Identifying the Characteristics of Sustainable Design System: A Survey Study

Abstract

To achieve triple bottom line sustainability, a system requires a balance of its social, economic, and environmental axioms. This multi-dimensional system has multiple stakeholders with different objectives acting within the system, leading to an increased level of complexity. Product design is an area with significant potential to achieve sustainable development, which is also influenced by policies. Product designers/managers and policymakers have been identified as critical stakeholders within this complex system, and their decisions directly affect the transition toward sustainable product design. However, these stakeholders have different perspectives on sustainability, and there is a lack of understanding of the main characteristics of a sustainable design system and its requirements. This research aims to find a detailed and unified understanding of these stakeholder’s perspectives, practices, and requirements. An online survey investigated the views of engineers/managers and policymakers in the United States to find their definitions of sustainability, their assessment methods, drivers, and barriers of sustainability. Finally, the participants were asked to identify their requirements for a sustainable design tool that can assist them effectively in designing a sustainable product. Considering the exploratory nature of this study, a targeted sample of 50 participants was selected to capture in-depth, qualitative insights, enabling a nuanced understanding of this complex system. The open-ended questions were designed to obtain detailed responses, which were analyzed qualitatively to develop a comprehensive view of the current state and future requirements for sustainable design tools. This targeted approach allowed the study to probe deeply into each stakeholder’s frame of reference, facilitating the identification of critical factors for a successful transition to sustainable design in both industry and policy. The results identified the critical factors that contribute to a successful transition toward sustainable product design in industry and policies while the requirements found in this study provided a road map to meet the diverse needs of these stakeholders.

1. Introduction

Current global challenges, such as climate change and resource depletion, have caused socio-cultural changes toward achieving sustainability during the past decade. International organizations such as the United Nations (UN) [1] and companies worldwide have identified strategic goals in their road maps for a sustainable future [2,3]. In recent years, there has been an observable transition pattern toward adopting sustainability principles and a circular economy (CE). Moreover, systematic socio-cultural forces are reshaping the market demand for sustainable products, customer behavior, and end-of-life decisions of consumers. While considering sustainability, there are three primary axioms of importance: environmental, social, and economic, as highlighted by the triple bottom line (TPL) notion [4]. Specific definitions included in each of these three dimensions of sustainability are shown in Figure 1. This holistic perspective on sustainability emphasizes the collaboration of multiple stakeholders and balances these axioms in achieving sustainability by maximizing the positive socio-economic impacts while minimizing the environmental impacts. This systemic shift is thought to be enabled through CE practices. However, researchers have concluded that there is a weak link between CE and sustainable development, and instead, CE is mostly an avenue for economic prosperity [5]. These issues are due to the complexity of a sustainable system where challenges arise while attempting to balance the three axioms of sustainability to simultaneously achieve the specific value forms. The stakeholders of this system have goals that conflict with each other, and it requires a delicate balance and innovative technological, political, and cultural solutions to reconcile these competing interests.

The UN has developed 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) that follow the TBL concept and serve as a comprehensive framework to address the world’s most pressing challenges for creating a sustainable future [1]. Considering the life cycle of products and their environmental, social, and economic impacts, sustainable design of future products can significantly contribute toward achieving SDGs. Nearly 80% of the product’s sustainability impact could be considered and managed in the design phase [7,8]. This identifies engineering designers/product managers as the critical stakeholders within the system, and their early design decisions are crucial in creating a sustainable future. In addition, politicians have significant leverage in the system to activate reinforcing loops that can change the system’s behavior toward balancing sustainability dimensions [9,10].

Engineering designers and policymakers require collaboration and specific decision-making tools to provide an adequate level of analysis to analyze the sustainability of their decisions. One of the main challenges in sustainability is the lack of consistent definitions and the subjective perspective of stakeholders toward this topic [11,12]. Moreover, the drivers and barriers of sustainability and the role of each stakeholder need to be defined to enable systematic changes toward sustainability [13]. The literature shows the rapid development of sustainable principles to assist product designers over the past decade; however, their acceptance and adoption among designers remain limited [14]. Design for sustainability, eco-design, sustainable design methods and tools (SDMTs), and environmental assessment tools are all methodologies that have contributed to sustainable product design in recent years [15,16]. Despite the advancements made through these methods, there is a lack of a practical holistic framework for sustainable product design [17,18].

To address these challenges in sustainable development, the definition of sustainability needs to be cohesive and consistent among the stakeholders to ensure the system is moving toward the same objective. Moreover, the current sustainability assessment methods must be identified along with the barriers and drivers of sustainability. The existing sustainability assessment tools and techniques must be investigated, and the user’s requirements for a holistic, sustainable design tool must be specified. Then, the main unknown is the stakeholders’ requirements for a sustainable design tool that meets their needs for successful transition and adaptation of sustainability principles. This research aims to investigate the complexity of sustainable design systems and study the definition, assessment, drivers, barriers, roles, and requirements of a sustainable decision-making tool for engineering designers and policymakers in the United States.

Toward this goal, this research addressed the following research questions:(1) What criteria should guide the definition of a consistent understanding of sustainability among stakeholders to promote a unified approach? (2) How do product engineers/managers and policymakers perform sustainability assessments in their current practices? (3) What are the drivers and barriers of sustainable development, and what roles does each stakeholder have in this system? (4) What are the specific requirements for a sustainable decision-making tool for product engineers/managers and policymakers? A survey questionnaire was designed to answer these research questions.

This research investigates critical aspects of sustainability to enhance understanding of the current state of this complex system and propose a way for moving toward sustainable product design. The findings from this study can inform and improve sustainable practices in different industries and policies by providing a comprehensive understanding of critical stakeholders’ perspectives, assessment methods, and decision-making tools. The results obtained from this study identify the main characteristics of the sustainable design system while providing an actionable road map to successfully transition toward sustainable product design.

The following sections of the paper provide a background of the relevant fields, a description of the methodology used for the research, findings derived from the survey data, and a comprehensive discussion and conclusion.

2. Background

This section includes the background of sustainability in design and policies by focusing on the previous studies on sustainable development.

2.1. Sustainable Design

Design is often defined as a creative pursuit in which individuals have the autonomy to navigate through various possibilities and make choices that align with their vision [19]. The classic approach to product design encompasses four key stages: planning and problem definition, conceptual design, preliminary design, and detailed design. In each stage, product requirements, including quality, functionality, and cost, have traditionally been recognized as the principal criteria, shaping the design decisions [15,20]. After defining the problem, the subsequent stage involves analyzing ideas for the product’s functional conceptual design, identifying design specifications, and proposing alternative design concepts. In the third stage, these concepts are carefully evaluated and compared to select a product configuration to move forward. The final detailed design stage entails subjecting the concept chosen to further analysis and optimization. Several methods have attempted to integrate sustainability considerations into these traditional design processes, primarily prioritizing sustainability factors as essential upfront requirements.

