Circular economy assessment tool for end of life product recovery strategies

  • Yohannes A. AlamerewEmail author
  • Daniel Brissaud


Circular Economy (CE) aims to maintain the value of products, components, materials, and resources in the economy for as long as possible. Current end of life (EoL) product circularity decision-making methods are focused on technical and economic factors neglecting other crucial areas such as legislative pressure and customer demand, which are pertinent in the decision-making process. This paper presents a decision-making method to evaluate end of life product circularity alternatives at strategic level. A Product Recovery Multi-Criteria Decision Tool (PR-MCDT) is proposed to evaluate product circularity strategies from an integrated point of view, i.e. by simultaneously taking into account technical, economic, environmental, business, and societal aspects. The paper also identifies key end of life decision-making factors to assess product recovery strategies. An illustrative example is presented and discussed to show the applicability of the tool for the selection of product recovery options. A PR-MCDT is used at the senior/middle management level to ensure strategic decisions, which then promote success of the company.


Circular economy Remanufacturing End of life strategy Product recovery Multi-criteria decision methodology 



We gratefully acknowledge the support of “Circ€uit”- Circular European Economy Innovative Training Network, the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network, focusing on the circular economy as part of Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission.


  1. 1.
    Alamerew YA, Brissaud D Evaluation of remanufacturing for product recovery : multi-criteria decision tool for end-of-life selection strategy. 3rd International Conference on Remanufacturing, Oct 2017, Linköping, Sweden.
  2. 2.
    Alamerew YA, Brissaud D (2018) Modelling and assessment of product recovery strategies through systems dynamics. Procedia CIRP 69:822–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Asif FMA (2017) Circular manufacturing systems: a development framework with analysis methods and tools for implementation. PhD dissertationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bocken NMP, Olivetti EA, Cullen JM, Potting J, Lifset R (2017) Taking the circularity to the next level: a special issue on the circular economy. J Ind Ecol 21:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bufardi A, Sakara D, Gheorghe R, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2003) Multiple criteria decision aid for selecting the best product end of life scenario. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 16:526–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bufardi A, Gheorghe R, Kiritsis D, Xirouchakis P (2004) Multicriteria decision-aid approach for product end-of-life alternative selection. Int J Prod Res 42:3139–3157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cao H, Zhang L, Liu F (2010) Deployment model for part reuse in customized design of remanufactured products. Responsive Manuf - Green Manuf (ICRM 2010), 5th Int Conf : 7–12Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen JL, Wu J (2003) Neural network model for product end-of-life strategies. IEEE Int Symp Electron Environ 159–164Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diaz R, Marsillac E (2017) Evaluating strategic remanufacturing supply chain decisions, Int J Prod Res 55(9):2522–2539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doyle K, Ijomah WL, Antony J (2012) Identifying the end of life decision making factors. Des. Innov. Value Towar. a Sustain. Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunmade I (2004) PLETS model: a sustainability concept based approach to product end-of-life management.
  12. 12.
    Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2012) Circular Economy [Online].
  13. 13.
    Fellner J, Lederer J, Scharff C, Laner D (2017) Present potentials and limitations of a circular economy with respect to primary raw material demand. J Ind Ecol 21:494–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gehin A, Zwolinski P, Brissaud D (2008) A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. J Clean Prod 16:566–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghazalli Z, Murata A. Development of an AHP – CBR evaluation system for remanufacturing: end-of-life selection strategy. (2011). doi: CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goodall P, Rosamond E, Harding J (2014) A review of the state of the art in tools and techniques used to evaluate remanufacturing feasibility. J Clean Prod 81:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    He W, Li G, Ma X, Wang H, Huang J, Xu M, Huang C (2006) WEEE recovery strategies and the WEEE treatment status in China. J Hazard Mater 136:502–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hosseinzadeh M, Roghanian E (2012) An optimization model for reverse logistics network under stochastic environment using genetic algorithm. Int J Bus Soc Sci 3Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iakovou E, Moussiopoulos N, Xanthopoulos A, Achillas C, Michailidis N, Chatzipanagioti M, Koroneos C, Bouzakis KD, Kikis V (2009) A methodological framework for end-of-life management of electronic products. Resour Conserv Recycl 53:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ijomah WL (2004) A model-based definition of the generic remanufacturing business process. PhD dissertion, Univ. Plymouth, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jawahir IS, Bradley R (2016) Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 40:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    King AM, Burgess SC, Ijomah W, McMahon CA (2006) Reducing waste: repair, recondition, remanufacture or recycle? Sustain Dev 14:257–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kiritsis D, Bufardi A, Xirouchakis P. Multi-criteria decision aid for product end of life options selection. Proc. 2003 IEEE Int. Symp. Electron. Environ. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krikke HR (1998) Recovery strategies and reverse logistic network design. Institute of Business Engineering and Technology Application (BETA), Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. PhD thesisGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krikke HR, van Harten A, Schuur PC (1998) On a medium term product recovery and disposal strategy for durable assembly products. Int J Prod Res 36:111–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kumar V, Shirodkar PS, Camelio JA, Sutherland JW (2007) Value flow characterization during product lifecycle to assist in recovery decisions. Int J Prod Res 45(18–19):4555–4572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lamvik T, Myklebust O, Miljeteig G (2002) The AEOLOS methodology. IEEE Int Symp Electron Environ.
  29. 29.
    Lee SG, Lye SW, Khoo MK (2001) A multi-objective methodology for evaluating product end-of-life options and disassembly. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:148–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Luglietti R, Taisch M, Magalini F, Cassina J, Mascolo JE (2014) Environmental and economic evaluation of end-of- life alternatives for automotive engine. In: 2014 International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE). IEEE pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsumoto M, Ijomah W (2013) Remanufacturing. In: Kauffman J, Lee K (eds) Handb. Sustain. Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paterson DAP, Ijomah WL, Windmill JFC (2014) End-of-life decision tool with emphasis on remanufacturing. J Clean Prod. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pochampally KK, Gupta SM (2012) Use of linear physical programming and Bayesian updating for design issues in reverse logistics. Int J Prod Res 50:1349–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pochampally KK, Vadde S, Kamarthi VS, Gupta SM (2004) Beyond sensor-assisted diagnosis of used products. Proc. SPIE 5583, Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing IV.
  35. 35.
    Pré Consultants (2000) Eco-indicator 99 Manual for Designers [Online]. Minist Housing, Spat Plan Environ.
  36. 36.
    Ravi V, Shankar R, Tiwari MK (2005) Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Comput Ind Eng 48:327–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rose M (2000) Design for environment: a method for formulating end-of-life strategies. PhD Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, pp. 19–144Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roy B (1996) Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding, volume Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shih LH, Chang YS, Lin YT (2006) Intelligent evaluation approach for electronic product recycling via case-based reasoning. Adv Eng Inform 20:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stewart D, Ijomah W (2011) Moving forward in reverse: a review into strategic decision making in reverse logistics. In: International Conference on Remanufacturing - ICoR, 2011-07-27 - 2011-07-29, University of StrathclydeGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sundin E (2004) Product and process design for successful remanufacturingGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thierry M, Salomon M, Vannunen J, Vanwassenhove L (1995) Strategic issues in product recovery management. Calif Manag Rev 37:114–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ziout A, Azab A, Atwan M (2014) A holistic approach for decision on selection of end-of-life products recovery options. J Clean Prod 65:497–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zwolinski P, Lopez-Ontiveros MA, Brissaud D (2006) Integrated design of remanufacturable products based on product profiles. J Clean Prod 14:1333–1345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, G-SCOPGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations