Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Environmental performance evaluation e A proposed analytical tool

for an industrial process application
^a Maceno*, Urivald Pawlowsky, Karina Scurupa Machado,
Marcell Mariano Corre
Robson Seleme
, Polytechnic Centre, 210 Francisco H. Dos Santos Street, Jd. Das Am
Department of Production Engineering, Federal University of Parana ericas, Curitiba,
 81530-000, Brazil
Parana

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In modern society some environmental issues linked to the industry are part of the most significant
Received 15 December 2016 threats to sustainable development. Consumption of natural resources, effluents, solid waste and
Received in revised form greenhouse gas emissions, are some examples of challenges for the industry nowadays. To overcome this,
27 September 2017
literature points to environmental management strategies, based on voluntary administrative in-
Accepted 27 October 2017
Available online 27 October 2017
struments, which are described as “Environmental System Analysis Tools”. Although several analytical
tools are available to evaluate the environmental performance, such tools were not created with a
specific focus on the assessment of industrial processes, and therefore it doesn't assist the industrial
Keywords:
Environmental performance evaluation
needs efficiently. In this study, a tool was developed based on the literature concept of a “useful and
Environmental sustainability efficient tool” that consists of a tool: with more information, a broader range of evaluation categories and
Industrial processes based on data from environmental accounting. This tool named Environmental Performance of Industrial
Processes has as main function to identify environmental aspects with the worst performance and to
drive decision-making toward environmental improvements. It was developed in five stages, based on
the Life Cycle Impact Assessment and IMPACT 2002 þ methods and consists of an economic and envi-
ronmental analysis. In order to assess its effectiveness, this tool was applied in an industrial process of
yogurt cup packaging. A ranking of the most significant environmental aspect was provided by the tool
and those with worst performance were grid Thermoforming, PP cups, VOCs printing, Steam of the
extrusion and the Plastic Cups contaminated with Oil, which correspond to 99% of the total equivalent
relative cost. This study brings a tool that can contribute significantly to the industry moving forward
towards environmental sustainability.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction According to literature, environmental management strategies

Industrial activities consume large amounts of natural resources
and release several types of effluents, solid waste and greenhouse
gases, that badly affect the environment (Duflou et al., 2012; Sen
et al., 2015). It has been a matter of concern in the whole world,
which has lead the local governments and society to pressure the
industrial sector to reduce and control the environmental impacts
of its processes and products (Mimoso et al., 2015). Thus, research
has been undertaken to develop tools and strategies to ensure that
industrial activities move in a sustainable direction, based on the
current policy makers, environmental laws and international
standards (Herva and Roca, 2013; Carvalho et al., 2014).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marcell.maceno@gmail.com (M.M.C. Maceno).
based on voluntary administrative instruments are the key to
overcome this challenge. Several researchers describe these in-
struments as Environmental Systems Analysis Tools, which can be
classified into procedural and analytical tools (Ahlroth et al., 2011;
Finnveden et al., 2009; Ho€ jer et al., 2008; Finnveden and Moberg,
2005). Procedural tools explore procedures for decision making,
(e.g. Environmental Management Systems, Environmental Impact
Assessment, Environmental Performance Evaluation and Life Cycle
Analysis), whereas analytical tools aim to analyze technical aspects
and to quantify them (e.g. Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Envi-
ronmental Risk Analysis) (Wrisberg et al., 2002). Analytical tools
can be used within procedural tools to facilitate decision making for
actions to reduce environmental impacts and improve environ-
mental performance (Ho € jer et al., 2008; Wrisberg et al., 2002).
Thus, analytical tools play an important role in the quantification

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.289
0959-6526/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464
and evaluation of the industrial environmental performance, once
they help to identify the most significant environmental impacts,
driving the management actions toward the most critical envi-
ronmental aspects, saving time, work and financial resources
(Perotto et al., 2008).
Several analytical tools are available to evaluate environmental
performance, such as: Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA)
(Chompu-Inwai et al., 2015; Schmidt and Nakajima, 2013), Life
Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) (Elduque et al., 2015; Hermann
et al., 2007; Jawjit et al., 2015) and Ecological Footprint (EF)
(Butnariu and Avasilcai, 2014; Herva et al., 2011, 2008). However,
such tools were not created with a specific focus on the assessment
of industrial processes, and therefore present difficulties to meet its
needs (Angelakoglou and Gaidajis, 2015).
Another issue about the available analytical tools is the absence
of standardization. Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines (GRI,
2015) and the ISO 14031 standard (ISO, 2013) consider some spe-
cific valuation categories in the environmental performance eval-
uation, such as materials and energy use, atmospheric emissions,
risks of incidents, and the cost of pollution prevention, among
others. On the other hand, in literature several authors present
analyses based on the Environmental Impact Assessment (Elduque
et al., 2015; Herva and Roca, 2013; Nucci et al., 2014) or Environ-
mental Risk Analysis, and alternatively, some studies consider
Environmental Costs as the main evaluation category to evaluate
environmental performance in industrial processes (Chompu-
Inwai et al., 2015; da Silva and Amaral, 2009; Ong et al., 2012;
Schmidt and Nakajima, 2013).
Thus, due to the wide variety of analytical tools available in
literature, most of them use different approaches and different
parameters to evaluate environmental performance, and therefore,
there is no consensus among regulatory agencies, international
organizations, and researchers about a useful and efficient analyt-
ical tool to evaluate the environmental performance of industrial
processes (Angelakoglou and Gaidajis, 2015; da Silva and Amaral,
2009; Hermann et al., 2007). This concept of a useful and effi-
cient tool was endorsed by Angelakoglou and Gaidajis (2015) and
Schmidt (2013), using three observations: 1) Tools with more in-
formation are extremely necessary because they provide more
reliable results, in shorter time and with lower cost for imple-
mentation, 2) Tools that consider a broader range of evaluation
categories tend to produce more objective and meaningful results,
and 3) Tools based on data from environmental accounting tend to
be more easily applicable due to the ease of obtaining and con-
trolling information.
In this context, this study aimed to build and test an analytical
tool to evaluate environmental performance in industrial pro-
cesses. It was named EPIP (Environmental Performance of Indus-
trial Processes). The main objectives of this study regarding this
tool were as follows:
1) To define a set of evaluation categories to evaluate environ-
mental performance specifically for industrial processes, based
on the survey in literature concerning the theme;
2) To quantify and to assess the set of evaluation categories pre-
viously defined through the selection of variables and formu-
lation of equations suitable for industrial processes;
3) To test the application of the tool built in an industrial process.
2. Methods
2.1. EPIP tool building process
The process to develop the EPIP tool consisted of five stages,
1453
according to the flowchart presented in Fig. 1.
In the first stage the objectives of the study were proposed
based on the background previously presented in the introduction.
In the second stage, the evaluation categories to be managed by the
EPIP tool were selected in an attempt to obtain a tool that considers
a broader range of information, but easily applicable to industrial
processes, i.e. a useful and efficient tool (Angelakoglou and Gaidajis,
2015; Schmidt, 2013). Thereby, well recognized standards and
guidelines regarding environmental performance (such as ISO
14031 and GRI) were considered, as well as, the most important
studies in literature that report analytical tools applied to evaluate
environmental performance in industrial processes (Butnariu and
Avasilcai, 2014; Chompu-Inwai et al., 2015; da Silva and Amaral,
2009; Herva et al., 2012; Jawjit et al., 2015; Nucci et al., 2014), linked
to LCIA, MFCA, EF, MAICAPI, LCC etc., even though these studies
were not developed for industrial processes.
In the third stage a set of variables and equations used to
quantify and assess the selected evaluation categories were
defined, considering: the amounts and types of materials and
waste, the amount of energy used, environmental costs of input/
output of the manufacturing process, environmental impact cate-
gories (midpoint indicators) and damage categories (endpoint in-
dicators). These factors of midpoint and endpoint indicators were
based on the LCIA, mainly the IMPACT 2002 þ method for midpoint
indicators and the Eco-indicator 99 method for endpoint indicators.
In this context, the variables of EPIP tool were defined, which were
divided into two groups: economic analysis group and environ-
mental analysis group. Two groups of variables were employed
because the group of economic variables uses a different unit of
measure (monetary unit) than the group of environmental vari-
ables (dimensionless). The mathematical operation used to relate
these two groups was multiplication because it allows the inter-
relation of different units, while minimizing differences in order of
magnitude of the result in the environmental and economic
analyses.
Also in stage three, a main equation was developed (Equation
(1)) to assess environmental aspects according to environmental
performance. The equations used to obtain the variables that make
up the main equation were formulated based on the equations
reported in MFCA (Schmidt, 2013) and LCIA tools (Humbert et al.,
2015; Jolliet et al., 2003).
According to literature, economic and environmental integra-
tion helps decision makers understand changes in environmental
impacts and their associated costs. Moreover, the integration of
economic and environmental aspects is considered an issue of
growing importance today (Bierer et al., 2015; da Silva and Amaral,
2009).
In addition, the development of a tool based on a main equation
was considered, and was composed of a single index to facilitate the
interpretation of the results by the tool user, making the tool more
useful, as defined by Angelakoglou and Gaidajis (2015).
In the fourth stage the EPIP application was made as a case study
in an industrial process for the manufacturing of plastic yogurt
cups. The steps for the application of the EPIP tool are described in
section 2.2. These steps may be used to guide managers in the
application of the EPIP tool in their industrial processes.
Lastly, in the fifth stage, an assessment of EPIP tool and its
application in the case study was made.
2.2. Steps for the application of the EPIP tool in a general industrial
process
The proposed methodology for the application of the EPIP tool
comprises six steps: (1) mapping processes, boundary, functional
unit and environmental aspects; (2) lifting of mass, energy and
1454 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464
Fig. 1. Construction stages of the EPIP tool.
operation costs; (3) survey of management costs; (4) performing of
LCIA adapted; (5) LCIA weighting; and (6) the analysis of the results.
Steps (2), (3), (4) and (5) consist in the quantification of the
environmental performance in the industrial process. Fig. 2 shows a
flowchart of the EPIP tool steps, which are detailed as follows:
2.2.1. Mapping processes, boundary, functional unit and
environmental aspects
In Step 1, four important activities should be made: the mapping
of processes, the definition of the functional unit, the definition of
the boundary and the definition of environmental aspects in the
industrial process. Firstly, it is important to do the data collection of
all the activities in the industrial process, related to products or
support activities, such as those that take place in offices, refectory,
ambulatory or general services. Secondly, the functional unit
should be defined using a production time or a reference of the
amount produced. In the case of production time, a timeframe
(days, weeks or months) should be defined, as the timeframe
needed to carry out the continuous activities, batch or intermittent
activities. When the amount produced is used, it is possible to use
the numbers of produced products or production batches, defining
at least a minimum value for both of them that were included in the
continuous activities, batches or intermittent. In the case of in-
dustrial processes that present a high variation level in the pro-
duction, such as those subject to the seasons of the year or affected
by holidays, it is recommended to apply the EPIP tool for each
different condition of production, in order to identify the envi-
ronmental aspects of worst performance, defining the functional
unit for the different applications.
In sequence, the boundary of the industrial process should be
defined, including the activities that will be considered for the EPIP
analysis. The EPIP user should define the boundary and consider it
in the analysis of the EPIP answers. It is recommended to consider
in this step, the amount of data available on industrial activities and
the knowledge/experience of the user. It is important to stress that
the EPIP tool was initially developed to analyze industrial pro-
cesses, limiting their coverage area.
Subsequently, the block diagram or process flowchart should be
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464 1455

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the application of the EPIP tool in general industrial processes.

devised in order to visualize the previously collected information,
and facilitate the understanding of the industrial process under
study.
Finally, all the activities raised in the industrial process, ac-
cording to the defined boundary, should be transformed into a list
of environmental aspects, as defined in the ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004).
This form of activity representation was adopted because it is a
reference consolidated by ISO 14001 and also in the methodology
of the Life Cycle Analysis, according to ISO 14040 (ISO, 2006).
2.2.2. Mass, energy and operation costs
Step 2 involves the survey of the mass, energy and also the costs
related to the input and output for each environmental aspect. For
the mass data the quantification of raw materials, input consumed,
waste generated and products produced in each identified envi-
ronmental aspects should be carried out.
For energy data, the quantification can be performed by
measuring the direct consumption of each machine in the indus-
trial process. Another way of calculating the energy consumption is
the use of the ratio between the power and the machine operating
time. This quantification of energy consumption is rated between
the environmental aspects raised and is related to certain ma-
chinery, according to the mass balance of these environmental
aspects.
Finally, for the cost data the quantification of unit costs of each
material used in the process should be carried out, according to the
values of purchase of these materials by the industry under study. It
is also necessary to carry out the identification of the destinations
types adopted for each environmental aspect related to waste, and
the quantification of the costs of these destinations, according to
the destination records on waste. It is worth noting that the waste
destinations considered may represent the disposal, treatment or
even recycling or reuse.
1456 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464
2.2.3. Management costs
Step 3 consists in the data collection on environmental man-
agement costs such as training, equipment calibration, machine
replacement, and the implementation of the Environmental Man-
agement System, among others. These cost data must be related to
the environmental aspects it covers. For example, in the case of
training to improve waste management, the accounted cost should
be related to the environmental aspects of the waste addressed in
the training. To account for the costs of each environmental aspect,
an indicator of environmental management improvement should
be used for each environmental aspect.
In this way, the relationship between the cost of the environ-
mental management action raised and the indicator of the envi-
ronmental management improvement provides the cost of the
environmental management for each environmental aspect. It is
important to note that, in the first implementation of the EPIP tool
in an industrial process, this cost will not be considered.
2.2.4. LCIA adapted
Step 4 involves the identification of categories of environmental
impacts by consumption and emission of materials and energy that
are related to each environmental aspect, followed by the identi-
fication of compounds and energy types present in the impact
categories related to this environmental aspect.
For each environmental aspect, all impact categories considered
in the tool should be analyzed by the EPIP user, selecting the
characterization factors in their corresponding impact categories,
according to the materials and energy in this environmental aspect.
If the user has some difficulty related to the impact categories,
category indicators and characterization factors, he/she should seek
specialized external support.
It is important to note that once the impacts of consumption and
emission of materials and energy are limited to the boundary of the
industrial process, the impacts examined by the EPIP tool are
related to the consumption of materials, water and energy and the
release of solid, liquid and gaseous emissions restricted to this
boundary.
2.2.5. LCIA weighting
Step 5 involves the definition of values of weighting for the
damage categories. The weighting may occur through the AHP
method by the comparative analysis between the damage cate-
gories. According to literature, this method is suitable to calculate
weighting factors of the LCIA (Domingues et al., 2015; Ha et al.,
2016). In this case, the EPIP user can choose by scale of impor-
tance, according to Saaty's scale (Saaty, 1980), the level of impor-
tance of each of the damage categories in comparison to each other.
The result of the choices of importance is the weight of each
category. The use of the AHP method for weighting is only rec-
ommended when the surrounding environmental conditions are
known. The weighting may also occur using the damage weighting
factors of the Eco-indicator method, if the EPIP user is not aware of
the surrounding conditions. The user can also choose not to use the
weighting if he/she considers it appropriate.
2.2.6. Analysis of results
Finally, step 6 provides the analytical results achieved by the
implementation of the EPIP tool. This outcome is to obtain the
ranking of the environmental aspects assisting in the identification
of items of interest to the decision-making process to pursue
environmental improvements. Through this classification of envi-
ronmental aspects, decision makers will be able to better explore
the problem of the most critical environmental aspects identified
and to develop actions to improve their environmental perfor-
mance. After the implementation of the improvement actions, the
EPIP tool is expected to be used in a new period, maintaining the
functional unit defined, to quantify and evaluate the improvement
of the environmental aspects covered by the actions, and to identify
new critical environmental aspects, in order to maintain the
continuous improvement cycle of the industrial process in search of
environmental sustainability.
It is important to state that the EPIP tool can be used both to
evaluate a temporal evolution of the industrial process after
improvement interventions, and also to simulate scenarios in
which the implementation of actions is predicted, in order to
quantify what would be the environmental performance of certain
environmental aspects.
3. The EPIP tool
3.1. Selection of the EPIP evaluation categories
As a result of the search to evaluate the categories found in the
ISO 14031 standard (ISO, 2013), in the GRI guidelines (GRI, 2015)
and key papers (Butnariu and Avasilcai, 2014); Chompu-Inwai et al.,
2015; da Silva and Amaral 2009; Elduque et al., 2015; Herva et al.,
2012; Jawjit et al., 20150; Nucci et al., 2014; Schmidt and
Nakajima 2013), eight evaluation categories were defined to be
evaluated in the EPIP tool. The focus in selecting the evaluation
categories was to develop a useful and efficient tool.
In the literature assessed, MFCA and LCIA were the tools more
widely used to define the base for the evaluation categories, due to
their high scientific contribution to the environmental evaluation
of the industrial processes in recent years. Also, it is important to
state that the selected evaluation categories were used at least once
in literature regarding analytical tools applied to environmental
evaluation in industrial processes. The eight selected evaluation
categories were:
I. Amount of input-output materials (Material Balance);
II. Consumption/production of Energy (Energy Balance);
III. Destination of solid, liquid and gaseous emissions;
IV. Environmental Impact Assessment;
V. Environmental Costs (material, energy and emissions);
VI. Legal compliance and stakeholder requirements;
VII. Surrounding environment conditions;
VIII. Applied measures to prevent pollution.
In addition, some authors consider the external costs in the
environmental performance evaluation (de Beer and Friend, 2006;
Jasch, 2003). However, a significant uncertainty is assigned to this
evaluation category in literature (da Silva and Amaral, 2009) and,
therefore, it was not selected for the EPIP tool.
3.2. Definition of the EPIP variables and equations
The EPIP tool has one main equation (Equation (1)) used to
analyze and classify environmental aspects according to environ-
mental performance. It was developed based on a single response
index, in order to facilitate decision-making, as recommended by
Angelakoglou and Gaidajis (2015) and Perotto et al. (2008).
Equation (1) calculates the equivalent Cost of each n Environ-
mental Aspect (CEA(n)). The input data for Equation (1) as well as
for the other equations of the EPIP were discretized as environ-
mental aspects according to ISO 14001 (ISO, 2004).
CEAðnÞ ¼ ½MLCðnÞ þ CECðnÞ þ MDCðnÞ þ EMCðnÞ$½IMðnÞ þ IEðnÞ
¼ EcGðnÞ$EnGðnÞ
(1)
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464
In Equation (1), the variables Material Loss Cost (MLC(n)),
Consumed Energy Cost (CEC(n)), Material Destination Cost
(MDC(n)) and Environmental Management Cost (EMC(n)) were
defined, which composes the economic analysis group, and the
variable Impacts of consumption and emission Materials (IM(n))
and Impacts of Energy consumption (IE(n)), which compose the
environmental analysis group. Furthermore, EcG(n) represents the
sum of the variables of the economic analysis group, while EnG(n)
represents the sum of the variables of the environmental analysis
group. As recommended by Angelakoglou and Gaidajis (2015), an
economic approach was used through EcG(n), in order to facilitate
the data collection and application. Also, the LCIA method was used
through EnG(n) to increase the information assessed, and to pro-
duce more reliable results and a useful and efficient tool.
All cost variables in Equation (1) are in local currency (in $),
whereas the environmental variables are dimensionless. Thus the
measuring unit designed for variable CEA(n) is $Eq (Equivalent
Currency Unit). This unit was created because the equivalent cost
value of the environmental aspect does not correspond to an actual
monetary outcome, once the monetary values for each cost variable
were transformed by multiplying them with the environmental
impact values.
The second equation calculates the equivalent Total Cost (TC) of
environmental aspects (Equation (2)). TC is the sum of n ¼ 1and
n ¼ i of the CEA (n), where i is the total number of environmental
aspects in the industrial process. This second equation can be used
to evaluate the increase or total reduction of the environmental
performance of the industrial process between analyses over time.
Finally, the third equation provides the equivalent Relative Cost
(RC(n)) of each environmental aspect, and is basically the ratio
between CEA(n) and TC (Equation (3)).
X
TC ¼ CEAðnÞ; to n ¼ 1 until i
RCðnÞ ¼ CEAðnÞ=TC
3.2.1. Economic analysis group
The variable components of this group are Material Loss Cost,
Consumed Energy Cost, Material Destination Cost and Cost of
Environmental Management Cost. Each of these variables has a
particular equation for the calculation, and the equations are
described in this section.
MLC(n) (Equation (4)) represents the quantification of the costs
of material loss for each environmental aspect n (in $). In this
equation ML1 x m(n) is a row matrix of mass quantities of each
material loss as waste m (in kg) in the environmental aspect n and
MCm x 1(n) is the unit cost column matrix of each material m in the
waste (in $/kg). Note that the mass sum of each material loss that
makes up the n environmental aspect results in the total output
mass (in kg) of this environmental aspect (MOUT(n)).
MLCðnÞ ¼ ML1m ðnÞ$MCm1 ðnÞ
CEC(n) (Equation (5)) is a cost balance of energy use in pro-
cessing environmental aspect n (in $). In this equation, CE(n) is the
consumption energy for processing environmental aspect n (in
kWh), EUC(n) is the energy unit cost (in $/kWh) and PE(n) is the
ratio (in %) between the total output mass (MOUT(n)) of environ-
mental aspect n (in kg) and input mass (MIN(n)) of the raw material
(in kg). For this variable, the environmental aspect can be a product
or waste.
CECðnÞ ¼ CEðnÞ$EUCðnÞ$PEðnÞ
¼ CEðnÞ$EUCðnÞ$MOUT ðnÞ=MIN ðnÞ
1457
MDC(n) (Equation (6)) is the material destination cost in the
environmental aspect n (in $). In this equation D%1 x d(n) is a row
matrix of the total material quantity as a percentage of destination
d and DCd x 1(n) is the column matrix of the unit cost of the material
destination for every destination d in the environmental aspect n
(in $.kg1).
The waste destination forms that were considered to calculate
MDC(n) were obtained according to the waste hierarchy reported
by Crittenden and Kolaczkowski (1995), which considers ten types
of material destination: Reuse at source, Reuse inside the industrial
process, Recycle inside the industrial process, Reuse in other in-
dustrial processes, Recycle in other industrial processes, Waste
treatment inside the industrial process with internal disposal,
Waste treatment inside the industrial process with external
disposal, Transport, treatment, and external disposal, Transport and
external disposal without treatment and Unsuitable disposal (does
not comply with legal requirements). Thus, if the destination of the
environmental aspect is d ¼ 10, this aspect is already considered as
a priority in the analysis, because it is not in compliance with the
law.
MDCðnÞ ¼ MOUT ðnÞ$D%1d ðnÞ$DCd1 ðnÞ (6)
EMC(n) (Equation (7)) is the environmental management cost in
environmental aspect n (in $). It corresponds to a collection of in-
vestments/expenses made in the industrial process in a period of
time between environmental performance evaluations by EPIP tool.
These investments/expenses represent actions for the improve-
ment of one or a group of environmental aspects such as those
stated in 2.2.3.
In this equation CA(m) represents the cost of the environmental
management action for each action m (in $) involving a specific
(2) number of environmental aspects, II(n) is the indicator for the
environmental aspect improvement (in $Eq) for each environ-
mental aspect n, IIS(m) is the sum of the values of II(n) of the
(3) environmental aspects involved in action m (in $Eq), and p is the
total number of actions. II(n) is obtained by the subtraction be-
tween CEA(n) (calculated after the improvement actions) and
CEA(n) (calculated before the improvement actions).
X
EMCðnÞ ¼ ½CAðmÞ$IIðnÞ=IIS ðmÞ; to m ¼ 1 until p (7)
It is important to state that, in the case of the environmental
management action, where there was the worsening of an envi-
ronmental aspect, the value of EMC(n) will be positive, showing
that the action was ineffective, worsening the result of the envi-
ronmental performance for this environmental aspect.
3.2.2. Environmental analysis group
LCIA was introduced in the EPIP tool to adjust the economic
value in order to obtain a better economic and environmental
balance. Analyzing environmental performance only from financial
(4)
data can distort the results. For example, a certain process produces
a waste that is deposited in a landfill. However, there is a more
expensive option that is to send the waste for recycling. Therefore,
an analytical tool, predominantly economic, should indicate that
the landfill is the best option, although not environmentally
suitable.
In this context, the environmental analysis group of the EPIP
tool seeks to employ the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA),
because of its greater objectivity and reliability analysis, when
compared to more traditional analyses of the industrial processes,
such as the environmental risk analysis.
(5) The environmental analysis group was organized for variable
impacts of consumption and emission materials IM(n) and variable
1458 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464

impacts of energy consumption IE(n) by impact categories, ob-
tained by adapting the four methods of LCIA: IMPACT
2002 þ vQ2.22 (Humbert et al., 2015; Jolliet et al., 2003), EDIP 2003
(Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005), Water footprint
(Pfister et al., 2009) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED)
(Frischknecht et al., 2007). These methods were selected according
to the following analysis:
a) According to Carvalho et al. (2014) the most widely used
methods of LCIA between the years 2005 and 2011 were the
Eco-indicator 99, IMPACT 2002þ, CML, and EDIP.
b) IMPACT 2002 þ method is a combination of the IMPACT
2002, Eco-indicator 99, CML and IPCC methods (Jolliet et al.,
2003).
c) EDIP method has waste impact categories not present in
other methods.
d) Water and energy use are environmentally critical factors for
industrial processes and should be dealt with more fully in
LCIA. Thus, two specific methods for these analyzes were
selected: Water Footprint and Cumulative Energy Demand.
These methods are considered suitable to evaluate the con-
sumption of these resources in industrial processes
(Angelakoglou and Gaidajis, 2015).
The variable IE(n) (Equation (9)) calculates the environmental
impacts for each environmental aspect n regarding the energy
consumed in processing this environmental aspect. In this equa-
tion, CE(n) (in kW.h) and PE(n) (in %) are variables already shown in
Equation (5), and Wi, ICi(n) and Ni are variables already shown in
Equation (8).
hX  i
IEðnÞ ¼ CEðnÞ$PEðnÞ$ Wj $ICj ðnÞ Nj ; to ¼ 1 until k
(9)
Note that although the method for assessing environmental
impacts by the EPIP tool has been drawn up by the composition of
impact categories from different methods of LCIA and their
respective characterization factors, the normalization factors used
were obtained from a unique method, IMPACT 2002þ. The excep-
tion is the normalization factor of the impact categories of waste
generated, which does not exist in IMPACT 2002þ. Therefore, the
per capita production of hazardous and bulk waste from the Eu-
ropean Union was used for 2004 (reference year) as a normalization
factor (Eurostat, 2015), once it is equivalent to the normalization
standard used in IMPACT 2002þ (Humbert et al., 2015).
The weighting factors of the impact categories can be obtained
in two ways:

These four methods were then analyzed to verify the overlap of
impact categories and the applicability for industrial processes.
IMPACT 2002 þ was used as the reference method because it en-
compasses the methods of CML and Eco-Indicator 99 and as a
whole, comprises the group of the three methods most used in LCIA
(Carvalho et al., 2014). In addition, IMPACT 2002 þ contains impact
categories that include the main potential environmental impacts
of industrial activity when the system boundary is put as the in-
dustrial process itself.
The variable IM(n) (Equation (8)) calculates the environmental
impacts of materials for each environmental aspect n. Its variables
are as follows: Wj (dimensionless) is the weighting factor of the
impact category j, ICj(n) (in kgeq(category). kg1) is the value of impact
category j in environmental aspect n, Nj (in kgeq(category)/person/
year) is the normalization factor of impact category j, and k is the
total number of impact categories considered by the EPIP tool. The
impact categories considered by IM(n) are shown in Table 1, except
impact categories Non-renewable energy and Renewable energy
which are used by the IE(n).
hX
 i
IMðnÞ ¼ MOUT ðnÞ$ Wj $ICj ðnÞ Nj ; to j ¼ 1 until k
a) Selection of the weighting factors already present in Eco-
Indicator 99, if there is unsuitable knowledge of the quality of
the industrial process surrounding the environment to perform
its own weight;
b) Selection to obtain the damage weighting factors, by applying
the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a multi-criteria
method that compares and ranks impact categories by levels of
importance.
After the development of the mathematical modeling of the
EPIP tool, the registration of these equations in Microsoft Excel®
software was performed to enable the application of the EPIP tool.
4. Application of the EPIP tool in an industrial process for the
manufacturing plastic CUPS for yogurt
In order to test the EPIP tool to evaluate the environmental
performance, it was applied in an industrial process for the
manufacturing plastic yogurt cups. The industry is a multinational
(8) producer of plastic packaging for food. It is located in the Metro-
politan Region of Curitiba, Parana - Brazil. Its manufacturing

Table 1
Impact categories considered in the environmental analysis group by EPIP.

Impact category Reference methods for impact category Normalization factor Normalization Reference

Human toxicity IMPACT 2002þ 219 kg chloroethylene into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Respiratory effects IMPACT 2002þ 8.80 kg PM2.5 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Ionizing radiation IMPACT 2002þ 5.33E05 Bq Carbon-14 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Ozone layer depletion IMPACT 2002þ 0.204 kg CFC-11 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Photochemical oxidation IMPACT 2002þ 12.4 kg ethylene into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Global warming IMPACT 2002þ 11.600 kg CO2 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Aquatic ecotoxicity IMPACT 2002þ 1.36E06 kg triethylene glycol into water-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Terrestrial ecotoxicity IMPACT 2002þ 1.20E06 kg triethylene glycol into soil-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Aquatic acidification IMPACT 2002þ 66.20 kg SO2 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Aquatic eutrophication IMPACT 2002þ 14.30 kg PO43- into water-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Terrestrial acidification/nitrification IMPACT 2002þ 315 kg SO2 into air-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Bulk waste EDIP 2003 1726 kg bulk waste-eq/pers.y (Eurostat, 2015)
Hazardous waste EDIP 2003 180 kg hazardous waste-eq/pers.y (Eurostat, 2015)
Water scarcity index (WSI) Water footprint 365,000 kg water withdrawal-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Non-renewable energy Cumulative Energy Demand 3320 kg crude oil-eq/pers.y or 152,000 MJ/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Renewable energy Cumulative Energy Demand 152,000 MJ/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
Mineral extraction IMPACT 2002þ 5730 kg iron (in ore)-eq/pers.y (Jolliet et al., 2003)
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464 1459

process involves the production of plastic cups for yogurt with a 4.3. Environmental management costs
volume of 150 mL and raw material based on polypropylene (PP).
The application of the EPIP tool for the case study occurred Considering that it was the first implementation of the EPIP tool
following the steps presented in topic 2.2, and the results of this in the industrial process for the manufacturing of plastic yogurt
application are presented in topics 4.1 to 4.6. cups, no data was collected for environmental management costs.
Future analyses may use the timeline between the simulations of
the EPIP tool to quantify these costs, if there are actions of envi-
4.1. Mapping process, functional unit, boundary and environmental
ronmental management in this period.
aspects
4.4. LCIA adapted
Firstly, the mapping process of the industrial process was made.
The information was obtained from four visits to the industrial
After the quantification of the data for the economic analysis
process, which took place in March 2015, with the participation of
group, the impact categories that were applied for each environ-
the production manager. Basically, the industrial process studied
mental aspect were identified. Using the information already
consisted of two lines that operate individually with the following
collected on materials, emissions, water and energy for each
equipment in each: mixer silo, extruder, thermoforming machine,
environmental aspect, each impact category was verified in search
and a dry offset printer in each line. A shredder was shared between
of the factors of characterization of impact related to the informa-
the two lines. The wastewater produced was sent to a local treat-
tion on the environmental aspects. This stage of work was carried
ment plant.
out by the authors of this article, together with the monitoring of
Briefly, the manufacturing process begins with the receipt and
the company manager, due to the inexperience of the company's
storage of raw material, i.e. the polypropylene (PP). This PP is
employees with the LCIA.
transported from the storage area to the mixing area using forklifts.
Then mixer silos are used to homogenize the PP to be processed.
4.5. Weighting factors
Next, the PP is transported by treadmill to the extrusion process,
which melts the polymer at an average temperature of 230  C and
The weighting factors used were obtained applying the Analytic
transforms the PP into plastic sheets. Then baths and water sprays
Hierarchy Process method to the damage categories.
are employed to cool the plastic before coiling. Plate waste is
Thus, based on the industrial process characteristics, such as
packed in big bags and then sent to the shredder to produce PP
geographic position, size and local environmental conditions, it was
beads, which return to the production process.
considered that human health was the most important damage
In sequence, coils are sent to the thermoforming machine. In
category. In sequence, resource availability was considered as sec-
this process the coil is inserted into the machine to be unrolled and
ond in importance due to the current water and energy crisis in
then transported by treadmill to a heating section, at a temperature
Brazil. The ecosystem quality was considered the last position of
of 180  C, ant then it follows to a molding metal block, forming the
importance, once the amount of pollution released in the
plastic yogurt cups. The cups are cooled by air and the waste of the
manufacturing of plastic yogurt cups is not relevant for the
molding, named grid is packed in big bags for subsequent grinding.
neighboring environmental conditions. Thus, the table of the AHP
The final step of the processing of the PP cups is performed by using
method in the EPIP tool was drafted comparatively between the
dry offset printing machines. The printing is divided into three
three damage categories, considering Saaty's scale (Saaty, 1980).
stages: printing setting, printing, and quality control of printed
The result of this relationship was the weighting factors (Table 2).
parts.
After the mapping process, the functional unit and the boundary
4.6. Analysis of results
of the studied industrial process were defined. The functional unit
established a period of one month for data collection of environ-
After the calculations, using the data collected and presented in
mental aspects used in the simulation of the EPIP tool, which is
Appendix A, the results of equivalent costs for each environmental
considered adequate to cover possible batch processes. In relation
aspect were obtained, as well as, the results from the total equiv-
to the boundary system, the whole area of the industry was
alent cost of the industrial process assessed. Thus, the total equiv-
considered, comprising all the activities developed in the place.
alent cost was R$Eq 764,104.85 per month of production. The five
As for the mapping process, the process flowchart was prepared
environmental aspects with the greatest equivalent costs are
(Fig. 3) and the environmental aspects of the stages of production
shown in Fig. 4, which are: 1) the grid Thermoforming (A11), 2) the
were identified (Appendix A), resulting in a total of 45 environ-
plastic cups produced in Thermoforming (A10), 3) VOCs printing
mental aspects divided as follows: 1 in the receipt of stocks, 3 in the
(A27), 4) steam (A08), and 5) the plastic cups contaminated with
mixer silo, 4 in the extrusion, 1 in the water cooling, 4 in the
the oil of Thermoforming (A13), which corresponds to 99% of the
Thermoforming, 1 in the grind, 6 in the dry offset print setting, 7 in
total equivalent relative cost in the case of the manufacturing of
dry offset printing, 4 in the cleaning, 6 in general purpose, 2 in the
plastic yogurt cups.
kitchen, 3 in the office, 1 in the maintenance machines, and 2 in the
In order to better understand and interpret the results of
internal transportation.
equivalent costs of each environmental aspect presented in, Figs. 5
and 6 present the five most relevant results for economic and
4.2. Mass, energy and operation costs environmental analysis, respectively.
The results of the economic analysis group found that the
The information on mass, energy, and costs for each environ- environmental aspects that had the highest costs were the plastic
mental aspect was obtained from orders of supplies, accounting cups produced in Thermoforming (A10), the grid Thermoforming
spreadsheets, interviews with process operators, and from the (A11), and steam (A08), corresponding to the relative cost of 78% of
technical manual for the equipment. All the information collected total expenditure with environmental aspects (Fig. 5). It is possible
was recorded on field collection forms, and later entered in the EPIP to observe that these three aspects were of greater economic
registered on Microsoft Excel software. These mass, energy and cost impact because they use a lot of energy, both PP processing and
data are also presented in Appendix A. reprocessing.
1460 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the industrial process for the manufacturing of plastic yogurt cups.

Table 2 the result of VOC Printing is possible due to photochemical oxida-

Comparison data of the damage categories by the AHP method and results of the tion. For the environmental aspects of grid Thermoforming and
weighting factors.
plastic cups contaminated with the oil of Thermoforming, the
Damage Human Ecosystem Resources Weighting largest contributions of their impacts were the generation of bulk
categories health quality factor waste in large quantities and the use of energy.
Human health 1 7 3 64.3 When comparing the results for the ranking of the environ-
Ecosystem quality 0.14 1 0.2 7.4 mental aspects of the economic analysis group, the environmental
Resources 0.33 5 1 28.3
analysis group and the aggregated analysis, it is possible to observe
differences in the sequence of priority of the environmental aspects
to be improved in the environmental performance. Therefore, the
Regarding the environmental analysis group, the results are ranking of the environmental aspects provided by the EPIP tool in
presented in Fig. 6. It showed that the environmental aspects with an industrial process possibly indicate, as priority environmental
the highest impacts were VOCs printing (A27), grid Thermoforming aspects, those with the highest costs, which are directly related to
(A11), and the plastic cups contaminated with the oil of Thermo- the inefficiency of material and energy transformation, and/or
forming (A13), corresponding to the relative cost of 84% of the total those that present the highest environmental impacts, which are
impact on environmental aspects (Fig. 6). The underlying reason for related to the quantity and severity of the level of impact.
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464 1461

Fig. 4. Results obtained through the EPIP tool for the five environmental aspects with the worst environmental performance.

Fig. 5. Results of the economic analysis group using the EPIP tool for the five environmental aspects with the worst environmental performance.

Fig. 6. Results of the environmental analysis group using the EPIP tool for the five environmental aspects with the worst environmental performance.

In a nutshell, the application of the EPIP tool in the structure actions regarding these five environmental aspects. It can
manufacturing of plastic yogurt cups presented the ranking of the be seen that these five environmental aspects are related to the
most significant environmental aspects, driving decision makers to activities of thermoforming, mainly due to the high energy
1462 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464

consumption of the machinery and the large volume in the
reprocessing of plastic waste, printing cups by VOCs emission, and
extrusion by evaporation of the cooling water. In other words, the
managers of this industrial process need to take some measures
regarding these environmental aspects. After the definition and
implementation of the actions, a new implementation of the EPIP
tool is recommended to evaluate the evolution of the environ-
mental performance of the industrial process. Therefore, the
application of the EPIP tool should occur cyclically over time in the
industrial process in order to drive this process towards environ-
mental sustainability.
Analyzing the application and the result of the EPIP tool, some
advantages of this tool in relation to others can be observed. For
example, in the study developed by da Silva and Amaral (2009), the
MAICAPI methodology was used to evaluate an industrial process
of metallurgy. In this study, the activities for improvement were
indicated based on the Environmental Risk Matrix and on the
economic analysis with independent results. The EPIP tool already
enables a result with a single index, facilitating interpretation and
use by managers.
In a study by Chompu-Inwai et al. (2015), using the MFCA to
evaluate an industrial process for the manufacturing of small wood
products, the tool indicated the wood cutting process as the worst
environmental performance. However, the wood painting process,
which usually has a significant environmental impact due to the
presence of hazardous substances, obtained one of the best envi-
ronmental performances in the manufacture due to non-material
loss. That is, the absence of environmental parameters in the
MFCA, such as the environmental impact indicators present in the
EPIP tool, enables the environmental performance measured not to
consider the potential of the environmental impact.
Finally, in the study reported by Jawjit et al. (2015), using LCIA
though the methods CML and ECO-indicator 99 to assess the
environmental impact of an industrial process that produces 1 ton
of latex concentrate, the activities of highest impact were appoin-
ted as: 1) Electricity use, 2) Ammonia use, 3) Diesel use, and 4)
Diammonium phosphate use. However, despite the high volume of
water consumed in the production of the latex concentrate
(average of 7 tons), this consumption of natural resource is not
measured by the indicators of the used method categories, which
differs from the analysis made using the EPIP tool. Nevertheless, the
life cycle approach presented by the LCIA method may be consid-
ered a differential, still not addressed by the EPIP tool.
In this context, a more comprehensive approach to the infor-
mation analyzed using the EPIP tool is important to consider it as a
useful and efficient tool.
5. Final considerations
The main contribution of the EPIP tool is that it can be used as a
decision making support tool to evaluate the environmental per-
formance with a different approach to other existing analytical
tools. The selection of evaluation categories, definition of variables
and formulation of equations performed in this study resulted in a
tool that fills a literature gap regarding analytical tools available to
evaluate environmental performance in industrial processes.
The tool developed in this study has an integrated environ-
mental and economic analysis that enables the analyses in an in-
dustrial process aggregating data on materials, energy, costs and
environmental impacts, providing a single index result which fa-
cilitates the interpretation by decision makers. This more
comprehensive approach enables the EPIP tool to obtain more
reliable results targeting the action taken for environmental
improvements.
It is further observed that the broader scope makes it safer for
the evaluation of the environmental performance and guides de-
cision makers as to the most critical environmental aspects to be
improved in the industrial process.
The application of the EPIP tool in an industrial process for the
manufacturing of plastic yogurt cups demonstrated that it is a
useful tool to aid in decision making. Nevertheless, it is necessary to
conduct more studies with different industrial typologies to check
the outcome of the EPIP tool in different situations. It is also
important to review normalization factors defined to aggregate the
impact categories, because there are different references between
the normalization factors of waste generated impact categories and
the other impact categories selected to compose the environmental
analysis performed with the use of the EPIP tool.
In this context, it is necessary to carry out studies to develop
normalization factors based on the same reference time and space
in order to reduce errors in the results that will be obtained by the
EPIP tool. It is also necessary to carry out studies that explore the
cost of externalities and the expansion of the boundary system
beyond the industrial process. Finally, the inclusion of social cate-
gories should also be evaluated, since certain social aspects can
influence the results of the environmental performance. Thus, this
evolution of the EPIP tool will certainly enable a more complex
analysis of industrial processes seeking to direct them towards
environmental sustainability.
Appendix A. Data collection and results of the case study

Table A1
Process, environmental aspects output, costs, energy and destination data for the Case study.

Id Process Environmental Aspect MLC(n) CEC(n) MDC(n)

(n)
Output Material Cost CE (kWh) EUC(R$/ PE Destination Percentage Destination cost
(kg) (R$/kg) kWh) (%) type (d) destination (%) (R$/kg)

A01 Receipt and storage Generated pallets 80.00 1.32 0.00 0.6621 0 4 100 0.38
A02 Mixer silo PP homogenization 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.6621 100 0a 0 0.00
A03 Mixer silo Disposal PP bags 48.30 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.30
A04 Mixer silo Narrow ribbon 2.93 9.32 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.30
A05 PP Extrusion PP plates 0.00 0.00 12,330.00 0.6621 66.1 0a 0 0.00
A06 PP Extrusion PP scraps of plates 2376.00 5.93 12,330.00 0.6621 19.8 3 100 5.93
A07 PP Extrusion Water consumption 82,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 2 100 0.00
A08 PP Extrusion Steam 82,200.00 0.00542 12,330.00 0.6621 6.9 10 100 0.00
A09 Water cooling Cooled water 82,200.00 0.00 75.57 0.6621 100 3 100 0.00
A10 Thermoforming PP cups 0.00 0.00 74,970.00 0.6621 64.1 0a 0 0.00
A11 Thermoforming PP grid 6203.28 5.93 74,970.00 0.6621 33.9 3 100 5.93
 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464 1463

Table A1 (continued )

Id Process Environmental Aspect MLC(n) CEC(n) MDC(n)

(n)
Output Material Cost CE (kWh) EUC(R$/ PE Destination Percentage Destination cost
(kg) (R$/kg) kWh) (%) type (d) destination (%) (R$/kg)

A12 Thermoforming Not complying cups 248.40 5.93 74,970.00 0.6621 1.4 3 100 5.93
A13 Thermoforming Cups with oil 95.40 6.12 74,970.00 0.6621 0.6 9 100 1.78
A14 Grind PP scraps reprocessed 0.00 0.00 267.00 0.6621 100 0a 100 0.00
A15 Dry offset printing PP test cups 27.40 6.60 4.00 0.6621 93.8 9 100 1.78
accuracy
A16 Dry offset printing Ink packaging of accuracy 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
accuracy
A17 Dry offset printing Ink scrap of accuracy 0.98 11.80 4.00 0.6621 3.4 9 100 1.78
accuracy
A18 Dry offset printing Cotton waste with ink of 1.42 6.10 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
accuracy accuracy
A19 Dry offset printing Solvent packaging of 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
accuracy accuracy
A20 Dry offset printing VOCs of accuracy 0.80 11.80 4.00 0.6621 2.8 10 100 0.00
accuracy
A21 Dry offset printing Printed cups 0.00 0.00 932.46 0.6621 95 0a 0 0.00
A22 Dry offset printing Ink packaging of printing 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
A23 Dry offset printing Cotton waste with ink of 75.00 6.10 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
printing
A24 Dry offset printing Not complying cups of 254.4 6.60 932.46 0.6621 2.0 9 100 1.78
printing
A25 Dry offset printing Blanket consumption 31.00 32.50 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
A26 Dry offset printing Solvent packaging of 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
printing
A27 Dry offset printing VOCs of printing 49.55 11.80 932.46 0.6621 3.0 10 100 0.00
A28 Cleaning Sweeping waste 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 0.61
A29 Cleaning Cotton waste of cleaning 1.08 2.30 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
A30 Cleaning Cleaning product 2.14 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 0.61
packaging
A31 Cleaning Water for cleaning 1320.00 0.00542 0.00 0.6621 0 8 100 0.00432
A32 General purpose Water in bathroom 29,400.00 0.00542 0.00 0.6621 0 8 100 0.00432
A33 General purpose Toilet paper 50.40 9.46 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 0.61
A34 General purpose Drinking water 4.62 11.36 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.30
A35 General purpose Used lamps 2.00 24.89 0.00 0.6621 0 8 100 3.08
A36 General purpose Cells and batteries 0.70 120.00 0.00 0.6621 0 8 100 3.85
A37 Kitchen Organic waste 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 0.61
A38 Kitchen Plastic packaging 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.30
A39 Office Printing paper 5.61 4.92 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.25
A40 Office Ink for printing paper 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 2.50
A41 Office Paper packaging 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.30
A42 Maintenance Oil machine 1.60 14.60 0.00 0.6621 0 5 100 0.28
machines
A43 Internal Propane consumption 40.80 2.92 0.00 0.6621 0 10 100 0.00
transportation
A44 Internal Gas cylinder 54.95 0.00 0.00 0.6621 0 4 100 0.00
transportation
A45 General purpose Used PPE 10.00 1.00 0.00 0.6621 0 9 100 1.78
a
Zero destination because the environmental aspect in the output is a product and not a waste.

References Crittenden, B., Kolaczkowski, S., 1995. Waste Minimization a Practical Guide, first
ed. The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Davis Building, Rugby.
da Silva, P.R.S., Amaral, F.G., 2009. An integrated methodology for environmental
Ahlroth, S., Nilsson, M., Finnveden, G., Hjelm, O., Hochschorner, E., 2011. Weighting
impacts and costs evaluation in industrial processes. J. Clean. Prod. 17,
and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools - suggestions
1339e1350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.04.010.
for further developments. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 145e156. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Spatial Differentiation in Life Cycle
j.jclepro.2010.04.016.
Impact Assessment - the EDIP2003.
Angelakoglou, K., Gaidajis, G., 2015. A review of methods contributing to the
de Beer, P., Friend, F., 2006. Environmental accounting: a management tool for
assessment of the environmental sustainability of industrial systems. J. Clean.
enhancing corporate environmental and economic performance. Ecol. Econ. 58,
Prod. 108, 725e747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.094.
€ tze, U., Meynerts, L., Sygulla, R., 2015. Integrating life cycle costing and 548e560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.026.
Bierer, A., Go
Domingues, A.R., Marques, P., Garcia, R., Freire, F., Dias, L.C., 2015. Applying multi-
life cycle assessment using extended material flow cost accounting. J. Clean.
criteria decision analysis to the life-cycle assessment of vehicles. J. Clean.
Prod. 108, 1289e1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.036.
Prod. 107, 749e759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.086.
Butnariu, A., Avasilcai, S., 2014. Research on the possibility to apply ecological
Duflou, J.R., Sutherland, J.W., Dornfeld, D., Herrmann, C., Jeswiet, J., Kara, S.,
footprint as environmental performance indicator for the textile industry.
Hauschild, M., Kellens, K., 2012. Towards energy and resource efficient
Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 124, 344e350. https://doi.org/10.1016/
manufacturing: a processes and systems approach. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol
j.sbspro.2014.02.495.
61, 587e609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.002.
Carvalho, A., Mimoso, A.F., Mendes, A.N., Matos, H.A., 2014. From a literature review  Santolaria, J., 2015. Environ-
Elduque, A., Elduque, D., Javierre, C., Fernandez, A.,
to a framework for environmental process impact assessment index. J. Clean.
mental impact analysis of the injection molding process: analysis of the pro-
Prod. 64, 36e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.010.
cessing of high-density polyethylene parts. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 80e89. https://
Chompu-Inwai, R., Jaimjit, B., Premsuriyanunt, P., 2015. A combination of Material
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.119.
Flow Cost Accounting and design of experiments techniques in an SME: the
Eurostat, 2015. Waste Statistics: Tables and Figures [WWW Document]. http://ec.
case of a wood products manufacturing company in northern Thailand. J. Clean.
europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:SE_waste_statistics_
Prod. 108, 1352e1364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.039.
1464 M.M.C. Maceno et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 172 (2018) 1452e1464

07122015_LB.xlsx (Accessed 16 May 2016). Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guine e, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., ISO, 2006. ISO 14040-Environmental Management e Life Cycle Assessment e
Koehler, A., Pennington, D., Suh, S., 2009. Recent developments in life cycle Principles and Framework. Inernational Organization for Standardization.
assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ ISO, 2004. ISO 14001-Environmental Management Systems - Requirements with
j.jenvman.2009.06.018. Guidance for Use. International Organization for Standardization.
Finnveden, G., Moberg, Å., 2005. Environmental systems analysis tools - an over- Jasch, C., 2003. The Use of Environmental Management Accounting ( EMA ) for
view. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 1165e1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Identifying Environmental Costs, vol. 11, pp. 667e676. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2004.06.004. S0959-6526(02)00107-5.
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H.-J., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., Jawjit, W., Pavasant, P., Kroeze, C., 2015. Evaluating environmental performance of
Hischier, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Ko € llner, T., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., concentrated latex production in Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 98, 84e91. https://
Nemecek, T., 2007. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.016.
ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.0.. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Jolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G.,
2007. Robenbaum, R.K., 2003. IMPACT 2002þ: a new life cycle impact assessment
GRI, 2015. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines e Reporting Principles and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 8, 324e330. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Standard Disclosures [WWW Document]. https://www.globalreporting.org/ BF02978505.
resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures. Mimoso, A.F., Carvalho, A., Mendes, A.N., Matos, H.A., 2015. Roadmap for environ-
pdf (accessed 20 November 2015). mental impact retrofit in chemical processes through the application of life
Ha, C., Zainon, Z., Halilu, A., Hussein, N., 2016. An Alternative Aggregation Method cycle assessment methods. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 128e141. https://doi.org/10.1016/
for a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Using an Analytical Hierarchy Process, vol. j.jclepro.2014.11.057.
112, pp. 3244e3255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.140. Nucci, B., Puccini, M., Pelagagge, L., Vitolo, S., Nicolella, C., 2014. Improving the
Hermann, B.G., Kroeze, C., Jawjit, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance environmental performance of vegetable oil processing through LCA. J. Clean.
by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental Prod. 64, 310e322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.049.
performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1787e1796. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Ong, H.C., Mahlia, T.M.I., Masjuki, H.H., Honnery, D., 2012. Life cycle cost and
j.jclepro.2006.04.004. sensitivity analysis of palm biodiesel production. Fuel 98, 131e139. https://

Herva, M., Alvarez, A., Roca, E., 2012. Combined application of energy and material doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.03.031.
flow analysis and ecological footprint for the environmental evaluation of a Perotto, E., Canziani, R., Marchesi, R., Butelli, P., 2008. Environmental performance,
tailoring factory. J. Hazard. Mater 237e238, 231e239. https://doi.org/10.1016/ indicators and measurement uncertainty in EMS context: a case study. J. Clean.
j.jhazmat.2012.08.035. Prod. 16, 517e530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.004.
Herva, M., Franco, A., Carrasco, E.F., Roca, E., 2011. Review of corporate environ- Pfister, S., Koehler, A., Hellweg, S., 2009. Assessing the environmental impacts of
mental indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1687e1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/ freshwater consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 4098e4104. https://
j.jclepro.2011.05.019. doi.org/10.1021/es802423e.

Herva, M., Franco, A., Ferreiro, S., Alvarez, A., Roca, E., 2008. An approach for the Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
application of the Ecological Footprint as environmental indicator in the textile Resource Allocation. McGraw Hill, New York.
sector. J. Hazard. Mater 156, 478e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Schmidt, M., 2013. The interpretation and extension of Material Flow Cost Ac-
j.jhazmat.2007.12.077. counting (MFCA) in the context of environmental material flow analysis.
Herva, M., Roca, E., 2013. Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria anal- J. Clean. Prod. 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.038.
ysis for corporate environmental evaluation. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 355e371. https:// Schmidt, M., Nakajima, M., 2013. Material flow cost accounting as an approach to
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.058. improve resource efficiency in manufacturing companies. Resources 2,
Ho€jer, M., Ahlroth, S., Dreborg, K.H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G.G., Hjelm, O., 358e369. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030358.
Hochschorner, E., Nilsson, M.M., Palm, V., 2008. Scenarios in selected tools for Sen, P., Roy, M., Pal, P., 2015. Exploring role of environmental proactivity in financial
environmental systems analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1958e1970. https://doi.org/ performance of manufacturing enterprises: a structural modelling approach.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.01.008. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.076.
Humbert, S., De Schryver, A., Bengoa, X., Margni, M., Jolliet, O., 2015. IMPACT Wrisberg, N., Udo de Haes, H.A., Triebswetter, U., Eder, P., Clift, R., 2002. Analytical
2002 þ: User Guide. Draft for Version Q2.22 (Version Adapted for Quantis) Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a Systems Perspective, vol.
[WWW Document]. Report). 10, p. 275.
ISO, 2013. Environmental Management - Environmental Performance Evaluation -