Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Indicator selection in life cycle assessment to enable decision making: issues and solutions

  • POLICIES AND SUPPORT IN RELATION TO LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

With an ever increasing list of indicators available, life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners face the challenge of effectively communicating results to decision makers. Simplification of LCA is often limited to an arbitrary selection of indicators, use of single scores by using weighted values or single attribute indicators. These solutions are less attractive to decision makers, since value judgments are introduced or multi-indicator information is lost. Normalization could be a means to narrow the list of indicators by ranking indicators vs. a reference system. This paper shows three different normalization approaches that produce very different ranking of indicators. It is explained how normalization helps maintain a multi-indicator approach while keeping the most relevant indicators, allowing effective decision making.

Methods

The approaches are illustrated on a hand dishwashing case study, using ReCiPe as the impact assessment method and taking the European population (year 2000) as the reference situation. Indicators are ranked using midpoint normalization factors, and compared to the ranking from endpoint normalization broken down by midpoint contribution.

Results and discussion

Endpoint normalization shows Resources as the most relevant area of protection for this case, closely followed by Human Health and Ecosystem. Broken down by their key driving midpoints, fossil depletion, climate change and, to a lesser extent, particulate matter formation and metal depletion, are most relevant. Midpoint normalization, however, indicates Freshwater Eutrophication, Natural Land Transformation and Toxicity indicators (marine and freshwater ecotoxicity and human toxicity) are most relevant.

Conclusions

A three-step approach based on endpoint normalization is recommended to present only the most relevant indicators, allowing more effective decision making instead of communicating all LCA indicators. The selection process breaks out the normalized endpoint results into the most contributing midpoints (relevant indicators) and reports results with midpoint level units. Bias due to lack of data completeness is less of an issue in the endpoint normalization process (compared to midpoint normalization), while midpoint results are less subject to uncertainty (compared to endpoint results). Focusing on the relevant indicators and key contributing unit processes has proven to be effective for non-LCA expert decision makers to understand, use, and communicate complex LCA results.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AISE Charter for Sustainable Cleaning (2012) http://www.sustainable-cleaning.com/en.home.orb, accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Bare J, Gloria T, Norris G (2006) Development of the method and U.S. normalization database for life cycle impact assessment and sustainability metrics. Environ Sci Technol 40(16):5108–5115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breedveld L, Lafleur M, Blonk H (1999) A framework for actualising normalisation data in LCA: Experiences in the Netherlands. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(4):213–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ecoinvent v2.2 (2010) The Ecoinvent Centre, www.ecoinvent.org/database. Accessed September 25, 2012

  • Environmental footprint of products. 2012. [Online] European Commission. Retreived in March 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/product_footprint.htm

  • Environmental footprint of organisations (2012) [Online] European Commission. Retrieved in March 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/corporate_footprint.htm

  • European Commission (2010) Joint research centre. analysis of existing environmental impact assessment methodologies for use in life cycle assessment. European Union, Ispra

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley J, Lant P (2009) Regional normalisation figures for Australia 2005/2006-inventory and characterisation data from a production perspective. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):215–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R., Steiner R, Jungbluth N (2009) The ecological scarcity method—Eco-Factors 2006: A method for impact assessment in LCA. Bern, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), 2009. Umwelt-Wissen Nr. 0906

  • Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2008) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. First edition Report I: Characterisation. 6 January 2009. http://www.lcia-recipe.net

  • The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (2012) Standards. Greenhouse Gas Protocol. [Online] http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Hauschild M (2006) Spatial differentiation in life cycle impact assessment: a decade of method development to increase the environmental realism of LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):11–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Guinée J, Kleijn R, Rovers V (2007) Bias in normalization: causes, consequences, detection and remedies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(4):211–216

    Google Scholar 

  • HERA initiative (2012) http://www.heraproject.com/Index.cfm, accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Hofstetter P, Baumgartner T, Scholz RW (2000) Modeling the valuesphere and ecosphere: integrating the decision makers’ perspectives into LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5(3):161–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Breedveld L, Huppes G, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S (2003) Normalization figures for environmental life-cycle assessment: the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the world (1990 and 1995). J Clean Prod 11(7):737–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2012) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40(3):641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment: requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/CD 14046 (2012) Life cycle assessment—water footprint—requirements and guidelines. The International Standard Organization. [Online] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43263. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • ISO 14067 (2010) Carbon footprint of products—part 1: quantification. s.l.: The International Standard Organisation, 2010

  • Jolliet O, Müller-Wenk R, Bare J, Brent A, Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Itsubo N, Peña C, Pennington D, Potting J, Rebitzer G, Stewart M, Udo de Haes H, Weidema B (2004) The LCIA midpoint-damage framework of the UNEP/SETAC life cycle initiative. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(6):394–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur A, Baldwin C, Swanson M, Wilberforce N, McClenachan G, Rentschler M (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional and Green Seal-compliant industrial and institutional cleaning products. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):377–387

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011a) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(5):401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox™ characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):728–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Margni M, Bare J, Roy PO, Deschênes L (2010) Development of normalization factors for Canada and the United States and comparison with European factors. Sci Total Environ 409(1):33–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Énergie (2012) http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/. [Online] http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. s.l.: The British Standards Association, 2011. ISBN 978 0 580 71382 8

  • Ramus CA, Montiel I (2005) When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Bus Soc 44(4):377–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • REACH regulation (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, Official J European Union, L396, 30.12.2006 p.1-849

  • Rosenbaum R, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MAJ, Joliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, Macleod M, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Schuhmacher M, van de Meent D, Hauschild MZ (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterization factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steen B (1999) A systematic approach to environmental strategies in product development (EPS). Version 2000 - General system characteristics. Centre for Environmental Assessment of Products and Material Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Technical Environmental Planning. CPM report 1999:4. [online] http://www.cpm.chalmers.se/cpm/publications/EPS2000.PDF

  • Sustainability Consortium (2012) [Online] Arizona State University and University of Arkansas. http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2012) [Online] http://www.apparelcoalition.org/. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Tolle DA (1997) Regional scaling and normalization in LCIA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(4):197–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2012) Greening the economy through life cycle thinking: ten years of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. s.l.: United Nations Environment Programmme, 2012. ISBN 978-92-807-3268-9

  • UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2010) http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • van Oers L, Huppes G (2001) LCA normalization factors for the Netherlands, Western Europe and the World. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(5):256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Van de Meent D (2009) USES-LCA 2.0: a global nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(3):282–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Water Footprint Network (2012) [Online]. http://www.waterfootprint.org/. accessed on September 25, 2012

  • Wegener-Sleeswijk A, Van Oers L, Guinée JB, Struijs J, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Sci Total Environ 390(1):227–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegener-Sleeswijk AW, Heijungs R (2010) GLOBOX: a spatiallydifferentiated global fate, intake and effect model for toxicity assessment in LCA. Sci Total Environ 408(14):2817–2832

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mark Goedkoop for his very useful feedback during the drafting of manuscript and the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback in the peer review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Procter & Gamble, Environmental Stewardship Organization, Temselaan 100, 1853, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium

    Gert Van Hoof

  2. PRé Consultants, Printerweg 18, 3821 AD, Amersfoort, the Netherlands

    Marisa Vieira

  3. Procter & Gamble, Environmental Stewardship Organization, 8700 Mason-Montgomery Road, Mason, OH, 45040, USA

    Maria Gausman & Annie Weisbrod

Authors
  1. Gert Van Hoof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marisa Vieira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Gausman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annie Weisbrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gert Van Hoof.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Guido W. Sonnemann

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Hoof, G., Vieira, M., Gausman, M. et al. Indicator selection in life cycle assessment to enable decision making: issues and solutions. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 1568–1580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0595-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0595-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation