ECODESIGN PRACTICES: UNDERSTANDING AND PRIORITIZING ... · UNDERSTANDING AND PRIORITIZING ACTIVITIES IN THE ... slightly different ... (iii) competitiveness, since the leader is more

ECODESIGN PRACTICES

UNDERSTANDING AND PRIORITIZING

ACTIVITIES IN THE AUTOMOTIVE

INDUSTRY

Miriam Borchardt (UNISINOS)

miriambunisinosbr

Miguel Afonso Sellitto (UNISINOS)

sellittounisinosbr

Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira (UNISINOS)

gianunisinosbr

Luciana Paulo Gomes (UNISINOS)

lugomesunisinosbr

Leonel Augusto Calliari Poltosi (UNISINOS)

lpoltosigmailcom

This article presents and tests a method for prioritizing constructs in

ecodesign practices in the automotive industry The research objectives

were understanding how and why ecodesign emerges in industry and

how we can prioritize actions iin implementing it The research method

was the double case study The objects were a mid-sized manufacturer

of electronic parts and a chemical products manufacturer both

suppliers of automobile assemblers and pertaining to automotive

supply-chains For the research ecodesign was organized in a tree-like

structure with seven constructs materials product components

product and process characteristics use of energy products

distribution packaging and documentation and waste From the first

case we concluded that ecodesign emerges mainly for cost reduction

and secondly for agents pressures although companies may have little

capacity to manage it due to market constrains In the second case

with the aid of AHP we conclude that for two different chemical

products the priority in ecodesign implementation is the first construct

employed materials mainly raw-materials and logistic operations

related to supplying warehousing and feeding manufacture lines

Palavras-chaves ecodesign environmental management multicriterial

analysis eco-conception design for environment

XVI INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Challenges and Maturity of Production Engineering competitiveness of enterprises working conditions environment Satildeo Carlos SP Brazil 12 to 15 October ndash 2010



2

11

2 Introduction

Public customers and legal pressures have grown related with environmental impact from

manufacturing activities As a consequence of this movement actions that can reduce

environmental impact of such activities have been more discussed in strategic forums

concerning manufacture Key factors contributing to such environmental impact include the

resource-intensive style of some activities and the ever-shorter life cycle of products and

processes (KAZAZIAN 2005 MAXWELL et al 2006) Environmental commentators

emphasize the need to weigh the environmental cost of manufactured products against the

functional income we gain from them (BORCHARDT et al 2009a)

According to Donaire (1999) manufacture usually reply to such pressures with (i) end-of-

pipe control installing devices that neutralize the environment impact without interfering in

the process (ii) on-line control redesigning products and processes to reduce environmental

pressures or (iii) adding to the company mission a high environmental performance

requirement usually based on a formal managerial structure Kopicki et al (1993) had used a

slightly different language (i) reactive actions when he company limits to remediate existing

problems (ii) proactive actions when it seeks to attempt valid normatives in the manufacturing

process and (iii) value-seeking actions when the company usually practice environmental-

friendly activities regarding design supply manufacture delivers and after-use recovery

According to Weenen (1995) in environmental management proactive or process-integrated

actions are preferable than end-of-pipe or reactive ones A sound possibility for are the EMS

(environmental management systems) which among other requirements demand control

actions on environment performance and impact assessment of products and processes

Another possibility is the introduction of techniques of ecodesign

Ecodesign seeks environmentally friendly solutions in product design and process

development It normally considers both economic and environmental aspects associated with

the entire life cycle of products Such concepts promote a reviewing of techniques of

conceptualization design and production of goods (BYGGETH et al 2007) and offer the

theoretical basis for implementing new policies on design of products and processes After

Fiksel (1996) ecodesign is a technique of product design in which the usual goals of the

project such as performance reliability and cost of manufacturing appear together with

environmental objectives such as reduction of environmental hazards reducing the use of

natural resources increase of energy efficiency and recycling It allows linking the functions

of the product with sustainability aspects reducing environmental impacts and increasing the

presence of eco-efficient products (KARLSSON and LUTTROPP 2006 MANZINI and

VEZZOLI 2005) After Vercarlsteren (2001) many companies consider the ecodesign in

preserving not only the environment but also competitiveness and public image related to the

business and market environmental requirements

Different requirements for ecodesign are proposed in literature Many regard materials

components processes and products characteristics use of energy storage and distribution

packaging and waste (WOLFGANG et al 2005 LUTTROPP and LAGERSTED 2006

FIKSEL 1996) We mean prioritizing resources and actions in practices of ecodesign

Supported by Hermann et al (2007) which speak on measurement of performance on

environmental aspects we find relevant identifying priorities or degree of importance of each



3

ecodesign construct for companies in a particular industry and the extent to which each

company meets every requirement on each construct We also find relevant understanding

how and why emerges in a company the need for involvement of people from product or

process design in dealing with environmental issues Such kind of involvement may be related

with the mission of the company or with pressures originated by customers and legal agents

So the research main objective was to understand and prioritize relevant aspects in ecodesign

practices in a specific industry the automotive industry Specific objective were (i) to

classify the various aspects concerning ecodesign in objective classes of factors named

constructs (ii) to highlight some of the key factors influencing the adoption and

implementation of ecodesign practices at manufacturing companies and (iii) to find

numerical priorities for the constructs The research question was how can be understood and

how to prioritize the various aspects embedded in ecodesign practices in manufacture

companies of the automotive industry The main research method was the case study First

we gathered information from literature and in focus group sessions with experts organized it

in a tree-like structure that appraise and organize aspects of ecodesign in constructs Second

we chose a mid-sized automotive electronics supplier for electronic parts By interviewing

managers we investigated how and why ecodesign is being incorporated into the design of its

manufactured products Finally we used this structure in a chemical components supplier for

automotive industry for prioritize constructs in two products and respective processes

The numerical assessment was made by companyrsquos managers mediated by researcher in

focus group sessions supported by the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) The AHP method

is cited among others by Chen and Tong (2008) and by Berander (2007) as the method of

decision support most applied to problems of priority in development of products The

theoretical foundation of the AHP is found among others in Forman and Selly (2001) and

Saaty (1980) In this research the criterion for the acceptance of an assessment was adopted

from Saaty (1980) a consistency ratio of less than 010 (CR lt010) Consistency ratio is the

probability that the numerical structure representing managers preference about an issue came

from a random not rational process In the other hand if CR is sufficiently low we can

accept that the decision was taken in rational basis not random

The main contribution of this article is to provide a method for prioritize ecodesign actions in

a specific company The method was developed assuming that the application in other

industries is feasible The remaining of this article begins with some background on

ecodesign encompassing the benefits it offers and the barriers to its implementation research

methodology and findings discussion and contribution and conclusions and suggestions for

continuity Limitations of the research are those related with the method a single industry

and exclusive use of judgement not physical measurement of field variates in prioritization

3 Theoretical background ecodesign

The concept of ecodesign green design or life cycle design refers to the design of new

products and services by applying environmental concerns aiming at prevention of waste

emissions and other forms of environmental impacts along the entire life-cycle of the product

In ecodesign environmental considerations are integrated into product and process design

procedures (WEENEN 1995) Ecodesign has been defined as a concept that integrates

multifaceted aspects of design and environmental considerations into product development in

order to create sustainable solutions that satisfy human needs and desires Ecodesign formally

introduces environmental concerns in the new products development process of a company



4

(KARLSSON and LUTTROPP 2006) Ecodesign can also be defined as a proactive approach

of environmental management that aims to reduce the total environmental impact of products

and services along their entire life-cycle (PIGOSSO et al 2010)

The factors that motivate adoption of ecodesign are not limited to environmental benefits but

can include saving costs gaining competitive advantage and improving corporate image

(VERCALSTEREN 2001) Some components systems or sub-systems can easily be

recycled reused or remanufactured which is an effective way to reduce both environmental

impacts and costs of the manufacturing processes (PIGOSSO et al 2010) Kazazian (2005)

tells us about eco-conception an approach that considers in conception stage environment

concern as important as factors such as technical feasibility cost control and market demand

Boks (2006) stresses the importance of product designers emphasizing their unique position

and ability to influence environmental strategies Designers can have a key impact when they

enlarge the focus of their efforts giving the environment a prominent position in defining the

parameters of product development However ecodesign tools can present difficulties for

companies Using then can require a high degree of expertise To make ecodesign tools more

useful and accessible we need to help designers link them to more conventional product

development tools (LE POCHAT et al 2007 RAO 2004 LOFTHOUSE 2006)

Despite the amount of tools available ecodesign is not always readily adopted by

manufacturing companies Authors note that industry designers often find the tools difficult to

use (LOFTHOUSE 2006 LE POCHAT et al 2007 LUTTROPP and LAGERSTEDT 2006

BYGGETH and HOCHSCHORNER 2006 BYGGETH et al 2007) According to Lofthouse

(2006) tools often fail to be adopted ldquobecause they do not focus on design but instead are

aimed at strategic management or retrospective analysis of existing productsrdquo The author

notes that what designers actually need is specific information on areas such as materials and

construction techniques The environmental information associated with ecodesign tools is

often very general In most instances the tools do not provide the detailed and specific

information that designers find necessary when working on design projects

Regarding the potential of a company for the application of ecodesign the organization must

assess factors regarding the company (internal) the environment (external) and the product

itself As internal factors we mention (i) motivation of management (ii) position in the

industry which tell us about the companys capacity to influence the specifications of the

product (iii) competitiveness since the leader is more likely to redesign products and (iv) the

industry dynamics which can provide learning and benchmarking for well-succeeded

initiatives Regarding to external factors we mean (i) legal regulation (ii) pressure from

customers and market and (iii) suppliers and partners since in automotive industry they are

essential in manufacturing strategy (VERCALSTEREN 2001) Regarding to the product we

mention that it must be conceived in such a fashion that it can easily be redesigned or at least

disassembled after primary use (BORCHARDT et al 2009b)

Fiksel (1996) proposed a set of practices related to ecodesign (i) to choose low impact raw-

materials preventing from those that can not be recycled or reused (ii) to focus on simplicity

using simpler forms and less quantity of material with replaceable parts and easy repair (iii)

to ensure acceptable amount of hazardous substances (iv) to reduce the use of energy in all

the product life-cycle (v) to use renewable energy (vi) to develop multifunctional products

with sequential functions (after a prior usage the product still is usable in a second way) (vii)

to extend lifetime (viii) to recover packaging or use refilling and (ix) to reduce risks and

works in disassembling tasks Wolfgang et al (2005) proposed for manufactured products



5

essential requirements that greatly emphasize on eliminating losses in production processes

Luttropp and Lagersted (2006) suggested two operational aspects surface treatment against

dust and corrosion increasing lifetime and easy assembly and disassembly using fixation by

screws or plugs avoiding welding connections

Regarding the factors that can influence implementation of ecodesign practices Boks (2006)

states that the main success factors are related to business aspects such as customization

organization and communication about the project After the author the most serious

obstacles are associated with social and institutional issues such as differences in vision

between managers organizational complexity and lack of internal cooperation Bahmed et al

(2005) state that important success factors are group and management motivation use of

work teams and a standard mechanism for product design providing training and having the

assistance of experts in eco-conception The authors also point out risks factors lack of

specific knowledge lack of understanding regarding the impact of ecodesign on areas such as

regulation cost reduction competitive advantage and organizational image improvement

lack of consensus about how to evaluate products in environmental terms lack of relevant

standards and the belief that environmental goals are necessarily at odds with economic

objectives Boks (2006) notes some factors that can accelerate decision-making on ecodesign

(i) pressure from external sources including legal requirements (ii) economic issues like

partners in the value chain (iii) consumer perceptions and (iv) relevant new technologies

Regulation can play an important role in promoting ecodesign Much of the relevant literature

we reviewed concentrated on regulation in the European Union (EU) which has implemented

some important environmental regulatory directives affecting the automotive and electronics

industries These include the end-of-life vehicles (ELV) directive the waste electrical and

electronic equipment (WEEE) directive and the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS)

directive In addition the EU has finalized a framework directive for reducing the

environmental impacts of energy-using products through ecodesign (PARK and TAHARA

2008 LE POCHAT et al 2007)

4 Assessing Ecodesign a multicriterial problem

Ecodesign practices is intrinsically a complex abstract object which can be described as a

complex hierarchical system We proposed a method for modeling such complex abstract

objects We have structured hierarchically components in a triple-level structure in order to

describe the object Table 1 shows a number of ecodesign principles and practices that are

applicable in manufacturing in a tree-like structure format suitable for further modeling

Table 1 ndash Tree-like structure for ecodesign

First level

(top term)

Second level

(constructs) Third level (items)

Ecodesign

Materials

choice and use

(i) ability to use raw material closer to their natural state (ii) ability to avoid mixtures

of non-compatible materials (iii) ability to eliminate the use of toxic hazardous and

carcinogenic substances (iv) ability to not use raw materials that generate hazardous

waste (Class I) (v) ability to use recycled and or renewable materials and (vi)

ability to reduce atmospheric emissions caused by the use of volatile organic

compounds

Product

components

selection and

choice

(i) ability to recover components or to use components recovered (ii) ability to

facilitate access to components (iii) ability to identify materials and components and

(iv) ability to determine the degree of recycling of each material and component



6

Product and

process

characteristics

(i) ability to develop products with simpler forms and that reduce the use or

consumption of raw materials (ii) the ability to design products with longer lifetime

(iii) capacity to design multifunctional products (iv) capacity to perform upgrades to

the product and (v) ability to develop a product with a design that complies with

the world trends

Use of energy

(i) ability to use energy from renewable resources (ii) ability to use devices for

reduction of power consumption during use of the product (iii) ability to reduce

power consumption during the production of the product and (iv) ability to reduce

power consumption during product storage

Products

distribution

(i) ability to plan the logistics of distribution (ii) ability to favor suppliers

distributors located closer (iii) ability to minimize inventory in all the stages of the

product lifetime and (iv) ability to use modes of transport more energy efficient

Packaging and

documentation

(i) ability to reduce weight and complexity of packaging (ii) ability to use electronic

documentation (iii) ability to use packaging that can be reused (iv) ability to use

packages produced from reused materials and (v) ability to use refillable products

Waste

(i) ability to minimize waste generated in the production process (ii) ability to

minimize waste generated during the use of the product (iii) ability to reuse the waste

generated (iv) ability to ensure acceptable limits of emissions and (v) ability to

eliminate hazardous waste (Class I)

The top term the theoretical object is explained by latent constructs based on concepts

explained by indicators performing a tree-like structure in a hierarchical fashion of levels

The structure was built in previous research (BORCHARDT et al 2009b) and was built in

group sessions with scholars and praticants in environmental management and product

development mediated by researchers The leading edge was the works of Fiksel (1996)

Venzke (2002) Luttropp and Lagersted (2006) and Wolfgang et al (2005) The list is not

exhaustive nor definitive since ecodesign is a dynamic field that is constantly evolving as

knowledge and technology develop and circumstances change

As the list suggests the scope of ecodesign is broad and multicriterial embracing product

design impact of raw-material extraction energy consumption industrial waste generation

and disposal and the full range of environmental impacts created throughout the entire life

cycle of products Such multicriteriality suggests using methods like AHP

The AHP (analytic hierarchic process) is well suited to prioritize constructs of a complex

object like ecodesign practices Wind and Saaty (1980) proposed that the AHP represents an

efficient method of dealing with complexity identifying and prioritizing the major

components in which we can structure a complex problem The AHP describes a complex

problem in a hierarchy in which each element of a level is further deconstructed into

subelements and so on until at the lowest representative level Once the hierarchy is defined

its elements are pair-wised compared by the scale [equal importance = 1 a little bit more

important = 3 more important = 5 much more important =7 dominant = 9] Intermediate

values can be used in intermediate graduations Pair-wise comparison produces a preference

matrix A in which aij is the relative importance of the i-th factor with respect to the j-th

factor For n factors we need n(n-1)2 judgments all above the diagonal Below we assigned

the reciprocals values like in (1) (SAATY 1980)

111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7

We calculate priorities by finding autovectors with maximum autovalues of matrix A Let A

be the comparison matrix (1) We must find the priorities vector w that satisfies (2)

Components of w are the priorities of the factors (SAATY 1980)

Aw = maxw (2)

By (3) we calculate CR the consistency ratio the probability that the matrix had been

originated by random not rational judgement RI is the average random index obtained by

computer simulation experimentation and given in Table 2

CR = [max ndash n][ RI(n-1)] (3)



8

Table 2 Average random consistency (RI) as a function of the size of the matrix (SAATY 1980)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149

If CR lt 10 the judgments can be considered satisfactory otherwise should be reviewed and

improved For instance if someone judges a1 one and a half times more important than a2 and

a2 two times more important than a3 than he or she must consider a1 three times more

important than a3 If the judgment differs there is some inconsistency appraised by CR

(SAATY 1980) Anyway Hogart (1988) advise that we must count on some inconsistency in

mental models of deciders which must be reflected by the CR

5 Research

The research question was how can be understood and how to prioritize the various aspects

embedded in ecodesign practices in manufacture companies of the automotive industry The

answer must improve refute or correct the test hypotheses the presented method The main

objective of research was to test a method for prioritizing constructs in ecodesign practices in

an industry for the sake of reformulate strategic plans reinforcing practices judged more

important and eventually removing resources from those of less importance Secondary

objectives were (i) understand the emergence and practical implications of ecodesign

constructs in the industry and (ii) to distribute the relative weights (100 percentage points)

among the constructs A third objective is left for continuity (iii) to assess categorically the

actual situation of the constructs compare with priority and propose plans for those who have

biggest gaps between priority and performance The main contribution of the research is the

specific description of the case that added to others in growing depth and diversity may

expose regularities about the method and refine it

For questions containing the word how Yin (2009) indicates the case study method Case

studies can contribute exposing regularities that might be useful in formulating a theory about

the object (ECKSTEIN 1975) Repeated cases with similarities can contribute to the building

of a grounded theory (EISENHARDT 1989) Case studies in operations management are

acknowledged as a valid method for exploratory research like this (VOSS et al 2002) The

method aligns with the design research logic as stated by Hevner et al (2004) and Manson

(2006) According to this logic a method like we proposed can be thought of as a result of a

design process like producing a software package or a physical or logical artifact After a

mental or theoretical phase arises an idea that must be checked for viability and refined for

reliability in field cases (MARCH and SMITH 2005) like those here presented The authors

stress in the design research logic there are two important moments in the research the

mental or logical construction of the artifact and its refinement by field cases

51 Previous case understanding ecodesign in the automotive industry

The case took place in a mid-sized manufacturer with consolidated tradition in environmental

management and certified by both ISO 90012000 and ISO 140012004 normalization The

company produces on-board electronic components for vehicles The main research technique

was direct observation as well as interviewing the body of managers They began telling about

ecodesign in the industry as a hole and then about particularities of the company



9

The automotive industry operates in a highly competitive market with worldwide sale and

distribution The tolerance for product flaws is low especially in the case of vehicle safety

These factors can operate as constraints on the adoption of ecodesign practices by companies

in the industry Regarding natural resources the environmental balance for vehicles is

negative Production requires in raw material about ten times the weight of the car and uses

large amounts of water About forty thousand liters of water are required to manufacture a car

Vehicles consume fuel and lubricating oils most often from non-renewable fossil-based

resources sometimes returning as contaminants In addition cars use tires barely recycled

Moreover vehicles emit significant quantities of air pollutants including carbon dioxide (a

major greenhouse gas) and sulfur dioxide (which contributes to acid rain) Vehicles can also

be difficult to recycle at the end of their useful life They typically contain a variety of

different materials (including plastics and metals as well as electrical and electronic

components) that may be costly and challenging to separate

These impacts reinforce the perception that vehicles are not designed with an emphasis on

preserving the environment and promoting sustainability Partly in response to these concerns

the industry has developed high-performance and hybrid engines running on renewable bio-

fuels and using high-durability synthetic lubricating oils as well as has began using more

parts manufactured with recycled composite materials The industry is also seeking to restrict

the use of hazardous substances and to increase the quantity of returnable packaging and

materials These issues are particularly relevant in the European Union The EUrsquos RoHS

directive had banned the use of certain hazardous materials as constituents in specified parts

Regarding the company as its products involve special safety and security features it is not

allowed to reuse parts that could compromise reliability However raw materials such as

plastics and metals can be recycled The company has developed a complex business-to-

business relationship with its customers The company must meet applicable regulatory

requirements and also depends on customersrsquo approval in order to make changes to its

products When automotive assemblers qualify suppliers they primarily evaluate

characteristics such as reliability of deliver and products performance Suppliers also must

meet all relevant environmental requirements such as those related to restrictions on the use

of hazardous substances However exceeding minimal requirements does not constitute a

preferential or does not construct a competitive advantage factor for a given supplier So the

company has little autonomy in decisions involving introducing ecodesign practices in the

products and has little external compensation in doing so Prices politics are not influenced by

ecodesign practices in the automotive market at least until now

In spite of this the company addressed key issues regarding the environmental management

policy including energy and materials consumption and waste handling and treatment The

main drivers for ecodesign adoption was cost reduction due to dematerializing directives

(using the smallest possible amount of raw material) and to lowering expenditures related to

the treatment of waste The company formed a multidisciplinary group to handle the study

planning and strategic deployment of ecodesign techniques Top management organized a

working group that included people with expertise in relevant areas such as development

trade quality logistics and industrialization The group focused on activities related to the

development of products and processes implementing guidelines that included checklists for

design activities and product life-cycle assessment A huge difficulty was the shortage of

technical information available on environmental impacts of materials Using of standardized

databases is an alternative that the company now studies



10

Although the results are not yet those planned the body of managers recognized some

positive achievements costs reductions from dematerialization less manufactured products

due to multifunctionality implicating in less items in stock less test sets in the assembly line

less variety in the sales portfolio and higher lots of raw-materials purchased from a lower

number of suppliers reduction in costs due to waste disposal and transportation of raw-

materials

52 Next case prioritizing ecodesign in a company

The next case was developed in a chemical stuff manufactures that supply adhesives paints

greases and various liquid products to the automotive industry The company has several

families of products manufactured in multiple assembly lines and sites Design activities are

organized in teams with different requirements and practices Scarcely a technical

development or advance in one family of product can be extended to others but managerial

advances can be exchanged between groups Anyway due to the sharp differences between

design practices we chose two lines A and B to study Others can be addressed in the

continuity of the research

In focus groups sessions five experts in design for each family of product mediated by

researcher distributing relative weights among the constructs of ecodesign The prioritization

was made with the aid of the AHP In the first rounds calculated CR were nor proper so

researcher oriented experts to review flaws judgements until preference matrixes based on

more rational choices were achieved Experts produced the judgement matrixes of Tables 3

and 4 For the sake of clarity although the judgement did not employ this format we show

the preference matrixes with reorganized rows in decreasing order of importance As a clue

for checking out rationality in the preferences departing from the diagonal to the right side of

the matrix along the line one must find only increasing or at least equal numbers in

sequence If we find a decreasing number that means a flaw or incoherence in judgement

Table 3 Preference matrix for product A

Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5

Characteristics 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 6

Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7

For the product A the most important construct in ecodesign is materials In fact due to its

chemical nature extraction warehousing and transportation of large quantities of A can

greatly affect quarries and its proximity and neighborhood of the manufacturer sites Using

alternate materials should be addressed in further redesign actions although experts stressed



11

they have little flexibility to change or use new materials due to consolidated technology and

assembly lines facilities For almost the same reasons the second construct in importance is

waste Due to the fact that half-life of the product is short and customers use little amount at a

time is not unusual that large amounts of the product must be discarded by end of usable life

This particularity turns wasting a problematic construct that must be focused in further actions

of redesign The third and fourth constructs are distribution and packaging with similar

priorities We stress that the distribution function includes not only the logistic operations of

transportation inspection and warehousing but also financial operations like assurance of

loads and people safety Packaging has still a significant importance due to the vast amount of

cardboard and wrapping plastic required most of them by no means easy for recycling or

reusing Components characteristics and energy usage have little priorities (lower than 10)

due to the particularities of the product and the manufacture process It requires no special

sub-systems to be assembled in the process is quite simple in little customized quantities and

exothermic what means that a part of the energy spent in it can be recovered and used

elsewhere in the site

Regarding to the judgement it was necessary more than one round but at the end experts

achieved a preference matrix with a very low inconsistency less than 1 meaning a

doubtless rational choice

Table 4 Preference matrix for product B

Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137

Characteristics 25 1 1 12 2 2 12 3 4 19 2

Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7

For the product B as well as in A the most important construct in ecodesign is materials The

production is in bulk big lots but it is customized what means that the material leaves the

site with an assigned destination Exactly as with A due to chemical nature of the product

dependent of natural resources extraction warehousing and transportation can greatly affect

quarries and proximity of such installations and neighborhood of the manufacturer sites In

the same way using alternate materials should be addressed in further redesign actions Due

to similarities between the two products it can be worthwhile addressing unified actions

linking both products mainly regarding logistic operations Different from A the second

construct in importance for B is characteristics of product and process Process is quite

complicated and requires electronic equipment and feedback control in closed-loop fashion

which means maintenance efforts materials consumption and specialized people The process

is endothermic demanding a large amount of energy what explains the third construct in



12

importance usage of energy Distribution and packaging have similar particularities but

distribution is a little bit more demanding due to warehousing and inspections activities

required by the nature of the logistic operation Different from A waste has little importance

due mainly to the fact that almost always the total amount of the product is consumed in

automotive assemblers Half-life of the product is very long and just-in-time practices

required by assemblers do not allow over-production what assures little problems regarding

final disposals of wastings Regarding to residues well-succeeded experiments conducted in

thermal sites assure an environmental friendly destination contributing to energy generation

for further processes As well as in A no special sub-systems are required to be assembled in

so components are by no means a problem for designers

As in the product A the judgement required more than one round but at the end experts

achieved a preference matrix with a very low inconsistency less than 2 as well as the first

case meaning a doubtless rational choice

Figure 1 presents a graphical comparison between the two products We remark that materials

are the most priority construct in both products Although the teams were formed to work

separately in this case due to the importance of the construct and the similarities of the flaws

unified actions could be planned in order to reduce environmental pressures due to the

handling of materials mainly raw-materials

0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B

Figure 1 Graphical comparison between constructs priorities in A and B

6 Final remarks

The main purpose of this article was to present a method for prioritizing constructs that

explains ecodesign practices in automotive industry Secondarily the article aimed at

understanding central aspects of ecodesign implementation and practical implications of

ecodesign in the industry and to distribute the relative weights (100 percentage points) among

the constructs in order to reach a prioritization structure A third objective was left for

continuity to assess the situation of the constructs and propose plans for those who have



13

biggest gaps between priority and performance The research method was the case study First

objective was achieved in a mid-sized supplier of electronic parts The second was achieved

in a chemical manufactures by analyzing two different families of products Due to the

method the main contribution of the research was the specific description of the cases and a

practical application of the prioritization method We stress that with the achievement of the

third objective a company should address the constructs with bigger gaps (the difference

between prioritization and performance) rather than those of higher prioritization

The method combined qualitative research techniques such as focus groups sessions with the

mathematical calculations used to find the vectors of priorities from the preference matrix It

was a limitation of the article the use of assessment based in expertsrsquo judgments opposite to

measurements based in physic conditions from field variates and mathematic models When

physic measurements are used further statistic considerations are necessary once usually the

measured variates are random In the other hand objectives measurement like those provided

by physical variates hold less subjectivity then categorical judgements

As continuity we propose the use of other multicriterial method beyond AHP It is also

suggested to test the method in another industry We also suggest assessment of performance

of the product in the constructs by means of a set of indicators that can explain the construct

So the reformulated actions would focus not necessarily in the most prioritized constructs

but in the constructs with larger gaps between priority and performance The method can also

be applied in the entire or at least a bigger part of the automotive chain The application

along the chain can identify the fragile parts on the ecodesign development and helps to focus

efforts in the chain At last it is proposed to integrate the method to the cleaner production

technologies and reversal logistic models available in literature It is understood that the

method might indicate the ecodesign gaps of a product operation and offer enough support to

the implementation and maintenance of cleaner production and reversal logistics programs in

manufacture in an on-going improvement basis

Acknowledge

The research was partially supported by funds from CNPq Brazil

References

BAHMED L BOUKHALFA A DJEBABRA M Eco-conception in the industrial firms methodological

proposition Management of Environmental Quality An International Journal v16 n5 p530ndash547 2005

BERANDER P Evolving Prioritization for Software Product Management Doctoral Thesis Department of

Systems and Software Engineering School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology Sweden 2007

BOKS C The soft side of ecodesign Journal of Cleaner Production v14 n15-16 p1346ndash1356 2006

BORCHARDT M POLTOSI L SELLITTO M PEREIRA G Adopting ecodesign practices case study

of a midsized automotive supplier Environmental Quality Management v19 p7-22 2009a

BORCHARDT M SELLITTO M PEREIRA G The assessment of ecodesign application using the

analytic hierarchy process a case study in three furniture companies Chemical Engineering Transactions v18

n1 p177-182 2009b

BYGGETH S BROMAN G ROgraveBERT K A method for sustainable product development based on a

Modular System of Guiding questions v15 n1 p1ndash11 2007

BYGGETH S HOCHSCHORNER E Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product

development and procurement Journal of Cleaner Production v14 n15-16 p1420ndash1430 2006

CHEN H TONG Y Evaluating and operating NPD mix within Technological and Manufacturing Cluster

under uncertainty International Journal of Product Development v6 n2 p142ndash159 2008



14

DONAIRE D 1999 Environmental management in enterprises S Paulo Atlas

ECKSTEIN H Case Study and Theory in Political Science In Greenstein F and Polsby N (org) The

Handbook of Political Science V7 Reading MA Addison-Wesley 1975

EISENHARDT K Building theories from case study research Academy of Management Review v14 n4

p532-550 1989

FIKSEL J Design for Environment New York McGraw Hill 1996

FORMAN E SELLY M Decisions by objectives Expert Choice Inc 2001 Available in httpwwwexper-

tchoicecom acessed in mai 2004

HERMANN B KROEZE C JAWJIT W Assessing environmental performance by life cycle assessment

multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators Journal of Cleaner Production v15 n1 p1ndash

10 2007

HEVNER A MARCH S RAM S Design Science in Information Systems Research Management

Information System Quarterly v28 n1 p75-106 2004

HOGART R Judgement and choice Essex John Wiley and Sons 1988

KARLSSON R LUTTROPP C Ecodesign Whatacutes happening An overview of the subject area of

ecodesign and the papers in this Special Issue v14 n6 p1291ndash1298 2006

LE POCHAT S BERTOLUCCI G FROELICH D Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in

SMEs Journal of Cleaner Production v15 n7 p671ndash680 2007

LOFTHOUSE V Ecodesign tools for designers Defining the requirements Journal of Cleaner Production

v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006

LUTTROPP C LAGERSTEDT J Ecodesign and the ten golden rules generic advice for merging

environmental aspects into product development Journal of Cleaner Production v14 n6 p1396ndash1408 2006

MANZINI E VEZZOLI C O desenvolvimento de produtos sustentaacuteveis os requisitos ambientais dos

produtos industriais Satildeo Paulo Ed USP 2005 (in Portuguese)

KAZAZIAN T Haveraacute a idade das coisas leves design e desenvolvimento sustentaacutevel Satildeo Paulo SENAC

2005 (in Portuguese)

KOPICKI R BERG M LEGG L DASAPPA V MAGGIONI C Reuse and Recycling Reverse

Logistics Opportunities Oak Brook Il Council of Logistics Management 1993

MANSON N Is Operations Research Really Research Journal of Operations Research Society of South

African v22 n2 p155-180 2006

MARCH S SMITH G Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology Decision Suport

System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995

MAXWELL D SHEATE W VAN DER VORST R Functional and systems aspects of the sustainable

product and service development approach for industry Journal of Cleaner Production v14 n17 p1466ndash1479

2006

PARK P TAHARA K Quantifying producer and consumer-based eco-efficiencies for the identification of

key ecodesign issues Journal of Cleaner Production v16 n1 p95-104 2008

PIGOSSO D ZANETTE A GUELERE FILHO A OMETTO A ROZENFELD H Ecodesign

methods focused on remanufacturing Journal of Cleaner Production v18 n1 p21-31 2010

RAO P Greening production a south-east asian experience International Journal of Operations amp Production

Management v24 n3 p289ndash320 2004

SAATY T The Analytic Hierarchy Process planning priority setting resource allocation New York

McGraw-Hill 1980

VENZKE C A situaccedilatildeo do ecodesign em empresas moveleiras da Regiatildeo de Bento Gonccedilalves ndash RS Anaacutelise

das posturas e praacuteticas ambientais Masterrsquos Degree Dissertation in Administration UFRGS Porto Alegre 2002

(in Portuguese)



15

VERCALSTEREN A Integrating the ecodesign concept in small and medium-size enterprises Experiences in

the Flemish Region of Belgium Environmental Management and Health v12 n3 p347ndash355 2001

WEENEN J Towards sustainable product development Journal of Cleaner Production v3 n1-2 p95-100

1995

WOLFGANG W KUN-MO L IN-TAE J JOHN-HEE H Ecodesign in twelve steps International

Conference on Engineering Design ICED 05 Melbourne 2005

WIND Y SAATY T Making Applications of the Analytic Hierarchic Process Management Science v 26

n7 p 641-658 1980

VOSS C TSIKRIKTSIS N FROHLICH M Case Research in Operations Management International

Journal of Operations amp Production Management v22 n2 p195-219 2002

YIN R Case Study Research Design and Methods SAGE Publications Thousand Oaks CA 2009



2

11

2 Introduction

Public customers and legal pressures have grown related with environmental impact from

manufacturing activities As a consequence of this movement actions that can reduce

environmental impact of such activities have been more discussed in strategic forums

concerning manufacture Key factors contributing to such environmental impact include the

resource-intensive style of some activities and the ever-shorter life cycle of products and

processes (KAZAZIAN 2005 MAXWELL et al 2006) Environmental commentators

emphasize the need to weigh the environmental cost of manufactured products against the

functional income we gain from them (BORCHARDT et al 2009a)

According to Donaire (1999) manufacture usually reply to such pressures with (i) end-of-

pipe control installing devices that neutralize the environment impact without interfering in

the process (ii) on-line control redesigning products and processes to reduce environmental

pressures or (iii) adding to the company mission a high environmental performance

requirement usually based on a formal managerial structure Kopicki et al (1993) had used a

slightly different language (i) reactive actions when he company limits to remediate existing

problems (ii) proactive actions when it seeks to attempt valid normatives in the manufacturing

process and (iii) value-seeking actions when the company usually practice environmental-

friendly activities regarding design supply manufacture delivers and after-use recovery

According to Weenen (1995) in environmental management proactive or process-integrated

actions are preferable than end-of-pipe or reactive ones A sound possibility for are the EMS

(environmental management systems) which among other requirements demand control

actions on environment performance and impact assessment of products and processes

Another possibility is the introduction of techniques of ecodesign

Ecodesign seeks environmentally friendly solutions in product design and process

development It normally considers both economic and environmental aspects associated with

the entire life cycle of products Such concepts promote a reviewing of techniques of

conceptualization design and production of goods (BYGGETH et al 2007) and offer the

theoretical basis for implementing new policies on design of products and processes After

Fiksel (1996) ecodesign is a technique of product design in which the usual goals of the

project such as performance reliability and cost of manufacturing appear together with

environmental objectives such as reduction of environmental hazards reducing the use of

natural resources increase of energy efficiency and recycling It allows linking the functions

of the product with sustainability aspects reducing environmental impacts and increasing the

presence of eco-efficient products (KARLSSON and LUTTROPP 2006 MANZINI and

VEZZOLI 2005) After Vercarlsteren (2001) many companies consider the ecodesign in

preserving not only the environment but also competitiveness and public image related to the

business and market environmental requirements

Different requirements for ecodesign are proposed in literature Many regard materials

components processes and products characteristics use of energy storage and distribution

packaging and waste (WOLFGANG et al 2005 LUTTROPP and LAGERSTED 2006

FIKSEL 1996) We mean prioritizing resources and actions in practices of ecodesign

Supported by Hermann et al (2007) which speak on measurement of performance on

environmental aspects we find relevant identifying priorities or degree of importance of each



3
















































4

















































5



































First level

(top term)

Second level


Ecodesign

Materials

choice and use






compounds

Product

components

selection and

choice






6

Product and

process

characteristics





the world trends

Use of energy





Products

distribution




Packaging and

documentation




Waste





























111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






3
















































4

















































5



































First level

(top term)

Second level


Ecodesign

Materials

choice and use






compounds

Product

components

selection and

choice






6

Product and

process

characteristics





the world trends

Use of energy





Products

distribution




Packaging and

documentation




Waste





























111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






4

















































5



































First level

(top term)

Second level


Ecodesign

Materials

choice and use






compounds

Product

components

selection and

choice






6

Product and

process

characteristics





the world trends

Use of energy





Products

distribution




Packaging and

documentation




Waste





























111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






5



































First level

(top term)

Second level


Ecodesign

Materials

choice and use






compounds

Product

components

selection and

choice






6

Product and

process

characteristics





the world trends

Use of energy





Products

distribution




Packaging and

documentation




Waste





























111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






6

Product and

process

characteristics





the world trends

Use of energy





Products

distribution




Packaging and

documentation




Waste





























111

11

1

][

21

212

112

nn

n

n

ij

aa

aa

aa

aA (1)



7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






7




Aw = maxw (2)







8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






8


n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 058 09 112 124 132 141 145 149







5 Research


































9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






9

















































10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






10






materials





















Mat

eria

ls

Was

te

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 1 12 2 12 3 5 5 5 12 32 1 09

Waste 23 1 2 1 12 4 4 5 23 2

Distribution 25 12 1 2 2 12 2 12 3 15 3

Packaging 13 23 12 1 2 2 3 12 4

Components 15 14 25 12 1 1 1 12 6 5


Use of energy 15 15 13 13 23 23 1 5 7







11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






11




















Mat

eria

ls

Char

acte

rist

ics

Use

of

ener

gy

Dis

trib

uti

on

Pac

kag

ing

Was

te

Com

ponen

ts

ponder

atio

n

ord

er

CR

Materials 1 2 12 3 3 12 4 5 6 36 1 137


Use of energy 13 23 1 1 12 2 3 4 15 3

Distribution 27 12 23 1 1 12 3 4 12 4

Packaging 14 25 12 23 1 1 12 2 8 5

Waste 15 13 13 13 1 1 1 12 6 6

Components 16 14 14 14 12 23 1 4 7















12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






12



















0

10

20

30

40

Mat

erials

Wast

e

Distri

butio

n

Pac

kaging

Com

ponen

ts

Char

acte

ristic

s

Use

of e

nerg

y

product A product B


6 Final remarks









13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






13



























Acknowledge


References










n1 p177-182 2009b









14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






14





p532-550 1989






10 2007









v14 n15-16 p1386ndash1395 2006










African v22 n2 p155-180 2006


System 15 v3 n3 p251-266 1995



2006








McGraw-Hill 1980



(in Portuguese)



15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980






15




1995




n7 p 641-658 1980




Documents

ECODESIGN PRACTICES: UNDERSTANDING AND PRIORITIZING ... · UNDERSTANDING AND PRIORITIZING ACTIVITIES IN THE ... slightly different ... (iii) competitiveness, since the leader is more