Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:22:20.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method for choosing adapted life cycle assessment indicators as a driver of environmental learning: a French textile case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

Tatiana Reyes Open the ORCID record for Tatiana Reyes [Opens in a new window] ,
Reidson Pereira Gouvinhas ,
Bertrand Laratte Open the ORCID record for Bertrand Laratte [Opens in a new window]  and
Bruno Chevalier
Tatiana Reyes
Affiliation:
ICD, Pôle HETIC, CREIDD, UTT, UMR 6281, CNRS, 12 rue Marie Curie, Troyes10010, France
Reidson Pereira Gouvinhas
Affiliation:
DEP/CT/UFRN – Campus Universitário – Lagoa Nova, Natal/RN CEP 59078-970, Brazil
Bertrand Laratte*
Affiliation:
Arts et Métiers, Université de Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, I2M Bordeaux, F-33405Talence, France APESA-Innovation, F-40220Tarnos, France
Bruno Chevalier
Affiliation:
ICD, Pôle HETIC, CREIDD, UTT, UMR 6281, CNRS, 12 rue Marie Curie, Troyes10010, France
*
Author for correspondence: Bertrand Laratte, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite alefforts for a sustainable production system, many companies are still struggling to implement environmental aspects in their daily product development processes. Among the evaluation and improvement methods, life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most popular tools to achieve this goal. Up to date, LCA has been applied to many products, services, and industrial systems to evaluate their environmental impact aspects. However, there is a wide range of indicators available to be applied for LCA, and choosing an inappropriate indicator may lead the product designer to achieve wrong and weak results. Therefore, this paper proposes to overcome this difficulty by developing a method that can be used as a knowledge transfer to product designers and LCA practitioners in order to help them to make the most appropriate choice of LCA indicators. This method should have some characteristics, such as (a) to be adaptable to a given context and (b) to be dynamic, scalable, and easy to learn. The purpose of this paper is to present the Evaluation Method for Choosing Indicator (EMCI) developed to facilitate the learning process of LCA methods and to quickly select their most appropriate indicators. To validate the EMCI method, a case study on a French textile industry has been implemented. The focus was to evaluate how LCA indicators and methods were chosen to be integrated into the suitable eco-design LCA tool.

Keywords

Life cycle assessmentknowledgelearningchoice of LCIA indicators and methodseco-design tools
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 34 , Issue 1: Thematic Collection on “Cognitive and Learning processes for transition to Design for Sustainability (DfS)” , February 2020 , pp. 68 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AFNOR (2014) Principes Généraux pour l'affichage environnementale des produits de grand consommation, Partie 18: méthodologie d’évaluation des impacts environnementaux des articles de literie. Available at https://www.boutique.afnor.org/norme/bp-x30-323-18/principes-generaux-pour-l-affichage-environnemental-des-produits-de-grande-consommation-partie-18-methodologie-d-evaluation-/article/822288/fa183525.Google Scholar
Al-Kdasi Idris, A, Saed, K and Guan, CT (2004) Treatment of textile wastewater by advanced oxidation process—a review. Global Nest Journal 6, 222–230.Google Scholar
Bare, JC, Hofstetter, P, Pennington, DW and de Haes, HAU (2000) Midpoints versus endpoints: the sacrifices and benefits. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5, 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bare, JC, Norris, GA, Pennington, D and McKone, T (2002) TRACI-The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovea, MD and Perz-Belis, V (2012) A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. Journal of Cleaner Production 20, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, MA (2013) Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2, 273–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, MA, de Baan, L, De Schryver, A, van zelm, R, Hellweg, S, Koellner, T, Sonnemann, G and Huijbregts, M (2011) Toward meaningful end point of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environmental Science & Technology 45, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutz, P, Mc Guire, M and Neighbour, G (2013) Eco-design practice in the context of a structured design process: an interdisciplinary empirical study of UK manufacturers. Journal of Cleaner Production 39, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Incognito, M, Constantino, N and Giovanni, CM (2015) Actors and barriers to the adoption of LCC and LCA techniques in the built environment. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 5, 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, K, Beckett-Furnell, Z, Traeger, S, Okrasinski, T and Holman, S (2006) Eco-design implemented through a product-based environmental management system. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1357–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, LC, Niemann, AL and Hauschild, MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. International Journal LCA 8, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed Guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2011) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European Context – Based on Existing Environmental Impact Assessment Models and Factors. First edition November 2011. EUR 24571 EN. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Finnveden, G (2000) On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 5, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnveden, G, Hauschild, MZ, Ekvall, T, Guinée, J, Heijungs, R, Hellweg, S, Koehler, A, Pennington, D and Suh, S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goedkoop, M, Heijungs, R, Huijbregts, M, De Schryver, A, Struijs, J and Van Zelm, R (2013) ReCiPe 2008 A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Ruimte en Milieu.Google Scholar
Guinée, JB (2016) Life cycle sustainability assessment: what is it and what are its challenges? In Clift, R and Druckman, A (eds), Taking Stock of Industrial Ecology. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinée, JB, Gorrée, M, Heijungs, R, Huppes, G, Kleijn, R, de Koning, A, van Oers, L, Wegener Sleeswijk, A, Suh, S, Udo de Haes, HA, de Bruijn, H, van Duin, R and Huijbregts, MAJ (2002) Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. I: LCA in Perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational Annex. III: Scientific Background. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hauschild, M and Potting, J (2005) Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment – The EDIP 2003 Methodology. Environ news 80. Available at https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-579-4/pdf/87-7614-580-8.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hauschild, MZ, Goedkoop, M, Guinée, J, Heijungs, R, Huijbregts, M, Jolliet, O, Margni, M, De Schryver, A, Humbert, S, Laurent, A, Sala, S and Pant, R (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 18, 683–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, J, Shaked, S, Rosenbaum, RK and Jolliet, O (2010) Analytical uncertainty propagation in life cycle inventory and impact assessment: application to an automobile front panel. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamasb, T and Pollitt, M (2005) Electricity market reform in the European Union: review of progress toward liberalization & integration. The Energy Journal 26, 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, G (2002) Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development. Environmental Management and Health 13, 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurin, L, Amor, B, Bachmann, TM, Bare, J, Koffler, C, Genest, S, Preiss, P, Pierce, J, Satterfield, B and Vigon, B (2016) Life cycle assessment capacity roadmap (section 1): decision-making support using LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Pochat, S, Bertoluci, G and Froelich, D (2007) Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 671–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lofthouse, V (2006) Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1386–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luttropp, C and Lagerstedt, L (2006) Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 1396–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millet, D (2003) Intégration de l'environnement en conception —l'entreprise et le développement durable. Paris: Hermès Lavousier.Google Scholar
Potting, J and Hauschild, M (2005) Background for Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle Impact Assessment—The EDIP2003 Methodology. Environmental Project No.996 2005. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Available at https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2005/87-7614-581-6/pdf/87-7614-582-4.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ramani, K, Ramanujan, D, Bernstein, WZ, Zhao, F, Sutherland, J, Handwerker, C, Choi, J-K, Kim, H and Thurston, D (2010) Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review. Journal of Mechanical Design 132, 091004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rio, M, Reyes, T and Roucoules, L (2013) Toward proactive (eco)design process: modeling information transformations among designers activities. Journal of Cleaner Production 39, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, M, Germani, M and Zamagni, A (2016) Review of ecodesign methods and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production 129, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxcé, MD, Perwuelz, A and Rabenasolo, B (2011) Development of data base for simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Textiles. Congrès International sur l'Analyse du Cycle de Vie, Lille, France.Google Scholar
Testa, F, Nucci, B, Tessitore, S, Iraldo, F and Daddi, T (2016) Perceptions on LCA implementation: evidence from a survey on adopters and nonadopters in Italy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 1501–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thériault, N (2011) Dans le cadre d'une ACV, conception d'un outil d'aide à la sélection d'un jeu de catégories d'impact pour les entreprises européennes et nord-américaines du secteur textile. Essai présenté au Centre Universitaire de Formation en Environnement, Université de Sherbrooke, en vue de l'obtention du grade de maître en environnement, Canada, septembre.Google Scholar
Tukker, A, Huppes, G, Guinée, J, Heijungs, R, de Koning, A, van Oers, L and Suh, S (2006) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO). Technical Report Series. Sevilla: European Commission, Joint Research Center, IPTS.Google Scholar