The ECO-indicator 98 explained


The Eco-Indicator 98 project aims at a complete revision of the Eco-Indicator 95 methodology. Like its predecessor, the target is to develop single scores for designers. The method now includes resources and land use. Important improvements are: the use of fate analysis, the much better definition of the damage categories concerned with human health and ecosystem health, using the PAF (Potentially Affected Fraction) and DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years) concept, and a completely new approach to modelling resources and land use. Perhaps the most fundamental improvement is the management system for value choices. The result of this management system is that there will be three instead of one indicator. Each version is based on a different cultural perspective. The method should be updated continuously. It is proposed to set up an independent organisation to guide this future development.

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


  1. Braunschweig, A;Förster, R;Hofstetter, P;Müller-Wenk, R. (1996): Developments in LCA Valuation. IWOE Diskussions-beitrag Nr. 32, St. Gallen

  2. Brunner, St. (1998): Panel Methods and their Application for Weighting in LCA. UNS Working Paper for the Project Environmental Prioritising within the Framework of the Swiss Priority Programme Environment; ETH Zurich

  3. Chapman, P.F.;Roberts, F. (1983): Metal Resources and Energy. Butterworths Monographs in Materials

  4. Cambell, C.J.;Laherrère, J.H. (1998): The End of Cheap Oil. Scientific American, March 1998, pp 60–65

  5. Deffeyes, K. (1964): Uranium Distribution in Mined Deposits and in the Earth Crust. Department of Energy, Grand Junction Colorado; see also Scientific American 242, 1980, p 50

    Google Scholar 

  6. EUSES (1996):Jager, D.T. et al.: EUSES the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), The Netherlands; Available from the European Chemicals Bureau (EC/JRC), Ispra, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  7. ExternE (1997): Core project. Extension of the Accounting Framework; Final Report, Compiled byMayerhover, P.;Krewitt, W.;Friedrich, R. The European Commission, Contract JOS3-CT95-0002 Stuttgart (available on www.ExternE.jrc.sp)

  8. Frischknecht, R. (1998): Life Cycle Inventory Analysis for Decision Making. Dissertation ETH Nr. 12599, ISBN 3-9520661-3-3, ETH Zurich

  9. Goedkoop, M.J. (1995): De Eco-Indicator 95. Final report; NOH report 9523; PRé Consultants; Amersfoort (NL); ISBN 90-72130-77-4

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gomez, J.D. (1998): Approach for the Use of the Eco-Indicator 98 Concept in Latin America. MSc Thesis; IHE; Delft

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guinée, J. et al. (1996): LCA Impact Assessment of Toxic Releases. Product Policy Report 1996/21, Ministry of Environment (VROM), The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hofstetter, P. (1998): Perspectives in Life Cycle Impact Assessment; A Structured Approach to Combine Models of the Technosphere, Ecosphere and Valuesphere., Kluwers Academic Publishers, 1998, Info:, J.G.M.;Lindeijer, E.W.;Sas, H.;Sprengers, M. (1994): Towards a Single Indicator for Emissions. IDES (IVAM-er) Amsterdam

  13. Köllner, T. (1998): Life-Cycle Impact Assessment for Land Use. Effect Assessment Taking the Attribute Biodiversity into Account. IWÖ Discussion Paper, unpublished first draft, 29.8.98, University St. Gallen

  14. Meent, D.;Klepper, O. (1997): Mapping the Potential Affected Fraction (PAF) of Species as an Indicator of Generic Toxic Stress. RIVM report 607504001, June 1997; RIVM. Bilthoven

    Google Scholar 

  15. Müller-Wenk, R. (1996): Damage Categories and Damage Functions as Core Elements of Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. IWOE Diskussionsbeitrag. 36 (Draft version 29.10.1996, Universität St. Gallen

  16. Müller-Wenk, R. (1998-1): Depletion of Abiotic Resources Weighted on the Base of “Virtual” Impacts of Lower Grade Deposits in Future. IWÖ Diskussionsbeitrag Nr. 57, Universität St. Gallen, March 1998, ISBN 3-906502-57-0

  17. Müller-Wenk, R. (1998-2): Land Use — The Main Threat to Species. IWOE Discussion Paper no. 64, IWOE University of St. Gallen

  18. Murray, Chr.;Lopez, A. (1996): The Global Burden of Disease. WHO, World Bank and Harvard School of Public Health. Boston

    Google Scholar 

  19. Potting, J.;Hauschild, M.;Wenzel, H. (1998): “Less is better” and “Only above Threshold”: Two Incompatible Paradigms for Human Toxicity in Lifecycle Assessment? Int. J. LCA, in print for issue 6, 1998

  20. Spriensma, R. (1997): Working Document on Fate Analysis for the Eco-Indicator 97. In: EUSES, Internal Working Document, PRé Consultants

  21. Steen, B.;Ryding, S.O. (1992): The EPS Enviro-Accounting Method. IVL, B-1080 Gothenburg

  22. Thompson, M.;Ellis, R.;Wildavsky, A.: Cultural Theory, Westview Print Boulder 1990

  23. Wiertz J. van Dijk &J.B. Latour (1992); MOVE: Vegetatie-module; de kans op voorlomen van 700 plantensoorten als functie van vocht, pH, nutrienten en zout. RIVM rapport nr. 711901006. Bilthoven

Download references

Author information



Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mark Goedkoop or Patrick Hofstetter or Ruedi Müller-Wenk or Renilde Spriemsma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goedkoop, M., Hofstetter, P., Müller-Wenk, R. et al. The ECO-indicator 98 explained. Int. J. LCA 3, 352–360 (1998).

Download citation


  • DALY concept
  • damage categories
  • Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALY)
  • Eco-Indicator 98
  • ecosystem health
  • fate analysis
  • human health
  • land use
  • management system for value choices
  • modelling resources and land use
  • PAF concept
  • Potentially Affected Fraction (PAF)
  • resources, supply of
  • safeguard subjects