| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

LCA and the Working Environment

6 IVF's process assessment method

During the years 1994 to 1997 IVF developed the first version of the "WEST" method (Work Environment Screening Tool). The WEST method was developed to be a separate tool for working environmental LCA. However, during the development similarities between the WEST method and the EPS system was found. It was possible to convert the working environmental evaluation to economical figures (ELUs - "Environmental Load Units"). This made it possible to compare the working environmental evaluation of WEST with the environmental evaluation of the EPS-system.

During the development of the WEST method attempts were made to expand the EPS system to include working environmental aspects also. This was carried out by making use of the results from the WEST evaluation method and their relation to the unit effects in the EPS system. In order to fit in the working environment, the system was expanded with additional unit effects.

As IVF is combining their working environmental method with the EPS system, the EPS system is considered to be the general methodology of the combined working enviromental and environmental LCA. The EPS system is hence elaborated in the following text.

6.1 The general methodology

EPS is short for Environmental Priority Strategies in product development, and is an LCA-tool for designers.

The EPS method was developed in the Swedish Product Ecology Project. The first version was published in 1991, but has since been refined with a more detailed valuation strategy. A very detailed description of the EPS-method can be found in (Ryding et al, 1995), but it is possible that further changes have been implemented since this publication.

6.1.1 Purpose

The main objective of the EPS method is to indicate which of two alternative solutions has the least impact on the environment. In practice, the method and computer tool is aimed at functioning as a compass for product developers, showing the right direction but not necessarily the ultimate endpoint.

The unit effects considered in the methodology are chosen in such a way that they are familiar to ordinary people. This makes it possible to have some degree of consensus and to measure value means and standard deviations. The developers acknowledge that the valuations in the study are subjective, but argue that the choice of safe guard subjects for which there is a common experience enhances the possibility of common acceptance of the valuations, as there is a "shared subjectivity".

6.1.2 The overall content of the methodology

The EPS system assesses like other LCAs the impacts from human activities, e.g. consumption of natural resources and emissions. The assessment takes place in three steps:

Determination of relevant safe guard subjects. In Ryding et al. (1995), the following subjects are mentioned as the core elements in the method:

• Biological diversity
• Human health
• Production capacity of ecosystems
• Resources
• Aesthetic values

6.1.3 Assessment of unit effects in terms of "willingness to pay"

Determination of the value of the human activity (resource consumption, emission) in the form of an Environmental Load Index. This index is calculated by multiplying the "willingness to pay" with five factors assessing:

• The change of impact on the safe guard subject
• The extent of the problem:
• Geographical extent
• The intensity
• The time horizon and the reversibility
• The relative contribution to the problem, for example per kg emission

In the end, the impact on the five safe guard subjects can be added, resulting in a single figure for the impact from an activity - the Environmental Load Unit (ELU). Subsequently, figures (ELUs) from several activities in the life cycle of a product can be added, giving just one figure for the overall impacts.

6.1.3.1 ELU data base

An extensive data base with ELUs for a large number of activities has been published (Ryding et al., 1995). According to the author, the database should be used with great caution due to differences and variations in ecological preconditions, individual processes and production facilities. Seen from the Danish and international point of view it can be added that the method is developed to meet a mixture of Swedish and international conditions with respect to the safe guard subjects and the willingness to pay. The method is therefore not suitable for use outside Sweden unless national ELUs for the activities are developed.

6.1.4 The general principles of the methodology

The backbone of the EPS method is an assessment of the costs associated with the impact on nature of human activities (one ELU is equal to one ECU in terms of willingness to pay in OECD countries). This approach is significantly different from other LCA methods where the contribution to environmental impacts are calculated for several impact categories and subsequently normalised and weighted against e.g. political or environmental targets. The method for determination of the value for each safe guard subject is as follows:

Table 6.1. The safe guard subjects and their estimation methods.

The choice of unit effects and safe guard subjects may be regarded as the classification step in the ISO 14040 terminology, while the characterisation and valuation step are integrated in the three steps described in the overall content of the methodology.

Principally, the method thus contains the three steps in the ISO-standard. In the calculation procedures, however, only the final result in the form of ELUs per unit is used. This makes the results very easy to use for product development purposes, but the transparency is rather limited.

