Five Perspectives on Design for End of Life: Highlights of a Literature
Review
Farzaneh Fakhredin1, Conny Bakker1, Jo Geraedts1, 3, Jaco Huisman1, 2
1
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
2
United Nations University, Institute for Sustainability and Peace, Bonn, Germany
3
Océ Design, Océ Technologies B.V., Venlo, the Netherlands
Abstract
Starting around 1993 until today, End of Life of electronics has been a hot topic. In accordance with the EU
WEEE directive and it is underlying principle of extended producer responsibility, end of life of electronics – in
theory – has received an important place in the hierarchy of the product development process. There has been an
increasing effort to engage design teams in end of life thinking. The engagement process often started by
understanding end of life from an individual perspective like LCA evaluation, followed by a set of design
guidelines, tools and methods developed for designers. However, there is no overview in the literature of what the
different perspectives on end of life are and how each of these perspectives is translated to the design team.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is: (1) to provide an overview of the different perspectives on end of life, (2) to
give few examples of tools and methods developed within each perspective and (3) to critically evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives.
Keywords:
End of life, perspectives, design, guidelines, tools, methods
1 INTRODUCTION
The competitive nature of the electronics industry for (a)
launching new products, (b) continuous research and
developments for product improvement and optimization,
(c) consumers variable tastes and consumerism, (d) rapid
economic growth of industrialized countries, (e)
decreasing lifetime of products, and (f) being part of the
information age ; have considerably expanded the number
of electronics produced worldwide [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
Consequently, the growing amount of e-waste, its impact
on health and the environment, depletion of natural
resources and illegal export makes “e-waste” an important
topic to explore. However detailed data on e-waste
collection and treatment routes and processes is very
scarce and technically oriented, and the size and nature of
the e-waste problem is still not well understood [6]. As a
result the lessons learnt from this topic are currently found
to be not readily usable by designers. Designers have very
limited knowledge on End of Life processes and its
complexity [7]. In this context many researchers emerge
designers as the savior of “e-waste” problem with strong
focus on tool development which is commonly based on
evaluating bill of materials, disassembly and
environmental and economic impact assessment of
product compositions, while the researchers do not
address “What is really missing?”, “Which problem is a
priority for designers to tackle?” and “Where it is most
cost-efficient to make changes?”. That is widely unknown
in the field of design for end of life of electronics, and
therefore it is time to step back and analyze the gaps in the
current approaches before tapping into another product
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
assessment, modeling of end of life selection strategies
and tool development.
2 PERSPECTIVES ON END OF LIFE
For any researcher proposing to undertake a study on
design for end of life of electronics it is important to
recognize that there is not a single approach or
understanding of what end of life is across or within
mechanical and environmental engineering departments.
All of these conceptions have one thing in common; they
take a “perspective” to which to view product recovery
through design. In practice, different perspectives are
often viewed as complementary, but in literature they are
addressed separately and developed consecutively. The
result of our literature survey shows that the term “end of
life” of electronics has been mainly addressed from five
different perspectives: (1) end of life as part of product life
cycle, (2) end of life decision making models for selecting
best end of life scenarios (reuse, recycle, remanufacturing,
incineration and landfill), (3) end of life processes
(collection, trading, logistic, disassembly, sorting,
mechanical or manual separation, shredding, secondary
processes), (4) cost and environment model for whole end
of life chain , and (5) the actors involved in the end of life
processes namely as: raw materials manufacturer,
secondary manufacturers, producers, dealers and
distributors, users, collectors, recyclers and internal value
chain of producers (e.g.: designers). The term “end of life”
can have a different meaning in each perspective and in
one way or another, each perspective tries to incorporate
end of life thinking into the design stage by providing the
design team with valuable lessons for a better design.
These lessons are commonly translated to the design team
through a set of design guidelines, tools and methods. The
following sections will explain each end of life
perspective, its strength and weaknesses, and the ways the
end of life lessons are translated to the design team within
that perspective. (Figure 1)
Fig. 1: Five perspectives on design for end of life
in ecodesign analysis, the end of life stage often has the
lowest environmental impact which is why end of life
could be end up being neglected in life-cycle planning,
and it is normally receives less attention [10].
The ecodesign thinking results in a series of life cycle
assessment tools and methods meant to help designers
with environmental assessment of the design (or redesign) namely as streamlined LCA, Eco-audit methods,
and tools and software like EcoScan, SimaPro, Gabi and
Ecomap [9]. However, sufficient information about
resources consumed and the emissions excreted and the
different processes involved in end of life treatment
namely as materials and compositions, disassembly steps,
logistics, sorting, disassembly, shredding, separation and
secondary processes and their associated environmental
impacts are not sufficiently addressed in these LCA tools.
The lack of data on resources, emissions and processes in
end of life and where the products really end up causes
(a) not calculating end of life at all or, (b) selection of
wrong end of life scenarios or, (b) wrong identification of
priorities [11].
2.1 Life cycle and end of life perspective
The first perspective is to see end of life as part of the total
life cycle. The life cycle of a product starts with material
extraction from ores and feedstock (material production
phase). These materials are then manufactured into
components, engineering plastics and processed metals
which make the building blocks of a product. The
transformed materials are then assembled to produce a
product (product manufacturing stage). The assembled
products are then distributed and used by consumers (use
phase). Products have a finite life after which they become
waste (product disposal phase). The product disposal
phase is also known as product end of life (often referred
to as “EoL”) which means “ the point at which a product
is no longer used for its intended purpose in the physical
form in which it was originally manufactured” [8]. It is
clear that each phase of the life cycle consists of many
different processes. Each process consumes resources
(energy, feedstock and transportation) and excretes
emissions to the environment. Life cycle assessment keeps
track of this progress and documents the inputs and
outputs of each life cycle process [9].
2.2 End of life decision making perspective
According to Thierry et al. end of life management
includes product recovery management,
which
means: “The management of all used and discarded
products, components, and materials with an objective of
recovering as much of the economic (and ecological)
value as reasonably possible, thereby reducing the
ultimate quantities of waste” [12]. Therefore, reuse,
remanufacturing and recycling are the three main product
recovery operations. However, if a disposed product
and/or its sub parts cannot be recovered by any of these
product recovery operations, then it is going to be
landfilled or incinerated. Product recovery operations
together with incineration and landfills are also known as
“end of life scenarios” or “end of life strategies”.
In this context, design is positioned to have an essential
role to decrease the consumption of resources and the
release of unwanted emissions [9]. Therefore, “any design
activity aiming at minimization of environmental impact of
products and services over the complete life cycle” is
referred to as design for environment or ecodesign [10].
The ecodesign of products most often focuses on finding
the life cycle stage which has the highest environmental
burden [9]. For electronics, this often results in a guide for
redesign and materials selection to minimize
environmental impact in the use phase [9]. Interestingly,
Fig. 2: End of life scenarios
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
The second way of looking at end of life is from the
perspective of end of life scenarios. This is often
accomplished through a set of methods developed for
evaluation and selection of best end of life scenario for
each product and/ or its sub parts using statistical and
mathematical methods: (1) product end of life strategy
categorization based on product characteristics for the
whole product, and (2) product end of life strategy
categorization based on multi criteria decision making
approach for products and their sub parts which takes into
account the economic, ecological and technical feasibility
of each end of life scenario. Economic feasibility reflects
the business and economic potential and ecological
feasibility go after environmental legislation. Technical
feasibility means the technical possibility to carry out a
particular end of life scenario.
Whole product
According to Rose et al. the selection of the best end of
life scenario depends on 12 technical characteristics of a
product namely as: wear-out life, technology cycle, level
of integration, number of parts, functional complexity,
cleanliness level, number of materials, repurchase cycle,
hazards, design cycle, size and reason for obsolescence
[13], [14]. She developed the End of Life Design Advisor
(ELDA) tool for designers based on the classification and
regression trees (CART) - a statistical method - that
categorize products into different end-of-life strategies
[13]. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it
gives a single EoL for the entire product, whereas, in
reality, when a worn-out product is disassembled, the
various elements resulting from the disassembly sequence
are given different EoLs. Moreover, considering the EoL
of an element inside a product requires more information
than considering the entire product’s EoL, like its
attachments or its location within the product structure, so
that the same method cannot be used for selecting the best
end of life scenario both in product and component level
[15].
Multi-criteria decision making approach
The aim of multi criteria decision models (MCDM) is to
organize and analyze complex decisions and helps in
prioritizing and selecting the right decision normally based
on mathematical methods. Therefore, this approach is
applied to help designers to select the best end of life
scenario based on a set of criteria that are widely
discussed in end of life literature namely as (a)
environmental feasibility, (b) social aspect, (c) economic
feasibility, (d) internal and external regulations, (e)
product characteristics and (f) disassembly, (g) technical
feasibility. However, the population - the collection of
potential research variables - is very wide and varied for
each criterion which would not be possible to address all
of them in a research study. Therefore, different
researchers carried out a random sample case studies on
different Electerical and Electronic Equipments (EEE
products) by selecting a specific “list of variables”–
according to end of life literature “list of variables” is also
called as “sub criteria list”, “indicators”, “attributes” or
“parameters”. 1
1
Multiple criteria decision method (MCDM) is also called multi attribute
decision method / model/ making (MADM) or multi criteria decision aid
(MCDA)
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
For example, Rao and Padmanabhan looked into 9
attributes for the evaluation of EoL scenarios [5]. As
categorized into economic, social and environmental
categories. Those considered under the economic category
were: logistic cost, disassembly cost, product value, and
product cost. The attributes considered under the social
category were: number of employees to perform the
scenario (number), and exposure to hazardous materials
(ranked from very high to very low on a scale of 1 to 5).
The attributes considered under the environmental
category were: CO2 emissions, SO2 emissions, and energy
consumption. While, Remery et al. arrived at a set of 15
final parameters that influence the EoL decision [16]. In a
multi-criteria decision model, designers need to weight the
different parameters/ indicators in the criteria list and
evaluate the best end of life strategy for each product
module. Therefore, the EoL scenarios are the objects of
comparison in the multi criteria decision models based on
the (sub) sub criteria list. In the literature of multi criteria
decision models, the objects of comparison are generally
called actions or alternatives. Figure 3 is a schematic
illustration of the steps involved in multi criteria decision
model of selecting best end of life scenario. Namely as: (a)
the goal of the decision making process: “selection of best
end of life scenario”, (b) key criteria affecting end of life,
(c) sub criteria, (d) assessment (weighting, normalization
and calculation method) and (e) the appropriate end of life
scenarios. This model has been applied by different
researchers, so the steps involved are the same while the
criteria list observed, calculation methods applied for
assessment and case studies are mainly different.
Fig. 3: Steps involved in multi criteria decision model of
selecting best end of life scenario
For instance for assessing the best end of life scenario,
Remery et al developed an evaluation method based on the
TOPSIS method using a fuzzy technique set theory [16].
Ghazali and Murata evaluate the product end -of-life
(EoL) by integrating an analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) with case-based reasoning (CBR) [1]. Rao and
Padmanabhan developed an original approach which
consists in evaluating the scenarios using the digraph and
the matrix method [5]. Gehin et al. principally considered
the environmental aspects, by assessing scenarios using a
simplified life-cycle assessment [17]. He created the lifecycle bricks model to enable the differentiation of
scenarios by modifying EoL stages.
Limitations, disadvantages of this approach are listed
below:
1. As mentioned earlier - in a multi-criteria decision model
- designers need to weight the different parameters/
indicators in the criteria list in order to evaluate the best
end of life strategy for each product/ component/ material.
(a) In this approach the analysis of weights could be
biased due to the experience gap between the participants.
In fact, the characteristics of the survey are based on
individual participants of a scattered population. As a
result, the selection of decision makers who should be
involved in the decision making process and the
aggregation of their information will affect the elicitation
of preference data. This clearly states that even for the
same set of EoL scenarios and the same family of criteria,
the weight of a criterion may be different from one user to
another. Moreover, within a criterion, the same score of an
EoL scenario has not necessarily the same importance for
all users. (b) Due to lack of accurate and reliable data,
designers may estimate the weight for each criterion
inappropriately which requires multiple runs of the
proposed model, (c) for non- experts, it is not evident that
the different criteria can be understood easily. In another
word, in case a designer has little knowledge on products
recovery process, choosing the initial set of scenarios,
choosing the relevant attributes and determining their
relative importance could be a difficult and timeconsuming task.
2. In fact, MCDM EoL methods are not mature enough for
selecting the “best” end of life scenario possible; first
because there is a need to apply these methods to other
products (case studies) to complete its validation. Second,
one must be aware that for example reuse strategy with
less environmental impact may not necessarily be always
the best end of life scenario. It will depend on the
characteristics of the product. Therefore, the order of (a)
reuse, (b) remanufacture, (c) recycle, (d) incineration and
(d) landfill as the most preferred environmental sequence
does not always apply, and it is different per material,
component and product. As a result, none of the proposed
methods could assure the best end of life scenario [10].
3. The majority of end of life assessment methods are
developed by mechanical engineers and are normally
based on (a) technical characteristics of a product, (b) a
complex calculation and mathematical modeling and (c)
developed in an excel or CAD program which cannot be
directly used by design engineers, therefore there is a need
for a program to be used by designers directly, in order to
implement the required information and obtain the desired
results easily and intuitively. Figure 4 shows the steps
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
normally taken in assessment of a product for selecting the
best end of life scenario. In general the gap between
assessment result and design stage are filled in with a set
of heuristic guidelines regarding individual components,
joints and disassembly operation, and there is no actual
implementation of the developed methods.
Fig. 4: No actual implementation of the developed EoL
methods
The problem with heuristic guidelines is that they are
mainly concerned about do’s and don’ts on individual
components, subassemblies, joining techniques such as
“Do not use any BFR’s (Brominated Flame Retardants” or
“Do not use elastomers” which are very product specific
and too generic, In such a long list of do’s and don’ts even
the most experienced designers cannot prioritize which
“rule” or “lesson” has the highest impact on design.
However, at the moment design rules are the only feasible
way of translating the result of end of life assessment
methods to design team. Filling the “missing” gap
between assessment result and design stage will
accordingly solve the problem of design rules.
2.3 End of life processes perspective
Another way of looking at end of life is through end of life
processes, which means looking backwards from the end
of the life-cycle to the original product designs. This
approach focuses on information feedback from each end
of life process (collection, logistic, sorting, disassembly,
shredding and mechanical separation, secondary
processing, product trading and fractions trading) to the
design stage [18]. In this approach, “disassembly” and
“shredding and mechanical separation” have received far
too much attention, and despite the ever increasing amount
of publications on e-waste take back, secondary
processing and trading; the key messages are still not well
translated back to the design stage. Therefore the
designers rarely know how their design could optimize
collection, sorting, secondary processing and decrease the
amount of export.
2.4 Cost and environmental model for whole end of
life chain perspective
Product end of life treatment is not a single step, but rather
a process consisting of sub processes. To be more specific,
end of life can be divided into three different phases which
need different management methods and focus, and
having different impact on recycling economics and
environment. As shown in Figure 5, the first phase is the
collection and consolidation of waste, so called take back
or collection in the case of the consumer recycling
initiatives. This phase is very much a logistics challenge
and requires a high level of awareness among consumers
who require returning obsolete products for recycling. The
second phase is the pre-treatment phase, managed by
recycling companies who sort, disassemble and separate
products into different fractions and material streams and
then sell them further to the third phase, recycling and
recovery of fractions and materials or incinerators and/or
even disposal (of residues). Product design can make the
first, second and third phase easier or more difficult
therefore having an impact on recycling cost and
efficiency and environmental burden of EoL processes
[19]. In this perspective, end of life is looked at as a
system by taking into account the whole end of life chain
rather than focusing on a part of the process. For this
reason, there are few tools and methods developed with a
specific focus on cost and environmental impacts of the
entire end of life chain. For instance, the Quotes for
Environmentally Weighted Recyclability (QWERTY/EE)
is a tool developed of responding to e-waste challenge
where important aspects of end of life namely as (a)
detailed product compositions, (b) specific behavior of
products at the end of life processing (shredding and
separation characteristics) and (c) data from for instance
primary and secondary metal smelters (recoveries of
precious metals, heavy metals leakages) are integrated into
one environmentally based recyclability concept.
However, the QWERTY/EE concept is not primarily
developed for design purposes. It is recommended to
further incorporate and develop certain parts of the
QWERTY/EE concept for use in existing design for end
of life tools and for design processes in general. Since, the
aspect of predicting end of life cost of products upfront in
the design process can be an important recommendation
for designers and project managers [19].
Fig. 5: Process steps of product end of life treatment with
economic indicators [20]
2.5 Information sharing between end of life actors
perspective
Lee et al. believe that in order to incorporate end of life
thinking into the design process we need to go beyond bill
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
of materials and product characteristics and look into the
supply chain. They concluded that the existing attentions
and efforts that are being showered on each individual
stage are mainly stage specific and issues are being
addressed taking into considerations only factors within
the stages and not beyond. Moreover, the sets of data and
information within each method deployed in various
stages are not being properly exchanged. This results in a
lack of exchange of information amongst the different
actors along the entire value chain and thus leading to the
ineffective and inefficient adoption of resource efficient
product development [18]. This is especially true for the
electronics product industry. In fact, one major barrier to
encourage resource efficiency in the electronics industry is
the absence of accurate information in material flow
through the industry supply chain (and reverse supply
chain) and no feedback loop from end of life [2]. The
information exchange among end of life actors is the last
and least developed perspective on end of life, and its
implementation is scarce. The case studies are, in many
cases, theoretical examples, without the backing of a
product design company and that is because of the
complexity of the value chain, the time required and the
lack of environmental knowledge [21]. Three important
questions are: 1) what are the messages from different
actors? 2) Which one has the highest influence and 3) how
to prioritize?
3 SUMMARY OF FIVE PERSPECTIVES
Table 1 shows a summary of five perspectives on end of
life. It is important that we have a comprehensive
framework that brings the strength of each perspective
together to enhance the recovery of products. Wellintentioned efforts that are too narrow in scope will miss
the target. For example, a narrow focus on disassembly
and product composition can miss the recyclers’
knowledge in the value chain, or the cost and
environmental impact associated with treatment, or the
balancing act with other life cycle stages. Yet, all of these
aspects of end of life will influence the product recovery,
and it is needed for the speed and accuracy of decision
making.
4 CONCLUDING REMARKS
So far, in each perspective there has been a lot of effort to
transform end of life perspectives to a set of tools,
methods and guidelines for the design team (mechanical
engineer, electrical engineer, optical engineer, hardware
engineer, software engineer, cables engineer, packaging
engineer and etc.). However, it is often not so clear for the
designers what they can do with the results of all those
tools and methods, i.e. how this will actually affect the
product design, and how much influence they can have for
a better design. (Figure 6)
Table 1: Summary of five perspectives
Five perspectives on end of
life
Tools and methods
Strength
Weakness
Reference
1.
Life cycle and end of
life
-
- Widely used in practice
- Strong scientific validation
The lack of data on resources,
emissions and processes in end
of life
[9]
2.
End of life decision
making
- ELDA
- TOPSIS method
- Digraph and the matrix
method
- Steering in treatment
In accurate decision making by
non-experts
[13], [16],
[5]
Gabi
Simapro
Ecoscan
Eco-audit
Streamlined LCA
Lack of information
component level
on
3.
End of life processes
- A dynamic model based
analysis
- Improve separation and quality in
treatment
Stage specific and not beyond
[22]
4.
Cost and
environmental model
for whole end of life
chain
- QWERTY/EE
- Cost model
- Balancing cost and environment
No actual implementation for
designers
[23]
5.
Information sharing
between end of life
actors
- EVCA
- Alignment of actors to avoid
suboptimization
Complex and time consuming
[24]
Fig. 6: Continually transforming end of life lessons to
designers
Therefore the following questions arise: why focusing on
designers and keep going on like that? Why not step back
and see what should be the requirements for a new
approach? How come managers and CEOs at the top
managerial level claim for up-cycling but at lower level
the tools do not work, or vice versa; when designers at a
lower managerial level have sufficient tools but managers
don’t provide the mandate or do not consider end of life
neither in product specification nor in business strategy of
the company. Whether the key message to designers is: (a)
to use a specific dynamic LCA platform, (b) to select the
best EoL strategy, (c) to use an EoL decision
methodology, or (d) exchanging information through
value chain, in all cases the question is what the designer
should do with this information. It can even be doubted if
designers are the ones that should be addressed by the
above mentioned ‘messages’, this might be of more
relevance to the managers that set the specifications that
form prerequisites for the design. One possible way to
improve incorporation of end of life perspectives into
design processes could be to find out “Who is making
what decision at what level?” and “who has the most
influence for incorporating end of life thinking to the
design process?” since the design team is only a small
group of actors involved in product design process [25],
and they often have no power to make decision, but they
need right indications that come from superiors. (Figure 7)
Another possible way could be an extension of end life
mandate through end of life directives.
Fig. 7: Inverse the flow of end of life lessons
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research leading to these results has received funding
from the ENIAC Joint Undertaking under grant agreement
nr. 296127.
REFERENCES
[1] Ghazalli, Z. , Murata A. (2012): Evaluation
method for product end-of-life selection strategy,
Advances in Ergonomics in Manufacturing, pp.
449-462.
[2] Hui Mien, L., Gay R., Wen Feng L. , Bin S.
(2006): The Framework of Information Sharing
in End-of-Life for Sustainable Product
Development, IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Informatics, pp. 73-78.
[3] Kiritsis, D., Bufardi A. , Xirouchakis P. (2003):
Multi-criteria decision aid for product end of life
options selection, IEEE International Symposium
on Electronics and the Environment, pp. 48-53.
[4] Lye, S.W., Lee S.G. , Khoo M.K. (2001): A
design methodology for the strategic assessment
of a product's eco-efficiency, International
Journal of Production Research, vol. 39, pp.
2453-2474.
[5] Rao, R.V. , Padmanabhan K.K. (2008): Selection
of best product end-of-life scenario using digraph
and matrix methods, Journal of Engineering
Design, vol. 21, pp. 455-472.
[6] Huisman, J. (2012): Eco-efficiency evaluation of
WEEE take-back systems, Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, pp.
93-119.
[7] Fakhredin, F. , Huisman J. (2013): Design
Lessons from Analyzing End of Life LCD TV
WEEE Flows in Europe, in Ecodesign 2013.
[8] Literature Review : Flat Panel Displays: End of
Life Management Report (2008).
[9] Ashby, M.F. (2013): Chapter 3 - The material life
cycle, Materials and the Environment (Second
Edition), pp. 49-77.
[10] Stevels, A. (2007): Adventures in ecodesign of
electronic products 1993-2007.
[11] Huisman, J. , Stevels A. (2003): Balancing design
strategies and end-of-life processing, 3rd
International Symposium on Environmentally
Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing pp.
40-47.
[12] Thierry M, S.M., Van Nunen J, Van Wassenhove
L (1995): Strategic issues in product recovery
management, California Management Review,
vol. 37 pp. 114-135.
[13] Rose, C.M., Stevels A. , Ishii K. (2000): A new
approach to End-of-Life Design Advisor (ELDA),
International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment, pp. 99-104.
[14] Rose, C.M. , Ishii K. (1999): Product end-of-life
strategy categorization design tool, Journal of
Electronics Manufacturing, vol. 9, pp. 41-51.
[15] Rose, C.M., Stevels A.B. , Ishii K. (2002):
Method for formulating product end-of-life
strategies for electronics industry, Journal of
Electronics Manufacturing, vol. 11, pp. 185-196.
[16] Remery, M., Mascle C. , Agard B. (2012): A new
method for evaluating the best product end-of-life
strategy during the early design phase, Journal of
Engineering Design, vol. 23, pp. 419-441.
[17] Gehin, A., Zwolinski P. , Brissaud D. (2007):
Towards the Use of LCA During the Early
Design Phase to Define EoL Scenarios, Advances
in Life Cycle Engineering for Sustainable
Manufacturing Businesses, pp. 23-28.
[18] Lee, S.G., Lye S.W. , Khoo M.K. (2001): A
Multi-Objective Methodology for Evaluating
Product End-of-Life Options and Disassembly,
The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, vol. 18, pp. 148-156.
[19] Huisman, J. (2003): The QWERTY/EE concept:
quantifying recyclability and eco-efficiency for
end of life treatment of consumer electronic
products, Delft University of Technology.
[20] Tanskanen, P. , Takala R. (2006): A
decomposition of the end of life process, Journal
of cleaner production, vol. 14, pp. 1326-1332.
[21] Bovea, M.D. , Perez-Belis V. (2012): A
taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating
environmental requirements into the product
design process, Journal of cleaner production,
vol. 20, pp. 61-71.
[22] Reuter, M. , Schaik A.v. (2012): Opportunities
and limits of recycling: A dynamic-model-based
analysis, vol. 37, pp. 339-347.
[23] Boks, C. (2002): The relative importance of
uncertainty factors in product end-of-life
scenarios:
a
quantification
of
future
developments in design, economy, technology
and policy.
[24] Rose, C., Ishii K. , Stevels A. (2001): ELDA and
EVCA: Tools for building product End-of-Life
Strategy, The Journal of Sustainable Product
Design, vol. 1, pp. 181-195.
[25] Buijs, J.A. (2012): The Delft innovation method:
A design thinker's guide to innovation, Eleven
International Publishing.