The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1568–1580 | Cite as

Indicator selection in life cycle assessment to enable decision making: issues and solutions

  • Gert Van Hoof
  • Marisa Vieira
  • Maria Gausman
  • Annie Weisbrod



With an ever increasing list of indicators available, life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners face the challenge of effectively communicating results to decision makers. Simplification of LCA is often limited to an arbitrary selection of indicators, use of single scores by using weighted values or single attribute indicators. These solutions are less attractive to decision makers, since value judgments are introduced or multi-indicator information is lost. Normalization could be a means to narrow the list of indicators by ranking indicators vs. a reference system. This paper shows three different normalization approaches that produce very different ranking of indicators. It is explained how normalization helps maintain a multi-indicator approach while keeping the most relevant indicators, allowing effective decision making.


The approaches are illustrated on a hand dishwashing case study, using ReCiPe as the impact assessment method and taking the European population (year 2000) as the reference situation. Indicators are ranked using midpoint normalization factors, and compared to the ranking from endpoint normalization broken down by midpoint contribution.

Results and discussion

Endpoint normalization shows Resources as the most relevant area of protection for this case, closely followed by Human Health and Ecosystem. Broken down by their key driving midpoints, fossil depletion, climate change and, to a lesser extent, particulate matter formation and metal depletion, are most relevant. Midpoint normalization, however, indicates Freshwater Eutrophication, Natural Land Transformation and Toxicity indicators (marine and freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity) are most relevant.


A three-step approach based on endpoint normalization is recommended to present only the most relevant indicators, allowing more effective decision making instead of communicating all LCA indicators. The selection process breaks out the normalized endpoint results into the most contributing midpoints (relevant indicators) and reports results with midpoint level units. Bias due to lack of data completeness is less of an issue in the endpoint normalization process (compared to midpoint normalization), while midpoint results are less subject to uncertainty (compared to endpoint results). Focusing on the relevant indicators and key contributing unit processes has proven to be effective for non-LCA expert decision makers to understand, use, and communicate complex LCA results.


Data completeness Decision making Hand dishwashing product Life cycle impact assessment Multi-indicator Normalization 



The authors would like to thank Mark Goedkoop for his very useful feedback during the drafting of manuscript and the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback in the peer review.

Supplementary material

11367_2013_595_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 36 kb)


  1. AISE Charter for Sustainable Cleaning (2012), accessed on September 25, 2012
  2. Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40(16):5108–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breedveld L, Lafleur M, Blonk H (1999) A framework for actualising normalisation data in LCA: Experiences in the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(4):213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ecoinvent v2.2 (2010) The Ecoinvent Centre, Accessed September 25, 2012
  5. Environmental footprint of products. 2012. [Online] European Commission. Retreived in March 2012.
  6. Environmental footprint of organisations (2012) [Online] European Commission. Retrieved in March 2012.
  7. European Commission (2010) Joint research centre. analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. European Union, IspraGoogle Scholar
  8. Foley J, Lant P (2009) Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006-inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frischknecht R., Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009) The ecological scarcity method—Eco-Factors 2006: A method for impact assessment in LCA. Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), 2009. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 0906Google Scholar
  10. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2008) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition Report I: Characterisation. 6 January 2009.
  11. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2012) Standards. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. [Online] accessed on September 25, 2012
  12. Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heijungs R, Guinée J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):211–216Google Scholar
  14. HERA initiative (2012), accessed on September 25, 2012
  15. Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modeling the valuesphere and ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huijbregts MAJ, Breedveld L, Huppes G, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S (2003) Normalization figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). J Clean Prod 11(7):737–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2012) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40(3):641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO/CD 14046 (2012) Life cycle assessment—water footprint—requirements and guidelines. The International Standard Organization. [Online] accessed on September 25, 2012
  20. ISO 14067 (2010) Carbon footprint of products—part 1: quantification. s.l.: The International Standard Organisation, 2010Google Scholar
  21. Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Pennington D, Potting J, Rebitzer G, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kapur A, Baldwin C, Swanson M, Wilberforce N, McClenachan G, Rentschler M (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and Green Seal-compliant industrial and institutional cleaning products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011a) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox™ characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):728–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Bare J, Roy PO, Deschênes L (2010) Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 409(1):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Énergie (2012) [Online] accessed on September 25, 2012
  27. PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. s.l.: The British Standards Association, 2011. ISBN 978 0 580 71382 8Google Scholar
  28. Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus Soc 44(4):377–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. REACH regulation (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Official J European Union, L396, 30.12.2006 p.1-849Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum R, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Joliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, Macleod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 - General system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4. [online]
  32. Sustainability Consortium (2012) [Online] Arizona State University and University of Arkansas. accessed on September 25, 2012
  33. Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2012) [Online] accessed on September 25, 2012
  34. Tolle DA (1997) Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(4):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2012) Greening the economy through life cycle thinking: ten years of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. s.l.: United Nations Environment Programmme, 2012. ISBN 978-92-807-3268-9Google Scholar
  36. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2010) accessed on September 25, 2012
  37. van Oers L, Huppes G (2001) LCA normalization factors for the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(5):256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van de Meent D (2009) USES-LCA 2.0: a global nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):282–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Water Footprint Network (2012) [Online]. accessed on September 25, 2012
  40. Wegener-Sleeswijk A, Van Oers L, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wegener-Sleeswijk AW, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatiallydifferentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408(14):2817–2832CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gert Van Hoof
    • 1
  • Marisa Vieira
    • 2
  • Maria Gausman
    • 3
  • Annie Weisbrod
    • 3
  1. 1.Procter & Gamble, Environmental Stewardship OrganizationStrombeek-BeverBelgium
  2. 2.PRé ConsultantsAmersfoortthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Procter & Gamble, Environmental Stewardship OrganizationMasonUSA

Personalised recommendations