Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:51:04.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING SYSTEMIC DRIVERS AND BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE DESIGN TRANSITIONS: RELATIONSHIP STRENGTHS AND RESEARCH GAPS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Hossein Basereh Taramsari ,
John McFarren ,
Matilda Watz ,
Sophie I. Hallstedt  and
Steven Hoffenson
Hossein Basereh Taramsari*
Affiliation:
Stevens Institute of Technology, U.S.A.;
John McFarren
Affiliation:
Stevens Institute of Technology, U.S.A.;
Matilda Watz
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden;
Sophie I. Hallstedt
Affiliation:
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden; Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Steven Hoffenson
Affiliation:
Stevens Institute of Technology, U.S.A.;
*
Basereh Taramsari, Hossein, Stevens Institute of Technology, United States of America, hbasereh@stevens.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The sustainable design transition has proven to be a challenging process, in part due to the diverse set of stakeholders, which includes the general public, policymakers, scientific researchers, and businesses. In prior work, the interconnected relationships among systematic drivers and barriers for sustainable design were identified and mapped using a causal loop diagram at a relatively abstract level. To further understand and characterize this complex system, this research aims to identify the relationship strength levels among the variables in the system, as indicated by previous research identified in the literature. In addition, the knowledge maturity levels of these identified relationships are specified to illustrate strengths and gaps in the literature. The findings are used to create a refined system representation that illustrates the power dynamics between systemic driving forces to sustainable design transitions. The results of this work reveal valuable insights about the linkages among the driving forces of sustainable design transitions that can be used as a foundation for further investigation, such as experiments and data analytics that can better quantify these relationships.

Keywords

Systems thinkingSustainabilityEcodesignComplexitySustainable design transitions
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 677 - 686
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Airbus (2022), “Sustainability commitments”, Online, https://www.airbus.com/en/sustainability/sustainability-commitments. Accessed 20 November 2022.Google Scholar
Andersen, D.F., Vennix, J.A., Richardson, G.P. and Rouwette, E.A. (2007), “Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 691–694.Google Scholar
Arbuthnott, K.D. (2009), “Education for sustainable development beyond attitude change”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, R.J. and Rauter, R. (2017), “Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M., Pavitt, K. et al. (1995), “The development of technological capabilities”, Trade, technology and international competitiveness, Vol. 22 No. 4831, pp. 69–101.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, M., Alfredsson, E., Cohen, M., Lorek, S. and Schroeder, P. (2018), “Transforming systems of consumption and production for achieving the sustainable development goals: moving beyond efficiency”, Sustainability science, Vol. 13, pp. 1533–1547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhate, S. and Lawler, K. (1997), “Environmentally friendly products: factors that influence their adoption”, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boj, J.J., Rodriguez-Rodriguez, R. and Alfaro-Saiz, J.J. (2014), “An anp-multi-criteria-based methodology to link intangible assets and organizational performance in a balanced scorecard context”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 68, pp. 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broman, G.I. and Robert, K.H. (2017), “A framework for strategic sustainable development”, Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 140, pp. 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Del Rio, P. and Konnola, T. (2010), “Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies”, Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 18 No. 10-11, pp. 1073–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceschin, F. and Gaziulusoy, I. (2016), “Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions”, Design studies, Vol. 47, pp. 118–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, P. and Chatterjee, C. (2017), “Does environmental regulation indirectly induce upstream innovation? new evidence from india”, Research Policy, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 939–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, D., Lee, C. and Chen, C.H. (2014), “Review of life cycle assessment towards sustainable product development”, Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 83, pp. 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S. and Krasser, A.H. (2011), “What makes us care? the impact of cultural values, individual factors, and attention to media content on motivation for ethical consumerism”, International Social Science Review, Vol. 86 No. 1/2, pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
De Montis, A., De Toro, P., Droste-Franke, B., Omann, I. and Stagl, S. (2004), “Assessing the quality of different mcda methods”, in: Alternatives for environmental valuation, Routledge, pp. 115–149.Google Scholar
Hjorth, P. and Bagheri, A. (2006), “Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach”, Futures, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnik, J. (2018), “Ecological modernization through servitization: Eu regulatory support for sustainable product- service systems”, Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itami, H. and Roehl, T. (1987), “Mobilizing invisible assets, harvard university press”, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamali, D. (2006), “Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective”, Business Process Management Journal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, C., Hicks, B., Larsson, A.C. and Bertoni, M. (2011), “Knowledge maturity as a means to support decision making during product-service systems development projects in the aerospace sector”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinzig, A.P., Ehrlich, P.R., Alston, L.J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T.G., Daily, G.C., Levin, B., Levin, S., Oppenheimer, M. et al. (2013), “Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy”, BioScience, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 164–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J.J., Gemba, K. and Kodama, F. (2006), “Analyzing the innovation process for environmental performance improvement”, Technological forecasting and social change, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, F. and Duffey, M.R. (2007), “A review of existing methods to quantify intangible assets”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Vol. 4 No. 4-5, pp. 382–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N. and Avelino, F. (2017), “Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change”, Annual review of environment and resources, Vol. 42, pp. 599–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, J., MacDonald, H.A. and Sulsky, L.M. (2015), “Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? a policy-capturing study”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127, pp. 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milios, L. (2018), “Advancing to a circular economy: three essential ingredients for a comprehensive policy mix”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 861–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peace, A., Ramirez, A., Broeren, M.L., Coleman, N., Chaput, I., Rydberg, T. and Sauvion, G.N. (2018), “Everyday industry—pragmatic approaches for integrating sustainability into industry decision making”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 13, pp. 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raworth, K. (2017), “Why it's time for doughnut economics”, IPPR Progressive Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J. and Zhang, C. (2008), “Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior”, Journal of banking & finance, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1723–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockstrom, J., Gupta, J., Lenton, T.M., Qin, D., Lade, S.J., Abrams, J.F., Jacobson, L., Rocha, J.C., Zimm, C., Bai, X. et al. (2021), “Identifying a safe and just corridor for people and the planet”, Earth's Future, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. e2020EF001866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (1996), Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process, Vol. 4922, RWS publications Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Saaty, T.L. (2004), “Fundamentals of the analytic network process—dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network”, Journal of Systems science and Systems engineering, Vol. 13, pp. 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B. and Norgaard, R.B. (2006), “Sustainable development in a post-brundtland world”, Ecological economics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, M., Bertoni, A. and Maximilian, L. (2018), “On knowledge maturity and biased nature of staged decision making in a high consequence industry”, in: 15th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Vol. 1, The Design Society, pp. 465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilbury, D. (2011), “Higher education for sustainability: a global overview of commitment and progress”, Higher education in the world, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 18–28.Google Scholar
UN (1987), “Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future”, Accessed Feb, Vol. 10, pp. 1–300.Google Scholar
SIF, US (2022), “The forum for sustainable and responsible investment, report on us sustainable and impact investing trends. us sif: The forum for sustainable and responsible investment.”, Online, https://www.ussif.org/files/US%20SIF%20Trends%20Report%202020%20Executive%20Summary.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2022.Google Scholar
Van Hemel, C. and Cramer, J. (2002), “Barriers and stimuli for ecodesign in smes”, Journal ofcleaner production, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visentin, C., da Silva Trentin, A.W., Braun, A.B. and Thome, A. (2020), “Life cycle sustainability assessment: A systematic literature review through the application perspective, indicators, and methodologies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 270, p. 122509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Group, Volvo (2022), “Sustainability future.”, Online, https://www.volvogroup.com/en/sustainability/sustainability-future.html. Accessed 20 November 2022.Google Scholar
Watz, M., Hoffenson, S. and Hallstedt, S.I. (2021), “Exploring systemic forces that influence sustainable design transitions”, Proceedings of the Design Society, Vol. 1, pp. 1501–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watz, M., Johansson, C., Bertoni, A. and Hallstedt, S.I. (2022), “Investigating effects of group model building on sustainable design decision-making”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 33, pp. 846–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar