Integrating Environmental Concerns into the Design Process - CiteSeerX

Integrating Environmental Concerns into the Design Process: The Gap between Theory and Practice

Steven A. Melnyk Robert B. Handfield Roger J. Calantone Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1122 Sime Curkovic Western Michigan University Haworth College of Business Kalamazoo, MI 49008-3899

Integrating Environmental Concerns into the Design Process: The Gap between Theory and Practice ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the product design process and the role played by environmental concerns during this critical stage. Specifically, we explore Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) as perceived and acted on by two critical groups within this design process. The first consists of the champions and supporters of ERM. These are the people who either formally or informally act as advocates of ERM within the organization. The second consists of the users of ERM tools and procedures. Typically, these people consist of product designers and design engineers. We study these two groups by means of an exploratory research project that focuses a sample of ten firms drawn from the “best-in-class” environmental leaders. An interesting finding reported in this paper involves the existence of a strong gap between the ERM supporters and the users of ERM tools. The two sides were found to be separated by expectations, perceptions and orientations towards ERM principles, practices and tools. By understanding this gap, we may begin to better understand the difficulties that firms experience in trying to create more environmentally friendly designs and products.

2

INTRODUCTION Within the last decade, large corporations and small businesses alike have undergone unprecedented levels of change in response to global competition. Waste reduction and process improvement initiatives such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Just-in-Time (JIT), Business Process Reengineering (BPR), Integrated Supply Chain Management and Time-based Competition have all been identified as critical to success in the 1990s. Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) is a relatively new concept which can be viewed as a product of the 1990s. ERM has been defined as an economically-driven, system-wide and integrated approach to the reduction and elimination of all waste streams associated with the design, manufacture, use and/or disposal of products and materials (Melnyk and Handfield 1995). This particular strategic effort is a logical extension of the previous process-focused programs such as TQM. ERM is viewed as being TQM systems modified to deal with environmental issues. The gradual evolution of quality to include aspects of the environment has been anticipated by several authors (Mizuno 1988; Hanna and Newman 1995; May and Flannery 1995; Sarkis and Rasheed 1995; Epstein 1996). The “no waste” aim of this particular strategic effort closely parallels the TQM goal of “zero defects.” TQM focuses on waste as it applies to process inefficiencies, whereas ERM tends to focus on concrete outputs such as solid waste and air pollution. The business press (both academic and practitioner) validates the importance of ERM to business by publishing more books and articles on the topic every year. This position is being forced on American manufacturing firms by a large number of different factors. First, there is the attraction of cost reduction.

One of the major benefits of being environmentally

responsible is that of reduced costs occurring in the form of reduced waste management/disposal costs, reduced penalties and fines, reduced future liabilities, and lower regulatory driven costs (Porter 1991; Porter and Van der Linde 1995a, 1995b). A number of external forces also contribute to this need for change, including: •

Governmental regulation,

•

The advent of ISO 14000 (with its emphasis on international standards for environmental compliance),

•

The potential for publicity (both good and bad),

•

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

The pressure to become environmentally responsible is also beginning generated by forces present within industries (e.g., chemical and electronic) and from consumer groups (e.g., the Green Cross certification program and Canada’s Eco Logo program) (Stratton, 1991). As a result of these and other factors, product development managers are beginning to recognize that they are now operating in an environment which prizes and encourages Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM). However, being green or clean is not an easy task. The concept of ERM is surrounded by a number of paradoxes and obstacles; not the least of these is a basic confusion over what is meant by being green! In addition, there is the challenge of being green or environmentally responsible in an environment where the standards and requirements are ever changing, not well defined and at times in conflict with one other. In addition, there is the problem of identifying the most appropriate area for focusing attention when implementing or using systems which embody ERM principles, practices and tools. Finally, there is the issue of how to deal with the trade-offs that ERM introduces into an environment characterized by increasing levels of complexity. In this paper, we begin by examining current theoretical foundations on the integration of environmental management into functional business processes. While prior theory provides some very broad guidelines, this body of work provides almost no direction for the practicing manager to deploy environmental initiatives into current business processes. Next, we examine the implementation of ERM specifically within the product design process. Specifically, we focus our attention on two major categories of respondents: (1) ERM supporters; and, (2) designers (users of ERM tools). The first set of respondents include those individuals responsible for deploying environmental concerns into the design function, primarily by advocating the use of ERM tools. The second set of respondents are responsible for actually carrying out the design process, and hopefully integrating the ERM tools into their daily activities. By studying the different goals and objectives of each group, we can develop insights into the barriers to effective integration of environmental issues into the design process. These two types of respondents are examined within the context of a sample of ten firms drawn from a population consisting of advanced/leading edge ERM users. These two groups are studied in order to address the following questions: 1. How has the introduction of ERM issues into the design process been managed? That is, have organizations made any significant changes in the existing design process to accommodate the introduction of ERM concerns?

2

2. When environmental concerns are introduced into the design process, how do the participants define an environmentally improved product? 3. To what extent are the goals of ERM supporters and designers similar or different? 4. What are the major obstacles of incorporating environment concerns into the product design process? These four questions were addressed by means of a qualitative-based study. It should be noted from the outset that this is an exploratory study since its intent is to develop a better understanding of the process by which ERM is implemented, measured and evaluated. The findings of this study are intended to act as a basis for future studies in this area. This paper is divided into four major sections. The first section provides a broad theoretical foundation for the overall concept of ecological sustainability, and illustrates the “disconnect” between current paradigms and the actual deployment within the product design area. In the second section, we define the concept of ERM, and describe the major traits that are relevant to the design process. This is done in the form of four major propositions that follow from the research questions stated earlier. The third section lays out the research methodology while the fourth and final section summarizes the major findings of this study.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS - ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY Ecological Sustainability Paradigms Generally speaking, little prior theory exists which specifically relates to the role of new product designers and environmental initiatives. The primary theoretical paradigm in use is that of the “ecologically sustainable organization” and its role in “sustainable development.”

A content analysis by Gladwin,

Kennelly, and Krause (1995) found that sustainable development is “a process of achieving human development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, and secure manner. Inclusiveness implies human development over time and space. Connectivity entails an embrace of ecological, social, and economic interdependence. Equity suggests intergenerational, intrageneration, and interspecies fairness. Prudence connotes duties of care and prevention: technologically, scientifically, and politically. Security demands safety from chronic threats and protection from harmful disruption.” (Gladwin et. Al., 1995, p. 878). While this definition is an interesting starting point, it provides relatively little guidance regarding the manner in which environmental initiatives are integrated into design activities.

A somewhat more

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

3

systems approach to the ecologically sustainablility paradigm, which they define as the “ability of one or more entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and flourish (either unchanged or in evolved forms) for lengthy time-frames, in such a manner that the existence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is permitted at related levels and in related systems. Such an organization can be designed by (1) selecting the organizational pattern of structure and process that matches the set of contingencies facing the firm, and (2) to develop structures and processes that are internally consistent (Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985: 521). Integrating Environmental Concerns into Design With respect to how such policies might influence designers, Starik and Rands provide a few very broad guidelines, including the following: • • • • •

Ecologically sustainable organizations (ESOs) will include ecological sustainability considerations and criteria in job design, recruitment and selection and training and development systems. ESOs will design their budgeting and reward systems, communication systems, organizational structures, and decision-making systems in order to empower individuals to engage in sustainability-oriented innovations. ESOs will be characterized by numerous cultural artifacts such as slogans, symbols, rituals and stories which serve to articulate and reinforce for their members the importance of ecologically sustainable performance. ESOs will adopt marketing and procurement policies (sic) emphasizing sustainable products, in part to create and enlarge markets for such products. ESOs will work to remove anti-sustainability subsidies, and/or to institute pro-sustainability subsidies. While this vision of an ideal organization which promotes environmental concerns above other

objectives is enlightening, the authors acknowledge that their framework provides relatively little direction in terms of specific relationships. Moreover, they call for research that offers insights into the particular mix of financial and nonfinancial incentives which should be offered to influence employees’ sustainability-oriented behavior. They also note the lack of any theory for guiding organizational policies which reward compliance versus innovation. Shrivasta (1995) offers a set of more technical recommendations regarding how certain tools can help create more environmentally-friendly designs. He notes that a TQEM (total quality environmental management) approach seeks to optimize the ecological performance of the entire corporate system. This includes applying life-cycle analysis (LCA) as a holistic approach to understanding the linkages between an organization and its natural environment. TQEM also encourages energy and natural resource conservation by reducing the use of energy and virgin materials through product redesign, making use of renewable materials, off-setting energy / resource consumption with replenishment, and developing ecologically sensitive purchasing policies and inventory-management systems. In illustrating these policies, Shrivasta use

4

examples of organizations first mentioned by Makower (1993), such as Tetrapak, Herman Miller, The Body Shop, and Loblaws. In citing these policies, however, the author seems to imply that such managerial tools and techniques are easily implemented, and merely require a re-structuring of the organizational policy manual. Studies of the Actual Design Process In fact, our research and that of other field researchers points to the fact that tools such as Life Cycle Analysis, green purchasing, green product re-design, and other tools are not as widely used as Shrivastava would seem to suggest. In the past, research into the integration of environmental concerns into the product design process could be divided into one of three major categories. The first dealt with case studies describing the experiences of specific companies (e.g., Environment Today, 1993; Rice, 1993; Sanders, 1993). The second has tried to offer engineers and managers specific guidelines and advice for integrating environmental concerns into the product design process (e.g., EPA, 1994; Cattenach, Holdreith, Reinke, and Sibik, 1995; Epstein, 1996). The third line of research has focused on the development and evaluation of alternative tools to be used when integrating environmental issues into the design process. These tools have two objectives: (1) to identify the true costs and benefits to be gained by designing more environmentally appropriate products; and, (2) to help the designers identify the environmental and cost implications associated with alternative materials or process decisions (e.g., Allenby, 1993; Graedel & Allenby, 1995). With regard to Life Cycle Analysis, Klassen and Greis concur that “the different life cycle assessment methodologies under development in North America and Europe are [only] beginning to reach an initial consensus, at least for the Inventory component. According to Gloria, Saad, Breville, and O’Connel (1995), the concerns of poor data quality, data availability, high implementation costs, subjectivity, and a lack of standardization have sent life-cycle analysis into a state of flux. A similar consensus for the subsequent Impact and Improvement Analysis components still remains elusive, undoubtedly in part because the issues are very complex and the research foundation remains weak.” (p. 306). Handfield et. al. (1997) found that very few companies considered to be “green” (including some of the companies mentioned by Shirvastava) are truly proactive in nature, such that environmental concerns are integrated into everyday design processes. They found that once products are in the manufacturing stage, manufacturing and environmental engineers can do little more than minimize the end-of-pipe waste, which has only a marginal effect on the total waste produced. Moreover, the use of design tools are few and far between, and when applied, are often done so as an afterthought and in an ad hoc manner. Ideally, the most appropriate place for considering environmental issues is in the design phase since the amount of waste generated is a direct consequence of decisions made during design (Bowman 1996; Fiskel 1993, 1994). However, there is a lack of appropriate measures and tools for capturing the environmental

5

impact of designs (Van Weenen and Eeckles 1989; Allenby 1993; Graedel and Allenby 1995). For example, there is no equivalent of Quality Function Deployment or the House of Quality. On the other hand, recent research in the engineering literature suggests that there do exist tools which, if implemented properly, can significantly improve new designs in terms of their impact on the environment. A recent engineering conference identified potential tools which fell into a wide range of categories, from relatively simple checklists or general guidelines to more complex software-based decisionmaking tools (Mizuki, Sandborn, and Pitts, 1996). However, another study found that the actual use of these tools is limited: seventy seven out of eighty one firms had a corporate environmental program, but of these, only 30% had a “corporate program for incorporating environmental concerns into design.” (Lennox, Jordan, and Ehrenfeld, 1996).

Further, only 20% had a formal process for designs for the environment.

Disturbingly, the researchers noted that environmental databases and design software are almost never used by designers, and that very few organizations had adopted environmental techniques such as life-cycle analysis or full cost accounting. Relatively ignored in this research has been the reaction of the designers to these various ERM-driven initiatives. The degree to which ERM will be successful is greatly dependent on the extent to which the users (in this case, the designers) are willing to embrace, accept and use the tools, principles and systems of ERM. Developing this level of acceptance is not a foregone conclusion. ERM issues must compete with other pressures and concerns. For example, with shorter product life cycles, designers are now under great pressure to ensure that their products work right the first time. In addition, designers must produce products which are acceptable to customers (even if this means that less environmentally materials and styles must be used). Finally, designers are under pressure to improve quality, reduce cost and improve flexibility. The corporate concerns are often reflected in the measurement systems used to assess and monitor the performance of these designers. The Disconnect Between Theory and Practice Clearly, there is a disconnect between what theorists believe firms are doing in design for the environment (DFE), and what designers are telling us is being done. As it is generally used, the term “Design for the Environment” (DFE) means making environmental considerations an integral part in the design of a product, process, and/or technology (Allenby 1993).

The concept of DFE

originated from industry’s effort to target specific environmental objectives for design engineers to incorporate when creating a new product.

The goals of ERM can only be achieved when

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

6

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

Because a

product needs to be designed before it is manufactured, the environmental effects of the product are largely fixed at the product design phases (Van Weenen and Eeckles 1989). Some anecdotal examples and case studies are provided where DFE has proven to be successful (e.g., AT&T), but these are isolated and limited to a very few companies (Franke and Monroe 1995; Shelton 1995). The literature also ignores the obvious interrelated relationship between process and design issues. It fails to recognize that a major barrier to the integration of cleaner manufacturing processes is that design engineers usually have little technical knowledge at the process level. The literature does not discuss the working relationships required between process and design engineers. It seems intuitive that designers at some level need to understand the process and be able to influence process design;

however, these issues are not addressed in the literature.

Manufacturing processes are the greatest generators of environmental waste and the greatest opportunities for ERM practices occurs during the design stages.

However, the interaction

between these two stages has not been examined. We know that DFE tools and databases are available, but designers are generally not using them! The paradox which emerges is hinted at by Hunt and Auster, who state that a top level commitment by management to an environmental program is not enough. To implement real change, they note that the costs of poor environmental management must be calculated, and then the need for good practices must be “sold” throughout the organization.

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

restructured for visibility, accessibility, and effectiveness. As a result, we do not know the extent to which designers see the inclusion of environmental issues and considerations into the design process as important or whether they view these issues as simply more work and more trouble. This study intends to address this void in the research. Obtaining the buy-in of designers into environmental initiatives is thus much more of a task than originally anticipated by theorists. Before organizations can undertake this process, however, engineering managers must become aware of the different types of objections they are likely to encounter within their design teams. In seeking to fulfill this need, the authors undertook an analytical comparison of the existing gap which exists between proponents of environmental policy and the designers who are being asked to adopt it into their daily activities. The resulting study thus assesses this gap, and recommends actions required to close the gap in the future.

7

PROPOSITIONS: INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS In order to better focus the discussion ecological sustainability, it is necessary to relate it to a set of operational processes. Thus, we begin by defining Environmentally Responsible Manufacturing (ERM) as:

a system which integrates product and process design issues with issues of manufacturing production planning and control in such a manner as to identify, quantify, assess and manage the flow of environmental waste with the goal of reducing and ultimately minimizing its impact on the environment while also trying to maximize resource efficiency.

This definition provides a suitable basis for the discussion of several important assumptions and premises regarding the integration of environmental initiatives into the design process. These premises are presented in the form of a set of propositions that mirror the four research questions discussed earlier in the first section of the paper. The proposition were then explored in more detail through a set of field interviews. The propositions are drawn not only from our definition of ERM, but also from recent studies of environmental management. Proposition 1 – Process Integration In general, ERM can take one of two approaches. The first is remedial. Under this approach, which is also referred to as “end of pipe” solutions, we try to correct the environmental problems once they have been created. In general, this approach is seen as being relatively ineffective because it does not really attack the factors that give rise to the problem in the first place (Carpenter 1991). Rather, it attacks the symptoms. In general, this approach is seen as short term in nature. It does nothing to eliminate the problems from taking place initially. To do so, we must use the second approach -- preventive. With prevention, we focus our attention on those decisions and actions which give rise to the problems in the first place. Using Ackoff’s taxonomy of solve, resolve and dissolve (Ackoff, 1978), preventive approaches focus on dissolving problems -- they try to prevent them from occurring in the first place. When dealing with environmental problems, using the preventive approach forces us to focus on the product/process design process. First, we now recognize that the most efficient and effective point at which to catch problems is in the design stage (while the designs are still on paper). As a result of developments such as simultaneous engineering, attention is now being focused on this stage in the process of taking a

8

product from concept to full production. Furthermore, the decisions taken at this stage greatly influence process decisions, choice of material, number of components per item and the type and amount of environmental waste associated with the product (its production, use or disposal). Several authors (Ashleyn, 1993; Graedel & Allenby, 1995; Makower, 1994; Sanders, 1993) have recognized the critical role played by the design process in an effective ERM system. This brings up an important point: whether they realize it or not, every time a new design is produced, an environmental decision is implicitly being made. That is, one cannot separate environmental decisions from design decisions, as they are one and the same! Proposition 1: Every design decision is an environmental decision. Unless the formal design process recognizes this relationship, ERM will consistently be remedial in nature. In many organizations, there is a tendency to see environmentally responsible manufacturing as being something that managers can decide to become involved in or not.

Firms can decide to implement

environmentally responsible manufacturing or they can decide not to implement it. However, there is a fundamental flaw with this view.

Every action involving either products or processes involves

environmentally responsible manufacturing. Whether we know it or not, every manufacturing decision and action has an impact on the environment. These decisions can be explicit (we can decide to redesign a process so that it uses less toxic material) or the decisions can be implicit. For example, managers may select a specific process or operating technology because it can help to generate higher quality goods faster (in less lead time) and at lower costs. When we select that process, at that moment, we have also implicitly accepted the environmental effects attributable to that process. This property of environmental management is not unlike another important management strategy that evolved ten years ago:

Total Quality Management.

responsible manufacturing is waste elimination:

Moreover, the ultimate goal of environmentally

In its simplest and most basic form, pollution is waste

(Juran, 1987; Porter, 1991). Waste, whether it takes the form of excessive movements, too much inventory or environmentally harmful materials, is waste. It represents the expenditure of energy without the offsetting generation of value. However, the origin of waste (whether in the form of excess inventory, defects, or hazardous outputs) all have their origin in decisions made in the design stage. When viewed in this light, we can see that environmentally responsible design has much in common with Total Quality Management (Stratton, 1991), and has even resulted in the recent development of Total Quality Environmental Management (TQEM) (Bradley, 1993). Proposition 2 – Measuring Environmental Impacts

9

The task of taking a product design from concept to final product is a complex activity. Inherent in this process are a large number of decisions which must be made -- decisions involving features, performance, the extent to which the product maps with customer expectations, technical feasibility and cost. For the people involved, this task involves two major issues. The first is effectiveness (i.e., Does the product do what the customer expects of it? Does the product perform consistently with our design specifications?). The second is efficiency (i.e., Can we make the product within the performance and cost constraints set for us? Can we eliminate non-value-adding features or processing steps without adversely affecting the product and its performance?). Introducing environmental concerns into this process must, by definition, further complicate this already very complex process. By introducing these issues, we have to convert the design process from an activity confined to a plane consisting of effectiveness and efficiency to an activity which must take place within a cube where the three dimensions consist of effectiveness, efficiency and environmental soundness. As a result, the number of interactions to be considered has now greatly increased. However, unless this third dimension has a set of explicit output measures associated with it, it will largely be ignored. Proposition 2:

Environmental issues must be quantified in specific measurable units.

These

metrics must be explicitly measured and recognized at major points in the design process and must carry at least the same weight as other design metrics such as cost, quality, fit, function, etc. Effective environmentally responsible design processes must focus on the three Ps associated with design decisions: -- Product, Process and Packaging. These involve: (1) product design (how it is designed, materials used in it, environmental impact of its use, environmental impact of its disposal); (2) process (decisions made related to how the product will be produced); and, (3) packaging (the protective materials used in delivering components to the process or in delivering the product to the customer). As such, effective ERM systems will ascertain the impact on environmental metrics made by different configurations of the product, process, and packaging design. Typically, most people associate environmentally responsible manufacturing (or the lack of) with the product and its use or the operation of the manufacturing processes. Designers often fail to understand the impact of their decisions on process and packaging issues. For instance, a product design decision can have a major influence on the process required to product the product in terms of its the support facilities (i.e., tank farms, waste water treatment, etc). In many cases, some of the worst pollution comes from these support facilities.

10

The ultimate goal of environmentally responsible manufacturing is to eliminate rather than environmental waste. This can only be achieved when environmental issues, concerns and problems are identified and resolved during the early stages of the product and process design process. It is at these stages that processes can be changed so as to reduce or eliminate environmental problems. It is also at these stages that products can be altered (e.g., by using new material) so as to reduce waste. Furthermore, these concerns over environmental waste have to be present all the way from product concept to prototype to full production and finally end with the use of the product by the customer and its ultimate disposal. When in full production, environmental issues should be monitored, evaluated and managed as part of the process of manufacturing planning and control. However, by rendering environmentally responsible manufacturing a process which is parallel but separate from the product and process design and development system is ultimately ineffective. When so structured, environmentally responsible manufacturing becomes a series of externally imposed checks which define the constraints that products and processes must meet.

It is

something that is considered after the fact. When integrated, environmentally responsible manufacturing becomes a consideration similar to that of quality or time or cost. It becomes an opportunity and something that must be considered right from the outset. Historical information, as well as simulation studies can be used to project the impact of design decisions, and enable insights into the impact on such metrics. For instance, a set ofsuch tools and associated metrics in the electronics industry (Mizuki et. al., 1996) include: •

Disassembly/Recylability Analysis (disposal costs, revenue from recycled or reused parts, and disassembly times and costs)

•

Manufacturability Analysis (proximity assessment, manual versus automatic assembly, aspect ratio, manufacturability scores)

•

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

•

Other Performance Trade-off analysis (impact of technology, material, and design rule variations on the cost and performance of products)

In another case, a set of “design scores” associated with plating processes developed to better quantify environmental impacts of product design decisions (Kassahun et. al., 1995). Regardless of the manufacturing processes associated with different industries, meaningful metrics of environmental performance in product, processes, and packaging must be developed that designers can use to influence their decisions. Proposition 3 – Understanding Functional Perspectives

11

As the previous discussion indicates, there is no shortage of environmental tools or metrics available to ascertain the impact of design decisions on product, process, or packaging. However, getting designers to use these tools is altogether another matter! This is the case primarily because of the variance in perspectives implicitly held by two groups within the organization: the Environmental Supporters, and the Designers. The most common view, typically held by designers, is that the requirements to be environmentally responsible are imposed externally by the government and other similar regulatory bodies. Since these requirements are driven by political and social considerations, it is difficult to justify any investments in environmentally responsible manufacturing other than those dictated by the appropriate regulations. As a result, the only position that a firm can take with environmentally responsible manufacturing is that of strict compliance -- doing just what is needed to satisfy the regulations. The second view being advocated by the Environmental Supporters in an organization is that environmentally responsible manufacturing is ultimately a business decision. Companies able to make the transition from strict environmental compliance to leveraging environmental issues for competitive advantage often rely on the skills and motivation of a “policy entrepreneur”. A policy entrepreneur is defined as a person willing to invest time, energy, money, reputation, etc., in the hope of future returns such as environmental policy changes and promotions (Drumwright, 1994, p. 4). In the context of socially responsible purchasing, Drumwright showed that policy entrepreneurs exert both formal and informal power to get environmental issues on the corporate agenda. These policy entrepreneurs often bring a socially responsible vision into the organization and then legitimize this vision through their ability to influence the organization’s political agenda. The extent to which the products and processes possessed by a firm are “green” (environmentally responsible) has important implications for the firm. It can affect the strategic and cost position occupied by the firm. As a result, any decisions in environmentally responsible manufacturing must be viewed from a rational cost/benefit perspective. That is, all of the costs and benefits associated with being environmentally responsible must be identified and evaluated -- a point recognized by several authors (e.g., Bemowski, 1991; Stratton, 1991). Because of the divergence between these two views, an important proposition emerges: Proposition 3 - To successfully integrate environmental issues into the design process, environmental decisions must be viewed as strategically driven decisions which are evaluated by comparing the relative costs and benefits. Environmental metrics must be “rolled up” into specific cost units that provide a meaningful basis for decision-making, goal-setting, and ultimately, evaluation of designer performance. Ideally, designers would be able to consider different design alternatives that include environmental metrics that have cost implications associated with them. The designer would then be able to alter the design

12

to the point where marginal costs and benefits are approximately equal. In many cases, this perspective may result in a firm inventing in a higher level of environmentally related activities than those required by regulatory pressure and requirements (as in the case of AT&T with CFC emissions, the Chemical Manufacturers’ Association with “Responsible Care” and 3M with their “Pollution Prevention Pays” program). When viewed from this perspective, we can see that it is now possible for a firm to underinvest and overinvest in environmentally responsible manufacturing/design and to also overinvest in environmentally responsible manufacturing/design.

In this premise, Designers and Environmental

Supporters would be able to share a common and consistent vision: competitive advantage and corporate profit. Unfortunately, a number of obstacles exist to prevent this from occurring. Proposition 4 – Resolving the Obstacles Integrating environmental concerns into the design process is similar in many respects to the deployment of simultaneous engineering for the first time. It requires the involvement of many people from different parts of the organization. No one person or function can identify all of the problems or issues pertaining to the environment. No one person or function can identify appropriate solutions. Instead, ERM involves people from different functional areas meeting to uncover and assess environmental problems and to formulate appropriate solutions to these problems. ERM is ultimately a cross-functional undertaking. ERM affects all of the functional areas of a business enterprise (Kleiner 1991; Post 1991; Williams 1991). ERM brings together people from different functional areas to uncover, assess, and solve environmental problems.

As such, environmentally responsible manufacturing typically involves

participation from engineering (product, process/manufacturing and industrial), marketing (to assess market/customer response and demands), manufacturing, cost accounting (to assess the full costs of environmental problems), facilities/environmental engineering (to carry out cost estimates and to forward these estimates to cost accounting and finance), human resources (because people and staff must be involved in the management, storage and disposal of waste), industrial facilities management (where to store waste), purchasing (acquisition and disposal of waste), legal (to assess the legal implications of new regulations and actions being considered by the firm and its personnel) and support from middle and top management (to assess the strategic impacts of environmentally related being considered) (Hunt & Austen, 1990; Bemowski, 1991; Juran & Gryna, 1980; Tank, 1991). Having a separate and distinct department for environmental matters can create problems because it causes others in the organization to ignore environmentally responsible manufacturing issues. After all, someone else (the department for environmental matters) is responsible for those matters.

This type of attitude is not consistent with effective environmentally

responsible manufacturing.

13

Proposition 4 – The primary obstacle to the integration of environmental issues into product design is a lack of coordination between functions. In order to effectively translate environmental metrics into strategic cost/benefit implications that can be understood by all parties, the full involvement of multiple functions within the organization is necessary. This statement has been echoed before in prior research (see Sarkis and Rasheed, 1995; Dechant and Altman, 1994; Hunt and Austen, 1990). However, a resolution to this obstacle has never been fully explored. Although we cannot hope to fully explain this process, we did seek to develop insights into the processes used to integrate environmental issues into the design process. The research methodology used to develop the data and explore these propositions are next described.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Since the focus of this research was exploratory in nature (rather than confirmatory), qualitative data collection methods were used. Field-based data collection methods were used to ensure that the important variables were identified. It also helped us develop an understanding of why these variables might be important (Eisenhardt 1989). A small detailed sample fit the needs of the research more than a large scale survey would have. The method followed was similar to the grounded theory development methodology suggested by Glasser and Strauss (1967). In addition, suggestions made by Eisenhardt (1980), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Yin (1994) were also incorporated. The end results was a series of case studies in which each case was treated as a replication. In instances where there does not exist a well-developed set of theories regarding a particular branch of knowledge, Eisenhardt (1989) and McCutcheon and Meredith (1993) suggest that theory-building can best be done through case study research. This case-based process involves defining the question, selecting cases, crafting instruments and protocols, analyzing data, shaping hypotheses, enfolding the literature and reaching closure using an intentionally small group of research sites. Comparative literature reviews of research on environmental management strategies confirm that this area is at an early stage of development (Klassen, 1993; 1995; Porter and van der Linde, 1995b). In this stage of theory building, a key objective is to develop insights into the key processes involved in integrating environmental issues into the design process. There are several pitfalls of case analysis, including lack of simplicity or narrow and idiosyncratic theories (Eisenhardt, 1989). A primary disadvantage of case-based research is that it is difficult to draw deterministic inferences, and there are limitations in terms of the external validity of the study. These limitations are often addressed by using large sample studies, or using “before” and “after” quasi-experimental designs. (Cook and

14

Campbell, 1979). However, given the stage of theory development on ERM, it is important to ensure that the right questions regarding its deployment are being asked. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that the researcher develop a set of initial research questions that posit linkages between proposed key constructs. As the analysis proceeds, questions can be modified and refined, so that future studies will be properly directed. The research questions should also be related to a conceptual model for crafting research instruments and interview protocols (Miles and Huberman, 1994). While causality can never be shown in case studies, analysis of data collected from multiple sites can help support the generalizability of the results. The researchers relied primarily on the methods of qualitative data analysis developed by Miles and Huberman (1994), which consist of anticipatory conceptual model development, and simultaneous data collection, reduction, display, and conclusion testing. Multiple research sites were used in order to provide a broader taxonomy of environmental design strategies. A qualitative approach based on extensive interviews was picked because we were interested in understanding the process by which environmental concerns were introduced into the design process. Because this process is not well understood and because many of the terms associated with this process and its goals are subject to confusion, a qualitative approach was better suited as compared to alternative quantitative approaches such as surveys (Gummesson, 1991; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The approach developed consisted of five stages: •

Questionnaire design and testing;

•

Identification of the Sample;

•

Identification of the Respondents;

•

Administration of the Questionnaire; and,

•

Analysis of the Data.

Questionnaire Design and Testing The questionnaire was designed around the four primary research questions (and associated propositions) discussed in the prior section of the paper. Eisenhardt (1989) suggested that a researcher should have a well developed interview protocol before making the site visits.

A structured

interview protocol was used at all of the sites. Qualitative theory building is an iterative process (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 1994. Eisenhardt (1989) suggested that data collection and data analysis should be done simultaneously. In other words, the data from one case is collected and then analyzed before the next replication is performed. Improvements in the protocol can be made between replications by collecting data in this manner. Important issues that

15

are raised in early cases can be included in the protocol for subsequent replications. This ability to refine and improve upon the protocol between cases is a significant advantage of this type of research. For the sake of clear explanation the data collection and analysis are described separately in the following sections.

However, the actual process was one where a case was collected,

analyzed, the protocol improved upon, and then the next case was collected. The constant updating of the protocol after each visit is a foundation of grounded theory development (Glasser and Strauss 1967). In the first stage, the questionnaire was designed and tested. The questionnaire was intended to be administered by means of telephone interview. Specifically, the questionnaire was designed to collect information about the following areas: (1) background of the individual (how long the person had been with the company, current and past responsibilities, description of the objectives for the respondent’s current position); (2) involvement of the individual with environmental issues and predisposition of the respondent to environmental issues; (3) description of the current product design process; (4) the position of ERM in the current design process (how it was integrated, at what stages, who was involved, how long these changes had been in effect); (5) assessment of the current success of integrating ERM into the product design process; and, (6) identification of current obstacles and problems. The interview protocol is available on request from the authors. The questionnaire consisted of a mixture of seven-point Likert-scaled questions, closed ended questions, check-offs and open ended questionnaire.

Because of concerns over the confounding influence of social

desirability (Block, 1965; Messick, 1959)1, indirect questioning was using (i.e., “How would people within your department view the role of environmental concerns on the time it takes to design a new product?”). Once developed, the questionnaire was evaluated by a panel of subject matter experts (in the areas of ERM, product design and questionnaire design). This panel was drawn from both the academic community (in the case of product design and questionnaire design issues) and the practitioner community (primarily for ERM-related issues). The questionnaire was designed to be administered via a three step process. In the first step, the questionnaire was to be faxed to the respondent (to allow the respondent sufficient time in which to prepare their responses). Next, the answers to the questions would be gathered during a telephone interview. Societal desirability describes a situation where, because of strong social values attached to certain actions, the respondents will alter their answers so that the results are socially correct, rather than being factual. For example, few people would see themselves as being dishonest or lacking compassion, even if they were so. If asked a question such as “How honest are you?,” most were reply either “true all of the time” or “true most of the time.” Being environmentally responsible is a topic that falls into this category of social desirability. 1

16

Finally, the respondent would be asked to respond to a series of open-ended questions which were to administered at the conclusion of the telephone interview. These questions (which the respondents had not previously seen) would be used to gather information about the effectiveness of the ERM integration process and the areas where future research should be devoted. Sample Identification The second stage identified the sample to be drawn from the targeted population. As Miles and Huberman (1994) point out, “Sampling involves not only decisions about which people to observe or interview, but also about settings, events, and social processes… The conceptual framework and research questions determine the foci and boundaries within which samples are selected” (p. 37). Bearing this advice in mind, the researchers initially set out to find a set of organizations that had experienced the process of integrating environmental concerns in the design process. Specifically, we sought to study design activities within firms identified as being advanced or “leading edge” adopters of environmental principles and practices within the product design process. Although this made sense, we soon discovered that this population is rather small. Moreover, very few organizations have made significant in-roads into successful design for the environment approaches. We were able to find ten organizations deemed to be “leading edge”, if they met at least two or more of the following selection criteria (external to the potential biases of the research team): •

Was used frequently as an example in the environmental management literature

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

17

. In addition, a form of snowball or chain sampling was also used (Miles & Huberman, 1991, p. 28). Snowball sampling is a procedure which seeks to identify cases of interest from “people who know people who know what cases are information rich” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28). This sampling strategy was built into the questionnaire design. At the end of each questionnaire interview, the respondents were asked if they knew of any other firms which they considered to be advanced ERM users or successful in integrating environmental concerns into the design process. This question was inserted for two major reasons. The first was to determine the extent to which the sample selected for this study was adequate. The second was to identify firms which may have been overlooked. The decision to target the questionnaire on leading edge companies was based on several concerns. First, by picking advanced adopters of ERM-principles, we would be talking with people who had attempted to integrate environmental metrics and policies into the design process. Each organization approached had already been through the process of establishing an environmental vision and emphasizing its importance, and had already made initial attempts to get designers to adopt the metrics and policies into their design decision. In addition, because ERM was integrated into the design process, we could approach the designers (who were in some cases forced to change their design procedures) and get their perceptions on the impact of environmental concerns on the overall design process. Furthermore, by limiting our attention to such advanced users, we would be dealing with firms and people who were actually designing products that incorporated environmental concerns. That is, these companies had attempted to implement some of the specific tools that quantified the associated environmental impacts of different design decisions. We also limited our attention to the product design process rather than the process design process because of feedback received during initial stages of this study (from experts and people knowledgeable in the ERM area) that the product design process was both better organized in most firms and a focal point of attention for many firms’ ERM activities. For example, Ford, as part of its Ford 2000 program has announced that that it will design cars which are more environmentally friendly.

At the end of this stage, ten firms were identified. The sample was drawn from the following industries: office furniture (3); automotive and automotive suppliers (3); computers (2); prescription drugs (1); and, consumer products (1). Although in diverse industries, these organizations all had a common focus: they had all made significant in-roads into improving their design process to include environmental concerns. Because the sample was chosen using a variety of independent selection criteria and represents a relatively small population, it is reasonable to believe that the sample is not unbiased in nature.

18

IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS Having identified the sample firms, we next proceeded with the task of identifying two groups of respondents from each firm (with the unit of analysis being the individual within the relevant group). Our intent was to identify at least one ERM supporter/champion and at least one user who was actively involved in the product design process and who was recognized as having used some of the ERM tools (e.g., life cycle assessment, product check sheets) identified by the ERM supporter(s). An ERM supporter was any person who was seen as being charged with the task of supporting ERM activities and in encouraging the acceptance and use of ERM tools, systems and perspectives. Also included in this group were any people who were identified by users as representing (championing) ERM issues and concerns during reviews. Typically, these people were identified using three approaches: (1) departmental identification (e.g., if a person belonged to a group such as Employee Safety and Environmental Affairs); (2) job description; and, (3) user identification. In most cases, the person was identified as belonging to an environmental affairs department or facilities engineering or management. The second group consisted of designers who were actively involved in product design and who had been exposed to ERM issues previously. The products considered involved end items as well as packaging containers. For every firm, at least one representative from each group was initially identified. These respondents were contacted by telephone and the general nature of the study described to them. If they agreed to participate, they were then sent out a copy of the questionnaire by fax (they were given between one to two weeks in which to review the questionnaire and to prepare their answers). If a targeted respondent decided not to participate, then they were asked to identify a replacement.

ADMINISTERING THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaires were administered over a speaker phone using a two person interviewing team (where one person posed the questions and led the discussion while the other recorded the data and helped to validate the responses).

Within each organization, at least one “supporter” and one “designer” was

interviewed.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Two main components of data analysis included within and across case analysis. Within case analysis helped us examine design issues in a single context, while the across case analysis served as a form of replication (Yin 1994) where the constructs of interest in one setting were tested in

19

other settings. One concern was controlling for the affects of the researchers’ apriori beliefs as to reasons why ERM issues were or were not embraced. This was accomplished a variety of ways. First, the primary researcher wrote up the interview notes prior to coding.

