Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A transdisciplinary review of the role of economics in life cycle sustainability assessment



This paper reviews the use of economic values in life cycle assessment (LCA) and the justification for environmental life cycle costing (ELCC) as the ‘economic pillar’ of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA).


A transdisciplinary review of economic values in LCA was undertaken and structured with a series of research questions. The review considered the philosophy of science and focussed on the concept of value as a point of synthesis among the disciplines of LCA, economics and ethics. An example from the ELCC Code of Practice was reviewed to highlight the challenges and alternative approaches explored.

Results and discussion

‘Value choices’ and the role of decision makers have been a long-standing and largely unresolved discussion in LCA. Over the past two decades, LCA has been dominated by a utilitarian concept of ethics and valuation based on willingness to pay. This has a number of limitations which are further exacerbated in ELCC and its accounting definition of cost. ELCC struggles to address social costs, and the focus on the decision maker may define values that are not compatible with sustainability. John Rawls’ ‘justice as fairness’ and Amartya Sen’s capability approach were considered to reappraise the use of UN Conventions considered in early LCA literature on values. It was argued that there is an ethical basis to prioritise minimum standards in LCSA to address primary social goods as well as uncertainty in evaluations.


This paper questioned the reliance of LCA on utilitarianism and valuation using willingness to pay and, in particular, the claim of ELCC as the economic pillar of LCSA. Concepts of fairness and capability may overcome some of these limitations and provide a basis for integration of social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability. Although the ethical justification of prescriptive values may only reach agreement on minimum conditions for social and economic cooperation, it was argued that this may provide a reasonable starting point given the global sustainability challenges over the coming decades. A two-stage approach for the implementation of economic values in LCSA was suggested for further debate and discussion.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Ackerman F, Heinzerling L (2002) Pricing the priceless: cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 150:1553–1584

  2. Ahlroth S, Finnveden G (2011) Ecovalue—a new valuation set for environmental systems analysis tools. J Clean Prod 19:1994–2003

  3. Ahlroth S, Nilsson M, Finnveden G, Hjelm O, Hochschorner E (2011) Weighting and valuation in selected environmental systems analysis tools—suggestions for further developments. J Clean Prod 19:145–156

  4. Almond B (2005) Rights. In: Singer P (ed) A companion to ethics. Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom

  5. Anderson E (1993) Value in ethics and economics. Harvard University Press

  6. Bachmann T (2013) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the NEEDS project’s total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1698–1709

  7. Barbier EB, Markandya A (2013) New blueprint for a green economy. Routledge, London, Great Britain

  8. Baron J, Spranca M (1997) Protected values. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70:1–16

  9. Baum SD (2012) Value typology in cost-benefit analysis. Environ Values 21:499–524

  10. Baumgärtner S, Quaas M (2010) What is sustainability economics? Ecol Econ 69:445–450

  11. Beder S (2011) Environmental economics and ecological economics: the contribution of interdisciplinarity to understanding, influence and effectiveness. Environ Conserv 38:140–150

  12. Beltrani G (1997) Safeguard subjects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:45–51

  13. Benton T (1999) Sustainable development and the accumulation of capital: reconciling the irreconcilable. In: Dobson A (ed) Fairness and futurity: essays on environmental sustainability and social justice. Oxford University Press, pp 199--229

  14. Besley T (2013) What’s the good of the market? An essay on Michael Sandel’s what money can’t buy. J Econ Lit 51:478–495

  15. Birkin F, Polesie T (2013) The relevance of epistemic analysis to sustainability economics and the capability approach. Ecol Econ 89:144–152

  16. Black J, Hashimzade N, Myles G (2012) A dictionary of economics. Oxford University Press

  17. Bojer H (ed) (2009) John Rawls. Handbook of economics and ethics. Edward Elgar

  18. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

  19. Brennan G, Eusepi G (2010) The economics of ethics and the ethics of economics: values, markets and the State

  20. Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32:137–152

  21. Carew AL, Wickson F (2010) The TD wheel: a heuristic to shape, support and evaluate transdisciplinary research. Futures 42:1146–1155

  22. Chang H-J (2011) 23 Things they don’t tell you about capitalism. Penguine

  23. Changeux J-P (2012) The good, the true and the beautiful: a neuronal approach. Yale University Press

  24. Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6:37–46

  25. Craft J (2013) A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. J Bus Ethics 117:221–259

  26. Daly HE (1968) On economics as a life science. J Polit Econ 76:392–406

  27. Daly HE, Farley J (2011) Ecological economics: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington

  28. EC-JRC (2012) The international reference life cycle data system (ILCD) Handbook: towards more sustainable production and consumption for a resource-efficient Europe. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability

  29. EC (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—framework and requirements for life cycle impact assessment models and indicators. European Commission-Joint Research Centre-Institute for Environment and Sustainability EUR 24586 EN, Luxemborg

  30. Engel SM, Soldan A, Durand K (2008) The study of philosophy, 6th edn. Rowman and Littlefield, USA

  31. Eurosta (2013) Environmental taxes: a statistical guide. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxemborg

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

  33. Finnveden G, Eldh P, Johansson J (2006) Weighting in LCA based on ecotaxes—development of a mid-point method and experiences from case studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:81–88

  34. Fischer F (1980) Politics, values, and public policy: the problem of methodology. Westview Press, USA

  35. Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press

  36. Ford RC, Richardson WD (1994) Ethical decision-making—a review of the empirical literature. J Bus Ethics 13:205–221

  37. Gaziulusoy Aİ, Boyle C (2013) Proposing a heuristic reflective tool for reviewing literature in transdisciplinary research for sustainability. J Clean Prod 48:139–147

  38. Gimbel EW (2014) The golden mean and the golden hammer: phronesis and method in contemporary political science. Polity 46:274–295

  39. Goodstein ES (2011) Economics and the environment, 6th edn. Wiley, USA

  40. Griggs D et al (2013) Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495:305–307

  41. Hall MR (2015) A critical review of the philosophy of science challenges in social life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess (under review)

  42. Hansen DR, Mowen MM (1997) Management accounting, 4th edn. South-Western, Cincinnati, OH

  43. Hansson SO (2007) Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Econ Philos 23:163–183

  44. Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbuhler K (2003) Discounting and the environment should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:8–18

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

  46. Hesse-Biber SN (2010) Mixed methods research: merging theory with practice, Vol Book, Whole. Guilford Press, New York

  47. Hiller A (ed) (2014) System consequentialism. Consequentialism and environmental ethics. Routledge, London

  48. Hiller A, Ilea R, Kahn L (eds) (2014) Consequentialism and environmental ethics. Routledge, London

  49. Hiller A, Kahn L (eds) (2014) Introduction: consequentialism and environmental ethics. Consequentialism and environmental ethics. Routledge, London

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

  51. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds) (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Press and CRC Press

  52. Huppes G, van 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

  53. Huutoniemi K, Tapio P (eds) (2014) Transdisciplinary sustainability studies: a heuristic approach. Routledge, London

  54. Ibrahim S (ed) (2014) Introduction—the capability approach: from theory to practice—rationale, review and reflections. The capability approach: from theory to practice. Palgrave Macmillan

  55. ILO (2011) Social protection floor for a fair and inclusive globalization. Report of the social protection floor advisory group. International Labour Organisation, Geneva

  56. ILO (2012) Social protection floors recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). International Labour Organisation Accessed 2 March 2015

  57. ILO (2015) Tools and data, social protection floor. International labour organisation. Accessed 12 March 2015

  58. Ingebrigtsen S, Jakobsen O (2012) Utopias and realism in ecological economics—knowledge, understanding and improvisation. Ecol Econ 84:84–90

  59. ISO (2000) ISO TR/14049 technical report—environmental management—life cycle assessment—examples of application of ISO 14041 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Standards Organisation, Switzerland

  60. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040 environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO, Switzerland

  61. ISO (2006b) ISO 14044 environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO, Switzerland

  62. Johnsen FM, Lokke S (2013) Review of criteria for evaluating LCA weighting methods. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:840–849

  63. Jorgensen A, Hermann I, Mortensen J (2010) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:531–532

  64. Jorgensen A, Herrmann I, Bjørn A (2013) Analysis of the link between a definition of sustainability and the life cycle methodologies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1440–1449

  65. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Allen Lane, Penguin Group

  66. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1973) On the psychology of prediction. Psychol Rev 80:237–251

  67. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39:341–350

  68. Kahneman D, Tversky A (2003) The rational choice, values and frames. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal 24:31–42

  69. Kesicki F, Ekins P (2012) Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution. Clim Pol 12:219–236

  70. Klepper G, Peterson S (2006) Marginal abatement cost curves in general equilibrium: the influence of world energy prices. Resour Energy Econ 28:1–23

  71. Kloepffer W (2008) Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:89–94

  72. Klöpffer W, Ciroth A (2011) Is LCC relevant in a sustainability assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:99–101

  73. Law J (2009) A dictionary of business and management. Oxford University Press

  74. Leontief W (1986) Input-output economics, Second Edition. Oxford University Press

  75. Liu S, Costanza R, Farber S, Troy A (2010) Valuing ecosystem services theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. In: Limburg K, Costanza R (eds) Ecological economics reviews, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 1185. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, pp 54–78

  76. Lo AY (2014) More or less pluralistic? A typology of remedial and alternative perspectives on the monetary valuation of the environment. Environ Values 23:253–274

  77. Margni M, Curran MA (2012) Life cycle impact assessment. In: Life cycle assessment handbook. Wiley, Inc., pp 67-103

  78. Martinez-Anguita P, Wagner JE (2010) Environmental social accounting matrices: theory and applications. Routledge

  79. Martins N (2011) Sustainability economics, ontology and the capability approach. Ecol Econ 72:1–4

  80. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

  81. Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53:5–16

  82. McShane K (ed) (2014) The bearers of value in environmental ethics. Consequentialism and environmental ethics. Routledge, London

  83. Morris J, Paltsev S, Reilly J (2012) Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: results from the EPPA model. Environ Model Assess 17:325–336

  84. Morrow K (2013) Rio+20: a critique—the global is personal: the personal is global. J Hum Rights Env. doi:10.4337/jhre.2013.01.00

  85. Norris GA (2001) Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6:118–120

  86. Nou J (2013) Happiness institutions. Duke Law J 62:1701–1706

  87. Nussbaum MC (2011) Capabilities, entitlements, rights: supplementation and critique. J Hum Dev Capabilities 12:23–37

  88. O’Fallon MJ, Butterfield KD (2005) A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003. J Bus Ethics 59:375–413

  89. OECD (2003) OECD environmental indicators: development, measurement and use, reference paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

  90. OUP (2010) A dictionary of accounting. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199563050.013.0902

  91. Parry IWH, Walls M, Winston H (2007) Automobile externalities and policies. J Econ Lit 45:373–399

  92. Pearce D (1988) Economics, equity and sustainable development. Futures 20:598–605

  93. Pelletier N, Tyedmers P (2011) An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J Ind Ecol 15:342–354

  94. Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: current impact assessment practice. Environ Int 30:721–739

  95. Picketty T (2013) Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press, Harvard University Press

  96. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Nat Sci Soc (Montrouge) 16:111–121

  97. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2002) The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harv Bus Rev 80:56–68

  98. Posner EA (2001) Controlling agencies with cost-benefit analysis: a positive political theory perspective. Univ Chicago Law Rev 68:1137–1199

  99. Powell JC, Pearce DW, Craighill AL (1997) Approaches to valuation in LCA impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2:11–15

  100. Rabl A, Holland M (2008) Environmental assessment framework for policy applications: life cycle assessment, external costs and multi-criteria analysis. J Environ Plann Manag 51:81–105

  101. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, revised edition. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass

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

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

  104. Robinson LA (2013) Cost-benefit analysis and well-being analysis? Duke Law J 62:1717–1734

  105. Rockstrom J et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475

  106. Rosenbaum RK et al (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:532–546

  107. Ryan AM, Spash CL (2011) Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values. J Econ Psychol 32:674–687

  108. Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013a) Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2). Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1686–1697

  109. Sala S, Farioli F, Zamagni A (2013b) Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: part 1. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1653–1672

  110. Sandel MJ (2012) What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. Penguin

  111. Sandel MJ (2013) Market reasoning as moral reasoning: why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. J Econ Perspect 27:121–140

  112. Scerri A (2012) Ends in view: the capabilities approach in ecological/sustainability economics. Ecol Econ 77:7–10

  113. Schoolman ED, Guest JS, Bush KF, Bell AR (2012) How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain Sci 7:67–80

  114. Sen A (1979) Personal utilities and public judgements: or what’s wrong with welfare economics. Econ J 89:537–558

  115. Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press

  116. Sen A (2000) The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. J Leg Stud 29:931–952

  117. Sen A (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6:151–166

  118. Sen A (2013) The ends and means of sustainability. J Hum Dev Capabilities 14:6–20

  119. Simões C, Pinto L, Simoes R, Bernardo CA (2013) Integrating environmental and economic life cycle analysis in product development: a material selection case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1734–1746

  120. Söderbaum P (2007) Towards sustainability economics: principles and values. J Bioecon 9:205–225

  121. Solomon RC (2005) Business ethics. In: Singer P (ed) A companion to ethics. Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom

  122. Spash CL (2012) New foundations for ecological economics. Ecol Econ 77:36–47

  123. Spash CL, Urama K, Burton R, Kenyon W, Shannon P, Hill G (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol Econ 68:955–964

  124. Spash CL, Vatn A (2006) Transferring environmental value estimates: issues and alternatives. Ecol Econ 60:379–388

  125. Steen B, Hoppe H, Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Schmidt W-P, Spindler E (eds) (2008) Integrating external effects into life cycle costing vol environmental life cycle costing. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Press and CRC Press

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

  127. Stiglitz J (2012) The price of inequality. W. W. Norton and Company

  128. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P (2009) The measurement of economic performance and social progress revisited. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris

  129. Swarr TE, Hunkeler D, Klöpffer W, Pesonen H, Ciroth A, Brent AC, Pagan R (2011) Environmental life-cycle costing: a code of practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:389–391

  130. Tillman A-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:113–123

  131. Timilsina GR, Dulal HB (2011) Urban road transportation externalities: costs and choice of policy instruments. World Bank Res Obs 26:162–191

  132. Tukker A (2013) Knowledge collaboration and learning by aligning global sustainability programs: reflections in the context of Rio 20. J Clean Prod 48:272–279

  133. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

  134. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1980) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458

  135. UNEP (2011) Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—making informed choices on products. United Nations Environment Program and SETAC, Paris. doi:

  136. Valdivia S, Ugaya CL, Hildenbrand J, Traverso M, Mazijn B, Sonnemann G (2013) A UNEP/SETAC approach towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—our contribution to Rio+20. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1673–1685

  137. van Staveren I (ed) (2009) Efficiency. Handbook of economics and ethics. Edward Elgar

  138. Vaughan GM, Hogg MA (2011) Social psychology, 6th edn. Pearson, Australia

  139. Volkwein S, Gihr R, Klöpffer W (1996) The valuation step within LCA, part II: a formalized method of prioritization by expert panels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 1:182–192

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

  141. Webb K (1995) An introduction to problems in the philosophy of social sciences. Pinter, London

  142. Wegner G, Pascual U (2011) Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: a multidisciplinary critique. Glob Environ Chang 21:492–504

  143. Weidema BP (2006) The integration of economic and social aspects in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:89–96

  144. Werner F, Scholz RW (2002) Ambiguities in decision-oriented life cycle inventories—the role of mental models. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:330–338

  145. WHO (2013) Global status report on road safety 2013: supporting a decade of action. World Health Organisation

  146. Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38:1046–1059

  147. Wood R, Hertwich E (2013) Economic modelling and indicators in life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1710–1721

  148. Woods K (2010) Human rights and environmental sustainability. Edward Elgar

  149. Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buttol P, Raggi A, Buonamici R (2012) Finding life cycle assessment research direction with the aid of meta-analysis. J Ind Ecol 16:S39–S52

Download references


Many thanks to Professor Anthony Halog from the University of Queensland for his support. Particular thanks to Justine Lacey, CSIRO, for detailed comments.

Author information

Correspondence to Murray R. Hall.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Thomas Swarr

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hall, M.R. A transdisciplinary review of the role of economics in life cycle sustainability assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 1625–1639 (2015).

Download citation


  • Capability approach
  • Consequentialism
  • Ecological economics
  • Economics
  • Environmental life cycle costing
  • Ethics
  • Fairness
  • Life cycle assessment
  • Life cycle sustainability assessment
  • Planetary boundaries
  • Rawlsian social contract
  • Sustainability
  • Utilitarianism
  • Value