Designers’ Utilization of DfE and Requirements

  • Maurizio Bevilacqua
  • Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica
  • Giancarlo Giacchetta


According to many authors, despite the number of available DfE methods and tools, there are relatively few which are widely used by companies. One reason for this low utilization is that they are time-consuming; another is that many of them focus only on environmental issues (Ehrenfeld and Lenox, J Sustain Product Design (1):17–27, 1997). For the enterprises and their engineering designers of course, the environmental issue is but one of many issues to be considered. When DfE methods and tools are used, these methods and tools are often not integrated in the product development process. Chap. 6 investigates the integration opportunities between DfE and Environmental Management System or Product Life Cycle Cost.


Life Cycle Assessment Contingent Valuation Life Cycle Cost External Cost Environmental Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ammenberg J, Hjelm O (2002) The connection between environmental management systems and continual environmental performance improvements. Corp Environ Strategy 9(2):183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammenberg J (2003) Do standardised environmental management systems lead to reduced environmental impacts? Dissertation, No. 851. ISBN 91-7373-124-2. Environmental Technology and management. Linko¨ ping University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammenberg J, Sundin E (2005) Products in environmental management systems: drivers, barriers and experiences. J Clean Prod 13:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann H, Boons F, Bragd A (2002) Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. J Clean Prod 10(5):409–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkhout F (1998) Aggregate resource efficiency. are radical improvements impossible? In: Vellinga P, Berkhout F, Gupta J (eds) Managing a material world Perspectives in industrial ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 165–189Google Scholar
  6. Biswas G, Haftbaradaran H, Kawamura K, Hunkeler D, Lantz J, Shahinpoor M, Quinn T (1997) An environmentally conscious decision support system based on a streamlined LCA and a cost residual risk evaluation: fluorescent light bulb case study. Int J Environ Conscious Des Manuf 6(3):9–24Google Scholar
  7. Bovea M, Vidal R (2004) Materials selection for sustainable product design: A case study of wood-based furniture eco-design. Mater Des 25:111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brezet JC, Bijma A, Silvester S (2000) Innovative electronics as an opportunity for eco-efficient services, In: Reichl EHH, Griese H (eds), Electronics Goes Green 2000 + , Proceedings vol 1 pp 859–865Google Scholar
  9. Coulter S, Bras B (1999) Decision support for systematic product evolution. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, ASME, DTEC99/DTM-8747Google Scholar
  10. Craighill AL, Powell JC (1996) Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 17:75–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrenfeld JR, Lenox MJ (1997) The development and implementation of DfE programmes. J Sustain Product Design (1):17–27Google Scholar
  12. Emblemsvåg J (2003) Life-cycle costing Using activity-based costing and monte carlo methods to manage future costs and risks. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  13. Emzer M, Birkhofer H (2002) Selecting methods for life cycle design based on the needs of a company intemational design conference—design. Dubrovnik, CroatiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Fabrycky WJ, Blanchard BS (1991) Life-cycle cost and economic analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  15. Gluch P, Baumann H (2004) The life cycle costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Build Environ 39:571–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlsson M (2001) Green concurrent engineering. A model for DFE management programs. Doctoral Dissertation, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindahl M (2005) Engineering designers’ requirements on design for environment methods and tools. IndustrialGoogle Scholar
  18. Lutz J, Lekov A, Chan P, Whitehead CD, Meyers S, McMahon J (2006) Life-cycle cost analysis of energy efficiency design options for residential furnaces and boilers. Energy 31:311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lye SW, Lee SG, Khoo MK (2001) A design methodology for the strategic assessment of a product’s eco-efficiency. Int J Prod Res 39(11):2453–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nasr N, Varel EA (1997) Total product life cycle analysis and costing. In: Proceedings of the 1997 Total Life Cycle Conference. Life Cycle Management and Assessment (Part 1). Society of Automotive Engineer (SAE), Inc., Warrendale PA, USA, p 9–15Google Scholar
  21. Norell M (1992) St6dmetoder och samverkan i produktutveckling St6dmetoder och samverkan i produktutveckling. Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  22. Ries G, Winkler R, Zu¨ st R (1999) Barriers for a successful integration of environmental aspects in product design. Proceedings of ‘‘EcoDesign ‘99’’. First international symposium on environmental conscious design and inverse manufacturing, Feb 1–3, Tokyo, Japan, 1999. pp 527–532Google Scholar
  23. Ritzen S, Lindahl M (2001) Selection and implementation—key activities to successful use of EcoDesign tools. In: Proceedings EcoDesign 2001: 2nd international symposium on environmentally conscious design and inverse Union of ecodesigners (Association of EcoDesign Societies)Google Scholar
  24. Schuijt K (2003) Economic valuation of the environment: an institutional perspective. In: Environmental management accounting. Purpose and progress. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 387–403Google Scholar
  25. Senthil KD, Ong SK, Nee AYC, Tan RBH (2003) A proposed tool to integrate environmental and economical assessments of products. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23:51–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapiro KG (2001) Incorporating costs in LCA. Int J LCA 6(29):121–123Google Scholar
  27. Sherif YS, Kolarik WJ (1981) Life cycle costing: concept and practice. Omega 9:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tukker A, Haag E, Eder P (2000) Eco-desig: European state of the art —Part I: Comparative analysis and conclusions—An ESTO project report. European Commission. joint research centre institute for prospective technological studies: Brussels, Luxembourg, p 60Google Scholar
  29. Vidal R, Bovea MD, Georgantzis N, Camacho-Cuena E (2002) Es rentable diseñar productos ecológicos? El caso del mueble (Is profitable to design ecological products? The furniture case). Castellón, Spain: Ed. Universitat Jaume I [in Spanish]Google Scholar
  30. Warburg N, Hemam C, Chiodo JD (2001) Accompanying the (re)design of products with environmental assessment (DfE) on the example of ADSM, IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment, pp 202–207Google Scholar
  31. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Bevilacqua
    • 1
  • Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica
    • 2
  • Giancarlo Giacchetta
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale e Scienze MatematicheUniversità Politecnica delle MarcheAnconaItaly
  2. 2.Facoltà di Scienze e TecnologieLibera Università di BolzanoBolzanoItlay

Personalised recommendations