Cement production in China suffers from low eco-efficiency due to high coal and electricity consumption and substantial emissions. This study proposes a novel approach integrating Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA) to improve both economic and environmental performance. The method includes: (1) quantifying material, economic, and environmental losses using LCA and MFCA; (2) identifying improvement strategies through Pareto analysis, hypothesis testing, and expert input; and (3) validating results using an empirical case study. Applied to a cement company in Xinjiang, the approach increased eco-efficiency from 0.8737 to 1.0519, demonstrating synchronous economic and environmental gains. This is one of the first studies to apply LCA–MFCA integration in China’s cement sector.
AldieriL.BrunoB.VinciC. P. (2019). Does environmental innovation make us happy? An empirical investigation. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 67(9), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.10.008
2.
ArieftiaraD.TheresaR.SariR. (2021). Sustainability in health service industry: The implementation of material flow cost accounting (MFCA) as an eco-efficient analysis. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 2021(2021), 747009. https://doi.org/10.5171/2021.747009
3.
Ben-AlonL.LoftnessV.HarriesK. A.DiPietroG.HameenE. C. (2019). Cradle to site life cycle assessment (LCA) of natural vs conventional building materials: A case study on cob earthen material. Building and Environment, 160(8), Article 106150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.028
4.
BS EN ISO 14051:2011: Environmental Management. (2011). Material flow cost accounting. General framework.
5.
CanajK.MehmetiA.MorroneD.TomaP.TodorovićM. (2021). Life cycle-based evaluation of environmental impacts and external costs of treated wastewater reuse for irrigation: A case study in southern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 293(4), Article 126142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126142
6.
ChenW.LiuW.GengY.OhnishiS.SunL.HanW.TianX.ZhongS. (2016). Life cycle based emergy analysis on China’s cement production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131(9), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.036
7.
CocozzaC.ParisiF.ChiariM.LoppiS.MunziS.RaveraS. (2024). Integration of ecological indicators to assess a multitemporal impact of cement industries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 31(35), 48233–48249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34079-y
8.
ComanitaE.-D.CozmaP.SimionI. M.RoscaM.GavrilescuM. (2018). Evaluation of eco-efficiency by multicriteria decision analysis. Case study of eco-innovated and eco-designed products from recyclable waste. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 17(8), 1791–1804. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2018.178
9.
DahlstroemK.EkinsP. (2005). Eco-efficiency trends in the UK steel and aluminum industries: Differences between resource efficiency and resource productivity. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819805775247954
10.
de LamasW. Q.PalauJ. C. F.de CamargoJ. R. (2013). Waste materials co-processing in cement industry: Ecological efficiency of waste reuse. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19(3), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.015
11.
DongJ.WuD. (2020). An evaluation of the impact of ecological compensation on the cross-section efficiency using sfa and DEA: A case study of xin’an river basin. Sustainability, 12(19), 7966. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197966
12.
DoorasamyM. (2016). Using material flow cost accounting (MFCA) to identify benefits of eco-efficiency and cleaner production in a paper and pulp manufacturing organization. Found. Foundations of Management, 8(1), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-2016-0021
13.
DunuwilaP.RodrigoV. H. L.GotoN. (2018). Sustainability of natural rubber processing can be improved: A case study with crepe rubber manufacturing in Sri Lanka. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133(6), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.029
14.
EwertowskaA.PozoC.GavaldàJ.JiménezL.Guillén-GosálbezG. (2017). Combined use of life cycle assessment, data envelopment analysis and Monte Carlo simulation for quantifying environmental efficiencies under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166(10), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.215
15.
FujiiM.OhnishiS.GengY.DongH.FujitaT. (2017). A comprehensive evaluation on industrial & urban symbiosis by combining MFA, carbon footprint and emergy methods-case of kawasaki, Japan. Ecological Indicators: Integrating Monitoring, Assessment and Management, 73(2), 513–524.
16.
GhimireS. R.JohnstonJ. M. (2017). A modified eco‐efficiency framework and methodology for advancing the state of practice of sustainability analysis as applied to green infrastructure. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(5), 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1928
17.
GötzeU.SygullaR.BiererA. (2014). Material flow cost accounting: A tool for designing economically and ecologically sustainable production processes. In Technology and manufacturing process selection, springer series in advanced manufacturing (pp. 105–130): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5544-7_6
HeW.FuJ.LuoY. (2023). A study of well-being-based eco-efficiency based on super-SBM and tobit regression model: The case of China. Social Indicators Research, 167(1-3), 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03107-8
20.
HigashidaA. (2020). Supply chain MFCA implementation: Emphasizing evidence on coordination. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 12(4), 695–718. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2019-0104
JuanaC.Picazo-TadeoA. J.CecilioT.CamareroM. (2013). Eco-efficiency and convergence in OECD countries. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(1), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-012-9616-9
23.
KokubuK.KitadaH.NishitaniK.ShinoharaA. (2023). How material flow cost accounting contributes to the SDGs through improving management decision-making. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 25(5), 2783–2793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01696-7
24.
LiaoX.ChengH.QianA.PanZ.ChengF. (2024). Carbon emission reduction potential and life cycle assessment of calcium carbon slag utilisation. Clean Coal Technologies, 30(04), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.13226/j.issn.1006-6772.ZPF24022801
25.
LinL. (2021). Research on the spatio-temporalevolution of tourism eco-efficiency by using the ecological footprint model. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin.
26.
LuoqianL.YalinL.ShujieZ.ChenW.ChongC.ShaoZ.ZhixiaoL.LiuC. (2024). Potential and optimization deployment of CCUS technology emission reduction at point source level in China’s cement industry. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences), 26(04), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2024.2427
27.
Martínez-MartínezS.Pérez-VillarejoL.Eliche-QuesadaD.Sánchez-SotoP. J. (2023). New types and dosages for the manufacture of low-energy cements from raw materials and industrial waste under the principles of the circular economy and low-carbon economy. Materials, 16(2), 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16020802
28.
Martínez-MartínezS.Pérez-VillarejoL.Eliche-QuesadaD.Sánchez-SotoP. J.ChristogerouA.KanellopoulouD. G.AngelopoulosG. N. (2020). New waste-based clinkers for the preparation of low-energy cements. A step forward toward circular economy. International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 17(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijac.13390
MikulčićH.CabezasH.VujanovićM.DuićN. (2016). Environmental assessment of different cement manufacturing processes based on emergy and ecological footprint analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 130(9), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.087
31.
NakajimaM. (2016). Material flow cost accounting (MFCA): To be integrated with LCA toward sustainability. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan, 12(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.3370/lca.12.53
NyakuwanikaM.van der PollH. M.van der PollJ. A. (2021). A conceptual framework for greener goldmining through environmental management accounting practices (EMAPs): The case of Zimbabwe. Sustainability, 13(18), Article 10466. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810466
34.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1998). Eco-efficiency. OECD.
35.
PauliukS. (2018). Critical appraisal of the circular economy standard BS 8001:2017 and a dashboard of quantitative system indicators for its implementation in organizations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129(02), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.019
36.
SadorskyP. (2021). Eco-efficiency for the G18: Trends and future outlook. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11196. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011196
SchmidtM.NakajimaM. (2013). Material flow cost accounting as an approach to improve resource efficiency in manufacturing companies. Resources, 2(3), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources2030358
40.
SudhaS. (2020). Corporate environmental performance–financial performance relationship in India using eco-efficiency metrics. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(6), 1497–1514. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2020-0011
41.
TorregrossaD.MarvugliaA.LeopoldU. (2018). A novel methodology based on LCA + DEA to detect eco-efficiency shifts in wastewater treatment plants. Ecological Indicators, 94(11), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.031
42.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2003). Integrating environmental and financial performance at the enterprise level: A methodology for standardizing eco-efficiency indicators: United Nations Publication.
43.
VinciG.D’AscenzoF.EspositoA.MusarraM.RapaM.RocchiA. (2019). A sustainable innovation in the Italian glass production: LCA and eco-care matrix evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 223(6), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.124
44.
WalzM.GuentherE. (2021). What effects does material flow cost accounting have for companies? Evidence from a case studies analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(3), 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13064
WangN.GuoZ.MengF.WangH.YinJ.LiuY. (2019). The circular economy and carbon footprint: A systematic accounting for typical coal-fuelled power industrial parks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229(8), 1262–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.064
47.
WBCSD. (2000). Eco-efficiency. Creating more value with less impact.
48.
WenjieY. I.ZhuangL. I.ZhuyanL. U. O.FanL. I. U.XingwangL. I. U.YutingZHAO. (2022). Selection and application of low carbon technologies in environmental impact assessment of cement Industry. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Technology, 12(6), 1905–1914.
49.
WeyandA.RommelC.ZeulnerJ.SossenheimerJ.WeigoldM.AbeleE. (2021). Method to increase resource efficiency in production with the use of MFCA. Procedia CIRP, 98(3), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.101
50.
XuX.JingruZ.HuixiangZ.BusinessS. O.UniversityC. S. (2017). Research on MFCA-based priority ranking method for waste recycling and its application. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 34(9), 43–51.
51.
Zabalza BribiánI.Valero CapillaA.Aranda UsónA. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002
52.
ZengH.ZhouZ.XiaoX. (2021). MFCA extension from a life cycle perspective: Methodical refinements and use case. Resources Policy, 74(12), Article 101507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101507
53.
ZhengL.ZhouZ. (2010). The research on enterprise environmental management and resource value flow accounting. In 2010 International Conference on E-Product E-Service and E-Entertainment, IEEE, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEEE.2010.5660755
54.
ZhouY.KongY.ZhangT. (2020). The spatial and temporal evolution of provincial eco-efficiency in China based on SBM modified three-stage data envelopment analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 27(8), 8557–8569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-07515-7
