Author: Laura Nodoph

As seen in Supply and Demand Chain Executive

Carbon dioxide levels, e.g., in one year, from 2020-2021, grew more than the average annual growth rate over the last decade. You will find plenty of other examples on topics such as land use, biodiversity loss, etc.   

Therefore, decreasing carbon emissions and improving the sustainability of global supply chains is imperative if we hope to slow further growth in carbon emissions. 

Sophie Kieselbach, Senior Implementation Engineer for Sustainability at Makersite, provided her insights into the top 5 trending sustainability topics for 2023 that should be considered in every company’s sustainability journey.  

EU Taxonomy

The purpose of implementing the taxonomy system throughout the European Union is to steer economic development in a sustainable direction. This system relies on regulations, classifications, and a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities that companies must abide by as they continue to scale their businesses.  

What we are seeing now is many companies that have not traditionally considered the environmental ramifications of their manufacturing processes are attempting to change quickly to classify themselves within the new taxonomy system due to increased financial pressure. It is, therefore, of uttermost importance to speed up and follow the guidelines if a company wants to avoid cuts in investments.  

Net Zero

In order to achieve Net Zero emissions, companies need to gain a quick and clear understanding of how they can cut down on carbon emissions. 

Most companies already have identified their main contributors. Still, the struggle for the upcoming year(s) will be identifying where exactly in the supply chain the carbon emissions come from and, even more, stepping in and implementing strategies for reducing the carbon emissions of the processes within these areas.  

Getting companies to recognize net zero emissions as an important part of their business can be difficult due to the cost and coordination required to achieve it. However, the basis of any sustainable transformation, whether achieving Net Zero emissions or decreasing emissions in general, is remaining educated on the importance of sustainable business practices.               

Scope 3 reporting

Although Scope 3 reporting is clearly connected to Net Zero, it is an incredibly significant development because it forces companies to report on their carbon emissions, exposing them to the public, which can trickle down to affect the opinions of consumers toward those companies and eventually impact the profitability of their products. 

Some companies have utilized the practice of “greenwashing” to counteract the negative publicity that can accompany damning Scope 3 reports. When a company “greenwashes,” they use deceptive marketing and advertising strategies to persuade consumers that they are practicing sustainable business development in their products, policies, and goals. 

But even though Scope 3 reporting can be tricky, it will also be an important piece of work to gain a basic understanding of your products and the up-and-downstream processes.  

This will be advantageous when the planned ecodesign directive is realized in some years. The proposal for the update of the European Union’s Ecodesign Directive (Directive 2009/125/EC), published on 30 March 2022, is the cornerstone of the Commission’s approach to more environmentally sustainable and circular products and will also pressure companies to work on the sustainability of their product portfolio.  

Technologies such as data analysis, artificial intelligence, and advanced modeling methods are just some of the tools green businesses use to help companies achieve their sustainability goals. 

Carbon crediting credibility

The carbon credit system is a point of division for many ecologists who view it as a way for companies to avoid decarbonization. Companies can use this system to exchange a carbon credit, a certificate that allows a business to produce a fixed amount of emissions, for monetary gain.  

Naturally, companies have tried to take advantage of this system. This would not be surprising, but with the news on South Pole, one of the largest companies specializing in carbon credits, the discussion is lit up again.  

Through South Pole reporting, it was discovered that their carbon trade programs increased emissions rather than decreased them. The South Pole controversy has led to a new discussion on how and if Carbon credits should be allowed as a way for companies to decarbonize.  

Therefore – as a company – to avoid a discussion about greenwashing – carbon crediting should be applied with care and preferably only be used as an instrument in a transition phase.  

Biodiversity

Climate change and biodiversity are two topics that go hand in hand. Increasing carbon emissions have resulted in a steady increase in the global temperature over the past 100 years. Through this gradual warming and other substantial influence of human activities, such as land use, ecosystems around the world have begun to experience a decrease in overall biodiversity. 

Many aspects of a company’s supply chain can increase climate change and decrease biodiversity. The consequences of shifts in this delicate balance can be felt around the world.  

For example, large-scale deforestation, like in the Amazon rainforest, will influence climate patterns as the world loses its cooling effect.  

„As Nobre explains, the rainforest is not only home to an incredible diversity of species, it also has a critical cooling effect on the planet because its trees channel heat high into the atmosphere. In addition, forests absorb and store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere—CO2 that is released back into the atmosphere when trees are cut and burned.

Nobre warns that if deforestation continues at current levels, we are headed for disaster. The Amazon region could become drier and drier, unable to support healthy habitats or croplands.“ (Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change (nationalgeographic.org)) 

Stable ecosystems are important for our ability to adapt to climate change; if this is not given, there will be a feedback effect on climate change. Companies should already focus on understanding their effect on biodiversity and mirror it in their sustainability strategy.  

What does sustainability mean to you?

Stefanie Buchacher: Specialist literature puts it well: sustainability is the balance between ecology, social issues, and economy, or ‘not satisfying today’s needs at the expense of future generations.’ We, as industrialized nations (Global North), currently live and work not only at the expense of future generations but also at the expense of current nations, the Global South – and we produce incredible amounts of emissions and waste. To me, sustainability means prosperity that is globally balanced. It also means that we manage existing resources and keep them in cycles – neither at the expense of the planet nor at the cost of the people of various nations – For a livable present and a livable future. The good thing is that we can shape this future!

What motivates you to work in sustainability?

SB: Impact starts with I. To put it simply, I want to make a difference, shape things and be part of the solution, not part of the problem. We must understand that we are all part of nature and that we are destroying our livelihood with our behavior. I love the mountains and I am fascinated of our nature with its harsh conditions, wilderness, and power. I am shocked by the climatic changes and the dramatic consequences of climate change. At the same time, I am convinced that we have the greatest opportunity for a more sustainable way of doing business, which is why I work in the outdoor industry – to contribute my passion and willingness for change.

What would you rate as your most successful measure for more sustainability in the last years, and why?

SB: Within my company, I would say to have planted a seed of rethinking growth. I believe that it is incredibly important to take all (or at least a large part of) the employees of a company with you to inspire and empower them to act and take responsibility. Sustainability cannot be implemented alone; every smallest effort makes a difference in the aggregate. As an owner-managed family business, we always have the next generation or generations in mind. But let’s be honest: we, as an outdoor/sports retailer, sell products that mostly can’t be recycled. We consume energy; we create waste and emissions – that’s not sustainable. So, what are the options? Stop doing business or change something? We chose the second. To be focused and effective, we have developed an ambitious sustainability roadmap with emission reduction targets. Our aspiration is to avoid and reduce emissions – and to compensate for unavoidable emissions. We calculate our carbon footprint annually – and we know that our greatest impact is not in our original business activities but in the upstream and downstream stages of the value chain and primarily indirectly through our product range. That’s why we are switching our product range to a more innovative and sustainable selection, and, above all, to durable, long-life products (made from recycled materials, renewable raw materials, etc.). Also, we have introduced a second-hand model and have already tested the rental of outdoor clothing. And together with various manufacturers, we are testing the possibility of taking back products and putting them into the recycling loop.

The key is collaboration within the industry because there is no competition when it comes to sustainability. The more we create as an industry (and as a society), the better it is for all of us! We need to work collaboratively and depend on each other. That’s what I see as success: collaboration in the industry. Change towards a sustainable future is the common ground here – exchange with other retailers without competition and with manufacturers to drive improvements throughout the value chain. And on the other side are the customers: here, it is part of our responsibility as retailers to educate, inform, raise awareness, and motivate us to consume consciously. To drive this change boldly and effectively, we need to broaden our perspective and mindset. The change we seek requires collaboration.

How did you become a sustainability manager?

SB: I originally studied journalism and media communications and worked in the fashion industry in editorial and PR offices for various brands and retailers. My responsibilities always included promoting seasonally changing trends. At some point, I questioned the meaningfulness of that and I additionally experienced it as challenging to not be empowered to work or create independently in these positions. My two children also changed my perspective on my own behaviors as well as on our way of doing business. During my second parental leave, I started another course of study on sustainability management part-time alongside raising the kids and later on my job. I wanted to apply my knowledge professionally, so I first switched to a sustainability consultancy and, finally, to the outdoor industry.

What are you doing to make your own life more sustainable?

SB: I believe there is no such thing as more sustainable – you can only make the decision to live more responsibly and, above all, more consciously. And that includes weighing the pros and cons carefully: what do I really need? What can I do without, and how can this renunciation give me a better life and greater freedom? In daily life, this can be seen in small things: less packaging and garbage or organic products. The last time I went on vacation by plane was in 2010. If possible, I refrain from driving and use the bicycle — but to managecompletely without a car is difficult to manage for a family living in a very rural area. When I’m in the mountains or out walking, I collect trash. And since 2020, I have had a climate subscription from ForTomorrow. The start-up uses subscription fees or donations to buy CO2 trading certificates from the market and decommission them: this way, sooner or later, emission- intensive companies are forced to transform. And on the other hand, trees are planted in Germany, thus actively binding CO2 from the air.

What’s something new you learned in the past year?

SB: I am learning something new almost every day because my job involves breaking new ground and moving out of my comfort zone. I’ve learned to be brave and stand up for my ideals. Because if you want to question and change the status quo, you have to be courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions and you have to tolerate not always meeting advocates and supporters but also encountering obstacles and resistant people.

What do you think companies lack to become better at sustainability?

SB: In business, the key targets are growth and profit. Yes, companies must operate profitably – but it must not be at the expense of people and the planet. That’s not how a circular system works. It has a completely different approach than the linear way of thinking. The circular economy can help to solve our problems today. Another very important aspect of collaboration and cooperation is sharing knowledge. I think that’s how nature works, too: with feedback loops and the distribution of knowledge. In addition, fortunately, there is an increasing shift in thinking and with that purpose-oriented movements and economic forms – for example, B-Corps or companies that work for the common good. A great role model is Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, who transferred his company to a charitable foundation last year, and made his assets available for environmental protection.

What do you think the world needs most to combat global warming and pollution?

SB: At a recent conference, I heard the following saying: you can’t make the devil greener. We need to stop glossing over outdated business models and start a transformation: we need to change how we extract our energy, stop subsidizing climate-damaging business models and we need to adapt our mobility and consumption habits. Sustainability and profit are not contradictory. We must always ask ourselves: what impact do my actions have on the planet and our ecosystem? We need to understand that we are acting as part of a living system – and this learning needs to happen quickly now.

What’s the biggest thing hindering you from implementing changes for more sustainability?

SB: There is not one big obstacle. For one thing, we need to change our politics and our economy – and we also need social change. For real change, we need a critical mass. The paradox: change scares and fear blocks. A big hurdle is the attitude-behavior gap – the wide gap between “saying” and “doing.” And also, we need a new understanding as a society, moving away from egocentrism to public spirit – and in doing so, we need to broaden our view: We often think too much in terms of specialties without a view of the broad systemic impacts that our actions might have on our ecosystems or our society. We need a better systemic understanding of the interconnections in nature.

If you had one wish from a legislative point of view to make your job easier – what would you wish for?

SB: When you think about heat waves, climate change, and species extinction, it’s obvious that we need to respond now. Many carry on as usual and governments are slow to change regulations. But we don’t have time. We need a post-competitive environment where innovation and a new narrative of a livable and circular future can emerge. We need forward-looking legislation that drives innovation and rewards actions beneficial to the climate. And we need more transparency and credibility, especially regarding the sustainability of products – here, I see the EU’s Green Claims Initiative as an important step to promote truly more sustainable products and with that conscious consumption and to penalize greenwashing. I also see the CSRD, the corporate social reporting directive, as an important step that obliges companies to report transparently on their own sustainability management and to shed light on both the risk and opportunity perspectives.

If you had one wish from your supervisor or colleagues to make your work easier – what would you wish for?

SB: Sustainability management is a cross-functional discipline and impacts the entire company regardless of departments and hierarchies. My wish is to break down thinking in silos and promote interdisciplinary exchanges and changes of perspective. And my wish would be to talk about fears – because from the moment we talk about our fears, we can start developing solutions. Change is fun, especially when everyone participates. We can shape our future.

Makersite’s data foundation compiles information from more than 140 sources. Our comprehensive databases cover a vast range of materials and substances, allowing clients to model products across various industries. With data on over 36,000 industrial processes, 600,000 environmental impacts, and 100,000 materials and properties in a single system, customers can quickly locate the information they need for procurement and sourcing decisions. ecoinvent, one of the key LCA databases in Makersite, is known for its high-quality environmental data. We recently spoke with Emilia Moreno Ruiz, the Chief Technical Officer at ecoinvent, about their data collection methods, quality control measures, and why ecoinvent stands out as a top-notch database for environmental data.

How and where does ecoinvent collect data?

Emilia Moreno Ruiz: There are three pillars to our data collection process. The first consists of our collaborations with organizations that collect data themselves, such as industry actors or industry associations and consultants working on behalf of industry or governmental initiatives. This pillar also includes our collaborations with several national databases that have entrusted us with hosting and publishing their data.

Secondly, we collaborate with researchers and consultants to publish or develop ad-hoc models that can be fed with data from other databases or from research. These models produce data that we incorporate into our database.

Lastly, our team is constantly working to harmonize and maintain the data. The database functions as a consistent system, so the ecoinvent team facilitates the interactions between sectors by adding activities that connect data points within sectors as needed (for example, creating treatments for generated waste streams).

We supply data providers with a methodological framework, a review scheme, and submission support for the data generated, and of course, we support them throughout the whole process of data creation.

How does ecoinvent do quality assurance?

EMR: In the project-based context, we work with external experts that guarantee the plausibility of results and ensure that the data and technologies are state-of-the-art. External reviewers play an important role in increasing the quality and trustworthiness of our data. Additionally, we work internally to ensure the data complies with our published methodology and requirements at a database and sector level. At a database level, we look at the database as a whole and audit its results, variations, and interactions to orchestrate any necessary corrections. We work in cooperation with external reviewers at that level as well.

How does ecoinvent keep its data updated?

EMR: New versions of the ecoinvent database are released annually to include new and updated data and technical improvements. These yearly releases expand the sectorial, technological, and geographical coverage of the database. The data updates correspond to ecoinvent’s central maintenance strategy while also adapting organically todevelopments and additions from data providers.

Other improvements relate to documentation, calculation features, or alignment in nomenclature. We also work on innovating and adding new system models or new impact assessment methods (methods that will calculate impacts on the environment by using our data), which oftentimes require data updates as well.

What makes ecoinvent one of the best databases of environmental data?

EMR: The strength of the ecoinvent database lies in the fact that it is modular and built into individual processes. This makes it transparent and easily adaptable— It can be integrated into or connected with other systems or databases. Thus,the ecoinvent database adheres to the FAIR principle: findable, adaptable, interoperable, and reusable.

Additionally, data traceability is becoming increasingly critical— and is often required by government authorities— so it is essential that data is traceable to empower people to make good decisions. We can provide a level of transparency in our database that allows our users to trust that our data has been thoroughly verified and audited.

ecoinvent has nurtured an impressive database ecosystem that allows many interesting businesses to flourish. The content of the database is uniquely broad, as are our partnerships, so we are proud to represent high-quality data for the good of the world.

If you want to learn more about how the ecoinvent data is used in Makersite and by our customers, head over to ecoinvent to read their interview with Fabian Hassel, Makersite’s VP of Services.

Setting up a sustainability strategy can be a daunting task, but it’s essential for companies that want to thrive in the long term

Sustainability has become a critical issue for manufacturers in recent years. Setting up a sustainability strategy can be a daunting task, but it’s essential for companies that want to thrive in the long term. In this article, we’ll delve into the process of developing a sustainability strategy, starting with getting to know the company’s structure and stakeholders, and then gathering data to identify gaps and refine the strategy.

The Five Key Learnings

Takeaway 1. Importance of Collaboration and Comprehensive Understanding

Developing a sustainability strategy involves understanding the company’s structure, products, suppliers, and departments involved in production. It is a team effort, and it’s important to get in touch with people who are interested in the topic and can work with you.

Takeaway 2. Maximizing Data Sources: Utilizing Internal and External Data

Companies can obtain data for sustainability reporting by looking for data they already have, such as procurement data, legal data, compliance data, and primary data on production. They can also use external databases and reach out to suppliers for more information.

Takeaway 3. Streamlining Data Gathering: The Importance of Structured Data and Automated Tools

Data gathering is a critical task that involves evaluating the data and working to get the data in the right structure. The best-case scenario is having a personalized tool with an automated data upload system, while the worst-case scenario is manually sorting through Excel files from various systems.

Takeaway 4. Integrating Legal, Environmental, Social, and Cost Requirements: Using a Matrix

A matrix that lists different requirements like legal, environmental, social, and cost requirements can enable a company to define a strategy that takes into account all the different requirements. Compliance with legislations is important, and there is a growing trend towards mandatory sustainability reports.

Takeaway 5. Challenges and Rewards of Implementing a Sustainability Strategy

Implementing a sustainability strategy takes time, investment, hard work, and can cause frustration, but it also offers benefits such as more opportunities for the company, and pride and motivation for employees.

Net Zero is an ambitious target that requires significant investment and effort from governments, businesses, and individuals. The associated costs, together with the skepticism over the efficacy of efforts, are key reasons for the resistance we see in this much-needed transformation process. We believe that when we look at Net Zero as both the goal and the means to get there, it becomes a natural part of business, lends more optimism to the process, and will drive even faster adoption.  

The path to Net Zero is through innovation 

There is growing consensus that we cannot continue to grow our economies at current levels of pollution and resource consumption. A fewer number believe that we need to change by reducing our consumption per capita if we want to contend with a growing population that is becoming wealthier. However, the opposite is true: a change to Net Zero cannot happen by doing less of anything. Consider the scenario of owning a 20-year-old car that pollutes. You could use it less, but it will still pollute. If the only options on the market are other “new” 20-year-old cars that pollute, there would be no reason to buy something new and we would never get to Net Zero. The existing stock of products will only change once we give customers something better to buy.  

In other words, we can either produce and consume less or produce more efficient and sustainable things and consume those instead. In the first case the only way to achieve Net Zero would be by reaching a state of consuming nothing, which is impossible. The other approach is to produce better products as fast as we can – that everyone will buy – creating a new Net Zero system. It seems clear that we need to innovate our way out of this problem. 

Net Zero as an investment thesis 

While Net Zero sounds like a goal, it can also be seen as a design paradigm for growing businesses and bringing new products to market. When reframed in this way, it drives innovation for which access to money has never been easier. ESG-related funds amounted to around 40 Trillion[1] in 2022 and continue to grow rapidly. It now simply makes business sense for many companies to align themselves with more sustainable practices than they did just ten years ago. 

Cost savings 

Implementing Net Zero strategies can help businesses reduce costs over the long term. By improving energy efficiency, adopting renewable energy sources, and reducing waste, businesses can lower their energy bills, avoid the costs of pollution and waste disposal, and minimize the risks of price volatility associated with fossil fuels. In addition, businesses may also qualify for tax credits, grants, and other incentives that can help offset some of the upfront costs. With Carbon prices at an all-time high now, for many energy-intensive producers or trans-jurisdictional operators, the business case for investment in efficiency has become even simpler. 

Competitive advantage 

Companies that embrace the Net Zero transition can gain a competitive advantage by differentiating themselves from their peers. Consumers and investors are increasingly interested in sustainable products (see below) and services and are more likely to do business with companies that prioritize sustainability. In addition, these companies may have an easier time attracting and retaining top talent, as younger generations are more likely to seek out companies that align with their values. 

Risk management 

The Net Zero transition is an opportunity for businesses to manage the risks associated with climate change. Extreme weather events, water scarcity, and supply chain disruptions are just a few of the potential risks that can impact businesses. By adopting Net Zero strategies, businesses can reduce their exposure to these risks and create a more resilient business model. In addition, companies that act on climate change may be better positioned to comply with evolving regulations and avoid potential legal and reputational risks. 

None of these propositions are new and sustainability specialists and evangelists have been touting these benefits for several years. What we find equally if not more compelling is to look at the flipside – the cost of inaction, which has become more apparent in recent years. 

The business cost of inaction 

The cost of the cleanup from environmental disasters and social inequality is already painful and obvious, and projections are that things are going to become a lot worse for a lot of us. The role companies play in this future will define their relationships with their customers, competitors, employees, regulators, investors, and ultimately, their chances of success.  

Losing markets to regulations 

With 100+ product regulations becoming active globally each day, some of them related to climate change, there is a growing risk that businesses will lose positioning if not lose access entirely to certain markets. This is particularly true for businesses that operate in industries with high Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, such as energy-consuming consumer goods, as well as Scope 1 and 2 emissions like manufacturing, energy, and transportation. In some cases, sustainability regulations could make it more difficult or expensive for these businesses to operate, making them less competitive in the global marketplace. In other cases, companies can be cut off entirely, like in public procurement in the building and construction industry. However, this risk can be mitigated by adopting a proactive approach to sustainability, such as investing in renewable energy and sustainable practices and engaging with stakeholders to promote sustainable business practices and creating transparency around these activities.  

Losing market share to competitors 

A recent study[2] showed that over a third of global consumers are willing to pay up to 25% more for more sustainable products. As younger generations more conscious of the environment enter the economy, sustainability will become a dominant factor in consumer and business decision-making. Businesses will lose market share to competitors who are seen as more sustainable and produce more sustainable products. More importantly, they will lose market share in the high-end segments where profit margins are much higher. On the other hand, sustainable practices can also lead to cost savings and increased efficiency, giving sustainable businesses a competitive advantage in the long term. Adopting sustainable practices and communicating these efforts to consumers and stakeholders mitigates this risk. Being radical about producing new, more sustainable products will determine if that translates into revenue.  

Losing revenue to supply chain disruptions 

Any company can survive when markets and supply chains function perfectly. Great companies know how to deliver in rough times. Climate change poses a significant risk to global supply chains in the mid to long term, which would result in businesses losing revenue as they cannot deliver products, as has become abundantly clear in the recent past. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, and droughts, can disrupt supply chains, causing an economic loss of assets, delays, and shortages of critical inputs. Rising temperatures and changing weather patterns can also impact the productivity and availability of crops and other natural resources, further exacerbating supply chain disruptions. In addition, sea-level rise and coastal erosion can threaten ports and other critical infrastructure, creating even more damage to how companies do business. While these may seem far off into the future, changes to supply chains for mass-produced products take several years. For other products, growing geopolitical threats, rebalancing of the east, and the resulting “glocalization” of supply chains are more near-term causes of disruption. Businesses will have to adapt quickly or fail. They can mitigate these risks by investing in transparency, diversifying their supply chains, investing in climate resilience, and adopting sustainable practices that reduce their exposure.  

Is it worth it? 

The future belongs to the young it is said, and as younger generations enter the economy, they will require a new breed of products that align better with their values. Sustainability is high on their agenda, and companies are racing to capture this growing segment. As we see in this article, Net Zero can create a virtuous cycle of investment, innovation, and cost savings, further driving economic growth. That makes a compelling case for investment.  

By looking at Net Zero in the frame of an investment thesis, leading companies are escaping the cost-of-sustainability trap and innovating their way to success. It is time for the rest to follow. 

Procurement is one of the essential puzzle pieces for the transition to Net Zero.

Most procurement teams are in the process of setting up their sustainability strategy. But a lack of experts, the non-availability of data, the business context, and the difficulties of working with suppliers to measure and reduce emissions make it a challenge. 

Makersite’s VP of Sales and Marketing, Julian Weitz, talked about challenges and their possible solutions at the Synergy Showcase Event and interviewed Geert Behets, Sustainable Procurement and Risk Lead for UCB, Dario Kulic, Global Director Procurement for Elanco, and Magdalena Shakallis, Head of Procurement for British American Tobacco, on their experiences in the field. 

Top three takeaways

Takeaway 1: One of the biggest challenges in procurement right now is the knowledge gap in supplier collaboration

Big corporations have by now invested in sustainability enough to have stakeholder buy-in and resources. What poses the challenge for procurement now is the knowledge gap around tools, challenges, and how to collaborate with suppliers and with other functions internally. Education within procurement is needed for the next steps. 

Takeaway 2: Procurement has to work together with product design on sustainability

Only if procurement understands why they’re buying what they’re buying can they make reasonable change requests. If supply chain managers understand what parts they buy for a product, they can think of sustainable adaptations. Paired with good supplier knowledge, they approach product engineers with ideas on how to save emissions by changing out materials, etc. 

Takeaway 3: Change management is crucial

As an expert on sustainability, you easily think everyone understands sustainability and its urgency. But it is essential to remind yourself that people often don’t. Explaining what sustainability is about, why it’s needed, what data is needed, and what to do with it takes time. Still, without incorporating this step into the beginning of the sustainability process, there will be repercussions. 

What are your initiatives to make design more sustainable?   

Karsten Schischke: Technological progress provides ample opportunities to develop more sustainable products – or the opposite: To come up with product ideas and concepts which do more harm to the environment. To judge the potential of technology regarding potential positive or negative effects is, in many cases, not a straightforward exercise. A thorough view of the whole product life cycle is needed, which typically involves quite some assumptions. This is, in particular, true for products and technologies in a development stage, where the later user perception and behavior are not yet known. We at the Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration do research in this instance on electronics products. An example is the modularity of mobile products. This is typically seen as a pre-condition for repairability and, thus, lifetime extension. So far, so good. Our research, however, has shown that more modularity initially also means more environmental impacts, as the components enabling modularity – connectors are the most obvious example – have to be produced with additional environmental impacts. If the user, later on, does not repair a defect despite the simplicity of the repair process, then this product is even worse than a conventional one. Similar trade-offs can relate to reliability and repairability or recyclability and robustness. Finding here the optimal engineering solutions is key. That’s why we are also undertaking a lot of research based on Life Cycle Assessments: Quantifying, e.g., the carbon footprint of a product, process, or supply chain is a great starting point to discuss targeted measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, I’m coordinating one such project where we do pilots on greenhouse gas accounting in electronics enterprises to get the basic figures right to decide on a climate policy and targets next. Measures are then either design-related or further supply chain interaction or changing internal processes. Just to take an example, for an electronics manufacturing service, it is an eye-opener that the energy consumption of the in-house assembly and soldering processes is relevant but dwarfed by the upstream impacts of producing the printed circuit board and the electronic components. Without influencing the supply chain, such companies will hardly reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions related to their products significantly. 

What role do you think design plays in sustainability? 

KS: Design is crucial to reduce the environmental impacts across the product life cycle. Bad design choices can hardly be corrected later in the product life cycle. If the product is difficult to repair, this is a huge economic barrier for an extended lifetime once the device breaks. If I don’t know which parts are most likely to fail and my strategy for a repair-friendly design does not target the most critical components or just tries to maximize reparability, this will not be the optimal solution. Same for reliability: I need to know the weak spots in my design to reduce the likeliness of failures. 

What are the challenges you face when working on ecodesign? 

KS: Ecodesign has to be understood as a process, including trial and error: Improvements are made over time with repeated design iterations and process adaptations. To take an example, it is easy to talk about using more recycled plastics. Still, it is a complex undertaking to implement it: For high-tech products, frequently, there are no recyclates, which can be used as drop-in solutions where you just exchange virgin polymers with a recycled polymer. You need to test the variability of material characteristics, including the processability of the material. You might need to adapt product and tool design to allow for recycled plastics. You also should make sure you secure a sufficient supply of this material over time if you want to use it for consumer products in large amounts. The same is true for design for recyclability: You need to understand how a recycler works and if he really appreciates the nice little features you implement in your design, which you think will ease recycling. Many target a design for better disassembly, but in reality, something like “design for shreddability” is needed because this is how end-of-life for, e.g., electronics waste looks like: Shredding! These are only some of the examples you need to consider for ecodesign; it is extremely complex to understand all facets of technology, the environment, markets, and the user alike and to take these into account when designing a product. This is definitely a team sport. 

What would you rate as your most successful measure for more sustainability in the last years, and why? 

KS: Success comes in many flavors, so I will tell you about three very different measures: The lessons we learn from research projects directly feed into the process of assisting policymakers and stakeholders, in general, to put in place sound legislation to advance the sustainability of information and communication technology: Most recently we supported the European Commission to develop eco-design legislation and an Energy Label for mobile phones and tablets. It took almost three years to go through the analytical and political process, but now we are almost there. The legislation will be adopted in the next few weeks and will be a step forward in terms of reparability and reliability of, e.g., smartphones in the years to come. 

In general, we are working with many companies in the information and communication technology sector, from start-ups to large multinationals. They are all in the race toward climate neutrality currently. I don’t want to discuss here if “climate neutrality” is actually the right term and achievable at all. Still, the main point is that the companies have a more or less visionary goal and work honestly on achieving this goal. With our research and analytical insights, we are supporting these companies on their journey. This really changed a few years ago: The industry is now much more serious about environmental targets. And it is great that they are listening and eager to learn from us.  

Sometimes we accept the challenge of explaining our findings to laypersons: At the IFA in Berlin last year, we confronted kids with a backpack filled with the weight of carbon emissions of manufacturing a smartphone. A 150 or 200-g smartphone means 35 kg of released CO2 before you even switch on the device for the first time. Just to see how the kids tried to lift this 35 kg backpack – and most of them failed – was fun for us and an eye-opener for them about what they really carry around in their pockets. We are also going to Repair Cafés to provide extra motivation, explaining that repair is good for the climate if you keep this 35 kg backpack “alive” instead of upgrading to a new one, releasing 35 kg of carbon emissions again. This work “on the ground” might not be a huge lever, but it is important nevertheless. 

What do you think companies lack to become better at sustainability?  

KS: Sustainability is such a complex topic that it is difficult to identify a starting point and not to get lost in details, which do not matter much in the end. Getting started and setting at least some of the priorities right from the beginning is important. Success stories from thought leaders can help. In 2021, we organized a series of online seminars to let leading companies share their story on how they approach circular design with iNEMI, the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative. The approaches and solutions were so manifold that this series of events really serves as a pool of ideas on how to go green. It was also evident that many of these companies went through some Life Cycle Assessments of their products to gather evidence for further action. Getting started with Life Cycle Assessments, however, first and foremost, involves a lot of data crunching, which can be time-consuming. But at the end of the day, it is a great tool to get the baseline right for action. 

What do you do to make your own life more sustainable? 

KS: In a large city like Berlin, where I live, you can easily rely on public transportation and the bike, so I don’t have a car. During the pandemic, people flew much less, so the question is whether flying less frequently is feasible now. It is. Despite being involved in quite a bit of international projects, my last flight so far was on November 13, 2019. Since then, I have relied on ground transportation and online conferences. It works, and research is at least as efficient as before! Guess I need to take off again one day, but I see it as my private challenge to push this day as far as possible. Eating delicious vegetarian food, streaming on handheld devices instead of switching on the TV set, and turning down the heating until the lower limit of my thermal comfort zone is reached, which is surprisingly low. Laziness to transfer all my data and settings from an old device to a new one and consequently being more tolerant with the glitches of my five years old smartphone. Buying regional beer, having in mind the large number of beer trucks just bringing each and every sort of beer from numerous breweries into each and every other village in Germany. Drink locally. Going more frequently to restaurants, because I’m sure this is more energy efficient, than everybody cooking on his own at home. Many things can be done, and surprisingly once habits are changed, it doesn’t feel like a loss of comfort. And still, I went skiing recently, so there are definitely some aspects where I can still reduce my environmental footprint further. 

What do you think the world needs most to fight global warming and pollution?  

KS: We have talked about designing better products, but actually, what is needed is designing fewer products. Technology solutions are important, but without de-growth, this will not work out. Our lifestyle is just too energy and resource intensive. There is still a lot of growth potential in the repair, reuse, and refurbishment sector, this is sustainable growth with little energy input required, but the production of new products needs to go down significantly as long as the world is not running fully on renewables.