life cycle assessment (lca) â€” quo vadis?

CHWERPUNKTPROGRAMM UMWELT SCHWEIZ NATIONALFONDS ZIJR FOfIDERUMJ om WISSENSCHAFT1JCHEN FffiSCHUNG

ROGRAMME PR/OR/TAIRE ENVIRONNEMENT F(JIDS NATIONAL SUISSE DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENT/ROUE

RIORITY PROGRAMME ENVIRONMENT SWISS NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) -Quo vadis?

S. Schaltegger (Ed.) A. Braunschweig K. Buchel F. Dinkel R. Frischknecht C. Maillefer M. Menard D. Peter C. Pohl M. Ros A. Sturm B. Waldeck P. Zimmermann

Birkhauser Verlag Basel · Boston· Berlin

Editor

Dr. S. Schaltegger Wirtschaftliches Zentrum (WWZ) der Universitat Basel Petersgraben 51 CH-4003 Basel Switzerland

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress, Washington D.C., USA

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Eiriheitsaufnahme Life cycle assessment (LeA) - quo vadis? / S. Schaltegger (ed.) ... - Basel; Boston; Berlin: Birkhauser, 1996

(Synthesebucher SPP Umwelt) ISBN -13: 978-3-0348-9871-3 DOl: 10.1007/978-3-0348-9022-9

NE: Schaltegger, Stefan [Hrsg.)

e-ISBN -13: 978-3-0348-9022-9

The publisher and editor can give no guarantee for the information on drug dosage and administration contained in this publication. The respective user must check its accuracy by consulting other sources of reference in each individual case.

The use of registered names, trademarks etc. in this publication, even if not identified as such, does not imply that they are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations or free for general use.

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in data bank. For any kind of use permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

© Birkhauser Verlag, PO Box l33, CH-4010 Basel, Schweiz Softcover reprint of the hardcover 18t edition 1996

Printed on acid-free paper produced from chlorine-free pulp. TCF 00

ISBN-13:978-3-0348-9871-3

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Preface , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI

A Introduction 1

1 Two Paths ......... . ..... .... . 3 Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B Overarching Topics of LeA 9

2 System Boundaries ..... 11 Klaus Biichel, FAT Tanikon 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . 11 2.2 Choosing the System Boundaries 12

2.2.1 Basic Considerations . . . . . . 12 2.2.2 The Time Aspect-Period of Analysis 15 2.2.3 Space or Geographical Aspects. . . 18 2.2.4 Subject Aspects . .. . ...... 19

2.3 How to Proceed in Defining System Boundaries. 20 2.3.1 Rules for the Definition of System Boundaries 20 2.3.2 System Boundary Definition in the Case Study

«Beer Production» 22 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3 Allocation of Environmental Interventions 27 Christiane Maillefer, EMPA St. Gallen 3.1 Requirement for Allocation . 27 3.2 Allocation Procedures . . . . . 28

3.2.1 Products and Co-Products? . 29 3.2.2 What Should Be Allocated? 29 3.2.3 Allocation Rules . . . . . . 30

3.3 Allocation for Different Process Types 32 3.3.1 Multi-Output Processes. 32 3.3.2 Multi-Input Processes 33 3.3.3 Open-Loop Recycling 33 3.3.4 Special Cases . . . 35 3.3.5 Case Study KOPO 35

3.4 Conclusions. 36 References . . . . . . 37

v

Contents

4 Background Inventory Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Martin Menard, Rolf Frischknecht & Peter Zimmermann, ETH Ziirich 4.1 Introduction ...................... . 4.2 What Are Background Inventory Data

and Why Are they Needed? .. . .... . ..... . 4.3 Requirements ............... . ... . . .

4.3.1 What Are the Most Important Requirements for BID?

39

39 42 42

4.3.2 What Are the Requirements for Institutions Publishing BID? 43 4.4 BID Established by KOPO Projects. 44

4.4.1 Agriculture. . 45 4.4.2 Food Products 4.4.3 Transport . 4.4.4 Downstream

4.5 Conclusions. References . . .

46 46 47 47 49

5 Imprecision and Uncertainty in LeA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Christian Pohl, Matjaz Ros, Beate Waldeck & Fredy Dinkel, Carbotech Ltd. Basel 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2 Types of Imprecision and Uncertainties in LCA . 52

5.2.1 Stochastic (Statistical) Errors . . . . . . 52 5.2.2 Exact Error Intervals . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.2.3 Vague Error Intervals (Fuzzy Intervals) 54 5.2.4 Systematic Errors ........... 54 5.2.5 Intrinsically Vague Data (Intrinsic Fuzzy Data) . 54 5.2.6 Missing Data . . . . . . . . . 55

5.3 Sources of Imprecision in LCA 56 5.3.1 Inventory Analysis 56 5.3.2 Classification. . . . . . . . . 58 5.3.3 Valuation .... . ..... 59

5.4 Handling of Imprecision and Uncertainty. 62 5.4.1 Handling of Systematic Errors 62 5.4.2 Handling of Stochastic Errors. . . . 62 5.4.3 Handling of Error Intervals. . . . . 63 5.4.4 Handling of Intrinsically Vague Data 64

5.5 Conclusions. 66 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Contents

6 Relevant Environmental Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Arthur Braunschweig, IWO, HSG St. Gallen 6.1 Introductory Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6.2 Basic Approaches for Selecting

the «Relevant Interventions» . 70 6.2.1 Issue Based ......... 70 6.2.2 Legally Based ........ 71 6.2.3 Based on the Relations Between Antropogenic and Geogenic

Emission Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 6.2.4 Based on Availability of Process Data ..... .. ... 72

6.3 The Importance of the Assessment Method for Selecting the «Relevant» Interventions . . . . . 72

6.4 How to By-Pass the Limits of an Assessment System 73 6.5 Practical Considerations for Dealing with Limited

Resources: An Estimation Procedure .... .. ' . . . . 74 6.6 A Simple Example of the Estimation Procedure . . . 75 6.7 Application of this Procedure as Cut-Off Criteria for

Selecting the Relevant Processes. 77 6.8 Outlook.. 78

References . . . . . 78

7 The Software Tool EMIS Fredy Dinkel & Matjaz Ros, Carbotech Ltd. Basel 7.1 Software Tools Necessary . . ... 7.2 Requirements for LCA Software

7.2.1 Performance Requirements . 7.2.2 System Requirements

7.3 The Software Chosen . 7.3.1 Basic Functionality .. 7.3.2 Literature Database . 7.3.3 Compilation of an LCA 7.3.4 Desirable Developments

7.4 Summary . References

C Case Study. .

8 Case Study «FeldschlOsscheR>~ Daniel Peter, INFRAS Zurich 8.1 Goal Definition .. . . 8.2 Inventory Analysis. . .

8.2.1 System Boundaries .

....... 81

82 82 83 86 87 87 88 89 89 90 91

93

95

95 96 96

II

Contents

8.2.2 Allocation . . . . . . . . . 98 8.2.3 Background Inventory Data 99 8.2.4 Data Quality . . . . . . . . 99

8.3 Impact Assessment ...... . 100 8.3.1 Environmental Scarcity Method (UBP-Method) . 100 8.3.2 CML Method ................. . 104

8.4 Conclusions..................... . 106 Appendix 1: Processes of the LCA «FeldschlOsschen» Beer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Appendix 2: Inventory Table . . 111 References . . . . . . . . . . . .129

D Environmental Management of Production Sites . . . . . . . .131

9 Eco-Efficiency of LCA. The Necessity of a Site-Specific Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel 9.1 Efficiency of Environmental Management Tools . 133 9.2 The Ecological Leverage Effect . . . . . . . . .135 9.3 Eco-Efficiency of LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

9.3.1 Recording, Uncertainty and Lack of Precision . 136 9.3.2 Aggregation, Assessment and Other Problems . 140 9.3.3 Inefficiency of the Present Approach of LCA . . 141

9.4 Possible Strategies to Improve the Present Approach of Life Cycle Assessment . . 142

9.5 Summary and Conclusions .146 References . . . . . . . . 148

10 Managerial Eco-Controlling . 151 Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel & Andreas Sturm, Ellipson Ltd. Basel 10.1 The Concept of Eco-Controlling . . . . . . .151 10.2 Module 1: Formulation of Goals and Policies . 153 10.3 Module 2: Information Management . . . . . . 155

10.3.1 Environmental Information ......... . 155 10.3.2 Financial and Environmentally-Induced Financial

Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 10.4 Module 3: Decision Support . . . . . . . . . . 159

10.4.1 Assessment of Environmental Interventions . 159 10.4.2 The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio . . . . . . . 161

10.5 Module 4: Piloting and Implementation. . 163

VIII

Contents

10.6 Module 5: Communication 10.7 Conclusion and Outlook

References . . . . . . . . .

E Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendices

.165

.165

.166

.169

.171

.174

.177

Appendix A: Publications of KOPO Research Groups . 179 Appendix B: Authors . . . . . . 182 Abbreviations and Acronyms . 183 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185

Preface

"LCA - Quo Vadis?" attempts stimulate discussion of LCA among researchers and practicioners by challenging current practices, providing solutions and indicating new paths.

This book is designed as an integrated concept despite the fact that many authors have contributed contradictory texts reflecting their personal opinion. It summarizes results of the coordinated project LCA and eco-controlling (Koordiniertes Projekt Okobilanzen und OkoControlling: KOPO) of the Priority Programme Environment of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Seven research groups consisting of scientists from various disciplines such as natural sciences, engineering, and economics have contributed to KOPO. Each single group dealt with one important part of LCA or eco-controlling (cf. Figure 1).

Coordinated Project LCA (EcobaJance) and Eco-Controlling (KOpb)

Supporting Evaluation- Information and Management Activities (Impact Assessment I Improvement Assessment)

I mpact Assessment (Comparison. Development . Applicalion) H G. ETH. EMPA

Funy SCI Analy i Eco-Controlling (Calculalion of Error>, (Management-

---. onsidcmtion of ---. Tool and Qualilative Impaci ) Procedures) Carbolcch WWZ. Ellipson

Primary Recording Activities (Inventory)

'".11 \ ironmental Impaci Addcd

Agricultunol Food Production Food Downstream Tmn'portation Cultiv;'tion -.. (Mail, -.. Production -.. procc >cs -.. (Rail. Road, and Produclion Flour. CIC.) Managemcnt (sewage plants. CIC.)

(Com. Milk. cle.) (Company) Incineralion. etc.)

Ellipson Fcld\ehlihsehcll ETH ZH FAT EMPA Inrra,

Figure 1 Research groups and topics of KOPO

XI

Preface

The main emphasis of KOPO was on the following spheres of action:

• independent research by single groups and development of an advanced LCA software programme

• workshops and discussion rounds (so called "Clausius discussions")

• joint, coordinated research on the practical example "product lifecycle of beer of the company Feldschlosschen Ltd."

• publication of results of the research. A special result of KOPO is "The glossary of LCA" (Schaltegger and Kubat 1995, 3rd edition) which has been written to facilitate understanding as well as cooperation among scientists and users of LCA.

The results of the individual research of the groups involved have been published separately (see appendix 1). Therefore, this book concentrates on the main issues of the coordinated research of all groups. Throughout the book, beer, its components (malt, corn, etc.), and its transportation or related treatment processes (sewage plants, etc.) are taken for illustration. However, the text is not about the LCA of beer but rather about new developments and the main problems of LCA, as well as conclusions about where to proceed in future. Because of the different background of the researchers and the interdisciplinary perspective of this book the scientific arguments and statements as well as the conclusions remain controversial.

We are extremely grateful to Feldschlosschen Ltd. and Ellipson Ltd. for the diligent collection of data which was absolutely indispensable to carry out the LCA study of beer. The application field of beer enabled us to study new developments of LCA in a common area of data and understanding. The editor is very grateful to Derek Haberstich, Ruedi Kubat, Gerhard Stucky and three anonymous reviewers who helped to improve the final draft.

XII

Part A

Introduction

1 Two Paths

by Stefan Schaltegger, INWZ University of Basel

This book is about obtaining information on environmental impacts. Methods of information collection, accuracy of the information and its usefulness for decision makers are analyzed with regard to environmental policy and environmental management.

The focus of environmental policy and environmental management can be either on production sites (c.f. path A in Figure 1.1) or on product life cycles (path B). Those two basic possibilities are reflected in recent environmental policies of the European Union.

The regulation of the European Union (EU) on Environmental Management and Eco-Audit System (EMAS) concentrates on the environmental impact of production sites (path A in Figure 1.1, COM 1993; EEC 1993). The publication of site-specific environmental inter-

Compall) Image Mar~cl Share Li"hili ly I{aling

Figure 1.1

Prodll~li()1I

Pnx·t:".,:,

Prodlll.:l,

Ball ~ "lid Irhll rancc Reqtle,l,

Recent Environmental Policies of the EU (Similar to COM 1993, 23)

Ec'o-I.ahcl

III\~rllor) of • EllIi .... ,ion ....

j\ • I)i'charl!c\ • \Va'ie -

Puhlic Li lill\! or .. Cleall" COll1j,allic,

J\

A Introduction

ventions influence the activities and decisions of consumers and other stakeholders.

Most tools of environmental management, including ecological accounting or eco-controlling, concentrate on the environmental impact of sites such as production plants, firms, regions or nations.

The second strategy of the EU (path B in Figure 1.1) attempts to influegce consumers and firms by regulation of the eco-label for products (EEC 1992).' Eco-labels should change consumer perception and purchasing decisions and therefore the firm's sales. This, in tum, is thought to provide incentives to managers to reduce the environmental impacts of their products through better product design.

LCA2 approaches have been developed to support the environmental management of products. They try to capture the environmental effects of a product, process, service, etc. during its total life-cycle, from "cradle to grave" (or "earth to earth"). With this focus LCA is often seen as the main tool for criterion-setting in eco-labelling.

The goal of LCA has been described in the following way: Life Cycle Assessment" .. .is an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and wastes released to the environment, to assess the impact of the energy and materials uses as well as the releases to the environment, and to evaluate and implement opportunities to affect environmental improvements. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the product, process, or activity, encompassing extraction and processing of raw material, manufacturing, transportation and distribution, use/re-use /maintenance, recycling, and final disposal." (SETAC 1991,1)

With this holistic approach and with these high hopes LCA corresponds to the philosophy of the "deep greens" (Maunders and Burritt

For the last few years national as well as international standard setting organizations have entered the arena of environmental management. Best known are the British Standard 7750 (BSI 1992) and the draft of ISO 14001 of the International Standards Organization (ISO 1994). BS 7750 provides a standard for environmental management of sites while the latter covers sites and products. Less known is the world's first national LCA guideline, Z-760 Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as well as the drafts for international standard ISO CD 14020 and ISO 14040 ff. (ISO 1995).

2 Many different definitions of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (Okobilanzierung) exist (see Schaltegger and Kubat 1995). Here, the term LCA is used for '"a concept and a methodology to evaluate the environmental effects of a product or activity holistically, by analyzing the entire life-cycle of a particular product, process or activity. The life-cycle assessment consists of three complementary components - inventory, impact and improvement - and an integrative procedure known as scoping." (U.S. EPA 1993.99)

4

Two Paths

1991; Gray 1992). Nevertheless, LeA is applied ever more widely in industry.

In practice the following basic procedure, steps and results of LeA have been developed (ct. Table 1.1).

The first phase of every LeA ought to be goal definition and scoping. "Scoping is an activity that initiates an LeA, defining its purpose , boundaries and procedures. The scoping process links the goal of the LeA with the extent or scope of the study, i.e. the definition of what will or will not be included." (Udo De Haes and Hofstetter 1994)

The second phase of an LeA is the inventory analysis which "identifies and quantifies all inputs and outputs associated with a product system including materials, energy and residuals."(U.S. EPA 1993a, 102) The data are recorded with data sheets and then allocated to and aggregated for the examined product. The result of the inventory analysis is the inventory Table with data on enviroIUllental interventions. Environmental interventions describe the exchange between the an troposphere and the environment.

Table 1.l The basic process of LeA

Phase

Goal Definition

and Scoplng

Inventory Analysis

Impact Assessment

Improvement

Step

1. Goal defintion

2. Scoplng

3. Recording

4. Allocation

5. Aggregation

6. Classification

7. Characterization

8. Valuation

9. Interpretation

10. Prevention activities

Result

Defined goals of analysIs

Defined system boundaries

Data sheets, env. interventions

Detailed Inventory Table

Aggregated Inventory Table

Impact categories

Effect scores, eccrprofile

Environmental indes, effect score, eccrbalance

Ecological weaknesses and potential of improvement

Improved situation

The third phase, impact assessment, is "a quantitative and/or qualitative process to classify and characterise and/or assess the effects of the environmental interventions identified in the inventory Table. The impact assessment component consists in principle of the following three steps: classification, characterization and valuation." (Udo De Haes and Hofstetter 1994) Classification is the first step within impact assessment,

5

A Introduction

which attributes the environmental interventions listed in the inventory Table to a number of predefined impact categories. Environmental interventions contributing to more than one impact category are listed in more than one category (e .g. NOx contributes to photochemical smog and to acidification). Characterization is the second step within impact assessment aggregating the impacts within the given impact categories. This step can result in effect scores of the environmental profile. Valuation is fhe third step within impact assessment, weighing the effect scores of the environmental profile against each other in a quantitative and/or qualitative way in order to derive an environmental index.

"Improvement analysis provides starting points for the redesign of the product and processes concerned and the use of different materials. " (Heijungs et al. 1992,93)

This book deals with the two paths of environmental management shown in Figure 1.1. Firstly, overarching topics q!1d new developments of LCA (Part B) are treated with some references to the case study "Feldschlosschen beer" (Part C). Part B treats those core LCA topics that we found important: System boundaries (chapter 2), allocation (3), basic inventory data (4) , uncertainty and lack of precision (5), relevant environmental interventions (6), and LCA software (7) .

Secondly, part D deals with site-specific environmental management from an economic perspective. Chapter 9 analyses the eco-efficiency of the present approach of LCA and combines it with site-specific environmental management. Furthermore, chapter 10 describes eco-controlling, a new economic tool for environmental management of production sites and firms.

The combination of texts represents the interdisciplinary perspective of KOPO. Some authors argue from their personal perspective as natural scientists or engineers while part D is written from an economic point of view.

References

BSI (1992): Specification for Environmental Management Systems. BS 7750. London: BSI. COM (1993): Amended Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) Allowing Voluntary

Participation by Companies in the Industrial Sector in a Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. COM/93 97 Final. 16, March. Brussels: EEC (Commission of the European Communities).

CSA (Canadian Standards Association) (1994): Z- 760 Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. Ottawa: CSA.

EEC (1992): "Council Regulation (EEC) No. 880/92 of 23. March 1992 on a Community Eco-Label Award Scheme". Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 99. 1.7.1992.

EEC (1993): "Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93 of June 1993 Allowing Voluntary

Two Paths

Participation by Companies in the Industrial Sector in a Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme". Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 168, 1 -18.

Gray, R. (1993): Accounting for the Environment. London: Chapman Publishing. Heijungs, R.; Guinee, J.; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes. H. (1992): En

vironmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde (CML).

ISO (1994): Environmental Management Systems - Specifications with Guidance for Use. Committee Draft ISO/CD 14'001. London: ISO.

ISO (1995): ISO CD 14'020: Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Guidelines. Paris: ISO.

Maunders, K. and Burritt, R. (1991): "Accounting and Ecological Crisis". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Vol. 4, No.3, 9 - 26.

Schaltegger, S. and Kubat, R. (1995): Das Handworterbuch der Okobilanzierung. The Glossary of LCA. Basel: WWZ, 3. Edition.

Schaltegger, S.; with Muller, K. and Hindrichsen, H. (1996): Corporate Environmental Accounting. London: John Wiley & Sons.

SEATC (1991): A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. Washington D.C: SETAC

Udo De Haes, H. and Hofstetter, P. (1994): Definition of Terms. Paper Prepared for the Workshop of the SETAC Workinggroup on Impact Assessment. 8. -9. July 1994. Zurich.

U.S. EPA (1993): Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and' Principles. Authors: Vigon, B.; Tolle, T.; Cornaby, B.; Latham, H.; Harrison, C; Boguski, T.: Hunt, R. and Sellers, J. Cincinnati: EPA.

7

Part B

Overarching Topics of LeA

2 System Boundaries

by Klaus Buchel, FAT Tanikon

2.1 Introduction

Given the multiple links between the elements making up our environment, a complete record of all environmental impacts resulting from the use of a given product would require the developIJ:lent of a "global model". However, this demand being impossible to meet, system boundaries need to be set. System boundaries define the processes to be analysed with regard to material and energy flows and emissions. This necessarily leads to a delimitation of the different processes of the system under examination. In fixing the system boundaries it can be decided, for example, whether or not the manufacture of a machine (e.g. a tractor) is to be included in the production process of the systems of barley or hop production. Actually, it would be more correct to speak of "process boundaries" than of "system boundaries". Nevertheless we shall continue to use the term "system boundaries".

Figure 2.1 shows in which phase the system boundaries will be included.

A general prerequisite - besides the goal definition - for setting up a life-cycle assessment is the definition of the system boundaries. On the one hand, the outcome of the LeA will depend to a large extent on the choice of the system boundary. On the other hand, the definition of

,------ -------, : purpose : : . cope : : functional L1nit : I I I I ' _ _____________ J

Figure 2.1

r------ -------, : defining sy tern : : ystem boundaric : I I I I I I I I 1 ______________ J

-------, : cia · irication : : characteri ation :

alualion : I

I I 1 ______________ J

The phases of a product life cycle assessment (according to SETAe 1993)

,------ -------, : en itivity : : anal sis : : feasibility : : as c menl : ' ___ - __________ J

B Overarching Topics of LeA

the system boundary will be heavily influenced by the intended application of the result , i.e. the goal definition. Hence, in a product LeA different criteria - and thus different system boundaries - will apply from in a company's LeA. This means that to define the system boundaries, a clear goal definition of the LeA to be set up is needed.

The purpose of system boundaries is to take into account all factors impacting on the environment that are relevant to the system to be examined. To decide whether to include a specific operation in the scope of the analysis the appropriate criteria need to be developed. Such criteria are relatively low energy or material inputs, for example.

2.2 Choosing the System Boundaries

2.2.1 Basic Considerations

Theoretically, it is quite clear how system boundaries are to be defined: basically, all environmental impacts that are changed as a result of a production process or a company's activity ought to be included in the system. The problem is that in practice every process and every company is linked with other processes and companies by a number of "upstream" and "downstream" steps, so that a "global analysis" would actually be necessary. Due to these multiple interconnections, a change within the process or company under consideration affects the economy as a whole and the environmental impacts related to it.

There are no universally valid rules for the correct delimitation of a system. It is therefore necessary to formulate certain basic rules for the definition of system boundaries in LeAs. To assess the environmental impacts associated with human activity by means of an LeA, it must first be decided which activities are to be included in the scope of analysis. Braunschweig and Miiller-Wenk (1993) along with other authors (Andersson 1993; Weidema 1993) distinguish three kinds of LeAs:

• LeAs for the evaluation of different companies with a comparable activity

• LeAs for the evaluation of different products having the same function

• LeAs for the evaluation of processes which produce identical or almost identical products

System Boundaries

To set up an LCA for a company, the system boundaries can be defined by first delimiting the corporate body of the company and then considering its interrelationship with the natural environment. There are also good reasons for including in the system waste disposal, energy generation and conversion plants which are not part of the company, but which supply it with their services.

In considering a product, it is obvious that all inputs and outputs, of all companies involved, of processes linked to the manufacture and disposal of one unit of the product in question should be included in the analysis. In this case, the system to be analysed starts with the extraction of raw materials from nature, encompasses agricultural production or the industrial manufacturing process and ends with the completed final waste disposal. The system, then, covers the entire life cycle of a product from cradle to grave. Here too, it appears to be appropriate to include external waste disposal and energy supplying plants.

As regards process LCA, the system boundary is defined by the single production process under Braunschweig and Mtiller-Wenk 1993). If several processes are being compared, the system boundary must be drawn widely enough that the inputs of the "upstream" process are identical for all processes to be analysed.

Hence, LCA involves not only the identification of any single operation within a system, but also the analysis of their links and interrelationships. Production- and consumption-orientated economic systems are made up of interdependent feedback loops. All elements simultaneously time exert and are subject to influences. Consequently, there is no absolutely correct and perfect data analysis, just more or less completely analysed systems. The definition of system boundaries, i.e. the delimitation of the scope of the inventory analysis, is therefore a central yet not always easy task. This conflict between representing a thing as realistically as possible without being able to consider all relevant factors is described by Bousted (1979) as follows: "There is no such thing as a correct or absolute value for the energy needed to produce a kilogram of any commodity. The values obtained depend critically upon the systems boundary chosen. However, the purpose of life-cycle analysis is to provide as complete a description of the burdens of a product as possible and so although there may be no correct system it is certainly true that some systems are more complete than others."

The study of highly complex and interrelated economic activities by sectors ~ as is often the case with LCA ~ cannot provide data precise and unambiguous enough to be considered as absolute. This is partly explained by the fact that the method of data collection is geared to the specificities of the analysed system. Limitations must be taken into


account and have to be accepted. Clearly defined criteria must be formulated to decide whether to include a certain operation in the scope of analysis. The definition of these criteria may be based on universally recognised rules or discussed from case to case. The general aim is to exclude an operation from the system only if its potential influence on the final result of the LCA is negligible. However, this requires a relatively good knowledge of the scope to be examined. The result of the analysis and its level of confidence are therefore inseparably connected with the chosen scope.

For example, considering the total amount of energy required for the production of one kilogram of pesticide active ingredient without taking into account the part of energy needed for the generation and the transportation of the fossil energies, you risk an error of some 12%. Disregarding any transport operations results in a reduction in total energy requirements of the system of some 1 %, .'!Vhereas the influence of process-water consumption - in energy terms - on the final result is less than 0.1 %.

Consequently, any LCA or generally speaking any analysis of a complex system, will always be a compromise between scientific exactness and practicality. Representations of physically real systems by a formal model (ct. Figure 2.2) contain more or less important simplifications.

Figure 2.2 Simplification of system boundaries

Thus, the definition of system boundaries is crucial for setting up an LCA; its purpose is to identify as completely as possible the system to be analysed. A comparison of the results of different analyses of the same process is reasonable only if the scopes of the systems under consideration are as nearly identical as possible.

"The data problem is at the core of all LCA studies. The more sophisticated the study, the greater the data problem. Identification of

System Boundaries

key issues should direct the data gathering process, so that LCA for ecolabelling is still possible in practice. A guiding principle may be the distinction between foreground and background data. Foreground data are related specifically to the product system at stake; they should be as real as possible, based for instance on actual plant data and verified if possible. Background data are not specifically related to the product system and"may consist of averages or ranges. A point of discussion is how to deal with the conflicting interests of credibility and confidentiality. To maintain credibility, foreground data in the LCA study which are directly relevant to the proposals for criteria setting should be public" (Udo de Haes 1994).

In the following, different principles of system boundary definition will be discussed. The possibilities of delimitation are numerous and vary from one author to another (Reinhardt 1993; Andersson 1993). The definition of the system boundaries may be based on the following aspectsl:

• time (period of analysis) • space (geography) • subject

2.2.2 The Time Aspect - Period of Analysis

The period of analysis is defined as the period during which the product (during its life cycle) is being manufactured, used and disposed of, and the period during which there are environmental and other effects associated with this product. A delimitation of the period of analysis according to this definition is difficult, as both the data relating to the individual stages of the product life cycle and the resulting effects are spread over a very long period. Carbon dioxide (C02) emissions, for example, which remain in the atmosphere for up to 120 years, are hardly suitable for delimiting the period of analysis. In order to be able to define a realistic period of analysis, the product life cycle is subdivided into different phases (cf. Figure 2.3).

The definition of time boundaries concerns not only the period of data collection and analysis, but also potential time-related effects. One such value, for example, is CO2• The level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere depends greatly on the period during which CO2 emissions

Tillmann (1993) mentions an additional delimitation of the technosphere and the eco· sphere. This, however, will not be dealt with in the present work.

15


r~riod of nnalysi!.

+ I()() -

-

() ~ Phase3 D - Phase I r-- Phase 2

-

-- I()O

Time

Each phase has a different time impact on the environment. A negative value means an environmental impact that has occurred before the beginning of the life-cycle phase in question, but which has been caused by this phase. A positive value means a future impact on the en· vironment.

Figure 2.3 Product life·cycle phases and period of analysis

occur and the time for which CO2 is stored in plants before it is released into the atmosphere. Such time-related effects are of major importance as regards climate-changing trace gases and, in principle, should be taken into consideration. For reasons of practicality, however, environmental impacts are often entered in the analysis as if they happened all at once, without any time lag. Such a simplified approach might be justified, for instance, if it leads to no, or only a minimal, change in the overall error of the analysis (Reinhardt 1993). It would also be acceptable when a stationary equilibrium is being considered.

The time approach can also be applied to a change in the type of land use. For instance, in terms of the associated environmental impacts, the transition from intensively farmed land to fallow land is anything but a smooth process. Initially, the change in land use will entail minor environmental impacts. During the subsequent period shifts of different chemical compounds to the groundwater and the atmosphere are to be expected. This phenomenon is referred to by different authors. To the extent possible, these effects are to be taken into account.

Often the effects of an environmental intervention can be felt over a longer period than it is possible to represent by means of the inventory analysis. Future emissions that are directly related to the process ana-

System Boundaries

lysed are therefore to be identified by means of the characterisation step. This can be demonstrated with the "special case of landfills".

For most technical processes, the time between input and output ranges from a few seconds to a few years. This means they take place within periods that can be easily observed and are still valid within the ceteris paribus assumption. Environmental interventions from landfills (i.e. water .,emissions), on the other hand , extend over much longer periods (up to several thousand years) and reach far beyond recordable time. Due to the great uncertainty of potential landfill emissions, a special methodology for analyzing landfill systems in LeA is needed. The Institute of Energy Technology of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZUrich, has developed such a special model, which distinguishes between three stages:

• Controlled phase: Phase at the end of which tHe leachate from landfills meets the legal requirements for discharges into the receiving body of water. Thus, the legal requirements for final storage can be reached. During the controlled phase treatment of the emissions is necessary. Depending on the type of landfill , this phase extends over 40 to 150 years. The environmental interventions are wholly integrated into the inventory and added to the "upstream" processes.

• Long-term behaviour: Predictions, based on model calculations, for transfer coefficients of the leachate emissions over years. By means of model calculations, emission levels for easily soluble substances can be determined. Due to specific kinds of linkages of metals, predictions of their emissions are extremely difficult. Except for these and some other uncertainties, the models are dependent on the different kinds of recultivation. In the future, an estimation of the time needed to reach the environmental requirements for landfill emissions should be possible. To reach environmentally compatible final storage, the environmental requirements are at the moment too in-defined for use in life cycle assessment.

• Maximum emission potential: Risk assessment of the maximum soluble emissions by availability tests. The total emission potential of a landfill is identified in terms of a "worst case scenario". This offeTs the possibility of estimating the risk of an increased mobilisation of heavy metals due to a fall in the pH. This potential is only taken into account in the inventory for municipal solid waste incinerator bottom ash mono fills and inorganic residue landfills.

7


I C.ll.d~~ I,;IIfl\:cnlr • .Hu,n

plUh.lhl~ m ~r the 111111"

JlK", ~~--===J-----,-----...r. unIcOI I

"1lhc beginnmJ! 1,

I.-____ ......L ____________ ~ I(MI',

Figure 2.4

10 UX) UMX) II)'(XX)

('ul1lrllllcd 1,l1a,.: (unlll k!!~1 rcqulrcl!l':I1I' ,Ire re,l.:hed)

D L(lng-Icml beha,i(lur hllll) Ir.Jn,tcr wdll.:ienhl

, cal"

h.\llllurn 1 ~lIIi"iun Putentl,.1 ( \\,"Ialll hi) T"'h)

Chl"nnc

Possible representation of the emissions caused by a sanitary landfill for the elements zinc and chloride. Zinc shows typical behavior for heavy metal groups and chlorine shows typical behavior for the salt group (easily soluble substances). For organic emissions a wide range of behavior can be observed. (Source: Menard et al. 1995)

Figure 2.4 shows the stages of a landfill as described above. The possible fall in zinc content in the landfill is caused by a decline in pH values, which is caused by a decrease in the acid neutralizing capacity. This possible effect can be simulated by means of availability tests.

2.2.3 Space or Geographical Aspects

In a number of cases, the spatial or geographical delimitation of the system may be justified. As many processes involve multiple international interconnections, the definition of a spatial system boundary constitutes a key issue. System boundaries according to spatial aspects may be defined as follows:

• global approach

• company boundaries

• district/regional boundaries

• national boundaries

1

System Boundaries

The model used by Kohler et al. (1992) for setting up life-cycle inventories for building components and buildings is based on the global approach. Complete data collection in all countries involved in the process under consideration, and a weighting solely on the basis of the effective share of these countries in the process, seems to be optimal. However, so detailed a data collection could be realised at a reasonable cost for individual cases only.

For example, when comparing mineral nitrogen fertiliser with an organic nitrogen fertiliser, the result may be heavily dependent on the production site. In Germany, for instance, only a marginal part of the electricity necessary for the production of nitrogen stems from renewable energies, while production in Sweden and Brazil is based almost entirely on water power. For the purpose of process comparisons such geographical differences are not admissible. Both processes must be based on the same conditions, i.e. they must use the same kind of energy supply. To a certain extent, the same applies to system comparisons.

For reasons of practicality, one will generally seek to delimit the scope of analysis. The delimitations are to be made clear so that the differing parameters used in different analyses can be harmonised for companson purposes.

2.2.4 Subject Aspects

The delimitation of the system according to subject areas may be based on a whole range of individual parameters. The first question to be asked concerns the criteria on which to base the analysis. There are no restrictions as to the definition of the criteria of analysis, provided the chosen criteria as a whole allow the effect under consideration to be identified. As an example, the analysis of beer production on the basis of the trace gases CO2, N20 and CH4 only will not be sufficient to assess the total environmental impact. To do so, additional parameters need to be taken into account (see the chapter 6 on "relevant environmental interventions").

The question of how far to consider so-called working stock in the analysis is more difficult to be answered. Basically, manufacture, maintenance, application and disposal of the whole working stock is to be included in the analysis. This would de facto result in a kind of "environmental analysis". However, in the literature there are only few examples of analyses attempting to include all four factors mentioned. For example, if, in a comparative analysis, the manufacture and maintenance of the working stock are excluded, both systems will be concerned.

J9


Another system boundary, which is the subject of controversy particularly in agricultural production, regards the question of which kind ofland use to attribute to the production of a specific crop. The multiple variations of goal definitions show that it has to be decided from case to case what type of vegetation to use for comparison in agricultural production.

Furthermore, subject delimitation concerns the question of whether operaJional troubles and accidents are to be taken into account in the analysis. Regularly recurrent accidents should certainly be considered. However, it is common practice in LeA to include only normal situations in the system.

2.3 How to Proceed in Defining System Boundaries

The definition of the system boundaries could beleft entirely to the LeA practitioner. Experience shows, however, that it is reasonable to develop rules for the definition of system boundaries. If the system boundaries vary from one LeA to another, comparability is not guaranteed. Besides. it is a waste of time if every LeA practicioner has to make ihe same basic considerations on the definition of system boundaries. To be able to compare LeAs covering different periods and products, an agreement on how to define the system boundaries is indispensable. The choice of the system boundary should also be practical and plausible.

2.3.1 Rules for the Definition of System Boundaries

This paragraph seeks to develop universally valid rules for the definition of system boundaries. To be included in an LeA or in the system to be analysed, an activity or a material and energy flow must meet the following conditions:

• The activity is being performed for the special purpose of the system under examination or for the supplier to that system and would not take place otherwise.

• The activity is an inevitable consequence of activities performed within or for the purpose of the system, even if the costs arise and are paid somewhere else.

• Energetically, the entire process chain from the extraction of the primary energy sources to the supply of the final energy sources is included in the analysis.

20

System Boundaries

• Energy and material consumption are linked directly to the production process or to activities related to the production process and belonging to the system.

• Indirect energy and material consumption, including the energy contained in materials are used during the process or resulting from the analysed product.

• The energy flow is more than 1 % of the total energy flow of the system analysed.

• The material flow is more than 1 % of the total material flow of the system analysed.

• When the stage of extraction of a raw material from its natural environment is reached, no further "upstream" steps need to be analysed (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994).

• When the stage of the production of a co-product which has not been manufactured with the aim of producing the product under examination is reached, no further "upstream" steps need to be analysed (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994).

• The cost of the activity under consideration is reflected in the selling price of the product analysed.

• In a continuous analysis of "downstream" steps, a system boundary may be drawn at the point where human control of the material flow ends, i.e. at the point where an output is released into the natural environment (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994).

• Disposal processes are allocated to the manufacturer or product leading to the disposal. On the other hand, the input of recycled materials is not to be allocated to the manufacturer using them, but the manufacturer of the recycled materials is to be charged for their disposal according to the above rule.

• Emissions are always allocated to the product causing them. The heat produced in a waste incinerator does not count against the cost of the product disposed of (no bonus). The aim is rather to offer an advantage to the user by exempting the heat from any charge. Thus, the reward goes to the user of the "waste products" and not to their supplier.

• Process materials that are not included in any of the above-mentioned items are taken into account as a process input, quantitatively and, if possible, with declaration of their composition. Equally,

2


process materials which are not contained in the scope of the analysis are taken into consideration at least quantitatively.

• If, in constructing a product life cycle for an input material, no manufacturing process, or for an output material no further processing step, is set. the life-cycle branch under consideration is abandoned at this point and the material is included in the analysis by its quantity.

• A system boundary may be drawn when a buyer can be found for a given co-product or residue, i.e. if the product is considered by other economic subjects as a raw material and therefore fetches a market price (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994).

• The delimitation according to single production process stages is admissible only if they can be considered separately as well. This means the stages of the object of comparison that have not been taken into account must have the same effects (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994).

Often it is difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect energy and material consumption. In such cases, an energy and materials flow diagram may be of help. Notice that comparisons are possible only if the boundaries of the systems are equivalent. In order to ensure the practicability of LeA, the system boundaries need to be sufficiently narrow. The relevance of secondary processes must be examined by estimation.

2.3.2 System Boundary Definition in the Case Study "Beer Production"

The system boundaries of the different inventory categories used in the example of beer production have been defined as shown in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 as well as inFigure 2.5.

Table 2.1 Hop pellet, hop extract and malt production (Source: Maillefer 1995)

Process / criterion

Packaging

Process materials

Transport

Energy

Infrastructure

22

Description

Manufacture and disposal

Any process materials, provided they account for more than 1 % of total weight

Any transports

Energy consumption, incl. energy supply

Not taken into account

System Boundaries

Table 2.2 Ecoinventory of transports : Matrix for the examined processes. The frame shows the system borders (Source: Peter 1995)

Traffic component vehicle processes

production i.e. production of cars/vans

running/ i.e. car/van-transport maintenance / repair and production of fuel

disposal i.e. disposal of cars/vans (parts that cannot be recycled)

Figure 2.5 Agricultural production of hops and barley

traffic infrastructure

i.e. production of roads

i.e. maintenance of roads/terminals etc.

i.e. disposal of road material

barley/hops

production infrastructure

i.e. production of garages, plants, etc.

i.e. running of garages, plants, etc.

i.e. disposal of the material of the buildings

1- ------- ----: Lc'i': : : . ilrogcn : I _ I'hosphoru, : : - Pc~t icidc : 1 ______ ----- -

23


The study of the brewery or the brewing process includes the analysis of energy, energy supply, process materials, process water, raw materials and disposal processes. Principally, the entire life cycle of the product is analysed.

Although presenting a minimum of consistency, the system boundaries defined in the different subprojects of necessity vary. The chosen system boundaries for the entire product life cycle of beer are coherent. They are shown in chapter 8 (case study).

References

Andersson, K. ; Ohlsson, T. and Olsson, P. (1993): Life Cycle Assessment of Food Products and Production Systems. Part I: LCA Methodology. A Literature Review (AFR-Report 25). Stockholm: Swedish Waste Research Council.

Andersson, K. ; Ohlsson, T. and Olsson, P. (1994): "Life Cycle"Assessment of Food Products and Production Systems". Trends in Food Science and Technology May 1994 (Vol. 5). 134 -138.

Bousted, I. (1979): Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis. Chichester/New York: Ellis Horwood and John Wiley.

Braunschweig, A. and Muller-Wenk, R (1993): Okobilanzen fur Unternehmungen. Eine Wegleitung flir die Praxis. Bern: Haupt.

Bundesamt flir Energiewirtschaft (1994): Okoinventare zur Beurteilung von Energiesystemen. Beitrage zur abschliessenden Tagung des BEW/NEFF Forschungsprojektes "Umweltbelastung der End- und Nutzenergiebereitstellung" an der ETH Zurich. Bern: ENET.

Frischknecht, R; Hofstetter, P. and Knoepfel. I. (1994): Okoinventare flir Energiesysteme. Schlussbericht des BEW/NEFF-Forschungsprojektes " Umweltbelastung der End- und Nutzenergiebereitstellung". Zurich: Bundesamt flir Energiewirtschaft.

Fuchs, M. (1993): Produkteanalyse eines Produktes aus iikologischer Erzeugung. Fallbeispiel Joghurt. Kassel: Diplomarbeit.

Heijungs R.; Guinee, J. ; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, Rand Udo de Haes, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde.

Holliger, M. and Pulver, R (1994): Okobilanzen im Bauwesen. Bern: Koordinationsgruppe des Bundes fur Energie- und Okobilanzen.

Kohler, N. (1992): Regeln zur Datenerfassung flir Energie- und Stoffflussanalysen. Leitfaden. Bern: Koordinationsgruppe des Bundes flir Energie- und Okobilanzen.

Kohler, N. (1994): Energie- und Stoffflussbilanzen von Gebauden wahrend ihrer Lebensdauer. Bern: Bundesamt fur Energiewirtschaft (BEW).

Kohler, N.; Luetzkendorf, T. and Holliger, H. (1992): Methodische Grundlagen flir Energieund Stoffflussanalysen. Handbuch. Bern: Koordinationsgruppe des Bundes flir Energieund Okobilanzen.

KTBL (1992): Stoff- und Energiebilanzen landbaulicher Betriebsmittel- von der Produktion bis zur Entsorgung. KTBL Arbeitspapier 186. Munster-Hiltrup: KTBL-SchriftenVetrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag GmbH.

Menard, M., Zimmermann, P. (1995): "Integration von Downstreamprozessen in Okobilanzen". Laboratorium flir Energiesysteme, ETH Zurich. Zwischenbericht.

Projektgemeinschaft "Lebenswegbilanzen" (1992): Methode flir Lebenswegbilanzen von Verpackungssystemen. Munchen.

Reinhardt, G. (1993): Energie- und C02-Bilanzierung nachwachsender Rohstoffe. Theoretische Grundlagen und Fallstudie Raps. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.

System Boundaries

Schaltegger, St. and Sturm, A. (1994): Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen. Okologisches Rechnungswesen stat! Okobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte, Bern: Haupt, 2. Auflage.

SETAC (1993):Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: a "Code of Practice". BriisseUPensacola: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SET AC).

Tillmann, A. (1993): Principles for Choice of System Boundaries in Life Cycle Assessment of Food Products. Proceedings of the 1st European Invitational Expert Seminar on Life Cycle Assessment of Food Products. Lyngby: Interdisciplinary Centre Technical University of Denmark.

Udo de Haes, H. (1994): Guidelines for the Application of Life-Cycle Assessement in the EU Ecolabelling Programme. Leiden: CML.

Weidema, P. (1993): Life Cycle Assessments of Food Products. Proceedings of the First European Invitational Expert Seminar on Life Cycle of Food Products. Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark.

Weidema, P.; Pedersen, R. and Drivsholm, T. (1995): Life Cycle Screening of Food Products. Two Examples and Some Methodological Proposals. Lyngby: Danish Academy of Technical Sciences.

2

3 Allocation of Environmental Interventions

by Christiane Maillefer, EMPA St. Gall

3.1 Requirement for Allocation

After the system boundary definition and the determination of the functional unit, the next step in the realization of an LeA is the inventory.

The data to be collected have to related to the functional unit, for example, a specific quantity of a product produced. The product studied is often not the only one produced in the system. Different products may leave the system. The environmental inputs and outputs of the system have now to be partitioned between the main product (functional unit) and the other products. This partitioning is one type of allocation. To perform allocation in the "right way" is one of the biggest difficulties of life cycle inventories.

More generally, allocation is always necessary "when the life cycle of a product affects other life cycles which are not included in the analysed system" (Finnveden 1994). The allocation problem is seen as a consequence of system boundary definition and the functional unit (Finnveden 1994; Heintz and Baisnee 1992; Heijungs 1992).

The life-cycle of a product can affect another life-cycle in various ways. For example, the product of one life-cycle appears as input in another life-cycle, material output is used as recycling material, and waste resulting from several life-cycles is treated together in the same facility.

The literature on this subject agrees on three types of processes which require allocation procedures:

• multi-output processes • multi-input processes • open loop recycling

These three types are discussed more precisely in the sections 3.2 to 3.3. Allocation procedures are also needed in the case of insufficient or

imprecise data on the process to be analysed. Here, rules need to be

27


given for the distribution of such data. An example of such a situation involves the distribution of cooling-water data for a whole production area to specific processes under study (Maillefer and Fawer 1994; Vignon et al. 1992).

In this paper different possibilities and methods for allocation are discussed, with some concrete examples of how the EMPA has solved specific allocation problems.

3.2 Allocation Procedures

The process of allocation has been known from cost-accounting for more than a hundred years. There, allocation aims at calculating the "full costs" of a product. In LeA allocation is necessary to calculate the total of all environmental impacts caused by a product.

Allocation is necessary when more than one product enters or leaves a process and the emissions of this process have to be attributed to the individual products. In this case it is necessary to distribute the required energy and material inputs (main flows, useful flows) as well as the undesirable material and energy output (subflows) like emissions (air, water, soil), waste, noise and other environmental impacts. This procedure is called allocation.

The allocation step is very important in the whole LeA. Like the system boundaries definition, it has a strong influence on the results. The results of an LeA can lead to economical or political choices. LeAs are used to evaluate the enviromental impacts of a product, process or service. The aim of an LeA goes beyond the evaluation. The results indicate handling options and suggestions for improvements. In order to give incentives to reduce environmental loading, the allocation has to be realized in a systematic way and has to take into account the real situation in which decisions must be made.

In order to allocate the inputs and the undesirable outputs on the products and co-products it is necessary to answer the following questions (Heijungs 1992, 22ff.):

A) What is the product and what are the co-products? B) What are the inputs and undesirable outputs to be allocated to

the product and co-products? C) How are they to be allocated (allocation rule)?

Every allocation procedure contains these three steps. They are not always described as systematically as here and are sometimes done in a more implicit way.

2

Allocation of Environmental Interventions

3.2.1 Products and Co-Products?

The nature of outputs has to be defined. Are the different outputs of equal importance or is it possible to graduate the output according to some criteria? The graduation can be done by different criteria: mass, volume, economic value, etc. In most cases (Frischknecht 1994; Heijungs 1992)· this question will be solved by a monetary key. Three possibilities can be encountered:

• Products with positive economical value (can be sold) are called co-products, allocation to them is necessary.

• Products with neutral economical value (can neither be sold nor is it necessary to pay for waste treatment) are called by-products. allocation of them is necessary.

• Products with negative economical value (one has to pay for the disposal of the products) are waste, allocation of them is necessary. The resources (raw materials, water, energy, etc.) also have negative economic value, meaning that they have to be allocated too.

This solution is accepted by many LeA practitioners and it represents very well the financial aims of the production of goods.

It is to be noticed that this may be a problematic case: the choice is based on an interplay between supply and demand and can change very quickly. For example, the sludge of a waste water treatment plant could be sold as fertilizer. A few months later that is no longer possible because of the high heavy metal content. The disposal of the sludge then has to be paid for.

3.2.2 What Should Be Allocated?

The second step consists of deciding what to allocate. Not only the inputs (raw materials, water consumption, energy consumption) but also outputs with a negative economical value (waste, waste water) have to be allocated. The inputs and outputs with neutral economical value (example emissions) have to be allocated to the product and co-products. Roughly, the items to be allocated include everything except the products to which they have to be allocated.

Another aspect of the second question concerns the different steps of the life-cycle. The resulting product and co-products are located at the end of a long series of processes and transports. Which of the processes and transports responsible for the environmental loading and

29


resource depletion have to be considered for allocation? Ekvall (1994) describes four possibilities to allocate environmental loading:

• The environmental loading from the last production process

• The environmental loading from the last production process and the process taking place before, as well as the transport between the two.

• The environmental loading of the whole life cycle

• The environmental loading which has no causal relation with any of the products

3.2.3 Allocation Rules

The last step is the definition of the allocation rules. The allocation rules are divided into two groups: the causal and the approportional allocation rules (Heijungs 1992). The approportional rules do not take into account the causality between the raw material, energy, water. emissions, waste and the products and co-products. The worst case of the approportional method is to charge the products with 100% and the co-products with 0%.

The causal allocation takes into account the fact that a relation exists between the items to be allocated and the co-products.

The causal allocation rules can be divided in two subgroups.

• Allocation rules based on physical, biological, chemical, or technical properties (part of them are chosen in correlation with socioeconomic practices)

• Allocation rules based on socio-economic causalities

The choice of allocation rules has to follow some criteria. The ideal allocation rules should:

• be easy to use

• represent the socio-economic reality

• give stable results in time and space.

Normally these three criteria are not found together and the best allocation rule for the studied case has to be chosen by scientific judgement. In Table 3.1 some typical allocation rules are listed with their positive and negative points.

30


The judgement of using economic factors like market price varies. Boustead (1993 and 1992) as well as SETAC (1993) reject them basically because of their large fluctuations . On the other hand SET AC (1993) thinks that only physical factors can properly describe a process because the physical factors define the input and output of the process. Ekvall (1994) proposes the expected economic gain as the allocation rule by arguing that it is more stable than the economic value. But the expected economic gain is difficult to define.

Physical factors are by now the most common type of allocation principles. The most used, and probably easiest to use, allocation rule is based upon mass (CML 1992; Boustead 1992; Vignon 1992). The impacts to be allocated are split up according to the relative mass between the products and the co-products. This distribution is not always correct. For example during the extraction and precombustion of precious metal, the quantity of non-desirable earth and stones is much higher than the quantity of precious metal. In this case the allocation according to mass is not representative. The quantitatively much higher proportion of gravel can be used as filling material for road construction. In this case it has a market price. Another possible allocation in this case is based on the concentration of the precious metal in the ore. This allocation basis also corresponds to the functional unit of the system which represents a quantity of precious metal.

Table 3.1 Allocation Rules

allocation rule

physical properties mass, dry mass, volume, energy, etc.

physical property which reflects industrial reality sugar content, calorific content, etc.

economic value

positive points

easy to define and use stable results (ratio is stable)

represent economic reality stable results (ratio is stable)

easy to define and use represent economic reality

negative points

does not represent the socio-economic reality

not easy to choose (knowledge)

the results vary if the market changes

More and more allocation rules are chosen according to physical properties of the products which reflect industrial practice. One example is allocation according to the sugar content of syrup and pulp during sugar production (Teulon 1993). This allocation rule gives similar results to economic rules.

31

B Overarching Topics of LCA

In the special case of soybean oil production the allocation of emissions due to the agricultural production, to the transport and to the fabrication of the oil can be done on different bases (ct. Table 3.2)

Table 3.2 Allocation rules for soybean oil production

Allocation principle based on: mass

Charge to soybean oil 18%

Charge to fodder 82%

price

45% 55%

energy content

54% 46%

The different rules give different results. Reusser (1994) has chosen the allocation principle based on the energy content of the two co-products. This decision is based on the physical characteristics of oil and fodder. Soybean oil is produced in large quantities. World wide it is the most produced oil. This is partly because of the protein-rich fodder which is a co-product.

For the allocation of energy needs for reactions or energy production the mass principle is not pertinent. Boustead (1993) and Heijungs (1992) propose the reaction enthalpy or the caloric value. This partitioning would be based on the energy balance.

The partitioning of the environmental load of the product to be analysed can also be done by substituting the co-product with a product of the same use but produced separately in its own process. For example, for the combined production of steam and electricity it is possible to subtract the emissions of a conventional gas boiler for the same quantity of steam produced. The difficulty with substitution is that different processes may exist which could be taken for the substitution (why not an oil boiler?). The second difficulty is that substitution can lead to negative emission values.

It is also noted that some authors propose enlarging the system boundaries in order to avoid allocation, as a possible solution of the problem.

3.3 Allocation for Different Process Types

3.3.1 Multi-Output Processes

The multi-output processes are characterised by the fact that more than one product with positive economical value leaves the process. This occurs in many different processes like agricultural production (milk

32


and meat), food production (oil and fodder), and the transportation of various products together.

In the frame of the "Clausius Discussions" (1995) we came to the common agreement that for the products used in further life cycles (background systems) an allocation is necessary. For products in the foreground (for example a comparison between two products) the bonus/ malus method is allowed.

3.3.2 Multi-Input Processes

Multi-input processes occur only in downstream processes (e.g. sewage plants). Various waste products have to be treated and the environmental charge has to be allocated to these products. Based on the presentation from Menard (1995), the following rules for the allocation for mUlti-input processes can be developed:

• The sum of all the allocated environmental charge has to be equal to the total environmental loading of the waste treatment process (100% rule).

• The allocation rule used to split the environmental loading of the different inputs has to be based on a causal principle (chemistry).

The emissions of waste treatment plants are divided into two groups:

• the emissions specific to the input product: they are allocated to the input on the basis of chemical composition.

• the emissions specific to the treatment process: they are allocated on the basis of physical criteria like mass, air consumption, etc.

3.3.3 Open-Loop Recycling

The expression "open-loop recycling" describes a recycling system in which a product A is recycled to become another product B (Schaltegger and Kubat 1994). In the problematic nature of open-loop recycling two different types of obstacles can be considered (cf. Figure 3.1):

• When a life cycle analysis of a recyclable product A is carried out, how is the possibility to recycle this product taken into consideration? How has the environmental loading of the recycling process to be allocated on product A and B? How has the waste of product B to be allocated?


• When a life cycle analysis of product B, consisting (partly or entirely) of recycled materials, is done, how is the possibility of using non-virgin material taken into consideration? How has the resource depletion to be allocated?

Raw material A

Production of A

Raw material .---~ Al

Production of B

Figure 3.1 Open·loop recycling

The problem is rather complex and no solutions have been found that definitely resolve the allocation question for open-loop recycling (BUW AL 1995).

Most of the time no allocation is done, meaning that if the product A is balanced all the environmental loading is put on it. The same happens if product B is balanced. The disadvantage of this method is that recycling is not explicitly considered as a benefit.

Allocation rules based on economic value or on physical properties can be used to allocate the environmental loading to products A and BUsing these allocation rules it is important to ensure that the recycling process is not disadvantaged.

The EMPA St Gall has solved this problem in a practic way. The goal of the choice of allocation is first not to disregard too much the recycling action. In the special case of paper production, the virgin raw material (cellulose) as well as the emissions due to the production are entirely charged to the paper. If the virgin paper is recycled no waste treatment will be charged to the product The product B, in our case the recycled paper, is charged with the emissions of the treatment of old paper and the production of recycled paper. If the recycled paper is thrown away the waste treatment emission will be taken into account. This way of handling favours the recycling of used paper (no charges for waste treatment) and the use of non-virgin material to produce recycled paper (no charges for resource depletion). This gives incentives to produce goods which can be recycled and to take used products for the fabrication of new ones.

4


3.3.4 Special Cases

Boustead (1994) has expressed his view of the partitioning problem that occurs within chlor-alkali electrolysis. Three co-products are gained from salt (NaCl): caustic soda (NaOH), chlorine (Cb) and hydrogen (H2)' He proposed several ideas for allocation principles in this study. The principles are based on mass balances, reaction enthalpies and calorific values. The application of various partitioning methods leads to large fluctuations in the results. One specific point in the methods proposed by Boustead (1994) is the different allocation basis for raw materials, electrical and thermal energy, and emission partitioning of the co-products. OfBoustead's proposals, one method has been applied in the new BUW AL report (BUWAL 1995). These allocations are described in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Allocation for the chlor·alkali electrolysis in BUWAL SRU 250 (Source: Boustead 1994)

Allocation of

NaCI (raw material)

allocation to NaOH and CI2 on basis of the atomic mass

Thermal energy

total thermal energy allocated to NaOH

Electrical energy

allocation on basIs of the mass of the three co-products

Emissions

allocation on basis of the mass of the three co-products

3.3.5 Case Study KOPQ

Allocation Allocation to NaOH to el2

39.3 % 60.7 %

100 % 0%

52.3 % 46.4 %

52.3 % 46.4 %

Allocation to H2

0 %

0 %

1.3 %

1.3 %

In the various projects of the Coordinated Project LCA and Eco-Controlling (KOPO) several methods of allocation have been applied.

3S


Table 3.4 The used allocation principles in several studies

Agriculture

Multi.output

food processing Transport

Multl.output Multi.output

Beer

none

Down-Stream

Multi.output • Products • Products • Infrastructure • Services and

Product - Substitution - Mass - gross ton km - Price - Content - proportional - Substitution - Energy content - Price - Allocation to the - Other contents

• Infrastructure - Time of use

maIO function (waste treatment) Mult~input

- Area of culture • Back to different waste products • Elementary analysIs

An overview of the allocation principles which could be used (normal characters) and the ones which have been applied (italic characters) in the different studies can be seen in Table 3.4.

3.4 Conclusions

Allocation problems are omnipresent in life cycle assessment. They are the consequence of the multiple links between production systems and the definition of both the functional unit and the system boundary.

As the choice of the allocation rules is left to the scientific judgement of the person conducting the study, it is most important to describe clearly the allocation procedure which has been used. This enables those who use the results of the study to understand the links with and perhaps the differences from other outcomes for the same product.

6

General rules for allocation are:

1. A universal allocation rule does not exist, rather from case to case modified solutions have to be found .

2. The allocation rule has to take the functional unit as well as the aim of the production process into account.

3. The allocation rule basically serves to bring the relationships of the system analysed together. The causalities can be of a physical, chemical, biological, technical or economic nature.

4. The economic aspects are primarily used for classification of the outputs as co-product, by-product or waste.


5. If several possibilities seem to make sense, it could be interesting to calculate the inventory for the different allocation rules and to compare them.

6. The allocation rules chosen should be discussed by a panel of experts which gives them the reasons for and the validation of the choice.

7. Allocation rules should be documented and discussed clearly so that the reader of the study can follow the way the results were obtained.

References

Boustead, J. (1992): Eco-Balance Methodology for Commodity Thermoplastics. Brussels: APME.

Boustead, J. (1994): Eco-Profiles of the European Polymer Industry. Report 5: Co-Product Allocation in Chlorine Plants. BrUssel: APME.

BUWAL (1995): Okoinventare fUr Verpackungen. SRU Nr. 250 (Draft 31. 5.1995). Bern: BUWAL.

Clausius Gesprache (1995): Thema "Methodische Probleme von Entsorgungsprozesse in Okobilanzen" und "Beurteilung der Okoeffizienz von End-of-Pipe Systcmen am Beispiel der Abluftreinigung". 7. Juni 1995. ZUrich: ETH.

Ekvall, T. (1994): Principles for Allocation. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February 1994. Leiden: SETAe.

Finnveden, G. (1994): Some Comments on the Allocation Problem and System Boundaries in LCA. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SET AC, 65 - 71.

Frischknecht, R. (1994): Allocation - An Issue of Valuation? Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SETAe.

Heijungs, R. (1994): Allocation in LCA. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SETAe.

Heijungs, R. (final editor); Guinee. J. ; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R. ; Udo de Haas, H. and Wegener Sleeswijk , A. (1994): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Background. Leiden: CML.

Heintz, B. and Baisnee, P. (1992): System Boundaries. Proceedings of the SET AC-Europe Workshop on Life-Cycle Assessment. 2. - 3. December 1991. Leiden: SETAC, 35 - 52.

Lindeijer, E. (1994): Allocating Recycling for Integrated Chain Management: Taking Account of Quality Losses, Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SET AC, 29 - 38.

MaiUefer, e. and Fawer, M. (1994): Allocation Problems in Dairies: Possibilities Related to the Available Data. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SETAe.

Menard, M. (1995): Methodische Probleme von Entsorgungsprozessen in Okobilanzen. Presentation an den Clausius-Gesprachen. 7. Juni 1995. ZUrich: ETH.

Reusser. L. (1994): Okobilanz des Sojaol . Diplomarbeit im Rahmen des Nachdiplomstudiurns "Umweltingeinieurwesen" der ETH Lausanne. Oktober 1994. Lausanne: EPFLEMPA.

Schaitegger, S. and Kuba,t R. (1994) : Das Handworterbuch der Okobilanzierung. Begriffe und Definitionen. Glossary of LCA. Terms and Definitions. WWZ Studie Nr. 45. Basel: WWZ.

Schneider. F. (1994): Allocation and Recycling: Enlarging to the Cascade System. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SETAe. 39 - 53.

37


Teulon, H. (1993): LCA in the food industry: the French experience, Life Cycle Assessment of Food Products. Proceedings of the 1st European Invitational Expert Seminar on Life Cycle Assessments of Food Products. 22. - 23. November. Denmark: Lyngby, 69 - 79.

SET AC (1993): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessement: A "Code of Practice". SET AC Workshop in Sessirnbra, Portugal. 31. March - 3. April 1993. Consoli, F. (Ed.). Leiden: SETAe.

Vignon, B.; Tolle, D.; Cornaby, B.; Latham, H.; Harnison. e.; Boguski, R.: Hunt. R. and Sellers. Y. (1992): Life-Cycle Assessment: Inverntory Guidelines and Principles. EPA Study Nr. EPA/600/R-92/032. Cincinnati: U.S. EPA.

3

4 Background Inventory Data

by Peter Zimmermann, Rolf Frischknecht and Martin Menard, ESU ETH Zurich

4.1 Introduction

This section starts with a description of background inventory data (BID), of the reasons why such data are needed in LCA, and of the potential users. For that purpose, the system linked to the functional unit at stake is divided into a foreground and a background system. Then, a survey of the most important requirements with regard to BID is given. Section 4.4 describes BID modules used within KOPO. In section 4.5 conclusions are drawn about the quality and consistency of established BID concerning KOPO, and a future outlook is given.

To perform an LCA it is necessary to consider all impacts of a product from cradle to grave. Depending on the system boundaries a large amount of information is needed, leading to high costs for the assessment study. As a rule, not only the main process chain (processes directly related to the functional unit) needs to be assessed, but also background processes like material production, energy supply, waste disposal and the delivery of services like transportation, construction, maintenance. Usually so-called background inventory data are defined for these background processes.

4.2 What Are Background Inventory Data And Why Are They Needed?

To identify the main process chain, the system leading to the functional unit of interest can be divided into a foreground and a background system, which are defined as follows:

Foreground system: System that is specifically related to the product or service at stake. Specifically related means that there are known connections (economic relations) between the different actors involved in the generation of the product or service at issue. The corresponding

39


data should be as real as possible, based for instance not only on actual market shares but also on actual plant conditions, and verified if at all possible.

Background system: System that is not specifically related to the product or service at stake. The background system consists of (intermediate) products for which the relation between vendor and purchaser has not yet been identified. Information about these relations is not available or does not seem to be very important. Therefore the corresponding processes will be integrated into the background system in the first step.

The following cases can be identified, where processes are related to the background system:

• lack of information about the particular provenance of an (intermediate) product, although the product's market is fragmented (production site, company's average production, connected companies with one standardised product)

• purchase on spot markets: - no systematic purchase of intermediate products - no systematic supply for the spot market

In these cases vicarious background processes have to be chosen in order to represent reality accurately.

The separation of foreground and background processes as described above does not tell something about the relevance of the corresponding environmental interventions or effect scores in any case. It may well be that a substantial share of total environmental interventions or effect scores stems from vicarious background processes. Therefore a two-step procedure is suggested.

In the case of a foreground process, for which no specific data about its environmental impact are available, BID may be applied for the first estimation (if-clause, see below).

In the case of a background process where a high relevance has been identified in the first estimation, the process at stake should be seen as a part of the core system of the functional unit at issue and the pertinent processes should be brought into focus in the LeA study (cf. Figure 4.1). Therefore, this part of the background system changes for the next iteration into the extended foreground system where the BID should be replaced with foreground inventory data (FlO). However, if it can be shown that BID accurately satisfy the requirements of these foreground processes, BID may be used in the second iteration.

Figure 4.1 shows the relation between the foreground/background system and foreground/background inventory data. FlO are used within

40

Background Inventory Data

Il.ltlr.ground S) .. Iem • n"''' ,'''ltl •. l11\ 1'\ 110 .. \ 1r\-t..I",'n l ... ..,..'" k.l~n Ilh •• t-:., ., .... ·111-:,1''''1

econd lIer.uion

n'l"l..1I1,

rr. II.--~ ... I

D

I or~ground S) :o.lem

• "f""II, .. lh n 1.lk~ h' ..... orr111. h·(.tl,,->ftl

I .... ,-,.I\>UI' ... I R",~","".nJ

',..,J\'m " .. 1\,,",

The dominance analysis of environmental interventions, shown on the right side, is used as the basis for deciding on an enlargement of the foreground system in a second iteration. 1) relevant in terms of environmental interventions or impact scores 2) lack of FlO (foreground inventory data) 3) accurate BID (background inventory data)

Figure 4.1 Relation between foreground/background system and foreground/background inventory data in a two steps procedure.

the foreground system, BID within both the background and foreground system. BID may be used if no FID are available in a first iteration, and in a second iteration if BID accurately reflect technology and performance of the process at stake.

The availability of BID reduces costs and minimises the work time of every LeA study using BID in the background system and in parts of the foreground system. Even more, using the same background inventory database, a comparison of different LeA gets easier and more reliable.

Potential users of BID are LeA practitioners. Depending on the scope of the study other environmental instruments, for example, environmental impact assessments, can also make use of BID. Problems arise when BID for LeA purposes are used unchanged for long-term planning or policy making (e.g. energy planning), not taking into account the fact that BID for LeA in most cases refer to state-of-the-art or average technology.


4.3 Requirements

4.3.1 What are the most important requirements for BID?

• BID should be publicly available. Licence costs should be kept low to be affordable by private LCA practitioners as well as by academic institutions and consultants. This allows a broad application of LCA as a whole. It also guarantees that a broader public may exercise a control function.

• The BID of every process should be divided in sub-processes. This allows the results to be presented in as modular a way as possible. Even more importantly, background inventory data modules and calculated results should be documented on a modular basis. In this way, every user can duplicate the data and arrange or adjust them according to his or her individual requirements. This is only possible if the BID are presented in a very detailed way.

• Methods, sources and assumptions used to compile BID should be clearly stated, with a description of the data (quantitative or descriptive), in order to achieve a high level of transparency and therefore of acceptance by potential users. Furthermore, information on the reliability and accuracy of the source should be given, so the users are able to check the data themselves.

• BID should always include information on the functional unit, on the system boundaries used, and on the reference year or timespan.

• BID should give a good representation of the market by covering the highest possible market share.

• BID should include all environmentally relevant processes. This means that operation materials and infrastructure should also be included, if environmental relevance is expected. For relevant environmental interventions see chapter 6.

• BID should include detailed, non-aggregated information on environmental interventions e.g. emissions, resource depletion, land use and others. The CML classification system (Heijungs et a1. 1992) gives an example of today's requirements for the level of detail of environmental interventions. Impact assessment methods requiring even more detailed LCI data are to be expected in the near future (d. chapter 5).

42


• BID should, as a rule, not be established on a marginal basis.

• For BID only fixed allocation procedures should be applied. It is suggested that a four-step allocation procedure proposed by the SETAC working subgroup "Energy/Allocation" (Huppes et al. 1995) be used:

"1. Clean. the process of the elements which function for one of the goods or services only. This is a widely accepted type of causality.

2. Clean the process of the elements that contribute the same (sub)function to each of the goods or services being produced. This is also a widely accepted part of the allocation procedure.

3. Establish the natural science type (chemical, physical, biological, etc.) causalities and subtract these from the process. Ensure that physical type causality never goes "against time"; physical outputs cannot explain physical inputs. In waste processing, and less so in recycling, physical causalities may playa dominant role.

4. Establish the social science type (economic, psychological, etc.) causalities for the (analytically) remaining processes. The share in financial proceeds, as used by economists in cost accounting, seems the best applicable option in many cases."

• The substitution principle should not be used for BID (no "bonuses "). Consequently, no extensions of the system with subtraction or addition of environmental interventions should be allowed. Or, in other words, multifunctional processes with n functions should be divided into n monofunctional single output processes, by means of the allocation procedure described above.

4.3.2 What Are the Requirements for Institutions Publishing BID?

In order to be useful and to be generally accepted, the data should be published by independent governmental or semi-governmental bodies. The collaboration of government and industry with an independent body allows an efficient procedure. This guarantees impartiality towards concerned companies which elaborate the process data.

Institutions publishing BID follow, if possible, the general LCA standard "code of practice" (SETAC 1993) as defined by SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), ISO (1995), or SPOLD (Society for the Promotion of Lifecycle Assessment Development) (SPOLD 1995). If deviations from the methodology occur, they must be explained and justified.

43


Institutions in charge of BID should guarantee the access of every interested body or person to BID. They should also advise the users and inform them about errors. They should be responsible for a regular update of the BID to keep the database up to date.

Summing up, it may be said that in order to reduce costs for the elaboration of further inventory data of products and services a general elaboration is necessary. If LCA is to be established as a general tool to support decisions from the ecological viewpoint, it is absolutely important to make transparent and consistent background inventory data available.

4.4 BID Established by KOPO Projects

The project comprises four groups, each one w!.th the task of creating new background inventory data for agricultural products, food products, transport and disposal services for Swiss conditions. As a starting point the project board decided to use data from the "Environmental Life-Cycle Inventories of Energy Systems (ESU-data)" report (Frischknecht et al. 1994). These data were elaborated from cradle to grave with the specific aim of analysing energy systems. Additional background inventory data on, for example, material production and transport were established.

The main reasons for this decision were that at that time these data were the most comprehensive and appropriate available, and by using this source as a starting point the consistency of the work would greatly be improved.

The ESU data refer to the year 1990. These data are mainly given for an average situation in Switzerland and in Western Europe. Accidents and abnormal operations are not considered. Two different electricity mixes are analysed: the Swiss electricity mix and the U CPTE mix. Additional average industrial heating systems (Swiss and European) are available, for example, coal, oil, gas and wood heating systems (the wood heating system refers only to Swiss conditions).

There are specific differences in how the data from Frischknecht et al. (1994) are used in the different sub-projects. In the following the characteristics of the four sub-projects are explained. First the following Table gives a short overview of some characteristic information used by the different projects:

44


Table 4.1 Overview of the characteristic information used by the four sub-projects

Origin of data for background system

Origin of data for foreground system

Reference year for foreground system

Electricity mix

Industrial heating system

Other energy carriers

Agriculture

see 4.4.1

see 4.4.1

most data refer to conditions In 1990 to 1991

Swiss ESU mix, 1990

SWISS ESU mix, 1990

mostly Swiss ESU conditions.

4.4.1 Agriculture

Food Products

EMPAdata

usually SWISS production with exceptions, see 4.4.2

data refer to conditions in 1993 to 1994

SWISS miX, national mix, UCPTE 1993

EMPA data, UCPTE 1995

EMPA data for Europe

Transport

ESU data

see 4.4.3

data refer to conditions In

1993

UCPTEmlx, 1990

ESD data, 1990, oil heating

ESU data for Europe with exceptions, see 4.4.3

Downstream

ESU data

see 4.4.4

data refer to conditions In

1995

self produced electricity otherwise SWISS ESU mix, 1990

ESU data for Switzerland

1) Origin of data for background system: according to standardised calculations for life cycle assessment for agriculture at FAT, it is possible that in some cases background data other than ESU data is used (refer to the final sub-report).

2) Origin of data for foreground system: in this sub-project BID were used, with some exceptions. For example, one exception is the entry of heavy metals into soil by the use of fertilisers. This balance was made for the area of Switzerland and is based on a publication of 1991 (BUWAL 1991). It refers to the period between 1985 and 1991. The data are mostly based on averages from several publications.

3) Reference year for foreground system: data refer to conditions in 1990 to 1991 with some exceptions.

4) Electricity mix: the Swiss mix (1990) was chosen. 5) Industrial heating system: Swiss ESU mix, 1990.

4


6) Other energy carriers: mostly Swiss ESU conditions, with a few exceptions (e.g. pesticide production in Europe), were considered.

4.4.2 Food Products

1) Origin of data for background system: EMP A data.) 2) Origin of data for foreground system: usually data refer to Swiss

production with exception of malt and hops, which refer to a German plant (import products). It was the aim to publish data from at least three representative companies. As a default, data from literature was also used.

3) Reference year for foreground system: data refer to conditions from 1993 to 1994.

4) Electricity model: if the land of production was known, the local national mix was applied. In most cases the Swiss mix could be used. Otherwise the UCPTE mix of the year 1993 was chosen.

5) Industrial heating system: EMPA data, UCPTE 1995. 6) Other energy carriers: EMPA data for Europe.

4.4.3 Transport

46

1) Origin of data for background system: ESU data 2) Origin of data for foreground system: the data are mostly based

on averages. If the costs for the evaluation were too high, data from case-studies were applied. For the infrastructure and the operation of plants the average situation of Switzerland was chosen. Because new data about transport processes are still under investigation by the BUW AL, the ESU data was used for the KOPO case-study: for European trucks 28 tons, for Swiss trucks 16 tons.

3) Reference year for foreground system: data refer to conditions in 1993. In some cases more recent data were available.

4) Electricity model: UCPTE (1990) mix. 5) Industrial heating system: oil heating systems refer to ESU data

1990. 6) Other energy carriers: in general ESU data are valid for Europe.

At present, all EMPA data are based on ESU-data whith omission of infrastructure. The final version will probably use the ESU data which consider the infrastructure.


The operation of cars, trucks, trains and airlines in Switzerland is based on Swiss conditions.

4.4.4 Downstream

1) Origin of data for background system: ESU data 2) Origin of data for foreground system: a part of the data is from

the literature, the other part from operators that were contacted during the project. For land filling the technical standard of 1995 was used. For solid waste incineration and sewage plants typical transfer functions for different end-of-pipe systems (like electric precipitators, flue gas treatment, den ox-systems) were elaborated. Whenever possible an average (several plants) of the typical transfer functions was taken, otherwise -the data refer to single installations in Switzerland. Knowing the technical standard of the present waste treatment plants of a certain country or region, average transfer functions can be calculated. In the KOPO case-study the average technical standards of Swiss treatment plants in 1995 were used.

3) Reference year for foreground system: data refer to conditions in 1995.

4) Electricity model: if available the use of self-produced electricity was considered, otherwise the Swiss ESU mix was used.

5) Industrial heating system: no heating system is necessary. 6) Other energy carriers: ESU data for Switzerland.

4.5 Conclusions

At the beginning of KOPO the requirements described for BID were not discussed in such detail and the criteria for BID to guarantee consistency were not exactly defined. However, the consistency of the basis projects of KOPO described in section 4.4 should in principle be acceptable.

The background inventory data modules used within KOPO mainly apply to Swiss conditions. This is consistent with the foreground systems which are specific for Switzerland.

It was possible to achieve a good level of consistency by using ESU background data modules and by harmonising the underlying assumptions between the sub-project groups.

The newly created inventory data modules can also be used as BID

41


within other projects, if there is a careful assessment of whether the system boundaries of the new project are compatible with the data modules or not.

Furthermore, if the elaborated data modules are to be included in existing data-bases (i.e. ECOINVENT), care should be taken to harmonise system boundaries (cf. chapter 2) and underlying assumptions. At reasonable cost it should be possible to adapt the background inventory data for European users.

For the future it would be advisable to consider not only the Swiss production but the Swiss supply of electricity, which considers the electricity import and domestic production in Switzerland (Frischknecht 1994). For the update of the ESU data in 1996 it is suggested that the Swiss supply of electricity for processes taking place in Switzerland to be considered. Within the SET AC working group for Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a subgroup discusses the needs of spatial differentiations within the LeI (life cycle inventory) for characterisation oftoxic impacts (Udo de Haes 1995). Depending on the outcome of this subgroup, existing databases have to adjust their inventory in order to meet future requirements of assessment methods.

The general use of background inventory data standardisation will surely be a topic in the future. But first of all a discussion about who can provide standardised data is needed. Additionally, a data-base with a modular structure will be needed, with standardised background inventory data that will allow data to be arranged for individual demands. For that purpose not only cumulative inventory data (results) but also descriptive inventory data (direct demands and in-situ emissions of single processes) should be accessible and adaptable for the user. With this possibility, for example, the electricity mix could be established more accurately. For this adaptation it will make sense to standardise background inventory data because every user will then apply the same standardised background inventory data and will be able to adjust the data for individual demands.

Up to now, the elaboration of background inventory data has mainly been sponsored by public funds. This is necessary and reasonable as LCA is under development and the methods to elaborate background data have to be discussed on a scientific level. The remaining methodological questions concerning the inventory (e.g. the allocation procedure) should still be tackled by scientists, but the evaluation and testing of methodological concepts as well as the elaboration and updates of background inventory data should in future be done together with industries and governmental bodies.

An important impulse to make the elaboration of background and

4


more specific inventory data more efficient (and reduce the costs) could come from the establishment of Environmental Management and Audit System (EMAS) and Pollutant Release Transfer Register (PRTR) (OECD 1995).

References

BUWAL (1991): Schwermetalle und Fluor in Mineraldunger, Schriftenreihe BUWAL NT. 162 (Boden). Bern: BUW AL.

Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.; Dones, P. and Zollinger, E. et a!. (1994): Okoinventare fur Energiesysteme, Laboratorium fOr Energiesysteme. Zurich: ETH Zurich/PSI.

Frischknecht, R (1994): "Stromix in Okobilanzen - Fragestellungen, Modelle, Konsequenzen", ENET (Hrsg.): Okoinventar zur Beurteilung von Energiesystemen, Tagungsband zur gleichnamigen Tagung vom 8. Sept. an der ETH in Zurich. Bern: BEW.

Heijungs, R. (Ed.); Guinee, J.; Lankreijer, R ; Udo de Haes, H. and Wegener Sleeswijk, A. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle of Products. Guide -. and Backgrounds. Leiden/Apledoorn/ Rotterdam: CML.

Huppes, G. and Frischknecht, R (1995): Position on Allocation and on Energy in LCA. Preliminary Report for the SETAC-Europe Congress in Copenhagen June 28. Zurich: ESU.

ISO (1995): ISO CD 14'020: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Guidelines. Paris: ISO.

OECD (1995): PRTR Guidance to Governments Document, Data Management and Reporting for a National Pollutant Release and Transfer Register. Pollution Prevention and Control Group. Paris: OECD.

SETAC (1993): Guidlines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A "Code of Practice". Brussels: SETAC.

SPOLD (1995): Proposal of a Common Format for the Reporting of LCI Databases. Questionnaire. Brussels: SPOLD.

Udo de Haes, H. (1995): "First Results of the SET AC-Europe Working Group on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (WIA)", Fifth SETAC-Europe Congress Copenhagen 25. - 28. June 1995. 0215 Programme and Abstract Book. Copenhagen: SET AC.

49

5 Imprecision and Uncertainty in LeA

by Christian Pohl, Matjaz Ros, Beate Waldeck and Fredy Dinkel, Carbotech Ltd. Basel

Imprecision and uncertainty are important aspects of life cycle assessments (LeA) which are usually ignored. Nevertheless the results of LeAs without "confidence limits" are questionable from a scientific point of view, and from the view of the user dangerous because they may lead to misjudgments. To handle imprecision and uncertainty in LeAs a wide spectrum of tools which are able to process statistical data as well as estimations is needed.

In the first part of the paper different types of errors in LeAs are located and characterized. In the following methods are suggested for handling them. Statistics, maximum error calculation and the fuzzy set theory are used as mathematical tools.

5.1 Introduction

Life cycle assessment (LeA) is becoming increasingly important as a tool for ecological evaluation of products and services. In particular for economic decisions, where "eco-friendliness" is an important criterion nowadays, results obtained with LeAs could lead to large investments. Such investments can only be justified by minimising their financial risk and maximising their "eco-efficiency". Therefore it is indispensable to know the "confidence limits" of an LeA. If these limits show a wide range of uncertainty the ecological benefits of an investment becomes questionable. This is why "confidence limits" in LeAs are necessary both from an ecological and an economic perspective.

In this paper the imprecision and uncertainty of data and methods used in LeAs are shown. The basic question is:

How reliable are LeAs for the ecological evaluation of products and services?

5


To get an answer to this general question we first need answers to some more specific questions:

• Which types of imprecision and uncertainty are encountered in LCAs? (section 5.2)

• Where are they located? (section 5.3)

• How could they be included and processed? (section 5.4)

In the following sections, three different mathematical methods are used: statistics, calculation of error limits, and the fuzzy set theory. Statistics provide models of imprecision based on probabilities, and with the error limits method the absolute maximum errors are defined. The fuzzy set theory enables us to set up possibility distributions with fuzzy sets (Zadeh 1965) for imprecise or vague data and therefore to handle those data even when no probabilities are kno~n.

5.2 Types of Imprecision and Uncertainties in LeA

LCA uses heterogeneous data and is composed of different steps with different types of imprecision. We shall distinguish the following five types:

Errors in quantities

• stochastic (statistical) errors

• exact error intervals

• vague error intervals (fuzzy intervals)

Other errors

• systematic errors

• intrinsically vague data

5.2.1 Stochastic (Statistical) Errors

A typical example of stochastic errors are measurement errors. When repeating a measurement the values will oscillate around a "true value". The mean value approaches the true value with an increasing number of measurements and a probability distribution can be set up.

The most common probability distribution is the Gaussian distribution (c.f. Figure 5.1) with the two characteristic parameters

52

Imprecision and Uncertainty in LeA

Il mean value cr standard deviation (error parameter)

For Gaussian distributions error specifications like "± 25%" refer to the standard deviation. The probability of a measurement being within predetermined boundaries is 68% for Il± cr, 95% for Il ± 2crrespectively.

A disadvantage of this very common model is the relatively high demands upon the amount of data: for Gaussian distributions at least 30 values are needed, a requirement which in ecology is sometimes hard to meet, whether for lack of time or lack of money.

5.2.2 Exact Error Intervals

When nothing about the error distribution is known, error specifications like "± 25 %" define only the boundaries of an interval. All possible values are within this interval and the probabilities are unknown. As a centre value the mean value or the median is applicable (c.f. Figure 5.1).

n

o

Figure 5.1

-Xi±25% -

I

Xi±JO% -r - -\

\

\

I \ ~." •• ,.""I .u'u"",\

" ••• ,.,"""" ""'·"'U'fI,."

Xi

Gaussian error distribution

exact error interval

vague error interval

..

Gaussian error distribution (/l=Xi • cr=25%). exact error interval (X;:t25%) and vague error interval (Xi± "about 10%")

Interval specifications are used when only the minimum and maximum values are known or when the data in question represent an interval.


5.2.3 Vague Error Intervals (Fuzzy Intervals)

It lies in the nature of exact intervals that they represent a "pessimistic" view of data: the interval borders have to be relatively wide to include the absolute minimum and maximum values and subsequent calculations will be rather uninformative.

If a more exact ("optimistic") estimation can be made, fuzzy intervals are a more convenient representation of imprecise data since they include both the "pessimistic" and the "optimistic" estimation. In Figure 5.1 the fuzzy interval represents a quantity which is estimated (optimistic) as X ±"about 10%" without running the risk that the delimited value lies outside the (pessimistic) maximum error interval X ±25%. (c.f. Dubois and Prade 1988, 33f.).

The fuzzy approach allows us to handle such estimations and avoids the necessity of investing more time or money tQ get more exact values. This type of fuzziness is called informal fuzziness (Zimmermann 1991). If the approximation is satisfactory and reliable (e.g. given by experts) fuzzy intervals can be processed with fuzzy arithmetic.

5.2.4 Systematic Errors

Systematic errors occur

• when the calibration of a calculation model is not correct or • when the structure of a system is not included completely in the

calculation model.

The first kind of systematic error (e.g. a watch is consistently ten minutes fast) can be identified and corrected by comparing the system with a calibrated reference system. In ecology such a reference system (e.g. a ideal state of an ecosystem) is often hard to define.

The second kind of systematic error in LeA occurs, e.g. when defining boundaries of a system and when choosing the valuation parameters.

5.2.5 Intrinsically Vague Data (Intrinsic Fuzzy Data)

In ecology data are sometimes used even when meaning cannot be simplified to one crisp number. In particular this could happen when defining "target values", "threshold values" or "political values", which are very common in environmental policy and science. The definition

54


of such values is based on linguistic propositions (e.g. by laws) and therefore needs to be interpreted. This type of data is called intrinsically fuzzy (Zimmermann 1991).

Ambient quality threshold values, which describe the transition from harmless to harmful concentrations of pollutants are - according to their linguistic definitions in Swiss law - intrinsically fuzzy (Pohl and Ros 1995). Terms like "big", "small" or "very harmful" are intrinsically fuzzy too.

The use of crisp values for intrinsically fuzzy quantities is an inadequate modelling, which can result in misjudgment.

5.2.6 Missing Data

For many substances no data are available and estimations have to be made (e.g. estimation of emissions based on energy consumption). The errors of these estimations could be very large . If missing data are omitted a systematic error occurs in the LeA.

Figure 5.2 summarises the types of imprecise data in a decision-tree.

imprecise ecological data • measurement • estimations • target values • weighting factors .. system boundaries .. etc.

yes

no

yes

error probability exact error interval di stfi bution (stati stics ) (minimum - maximum)

Figure 5.2 Decision-tree for classification and modelling of imprecise data

no


5.3 Sources of Imprecision in LeA

According to SETAe standards (SETAe 1992) an LeA is composed of five steps: the goal definition and system boundary setting, the inventory analysis, the impact assessment (classification), the valuation and the improvement analysis.

The results of a LeA are very sensitive to the goal definition. Since the goal definition differs for each LeA we ignore this aspect in this paper. The improvement analysis is ignored as well.

Furthermore we propose for the following analysis a slightly different step subdivision, treating system boundaries as being partly set during inventory analysis and partly during impact assessment. Therefore the following parameters have to be analysed:

• inventory analysis: emission, process and resQurce quantities, system boundaries

• classification: classification models, system boundaries

• valuation: weighting factors

5.3.1 Inventory Analysis

a) System Boundaries

The selection of system boundaries in an LeA separates the system under investigation from "the rest of the world". Systematic errors occur when relevant processes are excluded and the model structure is therefore incomplete. For example the question of whether one-way bottles or deposit bottles are less polluting cannot be answered without considering transport.

This is a very common problem in LeAs, because the system boundaries are partly defined by the available data, which have to be considered as incomplete in many applications.

b) Process, Emission and Resource Quantities

Resources and emissions in LeAs are used as input and output data for processes which can be measured. Errors within these quantities are therefore typical measurement errors (stochastic errors, exact or vague error intervals).

Process quantities are, like most economic quantities, more or less well-known and their error is relatively small.

Imprecision and Uncertainty in LCA

The error of emission quantities depends on the emitted substances. For example it is relatively small for CO2, since it can be calculated using the input data of well-known combustion processes. For NOx-emissions the error is generally medium, and relatively large for heavy metals and VOCs, since this emission quantities depend on a large number of parameters.

c) Different Data Sources

A very common problem when dealing with inventory data is the use of different data sources. Those data can differ in several aspects, for example in

• allocation rules

• process technologies

• nergy scenarios

If those aspects are not considered when setting up the inventory large systematic errors have to be taken into account.

An example shows the effects of different process technologies and allocation rules:

Two independent studies have been made on the environmental impact of the production of plastics. In BUW AL (1991) the basic data from German plastics producers were used (German technology) and in PWMI (1992) the basic data were delivered by producers all over Europe (European technology). The "raw" results of both studies are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Comparison of the emissions for the production of 1 kg polyethylene in two different studies

Pollutant

Particles

NOx

S02

German technology (BUWAL 1991)

g %

0.11 4

1.3 11

1.7 19

European technology (PWMI1992)

g %

3 100 12 100

9 100

At first glance the differences between the technologies seem huge (up to a factor of 25). Using the same allocation rules for both technologies (splitting up the emissions) and more recent energy data the differences decrease significantly (Table 5.2).

5J


Table 5.2 Comparison of the emissions for the production of 1 kg polyethylene with different technologies. For BUWAL 1991 the allocation rules of PWMI 1992 and more recent energy data (ESU 1994) were used.

Pollutant German technology (BUWAL European technology (PWMI 1991, corrected allocation) 1992)

g % g %

Particles 1.4 47 3 100

NOx 4.4 37 12 100

S02 5.1 57 9 100

The remaining differences could be explained by the production technologies, the energy scenarios (e.g. feedstock, use of by-products) and the system boundaries (PWMI 1993). However, one possible conclusion is that the choice of the producer may be more relevant than the choice of the product (of Carbotech 1996).

If the technology of the product is not known, all available knowledge about the uncertainty should be included in the inventory data by means of error intervals. In the above example this implies calculations with the minimal and maximal emissions and impact values.

5.3.2 Classification'

a) Global Warming Potential (GWP), Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

For the GWP, the ODP and the POCP, exact error intervals based on calculations with different parameters are defined in the original publication (Heijungs 1992a, 66ff).

b) Human Toxicity and Ecotoxicity Potentials

Potentials for human toxicity and ecotoxicity are always based on estimations using the uncertainty factors. The uncertainty factors describe difficulty of extrapolation from laboratory animals to ecosystems. The imprecision and uncertainty of these factors are high. This situation is called informal fuzzy if the precision could be increased by further investigations.

For further discussions of uncertainties in the CML classification c.t. LCA Nordic (1995).

5


From a biological point of view these potentials are not crisp but intrinsically fuzzy because there are no sharp limits between toxicity and non-toxicity.

c) Acidification Potential (AP), Nutrification Potential (NP)

The ecosystem model for AP is generally not very precise. The AP is based on the number of protons, impact of which on ecosystems is not well-known and is dependent on the actual ecosystem.

The NP is based on algae masses in aquatic systems, and as a consequence is strongly dependent of the type of aquatic systems such as small lakes in the mountain, swamps, rivers or the sea. The prediction of the impact on terrestrial systems given by the NP is inadequate.

The errors in these potentials are intrinsic to the models and therefore systematic.

d) System Boundaries

Further systematic errors arise with the choice of the potentials. In most LCAs only some of the potentials suggested by Heijungs (1992) are calculated. The reason may be a lack of data and/or a lack of adequate models, e.g. models for impacts on flora and fauna.

5.3.3 Valuation

In the valuation step a multitude of different parameters from the inventory analysis or classification are aggregated into one single value or score. Since there is no scientific background for such an aggregation it has to be made with social, political or quasi-scientific goals and assumptions.

A comparison of different valuation methods shows that every method leads to a different value (with same inventory, c.f. Figure 5.3). The valuation step is therefore considered to be the most fuzzy part of an LCA (Schaltegger and Sturm 1992, 133).

a) Critical Fluxes

The critical flux valuation method (BUWAL 1990) is based on two quantities: the actual flux of a substance and the maximum flux which the ecosystem can cope with (critical flux). The result of the comparison is given in "ecopoints" (UBP). In Figure 5.3 the standard UBP valuation (UBP-CH) and two variations (Carbotech 1994) are used.

59


I .---+---+.---.---+---+---+---.~ plastics

~8 ------------------------- --0-- HD-PE

u '" 0.6 Co

.5 --A--- LD-PE

,; c

0.4 " '" --- PP

;> .~ ~ PS

1i 0.2 ---.-HI-PS

0 > S c ~ 6' ~

::3' ::3' ~ t: ::l ~ u Q::' t.Ll t.Ll ;;- Z <t: ::E 0 Q::' III i) <t: '" t: ;;- III :=> 0/)

"'- z :::r 0

t: :=> " :::r :::r ::E 01)

"'- ::E ::E u III U U :=>

valuation methods

Plastics: HD-PE = High-Density-Polyethylene, LD-PE = Low-Density-Polyethylene, PP = Poiypropylene, PS = Polystyrole, HI-PS = High-Impact-Polystyrole. The inventory was the same for all methods (PWMI 1992).

Figure 5.3 Relative environmental impact (maximum= 1) of five plastics evaluated by ten different valuation methods

The error of the actual flux is a measurement error (stochastic error or error interval). The definition of the critical flux is considered as intrinsically fuzzy on the one hand, because limits in ecosystems generally are not crisp but soft. On the other hand the critical flux can contain systematic errors because it is based on rough estimations and political goal definitions.

b) Ambient Quality Threshold Values

The "ambient quality threshold values" (TV 1991) are used as weights in the valuation method of "critical volume". They are based on assessments of harmful concentrations. Biologically, no sharp limits of harmfulness exist. Therefore, they are considered as intrinsically fuzzy (Pohl and Ros 1995). In Figure 5.3 the calculation was made with exact TV as defined in Swiss law (LRV), variations are by Braunschweig et al. (1994).

6


Table 5.4 Overview: Types and locations of imprecision and uncertainty in LCA

Quantity stochastic exact vague systematic intrinsic estimated error error error error vague error

interval interval data value

inventory assessment

process, emission and resource X X X N/A Quantities

system boundaries X N/A classification

GWP X 30%

ODP X 100%

POCP X 20% to 70%

human toxicity and factors ecotoxicity X X X 10 to 100

acid rain and X X X ? nutrification

system boundaries X N/A valuation

critical flux X X high

ambient Quality threshold value X hIgh

CML methods X high

c) CML Valuation Methods

The valuation methods which are based on the CML classification (Heijungs et al. 1992) use the actual impact potentials and compare them to the impact potentials of the whole world. These "world potentials" have mostly been extrapolated from the data-base of the Netherlands (Guinee 1993,5), which implies that systematic errors will occur. Furthermore the possibility of measurement errors (stochastic errors or error intervals) should be taken into account when using the "world potentials".

The weights used in the CML valuation methods (MET, NSAEL, PANEL) are rough estimations (Braunschweig et al. 1994).

61


5.4 Handling of Imprecision and Uncertainty

5.4.1 Handling of Systematic Errors

The complexity of ecosystems and the economic system makes it impossible to include all data linked to the creation of a product or a service. Therefore systematic errors are expected to be "hidden" in every LeA. Systematic errors will be minimised when

• more processes are included or judged as negligible and

• more impacts are included or judged as negligible.

In ecological comparisons the system boundaries and weighting factors for all products and services should be the same to prevent additional systematic errors.

5.4.2 Handling of Stochastic Errors

In the inventory analysis and valuation steps of an LeA three independent data types are used (c.f. Figure 5.4):

• process quantities

• emission quantities linked to a process

• weighting factors for the valuation

As shown in section 5.3, all these data types can contain errors. If these errors are given as probability distributions (e.g. Gaussian distribution) and with the assumption that the different data (measurements) are independent, the calculation of the total error could be done with conventional probabilistic methods (ct. LeA Nordic 1995). This calculation is not a linear one, therefore it should always include the whole process chain.

If the data are multiplied, for example the inputs in a process chain (c.f. Figure 5.4) or the emissions with the valuation factors, the total error will increase. But if the data are added, for example the emissions of the same substances from different processes, the total error will decrease with an increasing number of processes.

Because of different reasons, be it lack of error data, other error distributions than Gaussian , or dependence of data, it is often impossible to calculate the stochastic errors in an LeA. Stochastic errors

62


;- process 1 ;- process 2 - -

I- emissions I kg I- emissions I tkrn - -

ffil,l (A) mi.:! (A) ffi2.l (B) ffi:u (B) ffij.l (1) mj.1 (1) ... ...

technology X scenario X technology Y I scenario Y I

technology Z I scenario Z I

inventory analysis

~ x, kg malcrial ~ Xl tkm transport from process I

model 1 model 2

(A) model k cr ell

g" (A) got (B)

g" (B) g'k gJ' (1)

gj2 (1) g2k .. . gjk . .. . ..

valuation

Xi, mj,i and gt are erroneous quantities, where A, B, J: harmful substances, x: process quantities, m: emission quantities, g: weighting factors, i, j, k: indexes

Figure 5.4

(A) (B) (1)

Schematic example of a two-step LCA with chained processes

;- process i -

emissions I ... I-

IDI,I (A) ffi 2.1 (B) ffij ,i (1) ...

. .. x ... Y I

... z I

~ X t ••• ~ •••

and error intervals cannot be processed the same way since the data types are not compatible.

5.4.3 Handling of Error Intervals

Exact error intervals do not provide any information about the error distribution within the interval. Therefore the calculation of the total error has to be made by using only the minimum and maximum values,

63


which is generally a simpler calculation than the probabilistic methods involving error distributions. This type of error processing is advisable if no other error information but the absolute maximum error is known (ct. section5.3.1c).

If processes are chained, the total error increases with increasing number of processes.

Vc,tgue error intervals (fuzzy intervals) are an extension of the exact error intervals. When using vague error intervals the calculation of the total error therefore becomes more complicated. In case of parametrised fuzzy sets (fuzzy trapezes, fuzzy triangles), four parameters per fuzzy quantity need to be calculated. In general parametrised fuzzy sets are used for the following reasons:

• the determination of the exact shape of the fuzzy set is difficult

• a slight error in the shape is acceptable in most cases

• the calculations are much easier than in the case of general (non-parametric) fuzzy sets.

5.4.4 Handling of Intrinsically Vague Data

Intrinsically vague data characterise possibility distributions which are a flexible tool for fuzzy facts. Like the vague error intervals they can be processed with fuzzy arithmetic.

Figure 5.5 shows an example of intrinsically vague data: a fuzzy ambient quality threshold value (ITV) for S02.

ITVs describe the possibility of harm for different concentration levels. Harm was defined according to the protection goals in Swiss law. If the possibility is equal to zero no protection goal is injured. If the value is a. = 1 harm is certainly possible. By defining an a.-level (Zimmermann 1991), a crisp threshold value (TV) can be derived. Therefore one has to choose an "acceptable possibility of harm". In Figure 5.5 the value is a. = 0.5, whereby the Swiss TV results as crisp value.

Together with threshold values for other pollutants this fuzzy value can be used for valuation with the "critical-volumes" method (c.f. Figure 5.6).

The method is the same as for crisp threshold values, but fuzzy algorithms for the basic operations of arithmetic are to be used in the calculations (for algorithms c.f. Zimmermann 1991).

Figure 5.6 shows the environmental impacts of five plastics expressed as "possible critical volumes". The production of 1kg HD-PE


E " -= 'c

1.00

0.75

~ 0.50

:0 .~

o Q.

0.25

0.00

Figure 5.5

o u.z(/) ~ C

100 Q 150

concentration IIlg/m31

Fuzzy ambient quality threshold value (fTV) for S02 in comparison with crisp ambient quality threshold values (TV) of different countries or institutions (Pohl and Ros 1995)

1.00 ----------,

0.80

0.60

OAO

0.20

0.00

1.00 +04

: ': :\:~:::', • I I I • 'I II

I I I \ ~"I : I

I : ~:~:: \.:

: I ::,~:: ": I " jill'

: : : \I~: \I~ : : : :::: ... l.\ '~,

I ::: :"~ ~ I I I I ~I \ 1\ I • I I "II

::: :::\\ : \: ::: :::: I I I I I I I ~ I I I I II I

I I I III \ I ~ I I I IIII

": :\::: :::: \1\ I I~.!! II f I

IIIIII

111111

~~~ : X~:::: : : : :::: I .' I I I "I I I I I . " II

I.OOE+05

I .""'11 I""",! I I I I IIIII

I I I"'~IIII'IL .... I IIIIIIII

I III~--"""-,' -""--,,,,,I. IIIII

I.OOE+06 I.OOE+07

crit [111' ]

plastics

--HD-PE

------ LD-P

-------PP

------- PS

•• .• •. -... HI-PS

---a-Level

Plastics: HD·PE = High-Density-Polyethylene, LD-PE = Low-Density-Polyethylene, PP = Polypropylene, PS = Polystyrole, HI-PS = High-Impact-Polystyrole. (emissions of CO, C02, HC, NOx and S02 ; inventory PWMI1992

Figure 5.6 Fuzzy critical volumes of five plastics

200

65

0.8

" '" 0.6 ::; ~ 0.4

I t; 0.2 >

0

u.J 0:1-

6 :z::

I I u.J 0:1-0:1- 0:1-

6 ...J Plastics


I (/J 0:1-

Setting a = 0.25 as acceptable impact possibility the range of uncertainty has been reduced

Figure 5.7 Range of possible critical volumes (VCRIT) for five plastics (range of uncertainty)

e.g. may lead to a critical volume from 50,000 m3 up to 4,000,000 m3 with decreasing possibility. This range can be interpreted as the range of uncertainty. The range of uncertainty may be reduced by setting an a-level (Zimmermann 1991, 14). Possible critical volumes under this a-level are judged as acceptable impact possibility and are therefore ignored. Between a and possibility=1 a reduced range of uncertainty remains, which can be represented as in Figure 5.3 for the five plastics. To show the effect of choosing a specific a-level in Figure 5.7, a was set to 0.25/0.5/0.75.

Comparing Figure 5.7 with Figure 5.3 it has become more difficult to distinguish between the five plastics. With a higher a (higher acceptable impact possibility) the ranges become smaller and a clearer distinction can be made. However, the valuation by fuzzy critical volumes enables us to deal in a distinct way with uncertainty. As a consequence it also shows the necessity of subjective valuations like a-levels.

5.5 Conclusions

It has been shown that in LCAs various sources of imprecision and uncertainty exist. Since it is not common practice to include errors in LCA calculations, very few numerical data are available and only rough estimations can be made. The errors at the inventory analysis level are relatively small for process fluxes , larger for emission quantities and large for the classification. The valuation step is considered intrinsically

6


fuzzy, because it is based on vague models or on more or less subjective preferences.

The problem of uncertainty and imprecision is considered serious, because the total error of an LCA can easily become larger than the calculated differences of ecological impacts of products and services. LCAs without error specification can lead to misjudgment and for that reason they are regarded as unreliable (cf Carbotech 1996). Exceptions are those LCAs for which the inventory analysis allows a clear distinction of the products in comparison.

If the producer is known, the firm's ecological situation and behavior (e.g. eco-audit) should be taken into account. The choice of a "cleaner" production site may be ecologically more relevant than the choice of specific product.

It is suggested that error specifications be included at all levels of an LCA. LCA software should provide as much error data and error models as possible.

References

Braunschweig, A.; Forster. R.; Hofstetter. P. and MUller-Wenk. R. (1994): Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden fUr Okobilanzen. Erste Ergebnisse. IWODiskussionsbeirtrag Nr 19. St. Gallen: IWO.

BUW AL (1986): Immissionssgrenzwerte fUr Luftschadstoffe. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 52. Bern: BUWAL.

BUW AL (1990): Methodik fUr Okobilanzen. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133. Bern: BUWAL.

BUWAL (1991). Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132. Bern: BUWAL.

BUW AL (1992a) . Die Bedeutung der Immissionsgrenzwerte in der Luftreinhalteverordnung. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 180. Bern: BUWAL.

BUW AL (1992b): Okobilanz von Packstoffen. Korrekturen-Erganzungen-Forschungsvorschlage zur Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132 und 133. Bern: BUW AL.

Carbo tech (1994) Unpublished study, Basel: Carbotech AG. Carbotech (1996) Okologische Bewertung starkehaltiger Kunststoffe mit Uberarbeiteter

wirkungsorientierter Methode. To be published in Schriftenreihe Umwelt. BUWAL. Dubois D., Prade H. (1988): Possibility Theory. An Approach to Computerisied Processing

of Uncertainty. New York, London: Plenum Press. Heijungs, R. ; Guinee, J.; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes. H. (1992): En

vironmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde.

Hofstetter, P. (1991): Bewertungsmodelle fUr Okobilanzen. Laboratorium fUr Energiesysteme. ZUrich: ETH ZUrich.

LCA-Nordic (1995): Technical Reports No. 10 and Special Reports No. 1- 2. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

PWMI (1992): Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry. Report I. - 4. European Centre for Plastics in the Environment. Brussels: PWMI.

PWMI (1993): Database Generation for Olefin Feedstocks and Plastics Industry. Case Study. European Centre for Plastics in the Environment. Brussels: PWMI.

6]


Pohl, Ch.; Ros, M.; Waldeck, B. and Dinkel, F. (1995): Fuzzy-Immissionsgrenzwerte. Basel: Carbotech AG.

SET AC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - Europe) (1992): Life-Cycle Assessment (Workshop Report). Brussels: SETAe.

Schaltegger, St. and Sturm, A. (1992): Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmun-gen. Bern: Haupt.

Tellus (l992): CSGrrellus Packaging Study. Volume II. Boston: Tellus Institute. USG (1987): Bundesgesetz tiber den Umweltschutz. Stand am l.Juli 1987. Bern: EDMZ. Zadeh, L. (1965): "Fuzzy Sets". Information and Control, Vol. 8. 338 - 353. Zimmermann, H. (1991): Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Application. Dortrecht: Kluwer. 2. Ed.

6

6 Relevant Environmental Interventions

by Arthur Braunschweig, IWO-HSG St.Gallenl

6.1 Introductory Remarks

When defining the system boundaries of an LeA study, a number of delimitations have to be set: the choice of life-cycle phases to be considered, the choice of relevant processes within those .. phases, the timeframe of the selected life-cycle phases and processes, the geographical area, and the environmental interventions which are to be included. It is important to note that these elements are usually interdependent and that therefore an iterative process is necessary for setting up the system boundaries of an LeA study. This text will focus mainly on the question of choosing the relevant interventions, and it will briefly touch on the question of how to choose the relevant processes within a given system boundary.

In principle, all environmental interventions are potentially relevant. So it is desirable to include all interventions in an LeA. But it becomes clear immediately that there are limitations as to how detailed an LeA (or an LeI) can and should be, and that there is always a need to simplify. The question of "Which interventions are relevant?" may be asked from a practical point of view (i.e. how much time and means are available for a given LeA study) , and it may be asked from a methodological point of view.

Practicallimitations are well known, like limited process knowledge, limited system knowledge when setting up an LeA, limited resources for carrying out the LeA (as only an unlimited money and time budget would allow for a really comprehensive LeA).

But there are two methodological aspects to the question of simplification versus completeness in an LeA which must always dealt with:

• the question of less important interventions that are or might be

The author is indebted to Prof. Ruedi Miiller-Wenk (IWO-HSG) as well as to Patrick Hofstetter (ETH-ESU) , Ruth Forster (EMPA) and Stefan Schaltegger (WWZ-BS) for valuable ideas and comments. The text gives the author's own opinions.

69


caused by the processes inside the system boundaries. This central question is discussed in sections 6.2. - 6.6.

• selecting the relevant processes of a whole life-cycle: numerous processes are there by excl uded. In section 6.7. shall we briefly discuss a possible methodology to take care of this problem.

6.2 Basic Approaches for Selecting the "Relevant Interventions"

We may distinguish several different basic approaches when trying to answer the question of which environmental interventions are to be considered in an LCA ("are relevant").

6.2.1 1ssue Based

One may start by identifying those issues which are discussed in environmental science and policy. Once such a list of issues is defined, all interventions that add to the impact level of those issues are by definition "relevant interventions". Such is the approach taken by recent methodological developments e.g. as presented in Heijungs et al. (1992), SETAC (1993), UBA (1994) or Goedkoop (1995).

The SETACcode of practice (SETAC 1993) mentions the following issues to be considered in an LCA:

• resource depletion, biotic and abiotic

• pollution types: global warming (GW), ozone depletion (OD), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), photochemical ozone creation (POCP), human toxicity (Hum-Tox), ecological toxicity (EcoTox)

• land use

We have to realize that there is not yet any formally accepted list: SETAC (1993) mentions other issues than Heijungs (1992), and Goedkoop (1995) again chooses - with good arguments - different issue headings (GW, OD, AP, EP, summersmog, wintersmog, pesticides, heavy metals, carcinogens). We also have to note that some issue headings mentioned in SETAC (1993) remain unclear in their exact definition (e.g. how to group and handle the interventions of biotic resource consumption).

70

Relevant Environmental Interventions

The main problems of this issue based approach are that the list of issues remains open to change as long as it is not yet formally standardized - it is like a "self-service structure" for the applicant, - and in addition the issues themselves are very broad and therefore not homogeneous.

With the issue headings mentioned above, it is hard to imagine a compound which does not have to be included in the LeA. Therefore this approach does not really help to define which interventions are relevant - because all are; rather it turns out to be a classification of interventions.

6.2.2 Legally Based

As another starting point, it is possible to construct the inventory with the interventions regulated in the legal framework, eventually enlarged by those interventions where legal measures are under development in formal contexts (e.g. governmental commissions, ISO technical committees, and so on). It might be possible to build a list of interventions containing all those interventions which are regulated somewhere in Europe or elsewhere. Review of that list would have to take place at regular intervals.

Such an approach would ultimately yield a clear-cut list of interventions which might be of help to LeA practitioners. It would, however, need quite some work to define exactly what intervention types are still to be considered "environmental" as compared to, for example, regional planning, or health and safety. Otherwise LeAs would contain many interventions which would be of disputed environmental relevance and which would also be hard to work with, both in the inventory analysis and in the assessment phase (e.g. building areas outside of building zones).

6.2.3 Based on the Relations Between Antropogenic and Geogenic Emission Flows

Hofstetter (1991) has proposed using a relation based on these two flows as the basis for the valuation step; this approach has not been further developed. But the approach could also be used for defining which interventions are to be considered relevant: the approach asks for those interventions where we exert a relevant pressure on the physical and biological systems. However, there does not seem to be a clear limit (i.e. a numerical relation between antropogenic and geogenic


flows) above which the antropogenic influence becomes relevant. This fact reflects the situation that this approach cannot (yet) depict the different adaptation sensitivities in the ecosphere, neither does it include the historic experience (i.e. not every environmental intervention starts becoming unbearable immediately above geogenic levels).

6.2.4 Based on A vailability of Process Data

The approach taken in most LCA studies up to now is not based on an "assessment point of view" but reflects the available process data: for the processes involved, whichever data were available would be collected. Sometimes this was also done under the heading of a massbalance or materials-balance (as opposed to an eco-balance or an LCA).

There are two major problems to this approach: first, mass balances of inputs and outputs usually do not work out, if only due to the undeniable air flows through combustion which by mass considerably exceed all other air emissions (except CO2), Second, the approach never really was process oriented, but always implicitly assessment-oriented, otherwise nobody would have omitted CO2 emissions in earlier studies. But as often assessment methods were not explicitly chosen in earlier studies, it is not now clearly explicable why such an emission was excluded from the analysis.

6.3 The Importance of the Assessment Method for Selecting the "Relevant" Interventions

In the context of LCA, listing interventions is meaningless if these interventions are not judged or assessed in some way with respect to the importance of the (adverse) changes they cause in nature.2 In practice one can say that in a formal assessment system, relevant means what can be assessed; in an informal assessment system, relevant means what can be measured. The author of an LCA study should therefore first decide on the assessment system(s) to be used in the study. Based on this choice, it will be possible to categorize interventions into two groups:

2 In todays practice we may say: with a predefined assessment method, relevant means everything which is assessable, and the relevance then is clear; with an open assessment method, relevant means everything which is measurable, and the relevance will often remain unclear.


• interventions taken into consideration by the chosen assessment system: "relevant" interventions which are to be included in the LCA inventory

• interventions ignored by the chosen assessment system: "non-rele-vant" interventions which can be dropped from the inventory.

Quantitative LCA assessment methods like CML (Heijungs et al. 1992), Ecoindicator '95 (Goedkoop 1995), EPS (Steen and Ryding 1992) or Ecopoints (Ahbe et al. 1990) make it possible to formulate lists of interventions that can be processed by the system with a "non-zero result"; those interventions are "relevant". A perfect example of such a list containing the "relevant" interventions is the list of Guinee (1994) for the CML system, although this list was not meant by the author to be a list of "relevant" interventions. A second advantage of such lists, next to being a tool for dropping non-relevant interventions, is that they can be used as checklists for avoiding omissions of relevant interventions in the LCA inventory.

Non-quantitative LCA assessment methods, like the ABC method (Hallay 1994) or panel-methods (see Forster 1994), attach environmental weights on the basis of a number of criteria, some of them subjectively set in the study. Such a method will in general not be able to group interventions as to which should be included and which may be ignored. Often, data availability is a guiding principle, i.e. relevant is what can be measured. This is usually coupled with the demand for a "complete" inventory, which by definition is not feasible.

Finally, if at the stage of collecting the LCA inventory data one does not yet know precisely how the environmental impact of the interventions will be determined, there is no methodological basis which would allow any intervention to be excluded from the inventory.

It is interesting to note that this problem is not yet explicitly mentioned in the SETAC "Code of practice" (SET AC 1993). We assume this reflects the fact that the link to the assessment step was not yet a formal issue at that time.

6.4 How to By-Pass the Limits of an Assessment System

The danger of using a chosen assessment system as a tool for grouping interventions into "relevant" and "non-relevant" is that reality might be distorted because reality is seen only via the system: when looking through red glasses, the whole world looks red.


In order to avoid this danger, it is necessary to ask if there might exist interventions produced by the process-tree underreview which could be relevant although they cannot be handled by the chosen assessment system. If the answer is yes, the corresponding intervention has to be included in the LCA inventory and the chosen assessment system has to be complemented by a possibly informal assessment of the additional inventory item. (This question about possible additional relevant interventions can be asked once a list of interventions has been provisionally set.)

This step is important especially with those assessment systems which only contain assessment values for few interventions like Ecopoints or EPS; it obviously is not necessary for informal assessment procedures which - as argued before - demand a "complete" inventory anyway.

6.5 Practical Considerations for Dealing with Limited Resources: An Estimation Procedure

If we assume that one or more specific assessment systems have been chosen and that the interventions considered to be relevant have been identified accordingly, we still have the problem of how to collect only those intervention data which will finally be of a certain importance. The following procedure will help to reduce the time and means needed to conduct an LCA study.

Among the interventions which are included as "relevant" within a given assessment approach, interventions can still be considered as "non-relevant" even if they can be processed by the assessment system with a non-zero result, if their contribution to the connected effects is quantitatively minimal. In the "language of the CML system": if, in a given LCA case, the contribution of an intervention (e.g. methane) will be less than 10103 of all connected impact scores (for methane this being GWP and POCP), then this intervention can be considered as "non-relevant". But in practice this distinction is useful only if the "non-relevance" can be detected before the quantitative value of the intervention is determined (otherwise the work has to be done first in order to find out afterwards that it was not necessary ... ).

The following estimation procedure fulfills this criterion. It may be applied to each individual process or process tree, where data are to be gathered; it is 'proposed here for the first time and was therefore not

3 This limit seems delicate: statistical measures indicate that probably a very low limit -much below 1 % - is needed for retaining an acceptable level of accuracy in an LeA study.


considered in the other chapters. The procedure is exemplified again with the CML assessment system:

I First determine the quantitatively large inputs and outputs, e.g. 95 % of total input and output quantities of the process or system under scrutiny. The use of basic data modules (e.g. Frischknecht et al.1994) is very helpful for calculating the interventions related to those inputs and outputs. As another starting point, one may concentrate in this first step on those interventions which are generally important4•

II Calculate provisional effect scores for those "large" inputs and outputs.

III Calculate for other interventions the mass flow which would be necessary to increase these provisional scores by 1 %.

IV If this resulting value ("necessary mass flows") for each intervention is so large that the corresponding input/output quantity for the LCA process under review can be assumed to be smaller, then there is no need to determine the value of this intervention: the intervention is "non-relevant" for the case under review (without the need to determine the actual value).

The procedure has to be executed for all impact categories: if an intervention adds to at least one impact category, it has to be considered "relevant" and the value of the intervention has to be included in the LCA inventory. Only if it is "non-relevant" for all impact categories may the intervention be dropped from the inventory Table.

This procedure demands some knowledge about the processes analyzed because one has to assume correctly the possible intervention quantities. Important information may include the composition offuels, the content of volatile compounds in colors and glues, or the amounts of oils, cleaning agents, etc. used in a process.

6.6 A Simple Exampte of the Estimation Procedure

Let us calculate a short and simplified text-book example with the steps as described above. We analyze a simplified combustion process using 1 kg (43 MJ) of heating oil (average Swiss "extra light" quality). We first

4 The Table in Mtiller-Wenk (1994,173) lists 34 interventions which make up the majority of nine quantified environmental effects on a global scale; it may be used as a starting point.


only determine the emissions of COz, SOz and the VOCs (excluding methane), based on some standard Swiss data. Then we check whether some other interventions are likely to add more than 1 % to the provisional effect scores.

I Based on molecular weights, we get the emissions of COz (= 3.15 kg) and of S02 (= 3.6 g); emissions of non-methane-VOC are assumed to be average (0.42 g; assumed as ethylene).

II Now we calculate provisional effect scores of this provisional inventory. For simplicity, we only include global warming (GWP), acidification (AP) and photo-oxidation (POCP). Because the three interventions of the first step each give the unit-value for these effects, the effect scores are the same as the emissions:

Table 6.1 Selection of provisional effect scores, based on three interventions of a combustion process

Provisional effect scores

I nterve nti on GWP (C02-eq.) AP (S02-eq.) POCP (ethylene-eq.)

C02 (3150 g) 3,15 0 0

vac (as ethylene; 0.42 g) 0 0 0.00042

S02 (3.6 g) 0 0.0036 0

Provisional scores 3.1 5 0.0036 0,00042

III Next, we calculate for other interventions the mass flow necessary to increase these provisional scores by 1 %. For example: according to Guinee (1994)5, the acidification factor for 1 kg NO, is 0.7 SOrequivalents. Therefore, in order to increase the acidification score by 1 %, at least 0.051 g NOx have to be emitted:

[0.00361~Z -eq.]

NOx must be at least [ ] = 0.051 g NO, 0.7 S02-eq.

kgNOx

In Table 6.2, those necessary quantities, calculated in the same manner as above, are given for NOx (as above), HCI, aldehydes and N20 :

5 In Guinee (1994), the characterization factors are called "classification factors".

6


Table 6.2 Necessary quantities to raise the provisional effect scores of Table 6.1 by at least 1 %, based on the characterization factors of Guinee (1994) and Heijungs et al. (1992)

Necessary flow to increase the provisional effect scores by at least 1 %

Substance for GWP for AP for POCP

NOx > 0.051 g NOx (N/A.)

HCI > 0.04 g HCI

Aldehydes > 0.01 g Aldehydes

N20 >0.12 g N20

IV We now have to check whether the process under discussion is likely to produce higher quantities than those of Table 6.2. This may be done (i) by calculations based on molecular weights, (ii) by calculations based on emission limits, or (iii) by comparing with data from the literature. Here, we compare the quantities of Table 6.2 with the standard data of Frischknecht et al. (1994, IV-210) and find that emissions of NOx (ca. 2 g/kg oil) and aldehydes (0.03 g) may be "relevant" and their flows should be determined; Hel (0.004 g) and NzO (0.02 g) are not likely to increase any effect score by 1 % or more and may therefore be omitted in the inventory analysis.

6.7 Application of this Procedure as Cut-Off Criteria for Selecting the Relevant Processes

A similar procedure might also be useful for checking whether the system boundaries of an LeA study have been set intelligently, by testing the probable impact scores of those processes which were left outside the system boundary. This has to do with the question of "relevant interventions", because different processes lead to different interventions; therefore the question of which interventions become relevant for an LeA study is linked to the setting of the system boundaries. For this, an iterative process may be applied:

• It is usually possible to collect data first from those processes (system elements) thought or known to be the most important for the whole system.

• After having completed those - maybe 3 to 10 - most important processes (system elements), one can apply the chosen assessment method(s) to this partial data set.

J7


• When collecting the inventories of the processes thought to be less important for the given LeA scope and system, one may then check with the same procedure as described above whether those interventions which one expected to be the most important ones in the less important processes might exceed the 1 % influence level (or 5% or whatever the criterion is). An example: if the GWP score of the main process-tree amounts to 100, one may check whether a small side process may emit greenhouse gases with a score of 1 (1 % limit) or 5 (5% limit), etc.

• Here again, the same calculation procedure may be used to determine, in a reproducible way, why a process was included in the system boundary or not. In this way one may determine which interventions will probably be quantitatively "relevant", as was mentioned above. (The EMIS software contains a similar reporting filter, but only after the data has been determined:)

Such a procedure is simplified with assessment methods that use one total environmental index, as each process or each intervention then has to be checked only against one index. It should also again be noted that the selection of relevant interventions, relevant processes and other system boundaries must be worked out iteratively.

6.8 Outlook

It was shown that the question of "Which interventions are relevant?" depends on the assessment method to be applied. If one chooses a formal assessment method, it is possible to determine the relevant interventions before conducting the inventory phase (the LeI). This will allow us to make LeAs faster and with less cost, thereby entailing the possibility of streamlining within an LeA.

At the same time, a structured and reproducible approach for this important step will also increase confidence in an LeA result.

References

Ahbe, S.; Braunschweig. A. and Muller-Wenk, R. (1990): Methodik fUr Okobilanzen auf der Basis okologischer Optimierung. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133. Bern: BUWAL.

Braunschweig, A.: Forster, R.; Hofstetter. P. and Muller-Wenk, R. (1994): Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden fUr Okobilanzen. Erste Ergebnisse. IWODiskussionsbeitrag 19 .. St. Gallen: IWO.

Forster, R. (1994): Panel-Method According to Landbank, in: Braunschweig et al.: Evalua-


tion und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden ftir Okobilanzen. Erste Ergebnisse. St. Gallen: IWO-HSG, 141 - 152.

Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P. ; Knoepfel, L; Dones,R. and Zollinger, E. (1994): Okoinventare ftir Energiesysteme. Bern: BEW.

Goedkoop, M. (1995): The Eco-Indicator '95. (Pre-version). AmersfoortfNL. Guinee, J . (1994): Data for the Normalization Step within LCA of Products. CML-Paper

No. 14. Leiden: CML. Hallay, H. (1994): "Die ABC-Analyse", O .B.U.: Methoden ftir Okobilanzen und ihre

Anwendung in der Firma. International bekannte Okobilanz-Methoden im Vergleich. Adliswil: a .B.U. , 4S - 64.

Heijungs R. ; Guinee, J.; Huppes, G .; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde.

Hofstetter, P. (1991): "Bewertungsmodelle flir Okobilanzen", : HBT Solararchitektur der ETH Ztirich (Ed.): Energie- und Schadstoffbilanzen im Bauwesen. Ztirich : ETH.

Mtiller-Wenk, R. (1994): "Fall CML, mit darauf aufbauenden Methoden der Bewertung", Braunschweig, A. et al.: Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden flir Okobilanzen - Erste Ergebnisse. IWO-Diskussionsbeitrag No. 19. St.Gallen: IWOHSG, 171-173.

O.B.U. (Ed.) (1994): Methoden flir Okobilanzen und ihre Anwendung in der Firma. International bekannte Okobilanz-Methoden im Vergleich. O.B.U.-Schriftenreihe 8/1994. Adliswil: O.B.U.

SET AC (Ed.) (1993): Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A "Code of Practice" . Workshop Sesimbra. Brussels: SET AC.

Steen, S. and Ryding, J. (1992): The EPS Enviro-Accounting Method. An Application of Environmental Accounting Principles for Evaluation and Valuation of Environmental Impact in Product Design. Swedish Environmental Research Institute IVL. Report B 1080. Goteborg: IVL.

UBA (1994): Okobilanz ftir Getrankeverpackungen. Vergleichende Untersuchung der durch verschiedene Verpackungssysteme flir Frischmilch und Bier hervorgerufenen Umweltbeeinflussungen. Diskussionspapier. Authors: Schmitz, S.; Oels, H. and Tiedemann , A. Berlin: UBA.

75)

7 The Software Tool EM IS

by Fredy Dinkel and Matjaz Ros, Carbotech Ltd. Basel

There are many of good reasons for a company to introduce environmental management tools, such as registering the company's environmental relevant data, determining the impact on nature and communicating the non-confidential part of these data to the public. Environmental management is a very powerful approach for a company to evaluate the relevant impact on the environment and to find the most efficient way possible to reduce this impact. Publishing the impact on the environment and the efforts a company undertakes to reduce it will result in better public opinion, which is increasingly important today. Additionally it will give the consumer as well as other companies the possibility to choose the producer with the lowest impact. In some cases the right choice of the producer of a given product can be better for the environment than the choice of an other product (c.f. chapter 5) . For a producer using a product as raw material for his production process it will also be less expensive to choose the raw material from the "best" producer, rather than to change his production technology due to using another raw material. For the comparison of different products in a LeA these site-specific data are necessary to obtain good results. As shown in chapter 5 large errors can occur if general production data (for example, production of 1 kg polyethylene) are used without taking into account the big differences between distinct production technologies. These errors can be so large that no sensible decision at all can be made. On the other hand the collection of data can be very expensive. So general data are needed for a "first look", to evaluate quickly the relevant processes or activities in a production site. In a second step the collection of data can be reduced to a minimum and the audit can be performed in a more efficent way. General data can also be used for screening methods, for example to find new technologies and to help engineers or investors make their decisions.


7.1 Software Tools Necessary

To handle all these data in an efficient way a dedicated software tool is necessary. The requirements for such a tool are wide and difficult to meet. For example, the software tool should not only support environmental management for a production site, but also has to be designed to allocate the impact of the production site to the various products or services of this site and to include the data obtained into calculation of other LeAs (c.f Figure 7.1).

indirect effects

raw malcrials. energy. sem i-manufactured products. cte.

Figure 7.1

direct effects

Environmcnlal lanagcmenl Sy'tcm Eeo- ontrolling

Ecological ccounling

LCA and environmental management of sites

indirect effects direct effects

LeA

In the first part of this paper an overview of the requirements of such a tool will be given. A short description of the software used in this project follows in a second part. Finally, in a third part the desired further developments of the tool will be described.

7.2 Requirements for LeA Software

The general requirements for an LeA software are:

• Transparency: the results of an LeA study are very sensitive to the data used, the assumptions made, the system boundaries and so on. That is why an interpretation of the results is only possible if all steps of the LeA procedure are transparent.

The Software Tool EMIS

• Flexibility: to deal with the wide range of LCA-related tasks and to handle the heterogenous data a flexible system is essential. The flexibility is necessary on different levels, for the definition of processes and the collection of data but also for the evaluation of the impact on the environment.

• Extensive built-in database: the collection of data is very expensive and time'-consuming. Therefore it is more than just helpful if the software contains data from general processes like production of metals, plastics, energy, waste treatement, transport and so on, This database has to be updated frequently.

• Pre-evaluations: the database should be large enough to support pre-evaluations and flexible enough to include user-provided data.

• Presentation: to evaluate and present the results the system must be able to show the results graphically as well as on dat'asheets for more detailed analysis.

• User-friendliness: as a general requirement the user-friendliness is important for LCA software. It has to work on a normal Pc.

7.2.1 Performance Requirements

According to SET AC standards LCA software should support the following procedure:

a Goal definition and system bonndaries b Inventory analysis c Classification d Valuation e Optimization, improvement analysis

a) Goal definition

Depending on the goal definitions, system boundaries, data requirements or evaluation methods can change. It is therefore necessary that the functional unit can be changed during an analysis without re-entering the data. For example, in agriculture the question could be: "what is the best I can do on a certain acreage, which plant, tillage, plant protection and so on?" So the functional unit will be the area, and special circumstances like type of soil and neighbourhood must be taken into account. For the industry using these plant products, e,g, for brewing beer or making clothes from fibres, the functional unit is the mass.

83


b) Inventory

In the inventory step all environmentally relevant data of an LeA have to be entered (c.f. Figure 7.2). This is done by defining processes and the corresponding emissions and resources of the product or service under examination. It is desirable not only to include substances but also other environmentally relevant impacts like noise or land use, and economic data 11S well. The system should give the user the freedom to define new impact categories without restrictions. It could be interesting to include economic data, for example the cost of waste treatment, as well.

It is very helpful to have a conversion Table for the different units.

Input processes • Auxiliary Materials Transport 1, Energy

Raw materials Process

Emissions

• -..... Production, waste treatment, Pollutants, environ-

Oil , ores, etc.) prospection of raw materials, mental interventions transports, etc. (noise, risks , etc.) ..

p -• Products

Byproducts Wastes

, Output processes

Figure 7.2 Definition of processes

The system must also contain connections between the different processes (c.f. Figure 7.3), so the software can calculate all the preliminary processes of one process in the life cycle or the complementary inventory to a given inventory.

The energy consumed is a very important quantity, but in most cases difficult to interpret. For example to produce 1 kWh of electricity about three times the thermic energy of coal or oil is required.

If the precombustion of the coal or gas is taken into account the energy of the raw material is about four times higher. Therefore big errors can occur if the type of energy is not specified or other efficency

84


Composed process

Single process Single process

I Process 1 I : Process 2 I : Process 3 I : Process 4 I I I I

~

----------~ Smgleprocess ~

Composed process ~

LCA. ~ -........-..-. Production~

~

! Process A f------l! Process B f------l! Process C

Figure 7.3 Process splitting or process combination

coefficents for the energy plant are assumed. The best way will be to calculate the energy consumed as raw material input. So the software should be able automatically to calculate the effectively used energy by collating the energy of the raw materials. The software has to support the user by doing these assignments and calculations easily.

When a process has been changed all the linked processes have to be updated. The program should achieve this task considering possible recursions in the inventory data. For that reason methods like matrixinversion or petri-nets are needed in the software.

The handling of imprecision and uncertainty of the data is a very important requirement since many ecological data are not exact. The system should therefore include different error models for quantitative and qualitative errors (e.g. stochastic errors, error intervals, fuzzy sets) .

After a process has been defined it could happen that more detailed data become available. To redefine the process with these new data process-splitting is required. On the other hand it can be very useful to group processes. For example, in order to use the software as part of an environmental management and audit system for companies (ISO 14000) single processes must be combined in process groups (for example entire production sites).

For the environmental management system it is desirable to link the processes to the firm's accounting system.

In complex LeAs it is difficult for the user to identify and to communicate all the process-links in the inventory data. Graphical flow-charts are a convenient way to visualise these links.


c) Classification and Valuation

There are different models for the classification step. The software should allow the use of various models and the definition of the user's own classification models.

The results of classification are to be shown in numerical and graphical form on the monitor.

In the valuation step an aggregation of the inventory analysis or classification to one single value is made. This is done by applying weighting factors like ambient quality threshold values, critical fluxes and the like. The software should provide different valuation methods and allow the definition of new weighting factors.

d) Optimisation and Improvement Analysis

For optimisation the following analytical features in the software are desirable:

.. comparison of the impacts of different LeAs on the screen sensitivity analysis

" dominance analysis

The program should be able to show a comparison of different scenarios in an overview as well as in a more detailed view.

It will be very helpful for the analysis if the data contain not only the average impact but also the impacts using best available (and payable) technology. So the software could evaluate in which step of the process the use of best technology will be most efficent.

It is essential to know from where the data or the models used in an LeA were collected. It is thus necessary to have a module for literature management included. Furthermore the software should allow comments to be added to all data.

7.2.2 System Requirements

The software should run on IBM-compatible and Macintosh personal computers with or without a network. A graphical user interface (G UI) like Windows, MacOS or OS/2 makes it easy to use pull-down menus, dialog boxes and other GUI-features.

One way to fulfill these requirements is the use of spreadsheet-programs. Most people working with LeAs start with a spreadsheet solution (e.g. Microsoft Excel). But as the amount of data and the calculation needs increase, more flexible and powerful software is required.

6


For professional applications a system with a relational database management is essential. The use of commercial database systems is recommended in order to take advantage of all the nice features the big software houses have developed.

7.3 The Software Chosen

In this project the software tool "EMIS" developed by Carbotech Ltd., Basel, Switzerland, was used. It is the standard software of the Swiss federal office and contains an extensive database which will be updated regularly with all the data collected by the federal offices.

7.3.1 Basic Functionality

This software runs on MS Windows and Mac OS platforms and is based on a relational database. The graphical interface makes it user-friendly. The software is based on process chains so that every activity can be defined as a process and the links between the processes can also be defined . For every process the emissions in the environment and other impacts like noise, land use, etc. can be entered (c.f. Figure 7.4).

The user is free to define new categories for environmental interventions if necessary. The energy, the land use and the throughput of mate-

Process Process: 8eerbrewery ~ Ye.: ~ production of beer .... 1

HS T

I raw mil",I.I. ) Cft ,ttd ~1/30 Reference ( LMeratur_ ) Impact ( update Impacts 1

I .nl!!:!!2rocMse ) ch.a nO·d D5il0.03 IF .tdschlossch*n. 1QG4 10I0b"_ ,2_'&0 O,ondojllt<JOf> 4601007E-7

I ) wls1ea, enef'gy and res ource.: emission 10 soH

,1'<06_ 13Z71~E-2

1 ~f~U ~r~l; . , , ..

I emlnlon 10 Ilr 0 ....... ", Nl.I.nicaJon ; 32 I 8876E-:l

( emission to water ) ~ o f l-..u.el>pC 0_-2 ~""IIIWft.t;. 0..., .....

I<s 0:00_ 17Ml!GE-:l

I Ol.hers ) lMl'~'t: l e ..... ou:tC! •• 3 .735001 tU ~'o)ljo. 3400270E-2

( ouIl!uts 1 qu Ii1y of cnto • error: Eilolox. soil .C411 137&6 r small ci medium r I~rgo r none &:«0)(,"'" ~E.l

remark.: creator: C. rb olech AG

I ~:::.-

.3n6008E.l

435G00162 ~_f"'''. 1014318E-2 o Dom>go 10 __ 8162110E-6

( new process I ( LCA .>process ) ( delete )( cxM lIBB ~B[3] Figure 7.4 Definition of processes with EMIS

7


rial are calculated from the raw material inputs. The user is able to define other impacts to be calculated from raw materials and establish the necessary relations. This tool allows the user to do site-specific studies, to allocate the impacts to the various products and services, and to calculate LCAs. This was necessary for the case study (c.f. chapter 8) .

A full error calculation is integrated and so the confidence limits of the results are calculated.

7.3.2 Literature Database

A literature management database helps to keep together the data and their references (c.f. Figure 7.5). Every process can be linked with as many references as needed. The software contains over five hundred processes from energy supply and materials to. waste treatments. The data were calculated at the ETHI (Zurich) with the matrix method to allow recursive processes. For the moment four valuation models are included: CML classification model [Heijungs et al. 1992], critical loads [BUWAL 1990], critical volumes [BUWAL 1991] and MIPS [SchmidtBleek 1994]. The user is free to define other models or to copy and change the existing models.

literature Database Author:Nome fH.btrs."tr I Ful name. I Ku~ I Seorch lerm:

COfM.athor.IF Widm.f I ( Select ) THle: I Okobdl,.'Z yon PuJutofttn. SUnd 1000 I {}

Publl her: I Schflf'ttn'tlht Umwtlt Ph 132 I ~. 1270 I Edit"", I I Veer ~ ISBN Nr I I c:=J Edilor IB undtumt fUI UrfllllMlt, W .. ld und Loindseh.n ( BUWAL> I

Oet. 02/13.e5 /I lwedcM I I locotoon I I PrOjeCt. I I Dtverses I I Renwt<. ~ner" dota for ptastlCS. paper, glass, met"'. {}

mpect assO$$mer( by crilcel YOUnes

Type:

BocI< .. <> <> Undo ) ( New )( Copy J[

~uo FREOYIIWS\IlSF J8j1\UTERAT DSF

Figure 7.5 Literature management database in EMIS

Federal Institute of Technology, ZUrich


7.3.3 Compilation of an LCA

With the processes included the user can compose an LCA or let the system collect all the preliminary processes to compose the life cycle (c.f. Figure 7.6). Every life cycle can be transformed into a process and thus be used by other LCAs.

The impacts according to the actual model of the life cycle are shown on the screen in a numerical and graphical form. For detailed interpretation of the results many different options can be choosen for the printout.

For analysing the results it is possible to do a dominance analysis, e.g. to find the most relevant process or service and to calculate the benefits by using the best technology for a process or service to be evaluated. This analysis depends on adequate data.

7.3.4 Desirable Developments

In order always to have the most recent data available after a change in one process of a life cycle tree, it is necessary to include a calculation method like matrix-inversion or petri-nets. These methods can also consider recursions. One of these methods will be integrated in EMIS.

To analyse the structure of a life cycle a graphical flow chart image of the life cycle tree is planned in a next version of EMIS.

To allow easy exchange of data it is planned to include the SPOLD data format as soon as this is be ready for use and is accepted by the industry as standard.

For production site analysis it would be helpful if the data could be ordered in a bookkeeping manner. It is planned to include such a data structure.

The update and extension of the database will be done. Along with these updates it would be desireable to include the errors and if possible also differences between different technologies.

In the chapter on uncertainty it was shown that a lot of data are intrinsically fuzzy. To handle this type of data fuzzy set theory would be very helpful. This method is also very powerful for rough estimations and for including qualitative information of experts into environmental studies.

productJon of beer

I .. y

... HI ,. ... "',. ... lIS ' ... HI ,. ... lIS " ... Hr ,. ... lIS ,.

... ., ,.

... os ,.

... "' ,. .. .. ,. ,,.. . ,. .......... Or,

I'~I'" o f. JOO I lMe r 100 00000 I ... ........ _.-. .a ,.

o 0 1 So4 ... ...,.rtn.n HJ ,. .$ 30000 Ii.f _ h ,.. 1I.u .a t' o 1.5000 lit ~"'ift _t: .... .. l .c.r ....... ,.

~"J .. .,. S; 20000 lIf ,I .. bo'ttl,., C T

11 I5000O d_

'20000 ... ....... U"lIiNlpe'" U"'4!~:2'f. to

.."...ic l,.1 _. It, II1II • .,..,,1._ CW' •

. ,. , ,.

......................... ........ -", ..... .,...... ........

Figure 7.6 Impacts of a live cycle

7.4 Summary


'--_______ -' ( , .......... procese

qu nllly' ( prll1l_ 00000 r C2) .... ·1 ocee ..

I OOOJ [ 0000000000.+0' r ....... ~ 0000000000.'01 LJ/ .• ph!C )

error: Mm:

M .. ,

r ,mnlCA to oc:es •

r , ptec ••••• hnQ proce •• ..oM

1003 ch."oed: "003

" ....... _nu"" 0.., .... 1 • • ' .... "',d.'t4!'."1_ "",,-.-, f 'rat • .,, ~I )Ootf~ 0 00001 0 23047 0 0-...)(0

1 .2000 0 00000 0 OYA) 0 0040 1 o OOU) 0 00000 0 00046 0 00007 ... '701 0 00000 0 11"'" 0 0"''' .-10 ...... , ,.-. ,....

o If" toM ... wW_'-'

0001..,. ...... • 0>64> o OO~2 o om2 ._. . ..,... .-0001')2' . ...",

o

To work efficiently with LCAs or with the environmental management of production sites a software tool is necessary.

For pre-evaluations the software tool should provide a large database. This database should be easily expandable by the user.

For impact assessment of the inventory data different valuation methods have to be supplied by the LCA software.

The chosen software tool "EMIS" by Carbo tech Ltd. , Basel, Switzerland, has prooved to be reliable , flexible and user-friendly. The various output options help to communicate the results of LCAs graphi-

o


cally and numerically. It allows full error calculation and dominance analysis. "EMIS" will be further developed to include more advanced options for ecological evaluations. A variety of practical applications have shown that EMIS is a good tool for site-specific analysis, for calculating LeAs, and for screening methods to evaluate quickly the relevant impact on the environment of existing or new products or technologies.

References

BUW AL (1990): Methodik fUr Oekobilanzen (in German: Methode of Ecobalancing) . Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133. Bern: BUW AL.

BUW AL (1991): Oekobilanz von Packstoffen. Stand 1990 (Ecobalance of Packaging Materials. Date 1990). Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132, Bern: BUW AL.

EM1S (1995): "Environmental Management and Information System", Basel: Carbotech Ltd ..

Heijungs, R.: Guinee, 1.; Huppes, G. ; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds, Leiden: Centrum v~~r Milieukunde.

Pohl, Ch., Ros M., Waldeck, B. Dinkel F.: Fuzzy Immissionsgrenzwerte: Eine Methodik zur unscharfen Modelierung von Immissionsgrenzwerten; Carbotech Ltd. , Basel 1995

Pohl, Ch., Ros M., Waldeck. B. Dinkel F. : Fuzzy Set Theory in Ecology. In: SET AC Europe: First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology; ETH Ziirich 1994

Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1994): Wieviel Umwelt braucht der Mensch? (in German: How Much Environment Do Humans Need?), Basel: Birkhauser.

91

PartC

Case Study

8 Case Study "Feldschlosschen"

by Daniel Peter, Infras Ltd. Zurich

As a typical LCA study, the "Feldschlosschen" case aims to show the environmental effects caused over the life cycle of beer. This chapter documents the three steps of goal definition, inventory analysis and impact assessment. For impact assessment the two methods of ecopoints (Umweltbelastungspunkte, UBP) and CML _pre applied: the "environmental scarcity method" as a fully quantified, one-step valuation method (for a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages see Braunschweig et al. 1994), and the CML method (Heijungs et al. 1992).

The chapter closes with a discussion of the results of the application of the two methods.

8.1 Goal Definition

The target groups of this study are the producers and consumers as well as scientists dealing with LCA and its inherent problems. For the producers, the knowledge gained can serve as a base for improvement of the product and the production processes. Since the KOPO project aims at improving the LCA methods this chapter does not include the improvement analysis.

The LCA covers all processes and environmental effects of the life cycle of beer from the cultivation of the main agricultural inputs (hops and barley) to the consumption of the beer. Also included are the downstream processes (sewage plants etc.) of the production of beer itself. This study also provides information about the environmental effects of beer produced in the "Feldschlosschen" brewery ("core system").

The functional unit is the consumption of 100 I of beer. As Feldschlosschen beer is sold in different bottles and packages, the LCA investigates beer of which about 47% is sold in reusable bottles, 21.5% in single use bottles, 29% in kegs, 2.5% in single use aluminium cans and 0.2% in steel cans (5 I). This definition of the functional unit may

95

C Case Study

be not satisfactory, but the data situation did not allow allocation of the inputs and environmental effects to the various bundles.

As 50% of the beer is consumed at home, only the routing of the beer from the distribution centres to the retailer and from there to the consumers' home is investigated. The route to other locations of consumption (restaurants etc.) is treated the same way.

8.2 Inventory Analysis

8.2.1 System Boundaries

Figure 8.1 shows the process tree of this LeA. The core system consists of the production processes of the brewery, including, on the upstream side, transport in brewery-owned vehicles (e.g. a steam locomotive for transport to the brewery).

In the foreground system the whole chain of directly connected processes from the production of agro-chemistry, the agricultural production of hops and barley, the treatment of these products in the food industry, the production of beer and its distribution from distribution centres and retailers to the consumer, is investigated.

The process chain ends when the consumer takes the beer out of the refrigerator. All these processes are connected by transport in different vehicles. Also within the foreground system are the downstream processes of sewage and solid waste resulting from the production of beer (for more detail see Appendix 1). In the following analysis, production of beer (core system) is treated as a black box, i.e. the particular processes in the brewery are not examined in detail. For an improvement analysis of the product or the production process a more detailed examination of the core system will be crucial.

Case Study "FeldschI6sschen"

cultivation of barley

water supply energy supply

Brewery FeldschlOsschen boiler house

mashing filtering boiling cooling

storage cellar

maturing filtering

pasteuri sation

----t~_ road and rail transports

====I.~ other transports

- - ..... collection

Figure 8.1 Process tree of the production of beer

landfill

cultivation of hops

production of other aux.

material/c leanser

production of bundle and

packaging material

7

C Case Study

Table 8.1 Processes omitted of the LCA of beer

main process

hops and barley cullNahon

hop pellets. hop extract

downstream processes of production of beer' waste for speCtal treatment

other downstream processes

transport

subprocesses omitted

transport of seed. fertiliser and pesllcides downstream processes of pestrclde and ferbhser producbon

downstream processes

computer hardware for further treatment chemicals for further treatment used olVlats for further treatment sludge of tye for further treatment sludge for further treatment reSiduals of paint for further treatment

criteria

lew transport. tor transport of ferblisers no data lack of data

lack of data

mistake acceptable mistake acceptable mistake acceptable undereshmatlon of eco- and human tOXICity potenbal poSSible underesbmabon of several Impact categories possible mistake acceptable

neglected. when the specific output weight of sohd waste Inclneraban or landhll IS under I gJ1 beer.

transport of Inputs In the subsystems lack of data. underestimatIOn of the Single process is probably small. the Influence of all omitted transport could be relevant

The particular system boundary decisions are not specified here since the complementary system has been analysed and documented by different groups of KOPO in their publications (BticheI1995, Maillefer and Fawer 1995, Menard 1995, INFRAS 1995).

It is not possible to take into account all the processes which are somehow connected to the life cycle of beer. Boundaries have to be set in any case. However, for an LeA all relevant processes should be included. Every process and every input was checked and omissions had to be explained. Table 8.1 shows the main processes and inputs omitted. Especially for certain treatments of toxic waste there are still no background inventory data available.

8.2.2 Allocation

After recording, the environmental effects of multiple processes must be allocated to specific products (here beer). The substitution principle is not used (no "bonus"'). Problems occur especially when products are recycled. For closed recycling circles (e.g. reusable bottles) the environmental effects of the recycling process can be included in the production process of the bottles. In open loop recycling, the effects of recycling are allocated to the products which use the recycled goods.

98

Case Study "Feldschlbsschen"

In the core system no allocation problems occurred, because almost all inputs (material and energy) are used for the production of beer. The few inputs used for the production of other products (e.g. yeast, soft drinks and mineral water) can be neglected (less than 1 % of total output).

In the complementary system, most allocations were made on the basis of weight of the products (e.g. hop extract and hop pellets). For agricultural cultivation, the allocation rule is the nutritive value or the energy content. Environmental effects of transport infrastructure have been allocated to the different vehicles on the basis of gross net tons. For a closer look see chapter 2 and the publications of the respective groups (Frischknecht et a1.1994, BUchel et al. 1995, Maillefer et al. 1995, Menard et al. 1995, Dinkel et al. 1995, Schaltegger et al. 1995, INFRAS 1995).

8.2.3 Background Inventory Data

Most processes used in this LeA study require raw materials. The background inventory data of the environmental interventions of these products and processes are taken from the publications of Frischknecht et al. (1994) and the BUWAL report No. 132 (BUWAL 1991). The background inventory data of transport processes (INFRAS 1995, in preparation) could not be applied, because the new emission factors (update BUWAL No. 55), an important input of the inventory, have so far been held back by the Swiss environmental protection agency (BUWAL).

8.2.4 Data Quality

The data quality of the core system (Feldschlbsschen production site Rheinfelden) is good, because an environmental controlling system has been established for the company.

For the agricultural production of hops and barley 80% of the data originates from the literature; the rest is estimated. For the hop pellets, hop extract and malt, 80% of the inputs (99% of the mass) are measured, the rest is estimated. For the outputs (sewage, waste etc.) the ratio of measured to estimated values is 73%/27% (83%/17% of the mass of outputs).

99

C Case Study

8.3 Impact Assessment

This LCA of beer covers the process chain from the input of the agricultural production to the consumer. In the following chapter the most relevant processes and materials in terms of environmental impacts are analysed.

The impact assessment of the inventory data was executed by Carbotech with their software EMIS.

According to the guidelines of CML the first step of impact assessment is classification. Here the impacts are identified and, as far as possible, the environmental interventions listed in the inventory Table are attributed to a number of predefined impact categories. In the second step within impact assessment, the characterization, analysis/quantification, and possibly, aggregation of the impacts within the given impact categories takes place. In the thir-d step the effect scores ofthe environmental profile gained in the characterization are weighted against each other in order to be able to reach a conclusion.

The UBP method leads to a direct valuation of energy consumption and of physical and chemical interventions (three steps in one).

8.3.1 Environmental Scarcity Method (UBP-Method)

a) The Relevant Processes and Materials

Table 8.2 shows the most relevant processes (italic: important processes in the core system with relevant environmental impacts).

The production of beer itself contri bu tes a bout 27 % of the eco-points to the total LCA (21 '081 points, see Figure 8.2). Sewage is responsible for about 4700 eco-points or 80% of all eco-points caused by the production of beer (11 % are interventions in "landfill" and only 8% in "air").

The core system causes 37 % of the UBP, if other relevant processes are added (energy, waste and sewage treatment). Apart from the production of beer, two other processes ofthe core system cause more than 1 % of the eco-points (general household waste and electricity medium voltage), of which one is a waste treatment process. In particular, general household waste that is burnt in municipal solid waste incinerators is responsible for 1826 points, that is about 32% of the production of beer.

100


Table 8,2 Relevant processes of the core system (bold) and the complementary system (> 1 % of total eco-points per intervention)

Eco-points Air Water Landfill Energy Soil Total Share of

Total Eco-pomts 11'681 5'339 1'514 1'319 1'228 21'081 process

Share of lotal 55% 25% 7% 6% 6% 100% to total

1% 01 each Intervenbon 155 53 16 14 12 251 producllon of beer 447 4'698 638 5'783 27 % generat waste 1'800 25 1'826 9% transp, from retailer to 1'565 1'565 7% consumer

transport van 28 t 1'251 50 32 70 1'403 7% malt 385 517 57 88 1'047 5% glass single use 843 28 107 29 1'007 5% reusable glass bottles 133 16 854 1'003 5 % reused

distribution 872 32 22 35 961 5% keg (new steel) 666 666 3 % keg (recycled sleel) 610 610 3% storage at wholesale trader 260 82 143 485 2% rail transport 259 25 20 28 332 2% storage at home 146 184 330 2 % alumlOlum cans 278 17 23 318 2%

transport III 87 73 271 1% tray '~ingle use package" 198 38 17 253 1% electriCIty medium voltage 18 176 194 0,9% stopper (PE) 158 23 181 0,9% metal cans (5 I) 139 2 3 143 0,7% hardware computer 98 98 0,5% lerlilack closed 17 43 19 79 0,4% tray foil (PE) 22 22 0,1 % reusable glass bottles new 17 17 0,1 % crate for reusable bottles 16 16 0,1 % Total of processes 9'864 5'215 1'346 1'060 1'125 18'610 88 % mentioned

Perc, of Intervention 84% 98% 89 % 80% 92% 88% Perc, of total eco-point 47 % 25% 6% 5% 5% 88%

The supply of bundle and packing material causes more eco-points (22 % ) than the production of the beer itself. The influence of the single use bottles is very large (5%). Although there is less than half the single use bottles sold compared to the reusable bottles, the two bundles have the same score. While the single use bottles contribute much to the effect to the air, the reusable bottles have a large influence on the soil.

101

20()OO

15000

5000 -1-----'

P.I"'· ~InJ; 1l1alenal

C Case Study

O+-__________________________ A~g_nc_. ~_~_"_~1i_"n ____________ ___

Figure 8.2

S,,"Slrm Uoundilrit':'li

En\ ironmenli)1 'ml)~I('l ,\ddt'(l C.trrier

Shares of interventions of the total eco-points

En\ironm('nwl :'-.h .. diuIU

The transport of the inputs and the distribution from the brewery to the distribution centre, from there to the retailer and then to the consumer contribute about 22% of all eco-points (see Figure 8.3). The largest influence comes from transport from the retailer to the consumer (7%), followed by transport with vans (28t) (7%). The influence of the transport is even larger when further transport in the production of input materials are considered (e.g. hops).

The raw materials for the production of beer cause only few ecopoints. The production of malt is responsible for only 5% of the total. No other process exceeds 1 % of the total impact.

The storage in the distribution centre causes about 2% of all ecopoints, storage at home another 2%.

All other processes and input materials cover only 12% of all ecopoints.

b) The Relevant Environmental Interventions

The air emissions have the largest influence by far (see Figure 8.2). The highest shares are caused by bundle and packing material (38%).

Primarily responsible for this very large influence are NOx (see Figure 8.4) with a share of 32% (of which transport causes more than 50% and waste treatment about 25%), SOx with 20% and CO2 with

102

Case Study "Feldschlosschen"

12000 I-;:::==::;--------------;:============~ o rUlal cco~poinl'"

10000 f------------------i . Tr.'"'p<>n

H()()O . Tr:,n'pon "Ill 28 I

r-----------------------~

(,()()()

-IOO()

2()()()

()

Air W.lter Landfill Energy Soi l

Figure 8.3 Eco-points of transport processes compared to total eco-points

3%. No other pollutant has an effect of more than 0.5 % of total air pollution.

The interventions to the water are dominated by the production of beer (88%) which is the main part of the core system.' The only other process with relevant water emissions is the production of malt (10%).

By far the largest impact to the water is due to phosphate emissions from the production of beer (88%). In the brewery the heavily loaded waste water is pre-treated in an on-site anaerobic sewage purification plant. The prepurified water leaves the brewery together with the slightly loaded waste water through a large sewage pipe to the municipal sewage plant of Rheinfelden.2 Another 6% of the eco-points originate from organic materials (COD: chemical oxygen demand caused by the production of malt).

The interventions to land-fill are mainly caused by the production of beer (waste in land-fill 41 %. Other important processes are different transport (16%) and storage at the customer's (11 %). "Waste for

1 Per litre of beer. 6 litres of waste water are generated. 2 For the biological reduction of organic substances (TOC, DOC, alkane, etc.) and am

monia (NH4), oxygen is required which has to be injected with electric air pumps. The air injection is the most important electricity consumer of a sewage plant (0.021 kWh/kg air). Iron chloride (FeCI) is needed for the elimination of phosphates (P04).

103

20()00

15000

~ :: '0 "- IOOO{) 6 :; ~

5(XlO

()

Figure 8.4

... •

Air

~ P~-I) n".''I!r pruJucllon) 0("00

0("01

~ 0 , • ,'>;0,

• 1'01.11 Pullul.uu, > () . ~(~ ul cl..'n-puim ... ... 1' ... ,,1

• • W,"er Lund-lil l Energy

The most important pollutants in the LCA of beer

C Case Study

•

• Soil Towl

special treatment" in different processes causes over 9% of the intervention on land-fills).

Many processes have an effect on "energy". No single one is dominant (storage 31 %, bundle and packing 29%, transport 13%).

Most interventions to "soil" are caused by reused glass bottles (76%).

8.3.2 CML Method

a) The Relevant Processes and Materials

In this chapter, only the impact categories "energy", "greenhouse effect", "human toxicity" and "eco-toxicity water" are treated. Table 8.3 shows the scores for the four impact categories, sorted according to the average share of all interventions. The five most important processes in each impact category are indicated in italic_

The most important impact categories concerning "energy" are caused by storage in households (16%: from energy consumption of refrigerators), electricity medium voltage (15%), storage at wholesale trader (12 %), single use glass (production process) (9%) and malt (7%).

104


Table 8.3 Relevant processes (> 1 % of total per intervention)

CML Energy Greenhouse Human aquatic Average IMJ) effect (kg) toxicity (kg) ecotoxicity (m' ) share

Total score 1187 45,9 4.3 1641

I % of each Intervention 12 0.46 0.043 16,4

Process

transp. retailer - consumer 87 5,23 0,753 362 15%

malt 88 6.9 0.210 189

glass single use J07 8.12 0.191 86 9%

glue 2 0,05 J,046 7 6%

transport van 28 t 32 1,9 0,325 132 6%

storage wholesale trader J43 2,53 0,050 37 5%

storage at home 184 0,35 0,055 31 5%

electricity medium voltage 176 0,30 0,040 23 4%

general waste 10 6,80 0.014 4 4%

distribution 22 1,33 0,237 92 4%

stopper (PEl 23 0,65 0.100 119 3%

crate tor reusable bottles 16 0.03 0.166 97 3%

aluminium cans 23 1,52 0,139 34 3%

production of beer 4.82 3%

tray40ll (PEl 22 0,48 0,098 68 2%

rail transport 20 0,9 0,093 46 2%

tray·single use package 38 0,28 0,074 29 2%

keg (new steel) 12 0,61 0,072 30 1 %

ten-pack closed 43 -0,81 0,084 33 1 %

reusable glass bottles new 17 1,09 0,038 18 1 %

reusable glass bottles reused 16 1,06 0,037 18 1 %

keg (recycled steel) II 0,56 0,066 28 1 %

dleset from regional distribution centre 10 0,09 0,050 44 1 % CH

fuel 011 EL from regional dlstnbutlon 4 0,04 0,024 20 0,6% centre CH

Totat processes above !l06 45 3.96 1547

Perc. of Intervention 93 % 98% 92 % 94%

The large influence of the transport from the retailer to the consumer (this score is higher than all other transport together) and the storage processes is also remarkable.

"Greenhouse effect": The five main interventions are caused by single use glass (18%: mainly caused by COremissions), malt (15%: N20 and CO2), general waste (15%: CO2), transport from the retailer to the consumer (11 %: CO2) and the production of beer (11 %: CO2)

and metal cans (51) (8%: CO2.and CF4), Again, the strong influence of consumer's transport is remarkable.

105

C Case Study

"Human toxicity": The highest scoring categories are glue (24 %, due to the emission of "non methane volatile organic carbonates" (NMVOC), transport from the retailer to the consumer (18%: NMVOC and nickel), transport by vans (28 t) (8%: NMVOC), distribution (5%: NMVOC and nickel) and malt (5%: NMVOC).

"Aquatic ecotoxicity ": Transport from the retailer to the consumer has a large influence (22%), mainly caused by the emission of aromatic hydrocarbons, fats and oil), the production of malt (12%), transport by vans (28 t) (8%), polyethylene stoppers (6%) and crates for reusable bottles (6%). The effects of the last four processes are mainly caused by aromatic hydrocarbons, fats and oil and phenols.

For the environmental effects examined there are few processes with a big score in all areas. The status of the transport from the retailer to the consumer is remarkable. Also, the production of malt cause large effects in more than one area. While glass prodl!~tion is a single process with a high greenhouse effect, transport by vans (28 t) is the sum of many transport activities with human and eco-toxicity effects.

b) The Relevant Interventions

The list above already shows the most important pollutants. Considering the greenhouse effect, the largest influence comes from CO2 (73%), N20 (8%: from the production of malt) and CF4 (2%). NMVOC (62%: mainly from glue), nickel (23 %) and TCDD-equivalents (6%) are mainly responsible for the human toxicity. In the area of "eco-toxicity water", aromatic hydrocarbons (28%), phenols (15%), fats and oil (15%) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (9%), are relevant.

While CO2, NMVOC and phenol are emitted from many different processes, nickel is emitted during the production of the cars used for transport from the retailer to the consumer and during the transport process itself (abrasion of tyres) .

8.4 Conclusions

In which respect does the application of the two impact assessment approaches (eco-scarcity, CML) influence the results of this LCA?

A comparison of tables 8.2 and 8.3 shows almost the same 20 - 25 processes. Only one important process is different: "glue" does not appear with the UBP method. The production of beer, the process with the highest score due to the phosphate-emissions with the UBP method, contributes "only" to the greenhouse effect with the CML method. The

106


production of malt has large effects in both methods. In the UBP method the largest impacts are due to water and air emissions, in the CML method due to greenhouse, human toxicity and eco-toxicity water. "General household waste", with a considerable effect on the air in the UBP method, shows slight greenhouse effects with the CML method.

The various transport processes are also dominant. While these processes aJ:e normally the result of many single transport activities, the final stage from the retailer to the consumer has a very large effect. This process reflects today's shopping activities in Switzerland.3 Significant effects are caused by the storage of beer by consumers according to both methods.

The agricultural production does not appear in the list of dominant processes, and in the food production industry only the production of malt shows large effects.

This study shows a high comparability of the results of the two methods. This does not allow a general rule to be formulated, but further examination could probably confirm, that the results do not depend much on the assessment method. In other words, in both methods the same processes are responsible for the highest score of environmental impacts.

3 Data base for transport distances and vehicle use is Bundesamt fiir Statistik (1991), for the average beer consumtion of the Swiss households "Schweiz. Fachstelle fOr Alkoholprobleme, Lausanne" and Bundesamt fiir Statistik (1994), and for the energy consumption of refrigerators Nipkow (1990).

107

C Case Study

Appendix 1: Processes of the LeA "Feldschlbsschen" Beer

In-house balance (site-specific)

Production process processes included

energy fossil energy

electricity

wort production - mashing - fi ltering - boiling - cooling

producbon of yeast

fermentation - fermenting

maturing - maturing - filtering - pasteurisation

filtering - drawing (can, barrel, "Gastrotank", cistern)

- bottling

packing

distribution - transport by train - transport by van (16 t) to

distribution centre

In-house balance (site-specific)

outputs

main products

other products

recycling

waste in down stream

emissions

108

products/ processes included

- beer

- draft - yeast etc.

- waste to municipal incinerator - waste to landfill - waste to landfill for inert material - waste for further treatment

- purification of sewage

inventory/process treated by

ESU: fuel 011 Ellgas/petrol super/ petrol unleaded/diesel/mineral coal

ESU electricity UCPTE

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, EIIlpson

A. Sturm, EIIipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

ESU rail transport ESU van 16 t


A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

M. Menard, ESU

M. Menard, ESU

Case Study "Feldschliisschen"

consumption processes included processes

distribution

storage at retailer

consumption

transport from distribution centre to retailer

transport from retailer to consumer

storage by consumer cooling in refrigerator

complementary data

inputs

energy

water

hop cultivation

hop extract

hop pellets

barley cultivation

processes included

fossil energy

electricity

- construction of infrastructure and machines"

- plugging, harrowing, roll ing - fertilising/production of fertiliser - sowing/production of seed - spraying/production of pesticides - maintenance - harvest - drymg - storage

- cutting - cleaning - extraction - packing

- cutting - drying - grinding - production of pellets - packing

- construction of machines" - plugging, harrowing, rolling - fertilising/production of fertiliser - sowing/production of seed - spraying/production of pesticides - hacking - harvest (reaping/threshing)


ESU, van 28 t

D. Peter, INFRAS

ESU, PKW; D. Peter, INFRAS

D. Peter, INFRAS


ESU: fuel oil ELlgas/petrol super/ petrol unleaded/diesel

ESU electricity UCPTE

ESU

K. Buchel, Agrar/Umweltberatung

C. Mailiefer, EMPA

C. Maillefer, EMPA

K. Buchel, Agrar /Umweltberatung

109

complementary data

inputs

malting

bundle and packing material

processes included

- precleaning - soaking - germination - kiln-drying

- reusable bottles - reusable bundle KEG - single use bundle

auxiliary material - for production - for auxiliary processesjinternal

transport

working stock - cleanser/regeneration - disinfectants

other production inputs

material for administration

- working stock

C Case Study


C. Maillefer, EMPA

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

A. Sturm. Ellipson

A. Sturm, Ellipson

There are about 300 inputs into the in·house account. A more detailed listing of all these processes (auxiliary material, other production inputs and material for the administration) is beyond the scope of this paper.

110


Appendix 2: Inventory Table

Air Pollution (Pollutants with at least 0.10% contribution to an effect)

Mass Mistake Pro- Mass Mis- GWP OOP ACP NP POCP Human-cess Pollutant take tox.

0.762 kg 10 10er-Pack sealed (Cardboard)

CO2 -8.24E+02 gr 31.6 1.00E-03 -

H l301 Halon 2.44E-05 gr 31.6 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 1.02E+00 gr 31.6 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)

NOx Nitrogen 2.83E+00 gr 31.6 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 3.44E+00 gr 31.6 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD- 1.17E-02 ngr 31.6 7.30E-01 Equivalents

Ni Nickel (Dust 1.04E-03 gr 31.6 4.22E+01 and Smoke)

1.100 kg 10 Waste Bags (Municipal Waste) in Incinerator

CO2 1.50E+03 gr 51 1.00E-03 -

HCI 8.58E-01 gr 51 8.80E-04 - 1.00E-04

NH3 3.56E-01 gr 51 1.88E-03 3.30E-04 3.00E-04

NOx Nitrogen 1.15E+01 gr 51 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8. 32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

0.077 kg 10 AHins (Alu)

C2F6 1.45E-02 gr 51 6.20E+00 -

CF4 1.16E-01 gr 51 4.50E+00 -

CO2 8.88E+02 gr 50.7 1.00E-03 -

H l301 Halon 2.23E-05 gr 50.4 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 7.31E-01 gr 50.3 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx as S02 6.07E+00 gr 50.6 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD- 2.11E-02 ngr 50.7 7. 30E-0 1 Equivalents


2.100 kg 10 Waste (Municipal Waste) in Incinerator

CO2 2.86£+03 gr 51 1.00E-03 -

Hcl 1.64E+00 gr 51 8.80E-04 - 1.00E-04

NH3 6.79E-01 gr 51 1.88E-03 3.30E-04 3.00E-04

NOx Nitrogen 2.20E+01 gr 51 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 5.57E-01 gr 51 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

0.019 kg 10 Petrol unleaded CH

H l301 Halon 5.20E-06 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

H 1301 Halon 2.30E-06 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

1.000 hi 0 Produktion of Beer

CO2 4.82E+03 gr 10 1.00E-03 -

U1

C Case Study


Mass Mistake Pro- Mass Mis- GWP ODP ACP NP POCP Human-cess Pollutant take tox.


SOx as S02 7.76E-Ol gr 10 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

0.001 kg 10 Computerhardware

CO2 8.84E+Ol gr 19.6 1.00E-03 -

H f301 Halon 2.94E-06 gr 34.3 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NOx Nitrogen 5.93E-Ol gr 40.6 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

0.179 kg 10 Diesel CH

CO2 7.78E+Ol gr 14.1 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 4.64E-05 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

Ni Nickel (Dust 2.90E-04 gr 14.1 4.22E+Ol and Smoke)

NMYOC (Non 1.47E+00 gr 14.1 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane YOC)


0.130 kg 10 Paper Labels

CO2 4.82E +Ol gr 31.6 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 5.75E-06 gr 31.6 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -


SOx as S02 1.31E+00 gr 31.6 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


11.020 kg 10 Glass·One Way

CH4 Methane 1.30E+Ol gr 12.9 1.10E-02 - 7.00E-06 -

CO2 7.96E+03 gr 42.1 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 4.53E- 05 gr 11.8 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

Hcl 6.14E-Ol gr 41.6 8.80E-04 - 1.00E-04


NOx Nitrogen 8.43E+00 gr 13.2 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8. 32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 6.13E+00 gr 12 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD- 2.59E-02 ngr 13 7.30E-Ol Equivalents


1.383 kg 10 Glass-Return Bottles (new)

CO2 1.06E+03 gr 36.3 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 6.90E-06 gr 11.4 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMYOC (Non 5.64E- Ol gr 17.3 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane YOC)


Dust 2.34E+Ol gr 27.3 4.00E-04

SOx as S02 1.21E+00 gr 11.4 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

11 2




Ni Nickel (Dust 2.07E-04 gr 12 4.22E+01 and Smoke)

CO2 1.03E+03 gr 36.3 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 6.67E-06 gr 11.4 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMYOC (Non 5.45E-01 gr 17.3 4. 16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane YOC)


Dust 2.26E+01 gr 27.3 4.00E-04

SOx as S02 1.17E+00 gr 11.4 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

Ni Nickel (Dust 2.00E-04 gr 12 4.22E+01 and Smoke)

0.132 kg 10 Crates·REturn (PE new)

CO2 3.18E+02 gr 31.4 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 4.74E-05 gr 31.5 4.90E+00 1.60E-02


NOx Nitrogen 8.73E-01 gr 31.4 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8. 32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 1.89E+00 gr 31.5 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

Ni NickellDust 9.1OE-04 gr 31.4 4.22E+01 and Smoke)



NOx Nitrogen 8.57E-01 gr 31.4 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 1.85E+00 gr 31.5 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


0.083 kg 10 Fuel Light CH

H 1301 Halon 2. 14E-05 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMYOC (Non 6.77E-01 gr 14.1 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane YOC)


0.016 kg 10 Hopten Pellets

CO2 -5.99E+01 gr 10 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 2.63E-06 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E- 02 -


CO2 1.79E+02 gr 10 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 7.56E-06 gr 10 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMYOC (Non 2.86E-01 gr 10 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane YOC)


0.090 kg 10 Keg (Steel new)

113

C Case Study



CF4 1.84E-02 gr 51 4.50E+00 -

CO2 4.93E+02 gr 51 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 9.34E-06 gr 51 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 3.24E-Ol gr 51 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)

NOx Nitrogen l.l1E+00 gr 51 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 2.59E+Ol gr 51 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDO- 1.19E-02 ngr 51 7.30E-Ol Equivalents

Ni Nickel (Dust 9.61E-04 gr 51 4.22E+Ol and Smoke)

CF4 1. 69E-02 gr 51 4.50E+00 -CO2 4.52E+02 gr 51 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 8.56E-06 gr 51 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 2.97E-Ol gr 51 4. 16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx as S02 2.37E+Ol gr 51 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD· 1.09E-02 ngr 51 7.30E-Ol Equivalents

Ni Nickel (Dust 8.80E-04 gr 51 4.22E+Ol and Smoke)

100.000 I 10 Storage Trader

CH4 Methane 6.87E+00 gr 13.8 1.10E-02 - 7.00E-06 -

CO2 2.42E+03 gr 13.7 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 1. 58E-05 gr 12.3 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 6.25E-Ol gr 12.3 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx as S02 2.71 E+00 gr 12.3 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


100.000 I 10 Storage Household

CO2 2.64E+02 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 -

FCKWCFC-ll 4.45E-03 gr 31.6 3.40E+00 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 1.53E- 05 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

N20 2.19E-Ol gr 14.1 2.70E-Ol -

NMVOC (Non 5.43E- Ol gr 14.1 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx als S02 2.45E+00 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


114


Air Pollution IPoliutants with at least 0.10% contribution to an effectl


0.040 kg 10 Glue

H 1301 Halon 6.77E-06 gr 44.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

H 1301 Halon 6.23E-06 gr 44.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -


0.040 kg 10 Glue

NMVOC (Non 2.02E+01 gr 50.5 4. 16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)

15.300 kg 10 Mat Pellets

CH4 Methane 8.81E+00 gr 10.4 1.10E-02 - 7.00E-06 -CO2 1.00E+03 gr 10.4 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 1.77E-04 gr 10.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

N20 2.15E+01 gr 14.1 2.70E-01 -

NH3 5.92E+01 gr 14.1 1. 88E-03 3.30E-04 3.00E-04



Ni Nickel & 1.73E-03 gr 10.2 1.13E+01 unstable combin.

SOx as S02 5.21E+00 gr 10.3 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


1.773 kg 10 Paletts-On Way (Wood)

CO2 -6.61E+03 gr 51 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 1.47E-05 gr 51 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

Mn 3.28E-03 gr 51 2.50E+00

NH3 1.70E-01 gr 51 1.88E-03 3.30E-04 3.00E-04

NMVOC (Non 8.76E-01 gr 51 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx as S02 2.98E+00 gr 51 1.00E- 03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD- 2.06E+00 ngr 51 7.30E-01 Equivalents

Ni Nickel (Dust 5.95E- 04 gr 51 4.22E+01 and Smoke)

5.938 kg 10 Wooden Paletts Return

CO2 -2.22E+02 gr 51 1.00E-03 -

TCDD- 6.90E-02 ngr 51 7.30E-01 Equivalente

1.303 kg 10 Paletts (Wood)

CO2 -4.86E+01 gr 52 1.00E-03 -

TCDD- 1.52E-02 ngr 52 7.30E-01 Equivalents

4.500 kg 10 Paletts in Incinerator

CO2 6.62E+03 gr 51 1.00E- 03 -

115

C Case Study



NOx Nitrogen 3.00E+OO gr 51 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 IOOE-04 Oxide as N02

0.018 kg 10 Foils (PE)

CO2 5.42E+Ol gr 315 100E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 6.46E-06 gr 31.6 4.90E+OO 160E-02 -

0.079 kg 10 75%

CO2 6.56E+Ol gr 14.1 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 2.85E-06 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 160E-02 -

SOx as S02 1.16E+00 gr 14.1 100E-03 - 4.00E-04


0.554 kg 10 Steel·Tins 5 I (Steel)

C2F6 1.42E-02 gr 51.3 6.20E+OO -CF4 1.14E-Ol gr 51.3 4.50E+00 -CH4 Methane 8.66E+OO gr 51.3 1.l0E-02 - 7.00E-06 -

CO2 3.04E+03 gr 51.3 100E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 5. 77E-05 gr 51.3 4.90E+00 160E-02 -

Mn Mangan 3.24E-03 gr 51.3 2.50E+00



Dust 2.42E+Ol gr 51.3 4.00E-04

SOx as S02 1.60E+02 gr 51.3 1.00E-03 - 400E-04

TCDO- 7.35E-02 ngr 51.3 7.30E-Ol Equivalents


45.402 MJ 10 Electric Power CH

CO2 2.21E+02 gr 14.1 l.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 1.18E-05 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 160E-02 -

N20 2.36E-Ol gr 14.1 2.70E-Ol -Ni Nickel (Dust 6.15E-04 gr 14.1 4.22E+Ol and Smoke)

NMVOC (Non 4.17E-Ol gr 14.1 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)

NOx Nitrogen 5.40E-0! gr 14.1 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 1.13E+00 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

100.000 I 10 Transport Retailer-Household

Alkene 3.62E-01 gr 14.1 9.06E- 04 2.70E-02

Benzol 1.06E+00 gr 14.1 1.89E-04 l.60E-02

CH4 Methane 8.21E+00 gr 14.1 1.l0E-02 7.00E- 06 -

CO2 5.06E+03 gr 14.1 l.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 3.51E-04 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NMVOC (Non 1.86E+01 gr 14.1 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methan VOC)

116


Air Pollution IPoliutants with at least 0.10% contribution to an effect)



SOx as S02 1.92E+01 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04

TCDD· 2.20E-02 ngr 14.1 7.30E-01 Equivalents


8.463 tkm lOT ransport Truck 28 t

CO2 1.84E+03 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 1. 28E-04 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -




SOx as S02 3.75E+00 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


10.916 tkm 10 Rail Transport

CO2 8.65E+02 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 2.70E-05 gr 14.1 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -


NMVOC (Non 1.33E+00 gr 14.1 4. 16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOCI


Dust 2.34E+01 gr 14.1 4.00E-04

SOx as S02 2.90E+00 gr 14.1 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


0.666 kg 10 Tray·Crates inkl. 6-Pack (Cardboard)


NMVOC (Non 8.97E-01 gr 31.9 4.16E-04 2.70E-02 Methane VOC)


SOx as S02 3.20E+00 gr 30.5 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04



0.154 kg 10 Tray·Foils (PE)



117

C Case Study




SOx as S02 2.58E+00 gr 31.6 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04



0.007 kg 10 Lids (PE)

H 1301 Halon 2.32E-06 gr 31.5 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

0.216 kg 10 Lids WE und Metal)

CO2 6.12E+02 gr 30 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 4.27E-05 gr 29.2 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -


NOx Nitrogen 1.49E+00 gr 29.1 70Q~-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 2.83E+00 gr 28 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04



0.094 kg 10 Lids (PE)

CO2 2.81E+02 gr 31.5 1.00E-03 -

H 1301 Halon 3. 35E-05 gr 31.5 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -



SOx as S02 1.58E+00 gr 31.5 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


1.000 hi 30 Transport Trader-Retailer




SOx as S02 2.59E+00 gr 59.2 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


0.138 kg 10 Inlays (Cardboard)

CO2 -1.49E+02 gr 31.6 1.00E-03 -H 1301 Halon 4.44E-06 gr 31.6 4.90E+00 1.60E-02 -

NOx Nitrogen 5.14E- 01 gr 31.6 7.00E-04 1.30E-04 8.32E-04 1.00E-04 Oxide as N02

SOx as S02 6.25E-Ol gr 31.6 1.00E-03 - 4.00E-04


118


Water emissions 1I .. . und wo ist das Original?))

Mass Mistake Process Pollutant Mass Mistake NP Ecotox. Water

0.762 kg 10 10er·Pack sealed (Cardboard)

Arom. KWe total 3.15E-03 gr 31.6 2.70E+03

COD 8.12E+00 gr 31.6· 2.20E-Ol

Greace and Oils total 9.57E-02 gr 31.6 5.00E+Ol

Ion Cadmium 1.17E-05 gr 31.6 2.00E+05

Phenole 7.60E-04 gr 31.6 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 6.69E-05 gr 31.6 4.65E+04


NOx total 1.43E+00 gr 51 4.20E-04

0.077 kg 10 AI·Tins (Alu)



Ion lead 1.68E-03 gr 50.8 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 1.85E-05 gr 50.7 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom-1I1 2.45E-03 gr 50.7 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.21E-03 gr 50.8 2.00E+03

Phenole 6.96E-04 gr 50.5 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 6.lOE-05 gr 50.4 4.65E+04

2.100 kg 10 Allgemeine Abfiille (Siedlungsabfall) in KVA

NOx total 2.73E+00 gr 51 4.20E-04

1.000 hi 0 Production of Beer

P04-P 6.17E+00 gr 10 3.06E-04

NH4-N 3.16E+00 gr 10 4.20E-04

0.179 kg 10 Diesel CH


Greace and Oils total 1.79E-Ol gr 14.1 5.00E+Ol

Phenole 1.26E-03 gr 14.1 5.90E+03


Toluol in Water 1.15E-03 gr 14.1 2.70E+03

0.130 kg 10 Labels (Paper)


0.070 kg 10 European Coal (Storage)

Ion lead 9.51E-04 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 9.48E-06 gr 14.1 2.00[+05

Ion Chrom-III 1.89E-03 gr 14.1 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 9.43E-04 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

11.020 kg 10 Glass-One Way


Greace and Oils total 2.39E-Ol gr 11.7 5.00[+01

Ion Lead 3.54E-03 gr 20.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 3.53E-05 gr 14.5 2.00E+05


Ion Copper 1.91E-03 gr 14.8 2.00[+03

Ion Mercury 6.61E-06 gr 13.6 5.00E+05

Phenole 2.16E-03 gr 14.2 5.90E+03

119

C Case Study

Water emissions ({ ... und wo ist das Original?))


Po[yzykl. arom. KWe 1. 24E-04 gr 11.8 4.65E+04

To[uo[ in Water 1.43E-03 gr 11.7 2.70E+03

l.383 kg 10 G[ass·Return (new)

Arom. KWe total 1. 29E-03 gr 11.6 2.70E+03

[on Lead l.l3E-03 gr 13.5 2.00E+03

[on Cadmium l.l4E-05 gr 12.4 2.00E+05

[on Chrom·[11 1.86E-03 gr 12.7 1.00E+03

Pheno[e 3.19E-04 gr 13.3 5.90E+03

41.749 kg 10 G[as·Return (used)


[on Lead 1.09E-03 gr 13.5 2.00E+03

[on Cadmium l.lOE-05 gr 12.4 2.00E+05

0.132 kg 10 Crates·Return (PE new)


Greace and Oils total 1.83E-01 gr 31.6 5.00E+01

[on Cadmium l.36E-05 gr 3l.3 2.00E+05

Pheno[e 1.51E-03 gr 31.6 5.90E+03

Po[yzykl. arom. KWe 1.29E-04 gr 31.6 4.65E+04

To[uo[ in Water l.l7E-03 gr 31.6 2.70E+03

11.253 kg 10 Crates-Return (PE used)



[on Cadmium 1.34E-05 gr 3l.3 2.00E+05

Pheno[e 1.48E-03 gr 31.6 5.90E+03

Po[yzykl. arom. KWe 1.27E-04 gr 31.6 4.65E+04

To[uo[ in Water l.l5E-03 gr 31.6 2.70E+03

0.083 kg 10 Fue[ CH



Phenole 5.80E-04 gr 14.1 5.90E+03


0.024 kg 10 Hop Pellets

Arom. KWe total 9.65E-04 gr 10 2.70E+03

120


Water emissions (Pollutants with a contribution of at least 0.10% to an effect)




Greace and Oils total 3. 74E-02 gr 51 5.00E+Ol

Ion Lead 3.15E-03 gr 51 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 2.07E-05 gr 51 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom·1I1 2.55E-03 gr 51 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.18E-03 gr 51 2.00E+03

Phenole 1.02E-03 gr 51 5.90E+03

8.231 kg 10 Keg (Steel used)


Ion Lead 2.89E-03 gr 51 2.00E+03


10nChrom-1il 2.34E-03 gr 51 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.08E-03 gr 51 2.00E+03

Phenole 9.30E-04 gr 51 5.90E+03




Ion Lead 2.38E-03 gr 13 2.00t+03

Ion Cadmium 1. 64E-05 gr 12.6 2.00E+05

Ion Mercury 3.69E-06 gr 13.9 5.00E+05

Phenole 8. 26E-04 gr 12.3 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 4. 33E-05 gr 12.3 4.65E+04

100.000 I 10 Storage Household



Ion Lead 3.69E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 2.18E-05 gr 14.1 2.00E+05

Phenole 6.67E-04 gr 14.1 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 4. 19E-05 gr 14.1 4.65E+04

0.037 kg 10 Glue


0.040 kg 10 Glue


15.300 kg 10 Malt Pellets


COD 7.58E+01 gr 10 2.20E-05


Ion Lead 2.29E-03 gr 10.3 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 5.09E-05 gr 10.2 2.00E+05


Ion Copper 1.28E-03 gr 10.7 2.00E+03

Nitrate 5.61E+01 gr 10 1.00E-04

Phenole 5.11E-03 gr 10.1 5.90E+03


121

C Case Study




1.773 kg 10 Paletts-One Way (Wood)


Greace and Oils total 5.75E-02 gr 51 5.00E+01

Ion Lead 1.34E-03 gr 51 2.00E+03


Ion Chrom-III 2.02E-03 gr 51 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 9.93E-04 gr 51 2.00E+03

Phenole 4.82E-04 gr 51 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 4.02E-05 gr 51 4.65E+04

4.500 kg 10 Palets in Incinerator

Nox total 3.60E-01 gr 51 4.20E-04

0.Dl8 kg 10 Foils (PE)


0.554 kg 10 Steel·Tins 5 I (Steel)



Ion Lead 1.95E-02 gr 51.2 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 1. 28E-04 gr 51.2 2.00E+05


Ion Copper 7. 26E-03 gr 51.2 2.00E+03

Ion Nickel 7.87E-03 gr 51.2 3.30E+02

Ion link 2.04E-02 gr 51.2 3.80E+02

Phenole 6.27E-03 gr 51.2 5.90E+03


Toluol in Water 1.46E-03 gr 51.2 2.70




Ion Lead 3.00E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 1.73E-05 gr 14.1 2.00E+05

Phenole 4.16E-04 gr 14.1 5.90E+03

100.000 I 10 Transport Retailer-Household


Greace and Oils total 1.36E+00 gr 14.1 5.00E+01

Ion Lead 4.21E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 1.02E-04 gr 14.1 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom·1I1 4.37E-03 gr 14.1 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.84E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion link 5.33E-03 gr 14.1 3.80E+02

Phenole 1.08E-02 gr 14.1 5.90E+03


Nox total 1.42E-01 gr 14.1 4.20E-04


122




8.463 tkm lOT ran sport Truck 28 t



Ion Lead 1.62E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 3.83E-05 gr 14.1 2.00E+05

Phenole 3.89E-03 gr 14.1 5.90E+03






Ion Lead 2.86E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 2.49E-05 gr 14.1 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom·1II 2.90E-03 gr 14.1 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.36E-03 gr 14.1 2.00E+03

Phenole 1.30E-03 gr 14.1 5.90E+03


0.666 kg 10 Tray·One Way incl. 6-Pack (Cardboard)


COD 7.10E+00 gr 32 2.20E-05


Ion Cadmium 1.05E-05 gr 31.3 2.00E+05

Phenole 6.80E-04 gr 31.4 5.90E+03


0.154 kg 10 Tray·Folis (PE)


Greace and Oils total 2.12E-Ol gr 31.6 5.ooE+Ol

Ion Cadmium 1.94E-05 gr 31.5 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom·1II 3. 75E-03 gr 31.6 1.00E+03

Phenole 1.92E-03 gr 31.6 5.90E+03



0.216 kg 10 Lids (PE und Metal)


Greace and Oils total 1.66E-Ol gr 29 5.00E+Ol

Ion Lead 4.67E-03 gr 44.2 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 3.55E-05 gr 34.2 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom~1I 5. 11E-03 gr 30.4 1.00E+03

Ion Copper 1.66E-03 gr 36 2.00E+03

Phenole 2.61E-03 gr 30.4 5.90E+03

Polyzykl. arom. KWe 1.17E-04 gr 29 4.65E+04

Toluol in Water 1.82E-03 gr 30 2.70E+03

0.094 kg 10 Lids (PE)



123

C Case Study



Ion Cadmium 1.19E-05 gr 31.4 2.00E+05

Ion Chrom·11I 2.29E-03 gr 31.6 1.00E+03

Phenole 1.17E-03 gr 31.6 5.90E+03



1.000 hi 30 Transport Trader-Retailer



Ion Lead 9.36E-04 gr 59.2 2.00E+03

Ion Cadmium 2.56E-05 gr 59.2 2.00E+05

Phenole 2.70E-03 gr 59.2 5.90E+03



Soil emissions (Pollutants with a contribution of at least 0.10% to an effect)

Mass Mistake Process Pollutant Mass Mistake % Ecotox. Soil


Cadmium 6.59E-03 gr 18 1.30E--02

Copper 1.19E-02 gr 14.1 7.70E--04

Lead 3.96E-03 gr 14.1 4.30E-04

Mercury 1.32E-02 gr 14.1 2.90E-02

Zink 6.23E-02 gr 11.2 2.60E-03

124


Waste and Energy (Pollutants with a contribution of at least 0.10% to an effect)

Mass Mistake Process Mass Mistake % Energ. Inert Not Inert Toxic Waste Pollutant Resources

0.762 kg 10 lOer·Pack sealed (Cardboard)

energetic Resources 4.29E+Ol MJ 10 1.00E+00

Waste Inert 1.92E-Ol kg 13.3 1.00E+00

Waste Non Inert 8.50E-03 kg 11.9 1.00E+00

Waste Toxic Waste 1.46E-04 kg 11.3 1.00E+00


Waste Inert 2.90E-Ol kg 10 1.00E+00

Waste Non Inert 3.66E-02 kg 10 1.00E+00

0.077 kg I 0 A~ Tins (Alu)

Energetic Resources 2.33E+Ol MJ 10 1.00E+00

Waste Inert 7.80E-02 kg 10 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 1.31E-04 kg 10 1.00E+00

2.100 kg 10 Municipal Waste in Incinerator



0019 kg 10 Petrol Unleaded CH

Toxic Waste 1.09E-05 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

1.000 hi 0 Production of Beer

Waste Non Inert 2.90E+00 kg 9 1.00E+00

0.001 kg 10 Computerhardware

Energetic Resources 2.72E+00 MJ 10 1.00E+00



0.179 kg 10 Fuel CH

Energetic Resources 9.73E+00 MJ 14.1 1.00E+00

Waste Inert 1.76E-02 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

Toxic Waste 9.95E-05 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

1.943 MJ 10 Natural Gas CH


0.130 kg 10 Labels (Paper.)


Waste Inert 1.59E-02 kg 12.2 1.00E+00

Toxic Waste 2.02E-05 kg 11.3 1.00E+00


0.070 kg 10 European Coal (Storage)


Abfall 3.80E-02 kg 14.1 1.00E+00 Inertstoffdeponie

11.020 kg 10 Glass-One Way





125

C Case Study



1.383 kg 10 Glas·Return (new)





41.749 kg 10 Glass.fleturn (used)


Waste Inert 6.75E-01 kg 31.6 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 2.85E-05 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

0.132 kg 10 Crates·Return (PE newl


Waste Inert 2.64E-02 kg 31.6 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 8.95E-05 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

11.253 kg 10 Crates-Return (PE used)





0.083 kg 10 FuelCH


Toxic Waste 4.56E-05 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

0.016 kg 10 Hop Extract


0.024 kg 10 Hop Pellets









8.231 kg 10 Keg (Steel recycled)


Waste Inert 8. 74E-02 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

Waste Non Inert 8. 18E-03 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

Toxic Waste 5.61E-05 kg 31.6 1.00E+00



Waste Inert 1.64E-01 kg 31.6 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 7.74E-04 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

126





Waste Inert 2.32E-01 kg 31.6 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 1.40E-03 kg 31.6 1.00E+00

0.040 kg 10 Glue


0.037 kg 10 Glue


0.040 kg 10 Glue


0.037 kg 10 Leim

Toxic Waste l.33E-05 kg 51 1.00E+00



Waste Inert 1.47E-01 kg 10.1 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 4.54E-04 kg 10.1 1.00E+00

1.773 kg 10 Paletts·One Way (Wood)

Energetic Resources l.30E+02 MJ 10 1.00E+00



Toxic Waste l.38E-04 kg 10 1.00E+00

5.938 kg 10 Paletts One Way (Wood)

Energetic Resources 4.35E+00 MJ 10 l.OOE+OO

4.500 kg 10 Paletts in Incinerator

Waste Inert 9.58E-03 kg 31.6 1.00E+00


0.Dl8 kg 10 Foil (PE)

Energetic Resources 2.63E+00 MJ 10 l.OOE+OO


0.079 kg 10 Phosphoric Acid 75%



0.554 kg 10 Steel ·Tins 5 I (Steel)

Energetic Resources 7.53E+01 MJ 10.3 l.OOE+OO

Waste Inert 5.88E-01 kg 12.1 1.00E+00

Wa ste Non Inert 5.51E-02 kg 12.5 1.00E+00

Toxic Waste 3.78E-04 kg 11.2 1.00E+00


Energetic Resources 1.76E+02 MJ 14.1 l.OOE+OO

Waste Inert 1.87E-01 kg 14.1 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 1.62E-04 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

100.000 I lOT ran sport Retailer-Household

127

C Case Study



Energetic Resources 8.70E+Ol MJ 14.1 1.00E+00



Toxic Waste 1.00E-03 kg 11.5 1.00E+00

Waste Hazaroudous 1.67E-02 kg 13.9 1.00E+00

Waste Landfarming 9.93E-03 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

8.463 tkm 10 Transport Truck 28 t




Toxic Waste 4.50E-04 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

Waste Hazardous 8.80E-03 kg 14.1 1.00E+00



Waste Inert 1.99E+00 kg 14.1 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 2.12E-04 kg 14.1 1.00E+00

0.666 kg 10 Tray-One Way inkl. 6-Pack (Cardboard)

Energetic Resources 3.76E+Ol MJ 10_6 1.00E+00



Toxic Waste 1.28E-04 kg 11.3 1.00E+00

0.154 kg 10 Tray-Foils (PE)


Waste Inert 4.41E-02 kg 12.1 1.00E+00


Toxic Waste 1.20E-04 kg 12.1 1.00E+00

0.216 kg 10 Lids IPE and Metal)


Waste Non Inert 1.39E-Ol kg 12.1 1.00E+00

Waste Hazardous 1.23E-02 kg 12 1.00E+00

Toxic Waste 1.22E-04 kg 11.6 1.00E+00

0.094 kg 10 Lids (PE)



Waste Non Inert 7.67E-03 kg 12.1 1.00E+OO


1.000 hi 30 TrasportTrader-Retailer




Toxic Waste 2.91E-04 kg 58.3 1.00E+00

Waste Hazardous 6.30E-03 kg 58.3 1.00E+00

128


References

Braunschweig, A.; Forster, R. ; Hofstetter, P. and Miiller-Wenk, R. (1994): Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden fUr Okobilanzen. Erste Ergebnisse. IWODiskussionsbeitrag 19. St.Gallen: IWO.

Biichel, K. (1995): Final Report of the Research Project "LCA of Agricultural Production". Tanikon: FAT.

Bundesamt fiir Statistik (1991): Mikrozensus Verkehrsverhalten 1989. Bern: BFS. Bundesamt fiir Statistik (1994): Statistisches lahrbuch der Schweiz 1993. Bern: BFS. BUW AL (1986): Schadstoffemissionen des privaten Strassenverkehrs 1950 - 2000. Schriften

reihe Umwelt Nr. 55. Bern: BUW AL. BUWAL (1991): Okobilanz von Packstoffen. Stand 1990. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132.

Bern: BUW AL. Heijungs R.; Guinee, 1.; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes, H. (1992): En

vironmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: Centrum voor Milieukunde.

INFRAS (1995): Okoinventar Transporte, Ziirich: INFRAS (in preparation). Maillefer, e. and Fawer, M. (1995): Allocation Problems in Dairies: Possibilities Related to

the Available Data. Proceedings of the European Workshop on Allocation in LCA. 24. - 25. February. Leiden: SETAe.

Menard, M. (1995): Methodische Probleme von Entsorgungsprozessen in Okobilanzen. Prasentation an den Clausius-Gesprachen. 7. luni 1995. Ziirich: ETH.

Nipkow, 1. (1990): Energiesparkiihlschrank, NEFF-Forschungsprojekt 397. Ziirich: ARENA.

Schaltegger, St. and Sturm A. (1994): Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen. Okologisches Rechnungswesen statt Okobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte. Bern: Haupt, 2. Edition.

Schaltegger, St. and Sturm A. (1995): Oko-Effizienz durch Oko-Controlling. Ziirich/Stuttgart: VDF/Schaffer-Poeschel.

129

Part D

Environmental Management of Production Sites

9 Eco-Efficiency of LeA. The Necessity of a Site-Specific Approach

by Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel l

This chapter deals with economics rather than with technics of LCA. The text discusses the eco-efficiency of the current approach of LeA compared to site-specific environmental management.

Not only environmental but also financial resources for environmental protection are scarce. Firms and governments should therefore spend their budgets efficiently to obtain the maximum benefit for the environment. The key Figure measuring how much environmental protection has been achieved with scarce financial resources is the eco-efficiency. To improve eco-efficiency, the tools of environmental management must be eco-efficient themselves: i.e. they must be economically efficient and lead to ecologically sound decisions (section 9.1).

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is regarded as one of the most important environmental management tools. It attempts to consider the ecological leverage effect of a firm (section 9.2). So far, the potential benefits of LCA have been discussed extensively in the academic as well as in the professional literature (see, e.g., Fava et al. 1991). However, the actual effects, including the costs of LCA, have been much neglected (section 9.3). Three possible strategies to improve LCA can be distinguished (section 9.4): a) to continue with the present approach of LCA, b) to focus on relevant interventions, or c) to consider site-specific LCA.

9.1 Efficiency of Environmental Management Tools

Economic rational management is characterized by being efficient, as the purpose of economic behaviour is to manage scarcity in the best possible manner. In general, efficiency measures the relation between output and input.2 The higher the output for a given input, or the smaller

The author is grateful for the very valuable comments of Frank Figge, Derek Haberstich, Henriette Hindrichsen, Ruedi Kubat and an anonymous reviewer.

133

D Environmental Management of Production Sites

the input for a given output, the more efficient is an activity, product, firm, or nation.

From an economic perspective, tools of corporate environmental management must be eco-efficient and lead to management decisions that effectively reduce environmental impacts. The concept of eco-efficiency was first introduced and discussed in the academic press (Schaltegge,r and Sturm 1990). However, the term "eco-efficiency" was not popularized before Schmidheiny, and later, the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BSCDP published "Changing Course" at the UNCED conference in Rio in 1992 (Schmidheiny 1992; BCSD 1993).

Eco-efficiency is defined by the ratio between value added and environmental impact added4 , or more generally spoken, by the ratio between an ecological and an economic performance indicator (Schaltegger and Sturm 1990).5

Hence, eco-efficiency of an environmental management tool can be measured by the ratio between the economic costs and the ecological benefits emanating from the application of the tool. The ecological benefits of an environmental management tool are demonstrated by its ability to provide accurate, representative information and to support ecologically beneficial decisions.

Eco-Efficiencyof an - nvironmclltal

anagemen t Tool

Created - cologica l Benefits

Economic Costs

2 Efficiency is a multi-dimensional measurement, since the units in which the output and the input are measured c an be varied.

3 Since 1995: World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 4 Environmental impact added is the measure of environmental interventions which are

assessed according to their relative environmental impact. Environmental impact added is the correlative of value added, as no economic activity is without environmental impacts (Schaltegger and Sturm 1990). It is acknowledged that this definition of environmental impact added does not cover all aspects of sustainable development, such as socio-cultural, political and technological aspects. 1 n calculating the value added, other factors not assessed include whether the value added was achieved by increasing economic opportunities for the poor, whether products and services were oriented towards satisfying basic needs or whether participative involvement of the workforce. neighbourhoods, etc. in decision-making and policy-setting were practiced.

5 This definition of eco-efficiency is also referred to as economic-ecological efficiency (Schaltegger and Sturm 1990).

134

Eco-Efficiency of LeA. The Necessity of a Site-Specific Approach

In most cases the ecological benefits cannot be measured in monetary units. However, as an approximation, ecological benefits in the sense of actual and potential effects on the natural environment can be measured quantitatively in physical units. The relative magnitude of ecological effects and their positive or negative impact may still be questioned.

The follewing section discusses the main goal of the present practice of LeA. Section 9.3 deals with the economic costs of LeA and the created ecological effects achieved with it. These will be discussed in comparison to site-specific environmental management.

9.2 The Ecological Leverage Effect

From an economic perspective, different measures 0f environmental protection should be compared to evaluate the most effective alternative. In some cases overall eco-efficiency could be enhanced to a greater extent with better product designs that reduce environmental impacts for the customers than with investments to reduce environmental impacts in the company conducting a LeA.

Such a situation occurs with a large "ecological leverage effect". The ecological leverage effect is the ratio between the effect that better designed products have on the eco-efficiency of the customer, and the effect of environmental protection activities on the eco-efficiency of the company conducting a LeA. In other words, the ecological leverage effect is the relation between the environmental effects of better products and the effects of better management of the firm 's sites.

The ecological leverage shows if it is more worthwhile investing in environmental improvement of production devices in the firm or in the improvement of products themselves. A large ecological leverage effect can be expected for firms with increasing marginal costs of environmental protection, for certain manufacturers of pollution prevention devices, or in service industries like banks.

135


LeA attempts to be a holistic approach that allows us to consider the ecological leverage effect and therefore to impede suboptimization. Ideally, all environmental impacts of the total product life-cycle could be recorded accurately and assessed according to their actual environmental impacts. This would permit comprehensive optimization of the product design and reduction of the main environmental interventions over the whole product life-cycle with least costs.

In principle, LeA aims at this goal (Pidgeon and Brown 1994). The benefits of such an LeA would definitely be high in an ideal world.

9.3 Eco-Efficiency of LeA

It has been shown in the last section that LeA aims at creating ecological as well as economic benefits. However, to assess the eco-efficiency of the LeA approach not only the potential positive effects but the actual effects, including the costs, have to be considered.

At first sight that all environmental impacts of the whole life-cycle of all products of a firm should be assessed seems very convincing. However, in practical terms such an "ideal LeA" is not feasible. It must be acknowledged that the costs of carrying out a comprehensive LeA are exorbitantly high. Furthermore, the current approach of LeA has major drawbacks which drastically impair its efficacy and efficiency. Among the major problems are:

• recording of data from pre- and post-steps

• uncertainty and lack of precision of recorded data

• aggregation of environmental interventions with different spatial impacts

• no scientifically sound methods to assess environmental impacts

9.3.1 Recording, Uncertainty and Lack of Precision

To compute all actual environmental interventions accurately is not feasible. To conduct a representative LeA with specific data is much too time-consuming and expensive for a firm or a state. To collect company-external data alone will never be successful. To receive large quantities of trustworthy, high quality, representative data from presteps (suppliers and suppliers of the suppliers, etc.) as well as from post -steps (distribution, customers, disposal, etc.) is exorbitantly expen-

136

Eco·Efficiency of LeA. The Necessity of a Site·Specific Approach

sive and practically impossible. The LCA applier would depend on the total cooperation and dedication of reliable external suppliers and customers who were truly motivated to collect data in their firms for him or her. In practice, the costs of collection increase whereas the quality of the data declines substantially with distance from the firm (cf. Figure 9.1).

High

E Costs of -; Information <5 Collection

l:i :s Quality of U Infonnalion

./ ---r - - -r-- _ I I-I I r--_

I I I I I

LOwL-______ L-______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~I ______ _L ______ _.

Suppliers Soppliers Produktion Distribution Consumption Disposal

Product Life Cycle

Figure 9.l Representativity, quality, completeness, reliability and accuracy of information in a LeA

This is why publicly available databases with environmental interventions of pre-steps and post-steps have been established (e.g. BUWAL 1990; CCME 1995; ESU 1994). Databases of pre-steps cover commonly used raw materials, semi-products (e.g. aluminum) and energies (e.g. electric power) whereas databases of post -steps include downstream processes (e.g. sewage plants). These, so-called background inventory data (c.f. chapter 4) often represent an industry average of environmental interventions which are related to the respective materiaL The public availability of these data allows small and medium size businesses to carry out LCAs and ensures that most LCA applications are based on the same or similar data for inputs and waste of preand post-steps. In fact, for the individual applier, the costs of carrying out a LCA decrease with the improved availability of background inventory data.6

6 With background inventory data , the cost curve shown in Figure 9.1 rotates through 180 for the individual applier (the collection of data at pre- and post-steps is much lower than for the company-internal data). However, the total macroeconomic cost of conducting an LCA increase substantially, and the cost curve gets even steeper than shown in Figure 9.1 , because of the costs of collecting the background inventory data (which are externalized by the individual applier and borne by public organizations), and because of the decreased representativity of the LCA data (less useful information).

137


Figure 9.2 shows the present approach to data collection in conducting LeAs. The information of the firm (foreground data) is often specific whereas the information about the environmental interventions of pre- and post-steps is taken from background inventory data.

"Real" Product Life yclc

."

.~--;;;-::> ,,co

!Jal"kgmulI(/ "W~nIOr) Dala

(\ndu'lr) vcr;lgc) +

Calculation of Product Life Cycle

Figure 9.2

FOrl'glnll"l/ IIl\'entol) Data

( pccilic)

Data collection with the present approach of LeA

+ !Jul"kgmlllll'

111\ 'ntor), DlIIa (\ndu,lr> AI'cragc)

---[ - 7 ___ 5.

r. '"

However, the use of background inventory data is not without major flaws, even if the process of conducting a LeA is seen to be more important than the quantiative result of the LeA. The collectors of background inventory data fully depend on the readiness of the respective industries to provide the requested data, whereas industry has many incentives to forward the most favorable data. In addition, with many information suppliers no comparable standard of data quality can be achieved.1

The industry average also hides the highs and lows of especially good and bad manufacturers. One reason why practitioners and scientists are increasingly apt to forget about the constant small differences and changes which make up most environmental degradation may be their growing preoccupation with statistical aggregates, which show a very much greater stability than site- and time-specific data. The statistics from background inventory data, which are centrally collected, are (and have to be) arrived at precisely by abstracting from minor (but crucial) differences. Environmental interventions which differ in place or time

7 For data quality indicators relevant to LeA, see e.g. Appendix B in Fava et al. (1992).

138

Eco·Efficiency of LeA. The Necessity of a Site-Specific Approach

of occurence are lumped together as numbers of one kind, although their local and time-specific environmental impact may be significantly different for many decisions. Hence, the users of background inventory data and purchaser of raw materials cannot distinguish and discriminate between suppliers according to their environmental performance. However, the choice of the supplier is sometimes more relevant than the choice of an input such as a raw material or a semi-manufactured product (c.f. chapter 5).

For practitioners, the representativity and decision-usefulness of the LeA has vastly decreased with the simplification of the procedure using publicly available inventory data. Furthermore, background inventory data suppress the initiative to be an industry leader. Advanced manufacturers are punished for being member of a "dirty industry" whereas the laggards profit from being freeriders of the advanced firms in the same industry. The only incentives provided may be f.or industry representatives to cheat when calculating the industry average for environmental interventions of a raw material.

In addition, the costs of building up service data modules are usually borne by public institutions, in other words the taxpayers, which is in contrast to the "polluter pays principle".

In conclusion, background inventory data reduce costs of data collection to individual users but result in an even higher loss of representativity and accuracy of the provided information.

Another major drawback of LeA is the uncertainty and lack of precision in recorded data which is often connected with the use of background inventory data. As shown in Figure 9.1 , for many errors uncertainty and lack of precision in inventory data increase with the distance from the information collector (the firm). With the collection and use of background inventory data this gets even worse. As the epoch-marking work of Johnson and Kaplan (1987a and 1987b) has shown for management accounting, information is no longer relevant, when the data are outdated, too aggregated and too distorted (average data instead of specific data) . It has even been acknowledged in the LeA community that the calculated data are of disputable quality (Fava et al. 1992). The consequence is that: "The total error of an LeA can easily become larger than the calculated differences of ecological impacts of products and services." (c.t chapter 5) From an economic point of view it can be added that an LeA can only create value for companyexternal stakeholders when the information has been externally audited according to generally accepted, standardized procedures. So far, such procedures have only been standardized for the environmental management of sites and firms.

139


9.3.2 Aggregation, Assessment and Other Problems

Today's LCA practices suggest the aggregation of environmental interventions with different spatial impacts. However, aggregated numbers of local emissions do not provide any valuable information as they do not say anything about potential or even actual environmental impacts. One ~ilogramme of mercury emitted in one hour at one place may kill many people but the same amount emitted over a year at a hundred places may be without any significant impact. The LCA inventory shows aggregated data of interventions with local impacts at very different places. "What environmental significance can be attributed to an LCA inventory total of 30 tonnes of COD, made up of 10 tonnes discharged in Australia, 15 tonnes discharged in Holland and 5 tonnes discharged in Mexico?" (Perriman 1995,4) The sum of those local interventions has little meaning. Only global interventions caD. be sensibly aggregated on a global level (MUller et al. 1994).

The same is true for the current methods of life cycle impact assessment. They still fail to consider local circumstances and habitats. From an ecological perspective, these assessment approaches are of little use as they do not help to calculate actual or potential but rather hypothetical impacts.

Several other problems show that today's LCA practices and developments are inadequate as they cannot help to curb environmental impacts effectively:

• LCA is regarded as a typical interdisciplinary field of research. This has led to an increased specialization of the researchers involved and of the topics treated in LCA. The enhanced specialization has also resulted in a methodical procedure that is packed with many additional conceptual steps (characterization, classification, normalization, etc.). For practitioners, this development has improved but also complicated LCA enormously.

• The constant change of methods creates inconsistencies and insecurites among practitioners. This is a typical characteristic for tools in development. Nonetheless, these inconsistencies impede comparisons between products and over a given period.

• In addition, the increasing number of details treated enhances the costs of application.

• LCA is currently limited in that its ecological calculations are based on single samples (that are rarely, if ever, resampled in subsequent periods) from a small group of products and businesses. So far, all

140


methods of life cycle assessment are only able to give a static image of a "hypothetically possible, potential situation". Mostly no continuous LCA accounting, similar to finanical accounting, is applied. However, for continuous environmental improvement continuous ecological accounting is necessary.

9.3.3 Inefficiency of the Present Approach of LeA

In summary, there are two main reasons why the present approach of LCA is far from being able to fulfil the vision of a comprehensive environmental management method and a helpful decision tool:

• From an economic point of view today's LCA is likely to give the wrong incentives to management and government. It is not the best firms (suppliers) but the apparently best industry-average that is rewarded_ Considering the small potential benefit which could possibly be produced (as well as the high probability and costs of potentially wrong decisions), today's LCA approaches are inefficient and too expensive. The use of publicly available background inventory data may result in wrong decisions, and any benefit to the natural environment may suffer substantially or even be negative. In addition, the costs of building up and maintaining background inventory databases are externalized to society (the taxpayers) which is in contrast to the widely accepted "polluter pays principle"_ Costs for an economy or a firm are not only direct costs but most of all foregone costs (opportunity costs). Therefore, the inefficiency of the LCA tool is especially obvious when comparing with the practical experiences of the positive impacts of other management tools such as environmental aUditing, eco-controlling, Total Quality Environmental Management, etc. Although the latter are also in a development stage they already create and work with specific, and thus more reliable and accurate information.

• From an ecological perspective, the present approach of LCA tends to provide results that are unrepresentative (i.e. based on background inventory data) and very questionable (i.e. global aggregation of interventions with local impacts at different places, etc.). Wrong decisions may result from using background inventory data (unrepresentative information and low data quality for pre- and post-steps). At first glance, it is a commendable goal to impede suboptimization by considering comprehensive life-cycle systems. However, environmental impacts are defined by their actual effect

141


on specific eco-systems and habitats. All eco-systems have a location and all environmental problems have a spatial dimension of which only a few cover the globe (such as the greenhouse effect). Ecologically, it therefore does not make any sense to aggregate interventions with local impacts that occur in different eco-systems. Such a life cycle perspective does not impede but rather creates ecological supoptimization!

Nonetheless, in the struggle to overcome these and many other drawbacks (e.g. lack of scientifically sound methods for valuation of environmental problems) some progress has also been achieved. Among the main recent improvements towards an "ideal LeA" are:

• The accuracy of impact assessment has increased with the distinction of the impact assessment procedure into several separate, more detailed steps (characterization, classificatiQ{1, valuation) .

• Additional experiences with LeA have led to the development of more efficient software tools.

• The stronger link between various LeA research groups has resulted in some consensus and more consistent application of similar approaches.

9.4 Possible Strategies to Improve the Present Approach of Life Cycle Assessment

How could LeA, the calculation of environmental impacts of products, be developed into a comprehensive, accurate and reliable management tool?

Basically, three possible strategies of improvement can be distinguished:

Strategy A

• More research and more data: One popular suggestion is that the usefulness of LeA for decision making could be improved with more research for more and better background inventory data, better software tools, and more sophisticated and detailed LeA procedures.

Strategy B

• Simpler and cheaper tools: Another approach is to develop and use simpler and cheaper concepts, to focus on a limited number of

142


relevant interventions and to carry out screening methods instead of building up detailed inventories.

Strategy C

• Site-specific LCA: A third proposItIon is to concentrate on the site-specific information of every firm. Consistent quality of the collected" data of every firm is guaranteed with the verification of an external auditor. To compile an LCA, site-specific data of the life cycle steps of a product are aggregated.

From an economic perspective, the emphasis on the current LCA development (strategy A) must fail because the organizational approach is too centralistic. The attempt to collect background inventory information of various steps of a life cycle and of different firms of the same industry (and therefore from many different economic-actors) from one central place entails extremely high collection costs (ct. Figure 9.2). This is also reflected in the need for ever larger computer systems to handle the inventory data.

Today, background inventory data are centrally collected for each industry (so there are several central collectors). Consequently, to enhance the overview and to facilitate access for firms, the collection of background inventory data for all materials, semi-manufactured products and industries would be taken together.

To continue this strategy, intensive cooperation between the actors in a product life-cycle would be necessary. However, such developments result in the establishment of carte lis and are in stark contrast to liberal markets and economic theory in general.s This aspect is gaining relevance in the context of European and global efforts to deregulate and liberalize markets. Therefore, proponents of strategy A have to expect ever more opposition in the future .

In addition, the incentives for the actual suppliers of information (i.e . the industry providing information to the central collector) are adverse. Experiences from former economies in Eastern Europe have proved that central collection of information and central planning must fail. The general case of a third party overriding individual transactors' preferences and site-specific knowledge results in ineffective and inefficient solutions.

However, many supporters of the technological perspective have spent a lot of time and large sums of money on the development and

8 Therefore , the development of the LeA approach ought to be closely observed e.g. by anti cartell commissions.

143


application of LCA.9 These "investments" will prevent most from changing their opinion for the next couple of years.

More promising is strategy B which is implicitly based on the general rule that, for example, 80% of the problem can be recognized and solved with 20% of the costs faced whereas an additional improvement of 20% requires 80% more resources. According to this experience a coneentratio..n on a limited number of environmental interventions reduces costs substantially.

However, for LCA this approach neither improves the quality (accuracy, actuality, representativity, etc.) of background inventory data nor does it necessarily solve the problem that only environmental interventions with global impacts should be aggregated on a global level (and conversely regional impacts on a regional level, local impacts on a local level, etc.). Also, what are relevant environmental interventions and who is to decide this? The economic problem in general, as well as that of environmental protection, is " ... how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know. Or to put it briefly, it is a problem of utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality. " (Hayek 1945,520) Furthermore, to external users of information the reliability and representativity of data can only be guaranteed through external auditing of site-specific information according to international standards.

Economically, it is obviously wiser to encourage economic actors to collect the necessary data individually (ct. Figure 9.3) than to promote the central collection of LCA data, including background inventory data of pre- and post -steps of a firm. This means that every firm should concentrate on the accounting of those environmental interventions that can be measured fairly accurately (strategy C): the site-specific environmental interventions of one's own firm (or nation).lo This permits the use of well-established information channels of every organization, which are in any case more efficient than centrally planned information collection. Furthermore, this results in higher quality and accuracy of data as well as better representativity of the actual situation.

9 The fact that only little has been achieved with large research budgets reflects the inefficiency of the present LeA approach.

10 Site-specific environmental interventions can have local as well as global impacts. It is important that only those interventions which impact the same eco-systems are considered, aggregated and assessed. Interventions with local impacts in different eco-systerns must not be aggregated before the site-specific interventions have been assessed site-specifically. Or in other words. only the impact scores (environmental impact added indicators) of local impacts may be aggregated.

144

Eco-Efficiency of LCA. The Necessity of a Site-Specific Approach

Likewise, tools which are compatible with established methods of accounting and management can be applied.

To support site-specific ecological accounting, the government (regulators) can establish adequate incentive systems. The passing of the Environmental Management and Eco-Audit System (EMAS) for the European Union is a first step in the right direction. EMAS and ISO 14001 give seme incentives to firms to account for their sites. In addition, a certain quality and consistency of data is guaranteed with external auditing and verification of site-specific data.

"Rcal" Product Life Cycle

Specific II1\'entory Data

+

Calculalion of ile-Specific L A

Figure 9.3:

Specific I nventory Data

Collection of data for a site-specific LCA

+ Specilic Inv<,lllor D<lt;I

In order to collect product-specific information, incentives should be given to industry, retail etc. to maintain the specific product information that has already been recorded and audited separately for each manufacturing and warehousing unit From an economic point of view, the firms should be able to organize themselves to collect the necessary data to aquire a "green" product label. All data have to be specifically collected, recorded and audited at each site and in every firm (ct Figure 9.3). This is in complete contrast to one firm or a very few organizations collecting all data in a centralistic way (ct. Figure 9.2). Also, no background inventory data have to be provided. The data used for decision making are specific, representative, collected individually, and usually have a consistent, verified standard of quality. Product-oriented accounting can only prevail if industry is given clear standards and a more active role so that it can put its enterpreneurial power into action.

145


To encourage this development, governments must establish strong incentives for audited, site-specific ecological accounting as well as to firms to establish cooperation between suppliers, producers and customers (strategic environmental alliances) for the independent gathering of audited site-specific data at various steps of a product life cycle. 11

Only standardized site-specific data can be compared over time and betw-een firms. Therefore, standardization organizations and/or governments have to define clear standards of site-specific ecological accountingY The data can also be made easily verifiable and useful for external stakeholders. Hence, the information collected inside the firm could also be used for external purposes.

Today, background inventory data are indeed provided by industry, but the difference is that the calculated background inventory data are not representative but an obscure industry average, that the data are not audited, and that nobody really knows how the data were derived (no guaranteed consistent quality of data).

Today's LCA approach, building up basic data bases with background inventory data on industry averaged environmental interventions of raw materials, semi-manufactured products, etc., destroys all incentives for firms to become environmental leaders of the respective industry. If firm- and site-specific ecological accounting were standardized and audited the data could be passed on as product information from one company to the next. Thus, the ecological accounting of a firm would facilitate the product-oriented accounting for subsequent firms in the product life cycle chain.

9.5 Summary and Conclusions

Tools of corporate environmental management must be eco-efficient and must efficiently lead to management decisions that reduce environmental impacts effectively.

It has been shown that the current approach of LCA using background inventory data has major drawbacks which drastically impair its efficacy and efficiency. Compared to site-specific environmental management tools, LCA is not eco-efficient in its current form. Although

11 Some rare exceptions may exist where the site-specific approach may not differ from an approach using background inventory data. The best example might be electric power which is supplied in the Western electric network. because it is a relatively homogeneous commodity.

12 EMAS, BS 7750 and the draft of ISO 14001 are first steps in this direction.

146


the LCA and site-specific approaches are often seen as complementary, the quality of information produced differs greatly.

Consequently, LCA should only be taken as a philosophy for strategic management to think about product life-cycles on principle, or the current approach of LCA should be improved very much.

Basically, three strategies of improvement can be distinguished: a) more research and more background inventory data, b) development and use of simpler and cheaper tools of LCA, c) a focus on site-specific information and on site-specific tools of environmental management. The discussion of these strategies of improvement leads to the following conclusion:

• If there are no substantial reasons to do otherwise, concentrate on the site-specific environmental interventions of the firm. The main reason for the assessment of product life cycles is_a large expected ecological leverage effect. However, the ecological leverage effect can only be reliably calculated with site-specific, externally audited data.

• Use site-specific tools to monitor, record and analyze site-specific environmental interventions. Do not use obscure average industry data (background inventory data) which has not been audited.

• Aggregate only site-specifically recorded, accurate, actual and externally audited data of environmental interventions.

• Aggregate only environmental interventions with the same (or similar) spatial and time dimension: i.e. only environmental interventions with global impact should be aggregated on a global basis.

From an idealistic point of view, these steps may promise less potential benefits than current LCA. However, today's environmental problems are real. The focus on site-specific information promises to produce more actual benefits with less economic costs than the current approach of LCA, because information can be derived with environmental management tools analogous to established management concepts, and because actions are based on more accurate and reliable information. The accounting of environmental impacts of products should be based on audited site-specific information only.

Only those researchers and managers who regard today's environmental problems as an illusion can play number games with hypothetical and potential improvements in an ideal, artificial world without spatial and time dimensions. All other people prefer to focus as much as possible on actual impacts in the real world.

147


References

Battelle (1993): Life-Cycle Assessment: Public Data Sources for the LCA Practitioner. Washington D.e.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Brunn, H. (1995): "Putting LCA Back in Its Track!". LCA News. Vol. 5, No.2, 2 - 4. BUW AL (1991): Ecobalance Inventories for Packaging Materials (in German: Okobilanzen

von Packstoffen). Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz (SRU). Nr. 132/9 1. Bern: BUWAL. Carlton, e. and Howell, B. (1992): "Life Cycle Analysis: A Tool for Solving Environmental

Preblems?". European Environment, Vol. 2, Part 3, April, 2 - 5. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (1995): Sources of Data for tbe

Life-cycle Analyses of Canadian Packaging Products. Ottawa: CCME. Daalmans, R. (1995): "LCA Excursions Along the Road to Approapriate Use". LCA-News,

Vol. 5, No.4, 1 - 3. ENDS-Report (1994): "The Elusive Consensus on Life-Cycle Assessment. Environmental

Impact Analysis No. 38". ENDS Report 231, April. 20 - 25 ESU (Gruppe Energie-Stoffe-Umwelt der ETH ZUrich) (1994): Basisdaten fur Energiesys

teme. ZUrich: ESU. Fava, J.; Denison, R; Jones, B.; Curran , M.; Vigon, B.; Selke, S. and Barnum, J. (Eds.) (1991) :

A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessmen. Smugglers Notch, Vermont: SETAe. Fava, J.; Jensen, A.: Linfors, L.; Pomper, S.; De Smet, B; Warren, J. and Vigon, B. (1992):

Life Cycle Assessment Data Quality. A Conceptual Framework. Wintergreen: SETAe. Heijungs, R; Guinee. G.; Huppes, R.; Lankreijer, H.; Udo de Haes, H.; Wegener Sleeswijk.

A; Ansems, P.: Eggels, P.; van Duin, R and de Goede, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: CML (Center of Milieukunde University of Leiden, Netherlands).

ISO (International Standardization Organization) (1994): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, Draft to be included in WG I-document on Life-Cycle Assessment - General Principles and Procedures. London: ISO.

MUller. K.; De Frutos, J.; SchUssler, K. and Haarbosch, H. (1994): Environmental Reporting and Disclosures. The Financial Analysts View. Basel: EFFAS.

PCEQ (President's Commission on Environmental Quality) (1993): A Framework for Pollution Prevention. Washington D.e.: PCEQ.

Perriman, R. (1995): "Is LCA Loosing It's Way?". LCA News, Vol. 5, No.2, 4 - 5. Pidgeon, S. and Brown, D. (1994): "The Role of Lifecycle Analysis in Environmental

Management: A General Panacea or One of Several Useful Paradigms?". Greener Management International, Vol. 7, July, 36 - 44.

Pohl, e.; Ros, M.; Waldeck, B. and Dinkel, F. (1995): Uncertainty and Lack of Precision in LCA. Schaltegger, S. et al.: LCA - Quo Vadis? Basel: Birkhauser.

Ream, T. and French, e. (1993): A Framework and Methods for Conducting a Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Research Triangle Park NC: U .S. E.P.A.

Rensch, H. (1992): "For Who Do LCA 's Create a Benefit?". (in German: "Wem nUtzen Okobilanzen?"). Neue ZUrcher Zeitung (NZZ), 23,/24. Januar, Nr. 18.

Schaitegger, S. (1994): "Contemporary Environmental Management Practice" (in German: "Zeitgemasse Instrumente des betrieblichen Umweltschutzes"). Die Unternehmung, No.2, 117 -131.

Schaltegger, S.; with MUller, K. and Hindrichsen, H. (1996): Corporate Environmental Accounting. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1990): "Ecological Rationality". (in German: "Okologische Rationalitat" ). Die Unternehmung. No.4, 273 - 290.

Schaitegger, S. and Sturm. A. (1994): Environmentally Oriented Decisions in Firms. Ecological Accounting instead of Ecobalancing: Necessity, Criteria. Concepts. (in German: Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen . Okologisches Rechnungswesen statt Okobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte). Bern: Haupt, 2. Edition (1. Edition 1992).

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1995): Eco-Efficiency Through Eco-Controlling. For the Implementation of EMAS and ISO 14'001 (in German: Oko-Effizienz durch Oko-Con-

148


trolling. Zur praktischen Umsetzung von EMAS und ISO 14'001), ZurichfStuttgart: vdffSchaffer-Poeschel.

Schmid heiny, S. (1992): Changing Course (in German: Kurswechsel. Globale unternehmerische Perspektiven ftir Entwicklung und Umwelt). Mtinchen: Artemis and Winkler, 4. Edition.

SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) (1991): A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. Washington D.e.: SETAe.

SustainAbility; Spold andBiE (Eds.) (1992): The LCA Sourcebook. London: Spold. U.S. EPA (Risk Reduction Envineering Laboratoy Office of Research and Development)

(1992): Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principle. Cincinnati: U.S. EPA.

U.S. EPA (Office of Research and Development) (1993): Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual. Environmental Requirements and The Product System. Washington D.e.: EPA.

White, P.; De Smet, B. ; Udo de Haes, H. and Heijungs, R. (1995): "LCA Back on Track. But is it one track or two? ". LCA News, Vol. 5, No.3, 2 - 4.

149

10 Managerial Eco-Controlling

by Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel and Andreas Sturm, Ellipson Ltd. Basel

This chapter presents eco-controlling as a new tool for efficient and effective environmental management of production sites and firms which is in line with the current standards of EMAS, BS 7750 and ISO 14001 (c.t. chapter 1). Managerial eco-controlling is J?ased on the fundamental process of financial controlling. ' It envisages a strategic approach to environmental issues and proposes a systematic procedure with various steps from goal and strategy formulation to information management, decision support, piloting and communication (Schaltegger and Sturm 1995). The concept is specifically developed to link the environmental strategy with the financial and strategic intents of top management.

The concept presented here2 has benefited from the experience gained in several projects implementing eco-controlling in firms including Mohndruck GmbH and FeldschlOsschen Ltd.3

10.1 The Concept of Eco-Controlling

The Basel concept of managerial eco-controlling corresponds to the methods of financial and strategic controlling. The materials to be managed are the environmental impacts as well as the financial impacts of the firm. The eco-controlling concept can be divided into the five modules (ct. Figure 10.1):

For an overview of the basic concepts of controlling, see, for example, Horvath 1994; Horvath et al. 1991; Kraus 1990; Reichmann 1993; Serfling 1992.

2 For other approaches to eco-controlling. see for example, Seidel 1988, Schulz 1991 , Hallay and Pfriem 1992. An overview of existing approaches of eco-controlling is given in Schaltegger and Kempke 1996.

3 For an application of the present concept to the management of fauna and flora. see Buser and Schaltegger in: Schaltegger and Sturm 1995, 115 - 132.

151


• goal and policy formulation

• information management

• decision support

• piloting and implementation

• internal and external communication

Efficient environmental management in general requires an environmental policy as well as clear and measurable annual goals of corporate environmental protection. The goals should integrate economic with ecological aspects.

Information management is the core part of any environmental management system. Only what is measured will be managed. But frequently, the management suffers from too much detailed information impeding its efficient wOTk with the relevant data. Information

Communication

Figure 10.1 The Basel concept of eco·controlling

152

Pilolin

Goal SeHing

Information Management

Decision Support

Managerial Eco-Controlling

concerning environmental interventions therefore has to be assessed according to its relevance. Furthermore, decisions supporting tools integrating economic with environmental aspects are needed.

Effective environmental management requires incentive systems to pilot and implement the plans in the most efficient way. Internal communication plays a core role for efficient implementation. However, communication with external stakeholders also supports internal processes and increases the gain from environmental management.

Whilst it is important that a clear structure and a plan for all modules exists, the steps do not necessarily have to be completed one after the other. Nevertheless, the modules are presented in the logical order of introduction. The importance of each module of eco-controlling depends on the environmental issues the company is confronted with and on their effect on business success. However, management should consider carefully whether it has given every module enough thought. Too often environmental management tools are introduced without a clear view of the company's strategy.

10.2 Module 1 : Formulation of Goals and Policies

Unfortunately the formulation of clear goals and policies as the most important step of environmental management is often neglected. Many top managers feel the pressure to do something for the environment and embark on an "environmental activism", which contains many isolated activities but no clear direction. For a company to be a good and efficient environmental performer and to reap the benefits of being an environmentalleader in its markets, the "reason why" for investing in environmental management has to be very clear. It is therefore essential that top management is involved in the process of goal setting to ensure its commitment towards the formulated environmental strategy.

To assess the exposure and therefore the importance of different environmental issues for a company's overall performance is the first step in eco-controlling. Depending on this preliminary analysis the appropriate perspective and goals of eco-controlling will differ. The analysis should be conducted from the perspective of the stakeholders of the company, their needs and their importance for the success of the company. The degree of exposure to different environmental issues should guide the involvement and perspective of a firm when implementing eco-controlling. Here, environmental science must give management an indication of what (from the scientific perspective) the most dominant environmental issues are. These are important, because

153

high

low


Greenhouse Acid i-Effect liC<ll iol1

eelia

Agencies gencies

Media

Photochemical

l110g Toxic Waste

Neighbour. eighbours Agencies

Shareholder.

eelia uslomers

uSIOl11er. Agencies harcholdcrs

harcholelcrs

Neighbour.

cighbour ' hareholders

low Exposure of

Company high

Figure 10.2 Key environmental issues and environmental exposure of the company

they are likely to influence the company's success sooner or later, be it through new legislation, public or consumer perception and behaviour, or otherwise.

Figure 10.2 shows an exposure portfolio. The expected exposure of a firm to different environmental problems (e.g. greenhouse effect, depletion of the ozone layer, etc.) is depicted on the horizontal axis. The importance given to those environmental issues by various stakeholders is measured on the vertical axis.

This first module is, as mentioned, mainly a task for top management. Lower down the organization, line and staff managers can be involved in the formulation of strategies by contributing to working groups, which investigate and formulate an opinion on topics of special importance in their field of competence.

The analysis of the expected exposure of the firm to different environmental problems and the weight given to these aspects by various stakeholders enables management to focus on environmental issues with high priority for the firm (upper right corner). Nonetheless, the fields on the left in Figure 10.2 also need to be observed but less intensively. Issues with low public priority to which the firm contributes a lot may become a problem as soon as the perception of the stakeholders changes. New production investments, on the other hand can

154


increase the environmental impact of the firm when not anticipated early enough_ Therefore, the issue map has to be revised from time to time_

10.3 Module 2: Information Management

The recording of environmental information and environmentally induced financial information is necessary to build up a basis for decision making (see Schaltegger 1996).

10.3.1 Environmental Information

The collection and preparation of ecological information is a relatively new task for managers. However, considering the extensive experience with accounting and the management of economic information, it makes sense to apply these methods to the recording and analysis of ~cological information as well, and to conduct an inventory analysis on the basis of environmental accounts. This may follow the same methodology as management accounting (cf. Table 10_1).

Recording starts after having set up the specific accounts for the company. The identification of potential sources of data is the first step in data collection. Special attention has to be given to existing sources of environmentally relevant data, such as management accounting for the materials and the amount of energy used, discharge permits (waste, sewage, etc.), production statistics, technical specifications of the production machines, etc.

Once the data are recorded, the question arises, where and by which products the pollution may be caused. In analogy to cost centres and cost carriers, environmental impact added centres and environmental impact added carriers are identified. They enable the users of eco-controlling to analyze where a pollutant is emitted and by which products_ Depending on the industry this information can be important, for example, to assess the impact of a CO2 tax. To open the possibility of influencing the environmental performance, the exact sources of environmental interventions should be known_

155


Table 10.1 An example of an environmental account as applied at Feldschlosschen

Group 10 Material Inputs

100 Mineral Resources 101 Biomass 102 Water 103 ." 1 04 Fossile Energy Carriers

1040 Crude Oil 1041 Coal 1042 Gas

105 Regenerative Energy Carriers 106 Materials

1060 .. . 1061 .. .

107 Re- und Downcyclats 1070 .. . 1071 .. .

Group 20 Material Outputs

200 Products (Environmental Impact Added Carrier) 201 Re· und Downcyclats 203 Emissions

2050 Landfill 2051 Water emissions

20510 TOC 20511 Sulphur 20512 Water 20513 " .

2052 Air emissions 20520 C02 20521 NO. 20522 VOC 20523 ".

Economically, it does not make sense to aim at a full inventory of all mass and energy flows - in any case this goal can probably not be achieved. Usually, the process of data collection will be spread over several years, digging deeper each year until the marginal benefit of more detailed information matches the marginal costs of collection.

The close link to the management accounting methodology and terminology ensures a quick understanding of the data collection process by management and staff who have to contribute to the process as well as to the users of the data. Management accounting benefits from an environmental data inventory in that environmentally induced costs, such as energy costs or pollution abatement costs, can be allocated to the cost centres and the cost drivers that cause them.

To focus on selected, "relevant environmental interventions" (ct. chapter 6) does not permit the same degree of "fine tuning" in pollution prevention strategies as a comprehensive data inventory. On the other hand, much fewer resources have to be devoted to the completion of a focused data inventory and, if the process of focusing is well done, the data inventory may still offer a sound base for efficient eco-controlling.

As can be seen above, information management needs careful consideration concerning the software required (ct. chapter 7).

156


10.3.2 Financial and Environmentally-Induced Financial Information

Corporate (as well as public) environmental protection can only be successful if it is economically sustainable. It is therefore necessary to consider economic information in environmental protection.

From a conceptual point of view the required methods of accounting are known. Economic and financial information has been computed by firms for more than a hundred years. Extensive experience with different methods of accounting and information management has been gained and mutually beneficial structures and relationships of reporting have been established.

Nontheless, in practice financial and managerial accounting are often not differentiated according to environmentally induced information and other financial information. The process of differentiation can be started by searching the existing financial and managerial accounting systems for environmental costs and revenues. All costs and revenues related to environmental performance, such as disposal costs, clean-up costs, emission reduction costs, etc. have to be identified. This information gives a first indication of the fraction of total costs due to environmental issues and how much money can be saved by better environmental performance.

In a next step, the allocation of overhead costs has to be analyzed. Do the allocation methods reflect the different environmental effects of the materials used or the pollutants emitted? For example, does the allocation of the sewage costs take the financial impacts of different qualities of waste water into account, or are these costs allocated by cubic meter of waste water, without consideration of the incurred treatment costs? In the latter case environmentally benign products would subsidize environmentally harmful products and distort the calculation of prices.

When referring to environmental costs, another issue deserves the attention of the management (cf. Figure 10.3). When accounting for waste costs, most accounting systems simply record the waste treatment costs, such as the bill paid to the contracted waste management company (costs of disposal: III in Figure 10.3). Calculated in an economically correct way, internal waste costs usually increase significantly (cf. Table 10.2 for an example), making more investments in waste prevention worthwhile.

157


Production Steps (II )

~o&a..auuu..::L--:> Product

Figure 10.3 Correct allocation of environmentally induced costs

Table 10.2 Example of the significance of economically correct calculation of environmentally induced costs (Source: Wagner 1995)

Common Way to Calculate Environmentally Induced Costs

Costs of Disposal (III)

Fees

Disposal Costs

Total

158

500,000

300'000

800,000

Economically Correct Way to Calculate Environmentally Induced Costs

Costs of Disposal (III)

Fees

Disposal Costs

FirstTotal

Costs Incurred in Production (II)

Logistics and Transportation

Additional Personnel

Additional Depreciation

Storage

Second Total

Excess Material Input (I)

Purchase

Correct Total

500,000

300,000

800,000

150,000

250,000

200,000

100,000

1,5000,000

4,500,000

6,500,000


Mostly neglected are the costs generated by the handling of the excess material (which becomes waste in subsequent steps) , the occupation of machine capacities, etc. (d. II in Figure 10.3), as well as the costs for the purchase of excess material (d. I in Figure 10.3: inputs which become waste). These costs (I and II) should be allocated to the waste.

The reallocation of environmentally induced costs is an important part of making the company more environmentally efficient, because it highlights the potential for shared environmental and economic benefits.

10.4 Module 3: Decision Support

The goal of the third module of eco-controlling is to provide decision makers with a transparent and rational methodology for taking environmentally and economically sound decisions based on the data obtained in module two (cf. Figure 10.4).

The reason for collecting information on corporate environmental impacts as well as on environmentally induced financial impacts is to calculate eco-efficiency, i.e. to measure how well the operations of the firm contradict or contribute to the environmental strategy chosen. Eco-efficiency is defined by the ratio of value added per environmental impact added, i.e. the ratio between an economic performance indicator and an environmental performance indicator (Schaltegger and Sturm 1990).

The denominator of this ratio, environmental impact added, is the pleasure of all environmental interventions which are assessed according to their relative environmental impact (d. section 10.3.1). As no economic activity is without environmental interventions, environmental impact added is the correlative of value added. One effective way of visualizing eco-efficiency and sustainable development is the eco-efficiency portfolio (d. section 10.3.2).

10.4.1 Assessment of Environmental Interventions

In the decision support module, a system is necessary for assessing, aggregating and presenting the recorded data to support decision making. Decisions for setting environmental priorities within a company rely (often implicitly) on impact assessment approaches.

Ideally, all environmental interventions would be assessed according to their actual impact. However, most ofthe existing impact assessment

159

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Figure 10.4 Module decision support


Information Management

I Decision Support

I r-------A se ment ----------,

Valuation Cia -sification & Characterization

-1-'-- -, - . .. .

- ? - .

En ironmcntal Impact AddedI D I TORS

Piloting and Implementation

approaches were developed for life cycle impact assessment and only provide information about potential environmental impacts (Schaltegger and Sturm 1994)_

Most valuation approaches weigh different environmental interventions according to the relationship between legal environmental standards, or they compare the total emissions of a pollutant over a certain area with the environmental policy targets of a country_ Valuation approaches rely heavily on standards and policy targets. Thus, they give an informative picture of the priorities of a society (or at least its legislators). Valuation methods reflect the political and legal priorities which are relevant for the success of a company. They are also very well suited for decision making as they summarise all environmental issues to a single score in an environmental impact added index. It is precisely

160


this simplification that makes valuation methods suspect to scientists, who often question their scientific soundness.

As an alternative to valuation, classification and characterization approaches, where the environmental interventions are assessed according to their potential contribution to specific environmental problems (e.g. greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc.) are increasingly used. According to the approach of the Center of Environmental Science of the University of Leiden (CML) sixteen different classes of environmental problems are currently defined (Heijungs et al. 1992), but further developments are to be expected.

Classification and characterization, compared to valuation methods, are based more on natural sciences than on social sciences. They therefore enjoy a greater acceptance amongst the scientific community. The problem of using them for eco-controlling is that they do not give an indication of environmental performance in a single-·score. However, this is also an advantage, as weaknesses are apparent with the respective environmental impact added indicators even if the overall score (environmental impact added index) points in a positive direction. These indicators show, for example, when the potential contribution to global warming has increased whilst the potential contribution to acidification has been reduced.

For managers to come to a clear conclusion about the corporate environmental performance, a qualitative assessment of the importance of the various indicators (such as the contribution to photochemical smog per working day in summer) is necessary. The specific stakeholder exposure of the firm should also be considered when defining priorities for action. Therefore, the priorities must be based on the goals and policies defined as in the first module of eco-controlling. This process of weighting indicators is quite similar to the assessment of financial data, where a consensus on the importance of key figures for the company has also to be found .

10.4.2 The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio

Environmental indicators should always be put into the context of economic performance. Depending on the usage of eco-controlling, different portfolios can be drawn to show, for example, the difference between various sites of a company. Figure 10.5 shows the eco-efficiency portfolio.

The environmental performance is shown on the vertical axis and the economic performance on the horizontal axis. The environmental

161


Low

High~ ______________ ~ ______________ ~

Low Economic High

Figure 10.5 The eco-efficiency portfolio

measures will depend on the topic of analysis_ For the environmental performance, classification indicators and valuation indices can be taken. On the horizontal axes the net return on assets, or the shareholder value, are examples of adequate measures of the economic performance of a site or a firm_ If products (cost-carriers) were compared, the economic performance measure would in most companies be the contribution margin (no life-cycle consideration!)_ The measure taken is affected by the way environmental costs are allocated in management accounting.

Four positions can be distinguished in the eco-efficiency portfolio:

• Green stars (upper right corner in Figure 10.5) are sites, products, etc_ with low environmental impact added and high economic performance. Low costs are achieved through integrated, clean tech-

162


nologies. Their environmental impact was already optimized when they were developed. Apart from the relatively lower costs caused, there are some markets where consumers are willing to pay a price premium for environmentally friendly products. Costs savings as well as higher prices result in a higher economic performance. The development of green stars requires the implementation of a strategy of sustainable growth within the company.

• Dirty cash cows (lower right corner in Figure 10.5) are the result of a strategy of quantitative growth. They are characterized by relatively high financial revenues and high environmental impact added.

• Green question marks (upper left corner in Figure 10.5) are environmentally friendly, but achieve a relatively low economic performance. In the long run, green question marks do not contribute to sustainable development, as they cannot prevafl because of their economic weakness.

• Dirty dogs (lower left corner in Figure 10.5) have high environmental impact added and a negative economic performance. They are economically uninteresting and cause enormous environmental damage. They should be eliminated or improved economically and ecologically.

Portfolios which bring environmental and economic data together are a very powerful analytical tool to highlight where different production sites stand relative to others. They can also serve for benchmarking where environmentally "good" competitors are positioned relative to the firm in question.

Once decisions have been taken on the basis of the recorded and assessed data, strategies can be formulated for improvement.4

10.5 Module 4: Piloting and Implementation

Eco-controlling addresses different levels of the organisation and combines the very different tasks of shop floor environmental data collection and strategic environmental management. By using a language with which economically trained managers are familiar, it helps to lower the barriers of implementation. Furthermore, it bridges the gaps between the different users of environmental management information.

4 For further discussion of environmental strategies based on the eco-efficiency portfolio see Ilinitch and Schaltegger 1995.

163


Information has to be collected by the production managers and has to be passed on to the controller. The controller has to consolidate the data and to prepare it for top management, so that decisions can be taken. Line managers should be able to access the data they need for their job, be it for the marketing of a product, the appraisal of a new investment for production equip-me nt, or the control of the operational performance on a site.

The issue of implementation is crucial for eco-controlling. More and more companies have developed sophisticated performance evaluation systems to remunerate their employees. The financial package offered to the employees of these companies typically involves 10-30% performance related pay. One way of ensuring the successful integration of eco-controlling is to link the remuneration package of managers to the eco-efficiency targets defined in eco-controlling. The range of possible performance indicators is unlimited, in principle. However,just as with payments linked to financial performance, the incentives have to be chosen with great care and they have to relate to the measures that can be influenced by the respective manager. Nothing causes more frustration than targets that could not be achieved because of factors not within the influence of the evaluated manager.

Environmental performance indicators should always have an economic and an environmental dimension. The performance indicators for upper management have a strategic dimension (e.g. 10% annual reduction of the firm's contribution to the greenhouse effect per dollar shareholder value). For lower management levels these eco-efficiency targets must be specified further (e.g. if the oil usage is mainly responsible for the contribution to the greenhouse effect, the environmental performance indicator for a product manager can be defined as: oil usage per product unit manufactured). Furthermore, it is important that the employees are involved in the definition of the indicators which measure their performance.

If the decision support system has shown that the environmental problems of a firm lie within a few clearly definable substances used, the setup of an internal tax system should be considered. The "taxation" works the same as on a macro-economic level, adding on costs to the most harmful substances. Being an internal system, the taxes are revenue neutral for the company, but bear a strong incentive, for example, for the product managers to find environmentally less harmful and therefore not internally "taxed" substances for their products.

The implementation tools should take careful account of the existing management tools and of the culture of a company.

164


10.6 Module 5: Communication

Internal and external communication are an integral part of eco-controlling. Internally, communication addresses issues such as the role of the environmental strategy in the success of the company, or the progress towards the targets documented. Each manager should know what the environmental issues in his or her area of responsibility are and how the company is dealing with them. He or she should also have a clear picture of how the information provided by eco-controlling can be used to improve the company's competitiveness.

The increasing importance of external communication of environmental issues can be seen by the growing number of so called "environmental reports". They document the environmental activities and performance of a company. Although many of these reports still look very much like mere public relations brochures, there are some that reflect a clear environmental strategy and that report in some detail the targets of the company, the progress towards these targets. and the environmental management tools used. Whilst there are no clear standards yet, the interest in these reports from various groups of stakeholders is growing.

The content of the report should reflect the specific situation of the firm as well as the information needs of the stakeholders addressed.5 A balance between local, site-oriented reporting and consolidated figures for the whole company has to be sought. Site-specific data will be of importance for the neighbours of production facilities, the local authorities, and the employees working in a specific site. Consolidated, company wide data are more relevant for shareholders, customers and top management trying to position the company.

10.7 Conclusion and Outlook

Eco-controlling puts the focus of environmental management on the processes of a company. It does not attempt to include the environmental impact over the life cycle of its products. The management tool is adjustable to the specific situation of the production sites and a firm. A chemical company, for example, handling thousands of toxic substances will definitely need a more sophisticated concept of eco-controlling than a manufacturer of furniture or a service company.

5 As energy use is a core environmental performance indicator for the brewery Feldschlosschen, it has published special reports on its energy use.

165


More and more companies are broadening their focus and stating eco-efficiency as an important goal. It is widely agreed that eco-efficiency has an economic and an environmental dimension. It has been shown with many small, medium and large firms (including Flumroc, Mohndruck, Feldschlosschen, etc.) that with eco-controlling, the environmental performance and eco-efficiency as well as the environmentallyjnduced financial impacts of the company and its production sites can be managed and improved substantially (c.f. SchaJtegger and Sturm 1995).

Today, the tools for implementing eco-efficiency are becoming increasingly important for the success of a company. Eco-controlling is rapidly growing into a core management tool, going through similar stages of development as financial controlling. One reason for this is that only those who pilot themselves are not piloted by others.

References

Braunschweig, A.; Forster, R.; Hofstetter, P. and MUller-Wenk. R. (1994): Evaluation and Development of Assessment Methods for LCA. First Results, (in German: Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden fUr Okobilanzen - Erste Ergebnisse). St. Gallen: IWO-Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 19.

Hallay. H. and Pfriem, R. (1992): Oko-Controllling (in German. Eco-Controlling) , Frankfurt: Campus.

Heijungs, R.; Guinee, J.; Huppes, G.; Lankreijer, R. and Udo de Haes, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: CML.

Horvath, P.; Gassert, H. and Solaro, D. (Eds.) (1991): Controllingkonzeptionen fUr die Zukunft (in German: Future Concepts of Controlling) . Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel.

Horvath, P. and Reichmann, T. (1993): Vahlens grosses Controllinglexikon (in German: Vahlen's Comprehensive Glossary of Controlling). Munich: Vahlen

Horvath, P. (1994): Controlling (in German). Munich: Vahlen, 5. Edition. Ilinitch, A. and Schaltegger, S. (1995): "Developing a Green Business Portfolio". Long Range

Planning, No.2, 29 - 38. Kraus, H. (1990): "Operatives Controlling" (in German: Operative Controlling). Mayer, E.

and Weber, J. (Eds.): Handbuch Controlling (in German: Handbook of Controlling). Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel.

Schaltegger S.; with MUller, K. and Hindrichsen, H. (1996): Corporate Environmental Accounting. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Schaltegger, S. and Kempke, S. (1996): "Eco-Controlling. An Overview of Current Approaches" (in German: Oko-Controlling. Obersicht bisheriger Ansatze). Zeitschrift fUr Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB), Erganzungsheft Nr. 2.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1990): "Environmental Rationality" (in German: Okologische Rationalitat). Die Unternehmung, Nr. 4, 117 -131.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1994): Environmentally Oriented Decisions in Firms. Environmental Accounting Instead of Eco-Balancing: Necessity, Criteria. Concepts (in German: Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen. Okologisches Rechnungswesen statt Okobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte). Bern: Haupt. 2. Edition.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1995): Eco-Efficiency Through Eco-Controlling. For the Practical Implementation of EMAS and ISO 14'001. (in German: Oko-Effizienz durch

166


Oko-Controlling. Zur praktischen Umsetzung von EM AS und ISO 14'001). ZUrich/Stuttgart: vdf/Schaffer-Poeschel.

Seidel, E. (1988): "Okologisches Controlling" (in German: Ecological Controlling), Wunderer, R. (Ed.): Betriebswirtscahftslehre als Management- und FUbrungslehre (in German: Business Administration as Science of Management and Leadership). Stuttgart: Schaffer-Poeschel.

Schulz, W. (1991): "Okocontrolling" (in German: Ecocontrolling), OFW (Ed.): Umweltmanagement im Spannungsfeld zwischen Okologie und Okonomie (in German: Environmental Management Between Ecology and Economy). Wiesbaden: Gabler, 221 -242.

Serfiing, K. (1992): Controlling. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2. Edition. Wagner, B. (1995): Environmentally Induced Costs. Working Material. Environmental

Management (in German: Umweltinduzierte Kosten. Arbeitsmaterialien. Umweltmanagement). Augsburg: University of Augsburg.

167

Part E

Conclusions

11 Summary and Conclusions

by Stefan Schaltegger, WWZ, University of Basel l

The philosophy and the methodical developments of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) have encouraged many scientists, managers and politicians world wide to deal intensively with questions of environmental management. Swiss scientists claim to be among the first to have developed concepts of LCA, ecological accounting and environmental management of firms and nations (i.e. Mtiller-Wenk 1974 and 1978; Braunschweig 1987; Schaltegger and Sturm 1990 and 1992). Likewise, some of the first background inventory databases for LCA were collected by respective research institutions (e.g. for packaging materiab see Bus 1990, or for energy systems see Frischknecht et al. 1994). Nonetheless, continued intensive and thorough research and development are necessary to make continued progress in fighting the huge environmental problems we face today. For these reasons, the Swiss National Science Foundation decided to establish the coordinated project LCA and eco-controlling (KOPO) in the Priority Programme Environment. The main purpose was to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the LCA of products, to develop methods for environmental management, and to promote their application in practice. The present approaches to LCA of products were analyzed using a common model application "F eldschlosschen beer".

The collection of background inventory data was considered to be of major importance. The background inventory data for agricultural products, food, transport, downstream processes, etc. have been collected (for pUblications see appendix A) and applied to the LCA of beer.

As a novelty in LCA research, the uncertainty and imprecision of LCA have been investigated in depth. It has been shown that the information provided often lacks the necessary precision to support thorough decision-making.

The author is grateful for the valuable ideas and comments of Ruedi Kubat and Arthur Braunschweig.

171

E Conclusions

Eco-controlling as a management tool for site-specific environmental management has been developed and applied from a business perspective. The current approach to LCA has also been compared in terms of its economic effects with site-specific tools of environmental management.

Current and new approaches, opinions and findings of research groups with very different scientific backgrounds, goals and views were exchanged in extensive discussions which were mutually beneficial. In this book some "overarching topics of LCA", as well as a comparison with site-specific tools of environmental management, have been discussed from the perspectives of the respective authors. Some of the topics chosen have been discussed before (e.g. system boundaries, allocation, the choice of relevant environmental interventions, software tools, eco-controlling) whilst other issues have never or very rarely been considered (background inventory data, uncer-tainty and lack of precision in LCA, eco-efficiency of LCA).

A technical and an economic perspective can be distinguished. Depending on the perspective taken, the major findings of KOPO differ substantially.

A) Supporters of present approaches of LCA mostly take a technical perspective with arguments such as:

• EnvironmentaL benefit: In principle, the present techniques of LCA are environmentally beneficial. However, they have to be developed further to increase the benefit to the natural environment.

• Background inventory data: More background inventory data (BID) should be collected and published for more raw materials and semimanufactured products. Additional financial support is necessary to update centrally collected information.2 More publicly available background inventory data and the establishment of computerized online databases would allow managers to conduct a product LCA more easily, faster and with lower costs.

• Screening methods: Screening methods to focus on relevant environmental interventions should be developed further. This would allow managers to conduct LCAs faster and with lower costs.

• Impact assessment: The mostly ideological fights about "the best method to assess environmental impacts" have almost stopped.

2 Background inventory data also have to be changed with technological progress and the change of technologies in production.

172

Summary and Conclusions

Today most researchers agree that one approach is to assess the relative contribution to specific environmental problems (e.g. the greenhouse effect) with a classification and characterization method as proposed by the Center voor Milieukunde (CML) of the University of Leiden (Heijungs et al. 1992). The other impact assessment approach, which can be combined with the first method, is valuation according to socio-political goals. So far, no consensus exists for a specific valuation method. Additional research is necessary to develop methods of impact assessment further.

• Education: Managers should be better educated, by specific courses on LCA, to understand better the increasing complexity of new approaches in LCA. Education would also help to spread information about the latest versions of available background inventory data.

B) Supporters of an economic perspective mostly oppose the present approaches of LCA. Among their main arguments are:

• Present approaches of LeA are inefficient: The present methods of LCA of products are very likely to provide unrepresentative, inaccurate and sometimes outright wrong results, with extremely high costs. LCA in its current form is an economically inefficient and environmentally ineffective tool. It must fail, because of its centralistic approach to data collection. New site-oriented tools such as eco-controlling are necessary and should be developed and applied further. Accounting for the environmental impacts of a product can only be successful if site-specific information - collected and assessed at every site - is aggregated over a product life cycle.

• Background inventory data: Background inventory data representing an industry average are rarely accurate and often not representative of the specific situation of a decision maker. It only makes sense to aggregate audited, site-specific information over the lifecycle of a product (site-specific LCA). The quality ofthe site-specific information has to be audited to insure a consistent level of data quality. Therefore, no background inventory data should be collected. Moreover, incentive systems should be developed for governments to support site-specific ecological accounting.

• Socio-political screening: Screening methods to focus on environmental information which are relevant in the site-specific context of a firm or region should be developed further. These site-

173

E Conclusions

specific screening methods must consider the relevant socio-political culture. This would allow managers to focus on those environmental problems that are given priority by its stakeholders.

• Site-specific impact assessment: Present methods of impact assessment do not consider spatial differences or differences in time (when the environmental intervention occured). However, only environmental interventions with global impacts can be consolidated on a global level. For all other interventions the geographical range of their impacts must be considered for impact assessment (no global aggregation of interventions with local impacts).

• Incentives: Managers need monetary and non-monetary incentives to implement environmental management systems for their firms and production sites. Once attractive incentives have been put in place, the managers and their consultants know best where to reduce environmental impacts in a most efficient and effective way.

Obviously, the agenda for future research will vary substantially depending on the analysis of the present approaches of LCA. It is most likely that both the technological and the economical point of view will influence further research and development. These two paths are often seen as complementary. However, this is only the case at first glance. LCA as well as site-specific environmental management require resources. Thus, defenders of these two approaches compete for the same scarce financial resources.

Many supporters of the technological perspective have spent a lot of time on the development and application ofLCA. These "investments" will prevent most from changing their opinion for the next couple of years. Similarily, the opponents of the present approaches of LCA have "invested" time and money to make progress in the development of site-specific management tools. They too, will proceed on their path.

In conclusion, both perspectives will prevail for the next couple of years. However, in the long run, the opinion and activities of managers, standard setters and politicians, and to a limited extent scientific arguments, will decide which perspective will prevail after the year 2000.

References

Braunschweig, A. (1987): Die okologische Buchhaltung der Stadt St. Gallen. St. Gallen: Selbstverlag.

BUS (Bundesamt fUr Umweltschutz) (1984): Okobilanz von Packstoffen. SRU Nr. 24. Bern: BUS.

Heijungs, R.; Guinee, G.; Huppes, R. ; Lankreijer, H.; Udo de Haes, H.; Wegener Sleeswijk ,

174

Summary and Conclusions

A. ; Ansems, P.; Eggels, P.; van Duin, R. and de Goede, H. (1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products. Guide and Backgrounds. Leiden: CML (Center of Milieukunde University of Leiden).

Mliller-Wenk, R. (1974): "Ein Vorschlag aus einzelwirtschaftlicher Sicht zur Realisierung einer umweltkonformen Wirktschaft". Wolff (Hrsg.) : Wirtschaftspolitik in der Umweltkrise. Stuttgart: DV A, 268 - 286.

Mliller-Wenk, R. (1978): Die okologische Buchhaltung. Ein Informations- und Steuerungsinstrument fUr umweltkonforme Unternehmenspolitik. Frankfurt: Campus.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm. A. (1990): "Okologische Rationalitat". Die Unternehmung, No. 4,273 - 290.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1992): Okologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen. Okologisches Rechnungswesen stat! Okobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte. Bern: Haupt.

175

Appendices

Appendix A: Publications of KOPO Research Groups

Braunschweig, A. and Miiller-Wenk, R. (1993): Okobilanzen fiir Unternehmungen. Eine Wegleitung fiir die Praxis. Bern: Paul Haupt.

Braunschweig, A. (1994): "Who Sets Priorities and Which Effects Should Be Included in LCA-Assessment". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger, S. ; Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. -9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH.

Braunschweig, A.; Forster, R.; Hofstetter, P. and Miiller-Wenk, R. (1994): Evaluation und Weiterentwicklung von Bewertungsmethoden - erste Ergebnisse. Zwischenbericht. IWO Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 19. St. Gall: IWO-HSG.

Braunschweig, A.; Forster, R; Hofstetter, P. and Miiller-Wenk, R. (1995): Developments in LCA Valuation, Final Report. St. Gall: IWO-HSG.

Biichel, K. (1993): Okobilanz landwirtschaftlicher Produktion - Beurteilung der Umweltbelastung verschiedener Anbaumethoden des Weizenanbau&.und Diskussionen der agrarpolitischen Lenkungsmassnahmen. Vaduz: Diplomarbeit.

Biichel, K. (1994): "Okobilanz in der Landwirtschaft". Agrarforschung, Vol. 1, No.6, 283-284.

Buser, H. and Schaltegger, S. (1995): "Oko-Controlling auf dem Firmenareal", Io-Management-Zeitschrift, Mai.

Forster, R (1994): "Classification of Impacts into Impact Categories". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger. S. and Hofstetter, P. (Eds.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH.

Frischknecht, R. (1994): "Stromix in Okobilanzen - Fragestellungen, Modelle, Konsequenzen". ENET (Hrsg.): Okoinventar zur Beurteilung von Energiesystemen. Bern: Tagungsband zur gleichnamigen Tagung vom 8. Sept. an der ETH in Ziirich.

Frischknecht, R.; Hofstetter, P.; Knoepfel, I.; Dones, R and Zollinger et al. (1994): Okoinventare fiir Energiesysteme. Ziirich: ETH Ziirich, Laboratorium fiir Energiesysteme / PSI.

Frischnecht, R. and Kolm, P. (forthcoming 1995): "Modellansatz und Algorithmus zur Berechnung von Okobilanzen im Rahmen der Datenbank ECOINVENT'. Schmidt, M. and Schorb, A. (Hrsg.): Stoffstromanalysen in Okobilanzen und Oko-Audits. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Grimsted, B.; Schaitegger, S.; Stinson, C. and Waldron,C. (1994): "A Multimedia Assessment Scheme to Evaluate Chemical Effects on the Environment and Human Health". Pollution Prevention Review, Summer, 259 - 268.

Hofstetter, P. and Braunschweig, A. (1994): "Bewertungsmethoden in Okobilanzen - ein Uberblick", GAIA 3 (1994) No. 4, 227 - 236.

Hofstetter, P. (1994a): "Analyse und VergJeich von Energiesystemen". ENET (Hrsg.) : Okoinventare zur Beurteilung von Energiesystemen. Bern: Tagungsband zur gleichnamigen Tagung vom 8. Sept. an der ETH in Ziirich.

Hofstetter, P. (1994b): "Normalisation as Different Sub-steps in Impact Assessment - An Overview". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger, S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH.

IIinitch, A. and Schaltegger, S. (1993): "Eco-Integrated Portfolio Analysis. Strategic Tools for Managing in the 90ties". Academy of Management Annual Conference Proceedings. Atlanta: U.S. Academy of Management.

IIinitch, A. and Schaltegger, S. (1995): "Developing a Green Business Portfolio". Long Range Planning, Vol. 28, No.2, April, 29 - 38.

Menard. M., Zimmermann, P. (1995): "Integration von Downstreamprozessen in Okobilanzen". Laboratorium fiir Energiesysteme, ETH Ziirich, Zwischenbericht.

179

Appendices

Menard, M. and Zimmermann, P. (1995b): "Entsorgungsprozesse", Habersatter et al. (Eds.): Okoinventare von Packstoffen. Bern: BUW AL Nr. 250, Vernehmlassungsexcmlar.

Menard, M. , Zimmermann. P. (1995c): "Integration von Downstreamprozessen in Okobilanzen". Laboratorium fiir Energiesysteme. ETH Ziirich, Zwischenbericht.

Miiller-Wenk, R. (1994a): "Criteria for valuation, and how to include them into a valuation factor". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger, S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH.

Miiller-Wenk, R. (1994b): "The Ecoscarcity Method as a Valuation Instrument within the SETAC Framework". SETAC (Ed.): Integrating Impact Assessment into LCA. Proceedings the 4th SET AC-Europe Congress. Brussels: SET AC.

O.B.U. (Schweiz. Vereinigung fiir okologisch bewusste Unternehmungsfiihrung) (Hrsg.) (1994): Methoden flir Okobilanzen und ihre Anwendung in der Firma, Schriftenreihe 811994, Adliswil: OBU.

Pohl, c.; Vollmer, M. and Ros, M. (1995): "Sanierungswerte". Vollmer, M. (Hrsg.): Herlei tung und Anwendung von Priif- und Sanierungswerten fiir schwermetallbelastete Boden in der Schweiz - Fallbeispiel Cadmium. Bern: Forschungsanstalt fiir Agrikulturchemie und Umwelthygiene (FAC).

Rapp, K. and Schon born, F. (1994): Human- und Okotoxizitat in auswirkungsorientierten Okobilanzen. Diplomarbeit an der Abt. flir Umweltnaturwissenschaften. Ziirich: ETH.

Schaltegger, S. (1993): "Measurement and Strategic Management of Corporate Pollution. The Concept of Ecological Accounting". Study No. 183 of the Strategic Management Research Center (SMRC) of the University of Minnesota: Minneapolis: SMRC.

SchaJtegger, S. (1994a): "Zeitgemasse Instrumente des betrieblichen Umweltschutzes". Die Unternehmung, Nr. 2, 117 - 131.

Schaltegger, S. (1994b) : "Should Spatial Differences be Considered in LCA?". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger, S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH, 60 - 61.

Schaltegger, S. (1994c): "Classification of Impacts into Impact Categories. A Plea for Classifying According to a Hierarchy of Goals". Udo de Haes. H .; Schaltegger. S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH, 90 - 92.

Schaltegger, S. (1994d): "Information on Spatial Details in an LCA. Introduction Paper". Udo de Haes, H.; Schaltegger, S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.): First Working Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop of July 8. - 9. held at ETH Ziirich. Ziirich: ETH, 17 - 18.

Schaltegger, S. (1994e): "Koordiniertes Okobilanzieren im KOPO". Gaia Nr. 4, 187. Schaltegger, S. (1994f): "Koordiniertes Okobilanzieren. Projekt "KOPO" des Schweiz

erischen Nationalfonds". UT-Service, Juni, 4. Schaltegger, S. (1994g): "Koordinierte Okobilanzen. Schweizer Entwicklung - eine inter

nationale Bewegung". Friconomy, Nr. 2, 18 - 20. Schaltegger, S. (1994h): Oko-Controlling flir das Eidgenossische Militardepartement

(EMD). Bern: EMD. Schaltegger, S. (1995a): Economics of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Inefficiency of the

Present Approach. WWZ-Discussionpaper No. 9515. Basel: WWZ. Schaltegger, S. (1995b): "industrielles Oko-Controlling". Textilveredelung, Nr. 12, 367 - 371. Schaltegger, S. and Kempke, S. (1996): "Oko-Controlling. Uberblick bisheriger Ansatze",

Zeitschrift flir Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB). Erganzungsheft Nr. 2. Schaltegger, S.; Kempke S. and Sturm A. (1994): "Oko-Controlling. Ein Schlagwort wird

ausformuliert", WWZ-News Nr. 18, August, 23 - 25. Schaltegger, S. and Kubat, R. ; unter Mitarbeit von ... (1995): Das Handworterbuch der

Okobilanzierung. Begriffe und Definitionen. The Glossary of LCA. Terms and Concepts. Basel: WWZ-Studie Nr. 45, 2. Edition. (1. Edition 1994).

Schaltegger, S.; Kubat, R. ; Hilber, C. and Vaterlaus, S. unter Mitarbeit von ... (1996): Innovatives Management staatlicher Umweltpolitik. New Public Environmental Management (NPEM). Basel: Birkhauser.

180

Appendix A: Publications of KOPO Research Groups

Schaltegger, S. with Muller, K. and Hindrichsen, H. (1996): Corporate Environmental Accounting. A Conceptual Introduction. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Schaltegger, S. and Stinson, C. (1994): Issues and Research Opportunities in Environmental Accounting. WZZ-Discussion Paper No. 9423. Basel: WWZ.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm A. (1993): "Gkologieorientiertes Management". Frey R.L. et al. (Hrsg.): Mit Gkonomie zur Gkologie. Analyse und Uisungen des Umweltproblems aus iikonomischer Sicht, Basel: Helbling and Lichtenhahn, 2. Auflage, 179 - 201.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1994): Gkologieorientierte Entscheidungen in Unternehmen. Gkologisches Rechnungswesen statt Gkobilanzierung: Notwendigkeit, Kriterien, Konzepte. Bern: Haupt. 2. Edition, (\. Edition 1992).

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1995): Gko-Effizienz durch Gko-Controlling. Zur praktischen Implementierung von EMAS und ISO 14001. Zurich/Stuttgart: VDF/Schiiffer-Poeschel.

Schaltegger, S. and Sturm, A. (1996): "Managerial Eco-Control in Manufacturing and Process Industries". Greener Management International. February.

Schaltegger, S. and Thomas, T. (1993a): "Eine neue Dimension im Zertifikatshandel. Auf der Suche nach "Wechselkursen" fUr Schadstoffe". Neue Zurcher Zeitung (NZZ), 2.4.1993, Nr. 77, 35.

Schaltegger, S. and Thomas, T. (1993b): "PACT fUr eine marktwirtschaftliche Regulierung von Umweltrisiken". WWZ-News, Nr. 14, Juni, 11 - 16.

Schaltegger, S. and Thomas, T. (1994a): "PACT fUr einen Schadschiipf!lngs-Zertifikatshandel". Zeitschrift fur Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht (ZfU) Nr. 3,357 - 381.

Schaltegger, S. and Thomas, T. (1994b): Pollution Added Credit Trading (PACT). New Dimensions in Emissions Trading. Basel: WWZ-Discussion-Paper No. 9410. Forthcoming in: Ecological Economics .

• !Sturm, A. (1993a): "Gko-Controlling. Von der Gkobilanz zum Fuhrungsinstrument. Gaia, No.2, 107 -120.

St~rm , A. (1993b): "Gko-Controlling: Die nachste Herausforderung an den Berufsstand". Index No.3, 30 - 35.

Sturm, A. (1993c): "Rio realisieren: Gko-Controlling". Index No.4, 44 - 48. Udo de Haes, H.A.: Schaltegger, S. and Hofstetter, P. (Hrsg.) (1994): First Working Docu

ment on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop held at ETH Zurich from July 8 - 9,1994. Zurich: ETH.

Zimmermann, P. and T6th, C. (1995): Emissionsinventar von Deponien, Diplomarbeit an der Abt. VIII . Zurich: ETH.

Zimmermann, P. (1996): Produktiikobilanz von Downstreamprozessen, Laboratorium fUr Energiesysteme. Final report. Zurich: ETH.

181

The Authors

Schaltegger, Stefan. 1964, economist. Dr. rer. po!. Assistant professor at the Center of Economics and Business Administration (Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum: WWZ) of the University of Basel. Switzerland. Hepd of the coordinated project LCA and eco-controlling (KOPO) of the Priority Programme Environment (PPE) of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Fields of specialization: non-market , spatial and financial economics. environmental economics and policy. environmental management, environmental accounting. eco-controlling.

Braunschweig. Arthur. 1959. economist, Dr. oec. Research fellow at the Institute for Business and Environment (Institut flir Wirtschaft und Okologie: IWO) of the University of St. Gall. Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA, environmental management. environmental economics and policy.

Buchel, Klaus. 1961 , agricultural engineer, dip!. eng. agr. Project manager at Agrinomical and Environment Consulting Ltd. and F AT Tanikon. Switzerland. Fields of specialization: agricultural management systems (organic and integrated agriculture) , soil degradation, soil protection.

Dinkel, Fredy, 1957, physicist, Dr. phi!. II . Project manager at Carbotech Ltd .. Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA, polymers, environmental and safety management.

Frischknecht, Rolf. 1962, civil engineer, dip!. eng. Assistant project manager at the ESU unit of ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA inventory, inventory methodology, database management (ecoinvent ).

Maillefer, Christiane, 1965, engineer, dip!. eng. Research fellow at EMPA St. Gall . Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA of food products.

Menard, Martin, 1967, mechanical engineer. dip!' eng. Assistant at the ESU unit of ETH Zurich, Switzerland (until end of June 1995). Fields of specialization: LCA inventory, integration of waste management in LCA.

Pohl, Christian, 1966, ecology, dip!. sc. nat. Doctoral student, scientific collaborator at Carbotech Ltd. , Switzerland. Fields of specialization: fuzzy logic, environmental engineering.

Ros. Matjaz, 1961, electical engineer. dip!. el.-eng. Doctoral student, scientific collaborator at Carbo tech Ltd. , Switzerland. Fields of specialization: fuzzy logic, environmental engineering, environmental software development, wind energy.

Sturm, Andreas, 1964, business administration, Dr. rer. po!. Management consultant and partner of Ellipson Ltd. , Switzerland. Fields of specialization: environmental management systems, eco-controlling.

Waldeck, Beate. 1963, chemist, Dr. phi!. II Project employee at Carbotech Ltd. , Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA, environmental agriculture. construction materials.

Peter. Daniel, 1960, geographer, dip!. phi!. II Project manager and consultant at Infras Ltd., Switzerland. Fields of specialization: environmental management systems, traffic. regional planning.

Zimmermann. Peter, 1970, environmental engineer, dip!. eng. Assistant at the ESU unit of ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Fields of specialization: LCA inventory, integration of waste management in LCA.

182

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AP

BID

BUWAL

CML

COD

COM

EIA

EMAS

EMPA

ESU/ETHZH

FAT

FID

fITV

GWP

ISO

IWO/HSG

KOPO

LCA

NMVOC

NP

ODP

POCP

SETAC

SPOLD

UBP

WWZ

Acidification Potential


Swiss Environmental Protection Agency

Centre for Environmental Sciences, University of Leiden Netherlands

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Commission of the European Union

Environmental Impact Added

Regulation on the Environmental Management and Eco-Audit System of the European Union

Federal Institute of Materials

Group Material and Environment, Federal University of Technology Zurich

Center for Agricultural Research, Tanikon

Foreground Inventory Data

Fuzzy Immission Threshold Value

Global Warming Potential

International Standards Institute

Institute of Management and Environment, University of St. Gall

Coordinated Project LCA and Eco-ControUing of the Priority Programme Environment (PPE) of the Swiss National Science Foundation

Life Cycle Assessment

Non Methane Volatile Organic Carbonates

Nutrification Potential

Ozone Depletion Potential

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential

Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Society for the Promotion of Lifecycle Assessment Development

Points of Environmental Burden

Center for Economics and Business Administration, University of Basel

L83

Index

Accounting 161 Actual and potential effects 139 Aggregation 140, 144 Agricultural production 23 Allocation 57,99 Assessment methods, Assessment of en

vironmental interventions 73 Assessment system 72

B

Background inventory data (BID) 39, 99, 141

Background inventory databases 175 Background data 15 Background system 39 Basic process of LCA 5 Benchmarking 167 Best technology 86 'BS 7750 155 Built-in database 83

c

Certainty 66 Clausius discussions VIII CML classification 61 CML method 95 Collect the data individually 148 Collection 143 Commercial database 87 Communication 169 Complementary system 99 Concept of managerial eco-controlling 155 Concepts of LCA 139 Confidence limits 51,88 Controlled phase 155 Controlling 155 Core system 96 Correct allocation of environmental costs

41,140 Critical flux valuation 59

D

Data quality 99 Decision support 163 Development of LCA indicators 165 Dirty cash cows 167 Dirty dogs 167 Dominance analysis 86, 89 Downstream process 96

E

Eco controlling VB, 155, 175 Eco-efficiency 139, 163 Eco-efficiency portfolio 165 Eco-label for products 4 Eco-toxicity 104 Ecobalance VII Ecological leverage effect 137, 139 Economic data 84 Economic performance indicator 147,

163,176 Economic rational management 137 Efficiency 137 Efficient environmental management 3,

149,155 EMIS 87 Energy 85, 104 Energy flow 21 Environmental impact added 159 Environmental impact added carriers 159 Environmental impact added centres 159 Environmental impact added index 164 Environmental impact added indicator

163 Environmental information 159 Environmental management 140, 155 Environmental management tool 81,138 Environmental performance 170 Environmental performance indicator 16 Environmental reports 169 Environmental scarcity method 95 Environmentally induced financial im-

pacts 161 Error calculation 88 Estimation 40 Estimation procedure 74 ESU-data 44 European Union 3 Exact error intervals 52, 63 Exposure portfolio 158

F

Feldsch16sschen Ltd. VIII Financial 161 Financial controlling 155 Foreground data 15 Foreground system 39, 96 Formulation of goals and policies 157 Functional unit 42, 95 Fuzzyalgorithms 64

185

Fuzzy intervals 52, 54 Fuzzy set 51 Fuzzy value 64

G

Gaussian distribution 52 Geographical delimitation 18 Glossary of LCA VIII Goal definition and scoping 5 GoalofLCA 4 Green product label 149 Green question marks 167 Green stars 166 Greenhouse effect 104

H

Heavy metal 17 Hop pellet 22 Human toxicity 104

Ideal LCA 140, 146 Impact assessment 5 Impacts 84 Imprecision 51 ,85,175 Improvement 167 Improvement analysis 6 Incentives 150 Induced costs 162 Informal fuzziness 54 Information management 159 Interventions 163 Intrinsically fuzzy 55 Intrinsically vague data 52 Inventory 160 Inventory analysis 5 ISO 14001 155 Iteration 41

K

Knowledge 148 KOPO VII,175

L

Land use 16 LCA software 67 LCI (life cycle inventory) 48 Legal framework 71 Limitations 69

M

Management 175

186

Marginal costs of collection 160 Material flow 21 Matrix-inversion 89 Munication 155

o

Opportunity costs 145 Overarching topics of LCA 176

p

Period of analysis 15 Pesticide 14 Petri-nets 89

Appendices

Piloting and implementation 167 Polluter-pays-principle 143 Post-steps 141 Pre-steps 141 Precision 140 Priority Progi:amme Environment VII,

175 Probability distributions 62 Process tree 96 Product life cycles 3 Product-specific information 149 Production sites 3 Production technologies 58

R

Rational database 87 Recording 140,159 Relevant interventions 69 Relevant processes 69

s

Scarcity 139 Screening methods 81 Sensitivy analysis 86 SETAC standards 56,83 Site-specific 3, 175 Site-specific data 81 Site-specific LCA 147,177 Socio-political screening 177 Spatial dimension 146 SPOLD data format 89 Standard of data quality 142 Standardisation 48 Statistics 51 Stochastic errors 52 Strategies 139,146,151 Suboptimization 140, 145 Substitution principle 43 Swiss National Science Foundation 175 System boundary 11,69 Systematic errors 52, 54

Index

T

Target groups 95 Technical perspective 176 Threshold values 60 Time-specific data 142 Tools of corporate environmental manage-

ment 139 Total error 143 Transparency 42 Transport 96 Types of errors 51

u

Uncertainty 51,53,140 Uncertainty 85 Unrepresentative 145

v

Vague error intervals 52

w

Waste products 21

187

Schwerpunktprogramm Umwe/f Synthesebuch

Innovatives Management staatlicher Umweltpolitik

von S. Schahegger, R. Kubat, C. Hitber. S. Valerlaus, WirtschaftswisscnschaflJiches Zcntrum. UnivcrsiUit Basel, unter fI.'1ita rbcil von A. Sturm und A. FliHsch 1996. 30-1 ScHen. SOfl COVC f ISBN 3·7643·5342·2

Das Konzept des New Public Environmental Management

Mit dem integrativen Konzept des New Public Environmental Management (NPEM) wird aufgezeigt, wie die staatliche Umweltpolitik die Schwelle vom Verwaltungs- zum Managementkonzept (lberschr.~iten kann. Die vorgestell ten Revitalisierungsansatze basieren auf den Methoden der modernen Okonomie, des New Public Management, betriebswirtschaftlichen Managementinstrumenten und dem Schadschbpfungskonzept.

Die Autoren zeigen neue, innovative Wege zur Uberwindung von Interessengegensatzen in der Umweltpolitik auf. 1m Zentrum des NPEM steht der Wechsel von der vorherrschenden Einzelstoffregulierung zur

Problemorientierung. Ein innovatives Management staatlicher Umweltpolitik erfordert:

• institutionelle Reformen der Umweltbehorden und -politik (Beispiel: Schadschopfungsregionen)

• ein klares Managementkonzept im Sinne eines staatlichen Oko-Controllings

• ein effizientes Informationsmanagement und Oko-Berichterstattungssystem

• problemorientierte Steuerungsinstrumente (Beispiel: Treibhauseffekt statt CO2-Abgabe)

• systematische Wirkungsanalysen im Umweltschutz • wirkungsorientierte Reformen der Verwaltung

Das Buch richtet sich an Akteure in Politik, Verwaltung, Verbanden, Beratungs- und Planungsburos, die im weitesten Sinne Umweltpolitik betreiben und an Volks- und Betriebswirte, die sich mit Umweltfragen beschiiftigen. Aber auch Fachleute anderer Disziplinen, die sich fill innovative Methoden der Umweltproblemlbsung interessieren (Biologen, Chemiker, Geographen, Planer, ]uristen u.a.) werden angesprochen.

Birkhauser Verlag • Basel • Boston • Berlin i

life cycle assessment (lca) â€” quo vadis?

Documents