The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 1673–1685 | Cite as

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

  • Sonia Valdivia
  • Cassia M. L. Ugaya
  • Jutta Hildenbrand
  • Marzia Traverso
  • Bernard Mazijn
  • Guido Sonnemann



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.


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.


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.


LCSA (Environmental) LCA LCC S-LCA Sustainability assessment 



The authors of this article would like to thank the other co-authors of Towards a Life Cycle Assessment of Products: Walter Klöpffer, Matthias Finkbeiner, Andreas Ciroth, Siddhart Prakash and Gina Vickery-Niederman, as well as the members of the International Life Cycle Board of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative for their support.


The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the UNEP/ SETAC Life Cycle Initiative concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of UNEP or SETAC, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.


  1. Capitano C, Traverso M, Rizzo G, Finkbeiner M (2011) Life cycle sustainability assessment: an implementation to marble products. In: Proceedings of the LCM 2011 Conference. Berlin, 29–31 August 2011.
  2. Cavanagh J, Frame B, Lennox J (2006) The sustainability assessment model (SAM): measuring sustainable development performance. Aust J Environ Manage 13:142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ciroth A, Franze J (2011) LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook—consideration of social and environmental impacts along the entire life cycle, GreenDeltaTC, sustainable development. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, Seguin J, Vigon B (1993) Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: a ‘code of practice.’ SETAC, Brussels and PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  5. EFORWOOD (2010) ToSIA: a tool for sustainable impact assessment of the forest-wood chain. Final report, HYPERLINK. Retrieved 17 July 2011
  6. Finkbeiner M, Schau E, Lehmann A, Traverso M (2010) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 2(10):3309–3322. doi: 10.3390/ su2103309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franze J, Ciroth A (2011) A comparison of cut roses from Ecuador and the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(4):366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grießhammer R, Buchert M, Gensch C-O, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Reisch L, Rüdenauer I (2007) PROSA—product sustainability assessment—guideline. Öko-Institut, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  9. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, de Haes HA U, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Halog A, Manik J (2011) Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustain 3(2):469–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization of Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization of Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. Itsubo N, Inaba I (2003) A new LCIA method. Lime has been completed. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(5):305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klöpffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(2):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jesinghaus J (2000) On the art of aggregating apples & oranges. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  16. Mazijn B, Doom R, Peeters H, Spillemaeckers S, Vanhoutte G, Taverniers L, Lavrysen L, Van Braeckel D, Duque Rivera J (2004) Ecological, social and economical aspects of integrated product policy—integrated product assessment and the development of the label ‘sustainable development’. Final report, UGhent-CDO/Ethibel, Belgian Science Policy, Project CP/20, 124pp, plus annexesGoogle Scholar
  17. Poulsen P, Jensen A (eds) (2004) Working environment in life cycle assessment. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  18. Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002) Eco-efficiency analysis by BASF: the method. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spoerri A, Bening C, Scholz RW (2011) The sustainability of sugar supply chains—Swiss beet sugar compared to Brazilian cane sugar. In: Proceedings of the LCM 2011 conference, Berlin, 29–31 August 2011Google Scholar
  20. Swarr T, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen H-L, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life cycle costing: a code of practice. SETAC, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  21. Traverso M, Finkbeiner M, Jørgensen A, Schneider L (2012) Life cycle sustainability dashboard. J Ind Ecol 16(5):680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, 103 pGoogle Scholar
  23. UNEP/SETAC (2011a) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, 65 pGoogle Scholar
  24. UNEP/SETAC (2011a) Global guidance principles for LCA databases. UNEP/SETAC, Paris, 157 pGoogle Scholar
  25. UNEP/SETAC (2010) Methodological sheets of sub-categories for a social LCA. Report available at HYPERLINK.
  26. UN (1972) Conference on the human development, Stockholm, 1972. Report available at HYPERLINK.
  27. UNFPA (2011) State of the world population 2011. 124 p. Available at HYPERLINK.
  28. Vinyes E, Gasol C M, Oliver-Solà J, Ugaya C, Rieradevall J (2011) Application of LCSA in used cooking oil (UCO) waste management. In: Proceedings of the LCM 2011 Conference, Berlin, 29–31 August 2011Google Scholar
  29. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future, Brundtland report. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Weidema B (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. IInt J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zamagni A, Buttol P, Buonamici R, Masoni P, Guinée JB, Huppes G, van Heijungs R, der Voet E, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2009) Blue paper on life cycle sustainability analysis. Deliverable 20 of Work Package 7 of the CALCAS project. ENEA, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonia Valdivia
    • 1
  • Cassia M. L. Ugaya
    • 2
  • Jutta Hildenbrand
    • 3
  • Marzia Traverso
    • 4
  • Bernard Mazijn
    • 5
  • Guido Sonnemann
    • 6
  1. 1.Secretariat of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeParis Cedex 09France
  2. 2.Organization Federal University of Technology – ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Technical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Faculty of Political and Social SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  6. 6.ISM—Institut des Sciences Moleculaires/LCA GroupUniversity of BordeauxTalence CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations