MD Guidelines WebReady

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301796291
A Compilation of Design for Environment

Guidelines
Article in Journal of Mechanical Design · March 2016
CITATIONS READS
3 285
4 authors:
Cassandra Telenko Julia O'Rourke

Georgia Institute of Technology University of Texas at Austin
21 PUBLICATIONS 160 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Carolyn C Seepersad Michael E Webber

University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at Austin
156 PUBLICATIONS 1,831 CITATIONS 242 PUBLICATIONS 3,044 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Usage Context Modeling View project
Additive Manufacturing Material and Energy Consumption View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cassandra Telenko on 03 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Compilation of Design for Environment Guidelines
Cassandra Telenko, cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu
Department of Mechanical Engineering and School of Industrial Design, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
Julia M. O’Rourke, Carolyn Conner Seepersad, Michael E. Webber
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
ABSTRACT
Policymakers, consumers, and industry leaders are increasingly concerned about the
environmental impacts of modern products. In response, product designers seek simple and
effective methods for lowering the environmental footprints of their concepts. Design for
Environment (DfE) is a field of product design methodology that includes tools, methods and
principles to help designers reduce environmental impact. The most powerful and well-known
tool for DfE is life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA requires a fully specified design, however,
which makes it applicable primarily at the end of the design process. Because the decisions with
the greatest environmental impact are made during early design stages when data for a
comprehensive LCA are not yet available, it is important to develop DfE tools that can be
implemented in the early conceptual and embodiment design stages. Based on a broad critical
review of DfE literature and best practices, a set of 76 DfE guidelines are compiled and
reconciled for use in early stage design of products with minimal environmental impact. Select
Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,
Page 1
guidelines are illustrated through examples, and several strategies for using the guidelines are
introduced.
1. INTRODUCTION
Environmental factors are receiving heightened attention in product development
activities [4]. Ecodesign or Design for Environment (DfE) is the study and practice of tools,
methods and principles to help designers reduce environmental impact [2,3]. Over the past
decade many tools have been developed to guide designers towards making more
environmentally sound decisions [4–6]. Many of these tools can be classified broadly into two
categories: (1) life cycle assessment (LCA) tools and (2) ecodesign or DfE guidelines. LCA is a
quantitative tool for estimating environmental impacts of a product, and DfE guidelines are
generalizable, best practices informed by LCA [3]. The generalizable nature of guidelines allows
them to be used in the early stages of design when LCAs are not viable.
LCA is a standard approach defined by the ISO 14040 series for quantifying
environmental impacts of a product across its life cycle [7]. A complete life cycle incorporates
processes from extraction of raw materials through end-of-life recycling or disposal of the
product and its constituents. For each stage, the LCA accounts for inputs, such as raw materials
and energy, and outputs such as air, land, and water emissions and other by-products. A
complete LCA helps avoid, detect, and correct inadvertent transfer of harmful environmental
impacts from one life cycle stage to another. For example, addition of a battery and a motor to
create a hybrid vehicle reduces the environmental effects during the vehicle’s useful life.
However, an LCA reveals that non-trivial environmental effects are increased in other stages of a
hybrid vehicle’s life cycle because of extra parts and toxic materials. Designers find LCA useful
Page 2
for quantitatively assessing environmentally-related tradeoffs as part of the product development
process.
A comprehensive LCA, however, requires significant amounts of time and highly detailed
data describing the final product [8,9]. For example, LCA requires complete information on the
mass of each type of material in the final product, and precise quantities of material and energy
inputs and outputs of each stage of the production process. This information is typically
available only in the final stages of product development, after most product design decisions
have been made.
As shown in Figure 1, LCA is primarily a retrospective design tool for modifying bills of
materials, comparing existing products or processes, or designing a variant of an existing
product. Limited data quality and availability, as well as temporal and spatial factors, can make
full LCAs difficult for companies without expertise or ample proprietary data [10–14].
Therefore, more qualitative life cycle thinking tools, such as guidelines, informed by full LCAs,
are often utilized in the earlier stages of design [6].
Page 3
Figure 1: The Product Development Stages, Showing LCA as a Retrospective Tool and DfE
Guidelines as a Concurrent Design Tool [15]
DfE guidelines have been developed to guide designers in creating product concepts and
layouts when lack of time and detailed information prohibit a full LCA. Examples [16,17] of
guidelines include “ensuring rapid warm up and power down for energy efficiency” and
“ensuring easy access to fasteners and joints for disassembly and recycling.” DfE guidelines
often reflect lessons learned from LCA that pinpoint flaws or potential improvements in
candidate designs for improved environmental impact. They also promote consistency and
systematization between design projects, facilitate communication of new discoveries, and
provide an important set of environmental solutions to complement or replace unavailable LCA
data [3].
Page 4
The difficulty with DfE guidelines is that they are scattered throughout the literature, in
various forms and levels of abstraction, and they often focus only on specific life cycle stages,
products, or industries [18,19]. Also, as noted by Ramani et al. [2], some guidelines are so
specific that they are too prescriptive for novel design. A comprehensive set of DfE guidelines is
needed that synthesizes best practices from across these various sources and organizes them in a
form that is immediately useful to designers in a broad range of industries. In this paper, the
primary objective is to compile and present such a set of guidelines. The resulting guidelines and
examples are presented in Section 4. Section 2 summarizes the existing set of literature, and
Section 3 describes the research approach to reconciling guidelines. Section 5 discusses a
number of ways designers can use DfE guidelines in practice.
2. EXISTING DFE GUIDELINES
The goal of this research is to establish a comprehensive set of DfE guidelines that designers
from a variety of industries can use immediately to reduce the environmental impact of designs
throughout their life cycles. Published lists of DfE guidelines typically fall short of this goal, by
presenting guidelines that are too abstract to be useful; by focusing only on specific life cycle
stages; or by tailoring guidelines too closely to a particular product, industry, or stakeholder.
Thus, the central contribution of this work is to reconcile existing knowledge in a format that can
be used for advancing DfE research and education.
Many published lists of DfE guidelines focus on a single life cycle stage, often in the form of
Design for X strategies [3,20–23]. Examples include Design for Disassembly, Design for
Recycling, and Design for Energy Efficiency. End-of-life approaches to reducing environmental
impact, such as recycling, are relatively well established in the literature while other approaches,
such as guiding user behavior, are still being developed [18,24]. Because these types of
Page 5
guidelines have been developed and published separately, the risk is that the designer may focus
on a few simple redesign avenues and lose the holistic, life cycle perspective provided by a more
comprehensive set of DfE guidelines.
Many researchers and companies have developed sets of industry-specific guidelines, rules,
and checklists aimed at reducing the environmental impact of designs [25–28]. Volvo, for
example, instituted a Black, Grey, and White list of prohibited, cautionary, and clean materials in
the late 1980s/early 1990s [29]. Philips has a general list of DfE guidelines [30,31]. Likewise,
Siemens created its own list of 40 DfE principles [32]. Many of these guidelines assume
technological solutions; for example, Hewlett Packard’s mobile products follow specific rules for
electronic display, such as “Set display brightness to lowest comfort level to conserve energy /
battery life” [16]. Because the rule is solution-specific, it confines the designer to a specific
technology, such as electronic displays, rather than alternative, innovative solutions such as
organic displays that reflect ambient light. If the guideline were more general and applicable to a
broader range of products, it would encourage designers to utilize a component with best-in-class
energy efficiency. This example illustrates the difficulty with industry- or product-specific DfE
guidelines and suggests that guidelines may be more useful if they apply to a range of products.
Similarly, many regulations are being developed for products in specific regions and
industries. The Restriction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) directives are two widely accepted sets of rules for prohibited materials in
electronics [33]. The European Eco-Label [34] provides a few product-specific guidelines and
requires a full LCA. The McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry Certification [35] offers a
checklist point system to certify different levels of products, most of which are in the material
and chemical domains. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star certification verifies
Page 6
best-in-class energy efficient products and homes [36]. The U.S. Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program and other green
building certifications offer advice and performance targets for a number of environmental
impact reductions [37]. While these are useful requirements for a designer to meet, they do not
provide the guidance offered by sets of DfE guidelines in realizing new, environmentally friendly
