Design for Reuse: Integrating Upcycling into

Industrial Design Practice

Mark Richardson

Monash University, Faculty of Art & Design, Department of Design, 900 Dandenong Rd, Caulfield
East, Victoria, Australia.

Key Words
Industrial Design, upcycling, dematerialisation, reuse, waste management, rapid manufacturing, open
source, product fabrication, end-of-life.

Abstract

In light of concern regarding Australia’s increasing level of household solid waste – and the design
industry’s complicity in the creation of much of this waste – design processes need to be scrutinised
on their ability to provide ‘upstream’ responses to the issue. This paper illustrates the outcomes of a
recent collaborative research project involving Industrial design academics and students from Monash
University, product manufacturer ENJO Australia and Industrial Design consultancy Studio Periscope.
The project explored the notion of ‘upcycling’ – reusing end-of-life (EoL) components and materials to
make new products in a way that maintains their ‘value’ to an equal or greater degree (see, for
example, Thornton 1994: 14; McDonough & Braungart 2002). EoL products and materials that had
been returned to ENJO as part of a trial Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) program were reused
as the building blocks for new products. This provided a means to extend the lifecycle of those
materials and components beyond their initial intended use. The project involved disassembling and
reusing this waste, therefore eliminating the need for recycling or sending components to landfill at
that stage of their lifecycle. The design process was considered in the light of its potential to be
coupled with Rapid Manufacturing and distributed, open-source, networked, neighbourhood
fabrication. The research argues that design-for-reuse should be considered as an integral part of
both Industrial Design training and practice to allow an intelligent response to growing product waste
concerns.

1.0.0 Introduction

1.1.0 Waste Accountability in Product Design

Commodity manufacturing and consumption have become weighty public concerns in recent
decades, largely due to resource-intensive production processes and mounting landfill waste (Oke et
al. 2008; McDonough and Braungart 2002; CSIRO 2008; ABS 2003; Thorpe 2007: 27). Traditionally,
1
the Oceania region has been a high Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generator with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figures showing per capita levels to be one of the
highest globally (IPCC 2006). Australia generated over 20 million tonnes of landfill between 2006–
2007 — a 20 per cent increase in just four years — and solid landfill waste from the business and
government sector reached nearly 6.5 million tonnes in the same period (Oke et al. 2008: 18–19).
These levels are high considering our relatively small population, and are likely to increase in years to

1
Australia and New Zealand
come given pressures resulting from population growth, household wealth and gross domestic
product (GDP) (Harper 2006). In light of this, the Australian Government’s recent National Waste
Policy aims to encourage more responsible waste management practices and promote a culture of
zero-waste in Australia. In so doing, it intends to establish new industry and business opportunities,
both here and internationally, for materials and products recovered from waste (EPHC 2009).

This focus on waste reduction is in keeping with international initiatives. The European Commission
has recently launched its Action Plans for Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable
Industrial Policy to expand existing sustainability regulations, with direct implications for
manufacturers operating or selling goods to Europe (Sustainable Manufacturing Summit 2008). For
example, Europe’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations have been
established in its push to reduce its 6.5 million tonnes of electrical and electronic waste disposed of
each year (Barba-Gutiérrez, Adenso-Díaz and Hopp 2008; Net Regs 2008). These regulations, and
other similar ones such as the End of Life Vehicle directive (ELV) (European Union 2000), are aimed
squarely at manufacturers, distributors and importers, and all businesses involved with particular
types of product waste, reallocating responsibility for environmentally safe disposal of goods to these
organisations. Such regulations are part of the international trend towards Extended Product
Responsibility (EPR) for manufacturers (Net Regs 2008). If Australian exports are to remain
internationally competitive, particularly in the European market, it is imperative that they are able to
conform to these new standards, as “Australian producers that fail to raise the bar on the
environmental impact of their products may soon find they are excluded from these critical markets”
(Castle 2008).

