sustainable supply chains in a circular...

www.sustainable-systems.org.uk

253 × 109 - jobs.ac.uk

Adisa Azapagic

The University of Manchester

Sustainable supply chains in a

circular economy

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jobs.ac.uk/images/employer-logos/medium/92.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.jobs.ac.uk/employer/the-university-of-manchester/&h=109&w=253&tbnid=RqMMk6KoXou3EM:&zoom=1&docid=4X49c3HwHYuxdM&ei=mKxVVdnODcyM7AbSnYCAAw&tbm=isch&ved=0CGAQMygkMCQ












Overview

Introduction

Systems approach and life cycle thinking

“Circularity” vs “sustainability”

Illustrative examples

Food waste

Energy-using appliances

Packaging

Conclusions


Circular economy

Regenerative and restorative by design

Keep products and resources in use as long as

possible

Extract the maximum value while in use

Recover and regenerate products and resources at

the end of life

EMF (2015)


REGENERATIVE RESTORATIVE

Circular economy

EMF (2015)


Sustainable supply chain

Economically viable

Environmentally benign

Socially beneficial ©Adisa Azapagic and Slobodan Perdan


Systems approach and life cycle thinking

Resources

Social impacts

Env’l impacts

Social benefits

Economic

costs Economic

benefits

©Adisa Azapagic


Sustainable supply chain in a circular economy


Keep products and resources in use as long as

possible


Recover and regenerate products and resources at

the end of life

EMF (2015)


Food waste

To digest, compost, burn or bury?

7.3 Mt/yr of household food waste generated in the UK of

which 4.9 Mt is managed



Resource recovery from food waste

Electricity

Household

food waste

(4.9 Mt/yr)

Landfill

Incineration Electricity

Anaerobic

digestion Fertiliser

Electricity

In-vessel

composting Compost

Resources Env’l

impacts

Slorach et al., Sci.Tot. Env. 693 (2019) 133516.


Environmental impacts (per tonne)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Carbonfootprint

Acidification Eutrophication Human toxicity Marine ecotox. Particulates

Anaerobic digestion Incineration In-vessel composting Landfill

19-3

0 x

26-4

3 x

6-1

0 x

8-1

3 x

Not to scale

Slorach et al. ,Sci.Tot. Env. 693 (2019) 133516.


Summary

In-vessel composting is the worst option for most impacts In this case “circular” does not translate into “sustainable”

Anaerobic digestion is the best option for the carbon footprint and most other impacts

However, it has much higher acidification and particulates (PM10)

Much greater benefits would be achieved through waste prevention (several orders of magnitude)

Slorach et al.. Sci.Tot. Env. 693 (2019) 133516.


REGENERATIVE RESTORATIVE

Restorative

EMF (2015)


Circular economy concept


Keep products in use as long as possible


Recover and regenerate products and resources

at the end of life


Restorative by design

Vacuum cleaners

200 M vacuum cleaners are in use in the EU, with 45 M sold annually



Annual impacts in the EU

11

31

58

37

8

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Gallego-Schmid et al., Sci.Tot. Env. (2016) 559 192-203.


Eco-design: Improving energy efficiency

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

W/O eco-design With eco-design



Eco-design: Improving material efficiency



Disassembly analysis

Product disassembly characterisation Outcomes

Total number of pieces 150

Pieces theoretically not required 41

Number of task repetitions 313

Number of tool manipulations 116

Number of non-value-added tasks 104

Mendoza et al., J. Ind. Ecol. (2017) 526-544.


8 types of plastics (2.3 kg) 6 types of metals (1.2 kg) Cardboard (packaging; 0.9 kg)

Materials in a vacuum cleaner

15 types of materials (total 4.4 kg)



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Reversible joints

Same material joints

Parts with label

Recyclable materials

Painted surfaces

Eco-design: Improving circularity



CE in practice for vacuum cleaners

Long

lasting

product (20

years)

Recyclability

Size reduction

Second-hand products

Take-back systems

Sustainable

materials

Easily replaceable

components

Recycled content

Low-impact

materials

Easy disassembly

Plastics from the sea

High recyclability

Availability of spares

Reverse supply chain


Circular economy concept


Keep products in use as long as possible


Recover and regenerate products and resources

at the end of life


Reuse or recycle?

