Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Uncovering ecodesign dilemmas: A path to business model innovation

Sharon M. Prendeville a, c, *, Frank O'Connor b, Nancy M.P. Bocken c, Conny Bakker c
a
Loughborough University London, 3 Lesney Avenue, The Broadcast Centre, Here East Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, E15 2GZ, United Kingdom
b
Ecodesign Centre, Llandaff, 200 Western Avenue, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, Wales, United Kingdom
c
Industrial Design Engineering, 15 Landbergstraat, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 2628 CD, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this article is to explore how ecodesign dilemmas contribute to a firm's ecodesign evolution.
Received 1 July 2016 The article achieves this through empirical research into a process of ecodesign decision-making in a
Received in revised form single firm. The study spans a timeframe of nine years. The article describes how recognising and dealing
6 November 2016
with ecodesign dilemmas fuels cycles of learning, leading the firm towards business model innovation.
Accepted 16 November 2016
Available online 16 November 2016
The study classifies a unique set of ecodesign dilemmas: hierarchies; tensions; contradictions; and
oversights. Through this classification, we show how firms need to adopt a unified approach combining
operational (ecodesign principles approach), tactical (ecodesign management processes) and strategic
Keywords:
Ecodesign
actions (business model innovation), to systematically manage ecodesign dilemmas. To support this, the
Ecodesign maturity article presents a framework describing key actions for operational, tactical and strategic ecodesign
Dilemmas decision-making and the types of ecodesign dilemmas typical to each approach. Through this study, we
Trade-offs show that the business model is critical to inform effective ecodesign decision-making and illustrate how
Business model innovation design can drive firms towards sustainable change, from the bottom up.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction ecodesign in day-to-day design practices (Pigosso et al., 2013;

Bonou et al., 2016; Dekoninck et al., 2016).
Ecodesign is a collaborative, proactive and systematic design In recent years, ecodesign researchers call for a move away from
and management process that considers the full life-cycle envi- further tool-development, to focus more on processes and methods
ronmental impacts of packaging, products, processes, services, or- to integrate ecodesign strategy within project management pro-
ganisations and systems (Sherwin and Evans, 2000; O'Rafferty & cesses and wider company goals, as a means for effective ecodesign
O'Connor, 2010; Pigosso et al., 2013; Dekoninck et al., 2016). It is implementation (Pigosso et al., 2013; Domingo et al., 2015; Verhulst
a product life-cycle management approach to mitigate uncoordi- and Boks, 2012). In the context of this paper, ecodesign dilemmas
nated product planning, for example, eliminating a toxic substance are defined as scenarios that either pose upfront challenges to the
should not lead to higher energy consumption, which on balance decision-maker, or later lead to one or more unexpected or con-
could have a negative impact on the environment (European tradictory outcomes of ecodesign decision-making. In the past,
Commission, 2012). The core premise of an ecodesign approach is such dilemmas, have been described as ‘trade-offs’ and are most
the need to foster life cycle thinking through design, to consider the often approached in the literature from a positivist viewpoint, with
entire product life cycle (Bonou et al., 2016) in collaboration with an emphasis on measurement and the need to compare product
stakeholders (O'Connor and Hawkes, 2001; Tyl et al., 2015). characteristics at a product performance level (Brezet and Van
Implementation of such principles are essential if industry is to Hemel, 1997). Despite previous research showing that technical
become more sustainable in the long-term. Yet, it is broadly tools fall short of supporting practitioners with handling trade-offs
accepted that many companies still fall short of integrating (Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2006) today this emphasis on tech-
nical solutions prevails (Niekamp et al., 2015; Bocken et al., 2011;
Russo et al., 2011, 2014, 2016).
The aim of this article is to explore ecodesign dilemmas from a
* Corresponding author. Loughborough University London, 3 Lesney Avenue, The constructivist viewpoint: How do ecodesign dilemmas relate to a
Broadcast Centre, Here East Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, E15 2GZ, firm's ecodesign evolution? Constructivist, meaning, that reality is
United Kingdom.
constructed through the lived experiences of individuals (Moses
E-mail address: s.prendeville@lboro.ac.uk (S.M. Prendeville).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.095
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1328 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

and Knutsen, 2007). Therefore, this article takes a pragmatic theory-driven ecodesign integration framework, outlining the need
approach, focusing on the practitioner's reality of negotiating eco- for vertical (strategic, tactical and operational) as well as trans-
design dilemmas. In light of this, the research was undertaken at a versal (change management, cultural and human factors) integra-
single firm, a UK-based design-led office furniture manufacturer. tion of ecodesign in company processes. Similarly, Zhang et al.
The research methodology is an action-led immersive case-study, (2013) propose a ‘navigation framework’ that also integrates this
based on four in-depth case studies of new product development operational, tactical and strategic approach. Gmelin and Seuring
(NPD). Through the analysis we identify the firm's main learning (2014) propose a theoretical conceptual framework outlining the
phases and define a unique set of ecodesign dilemmas. These are interrelations between sustainability and project management,
categorised as: tensions; hierarchies; contradictions; and over- highlighting collaboration as a critical linking factor between key
sights. We describe how these dilemmas were navigated in practice components of a sustainable NPD. Pigosso et al. (2013) propose that
and the lessons learned internalised by the firm. From this a new companies need roadmaps to guide ecodesign maturity and outline
framework linking ecodesign dilemmas, ecodesign strategy and the broad stages of ecodesign implementation that firms can un-
business strategy is developed. The research illustrates how eco- dergo, through a theory-driven model, underpinned by five evo-
design dilemmas fuel cycles of learning ultimately stimulating lution levels of ecodesign maturity. Nevertheless, Martens and
innovation in the wider business model towards a new leasing Carvalho (2016) conclude, from multiple case-studies, that while
approach. firms are concerned with sustainability in project management,
The remainder of the article includes a literature review focused there still remains a knowledge-action gap and they identify that
on recent developments in the field of ecodesign, ecodesign in of- integration of sustainability, during product development, is still
fice furniture and ecodesign dilemmas. This is followed by a not happening. This paper proposes that ecodesign dilemmas,
description of the case study research method. The results section when properly managed, can contribute to the holistic (strategic,
describes the firm's design approach, key decisions made during tactical, operational) integration of ecodesign in firms.
each NPD and the ecodesign dilemmas identified for each case. The
analysis and discussion include a cross-case analysis of all of the 2.2. Ecodesign in office furniture
dilemmas identified and a reflection on the firm's trajectory of
ecodesign decision-making over the course of nine years. Finally, The key environmental impacts of office chairs occur during raw
the research limitations and conclusions are discussed. material, extraction, production and end-of-life stages (Collado-
Ruiz and Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, 2013; Joint Research Council,
2. Literature 2013). Studies on office furniture and the environment range
from industrial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) case studies (Spitzley
This section reviews the literature on ecodesign in its contem- et al., 2006; Gamage et al., 2007) to business-oriented accounts of
porary context and introduces the topic of ecodesign dilemmas. the practicalities of adopting cradle-to-cradle design (Lee and Bony,
2008). For example, Spitzley et al. (2006) assess a marketed prod-
2.1. Ecodesign e a contemporary view uct, by the company Steelcase, from cradle-to-grave, identifying the
replacement of virgin material with recyclate as a key design
As early as 1993, Fiksel proposed that successful ecodesign re- strategy to reduce this products' environmental impact. Similarly,
quires an integrated management approach to optimise strategic Gamage et al. (2007) assess two variations of a Formway task chair,
decisions (Fiksel, 1993). Recently, the ecodesign literature has one with an aluminium base and an alternative option with a nylon
focused increasingly on the management perspective of ecodesign. base. The study finds the aluminium option to have greatest envi-
Some empirical findings state that a more ‘considered’ (Domingo ronmental impacts and recommends designing for recyclability to
et al., 2015) approach to ecodesign is needed than has been adop- address this [ibid]. In summary, these studies make recommenda-
ted up to now. For instance, management hierarches, environ- tions on specific ecodesign ‘guidelines’: heuristics that provide
mental knowledge, strategic intentions for a given project and the good practice principles to design practitioners (Knight and
business drivers for ecodesign are important contextual factors for Jenkins, 2009). Other studies on ecodesign in office furniture
successful ecodesign integration (Domingo et al., 2015). Indeed, include broad recommendations on design guidelines from ‘design
other authors advocate for proactive management intervention for durability’ to ‘design for recyclability’ (Besch, 2005; Carlos et al.,
through improved project management processes (Brones et al., 2008; Borchardt et al., 2012). During the action research stages of
2014) change management (Verhulst et al., 2007; Le Pochat et al., this study, the design practitioners at the firm were observed to
2007) ecodesign maturity models (Pigosso et al., 2013) and inte- focus on a similar set of ecodesign strategies and these were used as
grated systemic approaches (Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho, the basis for mapping ecodesign dilemmas in this work.
2015) that also incorporate the wider business context (Domingo
et al., 2015). In essence, strategic company objectives, overarching 2.3. Ecodesign dilemmas
design strategy and project management processes all need
consideration for effective ecodesign implementation (Pigosso In Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2006 reviewed 15 ecodesign tools
et al., 2013; Domingo et al., 2015; Verhulst and Boks, 2012). This and concluded that none effectively support decision-making in
echoes recent developments in wider sustainable innovation trade-off situations. Furthermore, academics have focused exces-
literature towards the concept of sustainable business models sively on the development of tools for ecodesign (Baumann et al.,
(Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken et al., 2014). A business 2002; Bovea and Pe rez-Belis, 2012; Domingo et al., 2015; Pigosso
model describes the actions that make up a company's day-to-day et al., 2016) yet these are not internalised by industry (Pigosso
operations (eg ways of selling, routes to market) (Boons and et al., 2016) because they diverge from industry needs, are overly
Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Bocken et al., 2014). One example of a sus- complex, or too specific, or indeed companies require bespoke
tainable business model is a product-service-system (PSS), where approaches (Rossi et al., 2016).
customers avail of a combination of products and services offered Despite this awareness of the shortcomings of ecodesign tools,
by firms, an approach that has the potential to reduce material the work on trade-off decision-making to-date is still approached
flows in the economy (Tukker, 2015). in the literature through a largely positivist viewpoint. This means
Specifically, Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho (2015) derived a many structured, technical tools are developed. For example, the
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1329

research focuses on tool-oriented perspectives such as TRIZ (Russo

et al., 2011, 2014; 2016; Bocken et al., 2011), multicriteria decision-
making processes (Niekamp et al., 2015), which can include ma-
terial selection tools (Al-Oqla and Sapuan, 2015; Al-Oqla et al.,
2014) and analytical hierarchy processes (AHP) (Ramanujan et al.,
2014). Similarly, Ashby (2011) developed a semi-quantitative en-
gineering-led method to enable optimisation between product
characteristics.
Trade-offs are also discussed in the literature in a broad sense, in
relation to environmental management (see for example: Gibson,
2013; McShane et al., 2011). Table 1 describes examples of ecode-
sign dilemmas linked to ecodesign guidelines identified in the
literature. Nevertheless, ecodesign dilemmas are still perceived to
be an overlooked topic in the literature (Souza, 2013) and are
identified as an important ecodesign research topic requiring
further work (Paulson and Sundin, 2015) to adequately support the
needs of industry. This study builds on this existing know-how by Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework linking Ecodesign Dilemmas with Ecodesign Maturity
offering insight on how ecodesign dilemmas are navigated from a (Adapted from Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho, 2015; Pigosso et al., 2013).

practitioner's perspective.
ecodesign maturity over time.
2.4. Research & practice gap
3. Research methods
Companies still grapple with the complexity of integrating
sustainability into their design processes (Bonou et al., 2016). The study is approached from a social constructivist ontology,
Contemporary ecodesign research advocates for more strategic which promotes a focus on real world research (Moses and
approaches to ecodesign implementation, by integrating ecodesign Knutsen, 2007). The research method is a single in-depth case
in management processes and considering wider company objec- study of a company in transition and a case study is chosen as an
tives. However, many methods discussed are derived from theory appropriate method because it is well-suited to build theory from
(e.g. Pigosso et al., 2013; Verhulst et al., 2007; Brones and Monteiro qualitative, context-based data (Yin, 2003). According to Eisenhardt
De Carvalho, 2015) with still a lack of insight on ecodesign inte- and Graebner (2007) and Yin (2003) single case studies may be
gration from a practical industrial perspective (Bonou et al., 2016; chosen if they are revelatory, provide extreme exemplars, or pro-
Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho, 2015; Deutz et al., 2013; vide particular opportunities for unusual research access. In this
Pigosso et al., 2016). In addition, in the literature, academics research, the single case is illuminating, insofar as it provides an in-
convey how a company can grow through one or more levels of depth view of ecodesign in practice, when such accounts are rare.
ecodesign maturity that are characterised by certain actions: Through four embedded case studies of NPD the firm's awareness
operational (eg ecodesign tools), tactical (eg management pro- of ecodesign dilemmas is linked to cycles of operational, tactical
cesses), strategic (eg business context, external collaborators). In and eventually strategic decision-making.
this study we seek to integrate the concept of ‘ecodesign dilemmas’
within this contemporary view, by exploring how these ecodesign 3.1. An action research approach
dilemmas impact a firm's ecodesign maturity: How do ecodesign
dilemmas relate to a firm's ecodesign evolution? Fig. 1 describes the The research was undertaken in collaboration with the design
conceptual framework integrating these topics. It proposes that team at the company in a participatory, action-led way involving
recognising and dealing with ecodesign dilemmas stimulates cycles the use of deliberate, exploratory and collaborative methods over
of learning and thereby contributes to a firm's evolution towards time (Van de Ven, 2007). Action research is a flexible research

Table 1
Examples of ecodesign dilemmas.

Ecodesign dilemmas Positive outcomes Negative outcomes Relevant sectors Source

Durability vs Light-weighting:
Potentially longer product
Higher upfront material use Furniture, Automotive Brennan et al. (2015)
Greater durability is life through more durable design
End of life processing of
achieved through higher
Light weighting can improve light weighting materials
material use to strengthen fuel efficiency perceived problematic
parts
Life extension strategies (repair,
Longer product life
Higher upfront material use Electrical electronic Gutowski et al. (2011)
remanufacturing) prolong
Positive social outcome to support durability Bakker et al. (2012)
product lifetimes, preserving (less waste) requirements of repairable
material resources, yet new goods
products may be more
Sometimes more energy
energy efficient efficient to replace old goods
with new ones
Light-weighting vs high use of
Reduced material use
Reduced recycling Automotive Brennan et al. (2015)
composite material
Good fuel efficiency capabilities
Recycled content
Material efficiency
Durability: early Furniture Luttropp and Lagerstedt,
inclusion shortens product and/
Lower environmental impact part/product failure 2006
or part lifetime due to lower for some indicators
quality
1330 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

Table 2
Summary of environmental impacts of four cases (Prendeville et al., 2013; Prendeville, 2015).

Weight (kg) Recycled content CFP-A (Kg CO2eq-) CFP-B (Kg CO2eq-) Abridged LCA score (mPTs per 1hr service)

A 17.2 6.9 51 96 0.072

B 7 No data. 31 No data. No data.
C 21 11 63.8 130 0.48
D 14.7 2.7 50a 95 0.067
a
CFP ¼ Carbon Foot-print, mPTs ¼ millipoints.

approach (Van de Ven, 2007) which works well with case studies through a new financial leasing contract, into its business model
(Robson and McCartan, 2016). Koshy et al. (2010) state that it is (Costa et al., 2015).
this flexibility that captures the emergent nature of action Table 2 summarises abridged LCA results for the four product
research, often bringing richness and uniqueness to a study. case studies presented in this article. The assessments were un-
Bryman and Bell (2015) describe how action research approaches dertaken using an abridged LCA tool which normalizes results to a
are iterative and focus on changing thinking through collabora- single score (millipoints). Generalized data was used where data
tion. This perspective was chosen as appropriately sensitive to the was unavailable and a best-fit approach was used when selecting
company at the outset, to ensure trust and connection with the data. The results were validated by an LCA specialist at the software
main participants. The researcher's activities spanned a period of company. The full abridged LCA results and methods are reported
three years, which included conducting environmental evalua- on in Prendeville (2015). Two sets of carbon foot-printing results
tions in collaboration with a senior designer and supporting are shown in Table 2. The first set of carbon foot-prints were un-
broader environmental initiatives at the firm. The main researcher dertaken by the firm, predominantly for communication purposes,
also participated in management and interval project meetings using a bespoke tool developed for the UK furniture sector by the
relating to live NPDs, shadowed designers during supplier visits Furniture Industry Research Association. The second set are built
(as-and-when) and actively participated in potential new supplier using the Sustainable Minds abridged LCA tool. A UK study un-
meetings. dertaken by FIRA (2011) assessed 13 task chairs and found the
average chair to weigh approximately 18e19 kg with an average
3.2. Research context and case background carbon footprint of 74 kg CO2 eq.

This paper discusses the case of Orangebox, a company which 3.3. Case studies of new product development
designs and manufactures contemporary office furniture, focusing
on the development of new products for sale into business-to- Table 3 shows an overview of the case studies of four NPDs. The
business markets. The global furniture sector is a mature global case studies focus on telling the story of the firm's transition, by
market accounting for upwards of 1% of total manufactured goods describing the ecodesign targets set at the beginning of each
(CEPS, 2014). In the UK, the office furniture manufacturing sector project and how this links to the outcomes in the final product.
generated £2.2bn in revenues distributed between 910 national Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) recommend that case study se-
firms (IBISWorld, 2015). It is a low technology innovation sector lection is informed by the topics dictating the research study. These
[ibid]. In 2006, the EU identified furniture as an important sector for are as follows:
its future integrated product policy actions for reducing the EU's
environmental impacts (TNO, 2006).
The product case studies were based on two similar product
Orangebox was founded in 1998 when a senior designer nego- types, the task and visitor seating portfolios, to foster compa-
tiated a buy-out from, what was then, a Steelcase-owned company rability between products.
and is acting managing director to this day. Over the years
Each NPD was led by a different designer within the design
Orangebox has participated in an Ecodesign Initiative Award (2007) team, to represent a range of views and approaches to decision-
and adopted a C2C certification for an office task chair. This C2C making.
certification is a ‘design protocol’ (Braungart et al., 2007) developed
The case studies occurred over a timeframe of nine years, rep-
by Mcdonough Braungart Design Chemistry, which focuses on resenting a sequence of new chairs brought to market and
closing material loops, through recycling, while also evaluating during which time a number of activities within the business
toxicity of materials (with recommendations for improvement contributed to increasing awareness of sustainability issues
options) and advocating solar energy use. The firm implemented (Ecodesign Initiative Award, C2C certification).
these initiatives in the absence of any specific ecodesign regulations
The seating portfolio has been the central focus of the com-
that push it towards positive practices. Ecodesign criteria are pany's ecodesign activity.
defined in the design brief at the beginning of the NPD process and
this is supported by use of abridged LCA tools. In 2014, the firm A case protocol was used to guide each of the sub-cases and this
initiated a pilot activity to introduce remanufacturing, offered can be found in Appendix A.

Table 3
Overview of case studies.

Product category Launch year Market positioning Description

Case A Task Chair: Joy 2006 Low-Mid Range Adjustable, upholstered plastic back chair
Case B Visitor Chair: Cors 2007 Mid-High Range Non-adjustable, stationary, plastic back chair
Case C Task Chair: Ara 2009 Mid-High Range Adjustable, entirely plastic back chair
Case D Task Chair: Do 2012 Low-Mid Range Adjustable, fabric mesh fixed to plastic chair back
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1331

Table 4
Internal company interviews.

Interviewee Stage 1: Fact-finding Stage 2: In-depth Relevant Interview topics

interview interview to case

Designer Manager 1 1 A - Overview of product

Designer 1 1 B - Company context at outset of NPD (related to eco-initiatives)
Designer 1 e C - Eco-innovations realised
Design Manager 1 1 D - Reflection on targets set compared with final product characteristics
Senior Designer/Sustainability Lead 1 1 A,B,C,D
Design Manager/Ergonomist e 1 A,B,C,D

Table 5
External Stakeholder Interviews (Interviews relevant to all cases).

Interviewee Stakeholder Stage 1: Site Stage 2: Site Interview Topic

Visit Visit

Owner/Manager Injection Moulding - Tier 1 Supplier 1 1 - Role in decision-making during product development processes of each case
CEO Injection Moulding - Tier 1 1 1 - Discussion on key decisions relevant to ecodesign
- Evaluation of key design features
Owner/Manager Waste Management Provider 1 1 - Processes undertaken (recycling, disassembly)
Owner/Manager Waste Management Provider 1 e - Evaluation of key design features of case products
Owner/Manager Waste Management Provider 1 1

3.4. Case activities 4. Results

3.4.1. Interviews This section describes the results of the four product case
Tables 4 and 5 describe the stakeholder interviews, which were studies. Sections 4.1e 4.5 introduce the design approach for each of
conducted in two stages. the four cases, the key factors influencing the firm's ecodesign
The first stage focused on gathering information to develop decisions at that point and the main decisions taken. Section 4.5
further in-depth questions. The purpose of the internal company describes the full set of ecodesign strategies for each of the four
interviews was to build understanding of the decision-making cases and includes a cross-case analysis.
processes during the NPD, for each of the four cases. The purpose
of the external stakeholder interviews was to build understanding
of the effects of design decisions across the product life cycle. Both 4.1. Case a (Joy e launched 2006)
sets of interviews took a semi-structured approach with open and
closed questions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, coded 4.1.1. Design approach
and analysed thematically. Three sets of interview questions for The firm's main design objective was to replace an upholstered
each of the main stakeholders (designer/supplier/waste manage- plywood chair design with a new upholstered plastic option, Joy
ment provider) can be found in Appendix B. (Fig. 2). In 2004, when the NPD was initiated, there were no specific
ecodesign targets set at the outset of the project. Over the duration
of the NPD, ecodesign strategies such as design for dis- and re-
3.4.2. Desk research and observations assembly were, retrospectively, integrated within the design brief.
Desk research involved analysing documents including The reasons for this include, awareness of ecodesign within the
reviewing the design briefs, meeting minutes and project man- team spurned through initial contact with the Ecodesign Centre
agement files for each of the four cases. This allowed the aims for
each NPD to be identified and assisted with uncovering the
decision-making process during the NPD.

3.4.3. Product analysis

Each product was analysed through the following methods:

Abridged LCA was undertaken using streamlined off-the-shelf

software, chosen for quick and readily implementable results,
to support decision-making during NPD (Prendeville et al., 2013;
Prendeville, 2015).

Bills of materials assessment including: comparison of recycled
content levels used in each product and their various parts;
varieties and types of materials used; part and product mass for
each product; evaluations of recyclability and reusability of
parts and an assessment of ‘downcycling’ in the product
(Prendeville, 2015).

Reflective product evaluations were undertaken in discussion
with the design lead for each project, through qualitative com-
parison of design briefs with the final design. Fig. 2. Joy task chair.
1332 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

(2005), as well as increasingly common client requests for carbon

foot-print data. Design decisions were made in collaboration with
two key local suppliers with whom the design team worked closely
to realise key design features.

4.1.2. Key design decisions e efficiency

Initially, the main focus for this NPD was to conceive a way to
increase manufacturing efficiency by streamlining the assembly
process through use of more plastics in the product. Previously, it
manufactured chairs with moulded plywood chair backs; Poly-
urethane (PU) foam was glued to the plywood and this was then
upholstered to make up the back of the chair. The market feedback
was that plywood chairs, though aesthetically pleasing, did not
have a long enough use life. This was because the upholstering
would rip or wear exposing the seat foam and the plywood con-
struction underneath. There was a market demand for more du-
rable products than could be offered by an upholstered plywood
chair and so the focus of design effort was on developing a new
polypropylene (PP) seat and chair back. Switching materials
improved assembly efficiency and new opportunities to design for Fig. 4. Ara task chair.
disassembly could be seen (snap fits).

4.2. Case B (Cors e launched 2007) supplier's own premises). The nylon was chosen for its specific
elasticity and recyclability properties. Through these design fea-
4.2.1. Design approach tures, materials and manufacturing processes, the durability of the
The firm's strategic design objective for this NPD was to design a chair is achieved alongside design for recyclability characteristics.
durable visitor chair and the final product, Cors (Fig. 3), was However, this synergy is achieved by foregoing the earlier ambition
launched in 2007. The durability criteria set out in the brief were for manual disassembly.
required to satisfy the demanding end-user environments, typically
schools and event halls. The project was led by a senior designer 4.3. Case C (Ara e launched 2009)
and for the first time, the NPD was fully-controlled by the in-house
team. Ecodesign criteria were defined early in the design brief. 4.3.1. Design approach
This firm's strategic design aim was to design its ‘most envi-
4.2.2. Key design decisions e durability ronmental chair’ (defined in the design brief) and a number of
Design for (manual) disassembly was defined as a key ecodesign ecodesign criteria were identified to realise this ambition. The Ara
target within the design brief. Yet this was sacrificed to realise the chair (Fig. 4) was launched onto the marked in 2009.
durability requirements in the product. To create a durable design, This NPD coincided with the firm participating in an Ecodesign
the nylon seat was moulded over the steel chair frame, so that the Support Package1 which provided access to finance and specialist
two main components in the chair are semi-permanently moulded expertise to develop a new business offering in parallel to devel-
together. To separate these two parts, during the NPD testing ac- oping a product take-back system. With the financial support ac-
tivities, an independent supplier purpose-built a fly-press rig to quired through the Ecodesign Support Package, it C2C certified this
shear the nylon seat off the steel chair mainframe. The supplier new chair. This informed the design approach, which was centred
described how the steel frame can be ‘reused’ whereas the nylon on designing for recyclability and reducing toxicity of materials
was ‘reground for reprocessing’ into a new test part (at the through supplier collaborations. By this time carbon foot-printing
was a standard activity within the NPD process. However, this
carbon foot-printing was use predominantly for marketing pur-
poses. It was also used as an early indicator of the chair's envi-
ronmental performance in comparison with other chairs in the
portfolio.

4.3.2. Key design decisions e recyclability

The firm's evolving knowledge of ecodesign influenced its de-
cisions during this NPD. Previous ‘mistakes’ where parts were co-
moulded seemingly needlessly, stimulated a commitment to
avoid co-moulded design features from this point onwards. Mate-
rial streamlining to facilitate closed material loops through accu-
mulation of clean ‘material banks’ was driven by its commitment to
C2C, as well as a wider market trend towards C2C certification
within the office furniture sector (see Lee and Bony, 2008). Upon
recommendation from McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry,
the materials chosen for this chair focused on recyclability,

1
Fig. 3. Cors visitor chair. Hosted by the Ecodesign Centre, Wales, funded by the Welsh government.
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1333

wider decisions about the product. For instance, due to the high
cost of the aluminium material the cast manufacturing was out-
sourced to a supplier in the Far East. The environmental impact of
the chair was assessed and based on the company's own carbon
footprint analysis, as well as through abridged LCA, is higher than
those chairs described in cases A and D (Table 2). This revealed a
paradox, an apparent contradiction, between the C2C paradigm's
recommendations and the LCA results.

4.4. Case D (Do e launched 2012)

4.4.1. Design approach

At the firm, the market trend to simplify chair aesthetics influ-
enced its strategic design aim to streamline and reduce ergonomic
controls on this product, focusing on an evolution of the chair
which switched from hard plastics to mesh fabrics, Do (Fig. 5). One
effect of the high environmental impact of the Ara chair (Case C e
Section 4.3.1), led to ‘dematerialisation’ of the product (light-
weighting) becoming a key design objective for this NPD. This move
Fig. 5. Do chair. towards ‘dematerialising’ the chair was expected to reduce its
carbon footprint while also meeting the market demands. Abridged
LCA was increasingly used during the design processes, predomi-
specifically aluminium was recommended as a ‘technical nutrient’
nantly to make comparisons between similar products within the
suited to perpetual, closed loop recycling. This had an impact on
firm portfolio.

Table 6
Summary of ecodesign strategies, eco-innovations and dilemmas identified.

Case Ecodesign strategies Product eco-innovations realised Dilemma description

defined in the brief

A Design for assembly Gluing replaced with a co-moulding process to This creates a composite part of two different materials that are
Design for durability assemble the seat foam to a plastic seat back difficult and uneconomical to separate
Design for dis- and re-assembly Snap fits replace screws in new plastic parts. Snap fits decrease dis- and assembly time improving efficiency e
achieved by substitution plywood with PP, yet, the plywood has a
lower carbon impact and abridged LCA score
B Design for durability Nylon seat is moulded over a steel rod frame increasing Design for Disassembly e over-moulding the parts means
the strength in the fracture joints disassembly is only possible by shearing the nylon off the steel rod
frame thereby damaging the part integrity
Material Streamlining e a range of plastics required to achieve
durability performance required
Design for recyclability Nylon seat moulded over a steel rod frame increases Design for Disassembly e co-moulding the parts foregoes manual
strength in the fracture joints and reduces need for glass disassembly, shearing the nylon off the steel rod frame through a
fillers in the plastic thereby improving its recyclability bespoke rig, damaging part integrity
Material substitution An expensive high strength nylon is opted for to achieve Recycled content inclusion e recycled content material of the same
durability in plastic parts grade of the nylon used is unavailable to the supplier
C Design for disassembly Tongue and groove assembly design feature allows for Recyclability e ‘New’ strong plastic material which facilitates this
fastener-free disassembly and re-assembly of two major design, has ‘low’ recyclability on account of reinforcing glass fibres,
plastic components. which are sheared during recycling, reducing the material's
strength and overall performance Durability
e overall durability of part assembly is reduced e fasteners
reintroduced to reinforce assembly
Avoid Co-mouldings Two grades of elastomer moulded together to create an Recyclability e expert assessment of the recyclability (two grades of
arm control that is strong with an aesthetic ‘soft-touch’ the same material) found that different grades have different
finish melting temperatures making recycling problematic
Increase recycled content The inner arm pad uses reconstituted PU foam Durability - through reduced physical properties
Material selection for The chair uses aluminium rather than plastic in the base Energy e Replacing plastic with aluminium requires additional
recyclability as well as in the back to foster greater recyclability. polishing process, which increases the production energy use
High cost of aluminium e casting processes outsourced to Far East
increasing transport
C2C design protocol Toxicity Reduction: (1) Reformulated grease and oil LCA results show high environmental impacts for this product when
used during processes compared with similar products in the firm's portfolio.
(2) New PU seat foam formulation developed with
lower Volatile Organic Compounds
D Dematerialise Finite Element Analysis used during NPD to reduce Recyclability e Reduced opportunities for recycled content
materials by 18% in comparison to its market inclusion on account of the stress on dematerialised parts
predecessor (case A)
Part integration reduces part count Recyclability e increase in composite material use for strength
Product has highest mass of virgin material of all four products -
paradoxical outcome, in light of strategy to dematerialise
Material streamlining Assembly of PET mesh, thread and gasket in the back of Final assembly generates combination of PET materials of different
the chair thought to generate a mono-material well grades e which negatively impacts recyclability due to varying melt
suited to recycling temperatures
Additional heat process required for tensioning mesh
1334 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

measured against Joy (Case A) and was achieved by integrating

functionality and streamlining the back of the chair, the chair's
motion mechanism and back frame. A chair mechanism was pur-
chased from a sub-supplier as a ‘standard’ off-the-shelf component
with whom the design team worked closely to customize, removing
parts not necessary for this product. It transpired that, though the
product is lighter overall, the bills of materials analysis (Table 2)
found that this product has a lower quantity of recycled material
and a higher quantity of virgin material than that in case A, yet still
has the lowest environmental impacts. This raised questions about
the interplay between resource efficiency strategies (such as light-
weighting) with the overall environmental impacts of the product.
It also led to the systematic measurement of quantities of recycled
content and virgin materials in the bills of materials across the
product portfolio.
Fig. 6. Classification of ecodesign dilemmas.

4.5. Cross-case analysis: ecodesign dilemmas identified in the cases

4.4.2. Key design decisions e light-weighting
The design team opted for familiar and reliable materials, which
Table 6 describes the ecodesign criteria defined in the design
they had previously used. The light-weighting of the product was
brief, the product eco-innovations realised and the dilemmas

Table 7
Analysis according to Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho (2015) with a Classification of Unique Ecodesign Dilemmas.

Strategy Dilemma description Classification Decision-level

Design assembly Disassembly e This creates a composite part of two different materials that are Tension Tactical
Design for durability difficult and uneconomical to separate Tension Tactical/Strategic
Design for dis- and re- Snap fits decrease dis- and assembly time improving efficiency e achieved by Contradiction Operational
assembly replacing plywood with PP, yet, the plywood has a lower abridged LCA score
Design for durability Disassembly e over-moulding the parts means disassembly is only possible by Tension Operational
shearing the nylon off the steel rod frame thereby damaging the part integrity
Material Streamlining e a range of plastics required to achieve durability Tension Operational/
performance required Tactical
Design for recyclability Design for Disassembly e co-moulding the parts foregoes manual disassembly, Tension Operational
shearing the nylon off the steel rod frame through a bespoke rig, damaging part
integrity
Material substitution Recycled content inclusion e recycled content material of the same grade of the Tension Operational
nylon is unavailable to the supplier
Design for disassembly Recyclability e ‘New’ high strength plastic used to facilitate new design, has Tension Operational
‘low’ recyclability on account of reinforcing glass fibres, which are sheared
during recycling, reducing the material's strength and overall performance
Durability e overall durability of part assembly is reduced e Tension Operational/
Tactical
Due to reduced durability additional manufacturing process re-introduced to fix Oversight Operational/
parts with fasteners Tactical
Avoid Co-mouldings Recyclability e expert assessment of the recyclability indicates that different Tension Operational/
grades of the same material have different melting temperatures making Tactical
recycling problematic
Increase recycled content Durability e through reduced physical properties Tension Operational/
Tactical
Material selection for Energy e Replacing plastic with aluminium requires additional polishing Oversight Operational
recyclability process, which increases the production energy use
High cost of aluminium e casting processes outsourced to Far East increasing Contradiction Strategic
transport
C2C design protocol LCA measures high environmental impacts for this product when compared Contradiction Tactical/Strategic
with similar products in the firm's portfolio.
Dematerialise Recyclability e Reduced opportunities for recycled content inclusion on account Tension Operational
of the stress on dematerialised parts
Recyclability e increase in composite material use for strength Tension Operational
Product has highest mass of virgin material of all four products - paradoxical Contradiction Operational
outcome, in light of strategy to dematerialise
Material streamlining Assembly combines PET materials of different grades e negatively impacts Tension Operational
recyclability due to varying melt temperatures
Additional heat process required for tensioning new fabric mesh Oversight Operational/
Tactical
Durability More mass of material to strengthen parts, which reduces material efficiency Tension Strategic
Design for repair, Newly manufactured products may be more energy efficient Contradiction Strategica
remanufacturing
Light-weighting Requires composite material which in turn negatively affects recyclability Tension Operationala
Design for recyclability Shortens product and/or part lifetime due to lower quality which can lead to Contradiction Strategica
early part or product failure
a
Denotes instances taken from literature and therefore decision-level is assumed.
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1335

Table 8
Key transition phases towards business model innovation (nine-year timeline).

Case Main dilemmas observed Design approach Influencing factors Learning points

A Tensions: Efficiency-led
External partnerships initiate
Growing ecodesign awareness

Design for efficient assembly Focus on recyclate and recyclability, ecodesign process
Single indicators perceived as
precludes easy manual disassembly efficient manufacturing
Customer requests deficient approach
to keep parts in-tact
Localised manufacturing base
B Hierarchies: Durability-led
Increasing awareness of third-party
Incompatibility between strategies
durability and recyclability work in- Focus on durability, design for after-market resales through rema- means some ‘twin’ and others are
tandem yet preclude in-tact part Long-life nufacturing/leasing mutually exclusive
disassembly
Increasing awareness of design for
disassembly
C Contradictions: Efficiency-led
Wider sector trends
Business context perceived critical
LCA results and C2C C2C certification drives focus on
Insights from previous NPDs for rational design approach (some
guidance appear contradictory recyclate, recyclability
Learning from partnerships with strategies more-or-less suited to
external experts certain business contexts)
D Oversights: Twinned approach
High impacts of aluminium
Need for multiple evaluation
Design for ‘light-weighting’ in conflict focus on durability and light- (identified through LCA of case B) indicators and review criteria
with resource efficiency weighting in tandem lead to a focus on light-weighting
Measures of recycled content

Expanding knowledge of importance systematically integrated in product
of business model bills of materials

identified across each of the cases A, B, C, D. In Table 6 the tra- affecting the firm's decision-making and the critical learning
jectory of the firm's ecodesign decision-making can be observed. points observed. It shows the dominant dilemmas for each case
We see how the design team initiated ecodesign through product and the main effect these had on the companies decision-
design strategies (eg in cases A and B through dis- and re- making at the time. This shows how the firm's ecodesign focus
assembly or durability) to using formalised approaches offered gradually shifted from product design to seeing the business
by external collaborators (such as the C2C Design Protocol used model as a key consideration to rationalise its ecodesign
in Case C) and finally we see a shift back to efficiency strategies strategy.
(case D). It reflects the difficulty of incorporating all ecodesign In the cases presented, we empirically describe the evolution of
principles simultaneously in one design and the multi-level na- ecodesign in a single firm to complement emerging theoretical
ture of dilemmas observed (eg operational, strategic, life-cycle frameworks derived by other authors (Zhang et al., 2013; Brones
oriented). et al., 2015). Nevertheless, in this case, the process is self-
determined and transitional, unfolding over a timeframe of nine
5. Analysis & discussion years. In 2005, the firm initiated ecodesign at the operational level
(through initial adoption of ecodesign strategies), with a gradual
5.1. Uncovering ecodesign dilemmas evolution and integration of tactical managerial processes over
consecutive NPDs (key performance indicators, review stages).
In this section, we categorise the ecodesign dilemmas identified Eventually by 2014, it was beginning to systematically consider
within both the literature (Table 1) and the case studies (Table 6) new business models, in particular a product-service-system
according to the operational, tactical and strategic decision-making approach. This involved piloting a new remanufacturing offering
framework described by Brones and Monteiro De Carvalho (2015). through either direct-sales or leasing products to customers. This is
Combining these data-sets allowed for the development of a new because it was found that, the business model contextualises eco-
classification of ecodesign dilemmas according to the unique set design decisions. For instance, at the conceptual stages of the NPD,
identified. Fig. 6 illustrates and defines this new framework. Table 7 described in case C, the firm set out to design its ‘most environ-
shows the analysis e hierarchies between multiple strategies are mental chair’ which it believed could be enabled by a C2C certifi-
denoted by the hatched areas and solid lines in the left-most col- cation. However, abridged LCA found that this chair actually has
umn. The unique set of dilemmas identified through the analysis comparatively high environmental impacts when taken in the
are defined as: context of a direct-sales business model (Prendeville et al., 2013;
Prendeville, 2015), where multiple product life cycles are not pro-

Tensions e bilateral tensions between two ecodesign strategies actively managed by the firm.

Hierarchies e synergies and preclusions between two or more The firm's evolution, described as its learning experiences and
ecodesign strategies where a single dominant strategy, or key transitional phases, can be identified and are described in Fig. 7
reinforcing synergies, precludes others (derived from the conceptual framework defined in Fig. 1). This

Contradictions e ecodesign strategies lead to unintended in- illustration of the firm's trajectory shows how it moves from
creases in environmental impacts, or, paradoxical outcomes are operational actions to tactical to eventually consider strategic
observed in approaches to sustainable innovation business elements, in this case piloting a new business model, as

Oversights e emphasis on one ecodesign strategy disavows important for its ecodesign approach. The key characteristics of
other potentially synergistic ones causing blind spots in eco- each phase are as follows:
design decision-making
1 Exploring Phase (operational) e inspired yet ad-hoc and
spontaneous actions

Focus on efficiency measures (dis- and re-assembly for recy-
5.2. Ecodesign e fuelling business model innovation
cling/durability)
2 Evolving Phase (tactical) e initial learnings starting to become
Table 8 summarises the main ecodesign dilemmas identified
internalised
in each of the four cases, the core design approach, key factors
1336 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

Fig. 7. Key ecodesign dilemmas and transition phases towards business model inno-
vation (KPI ¼ key performance indicators, BM ¼ business model). Fig. 8. Unified approach to managing ecodesign dilemmas e operational, Tactical,
strategic.

Semi-integrated approach driven bottom-up by design team

Ecodesign criteria systematically defined in design brief (Yin, 2003), through the use of multiple data sources within the

Combination and application of multiple ecodesign strategies firm and externalising the results through scientific validation

Carbon foot-printing used for external communications (with expert material scientists and LCA experts). Such approaches
3 Embedding Phase (strategic) e careful evaluation and reflec- also support the independence of the study, which is also impor-
tion are characteristic tant in light of the collaborative action research methodology

Focus on scaling processes systematically across product chosen.
portfolio This research focuses on dilemmas linked to ecodesign strate-

Early stage LCA undertaken systematically across product gies relevant to office furniture as adopted by the firm. Other di-
portfolio lemmas exist that pose barriers to innovation, which are influenced

Needs for multiple indicators recognized (environmental and by a broad range of factors (organisational, market-based, cultural,
efficiency measures) supply chain influences) and are therefore important for companies

C2C principles internalised to consider. Further research would consider dilemmas across a
4 Unifying Phase (operational, tactical and strategic) e ecode- range of product categories, the broad set of factors influencing
sign actions are responsive to strategic imperative decision-making (markets, competitors), as well as a broad set of

Ecodesign strategy and business model perceived as co- design criteria (functional characteristics, cost) as well as system-
dependent atically assessing decisions with respect to the product life-cycle
(from material extraction to the end-of-life). Despite these limita-
While this broadly summarises its process of ecodesign actions tions, the results are insightful for the wider discipline. The main
and learning, the phases described here are not rigid and distinct academic contributions include:
but rather unfolded in an organic, overlapping and iterative way.
The framework in Fig. 8 shows the typical actions taken and the
Empirically describing a long-term ecodesign case study to
different types of ecodesign dilemmas that can be managed complement theoretical work on ecodesign maturity modelling
through either operational, tactical and strategic actions. A com- (Pigosso et al., 2013) and ecodesign transition frameworks
bination of operational, tactical and strategic activities are needed (Brones et al., 2014; Bonou et al., 2016)
for firms to systematically manage all types of ecodesign dilemmas
Illustrating the practitioner's perspective on how ecodesign di-
identified. lemmas are negotiated in practice building on previous work by
Byggeth and Hochschorner (2006)

Developing a new classification of ecodesign dilemmas (Fig. 6)
5.3. Contributions, limitations and further work and integrating this with the concept of business model inno-
vation (Figs. 7 and 8)
The conclusions presented here are based on an in-depth case-
study at a single firm and therefore the results have limitations. From an industrial viewpoint, the research offers insights into
However, Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) and Yin (2003) recog- how an ecodesign process unfolds in an applied setting, sharing
nise that single case studies may be chosen because they are practices for industrial benchmarking.
revelatory, provide extreme exemplars, or provide particular op-
portunities for unusual research access. This study presented op-
portunities to conduct empirical research on an exemplary case of 6. Conclusion
ecodesign decision-making in practice, at a small-to-medium sized
enterprise, over an extended time-frame. The aim of this article was to explore ecodesign dilemmas from
The action research method prioritised action and imple- a constructivist viewpoint: How do ecodesign dilemmas relate to a
mentation at the case company and at times the lead researcher firm's ecodesign evolution? Four case studies of NPD outline a
was immersed in its day-to-day activities. This allowed for rich data single firm's path to strategic ecodesign decision-making that led
collection but can also cause researcher bias. Therefore, the reli- it to business model innovation. From the cases a unique set of
ability of the study was fostered through the use of a case protocol ecodesign dilemmas is defined: tensions, hierarchies,
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1337

contradictions and oversights. These dilemmas are identified 3. Materials & Manufacturing Processes
through four transitions phases at the case firm: exploring;
evolving; embedding; unifying. This evolution shows how firms
Could you describe the material selection approach for the
need to adopt a unified approach, combining operational (eco- product?
design principles approach), tactical (management processes:
What materials are used in each of the key innovations? Why
NPD goals, review criteria) and strategic actions (business model were these materials used?
innovation) to systematically manage the range of ecodesign di-
What are the main manufacturing processes for each
lemmas they encounter. From this, we develop a framework innovation?
describing key actions according to operational, tactical and
When in the design process did you decide to use this set of
strategic ecodesign and the types of ecodesign dilemmas typical materials?
to each approach. Importantly, the business model is shown to
Did you introduce any new materials to the portfolio during this
contextualise ecodesign dilemmas. Managing ecodesign di- NPD?
lemmas is a key aspect of an effective ecodesign strategy, that can
How is the material grade decided on? Do variations in grades
be more clearly understood when the business model is consid- affect your design?
ered. In light of this, the frameworks defined in this study are
What is the impact of specifying material grades on the product
important tools for further work. design, if any?
Finally, we see how the strategic integration of ecodesign in
How do you consider recycled content during the design
firms can be evolutionary. In this firm, the process started with the process?
use of basic ecodesign principles, eventually leading to a pilot study
Were there any materials that you wanted to use but didn't or
for business model innovation. This happened because the design couldn't for some reason? If so, can you elaborate please?
team's actions fuelled cycles of learning that stimulated this need
for business model innovation. This means that design can drive
sustainable change in firms, from the bottom-up, towards new 4 Additional Comments
business models.

Do you have any other comments?
Acknowledgements
Supplier Interview Guide
This work was in part-funded by the European Social Fund un-
der the European Regional Development Fund. The authors would
Date:
like to thank the participating firm for its collaboration, the jour-
Location:
nal's subject editor and a number of anonymous reviewers whose
Interviewee:
input at the early stages of the article has been invaluable.
Participant Information Sheet

Appendix A. Interview Guides

1. Business Overview
Designer Interview Guide

Main Business Activities

Typical Clients
Date:

Key applications and sectors
Location:

Supply Chain Position
Interviewee:

1. Project Overview
2. Design and Development

Key project aims

Design brief
You work quite closely with the design team at Orangebox. Can

Project team and key suppliers you describe your role during their NPD processes?

Duration e breakdown of structure of NPD activities
Were you involved in the development of products, A, B, C and

For some projects, you have set specific ecodesign strategies seat D? Could you describe your role in each of these?
out in the
What stages of the process are you involved in?

brief. Can you describe any ecodesign criteria in the project
What type of information requests do you receive from the
brief? How were design team? Could you elaborate on this?

these targets decided on?
Do you tend to give recommendations for specific materials
during the NPD process? If YES could you elaborate on this?

What is the influence of the product design on your
2. Design and Development manufacturing processes and material choice?

Describe the design process for this project.

Can you talk me through the key innovations in this product? 3. Materials and Processes

How did these innovations come about?

What were the key decisions around them?
Please describe your material portfolio and manufacturing

What expertise was required to deliver them? processes.

What were the major design challenges?
How do new materials typically come into your portfolio? Can

What stage in the design process did the ideas come? you give an example?

What were the requirements from the material?
What are the challenges to increasing recycled content in your

Who was involved in the decision-making? products? Can you give some examples?
1338 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339

Do you tend to specify material grades? If yes, could you elab-

orate? If no, why not? Purpose The aim of the case studies is to examine decision-making

[Specific to Supplier X] Orangebox previously undertook a C2C during new product development and from this map a set of
certification of one of their products. I believe ‘you supported ecodesign dilemmas
them in this process? Could you describe your role in the C2C Objectives
Determine general design approach for each case

Determine ecodesign criteria defined in the brief
certification?
Determine key decisions made to realise a given criteria,
or, if criteria were adapted determine why and how

Reflect on the outcomes realised in the product through
evaluations of design features
5 Additional Comments Unit of analysis The focus of the cases is on ecodesign decisions made by
design practitioners during processes of new product

Do you have any additional comments? development
Structure
Background & context

Motivation and rationale for new product
Waste Manager Interview Guide
Key project team

Ecodesign criteria in brief

Important design decisions related to ecodesign criteria
Date:
(materials, processes, features)
Location:
Description of material selection decisions
Interviewee:
Descriptions of key product eco-innovations
Participant Information Sheet
Bills of materials analysis and abridged LCA per product
Interpretation
Comparison of ecodesign strategies defined at beginning
of each new product development with features
1. Business Overview realised in final product

Comparison of ecodesign strategies applied with those
identified in the literature review

Main Business Activities

Reflection on key product eco-innovations with key

Typical Clients suppliers and other stakeholders (material analysts,

Key applications and sectors of waste material waste management providers)

Supply Chain Position
Comparison of bills of materials and LCA results between
cases A, C, D

Pattern-matching across and between cases and with the
wider literature
2. Materials and Processes Sources of Primary
information
Interviews

Observations

Can you give me an overview of materials being processed at the
Bills of materials analysis, abridged LCA
site? Secondary

Can you give me an overview of sorting, disassembly and sep-
Product communications

Project meeting notes (review, managerial, suppliers)
aration processes at the site? Can you describe what happens to

Internal project reports, e-mails, presentations
these types of products when they arrive at the facility?

What is the relevance of high or low recycled contents on your
processes, if any?

What is the relevance of varying material grades on your pro- References
cesses, if any? Al-Oqla, F.M., Sapuan, S.M., 2015. Polymer selection approach for commonly and
uncommonly used natural fibers under uncertainty environments. JOM 67 (10),
2450e2463.
Al-Oqla, F.M., Sapuan, M.S., Ishak, M.R., Aziz, N.A., 2014. Combined multi-criteria
4. Design and Development evaluation stage technique as an agro waste evaluation indicator for poly-
meric composites: date palm fibers as a case study. BioResources 9 (3),
4608e4621.

What is the influence of the product design on your processes? Ashby, M.F., 2011. Materials selection in mechanical design. Chp. 7. Mult. Constraints

If you could give recommendations to designers when speci- Confl. Object. 197e216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-663-7.00007-2.
fying materials what would Bakker, C., et al., 2012. Rethinking eco-design priorities: the case of the econova
television. In: Electronics Goes Green, Taking Green to the Next Level. Fraun-

they be? hofereVerlag, Berlin, Germany.

In relation to products A, B, C and D? Could you describe the Baumann, H., Boons, F., Bragd, A., 2002. Mapping the green product development
typical processing for field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 10, 409e425.
Besch, K., 2005. Product-service systems for office furniture: barriers and oppor-

each of these products?
tunities on the European market. J. Clean. Prod. 13 (10e11), 1083e1094.

In relation to products A, B, C and D? Are there any aspects of the Bocken, N., Allwood, J., Willey, A., King, J., 2011. Development of an eco-ideation tool
design that are to identify stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for consumer

particularly problematic for you to manage? goods. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (12), 1279e1287.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S., 2014. A literature and practice review
to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42e56.
Bonou, A., Skelton, K., Olsen, S.I., 2016. Ecodesign framework for developing wind
turbines. J. Clean. Prod. 1e11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.093.
5 Additional Comments Boons, F., Lüdeke-Freund, F., 2013. Business models for sustainable innovation:
state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9e19.
Borchardt, M., et al., 2012. Ecodesign case studies for furniture companies using the

Do you have any additional comments?
analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Theory, Appl. Pract. 19 (8).
Bovea, M.D., Pe rez-Belis, V., 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating
environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 20
Appendix B. Case Protocol (1), 61e71.
Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating
healthy emissionsea strategy for eco-effective product and system design.
 S.M. Prendeville et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1327e1339 1339

J. Clean. Prod. 15 (13), 1337e1348. Welch-Devine, M., 2011. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity
Brennan, G., Tennant, M., Blomsma, F., 2015. Business and production solutions 10: conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144 (3), 966e972.
closing loops and the circular economy. In: Kopnina, H., Shoreman-Ouimet, E. Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2016. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
(Eds.), Sustainability, Key Issues. Earthscan Routledge, p. 210. agement context: a survey exploring the project managers' perspective. Int. J.
Brezet, H., Van Hemel, C., 1997. Ecodesign: a Promising Approach to Sustainable Proj. Manag. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0263786316300163.
Production and consumption., Paris. Moses, J.W., Knutsen, T.L., 2007. Ways of Knowing. Competing Methodologies in
Brones, F., De Carvalho, M.M., Zancul, E.D.S., 2014. Ecodesign in project manage- Social and Political Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke & New York.
ment: a missing link for the integration of sustainability in product develop- Niekamp, S., Bharadwaj, U.R., Sadhukhan, J., Chryssanthopoulos, M.K., 2015.
ment? J. Clean. Prod. 80, 106e118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ A multi-criteria decision support framework for sustainable asset management
j.jclepro.2014.05.088. and challenges in its application. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 32 (1), 23e36. http://
Brones, F., Monteiro De Carvalho, M., 2015. From 50 to 1: integrating literature dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2014.1000401.
toward a systemic ecodesign model. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 44e47. http://dx.doi.org/ O'Connor, F.J., Hawkes, D., 2001. A multi-stakeholder abridged environmentally
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.036. conscious design approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6 (4), 250-250.
Bryman, A., Bell, E., 2015. Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, USA. O'Rafferty, S., O'Connor, F., 2010. Regional perspectives on capacity building for
Byggeth, S., Hochschorner, E., 2006. Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for ecodesign e insights from Wales. In: Sarkis, J., Cordeiro, J.J., Vazquez Brust, D.
sustainable product development and procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 14 (15e16), (Eds.), Facilitating Sustainable Innovation through Collaboration SE - 9. Springer
1420e1430. Netherlands, pp. 159e183.
Carlos, J., Garcia, C., Filho, E.R., 2008. Ecodesign Method for Office Furniture with Paulson, F., Sundin, E., 2015. Challenges and trends within eco-design. In: Inter-
Emphasis on Information Gathering for Product Environmental improvement., national Conference on EcoDesign2015, Tokyo, December 2-4, 2015.
6(June), pp. 39e44. Pigosso, Daniela C.A., Rozenfeld, H., McAloone, T.C., 2013. Ecodesign maturity
Centre for European Policy Studies, 2014. Bolognini A. The EU Furniture Market model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into
Situation and a Possible Furniture Products Initiative. Final Report submitted to manufacturing companies. J. Clean. Prod. (0)
the European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry. Brussels. Pigosso, D.C.A., McAloone, T.C., Rozenfeld, H., 2016. Characterization of the state-of-
Collado-Ruiz, D., Ostad-Ahmad-Ghorabi, H., 2013. Estimating environmental the-art and identification of main trends for Ecodesign Tools and Methods:
behavior without performing a life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 17 (1), 31e42. classifying three decades of research and implementation. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 95
Costa, F., Prendeville, S., Beverley, K., Teso, G., Brooker, C., 2015. Sustainable product- (4), 405e428.
service systems for an office furniture manufacturer: how insights from a pilot Prendeville, S., O'Connor, F., Sherry, J., Palmer, L., 2013. Ecodesign trade-offs in new
study can inform PSS design. Procedia CIRP 30, 66e71. product development. In: LCA Avnir Conference. Lille.
Dekoninck, E.A., Domingo, L., O'Hare, J.A., Pigosso, D.C.A., Reyes, T., Troussier, N., Prendeville, S., 2015. Ecodesign and Material Selection for Eco-innovation in Office
2016. Defining the challenges for ecodesign implementation in companies: Furniture (PhD thesis).
development and consolidation of a framework. J. Clean. Prod. http:// Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Choi, J.-K., Koho, M., Zhao, F., Ramani, K., 2014.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.045 (in press). Prioritizing design for environment strategies using a stochastic analytic hier-
Deutz, P., McGuire, M., Neighbour, G., 2013. Eco-design practice in the context of a archy process. J. Mech. Des. 136 (7), 71002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4025701.
structured design process: an interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manu- Robson, C., McCartan, K., 2016. Real World Research. Wiley.
facturers. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 117e128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Rossi, M., Germani, M., Zamagni, A., 2016. Review of ecodesign methods and tools.
j.jclepro.2012.08.035. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies.
Domingo, L., Buckingham, M., Dekoninck, E., Cornwell, H., 2015. The importance of J. Clean. Prod. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.051.
understanding the business context when planning eco-design activities. J. Ind. Russo, D., Regazzoni, D., Montecchi, T., 2011. Eco-design with TRIZ laws of evolution.
Prod. Eng. 32 (1), 3e11. http://www.tandfonline.com.gaelnomade.ujf-grenoble. Procedia Eng. 9, 311e322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.03.121.
fr/doi/abs/10.1080/21681015.2014.1000398. Russo, D., Rizzi, C., Montelisciani, G., 2014. Inventive guidelines for a TRIZ-based
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities eco-design matrix. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 95e105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
and challenges. ACAD Manag. J. 50 (1), 25e32. j.jclepro.2014.04.057.
European Commission, 2012. Ecodesign Your Future. How Ecodesign Can Help the Russo, D., Serafini, M., Rizzi, C., 2016. Is TRIZ an ecodesign method?. In: Sustainable
Environment by Making Products Smarter. Available at: http://bookshop. Design and Manufacturing 2016. Springer International Publishing,
europa.eu/en/ecodesign-your-future-pbNB3112737/? pp. 525e535.
CatalogCategoryID¼EhEKABstLQkAAAEjyZAY4e5L. Sherwin, C., Evans, S., 2000. Ecodesign innovation: is “early” always “best”?. In:
Fiksel, J., 1993. Design for environment: an integrated systems approach. In: Pro- International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, pp. 112e117.
ceedings of the 1993 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Souza, G.C., 2013. Closed-loop supply chains: a critical review, and future research*.
Environment. Decis. Sci. 44 (1), 7e38.
Furniture Industry Research Association, 2011. A Study into the Feasibility of Spitzley, D.V., Dietz, B.A., Keoleian, G.A., 2006. Life-cycle Assessment of Office
Benchmarking Carbon Footprints of Furniture Products. Furniture Products Life-cycle Assessment of Office Furniture Products. Ann
Gamage, G.B., Boyle, C., McLaren, J., 2007. Life cycle assessment of commercial Arbor. Available at: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS06-11.pdf.
furniture: a case study of Formway life chair. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 119e124. TNO., 2006. Environmental Impacts of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the Life Cycle
Gibson, R.B., 2013. Avoiding sustainability trade-offs in environmental assessment. Environmental Impacts Related to the Consumption of the EU-25.
Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 31 (1), 2e12. Tukker, A., 2015. Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economyea
Gmelin, H., Seuring, S., 2014. Determinants of a sustainable new product develop- review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76e91.
ment. J. Clean. Prod. 69, 1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.053. Tyl, B., Vallet, F., Bocken, N.M.P., Real, M., 2015. The integration of a stakeholder
Gutowski, T.G., Sahni, S., Boustani, A., Graves, S.C., 2011. Remanufacturing and en- perspective into the front end of eco-innovation: a practical approach. J. Clean.
ergy savings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (10), 4540e4547. Prod. 108, 543e557. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
IBISWorld, 2015. Countering Competition. Revenue Grows Despite Increasing S0959652615010768.
Pressure from Imports. Report C31.010. Office and Shop Furniture Van de Ven, A.H., 2007. Engaged Scholarship: a Guide for Organizational and Social
Manufacturing in the UK. Research: a Guide for Organizational and Social Research. OUP Oxford.
JRC, Revision of the European Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement (GPP) Criteria Verhulst, E., Boks, C., Stranger, M., Masson, H., 2007. The human side of ecodesign
for Furniture, 2013. from the perspective of change management. Science 107e112. http://
Koshy, E., Koshy, V., Waterman, H., 2010. Action Research in Healthcare. Sage. dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-935-4_19.
Knight, P., Jenkins, J.O., 2009. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: a Verhulst, E., Boks, C., 2012. Sustainable design strategies in practice and their in-
practitioners' perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (5), 549e558. fluence on business models. In: Design for Innovative Value towards a Sus-
Lee, D., Bony, L.J., 2008. Cradle-to-cradle Design at Herman Miller: Moving toward tainable Society - Proceedings of EcoDesign 2011e7th International Symposium
Environmental Sustainability. HBS Case, (607e003). on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, pp. 413e418.
Le Pochat, S., Bertoluci, G., Froelich, D., 2007. Integrating ecodesign by conducting Yin, R.K., 2003. In: Bickman, L., Rog, D.J. (Eds.), Case Study Research: Design and
changes in SMEs. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (7), 671e680. Methods. Sage Publications.
Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J., 2006. EcoDesign and the Ten Golden Rules: generic Zhang, F., Rio, M., Allais, R., Zwolinski, P., Carrillo, T.R., Roucoules, L., Mercier-
advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean. Laurent, E., Buclet, N., 2013. Toward an systemic navigation framework to
Prod. 14 (15e16), 1396e1408. integrate sustainable development into the company. J. Clean. Prod. 54,
McShane, T.O., Hirsch, P.D., Trung, T.C., Songorwa, A.N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., 199e214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.054.