The Australian National Waste Policy discusses the need for product design to become more
accountable for End of Life (EoL) of products (EPHC 2009: 8) and, given it is situated upstream of
manufacturing processes, the design industry needs to take responsibility for developing EoL
strategies (Gehin, Zwolinski, and Brissaud 2008). It is clear, however, that a range of radical
legislative, socio-cultural and waste management shifts need to occur before zero-waste can be
achieved.

1.2.0 Zero-waste by Design

Household solid waste is particularly relevant to Industrial Design, given many of its products end up
as this. For zero-waste by design to occur, the products we use and the way they are packaged
should at no point become waste. The challenge facing designers is to generate products that, at
every point of their lifecycle, can be used and reused in ways that add positive value – which is the
ultimate aim of cradle-to-cradle manufacturing (see McDonough and Braungart 2002). On the whole,
current design practices do not meet this objective. A fundamental shift in systems of design and
manufacture, materiality and construction, packaging and distribution, component and material reuse,
and eco-friendly disposal at EoL are required. It will be difficult to achieve this without rethinking the
products themselves: to readdress how they are designed and made, the materials they are made
from, performance attributes, and EoL strategies (see, for example, DEWHA 2008; Department of
Climate Change 2008; Lewis et.al. 2001; McDonough and Braungart 2002; Papanek 1984; Thorpe
2007; Vezzoli and Manzini 2008).

In addition to the obvious issues related to landfill, the design profession and manufacturing industries
need to consider how they can best facilitate impending EPR and Product Stewardship regulations.
Australia is likely to follow European EPR precedents and, consequently, needs to establish avenues
for manufacturers to facilitate the processing of returned EoL goods (WasteNet 2008). The potential
profitability and even large cost-savings of product take-back for reuse has already been established
(Klausner et al. 1998; see also Mazhar 2006) and there have been suggestions that component reuse
is more cost effective for manufacturers than recycling (Kaebernick et al. 2000, 2001, cited in Mazhar
2006). Designing with component reuse as a core concern represents a more intelligent model for
producing goods within a wider consideration of ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Remove’ efforts —
reducing carbon emissions and waste, sustainably using and reusing materials, and minimizing
energy expenditure in production cycles.

These considerations point towards establishing a culture of dematerialisation – that is, one of less
net material volume circulating in the product ‘system’ to begin with and, consequently, one with less
material volume at EoL. Dematerialisation can be achieved in a number of ways, including:

- Developing products with greater longevity – products of upmost quality that can be repaired,
reused and remanufactured many times over;

- Using materials that are compostable, non-toxic, and have a positive or neutral impact on the
environment at a products EoL (McDonough and Braungart 2002);

- Establishing a robust system of reuse, whether that is through recycling, upcycling or

remanufacturing.

There are clear distinctions between recycling, upcycling and remanufacturing (which are explained in
more detail below); however, there is a relative absence of research exploring the ‘system benefits’ of
upcycling as an effective design and waste management tool. Upcycling is a way designers can
directly reduce the net volume of household solid waste entering the waste stream; and more broadly,
net material volumes in the global product market. This paper outlines an upcycling project
undertaken in 2010 as a collaborative research venture between product manufacturer ENJO
Australia, design company Studio Periscope and Monash University. The aim of the research was to
explore ways for designers to responsibly develop new products by upcycling a range of EoL products
as a key strategy for dematerialisation. This paper first outlines the design methods used and then
illustrates the outcomes of the project and some observations of the process, benefits and limitations
discovered. It goes on to make some broader comments on the future possibilities for upcycling in the
context of burgeoning design and manufacturing practices.

2.0.0 A Definition of Upcyling

Upcycling is a way of adding value to ‘waste’. In some cases recycling processes can achieve these
aims; however, energy and water savings can be made by avoiding reprocessing materials to a virgin
state. In many cases, recycling also results in a downgrading of the material’s constitution (Pilz cited
in Thornton 1994; McDonough & Braungart 2002). Further, unlike remanufacturing – a method of
extending product lifecycles through reuse and refabrication of products in closed-loop cycles (in
other words, contained within a single product line [see for example; Ijomah et.al. 2007; Kerr and
Ryan 2001; Mont, Dalhammar, Jacobsson 2006]) – the primary aim of upcycling is to refashion and
integrate discarded components and materials into a new range of diverse products within open-loop
cycles. For example, the LCD touch screen from a superseded mobile phone made by manufacturer
‘A’, could be repurposed become a climate control touch screen in a motor vehicle instrument panel
made by manufacturer ‘B’, then reused as the backlit LCD panel in a data projector made by
manufacturer ‘C’. The other components of the phone could equally be repurposed in a diverse range
of alternative products rather than being recycled. To this end, the value of the material and
components maintain equal or greater value as in the original embodiment. However, each of these
functions would need to be considered upstream in the design stage of the mobile phone in order to
fully cater for downstream repurposing.

Upcycling already exists as a post-production process in certain industry niches. Companies such as
Terracycle and Freitag are exemplars of the practice, having established manufacturing businesses
around the reuse of waste in products that re-enter consumer cycles. Terracycle, a multi-million dollar
enterprise in the US, began by producing “worm poop” fertiliser (vermicultured green waste) which is
packaged in reused PET drink bottles. They have since developed a whole range of products,
including pencil cases and tote bags made from food and drink packaging, flower pots from e-waste,
and wall-clocks from discarded records (Szarky 2009). Freitag (2011) similarly make a number of
ranges of courier bags, handbags and wallets from truck tarpaulins, bike inner tubes and car
seatbelts. Lumenlab (2008) retails kits for DIY digital data projectors where the primary component is
a reused LCD monitor.

These examples, however, demonstrate upcycling as a post-production process, where alternative

ways to responsibly reuse existing EoL products are sought at the point of that product’s EoL. While
the project outlined below operated within this realm, further research aims to develop upstream
methods for designing products to be upcycled. By building on lessons learned, it is expected that this
would help reduce landfill, open new business opportunities for recovering and reusing waste, and
encourage greater product variability.

3.0.0 ‘Redesign’: The ENJO upcycling project

For a number of years, upcycling has been a core constituent of the Industrial Design program at
Monash University, both at an undergraduate and postgraduate level. The research focuses on
developing a world of modular, reusable, adaptable and long-life products to replace or extend the
functions of today’s discrete ‘terminal’ products. A project sponsored by ENJO Australia as part of a
collaborative research venture between ENJO, Studio Periscope and Monash University was
undertaken in 2010. It explored the potential for a selection of ENJO’s range of cleaning products to
be upcycled at EoL. The aim was to establish a precedent enabling ENJO to deal with their products
at EoL as part of an EPR initiative. By reusing components, the ambition was to reduce the need for
recycling, and hence save materials, water and energy.

This task was established as an undergraduate studio project, utilising the skills of budding young
designers who were managed by a team of design practitioners and researchers from Studio
Periscope and Monash University. The project covered emerging design theory including
sustainability issues, materials technology, rapid manufacturing, open source methodology and virtual
design interface. The project addressed issues such as product assemblies, re-manufacturing,
fabrication and assembly systems, nodes, connections, digital technologies and service systems.

3.1.0 The Collaborative Partners

ENJO Australia and Studio Periscope are two Australian businesses that have committed to the
investigation of sustainable design and manufacturing methods as a core constituent of their business
strategy. ENJO’s core business demonstrates dedication to frontier innovation and technological
advancement in both their products and commercial strategy, reflected in the number of patents they
hold surrounding the materiality and function of their products. Their primary innovation lies in the
development and application of microfibre technology, which is currently being applied to cleaning
gloves, cloths, a compactable floor cleaner, window cleaner, and cleaning wands (figure 1).

Studio Periscope is an Industrial and Graphic Design studio based in Melbourne with a client base
that includes Fosters Group, Sensis, Melbourne Fringe, SDI and ENJO Australia. Their commercial
expertise in branding, industrial design, sustainable design and product line mapping provide direction
for bringing economically viable, human-centred designs to market. Studio Periscope brings expertise
in new product development strategies, eco materials and sustainable production processes and, at
the time of the upcycling project, was developing a new product range for ENJO Australia for which
this research had direct relevance.
 Figure 1. ENJO product range used for upcycling (product images sourced from: http://www.enjo.net/#/int/products/enjo-
products)

3.2.0 Project Methodology

The project was undertaken with a typical Industrial Design methodology; it began with a study of the
current ENJO system of products and processes, developed design objectives and briefs for potential
new product solutions, designed new products and analysed the outcomes according to the initial
objectives. This process is outlined in detail below.

3.2.1 Product take-back and disassembly

ENJO Australia operates as a consultant-based direct seller, giving them the opportunity to collect
EoL products from customers when new items are purchased. A stockpile of these products, along
with a range of damaged products returned under warranty, were shipped to Monash University for
upcycling. Each product in the ENJO range was disassembled, the process photographically
documented and each component was digitally modelled using 3D modelling software. This
information was compiled into a deconstruction manual (‘destructable’) and the material qualities,
construction and structural properties of each component were catalogued.

3.2.2 Development of a Product Design Brief

One of the primary difficulties when approaching an upcycling task is determining how to use the
components and materials in a new way. A common approach is to interrogate the functionality and
materiality of the parts in order to inform the designer of further possible functional uses. While this
approach is good for understanding the attributes of the materials at hand, it is not necessarily ideal
for developing innovative new product ideas. The ‘Redesign’ project began with a more human-
centred approach: participants undertook a data generation and mining exercise in order to discover a
broad range of issues surrounding each of them as individuals. In order that the participants
recognise issues relating to the products, spaces and systems surrounding them, they were asked to
photographically document everything they touched for a continuous 24-hour period. The photos were
then compiled into various sequences of events, correlations and similarities. These image
sequences were then ‘mined’ for interaction types, patterns, discrepancies and opportunities. Visual
maps were made to describe sensations, ritual patterns, interactions with surrounding people and
objects, spatial activity centres, energy requirements and expenditures, and other miscellaneous
experiences encountered. These issues and observations were compiled into a list and relevant
product and service system ideas that were then developed. These ideas were subsequently written
up into a number of design briefs. The ENJO materials were then interrogated as to their suitability for
the specific ideas. In this way, the materiality was explored in terms of its ability to fulfil an imposed
function rather than allowing the original function and materiality to dictate the product direction. The
approach was intended to encourage broader experimentation with the materials.

3.2.3 Concept development

Subsequent to the establishment of the design briefs, a typical Industrial Design process was followed
throughout concept development:
 • First, each participant undertook a benchmark study to establish the precedents in the topic
area of their brief; this served to contextualize the direction of their exploration. The study
sought to understand how similar products functioned, their materiality, construction, socio-
cultural significance, ‘form language’ (the shape and aesthetic parameters) and market
position.

• Second, the functional attributes and systems-of-use for each concept were visually mapped.
This mapping process documented how the product is intended to be used and served as a
mechanism to inform the development of ways to improve it. These maps provided base
documents from which the product requirements could be derived. These requirements were
then used to establish a list of product objectives and technical attributes.

• Third, a sketch design process was undertaken to develop three initial design ideas. One
direction was selected for further development based on its potential for fulfilling the project
objectives. A full-size preliminary functional prototype of the favoured direction was then
constructed. This assisted in developing an initial package envelope which helped define the
general shape parameters for each product.

• Forth, the form and function of the chosen design direction were refined according to these
parameters, with consideration to the relationship between the aesthetic appearance,
function, component layout and assembly. Scale mock-ups were made to represent the
forms. From these mock-ups, the most relevant design direction was selected and refined
further. Digital models for rapid prototyped parts were made – in many cases new parts
needed to be made to connect upcycled components or to perform an aesthetic function.

• Fifth, the final functional prototypes were constructed.

• Sixth, documentation, including presentation renderings, animations, technical drawings,

2
assembly drawings, presentation material and an ‘instructable’ (Instructables 2010), was
compiled. This material accompanied the working prototype in the final presentation to the
project stakeholders.

4.0.0 Project outcomes

Around 40 participants were involved in the project, and each developed an individual product based
on reused ENJO parts. Thirteen of the most applicable outcomes were selected to be exhibited at
3
Design:Made:Trade in an exhibition entitled ‘Upcycled’ (Richardson 2010). The exhibition displayed a
high diversity of outcomes, all of them one-off products that demonstrated a variety of manufacturing
processes, ranging from cutting and sewing through to milling and rapid prototyping. All of the
construction and assembly was by hand and instuctables of the processes were produced to expose
the source design online for open-source development. Five of the designs are briefly outlined below:

4.0.1 ‘Flipping Flipper’ – Alex Goad

A derivative of the Flipfin, an aquatic flipper, the fin of the ‘Flipping Flipper’ (Figure 2) was developed
to fold up while walking without the need to remove the flipper from the foot. The design is made from
the ENJO floor cleaner base, fibres and duster components.

2
An ‘instructable’ is a detailed instruction manual – usually applying to the making of DIY open-source projects – that outlines
materials, tools and how to make a product.
3
An exhibition event that showcased Australian design as part of the 2010 State of Design Festival in Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
 Figure 2. ‘Flipping Flipper’ – Alex Goad

4.0.2 ‘re-pak’: Sustainable Packaging for Fragile goods – Michael Oechsle

‘Re-Pak’ (Figure 3) is a reusable packaging solution for the transport of fragile goods. ENJO Dust
Gloves and fibres have been sealed in a High-density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic cover, providing
an air cushion that rivals bubble wrap and foam packaging. The brief for ‘re-pak’ was to explore
possible replacement systems for these and other common packaging goods in the home-removal
industry. A valve made from an ENJO floor cleaner clip, grip rubber and a rapid prototyped casing
allows air to be squeezed from the bag for more efficient storage. The product is designed to be
reused many times over.

Figure 3. ‘re-pak’ – Michael Oechsle

4.0.3 ‘Drivers-1’ – Anthony Farnell

Drivers -1 (Figure 4) is an in-car camera mount for capturing race driver footage at motor sport circuit
days. The device allows drivers to use their own camera to record race events and has been
designed to comply with race safety regulations. It has been made from ENJO Floor Cleaner
components.
 Figure 4. ‘Drivers-1’ – Anthony Farnell

4.0.4 ‘Light Up My World’ – Ruby Chan

‘Light Up My World’ (Figure 5) is a red LED torch that allows users to see at night without losing their
night vision. After using a regular torch, it can often take some time for the eyes to readjust to low light
conditions; however the low, red light of the ‘Light Up My World’ does not cause the pupil to constrict
as much as it does with bright white light, limiting the need for its readjustment after the light is turned
off. The ENJO components used in its construction include the Floor Cleaner aluminium pole inner
and outer, parts of the Floor Cleaner base and elements of the Bathroom Handy.

Figure 5. ‘Light Up My World’ – Ruby Chan

4.0.5 ‘Not Enough for Some’ (sleeping bag) – Andrew Ganter

“When I see homeless people struggle to make ends meet, I think that they don’t deserve to be in the
position they’re in. On cold nights and days on end without a change of clothes, surely we can make
their lives a little easier by providing them with some apparel and sleepwear, and cater for some of
their main needs” (Ganter 2010). ‘Not Enough For Some’ (Figure 6) is a waterproof sleeping bag
made from ENJO Cleaning Gloves covered with a layer of heat-bonded plastic from the pallets the
products came in.
 Figure 6. ‘Not Enough for Some’ (sleeping bag) – Andrew Ganter

4.1.0 Project Observations

This research highlighted a number of the positive and negative limitations of post-production or
‘down-stream’ upcycling. The clear boundaries set by using existing components and their associated
structural, aesthetic and material properties set a positive challenge for the designers. The constraint
of designing from a limited palette of parts required innovative adaption to perform alternative
functions and there was a noticeable psychological shift between the EoL products being seen as
waste to becoming precious due to limited supply and high demand. There were limitations, in many
cases however, of what could be achieved. For example:

- The materials in some cases lacked structural strength for the new design application; low
grade aluminium with higher silicon content, for instance, restricted its adaptability for more
structural purposes;

- Plastic parts that had been moulded to perform particular tasks did not have structural ribs,
bosses and fixtures in the correct places for new functions;

- HDPE and nylon were especially hard to work with in post-production processes, given the
difficulty of refinishing their surfaces after cutting or reshaping;

- In many cases, the previous product’s form limited the form of the new product, making the
visual sophistication of the new product difficult to achieve and often resulted in a ‘hack’
aesthetic;

- The construction process was usually long, labour-intensive and, given the complexity of the
disparate parts being used and the requirement for hand finishing, would be difficult to fully
adapt to current automated systems;

- Traditional model-making tools were often not ideal for reshaping and adapting parts, and the
sophistication of the outcome often suffered as a result;
 - There was difficulty sourcing a consistent flow of parts, given the EoL products spanned many
model iterations and often came from discontinued stock. There were minor differences in
many of the parts from model to model even when they were from the same product line;

- 3D digital models of initial prototypes were essential to minimise wasting valuable parts in the
development process;

- Maintaining dimensional accuracy while making new parts was difficult to control, given they
were hand finished and there were dimensional challenges when marrying disparate parts;

- The stigma of the product’s past life was difficult to transcend – parts were often damaged
and/or dirty and, given in this case they had come from cleaning products, it was difficult to
cross the psychological barrier, even though they were thoroughly cleaned, of using them for
new, more hygienic functions;

- Without testing, there was no way of telling the embodied toxicity of the materials and
consequently to predict the health issues related to their use;

- Experimentation through making the products was essential to understanding component and
material limitations and capabilities. Serendipitous discoveries during the making process
often occurred, such as the thermal qualities of the enjo fibres under water andRe-using
packaging plastic as an outer skin for the sleeping bag;

Given the above constraints, a list of criteria and processes for upstream design-for-reuse are
suggested below. This outlines some broad initial parameters for future research.

5.0.0 Next steps: adapting lessons into upstream design-for-reuse strategies

Historically, upcycling has been rendered secondary to primary manufacturing and, without the
development of innovative systems for its integration into upstream design processes, it is likely to
stay in the realms of low-volume, open-source, DIY design and manufacture. In order for it to more
effectively contribute to dematerialisation, upcycling will need to be developed into a more
sophisticated and reliable system, able to produce a greater variety of refined products that can in
turn be disassembled and subsequently reused in continuing cycles. Upcycling to date has not
effectively achieved this – in most cases it does not consider products beyond their second iterative
use; for a multiple-use system to develop, there needs to be effective exploration into modular
approaches for product assemblies (Kimura, et.al. 2001). Upstream design processes need to be
evolved to systematise extensible product modularity and encompass component and material
variability. This requires design-for-reuse to be a highly integrated aspect of the Industrial Design
process and in turn necessitates newly designed products to be accordingly developed, freely
accessible and effectively disseminated. In this respect, there is the opportunity for the establishment
of a profession of highly specialised re-designers that could accompany primary product designers in
the upstream design process – in much the same way lifecycle analysis is presently undertaken. To
establish design-for-reuse practice, there are many key requirements to integrating a sophisticated
system of upcycling. Ideally, these would include:

- A shift in perception of products as an ‘ends in themselves’, to see products as a modular set

of subsystems designed for disassembly and reuse;

- Rigorous unified global product take-back processes, disassembly, cataloguing, storage,

tracking and access paths for reusable parts;
 - A global EoL component database that enables efficient accessibility and intelligent
component storage and tracking. This would include easily accessible 3D scans/models of
components for accurate use in parametric modelling software for the rapid manufacturing of
connective parts and fixtures;

- Dynamically updatable documentation of a component’s time to failure (Murayama and Shu

2001) and traceable redistribution of parts in upcycled products;

- Better material selection for short- and long-term component use, and better rationalisation of
their quality parameters to suit – in other words, short-life components made from materials
that have no environmental impact at EoL, and serviceable long-life components of high
quality that are able to be reused many times over (Mcdonough and Braungart 2002);

- Functional and structural guidelines for upcycling parts and quality assurance measures for
their reuse;

- Manufacturing processes that allow existing parts to be accurately modified to perform

different functions while preserving surface finish;

- More sophisticated design systems for product customisation that includes rapid
manufacturing processes (for example, Selective Laser Sintering and CNC machining rather
than injection moulding and casting) to account for smaller volumes of variable and
customisable products;

- Information and Communications Technology (ICT) enabled open-source design methods to

account for continual product adaptability.

