Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies

Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies Daniela C.A. Pigosso a, b, *, Henrique Rozenfeld a,1, Tim C. McAloone b, 2 a b

University of São Paulo, Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense 400, São Carlos 13566-590, SP, Brazil Technical University of Denmark, Building 426, Produktionstorvet, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 10 December 2012 Received in revised form 26 March 2013 Accepted 17 June 2013 Available online xxx

Over the last few decades, ecodesign has emerged as a promising approach to integrate environmental concerns into the product development and related processes. Ecodesign aims to minimize environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle, without compromising other essential criteria such as performance and cost. Despite the potential benefits of ecodesign and the existence of several tools and techniques for product design, the actual application of ecodesign has not reached companies worldwide, mainly due to difficulties in ecodesign implementation and management. This paper introduces the ecodesign maturity model, a framework aimed at supporting the ecodesign implementation process. Based on a diagnosis of the current maturity profile of a company’s product development and related processes regarding ecodesign implementation, the model proposes the most suitable ecodesign practices and improvement projects to be applied, by adopting a continuous improvement approach for process improvement. The model is thus intended to support ecodesign managers in their deployment of strategic and tactical roadmaps for ecodesign implementation. The paper discusses the main concept of the model and the results of its application into a large manufacturing company. In addition to the academic benefits related to the systematization of the ecodesign knowledge, the application of the model is shown to provide companies with: a benchmarking of ecodesign practices; an assessment of strengths and weaknesses; and a common language and a shared vision for ecodesign implementation. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecodesign management Ecodesign implementation Ecodesign practices Maturity model Change management

1. Introduction Environmental impacts3 occur throughout the entire material life cycle of products, from extraction to final disposal (Commission of the European Communities, 2001, 2003). Most of these impacts are defined during the initial stages of the product development processes (PDP) (Devanathan et al., 2010; Kengpol and Boonkanit, 2011). Ecodesign is defined as a proactive environmental management approach that integrates environmental issues into the product

* Corresponding author. Technical University of Denmark, Building 426, Produktionstorvet, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. Tel.: þ45 4525 6278. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (D.C.A. Pigosso), [email protected] (H. Rozenfeld), [email protected] (T.C. McAloone). 1 Tel.: þ55 16 3373 9433. 2 Tel.: þ45 4525 6270. 3 ISO 14001: 1996 (Marimon et al., 2011) defines environmental impact as “any change to the environment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from an organization’s activities, products or services”.

development and related processes.4 It aims to minimize environmental impacts throughout the product’s life cycle, without compromising other essential criteria such as performance, functionality, quality and cost (Van Weenen, 1995; Johansson, 2002). Ecodesign application is essential to companies that have recognized that environment-related product responsibility is vital for sustainable long term success, since it promotes product innovation, improved product quality, legal compliance, image improvement, cost and risk reduction, new business opportunities, development of new markets, etc. (ISO, 2002; Hauschild et al., 2005; Wimmer et al., 2010). According to ISO 14.006 (2011), organizations can benefit from ecodesign irrespective of their size, geographic location, corporate culture and sophistication of management systems. Ecodesign application can enable companies to convert challenges into opportunities (Wimmer et al., 2010).

4 Manufacturing, marketing, procurement, maintenance, quality, etc. are some examples of related processes. These processes are carried out together with the PDP and are essential to ecodesign implementation into companies.

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

2

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

However, the application of ecodesign has not been systematically applied by companies worldwide over the last decades (Pascual et al., 2003; Boks, 2006; Johansson, 2006). The core gaps regarding ecodesign implementation and management are: I. Lack of systematization of existing ecodesign practices and an intense development of new tools for technical product design in detriment to managerial models (Brezet and Rocha, 2001; Baumann et al., 2002; Dewulf and Duflou, 2004); II. Lack of integration between ecodesign and the broad context of product development, management and corporate strategy (Bhamra et al., 1999; Poole et al., 1999; Brezet and Rocha, 2001; Charter, 2001; Baumann et al., 2002; ISO, 2002; Bakshi and Fiksel, 2003; Pascual and Stevels, 2004; Dewulf and Duflou, 2005; Johansson, 2006; Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006; Le Pochat et al., 2007); III. Lack of a roadmap to support companies on continuous improvement of ecodesign implementation, which can continually drive actions toward higher implementation levels (Brezet and Rocha, 2001; Boks and Stevels, 2007); IV. Difficulties faced by companies in defining and prioritizing the ecodesign practices to be employed (Boks and Stevels, 2007) and in moving from pilot projects to anchoring ecodesign into business (Charter, 2001). In summary, it is still not clear to companies how to manage the process of integrating ecodesign into the business processes, based on a continuous improvement framework (Charter, 2001). Organizations need guidance on how to apply their efforts systematically to achieve environmental goals and on maintaining continual improvements in the environmental performance of their products and processes (ISO, 2002), i.e. on how to perform ecodesign management. Existing approaches for ecodesign implementation following a managerial perspective can be identified in the literature. Someren (1995) presents a staged model for the integration of ecological aspects into business strategy. Shelton (1995) defines five stages for ecodesign implementation considering different organizational characteristics and requirements. McAloone (1998) proposes a three stage model to represent the complex organizational changes that companies go through when implementing ecodesign. Charter (2001) proposes a seven-stage model for the organizational implementation of ecodesign from a managerial perspective. Pascual et al. (2003) identify two levels of implementation (or maturity) in the PDP in respect to managerial aspects. Alakeson and Sherwin (2004) define four stages for integrating sustainable development into innovation. Willard (2005) defines five stages of sustainability integration into an organization. De Caluwe (2004) develops a maturity grid to measure the performance on the implementation of an ecodesign procedure into the product creation process. Boks and Stevels (2007) present three maturity levels of environmental awareness. Murillo-Luna et al. (2011) define four proactivity levels of strategic environmental behaviors and provide a list of environmental practices associated with each level. These identified proposals have one characteristic in common, namely that they define a set of steps (or maturity levels) that companies should follow, in order to successfully implement and manage ecodesign. However, those proposals do not provide support to companies in the identification of the current profile in ecodesign application, on the identification and implementation of ecodesign best practices and on the deployment of implementation roadmaps in a continuous improvement context. The main objective of this research is to develop a maturity model based on a comprehensive systematization of ecodesign practices that can support companies in the continuous process of ecodesign implementation by providing a management framework

that enables the assessment of their current ecodesign maturity profile, the understanding of improvement opportunities, the selection and prioritization of ecodesign practices and the deployment of roadmaps for implementation, considering the companies’ strategic objectives and drivers. A maturity model is a conceptual framework made up of parts that describe the development of a particular area of interest over time (Klimko, 2001). It describes a process in which an organization can develop or achieve something desirable, such as a set of capabilities or practices, resulting in a more mature organization (PMI, 2003). The main value of a maturity assessment is to capture a company’s own perception of the current situation (Maier et al., 2010) in order to support change. Maturity models can be used for three main purposes (Iversen et al., 1999; Jeston and Nelis, 2006; Pöppelbuß and Röglinger, 2011):  Assessment of strengths and weaknesses (“as-is” assessments) e descriptive tool;  Development of a roadmap for improvement (“to-be” maturity) e prescriptive tool;  Evaluation of the company, compared to standards and best practices of other organizations e comparative tool. Maturity models usually present a simplified development path described by a limited number of maturity levels (usually 4e6), which are ordered sequentially and characterized by certain requirements to be met (Klimko, 2001). Typically, higher levels of maturity build on top of the requirements for lower levels (Maier et al., 2010). The application areas of maturity models are widespread and range from cognitive science to business applications and engineering (Kohlegger et al., 2009; Pöppelbuß and Röglinger, 2011). Examples of well consolidated maturity models developed for business applications include the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) (Chrissis et al., 2003) and the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) (PMI, 2003). This paper describes the research methodology employed to develop the maturity model (Section 2), the proposed model and its elements (Section 3) and the results of the maturity model’s application into a large manufacturing company (Section 4). Finally, Section 5 discusses the contribution and limitations of the model, pointing out topics for future research.

2. Methodology The research described in this paper employed the hypotheticaldeductive approach, which involves the development of a conceptual and theoretical structure, prior to empirical testing (Gill and Johnson, 2002). The hypothesis advocated was that ecodesign management and implementation can be supported by a so-called ecodesign maturity model, based upon theory5 developed and tested through research. The maturity model was developed following an iterative approach, comprising three main research phases: (1) theoretical development, (2) empirical development and (3) theory testing (Fig. 1). In the first step of the theoretical development (phase 1), systematic literature review was adopted as the research method. This method provided a procedure to map existing and previous

5 According to Dul and Tak (2008), a theory is a defined set of propositions about an object of study. Each proposition in a theory consists of concepts and specifications of relationships between concepts. Such relationships are assumed to be true for the object of study defined in the theory and can therefore be seen as predictions of what will happen in instances of the object of study under certain circumstances.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

3

Fig. 1. Scheme of the research phases, research methods and deliverables.

knowledge, allowing the evaluation of the information, its synthesis and summarization (Biolchini et al., 2005; Brereton et al., 2007). The review comprised the theoretical analysis of 2321 scientific studies and provided the basis for the identification and classification of ecodesign practices, the definition of a set of ecodesign maturity levels, and the development of an approach for PDP improvement, resulting in the first version of the model. The first version was then evaluated by a group of 14 ecodesign experts (primarily from academia, but also from industry)6 through individual face-to-face interviews. The objective was to gather impressions and suggestions for improvements, with emphasis on increasing the consistency of the model. Improvement opportunities elicited from these interviews were classified and analyzed, in order to identify similarities and/or contradictions. A final set of selected improvements were combined to develop the second version of the model. In order to incorporate an empirical perspective to the research, leading to a further improved second version of the model, an action research study was carried out inside a large capital goods manufacturer (phase 2: empirical development). Action research is characterized by its problem solving focus and is employed to understand, plan and implement organizational changes (Coughlan and Coghlan, 2009). The action research study resulted in the third and final version of the ecodesign maturity model (Section 3). Finally, in order to test the hypothesis that the model could support companies in ecodesign implementation and management, two case studies for theory testing (Dul and Hak, 2008) were carried out (phase 3: theory testing) into two large manufacturing companies in Brazil and Denmark.7 The case company presented in this paper (Section 4) was selected in order to describe an extreme condition for the application of the model e the selected company is the one that presented the lowest maturity profile and, therefore, theoretically needed higher support for ecodesign implementation and management. 3. Ecodesign maturity model The ecodesign maturity model is a management framework with a step-by-step approach, aiming to support companies8 in carrying out ecodesign implementation. It is composed of three main elements (Fig. 2):

6 The experts were selected based on a recurrence analysis of the authors with high publications and citations counts, as identified in the systematic literature review. 7 The detailed results of the reviews and iterations of the maturity model are detailed in Pigosso (2012). 8 The model focuses on manufacturing companies which presents structured product development processes, irrespective of their size and types of products developed.

Fig. 2. eThe three main elements of the ecodesign maturity model.

 Ecodesign practices: comprehensive collection of practices related to ecodesign management, technical issues of product design and associated techniques and tools (Section 3.1);  Ecodesign maturity levels: prescriptive set of successive stages for the incorporation of environmental issues into the product development and related processes (Section 3.2);  Application method: a prescriptive continuous improvement approach to support companies with ecodesign implementation and management (Section 3.3). The model focuses on process improvement (product development and related processes) from a managerial perspective, rather than on product improvement (improved environmental performance of a product/family of products) from a technical perspective. In other words, it focuses on the systematic and sustained integration of environmental considerations into the processes of a product development organization, with a view to deployment in all subsequent projects of the organization. It is assumed that if ecodesign practices are properly taken into consideration during the product development and related processes, the natural consequence will be that developed products will achieve a better environmental performance9. 3.1. Ecodesign practices For the purpose of this research, ecodesign practice10 has been defined as ecodesign activities aimed at integrating environmental

9 The environmental performance of a product is determined by the sum of all environmental impacts throughout its material life cycle (Nielsen and Wenzel, 2002). 10 According to PMBOK (PMI, 2008), practice is defined as “a specific type of professional or management activity that contributes to the execution of a process and that employs one or more techniques and tools”.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

4

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Table 1 Coding scheme for the classification of ecodesign management practices according to the PDP phases and support processes. Code

PDP phases and support processes (SP)

100xx 200xx 300xx 400xx 500xx 600xx 700xx 800xx 900xx 1000xx 1100xx

SP: Business process management for ecodesign SP: Environmental impact assessment of products Generic activities Strategic product planning Project planning Information design Concept design Detailed design Production preparation Product launch Product monitoring

issues in product development and related processes, whose application can be supported by techniques and tools. The ecodesign practices, obtained by means of a comprehensive systematic literature review, have been classified into two main groups, according to their application-related characteristics:  Management practices (Section 3.1.1): practices involved in the management of the product development and related processes;  Operational practices (Section 3.1.2): practices related to technical product design specifications. The application of management and operational practices can be supported by ecodesign tools and techniques11 (Section 3.1.3). 3.1.1. Ecodesign management practices Ecodesign management practices are related to activities of the product development and related processes that address environmental concerns from a managerial perspective. They are generic and can be applied by any company, regardless of the type of products developed. Phase 1 of the research identified a set of 62 ecodesign management practices (Pigosso, 2012), classified according to a coding scheme, designed to enable easy updating and identification of the PDP phase and support processes in which the practices should be applied (Table 1). Ecodesign management practices were also classified according to the ecodesign evolution level (Section 3.3), which is basically a definition of their application order. Several examples are given below to illustrate management practices (each practice bears a unique number code):  “10011: Ensure commitment, support and resources to perform ecodesign-related activities”;  “10015: Incorporate ecodesign tasks into the daily routine of the relevant employees”;  “10019: Formulate and monitor mandatory rules concerning environmental issues for the company to comply with legal regulations”;  “10023: Implement life cycle thinking in the company”;

11

The term “technique” is adopted in order to follow the PMBOK nomenclature, but in this research it is considered synonymous to “method.” Technique is defined as “a given systematic procedure employed by a human resource to perform an activity to manufacture a product or produce result or deliver a service, which may involve the use of one or more tools”, while tool is defined as “something tangible, such as a template of software program used in the performance of an activity to manufacture a product or produce a result.” (PMI, 2008).

 “30002: Clearly define the environmental indicators and methodology to be used during the gates12”.  “40013: Define clear goals to improve the environmental performance of products (according to law, benchmarking, phases/ aspects with higher improvement potential, etc.).” Having been classified, the ecodesign management practices can be used to assess the maturity profile of companies in their application of ecodesign (Section 3.3) and furthermore associated with operational practices (Section 3.1.2) and techniques/tools (Section 3.1.3). 3.1.2. Ecodesign operational practices Ecodesign operational practices describe the technical issues of product specification and design. The operational practices identified during the theoretical development phase of the research comprise more than 480 design options, classified into 35 guidelines and 6 strategies (adapted from Vezzoli and Manzini (2008)). Thirty five guidelines group together similar design options, according to their goals for improving the product’s environmental performance. For example, the design options “Dematerialize the product or some of its components,” “Miniaturize,” and “Digitalize the product or some of its components” are grouped under the guideline “Minimize material content.” Other examples of ecodesign guidelines include “Select non-toxic and harmless materials” and “Facilitate upgrading and adaptability.” In addition, corresponding guidelines are grouped into six strategies, which represents major areas of environmental consideration during the product development: 1) Minimize Energy Consumption; 2) Minimize Material Consumption; 3) Extend Material Life Span; 4) Optimize Product Life Time; 5) Select Low Impact Resources and Processes; and 6) Facilitate Disassembly. The guidelines of the strategy “2) Minimize Material Consumption,” for example, include “Minimize material content,” “Minimize scraps and discards” and “Minimize or avoid packaging” (adapted from Vezzoli and Manzini (2008)). The selection of the operational practices for a particular project will depend on the (potential) environmental impacts of the product throughout its life cycle. To aid in the selection, each guideline is classified according to (adapted from Yarwood and Eagan (2003)):  Material life cycle phase: pre-manufacturing; manufacturing; distribution and packaging; use and maintenance; and end-oflife;  Environmental aspects: material, energy consumption, solid waste, effluents and emissions. There may be trade-off situations13 between guidelines; i.e. improving a concept in one guideline may have a negative effect on another (e.g. minimizing material content can decrease a product’s life span) (Vezzoli and Manzini, 2008). Similarly, tradeoffs between environmental issues and traditional requirements of a product such as cost, quality, aesthetics, etc. must be handled.

12 Gates (or phase assessments) can be understood as formal verifications of the deliverables obtained in a given phase of the PDP. The goal of the gates is to verify the adequacy and quality of the results obtained, ensuring the alignment with the product requirements and company strategy, so the product development can proceed to the following phases (Cooper, 2000). 13 Trade-off situations in the product development process are often about choices between multiple factors that need to be weighed against each other, in order to make a decision (Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2006).

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

3.1.3. Ecodesign techniques and tools Ecodesign tools and techniques can support the application of both management and operational practices. One hundred and six ecodesign techniques and tools were identified and classified by means of the systematic literature review described in Pigosso (2012). Some examples of identified tools and techniques are: “Design for Environment (DfE) Matrix” (Yarwood and Eagan, 2003), “Ecodesign PILOT” (Wimmer et al., 2005), “Environmental Effect Analysis” (Lindahl, 2006; Tingström and Karlsson, 2006), “Environmental Quality Function Deployment” (EQFD), “Environmental Design Industrial Template” (EDIT) (Spicer and Wang, 1997), “Life Cycle Assessment” (LCA) (Rydberg, 1995; Caspersen and Sørensen, 1998; Finnveden and Moberg, 2005), “Ten Golden Rules” (Luttropp and Lagerstedt, 2006), “Alternative Function Fulfillment” (Van Der Zwan and Bhamra, 2003), “Strategy wheel“ (Van Hemel, 2002), etc. The majority of the identified tools focus on the technical perspective of ecodesign implementation. Despite the large amount of tools and techniques identified, these are neither organized/systematized nor used systematically by companies in their product development and related processes (Baumann et al., 2002). One of the most striking factors is that companies lack the information required to select the most suitable tools and techniques according to their needs. To support this task, the tools and techniques identified have been classified according to 13 criteria (Pigosso et al., 2011), e.g. “Nature of the main goal” (prescriptive, comparative or analytical), “Nature of input and output data” (qualitative, semi-qualitative or quantitative), “Environmental aspects considered” (material, energy, chemicals), etc. Each maturity level defined in the model (Section 3.2) involves a combination of the proposed criteria to support the selection of the techniques and tools to be applied e some tools might be more suitable for application than others, depending on the company’s current maturity profile. For example, quantitative methods such as LCA are more suitable for relatively mature organizations, while qualitative matrixes such as the DfE Matrix (simplified LCA) can be applied successfully by less mature organizations.14 Once selected, the company must adapt and customize the tools and techniques according to its culture, specific PDP and current palette of tools, in order to ensure their acceptance and application (Quella and Schmidt, 2003). 3.1.4. Relationship among ecodesign practices Ecodesign management and operational practices are interrelated and can be supported by a set of techniques and tools. The following types of relationships and dependencies can be defined: 3.1.4.1. Interdependence among management practices. Relationships of interdependence among ecodesign management practices can be established, i.e. there may be prerequisites for the application of certain practices. The dependence evaluation was performed based on a logical analysis of the input and output data required for the application of each practice. In the cases where a given practice required an output of another practice, an interdependence relationship was established. For example, the application of the practice “10002: Deploy and maintain an environmental policy for products” requires previous

14

Complex and quantitative tools are more suitable for companies with a high maturity profile because they require well-established infrastructure and knowledge to be successfully applied. It does not mean that high mature organizations cannot decide to apply simplified tools. This is the main reason why the management practices and not the tools and techniques currently applied by the company are used as a parameter to define the maturity profile of an organization.

5

application of the practice “10001: Formulate a company environmental policy.” The practice “20001: Evaluate the environmental performance of products across the whole life cycle” is also a prerequisite for the application of the practice “80001: Analyze and select suitable ecodesign strategies according to the environmental goals and phases/environmental aspects of the product life cycle, which shows the highest opportunities for environmental improvement”, since it supports the identification of the environmental hot-spots15 of the product under analysis. 3.1.4.2. Relationships between management and operational practices and techniques/tools. An analysis was made to identify the tools and techniques that could support the application of management practices, in order to establish their interrelationships. This analysis involved an evaluation of the main goal of each tool/ technique and their respective correlation with the management practices (e.g. “deploy the environmental requirements of the customers” is the main goal of the EQFD tool, which is associated to the management practice “60001: Identify the customer and stakeholders requirements and priorities concerning environmental issues”). The application of management practices can also be linked to operational practices (Pigosso and Rozenfeld, 2011). For example, the management practice “80004: Identify the strategies and design options that can be applied to product design to achieve the goals” must be performed based on an analysis of the operational practices (ecodesign strategies/design options). Ecodesign operational practices are also associated with techniques and tools that can support their application. The relationships between ecodesign operational practices and ecodesign tools and techniques were established by comparing the main goals of the tools/techniques with each given guideline. Since there are several tools/techniques with similar goals (e.g. assess the environmental impact of products or facilitate disassembly), the same practice may be associated with more than one tool/technique. The selection of the most suitable one must take into account the company’s current maturity profile (Section 3.2) and can be aided by the classification criteria presented in this section. However, there are some management and operational practices that have no relationship of dependence and are not supported by techniques/tools. In this sense, gaps for future researches and developments on new ecodesign tools and techniques can be identified. 3.2. Ecodesign maturity levels Ecodesign maturity levels represent successive stages for incorporating environmental issues into the product development and related processes. The maturity levels were initially defined based on a literature review on the dimensions commonly used to define the stages for ecodesign implementation (such as innovation and knowledge levels). During the evaluation by experts, the description of the maturity levels was refined and further improved with the incorporation of the capability levels as a component to define maturity. The maturity levels (Section 3.2.3) are defined by a combination of the evolution level in ecodesign (Section 3.2.1) and the capability level (Section 3.2.2). 3.2.1. Evolution levels in ecodesign The evolution levels describe a recommendation of the stages to be followed for ecodesign implementation. They are strictly related

15

A hot-spot is defined as the most important environmental impact of a product.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

6

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

to the evolution of the processes in which ecodesign is implemented (and not to the product itself), and are directly linked to the ecodesign management practices. The evolution levels were developed based on a consolidation of three dimensions for ecodesign implementation, namely i) implementation paths (Someren, 1995; McAloone, 1998; Pascual et al., 2003; Alakeson and Sherwin, 2004; De Caluwe, 2004; Boks and Stevels, 2007); ii) company widening for implementation (McAloone, 1998; Charter, 2001; De Caluwe, 2004; Boks and Stevels, 2007) and iii) knowledge level on ecodesign (McAloone, 1998; Charter, 2001; Boks and Stevels, 2007), all of which were subsequently evaluated by the experts and further improved. The evolution levels are described as follows:  Evolution level 1 e the company has very little experience in ecodesign and does not yet completely apply ecodesign practices to improve the environmental performance of products. The environmental issues of products and the benefits of adopting ecodesign are not yet exploited. At this level, the company must understand the concept of ecodesign, define the internal and external drivers for its adoption, carry out a benchmark study to understand competitors positioning, and make a compilation of product-related environmental legal issues and standards.  Evolution level 2 e the company has taken the first steps in the application of ecodesign and is familiar with some of its practices and potential benefits. Pilot- and point-wise projects are implemented, focusing on the incremental improvement of the environmental performance of existing products, usually with emphasis on specific phases of the products’ life cycle. The company uses non-consolidated approaches to the application of the ecodesign practices involved in product design. At this level, the company endeavors to generate awareness and motivation for ecodesign and begins a formal ecodesign program. Simplified LCA tools are used to identify hot-spots for improvement of the environmental performance of products.  Evolution level 3 e the company recognizes the importance and benefits of ecodesign, based on the results of its application in pilot projects and on the recognition of the ecodesign program. The experiences gathered from pilot projects are systematized to underpin the improvement of the product development and related processes, so that all the company’s development projects consider environmental issues on a regular basis. At this level, ecodesign is technically integrated into the PDP and the first steps are taken to structure an environmental approach and common patterns.  Evolution level 4 e ecodesign practices are incorporated systematically into the product development and related processes, starting from the initial phases (e.g. idea generation and portfolio management). An expansion can be observed, of the sphere of ecodesign influence to business and managerial areas, in addition to technical areas. At this level, functionality analysis is applied to conduct ecodesign, thus expanding opportunities for improvement. New concepts (products, services or product/service- systems) can be developed to satisfy consumer needs with better environmental performance.  Evolution level 5 e environmental issues are fully incorporated into the company’s corporate, business and product strategies. Environmental issues are considered jointly with technical and economic issues to reinforce the decision-making processes. The company aims at system innovation, through the development of new products and services that require changes in its business models and infrastructure. Strategic decisions for ecodesign implementation are taken at different levels, from the moment the company decides to apply

ecodesign based on a strategic driver, such as legislation, market requirements and/or image improvement (level 1) to the further incorporation of ecodesign in the subsequent maturity levels. The full incorporation of environmental issues and ecodesign into the company’s corporate, business and product strategies (level 5) implies the effective consideration of the environmental dimension into the company’s strategic decisions and in its way of thinking, doing and communicating business. 3.2.2. Capability levels in ecodesign The capability levels qualitatively measure how well a company applies an ecodesign management practice. The capability levels were adapted from CMMI (Chrissis et al., 2003) and can be defined as follows:  Capability level 1 e incomplete: the management practice is not applied or is applied incompletely by the company;  Capability level 2 e ad hoc: the management practice is applied in an ad hoc way, i.e. to correct a problem or to accomplish a specific task by some individuals in the company, but not yet in a formalized and systematized way;  Capability level 3 e formalized: the application of the management practice is formalized in documented processes and the infrastructure, responsibilities and resources to support the practice are allocated;  Capability level 4 e controlled: the application of the management practice is formalized and controlled, i.e. its performance is measured and monitored throughout time by using performance indicators;  Capability level 5 e improved: the performance of the application of the management practice is continuously improved based on the measurement and monitoring.

3.2.3. Definition of ecodesign maturity levels As previously mentioned, the ecodesign maturity levels are defined by a combination of the evolution and capability levels (Table 2). For example, to be classified as maturity level 1, the ecodesign management practices of evolution level 1 must be applied with capability level 3 (in formalized way). The same pattern applies for the subsequent maturity levels until, in the maturity level 5, all of the management practices are applied in an improved way (capability 5). A maturity radar (Fig. 3) illustrates the ecodesign maturity levels as a combination of the evolution and capability levels. The ecodesign management practices (EMPs) are represented by their codes and organized in the radar according to their evolution levels, following a clockwise direction from the first to the fifth evolution level. The capability levels (1e5) correspond to the axis of the radar. The standard maturity levels, as defined in Table 2, are represented by the colored lines inside the radar. The maturity levels are tied to the degree to which companies have institutionalized ecodesign practices. In this sense, the environmental profile of products is not considered in the definition of maturity in ecodesign. Table 2 Ecodesign maturity levels. Maturity level in ecodesign 1

2

3

4

1 Capability 3 Capability 4 Capability 5 Capability Evolution 2 e Capability 3 Capability 4 Capability level in e Capability 3 Capability ecodesign 3 e 4 e e e Capability 5 e e e e

5 5 5 4 3

Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability

5 5 5 5 5

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

7

Fig. 3. An ecodesign maturity radar provides a graphical representation of the ecodesign maturity levels.

The maturity levels can be understood as a scale against which the company is compared. The goal of this scale is not to be prescriptive nor to provide certification, but rather to indicate the path a company should follow for ecodesign implementation, considering its current situation. More important than classifying a company according to the standard maturity levels is defining its environmental profile based on the standard maturities proposed. The radar can be seen as a tool to communicate a company’s ecodesign performance, since it provides a clear and graphical representation of the current maturity profile, showing strengths and weaknesses and enabling the identification of gaps for improvement in ecodesign application. It also allows comparisons to be made between previous and current situations so that the improvements achieved over a certain period of time can be monitored. 3.3. Application method In order to guide ecodesign management by the application of the model and to establish a framework for continuous improvement through the incorporation of ecodesign practices into the product development and related processes, an application method had been developed in this research based on the PDCA (plan, do, check, and act) and business process management (BPM) approaches for process improvement.16

16

The PDCA approach for process improvement can also be found in frameworks such as ISO 50001:2011 (Energy management systems), ISO 9001:2008 (Quality management systems), ISO 14001:2004 (Environmental management systems), etc.

The application method comprises six steps (Fig. 4), detailed in the following sub-sections in a prescriptive manner: 1) Diagnosis of the current maturity profile in ecodesign; 2) Proposition of ecodesign management practices and improvement projects; 3) Portfolio management of improvement projects for ecodesign implementation; 4) Planning of the improvement projects for ecodesign implementation; 5) Implementation of the improvement projects; 6) Assessment of the results. The application method provides a higher level of detail in the description of the first two steps (diagnosis and definition of improvement projects) of the improvement cycle. It is not intended to establish and define how a company should perform the portfolio management, the project management, the implementation of the projects or the assessment of the results, since each company should perform these activities using its best and current practices. Nevertheless, the application method reinforces that these steps must be performed during the improvement cycles toward better ecodesign maturity profiles. 3.3.1. Diagnosis of the current maturity profile in ecodesign The first step of the application method is the diagnosis of the company’s current maturity profile in ecodesign. The maturity assessment is made based on the capability of the application of

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

8

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Fig. 4. The application method comprises six steps, from the diagnosis of the current maturity profile on ecodesign to the assessment of results, following a continuous improvement approach.

each ecodesign management practice. This diagnosis is performed in three stages: 3.3.1.1. Stage 1: PDP analysis. An analysis is made of the company’s PDP, in order to understand how it is organized, structured and documented.17 Interviews are held with key employees (ideally 2e 8) to gather information about how the process is applied in practice and to identify its main strengths and weaknesses. The PDP analysis is relevant to the following:  Adaptation of the questionnaire to the company’s vernacular, in order to ensure that the questions will be properly understood and that the answers will be reliable;  Joint definition of key employees to be interviewed (ideally 10e20), prioritizing people from different functions, hierarchical levels and facilities, in order to ensure a broad overview on how ecodesign is applied in the company.

3.3.1.2. Stage 2: interviews for maturity assessment. The goal of this stage is to evaluate, which ecodesign management practices the company applies and with which capability. The methodology comprises the execution of a set of face-to-face interviews18 with the selected employees. These interviews are designed to take around 90 min and are composed of three main parts: a) Introduction: ecodesign definition, brief explanation about the context of the model application at the company, clarification

17 Companies usually have a unique standardized PDP (despite their size), which is followed and applied by all employees involved in product development, even if they are located at different facilities. However, companies with different business units can have more than a PDP (due to intrinsic differences of the developed products, for example). In this case, the model must be applied for each business unit. 18 Face-to-face interviews were selected as a methodology to perform the diagnosis due to the richness of the discussions and information that can be elicited. Additionally, interviews have the function of involving and engaging the employees in thinking about the development of products with a better environmental performance and raising awareness.

of the structure of the interview and discussion about the capability levels; b) Semi-structured interview: application of a structured questionnaire. The interviewee is asked about the capability level of each management practice and is asked to provide additional comments and evidence to justify the answer. c) Final remarks: the interviewees are asked about additional ecodesign practices that the company applies but were not discussed (which can be used to improve the model itself) and to provide additional comments.

3.3.1.3. Stage 3: consolidation of the results. The capability levels assigned are analyzed and compared with the comments to ensure coherence and consistence. If necessary, the capability level can be changed, based on the comments and on the evidence of documental analysis. Based on the results, the company’s current profile in ecodesign is outlined using the maturity radar (Fig. 3). 3.3.2. Proposal of ecodesign management practices and improvement projects Once a company’s current maturity profile has been determined, the most suitable management practices to be adopted are proposed, based on a gap analysis. The proposed maturity model allows freedom and flexibility in the choice of practices to be applied according to the company’s purpose and strategic drivers. There are two approaches for process improvement (SEI, 2006):  Staged approach: suitable for companies with a low maturity profile in ecodesign. This approach provides a systematic and structured way for implementing process improvements, based on the implementation of one stage (maturity level) at a time. Each stage indicates that the process already has the necessary foundation and structure that qualifies it for the next stage. Each maturity level contains a set of management practices to be applied, according to a certain capability that characterizes different organizational behaviors;  Continuous approach: recommended when the company knows which ecodesign management practices require improvement and what are the dependencies between these

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

9

practices. The continuous approach provides maximum flexibility, since the organization can improve the application of specific practices related to a single evolution level, or can focus on several areas that are closely aligned with business goals and strategies. The relative improvement of an individual management practice is characterized by the capability levels.

The definition of performance indicators is a very important task (Charter, 2001) and should take into consideration the primary goal of each improvement project. The definition of the performance indicators should be performed internally by the company, according to the selected projects and to the specific products developed.

The ecodesign maturity profile indicates whether it is better to adopt the continuous or the staged approach for process improvement. Based on the selected approach and on a gap analysis, the management practices to be adopted can be defined. Subsequently, an analysis is made of the correlation between the selected management practices within the operational practices and the ecodesign techniques/tools. Improvement projects should be designed for the joint and integrated incorporation of one or more practices. These include a set of management practices, operational practices, and techniques/ tools to be applied. The description of the improvement projects at this stage is high-level and covers the strategic, tactical and operational levels for ecodesign implementation.

3.3.7. Continuous improvement After each improvement cycle, a new diagnosis should be performed in order to measure which practices were effectively implemented by the company and to identify further improvement opportunities, keeping the continuous improvement toward higher maturity levels. Due to the strategic nature of the decisions to be taken and to the managerial approach adopted in this research (i.e. diagnosis of the “as is” situation, identification of gaps and proposition of a ‘”to be” situation for the implementation of ecodesign into the product development and related processes), the model should be used by managers responsible for the ecodesign implementation into a company (also known as “environmental champions19”). Nevertheless, once the roadmap and the relevant projects for application have been defined (step 3 of the application method), the designers and other relevant internal stakeholders (from different areas such as manufacturing, quality, marketing, sales, procurement, etc.) must be involved in the implementation phase and in the evaluation of the results. The implementation requires both organizational and technical integration (Charter, 2001).

3.3.3. Portfolio management of improvement projects for ecodesign implementation In order to prioritize the projects to be implemented according to the company drivers and available resources, a strategic alignment should be performed by means of portfolio management (PMI, 2008). The strategic drivers for ecodesign adoption (e.g. environmental compliance, cost reduction, increased environmental awareness, new business and innovation opportunities, etc.) should be assessed and counterbalanced with the proposed projects for ecodesign implementation. In this step, the projects can be arranged and reorganized according to the companies’ needs and priorities. As a result, a roadmap (i.e. a timeline) for the implementation of the improvement projects is established. 3.3.4. Planning of the improvement projects for ecodesign implementation In order to plan the improvement projects defined in the roadmap, it is recommended that the company adopts its usual project management practices. In this stage, improvement projects are detailed, work packages and activities are described, teams are defined, responsibilities are deployed, stakeholders are identified, implementation schedules are fixed, resources are allocated, risks are calculated, communication plans are elaborated, stakeholders are identified, etc. (PMI, 2008). 3.3.5. Implementation of the improvement projects During the implementation of the projects, special care should be taken to cultural change and people change management, since people are the gatekeepers of change (Jeston and Nelis, 2006). People change management is a core essence of successful improvement projects and an area that must be focused on throughout the entire project (Jeston and Nelis, 2006). It includes considerations about resistance to change, leadership role, change planning, communication, motivation and encouragement of people, staff training, among others (Jeston and Nelis, 2006). 3.3.6. Assessment of the results The evaluation of the results of improvement projects requires that performance indicators are determined and monitored throughout the implementation of the ecodesign management practices in the product development and related processes (Herva et al., 2011).

4. Application of the ecodesign maturity model In this section, the results of the application of the model into a large manufacturing company are presented. 4.1. Scope of the application The company chosen for application of the model is classified under division 30: “Manufacturer of other transport equipment” of the ISIC framework.20 As a multinational company, with more than 40 years experience, it is one of the largest companies in its sector, employing around 20,000 people, worldwide. Driven by environmental legislation, business opportunities, customer pressures and by the advance of competitors in ecodesign, the company assigned a senior manager to lead a project for ecodesign implementation. In order to simultaneously test the ecodesign maturity model and support the company with its planning and management of ecodesign implementation, the first two steps of the application method were applied: (1) Diagnosis of the current maturity profile in ecodesign (Section 4.2); and (2) Proposal of ecodesign practices and improvement projects for ecodesign implementation (Section 4.3). The subsequent steps of the application method were carried out internally by the company, using the best and current practices for project management and process improvement.

19 The role of the environmental champion is to bridge the gap between the corporate and business levels of the company e this person is usually someone enthusiastic and charismatic who can answer most environmental questions (McAloone, 1998). 20 The International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) consists of a coherent and consistent classification structure of economic activities based on a set of internationally agreed concepts, definitions, principles and classification rules (United Nations, 2008).

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

10

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Fig. 5. Current ecodesign maturity profile of the company, indicating the capability level of the application of each ecodesign management practice (orange solid area).

4.2. Diagnosis of the current maturity profile in ecodesign of the company A documental analysis of PDP-related documents (including process scope and overview; phases, macro-processes and tools description; roles and responsibilities definition; and product requirements) was carried out in the stage 1 (PDP analysis). Eight key employees were interviewed, in order to understand how the process was performed in the day-to-day business and to clarify issues regarding the analyzed documents. The comments registered during these interviews expressed a strong recognition of the importance of ecodesign in the company. The questionnaire for maturity assessment was adapted to the vocabulary of the company and the employees to be interviewed were jointly identified. In total 19 employees were selected, who were directly related to the PDP and who represented a variety of areas (such as quality, supplychain, after-sales, engineering, etc.), functions and hierarchical positions in the company. The company organized the schedule for the interviews, contacted the people to be interviewed, explaining the general context of the project, and provided the resources needed. In the second step (interviews for maturity assessment), the goal was to evaluate which ecodesign management practices were applied by the company and to which level of capability. The 19 employees selected in the previous step were interviewed in faceto-face meetings, lasting 105 min on average. During the 19 interviews, the management practices were evaluated according to the company’s capability level, in order to determine the current maturity profile of the company.

In the third step (consolidation of results), the capability levels assigned by the employees were analyzed against their own commentaries, in order to ensure coherence and consistence. Whenever necessary the capability level was changed, based either on the commentaries or the evidence of the documental analysis. The consolidated results were plotted in the maturity radar (Fig. 5). The orange solid area represents the current ecodesign maturity profile of the company, i.e. it indicates which management practices are currently being applied and with which capability level, according to the perception of the interviewees. The maturity profile indicates that the company does not apply, or applies in an incomplete manner (capability level 1) most of the management practices (from the lowest to the highest evolution levels). Even the practices of evolution level 1 are not yet completely applied by the company. This means that the company has a low level of knowledge about ecodesign and does not yet understand how it could be incorporated into its product development and related processes. There are, however, some practices that are applied in an ad hoc way (capability level 2) and also two practices applied in a formal way21 (capability level 3). In summary, the conclusion is that the case company had a low ecodesign implementation maturity profile, at the time of measurement.

21 The practices applied in a formalized way (capability 3) are: 10001: Formulate a company environmental policy; and 10021: Integrate environmental issues into the corporate strategy.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

11

Fig. 6. The ecodesign maturity radar displays the goal for the first improvement cycle for the case company, following the staged approach for process improvement.

4.3. Proposition of ecodesign management practices and improvement projects Once the current maturity profile was determined, the most suitable ecodesign management practices to be adopted were selected, based on a gap analysis and a selection of the process improvement approach (staged or continuous) to be adopted. In cases like this, where the maturity profile is characterized by low capability levels of the management practices, the staged approach for process improvement is suggested, i.e. following the stages defined by the maturity levels. In this sense, the company would better succeed in the application of ecodesign if it starts the application of the management practices of the first maturity level and then proceeds to the application of the second maturity level. Based on the staged approach for process improvement, the company defined the second maturity level as the goal for its first improvement cycle (Fig. 6). According to the maturity model, the company should apply the following practices in order to reach ecodesign implementation maturity level 2:  Management practices of the first evolution level with a capability 4 (control); and  Management practices of the second evolution level with a capability 3 (formal). A cluster analysis was performed, in order to identify synergies among the management practices and to propose the improvement projects for ecodesign implementation, based on the characteristics

and culture of the company. The improvement projects were designed for the joint and integrated incorporation of the application of one or more practices. Once the projects were defined, the relationships and dependencies among the management practices, the operational practices and the techniques/tools were assessed. In total, eight projects for ecodesign implementation were proposed to the company. Each project contains the description of the management practices, operational practices and tools and techniques that should be applied, in order to reach the second maturity level. A summary of these projects is presented as follows:  Project 1 e Get knowledge on ecodesign and disseminate among all relevant employees: the goal is to establish a structured process to gather knowledge on ecodesign, ecodesign practices and tools in order to create the basis for application at the company. Moreover, a process to provide training to the different functions involved in the product development and related processes must be developed, clarifying the potential benefits for the company with ecodesign adoption (this project comprehends the application of three management practices);  Project 2 e Gather information about legal issues and standards related to the environmental performance of products: the goal is to create a controlled process (to be performed periodically) to obtain and analyze environmental productrelated legislation, directives and standards in the countries that the company operates. Additionally, in order to ensure compliance, the creation and continuous updating of mandatory rules to be followed in every development project are

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

12

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14













suggested (this projects implies the application of two management practices, supported by three techniques/tools); Project 3 e Perform benchmarking studies in ecodesign to understand what competitors are doing: the goal is to create a controlled process (to be performed periodically) that enables the benchmarking analysis of the competitors’ practices, programs and products in relation to ecodesign, in order to drive the internal activities. It is related to one management practice, supported by three techniques/tools; Project 4 e Analyze trends and drivers for ecodesign adoption: this aims to establish a controlled internal process (to be performed periodically) to clearly define which are the internal and external drivers for the development of products with a better environmental performance at the company. The drivers must be communicated to the relevant employees, so to increase awareness. Additionally, a process to identify customers’ and stakeholders’ requirements in relation to the environmental performance of products and to assess the technological and market trends in this regards should be established (three management practices related to ten ecodesign techniques/tools); Project 5 e Establish an ecodesign program at the company: the goal of this project includes the establishment of an ecodesign program at the company which will be responsible for ensuring commitment and resources for conducting the activities related to ecodesign, involving the relevant people, the deployment of responsibilities for the consideration of the environmental issues, communication of achievements, etc. It implies the application of seven management practices; Project 6 e Deploy the environmental policy of the company for products: the goal is to create a structured and controlled process to perform the deployment and maintenance of an environmental policy for products, based on the environmental policy/strategy of the company. Moreover, the communication of this strategy to the employees involved in the product development and related processes should be ensured (it is related to one management practice); Project 7 e Assess the environmental impact of a reference product: the goal is to evaluate the environmental impacts of a reference product in order to identify the product life cycle phases and environmental aspects with higher importance in the total environmental impact of the product. Additionally, the life cycle thinking should be implemented at the company. This project is related to the application of three management practices that can be supported by a set of 22 ecodesign techniques/tools; Project 8 e Perform pilot projects on the application of ecodesign: the goal is to perform pilot projects at the company in order to start learning in practice how ecodesign can be considered during the product development and related processes and the real benefits the company can obtain with its application. The projects can include optimizations in the production process, in packaging and distribution or the use of new technologies, for example. It comprehends the application of four management practices, two techniques/tools and all operational practices.

