Product Sustainability Index - corporate.ford.com · • Other relevant aspects, including sustainable materi-als, safety, mobility capability and noise ... industry and no automobile

Product Sustainability Index

Feel the difference

Feel the differenceFordS-MAX FordGalaxy

PSI �

Foreword

Contents1 ExecutiveSummary 42 ProductSustainabilityIndex 42.1 Introduction 42.2 PSI–Method 52.3 PSI–Implementation 63 LifeCycleAspects 73.1 Introduction 73.2 DefinitionofGoalandScope 83.3 EnvironmentalLifeCycleInventory(LCI)andCostDataInventory 123.4 LifeCycleImpactAssessmentanddirectionalLifeCycleCostingResult 183.5 Interpretation 204 FordGalaxyandS-MAXProductSustainabilityIndex 254.1 Scaling 254.2 FordGalaxyandS-MAXPSIResults 27

5 References 306 Acronyms 317 Appendix 328 ISO14040CriticalReviewofVehicleOptions(fullindependentreport) 34

Sustainabledevelopmentisoneofthekeyglobalissuesfacingsocietyinthe21stcentury.FordMotorCompanyseesthisissueasnotonlyakeybusinesschallengebutalsoasanimportantopportunitytofacilitatesustainablegrowthinourbusiness.Sustainabilityisoneofmanagement’scentralresponsibilitiesandhighonthelistofourcorporatevalues.

DemonstratingthatweputsustainabilityattheheartofeverythingwedoisFordofEurope’snewProductSustainabilityIndex(PSI).TheFordPSIisthefirstexampleintheautomotiveindustryofhowsustainabilitycanbeintegratedintomainstreamproductdevelopment.

Themainchallengesofsustainabledevelopment–orforus,sustainablemobility-aretocontinuouslymakeourproductsmoresustainablebyfurtherreducingtheirenvironmentalimpact,enhancingtheirvaluetosocietyandkeepingourfocusonefficiencyandaffordability.Andthisalongtheentirelife-cycleofourproducts.

Asseveralofthechallengesinvolveamultitudeof-oftenconflicting-issues,wefeltitnecessarytodevelopacomprehensiverangeofvehicle-relatedsustainabilitycriteriaandintegratethemrightatthebeginningofourproductdevelopmentprocess.FromthiswasborntheFordPSI.

ThenewFordGalaxyandFordS-MAXarethefirstvehiclesdevelopedusingthisnewholisticapproach.AllfutureFordofEuropevehicleswillalsobedevelopedwithPSIinmind,asrevealedwiththenewFordMondeothisyear.

Iamproudofmyteam–theyaredevelopinggood-looking,desirablepassengervehicleswhoseenvironmentalandsocietalcharacteristicsandaffordabilityhavebeenimprovedcomparedtopreviousmodels.

IamalsoproudthattheintegrityoftheFordPSIinitiativehasbeenconfirmedbyindependent,externalassessments.Furthermore,ourworkandresultsareinlinewithinternationalstandardssuchastheISO14040LifeCycleAssessmentStandard.

Ford’sProductSustainabilityIndexwillhelpmakemobilitymoresustainable.However,itisalsoclearthattofullyaddressthisissue,societywillincreasinglyneedafully-integratedapproachwithallstakeholdersinthetransportsectorcontributing.

Weareallpartoftheproblem,andweareallpartofthesolution.

John Fleming, President and CEO, Ford of Europe

� PSI

1. Executive SummaryFordofEuropeintroducedasustainabilitymanagementtool,theFordProductSustainabilityIndex(hereafter‘PSI’)intotheproductdevelopmentofthenewFordGalaxyandFordS-MAX.Ford’sPSIconsidersenviron-mental,economicandsocietalaspectsbasedon:

•ExternallyreviewedenvironmentalandcostaspectssuchasaLifeCycleAssessment(LCA)andLifeCycleCost

•Externallycertifiedaspectssuchasanallergy-testedinterior

•Otherrelevantaspects,includingsustainablemateri-als,safety,mobilitycapabilityandnoise

ThenewFordGalaxyandFordS-MAXshowsignificantimprovementsoverthepreviousmodelGalaxyregardingthelifecycleairquality*,useofsustainablematerials,restrictedsubstancesandsafety.Theiraffordability(LifecycleCostofOwnership)hasalsobeenimprovedwhenlookingatcomparableenginetypes.Thus,Fordcanshowthatindicatorsfromallthreemajorareasofsustainability-environment,socialandeconomic-havebeenimproved.FollowingtheS-MAXandGalaxy,allfutureFordofEuropevehicleswillbedevelopedinlinewithPSI,includingthe2007FordMondeo.

*Coveringcertainairemissions(forexampleNOx,VOC)alongthelifecycle,i.e.fromrawmaterialextractionviaproductionandusethroughtorecoveryofthevehicle.PSIalsoshowstowhatextentCO2equivalentemissionsarereducedalongthevehiclelifecycle.

2. Product Sustainability Index

2.1 IntroductionSustainabledevelopmentisdevelopmentthatmeetsthe“needsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityoffuturegenerationstomeettheirownneeds”(BrundtlandCommission;[1]).Theconceptistoimproveenviron-mental,societalandeconomicaspectssimultaneously.Withinthiscontext,ChairmanWilliamClayFordJr.said,“FordMotorCompanyonceprovidedtheworldwithmobilitybymakingitaffordable.Inthe21stcentury,wewanttocontinuetoprovidetheworldwithmobilitybymakingitsustainable”(BillFord[2]).FordofEurope’sPSIisonewaytoimplementthisvision.Itdefinesaworkablenumberofkey,controllableproductattributesthatdefinethesustainabilityofavehiclefromaProductDevelop-ment(PD)perspective.

OtherFordofEuropesustainabilityindices,forexample,theManufacturingSustainabilityIndex(MSI),presenttheperspectivesoftheirrelevantareas.EachmainfunctionalgroupofFordofEuropetranslatesthemeaningofsustainabilitytotheirownarea.Thisisthebestwaytoallocateunderstanding,ownershipandresponsibilitiesinacomplexorganization(Fig2-1).

In2002,FordofEuropebegantheplanningandimplementationofthePSI.PDneedsverylongleadtimes,longerthananyotherfunctions–changesinmethodstakeseveralyearstotricklethroughbuy-in,cycleplanning,kick-off,developmentandlaunch.PDalsohasagreaterimpactonourproductsintheusephasethananyothersinglein-housefactor.

Manufacturing

Green OperationsStrategy

ProductManufacturingandDistribution

IntegratedProduct StrategyOurProduct

Product Development

Human Resources

Responsible Employer Strategy

InternalStakeholder

Relationships

Responsible Business Strategy

ExternalStakeholderRelationships

Central Departments

Sustainability

➚

➘

➚

➘

Figure 2-1: Functional organization of sustainability – Ford of Europe

PSI �

2.2 PSI – MethodThereisnotyetanagreedinternationalstandardformeasuringproductsustainability.However,thePSIindicatorschosenbyFordarepartiallybasedontheISO14040(LifeCycleAssess-ment-LCA)standard.TheFordPSIisuniqueintheautomotiveindustryandnoautomobilemanufacturingcompanyhaspub-lishedsimilarapproachesbefore.However,therearesomeexamplesinotherindustriesandorganizationsofsustainabilitypracticesinuse.Theseexampleshaveallowedustodeduce,developandimproveupontheprinciplestheyhavefollowed.ThePSI’sinitialmethodologywasdevelopedbyFordCorporateCitizenshipandenvironmentalpersonnelstartingin2001.Fol-lowingdiscussionswithPDandmodifications,itwasapprovedinautumn2002bytheProductDevelopmentvicepresidentandhisseniormanagementteam.ThenewFordS-MAXandthenewFordGalaxyaretheresultsofthesepilotprograms.AllFordofEuropevehicleskicked-offfollowingthesetwovehiclesareandwillbedevelopedusingthePSI.

TheprinciplesdefiningwhathadtobecoveredbythePSIweremanagementandmethodologicallydriven:•Allrelevantenvironmental,social,andeconomicissueshaveto

beaddressed•OnlyissuesthataremainlyinfluencedbyProductDevelopment

willbedealtwith•Themainissuesmustbeintegratedfromaproductperspective

•Status-trackingmustbepossiblebasedonreadilyavailableproductdevelopmentdata

•Bottom-lineissuesmustbeaddressed,notsingletechnologies(i.e.overallLifeCycleperformance,notdiscussionsoftheuseofcertain,specifictechnologies)

•BusinessprinciplesmustbeintegratedOtherissuesrelatingtosustainablemobility-serviceaspects,inparticular-arenotcoveredbythePSIbecausetheycannotbedealtwithattheengineeringlevel.Legalcomplianceissuesincludingtailpipeemissionstandards,recyclability,andphasingoutofheavymetalsforexample,arenotcoveredwithinPSIasthesearemandatoryregulatoryissues.

Ford’sPSIissplitintoeightdifferentindicators.Thisisconsid-eredthemaximumnumberofissuesthatcouldbedealtwitheffectivelybymanagement.ThePSIcannotbereducedtoasin-glefinalscore-sustainabilityisbydefinitionnotaone-dimen-sionalissue.Itisalwaysmeasuredbyvarioussetsofindicators.Thereisnoreasonablewaytocombineaspectsasdiverseassafety,useofrecycledmaterials,andcostintoonenumber.Thiswouldrequire,forexample,asociallyacceptableweightingoftheirrelativeimportance.Globalcompanieswithglobalmarketsfacethechallengeofbeingconfrontedbydifferingvaluesintheirvariousmarketsandproductionlocations.Asingleweightingoftherelativeimportancewillneverbeuniversallysuitableforallregions[3].

Table 2-1: Indicators of the Ford Product Sustainability Index (PSI)

Indicator Metric / Method Driver for Inclusion

Environ-mental and health

Life Cycle Global Warming

Greenhouse emissions along the life cycle (CO2 and equivalent emissions from raw material extraction through production, use to recovery) – part of an LCA according to ISO 14040

Carbon intensity is the main strategic issue in automotive industry

Life Cycle Air QualityEmissions related to Summer Smog along the life cycle (Ethene and equivalent emissions) – part of an LCA according to ISO 14040

Potential trade-offs between CO2 and non-CO2 emissions

Sustainable Materials Recycled and natural materials related to all polymers1 Resource Scarcity

Substance Management

Vehicle Interior Air Quality (VIAQ) / allergy-tested interior, management of substances along the supply chain

Substance risk management is key

Drive-by-Noise Drive-by-Exterior Noise = dB(A) Main societal concern

Societal2 Safety Including EuroNCAP stars (including occupant and pedestrian protection) Main direct impact

Mobility Capability Mobility capacity (seats, luggage) to vehicle sizeCrowded cities (future issues include: diversity – disabled drivers, etc.)

EconomicsLife Cycle Cost

Sum of vehicle price and 3 years service (fuel cost, maintenance cost, taxation) minus residual value (note: for simplification reasons cost have been tracked for one selected market; Life Cycle Costing approach using discounting)

Customer focus, competitiveness

1 Note: There are, of course, no materials that are inherently sustainable. All materials are linked to environmental, social and economic impacts. However, recycled materials and renewably grown, natural fibers represent an example of how limited resources can be used in a more sustainable way. The overriding factor is whether or not these materials have, in their specific application, a lower environmental impact through the product life cycle than potential alternative materials (see life cycle related PSI indicators and previous paper [24]).2 Note: The social aspects are being refined and developed for the future. Please note that aspects related to labor, rights etc. are part of other Ford of Europe sustainability management tools such as the MSI.

� PSI

2.3 PSI – ImplementationTheFordofEuropePSIwasimplementedfromthetopdown,withaprocess-drivenapproach-fromtheverybeginningitwaslinkedtothenormalproductdevelop-mentprocess.Forexample,thePSIisnowspecificallyincludedinthe“multipanelchart”inwhichallvehicleattributes(craftsmanship,safety,environment,cost,etc.)aretrackedtowardsthetargetsgivenfromthebeginningthroughalldevelopmentmilestones.Itwasatop-downapproachinthatitwascalledfor

andauthorizedbyseniormanagement.Therolesandresponsibilitiesinvolved,withtheexceptionofthedevelopmentofinitialmethodologies,weretakenonbyPDitself,withoutrelyingonaspecialistgroupinternalorexternaltoPD.ThisensuresthatPSIisoptimallyintegratedintoPDsinceitisexecutedbythesamepeoplealsorunningotheraspectsofproductdevelop-ment(Figure2-2).

AcomprehensivebutverysimplespreadsheetfilewasdevelopedbyFord’sLCAspecialisttoenablenon-spe-cialiststotrackPSIprogress.Withthecentralinputofafewdata,thePSI,includingthesimplifiedLifeCycleStudies,canbetrackedthroughtheproductdevelop-mentprocessfrombeginningtoend.Themajorityofthedataneededisreadilyavailableintheabovementioned“multipanelchart”.Theveryfewfactorsrequiredaboveandbeyondthoseincludemainweightactionssuchasmaterialchangestopredecessor,fueleconomyimpactoftheair-conditioningsystemandleakagerates.TheengineersresponsibleforthesimplifiedPSItrackingweregivenonehourtrainingsessionsthatallowedthemtounderstandthefundamentalconcepts,usetheanaly-sisspreadsheetsandconductsimplifiedLifeCycleStud-ies(regardingenvironmentalandcostaspects)andtracktheotherPSIindicators.Theaimofthisveryleanman-agementofsustainabilitywithinProductDevelopmentistoavoidunnecessaryadministrativeburdensandtheneedforadditionalresourceswhilestillensuringthatsustainabilityisanintegralpartofthecomplexproductdevelopmentprocess.

Throughthevariousstagesofproductdevelopment,thedatausedchangedandevolvedalongtheway:

•GatewayKick-Off(KO),StrategicConfirmation(SC):Targetrangesbasedonpredecessors,benchmarkandweightactionproposals

•GatewayProgramApproval(PA):Firstengineeringdata

•GatewayProgramReadiness(PR):Engineeringdata

•GatewayChangeCutoff(CC)SupplierdataincludingIMDS[8]completedbyengineeringdata

Everymanufacturerhastheirownparticularautomo-tiveproductdevelopmentprocess.TheapproachdescribedpurposelyfitstotheForddesignprocessesandculture.Itisnotsuggestedthatthisapproachwillalsosuitothercompanyculturesormarketssincethemethodologiesandapproachescannotbegeneralized[25].Externalregulatorybodiesapplyingmandatoryapproacheswouldbecounterproductive–sustainablepracticescanonlyfunctiononasolidinternalbasisofunderstanding,drivers,motivationsandcommitments–notonrulesandregulations.ThePSIisavoluntaryapproachthataimstointegrateenvironmental,societalandeconomicaspectsintoproductdevelopmentaspartofFord’scommitmenttosustainability.

ProcessPSIMethodology

▼DataInput

▼PSICalculation

▼PSITargetSetting,

Reporting,Compliance▼

Integration/Awareness/Training▼

ExternalCommunication▼

CrossCarlineCoordination▼

Governance

Lead ResponsibilityCorporateCitizenship/ProductPlanning

▼IndividualDataOwner

▼VehicleIntegration

▼CPE/ProjectManagement/

VehicleIntegration▼

PDFactory▼

Purchasing▼

ProductPlanning▼

FoEOperatingCommittee

Figure 2-2:RolesandresponsibilitieswithinthePSIimplementationprocessandPDintegration(CPE=ChiefProgramEngineer)

PSI �

3 Life Cycle Aspects

3.1 IntroductionThevehiclelifecyclecoversallphasesandprocesseswithin:

•ManufacturingandAssembly(fromresourceextractionthroughmaterialproduction,partsproductiontovehicleassemblyandpainting)

•Usephase(drivingofvehicles)•End-of-LifePhase(pre-treatmentofvehicles,

shreddingoftheremainingvehicleandrecycling,recoveryanddisposaloftheresultingmaterials)

Takingaholisticapproachisessentialforcreatingasustainablevehiclelifecycle.Designactionsthatimproveonelifecyclephasebuthaveanegativeimpactonanothermustbeavoided.Forexample,usingcertainmaterialsmayreducerecyclingcostbutaddweighttothevehicle,thusincreasingemissionsduringtheusephase.Measurestoreducefuelconsumptionwillreducetheusephasecostbutincreasethevehiclepriceandsoon.Theaimistoensurenetbenefitsalongthelifecycleasawhole–inanenvironmentallyandsocietallyefficientway[4].

TheenvironmentalaspectsaretrackedfollowingtheISO14040forLifeCycleAssessment(LCA).Duringproductdevelopment,asimplifiedLCAiscarriedoutbynon-specialists.Beforevehiclelaunch,aFordLCAandLCCspecialistverifiestheinitialresults,doingafullLCAbasedonspecializedsoftwareandusinganextendeddatabase[5].ThebasicmethodofthisLCAisthesameasusedinanotherautomotivestudy[6]thatwasinde-pendentlyreviewedaccordingtoISO14040§7.3.3andwherethemissingdetailsindescription(methodology,data)arecovered.However,additionshavebeenmadetoincludemodernvehicletechnologiesnotconsideredpreviouslyaswellasdataspecifictothecurrentproject.

Tocovertheeconomicaspects,aconventionalLifeCycleCosting(LCC)[7]wasperformedfromafirstvehi-cleowner’sperspective.Thereisnointernationalstand-ardmethodologyavailableforvehicles,buttheapproachtakenisinlinewiththefindingsofthemostrecentEuro-peanscientificworkinggroupinthisfield[7].Itisimpor-tanttonotethatthesetoolsareonlyonepartofthePSIandareembeddedintheoverallinteractionsbetweenthevariouslifecyclestakeholders(Figure3-1).

Figure 3-1:Managingsustainabilityalongthevehiclelifecycle(cradle-to-cradle).

Research & Product DevelopmentPSI,innovation,suppliercooperation,initiativewhichsupportstheindividuallifecyclestages

ProductionEnv.Management(ISO14001/EMAS),MSI,RESI,workingenvironment,cost

Vehicle useCostofOwnership,Allergy-testedlabel,Ford´sEco-Driving,safety,Fordenvironmentalcustomerinformation,etc.

End-of-Life / RecoveryUseresourcesinanenvironmentallyefficientway;reduceenvironmentalburden

Product Sustainability Management

Life Cycle Studies

� PSI

3.2 Definition of Goal and Scope

Goal –ThegoaloftheLifeCycleStudiesisto:•SupportinternalProductDevelopmentbytracking

keyenvironmentallifecycleimpacts(LCA)andbottom-lineeconomic(LCC)impactsofplannedand/orimple-mentedengineeringactionsthroughouttheproductdevelopmentprocess

•VerifythePSIresultsregardingGlobalWarmingandAirQualityPotentialandalsocheckotherlifecycleenvironmentalimpactsnotincludedinthePSI

•AssesstheFordvehicles’environmentallifecycleperformancefromapurelyenvironmentalandeconomicstandpoint

•IdentifyandassessthecostassociatedwithvehiclepurchaseandmaintenanceforatypicalvehiclebuyerinaselectedEuropeanmarketassumingaresaleafter3years(typicalcarownershiptradecycle)

Functional Unit – Alldatafromthelifecyclestudiesarecalculatedbasedonastandardfunctionalunit.Itisdefinedasfollows:aEuropean,premium,mid-class,van-sized,five-doorvehicleforaminimumof5passen-gersincludingaluggagecompartmentwithaminimumvolumeof900liters,climatecontrolledinterior,modernentertainmentandsafetystandardswithanaveragemileageof150,000kilometersover12years.Note:ThepreviousandnewFordGalaxiescanseatsevenpassengers,butthenhavelessthan900litersluggagecapacityinthatconfiguration.AnadditionalLCCvalueisidentifiedforthecaseofaresaleafter3years.

Assessment Vehicles – Thefollowingvehicleshavebeenassessed:•PreviousFordGalaxy1.9lTDI,96kW,

manual6speed,economyedition•NewFordGalaxy2.0lTDCiwith

dieselparticulatefilter(DPF),96kW,trendedition•NewFordGalaxy2.0l,gasoline,manual5speed,

107kW,trendedition•NewFordS-MAX2.0LTDCiwithDPF,

96kW,trendedition•NewFordS-MAX2.0lgasoline,manual5speed,

107kW,trendedition

Thebasedataforvehicleproductionisthematerialbreakdownofthedifferentvehicles.Thesearederivedfrom:•CompleteteardownofthepreviousFordGalaxy

intheForddismantlingcenterinCologne.•Weightassumptionsbasedonthepredecessorplat-

formandplannedweightrelatedactions(forthefirstlifecyclestudyatthestartofvehicledevelopmentforthenewFordvehiclemodels–fromGatewaysKOtoPA).

•WeightengineeringdataofthenewFordvehiclesmodels(forlifecyclestudiesduringproductdevelop-ment–fromgatewaysPAtoPR).

•IMDSdataofthenewFordvehiclesmodels[8]com-pletedbyengineeringdata–forgatewayCCandforlifecyclestudyverificationbeforelaunch).

Note:Toavoidcomplicatingthisworkbeyondthepointofpracticability,thevehiclemodelschosenrepresentthenormalweight-controlmodels.Similarly,noadditionalsupplierinformationhasbeenrequestedtoavoidfurthercomplication.

3.2.1 Goal, Functional Unit and Assessed Vehicles

PSI �

3.2.2 Life Cycle Description

The general scope of the life cycle studies is displayed in Figure 3-2.

UseVehicle(s)

Customer(s)PriceEnd-of-life

actor(s)

Cost Cost Cost

Revenues Revenues Revenues

CostRevenues

CostRevenues

Production

Energy

Materials

Parts

Vehicle

Use

Fuel

Vehicle use

Refrigerant,other fluids

End-of-life

Energy

Recycling

Energy recovery

Landfill

Vehicle

Material Resources

EnergyResources

EOL-Vehicle

Emissions to Air

Emissions to Water*

Emissions to Soil*

Recycled Materials, Recovered Energy, Scrap to saturate primary materials

*OnlyforverificationLCAshortlypriortothelaunchofthevehicle

Figure 3-2:SystemboundariesoftheenvironmentalLCA(top)andeconomic(middle)lifecyclerespectivelyCostofOwnership(CoO)studies(figuresbasedon[6],[8])

UseVehicle(s)

Customer(s)

End-of-lifeactor(s)

Cost Cost Cost

Revenues Revenues Revenues

CostRevenues

CostRevenues

Residual

Value

LCA

LCC

CoO

Production

Price

Production

10 PSI

Table 3-1 outlines the processes included in the different life cycle stages.

Included Not Included Reason for Omission

Production Phase

RawMaterialExtraction ✓*

MaterialProduction ✓*

MaterialProcessing(general) ✓*

PaintandAssemblyProcess(vehiclespecific) ✓*

EnergyProcess ✓*

WasteManagement ✓*

Use Phase

FuelProductionandConsumption ✓MaintenanceMaterialProduction ✓(oil,R134a) ✓(other)

OtherMaintenanceProcesses LCC LCA Nodataandnodifferencesassumed

VehicleTaxationandInsurance LCC LCA Notapplicable

EnergyProcess ✓ Notapplicable

WasteManagement(Maintenance) ✓ Nodataandnodifferencesassumed

End of LifeResidualValue CoO LCA/C Notapplicable

Shredding LCC,LCA CoO Notapplicable

Dismantling LCC LCA,CoO NotsignificantforLCA[6]

Recovery/RecyclingProcesses LCC,LCA CoO Notapplicable

DisposalProcess LCC,LCA CoO Notapplicable

TransportProcess ✓ NotsignificantforLCA[6]

EnergyProcess LCC,LCA CoO Notapplicable

SupplementaryMaterials ✓ NotsignificantforLCA[6]

*TheeconomicLifeCyclestudiesarebasedonavehiclepricethatisassumedtosufficientlycoverallupstreamactivities.

Thisstudyisverysimilartoaprevious,automotiveLCAstudy[6]regardingmodelingofproduction,useandEOL,butincludesthefollowing,makingitmorecomprehensive:-Morecomponentsconsidered(inparticularDPF,CatalyticConverter,A/C,electronics)-Maintenanceinusephase(refrigerantandoilrefilling)-Non-tailpipeemissionsinusephase(A/Crefrigerantleakage)-Disposalofglassandelectronics,recyclingofcatalyticconverter,DPFandR134a

Note:itisnotsuggestedthatautomotiveLCAsshouldalwaysincludetheseitemsorthatthisshouldbecomeastandard.

PSI 11

Oneoftherequirementsofthestudyisthatthedataregardingalltheproductionprocessesconsidered–apartfromthevehicleassemblyandpaintshop–mustbegeneric.Theglobalsupplychainisflexibleandmaysourceitsmaterialsandpre-productsfromdifferentsourcesandlocationsduringtheyearsofproduction.Thismeans,forexample,thatpartproductionisreflect-edasgeneralprocessesanddoesnotincludeeitherspecificdimensionsorproductionlocationsofindividualcomponents.Inaddition,thedatasetshavetorepresentanaveragetechnologymixfromacrosstherelevantgeo-graphicallocations.Furthermore,theymustbesourced,asmuchaspossiblefrompublicdatasuchasmaterialindustryassociationdata.Thedatamustalsocoveratleast95%ofthematerialsusedinallvehiclescenarios.

Fortheenvironmentalelementaryflowsandimpactassessment,thestudyissimilarto[6],focusingonthefollowingfortheverificationLCA:•Emissions–GlobalWarmingPotential*,Acidification

Potential,EutrophicationPotential,OzoneDepletionPotential,PhotochemicalOzoneCreationPotentials*accordingtoCML[9]

*bothalsocoveredbythesimplifiedLCAinparalleltoproductdevelopment•Waste–isnotanimpactcategory,however,itis

shown,dividedintofiguresshowingtotalwasteandhazardouswaste

•Resources–non-renewableresourcedepletionofenergyandmaterialsaccordingtoCMLapproach[9]aswellasanEUROMATapproach[23]

Thisstudydoesnotincludeinformationontoxicity,effectsonbiodiversity,landscapedegradation,desertifi-cation,etc.Thereisalackofscientificallyacceptedapproachesregardingtheseissues.Inaddition,anyref-erencetothesecategorieswouldbemisleadinglookingatthecompletenessoftheintendeddatasourcesandthesystemboundaries.

Thereisnoweightingbetweenthevariousareas.ISO14042[10]explicitlystatesthatweightingmaynotbedoneforcomparativeassertionsdisclosedtothepublicandforthecorporatereasonsoutlinedabove.

3.2.3 Data Requirements

Thisstudyistargetedatbothaninternalandexternalaudienceandincludescomparativeassertions.There-fore,anindependent,thirdparty,criticalreviewaccord-ingtoISO14040§7.3.3wasundertakenattheendoftheproject.Thiswastoensurethatthestudywascon-ductedinaccordancewiththeinternationalISO14040standardseriesandisinlinewithcurrentbestpracticesfortheLifeCycleCostingsection(seechapters5

and10).Thechairmanofthereviewpanel,ProfDavidHunkeler,hashadpreviousexperiencesinbothfields.HewasinvolvedinreviewingasimilarLCAstudy[6]andheldthechairmanshipofanLCCscientificworkinggroup.Thesecondreviewer,Prof.WalterKlöpffer,wasselectedbythechairman,buthadnotbeeninvolvedintheabovementionedLCAstudy[6].

3.2.4 Critical Review Panel

Passengervehiclesareverycomplexproductswithupto180,000parts,dependingonthecountingmethodused.Theeffortneededtoinvestigateallelementaryflowsofavehicleindetailwouldbetremendousjustforonevehicle.Thisisthereasonwhyevenpublishedcom-pletesingle-vehicleLCIsaresimplifiedanddonotreflecteverysinglevehicledetail.Inthisstudy,severalvehiclesmustbecompared.Asaresult,itcanonlygointolimiteddetail,butfollowingexperiencewithseveralcompletevehicleLCIs,itcanbestatedwithconfidencethatthelimitationsandsimplificationsdonotaffecttheabilitytodrawconclusionswithinthegoalsofthisstudy.Itdoesmean,however,thatitisnotpossibletocomparetheresultsofthisstudywithresultsofothercompletevehiclestudies.ThecompleteLCIsconsiderdifferentsystemboundaries,vehiclefeaturesincludedandusephaseassumptions-forexample,thisstudyalsoconsiderstheadditionalfuelconsumptionofair-conditioningthatisnotcoveredbymostpublishedcompletevehicleLCAs.Itisalsonotpossibletoderiveconclusionsfromthisstudyregardingspecificcomponentsormaterialssincegener-alassumptionshavebeenmadeforthemanufactureandprocessingoftheseparts–forexample,excluding

theirprecisedesignparameterssuchasthickness,etc.[6]Thisstudydoesnotpredicttheimpactofdatathequalityofwhichisquestionable,suchasthoserelatedtotoxicityandlandscape.Despitethelimitationsofthestudy,thechosenmodelandassumptionsallowmeaningfulconclusionstobedrawnregardingthemainissuesoutlinedaboveforthefollowingreasons:•Centralspecificsofthevehiclesstudiedareconsidered•Theassumptions,systemboundariesanddata

approachesforthevehiclesstudiedarefullyaligned.•Dataanalysisshowshowsignificantandrobustpoten-

tialdifferencesintheresultsare.

IntheLifeCycleCostingsection,allfiguresarebasedonthesetofassumptionsaboutfuturetrendsmadeforthestudy.Theycanbeconsideredasbroadindicatorsoftendenciesonlyandareusedsolelyforthepurposesofarelativeassessmentbetweenthevehicles.Thefiguresarenotexactandmaychangesignificantlyinrealmarketconditions.FordMotorCompanymakesnoguaranteethatthecostreflectmarketconditions.

3.2.5 Limitations of the Life Cycle Study

12 PSI

3.3 Environmental Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and Cost Data Inventory

Fortheinventory,datasetshavebeenusedthatdonotpre-date1994,meetingminimumtimerelatedcoveragerequirements(seeTable3-2).MostdatasetsmeetthegeographicalcoveragerequirementusingEuropeanaveragedata(exemptions:materialproductiondatafromGaBi(mostlyGermansources,Austriandataregardingtalcumsources)aswellastheSwissBUWALdata.Withregardtotechnologycoverage,generallyrepresentativeaveragedatasetsareused.Inthecases

ofindividualdatasourcesincludingcopper,tires,magnesiumandoilrecyclingthedatadonotnecessarilycoverafullyrepresentativetechnologymix.TheLifeCyclemodelingandcalculationswereperformedbyFordVehicleIntegrationengineers,paralleltoproductdevelopmentusingaspreadsheetcalculationfileaswellasbyaFordLCAexpertforverificationpuposes,basedon[5],[6].

3.3.1 Life Cycle Inventory Data Model

Table 3-2: Sources of the Life Cycle Model (extended, based on [6])

Data set Comments Source

Production Phase

Steelcoils(rolled),steelcoilszinccoated(0.75mm),castironpart(sandcasting),stainlesssteel(steelbillet;X12CrNi177),aluminumsheet

AccordingtoIISIhigh-strengthsteelLCIdataaresimilartonormalsteelsheetLCIdata.

[11]

Aluminumsheet,castaluminum(primaryingots,re-meltingandalloying),aluminumextrusionprofiles Primary/secondaryratio:50%:50% [12]

Coppermix(alltreatedascopperwire;99.999%electrolyte),leadmix(99.995%) Only2%ofleadisprimarylead [11]

MagnesiumAM60 65%NorskHydro,35%Chinese [14],[15],[16]

Plastics:PP,HDPE,ABS,PA6.6,PA6,PUR,flexiblePURfoam,PVC,PET(sc.),PC,PMMA,EPDMrubber,EP

PURRRIMpart(41%Polyol,36%MDI,33%glassfibers);rubberassumptionaccordingtoPlasticsEurope

[16]

Printedwiringboards,carbonfibers,glassfibers,textile(PP-,PET-fibers),recycledplastics,talcum(Austria),ethyleneglycol,sulphuricacid(96%),oil(lubricatingoilfreerefinery)bitumen,textiles;plastics:PBT,PP/EPDM,PPE(PPO),POM,SMC,PVCapplications.

Coolantsassumption:40%Ethyleneglycol/60%deionisedwater [11]

Glass(whitepackaging),paper(woodfree,coated), Roughassumption:floatglass=5*packagingglass [17]

Tires [18]

Pressandbodyshop(steelandaluminum),coppermaterialprocessing(wires),leadcasting,injectionmolding,castiron,aluminumcasting,magnesiumdiecasting,metalmachining [11]

PSI 1�

Data Set Comments Source

Aluminumsheet,aluminumextrusion [12]

Preciousmetals,siliconcarbideetc.forDPFfilter,catalyticconverter [11],[19],[20]

R134a,recycledcotton,naturalfibers Specificsupplierdataand[21]

painting,assemblySpecificDataforthevehiclesadjustingalsodataonpainting[11]

Othermaterialprocessing(paper,bitumen,glass,ceramics)areassumedtobeincludedinmaterialproduction [6]

Use Phase

Averagemileage 15,0000km [21]

Averagefuelconsumptionandregulatedairemissionsofspecificvehicles,A/Cperformance

Referringto2006performanceofvehicles

Fordhomologateddata;assumptionsforA/C

Premiumgasoline,dieselfuelproduction [11]

SO2,CO2

Calculationbasede.g.onsulphurcontentoffuel

End-of-Life Phase

Recyclingofaluminum [12]

Steelelectricarcfurnace IISI

Recyclingofmagnesium IMA

Recyclingoflead Eurometaux

Recyclingofoil,coolingliquid,rubber(incl.tires),copper Specific[6]

Shredder EFR

Recyclingofthermoplastics(re-granulation+fillersubstitution),thermosets(Shredding+Fillersubstitution);recoveryoffluids,wasteoil,coolingliquid,breakfluidsenergy,rubberandshredderresidue(basedonincineration,cementworks),landfillingofceramics/glass

[11]

Recyclingofpreciousmetals/DPF/catalyticconverter Basedon[11],[19]

R134arecovery Specificdata

Rubberlandfilling(PP),shredder-residuelandfilling,landfilling(mixoflandfillingdatasets) [17]

Note:forPSIcalculation,slightlydifferentdatasourceshavebeenused:alldataregardingplastic,copper,leadandmagnesiumcomedirectlyfrom[11].

KO 1034 194 48 355 27 992 187 46 348 21

PA 1068 199 49 366 28 1023 192 48 358 22

PR 1052 197 49 362 34 1025 192 48 351 36

CC >1005 246 50 <355 37 >981 244 50 <329 27

Ferrous* Glass and Ceramics

Fluids and other

Other metals Plastic andElastomers

Milestone Other metals Plastics and Elastomers

Ferrous* Glass and Ceramics

Fluids and other

1� PSI

Comparedtoapreviousautomotivestudy,[6],additionaldatasourceshavebeenusedtoaccommodatethemoreadvancedmaterialconceptsandtheconsiderationofadditionalvehiclefeaturesthatrequireadditionaltypesofmaterials,fuelsandsubstances.Theseinclude,forexample,air-conditioning(R134a),premiumgasoline/

diesel(includingdataforCO2/kgfuel),DPF,andcatalyticconverters(preciousmetals,ceramicsubstrate).Asdiscussedabove,weightandotherdatausedcamefromdifferingsourcesdependingonavailabilityduringproductdevelopment(Table3-3).

Table 3-3: Overview of changing weight and material information through product development in kg (example for Diesel vehicles):

Milestones: Kick-off (KO), Program Approval (PA), Program Readiness (PR) and Change Cut-off (CC)* At CC, more details regarding specific alloys were available. For verification, the weight assumptions of the CC gateway CC have been used (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4: Material composition assumptions for the studied Ford vehicles in kg*

Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF

Ford Galaxy 2.0L gasoline

Previous Ford Galaxy 1.�L TDI

Ford S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi with DPF

Ford S-MAX 2.0L gasoline

Ferrous

>1005

>979

1173

>981

>949

Other metals 246 209 190 244 206

Glass and Ceramics

50 50 56 50 50

Plastics and Elastomers

<355 <346 337 <329 <314

Fluids and other

37 27 32 37 27

*basedoncontrolmodelassumptionsand(forpreviousGalaxyonly)dismantlingcenterdataAllfiguresmaydifferfromhomologatedweights.Finalweightsmaychange.

Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF Ford S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi with DPF

PSI 1�

Generalmaterialproduction,processing,useandrecyclingaretakenintoaccount.Fordoperationsareincluded.LCCdataisbasedonestimatedpricesforaselectedEuropeanmarket.

Thefollowingassemblyandmaterialproductionassumptionshavebeenmade:

•RecycledPlasticsareassumedtobemainlyPPbased•ThelargestsourceofLCIdatauncertaintyistheLCI

datafortheproductionofautomotiveglass(packaging

glassdatamultipliedby5wasusedinstead,toapproxi-matetheextramaterialsandprocessingrequirementsforthemanufactureofautomotiveglass).However,sincethesameassumptionsaremadeforallvehiclealternativesinthisstudy,theirimpactislimited[6]

•LCIdatafortheproductionofcelluloseandcardboard–naturalfiberdatausedinstead

•LCIdataforsomepolymerswereunavailable(seechapter3.5.1foraffectedquantities).AverageLCIdataofallotherthermoplasticsin[11]havebeenusedtotakethesepolymersintoaccount.

3.3.2 Production Phase Assumptions

Thefollowingassumptionshavebeenmade:•150,000km,12years(functionalunit)[21]•Fuelconsumption/emissionstandard:

PreviousFordGalaxy1.9lTDI: 6,5ldiesel/100km, Euro3

NewFordGalaxy 2.0lTDCiwithDPF:6,5ldiesel/100km, Euro4

NewFordGalaxy 2.0lgasoline: 8,2lgasoline/100km,Euro4

NewFordS-MAX 2.0lTDCiwithDPF:6,4ldiesel/100km, Euro4

NewFordS-MAX 2.0lgasoline: 8,1lgasoline/100km,Euro4

•Sulphurcontentoffuelisassumedtobe50ppm.•ForA/C,aworst-caseassumptionismade,assumingthatA/Cuseincreasesvehiclefuelconsumptionby10%overandabovetheconsumptionfigureslistedabove.TheHFCleakagerateisassumedtobe0.025kg/year.

3.3.3 Use Phase Assumptions

Allvehicleshavetofulfillratesof85%recyclingand95%recovery.TheserateshavebeenusedforthesimplifiedLCAapproachinparalleltoproductdevelopment.Forverification,theLIRECARscenariosforrecyclingandenergyrecoveryofshredderresidueshavebeenusedassumingthat50%oftheshredderresiduegoesintorecyclingand50%intoenergyrecovery.ForEnd-of-Lifevehicles,asubstitutionmethodologyisappliedtoavoidotherallocationapproaches.TheEnd-of-Lifecostaredifficulttoestimate:•Fromthefirstownerperspectivethereisnormallya

residualvalueofavehicleandnoend-of-lifescenario.Atrade-cycleisassumedinthisstudyinwhichfirstown-ersreplacetheirvehiclesafterthreeyears.Theresidualvalueforecastisquitedifficult,especiallyfortheFordS-MAX,asitisacompletelynewtypeofvehicle.Thefore-castisbasedonthevaluesforFordFocus/FordFocusC-MAX,MondeoandFordGalaxy,takingintoconsid-erationnew-vehicleup-lifts(5%),newvehicletype(8%-similartoC-MAX),correctionforpotentialconsumer’semotionalchangesafter3years(-5%)andafurthercorrectionofminus2%(noguaranteeprovidedforanyofthesevalues).

•Fromthelastownerperspective,theworstcaseend-of-lifecostarezeroduetotheEUELVdirective(thelast

ownercandisposeofavehiclefree-of-charge).•Fromamanufacturer’sperspective,theend-of-life

costarecurrentlyalsozero.•FromaEuropeandismantlerandshreddingoperator’s

perspective,thereareprofitsbasedonthehighvalueofscrap.ItMarketdynamicsmakeitimpossibletopro-videagoodestimateoffutureprofitsandcost.ELVcostarelinkedtothelargeuncertaintiesasshownin[4].Therefore,onlyestimatesoffuturetrendsandELVcostcanbemade.

Thefollowingassumptionshavebeenmadeaboutfuturetrendsfromadismantler/shreddingoperator’sperspec-tive:•Removaloffluids,centralneutralizationofpyrotechni-

caldevices,dismantlingofheavymetals,catalyticconverter,battery,tiresandbodyglass(accordingtocurrentlegislativeandregulatoryrequirements)

•Post-shreddertreatmentapproach•Reuseprofitsarenotconsidered-thisisa

worstcasevalue•Non-laborrelatedcostareconsideredfor

allvehicles(logistics,overhead,etc.)•Allcostarediscountedusing8%interestand

2%inflationratesasbefore

3.3.4 End-of-Life Phase Assumptions

Otherfluidslossesareassumedtobearound5%ofinitialfilling.Theleakageratedataisuncertainbutistakenhereasaworstcaseassumptionandtakenatthesamerateforallvehicles.•Fuelprices:€1,229perliterpremiumgasoline,€1,099perliterdiesel(variationinsensitivityanalysis).

•Insurancecostareestimatedbasedonacountryspe-cificsetofpremiumsbasedonastandardsetofindivid-ualinsuranceclassesandisindicativeonly(ratingsrespectivetoengineeringtargets,a55%deductible,insurancetariff“R”ofFordinsurance,withoutbonus).

Allusephasecostarediscounted,assuminganinterestrateof8%and2%inflation.Thisreflectsprivateconsum-erinterestratesandgeneralEuropeaninflationfigures.

1� PSI

ThesimplifiedLCAdoesnotpresenttheLCIdatainaseparatestep.ThecalculationisbaseddirectlyondatasuchasLifeCycleImpactAssessmentandenergydataperkgofprocessedmaterial.Fortheverificationcalcula-tionbasedon[5],LCIdataareavailableatvaryingdegreesofdetail(Table3-5).

3.3.5 Life Cycle Inventory Result

Table 3-5: Extract of Life Cycle Inventory result (Verification) for 150,000 km





Ford S-MAX 2.0L TDCi with DPF

Input overview,tons

Energyresources 15 13 14 15 13

Materialresources* 14 16 17 16 14

Productionresiduesinlifecycle

0,17 0,17 0,18 0,17 0,17

Outputoverview,tons

Emissionstoair 72 67 68 70 66

Inorganicairemissions 52 47 48 51 46

Carboncioxide 43 38 39 42 38

Carbonmonoxide 0,17 0,10 0,12 0,17 0,10

Nitrogenoxides(NOx)

0,05 0,07 0,11 0,046 0,07

Sulphurdioxide 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03

Organicemissionstoair(groupVOC)

0,16 0,14 0,13 0,15 0,13

Particlestoair 0,006 0,009 0,013 0,006 0,009

Emissionstofreshwater** 0,84 0,80 1,10 0,81 0,78

Productionresidues** 1,3 1,3 1,5 1,2 1,2

Depositedgoods* 15 14 16 15 14

*Onlysolidmaterials;roughly60%ofitinertrock;**Onlysolidemissionsand–foremissionstofreshwateronly-analyticalitemsasCOD.

PSI 1�

Asindicatedbefore,allcalculatedcostfiguresaretrend-indicatorsonly.Theyareusedtoprovidearelativeover-viewofcostthroughthelifecycle.Thesefiguresmaynotreflectactualmarketconditions.Sincetheyarebasedonthesameassumptionsforallvehicles(seeabove),thecostfiguresallowarelativeassessment.

Thecostcannotbeaddedtolifecyclecost,butadiscountingoffuturecostisnecessarytoassesswhether,forexample,higherpurchasepricesfordieselvehiclesmightbemadeupforbyfuturesavingsintheusephase(seechapter3.4.3fordiscountedfigures).

3.3.6 Life Cycle Costing Inventory

Table 3-6: Inventory of theoretical cost through the product life cycle (trends only, no guarantee)






Price€,options* €27,475 €29,825 €29,700 €25,800 €28,150

Insurance,taxscheduledmaintenance,€year*

€1,246 €1,687 €1,765 €1,246 €1,669

Fuel,fluids€/year* €2,091 €1,486 €1,486 €2,065 €1,463

Residualvalue3years(forecast)* 60% 60% 56% 61% 61%

EOLcost(consumer,Ford)*

€0 €0 €0 €0 €0

TheoreticalELVprofits(operators)*

Min-€116 Min-€134 Min-€128 Min-€120 Min-€136

*theoreticalvalueforoneselectedEuropeanmarket.noguaranteethatthecostreflectmarketconditions.

Theoretical cost along the product life cycle

1� PSI

3.4 Life Cycle Impact Assessment and Directional Life Cycle Costing Result

Theimpactcategoriesforclimatechange(indicator:Glo-balWarmingPotential,GWP)andairquality(indicator:PhotochemicalCreationPotential,POCP)havebeentargetedandtrackedaspartoftheproductdevelopmentprocess.Basedonthechangingweights,materialsandfuelconsumption,varyingresultshavebeenreportedatthedifferentproductdevelopmentmilestones.ThesecalculationshavebeendonebyVehicleIntegrationengi-neers-non-LCAexpertsusingthepreviouslymentioned

spreadsheetfiles.Forverificationpurposes,aFordLCAexpertusingLCAexpertsoftwarehasmadecalculationsforthesamevehiclesbasedonthesamedataasavaila-bleatthemilestoneCC(Figure3-3).Figure3-4showsthatthesimplifiedPSIcalculationsarea100%matchwiththeexpertcalculationsregardingusephaserelatedimpactsanda98%orbettermatchwhenlookingatthetotalimpactsfortheFordvehiclesstudiedwhenconsideringGWPandPOCP.

3.4.1 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results along the Product Development Process

Figure 3-3: GWP and POCP of Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF (left) and S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi with DPF (right) from Kick-off, through the PA, PR and CC milestones, compared to verification by LCA expert tool.

Figure 3-4: Matching between PSI calculation and expert LCA calculation - percentage of PSI values for GWP and POCP of all studied Ford vehicles based on Change Cut-off (CC) status related to verification values.

46

44

42

40

38

36

34

32KO PA PR CC Verification(targetrange)

PSI-GWP[tCO2-eq]

PSI-POCP[kgEthen-eq]

Ford Galaxy 2.0L TDCi with DPF41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34KO PA PR CC Verification(targetrange)

PSI-GWP[tCO2-eq]

PSI-POCP[kgEthen-eq]

S-MAX 2.0 l TDCi with DPF

100%

99%

98%

97%

96%

95%

94%

93%

92%

91%

90%Ford Ford PriorFord Ford FordGalaxy2.0 Galaxy2.0 Galaxy1.9 S-MAX2.0 S-MAX2.0 TDCi TDCi TDCi

GWPuse[tCO2-eq]

GWPtotal[tCO2-eq]

POCPuse[kgEtheneeq]

POCPtotal

PSI 1�

Theoretical cost along the product life cycle






Price€,options* €27,475 €29,825 €29,700 €25,800 €28,150

Discountedusephasecost€*(3years)

€8,938 €8,498 €8,707 €8,870 €8,389

Residualvalueafter3years*(forecast)

60% 60% 56% 61% 61%

Discountedusephasecost€*(12years)

€28,153 €26,767 €27,427 €26,424 €27,939

EOLcost(consumer,Ford)* €0 €0 €0 €0 €0

DiscountedTheoreticalELVprofits*(operators)

Min-€59 Min-€67 Min-€65 Min-€60 Min-€68

TheoreticalCostofOwnership*(3years) €22,525 €23,248 €24,396 €21,412 €22,073

TheoreticalLCC*(12years) €55,569 €56,525 €57,062 €52,164 €56,021*EstimatedvalueforoneselectedEuropeanmarket,noguaranteethatthecostreflectmarketconditions.

Theimpactassessmentcategoriesmentionedinchap-ter3.2.3arecalculatedbasedontheinventoryresults(chapter3.3.5)forthestudiedFordGalaxyandS-MAXversions(Figure3-5).

3.4.2 Other Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results (Verification study results only)

Use

Production(net)

End-of-vehicle-life

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

05

00

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

Ford

Gal

axy

2.0

TDC

iFo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0Fo

rdS

-MA

X2.

0TD

Ci

Prio

rFor

dG

alax

y,1

.9lT

DI

GWP[tCO2eq]

AP[10SO2-eqkg]

EP[kgPO4-eq]

POCP[kgEtheneeq]

ODP[kgR11eq]

Resource depletion[toileq]

ADP[tSb-eq]

Waste (total;t)

Waste (hazardous;t)

3.4.3 Life Cycle Costing Result (Estimated)

Figure 3-5: Life Cycle Impact Assessment results for the studied Ford vehicles (See acronyms p.32)

Basedontheinventoryofcost(Table3-6)andthedis-countingrulesakindofcostimpactassessmentisdone

showingthecurrentvalueofthevariouscostthroughthelifecycle(Table3-7).

Table 3-7: Theoretical Life Cycle Costs (directional, no guarantee)

20 PSI

3.5 Interpretation3.5.1 Data Quality

Dataqualitywillbereviewedpredominantlyinthefollowingsub-chapters.Consideringthedatarequirementsfromchapter3.2.3,alldatasourcesfulfilltheserequirements.Thedatasourcesthem-selvesdonotallowmoredetailedstatisticsaboutdataqualityindicators.However,forallvehiclessignificantlymorethantherequired95%ofthematerialsarereflectedinthedata.Infact,forallmaterialsatleastaveragedataforthematerialgrouphasbeenused.Forplastics,thedatacompositionwasnotalwaysclear(i.e.specifictypeofplastic).Inthiscase,anaverageofallplasticshasbeenused(mixedthermoplastic).Thisapproximationcoversroughly3%forGalaxy2lTDCi,4%forGalaxy2lI4,5%forthepre-viousGalaxy,and2%fortheS-MAXvariants.Inasensitivityanalysistheimpactofthisapproximationhasbeenevaluated,

showingaminorimpact(clearlybelow1%forallimpactcatego-riesexceptacidificationpotential).

LookingatallinputsandoutputsoftheLCI,5.5%ofthemarebasedonmeasurements,16.3%oncalculations,58.2%onliterature,16.1%onestimates,and3.9%onunknownmethods(partlyconfidential).

Oneexamplecomparingtheuseofmeasureddata(regardingthepreviousGalaxymodel)versustheuseofestimateddata(regardingthenewGalaxymodel)istheleakagerateofR134a.TheimpactofthisdatahasbeenspecificallyanalyzedusingthePSItoolinasensitivityanalysis.TheresultshowsthatthisdatahasnosignificantimpactinthatatheoreticaldoublingoftheleakageratechangesthelifecycleGWPpotentialby0.9to1%.

3.5.2 Dominance Analysis

Basedontheshareofthevariouslifecyclephases(seeFigure3-5),anidentificationoftheenvironmentallydominatinglifecyclephasesispossible.Forthevehiclesdescribed,theusephase,includingfuelproduction,accountsformostoftheLifeCycleGWPandPOCP–gasolinevehiclesmorethandieselvehiclesandpreviousGalaxy(Euro3)morethannewGalaxy(Euro4)–thisismainlyfueleconomydriven.However,thesourceoftheemissionsdifferslightly.Whilebothsourcesofemissionsaresignificant,forGWP,thevehicleemissionsdominateandforPOCP,thefuelproductionemissionsdominate.Thisisalsothereasonfortheusephase’slargeshareoftheoveralltotalresourcedepletion,whichincludescrudeoil,thatisbetween70%fordieseland75%forgasolinepoweredvehicles.However,theproductionphaseisthedominantlifecyclephasefortotalwastewith81to88%-mainlyduetometalminingwaste.Heavierdieselvehiclescomeinattheupperendofthisrange.Theproductionphasealsoaccountsforthegreatest(96-97%)abioticresourcedepletionpotential(ADP)mainlypreciousmetals.Fortheacidificationandeutrophicationpotentialsthereisarough60:40splitbetween

production(higher;mainlyduetometalminingandproductionincludingpreciousmetals)andusephase.Theoneexceptiontothisis–duetothehigheremissionsofthepreviousGalaxy(Euro3with0.5gNOx/kminsteadofthenewGalaxy’s0.25gNOx/km),theusephasehasa56%shareoftheacidificationpotential.TherelativelyhighmaterialproductionimpactisbasedonhighSO2emissionsintheproductionofseveralmetals(sul-phurintheore)andtheproductionofsomeplastics.Theshareoftheend-of-lifephaseisforallstudiedimpactcategoriesbelow5%butitshouldbenotedthatthemetalrecyclingreducestheenvironmentalimpactoftheproduction(see[6]fortypicalsharesbetweentotalandnetproduction.Itisnotthisstudy’spurposetolookattheseaspectsandimpacts).Table3-8providesinputforthedominanceanalysis.Itshowsthemaincontributorstotheinvestigatedimpactcategoriesforthebasicscenario.Thisinformationshowsthatacomprehensivecheckhasbeenmadeastowhetherallrelevantemissionsandvariationsarecoveredbythedatasetsused.

Table 3-8: Main contributing substance and material flows for the investigated impact categories






Nitrogenoxides 54.5% 68.4% 76.5% 54.7% 68.8%

Sulphurdioxide 44.3% 30.6% 22.8% 44.1% 30.3%

Nitrogenoxides 52% 63.1% 77.5% 52.5% 63.8%

COD(water) 36.2% 28.5% 29.6% 35.5% 27.8%

Totalorganicbondcarbon 7.0% 5.2% 4.3% 7.1% 5.2%

Carbondioxide 96.9% 96.4% 96.7% 96.9% 96.4%

Acidification potential ( AP, CML 2001)

Eutrophication potential (EP, CML 2001)

Global warming potential (GWP 100 years, CML 2001)

PSI 21






Halon(1301) 97.8% 96.9% 97.6% 97.8% 97.7%

Carbonmonoxide 10.5% 7.1% 8.2% 10.7% 7.2%

NMVOC(unspecified) 81.5% 82.0% 79.1% 81.6% 82.0%

NitrogenOxides 2.6% 5.0% 7.7% 2.6% 5.0%

Sludge(oilexploration) 4.5% 4.5% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5%

Overburden(mining) 69% 67.6% 71% 69.2% 67.8%

Tailings(oreprocessing) 24.8% 25.9% 22.5% 24.6% 25.7%

Ozone depletion potential (ODP, CML 2001)

Photochemical oxidant potential (POCP, CML 2001)

Waste (total)

ImportantNotes:•RegardingPOCP:themethodologysuggestsimpactsforbothNOxandVOCs.Thisistoreflecttheozonecreationpotentialunderbothcommonsetsofatmosphericconditionsthatleadtoozonecreation:thosewhereNOxisthelimitingfactorandthosewhereVOCsarethelimitingfactor.•Fortotalwaste,theamountofminingwasteforpreciousmetals(potentiallytoolow)andfortalcum(potentiallytoohigh)isseenasquestionable,thatis,thetotalwastefiguresfortheseshouldbeinterpretedwithsomecare.

•ForOzoneDepletionPotential,thelowemissionsofHaloncanbepredominantlytracedbacktopotentiallyout-datedcrudeoilproductionprocessinformationabouttheuseofHalonin[11]thatshouldhavebeenupdatedinthemeantime.Duetothispotentialinaccuracy,ODPisnotusedforfurtherinterpretation.•Regardingtheeconomics(Table3-7),thevehiclepricerepre-sents54to57%oftheoveralllifecyclecostover12yearsforallvehicles.Theshareofthefuelcostisassumedtobebelow50%ofallusephasecostfortheseassumptions.

3.5.3 Monte-Carlo, Break-even and Scenario Analysis

Theassumedmileageofthevehicleshasbeenvariedinthestudy.Thisfactor’svariationiscrucialanditstronglyinfluencesthoseenvironmentalimpactsdominatedbytheusephase.Mileageinparticularisadecisivefactorforthecomparisonbetweenvehicleswithvaryingfueleconomies(i.e.dieselvs.gasoline).Whiletheproductionimpactsofthedieselvehiclesstudiedisslightlyhigherthanthoseofthegasolineengines(especiallybecausemoremetalsareneededforadieselengine,seeTable3-4),theoverallenvironmentalperformanceofthedieselsisbetterwhenconsid-eringtheenvironmentalcategorieswheretheusephasedomi-

nates,GWPandPOCP.Here,thereducedimpactsduringtheusephasearemorethanmakeupfortheadditionalproductionimpacts(break-evenisbelow25,000kmforallvehicles–exceptforthepreviousGalaxywhichneedsafewthousandkilometersmore).Thedifferencesbetweenthegasolinevehiclesareinsignifi-cant,whilebetweenthedieselenginesthereisaremarkabledif-ferencebetweenthePOCPofthenewGalaxycomparedtothepreviousoneduetothehighertailpipeemissionsoftheolder,Euro3Galaxy.

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

FordGalaxy2.0l

FordS-MAX2.0l FordS-MAX2.0lTDCi

PriorFordGalaxy1.9lTDI

FordGalaxy2.0lTDCi

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000

FordGalaxy2.0l



FordGalaxy2.0lTDCi

->km

->k

gE

then

eeq

->km

->k

gC

O2-

eq

Figure 3-6 GWP and POCP of the Ford vehicles studied, considering a range of mileages.

22 PSI

VariousMonte-Carloanalyseshavebeenperformed.Onelookedattheimpactofchangingthedataforfueleconomyby+/-10%(duetouncertaintiesinactualair-conditioningconsumption)andrefrigerantleakage(newtestprocedures,etc.)andthefuelpriceby-10%to+50%.ThestandarddeviationacrossallvehiclesisdisplayedinTable3-9.

Table 3-9: Standard deviations based on Monte-Carlo Analysis looking at changes in use phase assumptions (1500 simulation runs)

Impacted Flow Standard Deviation

Usephasecost(€)* 12.20%

AbioticDepletion(ADP) 3.02%

Resourcedepletion(EUROMAT) 3.82%

AcidificationPotential(AP) 1.57%

EutrophicationPotential(EP) 0.97%

GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP100years) 3.85%

Photochem.OzoneCreationPotential(POCP) 3.07%

Waste(total) 1.67%

Waste(hazardousEWC) 3.17%

PrimaryEnergyDemand 3.85%

*notdiscounted,usephasecostonly–onlycovers50%oftheoverallLCC.Thisisthehigheststandarddeviationduetoadditionaluncertainties(quantityandcostoffuelscanvary)AllLCIAandLCIstandarddeviationsrefertothefulllifecycle.

Obviously,theimpactofchangesaffectingtheusephaseislessimportantforEP,APandtotalwastewhileotherindicatorsaremorestronglyaffected.Thesensitivityofusephaseassumptionsishighestforthecalculatedcostsinceadditionaluncertaintiesarecovered(alongsidevaryingfueleconomyandleakageratesthataffectbothLCAandLCC,fuelpricesalsoplayarole).

Anothersourceofuncertainbasedataisthematerialcomposi-tionofthevehicles(nofinaldataavailableduringtheproductdevelopment,latechanges,etc.).Besideschangingfuelecono-mydata,thishasbeenoneofthereasonsforthedifferencesintheresultsfromstart(KO)totheendofthedevelopmentprocess(CC)–seeFigure3-3.Themaximumdifferenceresultingfromthesechangesisupto8%forGWPandPOCPwhenconsideringalsodifferencesinthematerialproductionandpainting/assemblydata.Thiscanbeseenasagoodsurrogateforasignificancecri-terion.Thatis,differencesbelow8%arenotseenassignificantforGWPandPOCP–thesamevalueasanalyzedfortotalwaste,butcareisnecessaryduetotheabovementioneddatauncertaintiesbasedondominanceanalysis.TherespectivevaluesforAP,EPandresourcedepletionareupto7%whilethedifferencesforADP

andhazardouswastearemuchhigher(ADP=10-15%)duetotheveryspecificlinkagestothevarioustypesofmaterials.Thesethresholdswillbeusedtoanalyzethesignificanceofdifferences.

Takingtherequiredminimumthresholdof8%(GWP,POCP,totalwaste),7%(AP,EP)and15%(ADP),thefollowingdifferencescanbeconsideredsignificant:•Galaxy2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortoGalaxy2.0lintermsofGWP(break-evenaround20,000kmmileagebut“signifi-cantbreak-even”(i.e.min.8%better)after82,000km),POCP(“significantbreak-even”after37,000km)aswellasAPandEP(“significantbreak-even”2alreadyat0km)•Galaxy2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortothepreviousGalaxy1.9lTDIintermsofPOCP(break-even70,000km;“significantbreak-even”2ataround450,000km),APandEP(“significantbreak-even”2alreadyat0km)•S-MAX2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortoS-MAX2.0lintermsofGWP(break-evenaround20,000kmmileagebut“significantbreak-even”2(i.e.min8%better)after82,000km),POCP(“significantbreak-even”2after37,000km)aswellasAPandEP(“significantbreak-even”2alreadyat0km)

PSI 2�

•AllnewdevelopedvehiclesresultinlesstotalwastecomparedtopreviousGalaxy(“significantbreak-even”2below100,000km).

Consideringtheeconomicaspects,therearehugeuncertain-tiesaroundend-of-lifeprofits[4],buttheiroverallimpactisnegligi-ble(below0.2%)ofthetotalLCC.Moresignificantistheuncertaintyfortherealinsurancecost(highlydependentonper-sonalcontracts),realmaintenancecost(theoreticalvaluesareworstcaseassumptions),fuelconsumptioncost(seeTable3-9)andmileage.Economicbreak-evenconditionscanbededucedfromthefollowing:•Dieselversionsareeconomicallypreferablebeyond255,000kmover12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insuranceandmainte-nancecostoraround200,000kmwithcostat50%ofthoseassumedinthemainscenario.•ThenewdieselGalaxyversioniseconomicallypreferablebeyond250,000km(S-MAXaround240,000km)over12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insuranceandmaintenancecostbutaninterestrateof4%.

•Thenewdieselversionsareeconomicallypreferablebeyond160,000kmover12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insuranceandmaintenancecostbutaninterestrateof4%and50%higherfuelpricesthanassumedinthemainscenario.

TheelasticityofresultsislargerfortheLCCcalculationsthanfortheLCAcalculations(compare[4])asthereisanadditionalsetofassumptionsfortheLCCcalculations–i.e.typeofinsurancecost,fuelpricesandinterestrates–thatrepresentadditionalsourcesofuncertaintywhiletheseaspectshavenoimpactontheLCAresult.

2“Significantbreak-even“referstothatmileagewhereonevehicleissignificantlybetterthantheothervehicle,i.e.inthiscasetheenvironmentalimpactpotentialsarelowerbyatleast8%(GWP,POCP)respectively7%(AP,EP)–seeacronymlistingchapter8.

Figure 3-7. Discounted Life Cycle Cost for a period of 12 years (full, 50% lower insurance/maintenance cost) for the studied Ford vehicles considering a range of mileages.

75,000 €

70,000 €

65,000 €

60,000 €

55,000 €

50,000 €

45,000 €

40,000 €

35,000 €

30,000 €

0 100000 200000 300000 400000->km

FordGalaxy2.0l



FordGalaxy2.0lTDCiFullinsurance

50%lowerinsurance

2� PSI

3.5.4 Conclusions

BasedontheLifeCycleInventory,ImpactAssessmentandthesensitivityanalysis,thefollowingconclusionscanbereached:•Thecalculationsperformedbynon-LCAexpertsinProduct

Development(usingthesimplifiedspreadsheettool)areinlinewiththosecalculatedbytheLCAexpert(usinganexpertLCAtool).Thedifferences,lessthan2%,areinsignificant,seeFigure3-4,andthenon-expertcalculationscanbeusedforPSIinpar-alleltotheproductdevelopmentprocess.

•FordGalaxy2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortoFordGalaxy2.0lintermsofGWP(beyond82,000km),POCP(beyond37,000km)aswellasAPandEP(atanymileage).

•FordGalaxy2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortothepreviousFordGalaxy1.9lTDIintermsofPOCP(beyond450,000km),APandEP(atanymileage).

•FordS-MAX2.0lTDCiisenvironmentallysuperiortoFordS-MAX2.0lintermsofGWP(beyond82,000km),POCP

(beyond37,000km)aswellasAPandEP(atanymileage).•Allnewdevelopedvehiclesresultinlesstotalwastecompared

tothepreviousGalaxy(mileagebeyond100,000km).•Dieselversionsareeconomicallypreferablebeyond

255,000kmover12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insur-anceandmaintenancecostandbeyondaround200,000kmat50%ofthecostassumedinthemainscenario.

•ThenewdieselFordGalaxyversioniseconomicallypreferablebeyond250,000km(FordS-MAXaround240,000km)over12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insuranceandmainte-nancecostbutaninterestrateof4%

•Thenewdieselversionsareeconomicallypreferablebeyond160,000kmover12yearsfortheassumedyearlyfuel,insur-anceandmaintenancecostbutaninterestrateof4%and50%higherfuelpricesthanassumedinthemainscenario.

Figure 3-8 Discounted Life Cycle Cost for a period of 12 years (interest rate of 4 instead of 8%, 50% higher fuel prices) for the studied Ford vehicles considering a range of mileages.

110,000 €

100,000 €

90,000 €

80,000 €

70,000 €

60,000 €

50,000 €

40,000 €

30,000 €

0 100000 200000 300000 400000->km

FordGalaxy2.0l



FordGalaxy2.0lTDCi4%interestrate

50%higherfuelprices

PSI 2�

4 Ford Galaxy and S-MAX Product Sustainability Index

4.1 Scaling

Traditionally,sustainabilityindicatorsareshowninaradardia-gram.Thescalingoftheeightaxeshasbeenchosenaccordingtothefollowingprinciples:

•Thehigherthenumberthebetter.•ThescalingreferstothepassengervehiclerangeofFordof

EuropewithoutSUVs-Sub-B(FordKa)throughV(FordGalaxy).Bydoingso,allFordofEuropevehiclescanbecomparedusingthesamescaling.Someofthedifferentfunctionalities(mobilitycapability,safety)arereflectedbythedifferentindicators.NB–Thevaryinglevelsofcomfortarenotconsideredinthisanalysis.

ThatmeansalowerPSIscoredoesnotallowtheinterpretationofpreferencessincenotallrelevantaspectscouldbeconsidered.

•Forthelifecyclerelatedindicators,thelowestfigure(0%)representstheFordofEuropevehiclewiththehighestenvironmentalandcostimpacts(worsevehiclesbyothercompaniesarenotconsideredasuitablebenchmark).

•80%issetatthetheoreticallybestinindustryvehicleintheSub-BtoVsegment.

•100%isgoingbeyondthecurrentbest-in-industrylevel–leavingroomforimprovementtowardssustainability.

Table 4-1: Scaling of PSI indicators

Indicator1 0% scaling �0% scaling VehiclesLifeCycleGlobalWarming 65.587kgCO2-eq 17.500kgCO2-eq PreviousGalaxy2.8lV6

autom./2002vehicle2

LifeCycleAirQuality 58.3kgEthene-eq 22.9kgEthene-eq PreviousGalaxy2.8lV6autom./2002vehicle2

SustainableMaterials 0% 14.9% Worstcase/bestcaseassumptions3

SubstanceManagement 6points 12,5points Seebelow

Drive-by-Noise 82dB(A) 65dB(A) Best/WorsthomologatedvaluebyKBA

Safety seebelow5 seebelow5 Severalvehicles

MobilityCapability 0.216 0.7 Seebelow

TheoreticalLifeCycleCost4 €35,508 €10,984 PreviousGalaxy2.8lV6automatic/KaStudent

1calculatedusingthesameassumptions,calculationrulesandtoolsforallvehicles.LifeCycledatacannotbecomparedtootherstudiesduetovaryingsetsassumptions.

2“Best”performingvehiclesoldinEuropein2002whenthePSIwaspiloted(nolongeronthemarket)3Worstcaseassumption:0kgnaturalfibers,0kgrecycledmaterialBestcaseassumption:15.3kgnaturalfibers(bestcompetitor),25.1kgactualusednon-metallicrecycledmaterials(FordMondeo).

43yearsofownershipplusvehicleprice(representingtheup-streamcost)minustheresidualvalue(representingthedown-streamcostaspects).FordMotorCompanydoesnotguaranteethatthecostreflectactualmarketconditions.

5Internal,complexsafetyindicatorincludingEuroNCAPrating.

2� PSI

Substance Management:Forrestrictedsubstances–inparticularthosesubstanceslistedinthe“GlobalAutomotiveDeclarableSubstanceList”(http://www.gadsl.org)-thefollowingmethodologyandscalingisused:

Table 4-2: Criteria for the PSI indicator “Substance Management” (max 15 points)

Company related rating (max 10 points)

SubstanceManagementListexist 0=noor1=yes

CoverageofRSL 1=limited(e.g.onlylegalstatus),2=GADSL(www.gadsl.org),or3=coversautomaticallyallcarcinogenic,otherissuese.g.bylistingalsoeffectgroups

ReinforcementofRSL 0=none,1=onlyforkeycomponents,2=IMDSequivalent,or3=Reinforcementincaseofnon-complyingsuppliers

Performanceofsubstanceriskmanagement 0=nofocus,1=atbestlegalcompliant,2=proactive,or3=preparedfornewECchemicalpolicy

Vehicle related rating (max � points)

Smellrating 0=unpleasantsmell,1=notunpleasantsmell

CleanCompartmentFeatures(addingallfeaturescoveredinthevehicles)

0=none,1point=pollenfilter,1,5points=PremAir®(trademarkofEngelhard)equivalent,2pointsincomingaircompletelyfiltered(activatedcarbon),1point=EcoTexlabel,2point=completeinteriorthirdpartylabeledcoveringallergenicaspects

Substance Management Criteria Points

Mobility CapabilityMobilitycapabilityisanindicatorthatwillsoonundergofurtherdevelopment.Thenecessarydataforanextensionarenotcurrentlyavailableatallgatewaysofthevehicledevelopmentprocess.Intheinterim,theindicatorreflectstherelationshipbetween:•Thesumofaweightednumberofseatsandluggagecompart-

menttoreflectthecapacitytocarrypassengersandluggage.Theweightingfactoris1forthefirstandsecondseat,0,6forthethird,0,36forthefourth,0,216forthe5th,0,1296forthe6th,0,07776forthe7th,0,046656forthe8thand0,027994forthe9thseat.Thisfactorof60%foreachadditionalseatbeyondthe

firsttwoseatsisreflectingthedecliningaverageusageofseats.•Shadowarea(lengthxwidthofvehicleincludingexteriormirrors)

toreflectthenecessaryparkingarea.•Multipliedby1(none)or1,2(mobilityservicecomponents

includedthathelpdriverstoby-passtrafficjams),1,6(mobilityservicecomponentsthatdirectdriverstofreeparkinglotsandhelpinintermodality)

Theassumptionforthe80%valueisforavehiclewithashadowareaof3,75m2,2seatsanda180lluggagecompartment.Theworstcaseisbasedonashadowareaof9,94m2,2seatsanda140lluggagecompartment.

The80%best-in-industryvalueisdefinedbyFordFocusandFordFocusC-MAX,thevehicleswiththefirstthird-partycertified,allergy-testedinterior.

PSI 2�

4.2 Ford Galaxy and S-MAX PSI Results

TheresultingPSIsforFordGalaxyandS-MAXarebasedontheabovementionedmethodologyandscaling,theengineeringandtechnicaldataofthestudiedvehicles,theLifeCyclestudyasreviewedbyanindependent,externalLCAexpertaswellastheTÜVcertified,allergy-testedinteriorofthenewFordGalaxyandS-MAX.

ThesefiguresarescaledbythevaluesprovidedearlierandtransferredinaradardiagramtoenableavisualassessmentoftheareasofimprovementoverthepreviousGalaxyandtherela-

tiveperformancecomparedtothebest-in-industrylevelsforallpassengervehiclesegments.ThenewGalaxyandS-MAXshowsignificantlyimprovedperformanceregardingtheuseofsustaina-blematerials,restrictedsubstancesandsafety.Lookingatthesameenginetypes,theaffordability(LifeCycleCost)hasbeenalsoimprovedbasedontheassumptions.Thus,indicatorsfromallthreedimensionsofsustainabilityhavebeenimproved.

Table 4-3: PSI indicator base data of Ford Galaxy and S-MAX

Indicator






LifeCycleGlobalWarming[tCO2-eq](a)

44tons

40tons

41tons

43tons

39tons

LifeCycleAirQuality[kgEthene-eq](a) 45kg 37kg 39kg 45kg 37kg

SustainableMaterials(note:figuresmaychange)

Approx1kgnon-metallicrecyclatesandnaturalfibers

SubstanceManagement(b)Substancemanagementandpollenfilter

Drive-by-Noise 72dB(A) 71dB(A) 73dB(A) 72dB(A) 71dB(A)

Safety Reference(d)

MobilityCapability 9,9m2,7seats,330l

TheoreticalLifeCycleCost(e) Approx.€22,500

Approx.€23,200

Approx.€24,400

Approx.€21,400

Approx.€22,100

abasedonPSIcalculationsverifiedbyanindependentlyreviewedLCAaccordingtoISO14040;1t=1000kgbbasedonanindependentTÜVcertification,certificationnumberAZ13712,TUVdotCOMID0000007407cincludingEuroNCAPsavetyrating:5starsforadultoccupantprotection,4starsforchildprotectionand2starsforpedestrianprotectiondincludingEuroNCAPsavetyrating:3starsforadultoccupantprotection,2starsforpedestrianprotectione3yearsCostofOwnershipincludingresidualvalue,noguarantee



Substance management, TÜV tested pollen filter efficiency and allergy-tested label

Substance management, TÜV tested pollen filter efficiency and allergy-tested label

Significant improvement (c) Significant improvement(c)

10,4 m2, 7 seats, 435l 10,25 m2, 5 seats, 1171l

2� PSI

Ford Product Sustainability Index

20 40 60 80 100

Drive-by-Noise


Life Cycle Air Quality

Sustainable Materials


Life Cycle Cost

Mobility Capability

SafetyFordGalaxy2.0lTrend


FordGalaxy2.0LTDCiwithDPFTrend

Key:insideworseoutsidebetter

Figure 4-1 Ford Product Sustainability Index of Ford Galaxy

80%issetatthetheoreticallybest in industryvehicleintheSub-B(FordKa)toV(FordGalaxy)segment.

PSI 2�

SafetyFordGalaxy2.0lTrend


FordGalaxy2.0LTDCiwithDPFTrend

Key:insideworseoutsidebetter

80%issetatthetheoreticallybest in industryvehicleintheSub-B(FordKa)toV(FordGalaxy)segment.

Drive-by-Noise


Life Cycle Air Quality

Sustainable Materials


Life Cycle Cost

Mobility Capability

Figure 4-2 Ford Product Sustainability Index of Ford S-MAX

20 40 60 80 100

�0 PSI

5 References[1] UN:ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentand

Development–OurCommonFuture(theBrundtlandreport)1987http://www.sdgateway.net/introsd/definitions.htm

[2] WilliamClay(Bill)Ford,Jr.:speechatthe5thAnnualGreen-peaceBusinessConferenceinLondon5thofOctober2000.http://www.crowley-offroad.com/greenpeace__bill_ford.htm

[3] Schmidt,W.-P.;Sullivan,John:WeightinginLifeCycleAssessmentsinaGlobalContext.InternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment7(1),pp5-10(2002)

[4] Schmidt,W.-P.:LifeCycleCostingasPartofDesignforEnvi-ronment–EnvironmentalBusinessCases.In:InternationalJournalofLCA8(3),2003.pp167-174DOI:

[5] [5]IKP,PE:GaBi4Software-SystemforLifeCycleEngineering.Copyright,TM.Stuttgart,Echterdingen

[6] SchmidtWP,DahlqvistE,FinkbeinerM,KrinkeS,LazzariS,OschmannD,PichonS,ThielC(2004):LifeCycleAssess-mentofLightweightandEnd-of-LifeScenariosforGenericCompactClassPassengerVehicles.IntJLCA9(6),pp405-416

[7] SocietyofEnvironmentalToxicityAndChemistry(SETAC):EnvironmentalLifeCycleCosting–submittedtoSETACpublicationsastheresultsoftheLifeCycleCostingWorkingGroupofSETACEurope.2006

[8] InternationalMaterialDataSystemhttp://www.mdsystem.com

[9] LeidenUniversityInstituteofEnvironmentalSciences(CML):ImpactassessmentDec2001.xls,version2.5,download:http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/lca2/index.html

[10]InternationalOrganizationforStandardization–ISO(2000):Environmentalmanagement–Lifecycleassessment–Lifecycleimpactassessment.EuropeanstandardENISO14042,Geneva

[11]IKP,PE:GaBi4DatabasesforLifeCycleEngineering.Copy-right,TM.Stuttgart,Echterdingen-includingup-datesforelectronics,textiles,paint,specialplasticsetc.

[12]EuropeanAluminumAssociation(2000):Environmentalpro-filereportfortheEuropeanaluminumindustryApril2000,EAA,Brussels

[13]InternationalMagnesiumAssociation(2001):“PidgeonProcessofGoldRiverMagnesiumCorporationofNingxia”PresentationofMr.LiattheWorldMagnesiumConferenceBrussels,May2001.Document4dated19.08.2001,IMA:Brussels

[14]InternationalMagnesiumAssociation(2001):LCIdataMag-nesium.xls.Document6dated19.08.2001,IMA:Brussels

[15]EuropeanIntegratedPollutionPreventionandControlBureau(2000):ReferenceDocumentonBestAvailableTechniquesintheNonFerrousMetalsIndustries.Brussels:May2000

[16]BousteadI(1997):Eco-ProfilesoftheEuropeanplasticsindustry,APME,PWMI:Brussels

[17]BundesamtfürUmwelt,WaldundLandschaft(1998):Ökoin-ventarefürVerpackungen.SchriftreiheUmweltNr.250.BUWAL:Bern

[18]ContinentalAG(1999):Produkt-ÖkobilanzeinesPKW-Reifens.DataprovidedasGaBi3dataset.ContinentalAG:Hannover

[19]Öko-Institut:BilanzierungderUmweltauswirkungenbeiderGewinnungvonPlatingruppen-MetallenfürPkw-Abgaskatalysatoren,Freiburg1997

[20]NSWdepartmentofprimaryindustries:ProspectsforSiliconCarbideProduction.

[21]Schmidt,W.-P.;Beyer,H.-M.:LifeCycleStudyonaNaturalFiberReinforcedComponent.S.251-258,ProceedingsoftheTotalLifeCycleConferenceofSAEinGraz,Dec1-31998

[22]BMWAG,Daimler-BenzAG,Fiat,Ford-WerkeAG,AdamOpelAG,Porsche,PSA-Peugeot-Citroën,Renault,RoverGroupLtd,VolkswagenAG,ABVolvo(1998):LifeCycleAnalysis–DataandMethodologiesPhase2,EUCARProjectR3.FinalReport,EUCAR:Brussels

[23]Fleischer,G(Ed.):Eco-Design-EffizienteEntwicklungnach-haltigerProduktemiteuroMat.Springer:Berlin,Heidelberg,2000

[24]Schmidt,W.-P.;Duranceau,Claudia;Sullivan,John:Sus-tainableMaterialsinAutomotiveApplications.Proceedingsofthe2002EnvironmentalSustainabilityConferenceandExhibition,SAE2001-01-3762,pp393–398

[25]Quella,F.;Schmidt,W.-P.:IntegratingEnvironmentalAspectsintoProductDesignandDevelopment.ThenewISOTR14062.In:InternationalJournalofLCA8(2),2003

PSI �1

6 AcronymsA/C Air-ConditioningSystem

AirQualityPotential SeePOCP

ADP AbioticResourceDepletionPotential-Issueofsustainableavailabilityofmaterials

AP AcidificationPotential-Issueofacidrainleadinge.g.tofishpopulationlossesincertainlakes

BUWAL SwissEnvironmentalAgency

CC Gatewayinproductdevelopment:ChangeCut-off

COD ChemicalOxygenDemand

CoO CostofOwnership

DPF DieselParticulateFilter

EuroNCAP EuropeanNewCarAssessmentProgramhttp://www.euroncap.com/

EFR EuropeanFerrousRecovery&RecyclingFederation

EOL End-of-Life

EP EutrophicationPotential-Issueofanexcessiveadditionofnutrientstotheenvironmentaffectinge.g.biodiversity

Euro3/4 EuropeanEmissionstandards

EWC EuropeanWasteCatalogue

FoE FordofEurope

GADSL GlobalAutomotiveDeclarableSubstanceList(http://www.gadsl.org)

GWP GlobalWarmingPotential(measuredaskgCO2-equivalentemissions)-Issueofclimatechange

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon(seeR134abelow)

IISI InternationalIronandSteelInstitute

IMA InternationalMagnesiumAssociation

IMDS InternationalManagementDataSystemhttp://www.mdsystem.com

ISO14040 InternationalStandardaboutLifeCycleAssessment

KO Gatewayinproductdevelopment:Kick-off

LCA LifeCycleAssessment

LCC LifeCycleCosting

LCI LifeCycleInventory

LIRECAR LCAstudyLightandRecyclableCar[6]

NOx NitrogenOxides

MSI FordofEuropes’sManufacturingSustainabilityIndex

ODP OzoneDepletionPotential-IssueofreducingthestratosphericozonelayerprotectinglifeonearthfromharmfulUVBsun-light

PA GatewayinproductdevelopmentProgramApproval

PD ProductDevelopment

POCP PhotochemicalCreationPotential(SummerSmog;measuredaskgEthene-equivalentemissionscoveringforexampleNOx,VOCetc.)

PP Polypropylene(plastic)

PR GatewayinproductdevelopmentProgramReadiness

PSI FordofEuorpe’sProductSustainabilityIndex

R134a Refrigerantofair-conditioning(1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorethan)

RESI ResponsibleEmployerSustainabilityIndex

SC Gatewayinproductdevelopment:StrategicConfirmation

SETAC SocietyofEnvironmentalToxicologyAndChemistry

SiC SiliconCarbide

SO2 SulfurDioxides

VI VehicleIntegration

VIAQ VehicleInteriorAirQuality

VOC VolatileOrganicCompounds

WVM GermanAssociationofMetalIndustries

�2 PSI

7 Appendix

Additional Dominance and Sensitivity Analysis

Inadditiontotheanalysisinthemainbodyofthisdocument,ananalysisofthecontributingprocesseswasundertakentobetterunderstandthelifecyclemodelandtheunderlyingdata(Table9-1).Pleasenotethatthepercentagesreflectthepercentageoftheprocessmentioned,nottherelativeshare(duetocreditsthesenumberscandifferfromthoseshowninLifeCyclePhaserelateddominanceanalysis).

Table 9-1: Main contributing processes to in investigated impact categories






Fuelproduction 51% 31% 21.5% 51.4% 30.9%

Vehicletailpipeemissions 18.5% 43% 58.7% 18.8% 43.5%

Steelproduction(sumofallalloys)

12.6% 10.5% 9.8% 12.5% 10.3%

DPFproduction 0% 10.7% 0% 0% 10.9%

Aluminiumprod.(sumofallalloys)

9.5% 8.8% 5.5% 9.6% 8.9%

Copperproduction(sumofallalloys)

5.8% 5.1% 3.4% 5.5% 4.8%

FuelProduction 96.9% 97.7% 95.9% 96.9% 96.3%

Tailpipeemissions 78.8% 78.8% 78.3% 77.1% 78.9%

Fuelproduction 12.3% 10.3% 10.2% 13.7% 10.3%

Steelproduction(sumofallalloys)

38.5% 30.5% 31.6% 37.8% 29.8%

Fuelproduction 33.3% 21.2% 13.3% 33.7% 21.2%

Vehicletailpipeemissions 15.8% 38.4% 48% 16.2% 39.1%

Fuelproduction 69% 73.4% 69.9% 69% 73.4%

Vehicletailpipeemissions 23.3% 17% 22.1% 23.6% 17.2%

Acidification potential (AP, CML 2001)

Ozone depletion potential (ODP, catal., CML 2001)

Global warming potential (GWP 100 years, CML 2001)

Eutrophication potential (EP,CML 2001)

Photochemical oxidant potential (POCP, CML 2001)

PSI ��






CatalyticConverter 869%* 907%* 1035%* 879%* 919%*

RecyclingofCat.Converter (849%)* (885%)* (1010%)* (858%)* (898%)*

DPF - 195%* - - 189%*

RecyclingofDPF - (190%)* - - (185%)*

Fuelproduction 73.1% 67.1% 68.3% 73.1% 66.9%

Steelproduction(sumofallalloys) 46.0% 52.6% 67.7% 45% 51.8%

Fuelproduction 44.3% 34.6% 31.7% 44.3% 34.6%

Copper(sumofallalloys) 20.3% 24.8% 21.8% 19% 23.4%

Aluminium 12.6% 16.2% 13.1% 12.6% 16.4%

Abiotic depletion potential (CML 2001) * without in-/output balancing, i.e. showing in the gross share

Total waste

Wherematerialsarelistedashavingasignificantshareoftheoverallresult,itdoesnotmeanthatthesematerialshavespecificissuesintheseareas.Itmayinsomecasesindicatethat:•Theweight-relatedshareofthesematerialsishigherthanofothers.•Insomecasesitcanbetracedtodatathatmightneedtobeupdated,forexample,newdataforcopperareexpectedtobepresented

soonbyitsmaterialsassociation,forsteeltheremightbeanissuewithaspecificGaBidataset(fortheprocess“Steelbillet(X12CrNi177)”thatisused.)Thesedatauncertaintiesareacceptableforthisstudybecauseitspurposeisnottoidentifyemissionssourcesandbecausethequantitiesofthesematerialsusedarequitesimilarinallthecomparedproducts.However,noconclusionscanbedrawnrelatedtothematerialcompositionofthevehicles.

Foraluminum,a50%secondaryshareisassumedforcastedpartsinlinewiththeunderlyingstudy[6].Statisticalaveragedataconfirmthis(WVMstatistic–themetalindustryassociationreportsavalueof51%for2004).However,aluminumcastingsinautomotiveapplicationssuchastransmissionhousings,cylinderheadsetc.areoftenlinkedtohighersharesofsecondaryalumi-num(95-99%accordingtoonealuminumsupplier).Therefore,theimpactofthe50%assumptionhasbeenchecked(Table9-3).

Theimpactonthenewermodelsishighersincethecastalumi-numcontentishigher.Theimpactisinparticularlyhighonacidifi-cationandtotalwaste.Thismeansthatthebreak-evenpointsmightactuallybeatshortermileagesthansuggestedinthemaintext(increasedestimatedimpactsfornewmodelsthanforthepreviousmodel).However,toerronthesideofcaution,nochangehasbeenmadetothebreak-evenfigures(generalstatis-ticsback-upthe50%percentageevenifitistoolowfortheauto-motivesector).

Table 9-2: Change in result if 100% secondary cast aluminum is assumed






AbioticDepletion[kgSb-Equiv.] -0.67% -0.86% -0.26% -0.67% -0.87%

Resourcedepletion[kgCrudeoil-Equiv.] -0.81% -1.14% -0.42% -0.83% -1.17%

PrimaryEnergyDemand[MJ] -0.81% -1.81% -0.53% -1.28% -1.84%

AcidificationPotential(AP)[kgSO2-Equiv.] -5.23% -5.69% -1.24% -5.36% -5.80%

EutrophicationPotential[kgPhosphate-Equiv.] -1.19% -1.30% -0.25% -1.23% -1.34%

GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP100years)[kgCO2-Equiv.]

-1.42% -2.02% -0.62% -1.44% -2.05%

OzoneLayerDepletionPotential(steadystate)[kgR11-Equiv.]

-0.83% -1.21% -0.36% -0.84% -1.23%

Photochem.OzoneCreationPotential[kgEthene-Equiv.]

-1.04% -1.64% -0.47% -1.06% -1.67%

Waste(hazardous)[kg] -0.38% -0.50% -0.15% -0.39% -0.51%

Waste(total)[kg] -4.88% -6.71% -1.80% -4.95% -6.81%

�� PSI

8 ISO 14040 External Critical Review of Vehicle Options (full independent report)

BasedonthedocumentationprovidedbyFord,aswellasthegeneralmethodologyemployedandpartofthedatasetfromapreviousstudy(LIRECAR)forwhichthechairmanofthepresentreviewpanelwasamemberoftheevaluation,thefollowingstate-mentshavebeenformulated.

Ford has undertaken, within the specifications of ISO 14040, a cradle to grave LCA with an expert panel review a posteriori. The study has been appropriately defined, and reviewed, in accord-ance to ISO 14040 (ref paragraph 7.3.3). The sources and quality of the data, as well as its interpretation are of a very high level. The development of a reduced list of environmental indicators, as part of Ford’s PSI, is valid and appropriate. The conclusions are sup-ported by the data. The use of sensitivity, dominance and Monte Carlo analyses on key elements is well done. According to the reviewers’ opinion the LCA-part of the study is consistent with ISO 14040. The two Life Cycle Costing (LCC) studies, which are part of Ford’s evaluation, are not covered by ISO 14040ff. This work, for which an international standard is not yet available, can, therefore, be considered as an environmental life cycle costing, from the first user’s perspective. This adds valuable information to

the comparative assessment of the models investigated. The same is true for the societal aspects covered in this study which aims, within the limits of present-day methodology, to provide a full sustainability assessment.

Prof. David Hunkeler and Prof. Walter KloepfferMarch 21st, 2006

Notebyeditor:“Prof.DavidHunkeleristhechairmanofSETACEurope’sWorkingGrouponLifeCycleCostingandDirectorofAQUA+TECHSpecialtiesSA.Until2002hewasProfessorattheSwissFederalInstituteofTechnologyLausanne.Davidwastheleadauthoronabookonlifecyclemanagementandhasdevel-opedtheLCMprogramsformultinationalsinbothEuropeandNorthAmerica.Hehasover200publicationsandseveralpatentsaswellasbeinghonoredforinnovationandentrepreneurship.HisfirmwasselectedasthetopenvironmentalfirminEuropein2002.ProfWalterKlöpfferistheeditor-in-chiefof‘TheInternationalJournalofLifeCycleAssessment’since1995.HeisprofessorattheJohannes-Gutenberg-UniversityinMainz.”

8.1 Executive Summary

Fordhasundertaken,withinthespecificationsofISO14040(1997),acriticalreviewaposteriori.Sinceanaccompanyingreview,assuggestedbySETAC,isnotobligatoryaccordingtoISO14040,theprocedurechosenisinaccordancewiththeinter-nationalstandard.

ISO14040statesthatwhilecriticalreviewsofanLCAareoptional,ingeneral,forcomparativeassertionsthataredisclosedtothepublicacriticalreviewshallbeconducted.Itshouldbenotedthattheterm“shall”isanextremelystrongoneintheISOcontextandmeans“must”.IS014040specifiesthatparagraphs7.3shouldbeconsultedindeterminingthereviewoptions.Para-graphs7.3.1and7.3.2refertoreviewswhichwillnotbeusedforcomparativeassertionandare,therefore,notapplicabletoFord’sLCA.

ThemajorityofISO14040criticalreviews,approximatelytwo-thirds,arecarriedoutaccordingtoISO140407.3.3,which

involvesanexpertpanel,asisthepresentcasefortheFordLCA.Themembersoftheexpertpanelmustbefamiliarwiththeentiredocumentationprovidedthoughitisnormalthatindividualmem-berswouldfocusoncertainaspects.ThishasbeenfollowedintheFordreview.Reviewpanelstypicallycomprisetwo-to-threeexpertsandFord’sspecificationoftwoexpertsis,therefore,with-inthisrange.Therefore,Ford’sselectionofreviewunder7.3.3isappropriate.

Asacommentitshouldbenotedthat7.3.3,accordingtoISO14040(1997),requiresonlyapanelthoughdoesnotsayanythingaboutthesize.Evidently,twoistheminimumnumberforapanel,asopposedtoasingleexpert(7.3.2).ISOFDIS14040(2006)pre-scribesaminimumofthreepanelmembersfor7.3.3,thoughthisnewstandard,whichwillsupersedethepresentone,isnotyetenacted.Therefore,the1997standardremainsvalidandapaneloftwoisappropriate.

8.2 Categorization of the Ford Study and the review process

ISO14040asksreviewerstoexamineifthemethodsusedtocon-ducttheLCAarescientificallyvalid,ifthedatausedisappropriateinrelationtothegoalandscope,iftheinterpretationsreasonably

reflectthelimitationsidentifiedandifthereportistransparent.ThediscussionofcompliancewithISO14040will,therefore,besub-dividedtoreflectthesepoints.

8.3 Compliance of the Ford Study with ISO 14040-43

PSI ��

ItisrelevanttonotethattheinternationalISOstandard“doesnotspecifyrequirementsonthegoalsorusesofLCA”.Therefore,acriticalreviewcan“neitherverifynorvalidatethegoalsthatarechosenforanLCA,ortheusestowhichLCAresultsareput”.Nonetheless,thegoalandscopemustbepartoftheoriginaldefi-nitionandthisshouldbereflectedinthereport.Thereviewerscan,therefore,commentthat,intheFordLCAthegoalandscopearedefinedinSection2.2.1.ThissectionspecifiesthegoalandfunctionalunitforFord’s“cradletograve”LCA.Thesystemboundariesofthisstudyarecorrectlydefinedfromtherawmateri-

alsextractiondowntotheend-of-lifephaseand,thus,defineatruecradle-to-graveLCA.Thegoalto“supportinternalproductdevelopment”aswellasexaminingthelifecycleperformanceandintegratingcostwithenvironmentisappropriateandreasonable.TheFunctionalUnitisdefined,inthesecondparagraph,inacom-pletelyappropriatemanner.Thefactthatdataare,inpart,derivedfroma“completeteardown”ofthevehicleisanexcellentpointforvalidationandcertainlygoesbeyondtherequirementsofISO14040andaddssignificantcredibilitytotheLCA.

8.3.1 Compliance with Standard Goal and Scope

Overallthequalityofdataanditstransparency,aswellastheextentofreferencesseemsappropriateforthestudy.Thedataseems,asstated,tomeettherequirementsforgeographicalcoverageandtheselectionofdatabasesisappropriate.

Thefocusonelementaryflows,aswellastheselectionofkeyemissions,wasteandresourcesisbackedupbyadetailedstudy(Ref6)andisreasonable.Furthermore,thediscussionofthescalingofPSIindicatorsinTable3-1,thoughnotrequiredbyISO14040,isexcellent.

Section2.5.1itemizes,specifically,thesourcesofdataandfractionfromliterature(58.2%),calculations(16.3%),estimates(16.1%),measurements(5.5%)andconfidentialmethods(3.9%).Thisbalanceisappropriate.Theuseofmixedthermoplasticsasanaverageisnecessaryastheunknownplasticsremainasignifi-cantmass.ToensurethatthisassumptiondoesnotchangetheresultsoftheLCA,theauthorshavecarriedoutasensitivitystudyassumingtheunknownplastictobevariousblends,attherequestofthereviewers.ThisindicatedthattheresultsoftheLCAareinsensitivetotheplasticscompositionandthatFord’sassumptionwasquitereasonable.Giventhatdatawerenotavail-ableforcordierite(catalyticconverter)thatthereviewpanelrequestedasensitivityanalysiselement.Theresultingdominance

analysisindicatedthattheinfluenceoftheproxydatausedforcordieriteisquitelowandthatthesedatamightrepresentaworstcaseassumptionwhenlookingatthetemperatureinvolved.Therefore,theoverallresultisnotlikelytobesensitivetothedatarelatedtothecatalyticconverter.ThedatapresentedintheAppendixis,otherwise,appropriate.

Therewassomediscussionbetweenthecriticalreviewpanelandthecommissioneraboutthequalityofthosedatarelevantforthesuppliers.Thesecontributealargefractionofthepartswhichfinallymakeuptheentirecarandshould–inprinciple–contributespecificdataregarding,forexampleenergyuseandemissions.Thesedataaredifficulttoobtainforreasonsofconfidentialityand,furthermore,suppliersmaychangeduringtheproductionofacar-model.Itseems,therefore,reasonabletouseaveragedatacoveringthesuppliedparts,aswasdoneinthisstudy.AscommunicatedbyDr.Wulf-PeterSchmidt–FordSustain-ability,Ford’ssupplychainmanagementrequiresthatthesupplierproductionsites(asaprerequisitetobecomeasupplier)havetobecertifiedaccordingtoISO14001–asareFord’sproductionsitesworld-wide.Thisensuresthattheseplantshaveanenvironmentalmanagementsystem.

8.3.2 Life Cycle Inventory, Data Quality, Data Accessibility

�.�.2.1 Data Quality

Theaccessibilitytotheoriginaldatawasnot,perse,granted,norcoulditbeinareviewofsuchlimitedscope,thoughalldatapost-LIRECARhasbeenprovided.However,theChairmanofthereviewpanelaskedforsupplementalevaluationstoevaluatetheFordLCAwithsimilarLCAshehasreviewedandcarriedoutintheimmediatepast(e.g.Trucks).Giventhis,itwasdecidedtorequestfromFordasensitivityanalysisonthelossrateofrefriger-ant.Ford,andinparticularDr.Schmidt,carriedoutsuchasensi-tivityanalysis,specificallylookingattheeffectofdoublingtherefrigerantlossassumption.Furthermore,Prof.DavidHunkeler

chairmanofthereviewpanelwasamemberofthethree-personreviewofLIRECAR,forwhichsomeofthebaselinedataofthepresentFordevaluationwerederived.Hehas,therefore,meticu-louslyevaluatedtheonehundredpluspagesofinventorydataprovidedbytheLIRECARconsortiumandisconvincedthatthedata,softwareusedtoanalyzetheinformationandassumptionsmadearereasonableandconsistentwithsimilarLCAscarriedoutforautomobilesor,ingeneral,productsforwhichtheusephasedominates.

Thereferencesareappropriate.

�.�.2.2 Accessibility to Original Data

�� PSI

TheLCIA,hasbeencarriedoutinaccordancetoacceptedmeth-ods,employingstandarddata,andusingcommontools.Theoverallapproachisalsoacceptable.

8.3.3 Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

LCIA,accordingtoISO14042(2000),consistsofseveralsteps,bothmandatoryandoptional:•Selectionofimpactcategories,categoryindicatorsandcharac-

terizationmodels(mandatory)•AssignmentofLCIresults(classification,mandatory)•Calculationofcategoryindicatorresults(characterization,

mandatory)

•Calculationofthemagnitudeofcategoryindicatorresultswithrelativetoreferenceinformation(normalization,optional)

•Grouping(optional)•Weighting(optional,notallowedforcomparativeassertions

madeavailabletothepublic)•Dataqualityanalysis(mandatoryforcomparativeassertions

madeavailabletothepublic)

�.�.�.1 General Comments on LCIA

Themandatorystepshavebeenperformedisthisstudy,whichinvolvescomparativeassertionsmadeavailabletothepublic.TheLCIAisthereforeinaccordancewiththeinternationalstandardISO14042.

Itisstatedthat“weightingisnotdone”(Section2.2.3)inregardstoLCIAandthisisappropriateasitavoidscriticism(LCIAweight-ingis“subjective”inthesenseasitcannotbeprovedaccordingtoscientificmethods).

�.�.�.2 Specific comments on the LCIA

Theinitialstatementthatthestudyis“excludingelementaryflowscontributingtoenvironmentalimpactswherecurrentlynoscientif-icconsensusexistsformeasuringwithLCAs”wasmisleadingandcouldbeinterpretednegativelyagainstFord.FollowingaconferencecallwithForditseemedclearthatthisqualificationisintendedtonote,quitecorrectly,thatdataqualityisanissueintoxicology.Furthermore,itisafactthattheimpactcategories“Humantoxicity”and“Eco-toxicity”,asproposedinseveralhand-booksonLCA,remaindifficulttoquantifyandthereisnoconsen-susregardingtheindicatorsandthecharacterizationmodelstobeused.Thecorrecttreatmentoftheseimpactsisacurrentresearchtopic.Ford,therefore,cannotbecriticizedforomittingthesecategoriesatthepresenttime,althoughcarsemittoxicgasesandparticles.Thetoxicandeco-toxiceffectsofvolatile

organiccompounds(VOC)arepartlytakenintoconsiderationintheimpactcategory“photochemicalozoneformation”(summersmogformation)whichisincludedinthisstudy.Furthermore,the(eco-toxic)acidificationbyemittedacid-forminggases(SO2,NOx)isconsidered.ConsideringthestateofLCIAdevelop-ment,Fordcan,ingoodconscience,writethefollowing:

“This study does not transfer, to impacts, data for which the quality is highly questionable, such as those related to toxicity and landscape”. This phrase should replace the statement that the study is “excluding elementary flows contributing to environ-mental impacts where currently no scientific consensus exists for measuring with LCAs.”

�.�.�.� Appropriateness of Omissions of LCIA impact categories

8.3.4 Interpretation of the LCA Results and Transparency

Theoverallpresentationoftheresultsandtheirinterpretationarecompletelyinlinewiththedatacollectedaswellasimpactsandcostcalculated.Asanexample,Figure3.5communicateskeyindicators,whicharevalid,forvariousvehicleoptions.TheonlymetricwhichcouldbetabulatedbyFordinPSI,andisnot,is“totalwaste”.Figure3.7illustratesthatthismetricisrelativelyhighandthereforecouldbecommunicated.Clearly,thedecisionastowhatisaboveathresholdisnotabsolute,asthresholdsarearbi-trary.Totalwas,intheLCAofanautomobile,includesahighshareofoverburdenandtailingsfromminingandoreprocessing.Whileinthisspecificcase(FordGalaxy,FordS-MAX)therearenosignifi-cantdifferencesidentifiedbetweenthevehiclesregarding“totalwaste”(sensitivityanalysisidentifiedforthiscaseaminimumof

8%difference)itmightbedifferentforothercases.Therefore,thequestionofinclusionof“totalwaste”inPSIshouldbeanalyzedprevioustoapotentialcommunicationofPSIforothervehicles.

Inregardstotheinterpretation,thefollowingcommentsillus-trateFord’scommitmenttoensurethevalidityoftheresultstheyseektocommunicate:•ThedominanceanalysisofSection2.5.2isexcellentandpro-

videsasignificantauthorityforcomparativeassertions.Crudeoilandpreciousmetals,aspartofabioticdepletionpotentialcouldbeinthePSIsystemthoughtheauthorsarecorrectinomittingthemastheycontributeonlyapproximately1%ofthetotalenvironmentalimpactandthisisbelowanyacceptedthreshold.

�.�.�.1 Interpretation

PSI ��

•ThebreakevenanalysisinSection2.5.3isverygood.Inparticu-lartheidentificationoftradeoffsbetweentheusephaseandproductionisinformativeandcorrectlycarriedout.

•Thecalculation,usingMonte-CarloAnalysis,ofthestandarddeviationofvarioususephaseassumptionsiswellcarriedoutandinformative.Astheusephasecosthas,byfar,thelargeststandarddeviation,thiscouldbejustifiedinafootnote.

•ThefactthattheLCIAresultswerevalidatedusingasimplified,spreadsheet-basedsoftwarewithverysimilarresultsisanimportantstepforewordinthefieldandshouldbecommended.ThetoolshouldprovideameansforFordtoincreasetheuseofLCAwithintheirorganizationandindesign.Withoutseeing,explicitlytheExcelsheetthereviewerscannotcommentonit,perse.However,theexclusionofthesheetwouldinnomannerinfluencetheconclusionsofthereviewunderISO14040.

Thesevenconclusionsdrawn(Section3.5.3)arecompletelyrea-sonableandjustified.Theoverallconclusionsection(3.5.4)isalsoquitefine.ThefactthatthePSIresultsarepresented(inFig-

ure4-1andFigure4-2)intwospidergraphs,eachfortwocom-parativevehicles,isanexcellentcommunicationtool.

�.�.�.2 Conclusions and Transparency

8.3.5 Management of the Review Process

Section7.3.3ofISO14040notedthatthecommissioner(Ford)hastoselectanexternalindependentexperttoactasthechair-personofthereviewpanel.Fordhas,followingatenderprocess,selectedDavidHunkelerandthiscorrespondstothenormsinthestandard.ThefactthatFordprovidedthereviewpanel,anditschair,withadialogwiththeLCA-projectleaderisnot,itself,speci-fiedinISO14040,thoughisgenerallyrecommendedtoenhancethequalityofthereviewforexamplebySETAC.Therefore,Ford’sparticipationinthemanagementofthereviewprocesshasbeenentirelyaccordingtothestandard.

ISO14040statesthatthecommissioner(Ford)andpractitionermustprovideaccesstooriginaldata.Inallinstancesofrequestforadditionalinformationorconferencecalls,Dr.Schmidthasbeenreceptivetoprovideinformation.ISO14040alsostates,anditisimportanttoreiteratethat“thefactthatacriticalreviewhasbeenconductedshouldinnowayimplyanendorsementofanycomparativeassertionthatisbasedonanLCAstudy”.

8.4 COMMENTS ON LIFE CYCLE COSTING (NOT REQUIRED IN ISO 14040)

Thelifecyclecostingisquitediligentwithallcostcompletelyappropriatelycalculated.Thedepthofinclusionofdataacrossthelifecycleisappropriateandtheuseofdiscountingpossible.Thereviewers,whohaveextensiveexperienceinLCC,believethatthebestpossibleassumptionshavebeenmade.Fordcan,reasonably,calltheirLCCan“EnvironmentalLifeCycleCosting”accordingtotheto-be-publisheddeliberationsofaSETACwork-

inggroup.TheLCCresultspresentedinFigures3-10and3-11aretotallyreasonableascommunicationtools.ThoughoutsidethescopeofthepresentreviewtheLCCstudiescarriedoutbyFordseemtobeconsistentwiththosebeingdebatedandpro-posedinaSETACWorkingGroupofthesamenameandare,therefore,likelytobeveryclosetoaneventualCodeofPractice.

8.5 COMMENTS ON SOCIAL ASSESSMENT (NOT REQUIRED IN ISO 10404)

ThePSIis,incombiningenvironmental,economicandsocietalinformation,respectingtheBrundtlandandSETACvisionsofsus-tainability.Itshouldbenotedthatthesocietalandsocialassess-mentsarebothintheirinfancyandnormshavenotevenbeensuggested.Therefore,thefactthatFordhasincludedsocialaspectsissufficientcommendation.However,onecouldinthefutureconsideranemergingaxisinsocietalassessment,thatbeingemployment,asametric.Evenifoneweretoreducesoci-etalassessmenttoasmallsetofindicatorssuchasthoserepre-sentingaccesstoessentials,housing,educationandhealthcare,allarelinkedtoanindividual’semployment,orsociety’sabilityto

employ.Hence,acomponent,easilymeasurableforanorganiza-tionandabsolutelyjustifiablewouldbeproduct-basedemploy-mentthroughthelifecycle.Initspresentstate,thesocietalcomponentcanbeconsideredasanucleusforfurtherdevelop-mentofthis“thirdpillar”ofsustainabilityassessment.ItisquitelikelythatFord,whichhaveothermetricswhichaddresssustain-ability,havenotincludedlifecyclelaborwithinPSI.Overall,thechoiceofFordtohaveseveralindicatorsinplaceofonesuper-indicatorisinlinewiththethinkingofinternationalworkinggroupsandisappropriate.

�� PSI

8.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall,thereviewershavefoundtheFordLCAtobeaverywellcarriedoutstudyinaccordancewithvariousnorms.Inlightofthepositivetoneofthisreply,thefollowingrecommendationisaimedatthelong-termevolutionandupgradingofthePSItool.

The generic life cycle inventory data, used within the LCA, should be periodically monitored and validated. This long term evolution should be carried out for data elements clearly above the thresh-old (so called hot-spots in LCA parlance). While recognizing the difficulty that requesting data from suppliers entails, periodic vali-dation of key materials and, perhaps also components, should be viewed as a means to improve the dialogue with the supply chain, a key element in life cycle management, and not as a bureaucratic exercise.

ThePSItoolcanbe,ingoodconscience,usedasabenchmark-ingtoolforFord’sautomobiles.Should,overtime,theLCIsignifi-cantlychange,oneshouldre-calculatetheexistingreferencevehiclesaccordingtoanymodifiedPSI.

Contactforcontentrelatedquestions:Dr.Wulf-PeterSchmidt,FordofEurope,Germany50725Köln,[email protected],+492219016202

Mediacontact:AdrianSchmitz,FordofEurope,Germany50725Köln,[email protected]+492219019929

Contacts

Printedon100%recycledpaperVegetableoilbasedprintinginks

Feel the difference

Feel the differenceFordS-MAX FordGalaxy

0�-200�

FordS-MAX

FordGalaxy

Documents

Product Sustainability Index - corporate.ford.com · • Other relevant aspects, including sustainable materi-als, safety, mobility capability and noise ... industry and no automobile