Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available ScienceDirect
online
Available atonline
Procedia CIRP
www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 98 (2021) 354–357
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering
Bridging product life cycle gaps in LCA & LCC towards a circular
Bridging product 28th CIRP lifeDesign
cycleConference,
gaps
economy in LCAMay 2018,& Nantes,
LCC towards
France a circular
economy
A new methodology to analyze the functional
Michael Dieterle a, andbphysical architecture of
*, Tobias Viere
existing products forforan
Fraunhofer Institute
a assembly
Michael
Chemical Technology ICT,oriented
Dieterle a,
*, Tobiasproduct family
Viereb 7, 76327
Joseph-von-Fraunhofer-Straße identification
Pfinztal, Germany
Pforzheim
b
University, Institute for Industrial Ecology – INEC, Tiefenbronner Straße 65, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany
a
Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology ICT, Joseph-von-Fraunhofer-Straße 7, 76327 Pfinztal, Germany
* Corresponding author.Pforzheim
b
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
University, Institute
Tel.: +49-721-4640-621; fax: for Industrial Ecology – INEC,
+49-721-4640-800-621. E-mailTiefenbronner Straße 65, 75175 Pforzheim, Germany
address: michael.dieterle@ict.fraunhofer.de
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-721-4640-621; fax: +49-721-4640-800-621. E-mail address: michael.dieterle@ict.fraunhofer.de
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France

Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Abstract
Life cycle gap analysis (LCGA) is a specific technique to interpret life cycle assessment (LCA) results from a circular economy (CE) perspective
in order to identify potentials to further improve a product’s sustainability. This paper conceptualizes an extension of the methodology by
Life cycle gap analysis (LCGA) is a specific technique to interpret life cycle assessment (LCA) results from a circular economy (CE) perspective
integrating cost assessments. The visualization of the final results in an eco-efficiency diagram indicates barriers and drivers of business models
Abstract
in order to identify potentials to further improve a product’s sustainability. This paper conceptualizes an extension of the methodology by
for circular and sustainable products. It therefore supports engineers, product designers and researchers in analyzing the consequences of their
integrating cost assessments. The visualization of the final results in an eco-efficiency diagram indicates barriers and drivers of business models
Ininnovations
fortoday’s
circular
and solutions
business regarding
environment,
and sustainable the both
products. trend the vision more
towards
It therefore
of CEproduct
supports
and sustainable
variety
engineers,
life customization
and
product
cycle systems.is unbroken. Due to this development, the need of
designers and researchers in analyzing the consequences of their
agile and reconfigurable production systems emerged to cope with various
innovations and solutions regarding both the vision of CE and sustainable life cycle systems. products and product families. To design and optimize production
© 2020 as
systems The Authors,
well Published
as to choose theby Elsevier
optimal B.V. matches, product analysis methods are needed. Indeed, most of the known methods aim to
product
©
This2021
analyze The
is aan Authors.
open
product access Published
or one article
product by Elsevier
under the on
family CCthe B.V.
BY-NC-ND license
physical level. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Different product families, however, may differ largely in terms of the number and
© 2020
This is The
an Authors,
open access Published by Elsevier
article under the B.V.
CC scientific
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer
nature review under
ofancomponents. the responsibility
This fact of
impedes the anBY-NC-ND committee
efficient comparison of the
and28th CIRP
choice of Conference
appropriate on Life Cycle
product familyEngineering.
combinations for the production
This is open access article under the CC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
system. A new
Peer review methodology
under is proposed
the responsibility of theto scientific
analyze existing products
committee of thein28th
view of their
CIRP functional
Conference on and
Lifephysical architecture. The aim is to cluster
Cycle Engineering.
Keywords:
these products LifeinCycle
new Assessment (LCA); Life
assembly oriented Cyclefamilies
product Costing (LCC);
for the Circular Economy
optimization (CE); Interpretation
of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
assembly
Keywords: systems.
Life CycleBased on Datum
Assessment Flow
(LCA); LifeChain,
Cycle the physical
Costing structure
(LCC); Circular of the products
Economy is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
(CE); Interpretation
a functional analysis is performed. Moreover, a hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
1. Introduction
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An such circularity
industrial case studygaps as product
on two far as families
possibleof allows
steering to identify
columns of
1. Introduction
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation potentials
such of for
circularity further
the proposedgaps improvement without ignoring
as far as possible allows to identify
approach. burden
© 2017 Responsible
The Authors. production
Published and consumption
by Elsevier B.V. is a sustainable shifting
potentials fromforone life cycle
further stage to another.
improvement without(Itignoring
should beburden
noted
development
Peer-review
Responsible goal and requires
under responsibility
production and a
of thetransition from linear
scientific committee
consumption towards
of the 28th CIRP
is a sustainable that due to
Designfrom
shifting dissipation
Conference
one life2018.of exergy in the system and due
cycle stage to another. (It should be noted to
circular economies
development goal andas well aastransition
requires substantial reductions
from linear towards invarious
that due other physical of
to dissipation reasons,
exergya infulltheclosure
systemorand complete
due to
environmental
Keywords: impacts
Assembly; throughout
Design method; product life
Family identification
circular economies as well as substantial reductions in cycles. [1]recycling is impossible [8, 9].)
various other physical reasons, a full closure or complete
While such concepts
environmental impactsandthroughout
visions require new life
product innovations
cycles. and[1] Inspiredis by
recycling the idea [8,
impossible of 9].)
identifying not only environmental
technologies, quantitative approaches for
While such concepts and visions require new innovations and the evaluation ofbutInspired
also economic life cycle gaps in terms
by the idea of identifying of eco-efficiency,
not only environmental
sustainability, such as life cycle assessment (LCA) and lifethis paper elaborates and exemplifies an extension of the
1.technologies,
Introductionquantitative approaches for the evaluation of but also economic life cycle gaps in terms
of the product range and characteristics manufactured and/or of eco-efficiency,
cycle costing (LCC),
sustainability, such asplaylifeacycle
majorassessment
role in decision(LCA)making
and lifeasmethodology by
this paperinelaborates integrating conventional LCC which assesses
assembled this system.and exemplifies
In this context, thean main
extension of the
challenge in
they
cycle analyze and assess environmental impacts and economic all costs related tointegrating
the life cycle of a product [10,which
11]. assesses
Duecostingto the (LCC),fastplay a major role in
development in decision
the domainmakingof asmethodology by conventional
modelling and analysis is now not only to cope with singleLCC
costs
they caused by
analyze and solutions
assess across the entire
environmental life cycle.
impacts and economic all The
costsnext section
related to theconceptualizes
life cycle the extension of the LCGA
communication and an ongoing trend of digitization and products, a limited product rangeofora existing
product [10, 11].
product families,
Having
costs caused in by
mind the vision
solutions of circular
across the entire economy
lifefacing(CE) and the
cycle. by The
integrating economic cost assessments. A case
of study on a
digitalization, manufacturing enterprises are important but also next
to besection
able to conceptualizes the extension
analyze and to compare products the
to LCGA
define
closure of
Having in material and energy cycles (see, for example, [2-6]), car’s electric engine is further used to exemplify the concept.
challenges in mind the vision
today’s market of circular economya (CE)
environments: and
continuing theby integrating
new economic
product families. cost
It can beassessments.
observed thatAclassical
case study on a
existing
aclosure
life cycle
of gap
materialanalysis
and (LCGA)
energy [7]
cycles was
(see, conceptualized
for example, as an
[2-6]), Both
car’s conceptualization
electric engine is and used
further exemplification
to exemplify facilitate
the concept.a
tendency towards reduction of product development times and product families are regrouped in function of clients or features.
extended
a life cycle approach for the
gap analysis interpretation
(LCGA) [7] wasthereof LCA results.asThe
conceptualized andiscussion of the
Both conceptualization implications for practice and future research
shortened product lifecycles. In addition, is an increasing However, assembly orientedand exemplification
product facilitate
families are hardly to find.a
basic idea
extended of the
approach methodology
for the is to determine
interpretation of LCAa product’s
results. life
The in the paper’s
discussion of concluding
the section.
implications for practice and future research
demand
cycle
of customization,
gap (LCG)
being at the
which describes
the difference
same time between
in a global the On the product family level, products differ mainly in two
basic idea
competition ofwith
the competitors
methodology is over
all to determine
the world.a product’s
This life
trend, in thecharacteristics:
main paper’s concluding (i) thesection.
number of components and (ii) the
environmental
cycle gap impacts
(LCG) which of the product’s
describes the from initial
difference manufacturing
between the
which
and itsisenvironmental
inducing thevalue
development
after recycling. macro
The aim to micro
of closing type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
environmental impacts of the product’s
markets, results in diminished lot sizes due to augmenting initial manufacturing Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
and its environmental
product value after
varieties (high-volume recycling. The
to low-volume aim of closing
production) [1].or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
identify
2212-8271possible
© 2020 The optimization
Authors, Publishedpotentials in
by Elsevier B.V. the existing causes difficulties
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference regarding an efficient definition and
on Life Cycle Engineering.
This is an open
production access article
system, under the CCtoBY-NC-ND
it is important license knowledge
have a precise (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
2212-8271 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 28thDesign
CIRP Conference
Conference2018.
on Life Cycle Engineering.
10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.116
 Michael Dieterle et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 354–357 355
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

2. Extension of the methodology  Circular economy framework

The mathematical terms and equations of the iterative !

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) = min
𝐼𝐼
{𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿0 ) = ∫0 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
(𝑋𝑋0 ) 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑋𝑋0 )
∫0 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 } (3)
LCGA methodology (six defined steps) [7] are used as basis for (𝑥𝑥1 ,𝑦𝑦1 ) ∈ ℝ𝑥𝑥ℝ

integrating economic cost assessments. In addition, a

The mathematical expression in integral equations has
seventh step was introduced to determine a product’s eco-
certain advantages. For instance, it allows a smooth inclusion
efficiency from a life cycle and CE perspective.
of the third dimension of sustainability (z1 would represent the
The first step (Step 1) summarizes all environmental impacts
social dimension) to form a three-dimensional object whose
and economic costs subdivided into the phases of raw material
volume reduction shows the progress regarding sustainability
acquisition, production, use, and end-of-life (EoL), while also
performance.
considering credits and revenues, i.e. environmental and
economic savings stemming from reusable or recycled goods
3. Illustration with an example
of EoL. This step is a normal outcome of almost any LCA and
LCC study (see, for example, [10-12]).
The extension of the approach will be exemplified by using
The second step (Step 2) compares credits and revenues
a fictitious case study on a car’s electric engine along its life
from EoL to impacts and costs for manufacturing, as one
cycle, such as it has already been applied to environmental
particular focus of CE strategies is put on closing products’
concerns in preliminary contributions [7]. The results of the
material and energy flows and minimizing resource input and
environmental impact assessment are expressed in
waste, emission, as well as energy leakages [6]. The difference
single scores, using Eco-Points (EP) [20]. However, the
equals the economic and environmental LCG which can be
interpretation can be applied to other midpoint- and multiscore-
expressed in absolute as well as in relative terms.
assessments. In such cases, where potentially conflicting
In a third step (Step 3), options to improve circularity of a
results in different impact categories have to be taken into
product’s energy and material cycles are identified. Following
account, standardized methods for normalization and
for example the three principles of CE proposed by the Ellen
weighting (see, for example, [21, 22]) can be applied. The
MacArthur Foundation [13] and other strategies (see, for
economic assessments are carried out for financial analysis of
example, [14-17]), these might be derived from eco-design
the producer and summarize all costs in EUR (€) associated
concepts, design for recyclability and design for circular
with the life cycle of the electric engine. Table 1 includes the
economy in particular. As a result of Step 3, the fourth step
selected numerical example.
(Step 4) assesses each option’s ability to narrow the economic
and environmental LCG. Table 1. Fictitious results of a car’s electric engine during one life cycle.
In the fifth step (Step 5), possible trade-offs (additional costs Environmental Economic costs
Life Cycle Phases
or impacts) for other life cycle stages are assessed. impacts [EP] [€]
The sixth step (Step 6) compares the environmental
Raw material acquisition 75 200
impacts (I) AND economic costs (C) of options that increase
Production 25 300
the CE potential (XNEW) to the initial product system (X0) while
ensuring that total life cycle impacts and costs are not Use 150 600
increasing. Recycling 5 50
Credits -20 -100
𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) ≤ 𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋0 ) ⋀ 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋0 ) (1) total 235 1,050

This restriction addresses a holistic perspective in the

assessment with a strong sustainability orientation where a Following the LCGA approach and Step 2, it is now possible
decrease in one dimension (e.g. environment) cannot be to determine the environmental and economic LCG of the
compensated by an increase in another dimension (e.g. product system.
economic) [18, 19].
In the seventh and final step (Step 7), a product’s eco- 𝐼𝐼𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑋𝑋0 ) = 75 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 25 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 − 20 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 80 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (4)
efficiency is assessed in an eco-efficiency diagram using the 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (𝑋𝑋0 ) = 200 € + 300 € − 100 € = 400 € (5)
economic and environmental area integral (FI) depending on
𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) ∶= 1, whereby x1 represents the economic dimension, Figure 1 illustrates the interpretation of the economic results
and y1 the environmental dimension. A reduction of the integral from the LCG perspective based on a direct comparison
area within each framework (differentiated between a life cycle between the costs for manufacturing and the extension of
(total) and CE (LCG) perspective) indicates a relative increase revenues after recycling. This changed perspective allows to
in eco-efficiency (%) which is equivalent to a reduction of the identify potentials for further improvement according to Step 3
area of a rectangle in a two-dimensional coordinate system. of the methodology.

 Life cycle framework

!
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) = min
(𝑥𝑥1 ,𝑦𝑦1 ) ∈ ℝ𝑥𝑥ℝ
𝐼𝐼
{𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡0 ) = ∫0 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
(𝑋𝑋0 ) 𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋0 )
∫0 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 } (2)
356 Michael Dieterle et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 354–357
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

 Circular economy framework

80 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 400 €
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿0 ) = ∫ ∫ 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 = 32,000 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∗ €
0 0

40 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) = ∫0
320 €
∫0 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 = 12,800 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∗ € (10)

A reduction of impacts and costs within the life cycle

framework (9) leads to a relative increase of the eco-efficiency
of around 18 % - from FI (total0) = 246,750 EP*€ to
FI (totalNEW) = 202,950 EP*€ and within the CE framework
(10) to a relative increase of 60 % - from
FI (LCG0) = 32,000 EP*€ to FI (LCGNEW) = 12,800 EP*€.
Figure 2 visualizes the economic and environmental results in
an eco-efficiency diagram, whereby the green dotted area
represents the increase in eco-efficiency (relative reduction of
Fig. 1. (a) interpretation of the LCC results; (b) from a CE perspective.
the area of each rectangle).
The implementation of design for CE principles (see, for
example, [13-17]) leads to a newly developed material system
for the motor housing which aims at ensuring better material
recycling within EoL.
According to Step 4, the new eco-design of the housing
results in a reduction of the environmental LCG from
ILCG(X0) = 80 EP to ILCG(XNEW) = 40 EP as the credits for the
substitution of primary materials increase from -20 EP to -
60 EP and in a reduction of the economic LCG from
CLCG(X0) = 400 € to CLCG(XNEW) = 320 € as the revenues for the
recycled materials increase from -100 € to -180 €.
As a consequence, rebound effects occur in other life cycle
stages. In the example, the new innovation increases the total
weight of the electric engine and in turn the environmental
impacts and economic costs during the car’s use phase (the Fig. 2. Interpretation of the electric engines results in an eco-efficiency
higher the overall vehicle weight, the higher the energy diagram.
consumption) from IUse(X0) = 150 EP to IUse(XNEW) = 160 EP
and CUse(X0) = 600 € to CUse(XNEW) = 620 €. According to The remaining area (red) represents the potential for further
Step 5, the total life cycle impacts and costs of the CE improved improvement of the electric engine from a life cycle and CE
alternative XNEW are then: perspective.

𝐼𝐼𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) = 75 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 25 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 160 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 + 5 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 − 60 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 205 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 (6) 4. Discussion & Conclusion

𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑋𝑋NEW ) = 200 € + 300 € + 620 € + 50 € − 180 € = 990 € (7) Life cycle gap analysis can help to reduce the concerns of
life-cycle-oriented representatives towards the CE vision,
A comparison of the overall results within Step 6 because trade-offs can be made transparent and excluded in the
demonstrates that the defined restriction (1) is fulfilled which sense of accepting larger environmental impacts and economic
ensures a net reduction of overall impacts AND costs and hence costs in favor of higher recycling rates. On the other hand, it
an effective contribution towards sustainable development. also reduces possible concerns of CE representatives regarding
life cycle thinking, because it takes a much closer look at the
205 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ≤ 235 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ⋀ 990 € ≤ 1,050 € (8) EoL phase and systematically analyses it as CE potential for
further improvement, thus supporting circular economy-
According to Step 7, the integral area of X0 and XNEW within oriented decisions within life cycle sustainability assessments.
each framework comes out as follows: Simply put, the approach measures and visualizes the
distance between the vision of CE (closed loop of a product’s
 Life cycle framework material and energy flows) and the status quo in a simplified
manner by highlighting life cycle gaps without ignoring the
235 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 1,050€
shifting of burdens from one life cycle stage to another.
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡0 ) = ∫ ∫ 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 = 246,750 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∗ €
0 0 LCGA is not an entirely new method nor another indicator
to be added to the already vast list of life cycle sustainability
205 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ) = ∫0
990€
∫0 𝑓𝑓(𝑥𝑥1 , 𝑦𝑦1 ) 𝑑𝑑𝑥𝑥1 𝑑𝑑𝑦𝑦1 = 202,950 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ∗ € (9) assessments. Instead it introduces a specific technique to
interpret LCA and LCC results according to CE principles. To

 Michael Dieterle et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 354–357
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
measure and visualize a current product’s life cycle gap no
additional data is needed compared to ordinary LCA and LCC.
Assessing alternatives to reduce such circularity gaps requires
further research and data, but this does not differ from efforts
to identify and evaluate improvement options in general LCA
and LCC.
A potential weakness of LCGA lies in its premises. The
method does not ask for the general necessity of a given
product but aims at increasing its circularity and environmental
performance instead. LCGA supports a pragmatic approach to
implementing CE within existing economic systems and
frameworks. It is an analysis tool for products and not a
contribution to a macro-economic, societal and political
transformation of systems in the sense of a holistic CE.
Therefore, it can be argued that LCGA remains a marginal
approach and does not lead to completely new and fully
sustainable solutions to provide the desired benefits and satisfy
the underlying needs. The case study of the electric engine
justifies this potential criticism to a certain extent. Even after
considering options to increase circularity, there is still a
remaining environmental and economic LCG, and this begs the
question of whether disruptive innovations for the motor
housing are needed to achieve significant improvements in
circularity and sustainability.
This case study, introduced to exemplify the main concept
of environmental and economic LCGA, leaves room for further
(real) case studies from different industries and product groups,
including the introduction of primary data. The integration of
social assessments into LCGA is another promising research
strategy for the future in order to identify drivers of sustainable
business models for circular products and to avoid possible
rebound effects.
References
[1] United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our World: The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015;A/RES/70/1.
[2] Pearce D, Turner R. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment.
Am J Agric Econ 1991;73 (1):227-228.
[3] European Commission. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the
Circular Economy. COM (2015) 614 final; 2015.
[4] Ghisellini P, Cialani C, Ulgiati S. A review on circular economy: the
expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic
systems. J Clean Prod 2016;114:11-32.
357
[5] Webster K. The Circular Economy: A Wealth of Flows - 2nd Edition. Ellen
MacArthur Foundation; 2017.
[6] Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken N MP, Hultink EJ. The Circular
Economy - A new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod 2017;143:757-
768.
[7] Dieterle M, Schäfer P, Viere T. Life Cycle Gaps: Interpreting LCA Results
with a Circular Economy Mindset. Procedia CIRP 2018;69:764-768.
[8] Allwood J. Squaring the Circular Economy: The Role of Recycling within
a Hierarchy of Material Management Strategies. In Worrell E, Reuter M,
Handbook of Recycling: State-of-the-art for Practitioners, Analysts, and
Scientists. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 445-477.
[9] Graedel T, Reck B, Ciacci L., Passarini F. On the Spatial Dimension of the
Circular Economy. Resources 2019;8 (1):32.
[10] Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G, editors. Environmental Life Cycle
Costing. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC);
2008.
[11] Rödger JM, Kjær LL, Pagoropoulos A. Life Cycle Costing: An
Introduction. In: Hauschild MZ, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, editors. Life
Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 373-399.
[12] Klöpffer W, Grahl B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best
Practice. Weinheim: WILEY- VCH; 2014.
[13] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Completing the Picture: How the Circular
Economy Tackles Climate Change. V.3 – 26 September; 2019.
[14] Bocken N MP, de Pauw I, Bakker C, van der Grinten B. Product design
and business model strategies for a circular economy. J Ind Prod Eng
2016;33-5:308-320.
[15] den Hollander MC, Bakker CA, Hultink EJ. Product design in a circular
economy: development of a typology of key concepts and terms. J Ind Ecol
2017;21:517–525.
[16] Moraga G, Huysveld S, Mathieux F, Blengini GA, Alaerts L, van Acker
K, de Meester S, Dewulf J. Circular economy indicators: what do they
measure? Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;146:452-461.
[17] Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L. Circular economy – from review
of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2018;135:190-201.
[18] Moltesten A, Bjørn A. LCA and Sustainability. In: Hauschild MZ,
Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, editors. Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and
Practice. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 373-399.
[19] Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A. Life cycle sustainability assessment in the
context of sustainability science progress. Part II. Int J LCA 2012;18:1686–
1697.
[20] Ahbe S, Weihofen S, Wellge S. The Ecological Scarcity Method for the
European Union - A Volkswagen Research Initiative: Environmental
Assessments. Heidelberg: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018.
[21] Benini L, Mancini L, Sala S, Manfredi S, Schau E, Pant R. Normalisation
method and data for Environmental Footprints. Joint Research Centre
(JRC). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.
[22] Sala S, Cerutti A, Pant R. Development of a weighting approach for the
Environmental Footprint. Joint Research Centre (JRC). Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.