concepts.
In contrast to the industry- and product-specific sets of guidelines, some sets of DfE
guidelines are extremely abstract. These lists typically articulate high-level goals of creating
ecologically beneficial products. Anastas and Zimmerman [38], along with McDonough and
Braungart [39,40], provide lists of abstract principles, such as “it is better to prevent waste than
to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.” Luttrop et al. [41] created a list of ten generic
principles which bring DfE to an intermediate level from which each product designer derives a
set of specialized guidelines. Although these principles cover the entire scope of Figure 1, the
level of abstraction is best complemented with more actionable guidelines.
Finally, some DfE guidelines are focused on managers or manufacturing process specialists,
rather than product designers. These guidelines can include everything from corporate attitude
and marketing to the operation of processing plants [20–23,42]. To emphasize the fact that the
environmental impact of a product is ultimately determined by a broad range of factors, many
guidelines within these lists begin to stray from an emphasis on the product designer. It is
important for companies to adopt an environmental management system (EMS) and for
designers to acquire knowledge of production processes and supply chains [43,44], but the
purpose of this literature review is to create a set of DfE guidelines geared towards a designer.
Page 7
For example, a designer does not need a guideline for production operations, but does need a
guideline for facilitating good production operations through the design of the product.
Designers are left to sift through these general principles, Design for X guidelines, and
product-specific checklists to create their own version of DfE. There is no consolidated set of
guidelines that can be used by the product designer. In the following section, a methodology is
presented for creating such a comprehensive set of guidelines from these sources.
3. METHOD FOR COMPILING A SET OF DFE GUIDELINES
Research began by compiling the principles, guidelines, and checklists described in the
academic literature and industry reports and manuals. Section 2 summarized general findings and
discrepancies across these sources. A snowball search method was utilized. Initial searches using
combinations of the terms: “rule-of-thumb” “principles”, “guidelines”, “checklists”, “design for
environment”, “DFE”, “eco-design”, “sustainable design”, and various synonymous phrases.
Additional literature findings were revealed through the bibliography or subsequent citations
listed by the Google Scholar search engine. Twenty-two sources were included in the study. To
merge the various types and levels of statements into a comprehensive set of guidelines, quoted
statements were synthesized and organized into a hierarchy using a mind map [45]. During the
mind-mapping process, each guideline was formulated to meet four criteria. The criteria are
defined as follows:
o Designer-oriented: the guideline must be within the scope of a product designer
o Actionable: the guideline must propose an avenue for improving the design
o General: the guideline must apply to a broad range of products
o Positive Imperative: the guideline must focus on creating the best solution possible
Page 8
In this section, the four criteria are described in greater detail and the overall methodology for
establishing the comprehensive set of guidelines is summarized. Fu et al. [46] provide a review
of design principles theory and validation in general, and their findings also suggest that
principle are derive largely from experience and are formed at varying levels of granularity given
the application. The critera for this set of guidelines are aimed at product designers who make
functional, architectural and aesthetic decisions.
The designer-oriented criterion defines the audience for this set of guidelines. It requires
that each guideline be formulated to direct designers, rather than managers or other stakeholders.
When reformulating guidelines to be more designer-oriented, it was helpful to refer to Pahl and
Beitz’s [15] list of the types of decisions typically made by a product designer: 1) overall layout,
2) form and types of components, 3) selection of materials, and 4) communication with the user
or manufacturer. An example of a guideline that did not meet the designer-oriented criterion is:
“Motivate the sales department to avoid environmentally-harmful forms of transport”[21],
because it is directed at stakeholders other than designers.
The actionable criterion requires that guidelines provide designers with summary-level tasks
for improving a product. High-level strategies, such as “Ensure long life,” articulate useful goals
but provide no advice on how to meet those goals. To make this strategy more actionable, it is
broken into potential avenues for achieving it, such as “Ensure that aesthetic life meets technical
life” and “Plan for efficiency improvements.” Goal-oriented DfE strategies are maintained as a
means of sorting the more actionable guidelines. The actionability of a guideline must be
balanced with general applicability, which is the focus of the next criterion.
The general criterion requires that guidelines apply to a variety of product categories and
design problems. To make guidelines actionable, practitioners and legislative bodies often create
Page 9
solution-specific guidelines, such as “avoid hydrocarbons that cause summer smog from
lacquers, solvents, and plastic foams.” Focusing on lists of materials can lead to the use of
unevaluated materials that are worse for environmental or human health. Writing the guideline as
“specify environmentally benign materials” increases the general utility of the guideline and
focuses on the need and subsequent action. In another example, “For hygiene, use a
laminate/recycled plastic laminated by virgin plastic” [21] was reconciled as, “Layer recycled
and virgin material where virgin material is necessary” to make the guideline applicable to a
wide range of materials and situations, rather than just plastics and food products. Throughout
the study, adjectives such as “ozone-depleting” and “carbon-creating” are combined under the
broader category of “hazardous” and reinterpreted as “clean.” Directions for using natural
materials, or not using synthetic or non-ferrous metals, are generalized to terms [20,22,23,47–51]
such as renewable, recyclable, and low-embodied energy. As an example of an industry-specific
rule, furniture designers are encouraged to specify sustainably-forested wood [20,26]. This rule is
subsumed under the more general guideline, “Specifying renewable materials.”
Using the positive imperative form helps focus the designer on positive possibilities,
including what to use rather than what not to use. Many current design guidelines are of the
form: “Do not…” or “Avoid… toxic or hazardous substances [22].” As noted above, “Specify
environmentally benign materials” [20–23,42,47–51] is only a slight modification of the
guideline, but places immediate focus on finding new solutions rather than solving old problems.
In another example, “avoid transport by air” is reconciled as “Source from suppliers with low
transportation impacts.”
These criteria were applied in the context of a mind-mapping process [45] for categorizing
and synthesizing the guidelines gathered from the literature. A mind map is a visual recording of
Page 10
a brainstorming session. The center of a mind map contains the overall function or goal of the
brainstorming session. Ideas and possible solutions are drawn from the center and grouped into
sets of similar concepts. For the purposes of this research, “Design for Environment” was placed
as the overall objective at the center of the mind map, and guidelines fulfilling this objective
were placed as sub-branches. Figure 2 presents a portion of the final mind map that emerged
from the literature study. The use of a mind map facilitated identifying interdependencies and
overlapping guidelines, arranging the guidelines in a hierarchy, and ensuring similar levels of
specificity across the mind map. For example, “lighter materials”[22] and “reduce mass of
components”[52] became “specify lightweight materials and components.” Guidelines to avoid
technical life that is greater than aesthetic life [48] or “increase aesthetic life” [21] or utilize
“timeless” or “classic” design [49] became reconciled as “improve aesthetics and functionality to
ensure the aesthetic life is equal to the technical life.”
The mind map originally resulted in four levels of guidelines branching from the central
objective “Design for Environment.” The first level contained general strategies for DfE, such as
“material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting”[38]. The second level
contained either further sub-strategies or guidelines, such as “technical life should not exceed
aesthetic life”[48]. The third level contained either rules stemming from guidelines or guidelines
stemming from sub-strategies, such as “plan for energy upgrades”[17,20]. The lowest level
consisted of product-specific rules, which were abstracted to general guidelines as previously
discussed in this section. Overlapping strategies and sub-strategies were reformulated into a
single, combined strategy using the criteria. Equivalent guidelines were combined into one
encompassing guideline, and all strategies and guidelines were reviewed to meet the four criteria:
Page 11
designer-oriented, actionable, general, and positive imperative. The methodology resulted in 6
DfE strategies and 76 guidelines.
Page 12
Figure 2: Final DfE Mind Map (abridged)
4. DFE GUIDELINES
Table 1 shows the full compilation of DfE guidelines. The guidelines are rooted in the literature (Section 2),
but the consolidation of guidelines from disparate sources, the hierarchical arrangement into strategies and
guidelines, and the wording of each strategy and guideline is distinctive to this work. Strategies are re-
conceptualized from the mind map and literature review to fit the criteria: A and B for resource and process
selection, C for production and transportation, D for use, E for extended life and F for disassembly. Because
guidelines stem from LCA, these strategies tend to represent the major stages and flows of the product life cycle
[2,6]. The organization by strategy is meant to aid the reader in understanding overarching goals of the
guidelines. Nevertheless, synergies and overlaps exist such that guidelines may be appropriate for multiple
Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404, Page 13

