Jara of Cesner Production 37 (2012) 342-352 Contents lists available at Sciverse ScienceDirect Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locateljclepro Manufacturing, sustainability, ecodesign and risk: lessons learned from a study of Swedish and English companies ‘Tim Short**, Andrew Lee-Mortimer®, Conrad Luttropp, Glenn Johansson® ‘Scho! of Engineering Universo ivepoo Rew Hl Lerpoo! LICH Uk “nstationn ir masinkonstken, Solon or ints ek oh nangement, KT, Brielvigen 82, 10044 Stockton, Sweden “Scho! of Engneerne Jong Unies, Sweden ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Received in cevised form 5 july 2012 ‘Accepied 19 July 2012 ‘valle oie 31 July 2022 Previous research suggests tha, despite a desire to introduce environmental concerns into New Product Design, many companies in the northwest of England have not done so. In order to understand more about why companies do or do not take on sustainability methodologies an entirely new and rigorous approach was taken. This paper therefore presents the results of a questionnaire investigating the up- {ake of Fco/Sustanable Design jn manufacturing. companies in Sweden ~ a country that might be considered more environmentally progressive than the UK ~ and discusses them alongside the results of an identical questionnaire in the UK. The results are presented inthe context of risk and risk aversion) aes imanogemen “input skasoied wih tangon Bard Design Staal eign fae des ‘theo compar sac. coe acca Tis ound tat tee no clear “wine” in sustainability between UK and Swedish ngineesing a or thee is cntoraging news bth Country wih dese fo pacts suai, but Satna deeloment ‘stoeso good withthe nme compan that etal implement ern ethos may iappret thar there at stl hones and preted sks preveting compensate Ss soit fay on bord. dsp the recogni that sustainably youd thing the mportance of the implementation af Ssanbity has not yet bee al rasp UF indy and by ose wih the ‘eaporsbity ened to eet sy change © 2012 evr Al gts escrve 1. troduction therefore, twas appropriate to cay out join esearch projet, In any given engineering company, a number of different stakeholders may wish to see things done differently ~ to change the company, Of particular interest tothe research presented inthis paper isthe desire to change companies tobe more “sustainable” or “eco-ftiendly", terms which ate often used interchangeably. Previous research, however, suggests that despite a desire to introduce environmental concerns into New Product Design (NPD) systems/processes (such as they are), many companies in the northwest of England have not done so (Lee-Mortimer and Short, 2009). In order to understand more about why companies do of 4o not take on sustainability methodologies, it was decided to take an entirely new and rigorous approach, extensively broadening Lee-Mortimer and Shorts previous work by comparing it to results from a country that might be considered more environmentally progressive. Nordic countries have a reputation for being ahead of the UK in “green” areas, such as renewable energy, eco-awareness and so on. Given the pre-existing contacts between the authors, * Coresponding author. Tels 4 151794 482 mal eddresestdshoravacuk, timothy shoresverpoolacuk (Shoe) (0059 6526)5— se font mate © 2012 Ever Li A ight reserved upon 101016 eepro201207057 investigating the situation in Sweden and discussing it in the light of the UK-based research, ‘This paper thus presents the result ofthe research and in doing soit «Briefly examines anecdotal suggestions that Sweden leads the UK in considering the environment; + Develops a scenario for the introduction of Eco(Sustainable Design, based on risk and risk aversionjmanagement; + Investigates the up-take of Eco/Sustainable Design in Swedish, ‘manufacturing companies using hypotheses from the UK research, particularly in relation to company attributes such as, size and approach to product development; + Discusses and compares the results of questionnaires carried ‘out in the UK and Sweden to test the hypotheses. 1. Scandinavia and the UK When it comes to environmental credentials, Nordic countries, are often portrayed in the media as being ahead of the UK, with anShur tl Journ of oer Poducion 3 (2012) 342-352 38 ‘emphasis on renewable energy, wide environmental awareness and a lifestyle that might promote harmony with nature. This ‘reputation has gained credence in recent years with a number of statistical analyses. The 2010 Environmental Performance Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and Center for International Earth Science Information Network (Columbia University), 2010), “ranks 163 countries on 25 performance indicators tracked across ten policy categories covering both environmental public health and ecosystem vitality”. According tots statistics, Sweden comes in 4th place in the world rankings, with Norway in Sth but the UK down in 4th, The World Bank’s data on CO2 emissions show that total CO2 emissions have remained roughly constant in both countries over the period 1960-2006 (The World Bank, 2010a), although Swe- dden’s emissions are an order of magnitude lower. The data also show that whilst both countries have reduced their emissions per capita (The World Bank, 2010b) the UK has dropped from 11.7 ‘tonnes per capita in 1970 088 in 2007, but Sweden's have dropped Irom 11.5 to 54 tonnes per capita aver the same period. Regarding waste and its treatment, the latest figures available from Eurostat (2011) show Sweden producing 9% less waste per capita than inthe UK, but only treating 1% by landfill (UK 48%, EU27 countries 38%) and recycling 36% (UK 26%, EU27 24%) OF course, such statistics can be written and interpreted in different ways and itis therefore inappropriate to suggest that they prove Sweden to be ahead of the UK in environmental or sustain- able concerns generally. On the other hand, they at least provide indications that that might be the case and make it relevant to consider the place of Eco[Sustainable Design in Swedish en, neering design/manufacturing methodologies, particularly in comparison to its place in UK engineering. 12, Desire o change There are any number of reasons why stakeholders in the engineering design process may want to change the process and/or to change the company — particulary in the context of sustai ability. With the media's tendency to paint a picture of impending, ‘world gloom, and with eco-disasters and global warming regularly hitting the front pages, it might be thought that people would want ‘to make changes. Perhaps the recent graduate believes things are a little old-fashioned, having been taught about newer methods, the availability of newer, apparently superior technology and the relevance of sustainability to today’s engineering. The dyed-in-the- ‘wool engineering designer may feel he/she isin a rut, that change to the company would bring more interest/excitement to the job and that the company is not doing enough to help the environment. ‘Managers may be in a position to see a better way, having heard that there are economic benefits from implementing some kind of sustainability methodology, but without knowing how to get there. Senior management may think that there is a business case for change but not have any evidence. Equally, investors may have a strong point of view that requests or requires changes to the way the company works so that the company can be seen to be more “sustainability aware", presenting a more eco-friendly face to the ‘world. For most, however, the inclination to change is tempered by the risk associated with ‘making such a change. In each case, risk analysis (or aversion) determines the extent to which each entity is ‘willing to make changes: similarly, there is always the desire (and, for some, the requirement) that these actions should not have an {economic impact — either on themselves or on the company. Lutropp and Zust (1998) discuss a “holistic view" of “eco- effective products" and note the risks inherent in the design process: “In particular, designers and managers have different personal goals and private assessments of risks, yet they til have {to co-operate in the product design process”. They note the contradiction in risks between the designer (for whom “the main Consideration is whether or not the product will work ... The designer may accept bad performance but never a non-working. product”) and the manager (more concerned with the survival of the company). Luttropp and Zist use Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) “hypothetical value function”, to deseribe the personal goals of designer and manager. This value function, as shown in Fig. 1, shows gains in the positive x-axis ~ and consequently losses in the negative x-axis ~ and the value to the subject in question is shown on the y-axis. It shows that small losses have a large personal negative value, but small gains have only small personal positive value. Considering the designer, as long as the product fulfils its ‘main function, there is a personal gain to the designer ~ perhaps financially, or more likely in reputation — with some consequent value. Less functionality provides less gain, but itis still a gain and therefore has value. Should the main Tunction not work, the gain becomes a loss with increasingly negative value to the designer ~ and itis very easy to blame the designer when things go wrong EVEN if the malfunction is due to a widening of tolerances for lower cost, made by production or purchases, For the manager, the same curve of Fig, 1 can now be thought of as representing successful sales of the product. A small profit (gain) from the product brings small personal value to the manager; however, a small loss is of much larger (negative) personal value. The $-curve, then, allows an understanding of the risk inherent in proposing changes and is the same whether for the new designer who is learning the company way, or for the senior manager, developing and implementing a corporate strategy. The curve also allows appreciation of two different risks: the (failure of the) main function of the product and the (lack of) profitability ofthe product, The implementation of any new design process or method ‘necessarily implies risk to those proposing and applying the new process|method. The research carried out for this paper there- {ore looked to examine what companies are doing — or are not doing ~ in the field of sustainability, what their attitudes to sustainability are and what is motivating their behavior. It looked to establish what companies are doing practically, but also what employees of these companies think about the company actions. Value Gains Fig. 1. The alu unction”~ adapted fom Katmai and Tesh (1879)un 1 Shr eta Jura of Cleaner Prodacton 37 (2012) 342-352 13, Semantics One of the problems with discussing sustainability within industry is the lack of prevailing understanding of relevant terms. Phrases such as “ecodesign’, “green design’, “design for envi- ronment” and “design for sustainability’ are often taken to mean roughly the same thing ~ Baumann et al, (2002), for example, suggesting that “The term DIE [Design for Environment] seems to be the American term and ecodesign the European term”, Those using the terms professionally, however, may acknowledge differences between the expressions and use them in specific contexts without the listener necessarily being aware of any ‘nuances. Two particular phrases of interest for this paper are “Bcodesign’” and “Design for Sustainability”. Whilst Karlsson and LLuttropp (2006) define ecodesign as being design that encom- passes both ecology and economy (two of the three pillars of sustainability, it seems likely that the proverbial “person on the street” ~ or more relevantly the “person on the factory floor” ~ would associate ecodesign purely with environmental (ecolog- ) design. Indeed, Bovea and Pérez-Belis (2012) state that codesign focuses on the integration of environmental consi erations into product development". Bhamra (2004) refers to suggestions by Dewberry and Goggin (1996) that cover three different design methods: 1. Green design has a single-issue focus, perhaps incorporating the use of some new material, such as recycled or recyclable plastic, or ‘consider energy consumption 2. Ecodesign adopts the life-cycle approach, exploring and tackling ‘ll or the greatest impacts across the products le cycle. 3. Sustainable design would take @ more broad and holistic ‘approach, including questioningladdressing needs, concer for, ethics and equity, services and leasing, dematerialization, ‘empowerment, caring and sharing, as well as incorporating eco design best practice. Sustainable Design — or Design for Sustainability ~ should clearly go far beyond ecodesign, into social and economic aspects. However, it too suffers froma lack of understanding with a variety of meanings in widespread use (Short, 2008). For the purposes of this paper, and to avoid any further confu- sion, ecodesign and design for environment are taken to be synonymous, as tools or methodologies to address environmental concerns. Additionally, much of the discussion is equally relevant both to DfE and to Design for Sustainability (DIS). They will therefore be subsumed into the single moniker *DIS/E" except where a deliberate difference in meaning is intended or is Investigated. 2. Previous research In order to understand the uptake of DIS/E itis necessary (0 consider why companies might use DIS/E processes and how many have so far done so. Willard (2005) talks about five stages of sustainability integration into business activities, which Hallstedt et al. (2010) then summarize as: ‘© Pre-Compliance: Ignoring sustainability and opposing related regulations, ‘= Compliance: Obeying laws and regulations on labor, environ- ‘ment, health and safety ‘= Beyond Compliance: Recognizing the opportunity to cut costs ‘mainly through higher resource efficiencies and reduction of waste, leading to both financial and ecological gains. Sut ability is stil separated from core business development. + Integrated Strategy: Sustainability is integrated in the com- pany's vision and informs key business strategies to be more successful than competitors through innovation, design, and, {improved financial risk assessments, According to Willard, very, few companies in the world have yet arrived at this stage + Purpose and Passion “The first two imply lack of understanding of DIS/E benefits and lack of knowledge of every day design tools that do better engi- neering design AND DfS concurrently (Short et al, 2002). Stages 3 and 4 are for companies who have recognized benefits and business case sought to make use of them. According to Hallstedt et al (2010), Stage 5 “is actually not a next stage of development for most companies but rather a special type of companies, being originally designed to ‘help saving the world:” 2 The business case for design for sustainabilty/ecodesign Given Willard’s belief that there is a business case for incor- porating DIS/E into a company’s strategy, it is worth exploring some of the most recent literature in this area. Whilst there have been many small scale case studies, demonstrating the improved economic performance of a small number of companies, larger scale reviews are relatively rare. Boons and Wagner (2009) collate evidence from a series of sources, suggesting that there is limited evidence of definite positive benefits for companies but that "at least by and large, firms are not penalized economically for improving their ecological performance”. Although this does not carry the positive message being sought, it does suggest that, at worst, improving environmental/sustainabllity credentials does not hinder a company’s economic performance. At best, though, some companies are seeing positive economic outcomes: in some of the most up to date work, Plouffe etal. (2011) state: “our results show that there are clear short-term benefits fr the firm: reve- rues and volume of sales are predominantly higher for the eco- designed product, while variable costs are lower for slightly more than half the sample." Over the long-term, Plouffe et al. are slightly more ambivalent as “fixed costs seem to be higher for ecodesigned products compared to traditional products” but stil suggests that “one can expect a normal payback period for these fixed costs” Ina broader approach, Willard (2005) includes several ways that, sustainability can provide a competitive advantage, for example “in attracting investors and allowing] excellent risk management strategies", He suggests that, in reaching stage 4 of integration — the “Integrated strategy” stage: “Instead of costs and risks, [the company] sees investments and opportunities. It makes cleaner products, applies eco-effectiveness and life-cycle stewardship, and enjoys competitive advantages from sustainability initiatives” Whilst the business case for employing DIS/E techniques for their own sake is somewhat equivocal, it seems that, at their best they can provide a positive impact on the economic performance of the company (alongside, of course, the positive environmental impact) Ar theie worst, they can have no impact on the company’s economic performance, but could then be used as something of a marketing tool. Of course, this latter assumes that there is 4 market for eco-products and, indeed, recent research has sug- gested that ths i true (Short, Unpublished). It would seem thatthe preponderance of reseatch suggests that, the implementation DIS/E ~ as methodology, process or company philosophy — carries minimal risk for the company and conse- quently for the individual proposing and implementing. The perception of risk, however, may stil remain. The next question to be asked, therefore, is how companies may have taken on ths risk and what DISJE tools may do to help them.Short tl Journ of kanes Poducion 3 (2012) 342-352 3 22. DIS/E in practice ‘The literature suggests that whilst many DIS/E tools are being or have been developed, either very few companies use these methods (Macdonald-Smith and Short, 2007) or it is “unclear if these tools are being used” (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006). Fallstedt etal. (2010) comment on this. quoting several resources: “In spite of the increasing awareness of the business case for sustainability and the growing knowledge of how to integrate sustainability into business, the majority of companies has not yet ‘moved on to implementation’. Lee-Mortimer and Short (2009) summarize the situation, sug- gesting that where DIS/E is reported on, it tends only to be case studies of afew companies or for “pilot or niche products" Rather than aiming to reach Willard's “Beyond compliance” stage 3 (see ‘Willard (2005) in Section 2, above): "Most companies are simply still doing the minimum to meet required legislation, and as 4 result, not only is the actual application of DIS or ecodesign by industry not common, sustainable design knowledge is stil limited {even in companies with a “green image (Lee-Mortimer and Shot, 2008). Equally, there are analyses of existing methods (Birch et al, 2012; Bovea and Pérez-Belis, 2012) and attempts to make better methods (Macdonald-Smith and Short, 2007). Whilst Birch et al analyses the reasons for lack of use in some detail in the context of the way the designer actually uses the tools, this has not improved take up of any one tool as yet. Bovea and Pérez-Belis (2012) suggest that this might be due to “due to [methods'] complexity. the time required to apply them and the lack of environmental knowledge’. On the other hand, where some papers suggest certain methods are of limited value (eg. Birch et al. (2012) quoting Byggeth and Hochschorner (2006) regarding the 10 Golden Rules approach) those exact methods have been shown to work in certain compa- nies (Lattropp and Lagersted!, 2008). ‘Where tools are used, Byzgeth and Hochschorner (2006) sounds a note of caution: "because a sustainability framework is lacking in ‘those tools it can, atthe same time, turn out to actively contribute to a strategically incorrect decision from a sustainability perspec- tive", They go on to quote Robért et al (2002) who suggest that “without first defining a sustainable future “landing place” on the systems level, achieving sustainability is an unlikely outcome of any effort” (Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2006), ‘And so the search goes on for the “perfect method”. Perhaps it might be suggested that its not the methods that are at fault, but the companies? Hallstedt et al’s (2010) study “indicated defi- ciencies regarding the ability to understand sustainability and its business case. in particular regarding the social dimension, and to communicate it between organizational levels". Similarly Johansson's (2002) research, now 10 years old, suggests a series of “sucess factors for integration of ecodesign in product develop- ‘ment” ~ these include management issues, relationships with customers and motivation amongst others. Further research by ‘Short (2008) proposes a series of key principles to help companies to understand and underpin their sustainability efforts, All of this siill leaves companies actually needing to “do something” — and whatever this “something” may be. it inevitably implies a certain amount of risk for the company strategically and for the individual carrying out the changes. The research reported on in this paper sought to understand the extent to which companies have implemented DfSjE meth- odologies. An earlier part of the research, building on much of the literature quoted above, focussed purely on companies in the northwest of England (Lee-Mortimer and Short, 2009) Asking if an ecodesign approach was practiced in companies, responses were: «Yes: 23 companies (35%) + No: 42 (65%) ‘They were further asked if DIS should be part of the product development process at their company. The responses were; + Yes: 57 (86%) = No: 9 (14%) Clearly there isa gap between what companies actually do and ‘what they want ro do. In broadening out the research beyond the UK, it was hoped that a greater understanding of the barviers and hhurdles to the implementation of DIS/E would be gained — ulti ‘mately intending to reduce the risk for companies that wish to breach the gap between what they are doing and what they want todo. 3. Method 3. UK ‘The original UK questionnaire (partially reported in Lee ‘Mortimer and Short (2009)) was constructed following a process that included the 5 key steps widely regarded as essential (Czaja and Blair, 2008; Fowler, 2002; Gillham, 2000; Jolliffe, 1986; ‘Synodinos, 2003): consideration of the research objectives; deter- ‘mination of the survey administration; questionnaire construction, including wording, sequence and response choice: extensive pre- testing; data collection and analyst From a wide-ranging literature review into DIS adoption, two ‘objectives formed the backbone of the questionnaire: 1. To assess the level of understanding of Design for Sustainability, and ecodesign within manufacturers, and establish which, if fany, associated practices ate being applied within these companies. 2,To assess the general current state of NPD processes and practice within a range of manufacturers, particularly in rela~ tion to DAS and DE. A convenience sample of 2500 companies known to The ‘Manufacturing Institute in the NorthWest of the UK was chosen. s a non-probability (non random) sampling method, selected Tor ease, reduced costs and improved ease of administration, not all elements of the population had a chance of selection, and so there is no way of estimating how representative the results are of the entire population (Czaja and Blair, 2005; Jolliffe, 1986). However, it was determined that as the research was explor- atory, with the main aim being (0 get a sense of what those involved in product development felt about DfS and understood about the specifics of their process, a convenience sample would suffice. Noting the variety of companies that would be ikely to respond, 2 series of hypotheses were developed from the objectives (see Section 5). These were then used, with Czaja and Blair's (2005) ‘questionnaire development steps, to construct the questionnaire, addressing the two objectives. Once the basic layout and question format were determined, considerable care was then taken (0 create the actual questions and supporting information, recog- nizing the importance of the wording (Jolliffe, 1986; Synodinos, 2003), to create clear and simply worded questions. Questions ‘were asked that respondents could answer readily, with minimal effort and without leading the respondent, ensuring bias had not bbeen introduced (Czaja and Blait, 2005; Oppenheim, 1978; ‘Synodinos, 2003).6 1 Shr eta Jura of Cleaner Prodacton 37 (2012) 342-352 [Ac the end of the intial questionnaice construction phase, the result was a questionnaire of around 30 closed questions — Including scaled responses using the typical five-point scale (Likert text and Likert Matrix questions) — with some branching. In order to refine the questionnaire, and ensure the questions were clear and understandable by all respondents, it was rigorously pre-tested and piloted by staff at both The Manufacturing Institute and the University of Liverpool It was also evaluated by a Design Consultant based at Liverpoo! University. Although not ideal, this approach did help to check thatthe questionnaire was relatively easy to complete and that the concepts under evaluation were clearly explained. t also gave the advantage of including face-to-face discussions with ‘a number of people which helped identify some issues over ques- tion understandings and common meanings, enabling refinements to the questions. 32, Sweden ‘The UK survey was translated into Swedish and was published using SurveyMonkey™, Whilst all attempts were made to ensure identical meanings berween the original English questions and the Swedish ones, the occasional amendment was required to ensure clarity of meaning ‘Two populations were addressed, based on manufacturing industry contacts from two universities: Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan, Stockholm (KTH — Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm) and the School of Engineering, Jonkoping University = again a convenience sample. Participants were sent an invi- tation, by e-mail, to take part in the research, with a web link to the survey provided within the e-mail. The invitation was sent to around 300 manufacturers in the JOnkOping area and 110 around Stockholm, with almost 100 responses in total, roughly half from cach site, AS there are no known discrepancies between the two sites, such as differences in tax structure or local legislation, the two sets of results were treated as a single dataset 4. Results ‘The survey covered baseline company data, designjprocesses in ‘general, and sustainabilityjecodesign both as a process and in practice. Some ofthe questions are “cold hard facts”. whereas some ask for opinions. For simplicity, they are presented here in three sections: baseline results, understanding of sustainability and practice of sustainability. In each case, no analysis is presented Within this chapter ~ simply the number of companies responding in each way (0 each question. 4. Baseline results ‘The first series of questions established a baseline for the comparison between the Swedish results (combination of both Jnkiping and Stockholm results) and those from the UK survey (based in the Northwest of England). The companies at winom the survey was aimed all answered “yes” to the question “Is product development carried out by your company?"; a summary of company numbersjsizes can be seen in Table 1, The companies ‘manufactured a variety of engineering products, which were clas- sified according to the UK's Standard Industrial Classification system (UK Office for National Statistics, 2007) and included furniture, medical equipment, machinery, metal products and so fon, but none in statistically significant numbers. Answers were always given for the company itself, not for any parent organization, ‘able elie data for companies sree ‘Seeder my Taig companies ® 19 sates ” 3s OF which Mem 52 46 Smal 26 se Micro. 2 & (1: Based on the definition provided, please estimate how many product development projects your company initiated over the past ‘vo years? (Table 2) ‘The results, with the largest percent responses highlighted, show the companies to be reasonably comparable ~ Swedish large companies roughly matching UK large and a similar story for SMEs. Itis also worth noting that the percentage of companies with more than 2 product development project per year is 94%/90% (large — Sweden/UK) and 79%/86% (SME ~ Sweden/UK) — again comparable numbers. (Q2: Whatis the level of importance placed on product development by your company? (Table 3) ‘The vast majority of companies surveyed count product devel- ‘opment as important oF top priority, although far more Swedish companies counted it as top priority than UK companies, Note that the UK results were affected by the data corruption, as mentioned in Section 5.1 and are therefore summary data only. (Q3: As regards how product development is managed, please indicate which of the following statements most closely reflect your company’s approach Our company operates a formalised and structured product development process (such as a stage and gate or phase and review process) + Our company has a product development process that follows recognised key development steps and activities, such as those outlined in BS7373 + Our company has an informal but understood product develop- ‘ment process + Our company does not have a recognisable product development process (Table 4) ‘The frst note from these result is that the vast majority of large companies in both Siweden and the UK (93%/90%) havea formalized development process, either stage and gate or following some kind ‘of national/international standard. On the other hand, less than half the Swedish SMEs and around a third of UK SMEs use a formal process, with 14% of companies in both countries having no recognizable product development process (Q4: Please indicate which THREE of the following factors are the Diggese barriers to the performance of the product development ‘process within your company? ‘able? Results for Question ten r= 6 Uk) inne SHE iaShort tl Journ of kanes Poducion 3 (2012) 342-352 ao ‘Tables Ress for Qvestion 2 ‘ables Ress of Question 4 ordre by ttl respons. ‘Sten 70) Ter} inne Swe iarae SME Tor pont a o we “Too many proses ender ase HE ow ploy o x a Constantly changing requirements ‘ute important z re = No early definition of product requltements Important a 3 ax Shortage of design & eng skis for resources “op poensy sx sox am “Technology uncertainty ‘The results, shown in Table 5, are inorder of the most popular answers. The frst three answers — and the frst in particular ~ are by far the mast popular results. Interestingly, these demonstrate three different causes: management (taking on too many projects): customer (changing their requirements) and designer (falling t0 define product requirements sufficiently early). Despite the results ‘of Question 3, only UK SMEs have a significant number of compa- ‘les worried about the lack of structure in their design processes. It is notable that the difficulties suggested by the second and third most popular answers match O'Hare et als (2007) comments, of the difficulty of getting “an accurate and stable requirements specification” in the “majority ofthe businesses” with whom they ‘were working, 42. Understanding of sustainability and ecodesign (Q5a: Please read the definition provided: is this your understanding of the term ‘sustainability? Definition: mn @ business context, sustainability is about trying to {improve the environmental and social impact of a company’s products ‘anal actvitis, while still meeting the primary goal of ensuring that all, customer needs are being fuliled and that the business remains economically viable ‘Q5b: To what extent is practicing sustainability (as per the defi- nition) a concer for your company? (Q6: Should Design for Sustainability (as per the definition) bea part ofthe product development process at your company? Definition: Design for Sustainability is the practice of under- standing the customer and economic requirements for a product, along, ‘with the need to improve both its environmental and social impact, ‘and then considering and balancing all these factors during. its development The vast majority of companies believe they understand sustainability, as shown in Table 6 although SMES in both the UK and Sweden have a lesser understanding than large companies. ‘When it comes to practicing sustainability (Table 7), whilst it is top priority for 2/3 of large Swedish companies (or rather, the person surveyed said it was top priority), 52% of Swedish SMEs and only 44% of UK companies thought it was more than “quite important”. Nearly all respondents are agreed that Design for Sustainability (DIS) shoutd be part ofthe product development process, but there: isa notable gap in both countries between large companies and SMES (Table 8). ‘ables Results af Question 3 ‘Sweden = 68) Te 3) Tage and a = =r Te Standards ee Eo Tim Informal understood 8 ae Se Se No process oe Me ue oor cos funcional teamwork oor understanding of customer needs oor project management Lckors structured & understood NPD process 3 [ick of Senior Management support wn 43, Practicing sustainability and ecodesign Q7: 1s a Design for Sustainability approach practiced in your company? (Table 9) Q8: 15 an ecodesign approach practiced in your company? (Table 10) ‘Questions 7 and 8 appear to reveal a lack of understanding by the respondents. Despite the definition of Design for Sustain- ability that was provided, many companies saying they DID practice DIS went on to say they did NOT practice ecodesign, even though it would be expected that one component of DIS ‘would be some kind of ecodesign assessment technique. One notable result is that, whilst UK large companies and SMES are roughly in agreement, Swedish SMES have far less take up of fecodesign or DfS than larger companies and than their coun- terparts in the UK, (Q9: Please indicate which of the following, are the THREE main, {actors that are driving, or did drive, the company towards adopting ‘a Design for Sustainability approac. (Table 11) ‘Within these results, the top two are by far the most significant ~ and are both drivers external tothe company. The other external {driver ~ response to competitors ~ is relatively weak implying that the application of DIS may not yet be seen to be a competitive advantage. On the other hand, the strongest drivers internal tothe company are the respondent's Own Belief and Demand from Company's Management. 'QI0: Please indicate which of the following, are the THREE main factors that are hindering, or have hindered, the company's drive ‘towards adopting a Design for Sustainability approach. (Table 12) Although none of the factors is a clear leader across all four sectors, the top three are very similar in their numbers of responses. It is worth noting customer demand ~ the biggest iriver toward sustainability in question 9 ~ is seen not to exist by many companies, and thence becomes a hindrance! Also notable is the acknowledgment in UK companies of the lack of awareness and understanding of sustainability among designers and engineers — considerably higher than in Sweden. This implies either that the Swedish designers and engineers have had more training in the field than their UK counterparts, or that the latter is more willing to admit to not knowing sufficient about sustainability. ‘rable 6 ess of Question Sweden t= 58) Kin) ae Sa inne sae hee OP ee Disagree % 25 = Baus 1 Shr eta Jura of Cleaner Prodacton 37 (2012) 342-352 ‘abled Results of Question 7 ‘Seden 62) Ten) Sweden (= 59) Tes be SMe iaige 8 OME inne Sve ian SMe ‘Quite inporane 20 ame 3K Yery important ue ed ae 5. Discussion ‘The following section looks in more detail at the results pre- sented above, in particular considering potential links between the answers provided. Where analysis of the links was relevant, a series of hypotheses (generated as part of the questionnait ‘development process ~ see Section 3.1) was used and a table of results for each hypothesis was presented in Microsoft Excel ~ for example size of company (large or SME) vs practice of DIS (yes or no). A table presenting the expected results if independent, was generated and the chi-squared test for independence was then used on the two tables, taking results to be significant for p< 005. 51, Data weaknesses ‘= When companies were asked to identify whether they were ‘micro, small, medium or large enterprises according to the EU. {definitions (European Commission, 2011) an error was made in, converting Euros into Swedish Kronor (SEK), affecting small, ‘medium and large classifications. However, as the Euro value ‘was provided, and was correct and consistent in each case its assumed that most respondents inferred the correct value of ‘SEK and provided their company classification correctly ‘+ The software used in the UK survey corrupted some of the data; in its “summary of responses” (n ~ 66), results are aggregated and there isno distinction between large companies and “small, and medium sized enterprises” (SMEs). In the full dataset (n = 54) where sizes of company were distinguishable, some results were missing. For most responses, the (verifiable) full, dataset was used; where these results were not avaiable, summary results are used and are noted, In “multiple answer” questions (9 and 10) respondents were able to choose up to three answers from alist provided. They ‘were not able, however, to choose a different answer. Whilst in hindsight this would have given alittle mote confidence in the results, both sets of responses are believed to be reasonably exhaustive and no “further comments” were made in the section atthe end of the questionnaire that leads the authors to, doubt the accuracy of the responses. 5.2, Baseline results (Q1-04) ‘The research paints an interesting picture of product design. design processes and sustainability. It reveals common themes and common issues in the product design process across companies in both the UK and Sweden; in particular, companies feel they are faced with (00 many projects and constantly changing require- ‘ments. Small companies in the UK seem to suffer from a lack of design process itself and, in Sweden, an absence of definition to new products early in the design process. Design activity is similar in the two countries, but the level of importance of New Product Design is seen to be different ~ 85% of Jarge companies in Sweden see ita top priority compared to 52% of Swedish SMEs and only 30% of UK (combined size) companies. ‘Whilst these last two categories still rate “important” highly, they are missing the considerable benefits associated with NPD. Large companies in the two countries rely heavily on stage and gate type processes — pethaps as adirect result ofthe necessity for formal paperwork and processes in order to gain CE marking for example. On the other hand, an Informal Understood process is popular both for Swedish and English SMEs. This relationship between formalfinformal design processes and large companies) SMEs has a high statistical link (p < 0.001) in both the UK and Sweden. 53. Understanding of sustainability and ecodesign (Q5~06) ‘The overwhelming results from questions 5a and 6 are that the respondents at least claim to understand sustainability and want their company to include DIS in the product development process. Of particular interest in these questions would have been the negative responses: why people disagreed with the definition of sustainability — a question not asked — and why they thought DIS should not have been in the process. The latter question was asked, but the number of companies who had the opportunity to respond to the question ~ 3% of the large Swedish companies = 1 company = was too low to be statistically significant. ‘Sustainability is presented by the respondents as being impor- tant to them and to their companies. But at first glance, this Importance (in question 6) does not seem to result in the take up of DIS methods (in question 7). Comparing the results of questions 3b and 7 provides an interesting table: (Table 13) Hypothesis 1. The more important sustainability is to the company, the more likely i is to practice a DES approach. Although this may be a fairly “weak” hypothesis, iis helpful 0 see that the table and the statistics do indeed back it up (p — 0.03 for Sweden). Unfortunately itis impossible to test the UK results due to the data corruption mentioned in Section 5. Hypothesis2. The larger the company, the more likely they are to think DIS should be part of the product development process. ‘ables ‘able 10 Results of Question 6 Results of Question & ‘Swede = 39) R54) Sweden f= 59) UK ibe ae is SMe ibmse sue ines SMeShort tl Journ of kanes Poducion 3 (2012) 342-352 30 ‘tbte Ress of Question 9 ordered by tt respons ‘Grae SWE Demand Fam marley 2x ue a ‘own belt is: joe ae Tg Demand fom company’smaragement «192 10E Zz 13 Demand om parent organization = ime Demand fom ternal enginers So B designers This hypothesis, suggesting that DIS presents less ofarisktolarge ‘companies than small companies, splits the UK and Sweden. In the UK the hypothesis fais, but in Sweden it holds (p ~ 0.003). The reason for this difference — at least in the statistics ~ isthe striking difference in attitudes between the “small companies” sector of ‘SMES in the two countries. though numbers are relatively low, the "esponse by Swedish small companies to "Should DfSbea partof the process was split roughly 50:50 — a stark comparison to the other sectors in Sweden and all those in the UK, where they were typically ‘more than 6:1 in favor of DS. It is, unfortunately, unclear at this point whether ths isa statistical anomaly due to low numbers orif there is a deeper underlying cause. 5.4, Practicing of sustainability and ecodesign (Q?—Q10) Hypothesis 2. Companies that use DIS methods are also likely to use DIE methods. In Section 4.3 it was noted that there is some confusion as to sustainability and its use in companies compared to ecodesign. On further analysis, whilst there are still a minority of companies in ‘both countries that claim to practice DS but do not practice DE, the figures belie the statistical trends: in both the UK and Sweden, companies either practice both DfS and ecodesign or neither (p = 0.0001). Whilst this suggests less confusion than initially ‘thought, between the broad brush socio-lecono-fenviro-implica- tions of DIS and environment focussed DfE, it still leaves a large number of companies EITHER using neither DIS nor DIF, OR confused and using one without the other — in the UK that amounts 10 37 out of 33 companies and in Sweden, 41 out of 59. A key question, then, is whether there are certain factors that encourage or more easily permit the introduction of DIS(E Considering the two “baseline” factors measured ~ size of company ‘note 2 ‘Rests of Queon 0, onde by total respones. ‘Sweden ve iG SME__ Lanse SMe Notcnough time during product 18 BRAS No apparent requiement rom 25K TK GT Lackofawarenesjundertanding STEM » fener egies No requirement in Product mm koe Design Speciation (PDS) No requirement from Management SX bie. {Comparison of responses regarding importance of sustainability fo companies and the practice of DB. Responses Sweden we tara SWE Tape SME Sasainabliy wary inpornl or higher —7PE S28 ate DS actualy paced by company qi st smi DIS shouldbe practiced by company 3k AK and type of design process ~ arguments could be made either way for each ofthese. For example, it might be easier to implement DfS/ E in small companies where a Senior Manager is pethaps more autocratic and more easily able to implement changes. Similarly, ‘with a less structured design process there might be the opportu- nity for an individual designer to add environmental concerns into the design process or perhaps the “system”, such asi i, could be more flexible to incorporate the new methods. Hypothesis 4. Companies are more likely to use ecodesign ifthey use formal design processes. Hypothesis 5. Companies are more likely to use Design for Sustainability ifthey use formal design processes. Considering both “Stage and gate” and “standards” to be formal processes and analyzing against large or SME companies, arela- tionship is demonstrated between formality of design process and ‘ecodesign (p = 005) for Swedish companies, with those in the UK falling just outside the “statistically significant” bracket (p ~ 0.08). In the case of DIS, however, itis the UK companies that are in line ‘with the hypothesis (p = 0.02) whereas no such relationship exists {or Swedish companies (p = 0.49). imitation in both of these hypotheses is that where there is no process, or the process is informal, it ould be possible for designers to be using some kind of DIS or DIE methodology without the respondent (0 the questionnaire necessarily knowing, Individual ‘employees may be naturally risk averse and thus carrying out some {ind of informal methodology, but not being prepared to publicize their work. In this case, it is quite possible that they could be ‘making some difference to the products, but, without a formal ‘method in place, it would be likely that any impact would be relatively low. The somewhat equivocal nature of the testing of these hypotheses is alittle surprising. Where a more formal process is in place — and consequently this process can only be changed by someone with relevant authority ~ the risk in applying. DIS/E ‘methods is displaced from the designer onto the authority. Not only that, but there will be a lower perception of risk because there is process in place which allows and supports the addition of new ‘methods, This is backed up by Plouffe et als (2011) research which shows "Companies having a more systemic approach, “life-cycle thinking’, are more likely to be suecessful". The person with authority to change the process, however, is now faced with his/her ‘own risks of imposing DIS/E into the design process and so itis their understanding ofthe benefits that becomes crucial and their management of the changes. Given the relationship, shown in Section 5.2 between size of ‘company and the design process they use — ie. SMES are less likely to use formal design process — the final two hypotheses are proposed Hypothesis 6. Larger companies are more likely to use ecodesign methods than SMES, Hypothesis 7. Larger companies are more likely to use DIS ‘methods than SMEs.x0 1 Shr eta Jura of Cleaner Prodacton 37 (2012) 342-352 Neither of these hypotheses are confirmed by UK companies ~ Auite the opposite infact with p ~ 0.92 for ecodesign and p — 0.98 for DIS; on the other hand both are demonstrated by Swedish companies (ecodesign: p = 0105; DIS: p < 0.001). Building on Hypotheses 4~7, it is noted that many texts assume that DISJE methods can be built easily into a company's design processes, eg. (Fitzgerald et al, 2005; Knight and Jenkins, 2009; Ore et al, 2007). Given the equivocal links demonstrated between DIS/E methods and design processes across UK and Swedish companies, this may or may not in itself be true, What is clear, however, is that DIS/E can only be built into a process if that process exists. As SMES are less likely to have formal design processes, it seems logical that they are less likely to benefit from the ability to integrate DIS/E into those processes. It could prove difficult to integrate DIS/E into “informal understood” processes in the long term, as this would depend on the will of the individual designer who may either be unwilling to take the risk, or may indeed move to a different company, only to be replaced by someone who will not take the risk. In the more formal processes, DIS/E can become part of the overall design process, but it would require relevant authority to amend the existing process anc! time to make the changes. Once the changes had been made, however, the authority of the person invoking them may also be sufficient to drive the widespread uptake of the processes. Moving beyond the hypotheses above. questions 9 and 10 present a series of factors that may have helped or hindered companies’ drive toward sustainability, noting the proviso of Section 5.1 I might be suggested that the responses to question 9 are a reaction to the risks inherent in changing business strategy. ‘The top two drivers area long way ahead of the third ~ and both of them relate to factors external to the company. For both drivers, companies have little option but to follow them ~ a “risk free” strategy. A third external driver ~ that of responding to competitors = features far lower. The risk of failing to respond to competitors would normally be considered to be quite high which leads to a number of possible explanations: ‘©All the companies spoken to are “leaders” rather than “followers” — but this seems unlikely given the number of companies that responded; or ‘+ The competitor companies are NOT using a DIS approach — but this contradicts the evidence of question 7 where many companies were actively using DIS; or ‘= Competitors are using DIS and not publicizing it, which implies philanthropy and reaching stage 5 of Willard’s scale (Section 2) ~ but this is exceedingly rare; oF ‘+ Companies are less interested in what their competitors ate doing than in other factors: or ‘+ Companies do not believe there to be a competitive advantage from using DfS, despite the evidence, therefore whether their competitors are or are not using, it does not impact on theit own strategy. Short ofan alternative explanation, the final of the five options seems the most likely. It could be suggested that, in the case of larger companies, they may have already tried to improve their products, but discovered that their competitors did not respond and did not get punished. Instead, competitors had saved the expense of making any attempts. Whether the reasoning is historical or current, however, it still implies that most of the companies surveyed fit into Willard’s “Stage 2 — Compliance” companies are using DIS because they believe they ate required to do so ~ through the external influences — but are not looking to exploit it for their own economic advantage. ‘A further interesting result from question 9 was the relatively high level of response of “own belief as being a factor in driving the company toward sustainability. There are a few reasons why the answer might have been given, stch as the person being a senior ‘manager who happens to have driven through DIS, the Corporate Social Responsibility “champion in the company, or simply a design engineer who passionately believes in sustainability and has pushed it through internally. Certainly, when brief interviews (anecdotal only) were arranged with a few ofthe respondents, the last two of those three were in evidence. However, that can be contrasted with the “low demand from internal engineers and designers"; this implies that those driving changes because of their “own belie” are distinctly in the minority ~ either in wanting to Grive the changes through, or in being prepared to take the personal risk of leting their name be known. This backs up Boks’ (2006) assertion that “There is some indication that corporate representatives (for example the ‘number one or number two on environmental matters in the company’) are inclined to be more positive about success factors and less negative about obstacles than lower-level employees”. Finally, moving to question 10, the list of factors that hinder the ‘ake up of sustainability presents another interesting picture. The {op three (initial expense, not enough time, no apparent require- ‘ment) rank highly with companies both large and small, in the UK and Sweden, but there is no obvious “winner” which ranks the highest with everyone. Indeed, for large companies in the UK itis number 4 — a lack of awareness and understanding amongst designers and engineers — that isthe top hindrance. Verhulst etal (2007), quoting Prosci (2005), lst a number of reasons for resis- {ance to change within companies — from line-level employees and from mid-level management. Several ofthese are similar to factors that are stated to hinder the adoption of DIS. In particular Prosc’s “Employees not aware of business need for change" (line employees) and “Lacked awareness of the need for change” (mid- level) map directly on to "No apparent requirement from market or customers". Similarly “unsure if they had the skills needed for success in the future state” and “lacked the required skills"(line and ‘mid-level respectively) map on to the lack of awareness and understanding. Given this similarity between hindrances to the adoption of DiS and reasons for resistance to change, there is bound to be an increased likelihood that employees will not want to take ‘on board DfS methods. ‘55, Sustainabitity, risk and change management The incorporation of sustainability or environmental concerns into any company wil, in the vast majority of cases, necessitate changes — whether these are only within the mindset of the engineers/designers, or in the NPD processes, or in the company structure itself depend on the individual company. To ensure the longevity of the company, the starting point for any change has to be “will it help make money?” — but the initial drive behind the changes may come from a number of sources: from shareholders (Clong term, welll gobankrupt if we don’t do this"), customers (“you don't do it, we won't buy itl”); marketing ("there's an opportu- nity’), engineering ("this might actualy work out cheaper for us”), ‘or even from philanthropic leanings by any of the above. Indeed, whilst it is unsurprising that evidence of management commit” ‘ment has been found by Boks (2006) to be a “success factor” in the implementation of ecodesign, more surprising might be that it only needs to be “perceived as management commitment”, Boks (2006) _goes on {0 say that “Regarding obstacles ... the most important ‘ones appear to reflect more social psychological issues”. ‘Wherever the inital drive comes from, making changes implies, risks for the company, for those proposing the changes and forShort tl Journ of kanes Poducion 3 (2012) 342-352 ss ‘Table Simmaryof hypothesis resus. Hypo Seana supported? Sweden ve 2 The lager te compat the mote key they are wo think DS - x Should be par ofthe product development process 4: Companies are more Lal to use eodesign they use onal 2 x design processes 5: Companies ae more kyr use Design fo Susi f hey x ’ tse formal design processes 6: Larger compants are move lkely 0 use ecodesgn methods than SMES . x 7 tager companies ae more likely to use DS methods than SMES 2 x those implementing them. Understanding, and having in place, processes to manage change will help, by definition, to mitigate the risks of the changes, whether in relation to DfS or any other factor. Proper change management reduces risk, therefore good manage- ‘ment (which might be implied by a good management process) implies reduced risk, The "formal design processes” of Hypotheses 4 and 5, then, not only support DASE, but also support the changes necessary for the incorporation of DfS/E. Thus the process (or lack of) that is already in place in a company will define how easy or how difficult it isto implement change and will therefore mitigate against or augment the risks associated with change. Referring back to Kahnneman and Tversky’s graph of Fig. 1 it may even be possible to apply it to a gteen product. Short’s research (Short, Unpublished) suggests that many customers are sceptical of products with eco-claims; perhaps the value of successfully designing a green product is relatively modest, but the negatives associated with a product claiming to be green, but failing to live up {0 its claims, are significantly higher. Whether this actually is the ‘ease ar i just perceived to be the case is somewhat irrelevant ~ the perception of the situation would be that there isan increased risk in designing green, so the safe option would be not to implement DIS. 6. Conclusion ‘The research paints a picture of engineering that is, in many ‘ways, very similar in both countries, with large companies using, formal design processes, SMEs relying on an informal process or no process at al, companies facing too many projects at any one time and customers changing their requirements. Although the intro- ‘uction suggested that, given some of the evidence regarding CO, emissions, ‘recycling and general environmentalism, Swedish engineering companies might be ahead of their UK counterparts in Ecodesign and Design for Sustainability, evidence from the research suggests that this is not the case. Instead it suggests an und standing of sustainability and a level of importance of sustainability, that, on the whole, varies from “quite important” to “top priority” and whilst more Swedish large companies than any other group say ‘sustainability is top priority, the vast majority of companies in both ‘countries agree that DIS should be part ofthe product development process. Slightly more Swedish large companies, but slightly less ‘Swedish SMEs, practice DIS than those in the UK, whilst most ‘companies do not practice ecodesign at all-There are similar factors driving DfS in the companies and similar hindrances with n0 ‘marked differences. Thus the raw data from the questionnaire reveals little difference between the two countries and certainly no ‘marked environmental leadership on behalf of ¥wedish compan there is no clear “winner” between the UK and Sweden. Moving on to the hypotheses proposed in order to analyze the data statistically, Table 14 summarizes the results. ‘The only hypothesis that is supported both in the UK and in ‘Sweden is that companies claiming (0 use DfS also claim to use DIE (32% of companies across both countries): despite this — and despite the 49% of companies that use DFS — the majority of ‘companies (65%) do NOT use Df. In fact a greater proportion of UK ‘companies than of Swedish companies use DE. Inall other hypotheses it is only one or the other country that provides supporting evidence ~ the exceptions arguably being Hypothesis 4 where the UK figure (p = 0.08) lies just outside the accepted significance band of p = 0.05, and Hypothesis 1 where ‘data errors prevented a test of the hypothesis on the UK results. A ‘number of statements can still be made, however, depending on the country. It seems that using formal design processes implies the use ‘of either DiS or ecodesign; size is significant inthe take up of DIS/E in Sweden, but itis notin the UK — take-up (or lack of) being much more even actoss companies: there is some encouraging news in the form of the desire to practice DIS, but some that is nat so good ‘with the number of companies that actually implement both DIS and ecadesign. It is apparent that the importance of the implementation of sustainability has not yet been fully grasped by industry and by ‘those with the responsibilty required to effect any changes ~ there are still hindrances and risks preventing companies taking sustainability fully on board, despite the recognition that sustain- ability is a “good thing”. The desire to change is one thing, but the ‘knowledge and understanding of how to effect that change whi ‘minimizing tsk is quite another. There i a risk involved in making any changes — whether an individual implementing, ecodesign ‘unofficially or the proposing of or implementation of sustainability at a corporate level ~ but whilst the evidence suggests the risk is minimal, the research carried out for this paper suggests that that thas not been understood. Iris clear thatthe demand is there ~ from a customer perspective, but als, increasingly, from investors and ‘other corporate stakeholders. Perhaps the greatest opportunity is for the smaller companies who, in acting now, will therefore be ahead of the game and in a better postion within the supply chain ‘when they are able to demonstrate their sustainability credentials, Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Haydn Insley and The ‘Manufacturing Institute for hosting Lee-Mortimer’s survey, and the EPSRC for funding his research, Thanks also to KTH, Stockholm, for hosting Dr Short during his research in Sweden and to KTH and Jonkoping University for providing translations of questionnaires and access to contacts.cc 1 Shr eta Jura of Cleaner Prodacton 37 (2012) 342-352 References ‘aumana, H. Boon F ag A, 2002. Mapping the green product development fei vei phi npg. oral fet thamra TA. 2004 Eeoesign: the search fr new stages i prt deveop- ent. Proceedings afte lution of Mechanical Engineers Pat journal of Engineering Manufacture 218 (5), 397-368 tire As Hom, Short. T2012 Sractre ad outpa meetanisms in Design for rvonment (De tons. Journal of CesnerPreduson 35.50.58. ois, C, 2006 The sts of eeaesgn journal of Cleaner eduction 14 (15-16), Bloons F. Wagner. M. 2008, Assessing the relationship Berween economic and ‘colo performance: distngushng system evel and the role of nneaton. rolopeal Economics 68 (7) 1908-1914 Bowea, MD. Perez-Bls,V_ 2012 A takonony of ecdesgn tos fr inegrating ‘tsonanenal eguetbent ino the product design process Joural of Cleaner Production 20(1) 51-71 Braue, S. Hockschorner, E, 2006, Handing tade-o in ecodesan tool for Sustainsble product development and procurement. Jounal of ‘leant Production 14(15-16), 1420-1430 Czy. Ba, 1.2005. Desig Survey: a Cue to Decisions and rocedues, Second ed Pine Forge Pes, anon Devry, Ey GousiF, ISD5Spucesip ecodesign. Co-Dsign: The Interdit lary Journal of Design apd Contextal Stulies 5-6 (1-3) 12-17 turapean Conmssion, 201, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMES): SME Defiion. pec europacufenterprsepoie/snejacs-Rgure-anas) smedeftinindes eat accessed 270811) usta 201 Enron sn the EL: Reve counted fora Quarter f Total ‘Municipal Waste Treated in 2008 agra, DP Herrmann, JW Sandbor, PA. Schmit, LC. 2005, Beyond tools: 3 design for envionment process. iernational Joural of Peormabliy Engineering (2) 105120. fete 200 Say Research Methods, 8 Sage Paton, Caarn. W 2000 Devlin Questionnaire. Continuum, Landon, Mallsed S,Ny. HL, Robe. Kh Broman, G_ 2010. An approach tases Sustainblty nigravon i satgledelson 5jtems for produ deep ‘nt oral of Caner Proton 18 (8). 703-712 Jonansson G. 2002 Suctess feta fr iteration of ecoesign in product deve ‘pment review of sate the ar Envronmental Management an lh 13 (8-7 Jol FE 1086. survey Design and Anas Els Horwood, chides. hema’ D-Tersky. A 157. Prospect theory an analyte delsion unde sk eonometica 47 (2, 263.29, Karlson, R Littopp,C. 2006 coDesan: whats happening? An overview ofthe subject area of EcoBesign and ofthe papers in this special sue. Journal of Geater Producon 14 (15-10), 2911298 night Jenkins. 10. 2008. Adopting and applying ecodesgn tschnigus: {3 braciioners perspective Jour of Cane Predution 17 (5. 589-558 ce Montes A, hor 7.D 2008, The product development res roadblock thats Testrctng the widespread adoption of design for sus. aternaonal Conferenceon Energies, ICED, Satord Unsest), Sanford, USA, tuutsopo€-Lagersted 2006 EcoDsigh ad the tn gale ules generic adie for merging environmental aspects into prwluct development. Jourl of (Geaner Production 1 (15-16) 1300-1408, Luntropp. 2s, 1988, Ezo-fective products fom 3 hoist view: In: CIRP Sth International Sena one Cycle Engineering KT, Stockholm. ‘in Rar [Eth nternatioal Conference on Design and Mana ‘ure for Sustanabe Development, Loughborough UK (Ware. J, Dekoninc E Lan. Turbul, A, 2007 An empirical study of how nation and the crconnent ae coedered in eure engicerng design practise In: Tata 5, Ueda, ¥. (Eas ath CIR? Conerece a ile yee Engines Springee Toko, lapsn COppenteim, AN. 1978 Questionnaire Design and Ariude Measurement. Heine- mann, Londo, Pou Lanai P. Hermeman C, Vere, M-F, 201. Economic benefits ed £0 ‘design Journal af Gesner Production 19 (6-7. 572-579, Pros 2005 est Pacts in Change Management. Change Management learting Cente US. ober cH, Schmid Bleck, 8, Ali de arderL J. ase, Jnsen, LL Kueh ‘ce Thomas, Suzukl M Hawken, P. Wackermagel, M_ 2003. Statesc Sstalmable development selection, design and Syberaits of applied tol. Jura of Caner Prodittion 10 3. 197-214. Shoe 2008 Stsanable engineering: confston and consumes ternational “urna of Sisnable Engineering 1 (1. 21-3 stort ED co product and consumers design dilemma, Unpublished Stor, Casside JA, Carpenter, LD. Appletoa, EA. 2002" CLAM and nor fister industy: the read {0 sustainably. tm: Kon. B (Design and “Manufactre for Sustainable Development Profesional Engneeing PODS, ted. Bury t Earns, England synods, NE~ 2003. The “at” of questonnaie construction: some Important nsidrains for manufacturing studies. negated Manuacurng Stems 1 Gz, ‘The Word Bank, 2010, COs Emissions. ‘The Word Bank, 2010, CO; Emissions pes Capita, UC once for Naboral tatses. 2007, UK Standard Indusval Clasieaion (UK i hp wget itn sate andar cassiteaionssandarsndsta-lsieaton inden ind (accessed 25th je) Verhlst Boks, C, Stanger M. Masson, H, 2007. The human sige of ecovesign fom the perspective of change management In: Takata 5. Umeda, ¥. (Es). ‘avances in Life Cycle Enginceng for Susalable Manufacturing Businesses Springer London: pp. 107-72. ‘wate, By 2005 The NEXT Sstinabity Wave: Bang dearroom Buyin. New Sooty Publishers, Gabo sand, BE, Canada Yale Center for Envronmental Law & Pac. Cente for International arch scence Tnformation Nework (columbla Univers) 2010 Envianmental Performance Index: itp: eptate ey (aces 23.1210),