An integrated tool to support sustainable toy design and manufacture

Abstract

Whilst the importance of considering the positive societal benefits of a product, in addition to other social, economic and environmental factors, has received wider recognition, its definition, concept, and integration into product design are not so well developed and studied. A literature review on sustainable design identified the potential of Social Life-Cycle Assessment as a tool to measure societal benefits of products; however further analysis of sustainable assessment methods highlighted the lack of a coherent definition and method for achieving this. This paper presents a framework for including societal benefits within a product portfolio management process and a prototype tool which aims to support the implementation of the framework within the toy industry, specifically on the societal benefit assessment of the products during the first stage. Finally a simulated case study of three toys is used to exemplify the intended application of this tool and to support the concluding discussions.

A social panorama within the life cycle thinking and the circular economy: a literature review

“…In the case of PSIA, three case studies were identified even though some other cases using this approach were excluded since there were not scientific journal articles but corporate reports or conference proceedings. The other methodologies, i.e., FELICITA (Kouloumpis and Azapagic 2018), RESPONSA (Siebert et al 2018b), and SBA (Shin and Colwill 2017), correspond to very specific cases, just one of each one, and they were developed due to particular necessities of the industry and scope boundaries.…”

On analysing sustainability assessment in manufacturing organisations: a survey

“…A brief description of each category is brought in the following as well as the statistics of the papers covering the three category is shown in table 1 and figure 3. (Lillehagen & Petersen, 2015); (Caruso, Dumbacher, & Grieves, 2010); (Tagliaferri et al, 2016); (Atwater & Uzdzinski, 2014); (Garcia-Herrero et al, 2017); (Haanstra, Toxopeus, & van Gerrevink, 2017); (Jayal, Badurdeen, Dillon, & Jawahir, 2010); (Jawahir et al, 2006); (Gutowski et al, 2005); (Güçdemir & Selim, 2017); ; (Santucci & Esterman, 2015); (Rezvan, Azadnia, Noordin, & Seyedi, 2014); (Shin & Colwill, 2017); (Mani, Larborn, Johansson, Lyons, & Morris, 2016); (Haapala et al, 2013); (AlKhazraji, Saldana, Donghuan, & Kumara, 2013); (Hassan, Saman, Mahmood, Nor, & Rahman, 2016); (Huang & Badurdeen, 2017); (Lu et al, 2011); (Ranky, 2010); (Li, Mirlekar, Ruiz-Mercado, & Lima, 2016); (Bakshi, 2014); (Grünwaldt, Hofstetter, & Palm, 2011); (Shi & Yang, 2003); (Petnga & Austin, 2014); (Faezipour & Ferreira, 2011); (Salama, Galal, & Elsayed, 2015);…”