Abstract
Due to customers’ increased focus on environmental sustainability, companies have been looking to position themselves as producers of consumer goods with greater longevity. Useful tools exist within academia to assist companies in this transformation process. However, the knowledge is scattered, and the focus of tools is often on either the mapping of companies’ status quo or actionable solutions that increase the longevity of their products. Creating a common understanding and coherency to make the knowledge usable in practice has proven to be difficult, as an immediate match of the most appropriate action tools to the mappings does not exist. Therefore, there is a need for a practical transition tool that, in the process of mapping, assists companies in understanding their positions and potential and proposes suitable action tools to assist in the required change process for producing consumer goods with greater longevity. This could mitigate the challenges for practitioners and bridge the different types of tools, hence enabling companies to develop products with increased longevity more easily.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Due to the rising global demand from consumers for sustainability, companies compete to position themselves in unique ways and deliver environmentally sustainable initiatives. Recycling, limiting plastic usage, lowering energy consumption and reducing production emissions have been among the main foci until now. However, the perception of product longevity as an important and effective element in the circular economy debate (Cooper 2020) and as a quality parameter (Cooper 2012) has raised demand for business and design methods to increase the longevity of their products. This paper adopts the definition presented by Bocken et al. (2016) that increased product longevity relates to slowing the consumption loop, with focus on the lifetime of a complete product including repair, multiple ownerships and remanufacturing but excluding recycling and upcycling, where the product is broken into sub-parts and used in new contexts.
For companies engaging with change towards producing consumer goods with greater longevity there exist several approaches, ranging from ways to increase the physical durability of products to adapting product service systems into business models (Jensen et al. 2021.a; Kopecka et al. 2011; Verganti et al., 2011). How a company chooses to execute these can be difficult to decide in practice, however, as it depends on that company’s attitude, willingness, investment and structure regarding the subject; consequently, the approaches suggested in the literature may be difficult for practitioners to utilise. This perception has also produced considerable fragmentation and theoretical confusion in academia. No common understanding exists regarding how to assist the navigation of an industry practitioner who aims to increase the longevity of their products (Bocken et al. 2019).
In this article, we adopt the perception that two types of tools exist for longevity: mapping and action. Mapping tools can provide a momentary view of a company’s current situation, position and ambitions on a structural level towards product longevity. Action tools, on the other hand, are mostly focused on progress—how to enable change in a company and the necessary steps towards this. Hence, many tools already exist that can assist practitioners in most stages of product life and provide support in change towards developing viable products with greater longevity. Even so, it can be difficult for practitioners and researchers to define which insights to combine; it is challenging to translate the discoveries from the use of a mapping tool into more actionable tools and, in the end, into practically executable approaches (see Fig. 1).
To mitigate these challenges and move the field towards a more unified process, an integrative understanding is needed. We propose a new navigation tool, synthesising the existing mapping tool, which could provide a bridge between mapping and understanding possibilities and creating the required change. Hence, we propose the following research question:
How can a new tool bridge existing mapping tools and action tools for product longevity to be more practically usable by industry practitioners?
2 Research Approach
To address this research question, an in-depth identification of existing tools for product longevity is necessary.
2.1 Phase 1: Identifying Existing Literature on Product Longevity Tools
The literature for this paper was identified in a three-stage process. First, a screening of the literature in Bocken et al.’s (2019) review of circular business innovation tools provided a solid basis of 13 tools and broad coverage of the existing tools. Second, through a forthcoming review of tools for product longevity by Özçelik et al. (2022), five additional relevant articles were added. Two tools produced by research teams led by one of the co-authors were also added (Cooper et al. 2016, 2021). Furthermore, a broad database search across Scopus, SciTech Premium Collection, DOAJ, ABI/INFORM Collection and Springer Online Journals Complete was conducted using the search term ‘“product longevity” AND “tool”’, including peer-reviewed and open-access journal articles, book chapters and books. The search resulted in 124 articles that were screened, firstly by abstract then full text filtering, and narrowed down to 17 relevant papers on tools for longevity. In total, 37 articles were selected. App. 1 presents all the identified literature through the two-stage process and an overview of the format of the tools presented.
2.2 Phase 2: Clustering Types of Tools
As previously described, when looking at the identified literature on tools in App. 1, two major differences in the aims of the tools are apparent. On the one hand, several tools enable companies to understand their position broadly and assist in mapping out their aims, direction, goals and progression through a structured process. These are defined in this article as ‘mapping tools’. On the other hand, several tools guide participants through actionable suggestions for transformation; these are referred to as ‘action tools’ in this article. The distinction seen in the clustering is further emphasised by the mention in the existing articles by the authors that tools are used to understand either the current situation (mapping tools) or how to change it (action tools).
Mapping Tools.
Mapping tools provide participants with increased insight into their company’s position and maturity, focusing on the general process at the managerial level and having a broad focus across different departments within a company. This can be helpful for practitioners aiming to produce consumer goods with greater longevity; however, evaluating the impact of a mapping tool is limited to the ability of participants to execute sub-activities that are often not thoroughly described. The identified mapping tool literature is displayed in App. 2. Because these tools vary in their approaches, focus and paradigm, they aim to help different stakeholders, so selecting the correct tool, that suit users’ situations, is crucial.
This understanding of the basis of the methodology is crucial for achieving transformation towards developing products with greater longevity. Likewise, the overview of the stakeholders combined with the mapping provides information for the evaluation and selection of areas approachable for transformation in a given company and the extent of the transformation.
Action Tools.
There also exists a range of action tools aimed at subprocesses within the transformation process. These tools provide the necessary knowledge to overcome the more specific challenges and barriers faced by designers or managers. However, participants need to be aware of their position, limitations and opportunities to successfully select the appropriate action tool. The identified action tool literature is displayed in App. 3. Through these tools, practical approaches to transformation should emerge that incrementally drive companies towards producing consumer goods with increased longevity.
3 Results of the Metatheoretical Analysis
The two types of tools have contrasting strengths and weaknesses. Using mapping tools and action tools in the most relevant practical situation can assist practitioners in making more knowledgeable decisions in the incremental change process. In an ideal situation, perceiving the process of using these tools can be seen as an iterative process that starts with a practitioner acknowledging the need for change, leading to the selection and execution of a mapping tool, followed by the use of action tools, which leads to practical change.
In some situations, to enable the use of action tools (App. 3) for the application of concrete actionable initiatives, practitioners need to be aware of their situation and opportunities. Existing mapping tools (App. 1) may provide an effective foundation for companies to increase awareness of opportunities, challenges and barriers, hence enabling them to make more conscious decisions regarding the selection of approaches and action tools. However, the current mapping tools lack a direct connection to the action tools and therefore do not bridge practical understanding and action.
4 Development of a Navigation Tool that Integrates Existing Knowledge and Bridges the Actionable Literature
We propose, with inspiration from the circular representation of product life in Sinclair et al. (2018), an overview of a product’s life as a circle. The circle is divided into three spatial levels indicating the main ownership and stakeholders responsible for the longevity of the product, namely the designers and developers, businesses and the user, inspired by the stakeholders identified by Jensen et al. (2021.b) in their exploration of barriers to product longevity (see Fig. 2.).
Based on the focus of the action tool, as seen in App. 3, the most influential life stages are included in the LaST navigational tool (Fig. 3). To bridge the LaST tool with the action tools (App. 3), the selection of the most relevant life stages is based on the life stages that the individual action tools mention and address, thereby aiming each subdivision of the spatial field towards appropriate action tools.
To facilitate evaluation criteria for users of the LaST tool, evaluation parameters are likewise considered in the toolkit (Fig. 4.). These are based on the focus of proposed solutions, namely performance, behaviour or vision (inspired by Jensen et al. 2021.b). Performance-driven approaches mainly focus on the physical characteristics of products and their performance, while behaviour change–driven approaches focus on how businesses can influence customers and create more value through service, business model and behaviour. The vision-driven approaches include determining if the company’s approach to product longevity is a core value for it and collectively communicating the value of product longevity through product, business and customer engagement. The closer to the centre of the circle in each subdivision, the more holistic is the approach; the further away from the circle, the more product-orientated are the solutions presented. To incrementally move further towards the centre of the circle, action tools found in App. 3 that are linked to the specific subdivision can be applied.
5 Conclusion and Limitations
Current literature reveals a disconnection between tools that assist practitioners in identifying their potential in terms of product longevity and those that assist in making the actual change. The main contribution of this paper is the creation of a navigation tool that binds together the knowledge from existing mapping tools and creates a direct link to the existing action tools, while facilitating the transition through incremental change in product life. The LaST tool could be used for companies that are inexperienced in considering product longevity and utilised repeatedly throughout a period, as incremental changes can facilitate continuous development within the field and improve the longevity of products. Participants are likely to benefit from repeating and adapting the methodology to new avenues of improvement, and it is important to explore newly discovered knowledge gaps or secondary business areas for improvement.
As highlighted by this paper, there are gaps within the connection between academia and practice in product longevity. An interesting avenue for future research might therefore be to investigate the connection between the action tools and the long-term impact on product longevity, company revenue and environmental implications. Likewise, an exploration of a company’s willingness to adopt new and more explorative business models to improve product longevity could be valuable.
References
Albæk, J.K., Shahbazi, S., McAloone, T.C., Pigosso, D.C.A.: Circularity evaluation of alternative concepts during early product design and development. Sustainability 12(22), 9353 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229353
Antikainen, M., Aminoff, A., Kettunen, O., SundqvistAndberg, H., Paloheimo, H.: Circular economy business model innovation process – case study. In: Campana, G., Howlett, R.J., Setchi, R., Cimatti, B. (eds.) SDM 2017. SIST, vol. 68, pp. 546–555. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57078-5_52
Boavida, R., Navas, H., Godina, R., Carvalho, H., Hasegawa, H.: A combined use of TRIZ methodology and eco-compass tool as a sustainable innovation model. Appl. Sci. 10(10), 3535 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103535
Bocken, N. M. P., Miller, K., Evans, S.: Assessing the environmental impact of new circular business models. In: The Proceedings of the First International Conference on “New Business Models” , Toulouse, France, 16–17 June 2016 (2016)
Bocken, N.M.P., Rana, P., Short, S.W.: Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 32(1), 67–81 (2015)
Bocken, N., Schuit, C., Kraaijenhagen, C.: Experimenting with a circular business model: lessons from eight cases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 28, 79–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.02.001
Bocken, N., Strupeit, L., Whalen, K., Nußholz, J.: A review and evaluation of circular business model innovation tools. Sustainability 11(8), 1–25 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082210
Chapman, J.: Design for (emotional) durability. Des. Issues. 25(4), 29–35 (2009). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20627827
Cherry, C., Pidgeon, N.: Why is ownership an issue? Exploring factors that determine public acceptance of product-service systems. Sustainability 10(7), 2289 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072289
Choi, Y.J., Stevens, J., Brass, C.: Carative factors in the design development process: Towards understanding owner–object detachment and promoting object longevity. Des. J. 21(4), 477–497 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1468166
Cooper, T.: The value of longevity: Product quality and sustainable consumption. In: Proceedings: Global Research Forum on Sustainable Consumption and Production Workshop, June 13–15, 2012, Rio de Janiero, Brazil (2012). http://grf-spc.weebly.com/uploads/2/1/3/3/21333498/cooper-paper.pdf
Cooper, T.: Slower cycles: an essential characteristic of the circular economy. In: Eisenriegler, S. (ed.) The Circular Economy in the European Union, pp. 99–116. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50239-3_9
Cooper, T., Fisher, T., Harmer, L., Salvia, G., Barr, C.: Dirt, damage, servicing and repair: understanding motivations for product disposal. Technical report for Defra. London (2016). http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/38866/
Cooper, T., et al.: Clothing durability dozen. 2nd edn. Nottingham: Nottingham Trent University (2021). https://www.ntu.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/1395494/30_04_21_NTU-DURABILITY-DOZEN-TOOLKIT_10-31.pdf
