Skip to main content
Log in

Ecometrics for life cycle management

A conflict between sustainable development and family values?

  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metrics are a prerequisite for the successful monitoring and management of progress toward goals. Within the context of sustainable development these “values” are stakeholder dependent with the interests of the individual, society, the environmental infrastructure and intergenerational liability differing significantly. These stakeholder priorities may also be mutually inconsistent or simultaneously unattainable. Therefore, a set of scale- and value-specific indicators will he required to represent the priorities of individuals, religious organizations, political and public interest groups, non-government organizations, firms and industry associations, as well as national and international institutions. Restricting the number of ecometrics, or creating aggregated sustainability indicators, risks disenfranchisement and ivalidation respectively.

Over the past three decades a series ofmicroecometrics have been developed to account for the impact of human activity, technology or products over regional, national, and sub-continental scales. These include life cycle energy consumption, dematerialization, waste minimization, as well as design for environment and eco-efficiency indicators, the latter two combining technological or economic aspects respectively with environmental factors.Metrics which evaluate the impact of a service, or the utility provided by a product, are lacking. A series of global measures, or macroecometrics have also been defined and include the average annual temperature as well as atmospheric compositions and concentrations, sea level, and earth based resources such as topsoil quantities. The validity of microecometrics as measures of global phenomena can be established through life cycle impact assessments which evaluate the “system’s” response to effects of products or services throughout their life cycle. However, the link between microecometrics and macroecometrics, their validity as indicators of sustainability, the subjectivity of sustainable developmentper se as a value, and the relationship of metrics and sustainable development with family values has not extensively been addressed. This paper summarizes recently proposed ecometrics, calls for the recognition of the subjectivity of indicators, the distinction between ecometrics used for internal corporate reporting and external decision making, and the establishment of a representative multistakeholder debate.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Molina, M. (1998): Ozone and Climate Change. Keynote Address to the Alliance for Global Sustainability, Zurich, January 22

  2. Graedel, T.;Allenby, B. (1997): Industrial Ecology of the Automobile. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  3. WBSCD Ecoefficiency Workgroup, Geneva, Switzerland; Marcus Lehni, Director

  4. Japan LCA Society Ecometrics Committee. For details, see, for example:M. Morimoto (1997): Int. J. LCA 2, 90; 2, 153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ecometrics’98 was the first in an annual series of mulristakeholder workshops: Ecometrics’98, January 18-19, 1998, Lausanne, Switzerland; D. Hunkeler, Organizer

  6. Schmidheiny, S.;Zorroquin, F. (1996): Financing Change: The Financial Community, Eco-efficiency and Sustainable Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Muzutani, H. (1996): Open Energy and Closed Materials: Are they compatible in LCA? Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference in Ecobalances, Tsukuba, Japan, p. 141

  8. Christiansen, K. et al. (1996): Simplifying LCA: Just a Cut? SETAC Europe LCA Screening and Streamlining Working Group, Final Report

  9. Cramer, J.;Quakernaat, T, et. al. (1993): Theory and Practice of Integrated Chain Management. TNO Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anon (1997): New Approach for Greenhouse Talks. Chemical and Engineering News, p. 22., Sept. 22

  11. Karl, T.R.;Knight, R.W.;Eaterling, D.R.;QuayLe, R.G. (1995): Trends in US Climate During the Twentieth Century. Consequences, 1, 3

  12. Heijungs, R.;Guinee, J.B.;Hums, G.;Landueher, R.M.;UDo de Haes, H.A.;Wegener Sleeswisk, A.;Anskms, A.M.M.;Eggels, P.G.;von Duin, R.;De Goede, H.P.(1992): Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Products — Guide & Backgrounds. Reprints No. 9266 & 9267, National Revise and Water Research Program NOH and Center of Environmental Science (CML), Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yamagiwa, Y.;Negishi, T. (1996): DAC-LCA-A Life Cycle Design Tool Enabling Designers to Simultaneously Evaluate Environmental Impacts and Assembly/Disassembly Ease. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ecobalances, Tsukuba, Japan, p. 153

  14. Pearce, D.W.;Atkinson, G.D. (1993): Captial Theory and the Measurement of Sustainable Development: An Indicator of “Weak” Sustainability. Ecological Economics 8, 103;Atkinson, G. D.,Dubourg, R.,Hamilton, K.,Munasinghe, M.,Pearce, D.,Younc, C, (1997): Measuring Sustainable Development — Macroeconomics and the Environment. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar

  15. Baumann, H.;Rydberg, T. (1997): A Comparison of Three Methods of Impact Analysis and Valuation. J. Cleaner Prod. 2,13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fiskel, J. (1996): Design for Environment: Creating Eco-Efficient Products and Processes, pp. 77–99 McGraw Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  17. Steen, B.A.;Ryding, S.O. (1992): The EPS Enviro-accounting Method. IVL, Göteborg, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kroon, P.;Yberma, J.R.;Slanina, J.;Arends, B.G. (1994): Weighting Factors for Air Emissions. ECNR 94-006, Petten, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gredel, T;Allenby B. (1995): Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  20. Correa, M.E. (1997): Consejo Empresarial Colombiano para el Desarrollo Sostenible (CECODES), Draft Report

  21. Lehni, M. (1998): State-of-Play Report of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Project on Eco-Efficiency Metrics and Reporting. Geneva, Switzerland

  22. GLauser, M.;MOller, P. (1997): Eco-Efficiency: A Prerequisite for Future Success. Chimia 51, 201

  23. Jolliet, O. (ed.) (1996): Impact Assessment of Human Ecotoxicity in Life Cycle Assessment. SETAC-working group on Impact Assessment in LCA, Toxicology Subgroup, 6th and Final Draft, 28/8

  24. Weidenhaupt, A.;Hungerbuhler, K. (1997): Integrated Product Design in Chemical Industry. A Plea for Adequate Life-Cycle Screening Indicators. Chimia 51, 217

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. DeSimone, L;Popoff F. (1997): Eco-Efficiency: The Business Link to Sustainable Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kiernan, M.J.;Levinson, J. (1997): Environment Drives Financial Performance: The Jury is In. Environmental Quality Management7, 1

  27. Zosel, T.W. (1992): Pollution Prevention Pans: The 3M Approach. Proc. 1st International Congress on Environmentally- Conscious Design and Manufacturing, Management Round Table, Boston

  28. Steger, U. (1996): Managerial Issues in Closing the Loop. Business Strategy and the Environment 5, 252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer, G.E. (1997): Adam Smith, the States and the Financial Eco-Metric Imperative. Environmental Quality Management 7, 81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goedkoop, M. (1995): Ecoindicator 95. Pré & DUISF Consultency, Amersfoort, NL

  31. Storebrand-Scuder Mutual Fund (see M. Lehni, ref. 21)

  32. Kyoto Global Climate Conference (1997): Kyoto, Japan, December 8–12

  33. Larson, T.J.;Brown, H.J. (1997): Designing Metrics that Fit: Rethinking Corporate Environmental Performance Systems. Environmental Quality Management 81, Spring

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Hunkeler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunkeler, D. Ecometrics for life cycle management. Int J LCA 4, 291–298 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979182

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979182

Keywords

Navigation