## 3 Results and Discussion
### Step 3: Life Cycle Impact Assessment
#### 3.3.3 Step 3.3: Macro-Assessment  
This step provides a set of macro-indicators that facilitate the results interpretation phase and the project management activities of design and product development. The macro-indicators of efficiency (Ey), sufficiency (Sy) and consistency (Cy) provide relevant information for the proposal of eco-effective and eco-efficient strategies. These serve to set the objectives of continuous improvement, in the redesign roadmaps, with which to obtain more sustainable versions of the product. Therefore, these support the strategic decision-making process for the Continuous Improvement Plan (see Table 4, column Step 3.3), with information about the product's evolution, i.e., between consecutive periods (IP\({}_{\%}\)) or, since their launch (IP\({}_{\rm T}\)), analyzing the trend of change. Thanks to the macro-indicators, a \"historical values sheet\" is obtained. The results can be found in Table 6, including:  
1. **Efficiency**: starting from the LCA+C2C endpoint impact data for the QHH, QHS, QAS and QBS categories and using expressions (8) and (9), the maximum performance of the product reached so far, the evaluation of the improvement between periods and the change trend since the product launch are obtained. See Table 4, Ey cells.
2. **Consistency**: using expressions (10), (11) and (12), the cyclicity of the system and the metabolic pathways are evaluated (C2C principle \"waste equals food\"). See Table 4, Cy cells. Likewise, subjecting these indicators to expressions (6) and (7) will obtain an assessment of the improvements achieved.
3. **Sufficiency:** expression (13) evaluates the eco-effectiveness of the product or the value created (C2C principle \"celebrate biodiversity\"); see Table 4, Sy cells. In addition, an economic analysis of the product life cycle with LCC is carried out, including the evaluation of direct and indirect cost impacts, using eco-costs and the EVR indicator [10]. The calculation of the improvement between periods, and the change trend, is carried out, as in the previous cases.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**N**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Weighting LCA+C2C**} \\ \hline \hline
**K** & \(\mathbf{N_{K}}\) & \(\mathbf{J_{k}}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{i\,j\,k}}\) & \(\mathbf{Q_{k}}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{r}\,\,LiC}\) & \(\mathbf{W_{K}\,\,LiC}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{QBS} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(1.71\times 10^{-10}\)} & M (J\({}_{2}\)) & \(1.62\times 10^{-11}\) & & 0.91 & \multirow{4}{*}{0.28} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & E (J\({}_{3}\)) & \(5.84\times 10^{-12}\) & & 0.97 & & \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & W (J\({}_{4}\)) & \(2.61\times 10^{-11}\) & & 0.85 & & \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & L (J\({}_{1}\)) & \(1.57\times 10^{-13}\) & & 0.99 & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{QAS} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(1.14\times 10^{4}\)} & E (J\({}_{3}\)) & \(4.56\times 10^{3}\) & & 0.60 & & \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & W (J\({}_{4}\)) & OBS & \multirow{2}{*}{\(4.56\times 10^{3}\)} & & OBS & \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-7}  & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Legend: OBS: outside of system boundaries; C: characterization; N: normalization; W: weighting; Rj: causes (resources); K: C2C+LCA categories; Q: endpoint LCA+C2C results; P: period; IP: improvement plant indicators; CEI: Cause Effects Inventory; QEI: Quality Effects Inventory; FEI: Future Effects Inventory.  
\end{table}
Table 5: _Cont._