Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Note
The designations
employed and the
presentation of material
in this publication do not
imply the expression of
any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the
European Commission or
the European
Environment Agency
concerning the legal
status of any country or
territory, and the
boundaries shown on
maps do not imply
official endorsement or
acceptance.
Authors
Kim Christiansen
John Elkington
Franceska van Dijk
SustainAbility ,
United Kingdom
August 1997
Preface
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) a guide to approaches, experiences and information sources
At the European level, the Parliament has suggested that the Commission develop a frame-
work for an integrated life-cycle-oriented product policy. In the work for the next framework
research programme, LCA also has a prominent role in promoting competitive and sustain-
able growth.
The design and production of new products and materials should be based on a life-cycle
assessment concept. LCA is also a necessary basis for eco-labelling requested by consumers,
NGOs and international and national authorities. Business and industry sectors are aware of
the requests from customers, and recognise the possibilities for LCA in saving natural re-
sources and energy and in minimising pollution and waste. LCA is not only a tool to improve
the environment, but also an instrument for industry implying cost-savings and competitive
advantages.
The European Environment Agency (EEA) has the mandate to provide the Community and
the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information at the European
level. Among its goals, the EEA shall provide information for environmental policy develop-
ment and implementation and ensure broad dissemination and accessibility. Important
principles in this context are pooling existing information and know-how and facilitating
data harmonisation.
The main advantage of LCAs is in supporting decision making with scientific data and
competence, and thereby in distinguishing between scientific facts (as far as possible) and
sets of values. In this context, its ambition is very close to the mandate of the EEA.
By balancing science and simplicity, LCA implies that there can be many limitations that
should be addressed in LCA studies and development work, for example:
LCA uses subjective judgement extensively, and the lack of scientific or technical data is
sometimes obvious.
It is also a challenge to take the step from LCA as a communication tool to an operational
tool in environmental management. LCA-based environmental management should become
part of good business management heading towards the eco-efficiency concept producing
more quality with less resources.
LCA should be used together with other established techniques, such as environmental
impact assessment and environmental risk assessment. These approaches complement each
other, but are not interchangeable and cannot be substituted for each other.
Creating this publication the Agency hopes to guide the readers through this information
and provide links to external sources. The Internet version and the supplementary data-
base have been developed as complementing products to give greater access to the infor-
mation.
The production has involved many contributors other than the authors. The report has
been reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the EEA and the National Focal Points, for
which EEA is grateful. The Society for Promotion of Life Cycle Development (SPOLD) has
contributed to the project with advice and constructive criticism. A critical review of the draft
publication was made by Dr Dennis Postlethwaite, UK, past-Chairman of the SETAC-Europe
LCA Steering Committee and member of the UK Delegation to ISO/TC207/SC5 on Life
Cycle Assessment.
The EEA hopes that this publication together with the prepared meta-database containing
information sources will prove valuable to its readers. We have tried to target different parts
of the publication to different users. It is our intention to continue our efforts to make these
tools operational.
Domingo Jimnez-Beltrn
Executive Director
European Environment Agency
Content
Suppliers will have to report policies and to explore ways in which they
can use their procurements systems to help
Even the largest companies cannot drive drive eco-efficiency through the economy.
their industries or market towards sustain- Life cycle thinking is essential in developing
able development targets without the sup- the criteria for green procurement. The
port of their value chain. As a result, we are trend is discussed in chapter 3.3.2.
seeing major companies beginning to
challenge their suppliers on their environ-
mental targets and performance. In some Ecolabelling
cases, proper systems and targets may even
be a condition of supply. A growing numbers For some product categories the products
of companies start to produce their own with the best environmental performance
LCAs, their suppliers will be called upon to may get a ecolabel. The use of environment-
provide much of the data needed. This trend al labelling has proceeded less fast in many
is explained in chapter 3.2.2. parts of the European Union than was
originally expected, but where it has been
used there has been an almost automatic
Can LCA help in product comparisons? requirement for LCA inputs. In the EU
ecolabel regulation LCA is required for the
LCA cannot - or at least should not - be used development of ecolabel criteria. For obtain-
to claim that a particular product is environ- ing the label, only some selected LCA-data
mentally friendly. At best it is only possible to may be required.
say, using a specified set of criteria, that one
product is better than another in certain Ecolabelling has been hugely controversial
aspects of its performance. in some countries, and in relation to some
products in particular, but the ecolabelling
Such data, however, may legitimately be used challenge is not going to go away. Moreover,
in comparative product marketing - even if it is likely to spread into new areas, among
experience shows that many manufacturers them electric power supply. More informa-
or retailers are tempted to over-claim. This tion can be found in chapter 3.3.1.
problem, coupled with biased information
and lack of quality control, can do more
than anything else to undermine the author- Environmental declarations
ity of LCA methods. These issues are dis-
cussed in chapter 4.3. Environmental declarations may not have
the same ring as eco-labelling, but this
special kind of environmental labelling
Is LCA mandatory? (approved by ISO as type III labelling) may
prove rather more popular in some quarters,
In a word, no. LCA is currently an option for since it includes more information and all
companies, but it is an option which growing products can get the label. The output tends
numbers of customer companies are begin- to be a selection of LCA data printed out as a
ning to encourage their suppliers and part- set of columns or profile. See chapter 3.2.2.
ners to at least think about. In some coun-
tries, for example Denmark, new environ-
mental accounting and reporting require- Stakeholder views
ments are likely to encourage the further
spread of LCA thinking, if not always of LCA In the end, however, how much we do to
tools. The links to other environmental make LCA useful, it will not really help
management tools are explored in chapter unless the world believes that it is useful.
3.2. SustainAbility surveyed a range of external
stakeholders during the project to find out
what they thought of LCA. Highlights of the
Green procurement results can be found in chapter 1.4.
published in recent years. In addition, a Europe are included in the database avail-
growing number of Internet homepages on able on http://www.eea.eu.int
LCA can be found on the World Wide Web.
A selection of this information sources is What will happens next?
presented in chapter 5.
Forecasting, they say, is always hard - but
particularly when you are thinking about the
Whos Who in LCA? future! To give a small taste, however, we
look at some possible trends in LCA, based
A growing numbers of institutes, universities, on nine major transitions towards sustain-
governmental agencies, industries, trade ability, in chapter 2.3.
associations and consultants are involved in
LCA as experts or users. The main players in
A Brief History of LCA 13
1.1 The Early Years survey of LCA activity to date, The LCA
Sourcebook, was published in 19932. At the
The first studies to look at life cycle aspects time, LCA was of limited interest outside a
of products and materials date from the late very small community of scientists, mostly
sixties and early seventies, and focused on based in Europe or North America. But
issues such as energy efficiency, the con- then, the Sourcebook noted, their work
sumption of raw materials and, to some escaped from the laboratory and into the
extent, waste disposal. In 1969, for example, real world.
the Coca Cola Company funded a study to
compare resource consumption and environ- Some countries took an early lead. In the
mental releases associated with beverage UK, said David Cockburn of PIRA, it has
containers. Meanwhile, in Europe, a similar been surprisingly fast. Ten years ago there
inventory approach was being developed, was only one main practitioner [in the UK],
later known as the Ecobalance. In 1972, in Ian Boustead. Now there are many more
the UK, Ian Boustead1 calculated the total academics, consultancies and companies
energy used in the production of various with an in-house capability.
types of beverage containers, including glass,
plastic, steel, and aluminium. Over the next While the field continued to progress, the
few years, Boustead consolidated his method- pace has been sporadic. According to a
ology to make it applicable to a variety of recent report by IMSA and SPOLD3, the
materials, and in 1979, published the Hand- chief barriers to greater progress in the LCA
book of Industrial Energy Analysis. field have been a low level of experience
with LCA, coupled with undue expectations
Initially, energy use was considered a higher and over-advertisement. This led to a
priority than waste and outputs. Because of period of disillusionment with LCA, aggrava-
this, there was little distinction, at the time, ted by a strong sense that many of those
between inventory development (resources using LCA were simply doing so to buttress
going into a product) and the interpretation existing positions, rather than to fully under-
of total associated impacts. But after the oil stand and respond to the real issues.
crisis subsided, energy issues declined in
prominence. While interest in LCA contin-
ued, , thinking progressed a bit more slowly. 1.3 Towards Maturity
It was not until the mid eighties and early
nineties that a real wave of interest in LCA So, where are we now? Although the pace of
swept over a much broader range of indus- development is slowing, the methodology is
tries, design establishments and retailers - beginning to consolidate - moving the field
taking many of them by surprise. toward a long-awaited maturity. Yet the
usefulness of the technique to practitioners
is still very much in debate. In the past
1.2 Rapid Growth and Adolescence couple of years, however, there has been a 1
LCA - How it Came
growing confidence in the LCA community About, The Beginning in
the UK, Ian Boustead in
Despite almost three decades of develop- that the emerging tools have a real future. the International Journal
ment, one practitioner in our survey (see For example, Procter & Gambles Peter of Life cycle Assessment
Appendix 1.1) said: LCA is still a young Hindle sees enormous progress and is 1 (3) 1996
tool. The rapid surge of interest in cradle optimistic about the future for life-cycle 2
The LCA Sourcebook: A
to grave assessments of materials and inventories (LCIs) and about the take-up of European Guide to Life
products through the late 1980s and early life-cycle thinking by management generally. Cycle Assessment,
SustainAbility, SPOLD
1990s meant that by the 1992 UN Earth and Business in the
Summit there was a ground-swell of opinion Others take a very different view. LCA is a Environment, 1993
that life-cycle assessment methodologies million miles away from the man in the 3
Synthesis Report on the
were among the most promising new tools street, said Dr Mike Jeffs of ICI Polyur- Social Value of LCA
for a wide range of environmental manage- ethanes. Part of the difficulty in making the carried out by IMSA on
ment tasks. technique more accessible comes down to behalf of the Society for
the Promotion of LCA
the competing needs of simplicity (or at least Development (SPOLD),
The most comprehensive international clarity) to aid practitioners and credibility, to 1995.
14 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
enable decision-makers to have faith in the That said, however, and given the cooling of
robustness of the results. As Mariane Hou- public opinion on most environmental issues
num of the Danish Environmental Protect- through the mid-1990s during the second
ion Agency put it: We need to find a simple great environmental downwave, it is astonish-
way of communicating the results of LCA, ing how much interest there has been in
because most people have neither the time some sectors of industry. LCA results have
nor the interest to read entire documents. played a key role in procurement decisions,
But if the answers are simple, then again the for example, as companies have sought to
question of credibility arises - because there assess the relative performance of competing
is no way for [stakeholders] to check the suppliers. This activity, in many cases, has
validity of the results. been driven by a recognition that while
public opinion may move in great surge-
Back in 1992-1993, SustainAbility coined the tides, the underlying trend on most environ-
term laptop LCA, pointing out that until mental issues is still moving steadily upwards.
LCA as a tool becomes truly user-friendly
and accessible, it is unlikely to take off in a A series of issues in 1995 and 1996, most
comprehensive way. Over the years, software particularly the controversy surrounding the
designers have been responding to the planned disposal of the Brent Spar oil buoy
challenge, and as the final section of this and the massive economic and social disloca-
Guide demonstrates, there has been a tions caused by public reactions to mad cow
proliferation of LCA software on the market. disease or BSE, helped to re-ignite interest in
These should be carefully checked before life-cycle thinking, if not necessarily always in
use, however, since this field is still in its LCA methodologies proper.
infancy - and the available products are of
variable quality. One of the key concerns is The Brent Spar debate highlighted the need
that it is often very hard indeed to verify the to use LCA not only to fast moving consumer
quality of the data used. goods like detergents, or consumer durables
like washing machines, but also to major
Overall, the LCA community is now able to structures and installations. Although Shell
offer a growing range of useful management has conducted work on the shadow pricing
tools. But it continues to struggle a number of the disposal options, many observers
of key issues, some of which are strongly wondered why life cycle thinking had not
linked to the nature of the discipline itself. been built into the design and operation at a
These include: much earlier stage. The BSE controversy, in
turn, raised the life-cycle issue for a wide
the complexity of many of the method- range of industries and for consumers, by
ologies and processes; illustrating how vulnerable agricultural and
food chains are to new forms of contamina-
the high cost and long time-scales, tion.
although much progress has been made
in this area;
1.4 Stakeholder Views
the necessity of making value judgments
in the course of the work, judgments LCA has traditionally been written about and
which are not always identified in the discussed by experts behind closed doors, or
final report; in the R&D laboratory, with little in the way
of public communication, let alone consulta-
the lack of accepted international tion. But as practitioners see the need for
standards (although the SPOLD LCA increased credibility of the tool and greater
format initiative has been useful, and an acceptance by the public, the mood is
ISO standard is under way); changing. As a result, there is now a greater
curiosity about what other people think
the continuing invisibility of much LCA about the discipline, and about the implica-
work, compounded by the above factors. tions for the future.
The sample was in no sense statistically valid, Among those who are aware of LCA,
but the conclusions drawn and the recom- there is still a clear divide between those
mendations made by the different stake- who focus on LCA as a set of tools and
holders fall into a very clear pattern. A list of those who consider LCA thinking as a
the respondents in the EEA/SustainAbility paradigm through which to think and
survey can be found in Appendix 1.1. We prioritise;
have also drawn on the conclusions of the
IMSA study, Synthesis Report on the Social Value The level of progress differs between
of LCA. countries, but overall the pace of devel-
opment in the LCA field is slowing as
The findings of the survey can be summa- consolidation of methodologies begins;
rised as follows:
The credibility of the tools - and of the
LCA, in its various forms, is now seen by users of LCA data - is critical if the LCA
all stakeholders as a necessary, integral community is to gain sufficient authority
part of the environmental management and LCA is to be useful in the long term;
tool-kit;
A major concern - expressed by a high
Practitioners see value in using this proportion of practitioners - is that
family of tools not only for established quality control mechanisms remain
areas like new product development but relatively weak;
also, increasingly, in the process of
corporate strategy formulation; The involvement of external
stakeholders in defining study bounda-
Although the period of maximum hype ries and stimulating out-of-the-box
is over, LCA remains in the early stages of thinking is seen to be increasingly
development, with a good deal of further important.
16 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Appendix 1.1:
A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views
LCA has traditionally been written about and who focus on LCA as a set of tools and
discussed by experts behind closed doors or those who consider LCA thinking as a
in the laboratory, without much in the way of paradigm through which to think and
public consultation. But as practitioners see prioritise;
the need for increased credibility of the tool
and greater acceptance by the public, the The level of progress differs between
mood is changing. As a result, there is now a countries, but overall the pace of devel-
greater curiosity about what other people opment in the LCA field is slowing as
think about the discipline, and about the consolidation of methodologies begins;
implications for the future.
The credibility of the tools - and of the
In order to develop a Guide which was topical users of LCA data - is critical if the LCA
and well-founded, SustainAbility conducted a community is to gain sufficient authority
sample survey of industry practitioners, and LCA is to be useful in the long term;
standard setting organisations, ecolabelling
boards, industry associations, research insti- A major concern - expressed by a high
tutes, consultants, non-governmental organi- proportion of practitioners - is that
sations (NGOs), students, the environmental quality control mechanisms remain
media and financial institutions. Their views relatively weak;
have inform earlier sections of the Guide.
What follows is a brief summary of findings. The involvement of external stake-
holders in defining study boundaries and
stimulating out-of-the-box thinking is
Major Findings seen to be increasingly important.
Russotto of APME. There were also reserva- more of a representative, challenging role
tions about LCA as a policy-making tool: than a direct contribution to such areas as
LCA is not yet water-tight enough to be the formulation of corporate strategy. But
used as a policy making tool, said Gareth even this position may well change as some
Rice of the University of Surrey. On the of the transitions outlined in the latter part
other hand, Anne-Maree OConnor of NPI of this introduction take hold.
argued that governments can play a useful
role by providing financial incentives for Among the benefits the involvement of
LCA and by improving access to data on NGOs can bring are the following:
public registers of emissions, so that emis-
sions and impacts can be linked back to Greater corporate transparency through
companies and their products. In short, demanding more data;
although it is still easier to see LCA as a tool
for assessing products, it is very likely that it Making LCA practitioners think again by
will be used for government and industry challenging the assumptions of those
policy making. commissioning and carrying out LCA
work;
Industry Associations
Surprisingly, some industry LCA practition- Adding weight to the public acceptability
ers were highly sceptical about the contribu- of the results of LCA work.
tion of industry associations to the debate.
One even went so far as to say that they will But there were concerns that many NGOs
continue to protect their corporate members would decide not to play the game, either
from calls to divulge real information which because of political differences or because
might be useful to customers and consum- they lacked the necessary skills and other
ers. resources. One respondent noted that NGOs
typically fall into two categories: (1) those
More positively, most respondents felt that that understand the complexity of environ-
industry associations would come up the mental issues and trade-offs, who will work in
curve, playing an increasingly important LCA processes; and (2) those who are single
role with respect to the provision of sectoral issue campaigners, and cannot afford to
data. Several industry association respond- admit complexity - who will usually turn
ents forecast that there would be growing down invitations to participate.
pressures for benchmarking against industry
averages. Many companies are much happier In the US, Kate Victory of Business and En-
to supply data when they know they will be vironment noted, if NGOs are at all wise, they
aggregated, and industry associations will will become involved. Not, perhaps, with the
increasingly be required to supply aggre- methodology, but helping technical experts to
gated data - both to member companies and understand and communicate that technical
to client industries and regulators. analysis will not answer all questions. And
NGOs can help with value judgements.
Overall, the associations were expected to Among the consultants, Nick Turner of ERM
play a central role. Industry associations will argued that the role of NGOs could go in a
help industry to understand the true value of number of directions. I cant see them
LCA, was the way Anders Linde of commissioning LCAs, he said, but could see
EUROPEN put it. Some of the respondents them involved in peer review. NGOs are
also felt that such associations will have an listened to and have weight in society.
important role to play in assisting small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The NGO respondents themselves displayed
an interesting mixture of scepticism and
NGOs hope. This is still not something that the
Although, perhaps not surprisingly, there average man in the street knows anything
were reservations (NGOs are not objective; about, said Sally Nicholson of WWF. Rick
they support political or other lobbying Heede and Chris Lotspeath at the US Rocky
agendas), most practitioners saw non- Mountain Institute agreed: There has been
governmental organisations (NGOs) as slow take-up in the context of little or no
potentially having a critical role in relation public awareness, they reported. And some
to LCA. NGOs have credibility, was the way NGO respondents were more critical. LCA
Anders Linde of EUROPEN summed it up. has been a justification for products, rather
than an objective analysis, argued Tim
Most respondents saw the NGOs as playing Jenkins of Friends of the Earth (FoE).
A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views 19
More hopefully, Ann Link of the Womens Research Institutes and Universities
Environment Network (WEN) noted: Some Overall, this category of respondents was
environmental groups have started to take fairly upbeat about the future prospects for
LCA seriously, not just as an industry green- LCA. We see an accelerating take-up of
wash, which maybe it was at the beginning. I LCA, reported Dan Francis of Brunel
suppose (and hope) that LCA will become a University.
more involving and accessible tool in the
future. Several NGOs saw LCA and ecolabel- An interesting distinction made by a number
ling playing a potentially important role in of respondents was between LCA tools and
public education on key issues and the life-cycle thinking. As Professor Roland Clift
options for action. of the University of Surrey put it, life cycle
thinking has been fairly widely adopted
This group of respondents were most wary across industry and government bodies,
about the misuses of LCA. LCA should not while LCA proper has had a more limited
be used as the basis of green labelling or eco- take-up, due to time and money require-
marketing claims, said one, arguing that this ments. Interest in LCA is gaining ground,
would be a complete bastardisation of he said, but in practice it is still difficult to
LCA. To be useful, all NGO respondents persuade designers and engineers to use
agreed, LCA projects would need to afford even abridged forms of LCA.
greater transparency and result in data that
are both comparable and benchmarkable.
This is a set of tools for continuous improve-
ment, said one NGO, not for selling
products.
21
Table 2-1
Engaging stakeholders: 10 transititions.
report, Engaging Stakeholders, focuses both on The focus on openness, credibility and
the thinking of reporting companies and of dialogue can also be seen to apply directly to
the growing number of users of reported rising trends in LCA. Below we consider
data and information. Ten transitions were some of the implications for LCA, taking
identified for the reporting community (see each of these transitions in turn.
Table 2-1).
2.2.1 Dialogue
But it is worth asking to what extent the Transparent reporting of processes and
value of LCA depends on its public credi- outcomes;
bility? The consensus among practitioners
was that, although much depends on the Stakeholder dialogue;
context and application, credibility is criti-
cal. Some practitioners, among them Mike Verification.
2.2.2 Verification
The verification of LCAs has not, to date, cions that inevitably arise when LCAs are
been a requirement. But NGO respondents carried out by companies with a vested
were unanimous in calling for the external interest in the outcome, as Sally Nicholson
verification of LCAs. External verification of WWF put it. Four out of five NGO respon-
would help people to overcome the suspi- dents were unaware of the existence or
What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development? 23
nature of existing LCA quality control respondents, all favoured some form of
mechanisms. It is also interesting that both verification, with Paolo Frankl of the Istituto
the environmental media respondents Ambiente Italia summarising the task as one
passed on this issue, implying that they of avoiding mistakes and misuse. Several
were equally confused about quality control respondents said it was good practice,
mechanisms. whether the data were for internal or exter-
nal use, to adopt peer review techniques.
The LCA practitioners surveyed felt that Perhaps data should be checked by a peer
there are currently few quality checks in in a company even if its only for internal
place in the LCA field. Responses ranged use, as Dan Francis of Brunel University put
from not a lot to am not aware of any it.
quality checks in particular. One practi-
tioner explained, I lack quality control According to Kim Christiansen, who was
myself when doing LCAs. The problem is involved in developing ISO 14040, the
that LCAs are very data-intensive. It is very international LCA standard, verification is
easy to make a mistake - and much harder to one of the themes which was discussed at
find it. If this is more generally the case, this some length by the ISO committee. It proved
is an issue which should be addressed by the difficult to agree on how to verify whether or
LCA community. not an LCA study follows the text of the
standard. Should the accredited certifier
In this context, it is interesting to hear some make judge the LCA study undertaken, the
practitioners - among them Dr Hans-Jurgen practitioner responsible or the organisation
Klppel of Henkel - saying that LCAs should with which a practitioner works? Ultimately,
never be published, or perhaps even made it was agreed that if the results of an LCA are
public, without a peer review. Asked whether to be used externally, particularly if they are
there is a need for external verification, most to be used to make a comparative assertion
practitioners agreed that, where the LCA with another product, an external critical
data are for external consumption, verifica- review is necessary, whereby a more formal
tion by a third party can be a good idea. review process takes place than the usual
However, a proportion of these said that the journal review.
distinction between peer review and verifica-
tion is artificial. The key difference may The key thing, as Martin Wright of Tomorrow
simply be whether the external party or Magazine noted, is that independent third
parties is/are paid for the work and formally party verification is available, which doesnt
sign off on it. mean that it has to be used every time.
Among the practitioners, David Russell of
All the consultants surveyed mentioned peer Dow Europe argued that it could well be
review, or some form of external verification, time to begin thinking about a body respon-
as important. Marcel Bovy of IMSA added sible for accrediting LCA practitioners and
that his experience suggests that peer verifiers as a first step towards making LCAs
reviews almost always result in major error more comparable.
corrections. Among the research institute
2.2.3 Benchmarking
One key contributor to the credibility gap is shared indicators, each company - whether it
the comparability paradox. This runs as is producing a CER or an LCI on a product or
follows: to make Corporate Environmental material - ends up in a class of its own.
Reports - or LCIs and LCAs - more useful to
stakeholders, they need to be comparable; to It is very difficult indeed to make sensible
be comparable they need to be developed comparisons between different business
within some sort of framework and with sectors, said Martin Wright of Tomorrow
generally accepted indicators that make magazine. With companies choosing their
comparisons possible; and yet companies have own metrics and environmental perform-
so far largely resisted attempts to introduce ance indicators, benchmarking is more of a
common indicators, frameworks and bench- hope than a reality. This represents a major
marks. Without common benchmarks and problem for stakeholders wishing to com-
24 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
pare one LCA with another in order to Further work on commonly accepted
establish and stimulate best practice. approaches to impacts and how to assess
them.
When asked whether the benchmarkability
of LCA data was a key issue, some survey One idea that came up repeatedly as an aid
respondents were adamant that comparabil- to benchmarking was that of creating a
ity was not an issue or even a requirement. unified LCA database. A number of respond-
David Cockburn of PIRA and Anders Linde ents supported this idea strongly, particularly
of EUROPEN agreed (in Cockburns words) those associated with SPOLD. David Cock-
that there is absolutely no requirement that burn of PIRA felt that a good database in a
LCAs are benchmarkable, because each common format could be very useful.
study sets its own scope, objectives and Some, among them Dennis Postlethwaite of
boundaries. However, he noted, that Unilever, see the growing calls for databases
doesnt mean that transparency is not impor- as a reaction to concerns that some compa-
tant. The purpose, said Linde, is not to nies are switching off in the LCA field and
have major comparability, but to better may in future refuse to disclose potentially
understand systems and to improve their sensitive data.
performance.
But there were also sceptics: David Chesneau
In stark contrast, a few respondents argued of BP Chemicals noted that databases are
forcefully for benchmarking and bench- useful in theory, but warned that Free data
markability. This is a question that can make can be pretty worthless unless the way in
or break an ecological free market. said which they are derived, and their limitations,
Professor Schmidt Bleek of Germanys are understood. Anders Linde of EURO-
Wuppertal Institute. PEN reported that EUROPEN feels that
databases are not very useful in practice, as
Most respondents noted that it all depends they use industry averages and provide
of whether the data and findings are being diluted information, which lowers the quality
used internally or externally. A typical reply: of the LCA. Clearly the usefulness of
If the results of an LCA enter the public databases will depend upon the applications
domain, comparability and benchmarkability for which they are envisaged, the nature of
become much more important. Compara- the data collected and the ease with which
bility, concluded Rolf Bretz of Ciba, is different styles of analysis can be supported.
indispensable: if we fail to achieve com-
parability and benchmarkability in the LCA More specifically, the following criteria
field, we cannot expect LCA to survive for apply:
long in the commercial world.
The data should be updated regularly;
In terms of making comparisons possible, a
number of necessary and desirable steps Ranges of uncertainty should be indica-
were suggested. These included: ted;
The development of a common LCA The date and source of any data should
framework or methodology; be clearly identified;
Data on industrys inputs and outputs are on impacts and outcomes will inevitably
obviously welcome, but they are only useful if drive the future evolution of LCA. The
they can be linked to potential real-world necessary shifts here are from data to infor-
environmental impacts - and to programmes mation and knowledge, and from under-
for reducing and making good those im- standing to action. In short, what do all the
pacts. emissions and waste data produced for LCA
projects and published in CERs actually mean
The issue of impacts is one of the thorniest in terms of environmental decline or pro-
which face LCA practitioners, and remains a gress, let alone of longer term sustainability?
sticking point - so much so that some people,
such as Peter Hindle of Procter & Gamble, To make this happen, more work is needed
consider full blown LCAs to be an all but in the area of building state-of-the-environ-
impossible dream. He places much more ment databases - and of better integrating
faith in LCIs (life cycle inventories). technology, project and product impact
assessments with these larger sets of data on
But, as in the field of corporate environmen- environmental trends.
tal reporting, the demand for information
26 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
2.2.6 Standards
In a globalising economy, the challenges ready by 1997. That does not mean that they
facing business are becoming increasingly all support it whole-heartedly, however. But
complex. Companies often complain that even they accepted, as Christina Senabulya
they operate in markets where the playing of the British Standards Institution (BSI) put
field is uneven, but the evidence suggests it, that the acceptability of this family of
that they are often comfortable applying standards will be decided in the market-
different standards in different parts of the place.
world. Whatever the facts of the matter, one
message has emerged clearly from recent Most practitioners and standard-setters saw
controversies: companies operating interna- significant value in the harmonisation of
tionally will find it increasingly difficult to national standards - as long as they could be
apply different standards - whether in rela- harmonised at the right level. Although ISO
tion to site management, reporting or LCA - and national standards bodies were most
in different worlds regions and countries. often mentioned in this context, at least one
NGO saw the European Environment
Many practitioners see the work of the Agency (EEA) itself as having an important
International Standards Organisation (ISO), potential role to play in helping to ensure
and particularly its work on ISO 14040, as appropriate levels of standardisation and the
pivotal. The standards setting bodies noted build the associated credibility for the tools
that ISO 14040 and ISO 14041 should be and their users.
Most report-makers find other companies For the equity and other fast-paced financial
LCAs and CERs useful, when they can get markets, environmental issues may be
access to them, but even some report-makers shadowed by the scale of the problems that
now take their fellow report-makers to task have rocked institutions like Barings, Daiwa,
for producing LCA-related documentation Sumitomo and Morgan Grenfell/Deutsche
and CERs which are largely PR. The shift Bank, but sustainable development is going
to a more governance-focused approach to to depend on the capacity of financial
reporting is signalled by the views of the analysts to think longer term than they
financial institutions. This trend is likely to currently find possible. Working out how this
affect the financial markets in waves, the first transition can be driven forward is perhaps
hitting insurers, the second hitting the banks the biggest challenge now facing the sustain-
and the third, eventually, hitting the equity able development community world-wide.
markets.
Among the financial sector respondents,
The insurers have had plenty of warning, there was a strong feeling that some form of
with some 20% of Lloyds losses associated verification would be needed if they were to
with environmental liabilities in the United use LCA data. Sarita Bartlett of Storebrand
States. As a result, some insurance compa- felt that a companys commitment to LCA
nies are taking a much greater interest in could become an important indicator for
major issues like global warming and climate whether or not it is taking its environmental
change. management responsibilities seriously. Anne-
Maree OConnor at NPI, meanwhile, felt
The fact that a growing number of banks is that companies are only likely to undertake
beginning the process of environmental LCAs (and consequently divulge useful
reporting suggests that the environmental information about them) if encouraged to
aspects of corporate governance will also be do so through incentives or, conversely,
moving sharply up the agenda over the next taxes. Corporate governance is, in other
decade. words, seen to need a helping hand.
What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development? 27
There is much to be said for the voluntary better to let the public choose, than manda-
approach to reporting - not least because it ting choices, RMI noted. But this means
encourages greater experimentation by that the public - and particularly consumers -
report-makers and the same holds true for have to be educated and informed.
LCA. Both in the field of reporting and of
life-cycle assessment, this is still the case, but The consensus among the practitioners was
there are clear signs, at least among report- that a mandatory requirement is unlikely
makers, users and other stakeholders, that and would be unhelpful if it did develop. I
there will be growing calls for mandatory tried hard, but I couldnt see a situation
reporting. Will the same hold true for LCA? where LCA would be mandatory, replied
Nancy Russotto of APME. Mandatory
The ecolabelling respondents generally felt requirements usually lower the quality of
that it would be a mistake to make LCA tools, said Anders Linde of EUROPEN.
mandatory. Paul Jackson of the UK Eco- However, a number of industry people
labelling Board noted that this approach wondered whether such a requirement
would impose excessive costs on industry, might not slip through the back door in
most particularly on SMEs. Mariane Hounum the form of requirements in relation to
of the Danish EPA agreed, pointing out that product stewardship or supplier vetting that
LCA is a tool to achieve better understand- are best satisfied by LCA.
ing and knowledge, a base on which to make
decisions. Therefore you have to leave the David Cockburn of PIRA concluded that any
choices and decisions free - they cannot be legislation setting environmental perform-
forced. ance standards could have the same effect.
Another regulatory pressure in this direction
Interestingly, the NGOs tended to agree. The was felt to be integrated pollution prevention
Rocky Mountain Institute was typical in and control. And Anne-Maree OConnor of
arguing that LCA is a knowledge tool, and NPI suggested that, although unlikely, a
therefore should not be imposed on people. mandatory requirement might be pushed
If it did become mandatory for any reason, forward in tandem with financial incentives
the choices made on the basis of the infor- or taxes on landfill, emissions and raw
mation provided should still be open. It is materials.
Critics, as one of the Rocky Mountain same holds true for LCA: a key part of the
Institute respondents neatly put it, under- credibility issue revolves around the fact that
mine credibility. It therefore seems sensible, companies choose their own boundaries,
where possible, to address criticism at the methodologies and indicators. For CERs and
start of the LCA process, rather than at the LCAs alike to be credible, and for stake-
end. Marcel Bovy of IMSA was one of those holders to become genuinely engaged, they
who argued strongly that LCA processes and must be involved in negotiating the relevant
data depend for their credibility on the project boundaries.
approval of opinion leaders, and this point
is spelled out more clearly in the IMSA/ To date, many stakeholders have not been
SPOLD Synthesis Report on the Social Value of sufficiently engaged, nor perhaps sufficiently
LCA. knowledgeable, to articulate their needs and
expectations effectively. But this is likely to
One of the main reasons why corporate change, potentially bringing enhanced
environmental reporting has not yet trans- usability and credibility.
formed the credibility of reporting compa-
nies is that the process of deciding when,
how and to whom to report is often control-
led by the companies themselves. Again, the
28 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Sustainable development will require busi- exercise them. WWF, for example, noted that
ness to assess progress against economic, LCA cannot address the social and ethical
environmental and social indicators. A issues which are becoming an increasingly
number of CERs are now referring to this important part of the debate. But they also
building transition, among them those felt that wider stakeholder involvement
produced by General Motors. This does not might help to address at least some these
necessarily mean that we will see booming gaps.
corporate demand for social life-cycle
assessments (LCAsoc), but it does mean that Interestingly, the media respondents agreed
the social context of LCA work will become that this was a trend that LCA practitioners
more important - as will stakeholder involve- would have to cope with: As corporate
ment throughout the process. environmentalism increasingly embraces
ethics, concluded Martin Wright of Tomor-
The NGO respondents typically saw LCA as row Magazine, you would have to assume
unable to address the wider - and particularly that these ideas will increasingly be incorpo-
social - dimensions of the problems that most rated into LCA.
Among the likely trends identified by survey There will be more commonality and
respondents, the following stood out: greater availability of data;
LCA will be seen as an integral part of Expect more LCIs on computers - and,
the environmental management tool-kit, potentially, available via the Internet;
but will also find new applications in
areas such as corporate strategy; There will be a rapidly an evolving
debate on - and better methods for -
Customer industries will increasingly impact assessment;
demand at least some form of life-cycle
information from key suppliers; And all respondents, whether or not they
knew how to deal with these require
There will be more widely accepted ments, accepted that there would be a
standards and methodologies; greater focus on peer review, verification
and stakeholder dialogue to boost LCA
Market pressures will push greater credibility.
benchmarking against industry averages;
3. Applications of LCA
The target group for this chapter is the ensure that boundary and functionality
environmental manager (or the person definitions are adequately covered and are
responsible for environmental activities) in transparent. Accordingly, one of the essential
small and medium sized enterprises. The requirements in the Draft International
chapter outlines areas of use in LCA in both Standard ISO 14040 (ISO 1997a) is the
the private and the public sectors, and gives following demands for external communica-
references to programmes and projects tion of LCA:
where LCA plays an integral part. The
chapter also gives a brief introduction to The results of the LCA shall be fairly and
some conceptually related programmes, e.g. accurately reported to the intended
concepts and tools which use similar kinds of audience. The type and format of the
data and which can be used to support report shall be defined in the scope
decision making in related areas of environ- phase of the study.
mental management.
The results, data, methods, assumptions
LCA methodologies were originally devel- and limitations shall be transparent and
oped to create decision support tools for presented in sufficient detail to allow the
distinguishing between products, product reader to comprehend the complexities
systems, or services on environmental and trade-offs inherent in the LCA study.
grounds (Throughout the chapter, the term The report shall also allow the results
product is used as a synonym for both and interpretation to be used in a
products, product systems, and services). manner consistent with the goals of the
study.
During the evolution of LCA, a number of (....)
related applications emerged, of which we
give some examples below: In comparative studies, the equivalence
of the systems being compared shall be
Internal industrial use in product devel- evaluated before interpreting the results.
opment and improvement Systems shall be compared using the
same functional unit and equivalent
Internal strategic planning and policy methodological considerations such as
decision support in industry, performance, system boundaries, data
quality, allocation procedures, decision
External industrial use for marketing rules on evaluating inputs and outputs
purposes, and and impact assessment. Any differences
between systems regarding these para-
Governmental policy making in the areas meters shall be identified and reported.
of ecolabelling, green procurement and
waste management opportunities. In the case of comparative assertions
disclosed to the public, this evaluation
The list is not exhaustive, but indicates that shall be conducted in accordance with
there is a wide variation of applications. This the critical review process. Another
variation is also reflected in the level of requirement for comparative assertions
sophistication and to some extent also in the disclosed to the public is that an impact
choice of methodology. assessment shall be performed.
(....)
A critical remark on the use of LCA
The use of LCA for strategic decisions, e.g.
in choosing between different systems 3.1 Levels of sophistication in LCA for
delivering a common function, has often different applications
been associated with disputes about the
validity of such assessments. These disputes - Most of the efforts in the development and
or LCA-wars - have, however, proven to be standardisation of LCA have been directed
of great value in the development of a towards a detailed LCA, and this type of LCA
proper LCA-methodology and data as they is accordingly the focus of the chapter on
30 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
LCA methodology. In practice, however, very ing which components or materials have the
few detailed LCAs, which are based on a largest environmental impacts - and why.
coherent methodology, have been published. Limitations in the inventory can occur in the
form of omissions of one or more of the
The first part of the present chapter there- phases in the life cycle, e.g. those phases for
fore includes a brief description of two other which the decision-maker does not have any
levels of LCA, i.e. the conceptual and the improvement options. Another possibility is
simplified levels. It should be noted that at to reduce the number of examined param-
present it is not possible to make a distinc- eters, e.g. by investigating the energy con-
tion between conceptual and simplified sumption in the life cycle, but not the
LCAs or between simplified and detailed related emissions and their contribution to
LCAs. Rather, the three levels should be different environmental impacts.
regarded as a continuum with an increasing
level of detail, suitable for decision making It is obvious from the requirements of the
in different applications. ISO standard that conceptual LCAs are not
suitable for marketing purposes or other
In the subsequent descriptions of LCA public dissemination of the results. However,
applications, a reference is given to the level a conceptual LCA may help the decision
of LCA used in the different applications, maker identify which products have a com-
although it is not possible to describe the petitive advantage in terms of reduced
methodologies in detail. During the develop- environmental impacts. Subsequent simpli-
ment of LCA methodology, many synonyms fied or detailed LCAs fulfilling the require-
for less detailed LCAs have been suggested. ments of a standard can be established and
This is also reflected in the present review as used for public information.
the authors refer to the actual terminology
used in the report (streamlined LCA, partial Instead of Conceptual LCA, the SETAC
LCA, screening LCA, Life cycle review, EUROPE LCA Screening and Streamlining
simplified LCA, Life cycle thinking, LCA Working Group uses the term Life Cycle
concept, LCA tool, etc.) Thinking (Christiansen et al., 1997):
When reading the following it should be Life Cycle Thinking is a mostly qualita-
borne in mind that irrespective of the tive discussion to identify stages of the
terminology used, an LCA should always be life cycle and/or the potential environ-
based on a holistic approach, i.e. at some mental impacts of greatest significance
point of the study it must include the full life e.g. for use in a design brief or in an
cycle of the product and examine all inputs introductory discussion of policy mea-
and outputs. sures. The greatest benefit is that it helps
focus consideration of the full life cycle
3.1.1 Conceptual LCA - Life Cycle Thinking of the product or system; data are typi-
The conceptual LCA is the first and simplest cally qualitative (statements) or very
level of LCA. At this level the life cycle ap- general and available-by-heart quantita-
proach is used to make an assessment of tive data.
environmental aspects based on a limited and
usually qualitative inventory. A conceptual 3.1.2 Simplified LCA
LCA can often answer basic questions like Is The SETAC EUROPE LCA Screening and
there a basis for pursuing a green marketing Streamlining Working Group defines simpli-
strategy?, Is the product significantly differ- fied LCA as (Christiansen et al., 1997):
ent from competing products? or Does the
product have some clear unequivocal benefits Simplified LCA is an application of the
or shortcomings for selected environmental LCA methodology for a comprehensive
issues?. Key decisions about green marketing screening assessment i.e. covering the
and new product development do not neces- whole life cycle but superficial e.g. using
sarily need a highly quantitative analysis, but generic data (qualitative and/or quanti-
rather an understanding of the relative tative), standard modules for transporta-
advantages, disadvantages and uncertainties tion or energy production, followed by a
for an existing or new product (Hirschhorn, simplified assessment i.e. focusing on the
1993). most important environmental aspects
and/or potential environmental impacts
The results of a conceptual LCA can for and/or stages of the life cycle and/or
instance be presented using qualitative phases of the LCA and a thorough
statements or simple scoring systems, indicat- assessment of the reliability of the results.
Applications of LCA 31
The aim of simplifying LCA is to provide simplified LCA. However, a clear distinction
essentially the same results as a detailed LCA, should be made. Screening as a part of the
but with a significant reduction in expenses simplification procedure can help to identify
and time used. Simplification presents a the parts (or life cycle stages) of a product
dilemma, however, since it is likely to affect system that can be left out in a simplified
the accuracy and reliability of the results of LCA. In principle, a screening LCA which
the LCA. Thus, the primary object of simpli- already has certain parts missing would not
fication is to identify the areas within the be capable of identifying all key issues, as it
LCA which can be omitted or simplified does not cover the full life cycle or all en-
without significantly compromising the vironmentally important aspects. In other
overall result. words, the screening step in simplified LCA
should be comprehensive in coverage, but
Simplification of LCA consists of three stages may be superficial in detail.
which are iteratively interlinked:
Screening LCA is for instance used in
Screening: Identifying those parts of the environmental labelling to identify the
system (life cycle) or of the elementary environmental hot spots, i.e. the areas
flows that are either important or have where labelling criteria are assumed to have
data gaps the greatest effects. Another use of screening
LCAs is to identify the processes where
Simplifying: Using the findings of the emissions of particular interest occur in the
screening in order to focus further work life cycle. This procedure may be followed by
on the important parts of the system or application of other environmental manage-
the elementary flows. ment tools, e.g. risk assessment, to assess
whether unwanted effects actually will occur.
Assessing reliability: Checking that
simplifying does not significantly reduce Depending on the application, the data can
the reliability of the overall result. be quantitative (site specific/generic) or
qualitative. Screening indicators such as
The terms Screening LCA and Stream- energy demand, MIPS (material intensity per
lined LCA are often used as synonyms for a service unit) and key substances (substances
Table 3-1
Level of detail in some applications of LCA. x in bold indicates the most frequently used level.
Materials selection
Minimise toxic chemical content
Incorporate recycled and recyclable materials
Use more durable materials
Reduce materials use
Production impacts
Reduce process waste
Reduce energy consumption
Reduce use of toxic chemicals
Product use
Energy efficiency
Reduce product emissions and waste
Minimise packaging
Figure 3-1
Relationship between the designers degree of freedom and the level of information.
34 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Product development may follow different broad list of references on Life Cycle Design
concepts and routes. Some common phases and related approaches can be found in
of most development methodologies are Keoleian & Menerey (1994) and in Ryding
given below in Figure 3-1, along with an (1995).
illustration of the relationship between the
designers degree of freedom and the The Product Ecology Project (Sweden)
available information during the product The Product Ecology Project in Sweden was
development process. launched in 1992 as an initiative by the
Federation of Swedish Industries. The core
In the idea-phase there is almost an un- idea of the project was to develop an LCA-
limited number of possibilities with respect based calculation system to help product
to design, choice of materials, function etc. developers, purchasers and other decision-
The number of options decreases with the makers in taking environmental impacts
development process, and changes to the from processes and products into account.
final product and of the necessary produc- The results from the study are published in
tion tools often require a whole new develop- Ryding (1995). Furthermore, a PC-based
ment process. software version of the Environmental
Priority System (EPS) to be used as an in-
It is therefore necessary that relevant envi- company tool has been developed, and an
ronmental tools are available and used as education package on environmentally
early as possible in the development process. sound product development is available.
For simple products, e.g. packaging, it is
possible to apply a detailed and quantitative The NEP project (Scandinavia)
LCA since information on most of the The Nordic project on Environmentally
commonly used materials is now available. Sound Product development (NEP) includes
For more complicated products the number most Nordic countries (S, N, SF) and con-
of possibilities is very high, and as the data- sists of two parts, namely development of a
base on exotic materials is limited, the common structure for a LCA database, and a
application of quantitative and detailed number of case studies, primarily performed
LCAs to such products may prove to be very by Swedish and Norwegian companies. In
resource demanding and at the same time the project, LCA was integrated with system-
not very precise. Conceptual or simplified atic product development tools like Quality
LCAs may in these cases be of more help in Function Deployment (QFD) and Life Cycle
the early stages of product development, Cost Analysis (LCCA) (Hanssen, 1994,
possibly in the form of life cycle based design Hanssen, 1995, Hanssen et al., 1995). The
tools (e.g. design rules and checklists). industrial members of the project group
were apparently satisfied with the integrated
When improving already existing products, concept, but it was also a common experi-
the use of LCA may become easier (a simpli- ence that there was a lack of information
fied LCA), simply because it is possible to concerning environmental performance,
make a LCA of the old (reference) product customer requirements valuation and life
with a well-known life cycle and use the cycle economy.
results to identify where the environmental
hot spots are. In this case data collection The Eco-Design programme (The Netherlands)
and interpretation are generally far less The Dutch Eco-Design programme was an
resource intensive, and the results can be experimental project in which eight compa-
communicated to the customers in terms of nies tried to incorporate environmental
absolute environmental improvements. aspects in order arrive at improved products.
One of the basic ideas in the project was to
Several research programs on how to incor- establish a team consisting of product
porate environmental issues in product developers from inside a company together
development have been conducted. The list with environmental experts. Both quantita-
below is not intended to give an exhaustive tive LCAs and a more conceptual life cycle
overview, but merely mentions some pro- approach were used in the project, which is
grams already completed. Information on only documented to a limited extent, e.g.
other programs can be found in reports Zweers et al. (1992).
from industry sector conferences (e.g. the
packaging, automotive and electromechani- The Milion and the Promise programmes (The
cal industries) and from meetings in LCA- Netherlands)
orientated societies (e.g. SETACs annual The Dutch Milion programme has been
meetings and symposia for case studies). A somewhat similar in set-up and has been
Applications of LCA 35
demonstrated for 6 products. It appears that tal criteria in product development. The
substantial improvements have been imple- tools are based on state-of-the-art LCA
mented, but for reasons of confidentiality, no methodology and supposed to be used
detailed reports have been published interactively between a product developer
(Christiansen et al., 1995). and an environmental specialist. Detailed
criteria and methods for assessment of
The Promise programme was formulated in environmental impacts have been extensively
the Netherlands with the experiences from reported (e.g. Wenzel et al., 1996 and 1997),
the Eco-design and the Milion project as a and a supporting database has been released
background. The main results are a manual by the Danish Environmental Protection
for environmental product development Agency.
(Brezet et al., 1994) and a report for the
parliament on how to stimulate environmen- Quality Function Deployment (Denmark)
tal product development and improvement. The Danish QFD-project (Olesen, Schmidt
The manual is described as a framework for and Petersen, 1997).) demonstrates how
product development rather than an opera- both customer and environmental require-
tional methodology (Christiansen et al., ments can be integrated in product develop-
1995). ment using the Quality Function Deploy-
ment methodology. Important quality and
The Eco-Indicator Programme (The Netherlands) functional aspects are identified via inter-
The Eco-Indicator programme has resulted views with stakeholders, while the most
in a screening LCA procedure for design important environmental aspects are identi-
purposes. The idea is to have a single fied using simplified LCA. All aspects are
number for each unit process and material, subsequently related to the technical proper-
reflecting the cradle to grave impacts. In ties of the components in the product, and
having single numbers for each unit process, options for improvements can be analysed
it is not necessary to establish process trees, taking both environmental and market
collect emission data and agree on allocation considerations into account.
rules. The LCA-work is thereby simplified
significantly, but the methodology gives no The Life Cycle Design Project (U.S.A.)
freedom to work with other data sets, e.g. on The Life Cycle Design Project in the USA
different technologies. The results of the resulted in a Life Cycle Design Guidance
programme and the methodology has been Manual (Keoleian and Menerey, 1993). The
published by Goedkoep et al. (1996) and is core of the project is the framework of
continuously being updated. formulating 5 conceptual requirement
matrices on environmental, performance,
The Materials Technology Programme (Denmark) cost, legal and cultural aspects of the design
In the Danish Materials Technology Pro- process in relation to the whole life cycle.
gramme a methodology for screening The formulation, identification and weight-
potential life cycle impacts during the ing of various design requirements are
development of materials and products was highlighted as crucial points in a successful
developed (Schmidt et al. (eds.), 1994). The project, in conjunction with a well organized
methodology and the accompanying paper environmental management system. The
database can be used for preliminary calcula- second phase of the project is a number of
tions of the contribution to global and demonstration projects, the results of which
environmental impacts as well as qualitative are currently being reported. Further infor-
screening of potential health and ecological mation can be obtained from the U.S. EPA.
impacts and waste management options. The
methodology pinpoints potential hot-spots in Strategies for Industrial Production in the 21st
the life cycle and gives the basis for compari- Century (Germany)
sons with existing technologies. As a part of the German research pro-
gramme Strategies for Industrial Production
The EDIP project (Denmark) in the 21st Century an iterative screening
The Danish EDIP-project from 1991-1996 LCA methodology has been developed and
involved five Danish companies in collabora- used in product development (Fleischer &
tion with the Institute for Product Develop- Schmidt, 1997). The aim of the methodology
ment at the Technical University of Denmark is to produce results in time to be useful
and other centres of knowledge. The aim of during product development and to facili-
the project was to give the design team at the tate the communication between the LCA
companies access to methods and tools practitioner and the product design team.
supporting the introduction of environmen- The starting point is qualitative (or semi-
36 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
quantitative) information on key issues and The use of environmental claims will prob-
subsequent iterations may include selected ably decrease along with increasing con-
data or even all data. The system boundaries sumer environmental awareness of the
are enlarged step by step in parallel with the consumer and the introduction of formal-
product development, but the level of detail ized methods for marketing environmentally
is only increased if it delivers valuable preferable products.
information for the decision making process.
The method is also described in Christiansen Environmental declarations (ISO Type III-
(1997). labelling)
The most recent ISO-proposal for a defini-
3.2.2 Marketing tion of environmental label or declaration is
Marketing is the traditional way of communi- (ISO 1997e)
cating product properties and capabilities
which are consistent with the consumers communication of a product environmental
expectations and demands. As the level of claim that may take the form of statements,
environmental consciousness is increasing, symbols, or graphics on product or package
more attention is being paid by the con- labels, product literature, technical bulletins,
sumer to the environmental properties of advertising, publicity, etc.
goods and services. This is being used (and
misused) by many companies to attempt to Environmental declarations may be a tool in
increase their market share, and develop- eco-marketing to transfer the results from a
ment of criteria and guidelines for environ- life cycle investigation of a product (either as
mental marketing has a high priority. a life cycle inventory or a life cycle assess-
ment) to the individual decision-making
At least four different kinds of environmen- process of a consumer. The concept is in
tal marketing can be distinguished: principle similar to that of declaration on
food products, but is not yet fully developed.
Environmental labelling If a similar concept is developed, the defini-
tion of environmental declarations could be
Environmental claims Quantified product information labels in
which the findings of an LCA are reported
Environmental declarations under a set of pre-established indices.
Table 3-2
Differences between environmental declarations and ecolabels.
Type of LCA Detailed inventory and impact assessment LCA used to pinpoint key
- or simplified LCA? features
Number of products with All (in principle) Only the best 10-30% of the
declaration or label product group
Updating With product changes Variable, but the criteria are renewed every
three years in many schemes
Figure 3-2
Basic product strategies in relation to environmental performance and market potentials.
products on the market will in many cases be techniques with systematic step-by-step
sufficient. In the longer term, more system- procedures and/or computational algo-
atic LCA-activities within a company will help rithm; often used to support a concept.
in building up a database of information, Many of the programmes are thus inter-
suitable for decisions on all levels of activi- related and cannot be easily distinguished
ties. from each other. Also, many companies are
combining several concepts and tools in
3.2.4 Conceptually related programmes order to meet their goals for improvement of
LCA cannot be used as the only decision environmental performance.
support tool in environmental management.
The term Conceptually Related Programmes Life cycle management
(CRP) has been used by SETAC to describe a The concept of Life cycle management has
wide range of approaches to environmental recently been described (Environment
management used to support environmental Canada, 1997). The basic idea in Life cycle
decision making. management is to establish a thorough
knowledge of the environmental burdens of
Most CRPs are not very accurately defined. the products manufactured by the company
The SETAC workgroup on Conceptually and use this for improvement actions. The
Related Programmes has divided them into process includes employees at most levels of
two groups, i.e. Environmental Management the company and starts with an identification
Tools and Environmental Management of all unit processes at the production site
Concepts (de Smet et al., 1996). The Envir- and an analysis of the related in- and out-
onmental Management Concepts have been puts. In the next step up- and downstream
defined as ideas for achieving sustainability processes are examined. The results from
originating in specific professional discip- the process can be used to establish an LCA,
lines while the Environmental Management but it is more important that the results are
Tools have been defined as measuring used to minimize the environmental bur-
40 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
dens. This is done by using a set of tools In relation to LCA, dissemination of the
tailored to meet the needs of a given com- results from cleaner production programmes
pany, e.g. design for the environment, may prove to be a valuable source of infor-
pollution prevention strategies, waste audits, mation with regard to both specific processes
green procurement etc. and products.
social and environmental aspects is taken substance (or group of substances) through
into account, whereas in LCA only environ- the material economy, giving the opportu-
mental issues are addressed. LCA can thus be nity of identifying environmental improve-
regarded as an integral part of technology ments related to the substance. The model-
assessment. ling and data collection approach is in many
cases quite similar to that used in LCA,
Overall Business Impact Assessment except that the substance flow is not being
A new concept, Overall Business Impact related to a functional unit. SFA may thus be
Assessment (OBIA), was introduced by a useful data source for LCA (and vice versa)
Unilever at the SETAC Case Study Sympos- but its main application is to identify envi-
ium in 1996 (Taylor & Postlethwaite, 1996). ronmental policy options, e.g. by showing
Instead of focusing on single products or which flows might be restricted in order to
product systems, the OBIA assesses the reduce the emissions of a substance or a
totality of the effects of all the individual material. Most SFAs are limited to specific
products produced by a business on an geographic boundaries, e.g. the national
annual basis, as measured by LCA, together level.
with the effects associated with factory and
office operations, as deducted from conven- Energy and material analysis (EMA)
tional environmental audits. The proposed Energy and materials analysis is to a large
OBIA-methodology permits the screening of extent similar to the inventory phase in a
several what if scenarios, i.e. investigating LCA since it quantifies all materials and
the environmental effect of changing critical energy that enter or exit the system under
parameters and variables in the system. study. One major difference is that EMA
does not necessarily involve the whole life
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) cycle of a product or a service, instead
EIA is an activity directed at the identifica- focusing on one specific phase or produc-
tion and quantification of the impacts of tion process. Another difference is that the
peoples actions on human health and well- results from an EMA is not explicitly trans-
being and at the interpretation and commu- lated into potential environmental impacts.
nication of information about these impacts.
EIA is generally used during the planning Integrated substance chain management (ISCM)
phase to investigate changes to the environ- Integrated substance chain management is a
ment at a specific site caused, for instance, by decision support tool in which the life cycle
construction projects. The level of detail in approach is combined with economic
an EIA is often higher than in LCA because considerations in order to analyse and
aspects like concentration of emitted pollu- reduce the overall environmental impacts of
tants and duration of exposure are taken substance chains (VNCI, 1991). The method-
into account. EIAs can thus be used to ology focuses on (potential) actions and
supply precise data to site-specific LCAs and questions like What is the total effect of
as control reference in generic LCAs. substance A on the environment? are not
answered within the framework. Instead the
Risk Assessment (RA) 80/20 rule is applied (what 20 percent of
RA is not one unique tool but rather a elements account for 80 percent of the
number of tools developed to investigate the total?) in order to answer action-orientated
potential risk to human health or the en- questions like What would be the environ-
vironment from specific situations like mental and economic impact of installing a
transport of dangerous goods or the use of recycling system for substance A?. The
specific substances. In all cases, RA includes environmental part of the methodology is
at least two steps which also are used in many thus conceptually very similar to a simplified
LCAs, namely hazard identification and LCA. According to VNCI, the methodology
exposure assessment. The exposure assess- can also be used for products, services,
ment may yield valuable information on companies, regions, etc.
emissions from a given activity and the
hazard identification may be of help in the MFA refers to accounts in physical units, e.g.
impact assessment, depending on the meth- in terms of tonnes, comprising the extrac-
odology used (http://intwww.eea.eu.int/ tion, production, transformation, consump-
frproj.htm). tion, recycling and disposal of materials,
broadly defined. The concept is thus similar
Substance flow analysis (SFA) to or combines other CRPs like substance
The objective of SFA is to make an inflow flow analysis, integrated substance chain
and outflow balance of one particular management and energy and materials
42 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The Danish EPA initiated in 1995 a study assessing which cooking technology (gas/electricity, glass
ceramics/induction) had the least environmental impacts. The study used a cooker with glass ceramic top
plate as the reference product and investigated the outcome of possible changes in technology.
Some of the results are of a general character for an energy consuming device operating in Denmark:
The energy consumption in the use phase constituted more than 95% of the total energy consumption
during the usable life,
Almost all global and regional impacts were related to the energy consumption, while the local impacts
were related to the production of raw materials,
Gas technology was less demanding than electricity in terms of consumption of primary energy, but gas
had a greater impact on indoor climate and human health. Gas burning will generate concentrations of
nitrogen dioxide in kitchens of a magnitude similar to that causing an increased incidence of respiratory
diseases in children and asthmatics. Therefore, gas technology with less emissions of NO2 and no
increase in CO-emissions should be developed,
Better measurement standards for cooking efficiency were necessary in order to compare different
technologies,
Most materials in a conventional cooker are recycled in Denmark today. Glass ceramics are not recycled,
and future development should focus on recycling technologies or development of new materials for
cook tops.
The finding, that gas technology may have a greater impact on human health, would not have appeared, if
the assessment has been based on conventional LCA-methodology, e.g. by using equivalence factors for
impacts on human health in stead of a specific toxicological assessment. This stresses the need for more
flexible approaches, in which expert judgement may play an important role in LCA.
Applications of LCA 43
oriented policy as this is the most promising ing product or workers safety and signifi-
area in relation to LCA and the life cycle cantly affecting the properties which
approach. A broader survey of life cycle make a product fit for use
based government policies can be found in
Curran (1997). The EU labelling scheme has undertaken a
large amount of work in establishing a
3.3.1 Environmental labelling common framework for criteria development
An environmental label (ecolabel) can be as well as in the development itself.
seen as a seal of approval for environmen-
tally benign products and can therefore be The EU ecolabelling scheme has so far
attractive for marketing purposes. Ecolabels resulted in criteria for 12 product groups:
at the same time convey information to the
consumer in a simple but yet objective way, EU-ecolabelling criteria have been devel-
enabling individuals to include environmen- oped for
tal concerns in their own decisions along
with considerations on e.g. economy and Washing machines
quality.
Soil improvers
The general objective of national and supra-
national ecolabelling schemes is to make Kitchen towels
products with less environmental impacts
visible to the consumer. The success of an Laundry detergents
ecolabelling scheme is thus to some extent
dependent on the number of product T-shirts and bed linen
groups with an ecolabel (see appendix 3.1
for details). Paints and varnishes
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland : Nordic ecolabelling scheme (The Swan)
http://www.sis.se/Miljo/Ecolabel.htm
As far as industry is concerned, the proc- In those cases where an official ecolabel
edure of achieving an ecolabel does not exists for the product in question the obvi-
include actually performing an LCA of a ous choice is to demand products fulfilling
product. Instead, the overall environmental the criteria for the ecolabel. Public procure-
performance of the company and its sup- ment organizations can then make their
pliers should be of such quality that the cri- choice without time-consuming evaluations
teria for achieving the ecolabel can be met. and comparisons of all incoming offers.
ISO is developing a standard for Type I However, as criteria for ecolabels have only
labelling (ISO 14020 Environmental Labels been developed for relatively few product
and declarations - General Principles). The groups, it is often necessary to choose
work is expected to result in a committee another methodology if new product groups
draft in mid 1998, but it is already clear that shall be included in programs for green
a description of the LCA methodology to be procurement. The major problem in this
used will be an important part of the stand- context is to develop criteria which ensure
ard. that the products have a good environmental
performance, and at the same time give the
3.3.2 Green procurement responsible persons a tool which enables
Taking environmental aspects into considera- them to choose between a number of prod-
tion in public and institutional procurement ucts with different environmental features.
Applications of LCA 45
The Danish system for beer and soft drink packaging is traditionally based on reusable glass bottles with a
return rate of about 95%. Earlier investigations have shown that this kind of system may be environmentally
superior to other systems - e.g. aluminium cans. In 1992 the Danish EPA initiated a new LCA study on beer
packaging, because the EU packaging directive required that LCA was used to assess which packaging
options is environmentally most sound in order to promote or restrict.
The new study was barely a Life Cycle Inventory of glass bottles aluminium cans and steel cans. The results
were accordingly not appropriate to pinpoint the best alternative from an environmental point of view. It
was, however, possible to use the survey to determine where in the life cycle of the different systems the
largest contributions to essential environmental parameters were expected, and then use this information as
a decision support. The uncertainty of the data is considerable, e.g. for energy consumption the uncertainty
has been estimated to 30% plus differences in the outcome of possible allocation principles.
The results show that the different options (e.g. glass bottles (reusable, one-way), aluminium cans and steel
cans with aluminium lid) behave very differently with respect to environmental aspects. Thus, the discussion
about which system to prefer must take at least three weak points of the study into account:
1. No assessment methodology has been used - only an inventory has been established
2. The inventory is associated with large uncertainties for essential environmental parameters
3. Each packaging option has its good and bad sides in comparison with the others.
There is no doubt that better data and a sound assessment methodology would enhance the use of the
results. However, due to the inherent differences of the system options, subjective weighting of the
environmental aspects in the evaluation phase will always have a large impact on the final decision.
cantly slow down their activities whereas decision support tool are environmental
other companies will expand. Other partici- taxes, integrated life cycle management and
pants in the debate can be supranational deposit/refund schemes. An LCA can in
bodies (e.g. the EU Commission and the these cases be used to analyse the environ-
World Trading Organisation) and NGOs mental consequences of a change in human
pursuing environmental goals without behaviour, and the efforts can be directed
economic considerations. Two examples on towards the most favourable solutions.
this kind of application is the Danish study
on beer and soft drink packaging (see Box)
(Pommer & Wesns, 1995) and the German 3.4 Future applications
study Eco-balance for drink packaging
(Schmitz et al., 1996). It is anticipated that LCA or the life cycle
approach can and will be integrated with
Given the weaknesses of LCA, e.g. that the other decision support tools in almost all
valuation phase can never be 100% objec- areas where environmental issues are impor-
tive, it is not surprising that such debates tant. The amount of LCA-relevant informa-
often occur. The recommendation from the tion is increasing, giving the possibility of
Nordic LCA-project (Lindfors et al., 1995) is extending LCA into new production areas as
that several assessment methodologies well as all the application areas mentioned in
should be used in the LCA, thereby improv- this chapter. With the increasing amount of
ing the necessary decision support. Future information, the applications of LCA will
refinement of the database and standardisa- become more varied and the results will be
tion of LCA-methodology will decrease the more precise. But it is worth remembering
uncertainty and thereby improve the validity that there are only few situations where LCA
of the results. However, it should be remem- can be used as the only decision support
bered that LCA is only one of several deci- tool.
sion support tools and that aspects which are
not included in a LCA may be of equally LCA should also be an integral part in the
great importance. development of extended producer responsi-
bility (EPR) as suggested by OECD. EPR can
Other areas for decision support for instance be employed by governments as
Other areas where LCA has been used as a a strategy to transfer the costs of municipal
Applications of LCA 47
waste management from local authorities to systematic data collection and maintenance
those actors most able to influence the if they are to survive as a quantification tool
characteristics of products which can be- for assessing the direct and indirect environ-
come problematic at the post-consumer mental aspects and potential impacts
stage. Design for Environment, Risk Assess- throughout the life cycle of a product.
ment and LCA can give input from different
angles to the decision makers, ensuring that The ability to apply and use LCA in the
sub-optimal solutions are not implemented. future is critically dependent upon the
ability to actually do authentic LCAs. This
Finally, the integration of life cycle ap- requires that the necessary facilities, i.e.
proaches and environmental management agreed methodologies and, especially, data,
systems is seen as a potentially key area for are available. As is shown in the following
further development: Environmental man- chapters, both methodologies and data are
agement schemes require that indirect becoming more precise and better docu-
environmental aspects are considered and mented. This, together with the develop-
that requirements are communicated in the ment of the ISO LCA-standards, warrants
product chain i.e. to suppliers and custom- that the future use of LCA will be even more
ers. Life Cycle Assessment and other life beneficial than the current experience
cycle approaches and tools will require more shows.
48
Appendix 3.1:
Environmental labelling
Concepts for the development of cleaner This framework will not be described in
products are described elsewhere (LCA and detail, while the six phases in criteria devel-
product development) along with an intro- opment is described below:
duction to governmental strategies (primarily
ecolabelling) used to promote the most Phase One (preliminary study) has the objec-
environmental benign products (Public tive of allowing the Commission, the Com-
sector applications). Ecolabels can be seen as petent Bodies and the Consultation Forum
a means of conveying information to the to consider the feasibility of establishing the
consumer in a simple yet objective way, product group and ecological criteria,
enabling individuals to include environmen- including an indication of what is available,
tal concerns in their own decisions along with the nature of the market, including indus-
considerations on e.g. economy and quality. trial and economic interests and structures,
the perceived environmental issues, what
Environmental labelling schemes have been needs to be done, the advantages of the
initiated in many individual countries and as product group being labelled and some of
international activities in the Nordic coun- the problem areas.
tries and in the EU. The framework and
procedure for criteria development differ Phase Two (market study) has the purpose of
from scheme to scheme, and the criteria for assembling information on the nature of the
the product groups are accordingly widely market in more detail, including the distri-
differentiated. bution of different types and sub-types of
product, the market shares held by manufac-
The two ecolabelling schemes described in turers and by main brands on an European
the following section are rather similar in Union and Member State basis, and imports
organization and procedures. However, it is to the Community.
remarkable that the EU ecolabelling scheme
has only produced criteria for eight product Phases Three and Four (inventory; impact
groups while the Nordic ecolabelling scheme assessment) have the aim of carrying out an
has produced criteria for 43 product groups inventory and then an assessment of the
during the same period. impacts on the environment, using interna-
tionally recognized methods, in an objective,
Like all other serious ecolabels both qualified and representative manner, on a
schemes feature LCA as a very important cradle-to-grave basis.
element in the setting of environmental
criteria. The difference in the number of Phase Five (setting of criteria). The main
developed criteria can perhaps be attributed elements of this phase are to determine the:
to differences in the complexity of the LCA
methodology applied. Another possible most important environmental impacts,
explanation is that the perception of the based on results of phases three and
Nordic ecolabelling scheme by the Nordic four, and identify the accessible areas of
industry and consumers has been more economic and technical development
favourable than the EU ecolabelling scheme. which are the most relevant to the
A market success for a labelled product will environmental impacts;
be quickly reflected in the wish for
ecolabelling of more product groups. applicable criteria and define the level
required for each criterion with refer
The EU ecolabelling scheme was initiated in ence to the Policy Principles document;
1992 by Council Regulation EEC No 880/92.
The procedural guidelines for the establish- necessary test methods and certification
ment of product groups and ecological procedures and consider solutions for
criteria are set out in the Commission qualitative and other related issues.
information on ecolabelling (No 6, 1994).
The formal framework is described in 11 Consideration should also be given to how
points, identifying the role of national and the visibility and effectiveness of the criteria
EU bodies participating in the procedure. can be evaluated.
Environmental labelling 49
work can also be carried out nationally. The also be paid to the total market share of the
secretariat which is responsible for the work products expected to fulfill the criteria.
then decides how the work should be carried
out. The other countries shall be kept 5. Criteria are laid down within a product
informed of the work, e.g. by receiving group. This is defined, as appropriate, in
preliminary criteria drafts. The other coun- relation to the systems objectives. In general,
tries also have the right to appoint their own products with the same range of use form a
experts as observers. group, regardless of type. This is the case
when it is considered desirable to reduce the
The General Agreement for Nordic Eco- use of one type of product in favour of
labelling states the following conditions for another of identical/similar utility for the
criteria development: consumer. An example is the choice between
plastic and paper as a raw material for a
1. Relativity. The label shall be awarded after product.
a comparative evaluation. On the basis of the
comparison, a level is defined for criteria, In some cases it would be more practical to
and the products that exceed this level will label products within the same product type.
be awarded the label. This could be done when a majority of
products of a certain type need to be im
2. Standards shall be set high, in any case proved with a view to the environment.
higher than the strictest official rules in one
of the Nordic countries. Criteria should also 6. Criteria are laid down so that the greatest
be made so strict that no product is awarded benefit is achieved in relation to the objec
the label at the moment if it is known that tives. Priority is thus given to:
product development could make products
satisfy the criteria within a short time. a. The products effects on the environment,
qualitatively and quantitatively.
3. Life cycle. The whole products life cycle
(procurement of raw materials, manufactu- b. The consumers need for information.
ring process, use, refuse) shall serve as the
basis for comparison. c. The potential for bringing about changes
in the market.
4. Environmental aspects. Attention shall be
paid to environmental problems throughout The criteria proposal is circulated for com-
the products life cycle that shall form the ment before being finalized by the Nordic
basis of the choice of a limited number of co-operating body. The consultation time is
aspects on which environmental labelling is usually 4-6 weeks. When the criteria have
based. These important aspects include the been authorized, companies may apply for
use of energy and resources, discharges into licences within the group. Licence applica-
the air, water and soil, noise and odor tions and licence issuing is handled by the
pollution; and refuse/recycling. In order to secretariats of the various countries.
correctly formulate criteria, attention must
51
4. Methodological framework
This chapter describes the methodological illustrated by the following examples: when
framework for life cycle assessment. The doing the impact assessment it can become
target audience includes LCA practitioners, clear that certain information is missing
and other environmental professionals with a which means that the inventory analysis must
strong interest in environmental assessment. be improved, or the interpretation of the
Figure 4-1 show the different phases of an results might be insufficient to fulfil the
LCA. The whole life cycle assessment also needs required by the actual application
interacts with the direct applications. which means that the goal and scope defini-
tion must be revised.
As shown in Figure 4-1 the life cycle assess-
ment framework is described by four phases:
4.1 Introduction
goal and scope definitions
The principles, procedures and methods of
inventory analysis LCA are presented based on the terminology
and structure of the ISO Environmental
impact assessment Management Systems, tools and standards on
LCA:
interpretation
FDIS/ISO 14 040: Environmental mana-
The double arrows between the phases gement - Life cycle assessment - Princi-
indicate the interactive nature of LCA as ples and framework ISO (1997a).
Figure 4-1
Life cycle assessment framework - phases of an LCA (ISO, 1997a).
52 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
DIS/ISO 14 041.2: Environmental the LCA i.e. clear and explicit statement of
management - Life cycle assessment - study purpose and goal, reference to the
Goal and scope definition and inventory methodology used (e.g. definition of the
analysis. ISO (1997b). functional unit, the system boundaries, and
the allocation criteria etc.). These require-
CD/ISO 14 042.1: Environmental ments can be summarised as a need for
management - Life cycle assessment - transparency in the study i.e. the above-
Life cycle impact assessment. ISO mentioned conditions shall be clear to the
(1997c). readers of the LCA report.
Figure 4-2
Technical framework for life cycle assessment (Consoli et al., 1993).
the purpose and intended application The goal can be redefined as a result of the
findings throughout the study e.g. as a part
the function of the studied systems(s) of the interpretation.
and a defined functional unit
4.3.2 Scope
the studied product group and chosen The definition of the scope of the life cycle
alternatives, if relevant assessment sets the borders of the assessment
- what is included in the system and what
the system boundaries applied detailed assessment methods are to be used.
the data quality needed In defining the scope of an LCA study, the
following items shall be considered and
the validation or critical review process clearly described:
needed
the functions of the system, or in the case
The different needs are described in detail of comparative studies, systems;
below.
the functional unit;
4.3.1 Goal
The definition of the purpose of the life the system to be studied;
cycle assessment is an important part of the
goal definition. the system boundaries;
Lindfors et al. (1995c) summarises the single specific or average, measured or esti-
points mentioned in the ISO standard in the mated data, acceptable age of data etc.)
following issues to be used in the scoping
procedure: specific data dependent on the included
impact categories
product group
The data quality goals can be changed
studied alternatives during the study e.g. in the interpretation
phase.
system boundaries
4.3.3 Functional unit
impact assessment boundaries Definition of the functional unit or perform-
ance characteristics is the foundation of an
data quality goals LCA because the functional unit sets the
scale for comparison of two or more prod-
The product or product group in focus has ucts including improvement to one product
to be described in detail in order to identify (system). All data collected in the inventory
alternatives to be included in the study. The phase will be related to the functional unit.
alternative products or product groups have When comparing different products fulfill-
to be described in detail too, in order to be ing the same function, definition of the
able to define the system(s) boundaries. The functional unit is of particular importance.
definition of the system(s) boundaries are
important in the data collection phase One of the main purposes for a functional
because the system(s) boundaries determine unit is to provide a reference to which the
the amount of the work to be done. Impact input and output data are normalised. A
assessment include a number of different functional unit of the system shall be clearly
impact categories and impact assessment defined and measurable. The result of the
methods. The impact categories have to be measurement of the performance is the
chosen from a default list of categories reference flow.
described in the chapter on Category defini-
tion. The impact assessment boundaries limit Comparisons between systems shall be done
the number of impact categories to be on the basis of the same function, measured
considered. If necessary, the scope can be by the same functional unit in the form of
revised during the study to include new or equivalent reference flows.
exclude some of the already chosen impact
categories. The data quality goals depend on Three aspects have to be taken into account
the overall goal of the study, and include when defining the functional unit (Lindfors
assessment of the level of: et al., 1995c):
Table 4-1
Definition of the functional unit and expanding system boundaries.
Waste treatment Treatment of municipal household waste with or without biological treatment of the
organic fraction can be considered as a service system. The system treats waste and produces biological
fertilizer (compost from aerobic or anaerobic degradation of organic material) and energy (biogas from
anaerobic degradation). Different systems can be compared by including avoided emissions from
producing energy and fertilizers in the scenarios including biological waste treatment. As an alternative the
system boundaries for the basic scenario as well as the alternative scenarios including biological waste
treatment can be expanded so that they all produce the same amount of energy and fertilizer. In this case
calculation with avoided emissions is of no current interest.
56 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
the durability of the product that the inputs and outputs at its boundary
are elementary flows. However, as a practical
the performance quality standard matter, there typically will not be sufficient
time, data, or resources to conduct such a
When performing an assessment of more comprehensive study. Decisions must be
complicated systems e.g. multi-functional made regarding which unit processes will be
systems special attention has to be paid to by- modelled by the study and the level of detail
products. to which these unit processes will be studied.
Resources need not be expended on the
If additional functions of one or other of the quantification of minor or negligible inputs
systems are not taken into account in the and outputs that will not significantly change
comparison of functional units then these the overall conclusions of the study. Deci-
omissions shall be documented. For examp- sions must also be made regarding which
le, systems A and B perform functions x and releases to the environment will be evaluated
y which are represented by the selected and the level of detail of this evaluation. The
functional unit, but system A also performs decision rules used to assist in the choice of
function z which is not represented in the inputs and outputs should be clearly under
functional unit. As an alternative, systems stood and described.
associated with the delivery of function z may
be added to the boundary of system B to Any omission of life cycle stages, processes or
make the systems more comparable. In these data needs should be clearly stated and
cases, the selected processes shall be docu- justified. Ultimately, the sole criterion used
mented and justified. in setting the system boundaries is the
degree of confidence that the results of the
Waste treatment systems are an example of study have not been compromised and that
processes with different outputs (e.g. energy the goal of a given study has been met.
and fertilizer). When comparing different
systems, inclusion of the produced amount Wastewater treatment is an example of a
of energy and fertilizer is an example of process that often is omitted when defining
handling of different by-products in the the system boundaries
definition of the functional unit. This is also
an example of changing the system bounda- 4.3.5 Data quality
ries to get a more logical system to investi- The quality of the data used in the life cycle
gate, see Table 4-1. In the actual case the inventory is naturally reflected in the quality
system has been expanded to avoid calcula- of the final LCA. The data quality can be
tions with avoided emissions that could lead described and assessed in different ways. It is
to negative emissions in the calculations. important that the data quality is described
and assessed in a systematic way that allows
4.3.4 System boundaries others to understand and control for the
The system boundaries define the processes/ actual data quality.
operations (e.g. manufacturing, transport,
and waste management processes), and the Initial data quality requirements shall be estab-
inputs and outputs to be taken into account lished which define the following parameters:
in the LCA. The input can be the overall
input to a production as well as input to a Time-related coverage: the desired age
single process - and the same is true for the (e.g. within last 5 years) and the minimum
output. The definition of system boundaries length of time (e.g. annual).
is a quite subjective operation and includes
the following boundaries (Lindfors et al., Geographical coverage: geographic area
1995c): geographical boundaries, life cycle from which data for unit processes should
boundaries (i.e. limitations in the life cycle) be collected to satisfy the goal of the study
and boundaries between the technosphere (e.g. local, regional, national, continental,
and biosphere. Due to the subjectivity of global).
definition of system boundaries, transpar-
ency of the defining process and the assump- Technology coverage: nature of the
tions are extremely important technology mix (e.g. weighted average of
the actual process mix, best available
The initial system boundary defines the unit technology or worst operating unit).
processes which will be included in the
system to be modelled. Ideally, the product Further descriptions which define the nature
system should be modelled in such a manner of the data collected from specific sites
Methodological framework 57
versus data from published sources, and ology is still being developed in order to
whether the data should be measured, make it more applicable to describe the
calculated or estimated shall also be consid- different environmental data used in a life
ered. cycle assessment.
Data from specific sites should be used for 4.3.6 Critical review process
those unit processes that contribute the In other uses of environmental standards,
majority of the mass and energy flows in the certification of a system or product or
systems being studied as determined in the accreditation of the measuring laboratory is
sensitivity analysis ... . Data from specific sites applied. In LCA it is not yet clear what to
should also be used for unit processes that certify: The study, the individual practitioner
are considered to have environmentally or the company of the practitioner. There-
relevant emissions. fore, a variation of the peer review set-up
used in scientific journals is used as de-
In all studies, the following additional data scribed below.
quality indicators shall be taken into consid-
eration in a level of detail depending on The purpose of the critical review process is to
goal and scope definition: ensure the quality of the life cycle assessment.
The review can be either internal, external or
Precision: measure of the variability of the involve interested parties as defined within
data values for each data category ex- the goal and scoping definition.
pressed (e.g. variance).
The critical review process shall ensure that:
Completeness: percentage of locations
reporting primary data from the potential the methods used to carry out the LCA
number in existence for each data are consistent with this international
category in a unit process. standard;
Representativeness: qualitative assessment the methods used to carry out the LCA
of the degree to which the data set reflects are scientifically and technically valid;
the true population of interest (i.e. geo
graphic and time period and technology the data used are appropriate and reason
coverage). able in relation to the goal of the study;
Figure 4-3
Example of a simple flow sheet to be used as support in the data collection.
product; an example of a flow sheet can be The qualitative and quantitative data for
seen in Figure 4-3. Each of the different inclusion in the inventory shall be collected
phases can be made up from different single for each unit process that is included within
processes e.g. production of different kinds the system boundaries. The procedures used
of raw material to be combined in the for data collection may vary depending on
material production phase. The different the scope, unit process or intended applica-
phases are often connected by transport- tion of the study. Data collection can be a
processes. Reuse do often involve a cleaning resource intensive process. Practical con-
process. straints on data collection should be consi-
dered in the scope and documented in the
Compilation of a proper process diagram is report.
crucial to succeed the LCA study i.e. to be
sure to include all relevant processes etc. Some significant calculation considerations
The process diagram do also have a function are outlined in the following:
in the reporting of the LCA while it improve
the transparency of the study. allocation procedures are needed when
dealing with systems involving multiple
4.4.1 Data collection products (e.g. multiple products from
The inventory analysis includes collection petroleum refining). The materials and
and treatment of data to be used in prepara- energy flows as well as associated environ-
tion of a material consumption, waste and mental releases shall be allocated to the
emission profile for all the phases in the life different products according to clearly
cycle, but also for the whole life cycle. The stated procedures, which shall be docu-
data can be site specific e.g. from specific mented and justified;
companies, specific areas and from specific
countries but also more general e.g. data the calculation of energy flow should take
from more general sources e.g. trade organi- into account the different fuels and
sations, public surveys etc. The data have to electricity sources used, the efficiency of
be collected from all single processes in the conversion and distribution of energy flow
life cycle. These data can be quantitative or as well as the inputs and outputs associ-
qualitative. The quantitative data are impor- ated with the generation and use of that
tant in comparisons of processes or mater- energy flow.
ials, but often the quantitative data are
missing or the quality is poor (too old or not Data collection is often the most work
technologically representative etc.). The intensive part of a life cycle assessment,
more descriptive qualitative data can be used especially if site specific data are required for
for environmental aspects or single steps in all the single processes in the life cycle. In
the life cycle that cannot be quantified, or if many cases average data from the literature
the goal and scope definition allow a non- (often previous investigations of the same or
quantitative description of the conditions. similar products or materials) or data from
trade organisations are used. A number of
Inventory analysis involves data collection European trade organisations have pub-
and calculation procedures to quantify lished or plan to publish cradle-to-gate
relevant inputs and outputs of a product data that include information on inputs and
system. These inputs and outputs may outputs for materials through production of
include the use of resources and releases to semi-manufactured product to final products.
air, water and land associated with the
system. Interpretation may be drawn from The average data can be used in the concep-
these data, depending on the goals and tual or simplified LCA to get a first impres-
scope of the LCA. These data also constitute sion of the potential inputs and outputs from
the input to the life cycle impact assessment. producing specific materials. When doing a
detailed LCA site specific data must be
The process of conducting an inventory preferred. Average data are often some years
analysis is iterative. As data are collected and old and therefore do not represent the latest
more is learned about the system, new data in technological development.
requirements or limitations may be identi-
fied that require a change in the data- The result of the data collection can be
collection procedures so that the goals of the presented in an inventory table as shown in
study will still be met. Sometimes, issues may Table 4-2 with an example from the material
be identified that require revisions to the data published by the Association of Plastic
goal or scope of the study. Manufacturers of Europe (APME).
60 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Table 4-2
Inventory table presenting Gross inputs and outputs associated with the production of 1 kg of PVC
averaged over all the polymerisation processes (Boustead, 1994).
Unit Average1
1. The average values cover a broad spectrum different values representing different technologies. In
many cases the actual range of e.g. emissions is more applicable when comparing site specific data with
average data.
Methodological framework 61
When making a detailed LCA the inventory Reflecting the iterative nature of LCA,
tables are invariably detailed, intricate and decisions regarding the data to be included
complex whereas the inventory tables shall be based on a sensitivity analysis to
required in a streamlined LCA may be more determine their significance, thereby
simple if stated in the goal and scope defini- verifying the initial analysis (...). The initial
tion i.e. focus on selected emissions as e.g. product system boundary shall be revised in
carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen accordance with the cut-off criteria estab-
oxides. lished in the scope definition. The sensitivity
analysis may result in:
The applicability of data-sets for specific
products i.e. site specific data in life cycle the exclusion of life cycle stages or sub-
assessment depend on the format of the systems when lack of significance can be
data. In order to ensure the applicability of shown by the sensitivity analysis
industrial data SPOLD has initiated a project
with the aim to develop a standard format the exclusion of material flows which lack
for data sets to be used in LCA and with the significance to the outcome of the results
second aim to ensure consistency in registra- of the study
tion of data in a database. The structure of
the extensive SPOLD data format consists of the inclusion of new unit processes that
five parts (SPOLD, 1996): are shown to be significant in the sensiti-
vity analysis
tive) data values complying with the data The reference flow or functional unit shall
quality requirements as established (...). be defined in order to describe and cover
the actual production/function of the
For each data category and for each repor- considered product e.g. by number of hours
ting location where missing data are identi- the actual machinery is in action per week or
fied, the treatment of the missing data the actual emission of wastewater from the
should result in: process. If this is not the case it will not be
possible to relate data to the actual product.
an acceptable reported data value;
4.4.6 Allocation and recycling
a zero data value if justified; or When performing a life cycle assessment of a
complex system, it may not be possible to
a calculated value based on the reported handle all the impacts and outputs inside the
values from unit processes employing system boundaries. This problem can be
similar technology solved either by:
Data from similar processes or unit processes 1. expanding the system boundaries to
do often have a lower overall data quality. include all the inputs and outputs, or by
This can be reflected in the data quality
index for the specific data-set. 2. allocating the relevant environmental
impacts to the studied system
4.4.5 Relating data
The fundamental input and output data are When avoiding allocation by e.g. expanding
often delivered from industry in arbitrary the system boundaries there is a risk of
units e.g. energy consumption as MJ/ making the system too complex. The data
machine/week or emissions to the sewage collection, impact assessment and interpreta-
system as mg metals/litre wastewater. The tion can then become too expensive and
specific machine or wastewater stream is unrealistic in time and money. Allocation
rarely connected to the production of the may be a better alternative, if an appropriate
considered product alone but often to a method can be found for solving the actual
number of similar products or perhaps to problem.
the whole production activity.
Since the inventory is intrinsically based on
For each unit process, an appropriate reference material balances between inputs and
flow shall be determined (e.g. one kilogram of outputs, allocation procedures should
material or one megajoule for energy). The approximate as much as possible such
quantitative input and output data of the unit fundamental input-output relationships and
process shall be calculated in relation to this characteristics. Some principles should be
reference flow. kept in mind when allocating loadings. They
are general and thorough enough to be
Based on the refined flow chart and systems applicable to co-products, internal energy
boundary, unit processes are interconnected to allocation, services (e.g. transport, waste
allow calculations of the complete system. This is treatment), and to recycling, either open or
accomplished by normalising the inputs and closed-loop:
outputs of a unit process in the system to the
functional unit and then normalising all up- The product system under consideration
stream and downstream unit processes accord- seldom exists in isolation; it generally
ingly. The calculation should result in all system includes unit processes which may be
input and output data being referenced to the shared with other product systems. The
functional unit. Care should be taken when study should identify these unit processes
aggregating the inputs and outputs in the and deal with them according to the
product system. The level of aggregation should procedures presented below.
be sufficient to satisfy the goal of the study.
The inputs and outputs of the unallocated
Data categories should only be aggregated if they system shall equal the sum of the corres-
are related to equivalent substances and to ponding inputs and outputs of the
similar environmental impacts. If more detailed allocated system. Any deviation from mass
aggregation rules are required, they should be and energy balance shall be reported and
justified in the goal and scope definition phase of explained.
the study or this should be left to a subsequent
impact assessment phase. Whenever several alternative allocation
Methodological framework 63
Multi-input processes, such as waste Some inputs may be partly co-products and
treatment, where a strict quantitative partly waste. In such case, it is necessary to
causality between inputs and emissions identify the ratio between co-products and
etc. seldom exists. waste since burdens shall/are to be allocated
to the co-product only.
Open-loop recycling, where a waste
material leaving the system boundaries is There shall be uniform application of
used as a raw material by another system, allocation procedures to similar inputs and
outside the boundaries of the studied outputs of the systems under consideration.
system. For example if allocation is made to useable
products (e.g. intermediate or discarded
On the basis of the principles presented products) leaving the systems, then the
above, the following descending order of allocation procedure shall be similar to the
allocation procedures is recommended: allocation method used for such products
entering the systems. The allocation proced-
1. Wherever possible, allocation should be ure may vary the allocation factor from 0 %
avoided or minimised. This may be to 100 %.
achieved by subdividing the unit process
into two or more sub-processes, some of Lindfors et al. (1995c) suggest allocations
which can be excluded from the system should be based on the following guiding
under study. Transport and materials principle mentioned in descending order:
handling are examples of processes which
can sometimes be partitioned in this way. natural causality or an adequate approxi-
For systems which deliver more than one mation
product or function, or involve recycle
streams, allocation may be avoided or economic/social causality e.g. expected
reduced by including further unit pro- gain or gross sales value
cesses thereby expanding the system
boundaries so that inputs, outputs or physical parameters as allocation para-
recycles remain within the system. meter e.g. mass of outputs, energy
content of the output, exergy content of
2. Where allocation cannot be avoided, the output, area of output, volume of output,
system inputs and outputs should be molar content of output or arbitrary
partitioned between its different products numbers (100/0 % or 50/50 %)
or functions in a way which reflects the
underlying physical relationships between The 50/50 % allocation method is recom-
them; i.e. they must reflect the way in mended for simplified LCA because the
which the inputs and outputs are changed method ensure that information on key
by quantitative changes in the products or issues is not lost. This method can be used
functions delivered by the system. These in allocation of environmental loadings
causal relationships between flows into caused by primary production, waste man-
and out of the system may be represented agement and recycling processes.
by a process model, which can also
represent the economic relationship of Recycling of products implies that the
the system. The resulting allocation will environmental inputs and outputs associated
not necessarily be in proportion to any with the manufacturing of a product and its
simple measure such as mass or molar recycling are to be shared by more than one
flows of co-products. product system.
64 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Any system in which recycling occurs, can ing or equivalence factors are also presented
usually be described as one of three different where found appropriate.
models:
The impact assessment can be expressed as a
A. If sufficient information is available as to quantitative and/or qualitative process to
the proportion of recycled product that is characterise and assess the effects of the
used in another product system (the environmental interventions identified in
export ratio), an open-loop recycling the inventory table (Heijungs & Hofstetter,
approach can be chosen. Open-loop 1996). According to these authors, the
recycling is actually a special case of impact assessment component consists in
allocation (...). principle of the following three or four
elements: classification, characterization,
B. If sufficient information is available on the (normalisation,) and valuation; normalisa-
proportion of recycled product that is tion and valuation are sometimes merged.
used in the same product system, a closed- Valuation is proposed changed to weighting
loop recycling approach can be chosen. by ISO (ISO, 1997c) and this terminology
The recycled product replaces an amount has been adapted by the SETAC-Europe
of the virgin product. working group (Udo de Haes, 1996a). The
terminology is presented in appendix 4.1.
C. If sufficient information is available about
how many times the same material is
The framework for life cycle impact assess-
recycled (whether or not within the same
ment is defined as follows (ISO, 1997c):
product system), the virgin environmen-
tal inputs and outputs of each product
cycle may be divided by the number of The life cycle impact assessment framework
cycles which these material will undergo.
and its procedure should be transparent and
The result will be added to the other
provide the flexibility and practicality for this
environmental inputs and outputs of each
wide range of application. A large range in
single product cycle (cascade recycling).
the levels of effort and intensity of the
This model would comprise a sequence of
analysis are possible with life cycle assessment
models A and/or B.
for different applications. In addition,
impact assessment should be effective in
Claims regarding recycling shall be docu-
terms of cost and resources used.
mented and justified and be based on actual
practice rather than theoretical possibilities.
Life cycle impact assessment is composed of
several individual elements. These are
The detail and complexity of the allocation
category definition, classification, characteri-
procedures to be used depend on the level
zation, and weighting.
of sophistication of the actual life cycle
assessment.
The distinction into different elements is
necessary for several reasons:
category definition
Methods, assumptions and value-choices
can be made more transparent and can be
classification
documented and reviewed;
characterization
The effects of methods, assumptions, and
value-choices on the results can be
valuation/weighting
demonstrated.
The aim of this section is to provide guid- The impact categories are described in
ance for selecting and defining the environ- details in appendix 4.2.
mental categories.
4.5.2 Classification
Numerous environmental categories have The life cycle impact assessment includes as
been proposed for life cycle impact assess- a second element classification of the inven-
ment. Most studies will select from these tory input and output data (ISO, 1997c).
previous efforts and will not define their own
categories. The selection of categories The classification element aims to assign
should be consistent with the goal and scope inventory input and output data to catego-
of the study. This selection should not be ries.
used to avoid or disguise environmental
issues or concerns. The completeness and The assignment of inventory data is the
extent of the survey of categories is goal and simplest or minimum level of life cycle
scope dependent. impact assessment. This can be used to
identify and flag issues associated with
The impact categories are selected in order inventory input and output data. At this
to describe the impacts caused by the consid- stage, there is an implicit assumption of less
ered products or product systems. A number is better and excludes several important
of questions have to be considered when considerations such as differences in potency
selecting impact categories (Lindfors et al., or environmental persistence.
1995):
Classification is a qualitative step based on
Completeness - all environmental prob-
scientific analysis of relevant environmental
lems of relevance should be covered by
processes. The classification has to assign the
the list
inventory input and output data to potential
environmental impacts i.e. impact categories.
Practicality - the list should not contain
Some outputs contribute to different impact
too many categories
categories and therefore, they have to be
mentioned twice. The resulting double
Independence - double counting should
counting is acceptable if the effects are
be avoided by choosing mutually in-
independent of each other whereas double
dependent impact categories
counting of different effects in the same
effect chain (e.g. stratospheric ozone dep-
Relation to the characterization step - the
letion and human toxicological effects as e.g.
chosen impact categories should be
skin cancer) is not allowed.
related to available characterization
methods
The impact categories can be placed on a
scale dividing the categories into three
The impact categories considered are:
(four) different space groups: global im-
Abiotic resources pacts, (continental impacts,) regional
impacts and local impacts. The grouping is
Biotic resources not unequivocal for all the impact categories
exemplified by e.g. environmental toxicity
Land use which can be global, continental, regional as
well as local. The impact categories is often
Global warming related directly to exposure i.e. global
exposure is leading to global impacts,
Stratospheric ozone depletion continental exposure is leading to continen-
tal impacts. Some of the impact categories
Ecotoxicological impacts are strongly correlated with continental,
66 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The Leiden list SETAC default list1 Nordic list ISO preliminary list Scale/comments
SETAC-Europe (1992) Udo de Haes (1996b) Lindfors et al. (1995c) ISO (1997c)
water
human toxicity human toxicological human health, human toxicity global, continental,
impact toxicological excl. work regional, local
environment
photo-oxidant formation photo-oxidant formation photo-oxidant formation photochemical oxidant continental, regional,
formation (smog) local
noise local
casualties local
1. The SETAC default list also mention some flows not followed up to system boundary: input related (energy, materials, plantation
woods etc.) and output related (solid wastes etc.).
Table 4-3
Selected lists of impact categories; references are given in the list.
Methodological framework 67
regional or local conditions i.e. some locali- different impact categories and also pre-
ties are more predisposed to certain impacts sented in tables when found appropriate.
than other localities. Certain lakes in Scandi- Characterization is mainly a quantitative step
navia can be mentioned as examples of based on scientific analysis of the relevant
localities that are more predisposed to environmental processes. The characteriza-
acidification than lakes in other parts of tion has to assign the relative contribution of
Europe. The time aspect is also important each input and output to the selected impact
when considering certain impact categories categories. The potential contribution of
e.g. global warming and stratospheric ozone each input and output to the environmental
depletion with time horizons on 20 to 500 impacts has to be estimated. For some of the
years. environmental impact categories there is
consensus about equivalency factors to be
To date, consensus has not been reached for used in the estimation of the total impact
one single default list of impact categories. (e.g. global warming potentials, ozone
Therefore, the relevant impact categories depletion potentials etc.) whereas equiva-
may be selected from a preliminary list of lence factors for other environmental
examples. A number of suggestions for lists impacts are not available at consensus level
of impact categories with reference to the (e.g. biotic resources, land use etc.).
scale in which they are valid are shown in
Table 4-3. Consensus about handling the 4.5.4 Valuation/Weighting
impact categories has mainly been obtained The previous element, characterization,
for the global impacts. Development of results in a quantitative statement on differ-
methodologies for the other categories is still ent impact categories e.g. global warming,
being discussed in different expert groups stratospheric ozone depletion and
e.g. within the framework of SETAC. ecotoxicological effects. Comparison of these
categories is not immediately possible.
4.5.3 Characterization Therefore, the life cycle impact assessment
The life cycle impact assessment includes, as includes as a fourth element a valuation/
a third element, characterization of the weighting of the impact categories against
inventory data (ISO, 1997c). each other (ISO, 1997c).
The impact categories are described in detail Weighting is a qualitative or quantitative step
in appendix 4.2 and the equivalence factors not necessarily based on natural science but
are described in the sub-chapter on the often on political or ethical values. Weight-
68 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
ing has previously been referred to as valua- scientific experts, of governments or interna-
tion. Weighting methods have been devel- tional bodies. The credibility of a panel,
oped by different institutions based on according to Volkvein et al. (1996), can be
different principles (Lindeijer, 1996): improved by using:
with the three other phases of the life cycle LCIA is conducted.
assessment. If the results of the inventory
analysis or the impact assessment is found Significant environmental issues are found to
not to fulfil the requirements defined in the represent the most important results of the
goal and scoping phase, the inventory study in accordance with the goal and scope
analysis must be improved by e.g. revising definition.
the system boundaries, further data collec-
tion etc. followed by an improved impact The identification step include structuring
assessment. This iterative process must be and presentation of relevant information:
repeated until the requirements in the goal
and scoping phase are fulfilled as can be results from the different phases i.e.
described by the following steps: presentation of e.g. data from inventory
analysis in tables, figures or diagrams etc.
1. Identify the significant environmental or presentation of results of the impact
issues. assessment
The objective of this first element in the The procedure has to test whether methods
evaluation step is to ensure that the signifi- etc. have been used consistently and espec-
cant environmental issues previously identi- ially within comparative studies. The follow-
fied adequately represent the information ing items are subjects for consistence check:
from the different LCA phases (inventory
analysis, impact assessment) in accordance regional and/or temporal differentia-
with the goal and scope defined. tions
tion is to reach conclusions and recommen- Bostrm C-E, Steen B (1994). Miljbe-
dations for the report of the LCA study or lastningsindex fr emissioner av stoft till luft.
life cycle inventory study. Framtagning av miljbelastningsindex fr
stoft och anvnding av dessa vid vrdering av
This step is important to improve the report- ked stoftrening vis stlverk. IVL Rapport B
ing and the transparency of the study. Both 1152. Sverige, Gteborg: IVL.
are essential for the readers of the LCA
report. Boustead I (1994). Eco-profiles of the
European plastics industry. Report 6: Polyvi-
The results of the critical review of the study nyl chloride. Brussels: APME/PWMI.
shall also be included when presenting the
conclusions and recommendations. BUS (1984). Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen.
Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz, Nr. 24. Bern:
Bundesamt fr Umweltschutz.
4.7 References (chapter 3 and 4)
Centre for Corporate Environmental Man-
Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Mller-Wenk R agement (CCEM). Environmental Manage-
(1990). Methodik fr Oekobilanzen auf der ment Tools for SMEs: A Handbook (1997).
Basis kologisher Optimierung. Prepared for the European Environment
Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133. Bern: Agency.
Bundesamt fr Umwelt, Wald und Land-
schaft (BUWAL). Christiansen K (1992). From PVC and
alternatives to milk packaging. In: Life cycle
assessment: Inventory, classification, valua-
Albritton D, Derwent R, Isaksen I, Lal M,
tion, data bases. Workshop report, SETAC,
Wuebbles D (1996). Trace gas radioactive
Brussels.
forcing indices. In Houghton JT, Meira Filho
LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A,
Christiansen K (ed.) (1997). Simplifying
Maskell K(eds.). Climate change 1995.
LCA: Just a Cut? SETAC EUROPE LCA
Cambridge University Press.
Screening and Streamlining Working Group.
Final report, March 1997.
Andersson-Skld Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K
(1992). Photochemical ozone creation
Christiansen K, Grove A, Hansen LE, Hoff-
potentials: A study on different concepts. J.
mann L, Jensen AA, Pommer K, Schmidt A
Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 42(9):1152-1158.
(1993). PVC and alternative materials.
Working Report no. 18. Copenhagen:
Antonsson A, Carlsson H (1995). The basis
Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
for a method to integrate work environment
in life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner
Christiansen K, Heijungs R, Rydberg T,
Production 3(4).
Ryding S-O, Sund L, Wijnen H, Vold M,
Hanssen OJ (eds.) (1995). Application of life
Baumann H, Ekvall T, Eriksson E, Kullman cycle assessments (LCA). Report from expert
M, Rydberg T, Ryding S-O, Steen B, Svensson workshop at Hank, Norway on LCA in
G (1993). Miljmssige skillnader mellan Strategic management, product develop-
tervinning/teranvnding och ment and improvement, marketing and
frbrnning/deponering. Reforsk FoU ecolabelling, governmental policies. stfold
Report 71. Sverige, Malm: Stiftelsen Research Foundation report 07/95.
Reforsk.
Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J,
Bengtsson G, Berglund R (1996). Life cycle Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish
assessment including the working environ- R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B,
ment. Summary of methods and case studies. Sguin J, Vigon B (eds.) (1993). Guidelines
IVF research publication 95859. The Swedish for Life-cycle assessment: A Code of prac-
Institute of Production Engineering Re- tice. Society of Environmental Toxicology
search, IVF. and Chemistry (SETAC) (SETAC Workshop,
Sesimbra, Portugal, 31 March - 3 April 1993).
Bjrnsen J, Hanssen OJ, Mller H (1995).
Life cycle assessment of a mud gas separator Corten FGP, vd Haspel B, Kreuzberg GJ, Sas
for offshore operations. AMAT AS, HJW, de Wit G (1994). Weighting environ-
Sandefjord, Norway. mental problems for product policy, phase 1
(in Dutch). Delft, The Netherlands.
Methodological framework 73
Cramer J, Quakernaat T, Dokter ... (1993). Fleischer G, Schmidt W-P (1997). Iterative
Theory and practice of integrated chain screening LCA in an Eco-design tool. Int. J.
management (in Dutch). TNO Apeldorn, LCA 2(1):20-24.
The Netherlands.
Goedkoep M, Demmers M, Collignon M
Curran MA (1997), Life-cycle based govern- (1996). The Eco-indicator 95. Pr.
ment policies. Int. J. LCA 2(1):39-43. (Downloadable from http://www.pre.nl).
Environment Canada (1997). Life cycle Guine JB, Heijungs R, van Oers L, van de
management. A guide for better business Meent D, Vermeire T, Rikken M (1996).
decisions. LCA impact assessment of toxic releases.
Generic modelling of fate, exposure, and
Finnveden G (lead author) (1996). Part III: effect for ecosystems and human beings
Resources and related impact categories. with data for 100 chemicals. RIVM report
In: Udo de Haes (ed.). Towards a methodol- no. 1996/21.
ogy for life cycle impact assessment. Society
of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Habersatter K (1991). Oekobilanz von
(SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. Packstoffen Stand 1990. Schriftenreihe
Umwelt Nr. 132. Bern: Bundesamt fr
Finnveden G, Andersson-Skld Y, Samuels- Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL).
son M-O, Zetterberg L, Lindfors L-G
(1992). Classification (impact analysis) in Hanssen OJ (1994). Sustainable product
connection with life cycle assessments - a development. A draft method description.
preliminary study. In Product life cycle Review version. stfold Research Founda-
assessment - principles and methodology. tion, Fredrikstad.
Nord 1992:9. Copenhagen: Nordic Council
of Ministers. Hanssen OJ (ed.) (1994). Proceedings from
the workshop on methods for environmental
Finnveden G, Huppes G (1995). Life cycle management and sustainable produkt
assessment and treatment of solid waste. development. Hank, Fredrikstad, 23-24
Proceedings of the international workshop march 1994. stfold Research Foundation,
September 28-29, Stockholm. AFR-report 98, Fredrikstad.
Stockholm.
Hanssen OJ (1995). Sustainable manage-
Finnveden G, Steen B, Sundquist J (1994). ment of product systems - an integrated
Kretslopp av pappersfrpackningar: method for life cycle assessment and man-
Materialtervinning eller energitervinning? agement of product systems. stfold Res-
IVL Rapport B 1128. IVL, Stockholm. earch Foundation, Fredrikstad.
74 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Hanssen OJ, Rnning A, Rydberg T (1995). Heijungs R, Hofstetter P (1996). Part II:
Sustainable product development. Final Definitions of terms and symbols. In: Udo de
report from the NEP project. stfold Res- Haes (ed.). Towards a methodology for life
earch Foundation, Fredrikstad. cycle impact assessment. Society of Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) -
Hauschild MZ, Olsen SI, Wenzel H (1997a). Europe. Brussels.
Human toxicity as assessment criteria in the
EDIP-method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H Hirschhorn JS (1993). Weaknesses of LCA as
(eds.). Scientific background (in prepara- a tool for environmental management. Paper
tion). London: Chapman and Hall. presented at UNEP Expert Seminar Life
Cycle Assessment and its Application, CML,
Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997a). Global Leiden, June 9 - 10, 1993.
warming as assessment criteria in the EDIP-
method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). ISO (1997a). Environmental management -
Scientific background (in preparation). Life cycle assessment - Principles and frame-
London: Chapman and Hall. work. ISO/FDIS 14 040, 1997.
Ryding S-O (1995). Miljanpassad SPOLD (1996). SPOLD data format (rev.
produktudveckling. Industrifrbundet. 1996.04.10). Society for the Promotion of
Schaltegger S, Sturm A (1991). Methodik LCA Development (SPOLD). Brussels.
der kologishen Rechnungslegung in
Unternehmen. WWZ-Studien nr. 33. Steen BA, Ryding S-O (1992). The EPS
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum der environmental counting method. IVL,
Universitt Basel, Switzerland, Basel. Gotenburg, Sweden.
Tellus Institute (1992). The Tellus Packaging Weidema BP (1994a). Product Life-Cycle
Study. Boston, MA, USA. Impact Assessment as a communication
issue. In: First Working Document on Life-
Terwoert J (1994a). Proceedings of the Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology.
Workshop Life Cycle Assessment and the SETAC-Europe WIA workshop 8-9 July, ETH,
Working Environment. Chemiewinkel of the Zrich, Switzerland.
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Weidema BP (1994b). Qualitative and
Terwoert J (1994b).Workshop paper Life quantitative parameters in product impact
Cycle Assessment and the Working Environ- assessment. Pp. 29-35 in Udo de Haes et al.:
ment. Chemiewinkel of the University of Integrating impact assessment into LCA.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Proceedings of the LCA symposium held at
the 4th SETAC-Europe Congress, April 11-
Terwoert J (1994c). Occupational health 14, Brussels.
from cradle to grave. Feasibility study of the
integration of the work environment in Life Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (eds.).
Cycle Assessment (LCAs) of products. Environmental assessment of industrial
Chemiewinkel of the University of Amster- products. Volume 1: Tools and case studies.
dam, The Netherlands. Chapman & Hall, London. (Expected
release April 1997).
Tukker A (1994). Iso-utility functions as a
tool for valuation in LCA. In: First Working Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Rasmussen E
Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (1996). Miljvurdering af produkter.
Methodology. SETAC-Europe WIA workshop Miljstyrelsen og Dansk Industri,
8-9 July, ETH, Zrich, Switzerland. Kbenhavn.
Udo de Haes (ed.) (1996a). Towards a WICE (World Industry Council for the
methodology for life cycle impact assess- Environment) (1994). Design for Environ-
ment. Society of Environmental Toxicology ment. Paris.
and Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels.
Wilson B, Jones B (1994). The Phosphate
Udo de Haes HA (lead author) (1996b). Part report. Landbank Environmental Research
I: Discussion of general principles and & Consulting, London, UK.
guidelines for practical use. In: Udo de Haes
(ed.). Towards a methodology for life cycle Zweers A, Van der Horst TJJ, Timmers G
impact assessment. Society of Environmental (1992). The eco-design programme. Interim
Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) - report of the pilot phase of the eco-design
Europe. Brussels. programme. TNO Product Centre, Delft.
Udo de Haes HA, Bensahel J-F, Clift R, kstad E, Larsen JA, Hanssen OJ (1994).
Fussler CR, Griesshammer R, Jensen AA Environmentally sound product develop-
(1994). Guidelines for the application of life ment of carbon lining. Project Report
cycle assessment in the EU ecolabelling OR.30.95. stfold Research Foundation,
programme. Groupe des Sages. Final report Frederikstad, Norway.
of the first phase. Leiden.
Appendix 4.1:
Terminology
Terminology used in life cycle assessment as one product versus a competing product
defined by ISO (ISO, 1997a; 1997b; 1997d) which performs the same function.
and SETAC Europe (modified from Hei-
jungs & Hofstetter, 1996). The list is prelimi- Completeness check Process of verifying that
nary, as ISO work is still in progress. information from the different phases
(inventory analysis, life cycle impact assess-
Abiotic resource Object that can be extrac- ment ) are sufficient for interpretation to
ted from the environment to serve as an reach conclusions
input for the product system, and is distin-
guished from a biotic resource by its non- Conclusions and recommendations Conclu-
living nature. sions summarise the identification and
evaluation of significant environmental
Allocation Partitioning the input or output issues. Recommendations are those features
flows of a process to the product system that arise directly from conclusions, given
under study. the goal of the study.
Ancillary input Material input that is used by Consistency check Process of verifying that
the unit process producing the product, but the interpretation is done in accordance
is not used directly as a part of the product. with the goal and scope definition, before
conclusions are reached.
Areas for protection Broad social values with
respect to the environmental policy (e.g. Co-product Any of two or more products
human health, ecological health, biodiver- coming from the same unit process.
sity, intergenerational material welfare,
aesthetic values). Data category Classificatory division of the
input and output flows from a unit process
Biotic resource Object that can be extracted or product system.
from the environment to serve as an input
for the product system, and that is distin- Data quality Nature or characteristics of
guished from an abiotic resource by its living collected or integrated data.
nature.
Effect A specific change in human health, in
Characterization Second element within eco-system or the global resource situation as
impact assessment succeeding the classifica- a consequence of a specific impact.
tion element and preceding valuation, in
which analysis/quantification, and aggrega- Elementary flow 1) Material or energy
tion of the impacts within the chosen impact entering the system being studied, which
categories takes place. has been drawn from the environment
without previous human transformation 2)
Characterization factor (exposure factor, Material or energy leaving the system being
effect factor, exposure-effect actor, equiva- studied, which is discarded into the envi-
lence factor) A factor which expresses the ronment without subsequent human trans-
contribution of a unit environmental inter- formation.
vention (such as the atmospheric emission of
1 kg CFC-11) to the chosen impact catego- Energy flow Input flow to or output flow
ries (such as global warming and ozone from a unit process or product system
depletion). measured in units of energy.
Environmental aspect Element of an organi- biodiversity etc.). This means that all steps in
sations activities, products or services which the cause-effect chain are impacts while
can interact with the environment. effects are the chosen endpoints.
Environmental index Resulting score repres- Impact assessment (life cycle impact assess-
enting the perceived harmfulness to the ment) Quantitative and/or qualitative
environment, obtained by quantitative process to characterise and assess the effects
weighting as a result of the valuation element. of the environmental interventions identi-
fied in the inventory table. The impact
Environmental intervention (environmental assessment component consists in principle
flow, environmental burden, stressor, ele- of the following three or four elements:
mentary flow) Exchange between the atmos- classification, characterization, (normalisa-
phere (the economy) and the environment tion,) and valuation.
including resource use, emissions to air,
water, or soil. Impact category (problem type, environmen-
tal problem, environmental theme) Chosen
Environmental issue Inputs and outputs level in the cause-effect chain of the consid-
(results from the LCI) and - if additionally ered environmental effect type, relating
conducted-environmental indicators (results somehow to the areas for protection. The
from the LCIA), which are defined in impact score profile gives the scores for the
general terms as being important in the goal impact categories.
and scope definition.
Impact score Contribution of a product
Evaluation It is the second step within the system to one impact category.
life cycle interpretation including complete-
ness check, sensitivity check, consistency Impact score profile (environmental profile)
check, other checks. List of impact scores for all impact catego-
ries.
Feedstock energy Gross combustion heat of
raw material inputs, which are not used as an Indicator A simplification and distillation of
energy source, to a product system. complex information intended as a summary
description of conditions or trends to assist
Final product Product which requires no decisions.
additional transformation prior to its use.
Input Material or energy which enters a unit
Fugitive releases Uncontrolled emission to process - material may include raw materials
air, water or land. and products.
Impact The consequences for health, for the Inventory table List of environmental enti-
well-being of flora and fauna or for the future ties added to and taken from the environ-
availability of natural resources, attributable ment (environmental interventions) through
to the input and output streams of a system. economic actions which are directly caused
by processes within a product system. It is the
Impact vs. effect Most of the environmental main result of the inventory analysis.
problems treated in present characterization
methods are quantified at the level of envir- Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages
onmental impacts (e.g., ozone formation, H+ of a product system, from raw material
deposition, ozone depletion, rise of radiate acquisition or generation of natural re-
forcing). Environmental effects are the sources to the final disposal.
chosen endpoints within these impact chains
(e.g., reduced human health, reduced Life cycle assessment Compilation and
growth of crop, dying of plants, reduced evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the
80 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Life cycle impact assessment Phase of life Recycling, closed loop Recovery of material
cycle assessment aimed at understanding and on the same factory that produced the
evaluating the magnitude and significance of material. This kind of recovery require a
the potential environmental impacts of a take back arrangement.
product system.
Recycling, open loop Recovery of material -
Life cycle interpretation Phase of life cycle
but not on the same factory as produced the
assessment in which the findings of either
material. This kind of recovery require a
the inventory analysis or the impact assess-
central collection of used material.
ment, or both, are combined in line with the
defined goal and scope in order to reach
Sensitivity analysis Systematic procedure for
conclusions and recommendations.
estimating the effects on the outcome of a
study of the chosen methods and data and
Life cycle inventory analysis Phase of life cycle
uncertainty therein.
assessment involving the compilation and
quantification of inputs and outputs, for a
System boundary Interface between a
given product system throughout its life cycle.
product system and the environment or
other product systems.
Normalisation An optional element within
impact assessment which involves relating all
Transparency Open, comprehensive and
impact scores of a functional unit in the im-
understandable presentation of information.
pact score profile to a reference situation.
The reference situation may differ per im-
Uncertainty analysis A systematic procedure
pact category, and is the contribution of a
to ascertain and quantify the uncertainty
certain period of time to the problem type at
introduced in the results of a LCI due to the
hand. Normalisation results in a normalised
cumulative effects of input uncertainty and
impact score profile which consists of nor-
data variability. It uses either ranges or
malised impact scores.
probability distributions to determine
uncertainty in the results.
Output Material or energy which leaves a
unit process - material may include raw
Unit-process Smallest portion of a product
materials, products, emissions and waste.
system for which data are collected when
performing a life cycle assessment.
Practitioner Individual or group of people
that conducts a life cycle assessment.
Valuation/weighting Last element within
impact assessment following the characteriza-
Process energy Energy input required to a
tion/normalisation element, in which the
unit process to operate the process or
results of the characterization/normalisa-
equipment within the process excluding
tion, in particular the (normalised) impact
production and delivery energy.
scores, are weighted against each other in a
quantitative and/or qualitative way in order
Process flow diagram Chart containing label
to be able to make the impact information
led boxes connected by lines with directional
more decision-friendly. This is an element
arrows to illustrate the unit process or sub-
which necessarily involves qualitative or
system included in the product system and
quantitative valuations which are not only
the interrelationships between those unit
based on natural sciences. For instance,
processes.
political and/or ethical values can be used in
Product system Collection of materially and this element. The valuation can result in an
energetically connected unit processes which environmental index.
performs one or more defined functions - in
the ISO standard, the term product used Valuation factor Factor in the evaluation
alone not only includes product systems but element transforming the impact score
also can include service systems. profile in an environmental index.
Production and delivery of energy The Waste Any output from the product system
energy input into processes which extract, which is disposed of.
generate, process, refine and deliver process
energy.
81
Appendix 4.2:
Impact categories
Land use and transformation can be a GWP for known greenhouse gases are shown
reversible effect, but within small to large in Table 4-5.
time frames.
The potential greenhouse effect of a process
Global warming can be estimated by calculating the product
Global warming - or the greenhouse effect of the amount of emitted greenhouse gas
- is the effect of increasing temperature in per kg produced material and the potential
the lower atmosphere. The lower atmos- for greenhouse effect given in kg CO2-
phere is normally heated by incoming equivalents per kg for each gas. Finally, the
radiation from the outer atmosphere (from contribution to the potential greenhouse
the sun). A part of the radiation is normally effect from each gas has to be summarised.
reflected by the soil surface but the content This calculation procedure can be expressed
of carbon dioxide (CO2), and other green- mathematically as:
house gasses (e.g. methane (CH4), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), chlorofluorocarbons etc.) in Potential greenhouse effect (kg CO2-eq.) =
the atmosphere reflects the IR-radiation i
GWPi x mi
resulting in the greenhouse effect i.e. an
increase of temperature in the lower atmos- If a specific time horizon cannot be chosen
phere to a level above normal. The possible and justified in the goal definition it is
consequences of the greenhouse effect suggested to estimate the greenhouse effect
include an increase of the temperature level based on GWPs for 20, 100 as well as 500
leading to melting of the polar ice caps, years (Lindfors et al., 1995c).
resulting in elevated sea levels. The increas-
ing temperature level may also result in Stratospheric ozone depletion
regional climate changes. Decomposition of the stratospheric ozone
layer will cause increased incoming UV-
The potential global warming or greenhouse radiation leading to impacts on humans such
effect is normally quantified by using global as increased levels of e.g. skin cancer, cata-
warming potentials (GWP) for substances racts and decreased immune defence, but
having the same effect as CO2 in reflection of also impacts on natural organisms and
heat radiation. GWP for greenhouse gases ecosystems e.g. plankton in the South Pole
are expressed as CO2-equivalents i.e. their region, where the decomposition of the
effect are expressed relatively to the effect of ozone layer is already significant.
CO2. Global warming potentials are devel-
oped by the Intergovernmental Panel on The stratospheric ozone layer occurs at an
Climatic Change (IPCC) for a number of altitude from 10 - 40 km, with maximum
substances (Albritton et al., 1996). GWPs are concentration from 15 - 25 km. The maximal
normally based on modelling and are generation of stratospheric ozone (O3) occur
quantified for time horizons of 20, 100 or in the top of the stratosphere at the altitude
500 years for a number of known green- of 40 km as a result of a reaction of molecu-
house gasses (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs, lar oxygen (O2) and atomic oxygen (O). The
HCFCs, HFCs and several halogenated reaction depends on the UV-radiation used
hydrocarbons etc.). in the decomposition of oxygen and the
availability of other molecules used in the
Hauschild & Wenzel (1997a) suggest model- absorption of excess energy from the decom-
ling and quantification of GWP for indirect position process.
effects of e.g. VOCs of petrochemical origin
by using their photochemical ozone creation The decomposition of ozone is enhanced by
potential (POCP) as shown in the following the stratospheric input of anthropogenic
formula: halogenated compounds (e.g. CFCs, HCFCs,
halons etc.). Ozone depletion potentials
POCPgas(i) (ODP) have been presented by the World
GWP(O3)gas(i) = GWP(O3)CO
POCPCO Meteorological Organisation (WMO) for a
number of halogenated compounds (Solo-
where GWP(O3)gas(i) express the GWP of mon & Wuebbles, 1995; Pyle et al., 1991).
tropospheric oxidation of gas i, GWP(O3)CO The ODPs are given as CFC-11 equivalents
express GWP of CO, POCPgas(i) express the i.e.:
Impact categories 83
Table 4-5
Global warming potentials (GWP) given in kg CO2-eq./kg gas (Albritton et al., 1996).
modelled stratospehic ozone depletion due to compound i against potential toxic or inhibitory effects
ODP1 =
modelled stratospehic ozone depletion due to same quantity of CFC-11 but also burdening the surroundings.
ODPs are presented in Table 4-6 for CFCs, One way of assessing the potential
HCFCs and halons. ecotoxicological effects of chemical sub-
stances is to use the criteria for classification
The potential depletion of stratospheric of substances as Dangerous for the Environ-
ozone as an effect of certain process can be ment (indicated by the symbol N) (EEC,
estimated by summarising the ODPs: 1993):
The fate of chemical substances depend on: MUP-method (Jensen et al., 1994)
The degradation rate will affect both the The present methods are described briefly in
possibility of the substance to reacting the Table 4-7.
target organism and the kind of toxic effect.
Readily degradable substances can show International consensus on specific methods
acute toxic effects depending on the degra- for assessing ecotoxicological impacts has
dation type and rate in the actual medium, not yet been reached and development of
whereas substances which are not readily some of the methods is still in progress. It is
degradable can bioaccumulate in the en- therefore recommended to use different
vironment and/or show chronic toxic effects. methods when assessing potential ecotoxi-
The rates of evaporation/deposition will cological impacts for a specific data-set.
affect the transfer of substances between the
different mediums e.g. air, water, soil or food Human toxicological impacts
chains), e.g. in aeration of leads to evapora- The impact category human toxicological
tion of volatile substances from the water, impacts is another of the most difficult
and thereby protecting the biological proc- categories to handle. Human toxicological
esses in the wastewater treatment plant impacts depend on exposure to and effects
Impact categories 85
Table 4-6
Ozone depletion potentials (OPD) given in kg CFC-11 equivalents/kg gas (Solomon & Wuebbles, 1995; Pyle et al., 1991; Solomon
& Albritton, 1992).
CFC-11 CFCl3 505 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
CFC-12 CF2Cl2 102 0.82 - - - - - - - -
CFC-113 C CF2ClCFCl2 85 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.78 1.09
FC-114 CF2ClCF2Cl 300 0.85 - - - - - - - -
CFC-115 CF2ClCF3 1,700 0.40 - - - - - - - -
Tetrachloromethane CCl4 42 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.22 1.20 1.14 1.08
HCFC-22 CHF2Cl 13.3 0.04 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.05
HCFC-123 CF3CHCl2 1.4 0.014 0.51 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02
HCFC-124 CF3CHFCl 5.9 0.03 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02
HCFC-141b CFCl2CH3 9.4 0.10 0.54 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.13 0.11
HCFC-142b CF2ClCH3 19.5 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.07
HCFC-225ca C3F5HCl2 2.5 0.02 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02
HCFC-225cb C3F5HCl2 6.6 0.02 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.03
1,1,1-Trichlorethan CH3CCl3 5.40.4 0.12 1.03 0.75 0.57 0.45 0.32 0.26 0.15 0.12
Halon 1301 CF3Br 65 12 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.8 11.5 12.5
Halon 1211 CF2ClBr 20 5.1 11.3 10.5 9.7 9.0 8.0 7.1 4.9 4.1
Halon 1202 CF2Br2 ~1.25 12.8 12.2 11.6 11.0 10.1 9.4 7.0 5.9
Halon 2402 CF2BrCF2Br 25 ~7 - - - - - - - -
HBFC 1201 CF2HBr ~1.4 - - - - - - - -
HBFC 2401 CF3CHFBr ~0.25 - - - - - - - -
HBFC 2311 CF3CHClBr ~0.14 - - - - - - - -
Methylbromid CH3Br 1.3 0.64 15.3 5.4 3.1 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.69 0.57
Table 4-7
Different methods for the assessment of ecotoxicological impacts.
Quantitative approach 1) Acute toxicity EEC criteria for degradability. Lindfors et al. (1995)/
with partial fate analysis 2) Acute toxicity for not Finnveden et al. (1992)
based on EEC directives readily degradable compounds
3) Potential bioconcentration
4) Potential bioconcentration
for not readily degradable
compounds
MUP-method 1) Acute toxicity EEC criteria for classification Jensen et al. (1994)
2) Potential bioconcentration of substances as dangerous
3) Biodegradability for the environment (EEC, 1993).
Quantitative approach 1) Acute, aquatic toxicity Critical volume. The fate analysis Hauschild et al. (1997a)
with partial fate analysis 2) Chronic, aquatic toxicity includes evaporation, deposition,
3) Chronic, terrestrial toxicity and degradation. The ecotoxicity
4) Acute toxicity to wastewater factors are based on PNEC for
treatment plants acute aquatic, chronic aquatic and
terrestrial toxicity, and LOEC for
micro-organisms in wastewater
treatment plants.
The provisional 1) Terrestrial ecotoxicity The provisional classification factors Heijungs et al. (1992)
method 2) Aquatic ecotoxicity for ecotoxicity are derived from
NOEC or LC50 multiplied by a safety
factor. The classification factors are
expressed by m3 water/mg substance
and kg soil/mg substance leading to
results as m3 polluted water and kg
polluted soil .
86 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
of chemical and biological substances. The methods when assessing potential toxicologi-
potential effect on humans depends as for cal impacts for a specific data-set.
ecotoxicological impacts on the actual
emission and fate of the specific substances Photochemical oxidant formation (smog)
emitted to the environment. Photochemical ozone formation is caused by
degradation of organic compounds (VOC)
The human toxicological effects can be: in the presence of light and nitrogen oxide
(NOx) (smog as a local impact and tropo-
acute toxicological effects spheric ozone as a regional impact). The
biological effects of photochemical ozone
irritation can be attributed to biochemical effects of
reactive ozone compounds. Exposure of
allergenic reactions plants to ozone may result in damage of the
leaf surface, leading to damage of the
genotoxicity photosynthetic function, discolouring of the
leaves, dieback of leaves and finally the
carcinogenicity whole plant. Exposure of humans to ozone
may result in eye irritation, respiratory
neurotoxicity problems, and chronic damage of the
respiratory system.
teratogenicity
The reaction can be described in a simpli-
A number of different methods trying more fied way in terms of four steps (Nichols et al.,
or less to take chemical fate, route of expo- 1996; Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997c):
sure and toxicological effect into account
has been developed. A screening procedure 1. Reaction between organic compounds
can be used to focus on the most dangerous (VOC) and hydroxyl radicals (OH) to
substances which can be assessed by using a form organic peroxy radicals
more detailed procedure (e.g. Hauschild et
al., 1997b). 2. The peroxy radicals react with nitrogen
oxide (NO) to form nitrogen dioxide
Critical volumes (BUS, 1984; Haber- (NO2)
satter, 1991)
3. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) react in the
The provisional method (Heijungs et presence of sunlight to form nitrogen
al., 1992) oxide (NO) and oxygen atoms
The Tellus method (Tellus Institute, 4. Atomic oxygen reacts with oxygen (O2)
1992) to form ozone (O3)
The MUP-method (Jelnes et al., 1994; The photochemical ozone formation can be
Schmidt et al., 1994b)) quantified by using photochemical ozone
creation potentials (POCP) for organic
The toxicity potential approach compounds. POCPs for organic compounds
(Guine & Heijungs, 1993; Guine et al., are expressed as ethylene (C2H4) equivalents
1996) i.e. their impacts are expressed relative to
the effect of C2H4. POCP-values can be
The critical surface-time (Jolliet calculated in different ways as proposed by
1994a;b; Jolliet & Crettaz, 1996) Andersson-Skld et al. (1992) and by
Heijungs et al. (1992). Andersson-Skld et
The EDIP method (Hauschild et al., al. (1992) give the POCPs for three different
1997b) scenarios:
Table 4-8
Different methods for the assessment of human toxicological impacts.
Critical volumes Water and air pollution The critical air volume are based on MIK-values BUS (1984)/
(Maximale Immissions-Konzentration) or MAK- Habersatter (1991)
values (Maximale Arbeitsplatzkonzentration).
The critical water volume are based on (Swiss)
directives for emissions into surface water.
The provisional Human toxicity (not The provisional classification factors for human Heijungs et al. (1992)
method specified) - exposure by toxicity are derived from TCL (acceptable
air, water and soil concentration in air), AQG (air quality guideline),
TDI (tolerable daily intake) or ADI (acceptable
daily intake). The classification factors are
expressed by kg body weight/kg substance.
The Tellus method Carcinogenic potency Classification factors for carcinogenic potency is Tellus Institute (1992)
Non-carcinogenic effects expressed as isophorone equivalents and for
Combined non-carcinogenic effects as xylene equivalents.
Classification factors for the combined effects are
derived from permissible exposure levels for the
two effects.
The MUP-method Irritation The method is based on exposure estimated. Jelnes et al. (1994)/
Allergenic reactions The method cover a screening LCA with Schmidt et al. (1994b)
Organotoxicity qualitative results.
Genotoxicity
Carcinogenicity
Neurotoxicity
Teratogenicity
Quantitative approach Acute toxicity (inhalation) Critical volume. The fate analysis include Hauschild et al. (1997b)
Acute toxicity (oral intake) evaporation, deposition, and degradation.
The human toxicology factors are based
on LC50/LD50, LCLo/LDLo (Lethal Concentration/
Dose Low) or LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level) for test animals, or LCLo/LDLo,, NOAEL
(No Observed Adverse Effect Level) or LOAEL for
humans with partial fate analysis
calculated as the contribution to ozone Lindfors et al. (1995a; 1995c) in the Nordic
formation at peak ozone formation based on guideline for life cycle assessment. If the
average of data from three different loca- inventory data do not make it possible
tions in Europe. POCPs according to differ- calculating total POCP based on weighting
ent models are given in Table 4-9. factors due to lack of information on the
composition of the VOCs, it is suggested that
The photochemical ozone creation potential the data be aggregated in the following
of certain processes can be estimated by subcategories:
summarising the POCPs for the VOCs:
1. Nitrogen oxides NOx
POCP (kg ethylene equivalents) = Si POCPi
mi 2. Hydrocarbons (HC) or volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
A method considering only POCPs for VOCs
is not sufficient to describe the impact 3. Carbon monoxide (CO)
category. A possible approach can be to
divide the category in two subcategories: one 4. Methane (CH4).
category for nitrogen oxides (aggregated as
NOx) and one category for VOC (aggregated Acidification
with POCP as weighting factor using an Acidification is caused by releases of protons
appropriate scenario or all the four above in the terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. In
mentioned scenarios) as proposed by the terrestrial ecosystem the effects are seen
88 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Alkanes
Methane - - - 0.007 0.000-0.030
Ethane 0.173 0.126 0.121 0.082 0.020-0.300
Propane 0.604 0.503 0.518 0.420 0.160-1.240
n-Butane 0.554 0.467 0.485 0.410 0.150-1.150
i-Butane 0.331 0.411 0.389 0.315 0.190-0.590
n-Pentane 0.612 0.298 0.387 0.408 0.090-1.050
i-Pentane 0.360 0.314 0.345 0.296 0.120-0.680
n-Hexane 0.784 0.452 0.495 0.421 0.100-1.510
2-Methylpentane 0.712 0.529 0.565 0.524 0.190-1.400
3-Methylpentane 0.647 0.409 0.457 0.431 0.110-1.250
2,2-Dimethylbutane - - - 0.251 0.120-0.490
2,3-Dimethylbutane - - - 0.384 0.250-0.650
n-Heptane 0.791 0.518 0.592 0.529 0.130-1.650
2-Methylhexane - - - 0.492 0.110-1.590
3-Methylhexane - - - 0.492 0.110-1.570
n-Octane 0.698 0.461 0.544 0.493 0.120-1.510
2-Methylheptane 0.691 0.457 0.524 0.469 0.120-1.460
n-Nonane 0.633 0.351 0.463 0.469 0.100-1.480
2-Methyloctane 0.669 0.454 0.523 0.505 0.120-1.470
n-Decane 0.719 0.422 0.509 0.464 0.080-1.560
2-Methylnonane 0.719 0.423 0.498 0.448 0.080-1.530
n-Undecane 0.662 0.386 0.476 0.436 0.080-1.440
n-Duodecane 0.576 0.311 0.452 0.412 0.070-1.380
Average - - - 0.398 0.114-1.173
Halogenated hydrocarbons
Methylene chloride 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000-0.030
Alcohols
Methanol 0.165 0.213 0.178 0.123 0.090-0.210
Ethanol 0.446 0.225 0.317 0.268 0.040-0.890
i-Propanol 0.173 0.203 0.188 - -
Butanol 0.655 0.214 0.404 - -
i-Butanol 0.388 0.255 0.290 - -
Butane-2-diol 0.288 0.066 0.216 - -
Average - - - 0.196 0.065-0.550
Aldehydes
Formaldehyde 0.424 0.261 0.379 0.421 0.220-0.580
Acetaldehyde 0.532 0.186 0.615 0.527 0.330-1.220
Propionaldehyde 0.655 0.170 0.652 0.603 0.280-1.600
Butyraldehyde 0.640 0.171 0.597 0.568 0.160-1.600
i-Butyraldehyde 0.583 0.300 0.677 0.631 0.380-1.280
Valeraldehyde 0.612 0.321 0.686 0.686 0.000-2.680
Acroleine 1.201 0.832 0.827 - -
Benzaldehyde - - - 0.334 (-0.82)-(-0.12)
Average - - 0.443 0.079-1.263
Ketones
Acetone 0.173 0.124 0.160 0.178 0.100-0.270
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.388 0.178 0.346 0.473 0.170-0.800
Methyl i-butyl ketone 0.676 0.318 0.666 - -
Average - - - 0.326 0.135-0.535
Impact categories 89
Esters
Dimethylester 0.058 0.067 0.046 - -
Methyl acrylate - - - 0.025 0.000-0.070
Ethyl acetate 0.295 0.294 0.286 0.218 0.110-0.560
i-Propyl acetate - - - 0.215 0.140-0.360
n-Butyl acetate 0.439 0.320 0.367 0.323 0.140-0.910
i-Butyl acetate 0.288 0.353 0.345 0.332 0.210-0.590
Average - - - 0.223 0.120-0.498
Olefins
Ethene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Propene 0.734 0.599 1.060 1.030 0.750-1.630
1-Butene 0.799 0.495 0.983 0.959 0.570-1.850
2-Butene 0.784 0.436 1.021 0.992 0.820-1.570
1-Pentene 0.727 0.424 0.833 1.059 0.400-2.880
2-Pentene 0.770 0.381 0.965 0.930 0.650-1.600
2-Methyl-1-butene 0.691 0.181 0.717 0.777 0.520-1.130
2-Methyl-2-butene 0.935 0.453 0.784 0.779 0.610-1.020
3-Methyl-1-butene - - - 0.895 0.600-1.540
Isobutene 0.791 0.580 0.648 0.634 0.580-0.760
Average - - - 0.906 0.650-1.498
Acetylenes
Acetylene 0.273 0.368 0.291 0.168 0.100-0.420
Aromatics
Benzene 0.317 0.402 0.318 0.189 0.110-0.450
Toluene 0.446 0.470 0.565 0.563 0.410-0.830
o-Xylene 0.424 0.167 0.598 0.666 0.410-0.970
m-Xylene 0.583 0.474 0.884 0.993 0.780-1.350
p-Xylene 0.612 0.472 0.796 0.888 0.630-1.800
Ethylbenzene 0.532 0.504 0.621 0.593 0.350-1.140
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 0.698 0.292 0.868 1.170 0.760-1.750
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.683 0.330 0.938 1.200 0.860-1.760
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.691 0.330 0.989 1.150 0.740-1.740
o-Ethyltoluene 0.597 0.408 0.637 0.668 0.310-1.300
m-Ethyltoluene 0.626 0.401 0.729 0.794 0.410-1.400
p-Ethyltoluene 0.626 0.443 0.682 0.725 0.360-1.350
n-Propylbenzene 0.511 0.454 0.531 0.492 0.250-1.100
i-Propylbenzene 0.511 0.523 0.594 0.565 0.350-1.050
Average - - - 0.761 0.481-1.258
Other
Methylcyclohexane 0.403 0.386 0.392 - -
Isoprene 0.532 0.583 0.768 - -
Dimethylether 0.288 0.343 0.286 - -
Propylene glycole methyl ether 0.770 0.491 0.497 - -
Propylene glycole
methyl ether acetate 0.309 0.157 0.143 - -
Carbonmonoxide 0.036 0.040 0.032 - -
Table 4-9
Photochemical ozone creation potentials different organic compounds
90 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
in softwood forests (e.g. spruce) as ineffi- the value of the utilisation of the aquatic
cient growth and as a final consequence ecosystem.
dieback of the forest. These effects are
mainly seen in Scandinavia and in the The primary effect of surplus nitrogen and
middle/eastern part of Europe. In the phosphorus in aquatic ecosystems is growth
aquatic ecosystem the effects are seen as of algae. The secondary effect is decomposi-
(clear), acid lakes without any wildlife. These tion of dead organic material (e.g. algae)
effects are mainly seen in Scandinavia. and anthropogenic organic substances. The
Buildings, constructions, sculptures and decomposition of organic material is an
other objects worthy of preservation are also oxygen consuming process leading to
damaged by e.g. acid rain. decreasing oxygen saturation and sometimes
anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic condi-
Substances are considered to have an acidifi- tions in the sediment at the bottom of lakes
cation effect if they result in (Hauschild & or other inland waters may furthermore
Wenzel, 1997d): result in production of hydrogen sulfide
(H2S) which may lead to bottom up inci-
Supply or release of hydrogen ions (H+) dents and liberation of toxic hydrogen
in the environment sulfide to the surrounding water. The possi-
ble effects of the emissions leading to
Leaching of the corresponding anions eutrophication depend on the receiving
from the concerned system waters i.e. some recipients are sensitive to
nutrient supply while others are not.
The potential effects are strongly dependent
on the nature of the receiving ecosystem e.g. The effects of eutrophication of terrestrial
nitrogen oxides (NOx) can be fixed in the ecosystem are seen on changes in function
ecosystem due to uptake in plants. This and diversity of species in nutrient poor
problem can be managed by using two ecosystems as heaths, dune heaths, raised
scenarios as suggested by Lindfors et al. bogs etc. and they are caused by atmospheric
(1995a). In the two scenarios the acidifica- deposition of nitrogen compounds.
tion potential from NOx and NH3 are calcu-
lated as zero and as the theoretical maxi- Lindfors et al. (1995c) present two methods
mum value respectively. Lindfors et al. to calculate the eutrophication potential: 1)
(1995c) recommend that the following a separate aggregation method and 2) a
substances should be considered: SO2, NOx, scenario-based approach. The separate
NH3 and HCl but also other substances aggregation method divides the loadings in
having a proton releasing effect have to be four subcategories to be calculated sepa-
considered (i.e. other sulfur compounds and rately:
other acids). The acidification potential
(AP) can be estimated as SO2 equivalents or 1. Organic material to water measured as
as mole hydrogen (H+). The acidification BOD5
potentials for acidifying substances are given
in Table 4-10. 2. Total-N to water as kg N
Table 4-10
Acidification potentials for acidifying substances (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997d).
Table 4-11
Eutrophication potentials (EP) for different scenarios as O2- or PO4-equivalents (Lindfors et al., 1995c).
N to air 20 0 0 20 20 0.42
NO x to air 6 0 0 6 6 0.13
NH 3 to air 16 0 0 16 16 0.35
N to water 0 0 20 20 20 0.42
NO 3- to water 0 0 4.4 4.4 4.4 0.1
NH 4+ to water 0 0 15 15 15 0.33
P to water 0 140 0 0 140 3.06
PO43- 0 46 0 0 46 1
COD 0 1 1 1 1 0.022
Table 4-12
Eutrophication potentials (EP) as total-N, total-P or NO3-equivalents (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997e).
NO3- 62 0.23 0 1
NO2 46 0.30 0 1.35
NO2- 46 0.30 0 1.35
NO 30 0.47 0 2.07
NH3 17 0.82 0 3.64
CN- 26 0.54 0 2.38
Total-N 14 1 0 4.43
PO43- 95 0 0.33 10.45
P2O72- 174 0 0.35 11.41
Total-P 31 0 1 32.03
92 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Table 4-13
Different methods for assessment of work environment.
IVF-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure measurements Bengtson & Berglund
Physiological and estimates and effect registration. (1996)
Psychological
Chemical
Risk of accidents
IVL-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure measurements Antonsson & Carlson
Physiological and estimates and effect registration. The method (1995)
Psychological covers a screening LCA with qualitative
Chemical and quantitative results.
Biological
Risk of accidents
MUP-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates. Jelnes et al. (1994);
Chemical The method covers a screening LCA Schmidt et al. (1994b)
Risk of accidents with qualitative results, combined with
a scoring methodology.
PVC-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates. Christiansen et al. (1993)
Chemical The method covers a screening LCA
Risk of accidents with qualitative results.
ST-methodology Chemical The method is based on exposure estimates. Bjrnsen et al. (1995);
The method covers a detailed LCA with Mller et al. (1995);
quantitative results. Rnning et al. (1995);
kstad et al. (1995)
The following sections gives an overview of 1200 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32-2-772.72.81,
some of the most important sources of Fax +32-2-770.53.86 or E-mail 100725.3525@
information about LCA. The overview is not compuserve.com. Editor is Roland Clift,
complete, but is meant as a starting point for Centre for Environmental Strategy, Univer-
companies, institutions and individuals sity of Surrey, Tel. +44 1483 259 047, Fax +44
wanting to enter the area of life cycle assess- 1483 259 394, E-mail J.Libaert@surrey.ac.uk.
ment, or to maintain and extend already
existing knowledge. SETAC-US LCA News
The SETAC-US newsletter highlights envir-
The following information sources are onmental topics, SETAC activities, employ-
described: ment opportunities, and meetings of inter-
est. A special section is devoted to LCA. The
Newsletters and Journals bimonthly newsletter is mailed to SETAC
members, but can also be ordered from
Books, Reports, Proceedings, etc. SETAC, 1010 North 12th Avenue, Pensacola,
FL 32501-3370, U.S.A. Tel: +1 904-469-1500,
LCA Software Fax +1 904-469-9778, E-mail: setac@setac.org.
The newsletter (Jan 1997 and forward) is
Internet Facilities also available on the Internet: http://www.
setac.org/news.html.
When contemplating ordering information
sources from the overview it should be borne APME Communique
in mind, that recent publications generally The newsletter Communique primarily
are of a much higher quality than books and contains information on packaging news
reports from the beginning of the nineties as from the plastics industry. It is published by
they supposedly reflect the international the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in
development in the area. However, no Europe (APME) and can be ordered from
further assessment of the quality of the APME, Av. E. Van Nieuwenhuyse 4, Box 3, B-
information sources is given in the overview. 1160 Brussels, Belgium Tel. (32-2) 672 82 59
Fax (32-2) 675 39 35
(0) 1865 843952. Homepage: http://www. found under the heading Miscellaneous
elsevier.nl/locate/jclepro. references.
LCA-Nordic Technical Report No. 10 and Special ment in the EU ecolabelling programme. Udo de
Reports No. 1 - 2. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen Haes HAU, Bensahel J-F, Clift R, Fussler CR,
K, Hoffmann L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Griesshammer R and Jensen AA (1994).
Hanssen OJ, Rnning A, Ekvall T and Groupe des Sages. Final report of the first
Finnveden G (1995). TemaNord 1995:503. phase. Leiden
Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
ISBN 92 9120 609 1, ISSN 0908-6692. A Conceptual Framework For Life-Cycle Impact
Assessment. Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R,
Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Dickson K, Mohin T and Vigon B (1993).
Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, Workshop Report. SETAC and SETAC
Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ., Rnning Foundation for Environmental Education,
A, Ekvall T and Finnveden G (1995). Nord Inc., Sandestin, Florida USA, March 1993
1995:20. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of
Ministers. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: a Code of
Practice. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, de
Miljanpassad produktudveckling (Environmen- Oude N, Fava J, Franklin R, Jensen AA,
tally Sound Product Development). Ryding S-O Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay
(1995). Industrifrbundet. (In Swedish) B, Sguin J and Vigon B (eds.) (1993).
Report of the workshop organised by SETAC
Overview of the scientific peer review of the in Portugal.
European life cycle inventory for surfactant
production. Klpffer W, Griesshammer R, and Life cycle design guidance manual. Environmen-
Sundstrm G (1995). Tenside Surf.Det. tal requirements and the product system. Keoleian
32(5):378-83. GA and Menerey D (1993). EPA600/R-92/
226. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Life cycle assessment and treatment of solid waste.
Proceedings of the international workshop Septem- Weighing up the environmental balance. Anon
ber 28-29, Stockholm. Finnveden G, Huppes G (1993). APME/PWMI, Brussels,
(editors) (1995). AFR-report 98, Stockholm.
Ecoprofiles of the European polymer industry.
Life cycle assessment. A comparison of three Report 7 Principles of plastics recycling. Boustead
methods for impact analysis and evaluation. I (1993). APME/PWMI, Brussels)
Baumann H and Rydberg T. J.Cleaner Prod.
2(1):13-20, 1994. Life cycle assessment: Inventory, classification,
valuation, data bases. Workshop report from the
Metoder, vurderingsgrundlag og fremgangsmde. workshop in Leiden 2-3 December 1991. (1992).
Livscyklusvurdering af nye materialer (Methods, SETAC-Europe, Brussels.
Assessment and Procedures. Life cycle assessment
of new materials). Schmidt A, Christiansen K Life-Cycle Assessment Data Quality. Fava J,
and Pommer K. (eds.) (1994). dk-TEKNIK, Jensen AA, Lindfors L, Pomper S, de Smet B,
Sborg (In Danish with English summary). Warren J and Vigon B. Workshop Report.
SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environ-
Allocation in LCA. Proceedings of the European mental Education, Inc., Wintergreen, Vir-
Workshop on allocation in LCA at CML, Leiden ginia, October 1992
24-25 February, 1994. Huppes G and Schnei-
der F (editors) (1994). CML, Leiden. ISBN Eco-balance methodology for commodity thermo-
90-5191-078-9 (CML). plastics. Boustead I (1992). Brussels: APME/
PWMI.
Integrating impact assessment into LCA. Proceed-
ings of the LCA symposium held at the fourth Product life-cycle assessment: Inventory guidelines
SETAC-Europe Congress 11-14 April 1994. Udo and principles. Batelle and Franklin Associates
de Haes HA, Jensen AA, Klpffer W and (1992). RREL, EPA/600/R-92/036.
Lindfors L-G (editors) (1994). SETAC,
Brussels. Product life cycle assessment - principles and
methodology. Lindfors, L.G. (editor). Nord
Impact assessment within LCA. Grisel L, Jensen 1992:9. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copen-
AA, Klpffer W (1994). Society for the hagen, 1992.
Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD),
Brussels. Environmental life cycle assessment of products.
Heijungs R, Guine JB, Huppes G,
Guidelines for the application of life cycle assess- Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Sleeswijk
LCA Information Sources 99
AW, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, For databases in electronic format, please
de Goede HP (1992). I Guide; II Back- refer to the reference above and to the
grounds. CML, Leiden. section on LCA software.
Resource and environmental profile analysis: A European database for corrugated board life cycle
life cycle environmental assessment for products studies. FEFCO, Groupement Ondul, and
and procedures. Hunt RG, Sellers JD and Kraft Institute (1996). Paris.
Franklin WE (1992). Environ Impact Assess
Rev 12:245-269. Ecobalance of Packaging Materials (1996).
Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, BUWAL, Bern.
Eco-balance methodology for commodity thermo-
plastics. Boustead I (1992). APME/PWMI, Ecological profile report for the European Alu-
Brussels. minium Industry. Boustead I (1996). Brussels:
European Aluminium Association.
A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment.
Fava J, Denison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry.
Vigon B, Selke S and Barnum J. SETAC and Report 9 Polyurethane precursors (TDI, MDI,
SETAC Foundation for Environmental Polyols) (1996). Boustead I. PWMI, Brussels.
Education, Inc., Washington, January 1991
Vergleichende kologische Bewertung von
Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990. Anstrichstoffen im Baubereich. von Dniken A
Habersatter, K. Schriftenreihe Umwelt. Nr. and Chudacoff M (1995). Schriftenreihe
132. BUWAL, Bern, 1991. Umwelt Nr. 232, Band 2: Daten. BUWAL,
Bern.
Methodik fr ekobilanzen auf der basis eko-
logischer Optimierung. Ahbe S, Braunschweig A Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry.
and Mller-Wenk (1990). Schriftenreihe Report 8: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Umwelt Nr. 133, BUWAL, Bern. Boustead I (1995). PWMI, Brussels.
Eco-profiles of the European Plastics industry. Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir-
Report 6: Polyvinyl chloride. Boustead I (1994). onmental Labelling-Self Declared Environmental
PWMI, Brussels. Claims-Symbols (ISO CD 14022). ISO/TC 207/
SC3/WG2.
ekoinventare fr Energiesysteme. Frischknecht,
R., Hofstetter, P., Knoepfel, I., Mnard, M., Environmental Labelling-Self Declared Environ-
Dones, R., and Zollinger, E. (editors) (1994). mental Claims-Testing and verification Method-
Bundesamt fr Energiewirtschaft, Zrich. ologies (ISO WD 14023). ISO/TC 207/SC3/
WG2.
Mineral commodities summaries 1993.
U.S.Bureau of Mines (1993). U.S. Bureau of Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir-
Mines, Washington. US Government print- onmental Labelling Type I - Guiding Principles,
ing office 337_168, 70638. and procedures (ISO CD-2 14024). ISO/TC
207/SC3/WG1.
Eco-profiles of the European Plastics industry.
Report 2: Olefin feedstock sources. Boustead I Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir-
(1993). PWMI, Brussels. onmental Labelling Type III - Guiding Principles,
and procedures (ISO pre-WD 14024). ISO/TC
Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. 207/SC3/WG1.
Report 3: Polyethylene and polypropylene.
Boustead I (1993). PWMI, Brussels. Evaluation of Environmental Performance (ISO
CD 14031). ISO TC 207/SC4/WGs 1-2.
Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and
Report 4: Polystyrene. Boustead I (1993). Guidelines (ISO FDIS 14040). ISO TC 207/
PWMI, Brussels. SC5/WG1.
World resources 1992-93. World Resources Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Inventory
Institute (1992). Oxford University Press, Analysis (ISO DIS 14041). ISO TC 207/SC5/
New York Oxford. ISBN 0-19-506231-0. WGs 2-3.
papers and reports which are of interest with cycle design and related approaches. Keoleian
respect to different applications of LCA. GA, Menerey D (1994). Air and Waste
Some of the reports also include a descrip- 1994;44: 645-668.
tion of the methodology used. Many reports
of similar content and quality are missing in Proceedings from the workshop on methods for
the reference list. The main reason for this is environmental management and sustainable
that they are not publicly available. Please product development, Hank, Fredrikstad, 23-24
refer to the database of LCA actors for more march 1994. Hanssen OJ (editor) (1994).
information on LCA projects etc. stfold Research Foundation, Fredrikstad.
Projekte mit Bezug zu kobilanzen und Resource and environmental profile analysis of
Lebensweganalysen. Scheibe U, Neitzel H childrens diaper systems. Sauer BJ, Hildebrandt
(1997). Fachgebiet III 1.3, CC, Franklin WE et al. (1994). Environ
Umweltsbundesamt, Berlin. Toxicol Chemistry 13(6):1003-9.
Iterative screening LCA in an Eco-design tool. Eco-balance for drink packaging. Schmitz S,
Fleischer G and Schmidt W-P (1997 ). Int. J. Oels H-J, and Tiedemann A (1994).
LCA 2(1): 20-24. Umweltsbundesamt, Germany.
Miljvenlige komfurer og ovne. Schmidt A, The Phosphate Report. Wilson B and Jones B
Christensen BH, Jensen AA (1996). (1994). Landbank Environmental Research
Miljprojekt Nr. 338. Miljstyrelsen, and Consulting, London.
Kbenhavn. (In Danish).
Design for Environment. WICE (World Industry
Overall Business Impact Assessment (OBIA). Council for the Environment) (1994). Paris.
Taylor AP, Postlethwaite D (1996). Presenta-
tion Summaries, SETAC EUROPE 4th Development of a pollution prevention factors
Symposium for Case Studies, Brussels, 3 methodology based on a life-cycle assessment:
December 1996. Litographic printing study. Tolle DA, Vigon
BW, Becker JR et al. (1994). EPA/600/R-94/
Sustainable product development. Hansen OJ, 157. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Rnning A and Rydberg T (1995). Final
report from the NEP project. stfold Re- Improved environmental performance of products.
search Foundation, Fredrikstad. Halocarbon substitution, packaging development
and life cycle assessment. Rydberg T (1994).
Application of life cycle assessments (LCA). Chalmers Tekniska Hgskola, Gothenburg.
Christiansen K, Heijungs R, Rydberg T et al.
(eds.) (1995). Report from expert workshop Resource and environmental profile analysis of
at Hank, Norway on LCA in Strategic childrens diaper systems. Sauer BJ, Hildebrandt
management, product development and CC, Franklin WE and Hunt RG (1994).
improvement, marketing and ecolabelling, Environ Toxicol Chemistry 13(6):1003-1009.
governmental policies. stfold Research
Foundation report 07/95. Sustainable development by design. Keoleian GA
and Menerey D (1994). Review of life cycle
Life cycle screening of food products. Weidema design and related approaches. Air and
BP, Pedersen RL and Drivsholm T (1995). Waste Vol. 44: 645-668.
ATV, Copenhagen.
Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil or rapeseed oil
Miljmssig kortlgning af emballager til l og methyl ester as substitute for diesel fuel. Friedrich
lskedrikke. Pommer K, Wesns MS (1995). A, Glante F, Schlter C et al. (1993). UBA,
Arbejdsrapport fra Miljstyrelsen Nr. 62, Berlin.
Copenhagen. (In Danish).
Green products by design. Choices for a cleaner
Decision support system for environmental sounder environment. U.S.Congress (1992). OTA-E-
purchase of catering materials and products for 541. OTA, Washington, DC.
inflight services. Christiansen K, Hoffmann L
(1995). Prepared by Krger Consult A/S for Integrated substance chain management. VNCI -
SAS and Danish Agency of Environmental Association of the Dutch Chemical Industry
Protection. (1991). Leidschendam.
Sustainable development by design: Review of life Resource and environmental profile analysis of
102 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
high-density polyethylene and bleached paperboard hods need any transformation before
gable milk containers. Sellers VR, Sellers JD, they can be used to investigate a differ-
Rolander ST et al. (1990). Franklin Associ- ent geographic scenario?
ates, Kansas.
Interpretation. Can the software help
you in the interpretation of the LCA, e.g.
5.3 LCA Software by performing a hot-spot or sensitivity
analysis. Is a statistical module included?
Many institutions and companies have
developed software for use in LCA. The Reporting. Do the reporting facilities
obvious reason for this is that large amounts meet your needs, e.g. exporting to other
of data have to be stored and processed in programmes for further treatment (word
any LCA and that computers are the natural processing, spreadsheet).
tool for this. Some programmes have been
developed to perform a complete LCA, i.e. For a discussion of data quality and data-
both Inventory, Impact Assessment, and bases, the following paper is of interest:
some kind of Interpretation is performed,
whereas others are only able to perform the Life cycle assessment: data quality and databases
Inventory part of the LCA. practitioner survey. Vigon BW and Jensen AA
(1995). J.Cleaner Prod. 3(3):135-41.
Most of the developed software tools are
commercially available at prices ranging An overview of LCA data sources (both
from about 1500 ECUs to more than 10.000 paper and software) tools can be found in:
ECUs. Free demo versions are available for
many programs, but they are most often of Directory of life cycle inventory data sources.
limited value for potential buyers due to Hemming C (1995). SPOLD, Brussels.
limitations in capacity. As the software
represents a substantial investment, potential Two reports have evaluated some of the
buyers are advised to collect as much infor- commercially available software tools:
mation as possible from the developers and
compare this to their own needs. An over- LCA software review. Rice G (1996). A review
view of commercial software tools is pres- of commercial LCA software, with specific
ented in Table 5-1. Some essential issues to emphasis on European industrial applica-
consider are discussed in the following. tions. University of Surrey.
The database should contain life cycle Evaluation of life cycle assessment tools. Menke
information on a large amount of raw D, Davis GA and Vigon BW (1996).
materials, chemicals, energy scenarios Environment Canada, Ottawa. This report
and transportation modes. Consideration can be downloaded for free from http://
should be given to system boundaries www. ec.gc.ca/ecocycle.
(do they describe the same system as you
are going to investigate?), representative Commercial software programs
ness (average or site-specific data), The thirty-seven software tools for life cycle
specificity (e.g. number of emissions), assessment in the table were identified by
and data quality (e.g. age). The database Menke et al. (1996). With the rapid develop-
should also have the possibility of storing ment in this LCA area, new models may have
and using own data as well as a future emerged, and some of the listed models may
common data format. Please note that have been released in newer versions. For
the many software databases are solely more specific information on price, data
based on paper reports which are consid- content and methodology please refer to the
erably cheaper. vendor or the reports mentioned previously.
Table 5-1
List of commercially available life cycle assessment tools (Adopted from Menke et al., 1996)
Centre of Environmental Science, CML, Thomas Gloria, Tufts University (US): http:/
Leiden (NL): http://www.leidenuniv.nl/ /www.tiac.net/users/tgloria/LCA/lca.html.
interfac/cml/lcanet/hp22.htm.
Appendix 5.1:
Database on LCA Organisations
A database has been developed in Access 2.0 Furthermore there is a total list of LCA
by dk-TEKNIK and the information referred contact persons for each organisation.
to is version 2.0 c Beta. The database is
available on EEA homepage: http://www. LCA Publications
eea.eu.int Publications on LCA by the organisations,
during the last five years, are listed in this
Content section.
The database contains information on more
than 180 organisations and on more than LCA Projects
410 contact persons working with life cycle Projects on LCA, which the organisation has
assessment. participated in, are described by titles,
content, possible partners and funders and
The building of the database is in five parts period for the project.
for each organisations:
LCA Software
Organisation Information In this section LCA software developed or
used by the organisation is shortly described.
LCA Contact Persons
Other user possibilities
LCA Publications There is a printing function for each of the
five sections and one for all the information
LCA Projects in the database.
Appendix 5.1.1:
Screen prints from the database
Appendix 5.1.1 107
108 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Appendix 5.1.2:
Print examples on organisations
gration of work environment in LCA in Fussler C.R., Griesshammer R., Jensen A.A.
Copenhagen, October 1996. (1994) Guidelines for the application of life-
cycle assessment in the European Union
Organizer of LCA sessions at SETAC-Europe ecolabelling programme. Leiden: CML,
annual Congress in 1994 and 1996. September.
Participated in SETAC Life cycle impact Jensen A.A., Hansen L.E., Jensen O.K. and
assessment workshops in Sandestin, Florida, Werther, I. (1993)Textile products. Keyfea-
February 1992. tures 3. Draft version - Restricted use. dk-
TEKNIK June.
LCA Publications:
Schmidt A. (1996). Environmental Guidance Jensen O.K., Hansen L.E. and Jensen A.A.
to public buyers. Photocopying machines. (1993) Textile products. Impact assessment
Information and background. Project for the and criteria for eco-labelling. Draft. dk-
danish EPA. December 1996. TEKNIK for the Danish EPA, December.
Mller B. Torgius (1996). Environmental Schmidt, A., Jelnes, J.E., Hansen, L.E. et al.
Guidance to public buyers. Copying paper. In: Lindfors, L.G. (editor) (1992) Health
Information and background. Project for the Impacts and Life Cycle assessment. Product
danish EPA. December 1996. life cycle assessment - principles and method-
ology. Nord 1992:9. Nordic Council of
Jensen A.A., Mller B.T., Sborg L. and Ministers, Copenhagen.
Potting J. (1996) Work Environmental Issues
in Life Cycle Assessment, LCANET Summary Stranddorf H.K., Schmidt A., Hansen L.E.,
Report, Draft, Copenhagen. Jensen A.A., Thorsen M. (1995) Thermal
Insulation Products for Walls and Roofs.
Potting, J., Mller, B.T. and Jensen, A.A.
(1996) Work environment and LCA, Stranddorf H.K., Hansen L.E., Schmidt A.,
LCANET Theme Report. Draft, dk-TEKNIK, Jensen A.A et al. Establishing fo Key Features
November. (and Criteria) Covering Full Life Cycle for
Thermal Insulation Products for Walls and
Jensen A.A. and Vigon B.W. (1995) Life cycle Roofs Based on LCA. dk-TEKNIK, Soeborg.
assessment: Data Quality and Databases
Practitioner Survey. J. Cleaner prod. 3(3): LCA Projects:
135-41. LCA Guidebook for European Environment
Agency (EEA) 1996 - 1997. LCA database
Fava J, Jensen A.A., Lindfors L., Pomper S., and a LCA Guidebook Report. dk-TEKNIK.
De Smet B., Warren J., Vigon B., eds. (1994) In co-operation with SustainAbility (United
SETAC, Life-cycle assessment data quality: a Kingdom).
conceptual framwork. Workshop report,
Wintergreen, October, 1992. Pensacola: LCANET Theme report on Work Environ-
SETAC. ment and LCA. Report on workshop in
Copenhagen, October 1996.
Grisel L., Jensen A.A., Klpffer W., Lindfors
L-G., eds. (1994) Integrating impact assess- An Environmental Informative label based
ment into LCA. Brussels: SETAC-Europe. on Life-Cycle Assessment. Project for the
Danish EPA. 1996-1997.
Schmidt, A. and Drabk, I. In: Midtgaard, U.
(editor) (1994). Integrated environmental Environmental assessment of selected
and occupational assessment of new materi- garments. In co-operation with Danish
als - the Danish Materials Technology Pro- Technological Institute, Clothing and
gramme (MUP). National Institute of Occu- Textile. A project for the Danish EPA. 1996-
pational Health, Copenhagen.
LCA Software:
Udo de Haes H.A., Bensahel J-F, Clift R., The database for the LCA Guidebook is
110 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
City: Address:
London 11 Handelskade, PO Box 133
treatment, etc. Also a lot of ecolabelling Feasibility study Ecolabel converted paper
projects were carried out, both for the Dutch products (1996) (In English). Client: The
ecolabelling body (e.g. paper products, cat European Commission.
litter, floor coverings and refrigerators) and
the EU (e.g. cleaning products, cat litter and Dutch ecolabel for envelopes (1995) (In
paper products). Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch
competent body for ecolabelling).
This text was updated in December 1996.
Dutch ecolabel for hard surface floors
LCA Publications: (1995) (In Dutch) Client: Stichting
Nijdam D.S. (1996) Ecolabel Converted Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for
Paper Products. Feasibility Study. R ecolabelling).
3449165.W02/DSN.
Dutch ecolabel for paper labels (1994/95)
LCA of zinc roof gutters, review and update (In Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur
(I English, German and Dutch) (1996). (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling).
Client: The Dutch zinc industry.
Dutch ecolabel for coffee filters (1994) (In
Product study Dyes Dyes, How green are Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch
they? (1994/95) (In Dutch). Client: Minis- competent body for ecolabelling).
try of VROM1, Directorate IBPC (Industry,
Building, Products and Consumers). Dutch ecolabel for listing paper (1994) (In
Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch
Product study Dyes and Pigments (1990/ competent body for ecolabelling).
1991) (In Dutch). Client: Ministry of VROM1,
Directorate Substances and Risk Control. Dutch ecolabel for files and ringbooks
(1994) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting
LCA of water treatment techniques (In Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for
Dutch and English) (1995). Client: Norit NV ecolabelling).
(producer of granular activated carbon).
Dutch ecolabel for copying paper (1993/
LCA of watersoil remediation techniques 1994) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting
(1994) (In Dutch). Client: RIZA2. Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for
ecolabelling).
LCA of gutter systems (1994) (In Dutch).
Client: RIZA 2 Feasibility study Dutch ecolabel for ovens
(1993) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting
LCA for a starch product vs polypropene Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for
(1993/1994) (In Dutch). Client: Ministry of ecolabelling).
VROM1, Directorate IBPC.
Dutch ecolabel for cooling- and freezing
Product study into plastic water bank rein- apparatus (1993) (In Dutch). Client:
forcement materials (1994) (In Dutch). Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch competent
Client: Ministry of VROM1, Directorate IBPC. body for ecolabelling).
Product study into xerographic paper (LCA European ecolabel cat litter, final report
and environmental performance indicator (1995) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting
case study) (1992/1993) (In Dutch) Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for
ecolabelling).
Recycling Polystyrene Cups Makes Sense!
(1992). Kunststof en Rubber 2 [Crockery/ Dutch ecolabel studies for the following
Plastic/Recycling]. In Dutch. product groups (1992) (In Dutch): -refrig-
erators; cat litter; showerheads. Client:
Publications on Ecolabeling: Ministry of VROM1.
First draft LCA floor cleaning products
(1996) (In English). Client: The European LCA Projects:
Commission. European Ecolabel bed matresses. Client:
the Greek ministry of the environment.
First draft LCA sanitary cleaning products
(1996) (In English). Client: The European European Ecolabel toilet cleaning products.
Commission. Client: The European Commission.
112 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
European Ecolabel floor cleaning products. Dutch Ecolabel cotton towel dispensers.
Client: The European Commission. Client: Stichting Milieu (Dutch competent
body for ecolabelling).
Dutch Ecolabel offsetpaper. Client: Stichting
Milieu (Dutch competent body for LCA of waste treatment systems. Client: A
ecolabelling). large waste treatment company.
Appendix 5.1.3:
Total list of organisations in the database version 1.0
(next 5 pages)
5 sider tabel i separat dokument
5 sider tabel i separat dokument
5 sider tabel i separat dokument
5 sider tabel i separat
dokument
5 sider tabel i separat dokument
119
This report has two authors from Sustain- The scientific critical review was made by
Ability Ltd, and five authors from dk-TEK- Dennis Postlethwaite, Merseyside, UK.
NIK. At the start of the project Kim Chri- Further, comments to the methodologi-
stiansen and Leif Hoffmann were employed cal chapter were received from Willi
by Krger Consult A/S. Later, Krger Con- Owens, Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnatti,
sult A/S was taken over by COWI Consulting OH, USA.
Engineers and Planners A/S. However, after
a few months at COWI the two authors The draft report was circulated for peer
moved to Sophus Berendsen A/S and dk- review to the EEA Scientific Committee
TEKNIK, respectively, and the responsibility and the EEA National Focal Points.
of finishing their project parts was trans-
ferred to dk-TEKNIK. Torben Bruun Hansen The project was wisely coordinated by
from COWI is thanked for a flexible coope- Ingvar Andersson, EEA. The website
ration. version and paper copy was coordinated
by Florus Both and Rolf Kchling, EEA.
A number of other people and organisations
have helped with this publication at various The final layout of the paper version was
stages. Their contributions are greatly made by Folkmann Design & Promotion.
appreciated:
The organisations listed in the database
The web-version of the report was made have been contacted, and they have
by Peter Holt Nielsen, and the organisa- provided corrections and amendments.
tion database programming and layout
were made by Peter Bengaard Hansen
and Jakob Geertinger, dk-TEKNIK.