&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
AlChE
/
INSF
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable
Product Systems and Supply Chains
September 12-13, 2011
Arlington, Virginia
Final Report
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Troy Hawkins, Chair
Maria Burka
Heriberto Cabezas
Bruce Hamilton
Darlene Schuster
Raymond Smith
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Ignacio Grossmann
Thomas Theis
Eric Williams
Bert Bras
Raj Srinivasan
Bhavik Bakshi
SaifBenjafaar
Alan Hecht
SUPPORT STAFF
Susan Anastasi
Michelle Nguyen
Erin Chan
Dan Tisch
Donna Jackson
Sonia Williams
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 1
About the Workshop, Goals, and Overview 3
Workshop Schedule 4
Summary 7
Appendix A:
Goals of the Workshop A-2
List of Participants A-3
Biosketches A-5
Position Statements A-26
Notes from Breakout Group Sessions A-69
Appendix B:
"Welcome to the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply
Chains Workshop" B-2
Bert Bras, "Design of Sustainable Products Systems and Supply Chains: Some
Concepts, Cases, and Lessons from an Engineering Perspective" B-ll
Thomas Theis, "Consumption, Sustainability, and Social Benefits" B-25
Bill Flanagan, "LCA from an Industry Perspective" B-37
Joseph Fiksel, "EPA Sustainability and the Design of Sustainable
Product Networks and Supply Chains" B-46
Bruce Hamilton, "Funding Opportunities atNSF for Proposals on
Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains" B-57
Cynthia Nolt-Helms, "P3 (People, Prosperity and the Planet) Award Program:
A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability" B-70
Ignacio Grossman, "Discussion of Session II Breakout Questions" B-81
Eric Williams, "Orientation for Session III" B-93
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable
Product Systems and Supply Chains
September 12-13, 2011
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA
ABOUT THE WORKSHOP
The Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains was held
September 12-13, 2011 at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) offices in Arlington,
Virginia. The Workshop was co-sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Office of Research and Development (ORD), the National Science Foundation, (NSF) and the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Center for Sustainable Technology Practices.
The purpose of the Workshop was to foster collaboration and promote the development of a
research community focused on sustainability and supply chains. This was accomplished by
bringing together a diverse group of researchers and other professionals with experience relevant
to sustainable supply chain design.
GOALS OF THE WORKSHOP
The goal of the workshop was to engage experts with experience in several areas. From experts
with experience working within a broad, systems perspective, the goal was to elicit
understanding of the key shortcomings of current practices and identify practical ways in which
new or repurposed approaches could be integrated within existing frameworks. In the case of
experts with experience working within a narrower focus, the goal was to work together to
understand how these approaches could be integrated within existing frameworks or larger-scale
models. Finally, the goal was also to explore opportunities for applying discipline-specific
approaches to other problems related to the design of sustainable supply chains.
OVERVIEW
The following report provides the agenda of the meeting events, an executive summary of the
reports back from the Breakout Groups, as well as additional perspectives. The report includes
two Appendices: the first provides the notes from the Breakout Group sessions, as well as
meeting materials, including the goals of the meeting, a list of participants, biosketches and
position statements of the participants, and complete contact information on the participants; the
second provides the PowerPoint presentations given at the meeting. Readers are advised to refer
to these resources for more detailed information.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12,2011
WORKSHOP SESSION I: PERSPECTIVES ON THE DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT SYSTEMS
AND SUPPLY CHAINS
Introduction of Organizing Committee & Staff Support
Troy Hawkins, ORD, EPA
Welcome to NSF
Bruce Hamilton and Maria Burka
Introductions of Participants
Workshop Goals and Overview
Troy Hawkins
PRESENTATIONS
Design of Sustainable Products Systems and Supply Chains: Some Concepts, Cases, and
Lessons from an Engineering Perspective
Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology
Consumption, Sustainability, and Social Benefits
Thomas Theis, University of Illinois, Chicago
Avoiding Unintended Consequences in the Design of Sustainable Supply Chains
Sherilyn Brodersen, Kraft Foods
LCA from an Industry Perspective
Bill Flanagan, GE Global Research
EPA Sustainability and the Design of Sustainable Product Networks and Supply Chains
Joseph Fiksel, U.S. EPA, The Ohio State University
SUPPORTING SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING RESEARCH THROUGH NSF AND EPA
Funding Opportunities at NSF for Proposals on Sustainable Product Systems and Supply
Chains
Bruce Hamilton, NSF
P3 (People, Prosperity, and the Planet) Award Program: A National Student Design
Competition for Sustainability
Cynthia Nolt-Helms, National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), EPA
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
SESSION II: DISCIPLINARY DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Discussion of Session II Breakout Questions
Ignacio Grossman, Carnegie Mellon University
Participants were provided with the following series of questions to discuss in their Breakout
Groups:
1. What are the challenging industry and societal problems to be solved? What are the
future drivers for design of sustainable products, manufacturing systems and supply
chains? What are the next generation sustainable design-enabled strength areas in the
U.S.?
2. Where are the gaps in knowledge? What are the problems faced by existing sustainable
design capabilities?
3. What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products, manufacturing systems,
and supply chains?
SESSION III: WHAT ARE THE COMMON PROBLEMS, COMMON AREAS OF NEED,
COMPLEMENTARY AREAS TO BE INTERFACED, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
FERTILIZATION FACILITATED BY DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT SYSTEMS AND SUPPLY
CHAINS?
Orientation for Session III
Eric Williams, Rochester Institute of Technology
The Breakout Groups were asked to discuss the following specific questions within their groups:
• Group 1: How does sustainable design affect or impact economic drivers?
• Group 2: What technologies/tools and their integration are needed, where is the expertise,
and what is the state of technical capability?
• Group 3: What are the respective roles of industry, government, and academia and how
should they interrelate? What partnerships/coalitions are needed?
• Group 4: How will new and emerging technologies and capabilities need to affect
organization roles and responsibilities (academia/industry, researcher/research teams)?
• Group 5: Where education and training are needed?
BREAKOUT GROUPS REPORT BACK
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,2011
SESSION IV - WORKSHOP DELIVERABLES
On the second day of the workshop, the participants were asked to work within their groups to
discuss the following issues and develop recommendations in the context of near-term and long-
term, priority, and reality:
1. Identify and exemplify major application impacts, directions, and the potential for design
of sustainable product systems and supply chains
2. Identify and recommend research areas that aim toward the fulfillment of this potential
3. Identify associated areas of needed emphasis with sustainable design education and
training, interdisciplinary development, and support and approaches to collaboration.
The Breakout Groups were also asked to answer the following questions:
1. What investments are needed by whom, financial and other?
2. What are the key learnings and take-aways from the workshop?
SESSION IV BREAKOUT GROUPS REPORT BACK
WRAP UP AND NEXT STEPS
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
SUMMARY
By Troy R. Hawkins and Raymond L. Smith
Who participated in the workshop?
The workshop brought together 50 participants selected to represent a range of expertise related
to sustainable product systems and supply chains. Participants were selected based on their
ability to contribute to discussions based on their experience, accomplishments, and current
positions. The most represented discipline was engineering, including in particular chemical,
environmental, civil, and mechanical. Participation by country included Brazil, Germany, the
Netherlands, Singapore, and the U.S. U.S. participants represented a wide range of regional
perspectives with a bias toward the east coast, Ohio, and Washington D.C. Participation by
sector could be broken down roughly as one-tenth non-profit, one-fifth industry, one-third
academic, and one-third government. The government portion included representatives of the
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and
National Science Foundation.
Why Design Sustainable Products and Supply Chains? Framing the Issues.
Sustainability is a unifying concept underlying a wide range of efforts to improve the
performance of human-influenced systems in terms of their effects on natural resources,
ecosystems, human health, and long-term viability. Decision-makers in both industry and
government are under increasing pressure to incorporate Sustainability considerations into their
activities. At the same time, industry must respond to globalization and constantly evolving
resource challenges through improved economic efficiency, and policy-makers are under intense
pressure to promote domestic job creation and retention and reduce budget deficits through
decreasing spending and improving efficiency. A key sustainability-related concern is that the
pace of this economic development has set up a situation where traditional market forces may
not respond quickly enough to the constraints of natural systems to prevent undesirable and
potentially severe consequences. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that competing
economic and regulatory drivers often create barriers to effective collaboration between industry
and policy-makers around the topics of Sustainability or environmental conservation.
Sustainable development has been famously defined by the World Commission on the
Environment as: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.1" Discussion around the industrial and
societal problems that must be addressed in order to meet this mandate focused on ensuring long-
term and uninterrupted resource availability, maintaining human and ecosystem health, and
minimizing disruption of natural cycles. The primary resource availability concerns expressed at
the workshop included hydrocarbon sources for fuels and chemical feedstocks including
petroleum, natural gas, and coal; water; phosphate; minerals and organic matter relevant for soil
fertility; rare earth and other elements used in high tech applications; and other scarce minerals.
Human health concerns related primarily to airborne emissions and other releases associated with
1 WCED (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Paris,
France, United Nations.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
acute and chronic exposure issues as well as long-lived and bioaccumulative pollutants.
Ecosystem health concerns related primarily to the maintenance of ecosystem services and
concerns regarding complexity and unanticipated consequences. The minimization of disruption
of natural cycles is closely related to ecosystem health and refers to concerns regarding the
unprecedented scale of the effect of human activities on natural systems including the cycling of
carbon, nitrogen, water, phosphorus, and biomass resources. An overarching theme throughout
discussions was the imperatives of responding to climate change, shifting toward energy
pathways that can be maintained over the long-term, reducing and improving the efficiency of
water use, avoiding dissipative uses of materials, minimizing the footprint of human production
and consumption activities, and improving human health and worker safety.
An exponentially increasing population, the global imperative of economic growth, and
increasing consumption in fast growing economies result in strong pressures counteracting
efforts to achieve sustainability and establish a situation where a slow or delayed response means
that even greater actions could be required in the future to mitigate human-induced disruptions
and restore balance. Key dynamics include the rising middle class in emerging economies such
as the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China and the failure of wealthy nations to
mount a sufficient response to sustainability concerns. From the perspective of businesses,
appropriately responding to sustainability is hampered by short-term decision horizons and the
failure of markets to value externalities. From the perspective of regulatory agencies, effective
decision-making is made particularly challenging by the complex interplay of social, economic,
and environmental factors. At the intersection of industry and government, the failure of
government to provide predictable policy actions or even to clearly express priorities hampers
investment in sustainable technologies and product pathways. Relatedly, the need for policy
leading to the creative destruction of industries in response to sustainable development is
counteracted by the vested interests of well-established industries and their ability to influence
policy-making through lobbying efforts. To date, scientific communities have been unable to
provide a clear consensus regarding priorities and how to effectively regulate for sustainable
development while sufficiently accounting for the framework and constraints under which they
operate. The research community is facing a challenge unlike any it has previously dealt with
owing to the urgency of sustainability concerns together with the irreducible complexity and the
high-degree of interaction between areas of study traditionally addressed by distinct fields.
Unwillingness to make sacrifices in analyzing tradeoffs, perverse outcomes of well-intentioned
policy, the proliferation of partially informed findings, and apparent scientific flip-flops lead to
contentious public discourse and confound decision-making.
Recent U.S. experience with biofuels policy provides an oft discussed example. The desire to
promote domestically sourced energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lead to the
enactment of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in the U.S. Initial modeling
efforts lead to the decision that renewable fuels would be classified as those capable of providing
at least a 20% improvement in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions when compared with
conventional gasoline. First considerations included primarily combustion-related emissions
along the supply chain. Desire for a prompt regulatory response meant that these analyses were
acted on in the final rulemaking. Subsequent studies raised a host of concerns and have lead to
significant debate regarding the wisdom of initial rulemaking. Meanwhile, litigation, legal
mandates, and other pressures stand in the way of immediately revisiting the regulatory
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
framework. The grand challenge is to collectively learn from this and other similar experiences
and to move forward through preemptively engaging the scientific community to ensure that the
necessary data and models are available for decision-makers in the government and industrial
sectors and their supporting partners in NGOs, research institutes, and academia to draw upon
early in future decision processes.
Drivers for the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains
Discussion around the question, "what are the future drivers for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems, and supply chains?" could be organized into the high-level categories
policy drivers and market drivers. Under these headings, policy drivers could be placed along a
spectrum between government-initiated and industry or externally-initiated. Market drivers
could be cleanly divided into supply-driven and demand-driven.
To place the policy drivers of sustainability in context, it should be noted that the policies
themselves are responses to pressure from the public or special interest groups. Government-
initiated policy refers to policies first promulgated through legislative or regulatory mechanisms
while externally-initiated policy refers in this case to voluntary standards first developed by
industries or non-governmental organizations. The Energy Independence and Security Act and
the associated Renewable Fuels Standards are an example of government-initiated policy
intended, in some respects, to serve as a driver of sustainability while the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) Standards promulgated by the US Green Building Council,
the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative promulgated jointly by the World Resources Institute and
the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the Forest Stewardship Council
Certification Program all provide examples of externally-initiated drivers of sustainability.
The government clearly plays an important role in creating rules for markets that correct for
externality distortions or preemptive adjustments to prevent sudden and undesirable crashes.
Nonetheless, there are a number of ways in which even well-intentioned policy can hinder
sustainability. In many cases, meeting sustainability goals requires dramatic changes to existing
systems. This fact coupled with the irreducible complexity of the systems involved and
legislative and regulatory constraints raises significant challenges to basing decisions on a
comprehensive understanding of the implications. Thus, while policy can drive the creation of
value from sustainable solutions, mechanisms such as subsidies often result in less than optimal
outcomes and undesirable distortions. Stakeholder engagement, early involvement of industry in
framing policy, and being open to mid-course correction can help avoid or correct unintended
consequences. However, the uncertainty associated with impending policy changes hinders
investment and delays adoption of sustainability measures. Even policies intended to provide
benefits in an area seemingly isolated from sustainability outcomes may work against
sustainability when actions are taken in isolation of broader system implications. In this vein,
economic growth policies are often cited as drivers of unsustainable consumption patterns. In a
more targeted example, efforts to promote environmentally-preferable purchasing within the
government sector have to date been stymied by the vast array of other regulatory requirements
for and restrictions on government contracts. In summary, there is general agreement that policy
is an important driver of sustainability, yet there are a number of considerations which must be
taken to ensure that the pressures applied have an overall positive effect.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
-------
Economic markets also serve as drivers of sustainability. In the best case, supply constraints are
internalized in market pricing and markets adjust appropriately. Within industry, the perception
of risk associated with resource availability drives current efforts to minimize the use of energy,
water, and selected materials. Proactive efforts related to sustainability on the supply side
include the scenario considerations behind investment decisions involving fixed, long-lasting
infrastructure and efforts to increase the resilience of supply chains to supply shocks. These
decisions are made directly through management decisions but also indirectly through the pricing
models applied on the behalf of private investors. Insurance can also serve as a driver to the
extent that sustainability-relevant risks are incorporated in premium pricing. For example,
insurance has already begun to consider connections between global climate change, the
frequency and severity of weather events, and effects on coastal communities.
A second type of market driver is on the demand-side. From a company perspective, these
drivers take the form of product differentiation, long-term branding, and sustainability in terms
of corporate longevity. Educating consumers about sustainability serves to strengthen demand
for sustainable products and services. As markets evolve, so do the ways in which they drive
movement toward or away from sustainable outcomes. Key dynamics include providing for a
rapidly growing global population, bottom of the pyramid design, and providing for a growing
consumer class.
Sustainable design in itself affects economic drivers. Sustainable design represents a change to
an existing market. Organizations will fall somewhere along the development profile for an
industry: innovator, early adopter, early minority, late majority, and laggard. For innovative
organizations in a leadership position, sustainable design could potentially be a competitive
advantage reducing liabilities, allowing for early influence with political organizations, and
improvements in brand performance with consumers. For organizations responding to changes,
their position is to minimize the cost of catch up, discredit green claims, take a legal defensive
position, and obfuscate policy-making.
Competitive pressures can act to delay advancement. Modifying existing business practices
introduces risks which may not be sufficiently rewarded through competitive advantage alone.
The existence of externalities and incentives to benefit individually from collectively destructive
behaviors leads to the tragedy of the commons. By nature, professional organizations are slow to
adopt new designs or modify existing standards or establish criteria that could be perceived as
advantaging a particular firm or that are associated with a foreign company.
Policy actions, economic drivers, and sustainable design cannot be separated. Differences
between environmental regulations and true costs can skew markets. Subsidies can jump start
new technologies, but may not be efficient in achieving long-term goals. Externality markets
such as those for sulphur or carbon dioxide can level the playing field, but they must first address
import concerns. In the case of certain externality markets, such as carbon, the legislative
mandate is yet to be determined. When promoting technologies, decision-makers need to be
aware of scarce materials, scalability, and unintended consequences. There are marked
differences between optimal outcomes from individual versus collective perspectives, as is
demonstrated by controversy surrounding the long-term consequences of destroying habitat.
From a company perspective, there are economic advantages to sustainable product lines.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 10
-------
Litigation, insurance, and infrastructure are all important considerations which must be
incorporated in sustainable design efforts.
Opportunities for the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains
Moving forward, the viability of an economy within the increasingly flat Earth2 requires
continual adjustments and creative destruction. In the case of certain industries, sustainable
design requires significant shifts. In these cases, there is a distinct opportunity to redirect
expertise within marginal industries toward their next-generation corollaries within a sustainable
system. Affecting this shift proactively places companies in a leadership role and offers growth
opportunities not available under the status quo. Examples of such shifts include redirecting
expertise in pulp and paper toward bio-refineries, in fossil-based supply chains toward bio-based
analogs, off-shore oil platforms toward floating wind turbines, waste management toward
material recovery, primary material beneficiation toward secondary materials recovery, and
logistics management to materials tracking.
There are a number of key challenges to sustainability that offer distinct opportunities for
sustainable design in conjunction with research and development. New technologies can be
game changing in terms of our understanding of sustainable systems. These include innovative
designs for renewable energy sources, material recovery, material and energy efficient
technologies, and material substitution. Sustainable design is essential to ensuring the safety and
viability of high tech solutions developed via the fields of nanotechnology, nano-manufacturing,
cyber-infrastructure, advanced information technologies, and biotechnology.
Beyond targeted improvements, the development of highly efficient networks and industrial
symbiosis offers an opportunity for applying sustainable design capabilities and transforming
regional economies. A framework and tools are needed for optimizing and assessing highly
interconnected material and energy networks in terms of their benefits and implications for
regional economies, ecosystems, health, and social conditions. This would allow for harnessing
the greater global effectiveness of a well designed system that would not be accomplished
through the status quo of optimization from an individual perspective.
Informing government sustainability policy offers a distinct opportunity for sustainable design.
The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of adopting sustainability as the
paradigm for protection of human health and the environment. Sustainability offers a means of
promoting coordination and efficiency across agencies. Tools capable of providing quantitative
results actionable for regulatory impact assessment incorporating sustainability concerns
represent a vision for the next generation of cost benefit analysis and risk assessment studies.
Sustainability is inherent in corporate efforts to promote their brand in over the long term. In this
sense, brand sustainability and sustainability in the broader sense can progress hand in hand.
This realization is driving many corporate sustainability efforts and private sustainability
consortia which allow corporations a better means of engaging their suppliers around a broad
range of sustainability-relevant concerns. New efforts related to conservation coupled with the
2 Friedman, T. (2005). The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, New York,
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 11
-------
rapid exchange of information through social networking have placed a new burden on
companies to be cognizant of a broad array of issues across their supply chains. This fact has led
to a new market for tools that address these concerns in a comprehensive and concrete way.
The opportunities for designing sustainable products, manufacturing systems, and supply chains
involve organizations, methods, impacts, technologies, and policies. Organizational
opportunities center on collaboration. Solutions are needed at multiple scales (local to global),
so prospects for crossover efforts between small scale interests (e.g., small businesses or
communities) and larger ones (such as corporations, cities, or regional and national
organizations) with academic and NGO input can work toward designing more sustainable
systems. As businesses focus on sustainability issues it might be possible (assuming it's legal)
for pre-competitive collaboration networks to develop, where these noncompetitive groups work
on a sector approach to specific issues. In research, collaborations need to focus on long term
sustainability or at least bridge the gap from short term solutions to the longer term. Researchers
could develop design consortia that compete to be the most sustainable. Another research
opportunity would involve cross-industry symbiosis to both work together and to focus on
sustainable material management, a term geared toward valuing every material rather than
labeling some output streams as waste.
Methods and tools for sustainable design are needed. In particular, it would be beneficial to have
tools that allow for rapid screening and assessment of supply chain and product systems.
Another perspective would be meta-modeling (i.e., models of models) for assessing systems
and/or for creating a single integrated system model. Specific methods could include industry
standards, crowd sourcing, and resilience of systems to pressures or impacts.
Various impacts are of interest in the design of these systems. Climate change is at the forefront
of many lists of concerns (although perhaps in part because other impacts have been studied
extensively and releases controlled for a much longer time). Another topical area is reusing,
remanufacturing, and recycling, where these methods are used to (potentially) conserve material
and energy feedstocks. Knowing when to apply these methods to conserve materials would be
valuable information. In addition, the availability of specific materials over time is a natural area
for sustainability analysis. Determining whether a specific material can be substituted for is not
necessary a straight forward problem since the use of materials is always done in context, which
defines the opportunity for replacement.
The replacement of rare earth elements is an example of a technology of current interest. Others
of interest range from efficient shale extraction and clean coal to carbon sequestration. A
renewable source of materials worth studying is algae, although currently it appears
breakthroughs are needed to make it a cost effective source. On the product side, RFID systems
could be exploited to improve systems and develop information.
A discussion of these systems would not be complete without considering policy. Some believe
that the connection of technology and policy is the analysis of systems, so that an informed
policy can guide system development. The idea is that policy will affect funding and finance,
which will determine development. A question of interest is whether this end can be achieved
through efficiency improvements rather than increased consumption. For instance, is the answer
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 12
-------
(i.e., means) an eco-design standard? In most cases one finds trade-offs between policy desires
and also between the means of achieving desires. Can schemes be developed to deal with
various trade-offs that are inherent to sustainable systems? The answers may be relatively
simple, but may not necessary be easy to implement as policies. Perhaps one could hope that
misinformation can be avoided, and if not, then education appears as a clear need.
Knowledge Gaps and Barriers
In the design of sustainable supply chains and product systems knowledge gaps and barriers can
limit the development of systems. The costs in filling gaps and overcoming barriers offer
resistance towards achieving a holistic and complete analysis, and the risks associated with gaps
and barriers preclude strong moves to develop sustainable systems in the short term. Proponents
of a these sustainable systems are often unaware of the historic development that has led to the
current system. At the same time, detractors have not been educated or are unable to envision a
system that differs significantly from the current system.
As people work on supply chain and product network problems, they face a number of issues.
For instance, is research on these systems to be industrially focused, or take into account aspects
that many would consider more academic (e.g., ecological economics)? Can these be brought
together so that actual values replace current costs, which do not represent certain externalities,
like permitted pollution? If research needs to meet incremental goals, especially always
improving profitability, can one expect it to also meet long term sustainability goals? One
should also realize that when research is focused in this way, it's likely that education is as well.
Supply chain and product system designers are striving to optimize aspects of the system,
meeting criteria for costs, resources, feed or product quality, robustness, timeliness, etc. As one
considers various vulnerabilities and uncertainties the opportunities for simultaneously
approaching a sustainable solution are limited. In fact, a process that is flexible enough to handle
large fluctuations is inherently far from optimized.
In addition, the results of analyses are most often performed in silos of a particular sector, media,
risk, or impact category. When analyses are attempted holistically they are often time
consuming and confusing without offering a quantifiable overall goal, and answers like "it
depends" are very difficult to work with. Instead of working holistically some will focus on
material scarcity (for both energy and material feedstocks), while others focus on an impact, like
greenhouse gases. And even if a complete analysis is done, one has to question whether one
really knows all of the possible impacts. Further, methods which purport to encompass all
effects (e.g., full cost accounting) normally fall short. Other methods, like standards or score
cards, only address a necessarily limited field.
The analyses which attempt to meet long term sustainability goals face barriers themselves.
These large analysis problems always deal with data inventory issues. Data sets lack a consensus
of researchers who agree to their appropriateness (sometimes logically so, since a different use
can require a different inventory data focus). In step with this lack of consensus is the lack of
standards for openly shared data. Even when inventory data are developed to be transparent and
complete it is still very difficult to verify results. Beyond the inventory data, impact assessment
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 13
-------
results add another layer of complexity which is difficult to verify and interpret. The
interpretation is especially difficult across disparate goals like money, risks, and various impact
categories.
Educational Needs
The educational needs for the design of more sustainable supply chains and product systems can
be implemented through educating youth, college, and graduate students, funding and
implementing research projects, and preparing professors. Much of this education is simply
about sustainability or the environment, rather than any concentrated focus on supply chains or
product systems.
For young people education opportunities usually come through topics that allow subject matter
to overlap with meeting other curricula demands. Youth are often receptive to ideas about
sustainability, but may not be exposed to the ideas. Some can get experience through
extracurricular activities. For those who will obtain their information through K-12 classes, a
promotion of science teachers with knowledge of sustainability would help. Education of those
teachers presents another gap.
Science teachers and other college students / graduates can be provided with courses or class
modules that focus on sustainability issues. For those whose future work could relate to supply
chains and/or product systems, there is an opportunity to receive information that is directly
relevant during college. Professors need to develop classes and have modules (or whole books)
available to them to educate their students. In some college settings there may be an opportunity
to encourage cross disciplinary teams of students to work on various aspects of a sustainability
(supply chain or product system) problem. This holistic approach which integrates system
thinking breaks from the silo-based method of learning, and can address problems of significance
like the sustainability of energy, water, and improving / maintaining quality of life.
The diverse team that can approach issues from across disciplines is perhaps uniquely qualified
for research funding. Funding that focuses on sustainability (for supply chains and product
systems) can guide development that leads to daily activities (both in everyday living and
business) that are sustainable. To move in that direction, organizations can continue or adopt
similar funding of research like NSF's Innovation Corps (I-Corps) Program that promotes
technologies, products, and processes for the benefit of society. Also, funding can develop PhD
scientists and engineers through programs such as the Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT). The implementation of associated research projects can develop
ideas for sustainable systems and well-rounded able researchers.
One place where the academic model does not do well is in developing industrially oriented
professors. If the path to becoming a professor remains (most commonly) to progress from a
PhD program to a postdoctoral position followed by becoming a professor, then professors will
not obtain much industrial experience. This experience is important in educating people about
real-world sustainability (for supply chains and product systems).
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 14
-------
Technical Needs
During Session III of the workshop, certain breakout groups were tasked with responding to the
questions: What technologies/tools and their integration are needed, where is the expertise, and
what is the state of technical capability? This section is based on the notes from these groups,
the larger group discussion that took place in connection with their report out, and some
additional points pulled from other discussions that took place during the course of the sessions.
There was general consensus that system-level analyses are needed to synthesize a broad range
of considerations into information relevant for decision-making. A transition is needed to move
beyond one-off analyses with a singular focus to more inclusive, systems-level studies to provide
actionable information related to technology transitions addressing dynamic relationships
between different aspects of the system. In the case of biofuels, this might involve pulling
together dynamic relationships between market effects, government initiatives such as the
Conservation Reserve Program, physical and biological effects such as carbon and nutrient flows
to and from soils, and behavioral analysis of key actors in supply chains such as farmers,
commodity traders, fuel retailers, and consumers. And in fact, a system dynamics modeling
approach is being applied to biofuel systems by the Department of Energy. In addition to the
systems dynamic approach, the integration of life cycle assessment and risk assessment with
incorporation of behavioral aspects was also specifically proposed as a pathway toward a well-
organized and more inclusive system analysis approach.
In order to provide the necessary systems analysis capability, data and tools for seamless,
consistent analyses at multiple scales need to be developed. A key tradeoff is between the
accuracy associated with the narrow scale analysis versus the uncertainty/variability of the more
comprehensive scale analysis. A challenge for research and development moving forward is to
continue to develop models capable of maintaining the rigor associated with narrow analyses
while extending the scope to include all of the system aspects at play.
A number of specific research needs were identified which contribute to the overarching goal of
supporting systems level analyses including. A primary need is for well organized datasets that
could be leveraged in systems analyses, in particular life cycle inventory data which are updated
and maintained and provided at a low cost. Another research need is for the development of
models incorporating non-linear, dynamic relationships to provide predictive capability in
connection with life cycle assessment.
Another category of technical needs address gaps in the practical tools and approaches available
to practitioners. These include the practical need for an agreed upon approach for producing
streamlined or qualitative life cycle assessment studies. Because of the large amount of data and
detailed analysis associated with a full LCA study, it often becomes impractical to apply LCA in
certain areas where the available time and resources cannot support it or where the number of
potential options is large. Related to this need is the need for product-specific models that could
be incorporated in the design workflow to allow for parametric studies of design alternatives.
When more complete systems analysis studies are performed, there is also a need for linking
with benchmarking tools to allow for comparison to standard or consensus-based results or to
allow for data envelope analysis.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 15
-------
Alongside the need for more inclusive analyses lies the need for integration of uncertainty in
assessments. This need must be addressed at various levels. First, data and models must be
developed in a way which captures uncertainty. For data this will involve recording not only
static values, but ranges or distributions describing the variation of values under a specified set of
conditions. Second, decisions must be made on the basis of likelihoods rather than definitive
results and arrangements must be put in place for adjusting directions based on new information.
This is especially true in connection with policies and decisions made in support of sustainability
considering the wide range of considerations and the evolving nature of the science. This is not
to say actions should not be taken, rather that policies should be developed following a no regrets
approach taking into account a range of alternative outcomes for uncertain aspects and choosing
a path that would yield benefits regardless of the way uncertain aspects turn out. Such an
approach is taken by insurance companies to set policy rates and has been used in connection
with infrastructure investments such as the development of harbors under consideration of the
potential for sea level rise.
A clearly identified set of attributes that should be measured in connection with the design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains is another requirement for moving forward.
While definitions for sustainability exist and are to a large extent agreed upon within the context
of product systems and supply chains, there are a wide variety of characteristics which are
tracked in connection with this definition, for example:
fuel efficiency, weight, resource use, scarcity, conflict materials, emissions,
material and use intensity, life cycle water use, labor practices, local employment,
durability/longevity/upgradability/recyclable, local sourcing, avoidance of
hazardous, scarce, or conflict materials, use of recycled content where possible,
incorporation of remanufacturing opportunities, use of renewable materials and
energy, minimization of water and energy requirements, closed loop recycling of
resources where possible, conversion of residual wastes to byproducts,
appropriate utilization of ecosystem services, avoidance of airborne emissions,
noise and dust, minimization of transport and packaging requirements, customer-
supplier collaboration on sustainable design solutions, emphasis on occupational
and public safety, encouragement of supplier diversity and social responsibility,
responsible and ethical treatment of workers, support for local capacity
development
This list is not comprehensive in any sense, but rather provides insight into the broad range of
considerations which could fall under the umbrella of sustainability. In practice, this long list of
concerns presents a distinct challenge for businesses seeking to address sustainability in their
operations. There is clearly a need for a consensus-based set of attributes and/or sustainability
metrics which could be used to inform the design of sustainable supply chains. Together with
this set of attributes, there is a need for straightforward and streamlined approaches for assessing
each attribute to avoid placing an overly burdensome responsibility on individual businesses and
to provide certainty in connection with addressing sustainability concerns.
One approach to addressing everything must be included barrier to integrating sustainability with
operational activities is to narrow the field of considerations associated with specific products
through the use of product category rules. Product category rules provide consensus-based
information regarding the hotspots associated with a particular product system and/or supply
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 16
-------
chain thereby providing a more focused framework within which decisions regarding that
product could be made. However, the needs for development of product category rules in many
ways relate back to the needs that must be met in order to support the design of sustainable
product systems and supply chains. The process of developing product category rules should
include a broad range of sustainability considerations. The advantage is that when a product
category affects a number of businesses, there is the potential for pooling resources or at least
leveraging a single effort to inform a broad range of companies involved in activities related to
that product category. Product category rules must be developed such that they are flexible
enough to incorporate new findings that arise over time and that they appropriately acknowledge
uncertainly so as to avoid the shifting sands associated with making definitive statements based
on inconclusive data.
There is also a need for new expertise in the workplace in connection with the move toward
designing product systems and supply chains for sustainability. In terms of domain-specific
expertise, there is no shortage. The U.S. maintains a well-educated workforce. However, there
is currently an expertise gap in the area of integrating the wide variety of models and data
necessary for gauging sustainability with the workflow used in the development of products.
One approach to filling this gap is through engaging enterprise resource planning and product
lifecycle management providers to provide new software tools and to further develop existing
tools to address sustainability within the context of existing operational protocols. In fact, some
such tools already exist and others are under development. However, these tools will still require
users capable of running them and appropriately interpreting results.
An area of expertise that will be required to a greater extent as efforts to design sustainable
products systems and supply chains move forward is for individuals capable of validating the
models and accounting developed in support of these efforts. The market is already beginning to
respond to this demand as can be seen in the growth of the consulting industry related to
environmental sustainability and life cycle assessment. While transparent models and data are
needed to provide a consensus-basis for sustainability assessments, it is also clear that
confidential business information will dictate an increase in demand for third party validation
should data-intensive supply chain sustainability assessments become an industry standard.
Continuing to support education initiatives designed to develop a pool of well-educated
practitioners in this area would help meet this need. Also, processes will need to adapt to the
need for greater scrutiny associated with sustainability concerns. For product design, this may
involve additional steps in the process and additional iterations as a broader range of
considerations are addressed. Changes may also be required in the policy-making process as
understanding the implications of policy initiatives for product systems and supply chains may
require more extensive regulatory impact assessment than has been done previously.
Approaches to validation and a pool of qualified independent validators may be needed in both
cases.
While designing sustainable product systems and supply chains will require new expertise, it is
important to keep in mind that this expertise cannot supplant the conventional domain expertise
which has traditionally been applied to product and supply chain design. Rather, domain
expertise must be integrated with sustainability concerns in the decision-making process. To
address this need, already many education institutions are integrating sustainability with
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 17
-------
traditional engineering and business programs. This approach is useful for preparing the future
workforce to understand the premise behind sustainability and to have an appreciation for the
approaches used to design sustainable systems. As these complex considerations can only be
addressed through interaction with cross disciplinary teams and coordination of efforts to achieve
synergies, it is increasingly important that the interpersonal and teamwork expertise relevant to
these interactions also be cultivated and rewarded. Incorporating a range of considerations in
decision-making also requires expertise in understanding the variety of metrics tracked,
processing these into a condensed set of information, and dealing with tradeoffs and multi-
criteria decisions. Integrating sustainability with traditional fields such as risk assessment,
operations management, mathematics, optimization, economics, public health, and behavioral
sciences could serve as a means of developing the required expertise.
A number of other specific needs for technical development in association with the design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains were expressed. Key needs are formulated in the
following list.
• Screening level risk assessment approaches starting with general principles such as
irreversibility and accumulation in environment, before moving on to complex endpoints
• Sustainability metrics and means of communicating risks, understanding the limitations
of existing metrics and improving our ability to communicate the potential risks
associated with current and emerging technologies
• Approaches for accounting for differences in the timing of outcomes. How do you
discount future problems or benefits to inform today's decisions?
• Approaches for incorporating uncertainty regarding future scenarios and adapt them for
application to design decision-making, perhaps incorporating techniques used by the
insurance industry.
• Organizational structures capable of promoting data availability and transparency while
maintaining confidentiality
• Impact assessment methods focused on specific issues associated with emerging
technologies (our ability to make a new technology vastly outstrips our ability to answer
questions about its impact)
Roles Moving Forward
Building the capacity for designing and maintaining sustainable product systems and supply
chains requires the involvement of a number of stakeholders. Government, academia, industry,
and non-governmental organizations each play a role. These groups must interrelate with one
another effectively. In some cases partnerships and coalitions are necessary while in others a
certain amount of adversarial debate and even litigation is needed.
During the Session III of the workshop, the following questions were posed. What are the
respective roles of industry, government, and academia and how should they interrelate? What
partnerships/coalitions are needed? How will new and emerging technologies and capabilities
need to affect organization roles and responsibilities, academia, industry, researchers, and
research teams? This section is informed by the discussion around these questions.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 18
-------
The Role of Industry
Industry is the key player in the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains. While
other groups play roles in providing means and creating the right conditions, in the long term,
success requires incorporate sustainable design in all aspects of business. In our capitalist
society, industry includes the ownership of production systems and is comprised of the direct
decision-makers regarding products and supply chains. Industry is the supply chain and the
structure of industry is a key component of sustainability.
Industry's primary focus is, and will always be to deliver value to consumers. It is unreasonable
to expect industry to play a strong role in a move toward sustainable product systems and supply
chains without providing the right conditions within which to operate. That said, in many cases
industry plays an important role in determining conditions through branding and advertising to
influence consumer choice on one hand and lobbying activities to affect policy on the other. A
role for industry in the move toward sustainability is to view these activities through the lens of
sustainability. Promoting sustainability and providing a more sustainable product are good for
branding and advertising and can contribute to the long-term success of a brand. Similarly,
influencing regulation and market conditions to provide advantage associated with sustainability
can lead to stable economic growth and a competitive advantage on the world market in the long-
term. Accomplishing this requires adopting an honest assessment of the sustainability
implications of an industry and using this to gauge long-term profitability. The move toward
sustainable product systems and supply chains will involve growth in many areas, but also
decreased activity and strategic shifts in others.
In the midst of the shift toward sustainable design, leveraging industry expertise is crucial.
Given the right opportunities, industry will provide expert input to research and development as
well as policy-setting activities. The attitude of individuals in industry and their organizations
should be one of respect and receptiveness regarding input from other industry experts,
academics, non-governmental organizations, and government. This input should be used to
formulate appropriate responses and incorporated into decision-making while industry experts
also serve as key voices in the public conversation ensuring that the knowledge and perspectives
gained through business experience are well represented and incorporated.
The Role of Government
A primary role of government related to supply chain sustainability is to protect. In the case of
the Environmental Protection Agency this role is made explicit, to protect human health and the
environment. Other government agencies have missions involving other aspects of protection
relevant for sustainability, for example the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Agriculture
(USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of Energy (DOE)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the DOE Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Government
protection can take the form of rules and initiatives which restrict hazardous activities, but can
also involve partnering with other organizations to develop and implement means of minimizing
risks and reducing compliance costs.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 19
-------
Another role played by government is to remedy market failures. The benefit of a free market is
that it is self-regulating in many ways, this is the idea of the invisible hand. Nonetheless, there
are cases in which certain externalities are not well-represented in the considerations governing
behavior within a free market or in which society is unwilling to accept the scale of
consequences required to evoke a market reaction. In other cases, society is unwilling to impose
an unequal burden on individuals or groups negatively impacted by market forces. In these
cases, government has played a role in setting boundaries or creating incentives to minimize
negative externalities and provide justice. Although it is sometimes the object of contention, the
government also plays a role in providing a level playing field and overseeing that welfare is
created through the application of fair rules.
These two roles, protection and remedying market failures, could potentially lead to a number of
government actions that would promote the design of sustainable product systems and supply
chains. At present, government clearly plays a role in markets through providing incentives
through taxes and subsidies. Thus, the government role in designing sustainable product systems
and supply chains requires the capability to determine which actions will be most effective in
achieving sustainability-related goals. On the other hand, there is a need for a mechanism to
identify instances when actions taken for other reasons also have sustainability-related
implications. The economics literature is full of examples of how well-intentioned measures
have yielded unintended consequences.
Government is also plays a key role in research and development. In the U.S., through allocation
of research funding, the National Science Foundation and other government agencies play a key
role in setting the course for technological development pathways and economic development.
A number of government agencies are also involved in research and development directly. Of
particular relevance to the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains are the EPA,
DOE, USD A, Department of Defense (DOD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National
Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), although there are certainly others with relevant
activities as well. In fact, these agencies are already involved in a variety of research and
development activities which contribute to providing the capacity required for design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains. In the report Sustainability and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Science provides recommendations
for how the EPA should respond to the challenge presented by sustainability. The authors
foresee EPA moving into a leadership role in using a sustainability framework to deliver better
results. While the report focuses on application to the EPA, the findings and recommendations
have relevance for other agencies as well. The committee recommend (1) fostering a culture of
sustainability to implement better solutions, (2) leveraging sustainability-relevant expertise
developed through regulatory activities in nonregulatory environmental programs for businesses
of all sizes, creating synergy for the sustainability, public health, and competitiveness of
American businesses, and (3) targeting activities to reduce risks toward disadvantaged
communities and seeking their engagement and cooperation.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 20
-------
The Role ofAcademia
A primary role of academia is to understand the system and educate. When it comes to the
design of sustainable product systems and supply chains, understanding the system is a big task
involving a wide range of disciplines, as has been previously described. Academia has been a
key driver of innovation in the area of sustainable design. Academics and their institutions own
a significant number of ideas and serve as significant creators of new knowledge. Academic
institutions often also partner with industry and/or government, playing an exploratory function
within the work of those groups, paving the way in testing new approaches, and providing initial
capacity as these groups move into new areas. All of these roles have relevance in moving
toward a system where product systems and supply chains are designed for sustainability.
Preparing a workforce with skills relevant for the design of sustainable product systems and
supply chains is an essential role played by academia. Specific education needs are described
separately within this report.
Working Together Effectively
There is a general consensus that in order to effectively embrace sustainability as an organizing
principle for the design of product systems and supply chains, collaboration both within and
between industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations is required. This
section describes some of the key aspects of this collaboration which deserve attention.
There has been a recent shift in universities toward increased collaboration between disciplines
and a blurring of the lines between traditional programs of study. This has occurred in response
to a changing society and marketplace which demand graduates with new skills and a broader
range of skills than has been taught in the past. In contrast to previous generations, technology is
now pervasive in all aspects of life and information moves much more quickly. Globalization
has led to a new era of competitiveness. Responding to these changes presents opportunities for
innovative ideas and new approaches. There is also a changing view of how innovation happens.
Rather than spontaneous jumps in progress, many of the new ideas shaping our world today are
the result of bringing together ideas developed incrementally over time within different
disciplines and applying them to new situations. Designing sustainable product systems and
supply chains requires bringing together approaches developed across a broad range of
disciplines and bringing them to bear on old problems in new ways. A defining feature of
sustainability is that it incorporates a broad range of system considerations, including economic,
social, and environmental aspects. Yet often conventional, disciplinary-based evaluation criteria
are still imposed on faculty seeking to reach out across disciplines and innovate. In some cases
this is related to a reluctance to leave behind the mechanisms that have brought a university to its
current status, and with good reason. In other cases, the barrier is colleagues who are
comfortable with existing structures and for whom new approaches present a threat to one's own
status. Promoting cross disciplinary collaboration and innovation within universities requires a
balanced approach that provides incentives and recognition for those working in new ways while
continuing to affirm disciplinary accomplishments and dignity. One way to do this is to view the
university itself as an incubator of innovative ideas and to provide mechanisms for selecting
innovative activities and shielding them from counterproductive pressures. Another mechanism,
and in fact one that is already being applied by NSF, is to provide special funding mechanisms
for cross-disciplinary teams and activities.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 21
-------
Within the marketplace, collaboration and teamwork are required along supply chains. While
competitiveness concerns often drive secrecy and separation, improving supply chains requires
the flow of information and expertise across businesses. This exchange allows a clear
assessment of sustainability outcomes along supply chains and an understanding of the potential
for problem shifting associated with proposed improvements. While the initial set of
considerations involved in defining sustainable supply chains is daunting, once established,
operating within a well-understood supply chain provides benefits for businesses in terms of
focusing efforts on a core set of well-defined issues rather than having to scan and prepare to
respond to a broad range of issues. From the perspective of consumer behavior and public policy
associated with promoting sustainable supply chains, supply chain communication and
collaboration allows for the clear communication of benefits and potential pitfalls (ie electric
vehicles and electricity sources, fluorescent lightbulbs and mercury disposal, or biofuels and
effects on markets and upstream impacts).
A number of suggestions were put forward regarding how to best select, promote, and
incentivize research and investment to obtain the tools and approaches that are necessary to
implementing sustainable design. Case studies with engaged clients offer a means of ensuring
that research activities address practical concerns. Another suggestion was to solicit proposals
where the core objective is in coupling disciplinary or reductionist approaches with systems-
based approaches. Caution would need to be taken to avoid proposals where the coupling is
weak or ill-defined to avoid the study devolving into two separate activities. Similarly, annual
reports or other research-tracking mechanisms could be used to evaluate the integration of the
research, tracking, for example, the diversity of journals associated with co-authored
publications. Another category of suggestion involved leveraging government funding to
stimulate industry and/or NGO funding or involvement in research. While NSF currently funds
programs focused on industry-academic collaboration, there is a need to evaluate this portfolio
and look for ways to better connect industry clients and expertise with systems-analysis,
industrial ecology, and other integrative cross-disciplinary university research activities. Doing
this has the potential to provide industry with valuable approaches to the incorporation of new
aspects into the design process while providing university researchers with concrete feedback
based on the market realities facing businesses. Similarly, coupling university research with
non-governmental organization provides a means of bringing the stakeholder/client perspective
into university research and a direct mechanism for ground-truthing new ideas against ongoing
efforts to engage key actors. For NGOs, coupling with universities can serve to build the
scientific basis for otherwise poorly structured issues and to provide a means for evaluating the
effectiveness of intervention activities. Such funding has been provided in the European Union
under their Seventh Framework Programme.
While collaboration brings with it many benefits, there are also instances when divergence and
adversarial exchanges can be beneficial. In the words of one workshop participant, it is better to
be honest than nice. Conflict is often a prerequisite for stakeholder engagement. While the
stakeholder engagement process can lead to collaboration, this is not always the case. Charged
issues can lead to a purposeful and action-oriented stakeholder engagement process. In some
cases it may even make sense to exclude a stakeholder from an engagement process when that
stakeholder has a conflict of interest related to the goals of the process. The exclusion of the
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 22
-------
recycling industry from the Swedish stakeholder engagement process related to end-of-life
vehicle management is a good example. From another angle, departure from collaboration to
diverge onto different and original paths is necessary for innovation. Some degree of separation
is needed to develop new ideas and to provide the right incentives for pioneering new approaches
and technologies.
Despite the advantages of maintaining distance in certain cases, collaboration and consensus-
building remain the ideal. Litigation issues rarely lead to productive collaborations and this
could be a key difference between the perspectives driving LCA and risk assessment that could
facilitate more efficient progress under the more inclusive, systems-based paradigm of LCA than
was achieved in earlier efforts related to more focused risk assessment. The most effective
stakeholder engagement groups are those that are collaborative, committed, and accountable.
Partnership is stimulating in ways stakeholder consultation is not. Long engagement processes
have the potential to delay innovation. Formulating the problem together, rather than in
individual camps, often leads to useful directions where an adversarial process would encounter
gridlock. There is a need to promote activities that bring together academia, government,
industry, NGO, and the general public to weigh societal costs and benefits based on a long-term
perspective. One useful approach suggested by workshop participants representing industry was
to task government agencies with running a stakeholder dialog process to engage industry and
other stakeholders around sustainable design issues. This approach intends to avoid potential
conflicts of interest while promoting the exchange of information between industry and other
stakeholders and into the policy process.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 23
-------
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-1
-------
Goals of the Workshop on the Design of Sustainable
Product Systems and Supply Chains
The Workshop will explore the following questions, which all participants are expected to
address in their presentations and discussions:
1. What tools and methods are currently available for design of sustainable product systems
and supply chains?
2. How can these tools and methods be combined in new ways to improve our ability to
design sustainable product systems and supply chains?
3. Where do the most promising opportunities exist for modifying product systems and
supply chains?
4. What are the implications of new methods for design of sustainable product systems and
supply chains for:
• Reducing the life cycle environmental impacts of existing products and processes?
• The process of developing and implementing new technologies?
• The evaluation of new technologies?
• The design of policies and technologies that reduce pollution and/or increase
recycling?
5. What indicators and metrics of sustainability are appropriate and necessary for design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains?
While the Workshop will include experts from all sectors, we are particularly interested in
attracting expertise in sectors of strategic importance, including biofuels, petroleum, chemicals,
energy, agriculture, and consumer products. Participants with experience related to the
development of new methods, supply chain design, or process design in these sectors are also
being invited to attend. Participants with a wide range of experience relevant to the design of
sustainable supply chains are also being invited, including those with experience in supply chain
management, optimization, agent-based modeling, logistics, capital investment, industrial
operations engineering, industrial symbiosis, and stakeholder engagement.
For questions regarding the workshop
please contact:
Susan Cooke Anastasi (contractor)
BLH Technologies, Inc.
240-399-8753 (office)
240-399-8471 (fax)
sanatasi@blhtech.com
For questions regarding technical content of
the workshop please contact:
Troy Hawkins
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
513-569-7139 (office)
hawkins.troy@epa.gov
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-2
-------
F
Meadow Anderson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bhavik Bakshi, The Ohio State University
Russell Barton, National Science Foundation
Beth Beloff, Bridges to Sustainability
Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology
Sherilyn Brodersen, Kraft Foods
Maria Burka, National Science Foundation
Herb Cabezas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Vincent Camobreco, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John Carberry, DuPont (retired)
Erin Chan, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Andreas Ciroth, Green DeltaTC
Andres Clarens, University of Virginia
H. Gregg Clay camp, U.S. Food and Drug Administration*
Joseph Fiksel, The Ohio State University
William Flanagan, General Electric Company
John Glaser, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mark Goedkoop, PRe Consultants
Jay S. Golden, Duke University*
Ignacio Grossmann, Carnegie Mellon University
Bruce Hamilton, National Science Foundation
Troy Hawkins, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alan Hecht, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
Michael Hilliard, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Yinlun Huang, Wayne State University
Marianthi lerapetritou, Rutgers University
Wes Ingwersen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Olivier Jolliet, University of Michigan
Vikas Khanna, University of Pittsburgh
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-3
-------
Christoph Koffler, PE International
Carole LeBlanc, U.S. Department of Defense*
Angle Leith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reid Lifset, Yale University
Clare Lindsay, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IgorLinkov, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Margaret Mann, National Renewable Energy Laboratory*
Eric Masanet, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Dennis McGavis, Shaw Industries*
Dima Nazzal, University of Central Florida
Michelle Nguyen, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Cynthia Nolt-Helms, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sergio Pacca, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Omar Romero-Hernandez, University of California, Berkeley
Darlene Schuster, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Tom Seager, Arizona State University
Ray Smith, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raj Srinivasan, University of Singapore
Martha Stevenson, World Wildlife Fund U.S.
Rachuri Sudarsan, National Institute of Standards and Technology*
Sangwon Suh, University of California, Santa Barbara
Thomas Theis, University of Illinois
Arnold Tukker, TNO Built Environment & Geosciences
Mark Tulay, Sustainability Risk Advisors*
Don Versteeg, Proctor & Gamble Company
Eric Williams, Arizona State University
Phil Williams, Webcor Builders, USA
B. Erik Ydstie, Carnegie Mellon University
Fengqi You, Northwestern University
indicates planned participants who were unable to attend the Workshop due to unforeseen
circumstances.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-5
-------
Note: Participants who were unable to attend the Workshop are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Meadow Anderson
Meadow Anderson is an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Science and Technology Policy Fellow hosted by the Sustainability Program in EPA's Office of
Research and Development. As a fellow, her main areas of focus have been life cycle assessment
(LCA) and sustainable products policy. Dr. Anderson received her Ph.D.in Chemistry from the
University of California, Berkeley and her B.S. in Chemistry from Oregon State University. Her
research background includes physical chemistry and molecular biology.
Bhavik R. Bakshi
Bhavik R. Bakshi is a Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Research
Director of the Center for Resilience at The Ohio State University. He recently joined TERI
University in New Delhi, India as its Vice Chancellor and Professor of Energy and Environment.
He holds a dual appointment at TERI University and The Ohio State University. Prof. Bakshi
has active research programs in the U.S. and in India, which are developing systematic and
scientifically rigorous methods for improving the Sustainability and efficiency of engineering
activities. This includes new methods for analyzing the life cycle of existing and emerging
technologies and for designing self-reliant networks of technological and ecological systems. A
major focus of his research has been on understanding and including the role of ecosystem
services in industrial activities. This multidisciplinary research overlaps with areas such as
thermodynamics, applied statistics, ecology, economics, and complexity theory. Applications
include nanotechnology, green chemistry, alternate fuels, and waste utilization. Among his
publications is a recent book on "Thermodynamics and the Destruction of Resources." His
awards include the Ted Peterson award from the Computing and Systems Technology division of
the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Faculty Early Career Enhancement
Award (CAREER) from the U.S. National Science Foundation, and several best paper awards at
various conferences. Prof. Bakshi received his B. Chem. Eng. from the University of Bombay,
Department of Chemical Technology and MSCEP and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, all in chemical engineering. While in graduate school, he also completed a minor in
Technology and Environmental Policy and conducted research at Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government.
Russell Barton
Russell Barton is Program Director for Manufacturing Enterprise Systems and Service Enterprise
Systems research in the Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation division of the
National Science Foundation. These areas have a combined annual research budget of over $9
million. Russell is on assignment atNSF from the Smeal College of Business at Pennsylvania
State University, where he is a professor in the Department of Supply Chain and Information
Systems. He previously served as co-director for the Penn State Master of Manufacturing
Management degree program, and as associate dean for research and Ph.D./M.S. programs for
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-6
-------
Smeal College. He holds a B.S. in electrical engineering from Princeton University and M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees in operations research from Cornell University.
Beth Beloff
Beth Beloff has been a thought leader in formulating the concepts and
practice of sustainable development since the early 90s. She consults
through Beth Beloff & Associates on how to integrate sustainability into
strategy, operations and supply chains, and develops new approaches and
methodologies through BRIDGES to Sustainability Institute, which she
founded in 1997. Among BRIDGES' many projects, it developed a ^
software system to help companies understand their sustainability impacts, <•'•• ,^ ^
BRIDGESworks Metrics™, and also developed methodologies to +
understand full costs associated with environmental and social impacts. A significant part of her
work is devoted to assessing and reporting sustainability performance, and she is a recognized
leader in the area of sustainability performance measurement. She has led the Sustainable
Supply Chain Roundtable for the Center for Sustainable Technology Practices of AIChE and
chaired numerous conference panels on sustainable supply chains and sustainability metrics. She
developed a sustainable supply chain assessment methodology and used it as a basis for
discussion regarding the development of collaborative efforts between companies to improve
their supply chains. She was one of the primary developers of the AIChE Sustainability Index
and chairs the ICOSSE International Certificate on Sustainable Standards for Engineering effort
which will result in a certification of chemical products, processes and services on the basis on
their sustainability attributes, to be applied by AIChE and CECHEMA at ACHEMA and other
conferences run by AIChE and DECHEMA.
Ms. Beloff has published numerous articles on sustainability education, strategy, performance
measurement, and decision-support approaches and tools. She led the development of the GEMI
Metrics Navigator™, produced in collaboration with the GEMI organization (Global
Environmental Management Initiative). It has become a well-respected planning process for
developing strategic plans and sustainability metrics. She also was principal editor and author of
the book "Transforming Sustainability Strategy into Action: the Chemical Industry, " published
by Wiley Inter-Science in 2005, which features many approaches to addressing the pragmatic
aspects of integrating sustainability into organizations. She has just completed chapters for two
sustainability books, to be published in 2011.
Prior to BRIDGES in 1991, Ms. Beloff founded and directed the Institute for Corporate
Environmental Management (ICEM) in the business school at the University of Houston.
Additionally, she directed the Global Commons project through the Houston Advanced Research
Center (HARC) and the National Academy of Science (NAS). This was the first project of the
NAS to formally address the science and business of sustainable development.
Ms. Beloff has a B.A. in psychology from University of California at Berkeley, a Master of
Architecture degree from UCLA, and an M.B.A. from the University of Houston.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-7
-------
Bert Bras
Bert Bras has been a Professor at the George W. Woodruff School of
Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia
Tech) since September 1992. His research focus is on sustainable design and
manufacturing; including design for recycling and remanufacture, bio-
inspired design, and life cycle analysis. His primary research question is how
to reduce companies' environmental impact while increasing their
competitiveness (i.e., how to promote sustainable development). He has
authored and co-authored more than 140 publications. His work is funded by
the National Science Foundation, Ford Motor Company, and Boeing, among
others. Dr. Bras was named the 1996 Engineer of the Year in Education by the Georgia Society
of Professional Engineers, he received a Society of Automotive Engineers' Ralph R. Teetor
Award in 1999, and the Georgia Tech Outstanding Interdisciplinary Activities Award in 2007. In
1999-2000, through the World Technology Evaluation Center (WETC), he was part of a group
of experts charged by the National Science Foundation and Department of Energy with
evaluating the state-of-the-art in environmentally benign manufacturing. He visited companies,
universities, and governmental institutions in Europe, Japan, and the United States. From 2001-
2004, he served as the Director of Georgia Tech's Institute for Sustainable Technology and
Development. Dr. Bras has a Ph.D. in Operations Research from the University of Houston and
an M.S. ("Ingenieur") degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Twente (The
Netherlands). Prior to receiving his Ph.D., he worked at the Maritime Research Institute
Netherlands (MARIN).
Maria K. Burka
Maria K. Burka is the program director of the Process and
Reaction Engineering (PRE) program in the Chemical,
Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET)
Division of the National Science Foundation. Her responsibilities
include evaluation and management of research and educational
grants to academic institutions in the areas of chemical and
biochemical reaction engineering, process control and process
design as well as reactive polymer processing. Past employment positions have included Senior
Scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a member of the faculty of the
Chemical Engineering Department of the University of Maryland-College Park, and process
design engineer with Scientific Design Company in New York City. She received B.S. and M.S.
degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from
Princeton University, all in chemical engineering. Her research interests are in chemical process
design and control. She has been active in a number of professional organizations, including the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), the American Chemical Society (ACS), the
Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and the American Association of University Women
(AAUW). She is the President of AIChE for 2011.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-8
-------
Heriberto Cabezas
Heriberto Cabezas is the Senior Science Advisor to the Sustainable
Technology Division in EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Dr. Cabezas is also a former Acting Director of the Division,
consisting of approximately 58 scientists, engineers, and support staff;
of which approximately 40 are at the doctoral level. He also served as
Chief of the Sustainable Environments Branch, a multidisciplinary
research group of approximately 58 scientists and engineers, 13 at the doctoral level. Dr.
Cabezas served as Chair of the Environmental Division of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers (AIChE) in 2006. He was a recipient of the 1998 EPA Science Achievement Award in
Engineering, the 2007 Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award from the New Jersey Institute
of Technology, and has been selected for the 2011 Research Excellence Award in Sustainable
Engineering by the AIChE, among other honors. Dr. Cabezas received his Ph.D. in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Florida (1985) in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.
He also holds an M.S. from the University of Florida (1981) and a B.S. (magna cum laude) from
the New Jersey Institute of Technology (1980), both in Chemical Engineering. His publications
include more than 60 peer-reviewed articles. He is a Fellow of the AIChE, a member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Board-Certified Member of the
American Academy of Environmental Engineers. His principal area of research is the sustainable
management of complex environmental systems. Dr. Cabezas is a U.S. Navy veteran of the
Vietnam Conflict.
Vincent Camobreco
Since 2006 Mr. Camobreco has worked in the U.S. EPA's
Transportation and Climate Division, his main focus being on the life
cycle GHG impacts of renewable and alternative fuels. Prior to that
he worked on EPA's Climate Leaders program, helping develop
protocols to calculate and report corporate greenhouse gas
inventories to the EPA. Mr. Camobreco's previous work experience
includes over five years as an environmental consultant with
Ecobalance, Inc. doing life cycle analysis for numerous industry and government clients, and
several years working for an automotive parts supplier producing steering columns. His
education includes a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Clarkson University and an M.Eng. in
Agricultural and Biological Engineering from Cornell University.
John Carberry
John Carberry retired from DuPont as Director of Environmental Technology. There, he was
responsible for analysis of environmental issues and recommendations for technical programs
and product development. Since 1989, he led that function to provide excellence in treatment and
remediation while in transition to waste prevention and product for sustainability. Mr. Carberry
presently consults strategies for dealing with the environmental issues of energy, renewable
energy, and nanomaterials. He chaired the AIChE Project on Metrics for Liquid Bio-fuels, has
given over 135 presentations at universities and public conferences, is an adjunct professor of
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-9
-------
Chemical Engineering at the University of Delaware, and served on the National Academy of
Engineering's Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability. Mr. Carberry is a
founding member of the Green Power Market Development Group. He recently was Chair of the
National Academy Committee on the Destruction of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Weapons, and
served on nine previous National Academy Committees. He holds a B.ChE. and an M.E. in
Chemical Engineering from Cornell University, an M.B.A. from the University of Delaware, is a
Fellow of the AIChE, and is a Registered Professional Engineer.
Andreas Ciroth
Andreas Ciroth is founder and director of GreenDeltaTC, a
consulting and software development company with a focus on
sustainability assessment and life cycle analyses. Dr. Ciroth is an
environmental engineer by training. He completed his Ph.D. on Error
Calculation in LCA in 2001 at TU Berlin. Since then, Dr. Ciroth has
been working in sustainability consulting in research, industry, and
policy contexts. He is Chair of the Methodology and Data work area
in the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle initiative, and is a member of the
advisory councils of Ecoinvent and the US LCI database. He was the
first subject editor of the InternationalJournal of Life Cycle
Assessment (for the field of uncertainties). Nominated in 2004, Dr. Ciroth still holds this position
and is member of the Editorial Board of the Journal. He is leading the open LCA project to
create a free, open-source sustainability assessment software. Dr. Ciroth teaches at the Technical
University of Darmstadt, Germany.
Andres Clarens
Andres Clarens is an Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Virginia and the Director of the
Virginia Environmentally Sustainable Technologies Laboratory. His
research is focused broadly on anthropogenic carbon flows and the
ways that carbon dioxide is manipulated, reused, and sequestered in
engineered systems. The results of his work are important for
developing efficient strategies for mitigating the emissions driving
climate change. At the largest scales, his system-level modeling
work has explored the life cycle of systems in the manufacturing,
transportation, and energy sectors. In the laboratory, he is pursuing complementary research in
the phase behavior and surface chemistry of carbon dioxide mixtures at high pressure. The
results of this work can be used to provide better lubricants for wind turbines and more accurate
assessment of geologic carbon sequestration sites. In the classroom, Dr. Clarens engages in peer-
to-peer learning at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, with an emphasis on developing
innovative tools for teaching the fundamentals of climate change. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.S.E
in Environmental Engineering from the University of Michigan, and a B.S. in Chemical
Engineering from the University of Virginia.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-10
-------
Joseph Fiksel
Joseph Fiksel is Executive Director of the Center for Resilience at The Ohio
State University, and Principal and Co-Founder of the consulting firm Eco-
Nomics LLC. He is an internationally recognized authority on sustainability
and resilience, with more than 25 years of research and consulting experience
for multinational companies, Government agencies, and consortia such as the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. He is currently serving
on a special appointment at EPA, helping to incorporate systems thinking into
the Agency's research and development programs. A native of Montreal, Dr.
Fiksel began his career at DuPont of Canada, and later served as Director of Decision and Risk
Management at Arthur D. Little, Inc., and as Vice President for Life Cycle Management at
Battelle. He has published more than 70 refereed articles and several books, and is a frequent
keynote speaker at conferences. He holds a Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Operations Research from
Stanford University, a B.Sc. from M.I.T., and an advanced degree from La Sorbonne. His latest
book, Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development, was published by
McGraw-Hill in 2009.
William P. Flanagan
Bill Flanagan leads the Ecoassessment Center of Excellence for the General
Electric Company and is based at GE Global Research in upstate New York. Dr.
Flanagan's team offers comprehensive technical expertise in life cycle
assessment, carbon footprinting, human health and environmental risk
assessment. He also works closely with GE's Corporate Environmental Programs
team on the development of programs and policy in these areas. Dr. Flanagan
graduated from Virginia Tech in 1985 and received a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the
University of Connecticut in 1991. He spent the first 10 years of his career focused on various
aspects of environmental technology including site remediation, air and water treatment, and
pollution prevention. He spent the next six or so years managing GE's combinatorial chemistry
lab, a team responsible for developing and applying high throughput screening for materials
development. In 2007 he returned to his roots to lead the Ecoassessment Center of Excellence.
Dr. Flanagan serves on GE's extended corporate ecomagination team and is a member of the
Advisory Council for the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment.
Mark Goedkoop
Mark Goedkoop is Managing Director and Senior Consultant at PRe
Consultants in the Netherlands and PRe North America. He worked as
an independent design consultant until 1990, when he established PRe
consultants and pioneered the field of life cycle assessment (LCA). PRe
has become a well-established LCA consultancy, with partners in more
than 20 countries. Mr. Goedkoop's focus is on the development of
practical, scientifically sound tools to improve the environmental
performance of products and services. The best-known tools are the
Eco-indicator and ReCiPe methodology, and SimaPro, the world's most
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-11
-------
widely used LCA software (see www.pre.nl). Mr. Goedkoop holds a M.Sc. in Industrial Design
Engineering from Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands).
Ignacio E. Grossmann
Ignacio E. Grossmann is the Dean University Professor of Chemical Engineering at Carnegie
Mellon University. He is Director of the Center for Advanced Process Decision-Making, an
industrial consortium that involves 20 petroleum, chemical, engineering, and software
companies. Dr. Grossman is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and his major
awards include AIChE's Computing in Chemical Engineering Award, William H. Walker
Award, Warren Lewis Award, and "One of the Hundred Chemical Engineers of the Modern
Era." He is a fellow of AIChE and Institute for Operations Research and the Management
Sciences (INFORMS). His research interests lie in the areas of process synthesis, energy
integration, planning and scheduling of batch and continuous processes, supply chain
optimization, stochastic programming, and mixed-integer and logic-based optimization. Dr.
Grossman has made a number of significant research contributions in the area of sustainability;
particularly in the areas of optimal synthesis heat exchanger and process water networks,
simultaneous optimization and heat integration, energy and water optimization for the design of
biofuel plants, and bi-criterion optimization models of supply chains with both economic and life
cycle assessment measures. He obtained his M.S. and Ph.D. from Imperial College and his B.S.
degree at the Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City.
Bruce Hamilton
Bruce Hamilton is Director of the Environmental Sustainability program in
the Engineering Directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF); a
Managing Program Director in the new cross-NSF investment area, Science,
Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES); and in the Office of
Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) in the NSF
Engineering Directorate. Dr. Hamilton has been at NSF for 15 years. Before
joining NSF, he worked as an engineer and manager in the chemical and
biotechnology industries for 20 years. He holds a Ph.D. in Biochemical
Engineering and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, both from M.I.T.
Troy R. Hawkins
My research focuses on the application and development of environmental
life cycle assessment (LCA) and input output models for decision-focused
environmental analysis. At EPA I lead a project focused on environmental
systems analysis of biofuel options and the development of models for
designing sustainable biofuel supply chains. I earned a B.S. in Physics
from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1999 and a
Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering and Public
Policy from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in
May 2007. I have taken some risks in my career and have been rewarded
by the opportunities I have had to work collaboratively as a part of some very dynamic,
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-12
-------
functioning teams. During my Ph.D. studies I developed a Mixed-Unit Input-Output (MUIO)
Model for life cycle assessment and material flow analysis focusing on flows of cadmium, lead,
nickel, and zinc. For the next 3 years I worked as a Researcher at the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU) where I contributed to the EXIOPOL Project, 'A New
Environmental Accounting Framework Using Externality Data and Input-Output Tools for
Policy Analysis', an EU-Funded effort to create a global, environmentally-extended,
multiregional input-output (EE-MRIO) model for analysis of environmental impacts and external
costs of production and consumption. Following this work, I worked on the development of an
EE-MRIO model for the harmonized calculation of carbon, ecological, and water footprints
across international supply chains under the EU funded OPEN EU Project. I also had had the
opportunity to perform an environmental assessment of an electric versus conventional vehicle,
funded by the Norwegian Research Council, and to participate in a several other research efforts.
In November I began work as a Research Environmental Engineer with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in Cincinnati,
Ohio where I co-lead the Environmental Assessment of Biofuel Options Project Team. This
work has connections to other activities including the development of a life cycle inventory
database within the NRMRL Sustainable Technology Division, analysis of product systems and
supply chains using sustainability indicators, and the development of life cycle impact
assessment methods for water and land use. Currently our efforts have focused on analyzing a
suite of impacts associated with ethanol blends. Moving forward this work will incorporate
additional pathways and delve deeper into the effects of changes within the biofuel life cycle and
supply chain stages.
Alan D. Hecht*
Dr. Hecht a recipient of the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious
Service is Director for Sustainable Development in the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Since 2003 he has led ORD's planning on sustainability research.
Currently he is senior advisor on sustainability to Assistant Administrator
for ORD. On detail to the White House, from 2001 to 2003 he was
Associate Director for Sustainable Development at the Council on
Environmental Quality (2002-2003) and Director of International
Environmental Affairs for the National Security Council (2001-2002) where
he served as White House coordinator for preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development. At EPA From 1989 to 2001, he served as the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
International Activities and Acting Assistant Administrator for International Activities from
1992 to 1994. During this period he led EPA's negotiations for the side agreement to the
NAFTA, launched the US-Mexico Border Program, initiated new EPA efforts on environmental
security and served as senior advisor to the Administrator for the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.
Before joining EPA, Dr. Hecht was Director of the National Climate Program at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1981-1989) and Director of the Climate Dynamics
Program at the National Science Foundation (1976-1981). Dr. Hecht was instrumental in helping
to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) Dr. Hecht has a Ph.D. in
geology and geochemistry from Case Western Reserve University. He has written extensively on
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-13
-------
climate change and sustainability. One of his most recent publications is "EPA at 40: Bringing
Environmental Protection into the 21st Century" ES&T, 209, 43, 8716-8720.
Michael Billiard
Michael R. Hilliard is a research staff member in the Center for Transportation Analysis at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Dr. Hilliard's research efforts focus on developing analysis tools and
decision support systems that leverage optimization techniques and emerging computational
technologies. Recently, he led a team that developed the Biofuel Infrastructure and Logistics
Tool (BILT), a regional optimization-based model of the cellulosic biofuel supply chain to
analyze the limitations and impact of the evolving biofuel supply chain on U.S. infrastructure.
He also developed a model to optimize the planting of switchgrass in a watershed based on a
multi-objective sustainability measure and helped show that the best options could improve
water quality with minimal loss of profitability. Dr. Hilliard is currently collaborating with a
team of environmental scientists and economists to develop a set of socio-economic indicators
for bioenergy supply chain sustainability. He has also developed planning systems for
infrastructure investment and agent-based simulations of job markets. Dr. Hilliard received a
Ph.D. in Operations Research from Cornell University, with an emphasis in optimization and
game theory, and a B.S. in Mathematics from Furman University.
Yinlun Huang
Dr. Yinlun Huang is Professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials
Science and Charles H. Gershenson Distinguished Faculty Fellow at
Wayne State University, where he has been directing the Laboratory for
Multiscale Complex Systems Science and Engineering. His research has
been mainly focused on the fundamental study of multiscale complex
systems science and the applied study on engineering sustainability,
encompassing the development of sustainable (nano)materials, integrated
design of sustainable product and process systems, integration of process
design and control, and large-scale industrial system sustainability
assessment and decision making under severe uncertainty. He has published widely in these
areas. In the past few years, he has co-organized/co-chaired four international conferences on
sustainability science and engineering, and sustainable chemical product and process
engineering. Dr. Huang was Chair of AIChE Sustainable Engineering Forum (SEF) in 2008-09
and ACS Green Chemistry and Green Engineering Subdivision in 2010. Currently, he chairs the
International Committee of the AIChE-SEF. At Wayne State University, he is leading the
Industrial and Urban Sustainability (I&US) Group and co-directing the Sustainable Engineering
Graduate Certificate Program. Among many honors, Dr. Huang was the recipient of the first
Michigan Green Chemistry Governor's Award in 2009 and the AIChE Sustainable Engineering
Forum's Research Excellence in Sustainable Engineering Award in 2010. He was a Fulbright
Scholar in 2008-09. Dr. Huang holds a B.S. degree from Zhejiang University, China, in 1982,
and a M.S. and a Ph.D. degree from Kansas State University, in 1988 and 1992, respectively, all
in chemical engineering. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas at Austin
before joining Wayne State University in 1993.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-14
-------
Marianthi G. lerapetritou
Marianthi lerapetritou is a Professor in the Department of Chemical and
Biochemical Engineering at Rutgers University, New Jersey. She obtained
her B.S. from the National Technical University in Athens, Greece; her Ph.D.
from Imperial College; and subsequently completed post-doctoral research at
Princeton University before joining Rutgers University in 1998. Among her
accomplishments is the Rutgers Board of Trustees Research Fellowship for
Scholarly Excellence and the prestigious NSF CAREER award. Dr.
lerapetritou is also serving as an elected Trustee of CACHE, and as a director of CAST division
at the AIChE. Dr. lerapetritou's research focuses on the following areas: 1) process operations;
2) design and synthesis of flexible manufacturing systems; 3) modeling of reactive flow
processes; and 4) metabolic engineering. She has published 117 papers and given 125
presentations at national and international conferences. She has also been invited to present her
work at a number of universities and conferences around the world (44 invitations). She is a
member of INFORMS and SIAM, and she actively participates in the scientific advisory
committees of ESCAPE 16, 17, 21 and PSE 2006, 2009, and FOCAPD 2009. In 2008, she
organized the fifth International FOCAPO Conference. Dr. lerapetritou is an active educator,
both in the classroom teaching graduate and undergraduate classes in the Chemical Engineering
department, and as an advisor currently supervising the Ph.D. of seven students and one
postdoctoral fellow.
Wesley Ingwersen
Dr. Wesley Ingwersen works in the program areas of Sustainable
Supply Chain of biofuels and consumer products within the
Systems Analysis Branch of the Sustainable Technology
Division at the U.S. EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. His research experience is primarily in life cycle
assessment (LCA) and emergy analysis in the food, mining, and
transportation sectors but works broadly in the environmental
science and policy arena. Prior to his work with the U.S. EPA, he
advised research with the UF Costa Rica Conservation Clinic in
payment for ecosystems services for wetlands (2010) and led an investigation into the
development of an EPD labeling program in Costa Rica (2009). With the UF Center for
Environmental Policy, he helped lead a study of life cycle greenhouse gases from future
transportation scenarios for the state of Florida and conducted LCAs for pineapple and gold
mining (2007-2009). As a Transatlantic Fellow at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin, Germany
(2006) he worked in the areas of international trade and the environment, sustainability metric
evaluation, and climate change management and policy. His Master's research (2003-2005)
focused on ecological restoration and modeling.
Wes is particularly interested in LCA-based product claims. He actively participates on
committees through the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment and PCF World Forum on
alignment of product category rules and contributes to the literature in this field.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-15
-------
Wes is a member of the standards committee of the International Society of Emergy Research.
Wes has M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Environmental Engineering from the University of Florida
(2006, 2010), where he was mentored by Dr. Mark T. Brown, and a B.A. from Georgetown
University (1999). He has been a Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional since 2008.
Olivier Jolliet
Dr. Olivier Jolliet is Professor of Impact and Risk Modeling at the School of
Public Health of the University of Michigan. His research and teaching
programs aim a) to assess the life cycle risks and benefits of products and
emerging technologies and b) to model population-based exposure, intake
fractions and pharmacokinetics for outdoor and indoor emissions. Dr. Jolliet
has a large experience in impact modeling and in the Life Cycle Assessment
of a large range of products. He co-initiated the UNEP (United Nation
Environment Programme)/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and is one of the
developer of the USEtox model for the comparative assessment of chemicals.
He founding member of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center. Dr. Jolliet obtained a
Master's degree and Ph.D. in Physics in 1988 at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Lausanne (EPFL). He worked as a postdoc at the Silsoe Research Institute (GB) and as a visiting
scholar at MIT and Berkeley (USA). Between 1999 and 2005, he was assistant professor at the
EPFL (Switzerland).
Vikas Khanna
Dr. Khanna received his B.ChE. from Panjab University in India. He
received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering with a dual Masters in Applied
Statistics from The Ohio State University. His doctoral work focused on the
environmental evaluation of emerging nanotechnologies and multiscale
modeling for environmentally conscious design of chemical processes.
While in graduate school, he also finished a science and technology policy
fellowship at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC. After
spending a year in the biofuels R&D group at ConocoPhillips, he joined the
University of Pittsburgh in 2010 where he is an assistant professor in the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. His research and teaching interests are in
the general areas of sustainability science and engineering, industrial ecology, applied statistics,
and role of environmental policy in engineering decision-making. Current focus is on studying
the life cycle environmental impacts of infrastructure-compatible hydrocarbon biofuels,
ecosystem services, and integrated economic-environmental modeling.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-16
-------
Christoph Koffler
Chris Koffler is the Technical Director of PE INTERNATIONAL, Inc. In
this role, he is responsible for the underlying quality of all North-American
Life Cycle Assessment consulting projects and GaBi and SoFi software
solutions, technical development, project oversight, and in key selected
areas, such as Automotive, as primary lead. Before joining PE, Chris was
an associate researcher at the Volkswagen Group research department,
working in the environmental design of new vehicles and the underlying
LCA based tools development. He had performed numerous LCA studies
with different branches of the Volkswagen Group and key suppliers,
automotive light weighting in all its forms (steel, aluminum, magnesium,
carbon fiber, (bio)polymers, natural fibers), hybrid and electric vehicle propulsions systems as
well as various manufacturing processes. During his first three years at Volkswagen, Chris was
also a postgraduate student at the Darmstadt University of Technology, where he received a
Ph.D. in Engineering.
Angle Leith
Ms. Leith is a Senior Policy Analyst at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. She has been
with the Agency since 1988, specializing in materials management policy, life cycle policy
approaches and environmental innovation issues. She was the lead in managing the Beyond
RCRA 2020 Vision which suggests that we redefine the concept of waste and move towards an
integrated materials management approach designed to conserve resource. She was part of the
federal-state workgroup tasked with developing a roadmap for implementing the Vision which
was endorsed by the Agency. She is an active participant in several international activities
focusing on materials and life cycle assessment, including the 3Rs Initiative, the UNEP effort to
develop global guidance for life cycle databases, the OECD project on Sustainable Materials
Management and Resource Productivity, and EPA Green Economy workgroup's papers for
Rio+20 on product life cycle and sustainable products and services. Prior to joining the Agency,
Ms. Leith was a project manager with an economic consulting firm, working primarily on issues
related to energy conservation and local government finance issues. She was a National Urban
Fellow and worked on Capitol Hill for a U.S. Representative. She earned an M.A. in Urban
Affairs from Occidental College, Pasadena, California, and aB.A. in Political Science from
Marymount College, Tarrytown, New York.
Reid J. Lifset
Reid J. Lifset is the Associate Director of the Industrial Environmental Management Program
and Resident Fellow in industrial ecology at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at
Yale University. Industrial ecology is an emerging field that examines the flow of materials and
energy at various scales as part of the study and pursuit of sustainable production and
consumption. He is the editor-in-chief and founder of the Journal of Industrial Ecology, an
international, peer-reviewed bimonthly on industry and the environment, headquartered at and
owned by Yale University and published by Wiley-Blackwell. He serves on the Science
Advisory Board of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is a member of the governing
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-17
-------
council of the International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE), and the editorial advisory
board for the Springer book series on Eco-efficiency in Industry and Science. His research
focuses on the application of industrial ecology to novel problems and research areas, and the
evolution of extended producer responsibility (EPR). He did his graduate work in political
science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in management at Yale University.
Clare Lindsay
Clare Lindsay is Project Director for Product Stewardship in the Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery at EPA in Washington, D.C. Ms. Lindsay has been with EPA for 20
years, specializing in municipal waste recycling policy and product stewardship. She led EPA's
efforts to initiate the first-ever national dialogue on electronics product stewardship in the U.S.
This initiative catalyzed and informed action by the numerous states that now have electronics
takeback laws. Ms. Lindsay has participated in many various product stewardship initiatives
addressing products as diverse as packaging, carpet, office furniture, and paint. She founded and
currently helps lead a cross-office network of EPA professionals interested in promoting more
sustainable product standards. This team is preparing recommendations for Agency senior
management on how EPA can increase its engagement in this growing movement. Ms. Lindsay
was part of an EPA/State team that developed and is implementing a roadmap for EPA and states
to move beyond waste management towards sustainable materials management. Before coming
to EPA, Ms. Lindsay practiced environmental and energy law in the private sector. She has an
undergraduate degree from Smith College and a J.D. from George Washington University.
Eric Masanet
Eric Masanet is Deputy Leader of the International Energy Studies Group at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, where he leads research in industrial energy systems analysis and life cycle
systems modeling. A key activity is technology assessment and modeling for the EPA's
ENERGY STAR for Industry program, which works directly with numerous energy-intensive
industries, Fortune 500 companies, and supply chains to minimize energy use and emissions
through technology adoption and improved energy management. Recently, he developed a
hybrid supply chain modeling approach, which couples input-output LCA methods with sector-
and process-level techno-economic energy analysis data and methods. The approach allows for
both environmental and economic assessment of discrete technology and process improvement
opportunities across the many energy and emissions sources, end- use technologies, and sectors
that comprise a product's supply chain footprint.
Dennis E. McGavis*
Over 25 years experience in Sustainability and environmental product
stewardship. Most recent role is as Shaw Industries' Product
Stewardship and Regulatory Affairs Director. Focus at Shaw is
around Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), product Eco-label
certifications, Design for Environment (DfE) program management,
and product regulatory affairs. Prior to Shaw, helped HP and the
electronics industry develop product stewardship solutions around
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-18
-------
product energy efficiency (co-developed the EnergyStar program for office equipment), product
chemical and material content, product recyclability, product recycled content (plastics and
packaging), end of life (EOL) product classification, supply chain management, and take back
and recycling. Married to the smartest woman on the planet and blessed with six grown children
and thirteen grandchildren.
Dima Nazzal
Dima Nazzal is an Assistant Professor of Industrial
Engineering at the University of Central Florida since 2006.
She received her Ph.D. from Georgia Institute of
Technology. At the start of her academic career, she
focused primarily on stochastic modeling and analysis of
facility logistics systems. Motivated by the urgency of the
topic, she expanded her research interests to cover
sustainable production systems and sustainability education.
Such ventures into the nascent and multidisciplinary field of
environmental sustainability are motivated by a passion to
undertake research that is applicable to the engineering grand challenges and societal concerns
that can be addressed through industrial engineering research methodologies. In 2010, she
received the competitive NSF-CCLI award to integrate environmental sustainability into the
Industrial Engineering curriculum to develop future engineers that are knowledgeable and
prepared to work on solving these challenges.
Cynthia Nolt-Helms
Ms. Nolt-Helms is the project manager for EPA's P3
(People, Prosperity and the Planet) Program. For the past
five years, she has overseen this innovative program to fund
sustainability research from over 200 teams composed of
university students. These teams have developed
sustainable approaches to everything from a green-tea based
cancer treatment to the world's first floating wetlands
classroom, with many of these projects designed to support
sustainability efforts in developing nations. The P3
Program has given over 2000 participants the opportunity to
come to Washington, DC, meet their peers and compete for additional funding to develop their
innovative technologies. Some of the P3 teams have even gone on to create small businesses or
found NGOs.In her previous years at EPA, Ms. Nolt-Helms managed EPA grants for drinking
water research and contributed to the development of drinking water research plans. While
working for EPA's Office of Water, she also led agency efforts to develop national wildlife
criteria for toxic chemicals and contributed to the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Final
Rule which included the nation's first aquatic criteria for the protection of higher-trophic level
wildlife species. Ms. Nolt-Helms has a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry and Biology from
Lebanon Valley College and a M.S. in Environmental Toxicology from Cornell University.
^ V
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-19
-------
Sergio Pacca
Sergio Pacca is an Associate Professor at the University of Sao
Paulo in Brazil. He teaches in the undergraduate Environmental
Management Program, and is affiliated with graduate programs in
Energy and Environmental Engineering Sciences. He also has
experience teaching Industrial Ecology courses abroad (in the
United States, Japan, and Iceland). He has worked as a consultant
for the World Bank, UNEP, and Brazilian NGOs. His research is
focused on life cycle assessment (LCA) of energy technologies and
extended input-output (I-O) models. He has worked with LCA of
renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric plants, PV, and
biofuels. He has built national and regional I-O models to
understand the effects of the supply chains on the final consumption of households. His goal is
supporting the adoption of low carbon technologies, thereby contributing to carbon emissions
mitigation.
Omar Romero-Hernandez
Omar Romero-Hernandez is a Chemical Engineer with graduate studies in Economic Policy and
Government and a Ph.D. in Process Economics and Environmental Impact from Imperial
College, London, England. Prof. Romero-Hernandez has worked for a diverse range of public
and private organizations with large and complex supply chains, such as Procter & Gamble and
PEMEX (Oil & Gas). He served as a consultant for Accenture and the Ministry for the
Environment. In 2001, he was appointed as Professor at ITAM, and Fulbright Professor in 2009.
Prof. Romero-Hernandez is Faculty and a Professional Researcher at the Haas School of
Business. He is author of three books: Renewable Energy Technologies and Policies, Industry
and the Environment, and Introduction to Engineering—An Industry Perspective; as well as
several international publications on engineering, business, and sustainable development. Dr.
Romero-Hernandez has led various internationally recognized projects in the field of renewable
energy, sustainable business strategies, and business processes. Projects include Life Cycle
Implications of Value Chains; Economic, Environmental, and Social Implications of Biofuels;
and Business Intelligence in Energy Value Chains. Prof. Romero-Hernandez was the recipient of
the 2010 Franz Edelman Award, the world's most prestigious award on Operations Research and
Management Science.
Thomas Seager
Thomas P. Seager, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Sustainable Engineering and the Built
Environment at Arizona State University. Dr. Seager is the author over 50 publications related to
sustainability, with particular emphasis on the environmental implications of alternative energy
technologies. Most recently, Dr. Seager has been working in collaboration with researchers at the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Purdue University to establish quantitative measures of
resilience applicable to complex systems. Dr. Seager's approach emphasizes the importance of
understanding resilience management as an ongoing process, rather than a variable of state. Most
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-20
-------
importantly, resilience approaches must be differentiated from (and understood as
complementary to) traditional risk-based approaches to be most effective.
Raymond L. Smith
Ray Smith is a Chemical Engineer within the Systems Analysis
Branch in the Office of Research and Development at the U.S.
EPA. He obtained his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering in the area
of process design from the University of Massachusetts
Amherst. Ray has worked for the EPA for over 10 years with
focus areas including the evaluation of green chemistries and
technologies, chemical process design and optimization, life
cycle assessment, and recycle process design for industrial
ecology. He has also worked on biofuel analysis projects and is currently a lead for the
Sustainable Supply Chain Design for Biofuels team. This project is analyzing various
environmental impacts, indicators and sustainability metrics for biofuel supply chains from
feedstock production through end use. In addition, the project considers the expansion of biofuel
supply chains, different ways the infrastructure could develop, and how the form of the supply
chain could influence impacts, indicators and sustainability metrics.
Rajagopalan Srinivasan
Dr. Rajagopalan Srinivasan is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the National
University of Singapore. He is concurrently a Principal Scientist at the
Institute of Chemical and Engineering Sciences, where he leads the
Process Systems and Control Team. Dr. Srinivasan received his
B.Tech. from IIT Madras in 1993 and his Ph.D. from Purdue
University in 1998, both in Chemical Engineering. He worked as a
research associate in Honeywell Technology Center, before joining
NUS. Dr. Srinivasan's research program is targeted toward developing
artificial intelligence and systems engineering approaches for benign process design, agile
process supervision and supply chain management.
Martha Stevenson
Martha is Senior Program Officer of Research and Development, Markets
at World Wildlife Fund. She has specific content expertise in life cycle
assessment (LCA), corporate sustainability, packaging materials and end-
of-life technologies. For the past year and a half, Martha ran her own
consultancy advising organizations on LCA, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration,
PepsiCo and Environmental Defense Fund. Previous to that, she was a
project manager for GreenBlue's Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC),
where she led development of the Design Guidelines for Sustainable
Packaging, the COMPASS® software, and Closing the Loop: an
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-21
-------
international study conducted for the California Department of Conservation to document
approaches encouraging the coordination of package design with end of life recovery
technologies. This work has led to strong relationships with NGOs, government agencies and
companies focused on materials recovery in North America, Europe and Australia. Before
joining GreenBlue, Martha worked in the private sector at an environmental engineering firm
managing site investigation and brownfield redevelopment projects. Prior to that, Martha worked
as a research assistant with Dr. Deborah McGrath on a National Science Foundation-funded
project in Manaus, Brazil, studying phosphorus availability in Amazonian soils. Martha earned a
Bachelor of Science degree in Forestry from the University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee in
2000.
Thomas L. Theis
Thomas Theis is Director of the Institute for Environmental Science and
Policy (IESP) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. IESP focuses on
the development of new cross-disciplinary research initiatives in the
environmental area. From 1985 to 2002, he was at Clarkson University,
where he was the Bayard D. Clarkson Professor and Director of the
Center for Environmental Management. Dr. Theis received his Ph.D. in
Environmental Engineering, with a specialization in environmental
chemistry, from the University of Notre Dame. His areas of expertise
include life cycle assessment, industrial ecology, environmental policy,
the mathematical modeling and systems analysis of environmental
processes, the environmental chemistry of trace organic and inorganic
substances, interfacial reactions, subsurface contaminant transport, and
hazardous waste management. Dr. Theis has been principal or co-principal investigator on more
than 50 funded research projects; authored or co-authored more than 100 papers in peer-
reviewed research journals, books, and reports; and has delivered in excess of 300 presentations
at professional meetings, conferences, and panels. He served as a member of the EPA Chartered
Science Advisory Board (2003-2009), and is past editor of the Journal of Environmental
Engineering. He has published widely on the problem of reactive nitrogen in the environment
and is the co-chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board committee on Integrated Nitrogen
Management. From 1980 to 1985, he was the co-director of the Industrial Waste Elimination
Research Center (a collaboration of Illinois Institute of Technology and University of Notre
Dame), one of the first Centers of Excellence established by EPA. In 1989, he was an invited
participant on the United Nations' Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment
(SCOPE) Workshop on Groundwater Contamination. In 1998, he was invited by the World Bank
to assist in the development of the first environmental engineering program in Argentina. In
January 2009, he delivered the keynote address at the NitroEurope Conference in Gothenburg,
Sweden, and in October 2009 he was a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.S.-Japan
Workshop on Life Cycle Assessment and Infrastructure Materials in Sapporo, Japan. Dr. Theis is
the founding Principal Investigator of the Environmental Manufacturing Management Program,
funded in the first cohort of NSF IGERT awards. He is a member of the International Society for
Industrial Ecology, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Chemical Society,
and the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-22
-------
Arnold Tukker
Arnold Tukker has more than 20 years of experience in sustainability
research and policy making. He is currently Business Line Manager for
Societal Innovation and Economy at the Netherlands Organisation for
Applied Scientific Research TNO, one of the largest not-for-profit
research institutes in Europe, with 5,000 staff. He set up the Sustainable
Consumption Research Exchanges (SCORE!), a network of several
hundred researchers under the EU's Sixth Framework Program, which
developed knowledge for various international policy agendas, such as
the United Nations' 10-Year Framework of Programs Sustainable
Consumption and Production (SCP). Recently, with the main umbrella of
European NGOs, the European Environmental Bureau; he wrote the "Blueprint for European
SCP" (www.eeb.org). He also leads a multimillion project for the EU on the construction of a
global economic and environmental input output database (EXIOPOL). He was engaged in the
UNEP's Green Economy Initiative and supported UNEP's Resource Panel in editing the report
on environmental impacts of products and resources. He also managed the EU Sustainable
Product Development Network (SusProNet) on Sustainable Product Services, leading to various
scientific papers on sustainable product system development, and a book—edited with Ursula
Tischner—New Business for Old Europe, published by Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, U.K.,
2006. He is aboard member of various scientific journals, including the Journal of'Industrial
Ecology. Since April 2010, he has been a part-time professor of sustainable innovation at the
Industrial Ecology Program at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in
Trondheim, Norway.
Donald Versteeg
Donald J. Versteeg is an environmental risk assessor and sustainability
expert with The Procter & Gamble Company. A Principal Research
Scientist in the Environmental Stewardship Organization, Dr. Versteeg
leads an environmental risk assessment team working to improve risk
assessment approaches. His research has ranged from the use of
ecotoxicogenomics to understand the mode of toxic action in fish to the
generation of quantitative structure activity relationships to reduce
animal use in toxicology. He has more than 25 years of industry
experience, and has more than 40 publications in refereed journals on the
fate, effects, and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and
emerging contaminants. He earned his Ph.D. from Michigan State University, is a member of the
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), and serves as an editor of
aquatic toxicology for the journal, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-23
-------
Eric Williams
Eric Williams is Associate Professor at the Golisano Institute of
Sustainability at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). After
undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral work in physics, Eric has
worked on industrial ecology and life cycle assessment at United
Nations University in Tokyo, Carnegie Mellon University, Arizona
State University, and most recently, RIT. Much of his research has dealt
with environmental assessment and management of information
technology, including materials flow analysis and LCA of
semiconductors and computers. He has also examined the sustainability
of global reverse supply for end-of-life electronics, including
consideration of informal recycling in the developing world. Recent
research focuses on systems assessments of renewable energy technologies, urban form, and
energy-water issues. Methodological interests include hybrid life cycle assessment, uncertainty
analysis, technological progress modeling and thermodynamics.
Phillip Williams
Phil Williams is the Vice President of Sustainability and
Technical Systems for Webcor Builders. As the Sustainability
Vice President, Phil is responsible for all sustainability efforts
related to building construction, internal business processes,
institutional as well as private sector research and development.
He directs all work relating to reducing environmental footprint
and collaboratively promoting, innovative, sustainable processes,
systems and materials. Under his guidance Webcor has recently
been selected as the only construction firm to "Road Test" the
World Resource Institute (WRI) carbon accounting/greenhouse-
gas (GHG) scope 3 protocol. In 2009 Webcor was the first and only California business to report
and independently verified complete Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions to the California Climate Action
Registry. To support construction industry research regarding supply chain carbon accounting,
Webcor, along with six other West Coast firms and through the University of Washington,
established the "Carbon Leadership Forum".
Mr. Williams is Chair of the Industry Advisory Board for the Center for the Built Environment
(CBE) through the University of California at Berkeley, serves on the Advisory for the Business
Council on Climate Change (BC3 in affiliation with the United Nations Global Compact and
serves on several cleantech/greentech venture capital advisory boards based in Silicon Valley. In
addition, he serves as the Chairman of the San Francisco Mayor's Task Force on Green
Buildings, which developed legislative recommendations that were adopted in 2008 for private
sector green building requirements. Mr. Williams also was a key member of the Green Building
Code working groups established for the Cities of San Jose and Oakland. He is a professional
engineer, serves as the American Society of Concrete Contractors (ASCC) Sustainability
Committee Chair, is a member of the Strategic Development Council BEVI committee (SDC
under ACI), and American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 130 on Sustainability. Projects
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-24
-------
of note include the California Academy of Science (LEED Platinum), Park Mercer (LEED
Platinum), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Head Quarters (LEED
Platinum) and over 40 other LEED projects, of which 53% are LEED certified as Platinum or
Gold, with project totals exceedingly 28 million square feet and $16 billion of revenue.
B. Erik Ydstie
B. Erik Ydstie is a Professor of Chemical and Electrical Engineering
at Carnegie Mellon University and Professor II of Electrical
Engineering at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU) in Trondheim, Norway. He earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees
in Chemistry from NTNU and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from
Imperial College in London, UK. From 1982 till 1992 he was
professor of Chemical Engineering at the University of
Massachusetts. From 1999 and 2000 he was Director of R&D for
Elkem Metals in Norway. His responsibilities included technical IT,
corporate and business unit R&D, and day-to-day management of the
research center. He initiated corporate research programs in the areas
of carbothermic aluminum production and high purity silicon for solar cells. In 2005 he founded
iLS Inc. to commercialize nonlinear adaptive control and real time optimization systems. ILS is
also been working on commercialization of a new process for making silicon wafer for solar
cells. Prof. Ydstie has held consulting agreements with PPG, Elkem and ALCOA. He is on the
advisory boards of the American Chemical Society, Petroleum Research Fund, and the
Worcester Polytechnic Institute; he also has held visiting positions at Imperial College, Ecole des
Mines in Paris, France, and the University of New South Wales in Australia. He has authored
over 200 articles on process control, optimization and modeling of chemical processes. His
current areas of research are process control, modeling, design and scale-up. He works on supply
chain management and solar cells, aluminum production processes and oil and gas field control
and optimization systems. He won the Kun Li award for excellence in teaching at CMU (2007,
2010), the CAST division award of the AIChE (2007) and he was the Sargent Lecturer at
Imperial College in 2006.
Fengqi You
Fengqi You is an Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biological
Engineering at Northwestern University. He received a Ph.D. from
Carnegie Mellon University in 2009 and a B.S. from Tsinghua
University in 2005, both in Chemical Engineering. His graduate
research is concerned with the development of mixed-integer
nonlinear programming models and algorithms for the design of
chemical supply chains under uncertainty. From 2009 to 2011, Dr.
You was an Argonne Scholar at Argonne National Laboratory, where
his efforts were concentrated on the analysis, design, and optimization
of sustainable energy supply chains. He started as an Assistant Professor at Northwestern
University in 2011. His group's research focuses on the development of novel computational
models, optimization techniques, and systems analysis methods for problems in process-energy-
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-25
-------
environmental systems engineering. Dr. You has published more than 25 journal articles and
book chapters. His recent honors include the W. David Smith, Jr. Award from the CAST
Division of AIChE (2011), Director's Postdoctoral Fellowship from Argonne National
Laboratory (2009-2011), and the Ken Meyer Award for best doctoral thesis at Carnegie Mellon
University (2010).
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-26
-------
Note: Participants who were unable to attend the Workshop are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Bhavik Bakshi
Sustainable Supply Chains as Techno-Ecological Networks
My group's research is motivated by the need to understand, learn from, and emulate ecological
systems to develop human-designed systems that are likely to be sustainable. Over the last
decade, our work has developed ways of accounting for the contributions from nature for
supporting human activities. The main motivation for this work is that such accounting is
essential for understanding and appreciating the role of the systems essential for sustainability of
all planetary activities.
This has resulted in many directions of research, including the use of thermodynamic methods
for resource accounting and for integrated analysis of industrial and ecological systems. This
work has culminated in the development of a framework for Ecologically-Based Life Cycle
Assessment (Eco-LCA). Application of this framework and related data to products (e.g.,
transportation fuels) has resulted in unique insight, such as the apparent trade-off between
renewability and physical return on investment. This insight implies the importance of relying on
the "free" work done by nature and conserving these ecosystem services for maximizing
renewability and return on investment. Recently, we have also shed light on the carbon-nitrogen
nexus for these fuels by showing that many biofuels may save the carbon cycle, but worsen the
nitrogen cycle. This involves the use of new data about both cycles and a definition of the
nitrogen footprint.
This work is relevant to supply chain management because it helps to identify the contribution of
various processes in the supply chain to the overall environmental impact. This information
could be used to determine where improvement efforts should be directed to enhance supply
chain sustainability. In addition, our work is also relevant for understanding the risks to industry
and economic activities due to depletion of ecosystem services. The input-output framework also
can be used to connect the latest advances in life cycle assessment with the latest methods in
operations research and supply chain management.
I expect to learn more at this Workshop about sustainability and supply chains from various
perspectives, including various academic disciplines and industries. This should help in
motivating further research and collaborations that can address many practical challenges of
achieving sustainability in supply chains.
Russell Barton
My primary purpose for attending the workshop is to gain a better understanding of sustainable
production and supply chains, particularly for the chemical and batch process industries. I am
seeking cross-fertilization opportunities with the research community that I support as an NSF
program director. This community focuses primarily on discrete part manufacturing and
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-27
-------
operations management and associated supply chains. The following titles of recently funded
research in the programs I manage indicate the opportunity for our communities to learn from
each other:
• Real-Time Control of Production Systems for Energy-Efficient Manufacturing: Theory and
Applications;
• Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency Management of Sustainable Manufacturing Systems;
Closed Loop Supply Chain Design for Uncertain Carbon Regulations and Random Product
Flows;
• Optimizing the Supply Chain for Cost and Carbon Footprint; and
• Analytical Approaches for Assessing the Revenue Aspects and Environmental Impacts of
Demanufacturing.
My own supply chain research (in collaboration with Jun Shu at Penn State) focuses on the
monitoring of timeliness and correctness of the movement of entities through a supply chain. A
class of data we call individualized trace data identifies the real-time status of individual entities
as they move through execution processes, such as an individual product passing through a
supply chain. A state-identity-time Framework represents individualized trace data at multiple
levels of aggregation for different managerial purposes. Using this framework, we formally
define two supply chain quality measures—timeliness and correctness—for the progress of
entities through a supply chain. The timeliness and correctness metrics provide behavioral
visibility that can help managers to grasp the dynamics of supply chain behavior that is distinct
from asset visibility such as inventory. We develop special quality control methods using this
framework to reduce overreaction of supply chain managers faced with large volumes of real-
time data (e.g. RFID or GPS data).
Beth Beloff
From my work in seeking collaboration between companies on qualifying the sustainability of
supplies and suppliers in their joint supply chains, I have several positions to share. They are as
follows:
1. The purchasing decisions of companies and other kinds of organizations contribute
significantly to the "sustainability" or the environmental footprint that they create; creating
sustainable supply chains will push better decisions regarding sustainability through the
whole value chain of commerce.
2. Only through better information regarding sustainability aspects of products, processes and
services in the supply chain can decision makers make better decisions.
3. Requesting sustainability-related information and verification of that information regarding
attributes of products and practices of suppliers is costly to both the supplier and the
purchaser, particularly if each purchaser is asking a different set of questions.
4. Getting reasonable lifecycle data about materials in products is both costly and time
consuming. The methodologies are complex and expensive.
5. There is no standardization or consensus regarding the definition of a sustainable product
system, although there are numerous certifications that cover certain aspects of sustainability
regarding products.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-28
-------
6. Working collaboratively with organizations with similar supply chains to 1) request
information of suppliers, 2) verify that information, 3) share the information with others, and
4) mentor suppliers as to how to improve will help improve the sustainability of the whole
supply chain.
Bert Bras
The design of sustainable product networks and supply chains is a complex issue. It is very easy
to focus on a particular subset of problems and lose sight of the larger picture needed to achieve
sustainable development, (i.e., "development that meets the needs of the present generation
without compromising the needs of future generations").
While performing this workshop, we should not ignore prior work and results from other
workshops in the area. For example, in 2001, the National Science Foundation and Department
of Energy sponsored a comprehensive global study on Environmentally Benign Manufacturing.
The study found that there was no evidence that the environmental problems from our production
systems are solvable by a "silver bullet" technology [1]. Rather, the need for systems-based
solutions was noted, requiring a comprehensive systems approach in which, for example, the
product's design is performed in conjunction with its logistical and recycling systems,
integrating key disciplines such as environmental science and policy, engineering, economics,
and management. Several key elements are needed to move from our current "take-make-waste"
production system to a sustainable system. Clearly, this raises the level of design complexity and
a need exists for a framework for such a systems-based approach that is both efficient and
effective in reducing environmental impact while maintaining or increasing a supply chain's
technical and financial performance.
While many researchers are working to address important needs in sustainable manufacturing,
the cumulative impact of the work is often limited by its fragmented nature, lack of a systems
view, and lack of connectivity to industry. Critical elements needed to achieve a systems view
and move to sustainability are life cycle and closed loop thinking, multi-scale/multi-level
modeling and assessment, inclusion of geospatial locality, and understanding societal and user
behavior.
Closed loop thinking that includes material recycling, product and part remanufacture as part of
an extended supply chain is gaining ground, but is still an exception rather than a rule. Especially
remanufacture can result in significant material and energy savings, if done appropriately with
proper warranties and pricing.
More and more people are realizing that local conditions can affect supply chain performance
enormously. For example, moving an entire facility or supplier from a region with coal-fired
electricity generation to an area where hydropower is prevalent may offer more benefits than
incremental process improvements.
Emerging concerns around local water consumption and use also force rethinking of production
and process locations and technologies. Whereas greenhouse gases are a global issue, water
scarcity and quality is typically a local issue subject to a variety of local policies and regulations.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-29
-------
The importance of understanding consumer and human behavior is widely recognized in
business and also gaining traction in engineering. For example, good truck driver behavior can
improve fuel efficiency significantly—outperforming many bolt-on technologies. Similarly, any
efficiency gains can be negated by rebound effects, if one is not careful.
Last, but not least, we also should not ignore the importance of good basic engineering.
Reducing material intensity, increasing energy efficiency, etc. are all based on good engineering
practices. Nevertheless, just improving efficiency will not be enough. Resources should be
channeled to innovation and adoption of potentially game-changing technologies and products.
Proper up-front modeling and assessments are crucial in order to avoid unintended consequences
from wide-spread adoption.
1. Gutowski, T.G., C.F. Murphy, D.T. Allen, DJ. Bauer, B. Bras, T.S. Piwonka, P.S. Sheng,
J.W. Sutherland, D.L. Thurston, andE.E. Wolff, Environmentally Benign Manufacturing,
2001, International Technology Research Institute, World Technology (WTEC) Division:
Baltimore, MD. (www.wtec.org/pdf/ebm.pdf)
Maria K. Burka
Sustainable product systems and supply chains cover areas of great interest to NSF. Numerous
core programs fund research in various aspects that will be discussed at the workshop. In
addition, there are many cross-cutting, NSF-wide programs that these topics would fit directly.
Some examples include Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (GDI), Software Infrastructure
for Sustained Innovation (SI2), etc. These solicitations as well as core program descriptions can
all be found at http://www.nsf.gov.
Heriberto Cabezas
Sustainability is widely associated with the statement from the World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987: "... development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs..." Hence,
sustainability is about the world supporting human society for the indefinite future. Because a
major feature of human society is the production and use of goods and services using a supply
chain, it is important for sustainability that these supply chains spanning the entire life cycle be
as sustainable as possible. To do this in any practical way, however, one needs at least semi-
quantitative means of measuring progress towards or away from sustainability. There is,
therefore, a need for scientifically sound indicators and metrics to at least provide quantitative
measures of progress. Note, though, that there is a distinct difference between pollution
prevention and sustainability. Pollution prevention is when the environmental impact is reduced
along the supply chain for the activities of raw material acquisition and transportation, goods and
services production, goods and services distribution, and goods disposal. Pollution prevention is
based on indicators that may include indexes of environmental impact, energy efficiency, raw
material to product ratios, etc., and these can greatly reduce environmental impacts when used
judiciously. Sustainability, however, goes beyond reducing environmental impacts and considers
whether the underlying processes in the ecosystem, energy flow and cycling system, the
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-30
-------
economy, and society are functioning well and are being preserved. This requires a wider look,
not so much at the components of the supply chain, but at the supply chain in its entirety. This
requires the use of sustainability metrics, which may be based on footprint analysis (e.g.,
ecological foot print), energy systems analysis (e.g., emergy), thermodynamic analysis (e.g.,
exergy), economics (e.g., green accounting), and information theory (e.g., Fisher information);
and it also requires criteria that relate these metrics to sustainability. These sustainability
indicators and metrics are necessary for the design and retrofit for sustainability of supply chains
spanning the product or service life cycle in its entirety.
Vincent Camobreco
As part of revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program (commonly known as the
RFS program) as mandated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), EPA
analyzed lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from increased renewable fuels use. EISA
established eligibility requirements for renewable fuels, including the first U.S. mandatory
lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds, which determine compliance with four renewable fuel
categories. The regulatory purpose of EPA's lifecycle GHG emissions analysis is therefore to
determine whether renewable fuels produced under varying conditions meet the GHG thresholds
for the different categories of renewable fuel. Determining compliance with the thresholds
requires a comprehensive evaluation of renewable fuels, as well as of gasoline and diesel, on the
basis of their lifecycle emissions.
In order to calculate the lifecycle GHG emissions of various fuels, I led the team at EPA that
utilized models that take into account energy and emissions inputs for fuel and feedstock
production, distribution, and use, as well as economic models that predict changes in agricultural
markets. In developing this analysis, the Agency employed a collaborative, transparent, and
science-based approach. Through technical outreach, the peer review process, and the public
comment period, EPA received and reviewed a significant amount of data, studies, and
information on our proposed lifecycle analysis approach. We incorporated a number of new,
updated, and peer-reviewed data sources in our final rulemaking analysis, including better
satellite data for tracking land use changes and improved assessments of N2O impacts from
agriculture.
The lifecycle methodology that we developed for the RFS rulemaking analysis included the use
of economic models to perform a consequential type of lifecycle analysis. This has implications
for the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains. The lifecycle approach is itself a
way to measure impacts across product systems and supply chains. Furthermore, the type of
lifecycle analysis that was conducted as part of the RFS analysis for renewable fuels has
implications on the type of information that could be included in examining other product
systems or supply chains.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-31
-------
John B. Carberry
Supply Chain Sustainability
Moving a supply chain toward a more sustainable position requires analyzing that particular
business versus the specific sustainability issues that are most impacted by that business. The
sustainability of suppliers, customers, and one's own manufacturing must be assessed and that
must balance the environmental, societal, and business issues in combination. At least for
chemical companies, the summary developed by the Center for Waste Reduction Technologies
of the AIChE is an excellent list of "environmental issues" to start from. From that, an industry
can develop a plan for more sustainable manufacturing of more sustainable products in a more
sustainable business area.
Andreas Ciroth
Sustainability Assessment
I have worked in sustainability research and consultancy since about 1998 on projects for
industry, governments, organizations, consultancies, and universities. I am working in method
development and implementation for LCA, social LCA, and Life Cycle Costing. I also work in
software and data development and have been involved in several smaller and larger projects. I
like to use advanced statistical and analytical methods "where fit," and I especially like the
statement, "vom Primitiven uber das Komplizierte zum Einfachen" (from primitive, to complex,
to simple) as guidance for developing anything. This statement is attributed, somewhat
unfortunately, to both Wernher von Braun and Antoine de Saint Exupery.
I see the following needs for sustainability assessment and its application, and would like the
workshop to discuss these, and ideally, decide on next steps:
1. Finding the right scope for sustainability analyses: Carbon footprint/(environmental)
LCA/social LCA/economic impacts over the life cycle, LCC—all provide some aspects of
sustainability assessment. When applying one of these, there are different nuances and
modeling decisions that usually influence both the scope of the analysis and the effort. One
example is the impact categories addressed in an LCA (e.g., toxicity and land use or more the
classic categories as GWP, AP, EP, etc.). There is not really guidance for this scoping today,
besides a review panel that might question these modeling decisions by expert judgment.
Consequently, many studies might investigate spots that are not really relevant for their own
research/study interest and bypass others that would be required.
2. Finding ways to deal with diverse information: This is linked to the statement above. One
benefit of choosing a single score method is the simplicity of the result; so it might have been
selected not because it fits the problem of interest but because the result is more easily
understood. Sustainability is always a diverse issue; therefore, knowledge and tools on how
to deal with diverse information—especially ways to aggregate/interpret/process information
in results of analyses so that it can be understood by the addressees—are important.
Currently, there are some approaches discussed, but rarely applied.
3. Availability of transparent data and transparent tools: LCA often claims to be science-based,
but many of the tools and data are not transparent. This is well accepted in practice, and yet
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-32
-------
contradicts science and prevents a more in-depth quality assurance process. While there are
sensitivity issues, of course, that need to be respected, there are currently few incentives to
provide transparent data (and tools), which makes data and tools more often nontransparent
than necessary.
4. Interoperability of tools and data: Currently, many LCA tools work in isolation; exchange
from one tool to another is not usually possible without information loss and (even if the loss
is accepted) in an automated way. The LCA data exchange formats are interpreted somewhat
differently by many tools, which always makes data exchange a surprising, non-routine
effort. This needs to be changed. Tools should work together.
5. Making better analyses and validating data and studies: The modeling and quality assurance
process for LCA studies seems to be somewhat old-fashioned and simple. There are usually
many processes to be connected in a study, but each process is modeled as a linear
combination of inputs and outputs that is generated once and expert judgment is usually
employed to evaluate its quality. Uncertainty information is usually not added or added with
expert judgment only, although flows for processes are uncertain. There are more refined
quality assurance tools available "outside" of the LCA domain that should be investigated.
For the models, generic data are used for (usually) a large part of the data. Methods of
collecting real data and integrating it into cases and studies should be investigated.
6. Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment: These assessments should be made much more
available for day-to-day decisions. Historically, LCA has been quite an academic and
research field. LCA needs to be more available in the everyday life of businesses and
consumers in a way that is "easy to consume and use." I believe this includes my points 1-5,
but adds communication and maybe other things, such as intrinsic incentives to use LCA
information.
Andres Clarens
My research groups' interests lie broadly in the areas of anthropogenic carbon flows, reuse, and
sequestration. Specifically, we carry out work in: 1) high-pressure fluid-phase behavior of CC>2
mixtures and 2) carbon accounting of systems-level processes. These complementary areas are
important as policymakers and engineers grapple with better ways to manage the emissions that
are driving climate change. There is currently a great deal of uncertainty and lack of
understanding of how and where carbon moves through the technosphere. Our work aims to try
and fill some of these gaps, so we can make more meaningful progress on the climate change
problem. In preparation for this workshop, I will focus my discussion on the second area, larger
systems-level research, since it is the most closely related to supply chain modeling.
Over the past several years, we have been exploring the large-scale systems-level environmental
impacts of engineered processes. This work is of vital importance as government-mandated CO2
emissions reporting rules are developed. Fundamental advances in the science of life cycle
assessment are needed to provide the necessary tools in carbon accounting. To this end, we are
developing a model for transportation departments, allowing them to incorporate CO2 emissions
into pavement management decisionmaking. This project aims to go "beyond" the traditional life
cycle assessment scope to try and embed the knowledge into the engineering design process.
There is a good deal of overlap between this work and supply chain design. In particular, we are
looking at the ways in which decisions about maintenance set off a cascade of processes from
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-33
-------
contractors and state agencies to move huge amounts of material and create significant
environmental burdens. This work has also highlighted some of the ways in which existing life-
cycle methodologies, which are typically used to study manufacturing products or processes, are
inadequate for modeling large-scale infrastructure projects with use phases on the order of many
decades.
Another project is using life cycle modeling techniques to characterize algae-based biofuels and
assess how large-scale deployment of algae for bioenergy will impact the environment. This is a
particularly challenging problem because there are few operating examples upon which to
develop systems-level models, and yet the scale at which some would deploy the technology is
quite large. The results of the algae work are being used to inform future research; our team is
working to explore one promising area that would leverage synergies with wastewater treatment
and carbon sequestration. This work has revealed how little is known about the ways that CC>2
would be sourced in the marketplace for use in sequestration or reuse projects. This is not a
trivial problem, since the scale of CC>2 that is used industrially today is considerably smaller than
the amount of CO2 that is emitted in combustion gases and other waste streams. Many trained
professionals believe that using flue gas from fossil plants is a trivial obstacle with few collateral
impacts. The reality is likely to be quite different, and this work is trying to identify the tools that
will be needed to make better management decisions. Understanding CC>2 supply chains is likely
to be an important topic of research in the short term until we can move toward more carbon-
neutral fuel sources.
This workshop will be a valuable opportunity to learn about new analytical tools being applied
by the supply chain community. The area of carbon management is nascent and could benefit
from the lessons learned by the supply chain community. While some characteristics of carbon
management (e.g., scale, stocks and flows, and volume) are likely to be unlike most others, the
academic literature contains a number of examples of how to investigate co-products and their
burden allocation. I expect this workshop will provide a useful venue to explore potential
collaborations and to learn about the state-of-the-art in fields closely related to our own interests.
Joseph Fiksel
Supply Chain Resilience and Sustainability
Leading global companies are expanding the scope of their sustainability initiatives to
encompass the full product life cycle, ranging from the conduct of upstream suppliers to the
disposition of obsolete products. For example, HP and Wal-Mart have implemented green
purchasing policies to ensure that their suppliers adopt sustainable business practices. As
multinational firms extend into emerging markets, globalization and outsourcing have only
accentuated the importance of environmental and social responsibility in supply chain
management. At the same time, supply chain disruptions such as natural disasters and
contamination incidents have heightened concerns about business continuity and product
integrity.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) tools are increasingly used to support business decisions regarding
new product introduction, supplier selection, capital investment, supply chain operations, and
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-34
-------
product take-back processes. LCA methods can be challenging to apply, and may be
inappropriate if adequate data are not readily available. However, life cycle thinking is essential
for a modern enterprise to understand risks and opportunities throughout its supply chain. In
some cases, the use of streamlined LCA or footprint indicators may be sufficient to support
strategic priority-setting and decisionmaking. For example, Coca-Cola has adopted a water
stewardship strategy based on a water efficiency ratio (i.e., liters of water per liter of product)
that they estimated to be about 2.5 in 2007. The company's ultimate goal is to achieve "water
neutrality" by returning water to nature equivalent to what it uses in its operations.
Recently, much attention has been focused on the "energy-water-nexus"— water is essential to
the supply of energy and vice versa. In fact, the global water cycle is closely linked to the global
carbon cycle, with vegetation playing a vital role through photosynthesis. Extension of this
integrative thinking suggests the "material-energy-water nexus"—materials are essential to the
supply of both energy and water, and vice versa. In fact, the root cause of the enormous carbon
footprint of the U.S.—over 7 billion metrics tons per year—is material throughput, which drives
the consumption of energy throughout the economy.
Current efforts at supply chain sustainability improvement are focused on incremental efficiency
gains, such as shorter transport distances and pooled urban distribution via common carriers.
However, the real sustainability challenge is to reduce the growth of material requirements—to
decouple economic wellbeing from resource consumption. What is needed is a paradigm shift
from a material-based economy based on throughput, product delivery, and material wealth; to a
value-based economy based on knowledge, service delivery, and quality of life.
Finally, the journey to sustainability must be accomplished in an increasingly complex and
unpredictable business environment. Technological innovation, resource scarcity, regulatory
pressures, and climate change—as well as political and economic volatility—are creating new
challenges for global supply chain management. In order to remain competitive, enterprises are
beginning to emphasize resilience—the capacity to survive, adapt, and flourish in the face of
turbulent change. For example, Dow Chemical is working with Ohio State to measure and
improve supply chain resilience in its worldwide businesses.
Resilience is sustainability in real-time. Put another way, resilience in the current environment is
a prerequisite for achieving long-term sustainability. Human societies can learn from the
resilience characteristics of living systems—a balance between autonomy and control, and a
keen ability to sense and respond to threats. It is important for government, industry, and
communities to work together in order to ensure both the sustainability and resilience of the
natural resources, economic assets, and infrastructure that represent the foundation of future
economic prosperity.
William P. Flanagan
William Flanagan leads GE's Ecoassessment Center of Excellence (COE) and works closely
with GE Corporate Environmental Programs, GE Ecomagination, and many of the GE business
units on a variety of product-focused environmental issues and strategies. The ecoassessment
COE focuses primarily on life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting and is also working to
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-35
-------
implement life cycle management approaches to guide internal product development teams. We
are participating in this workshop specifically to share ideas and learn more about what others
are doing in this space. We hope to come away from this workshop with fresh new insights that
can potentially be reflected in our ongoing program development.
Our experience driving sustainability-related projects within a business context has led to insight
around five enabling principles that we feel are important to consider when formulating product
ecodesign strategies:
(1) Be strategic and selective. Application of LCA, and more specifically the collection of
inventory data to support LCA or supply chain initiatives, can be resource intensive. While
LCA is a very powerful tool that can provide deep and valuable insight, it must be applied
strategically and selectively to ensure maximum benefit.
(2) Leverage qualitative screening approaches. Insights can be gained by applying qualitative
approaches early in product development. The reduced time, effort, and expertise required
for qualitative screening approaches offers the potential for cost-effective application to a
wider spectrum of product development activities. Screening approaches should serve as a
funnel to identify those opportunities requiring further analysis using more sophisticated
quantitative approaches, such as structured DfE methodologies or detailed LCA.
(3) Focus on value creation. For any initiative to thrive within industry, it must create value.
There are many opportunities to create value from sustainability-based initiatives,
particularly those focused on energy and resource efficiency.
(4) Be flexible and customize programs for relevance to individual business context.
(5) Leverage the power of innovation. Great ideas can come from anywhere within a company.
Invite active engagement, particularly in customization of tools and approaches.
Mark Goedkoop
Towards an LCA 2.0: Our Rethinking of the Position of LCA as an Important Basis for Decision
Support
Motivation
After being one of the key companies in the LCA scene for more than 20 years, with
achievements in developing and marketing the most widely used LCA software; developing
leading methodologies such as Eco-indicator and ReCiPe; and serving as an active contributor in
many organizations, promoting transparency and open access to data and methods; we realized
the LCA world is rapidly changing as companies are starting to understand sustainable products
have become a competitive advantage. Sustainable products are an important growth- and value-
driver.
Method
We gathered information from clients and opinion leaders, studied several trend reports, and
analyzed articles (e.g., Harvard Business Magazine and the SLOAN/MIT publications). We
engaged in the development and road-testing of the WBCSD/WRI GHG protocol and in the
Sustainability Consortium as a Tierl member. We also experimented with changing the way we
make offers to gauge responses from clients.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-36
-------
Results (What we see happening in the market)
LCA has always been done in an ad hoc mode and a key focus was writing the report. Such ad
hoc studies have the reputation of being expensive, and this is not completely untrue. Ad hoc
studies are relatively inefficient to conduct, and by the time the results are in, the issue may
already have lost its priority.
Many companies are now changing this, and are developing internal competence centers that can
take a much more structural and efficient approach. The internal competence center works with
one database that gradually grows to cover all major activities in which the company is engaged.
This internal knowledge base makes it much more efficient and effective to answer questions,
screen issues, and set priorities. The shift is from report-writing to actively engaging in design
and management decisions.
Relevance of These Results
The new trend has major implications for the actors in the LCA community. LCA moves from
fringe activity in a niche market to a strategic tool for companies that want to use sustainability
as a growth-driver, and a value-creator.
Implications
This means:
• Education on a massive scale is needed to train the people in the competence centers.
• New tools are needed to support such decisionmaking.
• Instead of focusing on reports, EPDs, and green marketing; LCA practitioners need to get
engaged in the way companies want to create a decision support system in design processes
and management decision support.
• Data and methodologies need further standardization and transparency. It is unthinkable that
in the long run, companies and clients or consumers will put trust in privately held,
confidential data.
Ignacio E. Grossmann
Optimal Design of Sustainable Chemical Processes and Supply Chains
My general research interests lie in the application of mathematical programming to the design
and operation of chemical plants and process supply chains. More specifically, my research
interests are in process synthesis, energy and water integration, process flexibility, design under
uncertainty, planning and scheduling of batch and continuous processes, supply chain
optimization, and algorithms for mixed-integer and logic-based optimization. Within these areas
we have worked on a number of problems related to the optimal design of sustainable chemical
processes and supply chains.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-37
-------
We have developed in our group a number of mathematical optimization models for heat
integration that include the linear programming transshipment model for predicting the minimum
energy consumption and/or cost for a set of hot and cold streams (Papoulias and Grossmann,
1983), and a mixed-integer nonlinear programming model for automatically synthesizing
network structures in which energy consumption, number of units, and area cost are
simultaneously optimized (Yee and Grossmann, 1990). In addition, we have developed a
nonlinear programming model for simultaneous optimization and heat integration (Duran and
Grossmann, 1986) that has the interesting effect of reducing the consumption of feedstock
through efficient energy integration. We have also addressed the synthesis of integrated process
water networks for minimizing the consumption of freshwater. The optimization problem
involves bilinearities that give rise to multiple local solutions (Galan and Grossmann, 1998). We
have developed a spatial branch and method to rigorously obtain the global optimum in these
networks (Karuppiah and Grossmann (2006). We have recently extended this work to more
general superstructures (Ahmetovic and Grossmann, 2011).
We have also directed our efforts toward the energy and water optimization of biofuel plants; for
example, the design of corn based ethanol plants (Karuppiah, Peschel, Martin, Grossmann,
Martinson, and Zullo, 2008) in which the steam consumption was reduced by 66 percent through
the use of multi-effect distillation columns. In a subsequent series of papers we addressed the
design of second generation biofuels plants using a superstructure optimization approach to
optimize energy use in these processes (e.g., bioethanol plants from switchgrass via gasification
and hydrolysis [Grossmann and Martin, 2011]). We have also addressed the minimization of
freshwater consumption in some of these plants. For corn based ethanol plants we showed that a
consumption as low as 1.5 gallons of freshwater per gallon of ethanol can be achieved
(Ahmetovic, Martin, and Grossmann, 2010).
We have also considered environmental issues in design and operation of process systems and
supply chains through a multi-objective optimization framework. For instance, in Grossmann,
Drabbant, and Jain (1982) we incorporated toxicology measures to be minimized versus the
maximization of net present value in the design of chemical complexes. More recently we
addressed the bi-criterion optimal design and planning of sustainable chemical supply chains
under uncertainty (Guillen-Gonzalez and Grossmann, 2009) in which uncertainties in the
emissions of the Eco-indicator-99 are considered. We have also addressed the problem when
there are uncertainties in the damage assessment model (Guillen-Gonzalez and Grossmann,
2010). Finally, we also performed research on an interesting case study related to a hydrogen
supply chain in the UK where reforming, biomass and coal gasification technologies were
considered (Guillen-Gonzalez, Mele, and Grossmann, 2010).
Bruce Hamilton
NSF has established a major new cross-NSF investment area, Science, Engineering, and
Education for Sustainability (SEES). SEES is offering a number of new funding opportunities
that are very relevant to the topic of this workshop. The workshop itself provides an opportunity
for teams to nucleate and go on to submit winning proposals for SEES funding. For example, one
such opportunity is the RCN-SEES track of the already posted RCN solicitation. RCN stands for
Research Coordination Networks. RCN grants support research coordination, not research itself,
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-38
-------
and they provide funding for new interdisciplinary research networks to assemble. RCN-SEES
grants can be for up to $750K, with a duration of 4-5 years. New RCN-SEES grants I am
managing that are relevant to this workshop are one on biofuels sustainability and another on
sustainable manufacturing.
Workshop participants should not let this funding opportunity pass them by. The next deadline
for RCN-SEES track proposals is February 3, 2012. The solicitation is posted at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsfll531/nsfll531.htm. Another major new SEES solicitation is
being posted that supports sustainability network research, not just research coordination— the
Sustainability Research Networks (SRN) solicitation. SRN awards can be for up to $12 million
for up to 5 years. Additionally, another SEES solicitation that is being posted is the Sustainable
Energy Pathways (SEP) solicitation, with research grants for up to $3 million over 3 years. For
international research, the PIRE solicitation, focused entirely on SEES, is already posted at
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsfl 1564/nsfl 1564.htm, with a deadline of October 19, 2011, and
so is the G8 Dear Colleague Letter on material efficiency, with a deadline of September 30, 2011
(see http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsfl 1068/nsfl 1068.jsp). Also being posted is the SEES
Fellows solicitation for support of post-docs in the sustainability area. These are all wonderful
and immediate funding opportunities of relevance to this workshop.
Troy R. Hawkins
This workshop has grown out of efforts underway within the Sustainable Technology Division of
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory on the design of sustainable supply chains
for biofuels and consumer products. One approach to this problem is to focus on a particular
supply chain or perhaps a particular process within a supply chain over which one has control
and to modify aspects of the process or processes to improve the environmental profile. It soon
becomes clear, however, that although each actor's sphere of control within a supply chain may
be small, the ultimate goal is to optimize the environmental performance across the supply
chains providing inputs to the final product as well as the remainder of the product life cycle.
This is the reason "product systems" was included in the workshop title. To a great extent, the
workshop participants also reflect two primary areas: focused design and broader systems
analysis. Both of these skills are required for the design of sustainable product systems and
supply chains. The challenge from the focused design perspective is that while optimization may
only be tenable for a narrow system boundary, this approach risks missing effects occurring
outside the boundary. The challenge from the perspective of a broader systems analysis is that
moving between detailed, high resolution processes and their interactions with the global system
requires so much information that models generally address a simplified representation of reality
arrived at through crude assumptions.
Through my involvement in planning this workshop, I have had the opportunity to interact with
an incredible group of individuals involved in the Organizing and Advisory Committees. The
final format of the workshop is stronger for each of their contributions. If you were to ask each
of these individuals what goals and key outcomes of the workshop are, you might think we were
planning 14 distinct workshops. Yet, there are many common points and in the end I hope the
workshop does some small justice to this diversity of perspectives. In the end, I believe we have
managed to bring together experts on different aspects of this topic from academia, government,
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-39
-------
and industry in a forum where they can discuss the current state of research and practice in this
area, explore opportunities for cross-fertilization of research efforts across disciplines, and
prioritize and make recommendations regarding research directions. For the most part, the
workshop participants approach this topic from an engineering perspective, some coming out of
chemical engineering and others from a broader systems analysis or decision-support
perspective. While most participants are from the U.S., the final group represents a range of
geography with Europe being the second best represented region.
In moving the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains forward as a research
area, there are a few practical challenges I see that need to be overcome. None of these are
insurmountable. However, addressing them may require shifts in our approach.
The first challenge is to focus on collaboration and coordination rather than competition. There is
a lot of work to be done; the limitations are resources and time. Research support should be
designed to promote openness and sharing of information and to push back against individuals'
tendencies to restrict access to their work in order to maintain competitive advantage.
Comprehensive environmental systems analysis requires a large amount of data and highly
complex models. Performing analysis across levels of resolution makes it necessary to link
models together. This requires harmonization, where appropriate, and coordination across
research efforts. This, however, should be done without compromising the healthy competition
needed to allow for creative destruction and replacement of models and creative freedom in
research efforts.
The second challenge is the need to agree on everything before we move forward on anything.
One example of this is the amount of attention that has been placed on how to define or frame
sustainability. The ideological or philosophical goals of sustainability are more or less
understood. The problem is operationalizing these goals in the face of considerable data gaps,
model/system complexity, and drivers working against dramatic changes in existing systems of
production and consumption. Another example is the ongoing efforts to agree on a single method
for calculation of metrics or impacts. This exercise is useful for research coordination and
facilitating information transfer across efforts, but it should not delay progress on the
development of the new methods needed. A better approach would be to demonstrate best
practice through carrying out high-quality analyses that can be used as examples for the next
generation of work.
A third challenge is the large amount of data required for comprehensive environmental systems
analysis. This presents a particular challenge for research efforts because these data are costly
and time consuming to develop and, yet, there is not a lot of research credit to be gained solely
through data collection. My experience lies primarily in the area of life cycle assessment (LC A).
There are many unexploited opportunities for application of LCA and we have many of the
pieces needed for sustainable product systems and supply chain design in terms of models. The
problem is the lack of data—and especially high-quality datasets—that can be applied in a
consistent way across different models. One way to move forward in this area is to require
disclosure of datasets together with publication of results in such a way that they can be easily
integrated into consecutive modeling efforts by others.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-40
-------
A fourth challenge is that the network tying together modeling efforts relevant to the design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains is not sufficiently interconnected or efficient.
Only a small group of experts often know how to run the appropriately complex models of
economic and environmental systems. These individuals may be connected with their
counterparts working with other models, but few have an overview from the perspective of the
complete system. One option would be to develop user-friendly interfaces, but this is difficult
work that is currently not well rewarded. User interfaces must allow access to the richness of the
model while providing appropriate feedback and access to underlying information to prevent
misuse or misinterpretation of results. This challenge could be addressed by designing research
support that promotes interaction across levels of detail and recognizes the contribution of
interfaces that simplify access to complex models and streamline interaction between models.
There are three key outcomes I hope to see from this workshop:
(1) A strong report detailing research needs and priorities and proposing some paths for
accomplishing these things.
(2) Continued interaction between the attendees and the development and growth of a network
around the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains.
(3) The development of proposals leading to funded, well coordinated, and collaborative projects
focused on the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains.
My intention is that the report from this workshop will be picked up and used to influence
decision-making regarding research supported by government, industry, and non-governmental
organizations. I also hope that the opportunities provided by existing approaches and their use in
combination will be picked up by those involved in the practicalities of product system and
supply chain decision-making and used to shift the paradigms of their organizations. The
National Science Foundation is already committed to funding projects in this area and this
workshop will serve as a starting point for discussions leading to research coordination and
collaboration projects addressing the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains.
Finally, this workshop contributes to building the connections between individuals involved in
different aspects of this problem who are required to move forward on appropriate complex
efforts addressing this problem with a solid grounding in social and economic realities.
Michael R. Billiard
Three recent research efforts provide a view into my interests in sustainable supply chains. The
intersection of the three efforts is in the production of biofuels, particularly the potential for
developing a sustainable cellulosic ethanol supply. The corn-based ethanol industry has been
able to leverage the existing corn processing infrastructure, but the cellulosic industry will
require almost all new infrastructures. I am particularly interested in the question of what type of
system will evolve when viewed from a macro level. Will biomass production be focused in a
few high density locations (a "biomass belt") or will biomass be grown in smaller quantities
spread across a wider collection of locations using marginal lands? Will pre-processing facilities
become economical, producing a more transportable biomass format? What will be the preferred
size for refineries, balancing economies of scale with costs of transportation and distribution?
How will our demand for biofuels be distributed relative to population—uniformly or clustered?
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-41
-------
We began studying these questions by developing a supply chain model focusing on the
economics of the infrastructure and the linkages between the actors in the supply chain. We
developed a prototype optimization model, the Biofuel Infrastructure, Logistics and
Transportation (BILT) model capable of simultaneously specifying infrastructure for the entire
supply chain, including selection of biomass, transport, location, and capacity for preprocessing
and refinery facilities and distribution. The supply chain is modeled through a mixed integer
linear program, a technique ideally suited for problems with multiple complex and contradictory
objectives and constraints including the economic collaboration between entities. The MILP
approach can be effectively parallelized for high performance computing, allowing the global
optimization model to solve difficult problems and scale up for nationwide analyses. We are
working to provide a limited version of the BILT on-line while the full model is being integrated
into a national economic model of biofuel sustainability.
In an initial effort to consider the interplay of environmental effects and economic demands, we
developed a model for locating plantings of switchgrass in a watershed. Using an environmental
model to estimate the local and downstream effects of plantings in various types of soil in
various locations, I developed an optimization approach to maximize profit and water quality
measures (potassium, nitrogen, and sediment) while limiting the conversion of agricultural land
to switchgrass. The model is called the Biomass Location for Optimal Sustainability Model
(BLOSM). We were able to demonstrate a win-win situation where plantings increased profits
and improved water quality. BLOSM also allows us to estimate the cost of water quality as the
loss in profit with increased targets for water quality.
Currently, I am participating in the development of a set of socio-economic sustainability
indicators for the biofuel supply chain. This is an attempt to identify quantifiable values that
could capture the social and economic impacts of a developing biofuel supply chain from
biomass production and logistics to refinery operations and distribution. The challenge is to
identify a limited set of indicators that have a viable source for data. The results will become a
partner study to an effort published earlier this year on environmental indicators for biofuel
supply chain sustainability.
Yinlun Huang
Engineering sustainability is a science of applying the principles of engineering and design in a
manner that fosters positive economic and social development while minimizing environmental
impact. The mission can be largely accomplished through designing new systems and/or
retrofitting existing systems of various length/time scales that meet sustainability goals. Among
these, design sustainability of product systems and supply chains is of upmost importance, but it
faces tremendous challenges, mainly due to the complexity in multiscale design and the
existence of uncertainties contained in the accessible data and information. At Wayne State
University, the Huang research group has been developing multiscale systems modeling,
analysis, and decision-making methodologies and tools for the design of sustainable physical
systems, such as nanomaterials at the microscale, products with needed properties at the
mesoscale, and process systems as well as large-scale industrial system (e.g., industrial zones) at
the macroscale. At the supply chain design level, our group has extended an ecological input-
output analysis (EIOA) modeling approach through separating the system output into
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-42
-------
functionally different groups so that sustainability assessment can be more meaningfully
conducted and design modification opportunities can be relatively easily identified. The
methodology can be used to systematically characterize material and energy flows among
industrial systems of any complexity.
In addition, our group has introduced the Collaborative Profitable Pollution Prevention (CP3)
design methodology, which can advise synergistic efforts among industrial entities to maximize
economic gains while minimizing industrial pollutions. The collaboration can be at either the
management or the technical levels. It is recognized that one of the most challenging issues in
sustainability research is how to deal with uncertainties. This is especially true when future
sustainability performance needs to be predicted and/or a short-to-long-term sustainable
development plan is to be developed. The Huang group has classified the sustainability-related
uncertainties into two categories (i.e., aleatory and epistemic uncertainties), analyzed the
applicability of three types of approaches to handling severe uncertainty (i.e., the information
gap approach, the probability bounds analysis approach, and the fuzzy logic approach), and
developed a general guideline for handling uncertainties in modeling, analysis, and decision
making. A fuzzy-logic-based decision-making methodology has been introduced to develop
short-to-long-term sustainability improvement strategies for industrial zonal development
problems. Recently funded by the NSF, Huang is leading a team of 21 domestic and foreign
universities and 10 national organizations/university centers to initiate a 5-year project, RCN-
SEES: Sustainable Manufacturing Advances in Research and Technology (SMART)
Coordination Network. In this project, design of sustainable product systems and supply chains
are among the focused areas for research coordination. The experiences and connections to be
gained through attending this workshop should help greatly the implementation of the RCN-
SEES project and others.
Marianthi lerapetritou
Integration of Decision Making Stages for Sustainable Supply Chain Management
Modern process industries operate as a large integrated complex that involve multiproduct,
multipurpose, and multisite production facilities serving a global market. The process industries'
supply chain is composed of production facilities and distribution centers, where final products
are transported to satisfy the customer demand. The multisite plants produce a number of
products driven by market demand under operating conditions such as sequence-dependent
switchovers and resource constraints. Each plant within the enterprise may have different
production capacity and costs, different product recipes, and different transportation costs,
according to the location of the plants. To maintain economic competitiveness in a global
market, interdependences between the different plants, including intermediate products and
shared resources, need to be taken into consideration when making planning decisions.
Furthermore, the planning model should consider not only individual production facilities
constraints, but also transportation constraints. In addition to minimizing the production cost, it is
important to minimize the costs of transportation from production facilities to the distribution
centers.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-43
-------
Thus, simultaneous planning of all activities from production to distribution stage is important in
a multisite process industry supply chain [1]. To achieve enterprise-wide optimization (EWO) in
spatially distributed production facilities and distribution centers, interactions between different
complexes should be taken into consideration and their optimization should be tackled
simultaneously. In recent years, multisite production and distribution planning problems have
received a good deal of attention in the literature [2-4].
The planning problem covers a time horizon of a few months to a year and is concerned with
decisions such as production, inventory, and distribution; whereas the scheduling problem deals
with issues such as assignment of tasks to units and sequencing of tasks in each unit that covers a
time horizon of a few days to a few weeks. Since there is a significant overlap between different
decisions levels, it is necessary to integrate planning and scheduling problems to achieve global
optimal solutions for the entire supply chain [5]. For multisite facilities, the size and level of
interdependences between these sites present unique challenges to the integrated tactical
production planning and day-to-day scheduling problem. These challenges are highlighted by
Kallrath, 2002 [6].
In this work, we focus on the integration of planning (medium-term) and scheduling (short-term)
problems for the multiproduct plants that are located in different sites and supply different
markets. In recent years, the area of integrated planning and scheduling for single sites has
received much attention [7-9]. Although most companies operate in a multisite production
manner, very limited attention has been paid to integrating planning and scheduling decisions for
multisite facilities.
We first propose an integrated planning and scheduling model for multisite production and
distribution facilities that takes into consideration shared resources and intermediates between
production facilities, transportation time between production facilities, between production site
and distribution center, and in some rare cases, between distribution centers. To account for the
situations when—due to production capacity limitations or raw material availability
limitations—industry cannot satisfy the demand; we consider the option of hiring external
contractors. The full-scale integrated planning and scheduling optimization model spans the
entire planning horizon of interest and includes decisions regarding all production sites,
distribution centers, and transportation between them. Since the production planning and
scheduling levels deal with different time scales, the major challenge for the integration using
mathematical programming methods lies in addressing large-scale optimization models. When a
typical planning horizon is considered, the integrated problem becomes intractable and a
mathematical decomposition solution approach is necessary. To effectively deal with complexity
issues of the integrated problem, the block angular structure of the constraints matrix is exploited
by relaxing the inventory constraints between adjoining time periods using the augmented
lagrangian decomposition method. To resolve the issues of non-separable cross-product terms in
the augmented lagrangian function, we apply the diagonal approximation method. This
decomposition then results in separable planning and scheduling problems for each planning
period and for each production site. To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed model and
decomposition approach, we apply them to different sizes case studies.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-44
-------
Although the work discussed in the previous paragraphs focuses on the integration of planning
and scheduling (tactical and operational level in supply chain management [SCM]), the next step
is to move up the SCM hierarchy and incorporate strategic-level decisions, including network
optimization (including the number, location, and size of warehousing, distribution centers, and
facilities). With this work we hope to convey the role of the integration and the importance of
simultaneous consideration of different decisionmaking levels in SCM.
References
(1) Shah, N., Single and multisite planning and scheduling: current status and future challenges.
AIChE Symposium Series, 1998. 94(320): p. 75.
(2) Verderame, P.M. and C.A. Floudas, Operational planning framework for multisite
production and distribution networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2009. 33(5): p.
1036-1050.
(3) Jackson, J.R. and I.E. Grossmann, Temporal Decomposition Scheme for Nonlinear Multisite
Production Planning and Distribution Models. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 2003. 42(13): p. 3045-3055.
(4) Timpe, C.H. and J. Kallrath, Optimal planning in large multi-site production networks.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2000. 126(2): p. 422-435.
(5) Maravelias, C.T. and C. Sung, Integration of production planning and scheduling: Overview,
challenges and opportunities. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2009. 33(12): p. 1919-
1930.
(6) Kallrath, J., Planning and scheduling in the process industry. OR Spectrum, 2002. 24(3): p.
219-250.
(7) Li, Z. and M.G. lerapetritou, Rolling horizon based planning and scheduling integration with
production capacity consideration. Chemical Engineering Science, 2010. 65(22): p. 5887-
5900.
(8) Li, Z. and M.G. lerapetritou, Production planning and scheduling integration through
augmented Lagrangian optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2010. 34(6): p.
996-1006.
(9) Verderame, P.M. and C.A. Floudas, Integrated Operational Planning and Medium-Term
Scheduling for Large-Scale Industrial Batch Plants. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 2008. 47(14): p. 4845-4860.
Wesley Ingwersen
My primary interest is in improving methods to measure product environmental sustainability,
which I approach with a systems perspective, and typically with a life cycle assessment
framework. Through our sustainable supply chain research programs in biofuels and consumer
products in the Sustainable Technology Division at EPA, we are approaching supply chains both
from the national scale (for fuels) and at specific corporate supply chains (for consumer
products). Within the supply chains we are looking into specific agricultural and manufacturing
processes and beginning to understand how to design in changes that result in full life cycle
improvements. Relying on single indicators of environmental performance can be misleading in
terms of sustainability. Therefore, we are working on selecting indicators and applying more
complex system-level metrics (e.g., emergy) to measure sustainability of individual processes as
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-45
-------
well as complete product systems. Supply chain sustainability assessment at all scales requires
new ways to measure, exchange, and process large amounts of data and also requires working
with teams with experts on various processes with a high-level of coordination. We are in the
process within our group of building our capacity to perform these assessments. At the same
time, we are trying to create a model for sharing life cycle data and models—using standardized,
transparent, and non-proprietary models to the extent possible—that can feed into the work of
others in this growing field.
While we are attempting to advance the science of supply chain assessment, it is also practically
important to set standards for ways that manufacturers can make environmental product claims
in the meantime so that fair comparisons can be made that will allow market mechanisms to
work to favor more sustainable supply chains. For this reason, I am engaged in efforts to
standardize rules for life cycle-based product claims, with the aim of making claims more
rigorous and to prevent "greenwashing."
Olivier Jolliet
Having been involved in the development of Life Cycle approaches and methods during the last
two decades, here are a few lessons learned related to our research experience on life cycle and
supply chain management:
• KICS (Keep It Cleverly Simple) is my preferred approach to understanding complex
systems, such as sustainable supply chains, identifying the key technological, environmental
and economic processes and focusing analyses on these.
• We presently see several signs of maturity in Systems and Life Cycle Research applied to
products. For example, the field of life cycle toxicity assessment is fully part of a
collaborative effort in which scientists from multimedia modeling, risk assessment, indoor air
pollution, and LCA have, for example, commonly defined the concept of intake fraction
(Bennet et al., 2002). In addition, life cycle and supply chain approaches are published in the
best environmental journals, such as Environmental Science and Technology; furthermore,
journals such as InternationalJournal of LCA or Journal of Industrial Ecology now have
relatively high impact factors in science citation indices.
• In this sense, methods and databases such as those recommended by the EU for impact
assessment are operational and can now be applied.
• There is still a lot to be achieved by bringing specialists and system researchers closer
together. An area of special need is the understanding of sustainable consumption (i.e.,
linking consumption, production and its supply chain, emissions, and population impacted in
a consistent framework). One of our contributions is to demonstrate, for example, that around
one fourth of the impacts of particulate matter in Asia are due to OECD consumption of
products outside of the region (mostly North America and Europe).
Taking only cost-effective actions to reduce environmental impacts will not lead, in and of
itself, to sustainable consumption. Money saved by the consumer with, for example, energy
savings, may and will be reinvested in other activities, such as flying, which may be even
more environmentally damaging than the initial activity.
Therefore, policies for sustainable supply chain and consumption should be complemented
by public and corporate sustainable consumption strategies that provide incentives to a) carry
out all cost-effective actions to mitigate environmental impacts and promote social well-
workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-46
-------
being, and b) reinvest the saved money "for sustainability," (i.e., in efficient measures that
are not individually cost effective but are close to). In the aggregate, overall costs will be
similar to the initial situation, but with far better environmental or social performances.
Selected publications
Rosenbaum R.K., Huijbregts M, Henderson A, Margni M, McKone T.E., van de Meent D,
Hauschild MZ, Shaked S., Li D.S, Slone T.H, Gold L.S, Jolliet O, 2011. USEtox human
exposure and toxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in Life Cycle
Analysis: Sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 16 (8) 710-727.
Humbert S, Marshall JD, Shaked S, Spadaro J, Nishioka Y, Preiss Ph, McKone TE, Horvath A
and Jolliet O, 2011. Intake fractions for particulate matter: Recommendations for life
cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (11) 4808-4816.
Kaenzig J, Friot D, Saade M, Margni M and Jolliet O, 2011. Using life cycle approaches to
enhance the value of corporate environmental disclosures, 2011. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 20 (1), pp. 38-54.
Wenger Y, Schneider R.J., Reddy R, Kopelman R, Jolliet O and Philbert M.A, 2011. Tissue
Distribution and Pharmacokinetics of Stable Polyacrylamide Nanoparticles Following
Intravenous Injection in the Rat. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 251 (3) 181-
190.
Hong J, Shaked S, Rosenbaum R and Jolliet O, 2010. Analytical Uncertainty Propagation in Life
Cycle Inventory and Impact Assessment: Application to an Automobile Front Panel. Int J
ofLCA, 15(5)499-510.
Milbrath M O, Wenger Y, Chang C-W, Emond C, Garabrant D, Gillespie BW and Jolliet O.
2009. Apparent half-lives of dioxins, furans, and PCBs as a function of age, body fat,
smoking status, and breastfeeding. EHP 117 (3) 417-425
Schwab S, Castella P, Blanc I, Gomez M, Ecabert B, Wakeman M, Manson JA, Emery D, Hong
J, Jolliet O, 2009. Integrating life cycle costs and environmental impacts of composite rail
car-bodies for a Korean train. Int J LCA, 14 (5), 429 - 442
Rosenbaum R, Bachmann T, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Kohler A, Larsen H, MacLeod
M, Margni M, McKone T, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D and Hauschild M,
2008. USEtox—The UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation
factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment.
Int J LCA, 13 (7)532-546.
Hauschild M, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, MacLeod M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum R
and McKone T, 2008. Building a model based on scientific consensus for Life Cycle
Impact: Assessment of Chemicals: the Search for Harmony and Parsimony.
Environmental Science &Technology, 42(19), 7032-7036.
Scharnhorst W, Ludwig C, Wochele J, Jolliet O, 2007. Heavy metal partitioning from electronic
scrap during thermal End-of-Life treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 373 (2-3),
pp. 576-584.
Humbert S, Margni M, Charles R, Torres Salazar O.M, Quiros A.L and JollietO, 2007. Toxicity
Assessment of the most used Pesticides in Costa Rica. Agriculture, Environment and
Ecosystems, 118 (2007) 183-190.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-47
-------
Pennington D.W, Margni M, Payet J, and Jolliet O, 2006. Risk and Regulatory Hazard-Based
Toxicological Effect Indicators in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Human and Ecological
Risk Assessment, Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 450-475.
Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar G, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W,
Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J and Norris G, 2004. System Boundary Selection in Life
Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches. Environmental Science & Technology, vol.
38 (3), 657-664.
Pennington D.W, Margni M, Amman C and Jolliet O, 2005. Multimedia Fate and Human Intake
Modeling: Spatial versus Non-Spatial Insights for Chemical Emissions in Western
Europe. Environmental Science & Technology, 39, (4), 1119-1128.
Margni M, Pennington D.W, Amman C and Jolliet O, 2004. Evaluating
multimedia/multipathway model Intake fraction estimates using POP emission and
monitoring data. Environmental Pollution, vol. 128, (1-2), 263-277.
Jolliet O, Mueller-Wenk R, et al., 2004. The Life Cycle Impact Assessment framework of the
UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. International Journal of LCA, Int J LCA 9 (6), 394-
404.
Bennett D, McKone T, Evans J, Nazaroff W, Margni M, Jolliet O And Smith K.R, 2002.
Defining Intake Fraction. Environmental Science & Technology, May 136 (9), 207A-
211A.
Vikas Khanna
Designing sustainable products and processes requires joint consideration of economic,
environmental and social aspects that span multiple spatial and temporal scales. Proper
understanding of the complex interactions at multiple scales is crucial for designing sustainable
product supply chains. With greater appreciation of environmental challenges, methods that take
a holistic life cycle view have been developed and utilized for evaluating the life cycle
environmental impacts of products of processes. Some examples include life cycle assessment,
material flow analysis, and thermodynamic-based methods for sustainable engineering. While
life cycle approaches represent an important step in the context of sustainable process design,
their utility is limited for engineering decision-making due to several formidable challenges.
These include the selection of arbitrary process boundaries, the static nature of most existing
methods, and combining data at multiple scales and in disparate units. This is especially
challenging for emerging products and technologies at an early stage of research, such as
nanoproducts. In reality, data and models are available at multiple spatial scales ranging from the
narrowly focused equipment or manufacturing scale, to the supply chain and the economy scales.
The outstanding challenge is the integration and utilization of available information across scales
in a systematic manner for the environmentally conscious design of products and supply chains.
In my opinion, some knowledge and/or data gaps within my discipline for the sustainable design
of products and supply chains are as follows:
• Inadequate understanding of dynamic modeling tools
• Lack of a better understanding of tools and techniques across scales
• Improved understanding that may lead to recognizing patterns and developing heuristics for
sustainable design of product networks
• Collaboration across disciplines
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-48
-------
• Better education in sustainable engineering
Progress in the above domains could play a crucial role in reducing the environmental impact of
existing products and processes and sustainable development of emerging technologies.
Chris Koffler
Chris Koffler's Ph.D. dissertation was on Automobile Product Life Cycle Assessment (Koffler,
2007). His focus was on streamlining the process of conducting Life Cycle Assessments for
complex technical products such as passenger cars as a prerequisite for a better integration in the
product development process. In his Ph.D. thesis, he developed a procedure that included
specifying and implementing software to collect and process all necessary data for full vehicle
LCAs in a semi-automatic manner, reducing the overall effort required by well over 80 percent
(Koffler et al., 2007). All current vehicle and technology LCAs published by Volkswagen today
are based on this system (www.environmental-commendation.com). The rest of the thesis
evolved around decision-making based on LCA indicator results, challenging common
approaches of Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) in terms of their effectiveness in
group decision making. He then proposed a combined approach of MADM and Voting Rules to
arrive at a decision more likely to represent the majority of the decision makers' preferences in a
panel-based decision situation (Koffler et al., 2008). Both of these publications represent relevant
references in the problem field of Design for Environment.
References
Koffler C, Krinke S (2006): Streamlining of LCI compilation as the basis of a continuous
assessment of environmental aspects in product development. Materials Design and
Systems Analysis: Workshop Proceedings, May 16-18, 2006, Forschungszentrum
Karlsruhe. Shaker Verlag, Germany.
Koffler C (2007): Automobile Produkt-Okobilanzierung [Automotive Product Life Cycle
Assessment]. Dissertation, Institute WAR at the Technical University of Darmstadt,
WAR series 191, ISBN: 978-3-93251-887-4, Darmstadt.
Koffler C (2007): Volkswagen slimLCI - eine Methode zur effizienten Okobilanzierung
komplexer technischer Produkte [Volkswagen slimLCI -a method for efficient Life Cycle
Assessment of complex technical products]. EcoDesign: From Theory to Practice: Final
symposium of the TFB 55, 21.-22. November 2007. Technical University of Darmstadt.
Koffler C, Krinke S, Schebek L and Buchgeister J (2008): Volkswagen slimLCI: a procedure for
streamlined inventory modeling within Life Cycle Assessment of vehicles. Int. J. Vehicle
Design, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.172-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.2008.017181
Koffler C, Schebek L, Krinke S (2008): Applying voting rules to panel-based decision making in
LCA. Int JLCA, Vol. 13 (6), S.456-467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll367-008-0019-7
Koffler C, Rohde-Brandenburger K (2009): On the calculation of fuel savings through
lightweight design in automotive life cycle assessments. Int J LCA, Vol. 15 (1), S.128-
135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll367-009-0127-z
Krinke S, Koffler C, Deinzer G, Heil U (2010): An Integrated Life Cycle Approach to
Lightweight Automotive Design. ATZ worldwide eMagazines Edition: June 2010.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-49
-------
Koffler C, Plieger J (20Ix): Tackling the Downcycling Issue - A Revised Approach to Value-
Corrected Substitution. In preparation.
Reid Lifset
My experience related to the design of supply chains stems from my work as editor-in-chief of
the Journal of Industrial Ecology (JIE). Sustainable supply chain management is a component of
the field both in terms of assessment (i.e., via life cycle assessment) and with respect to more
normative efforts to improve environmental performance. The field engages these topics under
the rubrics of life cycle management, a generally qualitative approach that encompasses both
upstream and downstream considerations, and supply chain management, especially closed loop
supply chain (CLSC) management, as studied by an allied research community within the field
of operations research. My personal research does not involve the design of sustainable supply
chains, but I have observations to offer from the bird's eye view provided by my role as editor.
• Most research to date is polarized between static (snapshot) environmental assessments and
analytically sophisticated, but overly complex, operations research (OR) models.
• There is a strong disconnect between the research in the traditional field of supply
chain/operations management (oka operations research—OR) as practiced in business
schools and the questions that arise in environmental circles. The OR field prizes analytic
rigor and often does not reward applied work. Where environmental issues are engaged—
most prominently in the CLSC literature—the environmental dimensions are thin. For
example, environmental performance is often proxied as the number of products returned or
remanufactured, rather than environmental burdens reduced. Some work on carbon
footprinting is emerging, but it is nascent.
• There is OR literature on the design of supply chains associated with names such as Hau Lee
at Stanford and Corey Billingto at IMD. In my role as chair of the 2010 Gordon Research
Conference on Industrial Ecology, I sought speakers who had applied their expertise in the
design of supply chains to issues of sustainable supply chains, but was unsuccessful.
• The well-deserved emphasis on GHG emissions from supply chains needs to be balanced by
more comprehensive environmental analyses (i.e., including conventional air and water
pollutants, toxicity, ozone depletion, etc.). Carbon footprinting should complement, not
displace, the multi-attribute environmental characterizations generated by LCA; otherwise,
we will end up with more situations like corn ethanol, in which attention to GHGs played a
role in neglecting the water quality problems posed by corn cultivation (i.e., excess nitrogen
and hypoxia).
My motivation in attending this workshop is to see where current work in this domain is heading
in order to encourage valuable papers in the Journal of Industrial Ecology and to help shape the
direction of work through the workshop discussions.
Dennis McGavis*
Product innovation in the flooring business at Shaw has brought sustainability improvements in
both the commercial and residential markets over the past several years, resulting in significant
energy, GHG, water, and solid waste savings. Further, significant decreases in energy use, GHG
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-50
-------
generation, and solid waste production at our manufacturing plants have been accomplished. As
a sustainability expert for this business, it is my role to identify opportunities for product and
process improvements and to work with our Innovation and R&D teams to find appropriate
chemistries that meet our Design for Environment (DfE) goals. Sustainability is central to
Shaw's business and growth strategy and in our commitment to touch and improve our
customer's lives now and for generations to come. Sustainability is brought to life through
programs that integrate our core values with product development, understanding our customer's
needs, lifecycle assessment, trade organizations, multi-stakeholder groups, safety, operations,
logistics, suppliers, etc. We collaborate closely with suppliers across the entire supply chain as
they are our source of materials, packaging, systems, services, and ideas for innovation. We view
suppliers as critical partners in improving the environmental performance of our end-to-end
supply chain. We also learn from each other's best practices as we navigate the emerging field of
sustainability.
My interest in the workshop is to better understand how experts in other industry sectors are
improving the sustainability of their products, processes, operations, and supply chain. If
possible, I would like to bring their experiences into Shaw to share best practices with the goal of
building a world class Product Stewardship and Sustainability program.
Eric Masanet
There is growing interest among manufacturers, retailers, and governments in understanding the
supply chain energy and carbon "footprints" of products, as well as in ways to reduce such
footprints. While much attention has been paid to life cycle assessment (LCA) methods for
environmental footprint estimation, comparably little attention has been paid to robust,
quantitative methods for analyzing design, process, and policy opportunities for reducing product
environmental footprints. Supply chains are not static systems, and they often cannot be credibly
assessed using static life cycle inventory (LCI) data. Rather, they consist of discrete processes
and technologies that vary over scales of time and space, and from supplier to supplier. For
robust decision making regarding low-carbon supply chain performance, modeling details on
process and technology options are critical, both for understanding the underlying sources of
emissions in a supply chain and for identifying realistic options for reducing such emissions. My
research has developed a hybrid supply chain modeling approach, which couples input-output
LCA methods with sector- and process-level techno-economic energy analysis data and methods.
The approach allows for both environmental and economic assessment of discrete technology
and process improvement opportunities across the many energy and emissions sources, end use
technologies, and sectors that comprise a product's supply chain footprint. It also provides
insights on how much carbon can be saved at what level of cost investment. Preliminary results
suggest that there are key technology proxy data that correspond to low-carbon supply chain
performance, which might be more easily compiled by OEMs than (often highly uncertain)
carbon footprint data. Technology data can provide much-needed information to establish low-
carbon supply chains while the states of data and science on quantitative metrics evolve.
Furthermore, preliminary results suggest that there are many low-hanging fruits for emissions
savings in the supply chains of services, which, compared to industrial and agricultural products,
have received limited attention in supply chain carbon footprinting initiatives to date.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-51
-------
Dima Nazzal
My research in sustainability has two main thrusts:
(1) Analyzing product servicing as a mechanism for sustainable consumption and measuring its
impact on a firm's production, inventory, and capacity expansion decisions.
Combining product lifespan extensions with eco-efficiency, defined as the increased resource
productivity that enables simultaneous progress toward economic goals and environmental goals
by reducing resource intensity and ecological impacts, is key to achieving sustainable
consumption. Product servicing has been proposed as a mechanism for extending lifespans.
However, including servicing can be a cause of concern, and even resistance, for a producer
needing to watch its bottom line. My research focuses on understanding the structure of the
integrated product servicing and production systems and the decision tradeoffs will help to
support the proposition that reducing consumption via a shift to product servicing does not
automatically imply a drop in producer's profit.
(2) Integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) into production, pricing, and logistics decisions in
supply chains to assess and minimize the environmental impacts of such decisions.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies the varying levels of damage to the environment that occur
throughout the "life" of a product, from resource extraction to manufacturing, end-use, disposal,
and recycling. Historically, LCA has mainly been applied to products, but recent literature is
examining how LCA assists in identifying more sustainable options in process selection, design,
and optimization. The research investigates the relationship between environmental impacts and
supply chain planning decisions in order to characterize environmentally-conscious supply
chains and understand the tradeoffs between the environmental metric and the economic metric.
Sergio Pacca
We have been working on supply chain analysis of sugarcane ethanol because of the intrinsic
vocation of the Southwestern Brazil region as a biofuel producer. Several studies are found in the
academic literature but most of them are based on corn feedstock. We realized that there is a lack
of life cycle assessments of sugarcane ethanol.
The scientific development of this research field over the last 5 years was intense. For example:
discounting carbon emissions over the life cycle of biofuels; accounting for direct and indirect
land use change effects; accounting for various stocks and flows of carbon such as soil carbon,
and several other issues. In our studies, we always take as granted the life cycle approach to
investigate the net result of biofuels use versus fossil fuels. Therefore, we apply consequential
life cycle assessment methods. In our last study, we wanted to show that besides ethanol
sugarcane is a source of electricity (bioelectricity), and the joint consumption of these two
secondary energy types might increase the mobility efficiency per unit of cropped land. We
realized that it is possible to improve the efficiency of sugarcane based energy as a mobility
source, and that such a scheme brings in environmental benefits. In this work we considered
technology that is currently available and cost competitive for energy production and end-use,
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-52
-------
and showed that the land required to power our current mobility needs is less than it is usually
stated.
According to our results, based on 2010 values, 2 million ha are enough to power the Brazilian
fleet, 25 million ha are enough to power the US fleet and 67 million ha are enough to power the
global car fleet. If minor efficiency gains are considered, 19 million ha will be enough to power
the US fleet in 2030, whereas the needs for the Brazilian and the global fleet remain basically the
same due to efficiency gains. Our analysis shows that sugarcane's harvested energy density
equals to 306 GJ. ha per year, which is 1.7 times the value usually reported in the literature for
biofuels. As a result, and based on sugarcane's primary energy potential, 4% of the world's
available cropland area is enough to power the global car fleet.
In a previous study we considered the potential of carbon sequestration and storage CCS in
ethanol production. We calculated the amount of CC>2 released during fermentation and we
concluded that if ethanol + electricity + CCS are fully exploited the use of sugarcane derived
energy implies negative carbon emissions.
We consider that these results may shape new policies that support international sugarcane
ethanol trade and the increase in the worldwide sugarcane cropped area, provided that other
environmental impacts are considered. We understand that there is a limit to the maximum
attained area but we understand that there is still room to expand sugarcane cropped area.
However, the worthiness of this endeavor depends on the full exploitation of technological
potentials.
It is important to take into account both the land and the carbon footprint of biofuels in an
integrated way. It is important to consider end use technologies that maximize the life cycle
energy efficiency of biofuels and reduce its land footprint.
Finally, we should consider assessments that go beyond accounting based on fossil fuel emission
factors and include new scientific knowledge in the balance of greenhouse gas emissions. In
developing countries, we still need to provide opportunities for the poor; therefore, it is important
to include social aspects in the assessment of supply chains so that we foster sustainable
development.
Furthermore, in addition to the climate change conundrum, several other environmental issues
are prominent on the international policy agenda, and our assessments should identify synergies
among coexistent environmental goals.
Omar Romero-Hernandez
Improving the sustainability and performance of products and services lies at the core of
innovation and competitive advantage. Whether motivated by societal and environmental
concerns, government regulation, stakeholder pressures, or economic profits, managers and
policy makers need to continue making significant changes to effectively manage their social,
economic, and environmental impacts. Focusing only on on-site emissions and local
improvement has been proven to be insufficient and sometimes misleading. Upstream and
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-53
-------
downstream supply chain carbon emissions (other than a firm's direct emissions) can account for
about 75% of the total emissions (see Matthews et al., 2008, and Huang et al., 2009). Similar
problems arise if we try to evaluate water footprint or social impacts, such as health risk and
working conditions. There is a need to understand the sustainability implications of a product
along its whole supply chain.
One of the motivations for improving the sustainability of a firm's supply chain is the fact that
customers and other stakeholders do not usually distinguish between a company and its
suppliers. Furthermore, society usually blames the brand owner if its suppliers have poor
environmental performance. Tackling this problem is not trivial. Since there are many activities
in a supply chain, the interaction and trade-offs are complex. Trade-offs not only appear between
the different activities, (e.g., transportation emission and the emission from suppliers), but also
between different environmental impacts, (e.g., carbon emission and water consumption),
interested parties (suppliers, OEMs, customers, local communities), business strategies, and
initial incompatibility of regulations and business objectives. Economic, environmental, and
social impacts are related to each other. We expect that when one of these impacts changes, the
others will also be affected, hopefully in a positive way. To date, sustainable supply chains,
environmental risk assessment, industrial ecology, have remained unlinked. There is a clear need
to fill this void through multidisciplinary research.
This statement is based on previous research work carried out by our research group along with
discussion with other colleagues who met in Berkeley on June 2006 to discuss the implications
of measuring carbon and energy footprints in supply chains.
Our work has managed to address a set of sustainability criteria used for supplier selection,
facilities location, and product manufacturing. Assessment models, a Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) methodology, and a hypothetical case study on modeling the shipping of goods.
A critical challenge for researchers is still to expand current models and incorporate the role of
(i) data uncertainty and data quality and, (ii) human and environmental health. Ultimately, these
attributes, along with previous work will help us to develop an integrated piece of knowledge
that aims to (i) provide a basis for regulators and policy makers and, (ii) provide a robust set of
the best sustainable practices to be adopted by those companies who wish to be part of a
sustainable supply chain.
Research Questions
1. How do different multidisciplinary decisions, once integrated into a single framework, affect
the overall sustainability performance of a supply chain?
A simple cost analysis to determine the most suitable location for a manufacturing plant or
the best network array may not represent the most socially responsible decision.
Environmental loads of the whole supply chain may be significantly different from one
location to the other.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-54
-------
There is a need to devise and test well-defined multidisciplinary framework for green supply
chain operations. The framework will be based on empirical studies, with an emphasis on the
multidisciplinary steps needed to keep high levels of reliability in the supply chain while
keeping a green perspective. The issue of data uncertainty and data quality will be included
in the framework.
A supply chain may be considered sustainable when the operation of the supply chain and its
metrics (reliability, time, availability, etc.) are kept to the required levels of quality, and the
improved supply chain leads to lower environmental impact (lower carbon footprint, lower
use of resources, lower toxicity values along the chain, etc.), larger social benefit and sound
financial models.
Integrating different tools and concepts such as LCA, human health, multi-objective
modeling, and policy analysis into a business problem is indeed a significant challenge.
Empirically, this can be tackled with a set of parallel activities that include: (i) risk
assessment management, based on pollutant fate and transport model along with a dose-
response model that will determine health impacts and hot spots, (ii) probabilistic models that
provide a better understanding of data uncertainty and parameter sensitivity, (iii) a analysis
based on existing case studies, databases and a reference case study to be developed by the
research group, (iv) a public policy study based on scenario analysis.
2. How can we deal with uncertainly in the design of sustainable products and supply chains?
Understanding uncertainty lies as one of firms' major challenges. Uncertainty arises from
several sources, like incomplete or conflicting information, variability and errors among
others. There is an increasing interest in LCA to include uncertainty. A preliminary literature
review carried out to prepare this statement shows several case studies and methodological
proposals, along with scientific-specialized databases. Probabilistic models will provide a
better understanding on data uncertainty and parameter sensitivity. The mathematical method
proposes processes and models, to combine individual probability distributions and produce a
single distribution of the input data. This set of activities is presented in the following figure:
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-55
-------
1. Scanning uncertainties., determining the variables and
processes were the data is either not reliable or incomplete.
2. Input uncertainties, determination of the variability and
uncertainty for each of the previous variables.
3. Processing uncertainties, incorporation of the
uncertainties in the model, to use in statistical tests and
analysis of error propagation.
Output uncertainties., report standard deviation, mean
values, sensitivity analysis.
Identify significant
uncertainty components
Assign a standard uncertainty
to each component
Combine the standard
uncertainties using "error
propagation" formulas
Report the expanded
unce.rtai.nty
Connection to public policy. Government regulations and industry codes of conduct require that
companies must increasingly address sustainability. Non compliance with regulations was (and
still is) costly, as regulatory noncompliance cost to companies include: penalties and fines, legal
cost, lost productivity due to additional inspections, potential closure of operations and the
related effects on corporate reputation. Increased regulatory pressures would "push" companies
to improve industrial performance. However, a better understanding on the suitable conditions to
adopt cost effective project lies as the main driver for sustainable products and supply chain that
lead to competitive advantages such as differentiation.
Bibliography
Boer, L., Labro, and P. Morlacchi, "A review of methods supporting supplier selection,"
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 75-89, Jun.
2001.
Huang, Y. A., C. L. Weber, and H. S. Matthews (2009), "Categorization of scope 3 emissions for
streamlined enterprise carbon footprinting," Environmental Science & Technology, 43
(22), 8509-8515.
Handfield, S. V. Walton, R. Sroufe, and S. A. Melnyk, "Applying environmental criteria to
supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process,"
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 70-87, Aug. 2002.
Humphreys, Y. K. Wong, and F. T. S. Chan, "Integrating environmental criteria into the supplier
selection process," Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 138, no. 1-3, pp.
349-356, Jul. 2003.
ISO, International Standards Organization (2006). Standard series 14040: Life Cycle
Assessment.
Muralidharan, N. Anantharaman, and S. G. Deshmukh, "A Multi-Criteria Group Decisionmaking
Model for Supplier Rating," Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 22-
33, Sep. 2002.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-56
-------
Mackay, D. Patterson, S. and Shiu, W.Y. (1992a). "Generic Models for Evaluating the Regional
Fate of Chemicals" Chemosphere, Vol. 24, No.6, pp 695-717.
Mackay, D. and Shiu, W.Y. and Ching Ma, K. (1992b). The Illustrated Handbook of Physical-
chemical properties. Volume 1, Lewis Pub., USA.
Min H. and Galle, W. P. "Green purchasing practices of US firms," International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1222-1238, 2001.
Matthews, H. S., C. T. Hendrickson, and C. L. Weber (2008), "The importance of carbon
footprint estimation boundaries," Environmental Science & Technology, 42 (16), 5839-
5842.
Petroni a and M. Braglia, "Vendor Selection Using Principal Component Analysis," Journal of
Porter M.E. and M. R. Kramer, "Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage
and Corporate Social Responsibility.," Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 12, pp. 78-
92, Dec. 2006.
Romero-Hernandez, O., Pistikopoulos, E.N. and Livingston, A.G., (1998). "Waste Treatment
and Optimal Degree of Pollution Abatement". Environmental Engineering, Vol. 17, No.
4, pp270-277.
Romero-Hernandez*, Mufioz Negron, Romero-Hernandez, Detta-Silveira, Palacios- Brun,
Laguna_Estopier (2009). Environmental Implications and Market Analysis of Soft Drink
Packaging Systems in Mexico. A Waste Management Approach. Int J of LCA. Vol 14,
No. 2, 107-113.
Romero-Hernandez, O., Mufioz Negron, D. y Romero-Hernandez, S. (2005). Introduction a la
Ingenieria Industrial. Editorial Thomson. Mexico.
Romero-Hernandez, S., Gigola, C., Romero-Hernandez, O. "Incorporation of Effective
Engineering Design, Environmental Performance and Logistics Planning for Products
LCM". Second World POM Conference. Production and Operations Management
Society. Mayo, 2004. Cancun, Mexico.
Romero-Hernandez, S. y Romero-Hernandez, O. "A framework of Computer Aided Engineering
and LCA applied for Life Cycle Management." In LCA/LCM 2003. September 22-25,
2003. Seattle, Washington.
Romero-Hernandez, S., Romero-Hernandez, O., "Product Design Optimization: An
Interdisciplinary Approach". Chapter of the book "Product Realization: A
Comprehensive Approach" Ed. Springer. (2008)
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9 (1), 53-80. UN, 2006. Indicators of
sustainable development: Guidelines and methodologies third edition. United Nations.
Thomas Seager
Business strategy with regard to sustainability is currently dominated by an eco-efficiency
approach that seeks to simultaneously reduce costs and environmental impacts using tactics such
as waste minimization or reuse, pollution prevention or technological improvement. However, in
practice, eco-efficiency optimization rarely results in improved diversity or adaptability and
consequently may have perverse consequences to sustainability by eroding the resilience of
production systems. An improved understanding of resilience is essential to sustainable supply
chain management. To this end, it is important to recognize that resilience is differentiated from
risk, and may be in opposition to eco-efficiency. In some cases, the system attributes that are
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-57
-------
critically important to resilience - such as spare capacity, reserve resource stocks, and
redundancy, can result in increased costs and environmental impact.
Nevertheless, recent catastrophes such as the Fukushima nuclear power plant, flooding caused by
Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and the mortgage derivatives crisis have
renewed interest in the concept of resilience, especially as it relates to complex systems
vulnerable to multiple or cascading failures. As originally applied in an ecological context,
resilience refers to the capacity of a system to adapt to changing conditions without catastrophic
loss of form or function. However, in an engineering context, the meaning of the term resilience
remains contested. It is most helpful to think of resilience a process, rather than a variable of
state. An idealized model of resilience includes Sensing, Anticipating, Learning, and Adapting.
These processes, summarized, are:
1. Sensing - The process by which new system stresses are efficiently and rapidly incorporated
into current understanding.
2. Anticipation - The process by which newly incorporated knowledge is used to foresee
possible crises and disasters.
3. Adaptation - The response taken after information from Sensing and Anticipation are
carefully considered.
4. Learning - The process by which new knowledge is created by observation of past actions.
After Adaptation the level of appropriateness of adaptive actions can be assessed and future
iterations can incorporate this knowledge.
From this perspective, resilience analysis can be understood as differentiable and complementary
to risk analysis, with important implications for the adaptive management of complex, coupled
ecological-engineering systems. One case study in mobile phone manufacturing clearly
illustrates how understanding this recursive process is essential for responding and adapting to
unexpected shocks. (See Sheffi 2005). When a fire at a Philips' microchip plant in New Mexico
interrupted production of a cell phone component critical to both Ericsson and Nokia, the two
leading European manufacturers responded in different ways. Both manufacturers were notified
of a disruption in supply (an example of sensing). Ericsson accepted Philips' promise that
microchip deliveries would resume in a week. However, Nokia correctly anticipated the
possibility of a more serious interruption. To enhance sensing, Nokia sent an investigative team
from Scandinavia to New Mexico to learn more about the extent of the fire and Philips'
reparation plans. As Nokia learned more about the potentially catastrophic consequences of the
fire, they successfully adapted by contracting with alternative suppliers and modifying their cell
phone design to work with alternative chips. By contrast, Ericsson was forced to halt production,
resulting in an irrevocable loss of market share. This example illustrates how resilience is best
understood as the consequence of continuous efforts, rather than as a property (such as strength)
of a technological system.
Reference
Sheffi Y. 2005. The Resilient Enterprise. MIT Press.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-58
-------
Ray Smith
In the Sustainable Technology Division of the National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in the EPA's Office of Research and Development, an on-going research project is progressing
in the field of Sustainable Supply Chain Design for Biofuels. As one of the leads on this project,
along with Troy Hawkins, we have formed a team of researchers who are developing a
methodology to assess the sustainability of supply chains with a focus on biofuel systems. Other
biofuel life cycle studies have been done to analyze greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and
production, and sometimes an additional aspect such as water use. Our team's work expands
these categories to consider many environmental impacts in a life cycle assessment for the
comparison of corn ethanol to petroleum gasoline. (Additional biofuel systems of interest will be
studied in the future.) In addition to the comparative analysis, this research will provide
information on environmental hot spots in the supply chains and will allow for consequential
studies on improving the biofuel supply chain. Improvements could occur at the conversion
facilities, in the transport of materials, in the methods used for farming feedstock's, etc. While
the environmental impact results and other indicators provide meaningful information on
individual aspects of the supply chain, a complete assessment of sustainability should consider
broad-based sustainability metrics that integrate information from across the system. In
particular, we are actively researching metrics in emergy, return on energy invested, ecological
footprint, and green net value added. A breakdown in any one of these sustainability metrics
would signal a breakdown of the whole system in terms of its sustainability.
Rajagopalan Srinivasan
Decision Making for Sustainable Supply Chain Management Using Agent-Based Models
As the issue of environmental sustainability is becoming an important business factor, companies
are now looking for decision support tools to assess the fuller picture of the environmental
impacts associated with their manufacturing operations and supply chain activities. Lifecycle
assessment (LCA) is widely used to measure the environmental consequences assignable to a
product. However, it is usually limited to a high-level snapshot of the environmental implications
over the product value chain without consideration of the dynamics arising from the multi-tiered
structure and the interactions along the supply chain. LCA results are derived from a product-
centric perspective without considering the dynamics and effects of various logistics options,
inventories, distribution network configurations, and ordering policies. These can be captured
through a dynamic simulation model of the supply chain, incorporating LCA indicators for
measuring environmental impacts.
Dynamic models of various supply chains can be developed using the agent-based modeling
paradigm. The dynamics of any supply chain is governed by the behavior of intra-enterprise and
external entities. Internal entities are functional departments within the enterprise that are
involved in the supply chain operation: procurement, operations, sales, distributor, and logistics.
Examples of external entities are suppliers, third-party logistics providers, and customers. In the
agent-based modeling paradigm, these supply chain entities are modeled as individual agents
whose interactions lead to system-level behavior (i.e., the overall supply chain performance).
From a modeling perspective, the modularity imbued by the agent-based modeling paradigm
enables easy customization of each entity. For instance, different policies can be plug-and-played
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-59
-------
and the effect of various decisions or disturbances on both the economic and environmental
sustainability indicators can be evaluated. Context-specific triple bottom-line performance
metrics such as economic profit and customer satisfaction and various indicators from
environmental and social LCA can be incorporated into the model and evaluated through
simulation. We have used such agent-based models to provide decision support in a wide range
of case studies from specialty chemicals, biodiesel, and consumer products industries. These case
studies involve different aspects of supply chain management—product decisions and strategic-
level supply chain design decisions, as well as operational policy decisions.
In the product decision case studies, the supply chain sustainability of different product
compositions is evaluated. While the trade-off between environmental impact and cost of using
different raw materials is more easily observed, the case studies reveal that the recipe
(specifically, amount of raw materials required) determines the transportation requirement,
which could have a significant impact on the overall result.
At the strategic level, we have evaluated the impact of supply chain design decisions, such as
upgrading a plant to produce a more environmentally friendly product. Another strategic-level
case study evaluates the distribution network. While the single distributor channel could be more
cost-efficient and easier to manage, two distribution channels would have the benefit of being at
closer proximity to customers. Another advantage of the two distributor channels is that
robustness increases since, in the event of disruptions, one can serve as a backup to the other,
leading to higher customer satisfaction levels.
At the operational level, the effect of different supply chain policies is analyzed. In the case of
ordering policy, less frequent ordering in larger batches would mean fewer transportation trips
and consequently a reduction in transportation impact and cost. Another operational decision is
supplier selection, where different suppliers with different reliability, cost, lead time, and
environmental characteristics can be compared. The simulation model can also be coupled with
optimization techniques (e.g., genetic algorithm) to optimize these decisions. Overall, these case
studies serve to highlight the need for considering supply chain dynamics in any sustainability
consideration and also the benefit of a multipurpose decision support approach.
Finally, even after comprehensive evaluation of the various effects, decisionmaking can be
challenging since there are multiple performance indicators and numerous scenarios to consider.
To ease decisionmaking, a triple-bottom line visualization scheme has been developed in the
form of a ternary diagram, which consists of a collection of nodes. Each node in the diagram
corresponds to a set of weights for the economic, environmental, and social indicators. For
example, a node at (0.6, 0.1, 0.3) corresponds to a 60%, 10%, and 30% weightage for the
economic, environmental, and social indicators, respectively. For each node, the policy
(scenario) that yields the best performance is shown in the diagram. The ternary diagram thus
visually brings out the robustness of policies (scenarios) across the weight space and shows
regions where each policy (or scenario) yields the best overall performance.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-60
-------
Martha Stevenson
Through my formal background in forestry, I have cultivated the capacity to understand complex
systems with complex relationships. I spent 5 years working at an environmental engineering
firm cleaning up spills that had already occurred—affecting both soil and groundwater—and
through this experience, I became determined to alter decision-making protocols that result in
flawed systems with unintended consequences.
To this end, I read the literature of industrial ecology and went to work at GreenBlue, a non-
profit focused on reducing industry's impact on the environment, to develop the Sustainable
Packaging Coalition (SPC). The SPC is an industry working group consisting of 200+ companies
spanning all positions on the supply chain. The premise of this project was to try and shift an
entire industry toward more sustainable practice without merely shifting the problem to another
point in the supply chain—instead, to evaluate the full life cycle. Our main approach was to
educate critical industry participants (e.g., designers and engineers) and develop tools to improve
their decision making. Through this work, I developed a deep understanding of Life Cycle
Assessment and its use in the public interest, where there are strengths and weaknesses. I also
have a solid understanding of Ecosystem Services, Toxicity Risk Assessment, Water
Footprinting, Design for Environment, and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. I have
participated in stakeholder venues and committees for the U.S. Department of Energy, EPA,
GSA, and UNEP focused on product sustainability assessment. I have also worked with many
Fortune 100 companies on these same issues.
My new role at World Wildlife Fund has enabled me a broader purview of conservation,
something that was previously out of my comfort zone. Through this experience, it has become
clear to me that many of the assessment methods traditionally used by companies to analyze
product or supply chain sustainability do not capture some of the most important environmental
impacts. They rarely take into account a fixed place in the world and all of the biophysical
properties of that place, including species present, water availability, soil type, or current
demands on natural resources. I am still in the learning and listening mode, but very interested in
understanding the intersection of all different sustainability assessment methods and how they
complement one another to analyze the broader issues by different audiences, through different
views (boundaries), toward different impacts that occur at different scales. Once this larger
framework is developed in an explicit way, I believe that a deeper understanding and more
effective conversation will emerge toward preserving critical ecosystems and human health.
Given the current pressures on our planet, including climate change, water availability, ocean
acidification, etc., sustainability assessment methods will prove to be one of two things: either a
very detailed record of how we as a species destroyed our planet through the mismanagement
and lack of imagination about industrial processes, or the roadmap by which, we as a species
recognized our flaws and collectively designed a sustainable industrial system. My hope is for
the second and I am excited to participate in these discussions at the Workshop.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-61
-------
Thomas L. Theis
Consumption, Sustainability, and Social Benefits
Product supply chains are usually defined in terms of the steps involved in acquiring, refining,
and delivering materials and energy to manufacturers, plus the many stages of the manufacturing
enterprise itself (including transport of parts, sub-components, and the final product or service)
up to the point-of-sale to the consumer. Such chains can be quite complex to design and operate
since they often involve hundreds of materials and suppliers, complex manufacturing processes,
and quality control issues. Life cycle analysis grew out of industry's need to understand how
these systems behave; and to develop workable models that could be used to control and
optimize material and energy flows, ensure product quality, manage environmental impacts, and
minimize costs. Complete life cycle approaches also examine consumer uses and the post-
consumer disposition of the product, part of the product chain that is considered if significant
regulatory or economic factors that are deemed to be the responsibility of the manufacturer are
present (for example CAFE standards for automobiles; market trading schemes for SO2 and
NOX). This has led to product conceptualization and development that incorporate "design for the
environment," "green engineering," or "green chemistry" principles, and business practices built
upon the concept of "eco-efficiency."
It is generally believed that if these principles and practices can become widespread enough (i.e.,
if the complete product chain can be "greened" enough), then better material and energy
efficiencies will result, effectively "decoupling" environmental impacts from the consumptive
habits of the human population. The social benefits of consumption are less clearly understood,
but it is assumed that a greater variety of environmentally conscious products and services made
available at lower costs will necessarily yield societal benefits, thereby moving toward at least
partial fulfillment of the Sustainability paradigm.
However, available evidence does not wholly support this conceptual framework. Throughout
recent U.S. history (-100-200 years), increases in human consumption in fundamental sectors of
the economy (energy, materials, transportation, and food) have consistently outpaced gains in
manufacturing efficiency, resulting in greater, not lesser, resource consumption on aperperson
basis. In this presentation, these data will be reviewed and amplified, with a particular focus on
the product-consumption-societal benefits chain associated with artificial lighting, a basic human
need. The results illustrate the interplay among technological breakthroughs, efficiency gains,
prices, and societal benefits; with a resulting increase, rather than decrease, in the total and per
capita energy used for lighting. This is a tradeoff: higher energy consumption and accompanying
energy-related contaminants versus benefits to society, the nature of which range from higher
productivity, to better delivery of services, to a greater variety of products in commerce, to more
aesthetic enjoyment of light-enabled activities. Whether nanotechnology-based solid-state
lighting can reverse these trends while expanding benefits is yet to be demonstrated; however,
long-term trends suggest that it is unlikely that efficiency gains alone will result in a more
sustainable lighting sector for society.
These results point to three general directions for product-chain research:
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-62
-------
1. The need for a much stronger interdisciplinary effort to understand the complex factors
emergent across the complete product chain (including human behavior) that contribute to
resource consumption, environmental degradation, and human health risk, while recognizing
benefits to society;
2. The need to expand green, design for the environment, and organizational eco-design
principles beyond their traditional focus on increasing efficiency and lowering pollutant
loads per unit product to include economic and behavioral factors; and
3. The need to investigate more highly integrated policies, based on the sustainability paradigm,
that are able to meet human needs while capturing economic excesses and decoupling
environmental degradation that have their roots in over-consumption.
Arnold Tukker
Sustainable Product-Services: An Opinion
(1) Motivational statement providing the reason for conducting the study and its importance:
Product-service systems (PSS) are a specific type of value proposition that a business (network)
offers to (or co-produces with) its clients. PSS consists of a mix of tangible products and
intangible services designed and combined so that they jointly are capable of fulfilling final
customer needs. The PSS-concept rests on two pillars:
1. Inherently taking the final functionality or satisfaction that the user wants to realize as a
starting point of business development (instead of the product fulfilling this
functionality).
2. Elaborating the (business) system that provides this functionality with a greenfield
mindset (instead of taking existing structures, routines, and the position of the own firm
therein for granted).
PSS are often depicted as an opportunity to enhance resource efficiency and business
performance at the same time. The EU Sustainable Product Development Network (SusProNet)
aimed at analyzing the realism of this expectation and working with companies to see under
which boundary conditions they would implement a PSS business model.
(2) Description of the method used:
As a Network project, SusProNet had limited opportunities for doing primary research. A
thorough review of the business and sustainability research in the field was done and enriched
with the practical experiences of the more than 20 companies that are part of the Network. This
"practice research" ultimately was sublimated in key success and failure factures of PSS business
models, policy implications, and a PSS business model development manual.
(3) Statement of the most important results:
PSS certainly have a potential to enhance competitiveness and contribute to sustainability at the
same time. Compared to products, they can produce superior tangible and intangible value by
delivering more customized solutions, and reduce the efforts of the customer "to make the
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-63
-------
product work." They also can lower system costs. In the case of result-oriented PSS, one actor
becomes responsible for all costs of delivering a result, and hence has a great incentive to use
materials and energy optimally. Finally, PSS can help a firm to improve the position in the value
chain; for instance, if the PSS include elements with a higher profit margin or create unique and
customized client relationships that cannot be copied by competitors.
PSS Type
1 . Product-oriented services
2. Use-oriented services
3. Result-oriented services
Advantages
Easy to implement
Close to core business
Medium (Factor 2)
Changes consumer behavior
Very successful in B2B
context.
Radical (Factor x potential)
Disadvantages
Incremental environmental
benefits (20%)
Low intangible added value =>
consumer acceptance difficult,
because of ownership conflict,
etc.
Risks/ Liabilities
How to measure result?
Customer loses power over
means
However, PSS don't deliver such bonuses by definition. Particularly in a B2C context, product
ownership contributes highly to esteem and hence intangible value. Access to the product is
often more difficult, creating tangible consumer sacrifices. Costs can be higher if the PSS has to
be produced with higher-priced labor or materials, or when the often more networked production
systems generate high transaction costs. Sometimes a switch to PSS may weaken the position in
the value chain. In industries where excellence in product manufacturing and design form the
key to uniqueness and hence power in the value network, diverting focus to an issue such as PSS
development is a recipe to lose rather than win the innovation battle.
(4) Discussion of the relevance of the results:
In sum, firms have to assess carefully if they can competitively make and consumers will buy
their PSS. SusProNet helped considerably to untangle some simplistic myths that PSS always
would be sustainable and always make business sense. It helped to identify factors that
businesses need to take into account in their analyses if a switch to service-oriented business
models makes business sense.
(5) Implications of these results for the design of sustainable product systems and supply chains:
SusProNet helped to provide a realistic development framework for PSS that makes true
business sense and offers environmental benefits. It also made clear what limitations concepts
like PSS and sustainable supply chain management have to realize a sustainable society. The true
problem from a sustainability perspective is that society needs major system innovations. These
are a form of creative destruction, in which also contextual factors and framework conditions
must change. This needs a much broader system approach than the business-consumer
interaction along a value chain, so central to the PSS concept. Therefore, the fostering of system
innovation needs a broader analytical frame that combines insights of business developers,
designers, consumer scientists, and system innovation specialists in its effort to depict credible
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-64
-------
implementation pathways for sustainable systems in the field of food, mobility, and
housing/energy.
References
Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: eight ways to sustainability? Business
Strategy and Environment, Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 246 - 260 (best paper issue GIN
2003 conference)
Tukker, A., U. Tischner (eds., 2006). New Business for Old Europe. Product Service
Development, Competitiveness and Sustainability. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK
Tukker, A. and U. Tischner (2006). Product-services as a research field: past, present and future.
Reflections from a decade of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 14, Issue
17, 2006, Pages 1552-1556
Don Versteeg
Product innovation in the Fabric & Home Care business of P&G has brought compact liquid and
powdered detergents, an ultra-compact unit dose detergent, and a coldwater detergent to the
market in the past several years, resulting in significant energy, GHG, water, and solid waste
savings. Further, significant decreases in energy use, GHG generation, and solid waste
production at our manufacturing plants have been accomplished. As a sustainability expert for
this business, it is my role to identify opportunities for product and process improvements and to
work with our technology groups to find appropriate chemistries that meet our safety and
sustainability goals. Sustainability is at the heart of P&G's purpose and in our commitment to
touch and improve consumer's lives now and for generations to come. Sustainability is brought
to life through programs that integrate our core values with product development, consumer
understanding, appliance manufacturers, life cycle assessment, trade organizations, safety,
operations, logistics, suppliers, etc. We collaborate closely with suppliers across the entire supply
chain, as they are our source of materials, packaging, systems, services, and ideas for sustainable
innovation products. We view suppliers as critical partners in improving the environmental
sustainability of our end-to-end supply chain. We also learn from each other's best practices as
we navigate the emerging field of environmental sustainability. Our supplier interaction is
governed by guidance documents, expectations, and a scorecard that we use to understand
progress against sustainability goals.
My interest in the workshop is to better understand how experts in other industry sectors are
improving the sustainability of their products, processes, operations, and supply chain. If
possible, I would like to bring their experiences into P&G to help us meet our goals and will
bring our supplier scorecard to share.
Eric Williams
My sense is that the main recent development in sustainable supply chains is increased use of
Life Cycle Assessment. There are high expectations being put on LCA, in particular efforts to
use LCA for consumer labeling that would distinguish between similar products from different
manufacturers. There is a need to grapple with uncertainty in LCA. I see dealing with growth and
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-65
-------
rebound effects as key unsolved challenges that link with the definition of a "sustainable supply
chain." The common metrics used to measure progress focus at the product level, but it is not
clear that improvements at the product level will be sufficient to manage sustainability issues of
the whole production system.
Phil Williams
Supply Chain Carbon Accounting Position Statement
The following information is offered to serve as back ground information to help provide
orientation on Webcor Builders and our relationship with supply chain carbon accounting.
As a General Contractor/Builder we specialize in large commercial projects in California that
range from high rise multi-tenant condominiums, apartments, hotels, and offices. We also have
extensive experience in owner-occupied corporate campuses, museums, and medical acute care
facilities. In business terms our annual revenues average over $1 billion utilizing just 400-450
permanent employees. In addition to our General Contracting/Builder division we are the 8th
largest specialty structural concrete contractor in the nation and provide international
construction management consulting services.
In 2009, we were the first firm from any industry category in California to report our complete
scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon emissions to the California Climate action Registry (CCAR). In that
analysis we reported that 99.6 percent of the carbon we generate is from our scope 3 emissions
and 0.4 percent was a result of our scope 1 and 2 activities.
(1) Critical point of information: The fact that 99 percent of our emissions are from our supply
chain made it very clear to us that one of the greatest impacts we could make was squarely in
our scope 3 supply chain in the form of the embodied energy/CCVe in building materials and
activities.
As a company we strive to incorporate all aspects of sustainability in our projects. In 2010, more
than 98 percent of our revenue was generated from projects that were registered or received
certification under the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED). USGBC and LEED are widely recognized as the world's largest
independent third party green building organization and most broadly accepted and respected
building rating system. The LEED system measures environmental impacts from the site, water
efficiency, material resources (MR), energy and atmosphere, indoor environment quality, and
innovation in design. The USGBC does not create standards. They adopt accepted standards
from other professional organizations (ASHRAE, BAAQMD, IEEE, EPA, etc.) and award
credits based on the levels of performance per those independent standards.
The LEED system category that deals with materials is Material Resources (MR). M.R. is
currently very limited in scope and the credits awarded are based upon a percent of products
sourced within 500 miles from the project site, percent of material that is recycled content,
sustainably harvested wood, rapidly renewable materials, and low or no VOC off gas from
materials. While these measurements try to reduce the embodied energy of materials they do not
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-66
-------
have a basis in science, they do not use accepted carbon accounting methodologies and are not
related to any LCA systems. It is best to say that the attempt to quantify materials in buildings
was admirable when the USGBC LEED systems were first introduced in 1998, but they are
immature and due for improvement.
(2) Critical point of information: The USGBC LEED system provides the building industry with
a mature, widely accepted building rating system and tens of thousands of professionals who
are attempting to quantify and qualify the sustainability aspects of materials as part of the
rating system. Unlike any other significant industry in the U.S., the commercial building
design, construction, and user/ownership community has pressing marketing and technical
needs and an immediate demand for an accurate supply chain carbon accounting system that
can be readily adopted by manufacturers and credibly applied to the LEED rating system.
In 2009, our proposal was accepted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
to provide scope 3 carbon accounting services for their new 250,000 square foot headquarters
project. This work was outside of any LEED credit. As a result of the collaborative effort a
concrete structure was delivered with CCVe emissions 7 million pounds less than what would
have been provided under the LEED systems as a sustainable "green concrete". This 7 million
pound reduction represented over 49% of the total embodied energy of the buildings structural
system. We are now providing other major California construction projects with this same scope
3 supply chain design formulation and site verification accounting procedure.
(3) Critical point of information: The hybrid economic input-output (Hybrid EIO) method was
utilized for our CCAR reporting as well as for the SFPUC project. This method was selected
because it uses readily available financial information and is rapidly and accurately
customizable for our wide variety of products and the large quantities of new "green"
materials. This same method is actively being employed on additional projects.
To further embody energy research related to building design, materials, and construction, in
2009 Webcor and six other west Coast firms met and formed the Carbon Leadership Forum
(CFL). The CFL selected the University of Washington and Kate Simonen as part of the College
of Architectural and Environment Design, as the institution to host this independent non-industry
specific research effort. We also work closely with Stanford University and Dr. Michael Lepech
in support of their supply chain and LCA graduate student research.
Additionally, in 2010 Webcor was selected by the World Resource Institute (WRI) as a "Road
Tester" for their supply chain accounting standard. Of the 70 global firms selected, only Webcor
represented the commercial building industry. The WRI standard is set to be released to the
public on October 4th of this year in New York City.
(4) Critical point of information: Even as research continues regarding supply chain accounting
methodologies, there is enough accurate and accepted information available to allow
industries, agencies, and government bodies the ability to adopt reasonable scope 3 supply
chain standards. Supply chain scope 3 CO2-e emission reductions can be immediate,
substantial, and bankable. Operational CO2-e emissions are surely needed; however, they are
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-67
-------
accrued over long time periods, are small on an annual basis, and because they require
continued operations and facilities upkeep, they are variable.
Fengqi You
Optimal Design and Operations of Sustainable Biomass-to-Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels Supply
Chains Under Uncertainty
Concerns about climate change, energy security, and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels are
causing our society to search for new renewable sources of transportation fuels. Domestically
available biomass has been proposed as part of the solution to our dependence on fossil fuels.
Biofuels, especially liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from cellulosic materials, have the
benefits of significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and leading to new jobs and
greater economic vitality in rural areas. [1,2]. The U.S. only produced less than 1 billion gallons
of liquid fuels from cellulosic materials in 2010, but the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
establishes a target of 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuel annual production by 2022 [3, 4]. In
observance of this mandatory production target, many new cellulosic biomass-to-liquid
hydrocarbon fuels supply chains will be designed and developed in the coming decade for better
economic, environmental and social performances. However, uncertainty resulting from supply
and demand variations may have significant impact on the biofuel supply chain. Therefore, an
efficient optimization strategy is urgently needed to for the design and operations of sustainable
and robust biomass-to-biofuel supply chains.
In this work, we address the optimal design and planning of biomass-to-liquids supply chains
under supply and demand uncertainty. A two-stage stochastic mixed-integer linear programming
(SMILP) model combined with Monte Carlo sampling and the associated statistical analysis [4,
5] is proposed to deal with different types of uncertainty, and it is incorporated into a multi-
period planning model that takes into account the main characteristics of the advanced biofuel
supply chains, such as seasonality of feedstock supply, biomass deterioration with time,
geographical diversity and availability of biomass resources, feedstock density, diverse
conversion technologies and byproducts, infrastructure compatibility, demand distribution,
regional economic structure, and government incentives. In the two-stage framework, the supply
chain network design and capacity planning decisions are made "here-and-now" prior to the
resolution of uncertainty, while the production, transportation and storage decisions for each time
period are postponed in a "wait-and-see" mode. The SMILP model integrates decision making
across multiple temporal and spatial scales and simultaneously predicts the optimal network
design, facility location, technology selection, capital investment, production operations,
inventory control, and logistics management decisions. In order to solve the resulting large scale
SMILP problems effectively, a decomposition algorithm based on sampling average
approximation [5] and multi-cut L-shaped method [6, 7] is proposed by taking advantage of the
problem structure.
In addition to the economic objective of minimizing the annualized net present cost, the SMILP
model is also extended to integrate with life cycle assessment (LCA) and regional economic
input-output (REIO) analysis through a multiobjective optimization scheme to include two other
objectives: the environmental objective measured by life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and the
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-68
-------
social objective measured by the number of accrued local jobs resulting from the construction
and operation of the biofuel supply chain. The multi objective optimization framework allows the
model to establish tradeoffs among the economic, environmental, and social performances of the
cellulosic biofuel supply chains in a systematic way. The multi objective optimization problem is
solved with an s-constraint method and produces Pareto-optimal curves that reveal how the
optimal annualized cost and the supply chain network structure change with different
environmental and social performance of the entire supply chain [10, 11].
The proposed optimization model and solution method is illustrated through county-level case
study for the state of Illinois. Three major types of biomass, including crop residues, energy
crops, and wood residues, and three major conversion pathways, including biochemical
conversion, gasification followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis and fast pyrolysis followed by
hydroprocessing are considered. Uncertainty information is generated from the time series
analysis [8] based on the historical data of biomass feedstock supply [9] and liquid fuel demand
[1]. County-level results will be presented that provide regionally-based insight into transition
pathways of biomass production and conversion. Computational results also demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed decomposition algorithm for the solution of large-scale SMILP
problems.
References
1. Biomass Program Multi-Year Program Plan 2010; EERE, U.S. DOE, March 2010.
2. National Biofuels Action Plan; Biomass Research and Development Board: U.S. U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
3. National Renewable Fuel Standard Program for 2010 and Beyond; U.S. EPA, February 2010.
4. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy: 2008.
5. Shapiro, A.; Homem-de-Mello, T., A simulation-based approach to two-stage stochastic
programming with recourse, Mathematical Programming, 1998, 81, 301-325.
6. Birge, J.R.; Louveaux, F., Introduction to Stochastic Programming, Springer Verlag, New
York, 1997.
7. You, F.; Wassick, J. M.; Grossmann, I. E., Risk management for global supply chain
planning under uncertainty: models and algorithms. AIChE Journal 2009, 55, 931-946.
8. Enders, W., Applied Econometric Time Series. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2004.
9. National Agricultural Statistics Service.
10. You, F.; Tao, L.; Graziano, D. J.; Snyder, S. W., Optimal Design of Sustainable Cellulosic
Biofuel Supply Chains: Multi-objective Optimization Coupled with Life Cycle Assessment
and Input-Output Analysis. AIChE Journal 2011, In press, DOI: 10.1002/aic. 12637.
11. You, F.; Wang, B., Life Cycle Optimization of Biomass-to-Liquids Supply Chains with
Distributed-Centralized Processing Networks. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
2011, Submitted.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-69
-------
II
Group 1 - Discussion Leader: Thomas Seager
PowerPoint Slides:
I.
•
•
•
Paradox of Policy and Sustainability
Policy can be both a impetus (driver) and an obstacle to innovation
Policy can originate in government, but it can also originate in other places (e.g., USGBC).
Technology and policy are complicated. The technological stability of the building industry (e.g.,
compared with electronics) may have facilitated other types of innovations, such as creating a
market for green buildings based upon standards that are progressive, but not rapidly obsolete
II.
•
•
•
•
Resource Risk Assessment
Incremental increases in vulnerabilities
Have LCA, LCC, but no algorithms for materials scarcity or supply
Non-linearity
It takes a catastrophe
chain vulnerability
III.
Climate change and Technological Systems
Group 2 — Discussion Leaders: Troy Hawkins and Bert Bras
PowerPoint Slides:
System boundary issues:
o Economic value system (the consumption society) - is it off limits?
Policy drivers can create value for renewables or other sustainable technologies
Subsidies can help, but also hurt (= challenge) - also need to be strategic and well informed
Local versus global needs and solutions
Possible workshop outcome: don't fund technologies, but fund studies/analyses that can inform
the policies
How do you get industry to participate?
Job are a challenge
Need for clear consensus on science is needed. "It depends" is a difficult thing to understand for
policy makers
Overcome stereotypes of "bad" industry, emotional NGOs, etc.
o How do you convey environmental information to consumer an others
o Studies on consumer behavior?
Future Drivers
• Industry does not like uncertainty in policy and being involved with informing would help all.
o Level playing field is preferred
• Affect consumer behavior
o Rule out certain products
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 201 1
Final Report, February 29, 201 2 A-70
-------
o Give information - but difficult to condense
o Scoring system like LEED?
• Problems exist
• Do benefits outweigh the problems
Real Drivers - Future Lack of Resources
• Energy, water, selected materials are really the true future constraints compared to jobs right now
o Studies needed for full understanding of available of material and energy stocks
o Also, how do we trade-off?
o Even ecological economics and value of ecosystem services have severe uncertainties
Next gen US strengths in Sustainable Design (1)
• Stewardship program around "endangered" materials
o Status, conservation, recycling
• Also look at material substitution and game-changing technologies
o Where can US companies really take a leading role versus foreign companies
• Turning expertise into an opportunity:
o Bio/fuel refineries from paper factories
o Floating wind farms from oil platforms
o Requires some governmental leadership
Next gen US strengths in Sustainable Design (2)
• Is industrial symbiosis a new way to revitalize US manufacturing
o Local inefficiencies can be allowed but overall effectiveness increases
• Research opportunity:
o Look at entire US industry and see opportunities for cross-industry symbiosis
o Are there simple pairings possible?
• Wine store is always next to grocery store
• What are the best practices?
• Pre/Non-competitive industry collaboration exists and needs to be fostered
What SHOULD we be good at
• Long term thinking
o For example, lack of energy policy...
o Without long term policy, competitive behavior is focused on short term
• Better linking branding to sustainability and long term (economic) viability
• Disconnect between funding from industry and NSF for academia
o More funding for research on system level issues where collaboration between industry
and academia is required
Notes:
• Bill Flanagan: Are we supposed to discuss the larger societal context for
consumption? Policy drivers determine the framework in which we operate; policy
drivers could provide market for renewables.
• Think about solar energy - needs subsidies.
• What is our ability to provide a clear consensus?
• Industry needs a consistent, level playing field.
• Dupont teamed with NRDC to provide guidelines for nanomaterials.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-71
-------
• Could this policy stay in place for the long term?
• NGOs completely ignore science in favor of emotion.
• How do we handle the NGO issue?
• Could we have credible third parties?
• Improving education:
o Will consumers respond well to environmental labels?
• Future drivers?
• Thoughts:
o How to reconcile?
o Creative destruction versus collaborative regulation
o Efficiency versus disposable income.
• How do you manage sustainable new products in the context of growth?
Group 6 — Discussion Leaders: Ignacio Grossman and Ray Smith
PowerPoint Slides:
Q1A: What are the challenging industry and societal problems to be solved?
• Resource Availability, Human Health and Ecosystem Health (e.g., Climate, Biodiversity,
Rare Earths, Future Energy needs)
• Increasing Wealth Disparity and Rising Middle Class in BRIC Countries
• Short-term perspective (e.g., quarterly returns and 2-year budgets)/Ethical Challenges in
Financial Institutions
• Loss of Credibility in Authority and Traditional Institutions
• Population Growth
What are the future drivers for design of sustainable products?
• Corporate - Product Differentiation, Company Survival (Source Supply), Imitation of
Corporate Leaders
• Climate Adaptation - (e.g., loss of available agricultural land but more mouths to feed)
• Technologies that solve problems AND create resources
• Bottom of pyramid product design will revolutionize design and consumption
Q2: What are the next generation sustainable design-enabled strength areas in the US?
• Rebrand US as a sustainable global leader
• Sustainable Nano-tech and Nano-manufacturing, Cyber Infrastructure, Advanced IT and
Systems Engineering, Biotechnology
• Conservation, Social Networking, Pragmatism, Power of Philanthropic Sector, Creativity
• Private Sustainability Consortia
Where are the Gaps in Knowledge?
• Education, Knowledge of History, Vision, Naivete
• What are the new feedstocks for materials and energy
• We do analysis by sector or silo, never big picture - no overall quantifiable goal.
• Do we really know all of the impacts? What about that which we cannot measure?
• Lack of will
• Insufficient collaboration and trust between disciplines.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-72
-------
Q3: What are the problems faced by existing sustainable design capabilities?
• Inexpensive energy and material resources
• Lack of data (also seen as recalcitrant sector excuse)
• Lack of verification of LCA results
• Need undergraduate and graduate school programs
• Lack of open standards for data
What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products, manufacturing systems and supply
chains?
• Minimal standards for eco-design
• Remanufacturing
• Sustainable design tool kits
• Design consortia that compete to be green
• Pre-competitive collaboration networks
• Finding environmental leverage points
• Taxing bads and rewarding goods
Notes:
• Challenging Problems:
o Replacing rare earths
o Resources, biodiversity, climate, human health, ecosystems
o Wealth disparity growing to extremes
o Overall increases in consumption (from BRICs' middle class)
• Also a development goal:
o Short-term outlook
o Lack of awareness of sustainability
o Population growth (shrinkage)
o Lack of roadmap
o How do we design something we don't know what it looks like?
o How do we secure energy in the future?
o Ethical challenges in finance and capitalism
o Loss of credibility and authority in traditional institutions
• Drivers
o Product differentiation provides value (lose big picture)
o Self-interested focus on corporate survival by some companies is creating leadership
pressure by citizens
o Imitation of corporate leaders
o Climate adaptation
o Replacement of depleted natural resources with substitutes
o Technologies that solve problems and create resources
• Bottom of pyramid product development will revolutionize lots of design and consumption
• Strength Areas
• Rebrand U.S. as sustainability global leader. Slogans lead to behavior, supported by national
policy.
o Sustainable nanotech and nanomanufacturing
o Cyber Infrastructure (CI) enhanced manufacturing
o Advanced IT systems engineering (e.g., logistics, remote sensing)
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-73
-------
o RFID
o Conservation
o Social networking—crowd sourcing
o Biotechnology—synthetic biology—increasing yields
o Pragmatism
o Power of philanthropic sector
o Creativity and "can do" attitude in industry
o Private sustainability consortia
• Gaps:
o Education
o Knowl edge of hi story
o Vision
o Naivete
• How to create materials by design to replace scarce natural resources?
• How to efficiently harvest/utilize solar energy?
o Analysis by sector or silo never gets to the big picture
o Thus, no overall quantifiable goal
o What is success quantitatively and how can we succeed?
• Micromeasures to large goals?
o Knowledge in solar technology/science
o Do we really know all the impacts?
o Lack of will
o Insufficient collaboration / trust
• Problems in Design:
o Inexpensive energy / resources
o Lack of (environmental) data - can be an excuse not to act
o Short-cut methods make excuses "go away."
o Can't verify LCA results
o Need undergraduate and graduate school programs to get people excited
o Needs to be chic
o Lack of open standards for data
• Opportunities in Design:
o Minimal standards for eco-design (see problems above)
o Remanufacturing, design for (and on-shore)
o Sustainable design tool kits
o Design consortia that compete to be as green as possible
• There is a need for pre-competitive collaboration networks that agree on sustainable design,
materials, and use of energy (competition for other parts).
• Finding environmental leverage points—this change makes a big difference:
o Mining landfills
o Taxing "bads," rewarding "goods," "user fees"
Group 7-DiscussionLeader: DarleneSchuster
PowerPoint Slides:
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-74
-------
Big challenges
• The nexus between increases in efficiency leading to increases in economic development and
consumption
o Efficiency leads to more consumption, reduced sustainability
o Market fails to recognize externalities*
o Irreducible complexity
• Possible solution strategies
o Market signals to incentivize sustainable design AND sustainable consumption
o Designing framework conditions (level playing field concept)
o Possible use of full cost accounting**
Gaps in Knowledge
• Make LCA Approachable and Usable in 'thinking"
o Cannot do full LCA on every decision
o Wastes time and money
o Too much information
o Need life cycle thinking -
• Need Full cost accounting
o To include: indirect impacts (e.g. Work force impacts, and societal costs in economic terms)
• Need Systems thinking
o Research on systemic effects along supply chain
o Water Tools as an example (WBCSD), ecosystem services work
Problems and Opportunities
• Need to develop rapid screening and assessment tools for supply chain systems,
• Supply chain design should include resilience concepts and adaptation methods
• Need for industry standards to characterize sustainable supply chain components
• Misinformation - quick scientific response team to counter misinformation and educate public
and policy makers
Notes:
* Beth Bel off: If externality here means the traditional environmental economies' definition of
environmental costs that are not internalized, I am not sure about its direct links with rebound
effects.
** Beth Bel off: Based on the reason above, I am not sure if this is a solution.
Group 8 - Discussion Leader: Herb Cabezas
PowerPoint Slides:
• Define and communicate priorities; for example: what are the main water and energy consumers...
• Working on developing a green energy standards for chem. products
• Development of a product score card. Companies tell their providers what they value most. For
example: energy, water and waste. It helps a lot to come up with common scorecards... An Industry
Consortium should come up with that
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-75
-------
• Opportunities for industry symbiosis (industrial ecology) where the waste from one company /
process becomes the input material of another company/process
• How to transform a whole supply chain so that we can boost reuse, remanufacturing as opposed to
making more new products - would that need a different supply chain?
Opportunities for industry symbiosis (industrial ecology) where the waste from one company /
process becomes the input material of another company/process
How to transform a whole supply chain so that we can boost reuse, remanufacturing as opposed
to making more new products - would that need a different supply chain?
Gather a better understanding on where the hotspots are... and consequently, the best
opportunities - better understand two fold question: efficiency vs. consumption
Every single product has unique opportunities which may vary substantially.
How can we gain a better understanding on the world opportunities and hotspots (per type of
material)
Challenge: to innovate and device more alternatives to traditional supply chains. Include new
products, manufacturing process, etc.
How to better gather data, not only in terms of quantity but also in terms of uncertainty
challenges.
Better understanding of the impact of new materials, for example Algae systems
How to engage the average citizen into sustainability initiatives?
We need more and better methods to integrate information from different stakeholders involved
in different stages of the supply chain
Revisit how environmental law and regulations are written to promote sustainability (Herb's
example on a Chem. Industry in CA)
Provide a solution on why green consumption is still on a very early stage... what can we do to
increase consumer awareness and engagement
Group 9 — Discussion Leader: Bhavik Bakshi
PowerPoint Slides:
Problems
• Materials, energy, water are the main challenges for future design
• Pollution is less important as long as we continue pursuing excellence in reducing emissions.
• In a way, energy consumption and CO2 emissions are interchangeable (?)
• Energy: efficiency from industrial point of view, consumption in terms of societal point of view
• Need to de-carbonize energy supply
• Switch to renewable energy in more systemic way
Gaps
• Lack of realistic models/data away from metrics related
• No consistent methodology to look at the supply chain: no consensus among the community
• Need for better data with industry participation
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-76
-------
• Need to be able to focus on particular products with highest impact: Product label like Energy
Star (?)
• Knowledge and data management
• How society can be better informed
• Public willingness to act and maintain
Opportunities
• Developing data, models and methods for guiding policies based on life cycle impacts
• Identify the top products that have the most impact (environmental footprint); have consistent
data and methodology
• Methodologies to analyze existing data and connected with optimization and decision making
• Resource optimization opportunities, for example water
• Design considering the end of life of the product into account
• Consider issues beyond engineering, include economic and social factors
Group 1 — Discussion Leader: Thomas Seager
PowerPoint Slides:
As with most/all change or new design the answers depend on what group is answering the question.
If it is an organization that is innovative and in a leadership position, new is:
• Interesting and worthy of investment
• A potential competitive advantage
• An alternative to legal risk of non-compliance
• Early influence with political organizations
• Brand influence with consumers
For the organizations that are responding to the new design or idea the answers can be just the opposite,
such as:
• Cost of catch-up
• A reactionary tone with a need to refute and discredit, followed by being a "fast follower"
• Legal defensive position
• Political rebuttal and obfuscation
The development profile for any industry and any thing new is:
Innovator, early adopter, early minority, late majority and laggard.
We believe that:
1) New metrics will need to be established that allow for new values to be evaluated against current
metrics (i.e. miles/gallon, ppm CO2, kg/cu. meter).
2) Revised rating system based upon new metrics for at a minimal compliance with opportunities for
incremental "better than std." evaluations and differentiation.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-77
-------
3) Competitive pressures will delay advancements. Industry professional affiliations will not
immediately adopt new designs if they are not close enough to existing standards, fall with in
established criteria, if they are perceived as a competitive advantage for a particular firm or are
developed in a foreign country.
4) Sustainability can be (is currently) a politically charged issue dependent on parties and regional
agendas. Only business market factors independent of legislation will more than likely be able to
influence adoption.
Group 2 — Discussion Leaders: Troy Hawkins and Bert Bras
PowerPoint Slides:
Group 2 - Technologies/Tools - Needs
• Different tools are needed for different audiences/users
o Expert versus practitioner version of tools
o Differentiation between product design and design of sustainable supply chains
o Input-Output approaches seem to work well for large supply chain assessments
• Lack of integration of LCA databases/data with Computer-Aided Design tools
o Both in ME as well as ChE and economics
o Not difficult to do
• Tools are out there, but workflow integration is needed
• Subscription costs can be a barrier
Lower Level Needs
• Need for more LCA inventory data that is maintained consistently for a cheap price
• Need for non-linear, dynamic data/models for LCA predictive capability
• Designer workflow could be more product specific allowing for parametric studies
• Qualitative screening/streamlined LCA
o Third party validated?
• Benchmarking tools linked to system analysis tools
o Advantage: Can compare against "the standard"
o E.g., data envelope analyses
Scales
• Data and tools for seamless consistent analyses at different/multiple scales is lacking
• Accuracy of narrow scale versus uncertainty of comprehensive scale - how do we manage?
System Level Analyses
• How do we integrate all models like risk analysis, consumer behavior, LCA, etc.
• Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) field may have to be engaged
• Industry/practitioners still like/prefer MS Excel
• How do we do systems level analyses versus single technology analyses, e.g., to
o Predict effects of technology transitions
o Capture system dynamics effects
• Examples exist (e.g., biofuel analyses), but
o How do we do expand these system studies on a broader scale?
o How do we integrate other metrics/impact categories?
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-78
-------
o Who is the user/audience?
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-79
-------
Expertise
Plenty of technical domain specific expertise is available
No expertise on systems level integration and workflow integration
o Engage ERP, PLM providers
o A few examples exist of LCA integration with product design focused industrial software
tools
Need for standardization
o Product category allocation rules
Need for validation
o Policy and product decision level
Expertise and effort needed to integrate uncertainty characterization, management, etc. in an
expert manner
Domain expert(ise) has to be integrated in decision making process
o Be careful with automation of LCAs
o Result of the tools have to reflect that it is not the final answer
o Impact categorization/information typically has to be condensed/converted by humans
into appropriate knowledge
o Expertise needed on impact category valuation/trade-off
Technologies tools
Define criteria
itegration needed? Where is expertise?
Integrated assessment
Visualization tools
Social and economic
expertise
Weighting factors
Multi criteria
optimization
Collaborative design Cloud computing
LCA is not enough
NIST
US EPA
Systematic dynamic
modeling
Aspen for CPI
Cad Cam?
ASP
State of technical
capability?
Flexible weighing
systems exist, but not
used
EIO use and research
Not in as wide use as
needed
Group 3 - Discussion Leader: Raj Srinivasan
PowerPoint Slides:
General observations on stakeholder process
Debate by openly publishing even provocative data and statements is sound! (the 80s)
Stakeholder and consensus process may lead to wishy-washy, and not always useful, (the 90s)
Joint venture between industry and NGO are interesting. How can we work together addressing
some common issue? (the OOs)
And now?? (10s): Specific actions, sharing a common specific goal and interest.
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-80
-------
Stakeholders role
• The government role is to overregulate and overspend, the industry role is to pollute and cut
corners, the academia role is to be sufficiently obscure and the NGO role is to whine!
• Government role is to protect? Also stimulate and fund research, partnerships? Remedy market
failures.
• Role of academia: understanding the system and educating
• Role of industry is to respect? Also an expert role
Attitude and timing
• There is a time to collaborate and build consensus, there is a time to diverge and take different
and original paths.
• Litigation issues rarely lead to productive collaborations (difference LCA - Risk Assessment),
but...
• Conflict is often the prerequisite for stakeholder engagement
• Be more honest than the politically correct requirement of being nice to one another
• What makes a collaboration interesting... Could be a paper, funding, access to knowledge, access
to data, ensure an independent point of view
Which variety of stakeholder process is useful and under which circumstances?
• Smart stakeholder management - need to understand what is each other's time frame, aware of
respective interest.
• Most effective stakeholder groups: collaborative, committed and accountable
• Think that the problem cannot be solved on its own.
• Is it legitimate to deliberately exclude some stakeholder? E.g. the recycling industry in Swedish
ELV management
• Stakeholder consultation is different from a roundtable. Stakeholder process is usually purposeful
and action related
• Partnership is stimulating, stakeholder consultation is boring, could delay innovation... unless
clear purpose
• Useful to formulate the problem together
Group 4 — Discussion Leader: Thomas Theis
PowerPoint Slides:
• Organizational structures for data availability and transparency while maintaining confidentiality
• Assessments have to go beyond sciences/engineering. Need to incorporate decision analysis,
social sciences, economics - but how?
• Weigh benefits to society as well as costs with a long-term perspective
• Need impact method development to keep up with emerging technologies
• Policies should provide incentives for sustainable technologies
• Collaboration
o In universities across disciplines
o Incubator mentality?
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-81
-------
Along supply chain to avoid displacing problems
• E.g. Electric vehicles - no consideration of electricity source
• E.g. Fluorescent bulbs - no consideration of disposal
How do you provide incentives?
How do you made it work? - Publish case studies - use examples, models of success,
good stories
NSF/EPA funding?!
Screening level risk assessment
o Use general principles to evaluate a chemical before understanding complex endpoints
(e.g. irreversibility, accumulation in environment)
Improve communication about emerging technologies and potential risk
Understanding the limitations of our existing sustainability metrics
o E.g. Japanese nuclear accident - would we have predicted that?
How do you discount problems of future for today?
Group 5 — Discussion Leaders: Maria Burka and Eric Williams
PowerPoint Slides:
Education and Sustainability
What is education?
Make audience understand what we are trying to
do
Sustainability often viewed negative:
"It's expensive "
Well... The alternative may be more expensive!!
r^CHOI
CE
Enjoy a $5 voucher at participating food and
beverage outlets or 500 SPG Starpoints' awarded at
checkout for each night you decline housekeeping
(except day of departure).
To participate,you must hang this card on
your door before 2:ooam.
If you choose not to take part and would like
clean linens, please place this card on your bed.
Kindly leave towels to be laundered on the floor.
Thank you.
t weiri n .com/greenckoict
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-82
-------
Sustainability education is important
• Stewardship of resources (parents):
o Children/grandchildren
• Big problem (challenge, need buy-in from society)
o Water
o Energy
o Quality of life
• Difficult to evaluate impact - very long time scales
o scare tactics: Downside is huge in future and even now
o positive thinking: What is the upside (clean water, health, abundance, new economy
(branding!)...)
Who is the Audience?
(Where is education needed)
• K-12 very receptive - but teaching resources lacking, bad teaching
• Undergraduate/Graduate School students - curriculum has not been developed yet.
• Encourage cross disciplinary teams
o (business, law, engineering...)
• Work against traditional silo thinking
• Population at large is confused and too narrowly focused
o Politicians (polarized)
o Industry (unpredictable business environment, CO2 tax?)
o Electorate (polarized and lacking information
o
Need to raise awareness and change attitude, go global....
What and how to teach
• Need language and sensitivity to develop basis for communication along the supply chain (every
discipline has their own language and jargon)
o Terminology, taxonomy of Sustainability
o Metrics to measure if a process/product is sustainable
• Make sure that "systems thinking" is integrated throughout and across the curriculum
• A holistic approach (multi-dimensional analysis)
o Example: photosynthesis to capture CO2, all aspects
o Is this contrary to basic research?
o Is it fundable when it is so broad?
Integration Academia with Industry
• How to change big business attitude
• How to change university
• How to start a small business
o What is innovation
o What is the impact of an idea (health, environment, economic...)
• Many resources
o NSFICORE
o SBIRs
o State funding
o
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-83
-------
1 PhD/Post-Doc
Undergraduate
students
99
Industry/
National
Labs
The 1% who teach have little or no industry experience
(needs to be supported by statistics)
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-84
-------
1 PhD/Post-Doc
Undergraduate
students
/
v
6 Ph.D. 5 M.S. 3 Post-Doc
99
Industry/
National
Labs
Very few and not always with success
Funding and Infrastructure for Educational
• K-12 need very good teachers (Statistics in US are dismal)
o Teach for America
o Teaching as a viable profession for engineers and scientists
• Undergraduate level
o Develop course material for supply chain and sustainability
o Business/industry develop examples of sustainable supply chain
o More?....
• EPA/NSF workshop on sustainability and supply chain
• (At ASU some years back - report is upbeat)
• IGERT, Regular proposals
• Propose NEW programs
o ERC with focus of sustainability and supply chain issues
o Sustainability in education
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-85
-------
Group 6 — Discussion Leaders: Ignacio Grossman and Ray Smith
PowerPoint Slides:
How do economic drivers affect sustainable design?
• The two are inherently inter-linked and difficult to consider independently - policy is important
to consider as well
• Operating under different environmental regulations without embedding "true costs" can skew
markets
• Subsidies can help to jump start new technologies, but can also create an unsustainable
environment
• Carbon markets and other instruments that embed externalized costs could help to level the
playing field - if applied on imports and domestic production
• New technologies ("sustainable") that depend on scarce materials (e.g., lithium) can inflate prices
and limit overall development of technology
• Companies still gain economic advantage on their sustainable product lines (e.g., milk). Still have
trade value.
• There are examples of where "sustainable" design incentivizing unintended consequences, (e.g.,
Africa producing biofuels for Europe).
• No agreed upon "value of nature" - lack of vision understanding long term consequences of
destroying habitat
• Litigation, Insurance Sector and Infrastructure Building are also critical elements to consider
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-86
-------
Group 7-DiscussionLeader: DarleneSchuster
PowerPoint Slides:
Overview of the AutomotiveSupply Network
r**Q
f/
\> '
/^ /
*<" /
fn *
»ti '
i
\
\_-^
Tires -^\
\ /
Electronics / ^ ^ ^
/
/
Interior
* *" ** V
\ ff\ hif>lAiiG-A i v ^^ • c- n
v6rllCI6US6 x * UISp
t
Distribution \
t
Assembly
t ;
<• Chassis & Body '
V—
/
/ Power *
/ * '
/ nain X
<*^ f."
Engine
T
osition
\
\
\
Reverse
logistics
""\ Fueling
Infrastructure
Define Sustainability Indicators
Fuel Efficiency in use
Weight
Resource use and integrity
o scarcity of rare earths, conflict minerals
Emissions
Material and use intensity
Life cycle water use
Labor practices
Local employment
Durability/longevity/upgradability/recyclable
Desirable sustainability characteristics of the vehicle supply chain/product system.
• Local sourcing where possible
• Avoidance of hazardous, scarce, or conflict materials
• Use of recycled content where possible
• Incorporation of remanufacturing opportunities
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012
A-87
-------
Use of renewable materials and energy where possible
• Minimization of energy and water requirements
• Closed loop recycling of resources where possible
• Conversion of residual wastes to byproducts
• Appropriate utilization of ecosystem services
• Avoidance of airborne emissions, noise, dust, etc.
• Minimization of transport and packaging requirements
• Customer-supplier collaboration on sustainable design solutions
• Emphasis on occupational and public safety
• Encouragement of supplier diversity and social responsibility
• Responsible and ethical treatment of workers
• Support for local capacity development
Group 8 — Discussion Leader: Herb Cabezas
PowerPoint Slides:
Role of Industry, Academia and Government.
• Industry owns most of production systems, identifies opportunities for new products and services
that deliver value to consumers
• Academia owns a significant number of ideas, represents a sources of knowledge creation
• Government sets the playing field, oversees that welfare is created along fair rules, and right
incentives
• Examples on materials, processes and metrics
Incentives are not always the same so we all (academia, government, industry, NGO, general public) need
to get together and identify the main decisions to be made in term of sustainable chains...
We need to find the best way to get together and define, collect and decide on the most adequate
sustainability metrics and indicators that represent the best impacts For example: energy options, material
options, human health, ecosystems... to work with...
We need to find venues to incorporate NGOs into the decision making process
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-88
-------
Group 9 — Discussion Leader: Bhavik Bakshi
PowerPoint Slides:
Examples of Emerging Technologies
• Nanotechnology
• Biofuels and biomaterials
• Genetically engineered technologies, etc.
• Our ability to make a new technology vastly outstrips our ability to answer questions about its
impact
Challenges
• Tools may not be available to evaluate new technologies
• How do we build computing infrastructure that can help meet these challenges
• Can there be standard methods to assess new technologies?
• Insurance approach to deal with uncertainty
• Get industry to fund assessment research - has not worked in the past. Role for government and
academia interaction with industry
• Industry-academic-government collaboration to avoid corn ethanol type of fiascos; Also need to
consider political aspects
• Develop focus on a metric and a target; that is what worked for CFC substitutes; however may be
impossible to define such fixed targets; use adaptive management and resilience
• Have industry participate in the stakeholder dialog run by the government
• Researcher teams should combine reductionist with systems research
• Need to develop longer-term focus
IV
Group 2 — Discussion Leader: Darlene Schuster
Notes:
Sustainable Automotive Powertrain Supply Chain
• Overarching question: Who is the client of the research?
• Measuring and reporting is not the end goal. Raising awareness is.
• Research Areas
• Material availability and resiliency
o Scarcity/supply, Stock depletion, local impact, diversity of supply
o Scenarios around material recovery
• What is the indirect impact of a new powertrain/part/material (e.g. lithium)
o Does it impact current supply chains and demand?
o Risk/scenario analyses
• What are the supply chain options
o Existing or new?
• Value chain economics related to status quo
• Hazardous handling and social issues (human rights, child labor)
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-89
-------
• Does dissemination of DFE principles really lead to sustainable supply chains?
• What do consumers really need?
o Efficiency, range, other
o Access versus mobility
• Tradeoff of accuracy of information versus information gathering effort
• Needs:
o Scenario capability
o Breadth
o Depth
o Connection to "regular" research on supply chains e.g., Just in Time manufacturing
economics, etc.
o Better connection to "practice" and their decisionmaking needs
• Observations:
o Pilot approach works best to start with industry
o Many consortia already exist—value proposition is needed
o "Tool" ownership is an issue
Sustainable automotive powertrain?
• Understanding of the supply chain
• Tools to understand look broadly across the supply chain:
• What attributes of the supply chain are important?
• Sourcing - materials availability and constraints
• Scarcity issues, conflict issues...
• Scenario - what does the market look like when this product might come back into the
system?
• Materials that involve hazardous handling or EHS issues?
• Child labor?
• Social, value chain economics relative to status quo? Are we developing a different supply
chain that would redistribute wealth? Are we creating jobs? Are we reducing jobs?
• Can we use the same sites we had before? Compatibility with existing facilities? Who is
bigger Ford or Bosch?
Client?
• Final product manufacturer, intermediate product manufacturer, consumer, regulator?
• How to manage information flow?
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-90
-------
Scenario Capability
• Resource constraints
• Regulatory environment
• Does it impact existing technologies / production lines that I have?
• How does it affect demand? How will introducing this product affect demand for my other
products?
• Rebound effect?
Breadth Issues
• Are we being flexible?
• Regional rail versus regional air
Depth Issues
• Social issues
• Worker exposure/safety issues
• How will this play into user behavior?
• Risk analysis
• Within the technological system
• Interaction with the environment
• What is the indirect impact of an automotive part using lithium?
• Heuristics that work for supply chains rather than individual processes within those supply
chains.
• Do heuristics for processes apply for supply chains? Or are we at risk of perverse impacts?
• What are the environmental/sustainability implications of my operational decisions?
• Weibull modeling - could easily do an LCA on the output
• Costing software - could link to LCA software
• New turbine designs - different operating modes - different startup modes,
• How to structure the research?
• Come from the risk perspective.
• Start with a small pilot project.
• Do we work on this internally or do we engage partners?
• If we build a tool, who maintains it, who owns it? Who puts in the hours of labor?
• Many consortia already exist, value proposition needed.
• Ideas for OTAQ meeting—what tools are needed? Are there modeling capabilities that we
could help you develop, i.e. having you as a client? What involvement might we develop
between OTAQ and STD?
• Intelligent Manufacturing Systems (IMS)—funding source for collaborative projects.
• NSF partnership with USAID to fund international, collaborative research efforts.
• If you want to do economic, social-decision, and behavioral science, include experts on your
proposal
• IDEA: Where do we have good ideas that were considered good ideas by sustainability
professionals, and why did they fail? What are the lessons learned from previous failures?
• Invest in education
• Invest in workforce development
• Jobs in sustainable industries are sustainable jobs
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-91
-------
Create an online wiki-based tool for environmental charette
NSF will sponsor decision-support tool
Could we build an NSF project on the Federal Interagency LCA Data Commons
We have the functional unit wrong.
We need applied, technical social and decision scientists.
Organize a follow up workshop to bring together equal numbers of social and decision
scientists and engineers/technically capable individuals
There is nothing that integrates the blizzard of assessment tools across this issue of
sustainability.
IDEA - For this we need computer/technical individuals
Poster - "Research project needs decision-scientist"
Group 5 — Discussion Leaders — Maria Burka and Eric Williams
Notes:
What supply chain to pick? food/nutrition
• cellulosic ethanol / algae biofuels
• food/nutrition
• pharmaceuticals
• sandstone natural gas/fracking
• pulp and paper
Biofuels - all biofuels cellulosic and algal
Issues
• Land or ocean
• Variability in climate
• Resources: carbon, nutrients, water
• Farmer's behavioral issues, getting people to change, incentives
• How to deal with waste
• Co-product substitution, effects on other markets
• GMOs
• Hope to reduce CO2, improve energy security, rural development/employment
• Land use:
o Food versus fuel (conversion)
o Agricultural practices - especially crop
o Ecosystems services from different land use options
o Containment of GMOs microbes, algae
o Pumping energy
o Role of LCA in development: can LCA identify inefficiencies to do better LCC.
Don't understand:
• Land use change
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-92
-------
Nutrient flows for some options
Energy flows for new options
Ecosystem effects, ecosystem services
New crops such as miscanthus, that can compost
Organism characterization
How to get farmers to do harvesting and biorefinery
Substitution effects
Use phase - demand, different operational emissions from different
Combinatorial approach to supply chains
Transportation, logistics
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 A-93
-------
B
EPA Workshop on Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-1
-------
PRESENTATION: WELCOME TO THE DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT SYSTEMS
AND SUPPLY CHAINS WORKSHOP
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13,2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-2
-------
United States
Environmental P"
, Agency
Design of Sustainable Product Systems
nd Supply Chains Scientific Workshop
National Science Foundation • September 12-13, 2011 'Arlington, Virginia
Welcome to the
Design of Sustainable Product Systems
and Supply Chains Scientific Workshop
National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
September 12, 2011
Workshop Co-Sponsors:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Science Foundation, and
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Workshop Goals
AlChE
1. What tools and methods are currently available for design of sustainable
product systems and supply chains?
2. How can these tools and methods be combined in new ways to improve
our ability to design sustainable product systems and supply chains?
3. Where do the most promising opportunities exist for modifying product
systems and supply chains?
4, What are the implications of new methods for design of sustainable
product systems and supply chains for:
- Reducing the life cycle environmental impacts of existing products and
processes?
The process of developing and implementing new technologies?
The evaluation of new technologies?
The design of policies and technologies that reduce pollution and/or
increase recycling?
5. What indicators and metrics of sustainability are appropriate and
necessary for design of sustainable product systems and supply chains?
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
B-3
-------
Monday Morning Agenda
8:30-9:00
9:00-10:30
10:30-10:45
10:45-11:30
11:30-12:00
Session I - Perspectives on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems & Supply Chains
• Welcome to NSF, Bruce Hamilton and Maria Burka
• Workshop Goals and Overview, Troy Hawkins
• Introduction of Organizing Committee and Staff Support, Troy Hawkins
• Introductions of Participants - name, affiliation, and expertise/background relevant for this
workshop
Design of Sustainable Product Networks and Supply Chains: The Need for a Systems
View at All Levels, Bert Bras, Georgia Institute of Technology
Consumption, Sustainability, and Social Benefits, Thomas Theis, University of Illinois,
Chicago
Avoiding Unintended Consequences in the Design of Sustainable Supply Chains, Sherilyn
Brodersen, Kraft
LCA from an Industry Perspective, Bill Flanagan, GE
Break
EPA Sustainability and the Design of Sustainable Product Networks and Supply Chains,
Joseph Fiksel, US EPA
Supporting Sustainable Engineering Research through NSF and EPA
• NSF Funding Opportunities - Bruce Hamilton
• EPA NCER Activities - Cynthia Nolt-Helms
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office °f Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monday Afternoon/Evening Agenda
12:40-1:00
1:00-2:20
2:20-3:15
3:15-3:30
3:30-3:50
3:50-5:00
5:00-5:30
5:30-6:45
6:45
7:15
Session II - Disciplinary Definition of the Problems and Opportunities
Lead by Ignacio Grossmann
Work in breakout groups
Breakout Groups Report Back - Group Discussion
Break
Session III - What are the common problems, common areas of need,
complementary areas to be interfaced, and opportunities for cross-
disciplinary fertilization facilitated by design of sustainable product
systems and supply chains?
Lead by Eric Williams
Work in breakout groups
Breakout Groups Report Back - Group Discussion
Break/Gather in bar area of Westin Hotel for drinks and discussion
(optional)
Meet group in hotel lobby to walk to dinner (optional) - Westin Hotel
Group dinner (optional) - Ted's Montana Grill
Jrtfc ^^F^ J\ National Risk Management Research Laboratory
O*^ ^^B J*5tA Office of Research and Development O
^•^F ^^1 ^^^m U.S. Environmental Protection Agency O
B-4
-------
Questions for Session II - Definition
of the Problem and Opportunities
1. What are the challenging industry and societal
problems to be solved? What are the future drivers
for design of sustainable products, manufacturing
systems and supply chains? What are the next
generation sustainable-design enabled strength
areas in the US?
2. Where are the gaps in knowledge? What are the
problems faced by existing sustainable design
capabilities?
3. What are the opportunities for design of sustainable
products, manufacturing systems and supply
chains?
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Questions for Session
Group 1 - How does sustainable design affect or impact
economic drivers?
Group 2 - What technologies/tools and their integration
are needed, where is the expertise, and what is the
state of technical capability?
Group 3 - What are the respective roles of industry,
government, and academia and how should they
interrelate? What partnerships/coalitions are needed?
Group 4 - How will new and emerging technologies and
capabilities need to affect organization roles and
responsibilities - academia/industry,
researcher/research teams, etc.
Group 5 - Where are education and training needed?
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Tuesday Morning Agenda
8:00-8:20
8:30-9:45
9:45-10:00
9:45-10:15
10:15-11:15
11:15-11:45
Check-in - NSF, 1 st floor Visitors Desk
Greeting and refreshments, provided by AIChE
Continue Session III Breakout Group Reporting, Lead by
Eric Williams
Summary of Monday Progress
Continue Questions and Group Discussion
Break
Workshop Session IV- Workshop Deliverables
Lead by Darlene Schuster
Introduction to Day 2
Work in breakout groups, facilitated by Darlene Schuster
• Develop recommendations in the context of near- and long-
term, priority, and reality.
Session IVa Breakout Groups Report Back - Group Discussion,
moderated by Darlene Schuster
^^ ^^P^ J& National Risk Management Research Laboratory
^WU ^™r^^A Office °f Research and Development £\
^•^r l^wl ^^^% U.S. Environmental Protection Agency O
Questions for Session IV -
Workshop Deliverables
1. Identify and exemplify major application impacts,
directions, and the potential for design of sustainable
product systems and supply chains?
2. Identify and recommend research areas that aim
toward the fulfillment of this potential
3. Identify associated areas of needed emphasis with
sustainable design education and training,
interdisciplinary development, and support and
approaches to collaboration.
xvEPA
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
B-6
-------
Tuesday Afternoon Agenda
12:30-1:15
1:15-1:30
1:30-2:00
2:00-2:45
2:45-3:00
3:00-4:00
4:00-4:30
Continue Session IVa - Breakout Group Reporting, moderated
by Darlene Schuster
Collective vote on priorities, lead by Darlene Schuster
Summarize priorities
Work in breakout groups, facilitated by Darlene Schuster
(1) What investments are needed by whom, financial and
other?
(2) What are the key learnings and take-aways from the
workshop?
Break / Load breakout session presentations
Session IVb Breakout Groups Report Back, Group Discussion,
moderated by Darlene Schuster
Wrap up, next steps, Troy Hawkins
^^ ^^P^ J& National Risk Management Research Laboratory
^WU ^™r^^A Office °f Research and Development Q
^•^r l^wl ^^^% U.S. Environmental Protection Agency O
Opportunities Following the Workshop
• Contribute to workshop report
•Assist in dissemination of workshop findings
• Participate in workshop email distribution list
• Pursue research collaboration funding opportunities
xvEPA
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
B-7
-------
Who are we?
Brazil _Germany .Netherlands
Singapore
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Other AZ CA co
CT
MDMA
Who are we?
Non-profit
Industry
Academic
Govt
Non-profi
Corps of ^ Defense
Energy
Industry
EPA
NSF
Academic
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
B-8
-------
/^^\
Special thanks to... 1^1
XS-iw^
Organizing Advisory
Committee Committee
*»lx^l IL J^ittr-
Staff
Maria Burka Bhavik Bakshi Susan Anastasi
Heriberto Cabezas Saif Benjafaar Michelle Nguyen
Bruce Hamilton Bert Bras Eric Chan
Troy Hawkins Ignacio Grossmann Dan Tisch
Darlene Schuster Alan Hecht Donna Jackson
Raymond Smith Raj Srinivasan Sonia Williams
Thomas Theis
Eric Williams
J^^ •™*P™\ J\ National Risk Management Research Laboratory
WW B^B^CA Office of Research and Development A O
^•^r L^l ^^^m. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ^
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protectior
Agency
Design of Sustainable Product Systems
and Supply Chains Scientific Workshop
National Science Foundation • September 12-13, 2011 -Arlington, Virginia
Brief introductions...
Name, affiliation, and expertise/background
relevant for this workshop
B-9
-------
Workshop Co-Sponsors
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. National Science Foundation
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
AlChE
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Breakout Group 1
Tom Seager*, Ariz State U
Andres Clarens, UVA
Yinlun Huang, Wayne State U
Christoph Koffler, PE International
Phil Williams, Webcor Builders, USA
Michelle Nguyen, AlChE
Breakout Group 4
Thomas Theis*, U Illinois
Sergio Pacca, U Sao Paulo
Alan Hecht, EPA
Wes Ingwersen, EPA
Andreas Ciroth, Green Delta
Arnold Tukker,TNO
Breakout Group 7
Darlene Schuster*, AlChE
Joseph Fiksel, EPA/OSU
Cynthia Nolt-Helms, EPA NCER
Sangwon Suh, UCSB
MarkTulay, Sustainability Risk
Beth Beloff, Bridges to Sustainability
Breakout Group 10
Bruce Hamilton*, NSF
H. Gregg Claycamp, FDA
Clare Lindsay, EPA
Dima Nazzal, U Central Florida
Rachuri Sudarsan, NIST
Dennis McGavis, Shaw Inc
Breakout Group 2
Bert Bras*, GATech
Vikas Khanna, U Pittsburgh
Troy Hawkins*, EPA
Vincent Camobreco, EPA
William Flanagan, GE, USA
Margaret Mann, NREL
Breakout Group 5
Eric Williams*, RIT
B. ErikYdstie, CMU
Meadow Anderson, EPA
Maria Burka*, NSF
JohnGlaser, EPA
Eric Masanet, LBNL
Breakout Group 8
Omar Romero-Hernandez, UC B
Herb Cabezas*, EPA
Igor Linkov, Army Corps of Eng
Don Versteeg, P&G
Russell Barton, NSF
Erin Chan, AlChE
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Breakout Group 3
Raj Srinivasan*, U Singapore
Olivier Jolliet, U of Ml
Reid Lifset, Yale
Sherilyn Brodersen, Kraft Foods
Michael Milliard, ORNL
Breakout Group 6
Ignacio Grossmann*, CMU
Fengqi You, Northwestern
Ray Smith*, EPA
Mark Goedkoop, Pre Consultants
Martha Stevenson, WWF US
Breakout Group 9
Jay Golden, Duke
Marianthi lerapetritou, Rutgers
Angie Leith, EPA
Carole LeBlanc, Dept of Defense
John Carberry, DuPont
Bhavik Bakshi*, Ohio State
-------
PRESENTATION: DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS SYSTEMS AND SUPPLY
CHAINS: SOME CONCEPTS, CASES, AND LESSONS FROM AN ENGINEERING
PERSPECTIVE, BY BERT BRAS
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-11
-------
Design of Sustainable Products
. Systems and Supply Chains - Some
Concepts, Cases, and Lessons from an
Engineering Perspective |^r
>•
Bert Bras
Sustainable Design & Manufacturing
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0405
www. sdm. gatech. edu
Georgia
I MANUKACrUHING
RESEARCH
Sustamabihty: Common Definition
"development that meets the needs of the
present generation without compromising the
needs of future generations."
United Nations' World Commission on Environment and
Development in their report "Our Common Future", 1987
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-12
-------
Sustainability: Physical and Biological Limits
Power Sources
(Sun, Moon,
Earth)
Product Re-X
frTrfff~frr ^ Distribution
Georgia
H --"Tech
Bottom-line: The extractive capability of
humanity (and its industrial system) must
be balanced with the regenerative
capacity of the Earth.
Key variables: Time & Location
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Need for a Systems Approach
Observations from 2001 National Science Foundation
sponsored global study on Environmentally Benign
Manufacturing:
• There was no evidence that the environmental problems
from our production systems are solvable by a "silver
bullet" technology.
• There is a need for systems-based solutions
- which requires a comprehensive systems approach
- where scientists, engineers, managers, economists,
entrepreneurs, policy-makers, and other stakeholders all work
together to
• address environmental issues in product realization and
• achieve economic growth while protecting the environment.
• Final Report: Environmentally Benign Manufacturing.
WTEC Panel Report, Baltimore, MD, Loyola College, 2001.
• Online: http://itri.loyola.edu/ebm/ebm.pdf
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-13
-------
Example - Two Automotive Parts
Aluminum transfer case
Steel pinion gear
Simple question: What is better?
- Virgin manufacturing & disposal
- Recycling
- Remanufacturing
Georgia
H --"Tech
NSF Grant #0522116
'opyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Life-Cycle Perspective is Crucial
15000
14000
f-t HH
o »
o <
"I
50)0 -
1000\-
150
Refining processes have the highest
energy consumption
= Highest global warming potential?
De-Materialization should be
higher priority from an energy
point of view
5000
Machining processes energy
consumption is low
ELECTROLYSIS ALUMNA SORTING MELTING CASTING CLEANING I MAcHININd} Ore ||MACHlNlNG
PRODUCTION R^v/Hisn/ extracting R^manuf/cturmg
ALUMINUM TRANSFER CASE PRODUCTION PROCESSES
Bras, B., "Sustainability and Product Life Cycle Management - Issues @ NSF Grant #0522116
and Challenges", International Journal of Product Life-Cycle
Management, Vol. 4, No 1-3, pp. 23-48, 2010
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
-------
Steel Processing Energy Consumption
De-Materialization again will
result in higher gains from
an energy pint of view
Refining processes have the highest
energy consumption
Machining processes energy
consumption is low
700
MELTING
MAKING MAKING R^ey/disp^ extractin^emWiufac*Uing
Georgia
i - Tech
STEEL PRODUCTION PROCESSES
NSF Grant # 0522116
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Energy Consumption in Manufacturing Sectors
Manufacturing process energy
savings are small when majority
is embodied in upfront material
production/refining
Closed loop supply chains that
save material through recovery,
reprocessing, recycling,
remanufacturing, etc. (re-X) is an
important aspect to be pursued
Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-846,
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Surveys, 1998 and 2002,
http://www.eia. doe. gov/emeu/efficiency/mecs_trend_9802/mecs9802_t
ablela.html
GeorgiaDroasffiaocas
I Ttech
NAICS
311
313
314
315
316
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
331
332
333
335
336
337
339
Subsector and Industry
Food
Beverage and Tobacco Products
Textile Mills
Textile Product Mills
Apparel
Leather and Allied Products
Wood Products
Paper
Printing and Related Support
Petroleum and Coal Products
Chemicals
Plastics and Rubber Products
Nonmetallic Mineral Products
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metal Products
Machinery
Computer and Electronic Products
Electrical Equip., Appliances, and
Components
Transportation Equipment
Furniture and Related Products
Miscellaneous
Manufacturing
MECS Survey Years
1998 2002
1,044 1,123
108
256
50
48
8
509
2,747
98
7,320
6,064
328
979
2,560
445
217
205
89
23,796
105
207
60
30
7
377
2,363
98
6,799
6,465
351
1,059
2,120
388
177
201
172
429
64
71
22,666
Consumption of Energy (Site Energy) for All Purposes
(First Use) for Selected Industries, 1998 and 2002
(Trillion Btu) Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
-------
Refrigerator
35000
30000
Re-X: Energy Savings through Remanufacturin
Replacing products more
frequently with more
energy efficient
technology helps
But bigger gains can be
made by including
remanufacturing
Year
114 year life
I Optimized Life Cycle Replacements
111 year lease
I Optimized with Remanufacturing
Need:
• Understanding of user behavior
• Understanding and modeling of
impact of different options
• New enabling technologies
• Additive Manufacturing
• Non-destructive testing
Clothes Washer
30000.00
25000.00
20000.00
I 15000.00
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
• Full Life 14yrs
• Optimized Life Cycle Replacements
(N(N(N(N(N(N(N(N
Year
110 year lease
I Optimized with Remanufacturing
Georgia
i - Tech
Intlekofer, K., Bras, B., and Ferguson, M., "Energy Implications of Product Leasing",
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 12, pp. 4409-4415, 2010
NSF Grant # 0620763
Remanufacturing Supply Chain -- Messy
Legend:
1 = New parts
2 = New and remanufactured parts & products
3 = Used products (to be remanufactured)
4 = Remanufactured parts and products
material
Bras, B., "Design for Remanufacturing Processes", Chapter !
in Handbook for Environmentally Conscious Mechanical
Design. (Myer Kutz ed.), Wiley, pp. 283-318, 2007
Social consequences -
Re-X in China
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-16
-------
Mining Material from Cities (Urban Mining)
Local Socio-Economic ImDlications?
nwcltoh) Compute*
Recycling facility locations
Urban Region (Atlanta)
Environmental
impact models
Product
GIS, Demographic, and
Consumer Behavior Models
Transportation models
Product BilJjDf Material
(BOM) & Sales data
Tech
Integrate urban datasets & GIS with engineering &
industrial process models to quantify the socioeconomic
and environmental impacts of locations for recycling
centers and collection strategies
(Sustainable Industrial Systems for Urban Regions -
SISFUR)
\
Consumption
Patterns/
^-— —.
Institutions:^
Households,
Business,
Government
Production
Activities
-
Social
Accounting
Matrices.
4
Income
Distribution
Value Added by
Sectors and
^ Components
-^-~-v
'actor Incomes'
Wages, Profits,
Rents, Interest.
NSF Grant #0628190
Another "Simple" Question...
What is better for the environment: Digital
pictures or conventional pictures?
- Digital camera avoids chemicals in film developing.
- However, digital cameras require electronics and computers that
need energy and contribute to greenhouse gasses.
Typical (correct) answer: "It depends...
In truth, the question has become irrelevant because
the market has already spoken...
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
-------
Again, it gets more complicated...
Consumer has many different
options
What is the environmental
performance of product systems?
Imaging Scenarios
Film Capture to Retail Print
Film Capture to Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to CRT Retail Print
Digital Capture to LCD Retail Print
Digital Capture to CRT Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to LCD Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to CRT InkJet Print
Digital Capture to LCD InkJet Print
Digital Capture to Display CRT
Digital Capture to Display LCD
ABBR
FC/R
FC/W
DC/CR
DC/LR
DC/CW
DC/LW
DC/CI
DC/LI
DC/CD
DC/LD
Capture
Film
Film
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Digital
Processing
Retail
Wholesale
PC/CRT
PC/LCD
PC/CRT
PC/LCD
PC/CRT
PC/LCD
PC/CRT
PC/LCD
Output
Retail
Wholesale
Retail
Retail
Wholesale
Wholesale
PC /CRT InkJet
PC /LCD InkJet
PC / CRT Display
PC / LCD Display
Companies make strategic
product and processes
technology decisions and
need to know the
environmental issues
associated with different
product systems, strategies,
and use scenarios.
Georgia
i Tech
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
c
•
•
•
•
•
Ge<
y ;
T
J ;
CA Result
Scenario
Film Capture to Retail Print
Film Capture to Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to CRT Retail Print
Digital Capture to LCD Retail Print
Digital Capture to CRT Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to LCD Wholesale Print
Digital Capture to CRT InkJet Print
Digital Capture to LCD InkJet Print
Digital Capture to Display CRT
Digital Capture to Display LCD
Best and wor;
>utcome/Impact:
& No clear winning or high risk seen
fe Supported business decision to go
& Digital technologies offer more ch
potential impact
& Influence of consumer during use ]
& Providing services (wholesale prir
this case)
Muir, M., Bras, B., and Matthewsc
Journal of Sustainable Manufactui
wtaftaSftDODflfti)
lech
ABBR
FC/R
FC/W
DC/CR
DC/LR
DC/CW
DC/LW
DC/CI
DC/LI
DC/CD
DC/LD
„
Ij
Greenhouse
Emission
kg CO2 eq. /
kg CO2 eq.
1
0.6127
0.6770
0.6409
0.4673
0.2085
0.3122
0.2798
0.5145
0.3337
Water Use
m3/m3
0.0075
0.0064
0.2053
0.0595
0.2053
0.0547
0.1976
0.0670
1
0.2709
Waste
Generation
kg /kg
0.0992
0.0714
0.2512
0.2281
0.2494
0.2034
1
0.9794
0.3388
0.1724
Energy Use
MJ/MJ
0.9801
0.6508
0.7945
0.6786
0.6193
0.2235
0.4606
0.3567
1
0.4203
;t are indicated in each column
ario
'digital"
3ice and flexibility, resulting in a much wider range of
)hase can significantly influence environmental burden
iting, Ofoto) instead of products (PC printers) is better (in
>n, J., "Life Cycle Assessment of Film and Digital Imaging Product System Scenarios",
ing, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 286-301, 2009
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-18
-------
GHG Emissions - Logistics are irrelevant
Process / Phase Contributions - Greenhouse
Emissions
of 1.20
D End of Life
• Use
n Distribution
n Upstream
Georgia
i - Tech
GHG emissions for various options by process
Distribution has only real impact in DC (Digital
Camera). Any ideas why?
/ *r *r
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Natural vs Synthetic Rubber - Typical Dilemma
Impact of
production of 1 kg
of raw material-
Ecolndicator 99
versus EDIP 2003
What now?
One solution:
check whether it
even matters..
Bras, B. and Cobert, A., "Life-Cycle
Environmental Impact of Michelin Tweel®
Tire for Passenger Vehicle", SAE International
Journal of Passenger Cars— Mechanical
Systems, June, Vol. 4, No.l, pp. 32-43, 2011
Raw Hate Natural Synthetic
rials Rubber Rubber
•• Carcinogens
I I Radiation
c J Land use
Str-:-l L or
d, Coated
Textile Zinc Oxide Aromatic Carbon
Oils Black
I Respiratory organics ^H Respiratory inorganics
I Ozone layer ^H Ecotoxicity
I Minerals ^H Fossil hj-jk
Stearic Sulfur Polyureth Steel
Acid ane
| 1 Climate change
L i Acidification/ Eutrophication
Analysing 1 Lg 'Paw Marenais1; Method: tco-irjir.atnr 9? (E) V2.05 / Europe El 99 E/E / single score
ia
Raw Mate
rials
^^1 Global warming lOOa
I I Acidification
1 11 lijiridCi to,' pjty dir
i I Ecotoxicity water acute
Ik waste
Sulfur Polyureth Stee!
• Ozone depletion
• Terrestrial eutrophication
• Human toxidty water
• Ecotoxicity soil chronic
3 Radioactive waste
Analyzing 1 kg 'Raw Materials'; Method; EDIP 2003 Vi ,00 / Default / single score
Carbon Silica Stearic
Black Add
^^1 Ozone formation (Vegetation) i i Ozone formation (Human)
•I Aquatic eutrophication EP(N) I 1 Aquatic eutrophication EP(P)
^^1 Human toxidty soil ^^1 Ecotoxicity water chronic
I 1 Hazardous waste I I Slags/ashes
^B Resources (all)
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-19
-------
Direct Modeling and Simulation of Effects on
Ecosystems - Great in theory, but hard in practice
Lotus effect (self-
cleaning)
Ecosystem Spatial ecosystem landscape
model (predicting effect on
I ^ecosystem)
Process:
aqueous
cleaning
machine
Part: transmission
casing
Idea: Reduce water
consumption in
remanufacturing through
self-cleaning surface
i Sludge i On-site and in-site
T T air emissions
Process model (predicting water use)
Surface nano-bumps
Georgia
H --"Tech
Reap, J., Roman, F., Guldberg, T., and Bras, B., "Integrated Ecosystem Landscape and Industrial Modeling
for Strategic Environmentally Conscious Process Technology Selection", 13th CIRP International Conference
on Life-Cycle Engineering Conference. Leuven, Belgium, May 31-June 2, 2006
Bio-Inspired Metrics and Guidelines
Going beyond the metric conundrum:
• Nature has been sustainable for a long time.
• What can we learn from past & present biological systems?
- Including extinct systems...
• Can we derive design guidelines from Nature that will result
in inherently sustainable engineered systems?
Current Approach
Engineering
Sustainable Engineering
Systems?
i
Proposed Approach
^_^^^^^
Biology Engineering
Cases, Field Observations,
Reasoning from Physical
Principles, Legislation
NSF Grant # 0600243
B-20
-------
Different Production Systems
!K
Georgia
in
:-..-
Linear Production:
"Take, make, waste"
(our current system)
Vs.
Closed Loop, Industrial
Symbiosis, etc.,
as promoted by
Industrial Ecologists
Vs.
Ecological Networks
(as in Nature)
How do they compare?
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
How industrial ecosystems rank
Pr/Pd ratio Spec. Pdfrac Gen
Vul
US"'2 Cyclicity
I QLinear Production • Symbioses DEcosystems |
Average ecological structural metrics for a linear production
chain, industrial symbioses (n=29) and ecosystems (n=40)
Industrial symbioses
have greater resource
efficiency and less waste
compared with linear
counterparts
Statistically, industrial
symbiosis and food web
structures cannot
plausibly be grouped
with food webs.
Symbioses represent
middle ground
Worth exploring result of
patterning closed
industrial material flows
after those found in
nature
Work in progress...
NSF Grant # 0967536
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
-------
Importance of "Triple Bottom Line"
Environmental assessments are not enough
Financial is also needed
- Total Cost Analysis
- Life-Cycle Costing
- Activity-Based Costing
Social "quality of life" assessments also desirable
- but harder for engineers
- Example metrics: job creation, ergonomics, etc.
Metrics are often not independent, but causally related
Georgia
H --"Tech
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Triple Win Example - It can be done!
B2B Packasine
Conventional
Packaging (cardboard)
-
From Shanghai, China
Transmission Part
(aluminum)
Packaging
Configuration —
Part Configuration
Logistics
Processes
MS
•
I New Packaging Regrind
1 (plastic)
•jif
Reprocessing into
Excel based decision support model splash shields (parts)y
^^^ I^^VMTI KM
Modeling Interface
Economic & Environmental
Analysis Report
/
Total Cost Life Cycle Ener9V
Analysis Analysis Consumption
Analysis
A key to success: Standard internal six sigma process format was used
-------
Rethinking Delivery -
Engaging External Parties with Sound Engineerin
Many systems are over-
engineered
Appropriate technology
and sound engineering
can go a long way
towards sustainability
Switching from Class 8
High Duty Diesel trucks
to Ford F750 can provide
significant savings.
Ideas were triggered by
quest for fuel savings.
TL Direct Lanes by Max. Wt.
Georgia
MSRP (New)
Price w/ Incentives
CurbWt.
Gross Combined
Wt. Rating
Towing Wt.
Max Payload
Output
Ford F450/550
$42,295/$45,240
$33,750/$36,463
17,950 -19,000 Ibs.
(GVWR)
24,000 -33,000 Ibs.
24,800 Ibs.
16,800 Ibs.
325-362 hp
Class 6
Ford F-650
$54,167
$43,334
9,300 Ibs.
50,000 Ibs.
40,700 Ibs.
27,700 Ibs.
325 hp
Class?
Ford F-750
$55,448
$44,358
9,300 Ibs.
50,000 Ibs.
40,700 Ibs.
27.700 Ibs.
325 hp
Class 8 (Freightliner
Day Cab)
$140,000
$87,000
16,000 Ibs.
80,000+
57,000 Ibs.
44,000 Ibs.
410-550 hp
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
Limits of Engineering
• Be aware of "systems solutions" beyond engineering as
well as "unintended consequences"
For example:
• Localities matter in sustainability
- Relocating a manufacturing facility to a locality with renewable power
often has a larger carbon footprint effect than any process efficiency
improvement
GA Power Plant Bowen (Cartersville):
- CO2 emission: 0.9 kg/kWh
- H2O evaporation: 0.4 gallons/kWh
South-East average (incl. Georgia):
- CO2 emission: 0.6 kg/kWh
• Social behavior may have larger influence than engineering
- Car pooling creates more fuel savings than all technologies combined
- Rebound effect can kill any efficiency gains
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-23
-------
Some Lessons Learned (over the years)..
Assessment approach (top down, bottom up, accuracy level, etc.)
and data requirements depend on the question to be answered
Data is everywhere and nowhere, and never reconciled
Legacy systems are a fact of life
Location and time matter (where and when)
System boundaries changes can fudge the numbers
Expect the unexpected
Verify! (prediction ^ reality)
Transparent modeling is crucial (for cont. improvement/use)
Need for model base instead of database
Start simple with best and/or worst case scenarios
Best solutions invariably require change of system boundary
The wheel is reinvented all the time - also in academia
Georgia
i Tech
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
In Summary...
Key concepts:
- Life Cycle Thinking
- Closed Loop Thinking (Re-X)
- Systems Thinking, Modeling & Simulation
- Good science and engineering
Some tools are available, but...
- Not mainstream
- Validity can be weak
- Integration severely lacking
Success is enhanced by using/extending/adapting known methods, techniques
and tools
- Six Sigma, Activity-Based Costing, etc.
Evolution of thinking typically occurs - pushing the system boundaries
Achieving sustainability solutions is a very complex, multi-scale problem
requiring multi-disciplinary teams and approaches
- which equates to slow going with high learning curves
- Good Teams: Engineering + City/Regional Planning + Sciences (Earth Atmospheric Science
+ Biology) + (Industrial) Practitioners + Management/Economics
Need more dissemination, communication, and education
I eTech
Copyright Georgia Institute of Technology, 2011
B-24
-------
PRESENTATION: CONSUMPTION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND SOCIAL BENEFITS, BY
THOMAS THEIS
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-25
-------
Consumption, Sustainability, and Social Benefits
Thomas L. Theis
Institute for Environmental Science and Policy
University of Illinois at Chicago
Workshop on Design of Sustainable Product
Systems and Supply Chains
12-13 September, 2011
Life Cycle Assessment
•A systems methodology for compiling information on
the flow of materials and energy throughout a product
chain
•LCA evolved from industry needs to understand
manufacturing, and market behavior, and make
choices among competing designs, processes, and
products
•Defines four general sections of the product chain:
•materials acquisition
•manufacturing/fabrication
•product use
•downstream disposition of the product
B-26
-------
What is Life Cycle Good For?
• ID energy/material/waste hot spots
• Compare options
• Improve product/service chain
• Avoid displacing pollution
• Very good at framing policy issues
What is it not especially good for?
• Detailed risk assessments
Life Cycle Assessment Stages
(USEPA)
Htofcer Exposure
Consumer Exposure
h
'.Or,-. -I--I _5r
45 |
Human Pooulatton and Ecotog»ca( Exposure
B-27
-------
"Greening" product chains
Product conceptualization, development,
manufacturing, distribution, marketing, use, and
post-use disposition that incorporate
• Design for the environment principles
• Green engineering
• Green chemistry
• Business practices built upon the concepts of
systems thinking and "eco-efficiency"
Underlying assumptions...
It is generally believed that if these principles and practices can
become widespread (i.e. if the complete product chain can be
"greened" enough), then better material and energy efficiencies
will result, effectively "decoupling" environmental impacts from
the consumptive habits of the human population
The social benefits of consumption are less clearly understood,
but it is assumed that a greater variety of more efficient and
environmentally-conscious products and services, sometimes
made available at lower costs, will necessarily yield societal
benefits, thereby moving toward at least partial fulfillment of the
sustainability paradigm
B-28
-------
Primary Aluminum Production (Q) and the
Efficiency of Aluminum Smelting (e) (World)
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 i960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
From: Dahmus and Gutowski, (2011) JIE (in press)
fc
a 5
1
I
E
•8
4 1
i
Motor Vehicle Travel (Q) and the
Efficiency of Motor Vehicle Travel (e) (US) a
Quantity
5000
4000 5
I
Oc
1000
ISM
1940
1950
Source: Dahmus and Gutowski (2011) JIE (in press)
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
2010
B-29
-------
Historical Efficiency and Consumption Trends
(Dahmus and Gutowski, JIE 2011)
Activity
Pig Iron
Aluminum
N-Fertilizer
Elec-Coal
Elec-Oil
Elec-Nat Gas
Sector Time Avg Annual Avg Annual Ratio:
Period Efficiency Increase in Consumption/
Improvement Consumption Efficiency
Materials 1800-1990 1.4 4.1
Materials 1900-2005 1.2 9.8
Food 1920-2000 1.0 8.8
Energy 1920-2007 1.3 5.7
Energy 1920-2007 1.5 6.2
Energy 1920-2007 1.8 9.6
Freight Rail Travel Transportation 1960-2006 2.0 2.5
Air Passenger
Travel
Motor Vehicle
Travel
Transportation 1960-2007 1.3 6.3
Transportation 1940-2006 0.3 3.8
3.0
7.9
8.9
4.5
4.2
5.5
1.2
4.9
11.0
Example: Artificial Lighting
• No realistic substitutions
• Lighting is undergoing a "nano-
enabled" evolution to SSL
• SSL: About 10 times as efficient as
incandescent, 2 times fluorescent
• Last 30 times as long as incandescent, 3
times as long as CFLs
• So, we'll use less energy and generate
fewer energy-related emissions, right?
B-30
-------
Projections for Energy Consumption
for Lighting Through 2027 (US)
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
"Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting in General Illumination
Applications", Navigant Consulting, Washington DC (2006)
1000.00
100.00
10.00
•
« 1.00
£
0.10
0.01
1850
_ ___ y
• D/
•>n
/ 4
I
• / I
/ I
• Blue LED
Red LEO
1900
1950
Year
2000
2050
B-31
-------
Total Cost of Ownership for Artificial Lighting, 1800-2010
£ 1000 '
•T
_l
<£ 100
¥
o
o
.9- 10
0)
0 1
0.1
18
!
> *% *
* * .
z ,
•
00 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100
Year
• Fire
U Incandescent
Fluorescent
8 LED Predicted-2002
• HID
Data for Fire and Incandescence modified from W.D. Nordhaus,
In T.F. Breshnahan and R.J. Gordon, Eds., The Economics of
New Goods (U of Chicago Press, 1997) pp. 29-70.
Data for SSL-LEDS taken from 2002 U.S. SSL Roadmap.
Expressed in 2010 dollar amounts
Past and Predicted Consumption of Light
J=
E
.5"
'o
c
,o
E
3
I/)
O
*
H
-
_
H
1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040
Year
• Predicted Consumption of Light
• Historical Consumption of Light
Source for predicted consumption: Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State
Lighting in General Illumination Applications 2010 to 2030 Navigant Consulting, 2010
B-32
-------
Summary trends
Real
Price
of Fuel
1800 1
1900 0.27
2000 0.18
Efficiency Real Consump- Energy Energy/ % of
of Lighting Price of tion of Light for Person Total
Light Light for Light Energy
Devoted
to Light
xlight]
om
B-33
-------
B-34
-------
Costs and Benefits
(1) Each of these applications, viewed by itself, is
more efficient than what it replaced.
(2) Many, maybe all, of these applications help us to
be safer, healthier, happier, more productive, and
"greener"
(3) But viewed collectively our energy and material
consumption continues to increase.
We're "greener", but are we more sustainable?
Combining physical and social science..
J YTsao, H D Saunders, J R Creighton, M E Coltrin and
J A Simmons (2010) "Solid-state lighting: an energy-economics
Perspective", J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 (2010) 354001
There is a massive potential for growth in the consumption of light if
new lighting technologies are developed with higher luminous
efficacies and lower cost.
This increased consumption may increase both human productivity
and the consumption of energy associated with that productivity.
Is the increase in human productivity and quality of life due to an
increase in consumption of light worth the increased energy burden?
B-35
-------
Three general directions for sustainable product-
chain research:
(1) Stronger interdisciplinary effort to understand the complex factors
emergent across the complete product chain that contribute to
resource consumption, environmental degradation, and human
health risk, while recognizing benefits to society,
(2) Expansion of "green", design for the environment, and
organizational eco-design principles beyond their traditional focus on
increasing efficiency and lowering pollutant loads per unit product to
include economic and behavioral factors, and
(3) Investigation of the impacts of more highly integrated policies,
based on the sustainability paradigm, that are able to meet human
needs while capturing economic excesses and decoupling
environmental degradation that have their roots in over-
consumption.
B-36
-------
PRESENTATION: LCA FROM AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE, BY BILL FLANAGAN
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-37
-------
LCA from an Industry Perspective
William P. Flanagan, PhD
Ecoassessment Leader
GE Global Research
US EPA-NSF Scientific Workshop:
Design of Sustainable Product Systems
and Supply Chains
Arlington, Virginia
September 12-13, 2011
imagination at work
We believe the world's most
pressing challenges present an
opportunity to do what we do best:
imagine and build innovative
solutions that benefit our
customers and society at large
B-38
-------
Ecoassessment
Center of Excellence
A systematic way to assess environmental footprint
of selected GE products
Strategy and vision
Expertise and guidance
Tools and processes
Education and awareness
Policy and advocacy
Ecoassessment COE
External networks are important
External
LCA experts
Academics
3rd-party
critical review
Software
providers
Industry LCA
contacts
I imagination at work
3/
ecoassessment COE /
Business-driven application of LCA
direct and indirect value
eco Product Innovation
LCA a key element of environmentally conscious product design
(but not the only element)
Commercial
(1) Ability to deliver complex environmental messaging;
(2) Ability to compete for bids requiring LCA/ carbon footprint
Business Strategy
Identify strategic business opportunities
Due Diligence / Risk Management
Identifying and addressing potential perceptual and business risks
Reputation
(1) Enhancing corporate reputation and eco brand value;
(2) Ensuring seat at environmental policy table
imagination at work
41
ecoassessment COE /
^ J
B-39
-------
LCA application space within GE
R&D/
Business strategy
Product design
Product evaluation
Commercial support
.
Understanding benefits, risks, opportunities
| imagination at work
51
ecoassessment COE /
Selected project examples
Biomass/coal gasification
2.5MWwind turbine
CdTe thin film solar
Durathon™ sodium metal halide battery
Smart Meter
Single-use process equipment for
biopharmaceutical manufacturing
imagmotion at work
B-40
-------
Advanced statistics and numerical analysis
Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses
CC Global««stitch
Data Mining and LC'A: A survey of
possible marriages
M.uili. « Pk-lr/\knn\ki
LCA IX, Boston, MA, Oct 2009
f
* 1
•KKT
Matt
. Pietrzykowski i-,
Ron
Wroczynski
Short courses:
• Statistical Methods in LCA
• Advanced Statistics and Data Analysis
Offered at LCAXI, Octobers, 2011, Chicago
I imagination at work
"JK
ecoassessment COE / m^' *
B-41
-------
Be strategic and selective
Little or no
expertise
required
Deep
expertise
required
• Qualitative Evaluation
• Qualitative
• Substances of concern
• Product regulatory compliance
• Material sustainability
| Screening LCA
• High-level, data "lite"
• Hot spot identification
0 Streamlined LCA
• Reduced system boundaries
• Suitable for internal use
1 Extensive LCA
• Required for support of external claims
• ISO 14040-44
• 3rd-party panel review required for external
claims involving comparative assertions
Strategic down-select -> business efficiency
| imagination at work
91
ecoassessment COE /
Leverage qualitative screening
iii
iii
m
SS!
Ini
Insight and awareness
Reduced time and effort
Quickly identify areas that may
require further analysis
Efficient | Effective | Can be used by non-experts
imagmotion at work
ecoassessment COE /
m'
-------
Focus on value creation
For any idea to thrive within industry, it must
create value
Many opportunities to create value from
sustainability-based initiatives
I imagination at work
117 ^V
ecoassessment COE 7 «t
Customize to business context
No "one size fits all" tool or strategy
Be prepared to customize content
v' Invites ownership
v' Enhances relevance and value
imagination at work
-Jr.
ecoassessment COE /
I
-------
Leverage power of innovative thinking
Great ideas can come from anywhere
Invite active engagement
comoginotion
| imagination at work
137
ecoassessment COE /
Final thoughts
1. Be strategic and selective
2. Leverage qualitative screening
3. Focus on value creation
4. Customize to business context
5. Leverage power of innovative thinking
imagmotion at work
147
ecoassessment COE 7
m'
-------
ecoassessment
center of excellence
Bill Flanagan
Ecoassessment Leader
GE Global Research
1 Research Circle
Niskayuna, NY 12309
flanaaan(S)ae.com
(518)387-5070
B-45
-------
PRESENTATION: EPA SUSTAINABILITY AND THE DESIGN OF SUSTAINABLE
PRODUCT NETWORKS AND SUPPLY CHAINS, BY JOSEPH FIKSEL
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-46
-------
Design of
, - •
Product Systems
& Supply Chains _'
Joseph Fiksel
Sustainability Advisor, U.S. EPA
Office of Research & Development*
Executive Director, Center for Resilience
The Ohio State University, USA
ESILIENCE
*The content of this presentation reflects the views of the author and does not represent the policies or position of the U.S EPA.
North America
European Union
Europe, Non EU
Latin America & Caribbean
• Middle East & Asia
• Asia-Pacific
Africa
" Sustainable
Development
Quadrant
Desired
Region
B-47
-------
Sustainability Paradigm
"It is important for
EPA to optimize
all three pillars of
sustainability...
decisions that
further one of
the three pillars
should, to the
extent possible,
further the
other two/'
SOCIETY
Human Health
&Well Being
ENVIRONMENT
Natural
Resource
Protection
—NRC Green Book, 2011
ECONOMY
Prosperity &
Alleviation
of Poverty
Changing the Game at U.S. EPA
"The major challenges to sustainability, human
health, and the environment...are not incremental
problems, and they do not lend themselves to
incremental solutions....Only by implementing
systems thinking and integrative approaches
to complement ourtraditional single-discipline
approaches, will we be better able to solve these
challenging problems."
PaulAnastas, ORD Assistant Administrator
"Well-conceived, effectively implemented environ-
mental protection is good for economic growth."
Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator
B-48
-------
What is systems thinking?
A holistic approach for understanding the
interactions and feedback loops among
D Economic systems—companies, supply chains.
Ecological systems—forests, watersheds....
Societal systems—communities, networks....
Helps to consider the potential benefits
and unintended consequences of human
interventions, such as new policies, new
technologies, and new business practices
Environment (natural capital)
B-49
-------
Servicizing
Dematerialization
Education
Green
Chemistry
Value
Recovery
Conservation
Regulation
Innovation
Environment (natural capital)
Preservation »_ Remediation
Industrial Systems (Technology 6 Economic Capital)
Societal Systems (Human & Social Capital]
Prices —--...
Petrochemical
Industry
Manufacturing L
Induslries
Fuel Demand
Fulfillment »|
chain
Disposable Income
Fuel Blending
Oil Refining 'Efficiency I,
Priqes
Food
Industry
Feedstock Transport
Growing & Harvest!
Transportation
Oil Production
Carbon sequestered
| Capacity
Ecological services
Water
Resources
B-50
-------
50% Renew/ability 100%
€ $
Purchased
goods & services
(indirect)
Embedded ecosystem
goods and services -
e.g., water resources
140 litres water 1 CUD of coffee
B-51
-------
Example: Snack Food Industry
Embedded" natural capital for a typical U.S. snack food
Natural Capita! Consumed (-oiiles; pef $million Output
„
-------
Material
demand is a
major driver
of both energy
and water use
1 kg per liter
Materias
Water
100 liters per $
Societal
Value
Environmental
Footprint
B-53
-------
The Need for Collaboration
• Incremental improvements in supply chain
efficiency will not be sufficient to offset
global economic growth
• Transformational change in production and
consumption patterns will require broad
collaboration between government,
industry, and civil society
• Companies are already collaborating with
suppliers, customers, competitors, and
environmental advocacy groups
Global imports to the UK
B-54
-------
Sustainability and Resilience
• Sustainability is the capacity for long-term
realization of human health and well being,
economic prosperity, & environmental protection
• However, unforeseen conditions can lead to
unintended and/or undesired consequences
• Resilience is the capacity to survive, adapt,
and flourish in the face of changing conditions
and potential disruptions
• In a complex and turbulent world, resilience is a
prerequisite for realization of Sustainability goals
Design for
Environment
Joseph Fiksel
McGraw-Hill, July 2009
(Paperback edition 2011)
1 Disruptive Innovation
1 Product Development
1 Process Eco-Efficiency
1 Life Cycle Management
• Business Value Creation
>|w Chain Sustainabilit^
Second Edition
Design for Environment
e Product Development Joseph Ftk
!l
-------
uWe shall require a substantially new
manner of thinking if mankind is to
survive.
Albert Einstein
1879-1955
B-56
-------
PRESENTATION: FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AT NSF FOR PROPOSALS ON
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT SYSTEMS AND SUPPLY CHAINS, BY BRUCE HAMILTON
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-57
-------
Funding Opportunities
atNSF
for Proposals on Sustainable Product
Systems and Supply Chains
Bruce Hamilton
NSF/ENG Program Director
Environmental Sustainability
National Science Foundation
Selected Menu of NSF Funding Opportunities
for Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains
New SEES Opportunities Relevant to Workshop
- RCN
- SRN
- SEP
- PIRE (all SEES)
- SEES Post-docs
G8 Material Efficiency DCL
CBET/ENG Environmental Sustainability Program
CBET/ENG Process and Reaction Eng'g Program
CMMI/ENG SES and MES Programs
ENG IDR Opportunity
IGERT Solicitation
NationalSclence Foundation
B-58
-------
Web Info on All the Listed
NSF Funding Opportunities
www.nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
New SEES Funding Opportunities
• SEES = Science, Engineering and
Education for Sustainability
• SEES is a new NSF-wide investment area
• A number of new SEES calls-for-proposals
are being posted (new "solicitations")
• Workshop-relevant SEES solicitations
include RCN, SRN, SEP, PIRE, and SEES
Post-docs
NationalSclence Foundation
B-59
-------
New SEES Solicitations
RCN = Research Coordination Networks (~$750K
each for RCN-SEES track)
SRN = Sustainability Research Networks
(-$12 million each)
SEP = Sustainable Energy Pathways
(~$2 million each)
PIRE = Partnerships for International Research
and Education (typically ~$4 million each)
SEES Post-docs (~$450K each)
National Science Foundation
RCN-SEES Track
• Program Scope: supports coordination of
sustainability research, not research itself
• Next Deadline: Feb. 3, 2012
• Grant Size: up to a total $750K for 4 to 5
years
• Contact: Bruce Hamilton
bhamilto@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-60
-------
RCN-SEES EXAMPLE #1
1140000
"RCN-SEES: Sustainable
Manufacturing"
PI: Yinlun Huang (Wayne State U.)
• $722K over 5 years
• Numerous university and industry partners
National Science Foundation
RCN-SEES EXAMPLE #1 (continued):
Sustainable Manufacturing
Grant Activities
• Conduct a comprehensive review of frontier research and
technological development for sustainable manufacturing;
identify research gaps and needs
• Formulate a research roadmap for sustainable
manufacturing
• Coordinate partner research through sharing knowledge,
resources, software, and results
• Establish additional partnerships with universities and
industry
• Conduct stakeholder education and outreach
NationalSclence Foundation
B-61
-------
RCN-SEES EXAMPLE #2
1140190
"RCN SEES: Sustainable
Energy Systems"
PI: Tom Seager(ASU)
• $750K over 5 years
• Partners: other universities, EPA, USAGE
National Science Foundation
RCN-SEES EXAMPLE #2 (continued):
Sustainable Energy Systems
Coordinate Activities Through Groups Focused on:
• Innovations in energy technologies
• Sustainability implications of alternative energy
technologies at full scale
• Energy and human development
NationalSclence Foundation
B-62
-------
RCN-SEES EXAMPLE #3
1140152
"RCN SEES: Pan American
Biofuels Sustainability"
PI: David Shonnard (Michigan Technol. U.)
• ~$750K over 4 years
• Numerous partners in North America, Central
America, and South America
National Science Foundation
SRN:
Sustainability Research Networks
• Program Scope: supports research (while
RCN does not support research)
• Deadline: December 1, 2011
• Award Size: up to a total $12 million over 4
to 5 years
• Contact: Bruce Hamilton
bhamilto@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-63
-------
Sustainable Energy Pathways
Program Scope: supports research on
sustainable energy pathways (think LCA)
Deadline: to be posted by the end of
September 2011
Grant Size: up to $2 million over 4 years
Contact: Ram Gupta
ragupta@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
PIRE:
Partnerships for International
Research and Education
Program Scope: now 100% sustainability
(this is a change from earlier PIRE rounds
Must have overseas partners
Next Deadline: October 19, 2011
Award Size: typically $4 million (but can
be more) over 5 years
Contact: Carleen Maitland
cmaitlan@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
B-64
-------
SEES Post-docs
Program Scope: special post-doc
solicitation, 100% SEES
Deadline: Decembers, 2011
Award Size: up to a total of ~$450K each
for up to 4 years
Contact: Sue Kemnitzer
skemnitz@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
G8 Material Efficiency DCL
DCL = Dear Colleague Letter
G8 = Eight developed nations (US, UK, Canada...)
Program Scope: Call for research proposals
involving at least one US institution partnered
with institutions in at least two other G8 nations
Deadline: September 30, 2011
Award Size: up to a total of ~$450K for US partner
for up to 3 years for each grant
Contact: Bruce Hamilton
bhamilto@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-65
-------
CBET/ENG
Environmental Sustainability Program
• Program Scope: takes sustainability
proposals that are driven by engineering
principles
• Proposal Types: unsolicited and CAREER
• Next Deadline (unsolicited): Feb. 17, 2012
• Grant Size (unsolicited): up to a total
$300K for up to 3 years
• Program Director: Bruce Hamilton
bhamilto@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
CBET/ENG
Process & Reaction Eng'g Program
• Program Scope: takes sustainability
proposals that are driven by process and
reaction engineering principles
• Proposal Types: unsolicited and CAREER
• Next Deadline (unsolicited): Sept. 15, 2011
• Grant Size (unsolicited): up to a total
$300K for up to 3 years
• Program Director: Maria Burka
mburka@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-66
-------
CMMI/ENG
Service Enterprise Systems (SES) & Manufacturing
Enterprise Systems (MES) Programs
• Program Scopes: accept proposals on
sustainable supply chains, among others
• Proposal Types: unsolicited and CAREER
• Next Deadline (unsolicited): February 15
• Grant Size (unsolicited): up to a total of
about $300K for up to 3 years
• Program Director: Russell Barton
rbarton@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
ENG Interdisciplinary Research (IDR)
Opportunity
• Program Scope: all engineering and beyond
• Proposal Type: unsolicited
• Next Deadline: Feb. 15 (CMMI); Feb. 17 (CBET)
• Grant Size: typically $600K, perhaps as large as
$1 million over 3 years
• Special Requirements: involvement of two
divisions (e.g., CMMI & CBET); PI must be in an
engineering department
• Program Director: Bruce Hamilton or others
bhamilto@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-67
-------
Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship Program (IGERT)
• Program Scope: NSF wide, focused on graduate
student education and research in any STEM area
• Proposal Type: solicited
• Next Deadline: May 1, 2012
• Grant Size: typically $3 million over 5 years
• Special Feature: almost all funds are for support
of graduate students
• Program Director: Carol Stoel
cstoel@nsf.gov
National Science Foundation
Funding Opportunities at NSF
QUESTIONS???
Bruce Hamilton
bhamilto@nsf.gov
NationalSclence Foundation
B-68
-------
Selected Menu of NSF Funding Opportunities
for Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains
New SEES Opportunities Relevant to Workshop
- RCN
- SRN
- SEP
- PIRE (all SEES)
- SEES Post-docs
G8 Material Efficiency DOL
OBET/ENG Environmental Sustainability Program
OBET/ENG Process and Reaction Eng'g Program
OMMI/ENG SES and MES Programs
ENG IDR Opportunity
IGERT Solicitation
B-69
-------
PRESENTATION: P3 (PEOPLE, PROSPERITY AND THE PLANET) AWARD PROGRAM:
A NATIONAL STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION FOR SUSTAINABILITY, BY CYNTHIA
NOLT-HELMS
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-70
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
P3-People, Prosperity and the
Planet- Award Program: A
National Student Design
Competition for Sustainability
Cynthia Nolt-Helms
Office of Research and evelopment
National Center for Environmental Research
Septembers, 2011
x=/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
5
\
B
\
Mission of EPA
...to protect human health and the environment
• Establish and enforce environmental protection standards
consistent with national environmental goals
• Conduct research
-on adverse effects of pollution
-on methods and equipment for controlling it
-to gather information on pollution and use it to strengthen
environmental protection programs and recommend policy
• Assist others, through grants, technical assistance and other
means, in arresting pollution of the environment
B-71
-------
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA's P3 Award Program
• Launched in 2004 as two-phase
grant competition
• Harness the energy, creativity
and enthusiasm of college
students
• Infuse students with an
awareness of their impact on
the economy, society, and the
planet
• Contribute to the integration of
sustainability principles into
curricula
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
vvEPA
lited States
vironmenta
iency
P3 Project Areas
Open to research proposals addressing
sustainability challenges anywhere in the world
in the following areas:
-Water
-Energy
-Agriculture
-Built Environment
-Materials and Chemicals
B-72
-------
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
P3 Program Process- Phase I
• Solicitation open Sept-Dec
• Student teams submit proposals for
proof-of-concept innovative technology
or design
• Proposals are peer reviewed
• Phase I grants awarded - fall following
year
• P3 teams submit Project Report
• Phase I accomplishments
• Phase II proposal
• Students participate in the National
Sustainable Design Expo
x=/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Sustainable Design Expo
-Co-sponsored public
event at base of the
Capitol on the National
Mall
-Opportunity for P3 team
members to interact
-Opportunity to expand
conversation on
sustainability
B-73
-------
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
P3 Program Process- Phase II
Phase I winners compete
for P3 Award and $90,000
grant to develop
technology
Panel of judges convened
by AAAS (American
Association for the
Advancement of Science)
P3 Awards presented at
P3 Award Ceremony
x=/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Aspects of P3 Projects
• P3 teams encouraged to be student-led and
interdisciplinary
-Included representation from engineering
departments, chemistry, biology, architecture,
industrial design, business, economics, policy, social
science, and others
-Partnerships with industry, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), government, and the scientific
community.
• Require integration of sustainability concepts as an
educational tool
• Encourage development of small businesses
B-74
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
vvEPA
tales
lenta
P3 Projects: Developed World
Green Buildings including living roofs, smart windows,
improved energy efficiency, solar power
Real-time feedback of environmental performance
"Biosphere" cities
Recycling logistics, infrastructure, and strategies
Policy analyses
Sustainability indicators
Fuel cell advances
Sustainable energy technologies: wind, solar, bio-
methane, biodiesel, biohydrogen
Bioremediation of agricultural chemicals
Educational programs on sustainability or energy
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
P3 Projects: Developing World
Water treatment: point-of-use or small, centralized
facilities
Water conservation, extraction or delivery
Strategies for improved sanitation
Alternative pest management strategies
Appropriate construction materials
Sustainable housing
Renewable energy: wind, solar
Planning for growth
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Educational Benefits
• Collaboration among students
• Valuable "life" experiences to students
-Apply themselves to "real-world" issues
-Multidisciplinary team experience
-International travel
-Cross-cultural work experience
• Raise awareness of sustainability and the
environment on college campuses/local communities
• Publication of research results
• Provides "seed" money for further research and
additional funding
5-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
P3 Update
-Nearly 400 Phase I grants
• 49 states & Puerto Rico
• 166 schools
• Over 2000 students
-49 Phase II grants
• ~25% of Phase II winners started new companies
or NGOs
• Leveraged P3 funds to gain venture capital
additional grant funds
• Commercialized new products
B-76
-------
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
UC Davis - 2008 P3 Award Winner - Micromidas
Biodegradable Plastic Production From Municipal Wastewater
Project
• Use municipal sewage to create a
biodegradable plastic
Return on Investment:
• Micromidas Company founded
1year after P3 award
• now employs 26
• Negotiated contracts with Waste
Water Treatment Plants
• Several companies interested in the
plastic (ie,Nestles, Pepsi)
• Successfully leveraged $3.6M
venture capital funding
• Selected as one of the Top 50
Water Innovation Leaders by the
Artemis Project
Process & Advantages:
• Waste is raw material carbon source
• Natural pond bacteria culled for PHA
producing types to digest sludge
• Sludge converted to fatty acids by
microbes which produce intra-
cellular PHA
• PHA is extracted pelletized
x=/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Oberlin - 2005 P3 Award Winner
Lucid Design Group: Building Dashboard
Project:
• Develop real-time feedback system
to see if can motivate people to
conserve energy and water
• Competitions motivated people to
conserve: 1 dorm saved $5.IK in 2
weeks
Return on Investment:
• Developed Building Dashboard
• Started: the Lucid Design Group
• Now employs 18
• Developed a resellers program
• Leveraged $6M venture capital
• Dashboard now installed at >100
large institutions
• Selected as a Category Finalist for
the 2010 Adobe MAX Awards
Process & Advantages:
• Real-time feedback prompts big
energy and water savings
• Turns passive consumers into active
managers
TOM* Eiffcifoty Can lump t-or>
ELON
w iiiiiiiiiiin.iiiir
B-77
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Prote>
Agency
University of Virginia - 2007 P3 Award - The Learning Barge
Elizabeth River Project
- Project:
• Design build a floating
classroom to teach people
about river ecology and
sustainable technologies
• Partnered with Elizabeth River
Project and local schools
- Return on Investment:
• P3 Award leveraged industry,
institution and private
contributions
• More than 6500 visitors in first
season
• Created 7 jobs
- Process & Advantages:
• >34 UVA students were
involved in the construction of
the barge
• World's 1st floating wetlands
classroom
• Lead science coordinators and
teachers designed the curricula
-SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Project:
Western Washington University - 2007 P3 Award
Biomethane for Transportation
-&Develop a biogas refining process using dairy cow
manure and anaerobic digesters to produce biomethane
for vehicular use.
-&Biomethane produces about 95 percent less carbon
than a traditional fuel
Return on Investment:
-&Technology demonstrated at pilot scale. P3 Award
helped leverage additional awards.
• Including $.5M DOE Clean Cities Recovery Act
Award
• Start up company being considered.
Process & Advantages:
-&Pilot plant collects manure at local dairy farm which is
broken down in an anaerobic digester.
-&Methane and other gases are generated. Contaminants
removed by a scrubber.
- Clean biomethane is collected, compressed and ready
to burn in a combustion engine
-&WWU estimates that there is enough farm waste to fuel
all vehicles in the region.
-------
v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Project:
MIT - 2008 P3 Award - Solar Thermal Micro-generators
- Provide a renewable energy source to
Lesotho using novel solar thermal micro-
generators, solar collectors, and "ORC"
(Organic Rankine Cycle) engines.
Return on Investment:
- NGO established to train local town
members to operate and maintain the
system
- Additional Awards leveraged
- Power and hot water system installed for a
medical clinic in Lesotho
Process & Advantages:
- ORC engine converts heat to electricity
using solar panels to provide the energy to
drive the engine.
- Generates more than 3 kilowatts of
electricity and hundreds of gallons of hot
water daily.
-SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
8th Annual Expo
April 20-22, 2012
See the Future Today!
m
National Sustainable Design Expo
www.epa.gov/P3
nolt-helms.cynthia@epa.gov
B-79
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Feedback from Participants
"We appreciate the support of the EPA P3 Program, and we believe it
has made a tangible difference in how these issues are seen at
M.I.T."
- Prof. Jeffrey I. Steinfield, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
"Awarding many small grants for undergraduate research is a great
idea. My students learned much working on this project and
continue to do so."
- Prof. Kathleen Bower, Eastern Illinois University
"It is exciting and sometimes frustrating to work on a ,real life'
project, but always rewarding."
- Phoebe Richbourg, Student on Univ. VA's P3 Award-winning Team,
2007
"... Through these speaking engagements and interactions, the
students have also educated and enriched the lives of the
practicing engineers in New Hampshire."
- Prof. Jenna Jambeck, University of New Hampshire
B-80
-------
PRESENTATION: DISCUSSION OF SESSION II BREAKOUT QUESTIONS, BY IGNACIO
GROSSMAN
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-81
-------
Session II - Disciplinary Definition of the Problems and Opportunities
Discussion of Session II Breakout Questions
Ignacio Grossmann, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
1. What are the challenging industry and societal problems to be solved?
What are the future drivers for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems and supply chains?
2. What are the next generation sustainable-design enabled strength areas in the U.S.?
Where are the gaps in knowledge?
3. What are the problems faced by existing sustainable design capabilities?
What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products, manufacturing systems,
and supply chains?
1. What are the challenging industry and societal problems to be solved?
- Industry: Raw materials, energy, water, pollution
- Societal: Food, health (water), energy, pollution, climate change, social justice
Growing World Energy Demand
• 2004
SS 2030
% = Change
frnBcns of oil-equivalent barrels per day)
I-2SW
B-82
-------
Growing emissions
Global Fossil Carbon Emissions
Total
Petroleum
God
Gas
Cement Production
2CW
Sheppard, Socolow (2007)
Water scarcity
i Little or no water scarcity
I Physical water scarcity
CD Approaching physical water scarcity
• Economic water scarcity
i _ Nor ei rimaied
•UtVe or no miter scacffv Abundant MMier moutcn rHairve 10 u«. with )e« than 25% of waief from rt wr* withdrawn i'w tinman
• Ptiysco'il wsfof scarcfy Wafer /asounces dBvfikvvrmnf is spfviuclirtg cv /las axctt&tecf susTomb^ fimrt^. More ili»n Ti% tsf *ive< flowi ,
wtttidrawn lor agncuUuie- industry, and donwitlc pwpaiei lottcwntirx) fry iMyrlmg ol return flovnj. TTHI d efi ml ton —i elating
to w»tp? rtwnand— «mplt« (hat dry ««» an noi netetMfily watef ware*-
• Acw»OJC*»np otyMiaf wslar scanty More irtan MS of fiver (lowj w« wnlitft^vn TheH baiini wit **twoence phywt*! wil«t w^ircrty in i.h« n
ktuw
• Ecofximn: water scarory nhuman, wrMwnryi.^. .nd fauKxil cwttf Wrvf across to w/jfw wyi rfux^n w/irw »j nahjrD is ffvafcbfei Oca*y ro
mae* toman demands). Wain r*»oii»c« w abu.xljn t ipUiivr 1€ water oie. willi l«i ttian J ^ of water [rom nvwv wtthdi«wn for human
put poses, but malnutrition **Jstv
Source International Watff MjnagemenT |n»titu(r
m Agrkullure uvny rrw Watenmt mod«L chaptpr J
dixie for ilhc Cornpreih^uve AsK^jment of W^ld Management
Two-thirds of the world population will face water stress by year 2025
B-83
-------
What are the future drivers for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems and supply chains?
- Depletion of fossil fuels?
Growth in Shale Gas
figure 91. Lower 48 onshore mitural «as production
hy region, 2009 and 203? (trillion cubic feet)
History 2009
Projections
2000 2009 2015 2025 2035
West Coast
In 2035 close to 50% from Shale Gas
Northeast: from 0.3 trillion scft 2009
to 5.8 trillion scft 2035
What are the future drivers for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems and supply chains?
- Handling of waste/landfills (recycle policies)
- Threat of climate change
- Greater pressure from citizens (Millennial generation)
Greater social/environmental responsibility by politicians
(e.g. C02tax)
B-84
-------
2. What are the next generation sustainable-design enabled strength areas
in the U.S.?
Optimal Design of Chemical Supply Chains
Design of chemical SCs
GuilMn-Gosdlbez, Grossmann (2009)
o,Jo.
CENTER
Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Existing warehouse r
Market J,
Potental plant location
A Potential ware, location
•S Demand of final products
•S Investment and operating costs
•S Available technologies and potential locations
•S Life cycle inventory of emissions associated with the SC operation
I 0.05
By-product Cumene
• The task is to determine the optimal SC configuration
• In order to maximize NPV and minimize environmental impact
Carnegie Mellon
Uncertainty in emissions
UNIVERSITAT
ROVIRA I VlKCILI
B-85
-------
lii'al
MILP Model
Plants
Suppliers
Markets j_ Postulate a superstructure with all possible
Warehouses =1,-.L
alternatives
2. Build an MILP model:
• Mass balance equations
• Capacity constraints
• Objective function calculations
Net Present Value
*
Eco-indicator 99: 11 environmental impacts aggregated into 3 damage categories
• Human health: DALYs (Disability Adjusted Life Years)
• Ecosystem quality: PDF-m2-yr (Potentially DisappearFractionof Species)
• Resources: MJ surplus energy kg"1
Life cycle inventory must account for a large number of chemicals: high degree of uncertainty!
CarnegieMellon
UNIVERSITAT
VIRGILI
Uncertainty in the emissions
Assumption: emissions follow normal distributions
CENTER
„ 10-» Pi [Eco-lndicator 99 < Ql > K (a = 2000;>;= 07)
Probabilistic objective:
Minimize the environmental impact for a given probability level
Pr[ECO99 < Q] > K
Target level omega
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Eco-lndicator 99
Chance constraint programming
• Probabilistic constraint is converted into its deterministic equivalent (Kataoka, 1963)
- EC~Ogg n - ECOgg
$<$>-lW + ECOgg <
\r\ax(NPV(x,y), -Q(x,y)) Bi-criterion robust optimization MINLP problem
Can be reformulated as a parametric convex MINLP (Dua andPistikopoluos, 2003)
Carnegie Mellon
UNIVERSITAT
ROVIRA i VIRGILI
-------
Pareto set and extreme solutions
Environmental improvements are achieved through changes in the network
Max NPV
5 different SC topologies
are identified
Warehouses
Markets
1 = 1,2,3,4
Tarragona Tarragona
(existing warehouse)
Sinas
Leuna
Neratovice
Neratovice
(new warehouse)
4.85 4.9 4.95 5 5.05 5.1
Omega (Eeo^ndj^ator 99 points) x 10
Min Omega
Warehouses
k = 1,2
Tarragona Tarragona
(existing warehouse)
Markets
1 = 1,2,3,4
The environmental impact is reduced
by adjusting the structure of the network:
Reduce the capacities of plants and warehouses
Reduce the flows of materials
Carnegie Mellon
Sines
Leuna
Nerstovice
ROVIRA I VlRCILI
Where are the gaps in knowledge?
Examples:
How to build cheap photovoltaic solar cells?
How to build cost effective/safe fuel cells (hydrogen)?
How to effectively manage power distribution systems with renewables?
How to design bacteria that increase the yields in biomass processes
or tolerate higher concentration of alcohols?
How to effectively design integrated supply chain for transportation fuels?
B-87
-------
3. What are the problems faced by existing sustainable design capabilities?
Lack of knowledge of advanced engineering tools
Energy consumption corn-based process
Author (year)
E nergyconsumption
(Btu/gal)
Pimentel(2001)
Keeney and DeLuca (1992)
Wang etal. (1999)
Shapouri et al. (2002)
Wang et al (2007)
75,118
48,470
40,850
51,779
38.323
Water consumption corn based - process:
Author (year)
Water consumption
(gal/gal ethanol)
Gallager (2005) First
plants
Philips (1998)
MATP (2008)
Old plants in 2006
MATP (2008)
New plants
11
5.8
4.6
3.4
From Karrupiah et al (2007)
24,918 Btu/gal vs 38,323 Btu/gal
Why? Multieffect distillation
and het integration
From Martin and Grossmann (2007)
1.5 gal water/gal ethanol vs 3.4
Why? Integrated process network
with reuse and recycle
3. What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems, and supply chains?
Some more or less obvious
but important
-Energy conservation
-Green buildings
-Fuel efficient cars
B-88
-------
3. What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems, and supply chains?
Need to think out of the box
Biodegradable plastics
Plan(s Photosynlhesis
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) vs. Polylactic acid (PLA)
Improving mechanical properties
Process Intensification
Making changes that render a manufacturing or processing design
substantially improved in terms of energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness
or enhancement of other qualities.
B-89
-------
1 Chemical Reactor
10 Distillation columns
J.J. Siirola
EASTMAN
o Ali^r SteiiriUiorj Problems
Solvent-Enhanced
Distillative Separatio
Task
F
separativ
Reaction
Task
E
Distillative
Separation
Task
G
quihbnu
Reaction
Task
A
separative
Reaction
Task
R
Distillative
Separation
Task
C
Distillative
Separation
Task
D
EAST MAM
B-90
-------
tion for
Single Column
Extractive
Distillation
TaskF
Reactive
Distillation
TaskE
Reaction
Task A
Reactive
Distillation
Task B
Distillation
Tasks
Cand D
EASTMAN
B-91
-------
Session II - Disciplinary Definition of the Problems and Opportunities
Discussion of Session II Breakout Questions
1. What are the challenging industry and societal problems to be solved?
What are the future drivers for design of sustainable products,
manufacturing systems and supply chains?
2. What are the next generation sustainable-design enabled strength areas in the U.S.?
Where are the gaps in knowledge?
3. What are the problems faced by existing sustainable design capabilities?
What are the opportunities for design of sustainable products, manufacturing systems,
and supply chains?
^^^^^^1
Breakout Group 1
Tom Seagei*, Aril State U
Andres Clarerre, UVA
Yinlun Huang, Wayne State U
Christoph Koffler, PE International
Phil Williams, Webcor Builders, USA
M;chei|e Nguyen, AlChE
Breakout Group 4
Thomas Tlieis", U Illinois
Sergio Pacca, U Sao Paula
Alan Becbt, FPA
Wes Ingwersen, FPA
Andreas Croth, Green Delta
Arnold Tukke', TNO
Breakout Group 7
Darlene Schuster", AlChE
Joseph Fiksel, EPA/OSU
Cynthia Holt-Helms, EPA NCER
Sangwon Suh, UCSB
MarkTuley, Sustainability Risk
Beth Belotf, Bridges to Sustainabilitv
Breakout Group 10
Bruce Hamilton", MSF
H. Gregg Claycamp, FDA
Clare Lindsay, EPA
Dima Nazzal, U Central florida
Rachuri Sudarsan, MIST
Dennis McGavis, Shaw Inc
B
reakout Groups
Breakout Group 2
Bert Bras', GA Tech
Vikas Khanna, U Pittsburgh
Troy Hawkins*, EPA
V'ncent Camob>'eco, EPA
William Flanagan, GE, USA
Ma'garet Mann, NREL
Breakout Group 5
Eric Williams". RIT
B. ErikVdstie, CMU
Meadow Anderson, E3A
Maria Burka*, NSF
John Glaser, EPA
Eric Masanet, LBNL
Breakout Groups
Onnar Romero- Hernandez, UC B
Herb Cabezas*, EPA
Igor Linkov. Army Coros of Eng
Don Versteeg, P&G
Russell Barton, NSr
Erin Chan, AlChE
^^^^^^1
Braakout Group 3
Raj Siinivasan", U Singapore
Oliuier Jolliet, U of Ml
Reid Lifset, Yale
Sheriiyn Brodersen, Kraft Foods
Michael Milliard, ORNL
Breakout Group 6
Ignacio Grossmann", CMLJ
Fengqi you, Nlorthyvestern
Ray Smith", EPA
Mart Goedkoap, Pre Consultants
Martha Stevenson, WW1 US
Breakout Group 9
Jay Golden, Duke
Marianthi lerapetritou, Rutgers
Angle Leith, EPA
Carole LeBlanc, Dept of Defense
John Carberry, DuPont
Bhavik Bakshi*, Ohio State
H
B-92
-------
PRESENTATION: ORIENTATION FOR SESSION III, BY ERIC WILLIAMS
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable Product Systems and Supply Chains, September 12-13, 2011
Final Report, February 29, 2012 B-93
-------
Orientation for Session
Eric Williams
Rochester Institute of Technology
-x R I T
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOIOQV
The Golisano Institute of Sustainability
• Academic Programs
• Sustainability Ph.D.
• Sustainable Systems M.S.
• M. Sustainable Architecture
• Four Main Research Thrusts:
• Sustainable Production Systems
• Eco-IT
• Sustainable Mobility
• Energy Systems
• Industrial Applications & Technology Transfer
• Promote Innovative Campus Wide Sustainability Initiatives
• 3 admin faculty, 7 academic faculty, 4 research faculty
x KIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
I H tumuli ni i
B-94
-------
New Institute of Sustainability Building
RIT
$14 million grant
from MIST
Integrated fuel cell,
solar and wind
power systems
Can run
independently
from electrical grid
Construction
completion: 9/2012
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
New
Products
R&D
investment
x RIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
$
Manufact-
uring
Materials
HOCHiSTf H INSTITUTE OF T
B-95
-------
Session III Overview
Theme: Cross-disciplinary needs and challenges
Overarching question: What are the common
problems, common areas of need, complementary
areas to be interfaced, and opportunities for cross-
disciplinary fertilization facilitated by design of
sustainable product systems and supply chains?
RIT
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
x RIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
CHiSTfH INSTITUTE OF T
B-96
-------
Session III Overview
Theme: Cross-disciplinary needs and challenges
Thoughts on overall approach :
• Easy to identify needs in "an ideal world"
•Consider constraints/challenges for needs and
challenges
•Area of opportunity = large impact/difficulty
RIT
Importance
helpful
important
critical
Socio-economic constraints
minor
substantial
huge
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
Session III Sub-topics for groups
Theme: Cross-disciplinary needs and challenges
1.Economic drivers and sustainable design
2.Technologies/tools and integration: status and needs
3.Stakeholder roles and need for cooperation
4.New/emerging technologies and organizational
roles
5.Education and training
x RIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
B-97
-------
Group 1: Economic Drivers
Question: How does sustainable design affect or
impact economic drivers?
RIT
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
Group 2: Technologies/tools and
integration: status and needs
Question: What technologies/tools and their
integration are needed, where is the expertise, and
what is the state of technical capability?
Clarification of scope:
•Technology here meant as "software" (e.g. analytic
tools) as opposed to "hardware" (easy to recycle
plastic)
x RIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
B-98
-------
Group 3: Stakeholder roles and need for
cooperation
Question: What are the respective roles of industry,
government, and academia and how should they
interrelate? What partnerships/coalitions are needed?
RIT
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
Group 4: New/emerging technologies
and organizational roles
Questions: How will new and emerging technologies
and capabilities need to affect organization roles and
responsibilities - academia/industry,
researcher/research teams, etc?
Clarification of scope:
• technology specific issues (e.g. nanotech) versus
generic technological progress
x RIT
Golisano Institute
for Sustainability
I H tumuli ni i
B-99
-------
Schedule for Session II
Today:
4:15-5:15
Discuss your question, notetaker takes
notes
5:15-5:30
Write up powerpoint slides presentation for
tomorrow morning. If anyone wants to
submit additional notes, write up.
Tomorrow morning: group presentations
RIT
Golisano Institute
forSustainafaility
B-100
-------
Workshop on the Design of Sustainable
Product Systems and Supply Chains
September 12-13, 2011
Arlington, Virginia
Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and through the
U.S. National Science Foundation
Grant #1153340 to the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers
For additional information contact:
Troy R. Hawkins
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Martin Luther King Drive West
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
hawkins.troy@epa.gov
------- |