A Systems Approach to
Environmental Management
and Sustainability
Use this holistic technique to
identify and quantify the potential impacts
of a product or process throughout its life cycle.
1970s
End-of-Pipe Treatment
1980s
1990s
Waste
Pollution Prevention
Minimization/Reduction
Cleaner Production
2000s
ISO Certification
Sustainable Development
Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment
p Figure 1. Environmental management strategies have evolved from end-of-pipe treatment to sustainable development.
26
Disposal
Use
27
Environmental Management
For example, a study of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) might define the system functionality as the
production, use, and disposal of a single bulb, or it could
refer to a fixed quantity, such as 1,000 bulbs. Although the
results of a study defined in this way may be useful for
identifying environmental hot spots, a different function
is needed to compare CFLs to a competing product, such
as incandescent bulbs. A more-appropriate function for
that type of study would be performance-based, e.g., the
amount of light needed to illuminate a 15-m2 room with
1,000 lumen for one hour.
It is important to properly set the scale of the functional
unit. If it is set too small, the LCA might attribute to it an
inappropriately small (often nearly infinitesimal) share of the
total input to or impact of the system (4). For example, the
amount of mercury used to make a single CFL is relatively
small, so the impact associated with making one, or even a
thousand, CFLs may not be significant. On the other hand,
an LCA with a functional unit of, say, ten million light bulbs
would identify a much larger impact.
Clay
Extraction
Grinding
Aggregates
Kiln and
Calcinator
Clinker
Gypsum
Other Raw
Materials
Grinding
Admixtures
Recycling
Water
Cement
Concrete
Use
Demolition
Landfill
Figure
p Figure 3. This flow diagram represents the life cycle of a concrete product. Source: Adapted from
(5). 3. This flow diagram represents the life cycle of
a concrete product. Source: Adapted from (5).
28
study as a whole.
Product A
Product C
Product D
Cut-off rules. Ideally, a life cycle study would account
for all life cycle steps and 100% of the content of product,
modeled with data for the actual materials and processes.
p Figure 4. Expanding system boundaries is one way to avoid the need to
However, we have an intuitive idea that some processes
allocate inputs and outputs among various products.
will have little impact on the study; efforts to collect data
processes lend themselves to physical allocation, because
about them may be unnecessary.
Cut-off rules are typically expressed in terms of mass.
they involve materials with physical parameters that proFor example: The study will account for at least 95%
vide a good representation of the environmental burdens
of the total mass of inputs, and no input that individually
associated with each co-product, such as mass, reaccontributes 1% or more of the mass shall be excluded.
tion enthalpy, and energy content. As a last resort, when
All cut-off assumptions should be verified through
physical relationships do not apply, the standard allows
sensitivity analysis.
allocation based on other relationships, such as economic
Co-product allocation. Industrial processes are typically
considerations.
multifunctional and produce more than one useful output,
Credit for avoided burden. In the system expansion
making it necessary to partition the process input and
approach, the boundaries are extended to include the alternaoutput flows among the useful outputs. Because this can be
tive production of exported functions (i.e., co-products). If
done in many ways, co-product allocation can be controanother product could be displaced in the market by a coversial. The ISO standards give preference to avoiding
product, the impacts associated with that other product are
allocation, which can be done by modeling subprocesses or
subtracted from the impacts of the subject of the LCA.
by expanding the system boundaries.
For example, a typical corn mill produces corn grain
The first option subdivides a process into subprocesses
together with co-products, such as corn oil. The facilwith inputs and outputs that can be assigned to individual
ity represented by Table 1 (6) consumes 77,228 Btu/gal
co-products. This approach is useful when operating data
of ethanol. Because the corn oil can be marketed as a
are provided for a manufacturing facility as a whole but
replacement for soybean oil, the LCA can take credit for
individual co-products can be traced to separate sub
the energy involved in producing the displaced soybean
processes within the facility.
oil (39,333 Btu/gal), making the net energy impact of corn
The second option avoids allocation by expanding the
grain production 37,895 Btu/gal of ethanol.
system boundaries. The system shown in Figure 4 consists
While the system expansion concept seems reasonable
of three processes (1, 2, and 3) that make four products (A,
on the surface, it can be problematic. It requires the identifiB, C, and D). An LCA will compare A and C as alternacation of a way to produce an alternative byproduct, which
tive ways to achieve the function of interest (lets call that
in turn requires additional market data and other informaalpha). The Process 1 inputs go into both A
and B, but the input data are not broken down
Table 1. The system expansion approach credits corn mills with the amount
by product. By coincidence, B and D provide
of energy that would have been required to make a competing product
(such as soybean oil). Source: Adapted from (6).
the same functionality (beta). Expanding the
system boundary for C allows the LCA to
Energy Use, Btu/gal EtOH
compare Process 1 with Process 2+3 based on
Without
For
With
the same total functionality, a + b.
Ethanol, Co-Products, Co-Product
Displaced
Co-Product
wt.%
wt.%
Credit
Co-Product
Credit
However, allocation might be unavoidable,
such as when the data for the subprocesses or
Output*
48
52
77,228
39,333
37,895
for the expanded system cannot be acquired
* Weighted average of dry mill and wet mill output.
easily. The ISO standard specifies the use of
1,000 Btu/U.S. gallon = 0.279 megajoule per liter (MJ/L).
physical relationships in such cases. Some
Copyright 2015 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
29
Environmental Management
Emissions,
e.g., chlorofluorocarbons
Midpoint
Chemical Reaction
Releases Cl and Br+
Area of
Protection
Climate Change
Ozone Depletion
Human Toxicity
Human
Health
Respiratory Organics
Ionizing Radiation
LCI Results
Noise
Accidents
Photochemical Ozone
Formation
Natural
Environment
Acidification
Skin Cancer
Cataracts
Crop Damage
Immune System
Suppression
Damage to Materials
(e.g., Plastics)
30
Eutrophication
Ecotoxicity
Land Use
Resource Depletion
Dessication Salination
Natural
Resources
Quantity, kg
GWP, kg CO2e/kg
CO2
100
CH4
10
25
SO2
31
Environmental Management
HTP,
1,4-DCBe*
ETP,
1,4-DCBe*
1
1.53
25
298
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,400
220
0.000143
Sulfur Hexafluoride
22,800
Benzene
1,900
6.35E5
Toluene
0.327
5.04E5
Xylene
0.43
0.382
S HTP
S ETP
S GWP
32
80
60
40
20
0
GWP
EUP
POCP
ACP
HTP
FF
Product A
Product B
GWP = Global Warming Potential
EUP = Eutrophication Potential
POCP = Photochemical Oxidation Formation Potential (Smog)
ACP = Acidification Potential
HTP = Human Health Toxicity Potential
FF = Fossil Fuels
External normalization references introduce additional uncertainty to the LCA study because of the lack
of consensus in data. Deciding on appropriate normalization methods is still an area of controversy and continued
research (1).
Weighting converts the impact scores (or normalized
impact scores) into a single number:
W = (WFc Ic)
Future directions
LCA has evolved from a
specialty field practiced by a
handful of practitioners with
closely guarded databases,
to a widely used tool with
emphasis on transparency and
data sharing. LCA practice
will continue to develop in
many directions. Regional-
Global Warming
Impact per
year
Population
Impact per
person-year
Units
7.40E+12
3.08E+08
2.40E+04
CO2 equivalents
Ozone Depletion
4.90E+07
3.06E+08
1.60E-01
CFC-11 equivalents
Acidification
2.80E+10
3.08E+08
9.10E+01
SO2 equivalents
Eutrophication
6.60E+09
3.00E+08
2.20E+01
PM-2.5 equivalents
Smog Formation
4.20E+11
3.00E+08
1.40E+03
O3 equivalents
Respiratory Effects
7.40E+09
3.08E+08
2.40E+01
PM-2.5 equivalents
5.30E+12
3.12E+08
1.70E+04
MJ surplus
33
Environmental Management
Organization
Raw
Materials
Facility X
Production
Use
Product A
End of Life
Facility Y
Production
Production
Use
Product B
34
End of Life
Additional Resources*
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative
www.lifecycleinitiative.org
Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment,
148 pages (2015).
Life Cycle Thinking in Latin America, 16 pages (2015).
Hotspots Analysis: Mapping of Existing Methodologies,
Tools, and Guidance and Initial Recommendations for the
Development of Global Guidance, 179 pages (2014).
Literature Cited
1. Curran, M. A., Student Life Cycle Assessment Handbook,
Scrivener-Wiley Publishing, Salem, MA (2015).
2. International Organization for Standardization, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and
Framework, ISO 14040, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2006).
3. International Organization for Standardization, Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Requirements
and Guidelines, ISO 14044, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (2006).
4. Finnveden, G., et al., Recent Developments in Life Cycle
Assessment, Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (1),
pp. 121 (2009).
Guidelines for Social LCA of Products, 104 pages, available in English, French, and Dutch (2009).
35