Small Household Equipment Toward Sustainability - Science Direct

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 30 (2015) 179 – 184

7th Industrial Product-Service Systems Conference - PSS, industry transformation for sustainability and business

Small household equipment toward sustainability Allais Romain*, a, Gobert Juliea, Laratte Bertranda, Guillaume Bertranda, Bourg Dominiqueb a Creidd, Hetic, ICD, Université de technologie de Troyes, UMR 6281, CNRS, Troyes, France Université de Lausanne, Faculté des géosciences et de l’environnement, Institut géographuie et durabilité, Suisse.

b

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

The ambition of this action research is to construct and experiment a partial transition of a company’s business model from sales to renting for small household equipment for B-to-C market. Our paper aims at presenting this project and the development of a transdisciplinary method for sustainability assessment from the perspective of the sociology of the organization, life cycle assessment, management and design. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the Conference is co-chaired by Prof. Daniel Brissaud & Prof. Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the 7th Industrial Product-Service Systems Conference - PSS, BOUCHER. Xavier industry transformation for sustainability and business Keywords: functional economy; sociology of organization; LCA; intangible management; PSS assessment methodology

1. Socio-economic and environmental context for functional economy transition The Small Household Equipment (SHE) sector is very emblematic of resources overconsumption and Waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) mass production. Increasing production costs (in material and labor), customer demand for more sophisticated products (even with decreasing purchasing power), and stricter WEEE regulations become strategic issues for the producers. Emerging sustainable business models [1], [2] based on shared use and collaborative consumption [3], the so-called “cradle to cradle responsibility” anchored in the territory [4] or the emergence of the so-called performance economy [5] appear as promising to sustain company’s activity while improving its overall performance (i.e. economic, environmental, social) [6] in a broad strategic perspective [7], [8]. This study concerns the functional economy [9], its implementation, drivers and assessment. Unlike Productservice systems (PSS), which “focuses on new business development and improving competitiveness” [10] or Industrial product-service systems (IPS²), which is a tertiarization strategy of industrial companies to “keep their

competitiveness and survival” within the business-to-business market [11], functional economy is a “strategy aimed at decouple economic growth and increasing consumption of natural resources” [12] [20] cited in [43]. This study is part of an action research program funded by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). It aims to test the ‘viability’ of the transition of a part of a SHE producer current business model (i.e. product selling) to the functional economy. It is admitted that the transition of the whole business model generates too high transition costs. ‘Viability’ is defined by several elements: in addition to environmental and economic aspects, social and societal dimensions are also considered. However explicit success criteria are not yet defined facing the lack of similar projects. This program is divided into three phases: 1/ Design the service offer (i.e. the renting of SHE) for business-tocustomer markets; 2/ Experiment and analyze this offer to understand how it is dynamically structured and how functional economy may transform consumption patterns toward more sustainable behaviors; 3/ Provide different recommendations (i.e. transposability of the offer, extension, environmental, social, societal and organizational aspects) thanks to the previously highlighted key factors.

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the 7th Industrial Product-Service Systems Conference - PSS, industry transformation for sustainability and business doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.036

180

Allais Romain et al. / Procedia CIRP 30 (2015) 179 – 184

The first phase of the project is about to finish. For the experiment, the offer consists in the renting SHE for the customers (B-to-C market). The renting service proposes a panel of 28 devices. Thanks to an on-line interface (i.e. website and smartphone application), customers select their equipment, places and dates for recovery and return. The device being used and the return made, the appliance is taken care of: transportation, cleaning, quality control, repackaging and restocking (buffer stock). All these steps are monitored by dedicated software. This paper focuses on the methodology developed for the second phase of the program: the analysis of the experiment. Our mandate is ‘limited to’ environmental, social and societal analysis. The study also provides early observations on the structuration of the offer. First, a state of the art of current assessment tools for functional economy is proposed; then, the first phase of the project is detailed; finally, our methodology is developed and discussed. 2. Challenges for the assessment of functional economy Sustainability is by essence transdisciplinary (i.e. ecology, philosophy, politics, material analysis, design, sociology, etc.). Consequently, our study appeals for interdisciplinary approach as defined in [13]. Previous studies propose multicriteria assessment of PSS offers [14], [15], [16], [17] but these are mainly dedicated to B-to-B market with a quantitative approach. 2.1. Enablers for functional economy The transition from sale to renting induces a change for the firm towards a sustainable service activity, as in the functional economy using the good prevails over owning the good [12], [18]. The firm aims to foster customer loyalty by other ways than a commercial strategy, which privileges sales at a given time. The marketing activity should evolve as well, while it draws new typologies of consumers according to conditions in which they can and may use appliances, and their subjective experience resulting from these conditions [19]. It follows that new narrative plans have to be consolidated, which cannot be restrained to advertisement and pleasant packaging. The service quality and the ability to meet customers’ expectations should become the heart of the renting activity. Consequently, the relationship between consumers and producers is deeply modified, and imposes new “constraints of geographical* and cultural proximity” [20]. As a matter of fact the spatial distance between the place where appliances can be collected and the place where the customer lives must be short, whereas this obligation does not exist when the customer simply buys the product.

Cultural proximity† lies in the fact that renting an appliance is based on a simultaneous behavioral change of the producer, the service provider and the consumer. They have to share/to build a congruent vision of what such a rental system means, contrary to the dominant system based on consumption and purchase. These changes suppose to create new values and new routines even if producers and consumers do not have the same incentive to adapt themselves. Incorporating multiple proximity dimensions in our explanatory framework could help us to determine how an innovation network around a project based on the principles of the functional economy can emerge and succeed. 2.2. Perception and organization challenges On the other hand, the interactions between the customer and the service provider are multiplied and integrate new tasks, responsibilities and expectations: x A particular attention has to be paid on hygiene and the cleanliness of devices. x The availability of the devices at the appropriate time is crucial and calls for an efficient rental interface. x Consumers have to be careful when they use appliances. Yet they can discover new functionalities and better apprehend the devices… As a consequence, the firm has to strategically invest in a sustainable and trustful customer-renter relationship and to accommodate the support services, namely: x Changing the way it displays devices, being more focused on experience, on the original use of the rented device, x Proposing specific delivery/withdrawal offers, x Providing particular advices to use the desired product and by the way creating incentives to rent other devices, which are unknown to consumers or ill perceived but could bring them new experiences In our specific case, under an apparent simplicity, the firm has to offer a full range of new services, including washing and maintenance of SHE. This generates a new logistic chain to store, to collect, to control, to fix and if necessary to change merchandise and to move commodities between the different stakeholders. In order to achieve this project, the firm can decide to diversify its activities or to structure a dedicated network, so that new functions could be taken in charge by experts. The second approach was indeed chosen, and implies some impediments. While the company allocates the different functions and the principal one (renting) to partners, the firm dilutes responsibility process and then takes some risks. We assume that these risks can be minimized if a “community of practice” [21] (organizational proximity)

†

*

In a restricted manner geographical proximity can be defined as the physical distance between actors in absolute (e.g. kilometers) or relative terms (e.g. travel time between two places) [42]

« [Cultural proximity] refers to a similarity or a complementarity, routines, of values, conventions, projects, referents and so on. It is translated by actions and discourses. Most cognitive resources could be shared (language, values, norms…) and used to facilitate coordination between stakeholders. » [25]


between the different stakeholders of such a project is created, likely to enact a common space allowing sharing questions, experiences, knowledge… On the contrary, the firm which develops the project will be unable to take up the challenges described above and renew its relationships with consumers. The first challenges for our study is to understand how the principal stakeholders actually do interact (before and during the experiment) to assure the success of the project? How do they find congruent solutions, although at the outset they do not consider the project in the very same manner? One of our main ambitions for this project is to know whether a “community of action and practice” [21] is created, namely a group of people who share common problems, expectations and concern, and try together to deepen their knowledge and their expertise [22] and also strive to elaborate common solutions. However this community of practice and action can hardly emerge without mutual trust [23], organizational, institutional and cognitive proximity (a common vision of a problem, interactive learning process, common language) [24], [25] and a shared language. Recent literature (2015) proposes another transdisciplinary approach with insights from sociology of consumption [46] or the integration of perceived functional quality of service by customers to assess the sustainable product-service efficiency [47]. We may draw upon some such indicators in our future analysis of the gathered data.

2.3. PSS, LCA and SLCA Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is often used as a systematic method to evaluate the environmental impact of products [26], [27]. Even if several limitations are identified in LCA [28], [29], [30], [31], this method was chosen in our project so as to compare the sale of a product to its renting. This choice was made because the LCA method is used as reference [32], [33]. Moreover, LCA is frequently used for PSS [34], [15], [17] However, several challenges have been identified [35], [36], as e.g. the identification of a functional unit, the determination of the system boundaries, etc. To date, there is no real generic process for the implementation of LCA in such case study. Even if LCA is frequently implemented for the environmental assessment of PSS, it seems difficult to generalize the entire method. Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) [44] basically shares LCA’s challenges. In addition, there are still debates on data collection (either generic data from bases or more specific data with on-field inquiries). The methodology is not yet stabilized [45]. These methodologies appear as relevant for the purpose of assessing the service but need to be implemented with extreme precautions. 2.4. Functional economy transition and intangibles As stated in [37], system innovation for sustainability requires innovations in governance practices. In fact, transition toward functional economy implies numerous changes, both at the company scale and its value constellation, and at the territorial level with potential positive and negative

externalities (e.g. local employment/economic activities or pollutions). In addition, as stated before, customer behavior has to evolve to adopt this new model of consumption. As observed in the construction process of this service and stated in the literature, different organizational levels and assets evolve and have to be managed. Studies propose adaptation of existing strategic management tools (e.g. Balanced Scorecard) to support PSS implementation [38] while [39] underlines the importance of intellectual capital (i.e. human capital, structural and relational capital) in IPSS. Intangible assets management enables the monitoring at both a strategic and operational level of the whole value chain with a qualitative and quantitative approach [40]. A short list of intangible assets impacted by a functional economy transition in the context of B-to-C markets is offered below based on existing literature and first inquiries: x Human capital (e.g. knowledge, motivation etc.) x Information system capital (i.e. ergonomics website, flexibility, etc.); x Customer capital B to B to C (i.e. customer fidelity, satisfaction, etc.) x Organizational capital (i.e. share of values, process quality, etc.); x Brand capital (i.e. notoriety, confidence, etc.); x Territorial capital (i.e. use of local resources, attractiveness, etc.) x Natural capital (i.e. resource consumption, emissions, etc.) The extended scorecard enables a supervision of the quality of the assets implied in the process. Indicators are informed by the above mentioned socio-environmental assessment and by economic and marketing assessments done by the company. 3. On the design and structuration of the offer (phase 1) For confidentiality reasons, ‘SHEM’ stands for the Small Household Equipment Manufacturer. At the origin of this renting service project, some managers have identified a new consumer-trend and a new business opportunity in a context of increasing prices of raw resources. SHEM decided in 2012 to carry out a preliminary study in order to test the consumer sensibility to certain criteria: prices of this new service, places where consumer can rent the product and give it back, etc. On this basis, a team composed of SHEM’s employees, a consulting company and two experts outlined more precisely the experiment and contact different partners to assure a good distribution of the service as well as efficient logistics and maintenance systems. A medium-sized urban area (250 000 inhabitants) was chosen due to the geographic and historical proximity to SHEM and supposed sociological neutrality‡ of the place. ‘DisCom’ (for the Distribution Company) is the partner in charge of delivering the service, as this retail chain owns a large network of different sized stores within the experiment

‡

This expression was used by different stakeholders during semi-structured interviews. For them, this group of cities is socially mixed and they considered as very important to test the renting service over very different kinds of populations.

181

182


area. The link between DisCom and SHEM (B-to-B) is particularly important because DisCom’s employees will be in contact with the customers of the service. However the employees are expected to have a new relation with consumers, as the project is based on a renting system and no more on purchasing acts. The quality of this user interface is particularly important for the success of this experiment, because the B-to-C functional economy is dependent of consumer loyalty and satisfaction (i.e. not only concerning the product, but more generally the global service, the kind of advice they can get, etc.). DisCom managers consider this project as an opportunity to sell more groceries and products, and raise their revenues, but are reluctant to change their current processes to receive and welcome customers. Before the experiment begins, their principal concern is related to logistic issues (space for storing household equipment) and the web-information interface. ‘InsCom’ (for the insertion company) is a federation of firms dedicated to work opportunities and social insertion of deprived and unemployed persons. Specialized in fixing and selling Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment, it was involved in the project because of its recognized skills (i.e. qualitative rehabilitation of WEEE) and the geographical and cognitive proximity between InsCom local head management and SHEM partners. Besides it was particularly relevant for SHEM to develop the social dimension of the project. The InsCom unit, located on the experimentation area, was particularly interested in developing new activities and skills for the social recipients. ‘SoftDev’ (for the software development company) has a key role in the success of the offer, as they provide the first interface between customers and the service. It also provides the software that enables the real-time stock and maintenance management and the collection of information from every partner. Its relationship with SHEM is a one of supplier-tocustomer type (it is not about partnership). As a matter of fact, before interacting for this project, each stakeholder has been following its own interest and rationale. They have analyzed the economic, social, environmental and societal dimensions differently. That’s why they do not consider and apprehend the project similarly, or even use the same words to point the same things out. According to their role in the project ecosystem, they do not see the experiment under the same angle: global, sector-based, practically or theoretically. The experiment should enable them to develop trust, to share information and to assure the success of the experiment. If they do not manage to interbreed their visions, the message will not be clear for the customers, as well the rental service. In table 1, the different partners are associated to a step of the life cycle, they have in charge in the experiment. Table 1 - Life cycle steps and related responsibility Steps of the Life Cycle

Stakeholder responsible for the task

Extraction of raw materials

Producer

Design and production

Producer and project leader

Distribution/Renting

Retail chain

Use

Consumer

Cleaning

Firm specialized in social insertion of deprived persons

Storing/Transportation

Firm specialized in social insertion of deprived persons

Maintenance

Firm specialized in fixing appliances

End of Life

Producer Public authorities

4. Methodology of this study Our proposition is to evaluate the sustainability of the partial transition of business model thanks to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the analysis of stakeholders during the experiment according a scientific framework developed by the sociology of organizations [41]. The study is about both the organization of the service providers and the evolution in customers’ behavior. In addition to these socio-environmental aspects, an economic analysis is performed at the company’s scale (i.e. what is the profitability of the new BM?) and at the territorial scale (i.e. what are the impacts on the local dynamism?). These qualitative and quantitative data are to be aggregated into a strategic scorecard that will enable the overall and multi-indicators assessment of the business model transition. Our methodology is divided into three phases: 1- Upstream of the experiment, data collection thanks to qualitative and quantitative face to face interviews with service providers to understand their original motivation and concerns. Semi-structured interviews with the partners of the project are done to understand their motivation, apprehensions and expectations. Their current activities are analyzed as well (i.e. organization, logistics etc.). Technical data is collected and implemented in a comparative LCA (rental VS sales for a single product) and a model of the logistic chain is developed. From this first step, influencing factors emerged (i.e. logistics, communication, etc.). 2- The second step is to evaluate the influence and evolution of these factors during the experiment. Interviews are conducted again to identify the changes in the perceptions of users and providers of the service. During the experiment, LCA and logistic models are implemented with data from the software (i.e. number and types of devices rented, default in the distribution, quality issues etc.). Iterative improvement of the service will be done along the way. End of life scenarios are tested on the LCA model. 3- Downstream of the experiment, recommendations will be proposed regarding the product and service design, issues and challenges of the organization, and mostly, the impact on customers of this new consumption model. Special attention will be given to the transposability of the business model to other geographic areas, or to other economic sectors, with a foresight approach. 5. Discussion and conclusions Our paper presented an action research, which proposes to analyze and accompany the transition of a part of the classical


sale business model to an innovative, renting one, based on the principles of the functional economy. A special focus is on the transdisciplinary methodology developed for the project, namely the assessment and analysis with both sociological and engineering approaches. Regarding the methodology, questions remain regarding the perimeter and the scale of our analysis. In fact, the comparative LCA concerns only one device with a life-cycle approach, while the sociological analysis encompasses the whole value creation network with a specific focus on the interface between providers and users of the service (i.e. product analysis within a service VS service analysis). The contextualization of the sociological assessment is crucial (e.g. influence on and by the territory, individual preferences, etc.) while LCA uses generic data (i.e. specific to generic VS generic to specific). The LCA considers every steps of the product life cycle from cradle to grave while the sociological study puts the emphasis on the construction/implementation of the new business model and its likely consequences (i.e. life-cycle VS design and use phase of the service). These apparent contradictions provide complementary information on the success or the limits of the experiment. We suggest that this approach is necessary to assist decision makers regarding sustainability. Likewise, a scorecard extended to intangibles assets is being developed to support the overall experiment management. However it is based on aggregated data that hampers a fine interpretation of the outcomes. Consequently, even if it enables a rapid overview, it must not be considered for it-self. A weakness of the study is the almost non-integration of the economic dimension in our methodology. This is done in SHEM internally without reflexing on the value share with the other service providers for this first experiment. For the social study, the choice was to give prime consideration to the first circle of stakeholders (presented in this paper) and to consult the secondary circle (i.e. face to face interviews with local public authorities etc.). With respect to the LCA, as a single device on the offered panel is considered, precautions on the environmental performance of the service as a whole are an obligation. This leads to question the limits of this tool for this kind of project. Another weakness is the non-consideration of potential rebound effects due to a lack of means and time. We are currently at the end of the first phase of the project: the stakeholder network to provide the renting system is constructed, the first round of face to face interviews is done and a large majority of data for the service modeling is collected. Representativeness or sample size issues aside, at the end of the experiment, we will be able to conclude on the creation –or not- of a community of action and its importance for the success of the service; its environmental performance compared to the classic one; its influence on the customers and its territory of implementation. In addition to the service assessment, even if the engineering activities may be of lower influence in the case of B-to-C functional economy than in IPSO, we will be able to formulate recommendations for the recycling, remanufacturing, reuse, maintenance, and holistic planning and operation that may create economic advantages and environmental benefits [15].

Consequently, even if marketing mainly drives this project, its implementation will have significant consequences on the design of the products to be rented, as well as on the service providers, customers and territory. To conclude, this action research has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of the success or failure of a functional economy transition regarding organizational and sociological issues. It may provide incremental improvement on impact assessment methodology dedicated to functional economy. Acknowledgements Authors want to thank the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) for their contribution to the funding of the project. References [1] Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2013. A literature and practice review to develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes, Journal of Cleaner Production, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039. [2] Gaziulusoy, A.I., Boyle, C., McDowall, R., 2013, system innovation for sustainability: a sustemic double-flow scenario for companies, journal of cleaner production, Vol. 45, Pages 104-116. [3] Botsman, R., Rodger, R.; 2010 ; What’s mine is yours, how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live; Collins. [4] Vaileanu-Paun I., Boutillier S., 2012, Économie de la fonctionnalité. Une nouvelle synergie entre le territoire, la firme et le consommateur ?, Innovations, vol. 1 n°37, pp. 95-125. [5] Stahel, W. 2010, The performance economy, second edition, PalgraveMacMillan, London, 350 pages, ISBN 978-0-230-58466-2 [6] Baret P., 2006, « L’évaluation contingente de la Performance Globale des Entreprises : Une méthode pour fonder un management sociétalement responsable ? », 2ème journée de recherche du CEROS, pp. 1-24. [7] Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century, New Society Publishers. [8] Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2002, The sustainability balanced scorecard – linking sustainability management to business strategy, Business strategy and the environment, Vol.11, pp.269-284. [9] Stahel, Walter R., 1997, The functional economy: cultural and organizational change; in: Richards, Deanna J., The industrial green game, 1997, National Aca-de-my Press, Washington DC. p. 91-100. [10] Tukker, A., 2013, Product service for a resource-efficiency and circular economy – a review, in press, corrected proof, journal of cleaner production. [11] Meier, H., Roy, R., Seliger, G., 2010, industrial product-service systems – IPS², CIRP annals – manufacturing technology Vol.59, pp.607-627. [12] Bourg, D., Buclet, N., 2005, L'économie de fonctionnalité. Changer la consommation dans le sens du développement durable, revue futurible n°313. [13] Max-Neff, M., 2005, foundations of transdisciplinarity, ecological economics, Vol.53, pp. 5-16. [14] Abramovici, M., Aidi, Y., Quezada, A., Schindler, T., 2014, PSS sustainability assessment and monitoring framework (PSS-SAM) – Case study of a multi-module PSS solution, PSS and value creation. Proceedings of the 6 th CIRP conference on IPSS, vol.16, pp140-145. [15] Lindhal, M., Sundin, E., Sakao, T., 2014, Environmental and economic benefits of integrated product service offerings quantified with real business cases, Journal of cleaner production, Vol.64, pp.288-296. [16] Morlock, F., Dorka, T., Meier, H., 2014, Concept for a performance measurment method for the organization of the IPS² delivery, PSS and value creation. Proceedings of the 6 th CIRP conference on IPSS, vol.16, pp56-61.

183

184

Allais Romain et al. / Procedia CIRP 30 (2015) 179 – 184 [17] Vogtländer, J.G., Bijma, A., Brezet, H., 2002, Communicating the ecoefficiency of product and services by means of the eco-costs/value model, Journal of cleaner production, Vol.10, pp.57-67. [18] Gaglio G., 2011, Questions de posture et de recherche posées par l’économie de la fonctionnalité, in Gaglio G., Lauriol J., Tertre C. (du), (dir.), L’économie de la fonctionnalité : une voie nouvelle vers un développement durable, Octarès, Toulouse, p. 61-77 [19] Hubault F., 2011, Economie de la fonctionalité et travail : premiers questionnements, in Gaglio G., Lauriol J., Tertre C. (du), (dir.), L’économie de la fonctionnalité : une voie nouvelle vers un développement durable, Octarès, Toulouse, p. 85-93. [20] Tertre, C. (du), 2007, Economie de la fonctionnalité, Développement Durable et innovations institutionnelles, in Edith Heurgon (coord.), Economie des services pour un Développement Durable, l’Harmattan, Paris, pp. 142-255. [21] Wenger, E., 1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press [22] Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M., 2002, Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press [23] Granovetter, M. 1982. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis: 105-129. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [24] Torre, A. and Rallet, A. (2005) Proximity and localization. Regional Studies 39 (1): 47-60. [25] Bouba-Olga Olivier et Grossetti Michel, «Socio-économie de proximité», Revue d'Économie Régionale & Urbaine, 2008/3 octobre, p. 311-328. [26] Horne, R., Grant, T., Verghese, K.., 2009, Life Cycle Assesment: Principles, Practice and Prospects. CSIRO Pub., ISBN 9780643094529. [27] ILCD, 2010, General guide for Life Cycle Asessment - Detailed guidance European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Office of the European Union. [28] Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., 2008, A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, Int J Life Cycle Ass, Vol.13 (4), pp.290–300 [29] Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., Bras, B., 2008, A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Ass, 13 (5): 374–388, August 2008. [30] Laratte, B., Guillaume, B., 2014, Epistemic and methodological challenges of dynamic environmental assessment: A case-study with energy production from solar cells. Key Engineering Materials, 572, pp.535–538. [31] Laratte, B., Guillaume, B., Kim, J., Birregah, B., 2014, Modeling cumulative effects in life cycle assessment: The case of fertilizer in wheat production contributing to the global warming potential. Science of The Total Environment, 481 (0), pp.588–595. [32] Nissen, N.F. , Griese, H., Middendorf, A., Müller, J., Pötter, H., Reichl, H., 1997, Comparison of simplified environmental assessments versus full life cycle assessment (lca) for the electronics designer. In Life Cycle

Networks: Proceedings of the 4th CIRP International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany, CIRP, pp.435–444. [33] Valkama, J., Keskinen, M.,2008, Comparison of simplified lca variations for three lca cases of electronic products from the ecodesign point of view. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, ISEE ’08, pp.1–6. [34] Chan, H.K., Wang, X., Raffoni, A., 2014, An integrated approach for green design: life-cycle, fuzzy AHP and environmental management accounting, The british accounting review, article in press. [35] Baines, T.S. et Al., 2007, State-of-the art in product service-systems, Journal of engineering manufacture, 221, pp.1543–1552. [36] Amaya, J., Lelah, A., Zwolinski, P., 2014, design for intensified use in product-service systems using life-cycle analysis, Journal of engineering design, DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2014.974523. [37] Allais, R., Reyes, T., Roucoules, L., under review, Governance maturity levels: a proposition to support sustainability integration into companies, Journal of cleaner production, in special issue Systematic Leadership towards Sustainability. [38] Yang, J.H. 2009, a balnced performance measurment scorecard approach for product service systems, IEEE computer society, International conference on business intelligence and financial engineering, pp.548551. [39] Wewior, J., Alevifard, S., Kohl, H., Steven, M., Seliger, G., 2014, Intellectual capital statements in IPS², PSS and value creation. Proceedings of the 6 th CIRP conference on IPSS, vol.16, pp301-307. [40] Fustec, A., Bejar, Y., Gounel, T., Zambon, S., Thevoux, S., 2011, French standard for measuring the non-financial and financial value of intangible corporate capital (référentiel français de mesure de la valeur extra-financière et financière du capital immatériel des entreprises), French ministry of economy, finance and industry. [41] Friedberg, E., 1993, Le Pouvoir et la Règle. Dynamique de l’action organisée, Seuil, Paris [42] Boschma, R.A. 2005 Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39(1): 61–74. [43] Buclet, N. 2014, L’économie de fonctionnalité enre éco-conception et territoire : une typologie », Développement durable et territoires [En ligne], vol. 5, n°1. [44] UNEP, 2009, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of products. ISBN: 978-92-807-3021-0. Available at: www.unep.org/ [45] Foolmaun R., Ramjeeawon, T., Comparative life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment of used polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles in Mauritius, 2012, International journal of life cycle assessment 18, pp.155-171. [46] Mylan, J. understanding the diffusion of Sustainable Product-Service Systems: insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory, Journal of cleaner production, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.065 [47] Chou, C.J., Chen, C.W, Conley, C. 2015, An approach to assessing sustainable product-service systems, journal of cleaner production 86, pp. 277-284.