JLCA NEWS ENGLISH EDITION June.2008

No.4

JLCA
NEWS LETTER
Life-Cycle Assessment Society of Japan

Contents

Environmental Improvement in Hook and Loop Fastener Manufacturing ........... 1
Recent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Activities by ............................................. 3
the Plastic Waste Management Institute
LCA of System Products by the Hitachi Group .................................................... 9
LCA of Plastic Beer Bottle Cases and Plastic Pallets ......................................... 16
Introduction of LCA education to universities and ............................................... 20
development of environmental consciousness
Information ......................................................................................................... 24

JLCA News Letter No.4

Case Example

Hiroshi ItohEnvironmental Improvement in Hookand Loop Fastener Manufacturing
1. Introduction

Fastening Development Center
KURARAY FASTENING CO., LTD.

Tadashi Imai
CSR and Communications Division
KURARAY CO., LTD.

As the name suggests, a hook and loop fastener is a woven fabricmade with hook-shaped and loop-shaped piles. Piles are usually
glued to the surface with urethane adhesive. Therefore, a wovensurface fastener is made from a combination of woven nylon orpolyester fiber and urethane adhesive. Our attempt to direct ourendeavors toward the manufacturing of environmentally-friendly
products started with review of the adhesive. In the first phase, thegoal was to shift the adhesive from solvent urethane adhesive to awater-based urethane solvent. Then in the second phase, the goal
was to develop a manufacturing method that allowed securing ofpiles without using any adhesive. As a result, water-based
adhesive replaced the solvent adhesive in February 2002, andfinally, an adhesive-free hook and loop fastener made from apolyester fiber (trade name "New Ecomagic") was placed on themarket in August 2004. An LCA was conducted in order to makean easy-to-understand presentation of the effect of this new
manufacturing technology on environmental improvement. The
KURARAY group has already implemented the LCA program, and
LCA for this manufacturing technology was also conducted inaccordance with the internal standard. Within a life cycle, thescope of the assessment was up to the manufacturing stage.
Substitute values were used for materials whose data was notavailable.

KURARAY FASTENING develops, manufactures, and sells a wide
variety of hook and loop fastener products, such as trade name"Magic Tape" (woven surface fastener) and "Magilock (molded
surface fastener)," and other related products.
Hook and loop fasteners are used as detachable fasteners likebuttons and hooks, and also, they are used as binding materials
and fixtures such as nails and adhesives. Compared to buttons,
hooks, nails, and adhesives, hook and loop fasteners can be easily
fixed and detached. They are now used in a wide variety of
applications such as binding bands, cuffs for blood pressure
monitors, shoes fasteners, glove fasteners, and diaper fasteners.
Although generally not visible, they are also used to fix car seats inplace, secure leather materials to seat pads, and to fix carpets andfloor materials in place.
We at KURARAY have been making efforts to save resources andto reduce organic solvent discharge as well as CO2 emission
during the course of "Magic Tape" manufacturing. As part of theseenvironmental activities, we have created and released anenvironmental label. This article introduces example applicationsof the environmental label and other efforts to produce
environmentally-friendly products.

2. Release of the environmental label "ECO LEAF"

The assessment resulted in the integrated index of products usinga ratio of solvent adhesive : products using water-base adhesive :adhesive-free products = 100 : 17: 10, meaning that the new
manufacturing technology greatly contributed to environmental
improvement.

2.1.Environmentally sound technical development,
product development, and life cycle assessment (LCA)

Example of "Magic Tape" use - 1

Example of "Magic Tape" use - 2

JLCA News Letter No.4

1

Case Example

2.2 Publication of the environmental label "ECO LEAF"
certification status

3.2 Development of applications and expansion of salesof products that contribute to environmental
improvement

Since the internally conducted LCA indicated the positive effect onenvironmental improvement as described above, we created a
type-III transparent label called "ECO LEAF" to promote users'
understanding of the characteristics of our products. The label
was shown on "Magic Tape" A03800 and B10000 which werestandard nylon products and on "New Ecomagic" A8693Y and
B2709Y which were polyester, adhesive-free products. Since there
were no Product Specification Criteria (PSC) that were applicableto our products, we created the PSC for hook and loop fasteners.
In the case of our products, it took time to collect product processdata as these products had only just been developed. The
creation of the label was taking far longer than in the case of theusual general environmental label creation, but we released thelabel approximately 10 months after creation of the PSC
establishment proposal. Table 1 shows the environmental burden
data of our products. With the environmental label, we were able
to show that the environmental burdens of our new product "New
Ecomagic" were lower than standard products made with nylon.

One of the characteristics of a hook and loop fastener is that it canbe easily attached and used repeatedly. Wider applications of thischaracteristic are now being explored. For example, in the field ofpacking materials, use of binding bands that can be used
repeatedly has been suggested. At the same time, use of hookand loop fasteners on returnable boxes, that are easily assembled
and covered, has also been suggested. These applications are
expected to contribute to reduction of packing material waste.
Furthermore, in order to facilitate recycling of materials for building
interiors, recyclable hook and loop fasteners that can replaceadhesives and nails have been developed. As described above,
expansion of product line-ups in this field has been planned.

4. Environmental improvement through the use ofhook and loop fasteners
The objective of the environmental label for hook and loop
fasteners introduced in this article was to show the achievement ofenvironmental improvements in the manufacturing phase. Note,however, a hook and loop fastener itself is already environmentallyfriendly because it is easy to use and can be used repeatedly.
Therefore, by effectively using this environmental-friendliness, weplan to not only use the fastener in the packing material field, butalso make more product proposals that will contribute toenvironmental improvements such as use of this product on car
seats (easy separation between the leather materials and seatpads and improvement of waste sorting and collecting) for
effective use of resources and to secure carpets and floor
materials in place for reduction of organic solvents.

Environmental label "ECO LEAF"
Table 1 Environmental burdens: total from all stages
Magic Tape
A03800 and B10000

New Ecomagic
A8693Y and B2709Y

Environmental burdens
causing warming(CO2 conversion)

332 g

259 g

Environmental burdens
causing oxidation(SO2 conversion)

0.534 g0.399 gEnergy consumption

5.53 MJ

4.68 MJ

The environmental burdens are for a pair of a hook and loop strips(width: 25 mm, length: 1 m).

3.1 Future environmental efforts in hook and loop
fastener manufacturing
3.1 Environmental
processes

improvementinmanufacturing

With the environmental label, we were able to quantitatively showthat improvement of the manufacturing method led to reduction ofenvironmental burdens. However, manufacturing of hook and loop
fasteners still has environmental issues. We thus plan to makeefforts to achieve the following goals:- Reduction of use of environmental chemicals- Increase of the ratio of adhesive-free products- Development of hook and loop fasteners using plant-derived
fabrics and resins- Improvement of product durability

JLCA News Letter No.4

2

Case Example
Recent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Activities by the Plastic Waste
Management Institute
1. Introduction

Junichi Nakahashi
Manager, Technology Research &Development Department
Plastic Waste Management Instituteconsumption, energy consumption, and environmental burdens oftreatment and disposal methods of used plastic. Furthermore, theworking group analyzed eco-efficiency of treatment and disposal
methods of used plastic while incorporating economic indices andweighting factors (Figure 1). The group then published reports asshown in Table 1.

The Plastic Waste Management Institute focused attention on life
cycle assessment (LCA) as early as when LCA study started inEurope and positioned LCA as an important method for objective
as well as quantitative evaluation of environmental impacts. In
1991, the environmental impact evaluation working group wasestablished within the technical development committee of theinstitute. The working group learned the concept and method of
LCA, collected inventory data, and evaluated resourceThis article introduces "2006 Eco-Efficiency Analysis for Plastic
Container and Packaging Material Treatment," the report publishedin September, 2006.

Figure 1 History of LCA activities of the Plastic Waste Management Institute- LCI accumulation and LCA analysis regarding plastic Material mining to
Manufacturing

Processing

Molded item

Treatment and disposal

Learning of the concept and method 1992
Acquisition and translation of overseas information

Basic research
Plastic LCI in
EuropeLCI data
accumulation

Package material waste
disposal method LCA in
Germany

1995,2000

General-purpose
plastic LCIProcessing LCILDPE,HDPE,PP,PS
EPS,PVC,PET

Injection molding,film, and foaming

1999

1999

2000

LCA
(environmental
impactassessment)

Plastic value
investigation

Energy recovery value
investigation

Liquid detergent
containers, packaging
materials for beveragetransportation, andvehicle components

LCA of treatment anddisposal of plastic
container and packaging

2004

Comparison of bottles
and trays made ofvarious materials
1995

2001,2002

Industrial plastic waste
mechanical recycling
value investigation
LCA of copy machines,
car bumpers, and ATMs
Recycling
2006
Energy recovery value
investigation

Eco-efficiency
analysis(environmental
impact / economic
efficiency evaluation)

Analysis of eco-efficiencyof recyclable plastic
container disposal methods
2003,2005,2006

JLCA News Letter No.4

3

Case Example
Table 1 LCA-related reports by the Plastic Waste Management InstituteNo.

