Organizational Environmental Footprint in German ...

3 downloads 45981 Views 784KB Size Report
May 21, 2016 - Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of products or services is a widely used tool to ... In addition to this traditional use of LCA, the accounting of envi-.
Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Organizational Environmental Footprint in German construction companies Simone Neppach, Katia R.A. Nunes*, Liselotte Schebek €t Darmstadt, Institute IWAR, Chair of Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Franziska-Braun-Straße 7, Technische Universita 64287 Darmstadt, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 4 October 2015 Received in revised form 30 March 2016 Accepted 13 May 2016 Available online 21 May 2016

Besides the application of the life cycle assessment methodology in products and services, the consideration of environmental impacts at the organizational level in a holistic approach can also provide significant information about other environmental issues. In 2012 the European Commission developed the Organizational Environmental Footprint Guide, however there is still scarce experience with its implementation. In this research it was examined whether the conduct of an Organizational Environmental Footprint could be readily applied to construction companies, and additionally the corresponding costs and benefits were estimated. Using a case study within the former Bilfinger Construction Company, part of the Implenia Group since summer 2015, the feasibility of the application of the guide in construction companies was reviewed and possible adjustments were proposed. The main obstacle lies in the product portfolio of such companies, which can be very heterogeneous. It was observed that most data could be collected from the already implemented accounting and procurement software. Additional data were obtained through the environmental management system of the analyzed company. Difficult was the determination of resource use and emissions from upstream activities along the supply chain. Using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, decision supports were set to generate emissions data. The results of the case study were then generalized to construction companies, what can support such organizations to achieve a sustainable transition to a cleaner production. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Organizational Environmental Footprint OEF guide Construction industry LCA ISO/TS 14072

1. Introduction 1.1. Organizational Environmental Footprint (OEF) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of products or services is a widely used tool to identify environmental impacts over the entire product € pffer and Grahl, 2009) (Chang et al., 2014). or service life cycle (Klo In addition to this traditional use of LCA, the accounting of environmental impacts at the organizational level in a holistic approach can also provide information on other environmental issues, preventing trade-offs (Martinez-Blanco et al., 2015a,b). This approach is followed by the Organizational Environmental Footprint (OEF) guide, which was developed by the European Commission (EC) and published in 2012. Besides the elaboration of a guide for the corporate level, the background of OEF Guide was the creation of an uniform basis for

assessing environmental performance of organizations in Europe. This guide allows the implementation of OEF, which can support already implemented EMS and track environmental performance (JRC, 2012). The OEF Guide is an universal document that integrates currently well-functioning approaches based on different guidelines and methods, such as ISO 14064 (GHG), ISO/WD TR 14069 (draft 2010: GHG e Guide for the use of ISO 14064), ILCD (International Reference Life Cycle Data System) Handbook (2011), Greenhouse Gas Protocol (WRI, WBCSD, 2011) and GRI (G3) (JRC, 2012). Through OEF, environmental performance of products and services of organizations can be measured based on life-cycle perspective on multiple predefined criteria. This means that all environmental aspects are considered within production, use and disposal phases as well as during transports (JRC, 2012). 1.2. Organizational Life Cycle Assessment (ISO/TS 14072)

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.R.A. Nunes). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.065 0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Published in 2014, ISO/TS 14072 (Requirements and guidelines for Organizational Life Cycle Assessment e Technical Specification)

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

was also developed for applying LCA to organizations (Organizational Life Cycle Assessment e O-LCA). This technical specification (TS) is primarily based on OEF Guide and GHG Protocol. The guide and the TS agree on many points, however there are some differences which facilitate the implementation of O-LCA compared to the OEF. At the beginning of the case study (November 2014), ISO/ TS 14072 was still not published and therefore it was decided to use the already published OEF Guide for investigating the application of a LCA to a construction company on an organizational level. 1.3. Conducting an OEF study An OEF study is divided into five phases (JRC, 2012): (a) definition of goals; (b) definition of scope; (c) compilation and record of resource use and emission profile (inventory phase); (d) Environmental Footprint Impact Assessment; (e) interpretation and reporting. Important components in phases (a) and (b) are definition of the organization and its product portfolio. Based on them the organizational boundaries can be defined. The product portfolio represents the amount and the type of products or services that are produced or provided by the analyzed organization within a specified reporting period. The resource use and emission profile e phase (c) e requires a certain data quality that are specified by OEF Guide. In this phase, three types of data have to be considered (JRC, 2012, p.38): i. Direct activities and impacts from sources that are owned and/or operated by the organization ii. Indirectly attributable upstream activities which refer to the use of materials, energy and emissions associated with goods/services sourced from upstream of the organizational boundary in support of producing the product portfolio iii. Indirectly attributable downstream activities which refer to the use of material, energy and emissions associated with goods/services occurring downstream of the organizational boundary in relation to the product portfolio Furthermore, a standard list of fourteen impact categories e phase (d) e is presented, which reflect and calculate the real impact on the environment. These categories, which are described in item 3.6 of this research, must be considered completely within an OEF study, unless there is an explicit reason for disclosure. In general, when using the OEF Guide, principles like relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy and transparency have to be fulfilled in order to meet the requirement of a consistent, robust and reproducible OEF study. An OEF study can follow specific rules, the so-called OEFSRs. These rules should increase reproducibility, consistency and relevance of OEF studies within a sector. Additionally, they support to focus on the most important parameters and thus reducing time, effort and costs of OEF studies. The OEFSRs comply with the requirements of OEF Guide and make new sector-specific requirements. These rules are not mandatory to carry out an OEF, but if organizations of a sector should be compared, OEFSRs must be established (JRC, 2012) (EC, 2014a, b). 1.4. Available experiences A first pilot phase according OEF Guide was launched by the EC in early November 2013 and will last three years. Besides the analysis of the OEF implementation, the main objective of this phase is the development of OEFSRs. The first pilot projects were carried out within the retail sector (led by the industry), metal sector/copper production and hygiene products (both led by Joint Research Centre/

79

EC e JRC/EC). Criteria for the selection of pilot projects were (a) covering of a representative share of the market, variety of product groups and sectors, (b) availability of qualitative secondary life cycle data, and (c) availability of already existing product category rules or equivalent documents. Overall, there are few experiences with the application of the OEF Guide (EC, 2014a, b). 1.5. OEF and the construction industry Until 2015 no OEF pilot projects had been performed in the construction sector. Nevertheless, the importance of the OEF in the construction sector should increase in the future, because construction activities are always associated with significant effects on the environment. Compared to the standard manufacturing industry, the challenge in applying the OEF Guide is that many projects in the construction sector, such as buildings and infrastructure, are normally unique and can require different processes and materials in diverse locations. Therefore, the identification of environmental aspects in the construction sector can be more difficult than for other manufacturing industry sectors (Gaussin et al., 2013) (Nunes and Schebek, 2012). 2. Case study 2.1. General Despite the guide publication in 2012, there are still scarce experience with the conduct of OEF and rare discussions about corresponding benefits and costs. Therefore, the applicability of OEF on construction companies was investigated in this research through a case study in the former Bilfinger Construction Company, part of Implenia Group since summer 2015 (in the following called Implenia). The objective was to verify if the conduct of OEF in the company would be possible and beneficial. For this, the company was initially carefully examined and required OEF data was determined from software systems, records and employee surveys. Direct accesses to this information were provided. It was also investigated, if data gaps could be closed with appropriate estimations. Additionally, interviews with many professionals were carried out in the company during the research period in order to: (a) identify the existing organizational environmental approaches; (b) determinate the required data for OEF; (c) collect the data; and (d) group the data. Finally, the feasibility of an OEF and the resulting benefits and costs were verified. Based on the results, general statements about OEF in construction companies were presented. 2.2. The company At the end of 2014, the analyzed organization had 1850 employees and provided services in areas such as tunneling, general engineering and power plant construction. The project locations were spread over Germany, Scandinavia, Austria, Eastern Europe and Thailand. The former Bilfinger Construction GmbH was a member of the holding company Bilfinger SE with headquarter based in Germany. But during this study the subsidiary was sold to the Implenia Group and is part of it since summer 2015. Implenia's headquarter is based in Switzerland. Despite this transaction, personal and procedures remained unchanged in the organization during the research period (between November 2014 and February 2015). 2.3. Adjustments of OEF guide

to

Before applying OEF Guide in the case study, some adjustments the construction industry had to be considered. The

80

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

organizational boundaries of an OEF study shall include all facilities and processes which are owned or operated by the organization (direct activities, as described in item 1.3). That means all activities are included within the organizational boundaries in which the organization has financial or operational control (JRC, 2012). OEF boundaries go beyond the organizational boundaries, covering indirect activities and their environmental impacts. Indirect activities and impacts occur in upstream or downstream processes of the supply chain located outside the organizational boundaries. Indirect attributable downstream activities can be excluded from the OEF boundaries with an explicit justification (JRC, 2012). In the construction sector an exclusion from the OEF boundary can be made for downstream activities. The product portfolio of construction companies is often not composed of finished buildings or infrastructure projects, but services provided within these projects. The construction company is frequently not the contractor of the project design and therefore has no influence on design or material specifications. There is a limited influence regarding the execution of construction activities and the choice of subcontractors. Consequently, downstream activities for the OEF study can be neglected in this case because the use and EOL phases can't be influenced. On the other hand, services and products from subcontractors employed by a construction organization have to be included as upstream processes within the OEF boundaries because these services and products are part of the contractually planned construction works. Another adjustment has to be made for construction projects done by a joint venture, which arises when several contractors enter into contractual obligations due to the joint implementation of a larger construction project. If a construction project is carried out as a joint venture, this will be seen as an independent organization. There are different types of joint ventures that have to be considered in the definition of organiza€der, 2008). It tional boundaries (Weitze, 2002) (Jagenburg and Schro must be individually considered which construction activities belong to the product portfolio of the different organizations and thus belong to their organizational boundaries. The adjustments of OEF boundary are shown in Fig. 1. 3. Methods

identified. An EMS according to ISO 14001 had already successfully been implemented. EMS is an important tool for the construction industry to achieve sustainable development (Lam et al., 2011). The handbook for EMS and occupational health and safety (HSE handbook) was part of the implemented EMS. In this manual the corporate environmental policy and EMS requirements were specified including references about relevant documents and operating procedures, such as identification and assessment of environmental issues, resource and waste management. Implemented processes within the organizational structure are also important to evaluate in order to gain a more detailed insight into the company. This also includes the consideration of record and software systems. The company had an Incident Management System (IMS), through which data on occupational health and safety, environment and quality were collected, processed, analyzed and communicated using specific software. However, this software was mainly used for occupational health and safety issues. The collection, processing, analysis and communication of environmental data were not consistently enforced. Supply chains were regulated within the organization through Supply Chain Management (SCM). These chains must be considered in order to integrate upstream activities within the OEF. In this step an overview of the direct and indirect environmental aspects from the offered services was achieved. Within the company a SCM system was used to select suppliers and subcontractors based on defined minimum requirements and then evaluated according to criteria of procurement, Health, Safety, Environment and Quality (HSEQ), logistics and risk. Through HSEQ, environmental issues were also incorporated into the evaluation of suppliers. An annual sustainability report from the former owning holding company Bilfinger SE was available on its website. The published data were aggregated at holding level. Contents and structure of the report followed the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The sustainability activities in the report were divided into the areas of economy, environment, employees, society, and products and services (GRI, 2006). Furthermore, ongoing and recently completed projects as well as information, such as description of construction activities, locations and durations of the projects, were considered.

3.1. Literature review 3.4. Determination of data Besides using the OEF Guide, for the investigation of the requirements involved with OEF a literature review was carried out considering mainly papers, guides, standards, laws and regulations regarding environmental aspects, in particular about: Life Cycle Management (LCM), Environmental Management System (EMS) according to ISO 14001 (EMS: Requirements with guidance for use); LCA according to ISO 14040 (LCA: Principles and framework) and ISO 14044 (LCA e Requirements and guidelines); OEF according ISO/TS 14072 (LCA e Requirements and guidelines for Organizational LCA); and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol. 3.2. Feasibility of OEF implementation For analyzing the implementation of OEF Guide in a case study four main steps were performed: (a) Identification of environmental approaches; (b) determination of the required data; (c) data collection; and (d) data evaluation. In Fig. 2 these steps and their main components are shown. 3.3. Identification of environmental approaches Firstly the organizational structure of the analyzed company was evaluated and existing environmental approaches were

In a second step, it was verified what data were needed. Based on the flows presented in Fig. 1, Material Flow Analysis (MFA) could be used to cover all materials and energy flows entering or leaving the OEF boundaries. The inputs include direct and indirect activities/impacts of the construction company. Following direct activities/ impacts were identified: i. Physical or chemical processing: Site operations by owned and/or operated construction vehicles, machines as well as office operations; ii. Generation of energy resulting from combustion of fuels in stationary sources: On-site power generators; iii. Transportation of materials, products and waste (resources and emissions from the combustion of fuels) in companyowned and/or operated vehicles, described in terms of mode of transport, vehicle type and distance: The investigated company transports small amounts of material and products to the sites; iv. Employees commuting (resources and emissions from the combustion of fuels) using vehicles owned and/or operated by the organization, described in terms of mode of transport, vehicle type and distance: Company vehicles;

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

81

Extraction of raw materials

INPUTS: Energy Water Operating materials Concrete Steel Aluminium Wood

Production of construction and office materials

Provision of construction machines, vehicles and materials

Subcontractor services

OUTPUTS: Building part Emissions Waste Waste water

Construction and office activity

Acceptance and operation of the building Organisation boundary (direct)

Demolition and disposal

OEF boundary (indirect)

Fig. 1. Organizational and OEF boundaries.

v. Business travel (resources and emissions from the combustion of fuels) in vehicles owned and/or operated by the organization, described in terms of mode of transport, vehicle type, and distance: Company vehicles; vi. Emissions unintentional release: Emissions from leakages at the sites. Following indirectly attributable upstream activities/impacts were identified: i. Physical or chemical processing: Site operations from subcontractors; ii. Extraction of raw materials needed for the production of the Product Portfolio: For construction projects and office operations including subcontractors; iii. Extraction, production and transportation of purchased capital equipment: Construction machines, vehicles, office and site equipment; iv. Extraction, production and transportation of purchased electricity, steam and heating/cooling energy; v. Extraction, production and transportation of purchased materials, fuels, goods and services; vi. Disposal and treatment of waste generated by upstream activities: Waste of subcontractors; vii. Disposal and treatment of waste generated on site when processed in facilities not owned and/or operated by the organization; viii. Transportation of materials and products between suppliers and from suppliers in vehicles not owned and/or operated by the organization (mode of transport, vehicle type and distance);

ix. Employees commuting using vehicles not owned or operated by the organization (mode of transport, vehicle type, distance); and x. Business travel (resources and emissions from the combustion of fuels) in vehicles not owned and/or operated by the organization (mode of transport, vehicle type, distance).

3.5. Data collection/resource use and emission profile The next step was data collection and the determination of resource use and emission profile. Specific data should be available within the organizational boundaries for the MFA. Generic data may be used in the OEF boundaries, outside organizational boundaries. Specific data on used raw materials, products, operation materials, construction vehicles and equipment could be found in finance and procurement departments and also through interview with supervisors. The analyzed organization had purchasing and accounting programs from a market leader software company. Within the resource planning software the module Materials Management (MM), which was applied to order materials, was almost totally implemented. Moreover, the accounting department used the module Business Consolidation (BCS) of the Strategic Organizational Management (SOM) software. When a request was made, a purchase order in the MM module had to be created with the required quantity in the appropriate unit. For each product there was an account in which the purchase order had to be assigned. When the goods were received, the invoices of the purchase order were compared with the previously entered order quantities. When they were compatible, the invoice

82

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

Fig. 2. Steps for verification of the applicability of an OEF in a construction company.

was paid. These data could be exported in the formats XML, XLS or CSV for other evaluations. The accounting department maintained the invoices according to the account plans in the module BCS. The invoice was scanned and attached to the cost records. Since only costs were recorded, it was not possible to evaluate automatically consumption data. It would be necessary to extract some data from the attached invoice. Therefore, information about purchased materials could be determined according to these procedures. Information of energy and water consumption, amounts of sewage and waste could also be obtained from the purchasing and accounting software. Information on the consumption of electricity had to be obtained partly with the electricity provider. Further information on waste quantities and disposal systems could be obtained from the EMS department. Within

the analyzed organization the environmental manager was also the contact person for the collection of emission data, which arose through the consumption of fuel and electricity. Through an inventory list all capital goods of the organization could be determined. All capital goods have also to be included in an OEF. If there were no measured data on emissions within the organizational boundaries available, generic data may also be used. Emissions could be estimated based on LCI (Life Cycle Inventory) databases and the technical guidelines for calculation of Scope 3 emissions (GHG Protocol) (WRI/WBCSD, 2011; 2013). For indirect attributable upstream activities specific data supplier should be preferred. This is also valid for transportation. For the present study, information about transport had been requested from the logistics company involved, but no data was received till the end of the research period.

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

83

4. Results

the suppliers to disclose certain environmental indicators would facilitate the implementation of an OEF. Through the case study, it was also confirmed that OEF cannot be used to compare executive construction companies. This is due to the fact of the heterogeneous and completely different product portfolio of such companies. If compliant with OEFSRs, comparative assertions would be possible among companies with similar product portfolio (EC, 2014a, b) (JRC, 2010). Nevertheless, even if the offered construction services were similar and compliant with set OEFSRs, it would be not possible to compare them, because the OEFs would be based on different product portfolios within a reference year. For the construction companies, downstream activities can be excluded because the design phase of the projects is usually not part of the product portfolio. During the calculation of an OEF, the exclusion of life cycle phases is allowed with an explicit justification (JRC, 2012). Activities of subcontractors have to be considered as upstream processes of the construction company and included in the OEF boundaries. Activities in joint ventures need a specific investigation to avoid double counting of corresponding activities. Based on the existing environmental approaches and on the interviews in the analyzed company, it was concluded that OEF could be used to reflect the environmental performance over the years. Therefore, OEF has to be set in relation to products or services of an organization. The difficulty is that the product portfolio of the construction company changes from year to year. The performance tracking is hence not based on similar product portfolios. In order to track the environmental performance of an organization, an option would be to divide the calculated OEF with the AGT. AGT represents the number of performed services and thus also approximately the amount of the corresponding environmental impacts of these services. However, uncertainties by the severity/ extent of different environmental impacts from the services as well as by economic factors such as monetary fluctuations and inflation may arise. Such uncertainties should be examined during the calculation of OEF and afterward included in the OEF report. Through the takeover of the analyzed company by Implenia Group, expertise and measures necessary to implement an OEF can be exchanged in the future. For example Implenia uses a software that supports collection, presentation and analysis of environmental data. The integration into a new company can be a chance to optimize structures of the analyzed organization, so that the introduction of an OEF would be easier.

4.1. Application of OEF in the case study

4.2. Advantages

During the period of research, it was verified that the conduct of an OEF for the studied company would not be possible, due to lacking information and limited time. It was confirmed that some approaches (e.g. purchasing and accounting programs, EMS and inventory lists) were already available in the company, however for a full OEF Guide application, a consistent recording and documentation of environmental data (e.g. use of materials, resources, energy and water; waste generation and corresponding emissions) should still be implemented. The handling of this data could be supported by specific OEF software, already available on the market, which would access existing LCI databases. The difficulty of conducting an OEF study at a construction company results from the calculation of the resource use and emission profile from upstream activities. Within the analyzed company, this was the part where most of the data were missing. Especially the determination of upstream environmental impacts would take a long time to be completed and would probably be only feasible with some estimations and assumptions. In the supply management system, the inclusion of a contractual requirement for

Benefits for a construction company by applying OEF can arise as a result from the reduction of environmental impacts, because hotspots can be identified and the organization's environmental performance can be improved by the implementation of measures. This performance tracking is possible through comparison of annual calculated OEFs. Overall, the implementation of an OEF increases environmental awareness and lifecycle thinking at all levels of the company. Through checking the necessary information for the inventory phase of OEF in the case study (compilation and record of resource use and emission profile), it was observed that OEF would support the identification of areas where consumption could be reduced and energy or materials saved and waste minimized. Cost savings can result from the reduction of resource consumption. The consideration of all processes within a company supports the identification of environmental risks and potential improvements. Besides EMS, OEF can also support decisions regarding environmental issues at the management level. This can primarily be

3.6. Data grouping/Impact assessment After the determination of the resource use and emission profile, the EF impact assessment will take place. In this the OEF of the analyzed company will be finally calculated. By calculating the environmental impacts of all activities and services of the analyzed company within the OEF boundary, the fourteen impact categories (EC/JRC/IES, 2012, S.29), which have to be considered, are: (i) Climate change; (ii) Ozone depletion; (iii) Ecotoxicity: fresh water; (iv) Human toxicity: cancer effects; (v) Human toxicity: no-cancer effects; (vi) Particulate matter: respiratory inorganics; (vii) Ionizing radiation: human health effects; (viii) Photochemical ozone formation; (ix) Acidification; (x) Eutrophication e terrestrial; (xi) Eutrophication: aquatic; (xii) Resource depletion: water; (xiii) Resource depletion: mineral, fossil; and (xiv) Land use. After the classification and characterization, the calculated OEF consists of the amount of impact indicators (e.g. kg CO2-equivalent and kg-SO2-equivalent) related to the fourteen impact categories. The Environmental Footprint (EF) impact assessment has to be performed by using special LCA software, which has access to a LCI database. To track the environmental performance of the analyzed construction company by means of OEF, normalization has to be applied to the results of the EF impact assessment. As the annual product portfolio of a construction company is very heterogeneous, it is not possible to use it as a normalization factor. Another possibility would be to take the number of employees. However, the disadvantage is that the number of employees depends on the different construction projects. Furthermore, some of the projects are performed in a joint venture or with subcontractors. Therefore, the number of employees is not appropriate to be a normalization factor. AGT is a factor which reflects approximately the amount of production performance (construction projects and services) and thereby the corresponding resource use and emissions. Nevertheless, deviations should be considered about aspects, such as: monetary fluctuations (inflation and exchange rates), construction technologies (e.g. low or high automation, modern or old construction equipment and modular construction), technical qualification of the involved professionals, and use of regional subcontractors and local construction materials.

84

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

done through the strategic evaluation of environmental aspects. The studied organization prepares an annual action plan. The OEF results could be transferred to objectives and measures of the action plan and then be implemented in the following year by the operational units. Measurable results and improvements are preferred because they are more transparent and demonstrative than qualitative statements. The OEF results would be another tool to consider in the SCM, when selecting subcontractors and suppliers. So far environmental criteria still seldom influence the award decisions in the con€s et al., 2009). This can change in the struction industry (Varna future. Furthermore, the company's image can be improved through OEF. The improvement of environmental performance over several years could be shown on the OEF. This gives external parties a comprehensible reference point for the classification of the company's environmental performance. A potential client of a construction project can take advantage of this positive environmental image to improve its own image.

4.3. Disadvantages A major disadvantage of OEF for the company would be the resulting costs. The costs could be divided in implementation and ongoing costs. Within the case study, the costs of implementing OEF have been estimated for a best case and worst case scenario (Table 1). It has been determined that during the implementation phase of the OEF costs could arise from contracting temporary employees and purchase of OEF specific software. Ongoing costs arise from the salaries of permanent employees, monthly rates for the software license (according to the number of users) and the annual critical review (from an external company) of OEF. In the best case scenario, it was considered that the studied organization would have enough staff for the determination of an OEF. No additional employees would be needed. In the worst case scenario, it was assumed that the examined organization would not have enough staff to carry out the uprising OEF tasks. Therefore, in this scenario it was assumed that additional employees for the procurement department and temporary as well as permanent qualified personnel are needed to determine the OEF. Based on the interviews with company professionals, the implementation costs were estimated to be about V 177,460 in the best case scenario and about V 354,920 in the worst case scenario. Ongoing costs incurred in the best case were estimated to be about V 65,424 and in worst case V 544,685 per year. In Table 1 OEF implementation and maintenance costs are also presented in relation to the number of employees. Due to additional costs resulting from the conduct of OEF, it could happen that the construction company would have to raise

its prices during the bidding process. Higher prices could result in losing contracts and finally in job losses. The implementation period of an OEF study was estimated for one year. The consistent use of purchasing and accounting programs, introduction of data into the OEF program and identification of resource use and emissions from subcontractors and suppliers, from newly purchased capital goods as well as from individual constructions activities would require permanent time loads. Additional time would have to be scheduled for the evaluation of all data and results and the identification of potential improvements. 4.4. Application of OEF in the construction sector When applying OEF Guide to a company in the construction sector some adjustments have to be made. Adjustments like the exclusion of the downstream processes will facilitate the implementation of an OEF. As already mentioned, the heterogeneous product portfolio of the construction sector increases the complexity of conducting the OEF, because activities of different process flows cannot be grouped, but must be considered individually. Furthermore, there is a higher effort for the annual determination of the resource use and emission profile, because just few activities will be similar to the activities of the previous year. Even if the OEFSRs cannot be used to compare different companies because of the heterogeneous product portfolio, it does make sense to set OEFSRs for the construction sector so that all companies proceed accordingly. All adjustments mentioned in item 2.3 should be included within these OEFSRs. The case study has shown that the use of the AGT to track OEF could be an option, if a sensitivity analysis would be performed afterward. If a construction company only builds standard houses with same materials and design, the OEF can be tracked based on the amount of built houses. In this case, downstream processes have also to be considered if the company has influence on the design. However, this is a specific case. 4.5. Application of OEF in other industries In general, OEF Guide is applicable to all companies, public administrations, non-profit institutions and other bodies (JRC, 2012). However, closer inspection shows that the OEF Guide is primarily aimed at the manufacturing industry. The more uniform the types of products of an organization and the simpler the product and organizational structure, the easier application and determination of an OEF. The same applies to the number of locations. The fewer locations an organization has, the easier is the data collection. The tracking of environmental performance is possible with similar annual product portfolios. It has to be considered, to which reference indicator the OEF should be related. It may be useful for example to refer to the amount of goods produced. In order to

Table 1 Calculation of OEF implementation and maintenance costs. Costs

Employees: Procurement Employees: eEngineers LCA Software Critical Review (external) Sum (in V) Sum/Employees (in V)

Best case scenario

Worst case scenario

One-time (in V)

Ongoing (in V)

One-time (in V)

Ongoing (in V)

e 3 employees ¼ 152,460 1 software ¼ 25,000 e 177,460 95.90

e e 27 accesses ¼ 32,400 33,024 65,424 35.40

e 5 employees ¼ 304,920 1 software ¼ 50,000 e 354,920 191.80

9 employees ¼ 392,040 1 employee ¼ 85,021 28 accesses ¼ 33,600 33,024 543,685 293.90

Number of employees (end of 2014) ¼ 1850.

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

ensure a comparison, a uniform reference indicator should be established in the OEFSRs. In the currently conducted pilot phases, OEFSRs are determined to adjust the OEF Guide to the respective sector and to facilitate its application. This does allow a comparison or comparative assertions between organizations (EC, 2014a, b). 4.6. Comparison with ISO/TS 14072 The OEF Guide and ISO/TS 14072 match on many points, but there are some major differences. The OEF Guide states that for the setting of organizational boundaries, the control approach (financial and/or operational control) should be used. Whereas, for an OLCA, it can be decided at the beginning of the study, whether equity share or control approach will be used. Cut-off criteria are not allowed when using OEF Guide. All inputs and outputs must be included in the assessment. When conducting the O-LCA, insignificant inputs and outputs can be neglected (UNEP/SETAC, 2015). For the determination of an OEF, a standard list of fourteen impact categories must be considered. An exclusion of impact categories must be justified and reported. Within O-LCA, the impact categories can be set at the start of a study. These can therefore be adjusted depending on the analyzed organization (UNEP/SETAC, 2014). Comparisons or comparative assertions between organizations within one sector are permitted through the use of OEF Guide, when OEFSRs are respected. The O-LCA cannot be used to make comparisons or comparative assertions (Martinez-Blanco et al., 2015a,b). It is remarkable that ISO/TS 14072 gives its users a larger room to apply the O-LCA to an organization. Due to individual adaptation of this TS to each company structure, its implementation can be facilitated. On the other side, it is not possible to establish comparisons between organizations. That can impede competition and hence mitigate the integration of environmental footprint (UNEP/ SETAC, 2015). 5. Conclusion and outlook In this research the feasibility of conducting an OEF in the construction company Implenia based on the OEF Guide was investigated. It was not possible to implement an OEF due to the limited time of the research (four months in the company) and lacking of information, mainly resource use and emission profile from upstream activities. However, it was verified some important approaches were already available and consolidated in the organization, such as EMS, HSEQ, IMS, SCM, purchasing and accounting programs and inventory lists. For the implementation of OEF, the analyzed organization at least needs to acquire a specific OEF software and hire three professionals contracted by the organization during the first year (best case). For the subsequent years, the maintenance of OEF could be incorporated to activities of EMS, IMS, HSEQ, SCM, procurement and logistics sectors (best case). In a worst case situation, it was mainly considered that more professionals should be involved (five in the implementation phase and ten in the maintenance phase), what would result in significant additional costs for the organization. During the interviews it was verified that there would be a readiness of many professionals to acquire more tasks for making OEF feasible, if the benefits of OEF were presented with more details. However, the practical consequences of this readiness on cost savings with employees could not be confirmed during the research period.

85

It emerged from the discussion that, due to the focus on a single product portfolio, the OEF Guide is more aligned to organizations in the manufacturing industry. The case study has shown that conducting OEF in construction companies is very complex due to the resource and emission profile, besides other peculiarities. The acquisition of specific OEF software, which includes LCI database, can be an excellent tool. Nevertheless, the costs with acquisition and maintenance of such software, which can range from 25,000 to 50,000 Euros yearly, should not be disregarded. For companies from less developed countries, there are options for open LCA software, open LCI database and possibilities of lowercost restricted versions of software, what could make OEF more feasible. After the implementation of an OEF, environmental aspects with significant adverse effects should be identified and corrected at the source. Therefore, OEF supports continuous improvement of environmental performance and contributes to the organization's environmental programs. It supports life cycle thinking throughout the corporate structure and also suppliers' structures, through the inclusion of indirect upstream activities. The OEF reviews holistically all lifecycle phases of offered products and services. However in the construction sector mainly during the project definition and planning phases, environmental impacts are currently considered and measures to reduce them are introduced. To implement OEFs the thinking in construction sectors must be changed from a planning/project specific to an organizational level. Economy, environment and social responsibility are the three pillars of sustainability. The focus on economy plays currently the dominating role in the construction sector. However, construction companies are influenced by the changes in society in terms of environmental issues to focus more on the environment. On websites of large construction companies the integration of sustainability and environmental awareness in the corporate structure is advertised. This is demonstrated through EMS, certifications and other measures. It seems reasonable to suppose that a life cycle approach in the organizations can gain more popularity and importance in the future. In many cases governmental organizations are contractors of large projects. Thus, there is a relevant political influence on environmental requirements for construction projects. As the OEF Guide was developed by the EC, EU countries could start to include OEF in the requirements for future public construction projects. In 2014 ISO/TS 14072 was published based on the OEF Guide. ISO standards are recognized worldwide and can be integrated into other management systems. This specification has many matching items with most parts of the OEF Guide. Nevertheless, there are differences which simplify the implementation of this TS. Therefore, for companies working in less developed countries, it is recommended to use the ISO/TS 14072. Due to the involvement of upstream supply chains, there is a connection of economic sectors in worldwide networks. Therefore, it is advisable to use globally accepted standards for evaluating the environmental performance of organizations. There is a great potential for the construction companies due to the integration in major construction projects. ISO/TS 14072 and thus relevant parts of the OEF Guide will probably spread into different sectors worldwide. The more companies internalize a holistic view of their organization, the easier data on emissions and resource use will be available. This in turn facilitates the conduct of OEF or O-LCA and makes them unavoidable. In the long term a significant relief for the environment can result from OEF or O-LCA in all economic sectors and in this way, the overall objective of decoupling environmental impacts from economic growth can be achieved.

86

S. Neppach et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 142 (2017) 78e86

Acknowledgments

References

We would like to thank the broad technical support of Implenia in the realization of this research.

Chang, D., Lee, C.K.M., Chen, C., 2014. Review of life cycle assessment towards sustain-able product development. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 48e60. EC, 2014a. OEF. Available on. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/oef_ pilots.htm (accessed 14.01.15). EC, 2014b. Guidance for the Implementation of the EU OEF during the Environmental Footprint Pilot Phase. Available on. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ eussd/smgp/pdf/Guidanceorganizations.pdf (accessed 27.11.14). Gaussin, M., Hu, G., Abolghasem, S., Basu, S., Shankar, M.R., Bidanda, B., 2013. Assessing the environmental footprint of manufactured products: a survey of current literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146, 515e523. GRI, 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. V.3., Amsterdam. Available on. www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3-Guidelines-Inc-l-Technical-Protocol.pdf (accessed 05.07.15). ISO/TS 14072, 2014. Environmental Management: LCA e Requirements and Guidelines for O-LCA. ISO, Geneva. €der, U.C., 2008. Der ARGE-vertrag, Kommentar, second ed. Jagenburg, I., Schro € ln). (Ko JRC, 2010. ILCD Handbook, Nomenclature and Other Conventions. EC, Ispra. JRC, 2012. OEF Guide. EC, Ispra. € €pffer, W., Grahl, B., 2009. In: Okobilanz Klo (LCA), Ein Leitfaden für Ausbildung und Beruf. Wiley, Weinheim. Lam, P.T.I., Chan, E.H.W., Chau, C.K., Ponn, C.S., Chun, K.P., 2011. Environmental management vs. green specifications: how do they complement each other in the construction industry? J. Env. Manag. 92, 788e795. Martinez-Blanco, J., Inaba, A., Finkbeiner, M., 2015a. Scoping organizational LCA e challenges and solution. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 829e841. -i-Canals, L., Finkbeiner, M., Martinez-Blanco, J., Inaba, A., Quiros, A., Valdivia, S., Mila 2015b. Organizational LCA: the new member of the LCA family e introducing the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative guidance document. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1045e1047. Nunes, K.R.A., Schebek, L., 2012. Sustainable supply chain initiatives in the Brazilian construction industry. In: Madu, C.N., Kuei, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Management. World Scientific Press, Singapore, pp. 713e732. UNEP/SETAC, 2014. O-LCA: new guidance for organizations to conduct LCA considering their value chain. In: LCA XIV, 6e8. October, San Francisco. Available on: www.lcacenter.org/lcaxiv/final-presentations/977.pdf (accessed 08.04.15). UNEP/SETAC, 2015. Guidance on O-LCA. Berlin. Available on: http://www. lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/o-lca_24.4.15-web.pdf (accessed 08.08.15). €s, A., Balfors, B., Faith-Ell, C., 2009. Environmental considerations in proVarna curement of contracts: current practice, problems and opportunities in green procurement in the Swedish construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 1214e1222. Weitze, D., 2002. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft in der Bauwirtschaft, Rechtsform und Besteuerung. PhD Thesis. ISBN 3-631-50253. Osnabrück. WRI/WBCSD, 2011. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. WRI/WBCSD, 2013. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions (v. 1). Supplement to the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting & Reporting Standard.

List of acronyms AGT ARGE BCS CSV EC EF EU EMS GHG GRI HSE HSEQ ILCD IMS ISO JRC LCA LCI LCM MFA OEF OEFSR O-LCA ORP OMM SCM SE SETAC SOM TS UNEP WRI XLS XML

Annual Gross Turnover Society (Arbeitsgemeinschaft) Business Consolidation Comma-separated values European Commission Environmental Footprint European Union Environmental Management System Greenhouse Gas Global Reporting Initiative Handbook for Environmental Management System and Occupational Health and Safety Health, Safety, Environment and Quality International Reference Life Cycle Data System Incident Management System International Organization for Standardization Joint Research Centre/European Commission Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Inventory Life Cycle Management Material Flow Analysis Organizational Environmental Footprint Organizational Environment Footprint Sector Rule Organizational Life Cycle Assessment Organizational Resource Planning Organizational Materials Management Supply Chain Management Societas Europaea Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Strategic Organizational Management Technical Specification United Nations Environment Programme World Resources Institute Spreadsheet file format Extensible Markup Language