Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Extending the geopolitical supply risk method: material “substitutability” indicators applied to electric vehicles and dental X-ray equipment

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

While environmental LCA is relatively well developed, impact assessment methods for the “natural resources” AoP are weak. In particular, resource “criticality” is not addressed in conventional environmental impact assessment methods, though it could be captured within life cycle sustainability assessment. In that regard, the present article extends the previously developed geopolitical supply risk (GPSR) method by demonstrating the connection of criticality to a functional unit while incorporating measures of material substitutability to reflect the “vulnerability” dimension of criticality.

Methods

The GPSR method developed by Gemechu et al. (J Ind Ecol 20:154–165, 2015a) and subsequently extended by Helbig et al. (J Clean Prod 137:1170–1178, 2016a), and Cimprich et al. (J Clean Prod, 2017) is integrated into an LCIA characterization model. Further, semi-quantitative material substitutability indicator values based on a study by Graedel et al. (PNAS 112:6295–6300, 2015) are incorporated to represent the vulnerability dimension of criticality. The method is demonstrated with an update of a previously published case study of a European-manufactured electric vehicle by Gemechu et al. (Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:31–39, 2015b), along with a new case study of dental X-ray equipment. Due to novel aspects of the GPSR method, the latter case involves constructing an unusually comprehensive bill of materials by tracing unit processes to input commodities with identification codes for collecting commodity trade data.

Results and discussion

Supply risk “hotspots” are often associated with “minor” commodities such as neodymium in an electric vehicle and cesium iodide in a dental X-ray system. Though difficult to measure, material substitutability can mitigate supply risk. Environmental loads of a dental X-ray system are dominated by production of relatively small specialized functional components like capacitors and printed circuit boards, which are far more environmentally intensive per unit of mass than common structural and mechanical components. Thus, small components comprised of minor materials can “pack a punch” from a supply risk and environmental perspective.

Conclusions

The GPSR method presented in the present article brings resource criticality assessment to a product-level while addressing a gap in conventional LCIA methods regarding short-run, socioeconomic availability of natural resources. Further, the case studies illustrate the significance of material substitutability in supply risk assessment. Several complications and limitations of the GPSR method offer directions for future research. Nonetheless, the GPSR method complements environmental LCA to better inform design and management decisions on a product-level.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Karim S. Karim is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Waterloo and Chief Technical Officer (CTO) of KA Imaging. His research interests include developing improved digital X-ray imaging technologies, such as a patented pixel design aimed at providing a higher performing and lower cost alternative to conventional imagers.

References

  • Achzet B, Helbig C (2013) How to evaluate raw material supply risks—an overview. Resour Policy 38:435–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby MF (2013) Materials and the environment: eco-informed material choice, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach V, Berger M, Henßler M et al (2016) Integrated method to assess resource efficiency—ESSENZ. J Clean Prod 137:118–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BP (2016) BP Statistical review of world energy, 65th edition, June 2016. Available at https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-ofworld-energy-2016-full-report.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2017

  • Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J et al (2012) Life cycle assessment perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Sci Total Environ 425:191–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Campion N, Thiel CL, Woods NC et al (2015) Sustainable healthcare and environmental life-cycle impacts of disposable supplies: a focus on disposable custom packs. J Clean Prod 94:46–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimprich A, Young SB, Helbig C et al (2017) Extension of geopolitical supply risk methodology: characterization model applied to conventional and electric vehicles. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.063

  • Dewulf J, Benini L, Mancini L et al (2015) Rethinking the area of protection “natural resources” in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 49:5310–5317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Drielsma JA, Russell-Vaccari AJ, Drnek T et al (2016) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—defining the path forward. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:85–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2014) Report on critical raw materials for the EU: Report of the Ad-hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. European Commission

  • Erdmann L, Graedel TE (2011) Criticality of non-fuel minerals: a review of major approaches and analyses. Environ Sci Technol 45:7620–7630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2016) Pulp and paper capacities survey: 2015–2020. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

  • Finnveden G (2005) The resource debate needs to continue. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel M, Kullik J, Reuter MA, Gutzmer J (2017) Raw material ‘criticality’—sense or nonsense? J Phys Appl Phys. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa5b64

  • Gemechu ED, Helbig C, Sonnemann G et al (2015a) Import-based indicator for the geopolitical supply risk of raw materials in life cycle sustainability assessments. J Ind Ecol 20:154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemechu ED, Sonnemann G, Young SB (2015b) Geopolitical-related supply risk assessment as a complement to environmental impact assessment: the case of electric vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:31–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glöser S, Tercero Espinoza L, Gandenberger C, Faulstich M (2015) Raw material criticality in the context of classical risk assessment. Resour Policy 44:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graedel TE, Harper EM, Nassar NT, Reck BK (2015) On the materials basis of modern society. PNAS 112:6295–6300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1995) A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habib K, Wenzel H (2016) Reviewing resource criticality assessment from a dynamic and technology specific perspective—using the case of direct-drive wind turbines. J Clean Prod 112:3852–3863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2012) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17:53–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stab 95:422–428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helbig C, Gemechu ED, Pillain B et al (2016a) Extending the geopolitical supply risk indicator: application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the petrochemical supply chain of polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fibers. J Clean Prod 137:1170–1178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helbig C, Wietschel L, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2016b) How to evaluate raw material vulnerability—an overview. Resour Policy 48:13–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) [ISO 14040:2006] environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organisation for Standardisation

  • ISO (2006b) [ISO 14044:2006] Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation

  • IW Consult (2009) Rohstoffsituation Bayern. München, Keine Zukunft ohne Rohstoffe. vbw

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini L, Benini L, Sala S (2016) Characterization of raw materials based on supply risk indicators for Europe. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1137-2

  • Nakatani J, Tahara K, Nakajima K et al (2017) A graph theory-based methodology for vulnerability assessment of supply chains using the life cycle inventory database. Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2017.03.003

  • Nassar NT (2015) Limitations to elemental substitution as exemplified by the platinum-group metals. Green Chem 17:2226–2235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84:78–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L, Berger M, Schüler-Hainsch E et al (2014) The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:601–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith BJ, Eggert RG (2016) Multifaceted material substitution: the case of NdFeB magnets, 2010–2015. JOM 68:1964–1971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sonderegger T, Dewulf J, Fantke P et al (2017) Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1297-8

  • Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Adibi N et al (2015) From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into life cycle sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 94:20–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher B, Daigo I, Murakami S et al (2015) Framework for resilience in material supply chains, with a case study from the 2010 rare earth crisis. Environ Sci Technol 49:6740–6750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sprecher B, Daigo I, Spekkink W et al (2017) Novel indicators for the quantification of resilience in critical material supply chains, with a 2010 rare earth crisis case study. Environ Sci Technol 51:3860–3870

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2011) Households and the environment: Energy use, Catalogue no. 11-526-S. Available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-526-s/11-526-s2013002-eng.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2017

  • Thiel CL, Eckelman M, Guido R et al (2015) Environmental impacts of surgical procedures: life cycle assessment of hysterectomy in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 49:1779–1786

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Traverso M, Asdrubali F, Francia A, Finkbeiner M (2012) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to photovoltaic modules. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1068–1079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2017) Oilseeds: world markets and trade. United States Department of Agriculture

  • USGS (2016) Mineral commodity summaries. United States Geological Survey

  • Valdivia S, Ugaya CML, Hildenbrand J et al (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oers L, Guinée J (2016) The abiotic depletion potential: background, updates, and future. Resources 5:16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oers L, de Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA: improving characterisation factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA handbook. Road and Hydraulic Engineering Institute

  • Williams ED, Ayres RU, Heller M (2002) The 1.7 kilogram microchip: energy and material use in the production of semiconductor devices. Environ Sci Technol 36:5504–5510

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1637–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Eskinder Gemechu, Guido Sonnemann, Christoph Helbig, Andrea Thorenz, and Axel Tuma for their contributions to development of the geopolitical supply risk method. We would also like to thank Goretty Dias and two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments that substantially improved this work. We are grateful for financial support provided through a Canada Graduate Scholarship—Master’s (CGS-M) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded to our first author, Alexander Cimprich.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Cimprich.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Yi Yang

Electronic supplementary material

Online Resource 1

Details of dental X-ray system (PDF 476 kb)

Online Resource 2

Direct substitution potential of commodities for various applications (PDF 370 kb)

Online Resource 3

Results of contribution analysis for dental X-ray system (PDF 322 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cimprich, A., Karim, K.S. & Young, S.B. Extending the geopolitical supply risk method: material “substitutability” indicators applied to electric vehicles and dental X-ray equipment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 2024–2042 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1418-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1418-4

Keywords

Navigation