Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 April 2013
Received in revised form 2 September 2013
Accepted 13 October 2013
Keywords:
Economic input-output analysis
Life cycle assessment
Data envelopment analysis
Food manufacturing
Supply chain
Sustainability
a b s t r a c t
Due to the fact that food manufacturing is one of the major drivers of the global environmental issues,
there is a strong need to focus on sustainable manufacturing toward achieving long-term sustainability
goals in food production of the United States. In this regard, current study assessed the direct and indirect environmental footprint of 33 U.S. food manufacturing sectors by using the Economic Input-Output
Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) model. Then, a non-parametric mathematical optimization tool, namely
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), is utilized to benchmark the sustainability performance of food manufacturing sectors by using the results of the EIO-LCA model. Next, sustainability performance indices
(SPIs), rankings, target improvements, and sensitivity of environmental impact indicators are presented.
The average SPI score of U.S. food manufacturing sectors is found as 0.76. In addition, 19 out of 33 food
sectors are found as inefcient where an average of 4571% reduction is indicated for various environmental impact categories. Analysis results also indicate that supply chains of food manufacturing sectors
are heavily responsible for the impacts with over 80% shares for energy, water and carbon footprint, shery and grazing categories. Especially, animal (except poultry) slaughtering, rendering and processing
sector is found as the most dominant sector in most of the impact categories (ranked as 2nd in shery
and forest land). Sensitivity analysis indicated that forest land footprint is found to be the most sensitive
environmental indicator on the overall sustainability performance of food manufacturing sectors.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Manufacturing of goods has changed the quality and speed
of daily life tremendously since the industrial revolution. Even
though, 21st century humanity is beneting from the advantages
of living in a high-tech environment, this payoff comes with severe
environmental deterioration in many impact domains such as
air and water pollution and toxic and hazardous waste. Since,
the manufacturing activities are one of the major drivers of the
entire situation; there is a direct need to focus on manufacturing
initiatives that emphasize sustainability. In this regard, sustainable
manufacturing can be understood as the creation of manufactured products that use processes that are non-polluting, conserve
energy and natural resources, and are economically sound
and safe for employees, communities and consumers (Dept.
of Commerce, 2012). In recent decades, rising environmental
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 701 231 7286; fax: +1 701 231 7195.
E-mail addresses: gokhan.egilmez@ndsu.edu, gokhanegilmez@gmail.com
(G. Egilmez).
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.008
10
2. Methodology
2.1. Joint EIO-LCA and DEA approach
In this paper, a two-phase hierarchical methodology is developed to assess the environmental impacts of nations food
manufacturing sectors and compare them based on the performance metric, sustainability performance index (SPI). The
methodology basically consists of a joint application of the EIO-LCA
and DEA. The rst part quanties the environmental footprints of
selected sectors and the second part compares by determining the
efciency value of each sector, which is considered as SPI. In this
regard, the SPI is dened as the ratio of total production output to
the overall environmental impact. The SPI indicates how efcient
the production of food is with regard to the environmental impacts.
For a sector with higher SPI, higher production output is expected
to be provided with proportionally lower environmental impact.
To determine the SPI, DEA is employed due to its robust applicability to multiple input and output data. DEA measures the efciency
by utilizing the normalized input(s) and the normalized output(s)
as a single efciency score {output(s)/input(s)} without a need of
subjective weighting for inputs and outputs.
The rst phase of the hierarchical framework, LCA, consists of
two steps. First, the scope and goals are dened. The scope includes
the cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of 33 major U.S. food manufacturing sectors based on their total production output (tons).
In addition, the goals are evaluating each sectors environmental impacts based on the selected impact categories, and nding
the top contributing sectors based on the highest shares in the
total environmental impacts. Then, EIO-LCA model is utilized to
determine environmental impacts of 33 U.S. food manufacturing
sectors including four land footprint categories: shery (gha), grazing (gha), forest land (gha) and cropland (gha) and three mid-point
indicators: water withdrawal, energy consumption and carbon
footprint based on total production output of each sector.
After developing LCA model to analyze the environmental
impacts of each manufacturing sector based on aforementioned
impact categories, the results are used as input in the second phase,
the DEA model. And later on, the selected environmental impacts
form the inputs of DEA model. On the other hand, the output is
the amount of food products produced by each food sector. After
integrating the results of the EIO-LCA model into DEA model and
solving the associated linear programming models, SPI scores and
rankings, target, and percent improvement potential values of each
manufacturing sector are presented and in the nal part potential
policy implications are discussed. The hierarchical methodology of
the EIO-LCA + DEA is summarized in Fig. 1.
(1)
In Eq. (1), r is the total impacts vector that represents total sustainability impacts per unit of nal demand, and Edir represents
a diagonal matrix, which accounts for the direct environmental
impact values per dollar of output, I refers to the identity matrix,
and f is the total nal demand vector for industries. In addition,
B is the input requirements for products per unit of output of
an industry matrix, and D is the market-share matrix. Also, the
term [(I-DB)1 ] represents the total requirement matrix, which is
also known as the Leontief inverse and DB is the direct requirement matrix, which is denoted as A matrix in the Leontiefs model
(Leontief, 1970). For more explanation about the integration of
the supply and use tables into industry-by-industry input-output
model and calculation of the cumulative environmental impacts,
please see the research paper published by Kucukvar and Tatari
(2013).
2.3. Data collection and mean normalization for DEA
The aforementioned EIO model was used for calculating direct
and indirect environmental impacts of 33 food manufacturing sectors, including carbon, energy footprint and water withdrawals and
land footprint categories as shery, grazing, forest land and cropland are then calculated by using the EIO model presented before.
Economic input-output table supplied by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA, 2002) has used to calculate total production
output of each food sector. In addition, the EIO-LCA model has been
utilized to obtain energy, water and carbon footprint per dollar
output of each U.S. sector. Global Footprint Networks database is
also used to quantify the direct and indirect ecological land use of
food manufacturing sectors in terms of shery, grazing, cropland,
forest land and CO2 uptake land for carbon sequestration (GFN,
2010). These environmental sustainability indicators are dened
as follows:
The carbon footprint is a measure of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), nitrogen oxides (N2 O), methane (CH4 ), and
hydrouorocarbon (HFC) emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
Also, direct CO2 and CH4 emissions related to animal feedstock production and direct CO2 emissions related to fertilizer
applications are included with in the scope of carbon footprint
calculations (CMU, 2002). In this analysis, all possible direct
and indirect emissions from food manufacturing sectors are
11
The forestland footprint is calculated based on the amount of lumber, pulp, timber products, and fuel wood consumed by a country
on a yearly basis (GFN, 2010). The total ecological footprint of
forest use (1.03 gha per capita) is allocated to the U.S. forestry
nurseries, forest products, and timber tracks sector.
The shery land footprint, in other words, shing grounds footprint is calculated using estimates of the maximum sustainable
catch for a variety of sh species. Marine areas outside continental shelves are currently excluded from the ecological footprint
accounts. Global footprint network used the catch data from the
UNs Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which is used to
estimate demand on shing grounds. Current accounts track both
sh catch for direct human consumption and catch for sh meal
(Kitzes et al., 2007). The EIO results calculate the direct and indirect consumption of shing ground based on nal demand of food
manufacturing sectors in U.S. (GFN, 2010). Assigned completely
to the U.S. shing sector is the total ecological footprint of shing
ground (0.10 gha per capita). See Wackernagel (1995) for more
information about the sustainability footprint indicators.
Table 1 presents the results of LCA model for 33 food manufacturing sectors. Since there is an imbalance in the data magnitude
due to multiple units, the mean normalization procedure has been
applied for the dataset obtained from the LCA model prior to
benchmarking. Similar normalization method was also applied in
previous DEA research conducted by Talluri and Paul Yoon (2000).
The mean normalization is simply conducted by calculating the
mean for each input and output category and dividing each input
or output data element by the respective mean.
2.4. Explanation of DEA model
In this paper, DEA is utilized as the linear programming based
mathematical optimization method to determine the SPI of U.S.
food manufacturing sectors. Merging LCA results including six environmental impact categories into a single efciency measure (SPI)
is the main reason of the complexity for performance assessment.
To combine multiple impact categories into a single value, SPI measurement requires assigning weights to each category to obtain
an overall score. To do so, prior studies have mostly used arbitrary equal weighting schemes or weights based on subjective
valuations (Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005). On the contrary, DEA
12
Table 1
EIO-LCA Results.
Energy FP (TJ)
Water withdrawals
(kgal)
Carbon
FP (t)
Fishery
(gha)
Grazing
(gha)
Forestry
(gha)
Cropland
(gha)
Total production
output (tons)
1.31E + 05
2.85E + 05
1.59E + 05
3.65E + 05
2.61E + 05
1.33E + 05
9.70E + 04
1.53E + 05
8.13E + 04
6.77E + 04
1.14E + 05
8.40E + 04
2.92E + 05
3.99E + 05
3.54E + 05
3.23E + 05
1.40E + 05
9.87E + 04
1.28E + 06
5.39E + 05
1.19E + 05
3.96E + 05
1.95E + 05
1.87E + 04
2.11E + 05
6.31E + 04
4.69E + 04
1.33E + 05
1.82E + 05
4.57E + 05
2.61E + 05
8.63E + 04
4.47E + 04
1.74E + 09
5.77E + 09
4.10E + 09
3.66E + 09
1.20E + 09
6.78E + 08
9.19E + 08
1.19E + 09
8.54E + 08
3.47E + 08
5.08E + 08
3.21E + 08
3.09E + 09
2.28E + 09
1.64E + 09
1.71E + 09
5.95E + 08
3.92E + 08
8.86E + 09
4.92E + 09
1.56E + 08
2.79E + 09
1.81E + 09
2.05E + 08
1.06E + 09
6.42E + 08
2.02E + 08
5.69E + 08
1.40E + 09
1.08E + 09
1.41E + 09
9.71E + 08
3.03E + 08
1.48E + 07
3.68E + 07
2.02E + 07
3.36E + 07
3.38E + 07
1.53E + 07
8.16E + 06
9.52E + 06
5.92E + 06
4.40E + 06
7.65E + 06
5.80E + 06
2.97E + 07
3.09E + 07
5.51E + 07
5.29E + 07
1.93E + 07
9.55E + 06
3.36E + 08
5.46E + 07
9.96E + 06
3.22E + 07
1.63E + 07
1.68E + 06
1.70E + 07
4.70E + 06
3.15E + 06
1.13E + 07
1.64E + 07
2.99E + 07
1.83E + 07
5.76E + 06
2.95E + 06
7.72E + 04
2.04E + 05
3.09E + 03
2.98E + 03
6.50E + 03
4.81E + 03
1.37E + 04
1.17E + 03
5.79E + 02
1.22E + 03
3.53E + 03
2.63E + 03
2.04E + 05
5.05E + 05
2.84E + 04
6.13E + 04
1.04E + 04
4.79E + 03
6.37E + 05
4.35E + 05
5.91E + 06
1.96E + 04
1.42E + 04
7.02E + 02
1.01E + 04
1.43E + 03
6.16E + 03
4.61E + 04
1.93E + 04
2.45E + 04
2.93E + 03
1.61E + 03
4.47E + 02
4.12E + 05
4.67E + 05
3.36E + 04
2.02E + 04
4.06E + 04
1.10E + 05
1.86E + 04
7.78E + 03
5.26E + 03
1.06E + 04
3.80E + 04
1.15E + 04
8.91E + 05
5.37E + 05
4.13E + 05
4.44E + 05
1.41E + 05
4.86E + 04
4.83E + 07
1.12E + 06
9.79E + 04
1.02E + 05
5.51E + 04
4.22E + 03
7.34E + 04
8.90E + 03
9.45E + 03
7.00E + 04
1.65E + 05
3.57E + 04
8.97E + 03
6.74E + 03
1.27E + 03
3.78E + 04
4.15E + 04
2.33E + 04
2.53E + 04
3.72E + 04
2.28E + 04
5.02E + 04
1.76E + 04
1.17E + 04
2.51E + 04
9.76E + 04
6.71E + 04
1.06E + 05
1.66E + 05
9.55E + 04
7.69E + 04
3.94E + 04
7.16E + 04
1.91E + 05
1.32E + 05
2.63E + 04
1.23E + 05
9.67E + 04
5.63E + 03
1.01E + 05
2.82E + 04
9.58E + 04
8.01E + 04
8.34E + 04
2.94E + 05
9.86E + 04
2.90E + 04
3.01E + 04
8.16E + 06
2.76E + 07
1.50E + 07
1.38E + 07
4.21E + 07
1.50E + 07
5.12E + 06
6.40E + 06
4.64E + 06
3.22E + 06
4.07E + 06
2.35E + 06
1.84E + 07
1.65E + 07
1.09E + 07
1.06E + 07
3.94E + 06
2.25E + 06
6.08E + 07
2.02E + 07
6.89E + 05
1.26E + 07
8.48E + 06
8.23E + 05
1.48E + 07
6.09E + 06
1.44E + 06
7.64E + 06
1.02E + 07
4.26E + 06
4.58E + 06
4.75E + 06
6.50E + 05
9.59E + 03
1.70E + 04
8.57E + 03
8.16E + 03
1.33E + 04
7.02E + 03
8.67E + 03
4.18E + 03
2.24E + 03
3.86E + 03
8.37E + 03
5.70E + 03
2.17E + 04
3.11E + 04
2.43E + 04
2.10E + 04
9.10E + 03
7.69E + 03
8.22E + 04
3.70E + 04
7.98E + 03
3.67E + 04
1.56E + 04
1.46E + 03
1.71E + 04
5.24E + 03
8.01E + 03
1.08E + 04
1.44E + 04
3.22E + 04
2.14E + 04
9.61E + 03
7.58E + 03
FP: Footprint.
k
r yro
(2)
r=1
m
Subject to
m
v
i=1 i
xij
for
j = 1...M
(7)
vi 0
(8)
Subject to:
13
1
1 m
=
vi xij
z
j
i=1
for
j = 1...M
(9)
Subject to:
vi xio = 1
(3)
i=1
1
vi xij
j
m
for
j = 1...M
(10)
i=1
k
r yrj
r=1
m
vi xij 0 j = 1, ..., n
(4)
i=1
r , vi 0
(5)
m
j
v
i=1 i
xijj
for
j = 1...M
(6)
14
Fig. 2. LCI Results of top ten sectors for the selected environmental impact categories.
3.1.4. Fishery
As one of the ecological indicators, expected results are observed
in shery (see Fig. 2d). The seafood product preparation and packaging is the dominant sector with 71.5% share. Remaining sectors
have less than 10% share. Animal (except poultry) slaughtering, rendering and processing sector follows the dominant sector with 7.7%
contribution. And, the rst ten sectors account for almost 100% of
the total shery.
3.1.5. Grazing
In grazing category, the overall ecological implication is dominated by animal (except poultry) slaughtering, rendering and
processing sector with a share of 89.9%, which was the dominant
sector in all three footprint categories (See Fig. 2e). The total share
of rst ten sectors is observed as almost 100%.
3.1.6. Forest land
Soft drink and ice manufacturing sector has the highest share
with 12.1% in forest category, as shown in Fig. 2f. The rst ten sectors shares range between 4% and 13%, which accounts for a total
share of 81.4%. It is also important to note that, in forest land category, individual sectors impacts are evenly distributed in terms of
% share values.
3.1.7. Cropland
As shown in Fig. 2g, the results associated with cropland category indicate that animal (except poultry) slaughtering, rendering
and processing sector is responsible for 16.5% of the overall impact
1.00
0.81
1.00
0.78
1.00
0.76
1.00
Breweries
0.76
1.00
U.S. Average
0.70
1.00
0.69
1.00
Wineries
1.00
Distilleries
0.64
0.59
1.00
0.56
1.00
0.54
1.00
0.53
1.00
1.00
15
0.50
Tortilla manufacturing
1.00
0.47
0.35
0.89
0.33
0.87
0.83
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.28
Cheese manufacturing
0.13
Poultry processing
are measured with least SPI scores. For instance, animal (except
poultry) slaughtering, rendering and processing is the major driver
of carbon, energy footprint and water withdrawals, grazing and
cropland categories and its SPI is found to be 0.47.
16
Table 2
Improvement Potentials.
Industrial sector
Energy FP
Water
withdrawals
Carbon FP
Fishery
Grazing
Forest land
Cropland
Poultry processing
Cheese manufacturing
Animal (except poultry) slaughtering,
rendering, and processing
Fluid milk and butter manufacturing
Frozen food manufacturing
Fats and oils rening and blending
Wet corn milling
Seasoning and dressing manufacturing
Snack food manufacturing
Ice cream and frozen dessert
manufacturing
Confectionery manufacturing from
purchased chocolate
Nonchocolate confectionery
manufacturing
Chocolate and confectionery
manufacturing from cacao beans
Cookie, cracker, and pasta
manufacturing
All other food manufacturing
Breakfast cereal manufacturing
Bread and bakery product
manufacturing
Flour milling and malt manufacturing
Coffee and tea manufacturing
88.7%
75.6%
75.2%
89.0%
71.8%
52.8%
86.8%
80.4%
90.0%
96.4%
85.7%
52.8%
91.1%
83.2%
99.0%
86.8%
71.8%
54.8%
86.8%
74.4%
63.7%
68.6%
68.3%
68.2%
60.7%
55.8%
55.6%
54.5%
67.4%
65.3%
58.2%
69.3%
44.0%
60.4%
30.1%
72.5%
65.3%
66.6%
71.2%
44.0%
49.7%
47.0%
67.3%
78.5%
46.4%
38.8%
88.8%
55.5%
30.1%
73.5%
73.3%
72.2%
19.1%
44.0%
49.7%
39.5%
67.3%
65.3%
46.4%
19.1%
44.0%
49.7%
62.5%
69.5%
72.2%
90.4%
56.4%
77.2%
88.6%
34.0%
51.2%
36.0%
36.0%
36.0%
50.5%
61.1%
72.2%
49.7%
16.9%
42.7%
16.9%
16.9%
42.5%
57.2%
49.1%
24.3%
35.1%
24.3%
28.4%
29.3%
73.5%
48.1%
73.0%
47.4%
74.3%
47.4%
47.4%
79.2%
42.9%
41.4%
40.4%
60.6%
52.5%
68.7%
22.2%
46.2%
33.4%
22.2%
90.7%
38.8%
29.6%
41.4%
11.5%
27.4%
41.4%
11.5%
66.7%
68.9%
67.1%
34.6%
13.4%
80.9%
22.1%
60.2%
14.4%
30.6%
18.7%
30.6%
13.4%
30.6%
13.4%
71.7%
65.8%
54.8%
54.9%
53.2%
52.3%
48.1%
45.9%
70.3%
When dealing with the policy making toward reducing environmental impacts of food manufacturing sectors, it is crucial
to consider both onsite and supply chain shares and signicant
contributor sectors with the average percent shares on the overall
sustainability footprint for each indicator category. To have an
overall understanding about the insight dynamics of life cycle
assessment, supply chain decomposition analysis is used as a
robust method. Studying EIO based life cycle impacts of food manufacturing sectors is important from the fact that supply-chain
and onsite impacts are both considered. Therefore, it is also crucial
to take a more detailed look into the supply chains of 33 food
manufacturing sectors. This section reveals the results of supply
chain decomposition analysis (See Table 4) for the top ten sectors
whose impacts are given as percentages in Fig. 2. The supply chain
decomposition analysis is performed considering the average percentage shares of the top ten sectors onsite and their supply chain
49.2%
41.2%
-54.9%
37.0%
-53.2%
35.9%
-48.1%
Grazing
35.7%
-54.8%
32.7%
-52.3%
Fishery
-80%
-45.9%
Forest Land
Water With drawals
Cropland
20.1%
-70.3%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Sensitivity
40%
60%
Improvement
potential
Sensitivity
Pearson correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
7
.858*
0.014
7
Improvement
potential
Pearson correlation
.858*
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
0.014
7
17
Table 4
Supply Chain Decomposition Analysis.
Avg. Onsite Energy Footprint
17.9%
82.1%
90.8%
23.2%
19.6%
17.2%
53.6%
22.8%
16.9%
3.2%
96.8%
6.6%
93.4%
59.6%
40.4%
76.2%
8.2%
5.4%
46.0%
33.5%
27.3%
22.9%
9.5%
8.9%
9.2%
67.6%
32.4%
1.2%
98.8%
39.3%
26.6%
22.6%
32.2%
17.7%
15.9%
18
impact share on the overall environmental impacts of private consumption (Weidema and Wesns, 2008); (Tukker et al., 2009).
In this regard, grain farming and animal production-related sectors are found to have the greatest shares in the supply chains
in various impact categories including carbon, water and land
footprint. Similar ndings were also provided and more detailed
assessments are made for livestock and dairy products in several
works such as Lesschen et al. (2011), Leip et al. (2010), Weidema
and Wesns (2008). To improve the sustainability performance
of in these sectors, the food waste reduction, mobile combustion
impacts associated with food shopping, agricultural improvements
such as copper and methane reducing diets for dairy cattle, biogasication for water, land and carbon footprint reduction and power
saving improvements can be highlighted for specic improvement
areas to focus on. In this context, U.S. household consumptionfocused input-output LCA studies are also required for a more
holistic decision making (Kucukvar et al., 2013).
4. Conclusion and recommendations
In this paper, the U.S. food manufacturing sectors sustainability performance is analyzed considering seven environmental
impact categories and the production amounts as the output category. A hierarchical methodology is developed to quantify the
environmental impacts of 33 food manufacturing sectors and
benchmark them based on the SPI score. This study introduces a
new sustainability benchmarking methodology by taking various
environmental sustainability indicators into account and combining them into a single sustainability performance score with a
linear programming based benchmarking model (DEA). In this context, using DEA to compare the sustainability performance of food
manufacturing sectors by considering environmental impacts and
production outputs is also vital from sustainability assessment
perspective, since environment, ecosystem and economy are integral elements of the sustainable development.
The overreaching goal of this study is to contribute to the body
of knowledge on the sustainability performance analysis, represented with SPI of 33 U.S. food manufacturing sectors. The proposed
sustainability performance benchmarking model provides significant insights for the holistic sustainability assessment of U.S.
food manufacturing and offers vital guidance for decision makers,
regarding the relative SPI. LCA approach uses a set of useful sustainability assessment metrics such as carbon, water and energy
footprint, which enables us to see the overall picture about the
current scheme from an environmental perspective. On the other
hand, it would be interesting to create a sustainability performance index (SPI) as a combination of all sustainability assessment
metrics, which enables an overall comparison across the food manufacturing sectors. In doing so, the multidimensionality can be
summarized and total sustainability assessment picture can be presented for all food manufacturing sectors. Hence, this paper lls this
policy making (similar to the system dynamics modeling application to holistic transportation sustainability policy making, Egilmez
and Tatari, 2011) can be useful to simulate the current results
and apply quantitative policy making alternatives for the long run
to stabilize the impacts. Additionally, more advanced DEA models such as cone ratio DEA and multi criteria decision making
approaches can be utilized to reect predetermined weights on the
inputs and can be compared with the results of current research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.
2013.10.008.
References
Acquaye AA, Wiedmann T, Feng K, Crawford RH, Barrett J, Kuylenstierna J, et al.
Identication of carbon hot-spots and quantication of GHG intensities in the
biodiesel supply chain using hybrid LCA and structural path analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 2011;45(6):24718.
Antle JM. Agriculture and the food system adaptation to climate change; 2009. p. 24,
Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/rff-rpt-adaptation-antle.pdf
Barba-Gutirrez Y, Adenso-Daz B, Lozano S. Eco-efciency of electric and
electronic appliances: a Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2008;14(4):43947, Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/118r003x6711v05g/
Blackhurst BM, Hendrickson C, Vidal JSI. Direct and indirect water withdrawals for U.S. industrial sectors. Environmental Science and Technology
2010;44(6):212630, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903147k.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Benchmark input-output data; 2002, Retrieved from
http://www.bea.gov/industry/io benchmark.html
Caldern LA, Iglesias L, Laca A, Herrero M, Daz M. The utility of life cycle assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
2010;54(12):1196207.
Carnegie Mellon University. EIO-LCA (Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment); 2002, Retrieved from http://www.eiolca.net/
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efciency of decision-making units.
European Journal of Operational Research 1978;3(4):3389.
Dept. of Commerce. How does commerce dene sustainable manufacturing?; 2012, Retrieved from http://www.trade.gov/competitiveness/
sustainablemanufacturing/how doc denes SM.asp
Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O. Sustainability assessment of U.S. manufacturing
sectors: an economic input output-based frontier approach. Journal of Cleaner
Production 2013;53:91102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.037.
Egilmez G, McAvoy D. Benchmarking road safety of U.S. states: a DEA-based
Malmquist productivity index approach. Accident Analysis and |Prevention
2013;53(1):5564.
Egilmez G, Tatari O. A dynamic modeling approach to highway sustainability: strategies to reduce overall impact. Transportation Research, Part A
2011;46(7):108696.
Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guine J, Heijungs R, Hellweg
S, et al. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal
Environmental
Economics
and
Management
2009;91(1):121,
of
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018.
Global Footprint Network. GFN national footprint accounts: ecological footprint and bio-capacity; 2010, Retrieved from http://www.footprintnetwork.
org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint for nations/ [pp. accessed 15.06.12].
Gonzlez-Garca S, Hospido A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Life cycle assessment of raw
materials for non-wood pulp mills: Hemp and ax. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 2010;54(11):92330.
Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS. Environmental life cycle assessment of goods
and services: an input-output approach; 2005. p. 261, Resources for the Future.
Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS. Environmental life cycle assessment of goods
and services: an input-output approach; 2006, Resources for the Future.
Hertwich EG, Peters GP. Carbon Footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis.
Environmental Science & Technology 2009;43(16):641420.
Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Environmental assessment
of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006;47(1):5672.
Huang YA, Lenzen M, Weber CL, Murray J, Matthews HS. The role of inputoutput
analysis for the screening of corporate carbon footprints. Economic Systems
Research 2009;21(3):21742, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09535310903541348.
Huppes G, Ishikawa M. A framework for quantied eco-efciency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2005;9(4):2541, Retrieved from
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1162/108819805775247882
Huppes G, Koning A, Suh S, Heijungs R, Oers L, Nielsen P, et al.
Environmental impacts of consumption in the european union:highresolution input-output tables with detailed environmental extensions.
19
20