1 Introduction

Processes of identification and assessment of environmental aspects constitute a key element in the operation of environmental management systems (Matuszak-Flejszman 2007). Due to the absence of stringent guidelines in this respect (ISO 14001 2004; ISO 14004 2004), organisations may use various tools for carrying out both activities and make decisions on the basis of a variety of environmental information. Thus, the analysis of the application of life cycle assessment in this area should be made in the context of assessment of opportunities provided not only by life cycle assessment (LCA), but also alternative techniques. Therefore, key elements of the survey questionnaire (presented in Part 1 of the paper) included issues relating to the tools, techniques and indicators used by the organisations analysed for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. Responses to these types of questions are presented in this second part of the paper.

2 Results of the survey

As indicated in part 1 of this two-part paper, the size of the total population was assumed to be 13,061 and was determined as the number of organisations with ISO 14001 and/or an Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) certificate operating in Germany, Poland and Sweden (as at 2009). The size of the sample was assumed to be 10 % of the population and a number of questionnaires sent to organisations in each of the three countries analysed was proportional to its share in the total population (Germany 55.68 %, Sweden 32.67 % and Poland 11.63 %). One thousand three hundred six questionnaires were sent and there were 85 correctly completed and returned questionnaires in total (Poland 35, Germany 26 and Sweden 24).

2.1 Identification and assessment of environmental aspects—tools

Table 1 includes responses provided by representatives of the organisations analysed to questions relating to techniques used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. The table represents a set of tools in which both qualitative and quantitative approaches were included. The cells with the highest values were set in italics to help the reader identify the most popular techniques. The results for life cycle inventory (LCI)/life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) are presented in bold type to emphasise those results related to the use of LCA itself.

Table 1 List of tools used for identification and assessment of environmental aspects in the organisations analysed
Full size table

The results show that environmental aspects are mainly identified through the use of such qualitative or semi-quantitative tools as interviews, inspections, brainstorming and screening processes. Aspects are identified through the use of mass and energy balances in individual cases (except for Germany, where 46.15 % of respondents indicated the use of this tool). A particularly high level of use of interviews was reported by Polish and German organisations (77.14 % of Polish respondents and 73.08 % of German respondents). Inspections also proved very popular in those countries, whereas in the case of the Swedish organisations analysed, inspections were applied by approximately 46 % of respondents. By contrast, the Swedish organisations analysed indicated a very significant use of brainstorming and checklists as identification techniques. Screening processes were mainly reported by the German and Polish companies analysed. It is worth noting here that the low level of responses referring to benchmarking from Poland (8.57 %) in comparison to the higher values noted for Sweden (about 21 %) and Germany (about 35 %). None of the Polish companies analysed showed LCA as the technique used for identification of environmental aspects, whereas some cases of the use of the technique were noted by Swedish and German organisations. There were five Swedish companies (21.74 % of the organisations that returned the completed questionnaire) and five German companies (19.23 % of the organisations that returned the completed questionnaire), which indicated the use of LCA for the above-mentioned purpose. It is worth emphasising that nearly all the organisations analysed used at least two identification techniques although there were rare cases, in which only one approach was applied in each of the countries. A similar situation may be observed in the case of techniques used for assessment of environmental aspects (see Table 1).

In most of the techniques reported by the organisations studied, qualitative (descriptive) or semi-quantitative approaches are applied. In Polish organisations, point estimation methods with descriptive assessment prevail, whereas in the Swedish organisations studied, the qualitative approach was reported most frequently followed by point estimation methods. Half of the German organisations analysed reported the use of the ABC method. LCA was confirmed as a tool for assessment of environmental aspects by five Swedish organisations and three German organisations. They were the same organisations that reported use of LCA for identification (two German organisations declared that they used LCA for identification only).

Another issue analysed was consideration of the forms of validation and verification of completeness of data collected for identification of environmental aspects. Considering the great popularity of the use of qualitative and semi-qualitative techniques for identification and assessment of environmental aspects among the organisations analysed, it should be assumed that typically quantitative forms of verification (e.g. mass and energy balance) would enjoy lesser interest. The results presented in Table 2 seem to confirm this assumption (results presented as a percentage of organisations providing a given response in relation to the total number of organisations participating in the research). The greatest proportion of representatives of the organisations analysed indicated internal audits and assessments made by the specialists as validation tools. Internal audits constitute one of the most significant tools for assessment of the effectiveness of the organisation’s activities and these may provide a basis for improvement of the management system and, for example, the area connected with improvement of the process of identification and assessment of environmental aspects (Matuszak-Flejszman 2010). In Table 2, the cells with the highest values were set in bold to indicate the most popular tools.

