recoverable value are best shredded and crushed for recovery of
precious materials.
This study presents evidence on the importance of designing
for the environment on product repair and disposal initiatives. In
regards to choice of materials used in EEEs, the avoidance and/or
substitution of heavy metals or hazardous substances with environmentally
compliant raw materials facilitate reduction of toxic
emissions. Repair activities are made easier when design for environment
is given attention because risks of exposures exerted
by hazardous materials are minimized thus mitigating the complexity
of handling environment and/or requirements. The desired
parts and/or subassemblies can be conveniently separated and
safely handled during asset recovery processes. As global environment
have acknowledged the need to preserve environmental
and human health, this design aspect plays a vital role in managing
exposures related to disposable end-of-use or end-of-life EEEs
via landfill. With reference to Table 2, product repair and disposal
are the most implemented reprocessing options among firms who
participated in this study. However, the state of lower than moderate
existence of other recovery options may have downplayed the
effects of design for environment.
Unlike design for environment, design for recycling did not
contribute significant influence on reverse logistics product disposition
options. Other than adjusting firm’s preference in types
of raw materials, product designers are advised to cluster compatible
materials to ease identification of valuable, recyclable and
recycled materials. However, the absence of relationships between
design for recycling and product disposition options may have
resulted from manufacturer’s disinterest towards product takeback
except for manufacturing-related and distribution-related
returns. This view is supported by Eltayeb and Zailani (2010), who
revealed that manufacturers seldom accept products beyond sales