Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainable Futures from an Engineering Systems Perspective

Handbook of Engineering Systems Design

Abstract

Never before has the recognition of the need for solutions to the challenges of sustainability been greater. With a rising population of increasing wealth, we have recognised that humankind is “out of planetary compliance”. Or in other words, we are borrowing from next generations, each and every day, with the direct negative effects of raising atmospheric temperatures (global warming), poisoning of our land and waterways, and threatening the biodiversity of the planet – to name but a few.

The response to these challenges is finally reaching critical mass. From Climate Summits, through United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, to Circular Economy campaigns, global action is happening. International associations, geographical regions, and individual countries are making bold moves to enact action against climate change. Measurements are being made on numerous sustainability goals. And the younger generation is successfully increasing its pressure on the incumbent world and industry leaders.

But how can engineering systems interpret these agendas and make a contribution to sustainability transition? What is the potential of taking a socio-technical holistic view on large and complex engineering systems, with a view to improving its sustainability performance? This chapter provides a brief overview of key sustainability developments in the past, which have laid the foundation for how engineering systems can contribute to a sustainable future through holistic socio-technical design. It also provides some paths forward for engineering systems, but some of the paving stones are still missing, so this chapter is also intended as a call to action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ausubel JH, Marchetti C (1997) Electron: electrical systems in retrospect and prospect. Daedalus 125(3):139–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Barquet AP, Seidel J, Seliger G, Kohl H (2016) Sustainability factors for PSS business models. Proc Cirp 47:436–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoît C, Mazijn B (eds) (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsmann Stiftung (2020) Sustainable development report. https://www.sdgindex.org

  • Bihouix P (2020) The age of low tech: towards a technologically sustainable civilization. Policy Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(7):1005–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Diamond M, Owsianiak M, Verzat B, Hauschild MZ (2015) Strengthening the link between life cycle assessment and indicators for absolute sustainability to support development within planetary boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 49(11):6370–6371

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn A, Margni M, Roy P-O, Bulle C, Hauschild MZ (2016) 2016, the role of life cycle assessment in absolute environmental sustainability indicators. Ecol Indic 63:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomsma F, Pieroni M, Kravchenko M, Pigosso DC, Hildenbrand J, Kristinsdottir AR, Kristoffersen E, Shahbazi S, Nielsen KD, Jönbrink AK, Li J, Wiik C, McAloone TC (2019) Developing a circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies to support circular economy-oriented innovation. J Clean Prod 241:118271

    Google Scholar 

  • Brezet H, Stevels A, Rombouts J (1999) LCA for ecodesign: the Dutch experience, eco-design ‘99, Tokyo, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent J (2004) A future for design science? In: International symposium on te development and prospects of a PhD Programme in design science education, p 16

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang C-H (2015) Proactive and reactive corporate social responsibility: antecedent and consequence. Manag Decis 53:451–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2014-0060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cluzel F, Yannou B, Millet D, Leroy Y (2016) Eco-ideation and eco-selection of R&D projects portfolio in complex systems industries. J Clean Prod 112:4329–4343

    Google Scholar 

  • Commoner B (1972) The environmental cost of economic growth. In: Ridker RG (ed) Population, resources and the environment. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp 339–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Science 171(3977):1212–1217

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of 21st century. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) (2013) Towards the circular economy: opportunities for the consumer goods sector

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015) Growth within: a circular economy vision for a competitive Europe. Ellen MacArthur Foundation

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016) Environmental footprint pilot guidance document, − Guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase, version 5.2, February 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Factor 10 Club (1994) Carnoules declaration. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, Wuppertal

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel J (2003) Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):5330–5339. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0344819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaziulusoy AI, Brezet H (2015) Design for system innovations and transitions: a conceptual framework integrating insights from sustainability science and theories of system innovations and transitions. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066

  • Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Footprint Network (2020). https://www.footprintnetwork.org/

  • Hauschild MZ (2015) Better – but is it good enough? On the need to consider both eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness to gauge industrial Sustainability. Procedia CIRP 29:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts MAJ (eds) (2015) Life cycle impact assessment. LCA Compendium – the complete world of life cycle assessment. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, De Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A, Sala S, Pant R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modelling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J LCA 18(3):683–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Herrmann C, Kara S (2017) An integrated framework for life cycle engineering. Procedia CIRP 61:2–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI (eds) (2018) Life cycle assessment – theory and practice. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich E (2005) Consumption and the rebound effect – an industrial ecology perspective. J Indus Ecol 9(1–2):85–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjalsted AW, Laurent A, Andersen MM, Olsen KH, Ryberg M, Hauschild MZ (2020) Sharing the safe operating space: exploring ethical allocation principles to operationalize the planetary boundaries and assess absolute sustainability at individual and industrial sector levels. J Ind Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13050

  • IPCC (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, 32 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14001 (2015) Environmental management systems – requirements with guidance for use. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14045 (2012) Environmental management – eco-efficiency assessment of product systems – principles, requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Issa II, Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC, Rozenfeld H (2015) Leading product-related environmental performance indicators: a selection guide and database. J Clean Prod 108(PA):321e330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L (2018) Circular economy–from review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour Conserv Recycl 135:190–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Kara S, Hauschild MZ, Herrmann C (2018) Target-driven life cycle engineering: staying within the planetary boundaries. Proc CIRP 69:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim H, Lee SH, Yang K (2015) The heuristic-systemic model of sustainability stewardship: facilitating sustainability values, beliefs and practices with corporate social responsibility drives and eco-labels/indices. Int J Consum Stud 39:249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaer LL, Pigosso DC, Niero M, Bech NM, McAloone TC (2019) Product/service-systems for a circular economy: the route to decoupling economic growth from resource consumption? J Ind Ecol 23(1):22–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee CL, Devezas TC (2017) A simple extension of dematerialization theory: incorporation of technical progress and the rebound effect. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 117:196–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas KL, Peyerl D, Weber N, Mouette D, Cuellar WOS, Meneghini JR, Moretto EM (2020) Sustainable development goals as a tool to evaluate multidimensional clean energy initiatives. World Sustain Ser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26759-9_37

  • Maslow A (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper and Row Publishers Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McAloone TC, Pigosso DCA (2021) Ökodesign: Entwicklung von Produkten mit verbesserter Ökobilanz. In: Pahl/Beitz Konstruktionslehre: Methoden und Anwendung erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung. Springer, pp 975–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57303-7_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough W, Braungart M (2010) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth – a report to the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Potomac Associates, Universe Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Morseletto P (2020) Restorative and regenerative: exploring the concepts in the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 24(4):763–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Nykvist B, Persson Å, Moberg F, Persson L, Cornell S, Rockström J (2013) National Environmental Performance on planetary boundaries – a study for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Report 6576, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagoropoulos A, Kjaer LL, Dong Y, Birkved M, McAloone TC (2018) Economic and environmental impact trade-offs related to in-water hull cleanings of merchant vessels. J Ind Ecol, ISSN: 1530-9290 22(4):916–929

    Google Scholar 

  • Park MS, Bleischwitz R, Han KJ, Jang EK, Joo JH (2017) Eco-innovation indices as tools for measuring eco-innovation. Sustainability (Switzerland) 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122206

  • Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC (2021) Making the transition to a circular economy within manufacturing companies: the development and implementation of a self-assessment readiness tool, Sustainable Production and Consumption, ISSN 2352-5509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.05.011

  • Pigosso DCA, McAloone TC, Rozenfeld H (2015) Characterization of the state-of-the-art and identification of main trends for Ecodesign tools and methods: classifying three decades of research and implementation. J Indian Inst Sci 95:405–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijnders L (1998) The factor X debate: setting targets for eco-efficiency. J Ind Ecol 2(1):13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson K (2019) How do we create sustainable development for all (in Danish). Informations Forlag, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Roostaie S, Nawari N, Kibert CJ (2019) Sustainability and resilience: a review of definitions, relationships, and theirintegration into a combined building assessment framework. Build Environ 154:132–144, ISSN 0360-1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.02.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy R (2000) Sustainable product-service systems. Futures 32(3–4):289–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg MW, Owsianiak M, Richardson K, Hauschild MZ (2018a) Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the planetary boundaries framework. Ecol Indic 88:250–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg MW, Owsianiak M, Clavreul J, Mueller C, Sim S, King H, Hauschild MZ (2018b) How to bring absolute sustainability into decision-making: an industry case study using a planetary boundary-based methodology. Sci Total Environ 634C:1406–1416

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Bleek F (2008) Factor 10: the future of stuff. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 4(1):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Science-based targets (2020). https://sciencebasedtargets.org/

  • Stead SM (2019) Using systems thinking and open innovation to strengthen aquaculture policy for the United Nations sustainable development goals. J Fish Biol 94(6):837–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347(6223):736–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst Dyn Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.261

  • Tchertchian N, Millet D (2017) Monitoring environmental performance during the design process of a complex system. Proc CIRP 61:703–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Toxopeus ME, De Koeijer BLA, Meij AGGH (2015) Cradle to cradle: effective vision vs. efficient practice? Proc cirp 29:384–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsao JY, Saunders HD, Creighton JR, Coltrin ME, Simmons JA (2010) Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics perspective. J Phys D Appl Phys 43:354001

    Google Scholar 

  • Tu J-C, Chiu P-L, Huang Y-C, Hsu C-Y (2013) Influential factors and strategy of sustainable product development under corporate social responsibility in Taiwan. Math Probl Eng. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/303850

  • Tukker A (2004) Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to Sustainability? Experiences from Suspronet. Bus Strateg Environ 13:246–260

    Google Scholar 

  • UN (2020) United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

  • UNFCCC (2020) The Paris agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

  • Von Weizsäcker E, Lovins AB, Lovins LH (1998) Factor four: doubling wealth, halving resource use – a report to the Club of Rome. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang E, Shen Z (2013) A hybrid data quality Indicator and statistical method for improving uncertainty analysis in LCA of complex system–application to the whole-building embodied energy analysis. J Clean Prod 43:166–173

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A (2012) Life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:373–376

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Tim C. McAloone & Michael Z. Hauschild

Authors
  1. Tim C. McAloone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Z. Hauschild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim C. McAloone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Anja Maier

  2. Department of Technology, Management and Economics, DTU- Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

    Josef Oehmen

  3. Philosophy Department, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

McAloone, T.C., Hauschild, M.Z. (2021). Sustainable Futures from an Engineering Systems Perspective. In: Maier, A., Oehmen, J., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_4-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_4-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Sustainable Futures from an Engineering Systems Perspective
    Published:
    06 January 2023

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_4-2

  2. Original

    Sustainable Futures from an Engineering Systems Perspective
    Published:
    13 February 2022

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_4-1

Search

Navigation