Loughborough University
Institutional Repository
Facilitating sustainable
material selection in the
industrial design of
mass-manufactured productsStrategic Leadership Assignment
This item was submitted to Loughborough University’s Institutional Repository
by the/an author.
Additional Information:
• A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial ful lment of the requirements for
the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/14857
Publisher: c Rose Deakin
Please cite the published version.
This item was submitted to Loughborough University as a PhD thesis by the
author and is made available in the Institutional Repository
(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) under the following Creative Commons Licence
conditions.
For the full text of this licence, please go to:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
Facilitating Sustainable Material Selection in the Industrial Design of MassManufactured Products
By
Rose Deakin
A Doctoral Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University
June 2014
© Rose Deakin, 2014
i
Abstract
Sustainable materials are prevalent within design, but industrial design lacks
mass-manufactured product examples. This research explores this gap in
knowledge to understand the influences affecting the selection of sustainable
materials and how UK industrial designers could be better supported.
A comprehensive literature review explores the selection of sustainable
materials within the context of industrial design. Existing tools and resources
designed to support industrial designers are analysed to understand the
support provision and requirements. The research approach explores
individual attitudes, and the influences towards and against selecting
sustainable materials. Four UK companies were studied to understand how
sustainable materials are considered and utilised for mass-manufactured
products. Two frameworks were designed to support and facilitate
sustainable material selection. The first depicts the overarching support
requirements whilst the second presents the considerations and strategies.
Both frameworks were evaluated by experts and previous participants. A
workshop with designers evaluated the efficacy of the second framework
when used as a tool
The majority of industrial designers were aware of general issues of
sustainability but rarely considered selecting sustainable materials. All four
companies had experienced significant changes recently, including
increasing resources and internal initiatives towards the use of sustainable
materials. The market for sustainable materials is improving, but risks exist,
such as fluctuating availability and market instability. A lack of awareness
and understanding has meant that, in order to succeed, some companies
have designed methods to educate stakeholders whilst designers have
requested support to educate clients. Personal interest of the individual is a
key driver, creating champions who raise awareness and boost confidence
amongst colleagues. There is a need, not only for greater education and
support, but also to improve engagement with sustainable material selection
amongst industrial designers and others involved in the process.
ii
Acknowledgements
So many people have made this thesis possible and I would like to thank
them all profusely for their encouragement and guidance.
Firstly to Steve Ungi, who taught me product design at school and inspired
me to pursue design at Loughborough University. Without his confidence in
my abilities I would never have studied design.
I am forever grateful to my two supervisors, Professor Tracy Bhamra and
Rhodes Trimingham. Thank so much you for your patience, guidance and
encouragement, without which this research would not have been possible.
Thank you to Loughborough University for funding this research and all the
participants and companies who gave their time freely, allowing this research
to be conducted.
To all my friends I thank you for your support and advice throughout this
process. Thank you so much to the wonderful Casa Holt Family: Richard,
Lina, Noor, Ksenija, Maria and Alena. Thank you to Carolina, Gloria,
Alejandra, Norman, Dan, Natalie, Andrea, Garrath, Ian, Andre, Simona and
Abby, for your friendship and support. Thank you to my roller skating friends,
particularly the Sox Pistols roller derby team. The biggest thanks go to my
partner Hex, who supported me and always believed in me.
A very special thank you to Barry Rawlings, who has always been a great
friend for as long as I remember, who also kindly proof-read my thesis ready
for submission. I owe my family a great deal, they have always encouraged
me. Throughout this PhD I have always been surrounded by their photos to
keep me focused.
This thesis is dedicated to my wonderful father Anthony
Edward Deakin, you were in my thoughts every day of
this PhD.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures xii
List of Tables xvi
Glossary of Terms xvii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Personal Motivations 3
1.2 Aim, Objectives and Research Questions 4
1.3 Thesis Structure 5
2 Literature Review 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 The Role of the Industrial Designer 10
2.3 Sustainable Material Selection 14
2.4 Tools and Resources to Support Industrial Designers 24
2.4.1 Industrial Designer Material Information Requirements 24
2.4.2 Eco and Sustainable Design Support 27
2.4.3 Approaches to Sustainable Material Selection 29
2.4.4 An Evaluation of Existing Tools and Resources 39
2.4.4.1 Dutch Promise Manual and LiDs Wheel 41
2.4.4.2 Information Inspiration and Ecodesign Web 42
2.4.4.3 Bio Thinking and Uglipoints 47
2.4.4.4 Eco-Indicator 50
2.4.4.5 Sima Pro 54
2.4.4.6 Material ConneXion 56
2.4.4.7 Ecolect 57
iv
2.4.4.8 Materia 60
2.4.4.9 Rematerialise 62
2.4.4.10 Cambridge Engineering Selector Edupack 64
2.4.4.11 MTRL: 66
2.4.5 Summary 67
2.4.6 Conclusions 77
2.5 Directives, Labelling, Legislation, and Standards 79
2.5.1 WEEE and RoHS 79
2.5.2 Carbon Labelling 81
2.5.3 Water use 83
2.5.4 ISO 14001 83
2.5.5 British Standards 85
2.5.6 Conclusions 87
2.6 End of Life Considerations 88
2.6.1 Landfill 88
2.6.2 Recycling 89
2.6.3 Incineration 91
2.6.4 Conclusions 91
2.7 Sustainable Materials within Industrial Design 92
2.8 Conclusions 98
3 Research Methodology 100
3.1 Introduction 100
3.2 Ethics 101
3.3 Data Collection Techniques 102
3.3.1 Questionnaires: Scoping Study Stage One 105
3.3.1.1 Questionnaire Design 105
3.3.1.2 Participants 107
v
3.3.1.3 Limitations 109
3.3.2 Interviews: Scoping Study Stage Two and Main Study 109
3.3.2.1 Scoping Study Two: Design 111
3.3.2.1.1 Participants 112
3.3.2.1.2 Limitations 115
3.3.2.2 Main Study: Design 115
3.3.2.2.1 Participants 116
3.3.2.2.2 Limitations 118
3.3.3 Online Survey: Framework Evaluation 119
3.3.3.1 Participants 122
3.3.3.2 Limitations 123
3.3.4 Workshop Design: Tool Evaluation 123
3.3.4.1 Participants 128
3.3.4.2 Limitations 129
3.4 Data Analysis Techniques 130
3.4.1 Analysing the Questionnaire 131
3.4.2 Transcription Techniques 132
3.4.3 Analysing the Interviews 133
3.4.4 Analysing the Main Study 135
3.4.5 Analysing the Framework Survey 135
3.4.6 Analysing the Workshop 136
3.5 Conclusion 137
4 Scoping Study 138
4.1 Introduction to Stage One 138
4.2 Questionnaire Findings 139
4.2.1 Resources and Tools to Aid Sustainable Design 139
4.2.2 Material Selection Process 139
4.2.3 Drivers to Using Sustainable Materials 140
vi
4.2.4 Resources and Tools to Aid Material Selection 142
4.2.4.1 Experts 142
4.2.5 Sustainable Material Selection Resources Requirements 143
4.2.5.1 Presentation 144
4.2.6 Questionnaire Conclusions 144
4.3 Introduction to Stage Two 146
4.4 Interview Findings 147
4.4.1 Information Sources for Material Selection 147
4.4.2 Sustainable Materials 148
4.4.2.1 Response to the Definition 150
4.4.2.2 Sustainable Material Product Examples 150
4.4.3 Drivers for Selecting Sustainable Materials 151
4.4.3.1 Client 151
4.4.3.2 Personal Interest and Experience 151
4.4.3.3 Resources and Tools 152
4.4.4 Barriers to Selecting Sustainable Materials 152
4.4.4.1 Client 153
4.4.4.2 Finding and Understanding Information 154
4.4.4.3 Disassembly and Recycling 155
4.4.4.4 Cost 156
4.4.4.5 Legislation 156
| 4.4.5 | Moving Towards a Sustainable Approach to Material Selection |
| 157 |
4.4.6 Interview Conclusions 159
4.5 Scoping Study Conclusions 161
5 Main Study: Sustainable Materials in Mass Manufacture 163
5.1 Introduction 163
vii
5.2 Defining a Sustainable Material 164
5.3 The Material Selection Process 165
5.4 The Selection and Application of Sustainable Materials 168
5.4.1 Avoiding Hazardous Materials 169
5.4.2 Life-Cycle Assessment and Foot Printing 170
5.4.3 Disassembly, Recyclability and Reuse 171
5.4.4 Legislation, Regulations and Standards 172
5.4.5 Light Weighting and Material Minimisation 173
5.4.6 Local Sourcing and Source Identification 173
5.4.7 Product Longevity, Durability And Long Warranty 173
5.4.8 Recycled Content 175
5.4.9 Renewable, Natural and Bio Based Materials 176
5.4.10 Social Issues 176
5.4.11 Suppliers 177
5.5 The Drivers for Using Sustainable Materials 178
5.5.1 Awareness and Education 178
5.5.2 Brand Values and Education 178
5.5.3 The Company 179
5.5.3.1 Internal Targets and Initiatives 181
5.5.4 Competitors 182
5.5.5 Cost and Increasing Prices of Resources 183
5.5.6 Marketing 183
5.5.7 Personal Interest and Morals 184
5.6 The Barriers to Using Sustainable Materials 187
5.6.1 Awareness, Understanding and Education 187
5.6.2 Contaminants in Recycled Materials 190
5.6.3 Finding Information and Lack of Time 190
viii
5.6.4 Motivation 192
5.6.5 Risk, Competiveness and Cost 192
5.6.6 Suppliers and Manufacturers 194
5.7 Sustainable Materials in the Business Model 194
5.8 Overall Conclusion 196
6 Frameworks to Facilitate Sustainable Material Selection 203
6.1 Introduction 203
6.2 Dynamic Presentation 204
6.3 Varying Information Requirements 204
6.4 Overall Framework to Engage Users with Sustainable Materials 206
6.4.1 Framework design 206
6.4.2 Engage 210
6.4.3 Educate 210
6.4.4 Illustrate 211
6.5 Framework to Assist Sustainable Material Selection 212
6.5.1 Framework design 212
6.5.2 The Outline Framework Structure 214
6.5.2.1 Sourcing 215
6.5.2.2 Life-cycle 215
6.5.2.3 Applicable to all areas 216
6.5.3 Presentation of Connectivity and Trade-Off Impacts 216
6.5.4 Application of the Framework 219
6.6 Evaluation of the Sustainable Material Selection Framework 220
6.6.1 Online Survey Evaluation 220
6.6.1.1 Presentation of the Framework 220
6.6.1.2 Aesthetics 222
6.6.1.3 Clarity 224
ix
6.6.1.4 Ease of Understanding. 226
6.6.1.5 Usability and Applicability of the Framework 227
6.6.2 Workshop Evaluation 230
6.6.2.1 Interaction and Engagement 230
6.6.2.2 Illustration 232
6.6.2.3 Education 233
6.6.2.4 Efficacy 241
6.6.2.5 Building Confidence 246
6.6.2.6 Participants 246
6.6.3 Suggested Improvements 247
6.7 Conclusion 249
7 Discussion 252
7.1 Introduction 252
7.2 Material Decision-Making Role Varies 252
7.2.1 Language Requirements Differ 254
7.3 Defining a Sustainable Material 255
7.3.1 The Evolution of the Definition 257
7.4 Barriers to Sustainable Material Selection 259
7.4.1 Ambiguity of Recycling and Closed Loop Approaches 260
7.4.2 Immature Plastic Recycling Infrastructure 262
7.4.3 Fear of Green Washing Through Unsubstantiated Claims 263
7.4.4 Complexity of Issues and Trade-Offs 263
7.5 Facilitating Sustainable Material Selection 264
7.5.1 Creating Personal Interest and Encouraging Self-Education 264
7.5.2 Education and Illustration to Improve Understanding 265
7.5.3 Support to Engage Others 266
7.6 Framework to Support Sustainable Material Selection 267
x
7.6.1 Need to Promote Life-Cycle Thinking 268
7.6.2 Framework Promotes Holistic Decision-Making 269
7.6.3 Framework Limitations 270
7.7 The Future of Sustainable Materials Within Mass-Manufactured
Products 271
8 Conclusion 273
8.1 Meeting the Research Aims and Objectives 273
8.2 General Conclusions 274
8.3 Limitations of the Research 276
8.3.1 Time Limitations 276
8.3.2 Participant Limitations 277
8.3.3 Framework Limitations 278
8.4 Contributions to Knowledge 278
8.5 Recommendations for Further Work 279
9 References 280
Appendix A Strategies from The Dutch Promise Manual 300
Appendix B Materials on Information/Inspiration 307
Appendix C Pré-Consultants 312
Appendix D Material ConneXion 313
Appendix E Ecolect 315
Appendix F Materia 316
Appendix G Rematerialise 319
Appendix H CES 321
Appendix I Mtrl material information 324
Appendix J Loughborough University Ethical Checkilist 326
Appendix K Informed Consent Form 327
Appendix L Questionnaire Justification 328
xi
Appendix M Questionnaire 330
Appendix N Questionnaire Coding 332
Appendix O Questionnaire Analysis 333
Appendix P Interview Participants 336
Appendix Q Interview Questions Justification 337
Appendix R Interview Questions Prompt Sheet 340
Appendix S Interview Coding 342
Appendix T Interview Nvivo Analysis 343
Appendix U Main Study Invitation Letter 345
Appendix V Main Study Participants 347
Appendix W Main Study Interview Prompt Sheet 348
Appendix X Main Study Coding 350
Appendix Y Framework Evaluation Survey 353
Appendix Z Workshop Design Tasks 360
Appendix AA Workshop Time Plan 364
Appendix BB Workshop Surveys 365
Appendix CC Workshop Survey Evaluation Points 368
Appendix DD Transcription Sample 369
Appendix EE Framework Design Development 374
Appendix FF Blank Tool Example 377
xii
List of Figures
| Figure 1.1 Research aim, objectives and research questions | 4 |
| Figure 2.1 Inputs to the design process (Ashby and Johnson, 2006:10) | 11 |
| Figure 2.2 Green product development in context (Baumann et al., 2002:410) | |
| 11 | |
| Figure 2.3 The influences on consumption of materials and energy (Ashby et | |
| al., 2005:4) | 12 |
| Figure 2.4 Product personality (Ashby, 2009b:14) | 15 |
| Figure 2.5 Key factors in industrial designers’ decisions on product materials | |
| and manufacture (redrawn from Pedgley, 1999:304) | 16 |
| Figure 2.6 Values that affect design-decision making (Hicks et al. 1982, cited | |
| in Coles and Norman, 2005; Trimingham, 2007) | 17 |
| Figure 2.7 The different stages for materials and process selection in design | |
| and the conceptual tools to carry them out (Ashby et al., 2004:56) | 18 |
| Figure2.8 Material selection activities model (Kesteren et al., 2007:99) | 18 |
| Figure 2.9 Design for environment criteria (McDonough et al., 2003:440) | 20 |
| Figure 2.10 Sustainability in a materials context (Ashby, 2011:3) | 21 |
| Figure 2.11 Material efficiency (Ashby, 2011:18) | 21 |
| Figure 2.12 Design and the material cycle (Hornbuckle, 2010:253) | 23 |
| Figure 2.13 The order of required data of a materials selection source for | |
| industrial designers (Karana et al., 2008:1087) | 25 |
| Figure 2.14 Information sources used in materials selection (compiled from | |
| Kesteren, 2008:136-137) | 26 |
| Figure 2.15 Material categories presented by Fuad-Luke (2006) | 31 |
| Figure 2.16 Review of different sources defining the effective material | |
| aspects for materials selection process (Karana et al., 2008:1083) | 32 |
| Figure 2.17 The life-cycle representation (Gehin et al., 2009:215) | 33 |
| Figure 2.18 An example of a MATto material profile sheet (Allione et al., | |
| 2012:98) | 34 |
| Figure 2.19 Eco-strategies and guidelines focused on the material selection | |
| phase (Allione et al., 2012:93) | 35 |
| Figure 2.20 Relative importance of the material selection guidelines in | |
| accordance with the long or short term product (Allione et al., 2012) | 36 |
xiii
| Figure 2.21 SolidWorks Sustainability display and ‘find similar material’ | 38 |
| Figure 2.22 LiDS Wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997) | 42 |
| Figure 2.23 Updated homepage for Information/Inspiration (Lofthouse, 2005) | |
| 43 | |
| Figure 2.24 The Ecodesign Web (Lofthouse, 2005) | 46 |
| Figure 2.25 UgliPoint Scoring System (Datschefski, 2002:85-86) | 50 |
| Figure 2.26 An example of a completed form (PRé-Consultants, 2000:20) 52 | |
| Figure 2.27 Screenshots from the Eco-it software main window | 53 |
| Figure 2.28 Screenshot from SimaPro demo showing inventory for coffee | |
| machine | 55 |
| Figure 2.29 Layout for SimaPro (PRé-Consultants and Goedkoop, 2006) | 56 |
| Figure 2.30 Material Information for BarkTex (Ecolect, 2008b) | 59 |
| Figure 2.31 GreenBox™ Material Samples (Ecolect, 2008b) | 59 |
| Figure 2.32 Materia Inspiration Centre (Materia, n.d.) | 61 |
| Figure 2.33 Materia Inspiration library (Materia, n.d.) | 61 |
| Figure 2.34 Material property chart (Granta Design Limited, 2011a) | 65 |
| Figure 2.35 Presentation formats of resources | 68 |
| Figure 2.36 Location of resource and users of resources | 69 |
| Figure 2.37 Strategies presented for sustainable material selection | 74 |
| Figure 2.38 Search options for material databases | 75 |
| Figure 2.39 Carbon footprint of advanced finish 40746 steam iron (Morphy | |
| Richards, 2010) | 82 |
| Figure 2.40 Obstacles and elements requiring greatest effort to gain ISO | |
| 14001 | 84 |
| Figure 2.41 The upcycle™ chart (Braungart and Mc Donough, 2013) | 90 |
| Figure 2.42 Sony DSC-H50 (Sony Europe Limited, 2011) | 92 |
| Figure 2.43 Electrolux Ultrasilencer Green (Electrolux, 2011) and Silence | |
| Amplified (Hannaford, 2009) | 93 |
| Figure 2.44 Average plastic concentrations in the Atlantic ocean (Law et al., | |
| 2010:1187) | 94 |
| Figure 2.45 Electrolux vac from the sea: the Pacific ocean Edition and the | |
| Baltic sea edition | 94 |
| Figure 2.46 Plastiki homepage (Plastiki, 2009b) | 95 |
| Figure 2.47 Nokia Remade (Newman, n.d.) | 96 |
xiv
Figure 2.48 Motorola W233 Renew and Asus U33Jc (Asus, n.d.) 96
Figure 2.49 Revive mobile concept (Kinneir Dufort, 2011) 97
Figure 2.50 Fujitsu eco mouse (Fujitsu, 2011) 98
Figure 3.1 Research design 104
Figure 3.2 Scoping study two participants 114
Figure 3.3 Main study participants 118
Figure 3.4 Likert and Likert-like scales (Lavrakas, 2008:430) 121
Figure 3.5 Resource table of books and samples 128
Figure 3.6 Analysis themes and correlating questions 132
Figure 3.7 Cross analysis of participants using the tool 137
Figure 5.1 Attributes and strategies for the application of sustainable
materials 197
Figure 5.2 Drivers for sustainable material selection 199
Figure 5.3 Barriers to sustainable material selection 201
Figure 6.1 Conceptual framework for examining online virtual communities
(Hersberger et al., 2007:7) 207
Figure 6.2 A holistic framework for Industrial design focused ecodesign tools
(Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2003) 208
Figure 6.3 Overall framework for facilitating sustainable material selection209
Figure 6.4 Framework outline 214
Figure 6.5 Life-cycle hierarchy 216
Figure 6.6 Driver connectivity 217
Figure 6.7 Framework for sustainable material selection 218
Figure 6.8 Framework outline diagram 221
Figure 6.9 Framework with longevity as a driver 221
Figure 6.10 Framework with recycled content as a driver 222
Figure 6.11 Framework question 222
Figure 6.12 Outline aesthetics 223
Figure 6.13 Longevity aesthetics 223
Figure 6.14 Recycled content aesthetics 224
Figure 6.15 Framework outline clarity 224
Figure 6.16 Longevity clarity 225
Figure 6.17 Recycled content clarity 225
Figure 6.18 Outline ease of understanding 226
xv
Figure 6.19 Longevity ease of understanding 227
Figure 6.20 Recycled content ease of understanding 227
Figure 6.21 Does the framework assist the understanding of sustainable
materials? 229
Figure 6.22 Team A task one brainstorm 233
Figure 6.23 Team B task one notes 234
Figure 6.24 Team A working on Task 2 using the tool 235
Figure 6.25 Team A sketched on the hand out image 236
Figure 6.26 Team A brainstorming and sketch for task two 236
Figure 6.27 Participant B3 Design sheet for task two 237
Figure 6.28 Task Two – B1 design and notes 238
Figure 6.29 Team A Task Three Notes 239
Figure 6.30 Team B Task Three notes 240
Figure 6.31 Team B Task Three Design 240
Figure 6.32 Team A using the resources provided 242
Figure 6.33 Tool used in Task Two by Team A 243
Figure 6.34 Team A using the tool to create criteria 244
Figure 6.35 Team A drawing on the tool 245
Figure 6.36 Tool used by Team A in Task Three 245
Figure 6.37 Team B worked more individually 247
Figure 6.38 Team B worked more individually 247
Figure 7.1 Word Cloud for Material Sustainability 257
xvi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Most common selecting methods and material properties (compiled
from Ramalhete et al., 2010:2285)……………………………………………………… 30
Table 2.2 Classification of resources ………………………………………………….. 40
Table 2.3 Environmental impacts (compiled from British Standards Institute,
2011a:18)……………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
Table 3.1 Classification of the purpose of enquiry (Robson, 2002:59) ……. 100
Table 3.2 Research design model (Robson, 2002:81) …………………………. 101
Table 3.3 Questionnaire scoping study model ……………………………………. 106
Table 3.4 Questionnaire participants…………………………………………………. 108
Table 3.5 Good and bad practice in interviews (adapted from Robson
2002:274-275)……………………………………………………………………………….. 110
Table 3.6 Interview scoping study model …………………………………………… 111
Table 3.7 Company studies model……………………………………………………. 116
Table 3.8 Framework evaluation survey participants …………………………… 123
Table 3.9 Workshop study model……………………………………………………… 125
Table 3.10 Participants for the tool workshop …………………………………….. 128
Table 4.1 Respondent scores for five drivers……………………………………… 141
Table 4.2 Material selection resources………………………………………………. 142
Table 4.3 Descriptions of sustainable materials from interviewees ………… 148
Table 4.4 Views on the interactive opportunities of a resource ……………… 158
Table 6.1 Group survey answers: Question 1. How easy did you find it to
discuss the topic of sustainable materials with your team?…………………… 231
Table 6.2 Group survey answers: Question 2. How easy did you find it to
understand the topic of sustainable materials? …………………………………… 231
xvii
Glossary of Terms
3D Three-Dimensional
CAD Computer Aided Design
Design for Disassembly (DfD) Design strategy whereby products are
designed to enable their disassembly non-destructively.
Design for the environment (DfE), environmentally conscious design,
green design (deprecated), ecodesign (deprecated) Systematic approach
which takes into account environmental aspects in the design and
development process with the aim to reduce adverse environmental impacts
(British Standards Institute, 2009b:2).
End-of-life Life cycle stage where the product, component or material is no
longer required or is unable to fulfil its purpose, at which point the product,
component or material contained therein becomes available for reuse,
recycling, recovery or disposal.
Green washing The term refers to the practice of making unsubstantiated
claims such as marketing products as being “green”, “environmentally
friendly” or “sustainable” when they are in fact not. Greenwash is an
environmental claim which is unsubstantiated (a fib)or irrelevant (a
distraction) (Futerra Sustainability Communications, 2008).
Hazardous substance or preparation Substance or preparation that is,
under certain conditions, likely to be injurious to health, safety or the
environment (British Standards Institute, 2009b:2).
Lean Manufacturing The term lean is used to denote improving efficiency
within the production and the elimination of inefficient processes.
xviii
Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw
material sourcing and extraction, through production of materials, to the final
product, and including product use, maintenance or service operation to endof-life options (British Standards Institute, 2011a:2).
Life cycle assessment (LCA) Technique for assessing the environmental
aspects and potential impacts associated with a product. (British Standards
Institute, 2011a:2-3).
Recycle Action of reprocessing a product, component or material for use in a
future product, component or material (British Standards Institute, 2011a:3).
Reuse Operation by which a product, component or material can be used for
the same functional purpose at end-of-life (British Standards Institute,
2011a:3).
Sourcing Process of procuring materials, components or products (British
Standards Institute, 2011a:3).
Recyclable A characteristic of a product, packaging or associated
component that can be diverted from the waste stream through available
processes and programmes and can be collected, processed and returned to
use in the form of raw materials or products (British Standards Institute,
1999:12).
Renewable Replenishable from natural sources, at a rate greater than
consumption (British Standards Institute, 2009b:4).
Remanufacture Return a used product to at least its original performance
with a warranty that is equivalent or better than that of the newly
manufactured product (British Standards Institute, 2009b:4).
Stakeholder Individual, group or organization with an interest in any decision
or activity of an organization (British Standards Institute, 2011a:2).
1
1 Introduction
The term ‘industrial design’ reflects its history, created during the industrial
revolution as a discipline concerned with products mass-manufactured by
industrial processes (Tovey, 1997; Heskett, 1993; Walker, 1996). The
Industrial Design Society of America gives a clear definition of industrial
design, which shall be applied within this research:
Industrial design (ID) is the professional service of creating and
developing concepts and specifications that optimize the function,
value and appearance of products and systems for the mutual
benefit of both user and manufacturer (Industrial Design Society of
America, 2004).
The boundaries between product design and industrial design are blurred
along with those of specialist fields such as lighting, graphics, fashion and
furniture design (Slack, 2006). However, product design and industrial design
are considered interchangeable by many, with both considering the
relationship between the technology and the users (Heskett, 2005); Di Tullo
states ‘there is no difference’ (2007). Within this research product design
shall be considered akin to industrial design. There are a number of terms in
use covering varying aspects of environmental and sustainable design,
including:
Cleaner Product Design (Envirowise, 2001)
Design for Environment (DfE),
Design for Sustainability (DfS) (Spangenberg et al., 2010; Bhamra and
Lofthouse, 2007; Birkeland, 2004)
Ecodesign (Fuad-Luke, 2006; Brezet and Hemel, 1997; Bhamra et al.,
2002; IDSA, 2011; Tischner, 2001)
Eco-innovation (Jones et al., 2001a; Smith, 2001)
Environmentally Conscious Design; includes social and technical
factors (ECD,) (Huang et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 1997)
Green Design (Burall, 1991; Poole, 2006)
Responsible Design (Birkeland, 2004)
2
Ecodesign is concerned with the environmental impact of the design
(Tischner, 2001; Brezet and Hemel, 1997); considerations should cover the
whole life-cycle and maximise benefits (Ernzer et al., 2002). Baumann et al.
(2002) identify the evolution from using the term ‘green’, to ‘eco’, to
‘sustainable’ design, as an expanding scope in both theory and practice.
Sustainable design builds onto ecodesign and adds economic and ethical
considerations (Charter and Tischner, 2001; Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007;
Jones et al., 2001b). To enable sustainable product design requires:
Creativity, innovation and the participation of many different actors
such as policy makers, business strategists, managers, designers,
engineers, marketing managers, consumers, etc. (Jones et al.,
2001a:27).
The terms sustainability, design and design for sustainability all lack fixed
meaning (Chick and Micklethwaite, 2011). Sustainable design or sustainable
product design are terms which are becoming more prevalent in industrial
design and being integrated into the educational curriculum (Ramirez, 2007).
Sustainable design is linked into sustainable development of which, as an
issue, awareness is increasing due to media focus on political and
environmental crises (Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007). The most well-known
definition regarding sustainable development is the Bruntland definition:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987).
Sustainability involves a complex number of considerations, which can be
conflicting upon each other (Chick and Micklethwaite, 2011). It can be argued
that:
Virtually any product that uses electrical power, energy from
natural gas, materials from the earth, or transportation of any kind
does not meet this definition as all of these deplete resources and
damage the environment (Bonnema, 2006:1).
3
The idea of sustainable materials is difficult to define, with the word
‘sustainable’ covering many issues. When it comes to analysing the
sustainability of materials, further confusion arises due to the vast number of
factors to take into consideration regarding the environmental, social and
economic benefits alongside the aesthetic and technical requirements of the
designer. The material selection process is important, as toxic or hazardous
materials can have a significant impact on the environment at the product’s
end of life:
From an environmental perspective, materials do matter. Some
materials are exceedingly hazardous to make and use and, once
discarded, pollute and contaminate the environment, while other
materials are made safely and degrade naturally once disposed
(Geiser, 2001:1).
It is hard to judge or justify what exactly is a sustainable material and this can
create barriers in making sustainable materials choices due to the confusion
surrounding the topic. No material is likely to be fully sustainable due to
energy expended in extraction, or fuel required in transportation, along with
many other factors. When making a choice between materials, one may
seem more sustainable because it has a greater resistance to wear and
therefore more durable, but a lighter option may reduce fuel during
transportation. There is a clear link between improving the material choice
and improving the sustainability of a product:
Materials and design are and will always be very important areas
when developing more sustainable products (Ljungberg,
2007:477).
1.1 Personal Motivations
The author graduated from Loughborough University in 2006 with a BA
(Hons) in Industrial Design and Technology and a Diploma in Professional
Studies. Dissertations submitted for the diploma and degree covered the
sustainability of plastics and ethical consumerism. Having worked in a
successful design company the author became aware of the lack of
4
understanding and application of sustainable design within industry. Whilst
working on a project to design an interior for a Volkswagen Campervan using
only sustainable materials, the author struggled to find information for
designers regarding sustainable materials in the UK. This led to the
submission of a research proposal and the development of this research.
1.2 Aim, Objectives and Research Questions
The overarching aim is to explore how UK industrial designers can be
supported to facilitate the integration of sustainable materials into massmanufactured products. The aim can be seen, alongside the research
objectives and questions, in Figure 1.1below.
Figure 1.1 Research aim, objectives and research questions
5
1.3 Thesis Structure
Following this chapter are a further nine chapters:
Chapter 2: Literature review
This chapter examines the relationship between industrial designers and
sustainable materials. A review of existing material selection and ecodesign
tools, analysis of classifications and representations of sustainable materials.
It includes a review of sustainable material selection, including directives,
labelling, legislation, standards, end of life considerations and the use of
sustainable materials within industrial design.
Chapter 3: Research methodology
This chapter presents the research inquiry used for this research and covers
a number of research methodologies relevant to this study. It describes in
detail the different methodologies chosen, detailing the research design,
participant information and method of data analysis.
Chapter 4: Scoping study
This chapter explores, through a questionnaire study, the material selection
process of industrial designers and how sustainable materials are
considered. A follow-up study interviewed industrial designers to gather in
depth qualitative data regarding sustainable materials. Presented are a
number of findings which are then summarised and conclusions drawn.
Chapter 5: The main study: Sustainable materials in mass manufacture
The main study examined four UK companies actively engaging with
sustainable materials in mass manufacture. Employees within a variety of job
roles were interviewed. Presented within this chapter are the findings of the
study and the conclusions drawn.
Chapter 6: Frameworks to facilitate sustainable material selection
This chapter draws together the findings from both the literature review and
the empirical studies to create two frameworks designed to facilitate
6
sustainable material selection. The first framework deals with the overarching
requirements to encourage sustainable material selection. The second
framework presents the impacts and trade-offs incurred during sustainable
material selection. The second framework is evaluated within a workshop of
designers to evaluate its efficacy as a tool. The findings from two studies to
evaluate the frameworks are presented here.
Chapter 7: Discussion
This chapter discusses the findings from the research directly with the
literature review, along with additional themes which arose during the
studies.
Chapter 8: Conclusions
This chapter presents overall conclusions identified through the research,
alongside explanations as to how the research has met the objectives and
contributions to knowledge. Finally, the research limitations and proposals for
further work are discussed.
7
2 Literature Review
This chapter seeks to understand the role of the industrial designer within
sustainable material selection. The material selection process is examined to
understand how sustainable aspects are considered and what support
currently exists to enable this.
2.1 Introduction
There exists both a lack of product examples, and variety of product types,
which exemplify sustainable products. Many of the same products are
repeatedly used as examples of good practice (Baumann et al., 2002).
Similarly, Chick and Micklethwaite (2004) found evidence that, within the UK,
ecodesign in practice is extremely limited. The literature review was steered
by the following research questions:
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection
during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products?
What resources exist to support sustainable material selection?
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials?
How is a sustainable material defined?
A number of definitions or criteria exist for the term ‘ecomaterial’ (Halada,
2003; Yamamoto, 2010; Arnold, 2003; Fuad-Luke, 2006) but a similar
definition for ‘sustainable’ materials is not available and so the ‘ecomaterial’
definitions were also reviewed. The term ‘ecomaterial’ like ‘ecodesign’ is
concerned only with the environmental impact whereas sustainable
materials, (if we use the accepted definition of sustainability, see Chapter 1,
page xvii), must encompass the environmental considerations along with
those of social and economic factors.
The idea of ‘eco-materials’ was first introduced in the early 1990s, with three
indices proposed during the development:
Performance: expanding human frontiers: activities of mankind aiming
towards development
8
Environment: co-existence with the eco-sphere: to minimise harmful
impact upon the environment
Amenity: optimising amenities: to create a comfortable life in symbiosis
with nature (Halada, 2003:209).
The three indices were developed following life-cycle analysis of materials
and should all be taken into account in order to attain a holistic development
of eco-materials (Halada, 2003). Fuad-Luke gives three statements which
constitute an ecomaterial:
An ecomaterial is one that has a minimal impact on the environment but
offers maximum performance for the required design task.
Eco-materials are easily reintroduced into cycles.
Eco-materials from the biosphere are recycled by nature and ecomaterials from the technosphere are recycled by manmade processes
(2006:282).
Similarly, Yamamoto also gives a definition for eco-materials along with a
number of criteria eco-materials should fit:
Eco-materials” refer to “materials (or material technologies) that
possess excellent characteristics with good performance, which
can be manufactured, used, and recycled or disposed of, while
having only a low impact on the environment as well as being kind
to humans (Yamamoto, 2010:1).
Wegst and Ashby (1998) list similar criteria, stating that to minimise
environmental burden means selecting materials which do not compromise
quality, are less toxic, easily recycled, lighter, less energy intensive and
where possible are derived from renewable or non-critical resources. Arnold
(2003) discusses the use of sustainable materials within a document
regarding environmental materials. Arnold (2003) states that the term
sustainable material is ‘hard to specify’, but they could be classified as ‘those
that have distinct differences that achieve environmental benefit compared to
conventional materials’ (Arnold, 2003:6). Along with this definition, materials
should be:
9
Significantly plant-based in nature, including wood, natural fibre
composites, natural polymers
Produced using a large proportion of waste material, including recycled
polymers, composites made from waste mineral powders and arguably
also much steel and aluminium (Arnold, 2003:6).
Ljungberg (2007) gives a simple definition for a sustainable product as one
which ‘will give as little impact on the environment as possible during its lifecycle’ (2007:467). Both Ljungberg (2007) and Arnold (2003) make reference
to only the environmental ‘eco’ considerations and not economic or social
aspects. The real meaning of the term sustainable is often lost as it has been
misused by many:
For designers and our employers, there is a temptation to overuse or misuse the term “sustainable” to be synonymous with
renewable, low toxicity and/or environmentally friendly. Of course,
these are characteristics of the ecological performance of
sustainable materials and processes. But, in addition to being
ecologically friendly, a sustainable material, process or product
must also be produced in an economically viable and socially
equitable way (IDSA, 2011).
As stated by IDSA (2011) sustainable materials must cover economics and
social values to ensure they are not simply eco-materials; however, no clear
definition exists for a sustainable material. Sustainable materials are now a
growing topic for innovation and consideration:
Through materials innovation, and by developing new and more
effective material applications, the sustainability attributes and
functionality of materials are continuously improving (British
Standards Institute, 2011a:4).
The debate concerning the sustainability of plastics is one which has been
on-going for numerous years. Some plastics have received a high level of
media attention and, with increasing awareness amongst consumers; plastics
have often provided an obvious target. This could be because plastics are
durable and long-lasting, visibly polluting the natural environment. There
10
have been media campaigns such as for reusing plastic bottles, reusable
coffee cups and eradicating plastic bags by using reusable natural shopping
bags. The topic of what is ‘sustainable’ is heavily debated and it is hard to
judge if one material is more sustainable than another. Material selection and
design have played an important part in creating design periods, such as the
use of bronze during Art Nouveau and polymers within pop culture:
The history of design shows that there is a relationship between
the new art and aesthetic movements, and the use of new
materials and technologies (Ramalhete et al., 2010:2275).
This chapter shall explore how sustainable materials are currently presented
in literature, the considerations that contribute towards a sustainable material
and the legislation, labels, standards and regulations affecting their use. For
the purpose of this research, a sustainable material shall be defined as
follows:
A sustainable material is economically viable, uses minimal
resources from a renewable, abundant or recycled origin and
minimises its impact on the environment and society during its life.
2.2 The Role of the Industrial Designer
The role of the industrial designer is varied and requires a wide skill set which
is constantly evolving with changing technology. Although the concept design
phase is important in shaping the environmental impact of a product it is
becoming increasingly difficult to ask designers to consider more variables
without appropriate tools of methods to support them (Huang et al., 2009).
Industrial designers have numerous considerations when designing, but how
important is sustainability in material selection? Designers have a number of
influences affecting the design process, Figure 2.1 shows a simplified
diagram representing those influences found in studies with product
designers to be ‘currently amongst the most powerful’ (Ashby and Johnson,
2006:9). This diagram depicts industrial design as being driven by aesthetics
as the primary concern.
11
Figure 2.1 Inputs to the design process (Ashby and Johnson, 2006:10)
Baumann et al. (2002) created a framework for green product development
as a process within a company, with external stakeholders such as
producers, customers, media and legislators (Figure 2.2). The design stage
is not presented specifically, but would be considered within the central
product development category.
Figure 2.2 Green product development in context (Baumann et al., 2002:410)
Papanek (2004) wrote that industrial designers lack responsibility for their
actions, designing products for consumer wants, not needs, and creating
problems rather than solving them. This, in turn, has had a negative
environmental impact and has led to increased consumption. Ashby (2009b)
12
agrees, adding that industrial designers have, at times, been responsible for
creating obsolescence by designing ‘products that are desirable only if new
and urging the consumer to buy the latest models, using marketing
techniques that imply that acquiring them is a social and psychological
necessity’ (2009a:71). Ashby et al. (2005) depicts the influences affecting the
consumption of materials and energy in Figure 2.3, where negative
influences disrupt the ability to apply sustainable design.
Figure 2.3 The influences on consumption of materials and energy (Ashby et
al., 2005:4)
Correspondingly, Lauridsen and Jørgensen (2010) stated that the following
four statements prove a lack of a coherent agenda for sustainable electronic
product development:
Improved energy performance of individual products is more than
counterbalanced by increased consumption.
Sustainable design for manufacturing future electronics for easy
disassembly and reuse (or recycling) after end-of-life is problematic,
given both the cost of labour and the trend towards increasing product
complexity.
Trends towards miniaturization and integration have meant lower
material consumption; however, miniaturization of end-products does
13
not necessarily imply less raw material used, and the increased
complexity of waste makes it less attractive to recycle.
Design for longer product-life and ease of repair is in obvious conflict
with the existing electronics consumption pattern (Lauridsen and
Jørgensen, 2010:489).
DEFRA (2008) indicates that UK designers and innovators are needed to
bring about sustainable change. Similarly, (Spangenberg et al.) comment
that, along with the increasingly recognised importance of design for
business competition, ecodesign is vital in the ‘race for green
technology/green growth leadership’ (2010:1486). It has been argued that
eco-value is required in products, but the role of the industrial designer and
how he or she works, must change to enable sustainable material selection,
the most important issue being improvements in production techniques such
as high-grade material recycling (Masuda, 2001). Rather than being a
separate process, it is felt that sustainable design should not be an add on
but that all industrial design should be sustainable design in order to deliver a
future where all products are sustainable products (DEFRA, 2008). A study of
small design consultancies revealed that designers do have the ability to
influence the design brief and their clients but found that a lack of confidence
in their knowledge of ecodesign was impeding its inclusion in their process
(Mawle, 2010). Aesthetic aspects of the product are a key part of the
industrial designers role which can also include creating the product
personality through aesthetics, associations and perceptions (Ashby, 2009b),
all of which can be influenced by the material choice.
Manzini (2009) describes a number of emerging issues, one being that the
role of the designer needs to change and networks need to be designed.
Designers of the future need to be connectors, facilitators, quality producers,
visualisers, visionaries and future builders acting as catalysts for change
whilst also promoting new business models (Manzini, 2009). Similarly, Chick
and Micklethwaite (2011) have identified that design is a crucial element in
addressing sustainability and as such, the roles and responsibilities of
14
designers are changing. Industrial designers have been found to be heavily
involved in material selection:
Attention to materials and manufacturing was found to be a
fundamental concern in industrial design, not a peripheral activity
(Pedgley, 2009:14).
2.3 Sustainable Material Selection
Materials are identified by many as a key factor in the sustainability of a
product (Datschefski, 2001; Ashby and Johnson, 2002; Geiser, 2001; Ashby
and Johnson, 2006; Zarandi et al., 2011) and yet considerations for
sustainability attributes have only recently entered the material selection
process. A number of studies have looked at what factors influence and
necessitate material selection for industrial designers aside from technical
properties; values (Trimingham, 2007; Pedgley, 1999), intangible aspects
(Karana et al., 2008), meanings (Ljungberg and Edwards, 2003; Karana,
2009; Ashby and Johnson, 2006), sensory vocabulary (Allione et al., 2012)
and perceptions (Ashby and Johnson, 2006). Material meaning could be
factors such as whether material is luxurious or warm (Karana, 2009). The
material choice affects the perception of a product and this expressive
function of a material, in turn, affects the product personality:
Properties of materials and processes are used by industrial
designers to entertain people’s senses and, in so doing, contribute
to the desirability of a product (Pedgley, 1999:306).
Ashby (2009b) expresses the product personality as made up of three
components: aesthetics, associations and perceptions (Figure 2.4), which
could all be derived from the material choice. Perceived material moods will
vary depending on factors such as cultural background (Ashby, 2009b).
Karana and Hekkert (2010) also discuss the influence of culture on material
perception, including the perceived futuristic value of metals over plastic by
the Dutch participants with the opposite found with the Chinese participants.
Selecting materials to infer meanings to the product is something designers
are starting to do (Karana et al., 2008). Consumer perception is based on the
15
material associations, aesthetics and meanings; this information is requested
by industrial designers to assist selection choices with the searchable
attributes in their early stages of identification (Ashby et al., 2004).
Figure 2.4 Product personality (Ashby, 2009b:14)
Pedgley (1999) provides a comprehensive list of the key factors an industrial
designer must consider when selecting materials (Figure 2.5) such as the
senses a material can affect along with more traditional issues of product
use. Environmental selection issues listed include the use of recycled or
recyclable materials along with ecodesign strategies such as design for
disassembly and design for disposability.
16
Figure 2.5 Key factors in industrial designers’ decisions on product materials
and manufacture (redrawn from Pedgley, 1999:304)
The values which affect design decision making (Figure 2.6) are
predominantly also all relevant to material selection, and the perceived or
implied values a material may have. Interestingly, issues of environmental
impact are presented under the heading moral values. This, however, may
not be the only reason that sustainable materials are valued.
17
Figure 2.6 Values that affect design-decision making (Hicks et al. 1982, cited in
Coles and Norman, 2005; Trimingham, 2007)
Ashby et al. (2004) divides the material selection strategy into three parts:
1. The formulation of constraints that must be satisfied if the material is to
fill the desired function;–
2. The formulation of a performance metric or value function to measure
how well a material matches a set of requirements; and
3. A search procedure for exploring solution-space, identifying materials
that meet the constraints and ranking them by their ability to meet the
requirements (2004:53)
For the industrial designer, material selection requires identifying materials
which meet the design brief and specification to ensure they are fit for the
application whilst also considering the ‘sensory’ properties. Figure 2.7 shows
the material and process selection explaining how a simpler level of
information regarding materials and processes is required towards the top of
the model, but the detail required increases as the designer progresses
through the design process (Ashby et al., 2004). This model presents
material selection as a linear process and a deductive approach possibly
more akin with how an engineer may select materials. A conflicting model is
presented in Figure2.8 which allows for feedback loops and a cyclic
approach to material selection. Kesteren et al. (2007) developed the material
selection activities (MSA) model based on previous design models (Hall,
18
1962; Roozenburg and Eekels, 1995) following the stages of analysis,
synthesis, simulation, evaluation and decision but the MSA model is
designed specifically to represent materials selection. (Kesteren et al.,
2007:99) give two key new additions; ‘gathering material information’ and
‘material cooperation and consulting’.
Figure 2.7 The different stages for materials and process selection in design
and the conceptual tools to carry them out (Ashby et al., 2004:56)
Figure2.8 Material selection activities model (Kesteren et al., 2007:99)
19
Akin to the lack of a definition for sustainable materials in the literature, there
is little regarding sustainable material selection and so eco-material selection
shall be reviewed primarily as this forms part of sustainable material
selection. Ashby (2009a) give strategies for the eco-selection of materials by
focusing on energy and carbon breakdowns, identifying the life phases and
adopting simple metrics of environmental stress. Similarly, Lewis et al. (2001)
give four goals which the designer should aim for when selecting materials
with environmental considerations; abundant and non-toxic, natural rather
than synthetic, minimise materials, process and service, and maximise use of
recyclate. Bonnema (2006) states that product designers should take more
notice of the ingredients which make up a material as there are numerous
potential negative effects, such as:
Toxic to human and ecological health
Cancer-causing agent
Reproductive system disruption
Endocrine system disruption
Sensitizer
Mutagenicity (damage to DNA) (Bonnema, 2006:2)
The McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) Company also
focuses on the material ingredients (McDonough et al., 2003), along with
factors such as disassembly and recyclability. MBDC promote a Cradle to
Cradle framework based on the following five principles:
Material Health: Value materials as nutrients for safe, continuous
cycling
Material Reutilization: Maintain continuous flows of biological and
technical nutrients
Renewable Energy: Power all operations with 100% renewable energy
Water Stewardship: Regard water as a precious resource
Social Fairness: Celebrate all people and natural systems (Braungart
and Mc Donough, 2013)
20
A more detailed breakdown of the MBDC principles can be seen in Figure
2.9, which shows a breakdown of the principles applied by one company
using the MBDC system.
Figure 2.9 Design for environment criteria (McDonough et al., 2003:440)
It is essential to see ecodesign as a systems problem, not solved by simply
choosing “good” and avoiding “bad” materials, but rather by matching the
material to the system requirements (Ashby et al., 2005:4).
It can be difficult for designers to handle trade-offs and understand whether
one material is more sustainable than another; it is not a simple decisionmaking process for designers:
Conventionally grown and bleached cotton, shipped from
thousands of miles away, may have a bigger carbon footprint than
a recycled high density polyethylene, which is available from a
local source. While plastics industry veterans may know that, most
designers – and consumers – do not (Miel, 2008).
This statement also highlights the gap of knowledge between the plastics
industry and designers and consumers. Figure 2.10 depicts the meaning of
material sustainability, displaying five categories of natural resources across
the top – energy, minerals, land, water and air – and explains that all have a
renewable component, except for minerals, which are sufficient for present
21
needs, but are a finite resource (Ashby, 2011). Ashby (2011) states that
sustainability of materials means conserving material stock and enabling its
reuse. Material availability will not increase in the future but become more
limited whilst strains on energy increase in prevalence (Ljungberg, 2007).
Approaches for improving materials efficiency are shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.10 Sustainability in a materials context (Ashby, 2011:3)
Figure 2.11 Material efficiency (Ashby, 2011:18)
22
Studies by Hornbuckle (2010) focused on the recycling stage of the material
process and how to support the use of secondary materials amongst
industrial and product designers. Hornbuckle (2010) found strong evidence
that product and industrial designers are not currently able within their job
role to source and specify secondary materials. The understanding of
material sustainability amongst designers was found to be limited to the
material production and end-of-life phases (Hornbuckle, 2010). Hornbuckle
(2010) presents a visualisation designed to map the links between designers,
other actors involved in secondary material supply, secondary material types
and the material cycle (Figure 2.12). The framework gives methods to source
secondary materials, on a scale from quite easy (ask distributor, contact
reprocessors) to particularly challenging (investigate and experiment with
‘problem’ secondary materials and close the loop). The methods are each
linked to the necessary supplier; such as distributors, reprocessors,
manufacturers, factories and charity collections. The secondary material is
presented hierarchically depending on the quality, with high quality closed
loop at the top and problematic ‘contaminated’ at the bottom. In order both to
encourage the selection of recycled materials and for consumers to buy
recycled products necessitates ‘significant shifts in a number of key
stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours, including architects and designers’
(Chick and Micklethwaite, 2004:255). Correspondingly, in order to assess the
sustainability of a material, one stage of the process requires identifying and
engaging with relevant stakeholder groups.
23
Figure 2.12 Design and the material cycle (Hornbuckle, 2010:253)
24
2.4 Tools and Resources to Support Industrial Designers
With the advent of sustainable design, numerous resources and tools have been
created to aid designers. This section explores what information industrial
designers require to make sustainable material selection decisions and analyses
what support exists to enable this.
2.4.1 Industrial Designer Material Information Requirements
Industrial designers have expressed frustration that they do not have the
equivalent support in terms of resources compared to technical designers and
engineers, with software programs giving little consideration, if any, to the
aesthetic ‘art’ side (Ashby and Johnson, 2002:v).Variation exists between
industrial designers and engineers in both their language and the way in which
they work (Ashby and Johnson, 2006). Pedgley (1999) also remarks on the
need to bridge the gap between the differing approaches, scientific (engineers)
and artistic (industrial designers).
Ashby and Johnson (2006) note a lack of information regarding material
selection available to industrial designers compared to technical/scientific
designers, giving examples of resources such as handbooks, advisory services
from material suppliers and selection software readily available. Software tools
for material selection often ignore or provide very little information on what could
be called the ‘art’ of materials and the role which this can play in industrial
design (Ashby, 2006:v). Karana et al. (2008) also found a lack of consideration
for ‘intangible’ aspects of material selection in existing material selection
resources.
Karana et al. (2008) found from a study with industrial designers that the primary
considerations for material selection are based on the sensory properties of the
material which create the intangible characteristics. As Figure 2.13 shows, the
study found industrial designers were constantly considering and evaluating the
25
availability of the material, stating that this was the most important factor to the
designer (Karana et al., 2008). Karana et al. (2009) developed a tool to aid
material selection directed by material meanings to aid designers in
understanding the relationships between materials and meanings.
Figure 2.13 The order of required data of a materials selection source for
industrial designers (Karana et al., 2008:1087)
26
A study involving product designers found that both technical and userinteraction aspects were discussed, but Kesteren et al. (2007) were surprised to
find more focus given to technical considerations. Possible reasons given
included the abundance of technical information compared to that of userinteraction, whilst the user-interaction aspects are gained from products or
material samples. Kesteren (2008) studied the information needs of product
designers during material selection and categorised the information sources into
three categories (Figure 2.14). Kesteren (2008) found, through interviews with
product designers, material selection tends to originate primarily from
experience. What product designers require is a multi-level approach to material
information as their information needs vary through the design process and are
relevant to product issues along with the presentation of a material sample.
Current sources only contain aspects of these features and so improvement is
possible (Kesteren, 2008).
Figure 2.14 Information sources used in materials selection (compiled from
Kesteren, 2008:136-137)
27
Ashby and Johnson (2006) present a creative framework to aid industrial
designers select materials which should enable material and process
information to be captured, presented creatively, allowing browsing and
searching along with the ability to identify technical and perceived material,
process and product attributes. Industrial designers are required to consider
many factors and keep up to date but this is a difficult task which can mean
designers do not enable the use of the diverse materials available (Ramalhete et
al., 2010:2275). Industrial designers have been described as mediating the
influences of stakeholders such as clients, manufacturers, design team
members along with their personal expertise, in order to select materials
(Pedgley, 2009). With the complexity and confusing nature of sustainable
material selection, it is to be expected that industrial designers may require
support.
2.4.2 Eco and Sustainable Design Support
There are a growing number of tools supporting aspects of environmental
considerations but there is a lack of tools that support decision-making and
analysis of trade-offs (Bras, 1997). There are a number of strategies such as
Design for Disassembly or Design for Recycling but optimising one area can
have negative environmental impacts on other areas (Bras, 1997). Similarly a
study analysed fifteen ecodesign tools looking at how they handled trade-offs,
the inclusion of valuation and whether the tool gave support from a sustainability
perspective (Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2005:1422). Of the fifteen tools, only
nine were found to support trade-offs, but it was concluded that the support was
insufficient and that important aspects of sustainability were often absent
(Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2005). The eco-design of electronics has
developed and pushed designers towards a life-cycle analysis (LCA) approach,
but it was impeded by high analysis costs and insufficient guidelines:
The guidelines for design turned out to be too narrow to cope with the
rapid development and integration of electronics in different
applications (Lauridsen and Jørgensen, 2010:489).
28
Correspondingly, Stoyell (2004) identified the need for decision-making support
and methods to handle environmental trade-offs with other design
considerations.
Small and medium-sized companies are asking for simple tools to aid ecodesign
but do not have the time or money to apply LCA methods (Tischner, 2001).
Lofthouse (2001) studied how industrial designers use ecodesign tools and
identified a number of problems with existing approaches. Lofthouse (2001)
identified problems with the content and style of the tools, which is interesting as
many of the reasons found for their failings relate to the fact they are not
appropriate in information content and presentation style for industrial designers
and the way in which they work. The study also found that ecodesign is not a
priority, with many of the existing approaches deemed not appropriate to how
industrial designers work and too time-consuming to be incorporated (Lofthouse,
2001). Bovea and Pérez-Belis (2012:70) evaluated a number of tools designed
to integrate environmental considerations in the design process but concluded
that although numerous tools have been developed, ‘implementation is scarce’.
They also found the case studies on the use of these tools are often reliant on
theoretical examples, lacking support from product design companies. There
exists a lack of studies regarding both the use of ecodesign tools by industrial
designers and the requirements for ecodesign tools for industrial designers.
There is, however, criticism that tools presented for environmental product
development may not be sufficient or even necessary (Baumann et al., 2002). A
review of tools from an engineering design perspective found a variation in
environmental considerations between those that consider the whole life-cycle
and those that only focus on individual attributes or strategies such as recycling
or global warming impact (Baumann et al., 2002). In conclusion, from a
business, engineering and policy perspective, Baumann et al. (2002:421) state
that there has been ‘too much tool development’ in contrast to the study and
evaluation of existing ones.
29
2.4.3 Approaches to Sustainable Material Selection
Historically, studies on material selection are limited although a number
occurred during the 1980s, those by Michael Ashby have been highly praised for
their applicability (Ramalhete et al., 2010:2276). More recently, material
selection is well documented. A comprehensive study by Ramalhete et al.
(2010) analysed eighty seven resources, having narrowed down a list of over
three hundred databases, websites and software programs. Resources were
analysed by Ramalhete et al. (2010) for their material selection criteria, included
in this are ecological issues and environmental impact. These terms are not
defined by the author but according to the British Standards Institute (1999:2)
environmental impact is defined as ‘any change to the environment , whether
adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organization’s
activities or products’. Those that include “ecological issues” are:
Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) (Granta Design Limited, 2009b)
matdata.net (Granta and ASM International, n.d.)
Rematerialise (The Rematerialise Project, 2002b)
matériO, (matériO, n.d.),
IDEMAT (TU Delft, n.d.)
Transmaterial (Transmaterial, 2012)
Prospect – The Wood Database (Oxford Forestry Institute, 2010),
Waste and Resources Action Programme, WRAP (WRAP, 2013)
Biopolymer.net (van Erven, 2009)
Umberto (ifu hamburg, 2013)
Information/Inspiration (Lofthouse, 2005)
Those that provide “environmental impact” information for materials are:
Design Insite (Lenau, 2012)
IDEMAT (TU Delft, n.d.)
Materials selection and processing (Shercliff, 2002)
Materials Monthly (Princeton Architectural Press, 2005)
Waste and Resources Action Programme, WRAP (WRAP, 2013)
30
Information/Inspiration (Lofthouse, 2005)
Eco-materials pela MATREC (Capellini, 2011)
CES (Granta Design Limited, 2009b)
Simapro (PRé-Consultants, 2009c)
Eco-It (PRé Consultants, 2013)
Table 2.1 shows the most prevalent selection methods for materials, including
ecological issues as a selection, method but it is not clear how this information is
displayed under the material properties.
Table 2.1 Most common selecting methods and material properties (compiled
from Ramalhete et al., 2010:2285)
Fuad-Luke (2006) presents both product examples made using ecomaterials
along with a section covering where to source some of the materials covered.
Materials presented are subdivided into Biosphere or Technosphere (Figure
2.15).
31
Figure 2.15 Material categories presented by Fuad-Luke (2006)
The materials presented are more readily applied to low volume production
methods and do not fit into the needs of mass manufacture. The material
locations are also worldwide, which would have environmental implications on
how sustainable the material was. Other useful information is presented in a
resource section covering contact information for designers, designer-makers,
manufacturers and suppliers, green organisations and a glossary covering
numerous eco-design strategies (Fuad-Luke, 2006).
A review of engineering-centred sources (Figure 2.16) found that, although the
design process tended to be defined to include both technical and non-technical
aspects, generally the former was covered more (Karana et al., 2008). Figure
2.16 shows a review of sources conducted by Karana et al. (2008) but,
interestingly, it is not until 1999 that aspects of sustainable materials come into
the attribute lists, such as environmental profiles, eco-attributes, eco-properties
and environmental resistance. Karana et al. (2008) also comment that most of
the sources place environmental aspects at the bottom of the lists for
consideration.
32
Figure 2.16 Review of different sources defining the effective material aspects for
materials selection process (Karana et al., 2008:1083)
The use of Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) as a methodology is probably the most
recognised and well-known evaluation technique for environmental impact within
material selection (Huang et al., 2009; Allione et al., 2012; Wegst and Ashby,
1998). Gehin et al. (2009) focus on creating sustainable products by redefining
the life-cycle phases and creating new phases to influence the end of life
strategy focused towards reuse, remanufacture and recycling (Figure 2.17).
Gehin et al. (2008) have created and developed a tool designed to assist
designers to optimise end of life considerations; providing information tailored
33
towards remanufacturing. Designers have a complex design phase and require
tools that:
Can be integrated into their daily work;
Enable designers to evaluate the environmental impact of the products and
its components
Indicate the prospective potential for Reuse, Recycling and
Remanufacturing of different parts (Gehin et al., 2008:575).
Figure 2.17 The life-cycle representation (Gehin et al., 2009:215)
MATto was developed in Italy as a virtual and physical materials library
combining performance characteristics with eco-properties (Allione et al., 2012).
Figure 2.18 shows an example of how material information could be displayed
including environmental information presented within the three eco strategies
whilst also providing a sensory profile of the material. The database is proposed
as an information source of MATto materials which can be used alongside
existing established material databases, not as a standalone tool, and
encourages the designer into a life-cycle design approach. A set of ecodesign
guidelines developed in prior studies and from the well-known concept
34
guidelines with three main strategies are displayed in Figure 2.19 (Allione et al.,
2012). This model includes environmental aspects, ethical factors which could
infer social considerations, but the third element of sustainable materials,
economic considerations, is not included. The importance of the considerations
would vary, depending on factors such as the lifetime of the product. For a shortterm product, low-impact materials are important, matched with biodegradability
and recyclability, whilst ethics is always important regardless of product life
(Allione et al., 2012). Due to this variation of factors, there is an
acknowledgement that, in applying numerous selection guidelines, compromises
are required between differing constraints and needs of a product requirement
(Allione et al., 2012).
Figure 2.18 An example of a MATto material profile sheet (Allione et al., 2012:98)
35
Figure 2.19 Eco-strategies and guidelines focused on the material selection
phase (Allione et al., 2012:93)
The relative importance of the differing guidelines towards material selection,
depending on the product length, can be seen in Figure 2.20. Ethics is always of
importance regardless of product lifetime length but the main differences occur
within the lifetime extension section. Recyclability is promoted for both product
lifetime lengths, but energy recovery is stated as more suitable to long life whilst
biodegradability is recommended for short-term products. Landfill disposal is not
promoted as an option for either product lifetime length scenario.
36
Figure 2.20 Relative importance of the material selection guidelines in
accordance with the long or short term product (Allione et al., 2012)
Ljungberg and Edwards (2003) designed the integrated product materials
selection (IPMS) model to increase successful product development. They found
existing methods to be limited to the physical considerations of material choice
and sought to include values such as fashion, market trends, aesthetics, cultural
aspects and recycling. They created a design manual to guide material selection
through ten steps, including the evaluation/study of parameters pertaining to
product life-cycle environmental influence, recyclability and final disposal during
the market research stage. Complex products require the use of the manual for
37
both the individual parts and the overall assembly which can prove ‘unwieldy’ for
complex products requiring a detailed analysis. There are, however, plans to
develop a software model. (Ljungberg and Edwards, 2003:528). The model
encourages the integration of broader factors into the material selection process
but acknowledges the skill of the designer in understanding that this is key; ‘It
takes time and experience to understand and accept the balance between the
physical and metaphysical demands of different customers and cultures’
(Ljungberg and Edwards, 2003:528).
SolidWorks Sustainability (Dassault Systemes, 2013) is part of the SolidWorks
3D CAD software, measuring the environmental impact of products designed in
SolidWorks, based on four areas: carbon footprint, energy consumed, air and
water pollution (Dassault Systemes, 2014). The interface can be seen in Figure
2.21, showing the four environmental impacts in the bottom right of the screen.
The ‘find similar material’ option allows the user to select properties needed and
then view matching options. If the user changes the material chosen for a part,
the effect this has on the impacts is represented against the baseline material
originally chosen.
38
Figure 2.21 SolidWorks Sustainability display and ‘find similar material’
Sustainability allows users to measure the environmental impact of the products
they design in SolidWorks. The SolidWorks Sustainability products are fully
integrated into SolidWorks, and provide real-time feedback on the environmental
impacts of Carbon Footprint, Total Energy Consumed, Effect on Water, and
Effect on Air.
Ashby and Johnson (2006) provide information covering both the ‘art and
science’ of material selection by providing both information on the issues of
material selection for designers and a section providing material and processing
profiles to aid inspiration and selection. Further to this, Ashby (2009a) presents
a book covering the environmental aspect of material selection, again, alongside
material profiles. The latter part is split further into material profiles, shaping
profiles, joining profiles and surfacing profiles. The material profile section
39
provides profiles covering polymers, metals, ceramics, glass, fibres, natural
materials and new materials. For each material, information is given on what the
material is, design notes, typical uses, competing materials, environment and
technical notes alongside a photograph and a table of properties.
Although books exist to support material selection, a study of UK designers
found designers were ‘very unlikely to use books, or similar printed documents
to learn about developments in materials and manufacturing’ (Mawle, 2010:14).
Instead, designers relied on colleagues and expert contacts such as suppliers
whilst also using the internet, although with the understanding that this provides
a wealth of information but cannot always be trusted (Mawle, 2010). Mawle
(2010:14) concludes that what would be ideal is a tool that combines ‘more
targeted content from recognised and trusted sources’.
2.4.4 An Evaluation of Existing Tools and Resources
Following the literature review it proved difficult to understand how resources
support and encourage the use of sustainable materials with industrial
designers. Much of the existing literature discusses the development and
prototyping of tools with little detail on the application of them within industry. A
number of tools were identified from prior reviews of sources (Tischner, 2001;
Ramalhete et al., 2010; Karana et al., 2008; Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2005)
and examined for inclusion in the study of how aspects of sustainable materials
are presented. Table 2.2 below shows the different types of resources selected.
In the first group are resources which provide information and strategies for
sustainable material selection. The evaluation tools chosen assist the designer
in judging how to make improvements to the design with material-relevant
strategies. Some of these tools are directly related to an information resource.
The third column covers material databases, both generic material selection and
those which are specifically aimed at eco or sustainable materials. The
resources were selected to provide a variety of resource type and based on their
40
prevalence within literature, inclusion in prior studies identifying sustainability
considerations and their relevance to UK designers.
Table 2.2 Classification of resources
Information Provision Evaluation Tool Material Database
Dutch Promise Manual
Information Inspiration
Bio Thinking
LiDS Wheel
Ecodesign Web
Uglipoints
Eco-Indicator
Sima-Pro
Material Connexion
Ecolect
Materia
Creative Resource
Cambridge Engineering
Selector
MTRL:
Sima Pro (PRé-Consultants, 2009c) is the singular LCA resource explored in
depth due to prior literature explaining the short comings of LCA methods due to
their complexity and time consuming process (Lauridsen and Jørgensen, 2010).
Rapid LCA tools, although they reduce the time required, were also omitted as
they cover wider issues such as energy in product use, not just those relevant to
material selection. All the resources were reviewed according to the findings of
Bhamra and Lofthouse (2003), Lofthouse (2006) Bhamra and Lofthouse
(2003)and Ashby and Johnson (2006) as to their appropriateness of
presentation and content for industrial designers. Tools were examined to study
both how they meet the needs of the industrial designer and how they support
sustainable material selection. They were evaluated on the following criteria:
Presentation style
Resource structure
Accessibility
Sustainable material content, strategies and considerations
Availability and location of materials (databases only)
Relevance to UK designers.
41
2.4.4.1 Dutch Promise Manual and LiDs Wheel
The Dutch PROMISE manual, ‘Ecodesign: a promising approach to sustainable
production and consumption’ was written in response to the need for Industry
specific information (Brezet and Hemel, 1997). It was published in 1997 by
United Nations Environment programme. It was timed to meet the growing
desire by governments, companies, consumers and non-governmental
organisations to improve the environmental impact of products (Brezet and
Hemel, 1997). It was written to assist industrial businesses worldwide introduce
schematic ecodesign in the field of product design (Brezet and Hemel, 1997).
The information was presented in a ring binder with index tabs allowing easy
access to the different chapters and modules. The manual was structured and
presented in a way which allows the user to easily identify the areas of
relevance to them without needing to read every section. No specific information
was given for materials but strategies are explained as to how to improve
materials selection choices including charts for material compatibility. The Dutch
Promise manual presented eight ecodesign strategies which are also presented
in the LiDS wheel (Figure 2.22) which allows the designer to make quick
judgements about either an existing products or a product idea. LiDS stands for
Lifecycle Design Strategy and was developed as part of the Dutch Promise
Manual (Bras, 1997). The strategies relevant to material selection are one, six,
and seven and are all given in more detail in Appendix A (page 300). It can be
used in many ways, for generating improvement options, to assess the existing
product, to assess new concepts and to prioritise areas to be improved. Strategy
One; Low impact materials covers both the material choice and surface
treatment, and encourages the use of environmentally benign, renewable,
recyclable, recycled and low-energy content materials (Brezet and Hemel,
1997).
42
Figure 2.22 LiDS Wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997)
2.4.4.2 Information Inspiration and Ecodesign Web
Information/Inspiration is an online ecodesign resource developed by Lofthouse
following a three year research project with Electrolux (Lofthouse, 2001).
Lofthouse gave the tool a name to reflect and convey its creative nature whilst
setting it apart from other tools to encourage its use amongst designers
(Lofthouse, 2003; Lofthouse, 2006). Lofthouse chose to present the resource
online as it enabled the criteria identified during research to be met, including:
| | Ability to present information in a highly visual manner, which is relevant to the way designers work, Recognises time limits and gives users the ability to access information quickly and easily, Allows the tool to be kept up to date readily, Can keep amount of reading to a minimum (Lofthouse, 2006). |
| | |
| |
43
The resource is presented in two parts, the first providing ecodesign information
and the second showing inspirational images and links.
Figure 2.23 Updated homepage for Information/Inspiration (Lofthouse, 2005)
A number of tools are provided including the Ecodesign Web and Eco-indicator.
Relevant material strategies included are optimal life; product life extension,
longevity and durability and end of life; active disassembly (smart materials),
remanufacture, recycling and reuse. The Materials section of the website cover
the following nine topics each presented with an image and a brief introduction
linking to more information:
1. Materials Selection
2. Mainstream Materials
3. Materials Reduction
4. Compatibility
5. Biodegradable Materials
6. Biopolymers
7. Renewable Materials
8. Recycled Materials
9. Hazardous Materials
(Lofthouse, 2005).
The ‘Material Selection’ page gives a list of rules (Appendix B) to use when
selecting materials, whilst also giving links to other relevant sections of the
website such as recycling and legislations. What the section doesn’t provide are
links, information or tools to aid the designer with material decision making. The
‘Mainstream Materials’ section gives a very brief introduction to plastics and
44
ceramics with a section about why PVC is regarded as a bad plastic. Some of
the common plastic types are listed but with little information on material
properties. The ‘Compatibility’ section gives guidelines for various materials,
steel, plastics, glass and aluminium. The guidelines recommend avoiding
contamination, impurities, mixing materials and ways to improve recycling at the
products end of life Appendix B. The ‘Biopolymers’ section covers the four main
types of biopolymers, starch based polymers, sugar based biopolymers,
cellulose based biopolymers and synthetic based biopolymers. ‘Renewable
Materials’ provides a list of materials with little information; such as wood, wool,
hemp, leather, cotton and a link to interesting materials for examples of products
made using renewable materials. ‘Recycled Materials’ provide very little
information on specific recycled materials other than saying that steel,
aluminium and glass can be recycled into high quality material whereas plastic
needs separating and cleaning sufficiently to get a high quality material
(Lofthouse, 2005). ‘Hazardous Materials’ briefly mentions two legislations, the
European Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and the Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive. ‘Product Inspiration’ gives
numerous case study examples accessible via the following menu topics:
| |
Electrical and electronic Consumer Products |
| | White goods |
| | Packaging |
| | Textiles |
| | Alternative energy |
| | Furniture |
| | Concepts |
| | Green design |
| | Interesting materials |
Systems and services
Cool links.
Pictures of the products create a link to further information along with links to
external websites. This gives the designer real examples on how other
designers have tackled ecodesign. The Ecodesign Web (Figure 2.24) is an
adaption of the Lids Wheel. The wheel can be used:
For individual and groups of designers
At start of a design project to evaluate an existing product
45
To assess design ideas
To help and improve ideas and products
| | To draw comparison with competitors products (Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007:72). |
The user makes a qualitative judgement for each category with a cross and then
connected to create a highly visual indication as to which area needs improving.
The tool is designed to be flexible, Lofthouse (2005) recommends using the tool
in whichever way suits the user best, for example the user can create new
headings to better suit the product in question.
46
Figure 2.24 The Ecodesign Web (Lofthouse, 2005)
47
2.4.4.3 Bio Thinking and Uglipoints
Datschefski presents his ideas though the website Biothinking (2004), a book
entitled The Total Beauty of Sustainable Products (Datschefski, 2001) and an
electronic book, Sustainable Products (2002). BioThinking is defined as:
BioThinking means looking at the world as a single system, and
developing new ecology-derived techniques for industrial,
organisational and sustainable design (Datschefski, 2004).
In 1998 Edwin Datschefski developed the Cyclic/Solar/Safe Model, designed to
simplify the assessment of the environmental impact on a product (Datschefski,
2001). Cyclic, solar and safe are all taken from nature, but two further
requirements have been added, Efficient; to reflect use of resources in a finite
world and Social; to maximise human happiness and potential (Datschefski,
2002). The five principles are:
Cyclic: The product is made from organic materials, and is recyclable
or compostable, or is made from minerals that are continuously
cycled in a closed loop.
Solar: The product uses solar energy or other forms of renewable
energy that are cyclic and safe, both during use and manufacture.
Safe: The product is non-toxic in use and disposal, and its
manufacture does not involve toxic releases or the disruption of
ecosystems.
Efficient: The product’s efficiency in manufacture and use is
improved by a factor of ten, requiring 90% less materials, energy and
water than products providing equivalent utility did in 1990.
Social: The product and its components and raw materials are
manufactured under fair and just operating conditions for the workers
involved and the local communities (Datschefski, 2002:21).
Datschefski (2001) stated that ‘Materials are the message’ and gives the worst
materials to use, such as CFC’s, asbestos and mercury are given along with a
48
links to the Volvo black and grey lists of materials to avoid. Datschefski gives
brief information on leather, wool, secondary metals, cotton, bioplastic, wood
products, paper, hemp, cardboard, ceramics and glass, stone and slate,
batteries, colours, printing, paint and plastic. Datschefski (2001) gave an
introduction as to why materials are important but does not aid material
selection. Instead it gives a little information on each of the material types
outlined above but not how to source materials. The electronic book
(Datschefski, 2002) provides more detailed information on sustainable product
design techniques. The basic techniques are given below with those highlighted
being directly relevant to material selection:
Cyclic
| |
Recycled Materials Re-use Organic Materials and Composting Takeback, Refurbish and Remanufacture |
| |
Solar
| | Muscle Power |
| | Hydrogen and Electricity |
| | Photons |
Safe
Substitute Materials
Stewardship Sourcing
“Bio-Everything”
Life Extension
| | Durability |
| | Upgradability |
| | Repairability |
| | Complementary Components |
| | Extremely Long View |
Using Less
| | Increased Efficiency |
| | Increased Utility |
| | Dematerialise |
| | Every Little Counts |
| | Be More Local |
| | Multifunctionality |
| | Fine Control |
| |
Work with the Seasons Biomimicry (Datschefski, 2002:44) |
49
Datchefski (2002) stated that the ultimate goal with materials is for them to be
fully cyclic and be a closed loop process. Very little precise information is
given here but there are numerous product examples. The issue of
biodegradable products only being valid if they are disposed of in the correct
way to ensure degradation is discussed (Datschefski, 2002). Datchefski
(2002) gives definitions and links to further information on the standardisation
of biodegradability.
For every product, there is always a safer material or compound
that can be used, but the challenge is to match or exceed the
performance of the original toxic solution (Datschefski, 2002:52).
The quote above makes an interesting point about material selection, that
often there are better options but it can be hard to find out what these are.
Stewardship sourcing relates to the history of the material, such as with wood
whether the forests were sustainably managed. Bio-everything gives
examples of products which fall into a wide variety of topics but provides a
little information on each.
Datschefski (2001, 2002) presented the UgliPoint scoring system (Figure
2.25). The UgliPoints scoring system is very easy to use, Datschefski has
categorised different types of materials into 4 different groups with a score of
1,5, 15 and 50. The designer multiplies the material mass figure by the
UgliPoint to get the impact score.
50
Figure 2.25 UgliPoint Scoring System (Datschefski, 2002:85-86)
2.4.4.4 Eco-Indicator
Since 1990 PRé (Product Ecology) Consultants have been leaders in Life
Cycle Assessment development, involved in consultancy and developing
tools to aid companies and governments.
51
PRé Consultants’ mission is to develop and implement practical,
yet scientifically sound tools to improve the environmental
performance of your products and services through Life Cycle
Management (PRé-Consultants, 2009a).
PRé Consultants have a comprehensive website including online resources,
information on ecodesign, training courses and EU standards. Under the
topic Ecodesign, the ‘10 guidelines for Ecodesign’ are written with information
on each, Appendix C shows the material selection relevant statements. The
Eco-indicator is a Life Cycle Impact assessment tool designed to assess
products for their damage impact using predetermined values to give scores.
The software and manuals are available to download for free from the PRé
Consultants website. A ‘Manual for Designers’ has been written explaining
how to use the tool and listing over 200 standard eco-indicator values (PRé-
Consultants, 2000). To use the tool the following five steps must be followed:
| Step 1. Step 2. |
Establish the purpose of the Eco-indicator calculation Define the life cycle |
| Step 3. Step 4. Step 5. |
Quantify materials and processes Fill in the form Interpret the results (PRé-Consultants, 2000). |
The designer must quantify the materials and processes used and make
assumptions about the use patterns for the product being evaluated. This
information can then be entered into a form covering three stages of the
products life cycle; production, use and disposal. A manual provides the eco
indicator value; the two values are multiplied to calculate an eco-indicator
score. An example form is shown in Figure 2.26. The process can be used to
identify the areas of the Life Cycle needing most attention to improve
sustainability factors whilst giving a score, which can be compared to other
design solutions. A complex damage model was developed as part of the tool
to enable weights to be used for the three damage categories; damage to
resources, damage to ecosystem quality and damage to human health (PRé-
Consultants, 2000). Eco-indicator was created to provide designers with a
tool that was quick and easy to use having identified that one of the key
52
problems identified with LCA tools was the complexity of interpreting the
result and time needed to use the tool (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001).
Figure 2.26 An example of a completed form (PRé-Consultants, 2000:20)
The PRé Consultants website provides the designer with manuals and
software to download to enable the designer to use the Eco-indicator 99 and
53
also Eco-it software. A comprehensive ‘Manual for designers’ can be
downloaded giving an overview of LCA and step by step instructions for
using the Eco-Indicator 99 tool. Annexes to the manual provide the designer
with forms and the standard Eco-Indicator values providing all the information
and tools required to use the tool. Other LCA software can be used to
calculate additional Eco-indicators. Updates are available through a mailing
list allowing for new values to be added and recalculated. There is also a
simplified software version called Eco-it designed to use the eco-indicator 99
database (Figure 2.27).
Figure 2.27 Screenshots from the Eco-it software main window
54
2.4.4.5 Sima Pro
SimaPro stands for “System for Integrated Environmental Assessment of
Products”, the tool:
Provides you with a professional tool to collect, analyze and
monitor the environmental performance of products and services.
You can easily model and analyze complex life cycles in a
systematic and transparent way, following the ISO 14040 series
recommendations (PRé-Consultants, 2009c).
SimaPro is available in three versions with different levels of complexity:
| |
SimaPro Compact for quick results SimaPro Analyst for detailed LCA studies |
|||
| | SimaPro | Developer for developing dedicated | LCA tools | (PRé- |
Consultants and Goedkoop, 2006).
The tool can be used by a single user or in multi-user mode allowing a team
of people to work on the same database simultaneously. The inventory
results for the product provide a complex list of figures, the inventory for the
coffee machine in the SimaPro demo version tutorial shows 567 substances
(Figure 2.28). To look at, this appears confusing and presents large number
of figures. Graph outputs give visual representations and feature colour
coding to see the different parts of the assembly involved. SimaPro doesn’t
specifically take into account social and economic issues but a new section
has been created to define social issues such as jobs created which they
suggest could be expressed as minutes needed to fell a ton of food but as
social issues are hard to quantify they are hard to integrate into the LCA
software (PRé-Consultants and Goedkoop, 2006).
55
Figure 2.28 Screenshot from SimaPro demo showing inventory for coffee
machine
Figure 2.29 shows an image taken from the manual accompanying the demo
version and explains how the software window is displayed and used. The
layout appears dated in the style of the windows format compared to newer
software available, notable by the old windows logo visible in the LCA
explorer bar.
56
Figure 2.29 Layout for SimaPro (PRé-Consultants and Goedkoop, 2006)
2.4.4.6 Material ConneXion
Material ConneXion offer consultancy on materials as well as presenting
material information via a book, an online database and a physical materials
library. To access the online database requires a subscription of $250 a year
which also includes a quarterly magazine. The resources are also used by
over 100,000 students worldwide with a number of universities subscribing to
the academic access (Material ConneXion, 2009a). The resource enables
designers to ‘access the world’s largest resource for advanced, innovative
and sustainable materials and processes’ (Material ConneXion, 2009a). The
website states that the materials library is for all disciplines of design
development, including, architecture, interior design, packaging design, retail
design, industrial design, fashion, apparel & footwear, exhibition design,
textile design, landscape architecture and transportation design (Material
ConneXion, 2009b)
57
The archive contains over 5000 materials subdivided into the eight following
categories:
| |
polymers ceramics glass metals cement-based materials natural materials carbon-based materials processes (Material ConneXion, 2009b). |
Material Connexion provide a comprehensive search tool covering the
material category, processing options, sustainability, cradle to cradle
classification, usage and physical properties (Appendix D ). As well as
selecting categories the user can enter keywords, material connexion
number, manufacturer or country. The search options allow the user to
combine different constraints including a comprehensive list of sustainability
factors. The numbers in the brackets indicate how many materials are
covered by the resource in each category and show good numbers in the
issues of sustainability. The cradle to cradle option breaks down results into
the four classification grades. It is also possible to search by any word which
will also search the material description. The manufacturer location can also
be used as a search criterion. In the search results images of the material are
shown along with the name and a short description but hovering over the
image gives a longer description. For each property data sheet any relevant
sustainability properties are with a tick if they meet the requirement whilst
cradle to cradle is listed under usage properties (Appendix D).
2.4.4.7 Ecolect
Designers Joe Gebbia and Matt Grisby, decided there should be an easier
way to find sustainable materials; often finding manufacturers websites
outdated, confusing or wrong and so from a shared database grew the idea
of Ecolect (Ecolect, 2008b). The aim of the company is to provide tools and
58
resources to make it easier for designer to design responsibly, by providing
the following:
An easy-to-use website featuring only materials with
sustainable attributes, a place that stimulates discussion about
defining sustainability and is a source of accurate information
| | A place for you to contribute user reviews and images of materials you use |
Helpful case studies on successful sustainable design
| | An informative blog that discusses how design and ecology affect the world (Ecolect, 2008a). |
The online resource is free to use and allows designers to browse materials
but has no search functions. The materials presented are only searchable by
the product name and the date they were added. There are some UK
materials but it is hard to find them. The majority of the Ecolect team are
Industrial Designers but the majority of the materials or products appear to
suit an architectural application. The website allows users to view a picture
and title for 18 materials at a time (Appendix E). The designer navigates by
skipping pages or by sorting the materials by date or name. The materials
are not organised into categories or searchable by type unlike other material
resources. This makes it quite a lengthy process to search for materials as
the initial picture doesn’t always make it clear what applications the material
is suited for. There are also a large number of architecture based products
and it would be useful to have differentiation between materials for different
disciplines.
Each material is displayed (Figure 2.30) with a number of photos and contact
information for the manufacturers. Further information is given in sections
entitled summary, how it is used, how it is made and technical specifications.
Users can add the material to a library, write a review and upload their own
photos of projects using the material. Ecolect also run a subscription based
sample selection service called GreenBox™ where a number of material
samples are sent out monthly. The GreenBox™ system (Figure 2.31) is
59
designed so that designers or companies can pay a subscription and receive
regular material samples so that they can set up their own physical material
libraries (Ecolect, 2008b).
Figure 2.30 Material Information for BarkTex (Ecolect, 2008b)
Figure 2.31 GreenBox™ Material Samples (Ecolect, 2008b)
60
Ecolect have created a Material NutritionLabel™ (Appendix E) designed to
tell consumers simply and quickly how green a product is (Ecolect, 2008b). It
combines factors such as energy, carbon, toxicity, water and responsibility
with relevant labels. They offer a service to companies wanting 3rd party
certification, including a responsibility report outlining the findings along with
a report highlighting strategies for improvement (Ecolect, 2010).
2.4.4.8 Materia
Materia is a company based in the Netherlands which has created a
knowledge centre and searchable database covering materials and their
developments, innovations and applications for architects and designers
(Materia, 2009a). Materia aims to inspire architects, designers and producers
to apply innovative materials to their work (Materia, 2009a). An online
database of materials is available which is free to access once you have
registered your details. There are numerous search options (Appendix F)
keywords, country of origin, material type, sensorial properties and technical
properties. It is possible to search by one or more fields simultaneously
including entering a keyword and choosing a country of origin for the
material. The materials can also be searched via material type, sensorial
properties and technical properties.Appendix F shows the search options
available under each of the two topics; sensorial and technical. In all there
are 80 materials listed for all categories of material type with the United
Kingdom as the country of origin. A search for plastics in the database
returns 368 results but if this is limited to United Kingdom as the country of
origin only, 29 results are found, many of these are variations of similar
materials from the same company. The results list is displayed with a
thumbnail image, brief description and a matching symbol for the material
type. The material page gives a number of images and the material
description and properties. Contact details are found under the Manufacturer
tab and some materials feature a project section where examples of the
material in projects are displayed.
61
Materia have also created a physical materials library (Figure 2.32 and
Figure 2.33), called the Inspiration Centre which exhibits material samples
and information as a walk in resource for designers. The collection comprises
over 1500 materials with approximately 20 new ones added every month
(Materia, 2009a). There is also a library of over 850 books and magazines on
materials, architecture, design and interiors; computers with internet access
and space to hold meetings, events and workshops (Materia, n.d.). To use
the centre a company pays $495 per year, limited to 500 users and gives
benefits such as unlimited access for employees and accompanied clients
along with discounts on events (Materia, n.d.).
Figure 2.32 Materia Inspiration Centre (Materia, n.d.)
Figure 2.33 Materia Inspiration library (Materia, n.d.)
62
In 2009 Materia published a book featuring selected materials to aid
designers with material selection. The book divides the materials into the
following areas:
| | Wood |
| |
Naturals Natural stone Concrete |
| | Ceramics |
| | Glass |
| | Metal |
| | Plastic |
| | Coatings |
Each material is presented with two headings, projects and materials. For
each material type project examples are given followed by specific material
information. The book is laid out in such a way that the picture of the material
or project takes up the majority of the page allowing the designer to flick
through the book and visualise the material quickly. In May 2011, for the first
time Materia held an exhibition on the theme of green materials having
noticed the keyword searches on their site reflected a growing interest in the
area:
From the keywords used in the search engine of Materia.nl, we
can tell that architects and designers are very much interested in
sustainable materials (Materia, 2011)
With the numerous ways sustainable materials can be considered Materia
chose four approaches: energy efficiency, recycling, renewable materials and
compostable materials (Materia, 2011); however these are still focused on
the environmental aspects of materials and was just applied to the exhibition.
The website does not give the user advice of how to select sustainable
materials.
2.4.4.9 Rematerialise
Rematerialise is a website for ‘eco smart materials’ and has a sub heading of
‘The Sustainable Materials Library’. Currently the original Rematerialise is
available but a new section will be available in 2011 with over 1200 new
materials (The Rematerialise Project, 2002b). Both databases are free to use
but you need to register to use the newer one when it is available. Dehn
63
instigated the Creative Resource research project in 1994 to investigate the
availability and application possibilities for new materials made from recycled
waste (The Rematerialise Project, 2002a).
The objectives of the project are to examine material connections
between design, culture and environmental preservation and to
chart how the design process is evolving in order to maintain
markets, whilst sustaining well being and using less primary
resources (Kingston University, n.d.).
Dehn has compiled a large digital and physical material collection which is
continually expanding and provides a valuable resource to students and
professionals (Kingston University, n.d.). Rematerialise presents a database
of information on materials searchable via 4 options. To access the materials
database online you access the search area of the website. You can search
in four different ways, by material type, process, character and application
Appendix G).
The search options (Appendix G) divide the materials into 8 different types
and even have a section called ‘vegetable’ which includes bamboo, cork,
jute, Biopol® foamed corn starch and Environ® made from soybeans and
recycled newspaper. The process section is a little confusing with a number
of materials in seemingly wrong sections such as MDF in the injection-mould
section. Some of the materials are listed under the process used to make
them into a specific product such as a board or mat and some are under the
process in which the raw material can be transformed into nay product.
However there is also with three recycled sheets appearing both under blowmould and rotation mould. The character section gives a mix of technical,
touch and aesthetic properties. The application section shows many
construction and architecture relevant applications but a lack of applications
relevant to mass manufacture and industrial design.
Each material has a link to more information; giving photographs, sample
size and contact details (Appendix G). Some materials give a link to a video
showing the material being handled and demonstrating properties such as
64
flexibility. The Rematerialise database site also presents an archive section
presenting inspirational products made from waste materials from 1994 –
2001. By hovering the mouse over the pictures a short description is given for
each product. An extensive list of useful links for further information is given
on the website, split into the following topic areas:
| |
Green groups Design for sustainability research Eco design resources |
| | Materials |
| | Product life |
| | Alternative energy |
| |
Recycling E-zines & newsletters Green living and consumption (The Rematerialise Project, 2002a). |
2.4.4.10 Cambridge Engineering Selector Edupack
The CES EduPack is a family of products created to work together combining
software, databases, lecture slides and text books (Adelman and Ashby,
2009). Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) is a software tool designed by
Granta Design based in Cambridge. Granta Design was founded in 1994 by
Professor Michael Ashby and Dr David Cebon at Cambridge University
(Granta Design Limited, 2011b).
The CES software has 3 ways of selecting materials, by browsing;
performing searches; by material name, processes, trade name, application
or keywords and select; selection via graph stages, limit stages and tree
stages (Ashby and Granta Design, 2011; Granta Design Limited, 2011a). The
select function allows the user to create interactive graphs, set property limits
and create a visual tree of the options (Ashby and Granta Design, 2011). The
user can create material property charts by assigning properties to the x and
y axis (Figure 2.34) and from this it is possible to draw a selection box on the
graph to refine the results. The user can perform complex searches by
65
entering information into all three select stages and editing information to
perform what if scenarios. The CES software provides a comprehenvie list of
propeorties for each material (Appendix H) covering aspect of technical
properties, legislative criteria, energy use CO2 footprint and end of life
factors.
Figure 2.34 Material property chart (Granta Design Limited, 2011a)
Although issues of material aesthetics, associations, perceptions and their
effect on the senses to create product personality have been previously
discussed (Ashby, 2008; Ashby and Johnson, 2006), little information is
presented. Environmental cosnidertaions are covered in detail throughout the
life cycle of the material covering the primary production, processing energy
and CO² footprint and end of life (Appendix H). End of life covers the energy,
CO² and recycling; the ability to recycle, downcycle, combust for energy,
landfill, biodegrade or it its renewable and provides data for the energy and
CO² footprint, recycle fraction in current supply, heat of combustion and
combustion CO². If available the Eco-Indicator score is also shown. Detailed
geo-economic data is also provided covering issues such as the abundancy
of the raw material. The eco-data given for materials (Appendix H) shows the
classification of whether a material is sustainable is simply a yes or no, if it is
a no possible substitutes are listed (Ashby et al., 2005). The Eco audit tool is
designed as a starting point to identify areas for improvement by calculating
66
the energy used and CO2 produced during five stages of the product life
cycle; material, manufacture, transport, use and end of life (Granta Design
Limited, 2009a). The eco-audit tool guides the designer towards the phase of
life to be targeted for redesign and materials selection to minimise
environmental impact however the disposal phase is not currently part of the
tool (Ashby et al., 2009).
Rational approaches to the eco design of products start with an analysis of
the phase of life to be targeted. Its results guide redesign and materials
selection to minimize environmental impact. The disposal phase, shown here
as part of the overall strategy, is not included in the current version of the tool
(Ashby et al., 2009). It is possible to calculate energy and carbon values
based on using recycled materials as the database holds data for both virgin
and recycled material along with the typical values for recycled fraction in
current supply (Ashby et al., 2009).
Amongst the online teaching resources, information is presented on
sustainable design and strategies to enable eco-selection: less hazardous
materials/wastes, reduce weight, reduce energy use, reuse, recyclable, lower
embodied energy, cleaner, use material checklists, use stock plastics and
renewable (O’Hare, 2010). Also presented are the 8 ecodesign strategies’
taken from the LiDS wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997 O’Hare, 2010). Conflicts
such as recycling versus remanufacturing are given along with a triangle
showing the hierarchy for end of life considerations, with reuse at the top,
followed by remanufacture, recycle materials and lastly incineration (O’Hare,
2010:11).
2.4.4.11 MTRL:
ASM International, ‘The Materials Information Society’ provides the online
resource MTRL. MTRL has the tag line ‘material about materials’ (ASM
International, 2011a) and provides an online material database. ASM
International headquarters are in Northeast Ohio, USA.
67
‘ASM is Everything Material, the society dedicated to serving the
materials science and engineering profession’
The database is aimed at designers ranging from industrial and consumer
product design to architecture and interior design (ASM International, 2011a).
The database is divided into five search options:
| |
Material analysis New materials |
| | Featured materials |
| |
Materials list Materials processes |
All the materials are presented with an introductory section called ‘Material
Detail’ but have a link to the property sheet. The database is powered by
Granta and so the material property sheets are presented in a similar way
CES but with less detail. The database is split into four categories; materials,
material form, material personality, supplier(s) and other information
(Appendix I). Issues relevant to sustainable materials are covered under
‘Ecological considerations’ and answers if the material is renewable,
biodegradable or renewable. The location for the material is also given.
Searches can be performed by keywords and by property attributes. As well
as the database the website provides designers with discussion groups,
videos, news, book lists and event information. The MTRL: website is
populated and powered by Granta Design and so features many similarities
to the CES Edupack including the information presented on each material.
2.4.5 Summary
The tools and resources studied were presented in a variety of formats as
can be seen in Figure 2.35. A number of the resources present information
through more than one method; Biothinking (Datschefski, 2004), Materia
(Materia, 2009a) and Material Connexion (Material ConneXion, 2009b) all
use both internet-based resources and books. The CES Edupack provides a
wide variety of material, including software and books (Ashby and Johnson,
2006; Ashby, 2009a), to aid material selections and further information is
given in reports and teaching resources which can be accessed online.
68
Figure 2.35 Presentation formats of resources
As seen in Figure 2.36 the location of the resources reviewed were all within
the United Kingdom, United States of America or the Netherlands. The
resources were aimed at a wide range of design disciplines but they all cover
industrial or product design. Material ConneXion and CES are both aimed at
the largest number of disciplines. The flag denoting the country is only
related to the location of the resource and not the users of the resource.
Determining the actual users of each resource was not possible from the
literature review.
69
Figure 2.36 Location of resource and users of resources
70
The Dutch Promise manual (Brezet and Hemel, 1997) provides a
comprehensive guide to ecodesign with checklists providing prescriptive
targets, tools such as the LiDS wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997) to analyse
products and detailed information on ecodesign strategies. The layout allows
the user to access information quickly, via index tabs, whilst the manual also
provides navigational tables indicating relevant sections and where further
information can be found. Extra information and templates are easily
accessible via additional modules at the back of the manual. The
presentation of the manual in a large folder can make it cumbersome and
appears dated. No specific information regarding material selection is given,
other than ecodesign strategies such as dematerialisation and avoiding toxic
materials.
Information/Inspiration (Lofthouse, 2005) can be used as a starting point for
designers, giving basic information in some areas but providing links to more
information should they wish to learn more. It gives a good overview of tools
available to help integrate ecodesign. The materials section is quite limited in
the amount of information given, possibly more useful for inspirational
purposes due to the lack of detailed information on types of materials. A
good number of materials topics are given but often presented in the form of
guidelines. Not discussed is how to make decisions on the trade-offs
between materials. The resource is well finished, having been developed
from extensive research. There is a lot to be learnt from the research carried
out by Lofthouse (2001) as few other people have investigated in such detail
what it is that industrial designers want from an ecodesign resource. It is
important to recognise that the work Lofthouse (2001) carried out was in
relation to a tool to aid industrial designers in all areas of ecodesign, but the
tool created did cover material selection to some extent and was designed to
be appropriate to industrial designers.
The LiDS wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997) and Ecodesign web (Bhamra and
Lofthouse, 2007) both provide the designer with a fast way to analyse
products or concepts whilst also giving strategies to improve the scores. Both
are subjective, requiring the designer to estimate the scores for each of the
71
eight strategies, which can allow variation between different designers. Both
tools are qualitative and rely on the designer’s knowledge of ecodesign
unless used in conjunction with the Dutch Promise Manual (Brezet and
Hemel, 1997). The addition of colours to the Ecodesign Web (Bhamra and
Lofthouse, 2007) from the original LiDS wheel (Brezet and Hemel, 1997)
makes the scale easier to use and visualise results. Both tools provide a
number of ecodesign strategies for each of the seven headings but do not
provide further information to aid the designer in how to apply the strategy.
The Ecodesign web provides little information but simply suggests strategies.
The user is required to research materials information and make a judgement
on the impact of the material.
Biothinking (Datschefski, 2004) provides a useful inspirational tool to
designers to see how other people have tackled ecodesign issues. In terms
of materials very little information is given; instead, an overview of material
types is given but not enough information is provided to aid material selection
choices. Datschefski (2001) states that it should only take 20 minutes to read
from cover to cover which gives an idea of the level of detail the book goes
into, but it is aimed more at changing the reader’s way of thinking and
designing. The electronic book Sustainable Products (Datschefski, 2002)
gives much more information but still only in an introductory fashion.
Eco-indicator (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001) provides a comprehensive
quantitative tool enabling a designer to make meaningful calculations based
on the detailed research embedded in the tool. The tool requires the designer
to carry out simple calculations using the pre-calculated Eco-indicator scores.
PRé Consultants provides all the documentation for Eco-indicator online to
download for free, including the manual for designers but all the manuals are
lengthy and cover the theory in detail which could discourage designers. The
manual (Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001) and Eco-it software (PRé
Consultants, 2013) provides two hundred predefined scores, which allows
the user to quickly make calculations, but can also be limited by the number
of materials and processes available. It is possible to calculate additional
eco-indicator scores using SimaPro (PRé-Consultants, 2009c) but this could
72
be time-consuming. Eco-it (PRé Consultants, 2013) provides a software
version of the tool and allows the user to create graphical outputs of the
results. It also allows the designer to make small changes and see the impact
on the product score, but the software appears outdated and confusing to the
user. The graphical interface is limited to a small window with small text and
icons making it hard to use and, again, dated in appearance. To use the Ecoindicator tools requires a high level of information regarding the product such
as all material types, product in use, material quantities, material processing
and end of life disposal which could be time-consuming to define and require
input from numerous members of the design team.
SimaPro (PRé-Consultants, 2009c) can be very confusing to use and hard to
understand due to the complexity of the information displayed and calculated.
The layout is not always intuitive and the material information is presented in
a technical and scientific style. The tool is available in a number of languages
and is designed to be used by the design team, allowing more than one user
to work on the same database simultaneously. Due to the nature of the tool it
requires time and training to learn how to use it and is not easy to pick up
quickly. The graphical interface appears outdated like Eco-it making it hard to
navigate around the tool. Its presentation style lacks graphics and would
appeal more to engineers than industrial designers. One useful feature is the
multi-user version of SimaPro (PRé-Consultants, 2009c) which allows
numerous people to work on an assessment simultaneously.
Many resources promote certain strategies as opposed to considering the
wide number of aspects applicable. Figure 2.37 shows the terms used by
different resources in order to achieve sustainable material selection. Most of
the terms, however, were concerned more with the environmental issues of
sustainable material selection. Three resources are missing, Materia
(Materia, 2009a), Material ConneXion (Material ConneXion, 2009a) and Mtrl
(ASM International, 2011a) because they do not provide strategies or explain
how to select sustainable materials. Nevertheless, how these resources
cover sustainable materials in the search options and results is shown in
Figure 2.38. The CES resources (Granta Design Limited, 2009b) promote the
73
highest number of strategies to enable sustainable material selection. Those
topics with four or more resources promoting them are:
Avoid hazardous
Minimize material use
Use natural/organic
Optimize product lifecycle
Recyclable (design for)
Use recycled
Use renewable
Reuse (design for)
74
Figure 2.37 Strategies presented for sustainable material selection
75
Figure 2.38 Search options for material databases
76
Material ConneXion (2009a) provides a comprehensive database of
materials with a wide range of search options. Issues of sustainability are
covered by a number of criteria but what is lacking is the information as to
how to select sustainable materials. Material ConneXion (2009a) only
provides the material database and no guidance is provided.
Ecolect (2008b) mainly consists of materials located in America, but some
UK based materials are provided. There is no search feature for this location
attribute and so these materials are hard to find. A key problem of the
material database is the need for a search tool; otherwise the designer has to
browse through the materials with just a small picture and title of the product.
One of the key research questions for this thesis is how to define a
sustainable material, so it is interesting to see one of the ways Ecolect
(2008b) has tackled this issue and what it considers to be important criteria.
In the section Green Criteria, Ecolect (2008b) discusses the complexities of
classifying a sustainable material by explaining that it could be some or none
of a list of features, such as renewable or recycled content but due to the
newness of both the website and sustainability there are no hard and fast
rules. Ecolect (2010) has created The Eco-Materials Nutrition Label
framework which provides an insight into one way of tackling the issue of
presenting material sustainability.
Materia (2009a) is an interesting resource with a presentation style that
would suit industrial designers. The search terms used are easy to
understand and lack the technical terms that could put off industrial
designers. The search engine for materials is easy to use but lacks UKbased materials. Searching for plastics in the United Kingdom gives only 29
results. The Material Index is presented in a highly graphical style with the
sensory features presented and contact information. Research by Lofthouse
(2001) suggests this style of presentation suits industrial designers. Specific
sustainable terms, however, are not available to use as search options other
than ‘natural’ or ‘renewable’ but any keyword can be used to perform
searches.
77
Of the 14 plastics presented on Rematerialise (The Rematerialise Project,
2002b), only 5 are from the UK, with 6 being from the U.S.A. No information
is given on the material in use or links to products made using the material.
The current website does not present a large number of materials although it
states that this will be available in the future. Not enough materials or
information on them is provided to allow effective material selection.
CES (Granta Design Limited, 2009b) provides comprehensive resources to
enable an understanding of the strategies for sustainable material selection,
along with an in-depth materials database which provides detailed
environmental information for each material. The software allows a range of
search functions and flexibility to enable ‘what if?’ scenarios with material
choices. MTRL is based in America but is powered by Granta and so there
are similarities in content and presentation style.
The material databases all varied in how searches could be performed and
what information was presented with regards to sustainable materials (Figure
2.38). Ecolect (Ecolect, 2008b) is not shown as there was no search
functions for the database. Similarly, although Rematerialise (The
Rematerialise Project, 2002b) is included, the only sustainable relevant
search term is vegetable, rubber or wood. Overall, the database states it
presents materials made from waste. CES (Granta Design Limited, 2009b)
provides very detailed information on the material through a number of
stages, such as production, processing and end of life.
2.4.6 Conclusions
Industrial designers lack tools and support both when selecting materials and
when integrating sustainability aspects during selection. It was possible to
identify some literature relevant to the needs of industrial designers to apply
ecodesign or material selection but not sustainable material selection. The
industrial designer requires material information for a broad number of topic
areas, both technical and aesthetic, whilst the latter includes factors of
material perceptions and sensory properties. The terms ecodesign and
ecomaterial are far more prevalent than methods supporting a holistic
78
sustainable approach. A number of models exist demonstrating the values
and considerations used by industrial designers to select materials, including
some environmental considerations but little reference is shown with regards
to sustainable materials. LCA is considered a standard approach and there
exists a drive to encourage industrial designers to select materials based on
considering the product life-cycle, including additional options of reuse and
remanufacturing before recycling.
The evaluation of existing tools found that many of the resources appear to
be designed for architects, engineers or interior designers as opposed to
industrial or product designers. For this reason it is hard to know how many
industrial designers actually use them. It would appear that there is a large
gap of information for UK industrial designers wanting to incorporate
sustainable materials into the design process. From the research to date, it is
unknown as to whether industrial designers are using material selection tools
and resources and their reasoning behind this, and so this informed later
studies within this research.
Many of the resources considered here provided very basic information that
provides more of a stepping stone of background knowledge, from which the
designer must carry out further research. The resources were presented in a
variety of formats, although internet resources prevailed. Although this format
allows for regular updates, it was found that numerous resources had broken
links and were, in fact, providing out of date information.
It can be concluded that very few resources exist to aid industrial designers
to select sustainable materials, especially within the United Kingdom. The
majority of tools favour and promote a number of strategies or sustainability
aspects as opposed to a holistic framework
79
2.5 Directives, Labelling, Legislation, and Standards
There are a number of legislations, directives, labels and standards relevant
to industrial designers and the selection of sustainable materials. This section
shall examine existing literature and how sustainable material selection is
enforced. British Standards influence UK design and shall be examined for
relevance towards the selection of sustainable materials. Industrial and
product designers were found to have very little awareness of relevant
sustainable material legislation unless it is enforced through the design brief
or product area (Hornbuckle, 2010).
2.5.1 WEEE and RoHS
Legislation for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
(WEEE) came into force in the EU on the 13th February 2003 (European
Commission, 2010) and was later introduced into UK law in January 2007
(The Environment Agency, 2011). The key aim of the directive is to reduce
electrical and electronic waste whilst encouraging product reuse, recycling
and recovery (The Environment Agency, 2011). The WEEE directive
‘encourages designers to develop products with recycling in mind’ (Gehin et
al., 2008:567). The WEEE directive is also aimed at improving reuse and
remanufacture:
The establishment, by this Directive, of producer responsibility is
one of the means of encouraging design and production of EEE
which take into full account and facilitate its repair, possible
upgrading, re-use, disassembly and recycling (European
Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2012).
Although the directive states strategies such as reuse and repair should be
targets prior to recycling, the recall (amendment to the standard) in 2012 now
includes reuse within recycling targets as opposed to being treated
separately (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2012)
This is causing concern that the omission of reuse as a separate category
will now promote only recovery and recycling (Waste Management World,
2012). The reason for the amalgamation was the exploitation of the directive
80
to export products as reuse which were then recycled under poor conditions.
There are two types of operations forming in the UK to treat WEEE waste:
Large-scale, bulk shredding plants producing a mixed stream of
polymers and other materials
Manual dismantling systems generating a stream of individual polymer
components, usually relatively clean and partially sorted by polymer
type (Freegard et al., 2006:3)
It had been hoped that design activity would be influenced by the increased
producer responsibility; Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström said:
“this will be an important incentive to producers to take the environmental
consequences into account already when they stand around the design
table” (European Commission, 2002). The WEEE directive, however, has
had little impact on the design process:
Although experimental activities aimed at designing for
dismantling, ease of repair, recyclability, etc. were attempted on a
limited scale, none of these activities seem to be indicators of
general trends in the socio-technical regime of electronics today,
at least not as a consequence of the new electronic waste regime
(Lauridsen and Jørgensen, 2010:489).
The WEEE directive is presented as a legal-style document with wording
unsuitable to designers; for this reason an online tool call SortED was
developed (Lofthouse and Bhamra, 2005). Three key questions were created
to instigate the thinking process amongst designs:
1. Which category of WEEE does your product fall into and what are the
targets?
2. What is going to happen at the end of the product’s life?
3. How are you going to get the product back? (Lofthouse and Bhamra,
2005:6).
The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (RoHS) came into force in the UK on 1 July 2006 and
bans the use of certain substances such as lead, cadmium and mercury
(National Measurement Office, 2005). Both the RoHS and WEEE regulations
81
are driving producer responsibility and should impact on the designer
significantly:
These regulations insist on the fact that the products have to be
designed in order to lower their environmental load, notably
through the increase of recycling rate. Thus, the designers’ task
becomes central (Gehin et al., 2008:567).
Mixed plastics collected from WEEE waste have been found to always
contain at least one substance banned through the RoHS directive (Wäger et
al., 2011). The contamination of WEEE waste and the need to remove these
unwanted substances has been identified by WRAP (WRAP, 2013) as one of
the barriers to closed loop recycling (Freegard et al., 2006:3).
2.5.2 Carbon Labelling
Carbon is regarded as a key issue in the media and is often used as a way of
quantifying the sustainability of a product, but it is only one factor to be
considered, other sustainable factors could include embodied energy, water
used in production or hazardous substances used. The Stern Review was
key in drawing public attention to carbon as this was presented as the main
challenge to combating climate change (Office of Climate Change, 2009).
The PAS (Publicly Available Standard) 2050 was published by BSI (British
Standards Institute) in 2008 and was co-sponsored by Defra and The Carbon
Trust. Key questions linked to calculating the carbon label are related to the
material choice:
What materials are used?
Where did they come from?
Where are they going?
What requires energy (fuel, electricity)?
What could cause direct emissions? (The Carbon Trust, 2008:10).
The Carbon Trust (2008) states that there will be big opportunities for
companies to lead, but that they could also fall behind in terms of product
carbon foot printing, reductions and communications. They anticipate a rise
in companies using the PAS 2050 label and carbon reduction label (The
82
Carbon Trust, 2008). Of the 20 companies working with The Carbon Trust to
trial the PAS 2050, label the majority are applying the label to packaging, but
Morphy Richards have signed up to apply the label to a range of irons
(Carbon Trust, 2008). Working in partnership with the Carbon Trust, Morphy
Richards have calculated the carbon footprint of an iron, based on UK values
(Figure 2.39).
Figure 2.39 Carbon footprint of advanced finish 40746 steam iron (Morphy
Richards, 2010)
The Carbon Trust has identified three trends for the future:
| | internationalisation of the standards and communications/labelling of products growth of support services to speed and ease implementation increasing consumer demand for product carbon information and lower carbon products (The Carbon Trust, 2008:5). |
| |
83
2.5.3 Water use
The water footprint is a growing issue; there are proposals for an ISO
standard which would specify requirements and guidelines for reporting water
footprints based on LCA for products, processes and organisations
(Raimbault and Humbert, 2011).
2.5.4 ISO 14001
ISO 14001 is an international standard that sets out how to create an
effective Environment Management System (EMS) and has been designed to
balance factors of profitability with reducing environmental impact (British
Standards Institute, 2011b). If a company complies with the standard then it
receives certification and the company is registered with the ISO 14001. The
company is required to define its environmental policy and this policy is used
as the driver for maintaining and potentially improving its environmental
performance (British Standards Institute, 2010). Although the BSI states that
there is no ‘single approach for identifying environmental aspects’, it
suggests a list of possible considerations such as:’
Emissions to air,
Releases to water,
Releases to land
Use of raw materials and natural resources
Use of energy,
Energy emitted, e.g. heat, radiation, vibration,
Waste and by-products,
Physical attributes, e.g. size, shape, colour, appearance (British
Standards Institute, 2010:11-12).
A number of areas to consider are given, most of which are relevant to
sustainable material selection:
Design and development,
Manufacturing processes,
Packaging and transportation,
84
Environmental performance and practices of contractors and suppliers
Waste management
Extraction and distribution of raw materials and natural resources,
Distribution, use and end-of-life of products,
Wildlife and biodiversity.(British Standards Institute, 2010:12)
There has been criticism for the lack of measures for actual environmental
performance (Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000). Morrow and Rondinelli
(2002:169) describe the literature available as a ‘relatively sparse body of
anecdotal information, case studies, and survey research on environmental
management systems’. There is little empirical information, and no detailed
case studies, to show how a company has benefited from adopting an ISO
14000 certified EMS (Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000). A survey study into
Industrial Companies (177 companies) in the United States found the
‘uncertainty about the benefit of ISO 14001 implementation’ was the third
most highly scored obstacle (Babakri et al., 2003:751). The results for both
the obstacles and the elements requiring the greatest effort required can be
seen in Figure 2.40.
Figure 2.40 Obstacles and elements requiring greatest effort to gain ISO 14001
85
Ford was the ‘first major global corporation to adopt ISO 14000 for all its
manufacturing facilities’ (Wilson, 2001:32). The Lima Engine Plant in Ohio
achieved water reduction of 200,000 gallons per day, eliminated boiler ash
production and increased returnable packaging use rom 60% to 99%
(Wilson, 2001). Employees were required to carry around flip book, also
called ‘cheat sheets’ covering ‘good environmental practices’ (Wilson, 2001).
One of the key changes encountered is behavioural, along with an increased
awareness amongst employees regarding environmental aspects,
regulations and impacts at work, home and in the community (Rondinelli and
Vastag, 2000). The ISO 14000 series is also described as offering
companies ‘an opportunity to create and environmentally friendly image’
(Fortuński, 2008:205). There are very few studies which examine the
relationship between product design companies and the implementation of
ISO14000 standards.
2.5.5 British Standards
BS8887 is concerned with design for manufacture, assembly, disassembly
and end-of-life processing (MADE) (British Standards Institute, 2006). Part 1
of the standard covers general concepts, process and requirements and
provides a 17-point checklist giving informative guidance for sustainable
material and component sourcing (British Standards Institute, 2009a).
Considerations listed include choosing materials that are abundant, less
dense (lighter), low embodied energy, renewable, recycled, recyclable and
whether chemical additives are environmentally/physiologically benign. Also
provided are guidance notes for specifying manufacturing processes which
include considerations for capturing and reusing waste during processes,
minimizing particulate emissions to air, land and water and avoiding
hazardous materials.
BS8905:2011 is a standard which ‘provides a framework for the assessment
of social, economic and environmental issues in the sustainable use of
materials’ (British Standards Institute, 2011a:1). The standard covers
considerations such as sourcing of materials and end of life for the materials
86
and product (reuse, remanufacture, recycling, disposal) (British Standards
Institute, 2011a). Balanced decision-making is required between the
economic, social and environmental considerations along with an awareness
that changing one consideration may on impact another (British Standards
Institute, 2011a). A framework is provided for assessing the sustainability of
the material (once it has been chosen to meet design and functional
requirements) based on three phases; scoping, data collection and
assessment, and reporting (British Standards Institute, 2011a). Informative
annexes are provided for each aspect of sustainability, social, environmental
and economic. Under sourcing materials, social aspects listed for
consideration are:
a) Employment and labour conditions;
b) Pollution prevention and abatement;
c) Community health
d) Safety and security
e) Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement;
f) Biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainable natural resource
management;
g) Indigenous peoples and cultural heritage (British Standards Institute,
2011a:14).
Lists of relevant guidelines are also provided to engage stakeholders along
with relevant international standards relating to accountability and ethical
trading. The environmental aspects are divided into two levels, global and
local (Table 2.3).
87
Table 2.3 Environmental impacts (compiled from British Standards Institute,
2011a:18)
A number of other environmental considerations are also discussed,
including the manufacture of materials, application of materials, end-of-life
and reuse. The economic aspects are given, such as the
local/national/regional economy for the material, supply chain,
manufacturers, reuse, recycling and disposal. The standard clearly states
that its intended use within the design process is once the design brief and
material choices are set. The standard does not provide assistance for
material comparisons, advice on material properties or recommendations for
tools or software to assist the evaluation of sustainable materials.
2.5.6 Conclusions
Legislation will be a growing issue as proposals are being created but
currently very little affects industrial designers. The application of carbon
labelling to products is still in its early stages of testing and predominantly
applied to food packaging. The WEEE legislation has little direct impact on
the designer; it sets end of life product guidelines without providing guidance
for how to design a product to improve the recovery of materials. Issues of
water use are increasing but, as yet, no legislations exist in relation to
material selection. Most relevant to designers are the British and International
Global level impacts Local level impacts
1. Global warming potential (GWP)
2. Stratospheric ozone depletion
3. Human toxicity
4. Acidification
5. Eutrophication
6. Ecotoxicity
7. Land use
8. Resources depletion and/or
9. resource consumption
10. Photochemical oxidation
1. Air quality
2. Water quality
3. Land quality
4. Noise
5. Transport
6. Ecological
7. Water use
8. Waste and landfill usage
9. Biodiversity
88
Standards which provide guidelines; although the content is helpful, however,
the presentation does not suit designers. The framework presented is only
designed as an evaluation tool to assess the sustainability of a material once
it has been selected. British standards make significant contributions in
defining the use of sustainable materials but this is in the form of guidance
only. Currently, legislation appears to only direct sustainable material
selection towards the avoidance of certain hazardous substances.
2.6 End of Life Considerations
In the UK there are three main options: landfill, recycling and incineration,
which shall be covered in this section to give an overview of the current
situation. The U.K. is struggling to deal with end of life considerations:
A waste disposal problem of looming proportions, coupled with a
lack of sufficient public engagement in the preferred alternative to
disposal, which is recycling, continues to perplex English policymakers (Smallbone, 2005:110).
End of life considerations for products have been limited and focused on
landfill until recently; but emphasis is moving ‘towards much greater reuse,
recycling and recovery of waste materials’ (DEFRA, 2011:18). The U.K. is
constantly improving its recycling infrastructure so that more products can
feasibly be recycled (DEFRA, 2011:23). The end of life options are likely to
be set by the designer:
In sustainability terms design for end-of-life is important because
good design could facilitate the reuse, recycling or recovery of
components or materials contained in a product (British Standards
Institute, 2011a:2).
2.6.1 Landfill
In the UK landfill has until recently been the preferred option to dispose of
waste (Smallbone, 2005). Space for landfill, however, is running out; England
and Wales only has seven years landfill space left with some counties near
London, such as Essex, almost full (Davis, 2010). In the UK landfill has been
89
found to be the cheapest option for waste removal compared to alternative
recycling options; landfill costs need to rise significantly before this changes
(Coates et al., 2004:ii). Landfill tax was introduced in 1996 to encourage a
reduction in waste production and recover more value from waste, ‘for
example through recycling or composting’ (HM Revenue & Customs, 2011).
The UK has a vision for a zero waste economy and landfill tax is the key
driver to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill (DEFRA, 2011).
Restrictions shall be enforced in the future on the landfill of certain materials
such as metals, textiles, wood waste and biodegradable waste; the latter
would also reduce methane emissions’ (DEFRA, 2011).
2.6.2 Recycling
Creating a closed loop through material recycling could reduce the
environmental impact of waste:
The enormous wastefulness of advanced consumer economies
could be redirected to using and recycling materials more
efficiently. By reusing materials in continuous, closed loops, we
could significantly reduce the environmental burden of consumer
wastes (Geiser, 2001:2).
Masuda (2001) writes that recycled materials will always decrease in quality
and economic value, and questions the idea of sustainability based on
recycling. McDonough and Braungart (2002) also note that most recycling
can actually be considered downcycling; and, along with loss in value, toxic
contaminants from the material, such as paint, accumulate. Braungart and
McDonough promote the idea of continuous improvement through recycling
as part of the Cradle to Cradle process (Figure 2.41). There has been debate
as to how environmentally beneficial recycling is but the majority of studies
have found that, recycling offers greater benefits and reduced impacts
environmentally than other waste options (WRAP, 2006:1). The Waste and
Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is working to improve the collection
and recycling opportunities for mixed plastic waste and has found that it is
90
both technically and commercially viable to recycle mixed plastics on a
commercial scale (WRAP, 2009a).
Figure 2.41 The upcycle™ chart (Braungart and Mc Donough, 2013)
Metals are readily recycled but it is not the same for plastics (Geiser, 2001).
Almost all metals can be recycled into a high quality new material (BMRA,
2010). By recycling metals, savings are made in energy, CO2 emissions,
production methods, water use, air pollution and water pollution (BMRA,
2010). Considerable energy savings can be made by using recycled metals:
| Aluminium Copper Lead Steel Zinc |
95% 85% 60% 62-74% 60% (BMRA, 2010). |
Because metal commands a high economic value it rarely ends up in landfill
and a large proportion of scrap metal is exported worldwide; in 2005 this
figure was 60% (BMRA, 2010). The recycling of aluminium and steel has a
lower environmental impact than incineration or landfill (WRAP, 2006).
91
Incinerated metals can be recovered from the bottom ash collected following
the incineration of waste materials.
The participation of UK householders in recycling relates to the moral
behaviour of the individual and occurs amongst those with shared values and
attitudes not necessarily towards environmental concerns but also towards
frugality and collectivism, possibly influenced by the media (Smallbone,
2005). Although 95% of a product may be designed to be fully recyclable
there exists a lack of supply chain and infrastructure to recycle the waste
(Gehin et al., 2008).
2.6.3 Incineration
The UK has in the past had both cheap and abundant energy and landfill
provision, which has left the country a long way behind other Western
European countries in terms of its current Energy from Waste (EfW) capacity
(Davis, 2010). Incineration has been found to be preferable if plastic waste
contains high levels of organic contaminants which would therefore require
energy use in cleaning, whilst the organic contaminants also aid incineration
energy levels (WRAP, 2006:118). Incineration is preferable for wood waste
as opposed to landfill, because wood substitutes the use of fossil fuels
reducing CO2 but comparisons to recycling wood were not studied (WRAP,
2006). There are concerns that harmful toxins are released during
incineration and bio accumulate in nature (McDonough and Braungart, 2002).
It is claimed, however, that there is no credible evidence that emissions from
EfW affect health (Davis, 2010).
2.6.4 Conclusions
End of life considerations are often determined by the designer in the early
stages. The UK has until recently favoured landfill but is now being pushed
towards more reuse, recycling and recovery of waste materials. The recycling
infrastructure is constantly improving and it is both technically and
commercially viable to recycle mixed plastics on a commercial scale. There
are mixed views as to how safe incineration of waste is. Incinerating plastic
92
waste contaminated with organic matter is beneficial, as the organic matter
increases the energy levels and cleaning the plastics would be energyintensive.
2.7 Sustainable Materials within Industrial Design
The literature review provides an academic grounding to the topic of
sustainable materials but it is vital to link the theory to the practical
application of sustainable materials within industrial design. There are a
number of examples of sustainable materials used at concept level, but those
in mass-manufactured proved difficult to find. One example of a massmanufactured product is the Sony digital camera casing (Figure 2.42) made
from scrap compact disc waste. It is made, however, from pre-consumer
waste produced in a factory. It was also difficult to identify the percentage of
recycled content.
Figure 2.42 Sony DSC-H50 (Sony Europe Limited, 2011)
In 2008 Electrolux launched the Ultrasilencer Green vacuum cleaner (Figure
2.43) made from 55% recycled plastic in a high quality black finish with green
detailing but it is only available in black because it uses recycled plastics
(Electrolux, 2008). No reason is given for this; possibly only sources of black
plastics were available or there were concerns over colour quality, with black
being an easy colour to create with mixed waste plastic. Electrolux also
comments on the increasing consumer desire for higher wattage vacuum
cleaners as the consumer associates this with better performance. Electrolux
also refers to a lack of EU energy labelling for small appliances and the need
for the Ultrasilencer Green to change consumer perception (Electrolux,
93
2011). A second model has been produced as a concept called the ‘Silence
Amplified’ (Figure 2.43) and features an iPod dock and speakers to enable
music to be played whilst the user vacuums and demonstrating the low
operating noise (Hannaford, 2009).
Figure 2.43 Electrolux Ultrasilencer Green (Electrolux, 2011) and Silence
Amplified (Hannaford, 2009)
Electrolux plans to make a limited number of vacuum cleaners from plastic
waste collected from a number of ocean rubbish gyres around the world
(Electrolux, 2010a). An ocean gyre is formed where the currents converge
and create large areas of waste in high concentration, Figure 2.44 (Law et
al., 2010). The ‘Vac from the Sea’ initiative began in 2010 with the aim of:
‘raising awareness about ocean plastic waste and inspiring consumers and
industry to increase recycling efforts’ (Electrolux, 2010b). The range covers 5
editions manufactured using waste collected from different locations, using
various methods such as beach clean ups or coral reef diving and, for the UK
edition, trawling at sea (Electrolux, 2010b). The collections were conducted in
partnership with different organisations for each edition; The Pacific Ocean
Edition and The Baltic Sea Edition are shown in Figure 2.45.
94
Figure 2.44 Average plastic concentrations in the Atlantic ocean (Law et al.,
2010:1187)
Figure 2.45 Electrolux vac from the sea: the Pacific ocean Edition and the
Baltic sea edition
95
There are a rising number of projects designed to raise awareness regarding
ocean gyres, in 2010 the project ‘Plastiki’ set sail. The project was led by
David de Rothschild and involved sailing a boat made from reclaimed plastic
bottles 12,000 nautical miles across the Pacific whilst filming and
documenting the plastic islands that have formed (National Geographic, n.d.).
The boat (Figure 2.46) itself showcases a plethora of modern technology
including power bikes, solar panels, wind turbines and trailing turbines to
power the boat and enable it to sustain a crew at sea. In terms of materials
the boat is made from approximately 12,000 reclaimed PET soda bottles
whilst also utilising a modern woven fabric called srPET, also created using
PET fibres, and is 100% recyclable (Plastiki, 2009a).
Figure 2.46 Plastiki homepage (Plastiki, 2009b)
As part of the Nokia Homegrown project four case studies were explored,
including the Remade mobile phone. The brief was to create a phone made
entirely from nothing new, using a ‘cleaner engine’ electronically and made to
last (Near Future Laboratory, 2008). It has been created with electronic
components made from recycled materials and fabricated using waste plastic
bottles, metal cans and car tyres (Grignani, n.d.); currently, however, it is
currently only a concept phone.
96
Figure 2.47 Nokia Remade (Newman, n.d.)
The Motorola Renew W233 (Figure 2.48) is mass-produced from recycled
bottles. It has been designed to enable disassembly in less than 10 seconds,
with a fully recyclable casing made from recycled bottles, with 25% recycled
content (WRAP, 2009b). It is also certified Carbonfree™ following carbon
offsetting through Carbonfund.org (Motorola Inc., 2009). Motorola designed a
mobile using 70% recycled content, designed to be disassembled in less
than 10 seconds and available to the public, not just a concept. Some recent
examples of natural material being used in the field of industrial design and in
mass manufacture include the Asus bamboo series laptop (Figure 2.48).
Figure 2.48 Motorola W233 Renew and Asus U33Jc (Asus, n.d.)
KinneirDufort researched and developed ‘Revive’, a concept mobile phone to
explore sustainability in consumer electronics (Figure 2.49) using a natural
material for the cover, leather. The materials used were chosen to be both
97
durable and to age gracefully, increasing in desirability with age, whilst also
utilising recycled components that can be re-used and recycled (Wrightman,
2011). Although just a concept, it is an interesting approach to sustainable
material selection.
Figure 2.49 Revive mobile concept (Kinneir Dufort, 2011)
Although bio plastics have predominantly been adopted by the packaging
industry some mass manufactured product examples exist, such as the
Nokia Evolve mobile phone which featured 50% bio plastic from a renewable
source in the cover (Nokia, 2011a). Nokia have also introduced a phone
utilising biobased paints (Nokia, 2011b). Samsung launched the first bio
plastic mobile in the U.S; the Reclaim mobile phone is made from cornbased bio plastic (Samsung, 2011; Samsung, 2007). Fujitsu created the
world’s first computer mouse to be plastic-free (Figure 2.50), utilising
renewable materials ARBOFORM® and BIOGRADE ; it is biodegradable
and 100% recyclable (Fujitsu, 2011).
98
Figure 2.50 Fujitsu eco mouse (Fujitsu, 2011)
2.8 Conclusions
The consideration of sustainable materials is improving but a large of amount
of literature still only refers to the environmental or eco considerations. The
term “sustainable” is often misused, over-utilised, and applied when only
environmental aspects have been considered. There is a great deal of
confusion and conflict of views as to what is sustainable in terms of materials,
coupled with complex decision scenarios where changing one aspect can
adversely affect another. A lack of a clear definition for sustainable materials
may also be a barrier for designers. The issue of sustainability is so broad
and confusing it can be difficult for industrial designers to make sustainable
material choices. The findings of the literature review do not necessarily
reflect the opinions and understanding of practicing industrial designers. The
next stage of research, therefore, shall focus on exploring this topic.
There is a clear gap in knowledge for the use of sustainable materials in
mass manufacture along with a lack of understanding as to how industrial
designers can be supported to integrate sustainability into the material
selection process compared with engineering disciplines. Very little evidence
was found to explain the impact and influence of legislation on industrial
designers. Designers have a large list of specifications when designing
products and selecting materials. Is the issue of sustainability a priority?
Although numerous studies propose new tools and methods, little literature
exists to understand if and how these tools are applied by industrial
designers. The tools reviewed all fit into the second category defined by
99
Kesteren et al. (2008) of independent sources (Figure 2.14) and do not allow
exploration of other information sources such as designers’ application of
experience or interaction with experts such as suppliers. Further studies shall
explore first hand with designers how they approach the selection of
sustainable materials, to gain insights into their understanding of sustainable
materials and to explore if and how sustainable materials are considered in
the design of products. The sustainable materials definition written by the
researcher shall be used to question designers’ understanding and develop
the statement further to meet their needs.
100
3 Research Methodology
This chapter outlines the research design and methods applied throughout
the research, including the participant information and data analysis
techniques applied.
3.1 Introduction
A comprehensive literature review found that knowledge regarding the
relationship between sustainable material selection and industrial designers
is limited and often purely theoretical. A research strategy was designed to
understand industrial designers’ approach to sustainable material selection.
Sustainable materials are an emerging issue and this guided the research
towards an exploratory approach (Table 3.1). The original objectives (1.2,
page 4) explored the understanding of sustainable materials with the aim of
gaining new knowledge and generating new directions for future research. As
part of this research there are many research questions which could not be
answered by a literature review alone and instead required direct contact with
designers.
Table 3.1 Classification of the purpose of enquiry (Robson, 2002:59)
Exploratory To find out what is happening
To seek new insights
To ask questions
To assess phenomena in a new light
To generate ideas and hypotheses for future
research
Almost exclusively of a qualitative nature
Robson gives five key areas to be considered to develop a framework for the
research design, shown in Table 3.2. The framework provided a systematic
way of designing a research methodology and was used to structure each
research stage.
101
Table 3.2 Research design model (Robson, 2002:81)
Purpose What is the study trying to achieve?
Why is it being done?
Are you seeking to describe something, or to explain or
understand something?
Are you trying to assess the effectiveness of something?
Is it in response to some problem or issue for which solutions
are sought?
Is it hoped to change something as a result of the study?
Theory
| |
What theory will guide or inform your study? How will you understand the findings? What conceptual framework links the phenomena you are studying? |
Research
Questions
To what questions is the research geared to providing answers?
What do you need to know to achieve the purpose(s) of the
study?
What is it feasible to ask given the time and resources that you
have available?
Methods
| | What specific techniques (e.g. semi-structured interviews, participant observation) will you use to collect data? How will the data be analysed? How do you show that the data are trustworthy? |
| |
Sampling
Strategy
From whom will you seek data?
Where and when?
How do you balance the need to be selective with the need to
collect all the data required?
3.2 Ethics
It is common practice to hide the identity of participants in research studies
although it is important that fundamental details and context are not lost by
doing so (Gibson and Brown, 2009). Ethical conduct should ensure
participant protection, avoid deception and gain informed consent from
participants (Denscombe, 2007). Gibson and Brown (2009) add that research
should avoid harm and maintain integrity and professionalism. One issue of
hiding participants’ identities is the need to manipulate data, which is also
102
sometimes required to make sense of respondents’ answers (Gibson and
Brown, 2009). During the research and following its completion, all data was
stored securely in locked cabinets, in keeping with the Data Protection Act.
Loughborough University provides an ethical checklist which covers the
following main topics; investigators, participants (young, people with
disabilities, vulnerable), methodology, observations, consent, withdrawal and
incentives to identify if there are any areas of concern (Appendix C, page
312). All participants were asked to sign an informed consent prior to
research being conducted (Appendix K, page 327).
3.3 Data Collection Techniques
Robson (2002) divides research methodologies into two types of research
strategies, traditional fixed and flexible design, also referred to as quantitative
and qualitative. Quantitative research tends to study figures and statistics
whereas qualitative is word-based and concerned with feelings, attitudes,
opinions, observations and pictures (Denscombe, 2007). Punch (2005:141)
describes qualitative research as ‘more eclectic’ as it uses numerous
strategies and methods providing a wider range of useful data than
quantitative research. Quantitative research is usually concerned with theory
verification whereas qualitative research is usually aimed at theory
generation, although this is not always the case (Punch, 2005). As this
research is aimed at theory generation and is exploratory (Table 3.1),
qualitative is the natural choice and that proposed by Robson (2002).
Qualitative research lends itself to understanding individuals’ opinions and
feelings in depth, their attitudes, motivations and behaviour, providing ‘richly
descriptive reports of individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, views and
feelings, the meanings and interpretations given to events and things’
(Hakim, 1997:26). Qualitative research design is the most suitable choice to
understand how industrial designers understand and approach the
complexities of sustainable material selection. Open-ended questioning can
produce unexpected answers (Robson, 2002); this is important to this
research as it is a new area. The researcher was looking for an in-depth
understanding of industrial designers’ attitudes and understanding of
103
materials selection with a sustainable approach and it is hard to predict what
these may be. The drivers and barriers which affect designers when making
these decisions may vary considerably depending on the importance of other
factors such as time, cost, clients and company policies.
The research design is illustrated in Figure 3.1 showing each of the stages
with the research study.
104
Figure 3.1 Research design
105
3.3.1 Questionnaires: Scoping Study Stage One
Initially, a method was required to gain an overall insight to the topic area
which fits with applying questionnaires. This method allowed for a large
number of variables to be explored and provides a starting point for data
collection to gain industrial designers’ views on the topic. The questionnaire
is an ideal approach for a scoping study to plan the future of this research
project and shape further research methods (Maxwell, 2005). Sustainable
design is a field which is continually changing and becoming more prevalent;
as such a questionnaire is an ideal way of investigating current opinion
amongst designers. Qualitative methods offer the opportunity to ask
questions such as ‘how’ and ‘why’ (Hakim, 1997). Questionnaires can cover
a multitude of aspects and they may be quantitative, qualitative or a mixture
of both. The research questions are concerned with the detail behind how
designers select materials and why they do so and with such an open topic, a
fixed design approach (Robson, 2002) would constrain the answers the
respondents could give. Hakim (1997:28) suggests that qualitative research
provides the platform for ‘preliminary exploratory work’ before larger and
more complex studies are conducted.
3.3.1.1 Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was designed to elicit rich qualitative data from designers
and allow them to express their thoughts and feelings regarding material
selection, the influence of sustainability and the resources they currently use.
Qualitative questions required the designer to engage with the topic and think
about each answer. This can lead to more difficulty in gaining informative
responses but providing possible answers to choose from can elicit mindless
responses whilst limiting the responder’s choices to those that the author has
predetermined (Fink, 2003). Table 3.3 shows the framework used for the
design of the questionnaire based on the five components given earlier by
Robson (2002) in Table 3.2.
106
Table 3.3 Questionnaire scoping study model
Purpose Study material selection choices and how sustainable materials
are considered. To understand how material selection fits into the
design process. Also understand what type of resource is required
to encourage and enable UK designers to use sustainable
materials
Theory To carry out this study a wide level of background knowledge is
required to understand how sustainable materials are considered
in the material selection process along with knowledge pertaining
to ecodesign, sustainable design and material selection tools and
resources.
Research
Questions
What resources currently exist for information on sustainable
materials?
What information is needed by industrial designers when making
sustainable material selection choices?
What are the drivers and barriers for using sustainable materials?
Do UK industrial designers need, or want, a resource to support
the selection sustainable materials?
How do industrial designers make decisions about materials and
who else is involved?
Methods Questionnaire designed with a predominantly flexible approach
giving qualitative responses which will be analysed by coding and
clustering.
Sampling
Strategy
Data will be collected for the questionnaire at a Sustainable
Design Network event, at Loughborough University Degree Show
and posted to contacts.
Rugg and Petre (2007) recommend that questionnaires are not used unless
the topic areas are thoroughly researched and each question justified. The
literature review explored the area from which a set of research questions
were developed, these were used to design the questionnaire. To design and
develop the set of questions a justification table was drawn up to justify why a
question was being asked and how it related to the research questions
(Appendix L). A conscious effort was made to avoid using ambiguous
questions such as ‘Are you experienced in sustainable design?’ as the term
‘experienced’ has no clear definition (Rugg and Petre, 2007). The research
questions were aimed at exploring the material selection process and sought
to understand the topic area better, implying a qualitative approach (Punch,
107
2005). The questionnaire had some fixed questions where appropriate, but
predominantly contained open-ended questions.
Online surveys offer an easy way to set up and analyse the data but can be
limiting in the design options and, like email, may lead to difficulty in attaining
respondents. The length of the questionnaire impacts on the likelihood of
responses and quality of response gained (Rugg and Petre, 2007). For this
reason the questionnaire was designed to use only a single sheet of A4
paper to encourage respondents to complete the whole questionnaire and
write rich answers. The questionnaire can be seen in Appendix L. The final
part of the questionnaire asked the respondent to leave their contact
information if they were willing to participate in further research projects. This
was a very useful way to find participants for the next stages of the study
when a more complex study occurred. Removing anonymity can provide
inaccurate responses (Robson, 2002) and so the choice to leave contact
details was left with the respondent.
3.3.1.2 Participants
Maxwell (2005) suggests that there are two types of sampling techniques,
probability (random) and convenience sampling, but states that convenience
sampling is strongly discouraged. However, Maxwell (2005) goes on to say
that qualitative research is more suited to a third category, which he calls
purposeful selection:
‘This is a strategy in which particular settings, persons, or activities
are selected deliberately in order to provide information that can’t
be gotten as well from other choices’ (Maxwell, 2005:88)
The key advantage to the sampling technique chosen by the author was
guaranteed responses, but also led to the author being able to more easily
target designers who would be willing to take time to complete the
questionnaire. The majority of the questionnaires were administered in
person to enable a higher response rate as mailing or emailing
questionnaires often results in low responses (Czaja and Blair, 1996).
108
Participants were selected from a Sustainable Design Network event, design
professionals attending the Loughborough University Degree Show and the
researcher’s own contacts. The design disciplines involved in the scoping
study varied across the design field to give a broad perspective of material
selection. Fields covered included product design, engineering, packaging,
sector management, industrial design and design research but the
predominant field is that of industrial and product design Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Questionnaire participants
| Respondent 1. Job Title 1. Field/Description |
| R Product Design Engineer Design and development of domestic, industrial, medical and professional products Industrial Design |
A Researcher Design for Sustainable Behaviour
B Research Student Sustainable Design (previously
product design consultant)
C Senior Consultant Technical design
D Product Designer P.O.S. Display
E 3d/Interiors Team Head Designer of retail interiors/exhibitionstheoneoff.com
F Innovation Consultant
G University Lecturer
H Project Manager Engineering and Manufacturing
I Packaging Technologist Innovation
J Sector Management Medical and Scientific
K Sector Manager Medical and Scientific (DCA)
L Research Fellow Sustainable Product Design
M Sustainable Innovation
Strategist
N Product Design
Engineer
O Product Design
Engineer/Consultant
P Innovations Manager
Q Industrial Designer Idea generation, concept
development and detailing, working
alongside engineers to finalise
solutions
S Industrial Designer
T Director of a
Sustainable Product
Design Company
109
3.3.1.3 Limitations
The qualitative nature of the questionnaire relied on respondents taking the
time to engage with the questions and write insightful answers. For the most
part respondents gave insightful responses, although one respondent did not
realise the questionnaire was double-sided and only answered the first page
of questions. Gaining a variety of participants proved difficult, with data
collection predominantly occurring at a single Sustainable Design Event. This
impacted on the results and has been acknowledged in the data analysis.
3.3.2 Interviews: Scoping Study Stage Two and Main Study
Interview techniques can be defined in three ways, as being either structured,
semi-structured or unstructured (Robson, 2002; Gibson and Brown, 2009)
which relates to how clearly the questions and their order are defined and
applied during the interview. Semi-structured interviews allow a flow of
conversation whilst also retaining the structure enabling research questions
to be answered. The art of interviewing is an accomplished skill and requires
acknowledgement that respondents’ answers may be personal or companybased but that the two may differ; and the style of interview should be of
equality or researcher inferiority (Hakim, 1997). Face to face interviews allow
for greater flexibility in adapting the interview to suit the responses being
given, (Robson, 2002) and can allow for greater understanding and clarity of
the interviewee. The start of the interview is key in reassuring the interviewee
and encouraging them to be open with their answers and experience (Kvale,
2009). Table 3.5 presents the good and bad interview practices, used to
guide the interview design.
110
Table 3.5 Good and bad practice in interviews (adapted from Robson
2002:274-275)
Good Practice Bad Practice
| Listen more than you speak Put questions in a straightforward, clear and non-threatening way |
Long questions Double or multiple barrelled questions |
Eliminate cues which lead interviewees
to respond in a particular way
Questions involving jargon
Look like you are enjoying the interview,
vary voice and facial expression
Leading questions
Biased questions
The use of open-ended questions can have a negative effect and lose the
control of the interview and be more difficult to analyse, but they have many
advantages:
Greater flexibility;
Allow more depth and ability to remove misunderstandings;
Allow opportunity to test respondents’ knowledge;
Encourage co-operation and rapport;
Allow the interviewer to assess the respondents’ beliefs better;
Can produce unexpected or unanticipated answers (Robson, 2002).
Due to the nature of design, designers all tend to work in slightly different
ways so a flexible approach is necessary to allow for this. Open ended
questions were used to enable interviewees to give broad honest answers
and not be led by the question. The flexible approach enabled the researcher
to allow the participant to control the topics discussed whilst being able to
steer the interview with the use of detailed prompt sheets.
111
3.3.2.1 Scoping Study Two: Design
A framework for the interview study has been created (Table 3.6) based on
Table 3.2 (Robson, 2002).
Table 3.6 Interview scoping study model
Purpose Study whether sustainable materials are considered during
material selection by practicing industrial designers. Understand
industrial designers attitude, drivers and barriers towards the use
of sustainable materials
Theory This study is guided by the findings from the questionnaire study
and the literature review.
Research
Questions
What information is needed by industrial designers when making
sustainable material selection choices?
What are the drivers and barriers for using sustainable materials?
Do UK industrial designers need, or want, a resource to support
the selection sustainable materials?
How do industrial designers make decisions about materials and
who else is involved?
How is a sustainable material defined?
Methods Semi-structured interviews shall be conducted by the researcher
and recorded for later transcription. Transcriptions shall be
analysed using NVivo software via coding and clustering and also
thematic analysis.
Sampling
Strategy
Purposeful sampling to identify industrial design consultancies
with varying awareness of sustainable design by searching their
websites for any mention of sustainable design or material
selection.
A justification table was drawn up to develop the question set used in the
interviews and ensure all research questions were being covered (Appendix
Q). A prompt sheet was designed to be used during the interviews (Appendix
P). A list of key questions was written with the opportunity to ask them in
either the set order or to mix them up, as the conversation may dictate, to
improve the flow. The questions were divided into sub topics to ensure that
all points were covered. Second parts to some questions were written in case
they were not covered by the first question. The prompt sheet was divided
into topic areas to assist the interview structure. A number of extra prompting
112
questions were added to be used if further questioning was needed or
depending on whether the interviewee had responded ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a
previous question. All additional prompt questions were colour coded to
enable the researcher to quickly locate the desired question. The layout
allowed writing space so the researcher could make some notes during the
interview of new arising questions, to further probe or note, if subsequent
questions had already been covered by the interviewee. The prompt sheet
was tested via two pilot interviews with fellow researchers with industrial
design experience. Following the initial pilot interviews the prompt sheet was
further refined. Before starting each interview the interviewer gave a briefing,
introduced the project, explained how the data would be used and asked if
the interviewee was willing to be recorded, whilst the close of the interview
was used as an opportunity to thank the interviewee for the useful insights
given and allow questions from the interviewee (Kvale, 2009). Robson (2002)
proposes that it is valuable to approach research with a ‘scientific attitude’, by
being systematic, sceptical (allowing ideas to be scrutinised and
disconfirmed) and ethical. As such the definition created for a sustainable
material was read to each interviewee to allow scrutiny.
3.3.2.1.1 Participants
Participants were selected to cover a wide range of design experience as
well as geographical location. Locations covered four cities and their
surrounding areas; London, Bristol, Leicester and Cambridge. Participants
were identified either from having previously completed the questionnaire
study, and stating they would be willing to participate in future research, or
via internet searches. Internet searches identified small design consultancies
with industrial designers. The design directory website was used to identify a
number of industrial design consultancies along with the Design
Leicestershire website. A further internet search was carried out to identify
any design agencies which identified themselves as sustainable designers.
Search terms used were:
sustainable product design
sustainable product design consultancy
113
sustainable industrial design
sustainable industrial design consultancy.
Design Consultancies of varying size were chosen and fitted into one or more
of the following categories, following research into their company website:
Multi-disciplinary
Predominantly industrial design
Do not mention sustainable design
Do mention sustainable design
State they have experience of sustainable design
Express an interest for material selection.
A table was drawn up for potential interview participants; this was used to
record evidence of sustainable design on their websites. Information was
taken from the company website, the company Facebook page and also
information given within the interview regarding product areas. This table can
be seen in Appendix P (page 336) whilst the participant information can be
seen in Figure 3.2.
114
Figure 3.2 Scoping study two participants
115
3.3.2.1.2 Limitations
It proved difficult to find industrial designers who would respond to interview
requests and were willing to give up time for an interview. Due to this the
researcher changed their approach and offered telephone interviews to
increase flexibility for the industrial designer and improve the response from
industrial designers. The benefit of telephone interviews was that they
enabled the use of software to record the telephone calls directly, giving good
quality sound files for transcription. A negative factor, however, was the lack
of personal face-to-face interaction. This meant the researcher had to work
hard to engage and gain the trust of the designer over the telephone having
previously only had email contact.
3.3.2.2 Main Study: Design
The topic of material selection amongst industrial designers is a complex
problem, which is often tackled by the designer or company in a number of
ways, which are not necessarily similar to those used by other practitioners.
Previous research identified the involvement of other employees as well as
industrial designers in selecting sustainable materials. It became evident that
there was a need to study how different job roles within companies are
involved within sustainable material selection, not just the roles of industrial
designers. Studies were carried out of four companies with experience of
working with sustainable materials. The framework for the study can be seen
in Table 3.7. Interviews were conducted with various employees involved in
sustainable material selection. Interviews were used to gain a high-quality
insight and depth of understanding. Due to the complex nature of sustainable
materials, semi-structured interviews were used to allow flexibility. The
researcher developed interview skills in Scoping Study Stage Two, which
were applied for this study. A set of questions were created for the interviews
and these were justified against the research questions. A prompt sheet was
designed to ensure all questions were met and to provide extra questions
should further explanation or prompting be required (Appendix V).
116
Table 3.7 Company studies model
Purpose Study how sustainable materials have been considered and
utilised in the design and mass manufacture of products. Seek to
understand what has led to the use of sustainable materials and
what was involved in getting sustainable materials into mass
manufacture.
Theory This study is guided by the findings from the scoping studies and
the literature review. Further research will be done to identify
which companies are currently using sustainable materials in
mass manufacture in the UK.
Research
Questions
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable
materials?
How do industrial designers make decisions about materials and
who else is involved?
How is a ‘sustainable’ material defined?
Methods The company studies shall focus data collection on semistructured interviews with employees. Data collected shall be
anonymised to encourage honest answers.
Sampling
Strategy
Purposeful sampling was conducted to identify participants who
had experience of working with sustainable materials and met at
least three of the four criteria explained further in 3.3.2.2.1.
Interviewees were asked to suggest relevant colleagues, following
a snowball strategy.
3.3.2.2.1 Participants
Each company was researched, prior to the first visit and throughout the
study, to gain an understanding of the company ethos, size and products.
Participants were identified through a number of routes, from prior research
to identify mass-manufactured products utilising sustainable materials, by
contacting UK material manufacturers or suppliers of sustainable materials,
by conducting internet searches, university contacts and through the LinkedIn
(Linkedin Corporation, 2013) website. There were a number of restrictions
placed on finding suitable participants. Participants had to be based in the
UK and have experience of working with sustainable materials in mass
manufacture.
117
There were four key criteria to select participants, these were:
| |
Working in a mass manufacture company Having a UK design base |
| |
Currently using sustainable materials Involved in the design and manufacture of Consumer products. |
A number of people were contacted at each potential company. For each of
the four chosen companies this was followed by a “snowball” sampling
technique, in which participants were asked to recommend relevant
colleagues. This also allowed for richer data by gaining different perspectives
from a range of people involved in the process. When researching
companies or products, the criteria was used to mark out how well they
scored. The participants and the company criteria can be seen in Figure 3.3
and also in more detail in Appendix V (page347). Statistics pertaining to the
number of employees in each company were identified from the Linkedin
(Linkedin Corporation, 2013) page of each company. Participants were
contacted and sent an invitation letter to explain the research project and
their involvement (Appendix T).
118
Figure 3.3 Main study participants
3.3.2.2.2 Limitations
Finding relevant companies in the UK proved to be the most difficult part of
this research as the main focus of the study has been identified as a gap in
knowledge. Finding product examples which had been mass manufactured
with sustainable materials proved difficult. For this reason, a participant only
needed to meet three of the four key criteria to be eligible for the study. It is
119
possible to identify a number of products made using sustainable materials in
small production numbers or as concepts, but the mass manufacture
requirement made finding participants difficult. Mass-manufacture, however,
is a key part of the research project; although small or batch production may
be a consideration if the processing technique is transferable to mass
manufacture. The UK requirement could not be flexible as this is the research
gap and so if any company fell outside of the criteria it was discarded as an
option. Extending the research outside of the UK would have created time
and cost implications to the research. With regards to using sustainable
materials, it has also proved difficult to locate companies in the UK and so
two lesser categories are provided, those who are using materials
sustainably (e.g. light weighting, durability) and those who are interested in
material sustainability. The main area of research is in consumer products
but it proved difficult to find examples of product in this area massmanufactured using sustainable materials. Other areas, however, were
considered if the production techniques were appropriate to massmanufactured consumer products. Other areas considered included furniture,
automotive and packaging.
The snowball sampling method used to infiltrate the companies once initial
contact had been made could have allowed for bias results as employees
were asked to name relevant colleagues. But it proved very difficult to identify
employees within the companies as some of them are very large and so this
method worked well in gaining further interviews.
3.3.3 Online Survey: Framework Evaluation
The framework to assist sustainable material selection (Figure 6.4, page 214)
required evaluation in order to understand if the presentation was clear and
the content appropriate. In order to gain feedback from both key experts and
prior study participants, an online survey method was chosen to allow a
greater number of respondents from a wide geographic area. The survey was
designed online using Survey Gizmo (SurveyGizmo, 2012) as this website
allows for a visually appealing survey and supports high quality graphic
120
images. It was anticipated that using a visually appealing design would also
improve responses and respondent interest. The framework design can be
seen in Appendix Y, page 353. The survey was designed with both
quantitative and qualitative questions. Along with a number of the quantitative
questions was a box for additional comments in order that the respondents
could explain their answer further. There are a number of key principles that
must be applied during survey design:
| | Be brief |
| | Be objective |
| | Avoid leading questions |
| |
Be simple Be specific (Larossi, 2006:31-40). |
Questions should be designed so that they only require a small effort to
answer whilst ensuring that the survey is not too long; the longer the list of
questions the lower the quality of the data collected (Larossi, 2006). In order
to reduce the survey length and speed up responses, a number of the
questions were presented using the Likert Scale. The Likert Scale is a rating
scale developed by Renis Likert in 1932 (Jackson, 2012). Likert scales are
designed to gauge a respondent’s attitude to a number of statements;
typically using five answers: strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree
and strongly agree (Oppenheim, 1992). Although the negative and positive
terms do not vary, a number of differing neutral terms were found, such as
uncertain (Oppenheim, 1992), undecided (Robson, 2002; Kothari, 2006),
neither agree nor disagree (Brace, 2008) and neutral (Jackson, 2012).
Neutral was chosen by the researcher to be used as the central option. A
Likert scale can have any number of answer options, typically three to seven
options, but five options tend to be the most suitable for most purposes
(Anderson and Arsenault, 2002). Likert scales should always be balanced
with an equal number of positive and negative options either side of the
central neutral option (Brace, 2008). Figure 3.4 shows Likert scale questions
in the examples A and B, and Likert-like examples in C and D.
121
Figure 3.4 Likert and Likert-like scales (Lavrakas, 2008:430)
There are four interrelated biases which need consideration with the Likert
scale: order effect, acquiescence, central tendency and pattern answering
(Brace, 2008:74-75). In the order effect, the respondent is more likely to
answer questions placed to the left of the options, it is possible that these two
biases can be cancelled out if the disagree answers are placed on the left
(Brace, 2008). The acquiescence bias occurs because the respondent
mindlessly selects positive answers such as agree (Kalton and Schuman,
1982), and is often a problem when similar questions are repeated. The
researcher did use similar questions to assess each framework image, but
limited the questions in the Likert table to three only, and only this style was
presented. This was done in order that direct comparisons could be made
between the three different images. The researcher anticipated that
familiarity would allow the respondents to answer faster and ensure they
finished the survey. Central tendency is the reluctance of the respondent to
select extreme answers whilst pattern answering is where the respondent
routinely ticks boxes following a pattern on the page as opposed to
122
considering his or her answers to the question (Brace, 2008). The use of only
three statements in the Likert scale question boxes was the result of a
conscious decision by the researcher to ensure pattern answering did not
occur.
It is also said that Likert scale questions look interesting to respondents, and
respondents often enjoy completing this type of question which can ensure
considered answers (Robson, 2002). As well as using Likert scale questions
to gain feedback on the images; other questions were also formulated in a
Likert-like style, also with a scale rating but not an attitudinal response to
statements. There are a number of alternate scale headings possible for
Likert-like questions (Anderson and Arsenault, 2002). For the Likert-like
questions, respondents were asked a question followed by five options: not
at all, not really, undecided, somewhat and very much.
3.3.3.1 Participants
The online survey for the framework was tested using four participants, three
Sustainable Design PhD students and a lecturer in design. The feedback
from this initial round of testing led to further developments of the survey in
order to improve clarity. Individuals who had been involved in prior studies
during the research were invited to participate in the evaluation process. A
number of experts in sustainable materials were also identified online and
invited to take part. The participants for this study can be seen in Table 3.8.
123
Table 3.8 Framework evaluation survey participants
| Participant Code Participant Job Title Previous involvement |
| R3 Industrial Designer/ Business Owner No R4 Technical Consultant Consumer Products Yes |
R1 Packaging Technologist Yes
R2 Product Designer No
R5 Lecturer in Product Design No
R6 Professor No
R7 Product Manager No
R8 leMRC Industrial Director No
R9 Industrial Designer No
R10 Research Assistant No
R11 Product Manager Yes
3.3.3.2 Limitations
The anonymity of the survey led to difficulties in following up respondents
who only partially completed the survey. In all, there were seven partially
completed surveys. This could be due to a lack of time, participants being
distracted from finishing, a poorly designed survey or an inability to
understand the framework, and, indeed, a few people struggled with the
framework. There may have been issues if participants had tried to respond
on smaller devices such as smart phones as the survey involved large
images. This methodology only explored the potential of the framework as a
tool and limits the value of the data collected. The results from the survey are
speculative from participants and lack the team application scenario. For this
reason a second evaluation using a practical workshop scenario was
conducted.
3.3.4 Workshop Design: Tool Evaluation
In order to understand how the framework could be developed further into a
tool, a workshop was designed in order to observe individual and team
participation with the tool. The need for a ‘usability workshop’ was identified
124
in order to understand the interactions of designers with the tool. There exists
very little research with regards to usability workshops, however there are
many methodological similarities with focus groups, which is discussed by
Langford and McDonagh (2003). For this reason the focus group
methodology was also discussed and considered. The workshop was
designed to cover a broad range of data collection techniques, surveys,
audio recording, video recording, observations and focus group style
discussions. Wilkinson describes focus groups as appearing simple,
involving:
Engaging a small number of people in an informal group
discussion (or discussions), ‘focused’ around a particular topic or
set of issues (2004:177).
Focus groups enable the researcher to observe participants interest in the
topic whilst also providing a platform to observe participants compare and
contrast opinions and experiences reaching conclusions without the need for
post analysis by the researcher (Morgan, 1997). The key to focus groups lie
in good moderation by the researcher to enable participation by all by
creating an inclusive liberal atmosphere to encourage participation and by
preventing single participants or small groups from dominating the discussion
and encouraging quieter participants to take part fully (Flick, 2009). A
strength and weakness occurs because the researcher requires interaction
between participants which can provide interesting insights but equally can
steer the focus group in the wrong direction (Morgan, 1997).
The researcher considers the sustainable material selection framework to be
a concept tool, focus group research has been recommended for the ‘very
early stages of a project to evaluate preliminary concepts with representative
users’ (Rubin and Chisnell, 2008). Although Rubin and Chisnell are referring
to products, there is overlapping relevance.
Bruseberg and McDonagh-Philp (2002) outline the requirements for userresearch to suit the needs of the design process:
125
should be suitable for use during all stages of the designing process, as
well as prior to concept generation;
need to adjust flexibly to the varying requirements of design processes
and should only include a basic level of formality;
need to provide data to suit designers, such as visual material
information that inspires rather than feels restrictive;
need to enable designers to involve users in suitable exercises, retrieve
needs beyond the functional, and to ‘unlock’ users’ creativity (2002:36).
This set of requirements formed a basis for designing the workshop study
and the hand-outs for each creativity/material selection task.
Focus groups enable the explorations of peoples judgements and feelings,
and in such a way are different to usability tests, which provide insights into
performance issues and real behaviours (Rubin and Chisnell, 2008)
Usability tests are best for observing behaviours and measuring
performance issues, while perhaps gathering some qualitative
information along the way (Rubin and Chisnell, 2008:17).
The overall outline for this study can be seen in Table 3.9, based on the five
components given earlier by Robson (2002) in Table 3.2. The workshop was
run by the researcher and a second facilitator, permitting the researcher time
to observe proceedings.
Table 3.9 Workshop study model
Purpose To evaluate the use of the tool in a material selection team
scenario.
Theory Does the tool encourage interaction between the team
members?
Does the tool increase the individuals understanding and
confidence of selection sustainable materials?
Research
Questions
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the
material selection process?
Does the tool support individuals to use it alongside existing
material selection tools?
126
Methods Participants will take part in a workshop/focus group session with a
survey given for feedback and any additional comments.
Sampling
Strategy
6 individuals with design practice or material selection for design
experience. This is to allow a multi-disciplinary team scenario in line
with prior research
The workshop was designed to evaluate the overall framework (Figure 6.3)
and its three key points; illustrate, educate and engage. The evaluation
points assessed during the workshop were:
Education – Does the tool improve the individuals understanding of
sustainable material selection?
Illustration – Do product examples, material samples etc help toward
sustainable material selection?
Interaction – Does the tool increase interaction between team
members?
Build confidence – Does the tool build individual or team confidence?
Engagement – Does the tool improve team engagement with
sustainable material selection?
Clarity – Are the considerations of sustainable material selection clear
to understand?
Usability – How easy do the team members find the tool to use?
Efficacy – Does the tool support individuals to use it alongside existing
material selection tools?
The group of six were divided into two teams of three and asked to carry out
three tasks in their teams. The researcher was present to introduce the
subject and observe the participants behaviour during the workshop. The
workshop was designed to be run with two teams of 3 who would each be
working on the same design tasks. Three tasks were designed to enable the
teams to engage with sustainable material selection. These tasks can be
seen in Appendix Z (page 360) and the time plan in Appendix AA (page 364).
A series of surveys were designed for each team to complete after every task
along with an individual survey given out at the end of the workshop
127
(Appendix BB, page 365). A moderator worked alongside the researcher to
facilitate the workshop. The groups were provided with:
Drawing materials
A3 paper
Sticky notes
Materials selection books
Internet access to two material databases, Materia (Materia, 2009a)
and Material Connexion (Material ConneXion, 2009a)
Material samples.
A table within the workshop room was laid out with material samples and the
following material selection books (Figure 3.5):
Materiology (Kula and Ternaux, 2008)
Material ConneXion (Beylerian and Dent, 2005)
The Manufacturing Guides: Sustainable materials (Thompson, 2013)
Eco handbook (Fuad-Luke, 2002)
Materiology (Kula and Ternaux, 2008)
Materials and Design (Ashby and Johnson, 2006)
| Materials and the (Ashby, 2009a) |
Environment: | Eco-informed | Material Selection |
Material Index (Materia, 2009b)
Materials for Inspirational Design (Lefteri, 2008).
128
Figure 3.5 Resource table of books and samples
3.3.4.1 Participants
Participants were selected to create a multi-disciplinary environment of
individuals with experience in design practice, research and materials.
Table 3.10 Participants for the tool workshop
| Job Title | Design/material experience |
Knowledge/experience of sustainable material selection |
|
| A1 | Research Associate |
MEng Materials Engineering | Very little, but works on a research project looking at materials for resource efficiency |
| A2 | Lecturer in Design |
BSc Industrial Design PhD Sustainable Design 4yrs Designer in Industry 2yrs research designer/consultant in UK government 2yrs Research Associate 1.5yrs Lecturer in design |
Some experience of sustainable material selection acquired in degree and research jobs, but wouldn’t say a broad experience |
129
| A3 | Research Associate |
BSc/MSc in Product/industrial design PhD in design for sustainable behaviour 2yrs work as design engineer 2yrs work as product design consultant |
Very limited. Covered basics on MSc (mostly forgotten as not applied) |
| B1 | Research Associate |
Design engineer, materials particular issue at Dyson, due to management systems 1yr researching materials in context of design, with aim of creating a usable materials library for designers |
General awareness of materials in the context of sustainable design, but no specific experience of sustainable material selection |
| B2 | Freelance Designer |
1 year packaging designer, including material selection 2.5yrs design teacher 1year freelance industrial designer |
Researched and taught recycled materials, met with local manufacturers and suppliers Designed and delivered interactive workshops on recycling PhD in environmental labels, including material labels |
| B3 | PhD Researcher |
15yrs Industrial designer MA Sustainable Design Materials – design for injection moulding, fabrics, sheet metal, wood, some graphic work |
Fair. I feel a little out of touch but I am familiar with LCA |
3.3.4.2 Limitations
The workshop was condensed significantly to fit within two hours. Although
the researcher would have preferred a longer workshop gathering six
professionals for a two hour workshop proved difficult. Within the two teams
there was a clear difference of working styles, possibly due to individual’s
personalities or team working experience. This led to very different results
from the two teams as one team appeared to work better as a team than the
other. Team B actively created ways to work more individually, ripping up the
A3 paper provided to make smaller sheets of A4 so they could each write
their own notes as opposed to working on a shared piece of A3.
130
3.4 Data Analysis Techniques
This section outlines the methods employed by the researcher to analyse the
data collected during the research. The coding of data allowed the
researcher to collate themes and ideas whilst also reducing data to a
manageable size for analysis and allowing links to statements (Kvale, 2009).
Qualitative coding is a process of data retention, encouraging the researcher
to constantly reread and learn from the data until patterns and explanations
are found and understood (Richards, 2006). Coding terms followed a
qualitative style to ensure they kept meaning to the researcher; in-vivo codes
were created based on participants’ words as opposed to being defined by
the researcher (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The researcher defined the codes
based on the emerging themes relevant to the research aim and questions
but not necessarily based on respondents’ choice of words. Denscombe
(2007) gives an order in which coding can be applied, starting with:
open-coding – descriptive codes according to data content;
axial coding – as coding progresses and relationships are found certain
codes are melded into broader headings with more vital codes
appearing evident
selective coding – attention is focused on key components and core
codes that have emerged from the first two stages of coding (2007:98).
Richards (2006) gives a similar three-stage approach but calls the third stage
analytical coding, the most complex of the three but also the most beneficial,
in which one looks for themes, patterns, opinions and feelings which in turn
create context and new categories. Following coding it is hoped that
concepts can be generated to explain the phenomenon and these, in turn,
are used to generate theories (Denscombe, 2007). Thematic analysis
involves studying data to pull out patterns and themes without the use of an
existing framework. Thematic analysis relies on the researcher’s judgement
to decide what is relevant. It can be used to identify and report experiences,
meanings and reality of participants whilst also examining how events,
realities and meanings affect the participants’ working behaviour (Walker,
131
2009). Gibson and Brown (2009) divide thematic analysis into three key
areas:
Examining commonality
Examining differences
Examining relationships.
Thematic analysis was used alongside the coding framework to pull out
relevant insights that do not fit into the coding tree and shall be noted as
memos. As new categories emerge through the data analysis it can be useful
to note down interesting ideas in the form of memos to identify topics for
future discussion and debate (Richards, 2006). Along with memos, diagrams
are often a useful way to record ideas and the two methods develop in
complexity, density, clarity and accuracy as the research project progresses
(Corbin and Strauss, 2008).
3.4.1 Analysing the Questionnaire
The data collected was collated in Excel (Microsoft, 2013a) spread sheets,
organised by each question number. Coding was based on the initial
framework of research questions laid out during the justification stage. The
author colour-coded the results to each question in order to identify common
themes or to show visually how respondents answered, e.g., when materials
are considered in the design process, the beginning (green), middle (amber)
or end (red), this and further examples can be seen in Appendix O (page
333). Initial coding was developed which was further refined to create codes
which related to themes. A full list of codes can be seen in 0 (page 334). The
first step was to analyse each question separately but then the coding was
sued to cluster the answers into five topic areas. How each question relates
to the final themes can be seen in Figure 3.6. The information that was drawn
out was selected because it answered research questions or posed new
questions for further research.
132
Figure 3.6 Analysis themes and correlating questions
3.4.2 Transcription Techniques
Full transcriptions were created for both the interview scoping study and the
company studies. It is important to ensure the data is collected in a reliable
manner, for example, when transcribing interviews the placement of grammar
according to pauses can mean sentences can have different interpretations.
133
The researcher created a rule set for transcribing based on a similar list given
by (Macnaghten and Myers, 2010):
All words were transcribed including words such as ‘erm’ to indicate
where interviewees struggled with answers
Repeated words were ignored
Pauses were indicated with …
Emotional expressions were placed in brackets, e.g. (laughing)
Ensure transcriptions are readable
The final point is important, because it is acknowledged that balancing the
amount of detail transcribed is important, transcribing more detail than is
needed impedes the ability to analyse the information (Macnaghten and
Myers, 2010). However, the researcher was keen to ensure the majority of
words spoken to ensure reliability:
‘The reliability of the interpretation of transcripts may be gravely
weakened by a failure to transcribe apparently trivial, but often
crucial, pauses and overlaps’ (Silverman, 2010:287)
Unlike the rule set used by Macnaghten and Myers (2010) which includes
ignoring back channel utterances such as ‘mmm’, (Silverman, 2010) states
the importance of including utterances, as the use of ‘mmm’ or ‘yes’ shows
the respondent is acknowledging or agreeing with the conversation. An
example transcription can be seen in Appendix DD (page 369Appendix DD).
3.4.3 Analysing the Interviews
The face-to-face interviews were recorded using a digital Dictaphone whilst
the telephone interviews were carried out using Skype Voip software
(Microsoft, 2013b) and recorded using Callburner (Netralia, 2010) and
Pamela (Scendix, 2013) software. All transcribing was done by the
researcher to enable a high quality of transcription and ensure that designrelated terms were recognised. The interviews were transcribed as soon after
the interview as possible to ensure accuracy and no loss of understanding.
The transcriptions were put into the NVivo software (QSR International,
2012) as individual sources. One advantage with NVivo is the source data
134
stays intact whilst also enabling the user to view the coded quote in its
original context (Bazeley, 2009). The transcriptions were coded (Kvale, 2009;
Gibson and Brown, 2009) against the research questions and using in-vivo
codes based on respondents’ answers (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). All the
interviews were coded using NVivo software, a sample interview and coding
can be seen in Appendix T (page 343). Codes were created following the
order of open/descriptive coding, axial/topic coding and then
analytical/selective coding (Denscombe, 2007; Richards, 2006). The codes
were clustered to enable key themes to be identified which were then used
as a basis for writing up the insights. Detailed coding tables can be seen in
Appendix S (page 342). The use of NVivo enabled flexibility to amend the
structure and clustering of codes whilst also allowing for fast retrieval of
statements relating to codes. The trees enable organisation of codes and a
logical structure to be created (Bazeley, 2009:103). The codes were
arranged using tree nodes in NVivo and the main headings and subheadings
of the tree are as follows:
Material Selection Process
Involvement
Legislation
Research
Drivers
Barriers
Sustainable Material Selection
Barriers
Resources
Memos were written for emerging themes which did not fit into the coding
framework (Richards, 2006).
135
3.4.4 Analysing the Main Study
For the main study the majority of interviews were transcribed using NVivo
software to enable transcript documents to be linked directly to the audio files
ready for analysis. Where possible, the researcher completed the
transcriptions and observations as soon after the interviews as possible to
improve accuracy and to be closer to the data collected. Due to the high
number of interviews conducted in the main study, a number of interviews
were transcribed by a professional transcription company. These were
provided as Word (Microsoft, 2013c) documents by the transcription
company. The data was then moved into the NVivo (QSR International,
2012) file for analysis. Those that were done by an external company were
reviewed alongside the recording to allow any missed intonations to be
noted. NVivo (QSR International, 2012) was chosen because of the
advantages outlined previously for analysing the scoping study interviews
(3.4.3).
A coding framework (Appendix X) was constructed initially with codes from
the previous interview study to act as a starting point, with additional codes
created as new themes appeared, but predominantly during the analysis of
the first interviews. An initial set of codes were created based on prior
scoping studies. Memos were created where insights did not fit into the
coding framework. The four companies were analysed using the same
coding tree. Findings and conclusions were drawn for each individual
company study followed by a cross-company analysis; looking for
commonalities, differences and relationships.
3.4.5 Analysing the Framework Survey
The Survey Gizmo (SurveyGizmo, 2012) online software created an overall
report for the quantitative data from the survey. This was further analysed by
inputting the data into Excel (Microsoft, 2013a) and creating graphs, which
were used to assist the interpretation of the results. The qualitative data was
analysed by hand. Key themes were identified from the original research
questions and the research study aim. Printouts of each questionnaire were
136
then studied, with relevant insights highlighted to indicate the sections
relevant to the study.
3.4.6 Analysing the Workshop
The workshop collected data from mixed sources. The questionnaires
completed during the study were designed and analysed following the same
methodology as the tool survey. However as this survey was not conducted
online the researched conducted the analysis manually using highlighter,
analysing each questions individually before coding sections into the relevant
topics. The workshop was recorded using video recording equipment, digital
dicta-phones and the researcher made notes. During the workshop the
researcher made notes of observations and these were later clarified using
the video and audio recordings taken during the workshop. The audio files
were taken as a back-up; the video was the primary source for analysing the
team interactions and comments during the workshop. However the audio
quality meant the researcher also listened to snippets of the audio alongside
the video to clarify certain statements. Video recording allowed the
researcher to study individuals team gazes, body language and gestures
(Peräkylä, 2010) in relation to each other and the task. The groups worked
on the first task without the tool, but had access to it for the following two
tasks in order to allow cross analysis (Figure 3.7).
137
Figure 3.7 Cross analysis of participants using the tool
3.5 Conclusion
The research employed exploratory and qualitative methods in order to
understand how the implementation of sustainable materials in mass
manufacture is considered by industrial designers along with other key roles.
A mixed methods approach during the scoping studies allowed for grounded
theory to be developed prior to a later more complex study. The Main Study
explored four companies in detail, providing rich insights and enabled
triangulation of the data.
138
4 Scoping Study
This chapter presents the findings of a scoping study using data collected via
two methods, questionnaires and interviews. As a research area with limited
literature, a scoping study was deemed necessary to understand the overall
topic before narrowing the research further. The first stage of the scoping
study provided an overview to the research area and identified themes and
trends to pursue in more detail with in-depth interviews conducted in the
second stage.
4.1 Introduction to Stage One
The literature review partially answered research questions but further
understanding was required in relation to industrial designers. The first stage
of the scoping study explored ‘sustainable material selection for mass
manufacture’ using questionnaires. These were designed to probe industrial
designers’ participation in the material selection process, how sustainable
materials are considered and if, or how, they utilise tools and resources. A
total of twenty completed questionnaires were collected from three sources,
namely, a Sustainable Design Network event, design professionals attending
the Loughborough University Degree Show and researcher’s contacts.
This stage explored the following research questions:
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection
during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products?
What resources exist to support sustainable material selection?
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials?
Who is involved in making material selection decisions?
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the
material selection process?
139
4.2 Questionnaire Findings
In response to whether they were aware of sustainable design all
respondents answered ‘yes’ but as fourteen respondents were attending the
Sustainable Design Network (SDN) this was to be expected.
4.2.1 Resources and Tools to Aid Sustainable Design
Evidence indicates a range of resource or tool types with four respondents
answering books, such as the Ecodesign Navigator (Simon et al., 1998) but
many did not name specific books. Five respondents’ stated that they did not
use resources for sustainable design. Four respondents’ specified tools,
including LCA, energy analysis, the Eco Indicator (PRé-Consultants, 2000),
the Eco Design Web (Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2007) and sustainability
express (Solidworks 3D CAD software). Resources to aid sustainable design
given included:
Books
Colleagues
Conferences
Experts
Guidelines
Manufacturers
Master classes
Websites
Workshops
Software
Reports
Recommendations
Seminars
Suppliers
British Standards.
4.2.2 Material Selection Process
The majority of respondents (sixteen) are involved in the material selection
process but participants were not all designers specifically although this was
the predominant job role. Material selection appears to be considered at the
front end of the design process by the majority of respondents (thirteen), at
the concept generation, design brief and concept selection stages.
Responses indicate a range of different approaches to materials selection,
including those where the client controls it, ‘as early as the client allows’
(Respondent H), through to using the costing stage or manufacturing process
140
selection stage to select materials; whereas some said the client only makes
an input after the designers have made the choices and shown them the
options. Five respondents referred to the client or customer directing how
material choices are made within their company. Many respondents (five)
stated that materials selection was a constant consideration throughout the
design process. Four respondents stated that they carry out material
selection during the detail design stage, with one of these also doing so
throughout the design process. The most common factors for making
material selection choices were cost (seven) and material performance
(seven) and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing processes (four).
4.2.3 Drivers to Using Sustainable Materials
Sustainability is viewed as an important factor by the majority of respondents
(seventeen). There were only two negative responses, one of which wrote
‘but it should be, where options exist’ (respondent K). However this is skewed
by the fact that fourteen of the respondents were Sustainable Design
Network attendees and therefore already have an interest in sustainable
design and are making conscious decisions to increase their knowledge of
sustainable design. Respondents were asked to score the importance of five
drivers; personal, company, client, legislation and other. From Table 4.1 it is
possible to see what each respondent thinks is important in context with
other drivers. Respondents A and G scored company and client with zero
importance and yet give scores for personal, legislation and other drivers.
141
Table 4.1 Respondent scores for five drivers
Respondent 5a.i
Personal
5a.ii.
Company
5a.iii.
Client
5a.iv.
Legislation
5a.v.
Other
A 4 0 0 1 5
B 2 3 4 5 0
C 5 2 1 3 0
D 2 5 5 5 0
E 3 4 2 2 0
F 5 5 5 0 5
G 4 0 0 5 0
H 0 0 0 0 0
I 2 4 5 5 0
J 4 2 2 1 4
K 0 0 0 0 0
L 5 1 1 5 0
M 4 2 3 1 5
N 1 3 4 4 5
O 2 2 4 4 5
P 1 1 5 3 0
Q 4 2 1 3 5
R 0 0 0 0 0
S 3 2 2 4 0
Personal drivers were of high importance (score 4 or 5) to nine of those
questioned. The company was a driver of high importance to only five
questioned. Respondents were divided as to whether the client is a driver,
one respondent (C) said sustainability issues are only considered when
requested by the client. Similarly Respondent P is driven by the customer:
Customer says what they want – we provide it. Customer
education is key (Respondent P).
Eight people thought that legislation was an important driver with one
reference to the Removal of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) legislation as a
driver (National Measurement Office, 2005). Overall the group of
respondents is mixed on this driver; with almost half of group (eight) saying it
was important, three giving it a score in the middle, and eight respondents
giving it a value of 0-2. Only seven respondents put “Other” as a driver, with
all but one of these scoring it as very important. A number of other drivers
were given by respondents; prototyping considerations, marketing profile,
being ‘seen to be green’ (J), cost, functionality, availability and suitability.
142
There were also references to responsibility in terms of moral, public and
societal, within the ‘other’ written answers.
4.2.4 Resources and Tools to Aid Material Selection
Seven responses pointed towards suppliers as a key information source
along with manufacturers and toolmakers. Books were evidenced as a
resource by three respondents. Many resources are available in a number of
presentation styles but answers did not always distinguish which they use.
Three respondents cited the internet as a source for material information but
did not always specify sites. Software-based databases were given by three
respondents and these, along with other resources named, can be seen in
Table 4.2. Six respondents gave material performance as a factor in material
selection, one person (J) saying they carry out a paper review of key
parameters such as strength, stiffness and environmental resistance.
Table 4.2 Material selection resources
| Supplier Websites | Books | Websites | Software | Other |
| Bayer (Bayer MaterialScience AG, 2012), |
The Ecodesign Handbook (Fuad-Luke, 2002) |
Transmaterial (Transmaterial, 2012) |
Computer Aided Material Preselection by Uniform Standards (CAMPUS Plastics, 1991) |
British Standard BS8887 (British Standards Institute, 2009a) |
| The British Plastics Federation (British Plastics Federation, 2012) |
Transmaterial (Brownell, 2006) |
Materia (Materia, 2009a) |
SimaPro (PRé- Consultants, 2009c) |
Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3, 2012) |
| BASF (BASF, 2012) | CES (Granta Design Limited, 2009c) |
Materials and Design Exchange (M.A.D.E) |
||
| Dow (Dow, 2012) |
4.2.4.1 Experts
Throughout the questionnaire eleven respondents made references to finding
information by contacting experts in the field, either internally or externally to
their company. Experts mentioned were engineers, suppliers, colleagues,
143
manufacturers, toolmakers and organisations such as Materials Knowledge
Transfer Network (KTN) or Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3),
all of whom could be considered experts.
4.2.5 Sustainable Material Selection Resources Requirements
There is a clear desire for a sustainable materials selection tool as fourteen
respondents said they would like one. However five respondents said the
resource cost would affect the use; ideally, it should be free or low cost as
companies would not be prepared to pay. The need for easy comparability
was important for many (eight); such as comparing the information and data
between different materials or the relative performance of sustainable versus
non-sustainable materials. Six respondents listed table or charts as a
presentation style they would like in order to facilitate comparisons. Other
features given by two respondents was the ability to allow easy updating to
ensure data was relevant and up-to-date. One request was made for a
service which would suggest alternative material choices based on the
design specification written by the designer.
The most common sustainable material information requirement was cost
(seven), with requests for relative costs between sustainable and standard
materials. The location and availability of the material, including where the
product is made was given by four respondents. Two responses requested a
holistic review of many factors; ‘minimum greenhouse gas footprint, minimum
water footprint, no petro-chemical (excluding recycled), guaranteed from
sustainable sources and sustainable factory set-up’ (M) whilst another wrote
‘recycling infrastructure, how much additional impact to process into a
product, energy to recover/recycle, value at recovery (EOL), energy
emissions, water, local?, threats to ecosystems, uncertainty? Tested?’ (T).
One respondent said they wanted information for both the client and the
designer to help ‘sell’ the concept and use to their clients.
144
4.2.5.1 Presentation
General themes for presentation were that four requested a resource should
be in a simple or easy-to-use format whilst five specified it should be internet
based, possibly with the ability to add to it. Styles such as charts, tables or
graphs were also given by eight respondents, to enable information to be
quickly read, accessible and easy to compare. Some would like the
information split up into layers; it should be presented ‘graphically, with
specific technical info when you delve deeper’ (C). Another suggestion (K)
was that the engineering data (navigable text and graphs, etc.) is mixed with
anecdotal examples (visual and text).
4.2.6 Questionnaire Conclusions
Most people (ten) were unable to answer whether the materials resources
they use have a sustainable content; overall, half of respondents answered
negatively. One respondent (Q) said their supplier will cover and understand
sustainable materials which could suggest a lack of knowledge and
understanding on behalf of the designer and a reliance on suppliers for
advice. In terms of how material choices are made, respondents often use
discussions with suppliers or engineers, showing that links to experts are
key. This is backed up further by the fact that numerous respondents said
they use suppliers as an information source for material selection. The fact
that so many consult experts shows a reliance on other people’s knowledge
and possibly a lack of understanding of how to make sustainable material
choices. Interestingly, one respondent said they use real-life examples as a
resource, akin to findings by Lofthouse (2001) that industrial designers
wanted real-life examples of how designers have tackled ecodesign.
Respondents listed information sources such as manufacturers, toolmakers,
engineers, suppliers, the Materials KTN (Materials KTN, 2009), IOM3 which
could all be considered as experts. Respondents mentioned numerous
experts they would use to aid material selection but more detail on how
designers work with others in order to select materials and how sustainability
is considered needs addressing.
145
One request was made for a resource where designers were able to update it
and add information themselves. This would indeed be a useful feature and
would again allow experts to share knowledge and remove the bias of a
resource created by a single author. Reference charts were also mentioned,
which could create a fast and easy way to access and compare information,
but an internet-based resource would be easier to keep up-to-date and
relevant and would allow the option of discussions among users. One user
mentioned they wanted simple information first, such as images, with morein-depth information if one delved deeper. This is also what Lofthouse (2001)
found when investigating how to present information for an ecodesign
resource, and, as such, developed the resource Information/Inspiration with a
tiered structure. Overall, the positive response to this questionnaire shows a
clear desire and need for a sustainable materials selection tool for designers.
Throughout the study, cost came up often as a key factor to both companies
and clients. Common themes in answers were that a resource should be
simple and easy to use in a format which allows easy comparisons between
material properties and cost. Another key feature is that the location of the
material should be made clear, as well as the location of where the product
will be made, with an easy way to access samples. Ease of use of a resource
is seen as a key factor as this will also reduce the time required to use it.
Comparability is also a key feature required, especially comparisons between
sustainable and standard materials.
One respondent said they wanted information for both the client and the
designer to help ‘sell’ the concept and use to their clients. This could be a
very useful feature in a resource but could also help designers to ‘sell’ the
idea of sustainable materials to clients and customers. Similarly, another
respondent said they are steered by customers’ decisions and so the
customer requires educating to change their approach to sustainable design
and enable designers to pursue sustainable materials. A resource could
therefore be required to educate both designers and clients regarding
sustainable materials. This shows a link and a need for information for clients
146
too, so they can be informed of the benefits and can be sold the idea and
could form a key feature of the resource.
The questionnaire has managed to further answer a number of research
questions with numerous trends identified. It can be concluded that cost is
seen as an important factor in many contexts; the cost of the material
chosen, the cost of the resource used and the cost differences between
materials. Sustainability is considered an important factor by the majority,
with legislation and personal interest being the most important factors.
The next stage of the research aims to gain a greater depth of understanding
as to if and how industrial designers consider sustainable materials.
Literature and this study have shown that the barriers and drivers to using
sustainable materials can be diverse and complex and so an in-depth
research method was required to understand this matter more clearly. The
questionnaire found that the client/customer, legislation and personal interest
of the designer affect their decision-making most and so these topics shall be
taken to the next stage for further investigation.
4.3 Introduction to Stage Two
Stage two was designed to gain in-depth insights from practicing industrial
designers regarding the consideration of sustainable materials. Previously
identified themes from the questionnaire study include the influence of the
client/customer, personal interest, and legislation. This study was also used
to explore industrial designers’ attitudes to the definition of a sustainable
material derived from the literature. Seven participants were selected to fit a
range of company sizes and sustainable design experience. Further detail is
given in section 3.3.2.1 (page 111).
This study explored the following research questions:
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection
during the industrial design of mass-manufactured product
What resources exist to support sustainable material selection?
147
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials?
Who is involved in making material selection decisions?
How is a sustainable material defined?
4.4 Interview Findings
In order to understand what barriers and drivers affect industrial designers
when proposing sustainable materials it was important to investigate what
drives material selection. A number of selection criteria were given by
interviewees, including personal experience, or the experience of others in
their team, aesthetics, the wishes of their client or the user, performance
and/or technical requirements, mechanical properties, fit for purpose, cost,
and processing capabilities. The computer software Rhinoceros (3D CAD)
(Robert McNeel & Associates, 2013) is utilised by one designer to enable the
visualisation of the product with different materials and finishes and this is
then used with clients to gain feedback.
4.4.1 Information Sources for Material Selection
The use of designers’ experience or that of their colleagues was often cited
as a source of information. External experience is also exploited through
manufacturers, engineers, moulders and material suppliers, the latter being
used by one designer in order to avoid material selection software. Bayer
plastics and GE plastics were both mentioned as sources, which provide
supplier catalogues and online material libraries which designers can access.
Two designers spoke of consciously considering materials during the
sketching or modelling process; ‘from a styling point of view, I think over time
you build up a mental library of materials in your head. You learn to
understand what materials work with other materials and things like that’
(Designer Four).
Frustration was expressed by three designers in finding the information they
require, namely, the presentation style or knowing where to find help. One
designer described material selection as a hunt for information requiring
148
constant attention to follow what is happening. Two designers use books,
casually flicking through them for ideas and inspiration but they find it hard to
stay up to date, the books they use being four years old. The need for
samples is strong, ideally both pre-forming and post-forming. One designer
works with the Materials KTN (Materials KTN, 2009) and so uses this
extensively but commented that all designers could if they were aware of the
service. Accessing cost data can be difficult; one designer uses Matweb
(Matweb, 2013) but there is frustration at the lack of cost data provided.
4.4.2 Sustainable Materials
During the interview the designers were asked to describe a sustainable
material to gauge their awareness of the issues. Some interesting extracts
from the answers are shown in Table 4.3. Although the interviews were
transcribed in full, some parts of the interview have been omitted in Table 4.3
due to irrelevance or diffluent speech, indicated with (…). It proved to be a
difficult question, with many giving numerous issues or strategies such as
recycling and energy, including Designer Five who asked a long list of
questions. Some designers required further prompting to get a definition.
Many were unsure of their answers, pausing and sighing numerous times
whilst Designer Four asked twice for endorsement from the interviewer.
Designers Six and Seven both expressed a resistance and unease with the
term ‘sustainable’.
Table 4.3 Descriptions of sustainable materials from interviewees
| Designer One |
‘it’s a material and process that’s tying together to provide you with a material that has a very low impact on the environment from the start to the finish and you can clearly see at any stage that its being recycled or handled appropriately and that there are facilities in place to do it properly (…)it’s something that is made with a material and a process that you can easily validate, one that has low impact on your environment’ |
| Designer Two |
‘well I guess I’d say it’s something that can be, in the life of the product, can be reused in some form or another’ |
149
| Designer Three |
‘That’s a difficult one, isn’t it, because there are a number of different directions, one is how recyclable it is, two I’d say is how well it performs and how long it will last and I guess you’ve also got the case of whether it can be replaced easily. I guess you could also go into whether it degrades in an environmentally friendly way’ |
| Designer Four |
‘I suppose it’s a material that could endure itself (…) A material that requires very little energy in making. Is that a fair description?’ |
| Designer Five |
I suppose a sustainable material is a material which doesn’t impose a load on the environment and that is always (…) going to be a matter of degree so I’m not sure there is any material that (…) extracts no price from the environment for its existence but, you know so the factors to consider are, obviously you know, how much energy went into making it and where that energy came from.(…) It gets terribly complex so you have to look at the energy, as people say that’s embedded in the material in the first place but you have to look at the price of extraction, the environment in use (…) Then you have to look at what happens the material at the end of its life obviously, does it get recycled? If it’s recycled how much energy has to be used to recycle it? (…) where does that energy come from? (Laughs). (…)So getting back to your question, what is a sustainable material? A material that answers those questions in a relatively satisfactory way. I mean, it is not easy’ |
| Designer Six |
‘It’s a complete misnomer isn’t it? The phrase sustainable seems a little odd to me. It seems to over promise. I’ve always been a little uncomfortable about the term sustainable design, I know that it’s got enormous attraction but if you are mass producing anything then it’s impossible to do it without significant environmental impact. (…) but generally you are deluding yourself if you think you are going to make something sustainable.’ |
| Designer Seven |
‘I have sort of tended to use a term like biodegradable materials and cleaner materials and things like that because there are various ways to impact the environment. So if sustainable is the best thing for people to be using, I don’t necessarily subscribe to that because I don’t know enough about it. So a sustainable material, I don’t really know what fully is meant by that, it is a little bit of a confusing concept as it were’ |
150
4.4.2.1 Response to the Definition
There was general agreement with the definition presented by the
researcher:
A sustainable material is economically viable, uses minimal
resources from a renewable, abundant or recycled origin and
minimises its impact on the environment and society during its life.
One designer felt the inclusion of economics was important, giving the
example of recycled aluminium which is cheaper than virgin, however, others
felt economic considerations are always involved and not needed in the
definition. Designer Seven was unhappy with the word ‘sustainable’,
preferring to use terms such as greener, biodegradable and cleaner
materials. There was conflict amongst the designers as to whether the
definition should state minimise impact, or zero impact. Designer Seven
questioned how many materials could adhere to the definition:
What I am trying to say is, I don’t, you know, how many materials
are truly 100% so I suppose that opens the floodgates for saying,
well we are never really going to get it truly, you have just got to try
and reduce the impact (Designer Seven).
Designer Five felt that the definition lacked reference to ‘the idea of keeping
materials in circulation’. Designer Seven felt location was crucial to a material
being sustainable as this can impact on transportation.
4.4.2.2 Sustainable Material Product Examples
During the interviews all designers were asked to name give an example of a
mass-manufactured product that is made with sustainable materials. All
designers struggled with this question but literature had already identified a
clear gap of mass-manufactured examples. The answers given, however,
varied considerably, which was interesting. Designer One felt that when
products were tried, they were often not wholly sustainable, giving an
example of a toothbrush where the packaging lets down the product.
151
Two designers mentioned wooden products, Designer Four citing wooden
furniture, because it is renewable, but they questioned the energy involved in
production. Designer Three named the material wood as opposed to a
product, but also said trees are probably being cut down faster than they are
replanted and so may not be sustainable. They gave Typhoon (2012) kitchen
products as an example as they use bamboo, but they think they claim to be
eco-friendly because that phrase has got through to manufacturers, in
contrast to the term ‘sustainable’.
Designer Seven gave hessian and coconut beach mats as an example, but
said the mass-manufactured part was difficult. Designer Five initially could
not think of an example, but then suggested a pressed steel can opener;
being metal it is readily recycled but one has also to consider the energy
used to make the product and recycle it.
4.4.3 Drivers for Selecting Sustainable Materials
Two clear drivers for the consideration of sustainable materials became
apparent during the interviews; the desire of the client, and designers’
personal interest.
4.4.3.1 Client
The client rarely seems to push the designer to consider sustainable
materials, except certain clients and product types. Designer Five was the
only one who said sustainable materials were almost always requested to be
considered by the client. Primarily, the client acts as more of a barrier and
this is covered later in section 4.4.4.1 (page 153).
4.4.3.2 Personal Interest and Experience
Many expressed a desire to learn to improve their use of sustainable
materials and create positive change. But the designers were unsure how to
learn more; ‘I don’t really know a good way to bridge the gap and certainly I
know I would love to be pushing in the sustainable direction’ (Designer
152
Seven). Designer Three explains that their role is at the ‘blue sky’, ‘emotive’
end of design and so sustainable materials are important only if relevant to
the user experience and their emotional attachment. Designer One said from
both personal choice and knowledge they would avoid certain processes
known to cause environmental damage, giving magnesium casting as an
example.
The knowledge of recycled aluminium being much better than virgin was
mentioned by many designers. Designer One explained that because
aluminium has a good system for recycling, to them it is both a sustainable
material and process. They like the material because a lot of countries and
companies use almost 100% recycled content aluminium; including the
company they use in China. Designer Seven finds the issues with plastics
are ‘much more murky’ compared to metals.
4.4.3.3 Resources and Tools
Two designers reference the use of resources or tools to drive sustainable
material selection. Designer Six says they use Life Cycle Analysis tools, such
as Eco it or Eco scan, if they have been asked to consider environmental
impact, which they use from the concept generation phase through to the
final design for manufacture. Designer Seven uses a software add on to Solid
Works (3D CAD) called Sustainability Xpress (Dassault Systemes, 2013)
which helps them to work out the most sustainable manufacturing process in
different parts of the world and to make suggestions for suitable materials.
The software educates them; they would like to use aluminium extrusions
more, as the program shows it uses much less power in terms of
manufacturing for both China and Europe.
4.4.4 Barriers to Selecting Sustainable Materials
There were many more barriers to the use of sustainable materials than there
were drivers, both existing and perceived. As described above, although the
client is seen as a driver in some cases, they are currently rarely specifying
their use and therefore acting as the main barrier.
153
4.4.4.1 Client
Most designers had never been or rarely asked by their clients to consider
sustainable materials; ‘it’s bizarre because even though we work with
companies who claim to be green so to speak. It’s not even considered’
(Designer Three). The clients perceive sustainable materials as too
expensive and are not interested because they lack education regarding the
issues. Two designers stated that some product types were more likely to
consider sustainable materials, one being medical devices and the other Fast
Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG), but both still rarely. Two designers have
some motivated clients; one benchmarks new products to be better than the
last product or competitors, whilst another has a policy where every new
product must have a 10% lower environmental impact than its predecessor.
Three designers explained that client motivation varies depending on the
clients’ location. Designer Six finds sustainability is not a concern to
American clients but Dutch and Swiss clients are most likely to request
benchmarks and are well informed as to what is possible, what the process
involves and set a requirement for it. Whereas British and American
companies are ‘less aware of what is possible, fear the possible impact on
the bottom line and so don’t request it or just don’t know how to go about
requesting it’ (Designer Six). Designer Two finds that for medical products,
especially packaging, there is a difference of opinions depending on the
client location. German clients, unlike American, include it as a very
important factor whilst American clients are more concerned with the look
and feel. An example given was the choice between cardboard and plastic
for packaging boxes; the American clients tend to choose plastic, because it
feels more durable, expensive and pleasurable whereas European clients
view it as wasteful.
Two designers cited their business model as a contributing barrier because
they do not want to alienate clients and lose work. Designer Seven explained
that an oversaturation of design consultancies in the UK meant their turnover
last year was very low; the pressure of finding clients meaning they do not
154
want to risk losing them by overemphasising sustainability. They do not
believe that marketing themselves as a sustainable designer would enable
them to survive. Designer Six agrees; their business model makes it difficult
because it is fee per service and they have to follow what the client wants,
which tends to be cost-focused. They fear losing clients if they push
sustainable materials: ‘If we say it’d be nice to use bamboo for the casework,
then they’d say don’t be silly, we are not using you again’ (Designer Six).
The clients are focused on cost, they will only choose something which is
more sustainable if it is not more expensive. Designer Three finds clients are
not interested yet:
We are not pushed to choose sustainable materials, I know damn
well that 90% of our clients don’t give a damn, they just want short
term. The truth is if I went to any of our clients they’d all say too
expensive, you know people don’t want it yet, people aren’t
interested. They are more interested in the money in their pocket,
because actually we are not educated about the issues (Designer
Three).
Designer Four also views it as a future issue that ‘you can’t really rush’ but
with time, research and development, it will increase and ‘gradually feed its
way into the world’.
4.4.4.2 Finding and Understanding Information
Knowing what sustainable materials exist and their availability is seen as a
barrier for many. Designer One said that availability is especially a problem if
the product is being made where they often do not have the latest materials,
such as China. Specifying materials in China is a barrier as they do not use
named plastics like Bayer or GE but use a local equivalent. By not using
named plastics there can be issues with certification to ensure the
specification is correct. There is a strong tendency to use what they know,
which stops the adoption of new plastics with sustainable benefits. If the
material needs importing, then the competitive advantage is lost. The
155
complexity of issues was often expressed as a barrier along with the
confusing and contradictory views as to what is sustainable. It was often hard
to find the truth, necessitating a lot of research to find the answer. Designer
Five disagrees with biodegradable plastic and, instead, thinks plastic should
be kept in circulation:
with oil resources being finite, we have a certain amount of plastic
in the world, we need to keep literally recycling that plastic in use
almost because you don’t want to throw away (…) so it is very
very complex (Designer Five).
Interestingly, Designer Five does not think biodegradable plastics are a good
solution; Designer Seven, however, expressed an interest in learning about,
and using, biodegradable plastics. Designer Three believes a lack of
education is a problem, matched with over-hyped media attention:
‘The truth is all this green thing is rammed in your face in such a
way that people think it’s just panic and it’s not that bad. You know
I think that’s what half the people think, that the world will sort itself
out and we will be fine. It’s just people trying to panic us into being
greener (Designer Three).
4.4.4.3 Disassembly and Recycling
Designers mentioned applying design for disassembly techniques and the
application of material labels for recycling, but feared that products were not
being properly recycled anyway. This was due to lack of control as to where
the product ends its life and recycling technologies vary by location. One
designer tends to use plastics which are classed as group 7 (other plastics),
for which they do not believe recycling infrastructure exists.
There was concern that sustainable materials may be viewed as inferior,
especially recycled compared to virgin, and some designers agreed with this
belief. Designer Five likes the properties attainable with reinforced plastics
but the poor recyclability mean they lose value at end of life because they are
156
down-cycled into low grade material due to a lack of separation and recycling
technology.
4.4.4.4 Cost
Cost is seen as a barrier by the majority but one designer can see beneficial
cost reductions by minimising waste and transportation:
It is often the case though, that lower environmental impact goes
with a lower cost when it is done right and the facilities are
handled intelligently and that’s just because waste always has a
cost (…) There is no need for us to make this thing in this country,
ship it across the world to this country, ship it back to this country
to be painted, ship it over there for welding (Designer Six).
Cost is a particular issue when adopting a new material and/or process and
therefore clients can be nervous about taking the risk to try it:
I think that’s one of the frustrating things for me I guess because
there are a lot of exciting methods out there and new materials but
its having the chance to use them and having the clients willing to
risk the budget (Designer Two).
Three Designers assume that sustainable materials are not cost-effective
whilst Designer One knows some recyclable and biodegradable plastics are
expensive.
4.4.4.5 Legislation
Legislation was not given as a barrier by many and, overall, there was little
awareness of legislations that may affect material choices. Those described
were in relation to the avoidance of certain materials such as RoHS, ISO
standards and BN standards.
157
4.4.5 Moving Towards a Sustainable Approach to Material
Selection
Almost all designers wanted a web-based resource which is both simple and
fast to use but also access to material samples so they can handle and play
with the materials. One request was made for a system which sent monthly
sample updates to designers. Samples were requested of the material preand post-forming. Requests were also made for product examples utilising
the materials; one designer explained how a product break down was
presented at an Envirowise seminar to educate and was very helpful.
Designer Two would like to have a large selection of choices available via a
database:
It all goes back to sourcing the materials. I guess we have to make
the effort ourselves to an extent, but a designer’s dream, I think, is
to have a huge database, a network of choices. There is nothing
better than having lots of choices for materials, that would be
fantastic. That would be wonderful (Designer Two).
Presentation would require good photographs and descriptions of the
cosmetic and technical properties. Alongside aesthetic aspects, a number of
designers said they would need technical data and material properties with
comparable information so they could see the benefits and drawbacks of the
materials.
Although most designers requested support, Designer One did not feel it
necessary for designers because they know there are materials out there but
instead they want suppliers to change. They would like the suppliers to
promote their sustainable materials, such as recycled and biodegradable
materials and help designers clearly explain the cost implications. The
educational need came up a number of times. Designer Seven wants support
to increase their understanding in order to bring up sustainability with clients
and sell the idea to them. A number of designers would like a resource to be
aimed at clients and customers, educating and engaging them to increase
their desire to use sustainable materials.
158
There was a general consensus that a resource that allowed easy
communication between designers and the stakeholders involved would be
beneficial; such as in the form of a wiki, blog, forum or online network.
Designer Seven works in isolation and would like a resource that connects
them with other people. Most designers make contact with experts such as
suppliers and moulders to aid material selection so this would be vital for
selecting sustainable materials. Designer Six, however, sees calling up
experts as a ‘clunky’ approach, instead an increased awareness of the issues
would mean expert assistance is only required on rare occasions. Designer
Seven would like to be able to get in contact with specialists but from a
neutral party, for example, not linked or sponsored by a petrochemical
company.
Some interesting insights from designers regarding how they want to interact
with a resource are shown in Table 4.4. A number of designers see the
opportunities networking could bring to sustainable material selection and the
benefits of others’ thoughts and recommendations. Designer Four likes the
idea of sharing materials online to download into CAD packages and
subsequently render designs to visualise the finish. Designer Three,
however, thinks a lack of time will stop designers contributing because they
are not engaged enough yet.
Table 4.4 Views on the interactive opportunities of a resource
| Designer One | ‘I think the networking idea could potentially be quite a good one in that its quite a popular medium for transferring information now and it certainly works. I am on one called Fabberf market, which connects designers and manufacturers and it’s quite interesting to see how people sort of start groups and conversations. You do find information that way and make new contacts’ |
| Designer Two | ‘It would be interesting to see what other people have thought of materials that they’ve chosen in the past. So I can imagine that it could grow in that way and you could |
159
| make recommendations on your choices’ | |
| Designer Four | ‘I think the way some CAD (Computer Aided Design) packages work, or rendering packages work you can download a new material if you upload a material of yours, so if you look at it in a similar way, something like that if it was done on the internet. Some kind of website where you can get together and discuss things, or shares your experiences I think that would be fairly useful’ |
| Designer Five | ‘I think it would be great if it was a wiki type thing so that it was, it was actually, you know once It was set up it was really grown and evolved by its users. But you would have to have some pretty tough moderators….because you would get an awful lot of wacky weirdness turning up which you would have to strip out all the time’ |
4.4.6 Interview Conclusions
From the interviews it is possible to identify some preliminary findings.
Designers’ material selection is often based upon experience either personal,
colleagues’ or experts’ opinions. Most designers use experts in the form of
moulders, suppliers and manufacturers whom they contact for advice.
Finding information which is relevant and up-to-date to enable material
selection was a common problem. Some mentioned that the format suppliers
provide information is not in line with what information they require as a
designer. A key barrier is for the designer knowing where to go to find the
necessary information. One designer works with the Materials KTN and so
they have access to it, but explained that anyone has access, if they know
about it. It is interesting that they comment that designers probably do not
know about the services they offer.
Most designers were aware of issues of sustainability but it was rarely a
factor when selecting materials. Most said they were rarely asked by clients
to factor it in, with some having never been asked. A few designers
commented that client location affected their interest in sustainability and that
160
clients in the EU and Nordic countries were more motivated and
knowledgeable than American clients. The product type also affected the
inclusion of sustainable principles in material selection. Another driver is
often personal and related to the individual designer’s awareness of the
issues and desire to factor them into their designs. Tied into this is a belief by
some that the recycling system is not fully in place and so material choice
makes little or no impact at the end of life.
Many designers perceived the idea of pushing sustainable materials as a
way to lose clients and, in some cases, have been laughed at for proposing
the idea. There is also a perception that sustainable materials would be more
expensive and also lose clients. There was a general consensus that clients
are not interested, but meeting the clients’ requirements was key, therefore
sustainability was not a consideration.
There was confusion regarding sustainable materials owing to the complexity
of issues and amount of contradictory information being portrayed. There
was an overall lack of knowledge and understanding in terms of sustainable
materials. Often designers struggled with answers but gave examples and
analogies of issues related to sustainability and misinformation. Most
designers view sustainable materials as something they should be
considering, but it is not currently an issue. The need for education came up
often, with many saying that education is needed for the designers and the
client. Some designers want to improve their knowledge so they can sell the
idea to clients whilst other would like a resource to market the idea to clients
and engage them. Designers incur a number of barriers, including: cost,
business models, clients, education/knowledge, “it is not a consideration”,
complexity of issues, future issue, perception, time and recyclability.
Many designers expressed a desire to know more about material
sustainability and the desire to try new materials but it appears designers
often stick to a few materials that they know. Most designers would like webbased support, providing an interactive platform. Networking and sharing of
161
ideas and experience was seen as a good idea by most designers. The need
for samples was seen as important by many, ideally, product parts so they
could see the finish post-forming, or at least good quality images online. A
number of requirements were given in order to enable the inclusion of
sustainability in material selection; cost data, availability, up-to-date,
digestible format, educational for clients and designers. The topics of client
and personal interest were further explored but shall be pursued in relation to
how they affect the application of sustainable materials in practice. A new
topic identified, to be explored further, is the influence of the business model
and how that affects sustainable material selection. It appears that what is
key to designers currently is comprehensive education aimed at both
themselves and the client to enable informed choices by both parties.
Without the client on board the designer often cannot emphasise issues such
as sustainability so it is key that the client is engaged in material
sustainability.
4.5 Scoping Study Conclusions
The need for a resource to provide education for designers and clients, whilst
also helping engage clients in the topic of sustainable materials, was
highlighted in both stages of the scoping study. Both stages highlighted that
material selection involves a number of people and is often not the sole
decision of the designer. The subject of the client or customer was
highlighted often but further studies are required in order to explore who else
influences decision-making and the pressures that affect them. Further work
is required to explore the use of sustainable materials in mass manufacture
and who influences their selection. If education is required for the client,
maybe other members of the selection team require education and support
too in order to enable industrial designers to select sustainable materials.
Those questioned so far have had limited experience of selecting sustainable
materials for mass manufacture and provided answers based on
preconceptions or influences of the media as opposed to first-hand
experience. Further work shall be designed to understand the practicalities of
162
this topic. This may be problematic as many viewed sustainable materials as
a future issue and the use of them currently within mass manufacture is
limited. But, following these studies, it would be useful to explore in more
detail what is required by a company to enable the use of sustainable
materials in mass manufacture and how this has been achieved.
163
5 Main Study: Sustainable Materials in Mass
Manufacture
This chapter outlines the findings from four case studies of companies who
are actively engaging with sustainable materials in mass manufacture.
Presented within this chapter are the findings of this study along with
conclusions drawn.
5.1 Introduction
Both the literature review and scoping studies were unable to establish a
clear understanding of how sustainable materials are used in massmanufacture. The main study was designed in order to examine this gap in
knowledge. Four companies who are already using, or attempting to use,
sustainable materials were studied to understand how this has been
facilitated. The study also examined the material selection process and
identified how industrial designers could be supported to facilitate the use of
sustainable materials. The study involved participants from different job roles,
not just designers, as previous studies showed material selection involved
many people. It investigated in detail the drivers for, and barriers to, the use
of sustainable materials, including how business models and personal
interests influenced selection.
Four companies were identified following a review of company publications.
Each company had to meet at least three of the four key criteria previously
identified, these were:
Working in a mass-manufacture company
Having a UK design base
Currently using sustainable materials
Involved in the design and manufacture of consumer products
The participants involved in the study and their job roles can be viewed in
Figure 3.3 (page 118) and Appendix V (page 347). This chapter explores the
following key research questions:
164
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection
during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products?
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials?
Who is involved in making material selection decisions?
How is a sustainable material defined?
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the
material selection process?
5.2 Defining a Sustainable Material
Part of the interview process required interviewees to read the sustainable
material definition, derived from the literature and scoping study, before being
asked to reflect and comment on the statement. The definition given was as
follows:
A sustainable material has been considered for its entire lifecycle
to ensure a closed loop. It uses resources efficiently from a
renewable, abundant or recycled origin and minimises its impact
on the environment and society during its life. A sustainable
material is one which has been chosen over another because it
has preferable sustainable properties in line with the definition.
There was general agreement with the definition from all companies, but
each company questioned different parts of the definition. Companies A and
C would like a reference to commercial aspects, such as cost. Companies C
and D did not like the inclusion of the term closed loop as it does not
differentiate between recycling and downcycling. One interviewee was of the
opinion that the energy used in the collection and recycling of materials may
outweigh the energy recovered, whilst incineration can be very efficient with
chemical escape controlled (C3). Interviewees at Company D think recycling
into a similarly high level application can be difficult because there are often
high quality and performance requirements which recycled material may not
meet. One interviewee questioned if it is possible to define a sustainable
material due to varying measures for quantifying and handling trade-offs.
Similarly, two interviewees at different companies questioned how it is
165
possible to judge if one material is more sustainable than another. The
product development manager felt that, although on paper many options may
appear possible, ‘actually I believe that you know in your heart you know
there is one’ (A5).
Company A focuses on product quality, product longevity and a cradle to
cradle approach. One interviewee felt that goals should be stretched to drive
innovation, with the term ‘minimising’ impact changed to zero or beneficial.
Company B also considers sustainable materials in terms of longevity of
product use. It was felt the definition lacks references to product application
which could impact lifecycle and commercial aspects, such as cost. The
definition could also be material-dependent.
At Company C although most agreed with the definition, it was thought that it
lacks references to traceability and material sourcing, ideally with certification
or accreditation to prove it. Company C follows the general hierarchy of
reduce, reuse, and recycle to demonstrate what is the best approach but
alongside considerations for cost, brand values and customer awareness.
Company D has created its own definition; it tends to work predominantly on
recycled plastics, natural and renewable materials whilst a separate team
work on recycled metals. There was concern that recycled has different
interpretations, covering both post-consumer and post-industrial. The
definition could be interpreted differently by different people as they pursue
certain materials, but it could also be industry-or product-specific.
5.3 The Material Selection Process
All four companies agreed that material selection must occur as early as
possible, to ensure the highest level of impact before key decisions have
been made. Company A enables this by using a high level of investment
early on with the designer and Research and Development (R+D); ‘the
money that goes into any product is in R and D. It is front loaded, always
front loaded. It is difficult to go back and re-do something once it is out there’
166
(A6). The Company has four teams of Research and Development resources
worldwide. Early investment ensures good design and engineering facilitating
disassembly and innovative design to avoid over-engineering. Considerations
regarding recycled content and recyclability are made early, before the
prototype stage. For Company C forecasting future trends is an early
consideration using ‘style guides’ to forecast usually 18 months ahead (C3).
Within Company A the designers and engineers are supported by the Design
for Environment (DfE) team based in the USA who provide material
information, guidance and help to source suppliers. The DfE team have a
database for existing material compositions and work directly with suppliers
to identify material composition for new materials. The DfE process
integrates the selection of sustainable materials into the engineers’ role and
includes internal targets for recyclability, toxicity and disassembly. The
Commercial Environment Manager communicates material feedback from
the sales, marketing and commercial teams to the DfE team. Marketing often
gets involved by giving feedback and asking questions such as ‘can we have
this or do that or is this possible? We get a lot of questions come back to us;
usually it is “can we make it more environmentally friendly?”’ (A7). Company
A uses an internal material database and maintains materials research
connections to stay at the forefront, using Material Connexion (Material
ConneXion, 2009a) and other specialist businesses and chemists.
Within Company B there was a conflict of opinion as to whether designers
make material selection decisions, or have the power to do so. One designer
felt they could do more to change that; ‘to be honest, I’m probably lazy as a
designer’ (B1). One industrial designer (B6) finds getting concepts through
initial meetings is already strenuous and so they expect the responsibility to
be taken by someone else later on. As a designer, B6 prioritises material
aesthetics but references experts for environmental impact, often outside of
the UK. Another designer cites using experts but internally, such as the
environmental manager (EM) and approvals; ‘99 times out of a hundred they
will know the answer and if they don’t they will take it as an action and say I
167
will find out for you, it is not for us to hunt for the material’ (B4). Company B
have created the role of EM who has sole responsibility as opposed to a
shared purpose amongst employees (B6). Sustainable material selection
normally involves the EM, who has the responsibility along with quality and
approvals and finally the engineers, who do not have responsibility but it
‘depends on their own initiative’ (B6). Also involved are engineers and
manufacturers in the UK and Hong Kong. Projects are often based on a
previous product, with 70% of projects tending to be evolutionary with an
attached history and inherited materials (B3).
At Company C material selection may involve: the product development
team, (brand manager, marketing), the commercial team (buyers, sourcing,
supplier selection, the development team (project managers, packaging
technologists, formulators, graphic designers, and design agencies), the
technical team (polymer, material and formulation specialists), people from
traceability of natural ingredients, senior directors, marketing and public
relations. The Sustainable Design Manager (SDM, C1) is responsible for
product sustainability and sustainable sourcing, their role is to ‘bridge
between what is going on externally – what are the external policies, what the
influences from our stakeholders are’ (C1). Many use the Sustainable
Development Manager (C1) as their first point of contact for sustainability
queries. One technical consultant (C2) advises on the safety and legal
aspects of metals, ceramics and glass whilst another (C3) advises on plastics
and chemicals; and liaises with external stakeholders such as the
government, Wrap, and charities.
The packaging technologist (C4) believes designers are concerned more with
the aesthetics and so cannot be expected to understand everything; they
work with designers to help them understand sustainability and the
companies’ attitudes. There is a need to create links between the designers
and technical experts to ensure feasibility. Company C has identified 21 key
areas as part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy with a
manager responsible for each area.
168
At Company D material selection starts with either the prototyping of a part to
test and prove a material, or by looking at an existing part and finding
sustainable alternatives, with a tendency towards the latter approach. Their
process was described as ‘very manual’ and poorly run with a lot of material
information stored on a spread sheet (D1), described as a ‘library of all
materials that we could potentially use’ (D2). The library is updated by
materials engineers and one employee (D3), providing a link to the materials
engineering department. They research ‘really wacky materials’ (D3) with a
view to using them in the future, maybe five or ten years, whilst focusing on
more tangible materials at the very early stages of the design process. The
team also works with the Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT)
leaders who set the targets and future strategy. Component and material
engineers and suppliers are involved, as they will know requirements and
regulations for materials that the sustainability team may be unaware of.
The sustainability team work with people in senior management, engineers,
design, colour, trim and perceived quality in teams of two, one person from
attributes and one from materials. The design department are ‘very open to
doing what we suggest’ (D3) and keen, they are ‘really up for it’ (D4) but it is
also dependent on aesthetics and feasibility. They explain to the departments
the need to assess against the six pillars of sustainability that the company
have identified; weight efficiency, materials, end of life, recycling and the
whole life-cycle approach. They then help generate ideas and have a few
material samples such as bamboo reinforced PP, flax reinforced PP and
recycled polyester fabric which they use to gain support and interest.
5.4 The Selection and Application of Sustainable Materials
This section explores the strategies the companies currently employ to
enable the use of sustainable materials in their design process. All four
companies have created strategies to integrate sustainable material
selection:
Company A predominantly through the application of the DfE process
and McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) certification
169
Company B includes sustainability review as part of regular checkpoint
meetings, with the EM in attendance to question sustainable materials
Company C integrates sustainability into each products ‘general
requirements’ document and assess sustainability through its foot
printing tool
Company D has a sustainable attributes and materials team who have
created a process of approaching the senior engineer in order to create
working groups to ensure they can get involved early on and influence
the design process.
5.4.1 Avoiding Hazardous Materials
Three of the companies mentioned avoiding hazardous materials and
processes with two companies also avoiding scarce materials. Commonly
named materials and processes were heavy metals, PVC, silicon and
chrome plating. Company B also gave lead, gold and mercury as materials it
avoids whilst minimising the use of polycarbonate, BPA and some nylons due
to forthcoming legislation. Company A was the only company to remark on
the problem of heavy metals in pigments, describing this as one of its worst
and biggest challenges. Company A uses the DfE system to highlight
materials to avoid, only using red scored materials when there is no viable
alternative and only following approval and sign off. Company C is aware of
the varying issues associated with PVC and tries to avoid it where possible
and advises others to follow but sometimes finds no viable alternative. It is
also working with a University to create a system of algorithms to assess
ingredients on its environmental phase and has developed a red and amber
list of ingredients to feed into its foot printing model.
170
5.4.2 Life-Cycle Assessment and Foot Printing
Company A has developed the DfE tool to evaluate the chemistry,
disassembly and recyclability; providing a preliminary evaluation to gain
confidence before applying for McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry
(MBDC) certification. The DfE scores material chemistry via a traffic light
system; green, yellow, orange and red, with red being the worst. All
engineers are responsible for using the DfE system, using their own
experience and knowledge to handle material selection trade-offs. The DfE
tool assesses material chemistry in more depth than MBDC, as far down as
100 parts per million, which can make scores appear worse than they really
are due to the harmful ingredients detected at these levels, even if the levels
are too low to be of concern. They are considering the integration of carbon
foot-printing into the DfE to give another impact factor alongside MBDC.
Company C has also created its own tool, a foot-printing tool to measure and
understand the product sustainability; ‘right from conception of the material
right through its use, its disposal and its recyclability back to being reused
again’ (C1). The company could not find an existing ‘off the shelf
sustainability model’ that matched its requirements; ‘I think one of the
important things to get across is you won’t just have a one size fits all’ (C3).
No tool existed with adequate detail; the company wanted a tool to
incorporate all 24 aspects they had identified, including consumer and end of
life impact. The company also struggled with changing issues; ‘there is no
rule book…that’s why we’ve invested in the models because you can’t…[say]
you will use this and not this but it doesn’t apply to the range of products
we’re selling (C1). Existing LCA tools were seen as too time-consuming; the
requirement was a ‘fast to use’ tool to enable product development teams to
do ‘“what if?” scenarios without a high level of understanding, recognising
that employees are not ‘sustainability experts’ (C1). The tool is building up
statistics and understanding of current practice but it does not direct future
practice. The tool is used internally with champions in each team and is
based on making assumptions and applying real data when available. It can
go wrong, it may appear that product light weighting is ideal when another
171
factor may necessitate heavier glass, it is not ‘grounded in reality’ (C4).
Carbon is not considered separately as Company C use a holistic approach
but the company is working on a project to carbon footprint an entire product
supply chain, measuring all the suppliers’ manufacturing processes.
Some employees at Company D use GaBi LCA software (GaBi, 2012). One
person (D3) has conducted a complete life-cycle for a whole vehicle using
this software, which took approximately two years to complete. Material
lifecycle analysis can help assist decision-making and handling trade-offs
because ‘certain materials have very good properties in some aspects but
not in all aspects’ (D3). The main environmental impact with cars is within the
use phase; therefore, the focus is on reducing the size and weight to reduce
energy required and increase efficiency.
5.4.3 Disassembly, Recyclability and Reuse
Company A is required to submit a disassembly time for MBDC but also has
an internal target of less than 30 seconds. It aims to simplify the disassembly
process to enable easy recycling and feels a responsibility to do this as a
producer. MBDC influences and encourages the avoidance of over moulding
to enable disassembly. The percentage of recyclable material is required for
DfE, MBDC, company publications, marketing and at times, tenders.
Recyclable materials are only as good as the system available to enable
recycling; ‘recyclable content; it’s just a figure, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean
anything, it depends on how likely it is and how able we are to recycle those
things’ (A4). Company B considers the necessity of paint and chrome
finishes as these contaminate the recycling process. Company B labels
product parts to enable identification and recycling, it is often done by the
supplier, with Company B only consulted on the location of the label. The
labelling of material parts is not seen as a beneficial label; ‘is just a bit pre
cursory…we made an effort so you can recycle it’ (B1). Recyclability is
considered by Company C as part of its life-cycle approach. One technical
consultant (C3), however, is unsure whether closed loop is always the correct
option, believing a full life-cycle analysis may find it is not ideal, especially if it
172
is down-cycled. Although keen to ensure recyclability there are unknowns
such as feasibility, cost impact and whether the recycling infrastructure and
technology exists to facilitate recycling. The foot-printing model is being used
to build up statistics for recyclable material as current usage levels are
unmeasured and they are eager to disclose statistics at a corporate level.
5.4.4 Legislation, Regulations and Standards
Company A is often ahead of legislation by adhering to the recommendations
of the MBDC framework and a high level of attention to detail; ‘our targets are
steps beyond legislation, so we should already be there’ (A1).
Most interviewees at Company B were not aware of any legislation affecting
the selection of sustainable materials but felt that the EM, quality and
approvals would know. Legislation named included the WEEE directive,
RoHS and REACH. They have recently attained the ISO 14001
environmental standard compliance which was described as vaguely
covering sustainability; ‘hidden in there is that we intend to design and
develop sustainable products which have a negative adverse impact on the
environment consistent with consumer demand’ (B2).
Company C considers legislation as a ‘growing issue’; it is led by brands and
is only ‘sitting on legislation’ (C4). Legislation for plastics requires recycled
plastics to meet the same framework requirements as virgin, safe guarding
the customer and covering migration testing. Wood and wood pulp (paper)-
related legislations and accreditations were mentioned, such as FSC, illegal
timber, Global Forest Trade Network; as well as working with the World
Wildlife Fund (WWF). A separate team work on the REACH legislation,
registering materials and ingredients. Three interviewees cited the use of
organic and fair-trade materials for certain branded products.
As Company D is an automotive manufacturer most interviewees mentioned
the Vehicle End of Life Directive (ELV), which aims to encourage
consideration for recycled content, renewable materials and recyclability. It
173
suggests, however, only that ‘manufacturers should increase content of
recycled materials’ but does not give specific figures, targets or increase
rates (D3). Employees study future legislation and the ‘landscape of
environmental development’ to identify where future regulation may occur
along with media reports (D3).
5.4.5 Light Weighting and Material Minimisation
The most important strategy to Company A is de-materialisation and
removing complexity. ‘Eco-dematerialisation’ was the key concept for an
outsourced designer involved on another product. Early investment ensures
good engineering to enable material minimisation.
At Company D weight minimisation is a major part of its lifecycle approach
and is often the first consideration, with anything that increases weight not
being an option. Weight reduction is important because the vehicles are all
assessed on tail pipe emissions; if this is negatively affected that material will
not be used. As well as the sustainability department, a specific department
focuses solely on reducing vehicle weight.
5.4.6 Local Sourcing and Source Identification
Company A sources locally to where its products are manufactured and
distributed. For Company C knowing the material source and traceability is
important; ‘because some materials, depending on the source, can be
sustainable or unsustainable’ (C1). Palm oil is considered to be problematic
as it is often a blend of oils from different locations, but the company is aware
other materials are becoming a problem due to population pressures.
5.4.7 Product Longevity, Durability And Long Warranty
Company A gives a 12 year warranty, which is considered by one employee
as the ‘most important on the environmental side’ (A4), and is only possible
because it selects the right materials to enable product longevity.
174
The warranty offered by Company A is superior to that of competitors:
‘All the chairs have a 12 year warranty, for 24/7 use and that is
completely unrivalled in the market place. A typical warranty would
be 5 years single shift use, so if a call centre, for example,
operated 3 shifts a day, that would whittle down to one and half
years’ (A2)
Company A applies rigorous product testing, to a higher level than industry
dictates, ‘we are particularly hard on ourselves to make it a robust product’
(A7). Durability is one of five core concepts for seating, along with design,
environmental stewardship, choice and comfort. Company A sells the lifetime
benefits of its products as opposed to one-off cost. One product was
described as creating ‘flexibility’ and a built-in ‘cost of ownership’ via
investment in parts which enable numerous configurations (A4).
Company B also considers sustainability in terms of ‘how long the product
through its life remains durable’ (B2) and selects materials for product
longevity and durability. Durability was identified as a core value of the brand,
with products known for being handed down through generations. There is a
preference for real metal as opposed to cheaper chromed plastic mouldings;
‘to have durability built into our products and the image of our products, our
consumers and our customers like to have something which is metal and
solid’ (B2). Quality is ‘very very big on the agenda’, and the company has
stringent quality methods which they have found competitors’ products to fail
(B4). It was felt that marketing could do more; ‘Personally I think we should
make more of this sustainability through durability; that should be our kind of,
almost our strap line’ (B4).
Both Company A and B create high quality products which have a high resale
value and second-hand market with independent companies offering
refurbishment.
175
5.4.8 Recycled Content
For Company A, recycled content is ‘something we always do’ (A4). The
majority of tenders will ask for recycled content percentages; ‘every single
chair that we put onto the market is coming from a percentage of recycled
content and has a percentage obviously of recyclability’ (A8). Although keen
to use 100% recycled steel it is not readily available and currently inefficient.
Aluminium pressure die casting contains about 75-85% recycled content,
both pre-and post-consumer but no post-consumer is used in polymers.
Similarly, Company B only uses factory regrind, specifying it only for nonimportant areas, not for cosmetic or engineering components. One Senior
Industrial Designer, however, questions how much recycled content is
achieved, ‘I think to truly know how much recycled materials go back into the
products you need to be China side on the ground’ (B4).
Company C has worked with the Government and the Waste and Resources
Action Programme (WRAP). It is keen to use more recycled plastics but
struggles to locate good quality plastics currently available in the UK to reuse
in primary applications. It has only established sources for recycled HDPE,
polythene, hard PETs and polyester PETS but has found there are no
recycled streams for PVCs or ABS. PET is considered a good choice and
readily recycled ‘it’s very common in the marketplace, It’s got very good,
pretty much, pretty good environmental profile…recycled content may even
be up to 100%’ (C3). The use of recycled content plastics is dependent on
the ‘availability and maturity of the sustainable supply chain’ (C1). Recycled
content to Company C denotes post-consumer; and has been defined
accordingly to steer sourcing.
As a premium vehicle manufacturer, Company D is continually looking for a
good source of recycled materials. Akin to Company C, Company D has also
written a definition to differentiate between recycled and regrind plastic, with
recycled covering post-consumer or post-industrial plastic and requiring
reprocessing at least once to change its physical properties. This is to ensure
scrap levels do not increase and so lead to increased recycled content
176
figures. Guidance is provided on recycled materials, with support from
material engineering experts. Previously, recycled materials were only used
in three low-level applications. The cabin area is where the company can
often use the most recycled content currently such as recycled content
carpets and seat fabrics. A separate department focuses specifically on
utilising recycled metals within the body of the vehicle. Recent funding is
being used to research how to close the loop of the aluminium body to reuse
in their vehicles.
5.4.9 Renewable, Natural and Bio Based Materials
Company D is trying to define rules and a strategy for renewable materials;
the term “natural” is clearly understood but not all renewable materials are
natural, or necessarily environmentally preferable. It does not want to be
associated with using bio based materials which are part of the food chain,
instead it uses by-product materials. It wants to do more research to use
biopolymers with a by-product such as orange oil or orange peel in its tyres.
However it is very difficult to get suppliers to divulge materials sources.
5.4.10 Social Issues
Company A applies social considerations as part of the MBDC which audits a
company on its workplace to assess social issues such as employee working
times, conditions, and air quality. The original company policy focused on
environmental stewardship but is being updated to include factors of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), due to employees, dealers and
customers; ‘Social responsibility now is the key word for everyone. Within
that environmental concerns must be addressed as a very important part of
that but it is not the whole story. It is the whole story we are trying address’
(A6).
177
5.4.11 Suppliers
Both companies A and C audit their suppliers; Company A covers
sustainable criteria and a requirement to share sourcing strategies whilst
Company C covers quality, ethical and sustainability issues. Company A
explains the requirements early on; ‘at the first meeting, one of the aspects
that we put across to the suppliers are environmental requirements and
where we aim to, where we would expect them to be, in order be a suitable
supplier to [our company]’ (A1). Suppliers are supported to enable them to
meet the criteria or change for the future.
Both companies A and C describe close working relationships with their
suppliers along with the need to educate them. Company A uses
presentations to educate suppliers about sustainable materials and ‘give
them confidence in what we are trying to do’ (A5). It often struggles to
encourage suppliers to share sensitive information about their company,
sourcing, and material recipe which often impedes the DfE. Tracing materials
information may incur a chain of suppliers and distributors impeding the
collection of material information. This has created a tendency to use the
same suppliers whom are known to cooperate and also enables a good
working relationship. Company C has built up internal knowledge on
sustainability and recycling, which it has used to approach suppliers and say
‘we can do it, why can’t you?’ (C3). It works with a number of suppliers on
recycled plastics to ensure that if prices changed it would not be locked in to
a certain supplier. A team of ‘lean’ coaches works with its key suppliers to
‘educate them to try and make things lean’ (C3). The term lean is used to
denote improving efficiency within the production and the elimination of
inefficient processes. The role of one technical consultant (C2) is to
understand when things go wrong and work out how to improve it and ‘drive
out inefficiencies in our supplier chain’ whilst supporting and advising
colleagues.
178
5.5 The Drivers for Using Sustainable Materials
A number of different divers were experienced by the four companies and
their employees; these shall be detailed in this section.
5.5.1 Awareness and Education
Three of the companies have a key person responsible for sustainability that
interviewees pointed to as raising awareness and driving education:
| Company A. Company B. Company C. |
Commercial Environment Manager (A6) Environmental manager Sustainable Development Manager (C1). |
Company A has noticed a change in client conversations; showroom tours
might now be solely focused on sustainability and sustainable materials.
Design briefs are written internally, encompassing feedback from
consultation with dealers and customers to understand the market. Feedback
from the client and architects on a recent lost project was used to create a
brief. Companies A, C and D cited customer awareness and education as
increasing, ‘people are becoming more and more open to it’ due to improved
education (A1).
Company B appointed the Environmental Manager approximately three years
ago, since this time the Director of Design (B3) believes the subject has
become more internally driven, as opposed to just externally via legislation.
At Company C the role of the SDM (C1) is to influence and raise awareness
within the company, including designers and developers.
5.5.2 Brand Values and Education
For most of the companies their brand is their company, the company
influences are described in section 5.5.3. Company C is the exception,
working with both internal and external brands. All interviews at Company C
expressed that the use of sustainable materials is brand-dependent, ‘it’s very
much brand led’ (C4). Different objectives are set accordingly; ‘we have to
tease out what’s driving the value for each of our brands’ (C1). It is also
179
dependent on the consumer; ‘their level of awareness and if they’re an ecoaware person then they may be looking at percentages’ (C4).
Minimum standards are being devised for each brand to drive their
sustainable material strategies. All interviewees described one of the internal
company brands as utilising more sustainable materials, whilst being
considered their ‘flagship for more sustainable products’ (C2). This brand is
used to trial materials, it was the first brand to use recycled PET before
applying it to other brands, allowing commercial factors to be addressed. All
interviewees said they struggle with designer brands; these tend to be more
interested in aesthetics and cost. Part of the education process is to ensure
that brand owners understand what Company C is attempting to do. A key
part is to understand the brand values and what is meaningful to the brand’s
customers. The company has found that brand managers are concerned to
use recycled PET in case of cost increases and poor aesthetics. One of the
internal brands is aimed at young teenagers, whom one technical consultant
(C3) perceives as disinterested in environmental issues. The packaging
technologist disagrees, however, believing that this brand could try different
things because the ‘younger ones are more aware of environmental issue’
(C4). Sustainable material use is also dependent on the brands’ ability to
communicate to their customers, maybe through blogs and websites
explaining what the brand is doing.
5.5.3 The Company
Companies A, B and C all have long-standing reputations and heritage for
being environmentally conscious. Company A has built a reputation on
quality, innovation and environment and created a constant awareness due
to its company policies. The heritage of Company B was described as
fortunate, it started with ‘quite ethical products, in terms of sustainability
because they were so simple, recyclable etc, very low technology and so on’
(B3). The company has a Design Ethos Statement, ‘which describes our
vision for the total beauty of sustainability of our products’ (B2). The company
did not advertise for the first 12-15 years but relied on good quality and long
180
lasting products to be sold by word of mouth and creating a good reputation.
Similarly Company C has strong sustainability aspirations, ‘sustainability is
definitely on their radar because they know [our company] must have a
sustainable agenda’ (C4). Sustainable materials are being pushed because it
is good for the company but also it is what their customers expect.
At Company A sustainable materials were described as the only option; it is a
given due to the company’s strong environmental message; ‘It makes
common sense and perfect sense to us to use sustainable materials’ (A6).
Material composition is submitted to the DfE team in the US and so the
selection of sustainable materials is ‘an inherent process we are driven to do’
(A1). Similarly A4 said ‘there is that underlying principle of, “We’re not going
to launch a product if it’s not environmentally friendly”’. Sustainable materials
are taken seriously and everyone is aware because it is ‘so ingrained in the
culture’ (A2). Likewise at Company B, sustainable materials are ‘inherent’ in
what it does and has ‘an element of sub-consciousness in it because it
comes up in terms of conversation’ (B3). For the high end products metal is
‘pre-ordained’ and it is fortunate that they can do so, compared to brands
who cannot afford to use metal (B1).
The UK head office for Company A is built to meet both BREEAM (Europe)
and LEED (USA) certification; BREEAM is the Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method for buildings (BRE Global,
2012) and LEED is a certification for Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (U.S. Green Building Council, 2011). This assists
employee awareness of sustainability due to its design. Everyone has a
detailed induction which includes a tour of the building. The sustainable
message applies to the whole company; ‘It’s not just about our product it’s
about the way we do business and about the way people work and how they
get to work’ (A4).
Companies A and C both spoke of internal courses run to educate
employees regarding sustainability and sustainable materials, whilst at
181
Company D employees have been offered external master’s modules. One
employee (D1) completed a one-week course entitled Sustainable Product
Design at Loughborough University.
5.5.3.1 Internal Targets and Initiatives
At Company B the CSR strategy drives the use of sustainable materials by
creating overall targets. The CSR strategy has identified ‘21 strands of
activity’ but there are also three priorities at the top, reducing carbon impact
as a business, healthy lifestyles and product sustainability. The CSR strategy
encourages employees, along with a product sustainability strategy launched
in 2010 ‘that specifies as you go down in to it increasing levels of detail about
what we’re expecting on lead sustainable materials’ (C1). There are a
number of company policies on different materials and position statements.
Much documentation is available on the internal websites to educate and aid
employees. Company D sets targets by weight for “sustainable materials” in
its vehicles; one recent new vehicle had a target of 40kg. Company
encouragement involves recent Environmental Innovation (E.I.) drives with
response from senior levels improving and assisting to meet with the
necessary colleagues.
Company D has experienced staffing increases within the sustainability team
within the last eight months; ‘It’s a very quickly expanding department in
general, I think it is being taken a lot more seriously than it has done for a
while’ (D1). Six years ago there was only one person within the company (a
sustainability manager) strongly advocating environmental considerations.
Companies B and C have nominated people, Eco Warriors at Company B
and Environmental Champions at Company C. Eco Warriors work
predominantly to make changes to the site, including recycling bins,
automatic lights and duplex printing. These initiatives influence employees;
‘the whole issue is being elevated on the company agenda’ (B4). At
Company C Environmental Champions were created because the CSR team
wanted representatives from each area to support them. Overall, the team
182
numbers about 12, with three of those in packaging. Eco Champions are a
recent initiative within the last 6-8 months but their job will increase in time as
they ‘become the sustainable experts in how things work’ (C4).
Akin to Company B, Company D has experienced new internal initiatives
such as lighting timers and internal recycling. At Company D this has
changed peoples’ thinking as waste is now separated for recycling; ‘people
get really annoyed with all the bins, but it does make them think’ (D4). These
initiatives are thought to affect selection; ‘I think it gets them into a mind-set
that they don’t even think about it, they just do it, then when they’re looking at
material selection, they can perhaps see the reasons why to do it’ (D4).
5.5.4 Competitors
Within Company A, the Environmental Manager (A6) receives feedback from
sales such as: ‘What about this? Why aren’t we using this product? Why
aren’t we using this material? Our competitors use this material. Have you
heard about this that is coming up?’ (A6). At Company C, Brand Managers
may be prompted to question the use of sustainable materials having seen
competitors using them.
Company D is driven by competitors; ‘obviously as an industry everyone is
doing it, so we need to remain competitive, so we need to make sure that we
are doing it as well’ (D2). One automotive competitor is seen as the market
leader but has an advantage of greater volumes enabling leverage for more
expensive material choices. Company D studies other industries; building,
electronics, shoes, packaging and fashion, looking at ‘anything really, that
kind of appeals to people, because a car is just a bigger handbag isn’t it?’
(D3). Other industries offer product examples that colleagues can relate to,
such as the Nike World Cup Shirts which were made from recycled materials.
One engineer (D2), finds that a lot of product examples have only applied
sustainable materials at concept level but it is used as an indicator for future
direction and can be put in place once it is cost effective.
183
5.5.5 Cost and Increasing Prices of Resources
Cost is an important factor to all companies but at Company C it can be
brand-dependent. Some of the ‘value’ brand products score very highly in
terms of sustainability due to efforts made to minimise materials, transport,
cost and waste. The technical experts understand that increasing
sustainability can give cost improvements, so they work to influence the
fashion brands. They often aim to substitute recycled plastics for virgin, as it
is cheaper than changing tooling for light-weighting the product, which has
high capital investment. Lean principles are applied to streamline and save
money; ‘We’re like any other commercial company, cost is vitally important to
us, especially in the current economies and the price of raw materials is
increasing all the time’ (C1).
Both companies B and D cited increasing prices with finite resources as a
driver, specifically oil, creating a need to investigate alternatives. As research
and development, B5 feels part of their job is to ensure they are ready, they
would do this now as opposed to when they are forced to. Company D is
waiting for oil prices to rise significantly in order to become cost effective and
create the need to change. They are involved in research to ensure a swift
change when it becomes feasible. At Company D if a sustainable material
can offer a cost benefit it is likely to be adopted unless it increases the
product weight.
5.5.6 Marketing
Company A uses the MBDC certification as a marketing tool, it creates a
good environmental story. Marketing like statistics; each product launched
has a document showing statistics for recycled content, recyclability and
certification to show the story. The job of the EM (A6) covers both marketing
and technical aspects; it entails ‘knowledge management of the business and
how we inform and educate everyone else about what we do in the most
succinct and relevant way’. Company D also described the demand for
stories from marketing, who create ‘sustainability stories of substance’ to
project the product message (D2). A recent product launch included a ‘whole
184
story board of the recycled materials’ from the sustainability team. The team
find that it needs to work closely with marketing to ensure it gets the stories
right. Future products will have a paragraph relating to sustainable materials
in the marketing information. Marketing, however, does not think sustainable
materials would encourage a purchase but ‘it’s a nice thing to read’ and may
improve customers’ feelings about the impact of driving.
5.5.7 Personal Interest and Morals
All interviewees acknowledged a personal interest in sustainable materials,
citing this as a key factor influencing their jobs. Many interviewees described
personal conflict with current practice, such as encouraging consumerism
and design for obsolescence. At Company A, the Product Manager (A1)
described an ‘internal battle’ they feel is inherent as a product designer,
whilst an engineer (A3) described an ‘internal conflict’ due to encouraging
consumerism for unnecessary products. At Company B one product designer
(B1) described feeling ashamed by the company’s association with planned
obsolescence and encouraging consumerism. Having worked on fashion
driven products previously, product designer (B1) was keen to work for
Company B because they ‘knew it was a well-known brand and their
products are synonymous with great longevity’ (B1). Similarly, another
interviewee (B2) has a ‘personal hang up’ with the fashion side of the
business and questions why they design durable products for the company in
‘a whole range of colours in order to persuade customers’ to throw away their
old products’.
One product designer’s (B1) personal interest in sustainable materials is
based on longevity and aging with dignity; designing to create an emotional
attachment so even when it no longer works it is not thrown away because it
is a beautiful object. There is less guilt felt when using metals as opposed to
plastic, which will ‘never age with a lot of integrity’, the belief being that
plastics mean designing for recycling whereas metals allow product longevity
(B1).
185
All four companies have employees with strong personal interests, who
influence colleagues. Company C cited people within packaging, CSR and
formulation; within formulation are people with a personal interest in natural
ingredients and green chemistry. One person cannot influence the business
to make the changes alone, ‘you can’t do it from one person because they’ll
get tired of hearing it but if there are several of you then you can mix your
ideas and work together for that agenda’ (C4).
Technical Consultant (C2) cites working with the SDM (C1) as increasing
their understanding and awareness whilst also providing inspiration to read
and study the topic of sustainable materials. Similarly at Company D
respondents pointed towards the Sustainability Attribute Product Leader (D3)
as influencing them. One interviewee said: ‘she has great drive and I think it
is brilliant and I love working with her, because she is so passionate about
what she does’ (D1). Likewise another colleague said: ‘you can’t help but get
her enthusiasm of it’ (D4). Most employees at Company D said their interest
had grown since their job and it has pushed them to learn more.
Environmental impact was given as a driver by many respondents along with
a desire to have a positive impact. Respondents mentioned the need to
conserve the planet; ‘I think you have to look after the planet and make sure
that you do your bit’ (A2) whilst an industrial designer (B6) declared a
‘personal conviction that the planet is important and our personal success as
humanity and individual is completely linked to the success of the planet’.
Respondents at three companies (A, B, D) cited home life such as recycling,
children and grandchildren as influencing the way they think; Product
Designer (A1) feels it is a realisation that ‘whatever you’re doing now is
impacting on them’. For one respondent religion provides personal
convictions; ‘I think we have an obligation to future generations to observe
good stewardship. I’m a practising Christian and I believe that we have been
given stewardship of the Earth’ (C4).
186
University education was cited by all four companies’; Product Designer (A1)
cites university as instilling an ‘appreciation of materials’ but the education
promoted recyclability as opposed to sustainability. Interviewees at two
different companies (A, B) both feel younger engineers and designers will
have received more education on environmental issues. During university
education, Senior Industrial Designer (B4) studied sustainable design,
covering strategies such as design for disassembly, avoiding plating and
minimising screws but at work finds commercial considerations override the
ability to apply sustainable design. The personal interest of the SDM (C1)
was cited as evolving from a university education, studying geology and
biogeography; ‘understanding where things come from and how they’re
made’. Engineer (D5) completed a Masters dissertation on the Environmental
Air Quality within the car and this directed the engineer towards
environmental materials.
A personal interest in the outdoors such as conservation, gardening, walking
and the countryside was cited by many interviewees. Environment Engineer
(D1) cites a love of animals, walking and spending time outdoors:
The natural environment to me is something that I enjoy and I
want to preserve, so I suppose the closest to that for me was to do
that side of things, sustainable materials, preserving the natural
world (D1).
Respondents at all companies have found the need to self-educate, citing
general press, design press, books, MADE magazine and newsletters. At
Company C the SDM (C1) studied basic chemistry in order to understand
and work with colleagues whilst Environment Engineer (D1) researched
materials online. The SDM (C1) believes a constant education is required to
understand all the external influences and impacts, but feels that there is
nowhere to acquire the necessary education. At Company D the Project
Engineer (D5) feels self-education is important to gain extra knowledge to
help engage engineers. Graduate Engineer (D2) is very new to the role and
has found the need to embark on a ‘self-learning process’ by studying shared
187
files on the internal system and discussing materials with the materials team,
but has received no formal company training.
One technical Consultant (C3) has found that no one is driving the
consideration of sustainable materials from above, but they do it because
they personally think it is the right thing for the company and customers
expect it of the company. Similarly at Company D, although support from
above is one factor, overall it was felt that the sustainability team is driving
change; ‘I think our expansion in terms of seeing people and trying to get
these things on to the vehicles is purely down to us’ (D1).
5.6 The Barriers to Using Sustainable Materials
Material choice is often dictated by technical or aesthetic requirements. One
of the challenges Company D encounters is ensuring sustainable materials
meet the company’s premium image whilst breaking the perception by some
colleagues that sustainable materials are inferior.
5.6.1 Awareness, Understanding and Education
All four companies struggle to implement sustainable materials due to a lack
of awareness and understanding amongst themselves, colleagues and
external stakeholders. There is a lack of clarity and conflicting information
regarding sustainable materials; one interviewee described them as ‘woolly
and grey’ (B1). The Technical Consultant (C3) finds it can be hard to
understand the truth with materials such as PLA film, as producers will
always say their products are sustainable.
Some designers said they would like better education, regarding which
materials are recyclable and the UK recycling system, to enable them to
understand what happens to products at their end of life. Product Designer
(B1) would also like everyone including designers, manufacturers, and school
pupils to be educated. At Company C a lot of politics with government and
NGOs is encountered and so decisions cannot be based solely on
environmental impact. If the social amplification is significant, however, the
188
company has to act even when there is no proven science. Industrial
Designer (B6) struggles to engage with the topic of sustainable materials
because they feel a mind-set change is required.
There was a consensus that consumers are not interested. One industrial
designer (B4) believes sustainability must be important to consumers, but will
not affect purchasing, with other aspects such as product features and cost
being higher considerations. Likewise, another industrial designer (B3)
agreed; ‘there is a great awareness but they don’t necessarily live it’. The
lack of consumer understanding means design changes will not occur until it
improves. Both Companies C and D run focus groups with consumers to
understand their needs but not to educate them. At Company C consumer
focus groups discovered a general lack of knowledge regarding CSR
environmental issues, ‘the average customer didn’t know anything at all’
(C3). Technical Consultant (C3) believes customers do not necessarily
understand sustainability holistically, ‘but they do understand things that fit
underneath the umbrella of sustainability, so customers understand
recyclability quite well, it’s not surprising because it’s so complex’ (C3). It was
felt that consumers do not understand sustainability, that they are not
bothered and that they ‘don’t necessarily want to understand it’ (C4) but they
expect Company C to do it for them.
Company B struggles because its consumers are fashion driven in their
purchases, especially with the breakfast range (kettles and toasters); some
employees dislike this, believing it does not suit the company ethos. The
sales team insist consumers demand brush casting; yet the process involves
many stages, increasing the chances of imperfections and creating high
scrap levels. For changes to be made it was felt that consumer and buyer
education is required, backed with industry-wide standards. Company B has
discussed the justification for high wattage motors at reviews, but currently
the market and consumers demand this, believing a higher number is better.
189
Companies A and D have found a need to educate. Company A has created
education packs so customers gain the knowledge and understanding of
sustainable materials:
We have a package that’s available to our sales teams, for them to
be able to direct the customer or to educate the customer… I think
you have to educate people to a certain extent for them to perhaps
understand the benefit of what they are buying in to (A1).
Company D educates people such as the engineers and suppliers, but finds
it time-consuming to do and a big task for such a small team. It tends to use
PowerPoint presentations to show ideas, to educate, influence and persuade
others. Difficulty is often found in convincing some people who are very
against recycled material due to previous experience; ‘they have used
recycled material 20 years ago and it didn’t work then so why will it work
now?’ (D1). Material samples are used to help overcome misconceptions of
poor quality; ‘showing them an actual material sample of recycled material is
always good’ (D5). The Sustainability Team believes that, if the engineers
had better knowledge and understanding that was up to date, then the team
would not have such a difficult task convincing the engineers.
Both Companies A and B feel that the marketing team could do more to sell
their sustainable story. Employees at Company A feel they have fallen
behind competitors in publicising their sustainability credentials, but they try
to ‘avoid green-washing at all costs’ (A6). The EM (A6) is now thinking:
Where are we missing out on getting our message across? Are we
getting our message across to the right people, in the right way, in
the right terms? Do they understand? Is he green-washing? Do
they care? (A6).
Green washing refers to the practice of making unsubstantiated claims such
as marketing products as being “green”, “environmentally friendly” or
“sustainable” when they are in fact not. One example often used is the use of
bamboo in products within the UK but the distance travelled can negate and
sustainable benefits.
190
5.6.2 Contaminants in Recycled Materials
Although keen to use recycled content, contaminants have a negative impact
on the DfE scores and MBDC certification. The DfE system assess materials
down to 100ppm but this detail means ‘it’s going to come out bad because
you’re digging that deep, you are going to find something’ (A5). Recycled
aluminium scores red due to contaminants such as lead or silicon whereas
virgin aluminium scores green. Because of this Company A is considering
applying life-cycle analysis. Product Engineer (A5) finds they often have to
use personal judgement; ‘if I wanted to make things easy for me, I don’t want
any reds there, but actually you know that it may be a red on there, but that is
the right thing to do’ (A5). The company does not use post-consumer
polymer recyclate, as contamination creates degradation and therefore won’t
meet the performance and long warranty criteria. A recycled polyester fabric
is used but this is contaminated with antimonies in the fabric, pigments and
yarn.
Company B also finds contamination of recyclate a problem due to health
and safety requiring food grade polymers. Industrial Designer (B3) said they
‘cannot be as dirty as you can be in some industries’, referring to recycled
materials as dirty. Company C uses food grade recyclate, even for non-food
applications, to ensure good quality recyclate as recycled grades can vary in
contamination levels. With blow moulded bottles, if recyclate is contaminated
with PVC, the pressure generated during processing creates holes.
5.6.3 Finding Information and Lack of Time
One engineer was happy to look for new materials in journals but does not
always trust what is read:
I quite often find there is an awful lot of bullshit, people describe
products and materials as being sustainable, when you look into
them they are not really are they? It’s very easy to, with the
statistics, say something is sustainable when actually it isn’t (A3).
191
Product Designer (A1) felt that a tool is needed for industrial designers to ‘go
and sell to their clients’ sustainable materials, maybe through ‘small
education packs’, providing a story people can relate to, encouraging rather
than enforcing. Accessibility and presentation of information acts as a barrier:
‘it’s not easy to search for, they’re not user friendly for industrial designers,
you need a home of sustainable materials for people to go to’ (A1).
At Company B one industrial designer does not actively seek information but
has set up a system for information to automatically be sent via twitter feeds,
newsletters and apps so it is readily available. Quality Engineer (B2) would
like some ‘little tools’ to be made available which cover topics such as which
materials are going to run out and which are considered more sustainable.
Senior Industrial designer (B4) referred to lack of access to a ‘good industry
wide database’ which could aid understanding questions such as the
downstream effect of chrome plating and trade-offs at a commercial level.
The SDM (C1) at Company C works at self-education but does not know of a
resource which would cover all the education required. The foot-printing tool
developed by the company is not aimed at designers but used later on in the
process. What would be welcomed is a set of instructions created from the
tool for designers. The company is often held back from selecting sustainable
materials due to a lack of time, especially gaining certification such as
Fairtrade and Organic. Sustainability can negatively impact a project; ‘When
you’re dealing with sustainability issues and it’s new and novel, chasing all
the paper work can really slow down the project delivery’ (C3).
Company D lacks time and resources; ‘our job is huge for a very small team’
(D1). It finds material comparison complicated and consequently they apply
broad principles such as light weighting, using recyclable and renewable
materials.
192
5.6.4 Motivation
Within Company B the motivation to use sustainable materials is lacking for
industrial designers as well as for the company. Other conflicting
considerations were given such as making profit, maintaining the brand,
health and safety and looking after customers. The Sustainability Team at
Company D finds it can be difficult to motivate and engage colleagues,
including engineers; ‘you are personally pushing the subject to get those
people interested’ (D1). The team has also encountered problems on a
recent project, where the senior management were disinterested, but the
engineer who was connected with the suppliers was really interested. To get
round this the team approached the next level of management; ‘we try and
work our way around it, we try in many routes, if things don’t work or we kind
of try not to give up, it’s very dependent on our time’ (D1).
5.6.5 Risk, Competiveness and Cost
All employees interviewed at Company A mentioned the constant need to
balance cost against the material choice whilst at company B cost was a
clear barrier due to competitors. At Company B there is an established
material selection and a tendency to follow competitors as opposed to
leading them. An abundance of low price products from competitors and
within the marketplace affects Company B but it never reduces its standards.
Brand values can affect how competitive the company is; ‘we can’t say all
these things about our brand about quality, durability, longevity and then exist
as easily in these high turnover categories’ (B4)’. The target audience and
price point of the product often defines material choice but flexibility exists
with varying product ranges. Often where competitors have delivered chrome
plated mouldings, Company B has used real metal and it tries to do this
where possible, but the commercial side may insist on the cheaper option to
be competitive. Material choice is more likely to be questioned and rejected
due to cost rather than issues of sustainability.
193
Companies A, C and D are wary of making unsubstantiated claims. Company
A uses only figures it is confident with, e.g. 85% of product recyclable, but
finds competitors do not go to the same level of detail and state 100%
recyclable. Company A believes competitor claims to be untrue and that its
concern with truth affects its competitiveness, thus losing tenders. There was
concern that sustainable materials are not understood enough in order for
people to understand statistics, so Company A looks worse than it is. The
sales team complains that the company is too honest and has said: ‘just say
100% just to play on the same level playing field, because all our clients now
think we’re less environmentally friendly’ (A4). Both companies are
concerned that prices will rise and so do not want to give specific
percentages. Company C has a policy against publishing unsubstantiated
claims to ensure consumer trust.
Company D is considering variable figures to get around these problems:
If we base it on 70% recycled, 30% virgin, when they are using
100% recycled then obviously they will be in the money as
such…but then there are going to be times when they can’t get the
recycled (D4).
Company D has found that rising oil prices have increased demand for
recyclate but suppliers cannot guarantee supply. Both companies B and D
find new materials have too high a risk, they need to be ‘fairly well
established’ and be better than the existing material choice to be considered
(B3). At Company D feasible and future materials are researched. Using new
materials always presents a risk and so the company has built up knowledge
of existing materials with which it is used to working. It aims to overcome this
risk with research projects to investigate materials and gain ‘some level of
confidence’ and test that it is feasible, whilst involving partners such as
moulders or universities to enable trials (D3). The biggest barrier incurred
with engineers is persuading them a material is appropriate as the company
does not have the data sheets available to prove its properties and so it has
to get the material moulded and to enable testing.
194
5.6.6 Suppliers and Manufacturers
Company B struggles with suppliers who often make changes to what is
specified: ‘regardless of what you specify this end that you are potentially
fighting a losing battle, because what you specify and what you get aren’t
necessarily one and the same thing’ (B4). Company D finds suppliers can be
difficult to engage and often disinterested in using recycled materials.
Attaining the necessary data sheets from recycled material suppliers is often
one of the hardest stages as they are often small companies with limited
testing capabilities to give necessary material property information. Biobased
materials were described as having a ‘secretive approach, it’s a new and
increasing market and they don’t want to lose out to their competition’ (D5).
This lack of material information makes it difficult to apply the lifecycle
analysis and use the GaBi software (GaBi, 2012).
5.7 Sustainable Materials in the Business Model
Companies A, C and D feel the use of sustainable materials is part of their
company’s business model and it is growing in emphasis within all four
companies. All companies feel that the increasing consideration of
sustainable materials within the business model is due to increasing society
and business awareness. At Company A it is largely due to historic company
values:
We have values as a corporation that go back a long, long time
that talk about sustainability…better world…caring for people,
employees. It makes common sense and perfect sense to us to
use sustainable materials (A6).
Company A is heavily driven to use sustainable materials by the tender
process; ‘you can actually lose a project based on your sustainable policies
and that was a big shock for me just to see the whole shift’ (A2). The tender
process was described as an ‘absolute nightmare’ (A2), with requests for
certain levels of certification, recycled content percentages, recyclable
material percentages, information on material sourcing, parts mileage and
manufacturing locations to a high level of detail.
195
At Company B most interviewees do not feel the business model has
changed, or, if it has, only in a small way. Internally, however, things are
changing; ‘being environmentally responsible is one of our pillars in our
guidelines’ (B1) and the company is in discussions with manufacturers about
sustainable materials. The change has involved a realisation within the
‘corporate culture’ of a responsibility to their employees, industry, local
communities and customers (B3). The change is possibly related to growing
consumer awareness of environmental issues causing them to refocus on the
company’s core value for quality, durability and longevity.
The CSR strategy at Company C is driving from the top, along with people
driving from the bottom, who are ‘getting knowledge in from what’s going on
outside, what the issues are and then feeding that back up through the
business and getting decisions made as well’ (C1). The CSR strategy is still
being refined and improved, ‘it’s always under review. It’s always being
updated and changed’ (C1). Sustainability within the CSR strategy sector of
the business has changed considerably since 2004:
It’s evolved a lot over the years. It’s grown a lot broader and
brought in a lot more aspects of sustainability other than just
materials, waste, packaging, products. A lot of the ethical side
comes in now and a lot about the behaviour change thing, about
consumers and how we relate to what we’re doing to consumers,
so a bigger evolution (C1).
Within Company D the business model has altered recently to include
sustainable materials. Sustainable materials are now included as part of the
score cards used and colleagues are now seeking help for information. The
promotion of sustainable materials from above is far more prominent than in
previous years. A new objective called ‘Environmental Innovation’ (EI) means
senior levels are more open now because their bonuses are related to EI and
the sustainable materials team helps them attain their bonuses. The
company has recently identified E.I. champions to coordinate teams towards
targets.
196
5.8 Overall Conclusion
All four companies are raising awareness amongst staff through internal
initiatives. The strategies for the application of sustainable materials
employed by the companies can be seen in Figure 5.1. Company B is further
behind than others, moving towards, but not currently considering, numerous
factors of sustainable materials. Both companies A and C found the need to
design their own tool due a lack of relevant tools to suit their needs. All four
companies are avoiding hazardous materials. This is legislated for, however,
and so should be expected, regardless of company values. Both Company A
and Company B have substituted chrome with polished metals such as
aluminium. All four companies struggle to find alternatives to materials they
would like to avoid.
197
Figure 5.1 Attributes and strategies for the application of sustainable
materials
198
Company B said food grade recyclate is not available whereas Company C
disagrees and does use food grade recyclate. This could be true for different
plastic types. Company C talked about using PET for bottles which is known
to have a dedicated infrastructure providing clean material. Yet even this
recyclate poses price stability problems in the market. Although sustainable
materials often have a high price expectation, it was noted that recyclate
often offers a cost reduction. Value brand ranges within Company C were
found to score highly in the foot-printing model. Social considerations of
sustainable materials were only mentioned by Company A; they are included
in the external certification it applies, but it is also a topic they are updating in
their company policy.
The key drivers affecting sustainable material selection are shown in Figure
5.2. Personal interest is strong within all the companies. Companies A, B and
C have dedicated environmental or sustainability managers, providing expert
advice, influencing colleagues and raising awareness. These managers all
have a strong personal interest which influences colleagues. Companies B
and C both empower employees, encouraging them to self-educate but
Company B has placed responsibility predominantly with the Environmental
Manager, allowing designers to disengage. Although Company D does not
have one person specifically, the Product Leader (D3) was said to have the
strongest personal interest and seen to provide a similar role to the
managers in the other companies.
199
Figure 5.2 Drivers for sustainable material selection
200
Future projections for finite resources and increasing prices are driving
research into alternative material choices. Changing consumer awareness is
also cited as a key factor by three companies, with Company A also saying
clients are increasingly focused on sustainable material selection.
Approaches to legislation differ; Company B is driven by legislation whereas
Company A is unaffected as it strives to be ahead. Company C collaborates
with experts and organisations to assist in creating legislative policies.
The barriers affecting material selection are shown in Figure 5.3. Awareness,
understanding and education were barriers experienced in all four cases with
a number of them devising ways to engage and educate colleagues and
stake holders. Competitiveness and risk affect all four companies, with proof
of feasibility often lacking. Similarly, cost affects three companies; it is always
a consideration with material selection. The relatively new recycling
infrastructure creates a lack of stability, with market prices for recyclate
fluctuating. Similarly, lack of technology for filtering contaminants means
recyclate can score negatively and pose quality risks during manufacturing.
All four cases proved that facilitation of sustainable material selection with
industrial designers requires greater education. Designers need improved
understanding and awareness in order to engage others with whom they
work. Material selection involves numerous people, all of whom need to
engage and ideally gain a personal interest in the topic. There is a lack of
knowledge connecting designers with the products they design and how
those products will be dealt with at their end of useful life. Designers may
need to sell the idea of sustainable materials to others so need the
knowledge and confidence in order to do so. Designers are busy and need
readily accessible information fed in a way which involves minimal effort or
searching. The complexities of sustainable materials are hard to comprehend
and constantly evolving, causing designers to disengage. Relevant product
examples that designers and those they work with, can relate to, allows
sustainable materials to be put into context.
201
Figure 5.3 Barriers to sustainable material selection
202
The following user requirements for a tool have been ascertained from the
research to date:
Build individual and company awareness
Promote discussion
Ability to be used in team meetings
Promote holistic approach to sustainable material selection
Educate on strategies and considerations that enable sustainable
material selection
Show trade-offs between different considerations/decision points
Engage individuals interest in sustainable material selection
Promote discussion and interaction between material specifiers and
stakeholders
Relevant product examples
Improve individual understanding of sustainable material selection
| Facilitate selection |
multi-disciplinary engagement with | sustainable | material |
Provide information in readily accessible format
Promote life cycle thinking.
203
6 Frameworks to Facilitate Sustainable Material
Selection
This chapter draws together the findings from both the literature review and
the empirical studies to create frameworks, designed to facilitate sustainable
material selection. The first framework deals with the overarching
requirements to encourage sustainable material selection. The second
framework presents the impacts and trade-offs incurred during sustainable
material selection.
6.1 Introduction
Conclusions drawn from the literature review indicated that the main barrier
for industrial designers to selecting sustainable materials may be a lack of
relevant information, presented in a style they understand. Following further
research, however, the barriers appear to be more complex and relate more
to a need to engage colleagues and stakeholders with the topic of
sustainable materials. Throughout the empirical studies there were requests
by participants for a new resource to support designers in understanding
sustainable materials whilst educating and selling the concept to others.
Consequently, the research has developed beyond being applicable to
designers alone. Although designers remain the main focus, others involved
in the selection process, referred to as material specifiers, and are now also
considered. Material specifier incorporates anyone who specifies materials
as part of their job role, such as engineers, managers, marketing, sales,
consultants and designers.
This chapter explores the following research questions:
How is a sustainable material defined
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the
material selection process?
204
6.2 Dynamic Presentation
Numerous solutions have arisen as possible outcomes for a resource to
support designers and material specifiers. A mobile phone app would allow
users to access sustainable material education, wherever they may be, and
build up their knowledge. In order to engage users, creating an interactive
resource would enable participation alongside building information. Research
findings have highlighted the ever-changing issues surrounding sustainable
materials; an interactive online platform would ensure the provision of
relevant and up-to-date information. Creating a forum section alongside the
educational resource would allow interaction and knowledge transfer
amongst the users. Building and maintaining networks has come up again
and again as a key resource requirement.
There could also be the facility for guest blogs to provide new insights from
key experts, designers, material specifiers or companies. This could engage
users in discussion and assist networking and knowledge transfer. The need
to engage the user is vital; creating a dynamic resource would enable user
participation. Yet the question of whether a resource could be created to
match the requirements of such a variety of users and applications remains
unknown.
6.3 Varying Information Requirements
The company case studies highlighted the complexity of selecting
sustainable materials and the varying requirements of designers based on
the broad range of products in which they are involved. The case studies also
identified the broad range of people involved in the sustainable material
selection process. Industrial designers need the support of other departments
to facilitate sustainable material selection. Those companies’ successfully
specifying sustainable materials have found a need to educate and raise
awareness both within their company and with external stakeholders, such as
clients, suppliers, customers and manufacturers.
205
Designers requested a variety of information covering a wide range of issues
which they experienced as barriers. There was a general lack of
understanding regarding the UK recycling infrastructure and what happens to
the products they design at their end of life. This is further complicated by a
lack of uniformity within the UK,
However some people – while wanting to do the right thing – can
be discouraged by the complexity of collection regimes and find it
hard to understand why they differ in neighbouring areas (DEFRA,
2011:43).
Every council pays a contract for waste recycling and disposal, but the
services offered vary across the country as do the locations of plants to
recycle different materials:
Unlike in some European countries, there is no standardised way
of collecting or managing household waste in the UK, meaning
that recycling facilities and services vary across the country
(LetsRecycle, 2014)
The availability of materials also varies in both cost and quality, especially
with recyclate materials. Knowledge of relevant legislation varied but it is an
area which is ever changing and developing, possibly requiring support to
keep up-to-date.
Designers and material specifiers requested assistance with how to inform
and engage clients and colleagues with sustainable materials. The client
wants to understand what the benefits of using sustainable materials and
how this use can improve product design. Managers could be guided by
examples of how other companies have implemented sustainable materials
into their design process with strategies such as:
Internal initiatives
Training and workshops
Targets for sustainable materials
Policies for sustainable materials
Individual representatives
206
Empowered employees providing shared responsibility.
Marketing and sales want to see statistics and sustainable material stories
that consumers can relate to.
6.4 Overall Framework to Engage Users with Sustainable
Materials
This section outlines the design of the overall framework to engage
individuals in sustainable material selection
6.4.1 Framework design
Conceptual frameworks are often used to define the boundaries and key
factors to be studied in a graphical or narrative form, but they can also be
used be created through the evolution and development of the fieldwork itself
(Miles and Huberman, 1994). It is recommend that conceptual frameworks
are presented graphically, particularly as designing the framework on a single
page instigates the researcher to rationalize the key points (Miles and
Huberman, 1994).
Prior theorising and empirical research are, of course, important
inputs. It helps to lay out your own orienting frame and then map
onto it the variables and relationships from the literature available,
to see where the overlaps, contradictions, refinements, and
qualifications are (Miles and Huberman, 1994:22).
The researcher study how other projects had used emergent frameworks to
present theories and findings such as in Figure 6.1, noting the strong use of
geometric shapes to present the relationships and importance of differing
themes.
207
Figure 6.1 Conceptual framework for examining online virtual communities
(Hersberger et al., 2007:7)
Hersberger et al. (2007) explains the structure is presented graphically using
a four-tier pyramid, each tier increasing in detail and moving from community
focus, to an individual focus.
In contrast to studies that focus on specific components and
attributes of communities, this framework provides a dynamic,
holistic design for examining online communities (Hersberger et
al., 2007).
This statement reflects the same issues and aims identified by the researcher
with regards to sustainable material selection, the lack of a holistic
understanding and representation of the considerations. Bhamra and
Lofthouse (2003) created a ‘descriptive framework’ as a reference tool,
highlighting key findings in order to support the development of future tools.
208
Figure 6.2 A holistic framework for Industrial design focused ecodesign tools
(Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2003)
This was used to inspire the development of an overall framework (Figure
6.3) to give an overview of the necessary requirements to facilitate
sustainable material selection.
From both the review of literature and the research study findings three key
themes were identified to facilitate sustainable material selection: educating;
engaging; and illustrating information to the user regarding sustainable
materials. This has been presented as a diagram and can be seen in Figure
6.3. The large triangle connects the three key ideas to show they are all of
equal importance and interlinked; all three are required to facilitate
sustainable material selection. For example, illustrating and educating will
promote a personal interest. The phrase ‘stimulate and inspire’ is repeated
from each topic area because all three areas are designed to stimulate and
inspire. This pushes towards the central goal of building enough confidence
209
within the individual to make informed decisions and also to engage
colleagues and external stakeholders with sustainable materials. Throughout
the empirical studies, at every stage there was a request for support to
engage others with sustainable materials. Although some designers during
the scoping study felt that over-emphasising sustainable materials could
alienate clients and lose the designers work, one company within the main
study reported that jobs are often lost during the tender process for not
meeting the sustainable material requirements.
Figure 6.3 Overall framework for facilitating sustainable material selection
210
6.4.2 Engage
Personal interest was identified as a key driver in facilitating sustainable
material selection. Due to this it is vital to engage individuals in order to
generate personal interest. Although key, the personal interest of one
individual is often not enough to make significant changes but relies on
spreading interest and awareness amongst others involved in the material
decision-making process. Personal interest also creates a desire to selfeducate and inform others. The selection of sustainable materials is complex
and continually changing whilst the information required will vary
considerably, depending on the job role and the product type. Due to this
there is a need to encourage self-education. There is a need to stimulate and
develop a personal interest to motivate sustainable material selection.
Empirical research often found that individuals had strong personal interests
which directed their application of sustainable materials. At times, however,
the reasons given for avoiding materials, or using certain strategies, were
influenced by research or media reports. One example given was the media
coverage of bio-plastics utilising genetically modified crops and the ethical
implications involved.
Without the necessary tools, designers and others within the team cannot
engage colleagues and external stakeholders, such as suppliers, with the
idea of sustainable materials. There was a desire to apply sustainable
materials but a lack of knowledge and confidence to move forward.
6.4.3 Educate
There exists a lack of clarity regarding sustainable materials. Education will
increase understanding and allow users to make informed sustainable
material decisions. Improved education will increase awareness and create a
desire to learn which will, in turn, give the confidence required to facilitate
sustainable material selection. Designers were keen to understand the UK
recycling system and what happens to the products they design. Greater
education on this could enable designers to create products to work within
the UK recycling system. This would also enable designers to make informed
211
decisions about the appropriateness of design for disassembly for different
products. The UK recycling system is in its infancy and as such the markets
for recyclate are unstable, with fluctuating prices and availability. Links to this
information are required to enable greater use of recyclate and avoid
economical or supply problems. Other sustainable materials are often new
and, as such, have high risk attached; there is a need to reduce this risk by
improving education and communication amongst designers to enable
experiences of using new materials to be shared.
It is not just the designers who require education and support; also key are
the client, suppliers, marketing and sales. It is therefore proposed that a
resource should enable different people to access the information relevant to
them by highlighting what is key to each role.
Many material specifiers and designers cited the issue of resource depletion
as driving research into sustainable alternatives to existing material choices.
There is a need, and a request, for designer education on predicted resource
stocks and prices for the future. Sustainable materials are often driven by the
identification of future trends and early research to enable their use when
they become viable. As the field of industrial design is relatively new to using
sustainable materials in mass manufacture, some examples from other
industries, such as fashion, can help inform and inspire users. Concept
designs in both industrial design and other design fields can indicate the
future direction of sustainable materials. Resources predictions in terms of
both stock levels and prices can, and will, vary and so it is vital to be aware of
the implications. Sustainable materials are a growing issue so future planning
is a necessity.
6.4.4 Illustrate
Designers often learn by others’ example; there is a need for examples
relevant both to their work and to them personally. One individual spoke of
engaging “cynical male employees” with recycled materials by showing them
football shirts made with recycled content. There is a need to illustrate
212
sustainable materials with product case studies from all design areas which
allow both for inspiring and educating users in how sustainable materials can
be applied. It is important that users can relate to the examples shown to
ensure engagement. Product case studies should vary in detail to match
differing requirements of job roles, with some showing full product
breakdowns. For example, designers often prioritise material aesthetics
whereas marketing and sales want to see the marketing story and statistics.
Material examples are important in allowing designers to visualise the end
product and engage others in the material choice. There was a request for
material samples both pre and post-processing.
There is a requirement for company case studies as well as product ones.
Company initiatives play a strong part in engaging employees and raising
awareness with the topic of sustainable materials. It is therefore important to
educate users on what they can do within their company to enable the use of
sustainable materials
6.5 Framework to Assist Sustainable Material Selection
One clear barrier identified through this research study is a lack of
understanding regarding the considerations and complexities of sustainable
materials. The framework for sustainable material selection was designed to
show the connectivity of the different aspects of sustainable materials and
illustrate the areas required for consideration by designers. The research
found that what drives the selection of sustainable materials is influenced by
a number of factors. The main focus was representing sustainable material
selection considerations and trade-offs in holistic format.
6.5.1 Framework design
In order to develop a framework for sustainable material selection with the
potential to be used as a tool the researcher studied existing frameworks
such as ‘Design and the Material Cycle’, Figure 2.12 (Hornbuckle, 2010),
‘Material Selection Guidelines’, Figure 2.20 (Allione et al., 2012) and the
‘decision tree for environmental feasibility analysis’ (Zarandi et al., 2011).
213
The attributes, strategies, drivers and barriers towards sustainable material
selection identified from the literature review and the studies were used as a
starting point in order to sketch out ideas and work out which were key for
inclusion. Early designs were sketched out with some computerised, these
can be seen in Appendix EE (page 374). The first of these gave clear
indications of the considerations but does little more than existing checklists
and fails to incorporate the holistic approach identified as key. Neither of the
two designs are able to indicate the trade-offs relevant between the decisionmaking, which was also a key requirement. A process decision map was
attempted but this did not allow for the complexities of sustainable material
selection and took the user away from understanding how decisions impact
other areas.
The researcher was influenced by the work of information graphic designers
such as David McCandless (McCandless, 2010a; McCandless, 2010b) and
Aaron Koblin (Koblin, 2011). These were used to inspire a more visual
approach to the information presentation style and led to the final design.
Three key areas were identified, material sourcing, life cycle and
minimisation strategies. These were used as the basis to design the outline
for the framework.
As part of the initial design and development a criteria was defined to create
a framework to assist sustainable material selection:
As a guide to sustainable material selection
Distinguish trade-offs – highlight how material choices may impact other
areas
Balance simplifying the presentation of information with the complexity
of sustainable material selection
Use the drivers identified previously as starting points to engage
individuals with sustainable material selection choices
Create a holistic presentation.
214
6.5.2 The Outline Framework Structure
Creating a framework which balances the complexities of sustainable
materials without alienating users has proved challenging. The framework
content was derived from both literature review findings and the empirical
studies. Reviews conducted of existing resources (2.4.4, page 39) identified
a number of sustainable or eco material attributes. The main study provided
industry and practice-based relevant information and was the predominant
source of information. Identifying the drivers to sustainable material selection
has been a focus of this research and, as such, this was used to structure a
framework. Each circle represents a driver that designers and material
specifiers had identified as attributes that they use as starting points. The
framework outline is presented below in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4 Framework outline
215
The framework has been subdivided into three key areas, Sourcing, Life
Cycle and Applicable to All Areas, which shall be explained in detail. Colours
have been used to visually divide the three areas and improve the aesthetics
of the diagram.
6.5.2.1 Sourcing
The sourcing section covers the four attributes predominantly associated with
the material origin: recycled content, natural, biobased and renewable.
Empirical and literature research identified confusion regarding recycled
content. Some consider the reuse of waste during manufacture as recycled
content (such as regrind) whilst others defined it at having been reprocessed
at least once or post-consumer. For this reason, recycled content is defined
clearly as post-consumer, whilst the re-use of waste or regrind in processing
is shown as part of minimising material use and minimising life-cycle impacts
and resources.
Although a material such as bamboo could be labelled as a natural, biobased
and renewable material, some materials may only fit into one category. For
example, petroleum used in plastic is natural but not renewable, whilst soybased plastics could be considered natural, biobased and renewable but
might not have been ethically grown. There is a tendency to consider that all
natural materials are renewable but some interviewees were both aware and
keen to make the difference clear.
6.5.2.2 Life-cycle
Within life-cycle are the key options relevant for promoting sustainable
material life-cycles: recyclable, biodegradable, reusable and longevity. These
were chosen as they are the drivers identified for promoting sustainable
materials. Specifying materials for energy recovery has not been included as
this was not identified as a driver to using sustainable materials. Incineration
does not necessarily value waste material and is usually a solution if a
material cannot be reused or recycled at the product’s end of life. It is also
difficult to specify that a material will be incinerated during the design phase;
216
within the UK, recycling or landfill are the predominant waste solutions. For
this reason there is a life-cycle hierarchy table (Figure 6.5) presented in the
top right of the complete framework (Figure 6.7) to illustrate where
incineration and landfill come into the decision making. Landfill is within
brackets to show that it should not be a consideration.
Figure 6.5 Life-cycle hierarchy
6.5.2.3 Applicable to all areas
Within this section are three key strategies which should always be
considered when selecting sustainable materials: minimise toxicity, minimise
life-cycle impacts and resources, and minimise material. These are
minimisation strategies which have been identified through the literature and
empirical studies as crucial to ensuring a material is sustainable.
6.5.3 Presentation of Connectivity and Trade-Off Impacts
The main purpose of the framework is to present the holistic considerations
of sustainable materials. Many of the drivers can be applied in combination
with others, which is represented by the grey lines highlighting the inter
connectivity, Figure 6.6. Identified was a tendency to focus on only one driver
without appreciating the holistic nature and impacts some choices can have
on other areas. There was an evident need for a diagram to represent the
trade-offs sustainable material decision-making may incur. Almost all the
drivers, however, can be combined with the others and this makes the
diagram more confusing when combined with the positive and negative
217
impacts, shown in Figure 6.7. For this reason it was decided not to show the
interconnectivity graphically within the final diagram. There was also a fear of
overloading the user with too much conflicting information.
Figure 6.6 Driver connectivity
As can be seen in Figure 6.7 the framework has a complex number of
positive and negative impacts represented on the diagram. Although the key
argument was to present the connectivity and impacts of sustainable material
selection choices, in order to gain feedback regarding the framework two
example drivers were created as visuals. It was also vital to minimise the
content visible in order to improve clarity and understanding. These
examples can be seen in the original survey in Appendix Y.
218
Figure 6.7 Framework for sustainable material selection
219
The internal positive and negative impacts are derived from both the
literature and the empirical studies. The need to show the connectivity has
resulted in a lack of space to provide detailed examples as to what the
impacts could be. Within sourcing all four attributes have a further eight
considerations shown in purple on the outer edge; waste product, by-product,
abundant, local, certified, traceable, stable market and guaranteed supply.
Next to these are example positive and negative impacts that may be
incurred and that may require consideration. Within ‘applicable to all areas’,
the drivers ‘minimise material’ and ‘minimise toxicity’ are self-explanatory, but
the third category contains numerous considerations. For this reason,
surrounding this driver are six considerations: water, energy, transportation,
waste, carbon and pollution (Figure 6.7).
6.5.4 Application of the Framework
The framework is designed to provide a visual map of the real-life impacts
and influences incurred when selecting sustainable materials for massmanufactured products. It is designed to guide decision making by illustrating
how decision-making may impact on other sustainable material
considerations, therefore illustrating the trade-off situations created. It is
hoped that this presentation format would suit numerous different job roles
involved in sustainable material selection and initiate the consideration of
sustainable materials within both the selection and design process. The
framework was designed to support the user in selecting sustainable
materials, providing a quick visualisation of both the relevant considerations
and strategies. It was designed with designers in mind, as a front-end tool to
inspire sustainable material selection. It could also be developed into a tool
for mapping out where a product or concept is meeting the considerations
and highlighting where there are gaps and changes required. It is envisaged
that the framework could be used within meetings, in order to engage others
and to present the considerations to enable sustainable material selection.
220
6.6 Evaluation of the Sustainable Material Selection
Framework
The framework to assist sustainable material selection (Figure 6.7) was
evaluated via two methods. Firstly it was evaluated as a framework using an
online survey; the methodology can be seen in 3.3.3, page 119. The findings
from this shall be presented in the following section. The full survey can be
seen in Appendix Y, page 353. Secondly, the framework was tested within a
workshop where participants worked on design scenarios using the
framework as a tool to assist sustainable material selection. For the
workshop study the selection framework is referred to as a tool.
6.6.1 Online Survey Evaluation
This section outlines the key findings from the online survey evaluation of the
sustainable material selection framework to understand the clarity of the
presentation.
6.6.1.1 Presentation of the Framework
As part of the survey, respondents were shown the framework with three
diagrams: the outline, longevity as a driver and recycled content as a driver
(Figure 6.8, Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10).
221
Figure 6.8 Framework outline diagram
Figure 6.9 Framework with longevity as a driver
222
Figure 6.10 Framework with recycled content as a driver
For each of these images the respondents were asked to rate three
statements pertaining to the aesthetics, clarity of presentation and ease of
understanding. The question is shown in Figure 6.11.
Figure 6.11 Framework question
6.6.1.2 Aesthetics
When asked to rate the outline the majority (13 respondents) gave a positive
response to the aesthetics (Figure 6.12). Two were neutral to the image but
there were no negative answers.
223
Figure 6.12 Outline aesthetics
As the respondents were presented with more information (longevity and
recycled content), however, more respondents selected neutral (Figure 6.13).
The number of respondents selecting the positive answers (agree, strongly
agree) dropped from thirteen for the outline, to eight for longevity aesthetics,
further dropping to seven for recycled content. For longevity aesthetics, the
majority of scores were for neutral/agree whilst for recycled content the
majority of scores were for neutral.
Figure 6.13 Longevity aesthetics
Interestingly two people disagreed with the presentation of longevity
aesthetics, being visually appealing whilst only one of these also thought that
recycled content was not visually appealing. Overall, however, most people
found the recycled content example to be less visually appealing compared
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The Framework is visually appealling
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The Framework is visually appealing
224
to the longevity example. This makes sense because as the images progress
so does the amount of content presented which overcrowds the images.
Figure 6.14 Recycled content aesthetics
6.6.1.3 Clarity
As with the aesthetics, the outline image scored highly for clarity of
presentation, with only one negative response (Figure 6.15).
Figure 6.15 Framework outline clarity
Akin to the aesthetic scores, negativity increased as information presented
increased with the driver examples (Figure 6.16, Figure 6.17). The results are
very similar for the two driver examples; both have the same number of
neutral responses (three). Recycled content clarity, received more positive
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The Framework is visually appealling
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is presented clearly
225
scores but only by one response so this is not a significant difference (Figure
6.16, Figure 6.17).
Figure 6.16 Longevity clarity
Figure 6.17 Recycled content clarity
The clarity of the content on the driver examples was confusing and too
complex for some respondents: ‘All the connection lines are confusing and
there is a lot of writing, I don’t know what to read first’ (R3-Industrial
Designer/Business Owner). Similarly, an industrial director (R8) found it
slightly confusing and complicated in places. Whilst another industrial
designer (R9) felt that a lack of product context affected the clarity:
‘It’s unclear without the context of the product being designed. The
example in the middle of the box looks untidy and is not presented
attractively.’ (R9-Industrial Designer)
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is presented clearly
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is presented clearly
226
Technical Consultant (R4), not only said it was ‘far too complex’, but also too
analytical and academic. The presentation was felt to be letting down the
information provided:
‘The information is good, but the presentation confusing. I commend
the attempt, but think you have a difficult task’ (R6-Professor)
6.6.1.4 Ease of Understanding.
A Technical Consultant for consumer products (R4) felt the framework outline
(Figure 6.4) did not explain clearly its intention and made little practical
sense. They did not understand the 3 areas of sourcing, life-cycle and
applicable to all areas and also disagreed with some of the aspect
placements, commenting that they think recycled content should be in lifecycle analysis.
Figure 6.18 Outline ease of understanding
Again, the outline scored highly within the positive comments, thirteen
positive and one each for neutral and disagree (Figure 6.18). But as with the
prior questions for aesthetics and clarity, with the additional information
presented for the examples, the scores dropped. For longevity (Figure 6.19)
only five positive scores were given, whilst for recycled content (Figure 6.20)
this increased slightly to six. Both examples had a total of seven negative
scores.
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is easy to understand
227
Figure 6.19 Longevity ease of understanding
Figure 6.20 Recycled content ease of understanding
6.6.1.5 Usability and Applicability of the Framework
As part of the testing, there were four questions in which respondents were
asked to use the framework to identify some of the sourcing considerations
and positive and negative impacts related to material drivers or impacts. The
majority managed to carry out this task but two respondents (R3-industrial
Designer and R4-Technical Consultant) did not answer this style of question.
A further two respondents left one of the four questions unanswered. This
shows that the majority were able to understand and identify the different
considerations and impacts presented on the framework.
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is easy to understand
9876543210
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
The framework content is easy to understand
228
There were concerns from one respondent that the framework did not
provide enough information about how to consider the trade-offs and work
out which option is preferable:
It doesn’t give me answers; only poses questions. Time is VERY
short on the commercial environment, so for a tool to be genuinely
useful, it needs to be quick, easy and simple to use. While I
appreciate there may be no ‘black and white answers to some of
these issues, there has to be a ‘less bad’ option – and this tool
doesn’t seem to give direction to this (R7-Product Manager).
There were also, however, a number of positive responses to the framework
presented. It was described by one Industrial Director (R8) as providing a
reasonable overview whilst Product Manager (R7) also described it as
providing a quick overview:
It clearly demonstrates all of the factors that should be considered
during the material selection process. If nothing else, this serves
as a useful quick reference guide.
The framework was designed to promote informed decision-making, so it is
positive that the term ‘informed’ was used by one respondent:
It gives a more informed perspective to the user on selection,
highlighting a number of key areas (R5-Lecturer in Product
Design).
There was a split in responses as to whether the framework content would
assist the application of sustainable materials for the two examples of
product longevity and recycled content, but the response was predominantly
on the positive end of the scale. One product designer (R2) remarked that
there are numerous decisions involved to select for product longevity, which
are often outside of the control of the designer. Similarly Industrial Designer
(R9) commented that the biggest barrier to adopting sustainable material
selection approaches is ‘the company which they work for/their client. It
depends on the business model and whether the company as a whole
prioritises a sustainable design approach’. There was an interesting comment
about the relationship between material choice and product life:
229
I think there is an unknown area here about balancing the
sustainable impact of a product with its design life. E.g. what
should the design life of a pine chair be compared to an oak chair?
Oak takes longer to grow so should it only be used for long
lifespan products? (R1-Packaging Technologist).
For the recycled content framework, one respondent felt it was not showing
the information they required:
If a company is going to use recycled content they just need to
know three things – 1 does if cost any more than using virgin (if it
does then it won’t proceed), 2 is there a stable supply and 3 can
the recycled material be certified (R4-Technical Consultant).
The majority of respondents (nine) felt the hierarchy table would assist in the
selection of sustainable materials (Figure 6.21). There was a suggestion that
it should read Life Cycle Priority Order to give further explanation. The
framework is seen by the majority to assist their understanding of sustainable
material selection (Figure 6.21).
Figure 6.21 Does the framework assist the understanding of sustainable
materials?
Interestingly, the Industrial Designer (R3) who answered ‘not really’,
explained that they had previously avoided all sustainability modules at
university, and had not seen any similar framework. They did state, however,
that the framework does make sense, despite the negative score. One
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Not at all not really undecided somewhat very much
230
Product Designer (R2) said they would be happy to try a tool such as the
framework in the future:
The amount of information, (which is often conflicting), can make
sustainable design decisions difficult. I know a lot of designers
who tend to stick with what they know works – i.e. longevity and
minimising materials. But we’d all like to improve what we currently
do (R2-Product Designer).
6.6.2 Workshop Evaluation
The workshop was designed to evaluate the sustainable material selection
framework when used as a tool within design scenarios alongside existing
material databases and resources. The tool was assessed against the overall
framework to give the key topics enabling further testing of the overall
framework theories. The workshop was designed to engage the participants
with the tool whilst working as teams on design scenario tasks. More detail
on the workshop design can be found in section 3.3.4 (page 123). This
section discusses the findings from the workshop framework and tool
evaluation, gathered from surveys, observations and video recordings of the
workshop.
6.6.2.1 Interaction and Engagement
Within the team surveys, both teams indicated that they found every task
either equally difficult (Team A) or equally easy (Team b) to discuss
sustainable materials within the team (Table 6.1). However Team B
explained at the end of the workshop that they only wrote very easy for all 3
tasks because they had no point of comparison. They explained that they
would change their answers to show that discussing sustainable materials
became got progressively easier. However from an observation point of view,
Team B struggled more than Team A to engage with the task and carry out
the instructions given.
231
Table 6.1 Group survey answers: Question 1. How easy did you find it to
discuss the topic of sustainable materials with your team?
Team A Team B
Task One Hard (4) Very easy (1)
Task Two Hard (4) Very easy (1)
Task Three Hard (4) Very easy (1)
For the second question the teams once again gave similar answers for each
task which made it difficult to identify trends. Team A struggled to identify
how easily they understood sustainable materials as part of the workshop
(Table 6.2). Team B stated they found it easy or very easy. This is despite
other comments being recorded and observed during the task where Team B
explained that the complexities of sustainable materials made the tasks
difficult.
Table 6.2 Group survey answers: Question 2. How easy did you find it to
understand the topic of sustainable materials?
Team A Team B
Task One Neither hard nor easy (3) Very easy (1)
Task Two Neither easy nor hard (3) Easy (2)
Task Three Neither hard nor easy (3) Very easy (1)
In task one Team A focused on technical material properties required as their
starting point in order to tackle the kettle task. However in the following tasks
they used the tool provided to start the tasks and keep them focussed. Team
A interacted better as a team during the two tasks in which they were
provided with the tool. Team A in particular used the tool as a central method
to focus the group and prompt discussions, including what makes a classic
design and the relevance of the hierarchy provided on the tool. During task
one Team B focussed too much on the materials the kettle could be made
from, searching online for the kettle to help identify the materials and
questioning how easy it is to identify materials from a photo. But this part was
232
merely to give them a starting point for the second part of the task. Within
Team B the tool prompted a discussion on recycling, disassembly, quality
versus recyclate and grinding for material recovery.
There was a consensus that the tool helped teams engage with the topic and
interact with each other:
providing them with ‘common knowledge to discuss’ (A1),
used as an ‘inspirational tool’ (A2),
used to ‘formulate and structure discussions’ (A3),
they could ‘point at the diagram to explain things’ (B1),
the tool ‘initiated discussions, focused debate, provided starting points,
keep referring back to it’ (B2),
providing a ‘focal point and check list’ (B3).
For the second task participant B3 started the discussion by pointing to the
section on the tool saying ‘minimise weight’ and explaining that to her means
optimising material use but that you can push that too far and it can fail so
you would need to carry out failure analysis to make sure you are taking
weight out in the right places.
6.6.2.2 Illustration
During the tasks individuals made reference to product examples in order to
select materials:
I think polycarbonate is used for riot shields so should be good
enough for a hairdryer (A3).
Participant B1 referenced a set of bowls made by the designer Tom Dixon
which he owns and knows have a sustainable material. Participant B1
searched for the bowls on the internet to find an image and the material
name which they then showed to the team. This is a product example
showing how the material would appear after it has been processed
233
6.6.2.3 Education
The tool was not provided for the first task, in order to gauge participants’
current understanding of sustainable materials and see how they would
approach the task without the tool. It was designed to be a quick and simple
task split into two sections but Team B failed to understand the key part of
the task and needed redirecting numerous times. Instead they focussed on
the first part discussing what material the kettle could be made from, despite
being told this part was not vital, but was simply used in order to direct the
second part. Team B gave feedback that it was hard for them to identify
materials/finishes from a photo without the tactile references they would have
gained from handling a product. Team B also required prompting to get more
specific with material identification and selection, using generic terms such as
plastic or metal for the majority of the task. Team A tried to consider
environmental impact, focusing on recycling and sourcing before moving onto
manufacturing and social issues. Team B stated they also focused on
recyclability but didn’t go further beyond this as they felt this single
consideration would be the easiest option in the time given.
Figure 6.22 Team A task one brainstorm
234
Figure 6.23 Team B task one notes
In terms of understanding the sustainable implications of the materials
selected Team A said:
they found it ‘hard to know!’
Too many variables; life cycle? Social? Manufacturing? Sourcing?
Costs?
‘Difficult to know if you have chosen the ‘right’ material for the product
BUT also in terms of sustainability’ (Team A).
The lack of support during task one was commented on by A2, ‘we were not
given resources to map what is a sustainable material’. Team B said they
focused on the obvious (eco-design) but because there was no LCA, they
had no confidence (first pass).
It worked as an educational tool, expanding my understanding of
what defines “sustainable materials (A3).
Both teams commented that they gained a broader understanding of
sustainable materials from using the tool (Team A-task 3 survey).
235
Figure 6.24 Team A working on Task 2 using the tool
Team A used the tool in Task two to focus their direction and develop a
design. They sketched on top of the hand out images (Figure 6.25) and then
brainstormed together on A3 (Figure 6.26). They focused on how to create a
modular hairdryer, selecting high end plastic to ensure threads could be built
into the design and the main components unscrewed easily to access
internals, with 5 key elements making up the overall design. There is a
question on the sheet about replacing the threads with steel but next to this
‘more parts though!!’ showing their understanding for minimising parts. The
team used the tool to highlight issues/criteria for the plastic selected, such as
being durable, low weight, finishes/pigments, minimise cost versus durability.
236
Figure 6.25 Team A sketched on the hand out image
Figure 6.26 Team A brainstorming and sketch for task two
237
Each member of Team B wrote their own set of notes for Task two and so
had variations of a similar concept but with different details shown on each
sheet. Team B came up with a similar focus of modularity to enable repair
and also a similar design with the casing screwing together for easy repair.
Team B also discussed added functionality of filters to clean akin to vacuum
cleaners, in order to prolong the product life span. The B team were quite
distracted from the task of material selection, with the majority of the
discussions and notes related to design strategies. This was also evident
with the other team, pointing out flaws with the design of the tool as it does
not relate clearly enough to material selection. However in order to provide a
holistic approach, it is key to cover both strategies and considerations.
Figure 6.27 Participant B3 Design sheet for task two
238
Figure 6.28 Task Two – B1 design and notes
For task three Team A failed to design a toaster as such but concentrated on
researching sustainable materials to replace the key components of the main
body case, buttons and accessories. They created a brainstorm (Figure 6.29)
during the task and used the tool to guide them.
239
Figure 6.29 Team A Task Three Notes
Within task three, Team B was able to identify a number of positive
implications for their material choices but it is unclear if these were all gained
from using the tool. They were unable to identify negative implications,
stating they would need to carry out further research and LCA to identify
them. Team B initially started by thinking about redesigning the toaster to use
an open structure, researching similar ideas online. But they quickly focused
onto how material choice could minimise weight and the amount of material
used. They used the tool to spark creative brainstorms about unusual
materials, such as a natural material like hemp encased in resin Figure 6.30.
They also came up with some light-hearted and less serious ideas, such as
using textiles knitted by elderly in some form of social enterprise in order to
form the case, mentioning flame retardants or possibly asbestos as possible
materials, neither of which are good for the environment or the people
working with them. They did focus down onto a more realistic concept shown
in Figure 6.31, utilising three key materials all of which were recycled content,
aluminium (polished for parts on show), textured glass for the casing and
PET for the base.
240
Figure 6.30 Team B Task Three notes
Figure 6.31 Team B Task Three Design
241
The most common factor that the participants (A1, A3, B1, B3) stated they
learnt was how complex and complicated the process of sustainable material
selection is. Within this complexity were comments such as learning about:
| |
the ‘huge number of variables involved’ (A1), that there are ‘lots more points to consider…a balancing act’ (A3) the ‘connections between the considerations and the links’ (B3). |
6.6.2.4 Efficacy
Team A struggled with some of the resources provided, such as the
sustainable materials book (Thompson, 2013), saying there was a lack of
material property information and ‘useless scales’. Participant A2 explained
that they struggled to find information in the resources that matched the
criteria discussed by the tool. Similarly A3 felt they were ‘let down by the lack
of a suitable database backend, which is outside the scope of the tool’.
Similarly participant B1 stated other resources are required to select the
specific materials. Participant A2 found the Material Connexion confusing
(Material ConneXion, 2009b) ‘oh my gosh, there are so many options’.
The tool didn’t help identify specific materials. It helped to identify
characteristics we were/should consider (A2).
Team A regularly split up to search for materials from different resources
within the team (Figure 6.32), simultaneously looking through books and
online material databases, which they then discussed.
242
Figure 6.32 Team A using the resources provided
Many referred to the tool assisting them to focus on creating a criteria,
specification, characteristics or prioritisation of material properties. (A1, A3,
B1, B3). There were numerous comments relating to the need to consider
different aspects:
Having these consideration criteria listed helped create a holistic
approach i.e. not just focussed on recycling (A3).
It served as a ‘reminder that there is a lot to consider in sustainable design,
and can’t just be one or two things’ (B2). Team B regularly mentioned the
need for more detailed LCA information to understand and (quantify) if
materials are sustainable:
I’m sure natural rubber is hideous in terms of water usage if you
do an LCA (B3).
For task two Team B ‘used the tool initially to spark discussions and remind
us of areas we should consider’ but didn’t find time to move into the material
selection area as much as expected. Possibly the tool needs development to
assist the process and ensure it is used throughout material selection tasks,
as they appeared to forget about the tool after the initial discussion. Team A
stated that they ‘tried to focus on green ones for combined positive impacts’
referring to the green impact lines. However many of the green lines they
highlighted also have negative impacts which they appear to have ignored.
243
However for task three they also looked at the red negative aspects. Within
task two, a flaw with the tool was visible. Both teams focussed on overall
sustainable design/material strategies but not how it related to material
choice.
Figure 6.33 Tool used in Task Two by Team A
Both teams said they worked differently when supplied with the tool. In task
two, Team A used the tool (Figure 6.33) to help them focus on a specification
as well as broaden the considerations. Team B also said it made them
consider ‘broader implications of materials’, e.g. the tool told them what
considerations connect to longevity. Team B also said using the tool made
them conduct material selection differently because it made them consider
natural materials.
244
Figure 6.34 Team A using the tool to create criteria
Team A engaged with the tool the most and created a good team working
environment (Figure 6.34), with the tool central to their discussions and
decision making. Team A drew on the tool provided the highlight the criteria
they chose to focus on (Figure 6.35, Figure 6.36). They only went to use
book and internet searches once they had defined criteria from the tool.
Team A commented that they found sustainable material selection
complicated with the tool because it highlights so many aspects and they
found it difficult to prioritise.
245
Figure 6.35 Team A drawing on the tool
Figure 6.36 Tool used by Team A in Task Three
246
The tool doesn’t help judge the impacts, it only presents them so participants
were using their own experience a lot, such as Team A when discussing the
trade-off of cost versus quality.
6.6.2.5 Building Confidence
One participant (B3) stated that it takes time to gain the confidence to select
sustainable materials. General comments were made by participants
indicating that the tasks got easier as they grew more familiar and confident
with both the tool and the information presented on it. Team B commented on
task one that they lacked confidence with their decisions because they
lacked LCA information.
6.6.2.6 Participants
The two teams worked very differently overall on the tasks. Team A had a
more strategic approach and worked well as a team, always using the tool as
a starting point with their tasks. Team B tended to get more lost and diverge
from the task, requiring more prompting than Team A, as can be seen in
Figure 6.37 and Figure 6.38. Team B worked very individually, each making
their own set of notes throughout the tasks. Participant B3 commented that
task 3 was ‘easier because it explicitly focussed on materials’. This clearly
highlights the fact the team had missed the point from the beginning of the
workshop despite regular reminders and a table of resources for material
selection. For task three the researcher had to reinforce the sustainable
material selection focus following the divergence form the tasks previously.
Some participants were confused on task 2 by the general sustainable
design strategies and were unsure how this related to material selection.
247
Figure 6.37 Team B worked more individually
Figure 6.38 Team B worked more individually
6.6.3 Suggested Improvements
The current design does not allow enough space to explain the positive and
negative impacts shown in the central circle; two respondents from the
survey commented that they would like to know the explanations. This also
came up in the workshop:
248
The connections between categories were useful, but more
information would be useful (B3).
Further explanations are required for the framework to make more sense;
one Product manager (R7) asked for explanations for each driver
consideration. This had been a concern for the researcher too, with prior
considerations given to having multiple layers of the framework with
definitions for each driver visible. Again, with an interactive presentation
style, this would be much easier to achieve without further crowding the
diagram. Indeed one Research Associate (R10) commented that the
researcher should seek assistance from graphic and information graphic
designers. Also within the workshop study, Team A held a discussion on
what ‘classic design’ means, so possibly the addition of definitions and
examples would improve the framework to allow it to function as a tool.
Two people (survey evaluation) commented on the lack of social
considerations whilst another felt the framework outline was missing
economic impacts such as commercially sustainable. One Industrial Designer
asked (R9) ‘is this designed to be an interactive tool – i.e. web based or just
a flat graphic? I find it quite ambiguous and confusing’. This suggests that the
framework would benefit from an interactive presentation. There was a
suggestion for guidance as to where to start reading first (R3-Industrial
Designer). A better system to navigate with signposting to the user would
improve the understanding and break down the amount of information read at
once. This was originally included with arrows on the impact lines for some
versions but was removed to reduce crowding of information. It is also not
possible to direct the flow of decisions, as research showed people start from
different drivers. This would be easier to improve if the framework was
developed into a computer-based visualisation where information was
presented as users interacted with it. There were also suggestions to develop
the tool so that the user can select what information is visible, possibly with
different stages of approach:
All the information on the tool is quite intimidating on first glance.
Maybe have less information to start with then build it up (B2).
249
There was a desire for the tool to be used in other ways, such as to assist
creativity:
It would be great as a concept generation tool, throwing up
random combinations of points to focus on, or possibly used as a
matrix for an amount of concept permutations (A3).
It would be really interesting to develop different formats of the tool designed
for differing stages of the design process. There was one request for energy
recovery to be included as part of the framework (R5-Lecturer in Product
Design). Yet because each circle represents a driver, the researcher felt that
energy recovery should not be a starting point to sustainable materials. This
is discussed further in 7.6, page 267)
6.7 Conclusion
The research question regarding how industrial designers could be supported
to integrate sustainability into the material selection process is answered
within the overall framework. Although education is needed, it is not the main
requirement but has a shared weighting with the need to illustrate examples
and engage the individual. Engagement has two key expectations, to engage
the individual in order to promote self-education whilst also encouraging the
individual to engage others. The main support required is for industrial
designers, and other material specifiers, to be assisted in engaging others to
sustainable material selection.
The framework for sustainable materials selection builds on the definition of a
sustainable material; providing a more in-depth representation of what
constitutes a sustainable material. More definitions for the terms used within
the framework would assist clarity.
The current presentation of the sustainable material selection framework is
confusing at times. Too much information is presented, but paradoxically not
enough. There is a struggle for space internally within the circle to show the
relative impacts. This has resulted in a lack of explanation for internal
250
impacts whilst those written around the circle have the space for example
explanations. As the quantity of content increased, the scores for the
aesthetics, clarity and understanding reduced, implying that too much
information was visible. Originally the intention was to show all the impacts
for every driver, as shown in (Figure 6.7, page 218) but it was soon realised
that this would be too confusing. The reasoning behind the original intention
was to present a holistic framework which showed how the selection choices
would affect others. However, there was a difficult balance to make between
engaging the individual in the considerations and impacts of sustainable
material selection without alienating them. Some of the negativity
experienced during the survey could be due to the difficulty in understanding
the framework through an online survey.
The original intention of the research was only to create a framework aimed
at industrial designers but the need for a framework to be understood by
anyone involved in material specification, as well as those they need to
engage, emerged from the research and proved challenging. Although as the
key target group for the research was industrial designers, the use of a
graphical and colourful presentation was intentional. But with such a wide
group evaluating the framework it would be difficult to please everyone.
Although only intended as a method for presenting the impacts, as opposed
to a tool, survey respondents indicated they would be interested in it being
developed further into a working tool. As such the workshop study allowed for
greater evaluation and proved the framework functions as a tool. The teams
worked more cohesively once provided with the tool and used it in different
ways throughout the tasks. It was used as a starting point, to develop a
strategy, to refocus the group on the task and to direct sustainable material
selection. It often helped encourage interaction and promote discussions
within the groups, which was one of the main objectives. Some of the
discussions overheard in the workshop included:
What is classic design, should they select it as an objective? (Team A)
Virgin material versus recycled content with relation to quality (Team B)
251
How the life cycle hierarchy relates to material selection (Team A)
Evaluated against the overall framework, the tool met all three of the main
criteria, it engaged, educated and illustrated sustainable material selection
and was seen to improve individuals confidence with sustainable material
selection as the workshop progressed. In order to illustrate sustainable
material selection, material samples were provided but these were rarely
looked at. A useful addition would be to provide illustration through company
and product case studies, Team B in particular used the internet to search for
product examples using sustainable materials. In relation to the user
requirements for a tool presented at the end of Chapter Five, almost all of the
requirements were met, aside from the relevant product examples. The tool
assisted the teams identify what positive and negative implications differing
material selection decisions have on each other. Workshop participants
reported they all gained a broader understanding of sustainable materials
from using the tool.
It is slightly limited by its current format; the use of software to animate it
could provide a more dynamic presentation and alleviate the quantity of
information. However being paper based has its advantages for use in team
meeting and to promote discussion between individuals so possibly both a
presentation format comprising both software and physical formats are
required. Further developments and testing would allow the framework to be
developed further to improve its efficacy as a tool (also see section 8.5, page
279).
252
7 Discussion
This chapter discusses the interesting, unexpected and insightful findings of
the research whilst positioning them amongst work by contemporaries within
the field.
7.1 Introduction
This research set out to understand how industrial designers could be
supported to select sustainable materials for mass manufacture. Particular
attention has been given to understanding the drivers and barriers to the use
of sustainable materials within mass-manufactured products. As the research
progressed, it became evident that a wider understanding was required by
extending the research beyond industrial design practitioners and including
others involved in the material selection process, referred to as material
specifiers.
7.2 Material Decision-Making Role Varies
A number of studies had previously investigated the material selection
considerations of industrial designers (Ashby and Johnson, 2006; Karana et
al., 2008; Kesteren, 2008; Pedgley, 1999), but questions concerning
designers’ responsibility and ability to make the material decisions remained
unanswered. It has been stated that designers are the key to creating a
change to sustainable products (DEFRA, 2008; Chick and Micklethwaite,
2011) and that their role needs to change (Masuda, 2001; Manzini, 2009;
DEFRA, 2008; Chick and Micklethwaite, 2011), but the empirical research
found it evident that designers share the responsibility with many others and
cannot be expected to make changes alone. They, in fact, need help to
engage others, both internally within their company and externally with
stakeholders such as material producers or manufacturers. Likewise,
Baumann et al. (2002) depict a number of influencing stakeholders within
green product development, all of whom could be relevant to sustainable
material selection. Pedgley (2009) found designers are responsible for
253
recognising, initiating and creating the various stakeholder influences whilst
Manzini (2009) believes this is a role designers must attain in order to bring
about sustainable change. Hornbuckle (2010) state, that the designer is
required to identify and engage stakeholders in order to select recycled
materials. Manzini (2009) believes designers of the future need to act as
facilitators, which is also a clear conclusion of this research. In order for
sustainable material selection to occur, designers and others involved in
material specifying need to engage and educate the stakeholders with whom
they work. This research has built on studies conducted by Pedgley (2009),
which identified the stakeholder influences affecting material selection to be
clients, manufacturers and vendors, users and the designers; but the study
did not include sustainability issues. Just as Mawle (2010) found that
designers lack confidence to implement ecodesign, this study has found that
a lack of confidence among designers creates a barrier, both to implement
sustainable material selection and to engage and encourage stakeholders to
allow the selection.
Although some of the industrial designers involved in the scoping study, and
within smaller consultancies, did take responsibility for material selection, it
was acknowledged that their choice was often more of a suggestion, with
suppliers and clients inputting into the decision-making process. It became
apparent that, although some designers did have the freedom to specify
materials, it was usually a decision involving numerous people from differing
stakeholders, such as the manufacturer, client or supplier, and the final
choice may not be within the designer’s control. In this sense there appeared
to be a chain of decision-making, which varied within each company as to
who had the final decision. Engineers were found to play a major part within
some companies for the material choices made. Within the four case study
companies the job roles involved in material selection varied considerably.
Within the automotive company, a dedicated sustainability attributes team
consists of materials engineers, whom have sole responsibility for engaging
colleagues with selecting sustainable materials. However, at two companies
the decisions were predominantly made by the designers or engineers, but
254
with support and input from other colleagues and experts. It was surprising to
find such a variety of job roles being employed in the material selection
process; within one company ‘technical consultants’ were found to be the key
experts responsible for advising others, including designers, on materials
choices. Within some companies there was a culture of involvement within
the process, encouraging departments such as marketing and sales to feed
their ideas or feedback from the customers back to those involved in the
material selection. In this way, the consumer was found in some cases to be
driving unsustainable materials, with marketing requesting certain materials,
despite their unsustainable credentials, for aesthetic reasons.
7.2.1 Language Requirements Differ
It is widely acknowledged that the language for industrial designers and
engineers varies (Karana, 2009; Ashby and Johnson, 2006; Pedgley, 1999;
Lofthouse, 2001). The empirical studies found a need to communicate to a
wider audience, not just designers, requiring a common language applicable
to all. Much of the literature regarding sustainable material selection is too
academic to be relevant and applicable to designers and others involved in
design practice. There exists a variation between companies as to who is the
predominant sustainable material specifier; within some it was the industrial
designers whilst others it was the engineers or technical consultants. In the
case of the automotive company, material engineers were tasked solely with
integrating sustainable materials into the products, which creates problems
when trying to develop generic support. This variation creates diversity for
the information required to enable sustainable material selection. It became
apparent that there is a lack of common language and common
understanding for sustainable materials. Instead, what is required is a bridge
between the academic presentation of sustainable materials and the practical
presentation, but using a mutually relevant style. For this reason, the
definition provides an overview to sustainable materials in an academic style.
Contrary to this, the sustainable material selection framework is presented
visually in order to appeal to not only designers but others such as clients,
suppliers, managers and manufacturers. Appropriate language is essential to
255
bridge design academia and design practice. Further development is
required, however, to develop it from a framework to an applicable tool.
7.3 Defining a Sustainable Material
Just as the term ‘sustainability’ has been described as both complex and
conflicting (Chick and Micklethwaite, 2011), so is the notion of a ‘sustainable
material’. Both terms are, in essence, umbrella terms for a collection of
considerations; the framework for sustainable material selection presents this
collection drawn together from the research findings. The ambiguity of the
term ‘sustainable’ has been noted by (Chick and Micklethwaite, 2011) and
was likewise acknowledged during the empirical studies when discussing
sustainable materials. As well as this, the term ‘sustainable’ is widely
misused by many, adding to the loss of meaning (IDSA, 2011). The research
has encountered an evident lack of a common understanding regarding
sustainable materials, consequently creating confusion. Some statements
regarding ‘sustainable’ materials only stated the environmental
considerations (Arnold, 2003; Ljungberg, 2007), which, if we accept the
widely accepted definition to include social and economic considerations too,
these definitions do not fit.
It is understood that ‘sustainable design’ is the current term to use, having
evolved from the original terms of ‘green’ and ‘eco’ (Baumann et al., 2002).
During this research, however, empirical evidence found that many of those
involved in sustainable material selection still use the terms ‘green’ and ‘eco’.
Some of the participants questioned even said they were more comfortable
with the terms such as ‘eco’ and ‘green’, or individual considerations such as
biodegradable or cleaner materials. The term ‘ecomaterial’ is still widely used
(Fuad-Luke, 2006; Halada, 2003; Yamamoto, 2010; Arnold, 2003) and may
explain why some prefer the term. ‘Ecodesign’ is the term used by the
European Commission within the WEEE directive (European Parliament and
Council of the European Union, 2012), however DEFRA (2008), a
department within the UK Government, refers to sustainable products and
materials. Equally, the British Standards Institute (2011a) uses the term
256
‘sustainable materials’. This shows that even within legislative, labelling and
standards-based documentation, designers and material specifiers will
encounter the use of both eco and sustainable. Within design and materials,
the terms ‘eco’ and ‘green’ are still in use, and appear to be better
understood than the term ‘sustainable’ in both the literature and empirical
studies, but sustainable will become more wide known.
A definition for a sustainable material was originally constructed following the
literature review in order to guide the research project. The researcher is
aware, however, of the limitations that such a definition presents. It does not
suit designerly ways of thinking and provides no practical guidance to
sustainable material selection. In its nature, by being concise it does not
present the complexities and trade-offs of sustainable material selection. It
proved a useful tool to prompt discussion within both the second stage of the
scoping study and also within the case studies. This also enabled the
researcher to gain valuable insights from practising professionals regarding
how the working definition could be developed.
What is important to make clear is that, although one material may be
sustainable, another identical material may not. For example, there was
evidence of a tendency to assume a material was sustainable based only
upon its material type, predominantly natural materials such as bamboo or
wood, without delving into the varieties of these materials available. Whether
a material is sustainable is affected by numerous considerations, such as
location or production methods employed. When asked to name a massmanufactured product made from sustainable materials, many industrial
designers felt wood would always be sustainable and therefore any wooden
product such as furniture could be an example. Wood, however, like many
natural materials, is only sustainable if the resource is sustainably managed
or if the species is abundant. For this reason some companies mentioned
certain certification used to insure wood is both managed and legally felled
as an example of a legislation which affects sustainable material use.
257
It was both surprising and concerning to find some industrial designers are
anxious to mention the idea of sustainable materials to their clients for fear of
losing work or alienating their clients. Conversely, within one of the main
study companies, the use of sustainable materials was a key factor to
ensuring jobs were gained, with their field of furniture much further ahead in
terms of understanding and requirements than that of consumer goods.
7.3.1 The Evolution of the Definition
Following the literature review a word cloud was created of words and
phrases associated with sustainable materials, shown in Figure 7.1 Using
this image, the researcher wrote a definition for a sustainable material. Early
drafts included the word ‘cyclic’ but it was felt that this is a word only used by
certain people such as Datschefski (2001). Equally the term ‘cradle-to-cradle’
is synonymous with McDonough and Braungart (2002). It was problematic
deciding whether the definition should be concerned with what is a wholly
sustainable material or contributes to a sustainable material. For example, by
stating a material causes zero negative environmental impact, the researcher
was concerned this statement would alienate designers due to the low
possibility of attaining such impact. With this in mind it was decided that
phrases such as ‘minimise’ or ‘reduce impact’ would be preferable.
Figure 7.1 Word Cloud for Material Sustainability
258
The following is the first definition written by the researcher and used in the
scoping study for discussion and feedback:
‘A sustainable material is economically viable, uses minimal
resources from a renewable, abundant or recycled origin and
minimises its impact on the environment and society during its life’
During the second stage of the scoping study industrial designers were
asked to comment on the definition. Feedback received indicated that
economic aspects are an automatic consideration and therefore do not need
including in the definition. A lack of reference to creating material cycles was
pointed out and so the definition has been changed to reflect this. The
existence of materials which are sustainable and meet the definition was
questioned by some participants. There was unease by many at the use of
the term ‘sustainable’; some described it as a complete misnomer whilst
others laughed at the idea of sustainable materials. Similarly, it has been
argued that sustainable products do not exist:
Virtually any product that uses electrical power, energy from
natural gas, materials from the earth, or transportation of any kind
does not meet this definition as all of these deplete resources and
damage the environment (Bonnema, 2006:1).
The researcher experienced conflict when devising the original definition for
this same reason. Should the definition present a goal to aim for or would this
alienate designers by being either too difficult, or even near impossible? The
researcher decided that ‘minimising’ impacts would provide a more realistic
objective, given that material selection has numerous considerations.
Empirical studies found the word ‘minimising’ was questioned, with the
suggestion that it be replaced with ‘zero’ or ‘beneficial’. The selection of
materials requires numerous considerations already; if sustainability is too
difficult to achieve, the fear is it may be ignored. Through the scoping study
many respondents questioned how to judge whether a material is sustainable
and so a second qualifying statement was added. This feedback enabled the
definition to evolve:
259
A sustainable material has been considered for its entire lifecycle
to ensure a closed loop. It uses resources efficiently from a
renewable, abundant or recycled origin and minimises its impact
on the environment and society during its life.
A sustainable material is one which has been chosen over another
because it has preferable sustainable properties in line with the
definition.
This definition was then used during the main study stage to gain feedback
and prompt discussion amongst the interviewees. The lack of economic
aspects was noted by respondents and so this has been reintroduced. There
is also ambiguity between terms such as ‘recycling’ and ‘closed loop’, but it
would be hard to define the words within the definition. A lack of reference to
traceability was also noted by some involved in the study. Akin to the
researcher’s struggle as to whether a sustainable material should minimise
impact or have zero impact, this was raised by interviewees in both the
scoping study and the main study. The final definition is:
A sustainable material is economically viable and requires tracing
to source to ensure it is from a renewable, abundant or recycled
origin. Its entire life-cycle must be considered to ensure a closed
loop whilst minimising its impact on the environment and society
throughout its life-cycle
Due to the complexities involved in defining a sustainable material, the
framework (Figure 6.7, page 218) was developed to present a graphical
holistic representation of sustainable material considerations and impacts.
7.4 Barriers to Sustainable Material Selection
Understanding what the main drivers and barriers are affecting the selection
of sustainable materials has been a constant theme throughout this research.
The barriers shall be discussed in this section whilst the drivers were used to
develop the framework and are discussed in section 7.5 (Facilitating
Sustainable Material Selection, page 264).
260
7.4.1 Ambiguity of Recycling and Closed Loop Approaches
It became apparent that there is confusion as to what constitutes a recycled
material. Some participants consider reground industrial scrap as recycled
content, whilst others constitute this as green washing. One of the companies
has become aware of this, finding the need to create its own definition to
differentiate between regrind and recycled accordingly. This ensures
manufacturers do not increase scrap rates in order to boost recycled content
statistics (D3-Sustainability Attribute Product Leader). This problem was also
identified within numerous different companies’ marketing literature. It was
often very difficult, at times impossible, for the researcher to identify the true
meaning of the depicted recycled content figures. An example given in the
literature review is the Sony camera body (Figure 2.42, page 92) made from
scrap produced in the manufacture of compact discs, which is described as
recycled plastic. This factory scrap is a high quality, clean, pre-consumer
recyclate which many would define as regrind, as the material has not been
used within a product, i.e. post-consumer (Zhang et al., 1997; Jovane et al.,
1993; Lewis et al., 2001; British Standards Institute, 1999), not recycled
content. Within the literature there are also variations. Lewis et al. (2001)
provide three sources for recyclate, including regrind under the term
‘industrial waste’, whilst the other sources are both post-consumer. The
British Standards Institute (1999:13) breaks down the term ‘recycled content’
into a number of terms in order to clarify the situation. Within pre-consumer
material it is clearly stated:
Excluded is the reutilization of materials such as rework, regrind or
scrap generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed
within the same process that generated it (British Standards
Institute, 1999:13).
Hornbuckle (2010:4) defines recycled material as one which ‘has been
recovered, reprocessed and reintroduced into the market in a new form’.
Hornbuckle (2010), however, also uses the term ‘secondary material’ as an
overarching term to cover any material which is not virgin; which could be
interpreted by some to include regrind. This adds yet another term to the
261
existing list of terms, which are already misunderstood, and could increase
confusion.
As with contradictions found in defining and applying the term recycled
content within literature, empirical research identified a similar variation of
interpretation of the meaning. There is a debate as to whether material
recycling can only be considered as downcycling (Masuda, 2001;
McDonough and Braungart, 2002) or if upcycling is truly possible. Braungart
and Mc Donough (2013) present a strategy for continuous improvement in
order that upcycling can be achieved, but currently the UK lacks the
infrastructure to create continual high-quality recyclate. Many respondents
also questioned the differentiation between upcycled materials and
downcycled materials, and the ability to upgrade recycled material into high
quality products. Although it is now viable to recycle mixed plastics (WRAP,
2009a), the application possibilities for this quality of plastic are not clear.
It was also found that companies working with suppliers struggled to get this
statistical information from their suppliers, with the quantity of recycled
content varying between product runs. Again, the statistical information for
recycled content on marketing is often missing. A number of companies
explained that the percentage of recyclate often varies, depending on the
market cost and availability of recyclate. A reference was also made to a
competitor who had advertised a high percentage of recycled content but
then was unable to meet its promise due to pricing and availability. For this
reason some participants use a range, e.g., will contain 40%-60% or at least
40% recycled content to safeguard the company.
Statistics were found to provide the opportunity to bend the truth; if products’
percentage is based on weight, then the use of recycled metals can quickly
skew the statistics to make the product appear to contain a higher volume of
recycled content, when in fact it does not. The automotive company
(Company D) has weight-based targets for the inclusion of sustainable
materials. Although the company is keen to reduce the vehicle weight, this
262
measurement could prove contradictory by encouraging the use of heavier
sustainable materials in order to meet targets and gain the incentive
bonuses. Lightweight materials, however, are favoured during selection.
7.4.2 Immature Plastic Recycling Infrastructure
There exists conflict in both the literature and empirical studies as to whether
an adequate recycling system exists in the UK. It has been argued that the
infrastructure can commercially recycle mixed plastics into good quality
recyclate (WRAP, 2009a). It has also been indicated, however that there is a
lack of supply chain and infrastructure to recycle products which were
designed to be recyclable (Gehin et al., 2008). The loop is closed once
consumers purchase products made from recycled post-consumer waste, but
the markets are still undeveloped creating too much risk for business to
invest in reprocessing facilities (POST, 2005). There was an obvious
avoidance of specifying post-consumer recycled content plastic for visual or
structural parts within all four companies due to fear of contamination, poor
quality and material degradation. Within the empirical studies, conflicting
statements were given regarding food grade plastic recyclate, one company
believing it does not exist, whilst another company only specifying food grade
recyclate in order to ensure clean, high-quality plastic. If recyclate is not
clean the contaminants affect production; during blow moulding the impurities
blow holes in the bottles and therefore leak. Similarly, another company said
it does not use post-consumer plastic recyclate as degradation occurs
affecting the product quality. There was an evident fear of risk involved with
specifying recyclate due to fluctuating market in terms of both availability and
cost. Recycling in the UK is continually improving; Axion Polymers have
developed and built a processing plant in Manchester to sort and recycle
WEEE which uses a 20-stage process to create high grade polymers (Axion
Recycling, 2009). Sims Recycling Ltd (2013) and many other recycling
companies shred all waste in order to recycle, which goes against the rules
of disassembly, creating more confusion for designers.
263
7.4.3 Fear of Green Washing Through Unsubstantiated Claims
It became apparent from the empirical studies that the lack of clarity
regarding sustainability claims has led to a very cautious approach by many
companies to ensure they do not make unsubstantiated claims. Standards
have been written banning vague and non-specific claims, example phrases
highlighted included ‘environmentally safe’ and ‘green’ (British Standards
Institute, 1999:5). Indeed the ambiguous and complex interpretation of
‘sustainability’ has meant that it is not deemed possible to lay claims to
sustainability:
The concepts involved in sustainability are highly complex and still
under study. At this time there are no definitive methods for
measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment.
Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made
(British Standards Institute, 1999:5).
Some participants believe a competitor makes unsubstantiated claims. This
puts them in a quandary as some departments, such as sales and marketing,
encourage them to follow this competitor’s lead in order to not appear
inferior. The strong company policies guarantee that this does not occur,
ensuring they cannot bend the truth in order to match competitor claims.
A fear of green washing is a justified response since its application can
damage the target market:
Greenwash eats away at that market demand by confusing
consumers and making them uncertain about buying green
products. Eventually they’ll stop buying based on their green
preferences altogether (Futerra Sustainability Communications,
2008).
7.4.4 Complexity of Issues and Trade-Offs
It can be difficult for designers to handle trade-offs and understand whether
one material is more sustainable than another. It is not a simple decisionmaking process for designers. There exists conflict in identifying if a material
264
is sustainable, and this varies and is dependent on the material application
(Ashby et al., 2005). This conflict was found with the notion of biodegradable
materials, with some keen to learn more so they can apply them whilst others
felt plastics should be recyclable to enable closed loop production.
7.5 Facilitating Sustainable Material Selection
Lofthouse (2003) defined criteria to create ecodesign tools specifically for
industrial designers, but there are many similarities between these findings
and those regarding sustainable material selection requirements. Lofthouse
(2001) found industrial designers require a service that combines guidance,
information and education. Similarly, this PhD research identified a need for
education regarding sustainable materials supported by high-quality
information to both educate and increase awareness. In addition to this,
however, empirical research identified the importance of the individual’s
personal interest in sustainable materials and a requirement for encouraging
and developing this interest, in order for individuals to self-educate.
Designers need better information on the aesthetic properties of materials,
but cost is vital as this is the factor in which clients are most interested. Both
Pedgley (1999) and Lofthouse (2001) concluded that designers require a
combination of practical knowledge and product-centred knowledge and this
is the same for sustainable materials. These insights were used to build the
overall framework for facilitating sustainable material selection (Figure 6.3,
page 209) and each of the key areas shall be discussed in the following
section.
7.5.1 Creating Personal Interest and Encouraging Self-Education
Personal interest was often found to be encouraging sustainable material
selection. Individuals with a strong interest had influenced colleagues and
stakeholders; therefore there is a clear need to inspire individuals to develop
a personal interest. With regards to general design decision making, it is
interesting that Hicks et al. (1982, cited in Trimingham, 2007) lists the
environmental impact and responsibility of design under moral values,
suggesting it is only a personal consideration. The researchers findings
265
agree with Hicks et al. (1982, cited in Trimingham, 2007), but environmental
considerations were also found to be driven by influences, such as company
aspirations, competitors, marketing departments and customer demand.
Similarly, Pedgley (1999) cites personal objectives and aspirations of the
designer as influencing material selection. There could also be negative
effects from a personal interest; some of those interviewed had a personal
interest with specific topics, such as bioplastics or recycled content and
would try to emphasise this over other choices, creating a bias. Individual
experience is often driving material selection, similar to findings by Kesteren
(2008).
7.5.2 Education and Illustration to Improve Understanding
Throughout all the empirical studies a confusion and lack of understanding
regarding sustainable materials was evident, due to the complex issues and
contradictory information. In order to encourage the use of secondary
materials Hornbuckle (2010) came to a similar conclusion, with one of the
framework considerations being to improve knowledge and awareness.
There was a clear desire by many material specifiers and designers to
improve their own understanding and knowledge in order to engage others.
Designers require product examples in order to both inspire and illustrate
material possibilities (Hornbuckle, 2010; Bhamra and Lofthouse, 2003). In
reality, however, there is a lack of mass-manufactured product examples
(Baumann et al., 2002; Chick and Micklethwaite, 2004). There exist a number
of examples of sustainable material use in other design disciplines; some
companies use these to engage and educate colleagues with products to
which they can relate. The relevance of other design fields to engage users
with sustainable materials is not something identified during the literature
search. Indeed, many of the resources analysed were found to be aimed at
other design disciplines as opposed to industrial design, but may still have
relevance to inspire and engage individuals with sustainable materials.
266
7.5.3 Support to Engage Others
Industrial designers within design consultancies rarely consider sustainability
when selecting materials, frequently citing a lack of interest or request from
the client. Consultancy designers requested support to both educate and
‘sell’ the idea of sustainable materials to their clients and customers in order
to facilitate their application. During the main study this request was extended
to include both external and internal stakeholders, such as colleagues, senior
management, marketing, sales, suppliers, manufacturers, consumers and
engineers. This links with findings from Pedgley (2009) who suggests that
designers are required to act as mediators and reach material selection
choices whilst meeting varying stakeholder influences. Similarly Hornbuckle
(2010) states that designers need to interact with a number of actors such as
distributors, re-processors, manufacturers, factories and charity collections in
order to enable secondary material use. Equally, the framework presented to
assess the sustainability of a material states that the second step requires
identifying and engaging with relevant stakeholder groups (British Standards
Institute, 2011a). There is a crossover here with section 7.2, where the need
for the role of the designer to change towards a facilitator has already been
discussed. Manzini (2009) also describes the need for networks to be
created in order that sustainable change can occur. Without supporting and
improving confidence amongst designers, the engagement of others will not
occur and therefore networks will not be created. There is a need to
encourage networking in order that not only knowledge can be shared but
also experience of using sustainable materials. Without the necessary tools,
designers and others within the team cannot engage colleagues and external
stakeholders, such as suppliers, with the idea of sustainable materials. There
was a desire to apply sustainable materials but a lack of knowledge and
confidence to move forward. Freegard (2009), a plastics recycler and
supplier, stated that accessing designers is one of the company’s main
challenges
Sustainable material selection was often found to require individuals to
engage the management level of the company. This is contrary to most
267
literature, which suggest tools and resources should be aimed at educating
individuals to increase their knowledge, without acknowledging the multidisciplinary team environment that design involves. The support of the
company is vital to ensuring the use of sustainable materials, and so it
follows that individuals may require help in order to achieve this.
7.6 Framework to Support Sustainable Material Selection
This section will discuss the relevance of the framework within the field of
sustainable material selection and compared to existing tools, frameworks
and resources.
Although currently only a proposal, it is anticipated that the framework could
assist designers to select sustainable materials. The varying levels of the
framework is designed to suit the early stages of the design process, when
designers require a lower level of information (Ashby et al., 2004). The
limitations of tools such as LCAs lie in their complexity, high cost and the
time required to use them (Lauridsen and Jørgensen, 2010; Tischner, 2001),
whereas this framework is designed to quickly provide an overview of the
trade-offs involved and the considerations required to enable sustainable
material selection. The novelty of the framework lies in the visual overview of
sustainable material impacts and selection factors. This also fits with the
findings of Lofthouse and Bhamra (2001), indicating that designers require
varying levels of information, starting with smaller pieces and building from
them.
A framework for secondary material use already exists (Hornbuckle, 2010)
but this only focuses on one single aspect of sustainable materials. The only
framework found to assess material sustainability is presented by the British
Standards Institute (2011a), but this is designed to be applied to a material
once it has been chosen. Applying a material assessment at this point in the
process conflicts with literature, because it is widely acknowledged that
sustainable considerations need to occur before design decisions have been
made in order for the most significant improvement to be achieved.
268
Designers indicated that they make material decisions early on in the process
which is when the sustainable issue should be introduced; Lofthouse (1999)
found that early in the process was the best time to introduce ecodesign
considerations. The evaluation of existing tools and resources found a lack of
support for UK industrial designers, with many presented in a format too
detailed or with engineers in mind. The framework is designed to suit all job
roles, bridging designers and engineers but also including others involved in
the material selection process. Some material selection resources reviewed
earlier in the research present sustainable attribute information (Granta
Design Limited, 2009b; Material ConneXion, 2009b; PRé-Consultants,
2009c) but designers need to understand the relevance and implications of
sustainable material attributes in order to make informed decisions. The
framework is designed to visually present the impacts of sustainable material
considerations in order that trade-offs can be identified. Some resources
promote one or two strategies, which has been acknowledged to create poor
material choices, whilst others provide a detailed LCA, but are timeconsuming to apply. This lack of a holistic presentation and a need for a
quick visual representation were the drivers for the holistic framework
presented (Figure 6.7, page 218).
The information presented on the framework is populated from the empirical
research. It could be envisaged, however, that the framework could be used
as a tool, and presented blank in order that users could populate it
throughout the material selection process. An example of how this may work
is shown in Appendix EE (page 377), the researcher used the tool whilst
researching the material cotton.
7.6.1 Need to Promote Life-Cycle Thinking
Within the empirical research there was a tendency to focus on recycling as
the primary life-cycle consideration, with reuse and remanufacture less
prevalent. Correspondingly, the most recent WEEE directive recall lacks
reference to these options, promoting recycling as the key consideration
(European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2012; Waste
269
Management World, 2012). Similarly, within literature there is an evident
focus on the use of recycled materials within design (Chick and
Micklethwaite, 2004; Hornbuckle, 2010; Pedgley, 1999; Dehn, 2008). There
lacks a push towards design for remanufacture and reuse, which the
framework aims to promote as equal options. Until recently the UK has
predominantly used landfill as an end-of-life option (Smallbone, 2005) but the
landfill tax is continuing to rise (HM Revenue & Customs, 2011) and the
restrictions on materials allowed are increasing (DEFRA, 2011). Due to this
shift, the researcher chose to place landfill as a bracketed, last resort option
within the hierarchy table of the framework. The framework is designed as a
starting point for the front end of the material selection process; promoting
landfill would not be appropriate. End-of-life is a common phrase within
literature, but the use of the word ‘end’ semantically goes against promoting
recycling, reuse and remanufacture, so for this reason life-cycle is used. The
British Standards Institute (2006) also promotes life-cycle thinking for
materials, sourcing and processing. There is also an evident indication within
the literature towards life-cycle focused design. Datschefski (2001) promotes
the idea of cyclic thinking whilst McDonough and Braungart (2002) promote
the shift in emphasis from cradle-to-grave to cradle-to-cradle design practice.
7.6.2 Framework Promotes Holistic Decision-Making
The majority of literature and resources focuses on eco design strategies
(Lewis et al., 2001; Lofthouse, 2005) or eco-materials (Fuad-Luke, 2006;
Ecolect, 2008b) or the selection of eco-materials (Ashby, 2009a; Zarandi et
al., 2011; Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2001). The inclusion of social and
economic issues is often lacking, within both literature and material selection
resources, which the framework is designed to overcome. Social
considerations are often intangible and broad, posing a challenge to
represent them in the framework. There was, however, a lack of reference to
social implications in the main study, which indicates the need for further
studies to understand the social aspects (8.5 Recommendations for Further
Work).
270
Lack of time is often a key problem for industrial designers to integrate
sustainable design practices matched with a need for a tool which fits within
their design process (Lofthouse, 2001). This feeling was also expressed by
many, both within the scoping studies and the main study, with one proposal
being a mobile phone application to enable easy access. For this reason the
framework was designed to facilitate discussion and provide a simplified
overview to sustainable material selection. The novelty of the framework lies
in the fact that nothing similar exists which presents the trade-offs associated
with sustainable material selection.
With sustainability, there is a tendency to focus on one area without
considering the holistic implications of decisions (Bras, 1997), which was
found to be a similar problem with sustainable material selection. A number
of studies have focused on the use of recycled material within design
(Pedgley, 1999; Hornbuckle, 2010; Chick and Micklethwaite, 2004; Dehn,
2008), whilst the two strategies ‘minimise material use’ and ‘use recycled
material’ are the most commonly promoted strategies within the tools and
resources analysed. The framework builds on work by Hornbuckle (2010) to
provide an holistic framework which incorporates recycled material as one
consideration to enable sustainable material selection.
7.6.3 Framework Limitations
The most comprehensive guidelines to the social considerations of material
selection are within the BS8905 (British Standards Institute, 2011a). It could
nevertheless be difficult for designers to convert these social factors into
tangible material considerations. It has also been stated that no accurate
definition for social sustainability exists, because the tangibility is less than
economic and environmental considerations (Kyratsis et al., 2012). Within
previous empirical studies there has been little mention of social
considerations. The few references given included the avoidance of organic
cotton from areas which divert water from local communities whilst another
company assesses social factors within the external certification process
applied to their materials and products. The rise in company social
271
responsibility has been noted, however, and company publications within one
company are under revision to reflect this.
7.7 The Future of Sustainable Materials Within MassManufactured Products
Within the main study most companies indicated that future projections for
finite resources and increasing prices are driving research into alternatives.
Within companies many employees have identified a need to be aware of
future trends in order to be ready when more changes are possible. This
matches the framework developed by Hornbuckle (2010) in relation to
secondary material use, which acknowledges current issues of ineffective
recycling systems but indicates that designers need to make decisions now
but whilst thinking of the future. Future projections do not appear to be driving
change yet, but it is an issue which is promoting the consideration and
research of sustainable materials.
There have been developments with regards to the Computer Aided Design
(CAD) software used by designers within the last two years. SolidWorks have
created LCA software (Sustainability Express) to work within their CAD
products, including functions to assess and compare materials. The software
has four environmental indicators; carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air
acidification and total energy consumed (Kyratsis et al., 2012). Although
described as a sustainability tool, there is no mention of economic or social
considerations.
Designing products to enable material recycling is being promoted as the
primary consideration, with reuse considered under this overall term in
relation to the WEEE directive (European Parliament and Council of the
European Union, 2012), though, currently, little impact has been made on the
design of electronics products thus far (Lauridsen and Jørgensen, 2010).
There is an expectation that RoHS will affect designers and how they select
materials (Gehin et al., 2008), but the legislation was rarely mentioned within
the empirical studies. Carbon labelling (The Carbon Trust, 2008) and water
272
labelling for product design are in their infancy, and unsurprisingly neither
were mentioned within the studies although one company is considering
carbon foot printing for future product assessments. The overall environment
standard ISO14001 was found to often be affecting companies in how they
consider sustainable issues, directing them to create internal initiatives which
in turn raise awareness amongst employees. There is a clear change
occurring which is putting end-of-life responsibility on to the manufacturer,
but often designers were unsure what happened with the products they
designed at their end of life. With the government now encouraging recycling
through the WEEE directive (European Parliament and Council of the
European Union, 2012) whilst increasing landfill tax to drive towards a zero
waste economy (DEFRA, 2011) there will be increasing pressure on the
manufacturers, and therefore the designers, to design products which have
longer lifecycles.
Industrial design is currently lacking in product examples compared to the
more developed fields of packaging, architecture, fashion and interior design.
But within some companies these real life examples of sustainable materials
in production have enabled the engagement of uninterested colleagues.
Material specifiers, including designers, need to take more responsibility for
sustainable material choices and work to engage others in the subject.
273
8 Conclusion
This chapter presents overall conclusions identified through the research
alongside explanations as to how the research has met the objectives and
contributed to knowledge. Finally, the research limitations and proposals for
further work are discussed.
8.1 Meeting the Research Aims and Objectives
The overall aim of the research was to generate an understanding for the
selection of sustainable materials in mass manufacture by industrial
designers, through the exploration of the drivers and barriers affecting their
application. As the research progressed, it became evident to include a wider
variety of participants involved in sustainable material selection.
The research had four key objectives:
1. Examine prior research regarding the selection of sustainable materials in
industrial design (Chapters One and Two)
This was met through a comprehensive review of both academic and industry
references to sustainable material selection. The need to include industry
views arose due to a lack of academic references, along with an
acknowledgement that industry often provides more current and relevant
information regarding sustainable materials in mass manufacture.
2. Outline the key barriers and drivers that influence sustainable material
selection (Chapters Four and Five)
This was explored through three empirical studies, a dual stage scoping
study consisting of questionnaires with design professionals and interviews
with industrial designers followed by a detailed case study of four companies
currently engaging with sustainable materials within mass manufacture.
274
3. Study if and how sustainable materials are being applied in mass
manufacture (Chapters Two and Five)
This was primarily studied through a literature search for examples of
products which had been manufactured using sustainable materials but
examples were found to be lacking. This was then further explored through
detailed case studies of four large companies which utilise sustainable
materials in mass manufacture
4. Investigate the support needs of industrial designers and create a
proposal for industrial designers to facilitate the selection of sustainable
materials (Chapter One and Chapter Six)
The information needs of designers were researched within the literature
review, followed by empirical studies to understand what support designers
wanted and needed. The findings from the empirical studies and the literature
review were combined to create two framework proposals for the integration
of sustainable material selection.
8.2 General Conclusions
The ambiguity and variety of terms in use within sustainable design has led
to both confusion and a lack of engagement. Although ‘sustainable’ is
thought to be the current term in use, other terms are being used within both
academia and design practice. This has created both confusion and
misunderstanding as terms such as green, eco, environmentally friendly are
still widely used. The considerations and attributes within a sustainable
material are complex and equally ambiguous; thus, defining a sustainable
material may require supplementary definitions to explain the terms used
within the definition. This ambiguity was also encountered with the
framework; the considerations and impacts also require defining to assist
understanding. Both the definition and the framework offer tools for engaging
individuals in discussion and encouraging consideration of sustainable
material selection requirements.
275
A shift is required from using the term ‘end of life’, which semantically
indicates waste disposal, to use of ‘life-cycle considerations’. This would
encourage and promote material selection to enable remanufacture and
reuse ahead of recycling, followed by incineration, with landfill not promoted
as an option. This shift to life-cycle thinking matches the UK Government
drive to steer design and manufacture away from landfill and towards
recycling, reuse and remanufacture. The ability to create closed loops,
however, is currently very difficult due to the poor recycling infrastructure.
There is a need for technological improvement in recycling and a more
widespread system. The current variations of the recycling system across the
UK are increasing the variables of recycling possibilities, recyclate quality
and recyclate cost. Sustainable materials are viewed by many as a future
issue which they do not need to consider yet, and will not do so until they are
forced to. Sustainable materials are featuring within company research in
order that changes can be made once the market is ready and prices
appropriate. Their implementation is not widespread but is restricted to a few
companies. Equally, there requires a change in consumer demand, in order
that the clients and market favour the use of sustainable materials. The use
of unsubstantiated claims by some companies will increase the negative
attitudes towards sustainable materials. The fear of engaging clients with
sustainable materials encountered within the study will diminish if clients can
see a demand for sustainable materials.
Education is required in order to improve understanding and awareness of
sustainable materials but the complexity and evolving nature of sustainable
materials means the answer is not as simple as an educational resource.
Education is required in order to engage the material specifier to self-educate
and gain the necessary confidence to engage others. The complexity of
issues means that one material will vary in terms of sustainability according
to the company or designer, for example, differing distance between the
material manufacturer and product manufacturer. Educating and engaging
individuals is not enough, instead there is a need to improve the
communication within networks in order to educate and engage others
276
involved in the material decision-making and allow knowledge and
experience to be shared. There is a need for company engagement in order
that sustainable materials are driven from the top as well as from individuals.
The use of company sustainable initiatives has been found to increase both
awareness and understanding amongst employees, also affecting their work
and the selection of sustainable materials.
Although the original intention was to investigate how industrial designers
can be supported, it became evident through empirical research that the
number of people involved in the selection of sustainable materials varies
between companies. There is a need for industrial designers to work with
people both within and outside of their company. Industrial designers alone
cannot make the changes to facilitate sustainable material selection, but
require support to enable them to engage others in the process. In order for
sustainable material use to increase, a wider audience needs to engage with
the topic; but the market and availability also need to improve.
8.3 Limitations of the Research
Although the research objectives have been met within the research there
have been limitations encountered, which have limited the development of
the project outcomes, and they shall be discussed in this section.
8.3.1 Time Limitations
The time restriction of this project impacted on the methodologies chosen
and the sample sizes attained, as this would also impact on the amount of
data analysis required. The studies were designed to escalate in scale and
depth as new research questions emerged; the scale of the main study led to
an extension of the research project time. The final data collection stage was
designed to gain feedback on the framework for sustainable material
selection and was carried out via an online survey in order to gain responses
quickly. Should more time have been available, the researcher would have
liked to gain feedback on the framework through its application in a live
design project.
277
8.3.2 Participant Limitations
The scoping study (Chapter Four) was split into two stages, the first stage
being a questionnaire survey predominantly involving designers. This was
followed by an interview study with seven industrial designers, from both
small consultancies and larger companies. This study was limited by a
general lack of experience, knowledge and understanding of selecting
sustainable materials for mass-manufactured products. The findings often
highlighted individuals’ preconceptions of sustainable materials, as opposed
to their experience and knowledge gained from working with them.
The original focus was on only industrial designers but it became evident that
it would prove futile to study sustainable material selection from only the
industrial designer’s point of view, thus requiring a wider sample of
participants. It proved difficult to identify relevant participants for the main
study, because the target participants were within the current gap of
knowledge, those utilising sustainable materials in mass manufacture.
Participants keen to take part, are those likely to have a personal interest.
For the main study (Chapter Five), four companies were selected who were
actively engaged in the use of sustainable materials within their design
process. It was apparent that further studies should not be limited to
industrial designers alone but a case study approach would prove beneficial.
An obstacle arose in identifying suitable companies to take part in the study.
There are very few examples of mass-manufactured consumer products
utilising sustainable materials (Baumann et al., 2002; Chick and
Micklethwaite, 2004). It was decided that expanding the product area to be
inclusive of any mass-manufactured product would be beneficial to the
research and would enable a greater understanding of the variety of barriers
and drivers affecting different product groups.
278
8.3.3 Framework Limitations
The research identified the need for a framework to aid sustainable material
selection that is relevant to many people, not only designers, involved in
sustainable material selection. This discovery made the task of creating a
framework even more difficult. The frameworks were designed based purely
on the research undertaken; with the benefit of more time, further studies
could enable greater development of the framework (see section 8.5). Within
the empirical studies, the environmental and economic aspects of
sustainable materials were the predominant topics, with little reference to
social considerations and this is reflected within the framework.
8.4 Contributions to Knowledge
This thesis is one of very few to focus on sustainable material selection.
Indeed, the researcher struggled to find references to sustainable material
selection, with a large number of works referring to ecomaterials or green
materials, therefore considering only the environmental aspects. Equally, a
large volume of work focuses solely on one area, such as recycled materials,
bio-composites or natural materials. In answer to this problem, three key
contributions to this knowledge gap have been made in order to improve
understanding, primarily within industry, as to the context and implications of
sustainable material selection. The three key outcomes of this research are:
1. A new definition of sustainable materials has been revised throughout
this research and provides a short definition designed to eradicate the
confusion and misunderstanding surround sustainable materials.
Given the lack of a definition, this contribution is significant and
valuable to academia and industry.
2. The research presents a detailed understanding of the drivers and
barriers which influence sustainable material selection within the UK, a
topic which is lacking within current literature. The empirical studies
279
have identified the influences encountered within design practice and
the application of sustainable materials.
3. The overall framework (Figure 6.3, page 209) presents three elements
required in order to build the necessary confidence and interest
required within individuals for them to engage with the topic and
engage others. The style of this framework is more applicable to
academia, providing the guidelines for engaging individuals with
sustainable materials. The framework for sustainable material
selection (Figure 6.7, page 218) presents the first holistic framework of
its type, representing the connectivity and impacts of sustainable
material decision-making. The significance of this contribution lies with
its novelty; no other framework exists to represent the trade-offs
involved within sustainable material selection.
8.5 Recommendations for Further Work
Although the research provided evidence that support is required in order to
improve sustainable material selection, the form this should take remains
unclear. The feedback on the framework proves that further development and
testing would prove beneficial. Possible future directions could be to:
Develop the framework with the aid of information graphic designers to
increase usability
Explore how the information could be represented using software,
possibly online
Further workshop evaluations with multi-disciplinary teams
Explore further the social considerations and how to represent them
with reference to sustainable material selection
280
9 References
Adelman, S. and Ashby, M. F. (2009) Granta CES 2009 EduPack: Getting
Started. CES EduPack Getting Started Webinar. Webinar, University of
Cambridge.
Allione, C., De Giorgi, C., Lerma, B. and Petruccelli, L., (2012) From
ecodesign products guidelines to materials guidelines for a sustainable
product. Qualitative and quantitative multicriteria environmental profile of a
material. Energy, 39 (1), (90-99).
Anderson, G. and Arsenault, N., (2002) Fundamentals of Educational
Research. London: Routledge Falmer.
Arnold, C., (2003) Environmental Materials: Background and Content. The
UK Centre for Materials Education. available from
http://www.materials.ac.uk/guides/environmental.asp, (Last Accessed – 13
July 2011)
Ashby, M. F., (2008) Materials and Product Design. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univeristy. Available from: http://www.grantadesign.com/teaching/pack.htm.
Ashby, M. F., (2009a) Materials and the Environment: Eco-informed Material
Choice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ashby, M. F., (2009b) Unit 14. Materials in industrial design: why do
consumers buy products? Cambridge: Granta Design.
Ashby, M. F. (2011) Unit 13: Sustainability and Material Efficiency: adapting
to resource constraints. Granta Teaching Resources.
Ashby, M. F., Bréchet, Y. J. M., Cebon, D. and Salvo, L., (2004) Selection
strategies for materials and processes. Materials and Design, 25, ( 51–67).
Ashby, M. F., Coulter, P., Ball, N. and Bream, C., (2009) The CES EduPack
Eco Audit Tool – A White Paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Granta Design. Available from:
http://www.grantadesign.com/download/pdf/ecoaudit.pdf.
Ashby, M. F. and Granta Design (2011) CES Edupack 2011: Getting Started
Guide. Cambridge, Granta Design.
Ashby, M. F. and Johnson, K., (2002) Materials and Design: The Art and
Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth
Heinemann.
Ashby, M. F. and Johnson, K., (2006) Materials and Design: The Art and
Science of Material Selection in Product Design. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth
Heinemann.
281
Ashby, M. F., Miller, A., Rutter, F., Seymour, C. and Wegst, U. G. K., (2005)
The CES Eco Selector – Background Reading. Cambridge: Granta Design.
Available from: http://www.grantadesign.com/download/pdf/ecoselector.pdf.
ASM International, (2011a) About ASM/Mtrl. available from
http://www.mtrl.com/portal/site/mtrl/AboutMtrl/, (Last Accessed – 10 June
2011)
ASM International, (2011b) Mrtl: Naturacell® cellulose-based plastic.
available from
http://products.asminternational.org/inddes/index.aspx?dbkey=inddes&record
=1150, (Last Accessed – 22 July 2011)
Asus, (n.d.) U33Jc Inspired by Nature, Designed for Style. available from
http://uk.asus.com/Notebooks/Superior_Mobility/U33Jc/, (Last Accessed – 20
June 2011)
Axion Recycling, (2009) Axion Recycling. available from
http://www.axionrecycling.com/group.cfm, (Last Accessed – 29 October 2009)
Babakri, K. A., Bennett, R. A. and Franchetti, M., (2003) Critical factors for
implementing ISO 14001 standard in United States industrial companies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (7), (749-752).
BASF, (2012) UK and Ireland Product Finder. available from
| http://www.basf.co.uk/ecp1/UK_Ireland/en/Product-finder/index, Accessed – 11 July 2012) |
(Last |
Baumann, H., Boons, F. and Bragd, A., (2002) Mapping the green product
development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 10 (5), (409-425).
Bayer MaterialScience AG, (2012) A selection of more than 2,000 raw
materials. available from
http://www.materialscience.bayer.com/products/selectingproducts.aspx?ff=%7bA8713C8F-81D9-407D-9191-5A35907D9971%7d,
(Last Accessed – 11 July 2012)
Bazeley, P., (2009) Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo. London: SAGE
Publications.
Beylerian, G. M. and Dent, A., (2005) Material ConneXion: The Global
Resource of New and Innovative Materials for Architects, Artists and
Designers. London: Thames and hudson Ltd.
Bhamra, D. T., Lofthouse, D. V. and Norman, D. E., (2002) EcoDesign
education strategies: a recent initiative for Industrial Design and Technology
undergraduates at Loughborough University. Journal of Design and
Technology Education, 7 (2), (133-141).
282
Bhamra, T. and Lofthouse, V., (2007) Design for Sustainability: A Practical
Approach. (Ed.) R. Cooper. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited.
Bhamra, T. and Lofthouse, V. A., (2003) “Information/Inspiration: a web
based sustainable design tool”. In: International Conference on Engineering
Design (ICED), Stockholm.
Birkeland, J., (2004) Design for sustainability: a sourcebook of integrated
ecological solutions. London: Earthscan.
BMRA, (2010) About Metal Recycling. British Metals Recycling Association,.
available from http://www.recyclemetals.org/about_metal_recycling, (Last
Accessed – 13 July 2011)
Bonnema, M., (2006) Sustainable Product Design: Just the Facts. Haworth
Inc. available from http://organicworkspaces.com/pdf/Sustainable-ProductDesign.pdf, (Last Accessed – 24 February 2010)
Bovea, M. D. and Pérez-Belis, V., (2012) A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for
integrating environmental requirements into the product design process.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 20 (1), (61-71).
Brace, I., (2008) “Questionnaire Design: How to plan, structure and write
survey material for effective market research”. (Second ed). London: Kogan
Page.
Bras, B., (1997) Incorporating Environmental Issues in Product Design and
Realization. Industry and Environment, 20 (1-2 (double issue)).
Braungart, M. and Mc Donough, W., (2013) Cradle to Cradle Framework.
McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry available from
http://www.mbdc.com/cradle-to-cradle/c2c-framework/, (Last Accessed – 20
January 2013)
BRE Global, (2012) BREEAM: The world’s leading design and assessment
method for sustainable buildings. available from
http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=27#1, (Last Accessed – 27 February
2013)
Brezet, H. and Hemel, C. v., (1997) Ecodesign : a promising approach to
sustainable production and consumption. Paris, France; The Hague; Delft,
Netherlands: United Nations Environment Programme, Industry and
Environment, Cleaner Production ; Rathenau Institute ; Delft University of
Technology.
British Plastics Federation, (2012) Plastipedia – The Web’s Largest Plastics
Encyclopedia. available from http://www.bpf.co.uk/Plastipedia/Default.aspx,
(Last Accessed – 11 July 2012)
British Standards Institute, (1999) 14021:2001 Environmental labels and
declarations – Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental
283
labelling). British Standards Institute. Available from
https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/Bsol-Item-DetailPage/?pid=000000000030214212.
British Standards Institute, (2006) BS 8887-1:2006 Design for
manufacture,assembly, disassembly and end-of-life processing (MADE). BSI
Group Headquarters. Available from https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/Bsol-ItemDetail-Page/?pid=000000000030044270.
British Standards Institute, (2009a) BS 8887-1:2006:Design for manufacture,
assembly, disassembly and end-of-life processing (MADE). General
concepts, process and requirements. BSI Group Headquarters. Available
from http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/PublicationDetail/?pid=000000000030044270.
British Standards Institute, (2009b) BS 8887-2:2009: Design for
manufacture,assembly, disassembly and end-of-life processing (MADE). BSI
Group Headquarters. Available from https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/Bsol-ItemDetail-Page/?pid=000000000030182997.
British Standards Institute (2010) BS En ISO 14001:2004 Environmental
management systems – Requirements with guidance for use.
British Standards Institute, (2011a) BS 8905:2011 Framework for the
assessment of the sustainable use of materials – Guidance. BSI Group
Headquarters. Available from https://bsol.bsigroup.com/en/Bsol-Item-DetailPage/?pid=000000000030216209.
British Standards Institute, (2011b) ISO 14001 Environment. BSI Group
Headquarters
| available | from | http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Assessment-and-certification |
| services/management-systems/Standards-and-Schemes/ISO-14001/, Accessed – 8 September 2011) |
(Last |
Brownell, B., (2006) Transmaterial: A catalog of materials that redefine our
physical environment. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Bruseberg, A. and McDonagh-Philp, D., (2002) Focus groups to support the
industrial/product designer: a review based on current literature and
designers’ feedback. Applied Ergonomics, 33 (1), (27-38).
Burall, P., (1991) Green Design. London: The Design Council.
Byggeth, S. and Hochschorner, E., (2005) Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign
tools for sustainable product development and procurement. Journal of
Cleaner Production
EcoDesign: What’s happening?, 14 (15-16), (1420-1430).
CAMPUS Plastics, (1991) Campus Plastics Website. available from
http://www.campusplastics.com/index.php, (Last Accessed – 13 July 2009)
284
Capellini, M., (2011) Matrec: EcoMaterials Library. available from
http://www.matrec.it/en/, (Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Carbon Trust, (2008) Carbon Footprinting takes major step forward with 7
new companies committing to carbon count their products. Available from:
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2008/Pages/sevennew-companies-carbon-count.aspx. (Last Accessed – 30 November 2009)
Charter, M. and Tischner, U., (2001) Sustainable Solutions-Developing
Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf.
Chick, A. and Micklethwaite, P., (2004) Specifying recycled: understanding
UK architects’ and designers’ practices and experience. Design Studies, 25
(3), (251-273).
Chick, A. and Micklethwaite, P., (2011) Design for Sustainable Change: How
Design and Designers Can Drive the Sustainability Agenda. Bloomsbury.
Coates, P. D., Kelly, A. L., Rose, R. M., Weston, S. and Morton, R., (2004)
Materials and products from UK-sourced PVC-rich waste. Banbury. Available
from:
http://www.pvcrecycling.co.uk/docs/products_from_PVC_rich_waste.pdf.
Coles, R. and Norman, E., (2005) An Exploration of the Role Values Plays in
Design Decision-Making. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 15 (2), (155-171).
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A., (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research:
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London:
SAGE Publications.
Czaja, R. and Blair, J., (1996) Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and
Procedures. London: Pine Forge Press.
Dassault Systemes, (2013) SolidWorks Sustainability. available from
| http://www.solidworks.com/sustainability/sustainability-software.htm, Accessed – 10 January 2013) |
(Last |
Dassault Systemes, (2014) Solidworks Sustainability: Product FAQs.
available from http://www.solidworks.com/sustainability/products/frequentlyasked-questions.htm#1, (Last Accessed – 16 January 2014)
Datschefski, E., (2001) The Total Beauty of Sustainable Products. CransPré-Céligny: RotoVision.
Datschefski, E. (2002) Sustainable Products. Revised October 2002 ed.,
BioThinking International.
Datschefski, E., (2004) Biothinking Website. available from
www.biothinking.com, (Last Accessed – 27 February 2009)
285
| Davis, P., (2010) Sustainability: Energy from | Waste. British Plastics | ||
| Federation. | available | from | http://www.bpf.co.uk/Sustainability/EfW.aspx, |
(Last Accessed – 5 September 2011)
DEFRA, (2008) Progress Report on Sustainable Products and Materials.
London. Available from:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/documents/prodmaterials-report0708.pdf.
DEFRA, (2011) Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011.
London. Available from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-
waste-policy-review110614.pdf.
Dehn, J., (2008) “Supporting Communities – Design led collaborations
exploring the creative and economic potential of materials made from waste”.
In: Changing the change: Design Visions, Proposals and Tools, (5). Torino.
Denscombe, M., (2007) The Good Research Guide:for small-scale social
research projects. New York: Open University Press.
Di Tullo, M., (2007) Difference between product design and industrial design.
Core 77. available from http://boards.core77.com/viewtopic.php?t=12461,
(Last Accessed – 5 September 2011)
Dow, (2012) Products. available from http://www.dow.com/products/, (Last
Accessed – 11 July 2012)
Ecolect, (2008a) Ecolect Mission Statement. available from
http://www.ecolect.net/mission, (Last Accessed – 20 January 2009)
Ecolect, (2008b) Ecolect Website. available from http://www.ecolect.net,
(Last Accessed – 20 January 2009)
Ecolect, (2010) Ecolect Product Nutrition Label™. available from
http://ecolect.net/nutritionlabel, (Last Accessed – 22 July 2011)
Electrolux, (2008) The greenest vac on the market is black. available from
http://group.electrolux.com/en/the-greenest-vac-on-the-market-is-black-
1965/, (Last Accessed – 7 September 2011)
Electrolux, (2010a) Electrolux launches ‘Vac from the Sea’ initiative to turn
plastic islands into vacuum cleaners. available from
http://newsroom.electrolux.com/uk/2010/06/29/electrolux-launches-vac-fromthe-sea-initiative-to-turn-plastic-islands-into-vacuum-cleaners/, (Last
Accessed – 25 February 2011)
Electrolux, (2010b) Electrolux unveils five Vacs from the Sea. available from
http://group.electrolux.com/en/electrolux-unveils-five-vacs-from-the-sea-
8687/, (Last Accessed – 23 February 2011)
286
Electrolux, (2011) Ultrasilencer Green. available from
http://group.electrolux.com/en/ultrasilencer-green-981/#, (Last Accessed – 25
February 2011)
Envirowise, (2001) Cleaner product design: an introduction for industry.
Didcot. Available from.
Ernzer, M., Orberender, C. and Birkhofer, H., (2002) “Methods to support
ecodesign in the product development process”. In: Going Green Care
Innovation 2002.
European Commission, (2002) Commission welcomes agreement on Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment and the Restriction
of Hazardous Substances. Available from:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1463&forma
t=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en. (Last Accessed – 16 May
2012)
European Commission, (2010) Recast of the WEEE and RoHS Directives
proposed. available from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm, (Last Accessed –
14 September 2010)
European Parliament and Council of the European Union, (2012) Directive
2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (recast). Official Journal
of the European Union, (L 197/38), (34).
Fink, A., (2003) The Survey Handbook. London: Sage Publications.
Flick, U., (2009) An Inrotoduction to Qualitative Research. London: SAGE
Publications.
Fortuński, B., (2008) Does the environmental management standard ISO
14001 stimulate sustainable development?: An example from the energy
sector in Poland. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, 19 (2), (204-212).
Freegard, K., (2009) Making and Selling Recycled Plastic Products. available
from
http://www.envirolinknorthwest.co.uk/Envirolink/Events0.nsf/0/5F316AB09B3
8A633802575530041F230/$file/5%20Keith%20Freegard%20-
%20sourcing%20high%20quality%20recyled%20materials.pdf, (Last
Accessed – 29 October 2012)
Freegard, K., Tan, G. and Morton, R., (2006) Final Report: Develop a
process to separate brominated flame retardants from WEEE polymers.
Banbury. Available from:
http://www2.wrap.org.uk/downloads/BrominatedWithAppendices.29705853.c
447a497.3712.pdf.
287
Fuad-Luke, A., (2002) The Eco-Design Handbook: A complete sourcebook
for the home and office. London: Thames and Hudson.
Fuad-Luke, A., (2006) Eco Design:The Sourcebook. San Francisco:
Chronicle Books.
Fujitsu, (2011) Fujitsu Introduces The World’s First Biodegradable Computer
Mouse. available from http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/news/pr/fs_20110125.html,
(Last Accessed – 6 September 2011)
Futerra Sustainability Communications, (2008) The Greenwash Guide.
Available from: http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Greenwash_Guide.pdf.
(Last Accessed – 10 January 2014)
GaBi, (2012) GaBi: market leading Life Cycle Assessment software.
[Computer software] Available from http://www.gabi-software.com/ukireland/downloads/?gclid=CKKNtqf7pbECFbMJtAoddX8eog, (Last Accessed
– 19 July 2012)
Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P. and Brissaud, D., (2008) A tool to implement
sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 16 (5), (566-576).
Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P. and Brissaud, D., (2009) Integrated design of product
lifecycles—The fridge case study. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Technology, 1 (4), (214-220).
Geiser, K., (2001) Materials Matter: Towards a Sustainable Materials Policy.
London: The MIT Press.
Gibson, W. J. and Brown, A., (2009) Working with Qualitative Data. London:
SAGE Publications.
Goedkoop, M. and Spriensma, R., (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99 A damage
oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment-Methodology Report.
Available from.
Granta and ASM International, (n.d.) matdata.net: the search engine for
professional materials information available from
http://www.matdata.net/index.jsp, (Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Granta Design Limited (2009a) The CES Edupack Resource Book 1. Getting
Started with CES. Cambridge, Granta Material Intelligence
Cambridge University.
Granta Design Limited, (2009b) CES Selector. available from
http://www.grantadesign.com/products/ces/, (Last Accessed – 13 July 2009)
Granta Design Limited, (2009c) Granta CES Edupack 2009. available from
http://www.grantadesign.com/education/index.htm, (Last Accessed – 13 July
2009)
288
Granta Design Limited, (2011a) CES Edupack Software. available from
http://www.grantadesign.com/education/software.htm, (Last Accessed – 20
July 2011)
Granta Design Limited, (2011b) Company Overview: Introducing Granta
Design. Available from:
http://www.grantadesign.com/download/pdf/Corporate-Overview.pdf. (Last
Accessed – 14 July 2011)
Grignani, R., (n.d.) Homegrown People Planet Profit. available from
| http://grignani.org/thoughts/2008/homegrown-people-planet-profit/, Accessed – 24 January 2011) |
(Last |
Hakim, C., (1997) Research Design: Strategies and Choices of Social
Research. (Ed.) M. Bulmer. London: Routledge.
Halada, K., (2003) Progress of ecomaterials toward a sustainable society.
Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science, 7, (209-216).
Hall, A. D., (1962) A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Van Nostrand.
Hannaford, K., (2009) Electrolux’s Silent Vacuum Concept Means You Can
Play Music From Your Docked iPod and Actually Hear It. available from
http://gizmodo.com/5423145/electroluxs-silent-vacuum-concept-means-youcan-play-music-from-your-docked-ipod-and-actually-hear-it, (Last Accessed –
7 Septemeber 2011)
Hersberger, J. A., Murray, A. L. and Rioux, K. S., (2007) Examining
information exchange and virtual communities: an emergent framework.
Online Information Review, 31 (2), (135-147).
Heskett, J., (1993) Industrial Design. London: Thames and Hudson
Heskett, J. (Ed.), (2005) Design: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP
Oxford.
HM Revenue & Customs, (2011) Landfill Tax. available from
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.p
ortal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_00
1206&propertyType=document, (Last Accessed – 5 September 2011)
Hornbuckle, R., (2010) Design and Material Cycle: An Investigation into
Secondary Material Use in Design Practice. PhD Thesis, Kingston University.
Huang, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, L. and Sutherland, J. W., (2009) Materials
selection for environmentally concious design via a proposed life cycle
environmental performance index. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 44, (1073-1082).
IDSA, (2011) Ecodesign: Sustainability Science. available from
| http://idsa.org/content/content1/sustainability-science-website-links, Accessed – 12 July 2011) |
(Last |
289
ifu hamburg, (2013) Material flows and software. ifu Institut für
Umweltinformatik Hamburg GmbH. available from http://www.ifu.com/en/,
(Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Industrial Design Society of America, (2004) ID Defined. available from
http://www.idsa.org/absolutenm/templates/?a=89&z=23, (Last Accessed – 27
November 2008)
IOM3, (2012) Welcome IOM3 The Global Network for Materials, Minerals &
Mining Professionals. available from http://www.iom3.org/, (Last Accessed –
11 July 2012)
Jackson, S. L., (2012) Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical thinking
Approach. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.
Jones, E., Harrison, D. and J., M., (2001a) Managing Creative EcoInnovation: Structuring outputs from Eco-innovation projects. The Journal of
Sustainable Product Design, 1, (27-39).
Jones, E., Harrison, D. and McLaren, J., (2001b) Managing Creative EcoInnovation: Structuring outputs from eco-innovation projects. The Journal of
Sustainable Product Design, 1 (1), (27-39).
Jovane, F., Alting, L., Armillotta, A., Eversheim, W., Feldmann, K., Seliger, G.
and Roth, N., (1993) A Key Issue in Product Life Cycle: Disassembly. CIRP
Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 42 (2), (651-658).
Kalton, G. and Schuman, H., (1982) The Effect of the Question on Survey
Responses: A Review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A
(General), 145 (1), (42-73).
Karana, E., (2009) Meanings of Materials. PhD Thesis, Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of Technology.
Karana, E. and Hekkert, P., (2010) User-Material-Product Interrelationships
in Attributing Meanings. International Journal of Design 4(3), (43-52).
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. and Kandachar, P., (2008) Material considerations in
product design: A survey on crucial material aspects used by product
designers. Materials & Design, 29 (6), (1081-1089).
Karana, E., Hekkert, P. and Kandachar, P., (2009) A tool for meaning driven
materials selection. Materials & Design, 31 (6), (2932-2941).
Kesteren, I. E. H. v., (2008) Product designers’ information needs in
materials selection. Materials & Design, 29 (1), (133-145).
Kesteren, I. v., Bruijn, S. d. and Stappers, P. J., (2008) Evaluation of
materials selection activities in user-centred design projects. Journal of
Engineering Design, 19 (5), (417 – 429).
290
Kesteren, I. v., Kandachar, P. and Stappers, P. J., (2007) Activities in
selecting materials from the perspective of product designers. International
Journal of Design Engineering, 1 (1), (83 – 103).
Kingston University, (n.d.) Creative Resource- The design and development
of materials made from waste. available from
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/designhome/SDRC/CR.pdf, (Last Accessed – 27
April 2009)
Kinneir Dufort, (2011) Revive. available from
| http://www.kinneirdufort.com/work/consumer/revive, September 2011) |
(Last | Accessed | – | 6 |
Koblin, A., (2011) Visualizing ourselves … with crowd-sourced data. TED:
Ideas worth spreading: TED Talks.
Kothari, C. R., (2006) Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques.
New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
Kula, D. and Ternaux, E., (2008) Materiology: The Creative Industry’s Guide
to Materials and Technologies. Switzerland: Birkhauser.
Kvale, S., (2009) Doing Interviews. (Ed.) U. Flick. London: SAGE
Publications.
Kyratsis, P., Efkolidis, N. and Tsagaris, A., (2012) CAD based material
selection for sustainable design. International Journal of Engineering
Research and Development 1(8), (54-59).
Langford, J. D. and McDonagh, D., (2003) Focus Groups: Supporting
Effective Product Development. London: Taylor and Francis.
Larossi, G., (2006) The Power of Survey Design: A User’s Guide for
Managing Surveys, Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents.
Washington The World Bank.
Lauridsen, E. H. and Jørgensen, U., (2010) Sustainable transition of
electronic products through waste policy. Research Policy, 39 (4), (486-494).
Lavrakas, P. J., (2008) Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods.
Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Law, K. L., Morét-Ferguson, S., Maximenko, N. A., Proskurowski, G.,
Peacock, E. E., Hafner, J. and Reddy, C. M., (2010) Plastic Accumulation in
the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science, 329 (5996), (1185-1188).
Lefteri, C., (2008) The Plastics Handbook. Hove: Rotovision.
Lenau, T., (2012) Design Insite. available from
http://www.designinsite.dk/htmsider/home.htm, (Last Accessed – 17th january
2013)
291
LetsRecycle, (2014) Councils. available from
http://www.letsrecycle.com/councils, (Last Accessed – 10 January 2014)
Lewis, H., Gertsakis, J., Grant, T., Morelli, N. and Sweatman, A., (2001)
Design and Environment: A Global Guide to Designing Greener Goods.
Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited.
Linkedin Corporation, (2013) Linkedin. available from www.linkedin.com,
(Last Accessed – 5 March 2013)
Ljungberg, L. Y., (2007) Materials selection and design for development of
sustainable products. Materials & Design, 28 (2), (466-479).
Ljungberg, L. Y. and Edwards, K. L., (2003) Design, materials selection and
marketing of successful products. Materials and Design, 24, ( 519–529).
Lofthouse, D. V., (2003) “Designing for Designers – Ecodesign Tools to
Inform and Inspire”. In: IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment, (377-382). Boston,MA.
Lofthouse, D. V., (2005) Information Inspiration website. available from
http://www.informationinspiration.org.uk/, (Last Accessed – 15 February
2009)
Lofthouse, D. V. and Bhamra, D. T., (2005) “End of Life Decisions – A
Design Guide”. In: 11th Annual International Sustainable Development
Research Conference.
Lofthouse, V. A., (2001) Facilitating Ecodesign in an Industrial Design
Context: An Exploratory Study. School of Industrial and Manufacturing
Science Enterprise Integration, Cranfield University.
Lofthouse, V. A., (2006) Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the
requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, (1386-1395).
Lofthouse, V. A. and Bhamra, T. A., (2001) “‘Making Things Better – an
industrial designers approach to ecodesign'”. In: Proceedings of 4th
European Academy of Design Conference, Desire, Designum, Design:
European Academy of Design Conference, (pp 433-440). Portugal.
Macnaghten, P. and Myers, G., (2010) “Focus Groups”. In: C. Seale, G.
Gobo, J. F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice.
London: Sage Publications.
Manzini, E., (2009) New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30 (1), (4-12).
Masuda, F., (2001) “Producing Eco-value for a Recycling-based Society by
Industrial Design”. In: 2nd International Symposium on Environmentally
Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing (EcoDesign’01), 2001.
Materia, (2009a) Materia. available from www.materia.nl, (Last Accessed – 18
June 2009)
292
Materia, (2009b) Material Index ’09: Inspirational materials seleceted by
Materia. Enter: Materia.
Materia, (2011) Exhibition: Materia Meets Green. available from
http://www.materia.nl/563.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=351&tx_ttnews[backPi
d]=534&cHash=3cfeb4ac8b, (Last Accessed – 11 June 2011)
Materia, (n.d.) Materia Inspiration Centre. available from http://www.materiaic.nl, (Last Accessed – 18 June 2009)
Material ConneXion, (2009a) Material ConneXion®. available from
http://www.materialconnexion.com/, (Last Accessed – 9 June 2011)
Material ConneXion, (2009b) Materials Library. available from
https://materialconnexion.com/Home/Services/MaterialsLibrary/tabid/89/Defa
ult.aspx, (Last Accessed – 9 June 2011)
Material ConneXion, (2011a) Advanced Search. available from
http://library.materialconnexion.com/AdvancedSearch.aspx?&Keywords=&Att
ributes=&Category=&Country=&Manufacturer=&Tag=&MC=&Lang=en&ProdI
D=&PageNum=1&ItemsPerPage=20&SearchDisp=0, (Last Accessed – 20
July 2011)
Material ConneXion, (2011b) Biograde® Material ConneXion. available from
http://library.materialconnexion.com/ProductPage.aspx?&Keywords=SUSTAI
NABLE&Attributes=&Category=&Country=&Manufacturer=&Tag=&MC=6254
02&Lang=en&ProdID=&PageNum=1&ItemsPerPage=20&SearchDisp=0,
(Last Accessed – 22 July 2011)
Materials KTN, (2009) Materials Knowledge Transfer Network Homepage.
available from
http://amf.globalwatchonline.com/epicentric_portal/site/AMF/guest/home.html
/, (Last Accessed – 13 July 2009)
matériO, (n.d.) matériO,. available from http://www.materio.com/, (Last
Accessed – 16 January 2013)
Matweb, (2013) Matweb: Material Property Data. available from
http://www.matweb.com/, (Last Accessed – 27 February 2013)
Mawle, R., (2010) “The Practice of Ecodesign: A Study of Small Product
Design Consultancies”. In: ERSCP-EMSU. Delft, The Netherlands.
Maxwell, J. A., (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach.
(Eds.) L. Bickman and D. J. Rog. London: SAGE Publications.
McCandless, D., (2010a) The beauty of data visualization. TED: Ideas worth
spreading: TED Talks.
McCandless, D., (2010b) Information is Beautiful. London: Harper Collins.
293
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M., (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the
way we make things. New York: North Point Press.
McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P. T. and Zimmerman, J. B., (2003)
Peer Reviewed: Applying the Principles of Green Engineering to Cradle-toCradle Design. Environmental Science & Technology, 37 (23), (434A-441A).
Microsoft, (2013a) Excel [Computer software] Available from
http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel/, (Last Accessed – 19 January 2013)
Microsoft, (2013b) Skype. [Computer software] Available from
http://www.skype.com/en/, (Last Accessed – 27 February 2013)
Microsoft, (2013c) Word [Computer software] Available from
http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/word, (Last Accessed – 19 January 2013)
Miel, R., (2008) US database helps define what´s eco-friendly. Plastics and
Rubber Weekly. available from
http://www.prw.com/subscriber/newscat2.html?cat=1&channel=310&id=1223
374582, (Last Accessed – 12 August 2009)
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M. A., (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Morgan, D. L., (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: SAGE
Publications.
Morphy Richards, (2010) The Carbon Footprint of an Iron. available from
http://www.morphyrichards.co.uk/NewsArticle.aspx?Category=CARBONFOOTPRINT&Article=CARBON-FOOTPRINT-OF-AN-IRON, (Last Accessed
– 8 September 2011)
Morrow, D. and Rondinelli, D., (2002) Adopting Corporate Environmental
Management Systems:: Motivations and Results of ISO 14001 and EMAS
Certification. European Management Journal, 20 (2), (159-171).
Motorola Inc., (2009) MotoTM W233 renew. Available from:
http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Admin%20Content/Resources/Consumer
s/global/flash_content/microsites/renew/index.html. (Last Accessed – 28
August 2010)
National Geographic, (n.d.) Plastiki. available from
| http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/projects/plastiki.html, Accessed – 29 September 2009) |
(Last |
National Measurement Office, (2005) Home:What is RoHS? National
Measurement Office
Department for Business Innovation & Skills. available from
| http://www.bis.gov.uk/nmo/enforcement/rohs-home, September 2011) |
(Last | Accessed | – | 8 |
294
Near Future Laboratory, (2008) Nokia Homegrown. available from
| http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2008/04/28/nokia-homegrown/, Accessed – 24 January 2011) |
(Last |
Netralia, (2010) Callburner. available from http://www.callburner.com/, (Last
Accessed – 27 February 2013)
Newman, R., (n.d.) Design Strategic Projects. Available from:
http://www.nearfuturelaboratory.com/wpcontent/uploads/2008/04/homegrown_ndlondon2008_rhys.pdf. (Last
Accessed – accessed 25 January 2011)
Nokia, (2011a) Managing our materials and substances. available from
http://www.nokia.com/environment/strategy-and-reports/substance-andmaterial-management, (Last Accessed – 26 January 2011)
Nokia, (2011b) Materials and substances. available from
http://www.nokia.com/environment/devices-and-services/creating-ourproducts/materials-and-substances, (Last Accessed – 25 January 2011)
O2.org, (n.d.) Material issue: ABOUT BIOPOLYMERS
Biodegradable polymers. available from
http://www.o2.org/ideas/cases/biopolymers.html, (Last Accessed – 10 May
2009)
O’Hare, D. J., (2010) Design For Sustainability. Granta Design Limited.
Available from: http://teaching.grantadesign.com/levels/sustengA.html. (Last
Accessed – 21 July 2011)
Office of Climate Change, (2009) Stern Team. available from
http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm, (Last Accessed – 30th November
2009)
Oppenheim, A. N., (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude
Measurement. London: Continuum.
Oxford Forestry Institute (2010) Prospect: The Wood Database. Oxford
University.
Papanek, V., (2004) Design for the Real World. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Pedgley, O., (1999) Industrial designers’ attention to materials and
manufacturing processes:analyses at macroscopic and microscopic levels.
PhD Thesis, Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough
University.
Pedgley, O., (2009) Influence of Stakeholders on Industrial Design Materials
and Manufacturing Selection. International Journal of Design, 3 (1), (1-15).
295
Peräkylä, A., (2010) “Conversation Analysis”. In: C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F.
Gubrium and D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice. London:
Sage Publications.
Plastiki, (2009a) Frequently Asked Questions. available from
www.theplastiki.com/faqs/, (Last Accessed – 29 September 2009)
Plastiki, (2009b) The Plastiki Expedition. available from
http://www.theplastiki.com/, (Last Accessed – 29 September 2009)
Poole, B., (2006) Green Design. New York: Mark Batty Publisher.
POST, (2005) Recycling Household Waste. London: Parliamentary Office of
Science and Technology. Available from:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn252.pdf. (Last Accessed –
accessed 27 February 2011)
PRé-Consultants, (2000) Eco-indicator 99 Manual for Designers: A damage
oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Available from.
PRé-Consultants, (2009a) About PRé-Consultants. available from
http://www.pre.nl/pre/pre_consultants.htm, (Last Accessed – 26 February
2009)
PRé-Consultants, (2009b) PRé-Consultants Website. available from
http://www.pre.nl, (Last Accessed – 26 February 2009)
PRé-Consultants, (2009c) SimaPro 7. [Computer software] Available from
http://www.pre.nl/simapro/simapro_lca_software.htm, (Last Accessed – 4
December 2008)
PRé-Consultants and Goedkoop, M., (2006) SimaPro 7 Demo Manual.
Available from: http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/DemoManual.pdf.
PRé Consultants, (2013) ECO-it. PRé Consultants,. available from
http://www.pre-sustainability.com/eco-it, (Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Princeton Architectural Press, (2005) Materials Monthly: start your own
materials library. Princeton Architectural Press. available from
| http://www.papress.com/other/materialsmonthlyOLD/index.tpl, Accessed – 17 December 2013) |
(Last |
Punch, K. F., (2005) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
QSR International, (2012) NVivo 10. [Computer software] Available from
http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx, (Last Accessed – 27
February 2013)
Raimbault, M. and Humbert, S., (2011) ISO considers potential standard on
water footprint. International Organization for Standardization. available from
296
http://www.iso.org/iso/isofocusplus_bonus_water-footprint, (Last Accessed –
9 November 2011)
Ramalhete, P. S., Senos, A. M. R. and Aguiar, C., (2010) Digital tools for
material selection in product design. Materials & Design, 31 (5), (2275-2287).
Ramirez, M., (2007) “Sustainability integration in industrial design education:
a worldwide survey”. In: International Conference on Design Education. 9-12
July, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Austrailia.
Richards, L., (2006) Handling Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications.
Robert McNeel & Associates, (2013) Rhinoceros. [Computer software]
Available from http://www.rhino3d.com/nurbs/, (Last Accessed – 6 March
2014)
Robson, C., (2002) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rondinelli, D. and Vastag, G., (2000) Panacea, common sense, or just a
label?: The value of ISO 14001 environmental management systems.
European Management Journal, 18 (5), (499-510).
Roozenburg, N. F. M. and Eekels, J., (1995) Product design: fundamentals
and methods. Wiley.
Rubin, J. and Chisnell, D., (2008) Handbook of Usability Testing: How to
Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests Chichester: John Wiley and Sons
Inc.
Rugg, G. and Petre, M., (2007) A Gentle Guide to Research Methods.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Samsung, (2007) Reclaim Mobile Phone: Senses Accelerated. available from
http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/detail/productPreviewRead.do?model
_cd=SPH-M560BLASPR&group=mobile&type=mobilephones&subtype=sprint-phones&subsubtype=#, (Last Accessed – 30
November 2009)
Samsung, (2011) Samsung Reclaim. available from
http://www.samsung.com/ca/consumer/mobile/mobile-phones/allphones/SPH-M560BLABMC/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail, (Last Accessed
– 7 September 2011)
Scendix, (2013) Pamela for Skype. available from
http://www.pamela.biz/en/download/, (Last Accessed – 27 February 2013)
Shercliff, H., (2002) Material selection and processing. University of
Cambridge (Department of Engineering). available from http://wwwmaterials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/, (Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Silverman, D., (2010) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
297
Simon, M., Evans, S., McAloone, T., Sweatman, A., Bhamra, T. and Poole,
S., (1998) Ecodesign Navigator:A Key resource in the drive towards
environmentally efficient product design. Stockport: Deanprint.
Sims Recycling Ltd, (2013) WEEE Recycling. available from
http://www.simsrecycling.co.uk/WEEE-recycling, (Last Accessed –
Slack, L., (2006) What is Product Design? CH-1295 Mies, Switzerland:
RotoVision SA.
Smallbone, T., (2005) How can domestic households become part of the
solution to England’s recycling problems? Business Strategy and the
Environment, 14 (2), (110-122).
Smith, M. T., (2001) Eco-innovation and market transformation. The Journal
of Sustainable Product Design, 1 (1), (19-26).
Sony Europe Limited, (2011) Cyber-shot DSC-H50. available from
http://www.sony.co.uk/product/dsc-h-series/dsc-h50, (Last Accessed – 14
September 2011)
Spangenberg, J. H., Fuad-Luke, A. and Blincoe, K., (2010) Design for
Sustainability (DfS): the interface of sustainable production and consumption.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (15), (1485-1493).
Stoyell, J. L., (2004) Eco-Design Decision Making: Towards Sustainable
Engineering Design of Large Made-to-Order Products. PhD Thesis, Faculty
of science, Agriculture and Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
SurveyGizmo, (2012) Survey Gizmo. available from
http://www.surveygizmo.com/, (Last Accessed – 10 September 2012)
The Carbon Trust, (2008) Product Carbon Footprinting: The New Business
Opportunity. Available from.
The Environment Agency, (2011) Waste electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE). available from http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32084.aspx, (Last Accessed – 8
September 2011)
The Rematerialise Project, (2002a) Creative Resource. available from
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/rematerialise/, (Last Accessed – 27 April 2009)
The Rematerialise Project, (2002b) Rematerialise Eco Smart Materials.
Kingston University. available from
http://extranet.kingston.ac.uk/rematerialise/searchmaterials/login.asp?accessdenied=%2Frematerialise%2Fsearchmaterials%2Fsearch.asp, (Last Accessed – 27 may 2011)
Thompson, R. (2013) The Manufacturing Guides: Sustainable Materials
Processes and Production. London, Thames and Hudson.
298
Tischner, U., (2001) “Tools for ecodesign and sustainable product design”.
In: M. Charter and U. Tischner (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing
Products and Services for the Future. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Tovey, M., (1997) Styling and design: intuition and analysis in industrial
design. Design Studies, 18 (1), (5-31).
Transmaterial, (2012) Transmaterial. available from http://transmaterial.net/,
(Last Accessed – 28 June 2012)
Trimingham, R., (2007) An Exploration of the Roles Values Play in Design
Decision-Making. Faculty of Social Science and Humanities
Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University.
TU Delft, (n.d.) IdeMat. available from http://www.idemat.nl/index.htm, (Last
Accessed – 17 January 2013 )
Typhoon, (2012) Our Ranges – Asian Cookware and Accessories – Bamboo
Accessories. available from
http://www.typhoonhousewares.com/Product/14_Bamboo%20Accessories,
(Last Accessed – 14 November 2012)
U.S. Green Building Council, (2011) What LEED Is. available from
| http://www.leedbuilding.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988, Accessed – 27 February 2013) |
(Last |
van Erven, R., (2009) Biopolymer.net: online resources for a better
environment. available from http://www.biopolymer.net/, (Last Accessed – 17
January 2013)
Wäger, P. A., Schluep, M., Müller, E. and Gloor, R., (2011) RoHS regulated
Substances in Mixed Plastics from Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (2), (628-635).
Walker, D. (2009) Qualitative Analysis. Loughborough University.
Walker, J. A., (1996) Design history and the history of design. London: Pluto
Press.
Waste Management World, (2012) Revised WEEE Directive Sparks Debate
in EU. available from http://www.waste-managementworld.com/index/display/article-display/6245229134/articles/wastemanagement-world/markets-policyfinance/2012/01/Revised_WEEE_Directive_Sparks_Debate_in_EU.html,
(Last Accessed – 25 january 2012)
Wegst, U. G. K. and Ashby, M. F., (1998) “The development and use of a
methodology for the environmentally-conscious selection of materials”. In:
The Third Biennial World Conference on Integrated Design and Process
Technology (IDPT), (88-93). Berlin.
299
Wilkinson, S., (2004) “Focus Group Research”. In: D. Silverman (Ed.),
Qualitative Research; Theory, Method and Practice. (Second Edition ed).
London: SAGE Publications. (177-199).
Wilson, R. C., (2001) Ford spread the word about its EMS success. Pollution
Engineering, 33 (6), (32-33).
World Commission on Environment and Development, (1987) Our Common
Future. Oxford: Available from: http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm.
(Last Accessed – 24 February 2013)
WRAP, (2006) Environmental Benefits of Recycling: An international review
of life cycle comparisons for key materials in the UK recycling sector.
Available from:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Recycling_LCA_Report_Sept_2006_-
_Final.b4bca31f.2838.pdf.
WRAP, (2009a) Mixed Plastics. available from
http://www.wrap.org.uk/recycling_industry/information_by_material/plastics/m
ixed_plastics.html, (Last Accessed – 20th October 2009)
WRAP, (2009b) Motorola Mobile Phone. available from
http://www.wrap.org.uk/manufacturing/projects/sustainable_products/motorol
a_mobile.html, (Last Accessed – 20th October 2009)
WRAP, (2013) WRAP: Working together for a world without waste. available
from http://www.wrap.org.uk/, (Last Accessed – 17 January 2013)
Wrightman, C., (2011) Making Less More. Kinneir Dufort. available from
http://www.kinneirdufort.com/blog/making-less-more, (Last Accessed – 7
September 2011)
Yamamoto, R., (2010) Eco-products Directory 2010. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.
Zarandi, M., Mansour, S., Hosseinijou, S. and Avazbeigi, M., (2011) A
material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable product
design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 57
(9), (885-903).
Zhang, H. C., Kuo, T. C., Lu, H. and Huang, S. H., (1997) Environmentally
conscious design and manufacturing: A state-of-the-art survey. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 16 (5), (352-371).
300
Appendix A Strategies from The Dutch Promise Manual
Ecodesign Strategy 1: Selection of Low-Impact Materials adapted from The Dutch Promise Manual (Brezet and Hemel, 1997)
| Strategy | Description | Rules-of-thumb | Examples |
| 1a. Cleaner Materials |
Avoid materials and additives which cause hazardous emissions in production or end of life disposal Some legislations restrict use of toxic materials Debate exists regarding organic materials as decomposition releases methane |
Do not use materials or additives prohibited due to their toxicity (worldwide policies given in module H, ‘product –oriented environmental policy’ Avoid materials and additives that deplete the ozone layer Avoid hydrocarbons Find alternatives for surface treatment techniques Find alternatives for non-ferrous metals due to harmful emissions during production |
Additives include colourants, heat or UV stabilizers, fire retardants, softening agents, fillers, expanding agents and anti-oxidants Prohibited materials include PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), PCTs (polychlorinated terphenyls), lead (in PVC, electronics, dyes and batteries), cadmium (in dyes and batteries) and mercury (in thermometers, switches, fluorescent tubes). Materials and additives which deplete the ozone include chlorine, fluorine, bromine, methyl bromide, halons and aerosols, foams, refrigerants and solvents that contain CFCs. Surface treatment techniques such as hot-dip galvanization, electrolytic zinc plating and electrolytic chromium plating Non-ferrous materials include copper, zinc, brass, chromium and nickel |
301
| 1b. Renewable Materials |
Avoid materials from sources which are not replenished naturally or very slow to replenish |
Find alternatives for exhaustible materials |
Fossil fuels, tropical hardwoods Minerals such as copper, tin, zinc and platinum |
| 1c. Lower energy content materials |
Some materials are very energy intensive to extract and produce so have a higher energy content than others Using high energy content materials requires justification as to benefits |
||
| 1d.Recycled Materials |
Recycled materials may have been used in a product before Can reuse materials again and again |
Use recycled materials where possible to improve market demand Use secondary metals Use recycled plastics for inner parts Use laminates for hygiene/food products with recycled core Make use of unique features or recycled materials |
Secondary aluminium and copper Use recycled in parts not requiring high mechanical, hygienic or tolerance quality Recycled materials can have variations in colour and design |
Avoid energy intensive materials in
short lifetime products
Avoid raw materials produced from
intensive agriculture
Aluminium is high energy content but is appropriate
if can be recycled at end of life
302
| 1e. Recyclable Materials |
Use recyclable materials where possible- even more effective when collection systems in place or anticipated Select materials which result in high-quality recycled materials Fewer types of materials make collection and recycling easier |
Use one material per whole product or sub-assembly If one material not possible, select mutually-compatible materials (compatibility charts and more information given in Module B, ‘Optimization of End-of-life system given’ Avoid use of polluting elements |
Materials which are difficult to separate include compound materials, laminates, fillers, fire retardants and fibreglass reinforcements Polluting elements such as stickers |
Avoid materials which are difficult
to separate
Use recyclable materials for which
a market already exists
303
Ecodesign strategy 6: Optimization of initial life-time (Brezet and Hemel, 1997)
| Strategy | Description | Rules-of-thumb |
| 6a. Reliability and durability | Develop a solid design Avoid weak links |
|
| 6b. Easier maintenance and repair | Ensure that the product is easily cleaned, maintained an repaired |
|
| 6c. Modular product structure | Not relevant to material selection | |
| 6d. Classic design | Objective is to avoid trendy design which may encourage user to replace the product when the design palls or becomes unfashionable |
Design the product’s appearance so that it doesn’t rapidly become uninteresting Ensure the products aesthetic life isn’t shorter than its technical life |
| 6e. Stronger product-user relation | Design the product so that it more than meets the (possibly hidden) requirements of the user for a long time Ensure that maintaining and repairing the product becomes a pleasure rather than a duty user will be reluctant to replace it |
Increase the reliability and durability of the
product
Most products need some maintenance and
repair to remain both attractive and functional
User will only spend time maintaining a product
if they care about it
The principle aims to intensify the relationship
between the user and the products
Give the product an added value in terms
of design and functionality so that the
304
Ecodesign strategy 7: optimization of end-of-life system (Brezet and Hemel, 1997)
| Strategy | Description | Rules-of-thumb |
| 7a. Reuse of product |
Focus of principle is to reuse the product as a whole, either in the same or a new application The more the product retains its original form-the more environmental merit is achieved-as long as take-back and recycling systems are developed simultaneously |
|
| 7b. Remanufacturing/ refurbishing |
At the product end-of-life many products are incinerated or land filled whilst still containing valuable components Should be considered whether components can be reused for original purpose or for a new one Remanufacturing and refurbishing, for restoring and repairing the sub assemblies is often necessary. |
Give the product a classic design that makes it aesthetically pleasing and
attractive to a second user
Ensure the construction is solid so that it cannot become prematurely obsolete in
a technical sense
305
| 7c. Recycling of materials |
Common strategy due to low time and cost input required and can bring financial benefits decomposition of plastic molecules into elementary raw materials). |
Give priority to primary recycling over secondary and tertiary recycling Design for disassembly (from sub-assemblies to parts) Use detachable joints Use standardised joints Use as few joints as possible to aid accessibility Position joints so that it can be easily dismantled Try to use recyclable materials for which a market already exists For metal recycling consider metal compatibilities |
| For Plastic recycling Integrate as many functions as possible in one part Use recyclable plastics Avoid use of polluting elements Apply a standardized material code to any parts made of synthetic materials |
There are many levels of recycling
which form a ‘recycling cascade’:
primary recycling (original
application); secondary recycling
(lower-grade application); and
tertiary recycling (e.g.
Product should have a hierarchical and modular design structure to allow modules
to be detached and remanufactured in most suitable way
If non-destructive separation is not possible ensure that the materials can be
separated in mutually compatible groups
If toxic materials are used locate them concentrated in adjacent areas so they can
be easily detached
Select one type of materials for the whole product-if not possible consider
compatibility of plastics
306
7d. Safer
Incineration
| If reuse and recycling are not an option, the next best solution is incineration with energy recovery (‘thermal recycling’) |
The more toxic materials present in a product, the more it will cost the responsible
party to pay for its incineration
Toxic elements should be concentrated and detachable so they can be treated
separately
307
Appendix B Materials on Information/Inspiration
| 1. | Materials Selection |
Material choices can affect the environmental impact of product through its lifetime (Lofthouse, 2005). use as few types of materials as possible reduce the quantity of material used in the manufacture of a product through sensible ribbing design can you use a renewable material? use materials with recycled content if appropriate: it is important to create markets for recycled plastics but recycled materials are often composites, so may be difficult to recycle The RoHS directive outlines a number of materials which should be avoided in product design (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 2. | Mainstream Materials |
Most mainstream materials, though not renewable can be easily and economically recycled (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 3. | Materials Reduction |
Using materials efficiently when designing and manufacturing products to reduce the amount of waste created (Lofthouse, 2005). identifying and designing out any excess material using precision cutting equipment to ensure the maximum use of raw materials replacing bulk material with webbing (Lofthouse, 2005). Three points are given to reduce material waste: designing interchangeable or modular parts minimising waste resulting from defects (Lofthouse, |
follow the simple hierarchy – REDUCE, REUSE,
RECYCLE, AVOID
select materials which are compatible for recycling
where possible –
considering how a potential waste source can be
reused
308
| 2005). | ||
| 4. | Compatibility | Identify materials which are compatible with one another (Lofthouse, 2005). Resources covering plastics compatibility and in-mould identification symbols for plastics are provided along with guidelines for using the symbols: |
| 5. | Biodegradable Materials |
Biodegradable materials can appear to be the holy grail of materials but be aware of the issues they throw up (Lofthouse, 2005). Biodegradable materials can be natural or synthetic and are broken down by naturally occurring chemical components (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 6. | Biopolymers | Biopolymers are biodegradable polymers, which, can be created from either renewable (based on agricultural plant or animal products) or synthetic material (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 7. | Renewable Materials |
Renewable materials are harvested from sources which are naturally replenished by nature (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 8. | Recycled Materials |
Recycled materials help to close the loop and put nutrients back into the cycle (Lofthouse, 2005). |
| 9. | Hazardous Materials |
A wide range of materials are now classified as hazardous and have to be avoided in product development or removed before disposal (Lofthouse, 2005). |
Numbers and letters should be at least 3mm and the
triangle at least 1mm high
Symbols must be easily accessible but not inflict on the
products aesthetics or function
Can be embossed, added with silk screening, pad
printing or hot plating
Markings should be visible on all parts and sub
assemblies once assembled
If marking is not possible then a record of material type
should be kept (Lofthouse, 2005).
309
Material Compatibility Chart
| Material | Guidelines |
| Steel | Impurities of copper, brass and tin unfavourable in steel recycling |
| Plastics | Where possible use only one type of plastic ensure that components made from different materials can be easily separated plastics (polymers) cannot usually be recycled if mixed labels must be compatible with the plastics they are attached to contamination can pose problems when recycling plastics Avoid the following as they can cause contamination: dyes and pigments that are permanent in the plastic plastic caps and lids that are often a different resin form the container they are part of adhesives that can turn yellow when processed Use the compatibility chart provided to identify combinations plastic parts should be labelled accordingly with in-mould identification symbols to aid recycling (Lofthouse provides these symbols and design requirements for them) |
| Glass | Clean glass and clean-hardened glass is recyclable when sorted glass mixtures can be difficult prints and coatings make recycling more difficult |
| Aluminium | Copper and tin can reduce the ability of aluminium to be recycled recycling aluminium does not degrade the quality specify recycled aluminium where possible |
Copper affects the recyclability of steel therefore copper components
should be easily removable
galvanised steel does not pose a problem for the quality of the
recycled steel but needs to be dealt with as dust emission
screen-printed and reflecting glass can only be down- cycled and not
recycled into first class glass
silicone and glue left on glass, coating with silver or aluminium and
printing with organic colours make recycling more difficult
310
Biopolymer types presented on Information/Inspiration (complied from
Lofthouse, 2005; O2.org, n.d.)
| Biopolymer | Description | Application |
| Starch based polymers |
resulting material can be injection moulded and extruded |
|
| Sugar based biopolymers |
composition the end product varies-allowing the material to be tuned, e.g. for moisture resistance Polymer can be formed by injection, extrusion, blowing and vacuum forming |
|
| forming | Medical applications because polylactides decompose harmlessly in human body been used in Belu water bottle and Interface flooring (information given in inspiration section) |
Natural polymer
Occurs as granules in plant tissue
Taken from potatoes, maize,
wheat, tapioca and similar
sources
Can be modified in a way which
allows it to be melted and
deformed thermoplastically Unsuitable for packaging
liquids
Can sustain only brief
contact with water
Good oxygen barrier
properties
Bacterial fermentation of sucrose
or starch gives
Polyhydroxibutyrate
By varying the nutrient
Polylactides (lactic acid polymers)
are made from lactic acid (made
from lactose or milk sugar)
Obtained from sugar beet,
potatoes, wheat
Polylactides are water resistant
Can be formed by injection
moulding, blowing and vacuum
Not feasible for
packaging due to high
cost
Polylactic acid (PLA)
PLA is only suitable for
commercial composting
311
| Cellulose based Biopolymers |
composted by existing waste processing plant (whether in the form of pure cellulose or nitrocellulose coasting) |
Cellophane packaging such as CDS, confectionary and cigarettes |
| Synthetic based biopolymers |
Synthetic compounds derived from petroleum can be starting point for biodegradable polymers, e.g. aliphatic aromatic co polyesters |
Relatively high price has prevented them from achieving a large scale market |
Long established use as a
packaging material such as
cellophane
Transparent and good folding
properties
Totally biodegradable and can be
Falling out of favour due
to high price
Technical properties similar to
those of polyethylene (LDPE)
Fully biodegradable and
compostable
Best known application
is substrate mats
312
Appendix C Pré-Consultants
Material Relevant Guidelines for Ecodesign(PRé-Consultants, 2009b)
1. Do not design products, but life cycles – Consider the full product lifestyle, the
material inputs and energy use of the product in its life cycle, given is a blank example of
the Met (Materials, Energy and Toxicity) matrix.
2. Natural materials are not always better – Despite common belief, natural is not
always better than man-made so consider whole life cycle such as surface treatments
that may be required to finish materials.
3. Increase product life time – Consider strategies such as making it more durable,
easy to upgrade and try to design the product so users develop an attachment to it to
encourage users to repair and keep the product longer.
4. Use a minimum of material – Assess dimensions, production techniques and
required strength to minimise material needed, lower weight means less fuel used in
transportation.
5. Use recycled materials – If product is only recyclable and doesn’t use recycled
materials then there will be no demand for recycled materials.
6. Make your product recyclable – Optimise the design to improve its recyclability
such as designing for disassembly. Pré Consultants give the following rules to bear in
mind; If you want to recycle thermoplastics then do not; use a laquer, use paper stickers
on plastic or combine different plastics. Keep copper content low if recycling steel parts.
Think twice about recycling thermosets or textiles as its better to burn them to regain the
energy.
313
Appendix D Material ConneXion
Advanced search options (Material ConneXion, 2011a)
314
Material property Sheet for Biograde® (Material ConneXion, 2011b)
315
Appendix E Ecolect
Ecolect Material Database (Ecolect, 2008b)
Material NutritionLabel™ (Ecolect, 2008b)
316
Appendix F Materia
Materia online material database search window
317
Materia Technical Properties
318
Materia Sensorial Properties
319
Appendix G Rematerialise
Search Options
320
Material Information (The-Rematerialise-Project, 2002)
Plastics results page (The Rematerialise Project, 2002a)
321
Appendix H CES
CES Edupack (Adelman and Ashby, 2009:4)
Select options in CES Edupack (Ashby and Granta Design, 2011:1)
322
CES Material Profile Information
323
Eco-data for engineering materials (Ashby et al., 2005:6)
324
Appendix I Mtrl material information
Mtrl material presentation
325
Material Property sheet for Naturacell®(adapted from ASM International,
2011b)
326
Appendix J Loughborough University Ethical
Checkilist
Section A. Investigators
Section B. Participants- covers a list of vulnerable participants such
as young children or people with disabilities and whether
there is any chaperoning of vulnerable participants
Section C. Methodology/Procedures- Methods such as
administering pharmaceutical drugs, collecting samples
or involve use of hazardous materials.
Section D. Observation/Recording- will observations and/or
recordings be made, will participants be made aware of
this
Section E. Consent and Deception- will informed consent be given
freely and willingly, will participants be informed what will
happen with data collected.
Section F. Withdrawal- Participants should be allowed to withdraw
at any time
Section G. Storage of data and confidentiality- data must be kept
securely and adhere to Data Protection Act
Section H. Incentives- Will incentives be offered
327
Appendix K Informed Consent Form
Study of products mass-manufactured using sustainable
materials
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
(to be completed after Participant Information Sheet has been read)
The purpose and details of this study have been explained to me. I understand that
this study is designed to further scientific knowledge and that all procedures have
been approved by the Loughborough University Ethical Advisory Committee.
I have read and understood the information sheet and this consent form.
I have had an opportunity to ask questions about my participation.
I understand that I am under no obligation to take part in the study.
I understand that I have the right to withdraw from this study at any stage for any
reason, and that I will not be required to explain my reasons for withdrawing.
I understand that all the information I provide will be treated in strict confidence and
will be kept anonymous and confidential to the researchers unless (under the
statutory obligations of the agencies which the researchers are working with), it is
judged that confidentiality will have to be breached for the safety of the participant or
others.
I agree to participate in this study.
Your name
Your signature
Signature of investigator
Date
328
Appendix L Questionnaire Justification
| Question | Research Questions | Reason | |
| 1 | What is your current job title and description? |
Identify discipline | Identify discipline Job title is relevant to involvement in material selection |
| 2 | Are you involved with material selection as part of your job? |
Who is involved in making material selection decisions? |
To find out who makes material selection choices |
| 3 | Are you aware of sustainable design or ecodesign? |
Investigate designers knowledge |
|
| 4 | Do you use any resources to aid sustainable design? |
What resources exist to support sustainable material selection? |
To find out what resources are being used |
| 5 | Do you think sustainability is an important factor in material selection? |
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? |
Identify the research gap |
| 5a | If yes, what are the drivers behind this? Personal choice Company driven Client driven Legislation driven Other |
What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? |
Understand what drivers affect designers and companies to use sustainable design and which are more important. |
| 6 | At what stage or stages in the design process do you consider material selection? |
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? |
Investigate when designers make material selection choices |
| 7 | How are material choices made within your company? |
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
To find out how companies select materials |
| 8 | Do you use any resources to aid material selection? |
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? What resources exist to support |
Investigate how designers make material selection choices |
329
| sustainable material selection? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
|||
| 8a | Do any of these resources cover sustainable materials? |
What resources exist to support sustainable material selection? |
Investigate if any resources cover sustainable materials |
| 9 | Would you use a sustainable materials selection tool? |
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
|
| 10 | What information would you need in a sustainable materials tool in order to make material selection choices? |
What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
Find out what is required by designers to make material selection choices |
| 11 | What would you like in a sustainable materials resource? |
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
Investigate the wants of a designer for a sustainable materials resource |
| 12 | How would you like the information to be presented? |
How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? |
Find out how the information should be presented to enable designers to make material selection choices |
330
Appendix M Questionnaire
This survey is part of a PhD research project investigating how Industrial designers make material
selection choices and whether there is a need for an eco-material resource for UK designers. Please
give as much information and detail as possible in your answers.
All information gathered will be anonymous and used solely for the purpose of the PhD study.
Information collected will not be passed on to third parties although results may be published.
1. What is your current job title and description?
2. Are you involved with materials selection as part of your job?
2a. If not, who makes material selection choices?
3. Are you aware of sustainable design /ecodesign ?
Yes No
4. Do you use any resources to aid sustainable design?
5. Do you think sustainability is an important factor in material selection?
Yes No
5a. If yes please score each driver out of five, with five being very important
i. Personal choice
ii. Company driven
iii. Client driven
iv. Legislation driven
v. Other driver/s (please explain)
6. At what stage or stages in the design process do you consider material selection?
7. How are material choices made within your company?
Continues overleaf
331
8. Do you use any resources to aid material selection?
8a. Do any of these resources cover sustainable materials?
9. Would you use a sustainable materials selection tool?
Yes No
10. What information would you need in a sustainable materials tool in order to make material selection
choices?
11. What would you like in a sustainable materials resource?
12. How would you like the information to be presented?
Aditional Notes
If you are willing to be contacted in the future as part of this research project please leave your contact details
below. Your contact details will not be published alongside the results of this questionnaire.
Thank you very much for your time.
If you have any questions please contact Rose Deakin, Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough
University, Loughborough, Leicestershire. LE113TU. [email protected]
332
Appendix N Questionnaire Coding
| AFT | After |
| APPEAR | Appearance |
| APPS | Applications |
| AVAIL | Availability |
| BEG | Beginning |
| BOOK | Books |
| BRI | Brief |
| CHART | Chart |
| CLIENT | Client |
| COLL | Colleagues |
| COMPA | Compare |
| CAD | Computer Aided Design |
| CON | Concept |
| CONS | Consumption |
| COST | Cost |
| CUST | Customer |
| DATA | Data |
| DATAS | Data sheets |
| DES | Design |
| DESR | Designer |
| DET | Detail |
| DEV | Development |
| DIS | Discuss |
| DISP | Disposal |
| EASE | Easy to |
| EMB | Embodiment |
| EGY | Energy |
| ENG | Engineering |
| ENV | Environmental |
| EGS | Examples |
| EXPC | Experience |
| EXPERT | Experts |
| FP | Footprint |
| FUNCT | Function |
| GEN | Generation |
| GRAPH | Graph |
| GGAS | Greenhouse Gas |
| GUAR | Guaranteed |
| IMP | Impact |
| DISP | Individually |
| INFO | Information |
| LEG | Legislation |
| LCA | Life Cycle Analysis |
| LOCAT | Location |
| LOW | Low |
| MANUR | Manufacturers |
| MANUG | Manufacturing |
| MARKTG | Marketing |
| MAT | Material |
| MECH | Mechanical |
| MORAL | Moral |
| NETW | Networks |
| PERF | Performance |
| PICS | Pictures |
| PRI | Principle |
| PRO | Process |
| PROF | Profile |
| PO | Proof of |
| PROTO | Prototyping |
| PUB | Public |
| REC | Recommendations |
| RECYD | Recycled |
| RECYG | Recycling |
| REL | Relative |
| REQ | Requirements |
| RESP | Responsibility |
| SAMP | Sample |
| SEC SUPPLY |
Security of Supply |
| SEL | Selection |
| SIM | Simple |
| SIZE | Size |
| SOCIET | Societal |
| SOFTW | Software |
| SOU | Source |
| SPEC | Specifications |
| STUDENT | Student |
| SUIT | Suitability |
| SUPP | Suppliers |
| SUS | Sustainable |
| TECH | Technical |
| TEST | Testing |
| THR | Throughout |
| TOOLM | Toolmaker |
| UPTODATE | Up to date |
| UPDATE | Update |
| USE | Use |
| VAR | Variations |
| WAT | Water |
| WEB | Websites |
333
Code
AFT-CON-GEN After concept generation
BEG At the beginning
CON-DEV During concept development
CON-GEN During concept Generation
CON-SEL During concept selection
COST Cost
DES-BRI Design brief
DET-DES During detail design
EMB-DES Embodiment design
MANUG-PRO Manufacturing processes
PO-CON Proof of Concept
PO-PRI Proof of Principle
TECH-BRI Technical Brief
THR-DES-PRO Throughout the Design Process
Respondent 6. At what stage in the design
process do you consider material
selection?
A Soon after concept generation AFT-CON-GEN
B Initial concept. May be part of technical
brief (eg medical device)
CON-GEN TECH-BRI
C Normally engineering (detail) design
change
DET-DES
D Initial phase and costing BEG COST
E Concept design and creative brief CON-GEN DES-BRI
F From the start BEG
G embodiment desin EMB-DES DET-DES
H As early as the client allows! As early
as possible
BEG
I Concept, manufacturing process,
material
CON-GEN MANUG-PRO
J Very early- at, or soon after concept
generation
BEG CON-GEN
K Early (sometimes during concept
generation/selection). PoP/PoC (proof
of principle/ proof of concept)
BEG CON-GEN CON-SEL PO-PRI PO-CON
L Conceptual/development CON-GEN CON-DEV
M Beginning BEG
N Mostly at start, but throughout BEG THR-DES-PRO
O Usually material selection is very
narrow, most small products are ABS,
PC/ABS. Kettles are PP. The selection
will usually be made during detail
design
DET-DES
P Outset BEG
Q It depends on the project really. I think
you always have to be considering
things like this throughout a
project/process. (probably towards the
later stages if i had to say.
THR-DES-PRO DET-DES
R At the beginning, during the product
concept phase
CON-GEN BEG
S Everypoint depending on performance THR-DES-PRO
Coding
Appendix O Questionnaire Analysis
334
Respondent 7. How are material choices made
within your company?
A Consider cost, availability, ease of use COST AVAIL EASEUSE
B Based on legislation and experience of
manufacturing processes
LEG EXP-MANUGPRO
C Varies, normally driven by engineering
requirements, sustainability issues only
considered when specifically reqeusted by
client/project, or is generally relevant
ENG-REQ CLIENT
D Cost based initially, then appearance,
performance
COST APPEAR PERF
E Individually INDIV
F By Clients CLIENT
G N/A
H Made by client after, hopefully, an
exploration of options
CLIENT
I J
Data review (data sheets), testing, cost
review, moulding/processing capability,
environmental profile, paper review of key
parameters-eg strength, stiffness,
environmental resistance
DATAS COST PERF TEST ENV-PROF ENG-REQ
K On an engineering basis general (via datasheets, discussions with suppliers, etc)
DATAS SUPP
L N/A
M Review of all the innovation and sustainable
options in the market
N By function, cost, customer preference FUNCT COST CUST
O The choice is usually made between us and
the moulder/toolmaker. The client is then
informed and makes input, most likely on
cost
TOOLM CLIENT COST
P Innovation meeting-process selections MANG-PRO
Q Often a discussion with engineers to decide
whats the best for that particular
product/project. Cost, functionality etc.
Often discuss with suppliers.
DIS-ENG COST PERF SUPP
R Mainly on suitability to the product.
Cosmetic finish, robustness, thermal
issues, cost, manufacture process
PERF APPEAR COST ENG-REQ MANGPRO
S Against project/product performance PERF
Coding
Coding
APPEAR Appearance
AVAIL Availability
CLIENT Client
COST Costing
CUST Customer
DATAS Data sheets
DIS Discuss
EASE Easy to
ENG Engineer
ENV Environmental
EXP Experience
INDIV Individually
LEG Legislation
MANG Manufacturing Processes
PERF Performance
PRO Process
PROF Profile
REQ Requirements
SUPP Suppliers
TEST Testing
TOOLM Toolmaker
USE Use
335
Respondent 8. Do you use any resources to aid
material selection?
A As Q.4-BS8887, Lots of books &
literature, real-life examples plus expertise
of colleagues
STAN BOOK EGS EXPT-COLL
B External manufacturer liason e.g.
Toolmakers
MANU TOOLM
C 1.matweb.com (engineering information) 2.
material suppliers (eg DOW, chemical
companies, specialist) 3. ecodesign
handbook (rarely) 4. Organisations (e.g.
Specific trade bodies M.A.D.E.) 5.
Cambridge Materials selector (not
currently)
WEB SUPP BOOK SOFTW EXPT-NETW
D No NEG
E More networks & info would be good
F No NEG
G Busbys Book EduPack BOOK SOFTW
H Knowledge Transfer Network (materials),
other networks
EXPT-NETW
I Supplier Expertise SUPP-EXPT EXPT
J Yes, campus, plascams MAT-DATAB
K Yes, campus, plascams MAT-DATAB
L M
Materials/ info from suppliers.
Recommendations
SUPP REC
N Yes, websites. GE website, Bayer
website etc (sabic). The British Plastics
Federation. BASF
WEB SUPP
O Material manufacturer’s websites,
toolmakers/moulder recomendations
MANU-WEB TOOLM-REC
P Internet, material producer, legislation,
experts in field
WEB SUPP LEG EXPT-COLL
Q Suppliers mainly SUPP
R Yes. Formal literature-guide books.
Material suppliers
BOOK SUPP
S Suppliers Information SUPP
Coding
Code
BOOK Books
COLL Colleagues
EGS Examples
EXPT Experts
LEG Legislation
MANU Manufacturers
NEG Negative response
POS Positive response
REC Recomendations
SOFTW Software
SUPP Suppliers
TOOLM Toolmaker
WEB Websites
EXPT-COLL Expert colleagues
EXPT-NETW Experts from networks
MAT-DATAB Material databases
SUPP-EXPT Supplier Experts
MANU-WEB Manufacturer Websites
TOOLM-REC Toolmaker recommendations
336
Appendix P Interview Participants
| Job Title Company product areas Sustainability on the website |
| 1 Managing Director (Industrial Designer) Consumer products, Professional lighting, Pro audio, Lab equipment, Industrial equipment, Test & measurement, Photographic equipment, Packaging Yes – mention use of LCA software and that they plan to integrate sustainable product design into all projects over coming months 2 Senior Product Designer Medical technologies, Consumer, Industrial products, Smart metering, Defence & security, Wireless, Semiconductor & ASIC, Transport, Cleantech Yes – Cleantech under the heading design and development with sub headings; Renewable energy, Smarter energy efficient products, Profit through innovation and sustainable product development, Sustainable transport, Investment and market entry 3 Industrial Designer and Creative Director Consumer, Medical, Professional, Telecom No 4 Industrial Designer Consumer, Medical, Professional, Telecom No 5 Independent Consultant (Studied industrial design then environmental design) Automotive, Consumer, Electrical items, Furniture No, but mentions the designers’ high credentials in materials, including that they are on the board of directors for a material society and a consultant for the Materials KTN 6 Programme Manager in Products and Systems (Industrial Designer) Medical technologies, Consumer, Industrial products, Smart metering, Defence & security, Wireless, Semiconductor & ASIC, Transport, Cleantech Yes – Cleantech under the heading design and development with sub headings; Renewable energy, Smarter energy efficient products. Profit through innovation and sustainable product development, Sustainable transport, Investment and market entry 7 Product Design Consultant Product design, Packaging design, Prototyping, Medical, Consumer electronics, Sports equipment, Lighting products No |
337
Appendix Q Interview Questions Justification
| No. Question Research Questions Reason |
| 1 What is your job title? Background info. |
| 2 What are your main responsibilities? Background info. |
| 3 What product areas are you involved in? Background info. |
| 4 Could you give a brief description of your design process. What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? Background info on individual design approach. |
| 5 At what stage or stages do you consider material selection? What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? Who is involved in making material selection decisions? Explore the respondents material selection process and if they are involved in the selection process. |
| 6 How involved are you in the material selection process? Who is involved in making material selection decisions? Explore Respondents involvement in the selection process. |
| 6a How much influence do you have when selecting materials? Who is involved in making material selection decisions? Explore Respondents involvement in the selection process |
| 7 Who else is involved in material selection? Who is involved in making material selection decisions? Explore Respondents involvement in the selection process. |
| 7a. How much influence do they have? Who is involved in making material selection decisions? Explore Respondents involvement in the selection process. |
| 8 How do you select materials? What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? What resources exist to support sustainable material selection? Investigate how designers make decisions about materials |
| 8a. What resources do you use to aid material selection? What resources exist to support sustainable material selection? Second part used to prompt respondent. |
| 8b. How are these presented? What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the Explore what resources are used and how. |
338
| industrial design of mass-manufactured products? What resources exist to support sustainable material selection? |
| 9 What drives material selection choices, for yourself, the client and your company? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? What drives, and who informs material selection choices |
| 9a. Of these drivers, which are the most important? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? Explore designers priorities when selecting materials |
| 10 What barriers do you incur when specifying materials? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? What factors make material selection difficult |
| 11 Are you aware of any legislations that affect material selection? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? Explore respondents’ awareness of legislations. |
| 12 Is there any part of material selection that you find difficult? What information is needed to enable sustainable material selection during the industrial design of mass-manufactured products? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? Explore if there are any prominent barriers |
| 13 Can you describe what a sustainable material is? How is a sustainable material defined? Explore respondent’s awareness of sustainability and sustainable materials. |
| Give sustainable material definition – Do you think this encapsulates a sustainable material? How is a sustainable material defined? Gain respondents point of view on researchers definition |
| 14 Can you think of a mass manufactured product which uses sustainable materials? How is a sustainable material defined? Explore respondents’ awareness and understanding of sustainable materials |
| 15 Is sustainability a factor when you select materials? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? Explore respondents’ awareness of sustainable materials |
| 16 What barriers do you think exist when specifying sustainable materials? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? Explore what barriers affect sustainable material selection |
| 17 What do you think about sustainable materials? How is a sustainable material defined? Gauge what individual thinks about sustainable materials |
| 18 How often do clients request you to consider sustainable materials for a project? What are the drivers and barriers for selecting sustainable materials? Explore what influence the client has on material selection |
| 19 Do you think industrial designers can be How can individuals be supported to integrate Explore what individuals require to aid sustainable |
339
| supported to make sustainable material choices? sustainability into the material selection process? material selection |
| 20 What support would you like? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? Explore what support individuals want |
| 21 How would you like the information presented? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? Explore what support individuals want |
| 22 Would you like the ability to contribute to a resource? How can individuals be supported to integrate sustainability into the material selection process? Explore what support individuals want |
340
Appendix R Interview Questions Prompt Sheet
341
342
Appendix S Interview Coding
| PRODUCT AREA |
WIDE TECH PRODS PROF POS PACKG MILIT MEDI LAB IND FURN FMCG EGS DOM CONSU BUS-PRODS AUD-VIS ANY |
| INVOLV | SOLO PERS-INT MANUFS MANAGE PROJ IND-DESR ENGS EGS CUST COLL CLI CHIEF-DES BKGRD |
| MAT-SEL PROC |
WORLD USER TOOLM TECH-FEAS SUPP-LIBS SUPP SPEC SOFTW SMART SELLABILITY RES-NEED REFINE-MAT RECYCBY PROD-FUNC PERF MOULDER MODELS MAT-TYPE MAT-SUIT MAT-PROP MAT-LIB MAT-KTN MAT-AEST MAT ACCESS MANU-PROC LABEL HAZARD FORM EXPT EXP ENV END EARLY DISC DICT |
| DET-COMP DES COST CON-DES CAD-3D BRIEF ASSU |
|
| LEGIS | ROHS HEALTH SAFETY DFD ADDIT |
| RESH | NET MENT-STOR MAT-DATA MANUFS MAGS DISC-DES COMP-MAT CATS BOOKS |
| DRIVERS | USER MAT-PERF MAT-AEST MANUFS COST COMPA CLIENT |
| BARRIERS | RISK NEW-PROC NEW-MAT FING-INFO COST CLI |
343
Appendix T Interview Nvivo Analysis
344
345
Appendix U Main Study Invitation Letter
Rose Deakin, Sustainable Design Research Group,
Loughborough Design School, Bridgeman Centre,
Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
An invitation to participate in a study of products mass-manufactured
using sustainable materials
I am a third year PhD student in the Sustainable Design Research Group at
Loughborough University. I am exploring the relationship between Industrial
Designers and sustainable materials. I am also investigating the scope to integrate
sustainability into the material selection process. I am inviting you to take part in this
research by means of an interview discussing your experience of sustainable
materials.
Research has to date included questionnaires and interviews with designers relating
to the material selection process and the prevalence of sustainability in current
practice. The following letter explains this research study in more detail and what
your participation would involve. Please take time to read through the following
information carefully.
Purpose of the study
Previous research has found that industrial designers lack the support of other
disciplines when it comes to selecting materials. There are numerous examples in
other design disciplines such as architecture, fashion, furniture and interior
applications but it is key to understand why there are so few examples in Industrial
Design. The purpose of this study is to build on previous research by studying the
use of sustainable materials in mass manufacture. Previous research identified that
the barriers to selecting sustainable materials are often related to the client and the
brief. The business model is related to this with the need to ensure a constant
supply of work and a fear of losing work by promoting sustainable materials to
clients. Designers involved in the first study were keen to improve their
understanding of sustainable materials so they were better informed to educate and
sell the idea to clients. Personal interest was often given as a driver by designers as
to why they would like to promote sustainable materials. This research
predominantly identified the barriers to selecting materials but now I plan to study
what drives the use of sustainable materials.
The company studies shall study a number of companies through interviews with
those involved in the project to understand why and how the materials were used.
As well as Industrial Designers I am keen to interview other stakeholders involved in
the project, for example clients, manufacturers and engineers. The questions shall
build on previous research and continue to explore the themes of brief, business
model and personal interest.
346
Who is involved in this research?
This study will be conducted by Rose Deakin, a third year PhD student under the
supervision of Dr. Rhoda Trimingham and Prof. Tracy Bhamra. The research project
is funded by Loughborough University.
What is involved if I take part?
An interview lasting approximately 45 minutes carried out at a time and place at your
convenience. The interview shall be recorded to enable transcription. Following the
interview you shall receive a copy of the audio file and interview transcript.
Will my taking part in this study be kept confidential?
Yes. Findings from this study will be published in the final thesis but all names shall
be confidential. All data shall be stored securely.
Can I change my mind?
Yes. After you have read this information and asked any questions you may have
we will ask you to complete an Informed Consent Form, however if at any time,
before, during or after the sessions you wish to withdraw from the study please just
contact the main investigator. You can withdraw at any time, for any reason and
you will not be asked to explain your reasons for withdrawing.
What happens now?
If you are interested in taking part or have any questions please feel free to contact
Rose Deakin, full details below.
Thank you,
Rose Deakin
| Email: [email protected] Office: 01509 228321 |
Mobile: 07737450118 |
Loughborough Design School, Bridgeman Centre, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK
The Sustainable Design Research Group (SDRG) was established in 2003. The
aim of this Group is to contribute to knowledge in integrating issues of
sustainability into design, resulting in improvements in overall environment
performance and quality of life.
Loughborough Design School was formed on 1st August 2010 and brings together
the existing excellence in research, teaching and enterprise from the following:
Department of Design & Technology – Ergonomics & Safety Research Institute –
Department of Ergonomics www.lboro.ac.uk/lds
347
Appendix V Main Study Participants
| Company Product Area Criteria Interviewees |
| A Furniture Mass manufactured International, UK design engineers Use sustainable materials Furniture B Kitchen Appliances Mass manufactured UK designers, international company Use materials sustainably Consumer Products B1. Product Designer B2. Quality Engineer B3. Director of Industrial Design B4. Senior Industrial Designer B5. Research and Development (R+D) Team Leader B6. Project Manager (recent move from Senior Industrial Designer) C Beauty products, packaging and household goods Mass manufactured UK designers, international company Use sustainable materials Consumer Products and product packaging D Automotive Mass manufactured UK designers, international company Use sustainable materials Automotive D1. Sustainability Attribute Environment Engineer D2. Graduate Engineer D3. Sustainability Attribute Product Leader D4. Project Engineer D5. Project Engineer |
A1. Project Lead
A2. International Product
Manager
A3. Lead Development Engineer
A4. International Product
Manager
A5. Product Development
Manager for EMEA
A6. Commercial Environment
Manager
A7. Mechanical Engineer
A8. Dealer Support
Representative
C1. Sustainable Development
Manager for products
C2. Technical Consultant for
Quality, Ethics and Supplier
Development Team
C3. Technical consultant
C4. Packaging Technologist
348
Appendix W Main Study Interview Prompt Sheet
1. What is your job title?
2. What types of product are you involved in designing?
3. What types of materials are you working with?
4. Can you briefly talk me through your role in the design process?
5. Can you explain your role in the material selection process?
6. Can you name and give the roles of other people involved in the material
selection process?
7. Here is my definition of a sustainable material, do you agree with the
statement?
8. Do you select materials that fit into that definition in any way?
9. In what way is sustainability considered during material selection?
10. What elements of sustainable materials do you consider?
11. Are sustainable materials a consideration as part of your job role?
No→Qu.13
Do you employ a different design process when working with
sustainable materials?
| No Yes |
→Qu.13 →How does the design process differ? →Do you work with different people? (names and job titles) |
12.Are you aware of any legislation that affects the selection of sustainable
materials?
13.Does your company encourage you to use sustainable materials?
Yes →How are you encouraged?
14.Does your company support you to use sustainable materials?
Yes →How are you supported?
→Does your company run professional development courses to
keep you up to date with issues relevant to material sustainability?
349
15.Do you know if your company’s business model has altered to encourage
the use of sustainable materials?
16.Do you have a personal interest in sustainable materials?
No→Qu18
Yes → Do you know where that interest came from?
→ Do you actively educate yourself about sustainable materials?
→ Are you able to apply that knowledge to your work?
17. If you weren’t told to use sustainable materials would you consider
using them?
No → Are you able to make that decision?
18.Are there other people you work with who have a strong personal interest in
sustainable materials?
Yes →Who are they?
19. Do you have any further comments on sustainable materials that you
would like to make?
350
Appendix X Main Study Coding
BARRIERS BA_AEST
BA_AVAIL
BA_AWA
BA_COMPET
BA_COMPY
BA_COST
BA_CUST-CLI
BA_EDU
BA_FASHION
BA_FNDG-INFO
BA_MOTIVN
BA_RISK
BA_SM_RECYD_FOOD_GRADE
BA_SM_STRENGTH
BA_SPEC
BA_TIME
BA_TRENDS_FASHION
BA_TRUTH
BA_UNDSTG
BEHAV_CHANGE
BUS_MOD BM_NO
BM_YES
COMPETITORS
CONSUMERISM+CAPITALISM
CRAFT
DEF DEF-MAYBE
DEF-NO
DEF-YES
DES_NATURE
DES_PROC
DONT_ADV_SM
DRIVERS DR_AVAIL
DR_AWA
DR_BRAND
DR_BRIEF
DR_CLI
DR_COMPET
DR_COMPY
DR_COMY_POLICY
DR_COST
DR_CUST
DR_EDU
DR_FINITE_RES
DR_FUT_PROOF
DR_MARKG
DR_MARKT
351
DRIVERS DR_PERS
DR_HOME_RECYG
DR_MORAL
DR_NAT+OUT
DR_PERS_AWA
DR_PERS_CHILDN
DR_PERS_EDU
DR_PERS_NO
DR_PERS_WORK
DR_PERS_YES
DR_PERS_YOUNG+AGE
DR_RELIGION
DR_SALES
DR_SCARCITY
DR_SPEC
DR_TENDER
DR_TRENDS
DR_WEIGHT
DR-INNOV
DR-LEG
DR-TRAING
OTHER_INDUSTRY
EFFICIENCY_WATTS
END_OF_LIFE EOL_INCIN
EOL_LANDFILL
EOL_RECYG
FAIRTRADE
GOOD_DES
GREEN_TICK
GREEN_WASHING
LEG+STDS+CERTS APA
CARB_FTPT
FSC
ISO_14001
ISO_14025
MBDC
REACH
ROHS
WEEE
MANUF
MANUF_LEAN
OIL
ON_JOB_TRNG
RESOURCE EDU_TOOL
SEL_INFO
AEST
COST
PROP
SEL_INFO_MAT_DATAB
SEL_INFO_SAMPLES
SELF_EDU_NO
SELF_EDU_YES
SM_DISHONEST
352
SM_GIVEN
SM_HOLISTIC
SM_SELF_EDU
SMU
SMU_BIOP
STORY
SUPPS
SUST_MATS_USE
EMOTION
SERVICABILITY_UPGRADY
SMU_AVOID
SMU_BIOP
SMU_C2C
SMU_CERT
SMU_DFE
SMU_DURBY_LONGY
SMU_ENERGY
SMU_ETHICAL
SMU_LIFECYC
SMU_LIGHT
SMU_MINI
SMU_NATURAL
SMU_ORG
SMU_QUALY
SMU_RCYCABY
SMU_RECYD
SMU_RECYD_CONTAM
SMU_RENEW
SMU_REUSE
SMU_SIMPLE
SMU_SOURCING_ID
SMU-DISAMBY
SMU-LOCAL
SMU-SOCIAL
Trends
WARTY
WHEN CONTY
EARLY
END
WHO BRAND_MGR
DES
ENGS
ENV_MANGR
IND_DESR
MARKG
MAT_ENG
PROJ_MANG
QUALITY
R+D
SALES
SUPP
353
Appendix Y Framework Evaluation Survey
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
Appendix Z Workshop Design Tasks
Task One – Kettle
This is a quick initial task split into two parts and is only expected to take 10-15
minutes. Once you are happy with your solution each group will explain their
thoughts to the other group and we will discuss the task as a whole.
1 – Try and identify the material types being used for parts A,B,C and D (there is no
wrong or right answer!) Discuss this within your teams and write your answers on
the paper provided.
2 – Using the materials you identified in part one to get you started and the
resources provided select similar materials for the kettle. Materials chosen should
enable the same functionality as the current choice but with a focus on the material
sustainability, e.g. transparent. Discuss your ideas and choices within the team, use
the paper provided to brainstorm and sketch ideas. Please annotate your sketches,
including your material choices and the rationale behind the decisions made.
Task two – Hairdryer
Using the tool provided design a hairdryer, focusing on longevity.
You have slightly longer for this task as it is more involved. For this task you have
more freedom with your material choices and can redesign the product. Choose
any material that you think is suitable to improve the longevity and sustainability of
the hairdryer. Please discuss your ideas as a team, feel free to brainstorm and
sketch on the paper provided. Please annotate your sketches, including your
material choices and the rationale behind the decisions made.
Task three – Toaster Design a toaster to allow the inclusion of
materials you select for their sustainability criteria.
You have access to the tool in varying forms and it is up to you as a group to decide
how you approach sustainable material selection. Try to consider as many aspects
of sustainable materials as you can and discuss this within your team. Please
annotate your sketches and including your material choices.
Toasters can be quite complicated internally but please focus more on the outer
shell and appearance of the toaster and select at least 5 different materials. You do
not need to go into detail such as mechanisms unless you have created very simple
solutions through new material selection.
361
362
363
364
Appendix AA Workshop Time Plan
10.30-10.40 10 MINUTES Intro and any questions
INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND SURVEY
Task One
10.40-10.55 20 MINUTES Task One – Kettle
10.55 – 11.00 5 MINUTES POSITIVE FEEDBACK
11.00-11.05 5 MINUTES FIRST GROUP SURVEY
11.05-11.10 5 MINUTES Researcher explains the framework
Task Two
11.10 – 11.35 25 MINUTES Task two – Hairdryer
11.35 – 11.40 5 MINUTES POSITIVE FEEDBACK
11.40-11.45 5 MINUTES SECOND GROUP SURVEY
Task Three
11.45-12.10 25 MINUTES Task three – Toaster
12.10 – 12.15 5 MINUTES POSITIVE FEEDBACK
12.15 5 MINUTES THIRD GROUP SURVEY AND
INDIVIDUAL SURVEY
12.25 Wrap up, thank you and any comments
365
Appendix BB Workshop Surveys
| Name: Design or material experience: |
Job Title: |
Pre Task One
1. What is your knowledge or experience of sustainable material selection?
Team survey – To be completed after Task 1
1. How easy did you find it to discuss the topic of sustainable materials with
your team?
Very Easy Easy Neither hard nor
easy
Hard Very Hard
1 2 3 4 5
2. How easy did you find it to understand the topic of sustainable materials?
Very Easy Easy Neither hard nor
easy
Hard Very Hard
1 2 3 4 5
3. What sustainable material considerations are important for your design?
4. What are the sustainable implications for the materials you have selected,
both positive and negative?
5. How did you select your sustainable material choices? Did you use any
resources provided?
366
Team Survey – To be completed after Task 2 and again after Task 3
1. How easy did you find it to discuss the topic of sustainable materials with
your team?
Very Easy Easy Neither hard nor
easy
Hard Very Hard
1 2 3 4 5
2. How easy did you find it to understand the topic of sustainable materials?
Very Easy Easy Neither hard nor
easy
Hard Very Hard
1 2 3 4 5
3. What sustainable material considerations are important for your design?
4. What are the sustainable implications for the materials you have selected,
both positive and negative?
5. How did you select your sustainable material choices? Did you use any
resources provided?
6. Did you conduct material selection differently with the tool? If yes how?
367
Individual Survey – to be completed after all three tasks
1. What did you learn about sustainable material selection?
2. Did the tool help you select sustainable materials? If yes, how?
3. Do you think the tool helped you interact with your team?
4. Do you think the tool helped you understand sustainable material
selection?
5. Any further comments? (feel free to use the back page)
368
Appendix CC Workshop Survey Evaluation Points
Interaction and Engagement:
| | Interaction– Does the tool increase interaction between team members? |
| Group Survey Question: | |
| | Q1: How easy did you find it to discuss the topic of sustainable materials with your team? Engagement – Does the tool improve team engagement with |
| |
sustainable material selection?
Group Survey Question:
| | Q2: How easy did you find it to understand the topic of sustainable materials? |
Education
| | Education – Does the tool improve the individuals understanding of sustainable material selection? |
Group Survey Questions:
| | 3. What sustainable material considerations are important for your design? 4. What are the sustainable implications for the materials you have selected, both positive and negative? |
| |
Usability
| | Clarity – Are the considerations of sustainable material selection clear to understand? Usability – How easy do the team members find the tool to use? |
| Efficacy |
|
| Efficacy – Does the tool support individuals to use it alongside existing material selection tools? |
Group Survey Question:
Q5: How did you select your sustainable material choices? Did you
sue and resources provided?
Q6: Did you conduct material selection differently with the tool? If
yes how?
369
Appendix DD Transcription Sample
Interviewer: (11.45) At what stage or stages do you consider material
selection?
Respondent: Erm, mmm, I think we probably would chose the
manufacturing process as a function of the, looking at the concept design
stage, so that’s when we are saying ok this is going to be something metallic,
something with good thermal properties or this is obviously going to be
injection moulded because its going to be complex and we need to put so
many functions onto this part. So I think you might find that those early
concept stages have rough ideas as to what or how something is going to be
made and therefore what class of material it is going to be made from. Erm,
as we go through technical feasibility we will generally find working
assumptions, you know, (12.51) this will need to be a high integrity polymer,
you know a (12.53) palm? Or nylon for this, this is cheap so its going to be
polyprop but we probably wouldn’t choose a specific grade of material or of
polymer till pretty far down the line. Im just trying to think, we were working
on a project at the start of this year where we had got a working model, erm,
as separate works like and looks like models and we were still assuming
different classes of polymer for each of the components rather than weve
identified the exact grades of only one or two out of a total of 60 parts erm so
we knew this was going to be nylon but we hadn’t chosen the supplier, we
hadn’t established exactly what type of nylon erm, we had some broad
outcomes. The choice of exactly which grade would probably have come
from the erm moulder, we would be talking to them, trying to refine down our
choice and the point at which we had decided it was going to be nylon rather
than Polm or PEI rather than something else erm was probably when we
started thinking about the detailed component design. And the point at which
we decided it was plastic rather than metal or bamboo has happened pretty
much at first concept layout stage.
Interviewer: And how involved are you in the material selection process?
Respondent: Im an absolute pest, I think, (laughs), im involved in every
stage of it (laughs) but that’s because of my background. Its one of the thing
that I have an interest in. And so whilst im happy for someone to choose a
370
??? processor over a PIC without being particularly involved in that decision,
erm, material selection is one of the things that trips up a mechanical design
and so I would normally take a very strong interest in that if I was managing
the project. It comes right down to picking the right concept. You need to be
roughly aware that you’ve got the right type of materials being used
otherwise the design will fail for technical reasons.
Interviewer: Who else is involved in the material selection process?
Respondent: Sometimes the client, sometimes the industrial designer, more
generally it will be the chief designer on the project and at Cambridge
Consultants that is usually a Senior Mechanical Engineer or a Principle
Mechanical Engineer, someone like that. Erm, so they will be fairly
experienced at making parts or designing ???? intruently come out of tools
and they sit together. So it is generally an engineering choice rather than a
design or procurement choice
Interviewer: You mentioned the moulder earlier aswell, are they sometimes
involved as part of it?
Respondent: Yeah but at a more detailed level I think. Its rare for a moulder
to be able to persuade us to change the type of plastic we are using. So if we
go to them saying we think this should be POM, they will say well yeah but
have you considered Polyethylene and we go yeah we have and we don’t
think its going to work. So whilst we are sometimes surprised by that I think
we generally think if we are changing the type of plastic so completely, at that
stage, then we have probably missed out something a bit earlier on and we
need a fairly good working assumption fairly early on so that when we are
doing the analyses and the cost models and so on we know basically where
we are going with it.
Interviewer: How do you select your materials?
Respondent: Mmmm, that’s an interesting one. (Pause) . we generally rely
on experienced people making informed choices and we then would support
those choices through a number of models. Mechanical properties of course
we can get those from MatWeb, erm, if we have been asked to consider
environmental impact, erm then we will do a comparison, maybe using a
basic LCA package like Eco it or Eco scan or something like that. Erm, its
unlikely that environmental impact will make us choose one plastic over
371
another because they are largely the same, the broad brush environmental
impact is greater between metal and plastic. Cost, weve got estimates for
the bulk commodity price of most of the engineering plastics and the
commodity plastics and so then we are choosing materials at concept layout
stage so, this is a big part, it needs to do this, this and this, we are prepared
to put up with it being a bit floppy, a part made from polyprop is what we’d
use there. And then we were looking at another part, this has to be strong,
this has to come out of the tool right, it has to be straight and everything is
hanging off it so we would use something stiffer, nylon, pet, whatever it might
be. (19.17) Erm…pause….how do we make those choices? We, well we
would do a cost analysis at that stage, we would have a number of choices
available to us, we might have a simple cost model or we might be doing a
full (19.32) DSM analysis using (19.32) ?brief working key best? And again
within that package we will have expressions for the likely component of
which the material itself is a factor. So I think that basically trading off
technical requirements and the likely cost with a small consideration on
environmental impact. And we refine that choice throughout the project
Interviewer: What drives material selection choices for yourself, the client
and your company? But you can answer it in three parts if that’s easier, so
firstly for yourself:
Respondent:Technical performance of the product, that is that’s where you
start. What does this product have to do. So it needs to be waterproof, it
needs to enclose, it needs to look shiny and fresh whatever that might be and
then, then cost. And those two are interlinked so we have to achieve a
certain performance at a certain cost. Erm, and, pause….what else.
Interviewer: What do you think the client is concerned with?
Respondent: Those two….
Interviewer: the same?
Respondent: yeah technical performance divided by cost is generally how
they would view it. Some clients place an enormous emphasis on cost price
and some of them are a bit more concerned about the environmental impact,
particularly in the FMCG area. They would be doing bench mark
comparisons to competing products. One of our clients has a policy where
every new product must be 10% lower environmental impact than its
372
predecessor and that gives us another set of design constraints to work to.
Yeah that’s 10% lower on a 99 scale but
Interviewer: Sorry, what does FMCG stand for?
Respondent: Fast Moving Consumer Goods so this is mars bars packages
and things that are sold in the supermarket in enormous volumes and
Interviewer: What barriers do you incur when specifying materials?
Respondent: Getting hold of cost data is sometimes difficult. If there is, we
are making choices based on technical performance and cost and at the start
of the project it can be unclear as to what the design is going to end up
looking like. Its all a bit nebulous so you are generally making decisions
based on your gut instinct, experience. Occasionally one member of the team
has had a particularly good result with using some material or other. But you
need at somepoint to replace that gut feeling and instinct with quantifiable
reasons. You know why did with choose this? Well because if you look up the
cost per…or the yield strength of the material divided by the cost of the wall
section we would need to achieve the objective this was a better choice. Erm
and I think whilst there is generally fairly good data available on the technical
performance, so you can go on Matweb and find out what the thermal
properties are you can get estimates from suppliers as to oxygen
permeability, you know whatever it might be that’s affecting the design. When
you say yes, but how much is this going to cost? So I can factor that in, that’s
probably the most challenging thing.
Interviewer: Are you aware of any legislations that affect material selection?
Respondent: Erm well RoHS of course which is, was a big driver a little
while ago. We thought for a while that the EUP was going to have some
serious impact, now of course replaced by the ERP. To be honest at the
moment it is not having a lot of impact on the standards themselves. You
know, a brief 24.38 ? low ? of excitement on the last project when we were
told that we would not be allowed to use BPA as a modifier in plastics and so
we would need to insure that, erm I can’t remember, it was a food contact
product and BPA was about to be banned or was likely to be banned and we
were going to have to remove it. And that was a bit difficult because that’s the
sort of thing that actually makes a big difference to the process ability of
some of these plastics. And you find that you have been making assumptions
373
about how well something is going to perform based on your experience of
plastics and you look at similar products and you say oh this is nice and
clear, lets make a jug with that and we will use the same material and then
you find that there is a technical reason why that is going to be problematic.
Beyond that no I don’t think so, not particularly
Interviewer: Can you describe what a sustainable material is?
Respondent: Huh (laughs). It’s a complete misonomer isn’t it. The phrase
sustainable seems a little odd to me. It seems to over promise. Yeah ive
always been a little uncomfortable about the term sustainable design, I know
that its got enormous attraction but if you are mass producing anything then
its impossible to do it without significant environmental impact. Erm the best
you can hope to do is to minimise that environmental impact within the
constraints of the project and we generally find that is not something that is
within our power to do. We do have Life cycle analysis tools and we can use
them from concept generation phase through to final design for manufacture
and that allows us to sort of, keep tabs on things, to try and minimise it.
Sometimes we find that the basic business model is where the environmental
impact is so if you are using something once and then throwing it away, you
know are there any opportunities to reuse, to bring it back into the waste
stream, do something else with it, make it last 2 times rather than one, whats
the impact of that? Erm but generally you are deluding yourself if you think
you are going to make something sustainable. Unless youre using ????
hardwoods (laughs). Yes, erm, its difficult.
374
Appendix EE Framework Design Development
375
376
377
Appendix FF Blank Tool Example