IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2619-d757303.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Wenger

    (Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Stefan Pichler

    (Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Annukka Näyhä

    (School of Business and Economics, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland
    School of Resource Wisdom, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland)

  • Tobias Stern

    (Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/I, 8010 Graz, Austria)

Abstract

The utilization of coproducts is a strategy that can be applied to increase the economic and environmental performance of industrial processes and thus reach an objective targeted in several environmental policies. In multi-output production processes, allocation needs to be performed to assess the products’ environmental and economic performance. It is crucial to choose an adequate allocation method, because this choice has been shown to strongly influence overall outcomes. Consequently, rash choices can lead to poor decision-making. Various ways to apply and combine allocation methods can be found in the academic literature, but it is often difficult to find sufficient guidance on how to choose an allocation method for a specific context. This study explores practitioners’ perceptions of the cost and environmental impact allocation methods used in biorefinery development (lignin, fiber fines) by applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Results indicate that professional background represents a major factor influencing individual preferences and, thus, the selection of specific allocation methods. Policy makers should be aware that practitioners with different professional backgrounds have varying preferences for different allocation methods and that this influences the overall assessments. These factors, in turn, affect the interpretation of results, further decision-making and, ultimately, the realization of environmentally sound and economically viable biorefinery projects. This issue deserves more attention in biorefineries, but also in other multi-output production processes. The findings indicate a need to consider multidisciplinary, diverse views and knowledge when conducting such assessments and to display the underlying approaches transparently.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2619-:d:757303
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2619/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2619/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Birte Schaltenbrand & Kai Foerstl & Arash Azadegan & Kevin Lindeman, 2018. "See What We Want to See? The Effects of Managerial Experience on Corporate Green Investments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 1129-1150, July.
    2. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    3. Ravi Subramanian & Brian Talbot & Sudheer Gupta, 2010. "An Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations Within Managerial Decision‐Making," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(3), pages 378-398, June.
    4. Frazer Musonda & Markus Millinger & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "Greenhouse Gas Abatement Potentials and Economics of Selected Biochemicals in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Dieuwertje Schrijvers & Philippe Loubet & Guido Sonnemann, 2020. "Archetypes of Goal and Scope Definitions for Consistent Allocation in LCA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Sarkis, Joseph & Zhu, Qinghua & Lai, Kee-hung, 2011. "An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Stoyan Deevski, 2016. "Cost Allocation Methods for Joint Products and By-products," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 1, pages 64-70, March.
    8. Temmes, Armi & Peck, Philip, 2020. "Do forest biorefineries fit with working principles of a circular bioeconomy? A case of Finnish and Swedish initiatives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Sangwon Suh & Bo Weidema & Jannick Hoejrup Schmidt & Reinout Heijungs, 2010. "Generalized Make and Use Framework for Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 14(2), pages 335-353, March.
    10. Yan Li & Neal M. Ashkanasy, 2019. "Risk adaptation and emotion differentiation: An experimental study of dynamic decision-making," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 219-243, March.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jen S., 2007. "Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 22-37, March.
    12. Cherubini, Francesco & Strømman, Anders Hammer & Ulgiati, Sergio, 2011. "Influence of allocation methods on the environmental performance of biorefinery products—A case study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(11), pages 1070-1077.
    13. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    14. Xin Li & Lizhu Chen & Xuemei Ding, 2019. "Allocation Methodology of Process-Level Carbon Footprint Calculation in Textile and Apparel Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Fulvio Ardente & Maurizio Cellura, 2012. "Economic Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(3), pages 387-398, June.
    16. Kelly Z. Peng, 2017. "Responding to emotions in China: Gender differences and the emotion-job outcome relationship," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 443-460, June.
    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. 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.
    2. Lázaro V. Cremades & Lluc Canals Casals, 2022. "Analysis of the Future of Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle Seems Just a Transitory Alternative," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Schöll, Michaela, 2017. "Three Essays on Sustainable Supply Chain Management – Towards Sustainable Supplier Selection and Sustainable Sourcing," EconStor Theses, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, number 172463, September.
    4. 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.
    5. M. M. Yagoub & Aishah A. Alsereidi & Elfadil A. Mohamed & Punitha Periyasamy & Reem Alameri & Salama Aldarmaki & Yaqein Alhashmi, 2020. "Newspapers as a validation proxy for GIS modeling in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates: identifying flood-prone areas," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 104(1), pages 111-141, October.
    6. Emete Toros & Yavuz Gazibey, 2018. "Priorities of the citizens in city brand development: comparison of two cities (Nicosia and Kyrenia) by using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 413-437, December.
    7. Hugo Gonçalves & Vanessa S. M. Magalhães & Luís M. D. F. Ferreira & Amílcar Arantes, 2024. "Overcoming Barriers to Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Dongmei Huang & Weijun Li & Xikun Chang & Yunliang Tan, 2019. "Key Factors Identification and Risk Assessment for the Stability of Deep Surrounding Rock in Coal Roadway," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Felipe Romero-Perdomo & Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, 2023. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Techniques in Life-Cycle Tools for the Circular Bioeconomy Transition of Agri-Food Waste Biomass: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-27, March.
    10. Yucel Gulluce, 2021. "A LabVIEW-based fire monitoring software using multi-criteria AHP approach for detecting geolocation of wildfire," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(2), pages 1849-1876, November.
    11. Ramin Gharizadeh Beiragh & Reza Alizadeh & Saeid Shafiei Kaleibari & Fausto Cavallaro & Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani & Romualdas Bausys & Abbas Mardani, 2020. "An integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for Sustainability Performance Assessment for Insurance Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    13. Panagiotis Trivellas & Georgios Malindretos & Panagiotis Reklitis, 2020. "Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-29, December.
    14. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    15. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    16. Mena, Carlos & Terry, Leon A. & Williams, Adrian & Ellram, Lisa, 2014. "Causes of waste across multi-tier supply networks: Cases in the UK food sector," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 144-158.
    17. D’Inverno, Giovanna & Carosi, Laura & Romano, Giulia & Guerrini, Andrea, 2018. "Water pollution in wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis with undesirable output," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 24-34.
    18. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    19. Pathiraja, Erandathie & Griffith, Garry & Farquharson, Robert & Faggia, Rob, 2019. "The Cost of Climate Change to Agricultural Industries: Coconuts in Sri Lanka," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(05), December.
    20. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.

    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:5:p:2619-:d:757303. 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.