Life cycle management: UNEP-workshop

On August 30, 2001, the first in a series of planned global workshops on Life Cycle Management was organized in Copenhagen by UNEP in cooperation with dk-TEKNIK. The workshop provided an international forum to share experiences on LCM. The specific purpose of the workshop was to define the focus of a possible UNEP programme on Life Cycle Management under the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Life Cycle Management has been defined by the SETAC Europe Working Group on LCM as an integrated framework of concepts, techniques and procedures to address environmental, economic, technological and social aspects of products and organizations to achieve continuous environmental improvement from a life cycle perspective. Life Cycle Management has been requested as an additional component for the Life Cycle Initiative by business organizations as well as governments in order to provide practical approaches for management systems in this area. The breakout groups of the workshop focussed on the role of integrating environmental management practices, concepts and tools in a life cycle perspective, on the integration of socio-economic aspects of sustainability in life cycle approaches, including the definition of adequate indicators for these aspects, on the communication strategies to promote life cycle thinking, and on the demand side of LCA. The workshop closed with a consensus that the UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative should really include a programme on Life Cycle Management with the proposed areas of work. UNEP in cooperation with SETAC should function as a global catalyser of knowledge transfer and cooperation on life cycle approaches. The key issue behind all activities would be the promotion of Life Cycle Thinking since all break-out groups mentioned the importance of well-prepared communication strategies. Another interesting outcome of the workshop is the clear interest of different stakeholders in the consideration of social and institutional effects of products, in addition to environmental and economic impacts, i.e. a sustainable development perspective.     

LCA in Japan: policy and progress

A summary of the current Japanese activities related to Life Cycle Assessment are presented with a specific comparison of Life Cycle Impact Assessment in relation to European tendencies. Japanese organizations involved in LCA, recent legislation impacting LCA activities and LCA case studies are also tabulated. The LCA priorities of policy makers and industrialists are discussed in comparison and compared to those in the United States. Projects within the Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan and the Man-Earth Project are highlighted including the construction of a public LCI data base and the prediction of 21st century environmental crises.     

Critical review: a summary of the current state-of-practice

Purpose

Much collective wisdom and experience have been gained as an increasing number of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reviews are conducted. However, specifics on how and when to conduct critical review of LCA studies are still lacking. Toward this need, a technical session entitled “LCA Critical Review” was held during the Life Cycle Management (LCM) conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 26 August 2013. The goal of the session was to have experts address LCA critical review as well as engage attendees in discussing gaps in the current guidance and how the review process can be improved.

Methods

The LCM session consisted of six presentations followed by open discussion with all session attendees. This paper begins with a review of the current state-of-the-practice in LCA critical review (CR) followed by a summary of the LCM session. It concludes with suggestions for how the newly drafted technical specification, ISO TS 14071 Critical review processes and reviewer competencies, can be improved as it is being developed.

Results and discussion

ISO TS 14071 promises to provide additional guidance to move the practice forward. But at only eight pages in length, its potential effectiveness appears moderate. Additional detailed guidance is needed to move the critical review process toward increased uniformity and clarity of practice, for example, when critical review is necessary.

Conclusions

A session on LCA critical review is planned to be held during the Life Cycle Management 2015 conference which will occur in Bordeaux, France (http://lcm2015.org/). Discussion on these issues related to LCA review will be continued.     

From life cycle talking to taking action

Introduction  

The biannual Life Cycle Management conference series aims to create a platform for users and developers of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and related tools to share their experiences. A key concern of the LCM community has been to move beyond the production of LCA reports toward using the developed knowledge. This paper reports and evaluates some of the main outcomes of the 4th International Life Cycle Management Conference (LCM 2009).     

Are life cycle assessments a threat to sound public policy making?

This paper deals with the question of whether Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), with their focus on objective and quantitative results, are the best way to support public policy processes. The public policy making process is characterized as a continuous discoursive struggle. Criteria are defined to distinguish between good and bad public policy discourses to judge the effects of LCA on the public policy process. Many policy scientists argue that methodologies that emphasize quantification and the use of formal methods are not beneficial for sound public policy making. An empirical report of the role LCAs played in public policy making processes on PVC and chlorine in the Netherlands is made to evaluate the contribution of LCAs to public policy making processes and to identify the main limitations of the current LCA methodologies and practices. It appears that political actors tend to use LCAs in a polarizing way. LCAs are easily misused due to their apparent objectivity, and the quantitative and black box nature of their results. LCAs contain an implicit, normative frame that does not match the environmentalists’ perception on the kind of evidence needed on toxic effects of organochlorines, which reduced the open nature of the Dutch PVC debate. It is recommended to develop a methodology for product evaluation that approaches the issue in a more open and emergent way to prevent “premature closure” of the analysis. It is expected that a focus on the development of balanced, rich arguments on facts and values in the study process will be more fruitful than the calculation of integral, quantitative indicators.     

Life cycle profit optimization a business opportunity

Life Cycle Profitability combines financial data, and forecasts, with market research to guide pricing decisions and to evaluate the cash flow consequences of goods and services. The ratio of direct and indirect costs, as well as the premium customers are willing to pay for “green” products, provide a quantitative means to identify business and environmental opportunities. Life Cycle Profitability is developed to fit into existing organizational structures permitting firms to protect asset value, reduce legal defense and liability costs, quantify make-or-buy decisions, and aid in ecodesign and new product introduction. It aims at the interface between accounting, legal, marketing, production and EHS divisions. This paper develops “Life Cycle Profitability” as a tool based on measurables which exist within organizations. In this sense, Life Cycle Profitability is an evolutionary means to conduct business practice under scenarios where envirotechnical imperatives compliment short term financial necessities and strategic planning initiatives. The author aims to demonstrate that Life Cycle Profitability is a more meaningful method, and indicator, than non-cost based ecometrics and can compliment the qualitative continuous improvement accounting methods advocated by EMS and ISO 14000 standards, as well as by the Integrated Product Policy initiative     

ILCD Handbook Public Consultation Workshop

Introduction

The European Commission is supporting the development of the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD). This consists primarily of the ILCD Handbook and the ILCD Data Network. This paper gives an insight into the scientific positions of business, governments, consultants, academics, and others that were expressed at this public consultation workshop.

Workshop focus

The workshop focused on four of the topics of the main guidance documents of the ILCD Handbook: (1) general guidance on life cycle assessment (LCA); (2) guidance for generic and average life cycle inventory (LCI) data sets; (3) requirements for environmental impact assessment methods, models and indicators for LCA; and (4) review schemes for LCA.

Workshop participation

This consultation workshop was attended by more than 120 participants during the 4 days of the workshop. Representatives came from 23 countries, from both within and outside the European Union.

Workshop structure

Approximately half of the participants were from business associations or individual companies. Another 20% were governmental representatives. Others came predominantly from consultancies and academia.

Results

This public consultation workshop provided valuable inputs into the overall ILCD Handbook developments as well as for further development. This paper focuses on some of the main scientific issues that were raised.     

The formulation of life cycle impact assessment framework for Malaysia using Eco-indicator

Background, aim, and scope  

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an emerging supporting tool designed to help practitioner in systematically assessing the environmental performance of selected product’s life cycle. A product’s life cycle includes the extraction of raw materials, production, and usage, and ends with waste treatment or disposal. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) as a part of LCA is a method used to derive the environmental burdens from selected product’s stages. LCIA is structured in classification, characterization, normalization and weighting. Presently most of the LCIA practices use European database to establish the characterization, normalization and weighting value. However, using these values for local LCA practice might not be able to reflect the actual Malaysian’s environmental scenario. The aim of this study is to create a Malaysian version of normalization and weighting value using the pollution database within Malaysia.     

In reply to hertwich & pease, Int. J. LCA 3 (4) 180 — 181, “ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment”

Life Cycle Impact Assessment describes indicators and does not predict actual impacts. The value of an LCA is its comprehensive review of all stages of a product’s life cycle and its synoptic view of all relevant environmental issues. The current version of the 14042 draft describes the uniqueness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment approach which is distinct from other assessment techniques. The wording was designed to help users of the standard understand how and why LCIA is distinct from other assessment methods. In closing, we would like to highlight our opinion that the present document on the level of a DIS is sound, stable and practical within the ISO 14040 series of standards. We do not agree withHertwich & Pease that the present document prevents the use of LCIA. It makes a choice regarding the exclusion of weighting across categories in order to prevent misuse in deriving inappropriate claims. And for characterisation it has achieved a well founded synthesis. In addition, we strongly believe that this standard will stimulate the international scientific discussion of LCA and will substantially contribute to enhanced and more valuable applications of LCA in the future.     

Life Cycle Assessments for Waste, Part III: The Case of Paint Packaging Separation and General Conclusions

This is the final paper of a series of three on the use of LCA in a strategic EIA made for the second Dutch National Hazardous Waste Management Plan (NHWMP). A comparison of two options for paint packaging waste separation is given: cryogenic versus shredder-flush separation. The high liquid nitrogen use in the cryogenic process, and particularly the energy needed to produce it, tends to make the cryogenic process environmentally less favourable. As for the other technology comparisons in the EIA, no particular problems arose. The EIA passed its peer review successfully and survived a very extensive public review procedure, in spite of the fact that it supported decisions involving very high financial stakes. Several lessons can be learned from this experience. First, LCA is a suitable tool in strategic EIAs on waste. Second, time-consuming, interactive public participation in LCA is no precondition for public acceptance — a process ofstakeholder deliberation that ensures that the practitioner knows the relevant perspective is enough. Third, high decision stakes do not automatically demand very extensive LCA work. Our experience shows that LCAs just above screening level can provide robust support to decisions involving dozens of million Euros. More extensive work would not have lead to more specified preferences. Rather, in our view, being well aware of the key discussion points in advance which are seen as relevant for the comparison by stakeholders, and having good insight in the related inherent limits of LCA, is the key to optimal decision support with LCA.     

German network on life cycle inventory data

Reliability of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results depends on the availability and quality of Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data. In order to provide high-quality LCI data for background systems in LCA and to make it applicable to a wider range of fields, harmonization strategies for already existing datasets and databases are required. In view of the high significance of LCI data as a basis of major fields of action within a sustainability strategy, the German Helmholtz Association (HGF), under the leadership of the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (FZK) has taken up this issue in its research programme. In 2002, the FZK conducted a preliminary study on ‘Quality Assurance and User-oriented Supply of a Life Cycle Inventory Data’ funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Within the framework of this study, a long-term concept for improving the scientific fundamentals and practical use of LCI data was developed in association with external experts. The focus is on establishing a permanent German ‘Network on Life Cycle Inventory Data’ which will serve as the German information and cooperation platform for all scientific and non-scientific actors in the field of life cycle analysis. This network will integrate expertise on LCA in Germany, harmonise methodology and data, and use the comprehensive expert panel as an efficient basis for further scientific development and practical use of LCA. At the same time, this network will serve as a platform for cooperation on an international level. Current developments address methodological definitions for the initial information infrastructure. As a novel element, user needs are differentiated in parallel according to the broad application fields of LCI-data from product declaration to process design. Case studies will be used to define tailored interfaces for the database, since different data quality levels will be encountered.     

Experiences and thoughts about life cycle assessment in the automotive industry in Japan

Experiences with-Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the Japanese Automotive Industry and the author’s thoughts on how to apply LCA for automobiles are described. In this paper, LCA applications are categorized into three types:

Measuring Garbage: Three Books and Three Perspectives on Solid Waste Management

Book reviewed in this article:
Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, byForbes R. McDougall, Peter R. White1, Marina Franke1, andPeter Hindlel
Solid Waste Engineering, by P. Aarne Vesilind1, William A. Worrell, and Debra R. Reinhart1
Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash, by Elizabeth Roytel     

“Less is better” and “only above threshold”: Two incompatible paradigms for human toxicity in life cycle assessment?

The absence of spatial and temporal information in the data from a typical Life Cycle Inventory puts constraints on the possibilities of subsequent Life Cycle Impact Assessment to predict actual impact. Usual methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment (often referred to as “less is better” methods) make only limited use of spatial and temporal information, because they predict concentration increases rather than full concentrations. As a consequence it does not seem possible to evaluate whether a threshold value is surpassed. The resulting poor accordance between the predicted impact and the expected occurrence of actual impact is a major problem. This problem is particularly relevant for human toxicity assessment, since the probability of surpassing thresholds here traditionally is the main point of attention. A considerable group of practitioners suggests to follow an “only above threshold” principle by introduction of assessment tools from risk assessment and environmental impact assessment in LCA. Intensive debate is going on about possibilities and limitations of “less is better” and “only above threshold”. The debate is obscured by two underlying discussions (about no-effect-levels and about data-availability) that are partly, but not fully intertwined. Both principles tend to be given fixed positions in these discussions, and are therefore often put forward as fundamentally different and incompatible with each other. This article entwines the discussions, shows parallels between both principles, and uses these parallels to present a new method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment of human toxicity from air emissions that — with limited data requirement from Life Cycle Inventory — can take as well threshold evaluation and spatial source-differentiation into account.     

Distribution of environmental performance in life cycle assessments—implications for environmental benchmarking

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment - Life cycle assessment (LCA) is considered a robust method to analyse the environmental impacts of products and is used in public and private...     

Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: Integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA

Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as ‘egalitarian’, ‘individualistic’, and ‘hierarchic’. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.     

Analysis of the potential for a comprehensive approach towards LCA and EMS in Japan

Sustainable development can only be achieved if industry adoptsboth product related and organisation related environmental management tools, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). In Japan, EMS (ISO 14001) is more widely applied than LCA (ISO 14040). Therefore,one means by which Japanese industries could be motivated to adopt and use LCA is to relate LCA-activities to the policies and instruments of ISO 14001. The potential of such a comprehensive approach was analysed by a survey of 270 Japanese enterprises (response rate 45%). The results indicate that 19% of the responding representatives had responsibilities for both LCA and EMS, while the remaining only work in one of both fields. A statement in the company’s/ plant’s Environmental Policy of ISO 14001, stating that LCA is to be used as part of the EMS, was found in 42% of all companies. A surprising number (39%) either already use, or plan to use, LCA and EMS as combinated/integrated tools. A strong argument for the establishment of a comprehensive approach can be seen in the perception of the usefulness of LCA, which was rated significantly higher in companies that acknowledged the complementary potential of LCA and EMS.     

Modelling the Valuesphere and the Ecosphere: Integrating the Decision Makers' Perspectives into LCA

Methods for Life Cycle Impact Assessment have to cope with two critical aspects, the uncertainty in values and the (unknown) system behaviour. LCA methodology should cope explicitly with these subjective elements. A structured aggregation procedure is proposed that differentiates between the technosphere and the ecosphere and embeds them in the valuesphere. LCA thus becomes a decision support system that models and combines these three spheres. We introduce three structurally identical types of LCA, each based on one coherent but different set of values. These sets of values can be derived from the Cultural Theory and are labeled as ‘egalitarian’, ‘individualistic’, and ‘hierarchic’. Within Life Cycle Impact Assessment, a damage oriented assessment model is complemented with both a newly developed precautionary indicator designed to address unknown damage and an indicator for the manageability of environmental damages. The indicators for unknown damage and for manageability complete the set of indicators judged to be relevant by decision makers. The weights given to these indicators are also value-dependent. The framework proposed here answers the criticisms that present LCA methodology does not strictly enough separate subjective from objective elements and that it fails to accurately model environmental impacts.     

Current activities of the national LCA project in Japan

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) has launched a national project, ‘Development of Assessment Technology of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Products’ (commonly known as the LCA Project). The activities of this project will be continued for 5 yeas since fiscal 1998 with an overall budget of total 850 million yen. The LCA Project aims to develop a highly reliable LCA database and LCA methodology which can be readily used throughout Japan. In this paper, the overall plans and current activities of project are indicated.     

Introducing the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets for subcategories of social LCA

Purpose  

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