Reasons for this can be due to lack of knowledge about the tools, lack of specialized
staff that can use such tools, company size and low cooperation between departments. Poulikodou et al. [12] further identify obstacles to the use of environmental
tools; for instance, tools may be too vague, many checklists are already available,
tools need detailed information, the competence of users is low and there are delays
from suppliers. Bovea and Elis [13] identified checklists, matrices and rules or
guidelines (e.g. 10 golden rules of ecodesign) among the most often used qualitative and semi-quantitative tools. Knight and Jenkins [14] also suggest that some
of the most common or preferred ecodesign tools are in the form of guidelines and
checklists. An example of this can be seen in the work by Lindahl and Tingström
[15], who adapted Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to develop a checklist
for environmental considerations called Environmental Effect Analysis (EEA).
EEA requires qualitative information as opposed to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
which requires quantitative data and which users may find lengthy and difficult to
use [13].
More recent tools not only addressing environmental aspects but also social and
economic ones have also been proposed in the literature. For instance, Hallstedt
[16] proposes a sustainability criteria matrix targeting the early stages of product
development and a qualitative measure called sustainability index for decision
support. Schöggl et al. [9, 17] propose the Checklist for Sustainable Product
Development (CSPD) based on questions divided into four sustainability principles
and 9 categories where a sustainability expert is crucial for the use of the tool.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald et al. [9] suggest that guidelines and checklists need to
be company-specific and integrated systematically in the product development
process, and that using standalone and generic tools may not be effective. Hence,
specific procedures should be determined to avoid confusion on when and how to
use such tools. Fitzgerald et al. [9] divide decision-making in new product development into two broad types: design decisions and management decisions. Design
decisions address questions like what should be designed and determine shape, size,
materials, processes and components. Management decisions address questions that
attempt to ensure the design will result in a successful product. What will be done—
and when and who will do it—are some management questions. It is therefore
important to be clear about the purpose of the tool as well as who is going to use it,
the necessary inputs and the beneficial outputs. The following case study further
supports the use of an environmental checklist.
3 Case Study
Since 1989, Volvo Group has pledged to minimize the environmental impact of its
operations through adopting a life cycle approach in its operations [18]. Today,
Volvo’s White, Grey and Black Lists for materials selection to substitute, caution or
avoid materials, respectively [19–21], are an example of its commitment to reduce
environmental impacts. With regard to environmental standards, Volvo Group
Development of an Environmental Evaluation Tool …
383
staff that can use such tools, company size and low cooperation between departments. Poulikodou et al. [12] further identify obstacles to the use of environmental
tools; for instance, tools may be too vague, many checklists are already available,
tools need detailed information, the competence of users is low and there are delays
from suppliers. Bovea and Elis [13] identified checklists, matrices and rules or
guidelines (e.g. 10 golden rules of ecodesign) among the most often used qualitative and semi-quantitative tools. Knight and Jenkins [14] also suggest that some
of the most common or preferred ecodesign tools are in the form of guidelines and
checklists. An example of this can be seen in the work by Lindahl and Tingström
[15], who adapted Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) to develop a checklist
for environmental considerations called Environmental Effect Analysis (EEA).
EEA requires qualitative information as opposed to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
which requires quantitative data and which users may find lengthy and difficult to
use [13].
More recent tools not only addressing environmental aspects but also social and
economic ones have also been proposed in the literature. For instance, Hallstedt
[16] proposes a sustainability criteria matrix targeting the early stages of product
development and a qualitative measure called sustainability index for decision
support. Schöggl et al. [9, 17] propose the Checklist for Sustainable Product
Development (CSPD) based on questions divided into four sustainability principles
and 9 categories where a sustainability expert is crucial for the use of the tool.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald et al. [9] suggest that guidelines and checklists need to
be company-specific and integrated systematically in the product development
process, and that using standalone and generic tools may not be effective. Hence,
specific procedures should be determined to avoid confusion on when and how to
use such tools. Fitzgerald et al. [9] divide decision-making in new product development into two broad types: design decisions and management decisions. Design
decisions address questions like what should be designed and determine shape, size,
materials, processes and components. Management decisions address questions that
attempt to ensure the design will result in a successful product. What will be done—
and when and who will do it—are some management questions. It is therefore
important to be clear about the purpose of the tool as well as who is going to use it,
the necessary inputs and the beneficial outputs. The following case study further
supports the use of an environmental checklist.
3 Case Study
Since 1989, Volvo Group has pledged to minimize the environmental impact of its
operations through adopting a life cycle approach in its operations [18]. Today,
Volvo’s White, Grey and Black Lists for materials selection to substitute, caution or
avoid materials, respectively [19–21], are an example of its commitment to reduce
environmental impacts. With regard to environmental standards, Volvo Group
Development of an Environmental Evaluation Tool …
383