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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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
Ashby MF (2013) Materials and the environment: eco-informed material choice, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Bach V, Berger M, Henßler M et al (2016) Integrated method to assess resource efficiency—ESSENZ. J Clean Prod 137:118–130
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Graedel TE, Harper EM, Nassar NT, Reck BK (2015) On the materials basis of modern society. PNAS 112:6295–6300
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
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
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
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
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
Helbig C, Wietschel L, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2016b) How to evaluate raw material vulnerability—an overview. Resour Policy 48:13–24
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
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
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84:78–92
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
Smith BJ, Eggert RG (2016) Multifaceted material substitution: the case of NdFeB magnets, 2010–2015. JOM 68:1964–1971
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
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
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
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
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
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
van Oers L, Guinée J (2016) The abiotic depletion potential: background, updates, and future. Resources 5:16
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
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
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1418-4