strategies. In particular, guidelines under Strategy F that support ease of disassembly also facilitate many of the
other guidelines and strategies. Additionally, guidelines under Strategy E, increasing the life of a product,
should be compared with Strategy D and the needs of efficient production and product operation.
Terms used in the guidelines indicate broad applications of sustainability concepts. As in Oehlberg et al.
[18], guidelines that apply to efficiency and consumption may be misconstrued as energy-focused. “Resources”
encompasses material, food, water, energy and other resources. The term “materials” can include engineering
materials, food, and water. “Hazardous” is the opposite of “beneficial”, meaning that a material itself has
negative health effects upon the environment or humans. The term “pollutant” may overlap with “hazardous”,
but may encompass nuances, such as noise pollution, or more indirectly hazardous outputs, such as carbon
dioxide. “Outputs” may refer to any material or energy flow from any process during the product’s life cycle.
“Recycled” does not only refer to re-processed materials, but materials that can be reused with little to no
additional processing.
The following subsections describe products that embody one or more of the guidelines. Each
subsection focuses on one strategy and multiple related guidelines. These examples illustrate a small, product-
focused selection of the potential applications of DfE guidelines and sustainability concepts. Although the
guidelines are informed by LCA insights, the example designs and guidelines are not all-encompassing. New
guidelines are likely to be discovered, and the guidelines themselves involve difficult tradeoffs that change with
context. For example, materials that are bio-degradable (guideline #9) might make more sense in emerging
economies where waste collection does not occur, but recyclable materials (guideline #1) may be better in
communities with strong recycling systems.

Table 1: DfE guidelines
A. Maximize availability of resources:[3,20–23,32,38,41,42,47–
51,53] 38. Minimize start up and power down time
1. Specify renewable and abundant resources 39. Interconnect available flows of energy and materials
2. Specify recyclable or recycled resources 40. Maximize system efficiency for a range of real world
3. Layer recycled and virgin material where virgin material conditions
is necessary 41. Create shared or service systems that de-materialize
4. Employ common and remanufactured components 42. Harmonize the operation with users’ daily activities within
across models the product and its environment
5. Specify compatible materials and fasteners for recycling 43. Permit users to turn off systems in part or whole
6. Minimize the variety of materials in the product and its 44. Reveal how much resource is being consumed
subassemblies 45. Incorporate intuitive controls for resource-saving features
B. Maximize healthy inputs and outputs:[3,15,20–23,41,42,47– 46. Incorporate features that prevent or discourage waste of
51,53] materials by the user
7. Contain pollutants and hazardous materials for reuse or 47. Automatically reset the product to its most efficient
processing setting
8. Specify environmentally benign materials 48. Employ transformation or multi-functionality
9. Create biodegradable outputs E. Maximize technical and aesthetic life of the product and
10. Specify resources with low emissions components:[3,15,20–23,32,41,48,49,51,53,57]
11. Include labels and instructions for safe handling of toxic 49. Reutilize resource intensive components
materials 50. Plan for ongoing efficiency improvements
12. Concentrate pollutants and hazardous materials for easy 51. Improve aesthetics and functionality to ensure the
removal and treatment aesthetic life is equal to the technical life
13. Recover emissions and outputs 52. Minimize required maintenance
C. Minimize use of resources in production and 53. Protect products from dirt, corrosion, and wear
transportation phases: [17,20–23,32,38,42,48,50,53] 54. Indicate through the product how parts are maintained
14. Replace the functions and appeals of packaging through 55. Minimize the number of service and inspection tools
the product’s form 56. Facilitate testing of components
15. Employ folding, nesting or disassembly to ship and store 57. Allow for repetitive dis- and re- assembly
products in a compact state 58. Increase the value with age
16. Apply structural techniques and materials that minimize 59. Communicate durability and reliability through the form
the total volume of material F. Facilitate upgrading and reuse of components: [3,15,20–
17. Specify lightweight materials and components 23,32,38,41,42,47–51,53,58]
18. Structure the product to avoid rejects and minimize 60. Make wear detectable for repair and upgrade
material waste in production 61. Indicate through the product how it should be opened
19. Minimize the number of components 62. Ensure that joints and fasteners are easily accessible
20. Specify materials with low-intensity production and 63. Facilitate upgrading and reuse of components that
agriculture experience rapid change
21. Specify materials that do not require additional surface 64. Maintain stability and part placement during
treatment of inks disassembly/assembly
22. Exploit intrinsic properties of materials 65. Minimize the number of tools required for
23. Specify clean production processes within the supply disassembly/assembly
chain 66. Minimize destructive disassembly and its effects
24. Employ as few manufacturing steps as possible 67. Ensure reusable parts can be cleaned easily and without
25. Source from suppliers with low transportation impacts damage
D. Minimize consumption of resources during operation: 68. Make incompatible materials easily separated
[3,15,20–24,38,41,42,48,49,51,53–56] 69. Make component interfaces simply and reversibly
26. Implement reusable supplies separable
27. Incorporate timed, noticeable incentives into operation 70. Organize in hierarchical modules by aesthetic, repair,
28. Minimize energy and material loss and end-of-life protocol
29. Minimize the volume and weight of materials to which 71. Implement reusable/swappable platforms, modules, and
energy is transferred components
30. Optimize the rate and duration of resource use to the 72. Specify adhesives, labels, surface coatings, pigments
task that are compatible with cleaning during and after the
31. Provide discrete quantities of resources useful life
32. Provide automatic or manual tuning capabilities 73. Employ one disassembly/assembly direction without
33. Indicate the current state of processes reorientation
34. Create separate modules for tasks with different ideal 74. Minimize the number and length of operations for
solutions detachment
35. Support complex decision-making by the user 75. Mark materials in molds with types and reutilization
36. Specify best-in-class efficiency components protocol
37. Incorporate partial operation to disengage subsystems 76. Use a shallow or open structure for easy access to sub-
that are not in use assemblies

4.1 Strategy A: Maximize Availability of Resources
Strategy A aims to address resource depletion by encouraging reuse and renewability of
resources. The guidelines organized under this strategy apply to every aspect of the product,
including consumables and packaging. Proper application of these guidelines requires some
investigation into current material databases and supply chains to make informed decisions.
Guideline 5, for example, would suggest using fasteners that are the same metal, plastic, or other
material as the main body. That way, the product does not have to be disassembled and parts
separated. Additionally, adhesives could be water-soluble so that the material quality is easily
reprocessed. Both of these guidelines are aimed at increasing the likelihood of material being
recycled as stock for new applications.
Page 16
Figure 3: Xerox® Uses Remanufactured Modules (Adapted from [59,60])
Guideline 4: Employ common and remanufactured components across models.
By using common parts and remanufactured components, a designer ensures that those parts
are available for additional lifecycles and avoids the unnecessary material and manufacturing
costs associated with additional virgin components. The designer may also create a product line
that supports reuse by enabling interchangeable parts.
One example of designing with remanufactured components comes from the redesign of the
Rank-Xerox® photocopiers in the 1990s [50]. Designers completely redesigned the architecture
of their photocopiers, making them able to accommodate remanufactured modules from current
and previously introduced products, shown in Figure 3 [61]. The remanufactured and conversion
Page 17
models use remanufactured parts, such as paper trays and common cartridges [62]. In 2009, 70-
90% of components by mass were reused [63].
4.2 Strategy B: Maximize Healthy Inputs and Outputs
Healthy inputs and outputs are those that cause minimal environmental degradation or
adverse effects on human health; in fact, these inputs and outputs should improve environmental
and human health. This strategy requires elimination of hazardous substances and pollutants as
well as the conversion of waste to useful materials for products and ecosystems. Like strategy A,
strategy B applies to every aspect of the product, including consumables and packaging.
Guideline 10: Specify resources with low emissions.
Guideline 10 focuses on emissions from energy sources. Often, a product’s largest
environmental impact is dependent on the amount and type of energy consumed during its use
phase. By using clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power, a product can avoid power
plant emissions. Other energy source considerations, such as choosing rechargeable batteries
rather than disposable ones, would also fall under this guideline. Thus, a product will result in
the disposal of one set of batteries, and not dozens, thereby reducing toxic waste at end-of-life.
The Seiko Kinetic® Auto Relay, shown in Figure 4, exhibits both aspects of this strategy; it
has no batteries and no external chargers. Seiko’s watch is powered by the kinetic energy of the
wearer’s movement, a readily available and clean energy source (Guideline 1). The watch is
charged after a few side-to-side motions, and operated by an oscillating weight [64]. An
additional power saving feature is that hand motion stops after the watch is stationary for 72
hours (Guidelines 37, 42, and 43). The watch maintains the correct time internally for up to 4
Page 18
years of inaction. Within those four years, the watch can be shaken to return to the correct time
[64].
Figure 4: Wearer’s Movement Powers the Seiko Kinetic® Auto Relay [65]
4.3 Strategy C: Minimize Use of Resources in Production and Transportation Phases
Strategy C encourages designers to think about how product attributes affect the efficiencies
of seemingly unrelated processes. Guidelines for fulfilling strategy C provide direction in
structuring and sizing products to reduce material waste in production and reduce the load and
number of shipments to lower fuel use and emissions.
Guideline 16: Apply structural techniques and materials that minimize the total volume of
material.
Guideline 16 challenges the designer to find alternatives to over-designing a product. The
emphasis lies in rethinking over-designed and “one size fits all” [38] solutions. Rather than
increasing thickness or size, designers should try to specify lightweight and high strength
materials as well as investigate sturdier and more compact geometries. Figure 5 shows the Black
and Decker® Leaf Hog™, which uses ribbing to achieve not only structural rigidity but also
internal part placements. This design also embodies general best practices for manufacturing; the
Page 19
creation of thinner walls aids the injection molding process, promotes cooling of the newly
molded part, and reduces shrinking, consequently improving the efficient use of manufacturing
resources.
Figure 5: The Black and Decker® Leaf Hog™ Uses a Ribbed Structure to Increase Strength
and Reduce Material Use
Guideline 22: Exploit intrinsic properties of materials.
Guideline 22 reminds designers to fully utilize the qualities of materials, recycled or natural.
Treatment of materials, such as forming and pigmenting, adds extra and potentially harmful
processing steps. However, by making use of unique textures, color combinations, and
intermixed patterns of a material, a designer can realize untapped potential, forgo additional
production steps, and divert valuable material from landfills.
An example of not just recycled, but reused material comes from Bitters Company. They
design doormats and keychains using scrap foam rubber produced during the manufacture of Flip
Flops. Reusing waste from the manufacturing stage (Guidelines 2 & 13), Bitters Company
maintains the original coloring to create patterns in their final doormat or keychain. Figure 6
shows the clever use of the rubber foam for a floating keychain [66].
Page 20
Figure 6: Bitters Company Uses the Original Coloring and Low Density of Flip Flop Scraps
to Make Products such as Floating Keychains and Doormats [66]
4.4 Strategy D: Minimize Consumption of Resources During Operation
Strategy D concerns the promotion of features that increase the energy- and materials-
efficiency of designs, as well as features that help the user conserve resources while using the
design.
Guideline 39: Interconnect available flows of energy and materials.
Guideline 39 makes use of nearby resources, such as waste material and energy. Some
famous and broader applications of this guideline are solar power and regenerative braking. Solar
power makes use of the prime source of energy available to the planet, but incorporating a solar-
powered system in a design requires the designer to be mindful of product exposure to sunlight.
Regenerative braking recovers expended energy. Instead of braking a car by disk or drum brakes
and losing kinetic energy as heat, the electric generator is reversed from powering the wheels to
being powered by, and effectively slowing, the wheels.
Page 21
Retrofit products, such as the SinkPositive in Figure 7, are now being marketed to the
environmentally conscious consumer. One flush of a toilet sends one gallon or more of potable
water down the drain. Washing one’s hands after using the toilet causes additional loss of this
increasingly important commodity. SinkPositive combines the two interlinked functions by
connecting a sink to a toilet tank. After a user flushes the toilet, replacement water is fed through
an added faucet and used for hand washing prior to filling the tank, thereby reducing water use
relative to a bathroom with a separate toilet and sink.
Figure 7: SinkPositive Diverts Tank Water Through a Faucet [40]
Guideline 46: Incorporate features that prevent or discourage waste of materials by the user.
Guideline 46 requires designers to be more conscious of how their product will be used or
misused, and the aspects of material use that can be guided by design. A few examples of this
guideline are found in products with calibration marks for a user to measure the correct amount
of water, washing powder, or coffee they place into their product [21,42]. Another instance of
how products can be designed to aid the user is the incorporation of funnels to prevent spillage
[21,42].
Page 22
Figure 8: The ECO kettle™ Responds to User Habits and Helps Users Heat Only What
They Need [67]
A good example of this guideline is the ECO kettle™ in Figure 8. The ECO kettle™
accounts for a common mistake – heating too much water. Combining guidelines 29 and 34, the
designers partitioned the kettle into separate storage and heating compartments, with gradients to
measure the contents of each compartment. Most importantly, this allows users to continue their
habit of leaving extra water in the kettle (not wanting to refill the kettle every time they heat
water) but also begin a habit of heating the correct amount of water. Thus, energy is saved, and
environmentally-responsible habits are encouraged.
4.5 Strategy E: Maximize Technical and Aesthetic Life of the Product and Components
Extending the life of a product avoids the life cycle impacts of a replacement product and
postpones the impacts associated with the end of life of the existing product. Strategy E can be
addressed using two important approaches: (1) increasing the durability of the product to extend
its useful life, and (2) enabling the product to be easily updated to meet current best practices. In
this way, use of old, inefficient technology is not prolonged. Since the durable product can be
updated in parts, designers have time to develop new, innovative, environmental solutions and/or
Page 23
incorporate the latest environmentally friendly technology. This strategy may require the
development of new business policies and operations, such as product service systems [68]. It is
also important to note that Strategy E, requires balance with Strategy D (minimizing resource
consumption during use). For example, the work by Gutowski et al. [69] show that the efficiency
improvements of new electrical components save more energy than remanufacturing old
electronics.
Guideline 49: Reutilize resource intensive components
Guideline 50: Plan for on-going efficiency improvements
An example of a product service system is the creation of clothing rental sites, like Rent
the Runway. These sites allow customers to rent designer clothing, such as formal wear, that
may be worn only once at affordable rates and then send the clothing back for maintenance.
Thus, the water and human and transportation resources used in manufacturing additional
clothing in other parts of the world are saved in favor of a single dress or other piece used by
multiple customers. The dresses are reused (guideline 49) and the system accounts for the high
turnover and low utilization of clothing (guideline 50).
Guideline 51: Improve aesthetics and functionality to ensure the aesthetic life is equal to the
technical life.
Guideline51 facilitate the longevity of an initial design in the hands of a user. A physically
durable component or product is useless if a consumer replaces it before it becomes obsolete.
Created with a “classic” or updateable design, a product can stand the test of time in usefulness
and appeal to the consumer.
One example of such a classic and updateable design is the IKEA POÄNG Chair, shown in
Figure 9, released as the POEM chair in 1977. Owners of the original chair still have a modern
Page 24
design as the chair design has remained nearly the same, with only changes in the cushions
and covers over time. This aesthetically and structurally long-lasting design allows for
continual renewal of the product by simply replacing the cover or cushion as needed.
Figure 9: The IKEA POANG Chair has been Successful Since 1977 [70]
4.6 Strategy F: Facilitate Upgrading and Reuse of Components
Recycling, remanufacturing, reuse, repair, and upgrading can be facilitated by incorporating
these features for disassembly, separation, and purification. These features are often found as
structural solutions complementing strategies A-E. Very often, Strategies E and F occur in
tandem, but some guidelines, such as 60, “Make wear detectable…”, can conflict with Strategy E
by worsening aesthetics. Furthermore, this guideline in tandem with #63, “Facilitate upgrading
and reuse of components that experience rapid change,” often supports Strategy D for reducing
consumption during the use phase because they can help keep the product operating efficiently
over time.
Guideline 51: Improve aesthetics and functionality to ensure the aesthetic life is equal to the
technical life.
Page 25
Guideline 71: Implement reusable/swappable platforms, modules, and components
For example, aesthetic maintenance is supported by modular design in Ford’s Model U
Concept Car from 2003. Figure 10 shows the interior of Ford’s design using modular structures
and common components for aesthetics. The interior is “uncluttered” to allow consumers to
modify the interior as they choose. Upholstery, slots and electronic connections are arranged so
the user can insert and remove both electronics and finishings. It is a long-term, upgradeable
investment, designed to accommodate changing preferences and needs [71]. The design includes
both recyclable and biodegradable materials. The Ford Model U’s architecture helps a user
customize the base, the floor, and the fabric. Modules that are removed during the use and
upgrade of the vehicle are designed to be easily accessible and standardized. At end-of-life,
materials are organized into recyclable and biodegradable waste.
Figure 10: Ford Model U Concept Car has a Modular and Upgradeable Interior [72]
Guideline 50: Plan for ongoing efficiency improvements; and
Guideline 71: Implement reusable/swappable platforms, modules, and components
Guideline 71 tries to avoid a waste problem that many consumers experience: a product
contains many components and features; one of those becomes obsolete or breaks down; and the
consumer is forced to purchase an entirely new product. This situation is not only irritating to
consumers, but creates an unnecessary amount of waste, rendering operational components
Page 26
useless. Evidence of this phenomenon is apparent in the electronics industry, where cell phones
may be replaced yearly.
An exemplar modular, reusable, upgradeable design is the desktop computer. Every tower
has standard slots and sizes for DVD ROMs, CD ROMs, and video cards. Motherboards come
with the same slots, with options to upgrade and change memory types. Whole computers can be
built at home or by independent parties from spare parts – saving assembly energy, reducing
waste of old parts, and allowing upgrades to more energy efficient components.
5. APPROACHES TO USING DFE GUIDELINES
The examples in Section 4 demonstrate design solutions that follow DfE guidelines. In
contrast, this section discusses the many ways design practitioners and researchers use
guidelines, or could use guidelines in the future. The purpose of this section is to summarize the
variety of methods for using guidelines, in addition to potential advantages and disadvantages of
these approaches. For all methods, there may be cases where a change to better meet a guideline
may prevent application of another guideline less well (for instance, if a lighter weight material
is not recyclable). The designer must always have a holistic view of the product's life cycle and
consider the possible unintended consequences of implementing design changes that would
better meet a guideline.
Approach 1: Identifying a DfE strategy and implementing relevant guidelines
It is difficult to implement some of the guidelines simultaneously; for example, the most
lightweight material for a particular high-strength application may also be difficult to recycle.
Page 27
Experts will often choose high-level DfE strategies based on known challenges with a particular
product and then refer to the corresponding guidelines [73,74].
One example of this approach is the LiDS wheel or DfE Strategy Wheel by Van Hemel [75].
Practitioners of the LiDS wheel evaluate typologies of strategies and guidelines, with each of 8
typologies represented using axes in a spider chart. By drawing current and desired levels of
performance in relation to these strategies, companies and designers can create targets for
themselves. After this analysis and reflection, detailed use of guidelines, such as those presented
in this paper, may be helpful for achieving those targets.
Baeiswyl and Eppinger [73] take a similar approach in that they conceive of DfE strategies of
interest as being dictated by the DfE goals of the project and the largest expected environmental
impact areas. For instance, if the design team is trying to become compliant with a new
regulation mandating recycling, then guidelines related to increasing recyclability and using
recycled materials would likely be selected. Baeriswly and Eppinger [73] also discuss how
Studio 7.5 used this approach to design a sustainable office chair for the furniture company
Herman Miller. They describe how Herman Miller chose to focus on sustainable material
selection, easy product disassembly, and recyclability because they recognized at the outset that
the main environmental impacts associated with their office furniture occur during the material,
product and recovery life cycle stages [67]. This approach inspired them to make many
environmentally-beneficial changes to their designs, including, for instance, the decision to use
two materials for the chair’s spine that can be recycled without separation, as opposed to a
previous design that specified the use of dissimilar materials that could not be recycled together
[67].
Page 28
Strategically selecting a subset of guidelines allows for faster achievement of companies’
environmental goals and reduces time spent on portions of the design that do not significantly
affect its overall environmental impact. Conversely, when relying on expert knowledge and
intuition, one must assume experts know which guidelines would yield the most fruitful results.
This could be an incorrect assumption and could cause high-impact opportunities outside of that
strategic design space to be discounted. If the company or expert is biased toward a particular
type of solution (ex. increasing recyclability), they might overrate the importance of related types
of environmental impacts, and they might overlook guidelines that would provide more
innovative avenues for reducing environmental impact overall.
Approach 2: Using guidelines as idea generators.
Designers could use the DfE strategies and guidelines as a foundation for ideation and
concept generation. A mindmap of guidelines, similar to Figure 2, could be provided, and design
teams could be encouraged to use the guidelines as idea generators for new concepts that meet
the specified guideline better than the original design. Teams could be encouraged to develop
concepts for every guideline listed, thereby forcing them to consider the entire life cycle impact
of their design and explore a broader sustainable design space. Rather than getting lost in details
- as might occur if designers were focused on very specific guidelines for one life cycle stage, or
if they were trying to accrue data for an LCA - the DfE guidelines facilitate the development of a
holistic perspective of environmental impact that is useful in the early stages of conceptual
design. When using the guidelines during concept generation, there may be a danger of fixating
on particular guidelines due to design team members' biases or the ease of which ideas can be
generated to meet particular guidelines. For example, designers of staplers may focus on
Page 29
minimizing stapling error or choosing recyclable materials, but patents for staple-free staplers
were first obtained in 1913 [76]. There are now multiple brands of staplers that punch and fold
the paper as a "staple" (guidelines 13 and 49) marketed as eco-friendly [77]. Many means of
holistic implementation of the guidelines have yet to be examined in repeatable studies, a task for
future work.
Nevertheless, this approach appears promising because it takes advantage of the fact that the
guidelines presented in this work are both broad and detailed. These guidelines apply to all life
cycle stages, and they provide a number of different strategies a designer could use to reduce
environmental impact in each of these stages. For instance, guidelines focused on multiple life
cycle phases can be used to prompt designers to consider the life cycle impact of the product
they are designing in a holistic way and promote higher-level systems thinking regarding
environmental impact. For example, Vallet et al. [78] studied the DfE practices of experts
redesigning a razor. They showed that by starting with an environmental strategy, designers may
focus on redesigning aspects of a product that have limited influence on the overall
environmental impact, instead of aspects of the product with potentially larger impacts (for
razors, it may be water used while shaving).
Approach 3: Using an expert knowledge database to select relevant guidelines based upon
desired DfE strategy and design stage.
Work from other researchers has sought to automate the process of selecting relevant
guidelines using input from the designer. This approach makes the process of selecting relevant
guidelines quicker, and it avoids the need for expert input. Researchers from the University of
Grenoble [79], for instance, have developed a design tool called Synergico, which contains 59
Page 30
design guidelines related to energy efficiency. Synergico has different filters corresponding to,
for instance, the design stage (conceptual vs. detailed design) and the designer’s department
(mechanical design vs. marketing). Designers answer questions related to these filters, and
Synergico presents a small set of relevant guidelines. The researchers used Synergico to identify
sustainable redesign avenues for a postage meter, a device that seals envelopes, determines the
appropriate amount of postage for the letter, applies the stamps, and charges a bank account.
Synergico helped the designers identify four efficiency-related guidelines to consider during the
redesign. Although some of the guidelines could not be fully implemented, the identification of
these guidelines prompted the designers to consider strategies to meet the guidelines and
comment on how they could or could not meet the guideline better in their final design. Because
of the influence of the guidelines, the designers identified the possibility of incorporating a
standby mode in the default settings of the postage meter.
Similarly, Vargas Hernandez et al. [80] developed GREENSYS, a tool to help designers
identify relevant sustainable design tools and methods. GREENSYS prompts designers with a
series of questions that are used to screen the database of possible sustainable design tools and/or
guidelines that may be of interest. The three required questions deal with: (1) the design
objective, (2) the life cycle stage of interest, and (3) the stage of the design process. There are
also optional questions concerning designers’ desired DfE strategies.
An advantage of this approach is that it is time efficient. Designers are presented only with
guidelines that are likely to be of immediate use to them, either because they are interested only
in a particular type of sustainability solution (Design for Recycling), have control over only one
aspect of a design (electronics), or need a particular level of detail or abstraction.
Page 31
Nevertheless, a disadvantage is that the holistic life cycle perspective is lost. When
implemented this way, designers may be in danger of fixating on the first sustainable design
problem or solution that comes to mind; for instance, they might focus only on improving
recyclability. This effect is more pronounced for this approach than in Approach 1, discussed
above, because designers may not see the other guidelines and the many alternative options that
may be available to them to lower the overall environmental impact of a product from a systems
perspective.
Approach 4: Using the set of guidelines to evaluate concepts
Complete sets of guidelines can serve as a proxy for full or streamlined LCAs. This practice
has a basis in early streamlined LCA tools that used checklists or matrices of questions for
evaluating early-stage concepts. O’Rourke and Seepersad [81] used a previous compilation of
DfE guidelines presented in this work to compare the life cycle impacts of nine bioinspired
designs and their functionally-equivalent non-bioinspired competitors. Moderately-detailed
information on specific bioinspired features was collected for a sample of bioinspired designs, as
was information on the standard features in non-bioinspired designs. For instance, the
bioinspired passive cooling system of Eastgate Centre, a shopping center in Zimbabwe, was
compared to that of a traditional electric air conditioner for a similarly-sized building using the
DfE guidelines. It was found that the passive cooling system met four of the guidelines better
than the competing product as a result of its bioinspired features. The results from analyzing the
nine bioinspired designs together showed that many of the environmental differences between
the bioinspired and non-bioinspired designs were related to a small subset of the DfE guidelines,
allowing for the identification of trends in the types of environmental advantages that have been
Page 32
achieved using biological analogies. Because practical considerations prevented the collection of
sufficient information to conduct LCAs for all eighteen designs analyzed in the study by
O’Rourke and Seepersad [81], the conceptual differences between bioinspired designs and their
competitors were compared using the DfE guidelines.
An advantage of using DfE guidelines for this purpose is that the guidelines offer breadth and
detail. They cover all life cycle phases of a product, with a level of detail that still allows nuances
in energy efficient solutions, for instance, to become apparent. Without time to accurately
conduct LCAs, guidelines facilitate environmental comparisons between designs at a conceptual
level. Midzic et al.[82] found that designers who use guidelines to rate product concepts are
more consistent than designers who do not have guidelines.
A disadvantage of this approach is that it lacks quantitative measures for the relative
environmental impact of products, with weights for the importance of different types of impacts.
For instance, this approach might show that design A is better than design B for guideline #1, and
that B is better than A for guideline #2; but it will not indicate which of the two alternatives has a
lower environmental impact overall. If one uses the guidelines to assess the sustainability of
designs, it may be helpful to use content beyond the guideline list to ensure that all researchers
are interpreting the guidelines the same way.
6. CLOSURE
A total of 6 DfE strategies and 76 DfE guidelines were reconciled from 20 sources, and a
subset was illustrated with examples. The guidelines are intended to be used in the early stages
of design to reduce environmental impacts of products and systems. The guidelines can be used
as prompts for ideation, as expert knowledge in automated design guidance, and as criteria for
Page 33
evaluating early stage design alternatives. Industrial application and utilization of these
guidelines may differ, and Pigosso et al. [44] provide an Eco-Design Maturity Model to help
managers set appropriate goals for their design teams. The guidelines presented here are intended
to serve as the foundation for a comprehensive and expandable database of DfE guidelines;
future work may include continued validation, documentation, and systematic development of
this foundation. Since DfE guidelines are continually evolving [54,83], it is possible that
researchers could create a digital database for submitting and updating guidelines. Also in future
work, it would be interesting to examine conflicts between guidelines more thoroughly. Brezet et
al. [42] present a table of the conflicts and complements between DfE strategies and other design
considerations (e.g. safety and cost). One readily available example is the conflict between
enabling repair and upgrading and eliminating the need for replacements with a more durable
innovation. A solution to this conflict could involve modular upgradeability, as in the example of
modern computers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Cassandra Telenko was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, and Julia
O’Rourke was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and a Powers Fellowship
from the University of Texas at Austin. We also gratefully acknowledge the members of the
Webber Energy Group and the Product, Process, and Materials Design Lab at the University of
Texas at Austin.
REFERENCES
Page 34
[1] Cuerva, M. C., Triguero-Cano, Á., and Córcoles, D., 2014, “Drivers of Green and Non-
Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence in Low-Tech SMES,” J. Clean. Prod., 68(April),
pp. 104–113.
[2] Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W. Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J., Handwerker, C.,
Choi, J.-K., Kim, H., and Thurston, D., 2010, “Integrated Sustainable Lifecycle Design : A
Review,” J. Mech. Des., 132(9), pp. 091004–1–091004–15.
[3] Fiksel, J., 2011, Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development,
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA.
[4] de Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., and Cortimiglia, M. N., 2014, “Success Factors for
Environmentally Sustainable Product Innovation: a Systematic Literature Review,” J.
Clean. Prod., 65(September), pp. 76–86.
[5] Fitzgerald, D. P., Herrmann, J. W., and Schmidt, L. C., 2010, “A Conceptual Design Tool
for Resolving Conflicts Between Product Functionality and Environmental Impact,” J.
Mech. Des., 132(9), pp. 091006–1–091006–11.
[6] Byggeth, S., and Hochschorner, E., 2006, “Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for
sustainable product development and procurement,” J. Clean. Prod., 14, pp. 1420–1430.
[7] International Organization for Standardization, 2006, ISO 14040:2006, Environmental

management, Life cycle assessment, Principles and framework, Geneva, Switzerland.
[8] Allenby, B. R., 2000, “Implementing Industrial Ecology: The AT&T Matrix System,”
Interfaces (Providence)., 30(3), pp. 42–54.
[9] Allenby, B. R., and Graedel, T. R., 1995, Industrial Ecology, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
[10] Ayres, R. U., 1995, “Life cycle analysis : A critique,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 14(95),
pp. 199–223.
[11] Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., and Bras, B., 2008, “A Survey of Unresolved Problems
in Life Cycle Assessment, Part 1: Goal and Scope and Inventory Analysis,” Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess., 13(4), pp. 290–300.
Page 35
[12] Reap, J., Roman, F., Duncan, S., and Bras, B., 2008, “A survey of Unresolved Problems in
Life Cycle Assessment, Part 2: Impact Assessment and Interpretation,” Int. J. Life Cycle
Assess., 13(5), pp. 374–388.
[13] Bras, B., 2013, “Recurring and Unresolved Problems in Sustainable Design,” Proceedings
of the ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference, Paper: DETC2013-13459, Portland, OR.
[14] Kota, S., and Chakrabarti, A., 2010, “A Method for Estimating the Degree of Uncertainty
With Respect to Life Cycle Assessment During Design,” J. Mech. Des., 132(9), pp.
091007–1–091007–9.
[15] Pahl, G., and Beitz, W., 1999, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Springer-
Verlag, London.
[16] Hewlett Packard, 2008, “Design for Environment” [Online]. Available:

http://www.hp.com/. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2001].
[17] Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), 2001, “Aiming for Sustainable Product
Development: Electrical and Electronic Products” [Online]. Available:
http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2001].
[18] Oehlberg, L., Bayley, C., Hartman, C., and Agogino, A., 2012, “Mapping the Life Cycle
Analysis and Sustainability Impact of Design for Environment Principles,” CIRP
International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Berkeley, CA, USA, pp. 221–226.
[19] Telenko, C., Seepersad, C. C., and Webber, M. E., 2008, “A Compilation of Design for
Environment Principles and Guidelines,” ASME IDETC, Paper: DETC2008-49651, New
York, NY.
[20] Lewis, H., and Gertsakis, J., 2001, Design + Environment: A Global Guide to Designing
Greener Goods, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.
[21] Crul, M., and Diehl, J., 2006, “Design for Sustainability: A Practical Approach for
Developing Economies” [Online]. Available: http://www.d4s-de.org/. [Accessed: 01-Aug-
2015].
[22] Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), 1997, “Introduction to EcoReDesign:

Improving the Environmental Performance of Manufactured Products” [Online].
Page 36
Available: http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/. [Accessed: 01-Jan-2008].
[23] Johns, N., 2004, EcoDesign Innovation Professional Practice Guidelines, Design Institute
of Aurstralia Industrial Design, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
[24] Srivastava, J., and Shu, L. H., 2013, “Encouraging Resource-Conscious Behavior Through
Product Design: The Principle of Discretization,” J. Mech. Des., 135(6), pp. 061002–1–
061002–9.
[25] Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), 2001, “A Guide to the EcoReDesign
Process.”
Development:: Furniture” [Online]. Available: http://mams.rmit.edu.au/. [Accessed: 01-
May-2015].
Development: Packaging,” pp. 1–5 [Online]. Available: http://www.cfd.rmit.edu.au/.
[Accessed: 20-Aug-2001].
[28] Collado-ruiz, D., Bastante-ceca, M. J., Viñoles-cebolla, R., and Capuz-Rizo, S. F., 2007,
“Identification of Common Strategies for Different Electric and Electronic Equipment in
Order to Optimize their End-of-Life,” International Conference on Engineering Design,
Paper: 244, Paris, France.
[29] VOLVO Group, 2005, Volvo Standards 100-0002 and 100-0003: Black and Grey Lists.
[30] White, P., 1995, Green Pages, Guideline for Ecological Design, Philips Electronics NV,
Philips Corporate Design.
[31] Meinders, H. C., 1997, Point of No Return, Philips Electronics NV.
[32] Siemens, 2000, “Product Design, Recycling, Environmental Protection, Ecological

Compatibility, Product Development” [Online]. Available: http://www.greenchain.net.
[Accessed: 01-Jan-2008].
[33] Industry Council for Electronic Equipment Recycling (ICER), 2008, “WEEE and ROHS
Legislation” [Online]. Available: http://www.icer.org.uk/. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2001].
Page 37
[34] Europa, “EU Eco-Label,” Eur. Comm. [Online]. Available:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel. [Accessed: 20-May-2005].
[35] McDonough, B., 2015, “Cradle to Cradle Certification” [Online]. Available:

http://www.c2ccertified.com. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2015].
[36] Environmental Protection Agency, 2015, “Energy Star” [Online]. Available:

http://www.energystar.gov/. [Accessed: 01-Mar-2014].
[37] U.S. Green Building Council, 2015, “LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design” [Online]. Available: http://www.usgbc.org/LEED. [Accessed: 01-Mar-2015].
[38] Zimmerman, J. B., and Anastas, P. T., 2003, “Design Through the 12 Principles of
GREEN Engineering,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 37(5), pp. 94–101.
[39] McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P. T., and Zimmerman, J. B., 2003, “Applying
the Principles of GREEN Engineering to Cradle-to-Cradle Design,” Environ. Sci.
Technol., 37(23), pp. 434–441.
[40] Braungart, M., McDonough, W., and Bollinger, A., 2007, “Cradle-to-Cradle Design:
Creating Healthy Emissions - a Strategy for Eco-Effective Product and System Design,” J.
Clean. Prod., 15(13-14), pp. 1337–1348.
[41] Luttropp, C., and Lagerstedt, J., 2006, “EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules : generic
advice for merging environmental aspects into product development,” J. Clean. Prod.,
14(Jan.), pp. 1396–1408.
[42] Brezet, H., and Hemel, C. van, 1997, EcoDesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable
Production and Consumption, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Paris,
France.
[43] Vezzoli, C., and Sciama, D., 2006, “Life Cycle Design : from general methods to product
type specific guidelines and checklists : a method adopted to develop a set of guidelines /
checklist handbook for the eco-efficient design of NECTA vending machines,” J. Clean.
Prod., 14(Jan.), pp. 1319–1325.
[44] Pigosso, D. C. A., Rozenfeld, H., and McAloone, T. C., 2013, “Ecodesign Maturity
Page 38
Model: A Management Framework to Support Ecodesign Implementation into
Manufacturing Companies,” J. Clean. Prod., 59(July), pp. 160–173.
[45] Buzan, T., and Buzan, B., 1996, The Mind Map Book: How to Use Radiant Thinking to
Maximize Your Brain’s Untapped Potential, Penguin Group, New York, New York, USA.
[46] Fu, K. K., Yang, M. C., and Wood, K. L., 2015, “Design Principles: The Foundation of
Design,” ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Paper Number:
DETC2015-4615.
[47] Stuart, J. A., and Sommerville, R. M., 1998, “Materials selection for life cycle design,”
IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Oak Brook, Illinois,
pp. 151–158.
[48] Giudice, F., La Rosa, G., and Risitano, A., 2006, Product Design for the Environment: A
Life Cycle Approach, Taylor and Francis Group LLC, Boca Raton, Fl., USA.
[49] Abele, E., Anderl, R., and Birkhofer, H., 2005, Environmentally-Friendly Product
Development: Methods and Tools, Springer Science + Business Media, London.
[50] Wood, K. L., and Otto, K. N., 2001, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering
and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[51] Kriwet, A., Zussman, E., and Seliger, G., 1995, “Systematic integration of design-for-
recycling into product design,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., 38, pp. 15–22.
[52] Fiksel, J., 1996, Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
[53] Koh, S., Lee, S., Chang, M., Liang, H., Lee, S., and Boo, S., 2007, “Study on the
Guideline for Analyzing Eco Design Value System and,” International Association of
Societies of Design Research, Hong Kong, China.
[54] Telenko, C., and Seepersad, C. C., 2010, “A Methodology for Identifying Environmentally
Conscious Guidelines for Product Design,” J. Mech. Des., 132(9), pp. 091009–1 –
091009–9.
[55] Srivastava, J., and Shu, L. H., 2013, “Affordances and Product Design to Support
Page 39
Environmentally Conscious Behavior,” J. Mech. Des., 135(10).
[56] MacDonald, E. F., and She, J., 2015, “Seven Cognitive Concepts for Successful Eco-
design,” J. Clean. Prod., 92(Jan.), pp. 23–36.
[57] Geelen, D., Brezet, H., Keyson, D., and Boess, S., 2010, “Gaming for Energy
Conservation in Households,” Conference of the European Roundtable on Sustainable
Consumption and Production, Delft, Netherlands.
[58] Dowie, T., 1994, “Green Design,” World Cl. Des. to Manuf., 1(4), pp. 32–38.
[59] Xerox Corporation, 2015, “WorkCentre 5945/5955” [Online]. Available:

office.xerox.com. [Accessed: 01-May-2015].
[60] Xerox Corporation, 2010, “The Environmental Merits of Xerox Manufacturing,” Xerox
North Am. Manuf. Broch. [Online]. Available:
http://www.xerox.com/downloads/usa/en/e/EHS_ManufactureBrochure_072710_LR.pdf.
[Accessed: 28-May-2015].
[61] King, A., Barker, S., and Cosgrove, A., 2007, “Remanufacturing At Xerox : Evaluating the
Process To Establish Principles for Better Design,” International Conference on
Engineering Design, Paper: 155, Paris, France.
[62] Graham, M., Slocum, A., and Sanchez, R. M., 2007, “Teaching High School Students and
College Freshmen Product Development by Deterministic Design With PREP,” J. Mech.
Des., 129(7), pp. 677–681.
[63] Xerox Corporation, 2009, “Global Waste Prevention Through Xerox Green World
Alliance,” 2009 Rep. Glob. Citizenshio [Online]. Available:
http://www.xerox.com/corporate-citizenship-2009/xerox-report/waste-prevention.html.
[Accessed: 28-May-2015].
[64] Seiko, 2008, “Seiko Kinetic Auto Relay” [Online]. Available:

http://caliber.seikowatches.com.
[65] Shinkawa, O., Fujisawa, T., and Uetake, A., 2000, “Power-Generating Device, Charging
Method and Clocking Device.”
Page 40
[66] Bitters Co., 2008, “Floating Key Rings” [Online]. Available:
http://www.seattlemet.com/style-and-shopping/articles/summer-clothes-accessories-0610.
[67] Product Creation Ltd., 2008, “ECO Kettle” [Online]. Available: http://www.ecokettle.com.
[68] Mcaloone, T. C., and Andreasen, M. M., 2004, “Design for Utility, Sustainability, and
Societal Virtues: Developing Product Service Systems,” International Design Conference,
Durovnik, Croatia, pp. 1–8.
[69] Gutowski, T. G., Sahni, S., Boustani, A., and Graves, S. C., 2011, “Remanufacturing and
energy savings.,” Environ. Sci. Technol., 45(10), pp. 4540–7.
[70] 2015, “POÄNG Chair Cushion, Robust Glose Black,” IKEA Website [Online]. Available:
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/70239456/. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2015].
[71] Ford Motor Company, 2003, “2003 Ford Model U Concept,” Automob. Rev. [Online].
Available: http://www.automobilesreview.com/. [Accessed: 01-May-2015].
[72] Lofthouse, V., “Information/Inspiration” [Online]. Available:

http://ecodesign.lboro.ac.uk/index.php?section=1. [Accessed: 01-Jan-2008].
[73] Baeriswyl, M. C., and Eppinger, S. D., 2014, “Teaching Design for Environment in
Product Design Classes,” International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen,
Denmark, pp. 140–150.
[74] Ulrich, K., and Eppinger, S., 1995, Product design and development, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
[75] Van Hemel, C., 1998, “Ecodesign Empirically Explored: Design for Environment in
Dutch Small and Medium Sized Enterprises,” Technische Universiteit Delft.
[76] Bump, G. P., 1913, “Means for fastening paper sheets.”
[77] The Good Store, 2015, “Stapless Stapler” [Online]. Available:

http://www.thegoodstore.com.au/d133-108/stapless-stapler/. [Accessed: 17-Oct-2015].
Page 41
[78] Vallet, F., Eynard, B., Millet, D., Mahut, S. G., Tyl, B., and Bertoluci, G., 2013, “Using
Eco-Design Tools: An Overview of Experts’ Practices,” Des. Stud., 34(3), pp. 345–377.
[79] Evrard, D., and Brissaud, D., 2012, “Energy Efficiency Design Method for Electrical and
Electronic Equipments,” ASME 2012 11th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems
Design and Analysis, Nantes, France.
[80] Vargas Hernandez, N., Okudan Kremer, G., Schmidt, L. C., and Acosta Herrera, P. R.,
2012, “Development of an expert system to aid engineers in the selection of design for
environment methods and tools,” Expert Syst. Appl., 39(10), pp. 9543–9553.
[81] O’Rourke, J. M., and Seepersad, C. C., 2013, “Examining Efficiency in BioInspired
Design,” ASME IDETC, Paper: DETC2013-13147, Portland, OR.
[82] Midžić, I., Štorga, M., and Marjanović, D., 2014, “Using Ecodesign Guidelines for
Concept Evaluation: Findings from an Experiment,” DESIGN 2014, Cavtat, Croatia, pp.
313–322.
[83] Reap, J., and Bras, B., 2014, “A Method of Finding Biologically Inspired Guidelines for
Environmentally Benign Design and Manufacturing,” J. Mech. Des., 136(11), pp. 111110–
1–1111110–11.
Page 42
Table of Figures
Figure 1: The Product Development Stages, Showing LCA as a Retrospective Tool and DfE Guidelines
as a Concurrent Design Tool [15]
Figure 2: Final DfE Mind Map (abridged)
Figure 3: Xerox® Uses Remanufactured Modules (Adapted from [59,60])
Figure 4: Wearer’s Movement Powers the Seiko Kinetic® Auto Relay [65]
Figure 5: The Black and Decker® Leaf Hog™ Uses a Ribbed Structure to Increase Strength and Reduce
Material Use
Figure 6: Bitters Company Uses the Original Coloring and Low Density of Flip Flop Scraps to Make
Products such as Floating Keychains and Doormats [65]
Figure 7: SinkPositive Diverts Tank Water Through a Faucet [40]
Figure 8: The ECO kettle™ Responds to User Habits and Helps Users Heat Only What They Need [66]
Figure 9: The IKEA POANG Chair has been Successful Since 1977 [69]
Figure 10: Ford Model U Concept Car has a Modular and Upgradeable Interior [71]

Table of Tables
Table 1: DfE Guidelines
View publication stats

MD Guidelines WebReady

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MD Guidelines WebReady

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

See

A Compilation of Design for Environment

Article in Journal of Mechanical Design · March 2016

Cassandra Telenko Julia O'Rourke

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carolyn C Seepersad Michael E Webber

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Usage Context Modeling View project

Additive Manufacturing Material and Energy Consumption View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cassandra Telenko, cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu

Department of Mechanical Engineering and School of Industrial Design, Georgia Institute of

Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

Julia M. O’Rourke, Carolyn Conner Seepersad, Michael E. Webber

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

Environmental factors are receiving heightened attention in product development

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

have been made.

materials, comparing existing products or processes, or designing a variant of an existing

are often utilized in the earlier stages of design [6].

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

Guidelines as a Concurrent Design Tool [15]

systematization between design projects, facilitate communication of new discoveries, and

provide an important set of environmental solutions to complement or replace unavailable LCA

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

Section 3 describes the research approach to reconciling guidelines. Section 5 discusses a

number of ways designers can use DfE guidelines in practice.

2. EXISTING DFE GUIDELINES

stages; or by tailoring guidelines too closely to a particular product, industry, or stakeholder.

be used for advancing DfE research and education.

comprehensive set of DfE guidelines.

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

level of abstraction is best complemented with more actionable guidelines.

environmental impact of a product is ultimately determined by a broad range of factors, many

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

3. METHOD FOR COMPILING A SET OF DFE GUIDELINES

combinations of the terms: “rule-of-thumb” “principles”, “guidelines”, “checklists”, “design for

environment”, “DFE”, “eco-design”, “sustainable design”, and various synonymous phrases.

o Designer-oriented: the guideline must be within the scope of a product designer

o General: the guideline must apply to a broad range of products

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

functional, architectural and aesthetic decisions.

“Motivate the sales department to avoid environmentally-harmful forms of transport”[21],

because it is directed at stakeholders other than designers.

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

such as renewable, recyclable, and low-embodied energy. As an example of an industry-specific

subsumed under the more general guideline, “Specifying renewable materials.”

environmentally benign materials” [20–23,42,47–51] is only a slight modification of the

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

components”[52] became “specify lightweight materials and components.” Guidelines to avoid

ensure the aesthetic life is equal to the technical life.”

consisted of product-specific rules, which were abstracted to general guidelines as previously

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

DfE strategies and 76 guidelines.

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404, Page 13

communities with strong recycling systems.

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404, Page 14

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404, Page 15

Strategy A aims to address resource depletion by encouraging reuse and renewability of

recycled as stock for new applications.

Corresponding Author: Cassandra Telenko, Cassandra.telenko@me.gatech.edu, Paper: MD-15-1404,

Guideline 4: Employ common and remanufactured components across models.

that supports reuse by enabling interchangeable parts.