Table 4.
Economic assessment attributes (most frequently addressed, not comprehensive) (n = 20).
| Framework name (reference) | Commercial availability | Direct costs | Indirect costs | External costs/benefits | Other | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA–Commercial availabilityQ–Sufficient quantity availability | E–Energy costsEoL–End of life costsLP/E–Labor productivity/employment M–Manufacturing costs (chemical costs/equipment costs/additional processing chemical costs, etc.)M/S–Maintenance and storage costsT–Transition costs (including R&D)Tsp–Transportation costs | I–Insurance costs L–Liabilities (e.g., accidents, work days lost, cleanup)LT–Labor trainingRC–Regulatory complianceT/F–Taxes/fees | Env–Environmental impact costsHH–Human health impact costsOLC–Other life-cycle costs (e.g., extraction)PL–Product labelingPP–Public perceptionWM–Worker morale | LT-E–Long-term economic costs (economies of scale and product innovation worth) | |||||||||||||||||
| CA | Q | E | EoL | LP/E | M | M/S | T | Tsp | I | L | LT | RC | T/F | Env | HH | OLC | PL | PP | WM | LT-E | |
| Goldschmidt 1993a | |||||||||||||||||||||
| U.S. EPA CSTA (Kincaid et al. 1996) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
| Rosenberg et al. 2001 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||
| Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (Rossi et al. 2006) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||
| MA TURI (Eliason and Morose 2011; MA TURI 2006) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| P2OSH (Quinn et al. 2006) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC 2007) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||
| TRGS 600 (BAuA AGS 2008) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| UNEP Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee’s General Guidance on Alternatives (UNEP 2009) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| U.S. EPA DFE Program (Lavoie et al. 2010; U.S. EPA 2011a)a | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| BizNGO (Rossi et al. 2011) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||
| German Guide on Sustainable Chemicals (Reihlen et al. 2011)a | |||||||||||||||||||||
| UCLA Sustainable Policy & Technology Program (Malloy et al. 2011, 2013) | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||
| REACH (ECHA 2011)b | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| U.S. EPA SNAP Program (U.S. EPA 2011b) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| European Commission DGE (Gilbert et al. 2012) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| Ontario Toxics Use Reduction Program 2012 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
| OSHA 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2 2013)c | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| NAS (NRC 2014) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| These end points reflect those explicitly noted in the sources reviewed above. aCost assessment addressed in framework, yet no specific end points noted. bThe REACH framework states, “data may also be collected on … indirect benefits,” (p. 76) yet also states “impacts such as unemployment and health benefits are not considered part of the economic feasibility analysis” (p. 78). cThe IC2 framework allows for different levels of assessment; end points noted reflect all levels. The non-economic aspects of some external benefits are addressed in the IC2 Social Impact module. | |||||||||||||||||||||