Summary The eco‐efficiency analysis method developed and used by the Öko‐Institut analyzes different alternatives that fulfill a defined consumer need, from an environmental as well as an economic perspective. Like life‐cycle assessment (LCA), eco‐efficiency analysis makes possible the setting of priorities in purchasing decisions or can be used to show optimization potentials in product development processes. Eco‐efficiency analysis builds upon two methods: LCA, according to ISO 14040 ff. (to assess the environmental aspects of products and processes), and life‐cycle costing. Life‐cycle costing results in a single figure—the total costs of ownership to one or several actors. The environmental impacts can be evaluated and aggregated as a single score or the impact category indicator results can be kept separate. In either case two single scores can be compared: the total environmental burden or the impact category indicator results, and the total costs of ownership of the alternatives under consideration. The results can then be plotted in two‐dimensional graphs that show the effectiveness of certain measures in environmental and economic terms. The efficiency is expressed as a numerical ratio of environmental savings to difference in costs. Together with furnishing more detailed results and a discussion of additional benefits or potential barriers, eco‐efficiency analysis broadens the basis for decision‐making processes.

An intensive and continuous debate centres on the question of whether biomimetics has a specific potential to contribute to sustainability. In the context of a case study, the objective of this paper is to contribute to this debate by presenting the first systematic approach to assess the sustainability of a complex biomimetic product. The object of inquiry is a lecture hall's ribbed slab. Based on criteria suggested by the Association of German Engineers (VDI), it has been verified that the slab has been correctly defined as biomimetic. Moreover, a systematic comparative product sustainability assessment has been carefully carried out. For purposes of comparison, estimated static calculations have been performed for conceivable current state-of-the-art lightweight ceiling structures. Alternative options are a hollow article slab and a pre-stressed flat slab. Besides a detailed benefit analysis and a discussion of social effects, their costs have also been compared. A particularly detailed life cycle assessment on the respective environmental impacts has also been performed. Results show that the biomimetic ribbed slab built in the 1960s is able to keep up with the current state-of-the-art lightweight solutions in terms of sustainability. These promising results encourage a systematic search for a broad range of sustainable biomimetic solutions.

No abstract

Background: The debate on the question whether biomimetics has a specific potential to contribute to sustainability is discussed among scientists, business leaders, politicians and those responsible for project funding. The objective of this paper is to contribute to this controversial debate by presenting the sustainability assessment of one of the most well-known and most successful biomimetic products: the façade paint Lotusan®. Results: As a first step it has been examined and verified that the façade paint Lotusan® is correctly defined as a biomimetic product. Secondly, Lotusan® has been assessed and compared to a conventional façade paint within the course of a detailed product sustainability assessment (PROSA). For purposes of comparison, the façade paint Jumbosil® was chosen as reference for a conventional paint available on the market. The benefit analysis showed that both paints fulfil equally well the requirements of functional utility. With respect to the symbolic utility, Lotusan® has a particular added aesthetic value by the preservation of the optical quality over the life cycle. Within the social analysis no substantial differences between the two paints could be found regarding the handling and disposal of the final products. Regarding the life-cycle cost, Lotusan® is the more expensive product. However, the higher investment cost for a Lotusan®-based façade painting are more than compensated by the longer life time, resulting in both reduced overall material demand and lower labour cost. In terms of the life-cycle impact assessment, it can be ascertained that substantial differences between the paints arise from the respective service life, which are presented in terms of four scenario analyses. Conclusion: In summary, the biomimetic façade paint Lotusan® has been identified as a cost-effective and at the same time resource-saving product. Based on the underlying data and assumptions it could be demonstrated that Lotusan®-based façade paintings have a comparatively low overall impact on the environment. Summarizing our results, it can be emphasized that Lotusan® is the more favourable product compared to Jumbosil® according to sustainability aspects.

No abstract

Surgical drapes made of cotton are under increasing competition with various disposable products and reusable draping systems (e.g., made of synthetic fabrics like polyester). When making a choice to use one of these medical devices in practical surgery, major aspects like handling, hygienic safety and costs, but also environmental effects have to be taken into account. In this study a mixed system for patient drapes (reusable cotton drapes combined with a reduced set of impermeable single-use drapes made of cellulose/polyethylene) was compared to a system that is only based on single-use drapes with regard to ecology [life-cycle assessment (LCA)]. The medical literature was reviewed to assess important medical aspects of the use of patient drapes, resulting in the statement that there are no conclusive arguments to support a clear hygienic superiority of one of these alternatives. Based on the conditions assumed and stated, the results of the LCA indicate that the mixed draping system is associated with two times more total energy consumption. In addition, more water is needed and more CO2 emissions are produced. However, draping with the single-use product results in more clinical waste. Regarding water pollution no system proved superior. It is difficult to compare and weigh various environmental aspects like the polluting cultivation of cotton in distant countries (reusable drapes) and the higher figure of transportation necessary to deliver the single-use product within Germany. It is an important disadvantage of the mixed system that it combines the ecological burden of both cotton drapes and the single-use alternative.

No abstract

Das Öko‐Institut e. V. wurde am 5. November 1977 gegründet; Geburtsstunde der „alternativen”︁ Wissenschaft. Jeder Geburt geht freilich eine Zeugung voraus, und dieser Prozeß mag interessanter sein als die Erinnerung an den Geburtstermin. Allerorts entstanden zu Beginn der 70er Jahre Bürgerinitiativen, die sich gegen die hohe Belastung von Luft‐ und Wasser durch Chemikalien, gegen undichte und überbordende Müllkippen, gegen giftige Altlasten, gegen Emissionen aus Industrieanlagen und gegen problematische Produkte wehrten ‐ mit Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Aktionen, in politischen Gremien und zum Teil vor Gericht.