IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v12y2023i2p22-d1054578.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A LifeCycle Analysis and Economic Cost Analysis of Corrugated Cardboard Box Reuse and Recycling in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Harshwardhan Ketkale

    (Systems Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

  • Steven Simske

    (Systems Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA)

Abstract

Manufacturing of a product such as a corrugated cardboard box (CCB) includes the extraction of a variety of raw materials in addition to supply chain efforts to get the raw materials to the industry. Conducting a LifeCycle Assessment (LCA) gives the carbon emission of each phase of the product and a quantitative estimate of the overall product carbon footprint and its effect on the environment. This gives impetus to recommendations for improving the phases of the lifecycle to minimize carbon emissions. The proposed waste management method in this paper is the “reuse” method instead of recycling or landfilling the CCB and, in so doing, focusing only on reducing carbon emissions in the manufacturing phase. The paper examines if the incremental cost of reusing the CCBs is less than the environmental and economic cost of reducing the extraction and supply chain of raw materials. This paper uses LCA to evaluate the carbon emission in each phase of the lifecycle of a typical 1 kg corrugated cardboard box in the United States. Carbon emission for the proposed “reuse” phase is also calculated, and the results are compared. This paper also explores the economic feasibility of the proposed “reuse” method that incentivizes the general population to reuse the CCBs instead of recycling or landfilling them. Economic tools such as willingness-to-pay vs. marginal cost curves and benefit-cost analyses are used to evaluate economic feasibility. The results indicate that the “reuse” method for CCBs is economically and environmentally feasible. It also supports the approach of using analytics, economics, and LCA to create a model that can be used for other products and processes as an evaluative process to determine if businesses can benefit from the reduction (or removal) of material extraction costs from the supply chain.

Suggested Citation

  • Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2023. "A LifeCycle Analysis and Economic Cost Analysis of Corrugated Cardboard Box Reuse and Recycling in the United States," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:22-:d:1054578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/12/2/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/12/2/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A., 2012. "Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the social cost of carbon," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-25.
    2. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2022. "Encouraging Reuse in the Corrugated Packaging Industry Using Persuasion and Operant Conditioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-28, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saewhan Kim & Laszlo Horvath & Jennifer D. Russell & Jonghun Park, 2023. "Sustainable and Secure Transport: Achieving Environmental Impact Reductions by Optimizing Pallet-Package Strength Interactions during Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Harshwardhan Ketkale & Steven Simske, 2023. "Demographic Considerations in Incenting Reuse of Corrugated Cardboard Boxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, July.
    3. Chris Turner & John Oyekan, 2023. "Manufacturing in the Age of Human-Centric and Sustainable Industry 5.0: Application to Holonic, Flexible, Reconfigurable and Smart Manufacturing Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-29, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.
    2. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    3. Awaworyi Churchill, Sefa & Inekwe, John & Smyth, Russell & Zhang, Xibin, 2019. "R&D intensity and carbon emissions in the G7: 1870–2014," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 30-37.
    4. Newbery, David, 2018. "Policies for decarbonizing a liberalized power sector," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-24.
    5. Rezai, Armon & van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2017. "Climate policies under climate model uncertainty: Max-min and min-max regret," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(S1), pages 4-16.
    6. Martin Zapf & Hermann Pengg & Christian Weindl, 2019. "How to Comply with the Paris Agreement Temperature Goal: Global Carbon Pricing According to Carbon Budgets," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, August.
    7. Franziska Piontek & Matthias Kalkuhl & Elmar Kriegler & Anselm Schultes & Marian Leimbach & Ottmar Edenhofer & Nico Bauer, 2019. "Economic Growth Effects of Alternative Climate Change Impact Channels in Economic Modeling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 1357-1385, August.
    8. Dietz, Simon, 2012. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-12.
    9. Foley, Duncan K. & Rezai, Armon & Taylor, Lance, 2013. "The social cost of carbon emissions: Seven propositions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 90-97.
    10. Simon Dietz, 2011. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis," GRI Working Papers 54, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    11. Qian, Wei & Schaltegger, Stefan, 2017. "Revisiting carbon disclosure and performance: Legitimacy and management views," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 365-379.
    12. O'Mahony, Tadhg & Escardó-Serra, Paula & Dufour, Javier, 2018. "Revisiting ISEW Valuation Approaches: The Case of Spain Including the Costs of Energy Depletion and of Climate Change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 292-303.
    13. Matteo Coronese & Francesco Lamperti & Francesca Chiaromonte & Andrea Roventini, 2018. "Natural Disaster Risk and the Distributional Dynamics of Damages," LEM Papers Series 2018/22, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Espinosa, María Paz & Pizarro-Irizar, Cristina, 2018. "Is renewable energy a cost-effective mitigation resource? An application to the Spanish electricity market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 902-914.
    15. Stern, Nicholas, 2014. "Ethics, equity and the economics of climate change paper 2: economics and politics," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 62704, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    17. Richard S.J. Tol, 2021. "Estimates of the social cost of carbon have not changed over time," Working Paper Series 0821, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    18. Frederick Ploeg, 2015. "Untapped fossil fuel and the green paradox: a classroom calibration of the optimal carbon tax," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(2), pages 185-210, April.
    19. Long, Xianling & Ji, Xi, 2019. "Economic Growth Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Social Welfare in China - Provincial Assessment Based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 157-176.
    20. Nicolas Taconet & Céline Guivarch & Antonin Pottier, 2019. "Social Cost of Carbon under stochastic tipping points: when does risk play a role?," Working Papers hal-02408904, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:12:y:2023:i:2:p:22-:d:1054578. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.