Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 2619
15of 16
22. Ardente, F.; Cellura, M. Economic allocation in life cycle assessment: The state of the art and discussion of examples. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012 , 16 , 387–398. [CrossRef] 23. Silva, S.; Nuzum, A.-K.; Schaltegger, S. Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 217 , 204–215. [CrossRef] 24. Martin, L. Incorporating values into sustainability decision-making. J. Clean. Prod. 2015 , 105 , 146–156. [CrossRef] 25. Michels, J.; Wagemann, K. The german lignocellulose feedstock biorefinery project. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2010 , 4 , 263–267. [CrossRef] 26. Collins, M.N.; Nechifor, M.; Tanas ă , F.; Z ă noag ă , M.; McLoughlin, A.; Str ó z˙ yk, M.A.; Culebras, M.; Teac ă , C.A. Valorization of lignin in polymer and composite systems for advanced engineering applications—A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019 , 131 , 828–849. [CrossRef] 27. Galkin, M.V.; Samec, J.S. Lignin Valorization through Catalytic Lignocellulose Fractionation: A Fundamental Platform for the Future Biorefinery. ChemSusChem 2016 , 9 , 1544–1558. [CrossRef] 28. Bajwa, D.S.; Pourhashem, G.; Ullah, A.H.; Bajwa, S.G. A concise review of current lignin production, applications, products and their environment impact. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019 , 139 , 111526. [CrossRef] 29. Fischer, W.J.; Mayr, M.; Spirk, S.; Reishofer, D.; Jagiello, L.A.; Schmiedt, R.; Colson, J.; Zankel, A.; Bauer, W. Pulp fines- characterization, sheet formation, and comparison to microfibrillated cellulose. Polymers 2017 , 9 , 366. [CrossRef] 30. Krogerus, B.; Tiikkaja, E. Fines from different pulps compared by image analysis. Nord. Pulp Pap. Res. J. 2002 , 17 , 440–444. [CrossRef] 31. Olejnik, K.; Skalski, B.; Stanislawska, A.; Wysocka-Robak, A. Swelling properties and generation of cellulose fines originating from bleached kraft pulp refined under different operating conditions. Cellulose 2017 , 24 , 3955–3967. [CrossRef] 32. Deevski, S. Cost Allocation Methods for Joint Products and By-products. Econ. Altern. 2016 , 1 , 64–70. 33. Suh, S.; Weidema, B.; Schmidt, J.H.; Heijungs, R. Generalized make and use framework for allocation in life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010 , 14 , 335–353. [CrossRef] 34. Heijungs, R.; Frischknecht, R. A special view on the nature of the allocation problem. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1998 , 3 , 321–332. [CrossRef] 35. Cherubini, E.; Franco, D.; Zanghelini, G.M.; Soares, R.B. Uncertainty in LCA case study due to allocation approaches and life cycle impact assessment methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018 , 23 , 2055–2070. [CrossRef] 36. Rice, P.; O’Brien, D.; Shalloo, L.; Holden, N.M. Evaluation of allocation methods for calculation of carbon footprint of grass-based dairy production. J. Environ. Manag. 2017 , 202 , 311–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Ekvall, T.; Finnveden, G. Allocation in ISO 14041—A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2001 , 9 , 197–208. [CrossRef] 38. Heijungs, R.; Guin é e, J.B. Allocation and ‘what-if’ scenarios in life cycle assessment of waste management systems. Waste Manag. 2007 , 27 , 997–1005. [CrossRef] 39. EUR 24708 EN ; International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment— Detailed Guidance. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010; 417. [CrossRef] 40. ISO 14044:2006 ; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006. 41. Li, Y.; Ashkanasy, N.M. Risk adaptation and emotion differentiation: An experimental study of dynamic decision-making. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2019 , 36 , 219–243. [CrossRef] 42. Peng, K.Z. Responding to emotions in China: Gender differences and the emotion-job outcome relationship. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2017 , 34 , 443–460. [CrossRef] 43. Schaltenbrand, B.; Foerstl, K.; Azadegan, A.; Lindeman, K. See What We Want to See? The Effects of Managerial Experience on Corporate Green Investments. J. Bus. Ethics 2018 , 150 , 1129–1150. [CrossRef] 44. Frynas, J.G.; Stephens, S. Political corporate social responsibility: Reviewing theories and setting new agendas. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2015 , 17 , 483–509. [CrossRef] 45. Saaty, T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977 , 15 , 234–281. [CrossRef] 46. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990 , 48 , 9–26. [CrossRef] 47. Sipahi, S.; Timor, M. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 2010 , 48 , 775–808. [CrossRef] 48. Ho, W.; Ma, X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018 , 267 , 399–414. [CrossRef] 49. Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011 , 38 , 14336–14345. [CrossRef] 50. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987 , 9 , 161–176. [CrossRef] 51. Chiarini, A. Choosing action plans for strategic manufacturing objectives using AHP: Analysis of the path and pitfalls encountered—An exploratory case study. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019 , 30 , 180–194. [CrossRef] 52. Saaty, T.L.; Shang, J.S. Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2007 , 41 , 22–37. [CrossRef] 53. Sangkakool, T.; Techato, K.; Zaman, R.; Brudermann, T. Prospects of green roofs in urban thailand—A multi-criteria decision analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018 , 196 , 400–410. [CrossRef]
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker