Abstract
SETAC and ISO now describe the LCIA outcome as LCIA indicators. This contrasts with a SETAC definition of LCIA that is less than five years old. This commentary discusses the two themes that underlie this change in terms and definitions. The first theme is the arrival of a consensus that current LCIA indicators do not describe actual environmental impacts or effects. The second theme is the recognition that some of the ways used to generate indicators results in subjective scores while other ways involve highly simplified assumptions about complex environmental processes. The outcome of the new description is a new emphasis on LCIA transparency. Both the environmental relevance and the scientific basis of each indicator must now be described according to ISO. This increased transparency is essential for decision makers to understand the usefulness of LCIA indicators in making decisions and for audiences to understand what an LCA does or does not say about a product system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ILSI (1996): Human Health Assessment and Life-cycle Assessment: Analysis by an Expert Panel. Panelists: T.A. Burke, J. Doull, T.E. McKone, D.J. Paustenbach, R. Scheuplein, H.A. Udo de Haes, and J.L. Young. Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC. June 7’9, 1995
ISO (1997): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - principles and framework. TC 207/SC 5 ISO 14040-97
ISO (1998a): Environmental management-Life cycle assessment - Life cycle goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. TC 207/SC 5 ISO 14041-98
ISO (1998b): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle impact assessment. TC 207/SC 5 DIS 14042
OECD (1994): Environmental indicators: OECD core set. ISBN 92-64-04263-6. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
Owens, J.W. (1998): Life cycle impact assessment: The use of subjective judgements in classification and characterization. Int. J. LCA 3(l):43–46
Potting, J., W. Schöpp, K. Blok andM. Hauschild (1998): Site- dependent life-cycle impact assessment of acidification. J. Ind. Ecol. 2:63–87
SETAC (1993a): Guidelines for life-cycle assessment: A ‘Code of Practice.’ Eds.: F. Consoli, D. Allen, I. Boustead, J. Fava, W. Franklin, A.A. Jensen, N. de Oude, R. Parrish, R. Perriman, D. Postlethwaite, B. Quay, J. Séguin and B. Vigon. Proceedings of a workshop in Sesimbra, Portugal. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL. March 31-April 3, 1993
SETAC (1993b): A conceptual framework for life-cycle impact assessment. Eds.: J. Fava, F. Consoli, R. Denison, K. Dickson, T. Mohin and B. Vigon. Proceedings of a workshop in Sandestin, FL, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL. February 1–7, 1992
SETAC (1997): Life cycle impact assessment. The state-of-the-art. Report of the SETAC work group on LCA impact assessment. Eds.: Barnthouse, L., J. Fava, K. Humphreys, R. Hunt, L. Laibson, S. Noesen, J. Owens, J. Todd, B. Vigon, K. Weitz, and J. Young. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
Udode Haes,H., andJ.W. Owens (1998): Evolution and development of the conceptual framework and methodology of life cycle impact assessment. Summary of SETAC and SETAC-Europe work groups on life cycle impact assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Owens, J.W. Why life cycle impact assessment is now described as an indicator system. Int. J. LCA 4, 81–86 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979406
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979406