Cradle to Cradle and LCA – is there a Conflict?

Anders Bjørn, Michael Z. Hauschild

Section of Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, DTU Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark,
Denmark

Abstract:
The Cradle to Cradle (C2C) approach to ecodesign has been gaining increasing interest among industries, authorities
and consumers over the last years. With its focus on resource conservation through closing loops, use of solar-based
energy sources, avoidance of certain chemicals and the stated aim to create good rather than just avoid doing too much
evil, it appeals more to industry than traditional LCA-based ecodesign. What are the real differences between the two
approaches, and is there a conflict? Potential points of divergence between C2C and LCA are identified and the ability
of C2C to support a sustainable development is discussed.

Keywords:
Cradle to Cradle; Life Cycle Assessment; Sustainable Product Design

1 INTRODUCTION It has been debated how much eco-efficiency must increase for I to
As a new approach to sustainable product and system design remain (or get) below the carrying capacity. Factors between 4, 10
Cradle to Cradle has gained wide popularity in the non-academic and even 50 in improvement have been proposed [3], [4]. The
environment. It has attracted new companies and revitalized some variation reflects different projections of economic and population
of the dormant actors. It is however regarded with a high degree of growth, different understandings of “carrying capacity”, different
scepticism in the academic environment. LCA practitioners have situations for different types of impact, and different time
claimed that it does not include all life cycle stages and therefore perspectives. This means that in the worst case scenario we may
cannot be considered a serious concept for sustainable design. need to improve products and systems to the point where they in
This attitude gap is problematic because it inhibits communication the future provide the same services as today, but at 2% resource
between the two groups. This communication is crucial if Cradle to use and emission rate of current levels.
Cradle is to grow from being buzz to a concept that leaves a solid, The most complete and widespread method to measure eco-
positive and constructive impact in the world of sustainable design. efficiency is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). It keeps track of all types
Few in-depth studies have so far been conducted to identify where of relevant resource uses and emissions throughout the entire life
the conflicts between Cradle to Cradle and LCA arise and how cycle of a product or a system, from cradle (raw materials) to grave
these conflicts may be solved. (waste management). These are then translated quantitatively into
different environmental impacts, such as Global Warming,
This paper analyses the two approaches to identify differences and
Acidification and Nutrient Enrichment using characterization factors
serve as a basis for a discussion on the conflicts and on how Cradle
[5].
to Cradle and LCA may complement each other providing guidance
in the process of sustainable design. While still a young discipline, LCA has been standardised (ISO
14040 and 14044) and is widely used by businesses to identify
improvement potentials of their products, by third parties as a basis
2 BACKGROUND for awarding environmental labels and by authorities as a decision
2.1 Eco-efficiency and LCA support tool.
The concept of eco-efficiency has been defined as “adding 2.2 Cradle to Cradle
maximum value with minimum resource use and minimum pollution” While LCA is an assessment method, Cradle to Cradle is a different
[1]. It has during the last couple of decades gained wide acceptance approach aiming at sustainable design. Although others have used
as a mean to ensure sustainability and is realized through the term before, the concept fist became thoroughly defined in 2002
technological innovation that may be supported by regulatory in the book ‘Cradle to Cradle – Remaking the way we make things’
frameworks such as taxing non-eco-efficient goods, eco-labelling by William McDonough and Michael Braungart (hereafter referred to
eco-efficient products and promoting green public purchase. The as “the authors”) [6]. The concept has been translated into detailed
relationship between environmental impacts (I), population (P), criteria that serve as basis for a certification, and producers can
affluence per capita (A) and eco-efficiency (1/T) is commonly apply for a Cradle to Cradle label according to different levels of
expressed through the I = PAT equation [2]. Since P and A are on compliance with these criteria. The Cradle to cradle concept and
the rise globally, I may exceed (or have already exceeded) the the underlying criteria are based on 3 fundamental principles:
global carrying capacity, which leads to depletion of the natural Waste Equals Food, Use Current Solar Income and Celebrate
stock. Diversity.

J. Hesselbach and C. Herrmann (eds.), Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing: Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International 599
Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, May 2nd - 4th, 2011,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-19692-8_104, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
600 Life Cycle Assessment - Methods and Tools

Waste Equals Food which they may cause harm. Downcycling only slows this degrading
Waste Equals Food represents the idea of eliminating the very process down.
concept of waste and instead be inspired by nature’s endless Other than the closed loop focus Cradle to Cradle also has a strong
nutrient cycles. Instead of the eco-efficient approach of trying to emphasis on using non-toxic (or ‘healthy’ as they are termed)
reduce the amount of waste, the focus should be to design systems materials. This has a dual purpose since it both prevents human-
with outputs that can be taken up as nutrient by other processes. and eco-toxic effects from occurring and prevents complications in
This goes both for emissions during the production stage of a the recycling process (whether that be in the technical or biological
product and for the product itself once it reaches the disposal stage. metabolism).
The authors use the cherry tree as an example of how nature is Use Current Solar Income
usually not very eco-efficient, but still sustains itself through its
nutrient cycles: “Thousands of blossoms create fruit for birds, The energy required for fuelling a closed loop Cradle to Cradle
society must all come from what is termed ”current solar income”,
humans, and other animals, in order that one pit might eventually
defined as photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, hydro and biomass.
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 These sources correspond with the general understanding of
renewable energy sources. Due to the vision of being entirely
ecosystem, this abundance has evolved…to serve rich and varied
supplied by energy from the sun, Cradle to Cradle design is not
purposes. In fact, the tree’s fecundity nourishes just about
everything around it.” [6] limited by any constraints on the energy use during the life cycle of
a product. As long as the energy quality meets the requirements
The very interconnectedness of nature’s organisms in ecosystems (current solar income) the energy quantity is irrelevant.
is used to illustrate how industries should expand their focus from
single products to whole systems: “Just about every process has Celebrate Diversity
side effects. But they can be deliberate and sustaining instead of The main point of this last key principle is to avoid one-size-fits-all
unintended and pernicious…Eco-effective designers expand their solutions and instead design products and systems with local
vision from the primary purpose of a product to the whole.” [6] environments, economies and cultures in mind: “Industries that
This line of thought is comparable with the concept of industrial respect diversity engage with local material and energy flows, and
symbiosis, of which the most well known case is located in the with local social, cultural, and economic forces, instead of viewing
Danish city of Kalundborg [7]. themselves as autonomous entities, unconnected to the culture or
landscape around them.” [6]
It is stressed that products should either be designed as biological
nutrients or technical nutrients. Biological nutrients are defined as: Eco-efficiency according to Cradle to Cradle
“A material used by living organisms or cells to carry on life The authors stress that Cradle to Cradle is a fundamentally different
processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates approach to sustainable design than eco-efficiency, of which they
and other complex functions. Biological Nutrients are materials that claim to be: …a reactionary approach that does not address the
can biodegrade safely and return to the soil to feed environmental need for fundamental redesign of industrial material flows…
processes.” [8] principally a strategy for damage management and guilt reduction.
Technical nutrients are defined as: “A material that remains in a It begins with an assumption that industry is 100% bad, and
proceeds with the goal of attempting to make it less bad. [6]
closed-loop system of manufacture, reuse, and recovery called the
technical metabolism, maintaining its value through infinite product Downcycling is perceived by the authors as a symptom of eco-
life cycles.” [8] efficiency. Making small changes to a system that is fundamentally
The concept of the two nutrient cycles is illustrated in Figure 1. wrong can never achieve anything ‘good’, but only slow the ‘bad
things’ down somewhat. Eco-efficiency’s focus on ‘being less bad’
also means that it is incompatible with economic growth:
“Innovation is impossible because the priority for dematerialization
suffocates creative approaches to the use of materials while
simultaneously directing funding towards the generation of
decreasingly beneficial incremental improvements. Growth
becomes a problem because it threatens to result in increased
resource use and waste.” [6]
Instead of trying to be less bad Cradle to Cradle strives to ‘be more
good’ in the sense that emissions should not be reduced, but
instead be redesigned to become nutritious to the technical or
biological metabolism. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 1: The technical and biological nutrients cycle after [9].

Biological and technical nutrients should not be mixed beyond easy
separability. Otherwise a product is created which neither fits into
the biological nor the technical metabolism. Such a product can
never be truly recycled, but merely downcycled into a product of
lower quality and value. Alternatively virgin materials are necessary
as inputs in the recycling process in order for the value and quality
of the new product not to be lowered. In both cases a truly
sustainable system is not possible, because the linear model of
cradle to grave is maintained: Resources are being extracted and Figure 2: Eco-efficiency and Cradle to Cradle after [10].
end up as materials with no value to humans or the environment to
Life Cycle Assessment - Methods and Tools 601

3 POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN CRADLE TO CRADLE definition of a technical nutrient and when composted it fits into the
AND LCA definition of a biological nutrient.
LCA aims to be value neutral and does not set absolute goals for So what disposal option should be chosen? Cradle to Cradle does
eco-designers. It provides guidance in terms of the most not offer any guidance on that issue. According to the concept all
environmentally sustainable way to reach the goal for each case. products and emissions should be designed to become technical or
Cradle to Cradle on the other hand sets a number of absolute and biological nutrients and none of the two corresponding metabolisms
universal criteria (e.g. dual closed loop recycling and the use of has higher priority than the other.
current solar income). These two fundamentally different According to the eco-efficiency concept it is possible to assess the
approaches lead to a number of critical points where LCA and most sustainable disposal option using LCA. This has in fact been
Cradle to Cradle are in disagreement. done in two studies [15], [16]. The results of these studies will not
3.1 Based on different environmental ethics be commented here, but this example illustrates another point of
The basis of eco-efficiency is that all human activities have a more conflict between Cradle to Cradle and LCA
or less significant negative impact on the environment and that the 3.3 Energy use
task is to reduce that impact per unit of service. According to the When trying to fit Cradle to Cradle into the framework of life cycle
Cradle to Cradle concept impacts can be ‘good, healthy and assessment it is evident that some aspects of life cycle stages and
nourishing’. This calls for an analysis of what environmental ethics impact categories are not considered. One of the strongest points of
the two different approaches are based on and how that influences criticism of Cradle to Cradle is that it does not assess the amount of
the applicability of the two, individually or in combination. energy use. As long as the energy source qualifies as current solar
LCA can be characterized as utilitarian up to and including the point income, the quantities used are irrelevant.
of normalization in the sense that it attempts to show the path to This approach may be appropriate in a world that is fuelled entirely
minimizing negative utility (environmental impacts in this case) [11]. by current solar income and where available energy is abundant
This is no longer the case when performing the weighting step, and without undesired environmental or resource impacts. However
where the LCA can apply different ethics by emphasizing impacts a fossil free economy is very unlikely to be realized within the
prioritized by politicians, in the public debate, on human health, foreseeable future. Therefore there might be a trade-off, in terms of
uncertain impacts or others. For that reason LCA practitioners often sustainability, between the benefits of closing the material loop and
exclude the weighting step. The results may be perceived more the disadvantages from closing it as a result of e.g. increasing
valid when sticking to the utilitarian approach and often still gives energy needs for transportation and recycling processes. More
clear results that are relatively robust towards choice of weighting generally speaking it could be pointed out that imitating nature
principle. might not be such as good idea after all if it is not done with
Cradle to Cradle is at first sight based upon the radical ethic theory thoughtfulness. This is because the limiting factor for growth in most
of Deep Ecology since it recognizes that everything has the same ecosystems is nutrients and not energy. Nature has therefore
and equal right to flourish and that humans have no special rights largely evolved to become very efficient in terms of nutrient
[11]. However, where this has lead traditional proponents of deep recycling but equally inefficient in terms of energy use (hence the
ecology to reject economic growth and consumerism, Cradle to cherry tree metaphor). When comparing the natural system with the
Cradle embraces consumerism and claim to be compatible with present human economy it can be said that both nutrients (e.g.
economic growth. Due to this ‘win-win’ assertion Cradle to Cradle metals and minerals) and energy (e.g. oil, gas and capacity for
rejects the utilitarian approach of LCA. Why try to reduce overall renewables) are limiting factors for our technical systems.
negative utility when it is possible for all of nature and humans to Therefore, while nature can afford to be inefficient when it comes to
flourish at the same time without compromising each other? energy use, the human economy at its present stage can not.
These conflicting ethical points of reference may result in Cradle to Thermodynamically it has been shown that the last percentages of
Cradle being attractive to decision makers with different ethical a separation process are far more energy-demanding than the first
mindsets than those who find LCA attractive. Moreover it may pose percentages [17]. Cradle to Cradle closed loop recycling implies
difficulties if trying to combine the two approaches. 100% pure outputs of recycling processes (otherwise it results in
3.2 Characterising technical and biological nutrients downcycling). Therefore substantial energy demands may occur in
the disposal stage when following the Cradle to Cradle principle.
According to Cradle to Cradle literature and certification criteria This may in some cases offset the environmental gains from closing
[6],[12],materials and products should either be designed as the material loop, but this will not be revealed by the Cradle to
technical or biological nutrients. If products are easily separable Cradle methodology.
they may contain both technical and biological nutrients. However
the definitions are not mutually excluding as such. Some materials Another related issue is that Cradle to Cradle’s strong focus on
qualify to be both technical and biological nutrients. closed loop recycling may direct the attention away from optimising
energy efficiency in the use stage of (directly or indirectly) active
An example of this is polylactic acid (PLA), a polymer consisting of products. LCAs show that for most such products the highest
lactic acid monomers and based on sugar, commonly derived from energy use takes place in the use stage, and being an important
corn. It is widely used as a biobased and biodegradable plastic source of several environmental impacts, this is normally one of the
material for e.g. food and beverage packaging. The largest main focus points for ecodesign in the whole life cycle. For clothes it
worldwide supplier of PLA is Nebraska based NatureWorks LLC. has been found that up to 80% of the total energy consumption
Although not Cradle to Cradle certified, they claim to work by the occurs in the use stage due to laundering [18]. For laundry
Cradle to Cradle principles and their PLA is also used as example detergents 70-80% of the primary energy use takes place in the use
of a Cradle to Cradle material by Cradle to Cradle proponents [13], stage [19]. For televisions (using picture tube technology) 70-80%
[14]. of the total CO2 emissions have been found to take place in the use
According to NatureWorks, their PLA has several disposal options, stage [20]. A Japanese LCA study shows that for refrigerators also
including recycling into lactic acid monomers through chemical around 80% of the CO2 emissions take place in the use stage [21].
hydrolysis and composting. When recycled PLA fits into the Finally for automobiles LCAs were carried out on a number of Ford
602 Life Cycle Assessment - Methods and Tools

cars (all 2.0litre engines). They showed that 75-80% of all Global studies could indicate for each case which disposal option would
Warming Potential takes place in the use stage, with more or less present the most sustainable solution. This has been partly
similar results for Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential [22]. investigated in the two PLA studies [15], [16], where composting in
The last issues of this point relates to the certification program, the second study causes higher overall environmental impacts than
which acknowledges that only a small fraction of the world’s energy incineration with energy recovery (in the first study composting was
demands is currently covered by current solar income [12]. not assessed).
Therefore it is possible to fulfil the requirements for use of current In response to the fact that biological nutrients in many cases do
solar income in the production process by purchasing Green-e not contain any macro- or micronutrients the authors suggest that
certified renewable energy certificates to offset the energy used to these should be integrated into products on purpose. This is
in the production stage of the product. As with most other green exemplified in the idea of including a seed in an ice cream wrapper
electricity certification programs, purchased certificates do not to support growth of plan life when the wrapper is discarded on the
guarantee that the electricity you receive is physically produced by ground [10]. However there is lag of logic here. If the plant life
renewable sources. Instead it attributes a certain fraction of the should be supported because it would otherwise decline, then what
renewable electricity produced to the purchaser. Demand for is the use of extracting scarce seeds from the eco system and then
sustainable electricity thus theoretically provides utilities with an return them again at a later point? This does not represent a
economic incentive to supply more renewable energy through the nutrient addition, but a nutrient transportation. The same point could
installation of more renewable energy generation capacity. In be made about integrating macro- and micronutrients into biological
reality, however, there is no guarantee that this actually happens. In nutrient products.
Denmark the supply of green certificates is so high that the demand Finally it must be stressed that ecosystems are complex. The
for certificates has only served to increase the profits of the utility concentration of a nutrient that is optimal in one ecosystem could
companies, not the size of the installed renewable energy be toxic in others. Also within an ecosystem different niches have
generation capacity [23]. Since coal is considered the short term different needs of nutrients. Distribution of biological nutrients is
marginal electricity resource in Denmark (and in many other therefore a key issue as illustrated in Figure 3.
countries), an increased demand in electricity will be supplied with
electricity from coal. This is compatible with the approach used
when carrying out a consequential LCA.
3.4 Effect of adding biological nutrients to the environment
According to the Cradle to Cradle concept adding biological
nutrients to the environment is a good thing. This statement is
based on the fact that many parts of the environment are in
shortage of nutrients due to human activities and therefore need the
addition of biological nutrients to recover their natural balance.
However the authors are not very clear on exactly to which parts of
the environment the biological nutrients should be added (e.g.
unspoiled ecosystems, watersheds, agricultural lands or gardens?).
Also they do not elaborate on whether it matters what kind of
nutrients are added where and in which amounts. It is a well
established fact that everything is toxic if the dose is sufficiently
large, so the simplified message of Cradle to Cradle that biological Figure 3: Generalized picture of the relation between dose of
nutrients are good and more biological nutrients are better is biological nutrient and effect on an organism after [24].
problematic. The concept of biological nutrients and biological
metabolisms needs to be elaborated on.
An example where biological nutrients will lead to adverse rather
Macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are than positive effects is the addition of bio available nitrogen and
necessary in rather large quantities for most species. phosphorous compounds (such as ammonia and phosphate) into
Micronutrients, such as zinc, manganese and selenium, are less receiving water bodies. Such compounds are concentrated in waste
abundant, but nevertheless needed in small amounts for many water, mainly due to human waste and ends up in aqueous
biological processes. The examples used by the authors as ecosystems along with similar compounds from agricultural runoffs.
biological nutrient include carpet trimmings, clothing and packaging This nutrient enrichment causes eutrophication, which leads to
materials. Such products would most likely be based on polymers of excess production of algae, loss of oxygen and biodiversity in
carbohydrates, as in the case of PLA. These polymers only contain surface water ecosystems. Also when increased concentrations of
carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and therefore no macro or bio available nitrogen occurs in ground water aquifers, the use of
micronutrients. Carbon is usually not considered a nutrient, since it the water for drinking water supply is linked to increasing incidences
in biodegradable form is degraded into CO2 and water, neither of of diseases such as stomatitis and methemoglobinemia (‘blue baby
which nourishes species and increases their growth (other than that sickness’) [24].
of the degrading microorganisms). When added to soil, the small
When applying the Cradle to Cradle concept of biological nutrients
fraction of carbon that is not degraded stays in the soil in the form of
into design of products issues such as nutrient type, distribution and
humus, that limits erosion, buffers against fluctuations of soil pH,
alternative disposal options should therefore be carefully
retains water, is important for soil fertility and may mitigate climate
considered. This can be done by the use of LCA. It should,
change due to its function as a carbon sink [24], [25]. However
however, be mentioned that since LCA considers all impacts from
since only a small fraction (around 2%) of the carbon is retained in
emissions to cause adverse effects, then additions of nutrients that
humus and since it may not be irreversibly retained, the benefits of
will in fact cause degraded environments to recover, are not
this disposal option may be limited. For this reason the Danish EPA
attributed positively, unless it is defined as an intention and included
has stated that biodegradable plastics should generally rather be
in the functional unit of the study.
incinerated with energy recovery than composted [26]. Again LCA
Life Cycle Assessment - Methods and Tools 603

3.5 The use of composite materials solve the problem of resource shortage as a result of continued
According to the Cradle to Cradle concept, materials should be economic growth in a Cradle to Cradle society.
uniform to guarantee maximum recyclability. This should be According to eco-efficiency thinking, the response to increasing
understood in the sense that technical and biological nutrients economic growth would be to design products that, in addition to
should not be mixed, but also in the sense that mixing of technical being recyclable, also are dematerialised. However a decrease of
nutrients should at least be limited so that one product does not down to 2% material to meet the worst case requirements derived
contain too many different types of compounds that would from the IPAT equation seems unrealistic. Therefore, neither the
complicate recycling. Thus uniform materials are preferred over eco-efficiency nor the Cradle to Cradle approach has a solid
composite materials. solution to a sustainable future where economic growth continues at
Here, a trade-off may arise in the fact that the use of composite today’s rates.
materials could lead to lower environmental impacts in other life
cycle stages than disposal when compared to uniform materials. An 4 OUTLOOK
example can be found in the automobile industry. As mentioned,
75-80% of the global warming impact is caused by emissions It is clear that Cradle to Cradle has a very different approach to
occurring in the use stage [22]. Obviously, the weight of the car has sustainability than eco-efficiency and LCA. From the presentation of
a significant influence on the fuel consumption and thereby the total the critical points it is also clear that the Cradle to Cradle approach
global warming impact. Cars are usually composed of hundreds of alone could lead into sub-optimisation and thereby unsustainable
components that are made from different steel and aluminium alloys products. This is especially the case in a world that is very far from
only relying on current solar income. Tradeoffs between closing the
due to different needs in e.g. strength and flexibility. If they were to
become homogenized according to the Cradle to Cradle concept, it material loop and the associated energy use is the main reason for
critical points 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5. However Cradle to Cradle also has
would inevitably lead to a less practical design. More importantly a
some advantages over eco-efficiency in that it provides some
study has found that legislation imposing strict recycling quotas,
such as the EU Directive on end-of-life vehicles, may inhibit the absolute guidelines. These have been found to inspire product
designers to rethink their perception of sustainability and to
development of future light weight car designs. This is because
fundamentally redesign products. Cradle to Cradle as a generative
such designs rely on parts made from non-metals (primarily glass,
plastic and composites) that are problematic to recycle [27]. Using method can inspire designers to different product design solutions.
LCA as an analytical tool may be used to assess the sustainability
the same argument, the development of sustainable light weight
of these different design solutions and keep track of it as the design
cars may be inhibited in a Cradle to Cradle design paradigm. This
trade-off between recyclability and impacts in the use stage can be process proceeds [28]. By using both tools a producer could benefit
from the positive image of a Cradle to Cradle product and still be
investigated using LCA.
certain that the product does not perform worse than products of
3.6 Sustainability and economic growth eco-efficient competitors who don’t follow a Cradle to Cradle
Perhaps the most radical message of Cradle to Cradle is that approach. Generally it should be investigated for which types of
economic growth and thereby growing rates of material products Cradle to Cradle design results in non-eco-efficient
consumptions are compatible with a sustainable Cradle to Cradle products. This would allow producers to know, before investing time
society. The authors justify this message by stating that as long as and effort into the Cradle to Cradle concept, whether it is something
all materials circulate in the technical or biological closed nutrient they would want to engage in.
loop, then economic growth can happen at a high rate without any However, hardcore proponents of Cradle to Cradle may argue: “It
harm to the environment (provided that there is an unlimited access does not matter if Cradle to Cradle products today perform worse
to solar-based energy with a negligible environmental impact). than eco-efficient products. What matters is that the products are
However at some point economic growth will result in a situation driving the development towards a Cradle to Cradle society.”
where 100% of an available resource is present in the use stage of
Such an argument is valid when it comes to waste management
the technical or biological metabolism. Using the allegory of the
infrastructure. If large volumes of closed-loop recyclables are
cherry tree, this corresponds to a situation where all the nutrients in
the cherry tree ecosystem are in the tree, mainly in the form of introduced to the market, recyclers will be provided with an
economic incentive to recycle these materials. Therefore, where an
cherries hanging on the trees because the tree doesn’t shed the
LCA may discredit a product designed for closed loop recycling,
fruits. The lack of nutrients in the other parts of the cycle causes the
tree’s surrounding environment to degrade. In the case of a Cradle because such recycling is not taking place, then in time, these
products would in fact drive the development towards a more
to Cradle society with unlimited economic growth the parallel is a
sustainable waste management system based on more specialized
situation where further production is limited by the rate at which
products are being disposed of, so their technical nutrients can recycling processes.
become available to new products, and where environmental When it comes to energy supply there is however no reason to
degradation is significant. In response to this, the authors believe that Cradle to Cradle products would act as a driver for the
encourage products to be designed with a short lifetime in mind. installation of more renewable energy capacity. That is unless
This will enable the nutrients to move quickly around in the closed producers choose to follow the advice of the authors: get off the grid
loops to fuel the economy. However the authors do not address the and rely on own locally produced power through e.g. windmills or
issue of stockpiling. It is a fact that the demand for different solar panels on factory roofs.
resources in a given region by far exceeds the waste generation This leads on to the discussion of what part of society should act as
rates of the same resource for that region. E.g. the demand for iron drivers of a Cradle to Cradle development (if such a development is
in the EU is much higher than the generation rate of iron waste. to be pursued). The authors themselves have a rather liberal view
This is partly due to the fact that metals such as iron are commonly and state that regulatory instruments should not be applied and that
applied in physical infrastructure, such as railroads and street lights, private initiatives will drive the development once producers see the
where their function often demands high durability. Design for short benefits. Other than a clean consciousness, incentives are stated
lifetime is thus not always a feasible solution and may not, by itself, as reduced fees for disposal of toxic waste, increased income from
the right to use the Cradle to Cradle brand and increased income
604 Life Cycle Assessment - Methods and Tools

from the change in business model that may be necessary [6]. journey/~/media/news%20and%20events/natureworks_th
However 8 years after the book was published relatively few eingeojourney_pdf.ashx
products (less than 400 worldwide) have been certified [29]. Of [14] Slideshow presentation (2010): Cradle to Cradle Seminar,
these few of the producers are known to have completely changed Copenhagen Business School, 24/11-10
their business model the way the authors propose it (e.g. technical
nutrient products should be leased through product service systems [15] Madival, S.; Auras, R; Singh, S. P.; Narayan, R. (2009):
and not sold). Therefore regulatory environmental measures such Assessment of the environmental profile of PLA, PET and PS
as increased taxes on raw materials and land filled waste and clamshell containers using LCA methodology. Journal of
higher subsidies to the installation of renewable energy capacity, Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 13, pp. 1183-1194.
may be needed to seriously promote the Cradle to Cradle [16] Vink, E. T. H.; Davies, S.; Kolstad, J. J. (2010): ORIGINAL
development. RESEARCH: The eco-profile for current Ingeo® polylactide
production. Industrial Biotechnology, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 212-
224.
5 REFERENCES
[17] Gutowski, T. G. (2008): Thermodynamics and recycling, A
[1] Huesemann, M. H. (2004): The failure of eco-efficiency to review. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the
guarantee sustainability: Future challenges for industrial Environment, pp. 1-5.
ecology. Environmental Progress, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 264-
270. [18] De Clercq, S. (2008): Towards sustainable business
uniforms. Thesis (master). Delft University of Technology.
[2] Huesemann, M. H.; Huesemann, J. A. (2008): Will progress in
science and technology avert or accelerate global collapse? A [19] Van Hoof, G.; Schowanek, D.; Feijtel T. C. J.; Boeijie, G.;
critical analysis and policy recommendations. Environment, Masscheleyn, P. H. (2003): Comparative Life-Cycle
Development and Sustainability, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 787-825. Assessment of Laundry Detergent Formulations in the UK.
Tenside, Surfactants, Detergents, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 276-287.
[3] Chertow, M. R. (2001): The IPAT Equation and Its Variants:
Changing Views of Technology and Environmental Impact. [20] Andrae, A. S. G.; Andersen, O.; (2010): Life cycle
Journal of Industrial Ecology. Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 13-29. assessments of consumer electronics — are they consistent?
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 15,
[4] Wenzel, H.; Alting, L. (2004): Architecture of Environmental No. 8, pp. 827-836.
Engineering. Conference proceeding from "Global
Conference on Sustainable Product Development and Life [21] Morioka, T.; Morioka, T.; Yamamoto, Y.; Yabar, H.; Tsunemi,
Cycle Engineering" Berlin, September 29th - October 1st K.; Yoshida, N. (2005): Eco-efficiency of advanced loop-
2004. closing systems for vehicles and household appliances in
Hyogo Eco-town. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 9, No. 4,
[5] Wenzel, H.; Hauschild, M.; Alting, L. (1997): Environmental pp. 205-221.
Assessment of Products. Volume 1: Methodology, tools and
[22] Schmidt, W. (2006): Life Cycle Tools within Ford of Europe's
case studies in product development. Kluwer Academic
Product Sustainability Index. Case Study Ford S-MAX & Ford
Publishers
Galaxy. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
[6] McDonough, W.; Braungart, M. (2002): Cradle to Cradle – Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 315-322.
Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press. New
[23] The Ecological Council. (2010): Strøm med klimavalg (note
York.
only available in Danish):
[7] Kalundborgsymbiosys. (2008): New technologies and http://www.ecocouncil.dk/index.php?option=
innovation through Industrial Symbiosis. Industrial Symbiosis com_content&view=article&id=166:strom-med-
Institute:http://www.symbiosis.dk/media/7940/symbiosis% klimavalg&catid=10:artikler-energi-og-klima&Itemid=89'
20paper%20presentation.pdf
[24] Reijnders, L. (2008): Are emissions or wastes consisting of
[8] McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (2010). Cradle to biological nutrients good or healthy? Journal of Cleaner
Cradle Resources: Production, Vol. 16, No. 10, pp. 1138-1141.
http://www.mbdc.com/detail.aspx?linkid=1&sublink=26
[25] Lal, R.; Follett, F.; Stewart, B. A.; Kimble, J. M. (2007): Soil
[9] Voorthuis, J.; Gijbels, C.; A Fair Accord (2010): Cradle to carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and advance
Cradle as a Design Theory Measured against John Rawls’ food security. Soil Science, Vol. 172, No. 12, pp. 943-956.
Theory of Justice and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical
[26] Nielsen, A. M.; Weidema, B. P. (2002): Miljøvurdering af
Imperative. Sustainability, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 371-382.
alternative bortskaffelsesveje for bionedbrydelig emballage.
[10] Braungart, M.; McDonough, W.; Bollinger, A. (2007): Cradle- Miljøprojekt Nr. 680 2002. Miljøstyrelsen:
to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions - a strategy for http://www.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2002/87-7972-070-
eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner 6/pdf/87-7972-071-4.pdf
Production, Vol ;15, No. 13-14, pp. 1337-1348.
[27] Reuter, M. A.; van Schaik, A.; Ignatenko, O.; de Haan, G. J.
[11] Sessions, G. (1995): Deep ecology for the 21st century: (2006): Fundamental limits for the recycling of end-of-life
Readings on the philosophy and practice of the new vehicles. Minerals Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 433-449.
environmentalism. Shambhala Publications, London,
[28] Bakker, C. A.; Wever, R.; Teoh, C.; de Clercq, S. (2010):
England, UK. ISBN: 1570620490
Designing cradle-to-cradle products: A reality check.
[12] McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry. (2008): Cradle to International Journal of Sustainable Engineering. Vol 3, No. 1,
CradleSM Certification Program - Version 2.1.1. 2.: pp. 2-8.
http://www.mbdc.com/images/Outline_CertificationV2_1_
[29] McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry. (2010): Cradle to
1.pdf
Cradle certification. Certified Products. View by certification
[13] NatureWorks. The Ingeo™ Journey. (2009): rating: http://c2c.mbdc.com/c2c/list.php?order=type
http://www.natureworksllc.com/the-ingeo-