Eco-efficiency indicator framework implemented in the metallurgical industry: part 1—a comprehensive view and benchmark
- 635 Downloads
The purpose of this work was to develop an indicator framework for the environmental sustainability benchmarking of products produced by the metallurgical industry. Sustainability differentiation has become an important issue for companies throughout the value chain. Differentiation is sometimes not attainable, due to the use of average data, lack of comparative data, certain issues being overshadowed by others, and a very narrow palette of indicators dominating the current sustainability assessments. There is a need for detailed and credible analyses, which show the current status and point out where improvements can be made. The indicator framework is developed to give a comprehensive picture of eco-efficiency, to provide methods that enable relevant comparisons as well as the tools for communicating the results. In this way, the methodology presented in this study aims to make differentiation easier and thus aid companies in driving the development toward more sustainable solutions.
The framework is based on the existing indicator framework Gaia Biorefiner, which is primarily intended for bio-based products. In this work, the framework was further developed for application in the metallurgical industry. The indicator framework is built by first looking at the issues, which are critical to the environment and global challenges seen today and which the activities of the metallurgical industry may have an impact on. Based on these issues, suitable indicators are chosen if they exist and built if they do not. The idea is that all indicators in a group form a whole, showing areas of innovation while refraining from aggregating and weighting, which often compromise a comprehensive and objective view. Both qualitative and quantitative indicators are included. The indicators are constructed following the criteria set by the EU and OECD for building indicators. Each indicator further has a benchmark. The rules for building the benchmark are connected to the indicators. Suitable data sources and criteria for the benchmark and the indicators are gathered from literature, publicly available databases, and commercial LCA software. The use of simulation tools for attaining more reliable data is also studied.
Results and discussion
The result is a visual framework consisting of ten indicator groups with one to five indicators each, totaling up to 31 indicators. These are visualized in a sustainability indicator “flower.” The flower can be further opened up to study each indicator and the reasons behind the results. The sustainability benchmark follows a methodology that is based on utilization of baseline data and sustainability criteria or limits. A simulation approach was included in the methodology to address the problem with data scarcity and data reliability. The status of the environment, current production technologies, location-specific issues, and process-specific issues all affect the result, and the aim of finding relevant comparisons that will support sustainability differentiation is answered by a scalable scoping system.
A new framework and its concise visualization has been built for assessing the eco-efficiency of products from the metallurgical industry, in a way that aims to answer the needs of the industry. Since there is a baseline, against which each indicator can be benchmarked, a sustainability indicator “flower” can be derived, one of the key innovations of this methodology. This approach goes beyond the usual quantification, as it is also scalable and linked to technology and its fundamental parameters. In part 2, a case study “A case study from the copper industry” tests and illustrates the methodology.
KeywordsBenchmarking Circular economy Indicator Metallurgy Process and system simulation Product environmental footprint Resource efficiency Sustainability
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was funded by Outotec Oyj and Gaia Consulting Oyj. HSC Sim is a product of Outotec Oyj and Gaia Refiner is a product of Gaia Consulting Oy.
- BGS (2012). Risk list 2012—current supply risk for chemical elements or element groups which are of economic value. British Geological Survey. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/statistics/risklist.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2015
- Bukhard (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online 15:1–22Google Scholar
- Derwall J, Guenster N, Bauer R, Koedijk K (2005) The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. Financ Analysts J 61:2Google Scholar
- DeSimone LD, Popoff F, World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1997) Eco-efficiency: the business link to sustainable development. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- European Union (2015). EU resource efficiency scoreboard, 2014. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/documents/re_scoreboard_2014.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2016
- European Commission (2008) Waste framework directive (Directive 2008/98/EC)Google Scholar
- European Commission (2009) The fuel quality directive. (Directive 2009/30/EC)Google Scholar
- European Commission (2009) The renewable energy directive. (Directive 2009/28/EC)Google Scholar
- European Commission (2011) COM(2011) 21 communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A resource-efficient Europe—flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategyGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2014) Annexes to the report on critical raw materials for the EU. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/specific-interest/critical/index_en.htm Accessed 6 Feb 2015
- European Commission (2014) Best available techniques (BAT) reference document for the non-ferrous metals industries, draft, Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit, European IPPC BureauGoogle Scholar
- Fussler C, James P (1996) Driving eco-innovation: a breakthrough discipline for innovation and sustainability. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2004) The eco-indicator 99—a damage oriented method for life cycle assessment, methodology report, PRé ConsultantsGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2013) ReCiPe 2008, a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, first edition, Report I: Characterisation. s.l.: RIVM ReportGoogle Scholar
- IChemE (2002) The sustainability metrics. The Institution of Chemical Engineers, RugbyGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1535 ppGoogle Scholar
- ISO (International Standards Organisation) (2006) ISO14044: environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
- ISO (International Standards Organisation) (2006) ISO14040: environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
- OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) (2003) OECD environmental indicators development, measurement and use, reference paperGoogle Scholar
- Remus R, Monsonet MAA, Roudier S, Delgado Sancho L (2013) Joint Research Council. best available techniques (BAT) reference document for iron and steel production, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
- Reuter MA, Hudson C, van Schaik A, Heiskanen K, Meskers C, Hagelüken C (2013) Metal recycling, opportunities, limits, infrastructure, UNEP united nations environmental programme, report for International Resource Panel: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/50244/publications/Metal_Recycling-Full_Report_150dpi_130919.pdf
- Reuter MA, Matusewicz R, van Schaik A (2015b) Lead, zinc and their minor elements: enablers of a circular economy. World Metall-Erzmetall 68(3):132–146Google Scholar
- Schlesinger ME, King M, Sole K, Davenport W (2011) Extractive metallurgy of copper, 5th edn. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Schmidheiny S (1992) Changing course: a global business perspective on development and the environment. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme) (2008) Vital water graphics: an overview of the state of the world’s fresh and marine waters—2nd edGoogle Scholar
- Van Schaik A, Reuter MA (2014) Chapter 22: material-centric (aluminium and copper) and product-centric (Cars, WEEE, TV, Lamps, Batteries, Catalysts) recycling and DfR rules. In: Worrel E, Reuter MA (eds) Handbook of recycling. Elsevier, 307–378Google Scholar
- WEF (World Economic Forum) (2016) The global risk report 2016, 11th edn. Available at http://wef.ch/risks2016
- Worrel E, Reuter M (2014) Handbook of recycling, state-of-the-art for practitioners, analysts, and scientists. Elsevier, WalthamGoogle Scholar