Dokter, G., Van Stijn, A., Thuvander, L., Rahe, U.: Cards for circularity: towards circular design in practice. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 588(4), 042043 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/4/042043
Evans, J.L., Bocken, N.M.P.: A tool for manufacturers to find opportunity in the circular economy: www.circulareconomytool.org. KES Transactions on Sustainable Design and Manufacturing, April 2014. http://nimbusvault.net/publications/koala/inimpact/papers/sdm14-006.pdf
GarzaReyes, J.A., SaloméValls, A., PeterNadeem, S., Anosike, A., Kumar, V.: A circularity measurement tool for manufacturing SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57(23), 7319–7343 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1559961
Hainess-Gadd, M., Chapman, J., Lloyd, P., Mason, J., Aliakseyeu, D.: Emotional durability design nine – a tool for product longevity. Sustainability 10(6), 1–19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061948
Haug, A.: Defining ‘Resilient Design’ in the context of consumer products. Des. J. 6925, 1–22 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2018.1395265
Heyes, G., Sharmina, M., Joan, M.F., Mendoza, A.G.-S., Azapagic, A.: Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service-oriented technology companies. J. Clean. Prod. 177, 621–632 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.168
Hora, M., Hankammer, S., Canetta, L., Consultant, S., Gahrens, S.: Designing business models for sustainable mass customization: a framework proposal. Int. J. Indus. Eng. Manage. 7(4), 143–152 (2016)
Jensen, P.B., Haase, L.M., Laursen, L.N.: A practical approach to companies’ transformation toward product longevity: a best-case study. Sustainability 13(23), 13312 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313312
Jensen, P.B., Laursen, L.N., Haase, L.M.: Barriers to product longevity: a review of business, product development and user perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 313, 127951 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127951
Kopecka, J.A., Santema, S.C., Buijs, J.A.: Designerly ways of muddling through. J. Bus. Res. 65, 729–739 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.0097
Manninen, K., Koskela, S., Antikainen, R., Bocken, N.M.P., Dahlbo, H., Aminoff, A.: Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? J. Clean. Prod. 171, 413–422 (2018)
Mendoza, J.M.F., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G., Azapagic, A.: Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the BECE framework. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 526–544 (2017)
Moalem, R.M., Mosgaard, M.A.: A critical review of the role of repair café s in a sustainable circular transition. Sustainability 13(22), 12351 (2021)
Nußholz, J.L.K.: A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 185–194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.112
Özçelik, A., Tollestrup, C., Lochtefeld, M.: How do longevity tools contribute on smart product design: a case study to use tools. Unpublished manuscript. Aalborg University (2022)
Pigosso, D.C.A., Schmiegelow, A., Andersen, M.M.: Measuring the readiness of SMEs for eco-innovation and industrial symbiosis: development of a screening tool. Sustainability 10, 2861 (2018)
Rexfelt, O., Selvefors, A.: The use2use design tool—tools for user-centred circular design. Sustainability 13(10), 1–18 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105397
Rivera-torres, P.: Is it possible to change from a linear to a circular economy? An overview of opportunities and barriers for European small and medium-sized enterprise companies (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050851
Roberts, D., Hughes, M.: Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities. Eur. J. Mark. 48(1), 147–169 (2014)
Rogers, J.G., et al.: Product longevity and shared ownership: sustainable routes to satisfying the world’ s growing demand for goods. AIMS Energy 3(April), 547–561 (2015)
Sinclair, M., Sheldrick, L., Moreno, M., Dewberry, E.: Consumer intervention mapping—a tool for designing future product strategies within circular product service systems. Sustainability 10(6), 2088 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062088
Schwarz, E.J., Gregori, P., Krajger, I., Wdowiak, M.A.: Entrepreneurial lean thinking for sustainable business modeling: a workshop design for incumbent firms. Sustainabil. Manage. Forum | NachhaltigkeitsManagementForum 29(1), 41–55 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00550-020-00508-y
Terzioğlu, N., Wever, R.: Integrating repair into product design education: insights on repair, design and sustainability. Sustainability 13(18), 10067 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810067
Verganti, R.: Radical design and technology epiphanies: a new focus for research on design management. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 28(3), 384–388 (2011)
Wallner, T.S., Magnier, L., Mugge, R.: An exploration of the value of timeless design styles for the consumer acceptance of refurbished products. Sustainability 12(3), 1213 (2020)
Wastling, T., Charnley, F., Moreno, M.: Design for circular behaviour: considering users in a circular economy. Sustainability 10(6), 1743 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061743
Whalen, K.: Risk & race: creation of a finance-focused circular economy serious game. PLATE (Product Lifetimes and the Environment) Conference, Delft University of Technology 8–10 November 2017, 4 (2017)
Whalen, K.A., Berlin, C., Ekberg, J., Barletta, I., Hammersberg, P.: ‘All they do is win’: lessons learned from use of a serious game for circular economy education. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 135, 335–345 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.021
Yang, M., Smart, P., Kumar, M., Jolly, M., Evans, S.: The management of operations product-service systems business models for circular supply chains. Prod. Plann. Control 7287, 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1449247
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix:
Appendix:
App. 1. Complete list of the identified literature through Bocken et al. (2019), özçelik et al. (2022), co-authors and a supplementary literature search.
Author | Title |
---|---|
Mendoza J.M.F., et al. (2017) | Integrating Backcasting and Eco-Design for the Circular economy: The BECE Framework |
Sinclair M., et al. (2018) | Consumer intervention mapping: A tool for designing future product strategies within circular product service systems |
Hainess-Gadd, H., et al., D. (2018) | Emotional durability design nine-A tool for product longevity |
Evans S. and Bocken N. (2014) | A tool for manufacturers to find opportunity in the circular economy |
Heyes G., et al. (2018) | Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service-oriented technology companies |
Whalen K., et al. (2018) | ‘All they do is win’: Lessons learned from the use of a serious game for circular economy education |
Whalen, K. (2017) | Risk and race: Creation of a finance-focused circular economy serious game |
Bocken, N., et al. (2018) | Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases |
Antikainen M., et al. (2017) | Circular economy business model innovation process—Case study |
Bocken N., Miller K., Evans, S (2016) | Assessing the environmental impact of new circular business models |
Manninen K., et al. (2018) | Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? |
Nußholz J.L.K. (2018) | A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops |
Pigosso D.C.A., et al. (2018) | Measuring the Readiness of SMEs for Eco-Innovation and Industrial Symbiosis: Development of a Screening Tool |
Jensen, P. B., et al. (2021) | Barriers to product longevity: A review of business, product development and user perspectives |
Dokter, G., et al. (2020) | Cards for circularity: Towards circular design in practice |
Jensen, P. B., et al. (2021) | A practical approach to companies’ transformation toward product longevity: A best-case study |
Rexfelt, O., Selvefors, A. (2021) | The use2use design tool—Tools for user-centred circular design |
Garza-Reyes, J. A., et al. (2019) | A circularity measurement tool for manufacturing SMEs |
Cooper, T., et al. (2021) | Clothing Durability Dozen: Strategies to improve design and testing for clothing longevity |
Cooper, T., et al. (2016) | Dirt, Damage, Servicing and Repair: Understanding motivations for product disposal |
Roberts, D., and Hughes, M. (2014) | Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities |
Hora, M., et al. (2016) | Designing Business Models for Sustainable Mass Customization: A Framework Proposal |
Yang, M., et al. (2018) | The Management of Operations Product-service systems business models for circular supply chains |
Wastling, T., et al. (2018) | Design for Circular Behaviour: Considering Users in a Circular Economy |
Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018) | Why Is Ownership an Issue? Exploring Factors That Determine Public Acceptance of Product-Service Systems |
Wallner, T. S., et al. (2020) | An Exploration of the Value of Timeless Design Styles for the Consumer Acceptance of Refurbished Products |
