Applied sustainability in industry. The BASF eco-Efficiency toolbox

Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120792
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Applied sustainability in industry: The BASF eco-eEfficiency toolbox

Anahí P. Grosse-Sommer, Thomas H. Grünenwald, Nicola S. Paczkowski,
Richard N.M.R. van Gelder, Peter R. Saling*
BASF SE, Sustainability Strategy, CDS/S e C 104, 67056, Ludwigshafen, Germany
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: For successful implementation of sustainability in industry robust assessments of products and processes
Received 16 August 2018 are necessary that quantify environmental aspects under consideration of costs. The sustainability needs
Received in revised form of companies vary greatly according to region, sector and stakeholder. BASF has developed a toolbox for
24 February 2020
eco-efficiency assessments that addresses the broad range of in-house and external needs, allowing
Accepted 27 February 2020
Available online 5 March 2020
flexibility while ensuring that relevant and sufficient environmental impact is covered to
support decision-making based on quantified sustainability assessments. The toolbox is based on stan-
Handling editor: Tomohiko Sakao dard practices for life cycle assessment to support strategic decisions, product development and mar-
keting. Environmental impact assessment follows ISO 14040 and 14044. Impacts are aggregated to an
Keywords: overall environmental impact. Life cycle costs are similarly determined and may be combined with
Eco-efficiency environmental impact to an overall Eco-Efficiency Portfolio and Eco-Efficiency Index. The relevance
Sustainability assessment methods check ensures inclusion of main impact categories and coverage of sufficient environmental impacts. A
Decision-making tool peer-reviewed case study on the treatment of flowback from fracturing operations demonstrates the
Life cycle costing (LCC)
applicability of the Eco-Efficiency Analysis. Deposition of flowback in existing hydrocarbon-containing
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
reservoirs was compared with treatment in preparation for disposal to a municipal waste water treat-
Flowback case study
ment plant. The Reservoir option is more eco-efficient both at low and high flowback volumes. Disad-
vantages of the waste water treatment option include the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
high energy needed for the removal of dissolved solids from the flowback. The relevance check shows
that climate change is the dominant environmental impact, but photochemical ozone formation, acidi-
fication, freshwater eutrophication, human toxicity and resource depletion (mineral & fossil) are sig-
nificant as well.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction a key element in industry for optimization of existing products and

for providing science-based arguments for strategic and policy
1.1. Sustainability discussions. Product sustainability assessments are vital for steer-
ing company product portfolios towards more sustainable solutions
Sustainability has become increasingly important in the past (BASF, 2014). Industry experience has shown that the imple-
decades as global businesses have incorporated it into their stra- mentation of more sustainability evaluation in decision-making
tegies and values. Nearly half of companies in the 2014 McKinsey processes of industries leads to more sustainable solutions
Global Survey named sustainability as one of the main drivers of (Gardner and Dowd, 2015; Agarwal et al., 2012; Norris, 2001).
their industry e be it for reputation, cost-cutting or other reasons Life Cycle Assessment has been developed as a tool to quanti-
(McKinsey, 2014). There are many challenges to implementing tatively assess the entire product life cycle e.g. cradle-to-grave or
sustainability in industry. cradle-to-cradle. Further assessment tools may include the eco-
One necessary component of any sustainability program is the nomic or the social dimension of sustainability. Eco-efficiency as-
assessment of products and processes. A validated and quantitative sessments incorporate both economic and environmental aspects
sustainability evaluation method is essential for the development and are used by research organizations and companies in different
of new products and processes. Sustainability assessments are also sectors to include sustainability aspects in decision-making pro-
cesses. Quantification of sustainability may be utilized in R&D,
marketing, sales, strategic planning and communications.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (P.R. Saling).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120792
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 A.P. Grosse-Sommer et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120792
1.2. Eco-efficiency and its importance for decision-makers standard in 2012.
Eco-efficiency assessments can support companies in devel- 1.3.1. BASF’s original Eco-Efficiency Analysis method
oping and successfully implementing a business strategy toward The original Eco-Efficiency Analysis of BASF was established as a
sustainability. Such a strategy needs to have a strong focus on holistic method in 1996 (Schrott and Saling, 2000; Saling et al.,
technological innovation, accountability and transparency, as well 2002). The pioneering work was intended to address challenges
as on cooperation with value chain partners. The objective is to in the assessment of sustainability and to support decision-making
obtain more service, function, and hence value with less environ- processes in the company. The method considers environmental
mental impact (WBCSD, 2000). impact in relation to a product’s cost-effectiveness. It is a compar-
Eco-efficiency stimulates technological innovation as businesses ative assessment of environmental and cost performance of several
seek more efficient processes and better goods and services. The alternatives for a given functional unit. The environmental assess-
concept promotes technology as the primary solution to environment of the original Eco-Efficiency Analysis is based on a fixed set of
mental degradation. The benefits of eco-efficiency to the environ- environmental impact categories comprising climate change,
ment are immense and range from reduced release of hazardous ozone depletion, acidification, photochemical ozone formation,
elements, improved durability and shelf life of products, a shift solid wastes, emissions to water, resource consumption, energy
towards renewable natural resources, reduction in the material and consumption, land use, water use, human toxicity and risk. Several
energy intensity in goods and services, adoption of recycling ap- methods such as resource consumption, human toxicity, emissions
proaches, and increased responsibility for businesses on environ- to water and solid waste were in-house LCA developments to
mental protection (Worldatlas, 2017). Eco-efficiency has been enable practitioners to use available information for meaningful
recognized as a significant business approach by global players assessments. The assessments include detailed environmental in-
such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel- formation showing contributions of different life cycle steps in each
opment (OECD) and the European Environmental Agency. of the impact categories as well as aggregated total eco-efficiency
The growing need for eco-efficiency measurements in com- performance information incorporating life cycle costs (see Fig. 1).
panies is clearly visible and can be shown in many examples. Eco- An in-depth description of the original eco-efficiency concept and
Efficiency Analysis (EEA) has become important for managers, approach can be found in Uhlman and Saling (2010).
decision-makers and customers to determine a product or com- The method has helped BASF, its customers and customers’
pany’s performance within a structured reproducible framework. customers to decide which products are the best choice for a given
For larger enterprises, consideration of the life cycle performance of purpose, both ecologically and economically. In addition, the Eco-
goods or services becomes more and more a naturaldand Efficiency Analysis has been used to identify ways to reduce envi-
unavoidabledelement of day-to-day business (Gabriel and Braune, ronmental impacts and costs (Saling, 2016).
2005). While the tool was originally used only for in-house strategy
Business decisions are most easily done when based on mone- decisions, its value for marketing and communication in a broad
tary rather than on environmental terms. However, it is difficult to range of industrial sectors was quickly recognized. To increase the
express environmental aspects on a monetary basis despite exist- acceptance of the method by external stakeholders, it was validated
ing standards such as ISO 14008. The goal is to maximize envi- by TÜV Rheinland Berlin Brandenburg (TÜV, 2002), TÜV Rheinland
ronmental improvements at minimal costs (Huppes and Ishikawa, do Brasil (2008) and by NSF International in 2009 and 2013 (NSF,
2005). Shifting society to lower-cost options is clearly always 2009; NSF, 2013). More than 600 studies in the fields of agricul-
attractive (Oka, 2005). ture, chemical industry, construction, energy and fuels, food and
Many companies have incorporated eco-efficiency assessments feed as well as household and personal care have been completed
in their business decision process. Akzo Nobel N.V., for example, has using the original BASF EEA methodology, not only internally but
considered eco-efficiency aspects in R&D, product development also for marketing activities (Saling, 2015) and customer support.
and marketing to prepare for market introduction (Cramer, 2001). Examples of marketing studies include the assessment of different
For the food and beverage industry (F&BI) in Canada, several eco- packaging systems for apple juice (Heitlinger, 2013) or automotive
efficiency indicators (EEI) were developed to assess environ- coating processes (Hilger et al., 2014). Other types of studies sup-
mental aspects in an integrated way. It was suggested that the port research and development activities (Saling, 2009). Even
proposed indicators must be unequivocal, simple to measure and studies for policy support or stakeholder discussions have been
sensitive to the good operating practices that have been and will be published (Lopez, 2015).
adopted by F&BI companies to improve their environmental per-
formance (Maxime et al., 2006). 1.3.2. Light bulb eco-efficiency comparison by Japanese electronic
Another example is the application of Eco-Efficiency Analysis for industry group
river basin industrial systems. The Songhua River basin was used to In early 2004, the Project Factor X, consisting of eight major
carry out an empirical study to provide a scientific basis for the electronics companies in Japan jointly developed guidelines for
sustainable development of both the industrial and environmental eco-efficiency assessments (JEMAI, 2009). The intention was to
systems in the basin. enhance the concept of eco-efficiency and to integrate it into
The results show that the government plays an increasingly product development. The guidebook “Eco-Efficiency Indicator
important role in promoting eco-efficiency and that significant Handbook” for products (Aoe et al., 2005) presented the method-
differences in the influencing factors exist among the upstream ological aspects and the selection of appropriate eco-efficiency
area, midstream area, and downstream area (Guo et al., 2016). indicators to enable sustainability communication between man-
ufacturers and customers. Uniform eco-efficiency indicators were
1.3. Examples of applied eco-efficiency in industry and research defined to help customers select and purchase more environmen-
organizations tally friendly products on the market. In this approach, the so-
called Factor X expresses the relative level of improvement in
In this section we present various eco-efficiency approaches as eco-efficiency in simple numeric terms. The guidelines and in-
applied by industry, research organizations and academia. Eco- dicators in the handbook were introduced at the Japan Eco-
efficiency norms and guidelines were published in the ISO 14045 Efficiency Forum by the Japan Environmental Management
A.P. Grosse-Sommer et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120792 3
Fig. 1. The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio of the original BASF method.
Association for Industry (JEMAI, 2009).

An eco-efficiency assessment based on the Factor X approach
was applied to electric lamps (Shibaike et al., 2008) to promote the
change from conventional incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent
lamps. The ratio of the eco-efficiency indicator of a fluorescent
lamp to an incandescent bulb is used to identify the most eco-
efficient alternative. The environmental impact and the product
system value are plotted in a two-dimensional graph consisting of
various sectors showing higher or lower eco-efficiency. Reducing
the environmental impact and/or increasing the product system
value increases the eco-efficiency. It should be noted that there is
no aggregation of environmental impacts to an overall result. While
this avoids normalization and weighting, the interpretation process
becomes very difficult and might lead to different conclusions by
different readers of a study.
1.3.3. Eco-efficiency in industry: Siemens’ Eco-Care Matrix

Siemens has been using the “Eco-Care Matrix” (ECM) to analyze
Fig. 2. The Eco-Care Matrix logic (derived from Siemens, 2010).
the eco-efficiency of new products compared to their predecessors,
or, in case of new business, to the installed base or best available
technology (Wegener and Walachowicz, 2011). Two main aspects customer application while also having a clear eco-efficiency
are covered by the ECM: eco-efficient product development and benefit over the most common alternative in the marketplace.
customer communication. The methodology comprises a holistic The eco-premium solution must be significantly better with respect
approach regarding the whole life cycle covering supply chains, to at least one criterion and must not have any significant adverse
manufacturing, use phase, and end-of-life. For transparent effect with respect to any of the other criteria (AkzoNobel, 2016).
communication of the environmental performance, the results of AkzoNobel demonstrates the eco-efficiency of its eco-premium
environmental impact and costs are presented in the Eco-Care products using a method based on the original BASF Eco-
Matrix (Fig. 2). This graph shows the general principles of the Efficiency Analysis. The results are presented in a similar portfolio
method. diagram.
Examples of indicators assessed in this method include human One example of an AkzoNobel eco-efficiency study deals with
toxicity, ecotoxicity, ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, the application of different chelating agents in dishwashing tablets
resource consumption or land use. The different matrices are (AkzoNobel, 2009). The study indicates that GLDA (tetrasodium L-
analyzed and interpreted to get a final assessment of product per- glutamic acid, N,N-diacetic acid) has a low impact compared to
formance compared to the benchmark or predecessor. The Eco-Care other chelating agents in the assessed environmental categories
Matrix approach was used, for example, for the assessment of except for area use and acidification. Even though the renewable-
different blast furnace technologies (Siemens, 2010; Wegener et al., based GLDA requires more area than the alternatives, the impact
2009). of the assessed area use is small in comparison to that of the other
environmental categories.
1.3.4. Chelating agents assessed by AkzoNobel
Since 2007, AkzoNobel has screened its product portfolio for 1.3.5. Eco-efficiency by TNO
eco-premium solutions. An eco-premium solution is defined as a TNO, a Dutch research institute, uses an eco-efficiency method
product that provides the same or better functionality for the that considers an environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) along
development of accepted impact assessment methodologies, the

greater the need for the Eco-Efficiency Analysis to follow a stan-
dardized approach for better understanding and acceptance of re-
sults by stakeholders.
2. New method description
Since the introduction of the original BASF EEA methodology in

1996, an active LCA community across industry and academia has
developed. Various impact assessment models have been devel-
oped, such as TRACI, CML, ReCiPe and LIME (Goedkoop et al., 2009;
Guinee et al., 2002; Itsubo and Inaba, 2003; Bare, 2012). There are
ongoing project groups to develop additional assessment methods
for specific impact categories, such as the WULCA group for water
use (Boulay et al., 2014, 2015), the UNEP-SETAC land use group
(Teixeira et al., 2015), and the ProScale project as a new approach
for human- and eco-toxicity assessments (Saling et al., 2015). In
addition to the extensive work on assessment models, recom-
mendations for aggregation of environmental impacts have been
developed (Huppes and van Oers, 2011).
The most encompassing recent initiative is the European Prod-
uct Environmental Footprint (EU PEF), which has been developed
Fig. 3. Eco-efficiency portfolio by TNO (derived from TNO, 2007).
as part of the “Single Market for Green Products” and has been
pursuing a harmonized approach for the life cycle assessment of
with Life Cycle Costing (LCC). TNO has assessed a wide range of products (European Commission, 2014).
products and processes, including food packaging, beverage carton Industry initiatives have developed sector-specific guidelines to
collection and refrigerator disposal (Ligthart et al., 2006, 2013; TNO, ensure consistent accounting and reporting in an industrial sector
2007). It uses the graphical portfolio presentation of the original and to ensure a practicable approach (WBCSD Chemicals, 2014).
BASF Eco-Efficiency method to support clients with a strategic In light of these developments in the LCA community the orig-
management tool to be used, for example, in system innovation. inal BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis method was no longer up-to-date.
Innovative, more eco-efficient products are located in the upper Certain environmental impact categories and the aggregation using
right-hand corner compared to existing alternatives (Fig. 3). an internal normalization step did not follow current best practice.
TNO generally uses the CML method to assess the environ- Therefore, the BASF EEA methodology was fundamentally over-
mental impact but has also considered EU PEF assessment methods hauled in 2014.
as well. The absolute environmental impact of each impact cate- The new methodology underwent an external validation pro-
gory is expressed in terms of costs by using so-called shadow costs. cess by NSF (Uhlman et al., 2015) which was updated in 2016. All
For example, the shadow costs for greenhouse gas emissions used major changes in the future will be followed by an updated vali-
to assess the eco-efficiency of carrot packaging were assumed to be dation process which ensures a fully validated methodology and
0.05 EUR/kg CO2, reflecting the costs for CO2 reduction using best toolbox. In subsequent sections of this paper the new BASF Eco-
available techniques (TNO, 2007). A total environmental impact is Efficiency Toolbox is described.
calculated by using the shadow price methodology on all individual
environmental impacts and then summing up the individual con- 2.1. The new BASF Eco-Efficiency Toolbox concept
tributions. However, the broad range of shadow prices due to
regional differences and technological varieties results in large LCA and EEA assessment needs of BASF business units and
uncertainty in aggregated results. TNO explicitly addresses that this customers vary widely, as sustainability topics vary across in-
aggregation approach does not follow ILCD handbook recommen- dustries, regions, end customer proximity and level of company
dations (Ligthart et al., 2013). sustainability commitment. For this reason, internal interviews
with BASF marketing experts were carried out in order to under-
stand the future needs for sustainability assessment approaches.
1.3.6. Needs for further developments Different industry sectors were covered, including basic chemicals,
The tools presented in chapter 1 show some good approaches health and nutrition products, coatings, functional materials, and
for combining economic and comprehensive environmental as- personal care. It was found that stakeholders required sustain-
pects in an easy to understand manner (Table 1), thereby sup- ability assessments that are transparent and follow standard ap-
porting decision-making towards more sustainable products. This proaches. In addition, customers asked for both tools that are less
process can be facilitated by using single score methodologies complex that can be easily understood and interpreted, as well as
which also reduce complexity. for tools that assess a wider range of environmental aspects.
Additionally, standardization of assessment approaches e To address this wide range of needs, a modular approach was
including e.g. impact assessment and aggregation – is valuable for selected. Unlike in the past one single tool is no longer sufficient to
greater transparency and consistency. This leads to more credibility adequately address the growing range of business and assessment
and acceptance of results. needs. A combination of tools was developed to address all needs in
For example, when the original BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis a consistent manner: two tools with a fixed set of environmental
method was developed 1996, there were no standardized impact impact categories, the EEA6 and EEA10, as well as a flexible variable
assessment methodologies. Therefore, the original version incor- tool, the LCAflex. All three tools are based on the same underlying
porated several internally developed impact assessments methods BASF EEA methodology. The inclusion of specified environmental
as well as the weighting and aggregation procedure. With indicators and impact assessment models are required for the EEA6
Table 1
Overview of opportunities and challenges of different tools.
Topic Tool Area of use Advantages Limitations Indicators Display of results
BASF Original Decision-making, Marketing, R&D Aggregated figures include all Specific assessment methods Six main Aggregated Portfolio
Method environmental impacts categories
Japanese Product development Harmonized in Japan No aggregation of environmental Several Two-dimensional graph
Electronic impacts to an overall result indicators showing X-factor
Industry
Siemens’ Eco- Eco-efficient product development and Easy, understandable No aggregation of environmental Several A collection of single
Care Matrix customer communication impacts to an overall result indicators portfolios
Akzo Nobel eco-premium solutions Aggregated figures include all Focus on eco-premium products Six main Aggregated Portfolio
environmental impacts categories
TNO strategic management Transfer environment and costs Monetization is not harmonized EU PEF Aggregated Portfolio
to money terms indicators
and EEA10, thus enabling the general comparison of different EEA Table 2
studies. Environmental impact metrics for EEA6.
The environmental materiality principle is addressed with the EEA6 impact categories Methodology
so-called relevance check which was established to ensure that no Resource depletion (mineral & fossil) EU PEF 2014a
accidental greenwashing occurs. This relevance check ensures that Acidification EU PEF 2014a
important requirements of ISO 14040 (2006) are fulfilled: Climate change EU PEF 2014a
The selection of impact categories, category indicators and Eutrophication (freshwater & marine) EU PEF 2014a
Human toxicity potential Landsiedel and Saling (2002)
characterization models shall be both justified and consistent with
Photochemical ozone formation EU PEF 2014a
the goal and scope of the LCA.
a
European Commission (2014)..bib_European_Commission_2014
a) The selection of impact categories shall reflect a comprehensive

set of environmental issues related to the product system being
water withdrawal-to- hydrological availability ratios reflecting
studied, taking the goal and scope into consideration.
regional water scarcity.
b) The appropriateness of the characterization model used for
The other assessment models suggested by PEF are generally
deriving the category indicator in the context of the goal and
accepted by the community and are implemented in all important
scope of the study shall be described.
LCA software. The impact assessments are well understood and
used for many LCA studies. Those aspects are very important for the
For the EEA6 and EEA10 mainly EU PEF impact assessment
general acceptance of study results and as well for critical review
methods were chosen as default for the selected impact categories
processes. The standardized approach allows a comparability of
as EU PEF contains the most up-to-date characterization factors and
selected study results and does not need further proof in using
this method will presumably find a broad consensus in the LCA
them.
community. Two exceptions are the impact categories human
For the LCAflex tool impact categories and impact assessment
toxicity and consumptive water use.
methods from a range of LCA models were screened. The general
For human toxicity a method was chosen that was developed by
aim of the toolbox update was to allow for sufficient flexibility
BASF (Landsiedel and Saling, 2002) as the UseTox model
without overwhelming toolbox users with excessive choices. CML,
(Rosenbaum et al., 2008) currently recommended by the EU PEF for
ReCiPe, TRACI and EU PEF were taken as the pool of impact cate-
human toxicity assessment is controversial in the LCA community.
gories and impact assessment methods, as these have high accep-
Due to limited data availability as well as inadequate character-
tance in various regions across the world. Any of these impact
ization factors of individual substances, this model is associated
assessments can be used in the LCAflex, where the relevance check
with great uncertainty which is manifested in a high level of vari-
is used to ensure sufficient environmental coverage.
ability in the results (BDI, 2015). The USEtox model furthermore
The assessment flexibility in combination with the relevance
focuses on general aspects comparing overall, population-based
check reduces the workload by excluding indicators with minor
toxicity effects of chemicals emissions. On the other hand, the
contribution to the overall impact. Focus is on the most relevant
BASF human toxicity approach focuses on the toxicity of products.
aspects that drive the environmental impact, thereby simplifying
The H-phrases of the Globally Harmonized System (United Nations,
communication.
2015) are used to characterize the toxicity of products.
Each H-phrase or combination of H-phrases is associated with a
certain number of toxicity points as determined by toxicity experts. 2.2. EEA6: the basic eco-efficiency tool
Both product and emission flows are assessed. The advantage of
this method is the wide availability of H-phrase information on The EEA6 covers the environmental impact categories listed in
material safety data sheets due to regulatory requirements. Table 2 combined with an economic assessment. The selected
The water depletion assessment method in EU PEF is the Swiss impact categories are the ones that are most commonly used for
Ecoscarcity model (Frischknecht et al., 2008). This method has been products of the chemical industry. The economic and environ-
criticized for not representing regional differences in water scarcity mental impacts are expressed in terms of person-time by using the
across regions accurately. For instance, the characterization factor approach described in 2.6.2 and are presented in the Eco-Efficiency
for water consumption in Germany (910 eco points/m3) is 40 times Portfolio. Subsequently, the economic and environmental impacts
higher than that for water consumption in Australia (23 eco points/ may be aggregated to a single score showing which alternative is
m3) (Finkbeiner, 2014). For this reason, the Pfister midpoint the most eco-efficient one.
methodology (Pfister, 2009) was selected for the EEA10 water Currently emissions to water are assessed based on their
assessment. Pfister uses characterization factors derived from eutrophication potential but in future this method might be
substituted by ecotoxicity according to the USEtox model, as this is Table 3

felt to be more suitable for the chemical industry. At present BASF is Environmental impact metrics for EEA10.
not using ecotoxicity yet due to data gaps linked with uncertainties EEA10 impact categories Methodology
in the method. Resource depletion (mineral & fossil) EU PEF 2014a
Studies performed on a range of fossil-based chemical products Acidification EU PEF 2014a
showed that the selected six environmental impact categories Climate change EU PEF 2014a
generally cover at least 80% of the total environmental impact. Fig. 4 Consumptive water use Pfister et al., 2009
Eutrophication (freshwater) EU PEF 2014a
shows the contribution of the six environmental indicators of the
Eutrophication (marine) EU PEF 2014a
EEA6 for Eco-Efficiency studies on insulation materials, industrial Human toxicity potential Landsiedel and Saling (2002)
cleaning agents and engineering plastics. Hence, the EEA6 focuses Land use EU PEF 2014a
only on the most relevant indicators thereby simplifying interpre- Ozone depletion EU PEF 2014a
Photochemical ozone formation EU PEF 2014a
tation and communication of results while still enabling sufficiently
a
robust decision-making. European Commission (2014)..bib_European_Commission_2014
The relevance check, described in detail in section 2.5, is used to
assess which environmental impact categories are most relevant.
An EEA6 is allowed only if the materiality principle applies, i.e. if
the most relevant impacts are covered by the EEA6; otherwise, an 2.4. LCAflex: the flexible tool
EEA10 or an LCAflex, as described below, needs to be calculated.
Specific situations may call for alternate assessment approaches.
2.3. EEA10: the expanded eco-efficiency tool Certain standards may require a different subset of environmental
impact categories or may require other impact assessment
The EEA10 also includes an assessment of the life cycle costs, but methods. In the construction industry, for example, DIN EN 15804
in addition covers a wider range of environmental aspects than the (2012) is a widely accepted standard for construction products
EEA6. The impact categories and assessment methods used are that requires CML as assessment model. In the United States, cus-
shown in Table 3. In future both eutrophication and ecotoxicity tomers are sometimes more familiar with the TRACI model (Bare,
might be used to assess emissions to water when reliable water 2012) of the US EPA. There may also be instances where only a
emissions data are available in standard databases. For agricultural carbon footprint is needed. In all these situations the third toolbox
products, for example, the EEA10 is better suited than the EEA6, component, the LCAflex, can provide the needed information. As
because for such products land use is generally relevant, and this described above EU PEF, CML, ReCiPe and TRACI form the basis of
category is not included in the EEA6. This can be verified by the the pool of available impact categories and assessment methods. As
relevance check as well. new assessment methods are developed these can be easily inte-
Other impact categories implemented in EU PEF such as respi- grated into the LCAflex tool.
ratory inorganics and ionization were not included in the EEA10. A critical issue, especially in the case of the LCAflex, is the
Generally, those indicators are less relevant than the other well- question of sufficient environmental coverage of the assessment.
established environmental impact categories. This combined with While a carbon footprint, for example, delivers important infor-
the limited data quality and availability resulted in exclusion of mation, other environmental impacts may be equally or even more
these indicators. However, for the assessment of products and important. Optimization of products with regard to only one
processes where these indicators are expected to be important, the environmental category bears the risk of worsening the overall
LCAflex offers the opportunity to include these impact categories. footprint. Therefore, the aforementioned relevance check is a
Fig. 4. EEA6 impact categories in selected assessments of chemical-based products.

crucial component of the BASF EEA toolbox and especially of the 2.5.1. Relevance check calculation
LCAflex. When for instance a product carbon footprint (PCF) is
calculated the relevance check reveals if other impact categories are ,
also relevant (or even more important). In that case the other categoryi
impact categories should be reported together with the PCF. contribution categoryi ¼ ð Þ
EU categoryi
Xk
categoryn
ð Þ*100% Equation 1
n¼1
EU categoryn
2.5. The relevance check: selection of appropriate impact categories Where.
Whenever an environmental assessment is performed, two contribution categoryi: Contribution of environmental category
fundamental questions need to be addressed: i to the total unweighted environmental impact
categoryi: Characterized impact of an EEA10 environmental
Sufficient environmental coverage - does the assessment cover a category
significant part of the total environmental impact of a product or EU categoryi: Total characterized impact in the EU (normaliza-
process? tion value) for environmental category i
Materiality principle - are the environmental topics of highest
relevance included in the assessment? The relevance check gives the practitioner clear guidance on the
selection of indicators to be included in the LCA study in a mean-
The relevance check was incorporated into the Eco-Efficiency ingful, reliable and objective manner. It supports the critical review
toolbox to ensure that the above issues are adequately addressed process to prove the accordance with ISO 14040 (2006) and ISO
in each assessment. This ensures that no greenwashing by 14044 (2006).
excluding important impacts takes place. The total environmental
impact was chosen to be based on the EEA10 impact categories
2.6. Aggregation of the environmental impact categories
because these categories form the common basis of the widely-
used impact assessment models such as CML, TRACI and ReCiPe.
For a holistic comparison of product or process alternatives a
Our studies on chemical products as well as on a wide range of
single environmental score is needed.
other products confirm that this set of indicators cover the main
impacts. However, if an impact category that is not included in the
relevance check has a significant environmental effect, this will not 2.6.1. Weighting
be detected. After selecting the relevant impact categories using the rele-
In a first step, the impact categories of an EEA10 are normalized vance check, the normalized results of these categories (and any
with European annual statistics. These are obtained from the EU additional ones of interest) are multiplied with weighting factors
PEF methodology (Benini et al., 2014) and from Pfister et al. (2009) and subsequently summed up to give the total weighted environ-
For water assessment. For BASF’s method for assessing human mental impact. This is a standard aggregation approach consisting
toxicity a normalization value had to be derived. Market studies of external normalization followed by weighting (Huppes and van
such as IHS Chemical Economics Handbooks and CEH Marketing Oers, 2011; European Commission, 2010; Guine e et al., 2002).
Research Reports were used to find specific production amounts for With this aggregation procedure the results for the processes or
about two thirds of European chemicals covering the most toxic products that are compared are independent of one another. This
substances; these were multiplied with the chemical-specific was not the case in the original BASF EEA methodology (Saling
characterization factors. For the remaining chemicals produced in et al., 2002; Dyckhoff et al., 2015).
Europe an average toxicity value was used. There are many weighting schemes based on different weight-
In a second step the normalized results for the 10 impact cate- ing approaches and methods. Referring to the taxonomy of
gories are subsequently summed up to give the total unweighted weighting approaches by Huppes et al. (Huppes and van Oers, 2011;
environmental impact. The normalized dimensionless values are European Comission, 2010; Guine e et al., 2002) a distinction is
then expressed as a percentage of the total unweighted environ- made between value-based and reference-based methods, the
mental impact. The impact categories with the largest contribu- latter being further distinguished as to the kind of preferences
tions for each alternative are then included in the analysis; there is involved. Huppes and van Oers note that weighting approaches
no minimum number of impact categories that should be included building on stated preferences such as representative person views
but at least 80% of the total impact of each alternative needs be seem to be most appropriate for weighting across different envi-
covered. The number of indicators needed to fulfill the relevance ronmental impact categories.
criteria may vary. Thus, the new toolbox leads to meaningful results The BASF weighting scheme follows the method based on stated
by the consideration of the most relevant aspects. preferences as mentioned above. It uses fixed weighting factors
Studies involving renewable materials or agricultural products that only vary by region or country and is based on polls run by the
typically require an EEA10 assessment because of high impact of market research institute TNS Infratest. These polls use the
land use and/or consumptive water use. Products for which an Maximum Difference Scaling method (Marley and Louviere, 2005).
EEA6 assessment is sufficient include fossil-based materials. Respondents are asked to choose the environmental impact cate-
An impact category is included in the environmental assessment gories that he/she deems most and least important. The polls were
if it is relevant for at least one alternative. Equation (1) summarizes performed in a panel weighting approach, where a defined panel of
the contributions of impact categories according to the relevance representative people in different countries were interviewed. The
check. This procedure ensures not only sufficient environmental meanings of the definitions were explained to the interviewees in
coverage but also that the categories with the largest contributions an easy understandable way, so that even non-experts understood
to the total impact are included in the assessment. It is always the meaning of the different indicators. These polls were carried
possible to include additional impact categories beyond the ones out in 38 countries with 300, 500 or 1000 respondents per country
required by the relevance check. depending on population size. An excerpt of the weighting factors
obtained in 2014 is shown in Table 4, along with the weighting 2.6.2.2. Economic impact calculation.
factors from other experts (Castellani et al., 2016; Bjørn and
Hauschild, 2015a, 2015b; Ponsioen and Goedkoop, 2015), renor- Economic Impact ¼ Total costs=EU GDP * EU population
malized to the EEA10 indicators.
The Castellani and BASF weighting schemes are similar as all Equation 3
impact categories have roughly similar weighting factors. The other Where.
two schemes show a high weighting for just a few categories:
climate change, land use and resource depletion in the case of Economic impact: Economic impact of the functional unit in
Ponsioen and photochemical ozone formation, climate change and person years
land use in the case of Bjørn and Hauschild (2015a, 2015b). Total costs: Sum of all costs per functional unit in V
European GDP: European gross domestic product in V/a
European population: Number of inhabitants in Europe
2.6.2. Person time
The total normalized and weighted environmental impact is
Normalization factors change over time. They are statistical
expressed in units of “person time”. This unit arises from the
values that generally change slowly on a global scale. The
normalization step, because each impact category is divided by the
normalization factors used in the Eco-Efficiency Analysis should be
corresponding annual amount for a given region and population.
updated periodically.
This per capita normalization is widely used (e.g. Wenzel et al.,
1997; Stranddorf et al., 2005; Lautier et al., 2010; Laurent et al.,
2011) and is sometimes referred to as “person equivalent” 2.7. Tool selection: EEA6, EEA10 or LCAflex
(Stranddorf et al., 2005). Depending on the magnitude of the
functional unit person time can be expressed as e.g. person years, The new BASF LCA tools allow for versatile and customized
person hours or person days. sustainability assessments at the product and process level based
These results in person time are multiplied by the correspond- on well-accepted standard environmental impact assessment
ing weighting factors and summed up, as shown in equation (2), to methods. The EEA6 and EEA10 comprise a defined number of
obtain the total environmental impact: environmental impact categories with fixed assessment methods
as well as life cycle costs. In contrast, the LCAflex is variable; there
2.6.2.1. Calculation of environmental impact of a product. are no fixed impact categories or impact assessment methods
required, so the customer can select these depending on the spe-
cific project needs.
Where. The EEA6 and EEA10 always deliver detailed impact category
X
k
impact of product in categoryn
Environmental impact of product ¼ weighting factorn ð Þ Equation 2
n¼1
impact of EU in categoryn
k: Number of environmental impact categories considered results as well as an aggregated result including a cost assessment
in an Eco-Efficiency Portfolio and Index that enables easy com-
The life cycle costs are also expressed in terms of person time by parison of the Eco-Efficiency performance of different alternatives.
following the same procedure as for the environmental impact by The LCAflex may optionally be used for comparative assessments,
using the gross domestic product (GDP) of a region as a normali- may include costs and can also deliver aggregated results including
zation factor (Equation (3)). This has the advantage that both combined costs and environmental performance. The newly
environmental impact and costs have the same units and can be introduced relevance check ensures that there is sufficient envi-
presented using the same scale in the Eco-Efficiency Portfolio ronmental coverage in the case of an EEA6 and LCAflex. Additional
(Fig. 11) which will be discussed in detail in the Results section. EEA10 impact categories may need to be included until the
Table 4
Overview of different weighting schemes from BASF and Benini et al. (2015).
EEA10 Impact Category BASF from TNS 2014 BASF from TNS 2014 (North Castellani et al. Bjørn and Hauschild Ponsioen and
(Western Europe) America) (2016), WFsA (2015) Goedkoop (2015)
Climate change 15% 12% 11% 25% 51%

Ozone depletion 11% 9% 10% 1% 0%
Human toxicity or human toxicity 15% 17% 10% NA 2%
cancer effects
Photochemical ozone formation 7% 8% 12% 35% 0%
Acidification 10% 10% 11% 1% 0%
Eutrophication freshwater 11% 11% 9% 9% 0%
Eutrophication marine 1% 2% 10% 1% 0%
Land use 8% 7% 10% 25% 22%
Resource depletion water 11% 13% 9% 1% 4%
Resource depletion mineral, fossil 11% 11% 9% NA 22%
SUM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

requirement of at least 80% environmental coverage is met; other

environmental categories (also those not part of EEA10) may be
included as well. Aggregation of environmental impacts to an
overall environmental score and its combination with life cycle
costs in an Eco-Efficiency Portfolio is permitted only if the rele-
vance check has been passed. The concept of person time used for
presenting the aggregated impact facilitates the result analysis,
both in relative and absolute terms.
Typically, EEA6 provides sufficient environmental coverage for
assessments of fossil-based basic chemicals. Products and pro-
cesses involving renewable raw materials normally have relevant
impacts in land use and water consumption and thus require EEA10
or LCAflex including the respective impact assessment categories.
Results obtained with the new toolbox were compared to those
following the original methodology. The Eco-Efficiency rankings
remained unchanged in all cases examined, though the relative
impact changed in some cases. This was observed in a range of
studies covering both fossil- and renewable-based chemical prod-
ucts in different applications.
3. Implementation of the new method: case study flowback

treatment
The new toolbox has been tested on actual examples from in- Fig. 5. System Boundaries of the Flowback Eco-Efficiency Analysis case study (left:
dustry. Here we will focus on a study commissioned by Wintershall Reservoir alternative, right: WWT alternative).
Holding GmbH, Germany’s largest internationally active crude oil
and natural gas producer and a wholly owned subsidiary of BASF.
Goal of the study was the economic and environmental impact fracturing fluid is returned along with formation water (b) high
assessment of possible treatment options of flowback from inten- flowback volume assuming that 76% of the fracturing fluid is
ded fracturing at the natural gas drilling well Düste Z10 at the returned. This is equivalent to nearly 100% of the liquid compo-
natural gas repository Düste Karbon in northern Germany. The nents of the fracturing fluid. These two volumes cover the expected
study is intended for internal decision-making as well as basis for range of possible flowback amounts. With varying volumes there
discussions with stakeholders including governmental organiza- are also significant differences in flowback concentration (i.e.
tions, expert and resident groups. A peer review of the Eco- amount of fracturing fluid relative to formation water) as well as
Efficiency Analysis was conducted by the Fraunhofer Institute for duration of the flowback phase; these aspects have been accounted
Building Physics, Department of Life Cycle Engineering, confirming for in the analysis. In the following sections detailed results for the
adherence to ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 requirements. low flowback volume case will be shown as well as overall eco-
efficiency results for both scenarios.
3.1. Case study definition The functional unit of the analysis is the treatment of 1 m3 of
flowback from hydraulic fracturing of a conventional natural gas
At Düste Z10 hydraulic fracturing will be used prior to the gas reservoir. Two alternatives were compared: (a) returning the
production process. Fracturing fluid consisting of water, proppants flowback to an existing natural hydrocarbon-containing reservoir
and additives is injected into the well at high pressures. This results (alternative name “Reservoir”) and (b) pre-treatment of the flow-
in crack formation in selected horizons at a depth of about back prior to a final disposal in a municipal waste water treatment
4000e4500 m which allows for large amounts of natural gas to plant (alternative name “WWT”). Not included in the system
escape from the reservoir rock. When the pressure on the well is boundaries is the actual hydraulic fracturing process. Fig. 5 shows
released, natural gas, hydraulic fracturing fluid and formation water an overview of the steps included in the assessment.
flow back up the well. The mixture of fracturing fluid and formation In the case of low flowback volume a total of 2235 m3 flowback
water is known as flowback. It includes salts and other solids from are returned to the surface over a 28- day period. The fracturing
the well. At the beginning of the flowback phase the share of fluid initially makes up about 42% of the flowback, decreasing to
returning fracturing fluid in the flowback is highest, decreasing 10% by the end of the flowback phase. By definition the flowback
continuously from then on until the point where exclusively phase ends when formation water makes up at least 90% of the
reservoir water is returned with the natural gas flow. For one flowback.
fracturing operation at Düste Z10 600 m3 of fracturing fluid is This case study considered only the treatment and disposal of
needed. In the flowback phase the flowback is collected and un- the flowback and was not an assessment of natural gas production,
dergoes pretreatment in a first step and a separation process as a hydraulic fracking or the suitability of the hydrocarbon reservoir for
second step. In both alternatives, the separation process involves flowback injection. The reservoir lies in a deep geologic horizon
removal of solids and, in the case of flowback to be disposed in outside of groundwater domains and is separated by natural bar-
waste water treatment plants (WWT alternative), removal of dis- riers from groundwater as well as from flora and fauna. Therefore,
solved salts by evaporation and crystallization. ecotoxicity assessments do not apply.
The amount of flowback depends on several factors and can only
be estimated. Geological structures, surface impacts, different 3.2. Case study results
levels of pressure or morphological aspects influence the flowback
amounts. For this Eco-Efficiency Analysis two flowback volumes 3.2.1. Relevance check
were assumed: (a) low flowback volume assuming that 15% of the The relevance check for the Flowback Eco-Efficiency Analysis
Table 5
Relevance check for Flowback EEA case study.
Figure caption: Red numbers indicate the impact categories that are relevant for each alternative according to the relevance check. Gray fields indicate impact categories that
are less relevant, and inclusion is optional.
shows that six impact categories cover over 80% of the total un- environmental coverage and inclusion of relevant impacts. Hence,
weighted environmental impact as defined by the EEA10 (Table 5). for the flowback study the EEA6 was chosen for the eco-efficiency
For the Reservoir alternative climate change, photochemical ozone assessment. Note that all six impact categories are assessed for all
formation, freshwater eutrophication and human toxicity potential alternatives even though each category might not be relevant for
are most relevant, with by far the highest contribution coming from each alternative; this ensures comparability between alternatives
human toxicity. For the WWT alternative, climate change has the of total environmental impacts. A selection of result diagrams with
greatest contribution, but photochemical ozone formation, acidifi- the greatest contributions to the overall total environmental
cation, and resource depletion are also needed to cover over 80% of burden are described below. For the hydrocarbon-containing
the environmental impact. Reservoir alternative human toxicity potential dominates the
The relevance factors ONLY express the relative importance of environmental impact, whereas for the waste water treatment
one impact in comparison to the other impacts for the same alternative climate change has the greatest impact.
alternative. The relevance factors for an impact category give no
indication of the absolute impact. Therefore, the relation of rele- 3.2.2. Climate change
vance factors of an impact category for two or more alternatives The waste water treatment alternative has higher GHG emis-
does not translate into an equivalent relation of absolute results. In sions than the Reservoir option (Fig. 6). This is essentially due to
the Flowback case study, the relevance factors for climate change emissions associated with the separation process for removal of
are 15.5% for the reservoir and 42.2% for the WWT alternative. In dissolved solids. Specifically, the high amount of energy required
contrast, the absolute climate change impacts are 3.7 for the for the concentration and crystallization steps during this phase
reservoir and 68 kg CO2e for the WWT alternative. These are clearly results in large CO2 emissions. All other steps, including transport,
different ratios (2.7 and 18.3). have only minor contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.
This EEA assessment, as indicated above, needs to include these
six environmental impact categories (global warming potential
3.2.3. Human toxicity potential
(GWP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP), acidifica-
The human toxicity potential results of the two alternatives are
tion potential (AP), abiotic depletion potential (ADP), freshwater
shown in Fig. 7. Two life cycle steps dominate these results:
eutrophication and human toxicity potential) to ensure sufficient
handling of the flowback as well as the salt removal process during
Fig. 6. Greenhouse gas emissions in the Flowback EEA case study.
Fig. 7. Human toxicity in the Flowback EEA case study.
the flowback phase. 3.2.4. Environmental Fingerprint

The most relevant aspect is the flowback handling. The BASF An overview of the relative impacts of both alternatives in all
human toxicity potential assessment method considers the fre- environmental impact categories is shown in the Environmental
quency of handling of toxic materials. This is a general accepted Fingerprint in Fig. 8. This is a normalized representation ranging
approach in risk assessment. Flowback, which is classified as a toxic from zero (no impact) to one (highest impact) of the same impact
material, must be handled more often in the reservoir alternative categories shown in Figs. 6 and 7 along with the other EEA6 cate-
than in the WWT alternative, leading to a higher toxicity impact in gories. For each axis the value of the worst alternative is used as the
flowback handling for the reservoir alternative. normalization factor. Note that in the Environmental Fingerprint
For the WWT alternative, the most relevant life cycle step for the eutrophication has been subdivided into freshwater and marine
toxicity assessment is the salt removal process (flowback separa- eutrophication.
tion). The large amount of fuels needed to meet the energetic re- The WWT alternative performs worst in all six environmental
quirements for crystallization and other process steps during salt categories. The impact of the Reservoir alternative is significantly
removal contribute to the toxicity potential of this alternative. lower in all impact categories except for human toxicity. Both,
Overall the toxicity potential is slightly higher for the waste mineral and fossil resource depletion as well as photochemical
water treatment alternative than for the Reservoir option. The ozone creation and acidification have a high impact for the WWT
relevance check shows a large difference between the contribu- alternative, almost completely caused by the high energy demand
tions of human toxicity to the total environmental impact of each of for the salt removal process (flowback separation).
the two alternatives (53.3% vs. 8.9%). This is because the relevance
check only shows how important an impact category is in relation
to the other categories of one alternative. Therefore, the ratio of 3.2.5. Costs
relevance check contributions of both alternatives to an impact The costs associated with the two alternatives are shown in
category does not reflect the ratio of absolute impacts. Fig. 9. Costs for the waste water treatment alternative are more
than twice as high as for the hydrocarbon-containing Reservoir
alternative. For the former, flowback phase treatment dominates
Fig. 8. Environmental Fingerprint in the Flowback EEA case study.
Fig. 9. Costs in the Flowback EEA case study.
Fig. 10. Environmental impact contributions in the Flowback EEA case study.
Fig. 11. Eco-Efficiency Portfolio and Index in the Flowback EEA case study.
the costs, particularly driven by the concentration process costs. ¼ 2.7 person days
The costs can be converted to person time equivalents as well, as
described in 2.6.2. Weighting factor for GHG in an EEA6: 21.4%.
WWT contribution of GHG: 2.7 * 0.214 ¼ 0.6 person days

3.2.6. Contribution analysis
While the Eco-Efficiency Portfolio shows high-level aggregated
results and the impact category diagrams give detailed absolute
information about each alternative, the contribution analysis dia- 3.2.7. Eco-efficiency results
gram (Fig. 10) is very helpful in understanding the relative impor- The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio (Fig. 11) combines total costs with
tance of the various impact categories. This diagram shows, for each the weighted and aggregated environmental impact as described in
alternative, the contribution of each impact category in terms of section 2.6. For the given functional unit, treatment of 1 m3 of
person days. This value incorporates the weighting factor from flowback under low flowback volume conditions, the economic
societal polls, as described in the methods section. impact equals 0.3 person days and the overall environmental
The environmental impact of the WWT alternative (expressed in impact equals 0.2 person days. The WWT alternative, in contrast,
person days) is, as can also be seen in the EEA Portfolio (Fig. 11), has about a significantly greater impact in both dimensions: 0.7 and
about 0.8 person day larger than for the Reservoir alternative with 1.0 person days in economic and environmental impacts. For each
an impact of 0.2 person day). The main difference in total impact alternative, the environmental and economic impacts are compa-
between the two alternatives is due to the climate change impact rable and contribute equally to the eco-efficiency result. This in-
category. For WWT the contribution of this impact category is very dicates that the costs are commensurate with the impact on the
high because of the energy needed for the evaporation and crys- environment.
tallization processes in the salt removal step. As this high energy The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio and the Eco-Efficiency Index show
demand leads to greater impacts in other environmental impact that the Reservoir alternative is significantly more eco-efficient
categories as well, the environmental performance of the WWT than the WWT alternative. While in this case study it is immedi-
alternative is significantly worse than that of the Reservoir ately clear from the Eco-Efficiency Portfolio that the WWT alter-
alternative. native is less advantageous both in terms of environment and costs,
As described in 2.6.2, the person time concept was introduced in sometimes results are less obvious. For example, one alternative
the new Eco-Efficiency Analysis to allow aggregation of different may result in higher costs but lower environmental impact. In this
indicator results and to combine them with costs in the Eco- case, only the Eco-Efficiency Index allows for an unambiguous
Efficiency Portfolio. The following derivation of climate change result interpretation.
results expressed in terms of person time demonstrates the
calculation procedure: 3.2.8. Scenario calculations
As addressed before, the amount of flowback from gas produc-
Total GHG emissions of the WWT alternative: 68 kg CO2eq tion wells can vary significantly and is difficult to predict. The Eco-
Efficiency Analysis included a scenario calculation assuming high
EU 2010 GHG emission (Benini et al., 2014): 4.6 e12 kg CO2eq volume flowback. A total of 8422 m3 of flowback requires treatment
in this case, compared to the 2235 m3 in the base case.
Normalized WWT emissions: 68 kg / 4.6 e12 kg ¼ 1.48 e11 Fig. 12 shows the Eco-Efficiency Portfolio for both low and high
flowback volumes. For high flowback volumes the WWT alternative
EU population (based on Benini et al., 2014): 5.0 e8 persons is significantly less eco-efficient than the disposal of the formation
water in a hydrocarbon-containing reservoir. The advantages for
Normalized WWT emissions in terms of person days: 1.48 e11 * disposal in a reservoir are even more pronounced at high volumes
5.0 e8 persons * 365 days than in the case of low flowback volume.
Fig. 12. Scenario calculation: Variation of flowback volume in the Flowback EEA case study.
Fig. 13. Scenario calculation: Application of different weighting schemes.
In another scenario (Fig. 13) the weighting schemes of Table 4 due to the global warming potential which is significantly higher in
were used to determine the effect of weighting on the Eco- the WWT alternative.
Efficiency Index. Although there are differences in the absolute The effect of process data uncertainty was addressed in the
eco-efficiency results expressed in person time, the ranking of the scenario analysis. The relative eco-efficiency results were not
alternatives remains the same regardless of the weighting scheme affected by process data variations. Uncertainty in impact assess-
used. In other words, the Reservoir option is always the most eco- ment methodologies was not assessed as part of this case study as
efficient solution. the EU PEF guidance, a method developed by a large group of ex-
perts, was used. No additional important impacts beyond those
included in the relevance check for the Flowback case study were
3.2.9. Case study discussion identified.
The Reservoir solution has significantly lower environmental In all scenarios assessed, the Reservoir alternative is the more
impacts in all impact categories considered in EEA6 except for sustainable solution. This was shown using Eco-Efficiency Portfo-
human toxicity potential, where the advantage of the WWT alter- lios to display the results. Typically, decision-makers are not LCA
native is small. The costs for the reservoir alternative are also experts and need support in the interpretation of LCA results.
significantly lower. Combining these results of environmental and Result presentation in portfolio diagrams were well-accepted by
economic performance in the Eco-Efficiency Portfolio clearly stakeholders and enabled intense dialogues with politicians and
demonstrates that the Reservoir alternative is the most eco- the public. Besides aggregated results, the study delivered detailed
efficient option. The main contribution to the overall results is
results at the impact category level providing high transparency. sustainability results. Customers understand sustainability aspects
The application of different weighting schemes showed differ- of their product applications more easily with the Eco-Efficiency
ences in the results but did not change the ranking of the alterna- Portfolio presentation. The aggregated figures can help customers
tives. Hence, the results are robust and show the more sustainable and consumers incorporate sustainability aspects in their pur-
solution. chasing decisions.
4. Summary 5. Conclusions & outlook
The new BASF EEA Toolbox provides customized sustainability The new EEA toolbox is a robust basis to support sustainability
assessments, based on standard impact assessment methods, assessments by considering ecological and economical aspects
providing reliable and credible results for decision making and along the whole life cycles of products and their applications.
communication. Additionally, the new Social Analysis developed by BASF can be
Standardized impact assessments are used widely by LCA linked with the Eco-Efficiency Analysis to generate a holistic pic-
practitioners globally. The EU PEF gives the most up-to-date guid- ture including social aspects in life cycle approaches. These tools
ance for the best available impact assessment methods and was are implemented in the new SEEbalance® method (Saling et al.,
thus selected for the new BASF Eco-Efficiency Toolbox. Only the 2018).
most commonly accepted impact categories were included. For the The focus on supporting decision-making is especially helpful
assessment of human toxicity and water depletion other assess- for industry. Scientifically-based assessment methods are com-
ment models were selected that are not recommended in the EU bined with pragmatic industrial approaches to obtain easily inter-
PEF guidance. The environmental results are linked to an economic pretable, decision-oriented results. The modular toolbox concept
evaluation to broaden the scope of the sustainability assessment. addresses all needs e flexibility, regional and sectoral requirements
A toolbox that includes both fixed tools as well as a flexible tool e while allowing exclusion of impact categories that are not rele-
is important to address the range of sustainability needs across vant for a specific application. The mandatory relevance check
regions and industrial sectors. The EEA6 and EEA10 with pre- ensures sufficient environmental impact coverage always.
defined sets of indicators ensure comparability of eco-efficiency The flexibility of the toolbox allows for addition of other impact
results. A flexible tool like the LCAflex can address specific regional categories and impact assessment methods. In light of the ongoing
or sectoral requirements and can reduce complexity by including EU PEF pilot studies and very active stakeholder discussions it is
only the most relevant impacts. The modularity of the toolbox al- clear that some assessment methods will be replaced in the coming
lows for expandability both in terms of impact categories and years. The BASF EEA toolbox is easily adaptable to consider such
impact assessment methodologies. Additionally, changes in changes.
methods, impact assessment frameworks or standards can easily be The new BASF Eco-Efficiency Toolbox is well-suited to continue
adopted and compared to previous results. the previous 20 years of quantified sustainability assessment sup-
The relevance check was implemented to ensure that appro- port. It successfully complements and supports BASF’s group-wide
priate environmental impact categories are included to cover suf- implemented process of steering the company portfolio towards
ficient environmental impact. By identifying the most relevant more sustainable solutions. With over 600 eco-efficiency studies
categories the relevance check avoids greenwashing in the EEA6 completed, there is no comparable industrial approach in the
and LCAflex. In addition, the relevance check provides a reliable world. The application of these tools will have an important impact
indication of materiality, showing which environmental categories on sustainability of industries, enabling businesses to develop more
need to be included and which may be excluded. It helps practi- sustainable solutions to meet regional as well as global environ-
tioners to focus on the relevant impact categories. mental targets thereby manifesting the importance of industries as
The external normalization and aggregation schemes follow solution providers to tackle global challenges.
accepted guidance and ensure results which are independent of
alternatives being assessed. Expression of economic and ecological Declaration of competing interest
results in person time makes eco-efficiency results more mean-
ingful and easier to understand. The Eco-Efficiency Portfolio pro- The authors declare that they have no known competing
vides a robust, easy-to-understand visual presentation of financial interests or personal relationships that could have
aggregated results. appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Complex LCA studies can be summarized in easy-to-understand
single score results by using the same unit for economy and ecology
References
facilitating decision-making. The common unit ensures that results
can be combined across different impact categories and indicate Agarwal, S., Tanger, K., Linich, D., Madsen, J., Martin, L., 2012. Enhancing the Value of
whether economic or environmental aspects dominate. Scenario Life Cycle Assessment. In: http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/
calculations can be easily depicted. Documents/process-and-operations/us-consulting-
enhancingthevalueoflifecycleassessment-112514.pdf (accessed 21 March 2016).
The new EEA toolbox supports R&D, marketing and strategic AkzoNobel, 2009. Eco-Efficiency Analysis - applied on different chelating agents.
decision-making with scientifically-sound up-to-date methods and https://www.akzonobel.com/dissolvinegl/system/images/AkzoNobel_Eco-
approaches. In R&D sustainability aspects can be discussed in early Efficiency%20Analysis_081009_tcm80-32564.pdf (accessed 11 March 2016).
AkzoNobel, 2016. Creating Value from Eco-Premium Solutions - Eco-Premium So-
stages of product development, giving researchers directions for lutions for Eco- Innovation. https://www.akzonobel.com/sustainability/
minimization of environmental and economic impacts. In later managing_sustainability/key_focus_areas/creating_value_eco_premium_
stages of the development the calculations can support investment solutions/ (accessed 18 January 2016).
Aoe, T., Kurihara, S., Namikawa, O., Takahashi, T., Nakaniwa, C., 2005. Publication of
planning, site decisions or technological process selection.
the eco-efficiency handbook in 2004 eco-efficiency project in Japan. In:
Furthermore, discussions with authorities based on a detailed Ryochi, Y. (Ed.), Proceedings - Fourth International Symposium on Environ-
level considering sustainability aspects are possible. The Flowback mentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing: December 12 - 14,
study is a good example how processes can be assessed and how 2005, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 764e765. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ECODIM.2005.1619344.
discussions with authorities or NGO can be supported effectively. Bare, J., 2012. Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Marketing activities can be supported with quantified Environmental Impacts (TRACI) v2.1. EPA/600/R-12/554.
Basf, 2014. Sustainable Solution Steering - Our Approach to Support Our Customers. Huppes, G., van Oers, L., 2011. Evaluation of Weighting Methods for Measuring the
https://www.basf.com/de/company/sustainability/management-and- EU-27 Overall Environmental Impact. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. JRC -
instruments/sustainable-solution-steering.html (accessed 18 March 2016). IES 2011. Report EUR 24985 EN.
Bdi, 2015. Design Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) in a Reasonable and Iso 14040, 2006. Environmental Management d Life Cycle Assessment d Principles
Consistent Way. Position paper D 0689. http://bdi.eu/media/themenfelder/ and Framework. Beuth Verlag.
umwelt/downloads/umweltinformationen-produkte-und-dienstleistungen/ Iso 14044, 2006. Environmental Management d Life Cycle Assessment d Re-
Positionspapier_PEF_engl..pdf (accessed 21 March 2016). quirements and Guidelines. Beuth Verlag.
Benini, L., Mancini, L., Sala, S., Manfredi, S., Schau, E., Pank, R., 2014. Normalization Itsubo, N., Inaba, A., 2003. A new LCIA method: LIME has been completed. Int. J. Life
Method and Data for Environmental Footprints. JRC Technical Reports 2014. Cycle Assess. 8, 305. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978923.
Report EUR 26842 EN. Jemai, 2009. Guidelines for Standardization of Electronics Product Eco-Efficiency
Benini, L., Sala, S., Pant, R., 2015. Normalization and Weighting Factors for Testing Indicators Ver. 2.1. Japan Eco-efficiency Forum. https://lca-forum.org/english/
EC-JRC. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/wikis/download/attachments/ eco/pdf/01.pdf (accessed 19 January 2016).
66618509/Normalization%20and%20weighting%20factors%20for%20testing% Landsiedel, R., Saling, P., 2002. Assessment of toxicological risks for lifecycle
20EC-JRC_v0.2.xlsx?api¼v2 (accessed 22 March 2016). assessment and eco- efficiency analysis. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7, 261e268.
Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M., 2015a. Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark December 2015. Description https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978885.
of weighting factors based on environmental carrying capacity for use in the Laurent, A., Olsen, S.I., Hauschild, M.Z., 2011. Normalization in EDIP97 and
PEF pilot. Submitted Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a
Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M., 2015b. Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation consistent use in practice. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 401e409. https://doi.org/
in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int. J. Life 10.1007/s11367-011-0278-6.
Cycle Assess. 20, 1005e1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2. Lautier, A., Rosenbaum, R.K., Margni, M., Bare, J., Roy, P., Desche ^nes, L., 2010.
Boulay, A., Bare, J., Benini, L., Berger, M., Klemmayer, I., Lathuilliere, M., Loubet, P., Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and
Manzardo, A., Margni, M., Núnez, M., Ridoutt, B., Worbe, S., Pfister, S., 2014. comparison with European factors. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 33e42. https://
Building consensus on a generic water scarcity indicator for LCA-based water doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.09.016.
footprint: preliminary results from WULCA. In: 9th International Conference Ligthart, T., Ansems, A., Jetten, J., 2006. Eco-efficiency and Nutritional Aspects of
LCA of Food, San Francisco USA, pp. 8e10. Oct 2014. Different Product- Packaging Systems: an Integrated Approach towards Sus-
Boulay, A., Bare, J., De Camillis, C., Do €ll, P., Gassert, F., Gerten, D., Humbert, S., tainability. TNO-report B&O-A R2005/232-2.
Inaba, A., Itsubo, N., Lemoine, Y., Margni, M., Motoshita, M., Nún ~ ez, M., Ligthart, T., Valkering, M., Ansems, A., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of Beverage
Pastor, A.V., Ridoutt, B., Schencker, U., Shirakawa, N., Vionnet, S., Worbe, S., Carton Collection Systems. TNO report TNO 2013 R12036.
Yoshikawa, S., Pfister, S., 2015. Consensus building on the development of a Lopez, I., 2015. Zero Waste: Organics Recycling Best Practices. Compost Matters
stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: 2015. Compost Council of Canada Workshop. http://www.compost.org/English/
outcome of the expert workshops. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 577e583. https:// PDF/WRW_2015/ON/BASF_CCC_workshop_2015_Zero_Waste_V2.pdf (accessed
doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0869-8. 19 January 2016).
Castellani, V., Benini, L., Sala, S., Pant, R., 2016. A distance-to-target weighting Marley, A.J., Louviere, J., 2005. Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and
method for Europe 2020. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1159e1169. https://doi.org/ besteworst choices. J. Math. Psychol. 49, 464e480. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1007/s11367-016-1079-8. j.jmp.2005.05.003.
Cramer, J., van Lochem, H., 2001. The practical use of the ’eco-efficiency’ concept in Maxime, D., le Marcotte, M., Arcand, Y., 2006. Development of eco-efficiency in-
industry: the case of Akzo Nobel. J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 1, 171e180. https:// dicators for the Canadian food and beverage industry. J. Clean. Prod. 14,
doi.org/10.1023/A:1020507309005. 636e648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.07.015.
Din En 15804, 2012. Sustainability of Construction Works - Environmental Product McKinsey, 2014. Sustainability’s Strategic Worth: McKinsey Global Survey Results.
Declarations - Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products; http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_
German Version EN 15804:2012þA1:2013. Beuth Verlag. worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results (accessed 1 March 2016).
Dyckhoff, H., Quandel, A., Waletzke, K., 2015. Rationality of eco-efficiency methods: Norris, G.A., 2001. Estimating the value of a life cycle assessment. In: Proceedings of
is the BASF analysis dependent on irrelevant alternatives? Int. J. Life Cycle 1st International Conference on Life Cycle Management e LCM2001, Copen-
Assess. 20, 1557e1567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0957-9. hagen, 2001.08.26-29, pp. 157e162.
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sus- Nsf, 2009. Submission for NSF Protocol P352 Validation and Verification of Eco-
tainability, 2010. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Hand- Efficiency Analyses, Part A. BASF’s Eco-Efficiency Analysis Methodology. May
book - General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed Guidance. EUR 24708 2009. http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_BASF_EEA_Methodology_
EN. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union. Validation_Submission_Final_July_2009.pdf (accessed 23 March 2016).
European Commission, 2014. Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance Document. Nsf, May 2013. Submission for NSF Protocol P352 Validation and Verification of Eco-
Guidance for the Implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint Efficiency Analyses, Part A. BASF’s Eco-Efficiency Analysis Methodology. http://
during the Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase v4.0. www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/BASF_EEA_Methodology_Validation_Submission_
Finkbeiner, M., 2014. Product environmental footprintdbreakthrough or break- May2013.pdf (accessed 23 March 2016).
down for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int. J. Life Cycle Oka, T., Ishikawa, M., Fujii, Y., Huppes, G., 2005. A cost-effectiveness approach for
Assess. 19, 266e271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0678-x. green activities with multiple environmental effects: Maximum abatement cost
Frischknecht, R., Steiner, R., Jungbluth, N., 2008. The Ecological Scarcity Method - method. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 97e103.
Eco-Factors 2006. A Method for Impact Assessment in LCA. Environmental Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of
Studies No. 09/06. Federal Office for the Environment, Bern. freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4098e4104.
Gardner, S., Dowd, L., 2015. The State of Sustainability 2015. Ethical Corporation. Ponsioen, T., Goedkoop, M., 2015. Midpoint Weighting Based on Endpoint Infor-
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/business-strategy/press-release-ethical- mation. Submitted to the Int J Life Cycle Assess.
corporation-publish-state-sustainability-2015-report (accessed 23 March Rosenbaum, R., Bachmann, T.M., Gold, L.S., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Jolliet, O., Juraske, R.,
2016). Koehler, A., Larsen, H.F., MacLeod, M., Margni, M., McKone, T.E., Payet, J.,
Gabriel, R., Braune, A., 2005. Eco-efficiency analysis: applications and users con- Schuhmacher, M., van de Meent, D., Hauschild, M.Z., 2008. USEtoxdthe UNEP-
tacts. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, 19e21. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247873. SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., van Zelm, R., toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life
2009. ReCiPe 2008 A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Cycle Assess. 13, 532e546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0038-4.
Harmonized Category Indicators at the Midpoint and at the Endpoint Level. Saling, P., Kicherer, A., Dittrich-Kra €mer, B., Wittlinger, R., Zombik, W., Schmidt, I.,
First edition Report I: Characterisation, first edition, 6 January 2009. Schrott, W., Schmidt, S., 2002. Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF e the method.
Guinee, J.B., Gorre e, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., de Koning, A., van Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7, 203e218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978875.
Oers, L., Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo de Haes, H.A., de Bruijn, H., van Saling, P., Ho € fer, R., 2009. Metrics for sustainability. In: Clark, J., Kraus, G. (Eds.),
Duin, R., Huijbregts, M., 2002. IIb: operational annex. In: Guine e, J.B. (Ed.), Sustainable Solutions for Modern Economies, RSC Green Chemistry Series, vol.
Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. 4, pp. 25e37. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781847552686-00025.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9. Saling, P., Sonnemann, G., Margni, M., 2015a. Sustainability improvements and life
Guo, F., Lo, K., Tong, L., 2016. Eco-efficiency analysis of industrial systems in the cycle approaches in industry partnerships. In: Klo €pffer, W., Curran, M. (Eds.),
Songhua River basin: a decomposition model approach. Sustainability 8, 1271. Life Cycle Management, LCA Compendium e the Complete World of Life Cycle
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121271. Assessment. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 117e127.
Heitlinger, K., 2013. Chancen für nachhaltig produzierten Apfelsaft in Deutschland. Saling, P., Kalberlah, F., Schmincke, E., de Hults, Q., Grahl, B., 2015b. ProScale - a
Verband der deutschen Fruchtsaft-Industrie e.V. 7. Landesweiter Streuobsttag, proposal of new human toxicity indicator based on REACH data and applicable
Baden-Württemberg in Ludwigsburg, 13. April 2013. http://www.streuobsttage. within life cycle management. In: Proceedings of the LCM 2015 Conference
de/sites/default/files/field_fi_pdf/beitrag-heitlinger.pdf. Bordeaux.
€
Hilger, C., Tobisch, W., van Gelder, R., Saling, P., 2014. Okoeffizienz von Lack- Saling, P., 2016. The BASF Eco-Efficiency Analysis e A 20-year Success Story. BASF
ierprozessen ganzheitlich untersucht; Erste umfassende Analyse zum Vergleich Verlag Ludwigshafen.
verschiedener Verfahren in der Automobilindustrie. Farbe Lack. Heft 2/2014, Saling, P., Alba Pe rez, A., Grünenwald, T., Ko
€lsch, P., 2018. Applying Social-LCA and
38e43. Social Hot Spot Analysis Including a SDG Evaluation to Product Assessments
Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M., 2005. Eco-efficiency and its terminology. J. Ind. Ecol. 9, with SEEbalance®. In: SETAC Conference, Rome.
43e46. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247891. €
Schrott, W., Saling, P., 2000. Okoeffizienz-Analyse - produkte zum Kundennutzen
auf dem Prüfstand. Melliand Textilberichte 3, 190e194. Paczkowski, N., van Gelder, R., 2015. NSF Protocol 352, Validation and Verifi-
Shibaike, N., Shinomura, Y., Ichinohe, M., Tanaka, M., Takata, N., Miyake, K., cation of Eco-Efficiency Analysis, Part A, BASF’s Eco-Efficiency Analysis Meth-
Aihara, S., Takeyama, N., 2008. Activity of Japanese electronics industry on odology. USA. http://www.nsf.org/services/by-industry/sustainability-
environmental performance indicator toward future standardization. Proce. environment/claims-validation/eco-efficiency/ (accessed 21 March 2015).
Electron. Goes Green 2008þ, 473e477. United Nations, 2015. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of
Siemens, 2010. Environmental Solutions Increase Competitiveness in Mining and Chemicals (GHS) ST/SG/AC, 10/30/Rev.6.
Steel Industries. Press release. http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/ Wbcsd, 2000. Eco-efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Impact. http://www.
?press¼/en/pressrelease/2010/industry_solutions/iis201005406.htm (accessed ceads.org.ar/downloads/Ecoeficiencia%20Creating%20more%20value%20with%
19 January 2015). 20less%20impact.pdf (accessed July 2018).
Stranddorf, H.K., Hoffmann, L., Schmidt, A., 2005. Update on Impact Categories, Wbcsd Chemicals, 2014. Life cycle metrics for chemical products. http://www.
Normalisation and Weighting in LCA. Selected EDIP97-Data. Environmental wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID¼16329&
Project Nr. 995 2005. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. NoSearchContextKey¼true (accessed 7 April 2016).
Teixeira, R., de Souza, D., Curran, M., Anton, A., Michelsen, O., Mil
a i Canals, L., 2015. Wegener, D., Finkbeiner, M., Geiger, D., Ohlsen, S.I., Walachowicz, F., 2009.
Towards consensus on land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: UNEP/SETAC Comprehensive approach to energy and environment in the EcoCare program
Life Cycle Initiative preliminary recommendations based on expert contribu- for design, engineering and operation of Siemens industry solutions. In: Risø
tions. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4283e4287. https://doi.org/10.1016/ International Energy Conference 2009: Energy Solutions for CO2 Emission Peak
j.jclepro.2015.07.118. and Subsequent Decline, pp. 45e52. Risø-R-1712.
Tno, 2007. TNO Helps You Improve Your Score with the Eco-Efficiency Analysis. Wegener, D., Walachowicz, F., 2011. Improving energy efficiency in industrial so-
https://www.tno.nl/media/2740/046ebeno_nieuw.pdf (accessed 21 March lutions e walk the talk. Energy systems and technologies for the coming cen-
2016). tury: proceedings. In: Risø International Energy Conference 2011, May 10 e 12,
Tüv Rheinland Berlin Brandenburg, 2002. ID-nr. 5711150561: BASF Aktiengesell- pp. 187e196. Risø-R, No. 1776.
€
schaft, Okoeffizienz-Analyse, €
Geprüfte Okoeffizienz-Analysenmethode. http:// Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M., Alting, L., 1997. Environmental Assessment of Products.
www.certipedia.com/quality_marks/5711150561/public_documents? Volume 1e Methodology, Tools and Case Studies in Product Development.
locale¼de&qm_locale¼de (accessed 21 March 2016). Chapman and Hall, Thomson Science, London.
Tüv Rheinland do Brasil, 2008. ID-Nr. 57111150661: BASF S/A. Worldatlas, 2017. The Concept of Eco-Efficiency: Why Is it So Important for the
Uhlman, B., Saling, P., 2010. Measuring and communicating sustainability through Modern World? https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-concept-of-eco-
eco-efficiency analysis. Chem. Eng. Prog. 16, 17e26. efficienty-why-is-it-so-important-for-the-modern-world.html (accessed 30
Uhlman, B., Laginess, T., Green, D., Steinmetz, D., Saling, P., Grosse-Sommer, A., July 2018).

Applied sustainability in industry. The BASF eco-Efficiency toolbox

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied sustainability in industry. The BASF eco-Efficiency toolbox

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applied sustainability in industry. The BASF eco-Efficiency toolbox

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Cleaner Production 258 (2020) 120792

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

Applied sustainability in industry: The BASF eco-eEfﬁciency toolbox

1. Introduction a key element in industry for optimization of existing products and

1.2. Eco-efﬁciency and its importance for decision-makers standard in 2012.

Fig. 1. The Eco-Efﬁciency Portfolio of the original BASF method.

Association for Industry (JEMAI, 2009).

1.3.3. Eco-efﬁciency in industry: Siemens’ Eco-Care Matrix

development of accepted impact assessment methodologies, the

2. New method description

Since the introduction of the original BASF EEA methodology in

Topic Tool Area of use Advantages Limitations Indicators Display of results

a) The selection of impact categories shall reﬂect a comprehensive

substituted by ecotoxicity according to the USEtox model, as this is Table 3

Fig. 4. EEA6 impact categories in selected assessments of chemical-based products.

Climate change 15% 12% 11% 25% 51%

SUM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

requirement of at least 80% environmental coverage is met; other

3. Implementation of the new method: case study ﬂowback

Fig. 6. Greenhouse gas emissions in the Flowback EEA case study.

Fig. 7. Human toxicity in the Flowback EEA case study.

the ﬂowback phase. 3.2.4. Environmental Fingerprint

Fig. 8. Environmental Fingerprint in the Flowback EEA case study.

Fig. 9. Costs in the Flowback EEA case study.

WWT contribution of GHG: 2.7 * 0.214 ¼ 0.6 person days

Fig. 13. Scenario calculation: Application of different weighting schemes.

4. Summary 5. Conclusions & outlook

You might also like