Design for environment as a tool for the development of a sustainable supply chain

Abstract

In this work, design for environment (DfE) methodologies have been used as a tool for the development of a more sustainable supply chain. In particular by combining life‐cycle assessment (LCA) techniques and by using the quality function deployment (QFD) multi‐criteria matrices, an ‘environmental compromise’ can be reached. In this work, the QFD matrices have been developed in a new way using an iterative process that involves the whole supply chain starting from the product life‐cycle, taking into consideration the machines that make the product and their components. This methodology is compatible with the requirements of the various stakeholders, suppliers, manufacturers and clients, involved in the supply chain. To assess the validity of the proposed approach a specific supply chain was studied concerning packaging systems for liquid food substances (beverage cartons). Firstly all the stages which are most critical from the environmental point of view in the supply chain of packaging systems were identified and assessed. The starting point for the analysis of environmental aspects and impacts which characterise the supply chain was LCA, which proved to be useful for the identification and the environmental assessment of the various stages in a packaging system. Through the use of ‘iterative QFD’ it is possible to arrive at a definition of the engineering characteristics of all the machinery which is involved in the supply chain. In particular in this work the authors have tried to identify the critical points in the design of those machines which either make the beverage cartons or are involved in the filling process.

Keywords:

• design for environment
• LCA
• QFD
• packaging systems

Note

1. In the case studied the limit of the first class is 100/9–100/(9×2)≈5.5; while the limit of the second class is 100/9+100/(9×2)≈16.5. For example the EC of the first matrix (Figure 4) ’produce rectangular beverage cartons‚ has a relative importance of 7.6%. This value is included between 5.5% and 16.5% for this reason this EC has an importance of what is the second matrix (Figure 5) equal to 3.