Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T09:53:25.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING SYSTEMIC FORCES THAT INFLUENCE SUSTAINABLE DESIGN TRANSITIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Matilda Watz ,
Steven Hoffenson  and
Sophie. I. Hallstedt
Matilda Watz*
Affiliation:
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola;
Steven Hoffenson
Affiliation:
Stevens Institute of Technology
Sophie. I. Hallstedt
Affiliation:
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola;
*
Watz, Matilda, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Sweden, matilda.watz@bth.se

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 this research some systemic forces to sustainable design are described and mapped out, along with key areas, dimensions and stakeholders. These results are visualized in a causal loop diagram (CLD), which was the outcome of a group model building approach supported by a literature review. Within the proposed system model, represented by the system-level variables and their relationships within the CLD, some potential leverage points that can help make product design better contribute to sustainability are identified and described. These can be found in the balancing and reinforcing feedback loops of the CLD as well as the mapping to societal dimensions of sustainability transitions and stakeholder groups. Among the stakeholder groups, business managers, scientific researchers and engineering designers can be tied to the design community. Future research is proposed to build on these initial results to deepen the knowledge about the systemic drivers and barriers and leverage the contribution of design practice to sustainable development.

Keywords

SustainabilityDecision makingComplexitySustainable product development; Causal loop diagram
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1501 - 1510
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

Andersen, D.F.; et al. , (2007). Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J. Oper. Res. Soc., 58, 691–694.10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, M., et al. , (2018). Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency. Sustainability science, 13(6), 1533–1547.10.1007/s11625-018-0582-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bovea, M. D., & Pérez-Belis, V. (2012). A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 61–71.10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K. H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 17–31.10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design studies, 47, 118–163.10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, R. G. (2000). Qualitative and Quantitative Modelling in System Dynamics: Some Research Questions. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 225–244.10.1002/1099-1727(200023)16:3<225::AID-SDR195>3.0.CO;2-D3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174.10.1177/1086026615575176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyllick, T., & Rost, Z. (2017). Towards true product sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 346–360.10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagnon, B., Leduc, R., & Savard, L. (2012). From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design process: different shades of sustainability. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(1), 49–74.10.1080/09544828.2010.516246CrossRefGoogle 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, 12(19), 8174.10.3390/su12198174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargnoli, Mario, et al. (2018) “Product service-systems implementation: A customized framework to enhance sustainability and customer satisfaction.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 387–401.10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2(2), 14–21.Google Scholar
Hallstedt, S. (2008). A foundation for sustainable product development (Doctoral dissertation, Blekinge Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
Hallstedt, S. I., Thompson, A. W., & Lindahl, P. (2013). Key elements for implementing a strategic sustainability perspective in the product innovation process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 277–288.10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjorth, P., & Bagheri, A. (2006). Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1), 74–92.10.1016/j.futures.2005.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Klein, J. T., & Pohl, C. (2019). Linking transdisciplinary research projects with science and practice at large: introducing insights from knowledge utilization. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 36–42.10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnik, J. (2018). Ecological modernization through servitization: EU regulatory support for sustainable product–service systems. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 27(2), 162–175.10.1111/reel.12228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, R., & Luttropp, C. (2006). EcoDesign: what's happening? An overview of the subject area of EcoDesign and of the papers in this special issue. Journal of cleaner production, 14(15-16), 1291–1298.10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korotkova, A. V. (2020). Eco-Movement Fridays for Future: The First Results. Mirovaia ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 64(4), 119–131.Google Scholar
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … & Fünfschilling, L. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32.10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurenti, R., Sinha, R., Singh, J., & Frostell, B. (2016). Towards addressing unintended environmental consequences: a planning framework. Sustainable Development, 24(1), 1–17.10.1002/sd.1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., & Hugé, …, J. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of cleaner production, 108, 1–18.10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. R. (2013). Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustainability science, 8(2), 279–293.10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miedzinski, M., McDowall, W., Kemp, R., & Türkeli, S. (2019). Inno4SD Sustainability Transition and Innovation Country Reviews. Introduction and Methodological Guidance to STIR, green. eu Report for Inno4SD network. Brussels, Belgium: Innoi4SD.Google Scholar
Nagaichuk, N., Shabanova, O., Tretiak, N., Marenych, A., & Chepeliuk, H. (2020). Management of changes in the insurance industry in the conditions of climate crisis. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 166, p. 13006). EDP Sciences.10.1051/e3sconf/202016613006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opazo-Basáez, M., Vendrell-Herrero, F., & Bustinza, O. F. (2018). Uncovering productivity gains of digital and green servitization: Implications from the automotive industry. Sustainability, 10(5), 1524.10.3390/su10051524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigosso, D. C., & McAloone, T. C. (2016). Maturity-based approach for the development of environmentally sustainable product/service-systems. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 15, 33–41.10.1016/j.cirpj.2016.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E., & Nykvist, …, B. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and society, 14(2).10.5751/ES-03180-140232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., & Folke, …, C. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223).10.1126/science.1259855CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2015). National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives. Cross Cultural Management.10.1108/CCM-03-2014-0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. R. & Hodges, I. D. (2010). Doing a literature review. In Thomas, D. R., & Hodges, I. D. Designing and managing your research project: Core skills for social and health research (pp. 105–130). London: SAGE Publications Ltd 10.4135/9781446289044.n7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennix, J.A. (1999) Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 15, 379–401.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199924)15:4<379::AID-SDR179>3.0.CO;2-E3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watz, M., & Hallstedt, S. I. (2020). Profile model for management of sustainability integration in engineering design requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119155.10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119155CrossRefGoogle Scholar