Advertisement

Analysis about the incorporation of remanufacturing concept into life cycle assessment theories

  • Aitor San-FranciscoEmail author
  • Nerea Sopelana
  • Jose-Maria Fernandez
  • Jose-Ramon Otegi
  • Rikardo Minguez
Research

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Life cycle assessment Circular economy Remanufacturing Ecodesign End of life 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Author contributions

This paper was written by Aitor San-Francisco, Nerea Sopelana, Jose-Maria Fernandez, Jose-Ramon Otegi and Rikardo Minguez in a team work process.

Funding information

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.

References

  1. 1.
    World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2019) EU overshoot day living beyond nature's limits. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rashid A, Asif FM, Krajnik P, Nicolescu CM (2013) Resource conservative manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable. J Clean Prod 57:166–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh J, Ordoñez I (2015) Resource recovery from post-consumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J Clean Prod 134:342–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commision (2015) Closing the loop - an EU action plan for the circular economy. BruselasGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1972) Guiding principles concerning international economic aspects of environmental policies. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sundin E, Lee HM. (2012) In what way is remanufacturing good for the environment? Proceedings of EcoDesign 2011 international symposium. pp 552-559.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3010-6_106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Centre for Remanufacturing and Reuse (CRR). Available at: http://www.remanufacturing.org.uk/what-is-remanufacturing.php. Accessed 12 May 2018
  8. 8.
    Pigosso DC, Zanette ET, Filho AG et al (2018) Ecodesign methods focused on remanufacturing. J Clean Prod 18:21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Curran M (2008) Encyclopedia of ecology, volume 4, 2016, pages 359–366. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Organization for Standardiztion. ISO 14040:2006 - environmental managment - life cycle assessment - principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakker C, Wang F, Huisman J, den Hollander M (2014) Products that go round: exploring product life extension throught design. J Clean Prod 69:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Directive of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council (2008) Directive 2008/98/CE: on waste and repealing certain Directives. BruselasGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aziz NA, Wahab DA, Ramli R, Azhari CH (2015) Modeling and optimisation of upgradability in the design of multiple life cycle products: a critical review. J Clean Prod 112(1):282–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The All-Party Parliamentary Sustainable Resource Group (2014) Remanufacturing: towards a resource efficient economy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of product. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 13:89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Organization for Standardiztion. ISO 14044:2006 - environmental managment - life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kerin M, Pham DT (2019) A review of emerging industry 4.0 technologies in remanufacturing. J Clean Prod 237:2–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117805 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    European Commission - Joint Reserch Centre - Institute for Environemtanl and Sustainability (2010). ILCD Handbook, International Reference Life Cycle Data SystemGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ekvall TA (2000) Market-based approach to allocation at open-loop recycling. Resour Conserv Recycl 29(1–2):91–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(99)00057-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vogtländer JG, Brezet HC, Hendricks CF (2001) Allocation in recycling system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 6:344–355.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim S, Hwang T, Lee KM (1997) Allocation for Cascade recycling system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allacker K, Mathieux F, Manfredi S et al (2014) Allocation solutions for secondary material production and end of life recovery: proposal for product policy initiatives. Resour Conserv Recycl 88:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.03.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kerr W, Ryan C (2001) Eco-efficiency gains from remanufacturing. A case study of photocopier remanufacturing at Fuji Xerox Australia. J Clean Prod 9:78–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00032-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutherland JW, Adler DP, Haapla KR, Kumar V (2008) A comparasion of manufacturing and remanufacturing energy intensities with application to diesel engine production. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 57:5–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 26.
    Four Elements Consulting, LLC (2008) LaserJet cartridge life cycle environmental impact comparison refresh study. SeattleGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kama K (2015) Circling the economy: resource-making and marketization in EU electronic waste policy. Area. 47(1):16–23 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/area.12143/fullCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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. 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. 31.
    Gell M (2008) Carbon footprints and Ecodesign of toner printer cartridgesGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 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. 34.
    Environdec. EPD Supporting Annexes For Environmental Product Declarations, Version 1.0Google Scholar
  35. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Basque Country UPV/EHULeioaSpain
  2. 2.IHOBEBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations