Consumer electronic products have a complex life cycle, characterized by environmental, social, and economic impacts and benefits associated with their manufacturing, use, and disposal at end-of-life. Accurately analysing these trade-offs and creating sustainable solutions requires data about the materials and components that make up these devices. Such information is rarely disclosed by manufacturers and only exists in the open literature in disparate case study format. This study presents a comprehensive database of bill of material (BOM) data describing the mass of major materials and components contained in 95 unique consumer electronic products. Data are generated by product disassembly and physical characterization and then validated against external benchmarks in the literature. The study also contributes a reproducible framework for organizing BOM data so that they can be expanded as new products enter the market. These data will benefit researchers studying all aspects of electronics and sustainability, including material scarcity, product design, environmental life cycle assessment, electronic waste policy, and environmental health and safety.
Trade-Off Characterization Between Social and Environmental Impacts Using Agent-Based Product Adoption Models and Life Cycle Assessment
Abstract Meeting the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals efficiently requires designers and engineers to solve multi-objective optimization problems involving trade-offs between social, environmental, and economical impacts. This paper presents an approach for designers and engineers to quantify the social and environmental impacts of a product at a population level and then perform a trade-off analysis between those impacts. In this approach, designers and engineers define the attributes of the product as well as the materials and processes used in the product’s life cycle. Agent-based modeling (ABM) tools that have been developed to model the social impacts of products are combined with life cycle assessment (LCA) tools that have been developed to evaluate the pressures that different processes create on the environment. Designers and engineers then evaluate the trade-offs between impacts by finding non-dominated solutions that minimize environmental impacts while maximizing positive and/or minimizing negative social impacts. Product adoption models generated by ABM allow designers and engineers to approximate population level environmental impacts and avoid Simpson’s paradox, where a reversal in choices is preferred when looking at the population level impacts versus the individual product-level impacts. This analysis of impacts has the potential to help designers and engineers create more impactful products that aid in reaching the UN sustainable development goals.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1761505
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10389676
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Mechanical Design
- Volume:
- 145
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1050-0472
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Global concerns about climate change and resource management have escalated the need for sustainable consumer products. In light of this, sustainable design methodologies that supplement the product design process are needed. Current research focuses on developing sustainable design curricula, adapting classical design methods to accommodate environmental sustainability, and sustainability tools that are applicable during the early design phase. However, concurrent work suggests that sustainability-marketed and innovative products still lack a reduction of environmental impact compared to conventional products. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has proven to be an exceptional tool used to assess the environmental impact of a realized product. However, LCA is a reactive tool that does not proactively reduce the environmental impact of novel product concepts. Here we develop a novel methodology, the PeeP method, using historical product LCA data with kernel density estimation to provide an estimated environmental impact range for a given product design. The PeeP method is tested using a series of case studies exploring four different products. Results suggest that probability density estimations developed through this method reflect the environmental impact of the product at both the product and component level. In the context of sustainable design research, the PeeP method is a viable methodology for assessing product design environmental impact prior to product realization. Our methodology can allow designers to identify high-impact components and reduce the cost of product redesign in practice.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The world faces an increasing need to phase out harmful chemicals and design sustainable alternatives across various consumer products and industrial applications. Alternatives assessment is an emerging field with focus on identifying viable solutions to substitute harmful chemicals. However, current methods fail to consider trade-offs from human and ecosystem exposures, and from impacts associated with chemical supply chains and product life cycles. To close this gap, we propose a life cycle based alternatives assessment (LCAA) framework for consistently integrating quantitative exposure and life cycle impact performance in the substitution process. We start with a pre-screening based on function-related decision rules, followed by three progressive tiers from (1) rapid risk screening of various alternatives for the consumer use stage, to (2) an assessment of chemical supply chain impacts for selected alternatives with substantially different synthesis routes, and (3) an assessment of product life cycle impacts for alternatives with substantially different product life cycles. Each tier focuses on relevant impacts and uses streamlined assessment methods. While the initial risk screening will be sufficient for evaluating chemicals with similar supply chains, each additional tier helps further restricting the number of viable solutions, while avoiding unacceptable trade-offs. We test our LCAA framework in a proof-of-concept case study for identifying suitable alternatives to a harmful plasticizer in household flooring. Results show that the use stage dominates human health impacts across alternatives, supporting that a rapid risk screening is sufficient unless very different supply chains or a broader set of alternative materials or technologies are considered. Combined with currently used indicators for technical and economic performance, our LCAA framework is suitable for informing function-based substitution at the level of chemicals, materials and product applications to foster green and sustainable chemistry solutions.more » « less
-
Abstract Though academic research for identifying and considering the social impact of products is emerging, additional insights can be gained from engineers who design products every day. This paper explores current practices in industries used by design engineers to consider the social impact of products. Forty-six individuals from 34 different companies were interviewed to discover what disconnects exist between academia and industry when considering a product’s social impact. These interviews were also used to discover how social impact might be considered in a design setting moving forward. This is not a study to find “the state of the art,” but considers the average engineering professional’s work to design products in various industries. Social impact assessments (SIA) and social life cycle assessments (SLCA) are two of the most common processes discussed in the literature to evaluate social impact, both generally and in products. Interestingly, these processes did not arise in any discussion in interviews, despite respondents affirming that they do consider social impact in the product design. Processes used to predict social impact, rather than simply evaluate, were discussed by the respondents. These tended to be developed within the company and often related to industry imposed government regulations. To build on this study, the findings herein should be further validated for executives, managers, and engineers. A study specific to these roles should be designed to understand the disconnect better. Additionally, processes should be developed to assist engineers in considering the social impact of their products. Work should also be done to help educate engineers and their leaders on the value of considering the social impact in product design.more » « less
-
Sustainability, including environmental and social sustainability, has been identified across all sectors, from government to industry to academia, as a critical area for action. Sustainability goals and actions, by necessity, require input from many fields, but engineers play a potentially outsized role due to the structures and products they build, and the associated choices they make. The Engineering for One Planet (EOP) initiative aims to address this challenge by ensuring all future engineers, no matter their discipline, are equipped with the skills, knowledge, understanding, and mindsets to design, build, and create in sustainable ways. Much has been achieved to date by the EOP initiative, through a process of multi-stakeholder engagement, in both understanding and piloting solutions to realize the EOP vision. However, in order to achieve the far reaching systemic changes desired, a roadmap for a Collective Impact-informed, cross-sector, collaborative initiative was developed. This roadmap leverages the approaches yielded from the recent National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded EOP Scaling for Impact Workshop, the lessons learned and results achieved from the initiative to date, and key considerations drawn from a Collective Impact approach that centers equity. This roadmap calls for stakeholders—including academia, industry, accrediting and professional organizations, community organizations, non-profits, funders, and those communities most impacted by the negative impacts of environmental and social sustainability challenges— to move beyond singular programmatic interventions, and instead work to collaboratively understand and construct coordinated solutions, to integrating sustainability into engineering education and the engineering profession. The roadmap’s call to action invites collaborators to join this initiative and engage with the roadmap as a starting point for their work together; the roadmap provides immediate action steps, and invites collaborators to further shape the roadmap into a collective, achievable plan for systems change, that they, their institutions/organizations, and other cross-sector collaborators can embrace. For systems change is never complete and the solutions not finite; it is only through ongoing, collective action that we can fully understand, and learn how to address the lack of sustainability in engineering as the complex, social problem it is.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056006