Albæk, J. K., et al. (2020) | Circularity Evaluation of Alternative Concepts During Early Product Design and Development |
Terzioglu, N., & Wever, R. (2021) | Integrating Repair into Product Design Education: Insights on Repair, Design and Sustainability |
Moalem, R. M., and Mosgaard, M. A. (2021) | A Critical Review of the Role of Repair Café s in a Sustainable Circular Transition |
Bocken, N. M. P., et al. (2015) | Value mapping for sustainable business thinking |
Rogers, J. G., et al. (2015) | Product longevity and shared ownership: Sustainable routes to satisfying the world’ s growing demand for goods |
Chapman, J. (2009) | Design for (Emotional) Durability |
Boavida, R., et al. (2020) | A Combined Use of TRIZ Methodology and Eco-Compass tool as a Sustainable Innovation Model |
Choi, Y. J., et al. (2018) | Carative Factors in the Design Development Process: Towards Understanding Owner–Object Detachment and Promoting Object Longevity |
Haug, A., (2018) | Defining ‘Resilient Design’ in the Context of Consumer Products Defining ‘Resilient Design’ in the Context of Consumer Products |
Gregori, E. J. S. P., and Wdowiak, I. K. M. A. (2021) | Entrepreneurial lean thinking for sustainable business modeling: a workshop design for incumbent firms |
Rivera-torres, P. (2019) | Is It Possible to Change from a Linear to a Circular Economy? An Overview of Opportunities and Barriers for European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Companies |
App. 2. List of mapping tools.
Author | Title | Type of situation where tool is applicable |
---|---|---|
Garza-Reyes, et al. (2019) | A circularity measurement tool for manufacturing SMEs | Measurement tool to identify SMEs’ current maturity through an evaluation of circularity practices. Executed through a questionnaire |
Sinclair M., et al. (2018) | Consumer intervention mapping: A tool for designing future product strategies within circular product service systems | Identifying the possible intervention points for companies to improve circularity in relation to customers. Executed through collective discussion of participants |
Jensen, P.B., et al. (2021) | Barriers to product longevity: A review of business, product development and user perspectives | List of barriers that can hinder the development of products with high longevity. Serves as a foundation for the discussion of possible overlooked challenges |
Pigosso D.C.A., et al. (2018) | Measuring the readiness of SMEs for eco-innovation and industrial symbiosis: Development of a screening tool | A screening tool to measure the readiness for SMEs to adopt circularity initiatives through discussion based on a questionnaire |
Jensen, P. B., et al. (2021) | A practical approach to companies’ transformation toward product longevity: A best-case study | Creates a foundation for understanding different maturity levels of companies, based on their perspective and focus in product, business and focus area |
App. 3. List of action tools based on the identified literature.
Author | Title | Type of situation where tool is applicable |
---|---|---|
Dokter, G., et al. (2020) | Cards for circularity: Towards circular design in practice | Idea generation, design brief, and design conceptualisation process |
Hainess-Gadd, H., et al. (2018) | Emotional durability design nine-A tool for product longevity | Design brief, new product development, Ownership |
Rexfelt, O., Selvefors, A. (2021) | The use2use design tool—Tools for user-centred circular design | Idea generation and re-systems and Product Universe |
Evans, S., Bocken N. (2014) | A tool for manufacturers to find opportunity in the circular economy | Idea generation, manufacturing, and business development |
Heyes G., et al. (2018) | Developing and implementing circular economy business models in service-oriented technology companies | Business development |
Mendoza, J.M.F. et al. (2017) | Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: The BECE framework | Business development |
Cooper, T., et al. (2016) | Dirt, Damage, Servicing and Repair: Understanding motivations for product disposal | Idea generation, design conceptualisation |
Bocken, N., et al. (2018) | Experimenting with a circular business model: Lessons from eight cases | Value Proposition, Design Brief, and Design Conceptualisation |
Antikainen M., et al. (2017) | Circular economy business model innovation process—Case study | Business Development and Market Introduction |
Bocken N., et al. (2016) | Assessing the environmental impact of new circular business models | Manufacturing and Business Development |
