Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 5340-5348
Industrial Applications Using BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis: Perspectives on Green Engineering Principles D A V I D R . S H O N N A R D , * ,† ANDREAS KICHERER,‡ AND PETER SALING‡ Department of Chemical Engineering, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295, and BASF Aktiengesellschaft, Product Safety, Eco-Efficiency Analysis Group, 67056 Ludwigshafen, Germany
Life without chemicals would be inconceivable, but the potential risks and impacts to the environment associated with chemical production and chemical products are viewed critically. Eco-efficiency analysis considers the economic and life cycle environmental effects of a product or process, giving these equal weighting. The major elements of the environmental assessment include primary energy use, raw materials utilization, emissions to all media, toxicity, safety risk, and land use. The relevance of each environmental category and also for the economic versus the environmental impacts is evaluated using national emissions and economic data. The eco-efficiency analysis method of BASF is briefly presented, and results from three applications to chemical processes and products are summarized. Through these applications, the eco-efficiency analyses mostly confirm the 12 Principles listed in Anastas and Zimmerman (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (5), 94A), with the exception that, in one application, production systems based on bio-based feedstocks were not the most eco-efficient as compared to those based on fossil resources. Over 180 eco-efficiency analyses have been conducted at BASF, and their results have been used to support strategic decision-making, marketing, research and development, and communication with external parties. Eco-efficiency analysis, as one important strategy and success factor in sustainable development, will continue to be a very strong operational tool at BASF.
Introduction A majority of the public has an ambivalent relationship with the chemical industry. On the one hand, it is obvious to almost everyone that life without chemistry would be inconceivable while, on the other hand, the potential risks and impacts to the environment associated with chemical production and chemical products are viewed critically. BASF, as the largest chemical company in the world, has long been aware of its responsibility to humanity and the environment. Thus, from a very early stage BASF has declared its support for the global initiatives of Sustainable Development and * Corresponding author, phone: 906-487-3468; fax: 906-487-3213; e-mail:
[email protected]. † Michigan Technological University. ‡ BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 5340
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003
Responsible Care. Moreover, BASF is a member of the World Business Council of Sustainable Development and of the Global Compact initiative of the United Nations. In accordance with these societal and environmental obligations, all chemical companies should be accountable for their actions. Accordingly, about 7 years ago BASF started to examine products and processes with regard to sustainability. The questions “What must the products of the future look like for them to be sustainably successful?” or “How can sustainability be measured and presented in a simple manner?” were to be investigated by means of a readily communicable method. Up to that time, the focus of environmental conservation had been directed primarily at end-of-pipe technology for production. Today, however, the products themselves are increasingly being evaluated with regard to their impact on the environment. In order for this purpose to arrive at quantified assertions and to document the innovative progress of product development, BASF together with an external partner, Roland Berger, started in 1995 to develop the instrument of eco-efficiency analysis. Eco-efficiency analysis considers the economic and environmental effects of a product giving these equal weighting. Thus, in addition to its relevance to the environment, the costs of a product go into the analysis in equal proportions. The pivotal point of an eco-efficiency analysis is a specific customer benefit. Examples of the questions to be asked, therefore, are “What is the most eco-efficient method for packaging dairy products?” or “How can an end user most eco-efficiently whitewash a wall?” or “Which methods of tanning leather are best?”. To answer such concrete questions, alternative approaches to a solution are drawn up, and their effects on the environment and their costs to the end user are determined. In doing so the entire life cycle of the products from the extraction of crude oil or gas via production and distribution through the usage phase and recycling is taken into consideration. One of the aims is to establish the total costs of each alternative. These include the costs of production, the purchase of the product, the costs during the usage phase (e.g., maintenance, repair, operating costs), and those for disposing of or recycling the product. At the same time, the environmental and human health burdens are determined by means of an environmental audit conducted in accordance with DIN EN ISO 14 040-14 043 (2). These environmental burdens are grouped into six principal categories: energy consumption, consumption of raw materials and resources, emissions, toxicity potential, hazard potential, and land area use. Many individual categories are combined in these principal categories. In the case of emissions, for example, water emissions, wastes, global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, and acidification potential are included. This paper will describe the eco-efficiency analysis method of BASF and will also provide references to more detailed treatments for the interested reader. Also, a number of industrial case studies will be presented to demonstrate the features of the method. This paper will end with a discussion of specific applications of eco-efficiency analysis within BASF and also as a means of communication with outside parties.
Method of Eco-Efficiency at BASF The main outline of the eco-efficiency analysis method of BASF is provided next, while a more detailed discussion is available elsewhere (3). In addition to presenting the key aspects of the method, connections with the 12 Principles 10.1021/es034462z CCC: $25.00
2003 American Chemical Society Published on Web 11/05/2003
of Green Engineering by Anastas and Zimmerman (1) will be made and briefly discussed. Conducting an Eco-Efficiency Analysis. Every ecoefficiency analysis passes through several key stages. This ensures consistent quality and the comparability of different studies. Environmental impacts are determined by the method of life cycle assessment (LCA), and economic data are calculated using the usual business or, in some instances, national economical models. The basic preconditions in eco-efficiency analysis are as follows: • Products or processes studied have to meet the same defined customer benefit • The entire life cycle is considered • Both an environmental and an economic assessment are carried out The eco-efficiency analysis is worked out by following specific and defined ways of calculations: • Calculation of total cost from the customer viewpoint • Preparation of a specific life cycle analysis for all investigated products or processes according to the rules of ISO 14040 ff • Determination of impacts on the health, safety, and risks to people • Assessing use of area over the whole life cycle • Calculation of relevance and calculation factors for specific weighting • Weighting of life cycle analysis factors with societal factors • Determination of relative importance of ecology versus economy • Creation of an eco-efficiency portfolio • Analyses of weaknesses, scenarios, sensitivities, and business options • Optionally: inclusion of social aspects Basic Preconditions. The specific customer benefit always lies at the center of eco-efficiency analysis. In the majority of cases, customers having particular needs and requirements are able to choose between a number of alternative products and processes. In the context of this choice, eco-efficiency analysis compares the economic and environmental data of each solution over the entire life cycle or within the compartments in which the systems differ in life cycle. Calculation of Total Cost from the Customer Viewpoint. The dimension of the costs, as a part of sustainability, is given equal weight to the environmental dimension in the BASF eco-efficiency method. Therefore, total costs are likewise summarized over the life cycle. The costs in question are the real costs that occur and the subsequent costs, which may occur in the future (due to tax policy changes, for example). Costs having ecological aspect, for example, water treatment plant costs, are likewise included in the overall calculation. The approaches for calculating costs vary from study to study. When chemical products of manufacture are being compared, the sale price paid by the customer is used. When different production methods are compared, the relevant costs include the purchase and installation of capital equipment, depreciation, and operating costs. The costs incurred are summed and combined in appropriate units (dollar or EURO) without additional weighting of individual financial amounts. This helps to identify and in certain circumstances optimize particularly cost-intensive areas. Preparation of a Specific Life Cycle Analysis for All Investigated Products or Processes. Primary Energy Consumption. The energy consumption category of impact includes all energies to fulfill the customer benefit. Fossil energy resources are included before production as is renewable energy before harvest or use. This captures conversion losses from electricity and steam generation. The energies from biomass feedstocks are included; however,
not included is the sun energy that is needed to produce the biomass. The energy resources considered are coal, oil, gas, lignite, nuclear energy, waterpower, wind, biomass, and others. The energy consumption category in the BASF ecoefficiency analysis method covers Green Engineering Principles 3, 4, and 12 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1) and, as a result, encourages the selection of energy efficient products and processes. Raw Materials Consumption. The raw materials consumption category considers all materials that are used over the entire life cycle of the product under study. The consumption of the materials in a mass unit (kilograms) is weighted due to each one’s reserves according to the statistical calculations of the U.S. Geological Survey (4) and other sources (5-8). These sources provide data for how long a particular raw material will remain in production assuming today’s economical methods for extraction and assuming that consumption remains constant. Renewable materials have an advantage because of a zero “resource factor”. In cases when renewable raw materials are not sustainably managed (e.g., rainforest logging), the appropriate resource factor is applied. The resource consumption category in the BASF eco-efficiency analysis method relates to Green Engineering Principles 3, 4, and 12 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1). Emissions. Emission values are initially calculated separately as air, water, and soil emissions (waste). The calculation includes not only values from, for example, electricity and steam production and transports but also values due to direct emission from the process. Global warming potential (GWP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), and acidification potential (AP) are the categories of air emissions. The GWP is linked to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, halogenated hydrocarbons, and dinitrogen oxide. Different impact factors are linked with the specific emissions, resulting in carbon dioxide equivalents. In the same manner, the other categories are linked to specific emissions and are aggregated to defined equivalence factors in each air emission category. For emissions to water, there is at present no comparable standardized, scientifically documented method for calculating the impact potentials available as for the emissions to air. For the inventory of emissions to water [COD (chemical oxygen demand), BOD (biological oxygen demand), N-tot (total nitrogen), NH4+ (ammonium), PO43- (phosphate), AOX (adsorbable organic halogen), heavy metals (HMs), hydrocarbons (HCs), SO42- (sulfate), Cl- (chloride)], we therefore use the method of critical volumes or critical limits for discharges into surface waters (9). Each pollutant emitted into water contaminates a sufficient volume until the statutory limit for this substance is reached (critical load). The limits used for the respective emission to water are the limits listed in the schedule of the wastewater regulations (10). The greater the water hazard posed by a substance, the lower its discharge concentration limit. The results of the inventory on solid wastes are combined to form four waste categories: special wastes, wastes resembling domestic refuse, building rubble/gangue material, and overburden. Absent other criteria, impact potentials for solid wastes are formed on the basis of the average costs for the disposal of the wastes. Wastes with dangerous contents are assessed with higher factors than nonhazardous waste. The emissions category in the BASF eco-efficiency analysis method encourages the selection of less polluting products and processes due to the inclusion of impact factors on the emissions and covers Green Engineering Principles 1 and 2 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1). Toxicity Potential. To calculate the toxicity potential, each product to be calculated is balanced from the cradle to the VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
5341
FIGURE 1. Environmental fingerprint. grave. To score the toxicity of substances, a consideration of all possible effects is needed. The most widely used system in Europe is the classification of different toxic effects and the assignment of R-phrases of the Directive 67/546/EEC. R-phrases have been used in different LCA applications, for example, in determining ecotoxicity burdens (11, 12). Not only the substance is considered but also all of the raw materials and reactants needed in its manufacture. Exposure to the substance is included in two ways: due to its manufacture and during its use. By adding the factors of the upstream manufacturing chain, a total for each product is generated. The totals will be added and will give a total of all the different alternatives, which are considered in the eco-efficiency study (13). The toxicity potential category relates to Principle 1 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1), regarding inherent hazards of the chemicals in the process or product. Risk Potential. The risk potential in the eco-efficiency analysis is established using assessments in the sense of an expert judgment. The focus is always on the question of the severity of the damage that an operation can cause, multiplied by the probability of it happening. In the risk potential, the damage considered is that which can be attributed, for example, to physical or chemical reactions. Examples would be explosion or fire hazards and transportation accidents. Further possibilities are the consideration of the impurities in the product, incorrect uses of the product, incorrect storage, etc. The criteria of the risk potential are variable and may be different in each study because they are adapted to the circumstances and special features of the particular alternatives. The number of risk categories may also vary from study to study. This category relates most strongly to Principle 1 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1), although its intended use goes beyond the scope of the 12 Principles of Green Engineering into the realm of process and product safety. Use of Area. Area is not consumed like a raw material, but depending on the type, scope, and intensity of the use, areas are changed so radically that they are impaired or even destroyed in their ability to perform their natural functions. Apart from the direct loss of fertile soil, there are a series of consequential impacts, for example, cutting into ecosystems, loss of living space for flora and fauna, etc. The area requirement includes production sites, transportation, and treatment/disposal. The area is included for all materials used through out the life cycle, and it is assessed through a weighting of the various area categories (14, 15). Area use category relates best to Principle 4 (1). Normalization and Environmental Fingerprint. After normalization or normalization and weighting have been 5342
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003
carried out for the emissions, the appropriate computed values are collected in a specific plot, the environmental fingerprint, as shown in Figure 1. This diagram shows the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the considered alternatives in a relative comparison with each other. The alternative that lies furthest out and has the value of 1 is the least favorable alternative in the category in question. The further in an alternative lies, the more favorable it is. Calculation of Relevance and Calculation Factors for Specific Weighting. In the next step, relevance factors will be calculated. They indicate how important the individual environmental category is for a particular eco-efficiency analysis. Those factors are “scientific weighting factors” because they are not influenced by a definition but only are calculated. The greater the contribution of an impact to the total category of the same impact (in Germany, for example), the higher the scientific weighting (relevance) factor. National data for other countries can also be included, for example, for the United States, Europe, Morocco, Japan, etc.:
environmental impact of an option ) total environmental impact in Germany relevanceenvironmental category The scientific weighting factors are linked with societal weighting factors (shown in Figure 2), which vary for different regions of the world for each category of environmental impact. This linkage results in a final weighting scheme that combines scientific and social weighting factors, as shown in
final calcenv cat ) relevanceenv cat × societal factorenv cat
∑relevance
env cat,i
× societal factorenv cat,i
× 100%
In a similar fashion that the environmental relevance factors are calculated, the total costs of a system can be related to the total sales of the manufacturing industry in the field under study. This, as in the case of the calculation of relevance factors for total environmental impact, will give a relevance factor that reflects total costs. This factor reflects to what extent the alternatives studied contribute, for example, to the gross domestic product of a country. In absolute terms, the value is very small but can be used for comparative purposes. The environmental factors and the cost relation factors are combined into an overall factor that shows if in this study the economic or the environmental impacts are more important. Readers interested in learning more of the relevance calculations are referred to the “methods” paper (3).
FIGURE 2. Societal weighting factors (Europe) for categories of environmental impact.
FIGURE 3. Eco-efficiency portfolio of BASF. Creation of an Eco-Efficiency Portfolio by Means of an Overall Weighting. The overall cost calculation and the calculation of the environmental fingerprint constitute independent calculations of the economic and environmental considerations of a complete system, possibly with different alternatives. If it is assumed that ecology and economy are equally important in a sustainability study (as is done in the eco-efficiency analysis method of BASF), a system that is less advantageous economically can compensate for this disadvantage by a better ecological assessment and vice versa. Alternatives whose products are identical when assessed economically and environmentally are considered to be equally eco-efficient. To be able to illustrate eco-efficiency, BASF has developed the eco-efficiency portfolio shown in Figure 3. The values calculated from the environmental fingerprint are multiplied by weighting factors that are related to the relative importance of economic versus environmental effects in a particular study. The higher up on the portfolio an alternative lies, the lower the environmental impacts. The further to the right, the lower are the costs. The position of an alternative relative
to the diagonal line in the portfolio is a measure of ecoefficiency. Thus, alternatives having different economic and environmental scores can be identical in eco-efficiency provided that their distance from the diagonal is the same. Scenario Analysis. Starting with this portfolio, it is possible to show several different scenarios to illustrate what happens by changing weighting factors, input data, and emission values. It can be used to evaluate the robustness of a study and to answer different questions dealing with future options or future developments. The scenario analysis can be used for defining research strategies and marketing strategies and to have political discussions.
Case Study Applications In this next section, a number of case study applications of the BASF eco-efficiency analysis will be presented. Each case study will include a description of the product or process being analyzed, a definition of system boundaries and functional unit, followed by descriptions of data sources, model assumptions, key results, and interpretation. VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
5343
FIGURE 4. Alternative indigo production and dyeing systems.
FIGURE 5. Eco-efficiency portfolio for alternative dyeing systems. Indigo Dye Production and Denim Dyeing. BASF was the first and largest producer of synthetic indigo worldwide. Since October 2000, BASF indigo is marketed by DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. KG. The purpose of this study is to compare alternative processes for the production of indigo and the dyeing of blue denim. The customer benefit for this study is defined as the dyeing of blue denim for manufacture of 1000 pairs of jeans. The entire life cycle of jeans production includes processes other than indigo production and dyeing; however, because these process steps are identical for all alternatives, this eco-efficiency analysis will focus only on those parts that differentiate the alternatives: indigo production and denim dyeing. Figure 4 shows the alternative indigo production and dyeing systems. The use of indigo powder requires a relatively large amount of sodium hydrosulfite to convert the waterinsoluble powder into a water-soluble form during dyeing. Even the use of indigo solutions requires the reducing agent (sodium hydrosulfite); however, in the DyStar process, the reducing equivalents are provided electrochemically. Indigo from plants or produced in a biochemical process are alternatives to the traditional synthetic route of indigo production. Input data for each alternative for energy consumption, raw material utilization, emissions, land use, 5344
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003
and safety risk were provided by the different producers of indigo and by DyStar. The eco-efficiency portfolio for indigo production and dyeing alternatives is shown in Figure 5. Alternative 5 (synthetic indigo with the electrochemical dyeing process) is the most eco-efficient, exhibiting lower costs and environmental impacts than the other alternatives. While the production costs for alternative 5 are similar to alternatives 1, 3, and 4 and much less than alternative 2, the dyeing costs of alternative 5 are dramatically lower than any of the other alternatives. Alternative 5 exhibits a marked reduction in toxicity potential as compared to the others and superior though similar impacts for emissions, energy consumption, material consumption, and risk potential. The biobased indigo production and dyeing systems, alternatives 2 and 3, are generally less eco-efficient as compared to the synthetic indigo systems. Energy requirements for alternatives 2 and 3 are higher, particularly in the production of the dye material, as are global warming potential, weighted material consumption, and water emissions. Toxicity potential is markedly lower for alternatives 2 and 3 for the dye production part of the assessment, but the use of hypochlorite during the denim dyeing process part increases toxicity potential above the electrochemical process (alternative 5). Through this case
FIGURE 6. Environmental fingerprint for alternative curing systems.
FIGURE 7. Life cycle cost calculation of alternative curing systems. study, it is shown that a biochemical-based production process for indigo production and denim dyeing is not the most eco-efficient. Although the eco-efficiency of the biochemical and plant indigo alternatives can be improved by coupling these production steps with electrochemical denim dyeing, the improvement is not enough to elevate their ecoefficiencies above the synthetic route (alternative 5). Because biobased processes are commonly thought to be better for the environment, this case study demonstrates the usefulness of the eco-efficiency analysis to identify superior process alternatives. In this case study, the results of the eco-efficiency analysis results support Principles 1 and 4 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1) but are contrary to Principle 12. This principle should perhaps be changed to “material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting, especially when confirmed using an analysis of life-cycle impacts”. UV Curing Study. In this example, a UV curable coatings system is compared with several other coating technologies, like two-component polyurethane (2C-PU), acid curing (AC), nitrocellulose (NC), and water-based coatings (aqueous). In the application discussed here, a specific customer use was defined as performance application of 1000 wooden front doors. The objective is to express the properties of the UV
curable coatings technology and the alternatives with the method of eco-efficiency. The environmental fingerprint (Figure 6) shows that the UV roller coating has the best results in all environmentally categories. The low film weight and the absence of a need for thermal drying results in high productivity and the lowest production costs, as shown in Figure 7. This overall result is shown in the eco-efficiency portfolio in Figure 8. The alternative with the highest eco-efficiency is in this case the UV curing alternative. It might be different in other applications, so a “case by case” decision is necessary. Many scenarios are evaluated in this study. The result from one of these scenarios is presented in Figure 9, showing the influence of the radiation energy of the UV curing system. Even if the energy consumption rate is doubled, the UV system is still the most eco-efficient alternative. Scenarios, that is, those that lower the evaporating energies of the other alternatives or lower the material input in different likely amounts, always show the advantage of the UV curing system. The results from this eco-efficiency analysis support Principles 1, 4, and 11 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1). Manufacturers need to take the results of an eco-efficiency analysis into consideration for future planning. It could help convince customers to modernize the production lines and VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
5345
FIGURE 8. Eco-efficiency portfolio for alternative curing systems.
FIGURE 9. Scenario of the eco-efficiency analysis for alternative curing systems. switch over to the more eco-efficient UV technology. Ecoefficiency analysis provides guidance for internal planning and decisions. It could support the allocation of more R&D money in the right direction and may help to realize more sustainable products and processes. Mineral Water Beverage Packaging Study. The use of bottled water and in particular mineral water is a significant portion of the commercial beverage market in Germany. Because of its importance, an eco-efficiency analysis was conducted to compare alternative packaging systems for bottled mineral water. This study was a collaboration between BASF, the Environmental Minister Office of the State Rheinland-Pfalz, and two large producers of mineral water. The customer benefit for this study is defined as the marketing 5346
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003
of 1000 L of mineral water in a perimeter of 200 km from the production site. Five alternative packaging systems are included in the study: (1) PET bottles, 1 L, reusable 15 times and then bottle is recycled to the textile industry, a case of 12 bottles, refundable deposit on bottle, bottle return rate of 95%. (2) PET bottle, 1.5 L, use once and recycle bottle to the textile industry, a case of 6 bottles, refundable deposit on bottle, bottle return rate of 95%. (3) Glass bottle, 0.7 L, reusable, a case of 12 bottles, refundable deposit on bottle, bottle return rate of 95%. (4) PET bottle, 1.5 L, use once and recycle bottle to the textile industry, a case of 6 bottles, no deposit on bottle, bottle return rate of 56%.
FIGURE 10. Eco-efficiency portfolio for the mineral water packaging system study.
(5) PET bottle, 1 L, use once and recycle bottle to the textile industry, a case of 6 bottles, no deposit on bottle, bottle return rate of 56%. System boundaries were constructed similarly for each alternative. For example, in alternative 1, impacts of production of polyethylene terephthalate (PET, bottles), polypropylene (PP, caps), wood (pallets), paper (labels), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, film), high-density polyethylene (HDPE, bottle cases), and detergent (bottle cleaning) are included. In addition to production, the use (filling, packaging, distribution, return transport, sorting) and reuse (cleaning and refilling) steps of the PET packaging system are added. Finally, the recycling of the PET, PP, LDPE, HDPE, and wood components are considered. Similar life cycle stages are defined for the other alternative packaging systems, with appropriate changes to reflect the differences in return rate (with solid waste treatment for bottles not returned) and reuse versus recycle. Figure 10 shows the eco-efficiency portfolio for the mineral water packaging system study, where direct production costs and life cycle environmental impacts are compared for each alternative. Alternatives 1 and 2 are comparable in ecoefficiency and are the most eco-efficient packaging systems as compared to alternatives 3-5. The cost advantages for reusing and refilling the bottles is seen when comparing alternatives 1 and 5 due to the reduced need to purchase new bottles to satisfy the customer benefit. Environmental impact differences for alternatives 1 and 5 are also very large. The effects of return rate are seen when comparing alternatives 2 and 4, and advantages are significant for both environmental impact and for direct production costs when a higher return rate is achieved. The effect of bottle size is seen in comparing alternatives 4 and 5, where a larger bottle size reduces both costs and environmental impacts. This study is useful to both policy makers and producers of bottled mineral water for encouraging production and marketing strategies that reduce costs and decrease environmental impacts over the entire life cycle. This case study confirms Principle 11 of Anastas and Zimmerman (1) because bottle products that are simply thrown away exhibit an even lower eco-efficiency than the worst alternative in Figure 10.
Beneficial Uses of Eco-Efficiency Analysis at BASF Since 1996, more than 180 analyses have been carried out in key fields at BASF (paints and dyes, plastics, life science, oil and gas, chemicals) by eco-efficiency experts. In doing so, eco-efficiency analysis has been employed in four major fields of application; strategic decisions, research and product development, communication with policy makers, and marketing. In strategic decisions, it is possible for the application investigated to distinguish products with a promising future from products with a less promising future. Even in investment decisions eco-efficiency analysis provides valuable perspectives. For example, a potential BASF investment in a new fiber-board technology (strawboard) in the United States did not occur due to an eco-efficiency analysis showing that the new strawboard product was only marginally better for the environment yet more costly than a conventional chipboard product with a formaldehyde-containing resin. Meanwhile, another large chemical manufacturer decided to invest heavily in that new technology. However some years later, many of these new plants had to be closed (16) due to a slump in the construction market and in price, which put the strawboard product at a cost disadvantage. While eco-efficiency is not the only technique that can be used in decision-making, benefits derived from its use are based on its key features; that it is a systematic methodology for incorporating a broad range of environmental impacts and costs into decisions regarding processes and products. The method is capable of handling a large number of environmental impact categories over the entire product life cycle rather than making decisions based on just a single criteria (formaldehyde toxicity, for example). In the strawboard case, for example, the environmental benefits of strawboard produced using MDI as resin (compared to conventional chipboard using a resin high in formaldehyde) are small as compared to the increased cost of the strawboard product. Had the environmental benefits for the strawboard product been even greater, often these reductions in impact translate into lower costs due to decreased consumption of energy or raw materials, for example. In such a case, the VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
5347
overall position on the eco-efficiency portfolio would improve relative to the other alternatives. The second field of application relates to research and product development. Promising products can be identified at an early stage, thus facilitating decision-making about the prime thrust of the development. At BASF, major R&D projects are to be accompanied by eco-efficiency analyses during the following development phases: mini-plant, pilot plant, and basic design of a production facility with the projects evaluated at each milestone. The business unit funding the R&D is also involved. The third field of application is the drawing up of position papers for discussions with opinion and policy makers. Ecoefficiency analysis makes it possible to present the complex, holistic interconnections in industrial production and product use in a graphic and readily communicable form. By this means, it is possible to conduct quantitative discussions, with politicians for instance, about the effects of planned legislation. For example, the End-of-Life Vehicle directive and the waste-electric and electronic equipment directive of the European Union (EU) were discussed with EU policy makers by showing the eco-efficiency analysis of these directives. The outcome from these eco-efficiency analyses was amendments to the directives. Eco-efficiency analysis is even used in marketing, the fourth main application area. Since the entire life cycle of a product is considered, the effects for customers are integrated into the analysis. As a result, the total vision inherent in products can be communicated to customers. With an investment in an ecoefficient indigo technology, the BASF market share of this technology increased from 2 to about 40% within 3 yr. In addition to these internal uses within BASF, the ecoefficiency analysis facilitates communication and collaborative projects outside the reach of the company’s core business. Training in the use of the eco-efficiency analysis is been provided to many groups, including nongovernment organizations and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Cleaner Production Center program. Each year, about 10-20 university students are involved in internships, and some of these students conduct their diploma thesis with the BASF eco-efficiency group in collaboration with the university faculty members. The BASF eco-efficiency group has collaborated in Ph.D. level research and hosted a faculty sabbatical. The eco-efficiency analysis is now and will continue to be one important assessment method for R&D, production, and marketing for BASF. The analysis allows for a holistic view of chemical products and processes that combines assessment of life cycle environmental impacts with economic
5348
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 37, NO. 23, 2003
performance in equal measure to achieve a greater level of sustainability. The relevance of the eco-efficiency analysis on internal strategic decisions is very high within BASF, and most analyses are presented to upper management. Nearly all business units and all global regions of operation have performed studies. Besides promoting good corporate citizenship, ecoefficiency analysis also improves the competitiveness of BASF’s products. In a recent study, it was shown that ecoefficient products perform much better in the market that non-eco-efficient products. Eco-efficiency analysis, as one important strategy and success factor in sustainable development, will continue to be a very strong operational tool at BASF.
Literature Cited (1) Anastas, P. T.; Zimmerman, J. B. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37 (5), 94A. (2) ISO, International Organization for Standardization. Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework; ISO 14040:1997(E); ISO: 1997. (3) Saling, P.; Kicherer, A.; Dittrich-Kra¨mer, B.; Wittlinger, R.; Zombik, W.; Schmidt, I.; Schrott, W.; Schmidt, S. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2002, 7 (4), 203. (4) U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries; U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, 1997. (5) Ro¨mpp Chemie Lexikon; Thieme, Stuttgart; Institute for World Economy: Keil, 1998. (6) Hargreaves, D.; Eden-Green, M.; Devaney, J. World Index of Resources and Population; Dartmouth Publishing: 1993. (7) World Resources. Guide to the Global Environment; Oxford: 1996. (8) German Institute for Economic Research, Berlin, 1998. (9) BUWAL (Bundesamt fu ¨ r Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft), Schriftenreihe Umwelt No. 132, Bern, 1991. (10) AbwV (Abwasserverordnung). Regulation on Requirements for the Discharge of Wastewater into Surface Waters; March 27, 1997. (11) Brackmann, H. Abteilung von Wassergefa¨hrdungsklassen (WGK) aus den Einstufungen des Gefahrstoffrechts (Ein Beitrag zur Harmonisierung der Stoffbewertung). UTA 4/97, 295, 1997. (12) Walz, R.; Herrchen, M.; Keller, D.; Stahl, B. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1996, 4, 193. (13) Landsliedel, R.; Saling, P. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2002, 7 (5), 261-268. (14) Bastian, O.; Schreiber, K.-F. Analyse und O ¨ kologischen Bewertung der Landschaft; Gustav Fisher Verlag: Jena, 1994. (15) ENET, Gruppe Energie-Stoffe-Umwelt. O ¨ koinventare von Energiesystemen; Bundesamt fu ¨ r Energiewirtschaft: Switzerland, 1996. (16) McCoy, M. Chem. Eng. News 2001, 79 (14), 36.
Received for review May 10, 2003. Revised manuscript received July 28, 2003. Accepted August 14, 2003. ES034462Z
