Reduction of Environmental Impact of Products Through Hotspot Analysis in LCA

  • Jitender
  • Prabir SarkarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


Substantial effort is made against the depletion of natural resources by designing sustainable products using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method. However, LCA does not indicate which unit manufacturing process has the highest opportunity for improvements with least resource allocation, that it where lies the hotspots. This study aims to find hotspots through LCA and help industries to identify the scopes for easy improvements. In this study, we consider ‘water taps’ manufactured by three companies and compute the Green House Gases (GHGs) emissions for each stage of a product, and find the lowest and average values of it. Next, we find the hotspots by comparing these values with the individual values of each process. Once hotspots are found, a company can focus only on these areas for fast reduction of GHGs. The practical effect would be reduction in carbon footprint, raw materials, energy, wastage of materials, and increase in economic benefit.


Life cycle assessment Sustainability Impact assessment Hotspot analysis Greenhouse gas emissions Design for sustainability 


  1. 1.
    Giovannoni, E., Fabietti, G.: What is sustainability? a review of the concept and its applications. In: Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Riccaboni, A., Quattrone, P. (eds.) Integrated Reporting, pp. 21–40. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Knot, J.M.C., Van den Ende, J.C., Vergragt, P.J.: Flexibility strategies for sustainable technology development. Technovation 21(6), 335–343 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gray, R.: Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Account. Organ. Soc. 35(1), 47–62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ljungberg, L.Y.: Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater. Des. 28(2), 466–479 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Imperatives, S.: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development—A/42/427 Annex, Chapter 2—UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 26 Dec 2016]
  6. 6.
    Sala, S., Pant, R., Brandao, M., Pennington, D.: Life Cycle Impact Assessment: Research Needs and Challenges from Science to Policy Making. In: 1st World Sustain. Forum, vol. 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Carlowitz, H.C., Irmer, K., Kiessling, A.: Sylvicultura oeconomica: Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht. TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Freiberg (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hertwich, E.G.: Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(13), 4673–4684 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Guinée, J.B.: Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 95(3), 422–428 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark, G., Kosoris, J., Hong, L.N., Crul, M.: Design for sustainability: current trends in sustainable product design and development. Sustainability 1(3), 409–424 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (ed.) Decoupling the Environmental Impacts of Transport from Economic Growth. OECD, Paris (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Upadhyayula, V.K.K., Meyer, D.E., Curran, M.A., Gonzalez, M.A.: Life cycle assessment as a tool to enhance the environmental performance of carbon nanotube products: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 26, 37–47 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Espinoza-Orias, N., Stichnothe, H., Azapagic, A.: The carbon footprint of bread. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16(4), 351–365 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eide, M.H.: Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7(2), 115–126 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim, S., Dale, B.E.: Life cycle assessment of various cropping systems utilized for producing biofuels: Bioethanol and biodiesel. Biomass Bioenergy 29(6), 426–439 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B.P., Pennington, D.W.: Life cycle assessment. Environ. Int. 30(5), 701–720 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woolridge, A.C., Ward, G.D., Phillips, P.S., Collins, M., Gandy, S.: Life cycle assessment for reuse/recycling of donated waste textiles compared to use of virgin material: An UK energy saving perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 46(1), 94–103 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soode, E., Lampert, P., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K.: Carbon footprints of the horticultural products strawberries, asparagus, roses and orchids in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 168–179 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bienge, K., von Geibler J., Lettenmeier, M., Biermann, B., Adria, O., Kuhndt, M.: Sustainability hot spot analysis: a streamlined life cycle assessment towards sustainable food chains. In: Conference proceedings of the 9th European International Farming System Association Symposium, pp. 4–7 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyRoparIndia

Personalised recommendations