Essential perspectives for design for environment. Experiences from the electronics industry

Abstract

Consolidation of knowledge, information and experiences in application of Design for Environment principles is done at various levels, ranging from easy to understand slogans to design guidelines, and even to tailor-made solutions. This brings about that dissemination of this knowledge should be done taking carefully the intended audience and relevant contexts into account-especially when dissemination is done in the form of 'principles', which are usually presented without context at all. It is discussed in this paper how interpretations of consolidating principles can lead to misinterpretations and even counterproductive actions. At least three principles can be identified that should be taken into account when disseminating DFE knowledge, discussing 1) different perspectives of what is environmentally friendly, 2) the life-cycle perspective, and 3) the integration of environmental and economical considerations.

Linking Sustainability to Quality Management and Firm Performance

“…More recently, DFE is considered to have matured; this view is supported by Boks and Stevels (2007) where we "….have all the procedures in place, have considerable experience, [and] have recurring problems with embedding environmental issues in the organization and its value chain." DFE embodies the philosophical view that environmental considerations must be integrated into the design of any product or process at the inception of the design phase.…”

“…Examples include Sroufe, Curkovic, Montaban, and Melnyk (2000); Lenox and King (2000); Ernzer and Wimmer (2002);and Boks and Stevels (2007). In addition to minimal consideration of performance effects, prior research on DFE has not specifically addressed quality innovation as a factor in the successful implementation of DFE.…”

“…During the formative phase of DFE, the design and implementation of processes was often abstract and imprecise (Boks & Stevels, 2007).…”

Ecodesign Practices in a Furniture Industrial Cluster of Southern Brazil: From Incipient Practices to Improvement

“…Other gaps relate to lack of capacity building of workers; excessive complexity in product and process development (Lindahl, 2006;Pochat et al, 2007;Bovea and Pérez-Belis, 2012); lack of standardisation for the assessment of designed products (Bahmed et al, 2005); lack of integration between eco-design and product development; disassociation related to management and manufacturing strategies (Baumann et al, 2002;Johansson, 2006;Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006;Pochat et al, 2007); difficulties for defining and prioritising practices to be employed (Boks and Stevels, 2007); inappropriate language for the development of products that meet environmental requirements (Lofthouse, 2006); obstacles for cooperation, communication and access to information (Poulikidou et al, 2014;Bey et al, 2013).…”

Lean and green product development: two sides of the same coin?

“…Table 3 shows some terms and definitions found in the literature. Boks and Stevels (2007) Similar to the LPD field, there does not seem to be any commonly agreed upon terminology for the greening of products, and the GPD concept is still not well defined (Chen, 2001). The GDP concept has been claimed to be relevant for different industry sectors, depending on how much drive there is from customers and legislation regarding materials usage and end-of-life treatment (Albino et al, 2012).…”