Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hybrid approach for the evaluation of organizational indirect impacts (AVOID): combining product-related, process-based, and monetary-based methods

  • INPUT-OUTPUT AND HYBRID LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Environmental burden caused by an organization occurs both within its boundaries and in its value chain. Organizational life cycle assessment (LCA) was proposed as a method for calculating impacts of an organization throughout its life cycle; nevertheless, companies are still lacking a universal approach to conduct inventory analysis and face challenges in data collection. This paper introduces a hybrid approach for compiling the inventory for the indirect activities on organizational level in an effective manner.

Methods

Three existing accounting methods (namely product related, process based, and monetary based) are connected within the hybrid approach. The potential to apply each method for an indirect activity is analyzed with regard to the system boundary requirements and availability of activity data and emission factors. The calculation procedures are introduced for selected activities. The advantages and limitations of the hybridization on organizational level are discussed. The developed approach is applied in a case study to the automotive supplier Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co.KG.

Results and discussion

The framework for application of the hybrid approach including the required activity data and emission factors for every indirect activity and each accounting method is provided. The product-related and process-based methods are recommended as more robust; nevertheless, hybridization with the monetary-based method might be essential for compiling a comprehensive inventory by limited data availability. Such limitations as double counting, truncation error, and insufficient data resolution may influence the results and should be considered when applying the hybrid approach. The case study demonstrated that the proposed approach allowed establishing an inventory for all relevant indirect activities. However, due to missing emission factors, only the impact category climate change was calculated for all activities; acidification and water use were quantified for six activities.

Conclusions

The introduced hybrid approach enables selecting the most suitable accounting method for the indirect activities depending on data availability. This promotes application of the organizational life cycle assessment in particular for small and medium enterprises and companies that do not have access to the commercial LCA datasets. Availability of the emission factors for all impact categories in public databases is essential to provide robust results using the hybrid approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Processing refers here to the activity processing of sold products (not the internal processing within the company), which occurs by the company’s customers and is relevant only for organizations producing intermediate goods

  2. For upstream activities, number of produced products, for downstream activities, number of sold products (because not all of the produced products might be sold)

  3. In this case, the cradle-to-gate system boundary refers to the extraction and production of purchased materials and goods. Transportation, packaging, and supporting activities should not be included

  4. For more information on EEIO analysis, see Kitzes (2013)

  5. The relevance was determined based on the following criteria: expenditures, expected impacts based on the results of the internal LCA studies, and literature data

References

  • Berger M, Pfister S, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2015) Saving the planet’s climate or water resources. The trade-off between carbon and water footprints of European biofuels. Sustainability 7:6665–6683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BSD/Quantis (2015) Forschungsprojekt “Indirekte Treibhausgasemissionen”. Schlussbericht. Available at: http://docplayer.org/11856063-Forschungsprojekt-indirekte-treibhausgasemissionen.html. Accessed 15 March 2016

  • CDP, WRI and WWF (2015) Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA): a method for setting corporate emission reduction targets in line with climate science. Available at: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sectoral-Decarbonization-Approach-Report.pdf

  • CDP (2015) CDP’s 2015 climate change information request

  • CDP and Systain (2014) Die Zukunft der globalen Wertschöpfung: Wettbewerbsfaktor Management der Scope-3-Emissionen der Lieferkette: Analyse der 350 grössten börsenkotierten Unternehmen in der DACH-Region. Available at: https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/000/883/original/CDP-Systain-scope-3-report-2014.pdf?1472048180

  • DECC and DEFRA (2012) Guidelines to Defra/DECC’s GHG conversion factors for company reporting, v 1.2.1 final, Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69554/pb13773-ghg-conversion-factors-2012.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016

  • European Commission (2012) Organisation environmental footprint guide. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/footprint/OEF Guide_final_July 2012_clean version.pdf

  • Finkbeiner M, König P (2013) Carbon footprint and life cycle assessment of organizations. J Environ Account Manag 1(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GRI (2013) G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Global reporting initiative. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.pdf

  • Hauchbach C (2013) Umweltmanagement in globalen Wertschöpfungsketten. Eine Analyse am Beispiel der betrieblichen Treibhausgasbilanzierung. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02487-1

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidrich O, Tiwary A (2013) Environmental appraisal of green production systems: challenges faced by small companies using life cycle assessment. Int J Prod Res 51(19):5884–5896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2012) ISO 14064-1, Treibhausgase, Teil1: Spezifikation mit Anleitung zur quantitativen Bestimmung und Berichterstattung von Treibhausgasemissionen und Entzug von Treibhausgasen auf Organisationsebene, Geneva

  • ISO (2014) Technical specification ISO / TS 14072, environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines for organizational life, Geneva

  • ISO (2015) Environmental management systems — requirements with guidance for use, Geneva

  • Kitzes J (2013) An introduction to environmentally-extended input-output analysis. Resources 2(4):489–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjaer LL, Høst-Madsen N, Schmidt J, McAloone T (2015) Application of environmental input-output analysis for corporate and product environmental footprints-learnings from three cases. Sustain 7(9):11438–11461

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, Geschke A (2013) Building EORA: a global multi-region input-output database at high country and sector resolution. Econ Syst Res 25(1):20–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lutter S, Pfister S, Giljum S, Wieland H, Mutel C (2016) Spatially explicit assessment of water embodied in European trade: a product-level multi-regional input-output analysis. Glob Environ Chang 38:171–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Quiros A, Valdivia S, Milà-i-Canals L, Finkbeiner M (2015a) Organizational LCA: the new member of the LCA family—introducing the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative guidance document. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(8):1045–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015b) Scoping organizational LCA—challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(6):829–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i, Canals L et al (2011) Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Knorr. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(1):50–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Piñero P et al (2015) Sector aggregation bias in environmentally extended input output modeling of raw material flows in Finland. Ecol Econ Elsevier B.V. 119:217–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Plambeck EL (2012) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through operations and supply chain management. Energy Econ Elsevier BV 34(Suppl1):S64–S74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring S, Sarkis J, Müller M, Rao P (2008) Sustainability and supply chain management - an introduction to the special issue. J Clean Prod 16(15):1545–1551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strømman AH (2009) Dealing with double-counting in tiered hybrid life-cycle inventories: a few comments - response. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 17(17):1607–1609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strømman AH, Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2009) Approaches to correct for double counting in tiered hybrid life cycle inventories. J Clean Prod Elsevier Ltd 17(2):248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S (2006) Critical review system boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Huppes G (2005) Methods for life cycle inventory of a product. J Clean Prod 13(7):687–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tukker A, de Koning A, Wood R, Hawkins T, Lutter S, Acosta J, Rueda Cantuche JM, Bouwmeester M, Oosterhaven J, Drosdowski T, Kuenen J (2013) Exiopol – development and illustrative analyses of a detailed global MR EE SUT/IOT. Econ Syst Res 25(1):50–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Environment (2017) Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, experiences and lessons learned. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris

  • UNEP (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Paris. Available at: http://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-lca_24.4.15-web.pdf

  • Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input-output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ Elsevier BV 69(2):211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witczak J, Kasprzak J, Klos Z, Kurczewski P, Lewandowska A, Lewicki R (2014) Life cycle thinking in small and medium enterprises: the results of research on the implementation of life cycle tools in Polish SMEs—part 2: LCA related aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):891–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WRI and WBCSD (2004) A corporate accounting and reporting standard. Greenh. Gas Protoc. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.003

  • WRI and WBCSD (2011) Greenhouse gas protocol: corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard. doi: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard

  • WRI and WBCSD (2013) GHG protocol: technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. World resources institute and world business Council for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co.KG, particularly Mr. Frank Rehder, for providing support and expertise for carrying out the case study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Natalia Finogenova, Vanessa Bach, Markus Berger & Matthias Finkbeiner

Authors
  1. Natalia Finogenova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Finkbeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalia Finogenova.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Julia Martínez-Blanco

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Finogenova, N., Bach, V., Berger, M. et al. Hybrid approach for the evaluation of organizational indirect impacts (AVOID): combining product-related, process-based, and monetary-based methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 1058–1074 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1544-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1544-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation