Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The role of modularity in sustainable design: A systematic review

Monique Sonego a, *, Ma

rcia Elisa Soares Echeveste a, Henrique Galvan Debarba b
a
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Graduate Program of Industrial Engineering, Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99, 5 Andar, 90035-190 Porto Alegre, Brazil
b

Ecole Polytechnique F

ed

erale de Lausanne, School of Computer and Communication Sciences, SCI-IC-RB, Station 14, EPFL, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Modularity is a strategy recognized by the academia and the industry, and modular architecture is
argued to play an important role in the development of sustainable products. The objective of this article
is to explore the intersection between modularity and sustainable design from the perspective of the
Keywords: product life cycle. To achieve this objective, a systematic review was conducted and a total of 81 articles
Modularity were selected and distributed in seven different categories of subjects: Life Cycle Assessment, Design for
Modular design
X, Green Modularization, Manufacture, Modularization Reviews, Supply Chain, and Usage. We identified
Product development
in the literature that: (i) benefits are claimed in every life cycle phase (production, use, and disposal); (ii)
Sustainable design
academic research is mainly focused in the production phase and in projecting product disposal sce-
narios, offering a wide variety of methods and methodologies to modularize products with environ-
mental concerns. However, modularity could also present limitations, and the realization of its benefits is
partially influenced by user's decisions. Our conclusion points that, in spite of the association of
modularity with environmental benefits, a better understanding of the entire life cycle of modular
products and their environmental impact is needed to decide whether modularization is a suitable
sustainable strategy or not.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.1. Categories of subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.1.1. Green modularization methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.1.2. Life cycle assesment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.1.3. Design for X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
3.1.4. Modularity reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.1.5. Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.1.6. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.1.7. Supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
3.2. Benefits of modularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4.1. Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
4.2. Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
4.3. Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
4.4. User's influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Aknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hgmonique@gmail.com (M. Sonego).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.106
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209 197

Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

1. Introduction the environmental impact of each stage of the life cycle of a

modular product, including the role of the user, is necessary to
Sustainable development has been highlighted as a central idea decide whether modularity is a suitable sustainable strategy and
for our age (Sachs, 2014). It includes, in a general way, economic how to best take advantage of its strengths.
development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. The objective of this paper is to explore the intersection be-
However, sustainable consumption and production require the tween modularity and sustainable design from the perspective of
redesign of industrial practices, services, and infrastructures the product life cycle through a systematic literature review. The
(Spangerberg et al., 2010). As a result, the focus in industry and contribution of this study can be summarized in two points. First,
legislation has changed from production processes to products and by reviewing research in published literature we present the ben-
their life cycles. A product life cycle embraces all the activities from efits of modularization for sustainable design and devise categories
design to the end of life, including manufacture, assembly, testing, of most recurrent subjects throughout the different life cycle
distribution, operation, services, reuse, remanufacturing, recycling stages; second, by presenting the limitations of modularity and
and disposal (Gu and Sosale, 1999). The development of sustainable highlighting research gaps in its relation with sustainable design,
products is pushed by more demanding consumers and is the goal we advocate the importance of studying the entire life cycle of a
of emerging and integrated product policies, particularly in Europe product to ensure that modularity can enable sustainable design.
(Hauschild et al., 2004). By making the manufacturer accountable These contributions can be used by researchers and practitioners to
for the entire life cycle of a product, regulations press companies to help to guide future developments of modularity for sustainable
adequate their methods and are expected to pave the way towards design.
environmental protection (Westkamper et al., 2000).
The product architecture has a significant effect on the whole
2. Method
product life cycle, hence affecting the sustainable characteristics of
a product (Bonvoisin et al., 2016; Halstenberg et al., 2015). Modu-
A systematic review was conducted to identify publications and
larity aims to break the product architecture into physically inde-
topics relating modularity to the sustainable development of
pendent units (Newcomb et al., 1998), and a modular product
products. It included two main phases: selection and analysis. Se-
architecture can facilitate the association of life cycle strategies
lection comprised the gathering of a set of publications in the
with suitable product designs (Umeda et al., 2008). The idea behind
desired area, while the analysis comprised the critical examination
a modular design is to allow the combination of distinct modules e
of these publications to identify patterns and recurrent themes. As
through defined interfaces e to compose products. There are a
proposed by Kitchenham (2007), these two phases were executed
variety of concepts on this subject, but according to Stewart and Yan
in five steps: research question, search strategy, study selection,
(2008), the principal characteristics related to modularity are the
study quality assessment, and data extraction. This is not an
structural independence, functional independence, minimization
exhaustive review of the research relating modularity and sus-
of interfaces and interactions with other modules and of external
tainable design. Instead, we aimed to assess the most recurrent
influences. Modularity facilitates upgrades, adaptations, modifica-
themes relating these subjects and to explore their relation from
tions and product assembly and disassembly, it also increases
the perspective of the product life cycle. In accordance with the
product variety, enables economies of scale and reduces production
aforementioned objective, our research question was: how modu-
time.
larity is associated with the development of sustainable products?
In light of its ability to influence the product life cycle and its
The Web of Science database was chosen because it includes
sustainable characteristics, modularity has recently gained special
highly cited scientific papers from journals that have impact factors
attention in the field of sustainable design. Sustainable design aims
in the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The search was conducted in
to develop sustainable solutions, balancing private interests of the
the database with the following combination of keywords:
companies against environmental, economic and social concerns
(“modul* product*” OR “product* modul*” OR “modular design” OR
(Skerlos, 2015). As the environmental impact of a product is
modularity OR modularization) AND (“sustainable design” OR
determined in the design stage (He and Gu, 2016; Jeswiet and
“sustainable product” OR “sustainable products” OR “eco-design”
Hauschild, 2005), sustainable design can help to meet consumer's
OR ecodesign OR “design for environment” OR “green design” OR
requirements and integrate the environmental concern in the
“green product” OR “environmental design” OR “life cycle design”
development of products. The terms Ecodesign, Green Design and
OR “product life cycle”).
Environmental Design are also used to describe the integration of
The search terms associated with sustainable design were
environmental concerns in the product development (Jeswiet and
defined using the TerMine software results for two reviews (Chiu
Hauschild, 2005).
and Chu, 2012; Keoleian and Menerey, 1994). TerMine is a term
Literature generally associates modular design to environmental
extraction program that identifies the key terms in a text and
benefits. However, modularity has some limitations and might not
produces a list ordered by their frequency and relevance (Frantzi
be the most appropriate strategy for certain market segments. For
et al., 2000). The Web of Science™ Core Collection search was
example, products associated with status may not benefit from
conducted in topic (title, abstract and keywords) without restric-
reuse/upgrade strategies allowed by modularization as the user
tion of time, in March 2017, and resulted in 145 papers.
values the act of owning a brand-new device. In these cases, user's
All 145 papers were independently analyzed and only papers
decisions have a major effect on the environmental impact of a
concerning modularity and sustainable design in the development
product (Lockton et al., 2008), limiting the benefits that can be
of products were selected. Green building examples, papers
achieved through modularity. Therefore, a better understanding of
regarding experiences with sustainability in formal education and
198 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
papers about modularity that were not related to sustainability
were discarded. At the end of this stage, 81 papers that are effec-
tively related to our research question were subjected to critical
appraisal and evaluation. Fig. 1 illustrates the process of our sys-
tematic review.
An aggregative approach was employed to extract the data and
categorize the findings presented in the studies (De Medeiros et al.,
2014). The definition of categories and the classification of studies
relied on author's interpretation of the main objectives and con-
tributions of each article. First, the articles were read in full; in this
reading, some key concepts were highlighted and summarized in a
table; according to their similarities, we grouped the articles in
categories and then chose a name that better represents each
category. As said by De Medeiros et al. (2014), to construct a useful
scheme to illustrate the objectives of a review, the special charac-
teristics of each study must be considered and compared regarding
their significance. Appendix 1 presents a summary of the 81 papers
used in this review.
3. Results
This section presents a description of the categories and a list of
benefits relating modularity with sustainable design.
3.1. Categories of subjects
The 81 papers were divided into 7 categories, according to their
similarities and the recurrence of topics: (i) modularization
methods with green/sustainable objectives, covering most of the
papers (48 papers); (ii) the role of modularity in the simplification
of Life Cycle Assessment approaches; (iii) broad methodologies to
develop modular sustainable products; (iv) literature reviews in the
field of modularity; (v) methodologies with focus in manufacture;
(vi) questions related to market, use and ownership (usage); (vii)
supply chain and its relation with modularization and sustain-
ability. Table 1 presents the papers in this review by category. Note
that the categories in Table 1 are ordered by the year of publication
of the first paper related to it, revealing the emergence of new
categories over time. The categories are described below.
3.1.1. Green modularization methods
The interest in the development of modular products motivated
the study and proposition of methods and metrics for modulari-
zation (Gershenson et al., 2004). Modularization potentially carries
great benefits to companies, but the division of products into
modules is not a trivial task and influences the benefits that com-
panies may experience from it (Holmqvist and Persson, 2003). The
process of modularizing products with environmental concern, or
green modularization, is a way to perform modularization not only
Fig. 1. Overview of the systematic review.
with functional or structural requirements but also from a life cycle
point of view (Li et al., 2015). In 1996, Newcomb et al. presented one
of the early methods for modularization that considered not only
functional and physical aspects of a product but also life cycle
concerns regarding the product end of life, such as post-life intent,
recycling, and service (Newcomb et al., 1996).
As most of the reviewed papers are part of the green modula-
rization category, the Histcite Software was used to perform a cross
reference analysis and obtain the most influential ones. Among the
48, 4 stands out as the most cited, as shown in Fig. 2, these are
presented next. Gu and Sosale (1999) presented a modularization
method to address life cycle concerns e such as assembly, services
and reuse/remanufacture/recycling e at the design stage. The au-
thors argue that the relationship between objectives and modules
should be established so that the life cycle engineering objectives
can be achieved through modularization. Kimura et al. (2001)
proposed a modularization strategy for product families and new
generations of products based on functionality, commonality and
life cycle similarity. Umeda et al. (2008) proposed a modular design
methodology to integrate geometric feasibility of modules with
attributes related to the life cycle (recycling, reuse, upgrade …).
Smith and Yen (2010) proposed a modularization method for green
design using atomic theory, where the products are modularized
according to green constraints, such as material compatibility,
recyclability, and disassemblability.
3.1.2. Life cycle assesment
The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method to assess the po-
tential environmental impact as well as the resources used
throughout a product life cycle, i.e., from the acquisition of raw
materials to the management of waste (ISO, 2006). As pointed by
Tao et al. (2017) LCA can bring great benefits to product design,
predicting life cycle impacts and helping to determine if a new
solution is better for the environment than the available ones.
Companies can rely on LCA to identify the greatest contributors of
environmental impact in their products and processes, and then act
directly in these contributors to reduce the negative impact (Testa
et al., 2016). However, it is very complex, expensive and time-
consuming to perform the LCA of a product, as it requires the
collection of data for every stage of its life cycle (Chiu and Chu,
2012; Kuo et al., 2016; Otto et al., 2002; Tao et al., 2017).
Modularity has been suggested as a way to simplify LCA,
allowing the life cycle assessment from a module viewpoint, in
which each module is treated and analyzed singly. Thus, the
modifications introduced in one module influences its own life
cycle, but not the entire product (Recchioni et al., 2007). Develop-
ment teams could have libraries of modules, and LCA for new
products could be made more practically, analyzing only the new
modules that offer differentiation (Otto et al., 2002). Such simpli-
fied LCA demands less time, effort and money, but still provides
important information (Chiu and Chu, 2012). In this category, we
found proposals of simplified LCA through modularization (Kuo
et al., 2016; Recchioni et al., 2007), simplification of LCA in prod-
uct families (Otto et al., 2002) and environmental evaluation of
module concepts (Tchertchian et al., 2009).
3.1.3. Design for X
DfX describes design philosophies and methodologies that focus
on the improvement of products at different stages of the life cycle
(Zettl et al., 2006). The ‘X’ represents the objectives of the meth-
odologies, i.e., design for disassembly, design for recycling, design
for end-of-life (Ijomah et al., 2007). These methodologies consist of
a set of design guidelines that provide broad support with little
detail (Knight and Jenkins, 2009). A DfX methodology should, for
example, provide advice on how to improve a design, carry out
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209 199

Table 1
Categories of subjects by year of publication.

Green Modul. LCA DfX Reviews Manufacture Usage Supply Chain

2017 , Song and Sakao

2016 , Ma and Kremer , Kuo et al. , Nielsen and Brunoe , Bonvoisin et al. , Fang et al.
, You and Smith , Huang et al. , Ma and Kremer
, Ma and Kremer , Bonvoisin
, Wang et al.
, Martinez and Xue
, Tseng and Chang
, Chiu et al.

2015 , Zhao et al. , Li et al.

, Yu et al. , Go et al.
, Smith and Hung
, Halstenberg et al.

2014 , Zhang et al. , Ostrosi et al. , Chung et al.

, Yang et al. , Sejayah et al.
, Yang
, Yan and Feng
, Cai et al.
, Ma and Kremer
, Liu and Jia
, Chung et al.
, Wang et al.

2013 , Yang and Liu , Liu , Agrawal

, Tchertchian et al. , Taps et al. and Ülkü
, Liu et al.
, Ji et al.
, Chiu and Teng
, Chang et al.
, Ji et al.

2012 , Yan et al. , Chiu and Chu , Cheng

, Tao and Yu
, Smith and Hung
, Philip et al.

2011 , Yang et al. , Zhang et al.

, Yan and Feng

2010 , Tseng et al. , Wang et al. , Ray and Ray

, Smith and Yen , Durand et al.
, Luh et al.
, Yen and Smith

2009 , Tseng , Tchertchian et al. , Tong and Ju

, Qian and Zhang , Gu et al.

2008 , Umeda et al.

, Li et al.

2007 , Recchioni et al. , Zhang et al.

2006 , Dunmade and , Ji et al.

Rosentrater

2005 , Watanabe and Takata , Jose and Tollenaere

, Kondoh et al.

2004 , Misceo et al.

, Dunmade

2003 , Gu and Slevinsky

, Qian and Zhang
, Aoyama and Uno

2002 , Otto et al.

2001 , Kimura et al.

2000

1999 , Gu and Sosale

Green Modul. LCA DfX Reviews Manufacture Usage Supply Chain

these improvements, measure performance and clarify relation- as general design guidelines. Modularity is an essential part of DfX
ships between products and processes (Huang, 2012). Thus, we methodologies due to the functional independence created by the
designate DfX as the methodologies that embrace the environ- product's configuration (Go et al., 2015). As Chiu and Chu (2012)
mental concern during product development in a broad way, such notes, the product architecture is a decisive factor connecting
200 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
Fig. 2. Cross reference analysis of the green modularization methods.
product design to other life cycle activities regarding the environ-
mental concern.
Literature reviews and analyses of design methodologies were
found in this category (Chiu and Chu, 2012; Li et al., 2015; Ostrosi
et al., 2014); methodologies applied to a specific industry, such as
automotive and furniture (Liu, 2013; Sejayah et al., 2014; Tong and
Ju, 2009; Zhang et al., 2007); web-based tools to support design and
cloud computing to store and share design knowledge (Huang et al.,
2016; Misceo et al., 2004); frameworks for product/service systems
(Song and Sakao, 2017); concepts such as Design for Multi-Purpose
(Dunmade, 2004), Design for Multi-Lifecycles (Dunmade and
Rosentrater, 2006), Design for Multiple Life Cycles (Go et al.,
2015), Life Cycle Design (Zhang et al., 2011), Adaptable design (Gu
et al., 2009), Industrial Metabolism (Taps et al., 2013), Cradle to
Cradle design (Nielsen and Brunoe, 2015) and Open Source Inno-
vation (Bonvoisin, 2016).
3.1.4. Modularity reviews
Modularity reviews attempt to organize and categorize the
published literature in the field of modularity. Starr (2010), a
pioneer in the studies of modularization, discusses the difficulty to
define modularity, despite its simplicity. As a result, modularity
does not belong to a coherent body of knowledge, making it diffi-
cult to organize the literature and to clarify when and how to use
modularity to obtain benefits.
Ma and Kremer (2016c) verified that the research in modularity
has increased in areas such as product life cycles, innovation, and
environmental management. The authors present a review of
modular design from the perspective of sustainability, relating
published articles to major sustainability themes, i.e., economic
sustainability, environmental sustainability and social sustainabil-
ity. Bonvoisin et al. (2016) summarizes published literature in the
field of modularity and presents a compilation of drivers, princi-
ples, and metrics; Jose and Tollenaere (2005) presents a review
focused on the concept of platforms and on the generation of
families; these reviews present an overview of the field and
contextualize the many facets of modularity study, including the
environmental one.
3.1.5. Manufacture
Manufacture is the pillar of the industrialized society;
manufacturing policies of the last century were focused on eco-
nomic growth and economic development (Jovane et al., 2008).
Back in the 80s, concerns related to economic development
brought up the idea of a new industrial revolution, aiming to
minimize the damage caused by industries and claiming for new
manufacture processes (Jovane et al., 2008; Paul et al., 2014).
Companies have been using modularity to facilitate the
manufacturing process of complicated products by dividing them
into modules or cells for over a century (Baldwin and Clark, 2003).
As discussed by Blackenfelt (2001), the organization of manufac-
ture is one of the three main reasons to adopt modularity. Modu-
larity could optimize equipment utilization, improve efficiency,
quality, reduce costs and reduce lead times (Gershenson et al.,
2003; Gu and Sosale, 1999). Modularity is a key concept in new
sustainable manufacturing processes, ensuring agility, reactivity,
and flexibility. It enables companies to quickly respond to changes
in the market and regulatory requirements, thus allowing an effi-
cient planning and control of the environmental impact of the
production phase. However, as the organization of manufacture can
bring economic benefits to the company, its adoption is often un-
related to sustainable goals. Three papers were found in this cate-
gory, Wang et al. (2010) and Fang et al. (2016) present studies in
machine tools design, and Ji et al. (2006) discusses the inverse
manufacturing strategy.
3.1.6. Usage
According to Oberender and Birkhofer (2003), the use phase
starts with the purchase and comprises the activation, actual use,
maintenance/repair and decommissioning. It plays an important
role in determining the environmental impact of a product. Un-
derstanding the specificities of the market, the decision process and
the events that happen inside the doors of the users' home is
essential to design for the environment. Modularity in the use
phase is related to sustainability due to its capacity to extend the
product's useful lifespan through upgrades, easier maintenance,
and repairs. Promoting a long lifespan is an important part of
ecodesign strategies, and is emphasized by Luttropp and Lagerstedt
(2006) and Yang et al. (2011) as a pillar towards the development of
more sustainable products.
Considerations about performance and upgradability of
modular products can be found in Durand et al. (2010) and Agrawal
and Ulku (2013); considerations about the decision process in
Cheng (2012); and the relation of consumer specificities and
modularity in emerging markets in Ray and Ray (2010).
3.1.7. Supply chain
Supply chain management seeks to realize and coordinate the
links between key processes that provide products/services/infor-
mation, from end user through original suppliers (Christopher,
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209 201

2011). Due to the interdependencies between product design, recent years, and the interest for modularity continues to grow (i.e.,
process design, and supply chain management, increased attention Bonvoisin et al., 2016; Ma and Kremer, 2016a,b,c; Ülkü and Hsuan,
has been given to the relationship between product characteristics 2016). Table 2 shows the benefits of modularity for sustainable
and supply chain management (Chiu and Okudan, 2014; Fixson, design according to the three main phases of the life cycle: pro-
2005). The number and location of suppliers, service level and duction, use, and disposal.
delivery frequencies are all impacted by the number and type of
components that compose a product (Fixson, 2005), transforming
4. Discussion
the product architecture into a critical aspect of the management of
the supply chain (Howard and Squire, 2007). Modularization has
In this section, we discuss the potential limitations of modu-
considerable implications in the product architecture, organization
larity in the production, use and disposal phases of a product. We
design, and outsourcing and delivery decisions (Hsuan, 1999; Ulrich
argue that even some of modularity virtues can become limitations
and Eppinger, 1995).
if misused by companies. Moreover, permeating the benefits and
Chung et al. (2014b) emphasizes that product design and supply
limitations linked to the product architecture, it is also important to
chain are inseparable, and designing logistic-friendly products to
consider user behavior and its influence in the product life cycle. As
minimize costs and environmental impacts in the product life cycle
a matter of fact, papers in the usage category were the only to
is an important subject. The authors investigate the effect of the
investigate the potential drawbacks of modularity thoroughly
supply chain in modular design and evaluate the life cycle perfor-
(Agrawal and Ulku, 2013; Durand et al., 2010). Fig. 3 summarizes
mance of a modular structure in different supply chain states. Ar-
the topics in the discussion of modularity limitations for sustain-
ticles such as Philip et al. (2012), Chiu and Teng (2013) and Chung
able design per life cycle stage. We close this section by examining
et al. (2014a) present methods to modularize products integrating
the role of the user in the assumed sustainable benefits of
supply chain concerns and are presented in the green modulari-
modularity.
zation methods category.

4.1. Production
3.2. Benefits of modularity
Literature argues that modularity is a way to increase environ-
The benefits of modularity have been extensively investigated in mental performance in every phase and claims benefits throughout

Table 2
Benefits of modularization for sustainable design in each life cycle phase.

Production Material Resource use optimization - reusing modules avoids the production of virgin components (Chang et al., 2013; Dunmande and
Rosentrater, 2006; Durand et al., 2010; Ray and Ray, 2010; Tseng et al., 2008)
Fewer material types (Qian and Zhang, 2009)
Material compatibility (Qian and Zhang, 2009)
Variety Offer more choices (Gershenson et al., 2003; Jose and Tollenaere, 2005; Philip et al., 2012; Ulrich, 1994; Zhang et al., 2011)
Supply Chain Transport and storage more efficiently: reducing number and size of shipments (Chiu and Chu, 2012; Durand et al., 2010)
Reduce supply chain (Durand et al., 2010)
Manufacture Reduce tooling (Durand et al., 2010)
Reduce inventory requirements (Durand et al., 2010)
Reduce number of processes and reduce repetitive processes (Gershenson et al., 1999
Easy testing (Ulrich, 1994)
Increased feasibility of component/product change (Gershenson et al., 2003)
Optimize equipment utilization (Sosale et al., 1997)
Obsolescence Usage life compatibility (Qian and Zhang, 2009)
Accommodate future uncertainty (Ostrosi et al., 2014)
R&D Collaboration between enterprises (Recchioni et al., 2007)
Flexibility (Gershenson et al., 2003; Recchioni et al., 2007)
Innovation (Ma and Kremer, 2016c)
Life Cycle Assesment simplified (Otto et al., 2002; Recchioni et al., 2007; Kuo et al., 2016)

Use Maintenance Maintenance simplified (Go et al., 2015; Halstenberg et al., 2015; Jose and Tollenaere, 2005; Kimura et al., 2001; Newcomb et al.,
1998; Sosale et al., 1997; Tseng et al., 2008; Umeda et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011)
Reduce maintenance costs (Ray and Ray, 2010; Zhang et al., 2011)
Speeds up maintenance (Yang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011)
Repairability Easy of repair (Cheng, 2012; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Umeda et al., 2008; Yan and Feng, 2014)
Improve repair quality (Zhang et al., 2011)
Economies in reconfiguration (Ray and Ray, 2010)
Upgrades Upgrade possibility (Agrawal and Ulku, 2013; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Jose and Tollenaere, 2005; Ray and Ray, 2010; Tseng et al.,
2008; Umeda et al., 2008; Watanabe and Takata, 2005)
Fosters upgrade, adaptation and modification (Halstenberg et al., 2015; Gu and Sosale, 1999)
Promote continuity (Ray and Ray, 2010)
Functionality Expand functionality (Chang et al., 2013)
Possibility of Do It Yourself (Cheng, 2012)
Services Improve serviceability (Chiu and Chu, 2012; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Ji et al., 2013b; Newcomb et al., 1998)
Service costs reduced (Newcomb et al., 1998)
Disposal Recycling Easy disassembly for recycle (Go et al., 2015; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Ji et al., 2013b; Liu et al., 2013; Newcomb et al., 1998;
Tchertchian et al., 2013; Tseng et al., 2008; Umeda et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2014)
Reuse Easy disassembly for reuse (Aoyama and Uno, 2003; Go et al., 2015; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Ji et al., 2013b; Jose and Tollenaere,
2005; Kimura et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2013; Newcomb et al., 1998; Tseng et al., 2008; Umeda et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2014)
Remanufacture Remanufacture simpler due to functional independence (Go et al., 2015; Gu and Sosale, 1999; Tchertchian et al., 2013; Yang and
Liu, 2013)
202 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
Fig. 3. Benefits and limitations of modularity in each stage of the product life cycle.
the entire life cycle. However, academic research focuses mostly on
the production phase and on projecting product disposal scenarios.
Industry needs to develop more sustainable products to comply
with stricter legislation and more demanding consumers, and
academia is interested in providing methods to meet these needs.
Our review found 48 methods of green modularization, showing
that the step-by-step support for modularization processes is the
most common subject in this topic. Most of these methods focus on
modularity for the product's end of life, emphasizing ease of
disassembly for recycling and reuse.
We found many modularization methods with different ap-
proaches and objectives (e.g. recycling, multiple life cycles, etc.),
ultimately making the choice of a method a complex task. Our re-
view reaffirms the conclusion of Bonvoisin et al. (2016), i.e. meth-
odological support to modularization in research is extensive, but
the mechanisms of choice of the most suitable method from the
many available still need to be developed.
Besides choosing a method, its proper utilization could also
represent an obstacle to the companies. Lau (2011) pointed out that
managers cite the difficulty of understanding and implementing
the methods as a major impediment to their use. Development
time is short, and learning how to use a method may require time
and expertise that is not always available. Additionally, the design
of modular products is more expensive, time-consuming and re-
quires more efforts than the design of classical products (Jose and
Tollenaere, 2005). Short development times can also encourage
the adoption of pre-existing low-cost modules of wide availability,
inhibiting product differentiation and innovation (Arnheiter and
Harren, 2006; Lau, 2011; Newcomb et al., 1998).
4.2. Use
This review indicates that, despite the ability to handle the
entire life cycle of a product, the research in modularity for sus-
tainability has few studies approaching the use phase. For Sauer
et al. (2009), this is probably because of the limited control that
manufacturers have over this life cycle phase; use scenarios are
diverse, making research on the use phase costly and prolonging
the development process. The lack of studies in the use phase is a
compelling remark because, for many products, it is exactly at this
stage that the greatest environmental impact can be generated
(Agrawal and Ulku, 2013; Lidman and Renstrom, 2011; Lockton
et al., 2010; Oberender et al., 2001; Tang and Bhamra, 2009). For
example, electro-domestics often have a greater environmental
impact in the use phase due to the consumption of energy and
water for its operation.
Furthermore, it is important to note that modularity may pre-
sent limitations in this phase. Modular designs can contain
redundant structures, sacrifice performance or lead to over-
designed products (Erens, 1996; Durand et al., 2010; Krishnan
and Gupta, 2001; Newcomb et al., 1998; Ulrich, 1995). Over-
designed products and the faulty design of interfaces may increase
environmental impact through excessive energy consumption or
premature disposal. In products such as refrigerators, television
sets and vacuum cleaners, 90% of the total life cycle related envi-
ronmental impact occurs during the use phase (Oberender and
Birkhofer, 2003). And these are among the most often used prod-
uct examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of green modulari-
zation methods (refrigerators: Ji et al., 2013a; Yang et al., 2011,
2014; television: Luh et al., 2010; printers: Kondoh et al., 2005;
Umeda et al., 2008). According to Kim et al. (2006), the environ-
mental impacts of the disposal phase of refrigerators are small
when compared to the impact of the production and use phases.
Iraldo et al. (2017) shows that, for refrigerating appliances, the
replacement for a new model with a small improvement in energy
efficiency results in a significant reduction in the total life cycle
environmental impact. In this case, modularity could be useful to
promote recyclability and the reuse of parts of the product instead
of increasing the product lifespan.
Moreover, modular upgradability e when the user can buy
modules to upgrade or increase the lifespan of a product she
already owns e is normally seen as beneficial, but it can also in-
crease the environmental impact of certain products due to the
accelerated obsolescence rising from the frequent introduction and
replacement of modules. Such upgrade strategies can be adopted
by companies to increase profit (Agrawal and Ulku, 2013).
Another limitation associated to modularity is the user accep-
tance. Smith (2009) found that modular products could be
perceived as less durable, difficult to use and onerous to maintain.
Additionally, sustainable products could be perceived as less reli-
able and safe (Sakao and Fargnoli, 2010). Customers may perceive
products with upgraded systems to be of inferior performance than
entirely new products and may feel that the remaining parts will be
less reliable, or look and feel obsolete (Ülkü et al., 2012). This raises
questions such as how to present modularity to customers, and
how to overcome these acceptance problems with a smarter
design. Lau et al. (2011) argues that it is difficult for customers to
directly appreciate modularity, but they may value its benefits, such
as delivery, flexibility, customer service, variety and mass
customization.
To gain market and replace the non-sustainable products,
modular products also need to be competitive. Attention to both
environmental concerns and customer perceptions are critical to
successful sustainable products (MacDonald and She, 2015). When
launching modular products, companies need to understand how
customers value such products and integrate this knowledge in
design and pricing decisions (Ülkü et al., 2012). Designers can work
with the perceived presence of modularity, in a way to better
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
communicate the benefits of the product (Smith, 2009).
4.3. Disposal
Even with the focus on the end of life issues, we found no studies
reporting the successful application of modularity for reducing the
environmental burden of the disposal phase. Thus, it is possible to
note a lack of studies monitoring whether the benefits and goals
established by modularization methods and methodologies are
being met after manufacture. Most papers focus on providing
support for green modularization and on defending the efficiency
of their methods in hypothetical scenarios, rather than monitoring
the environmental impact of products developed with the support
of that method. This finding agrees with the conclusion of
Bonvoisin et al. (2016) and Piran et al. (2016). Both articles argue
that a great number of benefits have been attributed to modular
product design, but concrete evidence is rarely provided and ben-
efits are, in general, merely asserted. From the eco-design stand-
point, Bovea and Pe
rez-Belis (2012) reaffirms that the
implementation of tools to integrate environmental concerns in the
design process is scarce and, in general, consists of theoretical ex-
amples. The author suggests that this lack of support by companies
is due to the complexity and time required to implement a method,
as well as the lack of environmental knowledge. For Bonvoisin et al.
(2016), it is paramount to provide more systematic and solid evi-
dence of the advantages and drawbacks of modularization.
End of life reports describing actual results can provide concrete
evidence to prove the effectiveness of a strategy, inspire other
companies to follow the same path, and provide insights into cases
where the strategy did not work as expected. For example, Xerox
Report of Global Citizenship (2014) states that their return pro-
gram (remanufacture, reuse and recycling) prevented over 38,000
metric tons of waste from entering the landfills in 2013. Addition-
ally, this kind of end-of-life report can provide insights about the
use phase of the product, and may indicate if something did not go
as planned during the time the product passed in the consumer's
home.
4.4. User's influence
Beyond its limitations, another point that should be considered
in the use of modularity for sustainable design is the role of the user
and its influence in the realization of the benefits throughout the
product life cycle. User behavior is critical to determine the envi-
ronmental impact of a product, and it is influenced by product
design (Bhamra et al., 2008; Lilley, 2009; Lockton et al., 2008;
Oberender and Birkhofer, 2003).
We argue that the consumer is a key actor in the creation of the
sustainable value of the product. The idea of value evolved from an
economic perspective (money) to a concept that also embraces
environmental and social aspects (Li and Found, 2017). According to
Biggemann et al. (2014), the value is not fully contained in the
product, instead, it is realized during the use. They complement
saying that the recent developments in sustainability recognize the
importance of the needs and interests of all the stakeholders, and
points the value as a creation of the interactions between them.
Therefore, the sustainable value of modular products is an example
of co-creation, where the companies provide the opportunities and
the consumer materialize the benefits.
The benefits of the use phase are directly related to the con-
sumer behaviors and needs. Companies could offer the possibility
of repairs and upgrades, but it is the consumers who will decide if
these possibilities will take place. The benefits of the disposal phase
203
are also dependent on the consumer's habits, but indirectly. For a
company to realize the adequate end-of-life treatment (reuse,
remanufacture, recycling), the consumer must first give the correct
destination to the product when she decides to discard it. In this
case, even some strategies used in the production phase (i.e.,
resource use optimization) will not take place if the product does
not return to the right place for disassembly and recovery.
Therefore, the implementation of potential environmental
benefits in the design of a product does not guarantee that the
owner will commit to their realization. We argue that to optimize
the expected outcome in the use and disposal phases of a product,
the role of the user should receive special attention when designing
the product. Insights on the expectations and behaviors of users
could allow a better understanding of when and how to implement
modularity. As Van Nes (2010) emphasized, each situation has a
most effective strategy, depending on the type of product and the
type of user.
Finally, Starr (2010) observed that the application of modularity
by manufacturers lacked the academic rigor, and that there are no
guidelines to help to define when to apply modular design or how
extensive the use of modularity should be. As pointed in our study,
the benefits associated with modularity are more propagated in
literature than its limitations, leading to a widespread belief that
modularity is a sure way to achieve sustainability. Expanding on
this issue, Ernst (2005) discusses the tendency of modularity
research to generalize empirical observations that are context-
specific, extrapolating these observations to prescriptions and
predictions for new modularization cases.
5. Conclusions
We conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore
the intersection between modularity and sustainable design, and
analyzed the content from a life cycle perspective. As presented in
our results, modularity is associated with sustainable design
through a variety of benefits. Table 2 shows that the benefits of
modularity are asserted by literature throughout the entire product
life cycle, but the predominance of methods papers shows that
research is concentrated in the production phase. A less significant
effort was made to verify if the benefits and objectives planned in
the design phase (e.g. upgrade, recycling, etc.) are being achieved
after production.
In 2003, Gershenson et al. discussed the lack of experiments to
prove and quantify the benefits claimed by modular design; despite
all the work and research since, this lack of evidence seems to
stand. In future work, it is paramount that researchers and de-
signers develop improved understanding of the entire life cycle to
better conceive modular products, and to be able to decide whether
and which modularization strategies can help achieving sustain-
able results. In this new era of consumption, consumers are more
aware of the product characteristics and its negative impacts on the
environment. Without understanding the consumers and making
them part of the process, the environmental benefits may be
minimal.
Aknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
CNPq (Brazilian National Council for Research).
Appendix 1
204 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
Summary of papers analyzed in this review.
Categories Authors
Green Gu and Sosale, 1999
Modularization
Kimura et al, 2001
Gu and Slevinsky, 2003
Qian and Zhang, 2003
Aoyama and Uno, 2003
Watanabe and Takata, 2005
Kondoh et al., 2005
Umeda et al., 2008
Li et al., 2008
Tseng, 2009
Qian and Zhang, 2009
Tseng et al., 2010
Smith and Yen, 2010
Luh et al., 2010
Yen and Smith, 2010
Yang et al., 2011
Yan and Feng, 2011
Yan et al., 2012
Tao and Yu, 2012
Smith and Hung, 2012
Philip et al., 2012
Yang and Liu, 2013
Tchertchian et al., 2013
Liu et al., 2013
Ji et al., 2013a
Chiu and Teng, 2013
Chang et al., 2013
Keywords Main contribution
Presents a modularization method that addresses life cycle issues at the
design stage
Product design Introduces a modularization method based on functionality,
Module structure commonality and life cycle similarity for product families.
Product life cycle
Design Proposes a design method for modular platform design to facilitate
Module parallel manufacturing, assembly and end of life activities.
Mechanical bus
Design for Environment Proposes a quantitative environmental analysis model for modular
Modular design design.
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarch Process
Presents a modularization method that considers several viewpoints,
according to the product design process.
Model change planning Proposes a method to establish a relationship between customer's
Modularization satisfaction and product modules, using conjoint analysis and QFD.
Life cycle design
Life cycle design Introduces a method to determine modular product structure using Self
Modular design Organizing Maps.
Life cycle options
Life cycle Presents a method to determine the modular structure of a product by
Geometric modeling combining attributes related to the life cycle and the geometric
Modular design feasibility.
Modular design Proposes a modularization method to implement ‘Design for End of Life’
Design for the Environment in the product design.
Fuzzy graph theory
Grouping genetic algorithms Proposes a recycling-oriented modular method.
Liaison graph
Modularity
Design for the environment Presents an analysis model to include the environmental considerations
Fuzzy analytic hierarch process in the modular design of products.
Modular design
Grouping genetic algorithms Proposes a disassembly-oriented method for modularization.
Liaison intensity Modularity
Green product design Introduces a modularization method using concepts of the Atomic
Atomic theory Modular design Theory for the design of green product.
Green product design Proposes a generic modularized product architecture method to allow
Product modularization Product the development of green and non-green products at the same time.
data management
Atomic theory Presents a method that uses atomic theory properties to solve
Modular design modularization problems in product design.
Product life-cycle
Modular design Proposes a modular method to improve maintainability, reusability and
Eco-design recyclability in Electronic and Electricity Equipment (EEE).
Redesign risk control
Sustainability Presents a modular method to achieve sustainable design and functional
Modular design Modular drivers requirements.
Sustainability Presents a modular method to achieve sustainable design and functional
Modular design requirements.
Modular drivers
Proposes a method for sustainable product family planning focusing on
product function, structure and life cycle options.
Proposes a method for planning the parallel disassembly of products for
remanufacture and recycling. It uses modular design to group parts into
modules and recursive rules to extract parts from products.
Presents a framework to generate modular designs considering end of
life and supply chain questions (to minimize costs and carbon footprint).
Remanufacturing engineering Presents a modularization method to guide remanufacture while
Green modular meeting environmental attributes and remanufacturing requirements.
Design method
Lifecycle design Modular design Proposes a modularization method for the identification of
Remanufacturing remanufacturable and recyclable modules according to cost and
environmental impact.
Joint Optimization Green Design Uses the Stackelberg solution to combine the optimization of
Modularity modularity with conflicting goals.
Green design Modularity Proposes a leader-follower optimization model to support green design
through material reuse.
Joint optimization
Design for sustainability Proposes a method to support manufacturer's decisions in product
Sustainable product design design and supply chain.
Design for supply chain
Green design Introduces a green design modularization method using Quality
Quality function deployment Function deployment and Design Structure Matrix.
Modularity
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
(continued )
Categories Authors
Ji et al., 2013b
Zhang et al., 2014
Yang et al., 2014
Yang, 2014
Yan and Feng, 2014
Cai et al., 2014
Ma and Kremer, 2014
Liu and Jia, 2014
Chung et al., 2014a,b
Wang et al., 2014
Zhao et al., 2015
Yu et al., 2015
Smith and Hung, 2015
Halstenberg et al., 2015
You and Smith, 2016
Ma and Kremer, 2016b
Ma and Kremer, 2016a
Wang et al., 2016
Martinez and Xue, 2016
Tseng and Chang, 2016
Chiu et al., 2016
LCA Otto et al., 2002
Recchioni et al., 2007
Tchertchian et al., 2009
Kuo et al., 2016
DfX Misceo et al., 2004
Dunmade, 2004
205
Keywords Main contribution
Modular design Product life cycle Proposes a modularization method to maximize the effectiveness of the
Module partition method modules throughout the product life cycle.
Refrigerator model Modular Discusses a method for modular design in the development of
concept Sustainable design refrigerators.
Reusability Proposes a method to develop eco-product families by improving
Eco-product family Modularity reusability and recyclability of waste products.
Construction machinery Proposes a method for green modular design oriented to construction
Green design machinery products.
Modular design
Sustainable design Modularity Proposes a method to include sustainable factors (environment,
6R concept economy and society) in the modular product development.
Heavy duty machine tool Proposes an adaptable design method for green remanufacturing of
Green design heavy machine tool.
Modular design
Modular product Provides a sustainable modular product
design design approach with focus on key components.
Sustainable product design
Key components
Green design Present a modularization method for green design based in multi layer
Product configuration operator and genetic algorithms
Genetic Algorithm
Design for life cycle Proposes a method to define a modular architecture for a product
Modular design considering low life cycle costs and low energy consumption from the
Reverse logistics early design phases.
Modular Design Introduces a modularization method for machine tools, focused in
Machine Tools remanufacturing.
Disassembly
Machine design Proposes a method to integrate Quality Function Deployment with
Open-architecture product Axiomatic Design for open-architecture modules planning.
Modular design
End-of-life Proposes a design method for eco-issues and product family issues.
Product family Modularity
Green design Proposes a green design method for parallel disassembly planning.
Modular design theory Parallel
disassembly
Product modularity Modular Introduces a modularization method to define products structure
product design according to user-defined goals.
Sustainable design
Multi-objective modular design Proposes a green modularity method using atomic theory and fuzzy
Green design clustering to create module configurations while allowing each module
Atomic theory to serve a distinct design objective
Modular product design Presents a modular design method to improve the product's life cycle
Sustainability regarding sustainability, while considering key components and
Key components uncertainties at the end of life stage.
Modular product design Presents a modular design method that considers key components
Sustainable product design specifications and the impact of the product on social sustainability.
Social sustainability
Green design Propose a modular design method for product platform planning
Modularity strategies, also addressing the product's enviromental impact.
Product platform planning strategy
Adaptable product Introduces a modular design approach for adaptable design that
Product life-cycle considers the whole product life span.
Modular design
Design for green life cycle Presents a method to integrate modular design with disassembly
Modularity Disassembly planning planning.
Design for sustainability Proposes a modular redesign method to support sustainable products
Assemblability while considering materials, assembly and line balance at the initial
Greenhouse gas design phase.
Product family design Eco design Presents an approach to integrate life cycle assessment for product
Life cycle assessment families in small and medium sized enterprises.
EcoDesign Studies the role of modularity in reducing the environmental impact of a
LCA product and in increasing the interaction between LCA and the earlier
Modularity stages of the design process.
LCA Proposes a methodology to evaluate product concepts from the point of
Modularization view of Multiple Life Cycles.
Multiples Life Cycles
Eco-design process Depth-first Proposes an LCA method to predict the environmental impact of
search Product attributes products early in the design process and to reduce the number of life
cycle assessments in the development of new products.
Eco-design Proposes a user-friendly web-based tool to support the initial design
Life Cycle stages of modular products while considering both quality and the
Quality Function deployment environment.
Design for environment Presents the concept of Design for Multi Purpose Use, which includes
Demanufacturing Remanufacturing the ability to design multi-functional products of low life cycle cost and
low technical know-how requirements to operate and maintain.
(continued on next page)
206 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
(continued )
Categories Authors
Dunmande and
Rosentrater, 2006
Zhang et al., 2007
Tong and Ju, 2009
Gu et al., 2009
Zhang et al., 2011
Chiu and Chu, 2012
Liu, 2013
Taps et al., 2013
Ostrosi et al., 2014
Sejayah et al., 2014
Li et al., 2015
Go et al., 2015
Nielsen and Brunoe, 2015
Huang et al., 2016
Bonvoisin, 2016
Song and Sakao, 2017
Modularity Jose and Tollenaere, 2005
reviews
Bonvoisin et al., 2016
Ma and Kremer, 2016c
Manufacture Ji et al., 2006
Wang et al., 2010
Fang et al., 2016
Usage Ray and Ray, 2010
Durand et al., 2010
Keywords Main contribution
Design for environment Sustainable Presents the concept of Design for Multi-lifecycles, a concept that
Design for Multi-lifecycle includes DfX methodologies for industrial ecology.
Vehicle Presents the use of different methodologies in the development of an
Design automobile.
SET theory
Green Design Discusses the concepts of modular design and recyclable design in
Disassembly Design automotive welding assembly.
Automotive welding assembly line
Adaptable design Presents the concept of Adaptable Design as well as a design method to
Modular design easily create adaptable products based on different requirements.
Product life cycle
Modular Design Discusses the importance of modular design in all stages of a product life
Life Cycle Design Range Hood cycle; presents a methodology for modular design based on life cycle.
Sustainable design Sustainable Presents a systematic review on sustainable product design.
product development
Life cycle assessment
Green Design Discusses the importance of adopting green design in the furniture
Green Production industry throughout all stages of the product development.
Furniture Products
EcoDesign Proposes the redefinition of the concept of Ecodesign, introducing the
Industrial metabolism Modularity idea of End of Life activities to gain industrial metabolism.
Modularity Discusses modularity at the intersection of technical aspects and
Product Variety business aspects, and analyzes modularization methodologies.
Mass Customisation
Product modularity Presents design tools and strategies to develop a Sustainable Design
Index for the furniture industry.
Product eco-design Design for Presents the state-of-the-art in environmentally conscious product
sustainability design research.
Eco-design software tools
Sustainable development Presents the concept of Design for Multiple Life-Cycles as a combination
Design for X of different Design for X approaches.
Multiple life-cycles
Eco-design Present guidelines for the product architecture in a context of Cradle to
Cradle to cradle Cradle.
Modular architecture
Corporate Memory Proposes a platform to use Corporate Memory knowledge for
Modularization reducibility, reusability and recyclability.
Product design knowledge
Open source Presents the concept of Open Source Design, an approach for product
innovation development that leads to more eco efficient production and
Sustainable product design consumption patterns.
Eco-design
Comprehensive design framework Proposes a systematic framework with a design process for Product
Design conflict resolving; Service System customization using different methods and including
Modularization enviromental requirements.
Design optimization Modular Presents a literature review on modular design, exploring the use of
design modularity to create variety.
Product family
design
Modularity Literature review of modular design, presenting metrics, drivers and
Design structure matrix design principles for modularization.
Product architecture
Modular product design Presents a literature review associating modular design to sustainability
Sustainability and categorizes the papers according to major sustainability themes.
Sustainable product
Inverse Presents a damage model to discuss failures in products assembled with
manufacturing reused modules in an inverse manufacturing strategy.
Reuse
Lifecycle
Green Design Studies the relationship between green design and reconfigurable
Module Design machine tools.
NC machine Tool
Sustainable Presents an approach for the analysis of CNC machine tools covering
machine design environmental, economical, social and technological aspects.
Sustainable design
Index
Machine tools design
Emerging markets Discusses the kind of innovation that effectively suits emerging markets
Modular design needs, and presents three critical factors for innovation.
Architectural innovation
Explores potential side-effects of modular product architecture to the
environment during the use phase; organizes these results into
guidelines for green design.
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209 207

(continued )

Categories Authors Keywords Main contribution

Cheng, 2012 Sustainable concept Product design Discusses the research in sustainable design through a human-oriented
Modular design view while considering resources protection.
Agrawal and Ülkü, 2013 Modularity Analyzes the concept of modular upgradability and its capacity to
Green product design Sustainability reduce environmental impact and generate higher profit.
Supply Chain Chung et al., 2014a,b Design for life cycle Investigates the effects of supply chain on modular design and evaluates
Design for logistics cost and environmental impact at differente supply chain states.
Modular design

References Fixson, S.K., 2005. Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process
and supply chain decisions. J. Oper. Manag. 23, 345e369.
Frantzi, K., Ananiadou, S., Mima, H., 2000. Automatic recognition of multi-word
Agrawal, V.V., Ülkü, S., 2013. The role of modular upgradability as a green design
terms. Int. J. Digital Libr. 3, 117e132.
strategy. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15, 640e648.
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Zhang, Y., 2003. Product Modularity: definitions and
Aoyama, K., Uno, Y., 2003. Modular design supporting system with a step-by-step
benefits. J. Eng. Des. 14, 295e313.
design approach - 2nd report: management of the priority information be-
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Zhang, Y., 2004. Product Modularity: measures and
tween interfaces. In: EcoDesign Conference. Tokyo.
design methods. J. Eng. Des. 15, 33e51.
Arnheiter, E., Harren, H., 2006. Quality management in a modular world. Tqm Mag.
Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Allamneni, S., 1999. Modular product design: a life
18, 87e96.
cycle view. J. Integr. Des. Process Sci. 3, 3e26.
Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B., 2003. Managing in an age of modularity. In: Garud, R.,
Go, T.F., Wahab, D.A., Hishamuddin, H., 2015. Multiple generation life-cycles for
Kimaraswamy, A., Langlois, R.N. (Eds.), Managing in the Modular Age: Archi-
product sustainability: the way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 16e29.
tectures, Networks, and Organizations, vol. 149. Blackwell Publishers,
Gu, P., Slevinsky, M., 2003. Mechanical bus for modular product design. CIRP Ann-
pp. 84e93.
Manuf Tech. 52, 113e116.
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D., Tang, T., 2008. Sustainable use: changing consumer behaviour
Gu, P., Sosale, S., 1999. Product Modularization for life cycle engineering. Robot.
through product design. In: Changing the Change: Design Visions, Proposals
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 15, 387e401.
and Tools Conference. Turin.
Gu, P., Xue, D., Nee, A.Y.C., 2009. Adaptable Design: concepts, methods and appli-
Biggemann, S., Williams, M., Kro, G., 2014. Building in sustainability, social re-
cations. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 223, 1367e1387.
sponsibility and value co-creation. JBIM 29, 304e312.
Halstenberg, F.A., Buchert, T., Bonvoisin, J., Lindow, K., Stark, R., 2015. Target-ori-
Blackenfelt, M., 2001. Managing Complexity by Product Modularization: Balancing
ented modularizationeaddressing sustainability design goals in product mod-
the Aspects of Technology and Business during the Design Process. The Royal
ularization. Proc. CIRP 29, 603e608.
Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Doctoral Dissertation.
Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J., Alting, L., 2004. Design for environment - Do we get the
Bonvoisin, J., 2016. Implications of open Source design for sustainability. In:
focus right? CIRP Ann- Manuf. Tech. 53, 1e4.
Setchi, R., Howlett, R., Liu, Y., Theobald, P. (Eds.), Sustainable Design and
He, B., Gu, Z., 2016. Sustainable design synthesis for product environmental foot-
Manufacturing 2016. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 52.
prints. Des. Stud. 45, 159e186.
Springer.
Holmqvist, T.K.P., Persson, M.L., 2003. Analysis and improvement of product mod-
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T., Stark, R., 2016. A systematic literature
ularization methods: their ability to deal with complex products. Syst. Eng. 6,
review on modular product design. J. Eng. Des. 27, 488e514.

rez-Belis, V., 2012. A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating 195e209.
Bovea, M.D., Pe
Howard, M., Squire, B., 2007. Modularization and the impact on supply relation-
enviromental requirements into the product desing process. J. Clean. Prod. 20,
ships. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 27, 1192e1212.
61e71.
Hsuan, J., 1999. Impacts of supplier-buyer relationships on modularization in new
Cai, L., Li, K., Cheng, Q., Qi, Z., Gu, P., 2014. Adaptable design methodology of heavy
product development. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 5, 197e209.
duty machine tool for green remanufacturing. AMM 496e500, 2672e2678.
Huang, G.Q., 2012. Design for X: Concurrent Engineering Imperatives. Chapman &
Chang, T., Wang, C., Wang, C., 2013. A systematic approach for green design in
Hall, London.
modular product development. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 68, 2729e2741.
Huang, C., Chuang, H., Chen, S., 2016. Corporate Memory: design to better reduce,
Cheng, J., 2012. Product design research based on sustainable concept. Adv. Mater.
reuse and recycle. Comput. Ind. Eng. 91, 48e65.
Res. 479e481, 1070e1073.
Ijomah, W.L., McMahon, C.A., Hammond, G.P., Neuman, S.T., 2007. Development of
Chiu, M., Chu, C., 2012. Review of sustainable product design from life cycle per-
design for remanufacturing guidelines to support sustainable manufacturing.
spectives. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 13, 1259e1272.
Robot. Cim-Int Manuf. 23, 712e719.
Chiu, M., Teng, L., 2013. Sustainable product and supply chain design decisions
Iraldo, F., Facheris, C., Nucci, B., 2017. Is product durability better for environment
under uncertainties. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 14, 1953e1960.
and for economic efficiency? A comparative assessment applying LCA and LCC
Chiu, M.C., Chang, C.H., Chen, Y.T., Chiou, J.Y., Chang, Y.J., 2016. Redesign for sus-
to two energy-intensive products. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1353e1364.
tainability and assemblability using particle swarm optimization method.
ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Re-
J. Industrial Prod. Eng. 33, 103e113.
quirements and Guidelines.
Chiu, M.C., Okudan, G., 2014. An investigation on the impact of product modularity
Jeswiet, J., Hauschild, M., 2005. EcoDesign and future environmental impacts.
level on supply chain performance metrics: an industrial case study. J. Intell.
Mater. Des. 26, 629e634.
Manuf. 25, 129e145.
Ji, Y., Chen, L.Y., Narita, H., Fujimoto, H., 2006. Analysis of module reuse in inverse
Chung, W.H., Kremer, G.E.O., Wysk, R.A., 2014a. A Modular Design approach to
manufacturing. Int. J. Innov. Comput. I 2, 1381e1390.
improve product life cycle performance based on the optimization of a closed-
Ji, Y., Jiao, R.J., Chen, L., Wu, C., 2013a. Green modular design for material efficiency:
loop supply chain. J. Mech. Des. 136.
a leader-follower joint optimization model. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 187e201.
Chung, W.H., Kremer, G.E.O., Wysk, R.A., 2014b. Life cycle implications of product
Ji, Y.J., Cheng, X.B., Qi, G.N., Song, L.W., 2013b. Modular design involving effective-
modular architectures in closed-loop supply chains. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 70,
ness of multiple phases for product life cycle. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 66,
2013e2028.
1475e1488.
Christopher, M., 2011. Logistics & Supply Chain Management. Pearson, UK.
Jose, A., Tollenaere, M., 2005. Modular and platform methods for product family
De Medeiros, J., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Cortimiglia, M.N., 2014. Success factors for environ-
design: literature analysis. J. Intell. Manuf. 16, 371e390.
mentally sustainable product innovation: a systematic literature review.
Jovane, F., Yoshikawa, H., Alting, L., Boer, C.R., Westkamper, E., Williams, D.,
J. Clean. Prod. 65, 76e86.
Tseng, M., Seliger, G., Paci, A.M., 2008. The incoming global technological and
Dunmade, I., 2004. Design for multipurpose use: an application of DfE concept in a
industrial revolution towards competitive sustainable manufacturing. CIRP
developing economy. In: Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing IV Con-
Ann-Manuf Tech. 57, 641e659.
ference. Philadelphia.
Keoleian, G.A., Menerey, D., 1994. Sustainable development by design: review of life
Dunmande, I., Rosentrater, K., 2006. Designing for multi-lifecycle to promote in-
cycle design and related approaches. Air Waste 44, 645e668.
dustrial ecology philosophy. In: Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing VI
Kim, H.C., Keoleian, G.A., Horie, Y.A., 2006. Optimal household refrigerator
Conference. Boston.
replacement policy for life cycle energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost.
Durand, J., Telenko, C., Seepersad, C., 2010. How does modularity affect green
Energ Policy 34, 2310e2323.
design?. In: ASME IDETC/CIE Conference Quebec.
Kimura, F., Kato, S., Hata, T., Masuda, T., 2001. Product modularization for parts
Erens, F.J., 1996. The Synthesis of Variety: developing Product Families. Doctoral
reuse in inverse manufacturing. CIRP Ann-Manuf Tech. 50, 89e92.
Dissertation. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven.
Kitchenham, B., 2007. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in
Ernst, D., 2005. Limits to modularity: reflections on recent developments on chip
Software Engineering. EBSE Technical Report, UK.
design. Ind. Innov. 12, 303e335.
Knight, P., Jenkins, J.O., 2009. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: a
Fang, F., Cheng, K., Ding, H., Chen, S.J., Zhao, L., 2016. Sustainable design and analysis
practitioners perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 549e558.
of CNC machine tools: sustainable design index based approach and its appli-
Kondoh, S., Shimabukuro, A., Umeda, Y., 2005. Development of modular design
cation perspectives. In: ASME MSEC Conference, Virginia.
208 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
method for inverse manufacturing. In: EcoDesign Conference. Tokyo.
Krishnan, V., Gupta, S., 2001. Appropriateness and impact of platform-based
product development. Manag. Sci. 47, 52e68.
Kuo, T., Smith, S., Smith, G., Guang, S.H., 2016. A predictive product attribute driven
eco-design process using depth-first search. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 3201e3210.
Lau, A.K., 2011. Critical success factors in managing modular production design: six
company case studies in Hong Kong, China and Singapore. J. Eng. Technol.
Manage 28, 168e183.
Lau, A.K., Yam, R.C.M., Tang, E., 2011. The impact of product modularity on new
product performance: mediation by product innovativeness. J. Prod. Innov.
Manag. 28, 270e284.
Li, A.Q., Found, P., 2017. Towards Sustainability: PSS, digital technology and value co-
creation. Proc. CIRP 64, 79e84.
Li, J.Z., Zhang, H.C., Gonzalez, M.A., Yu, S., 2008. A multi-objective fuzzy graph
approach for modular formulation considering end-of-life issues. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 46, 4011e4033.
Li, Z.K., Go
mez, J.M., Pehlken, A., 2015. A systematic review of environmentally
conscious product design. In: Enviroinfo ICT Sustain., 22, pp. 197e206.
Lidman, K., Renstrom, S., 2011. How to Design for Sustainable Behavior. Master
Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg.
Lilley, D., 2009. Design for sustainable behavior: strategies and perceptions. Des.
Stud. 30, 714e720.
Liu, D., Jia, F., 2014. A method of the green product configuration design based on
multi-layer generalized operator and genetic algorithm. AMM 483, 542e549.
Liu, F., 2013. Brief analysis on green design and manufacture of furniture products.
Adv. Mat. Res. 694e697, 3269e3272.
Liu, Y., Ji, Y., Jiao, R.J., 2013. A stackelberg solution to joint optimization problems: a
case study of green design. Procedia Comput. Sci. 16, 333e342.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N., 2008. Making the user more efficient: design
for sustainable behaviour. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 1, 3e8.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., Stanton, N.A., 2010. The Design with Intent Method: a
design tool for influencing user behaviour. Appl. Ergon. 41, 382e392.
Luh, Y., Chu, C., Pan, C., 2010. Data management of green product development with
generic modularized product architecture. Comput. Ind. 61, 223e234.
Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J., 2006. EcoDesign and the Ten Golden Rules: generic
advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean.
Prod. 14, 1396e1408.
Ma, J., Kremer, G.E.O., 2016a. A modular product design method to improve product
social sustainability performance. In: ASME IDETC/CIE Conference. Boston.
Ma, J., Kremer, G.E.O., 2016b. A sustainable modular product design approach with
key components and uncertain end-of-life strategy consideration. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Tech. 85, 741e763.
Ma, J., Kremer, G.E.O., 2016c. A systematic literature review of modular product
design (MPD) from the perspective of sustainability. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
86, 1509e1539.
Ma, J.F., Kremer, G.E.O., 2014. A modular product design approach with key com-
ponents consideration to improve sustainability. In: ASME IDETC/CIE Confer-
ence. Buffallo, NY.
MacDonald, E.F., She, J., 2015. Seven cognitive concepts for successful eco-design.
J. Clean. Prod. 92, 23e36.
Martinez, M., Xue, D., 2016. Development of adaptable product based on modular
design and optimization methods. Proc. CIRP 50, 70e75.
Misceo, M., Buonamici, R., Buttol, P., Naldesi, L., Grimaldi, F., Rinaldi, C., 2004. TESPI
(tool for environmental sound product innovation): a simplified software tool
to support environmentally conscious design in SMEs. In: Environmentally
Conscious Manufacturing IV Conference. Philadelphia.
Newcomb, P.J., Bras, B., Rosen, D.W., 1996. Implications of modularity on product
design for the life cycle. In: ASME DETC96/DTM-1516 California.
Newcomb, P.J., Bras, B., Rosen, D.W., 1998. Implications of modularity on product
design for the life cycle. J. Mech. Des. 120, 483e490.
Nielsen, K., Brunoe, T.D., 2015. Cradle to Cradle products, modularity and closed
loop supply chains. In: Umeda, S., Nakano, M., Mizuyama, H., Hibino, N.,
Kiritsis, D., von Cieminski, G. (Eds.), Advances in Production Management
Systems: Innovative Production Management towards Sustainable Growth.
APMS 2015. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol.
459. Springer, Cham.
Oberender, C., Birkhofer, H., 2003. Estimating environmental impacts: the use-
phase analysis matrix e A use phase centered approach. In: ICED Conference.
Stockolm.
Oberender, C., Weger, O., Birkhofer, H., Sauer, J., 2001. Ecological design for the
usage phase: an interdisciplinary approach to design for environment. In:
EcoDesign Conference. Tokyo.
Ostrosi, E., Stjepandic, J., Fukuda, S., Kurth, M., 2014. Modularity: New trends for
product platform strategy support in concurrent engineering. In: ISPE CEconf,
pp. 414e423.
Otto, H.E., Mueller, K.G., Kimura, F., Germani, M., Mandorli, F., 2002. Integrating life
cicle aspects within product family design: An example for SMEs. In:
Kov
acs, G.L., Berto
k, P., Haidegger, G. (Eds.), Digital Enterprise Challenges. IFIP d
the International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 77. Springer,
Boston.
Paul, I.D., Bhole, G.P., Chaudhari, J.R., 2014. A review on green manufacturing: it's
important, methodology and its application. Proc. Mat. Sci. 6, 1644e1649.
Philip, N., Okudan, G.E.O., Haapala, K.R., Kim, K.Y., 2012. Computer-aided generation
of modular designs considering componente end-of-life options: implications
for the supply chain. In: ASME IDETC/CIE Conference. Chicago.
Piran, F.A.S., Lacerda, D.P., Camargo, L.F.R., Viero, C.F., Dresh, A., Cauchik-Miguel, P.A.,
2016. Product modularization and effects on efficiency: an analysis of a bus
manufacturer using data envelopment analysis (DEA). Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182,
1e13.
Qian, X., Zhang, H.C., 2009. Design for environment: an environmentally conscious
analysis model for modular design. In: IEEE T Electron Pa M., 32, pp. 164e175.
Qian, X.Q., Zhang, H.C., 2003. Design for environment: an environmental analysis
model for the modular design of products. In: IEEE Int. Symp. Electr.,
pp. 114e119.
Ray, P.K., Ray, S., 2010. Resource-constrained innovation for emerging economies:
the case of the indian telecommunications industry. In: IEEE T Eng. Manage, 57,
pp. 144e156.
Recchioni, M., Mandorli, F., Germani, M., Faraldi, P., Polverini, D., 2007. Life-cycle
assessment simplification for modular products. In: Advances in Life Cycle
Engineering for Sustainable Manufacturing Businesses, pp. 53e58.
Sachs, J.D., 2014. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Sakao, T., Fargnoli, M., 2010. Customization in ecodesign. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 529e532.
Sauer, J., Wiese, B.S., Rüttinger, B., 2009. The utilisation phase as a critcal element in
ecological design. In: Hundal, M.S. (Ed.), Mechanical Life Cycle Handbook: Good
Environmental Design and Manufacturing. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Sejayah, N., Cheng, K., Bateman, R., 2014. Development of sustainable design index
for office furniture design and its CAD-based implementation. In: ASME IDETC/
CIE Conference. Buffallo, NY.
Skerlos, S.J., 2015. Promoting effectiveness in sustainable design. Proc. Cirp 29,
13e18.
Smith, R.J., 2009. The Impact of Modular Design on Product Use and Maintenance.
Master thesis. Georgia institute of technology, Atlanta.
Smith, S., Hung, P., 2015. A novel selective parallel disassembly planning method for
green design. J. Eng. Des. 26, 283e301.
Smith, S., Hung, P.Y., 2012. A parallel disassembly method for green product design.
In: Electronics Goes Green 2012þ (Egg), pp. 1e6.
Smith, S., Yen, C., 2010. Green product design through product modularization using
atomic theory. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 26, 790e798.
Song, W., Sakao, T., 2017. A customization-oriented framework for design of sus-
tainable product/service system. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 1672e1685.
Sosale, S., Hashemian, M., Gu, P., 1997. Product modularization for reuse and recy-
cling. Concurrent product design and environmentally conscious
manufacturing. ASME, DE-94/MED 5, 195e206.
Spangerberg, J., Fuad-Luke, A., Blincoe, K., 2010. Design for Sustainability (DfS): the
interface os sustainable production and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 18,
1485e1493.
Starr, M.K., 2010. Modular production e a 45-year-old concept. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Man. 30, 7e19.
Stewart, B., Yan, X., 2008. Modular product family development within a SME. In:
Yan, X., Ion, W.J., Eynard, B. (Eds.), Global Design To Gain A Competitive Edge:
An Holistic And Collaborative Design Approach Based On Computational Tools.
Springer.
Tang, T., Bhamra, T.A., 2009. Understanding consumer behavior to reduce envi-
ronmental impacts through sustainable product design. In: DRS Conference.
Sheffield, UK.
Tao, J., Chen, Z., Yu, S., Liu, Z., 2017. Integration of Life Cycle Assessment with
computer-aided product development by a feature-based approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 143, 1144e1164.
Tao, J., Yu, S.R., 2012. sustainable product family planning based on product life
cycle simulation. In: ASME IDETC/CIE. Chicago.
Taps, S.B., Bruno, T.D., Nielsen, K., 2013. From EcoDesign to industrial metabolism:
redefinition of sustainable innovation and competitive sustainability. In: IFIP
international conference on advances in production management systems.
Springer, berlin.
Testa, F., Nucci, B., Tessitore, S., Iraldo, F., Daddi, T., 2016. Perception on LCA
implementation: evidence from a survey on adopters and nonadopters in Italy.
Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1501e1513.
Tchertchian, N., Liang, H.N., Millet, D., 2009. The influence of multiple life cycles on
the environmental impact of a product. In: ICED conference. California.
Tchertchian, N., Millet, D., Pialot, O., 2013. Modifying module boundaries to design
remanufacturable products: the modular grouping explorer tool. J. Eng. Des. 24,
546e574.
Tong, G.Y., Ju, L., 2009. Design of automotive body welding assembly line based on
green design. ICMIE 1e2, 1400e1405.
Tseng, H., Chang, C., Cheng, C., 2010. Disassembly-oriented assessment methodol-
ogy for product modularity. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48, 4297e4320.
Tseng, H., Chang, C., Li, J., 2008. Modular design to support green life-cycle engi-
neering. Expert Syst. Appl. 34, 2524e2537.
Tseng, H.E., 2009. A systematic assessment for modular product design: a design for
end-of-life perspective. OSCM 3, 98e105.
Tseng, H.E., Chang, S.H., 2016. Life cycle design through modularity and disas-
sembly. In: IS3C conference. Xi’an.
Ülkü, M.A., Hsuan, J., 2016. Towards sustainable consumption and production:
competitive pricing of modular products for green consumers. J. Clean. Prod.
142, 4230e4242.
Ülkü, S., Dimofte, C.V., Schmidt, G.M., 2012. Consumer valuation of modularly up-
gradeable products. Manage Sci. 58, 1761e1776.
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S., 1995. Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
 M. Sonego et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 176 (2018) 196e209
Ulrich, K., 1994. Fundamentals of product modularity. In: Dasu, S., Eastman, C.
(Eds.), Management of Design. Springer, Dordrecht.
Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res.
Policy 24, 419e441.
Umeda, Y., Fukushige, S., Tonoike, K., Kondoh, S., 2008. Product modularity for life
cycle design. CIRP Ann- Manuf. Tech. 57, 13e16.
Van Nes, N., 2010. Understanding replacement behaviour and exploring design
solutions. In: Cooper, T. (Ed.), Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the
Throwaway Society. Routledge, New York.
Wang, P., Liu, Y.X., Ong, S.K., Nee, A.Y.C., 2014. Modular design of machine tools to
facilitate design for disassembly and remanufacturing. Proc. CIRP 15, 443e448.
Wang, Q., Tang, D.B., Yin, L.L., Yang, J., 2016. A Method for green modular design
considering product platform strategy. In: DET Conference. Nanjing.
Wang, Y.J., Wu, F.J., Xie, F., Yao, K., Hou, Z.M., 2010. Research and design on green
reconfigurable NC machine tool. Adv. Mat. Res. 102, 866e869.
Watanabe, M., Takata, S., 2005. Module-based model change planning in consid-
eration of environmental impact and customer satisfaction. In: EcoDesign
Conference. Tokyo.
Westkamper, E., Alting, L., Arndt, G., 2000. Life cycle management and assessment:
approaches and visions towards sustainable manufacturing. Proc. Inst. Mech.
Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 215, 599e626.
Xerox Report on Global Citizenship, 2014. Sustainable services and products.
https://www.xerox.com/corporate-citizenship/2014/sustainability/sustainable-
products/enus.html (acessed 26.10.2016).
Yan, J., Feng, C., 2011. Sustainability-oriented product modular design using design
structure matrix (DSM) method. AMM 128e129, 1468e1471.
Yan, J., Feng, C., 2014. Sustainable design-oriented product modularity combined
with 6R concept: a case study of rotor laboratory bench. Clean. Techn Environ.
Policy 16, 95e109.
Yan, J.H., Feng, C.H., Cheng, K., 2012. Sustainability-oriented product modular design
209
using kernel-based fuzzy c-means clustering and genetic algorithm. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 226, 1635e1647.
Yang, J.R., 2014. The research of design method on green modular that oriented
Construction Machinery. Adv. Mat. Res. 1049e1050, 828e832.
Yang, J.R., Liu, Q.Y., 2013. Design method research on green modular that oriented
remanufacturing engineering. AMM 365, 545e548.
Yang, Q., Yu, S., Jiang, D., 2014. A modular method of developing an eco-product
family considering the reusability and recyclability of customer products.
J. Clean. Prod. 64, 254e265.
Yang, Q., Yu, S., Sekhari, A., 2011. A modular eco-design method for life cycle en-
gineering based on redesign risk control. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 56,
1215e1233.
Yen, C.C., Smith, S., 2010. Product modular design using atomic theory. In: ASME
IDETC/CIE Conference. Montreal.
You, Z., Smith, S., 2016. A multi-objective modular design method for creating
highly distinct independent modules. Res. Eng. Des. 27, 179e191.
Yu, S., Yang, Q., Tao, J., Xu, X., 2015. Incorporating Quality Function Deployment with
modularity for the end-of-life of a product family. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 423e430.
Zettl, M., Seliger, G., Bilgen, E., 2006. Product life cycle oriented methodology
supporting the development of modular product structures. In: Global Con-
ference On Sustainable Development And Life Cycle Engineering, 4 s~ ao carlos.
Zhang, J., Wang, W., Cao, S., 2011. Module design based on life cycle design. Adv.
Mat. Res. 228e229, 150e161.
Zhang, J.M., Xu, J., Tang, B., 2014. Introduction of modular design in the conceptual
design of refrigerators. AMM 456, 96e99.
Zhang, Z.R., Duan, Q.J., Li, Y., Li, Y.U., 2007. Creation process of modular electronic
retail vehicle. ICMIE 2122e2126.
Zhao, C., Peng, Q.J., Gu, P.H., 2015. Development of a paper-bag-folding machine
using open architecture for adaptability. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng.
Manuf. 229, 155e169.