Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Green Manufacturing pp 49–81Cite as

Metrics for Green Manufacturing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter looks at metrics for green manufacturing and sustainability. Relevant economic metrics are reviewed and for complete coverage of sustainability issues, social metrics are also surveyed. The challenges of quantitatively evaluating social concerns are illustrated by highlighting the multiple considerations that social metrics attempt to capture. The chapter then survey metrics that tie in multiple considerations, pulling together ecological, social, and economic metrics. To inform metrics development, methods for inventory and impact assessment are also reviewed. Finally, the chapter presents several approaches for metric development, which systematically build up the metric based on considerations of goal, scope, system boundary, planning horizon, and system drivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) (2006) Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies third edition. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/methodology_sheets.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2010

  2. Parris TM, Kates RW (2003) Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:559–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schweimer G, Levin M (2000) Life cycle inventory for the golf a4. Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg. http://www.volkswagen-environment.de/. Accessed 17 Sep 2010

  4. Brealey R, Myers SC (2003) Principles of corporate finance. 7th edn (Int Ed) McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2006) Sustainability reporting guidelines, Version 3.0. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf. Accessed 17 Sep 2010

  6. Wemhoner N (2005) Flexibility optimization to increase the capacity utilization in automotive body shell assembly. PhD thesis, WZL Aachen

    Google Scholar 

  7. VDI 2884 (2005) Purchase, operating and maintenance of production equipment using Life Cycle Costing (LCC). Beuth, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Woodward D (1997) Life cycle costing-theory, information acquisition and application. Int J Proj Manage 15(6):335–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaufman RJ (1970) Life cycle costing: a decision making tool for capital eqmpment acquisition. Cost and Management, March/April: 21–28

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rebitzer G, Hunkeler D (2003) Life cycle costing in LCM ambitions, opportunities, and limitations: discussing a framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):253–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bengtsson J (2001) Manufacturing flexibility and real options: A review. Int J Prod Econ 74:213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Black F, Scholes M (1973) The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J Polit Econ 81:637–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Copeland T, Antikarov V (2001) Real options: a practioner’s guide. Texere, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Luehrman TA (1997) What’s it worth: a general manager’s guide to valuation. Harv Bus Rev 5–6(3):132–142

    Google Scholar 

  15. Luehrman TA (1998) Investment opportunuties as real options. Harv Bus Rev 07–08:51–67

    Google Scholar 

  16. Luehrman TA (1998) Strategy as a portfolio of real options. Harv Bus Rev 76(5):89

    Google Scholar 

  17. Krishnan N (2003) Design for environment (DFE) in semiconductor manufacturing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yuan CY, Zhang T, Rangarajan A, Dornfeld D, Ziemba B, Whitbeck R (2006) A decision-based analysis of compressed air usage patterns in automotive manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 25(4):293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundie S (1999) Life cycle assessment and decision theory—a praxis oriented product assessement based on societal values. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  20. Geibler J, Liedke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S (2006) Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiencs from the biotechnology industry. Bus Strategy Environ 15(5):334–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Araujo JB, Oliveira JFG (2008) Proposal of a methodology applied to the analysis and selection of performance indicators for sustainability evaluation systems. In: Curran R, Chou SY, Trappe A (org) Collaborative product and service life cycle management for a sustainable world, 1st edn. Springer, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reich-Weiser C, Dornfeld DA, Horne S (2008a) Environmental assessment and metrics for solar: case study of SolFocus solar concentrator systems. Proceedings of the IEEE PV specialists conference, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sikdar SK (2003) Sustainable development and sustainable metrics. AlChE J 49:1928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stymne S, Jackson T (2000) Intra-generational equity and sustainable welfare: a time series analysis for the UK and Sweden. Ecological Econ 3:219–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Okereke C (2006) Global environmental sustainability: intragenarational equity and conceptions of justice in multilateral environmental regimes. Geoforum 37:725–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Azapagic A, Perdan S (2000) Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Trans IChemE Part B Proc Safe Environ Protect 78(4):243–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Griesshammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot AL, Weidema B (2006) Feasibility study: integration of social aspects into LCA, Freiburg, Germany. http://www.estis.net/includes/file.asp?site=lcinit&file=2FF2C3C7-536F-45F2-90B4-7D9B0FA04CC8. Accessed 17 Sep 2010

  28. Azapagic A (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J Cleaner Prod 12(6):639–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2009) OECD Factbook 2009: economic, environmental and social statistics. http://masetto.sourceoecd.org/vl=902364/cl=22/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/index.htm. Accessed 17 Sep 2010

  30. World Resources Institute (WRI) in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, and World Bank (2008) World Resources 2008: roots of resilience—growing the wealth of the poor. WRI, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  31. Veleva V, Ellenbecker M (2001) Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. J Clean Prod 9:519–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Neely A, Mills J, Platts K, Richards H (2000) Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based approach. Int J Oper Prod Manage 20(10):1119–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006) ISO 14040: environmental management: life cycle assessment, principles and framework. http://www.iso.org. Accessed 16 Sept 2010

  34. Ragas A, Knapen M, Heuvel P, Eijkenboom R, Buise C, Laar B (1995) Towards a sustainable indicator for production systems. J Clean Prod 3:123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Quinn M, Kriebel D, Geiser K, Moure-Eraso R (1998) Sustainable production: a proposed strategy for the work environment. Am J Ind Med 34:297–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Griesshammer R, Buchert M, Gensch CO, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Rüdenauer I, Ebinger F (2007) PROSA—product sustainability assessment. Meisterdruck, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  37. BASF (2010) SEEBALANCE®. http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/de/sustainability/eco-efficiency-analysis/seebalance. Accessed 15 Sep 2010

  38. Schmidt WP, Taylor A (2006) Ford of Europe’s product sustainability index. Proceedings of the 13th CIRP conference in life cycle engineering, Leuven, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  39. Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ (2004) A review of approaches to treat uncertainty in LCA. Complexity and integrated resources management. Proceedings of the second biennial meeting of the International Environmental Modeling and Software Society (iEMSs)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL (2008) The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci Technol Viewp 42(16):5839–5842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lenzen M (2002) A guide for compiling inventories in hybrid life-cycle assessments: some Australian results. J Clean Prod 10(6):545–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13(7):687–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bouman M, Heijungs R, Van der Voet E, Van den Bergh J, Huppes G (2000) Material flows and economic models: an analytical comparison of SFA, LCA, and partial equilibrium models. Ecol Econ 32:195–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cooper J (2000) Material flow analysis. University of Washington College of Engineering. http://faculty.washington.edu/cooperjs/Definitions/materials_flow_analysis.htm. Accessed on 2 Nov 2009

  46. Cooper J, Fava J (2006) Life cycle assessment practitioner survey: summary of results. J Ind Ecol 10(4):12–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J of Life Cycle Assess 8(6):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhou X, Schoenung J (2004) Development of a hybrid environmental impact assessment model: a case study on computer displays. Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment, Phoenix, AZ

    Google Scholar 

  49. Masanet E (2004) Environmental and economic take-back planning for plastics from end-of-life computers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  50. McKone TE (1999) The rise of exposure assessment among the risk sciences: an evaluation through case studies. Inhal Toxicol 11:611–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ramaswami A, Milfor JB, Small MJ (2005) Integrated environmental modeling: pollutant transport, fate, and risk in the environment. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  52. National Research Council (NRC) (1983) Risk assessment in the Federal Government: managing the process. National Academy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  53. Brown CDJ (1997) Theoretical and mathematical foundations of human health risk analysis: biophysical theory of envronmental health science. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Louvar JF, Louvar BD (1998) Health and environmental risk analysis: fundamentals with applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kammen DM, Hassenzahl DM (1999) Should we risk it? Exploring environmental, health, and technological problem solving. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  56. Paustenbach DJ (ed) (2002) Health risk assessment: theory and practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. McDaniels T, Small MJ (Eds). (2004) Risk analysis and society: interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hertwich EG, Mateles SF, Pease WS, McKone TE (2001) Human toxicity potentials for life cycle assessment and toxics release inventory risk screening. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(4):928–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinée JB, Jager T, Kalf D, Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Sleeswijk AW, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: Calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES–LCA. Chemosphere 41(4):541–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jin X, High KA (2004) A new conceptual hierarchy for identifying environmental sustainability metrics. Environ Prog 23(4):291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Boyd S, Dornfeld D, Krishnan N (2006) Life cycle inventory of a CMOS chip. Electronics and the environment. Proceedings of the 2006 I.E. international symposium on electronics and the environment, San Francisco, CA, pp 253–257

    Google Scholar 

  62. Reich-Weiser C, Dornfeld DA (2008) Environmental decision making: supply-chain considerations. Trans North American Manufacturing Research Institute, pp 325–332

    Google Scholar 

  63. Superfund (2004) Comprehensive environmental response, compensation, and liability act. United States Environmental Protection Agency

    Google Scholar 

  64. Graedel TE, Allenby BR (2002) Hierarchical metrics for sustainability. Environ Qual Manage 12(2):21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Fleschutz T (2010) Contribution to sustainable industrial value creation by the multi attributive evaluation of assembly equipment. PhD thesis, TU Berlin, Fraunhofer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  66. Gausemeier J, Fink A, Dornfeld D, Ziemba B, Whitbeck R (2006) A decision-based analysis of compressed air usage patterns in automotive manufacturing. J Manuf Syst 25(4):293–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sudhoff W (2007) Methodology for the evaluation of locating overlapping mobility in production, PhD thesis, Technischen Universität München

    Google Scholar 

  68. Azapagic A (2003) Systems approach to corporate sustainability: A general management framework. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 81(5):303–316

    Google Scholar 

  69. Olsmats C, Dominic C (2003) Packaging scorecard—a packaging performance evaluation method. Packag Technol Sci 16:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schwartz J, Beloff B, Beaver E (2002) Use sustainability metrics to guide decision making. Chem Eng Prog: 58–63

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lapkin A (2006) Sustainability performance indicators. In: Dewulf J, Van Langenhove H (eds) Renewables-based technology: sustainability assessment. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tanzil D, Beloff B (2006) Assessing impacts: overview on sustainability indicators and metrics. Environ Qual Manage (Summer) 15(4):41–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Seager TP, Satterstrom FK, Linkov I, Tuler SP, Kay R (2007) Typological review of environmental performance metrics (with illustrative examples for oil spill response). Integr Environ Assess Manage 3(3):310–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Reich-Weiser C, Vijayaraghavan A, Dornfeld DA (2008b) Metrics for sustainable manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2008 international science and engineering conference, Evanston, IL

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1016 Florence Ln, Apt. 3, Menlo Park, CA, 94025, USA

    Corinne Reich-Weiser & Hazel Onsrud

  2. Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability, University of California, Berkeley, 192 Highland Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA

    Rachel Simon

  3. Department of Assembly Technology and Factory Management, Institute for Machine Tools and Factory Management (IWF), TU Berlin PTZ2, Pascalstrasse 8-9, TU, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Timo Fleschutz

  4. University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Chris Yuan

  5. System Insights, 2560 Ninth Street, Suite 123A, Berkeley, CA, 94710, USA

    Athulan Vijayaraghavan

Authors
  1. Corinne Reich-Weiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timo Fleschutz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Athulan Vijayaraghavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hazel Onsrud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corinne Reich-Weiser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Manufacturing, and Sustainability (LMAS), University of California, Berkeley, Etcheverry Hall 5100A, Berkeley, 94720-1740, California, USA

    David A. Dornfeld

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reich-Weiser, C., Simon, R., Fleschutz, T., Yuan, C., Vijayaraghavan, A., Onsrud, H. (2013). Metrics for Green Manufacturing. In: Dornfeld, D. (eds) Green Manufacturing. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6016-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6016-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6015-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6016-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation