Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) a Guide to Approaches, Experiences and Information Sources Cover and Layout

Environmental Issues Series no. 6

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) A guide to approaches, experiences and information sources Cover and layout:

Folkmann Design & Promotion

Note

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commission or the European Environment Agency concerning the legal status of any country or territory, and the boundaries shown on maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance.

Authors

Allan Astrup Jensen Leif Hoffman Birgitte T. Møller Anders Schmidt dk-TEKNIK Energy & Environment, Denmark

Kim Christiansen

Sophus Berendsen A/S Denmark

John Elkington Franceska van Dijk

SustainAbility , United Kingdom

August 1997 Preface Life-cycle assessment (LCA) – a guide to approaches, experiences and information sources

There are great expectations for LCA.

At the European level, the Parliament has suggested that the Commission develop a framework for an integrated life-cycle-oriented product policy. In the work for the next framework research programme, LCA also has a prominent role in promoting competitive and sustainable growth.

The design and production of new products and materials should be based on a life-cycle assessment concept. LCA is also a necessary basis for eco-labelling requested by consumers, NGOs and international and national authorities. Business and industry sectors are aware of the requests from customers, and recognise the possibilities for LCA in saving natural resources and energy and in minimising pollution and waste. LCA is not only a tool to improve the environment, but also an instrument for industry implying cost-savings and competitive advantages.

In addition, the interest in developing environmental management systems and tools as a basis for decision making is expressed in the work with Agenda 21 and ISO 14 000.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has the mandate ‘to provide the Community and the Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information at the European level’. Among its goals, the EEA shall provide information for environmental policy development and implementation and ensure broad dissemination and accessibility. Important principles in this context are pooling existing information and know-how and facilitating data harmonisation.

The main advantage of LCAs is in supporting decision making with scientific data and competence, and thereby in distinguishing between scientific facts (as far as possible) and sets of values. In this context, its ambition is very close to the mandate of the EEA.

By balancing science and simplicity, LCA implies that there can be many limitations that should be addressed in LCA studies and development work, for example:

• the type of information provided, especially by life-cycle impact assessment, is merely an indicator;

• LCA should not be misunderstood as a comprehensive or a complete assessment;

• LCA is different and distinct in approach from other management tools;

• LCA uses subjective judgement extensively, and the lack of scientific or technical data is sometimes obvious.

It is also a challenge to take the step from LCA as a communication tool to an operational tool in environmental management. LCA-based environmental management should become part of good business management heading towards the eco-efficiency concept ‘producing more quality with less resources’.

LCA should be used together with other established techniques, such as environmental impact assessment and environmental risk assessment. These approaches complement each other, but are not interchangeable and cannot be substituted for each other.

Creating this publication the Agency hopes to guide the readers through this information and provide links to external sources. The Internet version and the supplementary database have been developed as complementing products to give greater access to the information. The production has involved many contributors other than the authors. The report has been reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the EEA and the National Focal Points, for which EEA is grateful. The Society for Promotion of Life Cycle Development (SPOLD) has contributed to the project with advice and constructive criticism. A critical review of the draft publication was made by Dr Dennis Postlethwaite, UK, past-Chairman of the SETAC-Europe LCA Steering Committee and member of the UK Delegation to ISO/TC207/SC5 on Life Cycle Assessment.

The EEA hopes that this publication together with the prepared meta-database containing information sources will prove valuable to its readers. We have tried to target different parts of the publication to different users. It is our intention to continue our efforts to make these tools operational.

Domingo Jiménez-Beltrán Executive Director European Environment Agency Content

ABOUT THIS GUIDE TO LCA ...... 9

1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF LCA ...... 13 1.1 The Early Years ...... 13 1.2 Rapid Growth and Adolescence ...... 13 1.3 Towards Maturity ...... 13 1.4 Stakeholder Views ...... 14 Appendix 1.1: A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views ...... 16

2. WHAT ROLE FOR LCA IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT? ...... 21 2.1 Life Cycle Thinking and Sustainability ...... 21 2.2 Some Ground-Rules for a Credible LCA ...... 21 2.2.1 Dialogue ...... 22 2.2.2 Verification ...... 22 2.2.3 Benchmarking ...... 23 2.2.4 From Management Systems to Strategy ...... 25 2.2.5 Impacts and Outcomes ...... 25 2.2.6 Standards ...... 26 2.2.7 Corporate Governance ...... 26 2.2.8 Will LCA become Mandatory?...... 27 2.2.9 Setting LCA Boundaries ...... 27 2.2.10 The Triple Bottom Line ...... 28 2.3 The Next Five Years ...... 28

3. APPLICATIONS OF LCA ...... 29 3.1 Levels of sophistication in LCA for different applications .. 29 3.1.1 Conceptual LCA - Life Cycle Thinking ...... 30 3.1.2 Simplified LCA ...... 30 3.2 Private sector applications...... 32 3.2.1 Product development ...... 33 3.2.2 Marketing...... 36 3.2.3 Strategic planning...... 38 3.2.4 Conceptually related programmes ...... 39 3.3 Public policy making ...... 42 3.3.1 Environmental labelling ...... 43 3.3.2 Green procurement ...... 44 3.3.3 Other governmental applications ...... 45 3.4 Future applications ...... 46 Appendix 3.1: Environmental labelling ...... 48

4. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 51 4.1 Introduction ...... 51 4.2 Technical introduction...... 52 4.2.1 Definitions ...... 52 4.3 Goal and scope definition ...... 53 4.3.1 Goal ...... 54 4.3.2 Scope ...... 54 4.3.3 Functional unit ...... 55 4.3.4 System boundaries ...... 56 4.3.5 Data quality...... 56 4.3.6 Critical review process ...... 57 4.4 Inventory analysis...... 58 4.4.1 Data collection ...... 59 4.4.2 Refining system boundaries...... 61 4.4.3 Calculation procedures ...... 61 4.4.4 Validation of data ...... 61 4.4.5 Relating data...... 62 4.4.6 Allocation and recycling ...... 62 4.5 Impact assessment...... 64 4.5.1 Category definition...... 65 4.5.2 Classification ...... 65 4.5.3 Characterisation ...... 67 4.5.4 Valuation/Weighting ...... 67 4.6 Interpretation ...... 68 4.6.1 Identification of significant environmental issues ...... 70 4.6.2 Evaluation ...... 70 4.6.3 Conclusions and recommendations...... 71 4.7 References (chapter 3 and 4) ...... 72 Appendix 4.1: Terminology ...... 78 Appendix 4.2: Impact categories ...... 81

5. LCA INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 95 5.1 Newsletters and Journals with LCA Content ...... 95 5.1.1 Newsletters ...... 95 5.1.2 Journals...... 96 5.2 Books, Reports, Conference Proceedings, etc...... 97 5.2.1 Methodology issues...... 97 5.2.2 Databases (paper) ...... 99 5.2.3 Standards ...... 100 5.2.4 Applications of LCA ...... 100 5.3 LCA Software ...... 102 5.4 Internet addresses ...... 102 Appendix 5.1: Database on LCA applications ...... 105 Appendix 5.1.1: Screen prints from the database ...... 106 Appendix 5.1.2: Print examples on organisations...... 108 Appendix 5.1.3: Total list of organisations in the database version 1.0 ...... 113 Acknowledgement...... 119 9

About this guide to LCA

What is LCA? and how we minimise waste. This builds on the long-running international interest in so- Life cycle assessment (LCA) involves the called “cleaner technology”. Even more evaluation of some aspects - often the en- demanding, however, sustainable develop- vironmental aspects - of a product system ment calls for eco-efficient improvements through all stages of its life cycle. Sometimes throughout the life cycle of a given product also called “life cycle analysis”, “life cycle or system. This challenge is further des- approach”, “cradle to grave analysis” or cribed in chapter 2. “Ecobalance”, it represents a rapidly emerging family of tools and techniques designed to help in environmental management and, What is a product’s life cycle? longer term, in sustainable development. Simply stated, the life cycle of a product This publication, developed for the Euro- embraces all of the activities that go into pean Environment Agency (EEA), aims to making, transporting, using and disposing of help business and other readers to find their that product. The typical life cycle consists of way through the LCA maze to the right tools a series of stages running from extraction of for the application they have in mind. The raw materials, through design and formula- early chapters are written in such a way as to tion, processing, manufacturing, packaging, be easily accessible to environmental manag- distribution, use, re-use, recycling and, ers in companies and other similar profes- ultimately, waste disposal. Further informa- sionals, whereas the methodology sections tion on this aspect of the debate can be may require some LCA background of the found in chapter 4.4. reader.

The producer’s responsibility Where did LCA come from? Once, a manufacturer simply handed a Like all good ideas, LCA probably started in product over to a distributor or customer, a number of different places, in a variety of and that was the end of the story. No longer. different ways. We provide a brief history of These days it is widely recognised that any LCA in chapter 1. producer works with “chains” of suppliers “upstream”, and chains of customers “downstream”. The producer’s responsibility no Concept or tool? longer ends - if it ever did - at the factory gate. Increasingly, industry accepts that Some people find LCA useful as a concep- product stewardship is the way forward. tual framework, others as a set of practical Governments, too, are beginning to impose tools: both views are correct, depending on “take back” requirements, to make produ- the context. Even scientists and engineers cers take their wastes back and reprocess at can find “life cycle thinking”, a tremendous least a proportion. These responsibilities are spur to their creativity and ability to see the described in more detail in chapter 2. wider dimensions of a problem. An explanation of the different levels or styles of LCA can be found in chapter 3.1. Life cycle management

Among the newer concepts in LCA is “Life A growing need cycle management” (LCM), which is an integrated approach to minimising environ- Sustainable development is now on the na- mental burdens throughout the life cycle of tional and international agendas. It requires a product, system or service. In some forms, many things, but above all it requires rapid LCM can provide a simplified set of LCA improvements in eco-efficiency, or in the procedures suitable for small- and medium- efficiency with which we use energy and a sized enterprises (SMEs). LCM is further wide range of materials taken from nature, explained in chapter 3.2.4 10 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The LCA tool endocrine disrupters. See also appendix 4.2 for further description of impact categories. A typical LCA-study consists of the following stages: Can computers help? 1. Goal and scope definition. Computers, as in every area of life, can make 2. A detailed life cycle inventory (LCI) things much better - or, if mismanaged, analysis, with compilation of data both much worse. We can be helped to cut about energy and resource use and on through the data to the real issues, or we can emissions to the environment, through be drowned in data. Where computers help out the life cycle. to turn data into information and information into knowledge, as they often do, they 3. An assessment of the potential impacts are a hugely valuable part of the LCA pro- associated with the identified forms of cess. A range of PC-based software pro- resource use and environmental emis- grammes, often linked to large databases, sions. have been developed and are now coming into the market. This software is of variable 4. The interpretation of the results from quality, but is rapidly improving. Further the previous phases of the study in details may be found in chapter 5.3. relation to the objectives of the study.

An account of the relevant LCA methodo- Is LCA expensive? logical framework based on the ISO 14040 standard can be found in Chapter 4. A full LCA will normally require a great deal of data, and as a result will be time-consuming and expensive. In extreme cases a study Energy and resources can take several years and cost millions of ECU. Full LCA studies give the best back- Many different forms of resources, renew- ground for decisions, but they are often only able or non-renewable, mineral, water, land, relevant for important intermediates and plant or animal may need to be included in other large-selling products - which are not an LCA study. So, for example, energy may often changed. In practice, a simplified form include process energy, heat or electricity of LCA is often used, tailored to the product produced from such energy sources as fossil and the purpose. In such cases the time and fuels (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas), nuclear cost may be much lower, from about 10,000 power, or a range of renewable sources, ECU. Further development of LCA software among them biofuels (e.g. wood, straw, may help to further cut costs. More informa- waste), and solar, wind or water power. All of tion on this area can be found in chapter these energy sources have different environ- 5.3. mental characteristics, bringing with the different benefits - and very different problems. These issues are further explored in What can LCA do for my business? appendix 4.2. LCA is a decision support tool. Used in the right way, it can help to ensure that a compa- Environmental emissions ny’s choices are environmentally sound, whether in the design, manufacture or use of If we take the entire product life cycle as our a product or system. On the financial side, focus, it is clear that it is very likely to be a experience shows that companies using LCA complicated picture - with environmentally can discover important product improve- significant inputs and outputs to air, water ments, new approaches to process optimisa- and soil at every life cycle stage; see also tion and even, in some cases, radically new chapter 4.4, table 4-2. Some unexpected ways of meeting the same need - but with a impacts - or benefits - may turn out to be new product, or with a service. You may not associated with some of the co-products or want to hear about new ways of doing what by-products which are produced by a given your business does, but it may be less painful process. These will need to be tracked than, if your competitors find out first. See through. And of course there is always at also chapter 3.2.1.. least a chance that some new form of pollution will suddenly be discovered, such as by About this guide to LCA 11

Suppliers will have to report policies and to explore ways in which they can use their procurements systems to help Even the largest companies cannot drive drive eco-efficiency through the economy. their industries or market towards sustain- Life cycle thinking is essential in developing able development targets without the sup- the criteria for green procurement. The port of their value chain. As a result, we are trend is discussed in chapter 3.3.2. seeing major companies beginning to challenge their suppliers on their environmental targets and performance. In some Ecolabelling cases, proper systems and targets may even be a condition of supply. A growing numbers For some product categories the products of companies start to produce their own with the best environmental performance LCAs, their suppliers will be called upon to may get a ecolabel. The use of environment- provide much of the data needed. This trend al labelling has proceeded less fast in many is explained in chapter 3.2.2. parts of the European Union than was originally expected, but where it has been used there has been an almost automatic Can LCA help in product comparisons? requirement for LCA inputs. In the EU ecolabel regulation LCA is required for the LCA cannot - or at least should not - be used development of ecolabel criteria. For obtain- to claim that a particular product is environ- ing the label, only some selected LCA-data mentally friendly. At best it is only possible to may be required. say, using a specified set of criteria, that one product is better than another in certain Ecolabelling has been hugely controversial aspects of its performance. in some countries, and in relation to some products in particular, but the ecolabelling Such data, however, may legitimately be used challenge is not going to go away. Moreover, in comparative product marketing - even if it is likely to spread into new areas, among experience shows that many manufacturers them electric power supply. More informa- or retailers are tempted to over-claim. This tion can be found in chapter 3.3.1. problem, coupled with biased information and lack of quality control, can do more than anything else to undermine the author- Environmental declarations ity of LCA methods. These issues are discussed in chapter 4.3. Environmental declarations may not have the same ring as “eco-labelling”, but this special kind of environmental labelling Is LCA mandatory? (approved by ISO as type III labelling) may prove rather more popular in some quarters, In a word, no. LCA is currently an option for since it includes more information and all companies, but it is an option which growing products can get the label. The output tends numbers of customer companies are begin- to be a selection of LCA data printed out as a ning to encourage their suppliers and part- set of columns or profile. See chapter 3.2.2. ners to at least think about. In some countries, for example Denmark, new environmental accounting and reporting require- Stakeholder views ments are likely to encourage the further spread of LCA thinking, if not always of LCA In the end, however, how much we do to tools. The links to other environmental make LCA useful, it will not really help management tools are explored in chapter unless the world believes that it is useful. 3.2. SustainAbility surveyed a range of external stakeholders during the project to find out what they thought of LCA. Highlights of the Green procurement results can be found in chapter 1.4.

No longer it is simply a question of a few green-minded companies insisting on green Where can I get more information? specifications, where suppliers could meet them at little or no additional cost. Increas- This is getting easier all the time. A new LCA ingly, too, we see local and national govern- journal has appeared, and many scientific ment agencies beginning to develop product papers and reports on LCA have been 12 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

published in recent years. In addition, a Europe are included in the database avail- growing number of Internet homepages on able on http://www.eea.eu.int LCA can be found on the World Wide Web. A selection of this information sources is What will happens next? presented in chapter 5. Forecasting, they say, is always hard - but particularly when you are thinking about the Who’s Who in LCA? future! To give a small taste, however, we look at some possible trends in LCA, based A growing numbers of institutes, universities, on nine major transitions towards sustain- governmental agencies, industries, trade ability, in chapter 2.3. associations and consultants are involved in LCA as experts or users. The main players in A Brief History of LCA 13

1. A Brief History of LCA

1.1 The Early Years survey of LCA activity to date, The LCA Sourcebook, was published in 19932. At the The first studies to look at life cycle aspects time, LCA was of limited interest “outside a of products and materials date from the late very small community of scientists, mostly sixties and early seventies, and focused on based in Europe or North America. But issues such as energy efficiency, the con- then,” the Sourcebook noted, “their work sumption of raw materials and, to some escaped from the laboratory and into the extent, waste disposal. In 1969, for example, real world.” the Coca Cola Company funded a study to compare resource consumption and environ- Some countries took an early lead. “In the mental releases associated with beverage UK,” said David Cockburn of PIRA, “it has containers. Meanwhile, in Europe, a similar been surprisingly fast. Ten years ago there inventory approach was being developed, was only one main practitioner [in the UK], later known as the ‘Ecobalance’. In 1972, in Ian Boustead. Now there are many more the UK, Ian Boustead1 calculated the total academics, consultancies and companies energy used in the production of various with an in-house capability.” types of beverage containers, including glass, plastic, steel, and aluminium. Over the next While the field continued to progress, the few years, Boustead consolidated his method- pace has been sporadic. According to a ology to make it applicable to a variety of recent report by IMSA and SPOLD3, the materials, and in 1979, published the Hand- chief barriers to greater progress in the LCA book of Industrial Energy Analysis. field have been a low level of experience with LCA, coupled with undue expectations Initially, energy use was considered a higher and “over-advertisement”. This led to a priority than waste and outputs. Because of period of disillusionment with LCA, aggrava- this, there was little distinction, at the time, ted by a strong sense that many of those between inventory development (resources using LCA were simply doing so to buttress going into a product) and the interpretation existing positions, rather than to fully under- of total associated impacts. But after the oil stand and respond to the real issues. crisis subsided, energy issues declined in prominence. While interest in LCA continued, , thinking progressed a bit more slowly. 1.3 Towards Maturity It was not until the mid eighties and early nineties that a real wave of interest in LCA So, where are we now? Although the pace of swept over a much broader range of indus- development is slowing, the methodology is tries, design establishments and retailers - beginning to consolidate - moving the field taking many of them by surprise. toward a long-awaited maturity. Yet the usefulness of the technique to practitioners is still very much in debate. In the past 1.2 Rapid Growth and Adolescence couple of years, however, there has been a 1 LCA - How it Came growing confidence in the LCA community About, The Beginning in the UK, Ian Boustead in Despite almost three decades of develop- that the emerging tools have a real future. the International Journal ment, one practitioner in our survey (see For example, Procter & Gamble’s Peter of Life cycle Assessment Appendix 1.1) said: “LCA is still a young Hindle sees “enormous progress” and is 1 (3) 1996 tool.” The rapid surge of interest in ‘cradle optimistic about the future for life-cycle 2 The LCA Sourcebook: A to grave’ assessments of materials and inventories (LCIs) and about the take-up of European Guide to Life products through the late 1980s and early life-cycle thinking by management generally. Cycle Assessment, SustainAbility, SPOLD 1990s meant that by the 1992 UN Earth and Business in the Summit there was a ground-swell of opinion Others take a very different view. “LCA is a Environment, 1993 that life-cycle assessment methodologies million miles away from the man in the 3 Synthesis Report on the were among the most promising new tools street,” said Dr Mike Jeffs of ICI Polyur- Social Value of LCA for a wide range of environmental manage- ethanes. Part of the difficulty in making the carried out by IMSA on ment tasks. technique more accessible comes down to behalf of the Society for the Promotion of LCA the competing needs of simplicity (or at least Development (SPOLD), The most comprehensive international clarity) to aid practitioners and credibility, to 1995. 14 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

enable decision-makers to have faith in the That said, however, and given the cooling of robustness of the results. As Mariane Hou- public opinion on most environmental issues num of the Danish Environmental Protect- through the mid-1990s during the second ion Agency put it: “We need to find a simple great environmental downwave, it is astonish- way of communicating the results of LCA, ing how much interest there has been in because most people have neither the time some sectors of industry. LCA results have nor the interest to read entire documents. played a key role in procurement decisions, But if the answers are simple, then again the for example, as companies have sought to question of credibility arises - because there assess the relative performance of competing is no way for [stakeholders] to check the suppliers. This activity, in many cases, has validity of the results.” been driven by a recognition that while public opinion may move in great surge- Back in 1992-1993, SustainAbility coined the tides, the underlying trend on most environ- term ‘laptop LCA’, pointing out that until mental issues is still moving steadily upwards. LCA as a tool becomes truly user-friendly and accessible, it is unlikely to take off in a A series of issues in 1995 and 1996, most comprehensive way. Over the years, software particularly the controversy surrounding the designers have been responding to the planned disposal of the Brent Spar oil buoy challenge, and as the final section of this and the massive economic and social disloca- Guide demonstrates, there has been a tions caused by public reactions to ‘mad cow’ proliferation of LCA software on the market. disease or BSE, helped to re-ignite interest in These should be carefully checked before life-cycle thinking, if not necessarily always in use, however, since this field is still in its LCA methodologies proper. infancy - and the available products are of variable quality. One of the key concerns is The Brent Spar debate highlighted the need that it is often very hard indeed to verify the to use LCA not only to fast moving consumer quality of the data used. goods like detergents, or consumer durables like washing machines, but also to major Overall, the LCA community is now able to structures and installations. Although Shell offer a growing range of useful management has conducted work on the ‘shadow pricing’ tools. But it continues to struggle a number of the disposal options, many observers of key issues, some of which are strongly wondered why life cycle thinking had not linked to the nature of the discipline itself. been built into the design and operation at a These include: much earlier stage. The BSE controversy, in turn, raised the life-cycle issue for a wide • the complexity of many of the method- range of industries and for consumers, by ologies and processes; illustrating how vulnerable agricultural and food chains are to new forms of contamina- • the high cost and long time-scales, tion. although much progress has been made in this area; 1.4 Stakeholder Views • the necessity of making value judgments in the course of the work, judgments LCA has traditionally been written about and which are not always identified in the discussed by experts behind closed doors, or final report; in the R&D laboratory, with little in the way of public communication, let alone consulta- • the lack of accepted international tion. But as practitioners see the need for standards (although the SPOLD LCA increased credibility of the tool and greater format initiative has been useful, and an acceptance by the public, the mood is ISO standard is under way); changing. As a result, there is now a greater curiosity about what other people think • the continuing invisibility of much LCA about the discipline, and about the implica- work, compounded by the above factors. tions for the future.

In order to develop an introduction which But the lack of a real market pull for LCA was topical and well-founded, SustainAbility data is perhaps the most important factor. conducted a sample survey of industry Companies have simply not, by and large, practitioners, standard setting organisations, felt the need for LCA in their regular deci- ecolabelling boards, industry associations, sion-making. research institutes, consultants, non-govern- A Brief History of LCA 15

mental organisations (NGOs), students, the development needed; environmental media and financial institutions. Their views inform the sections which • The level of knowledge of LCA remains follow. worryingly low in the public domain;

The sample was in no sense statistically valid, • Among those who are aware of LCA, but the conclusions drawn and the recom- there is still a clear divide between those mendations made by the different stake- who focus on LCA as a set of tools and holders fall into a very clear pattern. A list of those who consider LCA thinking as a the respondents in the EEA/SustainAbility paradigm through which to think and survey can be found in Appendix 1.1. We prioritise; have also drawn on the conclusions of the IMSA study, Synthesis Report on the Social Value • The level of progress differs between of LCA. countries, but overall the pace of development in the LCA field is slowing as The findings of the survey can be summa- consolidation of methodologies begins; rised as follows: • The credibility of the tools - and of the • LCA, in its various forms, is now seen by users of LCA data - is critical if the LCA all stakeholders as a necessary, integral community is to gain sufficient authority part of the environmental management and LCA is to be useful in the long term; tool-kit; • A major concern - expressed by a high • Practitioners see value in using this proportion of practitioners - is that family of tools not only for established quality control mechanisms remain areas like new product development but relatively weak; also, increasingly, in the process of corporate strategy formulation; • The involvement of external stakeholders in defining study bounda- • Although the period of “maximum hype” ries and stimulating ‘out-of-the-box’ is over, LCA remains in the early stages of thinking is seen to be increasingly development, with a good deal of further important. 16 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Appendix 1.1: A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views

LCA has traditionally been written about and who focus on LCA as a set of tools and discussed by experts behind closed doors or those who consider LCA thinking as a in the laboratory, without much in the way of paradigm through which to think and public consultation. But as practitioners see prioritise; the need for increased credibility of the tool and greater acceptance by the public, the • The level of progress differs between mood is changing. As a result, there is now a countries, but overall the pace of devel- greater curiosity about what other people opment in the LCA field is slowing as think about the discipline, and about the consolidation of methodologies begins; implications for the future. • The credibility of the tools - and of the In order to develop a Guide which was topical users of LCA data - is critical if the LCA and well-founded, SustainAbility conducted a community is to gain sufficient authority sample survey of industry practitioners, and LCA is to be useful in the long term; standard setting organisations, ecolabelling boards, industry associations, research insti- • A major concern - expressed by a high tutes, consultants, non-governmental organi- proportion of practitioners - is that sations (NGOs), students, the environmental quality control mechanisms remain media and financial institutions. Their views relatively weak; have inform earlier sections of the Guide. What follows is a brief summary of findings. • The involvement of external stakeholders in defining study boundaries and stimulating ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking is Major Findings seen to be increasingly important.

The sample was in no sense statistically valid, but the conclusions drawn and the recom- Some Stakeholder Perspectives mendations made by the different stakeholders fall into a very clear pattern. We have Consultants also drawn on the conclusions of the IMSA Among the practitioners, the consultants study Synthesis Report on the Social Value of were probably the most optimistic about the LCA. The findings of the survey can be future for LCA. Nick Turner of ERM noted summarised as follows: that “the number of practitioners has grown, the use of LCA has changed [towards more • LCA, in its various forms, is now seen by practical applications such as ecolabelling], all stakeholders as a necessary, integral the number of actively involved research part of the environmental management groups is increasing (e.g. SPOLD, ISO, CEN took-kit; and SETAC) and LCA has also gained a more important role in education. Ten years • Practitioners see value in using this ago, LCA wasn’t taught; now it is a much family of tools not only for established more focused part of courses and students areas like new product development but are aware of it.” also, increasingly, in the process of corporate strategy formulation; It is probably worth noting, however, that this was the most positive assessment pro- • Although the period of “maximum hype” vided by any of our respondents. Our Bat- is over, LCA remains in the early stages of telle Europe respondent, M. Porta, noted development, with a good deal of further that the interest in LCA has been very development needed; mixed. One factor at work here is that the potential benefits of LCA vary considerably • The level of knowledge of LCA remains between industry sectors, markets and worryingly low in the public domain; countries. But all the consultants agreed that a key challenge for the future is to enhance • Among those who are aware of LCA, the credibility of LCA. there is still a clear divide between those A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views 17

Consumer Associations O’Connor of the National Provident Institu- Consumers often have the ultimate say in tion (NPI) put it, is that “the leaders have which products survive and which do not. been ahead of consumer demand, and Some respondents were optimistic that haven’t had the response in the market place consumers would play an increasingly which they might have hoped for.” On the important role in this area. “We should not other hand, Sarita Bartlett of Norway’s underestimate the ability of consumers to Storebrand commented that her impression make environmental choices even in the is that “the use of LCA has spread to more absence of ecolabels,” as David Monsma of industries and applications - and will con- the US Council on Economic Priorities tinue to do so.” (CEP) put it. Ideally, the financial institutions and analysts To date, however, most consumer associa- would like to be able to compare and bench- tions and campaigners have paid little mark. That is a key feature of their business. attention to LCA. Many have also paid In the USA, for example, Kristin Haldeman surprisingly little attention to ecolabelling. of the Investor Responsibility Research But at least one of the national ecolabelling Center (IRRC) stressed that “comparability bodies felt that their role could grow, indeed would be very useful when making evalua- would need to grow. “I see the role of con- tions” for investment purposes, but Anne- sumer associations evolving,” said Ing. Maree O’Connor accepted that such com- Raffaele Scialdoni of Italy’s Angenzia Na- parisons would be difficult for the foresee- zionale Per L’Ambiente (ANPA). “This is able future. particularly likely as more final consumer goods are affected.” The analysts agreed that raw data were generally not helpful in their work. What was Ecolabelling Boards needed was processed data, as long as the The link between ecolabelling and LCA is assumptions and methodologies were trans- often assumed to be close and automatic. parent, intelligible and credible. They also The response from leading individuals in the inclined to the view that guidelines for LCA field, however, suggests that the links are were essential and that, on the credibility much looser - and that ecolabelling is very front, verification would be helpful. “We unlikely to drive the LCA debate - or im- definitely need verification,” said Anne prove LCA credibility - in most countries. Marie O’Connor, “to prevent dubious claims - and prevent them from undermining the There was widespread scepticism among credibility of the whole LCA process.” most respondents about the progress to date - and value - of ecolabelling. Many saw the As far as ecolabelling is concerned, they felt link between ecolabelling and LCA as weak. that it could be useful “if all the wrangling And some argued that this was appropriate. ever settles down”, but Sarita Bartlett noted “I think that ecolabelling should not be that ecolabels only meet the needs of certain based on a full LCA,” argued Paolo Frankl of stakeholders - and certainly not of financial Istituto Ambiente Italia. But there was a analysts or the insurance industry. sense that if ecolabelling could be made to work, LCA would inevitably benefit. Governments Through regulations and ecolabelling “There is a lot of scepticism about ecolabels,” initiatives, governments clearly have an was the way Martin Wright of Tomorrow important role to play. Increasingly, too, Magazine summed up the challenge, but some government agencies will require LCA added: “if people come to accept the eco- data in support of their decision-making labelling approach, then it is likely that they processes. But, while the Danish EPA felt it will accept LCA too.” Among the optimists, could handle LCA processes competently on the other hand, was Professor Roland without external verification, there were Clift of the University of Surrey and the UK some reservations about government’s Ecolabelling Board. He said that “ecolabel- overall capacity to do LCAs in-house. ling could be useful in improving the credibility of LCA,” but he also accepted that So how do people who tackle LCA on a pan- “there are still problems in its implementa- European basis feel about the usefulness of tion.” LCA in policy decisions? “Government is not expert enough - and regional situations vary Financial institutions too much - for it to be sensible to base pan- A key problem in LCA, as Anne-Maree European policy on LCA,” argued Nancy 18 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Russotto of APME. There were also reserva- more of a representative, challenging role tions about LCA as a policy-making tool: than a direct contribution to such areas as “LCA is not yet water-tight enough to be the formulation of corporate strategy. But used as a policy making tool,” said Gareth even this position may well change as some Rice of the University of Surrey. On the of the transitions outlined in the latter part other hand, Anne-Maree O’Connor of NPI of this introduction take hold. argued that governments can play a useful role by providing financial incentives for Among the benefits the involvement of LCA and by improving access to data on NGOs can bring are the following: public registers of emissions, so that emissions and impacts can be linked back to • Greater corporate transparency through companies and their products. In short, demanding more data; although it is still easier to see LCA as a tool for assessing products, it is very likely that it • Making LCA practitioners think again by will be used for government and industry challenging the assumptions of those policy making. commissioning and carrying out LCA work; Industry Associations Surprisingly, some industry LCA practition- • Adding weight to the public acceptability ers were highly sceptical about the contribu- of the results of LCA work. tion of industry associations to the debate. One even went so far as to say that “they will But there were concerns that many NGOs continue to protect their corporate members would decide not to play the game, either from calls to divulge real information which because of political differences or because might be useful to customers and consum- they lacked the necessary skills and other ers.” resources. One respondent noted that NGOs typically fall into two categories: (1) those More positively, most respondents felt that that understand the complexity of environ- industry associations would “come up the mental issues and trade-offs, who will work in curve”, playing an increasingly important LCA processes; and (2) those who are single role with respect to the provision of sectoral issue campaigners, and cannot afford to data. Several industry association respond- admit complexity - who will usually turn ents forecast that there would be growing down invitations to participate. pressures for benchmarking against industry averages. Many companies are much happier In the US, Kate Victory of Business and En- to supply data when they know they will be vironment noted, “if NGOs are at all wise, they aggregated, and industry associations will will become involved. Not, perhaps, with the increasingly be required to supply aggre- methodology, but helping technical experts to gated data - both to member companies and understand and communicate that technical to client industries and regulators. analysis will not answer all questions. And NGOs can help with value judgements.” Overall, the associations were expected to Among the consultants, Nick Turner of ERM play a central role. “Industry associations will argued that the role of NGOs could go in a help industry to understand the true value of number of directions. “I can’t see them LCA,” was the way Anders Linde of commissioning LCAs,” he said, “but could see EUROPEN put it. Some of the respondents them involved in peer review. NGOs are also felt that such associations will have an listened to and have weight in society.” important role to play in assisting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The NGO respondents themselves displayed an interesting mixture of scepticism and NGOs hope. “This is still not something that the Although, perhaps not surprisingly, there average man in the street knows anything were reservations (“NGOs are not objective; about,” said Sally Nicholson of WWF. Rick they support political or other lobbying Heede and Chris Lotspeath at the US Rocky agendas”), most practitioners saw non- Mountain Institute agreed: “There has been governmental organisations (NGOs) as slow take-up in the context of little or no potentially having a critical role in relation public awareness,” they reported. And some to LCA. “NGOs have credibility,” was the way NGO respondents were more critical. “LCA Anders Linde of EUROPEN summed it up. has been a justification for products, rather than an objective analysis,” argued Tim Most respondents saw the NGOs as playing Jenkins of Friends of the Earth (FoE). A Spectrum of Stakeholder Views 19

More hopefully, Ann Link of the Women’s Research Institutes and Universities Environment Network (WEN) noted: “Some Overall, this category of respondents was environmental groups have started to take fairly upbeat about the future prospects for LCA seriously, not just as an industry green- LCA. “We see an accelerating take-up of wash, which maybe it was at the beginning. I LCA,” reported Dan Francis of Brunel suppose (and hope) that LCA will become a University. more involving and accessible tool in the future.” Several NGOs saw LCA and ecolabel- An interesting distinction made by a number ling playing a potentially important role in of respondents was between LCA tools and public education on key issues and the life-cycle thinking. As Professor Roland Clift options for action. of the University of Surrey put it, “life cycle thinking has been fairly widely adopted This group of respondents were most wary across industry and government bodies, about the misuses of LCA. “LCA should not while LCA proper has had a more limited be used as the basis of green labelling or eco- take-up, due to time and money require- marketing claims,” said one, arguing that this ments. Interest in LCA is gaining ground,” would be “a complete bastardisation of he said, “but in practice it is still difficult to LCA.” To be useful, all NGO respondents persuade designers and engineers to use agreed, LCA projects would need to afford even abridged forms of LCA.” greater transparency and result in data that are both comparable and benchmarkable. “This is a set of tools for continuous improvement,” said one NGO, “not for selling products.” 21

2. What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development?

2.1 Life Cycle Thinking and Sustainability In the UK, Professor Roland Clift argued that “it is key that life-cycle thinking be Sustainable development is now on the fostered throughout organisations, and be political and business agendas. In Germany, adopted as part and parcel of the organisa- Professor Schmidt Bleek of the Wuppertal tion’s philosophy, mission and day-to-day Institute expressed forceful views about the operations. This makes it essential that life- significance of LCA in sustainable develop- cycle thinking also be applied to corporate ment. He argued that LCA would be essen- educational processes.” tial in the transition to more sustainable lifestyles and products - and noted: “Firms that are not well on the way to developing 2.2 Some Ground-Rules for a Credible LCA and selling sustainable products will be cut out of the market over the next 10 to 20 There have been a number of key shifts in years.” the business and environment debate since The LCA Sourcebook was published. Some of When companies and practitioners were these are specific to the LCA field, others asked about the most important applications related to much wider changes in the fields for LCA, the most popular response in the of environmental strategy, management and SustainAbility survey was new product develop- communication. ment. “New product development is the ultimate goal,” as Rolf Bretz of Ciba put it. In order to explain some of the challenges that now face LCA practitioners - and users The second most important area for the of LCA data - it is worth looking at some of business respondents was corporate strategy. the wider changes now impacting related This was explained on the basis that LCA areas of business- stakeholder relations. introduces the notion of a corporation’s responsibility for the whole life cycle, en- Late in 1996, SustainAbility completed a couraging and assisting the process of major survey of corporate environmental strategy review. Supporting this view, practi- reporting, alongside the United Nations tioners and researchers alike agreed that the Environment Programme (UNEP) and 16 future of life cycle thinking is bright. international companies. The 2-volume

Table 2-1 Engaging stakeholders: 10 transititions.

