Advertisement

Consistency check for life cycle assessments

  • Bo P. Weidema
POLICIES AND SUPPORT IN RELATION TO LCA
  • 121 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This paper seeks to provide a detailed procedural description for performing a consistency check for LCA as required by the ISO 14044 standard.

Methods

Consistency is defined as freedom from logical contradictions. The requirements of ISO 14044 are reviewed, and detailed guidance is provided for these and other related consistency issues.

Results and discussion

The procedural guidance reflects the iterative nature of the phases of LCA. Some inconsistencies can be of a more fundamental nature that does not allow a single consistent solution. Instead, more than one separately consistent solution can then be found and applied as separate “scenarios” presented to the decision maker with appropriate explanation of the fundamental differences of the scenarios, and their respective strengths and weaknesses for the decision context.

Conclusions

Revisiting and correcting inconsistencies can avoid most consistency problems. However, lack of resources may prohibit such adjustments, and the inconsistencies and their implications for the conclusions may then simply be stated and the conclusions modified accordingly.

Keywords

Attributional Consequential Goal and scope Interpretation phase ISO 14044 Procedural description 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The development of this text was prompted by a request from the SETAC/UNEP Life Cycle Initiative Task Force on Interpretation, and was originally intended to be part of the article reporting from this Task Force (Laurent et al. 2018), but due to its degree of detail it was decided to provide it as a stand-alone article. I wish to express my gratitude for constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (2008) Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, PensacolaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ISO (2006) International Standard ISO 14044. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. ISO (2012) Technical report ISO 14049. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. Laurent A et al (2018) Methodology review and detailed guidance for life cycle interpretation. Manuscript from a sub-group of the Task Force on cross-cutting issues under the SETAC-UNEP Life Cycle Initiative flagship project on ‘Global guidance for life cycle impact assessment’. Submitted to the International Journal of LCA. [Reference to be updated]Google Scholar
  5. Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S, Weidema BP, Verones F, Koffler C (2017) Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):853–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sacchi R (2017) Example – heat recovery and system expansion. Published at www.consequential-lca.org
  7. Sonnemann G, Vigon B (2011) Global Guidance Principles for Life Cycle Assessment Databases. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative, Paris/PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  8. Technical Report ISO (2006) International Standard ISO 14040. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
  9. Weidema BP (2014) Has ISO 14040/44 failed its role as a standard for LCA? J Ind Ecol 18(3):324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weidema BP (2016) Valuation procedures for product environmental footprint (PEF). Published as chapter 5 of Christiansen K (ed) (2016): Nordic environmental footprint seminar on LCA/PEF issues. http://www.nordic-pef.org/publications.html, http://lca-net.com/p/2551
  11. Weidema BP (2017) Short procedural guideline to identify the functional unit for a product environmental footprint and to delimit the scope of product categories. Aalborg: 2.-0 LCA consultants. Report to the Nordic Council of Ministers. http://lca-net.com/p/2527
  12. Weidema BP (2018) In search of a consistent solution to allocation of joint production. J Ind Ecol 22(2):252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Weidema BP, Wenzel H, Petersen CC, Hansen K (2004) The product, functional unit and reference flows in LCA. Miljøstyrelsen. (Environmental News 70), KøbenhavnGoogle Scholar
  14. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, Vadenbo CO, Wernet G (2013) Overview and Methodology Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen: The ecoinvent CentreGoogle Scholar
  15. Weidema BP, Grbeš A, Brandão M (2015) The implicit boundary conditions of attributional and consequential LCA. Presentation to the ISIE Conference, Guildford, 7th–10th July 2015Google Scholar
  16. Weidema BP, Pizzol M, Schmidt JH, Thoma G (2018) Attributional or consequential life cycle assessment: a matter of social responsibility. J Clean Prod 174:305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Planning, Technical Faculty of IT and DesignAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations