Chapter 25 Cradle to Cradle and LCA Anders Bjorn and Michael Z. Hauschild Abstract Cradle to Cradle (C2C) off where The idea is not to reduce negative impacts (as in LCA), but to i impacts. This chapter presents the C2C concept and its relationship with a "economy, the C2C certification and examples of C2C certified or inspired products and systems. This is followed by a comparison of C2C with eco-efliciency and LCA. Because of their important differences, we conclude that care should be taken when combing C2C and LCA, e.g. using LCA to evaluate products inspired by (C2C. We then provide an in-depth analysis of the conflicts between C2C and LCA and offer solutions, Finally, we reflect upon how LCA practitioners can leam from, C2C in terms of providing a vision of a sustainable future, creating a sense of urgency for change and communicating results in an inspiring way. Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, one should be able to Explain the Cradle to Cradle” (C2C) concept and its three key principles," Outline the C2C certification scheme, Provide examples of C2C inspired or certified products, Discuss similarities and differences, complementatities and conflicts between (C2C and LCA, ‘cradle to Cradle and C2C* are trademarks of MBDC, LLC. Used with permission A. Bjom (2) » MZ, Hausehild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark ‘e-mail: anders bjoern@polymtl.ca A. Bian CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montréal, QC, Canada © Springer Intemational Publishing AG 2018 605 MLZ. Hauschild et al. cds.) Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_25,6065 A. Bjorn and MZ. Hauschild 25.1 Background Imagine a world in which industry, yes, every factory and every building is as wasteful and a useful as a cherry tre in full bloom. A world, in which buildings — just like wees — use the sun’s energy, produce nutrients and oxygen, provide living space for other creatures, cleanse water, purify the air and even change to adapt to the seasons. A world without environmental pollution or waste, where only products with materials that are beneficial to both man and the environment are manufactured. A world, in which materials are of such high value that they flow in specially designed material cycles. ‘A world, in which humans ean actually be pleased about the benefits their consumption has ‘on the environment. A world, in which humans are freed from and no longer have to live under the restraints and limitations placed on them by always having to save, reduce and cut down on certain things for the sake of the environment. That is exactly the kind of world that the Cradle to Cradle® design concept opens up to all of us Excerpt from Michael! Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle Vision (EPEA 2013) The words above do not resemble those of an ordinary engineering discipline. But then again, the Cradle to Cradle concept is by no means an ordinary engi- neering discipline. 25.1.1 History Cradle to Cradle” (C2C) is based upon the idea of imitating nature in the approach (Gaeta ieyeemaieD Te first use of the term Cradle to Cradle generally attributed to the Swi tect Walter R. Stahel in the end of the 1980s (PLI 2013). The term originated as a reaction to the newly emerged idea of com- panies being responsible for their products and systems from “cradle to grave”. Stahel argued that the “cradle to grave” perspective was merely reinforcing the existing linear economical model and relied on end-of-pipe solutions, He argued that the really sustainable solution was to use durable goods in a loop from “cradle back to cradle” in a circular economy (PLI 2013). At the turn of the century, the German chemist Michael Braungart and US architect and designer William McDonough further developed the C2C concept and provided examples and guidance for its use in the design of products and system. In 2002 this work was. compiled in the book “C2C—Remaking the way we make things” (McDonough ‘and Braungart 2002). A decade later “The Upcycle” was published (McDonough and Braungart 2013). This sequel to the 2002 book clarifies the theoretical basis of C2C, addresses some common misconception and provides additional examples of how the concept can be applied to the design of products and systems at various scales.25 Cradle to Cradle and LCA oor 25.1.2 Influence The C2C books have broad scopes and address a variety of topics, such as envi- ronmental science, product and system design, organizational theory and philoso- phy. The books are written in a visionary, provocative and popular style and have consequently reached an audience beyond the sole fields of civil engineering and product design. Apart from attracting a large numbers of readers, the C2C concept has had a number of concrete impacts on business, civil society and policy The trademark C2C is owned by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) located in North America and the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA), located in Hamburg has the license to use it. The C2C Product Innovation Institute (California) has the license to certify products according to the Cradle to Cradle Certified™ Product standard, i.e. the C2C cer- tification scheme. These institutions have moreover trained consultancies around the world to assist companies in going in a C2C direction and/or complying with the certification requirements. This has resulted in a number of products and system designs based on the concept and C2C certified products (see Sect. 25.4). Some environmental NGOs are also praising the concept for its positive agenda and a few are even entirely dedicated to moving the world in a C2C direction, such as the Danish CradlePeople. Also, Cradle to Cradle has inspired the financially secure Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) to promote the idea of a Circular Economy, defined as a restorative or regenerative industrial system by intention and design (EMF 2012). This charity has since 2012 published a series of compre- hensive reports and books with the overall aim of convincing business and policy-makers that a strategic transformation from a linear to a circular economy is, not only possible, but also in their enlightened self-interest, as it can increase the wealth and resilience of companies and societies (e.g. EMF 2012, 2015a, b).. Direct influences of Cradle to Cradle and Circular Economy on policy have initially been modest, but in 2015 the European Commission adopted an “EU action plan for the Circular Economy” (EC 2015a). The declared aims of this action plan is to “contribute to ‘closing the loop’ of product lifecycles through greater recycling and reuse, and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy” (EC 2015b). The plan includes among other things common EU targets for recycling, economic incentives for producers of recyclable products and measures to stimulate industrial symbiosis. 25.2 Key Principles of C2C C2C aims for positive impacts on the environment, including humans. To achieve this, three key design principles must be followe608, A, Bjorn and M.Z. Hausehild 25.2.1 Key Principle 1: Waste Equals Food According to the C2C concept, humans are not inherently harmful to the envi- ronment. Rather than considering environmental impacts as unwanted, but inevi- table, consequences of human activities, they should be seen as symptoms of design Waste, understood as a physical flow with no use for anyone and therefore no economic value, is such a symptom of design failure, Waste is @ phenomenon ‘unknown to nature in which materials are continuously cycled between different ecosystem specs, SRDS Canasta TSS ‘Waste equals food. The very concept of waste shot \erefore be eliminated and the focus should instead be to design “healthy emissions”, meaning that the emissions that inevitably result from industrial processes should be engineered as resources to be taken up by other industrial processes or ecosystems. The focus should thus shift from trying to reduce the amounts of emissions to designing emissions with beneficial effects (either for organisms in nature or for other industrial processes). This applies to emissions occurring throughout the life eycle of a product and also to the product itself when it reaches its disposal stage. To ‘ensure that such emissions can undergo recycling in continuous loops without loss of quality, see Fig, 25.1. ‘The (short) definition of a biological nutrient is “a product usable by defined living organisms to carry on life processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates, energy management, and other complex functions” (PIL 2016). Analogously, caine Een, (in short) be defined as “a product capable of “feeding” technical systems” (PII 2016). Feeding may be in the form of dismantl and reuse, physical transformation (e.g. plastic remoulding) and chemical trans formation (e.g. plastic depolymerisation). It should be noted that materials in the technical cycle are therefore free to take part in any product, as long as they < a o > hg > AP fs J Biological Nutrients Technical Nutrients Fig. 25.1 The technical and biological nutrient cycles. Image Copyright© MBDC, LLC. Used ‘with permission25 Cradle to Cradle and LCA. 609 maintain their value. It is even encouraged to increase material value as they cycle from product to product. This process is termed ‘upeycling’, which is also the title of the recent C2C book (MeDonough and Braungart 2013). Materials harmful to the environment or humans are accepted as technological nutrients in C2C if they fulfil the above definition and as long as they do not end up in the environment and as long as humans are not exposed to them. ‘Some materials may qualify as biological nutrients, but also be able to take part in the technical nutrient cycle until a critical point, where their quality is too low to be of any value in the technical cycle. At this point, they should enter the biological cycle. For example, paper produced from wood can undergo recycling by pulping. This process, however, leads to the rejection of the fraction of the wood fibres that have become too short to be of use. When a wood fibre becomes too short due to pulping and no other industrial processes in the technical cycle can use it, it can no longer be characterised as a technical nutrient. Because wood fibres also qualify as biological nutrients the rejected wood fibres can therefore enter the biological cycle through, e.g. anaerobic digestion, composting or spreading of ashes following incineration, provided that they are not contaminated (see below) (MIE 2011). Products composed of biological nutrients, such as wood fibres in paper, are inherently degradable. They should therefore naturally be ‘consumed’ by the consumer, who may choose to nourish his or her garden soil with the biological nutrients contained in the worn out product (¢.g. a piece of textile). By contrast, products composed of technical nutrients, are per definition not ‘consumable’. Their value to the user is the function they provide, not the materials they are composed of, which means that they may, potentially, be leased rather than sold to the users. Products composed of technical nutrients should thus take part in In PSS, users pay for services (such as the ability to ‘watch television 500 h per year for $ years) rather than products (a television). For the consumer this has the advantage that they are guaranteed the quality of the service (ifthe television malfunetions or breaks down, the supplier is obliged to fix it) and that they do not have to bother with disposing the product when it is no longer useful (¢.g. taking an obsolete or broken television to the recycling centre). For the company engaging in PSS has the advantage that they maintain control over the materials embedded in the products. Products may thus be designed with durability in mind and for easy replacement of individual parts, Modular designs may also be advantageous since parts of redundant products may be fed into new products as resources. The potentials of PSS as driver of environmental improve- ‘ments are obvious: It can ensure cleaner fractions of used products, to a higher extend designed for disassembly and ensure a higher recovery fraction than for non-PSS goods, where the continuous cycling of technical nutrients to a large extent relies on the good will of consumers. The distinction between the biological cycle and the technical cycle is also at the core of the circular economy, and so is the distinetion between consumers and users. A key message in the C2C concept is that biological and technical nutrients _610 A, Bjorn and M.Z. Hausehild uch a product is termed a .d can never truly be recycled and the result is a “downcycled” product of lower quality and value (McDonough and Braungart 2002). Moreover, the separation of biological and technical nutrients in the recycling process is, technically complicated and often requires high inputs of energy and chemicals, which may cause damage if emitted to the environment, The authors use ordinary cellulose-based office paper as an example of a monstrous hybrid, since it is composed of biological materials (cellulose fibres) as well as technical materials, (eg. coating agents, dyes and inks). Therefore, it can neither be part of the bio- logical cycle (the chemicals are persistent and possibly toxic to the environment) nor the technical cycle, at least not indefinitely (cellulose fibres are shortened durin; the pul ces) ce apes eae a, Ae ee than virgin office paper. To compensate for the mix of biological and technical nutrients its recycling process requires additional input of virgin wood fibres and chemicals for bleaching and de-inking the pulp, which are emitted from the recycling plant causing damage to the environment. 25.2.2 Key Principle 2: Use Current Solar Income The second key principle dictates that th defined as photo- voltaic, geothermal, wind, hydro, and biomass. All these energy sources are effects of solar radiation on Earth’s surface (except geothermal energy, which originates from nuclear processes in the core of the Earth). The solar income must be ‘current’. Otherwise, fossil fuels would be permitted since they are ‘old’ solar income. This key principle is inspired by nature since all processes occurring in nature are fuelled by current solar income. Itis important to note that there are no quantitative restrictions on the amount of energy used throughout the life cycle of a C2C product or system. The quantity of energy used is considered irrelevant as long as the energy quality (ie. energy source) meets the requirements of current solar income (McDonough and Braungart 2002). 25.2.3. Key Principle 3: Celebrate Diversity Avoiding one-size-fits-all designs is the main point of the last key principle. Products and systems should be designed wit and environments. Ecosystems differ with respect to stru inction and the services they may offer to humans, depending on varying natural conditions (eg. climatic and geologic) across the globe. Similarly, the organisms populating25 Cradle to Cradle and LCA. on the ecosystems each fulfil a specific task and biologists generally agree that a high Consequently products and systems designed —_ humans should: “draw informa- tion from and ultimately “fit” within local natural systems ... express an under- standing of ecological relationships and enhance the local landscape where possible ... draw on local energy and material flows ... take into account both the distant effects of local actions and the local effects of distant actions” (McDonough and Braungart 2002). The third key principle also encourages that one should ‘become native’ and realize one’s role as a species among other species. Members of ecosystems are “Terefore th aim should not be to reduce impacts on the environment, as suggested by the eco-efficiency concept, as this would result in isolation from other species (McDonough and Braungart 2002). Instead we sould exchange'mitenis wth the (Corio ate dsienao through the use of green roofs for storm water management and constructed wetlands for waste water treatment). On a more philosophical note, the authors advocate the abandonment of the mental image of ‘mother nature’, which we feel guilty about hurting. Instead nature should be perceived as a companion that we may leam from and support (Tobias 2010). 25.2.4 The Cherry Tree Metaphor C2C proponents often use the metaphor of a cherry tree to sum up the three key principles: “Thousands of blossoms create fruit for birds, humans, and other ani- ‘mals, in order that one pit might eventually fall to the ground, take root, and grow...although the tree actually makes more of its “product” than it needs for its ‘own success in an ecosystem, this abundance has evolved...to serve rich and varied purposes. In fact, the tree's fecundity nourishes just about everything around it” Rather than being eco-efficient the cherry tree is being eco-effective, C2C translates this = ; the ‘c thing rather than doing the thing right. Thus, 25.3. C2C Certification Program Since 2005, companies have been able to apply for a product-level C2C certifi- cation. The certification program was initially administered by MBDC in the US and by EPEA in Europe. Since 2010, the non-profit California based Cradle to612 A, Bjorn and M.Z. Hausehild Cradle Products Innovation Institute™ has also been licensed to carry out certifi- cations. The institute trains and certifies consultants around the world, who assist companies in complying with the certification requirements. 25.3.1 Certification Criteria ‘The certifi jon can be awarded to products at five levels; Basic, Bronze, Silver, if which the criteria for Platinum are the most strict (PI 2016). It should be noted that not even a platinum awarded product guarantees a ‘true’ C2C product, ie. one that fulfils all three key principles for all aspects. Rather, products awarded a certification should be seen as 1e progressive nature of the certification also urges for stepwise product improvement from a lower to ahigher certification level. The certification criteria cover five categories. For each category, a number of criteria must be met, depending on the level of certification. ‘The overall certification level of the product is determined by the category with the lowest achievement level (PII 2017a), see example in Table 25.1. Below an illustrative selection of these criteria for version 3.1 of the certification program (PII 2016) is presented. Material Health ‘The applicant must obtain an overview of all homogenous materials in the product and materials or substances present at a concentration of 100 ppm (parts per mil- lion) or higher must be reported (Bronze and above). Additionally, -icals (¢.g. some metals, flame retardants and phthalates) must be repor level. After receiving the material list the certifying body ellow, green, grey an each material following their classification methodology. The higher the certifica- tion level, the lower the allowed red and grey (unknown) material content in the product. In addition, Gold- and Platinum level applicants must also demonstrate ‘compliance with Cradle to Cradle emissions standards. These define maximum Table 25.1 Example of C2C certification scorecard Certification eriterion Basic [Bronze [Silver | Gold _| Platinum Material health x Material reutilization x ‘Renewable energy and carbon x ‘management ‘Water stewardship x Social faimess x Overall certification Tevel x Based on PII (2017b)25. Cradle to Cradle and LCA 613. values for the off-gassing of problematic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the product in its use stage. At platinum level process chemicals must also be assessed, among which no red chemicals are allowed. Material Reutilization The applicant must demonstrate that the product has successfully been designed as CGaieealeanTora taBenkarieny both if the materials are easily sepa- rable, thus avoiding the creating of a “monstrous hybrid”). Furthermore, applicants TMSt be in he peeest ote GRIgE GEMS CUES URE ey. At Gold-level a “Well-defined nutrient management strategy” must be in place and this plan must be implemented at Platinum level, CEs aie it icati . The score is a weighted average of “fe petenage of the pt considered eoyelsbscompotble (weight of 2) and the percentage of recycled/rapidly renewable content (weight of 1). A material may be classified as recyclable based on its inherent qualities, independently of the existence of an infrastructure for its recovery. Renewable Energy and Carbon Management Applicants must supply information on the quantity and sources of electricity and on-site emissions used in the “final manufacturing stage” of the product. The industrial processes covered by the final manufacturing stage in the certification program varies across product categories, see PIT (2015). For all levels, except Basic, an applicant is required to present a strategy for supplying the energy needed for the final manufacturing stage of a product through current solar income (pho- tovoltaic, geothermal, wind, hydro, and biomass). At Gold-level at least 50% of the energy required in final manufacturing must come from current solar income (5% for Silver and 100% for Platinum). Finally, for the Platinum level the embodied energy associated with the product from Cradle to Gate must come from current solar income, To increase the share of energy from current solar income, it is allowed to purchase specified renewable energy certificates documenting that the electricity used comes from renewable sources. Water Stewardship For all levels except Basic, a facility wide water-audit must be conducted, meaning that all water flows associated with product final manufacturing are fully charac- terized. For Silver and Gold levels, there are furthermore requirements to charac- terize and optimize product related chemicals in effluent to develop a strategy for supply-chain water issues for tier 1 suppliers. At Platinum level, all water leaving the final manufacturing facility must meet drinking water quality standards. Social Fairness For all levels, applications must perform a streamlined self-audit related to fun- damental human rights and any identified issues must be addressed by management procedures. At Bronze level this self-audit must be more thorough and for Silver level and higher applicants must fulfil criteria related to social conditions at sup- pliers (e.g. through purchasing fair trade materials or FSC certified wood) or initiate local social projects. At platinum level a facility level audit must be completed by aoid ‘A, Bjorn and M.Z, Hauschild third party following intemationally recognized standards (such as SA8000 or BCorp). A study of the application of the five certification criteria to an aluminium can, belonging to the technical cycle, found that the main learnings for the company manufacturing the cans were (Nieto et al. 2016): ‘© Material health: substances even at ppm level, often originating from additives giving the desired functional properties to the base material, have an impact on recyclability ‘© Material reutilication: ensuring recyclability, e.g. through a change in lacquer, is, a prerequisite for achieving the volumes of recycled aluminium required for a high recycled content of new aluminium cans, ‘* Renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship and social fairness: these certification criteria require interventions at the company’s (and to some extend suppliers’) processes, rather than in the design of the aluminium can. 25.3.2 Certified Products As of March 2017, 482 certifications were in place (PIT 2017b). These cover more than 482 individual products, since more than one of a company’s products may be covered by a single certification, if they are materially very similar (e.g. a series of textile products only differing in patterns and colours). The distribution between certification levels was: 3% Basic, 44% Bronze, 35% Silver, 18% Gold and 0.2% (one product) Platinum. The five largest product categories were Building Supply and Materials (177), Interior Design and Furniture (158) Home and Office Supply (44), Packaging and Paper (27) and Fashion and Textiles (21). It can be seen that the certifications cover both products of a business-to-business and business-to-consumer nature. 25.3.3 Comparison of Certification Program with Type 1 Eco-labels ‘The term eco-label may cover a wide variety of schemes (see more in Chap. 24). In Europe the most recognized and widespread labels belong to what ISO-14024 classifies as Type 1 environmental labelling (SO 1999): ‘a voluntary, multiple-criteria based, third party program that awards a license which authorizes the use of environmental labels on products indicating overall environmental preferability of a product within a particular product category based on life cycle