Cradle to Grave Vs. Cradle to Cradle: A Comparative Study

This presentation compares the 'cradle to grave' philosophy with the 'cradle to cradle' intelligent design model for product design strategies. It discusses the concepts, principles, and reasons why businesses are choosing the C2C model for product designing. The document type is a presentation and the type of assignment is an educational one. The subject is marketing and the course code, course name, and college/university are not mentioned.

Marekting
Prepared by:

Introduction
This presentation is designed for educational purposes comprehending
whether 'cradle to grave' philosophy should be followed by businesses in
product design strategies rather than 'cradle to cradle' intelligent design
model.
Cradle to Grave is an open loop product design which moves from material
extraction to disposal while Cradle to Cradle moves beyond disposal for
product into recycling.
2

Cradle to grave: Concept
◂ Businesses for years have solely focused on performance and cost.
◂ “Cradle to grave”, a new thought process was a contribution made by the “green”
movement.
◂ Products impact while they are used or disposed is considered.
◂ It emphasizes that many products significantly affect all through their lifecycles i.e.
raw materials extraction to product production, use of energy and water, its waste
and emissions, transportation impacts, its real utilization and, ending with its
disposal (Ahmad and Kuan 2018)
3

4

4 steps of analysis
◂ Step 1- Defining the objective
Why a firm is conducting the analysis?
◂ Step 2- Defining the scope (who, what, when, where and how)
•Who is going to conduct the analysis?
•What will be included? When and where will it take place?
•How will the analysis be conducted?
◂ Step 3- Collecting background data (interviews, or observation)
◂ Step 4- Devising action plan by interpreting the data collected
5

Cradle to Cradle: Concept
 William McDonough and Dr. Michael Braungart’s created
C2C to address the flawed “cradle to grave” system
design.
 It is a unique biomimetic approach of design and science
where quality is goal
 It emphasize to redesign and reshape traditional product
design and manufacturing system to a closed loop
system where all materials undergo continual use and
reuse cycle.
 C2C’s goal is to ensure that positive impact on people
and planet is maintained by sustainable businesses.
 The concept of waste is completely eliminated by C2C 6

Continued...
 Cradle to Cradle principles are:
i. waste equals food
ii. Using solar energy
iii. Celebrating diversity
 C2C restores continued cycles of biological and technical nutrients, positively effecting businesses profitability,
environment and human health (De Maeyer and Bonne 2015)
 Depending on their behavior during use, products are distinguished into two:
i. Consumption products as biological nutrients in Biological Cycle
ii. Service products as technical nutrients in Technical Cycle.

Cradle to Cradle Vs. Cradle to
Grave
 In traditional C2G a product might
be utilized across a few “lives”
e.g. a plastic bottle may be
recycled into making another but
with degrading quality it
ultimately will be non-usable.
 Whereas, C2C products are
sustainable infinitely hence,
materials can be continuously
used.
 Running shoes are a good

Why business are choosing C2C model for product
designing?
1. Environmental Concerns
2. Economical Concerns
3. Sustainability
9

Conclusion
Hence, it can be concluded that
besides making a good environmental
sense Cradle to Cradle is also good for
business.
 C2C is finding increasing support
with more and more companies
adopting it globally.
10

References
◂ Ahmad, S. and Kuan, Y. W. (2018). Sustainability assessment in the
manufacturing industry: A review of recent studies. Benchmarking, [Online]
25(8), 3162-3179. Available : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-08-2017-0214
◂ De Maeyer, C. and Bonne, K. (2015). ENTREPRENEURSHIP 3.0: TOOLS TO
SUPPORT NEW AND YOUNG COMPANIES WITH THEIR BUSINESS
MODELS. Journal of Positive Management, [Online] 6(3), 3-15. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/JPM.2015.013