Proceedings of EcoDesign 2013 International Symposium
Developments in European Ecodesign Policy and the Prospects for
Design for Sustainable Practices
Ida Nilstad Pettersen1, Conny Bakker2
1
Department of Product Design, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
2
Design for Sustainability (DfS) Program, Department of Design Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Abstract
European ecodesign policy is currently bringing material resource efficiency into focus. This paper explores how and to what extent policy addresses sustainable consumption-related issues, and what the consequences may be for the future role of design in supporting sustainable everyday consumption. How will policy help and hinder designers and others in creating change? The paper focuses on the prospects for practice-oriented design, which sees resource consumption as happening in and for the sake of social practices. It first introduces design for sustainable practices as currently explored in academia, highlighting features that distinguish it from ecodesign. Secondly, it turns to policy to describe and assess relevant instruments and envisaged changes. Based on that, and informed by practice theory and literature on the impact of policy on innovation, it discusses the potential impact of ecodesign policy on the prospects for design for sustainable practices. Finally, the paper turns the question around and asks what a practice-oriented policy might look like.
Keywords:
Sustainable consumption, design for sustainability, practice theory, ecodesign policy
1 INTRODUCTION
A number of design scholars are currently concerned with what the role of design could be in supporting sustainable consumption. As design theory lacks suitable understandings of the role of resource consumption and the interaction between humans and technology in everyday life [1], researchers have turned to the behavioural and social sciences for theoretical support. Also in response to the position that fundamental change to production and consumption patterns is needed to achieve global sustainable development [2, p. 13], practice theory has been put forward as relevant. It captures the social role of consumption and sees technologies as important mainly in terms of the practices they make possible [1, 3]. Advocates of the value of practice theory to design hold that acknowledgment of the social construction of expected service levels can help identify ways of reconfiguring what is done and supporting change in dramatically less impacting directions [4, 5].
While potentially paving the way for more radical innovation, the feasibility of adopting this way of thinking and making in design and business practice has so far received less attention. As input for the on-going exploration of what practice-oriented design might entail, given the role of legislation in driving the implementation of sustainability criteria in design and innovation activity [6], this paper sets out to examine how and to what extent policy stimulates the targeting of consumption-related
environmental impacts in industry. It is primarily concerned with the direction in which sustainable design and innovation-related public policy is geared and what consequences that may have for a prospective design for sustainable practices. The announced shift in focus of European public policy towards increased emphasis on resource efficiency issues such as reusability and recyclability makes this a particularly topical issue. The paper concentrates on integrated product policy (IPP) tools such as the Ecodesign directive, and takes TVs, entertainment practices and the industry catering to them as examples. It first gives a brief overview of how use-related impacts are targeted in ecodesign, before introducing practice-oriented design. Next, it moves on to the policy domain to describe relevant instruments. Based on that, and, given insights from practice theory and literature on the impact of policy on eco-innovation, it assesses the potential impact of current and future policy on the prospects for design for sustainable practices, and asks what a practice-oriented policy might look like.
2 FROM ECODESIGN TO DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES
2.1 Ecodesign and the targeting of use-related
environmental impacts
Design research into the role of design in supporting sustainable consumption is partly motivated by an insight
for long recognised in ecodesign. There, the mapping of environmental impacts and prioritisation of efforts relies on the lifecycle perspective: ‘Ecodesign considers environmental aspects at all stages of the product development process, striving for products which make the lowest possible environmental impact throughout the product life cycle’ [6, p. 37]. As an example, one may take a specific TV as the starting point, and map the impacts associated with it based on defined system boundaries and a functional unit outlining the function of the system, including a scenario of use and an estimated lifespan. Issues particularly relevant to resource use levels do then include equipment types, as in display technology and size, the intensity of use, as in light output levels, the duration of active mode use, and the product lifetime. For frequently used resource-consuming products and services, the use phase often generates the largest negative environmental impacts. This has traditionally been addressed by making technology more efficient. As it becomes more efficient and the relative negative contribution of the production phase increases, the logical response becomes to gear efforts at reducing that. At the same time, the ways in which products and services actually are used create variation in the size of the impact attributable to them. Building on the lifecycle perspective, some approach the latter by trying to eliminate what is ‘unnecessary’ and ‘inefficient’ relative to what are taken to be user goals, for example a TV being on without being used, and create ‘energy efficient users’ [7, p. 1].
Strategies taking the use of single products or services as the starting point and service levels for granted do however at best open up for incremental impact reductions, missing out on the opportunities for radical change thought needed [8]. Increased efficiency does also not always result in reduced energy use. The potential gains may be offset by rebound effects, through ‘a behavioural or other systemic response’ [9, p. 86].
Critics hold that a focus limited to the interplay between single products and users misses out on the social and situated role of consumption, and thus the systemic dynamics also associated with rebound effects [5, 10]. The clear scope and simplified scenarios required in ecodesign to be able to make calculations and prioritise efforts or evaluate alternatives imply that other issues are left out of sight. Systems designed from such a viewpoint, to eliminate ‘inefficient’ behaviours, may break down when facing the complexities of everyday life [10]. Against that background some suggest that to cope with a complex issue like sustainability it is relevant to concentrate on practices rather than single products, users or interactions.
2.2 Towards design for sustainable practices
Practice theory focuses on ordinary everyday consumption, seeing it, also the environmentally significant one [3], as taking place ‘within and for the sake of practices’ [11, p. 145]. In contrast to the ecodesign focus on optimising the delivery of expected service
levels, practice theory directs attention towards those service levels – what is considered normal, and how they vary across space and over time [12].
Reckwitz [13] describes a practice as a routinized type of behaviour made up of several interconnected elements. He lists these as ‘forms of bodily activities, mental activities, things and their use, background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how and notions of competence, states of emotion and motivational knowledge’ (p. 249). Pantzar and Shove [14] operate with the three overlapping categories material, image, and skill. The practice of entertainment or watching TV may consist of physical and digital components such as a TV, speakers, remote controls, content types, formats and infrastructure, but also body parts and practical knowledge about when to watch or engage with what, why and how to do that, as well as where and with whom. No practice can be reduced to any of these elements however [13]. It is their integration in practice that matters, and from which the services people are after, for example enjoyable experiences, emerge. Practice theory emphasises the embodied and materially mediated but also the social character of human activity. While practices are internally differentiated and subject to local experimentation and improvisation [11, 13], what is done is taken to be organised around ‘shared practical understanding’ [15, p. 2]. Conventions guide what is done and are both reproduced and transformed in the repeated performance of practice. Together the single performances constitute entities, meaning practices have a history and trajectory of development with consequences for what happens next [3, 16].
Practice theory may function as a starting point for assembling or developing tools and approaches for gathering information and developing means for change, while drawing on existing resources. For design, it is relevant that changes in practice may come about and potentially be supported, but with unpredictable outcomes, at different levels. This may range from incremental changes in practice elements or the relations between them to the disruption of existing or establishment of entirely new practices [14]. A practice lens thus makes it possible to move beyond efficiency improvements relative to expectations. For example, rather than shifting focus from use to production when the relative contribution of the different lifecycle phases change, one may direct attention towards the dynamics of acquisition and disposal, to study what dynamics lie behind the purchasing of ever more stuff and the disposal of equipment that still works. First, a better understanding of the dynamics of practice may give insights as to how to intervene with and gear the development in new directions. Such an understanding may be gained by studying the actual performance of practice now and over time: By exploring what elements practices consist of, what understandings, procedures and types of engagement are involved, how different practices relate to and influence each other, and how they form, are
reproduced and die out over time [3, 11, 14]. This requires access to new kinds of data, from quantitative data on time and resource use patterns now and over time, to qualitative data on the situated performance of practice [17].
Further, and with regards to the opportunities for actually intervening with the development, it is an important point that innovation is seen as a ‘collective accomplishment’ [14, p. 457]. While producers such as TV manufacturers can make practice components available and promote them and the links between them, practitioners make the integration in practice happen [14]. This does in turn have certain consequences, for example with regards to what actors to involve and approaches to apply. Scholars explore the opportunities for coupling practice theory with approaches that allow for the involvement of different kinds of actors, and the creation of settings in which they can come together to experiment, learn and build networks, such as co-design [5] and backcasting [18]. In summary, a turn from products or interactions to practices implies a shift in focus to what the resources are used for. This requires attention to system-level dynamics, and acknowledgment of the fact that change will always be happening, and that attempts at gearing change in new directions will be associated with uncertainty.
3 PUBLIC POLICY
3.1 The European context: Relevant policy
instruments and envisaged changes
This section concentrates on relevant European public policy. It describes its characteristics and the direction in which it is developing, to enable an assessment of how that may help or hinder a design for sustainable practices. The European Commission tries to support a move towards sustainable patterns of production and consumption by means of a dynamic and integrated approach, designed to ‘improve the energy and environmental performance of products and foster their uptake by consumers’ [19, p. 2]. Central in this approach is the integrated product policy (IPP), which targets products, seeking to minimise the environmental degradation they cause ‘by looking at all phases of a products' life-cycle and taking action where it is most effective’. Due to the complexity and the many stages and actors involved, the IPP consists of a toolbox of mandatory and voluntary measures. To exemplify, we concentrate on the Ecodesign (ErP) directive.
The ecodesign approach is ‘designed to optimise the environmental performance of products, while maintaining their functional qualities’ [20, p. 1]. The Ecodesign directive is a framework directive for setting ecodesign requirements for using and energy-related products. These must be met for the products to enter the European market. Criteria are set in implementing measures (IM) which are commission regulations targeting specific product categories. These
are based on comprehensive preparatory studies in which many different aspects are considered and a range of stakeholders are involved. For TVs, the IM targets the electricity consumption in the use phase [21]. It sets requirements for on-mode power consumption, relative to the screen size, and for standby and off-mode consumption, while specifying some mandatory features such as automatic power-down after four hours. The requirements are made stricter over time.
The directive has however received some criticism. The scientific field of ecodesign emphasises the reduction of environmental impacts over the whole product lifecycle, but the directive has up until now concentrated on energy usage in the use phase [22]. Currently however, policy is turning in a slightly new direction. At an overarching level, the Europe 2020 growth strategy plots out ‘smart, sustainable, inclusive growth’ as the course that the European economy should follow [23]. Two flagship initiatives for sustainable growth have been launched, one of them being a ‘Resource-efficient Europe’ [24]. In its ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’, the European Commission specifies medium and long term objectives for it and suggests what means will be needed to reach them. By 2020, ‘appropriate price signals’ and ‘clear environmental information’ will give citizens and public authorities the right incentives to select the most resource efficient products and services, while market and policy incentives will ‘reward business investments in efficiency’ [25, p. 5-6]. Further, the proposed means for fostering sustainable consumption and production include a shared approach for assessing, displaying and benchmarking the environmental performance of products, services and companies based on a comprehensive lifecycle assessment, and, the setting of requirements under the Ecodesign directive, ‘to boost the material resource efficiency of products (e.g. reusability/recoverability/ recyclability, recycled content, durability)’ [25, p. 7]. For what the Ecodesign directive is concerned, the methodology used for the preparatory studies will be revised, to make sure ‘(…) increased attention will be paid to the identification of ecodesign requirements on material resource efficiency in forthcoming preparatory product studies and reviews, when these aspects are found to be significant (…)’ [26, p. 6]. As this is an on-going process, it is obviously not clear what it will result in, or how that will impact innovation.
3.2 The impact of public policy instruments on
innovation
As input for discussing how policy characteristics may influence the prospects for design for sustainable practices, it is possible to look at the effect that the directive already has had, and at literature on the impact of policy instruments on sustainable innovation in general. A recent assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and added value of the Ecodesign directive [27] points out that for domestic and tertiary lighting, primarily
because of the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs, the effect of the IMs has been positive and direct. For products such as TVs, the market development has moved in the direction of higher energy efficiency products, but this cannot be directly attributed to the IMs. For the Norwegian context however, Hertwich and Roux [28] find that when the GHG emissions of manufacturing are larger than or equal to emissions caused by electricity use in the use phase for electronics such as TVs, this is not only due to higher energy efficiency, but also shorter product lifespans. Again this hints to the importance of attending to the sociomaterial dynamics behind resource use levels. While there is no room in this paper for an elaborate literature review on the impact of policy on sustainable innovation, some main insights can be highlighted. Synthesising findings, Kemp and Pontoglio [29] for example argue that it is important to distinguish between different innovation types. In agreement with that, del Río
et al. [30] go into detail on what framework conditions,
instruments and instrument combinations may stimulate different kinds of eco-innovation, taking their maturity, whether they are product- or process-related, and how radical they are, into account, in addition to the different kinds of barriers they may face. They distinguish between environmental policy instruments, technology policy instruments and ‘other instruments’. The IPP instruments belong to the first group, which includes so-called ‘command and control’ (CAC) instruments or standards for technology and performance, market-based instruments (MBIs) such as taxes and subsidies, and other instruments, such as labelling schemes and information provision. The environmental policy instruments are considered most suitable for targeting mature technologies and for stimulating incremental innovation [30, 31]. Immature technologies are better targeted with technology-policy measures, whereas for radical innovations likely to face different kinds of barriers, combinations of policy instruments are the most suitable. While environmental policy instruments are thought to be needed to stimulate both process and product innovations, instruments such as CACs and MBIs targeting firms are considered most effective for process eco-innovations, while measures targeting consumer demand are more apt for stimulating product-level eco-innovations.
4 DISCUSSION: PUBLIC POLICY AND THE PROSPECTS FOR DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES
4.1 The likely influence of policy developments on the prospects for design for sustainable practices
We now move on to discussing how current and future policy may help and hinder design for sustainable practices, given the direction in which it gears practice. European product policy makes firms responsible for improving the environmental performance of their products over their lifecycle. Efficiency-oriented
ecodesign approaches focus on improving the ratio between resource input and service output without affecting the ‘functional qualities’ of products [20, p. 1]. The move towards an increased emphasis on material resource efficiency issues is not likely to change much. Following del Río et al. [30] in that CAC instruments are most effective in stimulating process eco-innovations, the increased attention to material resource efficiency in future preparatory studies for the Ecodesign directive may indeed make firms approach such issues and implement material resource efficiency criteria into their processes. When focusing on reducing the environmental impacts of products over their lifecycle and creating demand for resource-efficient products, environmental challenges are however still addressed by means of technical fixes and appeals to the purchase decisions of consumers. This does in turn reflect economic and psychological models of human behaviour largely seeing action as a question about choice, influenced by identifiable factors such as attitudes and beliefs [12, 17]. Policy does not address how and for what resources and products are used.
When it comes to the prospects for a design for sustainable practices, a stronger focus on material resource efficiency might both help and hinder it. For firms, the targeting of resource efficiency issues might not only happen through product-level improvements but could possibly require and inspire radical innovation and organisational and systemic change. For example, stricter requirements for material resource efficiency would strengthen the incentives for firms to control material flows. Closing material loops may require strategic management-level change and the restructuring of business operations, as noted by Bakker et al. [32] who explore the feasibility of adopting the cradle to cradle principle [33] in daily business practice in the consumer electronics industry. Depending on the practices of firms and the situations they find themself in, an increased focus on material resource efficiency could open up for business model innovation. A switch to use- rather than ownership-based business models could allow for more intensive product use and the extension of useful product lifetime for example through collaborative consumption [34]. A public policy turn to material resource efficiency might thus indirectly make firms start grappling with questions about the value and meaning material practice elements contribute to, and how to make alternatives to individual product ownership attractive. This might in turn pave the way for the introduction of a practice-oriented approach explicitly dealing with such issues.
Increased emphasis on resource efficiency issues might however also weaken the conditions for practice-oriented design. Technical and systemic efforts to close material loops would not necessarily require much emphasis on the dynamics of use and consumption, and the dominance of technical, sales and marketing perspectives over use- and consumption-related ones may continue.
4.2 Towards a practice-oriented public policy
What role could policy play in fostering design and innovation that challenges what is now taken for granted? Shove et al. [17] present some suggestions as to what a practice-oriented policy could look like, but with certain reservations. Practices are outcomes of processes no single actor controls and policy-makers are part of the systems they try to govern [17]. Further, as practices are dynamic, they cannot be changed once and for all. Rather than to try to reach some desired end state, the goal is to adjust the direction of the development, to allow for the persistence of sustainable and not unsustainable ways of life.
Shove et al. [17] list four main issues that practice-oriented policy-makers may influence. The first is ‘the range of elements in circulation’ [17, p. 146], and thus the materials, meanings and competencies constituting and being reproduced and transformed in practice. To illustrate using the example of entertainment practices, this could be about disruption of the link between material intensity and the display and performance of status, by supporting switches to service-based business models. The second issue is the relation between different practices [17]. Given how practices and relations change over time, situational characteristics and the timing of interventions are relevant to the choice of strategies. For entertainment practices, opportunities could lie in supporting shifts to less resource-intensive leisure activities.The third issue is ‘the careers and trajectories of practices and those who carry them’ [17, p. 146]. This is about the role of policy in stimulating and structuring participation and access at different levels, directly and indirectly, in interplay with the life stages of individuals and the development of their practices. Current policy does not prevent the recruitment of people for unsustainable practices [17], such as multi-tasking. Competence is also unevenly distributed. Policy could however establish new arenas and means for skills transfer. The fourth and final issue is ‘the circuits of reproduction’ [17, p. 146], and about the social bonds that guide and are reproduced in the performance of practice. Related to that, transitions management is often proposed as a relevant set of governance approaches for facilitating experimentation and learning [17, 18, 35]. Kemp and Loorbach [36, p. 103] define transitions management as ‘forward-looking, adaptive multi-actor governance aimed at long-term transformation processes that offer sustainability benefits’. In such approaches policy-making is not about ‘command and control’, but reflexive social learning and networking [17]. Processes of selection and variation are guided and the emergent systems of practice adapted to and observed as they form. Critics do however warn that the effects of policy interventions both are unpredictable and dependent on non-policy actors [17].
5 CONCLUSION
How issues are framed influences what challenges are targeted and what opportunities are considered. Here,
practice theory has been introduced as a relevant way of framing everyday consumption and as a starting point for identifying opportunities for change, for design as well as policy. The rationale behind the paper is that for the development of practice-oriented approaches, it is relevant to examine the rules by which different actors work as they influence the prospects for change, and what may be good ways of introducing such a perspective.
Current policy largely frames consumption-related environmental issues as technical and choice-related, paying little or no attention to the interplay between humans and material elements, what service levels are and how conventions are reproduced and change. It does not stimulate firms to make use of opportunities for design for sustainable practices. While the effects are unpredictable, the envisaged turn towards more attention to material resource efficiency is unlikely to change much. Depending on the characteristics of firms and the situation they find themselves in however, it could inspire some to explore opportunities for systemic change, and open up for the targeting of practice performance and service conventions. A truly practice-oriented policy might however have to be based on new kinds of data and approaches [17]. Further, opportunities for changes in practice range from incremental to radical ones, and different innovation types require different kinds of policy [29, 30]. For incremental innovation and mature technologies, for example to change or replace unsustainable practice elements and the relations between them, a redesign of IPP instruments such as the Ecodesign directive, to integrate attention to the interplay between products, practices and conventions, could contribute. For radical innovation, to for example disrupt existing practices or establish new ones, instrument combinations and multi-actor approaches might be more suitable. Transitions management, with its reflexive processes of social learning and networking, constitutes a particularly interesting source of resources.
REFERENCES
[1] Ingram, J., Shove, E., Watson, M. (2007): Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice, Des. Issues, 23(2), 3-16. [2] United Nations (UN) (2002): Report of the World
Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August-4 September 2002, United Nations publication, NY.
[3] Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand, M., Ingram, J. (2007):
The design of everyday life, Berg, Oxford.
[4] Kuijer, L., de Jong, A. (2012): Identifying design opportunities for reduced household resource consumption: exploring practices of thermal comfort,
J. of Design Research, 10(1-2), 67-85.
[5] Scott, K., Bakker, C., Quist, J. (2012): Designing change by living change, Design Studies, 33(3), 279-297.
[6] Brezet, H., van Hemel, C. (1997): Ecodesign: A
promising approach to sustainable production and consumption, UNEP, Paris.
[7] Elias, E., Dekoninck, E., Culley, S. (2009): Quantifying the Energy Impacts of Use: A Product Energy Profile Approach, 16th CIRP International
Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 4-6 May
2009, Cairo.
[8] Tukker, A., Cohen, M.J., Hubacek, K., Mont, O. (2010): The impacts of household consumption and options for change, J. of Ind. Ecology, 14(1), 13-30. [9] Hertwich, E.G. (2005): Consumption and the
Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology Perspective,
J. of Ind. Ecology, 9(1-2), 85-98.
[10] Brynjarsdóttir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E.P.S., DiSalvo, C., Sengers, P. (2012): Sustainability Unpersuaded: How Persuasion Narrows Our Vision of Sustainability, Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’12, ACM, NY.
[11] Warde, A. (2005): Consumption and Theories of Practice, J. of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131-153. [12] Shove, E. (2010): Beyond the ABC: climate change
policy and theories of social change, Environment
and Planning A, 42, 1273-1285.
[13] Reckwitz, A. (2002): Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing,
European J. of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263.
[14] Pantzar, M., Shove, E. (2010): Understanding innovation in practice: a discussion of the production and re-production of Nordic Walking, Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(4), 447-461.
[15] Schatzki, T. (2001): Introduction: practice theory. In: Schatzki, T.R., Cetina, K.K., von Savigny, E. (eds.):
The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory,
Routledge, London.
[16] Schatzki, T. (1996): Social Practices: A
Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[17] Shove, E., Pantzar, M., Watson, M. (2012): The
Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How it Changes, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
[18] Doyle, R., Davies, A.R. (2013): Towards sustainable household consumption: exploring a practice oriented participatory backcasting approach for sustainable home heating practices in Ireland, J. of
Cleaner Production, 48, 260–271.
[19] European Commission (2008): Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan.
[20] DIRECTIVE 2009/125/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (recast).
[21] COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 642/2009 of 22 July 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for televisions. [22] Huulgaard, R.D., Dalgaard, R., Merciai, S. (2013):
Ecodesign requirements for televisions – is energy consumption in the use phase the only relevant requirement? Int. J. of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1098-1105.
[23] European Commission (2010): EUROPE 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. [24] European Commission (2011): A resource-efficient
Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy.
[25] European Commission (2011): Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe.
[26] European Commission (2012): Establishment of the Working Plan 2012-2014 under the Ecodesign Directive.
[27] Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES) (2012): Evaluation of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC).
[28] Hertwich, E., Roux, C. (2011): Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Consumption of Electric and Electronic Equipment by Norwegian Households,
Env. Science & Technology, 45(19), 8190–8196.
[29] Kemp, R., Pontoglio, S. (2011): The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments — A typical case of the blind men and the elephant?
Ecological Economics, 72, 28-36.
[30] del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Könnölä, T. (2010): Policy Strategies to Promote Eco-Innovation: An Integrated Framework, J. of Ind. Ecology, 14(4), 541-557.
[31] Taylor, M. (2008): Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California's solar policy,
Energy Economics, 30(6), 2829-2854.
[32] Bakker, C.A., Wever, R., Teoh, Ch., De Clercq, S. (2010): Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check, Int. J. of Sustainable Engineering, 3(1), 2-8. [33] Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A.
(2007): Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design, J. of Cleaner Production, 15(13-14), 1337-1348.
[34] Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., Baedeker, C. (2013): Collaborative Consumption: Towards a Resource-Saving Consumption Culture, Resources, 2(3), 184-203.
[35] Pettersen, I.N. (2013): Changing Practices: The Role
of Design in Supporting the Sustainability of Everyday Life, Doctoral theses at NTNU, 2013:130,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
[36] Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. (2006): Transition management: a reflexive governance approach. In: Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (eds.):
Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development,
