Environmental Management

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 350–364 | Cite as

POEMS: A Case Study of an Italian Wine-Producing Firm

  • Fulvio Ardente
  • Giorgio Beccali
  • Maurizio Cellura
  • Antonino Marvuglia
Article

Abstract

Over the last decade, researchers paid much attention to concepts such as Design for Environment, Extended Producer Responsibility, Responsible Chain Management, and Eco-design. Many management tools and standards (such as EMAS, ISO 14001, LCA, EPD, Ecolabel) have been developed to support companies in the evaluation and management of their environmental performance and to pursue continual environmental improvement. The more recent development of the aforesaid fields looks at interorganizational environmental management. Such an approach can complement the more traditional intraorganizational corporate environmental management approaches and tools. A typical example of this new trend is the Product Oriented Environmental Management System (POEMS), which represents the natural evolution of the above-mentioned tools, combining the features of EMS, EPD and Ecolabel. Although the structure of the POEMS is still not standardized, many experimental applications have yet been carried out in Europe. In developing a POEMS, a company needs to determine all of the environmental impacts caused at all life-cycle stages of the product and, ideally, to reduce all of them through a continual commitment. The aim of the present study was to perform a survey of the developed POEMS models and to analyze their peculiarities and drawbacks in the application to Small and Medium Enterprises. A case study regarding an Italian winery company is presented. The study analyzes the structure and the activities of the examined firm, in order to estimate direct and indirect environmental impacts following a life-cycle approach. The chosen functional unit is a 0.75-L bottle of red wine. The article also suggests some solutions to improve the environmental performances of the firm’s products.

Keywords

LCA POEMS Environmental product declaration Wine-making Small and medium enterprises 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Dr. Mary Argyraki of the University of Sunderland (UK) for her contribution in the review of the manuscript.

Literature Cited

  1. Ammenberg J., E. Sundin. 2005. Products in environmental management systems: drivers, barriers and experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production 13:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ardente F., G. Beccali, M. Cellura, V. Lo Brano. 2005a. Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector: Sensitivity analysis, energy and environmental balances. Renewable Energy 30:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ardente F., G. Beccali, M. Cellura, V. Lo Brano. 2005b. Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector. Renewable Energy 30:1031–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aumonier, S. 1997. Life cycle assessment of anaerobic digestion: A literature review. Report for IEA Task 24Google Scholar
  5. Boustead Consulting Ltd. 2001. Environmental database, ver. 4.4. Boustead Consulting, Ltd., Black Cottage, West Sussex, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Bras B. 1997. Incorporating environmental issues in product realization. (United Nations UNEP/IE invited contribution). Industry and Environment, 20(1–2):7–13.Google Scholar
  7. Brentrup F., J. Küsters, J. Lammel, H. Kuhlmann. 2000. Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector. International Journal of LCA 5(6):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carnimeo, G., M. Frey, and F. Iraldo. 2002. Gestione del prodotto e sostenibilità. (in Italian) Franco Angeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, G., C. A. Wilt, P. S. Dillon, and B. K. Fishbein. 1997. Extended producer responsibility: a new principle for product-oriented pollution prevention. Report prepared under cooperative agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid WasteGoogle Scholar
  10. de Bakker F. G. A., A. Nijhof. 2002. Responsible chain management: A capability assessment framework. Business Strategy and the Environment 11(1):63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Bakker F. G. A., O. A. M. Fisscher, A. J. P. Brack. 2002. Organizing product-oriented environmental management from a firm’s perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 10:455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deming W. E. 1986. Out of the crisis. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmidt K., F. M. Christensen, L. Juul, H. Øllgaard, and C. Nielsen. 2002. Manual on Product oriented of Environmental Work. Danish Environmental protection Agency, Danish Ministry of the Environmental. Environmental News 64Google Scholar
  14. Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles. Official Journal of the European Communities L269:34–42Google Scholar
  15. DMU (National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark). 2005. Available from http://www.dmu.dk. Accessed on April 2005
  16. Ecolabel. 2005. Available from http://www.eco-label.com. Accessed on April 2005
  17. EDIT (Eco Design Interactive Tools). 2005. Available from http://www.ecoconcept.com/. Accessed on April 2005
  18. European Commission. 2001a. Green paper on Integrated Product Policy. 68 final. COM, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2001b. Commission interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating environmental considerations into public procurement. 566 final. COM, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission. 2001c. Summary of Discussions at the 3rd Integrated Product Policy Expert Workshop. Environmental Management Systems (including Product-Oriented Environmental Management Systems). COM, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission DG Environment. 2002. Evaluation of Environmental Product Declaration Schemes. Final Report, September 2002, 119 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission. 2003. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Integrated Product Policy, Building on Environmental Life-cycle Thinking. 302 final. COM, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiksel J. 1996. Design for environment: Creating eco-efficient products and processes. McGraw-Hil, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. GEMIS—Öko-Institut (Institut für angewandte Ökologie—Institute for Applied Ecology) Global Emission Model for Integrated Systems (GEMIS). 2004. German environmental database. Version 4.1Google Scholar
  25. GESAMB Promozione di sistemi di gestione ambientale e di sicurezza alimentare nelle piccole e medie imprese del Mezzogiorno. 2005. Available from http://spa.casaccia.enea.it/gesamb/index.html. Accessed on April 2005Google Scholar
  26. Hauschild, M. 2000. Estimating pesticide emissions for LCA of agricultural products. In: B. P. Weidema and M. J. G. Meeusen. Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessment. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar
  27. Hauschild M., H. Wenzel. 1997. Environmental assessment of products, Vol. 2: Scientific background. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Heathwaite, L. 2000. Flows of phosphorous in the environment: Identifying pathways of loss from agricultural land. In B. P. Weidema and M. J. G. Meeusen. Agricultural data for Life Cycle Assessment. Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI), The Hague, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar
  29. Heijungs R. 1996. Identification of key issues for further investigation in improving the reliability of life-cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production 4(3–4):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hellweg S., G. Geisler. 2003. Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides, International Journal of LCA 8(5):310–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hodgkinson R. A., B. J. Chambers, P. J. A. Withers, R. Cross. 2002. Phosphorus losses to surface waters following organic manure applications to a drained clay soil. Agricultural Water Management 57:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. Third Assessment ReportGoogle Scholar
  33. ISO 14001. 2004. Environmental management systems: Requirements with guidance for use. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. ISO 14020. 1998. Environmental labels and declarations: General principles. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO 14021. 1999. Environmental labels and declarations: Type II environmental labelling: Self declared environmental claims. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  36. ISO 14024. 1999. Environmental labels and declarations: Type I environmental labelling: Principles and procedures. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO 14025. 2000. Environmental labels and declarations: Type III environmental declarations. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO 14040. 1997. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  39. ISO 14041. 1998. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. ISO 14042. 2000. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Life cycle impact assessment. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  41. ISO 14043. 2000. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Life cycle interpretation. International organisation for standardisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  42. Lifset R. E. 1993. Take it back: extended producer responsibility as a form of incentive-based environmental policy. Journal of Resource Management and Technology 21:163–175Google Scholar
  43. Luciani R., L. Andriola, S. Sibilio. 2003. I sistemi di gestione ambientale orientati al prodotto: POEMS, un nuovo strumento (in Italian). Ambiente 8:789–796Google Scholar
  44. MSR (Swedish Environmental Management Council). 1999. Requirements for Environmental Product Declaration, EPD: An application of ISO TR 14025 Type III Environmental DeclarationsGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1996. Pollution prevention and control extended producer responsibility in the OECD area. phase 1 report. No. 66. ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1992. Green products by design: Choices for a cleaner environment. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Regulation (EC) N° 1980/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000, on a revised Community eco-label award scheme. Official Journal of the European Communities L 237:1–12Google Scholar
  48. Regulation (EC) N° 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS). Official Journal of the European Communities L 114:1–29Google Scholar
  49. Resetar, S., F. Camm, and J. Drezner. 1998. Environmental management in design: Lessons from Volvo and Hewlett-Packard for the Department of Defense. RAND Corporation, Report MR-1009-OSD. Available from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1009/index.html
  50. Rocha C., H. Brezet. 1999. Product-oriented environmental management systems: A case study. Journal of Sustainable Product Design 10:30–42Google Scholar
  51. Rosen C. M. 1997. Industrial ecology and the greening of business history. Business and Economic History 26(1):123–137Google Scholar
  52. Scimìa E., R. Luciani, L. Owen, L. Andriola. 2004. Un’esperienza pilota di valutazione del ciclo di vita nel settore mobili per ufficio (in Italian). Ambiente 4:383–387Google Scholar
  53. Smith, M. 1997. Eco-design innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Greening of Industry Network, University of California, 16–19 November 1997. Santa Barbara, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. van Berkel C. 1994. PRIMA: A Dutch initiative for environmental improvement of retail assortments. Journal of Cleaner Production 2(3–4):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Berkel R. 1996. Cleaner production in practice: Methodology development for environmental improvement of industrial production and evaluation of practical experiences. PhD Thesis, University of Amsterdam, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  56. van Berkel R., M. Kampen J. Kortman. 1999. Opportunities and constraints for product-oriented environmental management systems (P-EMS). Journal of Cleaner Production 7:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Hemel C. G., J.C. Brezet. 1996. Ecodesign, a promising approach to sustainable production and consumption. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Paris, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  58. van Weenen J. C. 1995. Towards sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 3:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands). 1989. National environmental policy planGoogle Scholar
  60. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands). 1998. Product-oriented environmental management: Its theory and practiceGoogle Scholar
  61. Weidema B. P., R. Pedersen T. S. Drivsholm. 1995. Life cycle screening of food products: Two examples and some methodological proposals. Danish Academy of Technical Sciences. Lyngby, DenmarkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wenzel H., M. Hauschild L. Alting. 1997. Environmental assessment of products. Vol. 1: Methodology, tools and case studies in product development. Chapman & Hall, London 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fulvio Ardente
    • 1
  • Giorgio Beccali
    • 1
  • Maurizio Cellura
    • 1
  • Antonino Marvuglia
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ricerche Energetiche ed AMbientali (DREAM)Università degli Studi di PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations