Upload
buikhue
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Levi Strauss & Co.San Francisco, CA
March 2009
2
Why a Product-Lifecycle Approach?
• In 2006, we had several programs in place to address environmental impacts associated with the production of our products and the operation of our facilities
– Environmental compliance programs
– Supplier Code of Conduct program
– Global Effluent Guideline program
– Levi’s® eco products (e.g., using organic cotton)
• We needed a credible, science-based method for measuring the full environmental impact of our products so that we would be able to identify a vision and set of priorities for our environmental work going forward
• We commissioned a lifecycle assessment (LCA) of two of our core products, which yielded some surprising results
• By taking a product-lifecycle approach to our work, we were able to develop a set of strategies to address the greatest impacts of our business on the environment
• Our product-lifecycle approach addresses both environmental sustainability and the sustainability of our business
3
What Is a Product-Lifecycle Assessment?
• Quantitative method to evaluate the environmental impact of products using:– Lifecycle perspective (system analysis) – e.g., from the cultivation
of cotton to the end of the product’s useful life (“cradle to grave”)– Mass and energy balance (input/output inventory)
• Direct Data – inputs and outputs associated directly with product
• Indirect Data – inputs and outputs used to make the direct inputs (often using extensive industry-average data sets)
– Impact assessment categories • To translate the input and output data to the
environmental impacts of the system
• Typically, does not include:– Social impacts– Economic impacts
4
“…the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potentialenvironmental impacts of a product system throughout its lifecycle”
Definition of LCA from ISO 14040* Series:
*Details the requirements for conducting and administering a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
5
A Credible Methodology
• Forty-year history– 1969: Glass bottle recycling vs. one-use PET bottles– 1970s: Energy crisis prompted energy-efficiency studies– 1997–2001, 2006: International Standards Organization (ISO)
14040 series
• Consensus on LCA practice– University graduate programs– LCA professional certification (LCACP) – LCA to be integrated into LEED program for certification of green
buildings – United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Lifecycle Initiative– European Union Integrated Product Policy (IPP)– National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) – using LCA
for preferable purchasing by U.S. federal government
6
Our Project Scope
• Selected high-volume product: – Levi’s® 501® jean, medium stonewash
– Produced for the U.S. market during the 2006 production year
• Studied the full lifecycle - cradle to grave
• Data compiled from– LS&CO. suppliers
– GaBi 4 software datasets (used by LCA professionals, academics, government and other objective parties)
• Followed ISO 14040 series standards for results intended for internal use only
• Additional review (Phase 2) enables LS&CO. to share select data publicly and refer to LCA findings in conversations around our sustainability story and programs
• Conducted by PE Americas, Boston, MA
7
The LCA Results of the Studied Levi’s® 501® Jean
• Shrink to fit fabric
• 0193 Finish
• Medium stone wash
• U.S. Market, 2006 production year
8
Levi’s® 501® Jean System BoundaryStudied product produced for U.S. market during the 2006
production year using 0193 medium stone wash finish
Fabric (Mexico)
Garment Cut (Dominican Republic)
Garment Finish (Dominican Republic)
Garment Sew (Haiti)
Fabric (Brazil)
Fabric (North Carolina)
Cotton (Brazil)
Cotton (Mississippi Delta)
Cotton(West Texas)
Garment Cut & Sew (Mexico)
Garment Finish (Mexico)
Garment Cut Sew/Finish (Egypt)
Pool Point (McDonough, GA)
Pool Point
Hebron, KY CSC
Canton, MS CSC
Henderson, NV CSC
Retail (U.S.) Direct
Retail (U.S.) Large Retailer
Retail (KY) Online Retail
Use (U.S.) Customer
Reuse (U.S.) Customer
Disposal (U.S.) Incineration
Disposal (U.S.) Landfill
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck Truck
Truck /Ship TruckTruck
Truck
Truck/Ship
Truck/Ship
Truck
Truck Truck
Truck/Ship
Truck
Truck/Air
9
18.6
0.5 1.7
6.6
3.02.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Levi’s® 501® Jeans – Climate Change
For the studied Levi’s® 501® jeans (cradle to grave),the climate-change impact was highest at the consumer-use phase (58%)
58%
1% 5%
21%
9%
6%
Use End of Life Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
Cradle-to-Grave Climate Change, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Climate Change, Amount by Phase
Kg
CO
2e
10
226.6
0.417.7
84.9
40.829.8
0
50
100
150
200
250
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Levi’s® 501® Jeans – Energy Use
For the studied Levi’s® 501® jeans (cradle to grave),the energy-use impact was highest at the consumer-use phase (58%)
58%
4%
21%
10%
7%
Use Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
Cradle-to-Grave Energy Use, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Energy Use (MJ), Amount by Phase
MJ
11
1575.2
0.4
1704.0
72.1 110.818.1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Levi’s® 501® Jeans – Water Consumption
45%
49%
2%
3%
1%
Use Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
Cradle-to-Grave Water Consumption, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Water Consumption, Amount by Phase
Lite
rs
For the studied Levi’s® 501® jeans (cradle to grave),water consumption was highest at the cotton-production and
consumer-use phases (49% and 45% respectively)
12
is equivalent to:
Data from LS&CO.’s Life Cycle Assessment on Levi’s® 501® jean for U.S. Market, 2006 production year
• 78 miles driven by the average auto in the United States
• The carbon sequestered by six trees per year (based on EPA representative sequestration rates of tons of carbon per acre per year)
32.3 kg of CO2
3480.5 liters of water
• Running a garden hose for 106 minutes
• 53 showers (based on 7 minute showers)
• 575 flushes of a 3.78 liter/flush low flow toilet
400.1 MJ of Energy
• Watching TV on a plasma screen for 318 hours
• Powering a computer for 556 hours, which is equivalent to 70 work days (based on 8 hours of computer use per day)
Product-Lifecycle Impact of Studied Levi’s® 501® Jean
13
Consumer Care – Reducing Climate Change Impact
Washer information derived from the following sources:• The Federal Trade Commission – Appliance Energy Data: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/eande/appliances/clwasher.htm• Bole, Richard. “Life-Cycle Optimization of Residential Clothes Washer Replacement”, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, April 21, 2006.
Available at: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS06-03.pdf (Appendix C of the University of Michigan report contains detailed washer energy efficiency data, from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers)
How water temperature and the type of machine(s) you use can make a difference
1.9
6.7
13.7
18.6
1.12.7
12.5
14.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Kg
CO
2e
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Top-Loaded Side-Loaded
14
Consumer Care – Reducing Energy Use Impact
How water temperature and the type of machine(s) you use can make a difference
48.1
123.0
220.5
295.4
34.860.3
201.2226.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
MJ
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Top-Loaded Side-Loaded
15
Consumer Care – Reducing Water Consumption
How water temperature and the type of machine(s) you use can make a difference
1471.0 1475.11571.1 1575.2
540.0 541.4636.6 638
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Lite
rs
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Cold Water, Line Dry
Warm Water, Line Dry
Cold Water, Machine Dry
Warm Water, Machine Dry
Top-Loaded Side-Loaded
16
Number of Washes – Climate Change Impact
52 WashesConsumers can decrease the climate change impact by about 32 percent by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once every two weeks from once per week
24 Washes Consumers can decrease the climate change impact by about 48 percent by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once per month from once per week
*Based on top loaded/warm water/machine dry
*LCA assumed 104 washings (once per week for two years)
Denim is a hearty fabric. We don’t need to wash our jeans after every wear.
32.3
21.9
16.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Kg
CO
2e
Comparison of Climate Change Impact, by Number of Washes
Cradle-to-Grave Totals (Number of Washes)104 52 24
17
400.1
321.2
241.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Number of Washes – Energy Use Impact
52 WashesConsumers can decrease the amount of energy used when caring for their jeans by about 20 percent by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once every two weeks from once per week
24 WashesConsumers can decrease the amount of energy used when caring for their jeans by about 40 percent by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once per month from once per week
Denim is a hearty fabric. We don’t need to wash our jeans after every wear.
MJ
Comparison of Energy Use, by Number of Washes
Cradle-to-Grave Totals (Number of Washes)104 52 24
*Based on top loaded/warm water/machine dry
*LCA assumed 104 washings (once per week for two years)
18
Number of Washes – Water Consumption
52 WashesConsumers can decrease water consumption by about 23 percent (799.2 liters) by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once every two weeks from once per week
24 Washes Consumers can decrease water consumption by about 35 percent (1,223.3 liters) by decreasing the number of times they wash their jeans to once per month from once per week
Denim is a hearty fabric. We don’t need to wash our jeans after every wear.
3480.5
2681.3
2257.3
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Lite
rs
Comparison of Water Consumption, by Number of Washes
Cradle-to-Grave Totals (Number of Washes)104 52 24
*Based on top loaded/warm water/machine dry
*LCA assumed 104 washings (once per week for two years)
19
What We Learned from Our Product Lifecycle Assessment
• When we look at the full product lifecycle, the majority of environmental impacts occur in lifecycle phases outside of our direct control
• In order for us to decrease our overall environmental impact, we need to continue our efforts within our own sphere of influence in addition to focusing on:– Cotton production: the cultivation of our most important raw material– Consumer engagement: we are a consumer-facing company, in constant
conversation with the consumer about style and quality. We will engage and educate our consumers on the environmental impact of their fashion choices and the responsible care of their washable garments
20
Examples of Our Product Lifecycle Approach in Action
• Engaging consumers:– Levi Strauss & Co. partnered with the Alliance to
Save Energy and Proctor & Gamble, makers of Tide® Coldwater, to co-promote our Signature by Levi Strauss & Co.™ jeans in Wal-mart stores, encouraging consumers to save energy and money by washing their jeans in cold water
– Product care labels: The Levi’s® brand is in the process of changing all care labels on the brand’s products, instructing consumers to wash in cold water and tumble dry medium. The new instructions will allow consumers to reduce their own environmental/climate change impact and save money on their utility bills
• Reducing product packaging• Incorporating resource-efficiency factors in product design and
manufacturing, including finishing technologies that allow us to reduce our water and energy consumption
• Addressing cotton sustainability through participation in projects such as the Better Cotton Initiative
21
Benefits of Our Product Lifecycle Assessment
• Helps us focus on the most significant environmental impacts as we develop and evaluate sustainability programs and policies
• Aids discussions with product designers, product managers, merchandisers and other employees on the concept of designing for sustainability
• Supports engagement with external stakeholders as we describe our environmental priorities and goals
22
Levi Strauss & Co.San Francisco, CA
March 2009
23
Appendix
24
14.6
0.3 0.6
6.8
0.51.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Dockers® Original Khaki – Climate Change
For the studied Dockers® Original Khaki pant (cradle to grave),we found the climate-change impact was highest
at the consumer-use phase (59%)
59%
1% 3%
28%
2%7%
Use End of Life Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
Cradle-to-Grave Climate Change, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Climate Change, Amount by Phase
Kg
CO
2e
25
231.6
0.2 6.7
96.9
7.724.6
0
50
100
150
200
250
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Dockers® Original Khaki – Energy Use
For the studied Dockers® Original Khaki pant (cradle to grave),the energy-use impact was highest at the consumer-use phase (63%)
Cradle-to-Grave Energy Use, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Energy Use (MJ), Amount by Phase
MJ
63%
2%
26%
2%7%
Use Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
26
738.2
0.2
389.0
53.616.1 16.5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
UseEnd of L
ife
Cotton
Fabric
Cut/Sew
/Finish
Logistics/R
etail
Dockers® Original Khaki – Water Consumption
62%
32%4%
1%
1%
Use Cotton Fabric Cut/Sew/Finish Logistics/Retail
Cradle-to-Grave Water Consumption, % by Phase
Cradle-to-Grave Water Consumption, Amount by Phase
Lite
rs
For the studied Dockers® Original Khaki pant (cradle to grave),water consumption was highest at the consumer-use and
cotton-production phases (62% and 32% respectively)
27
Selected Assessment Methodologies
Impact Category
Indicator Description Unit Reference
Energy Use Primary energy demand
Measure of the total amount of primary energy extracted from the earth
MJ An operational guide to the ISO- standards (Guinee et al.) Centre fro Milieukunde (CML), Leiden 2001
Climate Change
Global Warming Potential GWP)
Measure of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2 and methane
Kg CO2 equivalent IPCC. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Eutroph- ication
Eutrophication Potential
Measure of emissions that cause eutrophying effects to the environment
Kg Nitrogen equivalent Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT Press, 2002.
Acidification Acidificaiton Potential
Measure of emissions that cause acidifying effects to the environment.
Kg H+ equivalent Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT Press, 2002.
Smog Photo chemical Oxidant Potential
Measure of emissions of precursors that contribute to low level smog
NOx equivalent Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT Press, 2002.
Toxicity Human Toxicity Potential; Eco- toxicity Potential
Measure of the potential toxicity of materials based on the chemical condition, original emission place and its fate.
Kg Benzene equivalent, PM2.5 equivalent; Toluene equivalent; 2,4-D equivalent
Bare et al., TRACI: the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts JIE, MIT Press, 2002.
Water Water take Measure of the water consumed. Sources include surface and ground water
Kg water
28
Selected Impact Categories for Communication
• Energy Use• Climate Change• Water Uptake