Carbon Footprint of Supply Chains: A Scoping Study (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 52-63
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 52... ...
4 EVALUATION OF CURRENT PROGRAMS Given the five criteria identified as relevant to evaluating current programs identified in the previous chapter, a method to actually perform the evaluation is needed. In this chapter the Analytic Hierarchy Process is presented as a suitable method for performing this evaluation.
|
From page 53... ...
process for all the criteria the total score for each alternative is calculated by weighting the score within each criterion by the relative importance of that criterion. This produces an overall evaluation of each alternative with respect to the goal.
|
From page 54... ...
Criteria A Criteria B Intensity Breadth Comparability 1.75 Breadth Depth 1.55 Breadth Precision 1.50 Breadth Verifiability 1.11 Comparability Depth 4.04 Comparability Precision 3.40 Comparability Verifiability 1.95 Depth Precision 1.01 Depth Verifiability 1.64 Precision Verifiability 1.05 Table 4: Criteria Preference The pairwise comparisons show a clear preference for comparability as a criterion, as it was judged more important than each of the other four criteria. It also recorded the strongest intensity of importance, with it being considered between moderately and strongly more important than depth and precision.
|
From page 55... ...
Figure 15: Relative Importance of Criteria The quantitative results indicate the strong preference for comparability as the most important criterion, with a relative weighting of 39%. Of the remaining criteria, breadth and verifiability were judged to be next most important, with weightings of 19% and 18% respectively.
|
From page 56... ...
for each criterion. The standards themselves are compared with each other under each criterion in order to develop the relative scores achieved by meeting each standard.
|
From page 57... ...
Criteria Measure Description Weight Breadth High Includes all modes plus logistics activities 8 Medium All four main modes (road/air/water/rail) 7 Low Single mode 1 Comparability High Standardized boundaries and output measures 8 Medium Single standardized data and methodology 5 Low Multiple methodology and data options 1 Depth High Full Life Cycle Assessment 6 Medium Well to Wheel analysis 5 Low Direct emissions only 1 Precision High Shipment level reporting 7 Medium Carrier level reporting 5 Low National/Industry Average 1 Verifiability High External audit/verification required 5 Medium Methodology and data are publicly available 2 Low No verification/non-standardized data 1 Table 5: Absolute Criteria Measures The weights were determined based on discussion with participants of the October 25th workshop and the estimated value of meeting higher standards.
|
From page 58... ...
Criteria Measure Score Breadth High 1.00 Medium 0.88 Low 0.13 Comparability High 1.00 Medium 0.63 Low 0.13 Depth High 1.00 Medium 0.83 Low 0.17 Precision High 1.00 Medium 0.71 Low 0.14 Verifiability High 1.00 Medium 0.40 Low 0.20 Table 6: Scores of Criteria Measures The relatively high importance attached to achieving a medium level of breadth reflects the need for a tool capable of handling each of the main transportation modes. The addition of other logistics activities increases the breadth to capture associated activities, but these are generally considered to have a minor impact on emissions when compared to the actual transportation.
|
From page 59... ...
important than a tool that used average values, while a shipment-level precision was only slightly more important. Verifiability represents the most difficult criteria to judge.
|
From page 60... ...
The first type of tool focuses on producing highly comparable results for a single mode, achieving scores in the range of 0.56-0.60. Examples of this type of methods include the EPA SmartWay program and the BSR CCWG.
|
From page 61... ...
However, the preference for comparability expressed in this evaluation was based on comparability within a tool. Specifically, the focus was on how the results of the tool could be compared across different organizations or time periods.
|
From page 62... ...
estimate the CO2 of ocean shipments. In order to accurately calculate emissions, the shipper must know the actual sailing distance between the origin and destination, but this is dependent on any intermediate ports that may have been visited.
|
From page 63... ...
91 Saaty, T
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.