Fizzy drinks packaging

1.5 Mt CO2 eq./yr emitted from the UK fizzy drinks sector

13% of the GHG emissions from the whole F&D sector

Amienyo and Azapagic, Int. J. LCA (2013) 18 77–92



555

312 293

151

414

248

174

74

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Glass bottles (0.75 l) Aluminium cans(0.33 l)

PET bottles (0.5 l) PET bottles (2 l)

Carb

on

fo

otp

rin

t (g

CO

2eq

./l)

Total Packaging

Carbon footprint of fizzy drinks

35%

recycle

d

48%

24%



Reusing glass bottles

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ca

rbo

n f

oo

tpri

nt

(g C

O2

eq

./l)



Reuse or recycle?

555

312293

151

237

151

0

100

200

300

400

500

600



Carb

on

fo

otp

rin

t (g

CO

2eq

./l)

Used 4

x

25

x



Recycling PET bottles (0.5 l)

293

197

152

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

24%R; 76%L* 40%R; 60%L 60%R; 40%L

Carb

on

fo

otp

rin

t (g

CO

2eq

./l)



Reuse or recycle?

555

312293

151

237197

151 152

0

100

200

300

400

500

600



Ca

rbo

n f

oo

tpri

nt

(g C

O2

eq

./l)

Used 4

x

25

x

40

% r

ec.

60%



Summary

It pays to reuse glass bottles

Benefits ‘fizzle out’ beyond 3-4 times

Reusing glass 7 times comparable to

recycling 40% of plastic bottles

Larger plastic packaging still better than

glass used 25 times



Single-use plastics:

To ban or not to ban?



Food containers: Single-use vs reusable

500-850 million units/yr used and disposed in the EU

Gallego-Schmid et al., J. Cleaner Prod. (2018) 211 417-427


End-of-life management (EU28)

Polypropylene

11% recycled, 44% incinerated and 45% landfilled

Aluminium

54% recycled and 46% landfilled

Extruded polystyrene

50% landfilled and 50% incinerated



Life cycle impacts of single-use containers

Not to scale

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350EPS Al PP



Life cycle impacts of single-use containers

EPS

7% to 28 times lower impacts than aluminium

25% to six times lower than polypropylene

Less EPS needed than PP and less

energy used than for aluminium



Single-use vs reusable container

Impact

Carbon footprint 18 11

Resource depl. 208 3

Acidification 29 8

Eutrophication 18 14

Human toxicity 37 2

Marine ecotox. 24 4

Ozone depletion 27 1

Summer smog 16 9

Number of uses of reusable PP containers needed to equal the

impacts of single-use containers

vs vs



Summary

Single-use, non-recyclable EPS has the lowest life

cycle environmental impacts

Single-use polypropylene container is the worst

option for most impacts

Reusable PP container needs to be reused 16-208

times to match the single-use EPS container

Recycling of EPS is technically possible but costly

In this case, “circular” does not translate into

“sustainable”



Conclusions

Most supply chains are not designed for a circular economy

We still need to understand better when “circular” is “sustainable”

The systems and life cycle approaches are essential

Implementation of CE will be challenging but is achievable

Drivers are increasing

Methods and evaluation tools are available

Technologies are developing (slowly)

More success stories are needed to stimulate the uptake

Legislation will need to get tougher


Acknowledgements

Alejandro Gallego Schmid

David Amienyo

Harish Jeswani

Joan Fernandez Mendoza

Peter Slorach

Rosa Cuéllar-Franca

EPSRC


References

Amienyo, D., H. Gujba, H. Stichnothe and A. Azapagic (2013). Life cycle environmental impacts of soft carbonated drinks. International Journal of LCA 18(1) 77-92.

EMF (2015). Delivering the Circular Economy - A Toolkit for Policy Makers. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), Isle of Wight.

Gallego-Schmid, A., J. M. F. Mendoza, H. K. Jeswani and A. Azapagic (2016). Life cycle environmental impacts of vacuum cleaners and the effects of European regulation. Science of the Total Environment 559 192-203.

Gallego-Schmid A., J. M. F. Mendoza and A. Azapagic (2019). Environmental impacts of takeaway food containers. Journal of Cleaner Production 211 417-427.

Mendoza, J.M.F., M. Sharmina, A. Gallego-Schmid, G. Heyes, and A. Azapagic (2017). Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the BECE framework. Journal of Industrial Ecology 21 526–544.

Slorach, P. C., H. K. Jeswani, R. Cuéllar-Franca and A. Azapagic (2019). Environmental and economic implications of recovering resources from food waste in a circular economy. Science of the Total Environment. 693 133516.

sustainable supply chains in a circular...

Documents