Tag: Sustainability

From Pilot to Portfolio: Scaling Circular Packaging
By James Harmer and Adrian Segens
April 10th 2026
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:
James Harmer

James Harmer

Planning & Innovation Strategy Lead

Adrian Segens

Adrian Segens

Sustainability Leader

From Pilot to Portfolio: Scaling Circular Packaging

We have seen plenty of circular packaging pilots that work in isolation.

A new design that’s more recyclable. An increase in recycled content. A workable deposit return trial that performs well in-store. A positive refill system experiment with a strong story behind it.

Then they stall

Not because the intent was wrong, but because pilots sit outside the full operating system and true commercial pressures. They are rightly protected from the cost, infrastructure, and commercial realities to test and learn consumer behavior, but are often ill-equipped to adapt for scale.

That is why packaging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) matters, as this is a scale-centric challenge.

It shifts packaging from a waste topic to a design and business topic. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), describes EPR as a policy approach that makes producers responsible through the post-consumer stage, while also generating funding and information for collection, sorting, and recycling systems. And the policy context is no longer theoretical. In the EU, the PPWR entered into force on February 11, 2025, and generally applies from August 12, 2026. In the UK, obligated producers must register, report packaging data, and pay fees. Australia is reforming packaging regulation to align packaging with circular economy principles. Ontario completed its transition to full producer responsibility on January 1, 2026. Canada expects packaging EPR for packaging in most, if not all, provinces and territories by 2030.

So the question is no longer whether circular packaging should be scaled.

The more useful question is this: will compliance effort be treated as a cost of doing business, or used as a lens for sharper portfolio choices?

Because as EPR becomes a reality, companies are forced to define things that pilots can leave vague or don’t answer. Which end-of-life pathway is realistic in each market? How likely is collection and effective sorting in normal conditions? Where is packaging complexity creating cost without improving recovery? Those are not paperwork questions. They are design questions, procurement questions, and portfolio questions. This is why EPR is better understood as a portfolio lens than a pilot trigger. Pilots still matter. They are often essential for testing formats, claims, and consumer participation models. But pilots alone do not tell you how a portfolio performs across geographies, channels, suppliers, materials, and recovery systems. That wider view is where scale is won or lost.

Pilots often succeed because they benefit from exceptional conditions. One geography. One retail partner. One highly engaged consumer group. One supplier willing to stretch. One team willing to intervene when reality gets messy. In some cases, even supportive national policy environments, such as France’s emerging regulatory push on reuse and refill under its circular economy legislation, can effectively act as a scaled, semi-controlled test bed.

Portfolios operate under normal conditions. They carry multiple markets, multiple channels, multiple suppliers, competing cost pressures, and uneven infrastructure. At that scale, the test is not whether a packaging idea worked once. The test is whether it still works when it becomes business as usual.

EPR also brings consumer behavior into focus. Packaging systems only work when people can participate in them. If organizations say they are consumer-centered, this is where that claim has to show up. Legislation should be used not just to meet regulatory requirements, but to design packaging experiences that are intuitive, low-friction, and aligned with everyday behavior. Disposal instructions need to be clear. Return and refill participation needs to feel intuitive. Sorting needs to work in ordinary households, not just in ideal conditions. Get this right, and you improve more than recovery. You reduce contamination, lower fee exposure, and strengthen the overall product experience.  Regulations will then not only encourage circularity, but they create a purposeful moment of action and innovation for companies to strengthen brand trust, delivering tangible value to consumers as well as the business. In other words, EPR can turn circularity from a pilot activity into an operating model that also improves the consumers’ experience, if companies use the opportunity.

Circularity has always been a system design challenge, and EPR is accelerating this advancement. The task is not simply to improve one pack in isolation. It is to understand how material choice, format, infrastructure compatibility, consumer participation, evidence burden, fee exposure, and end market reality interact. That is a different level of discipline, and it tends to expose weaknesses quickly.

A portfolio view allows better questions. Which formats create the highest compliance and cost exposure? Which packs have the weakest real-world recovery pathway? Which material choices add complexity without improving the outcome? Where can harmonization reduce cost and improve recyclability? Which claims are robust, and which are vulnerable? Where could redesign create both environmental gain and economic value?

The strongest companies will not treat EPR as a layer of administration added to yesterday’s packaging choices. They will use it to redesign how those choices are made. In practice, that means defining end-of-life pathways in operational terms, separating what can be standardized globally from what must be adapted locally, evaluating packs with a balanced scorecard rather than a single metric, testing behavior honestly, building the evidence plan early, and staging change across the portfolio where learning is fastest and risk is lowest.

Handled tactically, EPR will bring short-term pain with few long-term gains. Handled strategically, it should shape and accelerate the decisions you ultimately need to make to protect your future.

As part of a strategy, it can become a source of commercial advantage. Not because regulation is inherently beneficial to producers. It is not. But because it can force the level of scrutiny, many organizations have postponed. That scrutiny can lead to fewer problematic formats, better alignment between design and infrastructure, lower material intensity, stronger claims, smarter use of recycled content, and clearer investment cases for reuse, refill, or redesign where those moves are genuinely viable.

The companies most likely to create value from packaging EPR will be the ones that use that pressure to review the portfolio properly and scale the changes that actually work.

At Cambridge Design Partnership, we help teams translate regulatory changes to practical design and engineering action. That means identifying where recovery pathways are weak, where behavioral assumptions are unrealistic, where evidence requirements need to shape the brief earlier, and where material and format decisions are creating hidden risk. Typically, that means combining circular diagnostic work, sustainability screening, Sustainability Clean sheeting, human-centered design, engineering validation, and regulatory readiness into a single decision process.

It’s worth asking one final question. Are you only preparing to comply, or are you using this moment to reshape the portfolio for a more circular and commercially resilient future?

Get In Touch

CONTACT THE SUSTAINABLE & CIRCULAR DESIGN TEAM
A,Person,Holds,Several,Packs,Of,Pills,Over,A,Yellow
By Adrian Segens, Jon Powell and Steve Augustyn
February 24th 2026
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:
Adrian Segens

Adrian Segens

Sustainability Leader

Jon Powell

Jon Powell

Senior Consultant

Steve Augustyn

Steve Augustyn

Senior Consultant Mechanical Engineer

Sustainable pharmaceutical packaging without compromising safety or usability

When people talk about “sustainable packaging,” they often picture quick material swaps and bold recyclability claims. But in pharmaceuticals, it’s rarely that simple.

Pharma packaging is a safety-critical system. It protects sensitive formulations, supports regulatory compliance, and helps patients take the right medicine in the right way, every time.

That’s why packaging teams are under a different kind of pressure: they are being asked to reduce environmental impact while holding the line on performance, patient safety, and supply resilience.

At Cambridge Design Partnership (CDP), we work with pharma and healthcare teams to make that trade space manageable. The goal isn’t sustainability as a side project. It’s packaging decisions that are evidence-led, patient-centered, and durable under regulatory scrutiny.

The structural tension at the heart of pharmaceutical packaging

In practice, pharmaceutical packaging exists inside tight constraints that are in place for good reason:

  • Validated moisture, oxygen, and light barriers (often with narrow stability margins)
  • Strict control of chemical interactions and leachables across materials, inks, adhesives, and coatings
  • Tamper evidence, traceability, and serialization requirements
  • Repeatable, audited manufacturing processes with controlled change management
  • Global regulatory alignment, long shelf-life assurance, long qualification cycles, and post-approval variation burden

However, here is another non-negotiable that is often underweighted in sustainability conversations: patient usability.

In effect, packaging is the interface between medicine and the person using it. It must enable patients to identify the correct drug clearly, complete any necessary inspection (for example, tamper evidence, integrity, or visual checks, where relevant), and access the drug product reliably. If a sustainability change makes a pack harder to open, harder to read, or easier to confuse, it creates a risk that overwhelms the environmental benefit.

As a result, progress is rarely about a single material substitution. Sustainable outcomes come from system decisions – barrier, labeling, usability, manufacturing, logistics, and end-of-life considered together.

Why the pressure is now unavoidable

1. Regulation is becoming a market access issue.

In Europe, the PPWR (Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation) is now the anchor regime: it entered into force in February 2025 and will apply from August 2026, with recyclability tightening through 2030 and a formal review horizon in 2035 that is explicitly relevant to certain pharma pack exemptions. Here, the key challenge is timing: regulatory clocks move faster than pharma packaging platforms can change.

2. Stakeholder expectations are rising.

At the same time, payers, providers, investors, and patients increasingly expect credible action. Packaging is visible, measurable, and easy to compare – so it’s becoming a practical test of seriousness, not a marketing footnote.

3. The business case is shifting from “nice to have” to “must manage”.

Consequently, packaging decisions now touch cost, resilience, and speed to market: material exposure, waste fees, supply fragility, and late-stage redesign risk. In most cases, getting ahead of change is usually cheaper than reacting when options are already locked.

What we see in real programs

A few patterns show up repeatedly when teams try to move from intent to execution.

The biggest wins aren’t always in the primary pack.
In many cases, primary packaging can be the hardest part of the system to change quickly. By contrast, secondary and tertiary packaging (such as cartons, leaflets, protective elements, and shipping formats) often provide faster, lower-risk opportunities – especially when you design them to reduce total material use, improve transport efficiency, and avoid formats that create sorting and recycling problems.

“Recyclable” is not the same as “safe, compliant, and used correctly.”
For pharma, the right question is usually: What is the lowest-impact design that still delivers stability, compliance, and patient usability? That framing prevents false optimization.

Late redesign is the hidden cost.
When sustainability is added after packaging architecture decisions are made, you end up negotiating against a nearly fixed design. That’s when cost and time blow out – and when risk rises.

A practical framework for executive decision-making

If you’re leading packaging strategy, the most useful step is to turn sustainability into a structured decision process rather than a series of ad hoc requests. Here’s a framework we use with teams to keep work focused and defensible.

1. Define your non-negotiables up front

  • Before exploring options, align on what cannot be compromised:
  • Patient safety and correct use
  • Readability and differentiation (right medicine, strength, dose, expiration)
  • Access and openability under real-world conditions
  • Barrier performance and shelf-life confidence
  • Tamper evidence and traceability requirements
  • Validated manufacturing performance and supply resilience

This avoids “optimizing” a pack into something that fails in the field.

2. Establish a credible baseline, quickly

You don’t need a year-long study to find direction. A focused baseline – material flows, key pack components, manufacturing yield sensitivity, logistics assumptions, and end-of-life reality – usually reveals where the impact sits and where it doesn’t.

This is where we often apply lifecycle thinking and our Sustainability Cleansheet method: Quantify the big cost and environmental impact drivers early so you don’t spend months improving the wrong thing.

3. Build a short list of options and stress-test the tradeoffs

For each option, teams should be able to answer clearly:

  • What changes physically? (materials, structure, labels, coatings, inks, adhesives)
  • What risks move? (stability margin, E&L, usability, line performance, supply continuity)
  • What improves? (impact reduction, cost, simplification, waste reduction, data/traceability)
  • What evidence is needed? (bench tests, line trials, stability, human factors validation)

The aim is not perfect certainty. It’s the early elimination of weak options and disciplined focus on the few options that can scale.

4. Pilot to reduce uncertainty, not to signal virtue

In pharma, pilots only matter if they answer hard questions: manufacturability, patient behavior, stability confidence, and real end-of-life outcomes (not just theoretical recyclability).

We design pilots to generate decision-grade evidence, so teams can commit without gambling.

5. Use “smart print” technologies thoughtfully

Many teams want digital capability – traceability, anti-counterfeit protection, patient guidance, or better sorting instructions – without turning packaging into electronics.

That’s where smart print technologies can help: Printed features (from advanced QR codes and variable data to printed conductive inks and thin printed circuits) can deliver “DPP-style” benefits – linking the pack to verified product data, instructions, and chain-of-custody information – without adding bulky components.

But they still require end-of-life thinking. Even small amounts of conductive ink or functional layers can affect recycling behavior and material recovery if they’re used indiscriminately. The practical approach is:

  • Keep digital features as light as possible (often secondary packaging is the right home)
  • Avoid designs that contaminate or complicate recycling streams
  • Choose materials and inks with recovery pathways, where available
  • Be explicit about the end-of-life intent, not just the in-use feature set

Smart features can support compliance and patient outcomes – but only if they’re designed as part of the packaging system, not bolted on.

6. Build a roadmap that matches pharma timelines

Packaging change in pharma is slow by design: qualification, validation, supplier readiness, and stability programs all take time. That’s exactly why the gap between product development cycles and regulatory timelines matters. The right roadmap staggers effort:

  • Near term: Secondary and tertiary improvements and material reduction
  • Mid term: Architecture changes where stability risk is manageable
  • Long term: Platform shifts and primary packaging strategies aligned to the next regulatory horizon

How CDP helps

Clients bring us in when they need momentum without compromising on safety. What makes CDP different is the way we connect the disciplines that usually sit apart:

The result is packaging strategy that holds up: Lower-impact solutions that are still manufacturable, compliant, and usable – built on evidence rather than hope.

The opportunity

Sustainable pharmaceutical packaging isn’t about copying approaches from consumer goods. It’s about designing within the constraints that matter – stability, safety, usability, and supply assurance – while still making real progress on impact.

If you’re responsible for packaging strategy and you’re facing tighter timelines, rising expectations, and harder tradeoffs, we can help you move faster with confidence.

Connect with CDP

For more on how to accelerate meaningful innovation in sustainable pharmaceutical packaging, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH
environmental sustainability||||||||||
By Matt Morris and Shweta Shewale
April 26th 2023
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:

Matt Morris

Senior consultant mechanical engineer

Shweta Shewale

Mechanical Engineer

Are we there yet? An honest progress report on our environmental sustainability

“We’re all on a mission to achieve sustainability, working together to build a better business for people and planet”. While it may be true, statements like this don’t offer much insight into what we’re actually doing about our environmental impact. Instead, we’d like to provide an honest assessment of where we are now, what actions we’ve taken so far, and where we’re focusing our efforts in the future.

Sustainability communications are often full of cliché. In their excellent research report ‘Words that work’, creative communications consultancy Radley Yeldar analyzed the websites of 50 of the Forbes 100 most valuable brands and found the same words and phrases repeatedly cropping up. One of the most popular was the notion of a ‘sustainability journey’.

We can see how this happens – in fact, in the first draft of this article, we followed this same path. We want to talk about the progress we’ve made, which we’re proud of, but we know we’ve got a long way to go. We’ve got plans that we want to share – how do we communicate this process while it’s happening? There’s an obvious metaphor!

Part of the reason brands lapse into cliché, says Radley Yeldar, is fear of criticism if they’re brutally honest. So, we’ll try to take their advice, and be brave. Here goes.

An honest assessment

CDP is an Employee-Owned company. A little over a year ago, a group of employee-owners, supported by the management team, started an initiative to measure our performance against the B Impact Assessment, a widely used framework for all-round sustainability impact. Overall, we were very happy with how we measured up – many of the policies, actions and outcomes the assessment checks for were already established.

However, one of the reasons to go through this process was to identify any gaps in our performance. There was one area we decided to focus on, because frankly it was a little behind many other parts of the assessment – our work to improve our environmental sustainability.

What makes us want to improve?

Beyond a desire to have the most positive impact we can, there were three compelling reasons for us to take action:

  1. We’re delighted that more and more of the global brands we work with are committing to ambitious environmental sustainability targets – we want to help them achieve these goals and give them the confidence that we are just as committed to having a positive environmental impact.
  2. We work hard to reflect the needs and priorities of our employee-owners – our only shareholder and biggest asset. Surveys and engagement events have made clear that environmental sustainability is important to them.
  3. We have recently transitioned to a ‘large’ company under UK law, which entails new reporting requirements – the perfect time, therefore, to embed new measurement and reporting systems across the company.

Making a change through our client work

There are two ways that we can have an impact on the environment – through our business operations, and through the innovation, design, and development work we do on behalf of our clients.

Whilst we feel it’s important to minimize the environmental impact of our own operations, helping our clients to ‘improve lives through innovation’ (our purpose) allows us to contribute to environmental and social benefits at a scale well beyond that which we can achieve alone. As an example, a quick calculation showed that the annual production of a particular dry powder inhaler – a typical project we might deliver for a client – was responsible for more than 50 times our annual carbon footprint. Or, put another way, if we helped a client to reduce the carbon impact of that product by just 2%, we would save the equivalent of CDP’s annual carbon footprint.

Recognizing this, we’ve invested in growing our capability in sustainability and cleantech, helping our clients reduce their environmental impact and develop new technologies, including:

  • Developing packaging design and sustainability guidelines for one of the world’s largest consumer packaged goods companies
  • Helping multiple blue chip clients transition from fossil-fuel-derived plastic packaging to alternatives such as paper. Highlights include a patented, first-of-its-kind, single-mold paper bottle for Pulpex
  • Performing a life cycle assessment to benchmark the environmental impacts of a connected autoinjector, and using this to drive design changes that minimize these impacts
  • Designing and developing a pop-up solar car park and electric vehicle charging hub for 3ti Energy Hubs, which won Best New Product at The Electric Vehicle Innovation & Excellence Awards (EVIEs)
  • Winning a hackathon run by Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) and British Antarctic Survey (BAS) to help BAS achieve net zero at their Rothera research station in Antarctica

Changes in our own operations

In the last year, we’ve also made significant progress on how our business operations impact the environment; much of this was enabled through moving to a new purpose-built facility, which involved over three years of rigorous planning and attention to detail:

Net zero HQ

Our new UK headquarters at Bourn Quarter is built to be net zero over its lifetime. It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels for heating and is designed to high standards of energy efficiency. On-site power generation includes 1,500m2 of rooftop solar panels across our Innovation Centre and Pilot Production Centre buildings – that’s an area larger than five tennis courts!

Supply network with shared values

Recognizing that much of our impact occurs through our suppliers, we’re starting to factor environmental impact into our supplier selection. In the last year, we’ve brought in Wilson Vale as our catering partner – their central operations are certified carbon neutral, and at Bourn Quarter they serve seasonal food and take steps to minimize food waste. They calculate how many people are typically on-site on certain days and incorporate any leftovers into the following day’s meals – for example, as an option in the salad bar.

Measuring what matters

Our science and engineering teams know that accurate data is crucial to optimizing any process. So, we’ve set up systems to monitor our energy use, carbon emissions, and waste – the areas of greatest impact from our operations. Electricity consumption data from our first few months in Bourn Quarter will allow us to optimize our heating and lighting usage. We’re also collecting data on our recycling, food and general waste streams, to generate insights that will support future improvements.

Awareness and engagement

We’ve worked hard to bring our entire organization with us, so that everyone feels ready and empowered to help identify and solve problems. This type of unified effort reflects the culture of our company, rather than a passion project for a small group of champions working in isolation.

We’re achieving this through regular all-company ‘town hall’, updates, interactive ‘lunch and learns’, and immersive Climate Fresk sessions – three- to four-hour workshops which explore the fundamental science behind climate change.

Are we there yet?

Whilst we’re proud of what we’ve achieved so far, it’s just the start of an ongoing process to manage and improve our environmental impact, and we’ve got a lot more work to do! As Peter Drucker famously put it, “you can’t improve what you don’t measure” – quantifying our carbon, waste and water impact is the foundation for both transparent reporting and further progress. We’re looking forward to using the measurement and analysis systems we’ve established to benchmark our performance and assess the effect of improvements we make. We plan to publish our first impact report later this year – and we’ll be aiming for openness, honesty, and a minimum of sustainability cliché!

If you have similar ambitions and would like to discuss this in more detail – particularly if you’re close to Cambridge (UK) or Raleigh, North Carolina (USA) – please get in contact.

respiratory drug delivery|
By Mark Allen
January 25th 2023
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:

Mark Allen

Consultant Mechanical Engineer

Key trends in respiratory drug delivery

It was great to be back in person for the Drug Delivery to the Lungs conference in Edinburgh recently. Here, we share insights on three major themes from the event and a trend we think will reshape the future of respiratory drug delivery in the next 10-20 years.

Sustainable pMDIs

The shift in pMDIs from using HFC propellants towards less polluting gases has gained momentum with California imposing a ban on the sale and distribution of R227ea from the end of 2030 and R134a from the end of 2032, including medical use. This provides an end-of-the-line for the sale of all current pMDI products in California.

The transition needs formulators, device designers, scientists, and other disciplines to collaborate to solve the challenges presented by the different physical properties of the new gases. The assessment of all types of inhalers from a sustainability perspective has advanced, too, with life cycle analysis (LCA) and carbon credits schemes being discussed – our sustainability team provides reviews and recommendations for a range of medical devices to help our clients improve their devices and provide evidence to back up their green credentials.

Usability for adherence

Time and again, studies show that it’s challenging to measure asthma and COPD patients’ adherence to their medication. Medication adherence appears much lower than for other diseases – estimates range from 22-78% adherence, compared to 70% for diabetes.

Low adherence needs to be addressed by making devices easier to use and tailoring them to the patient’s needs. Reducing user steps is key to make using the device easier, but patient feedback and tailoring to specific needs are necessary, too – something connected inhalers could help solve through digital reminders appropriate to the patient’s needs. Independently verifying that increased adherence is due to connected or smart inhalers is difficult to prove – something the industry is investigating.

Modelling of drug delivery

Several talks at this year’s event covered modelling, with in-silico methods advancing in capability and popularity over the last 10 years. Topics covered included constructing a full airway model to assess drug deposition under different breathing profiles and using maths with physiological signals to detect disease and drug-induced changes. Posters demonstrated an even wider range of possible models, including our own.

Our modelling and simulation teams produce models for clients that highlight potential robustness issues with mechanical components and digital sensing techniques at early stages to determine suitable technologies for medical devices.

Learning from the past, looking to the future

Federico Lavorini, Professor and Consultant in Respiratory Medicine at the Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy, gave an excellent summary of drug delivery over the last 100 years, including innovations where design has reduced user error.

Further talks considered what pharma could learn from other markets, especially as we move from ‘sick care’ to ‘health care’ – where technology identifies and treats conditions before they become symptomatic. Our Drug Delivery and Insight & Strategy teams work closely together to understand upcoming trends and draw on insights into consumer expectations from the consumer and digital markets for our clients.

Biologic treatments are coming to respiratory drug delivery and are likely to use Soft Mist Inhalers (SMIs) and Dry Powder Inhalers (DPIs) for delivery, with current trends looking to lean heavily on DPIs. This is likely to lead to the development of new, higher-performance DPIs to provide the best efficiency delivering these high-cost treatments to the patient. We have dramatically increased the performance of DPI engines for our clients through our science-based approach to increase fine particle fraction for their devices.

How we can help

Our team are experienced in all stages of the development of drug delivery devices for a wide range of scenarios and applications in the medical industry, with a dedicated team working in these areas. Here at CDP, we have these specialists all under one roof to partner with you to bring your device to market and can also draw on the learnings of our colleagues in consumer markets to guide on relevant future consumer expectations.

Five ways to take cultured meat mainstream
By Richard Owen
November 18th 2022
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:

Richard Owen

Senior Consultant Bio-scientist

Five ways to take cultured meat mainstream

Better for the environment and better for animals, cultured meat is an ascendant industry and could grow even faster with these five improvements.

COP27 climate negotiations look set to conclude with steady – if not stellar – progress on reaching a consensus as to how the world can avoid catastrophic climate change. However, one area almost absent in the outcomes so far is how we can reduce the environmental impact of animal agriculture, which is estimated to make up 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions – that’s more than the entire global transport sector.

That doesn’t mean nothing is happening. In recent years, we’ve seen massive investment in one potential solution to this problem: Cultured meat, grown in a lab from a few animal cells, has the potential to counter some of the biggest issues facing humanity, including global warming, land degradation, and water usage.

On November 16, the sector marked a significant milestone as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) raised no questions to UPSIDE Foods pre-market consultation for its cultured chicken products for human consumption. It needs final approval and isn’t on sale yet, but this is a significant hurdle crossed.

How can the cultured meat sector build on this moment and realize the enormous potential to contribute to a sustainable future? We’ve identified five steps producers need to take:

1) Think differently to scale up efficiently

We know we can make cultured meat, but the costs and scale mean it isn’t yet an everyday item. Pharma-style processes and equipment just aren’t designed for food-based products and so won’t get the sector where it needs to be.

We need a mix of new thinking, processes, and products. Rather than focus on pharma, technology should be brought in from other sectors, such as the brewing, textiles, and food ingredients industries, as their process throughput and manufacturing costs are closer to what’s needed for this market.

Ingredients and structural components must be fully defined and standardized before cell bio-fermentation can become a high throughput, low intervention process, like brewing or baking.

2) Don’t obsess about patents

While patents are critical to many industries and bio-based start-ups, they aren’t so important in the cultured meat sector. Most companies have specific cell lines, cell sources, ingredients, and fermentation protocols.

Due to the way cells develop according to their genotype and environment, they’re highly likely to develop in a unique way. Patenting engineered cell lines, cell collection procedures, formulation recipes, differentiation techniques or fermentation protocols is unnecessary, as they would be very difficult to replicate.

It’s much better to keep the know-how in-house, in a similar way to the ‘secret recipes’ of malt whisky manufacturers – they all start with water, yeast and malted barley, but make very different products.

3) Think beyond the butchers

Many cultured meats closely replicate products you’d find on a butcher’s block. While the industry is young, this gently introduces consumers to a new type of product.

However, there’s huge potential to make new products that aren’t replicas of butcher-shop cuts. How about mixing and matching cell textures, fat content, and fiber lengths to create a cross between pate and streaky bacon?

Amazing new products could be created, potentially formulated to be cooked to a certain style, e.g. slow-cooked or medium rare. This could excite consumers and show that this new technique could create a whole new and exciting range of meat products.

4) Get the branding right

Cultured meat companies have a lot of heavy lifting to do to educate the consumer. Meat in its raw state is often considered a generic product; only after cooking does it normally appear as a brand.

Linkage to other existing brands is one option, such as endorsement by well-known chefs or restaurants. Other options include trying to emulate exotic breeds such as Wagyu beef, ostrich, or kudu (antelope). First-movers will have an advantage; later entrants may have to specialize to grab and retain a niche.

5) Embrace the difference between pharma and food products

The pharma industry has advanced the science used by cultured meat producers.

However, the goal of cultured meat producers is to produce a tasty, safe piece of food, rather than a viable drug therapeutic that must engraft in a patient and perform a complex variety of immunological functions.

This means costs and testing procedures should be very different. Much of the cost of pharma production of cell and gene therapies lies in sample collection and testing during manufacture and quality control. There’s a huge list of different attributes that need to be tested, from intracellular mycoplasma to cell viability, potency, and cellular identity.

Conversely, once the manufacturing process for cultured meat has been appropriately established and validated, automated in-process monitoring can remove the need for almost all final batch-based tests.

In addition, more automated diagnostic-style testing regimes can be used instead of the labor-intensive R&D-style analytical methods.

Meat the pioneers

GOOD Meat cultivated meat brand is part of the California-based sustainable food company Eat Just. Its products have already launched in Singapore. In Autumn 2021, it raised $97 million in funding, adding to another $170 million raised in Spring.

California-based UPSIDE Foods has the claim to fame that it cultivated the world’s first beef meatball. In Spring 2022, it raised $400 million in Series C funding to drive product innovation and infrastructure to make cultured meat at scale.

