Synonyms

End-of-service life; End-of-use; EOSL; EOU

Definition

The end-of-life (EOL) of a product has traditionally been recognized as the point when a product no longer satisfies the needs or expectations of a user. The phrase “end-of-life” is a misnomer since a product at this point may still have considerable functional or material value. A product that someone no longer wishes to use should be thought of as having reached the end of a use cycle, i.e., an end-of-use (EOU) product. An end-of-use product often still has significant functional and material value remaining that can be recovered through reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, or recycling. The value of an EOL product varies considerably depending on its condition, quality, and cost to recover the product. At the true end-of-life of a product, any materials of value might be recycled while the remainder is incinerated or disposed in a landfill (Fig. 1).

EOL Treatment, Fig. 1
figure 521figure 521

Product life cycle and end-of-use alternatives

Full size image

Theory and Application

The design of products, and in fact the planning of the whole life cycle, must consider the management of end-of-use (EOU) products and how they will be processed. Product design for end-of-use should consider how products are recovered, management of individual components, disassembly procedures, as well as the evolving value/health of a product and its components as the product is used. Considering EOU early in the design process allows potential recovery opportunities to be identified (Herrmann et al. 2008). Hence, the design for disassembly (DfD), design for recycling (DfR), design for sustainability (DfS), design for environment (DfE), design for life cycle (DfLC), and design for end-of-life (DfEOL) are strategies created to avoid or mitigate the negative environmental impacts of products during their life cycle and manage the end-of use phase of products. These strategies, when added to other manufacturing practices such as component identification, modularity, and an increased use of recycled materials, could contribute significantly to the recovery of products at end-of-use.

Regardless of the design technique used, the traditional EOU recovery options generally considered are reuse, refurbishing, remanufacturing, and recycling (Ilgin and Gupta 2010; Lee et al. 2010). Each of the EOU options has a different purpose as well as advantages and challenges. For instance, the reuse, refurbishing, and remanufacturing strategies extend the operational life of the product and preserve the functional value added during manufacturing as well as the material value inherent to the components. In the case of repairable systems, these strategies can be useful to meet the demand for spare parts and reduce the time required for a customer to receive a product. Historically, however, reused, refurbished, and remanufactured components have been associated with lower quality, uncertainty about performance, shorter warranty periods, and costly maintenance. These are perceptions that must be overcome and constitute a challenge for recovery companies and future research. Unlike reuse, refurbishment, and remanufacturing, a recycling EOU strategy only recovers the material value embedded within a product, and any product functional value is totally lost (Srivastava 2007; Pigosso et al. 2010). However, significant benefits still exist for recycling, especially for products containing materials that have high value in secondary material (scrap) markets.

The EOU recovery process involves retrieving residual functional or material value, which often offers considerable economic and environmental benefits. Take-back legislation, market requirements, and used product value are the main drivers for EOU recovery (Sasikumar and Kannan 2008). For EOU products, reverse logistics are often a critical consideration. Reverse logistics (RL) is the process associated with managing the flow of products, components, and materials from the point where a product that reaches the end of a use cycle to a point where the product is processed for future use. Successful management of used products requires planning of reverse logistics operations. The selection of collection points, logistics of transportation, disassembly, inspection, classification, and reconditioning among other operations are good examples of critical activities that must be planned in advance.

Take-Back Policies and Regulations

Historically, the recovery of used products has been either market driven or policy driven. In the case of the latter driver, government action has been motivated by the desire to reduce discharges to landfills, lower the quantity and environmental impact of industrial waste streams, and respond to community pressures. Often policies and regulations that have emerged relate to product end-of-use and have included such topics as:

  • Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). WEEE regulations seek to establish responsibilities for EEE manufacturers at EOU and promote the recycling and reuse of electric and electronic devices.

  • Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS). RoHS regulations are focused on avoiding and reducing the use of heavy metals and other hazardous substances that could discourage or make complex the recovery of the product at EOU.

  • End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV). ELV regulations aim to make the recovery, dismantling, and recycling of vehicles and their components more environmentally friendly and encourage original equipment manufacturers to design vehicles suitable for recycling. For instance, in the case of Japan, a consumer pays a fee at the time of purchase, and when, at the end of a use cycle, the consumer sells the car to a dealer, the fee is reimbursed. Dealers take back and recycle around 83 % of the vehicle by weight, e.g., engines, tires, seats, and steel components are recovered. The remaining automobile residue has been employed to create artificial islands (Kumar and Yamaoka 2006).

  • Packaging. Packaging regulations seek to reduce the volume and weight of packaging either during transportation or secondary packaging to the minimum required (Nakajima and Vanderburg 2006).

The incorporation of take-back policies should be an initiative shared among a diversity of entities including the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), government, recovery companies, distributors, and even customers. Beyond the policy framework, new paradigms must be established in order to promote sustainable products and closed material loops at product end-of-use. In this sense, concepts such as Product Service Systems (PSS) and Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) could support this purpose.

The philosophy of Product Service Systems (PSS) is to meet customer needs through provision of a service (e.g., transportation) as opposed to selling a tangible good (e.g., a car). In either case the functional need is met, but the customer purchases the service rather than a product (Maxwell and van der Vorst 2003; Mont and Lindhqvist 2003). With the PSS approach, products are usually leased or rented rather than sold to a consumer. The maintenance, reconditioning, and upgrading of the physical product are the responsibility of the product owner and not the consumer.

The Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) is a collaborative approach that seeks to share the cost, risk, and responsibility of waste management among two or more producers with a set of waste reduction goals (Nakajima and Vanderburg 2006; Fleckinger and Glachant 2010). Under this approach, a centralized not-for-profit organization is in charge of collecting and processing end-of-use products on behalf of their individual members.

Cross-References

Recycling

Remanufacturing

Reuse