Search

A review of LCA process datasets is an important element of quality assurance for databases and for other systems to provide LCA datasets. Somewhat surprisingly, a broadly accepted and applicable set of criteria for a review of LCA process datasets was lacking so far. Different LCA databases and frameworks are proposing and using different criteria for reviewing datasets. To close this gap, a set of criteria for reviewing LCA dataset has been developed within the Life Cycle Initiative. Previous contributions to LCA dataset review have been analysed for a start, from ISO and various LCA databases. To avoid somewhat arbitrary review criteria, four basic rules are proposed which are to be fulfilled by any dataset. Further, concepts for assessing representativeness and relevance are introduced into the criteria set from established practices in statistics and materiality. To better structure the criteria and to ease their application, they are grouped into clusters. A first version of the developed review criteria was presented in two workshops with database providers and users on different levels of experience, and draft versions of the criteria were shared within the initiative. The current version of the criteria reflects feedback received from various stakeholders and has been applied and tested in a review for newly developed datasets in Brazil, Malaysia and Thailand. Overall, 14 criteria are proposed, which are organised in clusters. The clusters are goal, model, value, relevance and procedure. For several criteria, a more science-based definition and evaluation is proposed in comparison to ‘traditional’ LCA. While most of the criteria depend on the goal and scope of dataset development, a core set of criteria are seen as essential and independent from specific LCA modelling. For all the criteria, value scales are developed, typically using an ordinal scale, following the pedigree approach. Review criteria for LCI datasets are now defined based on a stringent approach. They aim to be globally acceptable, considering also database interoperability and database management aspects, as well as feedback received from various stakeholders, and thus close an important gap in LCA dataset quality assurance. The criteria take many elements of already existing criteria but are the first to fully reflect the implications of the ISO data quality definition, and add new concepts for representativeness and relevance with the idea to better reflect scientific practice outside of the LCA domain. A first application in a review showed to be feasible, with a level of effort similar to applying other review criteria. Aspects not addressed yet are the review procedure and the mutual recognition of dataset reviews, and their application for a very high number of datasets.

Access, affordability and sustainability of raw material supply chains are crucial to the sustainable development of the European Union (EU) for both society and economy. The study investigates whether and how the social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) methodology can support responsible sourcing of raw materials in Europe. The potential of social indicators already available in an S-LCA database is tested for the development of new metrics to monitor social risks in raw material industries at EU policy level. The Product Social Impact Life Cycle Assessment (PSILCA) database was identified as a data and indicators source to assess social risks in raw material industries in EU-28 and extra-EU countries. Six raw material country sectors in the scope of the European policy on raw materials were identified and aggregated among those available in PSILCA. The selection of indicators for the assessment was based on the RACER (Relevance, Acceptance, Credibility, Ease, Robustness) analysis, leading to the proposal of 9 social impact categories. An S-LCA of the selected raw material industries was, thus, performed for the EU-28 region, followed by a contribution analysis to detect direct and indirect impacts and investigate related supply chains. Finally, the social performance of raw material sectors in EU-28 was compared with that of six extra-EU countries. Considering the overall social risks in raw material industries, “Corruption”, “Fair salary”, “Health and safety” and “Freedom of association and collective bargaining” emerged as the most significant categories both in EU and extra-EU. EU-28 shows an above-average performance where the only exception is represented by the mining and quarrying sector. An investigation of the most contributing processes to social impact categories for EU-28 led to the identification of important risks originating in the supply chain and in extra-EU areas. Therefore, the S-LCA methodology confirmed the potential of a life cycle perspective to detect burdens shifting and trade-offs. However, only a limited view on the sectoral social performance could be obtained from the research due to a lack of social data. The S-LCA methodology and indicators appear appropriate to perform an initial social sustainability screening, thus enabling the identification of hotspots in raw material supply chains and the prioritization of areas of action in EU policies. Further methodological developments in the S-LCA field are necessary to make the approach proposed in the paper fully adequate to support EU policies on raw materials.

In response to a need for interoperable LCA databases of adequate quality, a review of 40 datasets from emerging economies has been conducted with UNEP support by independent LCA experts, with the purpose to encourage improvements, either prior to publication or as part of a continuous improvement cycle. We discuss the lessons learned during this reviewing process. The review effort had to be delivered in a set and limited timeline of 9 months and covered 20 datasets from Malaysia, ten from Brazil, and ten from Thailand. The developed review process consisted in, among others, (i) developing a set of review criteria for this specific effort, (ii) pairing a local sector reviewer with an international LCA expert to enhance capacity development, (iii) establishing a legal relationship via a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the data provider and the data reviewers, and (iv) providing a review report for each dataset that assesses the presence and magnitude of gaps or deficiencies relative to the criteria, as well as their implications for qualifying usage. The reviews provided solid recommendations for improvement to the majority of the datasets submitted by the three countries. This review exercise has been conducted in the given timeframe for the majority of the datasets. Many challenges have been faced along the way; among them agreeing on an NDA, the need for sufficient information, and the question of the confidentiality of the data. The developed set of criteria for this exercise have not been presented or discussed outside of the narrow review exercise and therefore can be seen as a starting point for further debates and improvements that should involve the broad LCA community. This hands-on exercise provided some valuable insights into the road towards global consensus and guidance on data review. Beyond this time-constrained effort, a broader discussion and consensus at international level on the review of datasets and a continuous effort in reviewing datasets is desirable. Four key aspects were identified as necessary to consider: review criteria, review process, reviewers’ selection criteria, and development of a legal basis which protects the confidentiality of the data, as well as the position of the reviewers. This last aspect is sensitive as, in LCA datasets reviews, companies and/or countries might disclose some information with high stakes regarding competition and trade.

In recent years, increased interest and actions have been taken to better understand, and mitigate, sustainability impacts of mining activities, by both industry and policy. The present work reports on a sustainability hotspots screening performed for the EU Horizon 2020 &ldquo, Integrated Mineral Technologies for More Sustainable Raw Material Supply&rdquo, (ITERAMS) project, which foresees a more efficient water recycling, tailings valorization, and minimization of environmental footprint. The focus of this paper is on social and environmental issues in mining. Different methodologies were explored, starting from a qualitative causal loop modelling. Afterwards, an environmental and social LCA screening was performed using well-accepted databases and methods, thus completing results with a literature research. The main findings related to the importance of the supply chain, the vulnerability of local communities, and the toxic emissions from tailings offer a starting point to reflect on the specific social, socio-economic, and environmental context which may influence these issues. A better understanding of the environmental and social pressures associated with mining is not only crucial to orient the sustainability assessment foreseen for the ITERAMS project, but also to contribute in terms of methodology to the challenges tackled by policy and research worldwide towards a more sustainable mining.

Purpose In this two-part paper (Background and Initial Assumptions (Part 1) and Results of Survey Research (Part 2)), we present surveys whose main objective is to determine, whether and to what extent the life cycle assessment (LCA) technique is used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) and whether there are any differences in this respect between the companies and countries analysed. Methods The survey research was carried out using the computer assisted self-administered interviewing (CASI) method among selected Polish, German and Swedish organisations which implement EMS in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001 and/or the EMAS regulation. Results The organisations investigated, regardless of their country, are dominated by qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques of assessment and identification of environmental aspects. LCA was used sporadically, although some differences can be observed between the countries analysed. Conclusions The environmental managers accustomed to traditional qualitative and semi-quantitative solutions, have not been given preparation to enable them to understand and adopt the different approaches such as LCA. On the other hand, representatives of the organisations investigated declared that they were ready to accept an even longer timescale for the identification and assessment processes relating to environmental aspects, which represents a potential opportunity for LCA. The more precise understanding and definition of environmental problems that are precisely defined in LCA would represent a novelty for environmental managers. In practice, environmental problems are defined in a general sense and rather ambiguously, as this level of detail is sufficient in the context of qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques commonly used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

Purpose In this two-part paper (Background and Initial Assumptions (part 1) and Results of Survey Research (part 2)), we present surveys whose main objective is to determine whether, and to what extent, the life cycle assessment (LCA) technique is used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems (EMS) and whether there are any differences in this respect between the companies and countries analysed. Methods The survey research was carried out using the computer assisted self-administered interviewing method among selected Polish, German and Swedish organisations which implement EMS in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14001 and/or the EMAS regulation. Results The organisations investigated, regardless of their country, are dominated by qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques of assessment and identification of environmental aspects. LCA was used sporadically, although some differences can be observed between the countries analysed. Conclusions The environmental managers accustomed to traditional qualitative and semi-quantitative solutions have not been given preparation to enable them to understand and adopt different approaches such as LCA. On the other hand, representatives of the organisations investigated declared that they were ready to accept an even longer timescale for the identification and assessment processes relating to environmental aspects, which represents a potential opportunity for LCA. The more precise understanding and definition of environmental problems that are precisely defined in LCAwould represent a novelty for environmental managers. In practice, environmental problems are defined in a general sense and rather ambiguously, as this level of detail is sufficient in the context of qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques commonly used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

Life cycle costing (LCC) is applied as an assessment tool to estimate the entire cost of typically large-scale assets, for example, buildings and infrastructure objects with a considerably long serviceable life. LCC needs to consider and accumulate all types of cost, and since these occur at different times they are typically discounted to a common point in time. Environmental LCC is a specific type of LCC, which was designed to be aligned with the ISO 14040 standard for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and shares some key components with Environmental LCA to allow a consistent combination of both in one assessment. Societal LCC is another type of LCC, which includes externalities and attempts to provide a holistic assessment, thereby covering both economic and environmental aspects. For renewables, aspects such as feed-in tariffs and subsidies need to be considered in an LCC model. A case study for a combined heat and power plant is used to illustrate the application of Environmental LCC.

Purpose In May 2009, the Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (the Guidelines) were launched at the occasion of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 26000 (Social Responsibility) meeting in Quebec City, Canada. Developed by a United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (“UNEP/SETAC”) Life Cycle Initiative project group on Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), the Guidelines provide a framework to assess social impacts across product life cycles. A year later, the Methodological Sheets for the Subcategories of Social LCA (“the Methodological Sheets”) are being made available to support practitioners engaging in the field. The Methodological Sheets provide practical guidance for conducting S-LCA case studies by offering consistent, yet flexible assistance.

There is a need to assess social impacts of products along the full life cycle, not only to be able to address the “social dimension” in sustainability, but also for potentially improving the circumstances of affected stakeholders. This paper presents a case study for a social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) based on the recently published “Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products” developed by the United Nations Environment Programme/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (UNEP/SETAC) working group. General aim is to “try out” the proposed method. The case study itself compares the impacts of rose production in Ecuador with the Netherlands. Furthermore, the objective is to identify differences and similarities in environmental and social life cycle modelling and both social and environmental hot spots in each of the life cycles. The study considers the production of rose blossoms and the cutting and packaging process in two fictitious companies in Ecuador and the Netherlands. Both rose bouquets are delivered to the European market and auctioned in Aalsmeer, the Netherlands. The social assessment is based on the UNEP/SETAC guidelines for S-LCA. Data are mainly obtained from governmental and non-governmental organisations. For the calculation of the environmental burden, a screening-type LCA is conducted, including midpoint impact assessment. This paper asserts that rose production in Ecuador is associated with many negative social effects, e.g. child labour, unfair salary, or bad impairment to health. The rose production in the Netherlands has no obvious negative social impacts but rather ecological consequences. Responsible for this is the high-energy consumption of the greenhouses. Application of the UNEP/SETAC guidelines in case studies can be encouraged based on results of this case study. The consideration of different stakeholder groups with corresponding, very diverse themes allows a comprehensive analysis of the actual conditions. However, finding suitable indicators to measure the status of the subcategories may be challenging. Moreover, the case study shows that results can be completely different for the environmental and for the social dimension, so that it often will be needed to perform both assessments if a complete picture is required. It will be interesting to apply the UNEP/SETAC approach of S-LCA to other products; products with a more complex life cycle will be a special challenge. As with any new method, getting experience on data collection and evaluation, building a data stock, integrating the method in software, and finding ways for effective communication of results are important steps until integrating S-LCA in routine, recognized decision support.

The paper presents a discussion on the possibilities of using LCA in identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems based on the requirements of the international ISO14001 standard and the European Union EMAS regulation. Some modifications of LCA methodology are proposed in Part 1 while the results of a review of environmental aspects for 36 organisations with implemented EMS are presented in Part 2 of the article. The scope of the systems analysed in EMS and in LCA is different. This comes as the result of the fact that both ISO 14001 and EMAS are focused on an organisation on contrary to ISO14040x which are focused on a product life cycle. For the present work, this resulted in a need of adjusting the LCA methodology to EMS specificity and vice versa. Some suggestions of such modifications are presented and discussed in the paper. A preliminary analysis was carried out on 36 organisations which have environmental management systems compliant with the ISO14001 or EMAS regulations. A certain disproportion between input and output related environmental aspects included in most of the analysed registers was found. The probable reasons for such disproportion could be the fact that the output related environmental aspects are easier to manage by organisation and are often regulated by laws. Legal requirements are a significant criterion in the environmental aspects assessment. Based on the assessments carried out and the observations made, some conclusions have been drawn with regard to weaknesses and strengths and usefulness of LCA, as a result of a comparison to the traditional approaches used in EMS in the discussed area. LCA has evident advantages like: standardised methodology, possibility of inclusion of the quantitative information, presence of some methodological steps enabling the verification of the collected data, and ability to generate of reproducible results. At the same time, the following potential weak points can be observed: a complexity of the procedure, higher time, and cost requirements (especially related to an inventory phase); difficulties with assessing of environmental aspects with the qualitative character and these related to emergency situations; and limitation related to the lack of relevant characterisation factors in the currently used life cycle impact assessment methods. LCA ought to be considered as a tool used for identification and assessment of environmental aspects in environmental management systems. The listed limitations do not disqualify its suitability to be used. After certain simplifications, LCA seems to be a valuable alternative to the methodologies currently in use.

Purpose Authors of different sustainability journals, including authors of articles in past issues of the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment have acknowledged the rising interest and th ...

1 IntroductionSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry(SETAC) has published a code of practice for environmentallife-cycle costing (LCC), which provides a framework forevaluating decisions with consistent, but flexible systemsboundaries as a component of product sustainabilityassessments (Swarr et al. 2011). The code of practicebuilds on an earlier monograph that summarized 3 years ofeffort by the SETAC-Europe Working Group on Life-Cycle Costing (Hunkeler et al.2008).Thecodeofpracticeis grounded in a conceptual framework for life-cyclesustainability assessment (LCSA) of products that usesdistinct analyses for each of the three pillars of sustainability,environment, economy, and social equity.LCSA ¼ LCAþ LCCþ SLCA ð1ÞLife-cycle assessment (LCA) is the only pillar that has beenstandardized to date (ISO 2006a, b). UNEP (2009)haspublished guidelines for social LCAs and is currentlydeveloping methodological sheets for impact subcategories.The code of practice reviews historical development of life-cycle methods, outlines the technical requirements and guide-lines for LCC, and illustrates various methodological choiceswith a detailed case study. The objective of the code of practiceis to provide readers with a solid understanding of how to applyLCC in parallel with LCA to stimulate additional case studiesand peer-reviewed research to further refine the methodology.The ultimate goal is to build consensus for an internationalstandard that parallels the ISO 14040 standard for LCA.2 DiscussionLCC predates LCA, and distinct and different conceptualfoundations and methodological approaches can betraced to its developmental roots in systems engineering(Blanchard 1978). There has been limited integration ofthese methods, although the value of LCC for sustainabilityassessmentshasbeenrecognized(Norris2001;Hunkelerand

In a recent letter to the editor, Jorgensen et al. questioned that life cycle costing (LCC) is relevant in life cycle-based sustainability assessment (LCSA). They hold the opinion that environmental and social aspects are sufficient. We argue that sustainability has three dimensions: environment, economy, and social aspects in accordance with the well-accepted “three pillar interpretation” of sustainability, although this is not verbally stated in the Brundtland report (WCED 1987). An analysis of the historical development of the term “sustainability” shows that the economic and social component have been present from the beginning and conclude that LCSA of product systems can be approximated by LCSA = (environmental) LCA + (environmental) LCC + S-LCA where S-LCA stands for social LCA. The “environmental” LCC is fully compatible with life cycle assessment (LCA), the internationally standardized (ISO 14040 + 14044) method for environmental product assessment. For LCC, a SETAC “Code of Practice” is now available and guidelines for S-LCA have been published by UNEP/SETAC. First examples for the use of these guidelines have been published. An important practical argument for using LCC from the customers’ point of view is that environmentally preferable products often have higher purchasing costs, whereas the LCC may be much lower (examples: energy saving light bulbs, low energy houses, and cars). Also, since LCC allows an assessment for different actor perspectives, the producers may try to keep the total costs from their perspective below those of a conventional product: otherwise, it will not succeed at the market, unless highly subsidized. Those are practical aspects whichfinally decide about success or failure of “sustainable” products. Whether or not an analysis using all three aspects is necessary will depend on the exact question. However, if real money flows are important in sustainability analysis of product systems, inclusion of LCC is advisable.

Uncertainty is commonly not taken into account in LCA studies, which downgrades their usability for decision support. One often stated reason is a lack of method. The aim of this paper is to develop a method for calculating the uncertainty propagation in LCAs in a fast and reliable manner. The method is developed in a model that reflects the calculation of an LCA. For calculating the uncertainty, the model combines approximation formulas and Monte Carlo Simulation. It is based on virtual data that distinguishes true values and random errors or uncertainty, and that hence allows one to compare the performance of error propagation formulas and simulation results. The model is developed for a linear chain of processes, but extensions for covering also branched and looped product systems are made and described. The paper proposes a combined use of approximation formulas and Monte Carlo simulation for calculating uncertainty in LCAs, developed primarily for the sequential approach. During the calculation, a parameter observation controls the performance of the approximation formulas. Quantitative threshold values are given in the paper. The combination thus transcends drawbacks of simulation and approximation. The uncertainty question is a true jigsaw puzzle for LCAs and the method presented in this paper may serve as one piece in solving it. It may thus foster a sound use of uncertainty assessment in LCAs. Analysing a proper management of the input uncertainty, taking into account suitable sampling and estimation techniques; using the approach for real case studies, implementing it in LCA software for automatically applying the proposed combined uncertainty model and, on the other hand, investigating about how people do decide, and should decide, when their decision relies on explicitly uncertain LCA outcomes-these all are neighbouring puzzle pieces inviting to further work.

Qualitative valuation methods carefully try to avoid an aggregation across impact categories. However, such an aggregation often helps in obtaining a clear result for the valuation (which product scores better?). This article presents a new valuation method that uses an iterative approach. The application is demonstrated by the help of a case study for electric motors in trains. The approach combines two existing, unique valuation methods described earlier in literature, which both are of a rather non-aggregating nature, in line with ISO requirements, and were designed to be performed by LCA experts. The method is implemented in a computer software. Besides constants used within the method, the software needs as input solely indicator values from the Impact Assessment. The iterative nature of these methods itself, and especially the combination of these methods, helps in achieving a valuation result for the LCA with not more subjective and aggregating elements than necessary. Subjective elements are clearly separated from others. The algorithm seems highly sensitive to changes in impact categories regarded as important ones. The implementation in software greatly eases the application of the method by transferring routine work from LCA experts to a machine. It ensures a reproducible result and prevents erroneous steps in a rather complicated valuation procedure. It further helps in hiding the complexity of the method from the user. The approach of combining valuation methods in LCAs seems a fruitful one, and shows benefits when implemented in computer software, in terms of usability, and in terms of a more reproducible application. Care has to be taken to make sure users know what they do when performing an automated valuation procedure. We see three ways for extending the approach, namely: (i) become part of a toolbox of different valuation procedures; (ii) explicitly cope with uncertainty, and (iii) include different values for normalisation, in different regions worldwide. The software will be made available also in a stand alone version.

Goal and Background Geographical and technological differences in Life Cycle Inventory data are an important source for uncertainty in the result of Life Cycle Assessments. Knowledge on their impact on the result of an LCA is scarce, and also knowledge on how to manage them in an LCA case study.

Modelling data uncertainty is not common practice in life cycle inventories (LCI), although different techniques are available for estimating and expressing uncertainties, and for propagating the uncertainties to the final model results. To clarify and stimulate the use of data uncertainty assessments in common LCI practice, the SETAC working group ‘Data Availability and Quality’ presents a framework for data uncertainty assessment in LCI. Data uncertainty is divided in two categories: (1) lack of data, further specified as complete lack of data (data gaps) and a lack of representative data, and (2) data inaccuracy. Filling data gaps can be done by input-output modelling, using information for similar products or the main ingredients of a product, and applying the law of mass conservation. Lack of temporal, geographical and further technological correlation between the data used and needed may be accounted for by applying uncertainty factors to the non-representative data. Stochastic modelling, which can be performed by Monte Carlo simulation, is a promising technique to deal with data inaccuracy in LCIs.

This paper is a two-fold introduction. For one, it introduces a new, open source, LCA software. Second, it is to establish a new section in Int J LCA named ‘LCA Software’. Herewith, the editors of the journal recognise the growing possibilities and the impact of software, meaning both databases and calculation as well as modelling software, for practical applications as well as for the scientific development in LCA. This section is designed to house a broad variety of papers to beLCA focused and related to ICT (Information and Communication Technology). In this sense, announcements (as this one), conference reports, but also peer-reviewed papers on methodology and case studies, are most welcome.