Analysis about the incorporation of remanufacturing concept into life cycle assessment theories
In Circular Economy, remanufacturing is one of the most beneficial circular loops to guarantee the conservation of resources. There are some alternatives to multiple life cycle products such as reuse, renovation, refurbishment or recycling although remanufacturing is the only option that introduces multiple life cycle products in the market as if these products were new. The objective of this research is to assess the requirement of a better alternative for the End of Cycle in Life Cycle Assessment from the remanufacturing perspective. Life Cycle Assessment is an environmental accounting and management approach that considers all the aspects of resource use and environmental releases associated with an industrial system from cradle to grave. Aiming at this, different system boundaries and allocation methodologies have been considered. The following four methodologies have been analyzed: Ecoinvent, Environdec, International Reference Life Cycle Data and European Product Environmental Footprint. In the studied methods, the recovery appears as reuse, energetic recovery or recovery to second life. These methods elude the remanufacturing perspective; therefore, how remanufacturing would fit for each of the selected methodologies has been analyzed.
KeywordsLife cycle assessment Circular economy Remanufacturing Ecodesign End of life
The authors would like to thank the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, in particular the Faculty of Engineering in Bilbao, and the Basque Ecodesign Hub for promoting this research technically.
This paper was written by Aitor San-Francisco, Nerea Sopelana, Jose-Maria Fernandez, Jose-Ramon Otegi and Rikardo Minguez in a team work process.
This research was funded by IHOBE which is a publicly-owned company coming under the Environmental Office of the Basque Government’s Ministry for the Environment, Territorial Planning and Housing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 1.World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2019) EU overshoot day living beyond nature's limits. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- 4.European Commision (2015) Closing the loop - an EU action plan for the circular economy. BruselasGoogle Scholar
- 5.Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1972) Guiding principles concerning international economic aspects of environmental policies. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 7.The Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse (CRR). Available at: http://www.remanufacturing.org.uk/what-is-remanufacturing.php. Accessed 12 May 2018
- 9.Curran M (2008) Encyclopedia of ecology, volume 4, 2016, pages 359–366. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
- 10.International Organization for Standardiztion. ISO 14040:2006 - environmental managment - life cycle assessment - principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
- 12.Directive of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/CE: on waste and repealing certain Directives. BruselasGoogle Scholar
- 14.The All-Party Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group (2014) Remanufacturing: towards a resource efficient economy, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 16.International Organization for Standardiztion. ISO 14044:2006 - environmental managment - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
- 18.European Commission - Joint Reserch Centre - Institute for Environemtanl and Sustainability (2010). ILCD Handbook, International Reference Life Cycle Data SystemGoogle Scholar
- 25.Boustani A, Sahni S, Graves SC, Gutowski TG (2010) Appliance remanufacturing and life cycle energy and economic savings. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE international symposium on sustainable systems and technology. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSST.2010.5507713
- 26.Four Elements Consulting, LLC (2008) LaserJet cartridge life cycle environmental impact comparison refresh study. SeattleGoogle Scholar
- 28.Lindahl M, Sundin E, Östlin J (2016) Environmental issues with the remanufacturing industry. 2016 13th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering, vol 1, pp 447–452Google Scholar
- 29.Sundin E, Tyskeng S (2006) Inverse manufacturing at Electrectrolux or recycling at local facilities? -a comparison from environmental and economic perspective. 13th CIRP international conference on life cycle engineering. pp 447-452Google Scholar
- 30.Goldey EU, Kuester R, Mummert TA, Okrasinki D et al (2010) Lifecycle assessment of the environmental benefits of remanufactured telecommunications product within a "green" supply chain. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSST.2010.5507761
- 31.Gell M (2008) Carbon footprints and Ecodesign of toner printer cartridgesGoogle Scholar
- 32.Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent. Allocation cut-off by classification. Available at: http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/system-models-in-ecoinvent-3/cut-off-system-model/allocation-cut-off-by-classification.html. Accessed 14 April 2019
- 33.Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent. Allocation at the Point of Substitution. Available at: http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/system-models-in-ecoinvent-3/apos-system-model/allocation-at-the-point-of-substitution.html. Accessed 14 April 2019
- 34.Environdec. EPD Supporting Annexes For Environmental Product Declarations, Version 1.0Google Scholar
- 35.European Commission (2013) Commision recommendation: on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisation. BruselasGoogle Scholar
- 36.European Commission -Joint Researh Centre- Institue for Environment and Sustainability. Workshop on End of Life (EoL) formulas in the context of the Environmental Footprint pilot phaseGoogle Scholar