Field of Research in Sustainable
Manufacturing
Jérémy Bonvoisin, Rainer Stark and Günther Seliger
Abstract Sustainability has raised significant attention in manufacturing research
over the last decades and has become a significant driver of the development of
innovative technologies and management concepts. The current chapter aims to pro-
vide a structured overview of the wide field of research in sustainable manufacturing
with a particular focus on manufacturing technology and management. It intends to
describe the role of manufacturing in sustainability, outline the complementary
approaches necessary for a transition to sustainable manufacturing and specify the need
for engaging in interdisciplinary research. Based on a literature review, it provides a
structuring framework defining four complementary areas of research focussing on
analysis, synthesis and transition solutions. The challenges of the four areas of research
manufacturing technologies (“how things are produced”), product development (“what
is being produced”), value creation networks (“in which organisational context”)and
global manufacturing impacts (“how to make a systemic change”) are highlighted and
illustrated with examples from current research initiatives.
1 The Role of Manufacturing in Sustainability
Humanity is increasingly confronted with the challenge of dealing with a finite
earth—a world with a limited “carrying capacity”(Arrow et al. 1995) and with
“planetary boundaries”(Rockström et al. 2009), with some expecting “limits to
growth”(Meadows et al. 1972). Owing to the unprecedented growth in population
and economic output experienced since the 19th century (respectively six and
sixty-fold, Maddison 2006), the stress imposed by humanity on natural equilibria
J. Bonvoisin (&)R. Stark
Chair of Industrial Information Technology, Institute for Machine-tools
and Factory Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Seliger
Chair of Assembly Technology and Factory Management, Institute for
Machine-tools and Factory Management, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
©The Author(s) 2017
R. Stark et al. (eds.), Sustainable Manufacturing, Sustainable Production,
Life Cycle Engineering and Management, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-48514-0_1
3
has reached alarming levels at the same time that it fortifies increasing inequality
between early industrialised and emerging countries. The limited capacity of the
atmosphere to take stock of the emissions produced by our carbon-based econo-
mies, poses a threat not only to natural equilibria, but also to our own daily con-
ditions of living (Edenhofer et al. 2015). The flows of some elements due to human
activities, such as phosphor and nitrogen, now exceed natural flows, thus threat-
ening the balance of the metabolism of natural ecosystems (Vitousek et al. 1997).
Hence, the risk of “overshooting”, i.e. drawing on the world’s resources faster than
they can be restored, while releasing wastes and pollutants faster than the earth can
absorb them, is very real and the ongoing, unresolved challenge of our time
(Meadows et al. 2004).
Although the concept of “sustainable development”(as defined for example by
Brundtland et al. 1987) has received significant attention and motivated numerous
initiatives in favour of, e.g. recycling, energy efficiency, the need for action is now
nevertheless greater than ever before. This is particularly underscored by the
observation that, despite international efforts to combat climate change, the global
energy system is carbonizing due to a global renaissance of coal (Steckel et al. 2015).
Further and more innovative decarbonisation solutions are therefore urgently needed.
As a major stakeholder in several areas of human living, industry has a great role
to play in sustainability. It first contributes significantly to the overall environmental
impact of human activity. It represents 26 % of the final energy consumption in the
EU 27 (Lapillonne et al. 2013, data from 2013), emits 28.5 % of the greenhouse
gases produced in the EU 27 (European Commission 2013) and uses energy which
is still generated from fossil energy sources by up to 56 % (Lapillonne et al. 2013,
data from 2013). In 2006, the European Commission estimated an overall European
energy saving potential of 20 %. In the case of industries, the potential savings are
estimated to be 25 %, representing annual losses of about 100 billion euros
(European Commission 2006). At the same time, while the precision of production
processes reaches ever smaller scales, the energy consumption of corresponding
production systems is increasing exponentially (Gutowski et al. 2011). Meanwhile,
further increases in energy consumption are anticipated.
Beyond its direct environmental impacts, the discrete product manufacturing
sector also influences the resource consumption of its products over their entire
lifecycle, and therein plays a critical and complex role in sustainability (Duflou
et al. 2012). This role is particularly relevant considering that households in early
industrialised countries face a literal “rise of the machines”and are equipped with
more products and appliances than only a few decades ago (Energy Saving Trust
2006). The average household in early industrialised countries may own thousands
of material items, so managing the volume of the possessions becomes a stress
factor (Arnold et al. 2012).
With respect to the social aspects, the industrial sector employs 17 % of the
European workforce (Eurofound 2012) and represents more than 23 % of world-
wide total employment (International Labour Organization 2014). On the other
hand, while working conditions in the manufacturing sector have improved steadily
over the last decades (World Health Organization 2013), poor working conditions
4 J. Bonvoisin et al.
persist in resulting in as many as 300,000 work-related deaths and economic losses
of 4 % of the gross domestic product of the European region every single year
(WHO 2016). Globally, industries are responsible for 7.2 % of child labour, or 12
million people (Diallo et al. 2013).
That said, manufacturing stands strong as a crucial sector for the development of
economies. Manufacturing generates 14 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) of
OECD countries and of Europe according to the OECD (2016),
1
and 31 % of the
world GDP according to the US central intelligence agency (2016).
2
Beyond this
quantitative contribution to the GDP, whose reflection of actual wealth is debatable
(see e.g. Costanza et al. 2014), it has been shown that stable specific and sequential
sectoral patterns can be observed in economic development processes across the
spectrum of countries, with specific manufacturing sectors furthermore playing an
important role in initializing economic development processes in poor countries
(Radebach et al. 2014). On the whole, thus, basic manufacturing activities seem to
be a necessary enabler for the development of modern economies.
To summarize, manufacturing as a subset of the industrial sector (see glossary
for disambiguation of the terms) has a threefold impact on sustainability:
•it plays a major role in the creation of wealth;
•it directly contributes to the material metabolism of human societies as it
requires material input and produces outputs;
•it indirectly contributes to the material metabolism of human societies as it
produces outputs having their own metabolism even after having left manu-
facturing systems.
2 Existing Approaches of Sustainable Manufacturing
As a counterpoint to this tripartite observation, sustainable manufacturing is defined
in the present publication as (see also the glossary for more information on this
definition):
creation of discrete manufactured products that in fulfilling their functionality over their
entire life cycle cause a manageable amount of impacts on the environment (nature and
society) while delivering economic and societal value.
The international research community has been particularly active in the last
decades in the development of conceptual or concrete solutions toward sustainable
manufacturing (see for example Arena et al. 2009). The objective of the current
contribution is to deliver a framework for providing a structured overview of the
existing field of research in sustainable manufacturing, with a particular focus on
industrial engineering. It intends to outline the complementary approaches required
1
Accessed 09.03.2016. Figures for EU-28/2015 and for OECD/2014.
2
Accessed 22.08.2016, last updated 04.02.2016.
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 5
for a transition to sustainable manufacturing and their necessary interdisciplinary
modus operandi. While Sect. 2.1 provides an overview of previous attempts in this
direction, Sect. 2.2 introduces an original framework of sustainable manufacturing,
according to which the present book publication is structured. Section 3is
specifically dedicated to the discussion of the challenges of multi-, inter- and
transdisciplinary approaches faced by researchers in sustainable manufacturing.
2.1 Review of Published Frameworks
Since the emergence of the first initiatives explicitly termed as green engineering or
sustainable manufacturing, several reviews of the field have been undertaken and
frameworks have been proposed that identify the complementary areas of research
that need to be addressed. Jayal et al. (2010), for example, deliver an overview of
strategies for sustainable manufacturing with a particular focus on the modelling
and assessment techniques for the development of sustainable products, processes
and supply chains. Duflou et al. (2012) provide an extensive review of strategies for
energy and resource efficiency in discrete part manufacturing, considering five
complementary levers: unit process, manufacturing line, facility, manufacturing
system and global supply chain. Based on the evaluation of the potential of these
techniques, they estimate potential energy savings of 50 % in the overall con-
sumption in the manufacturing sector. Garetti and Taisch (2012) furthermore
published an overview of trends affecting the manufacturing sector, highlighting the
challenges raised by sustainability in this sector and the corresponding strategies.
They identify four complementary research clusters with a broader focus: enabling
technologies, resources and energy management, asset and product lifecycle
management, business model and processes. Finally, Haapala et al. (2013) made
recommendations for further research on sustainable manufacturing, based on the
review of existing initiatives and considering two foci: manufacturing processes and
equipment along with manufacturing systems.
It is worth noting that all these reviews identify both sustainability assessment
methods and technical strategies (analysis and synthesis) as necessary and com-
plementary approaches to sustainable manufacturing. Analytical approaches are
required in order to put words and figures to the problems which may ultimately be
solved by synthesis. One example of this is found in the inventory of approaches for
energy efficient manufacturing at the unit process level given by Duflou et al.
(2012), where data acquisition, computational models and energy assessment
methods stand alongside technical solutions such as “technological change”or
“waste recovery within the machine tool.”Two of the four publications go further,
and state that analysis and synthesis approaches can only be effective if enabled by
adapted education tactics. On one side of the equation, a systematic implementation
of analysis and synthesis approaches in industry requires that engineers fully
appreciate the sustainable manufacturing concepts and are trained in multi-objective
6 J. Bonvoisin et al.
decision-making. On the other side, the general public can only foster sustainable
production if they fully appreciate the impact of their consumption patterns.
While such reviews identify different yet overlapping scopes, the sustainable
manufacturing solutions they identify can be classified into four different areas,
which we will call for our purposes layers:
•Manufacturing technologies: approaches focused on “how things are manu-
factured”, i.e. whose object of research lies in processes and equipment,
including machine-tools or facilities. Examples of such approaches are among
other things: development of new or improved manufacturing processes, pre-
dictive maintenance of production equipment, determination of process resource
consumption, process chain simulation, or energy-efficient facility building.
•Product lifecycles: approaches focussed on “what is to be produced”, i.e. whose
object of research is the product definition (where product can be understood as
a good or a service). Examples of such approaches are among others: asset and
product lifecycle management, intelligent product, simplified product sustain-
ability assessment.
•Value creation networks: approaches focused on the organisational context of
manufacturing activities, i.e. whose objects of research are organisations such as
companies or manufacturing networks. Examples of such approaches are among
others: resource efficient supply chain planning, industrial ecology.
•Global manufacturing impact: approaches focused on the transition mechanisms
towards sustainable manufacturing, i.e. whose objects exceed the conventional
scope of engineering. Examples of such approaches are among others: devel-
opment of sustainability assessment methods, education and competence
development, development of standards.
Table 1summarizes how the four cited reviews of the field of sustainable
manufacturing correspond to the four identified layers.
Table 1 Four layers of sustainable manufacturing identified in previous frameworks
Layer Object addressed Haapala
et al.
(2013)
Garetti and
Taisch
(2012)
Duflou
et al.
(2012)
Jayal
et al.
(2010)
Global
manufacturing
impact
World (society,
environment, economy)
••
Value creation
networks
Organisations (companies
and manufacturing
networks)
•• ••
Product
lifecycles
Product definition (good
and service)
••
Manufacturing
technologies
Process and equipment
(machine-tool, facility)
•• ••
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 7
As a last observation, it should be noted that although these reviews define
sustainable manufacturing as resulting from the consideration of the three dimen-
sions, the specific solutions which they present remain confined to the environ-
mental dimension (or even consider resource efficiency exclusively) and in so
doing, elude the social dimension altogether. This is in accordance with the
observation provided by Arena et al. in 2009 already, in their extensive
state-of-the-art of industrial sustainability study: while the social dimension of
sustainability is generally viewed to be worth considering, only few specific
solutions have been provided to date which address these social issues. In their
summary of published research on the role of manufacturing in social sustainability,
Sutherland et al. (2016) state that manufacturing enterprise still lacks standardised
approaches for internalising social sustainability and for outlining directions of
future work in order to mitigate this situation, such as the further development of
Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA).
Based on these contributions and the observations made, the next section
introduces a framework structuring the field of the necessary research for enabling
the transition to sustainable manufacturing.
2.2 Proposed Framework
Manufacturing activities can be characterised as the interplay of five value creation
factors, i.e. human, process, equipment, organisation and product, taking place in
value creation modules (Seliger et al. 2011). Value creation modules are, in turn,
vertically and horizontally integrated into geographically distributed value creation
networks. Value creation modules generate effects on the three dimensions of
sustainability that can be measured by sustainability assessment methods.
Following the value creation network model depicted in Fig. 1and based on the
findings of the previous section, sustainable manufacturing can be defined as the
necessary interplay of three kinds of approaches:
•analysis approaches, i.e. methods allowing the evaluation of value creation
based on the three dimensions of sustainability;
•synthesis approaches, i.e. implementation of these methods in the development
of technical systems at all levels of value creation (value creation factors,
modules and networks);
•approaches for systemic changes, i.e. to transform business to become standard
vehicles towards sustainable processes; in other words: enabling the systematic
integration of sustainability in day-to-day decision-making.
These approaches are embedded in the four concentric and sequentially
including areas introduced in the previous section: manufacturing technologies,
product lifecycle, value creation networks, global manufacturing impact. The
interplay of analysis, synthesis and transition approaches and these four layers are
8 J. Bonvoisin et al.
depicted in Fig. 2while Table 2presents their respective scientific disciplines and
objects of research. Layers are depicted with more detail in the subsequent sections
of this chapter.
Fig. 1 Value creation network (VCN) model
Product lifecycles
Value creaƟon networks
Global manufacturing impact
Manufacturing technologies
A
T
S
Fig. 2 Interplay of analysis, synthesis and transition approaches and the four areas of sustainable
manufacturing (Ttransition; Aanalysis; Ssynthesis)
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 9
2.3 Manufacturing Technologies
This layer specifically addresses the two factors of value creation process and
equipment. It focuses on the development of production technologies, machine-tool
concepts and factory management techniques ensuring that whatever has to be
produced, it can be done with economy of resources which likewise uphold social
standards.
This first requires determining specific indicators which enable the identification
of improvement potential at the process and at the machine level. Examples of these
are found in the “specific energy consumption,”an empiric model developed by
Kara and Li (2011) for material removal processes and based on measures on
machine tools, or the “electrical deposition efficiency,”an analytic model developed
by Sproesser et al. (2016) for welding processes. At facility level, cyber-physical
systems (Low et al. 2005) and metering techniques (Kara et al. 2011) can be
employed in tandem with appropriate facility models and simulation techniques
(e.g. Herrmann and Thiede 2009) in order to enable optimal steering of processes
within a manufacturing system.
Regarding the development of new technologies, existing efforts encompass, for
example, the improvement of welding technologies in terms of resource con-
sumption (Sproesser et al. 2015) or the development of new internally cooled
cutting processes (Uhlmann et al. 2012). At the manufacturing cell level,
lifetime-extending add-ons for machine-tools (Kianinejad et al. 2016) and of
automated workplaces preventing musculoskeletal strain by workers (Krüger and
Nguyen 2015), can be cited as examples.
While such solutions form a necessary basis for sustainable manufacturing,
macroeconomic calculations underscore that applying best available sectorial
technologies in all regional industry sectors across the world would reduce CO
2
emissions to one-third (Ward et al. 2015). This shows that solutions are required
beyond the manufacturing technology level in order to reach e.g. the factor 4 or 10
pinned by some authors as a necessary objective of environmental reduction of
human activities (e.g. Weizsacker 1998).
Table 2 Objects and scientific disciplines of the four layers of sustainable manufacturing
Layer Object addressed Discipline concerned
Manufacturing
technology
Process and equipment
(machine-tool, facility)
Production engineering, factory
planning, operation management
Product
development
Product definition (good and
service)
Engineering design
Value creation
networks
Organisations (companies and
manufacturing networks)
Business economics, knowledge
management
Global
manufacturing
impact
World (society, environment,
economy)
Micro and macro-economics, natural
sciences, humanities, politics, education
10 J. Bonvoisin et al.
This layer is specifically addressed in the part “Solutions—Sustainability-driven
Development of Manufacturing Technologies”of the present book.
2.4 Product Lifecycles
This layer specifically addresses the factor of value creation product. It focuses on
enabling the operation of product development processes systematically leading to
products which achieve balance of the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. which
generate low environmental impacts while delivering socially useful functions, all
available at reasonable production and purchase prices. This requires the applica-
tion of methods allowing product development teams to systematically integrate
sustainability criteria into their decisions.
Over the past decades, a large variety of methods of this type have been
developed. As early as 2002, Baumann et al. identified more than 150 methods for
“green product development”, i.e. focusing strictly on the environmental dimension
of sustainability, while Pigosso (2012) more recently identified 106 of them. The
wide range of methods generated by the scientific community led Ernzer and
Birkhofer (2002) to state that the difficulty no longer lies in developing design
methods, but lies rather in selecting the relevant methods and applying them effi-
ciently. As a matter of fact, existing methodological support for sustainable product
development is often criticized for being poorly integrated into the product
development process, ultimately leading to additional exertion on the part of pro-
duct development engineers, and at the same time to low industry diffusion (Rosen
and Kishawy 2012; Knight and Jenkins 2009).
Addressing this very issue, Pigosso et al. (2013) developed a maturity model
which allows a step-by-step, guided integration of sustainable product development
methods in companies. At a more operational level, Buchert et al. (2014) developed
an IT-tool aimed at supporting the selection of the appropriate method for a given
design problem. From the flipside of the process, some other authors have striven to
reduce the diversity of tools through the development of integrated frameworks
(e.g. Dufrene et al. 2013). In all cases, a key factor for effective consideration of
sustainability in daily product development activities is found in the integration of
methods in information systems such as Product Lifecycle Management (Stark and
Pförtner 2015).
Given the high number of constraints applying to product development which
limit the solution space spectrum along with the attainable level of innovation, parts
of the research community have striven to reclaim degrees of freedom in their
pursuits, by fostering alternative production or consumption patterns.
A well-researched topic in this area is found in the concept of product service
systems through which: “it is in the economic and competitive interest of the
producer/provider to foster continuous innovation in reducing the environmental
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 11
impacts and improving social equity and cohesion”(Vezzoli et al. 2015). Another
partially overlapping field of research is found in the participative design models
allowing for a deeper integration of the voice of the final user in the design process,
such as user-centred design or open source design (Aitamurto et al. 2015;
Bonvoisin and Boujut 2015).
This layer is specifically addressed in the part “Solutions—Sustainable Product
Development”of the present book.
2.5 Value Creation Networks
This layer addresses the value creation factor organisation as well as the combi-
nation of value creation modules into value creation networks. It addresses the
ability of the value creation networks to support sustainable production and prod-
ucts. How sustainable a product proves to be, may, for instance, be determined not
only by its design, but also by an array of choices made in the value creation
network that are not accessible to the product development team. More specifically,
a given product cannot be claimed to be sustainable universally or inevitably, but in
relation to a given context and associated use (Manzini and Jégou 2003). The
remanufacturability of a product, furthermore, only constitutes potential that is born
out of the product design itself, and can only be realized by the interplay of
activities including, among other things, reverse logistics, product dismantling and
testing. How sustainable a transportation system based on electric cars proves to be
for a given area, for example, may depend on the density of the population and the
existence of an appropriate public transportation network. Following Haapala et al.
(2013) in that pursuit, then, the question lies not only in which processes are
performed, but also where these processes are performed. This question is notably
important in a world of globalized supply chains where intensive processes tend to
be outsourced to emerging countries (Andersson and Lindroth 2001; Bonvoisin
2012).
Taking this into consideration, approaches are required to help ensure the
development of organisational infrastructure which facilitates sustainable products
and productions. Two critical aspects identified by Jayal et al. (2010) are
multi-objective and integrated value creation planning. One challenge lies in
moving from the coordination of independently managed organisations with indi-
vidual profit maximisation behaviour, to more integrated planning. The other
challenge is to go beyond profit minimisation and integrate several dimensions into
the decision-making process in pursuit of connecting value creation modules.
This layer is specifically addressed in the part “Solutions—Sustainable Value
Creation Networks”of the present book.
12 J. Bonvoisin et al.
2.6 Global Manufacturing Impact
This last layer addresses the penetration rate of sustainable solutions, i.e. how far
sustainable decision-making methods are implemented in practice. In order to pave
the way for necessary cultural change, research which takes on the triple role of
yardstick (measuring sustainability), guidepost (setting targets) and multiplier
(motivating towards a direction), is what is required.
The first role requires the development of methods for measuring the actual
sustainability performance of products and manufacturing activities, examining
improvement potentials and identifying trade-offs between the achievement of
multiple targets. As a central methodology in sustainable engineering, Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) and even more relevant, Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment
(LCSA) (Finkbeiner et al. 2010), figure as essential parts of the solution. These
tools however represent heavy machinery that remain too time-consuming and
difficult for engineers to appreciate, and therefore hardly applicable in day-to-day
decision-making. In particular, a first task lies in equipping engineers with the
knowledge and framework of reference necessary to select appropriate indicators
among the huge amount of indicators available. A second predicament underlined
by Jaya et al. (2010) lies in the development of rapid and convenient sustainability
evaluation procedures which yield results as precise as LCA.
The second role requires the development of methods for setting appropriate
sustainability targets. For example, most LCA indicators (e.g. global warming
potential) have been primarily developed for determining the sustainability per-
formance of a product or process in comparative terms (i.e. in comparison with
another product or process delivering the same function). Hence, they can support
manufacturing that always strives to “be more sustainable than before”but cannot
ensure that manufacturing is sustainable in absolute terms (Bjørn and Hauschild
2013). Yet, despite however useful they may be for comparing processes or
products, these indicators need to be complemented by a sustainability analysis in
more absolute terms. This includes both the setting of clear sustainability reference
values/targets (e.g. maximum allowed CO
2
emissions to meet the 2° goal) and the
development of methods to analyse the sustainability of products and processes
with regard to these targets (as proposed by Bjørn et al. 2016, for example).
The third role involves the overall effort attached to the information transfer to
industry, policymakers and the general public, in order to stimulate the necessary
cultural change. One essential lever in that pursuit advocated by Haapala et al.
(2013), Mihelcic et al. (2003) and Garetti and Taisch (2012) is non other than pure
and simple education. On the one hand, manufacturing-related curricula should
provide engineers with a broader understanding of the concept of sustainability and
of the influence of their activities on societal and environmental systems. They
should be able to identify improvement potential in technical systems towards
sustainability, evaluate optimal solutions, and take decisions accordingly. At the
same time, they should be made to appreciate the socio-technical nature of sus-
tainable manufacturing, along with the influence of the behaviour of consumers and
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 13
users on the other side of the spectrum. On the other hand, the actual transition
towards sustainability not only relies on engineers, but also on the “environmental”
and “technological literacy”(Mihelcic et al. 2003) of the greater citizenry, which
would allow people to make enlightened and balanced consumer decisions.
Considering empirical observations showing that both concepts of sustainability
and manufacturing may not generally be well understood (e.g. Roeder et al. 2016),
a tremendous need is present for the integration of all such concerns in education
agendas, from primary school to university.
This layer is specifically addressed in the part “Implementation Perspectives”of
the present book.
3 Challenges of Interdisciplinarity in Sustainability
Research
The above detailed layers are not only complementary on the topics which they
address, but likewise interdependent. Stock and Burton (2011) note that sustain-
ability “necessitate[s] solutions informed by multiple backgrounds that singular
disciplines seem unable to provide, and possibly, are even incapable of providing”
and therein they underline the necessity for collaboration between the disciplines.
They differentiate between multi- and interdisciplinarity: while multidisciplinarity is
characterized by the co-existence of different scientific disciplines with parallel
objectives in a common research field, interdisciplinarity seeks to bridge disci-
plinary gaps in perspective by involving different disciplines in the achievement of
a common goal. Together with Schäfer (2013), they even advocate for transdisci-
plinary research, i.e. the inclusion of non-researcher stakeholders such as repre-
sentatives from enterprises, administration or NGOs, end-users or citizens in the
process of producing solutions of complex socio-technical problems. One argument
for this is that the very concept of sustainability cannot be stated universally, but
instead has to be considered within each and every specific social context. This
requirement is backed by the strong observation stressed by Mihelcic et al. already
in 2003 that engineering disciplines lack connective oversight of societal problems,
that the public has difficulty appreciating what exactly engineers do, and that
engineers tend to overlook the social dimension attached to the socio-technical
problems which they invariably address. A further tendency to isolation of engi-
neering disciplines, furthermore, generates a risk of drifting towards what has been
already criticized by thinkers of the technological society such as Ellul (1964)or
Illich (1982), and referred to as “second order problems”in the sustainability
debate. That is, strictly technical solutions to sociotechnical problems serve to
increase technicisation and generate new socio-technological problems in a head-
long rush, serving ultimately to worsen the situation that is supposed to be miti-
gated. One typical example of the result of such processes is the often cited
“rebound effect,”defined for example by Hertwich (2005) in an industrial ecology
14 J. Bonvoisin et al.
perspective as “a behavioural or other systemic response to a measure taken to
reduce environmental impacts that offsets the effect of the measure.”The problem
thus lies in the propensity of engineers to develop one-sided technological solu-
tions, or, better said, the general tendency on the part of engineering disciplines to
“generate clever solutions for problems that do not exist.”Overcoming this problem
thus figures hugely in the pursuit of sustainable manufacturing solutions.
Specifically, bridges have to be built between disciplines well-rehearsed in asking
questions (e.g. humanities) and disciplines adept in developing solutions (e.g.
engineering).
Unfortunately, inter- and transdisciplinarity approaches in research remain rid-
den with obstacles. The major challenges of such approaches are highlighted for
example by Schäfer (2013):
•Researchers should be open to broadening their horizons, i.e. acknowledging
that collaboration with other disciplines gives them opportunities to address
questions that are not accessible within the framework of their own discipline.
For example, production technology engineers can develop cleaner production
technologies with the help of environmentalists, allowing them to identify the
relevant parameters. Empirical observations show that the lack of fulfilment of
this basic requirement may be a significant reason for the failure of a large part
of transdisciplinary projects.
•Disciplines should acknowledge the epistemic values and methods of other
disciplines, which may prove to be particularly thorny between, for example,
engineering and humanities—the former being generally based on positivist and
the latter on constructivist epistemology.
•Considering that differentiation of technical terminology stands in the way of
common understanding between disciplines, the fostering of common under-
standing requires the development of a common language. This requires in turn
that researchers (1) acknowledge terms may have different meanings in their
respective disciplines (2) consent to making the effort of identifying potential
misunderstandings and defining the terms (3) avoid technical jargon in inter-
disciplinary exchanges.
•A barrier for openness of researchers towards inter- and transdisciplinarity might
lie in the organisation of academia in highly specialized disciplines. In the
context of the evaluation of research and allocation of research grants driven by
discipline-related quality criteria, inter- and transdisciplinarity research may be
disadvantaged.
Although the four difficulties cited here may sound trivial, experiences in major
interdisciplinary research projects show that they are decisive indeed. Although
convinced by the necessity of developing solutions for sustainability and by the
complexity of the problem, researchers may well fail to cultivate interest in inter-
disciplinarity research and in broadening the focus of their activity. Literature on
inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research already gives some hints on how
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 15
to address these challenges, that should indeed be more systematically taken into
account in the planning and operation of research projects dealing with engineering
and sustainability.
4 Conclusions
In this contribution, the current field of research in sustainable manufacturing has
been screened, with a particular focus on technology and management. Based on
this review, this article provides a definition of the term sustainable manufacturing
as well as a structuring framework defining four complementary areas of research:
manufacturing technologies (“how things are produced”), product development
(“what is being produced”), value creation networks (“in which organisational
context”) and global manufacturing impacts (“how to make a systemic change”).
These layers have been illustrated with examples from current research initiatives
addressing analysis, synthesis or transition issues, while their respective principal
challenges have been illuminated.
This article emphatically states the equal importance and the complementarity
nature of these four layers, at the same time that we likewise underline the necessity
of the interdisciplinary nature of action towards sustainable manufacturing. Since
individual fields of expertise are unable to grasp the entire complexity of the
challenges raised by sustainability, researchers are invited to consider the limits of
the solutions they can offer, and to search for broadened perspectives beyond the
frontiers of their expertise.
References
Aitamurto, Tanja, Dónal Holland, and Sofia Hussain. 2015. The open paradigm in design research.
Design Issues 31(4): 17–29. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00348.
Andersson, Jan Otto, and Mattias Lindroth. 2001. Ecologically unsustainable trade. Ecological
Economics 37(1): 113–122. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00272-X.
Arena, Marika, Natalia Duque Ciceri, Sergio Terzi, Irene Bengo, Giovanni Azzone, and Marco
Garetti. 2009. A state-of-the-art of industrial sustainability: Definitions, tools and metrics.
International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management 4(1–3): 207–251. doi:10.1504/IJPLM.
2009.031674.
Arnold, Jeanne E., Anthony P. Graesch, Enzo Ragazzini, and Elinor Ochs. 2012. Life at home in
the twenty-first century: 32 families open their doors, 1st ed. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology Press.
Arrow, Kenneth, Bert Bolin, Robert Costanza, Partha Dasgupta, C.S. Carl Folke, Bengt-Owe
Jansson Holling, et al. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment.
Science 268(5210): 520–521. doi:10.1126/science.268.5210.520.
Bjørn, Anders, and Michael Z. Hauschild. 2013. Absolute versus relative environmental
sustainability. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17(2): 321–332. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.
00520.x.
16 J. Bonvoisin et al.
Bjørn, Anders, Manuele Margni, Pierre-Olivier Roy, Cécile Bulle, and Michael Zwicky Hauschild.
2016. A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment.
Ecological Indicators 63(April): 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.046.
Bonvoisin, Jérémy. 2012. Environmental analysis and ecodesign of information services.
Universitéde Grenoble.
Bonvoisin, Jérémy, and Jean-François Boujut. 2015. Open design platforms for open source
product development: current state and requirements. In Proceedings of the 20th international
conference on engineering design (ICED 15), 8—Innovation and Creativity, 11–22. Milan,
Italy.
Brundtland, Gru, Mansour Khalid, Susanna Agnelli, Sali Al-Athel, Bernard Chidzero, Lamina
Fadika, Volker Hauff, et al. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press.
Buchert, Tom, Alexander Kaluza, Friedrich A. Halstenberg, Kai Lindow, Haygazun Hayka, and
Rainer Stark. 2014. Enabling product development engineers to select and combine methods
for sustainable design. In Procedia CIRP,21st CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 15
(January): 413–18. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.025.
Costanza, Robert, Ida Kubiszewski, Enrico Giovannini, Hunter Lovins, Jacqueline McGlade,
Kate E. Pickett, Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir, Debra Roberts, Roberto De Vogli, and Richard
Wilkinson. 2014. Development: Time to leave GDP behind. Nature 505(7483): 283–285.
doi:10.1038/505283a.
Diallo, Yacouba, Alex Etienne, Farhad Mehran, and ILO International Programme on the
Elimination of Child Labour. 2013. Global Child Labour Trends 2008 to 2012.
Duflou, Joost R., John W. Sutherland, David Dornfeld, Christoph Herrmann, Jack Jeswiet, Sami
Kara, Michael Hauschild, and Karel Kellens. 2012. Towards energy and resource efficient
manufacturing: a processes and systems approach. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology
61(2): 587–609. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.002.
Dufrene, Maud, Peggy Zwolinski, and Daniel Brissaud. 2013. An engineering platform to support
a practical integrated eco-design methodology. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 62
(1): 131–134. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.065.
Edenhofer, Ottmar, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler,
et al. (eds.). 2015. IPCC, 2014: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2014:
Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Ellul, Jacques. 1964. The technological society. Translated by John Wilkinson: Vintage Books.
Energy Saving Trust. 2006. The rise of the machines—a review of energy using products in the
home from the 1970s to today.
Ernzer, M., and H. Birkhofer. 2002. Selecting methods for life cycle design based on the needs of a
company. In DS 30: proceedings of DESIGN 2002, the 7th international design conference,
Dubrovnik.
Eurofound. 2012. Fifth European working conditions Survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.
European Commission. 2006. COM(2006)545—action plan for energy efficiency: Realising the
potential.
European Commission. 2013. EU energy in figures—statistical pocketbook 2013.
Finkbeiner, Matthias, Erwin M. Schau, Annekatrin Lehmann, and Marzia Traverso. 2010.
Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2(10): 3309–3322. doi:10.3390/
su2103309.
Garetti, Marco, and Marco Taisch. 2012. Sustainable manufacturing: Trends and research
challenges. Production Planning & Control 23(2–3): 83–104. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.
591619.
Gutowski, Timothy G., Sahil Sahni, Avid Boustani, and Stephen C. Graves. 2011.
Remanufacturing and energy savings. Environmental Science and Technology 45(10): 4540–
4547. doi:10.1021/es102598b.
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 17
Haapala, Karl R., Fu Zhao, Jaime Camelio, John W. Sutherland, Steven J. Skerlos, David A.
Dornfeld, I.S. Jawahir, Andres F. Clarens, and Jeremy L. Rickli. 2013. A review of engineering
research in sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 135
(4): 041013. doi:10.1115/1.4024040.
Herrmann, Christoph, and Sebastian Thiede. 2009. Process chain simulation to foster energy
efficiency in manufacturing. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Life
Cycle Engineering 1(4): 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2009.06.005.
Hertwich, Edgar G. 2005. Consumption and the rebound effect: An industrial ecology perspective.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(1–2): 85–98. doi:10.1162/1088198054084635.
Illich, Ivan. 1982. Medical nemesis: The expropriation of health. New York: Pantheon.
International Labour Organization. 2014. Global employment trends 2014—risk of a jobless
recovery?. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Jayal, A.D., F. Badurdeen, O.W. Dillon Jr., and I.S. Jawahir. 2010. Sustainable manufacturing:
Modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels. Sustainable
development of manufacturing systems. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology 2(3): 144–152. doi:10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.006.
Kara, S., G. Bogdanski, and W. Li. 2011. Electricity metering and monitoring in manufacturing
systems. In Glocalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing, ed. Jürgen Hesselbach
and Christoph Herrmann, 1–10. Springer, Berlin. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/
978-3-642-19692-8_1.
Kara, S., and W. Li. 2011. Unit process energy consumption models for material removal
processes. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 60(1): 37–40. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2011.
03.018.
Kianinejad, K., S. Thom, S. Kushwaha, and E. Uhlmann. 2016. Add-on error compensation unit as
sustainable solution for outdated milling machines. Procedia CIRP 40(January): 174–178.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.094.
Knight, Paul, and James O. Jenkins. 2009. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: A
practitioners perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 17(5): 549–558. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2008.10.002.
Krüger, Jörg, and The Duy Nguyen. 2015. Automated vision-based live ergonomics analysis in
assembly operations. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 64(1): 9–12. doi:10.1016/j.
cirp.2015.04.046.
Lapillonne, Bruno, Karine Pollier, and Nehir Samci. 2013. Energy efficiency trends in the EU—
lessons from the ODYSSEE MURE Project.
Low, Kay Soon, W.N.N. Win, and Meng Joo Er. 2005. Wireless sensor networks for industrial
environments. In International conference on computational intelligence for modelling, control
and automation, 2005 and international conference on intelligent agents, web technologies
and internet commerce, 2:271–76. doi:10.1109/CIMCA.2005.1631480.
Maddison, Angus. 2006. The world economy. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/book/9789264022621-en.
Manzini, Ezio, and François Jégou. 2003. Sustainable everyday. Design Philosophy Papers, no. 4.
Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1972.
Limits to growth. Universe Books.
Meadows, Donella H., Jorgen Randers, and Dennis L. Meadows. 2004. Limits to growth: The
30-year update, 3rd ed. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mihelcic, James R., John C. Crittenden, Mitchell J. Small, David R. Shonnard, David R.
Hokanson, Qiong Zhang, Hui Chen, et al. 2003. Sustainability science and engineering: The
emergence of a new metadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology 37(23): 5314–5324.
doi:10.1021/es034605h.
OECD.Stat. 2016. Gross domestic product (GDP)—Table B1G: gross value added at basic prices,
total activity.
Pigosso, Daniela C.A., Henrique Rozenfeld, and Tim C. McAloone. 2013. Ecodesign maturity
model: a management framework to support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing
18 J. Bonvoisin et al.
companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 59(November): 160–173. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.
2013.06.040.
Pigosso, Daniela Cristina Antelmi. 2012. Ecodesign maturity model: A framework to support
companies in the selection and implementation of ecodesign practices. Text, Universidade de
São Paulo. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/18/18156/tde-10082012-105525/.
Radebach, Alexander, Hauke Schult, and Jan Christoph Steckel. 2014. On the importance of
manufacturing sectors for sustainable development and growth. Lisbon, Portugal.
Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, F. Åsa Persson, Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin,
Timothy M. Lenton, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461(7263): 472–
475. doi:10.1038/461472a.
Roeder, Ina, Matthias Scheibleger, and Rainer Stark. 2016. How to make people make a change—
using social labelling for raising awareness on sustainable manufacturing. In Procedia CIRP,
13th global conference on sustainable manufacturing –decoupling growth from resource use,
40: 359–64. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.065.
Rosen, Marc A., and Hossam A. Kishawy. 2012. Sustainable manufacturing and design: Concepts,
practices and needs. Sustainability 4(2): 154–174. doi:10.3390/su4020154.
Schäfer, Prof Dr Martina. 2013. Inter- und transdisziplinäre Nachhaltigkeitsforschung –Innovation
durch Integration? In Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit, ed. Jana Rückert-John, 171–94.
Innovation und Gesellschaft. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. http://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-531-18974-1_10.
Seliger, Günther, Carsten Reise, and Pinar Bilge. 2011. Curriculum design for sustainable
engineering-experiences from the international master program. In Advances in sustainable
manufacturing, ed. Günther Seliger, Marwan M. K. Khraisheh, and I. S. Jawahir. Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Sproesser, Gunther, Ya-Ju Chang, Andreas Pittner, Matthias Finkbeiner, and Michael Rethmeier.
2015. Life cycle assessment of welding technologies for thick metal plate welds. Journal of
Cleaner Production 108, Part A: 46–53. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.121.
Sproesser, Gunther, Andreas Pittner, and Michael Rethmeier. 2016. Increasing performance and
energy efficiency of gas metal arc welding by a high power tandem process. In Procedia CIRP,
13th global conference on sustainable manufacturing—decoupling growth from resource use,
40: 643–48. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.148.
Stark, Rainer, and Anne Pförtner. 2015. Integrating ontology into PLM-tools to improve
sustainable product development. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 64(1): 157–160.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2015.04.018.
Steckel, Jan Christoph, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Michael Jakob. 2015. What drives the renaissance
of coal? In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) forthcoming.
Stock, Paul, and Rob J.F. Burton. 2011. Defining terms for integrated
(multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 3(8): 1090–1113.
doi:10.3390/su3081090.
Sutherland, John W., Justin S. Richter, Margot J. Hutchins, David Dornfeld, Rachel Dzombak,
Jennifer Mangold, Stefanie Robinson, et al. 2016. The role of manufacturing in affecting the
social dimension of sustainability. CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology 65(2): 689–712.
doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.003.
Uhlmann, E., E. Fries, P. Fürstmann, and et al. 2012. Tool wear behaviour of internally cooled
tools at different cooling liquid temperatures, 21–27. Istambul, Turkey.
US Central Intelligence Agency. 2016. The World Factbook 2016.
Vezzoli, Carlo, Fabrizio Ceschin, Jan Carel Diehl, and Cindy Kohtala. 2015. New design
challenges to widely implement ‘sustainable product–service systems.’” Journal of Cleaner
Production, Special Volume: Why have “Sustainable Product-Service Systems”not been
widely implemented? 97(June): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.061.
Vitousek, Peter M., Harold A. Mooney, Jane Lubchenco, and Jerry M. Melillo. 1997. Human
domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277(5325): 494–499. doi:10.1126/science.277.
5325.494.
Field of Research in Sustainable Manufacturing 19
Ward, Peter T., Alexander Radebach, Ingmar Vierhaus, A. Fügenschuh, and Jan Christoph
Steckel. 2015. How existing technologies can contribute to reduce global emissions. Helsinki.
Weizsacker, Ernst U. von. 1998. Factor four: Doubling wealth, halving resource use—a report to
the Club of Rome. Earthscan.
WHO. 2016. Occupational Health. World Health Organisation—Regional Office for Europe. April
12. http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/occupational-health.
World Health Organization. 2013. WHO Global Plan of Action on Workers’Health (2008-2017):
Baseline for implementation—global country survey 2008/2009—executive summary and
survey findings.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the book’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
20 J. Bonvoisin et al.
