IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v6y2017i1p5-d88143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Sfez

    (Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and Technology (EnVOC), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University—Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Jo Dewulf

    (Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and Technology (EnVOC), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University—Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Wouter De Soete

    (Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and Technology (EnVOC), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University—Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Thomas Schaubroeck

    (Department of Sustainable Organic Chemistry and Technology (EnVOC), Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University—Campus Coupure, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium)

  • Fabrice Mathieux

    (European Commission—Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra, Italy)

  • Dana Kralisch

    (Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Institute of Pharmacy, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Lessingstr. 8, 07743 Jena, Germany)

  • Steven De Meester

    (Laboratory of Industrial Water and Ecotechnology (LIWET), Department of Industrial Biological Sciences, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University—Campus Kortrijk, Graaf Karel de Goedelaan 5, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium)

Abstract

The world is facing a tremendous resource supply challenge. One strategy of regions and nations to address this issue is to encourage research and innovation through funding programs. Most of the time, these programs require that research and innovation projects quantify potential increases in resource efficiency achieved by the projects. However, no consensus exists on how to calculate resource efficiency; therefore, a wide range of approaches is followed. As a result, resource efficiency results are not comparable between projects, and because no rules or guidelines exist to help project developers, the approach followed is not always appropriate. This paper aims to discuss the existing approaches and methods used to evaluate resource efficiency. In this context, resource efficiency is defined as the ratio between the benefits obtained from resources and the impact or amount of resources used. The most challenging step is the determination of this ratio’s denominator because a wide range of methods to quantify resource consumption exist and are being used. They can be classified as gate-to-gate or life cycle based methods and can be subdivided into accounting methods and impact assessment methods. Each method considers different aspects of resources; thus, no single method aims to answer the same research questions. Therefore, project developers must make a well informed choice about which method to use. This paper provides recommendations to support this choice, as well as the overall evaluation and the valorization of the resource efficiency ratio in the framework of research and innovation programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Sfez & Jo Dewulf & Wouter De Soete & Thomas Schaubroeck & Fabrice Mathieux & Dana Kralisch & Steven De Meester, 2017. "Toward a Framework for Resource Efficiency Evaluation in Industry: Recommendations for Research and Innovation Projects," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:5-:d:88143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/6/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jo Dewulf & Lucia Mancini & Gian Andrea Blengini & Serenella Sala & Cynthia Latunussa & David Pennington, 2015. "Toward an Overall Analytical Framework for the Integrated Sustainability Assessment of the Production and Supply of Raw Materials and Primary Energy Carriers," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(6), pages 963-977, December.
    2. Lauran Van Oers & Jeroen Guinée, 2016. "The Abiotic Depletion Potential: Background, Updates, and Future," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Sheetal Gavankar & Sangwon Suh & Arturo A. Keller, 2015. "The Role of Scale and Technology Maturity in Life Cycle Assessment of Emerging Technologies: A Case Study on Carbon Nanotubes," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(1), pages 51-60, February.
    4. Goran Finnveden & Yevgeniya Arushanyan & Miguel Brandão, 2016. "Exergy as a Measure of Resource Use in Life Cycle Assessment and Other Sustainability Assessment Tools," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Huijbregts, Mark A.J. & Hellweg, Stefanie & Frischknecht, Rolf & Hungerbuhler, Konrad & Hendriks, A. Jan, 2008. "Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 798-807, February.
    6. Bettina Bahn-Walkowiak & Sören Steger, 2015. "Resource Targets in Europe and Worldwide: An Overview," Resources, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-24, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lígia da Silva Lima & Louise Cocquyt & Lucia Mancini & Erasmo Cadena & Jo Dewulf, 2023. "The role of raw materials to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals: Tracing the risks and positive contributions of cobalt along the lithium‐ion battery supply chain," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 777-794, June.
    2. Larisa BUGAIAN & Cristina DIACONU, 2022. "Quantifying The Sustainability Of The Wine Sector Through Life Cycle Assessment (Lca)," Contemporary Economy Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 7(4), pages 63-69.
    3. Debrupa Chakraborty & Joyashree Roy, 2015. "Ecological footprint of paperboard and paper production unit in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 909-921, August.
    4. Lone Werner & Bert Scholtens, 2017. "Firm Type, Feed-in Tariff, and Wind Energy Investment in Germany: An Investigation of Decision Making Factors of Energy Producers Regarding Investing in Wind Energy Capacity," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 21(2), pages 402-411, April.
    5. Elena N. Shaforostova & Olga V. Kosareva-Volod’ko & Olga V. Belyankina & Danila Y. Solovykh & Ekaterina S. Sazankova & Elena I. Sizova & Danila A. Adigamov, 2023. "A Tailing Dump as Industrial Deposit; Study of the Mineralogical Composition of Tailing Dump of the Southern Urals and the Possibility of Tailings Re-Development," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Nils Thonemann & Anna Schulte & Daniel Maga, 2020. "How to Conduct Prospective Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Technologies? A Systematic Review and Methodological Guidance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-23, February.
    7. Marie K. Schellens & Johanna Gisladottir, 2018. "Critical Natural Resources: Challenging the Current Discourse and Proposal for a Holistic Definition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-28, December.
    8. Mario Martín-Gamboa & Diego Iribarren, 2016. "Dynamic Ecocentric Assessment Combining Emergy and Data Envelopment Analysis: Application to Wind Farms," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, January.
    9. Ekaterina Blinova & Tatyana Ponomarenko & Valentin Knysh, 2022. "Analyzing the Concept of Corporate Sustainability in the Context of Sustainable Business Development in the Mining Sector with Elements of Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-30, July.
    10. Taelman, Sue Ellen & De Meester, Steven & Schaubroeck, Thomas & Sakshaug, Egil & Alvarenga, Rodrigo A.F. & Dewulf, Jo, 2014. "Accounting for the occupation of the marine environment as a natural resource in life cycle assessment: An exergy based approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Emily Grubert, 2023. "Yellow, red, and brown energy: leveraging water footprinting concepts for decarbonizing energy systems," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7239-7260, July.
    12. Ornella Papaluca & Mario Tani & Ciro Troise, 2020. "Entrepreneurship and Sustainability in Tourism: An Interpretative Model," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(1), pages 1-38, July.
    13. Marius Kazlauskas & Indrė Bručienė & Dainius Savickas & Vilma Naujokienė & Sidona Buragienė & Dainius Steponavičius & Kęstutis Romaneckas & Egidijus Šarauskis, 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Winter Wheat Production Using Precision and Conventional Seeding Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-13, September.
    14. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.
    15. Deidre Wolff & Svenja Weber & Tobias Graumann & Stefan Zebrowski & Nils Mainusch & Nikolas Dilger & Felipe Cerdas & Sabrina Zellmer, 2023. "An Environmental and Technical Evaluation of Vacuum-Based Thin Film Technologies: Lithium Niobate Coated Cathode Active Material for Use in All-Solid-State Battery Cells," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Thomas Wiedmann & John Barrett, 2010. "A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-49, June.
    17. Miha Dominko & Kaja Primc & Renata Slabe-Erker & Barbara Kalar, 2023. "A bibliometric analysis of circular economy in the fields of business and economics: towards more action-oriented research," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 5797-5830, July.
    18. Teixeira, Bernardo & Brito, Miguel Centeno & Mateus, António, 2024. "Raw materials for the Portuguese decarbonization roadmap: The case of solar photovoltaics and wind energy," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Dewulf, Jo & Blengini, Gian Andrea & Pennington, David & Nuss, Philip & Nassar, Nedal T., 2016. "Criticality on the international scene: Quo vadis?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 169-176.
    20. Rodrigo A. F. Alvarenga & Ittana De Oliveira Lins & José Adolfo de Almeida Neto, 2016. "Evaluation of Abiotic Resource LCIA Methods," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-21, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:5-:d:88143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.