IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i15p4037-d251790.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feedback from Remanufacturing: Its Unexploited Potential to Improve Future Product Design

Author

Listed:
  • Louise Lindkvist Haziri

    (Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Manufacturing Engineering, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Erik Sundin

    (Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Manufacturing Engineering, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Tomohiko Sakao

    (Department of Management and Engineering, Division of Environmental Technology and Management, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden)

Abstract

Company interest and research in the circular economy and remanufacturing have increased as a means of reducing negative environmental impacts. Remanufacturing is an industrial process whereby used products are returned to a state of like-new. However, few products are designed for remanufacturing, and further research and industrial efforts are needed to facilitate more widespread use of design for remanufacturing. One crucial factor facilitating design for remanufacturing is the integration of feedback in the product design process. Thus, the objective of this paper is to analyse feedback flows from remanufacturing to product design. Hence, a literature study and multiple case studies were conducted at three companies that design, manufacture and remanufacture different kinds of products. The cross-case analysis revealed the five barriers of the lack of internal awareness, lack of knowledge, lack of incentives, lack of feedback channels and non-supportive organisational structures, and the five enablers of business opportunities, integrated design processes, customers’ demand, laws, regulations and standards, and new technologies. To establish improved feedback from remanufacturing to product design, the barriers need to be addressed and the enablers explored. Thus, improved feedback from remanufacturing to product design will improve the design of future products suited for a more circular economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Louise Lindkvist Haziri & Erik Sundin & Tomohiko Sakao, 2019. "Feedback from Remanufacturing: Its Unexploited Potential to Improve Future Product Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-24, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4037-:d:251790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4037/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4037/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pazoki, Mostafa & Zaccour, Georges, 2019. "A mechanism to promote product recovery and environmental performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 601-614.
    2. Ferrer, Geraldo & Clay Whybark, D., 2000. "From garbage to goods: Successful remanufacturing systems and skills," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 55-64.
    3. Atalay Atasu & Miklos Sarvary & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2008. "Remanufacturing as a Marketing Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(10), pages 1731-1746, October.
    4. Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Mariana Ferraz & Cláudia Echevenguá Teixeira & Henrique Rozenfeld, 2016. "The Deployment of Product-Related Environmental Legislation into Product Requirements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Garrette Clark & Justin Kosoris & Long Nguyen Hong & Marcel Crul, 2009. "Design for Sustainability: Current Trends in Sustainable Product Design and Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sasha Shahbazi & Kerstin Johansen & Erik Sundin, 2021. "Product Design for Automated Remanufacturing—A Case Study of Electric and Electronic Equipment in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Rui Jorge Carreira & José Vasconcelos Ferreira & Ana Luísa Ramos, 2023. "The Consumer’s Role in the Transition to the Circular Economy: A State of the Art Based on a SLR with Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Julie Kamp Albæk & Sasha Shahbazi & Tim C. McAloone & Daniela C. A. Pigosso, 2020. "Circularity Evaluation of Alternative Concepts During Early Product Design and Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-25, November.
    4. Fadeyi, Johnson Adebayo & Monplaisir, Leslie, 2022. "Instilling lifecycle costs into modular product development for improved remanufacturing-product service system enterprise," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    5. Raphael Wasserbaur & Tomohiko Sakao, 2020. "Conceptualising Design Fixation and Design Limitation and Quantifying Their Impacts on Resource Use and Carbon Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Johan Vogt Duberg & Jelena Kurilova‐Palisaitiene & Erik Sundin, 2023. "5‐step approach for initiating remanufacturing (5AFIR)," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4360-4370, November.
    7. Sasha Shahbazi & Anna Karin Jönbrink, 2020. "Design Guidelines to Develop Circular Products: Action Research on Nordic Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Poponi & Andrea Colantoni & Sirio R.S. Cividino & Enrico Maria Mosconi, 2019. "The Stakeholders’ Perspective within the B Corp Certification for a Circular Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Chen, Wenyi & Kucukyazici, Beste & Verter, Vedat & Jesús Sáenz, María, 2015. "Supply chain design for unlocking the value of remanufacturing under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(3), pages 804-819.
    3. Wang, Yacan & Zhu, Quan & Krikke, Harold & Hazen, Benjamin, 2020. "How product and process knowledge enable consumer switching to remanufactured laptop computers in circular economy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Forlin, Valeria & Scholz, Eva-Maria, 2020. "Strategic take-back programs when consumers have heterogeneous environmental preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Kleber, Rainer & Reimann, Marc & Souza, Gilvan C. & Zhang, Weihua, 2020. "Two-sided competition with vertical differentiation in both acquisition and sales in remanufacturing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 572-587.
    6. You Qiu & Youliang Jin, 2022. "Impact of environmental taxes on remanufacturing decisions of a duopoly," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 2479-2498, November.
    7. Wilson, Matthew & Goffnett, Sean, 2022. "Reverse logistics: Understanding end-of-life product management," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 643-655.
    8. Leonidas Milios & Mitsutaka Matsumoto, 2019. "Consumer Perception of Remanufactured Automotive Parts and Policy Implications for Transitioning to a Circular Economy in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-15, November.
    9. Huihui Liu & Xiaohang Yue & Hui Ding & G. Keong Leong, 2017. "Optimal Remanufacturing Certification Contracts in the Electrical and Electronic Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Qingyuan Zhu & Chenghao Yu & Zhiyang SHEN & Malin Song, 2023. "Competition between a manufacturer and a relicensing third party when customers are strategic," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(4), pages 2021-2040, June.
    11. Erzurumlu, S. Sinan, 2013. "The compatibility of durable goods with contingent generic consumables," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 574-585.
    12. Ying Wu & Youwei Li, 2022. "Competition or Authorization—Manufacturers’ Choice of Remanufacturing Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, October.
    13. František Milichovský, 2017. "An Impact of Reverse Logistics Activities on Marketing Communication," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 669-678.
    14. Yenipazarli, Arda, 2016. "Managing new and remanufactured products to mitigate environmental damage under emissions regulation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(1), pages 117-130.
    15. Pangburn, Michael S. & Stavrulaki, Euthemia, 2014. "Take back costs and product durability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 175-184.
    16. Ji, Guojun & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Yang, Guangyong, 2014. "Constructing sustainable supply chain under double environmental medium regulations," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(PB), pages 211-219.
    17. Matthias Kalverkamp & Alexandra Pehlken & Thorsten Wuest, 2017. "Cascade Use and the Management of Product Lifecycles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, August.
    18. He, Qidong & Wang, Nengmin & Browning, Tyson R. & Jiang, Bin, 2022. "Competitive collection with convenience-perceived customers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 239-254.
    19. Choi, Tsan-Ming & Chow, Pui-Sze & Lee, Chang Hwan & Shen, Bin, 2018. "Used intimate apparel collection programs: A game-theoretic analytical study," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 44-62.
    20. De Giovanni, Pietro & Zaccour, Georges, 2014. "A two-period game of a closed-loop supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 22-40.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:15:p:4037-:d:251790. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.