Search results

The purpose of this paper is to inform decision makers about the data and information generated by commonly‐used, holistic environmental assessment approaches.

Descriptions of eight types of lifecycle‐based methods are provided: Carbon/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management, Ecological Footprint, Energy Assessments, Fuel Cycle Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Risk Management (LCRM), Material Flow Analysis (MFA), and Sustainability Indicators. Example assessments of bio‐based products are provided because of the current environmental and socio‐economic relevance of bio‐feedstocks.

Assessment methods that focus on single impact indicators, such as air emissions (Carbon Management and Fuel Cycle Analysis) and energy, typically show biofuels in a favorable light compared to conventional gasoline (petrol). Ecological Footprint addresses land use implications; LCRM addresses possible impacts to human and ecological health due to chemical contaminant exposure; and MFA identifies areas to improve resource management and decrease the use of natural resources. LCA and Sustainability Indicators cover a wider range of environmental factors.

This study of environmental assessment approaches that incorporate a life cycle perspective revealed the importance of integrating the data and information generated by these disparate evaluations to make quality decisions. Developing such synergies is identified as a research need.

The growing need by decision makers to look broadly at engineered systems led to a proliferation of approaches that are holistic and wide reaching. This paper provides clear descriptions of them to help dispel the potential confusion regarding what the various approaches cover when applying a lifecycle perspective.

The paper bridges the gap between science and the decision‐making process by describing what the various lifecycle‐based methods for environmental assessment can and cannot do. Moreover, it provides evidence that no single tool encompasses all possible environmental impacts.

Aims to investigate the contribution of life cycle assessment to global sustainability reporting of organizations.

Assesses the current state of global sustainability reporting and points out future trends of reporting within the three dimensions of economy, environment and society.

The internal and external communication of the corporate performance is a very important company way to sustainable development. The communication of the corporate performance comprises the strategic and operational goals, the corporate performance data on inventory level, the translation of the inventory data to sustainability core indicators as well as the performance evaluation in terms of sustainability. The future trends on policy level and in customer demands are moving towards a product‐related consideration of sustainability issues, the inclusion of indirect effects over the life cycle in addition to the site‐related effects of companies’ activities, the analysis of results on impact level as well as the automation of data administration.

The methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) provides the main starting‐point for global sustainability reporting including the emerging future trends in this context. This paper shows that results of impact assessments as central parts of an LCA are a good basis for creating significant indicators for sustainability reports.

LCA‐based guidance was developed by EPA under the Framework for Responsible Environmental Decision‐making (FRED) effort to demonstrate how to conduct a relative comparison between product types to determine environmental preferability. It identifies data collection needs and issues, and describes how to calculate numeric impact indicators for a given product or service across eight human health and environmental impact categories that were selected specifically to meet the goal of the effort: global climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, photochemical smog formation, eutrophication, human health, ecological health, and resource depletion. Case studies were conducted on motor oil, wall insulation, and asphalt coating. It was concluded that the FRED LCA approach can be performed in a much shorter time period than is typical for a more detailed LCA. This more practical duration for procurement decisions is achieved though the focusing of data collection and a simplified impact assessment procedure.

To present the EU project DANTES (Demonstrate and Assess New Tools for Environmental Sustainability), conducted by Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB, ABB, Stora Enso and Chalmers University of Technology. One of the project's goals is to assess and demonstrate tools such as life cycle assessment (LCA), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and life cycle costing (LCC).

Different strategies for eco‐efficiency evaluation based on existing tools as well as case study results are demonstrated through the project's web site (see www.dantes.info) and through several information campaigns during the project period. The paper presents an overview of environmental assessment tools and strategies for using these tools and methods.

Provides information on the use of sustainability tools and methods, indicating the problems that can be addressed by the application of the tool as well as how and who can use the tool. The results from the project were translated into strategies for eco‐efficiency evaluation based on existing tools.

Implementation of the strategies demonstrated in the project reduces costs by increasing the performance of products, processes and services, as well as the drive and awareness of companies' personnel in environmental issues. It also promotes good practices.

This paper describes the DANTES project, which is aimed at educating industries on how to use sustainability tools to address environmental problems. It offers practical help to different departments within companies.

Aims to use simple ratios as sustainability indicators to evaluate the environmental intensity in local regions and industrial sectors. These ratios could be compared across regions and industrial sectors to give a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability.

A total of 16 industrial categories (agriculture, mining, food, fiber, pulp, chemical, coal and petrol, cement, steel, metal, non‐ferrous metals, construction, energy supply, transport, service, and commercial) were considered, using data from the national physical distribution census, the national and prefectural input‐output tables, and the comprehensive energy statistics for Japan in 1995. The objective environmental load items were carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, sulfuric oxide, and suspended particulate matter emissions.

The regions included all 47 Japanese prefectures and the data for each prefecture considered 16 industrial categories based on the national physical distribution census and national input‐output tables for 1995. The ratio of the primary energy supply to the total material input for service industries ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 TOE/10³ ton for the 47 prefectures.

Not all the variations in these sustainability indicators have yet been examined and there are probably other complicated relationships between sustainability and regional or industrial characteristics. More effort needs to be put into estimating eco‐efficiency or eco‐intensity, considering recycled energy or material utilization in order to develop a practical method of evaluating regional or industrial sustainability.

Several life cycle approaches used to quantify environmental efficiency related to energy and material flows were investigated as applications of life cycle tools in emerging markets, including the service industry and public sector.

The novelty of the investigation lies in analyzing detailed energy flow characteristics and in combining energy flow and material flow. Another objective of this paper is to present a current case‐study experience in one type of eco‐intensity analysis for Japanese service industries.

The purpose of this study is to compare the life cycle environmental impacts of the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Sciences' current printed annual report to a version distributed via the internet.

Life cycle environmental impacts of both versions of the report are modeled using the online environmental input‐output life cycle assessment (EIO‐LCA) tool. Most monetary model inputs were obtained from the University of Cincinnati and the others were estimated. Results are presented for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, water use, and human and ecosystem health impacts. Alternative scenarios reflecting different reader behaviors were evaluated.

The electronic report reduces economic costs and all categories of environmental impacts so long as the recipients do not print the report at home. Impacts of the printed report were higher than the electronic report due to impacts associated with paper production and disposal and to a lesser extent differences in the impacts of mail versus electronic distribution. The environmental preferability of the options is heavily influenced by the number of users who choose to print the electronic report at home; if more than 10 percent print at home, it offsets the benefits of the e‐report.

Using the EIO‐LCA tool limited the accuracy of the results by using average US data for a specific supply chain. It was limited by assumptions about reader behavior with the e‐report.

This case study demonstrates how a screening level life cycle assessment (LCA) might be used by a university administrator to make decisions supported by quantitative environmental information.

The screening level LCA‐based approach can provide grounding for environmental decision making within a reasonable time period and cost while maintaining sufficient accuracy for guiding purchasing or product decisions.

Evaluations of environmental performances are of increasing importance for environmental management systems. In the automotive sector of South Africa, suppliers of components lack the ability to provide customers in the value chain with the necessary information to assess and compare environmental performances. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in South Africa have systematically commenced to obtain limited process information from first‐tier suppliers. However, the information is not an accurate reflection of the true environmental burdens associated with the supplied components. Based on the available process information, this paper introduces a performance evaluation methodology that is applicable for South Africa.

The LCA methodology, as stipulated by ISO 14040, has been applied to obtain quantified environmental performance resource impact indicators (EPRIIs) associated with limited process parameters in the South African context. Three first‐tier suppliers of an OEM are used as a case study to demonstrate the application of the indicator methodology.

The EPRII procedure considers the spatially differentiated ambient environmental state of the South African natural environment for normalisation factors of typical LCIA categories. The procedure further incorporates costs in order to compare supplied components (and companies) equally.

The EPRII procedure provides the means for OEMs to obtain a first approximate of environmental concerns in the supply chain, based on three basic process parameters. Thereby, tiers can be prioritised to determine where assistance is required to improve environmental performances.

Aims to demonstrate how BASF's eco‐efficiency can be used for sustainable decision making at all levels, from industrial to consumer.

Three case studies are described as examples of the potential applications of eco‐efficiency both within industry and extensively in the consumer sector.

The first case study describes its use for dyeing facilities in Morocco, the second demonstrates how the most eco‐efficient product transport modes can be selected, and the third shows how eco‐efficiency can help the consumer decide whether to purchase a new household appliance.

Eco‐efficiency can support sustainable decision making not only within the company, but also industry‐wide and beyond.

To provide a tool to evaluate the economic and ecological feasibility of new and existing mining projects using a combination of environmental goals expressed in life cycle assessment (LCA) results with economic goals expressed within life cycle costing (LCC).

Sustainability is developing into a target for an increasing number of industries and governments. As a consequence focus has shifted from the production process to the entire life cycle. LCA is a tool that can help producers make better decisions concerning environmental protection, whereas the aim of LCC analysis is to create a cost‐effective model for environmental impact assessment.

Study of the influence of the environmental cost of projects should be based on long‐term analysis of environmental investment. Using the life cycle net present value (LCNPV) method it is possible to compare different investment options, and this method can be treated as a tool that can help producers to make better decisions pertaining to environmental protection.

Internalisation of external costs and valuation of environmental costs are the biggest problems for LCC calculations.

Mining producers can reasonably expect that implementation of LCA and LCC will lead to minimisation of environmental impact of their activities and to more effective environmental, cost and waste management. This means savings through reducing the amount of waste emissions and a decrease in fees and fines.

The use of the tools described in this paper will increase the efficiency of the decision‐making process, demonstrating the connection between activity and devastation of the environment.

From a methodological point of view, life cycle costing (LCC) is well developed with respect to conventional costs. However, when it comes to costs related to environmental issues, neither the items nor their estimation have been well developed. This paper aims at investigating the possibilities of using life cycle assessment (LCA) results to identify and estimate environmental costs or benefits in an LCC.

The paper begins by looking at the driving forces for introducing environmental costs in companies, continues by identifying external and internal environmental cost issues, and concludes with an attempt to estimate the internal costs.

Some of the items of an LCC have to do with increased/decreased sales, others with good will. Both are difficult to estimate, but LCA or LCA‐like investigations may be helpful in identifying relevant issues. Future costs to the product system may also be estimated, for example, with a distance‐to‐target type of weighting. LCA may be helpful in roughly estimating risks, especially together with those LCA impact assessment methods that model damage. Such an item in LCC can be dealt with as an insurance fee or, if the risk is too high, as a way of including necessary preventive actions.

The literature on the subject is limited and not sufficient to aid in estimation of environmental costs and benefits for a company. It seems reasonable to begin an improvement of the methodology by looking at future costs and benefits.

This paper may help in structuring the task of using LCA information for estimating environmental costs in LCC.

There has been increased interest recently in the integration of LCA and LCC, such as in the SETAC (Society for Ecotoxicology and Chemistry) working group on LCC. This paper contributes with new outlooks and structures for that work.