The relevance of Life Cycle Costing in Green Public Procurement

Author/s Benedetta Nucci, Fabio Iraldo, Maria Rosa De Giacomo
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2016/1 Language English
Pages 19 P. 91-109 File size 830 KB
DOI 10.3280/EFE2016-001005
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

The aim of this paper is to discuss the relevance of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) in public procurement in the European context after the publication of the Directive 2014/24/EU. After a description of the concept, the dimensions and main features of LCC, the contents of the Directive are briefly presented, focusing on the requirements related to life cycle costing. The main issues related to the assessment of LCC are then discussed, such as discounting and uncertainty of the data, but the paper mostly concentrates on a key-aspect of the methodology: the monetization of environmental externalities, since the Directive emphasizes that this aspect shall also be included in the LCC calculation. Moreover, in order to explore the relevance of LCC in public procurement, a survey to 119 public administrations of different countries has been carried out. The main findings of the survey, presented in our paper, show that the Life Cycle Costing approach is implemented by only a small part of public administrations, in spite of the fact that Green Public Procurement, normally considered as a driver for LCC, is very diffused among the same administrations

Keywords: Life cycle costing, green public procurement, public administrations

  1. Asiedu Y. and Gu P. (1998). Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review. International Journal of Production Research, 36(4): 883-908. DOI: 10.1080/002075498193444
  2. Dowlatshahi S. (1992). Product design in a concurrent engineering environment: an optimization approach. Journal of Production Research, 30: 1803-1818. DOI: 10.1080/00207549208948123
  3. European Commission (2008). Public procurement for a better environment. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM/2008/0400 final.
  4. European Commission – JRC (2010). ILCD Handbook – Analysis of existing Environmental Impact Assessments methodologies for use in Life Cycle Assessment.
  5. European Commission – JRC (2011). Background Review of Existing Weighting Approaches in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).
  6. European Commission (2013). Commission Recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organizations. Official Journal of the European Union.
  7. Finkbeiner M., Schau E.M., Lehmann A. and Traverso M. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability, 2: 3309-3322.
  8. Gluch P. and Baumann H. (2004). The Life Cycle Costing (LCC) approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-making. Building and Environment, 39: 571-580.
  9. Guinée J.B., Heijungs R., Huppes G., Zamagni A., Masoni P., Buonamici R., Ekvall T. and Rydberg T. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment: past, present and future. Environment, Science and Technology, 45(1): 90-96.
  10. Klöpffer W. (2008). Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13: 89-95.
  11. Korpi E. and Ala-Risku T. (2008). Life cycle costing: a review of published case studies. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23: 240-261. DOI: 10.1108/02686900810857703
  12. Hasan A. (1999). Optimizing insulation thickness for buildings using life cycle cost. Applied Energy, 63: 115-124.
  13. Heijungs R. (2008). The weighting step in life cycle impact assessment – Three explorations at midpoint and endpoint level – Weighting with damage costs.
  14. Horngren C.T., Datar S.M. and Rajan M.V. (2012). Cost Accounting. A managerial emphasis. 14th edition, Pearson.
  15. Iraldo F., Testa F., O’Connor R. and Frey M. (2011). Life Cycle Costing, a view of potential application: from cost management tool to eco-efficiency measurement, Supply Chain Management, InTech. DOI: 10.5772/15332
  16. Lindholm A. and Suomala P. (2004). The Possibilities of Life Cycle Costing in Outsourcing Decision Making. Frontiers of e-business research.
  17. Lindholm A. and Suomala P. (2005). Present and Future of Life Cycle Costing: Reflections from Finnish Companies. The Finnish Journal of Business Administration, 2: 282-292.
  18. Lindholm A. and Suomala P. (2007). Learning by costing. Sharpening cost image through life cycle costing? International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56: 651-672. DOI: 10.1108/17410400710832985
  19. Martinez-Sanchez V., Kromann M.A. and Astrup T.F. (2015). Life cycle costing of waste management systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Management, 36: 343-355.
  20. Neugebauer S., Forin S. and Finkbeiner M. (2016). From life cycle costing to economic life cycle assessment – introducing and economic impact pathway. Sustainability, 8: 1-23.
  21. Ogden J.M., Williams R.H. and Larson E.D. (2004). Societal lifecycle costs of cars with alternative fuels/engines. Energy Policy, 32: 7-27.
  22. Pizzol M., Weidema B.P., Brandão M. and Osset P. (2014). Monetary valuation in Life Cycle Assessment: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86: 170-179.
  23. Pearce D. and Barbier E.B. (2000). Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy, Earthscan Publications.
  24. Perman R., Ma Y., McGilvray J. and Common M. (2003). Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, 3rd Edition. Pearson Education, Glasgow.
  25. Robinson J. (1996). Plant and equipment acquisition: a life cycle costing case study. Facilities, 14: 335-344. DOI: 10.1108/02632779610117099
  26. Sneddon C., Howarth R.B. and Norgaard R.B. (2006). Sustainable development in a post-Bruntland world. Ecological Economics, 57: 253-268.
  27. Swarr T.E., Hunkeler D., Klöpffer W., Pesonen H., Ciroth A., Brent A.C. and Pagan R. (2011). Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16: 389-391.
  28. Testa F., Iraldo F., Annunziata E. and Frey M. (2016). Drawbacks and opportunities of green public procurement: an effective tool for sustainable production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 1893-1900.
  29. Weidema B.P. (2009). Using the budget constrain to monetarise impact assessment results. Ecological Economics, 68(6): 1591-1598.
  30. White G.E. and Ostwald P.F. (1976). Life cycle costing. Management Accounting, 57(7): 39-42.
  31. Woodward D.G. (1997). Life cycle costing – theory, information acquisition and application. International Journal of Project Management, 15: 22-25.

  • Innovative management accounting practices for sustainability of manufacturing small and medium enterprises S. N. Nartey, H. M. van der Poll, in Environment, Development and Sustainability /2021 pp.18008
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01425-w
  • Implementing life cycle assessment in green supplier selection: A systematic review and conceptual model Michael Myrvold Jenssen, Luitzen de Boer, in Journal of Cleaner Production /2019 pp.1198
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.335
    DOI: 10.15407/econlaw.2018.03.003

Benedetta Nucci, Fabio Iraldo, Maria Rosa De Giacomo, The relevance of Life Cycle Costing in Green Public Procurement in "ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT" 1/2016, pp 91-109, DOI: 10.3280/EFE2016-001005