Life cycle sustainability assessment of products

(with Comments by Helias A. Udo de Haes, p. 95)
State-of-the-Art in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA)

Abstract

Background Aims and Scope

Sustainability was adopted by UNEP in Rio de Janeiro (1992) as the main political goal for the future development of humankind. It should also be the ultimate aim of product development. According to the well known interpretation of the original definition given in the Brundtland report, sustainability comprises three components: environment, economy and social aspects. These components or “pillars” of sustainability have to be properly assessed and balanced if a new product is to be designed or an existing one is to be improved.

Methods

The responsibility of the researchers involved in the assessment is to provide appropriate and reliable instruments. For the environmental part there is already an internationally standardized tool: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is the logical counterpart of LCA for the economic assessment. LCC surpasses the purely economic cost calculation by taking into account the use-and end-of-life phases and hidden costs. For this component, a guideline is being developed by SETAC as a basis for future standardization. It is a very important point that different life-cycle based methods (including Social Life Cycle Assessment ‘SLCA’) for sustainability assessment use consistent — ideally identical — system boundaries. This requirement includes that in LCC the physical life cycle (‘from cradle-to-grave’) is used instead of the frequently used marketing life cycle (‘from product development-to-end of market life’).

Future Developments

SLCA has been neglected in the past, but is now beginning to be developed. The central problems seem to be how to relate the social indicators (social impact assessment) to the functional unit of the product-system and how to restrict the many social indicators proposed to a manageable number. Meanwhile, qualitative and semi-quantitative approaches are used as substitutes for a full, quantitative SLCA. It is hoped that new methods will be developed and finally standardized by ISO. The combination of LCA, LCC and SLCA will provide the much needed tool for sustainability assessment of products.

Keywords

Life cycle costing (LCC) life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) products, life cycle sustainability assessment sustainability sustainable products 

References

  1. [1]
    Carlowitz HC (2000): Sylvicultura Oeconomica — Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum-Zucht. Leipzig 1713 (Reprint [ISBN 3-86012-115-4]: TU, Bergakademie Freiberg, Akademische Buchhandlung Freiberg 2000)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    WCED — World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): Our Common Future. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Projektgruppe ökologische Wirtschaft (ed) (1987): Produktlinienanalyse: Bedürfnisse, Produkte und ihre Folgen. Kölner Volksblattverlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Grießhammer R, Buchert M, Gensch C-O, Hochfeld C, Manhart A, Reisch L, Rüdenauer I: PROSA — Product Sustainability Assessment. Öko-Institut e.V., Freiburg (undated)Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G (2005): The Future of Life Cycle Assessment. Int J LCA 10, 305–308Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kloepffer W (2003): Life-Cycle Based Methods for Sustainable Product Development. Editorial for the Life Cycle Management (LCM) Section in Int J LCA 8, 157–159Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hunkeler D, Lichtenvort K, Rebitzer G (eds): Environmental Life Cycle Costing. Report by a SETAC Europe working group, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA (in print)Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) (1993): Guidelines for Life Cycle Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice’. Edition 1. From the SETAC Workshop held at Sesimbra, Portugal, 31 March–3 April 1993. Brussels, Belgium, and Pensacola, Florida, USA, August 1993Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    O’Brian M, Doig A, Clift R (1996): Social and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (SELCA). Int J LCA 1, 231–237Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Dreyer LC, Hauschild M, Schierbeck J (2006): A Framework for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA 11, 88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2006): Social Indicators for Sustainable Project and Technology Life Cycle Management in the Process Industry. Int J LCA 11, 3–15Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Weidema BP (2006): The Integration of Economic and Social Aspects in Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Int J LCA 11,Special Issue 1, 89–96Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Norris GA (2006): Social Impacts in Product Life Cycles. Towards Life Cycle Attribute Assessment. Int J LCA 11,Special Issue 1, 97–104Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Hunkeler D (2006): Societal LCA Methodology and Case Study. Int J LCA 11, 371–382Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Saling P, Gensch C-O, Kreisel G, Kralisch D, Diehlmann A, Preuße D, Meurer M, Kölsch D, Schmidt I (2007): Entwicklung der Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung SEEbalance® — im BMBF-Projekt ‘Nachhaltige Aromatenchemie’. Karlsruher Schriften zur Geographie und GeoökologieGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Saling P, Kicherer A, Dittrich-Krämer B, Wittlinger R, Zombik W, Schmidt I, Schrott W, Schmidt S (2002): Ecoefficiency Analysis by BASF: The method. Int J LCA 7, 203–218Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Landsiedel R, Saling P (2002): Assessment of Toxicological Risks for Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-efficiency Analysis. Int J LCA 7, 261–268Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kicherer A, Schaltegger S, Tschochohei H, Ferreira Pozo B (2007): Eco-Efficiency. Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costs via Normalization. Int J LCA 12, 537–543Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    University of Stuttgart LBP, Dept. Life Cycle Engineering: Social Aspects in Life Cycle Assessments (Life Cycle Working Environment — LCWE). Information leaflet (undated)Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Grießhammer R, Benoît C, Dreyer LC, Flysjö A, Manhart A, Mazijn B, Méthot A, Weidema BP (2006): Feasibility Study: Integration of Social Aspects into LCA. Discussion paper from UNEP/SETAC Task Force Integration of Social Aspects in LCA, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Finkbeiner M (2007): Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung von Produkten und Prozessen — Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. Presentation given at the 12. Produktionstechnisches Kolloquium PTK, 11. and 12.10.2007, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Kloepffer W (2006): The Role of SETAC in the Development of LCA. Int J LCA 11,Special issue 1, 116–122Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Rikhardsson P, Bennett M, Bouma J, Schaltegger S (eds) (2005): Implementing Environmental Management Accounting: Status and Challenges. Springer KluwerGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Kloepffer W, Renner I (accepted for publication (2007)): Life-Cycle Based Sustainability Assessment of Products. In: Schaltegger S (ed): Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production (in print)Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Remmen A, Jensen AA, Frydendal J (2007): The Triple Bottom Line — the Business Case of Sustainability. In: Life Cycle Management. A Business Guide to Sustainability. UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. ISBN 978-92-807-2772-2. UNEP 2007, 10–11Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Barthel L-P, Held M (2007): Social LCA — Analogies and Differences to Environmental LCA. Platform presentation at the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Manhart A, Grießhammer R (2007): Social Impacts of the Production of Notebooks. Platform presentation at the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Pesonen H-L (2007): Sustainability SWOTS — New Method for Summarizing Product Sustainability Information for Business Decision Making. Platform presentation at the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Benoît C, Revéret J-P (2007): Developing a Methodology for Social Life Cycle Assessment: The North American Tomato’s CSR. Platform presentation at the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Jørgensen A, Le Bocq A, Nazarkina L, Hauschild MZ (2008): Methodologies for Social Life Cycle Assessment. Int J LCA 13(2) 96–103Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Udo de Haes HA (2006): How to approach land use in LCIA or, how to avoid the Cinderella effect? Comments on ‘Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA’ (see [32]). Int J LCA 11, 219–221Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Milà i Canals L, Bauer C, Depestele J, Dubreuil A, Freiermuth Knuchel R, Gaillard G, Michelsen O, Mueller-Wenk R, Rydgren B (2007): Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA. Int J LCA 12, 5–15Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Bellekom S, Potting J, Benders R (2006): Feasibility of Applying Site-dependent Impact Assessment of Acidification in LCA. Int J LCA 11, 417–424Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Kloepffer W (1996): Reductionism versus Expansionism in LCA. Int J LCA 1, 61Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Kloepffer W, Renner I (2007): Lebenszyklusbasierte Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung von Produkten. Technikfolgenabschätzung — Theorie und Praxis (TATuP) 16, 32–38Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Huppes G (2007): Why we Need Better Eco-Efficiency Analysis. From Technological Optimism to Realism. Technikfolgenabschätzung — Theorie und Praxis (TATuP) 16, 38–45Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA, Triebswetter U, Eder P, Clift R (eds) (2002): Analytical Tools for Environmental Design and Management in a Systems Perspective. Kluwer Academics Publ., Dordrecht (NL)Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Elkington J (1997): Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publ, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Rebitzer G (2007): Integrating Life Cycle Thinking into the Business Process of a Multinational Company. LCM2007, Zurich, August 27–29, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© springer-verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LCA Consult & ReviewFrankfurt/MGermany

Personalised recommendations