DEVISING ECODESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE FURNITURE INDUSTRY BASED ON A CLUSTER ANALYSIS Miriam Borchardt1, Miguel Afonso Sellitto, Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, Luciana Paulo Gomes
UNISINOS – Vale do Rio dos Sinos University; Industrial Engineering; São Leopoldo; Brazil 1
Av. Unisinos, 950 – São Leopoldo – Brazil – CEP 93200-000; e-mail:
[email protected]; Phone: 55.51.3591.1100
Abstract This study aims to devise group guidelines to implement ecodesign practices (Design for Environment) in the furniture industry. Surveys were the main research method used to investigate the level of application of ecodesign in 22 companies in southern Brazil. The term ecodesign was unfolded into ecodesign practices (set of activities), which were further developed into assessment items which were each assigned a question with categorical answers. The practices investigated are defined as follows: environmental management; (ii) materials
(selection
and
choice);
(iii)
product
components;
(iv)
process/product
characteristics; (v) use of natural resources; (vi) product and stock distribution; (vii) packaging and documentation; and (viii) waste. A cluster analysis was made of the responses to the surveys through the k-means method and the four-cluster hypothesis. The cluster which most often applies ecodesign practices is comprised of enterprises with a previously structured environmental management system. In this case, the main guidelines suggest applying product Life Cycle Assessment, structuring environmental performance indicators and strengthening the image of the environmentally correct company. The main guidelines for the cluster which less often applies ecodesign practices refer to compliance with environmental laws and improvement of productive operations. The other two clusters partially adopt ecodesign practices. Keywords Ecodesign, furniture industry, design for environment, ecodesign guidelines.
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 1
1. Introduction Although not efficiently used, natural resources were still abundant until the 18th century. From then onwards, industrialization took place and caused the prevailing social model to change from a rural, agrarian economy, into an urban, industrial one. Massive production techniques employed by the new model increased the consumption of goods and services. As a consequence, there has been a shortage of natural resources which results in environmental degradation, generation of polluting waste as well as safety and health hazards, mainly in communities located around industrial parks (Gandhi et al., 2006; Fiksel, 1996). In opposition to such scenario, the concept of sustainable development has gained increasing attention in recent years, and several alternatives and practices have been developed and proposed in both the industrial and the academic environments. One example is the term ecodesign or Design for Environment (DfE), defined as a set of project practices geared towards creating eco-efficient products and processes. The major objective of ecodesign is to reduce the environmental impact of a product during its life cycle phases: raw materials, production, distribution, use and disposal (Fiksel, 1996; Fiksel, 2006). In this perspective, ecodesign takes environmental aspects into consideration while developing new products and, together with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), reinterprets techniques to conceive, design and manufacture goods (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006; Byggeth et al, 2007). Moreover, ecodesign associates product/service functionality with environmental sustainability issues, thereby reducing environmental impact and increasing the offer of ecoefficient products (Karlsson and Luttropp, 2006; Manzini and Vezzoli, 2005). The main environmental practices observed in the literature refer to materials, components, processes and product characteristics, including use of energy, storage, distribution, packaging and waste (Wimmer et al., 2005; Luttropp and Lagersted, 2006; Fiksel, 1996). On the other hand, even though these techniques are explored in the literature, ecodesignrelated environmental practices are generically shaped and difficult to fit into specific product projects and industrial processes (Borchardt et al., 2009c). According to Santos-Reyes (2001), ecodesign requires a structural approach that can address environmental concerns coherently. On the other hand, several enterprises have limited capabilities and resources available, a fact that frequently hinders an effective response to environmental pressures, forcing such companies to prioritize their resources. Previous studies on the level of application of ecodesign practices in the furniture industry in southern Brazil (Borchardt et al., 2009a; Borchardt et al., 2009b) revealed that some furniture companies adopt initiatives that converge with ecodesign practices, even though
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 2
the term ecodesign is unknown to most managers in those organizations. In addition, several key processes in the furniture industry which cause environmental impact are also found in other industries (e.g. coating process using solvent-based paints, solid waste management, zinc plating and paper packaging). Also, by offering products based on renewable natural resources from forests, the furniture industry is well-placed to provide products that enhance long-term environmental, economic and social sustainability (Daian and Ozarska, 2009). In particular, Handfield et al. (1997) discuss the integration between strategic and operational aspects of the furniture industry and environmental management; given the observed gaps, they suggest further research on this issue. In light of the above scenario, this study aims to devise group guidelines to implement ecodesign practices in the furniture industry. The specific objectives of the study are to measure the level of application of ecodesign practices by furniture companies and to sort those companies into clusters based on the intensity of such application. Surveys were the main method adopted, and they were supported by other research techniques such as cluster analysis, focus groups and unstructured interviews with direct observation. The companies investigated in this study are located in southern Brazil, in a city whose economy is strongly based on the furniture industry. In 2008, this industry accounted for 56% of the GDP of the city, producing 10% of all the furniture consumed in Brazil (Sindmóveis, 2009). 2 Ecodesign Ecodesign can associate strategies for project and operations management with sustainability. Back in the 1990s, the North American electronics industry was already attempting to mitigate the environmental impact which resulted from its activities. Interest in the issue has increased ever since, and the term ‘ecodesign’ can be seen in environmental management programs nowadays. According to Boks (2006), the following factors can influence ecodesign implementation: external pressure and legal requirements, economic interests, consumers’ perception and acknowledgment of the importance of ecodesign, and availability of new technologies. Environmental concern is a new factor in the product development process. Luttropp and Lagerstedt (2006) stress the importance of balancing environmental costs and product functionality. Karlsson and Luttropp (2006) emphasize that the major objective of ecodesign is to reduce environmental impact while prioritizing human sustainability within the business scenario. Borchardt et al. (2009c) and Borchardt et al. (2010) researched cases of ecodesign application in a shoe factory and in an electronics company, and they observed that one of the elements inducing ecodesign implementation was the likelihood of cost
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 3
reduction due to reduced use of energy, reduced waste generation, and use of recoverable materials. In spite of the apparent benefits of ecodesign - competitiveness, cost reduction, new markets and launch of new products – the literature describes more tentative than effective cases of ecodesign implementation into the product development process (Ehrenfeld, 2004). This finding is confirmed by Ammenberg and Sundin (2005), Bauman et al. (2002) and Schischke et al. (2003). They observed that small and medium-sized enterprises hardly ever make ecodesign an effective part of their development process. 2.1 Factors influencing ecodesign implementation Boks (2006) believes that critical success factors to implement ecodesign are related to traditional business aspects such as customization, organization and communication. The major setbacks are associated with social and psychological problems, for example, different views of proponents and executors, organizational complexity and lack of cooperation. Although companies use environmental management tools, they do not always include the bases for environmental considerations in their strategic planning. As a result, many companies started to use such tools without effectively modifying their operations towards improving environmental performance (Theyel, 2000). Success factors for projects applying ecodesign concepts are motivation of employees and managers, followed by action, communication and training; transformation of promises from management into concrete actions; existence of a working team; and existence of a classical mechanism to conceive products and provide support from eco-conception experts. Risks of failure include: little environmental expertise by those involved in the project; uncertainty related to temporal phenomena; involvement of a great deal of actors (partners); availability of several techniques to apply ecodesign; sudden changes in legislation; failure to understand i) the implications of legal issues, ii) the possibility to reduce costs, iii) increased opportunities to compete in the market or iv) improvement of the company’s image; lack of consensual methods for environmental assessment of products; shortage of globally acknowledged ecodesign standards and perceived opposition between environmental criteria and economic objectives (Fiksel, 1996; Bahmaed et al. 2005). Factors that influence the decision to implement ecodesign include: external pressure and legal requirements; economic influence arising from the interests of the value chain partners; consumer’s perception and acknowledgment of aspects regarding the environmental impact of the product; development of new technologies (Boks, 2006).
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 4
Vercalsteren (2001) suggests that an enterprise should assess its potential to apply ecodesign by means of factors related to the company (internal factors), the environment (external factors) and the product (Table 1). Table 1: Factors influencing a company’s potential to apply ecodesign Internal factors Motivation of staff, especially top management Innovation, considering the company’s capacity to influence product specifications; Competitiveness: a company which leads a given sector is more likely to redesign products; a company with a small market share can consider ecodesign as an opportunity to increase its market share; - Sector, checking the existence of initiatives which one can learn from Source: Vercalsteren (2001)
External factors
Product-related factors
Regulation, which can be seen as a drive for a company to start implementing ecodesign Clients and market; it is necessary to analyze whether or not the market will accept redesigned products; Suppliers, whose cooperation is essential
Product should have the potential for redesign based on environmental considerations.
2.2 Ecodesign tools and practices Since the 1990s, scholars and practitioners have developed tools to support the practice of ecodesign. Pochat et al. (2007) have found more than 150 ecodesign tools applied to product design. Despite the great number of tools, authors such as Lofthouse (2006), Luttropp and Lagerstedt (2006), Byggeth and Hochschorner (2006) and Byggeth et al. (2007) acknowledge designers’ difficulty in using such tools. Lofthouse (2006) states that many tools fail to achieve their purpose because they make a retrospective analysis of existing products instead of focusing on the design of new products. Besides, designers’ needs are often seen to be related to particular information on materials and techniques which can help them develop an ecodesign project. On the other hand, many ecodesign tools require specialist knowledge, which hinders their use in small and medium-sized enterprises (Pochat et al., 2007). This situation causes growing concern as there has been a significant increase in the amount of information available on environmental aspects and materials; hence, using and upgrading such tools becomes even more difficult (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006 Several authors have proposed general guidelines for ecodesign. Among others, Fiksel (1996) compiled a set of related practices: (i) choice and use of materials including analysis and selection of raw materials that take environmental impact into account, capacity of reuse or recyclability; (ii) product component choices considering the use of recovery components
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 5
or the capacity of reuse or recyclability of these components; (iii) product characteristics considering the development of projects aiming at simplicity (simpler forms), thus reducing the use of raw materials and designing products with extended useful life; (iv) use of energy based on renewable resources, reducing energy consumption during use of the product; during the production and during the storage of the products; (v) product distribution by planning the distribution logistics while considering physical aspects of the product, and minimizing stocks and routes; (vi) documentation and packaging, reducing weight and complexity of packaging or using recycled packages; and (vii) minimization of waste generation by considering waste reuse or incineration. Wimmer et al. (2005) proposed six requirements for manufacture which are quite similar to those observed in Fiksel (1996) except for the one concerning documentation and packaging. Luttropp and Lagersted (2006) also suggested a set of requirements for ecodesign which are quite similar to the ones aforementioned. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has defined the following policies: (i) reduction in the material intensity of goods or services; (ii) reduction in the energy intensity of goods or services; (iii) reduced dispersion of toxic materials; (iv) improved recyclability; (v) maximum use of renewable resources; (vi) greater durability of products; and (vii) increased service intensity of goods and services (Lovins, 2008). Wimmer et al. (2005) recommend twelve steps for ecodesign while manufactured products are redesigned: (i) identify the product to be redesigned; (ii) define the requirements of the partners (society, government, suppliers, clients, supply chain) involved in the life cycle and expectations upon the product; (iii) identify the strengths and weaknesses of the product in comparison with competitors’ products; (iv) assess which environmental aspects are relevant in the product’s life cycle (from cradle to grave); (v) match the requirements of the partners involved in the product’s life cycle and the relevant environmental aspects with strategies to improve the product; (vi) define the ecodesign practices to be used; (vii) define the specifications of the product; (viii) assess how the functional structure of the product can be modified; (ix) assess the possibility of generating new functions for the product; (x) generate and select options for product conception; (xi) establish how the appearance and the design of the product can be improved; and (xii) define how the environmental improvements added to the product can be communicated to the market. Product development may involve several functions such as marketing, production, design and purchasing. Multifunctional teams are formed to meet development-related functional demands. Because it takes several factors into consideration, product development can be complex. Such complexity has grown bigger when environmental requirements started to be
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 6
considered for product development. In this context, checklists for ecodesign are being considered as an option to systematize the implementation of ecodesign practices in companies. As a qualitative tool, checklists can identify the major environmental problems related to product life cycle (Pochat et al., 2007). The user assesses whether the solutions are good, indifferent, poor or irrelevant (Byggeth and Hochsorner, 2006). Checklists for ecodesign have often been developed by engineers and designers themselves, who can thus document their experiences and foster cooperation among working teams (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006). As a counterweight, Lofthouse (2006) highlights the fact that while ecodesign checklists are seen as a generic tool by many designers, a great amount of requirements have to be met. Borchardt et al. (2009c) describe a case of application of an ecodesign checklist in a company of the automotive industry. 3 Research design This study aims to devise group guidelines to implement ecodesign practices in the furniture industry. The specific objectives of the study are to measure the level of adoption of ecodesign practices by companies, and to sort the companies into clusters based on the frequency of application of such practices. The first specific objective answers the research question “How often are ecodesign practices applied in the companies of the furniture industry?” The second specific objective answers the question “How similar are ecodesign practices in the surveyed companies?” The general objective answers the question “Which ecodesign implementation guidelines are suitable for the surveyed companies?” To measure the level of adoption of ecodesign practices in the surveyed companies, a hierarchical structure was set up where the term ecodesign was unfolded into ‘practices’ which, in their turn, were unfolded into assessment items. The values for the assessment items can be matched and form the construct which represents the theoretical term (Sellitto and Ribeiro, 2004). Lower level entities must be mutually exclusive and provide an exhaustive description of the higher level, although some loss of exclusiveness is acceptable as a result of the observer’s subjectivity (French, 1986; Hogart, 1988; Einsslin et al., 2001). The design of the hierarchical structure representing ecodesign was organized in focus group sessions. The participants were three active researchers in the field, and two company managers with empirical knowledge of ecodesign and environmental management. For each assessment item, a question with categorical answers was created, which resulted in the research tool used to collect data on the level of applications of ecodesign practices in the companies. The research tool was tested in three companies and then adjusted. After being adjusted, the research tool was e-mailed with an introduction letter to 128 companies in the second semester of 2008. At least one manager in each company was Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 7
contacted by phone. Twenty-two surveys were properly filled out and sent back to the researchers, which meets the standard suggested by Mattar (1996). The research tool includes fields to describe the company, the number of employees, the main raw materials and inputs used, and the type of manufacturing process. To test the instrument, Cronbach's alpha reliability test was applied to each ecodesign practice, considering the answers given to each assessment item. Three questions were then discarded. The focus group participants did not believe that the exclusion of such questions should hinder data collection and the analysis of the results. For Malhotra (2002), the value for Cronbach's alpha has to be higher than 0.60. Final data obtained from the surveys yielded the level of application of each ecodesign item and hence the level of application of ecodesign practices. The level of application of ecodesign practices is expressed in percentage terms and was obtained from the mean scores assigned to all the items comprising a given practice. A cluster analysis was made for the second specific objective from the answers given by the companies to the level of application of ecodesign items. Analyses were made of the results obtained with 2, 3, 4 and 5 clusters with the k-means method (Hair et al., 2005).The 4-cluster option was chosen because it shows more similarity among the elements of each cluster. Finally, appropriate group guidelines were proposed to the companies of each cluster. Observation was made of which ecodesign practices had been already adopted by the companies and the improvements that can be made as regards application of ecodesign practices. The researchers proposed the guidelines based on unstructured interviews with managers and direct observations in 8 companies. They visited at least one company of each cluster and interviewed the managers. 4 Results Based on the findings of Fiksel (1996), Wimmer et al. (2005) and Luttropp and Lagersted (2006), the focus group proposed a set of seven practices which are representative of ecodesign. Elements were added which are related to environmental management and associated with the strategy of developing sustainable products based on the findings of Manzini and Vezzoli (2005). This set of practices was generically named environmental practice. Assessment items were associated with each ecodesign practice, and a question with categorical answers was created for each assessment item. Table 2 shows the ecodesign practices, the amount of valid assessment items, a summary of the assessment items associated with each practice and the value for Crombach’s alpha obtained for each ecodesign practice after the 22 surveys were consolidated.
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 8
Table 3 shows the profile of the respondent companies. Microenterprises and small companies outnumber other types of companies. Most of those companies do not have a quality management system or a structured environmental management system. Only slightly more than half of them have defined procedures for product development. In the next step, the mean levels of application were calculated for each ecodesign practice, based on the answers given by the respondents to the questions associated with the practices. The scores are shown in Table 4; they range between 1 and 5 depending on the scale used in the tool. The next step in the research was to sort the companies into four clusters. Table 5 shows the companies allocated in each cluster. Table 2: Ecodesign practices and assessment items First level (practices)
Number of assessme nt items
Cronbach’ s alpha
Environmental management
18
0.87
Materials: choice and use
12
0.73
Product components: selection and choice
5
0.75
Product/ Process characteristics
10
0.72
Use of energy / natural resources
5
0.73
Product distribution
7
0.72
Packaging and docum entation
7
0.73
Waste
6
0.70
Second level (main topics addressed by the assessment items) Market and potential for sustainable products; adoption and compliance with legal requirem ents; capacity to develop and manufacture products based on ecodesign; assessment of environmental impact of new products. Ability to use raw materials closer to their natural state, ability to avoid mixing non-compatible materials, ability to eliminate the use of toxic, hazardous and carcinogenic substances; ability to use recycled and / or renewable m aterials, and ability to reduce atmospheric emissions caused by the use of volatile organic compounds; ability to select raw material suppliers which comply with legal requirements and have environmental awareness; ability to have awareness and control over the source of raw materials. Ability to recover components or to use recovered components, ability to facilitate access to components, ability to identify materials and components, and ability to determine the recyclability of each material and component; ability to recover used components. Ability to perform Life Cycle Assessment of the product in the development phase; ability to develop products with simpler forms which reduce the use or consumption of raw materials; ability to design products with longer lifetime capacity to design multifunctional products; capacity to upgrade the product; and ability to develop a product with a ‘design’ that complies with global trends. Ability to use energy from renewable resources; ability to use devices to reduce power consumption during product use; ability to reduce power consumption during the production of the product; ability to reuse water and capture rainwater. Ability to plan the logistics of distribution, ability to favor suppliers / distributors more closely located; ability to minimize inventory in all the phases of the product’s lifetime, and ability to use more energeticallyefficient modes of transport. Ability to reduce weight and complexity of packaging; ability to use electronic documentation; ability to use reusable packaging; ability to use packages produced from reused materials; ability to use refillable products and ability to provide product assembly instructions in electronic form or in recycled paper. Ability to minimize waste generated in the production process; ability to reuse waste generated, ability to ensure acceptable limits of emissions, and ability to eliminate the presence of hazardous waste (Class I).
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 9
Table 3: General characteristics of respondent companies Characteristic Company type Number of employees
Types of production Quality Management and Environmental Management Product development
Product type
Main materials used
Packaging material
Classification 1 Closely-held Corporation; 21 Limited Companies. 1 big company (more than 500 employees); 4 medium-sized enterprises (100 - 499 employees); 9 small enterprises (20 - 99 employees); 8 micro-enterprises (0 - 19 employees). 4 companies have series production; 4 companies have series production and product customization; 14 companies have production on demand. 7 companies have a formally structured Quality Management System, 4 of which are ISO 9001 certified; 3 companies have a formally structured Environmental Management System, 2 of which are ISO 14001 certified. 12 companies have formal procedures for product development; 10 companies do not have formal procedures for product development. 7 companies manufacture upholstered furniture; 1 company manufactures acrylic furniture; 1 company manufactures walls, and aluminum and glass furniture; 2 companies manufacture tubular furniture; 11 companies manufacture custom-designed or modular furniture. Upholstered furniture: carbon steel tubes, aluminum bases, MDF (medium-density fiberboard), foams, fabrics, synthetic leather, leather, vinyl, plastic, wood, zipper, non-fabric materials, fastening elements, glue, varnish, synthetic fiber. Acrylic furniture: acrylic sheets. Walls, aluminum, and glass furniture: glass sheets, aluminum, MDF, sliding elements, paint for glass and aluminum. Custom-designed and modular furniture: MDF, MDP (mediumdensity particleboard), particleboard, plastic rims, wood veneers, plywood, Formica laminates, solid wood, glue, varnish, knobs, sliding and fastening elements, steel tubes. Cardboard and plastic.
Table 4: Ecodesign practices and assessment items Practice Environmental management Materials: choice and use Product components: selection and choice Product/ Process characteristics Use of energy/natural resources Product distribution Packaging and documentation Waste
Mean
Level of application (%)
3.2 3.7 3.3
Standard deviation 1.1 1.2 1.1
3.3
1.2
66.73
3
1.4
59.27
3.5 2.9
1.2 1.5
70.78 57.92
3.7
1.2
74.39
64.75 73.86 65.45
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 10
Table 5: Distribution of companies per cluster Cluster 1 2 3 4
Companies 5, 10, 13, 20, 21 2, 4, 14 1, 3, 6, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 22
5 Discussion of results and proposition of guidelines to the clusters 5.1 Level of adoption of ecodesign practices The first specific objective is to measure the adoption of ecodesign practices in the industry surveyed. Waste is the practice with the highest level of application. The item which had the highest score – 4.2 points on average – was the ability to adequately treat and dispose of waste in order to comply with the current legislation. The next two items – with 4.0 points on average – referred to reaching acceptable limits of emissions of volatile organic compounds and recovery by third parties of waste generated by the manufacturing process as inputs. The item with the lowest score – 3.1 points on average – was the ability to eliminate hazardous waste which requires special treatment. The second best-scoring ecodesign practice in terms of level of application refers to ‘Materials: choice and use’. The best-scoring item in this practice – with 4.5 points on average – is linked to the existence of a waste management system aiming at waste recovery. The second best-scoring assessment item – with 4.4 points on average – is the companies' ability to use raw materials from suppliers accredited by Brazilian inspection authorities. The worst-scoring item – with an average of 2.8 points – is about the companies’ capacity to use raw materials as close to its natural state as possible. For this assessment item, companies are observed to follow global trends for materials and styles, which means that they often have to develop their own raw materials for a given product line. Product distribution is the third ecodesign practice in terms of level of application. Three assessment items had an average of 4.2 points: Minimization of stocks of finished products, minimization of stocks during manufacture and minimization of stocks of raw materials. The worst-scoring item refers to the companies’ capacity to use a more energetically efficient modal, with an average of 2.0 points. In this case, the companies cannot choose the transport modal to be used; road transport of cargo by trucks is the prevalent modal in Brazil. The fourth practice in terms of application is ‘Product/process characteristics’. The bestscoring item inquires whether ease of maintenance and repair of components and products are taken into account during the product development phase (4.1 points on average). The next item, with an average of 4.0 points, is related to the use of product sizes and shapes to reduce the consumption of raw materials. The worst-ranking item (2.3 points on average)
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 11
asks whether Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the product is performed for all the phases of the product’s life cycle. The fifth practice as regards application is ‘Product components: selection and choice’. The two best-scoring items – both with an average of 3.9 points - are ease of access and removal of components for maintenance, replacement or recycling purposes and ability to identify or classify the components for later reuse or recycling. The item with the lowest score (2.9 points) refers to the use of recovered components (stemming from their own manufacturing process, from disassembled products or purchased from suppliers). The sixth practice for level of application is ‘Environmental management’. The assessment item with the highest average (4.2 points) regards the compliance with current environmental legislation and resolutions. The second best-scoring item is about the companies’ level of responsibility towards the environment, with 4.0 points on average. The worst score was given to the ability to define environmental goals for the company and each product developed, with an average of 2.4 points. The seventh practice is ‘Use of energy/natural resources’. The best-scoring item had an average of 3.7 points and refers to the ability to use natural lighting in the company's facilities, aiming at reducing the consumption of energy. The second best-scoring item – with an average of 3.5 points - is the use of devices to reduce the consumption of energy in the productive processes. The worst-scoring item, with an average of 1.7 points, refers to rainwater capture. The last item in terms of application refers to ‘Packaging and documentation’. The bestscoring item is linked to the use of recyclable packages, with 3.9 points on average. The second best-scoring item is linked to the use of packages produced with recycled material, with 3.6 points on average. The worst-scoring item, with an average of 1.4 points, is about the return of packages for later reuse or the manufacturers’ accountability for the disposal of packages after delivery or assembly at the client's domicile or workplace. Figure 1 illustrates the average performance of each ecodesign practice.
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 12
100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00
Figure 1: Average performance of ecodesign practices
5.2. Characteristics of the clusters The second specific objective sorts the companies into 4 clusters according to the intensity of adoption of ecodesign practices in order to identify similarities in the surveyed companies as regards the adoption of ecodesign practices. Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the average performance of ecodesign practices for each company in each cluster. Table 6 shows the average performance of the practices by cluster.
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Enterprise
5 10 13 20 21
Figure 2: Average performance of ecodesign practices in cluster 1 Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 13
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5
Enterprise
2
2.0 1.5
4
1.0 0.5 0.0
14
Figure 3: Average performance of ecodesign practices in cluster 2
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
Enterprise
1 3
1.5
6
1.0 0.5
8
0.0
16 17 18 19
Figure 4: Average performance of ecodesign practices in cluster 3
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 14
5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Enterprise
7 9 11 12 15 22 Figure 5: Average performance of ecodesign practices in cluster 4 Table 6: Distribution of companies per cluster
Practice Environmental management Materials: choice and use Product components: selection and choice Product/Process characteristics Use of energy/natural resources Product distribution Packaging and documentation Waste Total
Cluster 1 2.68 3.12 2.48 2.94 2.40 2.80 2.26 3.42 2.76
Cluster 2 4.03 4.10 4.07 2.80 4.00 3.17 3.23 4.63 3.75
Cluster 3 3.49 3.67 3.18 3.44 2.43 3.83 2.65 4.00 3.33
Cluster 4 3.15 4.10 3.67 3.80 3.63 3.60 3.60 3.18 3.59
Data analysis shows the cluster 2, comprised of companies 2, 4 and 14, is the one that best applies ecodesign practices. Companies 2 and 4 are ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certified; company 14 has a structured quality management system and is preparing to obtain a certification. These aspects are likely to justify the high level of application of practices ‘Environmental management’, ‘Waste’, ‘Use of energy/natural resources’ and ‘Materials’. As regards the practice ‘Product/process characteristics’, managers of companies 4 and 14 mentioned that the companies follow European trends closely, and hence it is not always possible to use sizes and simplified forms that yield lower consumption of materials. In the practice ‘Product distribution’, the companies outsource logistical distributors; as a result, they have little influence over routes and delivery planning. The company manufactures topclass products; it considers the possibility of developing and selling green products because its clients value such attribute. Company 4 also sees a potential market for green products; a part of its product lines may be geared towards this trend in the future. Nowadays, not all
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 15
packages are made of recycled materials. Packages for products with high earned value are sometimes made of wood, plastic or expanded foam. They are not always collected by the assembler after installation, and hence these materials are not always properly disposed after being used. The second best-performing cluster is 4. Out of the six companies in this cluster, one manufactures upholstered furniture on demand; one makes cupboards on demand, and the other four companies make modular furniture serially or with some customization. In this cluster, companies have between 10 and 65 employees. Only one of the companies is ISO 9001 certified; none of them is ISO 14001 certified, and only one company reported having implemented an environmental management system. The practice with the worst performance in this cluster is ‘Waste’. The assessment items with the lowest adoption are the following: capacity to eliminate hazardous waste, restricting volatile emissions and managing disposal of waste generated by the company. In comparison with the other cluster, 'Packaging’ is the practice with the best performance; the companies use packages made of recycled material (cardboard) and, in some companies, the assembly instructions return to the company after product assembly and remain in use until the product is discontinued. Cluster 3 has the third best performance for ecodesign practices. In this cluster, one company has 180 employees, and the others have between 6 and 97 employees. Out of the eight companies, four manufacture upholstered furniture (cupboards and kitchens) and one makes acrylic furniture (chairs and tables). Only the biggest company (the one with 180 employees) makes modular furniture serially; the others produce on demand. Only one of the companies has environmental management initiatives; three companies reported having implemented a quality management system. The upholstered furniture companies generate waste which can be easily sold because they use massive wood in their products. Performance in the practice ‘Use of energy/natural resources’ is low; two managers mentioned that the energy cost is small when compared with other production costs, for example, materials. ‘Product/process characteristics’ and ‘Material: choice and use’, in comparison with other practices, had a good performance because of production on demand, which gives them some flexibility to selection materials that can meet clients’ particular needs, unlike the companies that tend to follow previously defined standards and produce standard items. Cluster 1 has the lowest level of application of ecodesign practices. The biggest company has 122 employees and the smallest one, 6 employees. Four out of the five companies in this cluster have serial production; these companies produce furniture with tubular frames (chairs and tables) and steel cupboards sold in department stores. They are typically known
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 16
as popular products, and competition in the market among these companies is price-based. Only one company claimed to have a quality management system. When compared with the other clusters, Cluster 1 had inferior performance in virtually all the ecodesign practices. ‘Waste’ had a slight better performance than in Cluster 4; the performance in ‘Product/process characteristics’ was slightly better than in Cluster 2. As regards the practice ‘Materials: choice and use’, most companies do not check whether the raw materials they use come from companies legally established and inspected by government institutions; they are not aware of either the environmental impact generated by the materials used or of the potential recyclability of the materials used. In the practice ‘Product components: selection and
choice’ there is little application of the assessment item concerning the
acknowledgement of the potential recyclability of components and their classification for later recycling and reuse. In ‘Use of energy/natural resources’, there was little application of the items regarding the reduction in energy use in the manufacturing process and the use of natural lighting. In ‘Packaging and documentation’ , there was little application of the items regarding minimization of package weight and volume and of the assembly instructions manual made available in electronic form or recycled paper. 5.3 Guidelines to implement ecodesign in each cluster The general objective of this study is to devise group guidelines to implement ecodesign practices in the referred furniture industry. The proposed guidelines for each cluster took into account the level of adoption of assessment items regarding each practice as well as the information collected through interviews with the managers of the companies visited and the theoretical framework. For Cluster 2, which had the best level of adoption of the ecodesign practices, the following is suggested: ─ Practice ‘Environmental management’: (i) expand awareness of P&D teams as regards issues such as environmental sustainability, product Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), ecodesign or Design for Environment, cleaner production; (ii) investigate the potential market for Green Products and the likelihood of increase in the amount to be paid by the market as a function of this attribute; (iii) expand the assessment of the environmental impact of new products. ─ Practice ‘Materials: choice and use’: (i) increase the use of products, materials and additives which are harmless to the environment or the employees’ health; (ii) increase knowledge of technical teams about the possibility of recycling the selected components, so that better choices can be made.
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 17
─ Practice ‘Product components: selection and choice’: (i) during the phase of product development, plan the access to the components more carefully in order to facilitate their access for later maintenance or removal for reuse and recycling. ─ Practice ‘Product/process characteristics’: (i) implement the use of LCA, considering environmental impact caused by extracting and generating raw materials and components, impact of the manufacturing process, impact in the use of the product and disposal/later use. ─ Practice ‘Use of energy/natural resources’: (i) increase the ability to reuse water; (ii) increase the use of natural lighting and ventilation; (iii) increase the use of devices to reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing process. ─ Practice ‘Product distribution’: (i) advise logistical distributors on the importance of planning routes, which could later cause the reduction of logistical costs; (ii) reinforce the need to plan acquisition logistics. ─ Practice ‘Packaging and documentation’: (i) increase the use of packages made of recycled materials, informing clients of that as a competitive edge and care for the environment; (ii) plan a collection and disposal system for packages after assembling product at the client’s home or workplace; also inform clients of that as care for the environment. ─ Practice ‘Waste’: (i) improve knowledge of waste management after disposal (waste is normally sold to third parties).
Given the level of maturity of companies in this cluster as regards practices aligned with ecodesign, it is believed that such companies could systematize the use of checklists in their management systems while developing their products and processes. Those checklists should offer orientation on materials, components, and other inputs and process parameters indicating the preferred choices causing the least environmental impact (Pochat et al., 2007; Byggeth and Hochsorner, 2006). Later, other software and tools could be used by the organizations (Pochat et al., 2007). In order to associate the brands with green products, the market should be made aware of the use of environmentally best practices, for example the use of packages produced with recycled material, proper management of packages and the use of materials whose source is known and legal. Likewise, investigation should be made as to whether the market of such companies would be willing to pay more for ‘green’ attributes or whether such attributes could influence consumers' decision to buy the product (Manzini and Vezzoli, 2005).
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 18
For Cluster 4, which was the second best-scoring item as regards ecodesign practices, suggestions include: ─ Practice ‘Environmental management’: (i) formalize environmental management systems, starting with basic procedures such as managing waste, defining procedures linked to management system, setting environmental goals; (ii) encourage P&D teams to investigate issues related to environmental sustainability, ecodesign, and cleaner production; (iii) define and implement environmental performance indicators. ─ Practice ‘Materials: choice and use’: (i) select suppliers that actually meet legal requirements; (ii) be aware of the environmental impact generated by their suppliers of raw materials. ─ Practice ‘Product components: selection and choice’: (i) during the stage of product development, carefully plan the access to components in order to facilitate their access for later maintenance or removal for reuse and recycling. ─ Practice ‘Product/process characteristics’: (i) be aware of the risks that the product can pose to consumers (ex.: risks of allergic diseases as a result of using formaldehydes) and consider this information during product development; eliminate the use of substances which have the identified risks. ─ Practice ‘Use of energy/natural resources’: (i) increase the use of natural lighting and ventilation; (ii) increase the use of devices to reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing process. ─ Practice ‘Product distribution’: (i) advise logistical distributors on the importance of planning routes; (ii) improve the planning of acquisition logistics; (iii) plan stocks of finished products and raw materials. ─ Practice ‘Packaging and documentation’: (i) increase the use of packages made of recycled materials, and inform clients of such practice as a competitive edge and care for the environment; (ii) provide assembly instructions produced with recycled paper; iii) minimize volume of packages. ─ Practice ‘Waste’: (i) be aware of the disposal of waste sold to third parties; (ii) set goals to reduce the waste generated in manufacturing processes. For the companies in this cluster, most of which make modular furniture serially and have small administrative and managerial structures, awareness of the potential economic gains stemming from the adoption of practices to reduce environmental impact can actually help disseminate such practices.
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 19
For Cluster 3, the third best-scoring item as regards ecodesign practices, suggestions are the following: ─ Practice ‘Environmental management’: (i) comply with environmental legislation and resolutions. ─ Practice ‘Materials: choice and use’: (i) refrain from using products, materials and additives which can harm the environment and employees’ health; (ii) eliminate the use of toxic, hazardous and carcinogenic substances; (iii) be aware of the source of raw materials, and only purchase materials whose source is controlled and legal. ─ Practice ‘Product components: selection and choice’: (i) carefully plan the access to components in order to facilitate such access for later maintenance or removal for reuse and recycling. ─ Practice ‘Product/process characteristics’: (i) plan product shapes in order to consume fewer raw materials, since laminate sheets are produced in standard sizes; (ii) taking into account the fact that most companies in this cluster produce on demand, offer clients the possibility to upgrade the products after a certain period of use by renovating upholstered furniture and treating wood. ─ Practice ‘Use of energy/natural resources’: (i) increase the use of natural lighting and ventilation; (ii) increase the use of devices to reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing processes. ─ Practice ‘Product distribution’: (i) advise logistical distributors on the importance of planning routes; (ii) reinforce the need to plan acquisition logistics; (iii) favor suppliers located closer to production venues and establish partnerships to make sales deals feasible. ─ Practice ‘Packaging and documentation’: (i) increase the use of packages made of recycled materials, and inform clients of such practice as a competitive edge and care for the environment; (ii) provide assembly instructions produced with recycled paper; iii) minimize volume of packages. ─ Practice ‘Waste’: (i) increase the ability to reuse or recycle wood, even if by third parties; (ii) be aware of waste management, and sell it to companies in compliance with environmental legislations. In Cluster 3, most companies make upholstered furniture and produce on demand. Some of these companies manufacture and sell products of high earned value, acknowledged by their competitive edge. Investing in environmentally correct practices and having clients’ awareness of that can help such companies strengthen their brands and be referred to as
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 20
suppliers of green products. Other suggestions for the ‘Environmental management’ practice include devising environmental guidelines for the organization, setting environmental goals, and adopting basic operational procedures such as separating and classifying waste. In Cluster 1, with the lowest level of application of ecodesign practices, the interviews with the managers reveal that environmental management is not considered important; environmental pressure and inspection by government organizations do not actually hinder their operations, and laws are not thoroughly enforced. Suggestions for this cluster are the following: ─ Practice ‘Environmental management’: (i) obey current laws; (ii) implement basic environmental practices such as separating waste by type for later disposal and/or trade. ─ Practice ‘Materials: choice and use’: (i) refrain from using products, materials and additives which can harm the environment and employees’ health; (ii) eliminate the use of toxic, hazardous and carcinogenic substances. ─ Practice ‘Product components: selection and choice’: (i) choose components that can be recycled after the product is discarded. ─ Practice ‘Product/process characteristics’: (i) plan product shapes and sizes to ensure maximized use of raw materials, which would help reduce production costs, a crucial issue as the companies in these clusters compete at the lower end of the market; (ii) expand the ability to plan the production, considering the use of batch size and occupancy of production resources to maximize gains with the operation. ─ Practice ‘Use of energy/natural resources’: (i) increase the use of natural lighting and ventilation; (ii) increase the use of devices to reduce energy consumption in the manufacturing process. ─ Practice ‘Product distribution’: (i) improve activities related to the planning of distribution logistics; (ii) improve activities related to the planning of acquisition logistics; (iii) plan the amount of stocks of finished products in order to expedite delivery and minimize stock costs. ─ Practice ‘Packaging and documentation’: (i) increase the use of packages made of recycled materials; (ii) minimize package volume. ─ Practice ‘Waste’: (i) increase the ability to reuse or recycle materials, even if by third parties. Since competition among companies in Cluster 1 is price-based, actions related to production costs seem to be a priority at this point. Possible actions are the following: improvement in the flow of materials, planning of production, and acquisition of materials and distribution. After such basic operation elements have a better performance, more
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 21
comprehensive management systems – for example, for environmental management - can be considered, as proposed by Manzini and Vezzoli (2005). 5.4 Discussion Given the characteristics of companies in clusters 2 and 4, several of the suggested guidelines are already under implementation, many of which were initiatives by the companies themselves. Johansson and Magnusson (2006) emphasize the importance of incorporating environmental aspects into product development. To define environmental performance indicators, the approaches proposed by Sellitto et al. (2010) are suggested. Theyel’s (2000) ideas are worth of notice as they refer to the need for companies to effectively modify their operations in order to improve their environmental performance. For so doing, companies have to take environmental aspects into account while designing their strategic planning. After ecodesign practices are truly consolidated, Manzini and Vezzoli (2005) suggest that manufacturers should define disposal of products after they are used, in compliance with current legal requirements. At this stage, companies are supposed to advise their clients on how to manage disposal. For the companies in Cluster 1, one cannot see factors that can favor the adoption of ecodesign-related practices: external pressure, economic influence, consumer valuation of aspects related to the environmental impact of the product and interest in developing new technologies (Boks, 2006). Some companies from cluster 3 could benefit from adopting environmentally correct practices by gaining competitive edge. Both Clusters 1 and 3 can benefit from the support and encouragement from trade associations such as Unions of furniture manufacturers and furniture companies associations; moreover, publicity can be fostered around the results stemming from the organization of processes and compliance with environmental laws. It is also necessary to set up training programs to qualify company managers in environmental issues. Most companies in Clusters 1 and 3 are small and medium-sized, and in the views of Ammenberg and Saundin (2005), Bauman et al. (2002) and Schischke et al. (2003), such type of company seldom makes ecodesign an effective part of their development process. Figure 6 summarizes the current phase of each cluster as regards the application of ecodesign practices and the importance given to ecodesign, based on the qualitative information and the quantitative data collected in the surveys.
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 22
importance
Cluster 2 Cluster 4 Cluster 3 Cluster 1
application Figure 6: Importance and application of ecodesign per cluster
6 Conclusions Data from 22 replies to the designed research tool was used to answer the first research question: “How often are ecodesign practices applied in the companies of the furniture industry?” The term ecodesign was unfolded into eight practices which were then unfolded into assessment items. The most prevalent ecodesign practice is ‘Waste’, with 3.72 points on average, which corresponds to 74% of application. The second most prevalent practice is ‘Materials: selection and choice’, with 3.69 on average (74%) and ‘Product distribution’ with an average of 3.54 points (71%). ‘Packaging and documentation’ achieved the lowest level of application with 2.90 points on average (58%). The second research question was “How similar are ecodesign practices in the surveyed companies?” which could be answered by grouping the 22 companies into four clusters. The companies in Cluster 2 most apply ecodesign practices; they all have implemented an environmental management system and look into environmental actions that can give their products a competitive edge in the market. The companies in Cluster 4 fall a little behind those in Cluster 2 as regards systematization of management practices but recognize the importance of the latter. Clusters 1 and 3 have the worst performance as regards application of ecodesign practices. The companies in Cluster 1 do not acknowledge the importance of environmental management and sometimes fail to meet previously defined legal requirements. Factors in favor of adopting ecodesign practices were not observed. The third research question – “Which ecodesign implementation guidelines are suitable for the surveyed companies?” – resulted in the proposition of general guidelines for the companies in each cluster. Such proposition took into account the level of application of each assessment item, the characteristics of the companies in each cluster, and aspects taken from the theoretical framework. In this respect, the companies in Cluster 2 can
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 23
potentially systematize the use of ecodesign by making it an element of process and product development. They can also explore their environmentally correctness in the market. The companies in Cluster 4 progressed in terms of environmental management practices. In Cluster 3 there is a potential to expand environmental practices in the companies which manufacture and sell products on demand, with competitive advantage. In this case, the market may value environmentally correct actions. In Cluster 1, due to the absence of external and internal factors related to the implementation of ecodesign (Verscalteren, 2001), support from trade associations and government organizations may be necessary to foster best practices – ranging from production operations to environmental issues. Grouping the companies in clusters enabled the guidelines to be focused on the profiles on the companies in each cluster. A general analysis alone of the level of application of ecodesign practices considering the 22 surveys replied could result in the proposition of guidelines which might not necessarily be suitable for most companies. Suggestions for further research on this topic include defining ecodesign performance indicators as well as implementing and monitoring them in the companies from Clusters 2 and 4. Another possibility is to create a specific checklist for each group of companies from the furniture industry (related to type of product and manufacturing process). In conclusion, defining tools to support the use of ecodesign and LCA which are tailored to the furniture industry and take into consideration Brazil’s energy and materials matrix is a great opportunity for future research as well. This study was developed with the support from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). Referências Ammenberg, J. & Sundin, E. (2005). Products in environmental management systems: drivers, barriers and experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production. 13 (4), 405-415. Bahmaed, L.; Boukhalfa, A. & Djebabra, M. (2005). Eco-conception in the industrial firms: methodological proposition. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 16 (5), 530-547. Baumann, H.; Boons, F. & Bragd, A. (2002). Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 10 (5), 409-425. Boks, C. (2006). The soft side of ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15-16); 1346-1356. Borchardt, M.; Pereira, G. & Sellitto, M. (2009). Assessment of ecodesign applications using the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a case study in three furniture companies. Chemical Engineering Transactions. 18 (1); 177-182. (a) Borchardt, M.; Sellitto, M.; Pereira, G. & Gomes, L. (2009). Assessment of the importance and application of ecodesign practices: a survey in companies of the furniture industry. Proceedings of 6th.
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 24
International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing – Ecodesign. Sapporo. (b) Borchardt, M.; Poltosi, L.; Sellitto, M.; Pereira, G. (2009). Adopting ecodesign practices: case study of a midsized automotive supplier. Environmental Quality Management. 19 (1), 7-22. (c). Borchardt, M.; Wendt, M.; Sellitto, M. & Pereira, G. (2010). Reprojeto do contraforte: um caso de aplicação do ecodesign em manufatura calçadista. Revista Produção (ahead of print). Byggeth, S.; Broman, G. & Ròbert, K. (2007). A Method for Sustainable Product Development based on a Modular System of Guiding Questions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15 (1), 1–11. Byggeth, S. & Hoschschorner, I. (2006). Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15-16), 1420-1430. Daian, G. & Ozarska, B. (2009). Wood waste management practices and strategies to increase sustainability standards in the Australian wooden furniture manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production. 17, 1594–1602. Ehrenfeld, J. (2004). Industrial ecology: a new field or only a metaphor? Journal of Cleaner Production. 12 (8-10), 825-831. Ensslin, L.; Montibeller, G.; Noronha, S. (2001). Apoio à decisão. Florianópolis, Ed. Insular. Fiksel, J. (1996). Design for Environment. New York: McGraw Hill. Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainanbility: Science, Practice & Police. 2 (2), 14-21. French, S. (1986). Decision theory: An introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Chichester, Ed. Ellis Horwood. Gandhi, N.; Selladuri, V. & Santhi, P. (2006). Unsustainable development to sustainable development: a conceptual model. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 17 (6), 654–672. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. & Black, W. (2005). Análise multivariada de dados. Porto Alegre, Ed. Bookman. Handfield, R.; Walton, S.; Seegers, L. & Melnyk, S. (1997). 'Green' value chain practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management. 15, 293-315. Hogart, R. (1988). Judgement and choice. Essex, Ed. John Wiley & Sons. Johansson, G. & Magnusson, T. (2006). Organising for environmental considerations in complex product development projects: implications from introducing a “Green” sub-project. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15-16), 1368-1376. Karlsson, R. & Luttropp, C. (2006). Ecodesign: What´s happening? An overview of the subject area of ecodesign and the papers in this Special Issue. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15–16), 12911298. Lofthouse, V. (2006). Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15-16), 1386-1395. Lovins, L. Rethinking Production. In: The Worldwatch Institute (ed.). State of the world 2008: innovations for a sustainable economy. The Worldwatch Institute, 2008.
Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation ERSCP-EMSU conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010 25
Luttropp, C. & Lagerstedt, J. (2006). Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15–16), 1396– 1408. Malhotra, N. (2002). Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. Porto Alegre, Ed. Bookman. Manzini, E. & Vezzoli, C. (2005). O desenvolvimento de produtos sustentáveis: os requisitos ambientais dos produtos industriais. São Paulo, Ed. USP. Mattar, F. (1996). Pesquisa de Marketing: edição compacta. São Paulo, Ed. Atlas. Pochat, S.; Bertoluci, G. & Froelich, D. (2007). Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in SMES. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15 (5), 671-680. Santos-Reyes, D. (2001). A design for the environment methodology to support an environmental management system. Integrated Manufacturing Systems. 12 (5), 323 – 332. Schischke, K.; Griese, H.; Müller, J. & Reichl, H. (2003). Cost-effectiveness and environmental aspects of flip chip bumping for system integration. Microsystem Technologies. 9 (5), 324-330. Sellitto, M., Borchardt, M. & Pereira, G. (2010). Modelagem para avaliação de desempenho ambiental em operações de manufatura. Gestão & Produção. 17 (1), 95-109. Sellitto, M. & Ribeiro, J. (2004). Construção de indicadores para avaliação de conceitos intangíveis em sistemas produtivos. Gestão & Produção. 11 (1), 75-90. Sindmóveis - Sindicato da Indústria do Mobiliário. 2009. Available in www.sindmoveis.com.br; Accessed in mar, 2009. Theyel, G. (2000). Management practices for environmental innovation and performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 20 (2), 249-266. Vercalsteren, A. (2001). Integrating the ecodesign concept in small and medium-size enterprises: Experiences in the Flemish Region of Belgium. Environmental Management and Health. 12, 347-355. Wimmer, W.; Lee, K.; Jeong, T.; Hong, J. Ecodesign in twelve steps: providing systematic guidance for considering environmental aspects and stakeholder requirements in product design and development. International Conference on Engineering Design; ICED; Melbourne; 2005.
The 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption (ERSCP) The 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) 26