LCA and ecodesign in the toy industry: case study of a teddy bear incorporating electric and electronic components

  • Ivan Muñoz
  • Cristina Gazulla
  • Alba Bala
  • Rita Puig
  • Pere Fullana


Background, aim, and scope

A cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment (LCA) of a toy incorporating electric and electronic components is carried out following the ISO 14044 standard, with the purpose of identifying the environmental hotspots and suggesting ecodesign measures to the manufacturer.

Materials and methods

The product under study is a teddy bear which sings songs and tells stories while moving its body, using conventional alkaline batteries as a source of energy. This toy is designed by a Spanish company, but manufactured entirely in China, from where it is exported to Europe, America, and Africa. The LCA study includes production of all components in China, maritime and road distribution, use phase, and end-of-life. Life cycle impact assessment is focused on five standard impact categories from the CML 2001 method.


The use phase is identified as potentially the most important life cycle stage, due to the impact of battery production. It is responsible for 50% to 64% of the overall life cycle impact, depending on the impact category. Toy production is also an important stage, with 28% to 34% of the total contribution. Maritime distribution also involves relevant contributions in some impact categories. Based on the results of the study, a set of ecodesign measures were suggested to the manufacturer, with most of them being judged as feasible, and applied in a new product.


Important data gaps were encountered during the study, especially concerning the use phase, due to lack of data on consumer behavior, and background inventory data on alkaline battery production. A sensitivity analysis applied to the use phase showed that the relative importance of this life cycle stage is strongly affected by the assumptions made in this work.


The LCA study was found as a very helpful tool to define ecodesign measures for this product. Several measures suggested have been actually implemented by the manufacturer in a similar product.

Recommendations and perspectives

This case study, together with others, will help in the long run to define general ecodesign measures for the toy sector in Catalonia.


Batteries Ecodesign Electric and electronic components Life cycle assessment Teddy bear Toys 


  1. Bio Intelligence Service (2003) Impact Assessment on Selected Policy Options for Revision of the Battery Directive. Final Report. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  2. Choi ACK, Kaebernick H, Lai WH (1997) Manufacturing processes modelling for environmental impact assessment. J Mater Process Tech 70(1–3):231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doka G (2003) Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services. Final report ecoinvent 2000 No. 13, EMPA St. Gallen, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  4. EC (2004) Packaging and packaging waste.
  5. ECOTIC (2006) Personal communication—Fundación ECOTIC. Barcelona.
  6. Ekvall T, Tillman AM (1997) Open-loop recycling: criteria for allocation procedures. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(3):155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EU (2003a) Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0024 – 0039Google Scholar
  8. EU (2003b) Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electric and electronic equipment. Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 – 0023.Google Scholar
  9. Eurostat (2006) Municipal waste treatment, by type of treatment method. Environment and Energy StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritsche U, Schmidt K (2006) Global Emission Model of Integrated Systems. Manual. Öko-institut e.V., Darmstadt, Germany.
  11. Guinée J (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Konig A, van Oers L, Wegener A, Suh S, Udo de Haes E, Bruijn H, Duin R, huijbregts M, Lindeijer E, Roorda A, van der Ben B, Weidema B (2002) Life Cycle Assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Volume 1, 2, 3. Centre of Environmental Science—Leiden University (CML), The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Herranz J (2007) Informe del Sector Juguetes en 2006. Subdirección general de COMEX de Productos Industriales. Ministerio de Industria, Comercio y TurismoGoogle Scholar
  13. Herrmann C (2006) Personal Communication. Project Manager, PE Europe GmbH. Leinfelden-Echterdingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  14. Hischier R, Wager P, Gauglhofer J (2005) Does WEEE recycling make sense from an environmental perspective? The environmental impacts of the Swiss take-back and recycling systems for waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE). Environ Impact Asses 25(5):525–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IMC Toys (2007) Professional Catalogue, Mickey Mouse Club House. = IMC&x = 0
  16. International Energy Agency (2005) Electricity/Heat in China, People’s Republic of, in 2005.
  17. ISO (2006) ISO 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. LBP, PE (2007) GaBi 4 Software-System and Databases for Life Cycle Engineering. Copyright, TM. Stuttgart, Echterdingen.
  19. NPD (2007) Toy Markets in the World. Prepared for the International Council of Toy Industries by NPD.
  20. Parsons D (2007) The environmental impact of disposable versus re-chargeable batteries for consumer use. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(3):197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ribera J (2006) Personal Communication. Head of laboratory, Pilagest S.L. Pont de Vilomara i Rocafort, Bages, Barcelona, Spain.
  22. Savage M, Ogilvie S, Slezak J, Artim E, Lindblom J, Delgado L (2006) Implementation of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in EU 25. Technical Report Series, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  23. Scharnhorst W (2008) Life cycle assessment in the telecommunication industry: a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(1):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Udo de Haes HA, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Muller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment background. Document for the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(2):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weidema BP, Frees N, Nielsen AM (1999) Marginal production technologies for life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilkinson CF, Lamb JC (1999) The potential health effects of phthalate esters in children’s toys: a review and risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharm 30(2):140–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Muñoz
    • 1
  • Cristina Gazulla
    • 2
  • Alba Bala
    • 2
  • Rita Puig
    • 3
  • Pere Fullana
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Hydrogeology and Analytical ChemistryUniversity of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain
  2. 2.Grup d’Investigació en Gestió Ambiental (GIGA), Escola Superior de Comerç Internacional (ESCI)Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Escola Universitària d’Enginyeria Tècnica Industrial d’IgualadaUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya (EUETII-UPC)IgualadaSpain

Personalised recommendations