Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check

Abstract

The cradle-to-cradle (C2C) concept of McDonough and Braungart, which has a strong emphasis on materials strategy, gives a vision of a sustainable future, inspired by nature. Their guilt-free approach has enthused many new people, drawing them into the field of sustainability. However, the question of when and how the C2C concept can be applied successfully in business is still being debated. This paper takes a look at the applicability of the C2C concept in day-to-day product development in a business setting. Based on student design projects for several multinationals, the strengths and weaknesses of the concept are evaluated. In particular, the compatibility of C2C and life cycle assessment (LCA) is addressed. The authors conclude that LCA and C2C can and should be used as complementary tools. C2C's main value is that it triggers many questions about current business practice. Designers may play an interesting role in ‘paving the way’ for the restructuring of business operations according to C2C: through design pilots they can show how C2C could make business sense. LCA should be used to assess whether such pilots still make environmental sense if implemented in today's ‘real world’.

Keywords:

• cradle-to-cradle
• LCA methodology
• sustainable innovation
• industrial design
• design for environment

1 Introduction

In 2007 and 2008, the cradle-to-cradle (C2C) concept took The Netherlands by storm; something we, working within the Design for Sustainability group at Delft University of Technology, noticed by an increasing number of inquiries by students, journalists, companies, industrial designers, NGOs and (local) governments. All showed great interest in the concept and were curious about the possibilities of implementation. The enthusiasm of people from outside academia was more or less matched by the reserved and (at times) almost hostile attitude of colleagues from the academic world. This ‘attitude gap’ surprised us and inspired us to make our own review of C2C, with a particular emphasis on the applicability of this approach for industrial designers. Drawing upon the C2C student design projects that have since been completed, we have structured the review along two main questions:

• How can industrial designers who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement C2C? What opportunities and limitations they might encounter when implementing the C2C principles?

• How does the life cycle assessment (LCA) method relate to C2C? In the current teaching, LCA is the main method by which students are taught to make an environmental impact analysis. We want to understand how we can position C2C in relation to the LCA method.

These questions are addressed by analysing and evaluating C2C masters thesis projects at two Dutch multinationals, carried out in recent months within the Design for Sustainability group. In writing this paper, we aim to advance our thinking about the practical application of C2C and wish to understand how this may inform the design for sustainability teaching at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering.

1.1 The C2C framework

The concept of C2C crystallised during the 1990s and was described by McDonough and Braungart in the 2002 book Cradle-to-cradle, Remaking the way we make things. The authors attack the eco-efficiency approach taken by the industry and instead urge us to consider eco-effectiveness. Three principles should guide the transition from efficiency to effectiveness:

• waste equals food,

• use current solar income,

• respect diversity.

The success of the C2C framework led to the creation by McDonough and Braungart (McDonough and Braungart 2002) of a C2C certification scheme (MBDC 2008), where the authors put particular emphasis on the principle of ‘waste equals food’.

1.2 Critiques

Two documentaries about C2C on Dutch national television (van Hattem 2006, 2007) enthused so many people in The Netherlands that this period is now referred to as ‘the third green wave’ (De Zeeuw and van de Griendt 2009). C2C is praised for its condemning analysis of eco-efficiency, for instance by De Zeeuw and van de Griendt (2009). These authors agree with Braungart's comment that although eco-efficiency may provide short-term economical and ecological advantages, it lacks a long-term vision for establishing a ‘truly positive relationship between industry and nature’ (Braungart et al. 2007). This point is also made by Kusz (2006) and by Ehrenfeld (2008, p. 7) in his book Sustainability by Design, where he states: ‘Almost everything being done in the name of sustainable development addresses and attempts to reduce unsustainability. But reducing unsustainability, although critical, does not and will not create sustainability’.

McDonough and Braungart are complimented for bringing the issue of toxic substances in consumer goods into the open (De Zeeuw and van de Griendt 2009), for being optimistic and inspirational (Amelung and Martens 2008) and for breaking through the ‘circle of blame’ that holds parties in deadlock, by blaming each other for the lack of sustainable initiatives (De Zeeuw and van de Griendt 2009).

The most common negative critique is that C2C represents a technical fix, seeking solutions in technological innovations, without addressing possible solutions in our society or culture (Amelung and Martens 2008). According to these reviewers, C2C is wary of establishing physical limitations, instead encouraging ‘… the creative and extravagant application of materials and allowing for short product life spans …’ (Braungart et al. 2007). However, they argue, we are bound to run into limits imposed by the Earth, like limited supplies of raw materials, limits to the transportation capacity for materials in need of recycling, and limited amounts of sustainable energy to do all the recycling.

Reijnders (2008) argues that the idea of ‘closing material flows’ and thus increasing the emissions of biological nutrients (biodegradable materials) can have negative effects on the environment. There are limits to the amount of biological nutrients that nature can absorb without negative side effects, such as eutrophication.

White et al. (2007) compare the C2C framework with other methods for environmental impact assessment and conclude that it is an objective method (physical measurements with repeatable results), but that it is deficient in its assessment of global warming potential and that it omits certain life cycle phases that are, for instance, included in a LCA (such as the energy consumption of products). This brief review led us to conclude that most critiques address philosophical underpinnings and physical limitations of the C2C approach. With the exception of White et al., no documentation of the opportunities and practical limitations of using the C2C framework in industrial design practice was found.

2 Methodology

The authors made an in-depth analysis of two graduation projects of students from the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, both completed in 2008:

• Strategic advice on how a Dutch multinational could use C2C in its product development process. Teoh (2008) participated in a series of in-company C2C design workshops.

• C2C redesign of a second Dutch multinational's corporate uniforms. De Clercq (2008) proposed a redesign of the current uniform, based on LCA and C2C principles.

Both companies have a widely acknowledged commitment to sustainability, ranking first in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index in their respective categories. We also included the results of a practicum of third year Industrial Design Engineering Bachelor students, in which 30 students made an LCA (EcoIndicator 99) of six different coffee machines with the aims of making hot-spot identifications and comparisons between the different machines.

3 Results

3.1 Implementing C2C

Teoh (2008) in her graduation thesis describes the C2C approach as a framework consisting of three elements, each with a separate identity and written in a different style in order to address a different audience: ‘A descriptive book, an analytical methodology and a prescriptive certification programme …’:

1. The book describing the C2C framework is visionary, it is meant to inspire and it challenges designers to shift their perspectives away from eco-efficiency. It has a clear design focus and speaks to innovators and entrepreneurs. In the words of Kusz (2006): ‘… this book is … about thinking differently in our search for solutions to meeting the increasing needs and wants of the world's expanding population.’

2. The analytical methodology is predominantly a materials strategy. Its central focus is the materials composition (i.e. chemical contents) and the management of material flows. The intended audience is engineers, designers and business and marketing managers.

3. The prescriptive C2C certification programme is mainly for marketing and sales organisations.

The C2C certification programme is not intended for a design audience and is not considered in the remainder of this paper. We limit ourselves to analysing C2C as a visionary approach and a materials strategy, while addressing the first research question: how can industrial designers who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement C2C?

3.1.1 Visionary elements of C2C

The visionary, inspiring message of C2C seems to work well for designers. Teoh reports that the designers in the (company internal) C2C workshops she was involved in, ‘started to challenge assumptions by … questioning the sustainability of the existing business model’. Also, she found that both professional industrial designers and students appreciate the positive approach and the ambition level of C2C, which often aligns with their own sustainability-oriented motivations. De Clercq (2008) found that C2C ‘can function as a perfect framework for idea generation’.

3.1.2 C2C as a materials strategy: materials composition

The C2C materials strategy addresses both the materials composition and the management of material flows. For industrial designers, knowing the exact composition of the materials in a product is a challenge, as both De Clercq (2008) and Teoh (2008) conclude in their theses. One issue here is product complexity. Electronic products, for instance, contain printed circuit boards, which require hundreds of components and materials (Mazurek 1999). A second issue is that many components are purchased as subassemblies. Industry experience has shown it to be challenging to get complete and reliable information from suppliers as to the material composition of the subassemblies they supply (see, for instance, Danwatch 2008). And, finally although designers specify a material the purchasers of a company will select the supplier. Only in an organisation entirely committed to C2C design can proper material selection actually be achieved throughout the supply chain. In a case study on the implementation of the C2C framework at Herman Miller, authors Lee and Bony (2008) describe this process as difficult and time-consuming:

The DfE [Design for Environment] team, Charon and Wing, worked with each supplier (over 200 suppliers in the first six months alone) to introduce the supplier to the DfE program, and to explain how the materials assessment process fit into the new design protocol …. However, getting suppliers to initially cooperate with the raw material assessment proved no easy task.

De Clercq (2008) reports a similar experience. He notes a lack of company specific data on material suppliers and toxicological standards within the production facilities, and he is forced (given the timeframe of his thesis project) to base his analysis on standard datasets.

A special challenge is biodegradability. Bioplastics and other biodegradable materials are relatively new in the market. Industrial designers are often ignorant about these new materials and their properties (for instance, Mohanty et al. 2002).

3.1.3 C2C as a materials strategy: managing material flows

Managing material flows properly will require the disassembly and recycling of products and materials, as well as setting up a system of ‘reverse logistics’. Design for disassembly focuses on ease of disassembly, to enable the removal of parts and materials without damage. In the early 1990s, several researchers developed extensive guidelines (for instance, Beitz 1993 and VDI 1991). In an attempt to speed up disassembly time, new methods were explored, such as active disassembly. This method uses releasable fasteners and actuators in a product's casing, that are triggered by appropriate temperatures to create a speedy ‘self-disassembly’ (Chiodo and Boks 2002). As most products are shredded nowadays, smart solutions such as active disassembly may stimulate product disassembly for reuse and recycling.

The C2C vision is that products should not merely be recycled, as this will only postpone their inevitable decline towards landfill or incinerator. Instead, products should be ‘upcycled’, meaning they should be reprocessed for use at the same level of application. This poses an even greater challenge for the design for recycling, as it requires a very intimate knowledge of material properties and composition (for instance, Chen et al. 1993). A designer will need to collaborate with all parties in the ‘end-of-life’ value chain of a product (including the people involved with take back and recycling), in order to come up with design concepts that can be upcycled – and that also make sense from an economic point of view.

If a company has a system of ‘reverse logistics’ in place, implementing C2C principles becomes more realistic and possibly cost-effective. A Dutch company like Océ (copiers and printers) that leases its high-end copiers might implement C2C principles with relative ease, as it has a 100% return rate. But companies without a return system in place should probably first consider whether such a system might be feasible for them. Only redesigning products for ease of disassembly and upcycling makes little sense from a C2C perspective, as the most likely end-of-life scenario for such products will be landfill and/or incineration. De Clercq (2008) in his master thesis concludes: ‘Implementing closed-loop material flows requires commitment from and monitoring of all material suppliers, manufacturers and production facilities, which is often a too intensive overhaul for businesses’.

3.1.4 Conclusions

How can industrial designers who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement C2C? The main finding is that the C2C framework aligns well with the early stages of the design process, as a driver for new ideas and a challenger for existing solutions and business models.

Regarding C2C as a materials strategy, we find that industrial designers usually lack decision-making ability, for instance, regarding the implementation of closed-loop materials and products systems. However, as Teoh (2008) and De Clercq (2008) showed in their work, designers can play an important role in demonstrating how new product concepts could support a transition towards a C2C business. This does require that designers have access to materials composition data, which is often difficult and time-consuming as it involves (access to) many suppliers. Also, envisioning how a system of ‘reverse logistics’ might work for the business and the product(s) involved, requires that designers challenge their own linear conceptions of how products are produced, sold and discarded and forces them to think in terms of upcycling and the ‘next life’ of the product after its ‘first life’ has ended.

3.2 Life cycle assessment and cradle-to-cradle

This section addresses the second research question: how does the LCA method relate to C2C? The LCA method has become the industry standard for the analysis and valuation of the environmental impacts of a product or service, and streamlined LCA are part of many (if not all) eco-design projects. Products are assessed along their entire life cycle, from raw materials production through manufacture, distribution, use and disposal. The first step of LCA is the determination of the goal and scope. This means that the product of study is described in terms of a functional unit, and the system boundaries of the analysis are established. Industrial designers following a course in sustainable design or eco-design are usually introduced to LCA methodology. Most commonly, designers use LCA for:

• Benchmarking studies: a structured approach to compare the environmental performance of a company's products against competitors' products and to generate improvement options (Crul and Diehl 2005).

• Hot-spot analysis: determining the environmental priority areas (hot spots) of a product, prior to redesign.

• Making trade-off decisions during the design process, for instance, regarding choice of materials.

• Evaluating interim and final designs.

• Reusing results and knowledge of previous LCAs. This facilitates decisions on subsequent projects.

Both the LCA method and the C2C framework were developed to help designers make decisions about how products are made. However, they differ on several levels, in particular regarding their completeness, ambition levels and transparency.

3.2.1 Completeness

In contrast to the LCA method, the C2C framework hardly addresses the energy consumption of products. C2C thinking holds that as long as we use current solar income, energy is not a problem. However, when a C2C approach is used for short-term, realistic projects, in which the use of renewable energy sources is not (yet) an option, this may be misleading. An example is the design graduation project for a ‘C2C’ electric kettle (Krishna 2008). Stevels (2007, p. 371) demonstrates that approximately 90% of the total environmental impact of energy using products such as kettles is due to energy consumption during use. If the designer would have followed the C2C approach focused on eliminating certain (toxic) materials and closing material cycles, the focus would have shifted away from energy efficiency. This may have resulted in design proposals that optimise a product from a C2C (and materials) perspective but worsen its performance over its entire life cycle.

Also, C2C methodology implies that all solar technologies are CO₂ neutral, whereas this is not always the case. LCA will verify whether a given solar technology application has a net CO₂ reduction.

3.2.2 Ambition level

An LCA is an analytical method, which implies that a designer needs to have a very clear idea of the product that will be analysed. Once the system boundaries and functional unit of a product are established, only environmental improvements within these boundaries are possible. This leads to a certain ‘lock-in’ effect, which is characterised by McDonough and Braungart as leading to eco-efficiency (instead of eco-effectiveness).

The C2C framework consists of a blend of generative and analytical methods. It is analytical in its five-step approach towards non-toxic materials and closed loops and generative when it gives three principles that should lead to eco-effectiveness. The flexibility of the framework (the lack of strict, methodological procedures) is both its strength and weakness. The strength is its relentless ambition and drive towards inherently good, eco-effective solutions and its weakness is the lack of methodological rigour, which makes C2C a malleable concept (when is a product really eco-effective?).

3.2.3 Transparency

Designers commonly use streamlined LCA (with single-score assessments), as these require little sustainability expertise and can be executed relatively quickly. The single score gives an (aggregate) indication of the product's environmental impacts. However, a designer applying a streamlined LCA will not gain much insight into why a product scores the way it does. The complex analyses (damage analysis, normalisation and weighting) that resulted in the aggregate scores are hidden. For designers this can at times be confusing, as the LCA practicum with Industrial Design Engineering students showed. The students were most frustrated with the streamlined LCA when the outcomes ran counter to their prior expectations, and they realised they had to thoroughly investigate the origins of the data.

The C2C method does not use aggregate scores and seems very accessible. On a superficial level, the three leading C2C principles give a clear guidance to designers. However, when applying these principles, designers quickly discover limitations, such as a lack of data on which materials and additives are to be considered ‘safe’ and absence of guidelines for the application of renewable energy sources in products. Again, this leads to frustration, as designers realise the need for a more detailed data analysis.

3.2.4 Conclusions

Is there a way to combine the strong points of both methods? Our proposal is to use LCA as an analytical tool to keep track of the main environmental priorities that should be addressed (and in particular to keep track of energy consumption during the life cycle, as this is ill-addressed by C2C). We propose to use C2C as the overall framework to give the design a conceptual direction. The case study described in the following section will illustrate this.

3.3 Case study: sustainable redesign of business uniforms

The case described here was part of a graduation project at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, and executed for a Dutch company providing an extensive range of express delivery and mail service to businesses and consumers worldwide (De Clercq 2008). The goal of the graduation project was to develop new concepts for a more sustainable uniform collection, using C2C philosophy as the initial framework. Out of a 30-piece collection, a polo shirt, fleece jacket and all-season jacket were analysed and redesigned. Together these items covered the most challenging and complicated issues in the collection. This case description focuses on the polo shirt.

3.3.1 LCA of business uniforms

De Clercq started his project by studying the C2C framework, concluding: ‘Although C2C benchmarking requires detailed understanding of all different stages in a product's life cycle, including raw material acquisition, production processes, use and recollection, it … is primarily focused on material flows …. Impacts related to energy use are neglected in C2C practice.’ But, he continues, ‘The company's sustainability goals mainly focus on reducing CO₂ emissions, which requires mapping of energy flows’.

De Clercq, therefore, decided to perform a streamlined LCA of the three subject garments, focusing on the energy usage and CO₂ emissions, using the EcoIndicator 99 LCA method (by Pré Consultants). Because company-specific data on material suppliers and toxicological standards within the production facilities were lacking, databases of comparable recent case studies in the garment industry were used to fill in the blanks. From the LCA outcomes, it became immediately apparent that the use phase is dominant in the case of the polo shirt: the washing, tumble drying and ironing of the shirt accounted for 80% of its total energy impact. The LCA outcomes showed that, in the case of high-maintenance garments, education and encouragement of company personnel on sustainable laundering is crucial. In this case, increasing the number of wearing hours before washing, by improving the breathability, takes priority over simplifying disassembly or seam line structures.

3.3.2 Cradle-to-cradle

With the outcomes of the LCA, De Clercq knew which priorities he had to address in his redesign of the business uniform. At this point, he decided to revisit the C2C framework:

The aim of C2C's eco-effectiveness approach to work towards material flow metabolisms can be very inspiring within this project's focus. In the textile industry, where material losses are high and various forms of waste products are created, effectively redesigning material flows should be seen as a priority.

An extensive desk study into life cycle aspects of natural and synthetic fibres and several creativity sessions led to new designs where fewer components and dyes and new seam line patterns from sportswear apparel were integrated in a polo shirt redesign that still fitted the company's corporate character. By choosing a lighter 80/20 blend of recycled polyester and organic cotton, breathability was improved and the recommended washing temperature was lowered to 30°C. The higher polyester grade ensured fast drying and eliminated wrinkling. The new blend could be recycled with minimal losses in a closed-loop process where worn out garments were shredded, decolourised and granulated before being re-polymerised into new polyester fibres.

This treatment closely aligned with the C2C goal of creating a closed-loop materials flow (in this case, the materials are part of the technical nutrient cycle). A control LCA showed a possible decrease in energy consumption of 74% and CO₂ emissions of 68% (based on the assumption that the shirt would be washed at 30° and is not ironed or tumble dried).

3.3.3 New business case

Introducing the proposed closed-loop recycling programme would involve new logistic steps. A monitoring system has to be in place in order to keep track of distributed uniform items. Worn-out uniform items have to be gathered and stored until they can be shipped to recycling facilities in large enough quantities. Besides investments in logistics, new packaging and labelling of the garments would have to communicate the sustainable benefits and the central role of the owner. The commitment of employees and the households in which their uniforms circulate is crucial in decreasing energy consumption of high-maintenance garments. These significant out-of-pocket investments are, as often, negating factors for these projects to succeed. Especially in this case, where there are no identifiable business benefits for the company besides public relations opportunities.

4 Conclusions

We now return to our initial questions: how can industrial designers who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement C2C? How does the LCA method relate to C2C?

In this paper, we contend that LCA and C2C methods can be used as complementary approaches in a design process. The master thesis of De Clercq (2008) illustrated how the LCA was used to map significant energy flows in the lifetime of business uniform items and how the proposed redesigns and recycling procedures were clearly propelled by the C2C vision of closed-loop material flows. However, this case also illustrated the difficulty of implementing C2C practice in business-driven environments.

This leads to the conclusion that industrial designers need to be aware of their level of control. Some decisions can only be made on a strategic management level, for instance, the restructuring of business operations according to C2C principles. Designers can however pave the way, by showing how C2C could make business sense for a company, as was illustrated by Teoh (2008).

This paper has shown the strength of C2C as a generative method, giving direction to conceptual product development, and of LCA as an analytical tool, keeping track of the overall environmental profile of the product as it develops. We would, however, like to add one final word of caution. Whether intended by the authors or not, the C2C concept seems to induce dogmatism. We encounter many people who seem to believe that C2C is applicable to all designs, in its full form, and right now. We think such a dogmatic approach may actually be the biggest danger for the transition towards a more C2C-based society.