See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236631036

Designing Cradle to Cradle products: a reality check

Article  in  International Journal of Sustainable Engineering · March 2010

DOI: 10.1080/19397030903395166

CITATIONS READS

44 1,741

4 authors, including:

C.A. Bakker Renee Wever

Delft University of Technology Linköping University
44 PUBLICATIONS   818 CITATIONS    75 PUBLICATIONS   524 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Packaging development for sustainability View project

Packaging Saves Food Research Group View project

All content following this page was uploaded by C.A. Bakker on 05 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Designing Cradle to Cradle products; a reality check

C.A. Bakker, R. Wever, Ch. Teoh, S. De Clercq

Design for Sustainability Group, Faculty of Industrial Design, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.

Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, the Netherlands

corresponding author: c.a.bakker@tudelft.nl

The Cradle-to-cradle (C2C) concept of McDonough and Braungart gives a vision of a

sustainable future, inspired by nature. Their guilt-free approach has enthused many new
people, drawing them into the field of sustainability. However, the question of when and
how the cradle-to-cradle concept can be applied successfully in business is still being
debated. This paper takes a look at the applicability of the cradle-to-cradle concept in
day-to-day product development in a business setting. Based on student design projects
for several multinationals the strengths and weaknesses of the concept are evaluated. In
particular, the compatibility of cradle-to-cradle and life cycle analysis (LCA) is
addressed. The authors conclude that LCA and C2C can and should be used as
complementary tools. C2C’s main value is that it triggers many questions about current
business practice. Designers may play an interesting role in ‘paving the way’ for the
restructuring of business operations according to C2C: through design pilots they can
show how C2C could make business sense. LCA should be used to assess whether such
pilots still make environmental sense.

Keywords: cradle to cradle, LCA methodology, sustainable innovation, industrial design,

material selection, recovery and recycling, reverse logistics

Introduction
In 2007 and 2008 the cradle-to-cradle concept took the Netherlands by storm;
something we, working within the Design for Sustainability group at Delft University
of Technology, noticed by an increasing number of inquiries by students, journalists,
companies, industrial designers, NGOs and (local) governments. All showed great
interest in the concept, and were curious about the possibilities of implementation.
Cradle to cradle is positioned by the authors William McDonough and
Michael Braungart as a manifesto for a new approach towards sustainable design: one
which is based on the intelligence of natural systems. For McDonough and Braungart,
this means we should stop drawing power from non-renewable fossil fuels, and turn
towards the sun and other renewable energy sources for our energy supplies. And we
should make all ‘materials of consumption’ become part of either the biological
nutrient cycle or the technological nutrient cycle, meaning that materials should either
be biodegradable to be taken up in a natural cycle at the end of a product’s life, or be
‘upcyclable’, and be reused indefinitely in a technological closed loop system. Their
manifesto is written in a clear and optimistic style and offered for many an alternative
vision to the eco-efficiency approach that has been dominant for years (compliance,
doing more with less, or in McDonough and Braungart’s words: being ‘less bad’).
We observed a remarkable enthusiasm sparked by the cradle-to-cradle
concept, which is drawing new people into the field of design for sustainability. But
we also observed professionals, who have been working in this field for some time,
take a very critical stance. Some consider it the way forward, while others find it

1
makes no sense. Among academia cradle-to-cradle is criticized among other things for
not being new (e.g. Kusz, 2006; Bijsterveld, 2008), for having a too limited focus
(e.g. White et al, 2007, p.42; Bijsterveld, 2008), for claiming general applicability, for
celebrating consumption (e.g. Martens and Amelung, 2007) and for their lack of
acknowledgement of day-to-day business reality.
Through the design projects that have since been executed, we have acquired a
body of knowledge and experience while working with cradle-to-cradle in real
business settings, which we feel warrants a scholarly review of the pros and cons of
the concept, from the perspective of industrial designers.
This leads to the central questions of this paper: How can industrial designers
who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement cradle-to-cradle? And how
does the much-used life cycle analysis method relate to cradle-to-cradle? Are these
two approaches compatible at all?
We will answer this question by analysing and evaluating C2C student design
projects carried out in recent months within our Design for Sustainability group, with
companies such as (among others) Royal Philips Electronics and TNT. Both of these
companies already have a widely acknowledged commitment to sustainability, as is
evident by their ranking in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index.

Cradle to cradle framework - a materials approach

The concept of cradle-to-cradle crystallized during the 1990s, and was championed by
McDonough and Braungart in their 2002 book. Several years later, two documentaries
about C2C on Dutch national television (Van Hattem, 2006, 2007) enthused many
designers as well as policy makers to such an extent that several municipalities
announced their intent to become C2C-cities (Van Hattem, 2007).
In their book, McDonough and Braungart state that a large body of research is
carried out to shift our economy to renewable energy sources. Although a complete
shift is still decades away, they choose to focus their attention mainly on materials.
Regarding materials, they are concerned with toxicity (for instance off-gassing) and
closing material loops. Their focus is on how to design products and buildings (or
more narrowly, how to select materials for products and buildings) so that these will
not off-gas toxic substances during their use phase, and so that the material loop can
either be closed biologically or technically. This requires dealing with issues of
biodegradability, disassembly, recyclability (or upcyclability), reverse logistics and
material toxicity.
McDonough and Braungart implicitly make a distinction between at least three
levels of cradle-to-cradle: First, there is a vision of an ideal set-up for industry and the
economy as a whole. The C2C framework attacks the eco-efficiency approach taken
by industry as the wrong way to a sustainable world, as it aims to be less bad, instead
of good. This point is also made by John Ehrenfeld, in his 2008 book Sustainability
by Design (2008, p.7), where he states: “Almost everything being done in the name of
sustainable development addresses and attempts to reduce unsustainability. But reducing
unsustainability, although critical, does not and will not create sustainability”.

The second level of cradle-to-cradle is a material selection strategy. And

thirdly, the authors describe a certification program. Making this distinction is
important, as one need not adhere to all three levels of cradle-to-cradle to agree with
one of them (Teoh, 2008). For instance, one can see the sense of the material selection
strategy, while simultaneously disagreeing with the vision of the authors that there is

2
no need to curb consumerism. Or, one could agree with the vision, without agreeing
that material selection is the first thing to focus on as a business.

Life Cycle Analysis versus Cradle to Cradle

In the discussion on cradle-to-cradle versus the eco-efficiency approach a particularly
interesting issue is that of the usefulness of Life Cycle Analysis. Industrial designers
following a course in sustainable design or eco-design are usually introduced to life
cycle analysis (LCA) methodology. The LCA method has become the industry
standard for the analysis and valuation of the environmental impacts of a product or
service, and in some form an LCA is the starting point for many (if not all) eco-design
projects. Products are assessed along their entire life cycle, from raw materials
production through manufacture, distribution, use and disposal. The procedures for
making an LCA are described in the ISO 14000 environmental management standards
(in ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006).
A life cycle analysis differs on a fundamental level from the cradle-to-cradle
approach. In this paragraph we will explain this fundamental difference and in the
case study that follows we’ll show how LCA and C2C can, in a real-world design
assignment, complement each other.
The first and arguably most important step of any life cycle analysis is the
determination of the goal and scope. This means that the product of study should be
described in terms of a functional unit, and the system boundaries of the analysis must
be established. A functional unit is a measure of the function of the product. In the
case of a coffee machine, for instance, the functional unit could be ‘making five cups
of coffee per day over a period of five years’. This enables the comparison of two
different brands of coffee machines, as long as these have the same functional unit.
The system boundary determines which processes are included in the LCA. For a
coffee machine, a system boundary is typically drawn at the extraction point of the
raw materials and the final stages normally include different end-of-life scenarios
(e.g. waste incineration, landfill, recycling).

LCA is reductionist approach which leads to eco-efficiency

One of the main problems with the LCA method is that it leads industrial designers to
a certain ‘lock-in’ behaviour: once the system boundaries and functional unit of the
product are established, only environmental improvements within these boundaries
are possible.
Early 2009, students from the TU Delft were asked to make a LCA of two
coffee machines (a Senseo from Philips/Douwe Egberts and an Invento by Inventum).
The outcomes of the practicum confirm this ‘lock-in’ behaviour: after establishing the
main environmental impacts of the coffee machines (energy consumption, weight, use
of high-impact materials), the students could only conclude that in order to make
these machines more sustainable, the energy consumption, weight and number of
high-impact materials should be reduced. This relates to the critique McDonough and
Braungart have of the current eco-design approach: it leads to improved eco-
efficiency, but “Plainly put, eco-efficiency only works to make the old, destructive
system a bit less so.” (McDonough, Braungart, 2002, p. 62). Instead, McDonough and
Braungart propose a new design assignment, one based on eco-effectiveness, as was
described in the previous paragraph.
We could argue that McDonough and Braungart reject methods such as LCA
because they lead us on a straight and narrow path towards eco-efficiency and are

