As LANXESS sees it, conserving natural resources – for example, through the most efficient possible use of raw materials and energies – and identifying further potential for reducing emissions and waste are an ongoing mission and an inherent part of our ecological responsibility to which we must apply our expertise.
We equip all new production sites in line with state-of-the-art environmental standards, taking into account local requirements. This often sets us apart from local competitors.
Environmental protection in proximity to our production sites Close to some of our European sites are protected areas that fall under the European Habitats Directive. Our industrial sites themselves do not contain any protected or restored natural habitat since, as a rule, these areas continue to be used for industrial purposes. Some unused areas outside the sites are near-natural, for example at La Wantzenau, France, or outside Europe at Duque de Caxias, Brazil. There are isolated cases of protected species, such as the capybara, living on land and in waters at our sites.
We are responsible for landfill sites which are still in use and others which have already been closed. The latter are recultivated in line with legal requirements and we have established provisions for this purpose. However, the sites do not necessarily revert to natural habitat.
Progress in climate protection Our aim is to reduce each segment’s specific energy consumption and specific CO2e emissions by 10% by 2015 (base year: 2010). Our measures are applied in all value creation processes – from energy generation through manufacturing processes and transportation to waste disposal.
Direct and Indirect Energy Consumption by Region
Systematic energy management Resource and energy efficiency are key factors in our company’s economic efficiency and in climate and environmental protection. In this connection, we have implemented a global energy management system (EnMS) which in Germany was certified to ISO 50001 for the first time in 2013. On account of necessary cost-containment measures, we postponed our goal of obtaining certification to this standard for our EnMS worldwide by the end of 2014.
Since 2012, our measures to increase energy efficiency have been combined in the LANXESS Energy Efficiency Program (LEEP) which facilitates a Group-wide overview of potential savings, the cost of their implementation and their impact on our energy goals. A team of LANXESS energy experts supports the business units in identifying new measures. Most of the measures concern especially the optimization of our production capacities, the use of residual heat and improvements to refrigeration. A future focus is to be found in fine-tuning our plant operations to reduce energy consumption.
By the end of 2015, we aim to cut our specific energy consumption and with it our specific energy costs by 10% compared with 2010. To date, we have identified more than 200 measures with a calculable financial benefit. The measures we have already implemented have yielded an annual reduction of around 4% in our total energy costs. We have also reduced CO2 greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1) by some 200,000 tons (5%). At the same time, energy consumption in the facilities participating in the project dropped by around 3.9 petajoules (7.5%) compared with 2010.
As the volumes produced and our product mix play a significant role alongside the efficiency projects, the savings cannot be directly represented in our energy and emissions data. For this reason, global energy consumption appears largely unchanged compared with the previous year.
Energy Consumption by Segment
Reduction of climate gas emissions In 2013, we pursued our goal of reducing specific emissions of CO2 equivalents in each of our segments by 10% compared with the base year (2010) by 2015.
As shown by the graphics, we were able to slightly reduce Scope 1 emissions (both absolute and specific). Scope 1 emissions cover direct emissions from production and our own energy generation operations. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions associated with the procurement of energies. The following graphic shows the development of LANXESS’s specific Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Scope 1 and Scope 2)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2013 (Scope 1 and Scope 2)
We again participated in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in 2013, sharing data and information on climate protection and the reduction of emissions. The CDP is an organization representing international institutional investors who have joined forces in order to improve transparency for the financial market on questions linked to climate change and the requisite corporate guidelines. As in 2012, we were included in the Climate Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI). Our transparent reporting on climate protection puts us in the top 10% of the 350 companies assessed in German-speaking countries.
We are also systematically compiling carbon footprints for selected products so we have reliable information about greenhouse gas emissions throughout the life cycle of these products, and thus gain new insights regarding further potential reductions. We are also continuing the life-cycle assessments of specific products for the same reason. The analysis covers criteria such as CO2 , primary energy consumption, and greenhouse and eutrophication potential.
18 LANXESS facilities in Europe are subject to the European Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS). Trading in CO2 emission rights – or allowances – is a cost-effective way of reducing harmful CO2 emissions. Three trading periods were defined for emissions trading in the European Union: The second trading period that ran from 2008 to 2012 was concluded without us having to purchase additional allowances. The German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt) has not yet allocated the allowances for 2013 to German companies. However, since all of our facilities are at the cutting edge of technology and participate in international competition, we expect to receive an adequate number of free allowances for 2013 and 2014 to cover our our CO2 emissions in 2013 and our anticipated CO2 emissions for 2014.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Scope 1) by Segment
Sustainable logistics We select our transport solutions worldwide on a case-by-case basis, applying the principles of safety, punctuality and cost-effectiveness. We also take into account the CO2 emissions resulting from our transports. A CO2 monitoring dashboard introduced in 2012 enables us to compare the costs and potential CO2 savings of a transport solution, and thus develop an effective strategy for reducing emissions in our supply chain. The emission factors used in this dashboard were determined by a working group set up by the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). The dashboard also visualizes our transport-related CO2 emissions for our employees responsible for logistics procurement and planning, thus raising their awareness of the issue. In 2013, we recorded 90% of global transports in our database. The volumes were carried by ship, rail, truck and aircraft.
Today we already select ships as the means of transport with the lowest emissions for around 90% of all ton-kilometers (tonnage transported multiplied by the distance transported in kilometers). In Germany, we continue to use the TÜV SÜD-approved Eco Plus solution offered by logistics provider DB Schenker Rail for transporting our products by rail. The electricity required for transport is obtained from renewable energy sources. In this way, we can reduce the CO2 emissions from our German rail transport operations by almost 75%. Overall, transport operations caused around 290,000 tons of CO2 emissions worldwide in 2013.
Alongside these measures, we collaborated with TÜV Rheinland as our testing partner in conducting a large-scale trial of green tires for trucks at one of our logistics service providers in the reporting year. Under normal operating conditions, it was found that high-quality tires with low rolling resistance reduce fuel consumption by 8% and CO2 emissions by 700 kilograms for every 10,000 kilometers driven compared with conventional tires. We aim to consistently apply these significant environmental benefits to our transport operations in the future.
Other atmospheric emissions The European Union’s NEC (National Emission Ceiling) Directive has set maximum national limits for the emission of the atmospheric pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX ), ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Since 2011, these limits may no longer be exceeded. We have specifically inspected sites that release relevant emissions in support of the respective national air quality improvement programs.
In the year under review, our VOC emissions decreased further – both in absolute terms and in relation to the volumes sold. Despite the development of our business, they are at the 2009 level. This was due to, among other things, various measures taken to achieve our environmental protection target of cutting VOC emissions by 30% through 2015 (base year: 2010).
Responsible use of water resources All wastewater and surface water discharges at our sites are subject to legal and permitting requirements. We use both technical (wastewater treatment) and organizational (monitoring) measures to comply with these requirements.
Before issuing an operating permit, the authorities assess the possible economic, social and environmental impacts of water extraction on the surrounding area. At all LANXESS sites, this takes place under approved conditions. The issue of water extraction is also addressed by our environmental protection compliance program.
Overall, our water consumption remained virtually unchanged in relation to the volumes sold.
With respect to the amount of wastewater requiring treatment, we have achieved a relatively stable level over the past years in relation to volumes sold.
Sustainable waste management The company aims to employ a consistent material flow management process – from the use of raw materials to the manufacture of the final product – so as to use resources as efficiently as possible and minimize the amount of waste we produce. Some forms of waste can be used as secondary raw materials and are thus a valuable resource. Sustainable waste management therefore involves systematically avoiding waste and, if this is not possible, using waste as a raw material or energy source. In order to minimize the amount of waste requiring disposal, we seek to continuously improve our production processes.
The total amount of waste generated worldwide in relation to volumes sold did not change substantially compared with the previous year. Some 47% of our waste is used in material or energy recovery. Worldwide, slightly more than 50% of our waste is classified as hazardous and is disposed of in compliance with statutory requirements.
Waste for Disposal
Systematic recording of key performance indicators We use an electronic system for the systematic global recording of key performance indicators (KPIs) in the areas of safety and environmental protection. This system enables us to define a broad range of HSE performance indicators for each business unit and location worldwide. These provide a valid database for internal and external reporting and map the progress we are making toward achieving our globally applicable HSEQ objectives (see on HSEQ Targets). Data for all indicators except the LTIFR are gathered only at those production sites in which the company has a holding of more than 50%.
We are working systematically to improve our HSE performance and the data quality. In 2013, a project initiated a year earlier enabled the first-time collection of data worldwide on a quarterly basis, thus increasing the accuracy with which we steer our global HSE processes.
In the year under review, PricewaterhouseCoopers AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft assessed our data recording processes and system in the course of a business audit. Our HSE indicators for 2013 were audited with a view to achieving a “limited assurance” rating (audit certificate).
|Environmental and Safety Performance Data*|
|2011||2012 c)||2013 c)|
|Occupational injuries to LANXESS employees resulting in at least one day’s absence (per million hours worked)1)||2.7b)||3.4||3.2|
|Volume sold 2) in thousand tons/year||6,434a)||6,596||6,371|
|Energy in petajoules (1015 joules) 3)||54.5||55.0d)||53.0|
|Direct energy sources (EN3)|
|Indirect energy sources (EN4)|
|Other direct energy sources|
|Water in million cubic meters/year|
|Total water consumption (EN8)||292b)||309||296|
|Other water sources||155||165||149|
|Cooling water in total water consumption 4)||239b)||257||244|
|Process water in total water consumption||53b)||52||52|
|Emissions into air in thousand tons CO2e/year|
|Total greenhouse gas emissions (EN16)||4,804||4,981||4,669|
|Direct (Scope 1)5)||1,937||1,913||1,770|
|Indirect (Scope 2)6)||2,867||3,068||2,899|
|Ozone-depleting substances (EN19)||0.00071||0.00231||0.00115|
|NOX, SOX and other emissions (EN20)|
|Wastewater in million cubic meters/year|
|Total wastewater discharge (EN21)||272b)||291||276|
|Cooling water (uncontaminated, without treatment)4)||239b)||257||244|
|Production wastewater (with treatment)||33b)||34||32|
|Emissions in wastewater (after treatment)|
|Total organic carbon (TOC)||2.2b)||2.2||2.0|
|Waste in thousand tons/year|
|Total weight of waste (EN22)||267b)||283||273|
|Incineration with energy recovery||70||68||63|
|Incineration without energy recovery||24||22||22|
|Other forms of disposal||33||18||25|
|Type of waste|
|Explanations concerning our environmental and safety performance data |
* The aggregate data refer to all LANXESS production sites in which the company holds an interest of more than 50%. On account of their recent acquisition by LANXESS, the following production sites are not yet included: Little Rock, USA; PCTS Singapore, Singapore; Epierre, France; and Lipetsk, Russia.
• 2011: On account of limited recording and control options and the resulting estimates, the base data contain some inherent uncertainties.
• 2012: The data are based on actual values for the period January through October. Appropriate estimates were used for November and December.
• 2013: Some of the data are based on estimates and projections.
The emission factors used for fossil fuels are based on calculations by the U.S. EPA (AP-42 from 1998) and on the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006).
In accordance with the GHG Protocol (2004), the factors for calculating CO2e are based on the global warming potential (time horizon: 100 years) defined in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR 1995).
1) LTIFR: accident rate per million hours worked resulting in one workday or more lost following the day of the accident, calculated for all employees (including subcontract workers) at all sites
2) Volume sold of goods manufactured by LANXESS and sold internally to another LANXESS company or externally (excluding commercial products)
3) The energy volumes given were calculated on the basis of simplified assumptions and typical substance values. They do not include other forms of imported energy (e.g. the energy contained in raw materials).
4) Equivalent to circulating cooling water
5) All Scope 1 greenhouse gases are calculated as CO2e. In accordance with the GHG Protocol, the CO2 emissions from the combustion of biomass are shown separately and are not included in the Scope 1 emissions. The following emissions were produced during the reporting period: 2011: 240 kt CO2, 2012: 225 kt CO2, 2013: 223 kt CO2.
6) All Scope 2 greenhouse gases are calculated as CO2e. The conversion factors used were provided by the energy producers for 2008 or 2009. Where these were not available, factors from the IEA (International Energy Agency) for 2009 were used for fiscal year 2011, factors from 2010 were used for fiscal year 2012 and factors from 2011 were used for fiscal year 2013.
7) Nitrogen oxide (NOX) calculated as NO2 (excluding N2O – nitrous oxide)
8) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) + SO3 calculated as SO2
9) Total VOC (volatile organic compounds) excluding methane and acetone
10) Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, tin, zinc)
a) Indicator was assessed (limited assurance) by KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft in the course of a business audit
b) Indicator was assessed (reasonable assurance) by KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft in the course of a business audit
c) Indicator was assessed (limited assurance) by PwC AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft in the course of a business audit
d) Value corrected compared to the value published in the prior year