6.1.5 Combined environment & work environment assessment

The original EPS method does not include work environmental aspects despite the fact that human health is one of the safe guard subjects assessed by the method.

The development of the WEST method is a remedy for this drawback, giving product developers the possibility of including both impacts on nature (incl. human health) as well as work environmental impacts in the life cycle considerations, when the two methods are combined.

The basic idea is that all impacts on nature and human health a priori are equally important, irrespective of their cause (general exposure of the nature/population or specific exposure of few people in the work environment). The present state of the EPS methodology does however not give the possibility of including the work environment as a sixth safe guard subject, and this diminishes the functionality of the combined method, at least from the product developers point of view. As is, the combined methodology gives the possibility of estimating the relative importance of the impacts on the five safe guard subjects and the work environment throughout the whole life cycle, but it is not explained how the final choices should be made between two alternatives.

The assessments of both the external environment and the working environment are based on economical principles. It is, however, two different economical principles that make the basis for the assessments, since the WEST method was not developed with the sole purpose to be combined with the EPS system. For the external environment the principle used is the consumers' willingness to pay for re-establishing the environment to the normal situation. For the working environment the figures used are the actual or assumed costs for a number of work-related parameters. The cost includes expenses for the company because of sick leave, compensation payments, expenses for the society, the willingness to pay for interaction with other people or working in an aesthetic environment, etc.

The costs are "translated" into (negative) points, where one point is equal to the costs and suffering for the society, company and individual caused by an average accident per one million working hours. The cost of one point has been estimated to 0.3 SEK or 0.03 ECU, and there is thus a common denominator for both the external and the work environment.

6.1.5.1 PC-tool

A computer-tool has been developed in which both external and work environmental assessment can be performed (EPS v. 2.01w). The tool is not yet available, but is likely to be released in the future, when a better version is ready (at least one more year before release).

For the working environmental assessment a special PC-tool has been developed. The PC-tool is programmed within Excel 5.0. The tool consists of templates for the inventory data and for the data processing. The working environmental data (and data uncertainty) for each process can be entered, and as a result the working environmental profile is calculated and visualised. The resulting total uncertainty of the profile is also calculated. A database with the inventory and the working environmental profile of 50 different Swedish production processes is also available. The problem with the PC-tool is, however, that it only runs under the Swedish Excel version. (Bengtsson & Berglund, 1997, p.60-64)

6.2 Working environmental assessment methodology

6.2.1 Purpose and goal

The IVF method was developed in the project "Working environment in life cycle assessment", which was completed by Electrolux, Volvo, IVF (The Swedish Institute of production engineering resarch), CIT (Chalmers Industriteknik), and IVL (Swedish Environmental Research Institute) 1994 to 1995. The project was financed by "Arbetslivfonden" and the participating companies. The WEST method was further developed in the projects "Working environmental analysis as part of LCA methods for the external environment" and "Development of a method for working environmental factors" from 1994 to 1997. These projects were financed by "Rådet for arbetslivsforskning".

The purpose was to develop a functional method for integrating the working environment in LCAs. No documented quantitative method for assessing the working environment in LCAs existed at the time where the project started (August 1994), whereas the EPS method for the external environment already had been used by the Swedish industry for a few years. The goal was therefore to develop this working environmental assessment method and test the method by performing several cases (Bengtsson et al, 1995), (Bengtsson et al, 1996), (Bengtsson & Berglund, 1997).

The primary reason to include the working environment in the total assessment was that the working environment have a considerable impact on human health, and the purpose of the LCA is exactly to assess how products affect the external environment and the well-being of the human race in all aspects in a long-term perspective. Secondly, including the working environment in LCAs can help to avoid sub-optimisation. A choice of materials, processes, product design, etc., with the thought of reducing the impact on the external environment can in some cases have the opposite effect on the working environment and human health (Bengtsson et al, 1996).

6.2.2 Scope of the methodology

6.2.2.1 System boundaries

Like all other LCA-methods, the present IVF method aims at including all processes in the life cycle. As no inventory data existed at the start of the project, a number of processes with a relatively short production time have been excluded from the case studies. When a data base with inventory is gradually built up, the possibility of including more and more processes will be possible without great use of resources.

The system boundaries can be chosen individually for a given case, depending on the time and resources. The general criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a given process is the production time necessary for the production of one unit. Processes with a short cycle time will in general have a smaller impact, but prior knowledge of potential problems in the work environment may cause the process to be included anyway. If there is no knowledge about the cycle time, product cost may be used as an indicator to estimate the production time.

In the case studies, a number of processes have been excluded because their contribution to the final result was assumed to be negligible or - maybe - because there were not enough resources to perform the assessments. For example are all processes involving less than one man-minute, and building of production facilities and office work excluded from all cases. These omissions can have a significant impact on the results, but this subject is not elaborated further.

The assessment does not include the impact on the consumers in the product's use phase as the method is based on work-related injuries from industrial production processes. The impacts from production of energy (electricity, gasoline) used in the lifetime of the products, are neither included.

No geographical boundaries are set, but it is obvious that assessment of processes taking place in distant geographical regions will be very demanding in terms of resources and time.

The basic data collection strategy is to collect data from the actual processes in the life cycle, i.e. site specific data are used. Therefore, the assessment will concern the actual technology and the time scale is the present production. No information is given on when it will be relevant to perform an update of the data collection, but implementation of new technology or building of new production facilities are assumed to be important indicators.

IVF points out that different factors can have a different importance for the external environment and the working environment with regard to the system boundaries. It may therefore be necessary to expand the system boundaries to account for all important processes for both the external and the working environment. (Bengtsson et al, 1995)

6.2.2.2 Impact categories

The impact categories included in IVFs process assessment method are shown in Table 6.2 below.

Table 6.2. Impact categories included in IVFs process assessment method.

The working environmental effects covered by these impact categories can be seen in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3. Overview of working environmental effect categories included in IVFs process assessment method

Work Environment Parameters	Effect-categories	Included		Remarks
		Yes	No
Accidents	Sprains Injuries/lesions Cuts Fractures Burns Death			Accidents are divided into groups of different situations: risks from moving parts, risk of tripping or slipping, risk of collisions etc.
Biological	Infections Organic dust toxic syndrome Allergy		? ?a	Included under the category "general physical environment".
Chemical	Acute toxicity: Irritation (skin, mucous membranes) Chemical burns Odour Death Chronic toxicity: Cancer Allergy Reproductive effects Neurotoxic effects Genotoxic effects Specific organ effects			Included are chemicals that will lead to the described effects. Chemical accidents, including death are listed under accidents.
Physical	Hearing loss/nuisance White fingers Burns/frostbite Cancer Allergy Muscle-skeletal effects		?a ?a	* Included under accidents.
Physiological/ Ergonomic	Cardiovascular effects Muscle-skeletal effects Repetitive strain injuries			Included under the category "physical work load"
Psycho-social	General discomfort Stress Mental effects Depression (Cancer)		?a	Included under the categories "social work environment", "work content", and "freedom to act".

a The inclusion of the effects depends on how the statistics on the reported work-related injuries are interpreted. For example can all allergy cases be counted as related to only the chemical working environment or to the biological, chemical and physical working environment. This information is not given. Hence the questionmark.

6.2.2.3 Data requirements

The IVF assessment method is based on data from company level. Very specific data is necessary. Not only is it essential to visit the different companies included in the study, but the method used also demands an experience in the field of working environment to be able to perform the assessment at the companies. Forms, consisting of points to assess for nine individual parameters, have been developed to help with the collection of data. For each point on the lists an assessment have to be made, and a score have to be given. In many cases the evaluation is based on subjective judgements. In other cases, e.g. for the chemical health hazards, measurements may have to be performed. Interviews with workers are carried out to supplement the blank forms.

The data requirements are elaborated in the following section.

6.2.2.4 Inventory parameters

The process assessment method reviews the physical, chemical, psychological, and general working environment. This is done by assessing the work place for each process with respect to the impact categories listed in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4. Impact categories included in IVFs process assessment method.

A form has been developed for the assessment of each of these nine working environmental areas (Bengtsson & Berglund, 1997, app.2). Each form contains a number of specific items to be assessed. The specific items are listed in Table 6.4.

Guidelines and ranges for the scoring of each item is given. The score can either be positive or negative depending on the actual situation compared to a reference situation. The reference situation is "not having the examined job", i.e. what is the difference between having the job in the examined process, and not having the job. (Bengtsson et al, 1995, p.7). Both conditions for unwanted impacts (e.g. exposure to hazardous chemicals) and for the "good working environment" (e.g. group work, daylight, leisure time facilities) are included in the assessment.

The final score is found by adding the scores for the individual answers and multiplying with (or adding) a possible adjustment factor. E.g, for the physical work load, the score is multiplied with an adjustment factor that depends on the workers age and sex, and for the chemical health hazard an adjustment factor is added depending on the effects of the chemicals (carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic, allergenic, irritation, skin penetration, etc.). (Bengtsson & Berglund, 1997, app.2).

Most of the processes will end up with a negative score that implies that a shorter production time will improve the working environment (Bengtsson et al, 1995).

For each process of the life cycle the scores from the nine areas are found with the use of the blank forms. The scores for each process and for each working environmental parameter are then listed in a table. This table creates an overview of the most working environmental burdened processes. The scores are then added and multiplied with the production time for the particular process. It is thus obvious that the production time often becomes the most important parameter in the assessment. This may to a certain degree justify the exclusion of processes with a short production time, provided that there is no prior knowledge about serious impacts from the process in question (Bengtsson et al, 1995), (Person & Zackrisson, 1995).

Answering the questions in the nine forms is to a large extent a subjective matter. It is therefore suggested that two persons performs the assessments individually and that the average score is used. For each parameter the uncertainty of the score is given as well (Bengtsson et al, 1995, app.1).

6.2.2.5 Impact assessment

Basically, the four steps (inventory, classification, characterisation and valuation) in the LCA are integrated and performed at the same time, i.e. when examining the process.

The main explanation for this is that both the EPS-system and the present assessment of the working environment is performed "top-down", using societal and individual values as the starting point and then developing a system that can handle an assessment of these values in a structured and operational way.

6.3 Cases

Three cases were carried out in connection with the project "Working environment in LCA" together with Electrolux and Volvo. One case about refrigerators from Electrolux, one about the front end of a Volvo 850, and one about the wishbone of a Volvo. The first two cases are described in details below.

6.3.1 The front end of a Volvo 850

The front end of a Volvo 850 has been manufactured in two different materials. The former production material was SMC (70% polyester / 30% fibreglass). The material used today is GMT (60% polypropylene / 40% fibreglass). These two front ends, produced at two different production sites, are compared. (Berglund et al, 1996b).

6.3.1.1 Data collection

Only direct related work is included in the LCA. Public servant work, construction, work for building the production machinery, and distribution of fuel and electricity production is not included even though it may have a large influence on the final result. Certain services like inspections of the cars, reparation of the cars (replacement of the front end), etc., are not included either, even though the replacement process have a relatively high importance, because it will change the functional unit. Only transportation with truck is included in the LCA (Berglund et al, 1996a), (Berglund et al, 1996b).

Only about 30% of the total production time have been assessed for both alternatives. 29 man minutes out of about a 100 for GMT, and 37 out of about 120 for SMT. Some of the production time not evaluated is production of buildings, machines, etc.

The goal was to include processes that involve more than one man-minutes per functional unit. But in practice processes were excluded during the entire project because it was difficult to find data about the production time at many subcontractors.

The data were collected by visiting the companies. Visits by one person, lasting about half a day were necessary. For each process the blank forms were filled in, and interviews were carried out. Measurements were not necessarily performed. Literature data were only used in the cases where specific data were not available. For example was all transportation with truck assessed by literature data from the branch, phone interviews and a visit to one truck company (Berglund et al, 1996a), (Berglund et al, 1996b).

6.3.1.2 Data processing

After the collection of the inventory data, it was necessary to discuss the scoring of the processes with colleagues for about half a day, because the scoring in some areas is a very subjective matter.

6.3.1.3 Company experiences

The assessment shows that a large part of the direct work in the production of front ends is carried out at only a few work places - mainly production of components and assembling of the cars.

The example shows that it is possible to see a clear difference in the working environmental impacts between the two front ends, despite the uncertainty of the scores. The main difference in the scoring can be attributed to different organisation of the work at the two companies, while only small differences can be attributed to technological changes, e.g. choice of materials and production methods.

The most important factor for the final result of the working environmental assessment is the production (cycle) time, simply because the production time is multiplied with the score of the individual processes to give the number of expected average accidents per million functional units. An implication of this is that the production time is also used as the deciding factor when processes are excluded from the LCA.

6.3.2 Refrigerators from Electrolux

An LCA of four different refrigerators produced at Electrolux was performed. Two base models using different refrigerants were examined, and for each base model a new and an old design were examined. The new models were designed with the aim of being easy to assemble (Person et al, 1995).

6.3.2.1 Data collection

The objective was to include all processes involving more than one man minute per functional unit. This resulted in an assessment of the production of most of the components, whereas the production of bulk raw materials, the production of electricity and the extraction of energy raw materials were excluded. Only direct related work was included in the LCA. Public servant work and work for building the production machinery was not included.

278 out of 340 man minutes was examined at 20 companies. The last 60 minutes was spread at over 40 companies. Half of the cycle time not examined is due to the production of electricity. The remaining time is due to production of the freezing system, plastic raw materials, isolation chemicals, recovery of freon, etc. (Person et al, 1995), (Bengtsson et al, 1995).

6.3.2.2 Data processing

This example shows the same experience as the Volvo example, namely that data collection takes time and is quite extensive. A day-long visit to the companies involved in the assessment was required for collecting the necessary data. Another experience was that it can be difficult to get information from all the subcontractors. Some were unwilling to give information about their production processes, but all gave information about the composition of the components (Person et al, 1995).

In the final assessment, the average score for all examined processes were used as the score for the processes not examined in the LCA. In this way the working environmental impact for the entire life cycle could be estimated (Person et al, 1995).

6.3.2.3 Company experiences

A difference was expected between the old and the new models, because of changes in production-friendliness and assembling-friendliness for the new models. The difference was expected to improve especially the physical work load, but the assessment shows that the initial score for the physical work load, measured per working hour, is almost the same for all models. However, a shorter assembly time causes the score per functional unit to decrease in the new models. The uncertainty of the data is however larger than the differences between the refrigerators, and no clear conclusion can be drawn.

This means that the resulting difference per functional unit is caused by a difference in production time for the assembling process. The assembling-friendliness for the new model probably do exist, but is only manifested in a shorter production time - not in the working environmental factors. More products will instead be assembled in the same period of time and it is questionable whether a real improvement in the working conditions will be observed.

6.4 Discussion

In this section we discuss the strong and weak sides of the IVF method. The text therefore reflects the opinion of the project group. The purpose of the discussion is partly to evaluate the IVF method and partly to be able to learn from these strong and weak sides, and thereby be able to set guidelines for the "perfect" working environmental LCA.

In this discussion, the strong and weak sides are firstly summarised (Table 6.5), whereafter the points are elaborated. Secondly, an overview of our evaluation of the working environmental LCA is given. Finally, suggestions for improving the method are discussed. We may therefore be focusing more on the weak sides than the strong sides.

Table 6.5. Strong and weak sides of IVFs process assessment method.

6.4.1 Methodical requirements

6.4.1.1 Integration with LCA for external environment

It is possible to use IVFs working environmental assessment method in combination with the EPS system for the external environment. Both assessment methods are based on financial circumstances. They are therefore both based on the same functional unit, and the results are expressed in the same (economical) unit, even though two different economical principles are used as the basis for the assessment. This means that the working environmental results can be compared to the assessment of the external environment.

The working environmental assessment method can, however, only be used together with environmental assessment methods based on financial circumstances.

Furthermore, it is only correct to use IVFs method for Swedish production processes, because the normalisation, which is incorporated in the method, refers to Swedish working conditions. The working environmental assessment will therefore be incorrect, if the method is used on non-Swedish processes.

It will take some effort to change the normalisation data to other countries, because the suggested scores have to match the average working conditions for the particular country, i.e. they must correspond to the average number of accidents and damages for the nine working environmental parameters in order to give the correct working environmental picture.

IVF has also tested their method outside of Sweden. In connection with the cases, some subcontracting work was carried out outside of Sweden. IVF finds that the method can be used in other countries with similar working conditions and a similar view of the suffering connected to working environmental accidents and damages. According to IVF, the method can therefore to some degree be used in Western Europe also, when the assessment includes only a limited number of processes outside of Sweden.

6.4.1.2 Interaction with the EDIP-methodology

As IVF operates with the economical aspects of the work-related injuries there is no interaction with the EDIP-methodology, where the person equivalent is operationalised. The normalisation procedures can therefore not directly be transferred from one method to the other. The requested exposure data are naturally related to the subsequent normalisation and are accordingly also very different in the two methods.

Both methods do however use the cycle time as an important assessment parameter and as an indicator of which processes that can be excluded from the study without significant losses of information.

6.4.1.3 Life cycle coverage

In theory, it seems like the method can be used in all phases of the life cycle. The method includes a range of parameters, which also can be used to assess e.g. the use phase of products where working environmental aspects also are important. The method may for example be able to assess the physical work load in the use phase of a computer mouse, because it within the method is possible to assess static work and work postures, which are the major problems of mouse work.

It is, however, a problem that the method is developed to be oriented towards working environmental problems specific for the production phase. As the method has not been used to assess working environmental problems in a product's use phase, the method may need to be adjusted before applying it for the use phase also. Furthermore, it does not make sense to assess the psychological working environment in the use phase of e.g. a computer mouse, because the psychological working environment do not depend on the mouse. Moreover, the use is typically not related to one specific company.

This problem is, however, not caused by the IVF method itself, but by the fact that making a "correct" working environmental assessment with the use of a working environmental LCA is problematic in some ways. It is difficult to assess the working environment with a focus on the product.

6.4.1.4 Possibilities for aggregation

The scores used are normalised in a way that makes it possible to aggregate the scores for all nine working environmental parameters, and for the entire life cycle, into one single score. It is therefore possible to use the process assessment method for comparing and choosing between different alternatives. The results thus fulfil the aim of being a compass for product developers.

The refrigerator example shows that using the production time can be problematic. Introduction of a new assembly-friendly refrigerator do not improve the total working environment, but only decreases the assembling time. The working environmental burden is the same per working hour, but now it is just possible to assemble more refrigerators in the same time, giving a lower total score per functional unit.

Another example is comparison of a product that is ergonomically friendly to repair, and a similar product that is not. No great difference between the total working environmental burdens will be seen for the two products. The working environment of the repairman will, however, be greatly influenced. Interpretation of the results should therefore be carried out with great care, and always with an eye to the working environmental burden per hour, and not just the burden per product.

This is, however, a problem for all LCAs using the production time as the aggregation factor, because focusing on the product can produce some "wrong" working environmental conclusions.

6.4.2 Working environmental aspects

6.4.2.1 Many working environmental aspects included

One strong point of IVFs process assessment method is that many working environmental aspects are included in the assessment (accidents, physical, chemical, and psycological). The LCA is hereby more complete compared to other methods where only chemical aspects and accidents are included. By using IVFs method the assessment of the working environment is coming close to a "complete" work place survey.

The IVF examples illustrate that it is not only in the more "ordinary" working environmental areas that a difference between the alternatives can be seen. The method is also able to illustrate differences in more untraditional areas like work organisation. In the Volvo front end example the method clearly shows that a modern work organisation would improve the psychological working environment for the employees. The physical working environment can also be improved by modernisation of buildings, because part of the negative score, when using the method, is caused by background noise, lack of day light, etc. (Berglund et al, 1996a).

6.4.2.2 Graduation of the different exposures and effects

IVF operates with an assessment based on the actual exposure situation at the specific company, and compare these with the expenses of the average effects at work places in Sweden. This means that the different exposures are graduated, which result in a graduation of the resulting effects also. For example is the score given higher for a noise level of 90 dB compared to a noise level of 80 dB.

Despite the graduation of the exposures and effects, the refrigerator example shows that it is difficult to see the differences between closely related products that are manufactured at the same company. However, in the scores some minor differences can be seen, possibly as a reflection of the few actual differences, e.g. that the change of design moves some of the working environmental burden to another process in another country. The uncertainty of the data is, however, so large that it is impossible to draw any conclusions.

6.4.2.3 Protective equipment

The use of personal safety protective equipment counts as something negative or do not count at all. The reason for this is that all use of protection devices is troublesome, heavy, warm, etc., and should therefore count as something negative. For the parameter "chemical health hazard" a use of personal safety protection equipment is not included in the assessment, thereby implying that a use of the equipment will not improve the working environment. It is better to prevent than to protect. Instead the use of personal safety protection equipment is included in the parameter "general physical environment", where the use of protective equipment gives a negative score. A negative score is giving for hearing protection devices, helmets, face shields, respiratory protective devices, protective clothing and protective gloves.

In contrast, the use of hearing protection devices also counts as something positive (reduces the negative score) for the parameter "noise". The reduction of the negative score depends on how much of the exposure time the protection devices are used.

6.4.2.4 Exposure assessment based on subjective descriptions

In some cases the assessment of the exposures is subjective, because the method is not based on only quantifiable parameters. Especially the psychological working environment is based on more descriptive parameters. It is for example difficult to quantify the stress factor ranging from "no stress" to "highly stressful work". For accidents subjective answers likewise have to be given. The questions to be answered are if the risks of the listed accidents are insignificant, minimal, very low, low, relatively low, somewhat increased, increased, rather high, high, very high or extremely high.

IVF states that more than one person have to assess the working environment, and suggests that two persons do the scoring individually (Bengtsson et al, 1995, app.1). However, in practice it turns out that one person collects the data, and that the scoring is discussed among the examiners. The scoring will, thus, always be subjective to some extent. Some of the scores will therefore have a much higher uncertainty than others, which is also shown in the cases, even though the uncertainty of each score is assessed and noted.

Not only are the evaluations based on subjective judgements, but the actual method itself is also developed on the basis of subjective judgements, which creates another built-in uncertainty. The scoring system for the psychological working environment is developed subjectively as no large statistical data volume form the basis of the scoring. IVF has therefore themselves laid down the principles for the scoring. E.g. no possibilities at all for personal development gives the score of 0, and very good possibilities for personal development give the score of 30. Another example is a work situation with no stress gives the score of 0, and a highly stressful work, where lunch is often postponed, gives the score of -20. Furthermore, the connection between the scores given for the psychological working environment and the economy is not clear. The aspect is not described in the reports.

6.4.2.5 Needs for further development

The method needs further development on certain items, because of this subjectivity of the method. Furthermore, the method needs to be expanded on certain working environmental parameters. For example does the parameter "work atmosphere" only refer to the positive aspects of contacts with other people. The negative aspect, which exists for e.g. nurses, is not included in the method. Neither is the term bullying.

IVF is aware that the method is not precise enough to show the small differences within the same production site. Further development may therefore also be necessary with regard to this aspect. IVF explains that the roughness of the method is due to the fact that maximum one day is used per visit, and that the basis of the assessment, the evaluation of the points, has its flaws (subjectivity). IVF are especially sceptical of the assessment of the psychological working environment.

6.4.3 Practicability

IVF points out that it is possible to complete the process assessment method with reasonable efforts, if only the relevant processes are included in the assessment. IVF suggests to use the production time for each process as a parameter for which processes to include in the investigation. The processes representing the longest production time are more relevant to include in the inventory.

6.4.3.1 Time consumption

The collection of the inventory data is rather time-consuming, because all (relevant) production processes have to be evaluated, which demands a one-day visit at the companies. One should therefore be aware that the initial use of the method is expensive in terms of time consumption. Additional time should be added if the process are located far away geographically. It may be possible to send the blank forms to the involved companies and have them answer the questions, but good results depends on the willingness and ability of the companies to perform a valid self-assessment. Alternatively, the forms can be send in advance to the companies to save visiting time.

When the data have been collected, it is relatively easy to complete the process assessment, because filling in the blank questionnaire forms automatically results in a score that can be aggregated over the entire life cycle. This also means that the data processing is quick.

6.4.3.2 Software tool with database exists

A working environmental database for the IVF method do exist. The database does now contain data from about 50 processes. It is therefore possible to carry out some LCAs with the use of the software tool.

The output of the assessment, represented by the positive or negative score, is clear and understandable. The working environmental impacts are given directly in average damages per million working hours, which makes it easy to relate to the scores.

6.4.3.3 Expert knowledge is necessary

It is necessary to possess good knowledge about working environment in general in order to carry out the assessment.

6.4.4 Data issues

The data used are obtained from exactly the processes that are included in the LCA. This makes the data and the results trustworthy.

6.4.4.1 Score represents actual average injuries

IVFs process assessment method is constructed in a way so that the normalisation already is carried out by using the questionnaires created for each of the nine working environmental parameters. This gives the advantage that the score directly represents the actual "average" accidents and damages that the working environmental burden will result in. The normalisation does therefore not demand extra effort.

When new data has to be obtained, they may not always be accessible. It depends on the willingness of the companies to participate. If the companies are willing to provide the necessary data, it may save some data collection time to send the blank forms to the involved companies and have them answer the questions.

6.4.4.2 Data can be obtained by work place assessment

IVF has constructed some questionnaire forms, which, when filled in, gives the necessary data for the assessment. IVF call the questionnaire forms for "work place assessments". These questionnaire forms are constructed in a way that may be the "future look" of work place assessment forms. It is therefore possible that the data, in the future, can be obtained by work place assessment.

6.4.5 Summary of the assessment

In Table 6.6 the above discussion is summarised. This table illustrate how we evaluate the IVF method. The exact meaning of the topics in the first column is described in section 1.10.

Table 6.6. Evaluation of the IVF method.

Topic	Evaluation of the IVF method
Methodical requirements
Integration with LCA for external environment
Applicability in LC-phases
Aggregation possible
Working environmental aspects
Coverage of WE'al issues
Graduation of exposures and effects
Practicability
Practical in use
Software tool
Transparency
Can be used by non-experts
Data issues
Data reliability
Amount of data in existing database
Data accessibility
Data can be obtained by WPA

= missing, = poor, = acceptable, = good, = excellent

6.4.6 Suggestions for improvements

It is positive that IVFs method includes so many working environmental aspects. The evaluation carried out at the companies can be compared with complete work place surveys. The assessment gives a totality picture and an overall impression of the working environment instead of just focusing on chemical aspects or accidents.

The actual scoring system could possibly be improved. In its present form, it is not very clear why the suggested scoring intervals are chosen for the specific situations. IVF points out that the method need to be developed further in order to improve the evaluation of the different working environmental factors (Bengtsson et al, 1995).

It seems feasible to combine the IVF method with the EDIP method, using the IVF questionnaires to perform the initial steps in the LCA (inventory, classification, characterisation), and the EDIP normalisation and valuation principles (the person equivalent). A combination will require relatively large efforts as questionnaires and scoring systems will have to be adapted to meet specific Danish and/or international working conditions and normalisation values. This will probably prove to be most difficult for the factors describing the psycho-social working environment, simply because the basis for the normalisation and valuation is very difficult to estimate. Efforts will also have to be devoted to the development of questionnaires that relate to other types of work, so that the use phase of products can be assessed to the same extent as the production phase.

6.5 References

Bengtsson G, Berglund R et al. (1996). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - Sammenfatning av metod og fallstudier, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95830. English version: Life cycle assessment including the working environment - summary of method and case studies. IVF-skrift 95859.

Bengtsson G & Berglund R (1997). WEST - En metod att mäta arbetsmiljö, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 97836. English title: WEST (Work Environment Screening Tool) - A method for measuring the working environment.

Bengtsson G, Maupoix M, Steen B (1995). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - Metodbeskrivning, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95831. English title: Life cycle assessment including the working environment - Description of the method.

Berglund R & Lundström (1996a). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - En fallstudie av framstycken til Volvobilar, Delrapport I: Resultat, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95836. English title: Life cycle assessment includeing the working environment - a case study of front ends for Volvo cars - the results.

Berglund R & Lundström (1996b). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - En fallstudie av framstycken til Volvobilar, Delrapport II: Data, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95837. English title: Life cycle assessment includeing the working environment - a case study of front ends for Volvo cars - the results.

Eriksson E, Nevén C-O et al. (1995). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - En guide för produktutvecklare, Institutet för Verkstadsteknisk Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95828. English title: Life cycle assessment including the working environment - A guide for product designers.

ISO (1997). ISO 14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. First edition, 15.06.1997.

ISO (1998). ISO 14042 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle Impact assessment. Committee draft (ISO/CD 14042.22), 28.01.1998.

Person & Zackrisson (1995). Livscykelanalys med arbetsmiljö - En fallstudie av kylfryser från Electrolux, Delrapport I: Resultat, Institutet för Verkstadsteknsik Forskning (IVF), IVF-skrift 95832. English title: Life cycle assessment including the working environment - a case study of refrigerators from Electrolux - the results.

Ryding S-O et al (1995). Miljöanpassad produktutveckling, Industriförbundet. English title: Environmentally adapted product development.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 April 2004, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency