Today, sustainability is no longer an option for companies, but a necessity. In this blog, we intend to give some guidelines to implement sustainability strategies in your daily activity.
April 27, 2023
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is becoming the key to assessing the environmental impact of a product or process.
Closed Cycle and Open Cycle are concepts directly taken from chemistry, where closed cycle processes are those that conserve matter throughout the process and only exchange energy with the environment, and open cycle processes are those that exchange matter and energy with the environment.
This translated into environmental science, separates us between products and/or processes that maintain their closed cycle, i.e., resources that reuse all the matter, and those with an open cycle, which release matter into the environment.
If we look at primitive human activities, we can see that most of them were closed-cycle. They tried not to waste resources and to reuse as much as possible. In addition, the sources of materials were natural, so their return to the environment was direct. And I have said most of them, because thanks to the fact that not everything was completely recyclable, nowadays we can find traces of their life in landfills or burial sites, and we can know how they lived. There is no need for the cycles to be closed in a watertight way.
With the development of economic activities, especially since the Industrial Revolution started at the end of the 18th century, the cycles have been opening up more and more, until the end of the 20th century, when the "single-use" culture and programmed obsolescence catapulted the open-cycle processes to unprecedented levels, clearly affecting the environment with the effects that we all know and can observe.
We are now more aware that this model is not sustainable and we must move towards closed cycles. But how can we do this?
Are we really aware of the impact and degree of use of the resources needed to obtain our goods and services?
The first example that comes to mind is single-use plastics, such as drinking straws. Single-use plastic straws are a clear example of an open cycle, so their ban was more than justified; but what would be a better alternative?
On the one hand, reusable straws have appeared, made of plastic, aluminum or stainless steel, which can be cleaned and reused indefinitely. But no matter how many times we use them, sooner or later these straws will become waste. In the absence of an optimal recycling system, the cycle remains open-ended.
Another option is single-use straws, but made of a biodegradable material, such as paper or cellulose. In this case it is necessary to see if this material, when degrading, gives rise to polluting substances or returns directly to the environment. They are clearly a better option, but not perfect.
The third option, which does not seem to be getting off the ground, is edible straws, which, once used, do not become waste, but are incorporated into food. This would be a clear closed cycle, but this option presents many technical challenges, such as conservation, transport or that they do not alter and are compatible with beverages.
Among the three options, which one would you choose? It is difficult to evaluate.
To answer these questions, the Life Cycle Assessment or Analysis (LCA) mechanism that I mentioned at the beginning of the post has been established. This process is called "From Cradle to Grave", which can be translated as "From Cradle to Grave". That is, it covers all phases of a process or product, from obtaining the raw materials to the disposal or recycling of it when it is no longer useful or is finished. Two ISO standards, ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, have been created to assist companies in this work.
The steps to carry it out are as follows:
The first step is the most complex, as we must consider absolutely all the materials and energy used. For example, the impact of buying an organic raw material on the other side of the world may be greater than buying the same non-organic raw material, but locally grown. Or not, it depends on the means of transport used, the type of packaging used for transport, the type of non-organic crop grown, and so on.
It is very important to do this analysis with a dispassionate perspective, and not be fooled by false claims or seals, as greenwashing can be where we least expect it.
An example of this is the current trend to create up-cycling ingredients. These are usually good initiatives, but sometimes there is a rush to jump on the bandwagon and we must be critical to see on the one hand the type of waste that is being reintroduced into the cycle and on the other hand the impact of this reintroduction process. For example, it does not make sense to use an organic waste that would return to the environment by itself or would be easily composted, and to carry out a more or less polluting process to obtain an asset that cannot return to the environment by itself and that generates a non-recyclable by-product. It seems absurd, doesn't it, because it happens more than we could imagine?
Once the materials and energy used have been inventoried, the impact must be assessed. The most commonly used types of impact assessment are as follows:
For example, it is not enough for a product, material or packaging to be biodegradable; it must not eutrophify or acidify the soil.
Once we have the information, we can make decisions to close the cycle of our product, so that it produces the least possible environmental impact.
And it is an enormous effort, but one that we can all make together.
We can explain our efforts in the LCA of our products to our consumers and help them make their actions less impactful.
It is clear that no matter how hard we try to ensure that our shampoo has the minimum environmental impact, we cannot change the municipal waste policies of all towns and cities. But we can do our bit and help our customers to be more aware of where the problems lie in order to achieve the desired closed cycle.
In the last decades of the 20th century we broke many of the closed-loop processes. As always, it is easier to break something than to fix it, but little by little and together we can gradually recompose our habits and products in a way that is coherent with the planet.
Find out more about Celia Campos, Technical Director and co-founder at MuttuLab, author of this article.
Learn how we work at MuttuLab.
