Advertisement

How to Create a Business-Relevant LCA

  • Xiaobo Chen
  • Jacquette Lee
Chapter

Abstract

Facing issues related to innovative production and public requirement in sustainability, companies expect to develop an effective tool to integrate environmental aspects into their business strategies at product design stage. Although life cycle assessment is commonly used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products or services, it is time consuming and expensive and may produce irrelevant information for business decision making. Eco-design approach, as alternative, requires less efforts for data acquisition and evaluation and utilises a wide range of indicators that meet business demand. This study develops a matrix-based tool to capture environmental information related to business according to industry engagement. This life cycle-thinking-based approach focuses on more relevant environmental information and provides effectively data to support business strategy. In addition, this approach is practical and flexible to be used at the early design stage where data capture is generally difficult. Finally, it helps the managers to identify data gaps, so that it stimulates further investments in searching more targeted data.

Keywords

Business requirement LCA Eco-design Data capture 

References

  1. 1.
    Corbett J, Crookall PR. Design for economic manufacture. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol. 1986;35:93–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luttropp C, Lagerstedt J. EcoDesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J Clean Prod. 2006;14(15):1396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frankl P, Rubik F. Life cycle assessment in industry and business: adoption patterns, applications and implications. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework 2006. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization Geneva; 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coulon R, et al. Data quality and uncertainty in LCI. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 1997;2(3):178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reap J, et al. A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment–part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2008;13(4):290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grießhammer R, et al. Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA. Paris: UNEP/SETEC Life Cycle Initiative; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G. Environmental life cycle costing. Hoboken: CRC press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zamagni A, et al. Critical review of the current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice. Deliverable D7 of work package. 5. 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bakker CA. Environmental information for industrial designers. Delft: Delft University of Technology; 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewandowska A, Kurczewski P. ISO 14062 in theory and practice—ecodesign procedure. Part 1: structure and theory. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2010;15(8):769–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rossi M, Germani M, Zamagni A. Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. J Clean Prod. 2016;129:361–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fiksel J, Fiksel JR. Design for environment: creating eco-efficient products and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing; 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vezzoli CA, Manzini E. Design for environmental sustainability. London: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parsons S. Interpreting life cycle assessment for decision-making on emerging materials. EngD Doctoral Thesis, University of Surrey. 2016.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The ADS Group. Design for Environment. 2017. Available from: https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/membership/groups-committees/design-for-environment-dfe/.
  17. 17.
    EU Commission. Report on critical raw materials for the EU. Brussels: European Commission; 2014.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lloyd S, et al. Ecodesign through environmental risk management: a focus on critical materials. Proceeding of EcoDesign 2011 International Symposium; Dordrecht; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costa I, Massard G, Agarwal A. Waste management policies for industrial symbiosis development: case studies in European countries. J Clean Prod. 2010;18(8):815–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    OECD. Aligning policies for a low-carbon economy. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skea J, Nishioka S. Policies and practices for a low-carbon society. Taylor & Francis; 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SVHC E. Candidate list of substances of very high concern for authorisation. 2016. http://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hur T, et al. Simplified LCA and matrix methods in identifying the environmental aspects of a product system. J Environ Manag. 2005;75(3):229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allione C, et al. From ecodesign products guidelines to materials guidelines for a sustainable product. Qualitative and quantitative multicriteria environmental profile of a material. Energy. 2012;39(1):90–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rydh CJ, Sun M. Life cycle inventory data for materials grouped according to environmental and material properties. J Clean Prod. 2005;13(13):1258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaobo Chen
    • 1
  • Jacquette Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations