###### Abstract
The frameworks Industrial Ecology [19], Cradle to Cradle (C2C) [18], Blue Economy [21], Circular Economy [22], Cleaner Production [23] and Biomimicry [24] include eco-effectiveness strategies in their approaches in addition to improving the eco-efficiency of systems. Specifically, proposals that support these frameworks can be found [5; 25] for different sectors, such as manufacturing [26], construction [27; 28], business sites [29], waste management [30], raw material management [16] and reverse logistics [31]. There are also some proposals for complementary assessment methods, although these are scarce [32]. Figure 1 presents a comparison of the two approaches. Over the last few decades, some studies have analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of each perspective (eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness). Although an eco-efficient approach must be a priority [33], the real implementation of these solutions currently implies difficulties from the point of view of technical and economic viability [34; 35]. In many cases, it is not possible to replace the conventional solution with an eco-efficient one. Figure 1: Eco-effectiveness perspective versus eco-efficiency perspective. Optimized products, processes and technologies cannot be eliminated radically, so the only way to control the impact is eco-efficiency. At other times, the eco-effective solution is either unknown or simply a conceptual idea, or it is viable in the long term [36]. Finally, the qualitative nature of eco-effective methods and tools makes the decision-making process arbitrary or means that it is performed with unverifiable data [37]. This situation has promoted the effort to integrate the two approaches in order to achieve balanced design solutions using eco-efficient requirements (viability of implementation in the short term with minimum environmental impact) and eco-effective requirements (including the definition of a Continuous Improvement Plan to achieve zero impact, substitution of technology and creation of positive impact) [17; 38]. In general, this integration is carried out by identifying the most significant methods or strategies used individually in the two approaches, to find a balance of results. There are a few examples: product design and manufacturing processes [4; 37; 38; 39; 40], e-commerce [36], agriculture [41], energy life cycle [42] or buildings and construction [43; 44; 45; 46; 47]. In the specific case of industrial product projects, the two methodologies that are usually integrated are life cycle assessment (LCA) and cradle-to-cradle (C2C) techniques [4; 47]. With different orientations and procedures, the application of the eco-design and impact assessment of products generates a set of results that are not comparable, but which must be contrasted in order to materialize the design solution [4; 48; 49]. In general, the disadvantage of integrating these two methods lies in their main differences:  
1. Procedures with different stages;
2. Non-matching, or simply non-comparable, impact categories;
3. Results with different scope: quantitative (LCA) and qualitative (C2C);
4. Interpretation and presentation of impact results in different ranges of values (positive, zero and negative impacts). These differences have meant that, to date, an integrated approach has not been achieved. Generally, design processes use \"toolboxes\", or a combination of several complementary techniques, to reduce the error of the results obtained. Unification into one procedure will reduce the complexity of the design process. In this context, this research develops a framework for the design of industrial products with a global sustainability scope, from the point of view of eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness. A methodology that integrates the LCA and C2C techniques is proposed, simplifying the design phases, facilitating the interpretation of the results and providing a quantitative approach to C2C.