IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p1951-d745074.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of a Simplified Carbon Footprint Tool for Organic Waste Managers: Pros and Cons

Author

Listed:
  • Eliana Mancini

    (Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio”, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy)

  • Viviana Negro

    (ACEA Pinerolese Industriale S.p.a, Via Vigone 42, 10064 Pinerolo, Italy)

  • Davide Mainero

    (ACEA Pinerolese Industriale S.p.a, Via Vigone 42, 10064 Pinerolo, Italy)

  • Andrea Raggi

    (Department of Economic Studies, University “G. d’Annunzio”, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127 Pescara, Italy)

Abstract

Given that the pressure of climate change action on companies is increasing, it is recommended to measure the improvement of mitigation activities in terms of GHG emissions. This paper aims to highlight the still-open aspects that characterise simplified GHG accounting tools, starting from the outcomes of a case study. This study was performed using a simplified Italian software for the CO 2 eq accounting of composting and anaerobic digestion, two mitigation activities that contribute an important share of global GHG emissions reduction. The tool is based on the life-cycle thinking approach. It has been applied to an Italian company that treats the organic fraction of municipal solid waste. The tool analysis has made it possible to stress several issues that are currently the object of debate in the literature, for example, the trade-off between the flexibility of the software and its user friendliness or the multifunctionality issues and their different interpretations. However, focusing on just one impact category, i.e., climate change, may lead to an incomplete picture of the overall environmental performance of the process analysed. Therefore, this tool could be improved by including other impact categories, such as eutrophication and acidification, which may be affected by the studied activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Eliana Mancini & Viviana Negro & Davide Mainero & Andrea Raggi, 2022. "The Use of a Simplified Carbon Footprint Tool for Organic Waste Managers: Pros and Cons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:1951-:d:745074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/1951/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/1951/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Giuliana Vinci & Roberto Ruggieri & Andrea Billi & Carmine Pagnozzi & Maria Vittoria Di Loreto & Marco Ruggeri, 2021. "Sustainable Management of Organic Waste and Recycling for Bioplastics: A LCA Approach for the Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Manninen, Kaisa & Koskela, Sirkka & Nuppunen, Anni & Sorvari, Jaana & Nevalainen, Olli & Siitonen, Sari, 2013. "The applicability of the renewable energy directive calculation to assess the sustainability of biogas production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 549-557.
    4. Markus Klimscheffskij & Thierry Van Craenenbroeck & Marko Lehtovaara & Diane Lescot & Angela Tschernutter & Claudia Raimundo & Dominik Seebach & Christof Timpe, 2015. "Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-30, May.
    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. Spyridoula Gerassimidou & Olwenn V. Martin & Gilenny Yamily Feliz Diaz & Chaoying Wan & Dimitrios Komilis & Eleni Iacovidou, 2022. "Systematic Evidence Mapping to Assess the Sustainability of Bioplastics Derived from Food Waste: Do We Know Enough?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Christian Moretti & Blanca Corona & Robert Edwards & Martin Junginger & Alberto Moro & Matteo Rocco & Li Shen, 2020. "Reviewing ISO Compliant Multifunctionality Practices in Environmental Life Cycle Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Arianne Provost‐Savard & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2024. "Substitution modeling can coherently be used in attributional life cycle assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 410-425, June.
    4. Bacenetti, Jacopo & Sala, Cesare & Fusi, Alessandra & Fiala, Marco, 2016. "Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 669-686.
    5. kos Hamburger & G bor Harangoz, 2018. "Factors Affecting the Evolution of Renewable Electricity Generating Capacities: A Panel Data Analysis of European Countries," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(5), pages 161-172.
    6. Alessandro Cardarelli & Marco Barbanera, 2023. "Substitution of Fossil Coal with Hydrochar from Agricultural Waste in the Electric Arc Furnace Steel Industry: A Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Nancy Brett, 2023. "From Benefits to Value(s): Biogas Systems Valuation Practices from a Swedish Regional Perspective," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(5), pages 128-128, September.
    8. Alexander Wimmers & Reinhard Madlener, 2023. "The European Market for Guarantees of Origin for Green Electricity: A Scenario-Based Evaluation of Trading under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-35, December.
    9. Donatella Restuccia & Sabrina Antonia Prencipe & Marco Ruggeri & Umile Gianfranco Spizzirri, 2022. "Sustainability Assessment of Different Extra Virgin Olive Oil Extraction Methods through a Life Cycle Thinking Approach: Challenges and Opportunities in the Elaio-Technical Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    11. Kari-Anne Lyng & Andreas Brekke, 2019. "Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Biogas as a Fuel for Transport Compared with Alternative Fuels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-12, February.
    12. Ákos Hamburger, 2019. "Is guarantee of origin really an effective energy policy tool in Europe? A critical approach," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 41(4), pages 487-507, December.
    13. Stamatios K. Chrysikopoulos & Panos T. Chountalas & Dimitrios A. Georgakellos & Athanasios G. Lagodimos, 2024. "Green Certificates Research: Bibliometric Assessment of Current State and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-45, January.
    14. Albana Kona & Paolo Bertoldi & Şiir Kılkış, 2019. "Covenant of Mayors: Local Energy Generation, Methodology, Policies and Good Practice Examples," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-29, March.
    15. Svetlana V. Obydenkova & Lucie V. E. Defauw & Panos D. Kouris & David M. J. Smeulders & Michael D. Boot & Yvonne van der Meer, 2022. "Environmental and Economic Assessment of a Novel Solvolysis-Based Biorefinery Producing Lignin-Derived Marine Biofuel and Cellulosic Ethanol," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-29, July.
    16. Braud, L. & McDonnell, K. & Murphy, F., 2023. "Environmental life cycle assessment of algae systems: Critical review of modelling approaches," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Adams, P.W.R. & Mezzullo, W.G. & McManus, M.C., 2015. "Biomass sustainability criteria: Greenhouse gas accounting issues for biogas and biomethane facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 95-109.
    18. Ingrao, Carlo & Rana, Roberto & Tricase, Caterina & Lombardi, Mariarosaria, 2015. "Application of Carbon Footprint to an agro-biogas supply chain in Southern Italy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 75-88.
    19. Vincenzo Dovì & Antonella Battaglini, 2015. "Energy Policy and Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach to a Global Problem," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-8, November.
    20. Xinyue Li & Bin Zhou & Weiling Jin & Huangwei Deng, 2024. "A Comprehensive Assessment of the Carbon Footprint of the Coal-to-Methanol Process Coupled with Carbon Capture-, Utilization-, and Storage-Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-13, April.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:1951-:d:745074. 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.