4.4. Subsequent steps The prioritization of the projects to be implemented was performed internally by the company, following their current practices for portfolio management. The decision making process was carried out considering its internal drivers, strategic alignment and available resources. As a result, a roadmap for the implementation of the projects was developed. Subsequently, the projects were further detailed by the company in the project planning stage considering internal elements

such as culture, risks, costs, products developed, etc. Currently, the company is implementing five of the eight projects proposed (projects 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8). At the time of writing the other three projects are planned to be developed over the next year, in accordance with the roadmap for ecodesign implementation. The specific technique/tools to be used in order to implement the ecodesign management and operational practices were selected during the implementation phase of the projects, considering the provided classification criteria. Subsequently, pilot applications of the selected tools were performed. Whenever necessary, customization and adaptation of the tools was carried out, in order to match the company’s context. At the end of the first improvement cycle described above, the company reported the intention to begin a new improvement cycle, reassessing its current maturity profile, in order to define new projects to be implemented towards higher maturity levels on ecodesign implementation. A second diagnosis of the company’s ecodesign maturity level will enable the identification of the actual achievements accomplished by the company during the first improvement cycle, in comparison to its desired goal, which was to achieve maturity level 2. 4.5. Evaluation of the results and discussion In order to evaluate the application of the model at the company, an assessment questionnaire was developed following the criteria proposed by Vernadat (1996) for model evaluation. A fourpoint Likert scale was adopted to measure the company’s perception: (1) “unsatisfactory”, (2) “needs improvements”; (3) “satisfactory” and (4) “very satisfactory”. The company evaluated as (4) “very satisfactory” the majority of the evaluated criteria. This includes utility in supporting companies in ecodesign implementation and management; scope of the practices embraced; applicability/broadness in manufacturing companies; precision in the definition of the maturity profile; depth, coherence and objectivity of the diagnosis and improvement projects; instrumentability in the proposition of techniques/tools; and forecast of the next steps to be taken. The remaining criteria (consistence and completeness of the improvement projects; and simplicity and clarity of the results) were evaluated as (3) “satisfactory”. The commentaries provided by the company reinforced the evaluation performed. The company stated, amongst others, that “besides showing the maturity of the company, the presentation of the results is very illustrative, contributing to raise awareness among the managers and employees responsible for the implementation of ecodesign in the company” and that “the method is very complete and shows the improvements potentials, achieving its purpose”. The company also indicated some opportunities for improvement by stating that “the evaluation of the results is well documented by the radar (maturity profile), but it is not so clear how to perform the monitoring of the improvements” and that “it would be interesting to structure a template to facilitate the selection of tools and techniques”. By enlarge the aforementioned evaluation can be said to confirm that the model is seen by the company as a framework that can support them in ecodesign implementation and management, thus supporting the hypothesis advocated in this research. Furthermore, the fact that the company is currently applying the suggested improvement projects and planning to carry out a new improvement cycle22 provides further confirmation of this stance.

22 The same phenomena can be observed in the other two companies that applied the model (Section 2). Those companies are currently implementing the proposed projects and planning to perform a new diagnosis to start the second improvement cycle.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

5. Final remarks This paper presented the general concept of the ecodesign maturity model and its constituent elements: ecodesign practices, ecodesign maturity levels and application method. Moreover, the results of the application of the model into a large manufacturing company were presented, substantiating the hypothesis that the model can support companies on ecodesign implementation and management. The research was developed based on a solid scientific foundation, following a methodology that comprised theoretical development, by means of a systematic literature review, an evaluation by a set of 14 ecodesign experts for further improvement, the application into an action research study, to improve the applicability, and the performance of multiple case studies for theory-testing. The main academic contributions of the research can be summarized as:  Identification and systematization of the existing ecodesign practices based on an extensive systematic literature review;  Identification and consolidation of the maturity levels for ecodesign implementation;  Proposition of a method, based on continuous improvement theory for ecodesign implementation and management;  Establishment of a broader understanding about the variables involved in ecodesign implementation and management, and the relationship among them to allow effective implementation into manufacturing companies. From an applied perspective, companies can benefit from:  Benchmarking of ecodesign practices based on the state of the art;  Diagnosis of the current ecodesign maturity profile (“as-is” situation), identification of improvement opportunities and development of a roadmap to achieve a desired “to-be” situation;  Continuous improvement towards higher maturity levels on ecodesign based on the proposed managerial framework;  Establishment of a common language and a shared vision across the organization for ecodesign implementation. However, there are some limitations that need to be further explored in future research, such as: a) identification of the organizational factors (such as culture, hierarchical structure, etc.) that can influence the ecodesign implementation and the application of the maturity model; b) development of a clear framework to define, evaluate and monitor the performance of the improvement projects by using relevant key performance indicators; c) establishment of the financial effort needed for the implementation of subsequent improvement cycles; d) definition of the dynamic for anchoring the implementation of the model into companies. Currently, the following research topics are being further developed: 1) Development of a web-based tool, which allows companies to perform a quick diagnosis of their current maturity profile e the aim is to collect data from numerous and various companies, in order to identify patterns and drawn generalizations; 2) In-depth study on the implementation of the improvement projects following the application method e the aim is to investigate the organizational factors that influence the implementation, estimate the financial resources required for implementation, and the variables involved in the total duration of the improvement cycles;

13

3) Reassessment of the maturity profile of companies over subsequential improvement cycles, aiming to identify how different companies incorporate and anchor the model for ecodesign implementation and management in their businesses and how the actual improvement on the maturity profile occurs; 4) Several applications of the model into different types of organizations and sectors e the goal is to understand how companies in different contexts implement the maturity model, identify best case companies and improve the model with best practices. Acknowledgments We extend our sincere thanks to the people directly and indirectly involved in the development, evaluation and application of the model. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Brazilian agencies FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) and CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior). References Alakeson, V., Sherwin, C., 2004. Innovation for Sustainable Development: a Forum for the Future Report, London, UK. Bakshi, B.R., Fiksel, J., 2003. The quest for sustainability: challenges for process systems engineering. AIChE Journal 49, 1350e1358. Baumann, H., Boons, F., Bragd, A., 2002. Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 409e425. Bhamra, T., Evans, S., McAloone, T.C., 1999. Integrating environmental decisions into the product development process. I. The early stages. In: EcoDesign’99: First 1e 5. Biolchini, J., Mian, P.G., Natali, A.C.C., Travassos, G.H., 2005. Systematic Review in Software Engineering. (Rio de Janeiro). Boks, C., 2006. The soft side of ecodesign. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1346e 1356. Boks, C., Stevels, A., 2007. Essential perspectives for design for environment, experiences from the electronics industry. International Journal of Production Research 45, 4021e4039. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Khalil, M., 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 571e583. Brezet, H., Rocha, C., 2001. Towards a model for product-oriented environmental management systems. In: Charter, M., Tischner, U. (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, p. 469. Byggeth, S., Hochschorner, E., 2006. Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1420e1430. Caspersen, N.I., Sørensen, A., 1998. Improvements of products by means of lifecycle assessment: high pressure cleaners. Journal of Cleaner Production 6, 371e380. Charter, M., 2001. Managing ecodesign. In: Charter, M., Tischner, U. (Eds.), Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 221e241. Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S., 2003. CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration): Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Person Education, Boston. Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy, Environment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. Commission of the European Communities, 2003. Integrated Product Policy: Building on Environmental Life-cycle Thinking. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 18 June 2003. Cooper, R.G., 2000. Doing it right: winning at new products. Ivey Business Journal 64, 64e70. Coughlan, P., Coghlan, D., 2009. Action research. In: Karlsson, C. (Ed.), Researching Operations Management. Routledge, p. 322. De Caluwe, N., 2004. Business benefits from applied EcoDesign. IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing 27, 215e220. Devanathan, S., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W.Z., Zhao, F., Ramani, K., 2010. Integration of sustainability into early design through the function impact matrix. Journal of Mechanical Design 132, 081004. Dewulf, W., Duflou, J.R., 2004. Integrating eco-design into business environments: a multi-level approach. In: Talaba, D., Roche, T. (Eds.), Product Engineering: Ecodesign, Technologies and Green Energy Sources. Springer, p. 539. Dewulf, W., Duflou, J.R., 2005. Integrating eco-design into business environments. Product Engineering, 55e76.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040

14

D.C.A. Pigosso et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2013) 1e14

Dul, J., Hak, T., 2008. Case Study Methodology in Business Research, first ed. Elsevier, Burlington. Finnveden, G., Moberg, Å., 2005. Environmental systems analysis toolsean overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 1165e1173. Gill, J., Johnson, P., 2002. Research Methods for Managers, third ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, London. Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J., Alting, L., 2005. From life cycle assessment to sustainable production: status and perspectives. CIRP Annals e Manufacturing Technology 54, 1e21. Herva, M., Franco, A., Carrasco, E.F., Roca, E., 2011. Review of corporate environmental indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1687e1699. ISO, 2002. ISO 14.062: Environmental Management e Integrating Environmental Aspects into Product Design and Development. (ISO Bulletin, September). ISO, 2011. ISO 14.006: Environmental Management Systems e Guidelines for Incorporating Ecodesign. Iversen, J., Nielsen, P., Norbjerg, J., 1999. Situated assessment of problems in software development. ACM SIGMIS Database 30, 66e81. Jeston, J., Nelis, J., 2006. Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations, first ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Johansson, G., 2002. Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development: a review of state of the art. Environmental Management and Health 13, 98e107. Johansson, G., 2006. Incorporating environmental concern in product development: a study of project characteristics. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17, 421e436. Kengpol, A., Boonkanit, P., 2011. The decision support framework for developing ecodesign at conceptual phase based upon ISO/TR 14062. International Journal of Production Economics 131, 4e14. Klimko, G., 2001. Knowledge management and maturity models: building common understanding. In: Second European Conference on Knowledge Management. Slovenia, pp. 269e278. Kohlegger, M., Maier, R., Thalmann, S., 2009. Understanding maturity models: results of a structured content analysis. In: Proceedings of I-KNOW ’09 and ISEMANTICS ’09. Graz, Austria, pp. 51e61. Le Pochat, S., Bertoluci, G., Froelich, D., 2007. Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 671e680. Lindahl, M., 2006. Engineering designers’ experience of design for environment methods and tools e requirement definitions from an interview study. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 487e496. Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J., 2006. EcoDesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1396e1408. Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J., 2010. Assessing organizational Capabilities: reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59, 138e159. Marimon, F., Llach, J., Bernardo, M., 2011. Comparative analysis of diffusion of the ISO 14001 standard by sector of activity. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1734e1744. McAloone, T.C., 1998. Industry Experiences of Environmentally Conscious Design Integration: an Exploratory Study. Cranfield University. Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2011. Barriers to the adoption of proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production 19, 1417e 1425. Nielsen, P.H., Wenzel, H., 2002. Integration of environmental aspects in product development: a stepwise procedure based on quantitative life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 247e257. Pascual, O., Stevels, A., Boks, C., 2003. Measuring implementation and performance of ecodesign in the electronics sector. In: Proceedings of EcoDesign 2003: Third International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Tokyo, pp. 192e197. Pascual, O., Stevels, A., 2004. Ecodesign in industry is not an environmental issue. In: Proceedings of Electronic Goes Green. Berlin, pp. 855e859. Pigosso, D., Rozenfeld, H., 2011. Ecodesign maturity model: the ecodesign practices. In: Umeda, Y. (Ed.), Design for Innovative Value towards a Sustainable Society:

Proceedings of EcoDesign 2011 International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing. Springer, Kyoto, pp. 423e428. Pigosso, D.C.A., Rozenfeld, H., Seliger, G., 2011. Ecodesign maturity model: criteria for methods and tools classification. In: Advances in Sustainable Manufacturing. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 239e243. Pigosso, D., 2012. Ecodesign Maturity Model: a Framework to Support Companies in the Selection and Implementation of Ecodesign Practices. University of São Paulo. PMI, 2003. Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3): Knowledge Foundation. PMI, Pennsylvania. PMI, 2008. PMBOK Guide: a Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, fourth ed. Poole, S., Simon, M., Sweatman, A., Bhamra, T., Evans, S., McAloone, T.C., 1999. Integrating environmental decisions into the product development process: part 2 the later stages. In: Proceedings. EcoDesign’99: First International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 1999. IEEE, pp. 334e337. Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M., 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: ECIS 2011 Proceedings, pp. 28e40. Quella, F., Schmidt, W., 2003. Integrating environmental aspects into product design and development: the new ISO TR 14062 e part 2: contents and practical solutions. In: Gate to EHS: Life Cycle Management e Design for Environment, pp. 1e7. Rydberg, T., 1995. Cleaner products in the Nordic countries based on the life cycle assessment approach: the Swedish product ecology project and the Nordic project for sustainable. Journal of Cleaner Production 3, 101e105. SEI, 2006. CMMIÒ for Development: Improving Processes for Better Products. Shelton, R.D., 1995. Organizing for successful DFE: lessons from winners and losers. In: Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. IEEE, Orlando, FL, pp. 1e4. van Someren, T., 1995. Sustainable development and the firm: organizational innovations and environmental strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment 4, 23e33. Spicer, A., Wang, M.H., 1997. Environmental design industrial template (EDIT): a software tool for analysis of product retirement. Journal of Cleaner Production 5, 193e198. Tingström, J., Karlsson, R., 2006. The relationship between environmental analyses and the dialogue process in product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1409e1419. United Nations, U., 2008. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC). Rev. 4. New York. Van Der Zwan, F., Bhamra, T., 2003. Alternative function fulfillment: incorporating environmental considerations into increased design space. Journal of Cleaner Production 11, 897e903. Van Hemel, C., 2002. Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 439e453. Van Weenen, J., 1995. Towards sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 3, 95e100. Vernadat, F., 1996. Enterprise Modeling and Integration: Principles and Applications. Springer. Vezzoli, C., Manzini, E., 2008. Design for Environmental Sustainability, first ed. Springer, London. Willard, B., 2005. The Next Sustainability Wave: Building Boardroom Buy-in. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island. Wimmer, W., Pamminger, R., Stachura, M., Grab, R., 2005. ECODESIGN in the electronics industry e achieving legal compliance with the EU-directives and environmentally improving products by using the new EEE-PILOT. In: Fourth International Symposium on Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 2005. Eco Design 2005, pp. 671e677. Wimmer, W., Lee, K.-M., Quella, F., Polak, J., 2010. Ecodesign: the Competitive Advantage, first ed. Springer. Yarwood, J., Eagan, P., 2003. Design for Environment e a Competitive Edge for the Future.

Please cite this article in press as: Pigosso, D.C.A., et al., Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies, Journal of Cleaner Production (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.040