Quantifying Eco-Efficiency

with Multi-Criteria Analysis

Prof. Dr. Jutta Geldermann1

Dr. Martin Treitz2
Research Paper Nr. 5
Gttingen, Oktober 2008

Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen
Professur fr Produktion und Logistik
Platz der Gttinger Sieben 3 (Raum 1.223)
D-37073 Gttingen
2

Universitt Karlsruhe (TH)

Institut fr Industriebetriebslehre und Industrielle Produktion (IIP)
Hertzstr. 16
D-76187 Karlsruhe

ISSN 1867-0121

Kontakt:

Herausgeber:
Schwerpunkt Unternehmensfhrung
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultt
Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen

Prof. Dr. Jutta Geldermann

Professur fr Produktion und Logistik
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultt
Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen

Prof. Dr. Jutta Geldermann (Produktion und Logistik)

Prof. Dr. Lutz M. Kolbe (Informationsmanagement)
Prof. Dr. Klaus Mller (Controlling)
Prof. Dr. Olaf N. Rank (Organisation)

Platz der Gttinger Sieben 3

D-37073 Gttingen
Tel.
+49 551 39 7257
Fax
+49 551 39 9343

Platz der Gttinger Sieben 3, D-37073 Gttingen

Web
www.wiwi.uni-goettingen.de/man

Mail
Web

produktion@wiwi.uni-goettingen.de
www.produktion.uni-goettingen.de

Quantifying Eco-Efficiency with Multi-Criteria Analysis

Abstract
Based on the efficiency definition by (Koopmans, 1951) a case study is presented in this
paper comparing the results of a multi-criteria method and an eco-efficiency analysis for
emerging technologies for surface coating. Multi-criteria analysis aims at resolving
incomparabilities by incorporating preferential information in the relative measurement of
efficiency during the course of an ex-ante decision support process. The outranking
approach PROMETHEE is employed in this paper for the case study of refinish primer
application with data from an eco-efficiency analysis presented by (Wall et al., 2004;
Richards and Wall, 2005). Comprehensive sensitivity and uncertainty analyses (including the
first implementation of the PROMETHEE VI sensitivity tool) elucidate the variability in the
underlying data and the value judgements of the decision makers. These advanced analyses
are considered as the distinct advantage of MCA in comparison to the eco-efficiency analysis
(Saling et al., 2002), which just comprises various types of normalisation of different criteria.

1 Introduction
The term eco-efficiency was coined by the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), comprising almost 200 international companies in a shared
commitment to sustainable development through economic growth, ecological balance, and
social progress (WBCSD, 2006). The concept of eco-efficiency has emerged as one of the
crucial themes linking the economy and environment and presenting opportunities for joint
improvement in economic and environmental performance. However, methods for quantified
eco-efficiency analyses for the comparison of the sustainability of different alternatives are in
their early stages of development although the need for comprehensive evaluations of
different technological options is well acknowledged. Such analyses require the simultaneous
consideration of different mass and energy flows and economic performance, leading to a
multi-criteria problem cause by various units of measurements and goal conflicts. This
became most obvious in the European Union when the Directive on the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control (IPPC 96/61/EG) was adopted, aiming to achieve a high level of
protection for the environment taken as a whole (art. 1). The assessment and comparison of
effects of industrial installations call for suitable approaches to gauging the effectiveness of
these measures. A special technical challenge is to avoid the shift of environmental problems
from one medium to another. Thus, an information exchange on Best Available Techniques
(BAT) was organised by the European Commission for all industrial activities with a
significant contribution to environmental pollution as listed in Annex I of the Directive. BAT
covers all aspects of the technology used in production and in the way that installations are
-1-

designed, built, maintained, and decommissioned. BAT means using the most effective
economically and technically viable means to achieve a high level of protection for the
environment and for human health and safety. In this way, BAT delivers a comprehensive
description of aspects relevant for eco-efficiency.
The first round of 31 BAT reference documents (BREFs for short) has been completed by
end of 2006, with the last three BREFs related to ceramic manufacturing, large volume
inorganic chemicals and surface treatment using organic solvents. Altogether, around 55.000
installations are covered by the IPPC Directive, encompassing an immense economic
dimension. It is a significant challenge both in terms of environmental protection and
competitiveness to regulate and operate all these industrial installations in a successful way.
In spite of some criticism, (Hitchens et al., 2001) come to the conclusion that the IPPC
Directive did not hamper the competitiveness of the European Industry but rather promoted
innovation and deployment of environmentally friendly technologies. Especially linkages
between environment and energy savings are important aspects given the current
developments on energy markets.
While the definition of BAT is focused on available techniques1, the information exchange
also includes sections on so-called Emerging Technologies, being developed either by
companies or institutes and having the potential to become available in the near future. As
companies keep their innovations confidential for competition reasons, institutes provide an
open policy in publication but might lack practical experience in scale-ups. Thus, if
companies want to introduce innovative technologies in order to improve the eco-efficiency of
their production processes, it is important to have credible and reliable information for
prospective analyses. Since innovative or emerging technologies have to compete with
existing technologies on economic, technical, ecological, and social aspects, the
effectiveness in all these dimensions needs consideration.
This paper describes and discusses the quantification of eco-efficiency by Multi-Criteria
Analysis (MCA), especially for emerging technologies. Section 2 gives an introduction to the
problem of defining eco-efficiency. The application of MCA is illustrated in Section 4 with a
case study about emerging technologies for surface treatment. Six types of primers and their
application techniques in vehicle refinishing are being compared on the basis of data
delivered by (Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005) with an eco-efficiency analysis.
Preferential information is modelled by weighting factors and preference functions based on
paired comparisons within the Outranking approach PROMETHEE. Special emphasis is put
on comprehensive sensitivity analyses. Finally, Section 5 summarises the findings.

Article 2, para. 11 gives the following definition: 'available' techniques shall mean those developed
on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector under economically and
technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the
techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably
accessible to the operator.

-2-

2 The Problem of Defining Eco-Efficiency

The optimal allocation of resources to maximise the desired output for the given input is the
core question in business economics (Koopmans, 1951; Koopmans, 1975). In the context of
thermodynamic processes (which underlie many environmentally relevant production
processes) the input and output parameters are often limited to energy quantities, such as
the transferred or converted energy compared to the employed energy (for example in a
power station, wind turbine, etc.). However, this definition considers only the heat quantity
and not the quality, e.g. temperature, which is relevant for defining its convertibility in, for
example, refrigeration systems and thus for its economic value (for a discussion see
(Grassmann, 1950)). If it is not possible to define a single common denominator, such as the
heat content, the definition of the degree of efficiency is quite difficult and can only be based
on relative comparisons. Consequently, the allocation of resources is efficient if no
improvement (i.e., an addition to the output of one or more goods at no cost to the others) is
possible. This relative efficiency definition is called Pareto efficiency and a possible
improvement is referred to as a Pareto improvement or Pareto optimisation (cf. e.g.,
(Moffat, 1976)). Mathematically, every Pareto efficient point in the commodity space is
equally acceptable. Trade-offs and compromises are to be made when moving from one
efficient point to another.
The definition of eco-efficiency in the context of technique assessment is complex since
ecological, economic, technical and social parameters must be considered and
representative ones selected. As the discussion for public goods and external costs shows,
no competitive markets exist which could guide resources to their maximised utility (cf. e.g.
(Rabl and Eyre, 1998; Schleisner, 2000)). Hence, no common denominator for eco-efficiency
exists, and only relative comparisons can lead to value judgements. Relative efficiency
measurements are the starting point for the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and MultiCriteria Analyses (MCA), two different approaches to resolving incomparabilities in a
technique assessment, which are briefly introduced in the following. After that, approaches
for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and particularly the so-called eco-efficiency methodology
are being compared to the more formal MCA approach.
2.1

Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is an approach to comparing the relative efficiency of
so-called decision making units (DMUs) in general. The decision making units are
characterized by their vector of external inputs and outputs. By using scalarizing functions,
the inputs and outputs are aggregated to an efficiency measure for each unit (Charnes et al.,
1978; Belton and Stewart, 1999; Kleine, 2001; Cooper et al., 2004; Kleine, 2004). DEA has
been developed for the evaluation of non-profit organisations, whose inputs and outputs can
hardly be monetarily valued with market prices and are therefore more difficult to compare.
-3-

In general, DEA assumes that inputs and outputs are goods, but from an ecological
perspective also pollutants with negative properties have to be considered. Thus,
ecologically extended DEA models have been derived by incorporating a multi-dimensional
value function (Dyckhoff and Allen, 2001). The fact that no explicit weights are needed to
aggregate the indicators is seen as an advantage. Nevertheless, it is possible to integrate
preferential information into DEA (Korhonen et al., 2002; Mavrotas and Trifillis, 2006).
Recently, there are more and more applications of DEA for technique assessment or
technology selection and environmental performance measuring (Sarkis and Weinrach,
2001; Keh and Chu, 2002; Zaim, 2004; Zhou et al., 2006; Kuosmanen and Kortelainen,
2007). Especially in the context of the regulation of the energy market and particularly the
electricity distribution, DEA benchmarking has been tested for various large samples
(Korhonen and Luptacik, 2004; Estellita Lins et al., 2007).
It can be concluded that the application of DEA is useful for the ex-post evaluation of many
similar organisations but is less suitable for the comparison of few emerging technologies. A
crucial point of the DEA is the determination of the efficiency frontier, and thus the virtual
efficient production process to which the real existing organisations are compared. Such a
virtual efficient technology cannot be constructed by any combination of existing technologies
and will never exist in reality.
2.2

Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

The efficiency definition is also the starting point for Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). In a
decision problem, all non-dominated alternatives are called efficient.2 Through special focus
on the dominance relation multi-criteria methods seek to reduce incomparabilities by
explicitly incorporating preferential information of the decision maker (Brans and Mareschal,
2005). The research field of Multi Criteria Analysis comprises methods for Multi Attribute
Decision Making (MADM), covering the assessment of a finite set of alternatives (discrete
solution space), and Multi Objective Decision Making (MODM) focussing on alternatives
restricted by constraints (continuous solution space). The comparison of emerging
technologies calls for MADM, for which two main streams exist (Belton and Stewart, 2002;
Figueira et al., 2005):

the classical approaches, which are based on the assumption that clear judgements
exist about utility values of the attributes and their weightings, which can be formalised
within the multi-criteria technique. Examples are the Multi Attribute Value/Utility Theory
(MAVT/MAUT) or the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).

Alternatives are dominated if there is another alternative that is not worse in any attribute and better
in at least one.

-4-

the Outranking approaches, which suppose that the preferences are not apparent to the
decision maker, and therefore the decision support aims at giving insights into the
consequences of different weightings. The main difference to the classical MCA
methods lies in the consideration of weak preferences and incomparable criteria. The
most prominent Outranking models are ELECTRE and PROMETHEE.

Both classical and Outranking approaches structure the decision making process and thus
support the understanding of preferences. During the last decades, behavioural aspects of
decision making became more important (French et al., 1998; Pyhnen et al., 2001;
Hodgkin et al., 2005), while comparisons of different algorithms are no longer in the focus of
the scientific debate (Lootsma, 1996; Simpson, 1996). Thus, MCA can be considered as
mature, which explains its wide use in environmental contexts (Miettinen and Hmlinen,
1997; Seppl et al., 2002), in technique assessment (Geldermann et al., 2000; Geldermann
and Rentz, 2001), and in technology foresighting (Gustafsson et al., 2003). It can provide
support for the decision maker in his/her quest for better understanding of the
interdependencies in the weighting of environmental criteria. However, this discussion is
highly controversial and it is important to note that some authors favour a more technical
approach, whilst others stress the importance of detailed stakeholder involvement because
of context sensitivity and the significant influence on the overall results (Joubert et al., 1997;
Prato, 1999; Brouwer and van Ek, 2004; Munda, 2004b).
In contrast to DEA, which aims at an ex-post evaluation of many similar units for the purpose
of monitoring and control, the objective of MCA is the ex-ante assessment of a few individual
options by explicitly considering the subjective preferences of a decision maker for the
purpose of decision support, planning and choice, (Belton and Stewart, 1999). The selection
of one final solution out of the mathematically equivalent set of Pareto optimal solutions is not
a purely mathematical question which can be addressed objectively. Thus, the explicit
acknowledgement of the remaining subjectivity within decision processes is the goal of multicriteria methods (see also (Munda et al., 1995; Martinez-Alier et al., 1998; Munda, 2004a).
Concerning the efficiency definition it can be said that MCA provides a partial ordering of the
alternatives. Multi-criteria methods try to reduce these incomparabilities by incorporating
preference models. A wide range of literature about elicitation of value judgements,
preference modelling, and the ability of the decision maker to provide this information exists
(see (Weber et al., 1988; Weber and Borcherding, 1993; Belton and Stewart, 1999; Mustajoki
and Hmlinen, 2000) for more information). It is also acknowledged that the weighting
within MCA is context specific since no objective values exist. Apart from the classical
weighting techniques (e.g. direct ratio, SWING, SMART (Edwards, 1977; Winterfeld and
Edwards, 1986), SMARTER (Edwards, 1977; Barron and Barret, 1996), eigenvector method
(Saaty, 1980) etc.), specialised methods are discussed in the case of environmental impacts.
The normalisation of attribute weights in these various approaches has been identified as a
procedural source of biases (Salo and Hmlinen, 1997; Pyhnen and Hmlinen,
2001).
-5-

Another classical problem in MCA is the phenomenon of rank reversals, in particular, when a
new decision alternative, which is added to an otherwise unchanged decision problem,
causes a reordering of the previous rank order (Keyser and Peeters, 1996; Simpson, 1996).
But (Leskinen and Kangas, 2005) show that rank reversals caused by inconsistency are
natural and acceptable and that geometric-mean aggregation (instead of the traditional
arithmetic-mean aggregation rule) does not cause undesired rank reversals.
2.3

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Over the last 35 years, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been developed in varying forms to
evaluate the environmental impacts of products, services, or processes from cradle-tograve. The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has established guidelines and
principles for LCA in order to provide information for decisions regarding product
development and eco-design, production system improvements, and product choice at the
consumer level (cf. (Wrisberg et al., 2002; Ness et al., 2007). LCA may provide qualitative or
quantitative results. The latter makes it easier to identify problematic parts of the life-cycle
and to specify what gains can be made with alternative ways of fulfilling the function.
Choosing between ecological profiles involves balancing different types of impact and is thus
typical of a multi-criteria decision problem when explicit or implicit trade-offs and pair-wise
comparisons are needed to construct an overall judgment. Consequently, the combination of
LCA with a subsequent Multi Criteria Analysis has been proposed by various authors
(Maystre et al., 1994; Geldermann and Rentz, 2001; Belton and Stewart, 2002; Seppl et
al., 2002; Keefer et al., 2004; Hmlinen, 2004).
Within LCA four basic steps are identified in ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. It resembles the ubiquitous decision
analytic cycle with the main phases: problem formulation, evaluation of options, and review
of the decision models (Geldermann and Rentz, 2004b; French and Geldermann, 2005).
Table 1 summarises the modules for an integrated technique assessment, comprising
ecological and techno-economic aspects.
Decision support is particularly necessary for the simultaneous consideration of ecological,
economic, technical, and social criteria when quantifying the eco-efficiency of emerging
technologies. In the majority of practical decision problems no alternative exists that is the
best in all criteria. In fact, each alternative offers both strengths and weaknesses, which must
be counterbalanced. Therefore, the use of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is suggested in order
to support structuring the problem, formalising the trade-offs between the alternatives and
fostering the transparency of the decision.

-6-

Table 1: Modules of an integrated technique assessment

Phases of Life Cycle

Modules of an integrated

Assessment according to

technique assessment

Tasks

ISO 14044
Goal and scope definition

Goal definition

Selection of scenarios
Setting of system boundaries
Definition of functional units

Inventory analysis

Mass and Energy Balance

Data collection
Modelling of relevant mass and
energy flows

Impact assessment

Calculation of Characteristic

Calculation of technical and

Figures

economic characteristic figures

Calculation of impact potentials and
critical volumes for ecological
evaluation

Interpretation

Decision Support

Data editing and Normalisation

Weighting of the criteria
Multi Criteria Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis

2.4

The Eco-Efficiency Analysis

LCA has been further developed into the eco-efficiency analysis by BASF and has been
applied in more than 220 analyses of products ranging from vitamins to basic chemicals
(Saling et al., 2002; Wall et al., 2004; Saling et al., 2005). Based on the ISO14044 standards,
some additional enhancements like an economic assessment allow for expedient review and
decision-making at all business levels. A modular design aims at focusing on decisionrelevant aspects by concentrating on specific events in a life cycle where the alternatives
-7-

under consideration differ. The authors state that the representation of a multiplicity of
individual results from the actual life cycle assessment is frequently opaque, difficult to
interpret and thus not very meaningful. (Saling et al., 2002), p.11) In order to overcome
these difficulties, schemes of weighting factors have been developed, such as those based
on relevance factors indicating how important the individual environmental compartment is
for a particular eco-efficiency analysis. Societal views of the individual ecological impact
categories were reflected through surveys, public opinion polling and expert interviews. Much
emphasis is put on catchy presentations of the results as done by the Boston Consulting
Matrix or Spider Diagrams.
2.5

Normalisation as a common difficulty in quantifying eco-efficiency

Well known approaches addressing the issue of valuation of potential environmental impacts
are the Cumulative Energy Demand, Eco Indicator method, environmental pressure
indicators, MIPS (Material Input per Unit Service), the calculation of shadow prices based on
abatement costs, determination of weights based on eco-taxes, panel methods, or the total
relevance using verbal predicates based on ecological relevance and specific contribution
(Berkel and Lafleur, 1997; Soest et al., 1998; Wrisberg et al., 2002; Ness et al., 2007). All
these approaches have the general quest for normalisation in common. During the
normalisation procedure the measure of the performance of alternatives is modified to be
comparable, thus ensuring the applicability of preference or utility aggregation while still
considering all decision-relevant criteria.
In LCA software several data conversion techniques are applied to transform the information
supplied by the various data sources like the person equivalent, which expresses the
environmental impact or resource consumption that an average person contributes per year
worldwide, in Europe, or in a specific country (van Oers and Huppes, 2001; Huijbregts et al.,
2003). Similarly, the specific contribution is defined as the share of the collected results of
the average impact potential in relation to the total impact potential for the EU in the
respective impact category for a year. Data availability, however, limits the applicability of
such normalisation approaches in many case studies.
In MCA normalisation is achieved by scale transformations through which measures of
preference, value, or utility are derived. MCA can be applied to interpret the impact category
weights within an LCA and can offer rules for aggregation and normalisation (Seppl and
Hmlinen, 2001). Though weighting of criteria is unavoidable (since even no weighting
would imply an equal weighting of all considered criteria), it causes problems as case
specific normalisation may not be compatible with generally established weighting factors.
In the context of MCA, effects like rank reversals (Keyser and Peeters, 1996; Simpson, 1996;
Leskinen and Kangas, 2005), independence of irrelevant alternatives (Sen, 1970; Neumann,
2007), and splitting effects of weights (Weber and Borcherding, 1993) have been
investigated for a long time. Some of these effects can be explained by the fact that the
consideration of further alternatives in the current decision problem enhances the knowledge
-8-

base, leading to a different view of the decision maker on the decision problem (Keyser and
Peeters, 1996). Therefore, it is always emphasized that MCA can only support decision
making by delivering a structured image of the often contradictory and inconsistent reality,
but can never replace the decision maker.

3 Case Study
Though quantifying eco-efficiency still lacks a consistent theory and ranked preferences may
be prone to undesired rank reversals,3 decisions about emerging technologies must be
made. The aim of this case study is the critical reflection of the eco-efficiency analysis as
developed and applied by BASF. Although a company can base its decisions on whatever
grounds it likes, so long as its shareholders and stakeholders do not contradict, this special
approach is much being promoted (Saling 2002; Saling et al., 2005). Thus, a genuine case
study performed by (Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005) is re-analysed with MCA.
The starting point for the recalculation of the case study was an initiative by an informal
working group of various European coating producers on environmental assessment. They
were uncertain if all coating producers should apply the BASF eco-efficiency analysis or if
other approaches would be beneficial or even more meaningful. Though these practitioners
had been aware of MCA in general, they were sceptical about too scientific and sophistic
approaches.
Many manufactured items receive surface coatings for decoration and/or protection against
damage. In a number of places along the production line emissions of VOC (Volatile Organic
Compounds) can occur. Because VOC are a major contributor to photochemical smog,
control of VOC emissions is a major concern for the industrys commitment to the
environment. That is why a special BREF is dedicated to surface treatment using solvents.
Not only large installations, such as serial coating of automobiles, are under consideration
but also small and medium sized companies like vehicle refinishing, which refers to the
commercial application of paint coating materials to automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and
other like equipment, often as a repair after accidents (Geldermann and Rentz, 2004a).
Thus, coating manufacturers, such as BASF (Wall et al., 2004), have to supply appropriate
coating materials and introduce innovative technologies. One example are UV-cured
undercoats, which promise enhanced performance, higher productivity and an improved ecoefficiency compared to traditional thermally cured coatings. Ultraviolet (UV) curing is a
process in which UV energy produced by a mercury discharge lamp is absorbed by a
sensitizer, causing a reaction in the monomer which makes it hard and dry (Koleske, 2002).
These combinations of new coating products and matched application technologies are

Various Nobel Price winners like K. Arrow, G. Debreu or A. Sen pointed out these difficulties in their
famous works, and no satisfying solutions are ready at hand up until now. Thus, mankind will still have
to live with some imperfections.

-9-

currently considered as emerging technologies in the surface coating sector (Geldermann et

al., 2007).
Although other coating layers (e.g. base-coat, clear-coat) also have to be applied during the
refinishing process, only the primer application is considered in this case study. Primer
means any coating that is designed for application to bare metal or existing finishes to
provide corrosion protection prior to the application of a surfacer, which is applied later for
the purpose of corrosion resistance, to ensure adhesion of the topcoat, and to promote the
formation of a uniform surface finish by filling in minor surface imperfections. It is assumed
that these subsequent process steps and products to be used are independent from the type
of the primer applied. After its application the primer must be dried and cured, changing its
state from liquid to a continuous solid film. Therefore, heat is applied either directly (by
thermal drying) or indirectly (by UV or infra red drying), which results in the evaporation of the
solvents and the film building of the primer. If the product contains no solvents, the coating
layer is formed by chemical reactions between the components. In addition to the application
step itself, related activities like, for example, cleaning of the surface and the equipment are
taken into account. Furthermore, the extra fuel consumption of the automobile over its
lifetime resulting from the weight of the dried primer is considered. Table 2 summarises the
used data for the six alternatives (Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005),:
(i) One-Component UV Curing Primer (1K UV),
(ii) One-Component UV Curing Primer, using an aerosol can (1K UV-A).
(iii) Conventional Two-Component Urethane Primer with thermal drying (2K U-T),
(iv) Two-Component Urethane with infra red drying (2K U-IR),
(v) Epoxy with thermal drying (E-T),
(vi) Epoxy with infra red drying (E-IR)
The weights of the environmental criteria have been taken form the underlying case study
(Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005), while the weighting of costs has been assumed
to be 50%.
Table 2: General Data of the Case Study (Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005)
Criterion
Total Costs
Energy

Unit
[$/job]
[MJ/CB]

Weight

1K UV

1K UV-A

2K U-T

2K U-IR

E-T

E-IR

50 %

14.58

22.00

27.65

19.05

24.94

18.37

12.5%

30

25

800

35

690

35

GWP

[g CO2-Eq. /CB]

5%

1 700

1 700

52 000

2 000

45 500

1 700

POCP

[g Ethene-Eq./CB]

5%

5.5

20

32

26

26

24

10%

0.94

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.87

0.85

Health Effects

norm. scores

- 10 -

norm. scores

Risk
Resources

scores

5%

0.41

0.71

0.91

0.99

0.85

0.93

12.5%

100

105

375

120

330

105

GWP = Global Warming Potential, POCP = Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential, CB = Coated
body

3.1

Application of the Eco-Efficiency Analysis

As outlined in Section 2.4, the eco-efficiency analysis mainly follows the ISO 14044 phases
(Wall et al., 2004; Richards and Wall, 2005). Following a company specific normalisation and
weighting, the corresponding arithmetic values are summarized in a special plot, called
environmental fingerprint, which illustrates the relative ecological pros and cons of the
analysed alternatives. The least favourable alternative is assigned a value of 1, and the
further inward an alternative is located, the better it is. Thus, Figure 1 presents alternative 2K
U-T and E-T as the two worst alternatives, since their profiles cover the largest areas, while
1K UV comes out best with the smallest area. The alternatives are, however, hardly
distinguishable in such a graphical representation. The environmental fingerprint highlights
the environmental impact drivers and points out improvement potentials. Finally, an EcoEfficiency portfolio (in analogy to the growth-share matrix developed by Boston Consulting in
1970) consolidates all of the individual environmental and economic results into one
representation (Wall et al., 2004).

Figure 3 shows that the alternatives E-T and 2k U-T are the worst alternatives when taking
the environmental impact and costs into account.
Section 2.5 already commented on the difficulties inherent in normalisation in general. Since
this eco-efficiency analysis employs BASF-specific normalisation and weighting factors, the
transfer of this approach to quantifying the eco-efficiency of emerging technologies of all
European coating producers is problematic. Another methodological question touches upon
the interpretability of the graphical representations: Does the size of the ecological
fingerprint really relate to the area marked by the connected points in Figure 1? This is
certainly not the case because neither the angle between the axes nor their length reflects
the weighting of the depicted alternatives.
- 11 -

- 12 -

Figure 1: Ecological Fingerprint of six automotive refinish primers (Wall et al., 2004)

Figure 2: Ecological fingerprint of six automotive refinish primers (Wall et al., 2004)

Figure 3: Results of the Eco-Efficiency Analysis (Wall et al., 2004)

3.2

Application of an Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

From the numerous approaches to MCA, the Outranking approach PROMETHEE has been
chosen because of its flexibility and understandability. Outranking can be defined in the
following way: alternative at outranks at', if there is a sufficiently strong argument in favour of
the assertion that at is at least as good as at' from the decision makers point of view (Brans
et al., 1986). Accordingly, the outranking relation is the result of pair-wise comparisons
between the alternatives with regard to each criterion (Stewart, 1992; Roy and Bouyssou,
1993). The outranking method PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization METHod for
Enrichment Evaluation) (Brans et al., 1986; Brans and Mareschal, 2005) derives the
preference values by generalised criteria, which can be defined by the decision maker
specifically for each considered criterion. Box 1 summarizes the PROMETHEE algorithm,
- 13 -

and Figure 4 illustrates the six proposed types of generalised preference functions, as they
have been implemented in Matlab (Schrader, 2005; Treitz, 2006). Although Decision Lab
2000 is a commercial software package for the implementation of PROMETHEE, the
academic implementation in Matlab allows for further sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, as
will be shown later.
First of all, the basic PROMETHEE algorithm (see Box 1) has been applied to the decision
table (as shown in Table 2). The preference function Type VI (Gaussian Criterion) has been
chosen for all criteria, using half of the difference between the maximal and the minimal
attribute value of each criterion as the inflection point s of the respective Gaussian function
(cf. Figure 4)

- 14 -

Box 1: Outline of the PROMETHEE algorithm

As with most MADM methods, PROMETHEE is built on the basic notation, with a set A of T
alternatives that must be ranked, and K criteria that must be optimised:
A := {a1,...,aT} :
F := {f1,...,fK} :

Set of discrete alternatives, scenarios or techniques at (t = 1...T)

Set of criteria relevant for the decision fk (k = 1...K)

The resulting multiple criteria decision problem can then be concisely expressed in a matrix
format. The goal achievement matrix or decision matrix D := ( xtk ) t =1,...,T is a (T K) matrix
k =1,...,K

whose elements xtk = fk(at) indicate the evaluation or value of alternative at , with respect to
criterion fk :

x11
D= M

xT 1

L
xtk
L

x1K f1 ( a1 )
M := M

xTK f1 ( at )

L
f k ( at )
L

f K ( a1 )
M

f K ( aT )

(1)

Thus, the algorithm for PROMETHEE can be summarized as follows (Brans et al., 1986):

criterion

fk

pk (d )

(1)

Specify for each

(see also Figure 4).

(2)

Define a vector containing the weights, which are a measure for the relative
importance of each criterion, wT = [w1, ..., wk].

(3)

Define the Outranking-Relation for all the alternatives a t , a t ' A :

generalised

preference

function

A A [0,1]

K
:
(at , at ' ) = wk pk ( f k (at ) f k (at ' ))

k =1
(4)

(2)

As a measure of the strength of the alternatives a t A , the leaving flow (Phi plus) is
calculated: + (at ) =

1 T
(at , at ' )
T t '=1
t ' t

(5)

As a measure of the weakness of the alternatives a t A , the entering flow (Phi

minus) is calculated: - (at ) =

1 T
(at ' , at )
T t '=1
t ' t

(6)

Graphical evaluation of the outranking relation.

- 15 -

(4)

Based on Phi net (=Phi plus Phi minus), a total preorder can be derived.

Figure 4: Six types of generalised preference functions within PROMETHEE as a MatLab

Screenshot

On the basis of these parameters the One-Component UV Primer (1K UV) has the highest
Net flow compared to the other alternatives and is ranked first. Figure 5 shows the
aggregated outranking flows of Phi Plus (the relative strength of an alternative), Phi Minus
(the relative weakness of an alternative) and the Phi Net (overall rating). The small Phi Minus
- 16 -

flow for the alternative 1K UV indicates that it has a strong performance in most criteria,
whereas the small Phi Plus flow of alternative 2K U-T is a sign that this alternative is weak in
most attribute values.

Figure 5: Aggregated Outranking Flows of the Alternatives

This result can also be displayed as a spider diagram of the net flows of each criterion (cf.
Figure 6). With the advent of more powerful computer aid, notably in the 1990s, various
visualisation techniques for MCA have been investigated (Vetschera, 1994). Quite a few
decision makers prefer spider diagrams. However, their readability decreases with the
number of considered alternatives and criteria. Different from the ecological fingerprint in
Figure 1, the outermost alternative is the better one while the dimension of the axes depicts
the preference values of the alternatives (and not only a normalisation to the highest
parameter value). The spider diagram shows that the 1K UV is the dominating alternative
with respect to costs, risk, and POCP, that it shares this position with other alternatives for
the criteria Energy, GWP and Resources (Res), and that it is outranked only with respect to
the health criterion. Hence, also a change of the weight of the different criteria will show the
1K UV primer as the outstanding alternative.
A serious drawback of spider diagrams is their potential misinterpretation if the surface
marked by the connecting lines is considered as a value judgement about the size of the
ecological damage. The screenshot in Figure 6 should certainly not evoke such an
association since the axes show the PROMETHEE net flows, with the largest value as the
best one (whereas the eco-efficiency analysis depicts the potential damage: the smaller, the
better).

- 17 -

Alternatives:

Figure 6: Spider Diagram of the Phi Net Flows

3.3

Uncertainty Analysis

The majority of environmental decision problems involves uncertainty and risk. By their very
nature, estimates and long-term forecasts, as required in LCA and for the evaluation of
emerging technologies, are obviously uncertain; and a technology considered optimal on the
basis of particular assumptions made today is highly unlikely to turn out optimal in the actual
situation in a decade. For reviews discussing different types of uncertainty, variability, and
risk see, for example, (French, 2003; Huijbregts et al., 2003; Bertsch, 2008).
Considering the above mentioned difficulties in modelling value judgements and
normalisation, it is important to carry out sensitivity analyses as proposed in the ISO 14044.
Sensitivity analyses investigate how the results of a model change with variations in the input
variables and are therefore essential in any multi-criteria decision analysis problem. Using
PROMETHEE several local and global (Saltelli et al., 2000) sensitivity analyses can be
carried out (Treitz, 2006).
Especially the use of Monte Carlo Techniques and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
(Timm, 2002) allows a simultaneous consideration of the uncertainty of the process data and
the value judgements of the decision maker. Besides investigating the robustness of the
decision, the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative can be addressed and so, the
distinguishability of all alternatives can be evaluated (Basson, 2004). Consequently,
sensitivity analyses are important to iteratively re-model the decision problem and to facilitate
learning about the given problem.
The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is based on the matrix M of the single criterion net
flows in which the strengths and weaknesses of an alternative can be analysed for each
criterion individually. By calculating the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix MM and
building a matrix of all eigenvectors sorted by the magnitude of the eigenvalues, the axes
can be transformed (Timm, 2002). The transformation represents a rigid rotation of the old
- 18 -

axes into the new principal axes based on the matrix of the sorted eigenvectors. The
component scores in the new coordinate system are uncorrelated and have maximum
variance. By projecting the cloud of alternatives from the Rn onto the plane of the two
eigenvectors with the largest eigenvalues (henceforth called 1st and 2nd principal component),
the so-called GAIA plane (Brans et al., 1986), as much information as possible is preserved.
Apart from alternatives and criteria axes, the weighting vector (the PROMETHEE decision
stick or weighting vector ) can be projected on the GAIA plane. By defining upper and lower
bounds for each weight, the convex hull of all valid weighting combinations can be projected
on the GAIA plane. (Brans and Mareschal, 2005), p. 181) call the projection of the set of all
extreme points of the unit vectors associated to all allowable weights the Human Brain or
the PROMETHEE VI sensitivity tool. While this idea has been roughly sketched by (Brans
and Mareschal, 2005), the implementation in Matlab is its first software realisation (Treitz,
2006).
The GAIA plane in Figure 7 illustrates the projection of all alternatives, criteria and the
weighting vector. It can easily be seen that the criteria are not mutually independent (as
claimed by (Saling et al., 2002) and (Wall et al., 2004)) since the projections of the criteria do
not span the decision space equally, but rather point into one direction.
Figure 7 also shows the variation in value judgements with the grey area around the
weighting vector (as the PROMETHEE VI sensitivity tool) and the uncertainty in the
attribute data with the scatter plot of 1,000 points created by changing all attribute values in a
Monte Carlo Simulation using a standard deviation of 5 % and a normal distribution. This plot
makes clear that a differentiation between the 1K UV-A alternative and the two IR
alternatives (E-IR and 2K U-IR) might be difficult if the uncertainty in the underlying data is
taken into account. This also becomes obvious when the small differences of their
projections on the weighting vector are compared. But even under these uncertain
conditions, the 1K UV curing coat is always the best ranked alternative.
Furthermore, the selection of the preference function does not influence the ranking in its first
position. This can be confirmed with a sensitivity analysis of all possible combinations of
preference functions within PROMETHEE (see Figure 8).

- 19 -

Alternatives:
1K UV
1K UV-A
2K U-T
2K U-IR
E-T
E-IR

PROMETHEE VI
sensitivity area

Criteria:

Figure 7: Illustration of Alternatives using PCA and Monte Carlo Simulation

Figure 8: Influence of the selected type of preference function (279.936 combinations)

In summary, the analysis identifies the One-Component UV Primer (1K UV) as the best
alternative even if uncertainties that are possibly caused by measurement errors or
estimation methods and the difficulty to formalize value judgments are taken into account. It
has the least total cost thanks to simpler coating preparation, less cleaning of equipment is
required and shorter cure times are possible which results in labour and energy savings. The
aerosol UV-primer has similar advantages but at higher material prices. With regard to their
market penetration, additional criteria should be considered, such as extra training of the
coaters or initial investment (which might be necessary to change to UV curable products
since most of the body fillers used in refinishing at the moment are dried using infra red).
The PROMETHEE multi-criteria analysis helped to gain further insights into the given
selection or ranking problem concerning different techniques, and enabled the decision
- 20 -

maker to understand his own preferences and transparently model and communicate them.
The sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in particular elucidate the variability in the underlying
data and the subjective value judgments.

4 Conclusions
In the majority of practical decision problems such as technique assessment - no
alternative exists that is the best in all criteria, i.e., (almost) all alternatives are efficient. Multicriteria analysis is one approach to resolving incomparability by incorporating preferential
information in the relative measurement of efficiency during the course of an ex-ante decision
support process. Various MCA approaches have been developed to support structuring the
problem, formalising the trade-offs between the alternatives, and fostering the transparency
of the decision since the final choice of one of the efficient alternatives is by its very nature
subjective. The outranking approach PROMETHEE is employed for the case study of refinish
primer application with data from an eco-efficiency analysis presented by (Wall et al., 2004;
Richards and Wall, 2005). Using a multi-criteria approach supports transparent and traceable
decisions. With the help of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses the variability in the
underlying data and the value judgements of the decision makers can be analysed and help
re-model the decision problem. These advanced analyses are considered as the distinct
advantage of MCA in comparison to the eco-efficiency analysis (Saling et al., 2002), which
just comprises various types of normalisation of the different criteria. MCA offers
mathematically sound approaches for the quantification of eco-efficiency and for the
consideration of unavoidable subjective aspects in preference modelling. Extended
distinguishability analyses can help to overcome the limitations of graphical illustrations, and
suitable software tools (such as the proposed implementation in MatLab) allow for various
modes of reporting.

- 21 -

5 References
Barron, F.H., Barret, B.E., 1996. Decision Quality Used Ranked Attribute Weights
Management Science, 42, 1515-1523.
Basson, L., 2004. Context, Compensation and Uncertainty in Environmental Decision
Making; Ph. D Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Sydney,
Australia.
Belton, V., Stewart, T., 1999. DEA and MCDA: Competing or Complementary Approaches.
Meskens, N, Roubens, M (eds.) Mathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications
Advances in Decision Analysis. (6), 87-104; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.
Belton, V., Stewart, T., 2002. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis - An integrated approach;
Kluwer Academic Press: Boston.
Berkel, R.v., Lafleur, M., 1997. Application of an industrial ecology toolbox for the
introduction of industrial ecology in enterprises - II Journal of Cleaner Production, 5 (1-2),
27-37.
Bertsch, V., 2008. Uncertainty handling in multi-attribute decision support for industrial risk
management; Universittsverlag: Karlsruhe.
Brans, J.-P., Mareschal, B., 2005. PROMETHEE Methods. Figueira, J, Greco, S, Ehrgott, M
(eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis - State of the Art Surveys., 163-195; Springer:
New York.
Brans, J.-P., Vincke, Ph., Mareschal, B., 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The
PROMETHEE method European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238.
Brouwer, R., van Ek, R., 2004. Integrated ecological, economic and social impact
assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands Ecological Economics,
50 (1-2), 1-21.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), 429-444.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Zhu, J., 2004. Data Envelopment Analysis: History, Models and
Interpretations. Cooper, W W, Seiford, L M, Zhu, J (eds.) International Series in
Operations Research and Management Science Handbook on Data Envelopment
Analysis. (1), 1-40; Kluwer: Boston.
Dyckhoff, H., Allen, K., 2001. Measuring the ecological efficiency with data envelopment
analyis (DEA) European Journal of Operational Research, 132, 312-325.
Edwards, W., 1977. How to use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7, 326-340.

- 22 -

Estellita Lins, M.P., Vervloet Sollero, M.K., Calba, G.M., Moreira da Silva, A.C., 2007.
Integrating the regulatory and utility firm perspectives, when measuring the efficiency of
electricity distribution European Journal of Operational Research, 181 (3), 1413-1424.
Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., 2005. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis - Stae of the Art
Surveys; Springer: New York.
French, S., Simpson, L., Atherton, E., Belton, V., Dawes, R., Edwards, W., Hmlinen,
R.P., Larichev, O., Lootsma, F., Pearman, A., Vlek, C., 1998. Problem formulation for
multi-criteria decision analysis: Report of a workshop Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision
Analysis, 7, 242-262.
French, S., 2003. Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity
analysis TOP, 11 (2), 229-252.
French, S., Geldermann, J., 2005. The varied contexts of environmental decision problems
and their implications for decision support Environmental Policy and Science, 8 (4), 378391.
Geldermann, J., Schollenberger, H., Rentz, O., Huppes, G., van Oers, L., France, C., Nebel,
B., Clift, R., Lipkova, A., Saetta, S., Desideri, U., May, T., 2007. An integrated scenario
analysis for the metal coating sector in Europe Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 74 (8), 1482-1507.
Geldermann, J., Rentz, O., 2001. Integrated technique assessment with imprecise
information as a support for the identification of Best Available Techniques (BAT) OR
Spectrum, 23, 137-157.
Geldermann, J., Rentz, O., 2004a. Decision support through mass and energy flow
management in the sector of surface treatment Journal of Industrial Ecology, 8 (4), 173187.
Geldermann, J., Rentz, O., 2004b. Environmental Decisions and Electronic Democracy
Journal of Multi-criteria Analysis, 12 (2-3), 77-92.
Geldermann, J., Spengler, T., Rentz, O., 2000. Fuzzy Outranking for Environmental
Assessment, Case Study: Iron and Steel Making Industry Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 115
(1), 45-65.
Grassmann, P., 1950. Zur allgemeinen Definition des Wirkungsgrades Chemie Ingenieur
Technik, 22 (4), 77-96.
Gustafsson, T., Salo, A., Ramanathan, R., 2003. Multicriteria methods for technology
foresight Journal of Forecasting, 22 (2-3), 235-256.
Hmlinen, R.P., 2004. Reversing the perspective on the applications of decision analysis
Decision Analysis, 1 (1), 26-31.
Hitchens, D., Farrell, F., Lindblom, J., Triebswetter, U., 2001. The Impact of Best Available
Techniques (BAT) on the Competitiveness of European Industry, Report EUR 20133 EN;
- 23 -

Joint Research Centre (DG JRC) Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS):
Brussels.
Hodgkin, J., Belton, V., Koulouri, A., 2005. Supporting the intelligent MCDA user: A case
study in multi-person multi-criteria decision support European Journal of Operational
Research, 160 (1), 172-189.
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Breedveld, L., Huppes, G., de Koning, A., Suh, S., 2003. Normalisation
figures for environmental life-cycle assessment - The Netherlands (1997/1998), Western
Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995) Journal of Cleaner Production, 11 (7), 737748.
Joubert, A.R., Leiman, A., de Klerk, H.M., Katua, S., Aggenbach, J.C., 1997. Fynbos (fine
bush) vegetation and the supply of water: a comparison of multi-criteria decision analysis
and cost-benefit analysis Ecological Economics, 22 (2), 123-140.
Keefer, D.L., Kirkwood, C.W., Corner, J.L., 2004. Perspective on Decision Analysis
Applications, 1990 - 2001 (with discussion by R.P. Hamlinen and S. Cantor; in press)
Decision Analysis, 1 (1), 5-24.
Keh, H.T., Chu, S., 2002. Retail productivity and scale economics at the firm level: a DEA
approach Omega, 31, 75-82.
Keyser, W.d., Peeters, P., 1996. A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods
European Journal of Operational Research, 89, 457-461.
Kleine, A., 2001. Data Envelopment Analysis aus entscheidungstheoretischer Sicht OR
Spectrum, 23 (2), 223-242.
Kleine, A., 2004. A general model framework for DEA Omega, 32 (1), 17-23.
Koleske, J.V., 2002. Radiation curing of coatings; ASTM manual series: West
Conshohocken.
Koopmans, T.C., 1951. Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of Activities.
Koopmans, T C (eds.) Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation., 33-97; John Wiley
and Sons: New York.
Koopmans, T.C., 1975. Concepts of optimality and their uses Nobel Memorial Lecture., 239256; Economic Sciences.
Korhonen, P., Luptacik, M., 2004. Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: An extension of
data envelopment analysis European Journal of Operational Research, 154 (2), 437-446.
Korhonen, P., Siljamki, A., Soismaa, M., 2002. Use of Value Efficiency Analysis in Practical
Applications Journal of Productivity Analysis, 17, 49-64.
Kuosmanen, T., Kortelainen, M., 2007. Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis
using data envelopment analysis Ecological Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof.

- 24 -

Leskinen, P., Kangas, J., 2005. Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with
statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 56, 855-861.
Lootsma, F., 1996. Comments on Roy, B.; Vanderpooten, D.: The European School of
MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Work. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision
Analysis, 5, 37-38.
Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation
for ecological economics Ecological Economics, 26 (3), 277-286.
Mavrotas, G., Trifillis, P., 2006. Multicriteria decision analysis with minimum information:
combining DEA with MAVT Computers and Operations Research, 33, 2083-2098.
Maystre, J., Pictet, J., Simos, J., 1994. Mthodes multicritres ELECTRE - Description,
conseils pratiques et cas d'application la gestion environnementale; Presse
Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes: Lausanne.
Miettinen, P., Hmlinen, R.P., 1997. How to benefit from decision analysis in
environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) European Journal of Operational Research,
102, 279-294.
Moffat, D.W., 1976. Economics Dictionary; Elsevier Scientific Publishing: New York.
[49]
Munda, G., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 1995. Qualitative multicriteria methods
for fuzzy evaluation problems: An illustration of economic-ecological evaluation European
Journal of Operational Research, 82 (1), 79-97.
Munda, G., 2004a. Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and
operational consequences European Journal of Operational Research, 158 (3), 662-677.
Munda, G., 2004b. Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and
operational consequences European Journal of Operational Research, 158 (3), 662-677.
Mustajoki, J., Hmlinen, R.P., 2000. Web-HIPRE: Global Decision Support by Value Tree
and AHP Analysis INFOR, 38 (3), 208-220.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment Ecological Economics, 60, 498-508.
Neumann, M., 2007. Choosing and Describing: Sen and the Irrelevance of Independence
Alternatives Theory and Decision, 63, 79-94.
Pyhnen, M., Vrolijk, H., Hmlinen, R.P., 2001. Behavioral and procedural consequences
of structural variation in value trees European Journal of Operational Research, 134, 216227.
Pyhnen, M., Hmlinen, R., 2001. On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting
Methods European Journal of Operational Research, 129 (3), 106-122.

- 25 -

Prato, T., 1999. Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management Ecological
Economics, 30 (2), 207-222.
Rabl, A., Eyre, N., 1998. An estimate of regional and global O3 damage from precursor NOx
and VOC emissions Environment International, 24 (8), 835-850.
Richards, B., Wall, C., 2005. Automotive Refinish Primers for Small Surface Damage Repair
http://corporate.basf.com/file/15376.file5.
Roy, B., Bouyssou, D., 1993. Aide multicritre la dcision; Economica: Paris.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw Hill: New York.
Saling, P., Maisch, R., Silvani, M., Knig, N., 2005. Assessing the Environmental-Hazard
Potential for Life Cycle Assessment, Eco-Efficiency and SEEbalance International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment, 10 (5), 364-371.
Saling, P., Kircherer, A., Dittrich-Krmer, B., Wittlinger, R., Zombik, W., Schmidt, I., Schrott,
W., Schmidt, S., 2002. Eco-Efficiency Analysis by BASF: The Method International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7 (4), 203-218.
Salo, A., Hmlinen, R.P., 1997. On the measurement of preferences in the analytical
hierarchly process (with discussion) Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis.
Saltelli, A., Chan, K., Scott, E.M., 2000. Sensitivity Analysis; John Wiley and Sons:
Chichester.
Sarkis, J., Weinrach, J., 2001. Using data envelopment analysis to evaluate environmentally
consious waste treatment technology Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 417-427.
Schleisner, L., 2000. Comparison of methodologies for externality assessment Energy
Policy, 28, 1127-1136.
Schrader, B., 2005. Strategische Entscheidungsuntersttzung: Implementierung und
beispielhafte
Anwendung
eines
Software
Tools
zur
Evaluierung
von
Mehrzielentscheidungsproblemen.
Sen, A.K., 1970. Collective Choice And Social Welfare; Holden-Day: San Francisco.
Seppl, J., Basson, L., Norris, G.A., 2002. Decision analysis frameworks for life-cycle
impact assessment Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5 (4), 45-68.
Seppl, J., Hmlinen, R.P., 2001. On the meaning of the distance-to-target weighting
method and normalisation in life cycle impact assessment International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 6 (4), 211-218.
Simpson, L., 1996. Do decision makers know what they prefer?: MAVT and ELECTRE
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 919-929.
Soest, J.P.V., Sas, H., De Witt, G., 1998. Apples, Oranges and the Environment: Prioritising
Environmental Measures on the Basis of their Cost-effectiveness; Centre for Energy
Conservation and Environmental Technology: Delft.
- 26 -

Stewart, T.J., 1992. A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making
Theory and Praxis OMEGA - International Journal of Management Science, 20 (5/6), 569586.
Timm, N.H., 2002. Applied multivariate analysis; Springer: New York.
Treitz, M., 2006. Production Process Design Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Dissertation,
University
of
Karlsruhe
(available
online
at:
http://www.uvka.de/univerlag/volltexte/2006/178/); Karlsruhe University Press: Karlsruhe.
van Oers, L., Huppes, G., 2001. LCA Normalisation Factors for the Netherlands, Western
Europe and the World International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 6 (5), 256.
Vetschera, R., 1994. Visualisierungstechniken in Entscheidungsproblemen bei mehrfacher
Zielsetzung / Visualization techniques in multicriteria decision-making OR Spektrum, 16,
227-241.
Wall, C., Richards, B., Bradlee, C., 2004. The Ecological and Economic Benefits of UV
Curing Technology RadTech Report 2004.
WBCSD, 2006. Eco-efficiency module; World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD): Geneva.
Weber, M., Borcherding, K., 1993. Behavioural problems in weight judgements European
Journal of Operational Research, 67, 1-12.
Weber, M., Eisenfhr, F., Von Winterfeldt, D., 1988. The effects of splitting attributes on
weights in multiattribute utility measurement Management Science, 34, 431-445.
Winterfeld, D.v., Edwards, D., 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavorial Research; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge.
Wrisberg, N., Udo de Haes, H.A., Triebswetter, U., Eder, P., Clift, R., 2002. Analytical Tools
for
Environmental
Design
and
Management
in
a
Systems
Perspective; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Zaim, O., 2004. Measuring environmental performance of state manufacturing through
changes in pollution intensities: a DEA framework Ecological Economics, 48 (1), 37-47.
Zhou, P., Ang, B.W., Poh, K.L., 2006. Slacks-based efficiency measures for modeling
environmental performance Ecological Economics, 60 (1), 111-118.

- 27 -

Bisherige Publikationen der Research Paper Reihe:

Nr.

1: Isbruch, F. (2008) Anwendbarkeit und Ausgestaltung bergreifender

Controllinginstrumente in Unternehmenskooperationen, Research Paper der GeorgAugust-Universitt Gttingen, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultt, Schwerpunkt
Unternehmensfhrung, Professur fr Unternehmensrechnung und Controlling,
Gttingen, Juli 2008

Nr. 2: Mller, K., Schmlzle, H. (2008) Messung und Steuerung im Innovationsprozess,

Research
Paper
der
Georg-August-Universitt
Gttingen,
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultt, Schwerpunkt Unternehmensfhrung, Professur
fr Unternehmensrechnung und Controlling, Gttingen, Juli 2008
Nr.

3:

Geldermann,

J.,

Bertsch,

V.,

Gering,

F.

(2008)

Risikomanagement

und

Mehrzielentscheidungsuntersttzung unter Unsicherheit am Beispiel der Planung

effizienter Notfallmanahmen nach kerntechnischen Strfllen, Research Paper der
Georg-August-Universitt
Gttingen,
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche
Fakultt,
Schwerpunkt Unternehmensfhrung, Professur fr Produktion und Logistik,
Gttingen, Oktober 2008
Nr. 4: Mller, K., Krull, T. (2008) Reporting immaterieller Vermgenswerte in den
Geschftsberichten der DAX-30-Unternehmen, Research Paper der Georg-AugustUniversitt
Gttingen,
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche
Fakultt,
Schwerpunkt
Unternehmensfhrung, Professur fr Unternehmensrechnung und Controlling,
Gttingen, Oktober 2008

- 28 -