Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 1. Environmental issues
Biodegradable / compostable (%)
Commitment to periodical environmental auditing
Contains no ozone depleting substances
Emissions and Waste (per unit of product)
Energy efficiency label
Environmentally-responsible packaging
Global application of environmental standards
Green Products
Hazardous air emissions
Hazardous waste
Involvement in Superfund site
International Organization of Standards (ISO) 14000 certification
Landfill - tons of waste per year
Longer shelf life than industry standard
Number of hours of training on environment per employee
Number of Spills
On Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 17 hazardous chemi-
cals list
Ozone depleting Chemicals used
Packaging residuals per unit of product
Participation in voluntary EPA programs
Pre/post consumer recyclable content (%)
Public disclosure of environmental record
Received any EPA/(RCRA non-compliance fines
Resources and Energy (per unit of product)
Second tier supplier environmental evaluation
Secondary market for waste generated
Solid waste
Take-back or reverse logistics program
Third party certification (eco labeling)
Total energy used
Toxic pollution
Project Environmental Benefits
of the most critical aspects of this integration
is the appropriate valuation and integration of
environmental benefits and costs into auditing,
control, performance measurement, and capital
investment decisions (Sarkis, 2001; Sarkis, et al.,
2006). Environmental measures and factors can
be delineated through a number of categorisations
and may be based on level of difficulty for valu-
ation or tangibility (USEPA, 1995; Curkovic and
Sroufe, 2007); risk management categorisations
(Sarkis, 2006); environmental media categori-
sations (e.g. solid waste, air emissions, water
emissions, energy usage) (Jasch, 2003); or by
level of decision-making, strategic, tactical and
operational (Hervani et al., 2005; Presley et al.,
2007). This variety in categorisation of costs and
benefits adds to the complexities of integrating
greening dimensions into financial investment
appraisal approaches.
Instead of a specific categorisation of envi-
ronmental cost and benefit metrics, we provide
a general listing of these items in Table 1. This
table of metrics provides a comprehensive, but
not necessarily exhaustive, environmental fac-
tor listing of what organisations may consider
when evaluating the environmental dimensions
of projects.
We extend the basic FAP model to include a forth
dimension by introducing an
environmental 'score'
index
, based on the concept of the strategic index.
This extension enables us to refine the evaluation
for projects, which have a significant environ-
mental perspective. Corporate management first
identify those environmental factors that are of
special significance to them with various levels
of 'importance' (weights) (determined by corpo-
rate management with the assistance of a team
of environmental experts/consultants) assigned
to these factors. The appraisal team will then
determine the 'score' values for each factor with
respect to the project under review, in much the
same way as their involvement under the strategic
index. By applying a weight to the 'scores', we
are able to produce a total environmental score
value for each project. This sub-index, which we
have called the
environmental score index
, then
becomes part of the overall profile of the project.
The Final Stage in the FAP Process
When the net present value profile, project risk
profile, strategic index, and the environmental
score index have been determined, the FAP is
