Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: life cycle assessment
- Genre: Academic theses
- Creators: Dooley, Kevin
Description
Ecolabels are the main driving force of consumer knowledge in the realm of sustainable product purchasing. While ecolabels strive to improve consumer's purchasing decisions, they have overwhelmed the market, leaving consumers confused and distrustful of what each label means. This study attempts to validate and understand environmental concerns commonly found in ecolabel criteria and the implications they have within the life cycle of a product. A life cycle assessment (LCA) case study of cosmetic products is used in comparison with current ecolabel program criteria to assess whether or not ecolabels are effectively driving environmental improvements in high impact areas throughout the life cycle of a product. Focus is placed on determining the general issues addressed by ecolabelling criteria and how these issues relate to hotspots derived through a practiced scientific methodology. Through this analysis, it was determined that a majority the top performing supply chain environmental impacts are covered, in some fashion, within ecolabelling criteria, but some, such as agricultural land occupation, are covered to a lesser extent or not at all. Additional criteria are suggested to fill the gaps found in ecolabelling programs and better address the environmental impacts most pertinent to the supply chain. Ecolabels have also been found to have a broader coverage then what can currently be addressed using LCA. The results of this analysis have led to a set of recommendations for furthering the integration between ecolabels and life cycle tools.
ContributorsBernardo, Melissa (Author) / Dooley, Kevin (Thesis advisor) / Chester, Mikhail (Thesis advisor) / Fox, Peter (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
Firms are increasingly being held accountable for the unsustainable actions of their suppliers. Stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and customers alike are calling for increased levels of transparency and higher standards of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance for suppliers. While it is apparent that supplier performance is important, it remains unclear how the stock market weighs the CSR performance of a supplier relative to that of a focal firm. This dissertation focuses on whether these relative differences exist. In addition to capturing the magnitude of the difference in market impact between focal firm and supplier CSR events; I analyze the ways in which these differences have changed over time. To capture this evolution, CSR events ranging over a period from 1994 to 2013 are examined. This research utilizes an event study methodology in which the announcement of over 2,300 CSR events are identified and analyzed to determine the subsequent stock market reaction. I find that while the market evaluated negative supplier CSR events less harshly than events occurring at the buying firm in the early years of the sample, by the turn of the millennium this “supplier discounting" had disappeared. The analysis is broken down by CSR event "type". Findings demonstrate that negative CSR events, particularly those revolving around worker or customer safety, generate the most significant abnormal return. The findings of this dissertation produce valuable managerial insights along with interpretation. Resources are scarce, and understanding where a firm might best allocate their resources to avoid financial penalties will be valuable information for corporate decision makers. These findings present clear evidence that some of these resources should be allocated to supplier CSR performance, not just towards the CSR performance of the focal firm.
ContributorsRogers, Zachary S (Author) / Carter, Craig (Thesis advisor) / Dooley, Kevin (Committee member) / Singhal, Vinod (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Industrial activities have damaged the natural environment at an unprecedented scale. A number of approaches to environmentally responsible design and sustainability have been developed that are aimed at minimizing negative impacts derived from products on the environment. Environmental assessment methods exist as well to measure these impacts. Major environmentally responsible approaches to design and sustainability were analyzed using content analysis techniques. The results show several recommendations to minimize product impacts through design, and dimensions to which they belong. Two products made by a manufacturing firm with exceptional commitment to environmental responsibility were studied to understand how design approaches and assessment methods were used in their development. The results showed that the company used several strategies for environmentally responsible design as well as assessment methods in product and process machine design, both of which resulted in reduced environmental impacts of their products. Factors that contributed positively to reduce impacts are the use of measurement systems alongside environmentally responsible design, as well as inspiring innovations by observing how natural systems work. From a managerial perspective, positive influencing factors included a commitment to environmental responsibility from the executive level of the company and a clear vision about sustainability that has been instilled from the top through every level of employees. Additionally, a high degree of collaboration between the company and its suppliers and customers was instrumental in making the success possible.
ContributorsHuerta Gajardo, Oscar André (Author) / Giard, Jacques (Thesis advisor) / White, Philip (Committee member) / Dooley, Kevin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
ABSTRACT
Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life cycles of products verses CE-based tools?
The Kaiteki Innovation Framework (KIF) was used to address the question of circularity of two packaging materials using an Environmental LCA to populate its 12 CE dimensions. Any gaps were evaluated with 2 LCA- based and 2 CE-based tools to see which could address the leftover CE dimensions.
Results showed that to complete the KIF template, LCA data required one of the LCA-based tools: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and both CE-based tools: Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) to supplement gaps in the KIF. The LCA addressed 5 of the KIF dimensions: Innovation Category Name, Description, GHG Impact, Other Environmental Impacts, and Value Chain Position. 3 analytical tools addressed 5 more:: Effect on Circularity, Social Impacts, Enabling Technologies, Tier 2 and 3 Requirements, and Value Chain Synergies. None of the tools could address the KIF Dimensions: State of Development or Scale Requirements. All in all, the KIF required both LCA-based and CE-based tools to cover social and socio-economic impacts from a cradle-to-cradle perspective with multiple circular loops in mind. These results can help in the research and development of innovative, circular products that can lead to a more environmentally preferred future.
Historically, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) guided companies to make better decisions to improve the environmental impacts of their products. However, as new Circular Economy (CE) tools emerge, the usefulness of LCA in assessing linear products grow more and more obsolete. Research Question: How do LCA-based tools account for reuse/multiple life cycles of products verses CE-based tools?
The Kaiteki Innovation Framework (KIF) was used to address the question of circularity of two packaging materials using an Environmental LCA to populate its 12 CE dimensions. Any gaps were evaluated with 2 LCA- based and 2 CE-based tools to see which could address the leftover CE dimensions.
Results showed that to complete the KIF template, LCA data required one of the LCA-based tools: Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA) and both CE-based tools: Circular Transition Indicators (CTI) and Material Circularity Indicator (MCI) to supplement gaps in the KIF. The LCA addressed 5 of the KIF dimensions: Innovation Category Name, Description, GHG Impact, Other Environmental Impacts, and Value Chain Position. 3 analytical tools addressed 5 more:: Effect on Circularity, Social Impacts, Enabling Technologies, Tier 2 and 3 Requirements, and Value Chain Synergies. None of the tools could address the KIF Dimensions: State of Development or Scale Requirements. All in all, the KIF required both LCA-based and CE-based tools to cover social and socio-economic impacts from a cradle-to-cradle perspective with multiple circular loops in mind. These results can help in the research and development of innovative, circular products that can lead to a more environmentally preferred future.
ContributorsDe Los Santos, Andrew John (Author) / Seager, Thomas (Thesis advisor) / Dooley, Kevin (Committee member) / Buch, Rajesh (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020