Manninen K., et al. (2018) | Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? | Value Proposition, Design Brief, Business Development and Disposal |
Nußholz, J.L.K. (2018) | A circular business model mapping tool for creating value from prolonged product lifetime and closed material loops | Business development, Re-systems, and Market Introduction |
Whalen, K., et al. (2018) | ‘All they do is win’: Lessons learned from the use of a serious game for circular economy education | New Product development, Manufacturing and Suppliers and Sub-suppliers |
Whalen, K. (2017) | Risk and Race: Creation of a finance-focused circular economy serious game | Business Development, advertisement, market introduction |
Cooper, T., et al. (2021) | Clothing Durability Dozen: Strategies to improve design and testing for clothing longevity | Idea generation, Design Brief and Business development |
Roberts, D., and Hughes, M. (2014) | Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities | Business development, User Engagement and Ownership |
Hora, M., et al. (2016) | Designing Business Models for Sustainable Mass Customization: A Framework Proposal | Business Development, advertisement, and User Engagement |
Yang, M., et al. (2018) | The Management of Operations Product-service systems business models for circular supply chains | Suppliers and sub-suppliers, Business Model |
Wastling, T., et al. (2018) | Design for Circular Behaviour: Considering Users in a Circular Economy | User Engagement, Ownership, Re-systems |
Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018) | Why Is Ownership an Issue? Exploring Factors That Determine Public Acceptance of Product-Service Systems | Business Development, User engagement, and Ownership |
Wallner, T. S., et al. (2020) | An Exploration of the Value of Timeless Design Styles for the Consumer Acceptance of Refurbished Products | New Product Development, Ownership, and Disposal |
Albæk, J. K., et al. (2020) | Circularity Evaluation of Alternative Concepts During Early Product Design and Development | Idea Generation, Design Brief, and Design Conceptualisation |
Terzioglu, N., & Wever, R. (2021) | Integrating Repair into Product Design Education: Insights on Repair, Design and Sustainability | Design Conceptualisation and New Product Development |
Moalem, R. M., and Mosgaard, M. A. (2021) | A Critical Review of the Role of Repair Café s in a Sustainable Circular Transition | Ownership, Re-systems, and Disposal |
Bocken, N. M. P., et al. (2015) | Value mapping for sustainable business thinking | Business Development, Market Introduction |
Rogers, J. G., et al. (2015) | Product longevity and shared ownership: Sustainable routes to satisfying the world’ s growing demand for goods | Business Development, Re-systems, and User Engagement |
Chapman, J. (2009) | Design for (Emotional) Durability | Design Conceptualisation, New Product Development, and Ownership |
Boavida, R., et al. (2020) | A Combined Use of TRIZ Methodology and Eco-Compass tool as a Sustainable Innovation Model | Idea Generation, Design Brief, and Design Conceptualisation |
Choi, Y. J., et al. (2018) | Carative Factors in the Design Development Process: Towards Understanding Owner–Object Detachment and Promoting Object Longevity | New Product Development, Ownership, and Disposal |
Haug, A., and Haug, A. (2018) | Defining ‘Resilient Design’ in the Context of Consumer Products Defining ‘Resilient Design’ in the Context of Consumer Products | Design Conceptualisation, New Product Development |
Gregori, E. J. S. P., and Wdowiak, I. K. M. A. (2021) | Entrepreneurial lean thinking for sustainable business modelling: a workshop design for incumbent firms | Business Development, User Engagement, and Ownership |
Rivera-torres, P. (2019) | Is It Possible to Change from a Linear to a Circular Economy? An Overview of Opportunities and Barriers for European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Companies | Business Development, Ownership |
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jensen, P.B., Haase, L.M., Cooper, T., Steward, J., Marsh, P., Laursen, L.N. (2023). The LaST Tool – The Longevity and Sustainable Transition Tool. In: Kohl, H., Seliger, G., Dietrich, F. (eds) Manufacturing Driving Circular Economy. GCSM 2022. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28839-5_85
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28839-5_85
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28838-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28839-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)