A Systematic Review of Methods and Tools for Working with Sustainability Aspects in Product and Production Co-Development from a Requirements Management Perspective

Abstract

The need to prevent crossing planetary boundaries has accelerated sustainable product development and production research. This resulted in the introduction of tools and methods to support the development of sustainable products. However, practice is still challenged by changing requirements, regulations, guidelines, and a plethora of tools. This study aims to identify different tools and methods that support transferring sustainability aspects into technical requirements during product and production development through a systematic literature review in Scopus. The search was limited to articles in the engineering, manufacturing sector, and journal or conference publications in the period between 2014 and 2024. Multiple authors were involved in the selection process to avoid bias. 56 articles were selected and analyzed based on purpose, user, production support, and utilization of the requirements management process. Results indicated that good support for product development and design engineers exists, but not for production, product production co-development, and other stakeholders. A need for a requirements management-based method to support the integration of sustainability aspects during product production co-development is identified. A research framework and three research strands are proposed based on this identified need, which will be developed as future work. Exclusion criteria can introduce some limitations, but the review provides an extensive overview of existing methods and gaps.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil their needs [1]. Design for sustainability includes environmental aspects in the engineering design [2]. Pigosso [3] argued that 60–80% of the sustainability impacts of a product can be fixed in the early design phases, especially during the requirements engineering and concept evaluation phases. Activities involved in this development process, such as extraction and processing of raw materials, transportation and handling, production process, and use phase of the product, have negative impacts on the environment [4]. It is difficult to include sustainability improvements once the design concept is finalized [5]. So, it is important to consider sustainability aspects in the early development phases [6,7]. Sustainability aspects need to be integrated into the early decision supports used by the decision-makers at different organizational levels, though the information necessary to guide sustainability in the early phases is incomplete [8]. Sustainability risks are not addressed properly because of a lack of knowledge and guidance [9], and there is a lack of common understanding about the scale of sustainability issues in manufacturing companies [10]. Also, guidance for working with specific and generic sustainability aspects, technical know-how, end-of-life (EOL) considerations, and skills to apply eco-design and related assessment tools in engineers should be improved [8,11]. Sustainability aspects from different lifecycles need to be included in the business and product strategies and need to be balanced [12]. However, the representation of manufacturing process information and sustainability in the early design phases is limited [13]. An integrated approach is needed for sustainability considerations during product development.

Product development encompasses activities that start with gathering needs, converting the needs to technical specifications, producing the product, and assessing if the product has fulfilled that need. The design process is largely driven by product requirements, and the requirement specification is a means that can support communicating and evaluating the fulfillment of stakeholder needs [6]. Also, the importance of including sustainability aspects as requirements is recognized both by industry and academia, and quality function deployment (QFD), theory of inventive problem-solving (TRIZ), and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) have been used to support this [6]. There are requirements from not only the front-end of development but also the back-end, due to the focus on end-of-life products, circular production systems, and regulations such as extended producer responsibility and right to repair. Current supports for concept development and testing are based on performance-based requirements for evaluation and not sustainability impact-based requirements [14]. There is a need for tools, supports, and methods for understanding the sustainability impacts and sustainability requirements [15].

Sustainability requirements can arise from different sources, such as rules, regulations, guidelines, customer demands, circular strategies, production, and supply chains. Manufacturing firms prioritize requirements that can be quantified and have a cost-benefit [16]. It is important to have robust support in the different activities of requirements engineering for the successful implementation of sustainability aspects during product development. Production processes need to be developed to meet the variety of product mix as well as legacy products in the same line, due to the increasing focus on end-of-life strategies such as remanufacturing and repair. Also, sustainability and circularity initiatives should be taken during production development to be able to meet green targets. Clear strategies and a vision for the co-development of product and production systems, along with clarity about stakeholder requirements, are needed to achieve this. Hence, there is a need for methods and tools that can support working with sustainability aspects along with the needs of the stakeholders in the entire product lifecycle. This support should also support transferring sustainability aspects into technical requirements, not just from traditional sources, but also from the sources of sustainability aspects.

The research objective of the study is to identify the tools and methods that support working with sustainability aspects during the product realization process. The research question that guided the study was “What methods and tools exist for working with sustainability aspects and indicators as technical requirements to support product and production co-development?”. The scope of the study was the period between 2014 to 2024, articles considering product and production development processes and not specific manufacturing processes, written in English, presented as a journal or conference article, discussing methods, and based on manufacturing firms. A systematic literature review was conducted where tasks such as preparation (formulating research questions, defining scope, and setting inclusion and exclusion criteria), searching, screening, analyzing, synthesizing, and reporting were carried out. The search was conducted in Scopus. This resulted in a selection of 56 articles, which were analyzed for their contribution to the product production development processes, use of requirements management methodology, support for stakeholders, and the base methods they use. This paper presents the results of the study. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the background to support the work, Section 3 describes the methodology of the review, Section 4 summarizes the methods in the selected articles, the analysis is in Section 5, and the discussion, along with research gaps, is in Section 6.

2. Background

This literature review focuses on the methods that support working with sustainability aspects during product and production development. A brief background about the research domains relevant to the study and how they are connected in this work is presented here. This is done to guide and support the readers towards the subsequent sections and create understanding about the different domains relevant to the study.

The phrase “integrated product policy” has been used to refer to the process of integrating sustainability aspects into product development [17]. Systematically considering environmental aspects and human health and safety for both product and process development for the full product lifecycle is termed design for the environment [18]. Different concepts and methodologies have been developed to incorporate sustainability in both product and production development processes. Sustainable product development has been defined as integrating and implementing a strategic sustainability thinking and lifecycle perspective in the early development phases of product innovation [8]. Design for sustainability is the inclusion of environmental aspects in engineering design and is also called environmentally conscious design or eco-design [2,19]. It combines the three dimensions of sustainability [17]. Creating products and services using processes and systems that are non-polluting, energy and resource-efficient, and safe and healthy for employees as well as customers is termed sustainable production [20]. Sustainable manufacturing is the creation of manufactured products through economically viable processes, which minimize negative environmental impacts, conserve energy and natural resources, and enhance community well-being and product safety [21].

Manufacturing industries play a vital role in eliminating negative environmental impacts through introducing innovative solutions [22], and it is important to include pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, and use and post-use stages of product lifecycles for sustainable product design [23]. Involvement of stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, production, purchasing, regulators, and organizations supporting the extended value chain and information and knowledge utilization is important for sustainable development [8,13,24]. There is a limitation in terms of knowledge as to how to include requirements on sustainability and profitability for achieving long-term competitive manufacturing, as well as the inclusion of aspects related to production development into the product development process [25]. This implies that there is a need for coordinated decision-making between design and production to manage the uncertainties caused by factors such as changing customer needs and regulations [26] during the product and production development processes.

Product development is the process of ideation to solve a market need, develop a product, and produce and sell it [27], and production development is the development of a production system to build the firm’s capability to produce the products [28]. Both of these processes consist of the steps of planning, specification development, concept development, detailed development, prototype development, and startup. The importance of concurrent development of both the product and production systems has been reiterated in the literature for the commercial success of a product. Integrated Product Development (IPD) is one such framework that brings together coordinated effort and shows how the different departments and their activities should be aligned during the development process [29]. Other frameworks, such as product-production codesign [30] and the integrated product and process model [31], have been developed, utilizing model-based systems engineering and requirements to create a common language between product and production domains. Integrated product and process development aims at improving productivity through the simultaneous development of products and processes, utilizing cross-functional teams and knowledge while considering all lifecycle phases [32]. Andreasen and Hein [29] stated that deciding factors for the correct solution must be formulated as requirements or criteria, and that should support convergence of the design process. A method to work with production requirements to bridge the product and production development was presented in [33].

Requirements management is crucial to meet the challenges of sustainability and coordinated effort from product and production development, as highlighted in the previous sections. Requirements engineering includes steps of discovering, eliciting, developing, analyzing, verifying, validating, communicating, documenting, and managing requirements, and requirements management includes activities that identify, document, maintain, communicate, trace, and track requirements [34]. Requirements form the basis for project planning, risk management, tradeoffs, acceptance testing, and change control [35]. Proper management of requirements and traceability from stakeholder to system requirements contributes to the success of a project (ibid.). There are different tools to convert stakeholder requirements to technical specifications. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is one such tool. QFD is a method to transfer the customer needs to design targets, drive product and production processes, and coordinate skills within the organization, transferring the needs into technical requirements [36]. The importance of requirement management practices has been highlighted for sustainable product development [37,38], and a modified version of QFD for environmental considerations has been used to support this [39].

3. Methodology

This review followed the steps outlined in literature review guides [40] and used PRISMA guidelines [41] for reporting. The PRISMA flowchart and checklists are given in the Supplementary Materials files. The study was conducted in a systematic process and consisted of three phases—planning, execution, and analysis. Figure 1 represents the overall search process.

Phase 1 involved planning the search. The research objective and purpose of the literature review were fixed. A research question was formulated to guide the work. Key domains that should be considered for the search were identified based on the research question. Search blocks were formulated using these domains, and scoping searches were conducted to identify relevant synonyms and associated terms for the keywords. Multiple iterations were conducted by the author team to finalize the search string. The search string had four search blocks: block 1 consisted of development-related terms, block 2 consisted of sustainability and green transition-related terms, block 3 consisted of terms related to sustainability aspects, and block 4 represented terms related to requirements and methods. The search string is given in

Table 1. Search string composition.

Search Block	Terms
1	“Product development” OR “engineering design” OR “product design” OR “design and development” OR “Production development” OR co? Development OR “product reali?ation” OR “concurrent engineering”
2	“Green transition” OR “green manufacturing” OR “clean manufacturing” OR “environmentally conscious design” OR “environmentally conscious manufacturing” OR “environmentally benign manufacturing” OR “environmentally responsible manufacturing” OR sustainab* OR “sustainable manufacturing” OR “sustainable production” OR “sustainable product development” OR “Sustainable Development” OR “Sustainable Design” OR “Circular Manufacturing System*” OR circular* OR “Circular Manufacturing” OR remanufacturing OR “Remanufacturing System” OR Refuse OR Rethink OR Reduce OR Reuse OR Repair OR Refurbish OR Remanufactur* OR Re?purpose OR Recycl* OR Recover OR R?strateg* OR eco?design OR “Circular Strateg*” OR “Circular Product*” OR “Circular Product Design” OR “Circular Practice*” OR “Circular Factory” OR “Circular Design*” OR “Closed?loop*” OR “Closed?Loop System*” OR “Extended Enterprise” OR “Extended Product” OR “Extended Producer Responsibility” OR “End?of?life” OR “product Lifecycle*”
3	“sustainability aspect*” OR “sustainability criteria*” OR “green criteria*” OR “sustainable practice*” OR “sustainable principle*” OR “eco-friendly aspect*” OR “environmental factor*” OR “sustainability factor*” OR “sustainability attribute*” OR “sustainable design aspect*” OR “environmental performance” OR “sustainability impact*” OR “Circularity evaluation” OR “Sustainability evaluation”
4	requirements OR “design requirements” OR “design criteria” OR “design specifications” OR “product specifications” OR guideline OR tool* OR support* OR framework* OR method* OR procedure OR process OR workflow
Full search string	(“Product development” OR “engineering design” OR “product design” OR “design and development” OR “Production development” OR co? Development OR “product reali?ation” OR “concurrent engineering”) AND (“Green transition” OR “green manufacturing” OR “clean manufacturing” OR “environmentally conscious design” OR “environmentally conscious manufacturing” OR “environmentally benign manufacturing” OR “environmentally responsible manufacturing” OR sustainab* OR “sustainable manufacturing” OR “sustainable production” OR “sustainable product development” OR “Sustainable Development” OR “Sustainable Design” OR “Circular Manufacturing System*” OR circular* OR “Circular Manufacturing” OR remanufacturing OR “Remanufacturing System” OR Refuse OR Rethink OR Reduce OR Reuse OR Repair OR Refurbish OR Remanufactur* OR Re?purpose OR Recycl* OR Recover OR R?strateg* OR eco?design OR “Circular Strateg*” OR “Circular Product*” OR “Circular Product Design” OR “Circular Practice*” OR “Circular Factory” OR “Circular Design*” OR “Closed?loop*” OR “Closed?Loop System*” OR “Extended Enterprise” OR “Extended Product” OR “Extended Producer Responsibility” OR “End?of?life” OR “product Lifecycle*”) AND (“sustainability aspect*” OR “sustainability criteria*” OR “green criteria*” OR “sustainable practice*” OR “sustainable principle*” OR “eco-friendly aspect*” OR “environmental factor*” OR “sustainability factor*” OR “sustainability attribute*” OR “sustainable design aspect*” OR “environmental performance” OR “sustainability impact*” OR “Circularity evaluation” OR “Sustainability evaluation”) AND (requirements OR “design requirements” OR “design criteria” OR “design specifications” OR “product specifications” OR guideline OR tool* OR support* OR framework* OR method* OR procedure OR process OR workflow)

below.

Phase 2 was the execution of the search. Scopus was selected as the database for the study as it is recognized that it has one of the most extensive collections of peer-reviewed works in the engineering discipline and its relevance to the subject area [42,43]. Also, peer-reviewed articles comparing different databases showed an overlap of 94% between Scopus and Web of Science [44], with Scopus covering the results completely [45,46]. The search was conducted using the search string formed by combining the four search blocks with the “AND” operator. The validity of the search string was ensured by identifying control papers during initial scoping studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting the articles were developed based on the peer-reviewed articles and books used as references for the review method and discussion among the authors, as listed below.

• It should belong to a scientific journal or conference.
• It should belong to the manufacturing industry.
• It should belong to the engineering subject area.
• Should address product or production development, not business development or management.
• It should be about overall development, not specific manufacturing processes.
• It should discuss methods.
• It should belong to the period of 2014–2024.
• It should be in English.

The search was conducted using the search string; Figure 2 below shows the steps in the literature review process. The box represents activity, and the number in the connected oval is the resulting number of articles. There were 902 hits initially, following which different filtering was carried out based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria listed above. The first filter applied was the time frame. The period from 2014 to 2024 was selected to consider the last ten full years. This period was selected to utilize the resource effectively to identify and study the recent developments, as the sustainability requirements and knowledge are constantly evolving. It was important to ensure a manageable and relevant data set. This filtering resulted in 644 hits. Further filtering was carried out based on exclusion by subject area, selecting only journals and conferences, limited to the English language. This resulted in a list of 350 articles, which were downloaded (on 30 May 2024) and screened based on the title. Title screening resulted in a list of 223 articles. A detailed abstract-based screening was carried out on the remaining articles. An initial set of 25 articles was reviewed and discussed by the authors to familiarize them with screening criteria and avoid bias. Then, the full set of articles was reviewed, such that each article was reviewed by two authors. There were regular meetings and discussions among the authors regarding the screening process, during which conflicts were resolved.

The decision matrix shown in Figure 3 below was used to select the final set of articles from the screening process. A total of 58 articles were selected during the abstract screening step.

Phase 3 was reading and analysis. Out of 58 articles selected during abstract screening, two were unavailable for download, and five did not meet the scope during further screening. The remaining articles were downloaded for detailed reading, during which a further four were removed as they did not meet the scope [12,47,48,49]. Also, seven articles that fulfilled the scope of the review were identified through snowballing. Quality appraisal was not conducted on the selected articles, as the purpose was to identify different tools and methods that existed. Also, the database used indexed peer-reviewed journals and conferences. Themes were selected to code the articles while reading based on the research question. The main themes for analysis were domains of product development, production development, and requirements management, stakeholders supported, base methods used, method details, and phase of the development process. These were created as codes in NVivo (release 1.7.2), which was used as the software support for analysis. Articles were coded into relevant themes while reading, which were then extracted and analyzed. This was done to understand the overlay of the support for working with sustainability aspects as technical requirements during product and production development.

4. Literature Review

Requirements engineering includes steps of discovering, eliciting, developing, analyzing, verifying, validating, communicating, documenting, and managing requirements [34]. This section presents the methods in the articles based on the purpose identified and their alignment with the above requirements engineering steps. Though the methods may serve multiple purposes and may not be explicitly connected to requirements engineering, categorization is made based on the main identified purpose and is listed below (Figure 4).The phases of development used by Jiao et al. [50] in their decision framework are also used to support this categorization.

• Methods supporting Discovering and Elicitation: Discovering and elicitation are the use of systematic techniques to proactively identify and document customer and end-user needs. Methods that support identifying or creating a common understanding of sustainability aspects before development begins, focusing on innovation or pre-study phases, the front-end of development, are classified into this category.
• Methods for Developing and Analyzing: The methods that help in the design and development stages for decision support, product configuration planning, modeling, and trade-offs are categorized in this section.
• Methods for validation and verification: Methods that focus mainly on later phases of development or that focus on the assessment of product solutions are classified into this category and support the confirmation that the requirements have been fulfilled.

4.1. Methods Supporting Discovery and Elicitation

Product development begins with creating a common understanding with the stakeholders in the development team and creating a requirement specification. This section summarizes the articles that present methods that contribute to creating a common understanding of sustainability aspects and support requirement elicitation.

A Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) was presented by Broman and Robèrt [10] to support an organization in planning for sustainability. The framework presented a funnel model with five levels: system level (broader context), success level (to prevent harmful impact by their activities on sustainability), strategic level (use backcasting to form sustainability vision), action level (implementing concrete actions and initiatives for the vision), tools level (utilizing different tools such as LCA (lifecycle assessment). The Self-Assessment Method of Capabilities for Sustainability Implementation in the Product Innovation Process (SAM4SIP) was developed to assist companies in visualizing their current capabilities to integrate sustainability elements during product innovation [51]. The method had templates for eight key elements, such as ensuring organization support from senior management for sustainability integration, sustainability perspectives during the early product innovation process, utilizing knowledge and experience of procurement staff during the early development process, consideration of social aspects across product lifecycle and value chain, assigned responsibilities during the innovation process, systematic way of building competence, utilizing tools for guiding decisions in product development, and utilizing tools that incorporate a backcasting perspective from a definition of success. The users should rate each of these aspects based on a sustainability compliance index (SCI) level. Watz et al. [38] introduced a profile model for assessing an organization’s sustainability maturity. The assessment was carried out by analyzing the power of an organization’s sustainability policy, the scope of the policy, how sustainability is implemented in the product development process, how sustainability criteria are included in the design projects, and the sustainability capability of the decision board. Based on the findings of the above analysis, the organization can be assigned to one of the five levels in the profile model. Watz et al. [52] introduced a method called PROSEQ, which stands for Profile Model for Management of Sustainability Integration into Requirements for Engineering Design, and focuses on the management of needs identification and design requirement propagation. This method is self-assessment-based, focusing on the interface between strategic, tactical, and operational levels, aimed at guiding companies to ensure sustainability aspects are included during the initial requirement specification. The steps in this method are the assessment of strengths and weaknesses and the identification of actions for the integration of sustainability into requirements.

Sas et al. [53] presented a strategic process for sustainable functional product (FP) configuration. This method has six activities: building FP scenarios, selecting sustainability indicators, designing an FP simulation model to observe sustainability indicators, designing objective functions, designing an optimization model, and running an optimization model. Watz et al. [54] presented a method called ”Collaborative sustainability system analysis for product design using group model building with causal loop diagrams” (CAUSAL). This method helped to improve the contextual understanding of the meaning of sustainability for a specific design project, align the importance of sustainability in the project, identify and align sustainability performance activities with design objectives, and increase the knowledge maturity related to sustainability.

A five-point guideline for defining sustainability criteria that combined both trend analysis and goal-oriented planning was proposed by Hallstedt [55] to support the identification and development of sustainability criteria during early product development in manufacturing companies. The guidelines for defining sustainability criteria are (i) alignment with the company’s sustainability requirement trends (forecasting), (ii) defining success criteria by backcasting, (iii) including cradle-to-grave decision aspects, (iv) including all aspects of sustainability, and (v) balancing the list of criteria between comprehensiveness and ease of use. A sustainability compliance matrix similar to TRL was used to support this process. Watz et al. [6] presented a method for using systems thinking to identify, define, and refine requirements. They outlined a conceptual study using a causal loop diagram to visualize and test trade-off opportunities between leading sustainability criteria and traditional design requirements. Sansa et al. [24] presented a method called the Optimal Design Scenario Selection Model, aimed at identifying internal and external issues and stakeholder requirements to generate strategic scenarios, developing design criteria for those scenarios, and enabling optimal design scenario selection while fulfilling sustainable design guidelines. This method has two steps: The first generates operational scenarios based on value chain-driven sustainable design strategies using SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats), PESTEL (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal), and 7S (Structure, Strategy, Shared Values, Style, Staff, Systems, Skills) to identify different scenarios. The second step is the choice of the optimal scenario that satisfies interdependent criteria using simplified lifecycle assessment tools to compute sustainability impacts’ indicators, the Choquet integral to minimize the number of scenarios, and the fuzzy analytic network process to select the optimal operational scenario. The model has five stages.

De Kwant et al. [56] presented a simplified framework for Circular Business Model (CBM) design proposed based on the design for X-frameworks. This supports in development of a shared vision, guides understanding, and explores scenarios where CBM is used. Rossi et al. [57] proposed a four-step method to construct eco-design knowledge for companies. The first step aims at collecting the environmental data within the company that is not usually collected and stored, followed by analysis of these data by environmental experts to identify trends or other relevant information. The third and fourth steps aim to organize this knowledge based on the company’s analysis, roles, and objectives. Menon et al. [58] presented an integrated analytical network process and quality function deployment for supporting the managers to develop and devise policies to improve eco-efficiency. This combined methodology helps to complete the house of quality to guide planning activities using customer requirements and prioritizing the design requirements. The steps of the method include identifying customer requirements (CRs), finalizing design requirements (DRs), setting the relative importance of Customer Requirements (W1), establishing an inner dependence matrix among CRs (W3), developing an inner dependence matrix among DRs (W4), establishing an interdependent priority matrix of CRs (WC), establishing an interdependent priority matrix among DRs (WA), and finding out the overall priority of DRs.

4.2. Methods Supporting Developing and Analyzing

This section summarizes the articles that present methods to support working with sustainability aspects during the design and development stages for decision support, product configuration planning, modeling, and trade-offs.

De Medeiros et al. [59] presented a novel reference system for green product development to align environmental aspects and the product development process. This reference system proposed three stages. Stage 1 is an introduction to development where strategic planning of the portfolio and product was carried out using existing products’ lifecycle assessments, solid waste hierarchy, eco-design tools, market research, green option matrix, and DfSB. In stage 2, operational planning of the product, production preparation, and product launch plan are prepared and supported by tools such as Green QFD, Green Option Matrix, and FMEA. Stage 3 is the post-launch phase where the market follow-up of the product is carried out and the performance of the product according to the strategic plan is evaluated, along with prioritization for maintenance of the product in the market and investment in reverse logistics and remanufacturing. Gupta et al. [60] identified key determinants for sustainable product development and manufacturing to support sustainability during development. Van der Schoor and Göhlich [14] developed a product development process based on VDI 2221 to account for all three dimensions of sustainability. This process included a social sustainability assessment during the early concept design phase and added a social responsibility gate to begin their development phase, as well as a sustainability gate to evaluate and end this phase. A preliminary social assessment was added, and clarification of problems or tasks, definition, and weighting of assessment criteria was adapted. This was used for assessment and selection of solution principles activities in the early concept design phase, which resulted in a refined and supplemented requirement set.

Yang et al. [61] introduced a systematic method for developing a modular eco-product family considering the reusability and recyclability of the customer waste products. This method is based on eco-design and product family principles. Eco-performance of a module, a product, and a product family is optimized with consideration for commonality and economies of scale. An algorithm-based method is used to solve the optimization problem using design constraints, which are introduced to control the loss of functions and commonality of the product family based on an existing product. Yu et al. [62] presented a method for considering eco-modular drivers for creating product varieties, considering end-of-life issues. The steps of the method include using the extended QFD, identifying lifecycle modules, and establishing the product family to support eco-product family development. Badurdeen et al. [23] proposed and multi-objective optimization method for product configuration considering the lifecycle cost of product design, global warming potential, and total water usage. Kim et al. [63] proposed a method to identify sustainable product family configurations by mathematical modeling to leverage the potential of sustainable product platforms with changeable modules. The designer can use these models to configure modules with a focus on disassembly, recyclability, and reusability to improve the efficiency of manufacturing and remanufacturing.

Mesa et al. [64] combined functional analysis, CAD/CAE software tools, and DFMA to minimize sustainability indicators such as energy consumption, carbon footprint, number of parts, required amount of material, assembly time, and manufacturing cost. The steps of the method are functional analysis, preparation of product summary, initial sustainability indicator measurement, DFMA simplification, and final sustainability indicator measurement. Favi et al. [2] proposed a method based on virtual prototyping to assist engineers in developing energy-related products with eco-design standards. The method has three steps: modeling using CAD tools, simulation using CAE tools, and validation using a simplified LCA tool. The method is mainly focused on the embodiment design phase of product development, but suggests that requirements based on eco-design rules and knowledge should be created in a database during the planning phase. Kamalakkannan et al. [65] introduced a concept for parametric lifecycle assessment based on the principles of LCA and parametrization. The method aims to propose eco-design and support transparent decision-making through analyzing various scenarios and optimizing product design using tools such as CAD/CAM and MATLAB. Wang et al. [11] presented a method for integrating LCA into the eco-design of lighting products. Five current products were analyzed using this method, and the sustainability requirement for the product was derived. This was added to the product design specification, and a new design was made based on this. Product service systems have been highlighted as a strategy that will help to balance the requirements of manufacturers, customers, and the environment. A method for developing sustainable products by integrating environmental FMEA, environmentally conscious QFD, and lifecycle analysis was proposed by [39]. In this method, EFMEA was conducted first on an existing product to capture both process and product information, identification of potential failure modes, and environmental failure effects. Then, ECQFD is done to convert the voice of customers to engineering metrics, and the top priority components are redesigned. The ECQFD is done in two steps: identification of the target for design improvement (QDFE phases 1 and 2) and evaluation method for design improvement (QFDE phases 3 and 4). Sustainability analysis was conducted using the tool, Solidworks Sustainability Xpress.

An introductory approach to identify and select sustainability indicators to guide product requirements, considering the entire product lifecycle using a sustainability design space, including sustainability aspects in early development scenarios, was presented by Watz et al. [37]. A method called the trade-off navigation framework was developed by Kravchenko et al. [66] as a decision support for conflicting sustainability indicators within circular economy implementation in the manufacturing industry. This method is aimed at bringing transparency to the sustainability trade-off decision and has two elements: input data and step-by-step guidance for the trade-off. The trade-off is carried out in a matrix in Excel. The guidance steps are analysis of the performance on non-negotiable criteria, analysis of the performance on negotiable criteria, and decision analysis. A method for anticipating sustainability directions during early design phases, called the Sustainability Fingerprint tool, was presented by Hallstedt et al. [8].

Kulatunga et al. [21] proposed a sustainable manufacturing-based decision support system for eco-design. The method consists of seven steps: project planning, product analysis, eco-design strategies, new product concepts, product detailing, production and market launch, and evaluation. A three-layered generic process information model to integrate the relevant sustainable manufacturing information with product design information was presented by Zhang et al. [13]. The “SustainabilityMetric” class is used to describe any sustainability metrics published in the literature or applied in the industry, along with their associated evaluation methods. The impacts of product modularity and supply chain visibility on technological pressure, sustainable practices, operational performance, and sustainability performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises were investigated [67]. Based on this, a conceptual model was developed following a resource-based view and dynamic capability theories to improve operational and sustainability performance.

Picatoste et al. [68] presented a method for circular economy design criteria integration into BEV batteries. The steps in the method were the selection and adaptation of the circular economy (CE) design assessment tool, stakeholder engagement, and evaluation of the implementation potential for each CE design criterion, prioritization of the CE design criteria based on importance and viability, and critical assessment of the CE design criteria. A methodology to design sustainable products for CE, considering the stakeholders, sustainable manufacturing, design for sustainability (DfS), and circular design (CD) criteria, was developed by Hapuwatte et al. [69]. The primary stakeholder is defined as society-at-large in this method, and the designers need to consider both negative and positive triple bottom-line impacts as part of the primary stakeholder values. The importance of considering end-of-life aspects, such as recycling in product designs, is illustrated in [70]. Aspects such as design for dismantling and using single materials for ease of recycling are explained in this research using an automotive dashboard as an example.

Haber and Fargnoli [71] discussed how to reduce the supply chain impacts of a PSS (Product Service System) solution by using functional hierarchy modeling and a PSS concept matrix. Sarancic et al. [72] presented a decision-making tool called BEST PSS, which is short for Business, Environment, and Social screening Tools for PSS. This allowed qualitative screening of PSS concepts to TBL sustainable value along their lifecycle. The tools connect the four dimensions relevant to PSS sustainability assessment: PSS element, PSS lifecycle, PSS sustainability, and PSS value.

4.3. Methods Supporting Validation and Verification

Methods that focus primarily on the assessment of product solutions are summarized and presented in this section.

Eastwood et al. [19] proposed a method called “unit process model-based methodology to assist product sustainability assessment during design for manufacturing”, which consists of a six-step methodology to utilize unit process modeling and lifecycle inventory method to quantify sustainability metrics for cradle-to-gate sustainability assessment. The method focuses on manufacturing and assembly processes for components. The steps of the method include defining the assessment goal and scope, selecting and quantifying metrics, defining key unit manufacturing processes, constructing mathematical models, applying models and aggregate metrics, and analyzing and comparing assessment results. Baptista et al. [73] presented a lean product development-based design for excellence (DFX) tool to support eco-design. The steps in this method are modularization, selection of design domains and indicators, calculation of ratios of effectiveness and efficiency, analysis of results, and improvement of the design through iterations. It is important to analyze the sustainability aspects during the introduction of new technologies. Suresh et al. [74] presented a method for integrating design for environment (DFE) and design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA). Sustainability assessment of a product was carried out using the tools in CAD based on inputs of model, material manufacturing process, location of manufacturing and distribution, and environmental parameters such as carbon footprint, air acidification, total energy consumed, and water eutrophication. This model was then optimized using DFMA and was compared with the original model. Sustainability impact and effects analysis, a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)-based method aimed at raising awareness for sustainability risks, providing support for concept selection, and identifying actions for improving concepts, was developed by Schulte et al. [9]. The steps of the method are sustainability assessment, sustainability risk identification, sustainability risk analysis and evaluation, and sustainability risk treatment and communication.

The Product Sustainability Evaluation Tool (ProSET) is a decision support tool that calculates a weighted sustainability score for alternate part configurations based on 26 sustainability metrics throughout the total product lifecycle [7]. The steps of this methodology involve identifying the product to be configured, decomposing the product into parts, generating alternate part configurations, sustainability assessment, and arranging the selected part configuration to complete the product. This method is based on a neural network model and a weighted decision matrix. The method is demonstrated using v3.1 of the tool. Mutingi et al. [75] presented a method for evaluating modular product design concepts considering the fuzzy environment in the design stage. It uses a multi-criteria fuzzy grouping genetic algorithm approach to evaluate the concepts based on the criteria identified for evaluation, such as design fitness, cost fitness, and green fitness. The imprecise information is modeled using fuzzy information. Modular design was also used for the comparison study of a new design vs. existing LED luminaires for environmental performance evaluation based on LCA methodology [76].

LiSET is a method developed to assess the environmental performance of technologies at a low readiness level and in the early phases of PD [77]. The three steps of the method are decomposing the lifecycle, translating decomposition terms into lifecycle aspects, and evaluating these lifecycle aspects using a relative scale based on the qualitative and quantitative data collected during the development. These three steps are iterated as the technology matures and, finally, result in a full-scale LCA analysis. Oliveira et al. [78] presented a method for technology sustainability evaluation in product development. They used a computational model to support lifecycle engineering (LCE), which can be used in different scenarios such as strategy development, the selection of more sustainable products, or the evaluation of competing products. Hannouf et al. [79] presented a lifecycle sustainability-based decision analysis framework to be used in different phases of development based on situational context. In this framework, the goal and scope definition is done first, followed by inventory analysis and impact assessments. The results of these assessments are used for objective identification, potential sustainability solution generation, potential sustainability solutions evaluation, and trade-off analysis. Rossi et al. [80] proposed an assessment method based on LCA and material flow analysis to evaluate the alternative design of a packaging solution. The alternative designs were compared from materials, solutions, and suitability for the reverse supply chain in terms of environmental aspects.

A method called Checklist for Sustainable Product Development (CSPD) supported qualitative assessment of environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainability during early PD phases while having a full lifecycle perspective [17]. The checklist has 49 questions related to resource efficiency, resource consumption, use of low-impact materials, optimization of EOL phases, health and safety aspects, transport and logistics, social and ethical aspects, decrease of environmental pollution, and economic efficiency and profitability. This checklist helps to identify improvement activities that need to be completed by the engineers. The Product Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT) is an Excel-based assessment method addressing environmental, social, health and safety, and economic aspects of sustainability [81]. There are 97 questions in this method, spread across domains of design (11 questions), 22 material selection questions, 31 manufacturing questions, 24 use questions, and nine end-of-life questions. It is aimed to aid product manufacturers in designing sustainable products and users in making informed purchases. The Concept Circularity Evaluation Tool (CCET), to be used during the early product development stages, was developed to calculate the relative circularity score [5]. The score is derived through answering the product type questionnaire, defining the circular strategic goals, rating the performance levels, and visualizing and interpreting the results. Raoufi et al. [82] presented a method to support non-expert designers for sustainability assessment. This methodology consisted of four sections with ten steps. The first section is supply-related, where the steps are to select suppliers and raw materials; the second section is transportation, with steps to select from–to locations, destination type, and transportation mode; the third section is manufacturing, which includes completing a questionnaire, inputting process parameter values, and inputting part geometry; and the final section is an analysis where models are applied and a comparison of results is carried out.

Hapuwatte et al. [83] proposed a method for dynamic sustainability performance evaluation based on metrics. The method consists of two steps: production plan simulation and TBL impact modeling, and product sustainability performance forecast for the production timeline. The method is based on the Monte Carlo method to simulate the primary input uncertainties in the production factors (periodic demand, product life span, and EoU recovery ratio) and calculates the triple bottom line (TBL) impact metrics.

Chen et al. [84] proposed a method for evaluating product service system (PSS) solutions based on the information axiom. The method is based on a fuzzy simulation algorithm. The steps in this method include the definition of the evaluation criteria based on the sustainability pillars, QFD and SERVQUAL; then, the hybrid uncertain criteria are determined to determine the design and system range, followed by calculating the information content for each criterion and each alternative, and finally, ranking the alternatives. Bertoni et al. [85] proposed a generic integrated sustainability and value assessment in conceptual design to be used by the design team in early phases. This method suggested a portfolio of tools to be used based on the context. It combined environmental impact assessment, strategic sustainability assessment, and net present value. Majerník et al. [4] presented a model for evaluating the environmental performance of product systems. It is a practical tool for simultaneously managing environmental and value aspects. It compares green growth indicators against the value of the product system. Here, the product system includes even production, use, and disposal aspects. A time calculation method for dismantling end-of-life products was also presented [86]. They also highlighted the importance of standardized methods for measuring dismantling time, as it can support assessing ease of disassembly and improve recyclability.

5. Findings and Analysis

The success of a manufacturing firm depends on the coordinated effort of the various stakeholders involved during the product and production development processes to introduce products that fulfil the customer’s needs. Nowadays, success also depends on the capability of these firms to manage the changing landscape of the product development process, focusing more on sustainable development. This necessitates robust processes and methods to support this transition. The literature review selected articles that described methods that support this transition. This section describes the findings of the literature review. Initially, a bibliometric analysis is presented. This is followed by an analysis of how the articles contribute to the three domains of interest: product development, production, and requirements management, followed by an analysis of base methods used and stakeholders supported, to identify how the different articles contribute to these themes. This is done to identify the current state of the methods and identify gaps.

5.1. Bibliometric Assessment

A total of 56 articles were identified and read from the literature study. These articles covered ten years and a wide geographical region. This is represented in Figure 5 and Figure 6. Most of the identified articles are from the EU, with the highest number of articles related to the scope of the study being from Sweden. The trend analysis over the years shows an increase in research in this area. The reason for this increasing interest and geographical concentration in EU countries can be the guidelines and directives from the European Union as well as individual countries, which are increasing the maturity of requirements. The cases for application of the methods presented in the articles belonged to aerospace, automotive, electronic products, wind turbines, and components such as gears. Also, the businesses range from business-to-business, business-to-customer, and product–service systems. This distribution across geographical areas, time, and industrial sectors helps to create an understanding of the methods for generalizing the findings, as well as how researchers globally are tackling issues related to sustainability.

A keyword trend analysis was conducted using the tool VOSViewer (version 1.6.20) to understand the relationship between the different research areas addressed in the selected articles and identify the trend. Central themes were product development and sustainable development with a connection to sustainability assessment and production. These central themes were connected themes such as requirements management, circularity, end-of-life, design for manufacturing and assembly, design for dismantling, decision supports and sustainable manufacturing. This is represented in Figure 7. Analysis against time shows that the focus was on computer-aided design, energy utilization, design for manufacturing, and end-of-life strategies such as reuse, recycling, and dismantling. The trend then shifted towards supporting lifecycle assessment and remanufacturing. At present, there is a shift towards circular economy, closed-loop, knowledge, design criteria, and product performance. The shifting trends are, however, connected to the central topics of sustainable development, sustainable product development, sustainability assessment, and production, highlighting the shift in purpose of the identified methods and tools. It is also interesting to note that the supply chain keyword was also present, highlighting the importance of including aspects related to the back-end of development phases during early development to achieve closed-loop and support sustainable product and production development. The geographical distribution and keyword trend may be the result of policies such as the EU Green Deal, which focuses on circularity and knowledge management. Therefore, building capabilities to achieve this becomes key to research and manufacturing firms.

5.2. Methods and Their Support for Product Development, Production, and Requirements Management Domains

Traditional manufacturing firms should focus on both product development and production domains and have a unified approach in these domains to successfully meet the challenges raised by the shift towards sustainability and circularity. Requirements form the basis for any development and have been identified as an enabler for sustainable development. This section presents how different methods identified in the literature review connect to product development phases, production, and requirements management.

5.2.1. Methods Support for the Product Development Domain

Product development is a complex process starting with needs identification, concept development, detailed design, producing the product, and sale of the product, and consists of phases of planning, concept development, system-level design, detail design, testing and refinement, and production ramp-up [27]. The decision framework for product family planning categorizes the product realization process into front-end, design and development, and back-end phases based on design domains of axiomatic design [50]. Combining this with the definition of early phase of PD as the innovation phase where product development goals and strategies are formulated and the product portfolio is developed [8], the product development process has been grouped into early product development, which includes the planning and concept development phases and design and development phases, including system-level design, detail design, testing and refinement, and production ramp-up. This section discusses the methods and their contribution to these different phases.

Methods supporting early PD phases aim at creating knowledge and understanding about the sustainability aspects. There is a focus on connecting product design to organizational objectives [24] and giving guidance and support to bring sustainability perspectives, or developing, evaluating, and selecting different concepts [55]. There is also a focus on sustainability requirement specification [37]. Self-assessment approaches have been suggested to improve the requirements management process [52]. Questionnaire-based methods for quantifying sustainability performance matrices and carbon footprint in manufacturing and supply chain [17,82], and decision-making support for managing tradeoffs for conflicting sustainability requirements in the circular economy [66], have also been proposed to support early phases of product development. Focus has also been put on supporting information reuse in the early phases, such as retrospective LCA analysis to develop eco-design strategies for product families [76] and utilization and integration of sustainable manufacturing information with product design information [13]. Methods to capture the voice of customers for sustainability performance and sustainability risks using QFD and FMEA tools have also been proposed to support early product development phases [39,58]. The methods categorized under the design and development phases support in assessment or cases are detailed products. Sustainability performances are measured, and downstream aspects related to production and end-of-life are included to support design decisions in these methods. Different approaches, such as eco-design for product family for considering reusability and recyclability [61], an optimization method for configuration of product family in terms of sustainability [63], DFMA-based methods [19,64], Lean DFX [73], and LCA-based approaches such as parametric lifecycle assessment [65] and embedding lifecycle assessment results in product design specification [11], has been proposed to support this phase.

Classification of articles shows that the majority of the articles are directed towards the early product development, as well as the design and development phase of the product development process. Though the articles mention that they are applicable in multiple phases, often their use focuses on a single phase. A few articles do not mention the phase in which it is applicable, but have been connected to a phase based on the method description (these are marked with * in the table). Focus on the early development phases may be because the researchers wanted to address the design paradox, that is, as time into the design process increases, the knowledge increases, but design freedom decreases [87]. The focus has been to increase understanding and reduce uncertainty in the early development phases. However, there is a need to capture the evolution of product maturity and knowledge across the product realization phase. The support needed at later stages may have specific purposes to meet the detailed assessment needs. There is also an evident lack of methods that focus on backend issues involving production and logistics domains of product realization.

Table 2. Distribution of articles across product realization phases. (* represents articles which did not mention the phase explicitly but was grouped based on understanding during reading).

Product Development (PD) Phase		Articles Directed Towards the Phase	Count
Early PD	Early PD	Sansa et al., 2019 [24]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2018 [6]; Albæk et al., 2020 [5]; Raoufi et al., 2017 [82]; Hung et al., 2020 [77]; Schöggl et al., 2017 [17]; Kravchenko et al., 2021 [66]; Ferreira et al., 2021 [76]; Hallstedt, 2017 [55]; Schulte & Knuts, 2022 [9]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2022 [52]; Menon & V, 2021 [58]; van der Schoor & Göhlich, 2023 [14]; Vimal et al., 2022 [39]; Watz et al., 2022 [54]; Oliveira et al., 2021 [78]; Chen et al., 2015 [84]	25
	Early PD *	De Kwant et al., 2021 [56]; Broman & Robèrt, 2017 [10]; Schulte & Hallstedt, 2018 [51]
	Conceptual design	Bertoni et al., 2015 [85]; Sarancic et al., 2022 [72]
	Concept development *	Sas et al., 2017 [53]; Haber & Fargnoli, 2022 [71]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2020 [38]
Conceptual and design phases		Rossi et al., 2022 [57]; Favi et al., 2024 [2]; Hannouf & Assefa, 2018 [79]; Suresh et al., 2016 [74]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2018 [37]; Yu et al., 2015 [62]	6
Design and development	Design stage	Yang et al., 2014 [61]; Eastwood & Haapala, 2015 [19]; Zhang et al., 2015 [13]; Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021 [69]; Mesa et al., 2018 [64]; Kamalakkannan & Kulatunga, 2021 [65]; Hallstedt et al., 2023 [8]; Mutingi et al., 2017 [75]; Baptista et al., 2018 [73]; Mathieux et al., 2014 [86]	16
	Design stage *	Kim & Moon, 2017 [63]; Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]
	Product configuration/ Design stage	Badurdeen et al., 2018 [23]
	Redesign	Rossi et al., 2024 [80]
	Specification stage	Wang et al., 2020 [11]
	System-level design	Hassan et al., 2017 [7]
Design stage, manufacturing, use, and post-use		Hapuwatte et al., 2022 [83]	1
Back end	Production development	Majerník et al., 2023 [4]	4
	Manufacture *	Saqib et al., 2023 [67]
	Manufacture, use, and end-of-life	Picatoste et al., 2022 [68]
	End-of-life	Tian & Chen, 2014 [70]
Whole lifecycle		Omodara et al., 2023 [81]	2
Whole PD		de Medeiros et al., 2018 [59]

below highlights this distribution.

5.2.2. Methods Supporting Production Domain

Production development is the creation of effective production processes and the ability to produce products [28]. It is important to build the capabilities in the production system to handle the challenges and uncertainties raised by focusing on sustainability. So, it is vital to analyze how the articles describing the methods have discussed production.

A text search query for production development showed that only one article, ref. [4], mentioned production development. Twelve articles mentioned production, varying from comparing manufacturing processes for greener options to information management related to production lifecycle criteria. Eastwood et al. [19] defined a process for defining the key unit manufacturing process to consider sustainability assessment. Watz et al. [6] included sustainability criteria and indicators related to the production lifecycle phase in their causal loop diagram test models for design requirements. Bertoni et al. [85], in their method, identified the milling process as a potential sustainability hotspot and compared it with alternate processes such as electrochemical milling. Nowadays, sustainability decision-making plays a critical role in product design and manufacturing. However, due to the lack of a formal representation of the information regarding the manufacturing processes and sustainability, the sustainability evaluation of the manufacturing processes in the design phase is still inadequate. Thus, a new generation of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems is needed for the product designers to carry out sustainability-related decision-making. The first step toward such a goal is to develop an “information model” to capture and integrate all the relevant information. This paper proposes a Process-oriented Information Model (PIM) to integrate the relevant information regarding sustainable manufacturing with the product design information [13]. Raoufi et al. [82] had a manufacturing analysis module in their questionnaire-based method. Sustainability dimensions related to production, such as social and ethical issues in the supply chain, health, resource efficiency and consumption in production, internal material cycles, toxicity, optimization of the materials input, transport efficiency, transport distance, and avoidance of heavy metals in the checklist for sustainable product development [17]. In their integrated model categories, Hapuwatte and Jawahir [69] identify the importance of considering stages after the design stage in decision-making to achieve closed-loop sustainable product design. The four total lifecycle stages identified are pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use, and post-use. The premanufacturing and manufacturing stages correspond to resource sourcing and manufacturing decision-making, and the decision-makers are production managers and manufacturing engineers. It was stated that manufacturing faults impact the useful life of a product, and eco-design strategies should be applied to the manufacturing stage [76]. The manufacturing process should reduce the usage of virgin materials, use more recyclable materials, and reduce the number of processes for achieving energy efficiency. The reference system for the green product development process has a production preparation phase in which end-of-life technologies, process performance, materials, energy, water savings, shorter idle time in the production line, and use of renewable energy should be considered proactively [59]. In the product sustainability assessment tool (PSAT), there are 31 manufacturing questions such as whether manufactured ethically, waste production in the manufacturing process, raw materials hazardous, utilization of process wastes, wastewater productions, supply chain, material consumption, conflict materials, LCA of product, and offset of CO₂ [81]. An absolute sustainability criteria matrix comparing two manufacturing processes (ECM and mechanical milling) with decision aspects around raw materials and chemicals used during the production of subcomponents during in-house and supplier processes was presented in [55]. Sustainability fingerprint tool considered production aspects such as handling of waste, material efficiency, hazardous waste, emissions from energy consumption, transportation, and safety [8]. The method for sustainable product development and manufacturing identified return on investment, green supply chain management, R concept, energy conservation, and health and education as some of the important aspects for production [60].

The papers discuss production aspects towards the sustainability assessment of product designs. Though the search string included both concurrent engineering and production development terms, only one article mentioned production development. Capabilities for green transition need to be built in both product development and production development domains; however, the literature review highlighted a gap in this area.

5.2.3. Methods Using Requirements Management Domain

Requirements form the basis for product development processes. Requirements engineering includes steps of discovering, eliciting, developing, analyzing, verifying, validating, communicating, documenting, and managing requirements [34]. As discussed in the Literature Review section (Section 4), the methods that are developed to support the early product development phases are aimed at developing a common understanding and discovering the requirements. The methods aimed towards development and the backend process aimed at the assessment of product performance for various metrics for sustainability. For this purpose, articles have used requirements in different ways. Customer requirements and functional requirements are used in the context of product family planning [61], eco-design requirements [2,5], and QFD-based methodologies for transferring the voice of the customer [39,58].

Though the articles discuss working with sustainability aspects, there is not much discussion about how requirements management can be used to support the process of working. There is only one set of authors that have discussed the potential of using requirements management for addressing sustainability issues. The method PROSEQ supports product development organizations to improve sustainability maturity through a focus on requirements management processes [52]. They also identified that the domain between stakeholder requirements and the functional requirements level of a product system is suitable for sustainability analysis [6]. Watz et al. [54], in their work using causal loop diagrams and group model building, revealed that there is potential for improvement in the requirements management processes.

Challenges such as the tradeoff of priorities, managing the different sources of requirements, quantifying sustainability requirements in equivalent terms of traditional requirements, and communicating or developing a common understanding of sustainability requirements have been highlighted as challenges in the literature review articles. Considering these challenges and the methods identified during the literature review, a potential framework to support the continuous knowledge and understanding development of the stakeholders using a requirements management process is identified.

5.3. Base Methods Used

The articles identified during the literature study were based on different base methods. These base methods were classified under ten categories based on their characteristics to identify the type of methods needed for the successful consideration of sustainability aspects in the development project. The methods used concepts and philosophies such as eco-design, circular economy, sustainable product development, circular product development, sustainable manufacturing, and triple bottom line. Standards and guidelines from ISO and VDI were also used to support the method development. Another category was the methods utilizing lifecycle assessment, focusing on improving the assessment processes. Some methods used include cost and decision analysis methods such as lifecycle costing (LCC), AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), and multi-objective optimization. Design and development-based methodologies such as DfMA, lean DfX, product family and platforms, green product development process, set-based concurrent engineering, and design for sustainability and environment have also been used. Simulation and optimization, risk management, and quality tools such as FMEA and QFD, systems thinking, and modeling, such as causal loop diagram and group model building, and functional and modular designs have also been used. Most of the articles used principles of eco-design, circular economy, and lifecycle assessment to support the inclusion of sustainability aspects during product development. These categorizations and articles that relate to the categories are presented in Figure 8 and

Table 3. Base methods and articles describing them.

Base Method	Articles
Eco-design	Yang et al., 2014 [61]; Albæk et al., 2020 [5]; Rossi et al., 2022 [57]; Favi et al., 2024 [2]; Schöggl et al., 2017 [17]; Ferreira et al., 2021 [76]; Mathieux et al., 2014 [86]; Kamalakkannan & Kulatunga, 2021 [65]; Hallstedt et al., 2023 [8]; Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]; Wang et al., 2020 [11]; Rossi et al., 2024 [80]; Baptista et al., 2018 [73]
Circular economy	Picatoste et al., 2022 [68]; Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021 [69]; Kravchenko et al., 2021 [66]; Hapuwatte et al., 2022 [83]; Omodara et al., 2023 [81]; De Kwant et al., 2021 [56]
Sustainable product development	Schöggl et al., 2017 [17]; Hallstedt, 2017 [55]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2022 [52]
Circular product development	Albæk et al., 2020 [5]
Sustainable manufacturing	Zhang et al., 2015 [13]; Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021 [69]; Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]
Triple bottom line	Raoufi et al., 2017 [82]; Sarancic et al., 2022 [72]
Green product development process	de Medeiros et al., 2018 [59]; Mutingi et al., 2017 [75]
Lifecycle assessment	Sansa et al., 2019 [24]; Majerník et al., 2023 [4]; Rossi et al., 2022 [57]; Hung et al., 2020 [77]; Ferreira et al., 2021 [76]; Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]; van der Schoor & Göhlich, 2023 [14]; Vimal et al., 2022 [39]; Wang et al., 2020 [11]
Lifecycle inventory	Eastwood & Haapala, 2015 [19]
Lifecycle engineering	Favi et al., 2024 [2]; Oliveira et al., 2021 [78]
ISO 14062 [88]	Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]
ISO 14045 [89], ISO 14044 [90]	Majerník et al., 2023 [4]
LCC	van der Schoor & Göhlich, 2023 [14]
VDI 2221 [91]	van der Schoor & Göhlich, 2023 [14]
DfM, DfMA	Eastwood & Haapala, 2015 [19]; Mesa et al., 2018 [64]
Design for environment	Albæk et al., 2020 [5];
Design for sustainability	Schöggl et al., 2017 [17];
Remanufacture	Kim & Moon, 2017 [63]
Design for dismantling	Mathieux et al., 2014 [86]; Tian & Chen, 2014 [70]
Lean DfX	Baptista et al., 2018 [73]
Product family, platform	Yang et al., 2014 [61]; Kim & Moon, 2017 [63]; Mutingi et al., 2017 [75]; Yu et al., 2015 [62]
Product configuration	Badurdeen et al., 2018 [23]
Multi-objective optimization	Badurdeen et al., 2018 [23]; Kim & Moon, 2017 [63]
Model-based	Bertoni et al., 2015 [85]
Analytic Hierarchy Process	Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]
Analytic Network Process	Menon & V, 2021 [58]
Causal loop diagram	Watz & Hallstedt, 2018 [6]
Virtual prototyping	Favi et al., 2024 [2]
SBCE	Hallstedt, 2017 [55]
Axiomatic design	Chen et al., 2015 [84]
FMEA	Schulte & Knuts, 2022 [9]
QFD	Menon & V, 2021 [58]; Yu et al., 2015 [62]
Environmental Failure Mode Effective Analysis (EFMEA)	Vimal et al., 2022 [39]
Environmentally Conscious Quality Function Deployment (ECQFD)	Vimal et al., 2022 [39]
Group model building	Watz et al., 2022 [54]
Functional product, sustainability, simulation, and optimization	Sas et al., 2017 [53]
Requirements management	Watz & Hallstedt, 2022 [52]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2018 [37]
Unit process modeling	Eastwood & Haapala, 2015 [19]

.

This analysis reiterates the challenges raised in similar research that there is a plethora of tools developed by different researchers to support sustainability initiatives. However, their practical application may be limited, as each method targets a particular maturity of the product and a particular development phase and requires pre-existing knowledge or expert skills. There is also a lack of methods supporting production development activities. A framework that can combine or present a way of working, taking the best out of these methods, can be beneficial.

5.4. Stakeholders Targeted by the Methods

Product development is a complex cross-functional activity involving all the departments in a manufacturing firm, such as R&D, production, and supply chain [27]. It is interesting to link the distribution of the articles with the PD phases to the intended user. Distribution of the article against its intended users is presented in Figure 9 and

Table 4. Target user group in the articles. (* represents articles which did not mention the user explicitly but was grouped based on understanding developed while reading).

User	Articles
Business stakeholders, company-level, cross-functional teams	Sas et al., 2017 [53]; Broman & Robèrt, 2017 [10]; Kravchenko et al., 2021 [66]; Hannouf & Assefa, 2018 [79]; Schulte & Hallstedt, 2018 [51]; Watz & Hallstedt (2020) [38]
Managers	Menon & V, 2021 [58]; Vimal et al., 2022 [39]; de Medeiros et al., 2018 [59]
Design engineers and product managers	Baptista et al., 2018 [73]
Design engineer	Yang et al., 2014 [61]; Badurdeen et al., 2018 [23]; Sansa et al., 2019 [24]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2018 [6]; Hassan et al., 2017 [7]; Bertoni et al., 2015 [85]; Albæk et al., 2020 [5]; Rossi et al., 2022 [57]; Zhang et al., 2015 [13]; Favi et al., 2024 [2]; Hapuwatte & Jawahir, 2021 [69]; Kim & Moon, 2017 [63]; Ferreira et al., 2021 [76]; Kamalakkannan & Kulatunga, 2021 [65]; Hallstedt, 2017 [55]; Hallstedt et al., 2023 [8], Wang et al., 2020 [11]; Schulte & Knuts, 2022 [9]; Kulatunga et al., 2015 [21]; Watz & Hallstedt, 2022 [52]; Watz et al., 2022 [54]; Tian & Chen, 2014 [70]; van der Schoor & Göhlich, 2023 [14]; Chen et al., 2015 [84]; Suresh et al., 2016 [74]; Yu et al., 2015 [62]
Design and manufacturing engineers	Eastwood & Haapala, 2015 [19]; Omodara et al., 2023 [81]
Production	Hapuwatte et al., 2022 [83]
Non-experts	Raoufi et al., 2017 [82]
Design engineer *	Oliveira et al., 2021 [78]; Haber & Fargnoli, 2022 [71]; De Kwant et al., 2021 [56]; Mutingi et al., 2017 [75]; Rossi et al., 2024 [80]
Cross-functional teams *	Picatoste et al., 2022 [68]; Hung et al., 2020 [77]; Schöggl et al., 2017 [17]; Mathieux et al., 2014 [86]; Mesa et al., 2018 [64]; Sarancic et al., 2022 [72]

. The majority of the articles (26 in number) were intended towards the design engineers. Six articles had intended users as business stakeholders or company-level cross-functional teams, three were intended towards supporting managers, and one article focused on design engineers and product managers. One article [83] stated that it is aimed at production engineers, and two articles focused on design and manufacturing engineers [19,81]. There were a couple of articles that explicitly stated that it was intended for cross-functional teams. There was also a focus on how to support non-experts to work with sustainability aspects. Some articles did not explicitly state who the intended user was, but have been grouped into design engineers and cross-functional teams based on the understanding developed about the method during detailed reading of the articles. These are marked “*” in the Table 4 and the Figure 9.

Around 50% of the articles were intended for use by design engineers. It can be identified from the data that there is a lack of support for other stakeholders, especially stakeholders such as production, to identify and communicate their sustainability-related requirements during product and production development. Product and production development is a collaborative process, and hence, focus should also be given to methods facilitating cross-functional collaboration while working with sustainability requirements. Also, it is necessary to identify the intended users in the method for better applicability.

6. Discussion

This section discusses the method used for conducting the systematic literature review and the discussion on the findings of the review. The method discussion highlights the key aspects that contribute to the validity of the study. The discussion of findings brings together the results of the different studied themes and ends with research opportunities.

6.1. Discussion on Method and Quality

The purpose of this paper was to understand the methods and supports that exist for transferring sustainability aspects and indicators into technical requirements during product and production development, and identify the challenges and opportunities. This was done using the structured literature review method. Quality of the search was ensured throughout the literature review process by basing it on the processes described in literature review guides and other peer-reviewed literature review articles [40,42,92,93,94]. The search string was formulated through a scoping review for keyword identification and multiple iterations and checked using control papers to ensure its quality. It consisted of four search blocks related to the purpose of the search. Block 1 included terms related to the domains of the study, block 2 focuses on the domains of green transition and sustainability, block 3 focuses on the aspects or criteria, and block 4 focuses on the methods and requirements. The search focused on the period from 2014 to 2024, and the results were filtered using inclusion and exclusion criteria. These criteria were based on other peer-reviewed articles, as well as brainstorming among the authors. Multiple authors were involved in the screening and selection process of the articles to avoid bias.

Booth et al. [40] state that external validity can be ensured through generalizability or applicability, and internal validity can be ensured through avoiding systematic errors and bias. The search process ensured this. Inclusion of multiple iterations of the search string to ensure its quality using control papers, multiple authors in the process, tools such as Rayyan AI for the blind screening process, pre-decided inclusion and exclusion criteria, and an alignment among the authors by sample screening the same 25 articles ensured internal validity. Analysis of the articles showed that they had a widespread geographical distribution across multiple industries, contributing to the generalizability and applicability. This ensures external validity.

The search criteria, screening, and snowballing resulted in the selection of 56 articles that presented methods and inputs for working with sustainability aspects during product development in manufacturing and industrial house building sectors. The selected articles were then analyzed against the three domains of interest for the study–product development, production, and requirements management: support for different stakeholders, what different base methods were used to understand the overlay of the support, and how good the support is for working with sustainability aspects as technical requirements.

This review, though extensive, has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the inclusion criteria were articles in the period 2014–2024, which means there may be a risk of earlier relevant works being missed. Also, the review was limited to the manufacturing sector. There may have been related work in other areas that could contribute to this work. The focus on journals and conference proceedings, the English language, and a single database are other areas of potential limitation. Scopus was selected as the database for the review because it was acknowledged in other peer-reviewed work as comprehensive and included studies indexed in other databases. Though the possibility of missing key articles is limited, it is possible that some publications not covered by journals and conferences could have been missed.

6.2. Discussion on Results

The literature study intended to understand the methods and supports that exist for transferring sustainability aspects and indicators into technical requirements during product and production development, and identify the challenges and opportunities. The selected articles were analyzed based on the three domains of interest in the study: product development, production development, and requirements management, the base methods used, and the beneficiary stakeholders. This was done to understand how the methods supported these themes and to identify any potential drawbacks. This section discusses the key findings, both current advantages as well as potential opportunities, and ends by combining the opportunities and gaps identified in these themes by presenting research strands for future research.

• Theme 1: Predominantly focusing on product development, not production development or co-development.

Analysis of the domains in Section 5.2.1 and Section 5.2.2 revealed that most of the methods focused on the product development perspective. Though the search string included domains of production development and co-development, the search did not identify articles that solely discussed and supported these. There is more support in the early phases of development. Production aspects were considered for the assessment of concepts and not for proactive consideration of sustainability requirements driven from the production development domain. Forty articles focus on product development, 12 consider production aspects within product development, and one article considers product and production development. To meet the sustainability demands, cross-functional integration is needed in the development process. Support is needed to consider requirements from both the product and production development domains proactively.

• Theme 2: Lack of requirements management-based supports/Sustainability requirements critical, but how is it managed?

The importance of integrating sustainability aspects into product requirements so that product development and manufacturing firms can contribute to sustainability is highlighted in the literature [52]. Requirements management process consists of discovering, eliciting, developing, analyzing, verifying, validating, communicating, documenting, and managing requirements [34]. Though requirements play a key role in the success of a product development project, considering sustainability aspects as requirements during development is lacking. Only four articles utilized the requirements management domain to support working with sustainability aspects. Also, the elicitation of requirements during early phases is only one step in the process. There is continuous development of the requirements as more knowledge is gained as the development process progresses and more stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, as well as the necessity to verify and validate these requirements. This is also essential as one of the major challenges identified in integrating sustainability aspects into the development process is the trade-off challenge, which should be considered alongside traditional requirements. Hence, a framework for sustainability requirements management based on requirements management principles, considering the evolving nature of sustainability requirements during development, is needed.

• Theme 3: More support for design engineers; requirements from other stakeholders?

Product development is a cross-functional activity that involves stakeholders from different product development phases. Stakeholders involved in a sustainable value chain can be both internal and external, such as production, purchase, suppliers, regulators, who pass laws and policies, and also actors, who support the extended value chain [24]. Stakeholder analysis showed that the methods were predominantly focused on design engineers, and support for other stakeholders in working with sustainability aspects should be improved. There were also methods focusing on cross-functional stakeholders such as management, product designers, and sustainability managers to support them with decision-making and trade-offs during development [53,66]. Methods that support creating a common understanding in the organization and assessing the level of sustainability compliance were also developed [6,38,54]. Support for production planners considering the dynamic nature of the production system and production planning aspects to evaluate product sustainability perspective, which can be used to predict the best product design alternative, was presented by Hapuwatte et al. [83]. A method for product sustainability assessment at the process level for comparing design alternatives to assist design and manufacturing decision-makers [19] and a checklist-based method with questions related to manufacturing and other lifecycle aspects to assist product designers, manufacturers, and product users in sustainability assessment [81] were also presented. There was also a method for supporting non-expert engineers and engineering students in understanding product sustainability during the design phase [82].

The supported stakeholders were more from the front end of the development process, especially design engineers and management. Though there are methods supporting other stakeholders, it is mostly for product assessment. A lack of support for them to proactively assess sustainability-related aspects connected to their domain and bring them to the development process was identified. Support is needed to bring all these actors together during the development process and provide opportunities for collaboration for sustainable co-development during the entire product lifecycle.

• Theme 4: A Large variety of tools is suitable for each development phase, but are they connected?

Analysis of base methods revealed a plethora of tools and methods supporting different phases of product development. This was in line with the challenges identified in the literature [14]. There are methods supporting the early phases of development for gathering sustainability, focusing on creating a common understanding of the sustainability aspects. Methods for stakeholder requirements identification [24], building group understanding and requirement specification [52], and converting customer requirements to design requirements [58] were presented. Methods supporting development phases focused on concept selection, product configuration, and assessment using LCA, FMEA, and DFX tools. Each method/tool served a purpose that was needed in that particular phase of development and may not be possible to replace. However, the large number of different tools can limit their applicability in a practical scenario due to resource and knowledge limitations. Also, the dynamic nature of sustainability aspects due to changing regulations, customer needs, or developing technologies is seldom considered in these methods. A framework connecting sustainability requirements, requirement dynamics and maturity, available tools, product and production maturity, and development phase can provide clarity in the process of collaborative sustainability decision-making.

• Theme 5: Potential for platform approach identified, butis its ability to support sustainability knowledge reuse utilized fully?

The development paradox of more freedom of change, higher impact, lesser cost, and low knowledge during early development phases has been highlighted in the literature, and the utilization of knowledge, a systematic way of knowledge sharing and competency building in sustainability, is required for success [8,77]. The lack of formal representation of manufacturing also limits the sustainability assessment of the manufacturing process [13]. Product families and platforms have been identified as an effective way of capturing and reusing knowledge. Product family concepts have been used from a product configuration and assessment perspective [61,63,75], but not from a sustainability knowledge reuse perspective. Effective reuse of the four assets of platforms: components, processes, people, and knowledge [95], can enable effective resource utilization and better decision-making during early product development phases. This knowledge of reuse can support less material consumption as modules can be shared, better-quality products can be produced, accurate information can be used for LCA calculations, and the reuse of production or assembly systems can be enabled. Hence, utilization platform thinking for product and production co-development for long-term sustainability goals is an interesting research opportunity. This can also include extended product lifecycle and how it changes the platform planning and development process.

• Theme 6: End-of-life requirements: Are they considered reactively or proactively?

Focus on sustainability necessitates that all lifecycle phases of a product are considered. The product lifecycle phases can be categorized into concept, development, production, utilization, support, and retirement [96]. Previous sections discussed how the methods identified during the literature study address product development and production phases. It is also important to consider phases after sales, such as the use phase and EOL phases, during product development.

The articles based on LCA, consider end-of-life aspects, but more from a material recovery perspective, which has been discussed by multiple authors [6,24,57,76,77,79,85]. EOL strategies, such as reuse and remanufacturing, have been considered by [23] in their multi-lifecycle-based approach to solve product configuration design problems. Circularity strategies such as upgrade, repair and maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacturing, repurposing, recycling, and recovering are considered in the Concept Circularity Evaluation Tool [5]. The product platform approach used by Yang et al. [61] aimed at improving the EOL performance of the product by considering reusability and recyclability using the modular design method [63] for sustainable product family configuration. Yu et al. [62] considered recyclability and reusability as design objectives in their method to incorporate QFD with EOL product family issues. Methods such as the checklist of Sustainable Product Development [17,69] and TONF guidelines [66] considered EOL aspects. Mesa et al. [64], in their methodology utilizing DFMA, highlighted the positive impact of minimizing components and parts on EOL by reducing the disassembly difficulty and supporting the disposal, recycling, and reuse of components. Suresh et al. [74] and Vimal et al. [39] calculated the carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidification, and total energy consumption of different phases of the lifecycle, including EOL. The product sustainability assessment tool presented in [81] considered EOL lifecycle stages for performing a comparative sustainability assessment of product variants. Menon and V [58] in their method, considered EOL and Extended Producer Responsibility as design requirements in the house of quality. Use and maintenance, and EOL aspects, in terms of energy and material perspectives, were also considered [37].

Though EOL has been considered in the methods, it is mainly used for the comparison between different variants, identifying aspects such as material recovery or assessment of sustainability performance. Extended producer responsibility, as well as circularity strategies, can give rise to new stakeholders at EOL, whose requirements should also be considered during early product development phases. Combining with Theme 3, a gap identified is the need for support to identify as well as consider stakeholders at EOL and their requirements during the product–production development.

• Summary: The need for requirements management support for sustainability aspects across stakeholders.

Sustainability aspects should be included at the product and business strategy level, considering inputs from all lifecycle phases [12]. This should then trickle down to the different phases of the development process. It is important to combine different tools to work with sustainability aspects, as a single tool cannot fulfil the purposes of the different lifecycle phases [8]. Also, the EOL strategies, such as remanufacturing and disassembly, should be considered during early PD phases. The complexity of production processes can lead to higher environmental impact [11] and should be considered early phases of development [83]. Requirements form the central portion of any development project, and the importance of using requirements management has been highlighted. However, the methods do not clarify how to convert the different sustainability aspects to technical requirements, manage tradeoff challenges, manage different sources, and trace the sustainability requirements along the different product lifecycle phases, and need to be improved. Also, the methods tend to focus on the initial part of the requirements management process involving discovery, elicitation, development, analysis, verification, and validation. Equally important is the communication, documentation, and management of the requirements for trade-off analysis, as well as change management, considering the dynamic nature of sustainability knowledge and requirements in a product development project.

The gaps identified previously—lack of focus on sustainability requirements from other stakeholders such as production and EOL actors, a large number of methods and tools, and not utilizing platform thinking for knowledge reuse—may lead to the omission of critical aspects during early development phases. Sustainability aspects are multi-dimensional, with factors such as environmental, economic, and social aspects, changing regulations, and different metrics for different stakeholders. This, along with the difference in product development lead time, production system lifetime, and product longevity, adds uncertainty to managing sustainability requirements. Strategies taken to meet the sustainability demands on the product domain, such as changes in material or support for circular strategies, can affect the production processes and supply chain. Not considering potential impact areas during early product and production development can result in a need for changes in later phases, which may be difficult and costly. A single tool or method may not be able to fulfil all the functionalities needed and may have been developed to meet specific goals and objectives or based on the company’s existing processes. Considering this, any method developed to alleviate this should consider the dynamic nature of sustainability aspects, knowledge, stakeholders, and tools and methods in the different development phases of product and production systems. Based on the themes and findings described above, the research opportunities identified from the literature study can be summarized, as there is a need for support that helps to capture the sustainability aspects from different sources, support the stakeholders at different lifecycle phases to formulate their requirements as technical requirements, trace, track, and manage its evolution along the lifecycle process, and bring it to the early development phases and use the potential of product platforms for knowledge reuse and support co-development. This research framework is represented in Figure 10 below.

The product development process has steps of pre-study, specification, concept development, system-level design, detailed design, production engineering, and production. Similarly, production development has phases of pre-study, specification, concept development, concept evaluation, detailed design, and system realization. These phases result in the production of products, after which the product is used and reaches end-of-life. Present scenarios necessitate that the knowledge related to use and end-of-life phases should also be included during the development phases. There is an increase in knowledge and requirements as the product and production systems mature, and the requirement management loop of discovering, eliciting, developing, analyzing, verifying, validating, communicating, documenting, and managing the requirements should be carried out at each phase for stakeholder needs alignment. Having a common sustainability requirements database can support this process, storing the information related to the requirements, product families, requirement stakeholders, and the phase of the development process. This iterative process is also a great source of knowledge and should be captured effectively to enable reuse in future projects. The sustainability requirements database at the bottom of the figure aims to do that. It is important to consider the dynamic and iterative nature of the sustainability requirements in the development process. The information from the requirement database can be used to feed into the specific sustainability-related tools for that phase, such as environmental QFD and LCA. This is represented by the subscript of sustainability requirements and tools in the figure. Subscript “sp” represents specification stage, concept development is represented by “c”, system level design is represented as “sy”, “d” represents detailed design and “p” production.

The evolving nature of the requirements, together with the requirements from production, use, and EOL phases, is stored in the database. This can be utilized in the subsequent projects. Linking the sustainability requirements to product platforms can enable this reuse by organizing them as an asset and understanding which modules are affected. This information can be used to identify the stakeholders concerned who should be part of the requirements management process. A hypothetical example for this can be a product being designed for use in extreme weather conditions that needs to have sealants and permanent joints, which can affect the assembly process and end-of-life treatment. The requirements database can be used to identify such focus areas and bring together the stakeholders early on in the development process. Stakeholders such as production, purchase, and other EOL stakeholders can use this database to plan for their future process improvements and also proactively identify where the product changes can impact them. Thus, the research framework aims to support the stakeholders, such as design engineers, production engineers, and purchase and EOL stakeholders, to proactively be part of the sustainability requirements management process and enable a common information flow to support various tools by supporting requirement reuse.

Three research strands are identified to achieve the research framework. These are listed below. Further development and evaluation of the framework is part of the future work.

• Support for stakeholder collaboration: The first research strand focuses on facilitating stakeholder collaboration to identify, define, and share the sustainability requirements proactively. Managing the sources of requirements and conversion of sustainability aspects to technical requirements, while managing issues related to traceability and trade-offs, is also a part of this.
• Development of the requirements management support: The second strand focuses on developing a support for capturing sustainability requirements, enabling reuse, connecting the different tools and methods based on the development phases and maturities. Also, it enables stakeholder collaboration by serving as a sustainability knowledge database while providing a structured way of working with the requirements.
• Development of the support for product-production co-development for long-term sustainability goals: The product and production systems have different lifecycles. With the focus on end-of-life aspects, the production systems should be able to support multiple generations of products. Also, the factors for producibility assessment, such as ease of assembly, may need to be replaced with ease of disassembly, repair, or remanufacture. This will necessitate the manufacturing firms to make early decisions on the vision for the product portfolio and production systems. The framework can support this long-sighted plan by giving the information and enabling stakeholder collaboration.

7. Conclusions

Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfil their needs. With increasing pressure from laws, regulations, and consumers, manufacturing firms are placing greater emphasis on sustainable product development. It is important to consider sustainability aspects from different lifecycle phases during early development stages, and an integrated approach is needed to achieve this. However, there is a lack of knowledge and guidance to address sustainability risks. Challenges also include an overwhelming number of tools and methods to work with sustainability aspects during development, creating difficulty in practical implementation.

There is a need for tools, methods, and support to enable stakeholders to better understand sustainability impacts and requirements. This systematic literature review was conducted to identify the methods and supports that exist for transferring sustainability aspects and indicators into technical requirements to support product and production development. The steps for the literature review are described in the Methodology section (Section 3). A total of 56 articles were selected and analyzed after a rigorous screening process, and the methods presented in those articles were categorized based on their intended purposes, development phase, and users to clarify their scopes and identify the gaps in available support.

The results indicated that most existing methods target product development, with limited support for production development and co-development of product and production systems, and potential for utilization of requirements management processes. These are described in the Findings and Analysis (Section 5) and Discussion (Section 6) sections. Furthermore, most of the methods focused on design engineers, while other stakeholders in the development process lacked adequate support to identify and communicate their sustainability-related requirements. This gap can lead to the omission of key sustainability aspects across different phases of the product lifecycle during the development process.

There is a need to assist stakeholders throughout the product lifecycle in specifying sustainability requirements and managing and prioritizing them while facilitating knowledge reuse. Analysis of the data suggests that a requirements management-based framework could unify different methods and streamline the integration of sustainability aspects during product and production development. To address this need, this study proposes a research framework with three research strands in the Discussion section (Section 6). The novelty of the paper is that the proposed framework brings together the sustainability requirements from different lifecycle phases into a database from which it can be used as input to different development phases and particular tools supporting that phase. This can also promote sustainability knowledge reuse. Also, the importance of stakeholder collaboration during the requirements management process, considering the evolving nature of the requirements and alignment for product-production co-development, is considered in the framework. This framework forms the base for the next phase of the research work, focusing on further development and evaluation.