COMPARATIVE PRODUCT
LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT
NIKE, Inc. Product Comparisons
A footprint includes many different kinds of impacts that
must be measured through the scientific evaluation of all
processes and steps – from growing or processing the
materials that go into the product, to how it’s made, to how
it’s used and disposed.
To understand our products’ footprint we have conducted a
thorough analysis of five key environmental aspects: energy
use, greenhouse gas emissions, waste, water use and
chemistry. In this analysis, we look at these five aspects
across three typical-profile running shoes in popular styles
and common sizes.
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 1
METHODOLOGY:
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT
What’s the total impact of a product? There’s no simple calculation. To
fully understand the footprint of a product, we need to take into account
the materials used (how they’re made and processed), manufacturing
methods (including six or more individual steps), how materials and
products are moved from processing to factory to distribution center then
to retail, as well as the sales infrastructure, the impact at use, and what’s
left when the product’s useful life is over. Our work today does not cover
all of the environmental impacts potentially included in a lifecycle
assessment – that could stretch to well over a dozen different impacts –
but quantifying these four does provide important insights
OVERALL
•
•
•
•
ENERGY and CARBON EMISSIONS – The production of the materials used in
a running shoe (which we assess at the Design phase) drives the most
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions throughout the life cycle. The
single most important driver is therefore the amount of materials used,
which in turn is driven by the weight of the style and the efficiency of the
pattern. The biggest contributing materials are polyester fabric, EVA foam
midsole, polyurethane (PU) and rubber.
WASTE – Flyknit reduces waste overall through advanced manufacturing
processes and the light weight of the shoe.
WATER – Impacts are comparable for all three styles, mostly due to
indirect water use from electricity generation. (Note that water use is
defined here as total water withdrawn, whether it is returned or not to the
watershed. This is different from consumptive use, which would only
account for water withdrawn not returned to the watershed.)
CHEMISTRY (measure of petroleum-derived solvents, or NMVOCe) - Around
half of emissions are from Make phase, 30% from Materials (Design) and
20% from Move. Significant reduction achieved through substitution of
water-based substances for cleaning, priming and cementing.
WHY
We used a lifecycle approach to compare the footprints of three NIKE
performance running models to assess changes resulting from
design/materials choices and manufacturing decisions and processes. This
provides a point-in-time comparison of all inputs and a lens into the full
impact of a product. Coupled with full value chain assessments of our
footprint, this product-level view helps to identify the phases with the
greatest impacts, where changes have delivered results, and where further
work is needed.
•
•
In 2008, NIKE published an energy and carbon footprint of the Air Pegasus
25. This work provided new insight into the footprint of a product.
(http://www.nikebiz.com/crreport/content/environment/4-3-2-highlights-of-ourwork.php?cat=climate-and-energy)
In 2014, we update the footprint with additional data to evaluate water use
and waste, provide a basis for comparison with other styles, and update the
assumptions and data in our previous assessment, as more accurate
information on manufacturing processes, emissions factors, materials impacts
and other data have become available.
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 2
METHODOLOGY:
ABOUT OUR APPROACH
HOW
We worked with all available data, including primary data collected by
NIKE and publicly available life cycle inventory data about materials and
processes. The scope of this work included evaluating every step of the life
cycle we could identify, broken into the seven simplified steps of our value
chain (Plan, Design (Materials), Make, Move, Sell, Use, End of Life.
We assessed to the specific product level using a typical men’s sample
size. We compared running shoes of the same size, comparable styles, and
the same durability requirements. The actual footprint of any specific
product would be driven by a range of factors, including its size, color, etc.
We assessed the following key inventories and impact categories:
• Primary energy demand (in kWh)
• Climate Change (in kg CO2e) - using the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology: “IPCC global warming,
excluding biogenic carbon”
• Water use (in L)
• Waste generated (in kg)
• Chemistry (Smog (kg NMVOCe)): Photochemical ozone formation,
LOTOS-EUROS model, ReCiPe
REVIEWS – We reviewed models and outputs with a life cycle assessment
expert to test the soundness of the approach, data sources, assumptions and
overall results. While we included elements of the ISO 14040-44 standards in
our approach, this review was not a complete critical review as defined by that
standard.
BOUNDARIES – At each phase we have included relevant steps as
described in the diagram below.
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 3
RESULTS:
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT
Air Pegasus 25 (2008) Popular style of running shoe, typical of the range of
available styles. More than 50 component parts. A previous analysis carried out
in 2008 based on available information on inputs, process steps and emissions
factors, but underestimated energy use and over-estimated emissions. The
analysis was updated using new information in 2014.
Air Pegasus 30 (2014) Five years later, Air Pegasus was still a popular style. Due
to updates in design, it was lighter weight, used fewer materials and was less water,
energy and chemically intensive.
Flyknit Lunar2 (2014) Game-changing design in a popular style. Different
platform from the Pegasus, so the midsole and outsole contain some different
components and processes. Changes in materials and manufacturing methods
deliver considerable reductions in impacts over previous designs.
IMPACT
MEASURE
SHOE
TOTAL
VALUE CHAIN PHASES
PLAN
DESIGN
MAKE
MOVE
SELL
USE
END
OF LIFE
(MATERIALS)
ENERGY
GHG
WATER
WASTE
CHEMISTRY
MJ
kgCO2e
Liters
Kg
kgNMVOCe
204.23
4.32
128.34
48.72
20.83
3.94
0.08
-2.00
178.77
4.32
113.32
38.14
20.83
3.94
0.08
-1.85
156.07
4.32
88.62
39.67
20.83
3.94
0.08
-1.39
13.76
0.27
7.26
4.07
1.53
0.31
0.14
0.18
11.96
0.27
6.35
3.18
1.53
0.31
0.14
0.17
10.88
0.27
5.20
3.31
1.53
0.31
0.14
0.12
4424.42
161.42
1868.26
2113.04
104.21
150.66
3.24
21.83
3733.33
161.42
1636.52
1655.45
104.21
150.66
3.24
21.83
3867.92
161.42
1730.04
1701.99
104.21
150.66
3.24
16.36
1.04
0.01
0.07
0.26
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.59
0.95
0.01
0.06
0.22
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.54
0.67
0.01
0.305
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.41
0.101
0.000
0.031
0.053
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.082
0.000
0.027
0.038
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.024
0.039
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 4
METHODOLOGY:
PRODUCT LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT
STAGE
PLAN
DESIGN
(Materials)
MAKE
DATA SOURCES
QUALITY
OF DATA
STEPS EXCLUDED
• NIKE primary data
• US EPA eGRID
• US EPA Municipal Solid Waste report
High
Employee commuting
• NIKE Material Sustainability Index (which has
been third-party reviewed and is the basis for
industry-wide index)
• PlasticsEurope
• PE International’s GaBi LCA databases
• International Energy Agency
• European Federation of Corrugated Board
Manufacturers (FEFCO)
• U.S. Life Cycle Inventory database
• Van der Velden, Patel, Vogtlander, Lifecycle
analysis benchmarking study on textiles made of
cotton, polyester, nylon, acryl, or elastane, 2012
Medium
•
•
•
NIKE primary data for energy, water and
waste, based on direct measurements at
contract factories
International Energy Agency
PE International’s GaBi LCA databases
Mediumhigh
•
•
•
High
•
NIKE primary data for transportation modes,
distances, loads, and distribution center
impacts
PE International’s GaBi LCA databases
SELL
•
•
•
NIKE primary data
US EPA eGRID
US EPA Municipal Solid Waste report
High
USE
•
•
•
NIKE primary data
US EPA eGRID
US EPA Municipal Solid Waste report
Mediumhigh
END OF
LIFE (REUSE)
•
•
PE International’s GaBi LCA databases
US EPA Municipal Solid Waste report
Mediumhigh
MOVE
•
Tooling processes (e.g., making
of midsole and outsole molds)
which is considered very minor
on a per-pair basis .
Waste that is not material loss
from pattern inefficiency (e.g.,
containers, rags, etc.).
Byproducts in the shoe’s
manufacturing process. Though
some scraps can be sold for
down-cycling, no impacts have
been allocated to these scraps
Product maintenance
(washing/drying) because it is
uncommon for performance running
shoes
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 5
METHODOLOGY:
External reviews
THIRD-PARTY REVIEW
NIKE, Inc. performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare the
environmental footprints of three NIKE performance running models: the
Air Pegasus 25 (2008), the Air Pegasus 30 and Flyknit Lunar 2 (both
2014).
NIKE submitted the LCA to an independent expert, B. M. Krishna Manda,
of Sustainable Value Consultancy, for review of the methodology, overall
modeling approach, data sources and data quality. The LCA and review
have included elements of the ISO 14040-44 standards, however this
review was not a complete critical review as defined by that standard.
“The Nike approach duly considers the key elements of the LCA
methodology, including the equivalence of the products’ function,
product systems and methodological considerations, such as system
boundary, data quality, allocation procedures, and decision rules for
evaluating inputs, outputs and impacts. The modeling has
comprehensively captured the attributes relevant to the product systems
of three footwear models and collected the necessary data for the plan,
design, make, move, sell, use and end-of-life stages. As such, the LCA
performed supports its intended purpose as a comparative analysis of the
design improvements of Nike footwear models over the last few years.”
-B. M. Krishna Manda, Sustainable Value Consultancy, Netherlands
FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES
The review also identified opportunities for improvement, including:
• Expand primary data collection in the supply chain. Due to the
relative significance of a few finished materials in the final
results (i.e, the proportion of impact from materials in the
design stage), improved collection and review of primary data
for key materials (e.g., polyester fabric) would further improve
the accuracy of the results.
• Broaden the scope of environmental impacts assessed. The
current project assessed a limited number of aspects.
Recognizing that finished material production and footwear
manufacturing are generally located in developing countries, it
is advised to include impact categories relevant to these
geographies, such as eutrophication, particulate matter
formation, toxicity, and fossil depletion.
• Perform further sensitivity and uncertainty analyses: To
improve representativeness and robustness of the results,
additional sensitivity analyses on key parameters and
assumptions and an uncertainty analysis should be conducted.
FY13 data (June 1, 2012 – May 31, 2013) - Published May 2014 - 6