Alessandra Zamagni

Life Cycle Assessment: Past, Present, and Future†

Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) has developed fast over the last three decades. Whereas LCA developed from merely energy analysis to a comprehensive environmental burden analysis in the 1970s, full-fledged life cycle impact assessment and life cycle costing models were introduced in the 1980s and 1990 s, and social-LCA and particularly consequential LCA gained ground in the first decade of the 21st century. Many of the more recent developments were initiated to broaden traditional environmental LCA to a more comprehensive Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis (LCSA). Recently, a framework for LCSA was suggested linking life cycle sustainability questions to knowledge needed for addressing them, identifying available knowledge and related models, knowledge gaps, and defining research programs to fill these gaps. LCA is evolving into LCSA, which is a transdisciplinary integration framework of models rather than a model in itself. LCSA works with a plethora of disciplinary models and guides selecting the proper ones, given a specific sustainability question. Structuring, selecting, and making the plethora of disciplinary models practically available in relation to different types of life cycle sustainability questions is the main challenge.

Progress in sustainability science: lessons learnt from current methodologies for sustainability assessment: Part 1

PurposeSustainability Science (SS) is considered an emerging discipline, applicative and solution-oriented whose aim is to handle environmental, social and economic issues in light of cultural, historic and institutional perspectives. The challenges of the discipline are not only related to better identifying the problems affecting sustainability but to the actual transition towards solutions adopting an integrated, comprehensive and participatory approach. This requires the definition of a common scientific paradigm in which integration and interaction amongst sectorial disciplines is of paramount relevance. In this context, life cycle thinking (LCT) and, in particular, life cycle-based methodologies and life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) may play a crucial role. The paper illustrates the main challenges posed to sustainability assessment methodologies and related methods in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology of SS. The aims of the analysis are twofold: (1) to identify the main features of methodologies for sustainability assessment and (2) to present key aspects for the development of robust and comprehensive sustainability assessment.MethodsThe current debate on SS addressing ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects has been reviewed, leading to the proposal of a conceptual framework for SS. In addition, a meta-review of recent studies on sustainability assessment methodologies and methods, focusing those life cycle based, supports the discussion on the main challenges for a comprehensive and robust approach to sustainability assessment. Starting from the results of the meta-review, we identified specific features of sustainable development-oriented methods: firstly, highlighting key issues towards robust methods for SS and, secondly, capitalising on the findings of each review’s paper. For each issue, a recommendation towards a robust sustainability assessment method is given. Existing limitations of sectorial academic inquiries and proposal for better integration and mainstreaming of SS are the key points under discussion.DiscussionIn the reviewed papers, LCT and its basic principles are acknowledged as relevant for sustainability assessment. Nevertheless, LCT is not considered as a reference approach in which other methods could also find a place. This aspect has to be further explored, addressing the lack of multi-disciplinary exchange and putting the mainstreaming of LCT as a priority on the agenda of both life cycle assessment and sustainability assessment experts. Crucial issues for further developing sustainability assessment methodologies and methods have been identified and can be summarised as follows: holistic and system wide approaches, shift from multi- towards trans-disciplinarity; multi-scale (temporal and geographical) perspectives; and better involvement and participation of stakeholders.ConclusionsThose are also the main challenges posed to LCSA in terms of progress of ontology, epistemology and methodology in line with the progress of SS. The life cycle-based methodologies should be broadened from comparing alternatives and avoiding negative impacts, to also proactively enhancing positive impacts, and towards the achievement of sustainability goals.

Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context of sustainability science progress (part 2)

PurposeIn the context of progress of sustainability science, life cycle thinking and, in particular, life cycle sustainability assessment may play a crucial role. Environmental, economic and social implications of the whole supply chain of products, both goods and services, their use and waste management, i.e. their entire life cycle from “cradle to grave” have to be considered to achieve more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Progress toward sustainability requires enhancing the methodologies for integrated assessment and mainstreaming of life cycle thinking from product development to strategic policy support. Life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle costing (LCC) and social LCA (sLCA) already attempt to cover sustainability pillars, notwithstanding different levels of methodological development. An increasing concern on how to deal with the complexity of sustainability has promoted the development of life cycle sustainability frameworks. As a contribution to the ongoing scientific debate after the Rio+20 conference, this paper aims to present and discuss the state of the art of life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), giving recommendations for its further development in line with ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of sustainability science.MethodsBuilding on the review about the state of the art of sustainability science and sustainability assessment methods presented in part I, this paper discuss LCA, LCC, sLCA and LCSA against ontological, epistemological and methodological aspects of ongoing scientific debate on sustainability. Strengths and weaknesses of existing life cycle-based methodologies and methods are presented. Besides, existing frameworks for LCSA are evaluated against the criteria defined in part I in order to highlight coherence with sustainability science progress and to support better integration and mainstreaming of sustainability concepts.Conclusions and outlookLCSA represents a promising approach for developing a transparent, robust and comprehensive assessment. Nevertheless, the ongoing developments should be in line with the most advanced scientific discussion on sustainability science, attempting to bridge the gaps between the current methods and methodologies for sustainability assessment. LCSA should develop so as to be hierarchically different from LCA, LCC and sLCA. It should represent the holistic approach which integrates (and not substitutes) the reductionist approach of the single part of the analysis. This implies maintaining the balance between analytical and descriptive approaches towards a goal and solution-oriented decision support methodology.

From LCA to Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: concept, practice and future directions

More than 1 year ago, the subject area on Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment has been launched (Zamagni 2012) in order to provide a virtual place in which scientists from different disciplinary fields could discuss the main challenges in addressing sustainability with a life cycle perspective. The challenge has been taken on also by the editors of three subject areas that deal with sustainability from complementary angles—Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC), and Social Life Cycle Assessment (SLCA). The result was the launch of a call for papers for a special issue on LCSA, whose results we are glad to present. Our initiative took its point of departure from two facts: (1) sustainability has become quite a keyword in any decisioncontext situation and the scientific community has the duty to provide its contribution in demonstrating what might be sustainable and how to measure it with a scientific approach; (2) the life cycle approach is considered to provide a valuable support in integrating sustainability into the design, innovation, and evaluation of products and services, as can be seen in several environmental policies at the European and international level in which life cycle thinking represents the backbone. As far as the timely and challenging aspects of sustainability are concerned, the EU has mainstreamed sustainable development into a broad range of its policies, such as the initiatives against climate change and the promotion of a low-carbon economy. The European Council (2009) confirmed that sustainable development remains a fundamental objective of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, as emphasized in the Presidency’s report on the review of the Union’s Sustainable Development Strategy, the strategy will continue to provide a long-term vision and constitute the overarching policy framework for all Union policies and strategies (Council of the European Union 2009). Sustainability is a concept that needs to be addressed not only at the policy level but also in the business context: many companies have included sustainability in their mission, also driven by an increasing demand for sustainable products by more aware consumers. Although the policy and the business context deal with sustainability in different ways, given the diversity of needs, a common element for both is the complexity entailed by the assessment. Such a complexity is due to the followingmain aspects, as pointed out byHeijungs et al. (2010)

Attributional and consequential LCA in the ILCD handbook

PurposeThis discussion article aims to highlight two problematic aspects in the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: its guidance to the choice between attributional and consequential modeling and to the choice between average and marginal data as input to the life cycle inventory (LCI) analysis.MethodsWe analyze the ILCD guidance by comparing different statements in the handbook with each other and with previous research in this area.Results and discussionWe find that the ILCD handbook is internally inconsistent when it comes to recommendations on how to choose between attributional and consequential modeling. We also find that the handbook is inconsistent with much of previous research in this matter, and also in the recommendations on how to choose between average and marginal data in the LCI.ConclusionsBecause of the inconsistencies in the ILCD handbook, we recommend that the handbook be revised.

Workshop on life cycle sustainability assessment: the state of the art and research needs—November 26, 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark

The interest in life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) is currently booming in the LCA community, culminating lately in the forthcoming special issue from the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment fully devoted to the topic. In the available literature, LCSA has mainly been conceptualised as a combination of LCA, social life cycle assessment (SLCA) and environmental life cycle costing (LCC). With the publication of guidelines for performing SLCA (Andrews et al. 2009), the code of practice for LCC (Swarr et al. 2011) and the existing standards for LCA, this could indicate that the question of how to perform an LCSA has been solved. However, the scientific publications give evidence of the need of further discussing the topic, both at conceptual and methodological level. The topic of LCSAwas at the core of a workshop organised on 26th November 2012 in the framework of the SETAC Europe 18th LCA Case Study Symposium in Copenhagen, with a dual aim: (1) to discuss the different schools of thoughts on LCSA and (2) to outline a research agenda framework for enabling/improving LCSA. The workshop was structured as four sessions (presentations) followed by a discussion part among participants which resulted in the identification of several research areas considered important for the successful future development of LCSA methodology and applications. The presentations provided insights on different approaches to LCSA both at conceptual and methodological level. A short summary of the main conclusions of the presentations and the main research topics proposed during the discussions is explained in the following sections.

Analysis of the main elements affecting social LCA applications: challenges for the automotive sector

PurposeSocial life cycle assessment (S-LCA) applications have been growing during the last years. Most of the scientific articles published so far have addressed the applicability of S-LCA, focusing on selecting suitable indicators, and only recently, the developments in the area of impact pathway are increasing. However, a critical analysis of how to set an S-LCA study, in particular the goal and scope and inventory phase, is missing. This article critically analyses the most important elements affecting the goal and scope and inventory phase of S-LCA, with a focus on the automotive sector, with the ultimate goal of developing a structured approach to guide practitioners in the critical application of S-LCA.MethodsThe literature review covers 67 publications from 2006 to 2015, including all the case studies published so far, to the best knowledge of the authors, in several sectors and the automotive one. The reviewed works have been structured along the key elements affecting the goal and scope and inventory phases of the S-LCA.Results and discussionThe methodological and practical issues affecting S-LCA have been organized into a conceptual map, in which all the elements are sequentially placed. This sequence is an orderly procedure consisting of several nodes representing crucial points where a decision needs to be taken or a further reflection is necessary. The case studies of the automotive sector and the corporate-related documents have been used also for the discussion of the conceptual map nodes to identify which aspects are already covered by the literature and which ones need further research.ConclusionsFacing the inventory phase of S-LCA needs also to set specific elements of the goal and scope phase which are fundamental for approaching coherently the product system at hand and for supporting the selection of stakeholders, indicators, and data. Moreover, in order to foster S-LCA applications and make it a robust decision-support tool, the authors suggest to re-define its framework and approach according to the organizational perspective, as laid down in the recent Organisation Environmental Footprint and Organizational LCA. This implies that social aspects will be evaluated both in relation to the organization behavior and to the basket of products, thus reconciling the need to keep together the conduct-of-a-company perspective, typical of social evaluations, and the product-oriented approach, inherent to the life cycle and in particular to the functional unit concept.

The Implementation of Simplified LCA in Agri-Food SMEs

In Chap. 6 a simplified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tool that could be suitable for SMEs, especially in the food industry, was identified. In this Chapter, the selected tool (eVerdEE) was tested for its robustness and suitability, by implementing it to an Italian wine produced by a small winery. A full LCA was also carried out to evaluate in parallel the results of the two tools. Furthermore, the implementation of the simplified LCA tool aimed also to check whether it actually meets the criteria against which it was assessed for its selection. It was found that both tools showed fossil depletion and climate change as the impact categories with the highest normalised scores. Nevertheless, no safe considerations could be drawn with regard to which phase contributed more, as different stages contributed differently to the various impact categories. Finally, some general considerations regarding strengths and weaknesses of the implementation of LCA in SMEs were outlined, especially as regards data collection.

A Model of Simplified LCA for Agri-Food SMEs

This Chapter describes and discusses the approach for identifying a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) model suited for SMEs in the agri-food sector, addressing both the supply (developments of methods and tools) and demand (what stakeholders desire from a life cycle tool) side of the simplification problem. As far as the demand side is concerned, building on the results of the analysis carried out in Chap. 5, a literature review was carried out, aimed at identifying and characterising already existing simplified approaches and tools. On the supply side, the results of the review were crosschecked with the main outcomes of a survey about the need for simplification, the stakeholders of interest and their needs. This allowed the identification of some criteria for identifying the suitable simplified tool, which was subsequently selected by applying decision making methodologies belonging to the family of Multi-Attribute Utility Theory. This process resulted in the choice of eVerdEE. The validation of this choice is described in Chap. 7, through the application of this tool to a case study and its parallel analysis with the results of a detailed LCA.

Life Cycle Assessment for the Agri-Food Sector

The food supply chain has become an important contributor to a number of environmental impacts, and food and drink products are accountable for a significant share of the overall environmental impacts of private consumption. In order for the whole chain to be taken into account, a life cycle approach to environmental assessment is needed; in that framework, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been increasingly used to improve the environmental performance of food systems. In this chapter review papers on food LCA case studies were reviewed in terms of methodological key aspects (e.g., functional unit, system boundary, multi-functionality, data, etc.). Moreover, an attempt was made to identify the most critical impacts and life-cycle stages. In the case studies reviewed, different assumptions and methodologies were found and discussed. However, it was not possible to clearly identify one or more environmental impacts as being more important than others. Finally, no sure conclusions were drawn regarding the most impacting stage, although the agricultural one was mentioned most frequently.