Life-Cycle based methods for sustainable product development

Sustainability-a term originating from silviculture, which was adopted by UNEP as the main political goal for the future development of humankind-is also the ultimate aim of product development. It comprises three components: environment, economy and social aspects which have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one is to be improved. The responsibility of the researchers involved in the assessment is to provide appropriate and reliable instruments. For the environmental part there is already an internationally standardized tool: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is the logical counterpart of LCA for the economic assessment. LCC surpasses the purely economic cost calculation by taking into account hidden costs and potentially external costs over the life cycle of the product. It is a very important point that different life-cycle based methods (including Social Life Cycle Assessment) for sustainablity assessment use the same system boundaries.     

Life Cycle costing as part of design for environment environmental business cases

Background  In developing products various requirements have to be integrated including functionality, quality, affordability as well as environmental aspects. Often conflicting requirements have to be fulfilled. Therefore, multi-dimensional decision support approaches are necessary. Methods  Here, one approach is to relate the conflicting requirements to each other. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) has the potential to support the trade-off between some environmental targets and overall affordability targets by including all monetary flows along the product life cycle (going beyond the well-known costs of ownership by integrating also long-term use and end-of-life costs). Those solutions can be identified that (a) have the highest efficiencies (where do we get most environmental improvements per Ϊ and (b) have the highest affordability for the customer along the life cycle. Furthermore, on-costs in the design phase can be justified in terms of future savings either for the customer or for the recycling of the products. These represent real business cases for environmental actions. Three types of environmental business cases can be differentiated. Results and Discussion  This paper presents various examples where LCC is integrated into product design. However, there are a number of open issues in the implementation of LCC within real product development including data availability and uncertainty (future costs/ savings), level of discounting, accounting and compensation. Various internal case studies done in the last years showed that already few changes in the costs structure can significantly affect the identi-fied future costs. Recommendation and Outlook  Uncertainties in LCC are higher than in LCA and highest when applied in the stage of product develop-ment, i.e. used to support DfE action. As a consequence, the result-ing figures can only be seen as directional. Therefore, the use of LCC in Design for Environment cannot be recommended without major restrictions in terms of guidance, experience/training. The link-age between LCC and DfE can either be established via (1) experts supporting design teams or (2) as part of a DfE tool. The DfE tool has to include detailed guidance for interpretation, and its application should be based on a solid training for DfE engineers.     

Life cycle considerations of the flue gas desulphurization system at a lignite-fired power plant in Thailand

Goal, Scope and Background  The Flue Gas Desulphurization (FGD) system has been installed at the biggest lignite-fired power generation plant in Thailand to reduce the large amount of SO₂ emission. In order to understand the costs and benefits, both in ecological and economic terms, the lignite-fired plant was studied both before and after the installation of the FGD system. The focus of this study is to consider not only the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) outcome but also the Life Cycle Costing (LCC) factors. The results can provide valuable information when selecting appropriate technologies to minimize the negative impact that lignite-fired power plants have on the environment. Methods  The Life Cycle Assessment - Numerical Eco-load Total Standardization (LCA-NETS) system was used to evaluate the impact on the environment of both the lignite-fired plant and the FGD system. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) was used to provide a comparison between alternative before and after installation of FGD. LCC, a powerful analytical tool, examines the total cost, in net present value terms, of a FGD system over its entire service lifetime. Results and Discussion  The results of the study are shown in the eco-load values over the entire life cycle of the lignite-fired plant. Comparative models of the power plant, before and after the installation of the FGD system, are evaluated using the LCA-NETS system. The results indicate that the installation of the FGD system can reduce the acidification problem associated with lignite-fired plants by approximately 97%. The LCC estimation shows the major costs of the FGD system: capital investment, operating and maintenance, and miscellaneous costs. The LCC provides the decision-making information when considering the cost of the FGD system in terms of protecting the environment. Conclusion and Outlook  LCA is an important decision-making tool for environmental policies, especially with regard to the selection of pollution control equipment for lignite-fired plants. Green coal technologies and strategies to reduce the negative impact on the environment are essential to produce more environmentally-friendly power plants with a sustainable future.     

Integrated municipal waste management systems: An indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability

Tools based on Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) are routinely used to assess the environmental and economic performance of integrated municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to quantify the environmental impacts, whereas Life Cycle Costing (LCC) allows financial and economic assessments. These tools require specific experience and knowledge, and a large amount of data.The aim of this project is the definition of an indicator for the assessment of the environmental and economic sustainability of integrated MSW management systems. The challenge is to define a simple but comprehensive indicator that may be calculated also by local administrators and managers of the waste system and not only by scientists or LCT experts.The proposed indicator is a composite one, constituted by three individual indicators: two of them assess the environmental sustainability of the system by quantifying the achieved material and energy recovery levels, while the third one quantifies the costs. The composite indicator allows to compare different integrated MSW management systems in an objective way, and to monitor the performance of a system over time.The calculation of the three individual indicators has been tested on the integrated MSW management systems of the Lombardia Region (Italy) as well as on four of its provinces (Milano, Bergamo, Pavia, and Mantova).     

Life Cycle Approach in the Procurement Process: The Case of Defence Materiel (9 pp)

Goal, Scope and Background Procurement in public and non-public organisations has the potential to influence product development towards more environmentally friendly products. This article focuses on public procurement with procurement in Swedish defence as a special case. In 2003, public procurement in Sweden was 28% of the GDP. In the Swedish defence sector the amount was 2% of the GDP. The total emissions from the sector were of the same order of magnitude as from waste treatment (2% of Sweden's emissions). According to an appropriation letter from the Ministry of Defence in 1998, the Swedish Armed Forces (SAF) and the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) are required to take environmental issues into consideration during the entire process of acquiring defence materiel. Environmental aspects are considered today, but without a life-cycle perspective. - The aims of this article are to recommend suitable tools for taking environmental concerns into account, considering a product's life-cycle, in the procurement process for defence materiel in Sweden; to make suggestions for how these tools could be used in the acquisition process; and to evaluate these suggestions through interviews with actors in the acquisition process. The procurement process does not include aspects specific to Swedish defence, and it is therefore likely to be comparable to processes in other countries. Methods The method involved a study of current literature and interviews with various actors in the acquisition process. The life cycle methods considered were quantitative Life Cycle Assessments, a simplified LCA-method called the MECO method and Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Results and Discussion Methodology recommendations for quantitative LCA and simplified LCA are presented in the article, as well as suggestions on how to integrate LCA methods in the acquisition process. We identified four areas for use for LCA in the acquisition process: to learn about environmental aspects of the product; to fulfil requirements from customers; to set environmental requirements and to choose between alternatives. Therefore, tools such as LCAs are useful in several steps in the acquisition process. Conclusion From the interviews, it became clear that the actors in the acquisition process think that environmental aspects should be included early in the process. The actors are interested in using LCA methods, but there is a need for an initiative from one or several of them if the method is to be used regularly in the process. Environmental and acquisition issues are handled with very little interaction in the controlling and ordering organisation. An integration of environmental and acquisition parts in these organisations is probably needed in order to integrate environmental aspects in general and life-cycle thinking in particular. Other difficulties identified are costs and time constraints. Recommendation and Perspective In order to include the most significant aspects when procuring materiel, it is important to consider the whole life-cycle of the products. Our major recommendation is that the defence sector should work systematically through different product groups. For each product group, quantitative, traditional LCAs or simplified LCAs (in this case modified MECOs) should be performed for reference products within each product group. The results should be an identification of critical aspects in the life-cycles of the products. The studies will also form a database that can be used when making new LCAs. This knowledge should then be used when writing specifications of what to procure and setting criteria for procurement. The reports should be publicly available to allow reviews and discussions of results. To make the work more cost-effective, international co-operation should be sought. In addition, LCAs can also be performed as an integrated part of the acquisition process in specific cases.     

An extended life cycle analysis of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe

Purpose

The year-round supply of fresh fruit and vegetables in Europe requires a complex logistics system. In this study, the most common European fruit and vegetable transport packaging systems, namely single-use wooden and cardboard boxes and re-useable plastic crates, are analyzed and compared considering environmental, economic, and social impacts.

Methods

The environmental, economic, and social potentials of the three transport packaging systems are examined and compared from a life cycle perspective using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Life Cycle Working Environment (LCWE) methodologies. Relevant parameters influencing the results are analyzed in different scenarios, and their impacts are quantified. The underlying environmental analysis is an ISO 14040 and 14044 comparative Life Cycle Assessment that was critically reviewed by an independent expert panel.

Results and discussion

The results show that wooden boxes and plastic crates perform very similarly in the Global Warming Potential, Acidification Potential, and Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential categories; while plastic crates have a lower impact in the Eutrophication Potential and Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential categories. Cardboard boxes show the highest impacts in all assessed categories. The analysis of the life cycle costs show that the re-usable system is the most cost effective over its entire life cycle. For the production of a single crate, the plastic crates require the most human labor. The share of female employment for the cardboard boxes is the lowest. All three systems require a relatively large share of low-qualified employees. The plastic crate system shows a much lower lethal accident rate. The higher rate for the wooden and cardboard boxes arises mainly from wood logging. In addition, the sustainability consequences due to the influence of packaging in preventing food losses are discussed, and future research combining aspects both from food LCAs and transport packing/packaging LCAs is recommended.

Conclusions

For all three systems, optimization potentials regarding their environmental life cycle performance were identified. Wooden boxes (single use) and plastic crates (re-usable) show preferable environmental performance. The calibration of the system parameters, such as end-of-life treatment, showed environmental optimization potentials in all transport packaging systems. The assessment of the economic and the social dimensions in parallel is important in order to avoid trade-offs between the three sustainability dimensions. Merging economic and social aspects into a Life Cycle Assessment is becoming more and more important, and their integration into one model ensures a consistent modeling approach for a manageable effort.     

Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard

One method to assess the sustainability performance of products is life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), which assesses product performance considering the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of the life cycle. The results of LCSA can be used to compare different products or to support decision making toward sustainable production and consumption. In both cases, LCSA results could be too disaggregated and consequently too difficult to understand and interpret by decision makers. As non‐experts are usually the target audience of experts and scientists, and are also involved in decision‐making processes, the necessity for a straightforward but comprehensive presentation of LCSA results is becoming strategically important. The implementation of the dashboard of sustainability proposed in this article offers a possible solution. An outstanding characteristic of the dashboard of sustainability is the communicability of the results by means of a graphical representation (a cartogram), characterized by a suitable chromatic scale and ranking score. The integration of LCSA and the dashboard of sustainability into a so‐called Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard (LCSD) is described here. The first application of LCSD to a group of hard floor coverings is presented to show the applicability and limitations of the methodology.     

Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment?

In a recent letter to the editor, Jørgensen et al. questioned that life cycle costing (LCC) is relevant in life cycle-based sustainability assessment (LCSA). They hold the opinion that environmental and social aspects are sufficient. We argue that sustainability has three dimensions: environment, economy, and social aspects in accordance with the well-accepted “three pillar interpretation” of sustainability, although this is not verbally stated in the Brundtland report (WCED 1987). An analysis of the historical development of the term “sustainability” shows that the economic and social component have been present from the beginning and conclude that LCSA of product systems can be approximated by LCSA = (environmental) LCA + (environmental) LCC + S-LCA where S-LCA stands for social LCA. The “environmental” LCC is fully compatible with life cycle assessment (LCA), the internationally standardized (ISO 14040 + 14044) method for environmental product assessment. For LCC, a SETAC “Code of Practice” is now available and guidelines for S-LCA have been published by UNEP/SETAC. First examples for the use of these guidelines have been published. An important practical argument for using LCC from the customers’ point of view is that environmentally preferable products often have higher purchasing costs, whereas the LCC may be much lower (examples: energy saving light bulbs, low energy houses, and cars). Also, since LCC allows an assessment for different actor perspectives, the producers may try to keep the total costs from their perspective below those of a conventional product: otherwise, it will not succeed at the market, unless highly subsidized. Those are practical aspects whichfinally decide about success or failure of “sustainable” products. Whether or not an analysis using all three aspects is necessary will depend on the exact question. However, if real money flows are important in sustainability analysis of product systems, inclusion of LCC is advisable.     

Life cycle management: UNEP-workshop

On August 30, 2001, the first in a series of planned global workshops on Life Cycle Management was organized in Copenhagen by UNEP in cooperation with dk-TEKNIK. The workshop provided an international forum to share experiences on LCM. The specific purpose of the workshop was to define the focus of a possible UNEP programme on Life Cycle Management under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Life Cycle Management has been defined by the SETAC Europe Working Group on LCM as an integrated framework of concepts, techniques and procedures to address environmental, economic, technological and social aspects of products and organizations to achieve continuous environmental improvement from a life cycle perspective. Life Cycle Management has been requested as an additional component for the Life Cycle Initiative by business organizations as well as governments in order to provide practical approaches for management systems in this area. The breakout groups of the workshop focussed on the role of integrating environmental management practices, concepts and tools in a life cycle perspective, on the integration of socio-economic aspects of sustainability in life cycle approaches, including the definition of adequate indicators for these aspects, on the communication strategies to promote life cycle thinking, and on the demand side of LCA. The workshop closed with a consensus that the UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative should really include a programme on Life Cycle Management with the proposed areas of work. UNEP in cooperation with SETAC should function as a global catalyser of knowledge transfer and cooperation on life cycle approaches. The key issue behind all activities would be the promotion of Life Cycle Thinking since all break-out groups mentioned the importance of well-prepared communication strategies. Another interesting outcome of the workshop is the clear interest of different stakeholders in the consideration of social and institutional effects of products, in addition to environmental and economic impacts, i.e. a sustainable development perspective.     

Working conditions in hydrogen production: A social life cycle assessment

Social impacts of novel technology can, parallel to environmental and economic consequences, influence its sustainability. By analyzing the case of hydrogen production by advanced alkaline water electrolysis (AEL) from a life cycle perspective, this paper illustrates the social implications of the manufacturing of the electrolyzer and hydrogen production when installed in Germany, Austria, and Spain. This paper complements previous environmental and economic assessments, which selected this set of countries based on their different structures in electricity production. The paper uses a mixed method design to analyze the social impact for the workers along the process chain. Appropriate indicators related to working conditions are selected on the basis of the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The focus on workers is chosen as a first example to test the relatively new Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database version 2.0. The results of the quantitative assessment are then complemented and compared through an investigation of the underlying raw data and a qualitative literature analysis. Overall, advanced AEL is found to have least social impact along the German process chain, followed by the Spanish and the Austrian. All three process chains show impacts on global upstream processes. In order to reduce social impact and ultimately contribute to Sustainable Development, policymakers and industry need to work together to further improve certain aspects of working conditions in different locations, particularly within global upstream processes.     

The Design of a Sustainability Assessment Standard Using Life Cycle Information

Sustainability assessment standards are currently being developed for a range of building products. This activity has been stimulated through the considerable success of the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) LEED? standard. Transparent life cycle–based standards can guide manufacturers to design products that have reduced environmental impact. The use of a sustainability standard can certify performance and avoid green washing. In this article we present a logical framework for designing a sustainability assessment standard through the creation of tables that award points in the standard to be consistent with life cycle information. Certain minimum principles of consistency are articulated. In the case that the life cycle impact assessment method maps the life cycle inventory to impact through a linear weighting, two design approaches—impact category and activity substitution—are constructed to be consistent with these principles. The approach is illustrated in a case study of a partial redesign of a carpet sustainability assessment standard (NSF/ANSI‐140).     

农业生命周期评价研究进展

作为评价产品系统全链条环境影响的有效工具,生命周期评价（LCA）方法已广泛用于工业领域。农业领域也面临着高强度的资源和环境压力,LCA在农业领域的应用应运而生。旨在综述已有农业LCA研究的基础上,鉴别农业LCA应用存在的问题,并为农业LCA未来的发展提出建议。目前农业LCA存在系统边界和功能单位界定不明晰、缺少区域清单数据库、生命周期环境影响评价模型（LCIA）不能准确反映农业系统环境影响、结果解释存在误区等方面的问题。为了科学准确地衡量农业系统的环境影响,促进农业系统的可持续发展,文章认为农业LCA应该从以下几个方面加强研究,即科学界定评价的参照系、系统边界的扩大及功能单位的合理选取、区域异质性数据库构建与LCIA模型开发、基于组织农业LCA的开发以及对于利益相关者行为的研究。     

A Systems Approach to Sustainable Technical Product Design

Many existing methods for sustainable technical product design focus on environmental efficiency while lacking a framework for a holistic, sustainable design approach that includes combined social, technical, economic, and environmental aspects in the whole product life cycle, and that provides guidance on a technical product development level. This research proposes a framework for sustainable technical product design in the case of skis. We developed a ski under the Grown brand, benchmarked according to social, environmental, economic, and technical targets, following an initial sustainability assessment, and delivered the first environmental life cycle assessment (ELCA) and the first social life cycle assessment (SLCA) of skis. The framework applies a virtual development process as a combination of ELCA to calculate the environmental footprint as carbon equivalents of all materials and processes and a technical computer‐aided design (CAD) and computer‐aided engineering (CAE) simulation and virtual optimization using parameter studies for the nearly prototype‐free development of the benchmarked skis. The feedback loops between life cycle assessment (LCA) and virtual simulation led to the elimination of highly energy intensive materials, to the pioneering use of basalt fibers in skis, to the optimization of the use of natural materials using protective coatings from natural resins, and to the optimization of the production process. From an environmental perspective, a minimum 32% reduction in carbon equivalent emissions of materials in relation to other comparably performing skis has been achieved, as well as a pioneering step forward toward transparent communication of the environmental performance by the individual, comparable, and first published ski carbon footprint per volume unit.     

Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment

Purpose

Sustainability assessment in life cycle assessment (LCA) addresses societal aspects of technologies or products to evaluate whether a technology/product helps to address important challenges faced by society or whether it causes problems to society or at least selected social groups. In this paper, we analyse how this has been, and can be addressed in the context of economic assessments. We discuss the need for systemic measures applicable in the macro-economic setting.

Methods

The modelling framework of life cycle costing (LCC) is analysed as a key component of the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. Supply chain analysis is applied to LCC in order to understand the relationships between societal concerns of value adding and the basic cost associated with a functional unit. Methods to link LCC as a foreground economic inventory to a background economy wide inventory such as an input–output table are shown. Other modelling frameworks designed to capture consequential effects in LCSA are discussed.

Results

LCC is a useful indicator in economic assessments, but it fails to capture the full dimension of economic sustainability. It has potential contradictions in system boundary to an environmental LCA, and includes normative judgements at the equivalent of the inventory level. Further, it has an inherent contradiction between user goals (minimisation of cost) and social goals (maximisation of value adding), and has no clear application in a consequential setting. LCC is focussed on the indicator of life cycle cost, to the exclusion of many relevant indicators that can be utilised in LCSA. As such, we propose the coverage of indicators in economic assessment to include the value adding to the economy by type of input, import dependency, indicators associated with the role of capital and labour, the innovation potential, linkages and the structural impact on economic sectors.

Conclusions

If the economic dimension of LCSA is to be equivalently addressed as the other pillars, formalisation of equivalent frameworks must be undertaken. Much can be advanced from other fields that could see LCSA to take a more central role in policy formation.     

基于生命周期方法的生活垃圾资源化利用系统生态效率分析

我国生活垃圾产量大但处理能力不足,产生多种环境危害,对其资源化利用能够缓解环境压力并回收资源。为探讨生活垃圾资源化利用策略,综合生命周期评价与生命周期成本分析方法,建立生态效率模型。以天津市为例,分析和比较焚烧发电、卫生填埋-填埋气发电、与堆肥+卫生填埋3种典型生活垃圾资源化利用情景的生态效率。结果表明,堆肥+卫生填埋情景具有潜在最优生态效率;全球变暖对总环境影响贡献最大,而投资成本对经济影响贡献最大。考虑天津市生活垃圾管理现状,建议鼓励发展生活垃圾干湿组分分离及厨余垃圾堆肥的资源化利用策略。     

Helias A. Udo De Haes: A Practical Scientist

Goal, Scope and Background The importance of the social dimension of sustainable development increased significantly during the last decade of the twentieth century. Industry has subsequently experienced a shift in stakeholder pressures from environmental to social-related concerns, where new developments in the form of projects and technologies are undertaken. However, the measurement of social impacts and the calculation of suitable indicators are less well developed compared to environmental indicators in order to assess the potential liabilities associated with undertaken projects and technologies. The aim of this paper is to propose a Social Impact Indicator (SII) calculation procedure based on a previously introduced Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) calculation procedure for environmental Resource Impact Indicators (RIIs), and to demonstrate the practicability of the SII procedure in the context of the process industry in South Africa. Methods A framework of social sustainability criteria has been introduced for the South African process industry. The social sub-criteria of the framework are further analyzed, based on project and technology management expertise in the South African process industry, to determine whether the criteria should be addressed at project or technology management level or whether they should rather form part of an overall corporate governance policy for new projects and technologies. Furthermore, the proposed indicators for criteria that are considered appropriate for project or technology evaluation purposes are constrained by the type of information that is available, i.e. the calculation methodology relies on the availability of regional or national social information where the project will be implemented, as well as the availability of project- or technology-specific social information during the various phases of the project or technology development life cycle. Case studies in the process industry and statistical information for South Africa are subsequently used to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure, demonstrate the SII method together with the RII method, and determine the practical use of the SII method. Results and Conclusion The case studies establish that social footprint information as well as project- and technology social data are not readily available in the South African process industry. Consequently, the number of mid-point categories that can be evaluated are minimal, which results in an impaired social picture when compared to the environmental dimension. It is concluded that a quantitative social impact assessment method cannot be applied for project and technology life cycle management purposes in industry at present. Recommendation and Perspective Following the outcomes of the case studies in the South African process industry, it is recommended that checklists and guidelines be used during project and technology life cycle management practices. Similar to the environmental dimension, it is envisaged that such checklists and guidelines would improve the availability of quantitative data in time, and would therefore make the SII procedure more practical in the future.     

Eco-efficiency

Goal, Scope and Background The eco-efficiency analysis and portfolio is a powerful decision support tool for various strategic and marketing issues. Since its original academic development, the approach has been refined during the last decade and applied to a multitude of projects. BASF, as possibly the most prominent company using and developing this tool, has applied the eco-efficiency approach to more than 300 projects in the last 7 years. One of the greatest difficulties is to cover both dimensions of eco-efficiency (costs or value added and environmental impact) in a comparable manner. This is particularly a challenge for the eco-efficiency analyses of products. Methods In this publication, an important approach and field of application dealing with product decisions based on the combination of Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is described in detail. Special emphasis is put on the quantitative assessment of the relation of costs and environmental impacts. In conventional LCA an assessment of environmental impact categories is often made by normalization with inhabitant equivalents. This is necessary to be able to compare the different environmental impact categories, because of each different unit. For the proposed eco-efficiency analysis, the costs of products or processes are also normalized with adapted gross domestic product figures. Results and Discussion The ratio between normalized environmental impact categories and normalized costs (R_E,C) is used for the graphical presentation of the results in an eco-efficiency portfolio. For the interpretation of the results of an eco-efficiency analysis, it is important to distinguish ratios R_E,C which are higher than one from ratios lower than one. In the first case, the environmental impact is higher than the cost impact, while the inverse is true in the second case. This is very important for defining which kind of improvement is needed and defining strategic management decisions. The paper shows a statistical evaluation of the R_E,C factor based on the results of different eco-efficiency analyses made by BASF. For industries based on large material flows (e.g. chemicals, steel, metals, agriculture), the R_E,C factor is typically higher than one. Conclusions and Recommendations This contribution shows that LCC and LCA may be combined in a way that they mirror the concept of eco-efficiency. LCAs that do not consider LCC may be of very limited use for company management. For that very reason, corporations should install a data management system that ensures equal information on both sides of the eco-efficiency coin.     

BEVSIM: Battery electric vehicle sustainability impact assessment model

To achieve climate neutrality ambitions, greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector need to be reduced by at least 90% by 2050. To support industry and policy makers on mitigating actions on climate goals it is important to holistically compare and reduce life cycle environmental impacts of road passenger vehicles. A web-based sustainability assessment tool named battery electric vehicle sustainability impact assessment model, BEVSIM, is developed to assess the environmental, circularity, and economic performance of the materials, sub-systems, parts, and individual components of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. This tool allows to measure and compare impacts resulting from recycling technologies, end-of-life scenarios, and future scenarios resulting from changes in grid mixes. This paper explains the purpose of the tool, its functionality and design as well as the underlying assumptions.     

Electrical and electronic components in the automotive sector: Economic and environmental assessment

Background Aims and Scope Automotive electrical and electronic systems (EES) comprise an area that has grown steadily in importance in the past decade and will continue to gain relevance in the foreseeable future. For this reason, the SEES project (Sustainable Electrical & Electronic System for the Automotive Sector) aims to contribute to cost-effective and eco-efficient EES components. Scenarios for the recovery of automotive EES are defined by taking into consideration the required improvements in EES design and the development and implementation of new technologies. The research project SEES is funded by the European Commission (Contract no. TST3-CT-2003-506075) within the Sixth Framework Programme, priority 6.2 (see 〈www.sees-project.net〉 for more information). This paper presents the findings of an assessment of the environmental and economic improvements for automotive EES from a system perspective, taking into account all life cycle steps. Methods Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) case studies have been employed within the SEES project to define optimum design and end-of-life scenarios. These case studies have been applied to two selected EES components: an engine wire harness and a smart junction box, both manufactured by LEAR and assembled in an existing Ford car model. The component design has a significant impact on the product system and its processes, including its use and end-of-life (EOL) phase. For each of the analysed components, two potential design alternatives have been compared with the original design, based on designers’ recommendations from the status quo scenario results. These include the use of alternative wiring systems with a reduced copper content (flat flexible cable), lead-free solder alloys and new fixation mechanisms to facilitate disassembly. The overall EOL scenario determines the technologies of processes that must be modelled within the EOL phase of a product system. The analysed end-of-life scenarios include: status quo car recycling and two alternatives: 1. disassembly for specific EES component recycling; 2. advanced post-shredder recycling of shredding residues. The influences of the different design and EOL treatment scenarios on the LCA and LCC results have been analysed. Results The most dominant life cycle phases for the LCA results are manufacturing (including raw material extraction and manufacturing of materials and components) and the use-phase. Similarly, manufacturing was the predominant phase during the LCC study. Disassembly costs were shown to be significant during the EOL phase. Among the analysed design alternatives, the highest environmental improvement potential were gained from the use of alternative wiring systems with reduced weight and copper content, but with slightly increased life cycle costs. Smaller differences of the results were determined for the different end-of-life scenarios. Discussion The results of the EOL scenario depend on the component in question. The influence of variations in process data, model choices, e.g. which LCIA model was used for calculating the Human Toxicity Potential (HTP), which inventory data for copper production was used and other variables have been assessed in the sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity analysis demonstrates a strong dependency of results for HTP on the selected model. The presented results are based on a public report of the SEES project. The study has undergone a critical review by an external expert according to ISO 14040, § 7.3.2. Conclusions The environmental impacts during the life cycle of the analysed products are generally most strongly influenced by material production and the use phase of the products. In comparison, improvements during the EOL phase have only a very limited potential to reduce environmental impacts. The studied design changes displayed clear environmental advantages for (lighter) flat, flexible cables. Whereas, the lead-free solder design alternatives showed a slight increase in some environmental impact categories. The application of these design changes has been limited in some cases by technical issues. Recommendations and Perspectives Focussing only on end-of-life improvements cannot be recommended for automotive EES products. A life-cycle perspective should be utilised for assessing improvements in individual life cycle stages of a product. The presented results will be an input for Eco-design guidelines for automotive EES, to be developed at a later stage within the SEES project. ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Lester Lave (II01@andrew.cmu.edu)     

Economic and Social Impact Assessment of China's Multi‐Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules Production

It is important to have insights into the potential sustainability impacts as early as possible in the development of technology. Solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies provide significant environmental, economic, and social benefits in comparison to the conventional energy sources. Because most previous studies of multi‐crystalline silicon (Multi‐Si) PV modules discuss the environmental impacts, this study quantitatively assesses the economic and social impacts of China's multi‐crystalline silicon (mc‐Si) PV modules production stages. The economic analysis is uses life cycle cost analysis, and the social impact analysis is carried out by applying the social index evaluation method. The economic analysis results demonstrate that the main cost of mc‐Si PV modules production in China lies in raw materials and labor and the production of Multi‐Si PV cells have the highest cost among the five manufacturing processes involved in Multi‐Si PV. The result of the social impact analysis reveal that the employment contribution index, S₁₁, is 0.72, indicating that Multi‐Si PV modules production in China has a prominent contribution to employment in comparison with other industries; the labor civilization degree, S₁₂ (i.e., the proportion of mental labor involved in a given job), and labor income contribution index, S₁₃, are both approximately 0.6, indicating that Multi‐Si PV modules production has a less‐significant labor level and income contribution in comparison with other industries; the production capacity contribution index, S₁₄, is merely 0.183, indicating that production of Multi‐Si PV modules does not contribute significantly to the gross domestic product (GDP). Based on the results of these evaluations, some recommendations to improve the economic and social impact of Multi‐Si PV modules production in China are presented, including support for research on polycrystalline silicon production for the purpose of reducing the raw material cost, as well as upgrading manufacturing facilities and implementing the corresponding production training in order to promote the labor civilization degree.