| dc.description.abstract | With global climate change and growing environmental awareness, industries are increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of their products. As key tools for evaluating the environmental impact of a product′s life cycle, carbon footprint and material flow cost analysis have become crucial considerations for sustainable development. This study aims to examine the carbon footprint and material flow cost performance of the diamond disc manufacturing process at Factory A, providing insights and references for companies in formulating environmental protection strategies. The results show that the carbon footprint of the diamond disc is 12.68 kgCO2e/pc, with the manufacturing stage contributing the most at 61.5%, followed by the raw material acquisition stage at 38.5%. Among these, QC3 (dewaxing and hard soldering process) is the primary source of carbon emissions, with a discharge of 5.44 kgCO2e/pc, mainly due to the high electricity usage and prolonged high-temperature maintenance required in this stage. QC1 (the process of diamond sorting) follows with 4.33 kgCO2e/pc, primarily from the cutting and manual processing of the metal base. QC4 (the process of diamond sharpening and flattening) has a carbon emission of 1.51 kgCO2e/pc, mainly due to energy consumption during the grinding process. Material flow cost analysis reveals that 55% of the products are positive outputs, while 45% are negative outputs. The positive product cost for QC3 is 29.8 million NTD, whereas the negative product cost is 22.2 million NTD, indicating slight difference. This reflects the extensive use of auxiliary materials and chemicals in this stage, leading to high costs for waste liquid treatment. Positive product cost of QC2 is 13.0 million NTD, with a negative product cost of 7.4 million NTD, suggesting some room for waste treatment optimization in the screening process. QC4 shows a positive product cost of 35.6 million NTD and a negative product cost of only 7.5 million NTD, indicating high resource utilization efficiency during the grinding and trimming stage. Based on the above analysis, the proposed directions improvement include optimizing the use of auxiliary materials and chemicals in QC3, adopting more efficient technologies and equipment to reduce waste and energy consumption; enhancing the efficiency and usage of grinding equipment in QC4 to reduce energy consumption. Additionally, for QC1, it is recommended that suppliers optimize material usage and manufacturing methods or seek suppliers with lower carbon emissions to further reduce the overall carbon footprint. | en_US |