American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Advanced
  • Previous Article
    A study of numerical integration based on Legendre polynomial and RLS algorithm
  • NACO Home
  • This Issue
  • Next Article
    A robust multi-trip vehicle routing problem of perishable products with intermediate depots and time windows
December  2017, 7(4): 435-455. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017027

An investigation of the most important factors for sustainable product development using evidential reasoning

Farzaneh Ahmadzadeh , Kathrina Jederström , , Maria Plahn , Anna Olsson and  Isabell Foyer

School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden

* Corresponding author

Received  October 2016 Revised  August 2017 Published  October 2017

Fund Project: This paper was prepared at the occasion of The 12th International Conference on Industrial Engineering (ICIE 2016), Tehran, Iran, January 25-26,2016, with its Associate Editors of Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization (NACO) being Assoc. Prof. A. (Nima) Mirzazadeh, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran, and Prof. Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Those working in product development need to consider sustainability, being careful not to compromise the future generation's ability to satisfy its needs. Several strategies guide companies towards sustainability. This paper studies six of these strategies: eco-design, green design, cradle-to-cradle, design for environment, zero waste, and life cycle approaches. Based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews, it identifies 22 factors of sustainability from the perspective of manufacturers. The purpose is to determine which are the most important and to use them as a foundation for a new design strategy. A survey based on the 22 factors was given to people working with product development; they graded each factor by importance. The resulting qualitative data were analyzed using evidential reasoning. The analysis found the factors "minimize use of toxic substances, " "increase competitiveness, " "economic benefits, " "reduce material usage, " "material selection, " "reduce emissions, " and "increase product functionality" are more important and should serve as the foundation for a new approach to sustainable product development.

Keywords: Sustainable design, product development, evidential reasoning, sustainable product development strategy, Multi Criteria Decision Making.
Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 62C86, 62P12; Secondary: 90B50.
Citation: Farzaneh Ahmadzadeh, Kathrina Jederström, Maria Plahn, Anna Olsson, Isabell Foyer. An investigation of the most important factors for sustainable product development using evidential reasoning. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2017, 7 (4) : 435-455. doi: 10.3934/naco.2017027
References:
[1]

F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Using evidential reasoning approach for prioritization of maintenance-related waste caused by human factors -a case study, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 90 (2017), 2761-2775.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9377-7.  Google Scholar

[2]

F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Classification of Maintenance-related Waste Based on Human Factors, Neuchatel, Switzerland, Conference on Operations, Management for Sustainable Competitveness (22nd EurOMA), 2015. Google Scholar

[3]

P. T. Anastas and J. B. Zimmerman, Through the 12 principles of green engineering, Environ. Sci. Technol, 1 (2003), 95-101.  doi: 10.1021/es032373g.  Google Scholar

[4]

C. A. Bakker, R. Wever, C. Teoh and S. De Clerq, Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check, Internat J. Sus. Eng., 3 (2010), 2-8.  doi: 10.1080/19397030903395166.  Google Scholar

[5]

H. Baumann, F. Boons and A Bragd, Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 10 (2002), 409-425.  doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00015-X.  Google Scholar

[6]

G. Beheiry, S. M. Beheiry and M. M. Beheiry, Investigating the use of green design parameters in UAE construction projects, Internat. J. Sus. Eng., 8 (2015), 93-101.  doi: 10.1080/19397038.2014.895066.  Google Scholar

[7]

M. Borchardt, M. H. Wendt, G. M. Pereira and M. A. Sellitto, Redesign of a component based on ecodesign practices: environmental impact and cost reduction achievements, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 49-57.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.006.  Google Scholar

[8]

M. Braungart and W. McDonough, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Vintage, London, 2008. Google Scholar

[9]

M. Braungart, W. McDonough and A. Bollinger, Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions: a strategy for eco-effective product and system design, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1337-1348.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003.  Google Scholar

[10]

S. Byggeth, G. Broman and K. H. Robert, A method for sustainable product development based on a modular, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1-11.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.02.007.  Google Scholar

[11]

S. Byggeth and E. Hochschorner, Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1420-1430.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024.  Google Scholar

[12]

S. Case, Zeroing in on zero waste, Gov Procurement, 19 (2011), 24. Google Scholar

[13]

M. del Val Segarra-Oña, M. De-Miguel-Molina and A. Payá-Martínez, A review of the literature on Eco-design in manufacturing industry: are institutions focusing on the key aspects?, Rev. Business Information Systems, 15 (2011), 61-67.  doi: 10.19030/rbis.v15i5.6028.  Google Scholar

[14]

R. Docksai, A world without waste?, Futurist, 48 (2014), 16-20.   Google Scholar

[15]

J. Drexhage and D. Murphy, Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 2010. Google Scholar

[16]

R. A. R. Ghazilla, N. Sakundarini, Z. Taha, S. H. Abdul-Rashid and S. Yusoff, Design for environment and design for disassembly practices in Malaysia: a practitioner's perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 108 (2015), 331-342.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.033.  Google Scholar

[17]

K. Gowri, Desktop tools for sustainable design, ASHRAE, 47 (2005), 42-46.   Google Scholar

[18]

P. L. Grogan, Zero waste: is ecotopia possible? BioCycle, 38 (1997), 86. Google Scholar

[19]

GSA U. S. General Services Administration, 2015. Available from: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104462. Google Scholar

[20]

R. E. Hodgett, Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 85 (2016), 1-13.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2.  Google Scholar

[21]

International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14000 family -Environmental management, Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html Google Scholar

[22]

E. Jacquet-Lagreze and J. Siskos, Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multi-criteria decision making: the UTA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 10 (1982), 151-164.  doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2.  Google Scholar

[23]

A. Jayal, F. Badurdeen, O. Dillon Jr. and I Jawahir, Sustainable manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels, CIRP JMST, 2 (2010), 144-152.  doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.006.  Google Scholar

[24]

G. Johansson, Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development, J. Environmental Management and Health, 13 (2002), 98-107.  doi: 10.1108/09566160210417868.  Google Scholar

[25]

S. J. Kim, S. Kara and B. Kayis, Economic and environmental assessment of product life cycle, J. Cleaner Prod., 75 (2014), 75-85.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.094.  Google Scholar

[26]

M. Kumar Mehlawat and P. Gupta, A new fuzzy group multicriteria decision making method with an application to the critical path selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83 (2016), 1281-1296.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7610-4.  Google Scholar

[27]

R. R. Lekurwale, M. M. Akarte and D. N. Raut, Framework to evaluate manufacturing capability using analytical hierarchy process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 76 (2015), 565-576.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6284-7.  Google Scholar

[28]

F. Lemke and J. P. P Luzio, Exploring green consumers' mind-set toward green product design and life cycle assessment, J. Ind. Ecol., 18 (2014), 619-630.  doi: 10.1111/jiec.12123.  Google Scholar

[29]

P. Llorach-Massana, R. Farreny and J. Oliver-Solá, Are cradle to cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach, J. Cleaner Prod., 93 (2015), 243-250.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.032.  Google Scholar

[30]

E. Lombardi, Zero landfill is not zero waste, BioCycle, 52 (2011), 44-45.   Google Scholar

[31]

E. Lombardi and J. Goldstein, Before zero waste comes producer responsibility, In Business, 23 (2001), 28-29.   Google Scholar

[32]

C. Luttropp and J. Lagerstedt, Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1396-1408.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.022.  Google Scholar

[33]

W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Overview of the Cradle to Cradle Certified (CM) Product Standard -Version 3.0, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, 2012. Google Scholar

[34]

Q. Meng, A rapid life cycle assessment method based on green features in supporting conceptual design, Int. J. of Precis Eng. and Manuf. -Green Tech., 2 (2014), 189-196.  doi: 10.1007/s40684-015-0023-x.  Google Scholar

[35]

V. Paramasivam, V. Senthil and N. Rajam Ramasamy, Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 54 (2011), 1233-1244.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2997-4.  Google Scholar

[36]

S. Plouffe, P. Lanoie, C. Berneman and M. F. Vernier, Economic benefits tied to ecodesign, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 573-579.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.003.  Google Scholar

[37]

J. Pontus, L. Nordström and R. Lagerström, Formalizing analysis of enterprise architecture, in Enterprise Interoperability (eds. G. Doumeingts, J. M¨uller, G. Morel and B. Vallespir), Springer, London, (2007), 35–44. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-714-5_4.  Google Scholar

[38]

S. Prendeville, D. F. O'Connor and L. Palmer, Barriers and benefits to Ecodesign: a case study of tool use in an SME, IEEE ISSST, (2011), 1-6.  doi: 10.1109/ISSST.2011.5936850.  Google Scholar

[39]

M. Rossi, S. Charon, G. Wing and J. Ewell, Design for the next generation -incorporating cradle-to-cradle design into Herman Miller products, J. Ind. Ecol., 10 (2006), 193-210.  doi: 10.1162/jiec.2006.10.4.193.  Google Scholar

[40]

G. A. Shafer, Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, 1976.  Google Scholar

[41]

Y. Umeda, A. Nonomura and T. Tomiyama, Study on life-cycle design for the post mass production paradigm, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, (2000), 149-161.   Google Scholar

[42]

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 17 sustainable development goals, 17 partnerships, 2015. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/211617%20Goals%2017%20Partnerships.pdf Google Scholar

[43]

United Nations Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, 2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ Google Scholar

[44]

J. C. van Weenen, Towards sustainable product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 3 (1995), 95-100.  doi: 10.1016/0959-6526(95)00062-J.  Google Scholar

[45]

N. Vargas Hernandez, G. Okudan Kremer, L. C. Scmidt and P. R. Acosta Herrera, Development of an expert system to aid engineers in the selection of design for environment methods and tools, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (2012), 9543-9553.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.098.  Google Scholar

[46]

W. Wimmer, R. Züst and L. Kun-Mo, Ecodesign Implementation: A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development, Springer, Dordrecht, 2004. Google Scholar

[47]

World Comission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. Google Scholar

[48]

L. Xu and J. B. Yang, Introduction to multi-criteria decision making and the evidential reasoning approach, Manchester School of Management, Working Paper, 2001. Google Scholar

[49]

D. L. Xu, An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis, Ann. Oper. Res., 195 (2012), 163-187.  doi: 10.1007/s10479-011-0945-9.  Google Scholar

[50]

D. L. Xu and and J. B. Yang, Intelligent decision system for self-assessment, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal., 12 (2003), 43-60.  doi: 10.1002/mcda.343.  Google Scholar

[51]

J. B. Yang and M. G. Singh, An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, 24 (1994), 1-18.  doi: 10.1109/21.259681.  Google Scholar

[52]

J. B. Yang, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 131 (2001), 31-61.  doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00441-5.  Google Scholar

[53]

J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, Part A. Systems and Humans, 32 (2002), 289-304.  doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746.  Google Scholar

[54]

A. U. Zaman, A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines, J. Cleaner Prod., 91 (2005), 12-25.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.013.  Google Scholar

[55]

Zero Waste International Alliance, ZW definition: Zero Waste International Alliance, 2015. Available at: http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/ Google Scholar

[56]

Z. J. Zhang, J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, A hierarchical analysis model for multi-objective decision making, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 22 (1989), 13-18.   Google Scholar

[57]

M. Öberg, Integrated Life Cycle Design -Applied to Concrete Multi-Dwelling Buildings, Doctoral thesis, Div of Building Materials LTH, Lund University, 2005. Google Scholar

show all references

References:
[1]

F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Using evidential reasoning approach for prioritization of maintenance-related waste caused by human factors -a case study, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 90 (2017), 2761-2775.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9377-7.  Google Scholar

[2]

F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Classification of Maintenance-related Waste Based on Human Factors, Neuchatel, Switzerland, Conference on Operations, Management for Sustainable Competitveness (22nd EurOMA), 2015. Google Scholar

[3]

P. T. Anastas and J. B. Zimmerman, Through the 12 principles of green engineering, Environ. Sci. Technol, 1 (2003), 95-101.  doi: 10.1021/es032373g.  Google Scholar

[4]

C. A. Bakker, R. Wever, C. Teoh and S. De Clerq, Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check, Internat J. Sus. Eng., 3 (2010), 2-8.  doi: 10.1080/19397030903395166.  Google Scholar

[5]

H. Baumann, F. Boons and A Bragd, Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 10 (2002), 409-425.  doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00015-X.  Google Scholar

[6]

G. Beheiry, S. M. Beheiry and M. M. Beheiry, Investigating the use of green design parameters in UAE construction projects, Internat. J. Sus. Eng., 8 (2015), 93-101.  doi: 10.1080/19397038.2014.895066.  Google Scholar

[7]

M. Borchardt, M. H. Wendt, G. M. Pereira and M. A. Sellitto, Redesign of a component based on ecodesign practices: environmental impact and cost reduction achievements, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 49-57.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.006.  Google Scholar

[8]

M. Braungart and W. McDonough, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Vintage, London, 2008. Google Scholar

[9]

M. Braungart, W. McDonough and A. Bollinger, Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions: a strategy for eco-effective product and system design, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1337-1348.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003.  Google Scholar

[10]

S. Byggeth, G. Broman and K. H. Robert, A method for sustainable product development based on a modular, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1-11.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.02.007.  Google Scholar

[11]

S. Byggeth and E. Hochschorner, Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1420-1430.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024.  Google Scholar

[12]

S. Case, Zeroing in on zero waste, Gov Procurement, 19 (2011), 24. Google Scholar

[13]

M. del Val Segarra-Oña, M. De-Miguel-Molina and A. Payá-Martínez, A review of the literature on Eco-design in manufacturing industry: are institutions focusing on the key aspects?, Rev. Business Information Systems, 15 (2011), 61-67.  doi: 10.19030/rbis.v15i5.6028.  Google Scholar

[14]

R. Docksai, A world without waste?, Futurist, 48 (2014), 16-20.   Google Scholar

[15]

J. Drexhage and D. Murphy, Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 2010. Google Scholar

[16]

R. A. R. Ghazilla, N. Sakundarini, Z. Taha, S. H. Abdul-Rashid and S. Yusoff, Design for environment and design for disassembly practices in Malaysia: a practitioner's perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 108 (2015), 331-342.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.033.  Google Scholar

[17]

K. Gowri, Desktop tools for sustainable design, ASHRAE, 47 (2005), 42-46.   Google Scholar

[18]

P. L. Grogan, Zero waste: is ecotopia possible? BioCycle, 38 (1997), 86. Google Scholar

[19]

GSA U. S. General Services Administration, 2015. Available from: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104462. Google Scholar

[20]

R. E. Hodgett, Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 85 (2016), 1-13.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2.  Google Scholar

[21]

International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14000 family -Environmental management, Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html Google Scholar

[22]

E. Jacquet-Lagreze and J. Siskos, Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multi-criteria decision making: the UTA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 10 (1982), 151-164.  doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2.  Google Scholar

[23]

A. Jayal, F. Badurdeen, O. Dillon Jr. and I Jawahir, Sustainable manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels, CIRP JMST, 2 (2010), 144-152.  doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.006.  Google Scholar

[24]

G. Johansson, Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development, J. Environmental Management and Health, 13 (2002), 98-107.  doi: 10.1108/09566160210417868.  Google Scholar

[25]

S. J. Kim, S. Kara and B. Kayis, Economic and environmental assessment of product life cycle, J. Cleaner Prod., 75 (2014), 75-85.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.094.  Google Scholar

[26]

M. Kumar Mehlawat and P. Gupta, A new fuzzy group multicriteria decision making method with an application to the critical path selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83 (2016), 1281-1296.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7610-4.  Google Scholar

[27]

R. R. Lekurwale, M. M. Akarte and D. N. Raut, Framework to evaluate manufacturing capability using analytical hierarchy process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 76 (2015), 565-576.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6284-7.  Google Scholar

[28]

F. Lemke and J. P. P Luzio, Exploring green consumers' mind-set toward green product design and life cycle assessment, J. Ind. Ecol., 18 (2014), 619-630.  doi: 10.1111/jiec.12123.  Google Scholar

[29]

P. Llorach-Massana, R. Farreny and J. Oliver-Solá, Are cradle to cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach, J. Cleaner Prod., 93 (2015), 243-250.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.032.  Google Scholar

[30]

E. Lombardi, Zero landfill is not zero waste, BioCycle, 52 (2011), 44-45.   Google Scholar

[31]

E. Lombardi and J. Goldstein, Before zero waste comes producer responsibility, In Business, 23 (2001), 28-29.   Google Scholar

[32]

C. Luttropp and J. Lagerstedt, Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1396-1408.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.022.  Google Scholar

[33]

W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Overview of the Cradle to Cradle Certified (CM) Product Standard -Version 3.0, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, 2012. Google Scholar

[34]

Q. Meng, A rapid life cycle assessment method based on green features in supporting conceptual design, Int. J. of Precis Eng. and Manuf. -Green Tech., 2 (2014), 189-196.  doi: 10.1007/s40684-015-0023-x.  Google Scholar

[35]

V. Paramasivam, V. Senthil and N. Rajam Ramasamy, Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 54 (2011), 1233-1244.  doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2997-4.  Google Scholar

[36]

S. Plouffe, P. Lanoie, C. Berneman and M. F. Vernier, Economic benefits tied to ecodesign, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 573-579.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.003.  Google Scholar

[37]

J. Pontus, L. Nordström and R. Lagerström, Formalizing analysis of enterprise architecture, in Enterprise Interoperability (eds. G. Doumeingts, J. M¨uller, G. Morel and B. Vallespir), Springer, London, (2007), 35–44. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-714-5_4.  Google Scholar

[38]

S. Prendeville, D. F. O'Connor and L. Palmer, Barriers and benefits to Ecodesign: a case study of tool use in an SME, IEEE ISSST, (2011), 1-6.  doi: 10.1109/ISSST.2011.5936850.  Google Scholar

[39]

M. Rossi, S. Charon, G. Wing and J. Ewell, Design for the next generation -incorporating cradle-to-cradle design into Herman Miller products, J. Ind. Ecol., 10 (2006), 193-210.  doi: 10.1162/jiec.2006.10.4.193.  Google Scholar

[40]

G. A. Shafer, Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, 1976.  Google Scholar

[41]

Y. Umeda, A. Nonomura and T. Tomiyama, Study on life-cycle design for the post mass production paradigm, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, (2000), 149-161.   Google Scholar

[42]

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 17 sustainable development goals, 17 partnerships, 2015. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/211617%20Goals%2017%20Partnerships.pdf Google Scholar

[43]

United Nations Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, 2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ Google Scholar

[44]

J. C. van Weenen, Towards sustainable product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 3 (1995), 95-100.  doi: 10.1016/0959-6526(95)00062-J.  Google Scholar

[45]

N. Vargas Hernandez, G. Okudan Kremer, L. C. Scmidt and P. R. Acosta Herrera, Development of an expert system to aid engineers in the selection of design for environment methods and tools, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (2012), 9543-9553.  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.098.  Google Scholar

[46]

W. Wimmer, R. Züst and L. Kun-Mo, Ecodesign Implementation: A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development, Springer, Dordrecht, 2004. Google Scholar

[47]

World Comission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. Google Scholar

[48]

L. Xu and J. B. Yang, Introduction to multi-criteria decision making and the evidential reasoning approach, Manchester School of Management, Working Paper, 2001. Google Scholar

[49]

D. L. Xu, An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis, Ann. Oper. Res., 195 (2012), 163-187.  doi: 10.1007/s10479-011-0945-9.  Google Scholar

[50]

D. L. Xu and and J. B. Yang, Intelligent decision system for self-assessment, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal., 12 (2003), 43-60.  doi: 10.1002/mcda.343.  Google Scholar

[51]

J. B. Yang and M. G. Singh, An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, 24 (1994), 1-18.  doi: 10.1109/21.259681.  Google Scholar

[52]

J. B. Yang, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 131 (2001), 31-61.  doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00441-5.  Google Scholar

[53]

J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, Part A. Systems and Humans, 32 (2002), 289-304.  doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746.  Google Scholar

[54]

A. U. Zaman, A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines, J. Cleaner Prod., 91 (2005), 12-25.  doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.013.  Google Scholar

[55]

Zero Waste International Alliance, ZW definition: Zero Waste International Alliance, 2015. Available at: http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/ Google Scholar

[56]

Z. J. Zhang, J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, A hierarchical analysis model for multi-objective decision making, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 22 (1989), 13-18.   Google Scholar

[57]

M. Öberg, Integrated Life Cycle Design -Applied to Concrete Multi-Dwelling Buildings, Doctoral thesis, Div of Building Materials LTH, Lund University, 2005. Google Scholar

Figure 1.  Generic framework to assess general property
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2.  Visual representation of ER steps
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3.  Diagram showing the importance of factors for sustainable product development
Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1.  Advantages and disadvantages of sustainable design strategies
MethodAdvantagesDisadvantages
Eco DesignIncreased competitiveness [13]
Decreased variable costs [32], [36]
Less use of toxic materials [32]
Increased product functionality [36], [46]
Improved economic performance [36]
Increased revenue [13]
Increased sales volumes [13]
Less energy usage [32]
Prolonged product life [32], [36], [46]
Improved company image [13]
Reduced material use [7], [24], [32], [36], [46]		Increased fixed
costs [36]
Only short term
economic benefits
[36]
Green
design		Optimized operational practices [5], [17], [19]
Reduced use of non-renewable resources
[3], [19], [34]
Waste minimized [6], [19], [34]
Increased use of renewable materials [3], [34]
Increased use of renewable energy
[3], [19], [34]
Social business strategies incorporated [10]		Requires investment
in new operating
tools [5]
Too many unclear
suggestions [6]
Cradle-to-
cradle		Waste eliminated [8], [9], [33]
Products are biodegradable [9]
Eternal recyclability [9]
Increased economic activity [9]
Increased job opportunities [9]
Certification available [33]		Might be
overconfident [4]
Design for
environment		Waste is reduced [16], [45]
Improved material chemistry [39]
Improved design for disassembly [16], [39],
[45]
Increased recyclability [39], [45]		Too many tools and
techniques [45]
Zero WastePollution is prevented [30], [55]
Waste eliminated [18], [31], [55]
Reduced toxicity [30], [55]
Increased recyclability [18]
Increased reuse of materials [55]
Decreased costs of waste disposal
[12], [18], [31]
Increased revenue by selling used materials
[14]		Requires
transformation of
current systems [54]
Increased short-
term costs [14]
Life-Cycle
approaches		Reduced long term environmental impact
of the product [29], [38]
Decreased costs for service [41]
Increased environmental impact awareness
[57]
Holistic approach [4], [38], [57]		Often used in
retrospect [28], [38]
Cannot be used
properly for reused,
recycled and re-
manufactured
products [41]
Table Options

Download as excel

MethodAdvantagesDisadvantages
Eco DesignIncreased competitiveness [13]
Decreased variable costs [32], [36]
Less use of toxic materials [32]
Increased product functionality [36], [46]
Improved economic performance [36]
Increased revenue [13]
Increased sales volumes [13]
Less energy usage [32]
Prolonged product life [32], [36], [46]
Improved company image [13]
Reduced material use [7], [24], [32], [36], [46]		Increased fixed
costs [36]
Only short term
economic benefits
[36]
Green
design		Optimized operational practices [5], [17], [19]
Reduced use of non-renewable resources
[3], [19], [34]
Waste minimized [6], [19], [34]
Increased use of renewable materials [3], [34]
Increased use of renewable energy
[3], [19], [34]
Social business strategies incorporated [10]		Requires investment
in new operating
tools [5]
Too many unclear
suggestions [6]
Cradle-to-
cradle		Waste eliminated [8], [9], [33]
Products are biodegradable [9]
Eternal recyclability [9]
Increased economic activity [9]
Increased job opportunities [9]
Certification available [33]		Might be
overconfident [4]
Design for
environment		Waste is reduced [16], [45]
Improved material chemistry [39]
Improved design for disassembly [16], [39],
[45]
Increased recyclability [39], [45]		Too many tools and
techniques [45]
Zero WastePollution is prevented [30], [55]
Waste eliminated [18], [31], [55]
Reduced toxicity [30], [55]
Increased recyclability [18]
Increased reuse of materials [55]
Decreased costs of waste disposal
[12], [18], [31]
Increased revenue by selling used materials
[14]		Requires
transformation of
current systems [54]
Increased short-
term costs [14]
Life-Cycle
approaches		Reduced long term environmental impact
of the product [29], [38]
Decreased costs for service [41]
Increased environmental impact awareness
[57]
Holistic approach [4], [38], [57]		Often used in
retrospect [28], [38]
Cannot be used
properly for reused,
recycled and re-
manufactured
products [41]
Table 2.  Factors identified in sustainable design and the corresponding strategies
FactorsDesign Strategy
Reduce energy usageEco-design
Reduce material usageEco-design, Life-cycle approaches
Reduce use of non-renewable resourcesGreen design
Reduce wasteDesign for Environment
Eliminate wasteCradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Eliminate emissionZero waste
Minimize use of toxic substancesEco-design, zero waste
Minimize wasteGreen design
Recycle materials/componentsCradle-to-cradle, design for
environment, zero waste, life-cycle
approaches, eco-design
Reuse materials/componentsZero waste, life-cycle approaches,
eco-design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase product functionalityEco-design
Increase product lifespanEco-design
Increase use of renewable energyGreen design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of renewable materialsGreen design, life-cycle approaches,
cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of biodegradable materialsCradle-to-cradle
Closed loop material flowCradle-to-cradle
Holistic approachLife-cycle approaches, cradle-to-cradle
Sustainable social standardsGreen design, cradle-to-cradle
Economic benefitsEco-design, cradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Increase competitivenessEco-design
Table Options

Download as excel

FactorsDesign Strategy
Reduce energy usageEco-design
Reduce material usageEco-design, Life-cycle approaches
Reduce use of non-renewable resourcesGreen design
Reduce wasteDesign for Environment
Eliminate wasteCradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Eliminate emissionZero waste
Minimize use of toxic substancesEco-design, zero waste
Minimize wasteGreen design
Recycle materials/componentsCradle-to-cradle, design for
environment, zero waste, life-cycle
approaches, eco-design
Reuse materials/componentsZero waste, life-cycle approaches,
eco-design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase product functionalityEco-design
Increase product lifespanEco-design
Increase use of renewable energyGreen design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of renewable materialsGreen design, life-cycle approaches,
cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of biodegradable materialsCradle-to-cradle
Closed loop material flowCradle-to-cradle
Holistic approachLife-cycle approaches, cradle-to-cradle
Sustainable social standardsGreen design, cradle-to-cradle
Economic benefitsEco-design, cradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Increase competitivenessEco-design
Table 3.  Assigned weights, belief degrees and calculated probability masses
Evalutation GradeWeightBelief
$H_1, H_2, H_3$ $\omega_i$ $\beta_{1, i}$ $\beta_{2, i}$ $\beta_{3, i}$ $\beta_{H}$
$\varepsilon_1$0.350.40.500.1
$\varepsilon_2$0.650.10.750.150
Probability Mass
$m_{1, i}$ $m_{2, i}$ $m_{3, i}$ $m_{H, i}$ $\bar{m}_{H, i}$ $\tilde{m}_{H, i}$
0.140.17500.6850.650.035
0.0650.48750.09750.350.350
Table Options

Download as excel

Evalutation GradeWeightBelief
$H_1, H_2, H_3$ $\omega_i$ $\beta_{1, i}$ $\beta_{2, i}$ $\beta_{3, i}$ $\beta_{H}$
$\varepsilon_1$0.350.40.500.1
$\varepsilon_2$0.650.10.750.150
Probability Mass
$m_{1, i}$ $m_{2, i}$ $m_{3, i}$ $m_{H, i}$ $\bar{m}_{H, i}$ $\tilde{m}_{H, i}$
0.140.17500.6850.650.035
0.0650.48750.09750.350.350
Table 4.  Factors identified in sustainable design and the corresponding strategies
Evaluation grade (%)
FactorsH1H2H3H4H5Unassigned
Reduce energy usage51527241019
Reduce material usage152231374
Reduce use of non-renewable resources12121182316
Reduce waste1428411016
Reduce emissions1418382118
Eliminate waste11143023139
Eliminate emissions1052431822
Minimize use of toxic substances008265016
Minimize waste333037522
Recycling components/ materials01729261810
Reusing components/ materials11171234197
Increase product functionality0229272616
Increase product lifespan3193626142
Increase use of renewable materials0820401022
Increase use of renewable energy2820291922
Increase use of biodegradable materials1133630515
Sustainable material selection091547254
Circular material flow072811549
Holistic view469281637
Sustainable social standards4321262026
Economic benefits0126224011
Increased competitiveness012731383
Table Options

Download as excel

Evaluation grade (%)
FactorsH1H2H3H4H5Unassigned
Reduce energy usage51527241019
Reduce material usage152231374
Reduce use of non-renewable resources12121182316
Reduce waste1428411016
Reduce emissions1418382118
Eliminate waste11143023139
Eliminate emissions1052431822
Minimize use of toxic substances008265016
Minimize waste333037522
Recycling components/ materials01729261810
Reusing components/ materials11171234197
Increase product functionality0229272616
Increase product lifespan3193626142
Increase use of renewable materials0820401022
Increase use of renewable energy2820291922
Increase use of biodegradable materials1133630515
Sustainable material selection091547254
Circular material flow072811549
Holistic view469281637
Sustainable social standards4321262026
Economic benefits0126224011
Increased competitiveness012731383
Table 5.  Important design factors, relevant score and rank
FactorsRanking score (%) Rank
Minimize use of toxic substances821
Increase competitiveness762
Economic benefits753
Reduce material usage744
Sustainable material selection725
Reduce emissions696
Increase product functionality697
Reduce waste648
Increase use of renewable energy649
Sustainable social standards6410
Increase use of renewable materials6311
Holistic view6212
Recycling components/materials6113
Reduce use of non-renewable resources6014
Minimize waste5915
Reusing components/materials5816
Increase use of biodegradable materials5817
Increase product lifespan5718
Eliminate emissions5619
Reduce energy usage5520
Circular material flow5421
Eliminate waste5322
Table Options

Download as excel

FactorsRanking score (%) Rank
Minimize use of toxic substances821
Increase competitiveness762
Economic benefits753
Reduce material usage744
Sustainable material selection725
Reduce emissions696
Increase product functionality697
Reduce waste648
Increase use of renewable energy649
Sustainable social standards6410
Increase use of renewable materials6311
Holistic view6212
Recycling components/materials6113
Reduce use of non-renewable resources6014
Minimize waste5915
Reusing components/materials5816
Increase use of biodegradable materials5817
Increase product lifespan5718
Eliminate emissions5619
Reduce energy usage5520
Circular material flow5421
Eliminate waste5322
Table 6.  Important design factors and corresponding design strategy
Most important identified factorsDesign strategy (%)
Minimize use of toxics substances (82%)Eco-design and Zero waste
Increased competitiveness (76%)Eco-design
Economic benefits (75%)Eco-design, Cradle-to-cradle and Zero waste
Reduce material usage (74%)Eco-design and life-cycle strategies
Material selection (72%) $\cdots$
Reduce emissions (69%) $\cdots$
Increase product functionality (69%)Eco-design
Table Options

Download as excel

Most important identified factorsDesign strategy (%)
Minimize use of toxics substances (82%)Eco-design and Zero waste
Increased competitiveness (76%)Eco-design
Economic benefits (75%)Eco-design, Cradle-to-cradle and Zero waste
Reduce material usage (74%)Eco-design and life-cycle strategies
Material selection (72%) $\cdots$
Reduce emissions (69%) $\cdots$
Increase product functionality (69%)Eco-design
[1]

Yanan Wang, Tao Xie, Xiaowen Jie. A mathematical analysis for the forecast research on tourism carrying capacity to promote the effective and sustainable development of tourism. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2019, 12 (4&5) : 837-847. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2019056
[2]

P. C. Jha, Sugandha Aggarwal, Anshu Gupta, Ruhul Sarker. Multi-criteria media mix decision model for advertising a single product with segment specific and mass media. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2016, 12 (4) : 1367-1389. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016.12.1367
[3]

Bin Dan, Huali Gao, Yang Zhang, Ru Liu, Songxuan Ma. Integrated order acceptance and scheduling decision making in product service supply chain with hard time windows constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 165-182. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017041
[4]

Harish Garg, Dimple Rani. Multi-criteria decision making method based on Bonferroni mean aggregation operators of complex intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (5) : 2279-2306. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020069
[5]

Eugene Kashdan, Svetlana Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky. Multi-scale model of bladder cancer development. Conference Publications, 2011, 2011 (Special) : 803-812. doi: 10.3934/proc.2011.2011.803
[6]

Po-Chung Yang, Hui-Ming Wee, Shen-Lian Chung, Yong-Yan Huang. Pricing and replenishment strategy for a multi-market deteriorating product with time-varying and price-sensitive demand. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2013, 9 (4) : 769-787. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2013.9.769
[7]

Harish Garg. Some robust improved geometric aggregation operators under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment for multi-criteria decision-making process. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (1) : 283-308. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2017047
[8]

John Erik Fornæss. Sustainable dynamical systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2003, 9 (6) : 1361-1386. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2003.9.1361
[9]

Sebastián Donoso, Wenbo Sun. Dynamical cubes and a criteria for systems having product extensions. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2015, 9: 365-405. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2015.9.365
[10]

Fatemeh Kangi, Seyed Hamid Reza Pasandideh, Esmaeil Mehdizadeh, Hamed Soleimani. The optimization of a multi-period multi-product closed-loop supply chain network with cross-docking delivery strategy. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021118
[11]

Reza Lotfi, Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi, Mir Saman Pishvaee, Ahmad Sadeghieh, Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber. A robust optimization model for sustainable and resilient closed-loop supply chain network design considering conditional value at risk. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (2) : 221-253. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020023
[12]

Igor Nazarov, Bai-Lian Li. Maximal sustainable yield in a multipatch habitat. Conference Publications, 2005, 2005 (Special) : 682-691. doi: 10.3934/proc.2005.2005.682
[13]

Hamed Fazlollahtabar, Mohammad Saidi-Mehrabad. Optimizing multi-objective decision making having qualitative evaluation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2015, 11 (3) : 747-762. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2015.11.747
[14]

Andrea Caravaggio, Luca Gori, Mauro Sodini. Population dynamics and economic development. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (11) : 5827-5848. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2021178
[15]

Weichao Yue, Weihua Gui, Xiaofang Chen, Zhaohui Zeng, Yongfang Xie. Evaluation strategy and mass balance for making decision about the amount of aluminum fluoride addition based on superheat degree. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (2) : 601-622. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018169
[16]

Ying Han, Zhenyu Lu, Sheng Chen. A hybrid inconsistent sustainable chemical industry evaluation method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2019, 15 (3) : 1225-1239. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018093
[17]

Sandeep Dulluri, N. R. Srinivasa Raghavan. Revenue management via multi-product available to promise. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2007, 3 (3) : 457-479. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2007.3.457
[18]

Alireza Eydi, Rozhin Saedi. A multi-objective decision-making model for supplier selection considering transport discounts and supplier capacity constraints. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021, 17 (6) : 3581-3602. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020134
[19]

Ye Jiang, Tiaojun Xiao. Preannouncement strategy of platform-type new product for competing platforms: Technical or marketing information. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020155
[20]

Chunfeng Liu, Yuanyuan Liu, Jufeng Wang. A revised imperialist competition algorithm for cellular manufacturing optimization based on product line design. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2021  doi: 10.3934/jimo.2021175

 Impact Factor: 

Tools

Metrics

  • PDF downloads (147)
  • HTML views (577)
  • Cited by (0)

Other articles
by authors

[Back to Top]

Copyright © 2021 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences | Privacy Policy