Table 2 Tools used by the organisations analysed for verification of completeness and consistency of information during identification of environmental aspects
Full size table

The tools used for identification and assessment are assessed by most of the companies analysed as simple (Poland 51 %, Germany 40 %, Sweden 17 %) or moderately difficult/difficult (Poland 49 %, Germany 82 %, Sweden 55 %). The results are presented in Fig. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Opinion of the organisations surveyed on the techniques they used for the identification of environmental aspects (total number of companies replying to this question = 85)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Opinion of the organisations surveyed on the techniques they used for the assessment of environmental aspects (total number of companies replying to this question = 85)

Full size image

2.2 Assessment of environmental aspects—criteria

The criteria used are a key issue from the point of view of analysis of the suitability of the use of LCA as a technique for the assessment of environmental aspects in EMS. The analysis of the collection of inputs and outputs should, in theory, include elements connected with those very aspects such as type, size and frequency of occurrence, whereas LCIA should include, directly or indirectly, the issues connected with impacts upon the environment (scale, severity and duration). The results included in Table 3 show that most of the criteria included in the questionnaire are considered by the organisations analysed. It is worth noting that the relatively low result for the scale of the impact criterion for German companies (30.77 %). Among the criteria that are not related to the environment, compliance with legal requirements and, in the case of the Polish companies, compliance with interested parties’ requirements, enjoy great popularity. The companies analysed reported less frequent use of the public image of the company and environmental policy as criteria for assessment.

Table 3 Criteria used by the companies analysed during assessment of the environmental aspects
Full size table

Considering LCA as a tool for assessing the environmental aspects in EMS, the way of determining the severity of the impact is also significant. The survey included a question relating to the type of information on the basis of which organisations determine the severity of the impact. As shown in Fig. 3, representatives of organisations completing the questionnaire have the choice between different types of environmental information with various impact modelling levels and environmental relevance: from descriptive information taken from literature, through midpoint indicators (e.g. GWP, ODP and toxicity indicators) up to a value of a cumulative and damage-based eco-indicator. Most of the organisations studied from all three of the countries surveyed indicated literature (descriptive information) as a basis for the determination of the severity of the impact (coloured black in Fig. 3). Severity of impact is visibly determined more frequently in Germany and Sweden than in Poland on the basis of more advanced indicators which consider a further or closer level of impact modelling (light and dark grey colour in Fig. 3). The sample analysed included particular German and Swedish companies using full LCA and cumulative indicators for the determination of severity of the impact (white colour). A proportion of the organisations participating in the survey declare that they did not use this criterion for assessment of aspects at all. In Table 3 the cells with the highest values were set in bold to facilitate the identification of the most popular criteria by the reader.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Methods of determination of the value of the criterion of severity of the impact for assessment of environmental aspects in the organisations analysed (total number of companies replying to this question = 85)

Full size image

The assessment of environmental aspects on the basis of information connected with environmental impacts is also related to the issue of the type and number of environmental problems that are considered during the assessment as well as the method of defining of the same. LCA research includes basic terms such as the impact category and damage category which represent an image of some environmental problems defined more or less generally. Table 4 shows environmental problems defined in various ways (in the further and closer aspect of LCA) and responses provided by representatives of those organisations which completed the questionnaire (the data are shown according to the percentage share of representatives of the organisations, which provided positive responses to a given question in relation to the total number of organisations participating in the survey in a given country). As earlier, in Table 4, the cells with the highest values were set in bold to indicate the environmental problems most often taken into account while assessing the environmental aspects.

Table 4 Environmental problems taken into account by the organisations analysed while assessing the environmental aspects
Full size table

On the basis of the data included in Table 4, we may observe that environmental problems defined generally enjoy greatest interest among the organisations analysed. The problems that are most often taken into account when assessing the environmental aspects include water pollution, soil contamination, air pollution, environmental pollution by waste and noise. An exceptionally high percentage of Polish companies are characterised by degradation of the ground, a factor that generates visibly lower interest among the German and Swedish organisations analysed. By contrast, climate change is most frequently taken into account in the case of the latter two respondents, and, in the case of Swedish organisations, ozone layer depletion is also considered.

3 LCA in EMS—companies’ experience

Table 5 below presents short characteristics of ten organisations (five Swedish and five German) using LCA for identification and/or assessment of environmental aspects in EMS. Two German companies, despite declaring the fact of using of LCA, did not complete the second part of the survey, justifying their decision on the basis of company policy and confidentiality of data. As regards the above, responses to the second part of the survey were obtained from only eight organisations.

Table 5 Characteristics of ten organisations participating in the survey and using LCA for identification and/or assessment of environmental aspects
Full size table

As there are few such organisations, it is difficult to make any generalisations and search for correlations. These are mainly medium or large companies operating in various sectors and having environmental management systems complying with the requirements of ISO 14001 or the EMAS regulation. As has already been mentioned, they would prefer to use a package of tools. There was only one Swedish organisation that confirmed using LCA as the only method of assessment of environmental aspects. It is worth emphasising that in only one of the organisations analysed was that the person filling out the questionnaire is a specialist in LCA (see Table 5).

The first of the questions to which the organisations analysed responded related to software used for LCA. German companies reported using GaBi software, whereas Swedish companies used Excel or GaBi (one organisation uses the two tools jointly). The next question related to elements of the methodology and the levels of LCA results used by organisations for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. The results are presented in Table 6. All eight organisations use the idea of a functional unit during identification of environmental aspects. There are three Swedish organisations and one German organisation that also use a division of the system into unit processes. Allocation procedures, validation of the processes through balance and the use of cutoff criteria were only indicated by Swedish companies. In most cases, aspects are assessed through the use of the environmental profile, whereas three Swedish organisations and one German organisation also use cumulative results of, e.g. eco-indicators, for these purposes.

Table 6 Elements of methodology and level of LCA results used by the organisations analysed for identification and assessment of environmental aspects
Full size table

The last question was related to the assessment of LCA as a tool used for this particular purpose. Representatives of the organisations analysed were to describe their LCA on the basis of their experience, by indicating its strong points and its weak points as compared to traditional methods used for the identification and assessment of aspects in EMS. There were eight representatives of the organisations analysed who answered this question. The results are presented in Table 7. Representatives of the organisations analysed could choose between four answers (definitely yes, rather yes, rather no, and definitely no) for each of the LCA characteristics. The results presented in Table 7 show that the organisations analysed using LCA in EMS are convergent in the majority of strong points of LCA as compared to traditional methods used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. Representatives of the organisations analysed indicated positive answers to the exclusion of others such as “definitely yes” and “rather yes” in relation to such characteristics of LCA as the possibility of determining potential impacts caused by environmental aspects on the basis of scientifically established and widely accepted impact modelling methodology; the possibility of including the life cycle perspective; getting qualitative results and covering several elements concerning the environmental aspects (size, frequency and type) by one methodology. Among the strong points mentioned, the general availability of software used for LCA aroused most doubts. The lowest result was obtained for potential weak points of LCA such as time-consuming analysis, which is, theoretically, higher than in the case of the application of simpler and less methodologically advanced tools. Two organisations stated that the time-consuming nature of LCA analysis should not be perceived as a weak point, whereas four other companies answered “rather yes”. A relatively high accordance among the bodies analysed (71.43 % of the organisations completing this part of the questionnaire) was obtained for features of LCA such as lack of possibility to cover one common methodology, the quantitative and qualitative environmental aspects. Representatives of the organisations analysed also agreed and indicated both complexity of LCA and higher costs as weak points of the technique in comparison with traditional methods of identification and assessment of environmental aspects.

Table 7 Assessment of the usefulness of LCA as a tool used for identification and assessment of environmental aspects in EMS as made by German and Swedish organisations participating in the survey and using LCA for this purpose
Full size table

4 Conclusions

The organisations studied, regardless of country, are dominated by qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques of assessment and identification of environmental aspects. The methods used for identification and assessment of environmental aspects as shown in the surveys are different from LCA to such an extent that it should be assumed that the organisations involved and their environmental managers are so accustomed to traditional qualitative and semi-quantitative solutions that they would not be prepared for the understanding and adoption of different approaches such as LCA. Another issue studied included forms of validation and verification of the completeness of data collected for identification of environmental aspects. In LCA research, LCI and LCIA analyses typically have a quantitative nature and, therefore, apart from procedural techniques, a series of numerical approaches to the analysis and assessment of data are adopted (Guinée et al. 2002). For example, in the practice of LCA, LCI model and inventory data are often validated by making mass and energy balances of unit processes and any exclusion can be justified and preceded by, e.g. sensitivity analyses. In the case of identification and assessment of environmental aspects in EMS, less emphasis is probably put on quantitative data and their completeness.

The opinions of the companies studied seem to correlate with observations made during the work already undertaken (Lewandowska 2011; Lewandowska et al. 2011) where potential strong and weak points of LCA were discussed in the context of EMS. LCA can be recognised as too time consuming in comparison with less complicated and “quicker” traditional approaches like, for example, point estimation methods. However, the representatives of the organisations analysed declared their readiness to accept that the identification and assessment processes for environmental aspects take even longer, which represents an opportunity for LCA. The strong point of LCA is the higher environmental relevance of the results obtained since environmental impact can be assessed in a more comprehensive way. The use of LCA for the assessment of environmental aspects in EMS would make it possible to assess the problems in the context of the entire environmental profile including several environmental problems. More precise understanding and definition of environmental problems that are precisely defined in LCA would represent a significant novelty for those environmental managers using traditional approaches. In practice, environmental problems are defined in a general sense and rather ambiguously since this level of detail is sufficient in the context of qualitative and semi-quantitative techniques commonly used for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects. Additionally, LCA also permits the inclusion of indirect environmental aspects (if quantitative), which can be especially valuable in organisations using EMAS (Lewandowska et al. 2011). All 85 of the companies analysed indicated a proportion of indirect aspects among the total number of environmental aspects and the survey noted the following results: Germany about 25 %, Poland about 21 % and Sweden about 41 %. The indirect aspects were mostly defined in a descriptive way. If appropriate data was gathered (e.g. for transport processes made by an external logistic company), LCA would enable the enterprises to quantify them so that they could be covered by a common assessment method with direct aspects.

Due to the low return rate, the results obtained may only be applied to the organisations analysed and any generalisations drawn should be treated with caution.