Product Design for the Environment: A Life Cycle Approach - Chapter 2 potx

Excluding the strictly marketing context where it is understood to mean the phases of introduction, growth, maturity, and decline with regard to a product’s performance on the market, th

Life Cycle Approach

Chapter 2

Life Cycle Approach and the Product–System

Concept and Modeling

The most important benefi ts of Design for Environment (DFE) can only be

obtained when the entire life cycle of a product is already taken into

consid-eration at the design stage Only a systematic vision of the product over its

life cycle can, in fact, ensure that the design activity not only identifi es the

product’s environmental criticalities, but also reduces them effectively and

avoids simply transferring impacts from one arena to another

In this chapter a holistic vision of the product and its life cycle is presented,

where the latter is no longer thought of as a series of independent processes

expressed exclusively by their technological aspects, but rather as a complex

product–life cycle system set in its environmental, economic, and

sociotech-nological context

2.1 Life Cycle Concept and Theory

Originally conceived in the context of studies on biological systems, the

concept of “life cycle” has become widely used as a model for the

interpreta-tion and analysis of phenomena characterized by processes of change It is

applied in many wide-ranging fi elds, from social sciences to processes of

technological innovation This second case, in particular, represents one of

the more interesting examples of the metaphor of biological evolution used

in the management of industrial activities (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978)

Beginning from this type of experience, the application of Life Cycle Theory

to the development of industrial products has become a key factor in the

management of technological innovation, where it is recognized as an

effec-tive instrument of analysis and a useful aid to decision making

2.1.1 Life Cycle Theory: General Concepts

With regard to the study and understanding of the processes of development

and evolution of organizational structures, management science has adopted

different concepts and theories typical of other disciplines, used to explain

processes of change in the context of social, physical, and biological sciences

These theories differ substantially in terms of the model by which they

repre-sent the sequence of events (event progression), and in the mechanism by

which they generate and guide change (generating force) (van de Ven and

Poole, 1995) The Life Cycle Theory is one of the most widely used It is based

on the metaphor of the phenomena of organic growth typical of evolutionary

biology, and has two salient characteristics:

• Event progression is linear and irreversible (i.e., characterized by a

unitary sequence wherein each intermediate phase is a necessary precursor of the subsequent phase)

• Generating force consists of a predefi ned program, inherent in the

entity that evolves, which is regulated by the environment in which the entity is conceived and develops (nature, in the case of biological systems; society, the market, and institutions in the case of manufac-turing organizations)

Regarding the fi rst characteristic (event progression), Life Cycle Theory

presumes that the progression of change events in a life cycle model is

“a unitary sequence (it follows a single sequence of stages or phases), which

is cumulative (characteristics acquired in earlier stages are retained in later

stages) and conjunctive (the stages are related such that they derive from a

common underlying process)” (van de Ven and Poole, 1995) According to

this viewpoint, each phase of the cycle contributes to the development of the

fi nal product and must be undertaken following a preestablished order, since

its contribution is required for the completion of successive phases

Considering the second characteristic (generating force), according to Life

Cycle Theory “the developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic,

program, or code that regulates the process of change and moves the entity

from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is prefi gured

in the present state” (van de Ven and Poole, 1995) This characteristic, which

defi nes the mechanism generating and guiding change, further clarifi es the

relation between the entity’s internal evolutionary factor and the

environ-ment in which it evolves: “External environenviron-mental events and processes can

infl uence how the entity expresses itself, but they are always mediated by the

immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern the entity’s development”

(van de Ven and Poole, 1995)

With these premises, Life Cycle Theory can, in principle, be applied to any

system that undergoes a series of changes over the course of its existence

The entire life of the system takes the name “life cycle,” and the various

phases following one after the other in the evolutionary process are called

“life cycle phases” or “stages.”

2.1.2 Life Cycle Theory in the Management of Product Development

At present, the use of Life Cycle Theory as an aid to decision making is fully

accepted in the managerial context, above all with regard to some strategic

management issues in industrial production—the management of the

orga-nizational structures of production activities; market analysis and

predic-tions based on the evolution of technologies; and the development of new

products and their introduction into the market At the base of this

accep-tance of the life cycle concept as an analytical model for such widely varying

phenomena, there is the understanding that both production activities and

technologies, and products themselves, theoretically develop following an

evolutionary path passing through different phases

With regard to products, this evolutionary perspective is now well-rooted

in the fi eld of marketing (Massey, 1999) In the context of the management of

products in relation to market dynamics, in fact, the life cycle is understood

as the period during which the product is on the market This period consists

of four successive phases: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline In this

context, the objective of Life Cycle Theory is to describe the behavior of the

product from development to retirement, to optimize the value of and the

potential for profi t in each phase of the cycle (Ryan and Riggs, 1996) With

this aim, life cycle becomes a representation of the product’s market history

and each phase is characterized by the trend of the sales volumes and profi t

performance (Cunningham, 1969), so as to guide the decisional choices of

management regarding possible intervention strategies (marketing actions,

pricing, service strategies, product substitution, etc.)

In the same limited fi eld of marketing, the breadth of the potential offered

by the life cycle approach has been clearly described by D.M Gardner:

“[P]roduct life cycle is an almost inexhaustible concept because it touches

on nearly every facet of marketing and drives many elements of corporate

strategy, fi nance and production” (Gardner, 1987) Likewise, the conceptual

premises of Life Cycle Theory summarized above evidence the potential

for its use in the management of other aspects of a product, as well

Considering, then, the product as a single entity that includes both the

abstract dimension (need, concept, and project) and the concrete, physical

dimension (fi nished product), its life cycle can be understood as a

preestab-lished sequence of evolutionary phases wherein each phase is necessary for

the execution of subsequent phases, and each provides a different

contribu-tion to the development of the fi nal product This is in full agreement with

the concept of event progression, one of the fundamental principles of Life

Cycle Theory

With clear reference to the management of product design and

develop-phases from product conception and design to manufacturing and

distribu-tion, and potentially can be extended to also consider the phases of use and

ment, and as shown in Figure 2.1, the evolutionary sequence includes all the

disposal The entire life cycle represented by this sequence is composed of

two parts:

• Development cycle—Indicates the fi rst part of the life cycle of the

product–entity, understood in its abstract dimension This part includes all the conventional process of product design and develop-ment, through which the need is translated into the fi nished design

• Physical cycle—Indicates the subsequent part of the life cycle of the

product–entity, understood here in its tangible dimension as a

fi nished product This part includes all the phases the product passes through during its physical life

In this context, moreover, the need underlying the product concept and the

design requisites interpret, respectively, the roles of generating factor and

internal evolutionary factor of the product–entity This follows the second

fundamental principle of Life Cycle Theory, that of generating force In

particular, design requirements are translated into product properties that

ideally can condition its behavior over the entire life cycle, and can therefore

guide its evolution in relation to the different environments in which the

product–entity evolves (not only the market, but the entire economic system,

ecosystem, and society)

The application of Life Cycle Theory to the management of product

devel-opment, in the sense described above, and the concept of product life cycle

corresponding to it, are summed up in the concept of product–system,

intro-duced in the following section, fully interpreting the requirements of DFE

2.2 Life Cycle and the Product–System Concept

As noted previously, the most signifi cant benefi ts of DFE can only be obtained

if the product’s entire life cycle, including other phases together with those

FIGURE 2.1 Life Cycle Theory: Product–entity application

specifi c to development and production, is already considered at the design

stage

Products must be designed and developed in relation to all these phases, in

accordance with a design intervention based on a life cycle approach,

under-stood as a systematic approach “from the cradle to the grave,” the only

approach able to provide a complete environmental profi le of products

(Alting and Jorgensen, 1993; Keoleian and Menerey, 1993) Only a systematic

view can in fact guarantee that the design intervention manages to both

identify the environmental criticalities of the product and reduce them effi

-ciently, without simply moving the impacts from one phase of the life cycle

to another

As noted in the previous section, the concept of product life cycle has

different meanings in different contexts Excluding the strictly marketing

context (where it is understood to mean the phases of introduction, growth,

maturity, and decline with regard to a product’s performance on the market),

the term life cycle can be used in the management of product development to

mean the entire set of phases from need recognition and design development

to production This usage can go so far as to include any possible support

services for the product, but does not usually take into consideration the

phases of retirement and disposal

This limited view of the life cycle has its origins in a statement of the

prob-lem conditioned by the competencies and direct interests of different actors

involved in the life of manufactured goods This leads to a fragmentation of

the life cycle according to the main actors: the manufacturer (design,

produc-tion and distribuproduc-tion); the consumer (use); and a third actor, defi ned on the

basis of the product typology (retirement and disposal) It is clear, therefore,

that the managerial concept of life cycle springs from the interests of the

manufacturer and does not usually include those phases subsequent to the

distribution of the product

Given that the environmental performance of a product over its entire life

cycle is infl uenced by interaction between all the actors involved, an effective

approach to the environmental problem must be considered in the context of

the entire society, understood as a complex system of actors including

govern-ment, manufacturers, consumers, and recyclers (Sun et al., 2003) This system

is also characterized by complex dynamics, since the various actors interact

through the application of reciprocal pressures dependent on political,

economic, and cultural factors (Young et al., 1997)

Therefore, from a more complete perspective (not limited by the point of

view of a specifi c actor), the life cycle of a product must include both its

abstract and physical dimensions and extend the latter to include the phase of

product retirement and disposal This aspect fully interprets the life cycle

approach which, in contrast to the limited view of the environmental question

held by the single actor “manufacturer,” imposes a sort of “social planner’s

view” (Heiskanen, 2002)

In general terms, therefore, the life cycle of a product can be considered

lar manner, by the main phases of need recognition, design development,

production, distribution, use, and disposal, as has already been suggested by

other authors (Alting, 1993; Jovane et al., 1993)

The concepts underlying industrial ecology (Section 1.2) require that the

actions of the system of all actors are placed in the context of the global

ecosystem, which includes the biosphere (i.e., all living organisms) and the

geosphere (all lands and waters) On these premises, environmental analysis

is oriented toward a view of the life cycle of a product associated with its

physical reality (physical dimension of product–entity, Figure 2.1), focusing

on the interaction between the environment and all the processes involved in

the product’s life, from inception to disposal

From this perspective, the product becomes “a transient embodiment of

material and energy occurring in the course of material and energy process

fl ows of the industrial system” (Frosch, 1994), and the life cycle is

under-stood as a set of activities, or processes of transformation, each requiring an

input of fl ows of resources (quantities of materials and energy) and

generat-ing an output of fl ows of byproducts and emissions This vision is in perfect

harmony with the analogy between industrial and natural systems at the

basis of industrial ecology, according to which both system typologies are

characterized by cycles of transformation of resources

For a complete analysis aimed at the evaluation and reduction of a

prod-uct’s environmental impact, it is therefore necessary to take into account not

only the manufacturing phases of production and machining, but also the

phases of preproduction of materials and those of use, recovery, and disposal

Furthermore, all these phases must not be considered in relation to the

specifi c actors involved, but rather in relation to the whole environment–

system, taking a wider view and sidestepping direct responsibilities

These considerations can be summarized in a holistic vision of the product

and its life cycle, wherein the latter is no longer thought of as a series of

inde-pendent processes expressed exclusively by their technological aspects, but

rather as a complex product–life cycle system set in its environmental and

sociotechnological context (Zust and Caduff, 1997) It is then possible to speak

of a product–system In its most complete sense, the product–system includes

the product (understood as integral with its life cycle) within the

2.3 Product–System and Environmental Impact

From the specifi c viewpoint of environmental analysis, the product–system

is characterized by fl ows of resources transformed through the various

well-represented by the event progression shown in Figure 2.1, or, in a

simi-tal, social, and technological context in which the life cycle evolves (Figure 2.2)

processes constituting the physical life cycle The environmental impact of

this product–system is the result of life cycle processes that exchange

substances, materials, and energy with the ecosphere The different effects

produced can be summarized in three main typologies (Guinée et al., 1993):

• Depletion—The impoverishment of resources, imputable to all the

resources taken from the ecosphere and used as input in the product–

system (e.g., depletion of mineral and fossil fuel reserves as a result

of their extraction and transformation into construction materials and energy)

• Pollution—All the various phenomena of emission and waste,

caused by the output of the product–system into the ecosphere (e.g., dispersion of toxic materials or phenomena caused by thermal and chemical emissions such as acidifi cation, eutrophication, and global warming)

• Disturbances—All the phenomena of variation in environmental

structures due to the interaction of the product–system with the ecosphere (e.g., degradation of soil, water, and air)

Some of these impacts have a local effect while others act at the regional,

continental, or global level This distinction is important because the effects

of these impacts on the environment can vary in different geographical

contexts due, for example, to differing climatic conditions or soil typologies

Ultimately, to undertake the environmental evaluation of a product is “to

defi ne and quantify the service provided by the product, to identify and

quantify the environmental exchanges caused by the way in which the

FIGURE 2.2 Schematic representation of a product–

system

service is provided, and to ascribe these exchanges and their potential

impacts to service” (Wenzel et al., 1997)

Ascribing the environmental impact of the product–system to the fl ows of

exchange with the ecosphere, the main factors of life cycle impact can be

summarized as:

• Consumption of material resources and saturation of waste disposal

sites

• Consumption of energy resources and loss of energy content of

products dumped as waste

• Combined direct and indirect emissions of the entire product–system

With regard to the fi rst aspect, the quantifi cation of the impact can be made

only on the basis of an analysis of the distribution of the volumes of material

in play over the entire life cycle The energy and emission aspects, on the

other hand, require a more complete approach that takes into account the

energy and emission contents of the resources and of the fi nal products

In an elementary production process such as that shown in Figure 2.3, each

typology of resource introduced (materials and energy) is characterized in

terms of both energy and emission content, and a distinction is made between

direct and indirect emissions The energy and emission content of a material

resource are, respectively, understood as:

• The energy cost (i.e., the energy expended to produce the material)

• All the emissions correlated with its production

FIGURE 2.3 Scheme for the defi nition of a product’s environmental impact

The energy and emission content of an energy resource are, respectively,

understood as:

• The sum of energy expended to produce this energy resource in the

form in which it is used in the process

• The sum of emissions correlated with its production

Regarding the distinction between direct and indirect emissions, these are

understood as, respectively:

• The sum of characteristic emissions of the process itself (dependent on

the materials, the type of process, and on the product of this process)

• The sum of the emissions correlated with the production of the

resources used by the process, therefore corresponding to the sion content of the resources

• The sum of the direct and indirect emissions quantifi es the total

emissivity that can be associated with the process and, therefore, with the fi nal product

• The sum of the energy contents of the materials and of the energy

introduced quantifi es the energy content of the fi nal product, and expresses the consumption of energy resources associable with it and with the activity that generated it

Following this scheme, the practical quantifi cation of a product’s energy and

emission impacts comes down to obtaining the following information:

• The quantity of material and energy resources introduced

• The energy cost per unit weight of each material used

• The energy cost per unit of energy used by the process (i.e., the

quan-tity of energy needed to produce the unit of energy in the form used

by the process)

• The emissivity associable with the production of the unit weight of

each material used

• The emissivity associable with the production of the unit of energy

• The direct emissivity associable with the process per unit of fi nal

product (this can also encompass the waste per unit of fi nal product) The structure proposed above represents a conceptual schematization with

which it is possible to defi ne in detail the environmental impact of an

With this structure, again referring to Figure 2.3, it is possible to say that:

elementary process In theory, it is easily extended to the product–system by

considering all the processes that make up its life cycle To complete the

picture of the environmental impact of a product, it is worth examining in

greater detail the two concepts of energy and emissivity content

2.3.1 Environmental Aspects of the Consumption of Energy Resources

The energy content or cost of a material resource is understood to be the total

quantity of energy which must be consumed in order to obtain the unit

quan-tity of material This quanquan-tity can be considered in two different ways:

• At a fi rst level of analysis, it can mean the quantity of energy expended

in the production processes of the material, in the form used by these processes

• At a deeper level of analysis, it is intended to mean the quantity of

primary energy expended to produce the energy used by the processes

of producing the material

It is clear, therefore, that an accurate evaluation requires the distinction

between primary energy and energy in the form used by the processes of

transformation In this sense, the analogous concept of energy content or cost

of an energy resource is clear: it indicates the quantity of primary energy

expended to produce this energy resource in the form in which it is employed

The need for this distinction is due to some aspects of energy transformation

According to the principle of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), all

natural and artifi cial processes are irreversible because of inevitable

dissipa-tion effects, measured, in fact, by entropy producdissipa-tion Because of the

irre-versibility manifested in any real process, a part of the energy powering a

system is returned as energy that can no longer be converted into usable

forms The sum of these nonconvertible portions of energy and the

remain-ing portion that can still be converted equals the total energy enterremain-ing the

system From these considerations, it is clear that powering any type of

process requires not generic energy but convertible energy, called exergy

When speaking of energy content or cost, therefore, it is necessary to

estab-lish whether one is referring to energy or exergy

These considerations are also valid for the processes of energy production

If the effi ciency of a conventional thermoelectric power plant is 35% to 40%

(meaning that 60% to 65% of the energy supplied by the combustible is

dissi-pated into the environment), it is evident how important it is to make a

distinction between the quantity of usable energy powering a process (exergy)

and the total amount of energy that must be expended to power the same

process, when also taking into account the production of this energy in the

form used

The energy dissipated due to the irreversibility of transformation processes,

called anergy, can be identifi ed with all the forms of thermal waste released

into the environment This factor, in conjunction with the thermal emissions

of domestic heating, industrial activities, and motor vehicles, results in the

formation of a layer of warm air lying over more densely industrialized areas

(a local phenomenon termed a “heat island”) and has an indirect effect on the

global phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect

Energy consumption, therefore, entails an environmental impact due to the

impoverishment of resources and an impact due to the chemical emissions of

the combustion processes at the base of the production of the energy

consumed, and also produces an impact due to the thermal emission of these

processes Thus, it is possible to make a distinction between the chemical and

thermal emissivity of energy resources

2.3.2 Emission Phenomena and Environmental Effects

The distinction between the chemical and thermal emissivity of energy

resources extends to all the forms of emissivity involved in an elementary

• The direct emissivity of a process consists of all the chemical and

thermal emissions characteristic of that process

• The indirect emissivity of a process consists of all the chemical and

thermal emissions correlated to the production of the resources used

by the process, corresponding therefore to the emission content of the resources

• The emission content of an energy resource consists of all the

chemi-cal and thermal emissions correlated with its production

• The emission content of a material resource consists of all the

chemi-cal and thermal emissions correlated with its production ing also the chemical and thermal emissions associable with the energy used in its production)

It is clear that direct and indirect emissivity so defi ned provide a solely

quan-titative indication of the emission phenomenon, without an evaluation of the

effects of the different forms of emission (chemical and thermal) or of the

different substances emitted In order to obtain signifi cant indications

regard-ing this type of environmental impact, it is necessary to apply evaluation

processes that elaborate the quantitative data in relation to some factors:

• The scale of the evaluation (local, regional, global)

• The type of environmental damage to be investigated

process such as that shown in Figure 2.3 It can be said, therefore, that: