Product Design, Product Systems and Stakeholder

Applications of Systems Thinking within the Sustainability Domain: Product Design, Product Systems and Stakeholder Perspectives

Rafael Laurenti Licentiate Thesis

Industrial Ecology School of Industrial Engineering and Management KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden

2013

Title: Applications of Systems Thinking within the Sustainability Domain: Product Design, Product Systems and Stakeholder Perspectives Copyright: © 2013 Rafael Laurenti Registration: TITRA-IM 2013:12 ISBN: 978-91-7501-729-7 Contact information: Division of Industrial Ecology Department of Industrial Economics and Management School of Industrial Engineering and Management KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden www.kth.se/itm/inst/industriell-ekologi Printed by: Universitetetsservice US-AB, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012

Acknowledgments This thesis would not have come together if it were not for the help and support of many people. I am enormously grateful to Professor Ronald Wennersten for inviting me to study for my PhD at the Division of Industrial Ecology KTH. I would like to thank my supervisor Professor Björn Frostell for his time and patience spent with me and for his guidance in broadening my perspective on sustainability issues through the application of Systems Thinking. I would also like to thank all other professors, staff and PhD colleagues at the Division of Industrial Ecology for their support, the great discussions we have had and for the friendly work atmosphere. A special thanks to my Jagdeep and Rajib who have worked more closely with me and to Graham, Hossein and Joseph for their constructive ideas. I would like to add a particular thank you to Professor Åsa Moberg for taking the time to read my cover essay in great detail. Her comments and suggestions immensely improved the quality of my thesis. To all the co-authors of the three papers on which this thesis is based, particularly Dave, Sofia and Valeria, thank you for your kindness and help. Also thanks to the other colleagues who pointed out weaknesses and made useful suggestions for improving the papers. Nonetheless, any remaining weaknesses in the cover essay and in the three papers are, of course, my own. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents Tadeu and Ana and my siblings Ricardo and Nicolle for their unconditional loving support.

Rafael Laurenti 14th of June 2013 Stockholm

Abstract Many of the sustainability challenges our society currently face have arisen as unanticipated side effects of our own modern developments. This thesis investigates if unintended consequences and perspectives are fully addressed by traditional methods for providing decision-making support within the sustainability domain. For that purpose, Systems Thinking is utilised in three cases: in the first, Systems Thinking is used to analyse sustainability issues relating to the current product design paradigm. In the second case, Systems Thinking is applied to two product systems – household washing machines and conventional passenger vehicles. The third case discusses different stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision-making and proposes a way to combine the ESA tools LCA, LCC and CBA in order to consider the different stakeholder perspectives. Results of the first case point out that the practices within the current design paradigm are focused on innovations and improvements in material and energy efficiency. These practices have led to the following unintended consequences: consumption rebound effects, increased waste, pollution, negative externalities, economic inequalities and other environmental and social negative impacts. These unintended consequences are represented in a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD). The diagram graphically illustrates how these unintended consequences influence one another and interact by means of cause-effect linkages and reinforcing feedback loops. A novel conceptual framework named Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design is proposed to work within broader system boundaries in order to address possible negative side effects that micro-level gains could have on macro-level losses. In the case of the two product systems, a CLD for household washing machines and conventional passenger vehicles is developed. The CLDs represent how selected variables interact by means of cause-effect associations to affect environmental impacts of the products. The CLD technique appears to be a useful way to connect quantitative assessment (from Life Cycle Assessment) with qualitative analysis (from Systems Thinking). In the third case it is argued that stakeholders tend to adopt different system boundaries and make assumptions according to their perspective when they use ESA tools in environmental decision-making. A way to combine ESA tools is suggested to facilitate the observation of the environmental decision from different viewpoints. It concludes, to some extent, that traditional methods for providing decision-making support can handle certain parameters that may result in unintended consequences. Systems Thinking may assist in the process of performing qualitative analyses of what is important to consider in order to strengthen the robustness of, and improve on the recommended actions from, quantitative detailed analyses. Keywords: Systems Thinking, Sustainability, Product Design, Product Systems, Stakeholder Perspectives; Unintended Consequences

ii

Table of Contents Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................................. i Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................................. ii List of appended papers...................................................................................................................................................... iv 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1

2.

3.

4.

5.

Thesis background ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.1

Product design .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2

Product systems .................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3

Systems Thinking................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.4

Stakeholder perspectives ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5

Consumption rebound effects .......................................................................................................................... 4

2.6

Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Methodology................................................................................................................................................................. 6 3.1

Systems Thinking applied to product design ................................................................................................. 6

3.2

Systems Thinking applied to product systems ............................................................................................... 6

3.3

Systems Thinking applied to different stakeholder perspectives ................................................................ 7

Results............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.1

Unintended consequences of the current product design paradigm .......................................................... 8

4.2

Causal Loop Diagrams to identify sources of environmental impacts .................................................... 12

4.3

Stakeholder perspectives in decision-making ............................................................................................... 16

4.4

Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design ......................................................................................... 18

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.1

6.

Aim and objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Limitations and opportunities for future research ...................................................................................... 23

Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................. 24

References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 26

iii

List of appended papers 1.

Laurenti, R., Singh, J., Sevaldson, B. & Frostell, B. 2013. Moving from incremental improvements in efficiency to Systems-Oriented Design: A Systems Approach to Product Design. Submitted to Journal of Industrial Ecology.

2.

Laurenti, R., Lazarevic, D.A., Poulikidou, S., Montrucchio, V., Bistagnino, L. & Frostell, B. 2013. Causal loop diagrams to identify potential sources of environmental impacts outside the scope of LCA studies: case studies on washing machines and road vehicles. Submitted to Journal of Cleaner Production.

3.

Laurenti, R., Liljenström, C., Chatzisideris, M., Guhr, A. & Frostell, B. 2013. Diverse stakeholder perspectives of selected environmental systems analysis tools in environmental decision-making – the Swedish case of producing lignin powder for concrete production. Submitted to Journal of Cleaner Production.

iv

Applications of systems thinking within the sustainability domain: product design, product systems and stakeholder perspectives

Introduction

1. Introduction The innumerable gains in human well-being that our modern society has experienced are the results of developments in science and technology. However, these developments have resulted not only in gains but also in large losses, such as, ozone depletion, garbage accumulation, climate change, deforestation, pollution and decreasing biodiversity, resource depletion and resource wars (Skyttner, 2005). In an attempt to respond to these challenges, the concept of sustainability has emerged. According to Swilling and Annecke (2012), there are three main schools of thought within the domain of sustainability. The first is ‘doom and gloom’ environmentalism. These environmentalists have fundamentally given up on technological development, blaming it for the mess which our society is in. They claim that earth has already passed the tipping point in terms of the environment’s carrying capacity and resilience; hence, the efforts now should be placed on adapting our society to the negative consequences to come (Lovelock, 2009). The other extreme is ‘ecological modernisation’. Ecological modernisation premises its belief in technological fixes to conciliate environmental improvements with economic growth. A third alternative is to acknowledge that with modern developments comes the responsibility of unintended consequences. In this respect, great effort has been made by the field of Industrial Ecology to assess unforeseen consequences in environmental analysis and decision-making (Lifset and Graedel, 2002, Graedel and Allenby, 2003). The emphasis is placed on the accounting of the flows of materials and energy in industrial and consumer activities and the quantification of the impacts of these flows on the environment (Allenby and Richards, 1994). The efforts to account and quantify material and energy flows and environmental impacts are reflected in the extensive use of formal Environmental Systems Analysis (ESA) tools: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Substance Flow Analysis (SFA), Input-Output Analysis (IOA), CostBenefit Analysis (CBA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). The purpose is to avoid narrow analyses that could overlook important variables that lead to unintended consequences (Lifset and Graedel, 2002) in different geographical areas and time scales (Andersson and Råde, 2002). Differing from the previous efforts which aimed at quantifying variables that can potentially cause adverse environmental impacts, this thesis contributes to the endeavour to qualitatively analyse unintended consequences of the design, production and consumption of physical consumer goods from a Systems Thinking viewpoint. The justification for intentionally deviating from the quantitative approach is that there are variables which are not easily quantified but that can play an important role in influencing environmental impacts. Although the term, unintended consequences, may seem self-explanatory, the setting in which this term is used demands further specification1. In the first place, unintended consequences are not the direct outcomes of purposive action. The intended and anticipated outcomes of purposive action are always relatively desirable Based on the paper ”Marton, R. K. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894-904.” 1

1


Introduction

from the perspective of the actor of the action. However, those intended and anticipated outcomes may cause negative and undesirable later effects from the perspective of an outside observer (stakeholder). These later effects, which the actor of the purposive action did not address and are deemed to be negative to an outside stakeholder, are treated in this essay as unintended consequences. The so called consumption rebound effect is an example of this cause-effect chain of events. Put simply2, improvements in material and energy efficiencies (purposive action of a company) lead to associated cost and price reductions and increased consumption by consumers and profit for the company (intended and anticipated outcomes of the purposive action). Increasing consumption may, in turn, result in increasing raw material extraction, production, waste/pollution and environmental impacts (later effects undesirable from the perspective of an outside observer). These later effects are unintended consequences of efficiency improvements. 1.1

Aim and objectives

The aim of this licentiate thesis is to investigate if and which unintended consequences and perspectives are fully addressed by traditional methods used for providing decision-making support within the sustainability domain. Different possibilities for addressing the unintended consequences and perspectives with Systems Thinking techniques are discussed. A conceptual framework to facilitate the inclusion of such unintended consequences and perspectives during the process of product design is proposed. To this end, Systems Thinking is utilised in three different cases and reported in three papers (attached in the appendices), on which the thesis is based. Utilising Systems Thinking, the objectives of the thesis are to: i.

Investigate and illustrate the unintended consequences of the current paradigm of product design

ii.

Identify variables which may not typically be considered in LCA studies but may have significant influence upon environmental impacts through cause-effect chains in product systems

iii.

Discuss different stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision-making and propose a way to combine the ESA tools LCA, LCC and CBA in order to consider the different stakeholder perspectives

iv.

Develop a conceptual framework to facilitate the inclusion of potential unintended consequences during the process of product design

For a more detailed explanation and examples on rebound effects see “Maxwell, D., Owen, P., L, M., Muehmel, K. & Neubauer, A. 2011. Addressing the Rebound Effect. A report for the European Commission DG Environment.” 2

2


Thesis background

2. Thesis background This chapter describes the concepts necessary to understand the thesis. 2.1

Product design

“Design is conceiving and giving form to artefacts that solve problems” (Ulrich, 2011, p.2). In this sense, according to Professor Karl Ulrich, design is part of an overall problem-solving process beginning with a perception of a gap in the user experience, leading to a plan for a new artefact, and resulting in the production of that artefact (Figure 1) (Ulrich, 2011). The term artefact is used by Professor Ulrich in a broad sense to describe any result of intentional creation, including physical goods, services, software, graphics, buildings, landscapes, organisations, and processes. Moreover, in his definition the problem need not be a pressing societal or user need, but rather any perceived gap in a situation or experience.

Figure 1 – Design and production are the two activities that deliver artefacts to address gaps in the user experience (Ulrich, 2011)

In this licentiate thesis, the scope of the design of artefacts is limited to product design, i.e., the design of physical consumer goods – household appliances, vehicles, computers, mobile phones, etc. – and the focus is on its negative environmental effects. 2.2

Product systems

It is important to stress that the term ‘system’ is expressed throughout this licentiate thesis in terms of epistemological traditions (systems as learning devices to inquire into real world entities) and not according to ontological traditions (systems as representing real world entities) (Reynolds and Holwell, 2010). The definition adopted in this thesis is that ‘systems’ are constructs used for engaging with and improving situations of real world complexity (Reynolds and Holwell, 2010, p.7). Therefore, a ‘product system’ encompasses not only the infra-structure and associated services necessary to design, transport, manufacture, use and dispose of a product, but also the activities related to these life cycle phases. Physically, a product system can entail the energy carrier extraction, extraction of necessary raw 3


Thesis background

materials, production and assembly of parts, utilisation, material recycling, incineration and land filling, including the electricity production required in all phases of the life cycle of the product. On an intangible level, consumer behaviour, design paradigms, purposes, function and objectives, processes, performance measures, stakeholder perspectives, cultural values, economy, etc. can also make up a product system. A model, diagram or graph of a product system is a particular worldview of what constructs are important to describe the product system. Keeping in mind the constructivist idea of systems, aspects of Systems Thinking can now be examined. 2.3

Systems Thinking

Systems Thinking is a wide term used to represent a set of methods and ways of thinking that focus on systems – rather than parts – as the context for defining, framing and solving complex problems (Sweeney and Meadows, 2010, Meadows, 2008). Systems Thinking helps to understand how localised issues have causes and consequences that have a much wider impact (Reynolds and Holwell, 2010). Two central principles of Systems Thinking are used within this thesis to examine sustainability challenges from multiple perspectives and to expand the boundaries of mental models in order to consider the long-term consequences and ‘side effects’ of environmental decisions. The purpose of using Systems Thinking here is to pursue a robust environmental decision. A robust environmental decision means to avoid future movements from one problem to another, from one time scale to another, from one stakeholder group to another, from one phase of the life cycle to another, from one resource to another, and from one material to another. 2.4

Stakeholder perspectives

In environmental decision-making not everyone’s objectives are the same. A stakeholder perspective denotes the interest that a stakeholder has upon the environmental decision. Different stakeholder positions cause the pursuit of diverse interests and sometimes divergent objectives, thus resulting in taking different actions. 2.5

Consumption rebound effects

The problematic issue of consumption rebound effect was first identified in the middle of the 19 th century, during the industrial revolution, by the British economist William Stanley Jevons (Polimeni et al., 2008). Jevons affirmed that technological improvements, increasing the efficiency of coal use in engines doing mechanical work, were actually increasing the overall consumption of coal, iron, and other resources, rather than saving them, as many claimed (Alcott, 2005). The debate on this so called rebound effect has recently been re-opened and extensively discussed in the field of energy economics (Barker et al., 2007, Greening et al., 2000, Herring and Roy, 2007, John, 2007, Mathias, 2001, Ruzzenenti and Basosi, 2008, Sorrell and Dimitropoulos, 2008). Maxwell et al. (2011 p.6) define consumption rebound effect as “increases in consumption due to environmental efficiency interventions that can occur through a price reduction (i.e. an efficient product being cheaper and hence more is consumed) or other behavioural responses.” According to the authors, there are three types of price-induced rebound effect:

4


Thesis background

1. Direct Rebound Effect – an improved efficiency and associated cost reduction for a product results in its increased consumption because it becomes less expensive 2. Indirect Rebound Effect – savings from cost reductions empower more income to be spent on other products 3. Economy wide Rebound Effect – improved efficiency increases overall economic productivity stimulating economic growth and consumption at a macroeconomic level An interesting and more comprehensive definition is provided by Weidema (2008). He defines rebound effect as “derived changes in production and consumption when the implementation of an improvement option liberates or binds a scarce production or consumption factor”. According to him, these factors are: 

Money – when the improvement is more or less costly than the current option



Time – when the improvement is more or less time consuming than the current option



Space – when the improvement occupies more or less space than the current option



Technology – when the improvement affects the availability of specific technologies or raw materials

2.6

Sustainability

Sustainability is both a vague and politicised term (Lant, 2004). It has different meanings for different persons (Graedel and Klee, 2002), ranging from short- to long-term visions, from individual to communities’ perspectives, from technological innovations to changes in people‘s attitudes, behaviours and preferences (Partidario et al., 2010). It has been estimated that some three hundred definitions of 'sustainability' exist broadly within the domain of environmental management and the associated disciplines linked to it, either directly or indirectly (Johnston et al., 2007). Due to this lack of objectiveness, one can define sustainability either narrowly or broadly enough to suit particular interests. Like other fields, Industrial Ecology has struggled in the practical application of the concept of sustainability. Ehrenfeld (2007) affirms that sustainability is not merely the opposite face of unsustainability. “[…] reducing unsustainability, the objective that is the driving force behind dematerialization, efficiency improvements, and other strategies associated with sustainable development, will not automatically produce sustainability […]” (Ehrenfeld, 2007). Concurring with this logic, Swilling and Annecke (2012) suggest that sustainability will not result from causing less damage over time, but rather by finding ways of living that restore those eco-systems upon which we depend. This is the sense of sustainability that is adopted in the present licentiate thesis.

5


Methodology

3. Methodology A combination of methodological techniques and the Systems Thinking approach were applied in order to achieve the objectives of this thesis. In the next subsections, there is a description of the procedures adopted in each of the 3 Papers on which this thesis is based. 3.1

Systems Thinking applied to product design

Literature review and brainstorming sessions were used in an iterative process to ‘investigate and illustrate the unintended consequences of the current paradigm of product design (objective i)’ and to ‘develop a conceptual framework to facilitate the inclusion of potential unintended consequences during the process of product design (objective iv)’. The literature review was mainly used during the analysis of sustainability issues related to and practices of the current product design paradigm. The brainstorming sessions were predominant in the processes of (1) defining how these issues relate to each other and representing them in a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) and (2) developing the conceptual framework. A short description of how to interpret a CLD is necessary at this point. In a CLD, the interactions between the variables are either positive or balancing. In a positive relation (“+” sign) both variables change in the same direction; that is, ‘the more one, the more the other one’ or ‘the less one, the less the other one’. Yet, in a balancing relation (“-” sign) the variables change in the opposite direction; ‘the more one, the less the other one’ or ‘the less one, the more the other one’. The causal relationship between the two variables is an arrow together with a “+” or a “-” sign. The variable at the arrow’s tail is supposed to have a causal effect on the variable at the arrow’s point. For more on CLD see chapter 5 of Sterman (2000). 3.2

Systems Thinking applied to product systems

Literature review, workshops and individual interviews with experts served the purpose of ‘identifying variables which may not typically be considered in LCA studies but may have significant influence upon environmental impacts through cause-effect chains in product systems (objective ii)’. Household washing machines and conventional passenger vehicles (using gasoline or diesel) were chosen as case studies. Firstly, a literature review was conducted for each case study to identify the variables, system boundaries and functional units that are commonly adopted in LCA studies on washing machines and road vehicles. Subsequently, two parallel workshops were organised to build a first version of Causal Loop Diagrams. The workshop on washing machines was organised at the Polytechnic of Turin (Italy). There were five participants from the Department of Architecture and Design with backgrounds in industrial design and systemic design. The workshop on conventional passenger cars took place at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. There were five expert participants with backgrounds in environmental economics, transport and LCA. The purpose of the workshops was to gain a first view of the: 

large system where the studied products are embedded

6


Methodology



variables that may influence the environmental performance of the product through cause-effect links within that system



nature (positive or negative) of the relationships between these variables in order to get a better understanding of how the chosen variables may affect the environmental impact of the studied product through the cause-effect links

During the two workshops, experts were asked to brainstorm variables related to environmental impacts of the two product systems and to discuss their connections. Due to time constraints during the workshop, only a preliminary version of the Causal Loop Diagrams was developed for each of the product systems. There were still missing links between variables and even between important variables to the systems. The diagrams were further developed by experts together with the authors of the paper using individual interviews to advance the level of completion. Three interviews were conducted for each case. In each interview the first version of the Causal Loop Diagram was presented to the expert. Then, variables, links and their polarity were discussed. Special attention was also given to the naming of the variables. The expert and the interviewee verified the consistency of the cause-effect linkages and the relevance/importance of each variable to the system represented in the diagram. This process of developing the Causal Loop Diagrams followed the Group-Model Building method (Vennix, 1996). 3.3

Systems Thinking applied to different stakeholder perspectives

Literature review and brainstorming sessions were used in the ‘analyses of different stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision-making and the proposal of combining the Environmental Systems Analysis (ESA) tools LCA, LCC and CBA in order to consider the different stakeholder perspectives (objective iii)’. The literature review was utilised to investigate stakeholder perspectives described in studies; then, the perspectives described in Sexton et al. (1999) was adopted and the Stakeholders Opinion Assessment (SOA) method (Frostell et al., 2005, Frostell, 2006) was used to define the stakeholder groups – Industries, Authorities, Academia and Public. Finally, the brainstorming sessions were conducted to discuss and delineate the implications of these perspectives to the applications of ESA tools. The Swedish case of attempting to lower the environmental impact of buildings by using lignin powder in concrete production, instead of burning it on site for energy recovery, was chosen as a case (Back, 2012). To date, the Swedish pulp and paper industry has been using lignin mainly for energy recovery (Axelsson and Berntsson, 2012, Laurijssen et al., 2012, Joelsson and Gustavsson, 2012). In this scenario, the downstream and upstream effects of producing and using lignin powder in concrete as well as the different perspectives of the stakeholders in this decision-making situation were explored.

7


Results

4. Results 4.1

Unintended consequences of the current product design paradigm

Product design determines most of the environmental impacts that a product will potentially have during its life cycle. Design choices specified in the design plan, such as, type of materials and manufacturing processes, strongly influence the rate of material or energy input per unit of the service offered by the product. Therefore, to date, considerable research in product design has been devoted to innovation and improvements on material and energy efficiency in the design of consumer goods. The practice of adopting environmental considerations into product design has been termed ‘Ecodesign’ (Lagerstedt and Luttropp, 2006, Lofthouse, 2006, Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006, Spangenberg et al., 2010, Vezzoli and Manzini, 2008). The aim of Ecodesign is to integrate in a ‘life cycle perspective’3 environmental attributes early into product design, together with more traditional values such as production costs, functionality, aesthetics, etc. (Nielsen and Wenzel, 2002, Lagerstedt and Luttropp, 2006, Yarwood and Eagan., 2001). Ecodesign strategies can be summarised as follows: 

Transmaterialisation: substitution of materials for others with less environmental impact



Dematerialisation: minimising material use per unit of service output through substituting products for services, reducing weight, volume and packaging



Modularisation: optimisation of the product lifespan with repair and upgrade strategies



Reduction of energy use in all stages of the product life cycle



Intensification of use by product sharing



Closing material loops with recycling and remanufacturing strategies

Product designers and engineers have been utilising Ecodesign tools4 in industry for decision-making support. From an industry perspective, great progress has been made in attaining environmental gains that yield parallel economic benefits. Indeed, individually, refrigerators, washing machines, cars, computers, mobile phones and other industrial appliances have consumed less and less material and energy during their life cycles (Vezzoli and Manzini, 2008). Nevertheless, rather less attention has been paid to the overarching unintended consequences of such innovations and improvements (Paper 1). From an outsider’s perspective, innovations and efficiency improvements have been acting in a counterproductive manner as they have encouraged an increase in consumption due to associated price reductions. Consequently, increased consumption promotes increased

Detailed information about life cycle perspective can be found on ”Unep 2005. Life Cycle Approaches. The road from analysis to practice. Paris: UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.” 4 For a list and classification of Ecodesign tools see “Bovea, M. D. & Pérez-Belis, V. 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 61-71.” 3

8


Results

economic growth, thereby restarting the loop through further innovation. This reinforcing feedback loop of the consumption rebound effect is represented in the Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) of Figure 2 by R1. The self-perpetuating cycle of design, production and marketing of cheaper, newer and exciting products is vital to keep the economy growing (Partidario et al., 2010). Associated with this is the perpetual desire for novelty, strongly linked to the role that consumer goods play in people‘s lives (Jackson, 2009a). The collective desire for novelty is captured by and drives the engine of growth. To keep the vicious cycle of innovation-consumption running, products have been designed to have a shorter and shorter lifespan (Chapman, 2009). Two strategies can be used for that purpose: planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence (Leonard, 2010, Guiltinan, 2009, Chapman, 2009). The objective of planned obsolescence is to encourage replacement purchasing by consumers. According to Guiltinan (2009), the most direct way to speed replacement demand is to shorten the usable life of a product by limiting functional life through design, designing for limited repair, and/or designing aesthetics that lead to reduced satisfaction. Perceived obsolescence is a strategy used to convince people to throw away goods that are still perfectly useful (Leonard, 2010, Guiltinan, 2009, Chapman, 2009). This strategy facilitates the launch of a new model into the market. Since the things we have tend to define our identity in society, we do not feel good having an old model (Leonard, 2010). The cycle of innovation and ‘creative destruction’ and the consumption rebound effect are two reinforcing feedback loops spinning in the same direction to feed economic growth. In the former, product innovation leads to a shorter product lifespan, which leads to more consumption. Greater consumption fosters economic growth. The greater the economic growth, the more financial capital that is available to reinvest back into further innovation. This reinforcing feedback loop of the engine of growth is represented in the CLD of Figure 2 by R2. This globalised commercial system makes the social and environmental negative impacts - depletion of natural resources, loss of clean air along product chains, and negative health impacts due to pollution – occurring in the phases of extraction of raw material, production and waste management to go unnoticed in the consumption phase. That is, it is difficult to notice and value social and ecological negative externalities in the consumption phase (Leonard, 2010, Bilancini and D'Alessandro, 2012, Bithas, 2011, van den Bergh, 2010). A negative externality occurs when an activity or transaction by some party causes an unintended loss in welfare to another party, and no compensation for the change in welfare occurs (Daly and Farley, 2010). The ability to extract raw materials and produce goods in one part of the world and ship them around the planet has accentuated the use of negative externalities and accelerated the negative impacts. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2011), the use of undervalued natural resources and human capital has not only polluted the planet but has also drastically accentuated economic inequalities - referring to inequalities in the distribution of incomes and other economic factors such as wealth, employment or human capital. As the true costs of consumption, production and extraction of raw material

9


Results

are not accounted for; these processes inexorably lead to increasing waste and pollution. The more waste and pollution that is generated, the more the negative extremities are. Consequently, as an important part of the true costs of production are externalised, company owners can sell their products more cheaply than what might be considered reasonable (from a broader and ethical point of view) and with a higher profit. This reinforcing of the externalities-consumer costs feedback loop is depicted in the CLD of Figure 2 represented by R3.

Figure 2 – Unintended consequences of innovations and improvements in material and energy efficiency

Undervaluing human capital results in a rapid accumulation of financial capital. This phenomenon has occurred in the high income countries in the last 50 years. Huge gaps in wealth and well being exist between rich and poor between high and medium/low income countries (OECD, 2009, OECD, 2011). The benefits of overall global growth have been distributed unevenly, with a fifth of the world's population sharing just 2% of global income (Jackson, 2009b). Yet, more recently, the gaps have increased even within the high and medium/low income countries (OECD, 2011). The reasoning that undervaluing human capital increases economic inequalities is also represented in the CLD of Figure 2.

10


Results

Waste and pollution and economic inequalities can generate a broad range of other undesirable consequences with different spatial (local, regional and global) zones and time scales. The activities undertaken during the extraction of raw material, production, consumption and final disposal – fossil fuel combustion, emissions of toxins, use of herbicides/pesticides/fertilizers, biomass burning, disposition of toxins in landfills, etc. – lead to environmental impacts – climate change, loss of biodiversity and resource depletion (Graedel and Allenby, 2003). These environmental impacts in turn affect the ecosystem services upon which our society depends – nutrient cycling and supporting of soil formation; freshwater, food and wood and fibre provisioning; climate, flood and disease regulating; water purification; aesthetic, spiritual, educational and recreational cultural related services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Economic inequalities negatively influence social cohesion (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010), physical and mental health (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2006, Thorbecke and Charumilind, 2002, Kawachi et al., 2010), civic and political participation (Lancee and Van de Werfhorst, 2012, Uslaner and Brown, 2005, Solt, 2008), solidarity (Paskov and Dewilde, 2012), homicide and violent crime (Thorbecke and Charumilind, 2002, Elgar and Aitken, 2011), drug abuse (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010), education (Thorbecke and Charumilind, 2002, CostaFont and Gil, 2008), obesity (Costa-Font and Gil, 2008), life satisfaction (Delhey and Kohler, 2011), imprisonment (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010), social mobility (Esping-Andersen and Wagner, 2012), social trust (Uslaner and Brown, 2005, Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005), and child well-being (Cunha and Heckman, 2009) and malnutrition (Larrea and Kawachi, 2005). Furthermore, many environmental impacts produce stresses on the social impacts and vice-versa. Changes in the ecosystem services ultimately affect constituents of the human well-being – security, basic material for good life, health, good social relations and freedom of choice and action (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and alterations on the social structure further increase environmental degradation. The mental model of Figure 2 is still incomplete (as all models always are). One could add many more feedbacks. For example, the increase of material and energy efficiency decreases the extraction of raw material and the generation of waste and pollution below what it would otherwise have been, easing the environmental impacts. The model does not explore other positive effects of the development of innovation, including recycling and remanufacturing strategies and removal of environmentally harmful substances from the material streams. Nonetheless, the model has implications for macro-economics, industry and a derived logical consequence to the design process of consumer goods. The macro-economic implication corroborates with two of the most fundamental claims of the ecological-economics field: (i) to assign an economic value to ecosystem services and biodiversity and (ii) to replace the out-dated economic indicator of gross domestic product with broader human-welfare metrics (Daly and Farley, 2010, Costanza et al., 1997b, Costanza et al., 1997a, Wijkman and Rockström, 2013). The implication for industry concurs with the concept of Industrial Ecology – to take a wider perspective on manufacturing systems’ improvement in order to successfully impact overall

11


Results

environmental performance (Despeisse et al., 2012, Ayres and Ayres, 2002, Baas, 2008, Graedel and Allenby, 2003). Finally, the logical consequence for the design process of consumer goods is to adopt a Systems Thinking perspective in order to address possible effects that micro-level gains may have on macro-level losses. Applying Systems Thinking in product design is a possible future direction to be developed to address unintended consequences. Section 4.4 presents a conceptual framework named Sustainability-Driven SystemsOriented Design to be utilised for that purpose. 4.2

Causal Loop Diagrams to identify sources of environmental impacts

The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method is commonly used to quantitatively assess the potential environmental impacts that a product could have during its life cycle (cradle to grave). However, a product is not part of an isolated life cycle. On the contrary, there are connections between other variables in the product systems. Hence, these important variables can also influence the environmental impacts of the product through cause-effect linkages. The improvement actions based on the LCA results should be adopted taking those important variables and linkages also into consideration in order to avoid the “solutions”, based on the LCA results, creating further problems. The Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) technique was utilised to identify variables which may not typically be identified and considered in LCA studies but may have significant influence upon environmental impacts through cause-effect chains (Paper 2). The CLDs obtained represent the product system of washing machines (Figure 3) and the product system of passenger vehicles (Figure 4). As can be seen by the different colours in Figures 3 and 4, the variables identified were divided in five main categories. The categories Design/Production (green), Use (purple) and End-of-life (blue) group variables are connected to the life cycle stages of the products. The category named Context/Territory (orange) encompasses variables related to the context or territory of the products, and are strictly dependent on local characteristics e.g. the organisation of the society, the infrastructure, the cultural and traditional identity. The fifth category, Consumer Behaviour (pink), consists of variables connected to the behaviour of users of the washing machines or vehicles. The diagrams also show the links and relationships between the variables and the nature of some of these relationships (positive or negative). It can be noticed in the Causal Loop Diagrams a complex interconnectedness between the variables in the groups Design/Production, Use and End-of-life (variables which are connected to the life cycle stages of the products) and the variables which belong to the other two groups, Context/Territory and Consumer Behaviour. In fact, Design, per se, already is an extremely complex domain with a lot of variables needing to be considered (e.g. ergonomics, dimensions, functionality, and aesthetics).

12


Results

The variables marked in bold text were found in the LCA studies (vide Paper 2 attached) – ‘detergent use’, ‘energy use’, ‘natural resource use’ and ‘transportation’ in Figure 3; ‘material recovery’, ‘vehicle lifespan/obsolescence’, ‘reuse’ and ‘direct vehicle energy use’ in Figure 4. It is important to emphasise that the CLDs are mental models thus they represent the participants’ beliefs about the networks of causes and effects as well as which variables are judged important to be included or excluded. The Causal Loop Diagrams, represented in Figures 3 and 4, encompass primarily “soft” or qualitative variables (user behaviour, market demand, government policies, etc.). Such variables seemed particularly important to assist in structuring the system of which the studied products are part. Most notably, the diagrams suggest that these soft variables may also influence environmental impacts through cause-effect linkages. For instance, in the case study on road vehicles, the environmental impact per passenger car over its lifetime or per km travelled (functional units usually considered) can be directly influenced by ‘material recovery’, ‘vehicle lifespan/obsolescence’, ‘reuse’ and ‘direct vehicle energy use’ (variables identified in the LCA studies – vide Paper 2). As shown in Figure 6, these variables can be influenced by ‘vehicle design development’, which in turn, are affected by ‘government policies and taxes’; ‘material recovery’ and ‘reuse’ are affected by ‘secondary material and spare parts market demand and infrastructure’; this clear example of cause-effect linkages is: the more the ‘public transport development’ is, the less the ‘car ownership’ becomes, decreasing ‘vehicle travel’; the less the ‘vehicle travel’ is, the less the ‘traffic volume’ exists, causing the ‘direct energy use to decrease’. Similarly, in the case study on washing machines, the variables identified in the workshops also influence the functional unit of the washing machine through cause-effect linkages. The ‘amount of clothes washed per year’ (functional unit) can be influenced, for example, by the ‘cultural identity’. ‘Cultural identity’ may refer, for instance, to cultural traditions of washing clothes often/seldom. As can be seen in Figure 5, ‘cultural identity’ influences ‘user washing habits’ which in turn impacts ‘energy use’, ‘water use’, ‘detergent use’ and ‘washing machine lifespan/obsolescence’.

13


Results

Figure 3 – Variables related to environmental impacts of washing machines grouped in categories and their cause-effect links; the bold text underlines variables included in the LCA studies

14


Results

Figure 4 – Variables related to environmental impacts of vehicles grouped in categories and their cause-effect links; the bold text underlines variables included in the LCA studies

15


Results

4.3

Stakeholder perspectives in decision-making

Charles W. Churchman in his famous book ‘The Systems Approach’ wrote “A systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another” (Churchman, 1968, p.231). In Paper 3, this realm was addressed. The implications for selected ESA tools (Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and Cost-Benefit Analysis) to include different stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision-making were analysed. Industries, authorities, scientists in academia and the public (stakeholder groups defined by SOA – see 3.3) are likely to perceive and respond to environmental problems and solutions quite differently. The perspective of the industry group (the Swedish pulp and paper industries as potential producers of lignin and the concrete industries as potential users of lignin) is assumed to be mainly concerned with the short- to medium-term return on investment. Their core systems are, respectively, the production of pulp and paper and the production of concrete (Figure 5). For the industry group, environmental gains in their core systems must accompany parallel economic benefits.

Figure 5 - Upstream and downstream life cycle stages and core systems in the decision-making situation of producing and using lignin powder

The authorities (regulatory agencies) narrowly look at the core systems (pulp and paper production, concrete production) and at specific industrial activities downstream and upstream (forest management, construction and demolition activities, cement processing and manufacturing, etc.) to individually regulate them through norms and standards. The perspective of the scientists in academia suggests possibly being more concerned with the focused analysis of environmental decision-making on both the silos of science (with a reductionist approach) and specific industrial segments (with a life cycle perspective). Finally, the perspective of the public can refer to the medium- to long-term preservation of the natural systems and the community well-being. In order to analyse the diverse stakeholder perspectives using ESA tools, these stakeholder perspectives are translated into the four following questions: 1.

“Can a higher profit be made by selling lignin for use in concrete instead of burning it for energy recovery?” (a) pulp and paper industry (potential producers of lignin)

2.

“Can a higher profit be made by using lignin and reducing the amount of cement in concrete production?” (a) concrete

16


Results

industry (potential users of lignin) 3.

“Does substituting cement for lignin in concrete decrease the environmental impacts of the concrete used in buildings?” (a) concrete industry, (b) authorities, (c) academia, (d) public

4.

Does using lignin in concrete instead of burning it for energy recovery diminish the overall environmental impacts? (a) pulp and paper industry, (b) authorities, (c) academia, (d) public

The ESA tools Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) can broaden system boundaries of pulp and paper production and concrete production to a life cycle perspective. The Environmental CostBenefit Analysis (CBA) tool (Hanley and Nick, 1993, Atkinson and Mourato, 2008) should capture environmental costs and benefits outside the scope of the life cycle stages. The logical implication proposed to deal with this bounded rationality is to merge the agendas of the stakeholders whilst adopting a systems perspective. In this way, separate information is restructured and bound together to improve the chances for agreement among the different stakeholders. Particularly, methods that focus on just economical or environmental aspects can work together and thereby balance the monetary efforts with the best environmental practices. How this is done and in what order the different tools are applied depends on the priorities of the decision-makers. This attempt to merge agendas would allow for a broader set of upstream and downstream consequences in environmental decision-making. A way to combine the ESA tools LCA, LCC and CBA (Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Costing and CostBenefit Analysis) is proposed to include the various stakeholder perspectives and facilitate observation of the problem from different points of view. Environmental impacts identified in LCA may be used as environmental costs in LCC. While LCA allows for the identification of energy inputs and emissions, the application of LCC estimates the initial and future expenses of the project. In addition, CBA could be used as a scale to consolidate and to compare the results given by the LCA and LCC. The LCA and LCC results can serve as inputs in terms of costs for the CBA. The CBA would then act as “a scale”, weighing up costs and benefits in order to provide a final output for the environmental decision. In the case discussed in paper 3, benefits considered are the revenues from selling the lignin powder to the concrete industry and also possible subsidies, an eventual eco-labelling of the company and improvement of its public acceptance profile. All the costs and benefits are then translated into monetary terms and the CBA is used to evaluate and compare all the data provided (see Figure 6).

17


Results

Figure 6 – Proposal for combining LCA, LCC and CBA

4.4

Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design

The novel conceptual framework Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design (Paper 1) aims to address possible effects that micro-level gains could have on macro-level losses. The novelty lies on expanding the boundaries of the product system under consideration to identify and analyse relations between variables, stocks, flows and agents and focusing on these details to predict potential unintended consequences of design options. The framework Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design aims to offer a system-level perspective to the design process. The framework is represented in Figure 7.

18


Results

Figure 7 – Framework for Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design

A starting point is the reframing of the problem the project sets out to solve. The system boundaries of the new product are expanded upstream and downstream. As far as is practically possible, stocks and flows of material and energy, as well as stakeholders and their interrelations, are identified and quantified. A critical reflection on economic equity (for instance, share of operating revenues to be redistributed to local communities), product obsolescence, final disposal (take-back strategies, producer responsibility, etc.), etc. is made. A large amount of information has to be collected, analysed and presented. Techniques for information visualisation are used – e.g. GIGA-mapping (Sevaldson, 2011). By broadening the system boundaries, a more holistic picture gradually becomes visible. This provides a basis upon which to perform a comprehensive systems’ analysis of developments within a system of interest and to develop new solutions beyond incremental improvements in efficiency.

19


Results

Goals which promote sustainability should be set. These goals are function requirements for the system itself. The function of a system is often the most crucial determinant of the system’s behaviour (Meadows, 2008). Therefore, these function requirements should help to translate renewed world-views and convictions into a series of events over time, defining the structure of the system, which in turn is, in fact, the source of the system behaviour. Renewed societal goals invite renewed world-views and convictions, which are the strongest possible interventions in complex systems (Meadows, 1999, Meadows, 2008). With the holistic understanding of how the chosen system works – the system boundaries, inputs and outputs, important stocks and flows, interrelations among the entities of the system, etc. – the boundaries are shrunk to a manageable size and goals as functional requirements for the product are formulated. In addition to the goals, objectives and constraints are determined and performance indicators are identified, whereby one can assess whether and to what extent the objectives and constraints are met. Techniques such as stakeholder involvement and participatory design (Bowen, 2010, Luck, 2003, Vink et al., 2008) and scenario visualisation can be applied. The new solutions generated are then selected for implementation. If performance indicators are well- defined (i.e. they are measurable and unambiguous), simulations can be executed. These can assess the performance of the design alternatives. An alternative to simulations is to perform qualitative assessments. The goals and objectives are assessed against performance indicators. The performance indicators as well as the assessment processes should be developed together with stakeholders. Further research phases can deepen the understanding of customer behaviour, market acceptance, economic feasibility, environmental impacts, and positive impacts on economic equity. Finally, the new solution is implemented and adequate follow-up is set.

20

Discussion


5. Discussion Previous efforts aimed at promoting sustainability in industrial and consumer activities have been focused on improving material and energy efficiency (Ecodesign). From the perspective of the actors, (industries) these endeavours have been relatively successful in meeting targets. The material and energy requirements of physical consumer goods – household appliances, vehicles, computers, mobile phones, etc. – have decreased as new product models and generations are launched into the market. In addition, high toxic materials have been replaced by less toxic ones. Nonetheless, from the perspective of an outsider, these improvements might act in a counterproductive manner. As industrial production becomes more efficient, the lower energy or materials requirements per-unit of product have been translated into lower consumer costs, which in turn is encouraging consumption to increase. As a result, the efficiency gains have been recurrently cancelled out by overconsumption. Whether this consumption rebound effect occurs or not depends very much on the marginal expenditures of consumers (Weidema, 2008). If the money saved is then spent on a product that carries a higher environmental impact intensity, the overall environmental burden is worsened; if the money saved is alternatively spent on a product that carries a lower environmental intensity, then the environmental gains are assured. A ranking of environmental intensity of products can be found on Tukker et al. (2006)and Weidema et al. (2005). Traditionally, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) do not consider marginal consumption when comparing product alternatives (Thiesen et al., 2008). However, the conclusions of comparative LCAs may be significantly influenced by price differences and the consequent effects of marginal consumer expenditure (Thiesen et al., 2008). Thiesen et al., 2008 (2008) demonstrate that the rebound effect of price differences can be considered in comparative LCAs by using statistics on private consumption and by modelling the marginal consumption pattern. The authors argue that the LCA results could provide an estimate of the potential impact relating to price differences between product alternatives. Nevertheless, great uncertainty would be present due to the difficulty in measuring how people spend the money saved from buying a cheaper alternative product and also due to the use of average data. In paper 1, it was demonstrated how the consumption rebound effect is also linked to generation of waste and pollution, as the rates of production and raw material extraction vary, and how these – waste and pollution – can influence social and environmental negative externalities, economic inequalities and other broad unintended consequences in our society. It is, therefore, important to optimise not only the environmental attributes of a single product and influence the purchase choices, but also to take into consideration in environmental analysis those broader unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are interwoven with each other, come about by means of feedback loop mechanisms at different time and space dimensions from their original causes and affect different stakeholders. For example, attributes like context/territory and consumer behaviour could also have a significant role in determining environmental impacts. In paper 2, despite the different backgrounds of the experts, two main 21

Discussion


concerns were underlined in both case studies. The first concern is the relevance of the context as a factor of influence for several variables, including user washing habits, driver behaviour, cultural identity, infrastructures and government policies. The experts stressed how user behaviour is strictly dependent on the characterisation of the context where they live. In both cases the experts highlighted that variables of the Context/Territory category also play a significant role in influencing environmental impacts. During the workshops, the experts suggested the possibility of including a “parameter of locality”, different for every territory, through which the quantitative data from the LCA should be critically used in different contexts. The second concern is the necessity of including qualitative aspects in the analysis of potential causes of environmental impacts in product design. This was especially noticed in the washing machine case, where the experts were not fully familiar with the LCA methodology. For instance, they pointed out that different types of obsolescence are essential qualitative factors to be considered. Furthermore, variables deemed to be important in environmental analysis can vary considerably and, in certain cases, even be contradicting as different stakeholders have different perspectives and interests. In Paper 2, despite both Causal Loop Diagrams showing the same categories (Design/Production, User, End-of-life, Context/Territory, Consumer Behaviour), the variables deemed to be relevant were not the same. This fact is probably due to the non-homogeneous background of the experts, which is, in fact, a key element of multidisciplinary workshops. Probably for this reason, experts from the design field in the washing machine workshop were particularly focused on the environmental impact caused by the product itself. They were concerned for instance about the shape and about the relationship that the washing machine has with other products in the home. Yet the experts in the road vehicles workshop were more concerned with much broader issues, e.g. traffic volume or public transport development, and did not consider, for example, the possibility of rebuilding the vehicle in a different way. The different perspectives in environmental decision-making were exemplified with the Swedish case of using lignin powder in concrete production towards lower environmental impacts of buildings instead of burning it for energy recovery on site (Paper 3). The Swedish pulp and paper industry may look at (1) whether it is economically beneficial to produce lignin powder and (2) what the environmental impacts are of the new production compared to the base line scenario (current production). The concrete industry might also be interested to know (1) whether it is economically beneficial to use lignin powder in the concrete mixture and (2) what are the environmental impacts of the new practice compared to the current practice. The authorities and academia may be concerned with the possibility of increased deforestation due to the possible increase in demand for the lignin. The public may want to know what the short- medium- long-term environmental consequences (timber supply, energy supply, etc.) are from producing lignin powder. Despite these differences, a common characteristic among ESA tools is that, depending on assumptions made, one can arrive at contrasting conclusions. The perception of the stakeholders influences where they draw the system boundaries (boundary selection) and which assumptions they make when utilising tools for decision support. Therefore different results could be obtained and different actions taken. This may be called bounded 22

Discussion


rationality (Meadows, 2008, Sterman, 2000, Simon, 1996, Jones, 1999). Bounded rationality could also cause unintended consequences upstream or downstream in a product life cycle. To solve this methodological issue the different stakeholders are required to be involved in the process of applying those tools. A first step towards this level of integration involves acknowledging the diverse viewpoints of the stakeholders. Perhaps taking into account the variations of the boundary selection and the attributes of context/territory, consumer behaviour could also be included in LCAs. These variations could be treated as sources of uncertainty in sensitivity analysis for the recommended improved options (Moberg, 2013). For example, different “personas” (types of user) could be created to simulate different consumption patterns (Moberg, 2013). In fact, the actors (industries) should be equally concerned with improving efficiency of their products as with addressing unintended consequences in the product system and with the different stakeholder perspectives. The conceptual framework of Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design presented in Section 4.4 could serve the purpose of binding environmental analysis and stakeholder perspectives into the overall design process. The framework may help to incorporate qualitative attributes and include macro rather than only micro effects in the environmental analyses. The tools for information visualisation and stakeholder involvement may assist the boundary selection, the communication and the agreement between/across stakeholders. 5.1

Limitations and opportunities for future research

There is a trade-off between compassing a broad range of issues and deeply analysing just a few. In this thesis, the choice was to be general, broad, and qualitative and to cross different disciplines. This purposive choice led to three research constraints: (1) limited in-depth analysis of an issue in a discipline; (2) risk of overlooking something regarded as important from an expert in a field; (3) non-quantification of research findings. A deeper analysis of specific issues could be considered for future investigation. In-depth case studies could be carried out performing qualitative analysis to firstly identify important aspects that influence environmental impacts. This approach is especially valid in the early stages of product design when the product characteristics have not been fully specified. Quantitative analysis of aspects identified would follow the screening process. The systematisation of this approach that combines qualitative and quantitative analysis would substantially add breadth to the current practices in the field of Industrial Ecology when considering unforeseen unintended consequences of industrial and consumer activities. In conclusion, efforts to promote sustainability have been concerned with lessening environmental impacts of industrial and consumer activities. Considerable progress has been achieved in this direction yet positive interventions are also necessary. Thus, sustainability efforts should be as concerned with repairing the damage as with promoting the current and future good. This may be called Positive Sustainability.

23

Conclusions


6. Conclusions The aim of the thesis was to investigate if and which unintended consequences and perspectives are fully considered in traditional methods for providing decision-making support. In the pursuit of this aim, Systems Thinking was utilised to: i.

Investigate and illustrate the unintended consequences of the current paradigm of product design. The current paradigm to promote sustainability was showed to be based on innovations and improvements in material and energy efficiency. These improvements have been causing unintended consequences to occur – consumption rebound effects, increased waste, pollution, negative externalities, economic inequalities and other environmental and social negative impacts (as shown in Figure 2). These issues influence one another and interact by cause-effect linkages and reinforcing feedback loops.

ii.

Identify variables which may not typically be considered in LCA studies but may have significant influence upon environmental impacts through cause-effect chains in product systems. Two Causal Loop Diagrams of product systems were developed: one of household washing machines (Figure 3) and the other of conventional passenger vehicles (Figure 4). The diagrams represent how selected variables interact by means of cause-effect linkages to affect environmental impacts of the products. They also indicate that variables selected by experts may tend to be more soft (qualitative) variables, dependent for instance on context/territory and consumer behaviour. Although not traditionally done, these variables could also be considered in LCAs through sensitivity analyses or by using “personas” to describe different profiles of users. Causal Loop Diagrams would still be interesting to consider when used for the purpose of a first screening towards the incorporation of qualitative attributes and as a tool to facilitate the communication and agreement on assumptions among stakeholders.

iii.

Discuss different stakeholder perspectives in environmental decision-making and propose a way to combine the ESA tools LCA, LCC and CBA in order to consider the different stakeholder perspectives. Stakeholders tend to adopt different system boundaries and make assumptions according to their perspective when using ESA tools for decision-making support. The logical implication proposed to cope with this bounded rationality was to merge the agenda of the stakeholders whilst adopting the systems perspective that ESA tools offer. For that purpose, a way to combine ESA tools was suggested (Figure 6).

iv.

Develop a conceptual framework for the purpose of facilitating the analysis of possible unintended consequences during the process of product design. The novel framework was named Sustainability-Driven Systems-Oriented Design (Figure 7). The concept behind the framework is to zoom out from a single product to the system where the product is embedded, perform a qualitative analysis of what variables, stocks, flows and agents are important to consider and then to zoom in on these details to perform quantitative analysis. The framework may help to include macro rather than only micro effects and assist boundary selection, the communication and agreement between/across stakeholders in environmental analyses.

Efforts directed towards sustainability have been concerned with lessening environmental impacts of industrial and consumer activities by using traditional methods for providing decision-making support. From the perspective of an outsider, the results of these endeavours may cause unintended consequences. A holistic and robust understanding of the negative effects of design, production and consumption is necessary. Stakeholder perspectives (bounded rationality) and other qualitative parameters such as context/territory and consumer behaviour (purchase choices) seem to have a particularly important role in determining the unintended 24

Conclusions


consequences. To some extent, certain parameters that may result in unintended consequences could be handled by the traditional methods for providing decision-making support. Systems Thinking may assist in the process of performing qualitative analyses of what is important to consider in order to strengthen the robustness of the recommended actions from quantitative detailed analyses.

25

References


References Alcott, B. 2005. Jevons' paradox. Ecological Economics, 54, 9-21. Allenby, B. R. & Richards, D. J. (eds.) 1994. The greening of industrial ecosystems, Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Andersson, B. A. & Råde, I. 2002. Material constraints on technology evolution: the case of scarce metals and emerging energy technologies. In: Ayres, R. U. & Ayres, L. W. (eds.) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar. Atkinson, G. & Mourato, S. 2008. Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 317-344. Axelsson, E. & Berntsson, T. 2012. Profitability and off-site CO2-emission reduction from energy savings in the pulp and paper industry in different future energy markets. International Journal of Energy Research, 36, 975986. Ayres, R. U. & Ayres, L. W. (eds.) 2002. A handbook of industrial ecology, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Baas, L. 2008. Cleaner Production and Industrial Ecology: A Dire Need for 21st Century Manufacturing. In: Misra, K. B. (ed.) Handbook of Performability Engineering. Springer London. Back, S. 2012. Domsjö Lignin, a success story. Svensk papperstidning. Svensk Papperstidning. Barker, T., Ekins, P. & Foxon, T. 2007. The macro-economic rebound effect and the UK economy. Energy Policy, 35, 4935-4946. Bilancini, E. & D'alessandro, S. 2012. Long-run welfare under externalities in consumption, leisure, and production: A case for happy degrowth vs. unhappy growth. Ecological Economics, 84, 194-205. Bithas, K. 2011. Sustainability and externalities: Is the internalization of externalities a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecological Economics, 70, 1703-1706. Bovea, M. D. & Pérez-Belis, V. 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 61-71. Bowen, S. 2010. Critical Theory and Participatory Design. Critical Dialogue: Interaction, Experience and Cultural Theory. Workshop position paper CHI 2010. Atlanta, Georgia. Chapman, J. 2009. Design for (Emotional) Durability. Design Issues, 25, 29-35. Churchman, C. W. 1968. The systems approach, New York, Dell Publishing. Costa-Font, J. & Gil, J. 2008. What lies behind socio-economic inequalities in obesity in Spain? A decomposition approach. Food Policy, 33, 61-73.

26

References


Costanza, R., Cumberland, J. H., Daly, H., Goodland, R. & Norgaard, R. B. 1997a. An introduction to ecological economics, CRC. Costanza, R., D'arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & Van Den Belt, M. 1997b. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260. Cunha, F. & Heckman, J. J. 2009. The economics and psychology of inequality and human development. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7, 320-364. Daly, H. E. & Farley, J. 2010. Ecological economics: principles and applications, Island Press. Delhey, J. & Kohler, U. 2011. Is happiness inequality immune to income inequality? New evidence through instrument-effect-corrected standard deviations. Social Science Research, 40, 742-756. Despeisse, M., Ball, P. D., Evans, S. & Levers, A. 2012. Industrial ecology at factory level – a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31, 30-39. Ehrenfeld, J. R. 2007. Would Industrial Ecology Exist without Sustainability in the Background? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11, 73-84. Elgar, F. J. & Aitken, N. 2011. Income inequality, trust and homicide in 33 countries. The European Journal of Public Health, 21, 241-246. Esping-Andersen, G. & Wagner, S. 2012. Asymmetries in the opportunity structure. Intergenerational mobility trends in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30, 473-487. Frostell, B. 2006. The Future, Rest Products and Waste – How Will Waste Management Look Like in 2020? Stockholm: ITM School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Division of Industrial Ecology. Frostell, B., Villatico, F., Alexandersson, S. & Hultén, P. 2005. User Needs Analysis: Sub-Project Stockholm Initial Market Inventory and Identification of HOST Services to Study - Results from Core Stakeholder Group Interviews. Stockholm: ITM School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Division of Industrial Ecology. Graedel, T. E. & Allenby, B. R. 2003. Industrial Ecology, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Pearson Education. Graedel, T. E. & Klee, R. J. 2002. Getting Serious about Sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 523-529. Greening, L. A., Greene, D. L. & Difiglio, C. 2000. Energy efficiency and consumption — the rebound effect — a survey. Energy Policy, 28, 389-401. Guiltinan, J. 2009. Creative Destruction and Destructive Creations: Environmental Ethics and Planned Obsolescence. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 19-28. Hanley, N. & Nick, H. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment, Aldershot, Aldershot: Elgar.

27

References


Herring, H. & Roy, R. 2007. Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, 27, 194-203. Jackson, T. 2009a. Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet, London, Earthscan. Jackson, T. 2009b. Prosperity without growth? — the transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development Commission. Joelsson, J. & Gustavsson, L. 2012. Swedish biomass strategies to reduce CO2 emission and oil use in an EU context. Energy, 43, 448-468. John, D. 2007. Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge. Energy Policy, 35, 6354-6363. Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D. & Robèrt, K. H. 2007. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental science and pollution research international, 14, 60. Jones, B. D. 1999. Bounded rationality. Annual review of political science, 2, 297-321. Kawachi, I., Adler, N. E. & Dow, W. H. 2010. Money, schooling, and health: Mechanisms and causal evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186, 56-68. Lagerstedt, J. & Luttropp, C. 2006. Guidelines in ecodesign: a case study from railway industry. Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development. In: Brissaud, D., Tichkiewitch, S. & Zwolinski, P. (eds.) Innovation in Life Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. Lancee, B. & Van De Werfhorst, H. G. 2012. Income inequality and participation: A comparison of 24 European countries. Social Science Research, 41, 1166-1178. Lant, C. 2004. Water resources sustainability: an ecological economics perspective. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 127, 4. Larrea, C. & Kawachi, I. 2005. Does economic inequality affect child malnutrition? The case of Ecuador. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 165-178. Laurijssen, J., Faaij, A. & Worrell, E. 2012. Energy conversion strategies in the European paper industry – A case study in three countries. Applied Energy, 98, 102-113. Leonard, A. 2010. The story of stuff: how our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our communities, and our health—a vision for change, New York, Free Press. Lifset, R. & Graedel, T. E. 2002. Industrial ecology: goals and definitions. In: Ayres, R. U. & Ayres, L. W. (eds.) A handbook of industrial ecology. Edward Elgar. Lofthouse, V. 2006. Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1386-1395. Lovelock, J. 2009. The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, New York, NY, Basic Books. 28

References


Luck, R. 2003. Dialogue in participatory design. Design Studies, 24, 523-535. Luttropp, C. & Lagerstedt, J. 2006. EcoDesign and The Ten Golden Rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1396-1408. Marton, R. K. 1936. The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894-904. Mathias, B. 2001. Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Ecological Economics, 36, 119-132. Maxwell, D., Owen, P., L, M., Muehmel, K. & Neubauer, A. 2011. Addressing the Rebound Effect. A report for the European Commission DG Environment. Meadows, D. 1999. Leverage points. Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, Vermont, USA: The Sustainability Institute. Meadows, D. 2008. Thinking in Systems, London, Earthscan. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Moberg, Å. 2013. RE: Personal communication. Nielsen, P. H. & Wenzel, H. 2002. Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 247-257. Oecd 2009. Growing Unequal?: Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Oecd 2011. Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, OECD Publishing. Partidario, M. R., Vicente, G. & Belchior, C. 2010. Can New Perspectives on Sustainability Drive Lifestyles? Sustainability, 2, 2849-2872. Paskov, M. & Dewilde, C. 2012. Income inequality and solidarity in Europe. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30, 415-432. Polimeni, J. M., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M. & Alcott, B. 2008. The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements, London, Earthscan. Reynolds, M. & Holwell, S. 2010. Introducing Systems Approaches. In: Reynolds, M. & Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. Springer London. Rothstein, B. & Uslaner, E. M. 2005. All for all: Equality, corruption, and social trust. World Politics, 58, 41-72. Ruzzenenti, F. & Basosi, R. 2008. The rebound effect: An evolutionary perspective. Ecological Economics, 67, 526-537.

29

References


Sevaldson, B. 2011. GIGA-Mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. In: Koskinen, I., Härkäsalmi, T., Mazé, R., Matthews, B. & Lee, J.-J. (eds.) Nordes ’11: The 4th Nordic Design Research Conference - Making Design Matter! May 29, 2011 – May 31, 2011. Helsinki, Finland: School of Art and Design, Aalto University. Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., Easter, K. W. & Burkhardt, T. D. 1999. Introduction: Integrating Government, Business, and Community Perspectives. In: Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., Easter, K. W. & Burkhardt, T. D. (eds.) Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses, and communities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Simon, H. A. 1996. Models of my life, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press. Skyttner, L. 2005. General systems theory: problems, perspectives, practice, Singapore, Singapore: World scientific. Solt, F. 2008. Economic Inequality and Democratic Political Engagement. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 48-60. Sorrell, S. & Dimitropoulos, J. 2008. The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions. Ecological Economics, 65, 636-649. Spangenberg, J. H., Fuad-Luke, A. & Blincoe, K. 2010. Design for Sustainability (DfS): the interface of sustainable production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1485-1493. Sterman, J. 2000. Business dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Irwin McGraw-Hill. Sweeney, L. B. & Meadows, D. 2010. The Systems Thinking Playbook: Exercises to stretch and build learning and Systems Thinking capabilities, White River Junction, Vermont, Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Swilling, M. & Annecke, E. 2012. Just Transitions: Explorations of Sustainability in an Unfair World, Tokyo, United Nations University Press. Thiesen, J., Christensen, T., Kristensen, T., Andersen, R., Brunoe, B., Gregersen, T., Thrane, M. & Weidema, B. 2008. Rebound effects of price differences. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 104-114. Thorbecke, E. & Charumilind, C. 2002. Economic Inequality and Its Socioeconomic Impact. World Development, 30, 1477-1495. Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., De Koning, A., Van Oers, L., Suh, S., Geerken, T., Van Holderbeke, M., Jansen, B. & Nielsen, P. 2006. Environmental impacts of products (EIPRO). Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU-25. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Ulrich, K. 2011. DESIGN: Creation of Artifacts in Society, University of Pennsylvania. Unep 2005. Life Cycle Approaches. The road from analysis to practice. Paris: UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.

30

References


Uslaner, E. M. & Brown, M. 2005. Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868894. Van Den Bergh, J. C. J. M. 2010. Externality or sustainability economics? Ecological Economics, 69, 2047-2052. Vezzoli, C. & Manzini, E. 2008. Design for environmental sustainability, Springer Verlag. Vink, P., Imada, A. S. & Zink, K. J. 2008. Defining stakeholder involvement in participatory design processes. Applied Ergonomics, 39, 519-526. Weidema, B. P. 2008. Rebound effects of sustainable production. Bridging the Gap: Responding to Environmental Change – From Words to Deeds. Portorož, Slovenia. Weidema, B. P., Christiansen, K., Nielsen, A. M., Norris, G. A., Notten, P., Suh, S. & Madsen, J. 2005. Prioritisation within the Integrated Product Policy. Environmental project no. 980. Copenhagen: Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Wijkman, A. & Rockström, J. 2013. Bankrupting Nature: Denying Our Planetary Boundaries, New York, NY, Routledge. Wilkinson, R. G. & Pickett, K. 2010. The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better, Allen Lane. Wilkinson, R. G. & Pickett, K. E. 2006. Income inequality and population health: A review and explanation of the evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 1768-1784. Yarwood, J. M. & Eagan., P. D. 2001. Design for the Environment: A Competitive Edge for the Future - Toolkit, Saint Paul, MN, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance.

31