See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223528349

Experiences of environmental performance evaluation in the cement industry.

Data quality of environmental performance indicators as a limiting factor for
Benchmarking and Rating

Article  in  Journal of Cleaner Production · November 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00126-9

CITATIONS READS
50 168

6 authors, including:

B. von Bahr Erik Stoltenberg-Hansson

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden Intelmat Stoltenberg-Hansson
3 PUBLICATIONS   314 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bengt Steen
Chalmers University of Technology
43 PUBLICATIONS   1,678 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Establishing the Swedish national LCA database SPINE@CPM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by B. von Bahr on 28 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
www.cleanerproduction.net

Experiences of environmental performance evaluation in the

cement industry. Data quality of environmental performance
indicators as a limiting factor for Benchmarking and Rating
B. von Bahr a,∗, O.J. Hanssen b, M. Vold b, G. Pott c, E. Stoltenberg-Hansson d, B. Steen a
a
CPM—Centre for Environmental Assessment of Product and Material Systems, Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of
Technology, S-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
b
Østfold Research Foundation, Box 276, N-1601, Fredrikstad, Norway
c
Cementa AB, Box 102, S-620 30 Slite, Sweden
d
Norcem AS, R&D, Box 38, N-3950 Brevik, Norway

Received 3 April 2001; received in revised form 14 April 2002; accepted 20 September 2002

Abstract

Although ISO 14031 gives guidelines for environmental performance evaluation, there is limited experience of applying the
standard in the area of benchmarking and external rating, especially when limitations of data quality are considered. This paper
evaluates the importance of the data quality of operational performance indicators (OPIs, in this case emission factors) as a limiting
factor for benchmarking and external rating between six cement plants in Sweden, Norway and Finland for three types of emissions,
dust, NOx and SO2. Monthly emission factors for 1993–1999 were collected for these plants and a quality assurance process was
undertaken to eliminate factors that decreased comparability. The data were tested against six hypotheses concerning different
aspects of the variation of the emission factors. One of the findings was that there is no sharp limit when the quality of emission
factors is high enough to make it possible to compare, since quality is a qualitative conception in itself. Instead, organisations using
emission factors should strive to adapt a system with quality assurance of emission factors, resulting in widely accpeted emission
factors suitable for comparison between plants. This is achieved with a sector specific methodology which can handle irrelevant
differences and reflects real differences in environmental performance.
 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental Performance Evaluation, EPE; Cement production; Data quality; Environmental Performance Indicators, EPI; Operational
Performance Indicators, OPI; ISO 14 031; Comparability; Benchmarking; Emission factor

1. Introduction 앫 document continuous improvement according to ISO

During the last decade, there has been an increasingly
intensive interest in assessing, measuring and docu-
menting the environmental performance (EP) of industry
[1–4]. Tyteca [5] points out that “there is an increasing
need for tools that would allow for proper and objective
quantification or measurement of the performance of
firms with respect to the environment.” There are several
objectives of the measurements, among the most
important being the possibility to:
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +00-46-31-772-21-81; fax: +00-46-
31-772-21-72.
E-mail address: bo.vonbahr@esa.chalmers.se (B. von Bahr).
14001 [6]
앫 benchmark EP internally and externally for various
stakeholders
앫 document improvements of EP from investments in
the production
앫 prove compliance with emission permits, voluntary
agreements etc.
The international standard for environmental perform-
ance evaluation (EPE), ISO 14030 [7] proposes a meth-
odology to measure EP in terms of definitions, working
structure (“plan-do-check-act”-system), and different
types of quantitative indicators such as environmental
performance indicators (EPI), management performance
indicators (MPI), operational performance indicators

0959-6526/03/$ - see front matter  2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00126-9
714 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
(OPI) etc. However, the ISO standard is quite new and
there is limited experiences of applying the standard in
different sectors of industry. Jasch [8] has described the
standard in general terms and has also pointed out the
importance of system boundaries. A recently finished
project within the EP area is an EU project called MEPI,
Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry [3].
The principal objectives of MEPI were to develop, col-
lect and apply EPIs. The problem situation in MEPI is
similar to that of this study, but this study deals with the
cement industry which was excluded in the MEPI-study.
In spite of the importance of data quality in relation to
EPIs, there is limited experience of this factor. The qual-
ity aspects need to be better investigated, in order for
the EPIs to fulfil their functions according to the aims
mentioned in the beginning of the article.
Since EP has to be quantified to be comparable, differ-
ent kinds of indicators are used, as mentioned above.
OPIs are “a type of EPI that provide information about
the environmental performance of the organisations
operations”, according to ISO 14031 [7]. Some of these
OPIs are identical to life cycle inventory data (LCI-data).
LCI is one of the steps in life cycle assessment (LCA).
OPIs in this paper are expressed as emission factors
(EF), i.e. X kg emitted substance/functional unit. It is
also of interest to see the connections between the EPE
and LCA and how these can be reciprocally beneficial.
This paper is the result of a joint Nordic project, Nor-
dEPE, which aims to increase the understanding and use
of EPE. This paper reflects one of the subprojects,
regarding the statistical properties of emission factors
(EFs) in the Nordic cement industry. The goal of the
subproject was to investigate whether, and if so how,
deficiencies in the data quality of EFs are a limiting fac-
tor for the use of EFs as OPIs, especially concerning
benchmarking and rating. The study was carried out with
the cement industry as an example.
2. Background
2.1. The cement production process
A short description of cement production is provided
to improve the reader’s understanding of this process,
see Fig. 1. The main raw materials for cement production
are limestone and marl. The stones are quarried, crushed
and ground to a raw meal. Before the raw meal is fed
into the kiln, it passes a cyclone tower with a precalcin-
ator, where the temperature rises to approximately 950
°C (not all cement plants are equipped with a
precalcinator). During this calcining process, CaCO3
thermally decomposes to CaO and CO2, and the latter
leaves the system. In the rotating kiln, the material
moves slowly towards the burner in the end of the kiln,
where the temperature is 1450 °C, and the material is
converted to clinker. Finally, the clinker is ground in a
cement mill with the addition of approximately 5% of
gypsum to achieve the desired cement quality. The
cement is now ready and is stored in cement silos ready
to be sold and used.
2.2. Calculation of emission factors
An emission factor is the ratio between the emissions
caused by producing a certain unit, within a given time
period, and the produced unit, e.g. 2.2 kg NOx/ton
clinker. The numerator expresses the amount of emission
and the denominator expresses the produced unit. The
measurement procedure used to achieve the emissions is
dependent on the type of emission. In this study, NOx
and SO2 emissions are measured in the flue gas, while
dust is measured both in the flue gas and at some other
points of emission. To estimate the emission for a certain
period, the concentration (X, measured in the flue gas)
is multiplied by the flow in the flue gas (Y), for a certain
time period (Z), according to Eq. (1).
冋 册 冋册
mg m3
X ∗Y ∗Z[h] ⫽ XYZ[mg]. (1)
nm3 h
For the same time period, the produced clinker has to
be determined. This is done by weighing the raw meal
fed to the kiln during the period, and multiplying by a
factor (depending on quality of raw meal), since CO2 is
released during the calcining process.
2.3. Data material in the study
The reasons for choosing the cement industry was that
good data were available for various emissions over a
long period of time (from 1993 and ahead) from different
production units. The six production plants in the study
are situated in Norway (1 plant), Finland (2 plants) and
Sweden (3 plants). The sizes of the plants vary and their
average production of clinker is between 20,000 metric
tons/month to 150,000 metric tons/month.
There are many types of emissions in the cement
industry which could have been included, e.g. EFs of
CO2, SO2, NOx, dust and heavy metals. Other quantitat-
ive measures of EP can also be included, such as use of
natural resources, energy, fossil fuels, water etc. All the
emission types mentioned have earlier been included in
LCA studies for cement [10]. There are also some direct
production aspects such as noise and vibrations which
can be included. A selection process ended up with three
emission factors: dust, NOx and SO2. These were the
emission factors for which the statistical material was
the best for these emission types, i.e. continuously
reported data over a long period of time at each pro-
duction plant. If a global EP assessment framework is
to be compiled for the cement industry more emission
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
Fig. 1. The cement production process. Source: [9].
factors or indicators certainly have to be included than
in this study. This is for example valid for CO2, an
important but omitted emission factor in this study. It
was omitted since the data material was not suitable for
a statistical assessment, since a majority of the plants
studied gave the CO2-emission factor as a ratio of the
production of clinker for the studied period. The investi-
gated data material is shown in Table 1.
The EFs used are monthly average values, i.e. the total
amount of the emission during a month is divided by
the production for the same month. It would be possible
to work with a higher resolution, e.g. 24-h EFs. The
selection of monthly EFs seemed us to be a good
compromise between sufficient resolution and the
amount of data acceptable to handle in the analyses. The
measurement uncertainties for the EFs are estimated to
+/-2.2 % for NOx, +/-3.6% for SO2 and +/-8% for dust,
according to Swedish standard measurement procedures
in the cement industry [11,12]. However, the variability
of the EFs is greater than the measurement uncertainties.
The collection of monthly EFs for this project for 1993–
1999 began in the spring of 1999 and was completed for
the last year in the beginning of 2000. A contact person
at each plant received a template, filled it in and
returned it.
Table 1
The available data material for the study
Substance Number of Number of Number of Number of
plants years EFs missing
values
Dust 6 7 461 43
NOx 5 7 384 36
SO2 3 7 206 46
715
2.4. Quality assurance
The important quality assurance process was carried
out in three steps. A questionnaire was sent to all the
plants about the measurement methodology. Another
questionnaire concerned changes within the plant during
the period (technology changes and permission levels
etc). Finally, there was a dialogue between the analyst
and the data provider at each plant in the beginning of
the analysis, where the outliers in the statistical material
were checked and mistakes adjusted. The three steps are
described in detail below.
The first step, on measurement methodology, was
intended to make the information about EFs more com-
parable. It is important to increase the knowledge about
the background of the emission data. This was achieved
by sending out an inquiry to each plant, which consisted
of detailed questions about measurement methodology.
Dust, for example, is generated at various places at the
production site, and it is important for comparability to
be aware of how the measurement programme for each
emission is designed.
The second step was to identify all changes that
occurred during the study period, and which could
influence the EFs of a cement production plant. Possible
changes were categorised in eight groups numbered I–
VIII and a questionnaire was sent to the plants to register
the changes in the groups:
앫 Changes in emission permits from authorities (I).
앫 Changes or investments in Air Pollution Control Sys-
tems (II).
앫 Changes in measurement methodology or measure-
ment systems (III).
앫 Introduction of quality management systems (ISO
9000) (IV).
716 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
앫 Introduction of environmental management systems
(ISO 14000 / EMAS) (IV).
앫 Change of fuels (V).
앫 Changes of raw material or raw material compo-
sition (VI).
앫 Changes in production control or production pro-
cesses (VII).
앫 Other changes that may be important for EFs (VIII).
The third and final step of the quality assurance pro-
cess was to eliminate mistakes in EFs. In the beginning
of the analysis, there were some statistical outliers that
seemed to be incorrect. Data that seemed statistically
incorrect were checked with the data provider at each
plant to minimise the risk of misinterpretation of data.
3. Methodology
To explore the importance of data quality for OPIs in
benchmarking, some hypotheses (see next section) were
formulated and tested. The hypotheses relate to questions
about average values, standard deviations (SD), normal-
ised standard deviations (NSD), correlation between
technical or other changes (improvements) in the plant
and the EFs, regression analyses between EFs and pro-
duction and, finally, whether the EFs can be represented
by some kind of distribution.
In this case, the OPI according to ISO 140 30 [7] are
expressed as EFs for dust, NOx and SO2. Usually these
are expressed as the annual average EF for a plant, e.g.
2.5 kg NOx/ton clinker (which is converted to cement
through the grinding process). To compare two such
values with the aim of discerning significant changes is
not appropriate, since the variation during a year can be
considerable. For example, if the second year has a lower
average EF but a larger SD, it is possible that no
improvement has taken place. A statistical test that
includes the SD can provide a basis for a better statement
about a significant change. A significant change in this
context means a statistically proven change, with a cer-
tain probability. A common rule of thumb in statistics
is to consider a probability of 95%. If nothing else is
stated, that significance level is assumed in this article.
The SD can also be used to characterize the variation
of the EF over time. Two production sites may have the
same average for an EF, but with different SDs, indicat-
ing that the production at one site is more stable than
the other. Another issue is the variation of the SD over
time and whether the SD changes significantly owing,
for instance, to technical changes at the plant or changes
in the management systems. To make SDs comparable
(when the mean values differ greatly), they can be nor-
malised (NSD), i.e. the SD values are divided by the
mean values, which makes the SDs independent of the
levels of the mean values.
It is also of interest to see how changes in the pro-
duction conditions influence the mean values and SDs
of the EFs, and whether there is correlation between the
EFs and the monthly production of clinker. To enable
LCA simulation [13–15], it of interest to study whether
the EFs can be represented by some distribution [16].
Therefore, the EFs were tested against the normal distri-
bution. The hypothesis (see below) about significant dif-
ferences between plants was tested using multiple com-
parison methods. Different multiple comparison methods
were used depending on the variance of the EFs. If the
variances were proven equal (according to a certain
limit) the Bonferroni [17] test was used and if they were
proven unequal, the method of Tamhane [17] was used.
3.1. Hypotheses
In order to explore whether the current data quality
of the EFs is high enough to prove differences between
plants, some hypotheses were formulated. Several other
questions regarding the SD, NSD, effects on the EF of
changes in the plants, etc. were also studied to under-
stand the characteristics of EFs:
1.
1.1. Average annual EFs from all the studied cement
plants have been reduced significantly from
1993–1999.
1.2. There are significant differences between the EFs
from different plants over the period 1993–1999.
2. Standard deviations for dust, NOx (as NO2) and SO2
EFs for each plant have been reduced over the period
1993–1999.
3.
3.1. Normalised standard deviations in the EFs of the
cement plants are not higher than 30% of the
average value.
3.2. Normalised standard deviation in average annual
EFs from all cement plants have been reduced
from 1993–1999.
4. Improvements implemented in technology, process
development and management systems in the plants
have caused significant changes for relevant EFs
and/or NSD in EFs.
5. There is no correlation between EFs and monthly pro-
duction of clinker in the cement plants from 1993-
1999.
6. Annual EFs from the cement plants can be rep-
resented by a normal distribution (based on monthly
EFs).
The number 30% in in hypothese 3a is chosen just to
give a reference point for the amplitude of variation. It
would have been possible to choose a lower or higher
value.
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725 717

4. Results of the hypotheses

(Hypothesis 1:a) Average annual EFs from all the

studied cement plants have been reduced significantly
from 1993 to 1999.b) There are significant differences
between the EFs from different plants over the period
1993 to 1999.
a) This hypothesis is true, since, for dust, there is a
significant reduction of 50% when 1999 is compared
with 1993, see Fig. 2a. If period 1 (1993–1995) is com-
pared with period 2 (1996–1999), the significant
reduction is 31%. The significant reduction between per-
iod 1 and period 2 depends on stepwise significant
reductions within the periods—in this case two signifi-
cant reductions in period 2, between 1996/1997 and
between 1998/1999, see Fig. 3. No significant reduction
took place in period 1. For NOx, the hypothesis is also
true if a comparison is made between period 1 and per-
iod 2, where a significant reduction of 19% occurred due
to significant reductions between 1996 and 1997 in per-
iod 2, see Fig. 4. However, if 1993 is compared to 1999 Fig. 3. Dust, EF, all plants together for each year. There were sig-
a nonsignificant reduction of 22% occured due to a large nificant reductions between 1996 and 1997 and between 1998 and
spread of the mean values in 1999. For SO2, the hypoth- 1999. The horizontal line indicates the median value. The box rep-
resents 50% (from 25th to 75th percentile) of the EFs and the
esis is true, since there is a significant reduction of 39%
top/bottom horisontal line represents the largest/smallest emission fac-
when 1999 is compared with 1993, see Fig. 2 c. If period tor that is not an “outlier” or an “extreme”. Circles are outliers that
1 is compared to period 2, there is a nonsignificant represent EFs with more than 1.5 box-length from the 75th percentile
reduction of only 2%. The low reduction between the (top of box) (25th percentile on the bottom side). Extremes are EFs
periods depends on that only one of the plants had great more than three box-lengths from the 75th percentile (top of box) (25th
percentile on the bottom side).
reduction in period 2, see Fig. 5 (the outliers disappear
between 1998/1999) and Fig. 2 c.
b) The question about significant differences between
plants is answered in two ways. First, the whole period
is considered, and second, a comparison is made
between the first year (1993) and the last year (1999).

Fig. 2. a–i. Development of average, SD and NSD of emission factors for dust, NOx and SO2 for all plants and each plant during the whole
period.
718 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725

Fig. 4. NOx, EF, all plants together for each year. 1997 and 1998 had
significantly lower emission factors than 1993 and 1994.

Fig. 5. SO2, EF, all plants together for each year. There was one
significant change during the period, between 1998 and 1999.

Dust for the whole period is shown in Fig. 6 a. A mul-

tiple comparison according to Tamhane (unequal
variances) showed that there were significant differences
between all plants, except plants 5 and 6, for the whole
period. For NOx, the same analysis method showed sig-
nificant differences at the 0.005 level (Fig. 7 a) for all
plants except between plants 1 and 5. Fig. 8 shows the Fig. 6. a,b,c. Multiple comparison between plants for dust, all years,
1993 and 1999.
SO2 variation for the whole period. There are two groups
of EFs in this diagram, one with an EF of approximately
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
Fig. 7. a,b,c. Multiple comparison between plants for NOx, all years,
1993 and 1999.
719
Fig. 8. Multiple comparison between plants for SO2 for the whole
period.
3 kg SO2/ton clinker and the rest of the plants form the
other group below 0.5 kg SO2/ton clinker.
Secondly, a comparison was made between 1993 and
1999 for the three different emissions. For dust in 1993
(Fig. 6 b), three different groups of plants can be dis-
tinguished. Plant 2, 5 and 6 have the lowest EFs, accord-
ing to the analysis. Plant 1 is somewhat higher, and the
group with the highest EFs consists of plants 3 and 4.
When 1999 (Fig. 6 c) is compared with 1993 the EFs
are much lower and also in a more narrow range. It
makes almost no sense to try to separate them, but site
4 has slightly higher EFs according to the analysis. Fig.
7 b and c show NOx for 1993 and 1999. 1993 has three
groups on different levels for the EFs. For the last year
the spread is wider and each plant has its own “unique”
level of EF. For SO2, the EFs of site one decreases dur-
ing 1998 down to the level of the other plants for 1999,
see Fig. 8.
(Hypothesis 2.) Standard deviations for dust, NOx (as
NO2) and SO2 EFs for each plant have been reduced
over the period 1993–1999.
The results are different for the three types of emis-
sions. For dust (Fig. 2 d), each plant has a lower SD,
and the SD for the whole material is also lower. The
opposite is valid for NOx (Fig. 2e). There is no reduction
of SD for any plant, and the SD for the whole material
rises steadily owing to a divergent material. Finally for
SO2 (Fig. 2 f), although there is no reduction for any
plant, the SD of the whole material decreases since the
material is more homogenous at the end of the studied
period. One conclusion is that a decreasing SD for the
whole material is a good indicator showing that the
whole population is much more homogenous in terms of
720 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725

the mean emission level. This cannot be seen from the
individual plants’ SD lines.
(Hypothesis 3a.) Normalised standard deviations in
the EFs of the cement plants are not higher than 30%
of the average value.
The hypothesis is false for dust according to Fig. 2 g,
where many of the NSDs of the EFs are above the 30%
line. For NOx the hypothesis is true since a majority of
the values are below the 30% line according to Fig. 2
h. For SO2 the hypothesis is true according to Fig. 2 i,
since a majority of the EFs are below the 30% line.
(Hypothesis 3b.) Normalised standard deviation in
average annual EFs from all cement plants have been
reduced from 1993 to 1999.
There are different results for NOx and dust. Dust
NSD is (Fig. 2 g) reduced during the end of the whole
period, but NOx (Fig. 2 h) NSD is increasing. If the
results of the individual plants is compared, no clear
trend can be seen for NOx and dust NSD values. For
SO2 (Fig. 2 i), the NSD for each plant is increasing, but
the development for the whole material is decreasing,
owing to a more homogenous data material.
(Hypothesis 4.) Implemented improvement in tech-
nology, process development and management systems
in the plants have caused significant changes for relevant
EFs and/or NSD in EFs.
Not surprisingly, improvements in technology are the
main cause of significant reductions of the EFs. For dust
(see Table 2), the majority of the changes of EFs are
attributable to improvements of filters and introduction
of a wet scrubber (type II). In Tables 2–4 a modification
within brackets indicates that the modification is a
doubtful explanation of the significant change of the
EFs. Unfortunately, it is not possible to translate the
various influences of explanatory factors into statistical
terms, since the dataset of potential explanations of
environmental performance changes is too small to allow
for such analysis.
The conclusion is that technological changes (II) are
the most important means of reducing dust emissions. It
is also clear that a more stable production process will
reduce the normalised standard deviation of the EF
(plant E).
Changes in NOx (see Table 3), are also attributable to
technology, but it seems as if measurement procedures
and the degree of attention paid to measurements and
process optimisation also had an influence on the EFs.
Two of the changes are from that group, III (changes in
measurement methodology and measurement systems).
There are also two significant changes of type II
(cleaning equipment) and two significant changes owing
to changes in production processes (IV).
The conclusion for NOx is that technological changes
(II) are important, but so is improved attention to the
NOx-value (continuous measurements etc.), which leads
to better process control.
For SO2 (see Table 4), the only significant change
occurred after introduction of a wet scrubber.
The conclusion for SO2 is that only technological
changes (raw material composition, cleaning equipe-
ment, etc.) influence the EF of SO2. One significant
change occurred for plant A during the period.
(Hypothesis 5.) There is no correlation between EFs
and monthly production of clinker in the cement plants
from 1993–1999.
The general conclusion is that the hypothesis is false,
but the correlation is very weak. The regression coef-
ficient is negative (the EF decreases with higher
production) for dust and NOx but not for SO2. (Fig. 9
a,b,c, Figs. 10–11). The EF is approximately 29% lower

Table 2
Dust. Summary of significant changes of EFs and registered system modifications, that may influence EFs. The first row indicates changes between
years. The different categories (I–VIII) are listed in section 2.4. A ↑ indicates a statistically significant increase of the EF and a ↓ indicates the
opposite. Significant changes in NSD are marked in italics

Year / Plant 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99

All ↓ See plant C and D ↓ See plant A and B

A – – I: New lower – – ↓ II: New wet
permission from 1/1-96 scrubber installed and
II: Modification of modification of filter
filters
B ↑ IV: (ISO 9002) – – – – ↓ IV: (ISO 14001) II:
Improvement of
filters
C ↓? ↓ IV: (ISO – ↓ II: Improvement of – –
9002) filters
D – – – ↓ II: Improvement of – –
filters
E ↓ VII: More stable kiln – – – – –
operation
F – – – – – –
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725 721

Table 3
Summary of significant changes in NOx, and factors that might influence these changes. The first row indicates changes between years. See
explanation in text to Table 2 above. (SNCR=Selective Non Catalytic Reduction of nitrogen dioxide)

Year / Plant 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99

All – – – – – –
A ↓ III: “internal ↑ V+(IV): – I: New permission – –
control” alternative fuels level ↓ II: SNCR
(ISO 9000)
C – ↓ III+VII: – – – ↑ VII: Changed
Mineralised clinker production pattern
and continuous and ordinary clinker
measurements
D – – – ↓ III+VII: Changed – –
clinker quality and
continuous
measurements
E – – – ↓ II: SNCR – –
F – – – – – ↑ III: Continuous
measurements

Table 4 (Hypothesis 6.) Annual EFs from the cement plants

Summary of significant changes for SO2. The first row indicates can be represented by a normal distribution (based on
changes between years. See explanation in text to Table 2 above
monthly EFs).
Year / 93–94 94–95 95–96 96–97 97–98 98–99 An important assumption in analysis of variance and
Plant other classical statistical procedures, is that the within-
group data are normally distributed [17]. The test of nor-
All – – – – – ↓ See plant mality in this study was done with a one-sample Kolom-
A ogorov–Smirnov test [17]. Normality was investigated
A – – – – – ↓ II: Wet for each plant each year, i.e. each normality test was
scrubber
installed done on 12 EFs. Normality for both EFs and the 10-log
C – – – – – – EFs were investigated. The results of the test are shown
D – – – – – – in Table 5. It should be stressed that there is not a sharp
limit between yes or no about normal distributions.
A summary for hypotheses one, two and three is that
for the EFs of all plants together, dust and SO2 are more
for dust when the production is around 150 000 homogenous at the end of the period, while NOx is more
ton/month compared to a production of 25 000 divergent. The mean values decreased significantly for
ton/month. For NOx, the corresponding figure is 53%. all three, but not for consecutive years. SD and NSD
For SO2, the regression coefficient is close to zero, since show a large degree of co-variation, since the NSD is
the EF of SO2 is mostly dependent on the content of controlled mostly by the SD, which varied much more
sulphur in the raw material. The conclusion is that the than the mean level. The summary for hypothesis four
hypothesis is false for dust and NOx for the whole data is that the technology at the plant has the highest influ-
material and for the individual plants. For SO2, the ence on the EFs. For NOx another important factor is
hypothesis is true. how the plant is running. The EF for SO2 is also contin-
Even if the correlation is weak it is obvious that gent on the raw material. The influence of quality and
months with high production in all cases have low EFs, environmental management systems seems negligible.
especially for dust and NOx. The explanation is that low Hypothesis five indicates that there is a correlation
production during a month can be an indicator of between the emission factor and the production. Hypoth-
unstable production conditions. This causes a high EF esis six indicates that the assumption about normality
since starts and stops of the kiln causes relatively higher is acceptable.
emissions and gives the cleaning equipment bad working
conditions, due to poor conditioning of the flue gas. An 5. Discussion
additional explanation for the lower EFs connected to
5.1. Limitations in benchmarking of emission factors
higher production is that these measurements come from
in industry owing to data quality
bigger plants, which have had relatively more resources
to install cleaning equipment compared to the smaller The main subject of this paper is the data quality
plants in the study. aspects of OPIs as a possible limiting factor for bench-
722 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725

Fig. 10. Regression analysis for NOx.

Fig. 11. Regression analysis for SO2.

Table 5
Tests of normality with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov method. A case
means one plant during one year, i.e. each normality test is based on
12 values

Emission Dust NOx SO2

“Operator” un-transf. 10-log un-transf. 10- un- 10-

log transf. log
Fig. 9. a,b,c. Regression analyses for dust. 9a shows the whole period % of cases 50 75 50 50 40 50
while 9b and 9c show period 1 (1993–1995) and period 2 (1996– with
1999) respectively. normality
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
marking and rating between industrial plants and compa-
nies.
Since quality is a qualitative conception in itself there
is no sharp limit when the quality of emission factors is
high enough to make it possible to compare. The chal-
lenge for organisations is to achieve widely accpted,
quality assured, relevant, reliable and comparable EFs,
which all stakeholders accept as a base for comparison.
This study shows, for three specific types of emissions,
that there are significant differences in emission factors:
앫 among a group of cement plants over time
앫 within each specific plant over time
앫 at each company within a given time period
The analysis is based on three data sets of very good
quality and with low levels of inherent uncertainty (e.g.
measurement uncertainty), both owing to long term
internal programmes in the Nordic cement industry, and
to external reviews during the project work. The chal-
lenging questions concerning the quality aspects of EFs
as a basis for internal benchmarking and external rating
are thus if the differences listed above would have been
significant whether:
1. the external quality review in the project not had been
undertaken or,
2. there were data from a sector with less internal control
than is the case in the cement industry.
The external quality review in this study aimed at get-
ting comparable data for the three types of emissions.
That process would enable a sound decision irrespective
of whether the differences in EFs were real or due to
measurement uncertainties and/or bias. Bias in the
cement production sector may include differences in
how to estimate possible extra emissions during pro-
duction disturbances or different ways of calculating,
measuring or estimating the flow of flue gas. An
important requirement for comparison studies in general
is also that correct system boundaries have been applied
for each of the plants studied. The external quality pro-
cess in this study eliminated several outliers in the data
material, which caused false deterioration of the EFs.
Measurement uncertainties seemed to be of minor
importance compared with bias in this investigation, but
that may not be the case when other industrial sectors
are investigated. In summary for this study, the external
quality review process was of importance to achieve
comparable EFs. Without the external quality review
process, the investigation would certainly show signifi-
cant differences in EP, but it would be hard to claim that
these differences were reliable.
It seemed that the internal control of the emission
measurements was rather good in the studied cement
plants. The environmental reporting systems in all of the
723
plants were established to meet the requirements for
reporting and control of the authorities. Is it then accept-
able just to take the figures from existing environmental
reporting and use them for EPE? Perhaps, but not
always. The fundamental difference between environ-
mental reporting to authorities and EPE reporting is that
the former focuses in most cases on being under a certain
limit, while the latter focuses on a more absolute value
of the EP. Further, the requirements on environmental
reporting to the authorities may differ from country to
country or even between counties in the same country,
which makes the comparability of the EFs lower. So the
answer to question number two above is that if the
internal control had not been as good as in the cement
industry, differences in EP could have been lost, or dif-
ferences found would be unreliable.
5.2. Comparison of emission factors over time
This study has mainly focused on comparability
between plants, but there are also some difficulties in
comparing data within a plant. Since major changes
which can influence measurements, are often made at
plants, the comparability may not be perfect for data that
are several years old compared with newly generated
data. There can be changes of various kinds, e.g. modi-
fications of production lines, different product types and
qualities, improvements in measurement equipment, etc.
Another important factor is changes of personnel that are
responsible for documenting the measurements. In this
study the data quality is better for the later years than
for the earlier years, but the data quality is sufficiently
good over all the years to make comparisons possible.
5.3. The improvement of cement production in
perspective
What can be said in general of the EP of the cement
industry? There is no doubt that the EFs are lower
towards the end of the period than in the beginning. But
several industrial sectors experienced similar curves dur-
ing the studied period, including the pulp and paper
industry [18] and the wastewater industry [19]. Bench-
marking should be both within industrial sectors and
between industrial sectors. Benchmarking within the sec-
tor mostly gives information about the efficiency of vari-
ous plants and the span between the plants regarding dif-
ferences in EP. Benchmarking between sectors can give
information about the sectors contribution to environ-
mental impacts, such as acidification or global warming.
In general, attention should be paid to the ratio of the
variance of the EF within a plant, to the range of EFs
for the whole group of plants. If the ratio is small it is
relatively easy to do benchmarking (to discern signifi-
cant differences) whereas if the ratio is big, i.e the intra
724 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
plant variation of EFs is of the same order of magnitude
as the variation of EFs of the whole group of plants.
5.4. About normality in distributions of EFs
Several statistical procedures require data to be
sampled from normal populations [17], which is the rea-
son for the normality test in hypothesis six. As seen, the
normality test did not show that all the samples were
normally distributed. An expected outcome from the
analysis would be that they were normally distributed or
at least log-normally distributed. The log-normal distri-
bution is very probable for this kind of data [20]. The
reasons that a more than negligible part of the distri-
butions deviated from normal and log-normal distri-
butions is probably the small samples and the varying
mean values. Each sample for the normality judgement
consisted only of 12 values, which is a small number to
make a good estimation of normality. Another reason is
that there were measures taken at the plants during the
sampling period, which made the expected mean of the
EF vary, i.e. a measure implemented in the middle of a
year caused the expected mean value at the end of the
year to be lower than at the beginning of the year. If a
plant runs without any new measures taken for a whole
year, the probability is higher that the EF will be nor-
mally distributed. The conclusion is that the analyses are
reliable, in spite of the fact that a part of the data material
deviated from normality, since the deviations have a
good explanation.
6. Recommendations and conclusions
6.1. Types of output from the study
The output from a study like this is twofold. One part
is the quantitative answer to the hypotheses posed in the
study. This kind of result is most interesting for people
involved in the cement production industry, who are
interested in the statistical properties of the EFs from
each of the plants and statistical properties from the
plants as a group. The other kind of result is interesting
to a wider group of people—statements about data qual-
ity of the EFs as a limiting factor concerning rating and
benchmarking of production units. Both kinds of results
are presented here.
6.2. Best practice for industrial sector programs to
make EFs comparable
Although the plants produce more or less the same
final product, significant differences were found with
respect to the studied EFs of dust, NOx and SO2. These
differences may depend on raw materials, production
processes (including stability in the process) and varying
performance of/investments in air pollution control sys-
tems. For these circumstances our goal is to find OPIs
that give real information about EP and do not reflect
irrelevant differences due to different system borders,
etc. To reach this goal about the highest possible com-
parability to enable rating and benchmarking, a method-
ology is needed which can handle irrelevant differences
and reflect real differences in EP. Independent of indus-
trial sector, minimum requirements on such a method-
ology are:
앫 A list of what to include in the EPE in each industrial
sector, and how these indicators should be expressed
(emission/product type, emission/employee, energy
consumption/ product type, etc.)
앫 Capacity to handle different technical outfits (design
of the plant, cleaning equipment, measuring equip-
ment, etc.) since there are not two identical sites. Con-
trol of the measurement technique is also needed, i.e.
frequency of measurements, number of measurement
points, etc.
앫 Capacity to handle the different requirements and
characteristics of different emissions. For example,
dust has many emission points, heavy metals are
impossible to detect on a continuous basis, etc.
앫 Clear system boundaries, which reflect the character-
istics of the activity. For cement production, for
instance, handling transports, allocations (CO2 ) when
use of renewable or waste fuels, what to include in
energy consumption, etc.
앫 Capacity to handle various abnormal production con-
ditions. For the cement industry this includes starts
and stops and the possible extra emissions on these
occasions.
앫 The format of the EPE reporting should not be influ-
enced by the format of environmental reporting to
authorities and non-governmental organisations, since
these formats may differ from country to country.
As seen from the conclusions, it is very difficult and
probably not useful to determine a specific quality level
for EFs when they can be considered comparable. The
work should, instead, aim at developing an adapted spe-
cific methodology in each industrial sector to reach com-
parable OPIs according to the above remarks. When
OPIs are compiled with such a methodology, they can be
used for rating and benchmarking between companies.
One of the results of this work is the suggestion of
branch-specific methodologies as a basis for EPE. Such
methodologies can be developed by branch institutes in
co-operation with intergovernmental organisations. It is
important to give the methodology a very broad and
accepted status, since more or less all industrial com-
modities are traded on a free global market. This last
remark is especially valid for cement.
 B. von Bahr et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 713–725
6.3. Further studies to be carried out in general on
EF and EPE
This study does not cover all aspects of EP. More
emissions could have been investigated. There are also
other aspects of EP, such as resource use, electricity use,
waste generation, employee health, etc. The aim is not
to cover the industrial sector completely, but to give the
most important facts that can improve the data quality
for comparability and benchmarking. One of the most
important factors in achieving high quality and compara-
ble EPIs is a strong driving force for industry to compile
such information. Such a driving force can come from
financial stakeholders (banks, insurance companies, etc.)
or the customers who will buy large amounts of indus-
trial goods. It is important to have a better knowledge
of what factors makes industry aware of the importance
of being able to present EPE.
It would also be an advantage for companies to have
a more holistic approach to data collection [21], so the
efforts in this area could serve as a source of information
for all environmental reporting, e.g. EPE, LCA, and ISO
14000. Another important aspect is the inclusion of site
specific EPE. Even if two sites have the same EPIs when
the site or plant is in focus, the sites can be situated in
different geographical areas, which have different
environmental sensitivity. Experience from such evalu-
ations would be valuable.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to all cement plants that have
provided the study with empirical data. The financial
support of the Nordisk Industrifond, Näringslivets Huvu-
dorganisation and Sveriges Industriförbund is grate-
fully acknowledged.
References
[1] kstad E, Hanssen OJ. Environmental performance indicators in
industry,1997, Confederation of Norwegian Business and Indus-
try, Oslo, Norway.
View publication stats
725
[2] Global Reporting Initiative, Guidelines for corporate sus-
tainability reporting. 1999, CERES, Boston
[3] MEPI—Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry,
2000, SPRU—Science and Technology Policy Research, Univer-
sity of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
[4] Bennet M, James P. Sustainable measures. UK:Greenleaf Pub-
lishing Limited: Sheffield, 1999.
[5] Tyteca D. On the measurement of the environmental performance
of firms—a literature review and a productive efficiency perspec-
tive. Journal of Environmental Management 1996;46:281–308.
[6] International Standard Organisation, Environmental management
system 14001, 1995.
[7] International Standard Organisation, Environmental performance
evaluation 14 030, 1998.
[8] Jasch C. Environmental performance evaluation and indicators.
Journal of Cleaner Production, ; 2000;8:79–88.
[9] Cementa AB, Cementa och miljön, 1998, Cementa AB, Box 144,
182 12 Danderyd, Sweden, [in Swedish].
[10] Vold, M. Rönning, A.A of Cement and Concrete—Main report,
1995, Stiftelsen Östfoldsforskning, Fredrikstad, Norway.
[11] Naturvårdsverkets allmänna råd 91:6, Naturvårdsverket, 1991,
Stockholm, Sweden.
[12] Utsläppsmätning av stoft, Naturvårdsverket, 1993, Stockholm,
Sweden
[13] Huijbregts MAJ. Application of uncertainty and variability in
LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
1998;3:273–80.
[14] Kennedy DJ. Data quality: stochastic environmental life cycle
assessment modeling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-
ment 1997;1:199–207.
[15] Maurice B, Frischknecht R, Coelho-Schwirtz V, Hungerbühler K.
Uncertainty analysis in life cycle inventory. Application to the
production of electricity with French coal power plants. Journal
of Cleaner Production 2000;8:95–108.
[16] Hanssen OJ, Asbjornsen OA. Statistical properties of emission
data in life cycle assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production
1996;3–4:149–57.
[17] SPSS, SPSS Base 9.0 Users Guide, 1999, Chicago, IL.
[18] Karvonen MM. Determinants of emission coefficients. In: Global
Environmental Issues in the 21st century: Problems, Causes and
Solutions. Brighton, UK: SETAC; 2000.
[19] Lundin M. A set of indicators for the assessment of temporal
variations in the sustainability of sanitary systems. Water Science
and Technology 1999;39:235–42.
[20] Steen B. On uncertainty and sensitivity of LCA-based priority
setting. Journal of Cleaner Production 1997;5:255–62.
[21] Pålsson AC, Carlson R. Integration of acquisition of LCIA data
within the environmental management system. In: In LCA, Inter-
national Conference and Exibition on life cycle assessment: Tools
for sustainability. Arlington, VA: EPA; 2000.