The secondary

researcher, who was also present for the interview, reviewed these notes. By using a variety of secondary researchers (3 in total), a second unbiased person reviewed the notes. The second step taken was intended to mitigate against confirmation bias. That is, the amount of within case analysis performed before the cross case analysis was limited. Miles and Huberman (1994) note that the acts of coding and data reduction are actually forms of data analysis. In other words, the act of coding could lead to confirmation bias problems in future cases. Therefore, coding for within case analysis was limited to categorizing the individual case on previously identified constructs and identifying interesting new issues to pursue at future interviews. Were more open to alternative explanations raised in future replications by avoiding comparisons and model building early in the research. The between case analysis consisted of looking for patterns of firms’ experiences with ERM issues in the product design process across leading edge organizations. Between case analysis is facilitated by using a variety of tools to reduce the amount of data and to display the data in a meaningful fashion (Miles and Huberman 1994; Yin 1994). Data reduction was done primarily through categorization. Categories were developed in two ways. First, a number of categories were formed based on the literature (i.e., ?, ?,?, ?). The concepts that interviewees identified as being related to DFE were compiled (i.e., focus on measurement). Through a process of combination, renaming, and redefining, the was reduced to main concepts that were most frequently noted as reasons for DFE. All responses were reviewed and analyzed using a simple form of content analysis. The goal was to identify similarities and differences either internally (e.g., between designers working at different companies) and externally (e.g., between designers and ERM supporters). The responses were examined for major concerns (and for the logic of these concerns) in the case of obstacles to ERM and problems affecting the implementation of ERM systems and tools.

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

20

•Integration of ERM Issues into the Design Process is primarily limited to the use of checkpoints and ERM-influenced exit requirements: Nearly all of the product design processes were sequential and linear in structure. That is, they began with product concept and proceeded through a number of stages (typically 4). While cross-functional groups were present at each stage, the ERM supporters played a limited a role in them. Rather, the role of the ERM supporters and ERM was evident in two ways. First, there was education and awareness. ERM supporters tried to make designers aware of the cost and benefits of ERM. They also tried to inform designers about the different classes of materials (i.e., materials not to be used at all because of environmental problems, materials which should be avoided whenever possible). Second, the ERM supporters influenced the exit requirements encountered at the end of each stage. As a product design finishes with one stage, it often must pass a checkpoint. At this checkpoint, the design is subjected to an evaluation (typically using “yes/no” questions). Issues raised at this checkpoint must be addressed and resolved before the design is allowed to proceed to the next step. It is here that environmental issues are most often formally found. Because of its placement at this point (after certain decisions had been made), designers tended to view ERM as constraints and as a set of minimum requirements which had to be passed before proceeding to the next stage. None of the designers interviewed saw ERM as an opportunity (i.e., a positive) when viewed within the context of a specific design (while some mentioned that ERM was an overall opportunity for being more creative). An interesting feature of the typical design process was its strong sequential structure. That is, once a stage had been completed and once the design had passed through and satisfied the exit requirements for that stage, the designers did not want to revisit decisions made during that stage. Should an ERM-related problem be identified that required revisiting a previous stage (in an iterative process), the typical response was to note it down and to act on it the next time that product design underwent a major revision. While the ERM supporters recognized the appropriateness of an iterative approach to product design, the designers did not want to deal with such a process. One reason given was that, with the use of cross-functional teams, it was difficult to get a consensus at each step in the design process.

With an iterative process, these

agreements would have to be reforged -- something that the designers were not excited about doing. •The major focus of ERM-related activities was material: As pointed out by Smith and Melnyk (1996), the goal of making products more environmentally responsible can be achieved by focusing on the material used in a product, the processes used to make these products and the interactions between material and process. However, in the design processes studied, the major focus was on material. That is, there was a concern about selecting and using materials which were considered to be environmentally friendly (either by

21

themselves or because they incorporated remanufactured or recycled content).

Typically, the tactic

emphasized was substitution (i.e., the replacement of a less environmentally friendly material by one which was more environmentally friendly). To help the designers identify potential ERM-related problems, the ERM supporters focused their activities on publishing and distributing various lists of materials (e.g., lists of materials which were not to be used as well as substitutes for these materials; lists of materials which should not be used where possible). In addition, the ERM supporters tried to educate the designers about the various categories of materials and the options that were available to the designers. When focusing on materials, the ERM supporters tried to have the designers be aware of material choice issues when dealing with all items and at the lowest levels in the bill of materials. •Conventional ERM tools are poorly understood and rarely used: One of the questions posed to designers focused on the extent to which the designers were familiar with such ERM-oriented tools as Life Cycle Analysis, risk assessment, and the AT&T environmental rating matrix (Graedels & Allenby, 1995). A second follow-on question focused on the extent to which the designers used these tools when designing products. While many designers recognized one or more of the tools, none expressed comfort with or confidence in their ability to effectively and correctly use these tools. Several reasons were cited. The first was that the designers felt that their commitment to ERM was limited to intent or desire (i.e., We are trying to design products which are environmentally friendly whenever possible. We look for opportunities to replace hazardous materials or processes with ones which are more environmentally friendly.) Second, many designers had difficulty in either understanding or in applying the tools to their tasks. They also felt that the tools were too difficult to use, too time-consuming and that their outputs did not justify the costs in terms of time and effort.

Many designers had difficulty in identifying what exactly was meant by being

environmentally friendly. Finally, some designers felt that the tools distracted them from their major task -that of designing products. •ERM activities are defined primarily in terms of recyclability: As Hall (1993) has pointed out, there are a large number of options open to the designer interested in producing items which are more environmentally responsible. The most important of these options include: redesign, substitution, reducing material use, recycling, rebuilding, remanufacturing, reuse, internal consumption, waste segregation and spreading of risk. However, for most of the designers interviewed, the most commonly identified option focused on recyclability and material substitution (in order to improve the degree to which the product was recyclable). The reason cited for this orientation was that it was an option which was under the direct control of the designer. It was also something that was frequently measured and publicly reported (especially in the

22

case of the auto-related designers).

It was also a dimension on which both the designers and ERM

supporters could agree. Another problem focused on how to resolve unambiguously trade-offs. This problem was raised by one designer to provided the interviewers with the following situation: “You have two ways of building a part. One option is based on metal. Metal is heavy (thus it consumes more resources).

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

However, it can be recycled when it reaches the end of its product life. In contrast, we make the product out of graphite. This part is lighter (which means it uses less energy in use). In addition, it can be molded rather than machined (again resulting in less waste). However, when it reaches the end of its life, it must be disposed of in a land fill since it cannot be recycled. Which of these two options results in the greener product?” Resolving this trade-off was perceived as a major issue for designers. •A large gap separates the ERM supporters from designers: When the researchers began the study, they expected some degree of agreement to exist between the views and positions of the ERM supporters and the product designers. After all, we were dealing with firms which had experience in the integration of environmental issues into the design process. However, this initial position was not supported by the interviews. The ERM supporters shared a very similar view of ERM and product design. They believed that everyone was basically favorably disposed to being environmentally responsible. If people were not, it was because: (1) they had not been adequately informed and educated about ERM; (2) the designers were not aware of the true costs and benefits associated with ERM-related actions; (3) the designers had not been given the right measures pertaining to ERM; and, (4) the designers lacked access to the “right” set of tools for making ERM-related decisions. As a result, ERM supporters had a very common agenda: (1) educate users about ERM; (2) document and communicate costs and benefits associated with ERM actions; (3) develop better ERM-related metrics; and, (4) promote the use of existing tools and develop new tools. Many designers, however, while recognizing the need to become more environmentally responsible, had some misgivings about the ultimate effectiveness of their attempts to incorporate environmental concerns into product designs. Several reasons were cited for this hesitancy: •

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

23

•

• • • • • • • •

Several designers faced trade-offs between environmental concerns and market/product function issues which were always resolved in favor of market/product function concerns (for example, a furniture designer described his problems in designing a desk which was ergonomically and attractive to the customer. If this desk was to be designed to be environmentally friendly, then it would be either square or rectangular. However, marketing had informed product design that customers wanted designs which were ergonomic which meant that they were kidney-shaped. Such a design ran counter to the avowed environmental goals of the firm. However, these concerns were ignored because the customers wanted and were willing to pay for kidney-shaped desks.); Lack of perceived top management support. The designers saw their primary job as one of designing products (ERM was not part of their job descriptions); Designing environmentally responsible products would adversely affect corporate performance as measured in terms of cost, lead time, quality and flexibility (the primary dimensions of value); The designers were not measured on their ability to design environmentally responsible products but rather on their ability to design new products with certain cost, quality, and lead time parameters (“If I do a good job in designing an environmentally responsible product, who will know or care.”); Designing environmentally responsible products was too time-consuming and required too much additional work; The designers were not comfortable with the ERM tools (some expressed concern that to use these tools, the designers had to learn new tools and use systems different from those used in product design); What exactly is a green product (this refers to the same problem of resolving trade-offs between options previously discussed); and, The designers felt that since their firms had an ERM-related department, the designers were not responsible for the environmental content of their designs. The resulting gap between the designers and the ERM supporters is important because we see how it

could lead to frustration and friction between the two groups (since the groups seemed to assume that the other party viewed ERM issues in the same way that they did). Developing new tools would do very little to address the performance measurement concerns raised by the designers. The researchers were left at the end of the analysis section with the impression that unless this gap was closed, the future acceptance of ERM by designers would be limited and the future growth of ERM greatly constrained.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS In this study, we have explored the orientation and perceptions of two critical parties involved in the product design process: the ERM supporters and the product designers. We saw that there existed a major gap between the positions of these two groups -- a gap that seemed to bring with it major implications for the future growth and acceptance of ERM within the product design process. We also saw that ERM had made only limited headway in terms of its influence on the process of product design. These observations are based on a limited sample. As a result, no attempt to generalize beyond the sample is made. However, these findings do call for further investigations. This study, while helping to clarify some of the issues

24

involved in the process of integrating environmental issues into the design stage, has raised several points which require further study, namely: •

•

•

•

•

•

•

Defining operational the construct of “green” as in green design and green manufacturing: As previously mentioned, the lack of a precise, meaningful and easy to apply definition of green was a major stumbling block. Designers needed a standard that they could quickly and easily apply in assessing different alternatives and in evaluating various trade-offs. It is not enough to rely on the use of life cycle analysis. Life cycle analysis is often very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to use. Designers in most cases do not have the time to wait until such an analysis has been carried out. They need standards and guidelines which can be quickly applied. Validation of the results of this study through replication: In reviewing the findings and results reported in this study, it is not known whether the issues and concerns raised in this study are limited to the participants or whether they are indicative of a broader set of concerns. To make such a determination requires replication in different settings and industries (either domestic or internationally) and the development of a larger sample. The need for a quantitative assessment of the trade-offs between improved environmental performance and corporate strategic performance: One of the major concerns repeatedly raised involved worries over whether doing a better job with respect to environmental waste reduction/elimination would have a negative, positive or neutral impact on cost, lead time, quality or flexibility (the elements of value). Quantifying this trade-off is both a major task and a critical research issue. Assessment of the priority of the obstacles for improving integration of environmental concerns during the design process: During the course of the study, several obstacles were identified. These obstacles have been treated as if they are equally important. However, there is no reason to assume that this is the case in practice. It would be useful to both researchers and managers if the relative priority (in terms of both importance and ease of being able to overcome the obstacles) of the various obstacles were to be assessed. This ranking would help direct attention and effort. Assessing the impact of the structure of the design process on the effectiveness of environmental concern integration: All of the processes studied in the paper shared one important trait -- they were strongly sequential in structure. Environmental concerns, when introduced, took the form of checkpoints or exit requirements. As a result, when problems pertaining to environmental concerns were identified, the usual practice was for the designers to make the minimum level of changes necessary to meet the objectives raised. In this case, environmental concerns effectively represented performance floors and constraints. However, introducing environmental concerns into a setting where true concurrence and multi-functional design teams are present from the outset may result in a very behavior. Such environments should be studied in order to determine if the structure of the design process has an impact on how environmental concerns are dealt with and viewed by those involved. Examination of the impact of alternative performance measurement schemes on the acceptance of environmental concerns as an element of performance: Performance measurement played an important role in this study. It became essentially an obstacle because few systems measured and rewarded good performance on the environmental design. As a result, the designers either tended to ignore this dimension of product development or to downgrade its importance (and hence the amount of time devoted to this dimension). However, given the importance of performance measurement, there is a need to study alternative schemes or techniques for evaluating performance and identify those systems or schemes which are most conducive towards encouraging designers to become more aware of the environmental dimension. Need for alternative tools: A final area fruitful for further research focuses on the development, implementation and assessing of alternative tools for identifying and quantifying the environmental problems and pollution flows generated by alternative designs, process layouts or production scheme. What is critical about these new tools is that they should be based on frameworks, technologies or

25

approaches familiar to the users (in this case, the product designers). As pointed out previously, many of the designers were aware of life cycle analysis. However, they were hesitant in using them because this method of analysis was based on an approach which was relatively foreign. The first step in this stream of research is to identify what traits in an environmental tool would be considered most attractive to designers. As can be seen, this study has shown that while there are answer in this field of study, there are even more questions yet to be resolved. However, given the increasing importance of this field, these and other questions must be addressed. In addressing these questions, we must recognize the importance of beginning with design. It is at this stage that all of the critical decisions are made and the basic traits of the product (in terms of manufacturing needs, components and use) are set.

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

26

REFERENCES References

Drazin, R., and Van de Ven, A.H., “Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 30: 514-539, 1985, pp. 514-539. Gladwin, Thomas N., Kennelly, James J., Krause, Tara-Shelomith, “Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research”, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, October 1995, pp. 874-907. Hunt, Christopher B., Auster, Ellen R., “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1990, pp. 7-18. Klassen, R. And Greis, N., “Managing Environmental Improvement through Product and Process Innovation: Implications of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment”, Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 4, 1993. Lenox, Michael, Jordan, Ben, and Ehrenfeld, John, “The Diffusion of Design for Environment: A Survey of Current Practice”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, 1996, pp. 25 - 30. Mizuka, Colleen, Sandborn, Peter A., and Pitts, Greg, “Design for Environment - A Survey of Current Practices and Tools”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, 1996, pp. 1 - 6. Starik, Mark, and Rands, Gordon P., “Weaving an Integrated Web: Multilevel and Multisystem Perspectives of Ecologically Sustainable Organizations”, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, October 1995, pp. 908-935. Shrivastava, Paul, “The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability”, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, Design for the Environment: Directory of EPA’s Environmental Network for Managerial Accounting and Capital Budgeting. Washington, DC: EPA, 1994 (EPA742-B-95-002). “Electronics Engineers are Challenged to ‘Green’ their Products.” Environment Today. Vol. 4 (1993), No. 6, 17. Ackoff, Russell L. The Art of Problem Solving. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1978. Allenby, Brad. “Supporting Environmental Quality: Developing an Infrastructure for Design.” Total Quality Environmental Management, Vol. 2 (1993), No. 3, pp. 303-308. Ashleym, Steven. “Designing for the Environment.” Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 115 (1993), No. 3, pp. 5253.

27

Bemowski, K. “Sorting Fact From Fiction,” Quality Progress, Vol. 24 (1991), No. 4, pp. 21-25. Block, Jack. The Challenge of Response Sets: Unconfounding Meaning, Acquiescence, and Social Desirability in the MMPI. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965. Bronstein, S. “Southern Poll: Environment a Problem, but not a Top One,” Atlanta Journal, April 15, 1989, p. A1. Cattanach, R.E., Holdreith, J.M., Reinke, D.P., and Sibik, L.K. The Handbook of Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing: From Design and Production to Labeling and Recycling. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1995. Clark, Kim B., and Fujimoto, Takahiro. Product Development Performance. Cambridge, MA: HBS Press, 1991. Epstein, M.J. “What Shareholders Really Want,” New York Times, April 28, 1991 p. 11. Epstein, M.J. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practices for Costing and Managing an Effective Environmental Strategy. Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1996. Ettlie, John E., and Stoll, Henry W. Managing the Design-Manufacturing Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1990. Graedel, T.E., and Allenby, B.R. Industrial Ecology (AT&T). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995. Gummesson, Evert. Qualitative Methods in Management Research (Revised Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1991. Guttfield, R. “Eight of Ten Americans are Environmentalists, at Least so They Say,” Wall Street Journal, August 2, 1991, p. A1. Hall, Robert . The Soul of the Enterprise: Creating A Dynamic Vision for American Manufacturing. New York, NY: Harper Business, 1993. Hunt, C.B., and Austen, E.R. “Proactive Environmental Management: Avoiding the Toxic Trap,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 (1990), No. 2, pp. 7-18. Juran, J.M. “The Issues of Quality in Strategic Management,” Quality, Anniversary Issue, 1987, pp. 23Q28Q. Juran, J.M., and Gryna, J.F.M. Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development Through Use. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Klassen, Robert D. ìThe Integration of Environmental Issues into Manufacturing: Toward an Interactive Open-Systems Model.î Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1 (First Quarter, 1993), pp. 82-88.

28

Klassen, Robert D., and McLaughlin, Curtis P. “TQM and Environmental Excellence in Manufacturing”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 93 (1993), No. 6, pp. 14-22. Makower, Joel. Beyond the Bottom Line: Putting Social Responsibility to Work for Your Business and Your World, (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994). Messick, Samuel. Dimensions of Social Desirability. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1959. Meyer, Christopher. Fast Cycle Time. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1993. Miles, Matthew B., and Huberman, A. Michael. Qualitative Data Analysis (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994. Porter, Michael. ìAmericaís Green Strategy.î Scientific America. April 1991, p. 168. Rice, Faye. “Who Scores Best on the Environment,” Fortune, July 26, 1993. Rosewicz, B. “Americans are Willing to Sacrifice to Reduce Pollution, They Say,” Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1990, p. A1. Sanders, Tedd. Green Is Black. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1993. Smith, Richard T., and Melnyk, Steven A. Green Manufacturing (A Blue Book). Dearborn, MI, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1996 (forthcoming). Stratton, B. “Going Beyond Pollution Control,” Quality Progress, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1991, pp. 18-20. Tank, A.G. (Ed.). Global Perspectives on Total Quality. New York, NY: The Conference Board, 1991. Wheelwright, Steven C., and Clark, Kim B. Revolutionizing Product Development. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1992. References from Sime Bowman, S.A. “Design for the Environment: Tools and Techniques,” Proceedings of the Decision Sciences Institute, Orlando, FL, November 24-26, 1996. Carpenter, G.D. “Total Quality Management: A Journey to Environmental Excellence,” Environment Today, 27, 1991, p. 45. Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analysis issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1979.

29

Eisenhardt, K.M. “Building Theories from Case Studies,” Academy of Management Review, 14, 1989, p. 532-550. Epstein, M.J. Measuring Corporate Environmental Performance: Best Practices for Costing and Managing an Effective Environmental Strategy. Montvale, NJ: The IMA Foundation for Applied Research, Inc., 1996. Fiskel, J. “Quality Metrics in Design for Environment,” Total Quality Environmental Management, 3, 1993, p. 181-192. Fiskel, J. Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. Franke, D.L., and Monroe, K.R. “Innovative Use of Tools in the Design for the Environment,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, Orlando, FL, 1995, p. 113-117. Glasser, B.G., and Strauss, A.L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, 1967. Gloria, T., Saad, T., Breville, M., and O’Connel, M. “Life-Cycle Assessment: A Survey of Current Implementation,” Total Quality Environmental Management, 4, 1995, p. 33-50. Hanna, M.D., and Newman, R.W. “Operations and Environment: An Expanded Focus for TQM,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 12(5), 1995, p. 38-53. Kleiner, A. “What Does it Mean to be Green?” Harvard Business Review, 69(4), 1991, p. 38-47. May, D.R., and Flannery, B.L. “Cutting Waste with Employee Involvement Teams,” Business Horizons, 38, 1995, p. 28-38. Mizuno, S. Management for Quality Improvement: The Seven New QC Tools. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press, 1988. Porter, M.E. “America’s Green Strategy,” Scientific American, April, 1991, p. 168. Porter, M.E., and Van der Linde, C. “Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate,” Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1995a, p. 120-134. Porter, M.E., and Van der Linde, C. “Toward a New Conception of Environment-Competitiveness Relationship,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 1995b, p. 97-118. Post, J.E. “Managing as if the Earth Mattered,” Business Horizons, 34(4), 1991, p. 32-38.

30

Sarkis, J., and Rasheed, A. “Greening the Manufacturing Function,” Business Horizons, September – October, 1995, p. 17-27. Shelton, R.D. “Organizing for Successful DFE: Lessons from Winners and Losers.” Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Orlando, FL, 1995. Van Weenen, S.C., and Eeckles, J. “Design and Waste Prevention,” The Environmental Pressure, 11, 1989, p. 231-235. Williams, M. “Using Cross-Functional Teams to Integrate Environmental Issues into Corporate Decisions,” In GEMI Conference Proceedings, Corporate Quality/Environmental Management: The First Conference, Washington, D.C.: Global Environmental Management Initiative, 1991, p. 139-142. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 1994.

31

Company

omotive rd)

Q1: How have environmental concerns changed the design process? q Alternative materials

are introduced at the product concept stage

Q2: : How are environmental issues defined within the design process?

Q3: Are goals of ERM supporters and designers similar?

q Smaller, lighter

q From designers’

components q Source reduction

(solvents, soldering, done in the plastics adhesives) area (LCA) and climate q Scrap reduction control (cooling products, hoses, q Recycling of metal lubricants, antifreeze, and copper, leads, etc.) brass, etc q

dissassembly easier, as such issues are superseded by issues manufacturability, reliability, and avoidance of liability

omotive M Powertrain)

q The division

developed a joint published document which outlined specific environmental concerns for design and development q No one is aware of

the impact of this document, nor how it is being used

q

q

q

perspective, it is “tougher and tougher to find the low-hanging fruit, in terms of environ mental initiatives which also save money. CFC elimination saved a lot of money. There are not many other areas left.”

q Major assessments are

q Difficult to make

Q4: What are the major obstacles for integration of environmental issues into design?

“Any time you have to meet a government regulation after innovation stage, it costs too much money. We have used QFD tools to integrate q environmental concerns in the past - the question is, can we integrate future regulations into current innovations?

Representative Comments from Designers:

Conventional metrics are used to measure environmental, including cost, cycle time, cost performance (5 M's), as well as all emissions, solid waste, etc - however, these are not tied into individual products. This makes it difficult to justify at the design stage.” “Vehicles last longer today than they ever have before. Technology is changing so quickly that cars quickly become obsolete the PLC (useful life) far outlasts their actual life.”

q North American q Input of environmental Environmental q Operations is not engineer into decisions is issues defined effective - they often limited to the plant level, largely as a ask the since most decisions are “checklist” of q environmental made at the design stage. issues that must be engineer to provide reviewed – no reports, but never verification occurs q It is difficult to substitute materials once the provide help with vehicle is in production. Focus on reducing problem solving. significant fines q Environmental input and remediation involve looking for costs associated compliance with with VOC’s, environmental laws, hazardous waste, as there is little etc. support from top management.

omotive lco Electronics) ice Furniture rman Miller) ice Furniture elcase) ice Furniture

32

q

“Customers will not reward you if you are environmentally friendly, but will punish you if you are not".

q

"How do I measure whether it's green or not?"

q

“Manufacturing does not look beyond the customer's front door, which is where we deliver the product. There are no easy methods in design. Designers should be concerned with end of life, but these responsibilites are not designed in. Reliability and durability can no longer be associated with the length of a car's useful life, because of changes in technology.”

“My nickname at the plant level is "Mother Nature", and I am often viewed as a "cop". “ “While often handing out I generally only meet with someone because there is a problem. There is also little support, since "resource generation is just not there in the secondary markets."

worth) mputers mputers mputers scription Drugs

33