Level 1 – Product Development

Articles assigned to level 1 deal with product development as such and cover product aspects, process aspects, strategy aspects, and the implementation of sustainable product development practices.

18

Australia & New Zealand

Asia North America

Others

Scandinavia

DACH Region

Southern Europe 18 Benelux

34 39 15

30

11 6

35

Great Britain

n Number of Articles Conceptual Empirical Reviews & Position Papers

Findings from the Literature Review 33

Product Aspects

Articles dealing with product aspects cover (1) sustainability properties of different materials, (2) product service systems (PSS), and (3) examples of more sustainable products. The articles discussing material issues are highly specific. They cover such diverse topics as environmental and social risks related to certain materials (Gaugler 2013), toxicity metrics of materials (Ogunseitan & Schoenung 2012), and possible applications for innovative materials like wood polymer composites (Venkatesh et al. 2013) or synthetic fibers (Subic et al. 2009) from a sustainability perspective. With respect to PSS, several authors investigate how products and services could be linked up to produce more sustainable solutions (e.g. Maxwell & van der Vorst 2003; Thompson et al. 2011a; Ny et al.

2013). Overall, PSS are seen to help breaking new ground regarding product sustainability.

However, it is acknowledged that PSS are not implementable for all types of products. The third group of articles covers examples of more sustainable products: Dangelico & Pujari (2010) analyze several cases of manufacturing companies that consider sustainability for their products. Luthe et al. (2013) dig into the development of skis and illustrate how sustainability was considered during an actual development project and which improvements were achieved. Tingström et al. (2006) follow a similar approach and investigate the development of an eco-efficient power capacitor.

Process Aspects

Contributions dealing with process aspects comprise reviewing, proposing, and advancing methods for the development of more sustainable products. As was revealed in Figure 17, these contributions make up for 60 percent of the overall literature. A method is understood as a “planned, rule-based procedure prescribing the way in which certain activities are to be performed in order to achieve a certain goal” (Lindemann 2009, p. 57; translated by Graner & Mißler-Behr 2012, p. 160). Adapting a typology by Baumann et al. (2002, p. 415) the methods were categorized into (1) checklists and guidelines, (2) frameworks and methodologies, (3) rating and ranking tools, (4) analytical tools, and (5) software and expert systems. The sixth group of articles deals with reviewing methods.

The first group of methods is characterized as checklists and guidelines. They are of a qualitative nature and are rather easy to understand and use. Examples of checklists are the list of product properties essential for ensuring efficient disassembly that was empirically derived by Johansson (2008) or the compilation of sustainability information relevant for product development along with its assigned stakeholders and life-cycle phases (Aschehoug & Boks 2013). The template for sustainable product development proposed by Ny et al. (2008) is an example of a guideline. It helps to gain a quick overview of the main

sustainability challenges and opportunities related to a development project by providing some triggering questions.

Simple quantitative methods are subsumed as rating and ranking tools. They typically offer a set of pre-defined measurement scales and help to roughly assess design alternatives.

For example, Hanusch (2011) identifies criteria to evaluate the social sustainability of products and investigates whether these can be influenced through constructive measures.

De Silva et al. (2009) compile some factors having an impact on the sustainability of consumer electronic products. After quantifying and weighing these factors, product alternatives can be compared to each other or competitors’ products. Another example is the tool developed by Askham et al. (2012). It features a set of indicators allowing for a combined evaluation of economic indicators and environmental aspects.

The third group of methods is summarized as frameworks and methodologies. They are more comprehensive qualitative approaches and often come with a toolkit containing some intertwined checklists or simple rating tools. Frameworks comprise “Design for X”

approaches as reviewed by Arnette et al. (2014) or adapted by Bevilacqua et al. (2007).

Other examples of this group of tools are methods that support the decision-making process (Heintz et al. 2014) or help to define a company’s roadmap towards sustainable innovation (Flores et al. 2008).

More comprehensive quantitative methods are subsumed as analytical tools. To facilitate well-informed decisions in product development, they aim at measuring the sustainability impact of different design alternatives or materials as precisely as possible. Examples are the weighted fuzzy sustainability assessment method by Ghadimi et al. (2012) or the decision-making support by Inoue et al. (2012) that also takes into account uncertainties in the early phases of the design process. Often, analytical tools combine some established approaches. For example, Halog (2004) integrates life-cycle analysis (LCA), life-cycle costing (LCC) and quality function deployment (QFD) to support the selection of sustainability alternatives.

The fifth group of methods comprises software and expert systems. They aim at facilitating the handling of vast data volumes necessary for assessing sustainability in product development. However, they are not developed for commercialization purposes and, therefore, are seldom more than prototypes. Examples are the material selection expert system that supports the filtering of material alternatives put forward by Zarandi et al. (2011) and the sustainability design system for electrical products by Abdalla & Ebeid (2011).

Findings from the Literature Review 35

A further group of articles covering process aspects of product development comprises reviews of existing methods. Some reviews’ findings ultimately serve as justification for the subsequent development of more comprehensive methods (e.g. Grießhammer et al. 2004;

Clancy et al. 2013a; Gremyr et al. 2014). Other authors analyze and characterize methods to facilitate the selection and combination of adequate support for each development phase (e.g. Buchert et al. 2014b). Ness et al. (2007) review sustainability assessment methods and analyze if these go beyond considering environmental factors. They find that only a minority of methods also integrate social and economic aspects.

Strategy Aspects

Articles assigned to this section go beyond operational aspects and deal with the strategic alignment of product development. The key message of all associated articles is the need to refocus product development from minimizing environmental impacts (i.e. doing less harm) to truly fostering product sustainability (van Weenen 1995). For this reason, Klöpffer (2003) calls for extending life-cycle thinking onto social factors. Hanusch & Birkhofer (2008), as well as Charter (1998), also advocate the consideration of social and ethical factors in product development even though they acknowledge that constructive measures might have an only limited direct influence on the social sustainability of products. Burschel (2003) approaches the topic from a product design perspective and suggests to reclaim design traditions like Bauhaus to foster product sustainability. Finally, McDonough & Braungart (2002) introduce the basic idea of the cradle to cradle concept. They propose to refocus product development from limiting liabilities to creating sound products that can enhance the well-being of the environment and society without offsetting economic growth.

Implementation

Some other articles cover the implementation of sustainable product development. On the conceptual side, Hallstedt et al. (2010) and Hynds et al. (2014) develop methods that help to assess the state of integration of sustainability into product development processes.

These approaches also allow companies to benchmark themselves as they are making progress. Most other authors empirically investigate the state of integration in practice.

Almost all focus on identifying challenges (e.g. Lee-Mortimer & Short 2009; Petala et al.

2010; Curwen et al. 2012) or success factors (e.g. Aschehoug & Boks 2011; Hallstedt et al.

2013) without referring to concrete, operational development practices. Only a few articles investigate how companies implement sustainability in product development. Verhulst &

Boks (2012a) analyze case studies to examine different approaches companies take and identify two distinct trajectories. The same authors also investigate the role of individual employees and specifically their resistance against sustainability for the successful implementation of sustainable development practices (2012c, 2014).