Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-2jptb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-18T23:18:16.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARING LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT, CIRCULARITY AND SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE DESIGN: RESULTS FROM A HANDS-ON PROJECT WITH 87 ENGINEERING STUDENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Michael Saidani ,
Mariia Kravchenko ,
François Cluzel ,
Daniela Pigosso ,
Yann Leroy  and
Harrison Kim
Michael Saidani*
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Saclay, CentraleSupélec, Laboratoire Genie Industriel, France; Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at
Mariia Kravchenko
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark;
François Cluzel
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Saclay, CentraleSupélec, Laboratoire Genie Industriel, France;
Daniela Pigosso
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark;
Yann Leroy
Affiliation:
Université Paris-Saclay, CentraleSupélec, Laboratoire Genie Industriel, France;
Harrison Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, University of Illinois at
*
Saidani, Michael, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, Laboratoire Génie Industriel, 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.

Considering a growing number of metrics and indicators to assess circular economy, it is of paramount importance to shed light on how they differ from traditional approaches, such as life cycle assessment (LCA) or sustainability performance indicators. This study provides new empirical insights on the correlation between LCA, circularity, and sustainability indicator-based approaches. Specifically, the importance lies in analyzing how the results generated by these different approaches can be used to support the design of products that are not only circular, but also sustainable. A practice-based project involving 87 engineering students (divided into 20 groups) is conducted with the aim to compare and improve the circularity and sustainability performance of three product alternatives of lawn mowers (gasoline, electric, autonomous). To do so, the following resources are deployed: 18 midpoints environmental indicators calculated by LCA, eight product circularity indicators, and numerous leading sustainability indicators. Critical analyses on the usability, time efficiency, scientific soundness, and robustness of each approach are drawn, combining quantitative results generated by each group with the feedback of future engineers.

Keywords

Circular economySustainabilityEcodesignIndicatorsCase study
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 681 - 690
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Allwood, J.M. (2014), “Squaring the circular economy: the role of recycling within a hierarchy of material management strategies”, Handbook of recycling, pp. 445–477, Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, M., Hoogzaad, J., and Von Daniels, C. (2020), “The circularity gap report 2020”, Ruparo: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Faludi, J., Hoffenson, S., Kwok, S.Y., Saidani, M., Hallstedt, S.I., Telenko, C., and Martinez, V. (2020), “A research roadmap for sustainable design methods and tools”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 19, 8174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, M., Schau, E.M., Lehmann, A., and Traverso, M. (2010), “Towards life cycle sustainability assessment”, Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 3309–3322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., and Hultink, E.J. (2017), “The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm?”, Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 143, pp. 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijbregts, M.A.J., et al. (2017), “ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ISO-International Organization for Standardization. (2006), “ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework”. In: ISO 14000 International Standards Compendium. Genève, Switzerland.Google Scholar
ISO-International Organization for Standardization. (2006), “ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines”. In: ISO 14000 International Standards Compendium. Genève, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Kloepffer, W. (2008), “Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Products (with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95)”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., and Birkie, S.E. (2018), “Circular economy as an essentially contested concept”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 175, pp. 544–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravchenko, M., McAloone, T.C., and Pigosso, D. C. (2020a), “To what extent do circular economy indicators capture sustainability?”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 90, pp. 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D.C., and McAloone, T.C. (2019), “Towards the ex-ante sustainability screening of circular economy initiatives in manufacturing companies: Consolidation of leading sustainability-related performance indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 241, 118318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravchenko, M., Pigosso, D.C., and McAloone, T.C. (2020b), “Developing a tool to support decisions in sustainability-related trade-off situations: understanding needs and criteria”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 2020, Vol. 1, pp. 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurin, L., Amor, B., Bachmann, T.M., Bare, J., Koffler, C., et al. (2016), “Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, M., Boyer, R.H., Dahllöf, L., Vanacore, E., and Hunka, A. (2020), “Product-level inherent circularity and its relationship to environmental impact”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 121096.Google Scholar
Parchomenko, A., Nelen, D., Gillabel, J., and Rechberger, H. (2019), “Measuring the circular economy-A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of 63 metrics”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 210, pp. 200–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roos Lindgreen, E., Salomone, R., and Reyes, T. (2020), “A Critical Review of Academic Approaches, Methods and Tools to Assess Circular Economy at the Micro Level”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 12, 4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidani, M., Kim, H., Cluzel, F., Leroy, Y., and Yannou, B. (2020), “Product circularity indicators: what contributions in designing for a circular economy?”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 2020, Vol. 1, pp. 2129–2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., and Cluzel, F. (2017), “How to Assess Product Performance in the Circular Economy? Proposed Requirements for the Design of a Circularity Measurement Framework”, Recycling, Vol. 2, No. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidani, M., Yannou, B., Leroy, Y., Cluzel, F., and Kendall, A. (2019), “A taxonomy of circular economy indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 542–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, P., Anggraeni, K., and Weber, U. (2019), “The relevance of circular economy practices to the sustainable development goals”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahbazi, S., Jönbrink, A.K., Hjort Jensen, T., Pigosso, D.C.A., and McAloone, T.C. (2020), “Circular Product Design and Development: CIRCit Workbook 3”, ISBN: 978-87-7475-604-0, Technical University of Denmark, 44 pp.Google Scholar
VDI-Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. (2002), “Recycling-oriented product development”, VDI guideline 2243.Google Scholar