4.7 Review

Measuring the implementation of ecodesign management practices: A review and consolidation of process-oriented performance indicators

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 156, Issue -, Pages 293-309

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.049

Keywords

Performance measurement; Performance indicators; Ecodesign implementation; Ecodesign management practices; Sustainable product development

Funding

  1. CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) in Brazil [200869/2014-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ecodesign plays an important role in manufacturing companies' quest for improved sustainability performance. However, many ecodesign efforts are geared towards tackling single-issue discrete improvements, in contrast to operationalizing, measuring and acting upon the consistent improvement of ecodesign implementation and management. To enable a systematic and streamlined integration of ecodesign practices into the product development processes, adequate mechanisms are needed to capture and measure performance improvements, and thereby achieve consistent improvements in a company's efforts towards enhanced sustainability performance. In face of this challenge, this paper aims at providing organizations with a set of process-oriented indicators to supporting and enhancing ecodesign implementation and management. This research was grounded on a 2-phase approach to (i) cross-analyze performance indicators from literature against ecodesign practices at the process level and (ii) propose, evaluate and consolidate new indicators. After being subjected to the evaluation of 8 experts in ecodesign, a repository is presented with 27 indicators from literature and a set of 114 newly proposed indicators for companies to customize, adapt, mix and derive according to their needs, strategic drivers and overall context. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available