Sustainable technology is on the minds of engineers, but cost often weighs even heavier.
By Alan S. Brown, Associate Editor

The ASME / Autodesk study on sustainability was a comprehensive two-part survey gauging the opinions of members of ASME on matters of general sustainability and sustainable technologies. Part I included 10 aided questions, where respondents were asked to select from a list of answers. This survey was e-mailed to members of ASME. Part II included four aided questions and was mailed only to student members. The study also sought general comments from the respondents, and most took advantage of the opportunity.

Mechanical engineers and the companies for whom they work are engaged with sustainability issues and green technologies, but continue to wrestle with how to turn general goals into competitive products and manufacturing processes.

This is one of the findings in ASME’s first survey of mechanical engineers on sustainability. The survey, which was underwritten by digital design tool developer Autodesk, was sent out to ASME members in late 2008.

Among some of the key findings of the survey:

• More than two-thirds of respondents say their organizations are “somewhat” or “extremely” involved in sustainability. Most expect more sustainability initiatives in 2009.
• Seven out of ten engineers say they are currently working on at least one design project to reduce energy consumption or comply with environmental standards.
• Nearly three-quarters of respondents say regulatory requirements are likely to push their companies towards sustainability. Rising energy costs and client demand are also important factors.
• Not surprisingly, cost remains a major factor in determining investment in green and sustainable designs. While 18 percent of the respondents say their company does not invest in sustainable technologies, another 17 percent say their organization will spend extra to make new products sustainable.
• Sustainability is a field in transition. Engineers struggle with finding ways to justify green investments, and fear they could leave themselves vulnerable to competition from nations that have few or no environmental restrictions.
• Engineers need to see more sustainability success stories. They also want standards and codes that make it easy to compare and specify green technologies. They disagree, however, on whether the market or government should lead the effort.
• A small minority of respondents believe money spent on sustainability is wasted, since they do not believe humans are causing global warming. A much larger percentage of respondents comment that sustainability programs can help save the planet’s ecosystems, and many of them want further government regulation.

Roughly 2,500 working engineers and 1,000 students responded. Of the professional respondents, three out of five had more than 20 years engineering experience. Only 5 percent of the engineers were from academia, while more than 60 percent worked in organizations with more than 1,000 employees. While the survey is not a randomized statistical study, it is by far the most detailed snapshot of mechanical engineers’ thinking on sustainability.

Projects and Drivers

The responses of working engineers reflect their perception of corporate engagement with sustainability and sustainable technologies. When asked to judge, 23 percent of respondents said their companies were “extremely involved” while 45 percent said “somewhat involved” with issues of sustainability. Only 19 percent of engineers said their firms were “somewhat uninvolved” or  “not at all involved.”

When asked what technologies they personally worked on over the past year, 64 percent answered, “designs that use less energy or reduce emissions.” Another 53 percent added “designs that comply with environmental standards and regulations.” Other common projects involved using eco-friendly (renewable, recycled, or recyclable) materials, reducing manufacturing energy and materials use, and redesigning products to waste less material in production.

FIGURE 1

When asked to name the factors most likely to influence green design practices, 74 percent picked “regulatory requirements” as one of their top three choices. This was followed by “rising energy costs” (60 percent), “client demand” (51 percent), “market advantage” (31 percent), and “long-term return on investment” (29 percent). Another 23 percent cited “personal sense of environmental responsibility.”

The opinions of students and professional engineers diverge on several fronts. Among students, 85 percent believe green designs yield more product innovation, compared with 56 percent of working engineers. On the other hand, 59 percent of engineers believe green designs cost more, compared with 69 percent of students. Both groups see growing interest in sustainable and green design principles among their colleagues.

FIGURE 2

Cost remains an issue. Forty-six percent said their companies would invest in sustainable technologies that improved or had no negative effect on production. Another 35 percent said they would launch sustainable designs only if they were cost-competitive. Some 17 percent reported spending more to make green products, while 10 percent said the spending was only on flagship products. And 18 percent said their companies don’t invest in sustainable technologies.

The answers to the cost question tell only part of the story. The survey’s respondents wrote thousands of comments. They create a mosaic of a profession grappling to find the best way to apply green technology.

Seeking Answers

When asked about the hurdles to greater investment in sustainable manufacturing, many respondents cite cost issues. One respondent mentions the “cost of effort to evaluate and implement sustainable practices” and cites lack of “common guidance to measure sustainability.” Another complains of the “lack of understanding of what changes could be made that are cost-effective.”

Many believe, as one put it, that “sustainable practices have high startup costs,” and as another wrote, they have “limited expertise and limited R&D resources.” They cite problems like retooling costs, limited investment dollars, and the need to replace “aging, less efficient manufacturing equipment.”

Then there is the recession. According to one engineer, industry “is more worried about upfront costs, especially given the recent economic downturn.” While sustainable practices are “likely to cost less over a five-to-ten-year timeframe,” managers want to know “what can you do for me now.”

Many engineers are interested in lifecycle costing, which looks at costs from initial acquisition through operations, maintenance, and final disposition. “The pricing models that are used often only look at a portion of the cost (the front end), but rarely quantify the total lifecycle costs,” one engineer wrote.

A second added, “When the budget is tight, the total cost to operate a system is considered less than the initial cost to purchase it. Also, how do you account for the cost of the detrimental effects to the environment? Business is about making money, so it has to hit the bottom line for more companies to get involved.”

Many engineers point to company culture as a barrier. One engineer cited “the attitude of ‘We’ve always done things THIS way.’” According to another, “Some sustainable practices are relatively simple to implement, and the hurdle is merely normal human laziness institutionalized.”

One engineer complained of “lack of coordination and unity of purpose among executive, engineering, and operational components of large corporations.” Without clear, direct orders from the top, it can be a mad scramble to decide which organization will pay for implementing green technologies.

Some engineers have too much on their plates to even contemplate sustainability. “All I ever hear about is cost and schedule,” one wrote. “I hear jargon, but the only thing I am judged on and expected to meet is cost and schedule.”

Because margins are so thin, especially in a declining economy, many engineers worry about competition. If they invest in sustainable technologies with long-term paybacks, they could be savaged by companies that invest in quick fixes that cut costs rapidly. They are also vulnerable to offshore manufacturers in nations that have few environmental regulations.

FIGURE 3

Many engineers want to see more codes, assessment methodologies, and standardized products. “Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the lack of a clear ‘road map’ to effective sustainable practices,” one engineer commented. “As there is no single technique or practice, each industry or even location must figure out on its own what sustainable practices it can effectively implement.”

One engineer suggested labels similar to food labels that show the carbon and energy spent to produce a product. “This way the people form a market that makes the industry compete for green business.” Another called for even simpler “Energy Star” type ratings.

“Being green and still competitive is a big challenge,” one wrote. Another added, “If sustainable processes are more expensive in a competitive environment, then they will not be done unless they are mandated by law or by customers.”

In fact, some engineers would welcome government intervention. Only regulations that force every company to meet sustainability standards will level the playing field, several engineers maintained.

One called for “clear, mandatory federal government regulations that require industry-wide sustainable practices to be adopted. Regulations should include changes to the tax code to encourage sustainability and discourage the status quo.” Comments also suggested that regulations should require companies that import products to the U.S. to meet some standard of sustainability, so that there is a “level playing field and so that there is no additional incentive to send our manufacturing overseas.”

FIGURE 4

Not everyone wants government regulation. “Sustainable practices and designs add to more rules, laws, codes, etc., that drive up the cost for manufacturing,” one wrote. “I believe in a free market. Consumers drive the market, not politicians and other busy-body organizations. If the public wants to live in a green environment, they will buy those types of products and the market will adjust and produce them. Producing them first, because they are pressured to do so does not make them a good selling product.”

One respondent would like standards organizations to provide guidance that would take the place of government mandates. According to this comment, “As the customers become more environmentally conscious, they will apply these mandates to their suppliers and the suppliers can let market forces determine their willingness to participate.”

Many engineers would like to study some examples. “I would like to see success stories published so others can benefit from new sustainable practices,” one engineer wrote.

Another wanted case studies that link green projects with financial return: “I know many companies do not like to share this much detailed information. However, sharing information can be used as ammunition when trying to convince the holders of the purse strings that it is a good idea. Many times, we can put a dollar amount on it, but there are also intangibles that are difficult to quantify.”

Another engineer added, “Failures need to be understood and discussed, not hidden. Maintaining credibility is crucial.”

In some ways, the call for case studies really underscores the uncertainty in the field. Many companies have embraced sustainability, but only in the most general ways. Many of today’s “sustainable” projectsСcutting energy costs and meeting regulationsСare the same types of projects companies would have done before the conversation on “green” technologies began.

Aside from those projects, engineers appear to be struggling with converting upper management’s call for “sustainability” into competitive products and processes. Their accounting systems (and bonuses) rarely reflect lifecycle benefits. They cannot afford to make products green if it adds too much cost. They must also worry about competitors who face no environmental restrictions. And even when the economics look good, they face inertia and doubt from within their organizations.

That’s why they need more case studies. Engineers may have lined up all the numbers, but senior managers—who may not have an engineering background—may not trust the data. They may want to see how other companies have succeeded.

ASME’s survey shows that companies are investing in sustainability. It’s just a matter of time before their successes—and failures—emerge.