Publication

Report title

1

March, 1992

Environmental Impact Assessment of Treatments and disposal of Waste Plastic (Digest Version)

2

March, 1995

Environmental Impact Assessment (LCA) of Packaging Materials such as Plastic

3

March, 1995

LCA Consideration for General Plastic Waste Materials

4

December, 1995

Eco-Balance of Plastic in Europe

5

March, 1996

Research on Environmental Impact Assessment of Various Treatment Processes of plastic waste for
Implementation of Mechanical Recycling and Energy Recovery : Establishment of a Plastic LCI Data
Accumulation Method and Current Status of Plastic Recycling in Europe and the United States

6

March, 1997

Report on LCA Inventory Data Collection and Study

7

March, 1999

LCA of Plastic Packaging Material Waste in Germany (Abstract)

8

March, 1999

1998 Study Report on Infrastructure Development for Expanding the Waste Material Fuel Conversion Project:
LCI Analysis of Plastic Treatment and Disposal

9

July, 1999

Study Report on Petrochemical LCI Data

10

January, 2000

Resin Processing Inventory Data Study Report: Mainly on General-Purpose Resin Processing

11

March, 2000

Eco-Balance of Plastics in Europe (Vol. 2)

12March, 2001

LCA Study Report on Treatment and Disposal of Plastic Waste

13

March, 2002

Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Plastic Packaging Material Recycling Scenarios

14

March, 2003

Report on Examination of Waste Plastic Treatment and Disposal Systems using the LCA method

15

March, 2003

Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Waste Plastic Treatment and Disposal Systems

16

March, 2004

LCA of Plastic Products

17

March, 2005

Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Treatment of Plastic Containers and Packaging Materials

18

March, 2006

Case Examples of LCA of Copy Machines, Car Bumpers, and ATMs

19

September, 2006 2006 Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Treatment of Plastic Containers and Packaging Materials

2. 2006 Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Treatment of
Plastic Containers and Packaging Materials

accordance with the Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection andRecycling of Containers and Packaging to sorting, compression,and packaging of the collected plastic (baling), transportation of
the baled plastic to recyclers, and recycling of plastic in products
were analyzed.
Recycling methods to be assessed weremechanical recycling, blast furnace feed, coke oven chemical
feedstock, gasification, power generation by incinaration, cement
raw materials and fuel, and RPF (Figure 2). As a comparison, landfilling was assessed.
Although waste-plastic-based power
generation, plastic recycling into cement raw materials and fuel,and plastic recycling into RPF are not methods permitted under the
Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers
and Packaging, they were nevertheless included in order toevaluate their characteristics in terms of eco-efficiency.

1) Background and Purpose
We published a report "Eco-Efficiency Analysis of Treatment of
Plastic Containers and Packaging Materials" in March, 2005. After
publication, we added and corrected information as follows in viewof environmental changes:(A)Refuse paper and plastic fuel (RPF*) for which there is a rapidly
growing market has been added as one of the energy recovery
methods, and the level of eco-efficiency of RPF has been clarified.
*RPF: It is a solid fuel created by melt-blending and molding waste
plastic and waste paper or wood chips, and is used as a coal
substitute.
(B)The 2006 Plastic Container and Packaging Material Recycling
Guideline published by the Japan Containers and Packaging
Recycling Association establishes that "in material recycling, whenplastic removed by a gravity separation system is treated asindustrial waste, its volume must be reduced by incineration and it
must not be disposed in a landfill site as it is." The report has
incorporated this statement.

3) The product basket method
As the system boundary diagram indicates, different recycling
methods result in different outputs. Every output is a product withvalue, and it allows producers and distributors to save products ofthe equivalent value. The method of conducting LCA of theenvironmental impact of a system that produces different outputs
as described above is called the product basket method.
Description of this method is provided below as this method wasused in the eco-efficiency analyses of this article.

2) Target of analyses and system boundaries
Processes starting from collection of "miscellaneous plastic" in

JLCA News Letter No.4

4

Case Example

Household

Figure 2 System boundary in LCA of recycling of "miscellaneous plastic" collected in accordance with
the Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging

Separated collection andtransportation in accordancewith the Law for Promotionof Sorted Collection andRecycling of Containers andPackaging (Transportation 1)
Miscellaneous plastic

Target of bidding in accordance with the Law
for Promotion of Sorted Collection andRecycling of Containers and Packaging

Sorting, compression,and packaging (baling)Baledplastic

MR

Mechanicalrecycling

Reclaimed resin

CR1

Recycle into
blast furnace
feed

Flake ofreducing agent for
blast furnace

Recycle into
coke ovenchemicalfeedstock

Flake(coke oven raw
material)

Gasification

Synthetic gases

Power generation by
incineration

Electricity

CR2
Transportation 2

CR3

TR1

TR2

TR3
System boundary

Recycle into
cement raw
materials
and fuel

RPF

Cement raw materials
and fuel

RPF

Note 1: MR stands for mechanical recycling, FR stands for feedstock recycling, and ER stands for energy recovery.
Note 2: Items indicated by thick lines are case examples in accordance with the Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection
and Recycling of Containers and Packaging. Items indicated by thin lines are not subject to the law but areincluded here for analysis of characteristic differences from the case examples in terms of LCA.

The product basket method consists of the following
three steps:

words, add public utility to the actual system, add new resin (x 0.3)
to Comparison system 1, and add new resin (x 0.3) and public
utility to Comparison system 2. After creating system units having
the same set of outputs, environmental burdens of each system
unit are compared.

(A)Estimate outputs that are considered to have the same values
as the actual outputs from individual systems.
(B)To each system add estimated outputs of the remaining
systems to create system units having the same value of predicted
outputs.

4) Designing of treatment method units using the productbasket method
For mechanical recycling (MR), blast furnace feed (FR1), cokeoven chemical feedstock (FR2), gasification (FR3), power
generation by incineration(ER1), cement raw materials and fuel(ER2), RPF (ER3), and landfill (LF), products that are considered tohave the same value as each of the outputs listed above areadded together to create system units having the same set of
outputs. Table 3 shows the result.

(C)Obtain environmental burdens of each system unit andcompare the results.
Here, a simple yet detailed example of the product basket method
is described (Table 2). In this example, environmental burdens are
obtained by the product basket method on the assumption thatplastic is recycled into reclaimed resin in the actual system, usedin power generation by incineration in Comparison system 1, and isused in simple incineration in Comparison system 2. The actual
output from the actual system is reclaimed resin flakes. A productassumed to have the equivalent value is new resin (x 0.3). The
actual output from Comparison system 1 is electricity, and a
product assumed to have the equivalent value is a public utility.
There is no output from Comparison system 2. Based on thesevalues, create system units having the same outputs. In other

JLCA News Letter No.4

5

Case Example
Table 2 Examples of application of the product basket method to simple comparisons ofwaste plastic treatment and disposal systems
1. Outputs of waste plastic treatment and disposal systems and their estimated equivalents
Treatment and disposal system

OutputEstimated equivalent

Actual system

Reclaimed resin

Reclaimed resin flakes

New resin (x 0.3*)

Comparison system 1

Power generation by incineration

Electricity

Electricity (public utility)

Comparison system 2

Simple incineration(None)(None)*From the quality perspective, it is assumed that reclaimed resin flakes are translated into 30% of the same volume of new resin.

2. System units having the same set of outputs to be used in comparison
System unit

Actual output

Estimated equivalent to be added

Actual system unit

Reclaimed resin flakes

Electricity (public utility)

Comparison system unit 1

Electricity

New resin (x 0.3)

Comparison system unit 2(None)

New resin (x 0.3) + electricity (public utility)

Table 3 Designing of treatment method units using the product basket method
AnalysistargetOutputMR unitCoke oven
Synthesized
Reclaimed resin Blast furnacechemicalgases (newly(waste plastic) feed (coal)feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

RPF (coal)CR1 unit

Synthesized
Blast furnace Coke oven
New resinchemicalgases (newly
feed(newlymanufactured) (waste plastic) feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

RPF (coal)CR2 unit

New resin(newlymanufactured)

Blast furnace
feed (coal)

Coke oven
Synthesizedchemicalgases (newly
feedstock
manufactured)(waste plastic)

Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

RPF (coal)CR3 unit

New resin(newlymanufactured)

Blast furnace Coke ovenGases
chemicalfeed (coal)(waste plastic)
feedstock (coal)

Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

RPF (coal)TR1 unit

New resin(newlymanufactured)

Coke oven
Synthesized
Blast furnace chemicalgases (newly
feed (coal)feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(waste plastic-based power
generation)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

RPF (coal)TR2 unit

New resin(newlymanufactured)

Synthesized
Coke oven
Blast furnace
gases (newly
chemicalfeed (coal)feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials
and fuel(waste plastic)

RPF (coal)TR3 unit

New resin(newlymanufactured)

Coke oven
Synthesized
Blast furnacechemicalgases (newly
feed (coal)feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
RPF
materials and(waste plastic)
fuel (coal)

LF unitNew resin(newlymanufactured)

Coke oven
Synthesized
Blast furnacechemicalgases (newly
feed (coal)feedstock (coal) manufactured)Electricity(public utility)

Cement raw
materials andfuel (coal)

JLCA News Letter No.4

6

RPF (coal)Case Example
waste plastic is separated because it cannot be recycled into
products when producing reprocessed resin, and incineration of
the separated resin emits CO2. Mechanical recycling resulted in
the largest economic burden. This is because contract prices for
production of reprocessed resin are high but the recycling rate islow.

5) Results of relative comparison of environmental burdens
and economic burden of the treatment methods
Relative levels of resource and energy consumption, CO2
emission, acidic gases (SOx and NOx) emission, solid waste
discharge, and economic burden, were compared among thetreatment methods. For each item listed above, the treatment
method that marked the highest level was given the value of 100,and the remaining methods were given relative values. Then thevalues for the treatment methods were plotted in a graph (Figure3). Waste plastic-based power generation (ETR1) had the highest
level of CO2 emission, and mechanical recycling (MR) had thesecond highest level of CO2 emission. The lowest CO2 emission
was by gasification (FR3). The reprocessed resin production had
the second highest level of CO2 emission because, when recycling
plastic containers or packaging materials, approximately 50% of

6) Environmental burden integration
Relative positioning of each type of environmental burden wasshown in the previous section. In this section, these environmental
burdens were integrated in order to clarify comprehensive andrelative positioning of each treatment method. Integration was
carried out by first normalizing each type of environmental burden,
then multiplying the normalized environmental burdens byweighting factors, and finally by summing the obtained values.

Figure 3 Relative comparison of environmental burdens and economic burden of each treatment method

Resource (raw material) + energy
100

80

60

40
Economic
burdenGWP(CO2)
20
MR unit0

CR1 unit
CR2 unit
CR3 unit
TR1 unit
TR2 unit
TR3 unit
LF unit

Solid waste materials

AP(SOx,NOx)

MR: mechanical recycling
CR1: recycling into blast furnace feed, CR2: recycling into coke oven chemical feedstock, and CR3: gasification
TR1: waste plastic-based power generation (efficiency: 20%), TR2: recycling into cement raw materials and fuel,and TR3: recycling into RPF

JLCA News Letter No.4

7

Case Example(A)Normalization
Resource consumption and energy consumption were normalized
by being divided by the total domestic consumption.
Environmental burdens were normalized by being divided by the
total domestic emission.

(ER2), recycling into RPF (ER3), and waste plastic-based power
generation (ER1). The second best area included recycling into
coke oven chemical feedstock (FR2) and recycling into blast
furnace feed (FR1). Finally, mechanical recycling and land-fillingwere in the low eco-efficiency area.

(B) Weighting factors
Referred to the weighting factor used by the German Federal
Environmental Agency, the social coefficient in accordance withthe panel method of BASF (a German company), and the social
coefficient used by the Fraunhofer Institute, APME (currently Plastic
Europe), the weighting factors for this study were set as follows:
Resource consumption: 25, energy consumption: 25, emission into
the air: 35, and discharge to the soil: 15.
Breakdown of emission into the air: CO2 & SOx and NOx = 83 and17, respectively.

3. Conclusion
After five years of full enforcement, relevant ministries reviewed theLaw for Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers
and Packaging. Then, the revised Law for Promotion of Sorted
Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging wasapproved in the 164th Diet deliberation although it had additional
resolutions. Now, the ministerial ordinance has been revised,public comments has been collected and incorporated, and theordinance has been fully established.
For the processes
described above, this report has been cited by the deliberationcommittee.
The Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling ofContainers and Packaging will be revised again in five years. The
government will conduct LCA of plastic container and packaging
waste treatments and incorporate the results into law revision.
Meanwhile, various organizations are now more actively involved in
LCA.
We also plan to contribute to society by improving accuracy of theeco-efficiency analyses reported in this article based on fieldsurveys and by releasing analysis results.

7) Result of eco-efficiency analysis of each treatment method
Figure 4 shows the result of eco-efficiency analysis of eachtreatment method. The vertical axis indicates the level ofenvironmental burden. The burden decreases as the scale on theaxis goes upward. The horizontal axis indicates the level of
economic burden, and the burden decreases as the scale on theaxis moves to the right. Therefore, the top right portion of thegraph is the high eco-efficiency area, and the bottom left region is
the low eco-efficiency area. The high eco-efficiency area included
gasification (FR3), recycling into cement raw materials and fuelFigure 4 Eco-efficiency of each treatment method
20

CR3
40

CR2

TR2

CR1

TR3

MR
TR1
60

Small

MR: mechanical recycling
CR1: recycling into blast furnace feed
CR2: recycling into coke oven chemical feedstock
CR3: gasification
TR1: waste plastic-based power generation(efficiency: 20%)
TR2: recycling into cement raw materials and fuelTR3: recycling into RPF
LF: land-filling

80
Environmental burden

Economic burden
100

JLCA News Letter No.4

80

Small

LF 60

8

40

20

0

Case Example
LCA of System Products by
the Hitachi Group

Takayuki Nishi
Information and Communication Group
Hitachi, Ltd

1. Introduction

corresponding basic unit of carbon dioxide (CO2, hereinafter).
The calculation results are thereafter used as burdens on
procurement, recycle and disposal stage in LCA of system,
software, and service products (so-called "system products") as
described in after Chapter 2.
We started to develop the LCA method of system products in 2003.
As the result, SI-LCA (System Integration - Life Cycle
Assessment)4, 5, 6) was developed as a method to convert
environmental burdens over entire life cycle into the volume of CO2
emission and to evaluate it. Here, a life cycle consists of various
stages such as system design, development, procurement,
manufacturing, use, recycling and disposal stage.
This paper presents the outline of SI-LCA, its case study and how
SI-LCA is used within the Hitachi group, and then highlights issues
to be addressed in the future.

At the beginning of 1990's, the Hitachi group developed an LCA
method for hardware products, and incorporated LCA results into
product development or external sales1). An LCA tool is currently
included in environmental design assessment2) conducted at thetime of product development such that both design and life cycle
assessment can be conducted at the same time to support
development of environmentally-friendly products3). Figure 1
shows the overview of the LCA tool included in the environmental
design assessment.
When you input weights of materials constituing products,
packaging materials, time (or cost) required for processingassembly-distribution cycle, and recovery methods in a productinformation sheet, the LCA tool calculates the volume of CO2
emission by multiplying the input data of each item by theEnvironmentally Conscious
design assessment tool

LCA calculation logic
CO2 emission at the time of manufacturing [(A) + (B)]

Product data sheet(A)(material weight x basic unit of material manufacturing)(B) Manufacturing time x basic unit of manufacturing(1) Product name: laptop(2) Product model number: H1234(3) Product weight: 2.0 kg

Automatic calculation and result output(4) Materials and their weights- Aluminum: 0.8 kg- SUS: 0.2 kg

LCA result (CO2 emission)- Board: 0.5 kg- ABS: 0.5 kg- Material manufacturing: 50 kg-CO2(5) Packaging material:- Manufacturing: 20

cardboard box: 2 kg

- Transportation: 8- Use: 200(6) Manufacturing time: 30 minutes- Collection: 7- Recycling and disposal: 25

Note: Values are created for this example

Basic unit
database for LCA

Input information necessary
for LCA.

Figure 1 Overview of LCA calculation in environmentally-friendly product assessment

JLCA News Letter No.4

9

Case Example
2. LCA method and LCA tool for system product(3) Factors for positive and negative effects should bequantitatively calculated.
(4) A user-friendly assessment program should be developed.
An assessment method was examined based on the policy. After
we selected stages that were considered to produce
environmental burdens within the entire life cycle of a system, we
examined them as to whether they should be included as theassessment targets or not. As the result, 10 stages shown in
Figure 2 were selected as the assessment targets. Note that CO2
is the environmental burden to be outputted. Also, for each stage,items listed in Table 1 were examined as factors that led to thegeneration of environmental burdens.

2.1 Development of an assessment method
For the development of SI-LCA, we established the following
policy:(1) A system product consists of combinations of hardware
products (hereinafter devices) and software products (hereinafter
software). Therefore, environmental burdens of devices andsoftware should be assessed at the same time.
(2) Assessment should be performed over the entire life cycle ofthe system.

Supply chain
Design plans and media

Upgrading

Shipment

Design and development

Maintenance

Software products

SupportProcurement(Material and productmanufacturing)

Installation

Transportation (logistics)

On-site work

Hardware products

Use of products

Recycling and disposal
Disposal (land-filling and incineration)

Collection
Recycling chain

Figure 2 SI-LCA target stages

Table 1 Environmental burdens to be assessed in each life cycle stage

JLCA News Letter No.4

No.

Stage

Assessment target

1

Procurement

Manufacturing of device or packaging materials, andproduct manufacturing (processing and assembly)

2

Design and development

Design and development of system configuration orsoftware3

Shipment

Manufacturing and shipment of program storing media
or documents

4Transportation

Transportation of devices to customer

5

Installation

Installation of devices

6

On-site work

Launching of systems

7

Use

System operations at customer's offices (paper or power
consumption, traveling by cars, burdens associated withvarious types of work, other factors that generateenvironmental burdens)

8

Maintenance

Maintenance and upgrading of devices or software duringa system operation period

9Collection

Transportation of used devices to recycling factories

10

Recycling and disposal

Recycling and disposal of devices

10Case Example
We describe assessment methods for each stage of procurement,
recycling, disposal, design, development, use as follows.
We have put great effort and creativity into establishing theassessment methods, particularly for these stages.

produceenvironmental burdens. Environmental burdens are
obtained for each of the items that are expected to produce
environmental burdens.

2.2 Overview of the assessment tool
(1) Procurement and recycling / disposal
Figure 3 shows an example of the input interface of the newassessment tool SI-LCA. A stage is first selected from the list of
stage names on the left side of the screen before data are
inputted. The screen for the selected stage shows types ofenvironmental burdens associated with that stage. After all
applicable environmental burden values are inputted, calculation is
executed when the Confirm (Calculate) button is pressed

We created a system to collect automatically LCA data obtainedfor "material and product manufacturing" and "recycling anddisposal" through environmentally conscious design assessment
described in Chapter 1. Tabulating LCA data for all devices
constituting a system would allow calculation of the amount of CO2
emission for the procurement, recycling and disposal stages.
Note that, when LCA data for other manufacturers' products wererequired, LCA data for our equivalent products were used.

Input screen for the product use stage(2) Design and development

Select a stage

When various types of system products are designed anddeveloped in one building or on one floor, it may be impossible for
us to obtain each environmental burden associated with productdesigning or development for each individual product bytabulating and calculating energy and consumption.
For this reason, we established a method to assess environmental
burdens associated with designing and development of a target
system using an index called business office eco-efficiency. Thisbusiness office eco-efficiency can be obtained by dividing thebusiness sales by the environmental burdens of the entire businessestablishment (building). Formulas are as follows:Business office eco-efficiency ( )Business sales (a) / business establishment environmental
burdens (a')... (A)Environmental burdens associated with designing anddevelopment of each product (b')= Design and development cost (b) / business office eco-efficiency( )... (B)Note that the installation, on-site work, and maintenance stages arealso assessed using business office eco-efficiency.

Burdens produced byservice providers

Burdens produced byservice recipients

Calculate button

Figure 3 SI-LCA input interface (example)
The assessment result shows the amount of CO2 emission for eachstage. At the same time, a bar chart as shown in Figure 4 isprovided. Note that, in addition to the environmental burden for theentire life cycle (bottom half of the screen), the assessment result
for the product use stage in which users are most interested, isdisplayed separately (top half of the screen).

(3) Product use
Assessment targets in the product use stage and the assessment
method are described below.
(a) Paper consumption
At first the number of sheets of paper consumed is converted
into weight. The environmental burden is calculated bymultiplying the obtained weight by the basic unit of CO2
emission at the time of paper production.
(b) Travel by car
This environmental burden is calculated by multiplying the
distance of travel associated with system use and the basic unitof CO2 emission per passenger.
(c) Work
Burdens associated with various types of work still required
even after new system products are installed are first converted
into power consumption (kWh/man-hours) and then multiplied by
the basic unit of CO2 emission for electricity to calculate theenvironmental burdens. It is known that lighting and energy
required for ventilation associated with work produce
environmental burdens and thus are also the targets ofassessment.
(d) Other factors that produce environmental burdens
Burdens on Internet infrastructures due to data transmission or
use of public transportation systems are also known to
JLCA News Letter No.4

Reference product
Assessed product

Reference product
Assessed productAmount of CO2
emission in the
product use stage

Amount of CO2
emission for all
life cycle stages

Figure 4 Example of the SI-LCA assessment result screen

3. Assessment example
In general, the product use stage accounts for most of the burdens
in a system product lifecycle. Some products ,however , have highenvironmental burdens in other stages.
To explain thesevariations, we show case examples of electronic form systemassessment and EXPO 2005 AICHI admission ticket systemassessment.

11

Case Example
3.1 Electronic form system
3.1.1 Overview of an electronic form system and anassessment model 5)

the output and distribution center. The forms were delivered to 10
bases twice a day, and at each base, the forms were sorted anddistributed to 10 departments. In each department, staff members
looked for an objective forms by hand and viewed them.
After the system installation, forms were not outputted unlessnecessary (20,000 forms which was one-tenth of what was printed
out before the installation). The outputted forms were delivered to
10 bases once a day. At each base, the forms were sorted anddistributed to 10 departments. Forms that did not need to beprinted out were stored in the server. Therefore, most forms could
be searched or viewed by accessing the server. Note that theassessment periods before and after the installation was set to 1
year each.

This electronic form system automatically transfers data to servers,
stores data, and manages data instead of printing out forms, inorder to allow viewing and searching of forms using client PCs.
Compared to conventional systems, this system contributes topaperless operation and reduction of printed form delivery. The
example of use of this system at supermarkets in the Tokyo
metropolitan area is described below. Figure 5 shows thebusiness model prior to the system installation, and Figure 6 shows
the business model after the system installation.
Before the system installation, 200,000 forms were printed out at

1

Center

Department

2
1

Base

Print outs:
200,000 forms per day(48 million forms per year)

At each department, 3 staff members
search forms per day
Search time: 1 hour per man-day

4

3

5

4

6

Sorting

5

Store

7

6

Sorting

Search

3

2

8

7

9

8

(storage period expiration)

10

9Delivery to 10 bases(twice a day)10

Recycling

BaseExpired form processing(select forms whose
storage periods are expired)

Not assessed

Figure 5 Business model prior to the electronic form system installation

Server registration: 43.2 million forms(90% of all forms)

Automaticstorage andmanagement

Data transfer

Center

1 Department

Server LCD
Print outs: 20,000 forms per day(4.8 million forms per year)(10% of all forms)

2

5

3

5

Delivery to 10 bases(once a day)

4

2

4

Sorting

3

1 Base6

Sorting

7

At each department,
3 staff members search forms per day
Search time: 0.3 hours per man-day(70% reduction)

Storage679810 Department(storage period expiration)

Recycling

9
10 BaseExpired form processing(select forms whose
storage periods are expired)Figure 6 Business model after the electronic form system installation

JLCA News Letter No.4

Search812

Not assessedCase Example
3.1.2 Assessment result

ProcurementUse585t-CO 2

Beforeinstallation

Table 2 shows assessment results for individual stages, and Figure
7 shows a graph of the assessment results. Most CO2 reduction
resulting from the system installation occurred in the product use
stage where the printing papers and their transportation werereduced.

Afterinstallation

Reduction by 82.0%
107 t-CO 2
0100000200000300000400000500000600000700000

keco2

Procurement
Design and development
Shipment
Transportation
Installation
On-site work
Use (by providers)Use (by recipients)
MaintenanceCollection
Recycling

CO2 emission for the entire life cycle

Table 2 Assessment results before and after
the electronic form system installation
Before installation(kg-CO2)

Stage

Figure 7 Assessment results before and after
the electronic form system installation

After installation(kg-CO2)

Procurement

13,800

4,670

Design anddevelopment

0

1,310

Shipment

0

12

Transportation

34

11

Installation

7

4

On-site work0607

571,000

100,000

Maintenance027Collection

28

9

Recycling and disposal

7

14585,000

107,000

Use

Total
Reduction (%)

3.2 EXPO 2005 AICHI admission ticket system
Section 3.2 describe an example in which the product use stage
accounted for a very large part of environmental burdens.
However, depending on how systems are used, other stages may
account for a large part of environmental burdens, too. As an
example, assessment of the admission ticket system used in EXPO
2005 AICHI, an international exposition held in 2005, is introducedin this section.

3.2.1 Assessment model
At the Expo, Hitachi'sμChip,
which is a kind of radio frequency
identification (RFID) system, was used in the admission ticket
control system to automate admission control. This admission
ticket system was compared to a paper-base admission control
system involved ticket-tearing. We obtained information from theJapan Association for the 2005 World Exposition on the μ-Chipbased admission ticket system such as the entrance gate
specifications, for example, the number of gates installed anddevices constituting the system in order to create the assessment
model. As for the ticket-tearing system, we created a virtual model
for comparison that allowed the same level of admission control as
the μ- Chip-based admission ticket system. Figure 8 shows theassessment model.

82.0

During the Expo

Preparation
Fuelμ- Chip-based admission
ticket system

Ticket-tearing system

Materials and energy

After the Expo

Electricity, water, and other resources

Fuel

Disposal of admission
tickets
Recycling of the gates

Admission ticket
Entrance gate

Gate staff
CO2

CO2

Admission ticketwith a μ-Chipembedded

CO2

CO2
Waste materials

FuelElectricity

CO2

Materials and energy

Fuel

Entrance gates
Mission criticalserver
CO2

Electricity, water, and other resources
Electricity

Disposal of admission
tickets
Recycling of the devices
CO2

CO2

Procurement through on-site work stage

Additional system

CO2
Waste materials

CO2

Use through maintenance stage

Disposal and recycling stage

Figure 8 Admission ticket control systems for comparison

JLCA News Letter No.4

Electricity

13

Case Example
3.2.2 Assessment resultgroup. Therefore, we have been working on these issues while
carrying out product assessment7, 8).

From preparation toafter closing of the Expo

Figure 9 shows the result of SI-LCA. As seen in the result, in thisexample, burdens generated during the period spent on preparing
for the Expo, which were burdens associated with production ofentrance gates and admission tickets, accounted for a large part ofenvironmental burdens. This was because the Expo (the productuse stage) was held only for 6 months, and the burdens generated
during the Expo was not as large as the example introduced in
Section 3.1.

Procurement

Ticket-tearing
system

216t-CO2- Chip-based
admission
ticket system

Reduction by
11%
50000

Standardization of methods of assessing environmental burdens ofsystem products was discussed by the IT Solution Working Group(WG) of the Japan Environmental Efficiency Forum of the Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry.
With
assistant professor Matsuno from the graduate school of Tokyo
University as the chairman, 8 companies participated in this WG.
The WG then published "2005 Guidelines for Assessment of EcoEfficiency of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)9)"in March, 2006. Also, the Japan Environmental Management
Association for Industry published "Environmental Assessment of IT
Society - Green IT -" in July, 2007 to provide detailed description of
the guideline.
The Hitachi group also participated in this standardization project
and was able to establish an SI-LCA method that conformed to theguideline.
Note that this guideline provides the conceptual background andimportant points of eco-efficiency assessment. In addition tounderstanding the environmental burden reduction effect of use of
system products, we hope to start conducting eco-efficiency
assessment in the future. For this, however, quantification of value(benefit), which will be the numerator in calculations, will be an
problem. It is more difficult to quantify the value provided bysystem products than to quantify the value of hardware products
for which the calculation method of functions (value) has alreadybeen established by the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). The
guideline states that ICT value can be expressed using physical,
perceptual, and economic indices. Based on this statement, wehope to explore the method of quantifying value and to use it in
eco-efficiency assessment while continuing our productassessment activities.

Expo period
243t-CO 20

5.2 Development into eco-efficiency assessment

100000150000200000250000

Procurement
Design anddevelopment
Shipment
Transportation
Installation
On-site work
Use (by providers)Use (by recipients)
MaintenanceCollection
Recycling

300000

keco2

CO2 emission for the entire life cycle

Figure 9 Result of EXPO 2005 AICHI admission ticket
system assessment (for the entire life cycle)

4.Assessment target stages from the assessment
result perspective
When the period for using the system is short as seen in the caseof the Expo or depending on the environmental burden elements
during the product use stage, the burdens in stages other than the
product use stage may become high. Therefore, even though theamount of CO2 emission is successfully reduced during the
product use stage, this may not result in a dramatic reduction interms of the entire life cycle.
Also, environmental burdens in the design and development stage
may increase because of long design and development stage
when products with low versatility such as products with uniquecustomer specifications must be developed. For this reason, theassessment of the entire life cycle of a system product isconsidered valuable.

5. Issues
5.1 Internal deployment of SI-LCA
The main objectives of SI-LCA are as follows:(A)Provision of quantitative data to customers to show the
reduction effect of environmental burdens about the installation ofsystem products offered by the Hitachi group(B)Development of products that can reduce environmental
burdens (in the Hitachi group) not only in the product use stage
but also in the other stages as wellIn order to achieve the goal listed above, system engineers (SEs)and sales personnel must learn to be able to conduct SI-LCA.
Currently, LCA methods are introduced at a group company
committee and in internal training programs in order to achievegroup-wide deployment of SI-LCA.
User-friendliness of SI-LCA needs to be improved and its
templates need to be created to facilitate assessment model
creation in order to promote implementation of SI-LCA within the

14

Case Example
6. References
7) M. Usumi, M. Takano, T. Nishi, and H. Sugai: Environmental
Impact Assessment of Integrated Information Management
System, 2006 Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference
on EcoBalance, pp 95-98

1) ECOASSiST website: http://www.ecoassist.com/
2) Namikawa, Hirano, and Tamura: Development of aComprehensive Design for Environmental and Eco-Efficiency
Assessment Tool by the Hitachi Group, EcoDesign 2004 Japan
Symposium papers, 2004, pp. 86-87

8) M. Tani, J. Sanekata, T. Nishi, H. Sugai, and J. Okada:Development of System Integration Life Cycle Assessment (SILCA) Logic and Activities of Eco-Efficiency Indicators for ICT
Solutions in Japan, ITU TELECOM WORLD 2006

3) Hitachi Group CSR Report and Environmentally-Friendly ProductIntroduction Website:
http://greenweb.hitachi.co.jp/ecoproducts/products/index.html

9) Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry:
2005 Guidelines for Assessment of Eco-Efficiency of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT), 2006
http://www.jemai.or.jp/japanese/eco-efficiency/ict.cfm

4) Nishi, Hamatsuka, Tani, and Usumi: System ProductEnvironmental Impact Assessment Method "SI-LCA," EcoDesign
2004 Japan Symposium papers, 2004, pp. 268-271
5) Nishi, Hamatsuka, Tani, and Usumi: Development and Case
Example Examination of a System and Service ProductEnvironmental Impact Assessment Method (SI-LCA), Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment Japan Vol. 2 No. 3, July 2006, pp 281-287
6) Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry:
Examination and Achievement Report on Collection of Information
and Communication Technology (ICT) Service Eco-Efficiency Case
Examples and Calculation Standard, 2004
http://www.jemai.or.jp/CACHE/ecoefficiency_details_detailobj906.cfm

JLCA News Letter No.4

15

Case Example
LCA of Plastic Beer Bottle Cases
and Plastic Pallets

Packaging Technology Development Center
Sapporo Breweries Limited

type of plastic2).

Since the establishment of Kaitakushi Brewery in Sapporo in 1876,
we, Sapporo Breweries, have been studying and developing
barley and hop breeds that are the main ingredients of beer andlow-malt beer for 131 years. Because of our commitments toquality and safety of the ingredients, in 2006, we promoted thecollaborative contract farming system such that Sapporo Breweries
and ingredients producers cooperate to grow the ingredients. As
a result, barley and hops are now 100% produced throughcollaborative contract farming. More specifically, all the barley andhop growing processes before delivery to Sapporo Breweries arecarried out based on close consultation between Sapporo
breweries and the producers, and for these growing processes,
decisions are jointly made on breed selection, cultivation method,
timing of seeding, agrichemical and fertilizer usage, timing of
harvesting, post-harvest sorting, warehouse management state,storage state, and transportation state.
In general, LCA has so far only been conducted with productcontainers. We however conducted LCA of not only containers but
also each product using data of all production processes such asdata on the ingredients during production period obtained from thesystem for the collaborative contract farming, manufacturing data,
and logistics data. As a result, we were registered as a criticalreviewer by the Japan Environmental Management Association for
Industry1) (assessed products: Large-size Sapporo Black Label
633 ml bottle, Sapporo Black Label 350 ml can, and Hokkaido
Namashibori 350 ml can). For the products we offer to ourcustomers, we have been making efforts to be environmentallyfriendly and to protect resources in all manufacturing stages from
ingredients handling to container packaging.
This report introduces one of our recent examples of LCA: LCA on
plastic cases and pallets.

One of the few examples of material recycling of waste plastic fromused plastic is material recycling of plastic beer bottle cases (Pcases, hereinafter) into plastic pallets (P-pallets, hereinafter). Pcases currently used in the market are either made of polyethylene(PE) or polypropylene (PP). These P-cases are always collected atbeer manufacturing factories; therefore, it is possible to collect a
relatively large number of cases, and all used P-cases become theingredients of P-pallets.
P-cases for beer bottles are used as secondary packaging of beerbottles while P-pallets are used for wider purposes such as
secondary and tertiary packaging for carrying P-cases, cans, andbarrels. Although beer manufacturers use their own P-cases, Ppallets were standardized among beer manufacturers and otherbrewers. As a result, P-pallets are shared by these manufacturers(34 companies as of the end of 2005) and cumulatively over 9.7
million P-pallets have been provided to these manufacturers by theend of 20053).

2. Objective
After P-cases reach their product life, 10-cases worth of plastic
material is recycled into one P-pallet, and waste P-cases are 100%
recycled into P-pallet material. The objective of this report is toclarify the advantage of manufacturing P-pallets from waste Pcases instead of from new materials by: using the LCA method
which allows quantitative assessment of environmental impacts;
defining a life cycle flow of P-cases and P-pallets; assessing theirenvironmental impacts; and by comparing the assessment resultswith the case where P-pallets are manufactured using newmaterial.

1. Introduction

3. Method

The Law for Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling ofContainers and Packaging was fully implemented in April 2000,
and plastic recycling is steadily increasing. In Japan, the amountof industrial waste and general waste has been the same for sometime. The amount of waste plastic has also been the same, and it
is now 10.01 million tons per year. According to the statistical dataof 2003, 5.84 million tons of the waste plastic is reused by meansof material recycling, chemical recycling, and thermal recycling.
The breakdown of the 10.01 million tons of waste plastic is asfollows: 9.13 million tons are from used products, and 0.88 million
tons are from production or processing failure. Only 8.5% of waste
plastic from used products, which is 0.78 million tons, is recycled
by means of material recycling. Meanwhile, waste plastic fromproduction or processing failure is 100% recycled. Therefore,
recycling of waste plastic from production or processing failure
accounts for a large part of material recycling of waste plastic.
This is because plastic from production or processing failure has
stable quality and characteristics. By contrast, plastic from usedproducts is not likely to be recycled through material recycling
because foreign materials or objects may be mixed in with thisJLCA News Letter No.4

Tetsuya Monna

3.1 Method
Based on interviews with P-case and P-pallet manufacturers, life
cycle flows and LCI data were created to see how the cases andpallets were handled throughout their life. Then, based on thevalues obtained, environmental impacts of P-cases and P-pallets
were calculated using LCA software JEMAI-LCA Pro (Japan
Environmental Management Association for Industry).

3.2 Functional unit of LCA and scope of the survey
As environmental burdens, a global warming potential (1 GWP = 1
kg-CO2) and an energy consumption coefficient (MJ) wereobtained mainly from carbon dioxide emission. In this report, IPC
100 index (2001) is adopted for GWP. Also, a 1 kg mass of Ppallet material is defined as a functional unit.

16

Case Example
The scope of the survey included the PE production stage, P-casemanufacturing stage, P-case grinding and raw material production
stage, P-pallet manufacturing stage, and the transportation stage
associated with each of the stages listed previously. Note that the
product use stages for P-cases and P-pallets were excluded fromthe survey because P-cases and P-pallets were simply used atbeer factories or during distribution, and no processing was
performed with them or no additional values were attached tothem. Survey data was created based on the actual result of 2000.

- P-cases: for large beer bottles, 2.2 kg mass, and made of PE- P-pallets: 19.0 kg mass and 97% made of PE

4. Result
4.1 Life cycle flow
Figure 1 shows the life cycle flow of P-cases and P-pallets. Notethat this report mainly deals with P-cases and pallets that are madeof PE. Waste P-pallets are ground and recycled as P-palletmaterials, but this processing has been excluded from the flow
(dotted lines with an arrow in Figure 1).

3.3 Target products
The following products were assessed:

Figure 1 Life cycle flow
Colorant

Ink
Electricity
Water

PE material

PE mass: 1.020 kg
Waste plastic 0.003 kg
Waste water

Injection molding
New P-cases

PE mass: 1.020 kg

Transportation

10-ton truck
100 km, loading ratio: 18.5%

New P-cases
Use
Waste P-cases
Transportation

10-ton truck
100 km, loading ratio: 18.5%

Waste P-cases
PE mass: 1.020 kg
Electricity
Water

Ground PC
Transportation
GrommetTape
Electricity
Water

Transportation
10-ton truck, 10 ton/vehicle
200 km, loading ratio: 100%

Waste plastic 0.003 kg
Waste water

Grinding

PE mass: 1.020 kg
10-ton truck, 10 ton/vehicle
200 km, loading ratio: 100%Ground PC

Injection molding

Waste plastic 0.003 kg
Waste water

New P-pallets

Mass: 1.00 kg

Transportation

10-ton truck, 10 ton/vehicle
200 km, loading ratio: 100%

New P-pallets
Use
Waste P-pallets

Product state
Process
Flow direction

JLCA News Letter No.4

17

Case Example

4.2 Life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis

and the bottom parts, gluing of these two parts, and attachment ofglue tapes. Furthermore, P-case manufacturing processes involvea lot of manual labor while P-pallet manufacturing is automatedand thus consumes a lot of energy to operate the manufacturingsystem.

Table 1 shows LCI data obtained from the quantity data that has
been examined. The total energy consumption was 75.94 MJ, andthe global warming potential was 1.51 GWP. This section provides
details of the survey result. In addition to PE, the following
materials are used when P-cases are manufactured: ink (0.01 %),colorant (Master Batch; 4.8%), and industrial water. Since thesematerials are used in a very small amount, they were excluded
from the analysis. As with the case of the P-cases, in addition to
ground PE, grommet (slip-stopper for forks of forklifts) elastomer(1.1%), grip tape LDPE (2.1%), colorant, and ink are used in the
manufacturing of P-pallets, but they were excluded from theanalysis since they were used in a very small amount. If waste Ppallets are ground in the same manner as waste P-cases, they canbe recycled into new P-pallets (Table 1 excludes recycling ofwaste P-pallets).
As for transportation, the distance oftransportation by trucks was estimated by measuring the distance
between bases on a map. Note that transportation of raw materials
was excluded from the analysis.
When energy consumption in the entire life cycle, from PE
manufacturing to transportation, was expressed in percentages,
PE material production accounted for 76% of energy consumption.
Energy consumption by the P-pallet manufacturing stage was thesecond highest at 16%. As for global warming, PE material
manufacturing accounted for 48% of the entire global warming
potential. The second highest percentage was 33% and was
attributed to P-pallet manufacturing. When P-case manufacturing
and P-pallet manufacturing were compared, P-pallet
manufacturing caused energy consumption and global warming
4.5 times more than P-case manufacturing. In other words, for 1
kg of PE, P-pallet manufacturing resulted in higher environmental
burdens than P-case manufacturing. This is because, while the
manufacturing of P-cases requires one-time molding, P-pallet
manufacturing is complicated since it requires molding of the top

5. Discussion
Currently, material recycling is carried out by using waste P-cases
as materials for P-pallet manufacturing. Assuming that P-pallets or
P-cases are manufactured by other procedures, Table 3 shows the
LCA results and environmental burdens for individual procedures.
Note that Table 3 excludes data on combustion energy of PE,
which is 46.05 MJ, since it is shown in Table 2.
Manufacturing of P-pallets from new PE results in the highest
environmental burden level. Recycling of waste P-cases or waste
P-pallets into new P-pallets has the same environmental burden
level which is lower than in the case where new PE is used to
manufacture P-pallets. As with the case of P-pallet manufacturing,
manufacturing of P-cases using waste P-cases results in a lower
environmental burden level than in the case where new PE is used
to manufacture P-cases.
Next, combustion energy of plastic is discussed. Here, it isnecessary to understand that, as shown in Table 2, plastics like PP
and PE have the same level of combustion as kerosene4). As
shown in Table 1, energy of 57.98 MJ needs to be consumed to
produce 1 kg of new PE. Combustion energy of PE however, as
shown in Table 2, is 46.05 MJ. Therefore, the actual energy
consumed up to the point where PE is produced is only 11.93 MJ(57.98 - 46.05 = 11.93). In LCA of plastic materials having highcombustion energy such as PE in this example, how to assess
energy is considered an important point5). When plastic's
combustion energy cannot be effectively used due to, for example,
incineration of used plastic products or using them in land-filling,its combustion energy is considered to have no value. However,technologies such as recycling of waste materials into fuels or
power generation from garbage are now being actively pursued,
and it is expected in the future that the combustion energy of usedplastic can be more effectively used. As shown in the bottom row
in Table 3, this study indicated that a total of 70.02 MJ of energy isconsumed when P-pallets are manufactured using new PE, andwhen combustion energy of PE is excluded, the actual energy
consumption is 23.97. Likewise, it is 14.23 MK when P-cases are
manufactured using new PE.
In any case, even though
combustion energy of PE is considered, manufacturing of P-pallets
or P-cases using new PE resulted in higher environmental burdens
then in the case where P-pallets or P-cases are manufactured
using waste P-pallets or P-cases.
Note that new PE is used in the actual P-case manufacturing inorder to maintain the required case strength and to assure that
there will be sufficient waste P-cases to be used as P-palletmaterial.

Table 1 LCI data

PE
kg

EnergyconsumWater ption
MJ
L

1.02

57.98

Use ofresourcesPE
manufacturing
P-casemanufacturing

Waste material
Waste
plastic
kg

Waste
water
L

Globalwarming
GWP

0.73

2.72

0.003

0.11

Grinding

0.79

1.05

0.010

0.79

0.04

P-palletmanufacturing

1.10

12.30

0.007

1.10

0.50

Total
Transportation
Total

JLCA News Letter No.4

1.89
1.02

1.89

75.94

0.14
0.020

1.89

1.51

18

Case Example

Table 2 Combustion energy 4)

Material

Calorific value [MJ/kg]

High density polyethylene

46.05

Polypropylene

44.13

PET

23.10

Kerosene

44.10

Table 3 Comparison of manufacturing methods (per 1 kg of P-pallets or P-cases)
Manufacturing of
1 kg of P-pallets
from new PE

PE production

Manufacturing of
1 kg of P-pallets
from P-cases

Manufacturing of
1 kg of P-pallets
from P-pallets

Manufacturing of
1 kg of P-cases
from new PE

Manufacturing of
1 kg of P-cases
from P-cases

Energyconsumption

Globalwarming
potential

Energyconsumption

Globalwarming
potential

Energyconsumption

Globalwarming
potential

Energyconsumption

Globalwarming
potential

Energyconsumption

Globalwarming
potential

MJ

GWP

MJ

GWP

MJ

GWP

MJ

GWP

MJ

GWP

57.24

0.72

57.02

0.71

2.67

0.11

2.70

0.11

1.05

0.04

P-casemanufacturing
Grinding

1.05

0.04

1.05

0.04

P-palletmanufacturing

12.03

0.50

12.30

0.50

12.30

0.50

Total Transportation

0.48

0.03

1.30

0.09

1.30

0.09

0.59

0.04

1.19

0.09

Total

70.02

1.25

14.65

0.63

14.65

0.63

60.28

0.86

4.94

0.24

Total excluding
46.05 MJ of
combustion energy

23.97

ー

14.65

ー

14.65

ー

14.23

ー

4.94

ー

6. Conclusion

sen.htm, 2005

In this report, we conducted LCA of P-pallet and P-casemanufacturing and recycling stages based on the information
obtained through interviewing manufacturers. The result indicatedthat recycling of P-cases into P-pallets resulted in lower
environmental burdens than using new PE to manufacture Ppallets. Therefore, waste P-cases are considered to be usedeffectively. The analysis also indicated that recycling resulted inlower environmental burdens even after the combustion energy of
PE was deducted.

4) Plastic Recycling Research Council (ed.): 100 Facts of Plastic
Recycling, Tokyo Shoseki, pp. 29, 2000
5) T. Ota, T. Horiuchi, and S. Ono: Research on Plastic Product Life
Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis, Journal of Japan Association
for Management Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 53 - 60, 2003
6) K. Narita, S. Ono, T. Ota, and T. Monna: LCA of Polyethylene Vinyl
Beer Case Recycling, Collection of Abstracts for the 1st Institute ofLife Cycle Assessment of Japan Presentation Meeting, pp.124 - 125,
2005

References
1) Sapporo Breweries: Report on Beer Life Cycle Assessment,
Report #CR02, March 28, 2005
2) Plastic Waste Management Institute: Current Practice ofProduction, Disposal, Recycling, Processing, and Treatment of
Plastic Products, 2004
3) Brewers Association of Japan: Winter Press Conference with
Executive Director Namamura, http://www.brewers.or.jp/outline/kaiken-

JLCA News Letter No.4

19

ReportIntroduction of LCA education to
universities and development ofenvironmental consciousness
1. Introduction

Associate professor
Environmental Consciousness Education
School of General Education
Shinshu University

examples of products that were already distributed, in use, andfamiliar to us, using calculators and PCs in order to learncalculation methods and how to interpret the results. In the 1styear course, the students learned the ISO14040-specified essential
skills for defining the objective and setting the scope of the survey,
conducting life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis, conducting life cycle
impact assessment (LCIA), and interpreting the assessment
results. In the 3rd and 4th year, students studied not only therequisite skills but also elective skills called the damage
assessment skills (assessment of health effects on individuals).
Through this, the objective of this course was to promote students'
understanding of how to read the environmental reports released
by companies or organizations and how to interpret quantitativeenvironmental information on products closely related to our daily
lives such as the Typeenvironmental label (ECO-LEAF) using
LCA method. Also, a shift from vague awareness of theenvironmental issues and passive actions to active participation ordecision making in environmental activities was another objectiveof this course.

While the question has been raised as to how the environment,science, technology, economic efficiency, and sociality should be
integrated so as to solve environmental issues, the necessity ofenvironmental education at universities has grown anddevelopment of practical and environmentally-conscious humanresources has become important. For this reason, Shinshu
University begun creating environmental management systems(EMS) at all its campuses, starting with the acquisition of the EMS(ISO14001) certification at the Wakasato Campus (faculty ofengineering) in 2001. In 2004, this project was selected as a
"distinctive university education support program (education GP)"by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology. Then, the university set its sights on the developmentof awareness of the environment from the life cycle point of view byencouraging people to be environmentally-conscious in their daily
lives. In October, 2007, we were able to obtain the EMS
certification at the Matsumoto Campus (the faculty of medicine andits affiliated hospital will obtain the certification in 2009), and now
all seven campuses are EMS certified. Currently, the students inthese campuses are powerful promoters of environmental
management or preservation activities, creating what we call ecocampuses.

3. Result and discussion
Figure 1 shows the changes in the number of students enrolled in
the LCA course, starting from the year in which this course was first
introduced. As a result of the acquisition of the EMS certification at
all the campuses and being selected as the education GP, atShinshu University, university policy and the approach toenvironmental issues are widely announced on the university
website or in each faculty building. Also, starting from 2006, all 1styear students must take a 2-credit course on the environment
regardless of their faculty or department. For this reason, thenumber of 1st year students taking the LCA course has been
increasing.

Also, since students are both consumers and a part of the society,they must be able to make decisions on environmentally-conscious
consumption as well as purchasing to contribute to the formation ofa sustainable society and also to think about these activities fromthe life cycle point of view. In order to develop the ability to realize
the above, the university started a course on life cycle assessment(LCA). It was introduced in 2000 as a basic course for all
departments, specifically targeting 3rd and 4th year engineering
students. Then, in 2002, it became available as a 1st year liberalarts course for all faculties and departments.

600

This article reports how students' awareness of environmental
issues changed before and after they participated in the LCA
lecture and training when the LCA education was first introduced.
Note that this report is based on the result of a free-answer survey(multiple answers were allowed) administered to these students1).

500

Number400

2. Objective and method
Since questions on LCA started to be included in the national
central test for university2), every year, I have asked our students
on the first day of the course if they knew anything about LCA,
even if only by name. In many cases students were too shy toraise their hands, but still, there were always only a few students
who showed that they knew or had heard of LCA. Most students
learned about LCA for the first time in my course.

300

200

100

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2006

1st year students
3rd and 4th year students

Figure 1 Changes in the number of LCA
course students

In the course, we examined an overview of the current global
issues, examined LCA of blow-type hair dryers and laptops, as

JLCA News Letter No.4

Mitsuru Kobayashi

20Report
The answers provided in the survey administered during the classwere divided into the following six types: (A) effect of introductionof LCA, (B) knowledge of LCA, (C) examination and changes inlifestyle, (D) consumer awareness, (E) approach to environmental
issues, (F) recycling, and (G) others. Description of each answer
type is as follows. (A) The effect of introduction of LCA describes
what the students learned through LCA practice. (B) Knowledge of
LCA describes issues and opinions of the students about LCA
methods or calculation. (C) Examination and changes in lifestyledescribes whether or not LCA provided the students with anopportunity to review or examine their lifestyle. (D) Consumerawareness describes if the students as consumers experienced
changes in awareness of environmental issues. (E) Approach toenvironmental issues describes how the students approachedenvironmental issues from a personal to global level based on the
results of LCA of products that they used in their lives. (F)Recycling describes how the students changed their awareness ofrecycling. (G) Others includes opinions of the students about how
the lecture was given or students' acquisition of PC skills.
Figure 2 shows the result of the survey administered after the 1styear students finished training of requisite LCA skills (2nd term,2004). A total of 160 answers were divided into the above-listed
six types. For (A) the effect of introduction of LCA, there were 49
answers (31%). Examples of the answers were as follows: "I did
not have any clear image of environmental issues before, butseeing specific values made me understand their immediate
importance," "I learned to see environmental issues from a newperspective," and "I was able to understand some of the concepts
of environmental burdens and energy-saving products." For (B)knowledge of LCA, there were 23 answers (14%). Examples of theanswers were as follows: "I was able to understand how to conduct
LCA and the meaning of calculation," "I believe information on LCA
should be known by people and should be given to people," "I
think calculation is difficult," and "I think calculation is quite
interesting." For (C) examination and changes in lifestyle, there
were also 23 answers (14%). Examples of the answers were as
follows: "I want to decrease unnecessary use of energy," "I would
like to save energy at home," "I will remember what I learned thenext time I purchase an appliance," and "I should reexamine
energy consumption in my daily life."
For (D) consumerawareness, there were 15 answers (9%). Examples of the answers
were as follows: "Dramatic changes in consumers' awareness will
be necessary soon," "The benefit of development of energy-saving
products relies on consumers' awareness of energy saving," and"Customers must be careful of how they use blow-type hair dryers."
For (E) approach to environmental issues, there were 36 answers(23%). Examples of the answers were as follows: "I never used tothink about the environment when I purchased products," "We
should support eco-friendly development of developing countries,"and "The most effective solution to the environmental issue is ecofriendly actions by individuals instead of national or city-level
actions." For (F) recycling, there were 12 answers (8%). Examplesof the answers were as follows: "I became interested in recycling
when I saw actual values related to recycling," "I reconfirmed the8%1%

benefit of recycling," and "I would like to recycle resources too."For (G) others, there were 2 answers (1%). The answers were as
follows: "I used a PC very often within these 2 weeks and I reallyfelt like I was living in the information society," and "Among topicspecific lectures, LCA was one of the most difficult topics that I
studied."
Although 1st year students studied about LCA for the first time,they had already been exposed to general information or
knowledge of environmental issues through senior high schoolclasses, newspapers, TV, and advertisements. Therefore, not only
what they felt about the LCA results, but also a wide range ofanswers such as changing lifestyle, improvements that consumers
could make, and environmental issues in society were submitted.
Environmental issues were vague ideas for the students, butlearning about LCA seemed to motivate the students to obtain new
knowledge from the LCA results or to participate in environmental
protection activities.
Next, figure 3 shows the result of the survey administered after the
3rd and 4th year students finished training of requisite LCA skills(1st term, 2004). As with the case of the survey with the 1st year
students, a total of 81 answers were divided into the six types
mentioned above. For (A) the effect of introduction of LCA, there
were 33 answers (41%). Examples of the answers were as follows:"Environmental burdens can be quantitatively assessed,""Calculation gave us a clearer image," "LCA let me develop a new
way of thinking," and "I now think differently." For (B) knowledge of
LCA, there were 22 answers (27%). Examples of the answers wereas follows: "If presented in an easy-to-understand way, people canraise their awareness of environmental issues," "Both in arts andscience, we all need to learn how to perform LCA," and "It is hardbecause there are a lot of calculations to do." For (C) examinationand changes in lifestyle, there were 3 answers (4%). The answers
were as follows: "I felt it was necessary to try to reduce
environmental burdens in our daily lives," "We need to thinkcarefully when we use energy," and "We need to decrease
unnecessary use of energy." For (D) consumer awareness, there
were 4 answers (5%). Examples of the answers were as follows:"Consumers must think about environmental issues when they
make purchases," "Consumers need to actively perform LCA," and"Consumers need to think carefully about the use of energy." For(E) approach to environmental issues, there were 9 answers (11%).
Examples of the answers were as follows: "Our view ofenvironmental issues is very vague, and it is difficult to realize
these issues do exist even though we conceptually understandwhat they are," "I confirmed my belief that a large amount of CO 2
was still emitted," and "the expression energy-saving is too
abstract, and therefore, it is necessary to provide more concreteand detailed information." For (F) recycling, there were no answers(0%). For (G) others, there were 10 answers (12%). Examples of
the answers were as follows: "It was easy because I used a PC,"
"Manufacturing of one product involves many tasks," and "Thecourse was easy to understand because I took the LCA course
when I was in 1st year."

12%

31%

0%
Effect of introduction of LCA

23%

Knowledge of LCA
Examination and changes in lifestyle
Consumer awarenessConsumer awarenessApproach to environmental issues
Recycling
Others.

Others.
27%

14%
Figure 2 Result of the survey with the 1st year students(after training of requisite skills)
JLCA News Letter No.4

Examination and changes in lifestyle

4%

Recycling
14%

Knowledge of LCA

5%Approach to environmental issues
9%41%
Effect of introduction of LCA

11%

Figure 3 Result of the survey with the 3rd and 4th year students(after training of requisite skills)

21

ReportFigure 4 is an integration of Figures 2 and 3 that show the result of
the survey conducted with 1st year students and 3rd and 4th year
students after LCA practice was finished. The 3rd and 4th year
students often provided comments on LCA methods, LCA results,
and discussions based on the LCA results. Answers regarding theeffect of introduction of LCA and knowledge of LCA accounted forabout 68%, which was a dramatically different percentage from the
proportion of answers submitted by the 1st year students. The 3rd
and 4th year students take courses specialized in the environment
within the department they are registered in, and within thedepartments, the EMS student committee is actively promoting thecreation of eco-campuses. Therefore, they have more knowledge
than the 1st year students about environmental issues in general orinformation useful for solving these issues. This seems to be thereason why the 3rd and 4th year students often submitted answers
regarding LCA since they were interested in the method ofassessment of LCA itself and the method of calculation in the LCA
assessment.
Finally, the 3rd and 4th year students studied not only the requisite
skills but also elective skills called the damage assessment skills(assessment of health effects on individuals). The same survey
was conducted after the training and its result is shown in Figure 5.
There were a total of 38 responses. There were 17 answers (31%)
for (A) the effect of introduction of LCA, 10 answers (26%) for (B)knowledge of LCA, 0 answers (0%) for (C) examination andchanges in lifestyle, 1 answer (3%) for (D) consumer awareness, 7
answers (18%) for (E) approach to environmental issues, 0
answers (0%) for (F) recycling, and 3 answers (8%) for (G) others.
As with the case of Figure 3, answers regarding the effect of
introduction of LCA and knowledge of LCA accounted for about
71%, and the result thus indicated that the students' interest

0%

8%

4 5%
Effect of introduction of LCA

18 %Knowledge of LCA
Examination and changes in lifestyle
Consumer awareness3%0%

Approach to environmental issues
Recycling
Others.

26%

Figure 5 Result of the survey with the 3rd and 4thyear students (after training of elective skills)

focused on understanding and interpretation of the LCA method
once they learned how to conduct the assessment in detail. Notehowever, the number of responses collected was approximately
47% of the previously introduced survey whose result is shown in
Figure 3. For this, it is suspected that the response ratio may havebeen affected by whether or not the students believed in the valueof mastering highly specialized but non-requisite assessment skills.
In the future, it may be necessary to examine the lecture coverageand method to teach more versatile elective skills.

100

Response (%)

8060

Effect of introduction of LCA
Knowledge of LCA
Examination and changes in lifestyle
Consumer awareness40

Approach to environmental issues
Recycling
Others.

20

0
1st year students

3rd and 4th year students

Figure 4 Comparison of the results of the survey with the 1st year students and 3rd and 4th year
students (after training of requisite skills)

JLCA News Letter No.4

22

Report
4. Conclusion

only promoted students' understanding or mastering of the LCA
method but also, in order to lead to solutions to immediate
environmental issues as well as global environmental issues, thecourse has provided information useful for reviewing conventional
lifestyles and raised individuals' awareness of the necessity of newenvironmental improvement actions in environmental protection
activities associated with consumption and social life. It is hopedthat the LCA course will be linked with other environment-related
courses or practical EMS education and be implemented widely as
a new course for developing environmentally-conscious membersof society.

In addition to the traditional practical education through acquisitionof the EMS certification, LCA courses were newly introduced. This
resulted in a large number of changes in the students' awarenessof environmental issues.
Many students seemed to be interested in environmental issues,
but such concepts were unclear to them. Therefore they seemed
to collect information on these issues. By learning how toquantitatively assess environmental impacts of products that theyused everyday and by calculating environmental burdens,
environmental impacts, and damage caused by those products,
the students seemed to further develop their interest in assessment
methods, and at the same time, started to be conscious ofreviewing their lifestyle or eco-friendly activities. For example, after
the training, many students made comments about improvement in
the use of appliances, which they used to use without muchthought, or energy saving such as reducing the time they spend
drying their hair using blow-type hair dryers and purchasingenergy-saving PCs.
By being introduced into the university, the LCA course has not

JLCA News Letter No.4

References
1) M. Kobayashi and T. Fujii: 2005 Engineering and Industry
Education Research Lecture, Collection of Papers for Presentation,
Japanese Society for Engineering Education, pp. 318 - 19, 2005
2) Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry: LCA
Japan Forum News, Vol. 21, p. 10, 2001

23

Information
2008 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics
June 30-July 2, 2008
Cambridge, UK

ISIE
http://www.fastconf.com/isie2008/

2008 Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE)
August 3-6, 2008
New York City, USA

ASME
http://asmeconferences.org/idetc08/

8th Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production
September 18-20, 2008
Cebu, PHILIPPINESAPRSCP
http://www.aprscp.org/roundtables/8th.htm

Life Cycle Assessment VIII
September 30-Octber 2, 2008
Seattle, USA

American Center for Life Cycle Assessment
http://www.lcacenter.org/

Sustainable Innovation 08
Octber 27-28, 2008
Malmo, SWEDEN

The Centre for Sustainable Design
http://www.cfsd.org.uk/

SETAC North America 29th Annual Meeting
November 16-20, 2008
Tampa, Florida, USA

SETAC
http://tampa.setac.org/default.asp

JSWME 19th Annual Conference
November 19-21, 2008
Kyoto University Clock Tower Centennial Hall, JAPANJSWME
http://www.jswme.gr.jp/international/

8th International Conference EcoBalance
December 10-12, 2008
Tokyo, JAPANJLCAJ
http://www.sntt.or.jp/ecobalance8/

The 10th Eco Products 2008 - Eco Style Fair
December 11-13, 2008
Tokyo, JAPANhttp://www.eco-pro.info/eco2008/english/index.html

2008 International Conference on Environment (ICENV 2008)
December 15-17, 2008
Penang, MALAYSIA

ICENV
http://chemical.eng.usm.my/ICENV2008/

Eco-products International Fair 2009
March 19-22, 2009
Manila, PHILIPPINES

APO
http://www.apo-tokyo.org/index.htm

Planning & Information Sub-Committee:
Dr. Norihiro Itsubo
Musashi Institute of Technology
Mr. Kiyoshi Ueno
United Nations University
Mr. Yasuhiko Morita
The Japan Electrical Manufacturers' Association
Dr. Kiyoshi Shibata
Chiba Institute of Technology
Mr. Junichi Nakahashi Plastic Waste Management InstituteEditor's AddressLife Cycle Assessment Society of Japan (JLCA)LCA Development Office, JEMAI(Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry)
2-1, Kajicho 2-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-0044
tel: +81-3-5209-7708
fax: +81-3-5209-7716
E-mail: jlca@jemai.or.jp
http://www.jemai.or.jp/english/

JLCA News Letter No.4