Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA

  • ADVANCING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE IN LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Practitioners of life cycle assessment (LCA) acknowledge that more input from social scientists can help advance the cause of life cycle management (LCM). This commentary offers a social science perspective on a long-running question within LCA, namely, how the field should manage not only stakeholders’ values but also those of practitioners themselves.

Methods

More than 60 interviews were conducted with LCA practitioners and their industry clients. Qualitative data were also collected through participant observation at several LCA and LCM conferences, a study of the field’s history, and extensive content and discourse analysis of LCA publications and online forums.

Results and discussion

Results show that LCA practitioners’ values are informed partly by the knowledge acquired through their LCA work. At the same time, LCA standards and professional norms implicitly advise practitioners to keep those values out of their work as much as possible, so as not to compromise its apparent objectivity. By contrast, many social scientists contend openly that value-based judgments, based on “situated knowledge,” can actually enhance the rigor, accountability, and credibility of scientific assessments.

Conclusions

LCA practitioners’ own situated knowledge justifies not only the value choices required by LCA but also their evaluative judgments of contemporary life cycle-based sustainability initiatives. This more critical voice could advance the goals of LCM while also boosting the credibility of LCA more generally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvesen A, Bright RM, Hertwich EG (2011) Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to unrealistic technology optimism in climate change mitigation. Energ Policy 39:7448–7454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Rydberg T (1994) Life cycle assessment: a comparison of three methods for impact analysis and evaluation. J Clean Prod 2:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne P, Lister J (2012) Big brand sustainability: governance prospects and environmental limits. Glob Environ Chang 22:36–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schryver AM, Humbert S, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) The influence of value choices in life cycle impact assessment of stressors causing human health damage. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:698–706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley KJ (2014) The whole chain. Science 344(6188):1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2013) Annex II-Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) Guide to the commission recommendation on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations

  • European Commission (2014) Single market for green products. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/accessed September 2, 2014

  • Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M (2014a) The international standards as the constitution of life cycle assessment: the ISO 14040 series and its offspring. In Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment. Springer, pp 85-106

  • Finkbeiner M (2014b) Product environmental footprint—breakthrough or breakdown for policy implementation of life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:266–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang Y-J, Wolf K (2014) Challenges in life cycle assessment: an overview of current gaps and research needs. In: Klöpffer W (ed) Background and future prospects in life cycle assessment, Springer, pp 207-58

  • Finnveden G (1997) Valuation methods within LCA—where are the values? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:163–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidberg S (2014a) Footprint technopolitics. Geoforum 55:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidberg S (2014b) It’s complicated: corporate sustainability and the uneasiness of life cycle assessment. Sci Cult. doi:10.1080/09505431.2014.942622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullana i Palmer P, Puig R, Bala A, Baquero G, Riba J, Raugei M (2011) From life cycle assessment to life cycle management. J Ind Ecol 15:458–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M (2014) Lifetime achievement award—interview. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/setac-lifetime-achievement-award-interview-mark-goedkoop. Accessed September 2, 2014

  • Haas P (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Stud 14:575–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen E (1997) The social shaping of a technique for environmental assessment. Sci Stud 11:27–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Pease WS (1998) ISO 14042 restricts use and development of impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:180–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwich EG, Hammitt J, Pease W (2000) A theoretical foundation for life cycle assessment: recognizing the role of values in environmental decision making. J Ind Ecol 4:13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz R (2000) Modelling the valuesphere and the ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppes G, Oers L, Pretato U, Pennington DW (2012) Weighting environmental effects: analytic survey with operational evaluation methods and a meta-method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:876–891

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Standards Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006b) ISO 14044: Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Standards Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Klöpffer W (1998) Subjective is not arbitrary. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3:61–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Ind Ecol 11:161–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino HE (1990) Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton

  • Meyer M, Molyneux-Hodgson S (2010) Introduction: the dynamics of epistemic communities. Sociol Res Online, 15: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/15/2/14.html, 10.5153/sro.2154 accessed September 2, 2014

  • Nemecek T, Bengoa X, Lansche J, Mouron P, Rossi V, Humbert S (2014) World Food LCA Database: methodological guidelines for the life cycle inventory of agricultural products. Quantis and Agriscope, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzirani S, McLaren SJ, Seadon JK (2014) Is there a place for culture in life cycle sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1316–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter T (1994) Objectivity as standardization: the rhetoric of impersonality in measurement, statistics, and cost-benefit analysis. In: Megill A (ed) Rethinking Objectivity. Duke, Durham, pp 197–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Curran MA, von Blottnitz H (2010) From life cycle talking to taking action. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:326–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008a) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:290–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008b) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment part 2. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose G (1997) Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Prog Hum Geog 21:305–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Gregory R, Klain S, Roberts M, Chan KM (2013) Culture, intangibles and metrics in environmental management. J Environ Manag 117:103–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayer A (2011) Why things matter to people: social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (2006) Describing values in relation to choices in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnpenny J, Jones M, Lorenzoni I (2011) Where now for post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Sci Technol Hum Val 36:287–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein S, Klöpffer W (1996) The valuation step within LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:36–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni A, Pesonen H-L, Swarr T (2013) From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment: concept, practice and future directions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1637–1641

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Susanne Freidberg

Authors
  1. Susanne Freidberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Freidberg.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Henrikke Baumann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freidberg, S. From behind the curtain: talking about values in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23, 1410–1414 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0879-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0879-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation