‐30).

Lewis, H., & Gertsakis, J. (2001). Design + Environment: A global guide to designing greener goods.

UK: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.

Lindahl, M. (2005). Engineering Designers' Requirements on Design for Environment Methods and

Tools. Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology , Industrial Engineering and Management,

Stockholm .

Lindahl, M. (2000). Environmental Effect Analysis (EEA) ‐ An Approach to Design for Environment.

Licentiate thesis , KTH Royal Institute of Technology, University of Kalmar.

Lofthouse, V. (2006). Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner

Production , 14, 1386‐1395.

Lofthouse, V. (2008). Information Inspiration ‐ Ecodesign resource. Retrieved October 11th, 2011,

from http://www.informationinspiration.org.uk/

Lundqvist, U., Andersson, B., Axsäter, M., Forsberg, P., Heikkilä, K., Johnson, U., et al. (2004). Design

for Recycling in the Transportation Sector‐ Future Scenarios and Challenges. Chalmers University of

Technology and Göteborg University, Göteborg.

Luttropp, C., & Lagerstedt, J. (2006). EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice for merging

environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production , 14, 1396‐1408.

57

Maxwell, D., & Vorst, R. v. (2003). Developing sustainable products and services. Journal of Cleaner

Production , 11, 883–895.

Meinders, H. (1997). Point of no return. Philips EcoDesign guidelines. Eindhoven.

Miliutenko, S. (2012). Life cycle impacts of road infrastructure. Assessment of energy use and

greenhousegas emissions. Licentiate thesis, KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

Nagata, K., Nohtomi, M., Aizawa, M., Asaoka, K., & Usami, C. (2001). The Development of The

Environmental Efficiency Potential Assessment Method. EcoDesign 2001: Second International

Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing , (pp. 820‐825).

Nemry, F., Leduk, G., Mongelli, I., & Uihlein, A. (2008). Environmental Improvement of Passenger Cars

(IMPRO‐car). Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission‐Joint Research

Centre. Luxembourg: European Communities.

Nielsen, P., & Wenzel, H. (2002). Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a

stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production , 10,

247‐257.

Pigosso, D. C., & Sousa, S. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Discussion on Full‐Scalle and

Simplified Assessements to Support the Product Development Process. 3rd International Workshop.

Advances In Cleaner Production. Cleaner Producton Initiative and Challeges for a Sustainable World.

Sao Paolo.

Pigosso, D. C., Zanette, E. T., Filho, A. G., Ometto, A. R., & Rozenfeld, H. (2009). Ecodesign methods

focused on remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner production , 18, 21‐31.

Pigosso, D., Rozenfeld, H., & G.Seliger. (2010). Ecodesign Maturity Model: criteria for methods and

tools classification. Proceedings of the 8th CIRP Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing .

Abu Dabi, United Arab Emirates .

Pochat, S. L., Bertoluci, G., & Froelich, D. (2007). Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in

SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production , 15, 671‐680.

Poyner, J., & Simon, M. (1995). Integration of DFE Tools with Product Development . The

International Conference on Clean Electronics and Technology (CONCEPT). Edingburgh.

Pré‐product Ecology Consultants. (2011). Retrieved October 10th, 2011, from Ecodesign:

http://www.pre‐sustainability.com/content/eco‐design#Ecodesign

Product EcologyTM. (2012). Product Ecology. Retrieved March 2012, from

http://www.productecologyonline.com

Ritzen, S., & Beskow, C. (2001). Actions for integrating environmental aspects into product

development. Journal of Sustainable Product Design , 1, 91‐102.

Schlüter, F. (2001). On the integration of environmental aspects into early product development : life

cycle design structure matrix. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Licentiate thesis.

58

Simon, M., Evans, S., McAloone, T. C., Sweatman, A., Bhamra, T., & Poole, S. (1998). Ecodesign

Navigator : A key resource in the drive towards environmentally efficient product design. Cranfield:

Cranfield University.

Simon, M., Poole, S., Sweatman, A., Evans, S., Bhamra, T., & McAloone, T. (2000). Environmental

Priorities in Strategic Product Development. Journal of Bussiness Strategy and the Environment , 9,

367‐377.

Spicer, A., & Wang, M. H. (1997). Environmental Design Industrial Template (EDIT): a software tool

for analysis of product retirement . Joournal of Cleaner production , 5 (3), 193‐198.

Staudinge, J., Keoleian, G. A., & Flynn, M. S. (2001). Management of End‐of Life Vehicles (ELVs) in the

US. University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable Systems.

Stripple, H., & Uppenberg, S. (2010). Life cycle assessment of railways and rail transports ‐

Application in environmental product declarations (EPDs) for the Bothnia Line. IVL Swedish

Environmental Research Institute.

Tischner, U., Schmincke, E., Rubik, F., & Prösler, M. (2000). How to do Ecodesign? A guide for

environmentally and economically sound design. Berlin: German Federal Environmental Agency.

Todd, J. A., & Curran, M. A. (1999). Streamlined Life‐Cycle Assessment:A Final Report from the SETAC

North America Streamlined LCA Workgroup. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

(SETAC) and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education.

Ullman, D. G. (2002). The Mechanical Design Process. New York, USA: McGraw‐Hill Higher Education.

Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2008). Product Design and Development (fourth edition ed.). New

York: Mc Graw Hill.

van Weenen, J. (1995). Towads sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production , 3,

95‐100.

Vandermeulen, B., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J., Ander, Å., & Zimmermann, T. (2003). The use of

performance indicators for environmental assessment within the railway business: the RAVEL

workbench prototype, a web‐based tool. Journal of Cleaner Production , 11, 779‐785.

Weenen, J. v., Bakker, C., & Keijser, I. (1992). Ecodesign. An Exploration of the Environment in Product

Design. IDES, University of Amsterdam.

Weiss, M., Heywood, J., Drake, E., Schafer, A., & AuYeung, F. (2000). On the road in 2020.A life cycle

analysis of new automobile technologies. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Westerlund, G. (1997). Miljöhandledning för konstruktörer. Göteborg: Volvo Personvagnar AB.

Vezzoli, C., & Manzini, E. (2008). Design for Environmental Sustainability . Springer .

Wimmer, W., & Züst, R. (2003). ECODESING Pilot. Product Investigation, Learning and Optimization

Tool for Sustainable Product Development. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

59

Wimmer, W., Züst, R., & Lee, K. M. (2004). ECODESIGN IMPLEMENTATION. A Systematic Guidance on

Integrating Environmental Consideratons into Product Development. The Netherlands: Springer.

Volvo, G. (2009). Volvo Standard. Retrieved March 2012, from Volvo’s white list:

http://www.volvologistics.com/sitecollectiondocuments/100‐0004%20white%20list.pdf

Volvo, G. (2010). Volvo Standard. Retrieved March 2012, from Volvo’s grey list:

http://www.volvologistics.com/sitecollectiondocuments/100‐0003%20grey%20list.pdf

Volvo, G. (2011). Volvo Standard. Retrieved March 2012, from Volvo’s black list:

http://www.tech.volvo.com/std/docs/100‐0002.pdf

Wrisberg, N., & Haes, H. A. (2002). Analytical Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a

Systems Perspective. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic publishers.

Yarwood, J. M., & Eagan, P. D. (1998). Design for Environment Toolkit. A compatitive edge for the

future. Minnesota.

Yu, S. Y., Zhang, H.‐C., & Ertas, A. (1999). Environmental Conscious Design: An Introduction to EDST.

Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science , 3 (4), 27‐38.

60

9 Appedix

9.1 Ecodesign guidelines

“The Ten golden rules” adopted from (Luttropp & Lagerstedt, 2006):

1. Hazardous Do not use hazardous substances and utilize closed loops for necessary but toxic ones.

2. House keeping Minimize energy and resource consumption in the production phase and transport through improved housekeeping.

3. Weight Use structural features and high quality materials to minimize weight in products, if such choices do not interfere with necessary flexibility, impact strength or other functional priorities.

4. Energy Minimize energy and resource consumption in the usage phase, especially for products with the most significant aspects in the usage phase.

5. Upgrade Promote repair and upgrading, especially for system‐dependent products.

6. Lifetime Promote long life, especially for products with significant environmental aspects outside of the usage phase.

7. Protect Invest in strong and resistant materials and suitable surface treatments or structural arrangements to protect products from dirt, corrosion and wear, thereby ensuring reduced maintenance and longer product life.

8. Information Prearrange upgrading, repair and recycling through access ability, labeling, modules, breaking points and manuals.

9. Mix Promote upgrading, repair and recycling by using few, simple, recycled, not blended materials and no alloys.

10. Structure Use as few joining elements as possible and use screws, adhesives, welding, snap fits, geometric locking, etc. according to the life cycle scenario.

61

9.2 Examples of radar graphs

Figure 9.1 Hypothetical evaluation of two products based on the Lids Wheel

Figure 9.2 Hypothetical product evaluation based on the E‐concept spiderweb

0

1

2

3

4

5

1. New concept development

2. Selection of low‐impact materials

3. Reduction of materials usage

4. Optimization of production techniques

5. Optimization of distribution system

6. Reduction of impact during use

7. Optimization of initial lifetime and optimization

8. End‐of‐life system

Product 1

Product 2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Resource efficiency

Fulfillment of needs

Satisfaction of customer needs

Sustainable use of renewables

Avoidance of hazardous substances

Waste and emissions

Recyclability

Product aesthetics

literature review methods and tools for - diva portal

Documents