Environmental evaluation of localising production as a strategy for sustainable development: a case study of two consumer goods in Jamaica

The objective of this study was to compare the life-cycle environmental impacts of changed production structures for two consumer goods (high-density polyethylene (HDPE) shopping bags and beds) in Jamaica. A scenario technique was used to construct three alternative production structures for each product; each scenario reflecting an increase in local production in Jamaica which depended on an increased supply of input materials which may be sourced: (1) externally from overseas suppliers, (2) from post-consumer recycling, and (3) locally on the island of Jamaica. These three constructed scenarios were then compared to the existing supply chain or reference scenarios of the products. The results showed that for both case products the recycling scenario was most preferable for localising production, resulting in the lowest environmental impact. This was because the production of raw materials accounted for the largest effect on total environmental impact. As such, the most immediate environmental improvements were realised by lowering the production of virgin materials. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of consumer goods by influencing stakeholders

Consumer goods contribute to anthropogenic climate change across their product life cycles through carbon emissions arising from raw materials extraction, processing, logistics, retail and storage, through to consumer use and disposal. How can consumer goods manufacturers make stepwise reductions in their product life cycle carbon emissions by engaging with, and influencing their main stakeholders? A semi-structured interview approach was used: to identify strategies and actions, stakeholders in the consumer goods industry (suppliers, manufacturers, retailers and NGOs) were interviewed about carbon emissions reduction projects. Based on this, a summarising presentation was made, which was shared during a second round of interviews to validate and refine the results. The results demonstrate several opportunities that have not yet been exploited by companies. These include editing product choice in stores to remove products with higher carbon footprints, using marketing competences for environmental benefits, and bundling competences to create winewinewin business models. Governments and NGOs have important enabling roles to accelerate industry change. Although this work was initially developed to explore how companies can reduce life cycle carbon emissions of their products, these strategies and actions also give insights on how companies can influence and anticipate stakeholder actions in general. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Product aesthetics: representing designer intent and consumer response

This thesis reports on the development of a conceptual framework for product aesthetics. By adopting the theoretical perspective that products are a medium of communication between designers and consumers, the nature of consumer response and designer intent is explored. By integrating a range of disparate literature within a single coherent framework, the varieties of consumer response to product visual form are illustrated. To investigate the ways in which designers intend to evoke these responses, a qualitative research study was undertaken. This primarily involved interviews with industrial designers and consumer investigators. Analysis of these interviews led to the development of a conceptual framework for designer intent which both mirrors, and integrates with, that produced for consumer response. By representing processes beyond design that are influential in determining product form, a broader contextual framework is presented within which product aesthetics is situated. In concluding the thesis, applications for this framework are discussed and future research directions are proposed.

Development of a tool for rapidly assessing the implementation difficulty and emissions benefits of innovations

Consumer goods manufacturers aiming to reduce the environmental impact associated with their products commonly pursue incremental change strategies, but more radical approaches may be required if we are to address the challenges of sustainable consumption. One strategy to realize step change reductions is to prepare a portfolio of innovations providing different levels of impact reduction in exchange for different levels of organizational resource commitment. In this research a tool is developed to support this strategy, starting with the assumption that through brainstorming or other eco-innovation approaches, a long-list of candidate innovations has been created. The tool assesses the potential greenhouse gas benefit of an innovative option against the difficulty of its implementation. A simple greenhouse gas benefit assessment method based on streamlined LCA was used to analyze impact reduction potential, and a novel measure of implementation difficulty was developed. The predictions of implementation difficulty were compared against expert opinion, and showed similar results indicating the measure can be used sensibly to predict implementation difficulty. The assessment of the environmental gain versus implementation difficulty is visualized in a matrix, showing the trade-offs of several options. The tool is deliberately simple with scalar measures of CO 2 emissions benefits and implementation difficulty so tool users must remain aware of other potential environmental burdens besides greenhouse gases (e.g. water, waste). In addition, although relative life cycle emissions benefits of an option may be low, the absolute impact of an option can be high and there may be other co-benefits, which could justify higher levels of implementation difficulty. Different types of consumer products (e.g. household, personal care, foods) have been evaluated using the tool. Initial trials of the tool within Unilever demonstrate that the tool facilitates rapid evaluation of low-carbon innovations. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.