Document [original]

Citation: Miehe, R.; Finkbeiner, M.;

Sauer, A.; Bauernhansl, T. A System

Thinking Normative Approach

towards Integrating the Environment

into Value-Added Accounting—Paving

the Way from Carbon to

Environmental Neutrality.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603.

https://doi.org/10.3390/

su142013603

Academic Editors: S. Mahdi

Homayouni and Hamid Reza

Panjeh Fouladgaran

Received: 30 August 2022

Accepted: 18 October 2022

Published: 20 October 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

A System Thinking Normative Approach towards Integrating

the Environment into Value-Added Accounting—Paving the

Way from Carbon to Environmental Neutrality

Robert Miehe 1,* , Matthias Finkbeiner 2, Alexander Sauer 1,3 and Thomas Bauernhansl 1,4

1Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12,

70569 Stuttgart, Germany

2Institute for Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135,

10623 Berlin, Germany

3Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production (EEP), University of Stuttgart, Nobelstraße 12,

70569 Stuttgart, Germany

4Institute of Industrial Manufacturing and Management (IFF), University of Stuttgart, Allmandring 35,

70569 Stuttgart, Germany

*Correspondence: r[email protected].de

Abstract:

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is increasingly being applied in corporate accounting. Re-

cently, especially carbon footprinting (CF) has been adopted as ‘LCA light’ in accordance with the

Greenhouse Gas Protocol. According to the strategy ‘balance, reduce, substitute, compensate’, the

approach is intended to provide the basis for optimization towards climate neutrality. However,

two major problems arise: (1) due to the predominant focus on climate neutrality, other decisive

life-cycle impact categories are often ignored, resulting in a misrecognition of potential trade-offs, and

(2) LCA is not perceived as an equal method alongside cost and value-added accounting in everyday

business, as it relies on a fundamentally different system understanding. In this paper, we present

basic considerations for merging the business and life-cycle perspectives and introduce a novel

accounting system that combines elements of traditional operational value-added accounting, process

and material flow analysis as well as LCA. The method is based on an extended system thinking, a set

of principles, a calculation system, and external cost factors for the impact categories climate change,

stratospheric ozone depletion, air pollution, eutrophication and acidification. As a scientifically

robust assessment method, the presented approach is intended to be applied in everyday operations

in manufacturing companies, providing a foundation for a fundamental change in industrial thought

patterns on the way to the total avoidance of negative environmental impacts (i.e., environmental

neutrality). Therefore, this is validated in two application examples in the German special tools

industry, proving its practicability and reproducibility as well as the suitability of specifically derived

indicators for the selective optimization of production systems.

Keywords:

environmental management accounting; externalities accounting; sustainable

manufacturing; climate neutrality; environmental neutrality

1. Introduction

Sustainability is an inherent challenge in future industrial production. Ever since its

baseline concept was published over 40 years ago [

], its operationalization to business

practice has been massively hindered by the vague formulation of the basic concept [

Especially the enforcement of the triple bottom line interpretation (weak sustainability),

which led to the possibility of asserting subjective demands and, thus, to a dilution of

the overall concept [

–

]. Questions of social and environmental impact thus continue to

receive far less attention in the operational decision-making process than economic bene-

fits. While integration into business management is now common practice in companies,

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013603 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 2 of 20

especially when certification and/or reporting (e.g., according to GHG Protocol, ISO14001,

EMAS, CSR) are pending, its results rarely lead to decisions that are appropriate in the

sense of a regulative economy, be they within the framework of planetary boundaries

or socially accepted target conditions [

]. A stricter integration of ecological and social

aspects into corporate accounting has been the subject of intense discussion in the scien-

tific community for decades now, including under the term social entrepreneurship [

leading to a multitude of methodical approaches. However, two major problems remain,

which have not been comprehensively addressed in either life-cycle engineering (LCE) or

environmental management accounting (EMA) [9–15]:

(1)

Due to the predominant focus on climate neutrality in the contemporary manufac-

turing industry, carbon footprinting (CF) is a far more common concept in business

practice than a complete LCA. This restriction to a single-impact category results in a

misrecognition of other life-cycle impact categories. Potential trade-offs are often not

understood, and thus ignored.

(2)

Although standardized in the early 2000s [

], LCA is not perceived as an equal

method alongside cost- and/or value-added accounting in everyday business, but

as a stand-alone approach. This is mostly due to the fact that it relies on a funda-

mentally different system understanding to traditional business accounting. Today,

LCA results are often compared with costs in complicated cost-impact diagrams,

which represent a weak precondition for an equal consideration of economic, eco-

logical and social factors. Another alternative is the monetarization of externalities,

for which basic approaches exist (e.g., abatement and damage costs). However,

only a few methodological frameworks are available for an effective integration

into corporate accounting, which represents the main source of decision-making in

day-to-day operations.

In this paper, we thus raise the question what exactly the ‘value-added of production’

from an economic and ecological perspective is? Thereupon, we analyze to what extent

current theories and concepts of (business) economics reflect the question of an integrated

understanding of value and how an integrated value-added accounting system should be

designed. The research process of this work follows the standard approach of real sciences

according to Ulrich and Hill [

]. The aim of this work is to execute subjectively perceived

sections of reality by describing and defining concepts, to abstract on the basis of individual

cases and to develop alternative courses of action for the realization of future realities.

This paper documents the investigation of the status of integrating ecosystem services

into business value-added accounting and the development of a method for measuring the

economic-ecological value-added of production systems. Thus, it adopts a semi-systematic

review approach to reduce bias due to a selective literature choice and to increase the

reliability of the literature choice according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. By identifying the essential issues of

integrated sustainability accounting, a search string for a literature review was developed.

The search was conducted in electronic literature databases including Google Scholar,

Semantic Scholar, Scite, WorldWideScience and Fraunhofer Enhanced Library (eLib). The

keywords for the search process resulted from a panel of three experts in the fields of pro-

duction engineering, business accounting and sustainable engineering, who also reviewed

the literature selection. Similar approaches are well documented in the literature [

The synthesis ofthe results provides the basis for the developed accounting system.

2. Fundamental Considerations

2.1. A Brief History of the Concept of Value in Society and Economics

The concept of value is complex and influenced by different disciplines as well as

religion and human perception. A common interpretation for the term does not exist. The

perception of value represents an intersubjective entity, i.e., it is neither purely subjective

nor completely objectively measurable [

]. Rather, the value of a given object emerges

when a certain number of people believe in it. Our ideals are decisive in this. However, they

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 3 of 20

differ considerably depending on the point of view (e.g., individual, company or society)

and the timeframe (what is ‘in vogue’ in the current generation).

Ideals, in the sense of morally good attributes, are usually a subject of investigation in

ethics. The answer to the core question of practical ethics, which actions are considered

morally valuable, is known as the “golden rule”. In the form of a positively or nega-

tively formulated maxim, it appears in almost every moral–ethical or religious treatise. A

particularly prevalent representative of moral ethics is Immanuel Kant, who stated that

moral actions in a society (which must also include industrial value creation) must always

follow a categorical maxim. While, for Kant [

], a moral action manifests itself only in the

here and now, Jonas [

] advocates an expansion of the space of observation. In times of

increasingly evident damage to the ecological and social environment, it is no longer just

the here and now that is relevant, but also the consequences of action. According to Jonas’

principle of responsibility

, an action is to be regarded as moral if it is in harmony with the

permanence of human life.

The economic perception of value is largely based on classical and neoclassical theo-

ries [

]. Thereby, two fundamental approaches are distinguished: objective and subjective

value theories. The objective value theory comprises a number of approaches to describe a

good’s real

monetary

value. The first approaches date back to Locke’s natural value theory,

which derives the human right to property from the work performed [

]. Among its most

prominent representatives are Smith [

], Ricardo [

] and Marx [

]. The latter, for the

first time, emphasized the dependence of economic value creation on social paradigms. In

contrast, the subjective value theories focus on an individual utility as the central object

of investigation. These theories do not consider absolute values but infinitesimal changes

in utility. The central instrument of subjective value theories is the

marginal principle,

dating back to von Thuenen in the 19th century [

]. Closely linked to the concept, which

was further developed by leading figures such as Jevons, Menger and Walras [

–

is the already rejected economic concept of the rationally acting individual. This homo

oeconomicus assigns a value merely to the next infinitissimal benefit, to be represented in

monetary units.

In early economic theories, nature was of secondary importance. For example, Smith

places emphasis on individual utility, which, assuming full competition, adds up to a

collective optimum of prosperity [

]. The decisive factor here is the scarcity of goods.

Believing that nature exists infinitively, it is regarded as free of charge. If a good is free,

it has no monetary value. This did not change until the 1950s with the emergence of

ecological and environmental economics and industrial ecology, predominantly influenced

by Kapp [

]. Ecological economists are deeply concerned with the role of limited natural

conditions for production [

]. The classic concept of ecological economics is the idea

of sufficiency. Representatives of this school include Socolow et al. and Bartelmus [

In contrast to neoclassical economics, they emphasize that production depends on non-

reproducible resources that cannot be replaced by human labor and technology. The main

question in the value debate among ecological economists is whether the direct attribution

of economic value to nature is the most logical and meaningful way to incorporate this

concern for limited natural conditions into the analysis of the market valuation of nature

and contemporary environmental problems [36].

2.2. The Value-Added of Production

As with the concept of value, no common interpretation exists for the term value-

added [

]. Various authors identify value creation, in the sense of generating value through

the planned combination of production factors, as the core objective of all production [

–

Porter understands value-added within a company as a sequence of certain activities

in combination with the profit margin [

]. While Porter reduces the term to a purely

financial value, Westkämper emphasizes that the added value can be both monetary

and functional [

]. According to the lean management philosophy, manufacturing

companies in the last 30 years have largely streamlined their businesses towards the

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 4 of 20

perception of value by the customer [

]. According to Zeithaml, four types of value

perception by the customer may be differed: (1) sacrifice of low price, (2) benefits of the

product, (3) quality obtained for the price paid, and (4) total benefits obtained for total

sacrifice incurred [44].

Although manufacturing is a process dedicated to the satisfaction of human needs

within the life-cycle of products, it may have a lower or higher value for the ecosystem

depending on the degree of environmental impact. Consequently, production researchers

have recently outlined the concept of a positive impact factory, which serves as an emis-

sions and waste sink (but, in most cases, is far from industrial application) [

]. Various

authors have attempted to describe the value of nature (e.g., ecosystem services) [

–

However, crucial to this work is the way nature is classified in terms of production. Ap-

proaches to the classification of nature can be found under [

–

]. The most elementary

classification is that of life-cycle engineering, i.e., the subdivision of nature into impact

categories perceived by humans.

In this paper, we interpret the value of production as a categorical maxim of an action

that is desirable from an economic and ecological perspective. Thereby, we assume that it

is possible to quantify its magnitude in monetary terms. From an anthropocentric point

of view, the integrated value of production is the quantity of monetary units that both a

company and society contribute to production.

2.3. State of the Art of Operational Added Value Calculation

The value-added today is a central measure of the performance of an economic

unit [

]. Its quantification in the business context is carried out in the operational value-

added calculation [

–

]. The approach is regarded as a special case of corporate account-

ing (largely differing from cost accounting), as it can be used for both external and internal

accounting. However, a uniform accounting system does not exist. The reason for this is the

lack of a consistent definition of business and intermediate consumption. Existing concepts

of operational value-added calculation can be classified according to their horizon, which

can be narrow or broad. The narrow understanding calculates the operational value-added

from the sum of profits, wages and salaries. The broad understanding is based on the con-

sideration of the difference between gross profits and intermediate consumption. Similar to

national accounts, gross profits are calculated by sales minus increases in stocks of finished

and unfinished goods and the equipment produced for own use. The intermediate inputs

of other companies are understood as material costs, depreciation, external, field service

and risk costs [57].

A growing number of researchers have investigated the design and implementation

of accounting practices that address environmental issues [

–

]. However, virtually all

work that aims at a monetary internalization of externalities into the business account-

ing can be attributed to full-cost accounting (i.e., not value-added accounting). The first

works originate from the late 1980s and early 1990s. To date, several approaches have

been presented. These include ecologically oriented cost accounting, Full Cost Accounting

(FCA) at Ontario Hydro, Costs of Environmental Effects (CEE) at the Dutch BTO Ori-

gin, Prevented Environmental Costs Accounting at the German Neumarker Landsbräu

brewery, Integrative Environmental Cost Accounting, Sustainability Cost Accounting and

Environmental Management Accounting (EMS) [

–

]. External effects are internalized

either by abatement or damage cost approaches (i.e., willingness-to-pay/sell), the two most

common methods for the monetization of external effects [

]. While the former seeks to

estimate the caused damage, the latter can be understood as the costs of prevention. More

recent, similar concepts for monetizing environmental impacts, especially in the context of

capitalizing and managing “commons” such as forests, lakes, rivers, and the atmosphere,

were presented under terms such as natural capital accounting or payments for ecosystem

services [74–79].

Another stream of thought is life-cycle costing (LCC) that is not assigned to environ-

mental cost accounting in the literature. Although it is not intended ab initio, it in principle

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 5 of 20

enables the internalization of external environmental effects [

]. However, this is also

possible by means of an additional LCA, in conjunction with abatement or damage cost

approaches (see Eco Costs 99, Environmental Priority System) [

]. In addition, the

aim of an LCC is not to record the environmental impacts within a company and allocate

them in monetary values to cost centers and products, but to identify potential for the

improvement of a single product across its entire life cycle.

Approaches with a genuine focus on integrating the environment into operational

value-added accounting are rare. Of particular significance in this context are the concepts

of environmental and sustainable value-added [

–

]. Sustainable value-added represents

the relationship between the value created by the company and the damage it causes, as

well as that of a benchmark. Previous periods, similar competitors or the company’s sector

can be used as a benchmark [

]. Similar concepts, representing a ratio of generated value

and associated environmental damage, have been presented under the terms green or

net value-added, natural and/or true value accounting [

]. Although the concepts

explicitly include ecology in the operational value-added calculation, they are indicators

that are limited to the company level. On this basis, an allocation at the product or process

level is hardly possible. No consistent procedural method is presented for quantifying

ecological value.

3. Results

3.1. eco2-Value-Added Approach

3.1.1. Extended System Understanding

Fundamental to the development of a categorical interpretation of value creation

in manufacturing companies is an understanding of systems that goes far beyond the

scope of conventional business administration. Therefore, it is essential to develop an

understanding that combines the views of conventional business administration with the

systemic understanding of ecology and the priority model of sustainability. According to

systems theory, the designation of the surrounding systems and the specification of the

recurring interactions between the subsystems are decisive [86].

Human existence is based on certain natural conditions, summarized here in the

system of the ecosphere. As such, it comprises all animate and inanimate elements of

the system earth. In this understanding, human existence represents a sub-section of the

ecosphere, which will be referred to as the anthroposphere. The anthroposphere is, in turn,

divided into two subsystems: economic and social. An enterprise represents a manifestation

of human existence and is assigned to the anthroposphere. In systems theory, a company

is initially regarded as a black box, whose core objective is to create value. In order to

achieve this goal, certain input variables are required and, through their combination,

certain output variables are generated. The company obtains input variables from the

markets of the economic and social system and the ecosphere. Similarly, output variables

are supplied to the markets of the economic and social system and the ecosphere. The

potential effects of the production of goods and services on the eco- and anthroposphere

are covered by the impact system. In addition, a fictitious impact system is required to

record the impact of producing goods and offer services on the eco- and anthroposphere.

This is initially assigned to the ecosphere, but has various exchange relationships with the

anthroposphere. The ecological consequences of extraction (source function) or release

(sink function) can cause problems at the global and local level. The impact system is,

therefore, further subdivided into global and local systems. The interaction of a company

and its surrounding systems takes place as information and real or nominal goods flow.

The interaction of a company with its impact system represents a special case of relation

as it is solely based on the transfer of real goods that each generate a nominal flow of

goods, mostly with a certain time lag, i.e., external costs. These, however, generally do

not affect the company itself but other systems of the anthroposphere. Figure 1illustrates

the extended system understanding that sets the basis for an integrative value-added

accounting scheme.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 6 of 20

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

The interaction of a company with its impact system represents a special case of relation

as it is solely based on the transfer of real goods that each generate a nominal flow of

goods, mostly with a certain time lag, i.e., external costs. These, however, generally do not

affect the company itself but other systems of the anthroposphere. Figure 1 illustrates the

extended system understanding that sets the basis for an integrative value-added account-

ing scheme.

Figure 1. Extended system understanding of an integrated value-added accounting.

3.1.2. Premises of an Integrated Value-Added Accounting

The accounting system presented here follows six principles that serve hermeneutical

and/or procedural functions (for details, please see Supplementary Materials):

▪ Value principle: A production–economic activity never exclusively serves the satis-

faction of individual needs, but must ensure that its consequences are justified in

terms of socially accepted standards. In order to meet this requirement, the sustain-

able production value of a productive activity is defined as the sum of economic

value and natural value.

▪ Sustainability principle: A production–economic activity at the economic–ecological

interface is considered sustainable if the difference between external production

value and value consumption is greater than or equal to zero. There are only two

possibilities for sustainable value creation from a business perspective: An action has

a positive natural value, or a company specifically pays the natural debt it has caused.

Figure 1. Extended system understanding of an integrated value-added accounting.

3.1.2. Premises of an Integrated Value-Added Accounting

The accounting system presented here follows six principles that serve hermeneutical

and/or procedural functions (for details, please see Supplementary Materials):

Value principle

: A production–economic activity never exclusively serves the satisfac-

tion of individual needs, but must ensure that its consequences are justified in terms

of socially accepted standards. In order to meet this requirement, the sustainable

production value of a productive activity is defined as the sum of economic value and

natural value.

Sustainability principle: A production–economic activity at the economic–ecological

interface is considered sustainable if the difference between external production value

and value consumption is greater than or equal to zero. There are only two possibilities

for sustainable value creation from a business perspective: An action has a positive

natural value, or a company specifically pays the natural debt it has caused.

Superposition principle

: Both the amendment and damage cost approach are rejected

as insufficient for internalizing external costs. Since it is impossible to predict whether

the solution to the environmental problem will be achieved by avoiding, adapting to

and accepting the damage, a paradox arises that essentially relates to Schrödinger’s cat.

As the solution of the environmental problem is currently conceivable by prevention

and by acceptance of the damage, both conditions must be considered equally.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 7 of 20

Materiality principle

: Since it is rarely possible to identify all the actual consequences

of an action, an iterative approach is needed to calculate the NV. If the cause–effect

chain of an action is very complex, the first step is to focus on the significant damage.

Damage occurrence principle

: Environmental impact does not necessarily result in

damage. From the perspective of the system under consideration, however, this

is irrelevant. Similar to the superposition principle, there is no clear tendency of

whether a damage occurs or not. Therefore, it is assumed in principle that the damage

will occur.

Co-production principle:

A production process is to be understood as co-production

in any case.

3.1.3. Generic Procedural Approach

The generic approach combines elements of traditional operational cost accounting,

calculatory value-added accounting, process and material flow analysis, as well as life-cycle

assessment, and complements these at selected points. As a measure of sustainable value

creation, the eco

value-added (e

VA) is introduced, which is calculated from the difference

between the production value (PV) and the value consumption (VC), i.e.:

e2VA =PV −VC

In the sense of the extended system understanding, two subsystems are distinguished. The

internal system (I) characterizes the company as such. It is sufficiently described by its own

system boundaries. The external system (E), on the other hand, is the embodiment of the

previously introduced impact system, the system boundaries that differ according to the

considered impact category. The distinction between the two systems requires a separate

calculation and comparison of PV and VC, i.e.:

e2VA =hPVI+PVEi−hVCI+VCEi

In order to comply with the previously formulated sustainability principle, the system

aims at a completely impact-independent production. In the following, this objective is

referred to as the externality condition, i.e., the target of external value-added (EVA) is

≥

i.e.,:

EVA =PVE−VCE≥

0. If the externality condition is not fulfilled, a socially perceived

reduction in natural value occurs.

Regarding its application to any object of investigation, the question arises as to which

information of the internal and external system is relevant and how they correlate. Since

the approach can be applied in a variety of cases, the object and system under investigation

must first be specified. As a result of the wide range of methods for implementing the

conceptual principles described below, a selection must then be made depending on the

internal and external system that is described in detail. Likewise, the composition of the

PVI

in relation to the object of investigation can differ considerably. The target system of

the study is to be designed congruently. Thereupon, the environmental problems perceived

by society and preferred environmental constitutions must be quantified. For this purpose,

an according socio-economic analysis has to be carried out. The aim is to calculate so-

cially effective procurement prices in line with the German Federal Environmental Agency

(UBA) [

]. In order to be able to allocate these prices to consumption according to their

cause, the quantity structure of the object of investigation is of essential importance. After

this, the basic considerations outlined above can be made in the form of an extended opera-

tional value-added calculation and interpreted with regard to their legitimacy, optimization

potential, etc. Figure 2summarizes the generic procedure in nine steps.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

Definition of object of

investigation Specification of

target system

Quantity

calculation

Specification of

investigation system

Value added

calculation Impact

calculation

Selection of

methods

Socio-economic

analysis

Evaluation of

results

Figure 2. Generic procedure to quantify the e2VA.

The first step is to determine the object of investigation. It serves as a basis for the

assessment of the value-added. The procedure proposed serves various purposes at dif-

ferent points in time in the sequence of the operational service creation process at different

object levels. The latter comprises the system (company) and its subsystems (business

area, product, process). The points in time in the sequence of the operational service pro-

vision process depend on the choice of object. While a product stands on its own (here,

only the life-cycle is relevant), the choice of the points in time in all other cases requires a

different balancing limit of the external system. In the case of the production process, the

product development, production and end-of-life phases are the main areas of considera-

tion. In the case of the company, these are either the entire life phase (foundation-to-liqui-

dation) or a certain phase of existence (e.g., operating year, quarter). The purpose can be

a comparison of alternatives, e.g., between products, technologies or companies, the iden-

tification of essential levers of optimization, speculation on a future development or the

legitimization of an operational action from the perspective of sustainable value creation.

Second, the internal and external system must be specified. Their particular charac-

teristics dictate the use of the methods of quantity, impact and value-added calculation.

The internal system describes the production methods, principles and concepts used.

Types of production are single-part, repetitive, variant, series or mass production. The

production principles include construction site production, workshop principle, produc-

tion cells, flexible systems and flow principle [40]. Last, but not least, the manufacturing

concepts consider the decoupling of production with regard to customer requirements. A

distinction is made between make-to-stock, assemble-to-order, make-to-order and engi-

neer-to-order. After describing the internal system, its interaction with the external system

must be characterized. Therefore, a separation of foreground and background system is

advised. The latter can again be divided into upstream and downstream systems [87]. The

decisive factor for the choice of system boundaries of foreground and background systems

of individual production factors is the competence principle.

Methods for calculating internal and external value-added are selected by a range of

approaches that exist in the majority of cases. While the calculation of PV𝕀 and VC𝕀 of an

enterprise can follow the pattern described above, the investigation of a subsystem of the

organization (product, process) requires a proper allocation of PV𝕀 and VC𝕀. For this pur-

pose, the present work recalls on traditional cost accounting. The essential structures are

already established in many companies. The distribution of production value and value

consumption types to a product or process is carried out according to the specifications of

the internal system using divisional, overhead or joint costing. As a method for determin-

ing PV𝔼 and VC𝔼, a life-cycle assessment is to be applied [52].

The target system in the context of sustainable value creation is fully described by

the respective purpose with regard to the internal and external system. The target system

of the internal system varies depending on the object of investigation. In comparison to

the consideration of the entire enterprise system, in which the revenue for co-products

and recyclable waste is usually known through accounting, the subsystem must be ori-

ented to the co-production principle formulated at the beginning. Thus, it must first be

examined whether co-products and recyclable waste are generated. If this is the case, they

are to be valuated at market prices and integrated into the cost estimate. In the case of the

external system, the derivation of 𝑃𝑉𝔼 represents a high hurdle. In essence, it is necessary

Figure 2. Generic procedure to quantify the e2VA.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 8 of 20

The first step is to determine the object of investigation. It serves as a basis for the

assessment of the value-added. The procedure proposed serves various purposes at differ-

ent points in time in the sequence of the operational service creation process at different

object levels. The latter comprises the system (company) and its subsystems (business

area, product, process). The points in time in the sequence of the operational service

provision process depend on the choice of object. While a product stands on its own

(here, only the life-cycle is relevant), the choice of the points in time in all other cases

requires a different balancing limit of the external system. In the case of the production

process, the product development, production and end-of-life phases are the main ar-

eas of consideration. In the case of the company, these are either the entire life phase

(foundation-to-liquidation) or a certain phase of existence (e.g., operating year, quarter).

The purpose can be a comparison of alternatives, e.g., between products, technologies or

companies, the identification of essential levers of optimization, speculation on a future de-

velopment or the legitimization of an operational action from the perspective of sustainable

value creation.

Second, the internal and external system must be specified. Their particular character-

istics dictate the use of the methods of quantity, impact and value-added calculation. The

internal system describes the production methods, principles and concepts used. Types

of production are single-part, repetitive, variant, series or mass production. The produc-

tion principles include construction site production, workshop principle, production cells,

flexible systems and flow principle [

]. Last, but not least, the manufacturing concepts

consider the decoupling of production with regard to customer requirements. A distinction

is made between make-to-stock, assemble-to-order, make-to-order and engineer-to-order.

After describing the internal system, its interaction with the external system must be char-

acterized. Therefore, a separation of foreground and background system is advised. The

latter can again be divided into upstream and downstream systems [

]. The decisive factor

for the choice of system boundaries of foreground and background systems of individual

production factors is the competence principle.

Methods for calculating internal and external value-added are selected by a range

of approaches that exist in the majority of cases. While the calculation of

PVI

and

VCI

an enterprise can follow the pattern described above, the investigation of a subsystem of

the organization (product, process) requires a proper allocation of

PVI

and

VCI

. For this

purpose, the present work recalls on traditional cost accounting. The essential structures

are already established in many companies. The distribution of production value and value

consumption types to a product or process is carried out according to the specifications of

the internal system using divisional, overhead or joint costing. As a method for determining

PVEand VCE, a life-cycle assessment is to be applied [52].

The target system in the context of sustainable value creation is fully described by the

respective purpose with regard to the internal and external system. The target system of

the internal system varies depending on the object of investigation. In comparison to the

consideration of the entire enterprise system, in which the revenue for co-products and

recyclable waste is usually known through accounting, the subsystem must be oriented to

the co-production principle formulated at the beginning. Thus, it must first be examined

whether co-products and recyclable waste are generated. If this is the case, they are to be

valuated at market prices and integrated into the cost estimate. In the case of the external

system, the derivation of

PVE

represents a high hurdle. In essence, it is necessary to an-

swer the question of what benefits a production-related action can provide with regard to

specific environmental problem areas. Two options can be derived from the principle of

sustainability: (1) A production does not contribute in any way to all known environmental

problems—which is not very likely at present—or (2) the company contributes actively

to solving the environmental problems it has caused. The latter can happen in two dif-

ferent ways. On the one hand, the use of certain internal input and/or output variables

can contribute to the realization of one or more socially preferred environmental states,

e.g., Zhu et al. demonstrate certain positive effects of individual greenhouse gases on the

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 9 of 20

growth of certain plants, which, in turn, contribute to the solution of the environmental

problem of climate change [

]. If such a benefit from a contribution is known, adequate

credits, depending on the interactions, are to be considered in the accounting system de-

scribed below. Although this possibility exists theoretically, its practical implementation is

difficult to realize due to the current lack of knowledge of the interrelations and the corre-

sponding data situation. On the other hand, an organization can pay the “environmental

debt” by investing specifically in the external solution (e.g., climate fund, compensation

agencies). Of course, this alternative, which is currently far more realistic, would have to

be geared to the level of the claim caused by each environmental problem area (including

climate change and acidification).

The socio-economic analysis provides a monetary representation of the external system

in terms of the environmental problems perceived by society and its preferred target states,

the damage incurred and the respective opportunity in the form of external procurement

prices (

). Target states can be the pre-industrial level, the ecological limits of the earth

and socially accepted target states in the form of laws, regulations, contracts or standards.

Depending on the reference, the calculation of the

pEct

of a desired target state of an

environmental problem area (c) in any period (t) differs. The total external value-added

(

EVAct

) is then set either in relation to the quantity of a reference indicator (

QEct

) or the

corresponding target value of the period (EEct) used in the same period, i.e.,:

pEc=EVAEct

QEct or pEc=EVAEct

EEct

The reference indicators are primarily the total quantities of an equivalence factor of a

certain effect category within a certain period. In our supporting materials, we provide a

detailed application example of the socio-economic analysis based on 12 distinct market

models to calculate

for the impact categories climate change (GWP), stratospheric ozone

depletion (ODP), air pollution (APP), eutrophication (EP) and acidification (AP). Here,

the external procurement prices are estimated for the reference year 2014 and projected

until 2050 with regard to key reference indicators such as population growth and GDP. The

authors do not claim a universal validity of the prices, but rather deepen the calculatory

approach presented here in a detailed example. Table 1summarizes the results.

Table 1.

Summary of

pEct

between 2014 und 2050 (for details of calculation, please see Supplemen-

tary Materials).

Unit 2014 2020 2030 2040 2050

pEGWP (nominal) [€/kg CO2e] 0.048 0.055 0.071 0.092 0.120

pEGWP (real) [€/kg CO2e] 0.048 0.043 0.036 0.032 0.028

pEODP (nominal) [€/kg R11e] 559.191 667.585 1003.761 1870.942 3577.393

pEODP (real) [€/kg R11e] 559.191 590.441 675.936 800.592 934.180

pEAPP (nominal) [€/kg PM2.5e] 118.788 163.948 286.731 478.473 791.136

pEAPP (real) [€/kg PM2.5e] 118.788 137.948 194.003 274.559 404.452

pEEP (nominal)

[

€

/kg PO

43−

8.700 12.204 21.279 36.775 63.099

pEEP (real)

[

€

/kg PO

43−

8.700 11.073 16.415 24.117 35.175

pEAP (nominal) [€/kg SO2e] 2.938 4.352 8.391 16.213 31.396

pEAP (real) [€/kg SO2e] 2.938 3.586 5.936 9.828 16.276

Subsequently, the quantity analysis of the internal system takes place in the form of

an input–output analysis according to Leontief [

]. The quantity concept is based on an

extended understanding. It describes a grouping of distinguishable objects to form a whole.

Thus, it is not only necessary to include physical quantities of substances and materials

remaining in the product and its by-products, but also factors such as place and time of

consumption, chemical composition of the substances and materials, the person performing

the work, frequency of use (especially means of production), etc. The quantity calculation

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 10 of 20

regarding a specific output volume (functional unit) results in a

e×a

entity–activity-matrix

of period t (

EAt

), which is the product of the entity activity vector of period t (

eat

) and the

transposed entity vector (eT):

EAt=ea ∗eT=





o11 · · · rI

o1b

.....

oe1 · · · rI

oeb







Based on the input and output quantities initially determined for the internal system,

the external impact quantities (

) are derived. For each socially perceived environmental

problem (c), a classification and characterization must first be carried out in the sense of

traditional life-cycle assessment. The input–output analysis carried out previously can be

regarded in this context as a life-cycle inventory. In this sense, the

results as a function

of the internal input (

) and output variables (

). The impact potential in relation to

a socially perceived environmental problem and/or a socially desirable target state is

represented by the binary problem impact coefficient (z). The contribution of the internal

input and output variables to an environmental problem c is recorded using the problem

constant k, which is essentially the equivalent of the characterization factor of an LCA

study. The impact quantity iE

pcrelated to a socially perceived environmental problem c is:

pc=frI

p; xI

p=∑D

d=1kdc ∗rI

pdc

zdc

+∑F

f=1kfc ∗xI

pfc

zfc with c =1, . . .,C;d =1, . . . ,D; f =1, . . . ,F

The e2VA can now be calculated as follows:

e2VA =PV −VC =hPVI+PVEi−hVCI+VCEi

∑

i=1xI

pi∗sI

pi+

∑

c=1iE

pc∗sEc−

∑

h=1rIh∗pIh−

∑

i=1xIi∗pIi−

∑

c=1iE

pc∗pEc

Based on the calculation, various indicators can be calculated for the evaluation and

interpretation of the results. Similar to the ROI, for example, the sustainability coefficient

is derived from the comparison of the external and internal value added. An assumed

coefficient of

−

0.05 means that, in order to fulfil the externality condition, an amount

of 5 cents per

€

of internal value-added should be paid in a targeted manner (i.e., for

compensation) in line with the planning function. While the sustainability coefficient

measures the extent to which a company actively contributes to the realization of an

ecologically sustainable economy, the loss coefficient, caluclated as the ratio between

external value consumption and the internal procurement price, illustrates the relative,

non-priced contribution of any input quantity to the reduction in natural value. Further

evaluations with regard to the dynamics, value-added deficit and resource efficiency of an

e2VA election problem cannot be further elaborated at this point.

3.2. Case Studies

The method was applied in a small company in the special toolmaking sector in

Germany. In the first case, the method was used to investigate the sustainable value-added

of the entire company. The second case compares two production processes of the same

demonstrator via different technologies (ablative and generative methods).

3.2.1. Case Study 1: Company

The company (system boundary) that was investigated has 25 employees. The com-

pany’s sales catalogue comprises around 11,000 products. The highly versatile production

follows the workshop principle in batch sizes between 1 and 400. Accordingly, the pro-

duction type consists of single-item and repetitive manufacturing. The manufacturing

principles are primarily make- and engineer-to-order. The purpose of the calculation (tar-

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 11 of 20

get) was the verification of legitimacy of operational performance within a single operating

year (observation period).

In the examined financial year, the company generated sales of

€

1,792,926. Taking

into account the total costs of

€

1,508,497; this resulted in a profit (before taxes) of

€

284,429.

The market value of the equipment produced in-house was an estimated

€

25,130, and that

of the changes in inventories

€

16,780. Interest on borrowings was estimated at

€

1079. The

internal value-added (IVA) of the production of goods and services in the period under

review thus amounted to €327,418.

The physical quantity calculation at the company level was divided into two sections.

While a comparatively trivial input–output balance was sufficient for the consumption of

raw materials, consumables, supplies and waste, quantity depreciations over their entire

life-cycle had to be formed for buildings and operating materials. For this purpose, the

quantitative depreciation of an operating asset or building was calculated from the quotient

of input quantity and useful life. Since standard datasets for each machine were used to

estimate the impact, no separate collection of the used materials and components was

necessary. The useful life was based on standard depreciation. The building space (841 m

)

was integrated with a planned useful life of 60 years. The annual quantitative depreciation

of the area was, therefore, 2.25 m

p.a. Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials summa-

rizes the main consumptions of the I–O analysis of the internal system for the fiscal year

under review.

To estimate the environmental impact, suitable and/or related datasets of the ProBas

database were used with a suitable system boundary based on the CML method accord-

ing to Heijung [

]. The operational performance in the reference year resulted in the

following use of the external system: 225.6 t GWP, 765.5 kg AP, 12.6 kg ODP, 116.7 kg EP.

The quantity categories (raw materials, auxiliary and operating materials, waste, operating

resources) showed a divergent composition for each impact category. While GWP and

AP emissions clearly resulted from the consumption of auxiliary and operating materials,

the main sources of ODP and EP emissions were production waste. Operating resources

also made a significant contribution to GWP emissions. In contrast, the firm’s consump-

tion of raw materials resulted in comparatively low physical use of the external system

in the environmental problem areas of GWP and AP. By far the largest single polluters

were electricity (GWP: 46.0%; AP: 60.1%; ODP: 36.5%; EP: 18.8%), production facilities

(GWP: 15.8%; AP: 0.0%; ODP: 0.0%; EP: 0.0%), vehicles (GWP: 13.6%; AP: 9.8%; ODP:

0.0%; EP: 0.0%), mixed scrap (GWP: 6.0%; AP: 5.5%; ODP: 0.0%; EP: 0.0%), cooling lubri-

cant waste (GWP: 4.7%; AP: 11.5%; ODP: 59.0%; EP: 75.5%) and aluminum (GWP: 4.5%;

AP: 4.2%; ODP: 0.0%; EP: 0.0%). While the internal value-added amounted to

€

327,418,

the eco

value-added amounted to

€

306,291. Since the organization did not positively con-

tribute to the external system in the sense of e

VA calculation, a reduction in natural value

was determined amounting to

€

21,127. The externality condition is, therefore, not fulfilled.

Accordingly, the value-added is not sustainable. Figure 3illustrates the composition of

external system utilization by volume category. The sustainability deficit amounted to 0.07.

In order to ensure sustainable value creation, 7 cents per €economic value-generated will

have to be deducted as a benefit contribution in future. The most significant individual

causes of the reduction in natural value are electricity (

€

9209.66), production facilities

(

€

1707.33), vehicles (

€

1689.15), plastic, iron and mixed scrap (

€

1393.64) and waste-cooling

lubricants (

€

238.08). The loss coefficient illustrates the relative, non-priced contribution of

the individual categories to the reduction in natural value (electricity:

€

0.22; production

facilities:

€

0.09; vehicles:

€

0.29; plastic, iron and mixed scrap:

€

1.21; cooling lubricant

waste: €0.16).

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 12 of 20

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

Figure 3. Evaluation of case study 1 (company).

3.2.2. Case Study 2: Process Comparison

The current machinery of the company includes the separating production processes

turning, milling, sawing and drilling, the joining processes welding, soldering and bond-

ing as well as the forming process eroding. In the course of its long-term strategic orien-

tation, the company aims to acquire further manufacturing technologies (especially gen-

erative processes). For this purpose, a process comparison is needed. An assembly roller

will be chosen as a reference product. This rolls the sealing rubber into the fixed cutout of

the rear and driver’s door during vehicle production. A reference scenario is to be inves-

tigated, in which the product is developed according to customer requirements and or-

dered with a batch size of 30 pieces (engineer-to-order). The current process, covering

drilling, milling and turning, is to be compared with a fictitious additive process (here:

fused deposition modeling). Therefore, the entire order process has to be mapped. As in

the example above, all information used for the calculation is either taken from the docu-

mentation of the company or are publicly available data from third parties.

The boundaries of the production system depend on the specification of production

types, production organization and principles as shown in the example above. In this

sense, an overhead-based approach is chosen for the allocation of costs to the object under

investigation. The primary goal of the production process considered here is the satisfac-

tion of the customer’s needs. The company calls for a price of 92.45 € per piece. For an

order of 30 pieces, the primary output of the process amounts to 2773.50 €. Since only

polyoxymethylen (POM) is used for the production of the component, the waste is only

subject to costs. Therefore, a secondary output of the process does not exist. The sequence

of the order process of both production variants (ablative and additive) is the same. How-

ever, the decisive difference between the two alternatives becomes clear when looking at

the manufacturing process. Both the sequence and the quantity parameters differ. The

procedure described above results in quantity structures for the two process alternatives

documented in Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials.

The procedure of conversion using the ProBas data records was also used for the

production alternatives examined here [91]. Table 2 summarizes the quantity-based usage

of the external system for the two production types. While all parameters of the adminis-

trative process remained unchanged, the measures of the production process differed con-

siderably. In terms of the effect on the external system, the ablative production was the

more advantageous alternative. However, this is solely due to the comparatively long

Figure 3. Evaluation of case study 1 (company).

3.2.2. Case Study 2: Process Comparison

The current machinery of the company includes the separating production processes

turning, milling, sawing and drilling, the joining processes welding, soldering and bonding

as well as the forming process eroding. In the course of its long-term strategic orientation,

the company aims to acquire further manufacturing technologies (especially generative

processes). For this purpose, a process comparison is needed. An assembly roller will be

chosen as a reference product. This rolls the sealing rubber into the fixed cutout of the rear

and driver’s door during vehicle production. A reference scenario is to be investigated, in

which the product is developed according to customer requirements and ordered with a

batch size of 30 pieces (engineer-to-order). The current process, covering drilling, milling

and turning, is to be compared with a fictitious additive process (here: fused deposition

modeling). Therefore, the entire order process has to be mapped. As in the example above,

all information used for the calculation is either taken from the documentation of the

company or are publicly available data from third parties.

The boundaries of the production system depend on the specification of production

types, production organization and principles as shown in the example above. In this

sense, an overhead-based approach is chosen for the allocation of costs to the object

under investigation. The primary goal of the production process considered here is the

satisfaction of the customer’s needs. The company calls for a price of 92.45

€

per piece.

For an order of 30 pieces, the primary output of the process amounts to 2773.50

€

. Since

only polyoxymethylen (POM) is used for the production of the component, the waste is

only subject to costs. Therefore, a secondary output of the process does not exist. The

sequence of the order process of both production variants (ablative and additive) is the

same. However, the decisive difference between the two alternatives becomes clear when

looking at the manufacturing process. Both the sequence and the quantity parameters

differ. The procedure described above results in quantity structures for the two process

alternatives documented in Table S2 in the Supplementary Materials.

The procedure of conversion using the ProBas data records was also used for the

production alternatives examined here [

]. Table 2summarizes the quantity-based usage

of the external system for the two production types. While all parameters of the admin-

istrative process remained unchanged, the measures of the production process differed

considerably. In terms of the effect on the external system, the ablative production was

the more advantageous alternative. However, this is solely due to the comparatively long

processing time for the printing and post-treatment, which resulted in a much higher

electricity requirement.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 13 of 20

Table 2. External process quantities per production type per piece (in kg).

Ablative Additive

Type GWP AP ODP EP GWP AP ODP EP

Total 17.1 0.00838

0.000122

0.00112 22.7 0.0798

0.000476

0.00239

According to the company, the production value of the order consists of the sum of the

turnover (

€

92.45 per unit;

€

2773.50), the change in stock at market prices (10 units;

€

924.50)

and the pro rata offsetting of self-constructed assets (

€

25,130) and interest on borrowings

(

€

1079). The direct production value (here the lot size valued at market prices) amounts

€

3698. Following traditional cost accounting, the identification of all production value

and value-consumption types of the company and the distribution to quantity units and

process was carried out by means of a cost allocation sheet. Table 3summarizes the value

consumption of the different production types per order.

Table 3. Value consumption of the internal system per order depending on the production type.

Ablative Additive

Direct material costs 132.00 €70.98 €

Material overheads 320.36 €172.27 €

Wages, salaries, social costs, boni 1173.50 €1647.02 €

Production overheads 455.32 €639.04 €

Administrative and selling overheads 116.18 €163.06 €

Special direct manufacturing costs 12.40 €0.00 €

Total 2209.76 €2692.37 €

For the ablative production of the examined order, the IWS amounts to 1488.24

€

. In

the case of additive manufacturing, this amounts to 1005.63

€

. Since no benefit contribution

to the external system in terms of the e

VA can be invoiced here, there is only a reduction

in natural value. In the case of ablative manufacturing, this amounts to 36.96

€

for the

entire order, and 64.53

€

if additive manufacturing is used. Correspondingly, the e

VA of

the traditional production amounts to 1451.28

€

. In contrast, generative manufacturing has

an e

VA of 941.1

€

. Figure 4illustrates the comparison of the two manufacturing methods.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

processing time for the printing and post-treatment, which resulted in a much higher elec-

tricity requirement.

Table 2. External process quantities per production type per piece (in kg).

Ablative

Additive

Type

GWP

ODP

GWP

ODP

Total

17.1

0.00838

0.000122

0.00112

22.7

0.0798

0.000476

0.00239

According to the company, the production value of the order consists of the sum of

the turnover (€ 92.45 per unit; € 2773.50), the change in stock at market prices (10 units; €

924.50) and the pro rata offsetting of self-constructed assets (€ 25,130) and interest on bor-

rowings (€ 1079). The direct production value (here the lot size valued at market prices)

amounts to € 3698. Following traditional cost accounting, the identification of all produc-

tion value and value-consumption types of the company and the distribution to quantity

units and process was carried out by means of a cost allocation sheet. Table 3 summarizes

the value consumption of the different production types per order.

Table 3. Value consumption of the internal system per order depending on the production type.

Ablative

Additive

Direct material costs

132.00 €

70.98 €

Material overheads

320.36 €

172.27 €

Wages, salaries, social costs, boni

1173.50 €

1647.02 €

Production overheads

455.32 €

639.04 €

Administrative and selling overheads

116.18 €

163.06 €

Special direct manufacturing costs

12.40 €

0.00 €

Total

2209.76 €

2692.37 €

For the ablative production of the examined order, the IWS amounts to 1488.24 €. In

the case of additive manufacturing, this amounts to 1005.63 €. Since no benefit contribu-

tion to the external system in terms of the e2VA can be invoiced here, there is only a re-

duction in natural value. In the case of ablative manufacturing, this amounts to 36.96 € for

the entire order, and 64.53 € if additive manufacturing is used. Correspondingly, the e2VA

of the traditional production amounts to 1451.28 €. In contrast, generative manufacturing

has an e2VA of 941.1 €. Figure 4 illustrates the comparison of the two manufacturing meth-

ods.

Figure 4. e2VA comparison of order process via ablative and additive manufacturing.

The value-added deficit in contract manufacturing using the additive process amounts

€

510.18. Since the externality condition is not met in both cases, the processes are

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 14 of 20

classified as unsustainable. The capital transfer of both process alternatives is not legit-

imized in terms of sustainability, although the ablative manufacturing has clear advantages

with regard to the use of the external system. The sustainability deficit of the erosive

production amounts to about 0.02. To ensure sustainable value creation, 2 cents per

€

economic value generated would have to be paid as a benefit contribution in the sense of

the e

VA calculation. In the case of additive production, there is a sustainability deficit of

around 0.06. The generative example process analyzed here is also inferior with regard

to the reduction in natural value. In the case of a court settlement, the consideration of

these dynamics is of essential importance for the preparation of the decision. In this case,

this was calculated for the lot size interval [1; 400], assuming a graduated price depend-

ing on the sales quantity. It becomes clear that the generative manufacturing process for

small lot sizes (LS

≤

17) has advantages in terms of e

VA calculation compared to the

ablative manufacturing. With increasing output quantity (LS > 17), however, this is to be

preferred. With regard to the reduction in natural value, the ablative process is superior at

all times, although the average reduction is significantly higher with increasing quantities

in the case of generative manufacturing. This is due to the small number of auxiliary

materials and supplies used (excluding electricity) and production waste. Figure 5illus-

trates the dynamics of e

VA and natural degradation as a function of production type and

batch size.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

The value-added deficit in contract manufacturing using the additive process

amounts to € 510.18. Since the externality condition is not met in both cases, the processes

are classified as unsustainable. The capital transfer of both process alternatives is not le-

gitimized in terms of sustainability, although the ablative manufacturing has clear ad-

vantages with regard to the use of the external system. The sustainability deficit of the

erosive production amounts to about 0.02. To ensure sustainable value creation, 2 cents

per € economic value generated would have to be paid as a benefit contribution in the

sense of the e2VA calculation. In the case of additive production, there is a sustainability

deficit of around 0.06. The generative example process analyzed here is also inferior with

regard to the reduction in natural value. In the case of a court settlement, the consideration

of these dynamics is of essential importance for the preparation of the decision. In this

case, this was calculated for the lot size interval [1; 400], assuming a graduated price de-

pending on the sales quantity. It becomes clear that the generative manufacturing process

for small lot sizes (LS ≤ 17) has advantages in terms of e2VA calculation compared to the

ablative manufacturing. With increasing output quantity (LS > 17), however, this is to be

preferred. With regard to the reduction in natural value, the ablative process is superior

at all times, although the average reduction is significantly higher with increasing quan-

tities in the case of generative manufacturing. This is due to the small number of auxiliary

materials and supplies used (excluding electricity) and production waste. Figure 5 illus-

trates the dynamics of e2VA and natural degradation as a function of production type and

batch size.

Figure 5. Dynamics of e2VA and external value reduction as a function of production type and batch

size.

Both application examples do not fulfil the externality condition and must therefore

both be classified as illegitimate actions in the context of sustainability. Apart from very

small batch sizes, the ablative production is to be preferred from both perspectives eco-

nomic and environmental. The examples also make it clear that a selective evaluation of

individual technologies with regard to their environmental impact is not reasonable, since

the use of a completely new technology is generally not possible independent of existing

structures. Frequently, when embedding in an existing production system, as shown here

in the example of generative manufacturing, a combination with existing technologies is

necessary. Although the FDM process that was chosen here is hardly suitable for indus-

trial application due to the processability of the basic material POM, the comparison nev-

ertheless highlights a significant deficit in the additive manufacturing processes that are

available today: the duration of processing.

Figure 5.

Dynamics of e

VA and external value reduction as a function of production type and

batch size.

Both application examples do not fulfil the externality condition and must therefore

both be classified as illegitimate actions in the context of sustainability. Apart from very

small batch sizes, the ablative production is to be preferred from both perspectives economic

and environmental. The examples also make it clear that a selective evaluation of individual

technologies with regard to their environmental impact is not reasonable, since the use of a

completely new technology is generally not possible independent of existing structures.

Frequently, when embedding in an existing production system, as shown here in the

example of generative manufacturing, a combination with existing technologies is necessary.

Although the FDM process that was chosen here is hardly suitable for industrial application

due to the processability of the basic material POM, the comparison nevertheless highlights

a significant deficit in the additive manufacturing processes that are available today: the

duration of processing.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 15 of 20

4. Conclusions

The term sustainable value creation is currently a common dictum in science and

practice. Although the sustainability baseline concept has been around for over 40 years,

its operationalization to business value-added calculation is rare. While integration of

sustainability into business management is now common practice in companies, its results

rarely lead to decisions that are appropriate in the sense of a regulative economy. In this

paper, we thus raised the question of what exactly the ‘value-added of production’ from

an economic and ecological perspective is. We analyzed to what extent current theories

and concepts of (business) economics reflect the question of an integrated under-standing

of value and how an integrated value-added accounting system should be designed. We

introduced a novel accounting system that combines elements of traditional operational

value-added accounting, process and material flow analysis as well as LCA. The method

is based on an extended system thinking, a set of principles, a calculation system, and

external cost factors for the impact categories climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion,

air pollution, eutrophication and acidification. The approach is validated in two application

examples in the German special tools industry, proving its practicability and reproducibility

as well as the suitability of specifically derived indicators for the selective optimization of

production systems.

The concept allows for the quantification of an objectified value-added of production

systems with regard to socially perceived environmental problems. However, its advan-

tages over previous approaches are counterbalanced by isolated potentials that can be

exploited in the future through further research and development. These are essentially

rooted in the objectives of the chosen terminology, the validity of the assumptions made

and the loss or deficit of information. First of all, the aim of the approach, i.e., to determine

an objective value-added, is inherently problematic. Since the perception of value as such

is always based on an individual human judgement, the subjectivity of value creation

can never be completely excluded. From an anthropocentric perspective, the objectifica-

tion of the concept of value can only take place via iterative approximation towards a

balance, society strives for. A further goal of the present approach is to completely avoid

perceived environmental problems and to realize the associated effective self-sufficient

action. Last but not least, the loss of information and information deficits when expanding

the balance sheet framework lead to increased uncertainty. One reason for this is the mone-

tization of external effects, regardless of the chosen procedure. A complete quantification

of all external effects of an action is not possible, due to the loss of information in the

external system.

Although its quantification is associated with considerable uncertainties, it is urgently

required for operational decision-making. In the future, the approach can be applied in

manufacturing companies in a self-determined way, with the main purpose of resolving the

economic–ecological conflict of objectives by broadening the perspective and anticipating

future risks with regard to environmental regulatory developments. For an independent

use, however, most/many producing companies currently lack transparency about the

physical consumption and upstream supply chains. To achieve this, companies and po-

litical institutions will need to increase their efforts to digitize processes, facilities and

overcome the current barriers of supply chain communication. Equally conceivable is the

use of the procedure as a basis for environmental regulatory measures, e.g., eco-tax or

eco-labels. Applying the method in this way would have several political implications. For

example, it would be necessary to designate a legitimized entity to determine the external

procurement prices in order to ensure comparability along the value chain. Simultaneously,

companies would have to be obliged to report the indicator ‘sustainable value-added’ in

their annual financial statements, which, in turn, could have implications for the granting

of loans. Banks’ lending conditions, could be based not only on economic performance,

but also on environmental performance. The most promising use, however, would be for

the calculation of necessary holistic compensation services or simply for the evaluation

of offers for such services by compensation service providers. However, suc deploy-

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 16 of 20

ment requires regulatory mandates or a shift in customer needs toward more sustainable,

transparent products.

In any case, the concept would benefit from a number of adaptations that could not be

carried out in the present work. First, the socio-economic analysis to be carried out by a

company under its own responsibility increases the subjectivity of the indicator. A further

objectification can be achieved solely by the designation of a socially accepted authority,

into whose responsibility the constant follow-up and classification of the perceived envi-

ronmental problem fields, the standardized calculation of the procurement prices, and a

standardization of the procedure and regular audits fall. Social diffusion, documented by

the media presence of an environmental problem, can be used as an indicator of constant

tracking and updating. In this context, research and development work should be inten-

sified in the future. Further insight is needed for the construction of the impact chains

of perceived environmental problems, the leveling of the overlap of external effects of

different categories, the extension of the modeling to further environmental problem fields

and the integration into real-time capable information and communication technologies.

In addition, extending supply-chain communication via IT support is needed. Improv-

ing the data basis of the background system is essential, especially for ecology-oriented

decision-making in companies (e.g., make-or-buy, supplier selection). On the basis of the

rapid technological development in the field of information and communication technology

regarding the measurement and control instruments, a significant improvement in the data

availability regarding external effects is to be expected in the future. A real-time evaluation

of the subsequent value creation would also be conceivable in this context. Nevertheless,

concepts that exists at present are at least partially effective here (including SAP Product

Stewardship Network, HP CDX, GaBi, Umberto NXT LCA). However, the need to provide

data, some of which are critical to success (e.g., chemical composition), to third parties often

proves problematic. Communication based on a purely pecuniary indicator would greatly

simplify the transfer of information. Figure 6illustrates a rather simple communication

concept based on the eco2value-added calculation.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

However, suc deployment requires regulatory mandates or a shift in customer needs to-

ward more sustainable, transparent products.

In any case, the concept would benefit from a number of adaptations that could not

be carried out in the present work. First, the socio-economic analysis to be carried out by

a company under its own responsibility increases the subjectivity of the indicator. A fur-

ther objectification can be achieved solely by the designation of a socially accepted author-

ity, into whose responsibility the constant follow-up and classification of the perceived

environmental problem fields, the standardized calculation of the procurement prices,

and a standardization of the procedure and regular audits fall. Social diffusion, docu-

mented by the media presence of an environmental problem, can be used as an indicator

of constant tracking and updating. In this context, research and development work should

be intensified in the future. Further insight is needed for the construction of the impact

chains of perceived environmental problems, the leveling of the overlap of external effects

of different categories, the extension of the modeling to further environmental problem

fields and the integration into real-time capable information and communication technol-

ogies.

In addition, extending supply-chain communication via IT support is needed. Im-

proving the data basis of the background system is essential, especially for ecology-ori-

ented decision-making in companies (e.g., make-or-buy, supplier selection). On the basis

of the rapid technological development in the field of information and communication

technology regarding the measurement and control instruments, a significant improve-

ment in the data availability regarding external effects is to be expected in the future. A

real-time evaluation of the subsequent value creation would also be conceivable in this

context. Nevertheless, concepts that exists at present are at least partially effective here

(including SAP Product Stewardship Network, HP CDX, GaBi, Umberto NXT LCA).

However, the need to provide data, some of which are critical to success (e.g., chemical

composition), to third parties often proves problematic. Communication based on a

purely pecuniary indicator would greatly simplify the transfer of information. Figure 6

illustrates a rather simple communication concept based on the eco2 value-added calcula-

tion.

Figure 6.

Normative-informative implementation of the eco

value-added calculation within the

supply chain.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 17 of 20

Supplementary Materials:

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://

www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142013603/s1. Premises of an integrated value added accounting;

input-output balances of case studies; approach, reference indicators and basic assumptions of

pEcalculation.

Author Contributions:

Conceptualization, R.M.; Formal analysis, R.M.; Investigation, R.M.; Method-

ology, R.M.; Supervision, M.F., A.S. and T.B.; Validation, R.M.; Visualization, R.M.; Writing—original

draft, R.M.; Writing—review & editing, M.F., A.S. and T.B. All authors have read and agreed to the

published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement:

The data presented in this study are available on request from the

corresponding author. All necessary information can be found in supporting materials.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environ-

ment and Development. United Nations. Available online: www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on

25 August 2022).

Ayres, R.; Van den Berrgh, J.; Gowdy, J. Strong versus weak sustainability: Economics, natural sciences, and consilience. Environ.

Ethics 2001,23, 155–168. [CrossRef]

Daly, H.E. Sustainable Development: From Concept and Theory to Operational Principles. Popul. Dev. Rev.

1990

,16, 25–43.

[CrossRef]

4. Dedeurwaerdere, T. Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; p. 174.

Bonnedahl, K.J.; Heikkurinen, P. The case for strong sustainability. In Strongly Sustainable Societies; Routledge: London, UK, 2018;

pp. 1–20.

Landrum, N.E. Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability worldview. Organ. Environ.

2018

,31,

287–313. [CrossRef]

Olausson, H. A Tool for Calculating CO

Emissions in the Manufacturing Industry: Use of GHG Protocol. 2020. Available online:

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1446855&dswid=-431 (accessed on 25 August 2022).

Bansal, S.; Garg, I.; Sharma, G.D. Social entrepreneurship as a path for social change and driver of sustainable development:

A systematic review and research agenda. Sustainability 2019,11, 1091. [CrossRef]

Schaltegger, S.; Gibassier, D.; Zvezdov, D. Is environmental management accounting a discipline? A bibliometric literature review.

Meditari Account. Res. 2013,21, 4–31. [CrossRef]

10.

Thomson, I. Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting. In Sustainability Accounting and Accountability; Routledge: London,

UK, 2010; pp. 38–55.

11.

McGrath, D.; Mathews, M. Moving to sustainability: An application of a matrix model to gain insight into the research literature.

Account. Account. Perform. 2008,14, 57–81.

12. Gunarathne, N.; Lee, K.H. Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) for environmental management and organizational

change: An eco-control approach. J. Account. Organ. Change 2015,11. [CrossRef]

13. Asiedu, Y.; Gu, P. Product life cycle cost analysis: State of the art review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1998,36, 883–908. [CrossRef]

14.

Jamwal, A.; Agrawal, R.; Sharma, M. Life cycle engineering: Past, present, and future. In Sustainable Manufacturing; Elsevier:

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 313–338.

15.

Nathaniel, S.; Nwodo, O.; Sharma, G.; Shah, M. Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS.

Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020,27, 19616–19629. [CrossRef]

16.

ISO 14040:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

17.

ISO 14044:2006; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

18.

Ulrich, P.; Hill, W. Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre—Teil I. Wirtsch. Stud. Z. Ausbild.

Hochschulkontakt 1976,5, 304–309.

19.

Waltersmann, L.; Kiemel, S.; Stuhlsatz, J.; Sauer, A.; Miehe, R. Artificial Intelligence Applications for Increasing Resource Efficiency

in Manufacturing Companies—A Comprehensive Review. Sustainability 2021,13, 6689. [CrossRef]

20.

Miehe, R.; Buckreus, L.; Kiemel, S.; Sauer, A.; Bauernhansl, T. A Conceptual Framework for Biointelligent Production—Calling

for Systemic Life Cycle Thinking in Cellular Units. Clean Technol. 2021,3, 844–857. [CrossRef]

21. Harari, Y.N. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind; Harper: New York City, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978–0062316097.

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 18 of 20

22.

Kant, I.; Schneewind, J.B. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2002;

ISBN 978–1107401068.

23.

Ulrich, P. Integrative Wirtschaftsethik: Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie; Haupt: Bern, Switzerland, 2008; ISBN 978–

3258072616.

24.

Hornborg, A. Ecological economics, Marxism, and technological progress: Some explorations of the conceptual foundations of

theories of ecologically unequal exchange. Ecol. Econ. 2014,105, 11–18. [CrossRef]

25.

Smith, A. The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,

2008; ISBN 978–0199535927.

26.

Ricardo, D. From the principles of political economy and taxation. In Readings in the Economics of the Division of Labor: The Classical

Tradition; Sun, G.-Z., Ed.; World Scientific Pub. Co. Inc.: Singapore, 2005; pp. 127–130. ISBN 978–9812561244.

27.

Marx, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, SC, USA,

2014; ISBN 978–1499236316.

28. von Thünen, J.H. Der Isolirte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nationalökonomie; Scientia: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

1990; ISBN 3511092183.

29. Jevons, W.S. Coal Question; Augustus M Kelley Pubs: New York, NY, USA, 1906; ISBN 978–0678001073.

30. Menger, C. Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre; VDM: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2006; ISBN 3865505236.

31.

Walras, L. Elements of Pure Economics: Or the Theory of Social Wealth; Routledge Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2003;

ISBN 978–0415313407.

32. Kapp, K.W. The Social Costs of Private Enterprise; Schocken Books: New York, NY, USA, 1971; ISBN 978-0805233964.

33.

Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Van Den Belt, M. The value of the world’s ecosystem

services and natural capital. Nature 1997,387, 253–260. [CrossRef]

34.

Socolow, R.; Andrews, C.; Berkhout, F.; Thomas, V. Industrial Ecology and Global Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,

UK, 1994; ISBN 0521471974.

35.

Bartelmus, P. Environmental accounting and material flow analysis. In A Handbook of Industrial Ecology; Ayres, R.U., Ayres, L.W.,

Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.: Northampton, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 165–176. ISBN 1840645067.

36.

Burkett, P. The value problem in ecological economics: Lessons from the physiocrats and Marx. Organ. Environ.

2003

,16, 137–167.

[CrossRef]

37.

De Chernatony, L.; Harris, F.; Dall’Olmo Riley, F. Added value: Its nature, roles and sustainability. Eur. J. Marketing.

2000

,34,

39–56. [CrossRef]

38.

Rasmussen, S. Production Economics: The Basic Theory of Production Optimization; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin,

Germany, 2012; ISBN 978–3642301995.

39. Beattie, B.R. The Economics of Production; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978–1575242958.

40. Westkämper, E. Einführung in Die Organisation der Produktion; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; ISBN 3540260390.

41.

Zahn, E.; Schmidt, U. Produktionswirtschaft—Band 1: Grundlagen und Operatives Produktionsmanagement; UTB: Stuttgart, Germany,

1996; ISBN 978–3-8252–8126–7.

42.

Porter, M.E. The value chain and competitive advantage. In Understanding Business Processes; Psychology Press: Brighton, UK,

2001; pp. 50–66.

43.

Womack, J.P.; Jones, D.T.; Roos, D. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production—Toyota’s Secret Weapon in the

Global Car Wars That Is Now Revolutionizing World Industry; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.

44.

Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model of synthesis of evidence. J. Mark.

1988

52, 2–22. [CrossRef]

45.

Herrmann, C.; Blume, S.; Kurle, D.; Schmidt, C.; Thiede, S. The positive impact factory–transition from eco-efficiency to

eco–effectiveness strategies in manufacturing. Procedia Cirp 2015,29, 19–27. [CrossRef]

46.

Miehe, R.; Stender, S.; Hessberger, N.; Mandel, J.; Sauer, A. Improving manufacturing systems with regard to the concept of

ultra-efficiency. In Advances in Manufacturing Technology XXXI; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 321–326.

47. Lazdinis, M. Measuring economic value of biological diversity: Concepts, theories and methods. Balt. For. 2001,7, 84–89.

48. Sagoff, M. On the economic value of ecosystem services. Environ. Values 2008,17, 239–257. [CrossRef]

49.

Mehvar, S.; Filatova, T.; Dastgheib, A.; De Ruyter van Steveninck, E.; Ranasinghe, R. Quantifying economic value of coastal

ecosystem services: A review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018,6, 5. [CrossRef]

50.

Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S., III; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber,

H.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009,14, 32. [CrossRef]

51.

Krol, G.J.; Karpe, J. Ökonomische Aspekte von Nachhaltigkeit: Die Umweltproblematik aus Sozioökonomischer Sicht; LIT: Münster,

Germany, 1999; ISBN 978–3825844103.

52. Klöpffer, W.; Grahl, B. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best Practice; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.

53. Koedel, C.; Rockoff, J.E. Value-added modeling: A review. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2015,47, 180–195. [CrossRef]

54.

Fedorovich, V.O.; Fedorovich, T.V. Corporate business value: Asymmetric information in the calculation of economic value added.

Finan. Anal. Probl. Solut. 2019,2, 183–203. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 19 of 20

55.

Wu, N.; Rao, Q. Enterprise value evaluation: Application and improvement based on cash flow model and Economic Value

Added model. In 2017 International Conference on Humanities Science, Management and Education Technology (HSMET 2017); Atlantis

Press: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 185–190.

56.

Jakub, S.; Viera, B.; Eva, K. Economic Value Added as a measurement tool of financial performance. Procedia Econ. Financ.

2015

26, 484–489. [CrossRef]

57.

Miehe, R. Methodik zur Quantifizierung der Nachhaltigen Wertschöpfung von Produktionssystemen an der öKonomisch-ökologischen

Schnittstelle Anhand Ausgewählter Umweltprobleme; Fraunhofer Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2018.

58.

Bebbington, J.; Gray, R.; Hibbitt, C.; Kirk, E. Full Cost Accounting: An Agenda for Action; ACCA Research Report: London,

UK, 2001.

59. Birkin, F. Ecological accounting: New tools for a sustainable culture. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2003,10, 49–61. [CrossRef]

60.

Egan, M. Making water count: Water accountability change within an Australian university. Account. Audit. Account. J.

2014

27, 259–282. [CrossRef]

61.

Hazelton, J. Accounting as a human right: The case of water information. Account. Audit. Account. J.

2013

,26, 267–311. [CrossRef]

62.

Samkin, G.; Schneider, A.; Tappin, D. Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for biodiversity. Account. Audit. Account.

J. 2014,27, 527–562. [CrossRef]

63.

Tello, E.; Hazelton, J.; Cummings, L. Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water accounting reports. Account. Audit.

Account. J. 2016,29, 80–110. [CrossRef]

64.

Russell, S.; Milne, M.J.; Dey, C. Accounts of nature and the nature of accounts: Critical reflections on environmental accounting

and propositions for ecologically informed accounting. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2017,30, 1426–1458. [CrossRef]

65. Plagiannakos, T. Full Cost Accounting for Decision Making at Ontario Hydro. IPPSO Facto 1996,10, 22–23.

66.

Jasch, C. Environmental and Material Flow Cost Accounting: Principles and Procedures; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; ISBN

978–1402090271.

67.

Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S.; Ferreira, A.; Moulang, C.; Hendro, B. Environmental management accounting and innovation: An

exploratory analysis. Account. Audit. Account. J.

2010

. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110

8/09513571011080180/full/html (accessed on 25 August 2022).

68.

Burritt, R.L. Environmental management accounting: Roadblocks on the way to the green and pleasant land. Bus. Strategy

Environ. 2004,13, 13–32. [CrossRef]

69.

Mathews, M.R.; Lockhart, J.A. The Use of an Environmental Equity Account to Internalise Externalities; Aston Business School

Research Institute: Birmingham, UK, 2001; ISBN 1854495119.

70. Cullen, D.; Whelan, C. Environmental management accounting: The state of play. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2006,4. [CrossRef]

71.

Bartolomeo, M.; Bennett, M.; Bouma, J.J.; Heydkamp, P.; James, P.; Wolters, T. Environmental management accounting in Europe:

Current practice and future potential. Eur. Account. Rev. 2000,9, 31–52. [CrossRef]

72. Kesicki, F.; Ekins, P. Marginal abatement cost curves: A call for caution. Clim. Policy 2012,12, 219–236. [CrossRef]

73.

Ward, D.J. The failure of marginal abatement cost curves in optimising a transition to a low carbon energy supply. Energy Policy

2014,74, 820–822. [CrossRef]

74.

Sukhdev, P.; Wittmer, H.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; Nesshöver, C.; Bishop, J.; ten Brink, P.; Gundimeda, H.; Kumar, P.; Simmons, B.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and

Recommendations of TEEB; UNEP: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.

75. Helm, D. Natural Capital: Valuing the Planet; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2015.

76. Juniper, T. What Has Nature Ever Done for Us?: How Money Really Does Grow on Trees; Synergetic Press: London, UK, 2013.

77.

CIMA. Accounting for Natural Capital: The Elephant in the Boardroom. Available online: www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/

Thought_leadership_docs/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/CIMA-accounting-for-natural-capital.pdf (accessed on

25 August 2022).

78. Trucost. Available online: www.trucost.com/ (accessed on 25 August 2022).

79. Eftec. Economics for the Environment Consultancy. Available online: www.eftec.co.uk/ (accessed on 25 August 2022).

80.

Hunkeler, D.; Lichtenvort, K.; Rebitzer, G. Environmental Life Cycle Costing; Taylor & Francis Inc.: Milton Park, UK, 2008; ISBN

978–1420054705.

81. Vogtländer, J.G.; Bijma, A. The ‘Virtual Pollution Prevention Costs 099’. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2000,5, 113–124. [CrossRef]

82. Vogtländer, J.G.; Brezet, H.C.; Hendriks, C.F. The Virtual Eco-Costs 099. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2001,6, 157–166. [CrossRef]

83.

Figge, F.; Hahn, T. Sustainable Value Added: Measuring Corporate Sustainable Performance beyond Eco-Efficiency; Universität Lüneburg:

Lüneburg, Germany, 2002; ISBN 978–3935630191.

84.

Burschel, C.J.; Losen, D.; Wiendl, A. Betriebswirtschaftslehre der Nachhaltigen Unternehmung; Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag:

München, Germany, 2004; ISBN 978–3486200331.

85.

KPMG/ACCA. Natural Capital and the Accountancy Profession. Available online: www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/ACCA_

Global/Technical/sus/NC_and_the_Accounting_Profession.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2022).

86.

Umweltbundesamt. Ökonomische Bewertung von Umweltschäden: Methodenkonvention 2.0 zur Schätzung von Umweltkosten.

Dessau-Roßlau. Available online: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/378/publikationen/uba_

methodenkonvention_2.0_-_2012_gesamt.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2022).

Sustainability 2022,14, 13603 20 of 20

87.

European Commission (Ed.) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—

Detailed Guidance; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010; ISBN 978-9279190926.

88.

Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R.B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, Z.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Sitch, S.; Friedlingstein, P.; Arneth, A.; et al. Greening

of the Earth and its drivers. Nat. Clim. Change 2016,6, 791–795. [CrossRef]

89.

Chandra, J.; Schall, S.O. Economic justification of flexible manufacturing systems using the Leontief input-output model. Eng.

Econ. 1988,34, 27–50. [CrossRef]

90. Heijungs, R. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products; Multicopy: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1992; ISBN 90-5191-064-9.

91.

Umweltbundesamt. Prozessorientierte Basisdaten für Umweltmanagementsysteme. Dessau-Roßlau. Available online: www.

probas.umweltbundesamt.de (accessed on 25 August 2022).