Advertisement

Challenges of organizational LCA: lessons learned from road testing the guidance on organizational life cycle assessment

  • Julia Martínez-BlancoEmail author
  • Silvia Forin
  • Matthias Finkbeiner
LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The novelty of the O-LCA method and the existing differences with the established product LCA practice, as well as the unique structure each organization, pose a broad range of methodological and application challenges, in addition to the general methodological gaps in LCA. In order to provide practitioners with lessons learned for future applications and boost future method development efforts, the paper discusses those challenges.

Methods

The challenges included in this paper were mainly identified from a survey administered to the road testers and from experiences during the piloting process. These are complemented with case studies from literature. The focus of the paper is on challenges exclusive to the organizational approach, although some additional issues common to product LCA but intensified in organizational LCA are also included. Each issue is characterized and exemplified, recommendations of reference standards are analyzed, and possible solutions discussed.

Results and discussion

With the goal and scope of O-LCA, some challenging issues were to select part of an organization as the reporting organization, and the operability of the reporting flow. Regarding the system boundary, the challenges were which parts of the supply chain should be included in the study, problems when setting the system boundary for the service sector, how to include supporting activities, and how to prepare the right system boundary diagrams. Regarding the inventory stage, the discussion starts with alternatives to the categorization of the inventory into activities and the aggregation of those activities into groups. It includes an equivalence table for an easier transfer from other organizational frameworks (ISO 14069 and the GHG Protocol). Some challenges during impact assessment and interpretation were the assessment of local impacts, scoping performance tracking, and the use of O-LCA results for an organization’s strategy.

Conclusions

The review of challenges is not meant as a complete overview of all possible challenges—new challenges may arise in future case studies. Further application testing is needed, along with research to support a future revision of the O-LCA Guidance, in line with the issues highlighted in this paper and new challenges may arise in future case studies. O-LCA has the potential to contribute in the future implementation of the life cycle concept in environmental management systems, in the development of organizational footprint metrics for region-specific impacts, and in the social dimension of life cycle assessment.

Keywords

Case studies Footprinting Gaps Indirect impacts O-LCA 

Notes

References

  1. Buxmann K, Koehler A, Thylmann D (2016) Water scarcity footprint of primary aluminium. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:1605–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. European Commission (2013) Organisation environmental footprint guide. European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and SustainabilityGoogle Scholar
  3. Finkbeiner M, Ackermann R, Bach V, Berger M, Brankatschk G, Chang YJ, Grinberg M, Lehmann A, Martínez-Blanco J, Minkov N, Neugebauer S, Scheumann R, Schneider L, Wolf K (2014) Chapter 7: 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, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  4. Forin S, Martínez-Blanco J, Finkbeiner M (2019a) Facts and figures from road testing organizational life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24:866–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forin S, Finogenova N, Berger M, Finkbeiner M (2019b) Organizational water footprint: a methodological guidance. Int J Life Cycle Assess.:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01670-2
  6. Frischknecht R, Althaus H-J, Bauer C, Doka G, Heck T, Jungbluth N, Kellenberger D, Nemecek T (2007) The environmental relevance of capital goods in life cycle assessments of products and services. Int J Life Cycle Assess.  https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.02.308
  7. ISO (2006a) ISO 14044 Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO (2006b) ISO 14064-1 Greenhouse gases — Part 1: specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. ISO (2013) ISO/TR 14069: Greenhouse gases — quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions for organizations — guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. ISO (2014a) ISO 14046 Environmental management — water footprint — principles, requirements and guidelines. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. ISO (2014b) ISO/TS 14072 Environmental management — life cycle assessment — requirements and guidelines for organizational life cycle assessment. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (2018) ISO 14064-1 Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals (draft version August 2017). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 21:646–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 133:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manzardo A, Loss A, Mazzi A, Scipioni A (2016) Organization Life Cycle Assessment (OLCA): methodological issues and case studies in the beverage-packaging sector. In: Muthu SS (ed) Environmental Footprints of Packaging. Springer, Singapore, pp 47–63 ISSN 2345-7651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manzardo A, Loss A, Niero M, Vianello C, Scipioni A (2018a) Organizational life cycle assessment: the introduction of the production allocation burden. Procedia CIRP 69:429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Manzardo A, Lossa A, Jingzheng R, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2018b) Definition and application of activity portfolio and control/influence approaches in organizational life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 184:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martinez S, Machamalo M, Alvarez S (2018) Organization environmental footprint applying a multi-regional input-output analysis: a case study of a wood parquet company in Spain. Sci Total Environ 618:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martínez-Blanco J, Inaba A, Finkbeiner M (2015a) Scoping organizational LCA — challenges and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:829–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang YJ, Finkbeiner M (2015b) Social organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 333–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 23:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moreira de Camargo A, Forin S, Macedo K, Finkbeiner M, Martínez-Blanco J (2019) 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 24:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neppach S, Nunes KRA, Schebek L (2017) Organizational environmental footprint in German construction companies. J Clean Prod 142:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 135:620–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ridoutt BG, Pfister S, Manzardo A, Bare J, Boulay AM, Cherubini F et al (2016) Area of concern: a new paradigm in life cycle assessment for the development of footprint metrics. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:276–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. UN Environment (2017) Road testing organizational life cycle assessment around the world: applications, experiences and lessons learnedGoogle Scholar
  28. UNEP (2015) Guidance on organizational life cycle assessment. In: Life-Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme, ParisGoogle Scholar
  29. UNEP/SETAC (2009) Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. In: Life-Cycle Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme and Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. WRI and WBCSD (2004) GHG protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  31. WRI and WBCSD (2011) Corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting and reporting standard –supplement to the GHG protocol corporate accounting and reporting standard. World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Technology, Chair of Sustainable EngineeringTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Inèdit Innovació s.l., Research Park of UABBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations