Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal

The use of the LCA polygon framework in waste management

Dimitrios A. Georgakellos,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dimitrios A. Georgakellos, (2006) "The use of the LCA polygon framework in waste management",
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Issue: 4, pp.490-507, https://
doi.org/10.1108/14777830610670544
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830610670544
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 09 May 2019, At: 15:45 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1062 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2008),"Applying LCA to organic waste management in Piedmont, Italy", Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 5 pp. 533-549 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/14777830810894229">https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830810894229</a>
(2006),"Application of biotechnology in waste management for sustainable development: An overview",
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 467-477 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/14777830610670526">https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830610670526</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:390055 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
 *Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

MEQ
17,4
490
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)
Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
Vol. 17 No. 4, 2006
pp. 490-507
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-7835
DOI 10.1108/14777830610670544
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm
The use of the LCA polygon
framework in waste management
Dimitrios A. Georgakellos
Department of Business Administration, University of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece
Abstract
Purpose – Recycling of non-renewable resources serves both in reducing the consumption of virgin
supplies and the discharge of associated residuals back into the natural environment. On the other
hand, recycling has been criticized because of its environmental impacts. The aim of the present paper
is to identify and quantify the environmental effect of recycling of a glass bottle.
Design/methodology/approach – For this purpose, the life cycle assessment polygon framework
is being used. This framework has been developed for evaluating the results of a life cycle inventory
analysis using critical volume aggregation and polygon-based interpretation.
Findings – Recycling strategies can, in most cases, reduce the total environmental burden of the
glass container examined. However, this reduction may considerably vary in relation to each
“ecological parameter” (consumption of energy, consumption of water, air emissions, waterborne
waste and solid waste), depending mainly on the “recycling mix” (the percentage of recycled material
used in production and the percentage of product waste that goes for recycling).
Research limitations/implications – The extent to which these findings could be generalized to
other materials and products could be confirmed by more applications of the framework.
Practical implications – This paper may help in developing recycling strategies.
Originality/value – A conceptual framework for the environmental evaluation of recycling,
considering, not only general recycling targets, but also the particular interests or conditions that may
exist, is introduced.
Keywords Waste management, Recycling, Bottles, Product life cycle
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The treatment and disposal of waste is one of the central topics of sustainable
development. The approach of the European Union for the management of waste has
been developed via a number of directives and programmes into a strategy concerning
the treatment of waste, which has the key objectives of minimizing the amount that is
produced, and minimizing any risk of pollution. Recycling is included in this strategy
(Billatos and Basaly, 1997; Georgakellos, 2005a). Recycling of non-renewable resources
serves both in reducing the consumption of virgin supplies and the discharge of
associated residuals back into the natural environment (Field, 2000). However, even if
the potential to recycle material from waste is high, it may not be appropriate in all
cases. Such an example is when the abundance of the raw material, the energy
consumption during collection and re-processing, or the emission of pollutants during
recycling process steps has a greater impact on the environment. Moreover, materials’
recycling implies that there is a market for the recycled materials. The collection of
materials from waste when there is no end market for them merely results in large
surpluses of unwanted materials and also wastes additional energy with no overall
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical remarks.
 environmental gain (Williams, 1998). As a result, recycling strategies, in general, have The use of the
been criticized because of their environmental impacts, which, sometimes, are not LCA polygon
obvious although they are substantial. For example, the environmental benefits of
recycling paper have been examined and the respective studies have shown increased framework
fossil fuel consumption as well as increased emissions of greenhouse gases and
acidifying gases. This is happened because, in general, the additional energy consumed
mainly during transportation in the recycling steps (and the subsequent relevant 491
emissions) may be significant when compared to the overall energy consumption (and
the total airborne emissions, respectively) of the system. This is much more probable if
a product does not require a large amount of energy during primary production. In
such cases, therefore, it is very possible that more energy is being spent throughout
recycling than this that is being saved as a consequence of less primary production.
Subsequently, more energy consumed almost always result in more emissions to the
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

air (Ross and Evans, 2003).

In this context, the aim of the present paper is to identify and to quantify the major
environmental benefits of glass recycling. This is realized by calculating and
comparing for selected recycling rates the main environmental effects (energy
consumption, solid waste and the major atmospheric and waterborne emissions) of a
table water glass bottle throughout its entire life cycle. For this purpose, the life cycle
assessment (LCA) polygon framework is being used. This framework has been
developed for evaluating the results of a life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis using
critical volume aggregation and polygon-based interpretation (Georgakellos, 2005b).
One of the reasons for using this method is that the comparison can be realized in two
levels simultaneously. Specifically, it is possible to have a single index value as a
general estimate of total environmental output of each case under examination, which
facilitates a clear and objective comparison, while it allows, at the same time, the
evaluation and comparison of selected parameters (i.e. consumption of energy, solid
waste, etc.) that, potentially, present particular interesting. Therefore, a deeper
environmental evaluation of glass recycling is possible.

The LCA polygon framework

LCA is probably the most commonly accepted method for assessing the environmental
impact of products. LCA is a method for systematically assessing the environmental
impact of a product through all of its life-cycle stages (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004). LCA
was originally developed to create a decision-making tool, which is aimed at a
systematic assessment of the environmental performance (initially the focus was on
energy balances) of products systems (Borland and Wallace, 2000; Steen, 2005). During
the evolution of LCA, a number of related applications emerged: identification of
improvement possibilities, decision-making support, choice of environmental
performance indicators, and market claims (Tillman, 2000; Guinée et al., 2001). It
also provides consistent basis for comparisons between alternatives based on the
environmental consequences associated with them (Merkhofer, 1999; Stewart et al.,
1999). According to the ISO standards in LCA (ISO 14040, 1997, 1998), the LCA
methodology is described by four phases:
(1) goal and scope definitions;
(2) inventory analysis;
 MEQ (3) impact assessment; and
17,4 (4) interpretation.

In the framework applied here, the basis for making the comparison is the LCI analysis
of the product for each case. This is very usual in environmental decision-making
(Hassan, 2003; Ison and Miller, 2000). However, such analyses provide a large amount
492 of multi-dimensional data (inputs and outputs) that are difficult to comprehend and to
interpret (Rowland-Jones et al., 2005). Therefore, LCIs need to be aggregated to be of
much use (Rubik and Baumgartner, 1992). However, care should be taken when
aggregating the inputs and outputs in the product system, as adding up data always
involves a procedure that implies making value judgments on the relative importance
of the impacts and the criteria considered (Guinée, 2002; Jensen et al., 1997). Thus, there
has been a debate going on for many years, where several authors express their dissent
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

of the one number concept fearing that the transparency will be lost when an
environmental impact is described in one number, like in an index (Curran, 2001). On
the other hand, designers often express their need for practical tools that may be used
in their everyday life (Steen, 1999; Van der Vorst et al., 1999). In this context, an
appropriate method has been developed as a tool to aid the comparative appraisal of
products and processes according to their environmental performance. This
methodology (known as “LCA polygon”) has been developed for the interpretation
of LCA results (Georgakellos, 2005b).
A low-level aggregation describing the addition of single inventory inputs and
outputs defined in the same measuring units is the first step. After low-level
aggregation, which is incorporated in most LCIs, some of the inventory inputs and
outputs (such as energy consumption) are expressed by a single value, while others
(such as atmospheric emissions) are not and a further aggregation is needed. This is
high-level aggregation, which allows the aggregation of inputs and outputs that are
defined in different measuring units. High-level aggregation involves conversion of
data. In the polygon-based method, the aggregation algorithm makes use of weights
that reflect threshold values of pollutants. Specifically, in order to add and to compare
different air or water pollutants, it is possible to calculate the so-called critical air or
water mass or volume. It denominates the mass or volume of air and water that would
be necessary to dilute the emission to such an extent that the concentration permitted
by the threshold value is just reached. To calculate this critical mass or volume, the
recorded emission (expressed in quantity terms) is divided by the threshold value. If
the obtained masses or volumes of the emitted pollutants are added, this value can be
used as a sum parameter for the air and water pollution. This total critical mass or
volume is given by the following equation:

Xn
pi
CR ¼ ð1Þ
i¼1
TL i

where CR is the total critical mass or volume of air or water, pi is the amount of
pollutant i (for i ¼ 1; . . . ; n), and, TLi is the threshold value of pollutant i (for
i ¼ 1; . . . ; n).
Toxicological, ecological, medical or political criteria can play a role for the
determination of the threshold values (TLi). For instance, environmental regulatory
 standards can be used for this purpose. However, they have received a lot of criticism, The use of the
as they often present a number of drawbacks. For these reasons, their use is therefore LCA polygon
often advised against (Bengtsson and Steen, 2002; Finnveden, 1999).
Afterwards, the total critical masses or volumes, or any other impact that results framework
from a low-level or a high-level aggregation procedure of the inventory inputs and
outputs could be selected and used as ecological parameters “EP”. In order to
“transform” these ecological parameters to a single value, a further aggregation is 493
needed. This is achieved according to the procedure that follows. Assuming that “r”
products are under examination and comparison, and that the eco-profile of each
product consists of “m” ecological parameters, then for every product under
examination and for each one of its ecological parameters EPj;k (j ¼ 1; . . . ; m and
k ¼ 1; . . . ; r), a relative grade is calculated as follows:

EPj;k
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

RGj;k ¼ for j ¼ 1; . . . ; m and k ¼ 1; . . . ; r ð2Þ

EPj;max

where RGj;k is the relative grade of the ecological parameter j for the product k, EPj;k is
the ecological parameter j of the product k, and EPj;max is the largest ecological
parameter j, i.e. EPj;max $ EPj;k for k ¼ 1; . . . ; r
Afterwards, for every product k (k ¼ 1; . . . ; r) under examination, all its relative
grades RGj;k (j ¼ 1; . . . ; m) are put in a radar diagram. In this chart type, each category
has its own value axis radiating from centre point. In our case, each relative grade RGj;k
has its own axis scaled from 0 to 1. Lines connect all the values forming a polygon. In
general, a radar diagram compares the aggregate value of a number of data series.
Therefore, it is evident that the product or process that covers the most area represents
the worst environmental performance. In other words, the best product is this one,
which has the lowest polygon area. The environmental impacts of a product can
therefore be expressed in a single index number (the polygon area), which is
unambiguously comparable to the index number for substitute or competing products
and materials. This is not the first time that this kind of diagrams is used to illustrate
environmental impact data. A quite similar approach is this of target plots, which have
been developed as an overall assessment of a product design according to the design
for the environment concept (Graedel, 1999).

Life cycle inventory of glass bottles

The task of this inventory analysis is to calculate and to compare the environmental
performance of a glass container for different recycling levels. The container under
examination is a 1 L table water bottle from the Greek market. Product system
contributions to environmental effects can occur at every point of the life cycle of the
packaging, right through from the extraction of the original materials and energy
resources, the transformation of these into useable manufacturing inputs, the
manufacturing process itself, the transport and distribution of intermediate and end
products, and the use and final disposal. Thus, we chose to include all stages in the life
cycle from “cradle to grave”. More precisely, the LCA system consists of 11 subsystems
that together cover the entire life cycle of the containers. These subsystems are:
(1) raw materials acquisition and materials manufacture (it includes all the
activities required to gather or obtain a raw material or energy source from the
 MEQ earth and to process them into a form that can be used to fabricate a particular
container);
17,4
(2) materials transportation (to the point of containers fabrication);
(3) containers fabrication (this is the process step that uses raw or manufactured
materials to fabricate a container ready to be filled);
494 (4) containers transportation (to the point of filling);
(5) filling – final product production (it includes all processes that fill the
containers and prepare them for shipment);
(6) final product transportation (to retail outlets);
(7) final product use (it comprises activities such as storage of the containers for
later use, preparation for use, consumption, etc.);
(8) solid wastes collection and transportation for landfilling (it begins after the
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

containers have served their intended purpose and enter the environment
through the waste management system);
(9) solid wastes landfilling (it includes all necessary activities for the land disposal
of waste);
(10) used containers collection and refilling (it includes all the activities required to
off-site reuse such as the return of the containers to the bottler to be re-filled for
their original purpose); and
(11) recycling (it encompasses all activities necessary to take the used containers out
of the waste management system and deliver them to the container fabrication
stage).
All these 11 subsystems, that together form the LCI system, are shown in Figure 1.
According to this Figure 1, it is obvious that (all the three) subsystems for solid waste
management (i.e. subsystems 9, 10 and 11) are included in the analysis. This is
necessary because it is possible that each one of these three waste management options
may be applied (partly or totally) during the life cycle of a container. In this way, it is
taken into account the degree of reuse and/or recycling for the examined packaging
materials. Therefore, the amount of solid waste calculated in this case study refers to
the final waste disposal (landfilling). Obviously, this amount is low when the degree of
reuse or the degree of recycling (or both) is high.
Other special conditions, parameters and assumptions that influence and limit the
system are the following:
. Basis of comparison: 1,000 L of table water.
. Level of technology: the mix of the current technology.
.
Basis of allocation: weight proportioned (per kg).
.
Energy system: the national basic energy sources, the national average fuel mix
and grid for electricity.
.
Capital equipment: the energy and emissions involved with capital equipment
are excluded.

The next step is the construction of the mathematical model. This model is necessary
to calculate the total energy and resource use as well as the total environmental
 The use of the
LCA polygon
framework

495
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Figure 1.
The system and its 11
subsystems

releases from the overall system. This step consists of summing the energy, raw
materials and various emission values that result from the energy and material flows,
for each stage of the product’s life cycle. This model, which defines numerically the
relationships of the individual subsystems to each other in the production of the final
product, has been developed and analysed in detail elsewhere (Georgakellos, 2001).
However, for better understanding the present case study, a brief overview of the
model is given below:
The mathematical model is constructed according to the system, by summing the
energy, raw materials and various emission values that result from the energy and
material flows, for each stage of the product’s life cycle, as follows:
The total energy consumption of the system (Etot) can be calculated by the equation
(3):

E tot ¼ ðe1 þ e2 Þð1 2 f Þð1 2 kÞm þ ðe3 þ e4 Þð1 2 f Þm þ ðe5 þ e6 þ e7 Þm

ð3Þ
þ ðe8 þ e9 Þð1 2 f Þð1 2 aÞm þ e10 fm þ e11 ð1 2 f Þam

where ej is the specific energy consumption of the subsystem j (where j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 11),

m is the mass of the product, f is the reuse – refilling rate of the product (0 # f # 1), a
is the recycling rate of the product that examined (0 # a # 1). This rate refers to
 MEQ systematic and well-organized recycling programs, k is the recycled content level of the
product (0 # k # 1).
17,4 It must be noted that recycling coefficients a and k are not always the same since
coefficient k shows the percentage of raw material used in product production that is
not virgin but recycled, while coefficient a shows the percentage of product waste that
goes for recycling.
496 The total consumption of any raw material or the total release of any waste of the
system (Xtot) can be, respectively, calculated by the equation (4):

X tot ¼ ðx1 þ x2 Þð1 2 f Þð1 2 kÞm þ ðx3 þ x4 Þð1 2 f Þm þ ðx5 þ x6 þ x7 Þm

ð4Þ
þ ðx8 þ x9 Þð1 2 f Þð1 2 aÞm þ x10 fm þ x11 ð1 2 f Þam

where, xj is the specific consumption of any raw material or the specific release of any
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

waste of the subsystem j ð j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 11Þ.

The results of the present LCI are given in Table I. These results have been
calculated according to the equations (3) and (4), for ten cases (cases I-X), each one
corresponding to a different recycling mix, which is expressed by a distinct
combination of recycling coefficients a and k. More precisely, a and k of case I
correspond to the actual values for Greece, while in cases II-X various sets of a and k
have been tried, in order to study their impact on the inventory results and,
subsequently, to examine the environmental performance of recycling in various
circumstances. As regards the necessary data for the LCI application, wherever
possible actual or specific data are used. Furthermore, because of certain difficulties in
data gathering (data gaps, absent or incomplete data, data confidentiality, etc.), an
additional source of data is the literature. More details about the collected and used in
this application data can be found elsewhere (Georgakellos, 2005a).
Beverage packaging is often the subject of LCA studies. The major reason for this is
that many countries have targeted packaging (including packaging of beverages) as a
key issue in waste management (Ayalon et al., 2000). However, the concern about the
evaluation of the environmental impacts of packaging through the life cycle approach
is not new. The first study of this kind was initiated in the USA in the late 1960s in
order to compare different beverage containers to determine which produced the fewest
effects on the environment (Hunt et al., 1992). Moreover, some of the first LCAs (then
known as resource and environmental profile analysis) were about beverage containers
(Hunt et al., 1974, 1975; Midwest Research Institute, 1978).
Between early 1980s and mid-1990s, several studies about beverage packaging
based on life cycle thinking were conducted in a number of European countries, e.g. in
Austria, the UK, Greece (rather a report than a full study), Switzerland (concerning as
well Germany and France), etc. (Alber, 1985; Boustead, 1989; Diakoulaki and
Koumoutsos, 1990; Bischoff, 1992), as well as in the USA. One of them was about soft
drink delivery systems (PET, aluminium and glass containers) and, according to its
conclusions, the group of PET containers presents the best environmental performance
(Sellers and Sellers, 1989). In 1992, the Danish EPA initiated a new LCA study on beer
packaging. This study was a LCI of glass bottles, aluminium cans and steel cans
(Jensen et al., 1997). The life-cycle approach is also used in another more recent
(published in 2002) Danish study for carbonated beverages containers (Danish
Environmental Assessment Institute, 2002). Similarly, a German LCA study first
 Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Case I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Recycling rate “a” 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Recycling content “k” 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00
Energy consumption (MJ/1,000 L) and water consumption (g/1,000 L)
Energy 3,6656.3 3,6739.6 3,6823.9 3,6908.3 3,6268.3 3,5168.5 3,4068.8 3,6351.61 3,5336.2 3,4320.8
Water 644.13 644.13 644.13 644.13 547.55 273.78 0 547.55 273.78 0
Atmospheric emissions (g/1,000 L)
Particles 2,512.9 2,521.4 2,530.0 2,538.6 2,180.4 1,238.0 295.7 2,188.9 1,255.2 321.4
Carbon monoxide 238.9 236.2 233.4 230.6 235.8 226.8 217.8 2,330 221.3 209.5
Hydrocarbons 528.1 528.6 529.0 529.5 461.4 272.2 83.0 461.8 273.1 84.4
Nitrogen oxides 2,814.1 2,842.3 2,870.8 2,899.3 2,731.3 2,496.8 2,262.3 2,759.5 2,553.,6 2,347.6
Sulphur dioxide 4,892.5 4,956.7 5,021.8 5,086.8 4,755.9 4,368.5 3,981.1 4,820.1 4,497.7 4,175.4
Hydrogen chloride 9.87 9.87 9.87 9.87 8.39 4.19 0 8.39 4.19 0
Volatile organic
compounds 93.2 92.4 91.6 90.8 93.1 92.9 92.7 92.3 91.3 90.2
Waterborne waste (g/1,000 L)
Suspended materials 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.236 0.120 0.003 0.236 0.120 0.003
Dissolved materials 495.7 495.7 495.7 495.7 422.5 214.9 7.27 422.5 214.9 7.27
BODa 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.277 0.236 0.120 0.003 0.236 0.120 0.003
COD a 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.71 0.36 0.01 0.71 0.36 0.01
Oil 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 5.69 2.89 0.01 5.69 2.89 0.01
Solid waste (cm 3/1,000 L)
Municipal waste, etc. 1,83,011.4 1,24,309.4 64,894.4 5,479.4 1,82,378.4 1,80,584.3 1,78,790.2 1,23,676.4 62,476.3 1,258.2
Note: a Waste indicators
LCA polygon
framework
The use of the

different recycling levels

1 L glass bottle for
Inventory analysis of a
497

Table I.
 MEQ published in 1996 while a new one conducted in 2,000 concerning packaging systems
17,4 for non-alcoholic drinks and wine (Plinke et al., 2000). Apart from these two recent
examples, LCA for liquid packaging systems is included in a study carried out for the
European Commission. The goal of this study was to compare the environmental
impacts associated with different existing packaging systems for beer and carbonated
soft drinks (Bio-Intelligence Service, 2000).
498 Regarding the latter, it must be noted that, while LCA generally provides a
consistent basis for making comparisons between alternatives based on the
environmental consequences associated with them (Georgakellos, 2005b), these
comparisons can be pretty worthless unless they compare results or data derived from
the same study. This is happened because almost every LCA study is unique, since
each such study sets its own scope, objectives and boundaries (Platt and Rowe, 2002;
Jensen et al., 1997). Moreover, many LCA experts argue that comparability of LCA
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

findings is not a key issue or even a requirement, as the purpose of an LCA study is not
to have major comparability, but to better understand systems and to improve their
performance. Thus, in terms of making reliable comparisons of LCA results from
different studies, a number of requirements have been suggested as necessary. These
included the use of a common LCA framework or methodology; explicit definitions of
methods, indicators, scope and boundaries in LCA projects; the provision of data of
high and standard quality; greater transparency for LCI and LCA processes, etc.
(Jensen et al., 1997). In this context, apart from the above very concise overview
concerning LCA studies of beverage packaging, a thorough comparison of the LCA
findings of Table I with the findings of similar studies is not include here. In addition,
such a comparison is out of the scope of the present work, which only uses the LCI
results for the application of the LCA polygon framework in waste management.

Environmental evaluation of glass bottles’ recycling

The outcome of the LCI analysis of the previous section is the comparison basis in the
present case study. Thus, applying the equation (1) for the atmospheric emissions and
the waterborne waste of each case (presented in Table I), the critical volumes of air and
water are calculated, respectively. In our application it is n ¼ 7 (i.e. i ¼ 1; . . . ; 7), for
atmospheric emissions and n ¼ 5 (i.e. i ¼ 1; . . . ; 5Þ; for waterborne waste. The
threshold values for each pollutant used in the calculations can be based on the Greek
or the European Legislation. In this case study, threshold values from the Greek
Legislation are used (Ministerial Decision No. 15549/83, 1983; Lygeros, 1990;
Karvounis, 1991). They are given in Table II.
Subsequently, the results of the inventory analysis have been compressed in a
eco-profile of five ecological parameters, i.e.
(1) consumption of energy;
(2) consumption of water;
(3) air emissions as critical volume of air;
(4) waterborne waste as critical volume of water; and
(5) solid waste.

These ecological parameters are presented in Table III. Then, applying the equation (2),
the relative grades for each one of the ecological parameters of Table III are calculated
 The use of the
Substance Threshold value
LCA polygon
Air emissions (mg/m 3 of air) framework
Particles 10
Carbon monoxide (CO) 57
Hydrocarbons 22
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 5.6 499
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 5.2
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) 7.5
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 32
Waterborne waste (mg/L of water)
Suspended materials 30
Dissolved materials 500 Table II.
BOD 15 Threshold values of air
COD 45 emissions and
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Oil 7 waterborne waste

and presented in Table IV. In our case it is r ¼ 10 (i.e. k ¼ 1; . . . ; 10) and m ¼ 5

(i.e. j ¼ 1; . . . ; 5).
Putting the calculated grades in a radar diagram, the LCA polygon for each product
is formed. These diagrams are shown in Figures 2-11. According to the area of each
polygon, the ten cases can be easily ranked and compared.
Specifically, the polygon area (as a percentage of the total area of the radar diagram)
is, for each case, the following:
Case I: 98.49 per cent;
Case II: 86.24 per cent;
Case III: 73.76 per cent;
Case IV: 61.20 per cent;
Case V: 84.82 per cent;
Case VI: 50.34 per cent;
Case VII: 22.13 per cent;
Case VIII: 73.66 per cent;
Case IX: 34.01 per cent; and
Case X: 6.85 per cent.

Regarding the calculation of the polygon area, the following issues should be
mentioned: in order to have the polygon area as an index number without unit, it is
calculated as a percentage of the total area of the polygon that is formed by the m axes
(here five axes). However, the polygon area is dependent on the order in which these
axes are located. This means that if there are two large numbers (ecological
parameters), the area gets much larger when these axes adjacent to each other.
Obviously, this is not desirable because there is the possibility of ambiguous
comparisons as the area depends on the arrangement of the axes. In order to eliminate
this possibility, the comparison will be based on the average polygon area. This area
results if we take into account all the possible combinations of the m axes. Thus, the
average polygon area has always the same value, whatever is the order of these axes,
 Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

17,4

500
MEQ

Table III.

1,000 L of table water)

the examined cases (per
Ecological parameters for
Case I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Energy consumption (MJ) 36,656.3 36,739.6 36,823.9 36,908.3 36,268.3 35,168.5 34,068.8 36,351.61 35,336.2 34,320.8
Water consumption (g) 644.13 644.13 644.13 644.13 547.55 273.78 0 547.55 273.78 0
Atmospheric emissions
(m3 of air) 17,27,097.5 17,45,279.7 17,63,692.3 17,82,090.2 16,49,577.9 14,29,566.8 12,09,639.0 16,67,753.8 14,66,170.2 12,64,646.4
Waterborne waste
(L of water) 1,990.4 1,990.4 1,990.4 1,990.4 1,697.2 862.7 16.5 1,697.2 862.7 16.5
Solid waste (cm3) 1,83,011.4 1,24,309.4 64,894.4 5,479.4 1,82,378.4 1,80,584.3 1,78,790.2 1,23,676.4 6,24,76.3 1,258.2
 and so it can be used as the basis of the comparison. For this reason, when, in this The use of the
method, we use the term “polygon area” we mean the average polygon area.
LCA polygon
Discussion of results framework
It has been previously mentioned that one of the advantages of the method used here
concerns the risk of loss of information. This risk, which is frequent in aggregation
procedures, is relatively limited in the LCA polygon framework (although a part of it 501
always exists), as the comparison can be realized simultaneously in two levels: the first

Case (per cent of max) I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

Energy consumption 99.32 99.54 99.77 100.00 98.27 95.29 92.31 98.49 95.74 92.99
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Water consumption 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 85.01 42.50 0.00 85.01 42.50 0.00 Table IV.
Atmospheric emissions 96.61 97.93 98.97 100.00 92.56 80.22 67.88 93.58 82.27 7.096 Relative grades of the
Waterborne waste 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 85.27 43.34 0.83 85.27 43.34 0.83 ecological parameters for
Solid waste 100.00 67.92 35.46 2.99 99.65 98.67 97.69 67.58 34.13 0.69 the examined cases

Figure 2.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case I)

Figure 3.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case II)

Figure 4.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case III)
 MEQ level is the polygon area and the second level is the ecological parameters (i.e. the
17,4 polygon axes), if there is particular interest. In our case study, both levels of
comparison are being realized since the aim of the present work is the most thorough
environmental evaluation of glass recycling
Regarding the first level of comparison and from the polygon area of each case, one
could see that the environmental performance in case I is the worst one, while this in
502 case X is the best one. This conclusion is rather expectable since the values of a and k in
case I (25.3 and 41.2 per cent, respectively) are lower than these values in all other
cases. Likewise, the values of a and k in case X (both 100 per cent, even if this is
practically unachievable) are higher than these values in all other cases. In general, for
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Figure 5.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case IV)

Figure 6.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case V)

Figure 7.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case VI)

Figure 8.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case VII)
 higher recycling levels (e.g. higher a or/and k) the respective polygon area becomes The use of the
lower, which is obvious. However, comparing case II with case V; case III with case VI; LCA polygon
case IV with case VII (in order to compare the importance of a and k on the
environmental performance of the examined product), one could mention that, in all framework
comparisons, the recycling content k improve more the environmental performance of
the examined product than the recycling level a. Moreover, the comparisons of cases II,
V and VIII; of cases III, VI and IX; of cases IV, VII and X show that when a and k grow 503
simultaneously, the amelioration of the environmental performance of the examined
product is the greatest possible for each case.
Regarding the second level of comparison (considering the ecological parameters or
the axes of the polygon) and based on Table III, one could observe the following:
.
Energy consumption. It seems that recycling cannot improve significantly the
energy required across the life cycle. Specifically, comparing case I with
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

cases V-X, there is a reduction of energy consumption but this is about 7 per cent
in the best case (case VII). The explanation of this outcome is that the energy
inputs needed to process the requisite virgin materials (which are saved because
of recycling) slightly exceed the energy inputs of the recycling process itself.

Figure 9.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case VIII)

Figure 10.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case IX)

Figure 11.
LCA polygon of the 1 L
table water glass bottle
(case X)
 MEQ In addition, comparing case I with cases II-IV, it is remarkable (and perhaps
17,4 unexpected) that, instead of decline, the energy has been increased. However, this
is fully justifiable as, in these cases (e.g. cases II-IV), the life cycle energy
consumption is being increased with the energy needs of the recycling process
steps without a simultaneous energy saving (which would be the gain of more
recycled material in glass production and therefore of less energy input because
504 of less virgin material processing) since the recycling content level k remains
stable.
.
Water consumption. Recycling can drastically reduce the water use associated
with the life cycle of the product but only when recycled material is being used in
the production process instead of virgin one (cases V-X). In such cases, water
consumption drop is proportional to the growth of the recycling content level k.
On the contrary, an augmentation of recycling rate a without a corresponding
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

increase of recycling content level k (cases II-IV), does not improve water
consumption. This is because, according to the LCA model used, recycling
process does not influence water utilization.
.
Atmospheric emissions. The image for atmospheric emissions is very similar to
this one of energy consumption. A reason of this fact is that both energy use and
emissions to air are being realized mainly during the same life cycle stages, i.e.
raw material acquisition and product production stages, as well as
transportation (of any kind) stages. Therefore, the comments here above
concerning energy consumption are valid for atmospheric emissions as well. The
only noteworthy difference is that the greatest achievable reduction of
atmospheric emissions could reach 30 per cent (from the comparison of case I
with case VII), which is much more higher than the equivalent reduction of
energy (about 7 per cent).
.
Waterborne waste. From the comparison of case I with cases V-X, it is evident
that growing the recycling content level k the waterborne waste is being
decreased almost proportionally, and thus, radically. Nevertheless, from the
comparison of case I with cases II-IV, it seems that, as in the case of water
consumption, a single increase of recycling rate a does not affect (neither in a
positive nor in a negative way) the production of waterborne waste.
.
Solid waste. As it is expected, recycling in general can significantly cut down the
amount of the generated solid waste. More precisely, the total amount of this
kind of waste is being heavily affected by recycling rate a. For instance, for
a ¼ 75 per cent, the reduction of solid waste is about 65 per cent (case III), while
for a ¼ 100 per cent (practically unachievable), the amount of solid waste is
being reduced about 97 per cent (case IV). These figures are even higher when
the growth of recycling rate a is going together with an analogous increase of
recycling content level k (cases VIII-X). However, a sole growth of the latter
(i.e. the recycling content level k), improve solid waste generation a little.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this case study has demonstrated very clearly that recycling strategies
can, in most cases, reduce the total environmental burden of the glass container
examined. On the other hand, from the above analysis it is apparent that this reduction
 may considerably vary in relation to each ecological parameter (consumption of The use of the
energy, consumption of water, air emissions, waterborne waste and solid waste), LCA polygon
depending, not only on the recycling percentage, but mainly on the recycling mix (as it
is expressed by the set of recycling coefficients a and k). In other words, there is no one framework
single case, which is “the best one” in both levels (the polygon area and all the five
ecological parameters at the same time) but the actual state of this matter is more
complex. Therefore, developing a recycling strategy for such a product should be done 505
with care, considering, not only general recycling targets, but also the particular
interests or conditions that may exist regarding, e.g. energy use, emissions to air, etc.
Otherwise, there is increased danger for a less successful recycling programme.
Finally, the extent to which these results could be generalized to other materials and
products will depend on many factors. However, this could be the subject of future
works.
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

References
Alber, S. (1985), Ökobilanzen von Verpackungsystemen: Fallbeispiele für Österreich, Insitut für
Wirtschaft und Umwelt des Österreichischen Arbeiterkammertages, Wien.
Ayalon, O., Avnimelech, Y. and Shechter, M. (2000), “Application of a comparative
multidimensional life cycle analysis in solid waste management policy: the case of soft
drink containers”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3, pp. 135-44.
Bengtsson, M. and Steen, B. (2002), “Weighting in LCA – approaches and applications”,
Environmental Progress, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 101-9.
Billatos, S.B. and Basaly, N.A. (1997), Green Technology and Design for the Environment, Taylor
and Francis, Washington, DC.
Bio-Intelligence Service (2000), Study on External Environmental Effects Related to the Life Cycle
of Products and Services – Final Report, European Commission – Directorate General
Environment, Brussels.
Bischoff, E. (1992), The Ecobalance of PVC Beverage Packs, EVC & Solvay, Le Mont-Pelerin.
Borland, N. and Wallace, D. (2000), “Environmentally conscious product design – a collaborative
internet-based modeling approach”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 3 Nos 2/3, pp. 33-46.
Boustead, I. (1989), The Environmental Impact of Liquid Food Containers in the UK, The Open
University, Milton Keynes.
Curran, M.A. (2001), “Developing a tool for environmentally preferable purchasing”,
Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 244-53.
Danish Environmental Assessment Institute (2002), Deposit on One-way Containers? A Social
Economic Assessment of the Danish Deposit System for One-way Containers for
Carbonated Beverages, IMV, Copenhagen, English summary available at: www.imv.dk (in
Danish).
Diakoulaki, D. and Koumoutsos, N.K. (1990), “Comparative evaluation of alternative beverage
containers with multiple environmental criteria in Greece”, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Vol. 3, pp. 241-52.
Field, B.C. (2000), Natural Resource Economics – An Introduction, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Finnveden, G. (1999), A Critical Overview in Operational Valuation/Weighting Methods for Life
Cycle Assessment, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm.
 MEQ Georgakellos, D.A. (2001), “Evaluation of the environmental effects that occur at the
transportation stages of a product life cycle using life cycle assessment”, Proceedings
17,4 of International Conference on Shipping: Technology and Environment, University of
Piraeus-Department of Maritime Studies, Piraeus.
Georgakellos, D.A. (2005a), “The use of streamlined LCA for the environmental assessment of
plastics recycling: the case of a PVC container”, Spoudai, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
506 Georgakellos, D.A. (2005b), “Evaluation of life cycle inventory results using critical volume
aggregation and polygon-based interpretation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 13,
pp. 567-82.
Graedel, T.E. (1999), Streamlined Life-cycle Assessment, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Guinée, J.B., Huppes, G. and Heijungs, R. (2001), “Developing an LCA guide for decision support”,
Environmental Management and Health, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 301-11.
Guinée, J.B. (2002), Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO Standards,
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Hassan, O.A.B. (2003), “A value-focused thinking approach for environmental management of
buildings construction”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 247-61.
Hunt, R.G., Sellers, J.D. and Franklin, W.E. (1975), “Resource and environmental profile analysis
of beer containers”, Chemtech, August, pp. 474-81.
Hunt, R.G., Sellers, J.D. and Franklin, W.E. (1992), “Resource and environmental profile analysis:
a life cycle environmental assessment for products and procedures”, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 12, pp. 245-69.
Hunt, R.G., Franklin, W.E., Welch, R.O., Cross, J.A. and Woodall, A.E. (1974), Resource and
Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage Containers Alternatives – Final Report,
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
ISO 14040 (1997), Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and
Framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO 14041 (1998), Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope
Definition and Inventory Analysis, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Ison, E. and Miller, A. (2000), “The use of LCA to introduce life-cycle thinking into
decision-making for the purchase of medical devices in the NHS”, Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy & Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 453-76.
Jensen, A.A., Hoffman, L., Møller, B.T., Schmidt, A., Christiansen, K., Elkington, J. and van Dijk,
F. (1997), Life Cycle Assessment – A Guide to Approaches, Experiences and Information
Sources, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Karvounis, S.K. (1991), Environmental Management, A. Stamoulis, Piraeus (in Greek).
Lygeros, A.I. (1990), Safety and Hygiene in the Chemical Industry, National Technical University,
Athens (in Greek).
Merkhofer, M.W. (1999) in Dale, V.H. and English, M.R. (Eds), Tools to Aid Environmental
Decision Making, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 231-81.
Midwest Research Institute (1978), “Resource and environmental profile analysis of five milk
container systems”, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
Kansas City.
Ministerial Decision No 15549/83 (1983), About the Terms of Disposal of Sewages and Humid
Industrial Waste in Natural Recipients and Determination of Threshold Values, Athens
(in Greek).
 Platt, B. and Rowe, D. (2002), Reduce, Reuse, Refill, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, The use of the
DC.
Plinke, E., Schonert, M., Meckel, H., Detzel, A., Giegrich, J., Fehrenbach, H., Heinisch, J.,
LCA polygon
Luxenhofer, K. and Schmitz, S. (2000), “Ökobilan für getränkeverpackungen II – framework
hauptteil”, Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit.
Ross, S. and Evans, D. (2003), “The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based 507
packaging system”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 561-71.
Rowland-Jones, R., Pryde, M. and Cresser, M. (2005), “An evaluation of current environmental
management systems as indicators of environmental performance”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 211-9.
Rubik, F. and Baumgartner, T. (1992), Technological Innovations in the Plastics Industry and its
Influence on the Environmental Problems of Plastic Waste – Evaluation of Eco-Balances,
Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

Sellers, V.R. and Sellers, J.D. (1989), Comparative Energy and Environmental Impacts for Soft
Drink Delivery Systems, Franklin Associates Ltd, Prairie Village.
Steen, B. (1999), “A systematic approach to environmental priority strategies in product
development (EPS)”, Version 2000 – General System Characteristics, Chalmers University
of Technology, Göteborg.
Steen, B. (2005), “Environmental costs and benefits in life cycle costing”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 107-18.
Stewart, J.R., Collins, M.W., Anderson, R. and Murphy, W.R. (1999), “Life cycle assessment as a
tool for environmental management”, Clean Product and Processes, Vol. 1, pp. 73-81.
Tillman, A-M. (2000), “Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology”, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 20, pp. 113-23.
Van der Vorst, R., Grafé-Buckens, A. and Sheate, W.R. (1999), “A systematic framework for
environmental decision-making”, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy &
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Williams, P.T. (1998), Waste Treatment and Disposal, Willey, Chichester.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2004), “Adoption and maintenance of environmental management
systems”, Critical Success Factors, Management of Environmental Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 399-419.

Corresponding author
Dimitrios A. Georgakellos can be contacted at: dgeorg@unipi.gr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Dimitrios A. Georgakellos. Life Cycle Analysis as a Management Tool in Environmental Systems 441-463.
[Crossref]
2. Wagner Cezar Lucato, Milton Vieira Júnior, José Carlos da Silva Santos. 2015. Eco-Six Sigma: integration
of environmental variables into the Six Sigma technique. Production Planning & Control 26:8, 605-616.
[Crossref]
3. M. Pongiglione, C. Calderini. 2014. Material savings through structural steel reuse: A case study in Genoa.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 86, 87-92. [Crossref]
4. Athanasios Rentizelas, Dimitrios Georgakellos. 2014. Incorporating life cycle external cost in optimization
of the electricity generation mix. Energy Policy 65, 134-149. [Crossref]
5. Guangli Du, Raid Karoumi. 2013. Life cycle assessment of a railway bridge: comparison of two
superstructure designs. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 9:11, 1149-1160. [Crossref]
Downloaded by SABANCI UNIVERSITY At 15:45 09 May 2019 (PT)

6. Wagner Cezar Lucato, Milton Vieira Júnior, José Carlos da Silva Santos. 2013. Measuring the ecoefficiency
of a manufacturing process: a conceptual proposal. Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal 24:6, 755-770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Sotirios Bersimis, Dimitrios Georgakellos. 2013. A probabilistic framework for the evaluation of products'
environmental performance using life cycle approach and Principal Component Analysis. Journal of
Cleaner Production 42, 103-115. [Crossref]
8. J.R. Jiménez, J. Ayuso, A.P. Galvín, M. López, F. Agrela. 2012. Use of mixed recycled aggregates with a
low embodied energy from non-selected CDW in unpaved rural roads. Construction and Building Materials
34, 34-43. [Crossref]
9. Yvan Dutil, Daniel Rousse, Guillermo Quesada. 2011. Sustainable Buildings: An Ever Evolving Target.
Sustainability 3:2, 443-464. [Crossref]
10. Gian Andrea Blengini, Elena Garbarino. 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role
of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. Journal of Cleaner Production 18:10-11, 1021-1030.
[Crossref]
11. Gian Andrea Blengini, Deborah J. Shields. 2010. Green labels and sustainability reporting. Management
of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 21:4, 477-493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Gian Andrea Blengini, Tiziana Di Carlo. 2010. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and Buildings 42:6, 869-880. [Crossref]
13. Gian Andrea Blengini. 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in
Turin, Italy. Building and Environment 44:2, 319-330. [Crossref]
14. Gian Andrea Blengini. 2008. Using LCA to evaluate impacts and resources conservation potential of
composting: A case study of the Asti District in Italy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52:12,
1373-1381. [Crossref]
15. Gian Andrea Blengini. 2008. Applying LCA to organic waste management in Piedmont, Italy.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 19:5, 533-549. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]