Advertisement

Blog

Connecting the Dots in Design for Environment

Each decision that an engineer or designer makes in creating a new product has far-reaching implications for the end-customer, of course, but also for the supply chain and for the environment. Making smart design decisions up front has the potential to reduce waste throughout the supply chain, ensure adherence to regulatory demands, and make the end-product more recyclable and longer-lived.

For the designer, designing for the full life of the product becomes a balancing act. A variety of factors, including manufacturability, costs, durability, recyclability, and user experience, must each be considered and weighed.

“Especially in electronics, the supply chain is very messy and very complex,” said Carole Mars, research manager for the electronics, toys, general merchandise, and home and personal care sectors for the Used Electronics Management Innovation Workgroup at The Sustainability Consortium.

A number of realities in the electronics industry add to the difficulty in addressing design-for-environment questions. “Electronic parts are being miniaturized, and the more miniaturized they are the harder it is to take the product apart and recycle it,” said Wayne Rifer, director of research and solutions for the Green Electronics Council. “In addition, products are being manufactured with more types of material in them.”

Open the windows
Further, the complexity and breadth of the supply chain can get in the way of understanding the full implications of design choices. “The first challenge is understanding the supply chain beyond first-tier suppliers,” said Karl R. Haapala, assistant professor at the School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering at Oregon State University. “There is a lot of opacity around what's happening beyond that point,” Haapala added. “OEMs should work to know where materials come from, what processes have been used in making them, and even the workforce that is being used.”

Open lines of communication can lead to better and smarter product design decisions. Contract manufacturers and electronics distributors are working to do their part by providing free information on how to design in an eco-friendly way with different parts.

“Companies like Avnet, Arrow, Mouser, and Future Electronics are putting together better design guides, and a bunch of contract manufacturers, including Jabil and Flextronics, are doing the same thing for developers,” said William Lumpkins, chair of the 1874P Standards Working Group at the IEEE. “By working together, everyone saves a lot of money and hassle.”

Reduce, reuse, recycle
As a first step, it's critical to consider the full life cycle of the product when creating a new design. “The funny thing about this is that it's not a new idea,” said Lumpkins. “Now, though, OEMs are realizing that everyone will save money. It's starting to come together and there's a convergence.”

In designing for the environment, it's important to think carefully about how to use materials more efficiently. “There's a lot of environmental impact that can be traced back to the types and amounts of materials being used,” said Haapala. “We have to figure out how to design to do more with less, essentially, and that's a big challenge.”

Further, designers need to think about the environmental impact of a product through its entire life and use. Kyle Wiens, chief executive officer at iFixit, a crowdsourcing community that encourages users to fix products themselves, outlines the basics:

“There are three aspects of sustainability:

  • What's the environmental impact of manufacturing?
  • How long can you make the product last?
  • How effectively can the product be recycled?

The last two are pretty closely tied together, since things that are easy to recycle are also easy to repair.”

In addition, the designer must work to balance the concerns and competing interests of other departments within the organization, from manufacturing to marketing. For example, a designer can minimize the amount of materials used in a product, and the marketing department may complain that the product doesn't feel substantial enough to satisfy the customer. Or a design may use screws rather than glue in order to maximize recyclability and repair, but the user demand for thinner and lighter products may swing the pendulum toward a design that streamlines through the use of adhesives.

Sometimes, maximizing one aspect of a product, such as its robustness, can interfere with another, such as recyclability. “It's always a challenge to balance between longevity and ability to disassemble something at end of life,” said Mars.

OEMS can and should work to balance between these differing needs by making trade-offs. The ease of replacing subsystems is one major component of how readily a product can be repaired or recycled. “The fundamental thing we look at in judging an electronics [device] is how many subassemblies it has,” said Wiens. “It has to be readily disassembled.”

The big picture
Clear communication is a critical starting place to achieve truly successful design for environment. Designers, for example, need to understand clearly the processes and needs of recyclers and refurbishers.

“If a designer really wants to design for environment, he has to understand the fate of the product and talk to the people who are handling the products then,” said Mars. “By talking to refurbishers and recyclers, they can find out the problems at the end that can be addressed during design.”

Further, all of the organizations within the supply chain, from electronic component manufacturer to end-user, need to make design for environment a priority. “Industry acceptance is worth devoting resources to this initiative,” said Mars. “I don't think there's resistance to the idea, but it hasn't been promoted as much as it should be.”

By creating clear communication between design and recycling, OEMs can understand better the limitations of recycling various elements and the recyclers can better understand the new elements being designed into products. “In products today, steel, aluminum, lithium, and other elements are being brought into the recycling stream, and there's a question of how those elements can be retrieved,” said Rifer. “We have good technology for copper, gold, silver, aluminum, precious metals, and ferrous metals. More and more, though, companies will use harder-to-recycle materials.”

Perhaps the most effective solution would be to create a national recycling program, but, at least in the United States, there's a long way to go. “The EU is a leader, and if the US wants to do something the right way, they need to model it on that program,” said Mark Schaffer, owner/consultant of consultancy Schaffer Environmental LLC. “What the EU has implemented is far from perfect, but it's a good starting point.” Some large OEMs have made great strides in product recycling programs, he added, pointing to Dell and HP as prime examples.

Consumer education will be another big piece of the puzzle. End-users need to understand how to measure and judge the products they buy to ensure they are championing products and brands that work to make products both repairable and recyclable. That can be a hard sell, especially when a product is popular for its look and feel. The same decisions that maximize consumer appeal make it prohibitively expensive for the recyclers to process. Institutional buyers, who wield the clout of buying a large amount of products, have the greatest potential for encouraging OEMs to design for environment. “Institutional buyers buy by specifying all the specifications that they want and then, to get the business, the manufacturer has to meet those specs,” said Rifer.

By creating a loop that starts with the designer and ends with the recycler, OEMs can create products that will win from a sales standpoint and still be winners when measured for sustainability.

This article originally appeared in the Avnet Velocity e-magazine, The Sustainability Balancing Act.

14 comments on “Connecting the Dots in Design for Environment

  1. t.alex
    June 14, 2014

    I believe that consumer education would play a big role when it comes to design for environment. Nowadays, thanks to Apple (or iPhone) effects, executives are pushing for design-first to make sure the the products are selling first. Everything else is secondary, from the choice of materials to recycling program.

    If consumers would only buy environmental friendly products, things would have been different.

  2. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 16, 2014

    t.alex, i agree with you… Certainly, if buyers vote with their dollars, desingers will be more aware. At the same time, desingers need to be taught how to think all the way down teh line–and still create products that are aesthetically pleasing. I don't think it has to be cool or enviormentally friendly..we need to find ways to be both.

  3. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 16, 2014

    @Rich, me too! Are there certain products or companies you would point to as good examples of foreward thinking on this topic?

  4. t.alex
    June 17, 2014

    Hailey, do you think it is necessary to enforce this into university textbooks so designers will be deeply aware of this issue when they start working on new products.

  5. FLYINGSCOT
    June 17, 2014

    I get the feelign these days that some manufacturers are not too bothered about how long a product lasts as it is becoming a throw away society.  How many times have you bought a brand new printer just to get the free ink…..scary but true.

  6. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 17, 2014

    @t.alex, i think enforcement largely doesn't work. I think it has to go the other way. When OEMs start demanding this skill from designers it will start getting written into textbooks. Curriculum is created for saleable skills.

     

  7. Occam Advocate
    June 23, 2014

    You are spot on.

    What is interesting/sad is that reliability is not part of the environmental concerns list. The 3.5 billion people on the top of the food chain don't give much thought to the useful life of products, while for the 3.5 billion on the bottom, reliability is crucial.

    If one is making $2 per day, any electronics purchased must have significantly better reliability than  we at the top presently demand. The newer/better product is always just a few months away.

    Bernard London's pamphlet “Ending  the Depression Through Planned Obsolescence” published in the early 1930s reads like a play book for present day consumer product companies. 

    Aldous Huxley's “Brave New World” written around the same time decried the impact of consumerism wherein he disparaged the “new world's” hypnopaedic messaging to the populace that “Ending is better than mending” and “Less stitches means more riches”

    There is need to reflect a bit more on the matter in the present day. 

     

  8. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 23, 2014

    @FlyingScot, don't get me started about the printer industry that treats printers as consumable–all to sell expensive ink. That's a practice that's going to be hard to stop but it drives me nuts.

  9. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 23, 2014

    @Occam Advocate: thanks for weighing in here. Who do you think has the power to change this trajectory? Is it that consumers have to demand better/different? Or is it on the OEM?

  10. Occam Advocate
    June 24, 2014

    That is a tough question to answer. 

    I believe that most people and even OEMs want to do the right thing and both have the power to effect some positive changes. However, what they perceive is the  “right thing” might be on a case by case basis is another matter altogether.

    That said, the OEM should be the easier of the two to effect change as they are, for the most part, in the drivers seat. Still, for the OEM the bottom line “right thing” typically is increasing shareholder value (i.e. increasing profits… and the bottom line). Morality issues are only become matters of concern when they begin to impact the bottom line for whatever reason (e.g. negative public perception and/or reaction).

    In the case of printers being discussed, it is not much different than the case for phones. Give away or sell at low or no profit margin the phone and charge for the much higher margin service. Profit is profit. Only regulations or consumption taxes, which free market business abhors, can drive significant change for most I suspect.    

    Individuals, in contrast, are largely motivated by self interests. If they can get something better at a lower cost, they will have interest. Moreover, if something is “greener” and equal in all other measures, they will make the “right choice” (unless they are brand loyal consumers). However if greener is more expensive, the mental fulcrum shifts to favor the pocket book for most people typically.

    In the end, everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die…

  11. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 24, 2014

    I recently read through an APICs study that made the point that most organizations don't incentivize for their sustainablity iniatives. Instead people are rewarded for cost savings, on time delivery and the like. When push comes to shove then  people tend to do what will get them rewarded. That is just human nature as you said.

  12. Occam Advocate
    June 24, 2014

    Sad but true. Truth is that few who alive today are likely to see (or suffer) the effects of our collective actions and inaction today. But that should not deter anyone from trying.

    Edmund Burke put it into perspective the best for me when he left us the following thought: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little”  

  13. Hailey Lynne McKeefry
    June 25, 2014

    And here's one from Ghandi: “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”

  14. t.alex
    July 2, 2014

    Hailey, that makes a lot of sense. When there is a strong demand for the skills and knowledge, people will immediately go for it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.