With these systems in place, it is expected that upcycling has the potential to transform the way we
consider individual products, as assemblages of functional component modules with multiple life
spans rather than complete, stand-alone objects with singular finite lives (Richardson 2007). This is
an important distinction, considering that many products are considered to be defunct at the point of
the weakest component’s failure at which point the entire product is discarded (Li, Shrivastava, Zhang
2004). A system of component modularity (Fumihiko et al. 2001) would potentially allow products to
be deconstructed, reconstructed and re-skinned in a many different ways, evolving notions of ‘product
longevity’ to a more sophisticated ‘component longevity’ (Richardson 2007: 2) and reducing the
volume of materials entering waste and recycling streams. This alone necessitates a new design-for-
reuse approach, where the total life of a product is considered at its conception rather than EoL.

5.0.0 Concluding Remarks

To date, upcycling has been largely ignored as a serious contingent in effective design and waste
management strategies. It is an effective way for designers and manufacturers to reduce the amount
of resources entering the waste stream and encouraging net dematerialisation by integrating waste
content into new products. The practice is currently evident at a ground level, but formal studies have
not been conducted in Australia to establish just how effective a tool it could be, and whether product
design practices can be improved in relation to it. To this point, companies like Fuji Xerox, Terracycle
and Freitag have already proven that remanufacturing and component reuse can have high economic
benefit (Kerr and Ryan 2001).

In the collaboration between Monash Design academics and students , ENJO Australia and Studio
Periscope, a traditional Industrial Design process was adapted to upcycle a range of EoL products
into new, alternative products and five of the outcomes have been briefly outlined. While a post-
production exercise, the observations of the shortfalls and opportunities can be used to anticipate
some of the key requirements for formal integrating upcycling into upstream design processes. One of
the primary aims of this research is to encourage the shift in cultural perception that products are
singular, finite objects to that of products and their components having many incarnations when a
product is considered a modular assemblage of reusable parts. To this end, the value associated with
products extends beyond their initial functionality to encompass multiple subsequent functionalities in
new products. This added value is likely to encourage consumers to support product take-back
schemes given it will open trade possibilities for their waste.

From this point, the aim is to develop a range of more formal guidelines for upcycling to complement
current primary design and manufacturing in a symbiotic relationship. It is anticipated that this will
encourage alternative tiers of manufacturing and create additional diversity in a more distributed
system. It is also expected that a sophisticated system of design-for-reuse will enable a net reduction
in material use, energy and water savings, and a reduction in landfill levels, while opening new
industry opportunities for waste recovery, disassembly, component trading and reuse.

References
ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] (2003) Year Book Australia 2003, cat. no. 1301.1, available at
<http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/>, accessed 4 February 2008.

Barba-Gutiérrez, Y., Adenso-Díaz, B. and Hopp, M. (2008) ‘An analysis of some environmental consequences of European
electrical and electronic waste regulation’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 481–95.

Castle, J (2008) ‘Extended Producer Responsibility: Can NSW Go It Alone?’ WME Environment Business Media, available at
<http://www.wme.com.au/categories/waste_managemt/august2_03.php>, accessed 9 December 2008.

CSIRO [Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation] (2008) ‘Sustainable Manufacturing’, onlinematerial
available at <http://www.csiro.au/science/SustainableManufacturingOverview.html>, accessed 3 December 2008.

Davis, G A and Wilt, C A (2008) Extended Product Responsibility: A New Principle for Product-Oriented Pollution Prevention,
report prepared by Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, The University of Tennessee, in cooperation with the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste.

Department of Climate Change (2008) ‘Greenhouse and Energy Reporting’, Department of Climate Change website
information, available at <http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting/index.html>, accessed 9 December 2008.

DEWHA [Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts] (2008) ‘Greenhouse Challenge Plus’, available at
<http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/challenge/index.html>, accessed 9 December 2008.

EPHC, 2009, National Waste Policy - less waste, more resources - November 2009, Environmental Protection and Heritage
Council, <www.ephc.gov.au/taxonomy/term/86>

European Union (2008) ‘Waste: End of Life Vehicles’, Europa website, available at
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm>, accessed 10 December 2008.

FREITAG (2011) www.freitag.ch, last accessed 21/03/2011, Zurich

Gehin, A, Zwolinski, P and Brissaud, D (2008) ‘A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product
development phase’, Journal of Cleaner Production 16, Elsevier, 566-576

Harper, P., 2006, Australia’s Environment Issues and Trends, ABS Catalogue No. 4613.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Commonwealth of Australia, Belconnan

Ijomah, W., McMahon, C., Hammond G., Newman, S. (2007) Development of robust design-for-remanufacturing guidelines to
further the aims of sustainable development, International Journal of Production Research, 1366-588X, Volume 45, Issue 18 &
19, Pages 4513 – 4536

Instructables, 2010, <http://www.instructables.com/>, accessed 27 March 2011

IPCC (2006), Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 2: Waste Generation,
Composition and Management Data, International Panel on Climate Change, < http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf>, accessed 8 April 2011
Kerr, W. and Ryan, C. (2001) ‘Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing: A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji
Xerox Australia’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 9, pp. 75–81

Kimura, F, Satoru, K, Hata, T and Masuda, T (2001) ‘Product Modularization for Parts Reuse in Inverse Manufacturing’ CIRP,
vol 50, no.1 Elsevier, pp. 89-92.

Klausner, M, Grimm, W and Hendrickson, C (1998) ‘Reuse of Electric Motors in Consumer Products: Design and Analysis of an
Electric Data Log’ Journal of Industry Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 89–102.

Lewis, H, Gertsakis, J, Grant, T, Sweatman, A and Morelli, N (2001) Design & Environment: A Global Guide to Designing
Greener Goods, Greenleaf Publishing, United Kingdom.

Lumenlab (2008) ‘Projector’, D.I.Y. For Life Inc., available at <http://lumenlab.com/projectors/>.

Mazhar, M I (2006) ‘Lifetime Monitoring of Appliances for Reuse’, PhD thesis, School of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, University of New South Wales.

McDonough, W. and Braungart, M., (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, North Point Press, New
York.

Mont, O., Dalhammar, C., Jacobsson N., (2006) A new business model for baby prams based on leasing and product
remanufacturing, Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 2006, 1509-1518

Net Regs (2008) online guide to Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), available at
<http://www.netregs.gov.uk/netregs/275207/1631119/?version=1&lang=_e>, accessed 3 December 2008.

Oke, M, Allan, P, Goldsworthy, K and Pickin, J (2008) Waste and Recycling in Australia, report prepared for the Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by Hyder Consulting, November.

Papanek, V. (1984) Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Thames and Hudson, London.

Richardson, M. (2007) ‘Redesign: Design for Reassembly’ paper for the International Association of Societies of Design
Research, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 12 – 15 November 2007.

Richardson, M. (2010) Upcycled, Design:Made:Trade, State of Design, Melbourne

Sustainable Manufacturing Summit (2008) online, Green Power Conferences, available at

<http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/corporateclimateresponse/sms_europe.html>, accessed 3 December 2008.

Szarky, T., 2009, Revolution in a Bottle: How Terracycle is Redefining Green Business, Penguin Group, New York

Thornton, K. (1994) Salvo in Germany - Reiner Pilz, SalvoNEWS No99, 11 October, p14

Thorpe, A. (2007) The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability, Island Press, Washington.

Vezzoli, C., Manzini E., (2008) Design for Environmental Sustainability, Springer-Verlag, London

WasteNet (2008) Extended Producer Responsibility, available at <http://www.wastenet.net.au>, accessed 9 December 2008.