Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:58:33.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECO-INNOVATION METHOD IN A RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION: NEED ANALYSIS AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONS OF THE METHOD (JUDAIS 2023)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Pierre Judais ,
Elise Monnier ,
Helmi Ben Rejeb  and
Peggy Zwolinski
Pierre Judais*
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CEA, Liten, 38000, Grenoble, France Grenoble INP, CNRS University of Grenoble Alpes, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France
Elise Monnier
Affiliation:
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CEA, Liten, 38000, Grenoble, France
Helmi Ben Rejeb
Affiliation:
Grenoble INP, CNRS University of Grenoble Alpes, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France
Peggy Zwolinski
Affiliation:
Grenoble INP, CNRS University of Grenoble Alpes, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France
*
Judais, Pierre, CEA, France, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Research and Technology Organisations (RTOs) develop and transfer new technologies to industry. Considering environnemental and social challenges in their activities is becoming more and more important. Integrating these challenges within an organization requires a global and coherent method, but also flexibility to adapt to the various activities of the organisationz. Eco-innovation is an approach that can meet these goals. However, literature has already shown that the main obstacles for the integration of eco-innovation come from the lack of global approaches adapted to companies' practices. In this paper, we characterise the specific activities of RTOs. Then, we specified the need for an eco innovation approach for RTOs. We carried out a functional analysis to formalise the need and identify the main functions that the eco-innovation approach must fulfil. We conducted exploratory interviews with various stakholders from an RTO in order to validate the identified needs and functions.

Keywords

eco-innovationDesign methodsSustainabilityResearch and Technology OrganisationsEcodesign
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 1525 - 1534
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

AFNOR - Agence Française de Normalisation. (2013), “NF EN 16271:2013: Management par la valeur - Expression fonctionnelle du besoin et cahier des charges fonctionnel - Exigences pour l'expression et la validation du besoin à satisfaire dans le processus d'acquisition ou d'obtention d'un produit”.Google Scholar
AFNOR - Agence Française de Normalisation. (2020), “NF EN 12973:2020 Value Management”.Google Scholar
Arnold, E., Clark, J. and Jávorka, Z. (2010), “A Study of Social and Economic Impacts of Research and Technology Organisations A Report to EARTO”, p. 53.Google Scholar
Baldassarri, C., Mathieux, F., Ardente, F., Wehmann, C. and Deese, K. (2016), “Integration of environmental aspects into R&D inter-organizational projects management: application of a life cycle-based method to the development of innovative windows”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 3388–3401, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovea, M.D. and Pérez-Belis, V. (2012), “A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 61–71, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chebaeva, N., Lettner, M., Wenger, J., Schöggl, J.-P., Hesser, F., Holzer, D. and Stern, T. (2021), “Dealing with the eco-design paradox in research and development projects: The concept of sustainability assessment levels”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 281, p. 125232, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B. and O'Brien, G. (2002), “Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 187–196, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecklau, F. and Kidschun, F. (2020), “Analyzing the Role of Research and Technology Organizations (RTOs) in National Innovation Systems (NIS)”, Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, presented at the 16th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, ACPI, https://dx.doi.org/10.34190/ELG.20.057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lozano, R. and Garcia, I. (2020), “Scrutinizing Sustainability Change and Its Institutionalization in Organizations”, Frontiers in Sustainability, Vol. 1, p. 1, https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2020.00001.Google Scholar
Martínez-Vela, C. (2016), “Benchmarking RTOs A comparative Analysis”.Google Scholar
Michelin, F. (2015), “Développement d'une méthode d'intégration de la dimension environnementale dans la relation client/fournisseur - Application au domaine de la mécanique”, Unpublished, https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3471.8482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelin, F. and Janin, M. (2018), “Les enjeux de l’éco-conception pour un donneur d'ordre de systèmes complexes”, p. 7.Google Scholar
OECD. (2022), The Contribution of RTOs to Socio-Economic Recovery, Resilience and Transitions, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 129, Vol. 129, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ae93dc1d-en.Google Scholar
Olivier, R., Audard, G., Osset, P., Palluau, M., Hugrel, C. and Safran, B. (2021), “Empreinte projet (ADEME)”, p. 101.Google Scholar
Pigosso, D.C.A., Rozenfeld, H. and McAloone, T.C. (2013), “Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 59, pp. 160–173, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steux, C. and Aggeri, F. (2020), “Quels sont les obstacles au développement de l’éco- conception? Une analyse compréhensive des stratégies et des interactions au sein des écosystèmes”, p. 32.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme. (2017), “Eco-innovation implementation process”.Google Scholar
Xavier, A., Reyes, T., Aoussat, A., Luiz, L. and Souza, L. (2020), “Eco-Innovation Maturity Model: A Framework to Support the Evolution of Eco-Innovation Integration in Companies”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 9, p. 3773, https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12093773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xavier, A.F., Naveiro, R.M., Aoussat, A. and Reyes, T. (2017), “Systematic literature review of eco-innovation models: Opportunities and recommendations for future research”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 149, pp. 1278–1302, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, F., Rio, M., Allais, R., Zwolinski, P., Carrillo, T.R., Roucoules, L., Mercier-Laurent, E., et al. (2013), “Toward an systemic navigation framework to integrate sustainable development into the company”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 54, pp. 199–214, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar