Design for the Value of Sustainability
It is the main task of a professional designer to create value for the users of the products, services, and systems they design. In Design for Sustainability, however, designers have a higher level of ambition: additional to a high consumer value, they make sure that designs result in less degradation of our environment, less depletion of materials, and more social equity in our world. The need for a higher level of prosperity for people in developing countries, in combination with the growing population in our world, emphasizes the need for sustainable products and services. Design for Sustainability combines a high customer value with a low level of eco-burden over the life cycle. This chapter summarizes the main current approaches to Design for Sustainability (cradle-to-cradle, Circular Economy, and Biomimicry) and some practical tools and checklists (EcoDesign, the LiDS Wheel, Design for Recycling, and Design for Disassembly) and describes the latest developments in quantitative assessment methods (“Fast Track” Life Cycle Assessment, Eco-efficient Value Creation, and design of Sustainable Product Service Systems). For the quantitative methods, real-life examples are given for design of luxurious products based on cork, packaging design of food products, and Sustainable Product Service System design of sustainable water tourism.
KeywordsLife cycle assessment Sustainability Ecodesign Eco-costs Value Product service systems
The current socioeconomic systems have brought us to an ever-increasing prosperity. This development will, however, inevitably come to an end because of its inability to stop the pollution of air, water, and soil and the degradation of ecosystems, to stop the depletion of material resources, and to support a growing world population in combination with the need for higher standards of living in the underdeveloped countries. The challenge of our generation is therefore to decouple societal progress from environmental deterioration and the use of nonrenewable resources. We need a better system of production and consumption to resolve this challenge.
The shaping of such a “new economy” requires high-level political decisions with respect to governmental regulations (on a national as well as a global scale). Companies, however, play an important role in the transition as well. They must serve their clients’ needs with innovative high-value products and services, which cause less pollution. They must redesign their business systems in order to resolve the problem of materials depletion. This is not only an organizational challenge but also a challenge to designers and engineers, who must shape these new products and product service systems. The value for our society of Design for Sustainability is to support the required transition.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the different approaches taken by designers for designing for the value of sustainability and of the complications and trade-offs they are likely to encounter. This overview will enable readers to better understand and place the work of specific designers, as well as the debates and critiques coming out of the design community. Readers will also have a better insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the assessment tools by which designers substantiate their decisions on sustainability.
Sustainability and Design for Sustainability Explained
Sustainability is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). The issue is a matter of equity. It is about “intergenerational equity” (Tobin 1974), i.e., the notion that our children and grandchildren must have the same quality of our environment as we have (Gosseries 2008). It is also about “intragenerational equity,” i.e., the equity within our own generation related to the poor countries of our world, the people of the so-called Base of the Pyramid (Prahalad 2002).
Although this definition of sustainability is widely accepted, its problem is that it defines sustainability in general terms on a global system level. Additional requirements and objectives are needed to translate the meaning of sustainability to goals and requirements for designing products and services.
“People,” the social aspects of employees in a company
“Planet,” the ecological consequences of the products of a company
“Profit,” the economic profitability
The main message is that the “bottom line” of an organization is not only an economic-financial one: an organization is responsible for its social and ecological environment as well. From this Triple-P perspective, an organization needs to find a balance between economic goals and goals with regard to the social and ecological environment.
Long term versus short term (Planet is long term, Profit is short term)
“They” versus “us” in terms of the distribution of Prosperity (the People of the Base of the Pyramid versus consumers in developed countries)
The idea that such a double objective is the key to sustainable development was mentioned in the report of Brundtland (1987) as well: a new socioeconomic system is needed, see Fig. 2. Such a new economy can be made possible by innovation of products and services that combine a low eco-burden with a high value. This is the double objective of a modern designer.
But how do these general mission statements translate to the practical decisions designers and engineers have to make? There is a need to relate these statements to simple questions like the following: What is the best product, service, or system in terms of ecological impact? How can the designer improve the sustainability aspects of a design? What kind of solutions are available for what kind of situations?
Sustainable design approaches (section “Modern Holistic Sustainable Design Approaches”)
Tools and checklists to assist the designer in the quest for improvements (section “Tools and Checklists to Assist the Designer”)
Quantitative methods to assess the level of sustainability (section “Quantitative Methods to Assess the Level of Sustainability”)
Cases are given in section “Examples.”
The main current approaches to sustainable design are cradle-to-cradle and Circular Economy, described in sections “The Cradle-to-Cradle Approach” and “The Approach of the Circular Economy.” The differences are limited: they both focus on elimination of the depletion of materials by recycling, obviously avoiding toxic emissions. They both claim a focus on “good rather than less bad” (claiming that they are better than previous approaches like eco-efficiency), but that appears to be a rather theoretical claim (starting from a envisioned ideal that may need to be watered down to make it achievable in the short run, instead of starting with the current reality and aiming to improve upon it), since what they achieve in practice often seems to be similar to other approaches. The main difference between cradle-to-cradle and Circular Economy is the emphasis the latter places on business model innovation.
These general approaches are providing a sustainable mind-set for designers, influencing the normal work of designers in a fundamental way. The designer should already apply these approaches at the beginning of the design (the so-called fuzzy front end) in situations where there is a high degree of design freedom.
Biomimicry, described in section “The Approach of Biomimicry,” is a design method which aims at copying solutions from nature and is a logical “add-on” to cradle-to-cradle and Circular Economy. Obviously, inspiration from nature for technical solutions is far from new (it is as old as mankind) and is not restricted to the subject of sustainability, but it gives many designers inspiration on how to achieve a sustainable breakthrough. Furthermore, Biomimicry not only takes inspiration from nature for technical solutions but on a system level as well.
EcoDesign , also called Design for Environment (DfE) and Design for Sustainability (DfS), is briefly described in section “The Checklists of EcoDesign (Design for the Environment, Design for Sustainability).” Additional to the general approach of sustainable design, EcoDesign started with design manuals but is nowadays more and more web-based. Many computer software tools have been made (and are still being made) to assist the designer in decision making. It is applicable to all design stages and all kinds of degrees of design freedom. The LiDS Wheel, section “The LiDS Wheel (Environmental Benchmarking),” is part of EcoDesign but is presented separately since it is often used “stand-alone.” EcoDesign checklists and tools are down-to-earth and very useful in practice.
One of the aspects covered in checklists deals with reduction of the impact during the use phase. This aspect, and then in particular the role of user behavior, is currently receiving a lot of research interest. These developments are described in section “Design for Sustainable Behavior” on design for sustainable behavior.
Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly are related issues, to be dealt with in section “Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly.” This section provides practical design guidelines on what should be done to enable recycling. Design for Recycling has changed in the last decade to meet the requirements of modern waste separation techniques (shredding + materials separation).
The execution of all these approaches requires the ability to assess the impact of current products and systems as well as proposed alternatives. The most important quantitative method is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), briefly described in section “Life Cycle Assessment (“Fast Track”).” LCA is a product benchmarking tool, based on the material balance and the energy balance of a system. LCA of products is often called “cradle-to-grave,” but in practice, it is in most of the cases cradle-to-cradle, since modern life cycles include recycling.
One of the drawbacks of LCA is that it only focuses on the Planet aspect of sustainability. An evolving quantitative design method is called Eco-efficient Value Creation. This method is LCA-based and is part of the model of the Eco-costs/Value Ratio. One of the key elements of Eco-efficient Value Creation (described in section “Eco-efficient Value Creation”) is that innovative products must have a low eco-burden as well as a high customer value (both scoring better than the existing design solutions). Cases are given in section “Design of Luxurious Cork Products” (on luxurious design products of cork) and section “Packaging Solutions for Food” (on packaging). The Eco-efficient Value Creation design method is fully in line with the aforementioned approach of Brundtland (1987) and of WBCSD (1995).
Related to Eco-efficient Value Creation is the design of Sustainable Product Service Systems, SusPSS. A SusPSS is considered to be an optimum way to fulfill functional requirements with a minimum of eco-burden (in most cases with a minimal use of materials). In practice, the design of a SusPSS is often required to introduce green product solutions in the marketplace. Section “The Sustainable Product Service System (SusPSS)” describes when to design a SusPSS and how to do it. A case on sustainable water tourism is given in section “Sustainable Water Tourism, an Example of a SusPSS.”
Existing Approaches and Tools
Modern Holistic Sustainable Design Approaches
The Cradle-to-Cradle Approach
Cradle-to-Cradle (McDonough and Braungart 2002) is a holistic view on how our socioeconomic system should be: away from the approach of minimization of the negative impact of our economic activities (eco-efficiency, making things that are less bad for our ecosystem) and toward stimulation and optimization of a positive impact (eco-effectiveness, making things that support our ecosystem). It describes a utopia with no restrictions to further growth of prosperity. Cradle-to-Cradle rejects the idea that economic growth is bad for our ecosystems: “…after all, in nature growth is good. Instead, it promotes the idea that good design supports a rich human experience with all that entails – fun, beauty, enjoyment, inspiration and poetry – and still encourages environmental health and abundance” (website MBDC 2013).
Materials health, which means that materials which are used in products must be safe for use and continuous recycling. This means that they must be free of any potentially toxic substances.
Materials reutilization, which means that all materials in the product must be part of continuous recycling systems.
Renewable energy, which means that 100 % of the energy in the production and use phase must be renewable.
Water stewardship, which means that water must be kept clean.
Social fairness, which means that labor conditions must be kept at a high level.
The Approach of the Circular Economy
The concept of the Circular Economy is based on cradle-to-cradle and several other previously existing approaches but is focused on the economy and on business opportunities. It is directly related with scientists who emphasized that the industrial economy should be reshaped from “linear” (based on fast replacement and disposal) to “circular” (reuse of products and recycling of materials) in order to stop depletion of resources (abiotic materials). Initial papers on the subject were (Stahel 1982) and (Boulding 1966) both signaling that the current systems of production and consumption are not sustainable. Note that these papers were published before Brundtland (1987) and before cradle-to-cradle.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, established in 2010, revitalized the subject recently by combining the existing ideas of Industrial Ecology (clustering of industrial production to minimize waste), Design for Disassembly (section “Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly”), Biomimicry (section “The Approach of Biomimicry”), and cradle-to-cradle (previous section). Moreover, the idea of the Circular Economy has been made appealing to the business community via reports on the economic importance and the business opportunities (McKinsey 2012, 2013). The timing is perfect: the European Union has put the issue of materials depletion high on the agenda (European Commission 2012).
M = total required nonrenewable materials per year
P = total number of products = world population x average number of products per person
W = average weight of nonrenewable materials per product
R = fraction of reuse, remanufacturing, recycle, repair, refurbish, and retrieval (the so-called 6 Rs)
L = average lifetime of products in years
The first and foremost task is to enhance L by products with a high level of quality and durability, which fulfill the user requirements, and are nice to have, so the owner will attach to them. Such a product has a high perceived customer value, so a high willingness to pay. This aspect is dealt with in section “Eco-efficient Value Creation.”
The second task is to minimize W, by reducing weight, by applying renewables, and by optimizing the design in terms of fulfillment of the required functionality. This aspect is dealt with in sections “Life Cycle Assessment (“Fast Track”)” and “The Sustainable Product Service System (SusPSS).”
- 3.The third task is enhancement of R, i.e., the 6 Rs related to the issue of the Circular Economy, see Fig. 4:
Reuse (the product is sold on the secondhand market)
Repair (the product life is extended by fixing its functionality)
Refurbish (the product life is extended by restoring its quality and image)
Remanufacturing (part of the product is remade)
Retrieval (part of the product is used in another product)
Recycling (the materials are separated and either upcycled or downcycled in a cascade)
Make people want to live with less products (P), i.e., make a life with less “stuff” more desirable.
It is obvious that the designer can do a lot to make repair easy (related to Design for Disassembly, which will be dealt with in section “Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly,” keeping components with different life-spans separated (embedded batteries in smartphones and tablets are the wrong design trend!). The designer can also make the right choices with regard to postconsumer recycling, which is explained in section “Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly.”
Products which are designed according to these principles appear often to be too expensive. This is a general issue with regard to green products and is dealt with in section “Eco-efficient Value Creation.”
New business structures are needed to introduce these products. This is also a general issue with regard to green products and is dealt with in section “The Sustainable Product Service System (SusPSS).”
Customer behavior is an important aspect of optimizing their role in the Circular Economy. Here the challenge is to influence both the buying behavior of customers as well as influencing customer behavior at the end of the product life (e.g., stimulating waste separation by giving the customer easy access to a take-back system and/or giving the customer a small financial incentive for cooperation in the take-back system). Besides buying and discarding, there is the way people are using products. Section “Design for Sustainable Behavior” goes into more detail with regard to influencing the behavior during use.
The Approach of Biomimicry
The understanding that nature has more effective life cycles than the technosphere makes Biomimicry a logical “add-on” to cradle-to-cradle and Circular Economy. Biomimicry is “innovation inspired by nature” (Benyus 1997). Copying from nature is as old as mankind, applied in modern mechanical and civil engineering (the honeycomb shape, the eggshell construction), architecture (the termite solution to keep buildings cool), and in aircraft design (miniaturization of airplanes). Simply copying a form and/or technical solution from nature is often referred to as biomimetics. In Biomimicry, the aim is to also copy nature at the process and system level, for instance with closed material loops. These higher levels are represented by working with the so-called Life’s Principles (see below). The approach of Biomimicry has been embraced recently by designers who are inspired by the approaches of Cradle-to-Cradle and the Circular Economy and are looking for sustainable solutions in design and engineering. Biomimicry is a way to search for new sustainable materials, products, and systems. Examples are shown on the website Biomimicry (2013).
Adapt to changing conditions (incorporate diversity, maintain integrity through self-renewal, embody resilience through variation, redundancy, and decentralization).
Be locally attuned and responsive (leverage cyclic processes, use readily available materials and energy, use feedback loops, cultivate cooperative relationships).
Use life-friendly chemistry (break down products into benign constituents, build selectively with a small subset of events, do chemistry in water).
Be resource efficient (material and energy) (use low-energy processes, use multifunctional design, recycle all materials, fit form to function).
Integrate development with growth (self-organize, build from the bottom up, combine modular and nested components).
Evolve to survive (replicate strategies that work, integrate the unsuspected, reshuffle information).
Tools and Checklists to Assist the Designer
The Checklists of EcoDesign (Design for the Environment, Design for Sustainability)
The EcoDesign checklists of Fig. 5 consist of two columns: the questions to be asked are given in the left-hand columns of the tables. Some improvement options are suggested in the right-hand columns. The checklists are related to the LiDS Wheel which will be presented in the next section.
In practice, however, the application of EcoDesign manuals is rather limited. They provide a good basis for training on the subject, but evidence shows that designers rather “file” them than use them. Designers ask for easy accessible and inspiring examples, and easy accessible specific information, since they claim that they have limited time available: in design many other quality aspects come before “eco” (Lofthouse 2006). The obvious thing to do is to develop open-access databases on the Internet. Until now, information on the Internet is rather scattered, so it takes a lot of time to gather the inspiration and data which are needed. The situation is improving, however, step-by-step. There is still a long way to go.
The design brief does not ask for it or that many other aspects come first (e.g., Petala et al. 2010).
The design becomes too expensive by EcoDesign (note that the claim that EcoDesign is less expensive is not supported by most of the practical cases: EcoDesign is definitely not a cost-saving tool).
It is evident that the design of sustainable products and services must be part of the marketing and production strategy of a company: it can only thrive in a company culture in which sustainability is fully embedded. The leadership of the company management plays a crucial role in successful implementation.
The LiDS Wheel (Environmental Benchmarking)
Basically, it is a form of environmental product benchmarking, showing in what aspects a product design should be improved, compared to its alternatives. It only works in situations where two or more products (designs) are compared to each other, since scores are not absolute, but relative and often subjective. The advantage of the tool is that it is quick and dirty and the disadvantage is that the importance of each aspect relative to the other aspects is not known, which can easily lead to too much focus on the wrong aspects.
Design for Sustainable Behavior
In the clarifying text of the fifth strategy of the LiDS Wheel “reduction of impact during use,” the mentioned strategies all aim at technical optimization. However, a large part of the impact that products have during their life-span, especially energy- and water-using products, is a result of the behavior by their users. Think of the excess amount of water heated in an electric kettle or the energy consumed by products left in standby mode. The possibilities to influence such behavior for the better have received substantial attention from sociologists and psychologists over the years. However, those researchers have not seen design as a true variable (Wever 2012). In recent years, a vibrant area of design research has emerged studying the potential of influencing the user through the design to change their behavior in a more sustainable way (e.g., Lockton et al. 2008; Lilley 2009). As Bakker (2012) states, there are three design approaches to reduce the impact of (inefficient) use. The first is an engineering approach, aimed at automating certain aspects of products in order to increase efficiency, i.e., engineering away inefficiencies. The second is an individualist approach, which comes down to Design for Sustainable behavior, focusing on isolated, specific user-product interactions (e.g., dual-flush toilet buttons). The third is a practice approach, taking practices (comprised of material artifacts or “stuff,” conventions or “image” and competencies or “skills”) as the unit of study (e.g., the complete practice of bathing or cooking). Several scholars are working toward practical tools enabling designers to design for sustainable behavior change (Lockton et al. 2010; Daae and Boks 2013; Lilley and Wilson 2013).
Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly
Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly are basically EcoDesign issues, but until now, they are a bit neglected by designers. It is about details in the design and about technical processes at the end-of-life, both not very popular design aspects. It is expected that this situation will change soon since, on the one hand, the issue of materials depletion is rapidly getting high on the agenda of all stakeholders, resulting in attention to the 6 Rs of the Circular Economy (see section “The Approach of the Circular Economy”) and since, on the other hand, manufacturers will be confronted with their own poor product design with respect to recycling due to the introduction of obligatory product take-back systems in the European Union.
Design for Recycling is defined at the Life Cycle Thinking website of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (website JRC 2013) as: “… a method that implies the following requirements of a product: easy to dismantle, easy to obtain ‘clean’ material-fractions, that can be recycled (e.g., iron and copper should be easy to separate), easy to remove parts/components, that must be treated separately, use as few different materials as possible, mark the materials/polymers in order to sort them correct, avoid surface treatment in order to keep the materials ‘clean’.”
Design manuals in this field are rather specific, since only detailed descriptions can guide the designer what to do. Examples are Recoup (2009) for plastic bottles and Chiodo et al. (2011) for the active disassembly of products. Still, the problem for designers is that Design for Recycling is strongly related to complex issues about production and assembling (Boothroyd et al. 2002). Designers have to resolve problems in teams together with engineering and manufacturing, which is a challenge to many designers.
A common argument to refrain from the complexities of Design for Recycling is that it makes a product more expensive. As such, this is true, but the introduction of Design for Recycling is driven by the fact that industry must soon comply with strict governmental regulations within the European Union. As an example, detailed lists of substances which have to be removed prior to disposal can be found in the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) Directive of the European Union.
Quantitative Methods to Assess the Level of Sustainability
Life Cycle Assessment (“Fast Track”)
A basic question in Design for Sustainability is which design (of a series of designs or concepts) is the best in terms of sustainability.1 This is a matter of benchmarking and typically results in making trade-offs. When product A requires less electricity than product B, but product A requires more transport than B, such a trade-off arises. The issue of comparison of environmental burden of different aspects has already been mentioned in section “The LiDS Wheel (Environmental Benchmarking)” on the LiDS Wheel. It becomes even more complex when product A requires more of material X and less of material Y. The relative eco-burden per kilogram of X and Y is then required for a benchmarking analysis. This is where Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comes in.
Materials (natural resources and recycled materials)
The product(s) and/or service
Emissions to air, water, and soil
By-products, recycling products, feedstock for electrical power plants
Waste for landfill, waste incineration, or other types of waste treatment
Each LCA starts with the definition of the different processes inside the black boxes of Fig. 7. Such definitions are unique for each case. When the definition of the system, i.e., the combination of processes to be studied, is wrong (or not suitable for the goal of the study), the output of the calculation will be wrong as well. The biggest mistakes in practice are caused by a system definition which is too narrow: subprocesses are not included which may nevertheless be important, or other details are included which have hardly any influence on the output. The definition of the system is often iterative: by trial and error, it is discovered what is important in a certain case.
Some cradle-to-cradle specialists claim that the cradle-to-grave dogma of LCA leads to a wrong approach in design. They have a point that the cradle-to-grave dogma may lead to wrong design decisions (i.e., opportunities for recycling are overlooked). However, this has nothing to do with LCA methodology as such, but only with the people who apply it. Reuse, recycling, etc. are always part of the LCA of the whole system. Yet it is important to give ample attention in LCA to the definition of the system, its boundaries, and its function (Vogtländer 2012).
The classical LCA (“full,” “rigorous”), where the methodological focus is on the LCI (Life Cycle Inventory, i.e., making lists of emissions and required natural resources) and on the LCIA (Life Cycle Impact Assessment, analyzing these lists and “compressing” such lists in “single indicators”), which is work for LCA specialists and scientists.
The “Fast Track” LCA2 is where the output of the calculations of the classical LCA is the input for the Fast Track calculation and where the methodological focus is not at all on the LCI and the LCIA but on the comparison of design alternatives, which is work for designers, engineers, and business managers.
The Fast Track LCA is designed to make LCA doable by the designers themselves. When a product is designed (e.g., a car, a house), all kinds of materials and production processes are combined. It is inconceivable that all these materials and processes are analyzed by the designer himself on the level of individual emissions and use of natural resources. In practice, the designer will apply the results of LCAs from other people, available in databases (e.g., the Idemat 2012 database or the Ecoinvent database with over 5,000 LCIs of different processes). There are also generic engineering tools which include basic sustainability assessment options such as technical documentation tools like SolidWorks or material selection tools such as the Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES).
Step 1: Establish the scope and the goal of your analysis (this step might be done after step 2 in the case that it is a total new design).
Step 2: Establish the system, functional unit, and system boundaries.
Step 3: Quantify materials, use of energy, etc. in your system.
Step 4: Enter the data into an Excel calculation sheet or a computer program.
Step 5: Interpret the results and draw your conclusions.
Eco-efficient Value Creation
The Model of the Eco-Costs /Value Ratio (EVR)
A prerequisite for a comparison in LCA (LCA benchmarking) is that the functionality (“functional unit”) and the quality of the alternative product(s) are the same: you cannot compare apples and oranges with LCA.3 In cases of product design and architecture, however, this prerequisite seems to be a fundamental flaw in the application of LCA: the designer or architect is aiming at a better functionality and quality (in the broad sense of the word: including intangible aspects like beauty and image), so the new design never has the same functionality and quality as the old solution. As an example, we look at an armchair: different types of armchairs differ in terms of comfort, aesthetics, etc. rather than in terms of the functionality of “providing support to sit.” One solution is to take the market value (Willingness to Pay, WTP) as a proxy for the sum of all quality aspects (tangible as well as intangible) also into account and determine the ratio of the eco-burden (determined by LCA) and the value (in euros, US dollars, or any other currency). This leads to the Eco-costs/Value Ratio (EVR) as an indicator for the sustainability of a product.
The high value/costs Ratio gives the opportunity for a company of making high profits (by a high profit margin per product and/or by a high market share). Low eco-costs make that the good position in the market will not deteriorate in the future by stricter environmental regulations and higher material prices. So the lower right quadrant in the matrix is the desired position.
Enhance the (perceived) quality of the product.
Attach a service to the product (create a PSS) in a way that the value of the bundle of the product and the service is more than the value of its components (sections “The Sustainable Product Service System (SusPSS)” and “Sustainable Water Tourism, an Example of a SusPSS”).
For most of the current products, the value/costs ratio is high, but the eco-costs are high as well (the upper right quadrant). Doing nothing is no option: it will cause products to drift into the upper left quadrant (arrow 3), because of the aforementioned “internalization” of costs of pollution. Such a product will be forced out of the market, since the sale price of the product cannot be increased above the fair price in the eyes of the customer (the Willingness to Pay). These products and its production processes have to be redesigned to lower the eco-costs (arrow 2).
There is also a consumer’s side of the EVR model: the decoupling of economy and ecology (as mentioned in section “Introduction”). Under the assumption that most of the households spend in their life what they earn in their life (the savings ratio is <5 % in most countries), the total EVR of the spending of households is the key toward sustainability. Only when this total EVR of the spending gets lower, the eco-costs related to the total spending can be reduced even at a higher level of spending.
Force industry to reduce the eco-costs of their products (this will shift the curve downward), e.g., by cleaner and more energy efficient production, less transport, less energy in the use phase, and closed loop recycling.
Try to reduce expenditures of consumers in the high end of the curve, and let them spend this money at the low end of the curve (this will shift the middle part of the curve to the right), e.g., tempt consumers to spend their money on health care and new houses, rather than on car driving.
Designers and engineers cannot only contribute to the first option but also to the second, by designing innovative products with a low EVR, which are attractive to the consumers (so that they will buy these products). These products must have a higher value (higher WTP) than the existing alternative they must replace, to avoid the so called “rebound effect” (Sorrell 2007).
The Rebound Effect
The direct rebound effect (“substitution effect”) where the rebound is in the same function (e.g., people who install low-energy light bulbs tend to be less strict on turning off the light when they leave the room or even install these light bulbs in their gardens)
The indirect rebound effect (“income effect”) where the rebound is in another functional area (e.g., people tend to travel more when they save money by energy conservation)
The economic-wide, long-term rebound effect (e.g., when cars become more energy efficient, more people can afford driving, resulting in more cars)
On the first sight, Fig. 12 shows that better aerodynamics is a win-win situation in the use phase, since it results in savings in eco-costs (at a high EVR) as well as a lower price for the consumed fuel. However, the money saved on fuel is spent again on fuel in a country with no speed limit, like Germany. This is because of consumer preferences: the advantage of a better aerodynamics is transferred to driving faster (perceived as convenience and fun), instead of savings on diesel consumption (savings of eco-costs). In the Netherlands, a country with speed limits, the situation is slightly better. It results in driving more. “Driving more” has a lower EVR than “driving faster” (the EVR of the diesel is higher than the EVR for the car + diesel), but the end result is that there are not much overall savings in eco-costs.
Eco-efficient Value Creation and the Double Objective
Eco-efficient Value Creation and the double objective of Fig. 13 is not only to avoid the rebound effect: it deals also with the essence of the Brundtland report and the WBCSD mission statement as quoted in section “Introduction.” It shows that care for the P of Planet and the P of Prosperity in the Triple-P model in section “Sustainability and Design for Sustainability Explained” is not an issue of trade-off (as proposed in (Elkington 1997)): it is not an issue of “or” but an issue of “and.” The Brundtland report gives a vision on this issue (Brundtland 1987, page 6 of the summary): “Yet in the end, sustainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs.” In the EVR model, the future needs are indicated by the eco-costs, the present needs are indicated by the value.
People do not buy products with a lower value (compared to products with similar functionality and quality).
A higher price in the market is required to cover the higher production costs of green products (note that a higher price is only accepted by the consumer when the perceived value is higher, otherwise the consumer will not buy the product).
A higher price prevents the rebound effect.
It is the talent of the designer that creates the value of the product. It is EcoDesign in combination with LCA that helps the designer to reduce the eco-costs in a comprehensive way. Cases are given in section “Examples.” A promising way of creating eco-efficient value is the design of Sustainable Product Service Systems, SusPSS.
The Sustainable Product Service System (SusPSS)
Sustainable and Unsustainable Product Service Systems
To enhance the profit margin (the costs of the service is less than the added value)
To sell more of the product (which is normally the business aim of the PSS)
It is obvious that the business aim of selling more “dirty” products is not in line with sustainability. The product suffers from a high eco-burden, which cannot be lowered by adding a service. A comprehensive literature study on the subject underlines this general conclusion (Tukker 2004; Tukker et al. 2008).
Product B, a relatively clean product, however, suffers from a low relative value (which is often the case for green products). A designer may want to make the product more attractive to the market and may want to fulfill the double objective (creating lower eco-costs as well as higher value, compared to the reference product) by adding a service. This is the case of a Sustainable PSS, a SusPSS.
People who went by bike and train before and want to have more convenience
People who owned a car before but do not want to invest in the next (secondhand) car since they do not drive much
It is obvious that the transfer “from bike to car” of the first group does not help our environment, especially not in the case of an internal combustion car. The second group “who had a car before” might change their behavior a bit, since they might drive less when they have to pay per km. However, the overall effect of the mix of the two groups is not expected to be positive for our environment (Meijkamp 2000).
The situation gets much better in the case of an electric car. The first group will pollute a bit more, however, much less than in the case of the internal combustion car. The second group will pollute less, since they shift from fuel to electric. This is a Sustainable PSS, a SusPSS.5 The fact that some electric car-sharing providers offer an internal combustion station wagon for long-range holiday trips makes it even better: the added value of such an extra service outweighs the extra pollution for that period in terms of EVR.
Financing the product (postponing the investment)
Adding image or fun (adding a “special experience”)
Design of Luxurious Cork Products
Cork, a natural, recyclable, non-toxic, and renewable resource, which stems from the bark of a cork oak in the Mediterranean cork forest (Montado), is an optimal material for sustainable product design.6 This section describes a project, developed for the Portuguese cork industry, on the sustainable innovation of cork products, using the method of “design intervention” combined with the method of Eco-efficient Value Creation (Mestre and Vogtländer 2013).
Quadrant A: “quit” (since the eco-costs of the new product is higher and the value is lower than the existing product)
Quadrant B: “reduce eco-costs”
Quadrant C: “improve value”
Quadrant D: “sustainable products”
One of the design cases in the project concerned the cork thermos flask. This thermos flask is a compact “espresso coffee thermos” which can be taken to the office, cinema, outdoor sports, or leisure activities. It is made of a combination of high-density agglomerated cork available in the Portuguese cork industry and the traditional Dutch porcelain from the Netherlands, thus exploring the functionality and the characteristics of the two traditional materials cork and porcelain, bringing together two ancient European technologies. It was designed by Tomas Schietecat and Boudewijn Van Limpt for Design Cork (Mestre 2008). The first design of the cork thermo flask was still a combination of cork and polypropylene, and the result (see point #18 in Fig. 17) is a good eco-cost, however, the value is low due to polypropylene solution for the cups. A redesign was considered with a substitution of the polypropylene for a higher value option polycarbonate, however, this second design was not chosen as the optimum in eco-costs and cost (point #19 in Fig. 17). The last redesign had an inner porcelain container, combining low eco-cost and high value (point #20 in Fig. 17), also due to use of Delft porcelain (a cultural high-end reference in European ceramics).
The project generated good results and that the matrix of Fig. 17 was a good means to depict this. These results were (see Mestre and Vogtländer 2013 for details): 27 out of 36 new designs ended up with better characteristics (lower eco-costs at a higher value) than their reference products; 7 designs were abandoned because of higher eco-costs than the reference products; 2 designs had low eco-costs, but were abandoned because of a low value; and about 50 % of the designs showed a factor 4 or more reduction of eco-costs, relative to the reference product. Products have been exhibited in several international cities, and 13 of them are sold in design shops in Lisbon, Porto, New York, Los Angeles, and Tokyo (website Corque Design 2013). The products are mostly related to interior design, such as furniture, and include such designs as “puff up” a string of cork beads that can be used to free-form a sitting object.
Note that because of the fact that all these luxurious products have an extremely low EVR (in comparison to, e.g., driving cars, living in houses, eating in restaurants), the focus of this type of sustainable product design must be on the value (WTP), in order to tempt consumers to spend their money on these products rather than on car driving or other activities with a high EVR (in line with the theory of the indirect rebound effect).
Packaging Solutions for Food
The classical sustainability perspective on packaging is to reduce the environmental impact of the packaging, using life cycle assessment to evaluate different design alternatives. In this perspective, a brown paper bag (or even better: no bag) is the best solution.7 Simultaneously, the classical marketing perspective on packaging is to generate value through differentiation, for instance through providing additional convenience. These two perspectives conflict, however, and the two-dimensional approach of the EVR model provides again a practical answer to the design dilemmas.
Tomato ketchup bottles of glass and of PET.The LCA calculation on the eco-costs of the tomato ketchup bottles is given in (Wever and Vogtländer 2012), and the results are depicted in Fig. 18. This figure shows that the replacement of the glass bottle by a PET bottle is an instance of Eco-efficient Value Creation:
The eco-costs of the PET bottle system are lower than the glass bottle system, mainly because of the low weight of the PET bottle.
The value (i.e., the price in the retail shop) of the PET bottle is higher, partly because the PET bottle is squeezable, which is convenient in cases of high-viscosity products.
Water bottles with and without a sports cap.
The LCA summary of the water bottles is given in (Wever et al. 2012). The results are depicted in Fig. 19. This figure shows that the redesign of the cap is not an example of the double objective, since the added value of a sports cap requires added materials, and therefore added eco-costs. It is what is expected in packaging innovations: the eco-costs are a bit higher. Yet, the EVR is lower because of the added value. Hence, the sports cap is supporting sustainability in terms of the theory on the indirect rebound effect and can still be regarded as an example of Eco-efficient Value Creation.
As expected, closed loop recycling of the PET bottle system brings the innovation in the quadrant of the Eco-efficient Value Creation. Additionally, consumers might experience an increased inclination to reuse the bottle with the sports cap because of its enhanced relative value, diminishing the eco-costs by a factor 2 or more. Such mechanisms underline the importance of design as a value-adding activity for the relationship between environmental impacts, customer-perceived value, and consumer behavior. The sports cap design can achieve higher environmental gains on system level than the conventional design with the lowest eco-costs, because of its higher value.
Sustainable Water Tourism, an Example of a SusPSS
This area has had a stable number of tourists for the last decennium: approximately 1.2 million overnight stays in marinas per year. The question is, however, what can be done to expand the regional tourist industry and at the same time, reduce the regional pollution of the lakes, reed lands, and surrounding canals.
Higher value of the existing product service systems (e.g., rental of family boats in combination with the “experience” of the regional nature and the regional hospitality industry)
Less regional pollution caused by these tourists
The development and introduction of a “water navigation system,” which is an Internet information system on waterways, lakes, reed lands, and other natural areas of interest, social activities in villages, and advertisements of local shops, restaurants, museums, etc.
Subsidies for the introduction of a vast grid of charging points for electric vessels in marinas, in combination with sustainable energy sources
Subsidies for conversion of diesel propulsion systems of (rental) vessels to (hybrid) electric propulsion systems
Restriction of access to wet areas where nature has to be protected (electric boats are allowed, diesel and petrol boats are forbidden)
The ultimate goal is to trigger a total sustainable redesign of the vessels themselves.
The development of point 1 is, when it is used as a “stand-alone” PSS, an unsustainable development. It results in more tourists but also in more pollution (since they use conventional diesel boats).
The introduction of (hybrid) electrical boats of points 2 and 3 results in a drastic reduction of eco-burden. The costs of boats with electric propulsion systems are, however, approximately 20 % higher when compared to diesel and petrol vessels, which appears too much in the boat rental industry (as well as in the boat owners market). Giving subsidies is, moreover, not a sustainable solution for the total water recreation industry.
The trick for a successful introduction of this SusPSS is point 4. When diesel boats are forbidden in natural areas, this will create added value to the electric boats (it has already been proven at another Dutch lake area: the Nieuwkoopse Plassen), making subsidies superfluous.
Open Issues and Future Work
This chapter aimed at addressing design for the value of sustainability, with the understanding that sustainability is aimed at balancing economic, environmental, and social aspects (people, planet, profit). There is also design which is fully focused on either Planet (usually part of the art world, aimed at providing societal commentary) or on People (usually aiming to resolve some kind of social injustice). Both often heavily depend on public funding or fall in the higher “artistic” price segment. Although this type of design clearly has a substantial role to play in society and is often the trailblazer for economically viable projects, it is not aimed at reconciling all three pillars that are commonly deemed to constitute sustainability. Hence, they fall outside the scope of design for the value of sustainability.
Within the field of sustainability though, there are many schools of thought, very apt at disqualifying other approaches, e.g., cradle-to-cradle professionals criticizing eco-efficiency professionals or vice versa. In the end, all approaches may contribute, and all approaches have their shortcomings. Reconciling these approaches and different levels of ambitions is one of the major open challenges for Design for Sustainability.
Also developing a quantitative assessment for the social component of sustainability, like the environmental ones presented in section “Life Cycle Assessment (“Fast Track”)” on Life Cycle Assessment, is a long-held wish of the sustainable design community.
In search of the ultimate tool for designers, there is a debate on why the vast majority of designers struggle with the application of the methods and tools described in this chapter (Vallet et al. 2013; Lofthouse 2006). The major complaints of designers are that all forms of design for the value of sustainability are too complex and too laborious, and they do not fit into their design practice. Designers want tools which are simple and at the same time detailed to answer complex questions, and they want to have easy access to examples which help them resolving their specific answers. Both sets of requirements seem to be contradictory in itself, but the need for inspiration and information is evident. The likely solution is to add information on sustainability to sector-specific computer-aided design software (e.g., ArchiCAD for architects, SolidWorks for industrial designers) rather than develop comprehensive stand-alone software for sustainable design.
Relative outsiders, dealing with Design for Sustainability, should be aware of the different approaches and strive to align their organization’s intentions with the appropriate approach and appropriate designers. It should be noted here that there is the complication that not all designers talking about the same approach will use identical terminology nor do designers using identical terminology necessarily mean the same thing. Furthermore, the correct application and/or strict adherence to an approach is not a given. In that respect, consolidation of terminology and standardization of approaches is a final open issue.
Design for Sustainability can be described as an attempt to include the issue of sustainability in the design process. Sustainability is then taken as an extra design criterion, added to all other design aspects and design criteria.
The holistic approaches of cradle-to-cradle, Circular Economy, and Biomimicry (and many other related approaches).
The checklist (environmental benchmarking) and tools approach of EcoDesign, Design for the Environment, Design for Sustainability, the LiDS Wheel, and at a more detailed level Design for Recycling and Design for Disassembly.
The quantitative approach of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the LCA-based model of the Eco-costs/Value Ratio (EVR).
The challenges connected to the holistic approaches are on how to make them usable in day-to-day design. The challenges to the checklist approach lie in the question of sufficient improvement to truly be effective. The challenges around the quantitative modeling are around making the correct comparison between alternatives and in choosing what to include and what to exclude from a study.
The different approaches in the three groups mentioned above are complementary and should be applied in all design stages. The challenge for relative outsiders, dealing with Design for Sustainability, lies in selecting the most appropriate combination of approach and designer for a given problem.
Parts of this section, including figures, have been copied from Chapters 2.1, 2.6, and 3.1 of the LCA guide for students, designers, and business managers (Vogtländer 2012).
Also called the “Philips method,” since Philips Electronics was the first company which did LCAs in this way in 1998–1999 and developed the EcoScan software.
Parts of this section have been copied from Chapter 2 of the book on Eco-efficient Value Creation (Vogtländer et al. 2013).
Parts of this section have been copied from Chapter 6.2 of the book on Eco-efficient Value Creation (Vogtländer et al. 2013).
Note that the situation for carpooling is completely different from car sharing: carpooling is always good for the environment, since it results in more passenger kilometer per car kilometer. Carpooling is an example of behavior in the use phase, rather than a PSS, since it is normally done between colleagues and friends (it is not a business as such).
Parts of this section have been copied from Mestre and Vogtländer (2013). Details, figures, and tables can be found in this chapter.
Parts of this section have been copied from (Wever and Vogtländer 2012). Details, figures, and tables can be found in this chapter.
Parts of this section have been copied from Scheepens et al. (2014). Details, figures, and tables can be found in this chapter.
- Bakker (2012) Design for sustainable behaviour; three approaches. Research Lecture, Design Engineering Department, Delft University of Technology, 19th Apr 2012Google Scholar
- Benyus JM (1997) Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bhamra T, Lofthouse V (2003) Information/inspiration: a web based sustainable design tool. Repository of the Loughborough University. See also http://ecodesign.lboro.ac.uk/index.php?section=72
- Biomimicry (2013) Biomimicry 3.8 http://biomimicry.net/ last seen Oct. 6 2014
- Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight W (2002) Product design for manufacture and assembly, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Boulding KE (1966) The economics of the coming spaceship earth, from Environmental quality in a growing economy. pp 3–14. Available at www.eoearth.org/article/The_Economics_of_the_Coming_Spaceship_Earth_%28historical%29. Accessed 05 Oct 2013
- Brezet H, Van Hemel C (1997) Ecodesign: a promising approach to sustainable production and consumption. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Brundtland GH (1987) Our common future. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- BSI, British Standards Institution (2011) PAS 2050: 2011 specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BSI, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Chiodo JD, Grey C, Jones D (2011) Design for remanufacture, recycling and reuse, ICOR. 27–29 July 2011, Glasgow. See also www.activedisassembly.com
- Corque Design (2013) Corque Design http://www.corquedesign.com/ last seen Oct 6 2014
- Crul MRM, Diehl JC (2006) Design for sustainability, a practical approach for developing economies. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Crul MRM, Diehl JC, Ryan C (2009) Design for sustainability, a step by step approach. UNEP, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Daae J, Boks C (2013) Dimensions of behaviour change; designing how users interact with products [a design tool consisting of card set]. NTNU, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
- ecocostsvalue (2013) The model of Eco-costs / Value Ratio (EVR). http://www.ecocostsvalue.com/ last seen Oct. 6 2014
- Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks. New Society Publishers, GabriolaGoogle Scholar
- EN 15804 (2012) Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products (EN 15804:2012). ISO/FDIS, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2012) “Manifesto for a resource efficient Europe” MEMO/12/989. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-989_en.htm. Accessed 05 Oct 2013
- Gosseries A (2008) Theories of intergenerational justice: a synopsis. SAPIENS 1(1):61–71Google Scholar
- Guinee JB (ed) (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment, operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- ILCD (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability); International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) (2010) Handbook: general guide for life cycle assessment (LCA) – detailed guidance, First edition. Free available on www.lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications
- ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework (ISO 14040: 2006). ISO/FDIS, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and framework (ISO 14044:2006). ISO/FDIS, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- ISO 14067 (2013) Greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication (ISO/TS 14067:2013). ISO/FDIS, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- JRC (2013) LCA tools, services and data. http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ResourceDirectory/services2-1.vm; last seen Oct. 6, 2014.
- Lilley D, Wilson G (2013) Integrating ethics into design for sustainable behaviour. J Des Res 11(3):278–299Google Scholar
- Lofthouse V (2006) Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. J Clean Prod 14(15–16):1386–1395Google Scholar
- MBDC (2013) C2C Framework. http://www.mbdc.com/cradle-to-cradle/c2c-framework/last seen Oct. 6 2014
- McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle, remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- McKinsey (2012) Towards the circular economy, vol 1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Isle of Wright, UKGoogle Scholar
- McKinsey (2013) Towards the circular economy, vol 2. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Isle of Wright, UKGoogle Scholar
- Meijkamp RG (2000) Changing consumer behaviour through Eco-efficient Services - An empirical study on Car Sharing in the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Mestre A (2008) Design Cork for future, innovation and sustainability. Lisbon: SusdesignGoogle Scholar
- Prahalad CK (2002) The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Recoup (2009) Plastics packaging. Recyclability by design. RECycling of Used Plastics Limited, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
- Scheepens AE, Vogtlander JG, Brezet JC (2014) Two LCA based models to analyse complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable. J Clean Prod, submittedGoogle Scholar
- Sorrell S (2007) The rebound effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings from improved energy efficiency. UK Energy Research Centre, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Stahel W (1982) The product-life factor. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/33/32217.pdf and http://product-life.org/en/major-publications/the-product-life-factor. Both accessed 05 Oct 2013
- Tobin J (1974) What is permanent endowment income? Am Econ Rev 46(2):427–432Google Scholar
- Tukker A, Charter M, Vezzoli C, Stø E, Munch AM (2008) System innovation for sustainability, vol 1. Greenleaf Publishing, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
- Van Boeijen A, Daalhuizen J (2013) Delft design guide. BIS Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Van Hemel CG (1998) Ecodesign empirically explored. PhD thesis. Repository of Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Vogtländer JG (2012) A practical guide to LCA for students, designers and business managers, 2nd edn. Delft Academic Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
- Vogtländer J, Mestre A, Van der Helm R, Scheepens A, Wever R (2013) Eco-efficient value creation, sustainable design and business strategies. Delft Academic Press, DelftGoogle Scholar
- WBCSD (1995) Achieving eco-efficiency in business, Second Antwerp eco-efficiency workshop, 14–15 Mar. World Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
- Wever R (2012) Design research for sustainable behaviour. J Des Res (Special Issue) 10(1):1–139Google Scholar
- Wever R, Vogtländer J (2013) Assessing the relative sustainability of different packaging sizes. In: 26th IAPRI symposium on packaging, Helsinki, 10–13 June 2013Google Scholar