Abstract
Purpose
Organizational life cycle assessment (O-LCA) is an emerging method to analyze the inputs, outputs, and environmental impacts of an organization throughout its value chain. To facilitate the method’s application, the Guidance on Organizational Life Cycle Assessment was published within the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative and applied by 12 “road-testing” organizations. In this paper, different aspects of the road testers’ studies are displayed and analyzed according to the feedback of the road testers.
Methods
An anonymous survey about the method application was conducted among the road testers. The analysis assessed, among others: (i) which goals the organizations initially pursued and their achievement; (ii) how previous experience with environmental tools contributed to the study design; (iii) which methodological options were chosen (like the scope of the study, data collection approaches, impact assessment methods and tools, and data sources); and (iv) which methodological challenges were faced.
Results and discussion
The survey showed that analytical goals were of priority for most road testers and obtained a higher achievement level than managerial and societal goals for which either long-term measures or the inclusion of stakeholders are needed. Previous experience with product- or organization-related tools considering the whole life cycle proves useful due to available data and/or organizational models. The categorization of organizational activities, data collection, data quality assessment, and interpretation proved being the most challenging methodological elements. In addition, three cross-cutting issues of method application were identified: aligning the O-LCA study to previous environmental activities, designing the study, and availability of personnel and software resources.
Conclusions
The road-testing organizations verified the applicability and usefulness of the O-LCA Guidance and significantly widened the pool of case studies available. On the other hand, additional guidance for methodological challenges particular of the organizational level, the availability of software tools able to support O-LCA application, region-specific LCI databases, and a broadly recognized data quality assessment scheme would facilitate conducting O-LCA case studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Emmaüs Europe (2017) Emmaüs Europe - organizational life cycle assessment report
European Commission (2013) Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guide
Finkbeiner M, Wiedemann M, Saur K (1998) A comprehensive approach towards product and organisation related environmental management tools. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:169–178
Finogenova N, Bach V, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2018) Hybrid approach for the evaluation of organizational indirect impacts (AVOID): combining product related, process based and monetary based methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess (under review)
ISO (2014) ISO/TS 14072 environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. Geneva, Switzerland
Jungbluth N, Keller R, König A (2016) ONE TWO WE---life cycle management in canteens together with suppliers, customers and guests. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:646–653
Lo-Iacono-Ferreira VG, Torregrosa-López JI, Capuz-Rizo SF (2016) Use of Life Cycle Assessment methodology in the analysis of Ecological Footprint Assessment results to evaluate the environmental performance of universities. J Clean Prod 133:43–53
Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y-J, Finkbeiner M (2015) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599
Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2016) Life cycle assessment of organizations. In: Finkbeiner M (ed) Special types of life cycle assessment. Springer, Netherlands, pp 333–394
Martínez-Blanco J, Forin S, Finkbeiner M (2018) Launch of a new report: “Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, experiences and lessons learned”. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:159–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1409-5
Milà I Canals L, Sim S, García-Suárez T et al (2011) Estimating the greenhouse gas footprint of Knorr. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:50–58
Moreira de Camargo A, Forin S, Macedo K et al (2018) The implementation of organizational LCA to internally manage the environmental impacts of a broad product portfolio: an example for a cosmetics, fragrances and toiletry provider. Int J Life Cycle Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1502-4
Neppach S, Nunes KRA, Schebek L (2016) Organizational environmental footprint in German construction companies. J Clean Prod 142:78–86
Pelletier N, Allacker K, Pant R, Manfredi S (2014) The European Commission Organisation Environmental Footprint method: comparison with other methods, and rationales for key requirements. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:387–404
Resta B, Gaiardelli P, Pinto R, Dotti S (2016) Enhancing environmental management in the textile sector: an organisational-life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 135:620–632
Styles D, Schoenberger H, Galvez-Martos JL (2012) Environmental improvement of product supply chains: proposed best practice techniques, quantitative indicators and benchmarks of excellence for retailers. J Environ Manag 110:135–150
UN Environment (2017) Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, Experiences and lessons learned
UNEP (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Paris, France
WRI/WBCSD (2011) GHG Protocol. Corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the road testers for their commitment in carrying out the case studies, answering the survey, and providing valuable feedback and the sponsors and secretariat of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative for their support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Guido W. Sonneman
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Forin, S., Martínez-Blanco, J. & Finkbeiner, M. Facts and figures from road testing the guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 866–880 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1533-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1533-x