CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilitySustainable Design and Development

Adaptive remanufacturing for multiple lifecycles: A case study in office furniture

Krystofik, Mark, Luccitti, Allen, Parnell, Kyle, Thurston, Michael·2018·Resources, Conservation and Recycling
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.028
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Remanufacturing has achieved viability in a diversity of industrial markets as a means to both maintain the value of products and minimize waste. From carpet tiling to manufacturing robots, a wide range of goods have presently established supply and consumer networks that support remanufacturing, and thus offer a point of entry into a more circular industrial economy. Based on this performance, it is reasonable to expect that remanufacturing can in some cases be made an iterative endeavor; that existing networks may be leveraged to create additional lifecycles for previously remanufactured goods at net environmental and economic gain over virgin production. This case study identifies and explores factors of Davies Office, Inc. (Davies) remanufacturing processes for office furniture that affect the economic and environmental practicality of creating multiple remanufacturing cycles. Specifically, we use Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to estimate the impacts of multiple remanufacturing cycles and how these are affected by “adaptive remanufacturing,” a neologism to describe the use of an end-of-life (EOL) product core to create a similar, but non-identical product. LCA results suggest that adaptive remanufacturing is both an environmentally preferable and economically viable business strategy. Specifically, the ability to update, reconfigure, and customize previously obsolete products to meet present market demands enables lifecycle extension beyond what is achievable with traditional remanufacturing. In this, the study posits that such adaptive remanufacturing techniques not only expand the potential environmental benefits of remanufacturing, but enhances the long-term economic viability of remanufacturing in durable product markets.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.028

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most common reason office furniture is not suitable for provider-ownership contracts is that ever-changing design preferences reduce possibilities for reuse.

    “The most common reason for this is that ever-changing design preferences reduce possibilities for reuse (Besch, 2005;Krystofik et al., 2018;Öhgren et al., 2019;Pieroni et al., 2021).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Krystofik et al., 2018

  • There are a few examples of viable PSS business models for furniture, including services such as refurbishing, relocating and recycling, maintenance and repair, and remanufacturing.

    “There are a few examples of viable PSS business models for furniture, including services such as refurbishing, relocating and recycling (Copani and Behnam, 2020), maintenance and repair (Inagaki et al., 2022), and remanufacturing (Krystofik et al., 2018).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Krystofik et al., 2018

  • Research generally holds that office furniture is not suitable for a contract where the provider keeps ownership of the furniture, such as leasing or providing a function for the furniture.

    “Research generally holds that office furniture is not suitable for a contract where the provider keeps ownership of the furniture, such as leasing or providing a function for the furniture (Besch, 2005;Krystofik et al., 2018;Öhgren et al., 2019).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Krystofik et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krystofik, M., Luccitti, A., Parnell, K., & Thurston, M.
Affiliations
Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Krystofik, Mark
Venue
Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
135
Pages
14-23
ISSN
0921-3449 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.028
OpenAlex
W2743145057
Semantic Scholar
d34045e78d441638a28e2d6d9ec3adab88519191
Cited by
74
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
10.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Resources Conservation and Recycling (publishedVersion)
Funders
NYS Department of Economic Development (DED)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
Keywords
office furniture, product life extension, circular economy, product customization, durable goods

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review