3
incapable of making us imagine scenarios where coffee machines would become part
of a cradle-to-cradle, eco-effective world. Ehrenfeld (2008) concurs with McDonough
and Braungart, in his plea for a holistic approach towards sustainability:
“Our society is addicted to reductionist ways of solving virtually all our problems. ... Over time, as we
engage more and more in this practice, society’s (as well as individual’s) competence to address the
complicated, messy problems we confront has diminished. Unsustainability is just such a messy
problem. Reductionism will not make it go away.” (Ehrenfeld, 2008, p. 11-12)
In Ehrenfeld’s vision, an LCA would be regarded as a reductionist method.
For industrial designers, however, an LCA is one of the few methods we have that
helps us quantify the environmental impacts of products to some degree, in a more or
less objective way.

LCA includes energy consumption

The cradle-to-cradle manifesto is remarkably out of balance in terms of attention
given to materials versus energy. The aspect of products using energy during their use
phase is ill-addressed.
A life cycle analysis, on the other hand, does take energy consumption into
account. In a design graduation project for a ‘cradle-to-cradle’ electric kettle (Krishna,
2008), a life cycle analysis approach was taken. The energy consumption during the
use-phase of the kettle is the major component of its entire life cycle impact. As
Stevels (2007, p.371) notes, the energy consumption during the use-phase is often the
major component of the life cycle impact of an electric product. In case of an electric
kettle, approximately 90 percent of the total environmental impact is due to energy
consumption during use (p.319).
Based on the outcomes of the life cycle analysis, it would make sense to focus
on a design strategy aimed at energy reduction - which is not a specific focus of
cradle-to-cradle design. As the technical efficiency of electric kettles is quite good
(above 80 percent when using a standard coil emerged in water [Krishna, 2008,
p.49]), a sensible improvement of the current electric kettle could for instance be a
design that helps the user boil only the water he or she needs. A similar argument was
put forward by Elias (et al 2007).
If the designer would follow a cradle-to-cradle approach focused on
eliminating certain (toxic) materials, and closing material cycles, the focus would
shift away from energy efficiency. This may result in design proposals that optimise a
product from a cradle-to-cradle (and materials) perspective, but worsen its
performance over its entire life cycle. Only in a system working entirely on current
solar income, this would not be a problem. However, it is an economic reality that an
electric kettle designed today will be used and discarded years before the shift to
current solar income will have been achieved. This example shows that the cradle-to-
cradle approach has certain drawbacks, in particular when it is used for short-term,
realistic projects, in which the use of renewable energy sources is not (yet) an option.

LCA and C2C can complement each other

Is there a way to combine the strong points of both methods? We think so. For
industrial designers, making a LCA is not very motivating. They understand the
enormity of the problems facing our world and feel that the outcomes of a life cycle
analysis do not provide a satisfactory answer. They may come up with new ideas for
systemic, transitional changes through their designs, but lack tools to evaluate
whether they are on the right track - towards sustainability.
For these industrial designers, cradle-to-cradle seems to offer a clear vision of
a future that is based on ‘the intelligence of natural systems’. Cradle-to-cradle does

4
away with the implicit feelings of guilt that seem to pervade much of the writings on
sustainable design and offers a positive, designer-minded vision of the future. And -
another boon for industrial designers - the C2C vision is a rather technological one: as
long as we emulate nature’s principles in our technological systems, we do not need
to change our current lifestyles - on the contrary, we can celebrate these.
Our proposal is to use LCA as an analytical tool to keep track of the main
environmental priorities that should be addressed (and in particular to keep track of
energy consumption during the life cycle as this is more or less ignored by C2C). We
propose to use C2C as the overall framework to give the design a conceptual
direction. The case study described in the next paragraph will illustrate this.

Case study: Sustainable redesign of TNT business uniforms

The case described here was part of a graduation project at the Delft University of
Technology, faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, and executed for TNT (De
Clercq, 2008). TNT is “in the business of transferring documents, packets, parcels and
freight worldwide” (TNT, 2009). With its roots in the Netherlands, many Dutch
people know TNT best through its postmen: the men and women who deliver the mail
to the door on a daily basis.
The goal of the graduation project was to develop new concepts for a more
sustainable TNT uniform for the mailmen, using the cradle-to-cradle philosophy. The
current uniform consists of some 15 different items, including skirts and trousers,
jackets, polo shirts, caps, gloves and body warmers. The project would fit in with
TNT’s Planet Me initiative: TNT’s corporate effort to fight climate change. With
Planet Me, TNT strives to (TNT, 2009):
• Manage the carbon footprint,
• Reduce CO2 in the operations, and
• Engage 163,000 employees and their families in reducing CO2 at home.

Current business case

The business uniforms are TNT property. Mailmen are required to hand in their old
and worn-out uniforms. The old garments are transported to a recycler (a producer of
cleaning cloths). Although in theory TNT controls the take-back of the uniforms, in
practice a monitoring system is lacking. As a result, TNT has insufficient data about
the amount of garments ‘out there’ and the average lifespan of the different items of
the business uniform.

LCA of business uniform

De Clercq started his project by studying the cradle-to-cradle (C2C) framework,
concluding: “Although C2C benchmarking requires detailed understanding of all different stages in a
product’s life cycle, including raw material acquisition, production processes, use and recollection, its
five step set-up is primarily focused on material flows.... Impacts related to energy use are neglected in
C2C practice.” But, he continues, “TNT’s sustainability goals mainly focus on reducing CO2 emissions,
which requires mapping of energy flows.”
De Clercq therefore decided to make an LCA of three items of the business uniform:
a polo shirt, a fleece jack and an all-season jack, focusing on the energy usage and
CO2 emissions, using the EcoIndicator 99 LCA method (by Pré Consultants).

5
Figure 1: comparing LCA and C2C (de Clercq, 2008)

Figure 2: LCA of polo shirt. Orange: Energy consumption in kWh; Blue: CO2
emissions in kg (de Clercq, 2008)

The current polo shirt consists of a blend of 60% polyester and 40% cotton. Each shirt
has five polyester buttons. De Clercq assumed the polo shirt would have a lifespan of
two years and would be washed 80 times (on 50 °C average), ironed 80 times and
tumble-dried 40 times.

6
 Figure 2 shows the outcomes of the LCA of the polo shirt. It is immediately
apparent that the use phase is dominant: the washing, tumble-drying and ironing of
the shirt account for 80% of its total energy impact.
The LCA of the fleece jack and the all-seasons jack have a different outcome: as these
garments are not washed so frequently, the raw materials acquisition and production
phases become dominant (75% and 80% of total energy impact, respectively). The all-
seasons jack in particular takes a lot of energy to produce – this is probably due to its
complicated construction (the jack has 11 zippers, 16 Velcro strips and 15 buttons).

Conclusions from the life cycle analysis:

• For low-maintenance garments (fleece jack, all seasons jack) materials and
production processes account for 75-80% of the total energy impact.
• For high-maintenance garments (polo shirt) laundry practices can account for
around 80% of the total energy impact.

Back to cradle-to-cradle
With the outcomes of the LCA, de Clercq knew which priority areas he had to address
in his redesign of the business uniform. At this point, he decided to revisit the cradle-
to-cradle framework: “The aim of C2C’s eco-effectiveness approach to work towards material
flow metabolisms can be very inspiring within this project’s focus. In the textile industry, where
material losses are high and various forms of waste products are created, effectively redesigning
material flows should be seen as a priority.”
An extensive desk study into life cycle aspects of natural and synthetic fibres and
several creativity sessions led to the final design (shown here, in figure 3, is the
design of the new polo shirt)

Figure 3: redesigned polo shirt (de Clercq, 2008)

The redesign
New components and seamline patterns from sportswear apparel have been integrated
in a polo shirt that fits TNT’s corporate character. The shirt is made of an 80/20 blend
of recycled polyester and organic cotton. For better ventilation, a 100% recycled
polyester fabric is used around the armpits. In order to reduce the impact of the dyeing
process, one main colour is used (instead of two). The new collar eliminates the need
for buttons.

7
 The blend of 80/20 polyester and organic cotton can be recycled in a closed-
loop process by a company in Japan (Teijin). Teijin’s Eco-Circle program is based on
the intake of worn-out garments that have been produced with Teijin’s own fibres.
Items that are returned to Teijin are shredded, decolorized and granulated before
being re-polymerized into new polyester fibres.
The Eco-Circle program closely aligns with the cradle-to-cradle goal of
creating a closed-loop materials flow (in this case the materials are part of the
technical nutrient cycle).
The higher polyester grade in the polo shirt suits a lower washing temperature:
the shirt is designed to wash at 30 °C. It doesn’t wrinkle and dries quickly,
eliminating the need for ironing and tumble-drying. A second LCA showed a radical
decrease in energy consumption of 74% and CO2 emissions of 68% (based on the
assumption that the shirt is washed at 30 degrees, and is not ironed or tumble dried).
According to De Clercq, the new design can be produced at a slightly lower
cost price, compared to the old polo shirt.

New business case

A TNT/Eco-Circle program would involve new logistic steps. A monitoring system
has to be in place in order to keep track of the TNT uniforms. Worn-out Eco-Circle
uniforms have to be gathered by TNT and stored until they can be shipped back to
Japan in large enough quantities.
The packaging and labelling of the garments would have to communicate the
sustainable benefits and the central role of the owner: ‘Wash at 30 °C; do not tumble
dry’. Also, the mailmen could (through the packaging and labelling) be redirected to
information sources such as the Planet Me website.

Conclusions
The TNT case shows how LCA and C2C can be used as two complementary
approaches in a design process. Without the C2C vision of closed loop materials
recycling, de Clercq might not have taken his project so far as to suggest collaboration
with the Teijin Eco-Circle program. And without the LCA, de Clercq might not have
understood the importance of the use phase, and the need to address people’s washing
habits through the design of the garments.

Implementing Cradle to Cradle

This brings us back to the questions we want to answer in this paper: How can
industrial designers who innovate in a day-to-day business setting implement cradle-
to-cradle? And how does the much-used life cycle analysis method relate to cradle-to-
cradle? Are these two approaches compatible at all?
The latter two questions have been answered in the previous paragraphs. We
will now focus on the implementation of cradle-to-cradle in a business setting. Based
on the lessons learned from the student design projects, we see several challenges and
opportunities for designers who consider implementing cradle-to-cradle.

Challenges for C2C implementation

1. Reverse logistics
If a company has a system of ‘reverse logistics’ in place, implementing C2C
principles becomes much more realistic and possibly cost-effective (as the TNT case

8
has shown). A Dutch company like Océ (copiers and printers) that leases its high-end
copiers might implement C2C principles with relative ease, as it has a 100% return
rate.
But companies without a return system in place should question whether redesigning
their products following a cradle-to-cradle material selection strategy is sensible, if
that product is going to end up in the existing end-of-life systems of landfill and
incineration. A company selling –for instance- consumer handbags should probably
first set up a take-back system and find a way to get their customers to bring back old
handbags before it can seriously consider implementing C2C.
The Dutch office furniture company Ahrend has understood this. Having spent
many years on eco-efficiency, the company recently announced its intention to
restructure its operations in accordance with the cradle-to-cradle philosophy (Ahrend,
2009). In January 2009, the company introduced Next Life, which is a new service,
focused on extending the useful life of interior products through refurbishment and
ultimately the re-use of the material.
The challenge of reverse logistics is closely related to a company’s business
model. In the case of Ahrend, the decision to go for Next Life was taken by CEO Jacq
de Bruin, who recently concluded a cooperation agreement with EPEA, the C2C
consultancy of Michael Braungart. Industrial designers are not usually in a position to
enforce such agreements. If they want to be active in the C2C field they should seek
out those companies with a certain amount of influence in their value chain or those
that already have a system of take-back in place.

2. Disassembly
According to McDonough and Braungart, many products are ‘monstrous hybrids’:
inseparable combinations of biological and technical nutrients. For such products to
be re-used or recycled the materials first need to be separated. Design for disassembly
focuses on ease of disassembly, to enable the removal of parts without damage. In the
early 1990’s several researchers developed extensive guidelines for design for
disassembly (for instance Beitz, 1993 and VDI, 1991), indicating that this is an area
where industrial designers can contribute, provided they consider product disassembly
early in the product’s design stage.

3. Recycling / Upcycling
Design for recycling and design for disassembly often go hand in hand. A product that
consists of different (non-compatible) materials will have to be disassembled before
the materials can be recycled. Design for Recycling is often concerned with material
selection (for instance Chen et al, 1993). Developing a product that can be
successfully recycled requires a lot of knowledge and expertise. What recycling
technologies will be available in the future and how must today’s products be
composed to facilitate their future recycling? For designers, this poses a considerable
challenge. A designer will need to collaborate with all parties in the ‘end of life’ value
chain of a product (including the people involved with take-back and recycling), in
order to come up with design concepts that can be recycled – and that still make sense
from an economic and an environmental point of view.
The cradle-to-cradle vision is that products should not merely be recycled, as
this will only postpone their inevitable decline towards landfill or incinerator. Instead,
products should be upcycled, meaning they should be re-processed for use at the same
level of application (i.e. a PET bottle should be upcycled into a new PET bottle, and
not downcycled into a PET sweater). This poses an even greater challenge for Design

9
for Recycling, as it requires a very intimate knowledge of material properties and
composition. We have, for instance, a system for indicating the major plastic groups,
which is intended to assist in recycling. However, if the goal is upcycling this
information is insufficient. One cannot simply put all parts marked with PP (for
polypropylene) together and re-process these for use at the same level of application,
as these will differ in grade (i.e. the length of the polymers) and fillers (e.g. colour,
flame retardants, UV blockers).
Therefore, even if a company has control over its products, and can do the
recycling itself, an elaborate materials information system will be needed.

4. Knowledge of materials composition

Most industrial designers and engineers prescribe materials without really knowing at
what cost to environment and society these materials are produced. The cradle-to-
cradle book focuses on human toxicity in particular. In a talk for the TED conference,
William McDonough shows the audience the picture of a toy rubber duck made of
PVC, and says: “This is a rubber duck. It comes in California with a warning that says: ‘This
product contains chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other
reproductive harm.’ What kind of culture would produce a product of this kind, label it and sell it to
children? I think we have a design problem.” (McDonough, 2005)
This powerful message has made many designers realise they lack knowledge of
materials composition, for instance related to mining issues (i.e. resource scarcity,
environmental degradation, social issues), production and use (i.e. toxicity) and
recycling issues (i.e. e-waste) of individual materials, additives and components.
One issue here is the complexity of many products, for instance with printed
circuit boards (PCBs) which may contain hundreds of components, which in turn may
be comprised of hundreds of different materials. A second issue is that many
components may be purchased as subassemblies. Industry experience has shown it to
be very challenging to get complete and reliable information from suppliers as to the
material composition of the subassemblies they supply (see for instance DanWatch,
2008). Finally, a challenge lies in that designers specify a material, but the purchasers
of a company will select the supplier. Only in an organisation entirely committed to
cradle-to-cradle design can proper material application actually be achieved.
A special challenge in material knowledge is that of biodegradability.
Applying materials that are biological nutrients instead of technical ones can
circumvent many of the system-level problems of implementing cradle-to-cradle.
Bioplastics and other biodegradable materials are relatively new in the market. Again,
industrial designers are often ignorant about these new materials and their properties
and environmental issues surrounding these materials.

5. Move away from non-renewable energy

According to the International Energy Agency, the era of cheap oil is over (IEA,
2008): “Oil will remain the world’s main source of energy for many years to come,
even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the development of alternative
technology. But the sources of oil, the cost of producing it and the prices that
consumers will have to pay for it are extremely uncertain.”
“One thing is certain”, stated Mr. Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, “while
market imbalances will feed volatility, the era of cheap oil is over”.
Crown prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, speaking at the World
Future Energy Summit (January 21, 2009) followed a similar course of reasoning: “We
are now facing a century of at least four undesirable peaks, peak oil, peak gas, peak coal and peak
uranium. Mountaineers may be proud to conquer peaks, but there is no reason whatsoever for us to be

10
proud. We can, however, change the course of history. The technologies we need are there. On a global
level, the sun and the deserts present us with major opportunity. We know all energy resources
originate from one source, one masdar [= source, authors note], nuclear fusion from the surface of the
sun.” (Willem-Alexander, 2009)
Willem-Alexander acknowledges the need for a transition towards renewable
energy, but recognises we are still in a pre-transitional phase: “We need the political
will and the right approach to investment for a fundamental transition towards a new
energy system.”
Making the transition towards renewable energy is a societal and political
issue. The logic of McDonough and Braungart may be sound, but in the short term we
are not likely to see major changes in the way businesses power themselves or in the
products they develop. Designers have only very limited influence in making this
transition happen. However, we believe that designers interested in the cradle-to-
cradle concept could start exploring the feasibility of products powered with
renewable energy (such as photovoltaic cells).

Opportunities for C2C

We have shown there are still many challenges for businesses and designers seeking
to implement cradle-to-cradle. However, we also see several interesting opportunities:

1. Inspiration
The cradle-to-cradle concept is a great source of inspiration on a conceptual level.
Both professional industrial designers and students appreciate the positive approach,
the ambition level and the ‘design your way out’ attitude of McDonough and
Braungart. Their C2C framework seems to empower designers. It does away with
‘old’ notions of guilt and restriction, and opens up new horizons for designers to
explore.

2. C2C means asking questions

Taking a cradle-to-cradle approach will force businesses and designers to ask
themselves questions about issues that would otherwise be ignored in a business-as-
usual setting. For instance regarding take-back systems and the composition and reuse
of materials. C2C encourages designers to dig deeper and (for instance) find out what
is really involved in the production and processing of certain materials. In contrast,
the application of a Life Cycle Analysis does not encourage this kind of ‘digging
deeper’ at all.

3. C2C offers an actionable framework

Through its certification system, C2C offers an actionable framework. For a company
new to cradle-to-cradle it is relatively easy to get a basic certification, allowing it to
work in small steps towards the implementation of more ambitious C2C targets
(MBDC, 2008).

Conclusions
We now return to our initial question: how can industrial designers who innovate in a
day-to-day business setting implement cradle-to-cradle? Based on our experiences
with the projects we were involved with, we would like to give the following
recommendations:

11
- Industrial designers need to be aware of their level of control. Some decisions can
only be made on a strategic management level, for instance the restructuring of
business operations according to cradle-to-cradle principles. Designers can
however ‘pave the way’, by showing how C2C could make business sense for a
company, as was done in the case of the TNT project described in this paper.
- Industrial designers can use C2C at different levels: during concept development
it is very valuable as an inspirational guide. During materialisation, C2C can be
used to gain a deeper understanding of materials composition and of design for
recycling/ disassembly techniques.
- Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can and should be used as a complementary tool next
to C2C. Designers should be aware of the limitations of both methods. LCA
outcomes tend to lead designers on a narrow path to eco-efficiency, whereas C2C
tends to overlook a product’s (non-renewable) energy consumption. Designers can
use LCA to assess whether to prioritize energy use, or materials acquisition and
production.

Whether intended by the authors or not, the cradle-to-cradle concept seems to

induce dogmatism. We encounter many people who seem to believe that cradle-to-
cradle is applicable to all designs, in its full form, and right now. We think such a
dogmatic approach may actually be the biggest danger for the transition towards a
more cradle-to-cradle based society.
Looking at cradle-to-cradle from a business perspective, our main
recommendation for those wishing to pursue a cradle-to-cradle approach is to use
C2C first and foremost to create value, by which we mean economic value in our
current economic system. Starting point is the question whether cradle-to-cradle is
relevant for the business, and if so which aspects make business-sense. This may
provide an indication of where to start.
For example, discarded mobile phones have a residual value due to the
precious metals (gold, copper, silver, platinum) they contain (Nokia, 2003). However,
getting them back as a producer has proved difficult as more then 60% of mobile
phones are kept at home and 18% are handed to someone else (Nokia, 2005). In such
a situation, working on increasing the return rate, which would be an essential step in
creating a cradle-to-cradle system, makes business sense even in isolation, without a
redesign of the product and a full switch to green energy. Nokia is aware of this: “The
challenge faced in take-back programs will be how to make mobile phone users to do
their share and return the used products for recycling.” In this case the return logistics
would be the sensible place to start, while starting with a cradle-to-cradle redesign of
products, without increasing the return rate, would not create business value.

This paper mainly focused on applying cradle-to-cradle within the context of

large and multinational companies. The size of an organisation has a major influence
on its capacity to experiment with cradle-to-cradle. However, it should be noted that
while multinationals may have more resources to experiment with cradle-to-cradle,
they run the risk of it becoming a playground of the design department, without taking
the rest of the organisation along.

Any organisation, especially those that have developed extensive experience with the
eco-efficiency approach, can gain a lot by doing a cradle-to-cradle design pilot. It will
trigger many questions about current practice, and as such, may work refreshingly

12
reflective. And in some cases the cradle-to-cradle concept can substitute the eco-
efficiency approach, and create true business value.

References
- Ahrend corporate website: ‘Ahrend commits to Cradle to Cradle Philosophy’.
[internet] Available at:
http://www.ahrend.nl/smartsite.dws?language=EN&ch=COM&id=88401
Accessed: 28 February 2009
- Beitz W. (1993) Designing for ease of recycling, Journal of Engineering Design,
4(1)
- Bijsterveld, K. (2008) Cradle to cradle is een dwaalspoor. Building Business
Duurzaam, no. 3, June 2008
- Chen, R. W., Navin-Chandra D. and Prinz F. (1993) Product Design for
recyclability: A cost benefit analysis model and its application, IEEE International
Symposium on Electronics & the Environment, Virginia, IEEE.
- Danwatch, 2008, Bad Connections; How your mobile phone is linked to abuse,
fraud and unfair mining practices in DR Congo. A report by DanWatch, May
2008. [internet] Available at: www.danwatch.dk
Accessed: 1 March 2009
- De Clercq, Sander, (2008) Towards Sustainable Business Uniforms, graduation
thesis (unpublished), Delft University of Technology
- Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2008) Sustainability by Design; a Subversive Strategy for
Transforming our Consumer Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven and
London.
- Elias, E.W.A., Dekoninck, E.A. and Culley, S.J., 2007. The potential for domestic
energy savings through assessing user behaviour and changes in design.
Proceedings of EcoDesign 2007, 10–13 December 2007. Tokyo: Union of
Ecodesigners
- IEA (International Energy Agency), World Energy Outlook 2008, IEA, 2008.
- Krishna, A (2008) Development of a Sustainable Kettle; an Investigation into
cradle-to-cradle. Unpublished thesis (MSc) Delft University of Technology.
- Kusz, J.P. (2006) Book review. Design Issues, 22(1) Winter 2006, pp. 77-78.
- Martens, P.; Amelung, B. (2007, December 7) Cradle to Cradle is ondoorzichtige
hype. (in Dutch) Trouw [National newspaper].
- MBDC, Cradle to Cradle Certification Program, version 2.1.1, prepared by
McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, Revised edition 2008 (first edition
2007). Available at: www.mbdc.com
- McDonough, William, 2005, ‘The wisdom of designing Cradle to Cradle’, TED
talks [internet]. Available from:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_de
sign.html
Accessed: 1 March 2009
- Nokia (2003) Mobile phones yield valuable raw materials [internet]
Available at http://www.nokia.com/A4211216
Accessed: 28 February 2009
- Nokia (2005) Where is your used mobile phone? [internet]
Available at http://www.nokia.com/ A4211234
Accessed: 28 February 2009

13
 - Stevels, A. (2007) Adventures in EcoDesign of Electronics Products 1993-2007.
Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
- Teoh, Charity (2008) Should Philips Consumer Lifestyle implement cradle to
cradle? An investigation and an innovation framework. Unpublished thesis, Delft
University of Technology.
- TNT corporate website [internet], available at:
http://group.tnt.com/aboutus/tntataglance/index.aspx
Accessed: 25 February 2009.
- Van Hattem, R. (director) (2006, October 6) Waste=food [documentary]
Hilversum, the Netherlands: VPRO.
- Van Hattem, R. (director) (2007, October 26) Afval=voedsel; een revolutie in
Nederland [documentary] Hilversum, the Netherlands: VPRO.
- VDI 2243, Konstruieren recyclingerechter technischer produkte, Dusseldorf, VDI,
1991.
- Crown Prince Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. Speech at World Future
Energy Summit, January 21, 2009, Abu Dhabi. [internet]
Full text available at:
http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:jKYCqPCofqAJ:www.peakoil.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2009/01/19janspeechwfesprincewillemalexander.doc+willem-
alexander+world+future+energy+summit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=safari
- White, Ph.; Belletire, S.; St. Pierre, L.; (2007) Okala; Learning Ecological Design.
Second Edition. IDSA, Phoenix, AZ.

14

View publication stats