Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”

Water footprinting has emerged as an important approach to assess water use related effects from consumption of goods and services. Assessment methods are proposed by two different communities, the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community. The proposed methods are broadly similar and encompass both the computation of water use and its impacts, but differ in communication of a water footprint result. In this paper, we explain the role and goal of LCA and ISO-compatible water footprinting and resolve the six issues raised by Hoekstra (2016) in “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. By clarifying the concerns, we identify both the overlapping goals in the WFN and LCA water footprint assessments and discrepancies between them. The main differing perspective between the WFN and LCA-based approach seems to relate to the fact that LCA aims to account for environmental impacts, while the WFN aims to account for water productivity of global fresh water as a limited resource. We conclude that there is potential to use synergies in research for the two approaches and highlight the need for proper declaration of the methods applied.     

Review: life cycle assessments in Nigeria,Ghana, and Ivory Coast

Purpose

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) are considered common quantitative environmental techniques to analyze the environmental impact of products and/or services throughout their entire life cycle. A few LCA studies have been conducted in West Africa. This study aimed to discuss the availability of LCA (and similar) studies in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast.

Methods

An online literature review of reports published between 2000 and 2016 was conducted using the following keywords: “life cycle assessment,” “carbon footprinting,” “water footprinting,” “environmental impact,” “Nigeria,” “Ghana” and “Ivory Coast.”

Results and discussion

A total of 31 LCA and environmental studies in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast were found; all but one were conducted after 2008. These were mainly academic and most were publicly available. The industries studied included energy sector, waste management, real estate, food sector, and others such as timber and gold. The minimal number of studies on LCAs and environmental impacts in these West African states could be because companies are failing to promote quantitative environmental studies or studies are kept internally for the use of other assessment techniques. Furthermore, it could be that academic research institutions lack cutting-edge research resources for LCA, environmental impact, carbon, and water footprinting studies.

Conclusions

Further quantitative environmental studies should be conducted in Nigeria, Ghana, and Ivory Coast to increase the understanding of environmental impacts. In these countries, the existence of LCA studies (and by association the localized life cycle inventory (LCI) datasets) is crucial as more companies request this information to feed into background processes.

     

环境足迹的核算与整合框架——基于生命周期评价的视角

环境足迹及其与生命周期评价(LCA)的关系是工业生态学关注的新热点。从探讨环境足迹与LCA的关系入手,以碳足迹、水足迹、土地足迹和材料足迹为例,分别对每一项足迹指标两个版本的核算方法进行了比较。根据清单加和过程的特点,将所有足迹指标划分为基于权重因子和基于特征因子两类,总结了两者的适用性和局限性。在此基础上提出了一个环境足迹核算与整合的统一框架。该框架基于LCA视角建立,但对系统边界和清单数据的要求相对灵活,因而也适用于生命周期不甚明确的情形。研究在一定程度上揭示了足迹指标的方法学实质,同时也为环境影响综合评估提供了一条规范化的途径。     

Potential for industrial ecology to support healthcare sustainability: Scoping review of a fragmented literature and conceptual framework for future research

Healthcare is a critical service sector with a sizable environmental footprint from both direct activities and the indirect emissions of related products and infrastructure. As in all other sectors, the “inside‐out” environmental impacts of healthcare (e.g., from greenhouse gas emissions, smog‐forming emissions, and acidifying emissions) are harmful to public health. The environmental footprint of healthcare is subject to upward pressure from several factors, including the expansion of healthcare services in developing economies, global population growth, and aging demographics. These factors are compounded by the deployment of increasingly sophisticated medical procedures, equipment, and technologies that are energy‐ and resource‐intensive. From an “outside‐in” perspective, on the other hand, healthcare systems are increasingly susceptible to the effects of climate change, limited resource access, and other external influences. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of the existing literature on environmental issues and other sustainability aspects in healthcare, based on a representative sample from over 1,700 articles published between 1987 and 2017. To guide our review of this fragmented literature, and to build a conceptual foundation for future research, we developed an industrial ecology framework for healthcare sustainability. Our framework conceptualizes the healthcare sector as comprising “foreground systems” of healthcare service delivery that are dependent on “background product systems.” By mapping the existing literature onto our framework, we highlight largely untapped opportunities for the industrial ecology community to use “top‐down” and “bottom‐up” approaches to build an evidence base for healthcare sustainability.     

Improving odour assessment in LCA—the odour footprint

Purpose

Odour is an important aspect of systems for human and agricultural waste management and many technologies are developed with the sole purpose of reducing odour. Compared with greenhouse gas assessment and the assessment of toxicity, odour assessment has received little attention in the life cycle assessment (LCA) community. This article aims to redress this.

Methods

Firstly, a framework for the assessment of odour impacts in LCA was developed considering the classical LCA framework of emissions, midpoint and endpoint indicators. This suggested that an odour footprint midpoint indicator was worth striving for. An approach to calculating an areal indicator we call “odour footprint”, which considers the odour detection threshold, the diffusion rate and the kinetics of degradation of odourants, was implemented in MATLAB. We demonstrated the use of the characterisation factors we calculated in a case study based on odour removal technology applied to a pig barn.

Results and discussion

We produced a list of 33 linear characterisation factors based on hydrogen sulphide equivalents, analogous to the linear carbon dioxide equivalency factors in use in carbon footprinting, or the dichlorobenzene equivalency factors developed for assessment of toxic impacts in LCA. Like the latter, this odour footprint method does not take local populations and exposure pathway analysis into account—its intent is not to assess regulatory compliance or detailed design. The case study showed that despite the need for materials and energy, large factor reductions in odour footprint and eutrophication potential were achieved at the cost of a smaller factor increase in greenhouse emissions.

Conclusions

The odour footprint method is proposed as an improvement on the established midpoint method for odour assessment in LCA. Unlike it, the method presented here considers the persistence of odourants. Over time, we hope to increase the number of characterised odourants, enabling analysts to perform simple site-generic LCA on systems with odourant emissions.     

Are future recycling benefits misleading? Prospective life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries

Life cycle assessment (LCA) quantifies the whole-life environmental impacts of products and is essential for helping policymakers and manufacturers transition toward sustainable practices. However, typical LCA estimates future recycling benefits as if it happens today. For long-lived products such as lithium-ion batteries, this may be misleading since there is a considerable time gap between production and recycling. To explore this temporal mismatch problem, we apply future electricity scenarios from an integrated assessment model—IMAGE—using “premise” in Brightway2 to conduct a prospective LCA (pLCA) on the global warming potential of six battery chemistries and four recycling routes. We find that by 2050, electricity decarbonization under an RCP2.6 scenario mitigates production impacts by 57%, so to reach zero-carbon batteries it is important to decarbonize upstream heat, fuels, and direct emissions. For the best battery recycling case, data for 2020 gives a net recycling benefit of −22 kg CO₂e kWh⁻¹ which reduces the net impact of production and recycling from 71 to 49 kg CO₂e kWh⁻¹. However, for recycling in 2040 with decarbonized electricity, net recycling benefits would be nearly 75% lower (−6 kg CO₂e kWh⁻¹), giving a net impact of 65 kg CO₂e kWh⁻¹. This is because materials recycled in the future substitute lower-impact processes due to expected electricity decarbonization. Hence, more focus should be placed on mitigating production impacts today instead of relying on future recycling. These findings demonstrate the importance of pLCA in tackling problems such as temporal mismatch that are difficult to capture in typical LCA.     

A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA

The water footprint (WF) has been developed within the water resources research community as a volumetric measure of freshwater appropriation. The concept is used to assess water use along supply chains, sustainability of water use within river basins, efficiency of water use, equitability of water allocation and dependency on water in the supply chain. With the purpose of integrating the WF in life cycle assessment of products, LCA scholars have proposed to weight the original volumetric WF by the water scarcity in the catchment where the WF is located, thus obtaining a water-scarcity weighted WF that reflects the potential local environmental impact of water consumption. This paper provides an elaborate critique on this proposal. The main points are: (1) counting litres of water use differently based on the level of local water scarcity obscures the actual debate about water scarcity, which is about allocating water resources to competing uses and depletion at a global scale; (2) the neglect of green water consumption ignores the fact that green water is scarce as well; (3) since water scarcity in a catchment increases with growing overall water consumption in the catchment, multiplication of the consumptive water use of a specific process or activity with water scarcity implies that the resultant weighted WF of a process or activity will be affected by the WFs of other processes or activities, which cannot be the purpose of an environmental performance indicator; (4) the LCA treatment of the WF is inconsistent with how other environmental footprints are defined; and (5) the Water Stress Index, the most cited water scarcity metric in the LCA community, lacks meaningful physical interpretation. It is proposed to incorporate the topic of freshwater scarcity in LCA as a “natural resource depletion” category, considering depletion from a global perspective. Since global freshwater demand is growing while global freshwater availability is limited, it is key to measure the comparative claim of different products on the globe's limited accessible and usable freshwater flows.     

Review: life-cycle assessment,water footprinting,and carbon footprinting in Portugal

Purpose

A review of readily available quantitative environmental data was conducted in order to determine the state of sustainability reporting and identify possible future research areas in Portugal.

Methods

Internet searches of articles written in English and published between 2001 and 2015 were conducted using the keywords “life-cycle assessment,” “LCA,” “water footprint,” “carbon footprint,” and “Portugal.” Additionally, reports from the Global Reporting Initiative (2015 only) were included in the search.

Results and discussion

It was found that 79% of reports found were published in the period 2011–2015. Several reports were found for the forestry, paper and pulp, food and beverage, energy and electricity, waste management, and automotive industries, while no reports were found for the textile, footwear and clothing, and base metal and mineral industries. As such, these are industries on which future studies might focus. No reports found were published by governmental organizations, although it is thought that expanding the search to include Portuguese language results would yields more results. The majority (68%) of companies reporting to the GRI adhered to the relevant guidelines.

Conclusions

A total of 72 reports were found (41 LCAs, water- or carbon footprints, and 31 GRI reports). It is unclear if there are other reports that may be restricted to “hidden” datasets or company specific archives. The aim of this report was to highlight those that were available to a non-specialist or international audiences trying to gain a greater understanding of the LCA space in Portugal.

     

Life Cycle Attribute Assessment

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) have recently turned their attention to social issues in the supply chain. The United Nations life cycle initiative's social LCA task force has completed its guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, and awareness of managing upstream corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues has risen due to the growing popularity of LCA. This article explores one approach to assessing social issues in the supply chain—life cycle attribute assessment (LCAA). The approach was originally proposed by Gregory Norris in 2006, and we present here a case study. LCAA builds on the theoretical structure of environmental LCA to construct a supply chain model. Instead of calculating quantitative impacts, however, it asks the question “What percentage of my supply chain has attribute X?” X may represent a certification from a CSR body or a self‐defined attribute, such as “is locally produced.” We believe LCAA may serve as an aid to discussions of how current and popular CSR indicators may be integrated into a supply chain model. The case study demonstrates the structure of LCAA, which is very similar to that of traditional environmental LCA. A labor hours data set was developed as a satellite matrix to determine number of worker hours in a greenhouse tomato supply. Data from the Quebec tomato producer were used to analyze how the company performed on eight sample LCAA indicators, and conclusions were drawn about where the company should focus CSR efforts.     

Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustainability

The cradle‐to‐cradle (C2C) concept has emerged as an alternative to the more established eco‐efficiency concept based on life cycle assessment (LCA). The two concepts differ fundamentally in that eco‐efficiency aims to reduce the negative environmental footprint of human activities while C2C attempts to increase the positive footprint. This article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each concept and suggests how they may learn from each other. The eco‐efficiency concept involves no long‐term vision or strategy, the links between resource consumption and waste emissions are not well related to the sustainability state, and increases in eco‐efficiency may lead to increases in consumption levels and hence overall impact. The C2C concept's disregard for energy efficiency means that many current C2C products will likely not perform well in an LCA. Inherent drawbacks are restrictions on the development of new materials posed by the ambition of continuous loop recycling, the perception that human interactions with nature can benefit all parts of all ecosystems, and the hinted compatibility with continued economic growth. Practitioners of eco‐efficiency can benefit from the visions of C2C to avoid a narrow‐minded focus on the eco‐efficiency of products that are inherently unsustainable. Moreover, resource efficiency and positive environmental effects could be included more strongly in LCA. Practitioners of C2C on the other hand should recognize the value of LCA in addressing trade‐offs between resource conservation and energy use. Also, when designing a “healthy emission” it should be recognized that it will often have an adverse effect on parts of the exposed ecosystem.     

Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?

The aim of this paper is to investigate whether countries tend to relocate their ecological footprint as they grow richer. The analysis is carried out for a panel of 116 countries by employing the production and import components of the ecological footprint data of the Global Footprint Network for the period 2004–2008. With few exceptions, the existing Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) literature concentrates only on the income-environmental degradation nexus in the home country and neglects the negative consequences of home consumption spilled out. Controlling for the effects of openness to trade, biological capacity, population density, industry share and energy per capita as well as stringency of environmental regulation and environmental regulation enforcement, we detect an EKC-type relationship only between per capita income and footprint of domestic production. Within the income range, import footprint is found to be monotonically increasing with income. Moreover, we find that domestic environmental regulations do not influence country decisions to import environmentally harmful products from abroad; but they do affect domestic production characteristics. Hence, our findings indicate the importance of environmental regulations and provide support for the “Pollution Haven” and “Race-to-the-Bottom” hypotheses.     

Fast Carbon Footprinting for Large Product Portfolios

Publicly Available Specification 2050‐2011 (PAS 2050), the Green House Gas Product Protocol (GHGPP) standard and forthcoming guideline 14067 from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) have helped to propel carbon footprinting from a subdiscipline of life cycle assessment (LCA) to the mainstream. However, application of carbon footprinting to large portfolios of many distinct products and services is immensely resource intensive. Even if achieved, it often fails to inform company‐wide carbon reduction strategies because footprint data are disjointed or don't cover the whole portfolio. We introduce a novel approach to generate standard‐compliant product carbon footprints (CFs) for companies with large portfolios at a fraction of previously required time and expertise. The approach was developed and validated on an LCA dataset covering 1,137 individual products from a global packaged consumer goods company. Three novel techniques work in concert in a single approach that enables practitioners to calculate thousands of footprints virtually simultaneously: (i) a uniform data structure enables footprinting all products and services by looping the same algorithm; (ii) concurrent uncertainty analysis guides practitioners to gradually improve the accuracy of only those data that materially impact the results; and (iii) a predictive model generates estimated emission factors (EFs) for materials, thereby eliminating the manual mapping of a product or service's inventory to EF databases. These autogenerated EFs enable non‐LCA experts to calculate approximate CFs and alleviate resource constraints for companies embarking on large‐scale product carbon footprinting. We discuss implementation roadmaps for companies, including further road‐testing required to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach for other product portfolios, limitations, and future improvements of the fast footprinting methodology.     

Life cycle assessment comparison of wooden and plastic pallets in the grocery industry

Wooden and plastic pallets are used extensively in global trade to transport finished goods and products. This article compares the life cycle performance of treated wooden and plastic pallets through a detailed cradle‐to‐grave life cycle assessment (LCA), and conducts an analysis of the various phytosanitary treatments. The LCA investigates and evaluates the environmental impacts due to the resources consumed and emissions of the product throughout its life cycle. The environmental impacts of the pallets are compared on a one‐trip basis and a 100,000‐trips basis. Impact categories are chosen with respect to environmental concerns. The results show that on a one‐trip basis, wooden pallets with conventional and radio frequency (RF) heat treatment incur an overall carbon footprint of 71.8% and 80.3% lower, respectively, than plastic pallets during their life cycle; and in comparison with wooden pallets treated with methyl bromide fumigation, they incur 20% and 30% less overall carbon footprint. Theoretical calculations of the resource consumption and emissions of RF treatment of pallets suggest that dielectric technology may provide a lower‐carbon alternative to both current ISPM 15‐approved treatments and to plastic pallets. Methyl bromide fumigation (15.95 kg CO₂ equivalent [eq.]) has a larger carbon footprint than conventional heat treatment (12.69 kg CO₂ eq.) of pallets. For the 100,000‐trips basis, the differences are even more significant. The results recommend that wooden pallets are more environmentally friendly than plastic pallets, and conventional and RF heat treatment for wooden pallets is more sustainable than methyl bromide fumigation treatment.     

Screening LCA of torrent control structures in Austria

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to find a suitable life cycle assessment (LCA) method to quantify the most important environmental burdens caused by construction processes of torrent control structures. To find these environmental burdens, 17 construction projects of the “Austrian Service for Torrent and Avalanche Control” (WLV) were analyzed using the “cradle to gate with options” LCA methodology (CEN, 2013).

Methods

This article explains an LCA methodology for the product stage and the construction process of torrent control structures following existing standards. The iterative approach of LCA methodology (ISO, 2006a) was used to record all important processes of the system and to supplement missing information. The LCA methodology has been developed from existing standards of the construction and product sector. Since the production of some construction materials takes place locally, the generic data, for Austria, was adapted. Wood inherent biogenic carbon and primary energy, used as raw material, are treated as materials inherent properties (CEN, 2014). The contribution of the various processes was reproduced by hotspot.

Results and discussion

Hotspots of the different stages are related to the construction materials used. The emissions and primary energy inputs in the product stage are clearly dominated by concrete and steel. If these two materials are used sparingly, the focus is on machine application and transportation. Depending on the selected scenarios, the smallest share of emissions, in relation to the total result of product and construction stage emitted by transport, is 3% and the maximum share is 69%. The greatest environmental impacts in the construction stage are caused by excavation work and transportation on-site. With an average of 4% in the construction stage, the transport of workers to the construction site cannot be neglected as is done in the building sector.

Conclusions

The conclusion of this study is that existing LCA models can be adapted to protective structures. In contrast to conventional buildings, the construction process and transportation are much more important and cannot be neglected. Shifting the hotspots to these processes requires specific calculation rules for that particular field. There is still a need for research to find a suitable functional unit and to develop a methodology for the use and end of life stage of these structures.

     

Hotspot Scenario Analysis

Increasingly, organizations are working to reduce the environmental footprint of their supply chains. The use of environmentally preferable purchasing criteria is one strategy organizations use to address this goal. However, evaluating the environmental performance of these criteria (e.g., recycled content, biodegradable, renewable, and so on) has remained elusive. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can measure the impact reduction potential of sourcing strategies. However, full process‐based LCAs are time‐consuming and costly across multiple criteria of thousands of products and inputs purchased in an organizational setting. A streamlined “hotspot” methodology is presented using a combination of environmentally extended economic input‐output (EEIO) approaches and extant literature to identify hotspots in which to constrain a parameterized process‐based LCA. A case study of breakfast cereal manufacturing is developed to (1) assess the efficiencies associated with the hotspotting approach and (2) demonstrate its applicability in generating comparable decision signals of environmentally preferable sourcing criteria for procurement and supply‐chain managers along the dimensions of global warming potential and water use.     

Sensitivity of the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk to greenhouse gas metrics

Milk production is responsible for emitting a range of greenhouse gases (GHGs), mainly carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and methane (CH₄). In Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), the Global Warming Potential with a time horizon of 100 years (GWP100) is used almost universally to aggregate emissions of individual gases into so-called CO₂-equivalent emissions that are used to calculate the overall carbon footprint of milk production. However, there is growing awareness that, depending on the purpose of the LCA, metrics other than GWP100 could be justified and some would give a very different weighting for the short-lived gas CH₄ relative to the long-lived gases CO₂ and N₂O when calculating the carbon footprint. Pastoral dairy production systems at different levels of intensification differ in the balance of short- and long-lived GHGs associated with on- and off-farm emissions. Differences in the carbon footprint of different production systems could therefore be highly sensitive to the choice of GHG metric. Here we explore the extent to which alternative GHG metric choices would alter the carbon footprint of New Zealand milk production at different levels of intensification at national, regional and individual farm scales and compared to the carbon footprint of milk of selected European countries. We find that the ranking of different production systems and individual farms in terms of their carbon footprint is relatively robust against the choice of GHG metric, despite significant differences in their utilisation of pastures versus supplementary off-farm feed, fertiliser use and energy consumption at various stages of farm operations. However, there are instances where alternative GHG metric choices would fundamentally change the conclusions of LCA of different production systems, including whether a move towards higher or lower input systems would increase or decrease the average carbon footprint of milk production in New Zealand. Greater transparency about the implications of alternative GHG metrics for LCA, and the often inadvertent and implicit value judgements embedded in these metrics, would help ensure that policy decisions and consumer choices based on LCA indeed deliver the climate outcomes intended by end-users.     

Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment?

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