Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps: a late report from a UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative workshop and a few updates from recent developments

Purpose

The paper provides a late report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative workshop “Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)—where we are, trends, and next steps;” it embeds this report into recent development with regard to the envisaged development of global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators and related methodologies.

Methods

The document is the output of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s workshop on “Life Cycle Impact Assessment—where we are, trends, and next steps.” The presentations and discussions held during the workshop reviewed the first two phases of the Life Cycle Initiative and provided an overview of current LCIA activities being conducted by the Initiative, governments and academia, as well as corporate approaches. The outcomes of the workshop are reflected in light of the implementation of the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative.

Results

The range of views provided during the workshop indicated different user needs, with regards to, amongst other things, the required complexity of the LCIA methodology, associated costs, and the selection of LCIA categories depending on environmental priorities. The workshop’s results signified a number of potential focus areas for Phase 3 of the Initiative, including capacity building efforts concerning LCIA in developing countries and emerging economies, the preparation of training materials on LCIA, the production of global guidance on LCIA, and the potential development of a broader sustainability indicators framework.

Conclusions

These suggestions have been taken into account in the strategy for Phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative in two flagship projects, one on global capability development on life cycle approaches and the other on global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators. In the context of the latter project, first activities are being organized and planned. Moreover, UNEP has included the recommendations in its Rio + 20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and SETAC through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.     

Global guidance principles for life cycle assessment databases: development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication

Purpose

The paper introduces the publication on “Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases”; it focuses on the development of training material and other implementation activities on the publication.

Methods

The document is the output of the “Shonan Guidance Principles” workshop. The publication provides guidance principles for life cycle assessment (LCA) databases; this includes how to collect raw data, how to develop datasets, and how to manage databases. The publication also addresses questions concerning data documentation and review, coordination among databases, capacity building, and future scenarios. As a next step, the publication is used to prepare training material and other implementation activities.

Results

The publication was launched at the LCM 2011 Conference. Since then outreach activities have been organized in particular in emerging economies. Further developments with regard to the guidance principles are foreseen as part of a flagship project within phase 3 of the Life Cycle Initiative. Training material is being developed that will include how to set up databases and develop datasets. The topic has been taken up by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in its Rio?+?20 Voluntary Commitments: UNEP and Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) through the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative commit to facilitate improved access to good quality life cycle data and databases as well as expanded use of key environmental indicators that allows the measurement and monitoring of progress towards the environmental sustainability of selected product chains.

Conclusions

The adoption of the “Global Guidance Principles” publication as a de facto global standard is expected to facilitate the work of database teams, especially, in developing countries, and the collaboration in regional networks. These efforts are supported by the development of training material and other implementation activities.     

The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.019

Background

Life cycle assessments have been performed using different methods before the name was coined since about 1970 in several countries of North America and Europe. It was the merit of SETAC to start a standardization process which culminated in the LCA-guidelines ('A code of practice') in 1993. It is the aim of this paper to trace back this and further LCA-related achievements by SETAC on the basis of documents and personal memories. It may be subjective in the selection and weighting of some events, but objectivity is strived for with regard to the whole and, in my view, singular development.

Results and Discussion

Starting 1990 with two workshops in Smuggler's Notch (Vermont) and Leuven (Belgium), SETAC and SETAC Europe organized several workshops during which important topics (framework, impact assessment, data quality, etc.) were treated and published in the form of reports which are still available. The main contribution by CML and its head, Helias Udo de Haes, was a practical method of impact assessment, transforming the formerly more technocratic LCA (energy, resources, waste) into an instrument of environmental assessment of product systems. In addition, important contributions to the allocation problem were made. Starting in 1993, ISO took over the leadership in standardization and SETAC started the famous working groups in North America and Europe, often dealing with the same topics in parallel. Due to the different cultures, the results were frequently complimentary rather than harmonic. The CML-method of LCIA, widely accepted in Europe, had to wait for about 10 years to be accepted at the other side of the Atlantic. It was helpful that SETAC – meanwhile a global organization – looked for a partner in order to implement LCA all over the world. This partner was found in the 'United Nations Environmental Programme' (UNEP) and the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative was officially launched by Klaus Töpfer in Prague in April 2002. SETAC also assumed an important role in communicating LCA via publications: workshop and conference reports, the 'code of practice', working group results and LCA News Letters. The annual meetings offered forums for LCA scientists, practitioners and users, well prepared by the LCA Steering Committee (SETAC Europe) and the LCA Advisory Group (SETAC North America).

Recommendation

. The main recommendation to SETAC is to adhere to LCA as the main environmental assessment tool for products and to expand it to a true sustainability assessment tool by adding Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and a still to be invented 'Social Life Cycle Assessment'. SETAC is to remain the scientific arm within the UNEP/SETAC LC Initiative, without loosing its identity. Working groups should be global rather than regional in the future, as suggested by the SETAC Europe LCA Steering Committee at the 2004 World Congress in Portland, Oregon.

     

The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.016

Goal, Scope and Background

Although both cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) have developed from engineering practice, and have the same objective of a holistic ex-ante assessment of human activities, the techniques have until recently developed in relative isolation. This has resulted in a situation where much can be gained from an integration of the strong aspects of each technique. Such integration is now being prompted by the more widespread use of both CBA and LCA on the global arena, where also the issues of social responsibility are now in focus. Increasing availability of data on both biophysical and social impacts now allow the development of a truly holistic, quantitative environmental assessment technique that integrates economic, biophysical and social impact pathways in a structured and consistent way. The concept of impact pathways, linking biophysical and economic inventory results via midpoint impact indicators to final damage indicators, is well described in the LCA and CBA literature. Therefore, this paper places specific emphasis on how social aspects can be integrated in LCA.

Methods

and Results. With a starting point in the conceptual structure and approach of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), as developed by Helias Udo de Haes and the SETAC/UNEP Life Cycle Initiative, the paper identifies six damage categories under the general heading of human life and well-being. The paper proposes a comprehensive set of indicators, with units of measurement, and a first estimate of global normalisation values, based on incidence or prevalence data from statistical sources and severity scores from health state analogues. Examples are provided of impact chains linking social inventory indicators to impacts on both human well-being and productivity.

Recommendation and Perspective

It is suggested that human well-being measured in QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) may provide an attractive single-score alternative to direct monetarisation.

     

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.     

Distance-to-Target Weighting in Life Cycle Impact Assessment Based on Chinese Environmental Policy for the Period 1995-2005 (6 pp)

Background and Objective

. Values in the known weighting methods in Life Cycle Assessment are mostly founded by the societal systems of developed countries. What source of weights and which weighting methods are reliable for a big developing country like China? The purpose of this paper is to find a possible weighting method and available data that will work well for LCA practices conducted in China. Since government policies and decisions play a leading role in the process of environmental protection in developing countries, the weights derived from political statements may be a consensus by representatives of the public.

Methods

'Distance-to-political target' principle is used in this paper to derive weights of five problem-oriented impact categories. The critical policy targets are deduced from the environmental policies issued in the period of the Ninth Five-year (1996-2000) and the Tenth Five-year (2001-2005) Plan for the Development of National Economy and Society of China. Policy targets on two five-year periods are presented and analyzed. Weights are determined by the quotient between the reference levels and target levels of a certain impact category.

Results and Discussion

Since the Tenth Five-year Plan put forward the overall objective to reduce the level of regional pollution by 2005, the weights for AP, EP and POCP for 2000-2005 are more than 1. By comparison between the Ninth Five-year and Tenth Five-year period, the results show that the weights obtained in this paper effectively represent Chinese political environmental priorities in different periods. For the weights derived from China's political targets for the overall period 1995-2005, the rank order of relative importance is ODP>AP>POCP>EP>GWP. They are recommended to the potential users for the broader disparity among the five categories. By comparison with the weights presented by the widespread EDIP method, the result shows that there's a big difference in the relative importance of ozone depletion and global warming.

-

In conclusion, the weighting factors and rank order of impact categories determined in this study represent the characteristics of the big developing country. The derived weighting set can be helpful to LCA practices of products within the industrial systems of China.

     

Human and Ecological Life Cycle Tools for the Integrated Assessment of Systems (HELIAS)

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.008

Goal, Scope and Background

CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance / Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed.

Methods

Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors.

Results and Discussion

For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported.

Conclusions

and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decisionmakers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.

     

A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20

Purpose

To contribute to the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012 by introducing a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) and showing how it can play a crucial role in moving towards sustainable consumption and production. The publication, titled Towards a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment, and published by the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative aims to show how three life cycle techniques—(environmental) LCA, S-LCA and LCC—can be combined as part of an over-arching LCSA.

Methods

The method was demonstrated by evaluating the characteristics of each phase for each life cycle technique. In defining the goal and scope of an LCSA, for example, different aspects should be taken into account to establish the aim of the study as well as the functional unit, system boundaries, impact category and allocation. Then, the data to be collected for the life cycle sustainability inventory can be either in a unit process or on an organisational level. They can also be quantitative or qualitative. Life cycle sustainability impact assessment should consider the relevance of the impacts as well as the perspective of stakeholders. The interpretation should not add up the results, but rather evaluate them jointly. In order to clarify the approach, a case study is presented to evaluate three types of marble according to the proposed method.

Results and discussion

The authors have identified that while LCSA is feasible, following areas need more development: data production and acquisition, methodological development, discussion about LCSA criteria (e.g. cutoff rules), definitions and formats of communication and dissemination of LCSA results and the expansion of research and applications combining (environmental) LCA, LCC and S-LCA. The authors also indicate that it is necessary to develop more examples and cases to improve user capacity to analyse the larger picture and therefore address the three dimensions or pillars of sustainability in a systematic way. Software and database providers are called for in order to facilitate user-friendly and accessible tools to promote LCSAs.

Conclusions

The application demonstrated that, although methodological improvements are still needed, important steps towards an overarching sustainability assessment have been accomplished. LCSA is possible and should be pursued; however, more efforts should be made to improve the technique and facilitate the studies in order to contribute to a greener economy.     

Spatial Differentiation in the Characterisation of Photochemical Ozone Formation: The EDIP2003 Methodology

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.014

Background, Aims and Scope

In the life cycle of a product, emissions take place at many different locations. The location of the source and its surrounding conditions influence the fate of the emitted pollutant and the subsequent exposure it causes. This source of variation is normally neglected in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), although it is well known that the impacts predicted by site-generic LCIA in some cases differ significantly from the actual impacts. Environmental impacts of photochemical ozone (ground-level ozone) depend on parameters with a considerable geographical variability (like emission patterns and population densities). A spatially differentiated characterisation model thus seems relevant.

Methods

and Results. The European RAINS model is applied for calculation of site-dependent characterisation factors for Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for 41 countries or regions within Europe, and compatible characterisation factors for carbon monoxide (CO) are developed based on expert judgement. These factors are presented for three emission years (1990, 1995 and 2010), and they address human health impacts and vegetation impacts in two separate impacts categories, derived from AOT40 and AOT60 values respectively. Compatible site-generic characterisation factors for NMVOC, NOx, CO and methane (CH4) are calculated as emission-weighted European averages to be applied on emissions for which the location is unknown. The site-generic and site-dependent characterisation factors are part of the EDIP2003 LCIA methodology. The factors are applied in a specific case study, and it is demonstrated how the inclusion of spatial differentiation may alter the results of the photochemical ozone characterisation of life cycle impact assessment.

Discussion

and Conclusions. Compared to traditional midpoint characterisation modelling, this novel approach is spatially resolved and comprises a larger part of the cause-effect chain including exposure assessment and exceeding of threshold values. This positions it closer to endpoint modelling and makes the results easier to interpret. In addition, the developed model allows inclusion of the contributions from NOx, which are ne- glected when applying the traditional approaches based on Photochemical Ozone Creation Potentials (POCPs). The variation in site-dependent characterisation factors is far larger than the variation in POCP factors. It thus seems more important to represent the spatially determined variation in exposure than the difference in POCP among the substances.

     

Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment

Purpose

In this paper, we summarize the discussion and present the findings of an expert group effort under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Life Cycle Initiative proposing natural resources as an Area of Protection (AoP) in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

Methods

As a first step, natural resources have been defined for the LCA context with reference to the overall UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) framework. Second, existing LCIA methods have been reviewed and discussed. The reviewed methods have been evaluated according to the considered type of natural resources and their underlying principles followed (use-to-availability ratios, backup technology approaches, or thermodynamic accounting methods).

Results and discussion

There is currently no single LCIA method available that addresses impacts for all natural resource categories, nor do existing methods and models addressing different natural resource categories do so in a consistent way across categories. Exceptions are exergy and solar energy-related methods, which cover the widest range of resource categories. However, these methods do not link exergy consumption to changes in availability or provisioning capacity of a specific natural resource (e.g., mineral, water, land etc.). So far, there is no agreement in the scientific community on the most relevant type of future resource indicators (depletion, increased energy use or cost due to resource extraction, etc.). To address this challenge, a framework based on the concept of stock/fund/flow resources is proposed to identify, across natural resource categories, whether depletion/dissipation (of stocks and funds) or competition (for flows) is the main relevant aspect.

Conclusions

An LCIA method—or a set of methods—that consistently address all natural resource categories is needed in order to avoid burden shifting from the impact associated with one resource to the impact associated with another resource. This paper is an important basis for a step forward in the direction of consistently integrating the various natural resources as an Area of Protection into LCA.

     

Weighting in LCA Based on Ecotaxes - Development of a Mid-point Method and Experiences from Case Studies

-

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.015

Goal, Scope and Background

The weighting phase in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is and has always been a controversial issue, partly because this element requires the incorporation of social, political and ethical values. Despite the controversies, weighting is widely used in practise. In this paper we will present an approach for monetisation of environmental impacts which is based on the consistent use of ecotaxes and fees in Sweden as a basis for the economic values. The idea behind this approach is that taxes and fees are expressions of the values society places on resource uses and emissions. An underlying assumption for this is that the decisions taken by policy-makers are reflecting societal values thus reflecting a positive view of representative democracy.

Methods

In the method a number of different ecotaxes are used. In many cases they can directly be used as valuation weighting factors, an example is the CO2-tax that can be used as a valuation of CO2-emissions. In some cases, a calculation has to be made in order to derive a weighting factor. An example of this is the tax on nitrogen fertilisers which can be recalculated to an emission of nitrogen which can be used as a weighting factor for nitrogen emissions. The valuation weighting factors can be connected to characterisation methods in the normal LCA practise. We have often used the Ecotax method in parallel to other weighting methods such as the Ecoindicator and EPS methods and the results are compared.

Results and Discussion

A new set of weighting factors has been developed which has been used in case studies. It is interesting to note that the Ecotax method is able to identify different environmental problems as the most important ones in different case studies. In some cases, the Ecotax method has identified some interventions as the most important ones which lack weighting factors in other weighting methods. The midpoint-endpoint debate in the LCA literature has often centred on different types of uncertainties. Sometimes it is claimed that an advantage with having an endpoint approach is that the weighting would be easier and less uncertain. Here we are however suggesting a mid-point weighting method that we claim are no less uncertain than other often used weighting methods based on a damage assessment. This paper can therefore be seen as a discussion paper also in the midpoint-endpoint debate.

Conclusion and Recommendation

The Ecotax method is ready to use. It should be further updated and developed as taxes are changed and new characterisation methods are developed. The method is not only relevant for LCA but also for other environmental systems analysis. The Ecotax method has also been used as a valuation method for Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and within the context of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

     

Organizing life cycle management in practice: challenges of a multinational manufacturing corporation

Purpose

The environmental life cycle management (LCM) literature proposes many factors considered critical in order to successfully conduct LCM. This study contrasts these vague and general factors proposed as critical to LCM in existing literature, with detailed accounts of LCM in practice.

Methods

A literature review of three related research fields, i.e., LCM, life cycle thinking, and sustainable supply chain management, is contrasted with a study of how LCM is enacted in practice in a large multinational manufacturing company recognized for its LCM work. A qualitative study, with mainly a managerial focus, is conducted based on interviews, workshops, part-time observations, and document studies.

Results and discussion

The literature review demonstrates that the three related research fields provide different accounts of LCM: all apply a holistic environmental perspective, but with different emphases and using largely different research methods. The empirical study shows that integration was a common topic at the studied company and that solutions were often sought in tools and processes. Middle management support proved important, and challenging, in these integration efforts. Challenges identified also included further integrating LCM into departments such as purchasing and sales.

Conclusions

The constant focus on integration at the studied company implies that LCM work is an ongoing effort. Several integration paths are identified: (1) inclusion of sustainability aspects in tools and processes, (2) finding ways to work around certain organizational levels, and (3) using networks and social interaction to create commitment and integration. Although the concept of LCM implies a holistic approach, LCM in practice reveals a lack of a comprehensive overview of LCM-related initiatives and of involved sustainability practitioners within the studied organization.

     

Support for Sustainable Development Policy Decisions A Case Study from Highway Maintenance

-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.04.009

Goal, Scope and Method

logy. This paper describes a case study carried out as part of a wider programme to provide support for environmental decision-making in the highway maintenance programme of a local government body: Surrey County Council (SCC). UK local authorities are required to demonstrate that sustainable development principles are addressed in service provision, by improving environmental, economic or social wellbeing and improving public consultation. A methodological approach was developed to meet these requirements by using life cycle assessment (LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) through the process of decision conferencing.

Results

In projects requiring strategic decisions, difficulties arise in identifying relevant sustainable development criteria and in evaluating maintenance options against these criteria where the context for decision-making is complex and characterised by uncertainty, where multiple public policy objectives compete and a number of decision-makers and key players are affected by the outcome. Clearly, a structured process is needed to engage such stakeholders in the decision process, utilising quantitative and qualitative information. The approach described proved to be capable of fulfilling these requirements.

Conclusions

and Recommendations. The approach of combining LCA with MCDA through decision conferencing is capable of further development to support other strategic decision-making activities. However, this illustrative case study has revealed a need for methodological developments in LCA for local, project-level decisions.

     

Promoting sustainability in Mexico’s building sector via environmental product declarations

Purpose

The growing phase of emerging economy countries requires the implementation of environmental assessment tools in the building sector. The use of environmental product declarations (EPDs) has risen in developed countries as one of the main tools for environmental assessment. However, at what point should developing countries follow the EPD implementation strategies used by developed countries? What are the strengths and weaknesses of EPD in the emerging economy context, and what threats and opportunities does it face within the building sector? This work aims to answer these questions by taking Mexico as a case study.

Methods

A bibliographical review was conducted to determine the key elements for EPD development in the building sector in other countries, especially those in Europe, where EPDs originated. The review also examined the experience and perspective of other countries that are starting to contemplate this type of ecolabel as an option for environmental assessment within their own building sectors, as well as industry perspectives on EPDs, especially those of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Then, Mexico’s situation in regard to these key elements was examined, with a special focus on the main stakeholders detected: government and industry. Finally, after a contrast analysis was conducted between the developed countries and Mexico, the strengths and weaknesses of EPDs in the emerging economy context and the threats and opportunities within the building sector were determined.

Results and discussion

The use of EPDs in Europe has largely followed a normative and legislative pattern. Moreover, it has been the main data source for building environmental assessment schemes, and there is a strong life cycle assessment (LCA) platform that contributes to EPD development. Furthermore, there is a European tendency toward making the use of EPDs mandatory. However, there is a very different reality in emergent economy countries. In these countries, social housing represents a major part of the vision of the building sector, so it is taken as an initial approach to EPD development. In Mexico, there is a solid legislative framework in which EPDs could be implemented, and there is a variety of environmental assessment housing programs into which EPDs could be integrated. Nevertheless, there is an institutional void that has prevented the incorporation of the life cycle approach into the national strategy of sustainability in the building sector. Moreover, SMEs might not have the technical and financial capacity to develop EPD.

Conclusions

This analysis has proved that EPD implementation in emerging countries mainly depends on two aspects: Firstly, it must be a shared vision of sustainability between government and industry, in which there is a correspondence between the sustainability objectives of the two parties and SMEs have the ability to contribute toward their achievement. Secondly, a solid platform of knowledge that supports LCA in the building sector is necessary, and it must involve a strong relationship between government, academia, and stakeholders.

     

LCA capability roadmap—product system model description and revision

Purpose

Life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners face many challenges in their efforts to describe, share, review, and revise their product system models, and to reproduce the models and results of others. Current life cycle inventory modeling techniques have weaknesses in the areas of describing model structure, documenting the use of proxy or non-ideal data, specifying allocation, and including modeler’s observations and assumptions—all affecting how the study is interpreted and limiting the reuse of models. Moreover, LCA software systems manage modeling information in different and sometimes non-compatible ways. Practitioners must also deal with licensing, privacy/confidentiality of data, and other issues around data access which impact how a model can be shared.

Methods

This letter was prepared by a working group of the North American Life Cycle Assessment Advisory Group to support the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative’s Flagship Activity on Data, Methods, and Product Sustainability Information. The aim of the working group is to define a roadmap of the technical advances needed to achieve easier LCA model sharing and improve replicability of LCA results among different users in a way that is independent of the LCA software used to compute the results and does not infringe on any licensing restrictions or confidentiality requirements. This is intended to be a consensus document providing the state of the art in this area, with milestones for research and implementation needed to resolve current issues.

Results and Conclusions

The roadmap identifies fifteen milestones in three areas: “describing model contents,” “describing model structure,” and “collaborative use of models.” The milestones should support researchers and software developers in advancing practitioners’ abilities to share and review product system models.

     

Life cycle assessment in the furniture industry: the case study of an office cabinet

Purpose

In an effort to reduce the environmental impacts of the furniture sector, this study aimed to diagnose the environmental performance of an office cabinet throughout its life cycle.

Methods

An attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) was used, based on the ISO 14044 Standard and ILCD Handbook. The scope of the study considered the entire supply chain, from cradle to grave, including the steps of pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, use, and post-use of the product. The impact assessment method was the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) 2011 midpoint.

Results and discussion

The results identified that the most significant environmental impact of the furniture life cycle was due to the distances covered and production of the main raw material, wood medium-density particleboard (MDP). The evaluation of transport scenarios showed environmental tradeoffs for truck fuel switches and environmental gains for the distribution of MDP from closer suppliers by truck, as well as from current supplier by truck and ship in the major categories. Furthermore, evaluation of the office cabinet post-use options showed that reuse, recycling, or energy recovery from waste cause significant environmental gains in the major categories. Wooden furniture is a potential carbon sink if its life cycle does not emit more greenhouse gases than its materials can store. The impacts of substitution scenarios varied depending on the type of product avoided.

Conclusions

The LCA proved a powerful method to diagnose and manage environmental impacts in complex product systems. The sensitivity analysis showed that it is possible to reduce the environmental impacts and, at the same time, make the furniture industry increase its economic gains and net carbon stock in the anthroposphere.