Mapping the green product development field ... - CiteSeerX

Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 409–425 www.cleanerproduction.net

Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives H. Baumann a,∗, F. Boons b, A. Bragd c b

a Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Environmental Systems Analysis, SE 412 96 Go¨teborg, Sweden Erasmus University, Erasmus Centre for Environmental Studies, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands c GRI, School of Economics and Commercial Law, Go¨teborg University, Box 600, SE 405 30 Go¨teborg, Sweden

Abstract The literature study on which we report here is based on a cross-disciplinary database containing around 650 articles, taken from the engineering, management, and policy studies disciplines. We report on this literature using a model distinguishing between the product development processes as such, and different contexts, such as the company as a whole, the product chain and society. In addition, a distinction is made between empirically informed research and more conceptual work. Confronting the references in the database with this model, we identify several white spots on the map of research on environmental product development. These seem to be the understanding of the use and role of tools on a micro level (within companies), and an understanding of how this micro-level interacts with the macro level (between companies and in public policies). Also, a strategic orientation on the product development process within companies is underdeveloped. We argue that, in order to make an environmental optimisation of resource use and a minimisation of emissions, a systems perspective is necessary, both in research and practice.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental product development; Green marketing; Ecodesign; Supply chain; IPP

1. Introduction This literature review started with the impression that there has been a lot of talk of environmental product development (EPD) over the years, but relatively little change in practice. When entering a company, metaphorically speaking, through the door of the environmental department, many environmental projects are presented. However, when entering the company through the main entrance, environmental issues seem to be a much smaller concern. Although, there are several examples of green products, presentations of good green products tend to repeat the same ones: the wind-up radio, the solar mower and inflatable furniture. According to a US marketing survey, 10% of all new products were claimed to be ‘green’ by their producers in 1990 [1]. Today, in the good examples database of UNEP’s working group for sustainable product development (SPD), some 70

∗

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Baumann); [email protected] (F. Boons); [email protected] (A. Bragd).

examples are listed [2]. We find these numbers low, and want to find out why. Our initial idea of why product development was not ‘green enough’ was that the product development was maybe not seen in relation with its context: product systems, business processes and the society, and the environmental issues at all these levels. The purpose to understand contextual aspects is reflected in the treatment of the collected material, which has been sorted according to an analytical framework. The framework distinguishes between, for example, product development processes as such and product development in relation to different contexts (the company as a whole, the product chain and society). Another distinction made in the framework is that between different types of research results, e.g. between more conceptual work and empirically informed research. This latter distinction reflects upon approximately known suggestions for EPD and implementation of EPD, respectively. This literature review aims therefore at being more than a mere description of the literature on EPD. Its objective is also to analyse the state-of-the-art to see whether there are gaps in the literature. We provide an

0959-6526/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 1 5 - X

410

H. Baumann et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 409–425

analysis of research practice rather than of societal developments, although, obviously the two are related. Hopefully, our perspective on EPD research will be a fresh one and also somewhat provocative, as it is grounded in a general interest in environmental management and policy-making. In Section 2, we present the analytical framework. Section 3 describes our research strategy and the databases we used in compiling our set of references. Section 4 describes what the references tell us about EPD. Then, we provide an analysis and some directions for future research (Section 5).

2. Framework Our framework (Fig. 1) is based on the idea that the development of a green product is a process within the internal processes of a company, which in turn are embedded in a product chain (the other actors have some role in producing, consuming, recycling, and disposing the product), as well as society (media, politics, technological developments, etc.). In order to sort our material, we made two types of classifications of the collected material. The first concerns the area focused in the collected material, i.e. what part of the model is dealt with. We have divided product development and its context into four levels: Level 1 deals with the product development process and its tools as such. Level 2 deals with the product development process in a company context, relating it to business strategy and management, marketing, etc. Level 3 deals with the product development process in a product chain perspective, including the interaction with, for example, suppliers, customers, waste handlers, etc. Level 4 deals with product development in relation to the policy-making process. The second classification of the collected material concerns the type of research presented in the publication, i.e. whether empirically grounded results or more con-

Fig. 1.

ceptual work is presented. The categorisation is made in order to distinguish among the different contributions, suggestions and conclusions concerning EPD. In ‘conceptual’ papers, propositions for EPD are typically made. In ‘empirical’ papers, experiences from practice are dealt with.

3. Data collection The literature search was organised so that the field of EPD was covered from the perspective of three disciplines: business, engineering, and policy. The framework presented in the previous section was applied to all three areas. As each discipline works more or less with its own literature and databases, the data collection was organised accordingly. This separation makes it possible to see to what extent there is an overlap between the three areas, i.e. whether ideas are shared or not. Ten databases were searched in total, most of them containing articles. A list of databases included in the study is presented in Table 1. In addition to that, two library databases were searched for book titles as well as tables of contents of certain journals known to cover EPD but not abstracted in any of the databases. One example of such a journal is the Journal of Sustainable Product Design. The search terms employed (Table 2) indicated ‘EPD’ in different ways. Synonyms abound, and search terms differed slightly for the three perspectives owing to the different use of words among business and policy researchers and engineers. For example, the term ‘green’ gives a relatively large number of hits when searching a business database, whereas the term ‘environmental’ would be more effective when searching an engineering database. For a list of search terms employed, see Table 2. The data collection was conducted in four steps. 1. Screening of databases, journals, conference proceedings, etc, to find references to publications related to EPD from 1970 and later. 2. All selected references were coded according to our framework (levels 1–4 and empirical/conceptual

Product development in context.


411

Table 1 Description of searched databases Database Business search ABI-Inform Helecon International

General Business File International

Engineering search Compendex

SCI

Uncover Policy search IBSS Extra ABI-Inform INFOMIL Online Contents

Description

Range

ABI-Inform covers about 1000 management, marketing and business journals Helecon International is a combination of nine European and international databases on economy, business, management, trade and labour relations. It covers journals, books, dissertations, reports and conferences General Business Files is a combination of three databases on business, management and marketing. It covers company information and about 1000 journals

1970–1999 1980–1999

1970–1999

Compendex covers all areas of engineering and technology and 1970–1999 to some extent also management of technology. It covers 2600 journals, and selected conferences, reports and books Science citation index (SCI) is a general science database. It 1987–1999 covers ⬎3300 of the world’s leading scientific journals in a broad range of subjects, including environmental sciences and environmental engineering A multidisciplinary database covering articles from 18,000 1988–1999 journals from all subject areas International Library of Social Sciences ABI-Inform covers about 1000 management, marketing and business journals Dutch database specialised in environmental references Online Contents lists references in scientific journals (economics, social and political sciences)

December 1980–December 1998 1970–1999

1986–1999

Table 2 Search terms employed in the literature search Business:

Engineering:

Policy:

Green∗product Green marketing Business∗green product development Green∗product∗development Green∗product∗design Sustainable∗product∗development Sustainable∗product∗design Environmental decision-making

Environmental∗product∗development Environmental∗product∗design Green∗product∗development Green∗product∗design Sustainable∗product∗development Sustainable∗product∗design

Environmental policy∗product Green∗product Green product(s)∗policy Green product(s)∗legislation Eco design∗policy Eco design∗legislation Product chain Ecolabelling Recycling (Extended) producer responsibility

research). References were entered in a searchable reference manager. 3. Identification of most important/central references. As some article databases hold references to articles in trade journals and newsmagazines, a screening for research-based articles had to be made. This was made by searches in certain business and engineering databases. Also, since some references are available only as abstracts in article databases, acquisition of full-text publications was acquired for the most important of these references. Then those documents were studied.

4. Check of references in the most important publications for additional references. 4. Results Judging from the numbers of references, research on EPD got a foothold (within research) about ten years ago. A sharp rise in the number of publications is seen in the beginning of the 1990s (Fig. 2). The strong increase from 1990 may be somewhat biased since some of the databases used for getting the references were started in that year.

412


Fig. 2. Number of publications on EPD in the three fields (business, engineering and policy).

We will now discuss the content of the database from the three perspectives respectively. 4.1. The business perspective The database consists of approximately 325 references published between the years 1970–1999. Most of the references originate from the beginning of the 1990s. Most of the literature concerns level 2, i.e. green product development in a company context. In our analysis of the literature on green product development from a business perspective, we distinguish three areas: (1) strategic decision making and problem solving in business and product development; (2) product design; and (3) green marketing. 4.1.1. Strategic issues regarding green product development activities According to some authors, “it pays to be green”: firms can increase profits if they work towards environmental objectives, lobby for tighter regulation and make the environment the central organising principle of their business [3]. According to this view, the environmental problems that society has to deal with are large and firms could profit from contributing to their solutions. Thus, they should develop their business strategy accordingly, involving environmental issues into their core decisionmaking processes. Using the search terms environmental decision, green decisions, and environmental decision making, we find a diverse set of references. In part, this stems from the complexity of environmental issues in product development, which sometimes results from confused discussions on the nature and seriousness of environmental problems. Also, the authors of this literature seem to have difficulty in dealing with the direction of improvements. One early way of problem solving has been by

the dominant view in the literature of meeting R&D management in terms of a set of tools and techniques [4]. The tool and technique approach is a prescriptive way of problem solving and the environment is not seen as a primary strategic management issue. Roome [5] adds: “developing sustainable forms of business and building environmental considerations into business strategy and R&D practice require new forms of thinking into existing structures and systems”. Five years later, Roome deals with integration and discusses that only if sense-making and learning systems within organisations begin to reflect these external understandings of the impacts of organisations in the environmental domain, the environment will become integrated into the decisions of business. It is in the gap between environmental niche and self-identity that managers have an access point through which they can learn ways to integrate the environment into business decisions [6]. Simon et al. [7] discuss the question of how decision making and problem solving change when attention turns from the behaviour of isolated individuals to the behaviour of groups of the same individuals in companies. When people take on organisational positions, they adapt to the goals and values of their responsibilities. Their decisions are influenced substantially by the patterns of information flow and communications among various organisation units. Organisations sometimes find themselves incapable of acting. Learning is of particular importance for successful adaptation to an environment that is changing rapidly and needs to be integrated further in decision-making. The literature provides examples of how environmental change in product development could take place, for instance from continuous improvement and through step-by-step implementation of products to new green products like a solar mower [8]. On an organisational level, learning in organisations could follow from scenario planning and assessment of environmental impacts of products and processes in order to develop R&D strategies or to help guide organisational strategies [4]. The aim was to be able to respond to rapid changes in business environment and to aid the formation of business strategies [9,10,4]. Historically, a principal finding in a survey of R&D management literature state that little has been written about the environment, despite the key role that R&D has to play in meeting the emerging environmental challenges [4]. They state that general management’s contribution to the literature on R&D management and the environment includes articles which take the ‘best’ of current practice in a number of companies and combine these to create a model of business, the environment and R&D. Models such as Kleiner’s [11] description of what it means to be green, or Cairncross’s [12] descriptions of how European companies are tackling the problems of recycling are examples that focus on one aspect of the design process. These are some examples of what


has been collected in the area of the environment and strategic decision making. 4.1.2. Product design and the environment Products affect the environment at many points in the chain from raw material extraction to waste management. These environmental effects result from interrelated decisions made at various stages of a product’s lifecycle. Once a product moves from the drawing board to the production line, its environmental attributes are largely fixed. Therefore it is necessary to support the design function with tools and methodologies that enable an assessment of the environmental consequences (such as emissions, exposure, and effects) in each phase. Environmental requirements in the design process are described as minimising raw materials and energy consumption, waste generation, health and safety risk and ecological degradation [13]. Product design also constitutes an active interface between the two sides, demand (consumers) and supply (manufacturers), both pressuring and responding to it. This is why environmental issues need to be considered in the design process. The terminology of product design integrating environmental issues has changed during the last decade. The original term, green design, has been replaced by ecological design, environmentally sound or environmentally sensitive design or ecodesign [14], DfE, design for the environment [15], and environmentally responsible design [16]. The transition from ‘green’ to ‘eco’ to ‘sustainable’ design represents a broadening of scope in theory and practice and also to some extent an increasingly critical perspective on ecology and design. The changing terminology represents a different time perspective and gives a framework of how the subject has emerged [17]. It is also interesting to note the different use of terminology in different continents. The term DfE seems to be the American term and ecodesign the European term [18]. It is just in the last few years that the term sustainable design has received greater acceptance. The words are more or less synonymous, but they indicate a shift in attitudes [17]. The terms have been defined as for example DfE: “design for environment is the systematic process by which firms design products and proceses in an environmentally conscious way” [19]. Or for ecodesign: “the environment helps to define the direction of design decisions and the environment becomes a copilot in product development” [20]. In this process the environment is given the same status as more traditional industrial values as for example profit, functionality or image. Another attempt described is the term SPD. It is sometimes used as a synonym of green product development. It is defined as a “resource-, context-, and future-oriented product development aimed at providing elementary needs, a better quality of life, equity and environmental harmony” [21]. It goes beyond, for instance, ecodesign,

413

which usually focuses on the environmental optimisation of existing products. SPD is essentially concerned with changing patterns of consumption and production and knowledge transfer between North and South. 4.1.2.1. The process of product design O’Riordan has developed a classification of the worldviews of members of ecological movements into technocentric and ecocentric [22]. This is a useful distinction in the EPD field as well. In the mid-to-late 1980s the predominant form of green design represented a light green, technocentric or shallow ecological approach, but there are also tracks of darker green or deeper ecological design. Questions of alternative or green lifestyles were raised and came to be debated again when green consumerism in the late 1980s arrived [17]. In Europe, one of the first attempts to integrate environmental considerations into product design was the term ecological functionalism [23], which contained an ecological checklist for designers and manufacturers which formed the base for a working group for ecology and design in the “Verband Deutscher IndustrieDesigner”. In the Netherlands, the Advisory Council for Research on Nature and the Environment met already in 1984–1985 [21]. Also in the UK, the Design council held an exhibition called ‘the green designer’ in 1986 organised by Paul Burall, Design Council and John Elkington, environmental consultant. Here, Elkington showed that there was no longer a conflict between a green approach to design and business success thereby demonstrating that green design was not ‘anti-industry’ [24]. In the literature, this was noticed a few years later with references such as ‘Green design’ [25], Design for the Environment, [26] and Green design [27]. Green consumerism arrived in 1988 with the publication of the Green Consumer Guide [28] and the Green Consumer Week by the Friends of the Earth in 1988. During the following years, the practicalities of greening products and industry, from a marketing perspective, were quite visible in the literature. By the end of the 1980s, the focus of attention moved towards global consumption and distribution. The issues on the agenda were fundamental choices regarding lifestyles, patterns of production and consumer priorities. In the 1990s, the oppositional nature of ecological design is more apparent, since pragmatic attempts to apply ecological principals to design seem inevitably to challenge existing practices and ideologies. Since the 1960s, there has been an ongoing discussion in the literature about the extent to which an ecological world-view represents a new paradigm requiring a fundamental challenge to the industrial society or just minor modification of existing values and business practices. Related to this latter view, several authors suggest that traditional and existing theories within management, sociology, etc. have substantial potential for exploring and understanding organ-

414


isations’ interaction with the natural environment [29,31,32]. DfE, ecodesign or environmentally conscious design is a relatively new discipline. Both the industry and the academia use success stories to prove conceptually that designing environmental compatibility into a product offers unique opportunities for improving performance in the marketplace. Alongside this, there is an abundance of references dealing with the issues of product development and design by giving examples of new instruments, tools and guidelines for ecodesign. Burall’s guide for managers and designers on product development and the environment explains how the objectives of environmentally responsible product design parallel management objectives: both seek the most efficient use of resources [25]. Brezet and van Hemel’s UNEP manual is often used as a reference material on ecodesign. The manual’s aim is to support industrial business worldwide to introduce systematic ecodesign [14]. Catalogues were introduced, for example the one of US best practice of DfE, [33] which take a look at what had been introduced by demonstrating the practice of DfE. Richards defines the role of engineering and management [33]. The engineer’s task includes selecting appropriate material, designing products for recycling, reuse, remanufacture and waste, while management’s challenge is to ensure that the different players like raw material supplier, systems of delivery and recyclers, employees and consumers understand and achieve the environmental goals. There is an abundance of examples showing companies that have increased their environmental responsibility and involvement in product stewardship programs [34]. Companies such as Xerox Corp and Bayer AG have developed programs that take into the environmental impact of their products’ entire life cycle into consideration. These types of articles serve a purpose by giving good examples of how to work with environmental responsibility but they do not provide a lot of ideas on how to implement business practices and strategies. Also, several companies such as AT&T, General Electric, IBM, Procter and Gamble, Whirlpool, Electrolux, Xerox, etc are today overexposed as practical examples of ecodesign. One explanation for the lack of relevant business strategies in design is provided by Thurston: “Environmentally conscious design and manufacturing (ECDM) presents one of the most difficult challenges engineers have ever faced. It requires them to consider issues outside their area of expertise, far beyond the boundaries of the individual firm and over time periods much, much longer then the typical product-planning horizon” [35]. 4.1.3. Green marketing “What has happened to green marketing?” ask Crane and Peattie. “During our survey, when we had reached the end of the 1990s, we could see that, despite being

the source of much activity and considerable research, green marketing gives the impression of being significantly unsuccessful” [36]. This can be compared to the beginning of the 1990s when green marketing was in fashion and consumers were expressing an environmental concern and a readiness to buy green products. The win–win concept supported by among others Porter and van der Linde [37] and Elkington [38] encouraged companies to look further to integrate environmental considerations in their business strategies. Much conceptual literature in the area of green marketing strategies stems from this period. But more importantly: Why do we not see more green marketing today? Crane and Peattie explain this in the following way [36]. From a theoretical point of view, green marketing has been restricted by its emphasis on purchasing. Environmental improvements have been predicated to a great extent on consumers expressing their environmental interest in purchasing products. The win–win philosophies have created expectations that green products would be environmentally superior to traditional products but also competitive in terms of price and technical performance. One can only agree with what Crane and Peattie have written on the future of green marketing: green marketing should not be written off as unsuccessful but as largely untested. Several authors have formulated a definition of environmental, ecological or green marketing [39–41]. Especially social responsibility of businesses and societal marketing have influenced the environmental marketing concept [42]. Green marketing is defined by Peattie and Charter as: “The holistic management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying the needs of consumers and society, in a profitable and sustainable way” [43]. The holistic view is underlined by several authors who express the need for an integration of environmental considerations in marketing and product design. As a consequence, the product development process must have a broader focus if green issues are to be addressed and integrated in a systematic and proactive way [44]. In fact, business is responding already to environmental issues with environmental marketing initiatives geared towards meeting the demand for environmentally friendly processes, products and packaging. An empirical work analyses environmentally conscious product strategies based on data collection in the UK and Germany [45]. Results indicate that UK firms have already started incorporating ecological concerns in their product strategies, where important factors of the achievement of successful environmental conscious strategies were reported. New products are an important part of environmental marketing, and the focus of new product development (NPD) must be on improving the primary and environmental performance of a product rather then merely introducing cosmetic changes [46]. There are several


attempts in the literature to define a green product [28,47]. Some studies deal with designing and marketing green products [48–50]. But there is still much confusion on what constitutes an environmentally friendly product, for consumers as well as for companies [51]. Several attempts have been made to collect all marketing and business perspectives on the greening of marketing practice in edited books like green marketing and environmental marketing [52–54]. Other empirical studies cover, for instance, the identification of factors that promote environmental NPD for both managers and researchers. This could, for example, be benchmarking processes (for comparing the environmental performance with other products), the role of the environmental co-ordinator for achieving commercial and environmental excellence, and the integration of environmental professionals with a business focus in the NPD process [45]. Their study is one of the few examples that discuss organisational issues in green product development. Others examples are articles by Bragd [55], Pujari and Wright [45] as well as Polonsky and Ottman [56] who have made a review of the literature on driving forces and stakeholders for integrating environmental issues into product development decisions. By using a factor analysis, they identified underlying dimensions of perceived driving forces for environmental responsiveness at product development level in manufacturing firms. Pujari and Wright found that for improved effective environmental performance, the following organisational issues are critical: functional co-ordination, effective environmental information management, top management support and close customer and supplier relationships [45]. 4.1.4. Summing up the business perspective The following comments can be made with regard to the database content: 1. Less than 10 percent of the material is empirically based or tested. 2. Very often the ‘tone’ or the ‘voice’ in the conceptual material is normative and prescriptive, for example: “business and society must meet/should be responsible to the challenge of sustainability”. 3. It is not possible to present a general explanation of green product development based on this literature review. Several competing views are presented, and as a whole, they provide, at best, a fragmented approach to the issue. Most articles lack a business focus, ignoring the financial, managerial and competitive implications. Few references deal with the integration of management issues, environmental issues and product development activities. Only at the end of the 1980s the link or the recognition of the missing link between business and green product development, became a topic for discussion.

415

4. Green product development is often treated in the literature as a new subject. The platform of departure is not current product development theory or practice. In contrast, other articles have questioned the importance of green products and the need for change of existing theories or current business practices. 5. Most references reflect a Western perspective. There is little emphasis on the developing countries and their specific environmental problems. 4.2. The engineering perspective Judging from literature, the engineer’s research work on EPD revolves much around systematising the EPD process, finding ways of describing environmental aspects of material selection and generalised ways of dealing with environmental information. In short, research with this perspective concerns development of environmental design strategies, methodologies and techniques for product development, or just ‘tools’. The term ‘tool’ will be used in the following as shorthand for any systematic means for dealing with environmental issues during the product development process. Tools of many different kinds were found in the literature, ranging from simple checklists to sophisticated computer-based expert systems, including technical strategies such as material substitution or dematerialisation. In all, in the literature review, more than 150 tools were identified. The majority of the publications refer to tools intended for use within the product development process as such (i.e. level 1 tools), fewer require interaction of product development with its context (i.e. levels 2–4 tools). To a large extent, the literature on EPD perceives the ‘greening’ of product development as general product development with an add-on use of some environmental tool(s). In turn, this view leads to questions about, for example, how tools fit into the product development process, and at what stage in the process they should be used. Unfortunately, with regard to these questions, the number of publications reporting on user aspects and on the effectiveness of tools is far lower than the numbers of publications that (conceptually) describe tools. 4.2.1. Type of tools To obtain some overview among the many tools identified in the literature, the tools were sorted into different categories (see Table 3).

Table 3 Categories of tools for EPD Frameworks Checklists and guidelines Rating and ranking tools

Analytical tools Software and expert systems Organising tools

416


4.2.1.1. Frameworks Frameworks typically contain general ideas about what should guide the environmental considerations in the product development process. These frameworks go under well-known names, such as Design for Environment, Life Cycle Design, Design for Recycling, Ecodesign, Design for Sustainability, etc (see also Section 4.1.2). The different frameworks have more or less similar goals. Their difference depends partly on, in what discipline they originally were developed, partly on what basic assumption underlies the framework, and partly on how ‘green’ is conceptualised (as environmental, ecological, sustainable, etc) in the debate at the time of the formulation of the framework. Design for Environment is a design strategy that has evolved from the ‘Design for X’ approach, where X can represent manufacturability, reliability, etc, whereas Life Cycle Design particularly addresses a systems approach [57]. Common types of DfX approaches are Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly. Their status is closely linked to the existence of environmental regulation calling for this. Frameworks often come with a ‘toolkit’ as well as guidelines and technical strategies for the ‘greening’ of a product. Examples of such strategies are product life extension, reduced material intensity/dematerialisation, and material selection/ substitution [57]. 4.2.1.2. Checklists and guidelines Checklists and guidelines are generally tools of a qualitative nature, only some are semi-quantitative [58]. Checklists typically list issues to consider in the process of product development. They are used for checking whether requirements (some of them formulated as quantitative targets) are fulfilled or not. These checklists can be quite long, with many issues to consider: product performance (e.g. energy consumption), product parts (e.g. disassembly time), the function of the product, etc. [14,57]. 4.2.1.3. Rating and ranking tools Rating and ranking tools are generally relatively simple, quantitative tools. A rating system typically provides a pre-specified scale for assessment, for example 0–7 (negligible to extreme impact) as in the rating system of Nissen et al. [59] In their system, the relative impact (0–7) of each material is multiplied by the amount of material used, and then added up for the product. This means that the designer has a much more limited need for data compared to a LCA. Also, different metrics systems can be included in this category. Examples of simple metrics systems are MIPS [60] and one described by Criel et al. for the electronics industry [61]. This type of simple quantitative tools are often seen as alternatives to life cycle assessment (LCA), which is considered too complex, too time-consuming, too expensive, etc. [62] Nevertheless, the selection of

which metrics to use is sometimes based on detailed LCA studies [61]. A way of combining different metrics is by presenting them in the form of an eco-compass. A particular ecocompass method called the Sustainability Radar (STAR∗) combines metrics that describe the three dimensions of sustainability: ecoefficiency, social productivity and sufficiency [63].

4.2.1.4. Analytical tools Analytical tools are generally rather comprehensive, quantitative tools for evaluating and measuring the environmental performance of products. Proponents for this type of tools find that guidelines and checklists are not sufficient for engineers and managers to communicate effectively, and they emphasise that tools, with a certain rigor, are needed [64]. One of the most important analytical tools is LCA. LCA is not only important as an analytical tool. LCA is also used as means for developing simpler metrics (see previous category of tools). Other analytical tools are, for example, risk analysis and total cost assessment. Willems and Stevels have developed an example of an economic tool for ‘environmental’ assessment, the Environmental Design Cost (EDC) model [65]. It is based on the assumption that environmental improvements often go hand in hand with cost reductions, which is why only product costs related to environmental design changes (production and end-of-life) need to be considered. An economic tool that has a wider perspective is suggested by Samli [66]. The tool introduces long-term concerns into marketing by comparing the estimated production cost (private cost) and the cost of environmental impact (public cost). This can enable the manufacturer to distinguish between friendly and unfriendly products and thereby improve long-run benefits to society and improve the quality of life (QOL). Among the analytical tools are also various ‘combination tools’, i.e. tools that attempt to integrate environmental aspects other aspects (technical, economic, etc). The purpose of combination tools is to deal with tradeoffs between environmental requirements and the other requirements in the EPD process in some systematic way. LCA is often used to describe the environmental aspects in such combination tools. In all, around 65 references refer to LCA in some way (as analytical tool, as basis for simpler metrics or in combination tools). An example of a combination tool that deals with trade-offs quantitatively is the Trade-off Modelling method of Carnahan and Thurston [64]. Specifically, the method integrates statistical process control, costs and environmental performance as an LCA into a multi-objective design optimisation formulation. The mathematical rigor is thought to help in making difficult trade-off decisions. Trade-offs can also be dealt with qualitatively, as in concurrent engineering [67].


4.2.1.5. Software and expert systems The ambition with software and expert systems is to handle enormous amounts of environmental information and at the same time be as quick to use as simple tools. Expert systems are designed as a way to avoid the need for elaborate data collection or environmental expertise. Further, simplified guidelines may be misapplied by environmentally untrained designers, be inappropriate for the particular design context or offer insufficient resolution to distinguish between alternatives [68]. The conclusion of developers of expert systems and software is that designers need more rigorous environmental analytical capabilities. Some of these tools handle only environmental aspects, e.g. LEADS-II, a knowledge-based system for ranking DfE options, [69] and APES, an environmental information manager tool at Apple Computer, [70] while others aim at integration. 4.2.1.6. Organising tools Organising tools give directions on how to organise for example a sequence of tasks or the co-operation of certain business functions and stakeholders in the EPD process. Johnson and Gay describe a way of identifying key DfE issues consisting of the product development teams interviewing potential customers about environmental, health and safety (EHS) issues and the environmental experts within the company about EHS regulation [71]. The identified issues are then placed within the companies’ ordinary DfE matrix. Another approach is to organise ecodesign workshops for awareness raising or for discussing tools and strategies [14]. 4.2.2. Tools at the four levels Here follows an overview of how the different types of tools address the four levels of our framework. The majority of environmental tools are ‘level 1 tools’ (Table 4), i.e. they are intended for use within the product development process as such. Fewer require interaction of product development with its context (i.e. levels 2– 4 tools). Level 1 tools are those intended for the product development process as such. A great variation of tools is Table 4 Overview of number of publications found in the engineering search

Within (L1) Within Within Within

Conceptual

Empirical

Tools

Other

Tools

Other

product development

75

20

38

12

the company (L2) the product chain (L3) society (L4)

34 29 5

19 26 9

12 7 1

22 26 4

417

found in this category. In fact, tools from all categories are found here, although certain ones appear more frequently in literature than others. Those for which most references are found are LCA and LCA-related tools (simplified LCA, LCA-based metrics, LCA in combination with economic tools), software and expert systems, and frameworks, matrices and guidelines. Together, they represent both simple and sophisticated tools. This variation reveals that there are many ideas about how and when environmental considerations should be integrated in the product development process. Level 2 tools are tools designed to integrate the product development process with other processes within the company, for example to manufacturing, purchasing, environmental management systems and business strategy formulation. Many suggest different ways of using environmental management systems for driving continuous improvement in the EPD process and the setting up of environmental targets for the EPD process in line with the company environmental policy [30,72,73]. A tool for linking environmental considerations to the business strategy of companies is the STRETCH tool (Selection of Strategic Environmental Challenges) [74]. Several authors call for radical improvement and some suggest ways for achieving big changes. Some emphasise that individual companies can ‘leapfrog’ with their design strategies (i.e. a direct shift from one mix of producers and services to another) through entrepreneurial spirit [75], while others emphasise that jumps take more than the individual companies and thus call for intensified stakeholder dialogue [76]. Level 3 tools are designed to integrate the product development process into the management of the product chain. The emergence of a system-thinking paradigm has led to call for an increased focus on interorganisational relationships in the product chain. Supply-chain management is seen as a vehicle for moving environmental information through the supply chain to the product developers [77,78]. The way to move environmental information from supplier to producers is mainly through standardised questionnaires available via Internet. One example it the PIBA/CIQC questionnaire for the computer industry described by [79]. Another one is the EcoQuest questionnaire developed by Brink et al. [80] The Eco-Quest is designed so that it actually offers suppliers a self-audit system so that they can establish their relative environmental merit. Most level 3 tools focus upon the ‘upstream’ interaction with the suppliers. However, a few of the downstream tools were also been found. One ties eco-labelling criteria into LCA, [81] and another involves customer interviews for the identification of key EPD issues [71]. Level 4 tools are tools that are designed to focus on industry-wide or society-wide interaction. At this level,

418


systems for information exchange in supply chains are believed to be too fragmented, given the interconnectedness of global industry. Goossenaerts and Thoben call for global information networks to support life cycle management in a global economy [82]. Other ways of interacting are also proposed in the literature. An example is the Common Sense Initiative in which stakeholder groups, so called life cycle teams consisting of representatives for all steps in the life cycle of a product together with policy makers, interact for creating protocols for life cycle management [83]. 4.2.3. Summing up the engineering perspective 1. Most references are conceptual; there are relatively few references that describe the diffusion of the tools, experience of how well they work in the product development process and how useful they are for actually reducing the environmental impacts of products. Most publications, with an empirical content, report on the testing of new tools. These are often developed in universities and tested by the researchers in a company case study. There are also reports of companies developing their own tools. However, these reports mostly describe the tools as such rather than how they work in practice, as a part of the business process. 2. The different tools are not equally ‘green’. Some tools focus on the recycling step or on global warming impacts, while others take the whole life cycle into account. This variation partly represents different priorities on how environmental issues are best tackled. Partly, there is an intention that tools should complement each other, but it is somewhat surprising that no references were found that discuss how toolkits are best assembled in order to effectively reach environmental improvement. In contrast, toolkits seem to be put together with regard how different tools best fit with the work process [57,84,85]. 3. The timing of the use of a tool during the product development process is important. It is generally recognised that the conceptual stage is the most influential one with regard to the product’s environmental performance (although no empirical references have been found to support this). Consequently, many tool developers claim to address this particular stage. Some even try to lift certain environmental considerations of the later design stages to this stage (e.g. the recyclability map developed by Lee and Ishii [86], and the Eco-Forecast tool, a Design for Disassembly for the end of conceptual design stage, developed by Luttrop [87]. And yet, designers feel that tools for the early design stages are lacking [88]. 4. According to Lenox et al. [19], it is DfE guidelines and checklists that are most commonly employed. Their explanation for this is that the diffusion of DfE is in the early stages. A number of firms have formal-

ised DfE programmes, but without formal sets of procedures, methodologies or routines. A more recent survey revealed that environmental aspects are mostly dealt with in the later design stages, although, most companies recognise the need for early integration of environmental aspects [88,89]. Consequently, tools for the early design stages (pre-specification) were called for. 5. A few studies report on the effectiveness of tools, i.e. whether the tools have had a directly attributable influence to the environmental performance of the product. One document reports that in Danish companies, 30–50% environmental improvement of products have been implemented over a few years by companies working with the EDIP tools [90]. One should perhaps, add that some of these companies also have been working together with the Danish tool developers over a number of years, and their role for the environmental improvement was not analysed. The results of two other studies are somewhat disappointing. In a study of four generations of business telephones, [91] it is concluded that DfE guidelines have not had as great an impact on the environmental performance of products as may have been desired. The fourth generation telephones developed according to state-of-the-art DfE, performed worse than the third generation telephone in some important aspects such as weight. In the other study, Dunnett et al. [92] reviewed five models from seven years with regard to how well disassembly went. Since products designed for recycling are now being returned to recyclers, it has become possible to evaluate DfE guidelines. Varied results are reported. To some extent, disassembly of products was improved to a varying extent with subsequent models. However, many nonDfE factors seem to influence the final product, thus influencing disassembly performance. Great changes in strategies for manufacturing, purchasing and product development are not reflected in the DfE guidelines; this may explain why they are not very effective. 6. Environmental tools seem to be difficult to use. In a study by Olsson, it was concluded that technical evaluation methods in expert systems are relatively easy to learn for product developers while an understanding of environmental information seems to be difficult to transfer from environmental expert to product developers [93]. In a protocol study on the use of an ecodesign computer tool, it was concluded that a degree of knowledge was necessary to use to ‘environmental data and priority template’ of the software. The type of necessary knowledge was, for example, a multi-disciplinary team with an environmental expert [94]. Proper instruction on how to work with tools is thus, at least as important as the tools themselves. Bakker describes the importance of the


scope of the application of LCA tools. Instead of narrow product component studies, LCAs with a broader perspective at the product system level are preferable and in better tune with the informational needs of designers [95]. The importance of organisational issues has been described by many authors [91,96,97]. 7. If not the tools, then what? It seems that, at least according to design engineers themselves, that environmental improvements are mainly achieved thanks to stricter regulations [98]. Existence of tools is not sufficient, perhaps not even necessary. Management and organisation seem to be more important than the tools. Simply having an EPD toolkit available for designers is not sufficient to ensure effective implementation. Management procedures are, according to Poole et al., more crucial and tools should be regarded as an aid to management. According to Ehrenfeld and Lenox, there is even a disconnection between activities at the corporate level and those on the product level. Typically, they say, that the firms that have been successful were so without relying heavily on tools [96,97]. 4.3. The policy perspective The policy perspective deals with inter-organisational relationships (those that cross the boundary of an individual company) bearing on the greening of products (L3 and L4). Both levels are represented in the literature database with 232 references. Not all of these references are easy to classify. Some fall on the boundary between the two levels, as they deal both with processes within the product chain and with attempts to influence these processes. Such references have been classified in both L3 and L4. The distinction between conceptual and empirical references is sometimes equally difficult to make. Due to the fact that the green product field is relatively new, most references are of a conceptual nature: they provide a vision of what is possible, how problems could be solved. In a number of cases, such references also present some empirical material which serves mainly as an illustration. Table 5 presents the results (the categories do not add up to the total of 232 because references can have double labels or missing labels).

Table 5 References of the policy field classified as empirical or conceptual, respectively

Product chain (L3) Policy making (L4)

Empirical

Conceptual

36 49a

32 54

a This includes 11 reports on individual countries on which one EU report is based.

419

4.3.1. Level 3-product chains A product chain can be thought of as the ‘social’ dimension of a product’s life cycle. Each phase of the life cycle (i.e. extraction of raw materials, production of intermediate parts, assembly, transport, consumption, recycling, waste treatment, incineration, dumping) incorporates the activities of individuals and organisations, both public and private ones. For any product, a group of actors can be identified that is involved in the different phases of the life cycle. Together, these form the ‘product chain’ [99,100]. The 59 references in the database categorised in this level are very diverse. Some of them are very conceptual, others are purely descriptive, and when these are based in theory, they use quite different approaches. These references have one thing in common however: they almost exclusively deal with existent product chains and changes in these rather than with the product chain in developing a new product. The references can be further grouped in at least two ways. One grouping is in terms of scope, i.e. to what the extent the product chain as a whole is looked at. The scope ranges from bilateral relationships, where parts of the product chain are analysed, to complete product chains Bilateral relationships—A first step away from looking at a single company is to analyse the relation between two actors in the product chain. This can be a producer and its supplier(s). One concept that has been developed in this respect is environmental co-makership. It refers to the process in which a producer involves its supplier(s) in the modification of an existing product to improve its ecological impact, or the development of a new product with superior ecological performance [101]. Another concept is that of greening the supply chain. This concept refers to the approach developed by companies (especially retailers) to place demands on their suppliers with respect to their ecological performance. These demands are quite diverse, ranging from the instalment of an environmental management system to specific demands on the products supplied. The strength of demands is also variable, ranging from stating preferences to breaking the supply-relation if the supplier does not submit to the demands (i.e. ‘delisting’) [102]. The issue of reverse channels can also be looked at from the bilateral perspective. Then, the relationship between a recycling company and the consumers from whom they need to receive the used products is analysed [103,104,115]. Industrial networks—Several studies discuss the issue of the individual company being connected to other economic actors, but they, either explicitly or implicitly exclude parts of the product chain. It is common to look either at the production network, [105] which includes all actors up till the consumption of the product, or at the recycling and waste disposal network, which starts with the consumer and the phases after that. This

420


division is not without reason, because the two types of industrial networks have their own internal logic and processes [106,107] Complete product chain: there is a limited offering of references that span the total product life cycle from the extraction of raw materials to the recycling and disposal of the used product (see Ref. [99] for an example). The second grouping of references is in terms of scientific disciplines. There is some work by economists, who tend to approach the issue of co-ordination within the product chain by developing quantitative models that lead to an evaluation of the options that are open to firms (such as the decision between disposing waste and recycling it) [108,109]. This approach is highly abstract, and is built on using simplifying assumptions. This makes it difficult to translate their conclusions into useful practical statements. Sociologists tend to focus on the way in which existing relations between actors in the product chain provide barriers to change. Such barriers can result from the fact that actors do not, and have no incentive to, share information about their products and production processes [100,107,110]. Another possibility is that imbalances in the power distribution within the product chain lead to the implementation of options that are close to the status quo (incremental rather than radical) [111]. There are a number of studies that focus on the issue of recycling, and they have in common a focus on the motives and position of the consumer. This has been a topic for research for social psychologists, who have been interested in the factors that determine consumer behaviour in general [112,113]. One of the interesting findings in these studies is that recycling is only successful if there is a combination of a positive attitude of consumers towards returning used products, and adequate supply of information about what behaviour is expected from them, and a structured system of recycling. The social psychological angle has also resulted in a few studies within the marketing discipline [114]. It is interesting to note that some of the older material on recycling and ‘reverse channels’ is in this vein [103,115]. 4.3.2. Level 4—public policy This level incorporates references that deal with other actors trying to influence the actors in the product chain in order to diminish the ecological impact of a product, or to have them develop a ‘green’ product. In most cases, this influencing actor is a government agency. This level contains 117 references in the database. Although governments have dealt with specific ecological, safety and health aspects of products since the 1970s, an integrative approach focusing on ecological aspects originates in the Brundtland report. Consequently, first experiences are relatively recent (from the mid-1980s and onwards). The first references deal with Germany and the Netherlands, countries in which such systematic

policy programmes were first developed [116,117]. In principle, such policies focus upon the following: (1) altering needs: diminishing the level of consumption of products; (2) closing the loop: diminishing the ecological impact of existing products; (3) green product design: developing new products with a minimal ecological impact. In the literature, there is hardly any discussion about the first aim: altering needs. The earliest references on the second aim, closing the loop, deal with recycling (or ‘reverse channels’; see earlier). These references analyse the way in which consumer behaviour can be modified in order to increase the return of used goods, and the way in which the potential willingness of consumers to bring back used products needs to be complemented by an adequate system of recycling and information dissemination. More recent references use terms such as ‘chain management’ [99,110]. Here, the focus is on the extent to which government agencies can act as a coordinating actor for a product chain, providing the incentives and infrastructure for developing co-operation throughout the product chain. The third aim differs from the other two because it does not deal with existing patterns of behaviour. Instead, it seeks to promote innovations and the building of new relationships between economic actors. This is a relatively recent focus for policymakers. The references that treat this aim tend to focus on the way in which government agencies can provide some incentive for green product development, or to take away barriers such as a lack of knowledge. Van Hemel discusses this issue with respect to small and medium sized companies [118]. Most references focus upon a specific policy instrument that they seek to analyse. In the database, the complete spectrum of policy instruments can be found (although not all with the same frequency). Oosterhuis et al. use the following typology [119]: 앫 Direct regulatory instruments: command and control instruments such as bans, limitations, registration procedures, product standards and user obligations. To the extent that such instruments are used, it is for health and safety reasons rather than for ecological considerations. There are few references in the database relating to these instruments [119]. 앫 Economic instruments: altering the incentive structure of economic actors. In the product chain, such instruments are used extensively in some product categories. This occurs regularly in the references, also because they are ‘easy’ to model [120–122]. We also group the instrument of public procurement under this label, [123] as it positions government agencies as an actor in the economic network.


앫 Compulsory information instruments: an obligation for the producer to inform the consumer on product characteristics and the way in which it should be used/disposed of. Again, the instruments currently in use relate mainly to health and safety aspects. 앫 Voluntary information instruments: here the producer is left with the decision whether to inform the consumer of certain product characteristics. Eco-labelling schemes fall into this category. These have received considerable attention [124–126] Oosterhuis et al. also relate government involvement in LCA development to this category [119]. 앫 Voluntary agreements: agreements between government agencies and economic actors containing goals and/or courses of action that should lead to decreased ecological effects of a product or a product group. Such agreements are used mainly in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, as are the references dealing with these instruments [117,127]. This typology ignores the application of instruments with which government can influence the preferences of economic actors through information dissemination, and increase their motivation through participation in policy processes (social instruments). For the purposes of this literature study, this is an important omission since certain references stress the importance of such instruments. Although, they are sometimes referred to as ‘new’ instruments, they actually can be found in the earliest references, where the psychological and social processes around recycling behaviour were studied. 4.3.3. Summing up the policy perspective Looking at this part of the literature, we draw the following conclusions. Most references do not adopt a systemic perspective. Studies of the product chain are often restricted to parts of the chain, or even to bilateral relations (such as between a firm and its suppliers). Studies of public policy deal with individual policy instruments rather than with the combination of instruments that together form a coherent green product policy approach. The empirical basis on which researchers draw is relatively small, and the empirical material is often used in an illustrative way. Integrating the findings from different publications is difficult as they are context-specific, i.e. they deal with a specific country or sector of industry.

5. Conclusions when combining the three perspectives After this literature review, we have come to characterise the EPD field in the following way:

421

1. Too many normative suggestions, with little practical relevance or testing: empirical material is presented, but often as an illustration rather than as a testing ground for the hypotheses. This maybe related to the stage of development of the field, but it might also be related to the goal of many researchers, which is to deliver to policy makers and managers, new ideas on green product development. Related to this is our second conclusion. 2. Too much tool development: references indicate that those involved in the field are more interested in developing a new tool than on studying the use of existing ones and to evaluate them in order to improve them. 3. Too little linkage between strategic intent and content: top-down approaches to environmental issues (with policies, etc) and bottom-up approaches (daily activities) do not really meet in businesses. 4. Too little about the larger context of product development: the process of product development within the company is seldom linked to other processes inside the company, nor to processes outside the company. Product development in the end is a process that relates closely to the strategy of a firm. As such, it is curious that in research this link is seldom made. 5. Too little recognition of system’s perspectives in policy making: the references on public policy deal mainly with individual policy instruments, rather than taking a holistic perspective of the actor network or the material flows. We have found that the overlap between the three perspectives is small in the sense that very few references show up in two or all three bibliographies. Although, conclusions drawn within the different perspectives tend to support and/or complement each other, they do not address some important issues. Examples of such issues are how policies are shaped by business processes, how policies are integrated in business processes, and what tools are effective in EPD from the point of view of business processes. To answer such questions, there is a need for a greater exchange between the different perspectives. Confronting the references in the database with this model, we find several white spots on the map of EPD. These seem to be the understanding of the use and role of tools on a micro level (within companies), and an understanding of how this micro level interacts with the macro level (between companies and in public policies). In short, the relationships between the four levels in our framework are not well understood. 5.1. Directions for further work: the need for a systemic perspective To make an environmental optimisation of resource use and a minimisation of emissions, a systems perspec-

422


tive is necessary–it is not sufficient to deal with environmental issues on the level of the single company. A problem is that ‘representatives’ acting on behalf of the flows of material resources, or of the product chains, does not currently exist. Information about materials/ products environmental properties is found to some extent with the different actors in the system, but the exchange of information is patchy and incomplete [100]. To the extent that information exists, it is often contradictory, actors have difficulty interpreting it, and it is seldom used in the ‘normal’ processes of decision-making. In addition, a driver to minimise environmental impact on a product system level is missing too, since this lies beyond the area of responsibility of individual companies and since representatives on the product system level are non-existing. The producer responsibility concept is an attempt to address systemic issues. However, it does not fully handle issues of environmental optimisation on a higher system level. An example to clarify: The environmental impact of a car comes mainly from driving the car (approximately 80% of the total environmental impact. The rest, approx. 10+10%, comes from the production of the car and the waste handling of the car, respectively. The introduction of producer responsibility in the automobile sector in Sweden has led to the development that recyclability issues have gained importance. This, in turn, affects the 10+10% of the car production and waste management. However, the majority of the environmental impacts remain outside the area of influence of producer responsibility. The concept of producer responsibility needs some expansion. For example: 앫 Promote the complete utilisation of a system’s perspective but also recognise that central co-ordination is not possible since the network consists of largely autonomous actors that each has the possibility to block such central efforts. It is however, possible for individual actors, such as government agencies, to facilitate the process of network development. They can act as ‘product/material/network ombudsman’. This means providing means for communication throughout the product chain and incentives for actors in the product chain to work together. In this way, the process of green product development (with a system’s perspective) can be catalysed. 앫 Develop and utilise environmental information systems and infrastructure to enable communication and system optimisation. 앫 Promote research in the following areas: management and social science research to understand and develop the processes and drivers behind the incorporation of socially desirable issues, such as the environmental issues, and their operationalisation into the daily activities in business. In addition, there is a need to

develop the understanding of the systemic perspective implications for policy-making. Management research and engineering research share the interest in a better understanding of the role, impact and contribution of tools, not just in the companies, but also in society and in the product chains. Together, these suggestions amount to saying that researchers in the field of green product development need to adopt a more systemic perspective. In such a perspective, the internal process of product development is related to other processes within the firm, as well as to processes of competition and cooperation with the economic actors in the product chain. In addition, a systemic perspective calls for linking these processes to the formulation and implementation of governmental policy programmes. This is important because such programmes can provide important stimuli (and barriers) to the development of green products.

References [1] Bhat VN. A blueprint for green product development. Ind Manag 1993;35(2):4. [2] UNEP. Product example database. United Nations Environment Programme, Working group on Sustainable Product Development (http://unep.frw.uva.nl/); 2000. [3] Reinhardt FL. Environmental product differentiation: Implications for corporate strategy. Calif Manage Rev 1998;40(4):43–73. [4] Winn SF, Roome N. R&D management responses to the environment: current theory and implications to practice and research. R&D Manage 1993;23(2):147–61. [5] Roome N. Business strategy, R&D management and environmental imperati. R&D Manage 1994;24(1). [6] Roome N. Integrating environmental concerns into corporate decisions. In: Sexton K, Marcus A, Easter KW, Burkhardt TD, editors. Better environmental decisions. Strategies for governments, businesses and communities. Washington (DC): Island Press; 1999. [7] Simon HA, Dantzig GB, Hogarth R, Plott CR, Raiffa H, Schelling TC, Shepsle KA, Thaler R, Tversky A, Winter S. Decision making and problem solving. Interfaces 1987;17(5):11–31. [8] Winter G. Business and the environment: a handbook of industrial ecology with 22 [twenty-two] checklists for practical use and a concrete example of the Integrated System of Environmentalist Business Management (the Winter Model). Toronto: McGrawHill, 1987. [9] Huss WR, Honton EJ. Alternative methods for developing business scenarios. Technol Forecast Soc 1987;31:219–38. [10] Stokke PR, Boyce TA, Ralston WK, Wilson IH. Visioning (preparing for) the future: introduction of scenarios-based planning into statoil. Technol Forecast Soc 1991;40:73–86. [11] Kleiner A. In question: what does it mean to be green? Harvard Bus Rev 1991;69(4):38. [12] Cairncross F. How Europe’s companies reposition to recycle. Harvard Bus Rev 1992;(March–April):34–45. [13] Anonymous. Life cycle manager. Environ Manager 1994;6(1). [14] Brezet H, van Hemel C. Ecodesign. A promising approach to sustainable production and consumption. The Netherlands: TU Delft, 1997.


[15] Ehrenfeld JR, Hoffman AJ. Becoming a green company: the importance of culture in the greening process. Conference paper to the Greening of Industry Conference in Boston; 1993. [16] Dermody J, Hanmer-Lloyd S. Greening new product development: the pathway to corporate environmental excellence. Greener Manage Int 1995;11:73–88. [17] Madge. Ecological design: a new critique. Des Issues 1997;13(2). [18] Charter M. Managing eco-design. Ind Environ (UNEP IE) 1997;20(1-2):29–31. [19] Lenox M, Jordan B, Ehrenfeld J. Diffusion of design for environment: a survey of current practice. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1996. p. 25–30. [20] Brezet H. Dynamics in ecodesign practice. Ind Environ (UNEP IE) 1997;20(1-2):21–4. [21] Van Weenen JC, Bakker CA, IV de Keijser. An exploration of the environment. Univeristeit van Amsterdam; 1991. [22] O’Riordan T. Environmentalism. London: Pion Ltd, 1976. [23] Mo¨ ller E. Design-Philosophie der 80er Jahre. Kommt reit dem Ende der wegwerfideologie ein okologischer functionalsimus? Form 98 und Unternehm Pro Umwelt. Munich Lexika, 1982. [24] The Green Designer. London, Design Council; 1986. [25] Burall P. Green design. London, Design Council; 1991. [26] King L. Design for the environment. London; 1991. [27] Mackenzie D. Design for the environment. New York: Rizzoli International Publishing Inc, 1991. [28] Elkington J, Hailes J. The green consumer guide. London: Victor Gollancz, 1988. [29] Boons F. Do we really need a new theory for explaining the greening of organisations? Conference paper from the 13th European Group of Organisation Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, Budapest; 1997. [30] Fiksel J. Achieving ecoefficiency through design for environment. Total Quality Environmental Management 2002;5(4):47– 54. [31] Schwartz B. The miljo¨ anpassade fo¨ retaget-strategiska upptra¨ danden pa˚ den institutionella scenen. PhD thesis. Organisation Department, Go¨ teborgs Universitet; 1997. [32] Wolff R. Beyond environmental management-perspectives on environmental and management research. Bus Strateg Environ 1998;7(5):297–308. [33] Richards DJ.Environmentally conscious manufacturing. World class design to manfacture; 1994. p 15–22. [34] Dutton G. The green bottom line. Manage Rev 1998;87(9):59–63. [35] Thurston DL. Engineering economic decision issues in environmentally conscious design and manufacturing. Eng Economist 1999;44(1):50. [36] Crane A, Peattie K. Has green marketing failed…or has it never really tried? Conference Proceeding from the 1999 Business Strategy and the Environment Conference, September 16th and 17th at University of Leeds, UK; 1999. [37] Porter ME, van der Linde C. Toward a new conception of the environment—competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 1995;9(4):97–118. [38] Elkington J. Toward the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif Manage Rev 1994;36(2):90–100. [39] Charter M, editor. Greener marketing-a responsible approach to business. Sheffield: Greenleaf; 1992. [40] Henion KE. Ecological marketing: will the normative become descriptive? In: Fisk G, editor. Future direction for marketing. Boston (MA): Marketing Science Institute; 1979. p. 280–91. [41] Pride MW, Ferrell CO. Marketing: concepts and strategies. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin, 1991. [42] Kotler P. Marketing management, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997. [43] Peattie K, Charter M. Green marketing. In: Baker M, editor. The

[44]

[45]

[46] [47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51] [52]

[53]

[54] [55] [56]

[57] [58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

423

marketing book. 3rd rev ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1994. Charter M, Polonsky MJ, editors. Greener marketing—a global perpspective on greening marketing practice. Sheffield: Greenleaf; 1999. Pujari D, Wright G. Developing environmentally conscious product strategies: a qualitative study of selected companies in Germany and Britain. Market Intell Plan 1996;14:19. Simon FL. Marketing green products in the triad. Colombia J World Bus 1992;27(34):268–85. Schmidheiny S. Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. Business Council for Sustainable Development. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1992. Roy R. Designing and marketing greener products: the Hoover case. In: Charter M, editor. Greener marketing. Sheffield: Greenleaf; 1999. p. 126–42. Vaughan D, Mickle C. Environmental profiles of European business. London: Earthscan/Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1993. Green K, McMeekin A, Irwin A. Technological trajectories and R&D for environmental innovation in UK Firms. Futures 1994;26(10):1047–59. Welford R. Corporate environmental management, 2nd ed. London: Earthscan Publications, 1998. Polonsky MJ, Alma T, Mintu-Wimsatt, editors. Environmental marketing: strategies, practice, theory, and research. New York: Haworth Press; 1995. Charter M, Polonsky MJ, editors. Greener marketing—a global perpspective on greening marketing practice. Sheffield: Greenleaf; 1999. Charter M, editor. Greener marketing—a responsible approach to business. Sheffield: Greenleaf; 1992. Bragd A. Planerarna, fixarna och bla¨ ckfisken. Licentiate thesis. Organisation Department, Go¨ teborg University, Sweden; 1998. Polonsky MJ, Ottman J. Stakeholders’ contribution to the green new product development process. J Market Manage 1998;14:533–57. Garner A, Keoleian GA. Industrial ecology. An introduction (http://www.umich.edu); 1995. Wimmer W. The Ecodesign checklist method: a redesign tool for environmental product improvements. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 685–8 [Japan, 1–3 Feb 1999]. Nissen NF, Griese H, Middendorf A, Mu¨ ller J, Po¨ tter H, Reichl H. Environmental assessment of electronics: a new model to bridge the gap between full life cycle evaluations and product design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1997. p. 182–7. Schmidt-Bleek F. Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch?: MIPSdas Mass fu¨ r o¨ kologisches Wirtschaften. Berlin: Birka¨ user Verlag, 1994. Criel S, Bervoets T, De Langhe P, Ceuterick D, Vercalsteren A. Metrics for telecom products: essential part of an ecodesign methodology. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1999. p. 25–30. Murphy CF, Mizuki C, Sandborn PA. Implementation of DfE in the electronics industry using simple metrics for cost quality and environmental merit. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1998. p. 219– 24. Hockerts K. The SusTainAbility Radar, A tool for the innovation of sustainable products and services. Greener Manage Int 1999;25(Spring):29–49. Carnahan JV, Thurston DL. Trade-off modeling for product and manufacturing process design for the environment. J Ind Ecol 1998;2(1):79–92. Willems M, Stevels A. Financial model for environment-friendly

424

[66] [67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81] [82]

[83]

[84] [85]

[86]


changes in designs of electronic products. IEE Conf Publ 1995;416:83–7. Samli AC. A method for assessing for environmental friendliness of products. J Macromarket 1998;18(1):34–40. Karlsson M. Green concurrent engineering. Assuring environmental performance in product development. Licentiate thesis. IIEEE, Lund University, Sweden; 1997. Borland N, Wallace D, Kaufmann H. Integrating environmental impact assessment into product design. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference. 1998. [Atlanta, GA, September 13–16]. Rombouts JP. LEADS-II: a knowledge-based system for ranking DfE-options. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1998. p. 287–91. Matzke JS, Chew C, Wu TS. Simple tool to facilitate design for the environment at Apple Computer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1998. p. 202–6. Johnson EF, Gay A. Practical, customer-oriented DFE methodology. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1995. p. 47–50. Meinders HC, Stevels A. ISO 11400, an opportunity for EcoDesign. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1997. p. 141–6. Ba¨ ckmar J, Ritze´ n S, Norell M. Implementation of environmental management systems in Swedish industry. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 539–44 [Japan, Feb 1–3]. Cramer JM, Stevels A. Strategic environmental product planning within Philips Sound and Vision. Environ Qual Manage 1997;Autumn:91–102. Manzini E. Strategic design for sustainability: towards a new mix of products and services. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign ‘99 (IEEE), Japan, 1–3 February 1999. pp. 434–437. Stevels A. Integration of EcoDesign into business. A new challenge. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 27–32 [Japan, Feb 1–3]. Sarkis J, Darnall NM, Nehman GI, Priest JW. Role of supply chain management within the industrial ecosystem. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1995. p. 229–34. Nagel MH. Environmental quality in the supply line: a new approach. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1998. p. 180–5. Andersen J., Choong H. Development of an industry standard supply-base environmental practices questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 1997, pp. 276–281. Brink S, Diehl JC, Stevels A. Eco-Quest, an ecodesign self audit tool for suppliers of the electronics industry. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1998. p. 129–32. Goggin PA. Appraisal of ecolabelling from a design perspective. Des Studies 1994;15(4):459–77. Goossenaerts J, Thoben K-D. The artefactual wheel-work and the information infrastructure. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 674–9 [Japan, Feb 1–3]. Griffith CJ, Davis GA. Information needs for life cycle management: results of EPA’s common sense initiative for the automotive sector. SAE Spec Publ 1998;1342:151–5. Olesen J, Keldmann T. Design for environment. A framework. J Eng Des 1994;5(1):45–55. van Berkel R, Kortman J, Lafleur M. Issues in the development of improvement tools for environmental design of complex products. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1996. p. 230–5. Lee BH, Ishii K. Demanufacturing complexity metrics in design

for recyclability. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1997. p. 19–24. [87] Luttrop C. Design for disassembly and ecoforecasting. A tool for interaction between management and design. In: Procedings of the Sixth International Conference on Management of Technology MOT’97. 1997. p. 348–9 [Go¨ teborg, Sweden, June 25– 28]. [88] Bhamra TA, Evans S, McAloone TC, Simon M, Poole S, Sweatman A. Integrating environmental decision making into the product development process, I. The earlier stages. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99. 1999. p. 329–33 [Japan, Feb 1–3, IEEE]. [89] Ba¨ ckmar J, Ritze´ n S, Norell M. Environmental friendly product development. Activities in industrial companies. In: Proceedings of the IEMC’98. 1998. p. 502–7. [90] Wenzel H, Alting L. Danish experience with the EDIP tool for environmental design of industrial products. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 370–9 [Japan, Feb 1–3]. [91] Al-Okush H, Caudill RJ, Thomas V. Understanding the real impact of DfE guidelines. A case study of four generations of telephones. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium of Electronics and the Environment. 1999. p. 134–9 [IEEE]. [92] Dunnett M, Grenchus E, Keene R, Yehle L, Jacques M, Karlsson M, Kirby JR, Pitts D. Evaluation of IBM end-of-life products. Measuring DfE effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium of Electronics and the Environment. 1999. p. 98–103. [93] Olsson T. Miljo¨ information i produktuteckling. En fo¨ rstudie. CIT-ekologik, July 1998, Go¨ teborg, Sweden; 1998. [94] Poyner JR, Simon M. Integrating environmental information into a designer’s cognitive processes using an ecodesign expert system. A protocol analysis case study. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. 1997. p. 198–203 [5–7 May 1997]. [95] Bakker C. Environmental information for designers. PhD thesis. TU Delft, the Netherlands, 1995. [96] Ehrenfeld J, Lenox M. The development and implementation of DfE programmes. J Sustain Prod Des 1997;1997(April):17–27. [97] Poole S, Simon M, Sweatman A, Bhamra TA, Evans S, McAloone TC. Integrating environmental decision making into the product development process, I. The later stages. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 334–7 [Japan, Feb 1-3]. ˚ kermark A-M. Design for environment from the designers’ per[98] A spective. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign’99 (IEEE). 1999. p. 47– 50 [Japan, Feb 1-3]. [99] Boons F. Produkten in ketens. Dep. of policy and organisation studies. Tilburg, Tilburg University; 1995. [100] Heiskanen E, Ka¨ rna¨ A, Niva M, Timonen P, Munck E, Thidell A. Environmental improvement in product chains. Copenhagen: Nordic Council, 1998. [101] Cramer J, Schot J. Environmental comakership among firms as keystone in the strife for sustainable development. Conference of the Greening of Industry Network, the Netherlands; 1991. [102] Green K, Morton B, New S. Purchasing and environmental management: interactions, policies and opportunities. Bus Strateg Environ 1996;5:188–97. [103] Guiltinan JP, Nwokoye N. Reverse channels for recycling: an analysis of alternatives and public policy implications. American Marketing Association Proceedings; 1974. [104] Fuller DA, Allen J, Glaser M. Materials recycling and reverse channel networks: the public policy challenge. J Macromarket 1996;16(1):52–72. ¨ stlund S. The limits and possibilities in designing the environ[105] O mentally sustainable firm. Bus, Strateg Environ 1994;3(2):21– 33. [106] Hond FD, Groenewegen P. Solving the automobile shredder waste problem: cooperation among firms in the automotive


[107]

[108]

[109]

[110] [111] [112]

[113] [114]

[115] [116]

industry. In: Schot KFaJ, editor. Environmental strategies for industry. Washington (DC): Island Press; 1993. p. 343–62. Ka¨ rna¨ A. Managing environmental issues from design to disposal-a chain reaction? Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics, 1999. Kandelaars P, van den Bergh J. Materials product chains: theory and an application to zinc and PVC gutters. Environ Res Econ 1996;8(1):97–118. Kandelaars PP, van den Bergh JC. Dynamic analysis of materials-product chains: an application to window frames. Ecol Econ 1997;22(1):41–61. Cramer J. Experiences with implementing integrated chain management in Dutch industry. Bus Strateg Environ 1996;5:38–47. Boons F. Eco Design and integrated chain management. J Sustain Prod Des 1998;5:22–35. Pieters RGM. Changing garbage disposal patterns of consumers: motivation, ability, and performance. J Public Pol Market 1991;10:351–7. De Young R. Some psychological aspects of recycling. Environ Behav 1986;18:435–49. Thogersen J. A model of recycling behaviour, with evidence from Danish source separation programmes. Int J Res Market 1994;11(2):145–63. Ginter P. Reverse distribution channels for recycling. Calif Manage Rev 1978;20:72–81. Christensen S. Das Umweltzeichen Blauer Engel-eine empirische Untersuchung aus innovationstheoretischer Sicht. Sindelfingen, University of Hohenheim; 1987.

425

[117] Klok PH. Convenanten als instrument van milieubeleid, Twente University. Enschede; 1989. [118] Van Hemel C. EcoDesign empirically explored. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 1998. [119] Oosterhuis FR, Scholl G. Product policy in Europe: new environmental perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. [120] Rousso AS, Shah SP. Packaging taxes and recycling incentives: the German green dot program. Natl Tax J 1994;47(3):689–702. [121] Gehrke C, Lager C. Environmental taxes, relative prices and choice of technique in a linear model of production. Metroeconomica 1995;46(2):127–45. [122] Andersen MS. Assessing the effectiveness of Denmark’s waste tax. Environment 1998;40(4):10–5. [123] Van der Grijp NM. Product policy and the environment. The example of public procurement. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies, 1995. [124] Van Dam A. LCA as tool for governmental decision making. In: Ninth IAPRI World Conference on Packaging. 1995. [Brussels, Belgium]. [125] Schleicher U. The uses of life cycle assessment for European legislation. Int J Life Cycle Ass 1996;1(1):42–4. [126] Curran MA. Life-cycle based government policies: a survey. Int J Life Cycle Ass 1997;2(1):39–42. [127] Lorentzen KH, Pedersen ML, Thomsen H, Klemmensen B. Voluntary strategies in pollution prevention: experience from Denmark and the Netherlands. Eur Environ 1994;4:18–21.