8
Summary of Metrics Used by the Four Industry Sectors

In the four previous chapters the committee examined the environmental metrics used or under development by four industry sectors. That information is summarized here to explore how much common ground exists among the sectors. Table 8-1 lists common or particularly utilitarian metrics. As in the sector chapters, no prioritization of these metrics is implied.

The meaning of most of the metrics is straightforward. "Supply chain" indicates corporations are looking at the environmental performance of their suppliers, using one or more metrics to do so. In the case of the pulp and paper sector, supply chain refers to the forestry part of the industry. "Emissions" indicates releases to land, water, and air; emissions to each medium are often tracked separately. "Percent of land preserved" refers to the use of land at corporate facilities; the metric is not yet precisely defined. Many of the metrics require normalization by some measure of business activity, such as energy use per unit of product or energy use per dollar of sales. "Sustainability" is undefined at present. The development of a suitable metric to address sustainability issues seems desirable.

As can be seen from Table 8-1, a number of metrics—emissions, energy use, materials use, water use, packaging, percent of recycled material used, and various measures of worker safety—are relatively common across all sectors, although the exact definitions may differ somewhat. Several sectors are dealing in some way with the question of sustainability, either by looking at the use of land, the emission of greenhouse gases, or by searching for an appropriate metric. A major difference among the sectors is in the area of product-related metrics, which are tracked extensively by the automotive and electronics sectors. For



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 147
--> 8 Summary of Metrics Used by the Four Industry Sectors In the four previous chapters the committee examined the environmental metrics used or under development by four industry sectors. That information is summarized here to explore how much common ground exists among the sectors. Table 8-1 lists common or particularly utilitarian metrics. As in the sector chapters, no prioritization of these metrics is implied. The meaning of most of the metrics is straightforward. "Supply chain" indicates corporations are looking at the environmental performance of their suppliers, using one or more metrics to do so. In the case of the pulp and paper sector, supply chain refers to the forestry part of the industry. "Emissions" indicates releases to land, water, and air; emissions to each medium are often tracked separately. "Percent of land preserved" refers to the use of land at corporate facilities; the metric is not yet precisely defined. Many of the metrics require normalization by some measure of business activity, such as energy use per unit of product or energy use per dollar of sales. "Sustainability" is undefined at present. The development of a suitable metric to address sustainability issues seems desirable. As can be seen from Table 8-1, a number of metrics—emissions, energy use, materials use, water use, packaging, percent of recycled material used, and various measures of worker safety—are relatively common across all sectors, although the exact definitions may differ somewhat. Several sectors are dealing in some way with the question of sustainability, either by looking at the use of land, the emission of greenhouse gases, or by searching for an appropriate metric. A major difference among the sectors is in the area of product-related metrics, which are tracked extensively by the automotive and electronics sectors. For

OCR for page 147
--> Table 8-1 Environmental Metrics Used in the Four Industry Sectors Metric Automotive Chemical Electronics Pulp and Paper Supply Chain         M1 Supply chain E   E   Facility Centered         M2 Pollutant releases C C C C M3 Greenhouse gas emissions C C C   M4 Material use C C E C M5 Percent recycled material C C E C M6 Energy use C C C C M7 Water use C C C C M8 Environmental incidence report C C C C M9 Lost workdays/injuries C C C C M10 Percent of land preserved   E   C M11 Packaging C C C C Product Centered         M12 Nongreenhouse gas emissions C       M13 Greenhouse gas emissions C       M14 Material use         M15 Energy use C   C   Sustainability         M16 Sustainable forestry       E NOTE: C = environmental metric in current use; E = emerging environmental metric. industry sectors whose products are largely raw materials for others (i.e., chemical) or have essentially no impacts during the product-use phase (i.e., pulp and paper), product-related metrics do not appear to be useful. A Generic Metrics Set If the metrics set identified in Table 8-1 were tentatively regarded as a suitable generic set for the four industrial sectors analyzed in Chapters 4–7, how well might the set serve other manufacturing industries? To investigate this question, the committee briefly examined the suitability of the set for six additional sectors: agriculture, appliance manufacture, metal fabrication, mining, pharmaceuticals, and recycling facilities. The following conclusions resulted from that analysis: The supply chain metrics (M1, M5) are generally suitable for all sectors. Even for a sector whose products are at the front of the supply chain (e.g., agriculture or mining), the metric could be applied to suppliers of equipment (e.g., combines, cranes) rather than to suppliers of raw materials.

OCR for page 147
--> Emissions metrics (M2, M3) are applicable to all sectors. Resource metrics (M4, M6, M7) are applicable to all sectors. Health and safety metrics (M8, M9) are applicable to all sectors. A land-use metric (M10), while not yet well defined, applies equally well to these sectors as to the four sectors studied in detail by the committee. The product-packaging metric (M11) is generally appropriate for all sectors, but packaging may not be required for some products (such as iron ore). Product-centered metrics (M12–M15) appear to be useful only for industrial sectors whose products have the potential for significant environmental impacts (e.g., appliance manufacturers). Until sustainability is better defined, the suitability of a sustainability metric (M16) across sectors cannot be addressed. Hence, it would appear that a provisional set of generic metrics might consist of: GM1—Materials use (normalized in some appropriate way) GM2—Water use (normalized in some appropriate way) GM3—Energy use (normalized in some appropriate way) GM4—Percent of recycled materials in products GM5—Percent of products that are leased GM6—Resource consumption and/or emissions during product use GM7—Average use of packaging GM8—Emissions from manufacturing (normalized in some appropriate way) GM9—Recordable health and safety incident rate GM10—A sustainability metric of some type One could go on from this point to ask whether a generic environmental metrics set would be suitable not only for manufacturing industry sectors but also service industry sectors. To study that question, the committee imagined the use of such metrics in a set of hypothetical service-based businesses: a retail appliance store (A), a barber shop (B), a grocery store (G), a hospital (H), a lawyer's office (L), and a package delivery service (P). Table 8-2 assesses the suitability of the metrics set for these businesses. It appears from this table that the generic set, if carefully defined, is probably as useful to service industries as it may be to manufacturing industries.

OCR for page 147
--> TABLE 8-2 Fit of a Generic Metric Set for Hypothetical Service-Sector Businesses Metric A B G H L P GM1 ? S ? ? S S GM2 U S ? S U U GM3 S S S S S S GM4 S S U S S S GM5 S S S S S S GM6 S U U U U S GM7 S S S ? ? S GM8 S S S S ? S GM9 S S S S S S GM10 ? ? ? ? ? ? NOTE: S suitable; U = unsuitable.