Original paper
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003) 279–288 DOI 10.1007/s10098-003-0221-z
Indicators of sustainable production Damjan Krajnc, Peter Glavicˇ
279 Abstract The main cause of environmental damage is unsustainable production and consumption, especially in industrialized countries. Achieving sustainable development will require changes in industrial processes, in the type and quantity of resources used, in the treatment of waste, in the control of emissions, and in the products produced. One of the difficulties in measuring the company’s level of sustainability is to determine which directions of change are leading towards sustainability. Hence, it is necessary to apply appropriate metrics that will enable these assessments. This paper presents indicators for assessing and promoting business sustainability—indicators of sustainable production. It first introduces the main concepts of such production and a set of necessary conditions that firms must fulfill in order to be sustainable. It identifies major functions of indicators and it proceeds to presenting the role of indicators. The paper focuses on sustainable production, proposing indicators of sustainable production, which could be used as strategic metrics for assessing the sustainability level of a company and for identifying more sustainable options for the future. They enable a large amount of information to be compressed into a format easier to manipulate, compare and understand. The proposed indicators focus on the environmental aspect of sustainable production. However, to achieve sustainable production, a company should incorporate social and economic indicators as well. Most of the indicators included can be applied across industry. However, they are not aimed at being uniformly applicable to all sectors. According to the flows in the manufacture they are divided into input and output indicators and they are based on commonly measured environmental aspects of sustainable production (energy use, materials use, water consumption, products, wastes, and air emissions) covering key global issues. The paper represents a new approach to the systematization of indicators and their symbols and units.
Received: 28 February 2003 / Accepted: 30 April 2003 Published online: 31 July 2003 Springer-Verlag 2003 D. Krajnc, P. Glavicˇ (&) Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, University of Maribor, Smetanova 17, P.O. Box 219, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia E-mail:
[email protected] Tel.: +386 2 229 44 51 Fax: +386 2 252 77 74
List of symbols UP Unit of production (e.g. mass in t or kg, volume in m3, number, monetary value in EUR, etc.) PO Production output
Introduction In the present age there is extensive pressure on the ecosystems and biodiversity of the world. During the last few decades, humans have remodeled physical, chemical and biological systems in new ways and at faster rates than ever recorded on Earth. We have to solve problems associated with climate change, ozone depletion, global warming, acid rain, bioaccumulation of toxic substances, species loss, deforestation, depletion of natural resources, population growth, etc. The human race must confront the accumulated facts of a potential collapse of critical ecosystems and we are forced into quick changes over the entire planet. The environmental movement needs to address the global problems. However, environmental activity at local, regional, state and international levels seems to be an appropriate and necessary (but not sufficient) step towards sustainability. At the moment the survival of humans and the planet as a whole depends upon guiding human development in positive directions that are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. According to the report of the Brundtland Commission (1987), sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Although the definition reaches the heart of the problem, it enables different interpretations, since people have different goals and sensitivities. Most endeavors on sustainable development are based on supporting cultural, social, economical, industrial, and technological development while preserving the natural environment. Achieving sustainable development is no easy task. Not only perceptible changes in decision-making at the highest levels, but also progress in production and consumption will be needed. Sustainability will be the driving force for 21st century industry much as automation was for 20th century industry, and steam was for 19th century industry (O’Brien 1999). The industry sector is responsible for most material flows within human society as well as for the exchange of material and energy with the environment. Present industrial systems are not sustainable in the long term because of their excessive demands upon natural
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003)
280
non-renewable resources. In the future, society will need to rely on sustainable growth rather than destructive consumption. The achievement of such ambitious objectives requires a radical re-think of many of industry’s practices. Continuous improvement is not enough and a step change in environmentally related performance is required. Environmental considerations must be integrated into the corporate culture and business planning at all levels of design, manufacturing, distribution, and disposal. On a global scale, reductions in material throughput, energy use and environmental degradation of over 90 % will be required by the year 2040 to equitably meet the needs of a growing world population within the planet’s ecological means. This demand on industry to achieve current levels of industrial growth with only one-tenth of the input of resources has been labeled ‘‘the factor 10 approach’’ (O’Brien 1999). It strives to achieve a ten-fold efficiency of using energy, resources and other materials. To know whether we are meeting the goal of sustainable development, we need to be able to measure progress. Therefore, the sustainability strategy includes indicators, to give a measurable overview of trends and it involves action by all sectors, especially industrial systems, which should play an important part in the attainment of sustainability goals.
Sustainable production The concept of sustainable production emerged at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 and is a key component of sustainable development, which balances three principal requirements: the social, economic and environmental objective (Fig. 1). The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (LCSP) defines sustainable production as the creation of goods and services using processes and systems that are non-polluting, conserving energy and natural resources, economically viable, safe and healthful for employees,
communities and consumers, and socially and creatively rewarding for all working people (Lowell Center 1998).
Achievement of sustainable production A number of characteristics must be satisfied in order to ensure that production processes and the use of products and materials operate within environmental limits. If the objectives of sustainable production are to be achieved, then companies must minimize all kinds of wastes as well as the use of natural resources, raw materials and energy. They must design, produce, distribute, and dispose of or recycle products in such a way that the associated environmental impacts and resource usage levels are at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity. This goal requires a fundamental re-think in the design of a product to take account of all stages of a product’s life cycle, and a shift in manufacturing processes from cleaning technologies to clean technologies, which reduce the actual level of emissions produced as well as the energy and other resources used during processing (O’Brien 1999). A set of necessary conditions that firms must fulfill in order to be sustainable includes:
– Reducing the use of materials and energy in products and their production
– Closing of material loop systems, to conserve resources and prevent waste
– Minimization or avoidance of waste – Reuse and recycling products – Disposing of non-recyclable products or production waste in an environmentally acceptable way
– Planning of products which are easy to repair, adaptable, durable and with longer lifetime
– Minimization of transportation needs – Cleaner production technologies and procedures throughout the product life cycle
– Improving a process technology – Research and development in environmentally sound technologies
– Consideration of the social role played Only recently have many leading companies begun to work on reduction of their impact on the environment. They have already developed some key indicators for their businesses and are tracking and reporting them, but the results are not readily comparable, because these indicators have been developed internally within business sectors (NRTEE 2001). Since there are no benchmarks that would indicate from which level firms could be declared sustainable, the focus is on comparing the firms between themselves. Some are more efficient, or inefficient, in all respects. Most often, however, they might be efficient in specific respects but inefficient in others. Therefore, we need a methodology to take appropriate tradeoffs (Callens and Tyteca 1999).
Fig. 1. A model of sustainable development (Azapagic 2000)
Indicators of sustainable production ‘‘Measure what can be measured, and make measurable what cannot be measured.’’ Galileo Galilei
D. Krajnc, P. Glavicˇ: Indicators of sustainable production
Defining and developing indicators Indicators have numerous applications. They compress large amounts of information from different sources into a format easier to understand, compare and manipulate. Companies can use indicators to set targets and monitor consequent success. Interpretation becomes easier if targets can be set for the indicators themselves. These targets help the decision-maker visualize what actions will need to be emphasized in future (Finnish Environment 2000). In the literature we can trace numerous definitions of indicators. However, it is more useful to state the primary role of indicators. Gallopı´n (1997) identifies the following major functions of indicators:
– Assessing conditions and trends in relation to goals and – – – – –
targets Reflecting the status of a system Providing early warning information Anticipating future conditions and trends Comparing across place and situations Highlighting what is happening in a large system (Changing views on change 1998)
The indicators of sustainable production would enable identification of more sustainable options through (Azapagic and Perdan 2000):
– Comparison of similar products made by different companies
– Comparison of different processes producing the same product
– Benchmarking of units within corporations – Rating of a company against other companies in the sector
– Assessing progress towards sustainable development of a sector Numerous organizations are presently trying to develop a set of indicators to state the progress of a company towards sustainability. Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) have analyzed four of the best-known indicator frameworks:
– International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14031)
– Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
multiplicity of indicators and metrics being developed in this fast growing field shows the importance of the conceptual and methodological work in this area (Voinov 1997). In spite of evidence that it is not possible to set up sustainability indicators that are applicable to any company or organization, thus far a number of different approaches to standardization have been proposed. The problem, however, is to introduce a quantitative measure of sustainable production, since some aspects of sustainability (especially the social aspect) cannot be quantitatively expressed. With some issues such as energy use and water use there are no difficulties since they are common for all companies. However, more specific indicators have to be defined separately, dependent on the sector. Recently, some experts are trying to introduce fuzzy set theory and to develop fuzzy mathematical models to assess sustainable development. A potential problem in the practical application of the fuzzy model applying approximate reasoning concerns the combinatorial nature of the fuzzy rules. For example, the assessment of the contribution of n sustainability indicators to sustainable development using two linguistic values (e.g. acceptable and unacceptable) results in a fuzzy rule base of 2n rules. Therefore, we have 1,024 rules for only ten indicators. Because of the exponentially increasing number of fuzzy rules, the fuzzy rule base soon becomes non-transparent and difficult to apply (Cornelissen et al. 2001). Based on a set of criteria for sustainability and on conventional mass and energy balances, the concept of a sustainable process index (SPI) was introduced (Krotschak and Narodoslawsky 1996). The SPI measures the potential impact (pressure) of processes on the ecosphere and compares mass and energy flows induced by human activities with natural flows. As natural flows are always linked to area (examples are the growth of biomass, precipitation and, most importantly, solar radiation) the basic unit of the SPI is area. The lower the requirement of area for a given activity is, the less is the impact of this activity on the environment. However, in order to cope up with the complexity of sustainability-related issues for different systems, the indicators have to reflect the wholeness of the system as well as the interaction of its subsystems. Their purpose is to show how well the system is working and they are strongly dependent on the type of the system they monitor (Afgan et al. 2000).
Proposed indicators of sustainable production ‘‘Everything should be as simple as possible, but not Results demonstrate that most indicator frameworks simpler.’’ Albert Einstein are still under development and none is applicable as a It is recommendable that a company first begins with whole to evaluate sustainable production. Unlike envisimple, easy to implement measures of compliance and ronmental indicators, social issues receive the least resource efficiency and then moves toward more complex attention in existing indicator frameworks. indicators, addressing supply-chain, social effects and lifeThere is a trend toward using a manageable number of cycle impacts. Using indicators of sustainable production indicators (between ten and twenty) that are simple and is one part of a process of continuous improvement, where easy to apply. Indicators can be used alone or in thematic the goal is to move the organization from adopting sets, which are useful for demonstrating the links between primarily low-level measures to using all levels of indicaissues and for analyzing the reasons behind trends tors of sustainable production (Veleva and Ellenbecker (Scottish Executive Central Research Unit 2001). The 2001).
– Center for Waste Reduction Technologies (CWRT)
281
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003)
Fig. 2. Main dimensions of an indicator
282
Fig. 3. Organizational chart of indicators of sustainable production
The criteria for the sustainability assessment of the company have to reflect six aspects:
– – – – – –
Resource use aspect Product aspect Environment aspect Economic aspect Quality aspect Social aspect
To incorporate indicators of sustainable production the company must identify a period for tracking and calculating an indicator (e.g. fiscal year, calendar year, 6 months, quarter, month) and define units of measurement. It must also identify a type of measurement (absolute or adjusted) and boundaries, which determine how far a company wishes to go in measuring the indicator (Fig. 2). The framework presented here focuses on the main aspects of sustainable production, relating to the social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainability. However, these aspects should also incorporate other experts such as sociologists, economists, psychologists, etc. The framework is based on examples of indicators that could be applied at a company. They are simple and easy to use, based on available data and commonly measured aspects of production (e.g. materials use, energy use, water consumption, products, waste, air emissions, etc.). The environmental indicators are divided into input and output indicators (Fig. 3) based on flows in the manufacture presented in Fig. 4. The economic indicators are divided
into financial and employees’ indicators. The paper suggests some examples for each indicator, yielding the first step toward sustainable production. Results from their plot testing could demonstrate which ones need to be modified and which ones are working well for most companies. Examples of indicators of sustainable production are presented in Table 1. Proposed indicators of sustainable production aim to (Geiz and Kutzmark 1998; Veleva and Ellenbecker 2001):
– Reflect sustainability concept – Provide a set of indicators applicable to most companies
– Suggest simple and easy way to implement indicators – Avoid the use of too many indicators – Suggest indicators that cover key global issues (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, nutrification, etc.) – Provide companies with a new metrics and guidance on how to measure their achievements toward sustainable production
Fig. 4. Flows in manufacture
D. Krajnc, P. Glavicˇ: Indicators of sustainable production
Table 1. Indicators of sustainable production
Indicator
Quantity
1. Social indicators 1. Specific employee number 2. Employee turnovera
Number of employees/unit of production Number of employees who have resigned or been made redundant/total number employed The salary of the upper 10% of employees 3. Payment ratio The salary of the lower 10% of employees Number of employees satisfied with their work 4. Fraction of workers satisfied with their work Total number of employees Number of promotions 5. Promotion ratea Total number employed 6. Time of employee illness Time of lost workdays because of injuries and illnesses Charitable contributions to the community 7. Fraction of charitable contributions Total revenues 8. Number of community projects Number of projects of the company with its community Mass of locally consumed products 9. Mass fraction of local consumption Total output mass of products 10. Index of community population growth Population growth in the community in %
2. Environmental indicators > 2.1 Input indicators > 2.1.1 Energy use indicators 1. Total energy consumptionb Total energy consumed Total energy consumed 2. Specific energy consumption Production output Consumption per source of energy 3. (Source of energy) fraction Total energy consumption Renewable energy consumption 4. (Renewable energy) fraction Total energy consumption 5. Energy for recycling Energy used for recycling Total energy consumed 6. Energy intensityc Value of product sold or Value added 7. Total energy costsb Absolute Total energy costs 8. (Energy costs) fraction Total production costs Costs per source of energy 9. Average costs of energy source Consumption per source of energy 2. Environmental indicators > 2.1 Input indicators > 2.1.2 Materials use indicators 1. Total material consumptiond Absolute mass ðTotal material inputÞ mass 2. Specific material consumption Production output ðRenewable raw material inputÞ mass b 3. Fraction of renewable raw materials ðTotal material inputÞ mass ðProduction outputÞ mass b 4. Raw materials efficiency ðRaw materials inputÞ mass ðRecycled material inputÞ mass e 5. Recycled material fraction ðTotal material inputÞ mass 6. Variety of hazardous materialsb Number 7. Hazardous materials input massb Absolute mass Absolute value 8. Total material costsb ðTotal material inputÞ mass c 9. Material intensity Value of product sold or Value added 2. Environmental indicators > 2.1 Input indicators > 2.1.3 Water use indicators 1. Total water consumptionb Absolute volume Water consumption volume 2. Specific water consumption Production output Consumption volume per type of water b 3. Volume fraction of water type Total consumption volume 4. Total water costsb Absolute value Water costs 5. Water cost fractionb Total production costs Costs per type of water 6. Volume water type cost Consumption volume per type of water
Symbol
Unit
Nemployee Xemployee
1/UP 1 1¼1
Rpayment
EUR EUR
¼1
Xsatisf.
1 1
¼1
Rpromot.
1 1
¼1
tillness
days
Xcontrib.
EUR EUR
Ncooper.
1
¼1
wloc.
cons.
kg kg ¼
rcom.
pop.
1
Etot.
1
J
Espec.
J UP
Esource
J J
¼1
Erenew.
J J
¼1
Erecycl.
J
Eintensity CE,
EUR
spec.
EUR EUR
source
EUR J
CE, CE,
tot.
J EUR
mmat.,
¼1
tot.
kg
mmat.,
spec.
kg UP
wrenw.
mat.
kg kg
¼1
kg kg
¼1
kg kg
¼1
graw
mat.
wrecycl.
mat.
Nhaz. mat. mhaz. mat. Cmat., tot.
1 kg EUR kg EUR
Imat.
tot.
m3
Vwater,
spec.
m3 UP
/water
type
m3 m3
Cwater,
tot.
Vwater,
¼1
EUR
Cwater,
spec.
EUR EUR
Cwater
type
EUR m3
¼1
283
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003) Table 1. (Contd.)
Indicator
Quantity
Symbol
Unit
2. Environmental indicators > 2.2 Output indicators > 2.2.1 Product indicators
284
1.
Mass fraction of products with an environmental labelb
2.
Mass fraction of products from recyclable materialsb
3.
Mass fraction of products designed for disassembly, reuse or recyclingd
4.
Product durabilitye
5.
Revenues from eco productsb
6. 7.
Time of durability
Revenue fraction of eco products Total packaging mass
Mass of products with environmental labels wEL prod. Total mass of products Mass of products from recyclable materials wrecycl. prod. Total mass of products Mass of products designed for recovery wrecov. prod. Total mass of products
b
b
8.
Packaging mass fraction of the product
9.
Mass fraction of reusable packagingb b
10.
Packaging costs
11.
Specific packaging costsb
b
Absolute value Revenues from ecoproducts Total revenue Absolute mass Packaging mass Total mass of products Reusable packaging mass Total packaging mass Absolute value Packaging costs Production output
2. Environmental indicators > 2.2 Output indicators > 2.2.2 Solid waste indicators 1. Total solid waste massb Absolute mass Mass of specific type of solid waste 2. Specific solid waste mass Production output 3. (Solid waste mass) for recoveryb Recovered solid waste mass absolute Non-recovered solid waste mass absolute 4. (Solid waste mass) for disposalb Recycled solid waste mass 5. Recycling mass fraction Total mass of solid waste Mass of non recovered solid waste b 6. Disposal mass fraction Total mass of solid waste Mass of hazardous solid waste b 7. (Hazardous solid waste) mass fraction Total mass of solid waste 8. (Hazardous solid waste) massb Mass of hazardous solid waste released into the environment 9. Total solid waste costsb Absolute value Total solid waste costs 10. Solid waste cost fractionb Total production costs 2. Environmental indicators > 2.2 Output indicators > 2.2.3 Liquid waste indicators 1. Total volume of liquid wasteb Absolute volume Total volume of liquid waste 2. Specific liquid waste volume Production output 3. Non-polluted liquid waste volumeb Absolute volume 4. Polluted liquid waste volumeb Absolute volume Pollution load mass ðe:g: P; N; AOX;:::Þ b 5. Specific pollution mass ratio Production output Mass of pollutants b 6. Pollution mass concentration in liquid waste Liquid waste volume 7. Total liquid waste costsb Absolute value Total liquid waste costs b 8. (Liquid waste) cost fraction Total production costs 2. Environmental indicators > 2.2 Output indicators > 2.2.4 Air emissions indicators Total mass of CO2 equivalents 1. Mass fraction of greenhouse gasesc Total mass of products Total mass of CO2 equivalents 2. Greenhouse gases intensity Value of product sold or Value added Total mass of SO2 equivalents 3. Acidification mass fractiond Total mass of products
tdurability REV REVeco
kg kg
¼ 1
kg kg
¼ 1
kg kg
¼ 1
Days, d or years, a EUR EUR
prod. EUR
¼ 1
mpack.
kg
wpack.
kg kg
¼ 1
kg kg
¼ 1
wreus.
pack.
Cpack. Cpack., ms,
spec.
EUR EUR UP
tot.
kg
spec.
kg UP
ms, recov. ms, disp.
kg kg
ws,
kg kg
¼ 1
non-recycl. kg
kg
¼ 1 ¼ 1
ms,
ws,
recycl.
ws,
haz.
kg kg
ms,
haz.
kg
Cs,
tot.
EUR
Cs,
spec.
EUR EUR
tot.
m3
Vl, Vl,
spec.
¼ 1
m3 UP m3 3
Vl, non-poll. Vl, poll. m Rpoll.,
spec.
cl,
poll.
Cl,
tot.
Cl,
spec.
wCO2 equiv: IGHGs wSO2 equiv:
kg UP kg m3
EUR EUR EUR
kg kg
¼1
¼ 1
kg EUR kg kg
¼ 1
D. Krajnc, P. Glavicˇ: Indicators of sustainable production
Table 1. (Contd.)
Indicator
Quantity Total mass of SO2 equivalents Value of product sold or Value added
4.
Acidification mass intensity
5.
Photochemical ozone creating potential mass fractionc
6. 7.
Photochemical ozone creating potential mass intensityc Eutrophication mass fraction
8.
Eutrophication mass intensity
9.
Costs of purifying airb
10.
Costs fraction of purifying air
b
3. Economic indicators > 3.1 Financial indicators 1. Fraction of value added in GDP 2. Value of investments in sustainable development 3.
Value of investments in environmental protection
4.
Environmental responsibility costs
5.
Specific number of complaints of customers
6.
Value fraction of investments in ethical activity
7.
Number of sustainable environmental reports
8.
Number fraction of suppliers
9.
Number of contact breaks
3. Economic indicators > 3.2 Employees indicators 1. Cost of employee 2. Employee labor service duration 3. Costs of health protection of employee 4. Noise level 5. Investments in employee development 6. 7.
Time of employee education Number of suggested improvements by employee
Total mass of ethylene equivalents Total mass of products Total mass of ethylene equivalents Value of product sold or Value added Total mass of phosphate equivalents Total mass of products Total mass of phosphate equivalents Value of product sold or Value added Absolute value Absolute purifying cost Total production costs Value added/GDP Investments in sustainable R&D as fraction of the expenses of the company Investments of company in environmental protection Costs in case of environmental damage responsibility Number of complaints Mass of products sold A profit invested in ethical business activities Yearly number of positive/negative paper reports on environmental and social activity of the company Fraction of suppliers without environmental, health and safety violations Number of contract breaks with suppliers because of disagreement with environmental, health and safety standards Cost of employee per production output Average period of employee labor service Total costs of health protection of employee Level of sound pressure at the working stations Investments in employee’s education and professional/personal development Average time of education per employee Number of suggested improvements in quality, social, environmental, health and safety aspect of production per employee
Symbol Iacidif. wC2 H4 equiv: IPOCP wPO3 4 equiv:
Unit kg EUR kg kg
¼ 1
kg EUR kg kg
¼ 1
Ieutroph.
kg EUR
Cpur.
EUR
Cpur.
air
air, fract.
EUR EUR
¼1
GDPcontrib. ISD
EUR EUR
Ienvironment
EUR
Cenv.
resp.
ncomplaints fethic.
act.
Nreports Rsup.,
unprobl.
Ncontr.
breaks
Cemployee tlabor Chealth Lnoise Ieduc. teduc. Nsug. improv.
¼1 EUR
EUR 1 kg EUR EUR
¼1
1 1 1
EUR/UP a EUR dB EUR h 1
a
(IChemE) (FEM and FEA 1997) c (AIChE) d (Veleva and Ellenbecker 2001) e (Azapagic and Perdan 2000) b
fraction of renewable energy sources are essential for sustainable production. Energy use is usually measured at the point of conEnergy use indicators objective The manufacturing sector is a major consumer of energy. sumption, i.e. the plant or establishment. To be able to add Energy consumption and production have resulted in major or compare the data determined, megajoules (MJ) should pressures on the environment, from both a resource use and be used. Since natural gas usage is usually calculated in cubic meters (m3), fuel oil in liters (L) and electricity in a pollution point of view (UN Sustainable Development 2001). Especially important are the effects of consumption kWh these measurements must be converted. Table 2 of fossil fuels, of which the most significant are emissions of illustrates the most important conversion coefficients of greenhouse gases. Improving energy efficiency in order to mass (in kg) or volume (in Lor m3) for the input of energy reduce fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions sources using their energy value (MJ). Another important coefficient is the mass of CO2 emitted per energy value for and related air pollution emissions, and increasing the
Indicators objectives
285
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003) Table 2. Energy contents of energy sources (Statistic Canada
1989) Fuel type
286
Petroleum products Heavy fuel oil Light fuel oil Diesel Kerosene Gasoline Petroleum coke Natural gas Natural gas Propane Butane Fuel type Coal Anthracite Bituminous Sub-bituminous Lignite Coke Biomass Wood Hog fuel Black liquor Fuel type Electricity
Volumic Energy 41.73 38.68 38.68 37.68 34.66 42.38
MJ/L MJ/L MJ/L MJ/L MJ/L MJ/L
37.78 MJ/m3 25.53 MJ/L 28.62 MJ/L Massic Energy 27.70 29.00 18.30 15.00 28.83
MJ/kg MJ/kg MJ/kg MJ/kg MJ/kg
solvent-free paints and varnishes). They report on the politics of the main raw, auxiliary and ancillary materials of the company. Since the company has to deal with a huge variety of materials, preparing an input–output balance sheet can assist in determining the structure. In order to be able to compare input quantities, they should be recorded in standard units of mass (in kilograms, kg or tonnes, t).
Water use indicators objective Oil refineries, petrochemical plants, special chemical producers, pulp and paper industry, electric utilities, food and beverage industry, mining, etc. are large users of water. In industry, water is used as a cooling/heating medium, a cleaning agent, a reaction solvent, etc. Water use indicators track the water consumption of the company. They are intended to stimulate a reduction of water consumption by wastewater reuse, regeneration, recycling or process changes.
Product indicators objective The exponential growth in world population and the recognition that materials, fuels and other resources are finite force us to change our widespread culture of disposal. The sustainable principle demands durable products that do not consume large quantities of resources during their production, use, maintenance, and repair. This requires Table 3. The conversion coefficients for calculating the mass of new, flexible products with a long useful life. From the view CO2emissions of combustion processes (FEM and FEA 1997) of the company, product design, internal production, Energy source CO2 production (kg/MJ) products, parts, packaging and material recovery have to be considered in relation to the usage of materials and the Brown coal 111 quality of products, processes and systems. Brown coal coke 104 Product indicators measure improvements in the Hard coal 93 Mineral oil (crude) 80 environmental impact of individual products or the comFuel oil: light 72 plete range of products. They also indicate relative Fuel oil: heavy 78 advantages or disadvantages in comparison to other Diesel 74 products and/or competitors. Product indicators can refer Turbine fuels 74 to the environmental aspects of the internal manufacturing Natural gas 56 Petroleum gas 58 process of one company only or the entire life cycle of the External supply of electricity 137 product (e.g. including its use, preliminary and intermediate production, transportation and disposal). fuel type. These coefficients range between about 100 kg/ MJ for coal to about 50 kg/MJ for natural gas. Specific CO2 Solid waste indicators objective emission coefficients for some fuel types are presented in Waste reflects inefficiencies in the production process and represents a failure in designing both the process and the Table 3. product. The protection of the environment needs new techniques for treatment and disposal of wastes (CEFIC). Material use indicators objective The Earth’s resources are not inexhaustible and some raw Several universities, governments, business and other organizations are working to develop, promote and apply materials will eventually become limited in supply. The necessary reduction in the demand for virgin raw mate- a zero waste strategy as the ultimate goal of sustainability. rials and non-renewable resources will only be achieved by It strives for (Zero Waste Alliance 2001): developing disassembly technologies, recycling and – 100 % resource efficiency remanufacturing capabilities on a commercial scale and by – Zero solid and hazardous waste designing products with these concepts in mind. Recovery – Zero emissions—to air, water or soil and re-use of materials can extend their useful life several – Zero waste in production times before eventual disposal to the environment – Zero waste in product life (O’Brien 1999). Because of these combined problems, – Zero toxics recycling technology is becoming a growing priority for society (CEFIC). The company can achieve sustainability only by waste Material use indicators lead to the replacement of elimination, which leads to reducing extraction from natproblematic materials with environmentally safer alterna- ure, eliminating waste to nature, improving economic tives (e.g. renewable raw materials, recyclable raw materials, efficiency and making more resources available to all. To 18.00 MJ/kg 18.00 MJ/kg 14.00 MJ/kg Conversion factor 3.60 MJ/(kW h)
D. Krajnc, P. Glavicˇ: Indicators of sustainable production
become sustainable the companies must follow examples in nature, which are cyclical and have no waste. That is not an easy task, but the quantities of waste taken to landfill sites must be reduced as much as possible. Waste should in the first case be minimized, subsequently recycled, recovered for raw materials, energy extracted from it by incineration and as a last alternative deposited on a landfill site. The waste indicators track the company’s success in waste reduction.
Waste water indicators objective The once-through use of industrial water is becoming both uneconomical and environmentally unacceptable. The recovery and recycling of industrial wastewater is a more attractive option. However, before the recycling of wastewater, it is necessary to minimize the quantity of wastewater that appears during the process. There are a variety of reasons driving manufacturers to pursue wastewater minimization (Goldblatt et al. 1993):
– – – – –
Reduced availability of fresh water Discharge permit compliance Legislation banning priority Economics (taxes) ‘‘Good neighbor’’ policy
Waste water indicators provide companies with metrics to measure their achievements in a reduction of water consumption.
Air emissions indicators objective Air emissions have a particular significance due to their diverse environmental impacts (acid precipitation, stratospheric ozone depletion, greenhouse effect with climate change, etc.). The emissions of different substances can be used as basic air emissions indicators. Due to the variety of air pollutant types they can be limited to the most relevant substances (CO2, CH4, SO2, NOx, particulate matter, CFCs, VOCs, etc.). Due to the high cost involved, small and medium-sized companies do not usually take a direct measurement of the mass of air emissions into consideration. In the context of climate change, it has become increasingly desirable to convert energy consumption to carbon emissions per unit of production. The fuels consumed can be converted to carbon emissions using the coefficients in Table 3. Carbon emissions will therefore change both with changes in energy efficiency and with changes in fuel type (UN Sustainable Development 2001). Conclusions Sustainable development is becoming increasingly important for industry. Recently some companies have begun introducing a sustainability assessment to be able to supervise the actual status of products and operations with respect to sustainable production. This paper focused on sustainable production and summarizing indicators, which could be used as strategic metrics for assessing sustainability level of the company and for identifying better options for the future. They compress a large amount of information into a format that is easier to manipulate, compare and understand. The proposed
indicators are focused on environmental aspects of sustainable production. However, to achieve the sustainable production, a company should incorporate social and economic indicators as well. Most of the indicators included can be applied across industry, but they are not aimed at being uniformly applicable to all sectors. According to the flows in the manufacture they are divided into input and output indicators and they are based on commonly measured environmental aspects of sustainable production (energy use, materials use, water consumption, products, wastes, and air emissions) covering key global issues. One of the possible weaknesses of the developed framework could be in the subjectivity related to the choice of decision-makers in what to measure. However, any set of indicators is going to be affected by the decision-makers. Also, it is very hard to determine which indicators are effective since the same indicator may be effective at one company and ineffective at another. Therefore, each indicator has to be considered on an individual basis to reflect specific characteristics of different companies. It is not expected that indicators of sustainable production alone can change the current production pattern. To achieve sustainable production, stimulation by various parties (national regulators, pressure groups, suppliers, consumers, employees, media, trade associations, etc.) will be needed. However, indicators of sustainable production can provide companies with assessment metrics to determine their actual situation with respect to a sustainable production, to raise their awareness and to set their goals.
References Afgan NH, Carvalho MG, Hovanov NV (2000) Energy system assessment with sustainability indicators. Energy Policy 28:604 AIChE, Center for Waste Reduction Technologies (CWRT), focus area: sustainability metrics, http://www.aiche.org/cwrt/project/ sustain.htm Azapagic A, Perdan S (2000) Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Trans Inst Chem Eng 78B:244– 246 Brundtland Commission (1987) Our common future—from one earth to one world. Oxford University Press, Oxford Callens I, Tyteca D (1999) Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms: a productive efficiency perspective. Ecol Econ 28:43–44 CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council. Chemistry—Europe and the future. http://www.cefic.be/allcheme/index.htm Changing views on change: participatory approaches to monitoring the environment (1998) SARL Discussion Paper 2 (July) Cornelissen AMG et al. (2001) Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agr Ecosyst Environ 86:183 FEM and FEA (1997) A guide to corporate environmental indicators. Federal Environment Ministry, Bonn, and Federal Environmental Agency, Berlin Finnish Environment (2000) Finland’s indicators for sustainable development. http://www.vyh.fi/eng/environ/sustdev/indicat/ inds2000.htm Gallopı´n G (1997) Indicators and their use: information for decision making, sustainability indicators. Report on the project on indicators of sustainable development. Wiley, Chichester Geiz D, Kutzmark T (1998) Developing sustainable communities—the future is now. Public Manage Mag. International City/Country Management Association, Washington, D.C. Goldblatt ME, Eble KS, Feathers JE (1993) Zero discharge: what, why, and how. Chem Eng Prog 89(4):22–27
287
Clean Techn Environ Policy 5 (2003)
288
IChemE, Institution of Chemical Engineers. The sustainability metrics: sustainable development progress metrics (recommended for use in the process industries). http://www.icheme.org/sustainability/metrics.pdf Krotschak C, Narodoslawsky M (1996) The sustainable process index—a new dimension in ecological evaluation. Ecol Eng 6(4):241 Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (1998) Sustainable production: a working definition. Informal Meeting of the Committee Members NRTEE (2001) The National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Eco-efficiency indicators: workbook (pdf). http://www.nrtee-trnee.ca/Publications/Eco-efficiency_Workbook/index.html O’Brien C (1999) Sustainable production—a new paradigm for a new millennium. Int J Prod Econ 60–61:1–7
Scottish Executive Central Research Unit (2001) Environment group research programme research findings no. 13, sustainability indicators for waste, energy and travel for Scotland. Entec UK Statistics Canada (1989) Quarterly report on energy supply-demand in Canada, 57-003, Ottawa UN Sustainable Development (2001) Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies. http://www.un.org/esa/ sustdev/isd.htm Veleva V, Ellenbecker M (2001) Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. J Cleaner Prod 9:519–549 Voinov AA (1997) Paradox of sustainability. Institute for Ecological Economics, Solomons, Mo. Zero Waste Alliance (2001) Zero waste—key to our future (the case for zero waste). http://www.zerowaste.org
