Comparison of “CO 2 Efficiency” between Company and Industry
description
Transcript of Comparison of “CO 2 Efficiency” between Company and Industry
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Comparison of “COComparison of “CO22 Efficiency” between Efficiency” between
Company and IndustryCompany and Industry
Kiyotaka TAHARAKiyotaka TAHARA Masayuki SAGISAKAMasayuki SAGISAKAKazuo YAMAGUCHIKazuo YAMAGUCHI
Atsushi INABAAtsushi INABA
AIST
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
IntroductionIntroduction
An important tool to achieve sustainable development
Eco-EfficiencyEconomicEcological (Environment)
Eco-Efficiency = Product or Service valueEnvironmental influence
Quantity of goods or servicesproduced or provided to customersNet sales
Energy consumptionMaterials consumptionWater consumptionGreenhouse gas emissions (CO2…)Ozone depletion substance emissions……
WBSCD, 1992
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source : TOYOTA Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source : TOYOTA Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Source: Sony Environmental Report 2002
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Eco-Efficiency = Product or Service valueEnvironmental influence
CO2 Efficiency = Economic indexCO2 emission
This study
I-O table dataLCI dataEnvironmental report of company
Price Gross value-addedGross incomeCost
Investor relation information
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Industry A
Industry D
Industry C
Industry B
Product
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Producer’s PriceProducer’s PriceCostCost
Gross value-added Gross value-added
Fig.1-1 Concept of CO2 efficiency
Total CO2 efficiency = Producer’s PriceTotal CO2 emissions
Direct CO2 efficiency = Gross value-addedDirect CO2 emissions
Indirect CO2 efficiency = CostIndirect CO2 emissions
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
Total
Direct
Indirect
Producer’s PriceTotal CO2 emissions
Gross value-addedDirect CO2 emissions
CostIndirect CO2 emissions
Fig.1-2 Concept of CO2 efficiency
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
CO
2 E
ffici
ency
[yen
/kg-
CO
2] Total CO2 Efficiency(Producer Price/Direct and Indirect CO2 emission)
Fig.2 The Total CO2 Efficiency (Producer Price / Direct and Indirect CO2 emission) for each Industrial Sector
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sE
lect
ric p
ower
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrou
s m
etal
Iron
and
stee
lC
eram
ic, s
tone
and
cla
y pr
oduc
tsP
etro
leum
refin
ery
and
coal
Che
mic
al p
rodu
cts
Pul
p, p
aper
and
woo
den
prod
ucts
Text
iles
Food
Min
ing
Agr
icul
ture
, for
estry
and
fish
erie
s
servicemanufacturing
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
CO
2 E
ffici
ency
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
Direct CO2 Efficiency(Gross value-added/Direct CO2 emission)
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sE
lect
ric p
ower
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrou
s m
etal
Iron
and
stee
lC
eram
ic, s
tone
and
cla
y pr
oduc
tsP
etro
leum
refin
ery
and
coal
Che
mic
al p
rodu
cts
Pul
p, p
aper
and
woo
den
prod
ucts
Text
iles
Food
Min
ing
Agr
icul
ture
, for
estry
and
fish
erie
s
Fig.3 The direct CO2 Efficiency (Gross value-added / Direct CO2 emission) for each Industrial Sector
servicemanufacturing
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CO
2 E
ffici
ency
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
Indirect CO2 Efficiency(Cost/Indirect CO2 emission)
Fig.4 The indirect CO2 Efficiency (Cost / Indirect CO2 emission) for each Industrial Sector
Act
iviti
es n
ot e
lsew
here
cla
ssifi
edO
ffice
sup
plie
sP
erso
nal s
ervi
ceB
usin
ess
serv
ice
Oth
er p
ublic
ser
vice
Med
ical
ser
vice
, hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l sec
urity
Edu
catio
n an
d re
sear
chP
ublic
adm
inis
tratio
nC
omm
unic
atio
n an
d br
oadc
astin
gTr
ansp
ort
Rea
l est
ate
Fina
nce
and
insu
ranc
eTr
ade
Wat
er s
uppl
y an
d w
aste
dis
posa
l ser
vice
sE
lect
ric p
ower
, gas
sup
ply
and
stea
m a
nd h
ot w
ater
sup
ply
Con
stru
ctio
nM
isce
llane
ous
man
ufac
turin
g pr
oduc
tsP
reci
sion
mac
hine
ryTr
ansp
ort e
quip
men
tE
lect
rical
dev
ices
Gen
eral
mac
hine
ryM
etal
pro
duct
sN
on-fe
rrou
s m
etal
Iron
and
stee
lC
eram
ic, s
tone
and
cla
y pr
oduc
tsP
etro
leum
refin
ery
and
coal
Che
mic
al p
rodu
cts
Pul
p, p
aper
and
woo
den
prod
ucts
Text
iles
Food
Min
ing
Agr
icul
ture
, for
estry
and
fish
erie
s
CO2 emission
Producer’s Price
Cost
Price
Gross value-added
Direct CO2 emissionIndirect CO2 emission
Average CO2 efficiency of upstream Industry
CO2 efficiency of Industry A
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Food
Direct CO2 Efficiency [yen/kg-CO2]
Indi
rect
CO
2 E
ffici
ency
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Finance and insurance
Real estate
Communication and broadcasting
Trade
Electrical devicesGeneral machinery
Mining
Iron and steel
Fig.5 CO2 efficiency pattern for each Industrial Sector
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries
Non-ferrous metals
Pulp,paper and wooden products
Water supply and waste disposal services
TransportChemical products
Other public service
PetroleumRefinery and coal
Electric power, gas supply and steam and hot water supply
Ceramic, stone and clay products
ConstructionMetal products
Direct
CO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Pattern A
Indirect CO2emission
Price
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
Pattern B
Pattern C
Direct IndirectCO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
CO2emission
’Price
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
Direct Indirect
CO2emission
Producer ’sPrice
Cost
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiencyCO2emission
’Price
Price
Gross value - added
Total CO2 efficiency
Direct CO2 efficiency
Indirect CO2 efficiency
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000S
laug
hter
ing
and
mea
t pro
cess
ing
Pro
cess
ed m
eat p
rodu
cts
Bot
tled
or c
anne
d m
eat p
rodu
cts
Ani
mal
oil
and
fats
Dai
ry fa
rm p
rodu
cts
Froz
en fi
sh a
nd s
hellf
ish
Sal
ted,
drie
d or
sm
oked
sea
food
Bot
tled
or c
anne
d se
afoo
dFi
sh p
aste
Fish
oil
and
mea
lO
ther
pro
cess
ed s
eafo
ods
Gra
in m
illin
gFl
our a
nd o
ther
gra
in m
illed
pro
duct
sN
oodl
esB
read
Con
fect
ione
ryC
anne
d or
bot
tled
vege
tabl
es a
nd fr
uits
Pre
serv
ed a
gric
ultu
ral f
oods
tuffs
Sug
arS
tarc
hD
extro
se, s
yrup
and
isom
eriz
es s
ugar
Veg
etab
le o
ils a
nd m
eal
Con
dim
ents
and
sea
soni
ngs
Pre
pare
d fro
zen
food
sR
etor
t foo
dsD
ishe
s, s
ushi
, lun
ch b
oxes
Sch
ool l
unch
(pub
lic)
Sch
ool l
unch
(priv
ate)
Oth
er fo
ods
Ref
ined
sak
eB
eer
Eth
yl a
lcoh
ol fo
r liq
uor m
anuf
actu
ring
Whi
skey
and
bra
ndy
Oth
er li
quor
sTe
a an
d ro
aste
d co
ffee
Sof
t drin
ksM
anuf
actu
red
ice
Feed
sO
rgan
ic fe
rtiliz
ers,
n.e
.cTo
bacc
oFo
od
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.6 The direct CO2 Efficiency of Food Industrial Sector
9,100 32,500
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Petroleumrefinery products
(inc. greases)
Coal products Paving materials Petroleumrefinery and coal
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.7 The direct CO2 Efficiency of Petroleum refinery and coal Industrial Sector
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
Fig. 8 Concept of Direct CO2 efficiency for companies
Factory Office, Institute, etc.
CO2 CO2X
Company X
Factory Office, Institute, etc.
CO2 CO2
Beer Company C
Gross IncomeMost of Direct CO2 emissions
Direct CO2 efficiency =
4%
oil\
Cost Net sale
Net sale – Cost = Gross Income
\
Company X
.
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0100200300400500600
Beer Industry sector (I-O based data)
0%
20%40%
60%80%
100%
Beer
DrinkReal estate
LiquorMedicines
Percentage of production in the total net sale
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.9 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the beer industry sector: 3 Companies’ data from environmental reports against I-O based data
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Beer
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
10
20
30
40
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Petroleum refinery products Industry(I-O based data)
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
Fig.10 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the petroleum industry sector:3 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Percentage of production in the total net sale
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Petrochemistry construction work
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Petroleum
Petroleum
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0
100
200
300
400 Tires and inner tubes Industry(I-O based data)
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
0
100
200
300
400 Tires and inner tubes Industry(I-O based data)
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Dire
ct C
O2
effic
ienc
y [y
en/k
g-C
O2]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Tires
Others
Percentage of production in the total net sale
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CompanyA
CompanyC
CompanyB
Tires
Others
Percentage of production in the total net sale
Fig.11 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the tire industry sector:3 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Tire
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%OtherReal estateNew materialsBuilding materialLime, AggregateCement
CompanyA
CompanyB
Percentage of production in the total net saleD
irect
CO
2 ef
ficie
ncy
[yen
/kg-
CO
2]
0
5
10
15
CompanyA
CompanyB
Cement Industry(I-O based data)
Fig.12 Direct CO2 Efficiency in the cement industry sector:2 Companies’ data from environment reports against I-O based data
Cement
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
CO2 emission
A IndustryB Industry
F Industry
E Industry
C Industry
D Industry
G Industry
Gross income/Gross value-added
Company A = A+B+C+D+E+F+G Industry
More efficient
Less efficient
Standard of Company A
Fig.13 Concept of company evaluation
InLCA/LCM 2003 Seattle, Washington Sep.25,2003
ConclusionConclusion• CO2 efficiency index was developed from I-O table data for the
evaluation of industry sectors.
• The CO2 efficiency varies by industry sector.
• The conparison of companys’ CO2 efficiency against I-O based industry sector CO2 efficiency is possible.
• A clear difinition of system boundary will be necessary for better resolution of company’s CO2 efficiency.
• Further examination and comparison of company’s “eco-efficiency” and its detailed investigation in relation to economic value index should be explored.