Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Comparison of Comparison of ““COCO22EfficiencyEfficiency”” between between
Company and IndustryCompany and Industry
Kiyotaka TAHARAKiyotaka TAHARAMasayuki SAGISAKAMasayuki SAGISAKAKazuo YAMAGUCHIKazuo YAMAGUCHI
Atsushi INABAAtsushi INABA
AIST
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
IntroductionIntroduction
An important tool to achieve sustainable development
Eco-EfficiencyEconomicEcological (Environment)
Eco-Efficiency = Product or Service valueEnvironmental influence
Quantity of goods or servicesproduced or provided to customersNet sales
Energy consumptionMaterials consumptionWater consumptionGreenhouse gas emissions (CO2…)Ozone depletion substance emissions……
WBSCD, 1992
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source :�TOYOTA Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source :�TOYOTA Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source:�Sony Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Eco-Efficiency = Product or Service valueEnvironmental influence
CO2 Efficiency = Economic indexCO2 emission
This study
I-O table dataLCI dataEnvironmental report of company
Price Gross value-addedGross incomeCost
Investor relation information
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Industry A
Industry D
Industry C
Industry B
Product
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
ProducerProducer’’s Prices PriceCostCost
Gross valueGross value--added added
Fig.1-1 Concept of CO2 efficiency
Total CO2 efficiency = Producer’s PriceTotal CO2 emissions
Direct CO2 efficiency = Gross value-addedDirect CO2 emissions
Indirect CO2 efficiency = CostIndirect CO2 emissions
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
Total
Direct
Indirect
Producer’s PriceTotal CO2 emissions
Gross value-addedDirect CO2 emissions
CostIndirect CO2 emissions
Fig.1-2 Concept of CO2 efficiency
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
CO
2 Ef
ficie
ncy
[yen
/kg-
CO
2] Total CO2 Efficiency(Producer Price/Direct and Indirect CO2 emission)
Fig.2 The Total CO2 Efficiency (Producer Price / Direct and Indirect CO2 emission) for each Industrial Sector
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sEl
ectri
c po
wer
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrous
met
alIro
n an
d st
eel
Cer
amic
, sto
ne a
nd c
lay
prod
ucts
Pet
role
um re
finer
y an
d co
alC
hem
ical
pro
duct
sP
ulp,
pap
er a
nd w
oode
n pr
oduc
tsTe
xtile
sFo
odM
inin
gA
gric
ultu
re, f
ores
try a
nd fi
sher
ies
servicemanufacturing
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
CO
2 Ef
ficie
ncy
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
Direct CO2 Efficiency(Gross value-added/Direct CO2 emission)
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sEl
ectri
c po
wer
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrous
met
alIro
n an
d st
eel
Cer
amic
, sto
ne a
nd c
lay
prod
ucts
Pet
role
um re
finer
y an
d co
alC
hem
ical
pro
duct
sP
ulp,
pap
er a
nd w
oode
n pr
oduc
tsTe
xtile
sFo
odM
inin
gA
gric
ultu
re, f
ores
try a
nd fi
sher
ies
Fig.3 The direct CO2 Efficiency (Gross value-added / Direct CO2 emission) for each Industrial Sector
servicemanufacturing
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CO
2 Ef
ficie
ncy
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
Indirect CO2 Efficiency(Cost/Indirect CO2 emission)
Fig.4 The indirect CO2 Efficiency (Cost / Indirect CO2 emission)for each Industrial Sector
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sEl
ectri
c po
wer
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrous
met
alIro
n an
d st
eel
Cer
amic
, sto
ne a
nd c
lay
prod
ucts
Pet
role
um re
finer
y an
d co
alC
hem
ical
pro
duct
sP
ulp,
pap
er a
nd w
oode
n pr
oduc
tsTe
xtile
sFo
odM
inin
gA
gric
ultu
re, f
ores
try a
nd fi
sher
ies
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Food
Direct CO2 Efficiency [yen/kg-CO2]
Indi
rect
CO
2 E
ffici
ency
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Finance and insurance
Real estate
Communication and broadcasting
Trade
Electrical devicesGeneral machinery
Mining
Iron and steel
Fig.5 CO2 efficiency pattern for each Industrial Sector
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
Non-ferrous metals
Pulp,paper and wooden products
Water supply and waste disposal services
TransportChemical products
Other public service
PetroleumRefinery and coal
Electric power, gas supply and steam and hot water supply
Ceramic, stone and clay products
ConstructionMetal products
Direct CO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Pattern A
Indirect CO2emission
Price
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
Pattern B
Pattern C
Direct IndirectCO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
CO2emission
’Price
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
Direct IndirectCO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiencyCO2emission
