measure and compare environmental performance. In a second step, indicators
were constructed from these variables. In most cases indicators were simple ratios
of two variables (e.g. water consumption per tonne of paper produced).
A number of standard denominators were used to construct environmental
performance indicators:
E Functional unit: a standardized unit of production from a given sector
E Turnover: total sales for a given company (or site)
E Employees: number of personnel employed by the company (or site)
E Value added: total value of sales minus cost of materials
E Profit: untaxed total value of sales minus cost of sales
When comparing indicator sets across sectors, it is clear that many environmental
issues are common; for example, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption. Other dimensions of performance are specific to production
processes; for example, radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants.
Therefore, MEPI uses a combination of generic and sector-specific variables.
This approach reduces complexity while also providing some flexibility. Details
are given in Berkhout et al. and Tyteca et al.
The main limitations of the MEPI approach were:
1. The approach is based on economic sectors and their different environmental
characteristics, but an increasing number of large companies operate in a
range of sectors. The sectoral frame and the comparisons that flow from it
may therefore need to be treated with caution.
2. The MEPI approach assumes that companies within a sector or sub-sector
face similar environmental challenges. This assumption may not hold for
sectors with more diverse products and processes (e.g. pulp and paper).
3. Environmental data is usually focused on production processes. Currently,
it does not provide a means for assessing the environmental performance of
goods and services provided by a firm over their entire life cycle.
4. It was not possible to verify data quality or the consistency with which
production units were defined (for instance, whether heat and power was
integrated with production, or purchased from outside).
8 Summary of Results of the MEPI Study
The Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry (MEPI) study collected
environmental and financial data for 270 European companies and 430
production sites in six industrial sectors (electricity, pulp and paper, fertilizers,
X. Olsthoorn, D. Tyteca, M. Wagner and W. Wehrmeyer, Using environmental indicators for
business: a literature review and the need for standardisation and aggregation of data, J. Cleaner
Prod., in press.
F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, G. Azzone, J. Carlens, M. Drunen, C. Jasch, G. Noci, X. Olsthoorn, D.
Tyteca, F. van der Woerd, M. Wagner. W. Wehrmeyer and O. Wolf, Measuring Environmental
Performance in Industry, Final Report to the European Commission, SPRU, Brighton, 2001.
D. Tyteca, J. Carlens, F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, W. Wehrmeyer and M. Wagner, Corporate
environmental performance evaluation: evidence from the MEPI project, Business Strategy
Environ., 2002, 11, 1—13.
F. Berkhout
176
were constructed from these variables. In most cases indicators were simple ratios
of two variables (e.g. water consumption per tonne of paper produced).
A number of standard denominators were used to construct environmental
performance indicators:
E Functional unit: a standardized unit of production from a given sector
E Turnover: total sales for a given company (or site)
E Employees: number of personnel employed by the company (or site)
E Value added: total value of sales minus cost of materials
E Profit: untaxed total value of sales minus cost of sales
When comparing indicator sets across sectors, it is clear that many environmental
issues are common; for example, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and water
consumption. Other dimensions of performance are specific to production
processes; for example, radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants.
Therefore, MEPI uses a combination of generic and sector-specific variables.
This approach reduces complexity while also providing some flexibility. Details
are given in Berkhout et al. and Tyteca et al.
The main limitations of the MEPI approach were:
1. The approach is based on economic sectors and their different environmental
characteristics, but an increasing number of large companies operate in a
range of sectors. The sectoral frame and the comparisons that flow from it
may therefore need to be treated with caution.
2. The MEPI approach assumes that companies within a sector or sub-sector
face similar environmental challenges. This assumption may not hold for
sectors with more diverse products and processes (e.g. pulp and paper).
3. Environmental data is usually focused on production processes. Currently,
it does not provide a means for assessing the environmental performance of
goods and services provided by a firm over their entire life cycle.
4. It was not possible to verify data quality or the consistency with which
production units were defined (for instance, whether heat and power was
integrated with production, or purchased from outside).
8 Summary of Results of the MEPI Study
The Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry (MEPI) study collected
environmental and financial data for 270 European companies and 430
production sites in six industrial sectors (electricity, pulp and paper, fertilizers,
X. Olsthoorn, D. Tyteca, M. Wagner and W. Wehrmeyer, Using environmental indicators for
business: a literature review and the need for standardisation and aggregation of data, J. Cleaner
Prod., in press.
F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, G. Azzone, J. Carlens, M. Drunen, C. Jasch, G. Noci, X. Olsthoorn, D.
Tyteca, F. van der Woerd, M. Wagner. W. Wehrmeyer and O. Wolf, Measuring Environmental
Performance in Industry, Final Report to the European Commission, SPRU, Brighton, 2001.
D. Tyteca, J. Carlens, F. Berkhout, J. Hertin, W. Wehrmeyer and M. Wagner, Corporate
environmental performance evaluation: evidence from the MEPI project, Business Strategy
Environ., 2002, 11, 1—13.
F. Berkhout
176