The emergence of new terminologies to refer to sustainable design practices has increased in recent years. Design for sustainability (DFS), design for environment (DFE), sustainable design methods and tools (SDMTs), eco-design, sustainable life cycle design (SLD), partial sustainable product design (P-SPD), and sustainable product design (SPD), are all found in the literature, and each has its contributions and limitations in its approach toward sustainability. The main difference between these methods is that they focus on specific aspects of a product’s sustainability or life cycle phases. Even though these methods and tools strive toward the same goal (sustainability), few have sustainability principles encompassing the full TBL at their core [15,21]. For example, DFE typically focuses only on manufacturing or use phases in the product life cycle and seeks to minimize only environmental impacts. On the other hand, some eco-design tools can cover the entire life cycle of a product, but their prioritization is still on environmental metrics [22,23]. SDMTs are guided tools that assist designers in considering environmental and/or social measures in the product design phase. While there are more than 600 SDMTs, they are not widely utilized and lack economic considerations of sustainability [24]. DFX includes approaches that consider specific product life cycle phases during design, where “X” stands for manufacturing, use, end-of-life, etc. [25]. However, DFX focuses on one phase at a time and revolves around economic factors rather than environmental and social aspects of sustainability. These tools enable an in-depth product analysis and provide a quantifiable solution for sustainability improvements.

Devanathan et al. examined 30 eco-design tools and classified them into three categories: life cycle assessment (LCA)-based tools, quality function deployment for environment (QFDE) tools, and checklist-based tools [26]. LCA is the most commonly used tool that quantifies the environmental impact of each stage of the entire product life cycle. However, it requires highly detailed final product data and manufacturing plans to evaluate end strategies for end-of-life (EOL) products. QFDE mainly incorporates environmental objectives into the product design by employing the “house of quality” (HoQ) while specifically incorporating environmental criteria. Current tools and methodologies for sustainable product life cycle and design are critical for improving product sustainability. Researchers point out that integrating technical, environmental, social, and economic criteria in sustainability assessment is a new perspective, and methodologies and approaches such as eco-design and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) are essential in utilizing these methods [27]. Suppipat et al. have identified four central challenges of applying simplified LCA tools in sustainable design: the need for guided instruction, the availability of the database, the complexity of a study product, and the overlooking of social dimensions [28].

Product designers continue to seek direct, practical, and efficient approaches to minimize the environmental impact of their products [29]. Previous research anticipated that practitioners would continue to use many different methods depending on the context or combine elements from various practices in an opportunistic manner [30]. Overall, the challenges faced by the designers in balancing sustainability in design are as follows: (1) there are numerous tools and methods available, and choosing the right tool to address sustainable design effectively is difficult; (2) many methods and tools are built around specific problems that may not be suitable for other product domains; (3) most tools focus on the environmental aspect of sustainability, and therefore economic and social considerations are overlooked; and (4) the link between design decisions and environmental impact does not exist and therefore direct decision support toward design recommendations is lacking. To address these challenges, the integration of available tools can be beneficial to identify and quantify the dependencies between design decisions and parameters contributing to environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

2.2. Sustainable Policies

The current state of sustainable policies follows the associated societal concerns about climate change. Different countries are developing policies to balance the environmental and economic factors and ultimately improve quality of life. These policies include adjusting economic structure, reforming energy policies, enhancing the environmental industry, and international cooperation and public participation [31]. Previous research identified the importance of a holistic approach toward policymaking and formalizing its life cycle [32]. Regarding products, market-based, informative, regulatory, and voluntary policy instruments have been identified to impact the system outcomes. Roberts et al. pointed out that a policy mix method can affect the upstream and downstream factors while impacting the behavior of different stakeholders [33].

There is a need for implementing sustainable design theory in business practices [34]. The policies that can enhance the adoption of a circular economy have been pushed in recent years; however, there are complex challenges about competing objectives in these policies [35]. Boulanger et al. identified six modeling techniques to assist policymaking in sustainable development. These are macro-econometric models, computable general equilibrium (CGE), centralized optimization models, system dynamics, multi-agent simulation models, and Bayesian networks [36]. Despite the various benefits of these modeling methods, many theoretical and methodological challenges still need to be addressed before effective utilization in sustainable development [36].

The current limitation in sustainable policymaking is the lack of uniform standards that leads to fragmented policies. These policies are also designed to be sector-specific, resulting in insufficient collaboration to implement a circular economy effectively. The complex nature of sustainability in this context requires a unified approach between stakeholders and identifying their needs. Then, policies can be effectively directed toward leverage points in the system to overcome the challenges and push toward a successful transition to sustainable development.

3. Methodology

This study approaches the complex multi-dimensional problem of understanding the critical characteristics of a sustainable system by utilizing a survey study method. The methodology developed to meet the objectives of this research is summarized in Figure 2. A cross-sectional survey using structured questionnaires that aligns with the research objectives has been selected. The survey questionnaire has been designed for two distinct groups of participants: product managers/engineers and policymakers. These stakeholders have been identified as critical stakeholders/actors in a sustainable design system where their roles and decisions have direct impacts. They are essential in the implementation and transition of sustainable design in industries. The general framework of the surveys has the following four themes: sustainability definition; sustainability assessment; sustainability drivers, barriers, and stakeholder’s roles; and sustainability tool requirements. Open-ended questions were chosen for the survey to allow participants the flexibility to share detailed insights, making a qualitative approach the most suitable for capturing the breadth and depth of perspectives required. Considering the complex nature of the sustainable design system described, and the distinct perspectives of these stakeholders, this method enables a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing sustainable design. The qualitative approach utilized in this research facilitates in-depth analysis, providing rich data essential for identifying key elements and requirements of sustainable design tools, even within a smaller, focused sample.

For the qualitative analysis of the survey results, a systematic approach was employed to examine each response individually, allowing for a deep, nuanced understanding of the data. This process began with open coding, where each response was read carefully, and key phrases or concepts were highlighted to capture initial themes and ideas. As responses were analyzed, similar concepts were grouped together to form codes, which were refined and consolidated into broader categories based on patterns in stakeholder perspectives. Next, axial coding was used to explore the relationships between these categories, helping to identify core themes across the data that aligned with the study’s key focus areas: sustainability definitions; assessment criteria; drivers and barriers; and tool requirements. This stage of analysis aimed to reveal connections between participants’ viewpoints, showing how various factors influenced each other. Ultimately, the results were synthesized to provide a cohesive overview of each stakeholder group’s frame of reference.

The sustainability definition section of the survey is aimed toward a general idea of how these stakeholders define sustainability and whether their definition is aligned with the triple bottom line (TBL) concept. Then, the sustainability assessment part of the survey investigates the details of the methods and tools implemented by these stakeholders. Through questions, it is evaluated whether these stakeholders have a complete life cycle approach toward evaluating sustainable products or focus on a specific life cycle phase of the product. Then, the participants were asked about the tools and methods they used in their current practices and how sufficient they think these tools are. In addition, they have been asked to elaborate on why they agree or disagree about the sufficiency of these tools. The sustainability assessment section also includes the stakeholder’s description of quantitative and qualitative information they consider.

The drivers and barriers of sustainability were identified using multiple-choice questions and an option to describe other barriers or drivers that are not included. This survey section aims to reveal the detailed perspective of what these critical stakeholders consider significant contributors to sustainable design drivers and barriers. Moreover, considering the complexity of a sustainable design system, the participants were asked to describe the role of management, government, the general public, and any other stakeholder the system has. Identifying the stakeholder’s role in this system helps to develop an idea of the expectations and responsibilities of each group toward achieving an ideal sustainable future.

The last theme of the survey focuses on determining the stakeholders’ requirements for an ideal future sustainable design/policy tool/method. The questions have been designed to find the mechanism of this hypothetical tool, what the inputs and outputs of this tool would be, and the level of guidance it provides. The result of this analysis would provide a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder’s requirements and expectations for a future sustainability tool that can be successfully implemented within their practices.

The online survey-making tool Qualtrics has been used to provide the participants with a link to answer the survey questions and collect the data [37]. This online platform also secured the confidentiality and privacy of participants’ responses. This data collection method was chosen for its efficiency, the ability to reach a geographically diverse sample, and to accommodate the broad range of participants from different industries in the United States. Participants in the survey were recruited from various industries and sectors, including those directly involved in sustainable design practices and policies. To motivate participation, a USD 25 gift card incentive was offered to each participant upon completing the survey. This incentive was provided to acknowledge the time and effort invested by participants in contributing to the research, and it was approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) of Stevens Institute of Technology.

In addition to the four main themes of the survey, participants were requested to provide demographic information at the end of the questionnaire. This information included age, gender, educational background, professional experience, and the industry in which they were employed. Gathering demographic data allowed for a more comprehensive analysis of the survey responses. The collected survey data were analyzed in detail using quantitative and qualitative methods. Qualitative responses were examined through content analysis, categorizing, and coding open-ended responses to extract meaningful insights. The quantitative analysis includes the demographics questions analysis to understand the characteristics of the participants in each stakeholder group.

This research complied with ethical principles during the data collection process. Participants were informed about the purpose of the survey, their rights, and the confidentiality of their responses. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in this study. This study also obtained ethical approval from the IRB at Stevens Institute of Technology. The survey questionnaires designed for product engineers/managers can be found in Appendix A, and for policymakers, you can refer to Appendix B for a detailed look at this survey format.

The qualitative methods used to analyze the results focused on understanding the perspectives of engineers/managers and policymakers towards sustainability in product design. These methods included content analysis of open-ended survey responses, which allowed for the extraction of themes related to definitions of sustainability, sustainability assessment practices, barriers and drivers to sustainability, roles of various stakeholders, and requirements for a sustainable design tool. The qualitative analysis enabled the identification of common viewpoints, differences, and specific needs across stakeholder groups, leading to a detailed understanding of the complex system of sustainable design. This approach facilitated the exploration of attitudes towards sustainability, highlighting the importance of regulatory requirements as a driver, the need for comprehensive and user-friendly sustainability tools, and the critical roles of management, government, and the general public in fostering sustainable practices.

4. Results

The results of the survey data collected are presented in this section. The data were collected from 50 participants who answered the survey questionnaires; 36 were categorized as product engineers/managers, and 14 were policymakers. The number of participants was sufficient due to the qualitative method of analysis selected for this survey study. The age distribution for each category of participants is demonstrated in Figure 3, reflecting diversity in professional experience and career stages.

The gender, race, education, and political affiliation of product engineers/managers are shown in Figure 4 and for policymakers in Figure 5. The demographic data show a gender imbalance among product engineers/managers, of 75% men, while policymakers had equal gender representation. Most participants identified as White, with higher education levels, and Democrats were the predominant political affiliation in both groups.

A comprehensive look into the characteristics of the participants in each category is illustrated in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The product engineers/managers were primarily in manufacturing (28%) and middle management roles (47%), with most located in the northeastern US (46%), particularly New Jersey and New York. The participants in the policymakers category were evenly distributed across government and technical services (21% each), mainly in upper management (50%) and located in California (36%), reflecting a diverse but context-specific participant sample. It is important to note the relevance of the participant sample for the United States context. Because 46% of participants in the product managers/engineers group were located in northeastern states, their responses can not be generalized to the entire group; however, this aligns with the qualitative methodology of the study providing in-depth insight.

4.1. Definition of Sustainability

The survey responses from product engineers/managers revealed a broad and interconnected understanding of sustainability definition among this category’s perspectives. By analyzing these responses, four main themes were identified following the TBL concept of sustainability. Firstly, many of the participants relied on the Brundtland report’s sustainability definition that “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [38]. This mainstream definition of sustainability emphasizes the importance of responsible use of resources and long-term wellbeing with an inter-generational perspective. The second theme within the survey responses focuses on balancing economic growth, environmental protection, and social wellbeing and finding the equilibrium between present needs and future considerations. In the third theme, the participants also associated sustainability with environmental consciousness and the importance of responsible management of natural resources to minimize the negative impacts on ecosystems. Finally, the product engineers/managers recognized sustainability as a holistic approach to integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions and ensure the long-term viability of products and processes. Overall, these identified themes emphasize that the participant’s perspectives aligned with the TBL concept of sustainability.

Some of the responses from the policymakers also referred to the Brundtland report’s definition of sustainability; however, they also emphasized the social aspect of sustainability through human health, vitality, and society’s overall wellbeing. A common theme among the participants’ answers is focusing on the environment and minimizing the negative impacts. Some participants were specific about water quality, land use, and ecosystems, and some provided generalized answers about preserving the planet and controlling the climate. However, several participants described a holistic definition of environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

The responses from the participants were categorized into four major groups, social, economic, environmental, and triple bottom line, and its results are demonstrated in Figure 8. The analysis of participants’ responses shows that from their perspectives, the concept of sustainability is mainly associated with environmental impacts rather than social and economic impacts; however, this is followed mainly by a holistic definition (TBL) of sustainability, aiming to balance all three aspects of sustainability. The social and economic aspects of sustainability received equal importance for product engineers/managers, but the policymakers emphasized the social dimension of sustainability more than the economic one.

4.2. Sustainability Assessment

The sustainability assessment section of the survey questionnaire is divided into six modules: evaluation of sustainable products; tools and methods; implementation; considerations; and quantitative and qualitative sustainability assessment methods. The results of this part of the survey study are presented in the following sections, which follow the described survey methodology.

4.2.1. Evaluation Methods

In this section of the survey, the participants were asked to describe what they consider to evaluate the product’s sustainability, which resulted in a wide range of approaches from both groups. The responses from product engineers/managers pointed toward specific evaluation methods such as life cycle assessment, resource efficiency, carbon footprint, durability, and health and safety. Other important factors included where and how a product is made, the materials used, and its ability to be used in different ways without breakdown (durability). The two groups of participants highlighted the importance of social, economic, and environmental aspects while stressing the significance of complying with the regulations. In addition, recycling, reusability, and minimizing environmental impact throughout the product’s life cycle emerge as recurring criteria. The policymakers’ key considerations include the local impact of manufacturing on shipping, carbon footprint, resource management, emissions, energy efficiency, water consumption, and ecological benefits. Moreover, they emphasized the importance of the products’ global value chain, longevity, and repairability. Some policymakers also mentioned specific factors about packaging, the amount of plastic used, and ethical sourcing of materials.

The responses from both groups were categorized into six general categories, which corresponded with the life cycle phases of a product and whether they considered two/more life cycle stages and complete life cycle phases. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 9, which shows that most participants have a holistic consideration while evaluating product sustainability. This means these stakeholders tend to focus on all or more than one product life cycle stage in their evaluation. This is followed by considering the materials and end-of-life phases of the product for the product engineers/managers group; however, few participants focused on the product’s use phase.

4.2.2. Sustainability Tools

More than 60% of participants in both groups utilize tools or methods in their current practices, whether in policies or product design. Product engineers/managers who do not use these tools made up 22.2% of the group compared to the policymakers at 14.3%. The product engineers/managers who responded “yes” to this question described their reason for utilizing sustainability tools and methods as mainly identification of areas of improvement, ensuring balance, decision-making support system, building trust with the consumers, attracting investments, environmental responsibility, regulatory compliance, and to understand the overall impact of their products. The policymakers identified efficiency, guiding decision-making, helping businesses understand their social, economic, and environmental impacts, and ensuring the high impact to support their conviction as the reasons for utilizing tools and methods. Those who responded “unsure” to this question described their reasons as not being aware of sustainability tools and methods, sustainability tools not being related to their role, or sustainability being new in their organization/company. Moreover, the participants who responded “no” to this question identified sustainability as not being part of their current procedures, insufficient training, and high cost as the main reasons for not utilizing the existing tools and methods in their practices.

In the next section of the sustainability assessment, the participants were asked to describe/identify the most common methods and tools to assess or guide sustainability. Figure 10 demonstrates the most frequent tools and methods identified by both groups of stakeholders. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been highlighted as the primary sustainability assessment method for both groups, with product engineers/managers highlighting sustainable material management tools and policymakers focusing on carbon footprint and energy efficiency. While standards and regulatory compliance tools were widely emphasized, methods like Lean, eco-design, and biomimicry have had little utilization within these groups.

4.2.3. Implementations

The next phase of the survey explores whether stakeholders feel sustainability is sufficiently implemented in their practices, with responses shown in Figure 11. While most participants, particularly policymakers, agreed to some extent, a notable portion of product engineers/managers expressed disagreement, indicating room for improvement despite overall positive perceptions.

The product engineers/managers who agreed described their reasons as they have incorporated sustainability in their practices, sustainability is part of their requirements, and they assess their practices while obtaining feedback. The participants who somewhat disagreed described their choice as while they tried to consider sustainability, they think there is still room for improvement. In addition, those who opposed described their reason for not incorporating sustainability in their practices: they are still learning about it and believe what has been accomplished is insufficient.

The policymakers who agreed described their reasons as their continuous effort on environmental policies and conservation (minimizing energy and harmful greenhouse gas emissions, transportation), improving corporate brand value through sustainability, enhancing people’s quality of life, recycling, and ethical use of products. A few participants who somewhat disagreed pointed toward sustainability not being the main focus in their practices, and primarily, they work on policies to encourage sustainability.

4.2.4. Considerations

This survey section investigated how these stakeholders consider sustainability in their practices. The product engineers/managers group mainly focused on viewing sustainable materials in product design. Other factors include energy efficiency, minimizing waste and pollution, sustainability standards and goals, product durability, and collaborations with eco-friendly suppliers. Few responses had the significance of specific tools and methodologies such as life cycle assessment (LCA), design for disassembly (DFD), continuous improvement, and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). The policymakers consider sustainability in their current practices primarily by focusing on energy efficiency, sustainability policies, and minimizing environmental impacts by reducing waste and pollution. In addition, they emphasized exploring strategies to shift towards clean energy, evaluate greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and promote the use of ecological products and technologies. This was extended by land use changes, public investments for reducing greenhouse gas impacts in transportation, and aligning policies with net-zero pathways.

The wide range of responses collected from the stakeholders emphasizes the multi-level and diverse perspectives on sustainability. While most product engineers/managers focus on the materials and sustainability goals, the policymakers primarily focus on energy efficiency and sustainable policies. These efforts are considerable in terms of sustainable development and show a commitment from these stakeholders; however, there are still challenges in choosing the most sustainable materials and the best policy to shift toward clean energy.

4.2.5. Quantitative Assessment

To further investigate the sustainability elements considered in the current practices, the participants were asked to specify quantitative information they consider while evaluating sustainability. The keywords identified from the survey responses regarding quantitative assessment are demonstrated in Figure 12. Both groups highlighted resource consumption—energy, materials, and water—as key sustainability factors, with product engineers/managers focusing on energy use, material properties, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions. Policymakers shared similar priorities but emphasized sustainability KPIs and voluntary labeling programs, reflecting a broad yet resource-focused approach to sustainability across participants.

4.2.6. Qualitative Assessment

The responses about qualitative information considered by both groups of participants covered many social and economic factors. A generalized look into the results is demonstrated in Figure 13. The product engineers/managers have identified end-of-life considerations (reuse, repair, and recycle) as the most significant factor, followed by social impacts, eco-friendly materials, and user functionality. The other crucial qualitative information includes innovation, supply chain transparency, ethical sourcing, energy and resource reduction, stakeholder engagement, and long-term sustainability visions. Policymakers emphasized human comfort, economic development, energy burden, life cycle thinking, and stakeholder engagement as key sustainability factors. Their responses highlighted balancing profit and environmental protection, understanding supply chain social impacts, and considering qualitative aspects like aesthetics, social responsibility, and ethical values.

4.3. Barriers, Drivers, and Roles

This section of the survey aims to analyze the significant barriers and drivers of sustainability and investigates the roles of stakeholders in a sustainable product design context.

4.3.1. Barriers for Sustainability

The product engineers/managers group have identified the significant barriers to sustainability as costs (financial constraints), lack of awareness, lack of sustainable design tools, and lack of sustainable materials. These challenges are followed by important factors such as complex supply chains, resistance to changes in their organizations, prioritization of profit and growth over sustainability, lack of education, regularization, and supportive policies. In addition, a few responses include a lack of affordable alternatives, circular economy limitations, technical barriers, time limitations, and the fast-paced nature of corporate decision-making, which often impede the invention of new sustainable processes. Based on the input of product engineers/managers, sustainability is usually not considered or prioritized in their company’s goals and practices.

The policymakers have emphasized the lack of policies that incentivize sustainable development, lack of education and regulations, and required data as significant barriers to sustainability. Other critical challenges include financial limitations, lack of authority, lack of investments, legacy capital expenditures, lack of sustainability tools, and over-consumption. Some participants also focused on the global supply chain system’s complex nature, making it challenging to monitor and trace along with cheap material and labor systems in global regions. In addition, similar responses, such as profit and growth prioritization and resistance to change in organizations, along with consumers’ reluctance to pay more for sustainable products, have been identified by policymakers as significant challenges. Policymakers highlighted the importance of appropriate market mechanisms, effective regulation, and enhancing consumer education and awareness to overcome these barriers. One participant also described, “While it may cost more to produce sustainable products, those costs will come down over time. Companies are not making this transition because they do not fully comprehend how much sustainability is factored into the decisions of their customers”. In addition, notable factors such as lack of aggressive federal and state policies, lack of specified roles, and lack of dedication to implementing sustainable principles were mentioned by participants as barriers.

Then, both groups were given eight categories of barriers to sustainable design and asked to select what they think are the significant barriers. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 14. The complete list of these eight items can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B. According to the results of this survey section, the product engineers/managers have selected a lack of awareness about sustainable design tools in their organizations as the main barrier to sustainability. In addition, policymakers identified that conflicting with or detracting from other business objectives (e.g., profits) aresignificant challenges that must be addressed.

4.3.2. Drivers for Sustainability

This part of the survey aims to reveal the driving forces that push toward sustainability from the perspective of these stakeholders. The customer’s goals alignment, reflecting the growing demand for sustainability in various markets, access to markets prioritizing sustainability, and the need to mitigate potential risks associated with non-sustainable practices, brand image, and regulatory compliance, were identified as sustainability drivers by product engineers/managers. On the other hand, policymakers have specified credit rating impacts due to ESG compliance, cost savings, equity, and regulatory compliance. They also noted the importance of big brands’ roles and financial influence in prioritizing sustainability goals and highlighted the need for more explicit objectives.

The participants were asked to select what they think are the main drivers of sustainability from their perspective between seven options (refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for complete list of options). Figure 15 represents the number of responses for each category of drivers, and both groups of participants identified the current or future regulatory requirements as the most significant drivers of sustainability. The product engineers/managers have stressed the importance of environmental/ecosystem concerns, human health and wellbeing concerns, market demands, and cost savings. The policymakers have identified the importance of market demands or desire to attract new customers and cost savings as the main drivers. Both categories of participants recognized values regarding social justice and future resource availability as the main drivers for sustainable development.

4.3.3. Role of Stakeholders

After identifying the main barriers and drivers, the participants were asked to specify what roles different stakeholders, such as management, government, and the general public, have toward adopting more sustainable design practices. Concerning the management, both groups of participants have pointed out the crucial role of this stakeholder. The product engineers/managers described the role of management as being able to set the direction, goals, and vision for sustainability, establishing sustainability as a core value and integrating it into practices, allocating resources, providing support, making informed decisions, and leading organizational cultural change. Moreover, the management’s commitment to sustainability was essential in motivating teams to comply with sustainability requirements and ensure that sustainability practices are integrated. The policymakers also specified management as having a significant impact on adopting sustainable design practices through setting the organizational philosophy, providing resources and support, and providing competitive costs.

Both participant groups have also highlighted the importance of government roles in sustainability. Most product engineers/managers believe government policymakers should implement regulations, standards, and incentives to encourage businesses to adopt sustainable design practices. These roles include setting industry standards and making it more accessible for companies to request sustainable design consulting. Additionally, they can help make sustainable design more economically viable and encourage investment in research and development by providing tax incentives and other financial benefits to companies that utilize sustainable practices. Different government roles described in these responses include investing in education and awareness, market transformation, promoting eco-friendly procurement, stakeholder engagement, implementing emissions reduction targets, and monitoring them. Furthermore, some participants (product engineers/managers) have indicated that the government should have a medium or no role in this sustainable transition and that corporations should be left alone with this decision.

While there are differences in the extent to which the government should be involved, the consensus is that the government could potentially enable sustainable design adoption by industries through implementing regulations and incentives that promote environmental and social responsibility, drive innovation, and create a market for sustainable products. The policymakers have also identified the government as an essential stakeholder in providing support such as tax credits, grants, and rebates through incentives and guidance. The other vital roles policymakers recognize include environmental regulations, education and awareness, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable decision-making.

The participants also described the role of the general public as critical within this system by making informed purchasing decisions prioritizing sustainability, thereby creating demand for sustainable products and influencing companies to adopt more sustainable practices to meet this demand. The product engineers/managers specified the general public’s role as awareness, education, and advocacy for encouraging sustainability. In addition, consumers can provide company feedback, support sustainable brands, and promote responsible practices. While individual convenience and other factors such as cost are essential, public demand, community engagement, and support for environmental policies have been identified as contributing factors to the overall role of the general public. Few responses indicated the medium or small role of the general public in sustainable design adoption and pushed for the idea that other stakeholders (management) make these decisions.

The policymakers have also emphasized the importance of the general public in driving policies and decisions with their opinions. They also highlighted the general public’s role in education and awareness while implementing and embracing sustainability principles. The general public can encourage the adoption and utilization of sustainable design practices through their purchasing and voting decisions, which create market demand and signal their preference for sustainability. Overall, the consensus among participants is that the general public can transition industry practices and support sustainability through their purchasing decisions.

The participants were then asked to identify any other stakeholders beyond management, government, and the general public, and investors and financial institutions have been identified as stakeholders that can incentivize and drive sustainable practices by influencing capital allocation. The product engineers/managers have identified suppliers and manufacturers, industry associations, professional organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and environmental organizations that can advocate for sustainable policies, regulations, and best practices as essential stakeholders to influence adopting sustainable practices. In addition, employees and media platforms have been mentioned, which can play a significant role in demand and promoting sustainability within organizations and society.

Moreover, the policymakers recognized labor unions that advocate for preferred rates and training in environmentally friendly “green” jobs, NGOs, interested organizations, advocacy groups, and lobbyists that push for sustainable policies and practices as the stakeholders influential in a sustainability transition. They pointed out the importance of educational institutions’ roles in increasing awareness to promote sustainability. Other stakeholders include environmental and social NGOs, financial institutions, upstream off-takers, retailers, feedstock providers, and industry interest groups. The international partners have the potential to influence this transition, mainly through tariffs and multilateral agreements that can encourage more aggressive domestic sustainability goals and company policies.

4.4. Requirements of Sustainable Design Tool

This survey section explores the requirements of a sustainable design tool from the perspectives of product engineers/managers and policymakers. The objective is to clearly understand the stakeholders’ needs through the tool’s mechanism, inputs and outputs, and the required level of guidance. The data collected through the survey questionnaires are described below.

4.4.1. Mechanism

A wide range of specifications concerning how an ideal sustainability tool would work were collected through the survey responses. Product engineers/managers described a sustainable design tool that is an integral tool accessible to everyone and integrated quickly into company processes. They required the tool to list past, current, and future projects, highlighting sustainability initiatives. Some participants indicated the importance of a team of sustainability experts leading the implementation of sustainable design, following key performance indicators (KPIs). Many requested comprehensive sustainability reports that include metrics like carbon footprint, water footprint, and social impact assessment. The tool’s visualization, real-time insights, and user-friendly interface features have been specified as essential. Other participants described the tool’s mechanism as a global database including materials supported by all suppliers, encompassing different actors that conduct multi-criteria assessments with a holistic approach, analyzing accurate data from internal and external sources. One participant listed an interactive dashboard that can guide users through the sustainability implementation process as the sustainable design tool they need. Another response proposed a tool encompassing a database collection using machine learning to identify patterns and opportunities for sustainability improvement. In addition, responses described that the tool should integrate a life cycle assessment to suggest sustainable choices, measure environmental and health impacts, and improve environmental awareness through a holistic life cycle assessment (LCA) integrated into design processes. Overall, the product engineers/managers are describing a user-friendly, AI-powered, and integrated tool that promotes continuous improvement and sustainable choices in design and manufacturing activities.

On the other hand, the policymakers’ vision of how an ideal sustainable design tool would work was a bit different. They described a web browser add-on or a cell phone app that offers an interactive user experience applicable to all ages. This tool should include the involvement of all stakeholders and incorporate risk assessment, life cycle assessment (LCA), benefit–cost analysis, and economic service valuation. The key features identified by the policymakers include open source, flexible, customizable, and adaptable tools designed to help users think through specific challenges and opportunities with a transparent underlying methodology, citing original research and model inputs. The participants have highlighted the importance of the stakeholder’s advocacy and integration of this tool into the educational systems to enhance awareness and understanding. In addition, they explained that the method used in this tool should be data-driven, presenting evaluations visually to facilitate user understanding and decision-making. It is required that the tool function as an aggregator of high-quality net zero climate models, utilizing all-in-one LCA with weights and a multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) for sustainable pathway identification. Another participant suggested an app for consumers to catalog every product, including estimated energy and cost savings, aligning to make sustainability assessment easy for the general public.

4.4.2. System Input

The participants were asked to describe what inputs they believe should be used for their ideal sustainable design tool. The inputs found by product engineers/managers included various information, including project information, details and constraints, target values (project goals), design parameters, weight, size, expected lifetime and application of the product, and energy and water usage. Utilizing and the importance of real-time data from used products and services, supply chain information (materials or manufacturing origin), information on operation, upfront costs, and waste production have also been highlighted in the responses. The product engineers/managers have specific requirements to input Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models of their product, material information (their particular grade and details), and transportation data as a feature that would accelerate the integration of this tool into their current practices.

The policymakers’ perspectives concerning the inputs differed from product engineers/managers. While some pointed out similar items such as project information, sustainability opportunities, goals, and material used, others indicated the importance of inputting the online link of the product (e.g., from Amazon), cost assumptions, incentive opportunities, design choices, and social impacts quantified in numbers. One participant identified the need and ability of the user to customize the inputs and use various available data specific to their product. Moreover, the particular inputs identified by the policymakers included key performance indicators (KPIs), design parameters, manufacturing, transportation, and energy information of the product.

4.4.3. System Output

Both groups of participants have also explored the outputs expected from this ideal sustainable design tool. Most product engineers/managers required the tool to generate outputs that include rankings compared to previous designs, recommendations for material and manufacturing best choices, defined metrics, carbon and water footprints, and a sustainability performance report. The impact visualizations and analysis, life cycle assessment results, holistic sustainability score, regulatory compliance, and user feedback were also identified as essential parts of the output. Moreover, they emphasize the importance of an environmental impact breakdown for each life cycle phase, including sustainable design options and improvement suggestions. This type of output would aim for the user to identify the changes that can have the most considerable impact in reducing the environmental effects and options that can enhance the brand image. Other participants highlighted the importance of considering social consequences, such as healthy and cost-effective choices for consumers, while others primarily focused on a comprehensive set of outputs to guide sustainable decision-making in product design and management.

The most common outputs desired by the policymakers group include a holistic sustainability score for products, sustainability solutions and recommendations that align with the economic goals, and a graphical representation of the impacts and KPIs. Estimated metrics based on uncertainty, a comprehensive sustainability assessment, and a knowledge map for organizing thoughts and feasible options were also among the notable outputs identified by the participants. In addition, visual reports highlighting CO₂ avoided/reduced and transparency measures for consumers that can provide a thorough understanding of the sustainability implications of the proposed solutions were expected by the survey participants.

4.4.4. Level of Guidance

This survey section was designed to understand the participants’ expectations concerning the level of guidance required by an ideal sustainable design tool. The responses ranged from product ratings and comparisons to automated sustainable product design. The product engineers/managers highlighted a comprehensive analysis, including suggestions for sustainability improvement and decision-making guidance, while generating a sustainability report for the product. They required the report to include holistic sustainability metrics, alternative materials, and manufacturing processes that can help improve the overall state of product sustainability. This new sustainability report format can assist the decision-makers on being informed on social, economic, and environmental impacts of their product while exploring the feasible options or alternatives available and their consequences. In addition, they required that the suggestions be based on general principles and best practices relevant to sustainable design. Few participants revealed their desire to have a generative design tool that can automate design, offering ratings for the effectiveness of the process and taking feedback to guide improvements. However, some participants described their expectations as a tool that offers high-level guidance, provides trade-offs, assists in material selection, considers supplier locations, and suggests alternatives. The importance of understanding the user inputs through questions has been highlighted in the responses and step-by-step instructions, ensuring that the tool covers various aspects of sustainability decision-making.

Many policymakers emphasized the significance of decision-making support, providing a holistic view of product sustainability, and the involvement of all stakeholders as the requirements for a sustainable design tool. The participants also mentioned the tool’s ability to support quantitative and qualitative analysis, product comparison, and converting product information into intuitive metrics. While some expected a detailed analysis from the tool, others needed a tool that offers rough estimates with real-world considerations to assess whether a product is on track to achieve net-zero goals and inform consumers about the sustainability aspects of its product. The responses collected in this survey have shown a strong emphasis on sustainability improvement suggestions, optimizations, and a comprehensive and insightful guidance framework.

5. Discussion

This section of the article provides a detailed discussion based on the results obtained from the survey questionnaire responses. This includes the four themes of the survey designed: definition of sustainability; sustainability assessment; sustainability barriers, drivers, and roles of stakeholders; and requirements of a sustainable design tool. The limitations and recommendations are also included in this section.

5.1. Common Ground

The survey results reveal a specific understanding of the product engineers’/managers’ and policymakers’ perspectives toward sustainability. A common theme in the sustainability definition is the reliance of both participant groups on Brundtland report’s definition. This shared understanding provides a baseline for discussions around sustainable design and policymaking. The inter-generational consideration within this definition is an essential factor that can guide our fundamental understanding of sustainability. However, a more holistic definition was also observed, aligning with the triple bottom line (TBL) definition of sustainability. The participants’ recognition of TBL suggests that their understanding of sustainability extends beyond a singular factor and aims to balance the social, economic, and environmental dimensions simultaneously. Within these three domains, an observable emphasis was found that shows the participants’ prioritization of environmental considerations over social and economic aspects for both groups. While acknowledging the importance of environmental stability and preservation by these stakeholders is noteworthy, these findings highlight the need to improve awareness of socio-economic sustainability factors. This is aimed to avoid unintended consequences and conflicting objectives in a complex system.

Overall, the results of this survey provide a common ground between two groups of critical stakeholders that recognize the complexity and multi-dimensional aspects of sustainability and provide more emphasis on environmental factors. The findings provide valuable insights to guide future discussion and decisions, identifying the need for collaboration and a unified understanding of complexities within a sustainable system. This is a necessary step that provides a common ground for effective strategies by these stakeholders for a resilient system that ensures sustainability. The alignment between the definition of sustainability highlights the importance of a holistic approach toward sustainability.

5.2. Current State

The sustainability assessment section of the survey revealed the diverse set of sustainability considerations and evaluation tools currently implemented by product engineers/managers and policymakers. Concerning the product sustainability evaluations, participants show a broad range of criteria, including life cycle assessment results, resource efficiency, carbon footprint, and durability. These evaluation elements correspond to the TBL concept of sustainability; however, policymakers further discussed the importance of local impacts, ecological benefits, and adherence to global value chains. Most participants recognized a product’s complete life cycle in their evaluations, highlighting the importance of a cradle-to-cradle approach to sustainable assessment. In addition, there is a need for improving awareness and clear understanding specific to the product’s use phase, which was considered less than other stages.

Currently, the majority of both groups acknowledged their utilization of sustainability tools in their practices, and their main reasons were identification of improvement areas, support for decision-making, and ensuring compliance. The most common tools utilized by these stakeholders included life cycle assessment, sustainable material management, and adherence to sustainability standards. The participants did not specify the type of material management and sustainability standards; however, the general trend reveals the reliance on tools from both groups of participants. This study demonstrated the critical application of life cycle assessment as a quantitative way to determine a product’s environmental impact.

The mixed views observed about the sufficiency of sustainability in current practices reveal the existing complexities in stakeholders’ views of sustainable design. Many participants agreed on successful integration; however, some product engineers/managers explained that there is room for improvement. These improvements include increasing awareness of sustainable design tools and increasing the effectiveness of available methods. Another difference in sustainability considerations among product engineers/managers and policymakers was detected. While the former focuses on the role of materials and sustainability goals defined, the latter concentrates on energy efficiency and a policy-driven approach. These responses show stakeholders’ critical pathways to approach sustainability and their perspectives on this issue.

Moreover, the survey data underscored the attention of product engineers/managers and policymakers on quantitative and qualitative approaches. The most common quantitative information included material, energy, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. The end-of-life considerations, social impacts, and eco-friendly materials were among the qualitative approaches by product engineers/managers. At the same time, policymakers mainly focus on human comfort, economic development, and life cycle thinking. This highlights the underlying complexity of a sustainable design system and reveals the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach to achieve meaningful progress in sustainable practices. The diversity and multi-dimensional features of the identified factors by these critical stakeholders highlight the importance of holistic approaches toward sustainability that follow the TBL concept. Moreover, analyzing the survey results identifies the need for a sustainable design tool capable of considering these holistic factors.

5.3. Catalysts and Impediments

The investigation of drivers toward adaptation of sustainable design practices shed light on leverage points to guide the sustainability transition. Participants identified regulatory requirements as the most significant catalyst for both groups and highlighted the critical role of governmental regulations in driving sustainable practices. The results show that from these crucial stakeholder groups’ perspectives, regulations are the central leverage point in a sustainable design system. The importance of customer goals alignment, market access, risk mitigation, and brand image have been selected as the other drivers by product engineers/managers. These drivers highlight the significant role of socio-economic factors in the sustainable design transition by focusing on customers and market shares. Meanwhile, policymakers focused on credit rating impacts, cost savings, and equity factors. The pivotal role of social justice, equity, and environmental and human wellbeing concerns are important driving factors that lead to adopting sustainable practices. The results obtained from this analysis suggest that the alignment of corporate strategies with regulatory requirements, addressing market demands, and focusing on cost savings are critical catalysts of this system to achieve sustainability. The role of each stakeholder group in enhancing these elements toward adopting sustainable design practices will be discussed later in this research.

The challenges faced by product engineers/managers and policymakers were revealed by analyzing the barriers to adopting sustainable practices. The responses were categorized into technical, managerial, political, and societal challenges, as shown in Figure 16. The technical challenges include design complexity challenges due to possible changes. These complex supply chains result in traceability challenges, the absence of sustainable design tools and materials, a lack of affordable alternatives, limitations in design for sustainability tools, and a lack of reliable/accurate data that can support sustainable design decision-making. The managerial challenges consist of financial constraints, prioritization of profit and growth over sustainability, lack of passion, resistance to change, the fast-paced nature of decision-making and time limitations, and lack of investment in sustainable design. Regarding political challenges, the participants included a lack of supportive policies, regulations, and authority as the main barriers, along with social injustice and discrimination. The societal challenges include the lack of awareness and education, over-consumption, and the lack of a value system that prioritizes community. These challenges reflect the struggles to implement sustainable design in current practices and serve as a guideline for future sustainable decision-making.

The participants were also asked to identify their barriers within multiple-choice options, providing a more detailed understanding of their perspectives. Product engineers/managers point to the lack of awareness about sustainable design tools within their organizations as the main obstacle, followed by integration difficulties of DfS tools into current industry practices and insufficient training. These responses show the importance of increasing awareness of DfS tools among product engineers/managers and improving the integration features of existing sustainable design tools. On the other hand, policymakers were more concerned with the conflict between sustainability and business objectives, such as profit, and the trustworthiness and effectiveness of DfS tools. The findings point toward the existing gap between the availability of sustainable design tools and their practical applicability or acceptance in industry and policy environments. These challenges should be addressed by introducing user-friendly, integrative, trustworthy, and sustainable design tools and methods. In addition, a sufficient level of education and training must be provided to address organizations’ awareness and skill gaps. These initiatives can potentially improve the integration of sustainable design tools and methods into the current business and policy practices and result in a more sustainable outcome.

Overall, the leverage points that can be the catalyst to transition toward sustainability regulatory compliance, market demand, and cost savings factors, and the main impediments are lack of awareness of DfS tools, difficulties in integrating DfS tools into current practices, and conflicts of sustainable design alignment with business objectives. These findings identify the main characteristics of our current sustainable design system and can assist in developing sustainable strategies, enhancing DfS tools, and implementing new policies and regulations.

5.4. Influential Stakeholders

The management, government, and general public were identified as primary stakeholders in the sustainable design system, and the participants specified their specific roles in adopting sustainable design practices, as summarized in

Table 1. Roles of stakeholder groups in sustainable design practices adoption.

Stakeholder Group	Roles
Management	Set direction and vision for sustainability, foster cultural change, motivate teams, resource allocation, ensure successful integration of sustainable practices
Government	Provide regulations, standards, incentives, support, tax credits, and grants, conduct education and awareness programs, initiate stakeholder engagement initiatives
General Public	Influence through informed purchasing decisions, create demand for sustainable products, support sustainable brands, influence companies to adopt more sustainable practices

. All stakeholder groups have been identified as critical by both groups of participants. The management is responsible for setting the direction and vision for sustainability, ensuring the successful integration of sustainability into organizational practices, and fostering cultural change. Management’s commitment toward sustainable goals is essential in motivating the teams to comply with the requirements while allocating resources and support toward these goals. On the other hand, government roles have been defined as providing support, tax credits, grants, and rebates, as well as implementing environmental regulations, education and awareness programs, and stakeholder engagement initiatives. While there are different opinions on the extent of government involvement, there is a consensus that robust regulations and incentives can enable industries to adopt sustainable design practices.

The general public can enable this sustainable design transition through informed purchasing decisions prioritizing sustainability. Both groups emphasize the role of consumers in creating demand for sustainable products, supporting sustainable brands, and influencing companies to adopt more sustainable practices. For example, growing consumer demand for biodegradable packaging has caused companies to provide sustainable packaging innovative alternatives to replace plastic. These collective consumer actions are highlighted through community engagement initiatives, such as local recycling programs and public support for environmental policies. While few participants suggested the small role of the general public, the majority indicated that they could significantly contribute to driving sustainable practices by providing public demand, community engagement, and support for environmental policies.

Moreover, this research identifies other influential entities such as investors, financial institutions, suppliers, manufacturers, industry associations, NGOs, environmental organizations, employees, and media platforms as critical drivers of sustainable practices. Policymakers also acknowledge the influence of labor unions, advocacy groups, educational institutions, and international partners in this transition. A clear definition of the stakeholders’ responsibilities is necessary for the successful and effective transition toward sustainable design. The systematic changes highlighted in these roles reveal the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration across different sectors and levels of society. These findings provide a crucial guideline for recognizing stakeholder’s expected roles and the depth of their involvement in achieving sustainable design goals.

5.5. Sustainable Design Tool

One of the main objectives of this study is to find the user requirements for a sustainable design tool that can address the challenges described and facilitate the adoption and integration of sustainable design into the current practices. The participants’ responses revealed the stakeholder’s expectations of the mechanism, inputs, outputs, and level of guidance of their ideal sustainable design tool. Figure 17 demonstrates an overall framework of the product engineers’/managers’ and policymakers’ expectations of a sustainable design tool. The participants’ emphasis on the accessibility, compatibility, and integration aspects of this tool highlights the importance of creating a tool that is not isolated and could be part of a cohesive workflow. The level of guidance desired from this hypothetical tool ranged from generative design tools that can automate design processes to high-level estimates; however, the consensus was that it needs to provide actionable recommendations while supporting a comprehensive analysis and breakdown of the socio-economic and environmental impacts to assist the decision-maker. In addition, it needs to support comparison analysis among products.

The inputs for this sustainable design tool are product data, including CAD models, materials data, the expected lifetime of the product, and design parameters. Product life cycle data, costs and financial constraints, waste generated data, energy consumption data, and sustainability targets follow this. These inputs cover a wide range of data that may not be accessible to all users; however, the tool needs to be able to process this information as the initial step of analysis.

Regarding the mechanism, the participants emphasized the importance of accessing a global database that multiple industries and supply chain providers support. The tool needs to integrate life cycle assessment as a core part of its mechanism while considering sustainability’s social and economic aspects. Another critical feature of the mechanism described is an AI-powered tool that utilizes machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict sustainability improvement areas and promote continuous improvement in design and manufacturing activities. In addition, statistical methods need to be incorporated within this mechanism to support decision-making under uncertainties.

The ideal future sustainable design tool must provide a holistic sustainability score that aligns with the triple bottom line concept of sustainability and can aggregate environmental, social, and economic metrics. Considering the analysis performed on the product, the tool is expected to suggest sustainable design alternatives within the financial constraints defined in the inputs. Other output ideas include regulatory compliance indicators, trade-off analyses, and visualization reports that can be explained in a comprehensive sustainability performance report. In addition, a vital aspect of this report is the users’ demand to identify the sustainability improvement area within the product life cycle, its design parameters, and affordable alternatives for them.

The currently available tools have the potential to address some of the requirements described; however, most of them lack a holistic sustainability approach and instead focus on the environmental aspect of products. The results of this survey highlight the complexity of the stakeholder’s expectations and the need for an adaptable, holistic, sustainable design tool that can be successfully integrated into current design practices.

5.6. Limitations and Recommendations

Considering the valuable insights obtained through conducting this survey study, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The first limitation is the discussions rely on self-reported data from both stakeholder groups concerning the potential bias through subjectivity in responses. The results collected from this survey study included diverse participants; however, this might not include the full spectrum of opinions within these stakeholder groups. In addition, this survey does not include the perspectives of other critical stakeholders such as consumers, academics/researchers, and environmental agencies. The investigation and understanding of the sustainability perspective within all these stakeholder groups would provide extensive knowledge of all the stakeholders within this complex system. Future research can expand the number of participants and include more diverse stakeholders. This would utilize statistical analysis techniques to determine the correlations between the participants’ roles and industries and their perspectives on sustainability. Furthermore, it is recommended that future studies expand the participant pool (to other countries) while incorporating a longitudinal study to track the evolution of sustainable design practices over time and provide insights into their effectiveness.

6. Conclusions

This research article aimed to identify macro- and micro-level characteristics of sustainable design systems to provide a road map to implement sustainable product design practices effectively. A survey study was designed to investigate the perspective of product engineers/managers and policymakers, who are considered primary stakeholders. The survey participants included a wide range of industries and experiences in the United States, and the detailed exploration of their responses revealed a complex landscape with challenges and opportunities. The survey questionnaire has four major themes: sustainability definition; sustainability assessment; sustainability drivers, barriers, and stakeholder’s roles; and requirements of sustainability design tools. The sustainability definition responses provided a common ground emphasizing the triple bottom line concept of sustainability. While participants recognized the social and economic aspects of sustainability, they mainly focused on its environmental aspects. The sustainability assessment section of the survey revealed the details of the current state of the sustainable design system. It was found that most product engineers/managers and policymakers utilize sustainability tools in their current practices, and they believe there is room for improvement in these tools. Another finding highlighted the importance of life cycle assessment, sustainable material management, and sustainability standards as the most common methods currently implemented. In their assessment, the major quantitative factor to consider is resource consumption (energy, material); qualitatively, they focus on end-of-life choices and the social impacts of products.

The challenges identified by participants, such as financial constraints and resistance to change, highlighted the existing barriers within corporate structures to prioritize sustainability. These findings revealed the need for simultaneous balancing of economic and environmental aspects of sustainability. On the other hand, the lack of awareness and education underscored the existing socio-political challenges in this system. In addition, the main driver for adopting sustainable design has been regulatory compliance between both groups, which can be used as a leverage point to accelerate the transformation of system behavior. To address the identified impediments, management roles have been described to set direction and vision for sustainability and provide support and resources. In addition, the government needs to provide regulations, standards, and incentives, while the general public needs to influence the system through sustainable purchasing decisions.

To successfully implement these findings into actionable industry practices and policy frameworks, the stakeholders are required to develop and adopt standards that emphasize implementing quantitative sustainability considerations into product design practices. In addition, policies need to aim toward tackling identified barriers to sustainable design practices and create goal-oriented incentives for organizations. Meanwhile, both industries and government need to invest in awareness campaigns and training programs that can address the lack of awareness and ease the transition toward sustainable design implementation.

The survey on sustainable design tools provides a road map for the development of tools that can bridge the gaps and address the diverse needs of stakeholders. Both product engineers/managers and policymakers envision tools that are user-friendly, transparent, and capable of providing comprehensive sustainability assessments. The differences in their preferences underscore the importance of flexibility and adaptability in designing tools catering to various user groups. The emphasis on real-time data, interactive experiences, and holistic metrics in these tools aligns with the broader global trends focusing on transparency and accountability in sustainability practices. Both groups of participants highlighted the need for a sustainable design tool that can be integrated easily into the current practices while considering social, economic, and environmental sustainability. This research identified the main characteristics of the sustainable product design system and provided a foundational road map that reveals what is the current state of the system, where we want to be in the future, and what each stakeholder can do to achieve it.