This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 26 August 2015, At: 00:33 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Register ed Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG International Journal of Sustainable Engineering Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsue20 A carbon footprint analysis in the textile supply chain M. Bevilacqua a , F.E. Ciarapica a , G. Giacchetta a & B. Marchetti a a Dipartimento di Energetica , Università Politecnica delle Marche , 60131, Ancona, Italy Published online: 28 Jul 2010. To cite this article:M. Bevilacqua , F .E. Ciarapica , G. Giacchetta & B. Marchetti (2011) A carbon footprint analysis in the textile supply chain, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 4:01, 24-36, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2010.502582 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2010.502582 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE T aylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy , completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by T aylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. T aylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution i n any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. T erms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.ta ndfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
carbon foot print is the emerging area in all sectors. carbon foot print in textile sector in order to know the average energy consumption in this sector is the hot topic.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
7/18/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis in Textile Suppy Chain
This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]On: 26 August 2015, At: 00:33Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG
International Journal of Sustainable EngineeringPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsue20
A carbon footprint analysis in the textile supply chainM. Bevilacqua
a , F.E. Ciarapica
a , G. Giacchetta
a & B. Marchetti
a
a Dipartimento di Energetica , Università Politecnica delle Marche , 60131, Ancona, Italy
Published online: 28 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: M. Bevilacqua , F.E. Ciarapica , G. Giacchetta & B. Marchetti (2011) A carbon footprint analysis in thetextile supply chain, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 4:01, 24-36, DOI: 10.1080/19397038.2010.502582
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2010.502582
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of tContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon a
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveor howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
A carbon footprint analysis in the textile supply chain
M. Bevilacqua1, F.E. Ciarapica*, G. Giacchetta2 and B. Marchetti3
Dipartimento di Energetica, Universita Politecnica delle Marche, 60131 Ancona, Italy
( Received 12 November 2009; final version received 16 June 2010)
This research work focuses on the application of life-cycle assessment methodology to determine the carbon footprint of different players involved in a supply chain of the textile sector. A case study of a product by a textile leader company wascarried out. This study demonstrates that, in the textile chain, the main contribution to the greenhouse effect is provided bythe electrical and thermal energy used and by the transportation (since different production phases are delocalised in a widerange that goes from South Africa, Italy, Romania and all around the world, from the distribution centre to the stores).The Monte Carlo analysis has been used in order to obtain, for each calculated impact, not only the average value but also thedistribution curve of the results characterised by uncertainty parameters. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was carried out toevaluate the impact of management choices such as:† a change in the transportation modality, from aeroplane to boat;† a combination of road and rail transportation; and† a selection among suppliers that allows the firm to cut environmental impacts.
considerably decrease this impact. As an example, it
should be possible to cut down the number of washing per
year to less than the 15 times established in the ENEA
study and used in this work to assess the impact of the final
life phase. Moreover, the consumer could modify the
washing temperature (assumed as 308C in this research)
changing considerably the climate change impact
(Figure 10).
5. Discussion and conclusions
In the last few years, life-cycle thinking has been the focal
point in the environmental policy development of the
European Community standardised by the IntegratedProduct Policy. Many other standards are utilised in other
countries.
In this scenario, LCA provides the scientific references
for all the activities related to the Corporate Sustainability
Report, which is a tool being used by more than 500 of the
major companies all around the world to communicate
their environmental policies to the market. The use of the
LCA methodology allows the companies to evaluate and
communicate the environmental impact of their processes
and products.
With the introduction of more restrictive environmen-
tal standards, such as PAS 2050, the carbon footprint
analysis could be one of the criteria to evaluate thesuppliers from an environmental point of view and to
improve the entire supply chain and to support the
realisation of green products by the eco-design.
The aim of this paper was to assess the carbon footprint
associated with a particular product of a leader textile
company. The selected item has been utilised as a case
study: average characteristics were chosen in order to
define the input for the LCA model. This decision was
made with the objective of performing a pilot project to
assess the feasibility of the LCA methodology to be
applied to the entire company production.
A strong support of a leader company was essential to
overcome the reluctance of some stakeholders in
providing data. According to Seuring and Muller (2004),
inhumane working conditions or contaminations of the
(local) environment could be frequently a problem in order
to obtain information from suppliers.With the use of LCA, it is possible to face the
environmental analysis at different levels. In the proposed
case study, the main aim was the carbon footprint
evaluation but along the study, many other aspects were
considered.
The LCA method could be a powerful tool to address
the eco-efficiency promotion and to provide several
benefits to the company. Particularly, the work developed
in this case study allowed to make the customers aware
that the product is environmentally sound; in fact, the
results obtained were introduced in the marketing
campaign. The study also allowed the company to
improve production performances in terms of efficient
managing and use of resources.
Moreover, the collaboration between several stake-
holders made this work useful to increase the environ-
mental consciousness of the employees and of the supply
chain operator involved along the production process.
Acknowledgements
This research work was made possible due to the collaborationbetween the Knitwear and the IT & Logistic Departments of thecompany that, for privacy reasons, will be called GHB and theDepartment of Energy Studies of Marche Polytechnic University.
(i.e. different locations within a country), emissionsassociated with transport will vary from store to store dueto different transport requirements. Where this occurs,organisations should calculate the average release of GHGs associated with transporting the product based inthe average distribution of the product within eachcountry, unless more specific data is available (publiclyavailable specification, PAS 2050 (2008), par. 6.4.6,note 4).
The GHG emissions arising from the production of capital goods used in the life cycle of the product shall beexcluded from the assessment of the GHG emissions of the life cycle of the product (publicly availablespecification, PAS 2050 (2008), par. 6.4.3).
5. Data obtained from ENEA.
References
Barber, A. and Pellow, G., 2006. Life cycle assessment: New Zealand Merino Industry, Merino wool total energy
Table 4. Benefit deriving from distance reduction.
Distance reduction 10% 20% 50%
Kg CO2 1.33 1.27 1.07Benefit (%) 4.6 9.2 23.0
0.092
0.280
0.316
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
Cold water 30°C 40°C
Washing temperature
k g C O 2
Figure 10. CO2 production changing the washing temperature.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 33
7/18/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis in Textile Suppy Chain
Hofstetter, P., 1998. Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment:
a structured approach to combine models of the techno-
sphere, ecosphere and valuesphere. Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: S. Solomon, D. Qin,M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor,
and H.L. Miller, eds. Climate change 2007: the physical
science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Principles and Framework. International
Organization for Standardization, TC207.
Jimenez-Gonzalez, C. and Overcash, M., 2000. Life cycleassessment of refinery products: review and comparison of commercially available databases. Environmental Scienceand Technology, 34 (22), 4789–4796.
Langevin, B., Basset-Mens, C., and Lardon, L., 2010. Inclusionof the variability of diffuse pollutions in LCA for agriculture:the case of slurry application techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (2010), 747–755.
Levi Strauss & Co., 2009a. A product lifecycle approach tosustainability. Available from: www.levistrauss.com[Accessed June 2009].
Levi Strauss & Co., 2009b. Carbon Disclosure Project CDP 2009(CDP7). Available from: www.levistrauss.com [AccessedJune 2009].
Lo, S.C., Ma, H., and Lo, S.L., 2005. Quantifying and reducinguncertainty in life cycle assessment using the BayesianMonte Carlo method. Science of the Total Environment , 340(2005), 23–33.
McCurry, J., 2009. Environment to impact on demand. International Dyer , 194 (2), 9.
Nieminena, E., et al., 2007. EU COST Action 628: life cycleassessment (LCA) of textile products, eco-efficiency anddefinition of best available technology (BAT) of textileprocessing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15 (13–14),1259–1270.
PAS 2050, 2008. Specification for the assessment of the life cyclegreenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. BritishStandards Institution.
Pre Consultants, 2006. SimaPro 6 LCA software: the powerfullife cycle solution. Available from: http://www.pre.nl/.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M., 2004. Beschaffungsmanagement undNachhaltigkeit – Eine Literaturubersicht [Supply chainmanagement and sustainability – a literature review]. In: M.Hulsmann, G. Muller-Christ, and H.D. Haasis eds.Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Nachhaltigkeit – Bestandsauf-nahme und Forschungsprogrammatik. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Seuring, S. and Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to aconceptual framework for sustainable supply chain manage-ment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16 (15), 1699–1710.
Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventorym 2009. Ecoinvent .Available from: www.ecoinvent.org [Accessed 15 March2009].
Weidema, B.P. and Wesnaes, M.S., 1996. Data quality manage-ment for life cycle inventories – an example of using dataquality indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 4 (3–4),167–174.
Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J., 2007. A definition of carbonfootprint. ISAUK Research Report.
M. Bevilacqua et al.34
7/18/2019 Carbon Footprint Analysis in Textile Suppy Chain
Demand of Emission to air of Thermal energy 1.05 CO2 1.05Electricity 1.05 SO2 1.05Semi-finished products 1.05 Combustion: NO X , NMVOC total, methane, N2O and NH3 1.50Working materials 1.05 Combustion: CO 5.00
Resources Combustion: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 3.00Primary energy carriers 1.05 Combustion: heavy metals 5.00Metals, salts 1.05 Process emissions: individual VOCs 2.00Land use, occupation 1.50 Process emissions: CO2 1.05Land use, transformation 2.00 Process emissions: TSM 1.50
Waste heat Process emissions: PM10 2.00Emission to air, water and soil 1.05 Process emissions: PM2.5 3.00
Emission to water of From agriculture: CH4, NH3 1.20BOD, COD, DOC, TOC 1.50 From agriculture: N2O, NO X 1.40Inorganic compounds (NH4, PO4, NO3, Cl, Na, etc.) 1.50 Radionuclides (e.g. Radon-222) 3.00Individual hydrocarbons, PAH 3.00 Process emissions: other inorganic emissions 1.50Heavy metals 5.00 Emission to soil of
From agriculture: NO3, PO4 1.50 Oil, hydrocarbon total 1.50From agriculture: heavy metals 1.80 Pesticides 1.20From agriculture: pesticides 1.50 Heavy metals 1.50Radionuclides 3.00 Radionuclides 3.00