Unit process data make the production processes of an enterprise completely
transparent. To that end there will be confidentiality issues for companies who
employ (A) sensitive processes or (B) wish to keep their supply chain confidential.
Traceability will play a role in the future for some sectors such as the energy sector.
Unit process data are one way of transferring such information, while keeping
flexibility.
Aggregated process data provides a reasonable level of confidentiality, as it
converts the mass and energy balance for the production of the evaluated product to
elementary flows which don’t allow any back tracking to company specific data.
The aggregated data may be used by other LCA practitioners to calculate any given
impact indicator in the scope of the dataset. To that end aggregated process data
provide flexibility in the assessment and protect IPs. As additional information, this
aggregated dataset could be completed (or not) with metadata describing some parts
of the process or modelling hypothesis like allocation rules, etc.
Impact indicator results contain the least detailed information about any process
when exchanged between value chain partners. If a “fingerprint” set of indicators
was defined, this set of indicators would enable calculation of all relevant environmental impacts of derived products, but mainly outside of commercial LCA
tools. Since the indicators are not so transparent, a detailed guideline in the calculation of such indicators is required. The advantage of impact indicators is the
application of unambiguous assessment once rules for scope have been defined.
Their easy tabulation enables rapid transfer and data warehousing. The ideal format
for data exchange does not exist and depends on the demands of the involved
parties. If a standardized set of indicators is used such as those recommended by the
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), then exchanging these indicator results
may provide sufficient information. Such exchange would not allow further
investigation of environmental flows or calculation of customized impact indicators. Also, current software tools typically run on aggregated process data for unit
process data. Implementing a combination of impact indicators in conjunction with
process data in LCA software is not easy to handle and would not work to be a
currently viable solution.
Difficulties occurring during the exchange process are often caused by different
LCA software used and are therefore somehow out of the direct influence of such
companies.
3.2 Data Exchange
Companies that want to exchange LCI or LCA data often do not run the same LCA
software or data storage platform. Several examples were experienced where such
an exchange failed or led to imprecise results due to inconsistency in environmental
flow definitions or different implementation of LCIA methods.
Life Cycle Management in Industry—Supporting Business …
357
transparent. To that end there will be confidentiality issues for companies who
employ (A) sensitive processes or (B) wish to keep their supply chain confidential.
Traceability will play a role in the future for some sectors such as the energy sector.
Unit process data are one way of transferring such information, while keeping
flexibility.
Aggregated process data provides a reasonable level of confidentiality, as it
converts the mass and energy balance for the production of the evaluated product to
elementary flows which don’t allow any back tracking to company specific data.
The aggregated data may be used by other LCA practitioners to calculate any given
impact indicator in the scope of the dataset. To that end aggregated process data
provide flexibility in the assessment and protect IPs. As additional information, this
aggregated dataset could be completed (or not) with metadata describing some parts
of the process or modelling hypothesis like allocation rules, etc.
Impact indicator results contain the least detailed information about any process
when exchanged between value chain partners. If a “fingerprint” set of indicators
was defined, this set of indicators would enable calculation of all relevant environmental impacts of derived products, but mainly outside of commercial LCA
tools. Since the indicators are not so transparent, a detailed guideline in the calculation of such indicators is required. The advantage of impact indicators is the
application of unambiguous assessment once rules for scope have been defined.
Their easy tabulation enables rapid transfer and data warehousing. The ideal format
for data exchange does not exist and depends on the demands of the involved
parties. If a standardized set of indicators is used such as those recommended by the
Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), then exchanging these indicator results
may provide sufficient information. Such exchange would not allow further
investigation of environmental flows or calculation of customized impact indicators. Also, current software tools typically run on aggregated process data for unit
process data. Implementing a combination of impact indicators in conjunction with
process data in LCA software is not easy to handle and would not work to be a
currently viable solution.
Difficulties occurring during the exchange process are often caused by different
LCA software used and are therefore somehow out of the direct influence of such
companies.
3.2 Data Exchange
Companies that want to exchange LCI or LCA data often do not run the same LCA
software or data storage platform. Several examples were experienced where such
an exchange failed or led to imprecise results due to inconsistency in environmental
flow definitions or different implementation of LCIA methods.
Life Cycle Management in Industry—Supporting Business …
357