Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:39:09.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPLICATIONS OF EU INSTRUMENTS ON COMPANY CAPABILITIES TO DESIGN MORE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS–PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT AND DIGITAL PRODUCT PASSPORT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Josefin Lövdahl ,
Sophie I. Hallstedt  and
Jesko Schulte
Josefin Lövdahl*
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden;
Sophie I. Hallstedt
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden; Chalmers University of Technology
Jesko Schulte
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden;
*
Lövdahl, Josefin, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, [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.

In the EU, initiatives with concrete instruments for measuring and storing sustainability-related product data are now introduced in legislation. Based on literature review and semi-structured interviews, this study investigates two EU instruments, the Product Environmental Footprint method and Digital Product Passports, and their potential implications for company capabilities to design and select more sustainable solutions in a strategic way. The results show that these instruments can lead to increased transparency and traceability in the design and comparison of solutions, allowing for more effective collaboration across the value chain. By applying a strategic sustainability perspective, it was found that these EU instruments have major limitations as they lack a systems perspective, do not include a full socio-ecological sustainability perspective, and do not support strategic decision-making. This results in risks for suboptimization and the design of solutions that turn out to be costly dead-ends on the way towards a sustainable society. Research is therefore recommended to investigate how these instruments can facilitate a strategic development of sustainable solutions.

Keywords

EcodesignCircular economySustainabilitySustainable Product DevelopmentDigital Product Passport
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2245 - 2254
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

Adisorn, T., Tholen, L., Götz, T. (2021), “Towards a Digital Product Passport Fit for Contributing to a Circular Economy” Energies, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 2289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allacker, K., Mathieux, F., Manfredi, S., Pelletier, N., De Camillis, C., Ardente, F., Pant, R. (2014), “Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: Proposals for product policy initiatives”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 88, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, K., Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R.J. (2022), “Digital battery passports to enable circular and sustainable value chains: Conceptualization and use cases”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 353 No. 131492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broman, G., Holmberg, J., Robèrt, K.-H. (2000), “Simplicity without reduction: Thinking upstream towards the sustainable society”, Interfaces, Vol. 30, pp. 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.30.3.13.11662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broman, G.I., Robèrt, K.-H. (2017), “A framework for strategic sustainable development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Borghi, A., Moreschi, L., Gallo, M. (2020), “Communication through ecolabels: how discrepancies between the EU PEF and EPD schemes could affect outcome consistency”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 25, pp. 905–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01609-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Directorate-General for Environment (2022), Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC (No. COM(2022) 142 final). European Commission.Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Environment (2021), Commission Recommendation of 16.12.2021 on the use of the Environmental Footprint methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations. (No. COM(2021) 9332 final). European Commission.Google Scholar
Eckert, C., Isaksson, O., Hallstedt, S., Malmqvist, J., Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A., Panarotto, M. (2019), “Industry Trends to 2040”, 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, Netherlands, 5-8 August, pp. 2121–2128. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (2020), Taxonomy: Final report of the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance. [online] European Commission. Available at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-03/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy_en.pdf (accessed 2022-03-23).Google Scholar
European Commission (2022a), Communication from the Commission of the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on making sustainable products the norm (No. COM(2022) 140 final), European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2022b), Single Market for Green Products - Environment - European Commission. [online] European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/policy_footprint.htm (accessed 2022-03-23).Google Scholar
European Commission (2022c), The Environmental Footprint transition phase - Environment - European Commission. [online] European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ef_transition.htm (accessed 2022-03-23).Google Scholar
European Commission (2020a). Communication from the commission of the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on a new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe (No. COM(2020) 98 final), European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020b), Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and the council concerning batteries and waste batteries, repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020 (No. COM(2020) 798 final), European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2019), Communication from the commission of the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the European Green Deal (No. COM(2019) 640 final), European Commission.Google Scholar
Faludi, J., Hoffenson, S., Kwok, S.Y., Saidani, M., Hallstedt, S.I., Telenko, C., Martinez, V. (2020), “A Research Roadmap for Sustainable Design Methods and Tools”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 8174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallstedt, S., Isaksson, O., Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. (2020), “The Need for New Product Development Capabilities from Digitalization, Sustainability, and Servitization Trends”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 10222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310222Google Scholar
Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G., (2010), “An approach to assessing sustainability integration in strategic decision systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, pp. 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, A., Bach, V., Finkbeiner, M., (2016), “EU Product Environmental Footprint—Mid-Term Review of the Pilot Phase”, Sustainability, Vol. 8, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAloone, T.C., Tan, A.R., (2005), “Sustainable product development through a life-cycle approach to product and service creation: An exploration of the extended responsibilities and possibilities for product developers”, Eco-X Conference: Ecology and Economy in Electronix, KERP, Vienna, Austria, 2005, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE. Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Ojala, E., Uusitalo, V., Virkki-Hatakka, T., Niskanen, A., Soukka, R. (2016), “Assessing product environmental performance with PEF methodology: reliability, comparability, and cost concerns”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 21 No.8, pp. 1092–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1090-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passer, A., Lasvaux, S., Allacker, K., De Lathauwer, D., Spirinckx, C., Wittstock, B., Kellenberger, D., Gschösser, F., Wall, J., Wallbaum, H. (2015), “Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 1199–1212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0926-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, N., Allacker, K., Pant, R., Manfredi, S. (2013). “European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0609-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plociennik, C., Pourjafarian, M., Nazeri, A., Windholz, W., Knetsch, S., Rickert, J., Ciroth, A., Lopes, Precci, do C, A.., Hagedorn, T., Vogelgesang, M., Benner, W., Gassmann, A., Bergweiler, S., Ruskowski, M., Schebek, L., Weidenkaff, A. (2022), “Towards a Digital Lifecycle Passport for the Circular Economy”, 29th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 4-6 April 2022, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 105, pp. 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.02.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poolsawad, N., Thanungkano, W., Mungkalasiri, J., Wisansuwannakorn, R., Suksatit, P., Jirajariyavech, A., Datchaneekul, K. (2017), “Thai national life cycle inventory readiness for product environmental footprint”, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 22, pp. 1731–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1257-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robèrt, K.-H. (2000), “Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, pp. 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00011-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G. (2017), “Prisoners’ dilemma misleads business and policy making”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, J., Hallstedt, S. (2018), “Company Risk Management in Light of the Sustainability Transition”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 11, 4137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennet, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S. (2015), “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet”, Science, Vol. 347 No. 6223, pp. 736. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, D.R., Hodges, I.D. (2013), “Doing a Literature Review”, In: Designing and Managing Your Research Project: Core Skills for Social and Health Research. Sage Publications Ltd., London. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446289044Google Scholar
van Engelenburg, S., Rukanova, B., Ubacht, J., Tan, S.L., Tan, Y.-H., Janssen, M. (2022), “From requirements to a research agenda for governments governing reuse of critical raw materials in the circular economy”, DG.O 2022: The 23rd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Virtual Event Republic of Korea, 15-17 June 2022, Association for Computing Machinery pp. 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543434.3543645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, J., Steinbrecher, A., Marinkovic, M., (2021), “Digital Product Passports as Enabler of the Circular Economy”, Chemie Ingenieur Technik, Vol. 93, pp. 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202100121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S., Rothman, R., (2020), “Life cycle assessment of bio-based and fossil-based plastic: A review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 261, 121158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121158CrossRefGoogle Scholar