References

Valdmanis R, Cocks T. Meat on the menu, not the agenda, at cop27 climate conference [Internet]. Reuters. Thomson Reuters; 2022 [cited 2022Nov17]. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/meat-menu-not-agenda-cop27-climate-conference-2022-11-15/

Pre-market consultation for human food made using animal cell culture [Internet]. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA; 2022 [cited 2022Nov17]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-completes-first-pre-market-consultation-human-food-made-using-animal-cell-culture-technology

Gelski J. Good meat raises $97 million in latest funding round [Internet]. Meat Poultry. Sosland Publishing; 2021 [cited 2022Nov16]. Available from: https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/25539-good-meat-raises-97-million-in-latest-funding-round

Hood LL. Huge facility to produce 15,000 tons of lab grown meat per year in the US [Internet]. Futurism. Camden Media Inc; 2022 [cited 2022Nov16]. Available from: https://futurism.com/the-byte/biggest-cultivated-grown-meat-lab

Series C funding brings the upside of meat one (giant) step closer [Internet]. UPSIDE Foods. UPSIDE Foods; 2022 [cited 2022Nov16]. Available from: https://upsidefoods.com/upside-series-c-fundraising-round/

Designing more sustainable electronics|||
September 14th 2022
Share:

Designing more sustainable electronics

From phones to laptops, home devices to watches, electronic devices – particularly smart devices – have become part of people’s lives, enabling better communication and access to information and making their day-to-day easier.

But the increasing adoption of technology comes at an environmental cost. Electronic devices often have a significant carbon footprint because of the energy-intensive processes needed to produce printed circuit boards (PCBs) and integrated circuits.

Electronics production relies on mining and extracting dozens of different materials, including critical raw materials (economically important materials at high risk of supply shortage, such as lithium or titanium). Extracting these materials has a range of sustainability impacts, including the leakage of toxic chemicals such as cyanide into the environment, high levels of water use, and human rights abuses in the case of ‘conflict minerals’ such as gold and tantalum.

Waste electronic products, or e-waste, is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with over 53 million tonnes of e-waste produced in 2019. Most e-waste is disposed of incorrectly, ending up at waste dumps in developing countries. Hazardous chemicals, such as lead or mercury, that may be present in electronic components can leak into the environment, harming local ecosystems and damaging the health of people who live and work in the dumps.

Product sustainability has focused on the circular economy, particularly recycling. But there are fundamental limits to the impact recycling can have on electronics. Only 17% of e-waste is collected for recycling and, even if it’s collected, recovering materials from e-waste is particularly challenging.

Electronics contain trace amounts of rare metals, which are complex and expensive to separate. Only the most abundant materials, such as copper and gold, can be economically retrieved during e-waste recycling, and even if all e-waste was recycled in this way, the material recovered still wouldn’t be enough to meet the growing demands of the industry.

One way to tackle the environmental challenges presented by electronics is to remove the need for them in the first place, for example by detecting a temperature change using a color-changing chemical rather than a sensor. But, in some instances, electronics are necessary, so how can designers reduce the impact of the products they create?

Our sustainability team assessed a range of technologies and design techniques to determine their potential for reducing the environmental impact of electronic products and how difficult they are to implement. This article outlines a few approaches we’ve used in recent projects at CDP.

web_graph_designing-more-sustainable-electronics

Reducing complexity through connectivity

One of the best ways to reduce an electronic device’s environmental impact is by minimizing the electronics’ complexity, thereby reducing the number of integrated circuits needed as well as the surrounding passive components (resistors, capacitors and so on), connecting tracks, and PCB area.

An easy, effective way to do this is by pairing a product with a user’s existing device to provide the smart capability. Methods range from a simple QR code or NFC chip to a Bluetooth connection for transferring more complex data.

As well as reducing the electronics in the product, this allows for a degree of futureproofing, as software updates can be used to keep the product up to date. This idea isn’t new but is starting to be used more in applications from smart packaging to medical devices.

Important to note: Behind many of these software solutions are large data centers that need powering and should be considered in the product’s environmental impact.

Informed decision-making: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Designers can optimize component choices and circuit designs during detailed design to reduce the overall impact of a product.

We recently used LCA to estimate the additional carbon footprint of adding an electronic module to a medical device. This step allowed our team to identify where to focus on reducing the impact of the design, such as replacing integrated circuits with a solution based on lower-impact passive components and optimizing the layout to minimize the total area of PCB required.

We identified several solutions that together had the potential to reduce the total carbon footprint of the product by up to 25% without compromising functionality. In many cases, this optimization also generates cost savings.

Optimizing electronics through additive manufacturing

Over the past two decades, additive manufacturing (such as 3D printing) has seen a surge in use in mechanical prototyping and manufacture, and its applications in the electronics sector are now starting to grow. In the context of PCBs, additive manufacturing refers to selectively adding conductive material to the areas required, as opposed to a more traditional approach which starts with a layer of copper and selectively etches away the areas where it isn’t needed.

These technologies can improve a product’s carbon footprint through reduced material usage and less energy-intensive manufacturing processes. A report published by the ECOtronics project found, “Changing from subtractive manufacturing (etching) to additive manufacturing (printing) has the potential to reduce environmental impacts by more than 50% across all impact categories.”

One additive manufacturing method is laser direct structuring (LDS), which allows you to construct circuits on the surface of device components. With this approach, you can remove the PCB entirely, dramatically cutting down on the material required.

These technologies present opportunities to fit electronics into new form factors, print onto a wide array of rigid or flexible substrates (the non-conductive part of the circuit board the metal circuit is added to) and increase the customizability of the design, all while reducing the product’s environmental impact.

As we’ve highlighted before, sustainability initiatives should always consider context, which is vital for electronics. In the absence of cost-effective recycling processes, designers must prioritize approaches that reduce the materials and energy required to produce electronics. As electronics continue to play a leading role in our lives, future designs should reduce our reliance on critical raw materials and consider how circular approaches to design can extend product lifetimes and prevent harm to people and the environment.

References

Connect with CDP

For more on how to reduce the environmental impact of your electronics through smarter design choices, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH
||||||||||||||||
By Dan Haworth
April 5th 2022
Share:
Find the authors
on LinkedIn:
Dan Haworth

Dan Haworth

Head of Diagnostics

Reducing the carbon footprint and plastic waste of LFTs: Evidence-based opportunities

Billions of lateral flow tests have been used worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic – over two billion have been provided in the UK alone. Debate has raged on social media about why the tests need to use so much single-use plastic and how they could be made more ‘sustainable’. The test strip caseworks is a particular source of dismay – why so much plastic to house such a tiny test strip?

With the UK government ending the free distribution of lateral flow tests for the general public – citing a transition from emergency response to longer-term management of the pandemic – now is the ideal time to look more closely at the sustainability of these lateral flow tests, and to seek the data to demystify some of the emotional assumptions being made.

Familiarity with lateral flow testing has certainly increased, as has confidence in their clinical performance. It’s expected that lateral flow devices will be more present in our daily lives post-pandemic – not just for COVID-19 and pregnancy testing but to diagnose diseases such as seasonal influenza and sexually transmitted infections – all from the comfort of the home.

We’ve carried out a high-level assessment to quantify the approximate environmental impact of lateral flow tests and identify evidence-based suggestions for improving their environmental sustainability.

Why do COVID-19 lateral flow tests contain lots of single-use plastic in the first place?

The emergence of COVID-19 was a global emergency, and vast quantities of lateral flow tests were needed urgently. Once developers could produce the right immunoassay chemistry to detect the virus (SARS-CoV-2), it required implementation in a low-cost, low-risk device, that has a mature supply chain – with proven, readily available materials that wouldn’t compromise analytical or clinical performance.

This meant using existing plastic casework designs to retain and protect the nitrocellulose test strip. Plastic is robust, low cost, lightweight, easy to transport, and easily printed for QR codes and LOT numbers. Critically, it’s a consistent material proven for the highest volume manufacturing and won’t interfere with the immunoassay chemistry.

From a performance, cost, and manufacturing perspective, redesigning the product with new materials would have been high risk. Material changes may also have needed significant R&D costs, new capital equipment as well as additional cost and effort needed to demonstrate equivalence and achieve regulatory approval – risking the ability to provide sufficient numbers of high-quality tests, at speed during the pandemic.

Our results: The sustainability of lateral flow tests

But how serious an environmental impact do these tests have? To find out, we broke down a test into its constituent components and weighed them to calculate the approximate environmental impact, using standard emissions factors to calculate the carbon footprint of a single test.

web_body_lateral-flow-test-kit-1

We focused on carbon footprint (the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted during manufacture, transport, and disposal of the tests) and plastic waste (waste that would persist indefinitely if released into the environment) – the two issues that have attracted the most attention around lateral flow tests. A more comprehensive study should consider a broader range of environmental impacts, for example, the use of scarce resources and emission of other pollutants to avoid unintended consequences of any product changes.

Our results reveal:

  • The components needed to conduct the test account for around half of the carbon footprint and around two-thirds of the plastic waste. Packaging makes up most of the rest – as is often the case, a surprisingly high proportion of the total environmental impact
  • The test strip caseworks, which attracts the most comment online, is responsible for around 30% of the carbon footprint and 40% of the plastic waste. While it’s the most significant single contributor to the environmental impacts we evaluated, the large number of other small parts is also significant. Focusing on the caseworks therefore might not be the best strategy for improving the sustainability of the tests overall.
web_body_lateral-flow-test-analysis-1a-2
web_body_lateral-flow-test-analysis-1b-3

Lateral flow tests a minor piece of UK healthcare’s environmental impact

To put these numbers into context, we can compare the environmental impact of the two billion COVID-19 lateral flow tests distributed in the UK with the UK healthcare system’s overall environmental impact. We estimate the UK’s lateral flow tests have a carbon footprint equivalent to around 0.5% of the total NHS carbon footprint. This isn’t a trivial amount, but it’s also not the largest single contributor to the impact of the UK health system.

It’s also worth considering the positive environmental impact of a user-administered test on the health system. Conducting a test at home can eliminate the need for an individual to visit a test site, GP’s surgery, or hospital (assuming the clinical performance of the lateral flow test is adequate). Based on estimates from the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition, one lateral flow test has around 5% of the carbon footprint of a single GP appointment and produces a similarly low percentage of non-degradable (plastic) waste.

And that’s before we consider travel. We estimate one lateral flow test has the same carbon footprint as driving 350 metres in an average UK car. So, if you’re driving yourself to a test site or GP surgery some distance away, at-home lateral flow tests compare even more favorably.

If a lateral flow test prevents an individual from transmitting COVID-19 to a vulnerable person, there’s a public health benefit – as well as an environmental benefit – to keeping people out of the hospital. We can all see the discarded waste from home tests, but the less visible impact from energy- and material-intensive medical interventions is often significantly higher.

These approximate figures demonstrate why building an evidence base is vital during product development targeting sustainability objectives – because the results can be unexpected and non-intuitive.

Quick ways to optimize today’s lateral flow tests

Just because waste from lateral flow tests might not be the most urgent sustainability issue for UK healthcare, that doesn’t mean we can’t and shouldn’t do something about it.

We used the ‘avoid/shift/improve’ model to find potential quick wins for lateral flow tests. These reduce the carbon footprint of each test by nearly a third and the plastic waste by almost a quarter – without impacting the fundamentals of how the test works.

They include:

  • Eliminate waste bags. There’s a case for quickly isolating contaminated waste (even given COVID-19 also spreads from infected individuals through the air), but the bags account for around 5% of the carbon footprint of the test. It’s not clear how widely used they are in a domestic setting – there may be a risk-based justification for not including them in the test kit.
  • Package all the test strips in a single foil pouch. Using a single re-sealable pouch to protect the tests from ambient humidity (rather than individually packing each test in a pouch with desiccant) is common in packs of lateral flow tests designed for use by healthcare professionals. However, once opened, the stability lifetime of the remaining tests is affected.
  • Reduce the size of paper instructions. These are important for the effectiveness of the tests and are a regulatory requirement, but account for 5% of the carbon footprint of a test – could they be reduced in size?
  • Eliminate the cardboard sleeve. This packaging isn’t essential to the safe and effective functioning of the test, and it seems likely that the functions it does provide could be achieved with less material.
  • Prefill the extraction tubes with buffer solution. This is already done in some test kits, although manufacturers need to be conscious of moisture loss and the effect on shelf life. However, the separate plastic vial used in the test kit we studied accounts for around 5% of the carbon footprint and plastic waste.
  • Increase the size of the pack from seven to ten tests. This would mean less package waste per individual test. Including ten tests in one pack instead of seven reduces the carbon footprint by around 5% (depending on how many other optimizations are done at the same time). Perhaps a pack of seven tests was originally designed to cover a week of daily testing – but is that how tests are being used in practice?
web_body_lateral-flow-test-analysis-2

Redesign of the test strip caseworks

Looking to the longer-term gets us into product redesign – creating a new generation of the product with sustainability in mind. Doing this can take significant investment since, for medical devices, it’s likely to require new regulatory approval, which is a lengthy and costly process.

A popular idea circulating for lateral flow tests is to minimize the plastic test strip caseworks (without compromising the essential functions of providing a stable platform, and protecting the nitrocellulose test strip). It might be possible to halve the caseworks mass and reduce the overall carbon footprint and plastic waste by 15-20%. This would require significant investment in R&D, production tooling, and regulatory approval hoops to jump through – but could be worthwhile if future demand for tests stays high.

Longer-term options

If we consider that the world may require billions more lateral flow tests over the coming decade, a more comprehensive redesign becomes commercially viable. This could involve stripping the design back to the fundamental requirements for a lateral flow test – flowing a sample through the test strip in a way that is controlled and free from contamination. Current designs take advantage of established components to collect, buffer, and dose the sample – but, at this production volume, it may be worthwhile designing a system from the ground up that is optimized for cost, usability, performance, and sustainability.

Sustainability as a brand differentiator

It’s clear there’s scope to optimize lateral flow tests to reduce their environmental impact – and a systematic analysis reveals options beyond those that might jump out to someone when they use the tests. But it’s essential to put the impact of lateral flow tests in the context of the wider healthcare system, to focus resources where they can have the most environmental impact – and to recognize that, sometimes, the plastic waste people can see helps to avoid more serious, but less visible consequences.

On the other hand, while visible plastic waste from lateral flow tests may not be the most pressing environmental issue facing the healthcare industry, it highlights the growing influence consumer opinion is likely to have as diagnosis and treatment shift from hospitals to homes. And as lateral flow tests become (in the UK, at least) a product people buy with their own money, choosing from a range of options, there may be a competitive advantage for businesses that take note and optimize their products for sustainability.

References
  • Prime Minister sets out plan for living with COVID [Internet]. GOV.UK. 2022 [cited 1 April 2022]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-plan-for-living-with-covid
  • The Sustainable Healthcare Coalition. Care Pathways Calculator. [Internet]. Sustainable Healthcare Coalition. 2022 [cited 1 April 2022]. Available from: https://shcoalition.org/

Connect with CDP

For more information on reducing the environmental impact of lateral flow tests without compromising performance, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH
Mastering fluid flow to enhance user experience|
March 22nd 2022
Share:

Mastering fluid flow to enhance user experience

Ice cream and blood are two things you probably don’t want to think about simultaneously. But both are full of organic proteins and fats and behave differently from a fluid like water when they’re pumped through tubes. Innovators sometimes think about these similarities when creating, for example, a novel ice cream dispenser or device that filters out platelets from donor blood .

How a substance flows is a vitally important consideration for many products, from foods to skincare to medical devices to household paints. Development teams need to keep in mind a wide range of flow behaviors (for example, flow through nozzles, non-Newtonian flow, and foaming) to hit the sweet spot: a positive user experience that makes a product stand out in a crowded market. This means thinking about the science of how liquids and gases behave (fluid dynamics), as well as how the product responds to user interaction.

Look at how the squeezable plastic ketchup bottle differs from the glass bottles that were standard before 1983. The new design completely changed the user experience – no more digging down into the bottle with a knife to get the ketchup flowing again. Things became even easier for ketchup lovers with the debut of the upside-down squeezable bottle – no more awkwardly storing ‘regular’ bottles upside down in the fridge.

Or think about how the experience of washing your hands changed after the arrival of the liquid soap dispenser. Instead of having to share the same bar of soap with others, people can now wash “without the soapy mess”, as Robert R Taylor, who introduced SoftSoap liquid soap, put it, and can take only as much soap as they need.

While the flow of some liquids is analogous to water, whose behavior is well understood, other substances behave in much more complicated ways, requiring in-depth analysis work to understand when designing new products. For example, the air bubbles in ice cream make it behave as a liquid foam. Ice cream’s flow will change depending on how you’re dispensing it: Push it at high pressure through a narrow channel or nozzle, and the air bubbles will be compressed, allowing more ice cream to flow through the nozzle at once. When the ice cream is returned to normal pressure, the air bubbles re-expand, and the ice cream returns to its original size. Because of this complex and variable behavior, designing a product to dispense ice cream relies on hands-on experiments… which can mean going through gallons of ice cream before you can create a design that works as intended. Only by conducting these experiments to understand ice cream’s behavior can you build the mathematical model required to effectively develop a high-performance machine.

While it’s a shame to use gallons of ice cream in the quest for a better product, it’s not an environmental disaster. But shipping water-based products around the world does contribute to fossil fuel consumption and climate change. Removing water from laundry detergent helps cut shipping emissions by reducing bulk and making shipping more efficient. But it also dramatically changes how detergent flows and gets used by consumers. For example, measuring out 10 ml more detergent than recommended likely wouldn’t have an impact if you’re using a product that’s mostly water. But being off by 10 ml when detergent is concentrated could make a big difference for your laundry. So, it’s vital to ensure that dispensing is accurate, which requires an understanding of flow.

There are so many flow behaviors that can affect a product’s design. For example, should a container for insecticide include a mechanism to avoid skin contact and spillage? How could a medical device for freezing tumors be redesigned to eliminate vapor locks without the use of heavy and bulky high-pressure gas cylinders? Is there a way to dispense foaming hand soap in a decorative pattern for a premium experience?

Getting the design right for a flowing substance can differentiate between a product that fails and one that creates an experience that shifts category norms and delivers breakthrough consumer delight.

References

||||||||
December 16th 2021
Share:

CDP triumphs in challenge to help the British Antarctic Survey reach net zero

Cambridge Design Partnership’s concept to help the British Antarctic Survey reach net zero led to triumph in a Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership challenge.

The virtual one-day hackathon, held on December 3 2021 and run by the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) in collaboration with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Cambridge Zero, brought together global innovators across business and academia. Nine teams were challenged to devise ways to help BAS achieve net zero by addressing one of three categories: energy reduction and generation, backup systems and energy storage.

Cambridge Design Partnership’s (CDP) winning submission offered a novel combination of three solutions for energy storage at BAS’s Rothera Research Station, in one of the most isolated and formidable environments on Earth: Adelaide Island to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Given BAS’s emphasis on resilience and reliability, the CDP team prioritized applying established, proven technologies in novel ways. This led to three potential solutions – all aiming to reduce investment cost and reliance on more expensive and technologically challenging forms of energy storage:

  • Distributed heat storage using latent heat to lock room temperature with phase-change material (PCM) panels
  • Modulating building temperature set point to store heat in the fabric of the building in periods of over-supply, to reduce demand when it risks exceeding supply
  • Behavioral nudges based on energy generation and demand data that encourage activities to be scheduled for periods of over-supply, reducing storage needs

Eithne George, Program Director at CISL, said, “It was great to see companies with local roots like CDP competing in the hackathon. When it came to CDP’s presentation, we particularly liked the people-centered approach to thermal comfort, recognizing that in extremely remote locations, demand needs to meet supply to some degree. The team had a clear rationale for the use of innovative materials as well as behavioral nudges to make the most of oversupply from renewables at certain times of the day. The judges were unanimous when it came to the judging: In their view, CDP’s proposal was the strongest.”

Nopi Exizidou, Senior Carbon Manager (Net Zero transition lead) at British Antarctic Survey, said “What stood out from CDP’s entry was the solution the team presented was actually very simple but at the same time innovative – something we hadn’t thought about. It was great to see fresh ideas coming together based on the fact that CDP put a multi-disciplinary team together, addressing one of the greatest challenges we have in Antarctica.”

The industry-leading sustainability team at CDP has a proud track record of helping businesses make the transition to sustainable operations. Sustainability specialists work closely with market insights, science, and engineering experts to move ideas from the earliest ‘Phase Zero’ and opportunity definition, through the lab, and to market. The team delivers at the speed clients demand to adapt to the rapidly changing regulatory landscape and lead the sustainability revolution.

 

Join us to address some of the greatest environmental challenges of our era

We’re currently recruiting for a Sustainable Design Consultant, Life Cycle Assessment Engineer and a Head of Sustainability.

VIEW VACANCIES

 

CDP’s Sustainability Lead Matt Morris said, “First, we analyzed the problem to discover focus areas that would benefit BAS. Then our multi-disciplinary team generated as many solutions as possible, followed by a structured evaluation to decide which solutions to pursue. Finally, we conducted targeted research and analysis to provide evidence the solutions could solve BAS’s problems. It was tough to fit into a one-day event, but the team’s energy and enthusiasm carried us through.”

“We see a role for innovation in finding creative solutions to help close the gap between global sustainability goals and our current trajectory – the implementation gap,” said Matt Morris. “BAS’s challenge was a perfect example of this, and we wanted to use our approach to problem-solving to help uncover solutions that might not be obvious using conventional methods.”

Competing in the energy reduction and backup challenges, two other teams of innovators were announced as winners. London-based start-up Greenpixie came up with a series of digital solutions to facilitate and encourage further efficiency. Solutions ranged from utilizing waste heat generated by servers to intelligent load balancing, to better optimization of data transfer. The final winning team, coordinated by Turkish university ODTU teknokent, proposed an innovative approach to maximize the potential for wind energy through wind turbines that are resistant to extreme weather conditions, feeding in to an electrolyzer.

Toggle captions
website_cameo_Hackathon-2-1
website_cameo_Hackathon-6
website_cameo_Hackathon-1-1
website_cameo_Hackathon-3-1

For further information and media enquiries, please contact: media@cambridge-design.com or call 01223 264428

Ten ways to reduce E-waste in product development
June 7th 2021
Share:

Ten ways to reduce E-waste in product development

We all have that drawer – the graveyard for discarded electronics. What’s in yours? A cracked phone, an obsolete activity tracker, maybe an original iPod? You hang onto them, because it seems wrong to throw them away.
You’re right. Globally, 53.6 million metric tons of electronic waste, or E-waste, were generated in 2019 but only around one-fifth of this was recycled. Roughly half this pile comes from personal devices, which can be hard to round up from consumers.

Any product that includes some form of circuitry or electrical components is classed as electronic equipment. Once this product has been discarded without the intent to reuse, it falls under the category of E-waste.

The problem is not just environmental; in some cases it’s pragmatic. Many minerals in the products we throw away are difficult to obtain. The long-term consequences are serious. For example, a shortage of lithium or cobalt, both critical materials in electric vehicle batteries, could slam the brakes on our migration to greener transport.

As with most environmental issues, the solution to E-waste lies with government, industry, and the consumer. This article focuses on how product developers can play their part in helping to reduce e-waste.

Ten ways to reduce E-waste

1. Think modular

If devices become more modular, it becomes easier for the consumer or an engineer to perform repairs. It also makes it easier to break up devices at the end of their lives, a growing incentive if more industries become responsible for waste disposal.

Small product changes can make a significant impact, for example identifying which components tend to break first. Is there a way to make the component easily removable and replaceable? And if not, could it be designed to be more resilient?

2. Anticipate legislation

E-waste is a growing area of concern for governments, leading to a marked increase in the regulatory restrictions on disposal. This is noticeable in the electric car industry, where the EU and China have made manufacturers responsible for collecting and disposing of car batteries.

Both regulation and taxation are likely to increase. There is an opportunity for product developers to anticipate these factors when designing new products.

3. Respect the Right to Repair

A generation ago, mending your own possessions was a standard solution. Commonplace electrical repairs involved a loose wire or blown fuse. Today, electronic goods are much harder to fix, not helped by moving from screws to adhesive in assembly. You can no longer replace the battery in your phone and must go to a specialized repair shop for a damaged screen – think back to that drawer of retired electronics.

Product reviews now include ratings for ease of repair. France has introduced a law requiring an index of repairability which has encouraged manufacturers to offer online fixing guides. Other EU countries are rolling this out, including a requirement for manufacturers to ensure that spares are available for up to a decade. Sweden is also reducing the VAT rate on repairs and spare parts.

The ‘Right to Repair’ is a growing consumer rights issue. Designers can reduce E-waste by making it easy to mend common faults.

4. Use recyclable materials

As materials and processing research have progressed, the range of options for easily recyclable electronics has increased. These vary from paper RFID tags and biodegradable PCB substrates to chemical methods for breaking down coatings which have traditionally complicated the recycling process. These are all options to keep in mind when starting a design.

5. Design for E-waste recycling early on

The E-waste recycling process has the potential to be very expensive, so designing with this in mind early on is vital. There is also the challenge of encouraging consumers to return their devices in the first place. It’s much more challenging to recycle post-consumer waste than materials still under the manufacturers’ control.

Material resources for electronic devices are becoming increasingly difficult to source and therefore more expensive. This highlights the benefits of setting up a ‘reverse supply chain’ in which waste products are returned to their suppliers for recycling, allowing manufacturers to extract reusable materials.

The electronics in many home appliances often only make up a tiny proportion of the product. If a more modular design is selected, it becomes far easier to separate the E-waste from the product for recycling.

6. Top the ratings

Concerns over “fast fashion” in the retail industry could easily translate into customers rejecting low-cost, short-lifetime electronic products.

A public rating system for electronics that includes ease of recycling and repair as two separate metrics would prompt brands to question their design choices. Are there other less toxic or less scarce materials that could be used instead? Are there different versions of the product with lower E-waste potential?

Eupedia, an online guide to the EU, recently combined four indices covering a range of sustainability factors to rank brands, including ratings for recycling and repair.

7. Question whether electronics are necessary

Recently, electronics with ever-increasing features have been incorporated into previously ‘dumb’ products. In many cases, this enables functionality that was previously unachievable. However, sometimes we can obtain the same advantages without electronics, leading to a lower-cost and more straightforward solution.

Designers should carefully consider the range of solutions available and weigh up the relative user benefits, costs, and environmental impacts to find the most appropriate one for their product. For a simple maximum temperature monitor, do electronics provide a unique additional benefit, or can a different type of innovation such as a chemically triggered color change give the same information to the user?

8. Partner with smart devices

The obvious way to reduce E-waste is to produce less in the first place, but is this realistic? One route is to design electronics-free devices made smart through combination with a phone app. This often allows for the same functionality with no extra electronic components. For example, in diagnostic healthcare, agriculture and food safety testing, a phone camera can read and analyze colored test strips.

9. Consider a more sustainable business model

Some companies, such as Rolls Royce jet engines, have pioneered a service business model, in which customers hire products and return them to the supplier after use. This allows the manufacturer to perform necessary repairs or replacements between hire periods. Under this model, the burden of recycling shifts back to the supplier, further encouraging them to design products with minimal E-waste.

10. Reduce material usage

Mobile phones have shrunk in size from a brick to a calculator. This has been made possible by the miniaturization of electronic components, printed circuits, and connectors. The amount of material contained within each device has reduced considerably, even though complexity has increased.

Moving from milling and other subtractive manufacturing technologies to molding and 3D printing has reduced waste. There are opportunities to mirror these changes in electronics. Instead of making a flat sheet of copper and then dissolving most of it to produce a printed circuit board, additive techniques such as printed electronics can lay down patterns of conductors and insulators only where they are needed.

Putting E-waste in context

Our customers want smaller, lighter, longer-lasting devices that are easy to recycle. We can take all these factors into account every time we create a new design.

Solutions to E-waste must be looked at in the unique context of a product’s market and usage.

If we follow rules such as the above, we will make the optimum use of our planet’s limited material resources, and lay the electronics graveyard drawer to rest.

Which improvements will you design into your next electronic product?  Want to discover more and connect with our sustainability experts?

Connect with CDP

For more on how to reduce e-waste through smarter product design and development, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH