Accepted Manuscript

Obtaining sustainable production from the product design analysis

E. Lacasa, J.L. Santolaya, A. Biedermann

PII: S0959-6526(16)31228-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.078
Reference: JCLP 7870

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 11 May 2016

Revised Date: 30 July 2016
Accepted Date: 17 August 2016

Please cite this article as: Lacasa E, Santolaya JL, Biedermann A, Obtaining sustainable
production from the product design analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/
j.jclepro.2016.08.078.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Obtaining Sustainable Production from the Product Design Analysis

E. Lacasa, J.L. Santolaya, A. Biedermann,

Design and Manufacturing Engineering Department. EINA. University of Zaragoza.

PT
C/ María de Luna 3 (50018) Zaragoza – Spain. enrike_sena@hotmail.com

RI
Abstract

SC
Sustainability has become a requirement for competitive companies, which increasingly make
conscious decisions with regard to the impact caused by the development of their products. To

U
be sustainable, product design should contemplate a triple bottom line in which environmental
AN
protection, social expectations and distribution of profits should be considered. In this work, a
product development methodology that brings together traditional design criteria such as
operative principles or mode of use and sustainability requirements is proposed. Three phases
M

denominated respectively, production inventory, sustainability assessment and product redesign

are carried out to its implementation.
The material flows exchanged by the industrial installation throughout the production process
D

are analyzed according to a life cycle assessment approach. A set of engineering metrics and
TE

indicators are selected to assess each sustainability aspect. Environmental impact is evaluated
by means of both, the global warming indicator and the aggregated and particularly useful for
designers, EI99 indicator. Economic dimension is addressed through the calculus of the net
EP

operating profit of the company. Finally, the social aspects associated to the stakeholder
category of company workers are evaluated by the working hours and hourly wage.
Environmental improvement strategies based mainly on the selection of low impact materials
C

and the reduction of materials are applied in the product redesign process.
AC

Sustainable product development methodology is used to obtain an improved design of two

different products, a solar tracker and an isothermal container. In both cases, a lower
environmental impact and higher company benefit are achieved. In addition, an improvement of
the social indicators is obtained in the case of the isothermal container. At the same time, the
selected indicators are considered suitable to quantitatively assess each sustainability
dimension, analyze and compare results.

Keywords: Sustainability indicators, product design, life cycle assessment, material flows.

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. Introduction

Sustainable product development approaches, applied in industry, focus mainly on reducing

the environmental impacts of products. However, sustainability should not only consider the
environmental impact, it should be based on a triple bottom line including environment,
economy and social well-being (also referred as planet, profit and people). Actions within these
three dimensions should be undertaken locally and globally, in the present and taking into

PT
account the future generations (WCED, 1987; UNCED, 1992). In order to maintain and
preferably improve both, human and ecosystem well-being, a responsible participation of
business and consumers as well as changes in production processes and organizational

RI
models of companies will be required (Garner and Keoleian, 1995). In addition, the
development of products and services balancing environmental, economic and social aspects

SC
should be addressed from design engineering (Gagnon et al., 2012; Jonker and Harmsen,
2012). Environmental approaches and recent sustainability initiatives along with those methods
and tools developed and applied in product development studies are revised below.

1.1. Environmental initiatives

U
AN
Eco-design or Design for the Environment (DfE) is the methodology developed to consider
environmental criteria in the product design process without compromising other criteria and
M

specifications like operation, mode of use or appearance. DfE is part of Design for X (DfX)
strategies (Kuo et al., 2001; Holt and Barnes, 2010), such as design for disassembly, design
D

for end-of-life and design for recycling and it can benefit from them to obtain a product more
eco-efficient throughout its total life cycle. Typically, the product life cycle includes five stages:
TE

raw materials obtaining, production process, distribution, use and final disposition ('from the
cradle to the grave'). Specific tools used in eco-design methodology can be divided in two main
types: environmental assessment and environmental improvement tools.
EP

Environmental assessment tools are generally based on a life cycle assessment (LCA)
C

method. Thus, all inputs and outputs at each stage of the product life cycle are accounted,
including materials, energy, emissions or waste. In order to express the environmental impact of
AC

a product, a number of indicators, developed at the appropriate level of detail with respect to
each specific objective, are usually reported. A life cycle inventory requires many data so that a
number of databases were developed in the last decades based mostly on average data
representing average production and supply conditions for a variety of products and basic
services. A list of the most frequently used databases by the LCA software can be found at
Boër et al. 2013. As stated by Finnveden et al. (2009), significant differences in quality and
consistency can be detected between databases. Consequently, an important challenge in the
field of LCA is the reduction of these discrepancies.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Two types of LCA can be distinguished: attributional that aims at describing the
environmental performance of a system and consequential that searches the environmental
consequences of a decision in a system under study. During the harmonization-standardization
work by SETAC and ISO (ISO, 2006a, 2006b), the LCA structure was clearly defined. It consists
of four stages: 1) goal and scope that establishes the system boundary and the functional unit;
2) inventory analysis, in which all flows exchanged by the system are identified; 3) impact
assessment that allows determining type and magnitude of the impact and 4) interpretation that

PT
involves an analysis of the results obtained.

Environmental improvement tools, on the other hand, provide guidelines that designers can

RI
use to optimize the environmental performance of products. Numerous authors have
contributed to the development of this type of tools. Brezet and van Hemel, (1997) devised the

SC
Life Cycle Design Strategy (LiDS) Wheel that distinguishes 33 eco-design principles clustered
into eight strategies. All the stages of the product life cycle are taken into consideration.
Luttropp and Lagerstedt, (2006) proposed 'the ten golden rules' in order to fulfil the need for a

U
simple tool in eco-design education. Wimmer and Züst, (2003) developed the Eco-design Pilot
guide and Crul and Diehl, (2009) the Design for Sustainability (D4S) guide. An overview of
AN
existing eco-design tools for both assessment and environmental improvement is reviewed by
Andriankaja et al., (2015).
M

According to the development and put in practice of Eco-design method, a number of studies,
such as those summarized in Table 1, have focused on the application of assessment and
D

environmental improvement tools to a wide range of products. The following aspects are
indicated in each case: product type, objectives, applied methods and main results obtained.
TE

The objectives of each research work are exposed: (A) comparing different stages of the entire
life cycle of a product with respect to its environmental impacts; (B) comparing the relative
environmental impacts of different alternatives, (C) assessment of the product environmental
EP

impact and application of improvements.

C

The environmental impact assessment involves the classification of the impacts into
categories. Some of the most widely used methods of organizing impact categories are shown
AC

in Table 2. CML method is based on the publication of Guinée et al., (2001) and provides a list
of different impact assessment categories. These are grouped into three main types: obligatory
or baseline impact categories, that are those used in most LCA studies, study-specific impact
categories, which have indicators not often included in LCA studies and other impact categories
that operational indicators available, and therefore impossible to include quantitatively in LCA).
Another classification was developed by Goedkoop and Spriensma (2000), to obtain the eco-
indicator 99 method. In this approach for life cycle impact assessment, the environmental
impact categories are grouped in three blocks: Human health damage, ecological damage and
resources depletion.

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The EI99 method is a damage-oriented or endpoint approach that aggregate different results
into a single score carrying out three main steps: characterization or classification, normalization
and obtaining final weighted scores. Meanwhile, the CML method does not aggregate the
various environmental impacts, but keeps them all separated to communicate them accurately.
On the other hand, the objective of the BEES model (Lippiatt, 2007) is to assess the
environmental performance of different building product alternatives. CML and BEES methods
can be named midpoint approach since no overall impact is calculated. Thus, for each impact

PT
category of interest, the materials or processes that cause the impacts could be identified more
easily helping designers focus on improvement efforts.

RI
1.2 Sustainability initiatives

SC
A significant effort to develop sustainability methods has been carried out over the last years.
Companies are increasingly interested in improving their products and services from a
sustainable viewpoint, according to stimuli like the opportunities for innovation, the expected

U
increase of product quality and the potential market opportunities (Van Hemel and Cramer,
2002). In order to effectively integrate sustainability in product and service development
AN
Maxwell and Van der Vorst (2003), proposed a checklist of the most usual environmental and
socio-economic impacts that should be taken into account at each stage of the life cycle. A key
point of this approach is that it focuses on the entire supply chain for the product or service.
M

Maxwell et al., (2006) collected some of the most important sustainable product development
initiatives and approaches.
D

The life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework is a new perspective (Kloepffer,
TE

2007; Finkbeiner et al., 2010; Valdivida et al., 2013). LCSA evaluates both negative and
positive impacts and provide guiding principles to achieve sustainable products and services by
the combination of E-LCA, LCC and S-LCA techniques. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment
EP

(E-LCA), also referred as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), focuses on the environmental aspects
of a product throughout its life cycle and its use is widespread. Life cycle costing (LCC)
C

compiles and assesses all money flows at each stage of the product life cycle and it can be
used to inform decision-making about economic aspects (Hunkeler et al, 2008). The
AC

manufacturing costs are usually evaluated from a business perspective and the total costs, form
the customer perspective. LCC and E-LCA are interlinked through the study of material flows
over the whole life cycle of the product. Finally, S-LCA aims at assessing the impact on society
in order to improve performance of organizations and different social stakeholders. According to
UNEP’s guidelines (UNEP/SETAC, 2009) the socio-economic impacts can be divided in five
stakeholder categories: workers, local community, society, consumers and value chain actors
(Table 2). For each stakeholders group different social impacts subcategories are identified.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Environmental impact and sustainability studies in product development.

Authors Product Objective Methodology Results

PT
Corbiere-Nicollier (B) - Two plastic compositions. Entire life cycle. CML (midpoint) and The use of biofribre is advantageous
Plastic transport pallet
et al. (2001) Three end-of-life scenarios E95 (endpoint) methods (a purer fibre extraction is required)
Reginald and Packaging materials: (B) - Packaging with less material. Entire life cycle. To consume less material is beneficial.

RI
Hsien, (2005) EPS and CPB Five waste scenarios EI99 (endpoint approach) The worst scenario is landfilling
Masruroh and Solar thermal system (A), (B) Materials obtaining, production and Solar thermal system reduces
Environmental impact studies

SC
Klemes, (2006) (thermochemical unit) Four heating systems distribution stages (midpoint approach) environmental impacts
Martinez et al., (A) - Four main components: Entire life cycle stages. CML (midpoint) The foundation is the component which
Wind turbine
(2009) nacelle, tower, rotor, foundation and EI99 (endpoint) methods most affect the environment

U
Song et al., (A) - The analysis of different end- All life cycle stages. CML (midpoint) and The use stage has the highest
CRT TV-set monitor
(2012) of-life scenarios is also involved EI99 (endpoint) methods environmetal impact

AN
Elduque et al., Electronic board of a (B) - Two power and one touch All life cylce stages. The most relevant impact is caused by the
(2014) domestic induction hob control electronic boards CML (midpoint) method use stage and by ring core inductors

M
Babaizadeh et al., Exterior window (B) - Five climates. Three different All life cylce stages. BEES model Guidance to decision about the design of
(2015) shadings shading materials (midpoint impact categories) shading systems for different facilities
Del Pero et al., (A) - Sensitivity analysis All life cycle stages. CML method Predominace of use stage due its energy
Heavy metro train

D
(2015) depending on vehicle occupancy (midpoint impact categories) intensity in traction and heating operations
Iritani et al., (B) Three scenarios for the Raw materials supply, manufacturing and High impact at the stage of raw materials

TE
Wardrobe from MDF
(2015) production of the particle board distribution/ EDIP-97 (midpoint method) supply. Use of wood waste
Capitano et al., 3 Raw materials, manufacturing and Identifying strengths and weakness of the
Marble products:1m (D) - Two production plants
Sustainability studies

(2011) distribución stages. LCSA – CML products in each production process

EP
Traverso et al., Photovoltaic module: (D) - Two companies and three Assembly step of the production stage. The aggregate LCSD results show the
2
(2012) 1m different scenarios LCSA – LCSD best sustainability performance
C

Chang et al., Welding technology: (D) - Four different welding Production stage. MMAW has higher environmental impacts
(2015) 1 m weld seam processes LCA – CML – SLCA and leads to higher health risk of welders
AC

Eastwood and (D) - Three alternative bevel gear Manufacturing stage. Different Each metric requires different aggregation
Bevel gear
Haapala (2015) designs aggregation methods. Metrics method
Objectives: (A) Environmental impact assessment. Comparing different stages of the entire life cycle; (B) Comparing environmental impact of different alternatives;
(C) Environmental impact assessment and identification/application of improvements; (D) Comparing sustainability of different alternatives;

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. Sustainability impact categories.

Environmental impact categories

EI99 method
CML method BEES method
(Goedkoop and Spriensma,
(Guinée et al., 2001) (Lippiatt, 2007)
2000)

Human health damage A. Baseline impact categories: ⋅ Global warming

⋅ Smog and air pollution (IR) ⋅ Depletion of abiotic resources (AD) potential (GWP)
⋅ Health damaging ⋅ Impacts of land use (LU) ⋅ Acidification (A)
substances (HD) ⋅ Climate change (GWP) ⋅ Eutrophication (E)
⋅ Carcinogens (C) ⋅ Fossil fuel depletion (F)

PT
⋅ Stratospheric ozone depletion (OD)
Ecological damage ⋅ Human toxicity (HT) ⋅ Indoor air quality
⋅ Global warming potential ⋅ Ecotoxicity (ET): ⋅ Habitat alteration (TED)
(GWP) - Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAET) ⋅ Water intake
⋅ Criteria air pollutants

⋅ Ozone depletion (OD)
⋅ Acid rain (A)
⋅ Water eutrophication (E)
⋅ Habitat alteration
RI
- Marine aquatic ecotoxicity (MAET)
- Terrestrial ecotoxicity (TET) (C)
⋅ Photo-oxidant formation (PO) ⋅ Human health (H)
⋅ Acidification (A) ⋅ Cancerous effects
⋅ Eutrophication (E) ⋅ Noncancerous

SC
or land use (LU)
⋅ Ecotoxicity (ET) effects
B. Study-specific impact categories:
⋅ Smog formation (S)
Resource depletion Land use/ Ecotoxicity/ Ionising/ Radiation/
Odour/ Noise/ Waste heat/ Casualties ⋅ Ozone depletion (O)
⋅ Fossil fuels (Fuels) ⋅ Ecological toxicity (ET)

U
⋅ Fresh water (WU) C. Other impact categories:
⋅ Minerals (M) Depletion of biotic resources/ Desiccation
⋅ Topsoil (T)
AN
Socio-economic impact categories (UNEP/SETAC guidelines)

Value chain actors

Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder
M

not including
‘worker’ ‘consumer’ ‘local community’ ‘society’
consumers

⋅ Freedom of ⋅ Health and ⋅ Access to material ⋅ Public ⋅ Fair competition

D

association and safety resources commitments to ⋅ Promoting

collective ⋅ Feedback ⋅ Access to immaterial sustainability social
bargaining mechanism resources issues responsibility
TE

⋅ Child labour ⋅ Consumer ⋅ Delocalization and ⋅ Contribution to ⋅ Supplier

⋅ Fair salary privacy migration economic relationships
⋅ Working hours ⋅ Transparency ⋅ Cultural heritage development ⋅ Respect of
⋅ Forced labour ⋅ End of life ⋅ Safe and healthy ⋅ Prevention and intellectual
⋅ Equal
EP

responsibility living conditions mitigation of property rights

opportunities/ ⋅ Respect of armed conflicts
Discrimination indigenous rights ⋅ Technology
⋅ Health and ⋅ Community development
safety engagement ⋅ Corruption
C

⋅ Social benefits/ ⋅ Local employment

Social security ⋅ Secure living
AC

conditions

The type of data to be analyzed in LCSA can be quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative.

In general, LCA and LCC use quantitative data, however in S-LCA, semi-quantitative and
qualitative information are also often used because the social issues are not easy to quantify.
Kloepffer (2008) indicates that further efforts must be performed to develop appropriate
assessment tools as well as guidelines to establish which set of indicators should be used in
each subcategory of socio-economic impact.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In order to put into practice the life cycle sustainability assessment methodology and provide
information to industry for developing and selecting sustainable processes, a number of studies
have been carried out in recent years. Capitano et al. (2011) analyze for the first time the
sustainability performance of marble products; Traverso et al. (2012) analyze the assembly
step of photovoltaic modules; Chang et al., (2015) compare sustainability of different welding
processes and Eastwood and Haapala (2015) examine the sustainability associated to the
manufacturing of three design alternatives for a bevel gear. In all cases, there is a need to

PT
measure the sustainability dimensions by using a set of pertinent, robust and practical
indicators. The identification and use of indicators may comprise various levels from overall
objectives to specific actions, to monitor progress on sustainable development in global policies

RI
(Adelle and Pallemaerts, 2009). Nevertheless, according to those works examined in Table 1,
the quantification of the sustainability performance to detect and compare different product

SC
design options will be our main objective.

In the case of the environmental dimension of sustainability, the indicators of the considered

U
environmental impact categories (Table 2), developed at the appropriate level of detail with
regard to each particular challenge, are usually reported. A critical indicator used is the global
AN
warming potential (GWP), which is also referred as climate change or greenhouse gas
emissions. Nevertheless, indicators like ozone depletion (OD), acidification (A) or fossil fuels
depletion (Fuels) are also used. The Eco-indicator 99 expresses a total environmental impact by
M

means of a single score (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000). This is particularly useful for
designers because it shows an overall environmental impact using easily understandable and
D

user-friendly units.
TE

Some initiatives to develop simplified indicators that facilitate the communication of

sustainability results to the decision-makers were also performed from the perspective of
economic and societal impacts. Traverso et al. (2012), implement the Life Cycle Sustainability
EP

Dashboard (LCSD) to compare results of different products and use an aggregated

sustainability performance index, which is obtained by a weighted average of all included
C

indicators' values. Another tool oriented to the presentation of an LCSA study is the Life Cycle
Sustainability Triangle (LCST) (Finkbeiner et al., 2010). The development of an overall
AC

indicator that integrates results of the three sustainability dimensions should be the future step.
Further research is needed to keep a suitable balance between dimensions and provide
transparent results.

Andriankaja et al., (2015), report that two classes of indicators should be used to asses the
environmental dimension in product design: environmental impact indicators and environmental
engineering metrics. The lather type is considered useful for measuring industrial purposes.
(Rachuri et al., 2009), already indicated that sustainability metrics should be used to guide for
interpretation of each of the three sustainability dimensions. A set of engineering metrics will be

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
used in this work to provide useful information of the product manufacturing stage, as well as
support in obtaining and interpreting sustainability indicators.

Sustainability studies, such as those exposed in Table 1, are mainly focused on the analysis
and comparison of manufacturing processes for a specific product. This work aims at achieving
an improved product by the application of a sustainable product development methodology,
which includes a product redesign phase integrating sustainability criteria and the selection of a

PT
set of practical metrics and indicators to assess and compare initial and redesigned products.
The impact of the production process is evaluated not only from an environmental view, but also
from a socio-economic perspective by the compilation of production costs according to a LCC

RI
analysis and the use of indicators capturing the social impact on the company workers.

SC
Methodology applied and results obtained from two case studies are shown in the following
sections. The first product analyzed is a solar tracker whose manufacturing data for both initial
and redesigned product are obtained carrying out the entire product development project. The

U
second product analyzed is an isothermal container whose manufacturing data for the initial
product are provided from the manufacturing company while production inventory of the product
AN
redesigned is obtained from the corresponding product development project. In two cases,
sustainability indicators of the initial and redesigned product are compared.
M

2. Methodology
D

A method based on the LCA approach is used. The system boundary is the production
TE

process stage of the product life cycle (Fig. 1). The inventory analysis includes collecting and
analyzing the data concerning the main inputs and outputs of this system. One manufactured
product is the functional unit considered within a high volume manufacturing process. It is
EP

assumed that company has the necessary resources (industrial equipment and workers) for the
manufacturing process development and the resources allocation is not partitioned.
Sustainability analysis is guided by engineering metrics and indicators, which are evaluated for
C

each product unit manufactured.

AC

As Fig. 1 illustrates, three phases have to be undertaken to achieve a sustainable product

development: 1) Identification of inputs and outputs associated to the production process or
production inventory; 2) Assessment of engineering metrics and indicators for the three
dimensions of sustainability; 3) Product redesign integrating initial specifications and
sustainability criteria. Afterwards, a new production inventory and sustainability assessment
(phases 1 and 2) should be carried out for the redesigned product. Finally, the comparative
presentation of the sustainability performance of both initial and redesigned product could be
performed to detect if the product has been improved.

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Materials
obtaining INPUTS
Final
disposition System
Raw Energy,
boundary
materials Money
PRODUCT Production
Use LIFE process
CYCLE Waste,
Products Production
costs
Distribution
OUTPUTS

PT
Initial 1) Production
Product inventory

RI
SUSTAINABLE
Specifications PRODUCT Engineering
DEVELOPMENT metrics

SC
Alternatives 3) Product 2) Sustainability
Indicators
redesign assessment

Comparing
Sustainability
designs
strategies

U
Product
improved
AN
Fig. 1. Phases for a sustainable product development.
M

2.1. Production inventory

D

All existent flows associated to the production system are valued in this phase. The
elementary flows exchanged by the industrial installation include inputs (raw materials, energy
TE

consumption, consumables and money inputs) and outputs (products, waste and production
costs). The functional unit is one manufactured product.
In addition, manufacturing operations are analyzed in detail to value material transformations
EP

and resource consumptions for each part or component of the product. Particularly, the
calculation of material removed, time required and power supply is carried out for each
C

productive operation to project the manufacturing process of the redesigned product.

In this work, data of the production process for the initial product were obtained from both,
AC

previous product development projects (Lacasa et al., 2015) and manufacturing company.

2.2. Sustainability assessment

A number of engineering metrics and indicators are obtained in this phase. Metrics
considered useful to assess the production activity are the following: the mass and volume of
the manufactured product, the total energy consumption, the amount of material removed, costs
of raw materials and the annual production volume. These metrics allow obtaining useful
information of the product manufacturing for process designers and are needed to assess the
sustainability indicators proposed below.

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Different indicators are used to measure each of the three dimensions of sustainability. The
indicators selected for the environmental dimension are the Global Warming Potential (GWP100)
that represents the total emissions of the greenhouse gases calculating the radiative forcing
over a time horizon of 100 years (expressed in Kg of CO2 equivalent) and the Eco-indicator 99
(EI99) that weighs different impact categories into a single score (expressed in most cases in
millipoints). Both, midpoint and endpoint approaches are applied. In this case, Probas database
(UBA, 2007) and data from MEEuP Methodology report (Kemna et al., 2005) are used in the

PT
calculus process of the GWP100 indicator. EI99 was obtained from the manual for designers
developed for the Eco-indicator 99 method (VROM, 2000). In addition, the environmental effect
of the recycled materials at the final disposition phase of the product life cycle is taken into

RI
account. Data for environmental load recovered of the recycling process (expressed in
millipoints per Kg) are extracted from this manual.

SC
For the economic dimension, the value added (VA) and the eco-efficiency (EE) are the
indicators proposed. The value added (Azapagic and Perdan, 2000) expresses the net
operating profit of the company before taxes and is obtained as the difference between sales

U
revenues and production costs. The eco-efficiency (Ng et al., 2015) combines and quantifies
the economic and the environmental aspects because it is evaluated by the ratio of the value
AN
added and EI99. Finally, the indicators selected to assess the social dimension are the working
hours and the hourly wage, which are associated to the category of company workers. All
indicators are reported for each functional unit of product.
M

2.3. Product redesign

D

Product design activities usually begin with an analytical phase where the product
TE

requirements and specifications and the diverse parameters of the problem are studied along
with the anticipated market demands (Roozenburg and Eekels, 1995). Since the
goal/specification phase is the most crucial as far as product performance and properties are
EP

concerned, this is where the sustainability issues are considered.

Taking into account that each product consists of different parts or components and each of
its components fulfils a function, the specifications of individual components should be
C

analyzed. For each individual component, redesign alternatives, which involve the application of
sustainability strategies, can be proposed. According to the LiDS wheel (Brezet and van
AC

Hemel, 1997), the selection of low-impact materials, the reduction of materials quantity and the
optimization of production techniques are considered appropriate strategies to improve
environmentally a product at the production stage.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3. Case studies

The objective of this section is to demonstrate that it is possible to obtain an improved

product design applying the methodology exposed before. The level of the achieved
improvement considering three dimensions of the sustainability is measured using the selected
indicators. Two different products are analyzed.

Product 1

PT
The first product analyzed in this work is a single-axis solar tracker for household systems
and low power installations. This mechanism is programmed to daily follow the sun motion. In

RI
addition, the polar angle can be manually adjusted along the year in order to obtain an increase
of the energy collection. Fig. 2 shows the main components and operating characteristics of the
solar tracker.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 2. Solar tracker. Components and characteristics.

C

Taking into account that the manufacture of solar panels is not included within the system
AC

boundary, inputs and outputs as well as data associated to the production process, in reference
to one functional unit, are indicated in Fig. 3. Materials involved in the manufacturing process of
the solar tracker are galvanized steel (S275JR), stainless steel (AISI type 304N), 6066-T4
aluminum alloy, polypropylene for injection molding (PP-4062) and Nylon 66/6. The following
data are also exposed: manufacturing times and energy consumptions for each productive
operation, mass and volume of the product already packaged, amount of material removed and
total energy consumption along the full process production. In addition, economic flows due to
sales and production costs are evaluated for each product unit manufactured.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 3. Solar tracker production. Manufacturing line and flows exchanged.

Engineering metrics to evaluate the production activity are summarized in Table 3. The
D

product is only partially assembled to make easier transport and distribution operations. The
packaging mass (2.13 Kg) is included in the final product mass (22.4 Kg). It can be observed
TE

that the amount of material removed (1.43%) is a reduced percentage of the raw materials
acquired and the highest production costs are due to the raw materials purchase (67.2%). The
EP

indicators to assess the sustainability of the initial product are obtained according to
methodology previously exposed. Results in Table 3 show that the manufacturing process of
each solar tracker involves 23.03 Kg of CO2-Eq emissions (materials obtaining stage is also
C

included in this calculus), a net operating profit of 12.6 € for the company and an hourly wage of
11.85 € for each worker.
AC

Table 3. Engineering metrics and sustainability indicators. Initial solar tracker.

Annual
Engineering Product Product Energy Waste Raw mat.
3 production
metrics mass (Kg) vol. (m ) (Kw·s) (%) costs (€)
(units)
Initial product 22.4 0.048 658.2 1.43 128.1 12,672
Environmental Economic Social
Sustainability
indicators GWP100 EI99 VA EE Working Hourly
(Kg CO2-Eq) (pt) (€) (€/pt) hours wage (€/h)
Initial product 23.03 6.54 12.6 1.93 0.17 11.85

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Next, a redesign of the solar tracker is proposed applying as sustainability strategies the
reduction of materials and the selection of materials with the lowest impact. The materials given
as an alternative are within those already used in the initial design. Different alternatives
denominated, respectively, A1, A2 and A3, are considered for each component of the solar
tracker. In Table 4, the following information for both, initial design, Di, and redesign
alternatives, is shown: type and size of raw materials, energy consumption and amount of
material removed along the manufacturing process, mass of the final component, fulfillment of

PT
resistance specifications and EI99. Design specifications for each component include the
selection of materials resistant to corrosion, size consistent with the dimensions and range of
motion of the solar panel and working stress (σ) lower than the yield strength (σy). Wind load is

RI
taken into account in the resistance calculus. Nevertheless, the mechanism needs to be
stopped and solar panel conveniently oriented in cases of very strong wind. The size of some

SC
components is modified maintaining in all cases a safety coefficient of roughly three.

Table 4. Redesign of the solar tracker components.

U
Raw materials Processing Product Resistance
Solar tracker specification EI99
component Material Size Energy Material Mass (mPt)
σ < σy (MPa)
AN
type (mm) (w·h) rem. (Kg) (Kg)
Di S275JR 60x40x5 1.39 0.015 10.58 86.1 < 275 3,178.5
1.Flagpole

A1 AISI 304N 60x30x4 1.08 0.012 6.25 99.5 < 330 5,260.1
A2 S275JR 60x30x4 1.1 0.011 6.17 99.5 < 275 1,854.3
M

A3 Al 6066T4 60x40x5 0.27 0.005 2.95 68.9 < 207 177

Di Al 6066T4 60x30x2 0.67 0.009 1.99 48.7 < 207 119.8
2. Arms

A1 AISI 304N 40x30x1.5 0.56 0.021 3.66 81.3 < 330 3,109.8
D

A2 S275JR 40x30x1.5 0.56 0.02 3.60 81.3 < 275 1,092

A3 Al 6066T4 50x30x2 0.56 0.007 1.92 61.9 < 207 116
TE

Di S275JR φ30 2.79 0.007 6.37 70.7 < 275 1,913.2

3. Shaft

A1 AISI 304N φ30x4 2.31 0.002 2.60 96.6 < 330 2,185.7
A2 S275JR φ30x4 2.31 0.002 2.56 96.6 < 275 768.7
A3 Al 6066T4 φ30 0.52 0.002 1.94 70.7 < 207 116.5
EP
4.Casing

Di PP 4062 Pellet 94.72 0.018 0.28 12 < 33.8 37.8

A1 PS 6055 Pellet 88.19 0.02 0.32 12 < 41.4 42.7

C

Di AISI 304N t=3 67.8 0.08 0.94 114 < 330 858.3
5.Fitting φ

A1 S275JR t=3 77 0.077 0.91 114 < 275 297.8

AC

A2 Al 6066T4 t=4.5 12.6 0.03 0.5 62.2 < 200 32.08

Di Nylon 66/6 φ20 8.94 0.023 0.014 11.4 < 63.5 15.4
6. Worm

A1 PS 6055 Pellet 1.39 0 0.012 11.4 < 41.4 1.5

A2 PP 4062 Pellet 1.62 0 0.011 11.4 < 33.8 1.4
7Gearwheel

Di Nylon 66/6 φ65 5.74 0.18 0.012 11.4 < 63.5 12.4
A1 PS 6055 Pellet 1.88 0 0.011 11.4 < 41.4 1.4
A2 PP 4062 Pellet 2 0 0.010 11.4 < 33.8 1.2
Di S275JR t=1 0.72 0.006 0.025 0.1 < 275 5.3
8. Support

-3
A1 Nylon 66/6 t=1 0.7 9·10 0.004 0.1 < 63.5 5.3
-3
A2 PS 6055 Pellet 0.8 8·10 0.003 0.1 < 41.4 1.3
-3
A3 PP 4062 Pellet 0.83 7·10 0.003 0.1 < 33.8 1.2

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The alternative with the lowest environmental impact is selected for the redesign of each
component. To note that according to EI99 methodology, 6066-T4 aluminum alloy and PP-4062
have higher recyclability coefficient than other materials.
A new inventory of the production system and the subsequent sustainability assessment are
carried out for the new design of solar tracker. Engineering metrics and sustainability indicators
of the product redesigned are summarized in Table 5. A significant reduction of nearly 66% for
the mass and 50% for the product volume is obtained. Thus, an improvement of the

PT
sustainability indicators as i.e. fuel consumption is expected for the product distribution stage.
On the other hand, a small increase of the raw materials costs is noted. Nevertheless, the

RI
energy consumption is notably smaller due to the use of aluminum and a decrease of the
production costs is finally obtained. The annual production is not modified because the
manufacturing times hardly change.

SC
Table 5. Engineering metrics and sustainability indicators. Solar tracker redesigned.

U
Annual
Engineering Product Product Energy Waste Raw mat.
3 production
metrics mass (Kg) vol. (m ) (Kw·s) (%) costs (€)
(units)
AN
Redesign 7.65 0.024 407.32 0.79 129.64 12,672
Environmental Economic Social
Sustainability
M

indicators GWP100 EI99 VA EE Working Hourly

(Kg CO2-Eq) (pt) (€) (€/pt) hours wage (€/h)
Redesign 14.06 0.81 25.5 31.5 0.17 11.85
D
TE

If sustainability indicators of both initial and redesigned product are compared (Fig. 4), we
observe that GWP100 reduces 38% and EI99, which cluster different impact categories, reduces
83%. In addition, VA becomes double and EE indicator greatly improves. It is assumed that
EP

sales revenues are not modified. Meanwhile, the social indicators associated to the workers
group not vary. Results show that a more sustainable product could be developed since
C

economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability are improved.

AC

25 7 30 35 0,18 14

6 25 30 12
0,15
20
5 25 10
20 0,12
15 4 20 8
15 0,09
10 3 15 6
10 0,06
2 10 4
5
1 5 5 0,03 2

0 0 0 0 0 0
GWP100 (Kg CO2) E99 (Pt) Value Added (€) Eco-efficiency (€/Pt) Work hours (h) Hourly wage (€/h)

Initial product Redesigned product

Fig. 4. Solar tracker. Indicators comparison.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Product 2

An isothermal container for the transport and storage of fresh or frozen foods is the second
product studied. The main components and characteristics of this product are shown in Fig. 5.
A low thermal transfer coefficient ensures the preservation of the cold chain of the products
transported and the container structure, reinforced with galvanized steel, allows the stacking
and optimization of the vehicle space.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 5. Isothermal container. Components and characteristics.
M

Raw materials involved in the product development are galvanized steel (S275JR) that is
D

used to the container structure manufacturing, high impact polystyrene (HIPS) used in the outer
wall, composite (polystyrene and fiberglass) used in the inner wall, isocyanate and polyol, used
TE

to obtain the polyurethane (PU) thermal insulation, as well as rubber, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
and polystyrene (PS), which are used in all other components. Material inputs and outputs
EP

associated to the production process as well as the main manufacturing operations, times
required by operation and energy consumptions to manufacture one product unit are shown in
Fig. 6.
C

Assembly is the operation that requires most of time in production. Laser cutting and welding
of sheets and structural profiles of galvanized steel are the operations with the highest energy
AC

consumptions. All metrics and sustainability indicators are summarized in Table 6. The mass
3
and volume of the isothermal container are, respectively, 75.2 Kg and 0.76 m and the
manufacturing process involves 106.5 Kg of CO2-Eq emissions and an aggregated EI99
indicator of 17.9 pt. An efficient use of the raw materials is carried out along the manufacturing
process. According to the money flows, the highest production costs are due to the raw
materials acquisition. For an annual production of 2,365 containers, a net operating profit of
45.4€ is obtained in each unit manufactured. In addition, 1.78 working hours are needed and
10.2 €/h is the hourly wage for each unit.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 6. Isothermal container production. Manufacturing line and flows exchanged.

D

Subsequently, more sustainable isothermal container is projected. Alternatives of redesign

TE

are proposed for each part of the container taking into account the fulfillment of the product
specifications. Alternatives are identified as A and initial designs are identified as Di in Table 7.
The selection of low-impact materials as i.e. flax fiber for the thermal insulation and the inner
EP

wall and the reduction of materials as i.e. the use of smaller sizes for some components of the
container structure, are the sustainability strategies applied in this case.
C

Table 6. Engineering metrics and sustainability indicators. Initial isothermal container.

AC

Annual
Engineering Product Product Energy Waste Raw mat.
3 production
metrics mass (Kg) vol. (m ) (Kw·s) (%) costs (€)
(units)
Initial product 75.2 0.76 5,076.9 0.69 616.5 2,365
Environmental Economic Social
Sustainability
indicators GWP100 EI99 VA EE Working Hourly
(Kg CO2-Eq) (pt) (€) (€/pt) hours wage (€/h)
Initial product 106.5 17.9 45.4 2.54 1.78 10.2

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 7. Redesign of the isothermal container components.

Energy Mass EI99

Container part Raw Materials Requirements
(Kw·s) (Kg) (mPt)

Structure/ other Di S275JR Mechanical strength 275 4,756 47.8 14,384

components A S275JR (MPa) 275 4,714 45.1 13,721
Di HIPS Impact resistance 3-12 - 9.42 1,130.4
Outer wall 2
A PP (KJ/m ) 4-20 - 8.57 1,028.4
Di PS+FG Ok - 9.74 1,003.2
Inner wall Food compatibility

PT
A PS+FF Ok - 8.91 908.8
Thermal Di Polyurethane Thermal conduct. 0.034 160 6.45 1,354.5
insulation A Flax fiberboard (Kcal/h⋅m⋅K) 0.033 0 3.75 112.5
Di PVC 65-95 - 0.22 22

RI
Door Hardness
weatherstrip A Rubber (Shore A) 45-90 - 0.17 20.4

SC
Values of EI99 for the alternatives proposed show a lower environmental impact. Mass and
energy consumptions of the redesign alternatives are also smaller, so an improvement of the

U
economic dimension of the sustainability is expected. The inventory of the production system
and the subsequent sustainability assessment are carried out for the redesigned container.
AN
Metrics and indicators finally obtained are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. Engineering metrics and sustainability indicators. Isothermal container redesigned.

M

Annual
Engineering Product Product Energy Waste Raw mat.
3 production
metrics mass (Kg) vol. (m ) (Kw·s) (%) costs (€)
(units)
D

Redesign 68.1 0.76 4,847.2 0.7 573.5 2,450

TE

Environmental Economic Social

Sustainability
indicators GWP100 EI99 VA EE Working Hourly
(Kg CO2-Eq) (pt) (€) (€/pt) hours wage (€/h)
EP

Redesign 64.1 15.8 88.6 5.61 1.71 10.8

A decrease of the product mass, energy consumption and costs of raw materials can be
C

observed with respect to the initial product. The product volume is preserved but since a lighter
AC

container is obtained, sustainability could be improved in the transport processes. Production

costs reduce 5.3% due mainly to the use of organic materials as flax fiber. In this case, annual
production could be increased 3.6% due to reduced flax fiberboard assembly time versus PU
injection time. Thus, the social indicators could be slightly improved, since the working hours
needed to manufacture one unit reduce and a slight increase of the hourly wage is obtained.
Fig. 7 shows comparatively the sustainability indicators of the initial and redesigned
container. Looking at the environmental dimension, GWP100 and EI99 reduces, respectively,
39% and 11%. For the economic dimension, VA and EE become approximately double.
Meanwhile, social indicators improve around 5%.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
250 20 100 6 2 12

5 10
200 16 80 1,6

4 8
150 12 60 1,2
3 6
100 8 40 0,8
2 4

50 4 20
1 0,4 2

0 0 0 0 0 0
GWP100 (Kg CO2) E99 (Pt) Value Added (€) Eco-efficiency (€/Pt) Work hours (h) Hourly wage (€/h)

PT
Initial product Redesigned product

Fig. 7. Isothermal container. Indicators comparison.

RI
SC
4. Conclusions

U
In this work, a sustainable product development methodology was implemented in two
different products: a solar tracker and an isothermal container. First, the main inputs and
AN
outputs associated to the production process of each product were obtained. Next, the
quantification of the economic, environmental and social aspects was carried out by the use of
suitable engineering metrics and indicators. Finally, sustainability strategies focused on the
M

selection of low impact materials and the reduction of materials were applied in the product
redesign process, at the same time that initial specifications were fulfilled.
D

An improvement of the engineering metrics was achieved in both products. For the solar
tracker case, mass reduced nearly 66% and volume decreased around 50%. For the isothermal
TE

container, mass reduced around 9% and volume was preserved. Since lighter products were
obtained, the improvement in indicators as i.e. lower fuel consumptions can be expected for the
products distribution stage. In two cases, productions costs were improved, due mainly to the
EP

reduction of energy consumption (use of aluminum instead of galvanized steel) in the solar
tracker case and due mainly to the use of organic materials in the isothermal container case.
The comparison of the sustainability indicators obtained for the initial and redesigned product
C

showed, in both cases, a reduction of the environmental impact, expressed by GWP100 and EI99
AC

indicators, as well as an improvement of the economic dimension, expressed by the VA and EE

indicators. A decrease of nearly 40% in the GWP100 indicator and an increase of approximately
double in the VA indicator were measured. Additionally, the social dimension of the
sustainability, evaluated by the working hours and hourly wage of the company workers, was
slightly improved in the case of the isothermal container.
Results obtained showed the usefulness of the metrics and indicators selected to assess and
compare the product sustainability, as well as the potential of the methodology proposed to
improve the sustainability in product development projects.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5. References

Adelle, C. and Pallemaerts, M., 2009. Sustainable development indicators. An overview of

relevant framework programme funded research and identification of further needs in view of
EU and international activities. European Communities.
Andriankaja, H., Vallet, F., Le Duigou, J., Eynard, B., 2015. A method to ecodesign structural
parts in the transport sector based on product life cycle management. Journal of Cleaner

PT
Production 94, 165-176.
Azapagic, A. and Perdan, S., 2000. Indicators of sustainable development for industry: A
general framework. Trans IChemE, Process Safety Environmental Protection, Part B, 78 (4),

RI
243-261.
Babaizadeh, H., Haghighi, N., Asadi, S., Broun, R, Riley, D., 2015. Life cycle assessment of

SC
exterior window shadings in resident building in different climate zones. Building and
Environment 90, 168-177.
Boër, C.R., Pedrazzoli, P., Bettoni, A., Sorlini, M., 2013. Mass customization and sustainability.

U
An assessment framework and industrial implementation. Springer-Verlag, London.
Brezet, J.C. and Van Hemel C.G., 1997. Ecodesign: a promising approach to sustainable
AN
production and consumption. UNEP, United Nations Publications, Paris.
Chang, Y., Sproesser, G., Neugebauer, S., Wolf, K., Scheumann, R., Pittner, A., Rethmeier, M.,
Finkbeiner, M., 2015. Environmental and social life cycle assessment of welding
M

th
technologies. 12 Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 26, 293-
298.
D

Capitano, C., Traverso, M., Rizzo, G., Finkbeiner, M., 2011. Life cycle sustainability
assessment: an implementation to marble products. Life Cycle Management Conference,
TE

LCM, Berlin, Germany.

Corbière-Nicollier, T., Gfeller Laban, B., Lundquist, L., Leterrier, Y., Manson, J.A.E., Jolliet, O.,
2001. Life cycle assessment of biofibres replacing glass fibres as reinforcement in plastics.
EP

Resources, conservation and recycling 33, 267-287.

Crul, M. and Diehl, J.C., 2009. Design for sustainability. A step-by-step approach. UNEP, United
C

Nations Publications, Paris.

Del Pero, F., Delogu, M., Pierini, M., Bonaffini, D., 2015. Life cycle assessment of a heavy
AC

metro train. Journal of cleaner Production 87, 787-799.

Elduque, D., Javierre, C., Pina, C., Martínez, E., Jiménez, E., 2014. Life cycle assessment of a
domestic induction job: electronic boards. Journal of Cleaner Production 76, 74-84.
Eatswood, M.D. and Haapala, K.R., 2015. A unit process model based methodology to assist
product sustainability assessment during design for manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner
Production 108, 54-64.
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A., Traverso, M., 2010. Towards life cycle sustainability
assessment. Sustainability 2, 3309 - 3322.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A.,
Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of
Environmental Management 91, 1-21.
Garner, A., Keoleian, G.A., 1995. Industrial ecology: An introduction. University of Michigan’s
National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education: Ann Arbor, MI.
Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., Savard, L., 2012. From a conventional to a sustainable engineering
design process: different shades of sustainability. Journal of Engineering Design 23:1,49-74.

PT
Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., 2000. The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for
Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology report. PRé Consultants B.V., Amersfoort, The
Netherlands.

RI
Guinée, J., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., et al., 2001. Life
cycle assessment - an operational guide to the ISO standards. Centre of Environmental

SC
Sciences (CML), Leiden University.
Holt, R. and Barnes, C., 2010. Towards an integral approach to 'Design for X': an agenda for
decision-based DFX research. Research in Engineering Design 21 (2), 123-136.

U
Hunkeler, D., Rebitzer, G., Lichtenvort, K. (Eds.); Ciroth, A.; Hunkeler, D.; Huppes, G.;
Lichtenvort, K.; Rebitzer, G.; Rüdenauer, I.; Steen, B. (Lead authors), 2008. Environmental
AN
Life Cycle Costing. SETAC Publications.
Iritani, D.R., Silva, D.A.L., Saavedra, Y.M.B., Grael, P.F.F., Ometto, A.R., 2015. Sustainable
strategies analysis through life cycle assessment. A case study in a furniture industry.
M

Journal of Cleaner Production 96, 308-318.

ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental management - Life cycle
D

assessment - Principles and framework. International Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

ISO, 2006b. ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental management - Life cycle
TE

assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation, Geneva,

Switzerland.
Jonker, G. and Harmsen, J., 2012. Engineering for sustainability. A practical guide for
EP

sustainable design. Elsevier BV.

Kemna, R., van Elburg, M., Li, W., van Holsteijn, R., 2005. MEEuP Methodology Report.
C

Kloepffer, W., 2007. Life-cycle based sustainability assessments as part of LCM. In

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management, Zurich,
AC

Switzerland, 27-29 August, 2007.

Kloepffer, W., 2008. Life cycle sustainability assessment of products (with comments by Helias
A. Udo de Haes, p. 95). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13:2, 89-95.
Kuo, T.C., Huang, S.H., Zhang, H.C., 2001. Design for manufacture and design for X: concepts,
applications and perspectives. Computers & Industrial Engineering 41, 241-260.
Lacasa, E., Santolaya, J.L., Fuentes, L., Majarena, A.C., 2015. Implementing sustainability
criteria in product development. Procedia Engineering 132, 1029-1036.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lippiatt, B.C., 2007. Building for environmental and economic sustainability (BEES). Technical
manual and user guide. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J., 2006. Ecodesign ant the ten golden rules: generic advice for
merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14,
1396-1408.
Martínez, E., Sanz, F., Pellegrini, S., Jiménez, E., Blanco, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment of a

PT
multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renewable Energy 34, 667-673.
Masruroh, N.A., Li, B., Klemes, J., 2006. Life cycle analysis of a solar thermal system with
thermochemical storage process. Renewable Energy 31, 537-548.

RI
Maxwell, D., Van der Vorst, R., 2003. Developing sustainable products and services. Journal of
Cleaner Production 11, 883-895.

SC
Maxwell, D., Sheate, W., Van der Vorst, R., 2006. Functional and systems aspects of the
sustainable product and service development approach for industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 14, 1466-1479.

U
Ng, R., Yeo, Z., Sze Choong Low, J. and Song, B., 2015. A method for relative eco-efficiency
analysis and improvement: case study of bonding technologies. Journal of Cleaner
AN
Production 99, 320-332.
Rachuri, S., Sriram, R.D., Sarkar, P., 2009. Metrics, standards and industry best practices for
sustainable manufacturing systems. In: 5th Annual IEEE Conference on Automation Science
M

and Engineering, Bangalore, India.

Reginald, B.H.T., Hsien, H.K., 2005. Life cycle assessment of EPS and CPB inserts: design
D

considerations and end of life scenarios. Journal of Environmental Management 74,195-205.

Roozenburg, N.F.M., Eekels, J., 1995. Product design: fundamentals and methods. UK: Wiley.
TE

Song, Q., Wang, Z., Li, J., Zeng, X., 2012. Lyfe cycle assessment of TV sets in China: a case of
study of the impacts of CRT monitors. Waste Management 32, 1926-1936.
Traverso, M., Asdrubali, F., Francia, A., Finkbeiner, M., 2012. Towards life cycle sustainability
EP

assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment 17, 1068-1079.
C

UBA, 2007. Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (German Environmental Protection Agency).

PROBAS Database. <http://www.probas.umweltbundesamt.de/php/index.php>
AC

UNCED, 1992, Agenda 21, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio
de Janeiro, June 1992.
UNEP/SETAC, 2009. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products. United Nations
Environment Programme, Paris.
Valdivia, S., Ugaya, C.M.L., Hildenbrand, J., Traverso, M Mazijn, B, Sonneman, G., 2013. A
UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment-our contribution to
Rio+20. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 1673-1685.
Van Hemel, C. and Cramer, J., 2002. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. Journal of
Cleaner Production 10, 439-453.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Vimal, K.E.K., Vinodh, S., Raja, A., 2015. Modelling, assessment and development of strategies
for ensuring sustainable shielded metal arc welding process - a case study.
VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), 2000. Eco-indicator 99.
Manual for designers. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. The
Hague. The Netherlands.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our common future.
Oxford University Press.

PT
Wimmer, W and Züst, R., 2003. Ecodesign PILOT: Product Investigation, Learning and
Optimization Tool for sustainable product development. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

22