Acknowledgements

THE 2020 VISION WORKGROUP 

Derry Allen, US EPA National Center for Environmental Innovation 

Shannon Davis, US EPA Region 9 

Priscilla Halloran, US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Peggy Harris, California Department of Toxic Substances Control 

Kathy Hart, US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Jennifer Kaduck, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Angela Leith, US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Clare Lindsay, US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Mark McDermid, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Wayne Naylor, US EPA Region 3 

Sam Sasnett, US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Scott Palmer, US EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Karen Sismour, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Pam Swingle, US EPA Region 4 

Contractor support provided by Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. and 

SRA International. 

EPA530­R­09­009
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. i

Introduction: Our Material World................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1: A Resource Hungry World.......................................................................... 4

Understanding the Flow of Materials......................................................................... 4

Trends in Global Material Consumption and Environmental Impact ............................... 4

Trends in U.S. Material Consumption and Environmental Impact .................................. 7

Global and U.S. Trends: Looking Ahead ................................................................... 8

Leading the U.S. to a More Sustainable Future: Materials Management ....................... 10

How Does Materials Management Differ From Current Approaches? ............................ 13

Chapter 2: Building an Analytic Framework................................................................ 18

Developing the Framework ................................................................................... 18

Applying the Framework to the U.S. Economy ......................................................... 20

What We Found .................................................................................................. 22

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 3: Workgroup Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Materials 

Management ...................................................................................................... 27

Recommendation 1: Promote efforts to manage materials and products on a 

life-cycle basis .................................................................................................... 28

Recommendation 2: Build capacity and integrate materials management approaches 

in existing government programs .......................................................................... 33

Recommendation 3: Accelerate the broad, ongoing public dialogue on life-cycle 

materials management ........................................................................................ 37

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Materials Consumption in the United States by Sector of Origin, 1975–2000 ....... 2

Figure 2: The Flow of Materials .................................................................................. 5

Figure 3: Framework for Examining Materials Management.......................................... 11

Figure 4: Materials Management Approaches ............................................................. 12

Figure 5: Example of a Life-cycle Materials Management Approach for Packaging ............ 17

F

Table 1: Summary of Top-Ranked Materials, Products, and Services.............................. 25

igure 6: U.S. Supply Chain Perspectives .................................................................. 21

Appendix: Relative Ranking Technical Support Document

(separate document)
Executive Summary 

We live in a material world. How our society 

uses materials is fundamental to many aspects 

of our economic and environmental future. If 

we want the U.S. to be competitive in the wor

economy, the sustainable use of materials must 

be our goal. 

ld 

Our key message is simple. 

• Our use of materials is very large and 

increasing with population and economic 

growth. Energy and water use accompany 

materials use. 

• Our use of materials now challenges the capacity of the Earth – air, water and land – to 

withstand the many resulting environmental problems. This situation fundamentally 

affects many other aspects of our future, such as the economy, energy and climate. We 

need to fulfill our human needs and prosper while using less material, reducing toxics 

and recovering more. Business as usual cannot continue. 

• The public and private sectors have many of the tools that we need to manage materials 

much more carefully than we typically do today. However, these tools are seldom used 

to address the full life cycle of materials. This report describes specific measures that 

EPA and state environmental agencies can take to: (1) promote efforts to manage 

materials and products on a life-cycle basis, using present authorities, (2) build our 

capacity to manage materials in the future, and (3) accelerate the public dialogue 

necessary to start a generation-long shift in how we manage materials and create a 

green, resilient and competitive economy. We should begin aggressively. 

Our Material World

The foundation that underlies the world economy, prosperity and a healthy environment 

rests largely on how people extract and use the full range of materials that come from and 

return to the Earth such as wood, minerals, fuels, chemicals, agricultural plants and 

animals, soil, and rock. 

The world at large and the United States in particular use vast amounts of materials and 

those amounts are rapidly increasing. 

Executive Summary | Page i 
Î In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources than in all previous 

history. 

Î The U.S. consumed 57% more materials in the year 2000 than in 1975; the global 

increase was even higher. 

Î With less than 5% of the world’s population, the U.S. was responsible for about onethird of the world’s total material consumption in 1970-1995. 

Î In 1900, 41% of the materials used in the U.S. were renewable (e.g., agricultural, 

fishery, and forestry products); by 1995, only 6% of materials consumed were 

renewable. The majority of materials now consumed in the U.S. are nonrenewable, 

including metals, minerals, and fossil-fuel derived products. 

Î Our reliance on minerals as fundamental ingredients in the manufactured products used 

in the U.S.—including cell phones, flat-screen monitors, paint, and toothpaste—requires 

the extraction of more than 25,000 pounds of new nonfuel minerals per capita each 

year. 

Î This rapid rise in material use has led to serious environmental effects such as habitat 

destruction, biodiversity loss, overly stressed fisheries, and desertification. 

Projections are that between 2000 and 2050, world population will grow 50%, global 

economic activity will grow 500%, and global energy and materials use will grow 

300%. Commenting on the effects of material resource use on the environment, the heads 

of major research institutes in the United States, Germany, Japan, Austria, and the 

Netherlands have noted that “unless economic growth can be dramatically decoupled 

from resource use and waste generation, environmental pressures will increase 

rapidly.

1” 

The strategic importance of materials is causing many people to look very carefully at all 

aspects of the material life cycle that comprise our industrial practices and consumer habits. 

The material lifecycle begins with the extraction or harvesting of raw materials. Materials 

are then transported and processed to create the products and services that drive our 

society. They are distributed, consumed, reused or recycled, and ultimately disposed. 

Each stage of this cycle requires energy and water as inputs and creates impacts on the 

environment. Because the stages are interrelated, it is important that sound approaches to 

materials use consider the entire life cycle. The price system, regulatory framework, 

technical information and human mindsets must all work together to enable and encourage 

life-cycle materials management – an approach to serving human needs by 

using/reusing resources most productively and sustainably throughout their life 

cycles, generally minimizing the amount of materials involved and all the 

associated environmental impacts.

By considering system-wide impacts, life-cycle materials management casts a far broader 

net than traditional waste and chemicals management approaches and represents a change 

Executive Summary | Page ii 
in how we think about environmental protection. There are many means by which life-cycle

materials management can be accomplished. For instance, careful industrial and product 

design that reduces virgin material use and reuses materials can reduce impacts throughout 

e system. 

ve the 

o 

rtain impacts, but rarely take meaningful account of upstream or 

ownstream effects. 

e view of 

eir materials and processes and becoming more sustainable and competitive. 

Origin of This Report

m 

ving in this direction and in the years that followed they have continued to 

ake progress. 

t 

 develop a roadmap to accelerate the move toward sustainable 

aterials management. 

Building an Analytic Framework

eously. 

nt 

th

While there are a number of existing EPA and state programs that are helping to mo

U.S. toward a more material-efficient society, there is no comprehensive materials 

management strategy at the Federal level. Regulations and economic instruments seek t

prevent or mitigate ce

d

To accomplish the shift to life-cycle materials management, governments at all levels need

to make systematic efforts to enable, encourage, and collaborate with all parts of society, 

including business and consumers, to ensure that materials are used more efficiently and 

effectively. There is much work to be done, but there also is reason for modest optimism. 

An increasing number of industries and individual companies are taking a life-cycl

th

In 2002, EPA published “Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 

2020”—commonly referred to as the 2020 Vision. The 2020 Vision was the product of a 

state/EPA workgroup and was endorsed by EPA and state environmental and waste progra

officials. One of the key findings was the need for society to shift focus away from waste 

management toward materials management. Even before the Vision’s release, states and 

EPA had been mo

m

In January 2007 the directors of EPA’s waste and chemical programs convened the presen

2020 Vision Workgroup to

m

The U.S. economy is a highly complex and intertwined system that transforms a few 

hundred raw materials into thousands of products. It would be unrealistic to focus on and 

transform all the materials and products consumed in an entire economy simultan

Instead, the Workgroup recommends a strategy that includes a few well-chosen 

demonstration projects to provide insights into applying integrated materials manageme

approaches (including the need for better coordination of resources, product and waste 

programs). To help identify candidates for these demonstration projects, the Workgroup 

developed a framework to relatively rank the materials, products and services consumed in

the U.S. from a life-cycle perspective, accounting for the environmental impacts, resource 

Executive Summary | Page iii 
use (material, energy, water), and waste. This framework reflects the Workgroup’s 

that these are the types of information that must be accounted for from a lifecycle 

perspective when applying materials management. Thirty-eight (38) materials, products 

and services were identified as possible candidates for demonstration projects. These can b

roughly grouped into construction and development, food products and servi

belief 

e 

ces, forestry, 

etals, nonrenewable organics, textiles, and other products and services. 

Recommendations  

r 

d Development (OECD) and the Group of 8 

8) endorsed by the United States in 2008. 

d 

cus of 

 should be expanded to encompass life-cycle 

aterials management more fully. 

ing 

o 

s. EPA and states should 

cognize and support champions who make this happen. 

eholder 

omentum 

icipate in 

ternational efforts related to sustainable material management. 

m

The Workgroup makes three major recommendations to EPA and state environmental 

agencies. Some of these recommendations reflect points in international agreements unde

the Organization for Economic Cooperation an

(G

1. Promote efforts to manage materials and products on a life-cycle basis. EPA an

state environmental agencies should initiate demonstration projects on a few well-chosen 

materials and products to show the value of integrated materials management strategies. 

Further, these agencies should incorporate materials management as an important strategic

approach for addressing climate change and other environmental challenges. The fo

existing chemical and waste programs

m

2. Build capacity and integrate materials management approaches in exist

government programs. EPA and state environmental agencies must ensure the 

availability of data and decision tools needed to support life-cycle materials management, 

including necessary research. Materials management strategies should be integrated int

regulatory development, permitting and partnership program

re

3. Accelerate the broad, ongoing public dialogue on life-cycle materials 

management. Governments alone cannot bring about the shift to life-cycle materials 

management. EPA and state environmental agencies should convene multi-stak

national dialogues on materials management to create public awareness of the 

environmental consequences of material and product choices and accelerate the m

toward change at all levels. It also will be critical for the Agency to part

in

Executive Summary | Page iv 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDATION 1: Promote efforts to 

manage materials and products on a life-cycle 

basis. 

1.1 Select a few materials/products for an 

integrated life-cycle approach, and launch 

demonstration projects. 

1.2 Expand the focus of existing environmental 

programs to encompass life-cycle materials 

management more fully. 

1.3 Promote specific materials management 

approaches that can help address climate 

change. 

1.4 Promote greener products, product 

stewardship, and product-to-service 

transformations. 

1.5 Strengthen market signals to reduce waste and 

other adverse environmental impacts 

throughout the life cycle of materials. 

RECOMMENDATION 2: Build capacity and 

integrate materials management approaches 

in existing government programs. 

2.1 Establish and improve databases to promote 

materials management. 

2.2 Improve decision tools to support life-cycle 

materials management. 

2.3 Expand research and innovations support 

programs to promote materials management. 

2.4 Emphasize materials management in EPA and 

state processes and procedures. 

2.5 Support and reward federal, state, tribal, and 

local champions for materials management and 

encourage collaboration. 

RECOMMENDATION 3: Accelerate the broad, 

ongoing public dialogue on life-cycle materials 

management. 

3.1 Stimulate a national conversation about 

materials management, engaging multiple 

networks. 

3.2 Open a dialogue on economic instruments to 

encourage better materials management. 

3.3 Create ways to share knowledge on materials 

management. 

These recommendations represent 

parallel paths that should be taken at 

the same time. Specific actions 

described under each recommendation 

are a mix of near term and long term 

efforts to develop the data, information, 

programs, policies, and partnerships 

that will begin to change the ways we 

think about and use materials. 

These changes will not be easy. This 

report is a roadmap to the year 2020 – 

eleven years away. While this is not 

enough time to complete the changes 

recommended, it is enough time to 

make substantial progress. Starting 

now is critical because many of the 

issues we are facing require long-term 

solutions that cannot be put into place 

quickly when a problem becomes 

obvious or acute. The recommendations 

can be an important element of our 

national strategy to address current 

economic, energy, environment and 

climate issues and set us on a course to 

be more prosperous, competitive and 

resilient for years to come. 

Executive Summary | Page v 
Introduction: 

Our Material World 

Wood, minerals, fuels, chemicals, agricultural 

plants and animals, soil, rock and other 

materials form the foundation that underlies 

both the economy and the environment. 

Climate change, energy policy, and the 

economy all create headlines, but the stories 

that follow often miss the point that all these 

issues are, in part, symptoms of how we use 

materials. It is becoming increasingly clear 

that how we use materials is a large factor in 

energy use, climate change and the economy, and an important issue in its own right. 

Therefore, if we want to address the issues behind the headlines, and if we want the U.S

be competitive in the world economy, sustainable use of materials must be our goa

. to 

l. 

The United States uses vast amounts of materials and these amounts are rapidly 

increasing—we consumed 57% more materials (by weight) in the year 2000 than we did in 

1975 (see Figure 1). As described in Chapter 1, the global increase in materials use was 

higher. Materials returning to the environment increased 26% from 1975 to 2000 and the 

amounts remaining in use (mainly as durable products, buildings and roads, or “net 

additions to stock”) rose 83%.2 Historically, population and economic growth and new 

technologies have translated almost automatically into increased use of materials, energy 

and water. 

No matter how one does the calculations, the implications of current patterns of material 

use for the environment (including climate), the economy and our survival are profound and 

unsustainable. We must change the historical relationship of materials, energy, growth and 

the environment. When used carefully, materials hold the keys to enormous opportunity, 

both as our nation competes in the global economy and as we move into the 21st century. 

Used carelessly, materials hold another set of keys, which open equally large threats to our 

health, our economy and our environment. 

The opportunities presented by sound life-cycle approaches to using materials are being 

demonstrated in many places today. During the past several years, many companies and 

organizations have discovered ways to do what was previously thought improbable or even 

impossible. By changing the ways they use materials, they have found ways to lighten their 

Introduction | Page 1 
environmental impacts significantly while increasing profit. They are making the U.S. more 

competitive with products that are recognized as more sustainable. 

0,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Material Consumption (DMC)

(millionmetric tons)

Forestry

Agriculture

Nonrenewable

Organic

Material

Metals and

Minerals

Figure 1: Materials Consumption in the United States by Sector of Origin, 1975–2000 

Source: WRI Material Flows Database 2005 

Threats to our environment caused by the ways we use materials are all around us and are 

not new. In 1992, world leaders participating in the Earth Summit declared that “a 

principal cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the 

steady increase in materials production, consumption and disposal.”3 In response, 

governments around the world, including the U.S., have acknowledged the goal of 

sustainable material use, but have struggled with how to achieve it. 

This struggle about how best to manage materials demands a new level of awareness and 

cooperation within and between nations. The world shares a finite set of materials and other 

natural resources. We must know and respect the limits in order to live together and thrive 

within our means. 

The current economic situation makes the opportunities and threats related to materials 

even more significant than they were only a short time ago. We are at a moment when 

many people are receptive to new approaches for the economy and the environment. We 

also observe many people and companies moving to use and spend less that they did 

previously. 

It is not clear what choices individuals and companies will make. Therefore, it is 

important that both the federal and state governments make more systematic 

efforts to enable, encourage, and collaborate with all parts of society to see that 

materials are used more effectively and efficiently with less overall environmental 

toll. 

Introduction | Page 2 
These changes will not be easy. This report is a roadmap to the year 2020—eleven years 

away. Eleven years is not enough time to complete the changes this report describes, but it 

is enough time to make substantial progress. 

There are actions we can take now that would build on our present programs and enhance 

our capacity for the future. We also need to accelerate the broad public dialogue about 

materials management to develop a common understanding, an ethic, a vision and a plan to 

move ahead. The recommendations in this report can be an important element of our 

national strategy to address the recent economic, energy, environment and climate 

headlines and set us on a course to be more prosperous, competitive and resilient for years 

to come. 

This report builds on an effort begun in 1999, 

when EPA and state environmental agencies 

began a national dialogue through the Future 

of Waste Roundtable to suggest new ways of 

addressing waste generation and the use of 

our natural resources. In 2002, EPA published 

“Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials 

Management in the Year 2020”—commonly 

referred to as the 2020 Vision.4 (See Box 1.) 

Box 1 

THE 2020 VISION 

1. Use resources in sustainable ways. 

2. Take a life-cycle approach to 

managing risks. 

3. Practice safe management for any 

waste that remains. 

The Vision was described in the 2002 

report. It was endorsed by EPA, the 

Environmental Council of the States and the 

Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials. 

One of the key findings of the 2020 Vision 

was the need to shift from waste 

management to materials management. 

This report is organized as follows: 

Î Chapter 1, “A Resource Hungry World,” describes trends in resource consumption, 

environmental impacts and why better materials management is essential. 

Î Chapter 2, “Building an Analytic Framework” describes the Workgroup’s analytic 

approach to identifying materials and products that should be the initial focus of 

materials management demonstration projects. 

Î Chapter 3, “Workgroup Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Materials 

Management” contains the recommendations. 

Introduction | Page 3 
Chapter 1: 

A Resource Hungry World 

Understanding the Flow of

Materials  

To understand the full effect that material use 

has on the environment, it is critical to 

understand the material life cycle, or how 

materials flow through the environment and the 

economy. The flow begins with the Earth itself, 

which provides a wealth of resources, including 

renewable and nonrenewable resource stocks, 

and energy sources. After materials are extracted and harvested from the Earth, most enter 

the product and service supply chains or are used for energy production. Through product 

design and manufacturing, materials are processed to create the products and services that 

meet the needs of society (see Figure 2). 

 

Some raw materials and all products and services are then used or consumed by businesses 

or individual consumers. At the end of their lives, most products are collected and either 

reused, processed for return to use, or thrown away as waste. 

Every step in this material flow requires energy and water as inputs and every step results 

in environmental impacts to air, water, and land. Throughout the material flow, materials 

and products require transport. As a result, this material flow contributes to a wide range of 

global, national, and local environmental impacts. 

Trends in Global Material Consumption and Environmental

Impact  

In the past 50 years, humans have consumed more resources than they have in all previous 

history.5 Between 1970 and 1995 alone, worldwide consumption of raw materials (not 

including food and fuel) doubled.6 We can see the effects of material consumption on 

localized areas, and global environmental systems. For example: 

Chapter 1 | Page 4 
Transportation

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Emissions to Air, Water, and Land

Renew Recycle Remanufacture Reuse Composting

Resource

Extraction

Material

Processing

Product

Design and

Manufacturing

Collection/ Disposal

Processing

Product

Use

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Figure 2: The Flow of Materials 

Source: State/EPA 2020 Vision Workgroup 

Î The rate of deforestation in the tropics is approximately one acre per second. 

Î Half the world’s tropical and temperate forests are now gone. 

Î 75% of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity. 

Î Freshwater withdrawals have doubled between 1960 and 2000; rivers including the 

Colorado, Yellow, Ganges, and Nile do not reach the ocean in dry seasons. 

Î Habitat destruction has contributed to species disappearance at rates about a thousand 

times faster than normal. 

Î Over half the agricultural land in drier regions suffers from some degree of deterioration 

and desertification. 

Î As available ore grades for some minerals decrease, the amounts of materials that have 

to be mined and processed to produce equivalent product increases, along with the 

environmental impacts. 

Î Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals can now be found throughout the food 

chain.7

Î Between 1970 and 2004, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions increased by 70%.8 

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth 

century is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations associated with 

anthropogenic sources, including the extraction, processing, use and disposal of 

materials.9

The World Wildlife Federation routinely calculates humanity’s ecological footprint—the area 

of productive land and water needed to provide resources and services such as food, fiber, 

and land on which to build, and land to absorb carbon dioxide released into the 

Chapter 1 | Page 5 
environment. This analysis is used to portray human demand, based on the biological 

capacity required to support resource consumption and waste absorption. 

Since the late 1980s, our human footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity. In 2005, 

global biocapacity was measured as 2.1 hectares per capita, while the average demand or 

footprint per person was 2.7 hectares. “This ecological 'overshoot' means that it now takes 

about one year and three months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single 

year.”10 The Earth’s regenerative ability can no longer keep pace with human demand—

people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into 

resources. In economic terms, we are no longer living off nature’s interest, but drawing 

down its capital.11 Globally, we can no longer presume that materials and resources we 

count on as abundant will remain so indefinitely. 

In addition to exceeding the Earth’s biocapacity by extracting too many materials, we return 

most of what we extract to the Earth as waste very quickly. According to the World 

Resources Institute, “one half to three quarters of annual resource inputs to industrial 

economies is returned to the environment as wastes within just one year.” 12 

Prices for many materials are heavily influenced by global markets. During the past several 

years, increased demand caused worldwide prices for many raw and used materials to rise 

substantially. The recent economic situation, however, has reduced demand, causing prices 

for many materials to drop. The immediate effect of this has been to weaken recycling 

markets. If prices stay low, demand may increase over time. However, neither of these 

trends is helpful for long-term materials management or the environment.13 

In general, it is widely understood that the price system leads to economically efficient 

allocation of material resources, but that does not mean that it necessarily encourages 

sustainable materials management. For instance, over the past 200 years, real prices for 

many industrial raw materials have fallen, often because of improved technology and low 

energy prices.14 This has helped stimulate unparalleled economic growth, but, as mentioned 

above, it also has encouraged enormous increases in the amounts of materials used around 

the world. 

There are several other features of markets and prices for many materials that do not 

encourage sustainable materials management: 

Î Prices for materials often do not adequately reflect “externalities” such as environmental 

damages incurred along the life cycle, leading to more consumption and greater 

environmental damages than would have otherwise occurred. 

Î Markets often deal poorly with intergenerational equity, and thus do not encourage 

sustainability. 

Î As historical patterns and the recent rise and fall of prices for oil and many materials 

illustrate, prices are frequently not a good indicator of long-term supplies and scarcities. 

Chapter 1 | Page 6 
Î Efficient use of material resources generally has little or nothing to do with toxicity, and 

in fact can encourage the use of toxic alternatives. 

In theory, environmental and other regulations might be able to address many of these 

problems. In practice, however, our regulatory programs have not been designed to deal 

adequately with the multitude of decisions that are made along the life cycle of materials, 

and unsustainable materials use is often the result. Achieving materials management will 

require the full set of public policy tools including economic policies, regulations, information 

and partnerships. With the right signals the market should be able to do a better job 

of addressing the range of problems that relate to sustainability. 

Trends in U.S. Material Consumption and Environmental

Impact  

The global trends are echoed by U.S. trends. Material resources used and consumed in the 

U.S. have grown from 161 million metric tons in 1900 to 2.8 billion metric tons in 1995—the 

equivalent of over 10 tons per person.15 Of all the materials the U.S. consumed in the past 

100 years, more than half were consumed in the last 25 years.16 

Not only is the U.S. consuming more materials, but the types of materials consumed have 

changed significantly over time. In 1900, 41% of the materials used in the U.S. were 

renewable (e.g., agricultural, fishery, and forestry products); by 1995, only 6% of materials 

consumed were from renewable sources. The majority of materials consumed in the U.S. 

now are nonrenewable, including metals, minerals, and fossil-fuel derived products. 17 Our 

reliance on minerals as fundamental ingredients in the manufactured products used in the 

U.S.—including cell phones, flat-screen monitors, paint, and toothpaste—requires more than 

25,000 pounds of new nonfuel minerals per capita each year.18 

Correspondingly, the ecological footprint of a U.S. resident is estimated at 9.4 hectares, 

more than four times the global biocapacity per capita.

19 This large ecological footprint is 

primarily associated with energy production, which in turn is tied to greenhouse gas 

emissions.20 A draft report being developed by EPA estimates that roughly 42% of U.S. 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be associated with material extraction and 

harvesting, and the production, transportation, and disposal of goods in the U.S., in part 

due to the energy needs for these processes.21 (See Box 2.) 

 

Not only are we drawing upon nonrenewable resources and impacting the environment at 

an increasing rate, we are also creating more waste. As U.S. consumers have grown to 

favor disposable products and convenience goods, waste has increased at all stages of the 

material life cycle. 

Chapter 1 | Page 7 
The most visible waste in the U.S. is 

municipal solid waste, of which we generate 

over 250 million tons per year. U.S. per 

capita generation of municipal solid waste 

increased by 42% between 1970 and 2007, 

and has now leveled off at approximately 4.6 

pounds per person per day.22 But municipal 

solid waste represents only a small fraction of 

the total amount of waste generated within 

our society. One estimate of the total waste 

generated in the U.S. in 1996 is over 23 

billion metric tons per year. Most of this 

waste is “hidden” from the economy.23 

Far more materials are being moved or 

transformed to meet society’s needs than 

most people realize. In particular, “hidden” 

material flows (i.e., waste) include mining 

overburden, earth moving, and erosion, and 

account for as much as 75% of the total 

materials that industrial economies use. 24

However, because these hidden flows do not 

enter the economy as commodities bought or sold, they are not considered part of the 

traditional waste stream, and are not accounted for in the gross domestic product. They do, 

however, result in environmental degradation such as landscape alteration, loss of soil 

structure and fertility, stream flow changes, ecosystem disruption, and toxic impacts to 

land, air, and water from direct releases and leaching. 

Box 2 

MATERIALS AND CLIMATE 

Reallocating the U.S. GHG Inventory to a 

materials management perspective reveals 

that roughly 42% of U.S. emissions are 

associated with the provision of materials 

and goods, including emissions from: 

 

• Industrial sectors (direct emissions) 

• Electricity used by industrial sectors 

• Freight transportation 

• Waste and waste management 

• Agricultural sources 

• Consumption of fuels and electricity in 

food processing 

• Leaks from refrigeration 

• Transportation of food-related products 

• Industrial wastewater treatment by 

food processing facilities. (a)

Global and U.S. Trends:  Looking Ahead

Commenting on the effects of material resource use on the environment, the heads of major 

research institutes in the United States, Germany, Japan, Austria, and the Netherlands have 

noted that they expect that between 2000 and 2050, world population will grow 

50%, global economic activity will grow 500%, and global energy and materials 

use will grow 300%. The world has been and is likely to continue experiencing 

unprecedented growth in global economic output, human population, and demands on air, 

land, water, and other resources. Reflecting on these trends, these same research leaders 

have stated that “unless economic growth can be dramatically decoupled from 

resource use and waste generation, environmental pressures will increase 

rapidly.”25 

While developed countries place more pressure on the environment than developing nations 

on a per capita and total basis today, this pattern is rapidly changing. (See Box 3.) The 

World Wildlife Federation has observed that “China is now on parity with the U.S. in terms 

Chapter 1 | Page 8 
Box 3 

US MATERIALS CONSUMPTION 

Between 1970 and 1995, the U.S. 

represented about one- third of the world’s 

total material consumption.(b) 

With less than 5% of the world’s 

population, the U.S. consumes:(c) 

• 33% of paper 

• 25% of oil 

• 15% of coal 

• 17% of aluminum 

• 15% of copper 

of its pressure on the world’s resources” as 

measured by ecological footprint.26 As 

developing nations continue to industrialize 

and increase their material consumption, 

resource demands will only increase. 

Through globalization, all countries are 

becoming increasingly reliant on imports. This 

shift has several important environmental 

consequences: 

Î It creates a disconnect between the 

environmental impacts of extraction, and 

production; these impacts are easy for the 

users of products and services to ignore 

when they take place far away. 

Î The environmental impacts of extraction 

and production can be higher than they might otherwise be if the exporting country has 

lower environmental safeguards than the importing country. 

Î Shipping goods long distances increases the impacts on the environment, including 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

The world has not recently faced significant disruptive crises in the supply of materials, 

largely because new discoveries, substitutes, and technologies have averted or delayed 

predictions of shortages. Still, the international competition for some of the most abundant 

supplies is intense. The prospect for supply crises with certain key materials increases each 

year. It is not hard to imagine that if current and projected material consumption trends 

continue, we will face scarcity and depletion crises and leave far less resources than we 

have now for future generations.27 However, the most pressing materials issue we face is 

the capacity of the Earth—the air, the water, and the land—to withstand the many types of 

environmental problems caused by our current patterns and rates of resource use. 

These trends make the shift to sustainable materials management critical. The U.S. can lead 

the way in this effort. There is the potential not just to recover our own economy and 

environment, but also to assist developing nations in bypassing the less efficient practices of 

our history and achieving sustainable materials management. Without this leadership, we 

face increasing environmental deterioration and economic disruption. (See Box 4.) 

Chapter 1 | Page 9 
Box 4 

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 

The international community is moving quickly towards life-cycle materials management. Many of 

the ideas and recommendations in this report reflect major points in two international agreements 

endorsed by the United States in 2008. 

In the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Council Recommendation 

on Resource Productivity (28 March 2008), OECD members agreed to: 

• Strengthen their national capacity to measure and analyze material flows in ways that are 

internationally compatible; 

• Develop and use indicators that assess the efficiency of material resource use; 

• Take appropriate actions to improve resource productivity and reduce negative environmental 

impacts of materials and product use by promoting integrated life-cycle approaches, setting 

targets where appropriate, promoting new technologies, and sharing best practices; 

• Work with relevant departments of government and organizations outside of government to 

this end; and 

• Assist non-member countries to this end. (d)

The “Kobe 3R [Reduce, Reuse, Recycle] Action Plan” stresses that Group of Eight (G8) countries 

should: 

• Give high priority to 3Rs policies, including the option of setting appropriate targets, 

• Work together to encourage 3Rs on a global scale, through sharing of information and reducing 

regulatory and trade barriers that impede this goal, and collaborate to promote 3Rs capacity in 

developing countries. 

The plan highlights were included in the G8 Summit Leaders Declaration in July 2008.(e)(f) 

Leading the U.S. to a More Sustainable Future: Materials

Management

Materials management is a conceptual framework for systematically addressing the 

movement of materials through the economy and the environment from extraction to end of 

life. Figure 3 shows the complex interaction between the ecological, industrial, and societal 

systems supporting material use. Ecological systems provide the raw material inputs that 

drive industrial systems, or may be consumed directly by societal systems. Industrial and 

societal systems generate waste that can be recovered for beneficial use or disposed. As 

shown in Figure 3, there are many connections between components of the material life 

cycle, and therefore, many potential points for policy intervention. 

Chapter 1 | Page 10 
Natural

Resource

Policies

Product Life

Cycle Policies

Waste

Management

Policies

IndustrialSystems

Product/Service

Supply Chains

Energy Production

EcologicalSystems

Renewable Resource

Stocks

Non‐renewable

Resource Stocks

Finite Media

Energy Sources

SocietalSystems

Energy Use

Service Use

Durable Product

Use

Consumable Product

Use

Material

Harvesting

Demand

Fulfillment

Waste Material

Disposal or Recovery

Direct

Utilization

Figure 3: Framework for Examining Materials Management 

Source: Fiksel, Joseph. "A Framework for Sustainable Materials Management," Journal of Materials, August 2006 

The concept of materials management is fundamental to reducing our environmental 

footprint and assuring that we have adequate resources to meet today’s needs and 

those of the future. The Workgroup developed the following definition of materials 

management, drawing from definitions used by other groups in the U.S. and abroad: 

Materials management is an approach to serving human needs by 

using/reusing resources most productively and sustainably throughout their 

life cycles, generally minimizing the amount of materials involved and all the 

associated environmental impacts. 

In this context, the Workgroup has followed the lead of many international organizations 

and defines materials to include everything that is extracted or derived from natural 

resources, which may be either inorganic or organic, at all points throughout their life 

cycles. We consider water and air as resources, but do not include them in our definition 

of materials, except as they become incorporated into a product. However, materials 

use does have direct impacts on air and water quality and scarcity. 

Chapter 1 | Page 11 
By considering the impacts throughout the entire life cycle, materials 

management works to reduce environmental impacts, both (1) directly at each 

stage and (2) indirectly at multiple stages by reducing the amounts of 

materials used, and thus reducing system-wide environmental impacts. Some of 

the means by which this can happen are shown in Figure 4. For instance, industrial and 

product design can reduce impacts throughout the system. 

Transportation

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Emissions to Air, Water, and Land

Renew Recycle Remanufacture Reuse Composting

Resource

Extraction

Material

Processing

Product

Design and

Manufacturing

Collection/ Disposal

Processing

Product

Use

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

Energy,

Water

Inputs

A B C D E F

Key:Approaches to Reduce Environmental Impacts in Individual Stages

A‐C Materialsubstitution,replacing toxic or hazardous materials with benign ones (detoxification)

A‐C Cleanertechnologies, reducing the toxic or hazardous properties of waste streams

A‐C Redesign industrial processesto reduce toxic pollution and waste

A‐F Reduction of GHG emissions associatedwith fossil fuel combustion and disposal

A‐D Material regulation,restricting the use specifiedmaterials

D‐E Recovery and beneficial recycling of post‐industrial or post‐consumer waste (Product Stewardship)

F Waste modification through chemical or biological treatment

F Waste containment or isolation to prevent human and ecological exposure

F In‐situwaste treatment

Key:Approaches to Reduce Systemwide Material Use

A Extractlessraw materials; extract only what is needed

A Prioritize the use of renewable materials and those that can be used in closed loop systems

A‐F Increase in the material efficiency in the supply chain (zero‐waste, dematerialization, industrial ecology)

A‐F Industrial and product redesign to reduce mass, material use, packaging, life‐cycle energy requirement, and toxicity

A‐F Reduction of transport in the supply chain, thus reducing fuel and vehicle use

D‐F Consume products that are less material‐intensive, made with recyclable components, and more durable

C‐D Substitution of electronic servicesfor material intensive services

C‐D Substitution of servicesfor products

F Only biodegradable materials are disposed and returned to the Earth

A‐F Consider the function of the product and whether it can be provided in a different manner

Note, Each of these approaches can be encouraged by a variety of “tools,” such as regulations, economic incentives,

information, collaboration, and so forth.

Figure 4: Materials Management Approaches 

Source: State/EPA 2020 Vision Workgroup 

Chapter 1 | Page 12 
Materials management encourages reduction in the amount of material extracted, and 

selection of renewable materials over non-renewable resources, where appropriate. 

Materials management also encourages changes in product design to use less material, 

reduce toxicity, and make products more reusable and/or recyclable. From the consumer 

perspective, materials management encourages consumption of products and services 

with the least environmental impact. 

In a system that recognizes the true value of materials, and accounts for all the 

environmental impacts associated with materials use, the concept of waste is 

significantly changed. Products and materials presently viewed as acceptable to throw 

away will increasingly be recognized as valuable. Materials that used to “go to waste” 

will be reused or become feedstocks for new products and processes. Biodegradable 

materials that are not reused will be returned to the Earth to renew natural systems. 

Over time, as products and processes and ways of using things change, materials will 

begin to move in abundant sustainable cycles that nourish rather than deplete the Earth. 

Different materials will require different management strategies. For example, the most 

important focus for non-renewable materials such as metals often will be to get the most 

use and reuse from each finite unit of the resource, while the focus for renewables such 

as wood and forest products has to include protection for the natural ecosystems that 

produce the resource.28

Attention to materials use efficiency and recovery will accelerate as concerns over 

climate results in new mandates to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is likely that 

new laws to address climate change will raise the cost of carbon-based energy, driving 

more efficient use of materials and favoring less energy-intensive materials. Incentives 

to conserve water in industrial settings are also likely to encourage more material 

conservation. 

Some organizations and businesses already are making great strides in improving their 

economic bottom line and materials management processes. (See Box 5.) 

How Does Materials Management Differ From Current

Approaches?

Our current environmental regulatory system focuses largely on controlling “end-of-pipe” 

emissions—direct releases to air (e.g., from smokestacks or car tailpipes), water (e.g., 

effluent from factories or water treatment), and the land (e.g., landfill disposal). This 

system has and will continue to prevent or alleviate some important environmental impacts. 

However, because we do not systematically address materials movement through our 

economy and the environment (looking at the whole life cycle), we end up missing some 

impacts and/or inadvertently shifting environmental impacts from one medium to another. 

Chapter 1 | Page 13 
These missed opportunities and undesired shifts leave us ill-equipped to address the 

pressures that will come with increases in population, economic activity and materials use. 

Box 5 

MOVING TO MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

An increasing number of industries and individual companies are taking a life-cycle view of their 

materials and processes, with the goal of reducing their environmental footprint, identifying greater 

efficiencies, stimulating technical advances, and making themselves more sustainable and 

competitive. Three examples are as follows: 

• The metals industry, under the leadership of the International Council on Mining and Metals, 

has developed a Materials Stewardship Strategy, which aims to supply metals responsibly and 

to supervise materials flows so as to maximize societal value and minimize impact on human 

health and the environment. As part of this effort, the metals industry is starting to develop a 

better understanding of the full life-cycle of minerals and metal products. It is building and 

strengthening relationships with actors along the value chain (including commodity 

associations, fabricators, product manufacturers, scrap sellers, and recyclers). In addition, this 

project is making efforts to optimize the production and application of metals.(g)

• Ten cement companies are participating in a World Business Council for Sustainable 

Development-sponsored sustainability initiative for cement and concrete. One 

recommendation of this effort is that all old concrete should be used to make new concrete, or 

as aggregate for road construction, working toward a goal of recycling all demolition concrete. 

Work is also underway to reduce the carbon footprint of cement by using clinker substitutes, 

alternative fuels and raw materials, and improving energy efficiency.(h)

• The Keystone Center is facilitating discussions by a collaborative stakeholder group (consisting 

of producers, agribusinesses, food and retail companies, and conservation organizations) to 

develop a supply-chain system for encouraging sustainable agriculture. One of the first tasks 

of this group has been to develop metrics to measure the environmental, health, and socioeconomic outcomes of agriculture in the U.S. These metrics will be used to create a 

Sustainability Index to help quantify and identify key impacts and trends over time, encourage 

industry-wide dialogue and goal-setting, and assist in continued progress on the path to 

sustainability over time.(i)

Even if our current regulatory framework operated perfectly, it was not designed with 

sustainability in mind and would not bring us to this point. This is a major challenge for 

EPA, state, tribal, and local governments, along with the governments of other nations. We 

need to identify new approaches and better integrate currently separate programs, to 

address how we extract materials and design, manufacture, use and deal with products at 

end-of-life. We need to do this not only for our environmental well-being, but also to 

maintain our competitiveness in the global market place. Increasingly, other nations are 

demanding more sustainable uses of materials and chemicals. U.S. industry needs to be 

equipped to meet these demands or it will fall behind competitively. 

Materials management is different from current waste management approaches in several 

important ways: 

Chapter 1 | Page 14 
Î Materials management seeks the most productive use of resources, while waste 

management seeks to minimize and/or manage wastes or pollutants. 

Î Materials management focuses broadly on impacts and policies relating to all the lifecycle stages of a material or product—including such upstream considerations as using 

less material, using less environmentally intensive materials, or making products more 

durable, as well as downstream solutions such as reuse and recycling. Waste 

management usually focuses only on what to do with wastes once they are generated. 

Î Materials management is concerned with inputs and outputs from/to the environment, 

including use of materials, energy and water, plus multiple environmental impacts; it is 

not geographically constrained. Waste management is concerned mainly with outputs to 

the environment (air, water, land) and usually only those from waste and only where the 

waste is managed. 

Î The goal of materials management is overall long-term system sustainability, while the 

goal of waste management is often focused on managing a single set of environmental 

impacts. 

Î Materials management counts as responsible parties all those who are involved in the 

life cycle of a material or product, including industry and consumers. In contrast, waste 

management usually counts as responsible parties only those who generate waste. 

Materials management therefore casts a far broader net than waste and chemicals 

management has traditionally done. It seeks to address and reduce the life-cycle 

environmental impacts from the making and consumption of materials and products and 

applies a systems-wide perspective in doing so. While there are a number of existing EPA 

and state programs that are helping to move the U.S. toward a more material-efficient 

society, there is no single strategy at the Federal level in the U.S. that collectively looks at 

all environmental impacts of materials and products throughout their life cycles. Regulations 

and economic instruments seek to prevent or mitigate certain impacts, but they rarely take 

sufficient account of upstream or downstream effects. 

Seen this way, materials management is a very broad concept. It overlaps and supplements 

many other concepts that are being adopted by governments, businesses and others. (See 

Box 6.) 

Solid waste programs at EPA and in most states tend to address waste in two ways: (1) 

by regulations governing waste identification, management, disposal and cleanup; and (2) 

by collaborations to encourage waste minimization, greater recycling, use of more recycled 

content, and identification of beneficial uses for materials that would otherwise be thrown 

away. In recent years, waste programs also have begun to address toxic chemicals 

reduction. For instance, the National Program for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) focuses 

on toxic chemical content in processes, products and intermediaries. However, the majority 

of waste programs’ efforts have not focused on reducing the use of materials or the toxicity 

Chapter 1 | Page 15 
of products or manufacturing processes,

working with manufacturers to make sure

that materials and products are more easily 

reused or recycled at end of life. Only by

further shifting our focus away from end-oflife management towards solutions that

address the root cause of waste can we begin 

to conserve resources and ensure that 

materials have high-v

 or 

alue end markets when 

e products containing them reach the end 

kaging 

n 

are in an ideal position of 

ptimizing a package for its entire life cycle. 

e 

ent 

s 

ed 

al 

 and 

r life cycles. Some 

states are moving in this direction. (See Box 

7.) 

th

of their useful lives. 

EPA’s work with the Sustainable Pac

Coalition (SPC), an NGO, provides an 

example of how lifecycle materials 

management approaches are being applied 

today. EPA has supported the SPC’s efforts i

creating a comprehensive set of resources for

design of more sustainable packaging – the 

Design Guidelines for Sustainable Packaging 

and the COMPASS design tool. As the design

of packaging influences the entire packaging

supply chain, designers who understand the 

flow of materials 

o

(See Figure 5.) 

EPA’s chemical programs have made progress in recent years towards adopting life-cycle

materials management. Efforts that address choices made early in the life cycle, such as th

Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, Pollution Prevention and Design for the Environm

Programs, form a good foundation on which to build. However, the more “traditional” part

of the programs remain largely focused on

reducing or eliminating the use of individual

chemicals, or classes of chemicals in certain 

products or processes that may pose 

potential risks—often by using inform

substitution to move toward safer chemic

substitutes. To move more aggressively 

toward the broader goal of sustainability,

more effort needs to be made to identify

address the full range of environmental 

impacts associated with materials and 

products throughout thei

Box 6 

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND 

RELATED CONCEPTS 

Materials management is a very broad 

concept. It overlaps and supplements 

many other concepts being adopted by 

government, business and others including, 

but not limited to: 

• Sustainable Materials Management 

(OECD) 

• Sustainable Production and 

Consumption (UNEP) 

• Sustainable Resource Management 

(UNEP) 

• 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (G8) 

• Sound Materials Society (Japan) 

• Design for the Environment (EPA and 

others) 

• Green Chemistry 

• Lean Manufacturing 

• Sustainable Supply-Chain Management 

• Eco-labeling 

• Green Procurement 

• Zero Waste 

Box 7 

STATES’ PROGRESS TOWARDS 

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

A number of states have ambitious 

programs to move towards materials 

management. One example is California’s 

green chemistry program which requires 

that the State identify chemicals of concern, 

evaluate alternatives, and specify 

regulatory responses where chemicals of 

concern are found in products. Washington 

and Maine have similar programs.

Chapter 1 | Page 16 
With the SPC, EPA is

providing input on the

design of a label to inform

consumers about end‐of‐life

options.

EPA'sNational Vehicle and Fuel

Emissions Laboratory assists with transportation

issues associated with weight reduction and shape

reconfiguration.

EPA  works with material  manufacturers and

convertersto reduce the environmental

impact of polymers and coatings.

EPA'sDesign for the

Environment  program

assists with environmentally

preferable product

reformulation.

Product

Design and

Manufacture

Distribution

and Retail

Purchase

and Use

End of Life

Recovery

Material

Processing

EPA's Climate

Leaders and Green

SuppliersNetwork

programs assist

manufacturers with

reducing their GHG

and environmental

footprint.

To encourage end‐

of‐life recovery,the

Sustainable Packaging

Coalition (SPC) and the

CA Department of

Conservation are

working to improve:

recoverymetrics,

information on

recovery technologies,

and consumer

communications.

EPA helped Wal‐Mart

develop their packaging

scorecard which is serving as

a catalyst in redesigning

packaging resulting in source

reduction and reduced

transportation.

Resource

Extraction

Figure 5: Example of a Life-cycle Materials Management Approach for Packaging 

Adapted from “Design Guidelines for Sustainable Packaging,” Sustainable Packaging Coalition, GreenBlue, 2006 

Independent efforts to address the issues of climate change, energy conservation, and 

water conservation miss opportunities for achieving maximum environmental impact, 

because they do not also consider broader approaches to managing materials more 

sustainably. Because materials have such a large impact on a wide variety of environmental 

issues, integrated materials management approaches will yield significant benefits while 

achieving more efficient resource use and cost savings. 

A comprehensive materials management approach serves to direct environmental, product, 

and resource policy to those areas where it will provide the greatest environmental benefit. 

It will enable us to focus on those material flows which potentially cause the greatest harm 

and where in the life cycle they occur. It also will allow us to determine which material flows 

are overly wasteful, where they originate, and where they ultimately end up. It will also 

help identify which activities or products are primarily responsible for these harmful flows, 

and devise strategies that have the greatest likelihood of being environmentally and 

economically effective. 

Chapter 1 | Page 17 
Chapter 2: 

Building an Analytic Framework 

While considering the idea of a comprehensive 

materials management approach, the Vision 

Workgroup recognized the importance of 

identifying priorities and conducting a few wellchosen demonstration projects to show the 

value of this approach and gain greater insights 

on integrating policies and programs around 

materials management. The Workgroup also 

recognized that any comprehensive materials 

management strategy should build on an 

analytical framework that accounts for the fact 

that a few hundred raw materials are extracted or harvested from the environment and 

subsequently transformed into thousands of final products by a highly complex and 

intertwined system. As noted earlier, numerous environmental impacts arise as a 

consequence of how this system of materials and products currently operates. 

Developing the Framework

To formulate a materials management analytical framework, the Workgroup built on the 

experiences of other organizations and initiatives. The Workgroup reviewed the efforts of 

the European Commission, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

and other nations, seeking to prioritize materials, products or wastes. This body of 

knowledge suggested the need to understand the life-cycle impacts of materials in order to 

construct more interlocking and effective materials management policies. For example, the 

European Commission (EC) conducted its Environmental Impacts of Products (EIPRO) study 

to identify products which potentially cause the greatest life-cycle environmental impacts 

across eight environmental impact categories such as global warming potential and human 

toxicity. The EC is identifying ways to reduce life-cycle impacts and develop appropriate 

policy measures to achieve reductions.29 

Evaluating the life-cycle environmental impacts of material use is important and can identify 

which materials have the greatest overall potential impacts to humans and the 

environment. However, the Workgroup felt it was important to go beyond environmental 

impacts and to include resource use (materials, water, and energy) and material waste. 

Examining all these aspects from a life-cycle perspective enables strategic targeting of 

Chapter 2 | Page 18 
policies to promote more efficient use of materials and reduce environmental impacts across 

all stages of the material system. 

Another important consideration when developing materials management strategies is 

viewing the environmental aspects from more than one perspective across the material 

system. As a point of comparison, the EIPRO study assessed the life-cycle impacts of 

products consumed by households (often termed final consumption.) This meant all of the 

impacts from all stages, from extraction of the raw materials through end-of-life, are 

“passed on” and embedded in the final product sold to a household. This perspective 

reveals final products that are familiar to consumers and that have the greatest life-cycle 

impacts. 

However, using a final consumption perspective may hide significant impacts of upstream 

material stages, especially when the outputs of those stages become widely dispersed 

across a large number of different final products. Each of those final products will have 

separate material composition profiles and life cycles. For example, copper mining 

potentially contributes significantly to environmental and human health impacts, uses a fair 

amount of energy, water, and material, and produces quite a bit of waste. Using a product 

or final consumption perspective, these potential impacts would be dispersed among the 

thousands of products in which copper is used, such as currency, batteries, circuits, 

industrial components, telecommunications equipment, roofing, household items, piping, 

and a wide variety of electronic products. The life-cycle impacts associated with creating 

those products would be captured, including the impacts of copper mining, but because 

copper comprises such a small portion of the individual products, the impacts of copper 

mining as a whole would be hidden. 

Thus, it is important to include perspectives that can reveal environmentally problematic 

upstream stages such as extraction (e.g., copper ore) or initial material processing (e.g., 

smelting) and middle stages such as manufacturing, as well as the final product. Evaluating 

a material system through more than one perspective can yield dramatically different 

results and better inform a materials management strategy. 

In summary, the Workgroup identified the following components as integral in establishing 

an analytical framework for materials management strategies: 

Î Establishing the universe: Use the most complete dataset of materials, products, and 

services whose relationships in an economy are well mapped. 

Î Understanding all impacts, inputs, and outputs: Include the full range of 

environmental aspects including environmental impacts, resource use (material, energy, 

and water) and material waste. For environmental impacts, cover as many 

environmental and human health impacts as possible. 

Î Using perspectives to understand where the impacts are occurring: View the 

material system from different perspectives to ensure impacts are fully revealed. 

Chapter 2 | Page 19 
Applying the Framework to the U.S. Economy

In applying this framework to identify potential candidates for demonstration projects, the 

Workgroup created an approach using existing tools and data to produce a relative ranking 

of the materials, products and services consumed in the US economy. The methodology 

developed is based on the components identified above and is described in detail in the 

Appendix (a separate document). 

The universe established for this analysis was the 480 materials, products and services 

included in the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 1998 input/output (I/O) tables 

(most recent year available when analysis done). These 480 materials, products and 

services span all stages of the material system from extraction such as copper ore to final 

consumption of products or provision of services such as jewelry or hospitals. The I/O 

tables map the relationships of these materials, products and services to one another in the 

U.S. economy. Also, the primary data source used in the analysis was the Comprehensive 

Environmental Data Archive (CEDA 3.0) which uses the BEA I/O tables as its baseline list of 

materials, products and services. The CEDA 3.0 tool was used in the EIPRO study and 

enhanced to incorporate end-of-life. 

For the environmental impacts and inputs and outputs, the Workgroup considered 

thirteen environmental impacts included in CEDA: abiotic depletion, land use, global 

warming, ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, freshwater aquatic toxicity, marine aquatic 

toxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater sedimental ecotoxicity, marine sedimental 

ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation, acidification, and eutrophication. Further, material, 

energy and water use and material waste were included. These became the 17 criteria on 

which the 480 materials, products and services were relatively ranked. Although it may 

appear that there are some redundancies among the 17 criteria, they each address an 

important consideration in priority setting. 

While CEDA was equipped to assess environmental impacts and energy use, it did not have 

the ability to assess material and water use, or material waste disposed. Data for these 

came from the World Resources Institute’s Material Flows Analysis database (material use 

and waste) and the U.S. Geological Survey (water use). However, these data were 

compiled using different classification schemes which meant that extensive cross-walking to 

the BEA classification scheme was required. The Workgroup used innovative techniques for 

allocating those data into the BEA’s list of 480 materials, products, and services. For 

example, a WRI material may have had a direct relationship with a material in BEA’s lists 

(e.g., WRI coal to BEA coal). In other cases, a WRI material was related to a number of 

different products (e.g., WRI grain to a number of BEA commodities such as bread, meat 

animals, etc). 

Finally, the Workgroup examined the 480 materials, products and services from three 

different perspectives referred to as “direct impact/resource use/waste,” “intermediate 

consumption,” and “final consumption.” (See Figure 6.) 

Chapter 2 | Page 20 
D

D

D

D D

D

D

D

D

D+I

D+I

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

Direct

Impacts/Use/Waste

IntermediateConsumption Final Consumption

D

D

D

D+I

D+I

D+I

D = direct impact, use, or waste I = impact, use, or waste associated with inputs O = impact, use, or waste associated with outputs

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

D+I‐O

• Measures direct environmental impacts, material, water and

energy use, and waste disposed at each point in the supply

chain; does not include embedded environmental impacts,

material, water, or energy use, or waste disposed.

• More likely than the other perspectivesto highlight raw

materials and intermediate products at early stages in the

supply chain before outputs are widely dispersed throughout

the economy (e.g., copper) and there islittle use as a final

product.

• Measures accumulated (direct and embedded) environmental

impacts, material, water and energy use, and waste disposed

at each point in the supply chain before they are “passed on”

to the next stage.

• This perspective allows transparent consideration of the

accumulated impacts, resource use, and waste associated with

intermediate products and processes before these aspects are

“passed on” to products consumed by final consumers

• Measures embedded environmental impacts, material, water

and energy use, and waste associated with final products;

traditional LCA approach.

• This perspective revealsthe overall impacts associated with

final consumption.

Figure 6: U.S. Supply Chain Perspectives 

The direct impact/resource use/waste disposed perspective examines what environmental 

impacts, resource use and waste are occurring at each life-cycle stage of a material system; 

nothing is embedded from other stages. This perspective potentially reveals where in a 

material or product life cycle the greatest direct impacts occur (and those over which a 

facility has direct control). Upstream stages such as extraction and harvesting are likely to 

be revealed. 

The intermediate consumption perspective examines all the accumulated life-cycle impacts 

at each life-cycle stage before they are embedded and passed on to the next stage. This 

perspective reveals where in a material system the greatest accumulated impacts, resource 

use and waste occur, and is likely to reveal upstream activities (e.g., material processing 

and manufacturing) and intermediate products. 

The final consumption perspective “passes on” and embeds all impacts from across the 

material system in the final products consumed. For this analysis, final consumers were 

defined as both households and government. This perspective reveals which materials, 

products and services consumed by households and government have the greatest life-cycle 

impacts, resource use and waste. 

Chapter 2 | Page 21 
Once all the results were obtained, an applied vector analysis approach was used to produce 

a relative ranking of the 480 materials, products and services in each of the three supply 

chain perspectives. 

It is important to recognize that the results produced by this analysis are not direct 

measures of impacts or risk, but rather provide a relative ranking of materials, products, 

and services potentially contributing significantly to environmental issues. Also, the 480 

materials, products and services represent commodity groupings and thus the results 

cannot be interpreted to single out any individual company or specific product as particularly 

resource-intensive, wasteful or environmentally damaging. 

Recognizing the complexities of the analysis, the Workgroup had it peer reviewed by 

independent experts. The peer reviewers found the overall approach and results produced a 

reasonable starting point for identifying materials, products, and services on which to focus. 

They also provided several recommendations for improving the analysis. The Workgroup 

followed-up on some of these recommendations. 

What We Found

Table 1 presents the results of the Workgroup’s analysis of the U.S. consumptive economy. 

The table is a compilation of the top 20 highest ranked materials, products and services 

from each system perspective when ranked across all criteria. This process identified 37 

materials, products and services. Just under half of the 37 ranked within the top 20 in only 

one or two system perspectives. Because the analysis was conducted using 1998 data, we 

conducted an analysis of significant market trends between 1998 and the present to 

determine whether any adjustments should be made to the overall results. As a result, 

“Computer and Data Processing Services” was added due to its profound growth. 

Therefore, Table 1 contains a total of 38 materials, products and services. 

 

The table presents the individual materials, products and services grouped into seven broad 

categories: construction and development, food products and services, forestry, metals, 

nonrenewable organics, textiles, and other products and services. They are grouped in a 

manner to depict crude direct relationships (e.g., feed grains, meat animals, meat packing 

plants, eating and drinking places). For each material, product and service, the table shows 

the final rank for each perspective, as well as the environmental aspects contributing 

significantly to its high ranking. 

All of the 17 criteria proved important to the ranking outcomes, although certain criteria 

tended to contribute more significantly to high rankings than others. 

To demonstrate the merits of including all the criteria, a comparative examination of 

rankings was performed to observe changes as more criteria groups were added. This was 

done using the final consumption perspective. For example, results for a single criterion, 

global warming, were compared to the results when all environmental impact criteria were 

used, and then to the results when all seventeen criteria were used. For global warming, air 

Chapter 2 | Page 22 
transportation and meat packing plants ranked high and were close in terms of their 

potential life-cycle global warming impacts. Addressing either from a life-cycle perspective 

would achieve important GHG reductions. However, when the remaining environmental 

impact criteria are included, the rank of meat packing plants rose significantly while air 

transportation fell. When the resource use and material waste criteria are added, meat 

packing plants maintained their high ranking position and air transportation rose, but 

remained significantly lower than meat packing plants. Thus, if meat packing plants are 

addressed from a life-cycle perspective, significant benefits potentially could be realized 

related to land use, freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation, terrestrial 

ecotoxicity and eutrophication, in addition to global warming. Addressing air transportation, 

on the other hand, potentially offers only energy use and global warming benefits. 

The table also demonstrates the importance of using several perspectives. Different 

materials, products and services rank high depending on which perspective is used and 

these materials, product and services generally fall within different life-cycle stages. 

Extraction and harvesting tend to rank high under the direct impact/resource use/waste 

perspective, while finished goods and services rank high under the final consumption 

perspective. The intermediate consumption perspective tends to rank high in the material 

processing and manufacturing stages, and less likely to rank high in services. Each 

perspective highlights potentially significant problematic materials, products, or services 

that the other perspectives missed. 

The Workgroup was also interested in looking at the results related specifically to 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all 3 perspectives. The results showed that when 

looking at direct GHG emissions, the upstream stages were highly ranked – for example, 

feed grains, and blast furnaces/steel mills. However, when looking at embedded GHG 

emissions, the downstream stages are highly ranked such as hospitals, meat packing plants, 

and automotive repair shops and services. 

Conclusion

The Workgroup believes that this examination of the 480 materials, products, and services 

across seventeen environmental criteria and from three different material system 

perspectives provides a reasonable narrowing of the economy to identify a pool of potential 

candidate materials, products and services which are important enough to be considered for 

projects to demonstrate the value of using life-cycle materials management. However, the 

Workgroup recognizes that an analysis such as this gives rise to many limitations and 

uncertainties such as correlations between criteria, the difference in level of commodity 

aggregation that exists for 480 materials, products and services examined, and the varying 

quality levels of the data used. Nevertheless, the 38 materials, products and services 

identified in Table 1 are likely to represent significant contributors to environmental issues 

in the U.S. 

 

Chapter 2 | Page 23 
Chapter 2 | Page 24 

This life-cycle analysis of the U.S. economy provides a rough sense of what impacts are 

occurring, where they are occurring, and what demands are behind them through its rather 

complete set of criteria and perspectives, limitations and uncertainties notwithstanding. 

This analysis also enables us to select demonstration projects that focus on particular types 

of materials management challenges. These challenges can include trying to address 

materials that become highly dispersed in the economy (e.g., aluminum); products or 

services that are a convergence of highly dispersed upstream materials (e.g., electronics, 

hospitals); or materials from each type of raw material category (e.g., agriculture, metals 

and minerals, nonrenewable organics). Each of these cases would have very different 

cycling pathways through the economy, from almost circular such as metals to essentially 

linear such as food. In addition, the process for selecting the demonstration projects can 

take advantage of the crude “supply chain” relationships that can be observed in Table 1 

(e.g., feed grains, meat animals, meat packing plants, and meat consumers). 

Regardless of how projects are selected, they should be designed to address the entire 

materials system. The analysis can serve as an initial guide on which impacts need to be 

addressed, where they are in the supply chain, and which parties should participate in 

crafting a materials management strategy. 

Beyond identifying demonstration projects, this analysis may offer interesting insights on 

the value of present program activities, as well as any priority-setting endeavors around a 

particular environmental impact such as GHG emissions. The analysis performed for this 

report can serve well as a model for environmental analysis in the future. 
Table 1: Summary of Top-Ranked Materials, Products, and Services 

Final Rank Environmental Aspects Significantly(1) Contributing to Fina

Material, Product, or Service DI IC FC Direct Impact/Resource Use/Waste Perspective Intermediate Consumption Perspective Final C

Dairy farm products 19

–

– LUC

Poultry and eggs 20

–

– LUC

Meat animals 6 6 – LUC LUC, FAETP, TETP, EPFood grains 13

–

– LUC, EP

Feed grains 9 15

– LUC, FAETP, TETP, EP, MU ADP, LUC, FAETP, TETP, EP

Miscellaneous crops 16

–

– FAETP, TETP, EP

Meat packing plants

– 11 7 LUC, FAETP, TETP, EP 

Poultry slaughtering and processing

–

– 17 

Eating and drinking places

– 16 5 LUC, GWP, FAETP, TETP, POCP, EP LUC, GWP, ODP, HTP

POC

Food preparations, n.e.c.

–

– 19 

Food Products & Services

Fluid milk

–

– 20 

Cotton 2 2 – FAETP, TETP, EP FAETP, TETP, EP

Apparel made from purchased

materials

– 13 2 FAETP, TETP, EP ODP, HT

Textiles Broadwoven fabric mills and fabric

finishing plants

– 10

– FAETP, TETP, EP

Coal 5 9 – ADP, MU, MW ADP, MU, MWCrude petroleum and natural gas 4 4 – ADP, GWP, POCP ADP, GWP, POCP, AP, EPIndustrial inorganic and organicchemicals

3 3 – ODP, HTP, MSETP, MW ODP, HTP, MSETP, POCP, EP, MW

Petroleum refining 8 5 3 MU, MW ADP, GWP, POCP, AP, EP, MU, MW ADP, GWP, Electric services (utilities) 1 1 1 GWP, HTP, MAETP, FSETP, POCP,

AP, EP, WU, EU

ADP, GWP, HTP, MAETP, FSETP,

POCP, AP, EP, MU, MW, WU, EU

ADP, GWP, HTP, M

Nonrenewable Organics

Natural gas distribution 15 14 12 MU, MW ADP, MU, MW Blast furnaces and steel mills

– 17

– GWP, HTP, POCP, MW, EU

Primary aluminum 18 20

– ODP, HTP, MAETP, FSEPT, MSEPT ODP, HTP, MAETP, FSETP, MSETP

Metals Motor vehicles and passenger car

bodies

– 12 4 GWP, ODP, HTP, MAETP, FSETP,

MSETP, POCP, EP, EU

ADP, GWP, ODP, HTP

PO

Chapter 2 | Page 25 
Chapter 2 | Page 26 

Final Rank Environmental Aspects Significantly(1) Contributing to Fina

Material, Product, or Service DI IC FC Direct Impact/Resource Use/Waste Perspective Intermediate Consumption Perspective Final C

Dimension, crushed and broken stone 14 – – MUSand and gravel 17 – – MUNew residential 1 unit structures,

nonfarm

10 8 8 MU BWP, ODP, HTP, FSETP, MSETP,

POCP, MU

GWP, ODP, H

Other new construction – – 13 GWP, ODOwner‐occupied dwellings – – 11 GWP,OCPNew highways, bridges, and other

horizontal construction

– – 10 

Construction& Development

New office, industrial and commercial

buildings construction

– – 16 ODP, 

Pulp mills 11 – – HTP, MSETP

Forestry Paper and paperboard mills 7 7 – HTP, MSETP HTP, MSETP

Computer and data processingservices: including own‐account

software(2)

_ _ _

Photographic equipment and

supplies(3)

12 – 14 HTP, MSETP 

Wholesale trade – 19 15 GWP, ODP, HTP, MSETP, POCP, EU ODRetail trade, except eating and

drinking

– – 6 ADP, GWP, ODP, HTP

Other Hospitals – – 9 GWP, ODP, HTP, TEProds& Services

Real estate agents, managers,

operators, and lessors

– 18 18 GWP, HTP, POCP, MU O

NOTES: (1) Significantly means value greater than two standard deviations from the mean.

(2) The supplemental markets trends analysis suggests that if relative output were adjusted from 1998 to 2007 levels, the “computer and data processing services” categ

final consumption perspective. For 1998 levels, it ranks 26th in the final consumption perspective with marine sedimental ecotoxicity being the significantly contribut

(3) The supplemental market trends analysis suggests that if relative output were adjusted from 1998 to 2007 levels, the “photographic equipment and supplies” catego

the final consumption perspective.

KEY:DI = Direct impact/resource use/waste

IC = Intermediate consumptionFC = Final consumption

• Shading shows the top 10 highest ranks for each perspective.

• − = ranked below top 20.

Environmental Impacts

ADP = abiotic depletion potential

AP = acidification potential

EP = eutrophication potentialFAETP = freshwater aquatic ecotox. potential

FSETP = freshwater sediment ecotox. potentialGWP = global warming potentialHTP = human toxicity potential

TETP = terrestrial ecotox potentialLUC = land use

MAETP = marine aquatic ecotox. potential

MSETP = marine sediment ecotox potentia

ODP = ozone depletion potential

POCP = photochemical oxidation potential
Chapter 3: 

Workgroup Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable 

Materials Management 

The recommendations are an integrated plan that provides a “roadmap” of tasks to promote 

materials management within EPA, state and tribal environmental programs. They call for 

immediate actions along three parallel paths. 

Î First, we recommend steps that EPA and state environmental agencies can take to 

promote integrated materials management, building on current programs including core 

regulatory programs. 

Î Second, we recommend that EPA and state environmental agencies move quickly to 

enhance their capacity for future life-cycle materials management. 

Î Third, we recommend accelerating an active, multifaceted conversation on life-cycle 

materials management with other parts of the federal government, state government, 

industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the public. 

Along these three paths, several cross-cutting themes underlie a national movement 

towards sustainable materials management. 

Î Government itself does not manage most materials, but its collective actions can have a 

strong impact on how materials are managed throughout the economy. 

Î EPA, state, tribal, and local environmental programs need to align and integrate their 

approaches, where possible, to move beyond existing program and product “silos.” 

Î Government agencies at all levels need to work together to use a variety of regulatory, 

economic, information and collaboration tools to accomplish the shift to materials 

management. 

Government environmental agencies need to engage across administrative, geographical, 

governmental and stakeholder boundaries to develop effective materials management 

strategies. These engagements are particularly needed to achieve changes early in the lifecycle of materials. 

The recommendations focus on materials management in the year 2020—eleven years from 

now. This time frame is intended to emphasize that the changes described in this report 

will take longer than a few years to achieve. But it is possible—and necessary—to begin 

now. 

Chapter 3 | Page 27 
RECOMMENDATION 1: 

Promote efforts to manage materials and products on a 

life-cycle basis. 

1.1 Select a few materials/products 

for an integrated life-cycle 

approach, and launch 

demonstration projects. 

Working with the Environmental Council of the 

States (ECOS), the Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO), and other groups as appropriate, 

EPA should select a few materials and/or 

products where an integrated life-cycle 

materials management approach could 

possibly achieve significant benefits for the 

environment and reduce resource use. The 

selection should be based on the analysis 

described in Chapter 2/Table 1 of the top 

ranked materials/products and on expressions 

of interest and likely collaboration by 

potentially affected stakeholders and key 

decision makers. 

Box 8 

QUESTIONS FOR MATERIAL/PRODUCT 

WORKGROUPS TO ADDRESS 

1. What are the significant 

environmental impacts associated 

with this material or product (e.g., 

where in the life cycle do the 

impacts occur, what processes drive 

these impacts, and what type of 

opportunities exist to reduce these 

impacts)? Also, are there potential 

risks of short or difficult-to-obtain 

supplies? 

2. What is currently being done to 

address the impacts associated with 

this material/product? 

3. If all impacts are not being 

addressed, what more can we do 

(e.g., fill information gaps, do more 

with less, find substitutes for toxic 

inputs, close the loop)? 

4. What targets/strategies for 

improvement are advised? How 

should progress be measured? 

Once demonstration projects are selected, 

EPA should convene and empower EPA/state 

workgroups to develop frameworks to reduce 

environmental impacts of the 

materials/products throughout the life cycle. 

These groups should start by examining 

ongoing efforts (in government and/or private 

sector) and consider questions such as those 

in Box 8 to develop initial frameworks that: 

1. strategically address life-cycle impacts 

with ambitious targets; 

2. integrate existing and new efforts across 

environmental media and programs (e.g., 

air, water, toxics, waste); 

Chapter 3 | Page 28 
3. use a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools; and 

Box 9 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WASTE AND 

CHEMICALS PROGRAMS 

1. Set realistic targets to transition 

towards increased use of secondary 

materials, reduced material and toxic 

intensity, as well as reduced waste, 

toxic and physical insults to the 

environment. 

2. Find ways to prevent key 

materials/product streams from 

becoming waste in the first place (e.g., 

consider use of RFID tags to improve 

the recycling, reuse and refurbishment 

of materials in consumer products). 

3. Work with the Department of 

Commerce—Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership to expand lean 

manufacturing support to small and 

medium enterprises to include 

reduction in material throughput and 

other aspects of life-cycle materials 

management. 

4. Encourage the trend that we see among 

leading waste management companies 

to transform themselves into fullservice life-cycle materials management 

advisors and service providers. 

5. Initiate energy recovery once reuse, 

recycling, and composting have been 

performed or are shown to be not 

viable. 

6. Incorporate life-cycle materials 

management principles in all EPA P2 

strategy and program guidance 

documents that are generated. 

Explicitly expand the agency’s concept 

of pollution prevention to embrace 

system-level life-cycle materials 

management, not just source reduction 

at the facility level. 

4. account for the full cost of products and 

waste. 

EPA and the states should seek stakeholder 

input on the frameworks and work with 

interested stakeholders to develop shared 

action plans. Action plans should consider 

creating multi-stakeholder teams capable of 

sustained and adaptive management for the 

pilot material or product (e.g., building on the 

model of the Quicksilver Caucus for mercury). 

They also should share information and 

insights with groups that are already working 

on those materials/products. 

1.2 Expand the focus of existing 

environmental programs to 

encompass life-cycle materials 

management more fully. 

EPA should work with states to expand the 

focus of the “mainline” environmental 

programs, especially the solid and hazardous 

waste and chemicals programs, to encompass 

the complete life cycle of materials more 

fully. At a minimum, EPA and states should 

identify specific opportunities to realign, 

refocus, or expand their efforts to promote 

life-cycle materials management. (See Box 

9.) This should include: 

Î Examine regulations to find ways to 

reduce barriers to life-cycle material 

management and promote resource 

efficiency. 

Î Encourage greater recovery and reuse of 

critical materials. 

Chapter 3 | Page 29 
Î Harness strategic planning, national guidance, budget, and performance metric systems 

to facilitate materials management. (See 2.4 below.) 

In addition, EPA and the states need to take the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) to 

the next stage by creating more emphasis on interventions earlier in the material life cycle. 

(See Box 10.) 

1.3 Promote specific materials management approaches that can help 

address climate change. 

EPA, state, tribal and local environmental agencies should work to integrate climate change 

and life-cycle materials management policies by emphasizing to decision-makers the 

connection between GHG emissions and materials. EPA and states also should pursue 

strategies that reduce GHG emissions through materials management approaches that 

balance GHG with other environmental impacts. 

1.4 Promote greener products, product stewardship, and product-toservice transformations. 

EPA should more actively promote the availability of environmentally preferable products by 

working to improve product design, reduce impacts associated with product supply chains, 

and increase product recovery. EPA and state waste and chemical programs should 

significantly expand their efforts to identify and encourage the use of products that are 

greener throughout their life cycle. This should include a number of specific efforts, such 

as: 

Î Encourage disclosure of all materials included in products. 

Î Work with states, manufacturers, retailers, and institutional buyers to develop EPAendorsed life cycle-based, multi-attribute green product labeling standards for multiple 

product categories, with emphasis on priority materials/products. 

Î Use Design for the Environment (DfE), Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, and green 

product standards/labeling initiatives within EPA waste, chemicals and innovations 

programs as drivers for new product design and production technologies, and product 

designs that use materials more efficiently. 

Î Work with states, manufacturers, retailers, NGO’s, and others to identify efficient ways 

to take back and recover products at end-of-life. 

Î Facilitate “business to business” approaches that promote material reuse, such as 

material and waste exchanges, “by-product synergy” and “eco-industrial” relationships. 

Chapter 3 | Page 30 
Î Promote business models that transform the sale of products to the sale of services and 

help ensure that such business models maximize materials use efficiency and other 

environmental improvements. 

Box 10 

THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION CHALLENGE AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

In 2002, EPA launched the Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC). The RCC was an early effort to 

respond to the RCRA Vision by placing renewed emphasis on RCRA mandates to prevent pollution, and 

conserve natural resources and energy through more efficient materials management. 

The RCC currently emphasizes four major resource areas: 1) municipal solid waste reuse and recycling; 2) 

green initiatives, such as reducing the life-cycle environmental impacts of electronics, and promoting 

green building construction and retrofitting of existing buildings; 3) industrial materials reuse and 

recycling; and 4) reduction of toxic chemicals in products and waste. 

Most RCC initiatives focus on the beneficial use of post-consumer and post-industrial materials, either by 

recycling, composting, or waste-to-energy. Putting to good use materials that would otherwise be disposed 

is an important element of a materials management strategy. Indeed, building an understanding of the 

value of material wastes and the needed infrastructure for their return to our economy is a necessary first 

step towards a materials management transformation. 

The RCC also includes some initiatives that point more upstream in the materials and product cycles by 

encouraging materials substitution and eco-design of products. For example, the National Partnership for 

Environmental Priorities (NPEP)—a partnership between EPA’s waste and chemicals programs—calls on 

partners to reduce the use of priority chemicals. The Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool 

(EPEAT), another waste and chemicals program partnership, challenges electronics manufacturers to 

remove toxics, use recycled content, and to make these products more energy efficient and easier to 

recycle or refurbish. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition aims to encourage a sustainable flow of materials 

through design guidance and tools to guide the selection of more sustainable materials. The Lifecycle 

Building Challenge calls for buildings to be designed for adaptation (so that buildings can be repurposed 

rather than torn down and rebuilt) and deconstruction (so building materials can be reused). 

A fully-realized materials management strategy will not only address recovery and beneficial use of wastes 

in industrial and biological cycles, but will also emphasize powerful upstream efforts to reduce and change 

materials use, such as: 1) full recognition of the life-cycle impacts of the use of certain materials; 2) using 

less materials in the first place; 3) substituting safer and renewable materials in place of toxic or nonrenewable materials; and 4) substituting services for products (to provide maximum utility with minimal 

material inputs and environmental impacts). 

This kind of thinking requires us to ask very different questions. For example, we often ask “What should 

we do with scrap tires, or electronics, or fluorescent lights when they need to be disposed?” But the 

question for the future may need to be: Is there a way to eliminate this waste completely, to provide 

these same services with fewer resources and no adverse environmental impacts? Can we do this by 

substituting something else that does not wear out so fast, can be reused, that can be fully or almost fully 

recovered and repurposed so that it never becomes waste? These kinds of questions, some of which are 

already being asked, can really “change the game.” They can generate untold innovation, improve lives, 

meet society’s needs without overexploiting resources (renewable or non-renewable), and keep our 

economic activity within the absorptive capacity of the environment. 

Chapter 3 | Page 31 
Î Work with producers, retailers, the waste collection/recycling industry, recyclers, and 

local governments to develop the materials collection and processing infrastructure 

needed to support life-cycle materials management. 

Î Improve the amount and type of consumer information available to support green 

purchasing. 

» Encourage consolidation of green product claims under fewer, more comprehensive 

and trusted product labels to reduce consumer confusion and “greenwashing.” 

» Review and update government procurement practices at all levels to support life 

cycle-based product standards. Consider allowing companies who supply superior 

“green” products to advertise that they supply these products to the U.S. 

Government. 

1.5 Strengthen market signals to reduce waste and other adverse 

environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of materials. 

Governments at all levels should work with industry and other stakeholders to use market 

signals to promote better materials management throughout the life cycle. Possibilities 

include: 

Î Charge more for disposal and less for recycling; charge for disposal by amount disposed 

(“pay as you throw”). 

Î Charge emissions and permit fees. 

Î Reward citizens/communities that recycle with rebates or coupons (e.g., Recycle Bank). 

Î Limit landfilling and incineration of recyclable/compostable materials. 

Chapter 3 | Page 32 
RECOMMENDATION 2: 

Build capacity and integrate materials management 

approaches in existing government programs. 

2.1 Establish and improve databases 

to promote materials 

management. 

EPA should establish a panel that includes 

stakeholders and outside experts to advise on 

materials management information priorities, 

including types of information needed, key 

indicators to track, how to make U.S. 

information compatible with information being 

generated in other countries, and how to get 

started in developing the necessary data sets. 

This process should be open and should invite public input. (See Box 11.) EPA should then 

establish an EPA/state workgroup to follow up on the panel’s advice and create a plan for a 

broadly useful set of indicators for life-cycle material management. 

EPA also should create new partnerships with other government agencies, the research 

community, and the private sectors to collect, improve, harmonize, and disseminate quality 

data that is critical for life-cycle materials management. This should include establishing a 

better mechanism than now exists for sharing data between EPA and states. 

2.2 Improve decision tools to support life-cycle materials management. 

EPA should work with states to create two decision support tools to support life-cycle 

materials management: 

Î Create a business decision support tool that connects economic and environmental 

performance associated with materials management (including carbon footprint 

reduction, as well as increased innovation and competitiveness). 

Î Create a consumer decision support tool that calculates the human health and 

environmental benefits associated with buying less material-intensive products or 

services. The tool should have the ability to display information on product-specific 

material use and provide performance comparisons. 

Chapter 3 | Page 33 
These tools should focus on depicting the energy/economic value of materials to help guide 

fees and other economic incentives that encourage sound materials management and 

discourage sending materials to disposal. 

Box 11 

CRITICAL DATA SETS FOR EFFECTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL LIFE-CYCLE MATERIALS 

MANAGEMENT 

• Material Flow Accounts to track the movement of materials from extraction to manufacturing, 

product use, reuse/recycling, and eventual disposal, showing emissions to the environment. 

Recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, as well as OECD. A growing number of 

nations have regularly-updated official Material Flow Accounts, but the U.S. has only 

prototypes. 

• Life-cycle inventories and life-cycle assessment models to enable industry, consumers, and 

government to analyze and understand the life-cycle impacts of products, both easily and in a 

standard, comparable manner. 

• Data that more fully characterize chemical content of materials/products, toxicity, chemical 

emissions, and waste generation. 

• Data on critical minerals to enable industry and government planning for using key minerals 

whose supply may be uncertain. Recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 

• Data on water use associated with the life cycles of materials and products, to enable business 

and government planning in the water-constrained situations we find now and expect to 

encounter more frequently in the future. 

• Data that connect the movement of materials, goods, and services in our economy to the 

environment; such data should be available for use at several levels, from national to state. 

The Comprehensive Environmental Data Archive (CEDA) which was used by the 2020 Vision 

Workgroup is a leading candidate for such a database. 

All these initiatives will require the support and cooperation (political, technical, and resource) of 

other public and private organizations. EPA can not undertake them alone. 

2.3 Expand research and innovations support programs to promote 

materials management. 

Research and innovation will be critical to giving government agencies and businesses the 

information they need to implement materials management approaches. More work is 

needed in a number of areas including the following. 

Î Expand the materials-related research described in EPA’s Sustainability Research 

Agenda. 

Chapter 3 | Page 34 
Î Expand research on life-cycle impacts of 

new materials and technologies (e.g., 

nanotechnology, biomimicry, enzymes). 

Î Work with other federal agencies to 

expand science and policy research to 

enable better global management of 

critical materials, following the NAS 

recommendations in their report, 

“Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. 

Economy” (2007). 

2.4 Emphasize materials 

management in EPA and state 

processes and procedures. 

EPA has a number of opportunities to 

immediately begin to emphasize materials 

management in Agency processes and 

procedures. These include: 

Î Augment EPA regulatory development 

guidance to encourage consideration of 

full life cycles and all types of impacts and 

externalities in the analysis for each 

regulation. This should include exploring ways to integrate life-cycle materials 

management considerations into economic and cost-benefit analysis. At present, such 

analyses generally focus on the most direct impacts of an action, and not life-cycle 

impacts. 

Box 12 

INTEGRATED PERMITTING IN THE 

EUROPEAN UNION 

Member countries of the European Union 

(E.U.) are implementing a new Integrated 

Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) 

permitting system. Under this system, 

environmental permits for large and 

complex industrial facilities must address 

the entire footprint of a facility’s operations. 

This includes not only the parameters 

traditionally regulated in the U.S. 

(emissions and discharges to air, water and 

land), but also the selection and use of all 

materials that serve as inputs into each 

industrial process. 

On an ongoing basis operators are expected 

to evaluate the use of materials and where 

possible minimize their environmental 

impacts. The “footprint” focus of E.U. 

integrated permits also means that 

environmental standards—best available 

techniques— apply to the use of natural 

resources such as water and energy. (j)

Î Consider ways for EPA and states to use the permitting process to encourage life-cycle 

materials management. (See Box 12.) 

Î Incorporate consideration of life-cycle materials management in EPA program 

evaluations, wherever appropriate. 

Î Encourage all current and future EPA and state partnership programs to address the full 

life cycle of materials, not just one stage. 

Î Revise EPA’s Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) mission statement, 

goals, and strategic plan to emphasize that the Agency will be a leader in promoting 

sustainability and materials management. Make sustainability central to EPA’s mission, 

and emphasize materials management targets and actions. 

Chapter 3 | Page 35 
2.5 Support and reward federal, state, tribal, and local champions for 

materials management and encourage collaboration. 

EPA should bring attention to successful materials management efforts, encourage staff and 

managers in EPA and state, tribal and local government agencies to further materials 

management concepts, and promote and reward collaboration. There are a number of 

specific opportunities to move towards these goals including the following. 

Î Promote collaboration and partnership on life-cycle materials management between the 

Agency and states, especially through ECOS and ASTSWMO. Life-cycle materials 

management should be part of joint EPA/state environmental strategies. 

Î Motivate staff throughout the federal and state governments to address the challenges 

of materials management by providing consistent resources, attention, support, and 

recognition. 

Î Focus EPA’s life-cycle materials management efforts and engage broader participation 

using multiple groups across the Agency, especially EPA’s Innovation Action Council 

(IAC) and the Multi-Media Pollution Prevention (M2P2) Forum around specific, crosscutting materials management issues such as labeling for products. 

Î Consult with the Tribal Operations Committee and Local Government Advisory 

Committee to plan the best ways to work with tribes and local governments on materials 

management. 

Î Work with federal and state agencies to create proactive hiring and training strategies to 

build the social marketing and social science skills, and engineering expertise, needed to 

support materials management. 

Î Adjust EPA and state recognition programs to reward superior life-cycle materials 

management efforts, including superior product design, or create new programs to 

recognize these efforts.

Chapter 3 | Page 36 
RECOMMENDATION 3: 

Accelerate the broad, ongoing public dialogue on lifecycle materials management. 

3.1 Stimulate a national conversation about materials management, 

engaging multiple networks. 

EPA should use its convening power to bring multiple parties together to advance a national 

conversation about materials management. There are a number of specific opportunities for 

this, including the following. 

Î Develop an EPA-wide materials management communications plan and encourage state 

agencies to develop similar plans. 

Î Work with states, tribes, local environmental agencies, businesses, non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs), consumer groups, and the academic community to engage the 

general public in a dialogue on the environmental impacts of consumption and the need 

for more sustainable materials management. 

» Develop a clear articulation of the urgent environmental and economic issues we face 

with respect to materials and products, and why life-cycle materials management 

approaches are needed. 

» Share this statement with the public and invite public input by a variety of means, 

including an electronic dialogue.

Î Consider establishing a national advisory group (a “Materials Innovation Council”) to 

advise on life-cycle materials management strategies. Include states, tribes, local 

environmental agencies, business and industry, environmental and public interest 

groups, and the academic community. The Council could be part of the National Advisory 

Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), or free standing. Their initial 

assignment might be to assess and comment on the materials management strategies 

currently underway in EPA program offices. 

Î Consider what additional statutory authorities (if any) are needed for EPA and the states 

to implement robust life-cycle materials management programs using both regulatory 

and non-regulatory approaches. 

Î Use the Environmental Executive Order 13423 and OMB’s Environmental Stewardship 

Scorecard to initiate a broader dialogue with federal agencies on actions they can take to 

support life-cycle materials management. 

Chapter 3 | Page 37 
3.2 Open a dialogue on economic instruments to encourage better 

materials management. 

Linking materials management choices to their economic implications and using economic 

policy to better promote materials management will be important to integrating materials 

management into the mainstream. There are a number of specific opportunities including 

the following. 

Î Work with other federal agencies to examine the full environmental impact of taxes and 

subsidies, and their impacts on competitiveness and ensure that taxes and subsidies put 

recycled materials on the same or better footing as virgin materials. 

Î Work with other federal agencies to consider creating and promoting an alternative 

measure of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that reflects the value of protecting the 

environment and conserving resources. 

3.3 Create ways to share knowledge on materials management. 

One of the most powerful things EPA can do to further materials management is to make 

clear and accurate information about the benefits of materials management approaches 

available. This includes both information on best practices, case studies and lessons 

learned, and the basic data and decision tools needed to implement materials management 

concepts. EPA has a number of opportunities to share knowledge and information on 

materials management including the following: 

Î Create an internet-accessible network of information resources (e.g., data, decision 

support tools, best practices) on materials management. The network should have 

nodes for federal government, state government, businesses, NGOs, academia, and 

communities, which allow easy movement of information and facilitation of action 

between and among nodes. EPA should expand its work with the Department of 

Commerce and its Manufacturing Extension Partnership to help on this effort. 

Î Encourage institutions of higher education to incorporate systems and materials 

management training across disciplines (from chemistry to engineering to business). 

Î Share knowledge, best practices, and technology related to materials management, 

product policy, and waste prevention efforts with other countries and learn from their 

efforts. In particular: 

» Expand U.S support for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development’s work on resource efficiency/productivity and sustainable materials 

management and for the G-8’s work on 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). 

Chapter 3 | Page 38 
» Support efforts of international organizations and research institutes to characte

international flows of materials. 

Actively pursue the U.S.–Canada partnership on Sustainable Consumption and 

Production (SCP) under the United Nati

rize 

» 

ons Environment Program (UNEP). Contribute 

r 

rograms on SCP. 

ed 

for or created by reuse, remanufacturing, and/or recycling. 

» Involve state governments in international efforts where appropriate and feasible. 

to the UNEP Marrakech Process to support SCP efforts and produce a global 10-Yea

Framework of P

» Advocate that the U.S. join the UNEP International Panel for Sustainable Resource 

Management. 

» Increase support for U.S. Government efforts to promote free trade in goods destin

Chapter 3 | Page 39 
Endnotes

 

1 Matthews, Emily, et al. Weight of Nations: Material Outflows from Industrial Economies. World Resource 

Institute. Washington, DC, 2000. p. v. 2

 Rogich, Donald, et al., Material Flows in the United States: A Physical Accounting of the U.S. Industrial Economy, 

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 2008, p10. 3

 United Nations, Report of the Conference on Environment and Development (Agenda 21). 1992. 4

 U.S. EPA. “Beyond RCRA: Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020.” 2002. Online: 

<www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/vision.htm>. 5

 International Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management. Exploring Elements for a Workplan (2008-

1020). UNEP/IRM/SC/0711/06 6

 USGS. “Materials Flow and Sustainability.” June 2008. Online: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0068-98/fs-0068-

98.pdf>. 7

 Speth, James. The Bridge at the End of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to 

Sustainability. Yale University Press. 2008. 1-2. 8

 Barker, Terry, et al. “Technical Summary.” Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. 

R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press. 2007. 27. 9

 Speth, James op. cit. p. 22. 10 World Wildlife Fund, Zoological Society of London, and Global Footprint Network. “Living Planet Report.” 2008. 

Online: <http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf>. 11 World Wildlife Fund, Zoological Society of London, and Global Footprint Network. “Living Planet Report.” 2008. 

Online: <http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf>. 12 Matthews, Emily, et al., op. cit. p. xi. 

13 See, for instance, Matt Richtel and Kate Galbraith, “Back at Junk Value, Recyclables Are Piling Up,” New York 

Times, December 8, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/business/08recycle.html?hp , accessed 

December 23, 2008. 

14 Ernst Ulrich von Weizsacker, “Let’s Call It Resource Productivity, and Let’s Be Bold,” presentation at the OECDUNEP Conference on Resource Productivity, 23-25 April 2008, Paris, France, slides available at 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/41/40677116.pdf , accessed December 23, 2008. 15 Matos, Grecia, and Lorie Wagner. “Consumption of Materials in the United States, 1900–1995.” Online: 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf >. 16 Matos, Grecia, and Lorie Wagner. “Consumption of Materials in the United States, 1900–1995.” Online: 

<http://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf >. 17 Wagner, Lorie. “Materials in the Economy—Material Flows, Scarcity, and the Environment.” U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1221. 2002. Online : <http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2002/c1221/c1221-508.pdf>. 4. 18 National Academies Press. “Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy.” 2008. Online: 

<http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12034&page=39>. 19 World Wildlife Fund, Zoological Society of London, and Global Footprint Network. Living Planet Report 2008. 2. 20 World Wildlife Fund, Zoological Society of London, and Global Footprint Network. Living Planet Report 2008. 3. 21 U.S. EPA, OSWER, OCPA. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land 

Management Practices. (Not yet released). 22 U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste (5306P). “Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 2007 Facts and Figures.” 

EPA530-R-08-010. November 2008. Online: <www.epa.gov/solidwaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf>. 23 Matthews, et al, op. cit.. p.14. 24 A. Adriaanse et al., Resource Flows: The Material Basis of Industrial Economies, a joint publication of the World 

Resources Institute (WRI), the Wuppertal Institute, the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and 

the Environment, and the National Institute for Environmental Studies (WRI, Washington, D.C., 1997), p 1. 

Online: <http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8407> 25 Matthews, et al., op. cit. p. v. 26 “World Wildlife Federation. “Living Planet Report.” 2008. Online: 

<http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf>. 27 National Resource Council of the National Academy. Minerals, Critical Minerals and the U.S. Economy, 2007. 

Endnotes | Page 40 
 

28 Jim Fava, “Sustainable manufacturing and distribution and International co-operation and partnerships,” 

presentation at the OECD-UNEP Conference on Resource Productivity, 23-25 April 2008, Paris, France. Online: < 

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/57/40677312.pdf> accessed December 23, 2008. 

29 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_report.pdf. 

Text Box Sources  

(a) U.S. EPA, OSWER, OCPA. Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land 

Management Practices. (Not yet released). 

(b) USGS. “Materials Flow and Sustainability.” June 2008. Online: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0068-98/fs-0068-

98.pdf>. 

(c) Engelman, Robert. “Fertility Falls, Population Rises, Future Uncertain.” Vital Signs Online. WorldWatch Institute. 

March 12, 2008. Online: <www.worldwatch.org/node/5645> 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. “International Coal Consumption Data: Selected 

Countries, Most Recent Annual Estimates, 1980-2007.” October 17, 2008. Online: 

<www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/coalconsumption.html> 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. “Table 2.1: World Oil Balance, 2004-2008.” November 

7, 2008. Online: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls

Michael Brower and Warren Leon, The Consumer’s Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, Three Rivers Press. 

1999, p. 4-5. 

(d) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Recommendation of the Council on Resource 

Productivity, 20 March 2008, Paris <http://www.oecd.org/dataoece/1/56/40564462.pdf> accessed August 4, 

2008 

(e) Group of Eight (G8), Kobe 3R Action Plan, G8 Environment Ministers Meeting, 24-26 May 2008 

<http://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/attach/080610-a5.pdf> accessed August 4, 2008. 

(f) G8, G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit Leaders Declaration, Hokkaido Toyako, 8 July 2008, paragraph 38. 

<http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/doc/doc080714_en.html> accessed August 4, 2008 

(g) http://www.icmm.com/page/1389/our-work/work-programs/articles/materials-stewardship

(h) http://www.wbcsdcement.org 

(i) http://www.keystone.org/spp/env-sustain_ag.html 

(j) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An In-Depth Look at the United Kingdom Integrated Permitting System, 

Washington DC, 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/permits/IntPermittingRpt.pdf> accessed December 23, 2008. 

Endnotes | Page 41