Small and medium enterprises and research institutes engaged on eco-innovative research projects are often required to account for environmental benefits of new products, processes, or services. This article describes an environmental assessment methodology for calculating auditable environmental benefits, highlighting case studies as examples. It addresses the challenges involved in conducting assessments of products that have yet to be commercialized by taking into account the quality and confidence of the data and enabling nonexperts to engage with the process to a well-informed level. The method draws on the most pertinent and accessible information to develop a reliable overview of the reportable outputs while minimizing the resource and expertise required by measuring only the change in circumstance. The process is flexible enough to cater to projects from a range of sectors, with different expertise levels, but in-depth enough to be considered an acceptable quantification of environmental outputs by rigid external reporting requirements.
BabanS. M. J.ParryT. (2001) Developing and applying a GIS-assisted approach to locating wind farms in the UK. Renewable Energy24: 59–71.
2.
BaileyM. (2010) Report on the state of the navigation of the River Mersey, Liverpool, England: Department for Transport, Mersey Conservancy, Port of Liverpool.
3.
BaloyoJ. M. (2017) Open-cell porous metals for thermal management applications: Fluid flow and heat transfer. Materials Science & Technology33: 265–276.
4.
BellP. S.BirdC. O.PlaterA. J. (2016) A temporal waterline approach to mapping intertidal areas using X-band marine radar. Coastal Engineering107: 84–101.
5.
BickartA. B.RuthJ. A. (2013) Green eco-seals and advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising41: 51–67.
6.
BirdC. O.BellP. S.PlaterA. J. (2017) Application of marine radar to monitoring seasonal and event-based changes in intertidal morphology. Geomorphology285: 1–15.
7.
BörjesonL.HöjerM.DreborgK.-H.EkvallT.FinnvedenG. (2006) Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures38: 723–739.
8.
British Standards Institution (2011) BSI PAS 2050:2011: Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services, London, England: Author.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2014) Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s review of universities and growth. London, England: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
13.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) ERDF 2009 user manual chapter 2, London, England: Author.
14.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2014) European Regional Development Fund, England operational programme 2014 to 2020: Executive Summary, London, England: Author.
FinneganS.SharplesS.JohnstonT.FultonM. (2018) The carbon impact of a UK safari park—Application of the GHG protocol using measured energy data. Energy153: 256–264.
18.
Font VivancoD.McDowallW.Freire-GonzálezJ.KempR.Van der VoetE. (2016) The foundations of the environmental rebound effect and its contribution towards a general framework. Ecological Economics125: 60–69.
19.
FultonM.HonB. (2010) Managing advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation in manufacturing SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management59: 351–371.
20.
HansenE. G.Grosse-DunkerF. (2013) Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility: Sustainability-oriented innovation, New York, NY: Springer.
21.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (2015) The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: An initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies, London, England: Author.
22.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Summary for policymakers. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, … T. Waterfield (Eds.), Global warming of 1.5℃. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty: Summary for Policymakers 20–21. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
MengucB.OzanneL. K. (2005) Challenges of the “green imperative”: A natural resource-based approach to the environmental orientation–business performance relationship. Journal of Business Research58: 430–438.
Molina-MurilloS. A.SmithT. M. (2009) Exploring the use and impact of LCA-based information in corporate communications. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment14: 184–194.
29.
Põder, T. (2006). Evaluation of environmental aspects significance in ISO 14001. Environmental Management, 37(5), 732–743. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0190-y.
30.
Revell, A., & Rutherfoord, R. (2003). UK environmental policy and the smaller firm: Broadening the focus. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 26–35.
31.
SandénB.KarlströmM. (2007) Positive and negative feedback in consequential life-cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production15: 1469–1481.
32.
SaundersC.LandisA.MeccaL.JonesA.SchaeferL.BilecM. (2013) Analyzing the practice of life cycle assessment – Focus on the building sector. Journal of Industrial Ecology5: 777–788.
33.
Selech, J., Joachimiak-Lechman, K., Klos, Z., Kulczycka, J., & Kurczewski, P. (2014). Life cycle thinking in small and medium enterprises: The results of research on the implementation of life cycle tools in Polish SMEs-Part 3: LCC-related aspects. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(5), 1119–1128. DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0695-9.
34.
TestaF.NucciB.TessitoreS.IraldoF.DaddiT. (2016) Perceptions on LCA implementation: Evidence from a survey on adopters and nonadopters in Italy. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment21: 1501–1513.
35.
ToddJ.CurranM. (1999) Streamlined life-cycle assessment – A final report from the SETAC North America (6/99), Pensacola, FL: Streamlined LCA Workgroup Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and SETAC Press.
