Advertisement

Streamlined Life Cycle Assessment for the Environmental Evaluation of Products in the Supply Chain

  • Dora Ruiz-MéndezEmail author
  • Leonor Patricia Güereca
Chapter
  • 740 Downloads
Part of the Greening of Industry Networks Studies book series (GINS, volume 7)

Abstract

In this chapter, the use of streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) methods for the evaluation of supply chains are analysed in order to reach SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption). In order to meet the objective, a bibliographical review was performed; afterwards, those cases that fulfilled the criteria were subject to a deeper analysis. The relationship of supply chains in the context of SDG and streamlined LCA was examined as well. The outcomes of the investigation are divided into five sections, four of them are focused in different types of LCA that aids in the communication of environmental aspects of products: (1) the development of a full LCA, (2) different types of direct LCA such as carbon and water footprint, (3) the use of environmental labelling and (4) the use of streamlined LCA and computational tools to display and support in the interpretations of results. In the fifth part of the results section, a reflection on sustainable supply chains in the SDG context is given. Based on this analysis, there are two notable conclusions: streamlined LCA helps in the fulfilment of SDG in organizations and furthermore, full LCA and streamlined LCA are complementary to each other.

Keywords

Streamlined LCA LCA SDG Supply chains Environmental evaluation 

References

  1. 10YFP (2017) 10YFP programmes. Sustainable public procurement. In: What is sustainable public procurement? http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/sustainable-public-procurement/about. Accessed 1 Feb 2017
  2. Arena M, Azzone G, Conte A (2013) A streamlined LCA framework to support early decision making in vehicle development. J Clean Prod 41:105–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124:252–264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2009.11.023
  4. Beamon BM (2010) Designing the green supply chain. Logist Inf Manag 12:332–342.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09576059910284159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbon Trust (2017) Product footprint certification. bontrust.com/home/. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  6. Cucek L, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 34:9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curran MA (2014) Strengths and limitations of life cycle assessment. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer, Cincinnati, pp 189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curran MA (2017) Overview of goal and scope definition in life cycle assessmentGoogle Scholar
  9. EPD® (2015) General programme instructions for the international EPD® system. Version 2.5, dated 11 May 2015. Estocolmo, SuizaGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2010) Making sustainable consumption and production a reality. European Union, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  11. Fet AM, Skaar C (2006) Eco-labeling, product category rules and certification procedures based on ISO 14025 requirements (6 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:49–54.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.01.237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fet AM, Skaar C, Michelsen O (2009) Product category rules and environmental product declarations as tools to promote sustainable products: experiences from a case study of furniture production. Clean Techn Environ Policy 11:201–207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-008-0163-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finkbeiner M (2016) Special types of life cycle assessment. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Güereca L (2018) El análisis de ciclo de vida de la vivienda como un elemento clave para la sustentabilidad de las ciudades. In: Alcocer S, Castro LJ (eds) Planeación de infraestructura en el desarrollo sustentable de ciudades, 1st edn. Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Ciudad de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  15. Güereca LP, Carius C, Padilla A (2016) Huella de Carbono con Enfoque de Ciclo de Vida para 11 Sistemas de Construcción, pp 614–620Google Scholar
  16. Guinée JB, Gorré M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Klejn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Brujin H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2001) Life cycle assessment, an operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  17. Guinée J, Heijungs R (2012) Chapter 2: Introduction to life cycle assessment. In: Bouchery Y, Fransoo J, Corbett C, Tan T (eds) Sustainable supply chains, 1st edn. Springer, Los Angeles, pp 15–43Google Scholar
  18. Hochschorner E, Finnveden G (2003) Evaluation of two simplified life cycle assessment methods. Int J LCA 8:119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2003.04.114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horne R (2009) Limits to labels: the role of eco-labels in the assessment of product sustainability and routes to sustainable consumption. Int J Consum Stud 33:175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00752.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horne R, Verghenese K (2009) Chapter 11. Accelerating life cycle assessment uptake: life cycle management and ‘quick’ LCA tools. In: Life cycle assessment: principles, practice and prospects, 2nd edn. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp 141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (1999) ISO 14024. Environmental labels and declarations – Type I environmental labelling – principles and proceduresGoogle Scholar
  22. ISO (2000) ISO 14020:2000. Environmental labels and declarations – general principlesGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO (2006b) ISO 14025. Environmental labels and declarations – Type III environmental declarations – principles and proceduresGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO (2013) ISO/TS 14067:2013. Greenhouse gases – carbon footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communicationGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO (2014a) ISO 14046:2014. Water footprint- principles, requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO (2014b) ISO/TS 14072:2014. Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessmentGoogle Scholar
  28. ISO (2016) ISO 14021. Environmental labels and declarations – self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling)Google Scholar
  29. Klöpffer W (2014) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. LCA Consult & Review, Frankfurt am MainCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis Chen J, Liu C-C (2001) An eco-innovative design approach incorporating the TRIZ method without contradiction analysis. J Sustain Prod Des 1:263–272.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024621524160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Linton JD, Klassen R, Jayaraman V (2007) Sustainable supply chains: an introduction. J Oper Manag 25:1075–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muralikrishna IV, Manickam V, Muralikrishna IV, Manickam V (2017) Chapter 5: Life cycle assessment. Environ Manag:57–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811989-1.00005-1
  33. Oslo Symposium (1994) Oslo roundtable defining sustainable consumptionGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruiz-Méndez D (2017) Metodología con enfoque de análisis de ciclo de vida para evaluar el impacto ambiental de insumos adquiridos por una organizaciónGoogle Scholar
  35. Scanlon KA, Cammatata C, Siart S (2013) Introducing a streamlined life cycle assessment approach for evaluating sustainability in defense acquisitions. Environ Syst Decis 33:209–223.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9450-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.12.372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SEMARNAT (2013) Estrategia Nacional de Producción y Consumo Responsable. SEMARNAT, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  38. Skaar C, Fet AM (2012) Accountability in the value chain: from environmental product declaration (EPD) to CSR product declaration. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 19:228–239.  https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Todd JA, Curran MA (1999) Streamlined life-cycle assessment: a final report from the SETAC North America Streamlined LCA WorkgroupGoogle Scholar
  40. UN (1992) Declaración de Río sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo. Río de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  41. UN (2002a) Informe de la Cumbre Mundial sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible. Johannesburgo, SudáfricaGoogle Scholar
  42. UN (2002b) Plan de Aplicación de las Decisiones de la Cumbre Mundial sobre el Desarrollo SostenibleGoogle Scholar
  43. UN (2012) El futuro que queremos. Río de Janeiro, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  44. UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
  45. UN (2016) Objetivo 12: Garantizar modalidades de consumo y producción sostenibles. In: Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/sustainable-consumption-production/. Accessed 4 Jan 2017
  46. UN/UNEP (2007) Proceso de Marrakech sobre Consumo y Producción Sustentable. Nueva York, Estados UnidosGoogle Scholar
  47. UNEP (2007) Proceso de Marrakech sobre Consumo y Producción SustentableGoogle Scholar
  48. UNEP (2010) ABC of SCP. Clarifying concepts on sustainable consumption and production. Production 1–59Google Scholar
  49. UNEP (2012a) The 10YFP Programme on Consumer InformationGoogle Scholar
  50. UNEP (2012b) Implementando compras públicas sosteniblesGoogle Scholar
  51. UNEP (2012c) The 10YFP Programme on Sustainable Lifestyles and EducationGoogle Scholar
  52. UNEP (2015a) Product sustainability information: state of play and way forward. United Nations Environment Programme Division of Technology, Industry and Economics, ParísGoogle Scholar
  53. UNEP (2015b) Estrategia regional de Consumo y Producción Sostenibles (CPS) para la implementación del Marco decenal de CPS (10YFP) en América Latina y el CaribeGoogle Scholar
  54. UNEP/SETAC (2015) Life cycle initiative. http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  55. United Nations (2017) Progress towards the sustainable development goals. Report of the Secretary-General E/2017/66:19.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300006640
  56. Verghese KL, Horne R, Carre A (2010) PIQET: the design and development of an online streamlined LCA tool for sustainable packaging design decision support. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:608–620.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0193-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. WCED (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future (The Brundtland report). Med Confl Surviv 4:300.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Porta PL, et al (2008) Critical review of the current research needs and limitations related to ISO-LCA practice. Deliverable D7 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project 106. ISBN:88-8286-166-X CoverGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de IngenieríaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCiudad de MéxicoMéxico

Personalised recommendations