’Price
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0500
1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000
Sla
ught
erin
g an
d m
eat p
roce
ssin
gP
roce
ssed
mea
t pro
duct
sB
ottle
d or
can
ned
mea
t pro
duct
sA
nim
al o
il an
d fa
tsD
airy
farm
pro
duct
sFr
ozen
fish
and
she
llfis
hS
alte
d, d
ried
or s
mok
ed s
eafo
odB
ottle
d or
can
ned
seaf
ood
Fish
pas
teFi
sh o
il an
d m
eal
Oth
er p
roce
ssed
sea
food
sG
rain
milli
ngFl
our a
nd o
ther
gra
in m
illed
prod
ucts
Noo
dles
Bre
adC
onfe
ctio
nery
Can
ned
or b
ottle
d ve
geta
bles
and
frui
tsP
rese
rved
agr
icul
tura
l foo
dstu
ffsS
ugar
Sta
rch
Dex
trose
, syr
up a
nd is
omer
izes
sug
arV
eget
able
oils
and
mea
lC
ondi
men
ts a
nd s
easo
ning
sP
repa
red
froze
n fo
ods
Ret
ort f
oods
Dis
hes,
sus
hi, l
unch
box
esS
choo
l lun
ch (p
ublic
)S
choo
l lun
ch (p
rivat
e)O
ther
food
sR
efin
ed s
ake
Bee
rE
thyl
alc
ohol
for l
iquo
r man
ufac
turin
gW
hisk
ey a
nd b
rand
yO
ther
liqu
ors
Tea
and
roas
ted
coffe
eS
oft d
rinks
Man
ufac
ture
d ic
eFe
eds
Org
anic
ferti
lizer
s, n
.e.c
Toba
cco
Food
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.6 The direct CO2 Efficiency of Food Industrial Sector
9,100 32,500
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Petroleumrefinery products
(inc. greases)
Coal products Paving materials Petroleumrefinery and coal
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.7 The direct CO2 Efficiency of Petroleum refinery and coal Industrial Sector
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Fig. 8 Concept of Direct CO2 efficiency for companies
Factory Office, Institute, etc.
CO2 CO2X
Company X
Factory Office, Institute, etc.
CO2 CO2
Beer Company C
Gross IncomeMost of Direct CO2 emissions
Direct CO2 efficiency =
4%
oil\
Cost Net sale
Net sale – Cost = Gross Income
\Company X
.
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0100200300400500600
Beer Industry sector (I-O based data)
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
Beer
DrinkReal estate
LiquorMedicines
Percentage of production in the total net sale
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.9 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the beer industry sector: 3 Companies’ data from environmental reports against I-O based data
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Beer
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
10
20
30
40
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Petroleum refinery products Industry(I-O based data)
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.10 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the petroleum industry sector:3 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Percentage of production in the total net sale
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Petrochemistryconstruction work
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Petroleum
Petroleum
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
100
200
300
400 Tires and inner tubes Industry(I-O based data)
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
0
100
200
300
400 Tires and inner tubes Industry(I-O based data)
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Tires
Others
Percentage of production in the total net sale
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Tires
Others
Percentage of production in the total net sale
Fig.11 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the tire industry sector:3 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Tire
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%OtherReal estateNew materialsBuilding materialLime, AggregateCement
CompanyA
CompanyB
Percentage of production in the total net saleD
irect
CO
2 ef
ficie
ncy
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
0
5
10
15
CompanyA
CompanyB
Cement Industry(I-O based data)
Fig.12 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the cement industry sector:2 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Cement
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
CO2 emission
A IndustryB Industry
F Industry
E Industry
C Industry
D Industry
G Industry
Gross income/Gross value-added
Company A�A+B+C+D+E+F+G Industry
More efficient
Less efficient
Standard of Company A
Fig.13 Concept of company evaluation
InLCA/LCM 2003�Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
ConclusionConclusion• CO2 efficiency index was developed from I-O table
data for the evaluation of industry sectors.
• The CO2 efficiency varies by industry sector.
• The conparison of companys’ CO2 efficiency against I-O based industry sector CO2 efficiency is possible.
• A clear difinition of system boundary will be necessary for better resolution of company’s CO2 efficiency.
• Further examination and comparison of company’s “eco-efficiency” and its detailed investigation in relation to economic value index should be explored.