ECODESIGN CASE STUDIES FOR FURNITURE COMPANIES USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Transcription

1 International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 19(8), , ECODESIGN CASE STUDIES FOR FURNITURE COMPANIES USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS Miriam Borchardt, Miguel A. Sellitto, Giancarlo M. Pereira, Luciana P. Gomes Vale do Rio dos Sinos University (UNISINOS) Address: Av. Unisinos, 950 São Leopoldo CEP RS - Brazil Corresponding author miriamb@unisinos.br The purpose of this paper is to propose a method to assess the degree of the implementation of ecodesign in manufacturing companies. This method was developed based on a multi-criteria decision support method known as analytic hierarchy process (AHP). It was applied in three furniture companies. Ecodesign constructs were extracted from the literature related to environmental practices and weighted according to the AHP method, allowing for a determination of the relative importance of the constructs for each company. Finally, the team answered a questionnaire for each company to check each item s degree of application of these processes. One year later, the method was applied again to the same three companies. By comparing the assessed relative importance of each ecodesign construct and the degree of its application, it was possible for us to observe the relation of the priorities of the companies to their eco-conception. Keywords: ecodesign, design for environment, sustainability, furniture industry, Analytic Hierarchy Process, ecoconception. (Received 11 Sep 2011; Accepted in revised form 1 Feb 2012) 1. INTRODUCTION One of the key contributing causes to the environmental degradation that threatens the planet is the increasing production and consumption of goods and services. Some of the factors that contribute to environmental degradation are (a) the lifestyle of some societies, (b) the development of emerging countries, (c) the aging of populations in developed countries, (d) inequalities between the planet s regions and (e) the increasingly short life cycles of products (Manzini and Vezzolli, 2005). Environmental considerations, such as ecodesign (or design for (the) environment, DfE), cleaner production, recycling projects and the development of sustainable products, promote a redesign of techniques for the conceptualization, design and manufacturing of goods (Byggeth et al., 2007). A balance between the environmental cost and the functional income of a production method is essential for achieving sustainable development, a requirement that has resulted in a situation in which environmental issues must now be merged into classical product development processes (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006; Plouffe et al., 2011). Out of this context, we can define ecodesign as a technique for establishing a product project in which the usual project goals, manufacturing costs and product reliability are considered, along with environmental goals such as the reduction of environmental risks, reduction in the use of natural resources, increase in recycling and the efficiency in the use of energy (Fiksel, 1996). Such a technique makes it possible to relate the functions of a product or service to issues in environmental sustainability, reducing environmental impact and increasing the presence of eco-efficient products, as well as encouraging technological innovation (Manzini and Vezzoli, 2005; Santolaria et al., 2011). The environmental practices observed in the literature on ecodesign are chiefly related to the materials, components, processes and characteristics of products, including the use of energy, storage, distribution, packing and material residuals (Wimmer et al., 2005; Luttropp and Lagersted, 2006; Fiksel, 1996). However, even though these techniques have been explored in the literature, the environmental practices related to ecodesign have a generic shape and are difficult to fit to specific product projects and industrial processes (Borchardt et al., 2009). Authors such as De Mendonça and Baxter (2004) and Goldstein et al. (2011) have worked to develop performance indicators associated with ecodesign and have related ecodesign principles with environmental management, showing a positive correlation between the two. However, notably, there is no consensus regarding this topic. Despite the fact that environmental assessments are commonly found in the literature, no objective method can generate an ecodesign measurement instrument to evaluate the degree of implementation. Such an instrument would help organizations to prioritize their efforts in terms of achieving the most significant environmental gains. There is a need for a structural approach in ecodesign that can address environmental concerns in a coherent way. However, the limits in capabilities and resources available to many companies frequently hamper the development of an ISSN X INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

2 Ecodesign for Furniture Company effective response to environmental pressures, forcing companies to prioritize their resources (Santos-Reyes, 2001; Lee and Klassen, 2008). Considering the work on the evaluation of environmental impacts (Svensson et al., 2006; Daub, 2007), it is important to identify the priority of each ecodesign construct for the companies of a specific industry and the degree to which each company complies with each requirement. The main purpose of this paper is to propose a method to assess the degree of implementation of ecodesign in manufacturing companies. The method presented here was developed to be applied in the furniture industry, but it could be adapted to other industries. The secondary purposes of the paper are (i) to propose a tree-like structure capable of representing ecodesign constructs and application items; (ii) to present a method supported by a multi-criteria decision method, namely, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), to assess this tree-like structure and (iii) to test and refine this method using case studies. The method was applied twice to three companies with a one-year interval between the applications. Below, we discuss the theoretical background of ecodesign practices, of measurement systems and of the AHP. Then, we present the methodological procedure along with its application to a case study, followed by a discussion of the final results. Finally, the conclusions drawn after applying this technique are described in the final section. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Ecodesign practices and tools Ecodesign includes strategies that combine design and management operations with sustainability. By the 1990s, the U.S. electronics industry had begun seeking ways to minimize its impact on the environment. Since then, the level of general interest in the subject has increased, and the term "ecodesign" has begun to be used by several environmental management programs. Factors that influence the implementation of ecodesign include external pressures, legal requirements, economic interests, its understanding and appreciation by consumers and the availability of new technologies (Boks, 2006). Concern for the environment is a new factor that affects the process of the development of products. Plouffe et al. (2011) have emphasized the importance of a balance between environmental costs and the functional aspects of products. Ecodesign includes priorities relating to human sustainability in the business context, while its main objective is to reduce the environmental impact of the production of products. In other words, ecodesign combines economic and environmental factors within its conception of product design and production. From a company s perspective, the reasons to implement ecodesign, in addition to the environmental aspects, include cost reduction, competitive advantage, innovation enhancement, and new technological pioneering to improve corporate image, to improve product quality and to meet legal requirements (Vercalsteren, 2001; Santolaria et al., 2011). For a company to apply an ecodesign model and to subsequently introduce it into product development routines, the organization must evaluate the factors related to the company (internal matters), the environment (external matters) and the product (Vercalsteren, 2001). The internal factors include company motivation, innovation (including the ability of the company to change the specifications of the product), competitiveness (given that the leader of a company in a specific sector has a chance to redesign the product (however, a company that has only a small part of the market can consider ecodesign as an opportunity to improve its market share)) and the sector (if there are already equivalent initiatives in the sector, the company can learn from these experiences). The external factors include regulation, the customers and the market (evaluating whether the market will accept green products) and the suppliers (whose cooperation is essential). In terms of the product, it must have the potential for redesign based on the environmental considerations in question. Once the potential of a company to apply an ecodesign has been identified, it is necessary to understand the practical constructs associated with the ecodesign. Fiksel (1996), Wimmer et al. (2005) and Luttropp and Lagersted (2006) have suggested a number of practices for ecodesign in product manufacturing. A summary of the practices proposed by these authors is presented in Table Measurement system and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tingström and Karlsson (2006) highlight the multidisciplinary applicability of ecodesign, arguing that it is neither a linear nor a repetitive process because one must test or measure the effect of the product on the environment by using models. They also highlight the fact that environmental strategies must be measured by systems that account for the complexity of their objects. Melo and Pegado (2002) argue that measurements with few or exclusive factors are not effective at assessing a strategy; environmental management methods and ecodesign guidelines fall within this context. Madu et al. (2002) studied the application of the AHP to the integration of environmental goals in ecodesign. Kengpol and Boonkanit (2010) and Boonkanit et al. (2010) presented a model for integrating an ANP (analytic network process) and a distance-to-target method to calculate a single score for an ecodesign concept indicator that would make the new product more eco-efficient than the baseline product. 331

3 Borchardt et al. Table 1. Ecodesign practices Practices Detail (application items) Use raw-material as closely as possible to its natural state; avoid mixing non-compatible materials that may I. Materials choice make difficult the separation of materials and components when recycling; use materials that generate less and usage pollutants in the production process; eliminate toxic/dangerous substances and contaminants (use water-bases substances, vegetal ink, biodegradable products); use recycled materials; use renewable materials. Provide recovery of components (or use recovered components); provide easy access to components to recover II. Product components and recycle parts that cannot be used; identify materials and components with standard codes to components choice facilitate the separation of components and materials; determine the recyclability of a component or product. Develop projects aimed at simplicity (simpler forms); reduce the use of raw materials (lighter materials, thinner III. Product structures where applicable, reduce the physical size); design products with extended useful life; design characteristics multifunctional products (parallel and / or sequential functions); design products with the possibility of upgrade after a certain period of use. Use forms of energy based on renewable resources like solar, wind and hydroelectric energy, replacing those IV. Employment of that use non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels; employ devices for reducing energy consumption during energy use of the product; reduce the use of energy in production (energy efficient equipment, natural light, wind exhaust); reduce energy consumption during the storage of products. Plan the logistics of distribution by considering the physical aspects of the product (supported temperature, V. Product mechanical strength, shape, weight); favor suppliers / distributors that require less total distance to transport distribution raw materials, components and products; use a transportation model with a low energy consumption pattern. VI. Documentation Reduce the weight and complexity of packaging; use electronic documentation; provide packages that can be and packing reused by others or returned to the manufacturers; use products that can be refilled. Minimize the waste generated in the production process; minimize the waste generated during the use of the VII. Residuals product; reuse the waste generated; ensure acceptable limits of hazardous substances (emissions limits). Source: adapted from Wimmer et al. (2005); Luttropp and Lagerstedt (2006); Fiksel (1996). Related to performance measurement systems, Bititci (1995) points out that they should (i) avoid under-optimization, (ii) evaluate strategic goals for the various operational levels, (iii) provide a full description of the structure of the goals and conflicts and the strategy for assessing their trade-offs and (iv) consider aspects of organizational culture. The employment of multiple variables in an environmental performance measurement leads to the use of a multi-criteria decision process. As discussed by French (1986), it is rare to find a clear and uniformly structured model for a multi-criteria decision method. A discussion of decision theory with a focus on multi-criteria decisions can be found in French (1986). Performance evaluation demands a measurement and communication model. The most abstract construction is a theoretical term that has a wide definition that also incorporates structure into its constructs and concepts. Constructs are also abstract constructions that are deliberately created to meet a scientific purpose; a concept is not yet a phenomenon, but it can communicate its implications. Its dimensions are represented by numerical values, or indicators, that can be combined and summed quantitatively via indices that are created according to theoretical schemes with hierarchical structures that help represent intangibles (French, 1986). A performance structure that is related to ecodesign can be organized in a tree-like structure. The tree-like structure can be constructed using decision support methods such as the AHP. An AHP hierarchy is the simplest, and indeed a special, form of an ANP network (Al-Aomar, 2010). According to Forman and Selly (2001), the use of an AHP requires decision makers to take into account perceptions, experiences, intuitions and uncertainties in a rational manner by generating priority or weighting scales. It is a compensatory decision-making method, since alternatives to a goal can have strong effects on different goals. The AHP contains three different steps: i) the description of a complex situation via conceptual hierarchies created by the decision makers and formed by criteria and sub-criteria until the assessment of the problem has been sufficiently described, ii) a comparison of the influence of the criteria and sub-criteria on higher hierarchic levels and iii) the calculation of the results. The assessment of the problem must be structured in a hierarchical way; e.g., the problem can be organized as a tree-like structure. The tree-like structure under consideration in this research can be observed in Figure 1 (next item). The relative importance of each criterion is found using pairwise comparisons. For a level with n criteria requested and n(n-1)/2 comparisons among a i and a j, i,j, creates a matrix of preferences C i,j (n x n) (Saaty, 2005). The comparison is performed by answering the following questions: (a) in terms of influencing the next highest level, is criteria a i more important than, less important than or of equal importance to criteria a j, i,j?; (b) for a i,j with values that are not equivalent, and given that a i is more important than a j, is a i (i) a little more important than a j, (ii) a great deal more important than a j, (iii) extremely more important than a j or (iv) absolutely more important than a j? The matrix of preferences is then filled according to the follow conditions: if a i related to a j is equal, then c ij is 1; if a i related to a j is a little more important, then c ij is 3; if a i related to a j is a great deal more important, then c ij is 5; if a i related 332

4 Ecodesign for Furniture Company to a j is extremely more important, then c ij is 7; if a i related to a j is absolutely more important, then c ij is 9; if a i in relation to a j is a little less important, then c ij is 1/3; if a i in relation to a j is a great deal less important, then c ij is 1/5; if a i in relation to a j is extremely less important, then c ij is 1/7 and if a i in relation to a j is absolutely less important then c ij is 1/9. Intermediate values are given to the intermediary situations in which it is necessary to distinguish between two very similar alternatives according to the criterion used in for the judgment. After the fulfillment of this matrix of preferences, it is necessary to determine the relative importance of each criterion by calculating the eingenvectors with the largest eingenvalues. While the components of the eigenvector set priority levels for each element, the largest eigenvalue (λmax) is used to measure the consistency of the judgment, according to Equation 1. These steps must be repeated for all levels of the hierarchy of decision. CR = λ!"# n... (1) IR n 1 where CR = consistency ratio; λ max is the largest eigenvalue; n is the number of criteria in the matrix; IR is extracted from a table obtained by a simulation with an n-dimensional matrix (the table appears in Saaty, 2005). The consistency ratio is verified to CR < 0.10 according to Saaty (2005). Despite its widespread application, criticism related to AHP has not been uncommon in the literature. Dyer (1990a, 1990b) pointed out changes that can occur when sorting of the alternatives is added. Saaty (1990) presented a replica. Saaty (2006) returned to the subject, observing that the evaluation of alternatives against criteria may be relative or absolute. In relative valuation, we compare each alternative with all the others; in absolute rating, we compare each with an ideal alternative. The author points out that, in relative comparison, the alternatives structurally dependent on the values obtained for an alternative vary with the number and quality of the other alternatives, incorporating the AHP phenomena that can occur for entrance and exit criteria. Suwignjo et al. (2000) described experiments that compared AHP with five other approaches, including the utility and multiple regression approaches. The results showed that AHP is the least difficult and the most trustworthy method available in these contexts. We adopt the following terminology in this paper for consistency: ecodesign is the top term, ecodesign practices are the constructs, and the elements that make up the ecodesign are the application items (also known as concepts). 3. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE The main purpose of this paper is to propose a method to assess the degree of implementation of ecodesign in manufacturing companies. The method was twice applied to three companies in the furniture industry, named in this paper Company A, Company B and Company C. The three companies were chosen after considering the results of a previous survey that analyzed the presence of ecodesign practices in the furniture industry in the southern region of Brazil; these companies belonged to the cluster with a higher degree of application of ecodesign practices (Borchardt et al, 2010). The companies studied for this research are located in a city with an economy strongly supported by the furniture manufacturing industry; this industry contributes 56% of the city s GDP, producing 10% of the furniture in the country (Sindmóveis, 2009). The furniture industry was selected on the basis of previous work by Handfield et al. (1997), who studied the use of green practices in the furniture industry in the USA. The experience of the group of researchers and managers who have participated in this field of research was considered, and the potential and conditions for the application of ecodesign as proposed by Vercalsteren (2001) were identified for the selected companies. The development stages for this study were (i) the construction of a tree-like structure capable of representing the ecodesign and its constructs, (ii) an analysis of the tree-like structure using an AHP in which the relative importance of each ecodesign construct could be identified, (iii) the unfolding of constructs into items within the ecodesign so that the concepts and elaboration of an evaluation instrument can allow for the identification of the degree of accomplishment for each item, (iv) a comparison of the gap obtained for each application item of a specific construct with the degree of importance attributed to each construct, (v) testing of the proposed method on three companies in the furniture industry and (vi) a reapplication of the method again after one year to the same three companies, with a comparison of the results. The tree-like structure of the ecodesign and its constructs is presented in Figure 1; this structure was built in focus group meetings. Four researchers from areas related to the ecodesign theme and two managers (one from a furniture manufacturing company (company A) and the other from a shoe-making company, both with environmental management experience) participated in the sessions. The requirements proposed by Fiksel (1996), Luttropp and Lagersted (2006) and Wimmer et al. (2005) and the experience of the group members were used as the basis for the development of this phase of the research. The procedure for the focus group followed the procedure proposed by Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2005). 333

5 Borchardt et al. The next step consisted of analyzing the tree-like structure using the AHP. The weighting of this analysis was accomplished by using all of the criteria proposed by Saaty (2005), and the final result represents the degree of importance for each construct. The authors of this paper mediated the sections. Next, the constructs were deployed into the ecodesign s application items (concepts), including the elaboration of an evaluation instrument that allowed the identification of the degree of application of each item. This instrument had 32 evaluation questions that considered the application items presented on Table 1, and it was tested and adjusted by the researchers and managers that participated in the first stage so that each question referred to an application item. For the answers, a Likert scale (from 1 to 5) was used, where 1 represented a case in which the item was not present or was never achieved, and 5 represented the case where the item was completely satisfied; the choice NA (not applicable) indicated that the item was not applicable to the construct; in this case, the item was not considered by the company during the calculation of the degree of application of the construct. The degree of application of each item evaluated was determined in a focus group meeting by the participants of the company. ECODESIGN Top term Materials Components of the product Characteristics of the product Use of energy Product distribution Packaging and documentation Wastes Constructs Figure 1. A tree-like ecodesign structure The next phase was based on the application of the evaluation instrument to all three companies. On the basis of the values given by the participants for each item, it was possible to determine how each construct was applied and which gap prevented the best possible performance for each construct. The degree of application for each construct was determined by finding the average of the values attributed to each question related to the construct being evaluated and then converting this to a percentage. The average degree in percentage for each construct was then converted into a percentage points measure; as an example, we can say that, if a construct has 20% importance and the degree of its application is 50%, the degree of application in percentage points is 10 pp. From the sum of the percentage points of all the constructs, we obtained an ecodesign index between 0 and 100 pp for each company. The companies provided an evaluation instrument by consent of the group of managers participating from each company. Finally, the gap between the degree of importance and the degree of application for each construct was determined by subtracting both values. The global company gap was determined by considering the sum of the degree of application for each construct and its distance from 100%; this measure indicates how far the company is from maximum performance in terms of ecodesign constructs. The first application of the developed method was implemented during the second semester of In the first semester of 2010, the method was reapplied to the same three companies. The tree-like structure that incorporated the AHP was weighted with the same criteria and approved by the same focus group that participated the first time. The group compared the weights attributed to each ecodesign construct (2008 vs. 2010); if a significant difference was observed, we analyzed whether the company strategy related to environmental concerns was changing or whether the group changed had changed its standard of judgment; in case of the latter, the standards were reviewed to maintain uniformity. The instrument s evaluation questions were answered again, and an analysis of how each construct was applied was performed. Afterward, it was possible to evaluate the consistency of this method and to verify whether individual strategies that could affect the application of the ecodesign practices had been modified and to what degree this influenced the results. 4. INDUSTRY APPLICATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Company A is a manufacturer of modular mounting furniture. The main raw materials are medium-density fiberboard (MDF), medium-density particleboard (MDP), thermoplastic, water-based adhesives, ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) resins, glass, aluminum and steel. The production process can be classified as mass production, but it has been customized. The company has 498 employees. The application of the AHP to this company took place over meetings with five managers; these managers were chosen from among the company s product development sector, production management and 334

6 Ecodesign for Furniture Company environmental management. The same management group responded to the evaluation instrument regarding each ecodesign request. Company B produces furniture, room divider partitions and doors upon request. The main raw materials it uses include glass, aluminum, MDF and steel. The company has 155 employees. For company B, the participants in the AHP included a product engineering manager, a designer and the production and logistics manager. The members of this group also answered the questions of the evaluation instrument. In the second application, the participants were the same as those in the first round. Company C produces chairs, sofas, shelves and tables that are predominantly made of methacrylate. The company has 33 employees. For company C, the application of the AHP and the evaluation of the questions of the evaluation instrument were accomplished by the owner of the company and the operations director. Both participated in the second round. Table 2 presents the values obtained for the preference matrices of each company. Table 2. Preference matrices of companies A, B and C 2 nd Semester of st Semester of 2010 Construct Materials Components of the product Characteristics of the product Use of energy Product distribution Packaging and documentation Wastes Materials Components of the product Characteristics of the product Use of energy Product distribution Packaging and documentation Wastes Company A Company B Company C Materials 1 5 1/ / / Components of the product 1 1/5 5 1/3 1/3 1 1/2 1 1/ /3 1/3 Characteristics of the product Use of energy 1 1/3 1/ /7 1/5 Product distribution 1 1/ /7 1/7 Packaging and documentation Wastes 1 1 Materials 1 5 1/3 7 1/3 1/ / Components of the product 1 1/5 3 1/5 1/3 1/3 1 1/5 1/ Characteristics of the product Use of energy 1 1/7 1/7 1/ /3 1/3 Product distribution /5 1/5 Packaging and documentation Wastes 1 1 Materials 1 5 1/ / Components of the product 1 1/ / / /5 1/5 Characteristics of the product Use of energy 1 1/4 1/7 1/ /7 1/5 Product distribution 1 1/ /7 1/5 Packaging and documentation Wastes 1 1 Table 3 shows the degree of importance of each construct (in %) based on the application of the AHP for each company and the degree of application of each construct (in percentage points); the table also gives the CR rations and the ecodesign index (the sum of the degrees of application of all constructs); the CR rations for each AHP application were less than Table 4 presents the rank of each construct based on its importance and presents the gaps between the degree of importance and the degree of application; the total of the gaps is presented as well by calculating the sum of the gaps of each construct. 335

7 Borchardt et al. Table 3. Weight of each construct and its degree of application Company A Company B Company C Construct Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Importance of construct (%) Degree of application Materials Components of the product Characteristics of the product Use of energy Product distribution Packaging and documentation Wastes Total CR Table 4. Rank of each construct and gaps between importance and application Company A Company B Company C Construct Ranking GAP Ranking GAP Ranking GAP Ranking GAP Ranking GAP Ranking GAP Materials 3 o o o o o o 6.67 Components of the product 5 o o o o o o 1.10 Characteristics of the product 1 o o o o o o Use of energy 7 o o o o o o 1.10 Product distribution 4 o o o o o o 1.10 Packaging and documentation 2 o o 0 3 o o o o 7.60 Wastes 6 o o o o o o 0.00 Total The data obtained in 2008 indicate that, for companies A, B and C, the construct for characteristics of the product had the highest relative importance. All companies commented that this construct was the most significant for ecodesign. It is necessary, however, to follow market tendencies; in some cases, considering environmental concerns does not represent the best business solution. The construct use of energy represented the lowest relative importance. In company A in 2008, the second most important construct was packaging and documentation. For this company, the amount of packaging used was meaningful; the kind of packaging material, carton or plastic, had an influence on the evaluation of this construct. However, this construct showed pp of application against 22.10% of importance; this level of application represents 64.30% of the maximum possible for the construct. The representatives of the company answered that they did not use packages made of recycled materials; the packages were discarded after the delivery of the furniture and were not returned to the company to be reused. The third most important construct for company A in 2008 was materials. The selection and choice of the materials were reported as meaningful for a well-performing ecodesign. However, because of already established production processes and the desire to follow the world market s trends in terms of furniture design, there was no room for meaningful changes in the materials used. As a consequence, the degree of accomplishment of this construct was approximately 50.00% of its ideal level of accomplishment (8.49 pp of application against 17.00% of importance). The fourth construct, product distribution, was accomplished by approximately 50.00% in Company A believed that there were no alternative options when choosing a mode of transportation, but that there could have been an improvement in the logistical distribution of the goods. The constructs components of the product, use of energy and wastes were considered to be constructs with low impact for company A in These constructs were also partially accomplished. We observed in 2010 that characteristics of the products continued to be the most important construct for all three companies. In contrast, for company A the second highest priority changed to materials, with a performance of 56.70% (the importance of the construct was 28.50% and the application was pp). The company and its suppliers had 336

8 Ecodesign for Furniture Company developed new materials that generated less waste and process remains; in addition, they had started using materials produced from recycled items. The third construct in terms of importance in 2010 was packaging and documentation. This was accomplished at a rate of %. The company substituted for its previous packaging materials, using a thinner, recycled material. The furniture assemblers were instructed to return the packaging material to the stores and these one must provide appropriate destination according to the company procedures. The construct wastes was more important in 2010 than in The degree of application of this construct was improved. All wastes and residues had been treated properly, and waste had been treated and reintroduced into the supply chain as a raw material for other companies. Company A received the ISO certification which, according to its managers, helped the company to alter its practices in ways that improved the results related to this construct. The use of energy showed a small gap between importance and application. The company installed energy device controls in the production line; moreover, natural lighting and ventilation were introduced. For company B in 2008, the second most relevant construct for ecodesign was product distribution. The company believed that the mode of transportation, the routes and the distribution system had a significant impact on the environment. This construct was accomplished at approximately 63.00%, presenting a gap of 9.53 pp. The construct packaging and documentation was ranked third for company B. Similar to company A, most of the packages were not made out of recycled materials (plastic and wood). The packages did not have a defined cycle for reuse and/or recycling. The degree of application for this construct was approximately 60.00% in relation to its importance. The materials construct was ranked next highest for company B in The company s production processes operated with specific materials, and the company had little flexibility in changing these materials. The less significant constructs included wastes, components of the product and use of energy. In 2010, some significant priority changes were seen. This time, the most important construct continued to be the characteristics of the product, but the relative importance increased from 25.60% to 45.60%. In 2010 this construct had a degree of application of approximately 60% of its degree of importance. The company considered the design of its products to be the most effective way to achieve better production times and costs, create less waste, and achieve more innovation. Materials was the second-highest ranked construct. The size of the plates had been optimized to eliminate leftover materials; moreover, new materials and production processes had been developed. The next construct in terms of importance was wastes, with a small gap. The company completely eliminated the use of toxic products; all wastes were treated and reused by other companies. The packaging and documentation, components of the products, use of energy and product distribution constructs showed significant modifications in their relative importance in In general, company B had changed its marketing and products strategies; the company intended to increase the aggregate value of the production process by differentiation, including the incorporation of sustainability practices. All toxic products were eliminated, a rainwater collection system and water reuse system were introduced and all suppliers were selected according to their social, legal, environmental and economic considerations. For company C, in 2008, the materials construct was the second most important. This company makes furniture upon request; thus, it has a non-dedicated production process and is therefore more flexible. This process allows for the employment of different materials that are not conventionally used in the furniture industry. Thus, unlike companies A and B, company C has autonomy in the selection and choice of materials used. This construct had a degree of application of approximately 83% of its degree of importance. The construct packaging and documentation was the third most important for company C. The constructs that were assigned less importance included components of the product, use of energy and wastes. In 2010, the construct wastes had a 100% degree of application. The company had focused on the issue of waste between the periods of analysis, and it had implemented practices in which all residues were treated and reused by other companies. The total gap increased in 2010; this was related to the increase in the degree of the importance of the construct materials and to a decrease in the capacity to apply each ecodesign item associated with this construct. The company has adopted new materials that present it with increased technological difficulty in the minimization of its waste residues. The proposed method for the evaluation of the degree of application of ecodesign, twice applied, reflected the companies strategies related to ecodesign practices. According to the companies managers, the priority that they attributed to each construct and the respective application were aligned with the companies planning; the first round provided guidelines for resource allocation. If the strategy associated with the ecodesign practices was to change, the method would indicate this through a change in the degree of application. 337

9 Borchardt et al. 5. CONCLUSION The main purpose of this paper was to propose a method to assess the degree of implementation of ecodesign in manufacturing companies. The flexibility of this structure is ensured by the methodological procedure adopted, which can be applied universally (no matter how the theory or the environment changes). The method proposed here was used to evaluate the level of the application of ecodesign in three furniture companies, and it was applied twice to each company. Tingström and Karlsson (2006) suggested that the effects of products on the environment should be tested or measured using models. Despite this need for modeling, in discussions of ecodesign constructs, researchers (Wimmer et al., 2005; Fiksel, 1996; Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006) have failed to determine methods or tools with simple procedures, meaning that such methods cannot be used by professionals who are not experts in ecodesign. The method we have proposed allows managers to identify, through their own judgment, which constructs have a higher priority and to what degree they are being accomplished. As the ability of a company to apply resources in the development of ecodesign projects improves, better and more elaborate models and analyses of the lifecycle of the product can be used. The method presented here is not strict; rather, it is flexible and makes it possible for any company to identify the degree of the importance of each ecodesign construct. In addition to this, it was possible through this method to observe the emergence of changes in these companies strategies regarding environmental concerns. This paper contributes to the development of indicators associated with ecodesign known as ecodesign index, complementing previous studies by Svensson et al. (2006) and Daub (2007). This method can be criticized for relying on the subjective answers of the focus group. To avoid letting the group favor certain constructs, the group could be reconceived as a gathering of ad hoc experts that have no interest in the operation of a company. Another point of criticism for the AHP method is that it contains a certain level of inconsistency. However, according to the managers of the three companies, the proposed method helped them to make decisions and identify factors that lowered their companies global ecodesign score; from this, in future applications, it is possible that the CR index could be reduced by making use of the knowledge and experience acquired from the initial application of the AHP method. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was entirely developed with funds from the CNPQ / Brazil (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), the Brazilian agency for scientific research, and presents the partial results of the project Guidelines for management of product design, manufacturing operations and service oriented to ecodesign. 7. REFERENCES 1. Al-Aomar, R. (2010). A combined AHP-entropy method for deriving subjective and objective criteria weights. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: theory, applications and practice. 17 (1): Byggeth, S.; Broman, G. and Ròbert, K. (2007). A Method for Sustainable Product Development based on a Modular System of Guiding Questions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15 (1): Bititci, U. (1995). Modelling of performance measurement systems in manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics. 42: Boks, C. (2006). The soft side of ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15 16): Boonkanit, P.; Kengpol, A. and Aphikajornsin, A. (2010). An energetic ecodesign at conceptual design phase. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: theory, applications and practice. 17 (3): Borchardt, M; Poltosi, L.; Sellitto, M. and Pereira, G. (2009). Adopting Ecodesign Practices: Case Study of a Mid- Sized Automotive Supplier. Environmental Quality Management. 19 (1): Borchardt, M; Sellitto, M.; Pereira, G. and Gomes, L. (2010). Devising ecodesign guidelines in the furniture industry based on cluster analysis. In: ERSCP & EMSU Conference (The European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production & Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities, 2010, Delft. Proceedings of ERSCP & EMSU. Delft University. 8. Daub, C. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: an alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production. 15: De Mendonça, M. and Baxter, T. (2004). Design for the Environment (DfE): an approach to achieve the ISO international standartization. Environmental Management and Health. 12 (1): Dyer, J. Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, v.36, n.3, p , 1990a. 11. Dyer, J. A clarification of Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, v.36, n.3, p , 1990b. 12. Handfield, R.; Walton, S.; Seegens, L. and Melnyk, S. (1997). Green value chain practices in the furniture industry. Journal of Operations Management. 15: Hesse-Biber, S. and Leavy, P. (2005). The practice of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, United States. 338

10 Ecodesign for Furniture Company 14. Fiksel, J. (1996). Design for Environment. Mc Graw Hill, New York, United States. 15. Forman, E. and Selly, M. (2001). Decisions by objectives: Expert Choice. Inc. Available in Access in may, French, S. (1986). Decision Theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ed. Ellis Horwood, West Sussex, United Kingdown. 17. Goldstein, D.; Hilliard, R. and Parker, V. (2011). Environmental performance and practice across sectors: methodology and preliminary results. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19: Kengpol, A. and Boonkanit, P. (2011). The decision support framework for developing Ecodesign at conceptual phase based upon ISO/TR International Journal of Production Economics. 131 (1): Lee, S. and Klassen, R. (2008). Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in Small and Medium Sized suppliers in supply chains. Production and Operations Management. 17 (6): Luttropp, C. and Lagerstedt, J. (2006). Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15 16): Madu, C.; Kuei, C. and Madu, I. (2002). A hierarchic metric approach for integration of green issues in manufacturing: a paper recycling application. Journal of Environmental Management. 64: Manzini, E. and Vezzoli, C. (2005). O desenvolvimento de produtos sustentáveis: os requisitos ambientais dos produtos industriais. [The Sustainable Product Development] Ed. USP, São Paulo, Brasil. 23. Melo, J. and Pegado, C. (2002). Ecoblock: A method for integrated environmental performance evaluation of companies and products (construction case-study). Proceedings of the 5 th. International Conference on EcoBalance, The Society of Non-traditional Technology, Tsukuba, Japan. 24. Plouffe, S.; Lanoie, P.; Berneman, C. and Vernier, M. (2011). Economics benefits tied to ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19: Saaty, T. (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 36 (3): Saaty, T. (2005). Theory and applications of the Analytic Network Process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, USA. 27. Saaty, T. (2006). Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168: Santolaria, M.; Oliver-Solà, J.; Gasol, C.; Morales-Pinzón, T. and Rieradevall, J. (2011). Eco-design in innovation driven companies: perception, predictions and the maindrivers of integration: the Spanish example. Journal of Cleaner Production. 19: Santos-Reyes, D. and Lawtor-Wright, T. (2001). A design for the environmental methodology to support an environmental management system. Integrating Manufacturing System. 12 (5): Sindmóveis. (2009). Sindicato da Indústria do Mobiliário. [Furniture Industry Union]. Avaiable in Access in mar, Suwignjo, P; Bititci, U. and Carrie, A. (2000). Quantitative models for performance measurements system. International Journal of Production Economics. 64: Svensson, N.; Roth, L.; Eklund, M. and Märtensson, A. (2006). Environmental relevance and use of energy indicators in environmental management and research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15-16): Tingström, J. and Karlsson, R. (2006). The relationship between environmental analyses and the dialogue process in product development. Journal of Cleaner Production. 14 (15 16): Vercalsteren, A. (2001). Integrating the ecodesign concept in small and medium-size enterprises: Experiences in the Flemish Region of Belgium. Environmental Management and Health. 12: Wimmer, W.; Lee, K.; Jeong, T. and Hong, J. (2005). Ecodesign in twelve steps: providing systematic guidance for considering environmental aspects and stakeholder requirements in product design and development. International Conference on Engineering Design ICED. Melbourne. 339

11 Borchardt et al. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH MIRIAM BORCHARDT, PhD, earned her doctorate in industrial engineering. She is currently a professor and researcher in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at the UNISINOS University)in São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Her experience as a researcher and practitioner has focused on quality management, service and manufacturing operations management, and sustainability. She can be reached by at miriamb@unisinos.br. MIGUEL A. SELLITTO, PhD, earned his doctorate in industrial engineering. His research activities include investigations of the planning and managing of competitiveness in industrial activities, particularly operations and production management. Dr. Sellitto is currently a professor and researcher in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department of UNISINOS University and provides consultancy services to Brazilian companies regarding problems that relate to his research initiatives. He can be reached by at sellitto@unisinos.br. GIANCARLO M. PEREIRA, PhD, is an industrial marketing consultant. His experience as a practitioner includes projects in the footwear, apparel, and automotive industries. Dr. Pereira currently holds the position of researcher at UNISINOS University and has been researching service operations, industrial marketing, and value co-creation. He can be reached by at gian@unisinos.br. LUCIANA PAULO GOMES, PhD, earned her doctorate in Civil Enginnering. She is currently a professor and researcher in the Civil Engineering Department at UNISINOS University in São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Her experience as a researcher and practitioner has focused on urban solid wastes and environmental management.. She can be reached by at lugomes@unisinos.br. 340