ESTABLISHED FOCUS ON EMERGING FOCUS ON 1. One-way, passive communication Ü Multi-way, active dialogue 2. Verification as option Ü Verification as standard 3. Single company progress reporting Ü Benchmarkability 4. Management systems Ü Life-cycles, business design, strategy 5. Inputs and outputs Ü Impacts and outcomes 6. Ad-hoc operating standards Ü Global operating standards 7. Public relations Ü Corporate governance 8. Voluntary reporting Ü Mandatory reporting 9. Company determines reporting Ü Boundaries set through stakeholder boundaries dialogue 10. Environmental performance Ü ‘Triple bottom line’ performance 22 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

report, Engaging Stakeholders, focuses both on The focus on openness, credibility and the thinking of reporting companies and of dialogue can also be seen to apply directly to the growing number of users of reported rising trends in LCA. Below we consider data and information. Ten transitions were some of the implications for LCA, taking identified for the reporting community (see each of these transitions in turn. Table 2-1).

2.2.1 Dialogue

One-way, passive communication Ü Multi-way, active dialogue

There is worrying evidence of a growing Richards of Tioxide, subscribed to the view ‘credibility gap’, and in some cases of a that some people working on LCA “live in ‘credibility crisis’, both in the field of cor- the belief that it is much more credible than porate environmental reporting and in it actually is.” But all concerned warned that relation to LCA, because some stakeholders gaining the backing of the scientific commu- feel that the tool has lost much of its accept- nity is the first priority, with public credibility ability through occasional misuse in the past. coming later in the process. Some practitioners, including Giorgio Rowinski of Fiat, even A few companies have experimented with a questioned the value of LCA when used in degree of stakeholder dialogue around the public communication - arguing that the issues related to LCA, Dow Chemical and public is too easily influenced, constantly Novo Nordisk among them, but these shifting its opinion on key issues. interactive processes remain the exception. In the meantime, the main issue which When we asked practitioners to comment on seems to be creating the current ‘credibility the best ways of building and maintaining crisis’ in relation to reporting revolves public confidence in LCA, they mentioned around the fact that currently most compa- the following: nies decide how they should prepare their LCAs. They also define the boundaries of the • The professionalism and training of exercise (see under Transition 9, below). those undertaking LCA work;

In effect, companies undertaking LCA • Accepted standards and methodologies; control both the content of the communication and the communication channels. By • Internal sensitivity analysis and data contrast, there is a growing expectation that checks; stakeholders should be involved much earlier in the process. Only if this happens • Peer or critical review, including public will the next generation of LCA projects be questioning at seminars and confe- credible and, ultimately, useful. rences;

But it is worth asking to what extent the • Transparent reporting of processes and value of LCA depends on its public credi- outcomes; bility? The consensus among practitioners was that, although much depends on the • Stakeholder dialogue; context and application, credibility is “critical”. Some practitioners, among them Mike • Verification.

2.2.2 Verification

Verification as option Ü Verification as standard

The verification of LCAs has not, to date, cions that inevitably arise when LCAs are been a requirement. But NGO respondents carried out by companies with a vested were unanimous in calling for the external interest in the outcome,” as Sally Nicholson verification of LCAs. “External verification of WWF put it. Four out of five NGO respon- would help people to overcome the suspi- dents were unaware of the existence or What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development? 23

nature of existing LCA quality control respondents, all favoured some form of mechanisms. It is also interesting that both verification, with Paolo Frankl of the Istituto the environmental media respondents Ambiente Italia summarising the task as one “passed” on this issue, implying that they of avoiding “mistakes and misuse”. Several were equally confused about quality control respondents said it was good practice, mechanisms. whether the data were for internal or external use, to adopt peer review techniques. The LCA practitioners surveyed felt that “Perhaps data should be checked by a peer there are currently few quality checks in in a company even if it’s only for internal place in the LCA field. Responses ranged use,” as Dan Francis of Brunel University put from “not a lot” to “am not aware of any it. quality checks in particular”. One practitioner explained, “I lack quality control According to Kim Christiansen, who was myself when doing LCAs. The problem is involved in developing ISO 14040, the that LCAs are very data-intensive. It is very international LCA standard, verification is easy to make a mistake - and much harder to one of the themes which was discussed at find it.” If this is more generally the case, this some length by the ISO committee. It proved is an issue which should be addressed by the difficult to agree on how to verify whether or LCA community. not an LCA study follows the text of the standard. Should the accredited certifier In this context, it is interesting to hear some make judge the LCA study undertaken, the practitioners - among them Dr Hans-Jurgen practitioner responsible or the organisation Klüppel of Henkel - saying that LCAs should with which a practitioner works? Ultimately, never be published, or perhaps even made it was agreed that if the results of an LCA are public, without a peer review. Asked whether to be used externally, particularly if they are there is a need for external verification, most to be used to make a comparative assertion practitioners agreed that, where the LCA with another product, an external ‘critical data are for external consumption, verifica- review’ is necessary, whereby a more formal tion by a third party can be a good idea. review process takes place than the usual However, a proportion of these said that the journal review. distinction between peer review and verification is artificial. The key difference may The key thing, as Martin Wright of Tomorrow simply be whether the external party or Magazine noted, is that “independent third parties is/are paid for the work and formally party verification is available, which doesn’t sign off on it. mean that it has to be used every time.” Among the practitioners, David Russell of All the consultants surveyed mentioned peer Dow Europe argued that it could well be review, or some form of external verification, time to begin thinking about a body respon- as important. Marcel Bovy of IMSA added sible for accrediting LCA practitioners and that his experience suggests that “peer verifiers as a first step towards making LCAs reviews almost always result in major error more comparable. corrections.” Among the research institute

2.2.3 Benchmarking

Single company progress reporting Ü Benchmarkability

One key contributor to the ‘credibility gap’ is shared indicators, each company - whether it the ‘comparability paradox’. This runs as is producing a CER or an LCI on a product or follows: to make Corporate Environmental material - ends up in a class of its own. Reports - or LCIs and LCAs - more useful to stakeholders, they need to be comparable; to “It is very difficult indeed to make sensible be comparable they need to be developed comparisons between different business within some sort of framework and with sectors,” said Martin Wright of Tomorrow generally accepted indicators that make magazine. With companies choosing their comparisons possible; and yet companies have own metrics and environmental perform- so far largely resisted attempts to introduce ance indicators, benchmarking is more of a common indicators, frameworks and bench- hope than a reality. This represents a major marks. Without common benchmarks and problem for stakeholders wishing to com- 24 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

pare one LCA with another in order to • Further work on commonly accepted establish and stimulate best practice. approaches to impacts and how to assess them. When asked whether the benchmarkability of LCA data was a key issue, some survey One idea that came up repeatedly as an aid respondents were adamant that comparabil- to benchmarking was that of creating a ity was not an issue or even a requirement. unified LCA database. A number of respond- David Cockburn of PIRA and Anders Linde ents supported this idea strongly, particularly of EUROPEN agreed (in Cockburn’s words) those associated with SPOLD. David Cock- that “there is absolutely no requirement that burn of PIRA felt that a good database in a LCAs are benchmarkable, because each common format could be “very useful”. study sets its own scope, objectives and Some, among them Dennis Postlethwaite of boundaries. However,” he noted, “that Unilever, see the growing calls for databases doesn’t mean that transparency is not impor- as a reaction to concerns that some compa- tant.” The purpose, said Linde, “is not to nies are “switching off” in the LCA field and have major comparability, but to better may in future refuse to disclose potentially understand systems and to improve their sensitive data. performance.” But there were also sceptics: David Chesneau In stark contrast, a few respondents argued of BP Chemicals noted that databases are forcefully for benchmarking and bench- useful in theory, but warned that “Free data markability. “This is a question that can make can be pretty worthless unless the way in or break an ecological free market.” said which they are derived, and their limitations, Professor Schmidt Bleek of Germany’s are understood.” Anders Linde of EURO- Wuppertal Institute. PEN reported that “EUROPEN feels that databases are not very useful in practice, as Most respondents noted that it all depends they use industry averages and provide of whether the data and findings are being diluted information, which lowers the quality used internally or externally. A typical reply: of the LCA.” Clearly the usefulness of “If the results of an LCA enter the public databases will depend upon the applications domain, comparability and benchmarkability for which they are envisaged, the nature of become much more important.” Compara- the data collected and the ease with which bility, concluded Rolf Bretz of Ciba, is different styles of analysis can be supported. “indispensable”: if we fail to achieve comparability and benchmarkability in the LCA More specifically, the following criteria field, we cannot expect LCA to survive for apply: long in the commercial world. • The data should be updated regularly; In terms of making comparisons possible, a number of necessary and desirable steps • Ranges of uncertainty should be indica- were suggested. These included: ted;

• The development of a common LCA • The date and source of any data should framework or methodology; be clearly identified;

• Improved, explicit definitions of meth- • Formats should be harmonised, wherever ods, indicators, scope and boundaries possible; in LCA projects; • Particular attention should be paid to • The provision of better quality data - gathering essential infrastructure data which should be more widely accessible; relating, for example, to energy, transport and solid waste management. • The construction of standard data sets;

• Greater transparency for LCI and LCA processes; What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development? 25

2.2.4 From Management Systems to Strategy

Management systems Ü Life-cycles, business design, strategy

In environmental management, it is possible speeded up if it is to be properly integrated to point to a number of instances where into business design and strategy. Said management systems were set up in a Professor Schmidt Bleek of the Wuppertal vacuum. Sometimes, neither the data deliv- Institute: “A system must be found that is ery systems which allow the system to operate sufficiently simple, safe and cost-effective so effectively, nor the feedback loops indicating that a million products can be assessed where change should take place, were in quickly and repeatedly.” Among our student place. And, to a degree, the same problems respondents, there was strong agreement can apply to LCA. from Gareth Rice of the University of Surrey: “Anything that reduces the time element in Many early LCA projects ran ahead of any conducting an LCA has to be a good thing” commercial desire to apply life cycle think- he said. ing: a case of the cart being put ahead of the horse. But we now see a growing number of To ease the burden on industry and particu- companies reporting on their LCA work and larly on SMEs, there was strong support for also beginning to apply life-cycle thinking to government incentives and for Multi-client such areas as business design and strategy. studies. The availability of suitable databases, said Federica Ranghieri of Italy’s Whatever happens, however, there was Fondazzione Mattei, would be critical in general consensus amongst those who we helping SMEs to weather the transition. interviewed that the LCA process needs to be

2.2.5 Impacts and Outcomes

Inputs and outputs Ü Impacts and outcomes

Data on industry’s inputs and outputs are on impacts and outcomes will inevitably obviously welcome, but they are only useful if drive the future evolution of LCA. The they can be linked to potential real-world necessary shifts here are from data to infor- environmental impacts - and to programmes mation and knowledge, and from under- for reducing and making good those im- standing to action. In short, what do all the pacts. emissions and waste data produced for LCA projects and published in CERs actually mean The issue of impacts is one of the thorniest in terms of environmental decline or pro- which face LCA practitioners, and remains a gress, let alone of longer term sustainability? sticking point - so much so that some people, such as Peter Hindle of Procter & Gamble, To make this happen, more work is needed consider full blown LCAs to be an all but in the area of building state-of-the-environ- impossible dream. He places much more ment databases - and of better integrating faith in LCIs (life cycle inventories). technology, project and product impact assessments with these larger sets of data on But, as in the field of corporate environmen- environmental trends. tal reporting, the demand for information 26 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

2.2.6 Standards

Ad-hoc operating standards Ü Global operating standards

In a globalising economy, the challenges ready by 1997. That does not mean that they facing business are becoming increasingly all support it whole-heartedly, however. But complex. Companies often complain that even they accepted, as Christina Senabulya they operate in markets where the “playing of the British Standards Institution (BSI) put field is uneven”, but the evidence suggests it, that “the acceptability of this family of that they are often comfortable applying standards will be decided in the market- different standards in different parts of the place.” world. Whatever the facts of the matter, one message has emerged clearly from recent Most practitioners and standard-setters saw controversies: companies operating interna- significant value in the harmonisation of tionally will find it increasingly difficult to national standards - as long as they could be apply different standards - whether in rela- harmonised at the right level. Although ISO tion to site management, reporting or LCA - and national standards bodies were most in different worlds regions and countries. often mentioned in this context, at least one NGO saw the European Environment Many practitioners see the work of the Agency (EEA) itself as having an important International Standards Organisation (ISO), potential role to play in helping to ensure and particularly its work on ISO 14040, as appropriate levels of standardisation and the pivotal. The standards setting bodies noted build the associated credibility for the tools that ISO 14040 and ISO 14041 should be and their users.

2.2.7 Corporate Governance

Public relations Ü Corporate governance

Most report-makers find other companies’ For the equity and other fast-paced financial LCAs and CERs useful, when they can get markets, environmental issues may be access to them, but even some report-makers shadowed by the scale of the problems that now take their fellow report-makers to task have rocked institutions like Barings, Daiwa, for producing LCA-related documentation Sumitomo and Morgan Grenfell/Deutsche and CERs which are “largely PR”. The shift Bank, but sustainable development is going to a more governance-focused approach to to depend on the capacity of financial reporting is signalled by the views of the analysts to think longer term than they financial institutions. This trend is likely to currently find possible. Working out how this affect the financial markets in waves, the first transition can be driven forward is perhaps hitting insurers, the second hitting the banks the biggest challenge now facing the sustain- and the third, eventually, hitting the equity able development community world-wide. markets. Among the financial sector respondents, The insurers have had plenty of warning, there was a strong feeling that some form of with some 20% of Lloyd’s losses associated verification would be needed if they were to with environmental liabilities in the United use LCA data. Sarita Bartlett of Storebrand States. As a result, some insurance compa- felt that a company’s commitment to LCA nies are taking a much greater interest in could become an important indicator for major issues like global warming and climate whether or not it is taking its environmental change. management responsibilities seriously. Anne- Maree O’Connor at NPI, meanwhile, felt The fact that a growing number of banks is that companies are only likely to undertake beginning the process of environmental LCAs (and consequently divulge useful reporting suggests that the environmental information about them) if encouraged to aspects of corporate governance will also be do so through incentives or, conversely, moving sharply up the agenda over the next taxes. Corporate governance is, in other decade. words, seen to need a helping hand. What Role for LCA in Sustainable Development? 27

2.2.8 Will LCA become Mandatory?

Voluntary reporting Ü Mandatory reporting

There is much to be said for the voluntary better to let the public choose, than manda- approach to reporting - not least because it ting choices,” RMI noted. “But this means encourages greater experimentation by that the public - and particularly consumers - report-makers and the same holds true for have to be educated and informed.” LCA. Both in the field of reporting and of life-cycle assessment, this is still the case, but The consensus among the practitioners was there are clear signs, at least among report- that a mandatory requirement is unlikely makers, users and other stakeholders, that and would be unhelpful if it did develop. “I there will be growing calls for mandatory tried hard, but I couldn’t see a situation reporting. Will the same hold true for LCA? where LCA would be mandatory,” replied Nancy Russotto of APME. “Mandatory The ecolabelling respondents generally felt requirements usually lower the quality of that it would be a mistake to make LCA tools,” said Anders Linde of EUROPEN. mandatory. Paul Jackson of the UK Eco- However, a number of industry people labelling Board noted that this approach wondered whether such a requirement would impose excessive costs on industry, might not slip “through the back door” in most particularly on SMEs. Mariane Hounum the form of requirements in relation to of the Danish EPA agreed, pointing out that product stewardship or supplier vetting that “LCA is a tool to achieve better understand- are best satisfied by LCA. ing and knowledge, a base on which to make decisions. Therefore you have to leave the David Cockburn of PIRA concluded that any choices and decisions free - they cannot be legislation setting environmental perform- forced.” ance standards could have the same effect. Another regulatory pressure in this direction Interestingly, the NGOs tended to agree. The was felt to be integrated pollution prevention Rocky Mountain Institute was typical in and control. And Anne-Maree O’Connor of arguing that LCA is a “knowledge tool”, and NPI suggested that, although unlikely, a therefore should not be imposed on people. mandatory requirement might be pushed If it did become mandatory for any reason, forward in tandem with financial incentives the choices made on the basis of the infor- or taxes on landfill, emissions and raw mation provided should still be open. “It is materials.

2.2.9 Setting LCA Boundaries

Company determines reporting boundaries Ü Boundaries set through stakeholder dialogue

“Critics,” as one of the Rocky Mountain same holds true for LCA: a key part of the Institute respondents neatly put it, “under- credibility issue revolves around the fact that mine credibility.” It therefore seems sensible, companies choose their own boundaries, where possible, to address criticism at the methodologies and indicators. For CERs and start of the LCA process, rather than at the LCAs alike to be credible, and for stake- end. Marcel Bovy of IMSA was one of those holders to become genuinely engaged, they who argued strongly that LCA processes and must be involved in negotiating the relevant data depend for their credibility on the project boundaries. approval of “opinion leaders”, and this point is spelled out more clearly in the IMSA/ To date, many stakeholders have not been SPOLD Synthesis Report on the Social Value of sufficiently engaged, nor perhaps sufficiently LCA. knowledgeable, to articulate their needs and expectations effectively. But this is likely to One of the main reasons why corporate change, potentially bringing enhanced environmental reporting has not yet trans- usability and credibility. formed the credibility of reporting companies is that the process of deciding when, how and to whom to report is often control- led by the companies themselves. Again, the 28 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

2.2.10 The Triple Bottom Line

Environmental performance Ü ‘Triple bottom line’ performance

Sustainable development will require busi- exercise them. WWF, for example, noted that ness to assess progress against economic, LCA cannot address the “social and ethical environmental and social indicators. A issues” which are becoming an increasingly number of CERs are now referring to this important part of the debate. But they also building transition, among them those felt that wider stakeholder involvement produced by General Motors. This does not might help to address at least some these necessarily mean that we will see booming gaps. corporate demand for social life-cycle

assessments (LCAsoc), but it does mean that Interestingly, the media respondents agreed the social context of LCA work will become that this was a trend that LCA practitioners more important - as will stakeholder involve- would have to cope with: “As corporate ment throughout the process. environmentalism increasingly embraces ethics,” concluded Martin Wright of Tomor- The NGO respondents typically saw LCA as row Magazine, “you would have to assume unable to address the wider - and particularly that these ideas will increasingly be incorpo- social - dimensions of the problems that most rated into LCA.”

2.3 The Next Five Years

Among the likely trends identified by survey • There will be more commonality and respondents, the following stood out: greater availability of data;

• LCA will be seen as an integral part of • Expect more LCIs on computers - and, the environmental management tool-kit, potentially, available via the Internet; but will also find new applications in areas such as corporate strategy; • There will be a rapidly an evolving debate on - and better methods for - • Customer industries will increasingly impact assessment; demand at least some form of life-cycle information from key suppliers; • And all respondents, whether or not they knew how to deal with these require • There will be more widely accepted ments, accepted that there would be a standards and methodologies; greater focus on peer review, verification and stakeholder dialogue to boost LCA • Market pressures will push greater credibility. benchmarking against industry averages;

• We will see more LCIs integrated into new product development; 29

3. Applications of LCA

The target group for this chapter is the ensure that boundary and functionality environmental manager (or the person definitions are adequately covered and are responsible for environmental activities) in transparent. Accordingly, one of the essential small and medium sized enterprises. The requirements in the Draft International chapter outlines areas of use in LCA in both Standard ISO 14040 (ISO 1997a) is the the private and the public sectors, and gives following demands for external communica- references to programmes and projects tion of LCA: where LCA plays an integral part. The chapter also gives a brief introduction to The results of the LCA shall be fairly and some conceptually related programmes, e.g. accurately reported to the intended concepts and tools which use similar kinds of audience. The type and format of the data and which can be used to support report shall be defined in the scope decision making in related areas of environ- phase of the study. mental management. The results, data, methods, assumptions LCA methodologies were originally devel- and limitations shall be transparent and oped to create decision support tools for presented in sufficient detail to allow the distinguishing between products, product reader to comprehend the complexities systems, or services on environmental and trade-offs inherent in the LCA study. grounds (Throughout the chapter, the term The report shall also allow the results “product” is used as a synonym for both and interpretation to be used in a products, product systems, and services). manner consistent with the goals of the study. During the evolution of LCA, a number of (....) related applications emerged, of which we give some examples below: In comparative studies, the equivalence of the systems being compared shall be • Internal industrial use in product devel- evaluated before interpreting the results. opment and improvement Systems shall be compared using the same functional unit and equivalent • Internal strategic planning and policy methodological considerations such as decision support in industry, performance, system boundaries, data quality, allocation procedures, decision • External industrial use for marketing rules on evaluating inputs and outputs purposes, and and impact assessment. Any differences between systems regarding these para- • Governmental policy making in the areas meters shall be identified and reported. of ecolabelling, green procurement and waste management opportunities. In the case of comparative assertions disclosed to the public, this evaluation The list is not exhaustive, but indicates that shall be conducted in accordance with there is a wide variation of applications. This the critical review process. Another variation is also reflected in the level of requirement for comparative assertions sophistication and to some extent also in the disclosed to the public is that an impact choice of methodology. assessment shall be performed. (....) A critical remark on the use of LCA The use of LCA for strategic decisions, e.g. in choosing between different systems 3.1 Levels of sophistication in LCA for delivering a common function, has often different applications been associated with disputes about the validity of such assessments. These disputes - Most of the efforts in the development and or “LCA-wars” - have, however, proven to be standardisation of LCA have been directed of great value in the development of a towards a detailed LCA, and this type of LCA proper LCA-methodology and data as they is accordingly the focus of the chapter on 30 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA methodology. In practice, however, very ing which components or materials have the few detailed LCAs, which are based on a largest environmental impacts - and why. coherent methodology, have been published. Limitations in the inventory can occur in the form of omissions of one or more of the The first part of the present chapter there- phases in the life cycle, e.g. those phases for fore includes a brief description of two other which the decision-maker does not have any levels of LCA, i.e. the conceptual and the improvement options. Another possibility is simplified levels. It should be noted that at to reduce the number of examined param- present it is not possible to make a distinc- eters, e.g. by investigating the energy con- tion between conceptual and simplified sumption in the life cycle, but not the LCAs or between simplified and detailed related emissions and their contribution to LCAs. Rather, the three levels should be different environmental impacts. regarded as a continuum with an increasing level of detail, suitable for decision making It is obvious from the requirements of the in different applications. ISO standard that conceptual LCAs are not suitable for marketing purposes or other In the subsequent descriptions of LCA public dissemination of the results. However, applications, a reference is given to the level a conceptual LCA may help the decision of LCA used in the different applications, maker identify which products have a com- although it is not possible to describe the petitive advantage in terms of reduced methodologies in detail. During the develop- environmental impacts. Subsequent simpli- ment of LCA methodology, many synonyms fied or detailed LCAs fulfilling the require- for less detailed LCAs have been suggested. ments of a standard can be established and This is also reflected in the present review as used for public information. the authors refer to the actual terminology used in the report (streamlined LCA, partial Instead of “Conceptual LCA”, the SETAC LCA, screening LCA, Life cycle review, EUROPE LCA Screening and Streamlining simplified LCA, Life cycle thinking, LCA Working Group uses the term “Life Cycle concept, LCA tool, etc.) Thinking” (Christiansen et al., 1997):

When reading the following it should be Life Cycle Thinking is a mostly qualita- borne in mind that irrespective of the tive discussion to identify stages of the terminology used, an LCA should always be life cycle and/or the potential environ- based on a holistic approach, i.e. at some mental impacts of greatest significance point of the study it must include the full life e.g. for use in a design brief or in an cycle of the product and examine all inputs introductory discussion of policy mea- and outputs. sures. The greatest benefit is that it helps focus consideration of the full life cycle 3.1.1 Conceptual LCA - Life Cycle Thinking of the product or system; data are typi- The conceptual LCA is the first and simplest cally qualitative (statements) or very level of LCA. At this level the life cycle ap- general and available-by-heart quantita- proach is used to make an assessment of tive data. environmental aspects based on a limited and usually qualitative inventory. A conceptual 3.1.2 Simplified LCA LCA can often answer basic questions like “Is The SETAC EUROPE LCA Screening and there a basis for pursuing a green marketing Streamlining Working Group defines simpli- strategy?”, “Is the product significantly differ- fied LCA as (Christiansen et al., 1997): ent from competing products?” or “Does the product have some clear unequivocal benefits Simplified LCA is an application of the or shortcomings for selected environmental LCA methodology for a comprehensive issues?”. Key decisions about green marketing screening assessment i.e. covering the and new product development do not neces- whole life cycle but superficial e.g. using sarily need a highly quantitative analysis, but generic data (qualitative and/or quanti- rather an understanding of the relative tative), standard modules for transporta- advantages, disadvantages and uncertainties tion or energy production, followed by a for an existing or new product (Hirschhorn, simplified assessment i.e. focusing on the 1993). most important environmental aspects and/or potential environmental impacts The results of a conceptual LCA can for and/or stages of the life cycle and/or instance be presented using qualitative phases of the LCA and a thorough statements or simple scoring systems, indicat- assessment of the reliability of the results. Applications of LCA 31

The aim of simplifying LCA is to provide simplified LCA. However, a clear distinction essentially the same results as a detailed LCA, should be made. Screening as a part of the but with a significant reduction in expenses simplification procedure can help to identify and time used. Simplification presents a the parts (or life cycle stages) of a product dilemma, however, since it is likely to affect system that can be left out in a simplified the accuracy and reliability of the results of LCA. In principle, a screening LCA which the LCA. Thus, the primary object of simpli- already has certain parts missing would not fication is to identify the areas within the be capable of identifying all key issues, as it LCA which can be omitted or simplified does not cover the full life cycle or all en- without significantly compromising the vironmentally important aspects. In other overall result. words, the screening step in simplified LCA should be comprehensive in coverage, but Simplification of LCA consists of three stages may be superficial in detail. which are iteratively interlinked: Screening LCA is for instance used in • Screening: Identifying those parts of the environmental labelling to identify the system (life cycle) or of the elementary environmental “hot spots”, i.e. the areas flows that are either important or have where labelling criteria are assumed to have data gaps the greatest effects. Another use of screening LCAs is to identify the processes where • Simplifying: Using the findings of the emissions of particular interest occur in the screening in order to focus further work life cycle. This procedure may be followed by on the important parts of the system or application of other environmental manage- the elementary flows. ment tools, e.g. risk assessment, to assess whether unwanted effects actually will occur. • Assessing reliability: Checking that simplifying does not significantly reduce Depending on the application, the data can the reliability of the overall result. be quantitative (site specific/generic) or qualitative. Screening indicators such as The terms “Screening LCA” and “Stream- energy demand, MIPS (material intensity per lined LCA” are often used as synonyms for a service unit) and key substances (substances

Table 3-1 Level of detail in some applications of LCA. “x” in bold indicates the most frequently used level.

Level of detail in LCA

Application Conceptual Simplified Detailed Comments

Design for Environment x x No formal links to LCA Product development x x x Large variation in sophistication Product improvement x Often based on already existing products Environmental claims x Seldom based on LCA (ISO type II-labelling) Ecolabelling x Only criteria development requires an LCA (ISO type I-labelling) Environmental declaration x Inventory and/or impact assessment (ISO type III-labelling) Organisation marketing x x Inclusion of LCA in environmental reporting Strategic planning xx Gradual development of LCA knowledge Green procurement x x LCA not as detailed as in ecolabelling Deposit/refund schemes x Reduced number of parameters in the LCA is often sufficient Environmental x Reduced number of parameters in the LCA is (“green”) taxes often sufficient Choice between x x Detailed inventory, Scope disputed LCA packaging systems results not the only information 32 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

with a known contribution to one or more 3.2 Private sector applications environmental impacts) can be used to identify the hot spots in the life cycle. Using The use of LCA in the private sector varies combinations of several indicators may greatly. This differentiation depends to a increase the reliability of the screening. large extent on where a given company is Indicators which only relate to one phase of situated in the product chain and on the key the life cycle, e.g. recyclability and degrad- driver for the LCA activity, e.g. legislation or ability of products, should only be used in market competition. For business teams, the combination with other indicators. LCA tool should be used to understand the environmental issues associated with up- Simplified LCAs may be used externally if stream and downstream processes as well as reported in accordance with the require- on-site processes. This understanding can be ments in the ISO standard (ISO 14040). used for continuous improvement in reduc- However, most simplified LCAs are used for ing the impacts throughout the supply chain. internal purposes without formal requirements for reporting. To avoid misinterpreta- Commodity producers (chemicals, plastics, tion of the results, the user of the LCA metals) most often perform life cycle invento- should be made explicitly aware of the ries to be used in comparative assertions or limitations of the study, e.g. by stating all for assessing waste management and recycling simplifying methods applied in the LCA as options. Producers of intermediates and recommended in the SETAC report components provide data for their customers, (Christiansen (ed), 1997). and producers of final goods combine the knowledge from upstream and downstream The level of detail in some of the applica- processes to design and manufacture prod- tions is shown in Table 3-1. The contents of ucts with the least environmental impact. each of the applications is described in more Time in this context, is an important factor in detail in the following sections. LCA. For companies producing final goods in

Important issues in Design for Environment (WICE, 1994)

Materials selection • Minimise toxic chemical content • Incorporate recycled and recyclable materials • Use more durable materials • Reduce materials use

Production impacts • Reduce process waste • Reduce energy consumption • Reduce use of toxic chemicals

Product use • Energy efficiency • Reduce product emissions and waste • Minimise packaging

Design for recycling and reuse • Incorporate recyclable materials • Ensure easy disassembly • Reduce materials diversity • Label parts • Simplify products (e.g. number of parts) • Standardise material types

Extending the useful life of products and components • Design for remanufacture • Design for upgrades • Make parts accessible to facilitate maintenance and repairs • Incorporate reconditioned parts or subassemblies

Design for end of life • Safe disposal Applications of LCA 33

a competitive market, the product develop- to optimize the environmental performance ment cycles are short and accordingly, com- of a product throughout its life cycle. and prehensive LCAs are not feasible with the integrates concepts of pollution prevention presently available data bases because the in manufacturing and concerns about analysis are time consuming. energy efficiency of products. Another major objective of DfE among manufacturers is to The following sections give a short introduc- design products with the goal of minimizing tion to some of the concepts and tools in after-life impacts and costs. which LCA is an integral part, and to some of the concepts with a close relation to LCA DfE thus conceptually addresses the same and life cycle approaches. problem areas as LCA. Dedicated LCA tools were not an integral part of early DfE initia- 3.2.1 Product development tives, but as is shown in the next section, the Design for the Environment (DfE) development of LCA has now to a large Design for the environment is a general term degree been connected to product develop- for a number of methods for incorporating ment and - accordingly - to DfE as a concept. environmental factors into the design process. The concept of DfE has been developed LCA and Product development without formal links to LCA, but as can be and improvement - introduction seen from the following paragraphs the two Using LCA in product development is an approaches are very similar and may not be obvious choice as a large part of the future distinguishable from each other in many environmental impacts of a product (system) cases. is determined by the design and construction phase. By incorporating LCA in the Specific principles for DfE differ from design phase, companies have the possibility company to company, but some common of avoiding or minimizing foreseeable themes have been described by the World impacts without compromising the overall Industry Council for the Environment quality of the product. (WICE, 1994) (see Box page 28). DfE seeks

Figure 3-1 Relationship between the designers’ degree of freedom and the level of information. 34 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Product development may follow different broad list of references on Life Cycle Design concepts and routes. Some common phases and related approaches can be found in of most development methodologies are Keoleian & Menerey (1994) and in Ryding given below in Figure 3-1, along with an (1995). illustration of the relationship between the designer’s degree of freedom and the The Product Ecology Project (Sweden) available information during the product The Product Ecology Project in Sweden was development process. launched in 1992 as an initiative by the Federation of Swedish Industries. The core In the idea-phase there is almost an un- idea of the project was to develop an LCA- limited number of possibilities with respect based calculation system to help product to design, choice of materials, function etc. developers, purchasers and other decision- The number of options decreases with the makers in taking environmental impacts development process, and changes to the from processes and products into account. final product and of the necessary produc- The results from the study are published in tion tools often require a whole new develop- Ryding (1995). Furthermore, a PC-based ment process. software version of the Environmental Priority System (EPS) to be used as an in- It is therefore necessary that relevant envi- company tool has been developed, and an ronmental tools are available and used as education package on environmentally early as possible in the development process. sound product development is available. For simple products, e.g. packaging, it is possible to apply a detailed and quantitative The NEP project (Scandinavia) LCA since information on most of the The Nordic project on Environmentally commonly used materials is now available. Sound Product development (NEP) includes For more complicated products the number most Nordic countries (S, N, SF) and con- of possibilities is very high, and as the data- sists of two parts, namely development of a base on “exotic” materials is limited, the common structure for a LCA database, and a application of quantitative and detailed number of case studies, primarily performed LCAs to such products may prove to be very by Swedish and Norwegian companies. In resource demanding and at the same time the project, LCA was integrated with system- not very precise. Conceptual or simplified atic product development tools like Quality LCAs may in these cases be of more help in Function Deployment (QFD) and Life Cycle the early stages of product development, Cost Analysis (LCCA) (Hanssen, 1994, possibly in the form of life cycle based design Hanssen, 1995, Hanssen et al., 1995). The tools (e.g. design rules and checklists). industrial members of the project group were apparently satisfied with the integrated When improving already existing products, concept, but it was also a common experi- the use of LCA may become easier (a simpli- ence that there was a lack of information fied LCA), simply because it is possible to concerning environmental performance, make a LCA of the old (“reference”) product customer requirements valuation and life with a well-known life cycle and use the cycle economy. results to identify where the environmental “hot spots” are. In this case data collection The Eco-Design programme (The Netherlands) and interpretation are generally far less The Dutch Eco-Design programme was an resource intensive, and the results can be experimental project in which eight compa- communicated to the customers in terms of nies tried to incorporate environmental absolute environmental improvements. aspects in order arrive at improved products. One of the basic ideas in the project was to Several research programs on how to incor- establish a team consisting of product porate environmental issues in product developers from inside a company together development have been conducted. The list with environmental experts. Both quantita- below is not intended to give an exhaustive tive LCAs and a more conceptual life cycle overview, but merely mentions some pro- approach were used in the project, which is grams already completed. Information on only documented to a limited extent, e.g. other programs can be found in reports Zweers et al. (1992). from industry sector conferences (e.g. the packaging, automotive and electromechani- The Milion and the Promise programmes (The cal industries) and from meetings in LCA- Netherlands) orientated societies (e.g. SETAC’s annual The Dutch Milion programme has been meetings and symposia for case studies). A somewhat similar in set-up and has been Applications of LCA 35

demonstrated for 6 products. It appears that tal criteria in product development. The substantial improvements have been imple- tools are based on state-of-the-art LCA mented, but for reasons of confidentiality, no methodology and supposed to be used detailed reports have been published interactively between a product developer (Christiansen et al., 1995). and an environmental specialist. Detailed criteria and methods for assessment of The Promise programme was formulated in environmental impacts have been extensively the Netherlands with the experiences from reported (e.g. Wenzel et al., 1996 and 1997), the Eco-design and the Milion project as a and a supporting database has been released background. The main results are a manual by the Danish Environmental Protection for environmental product development Agency. (Brezet et al., 1994) and a report for the parliament on how to stimulate environmen- Quality Function Deployment (Denmark) tal product development and improvement. The Danish QFD-project (Olesen, Schmidt The manual is described as a framework for and Petersen, 1997).) demonstrates how product development rather than an opera- both customer and environmental require- tional methodology (Christiansen et al., ments can be integrated in product develop- 1995). ment using the Quality Function Deploy- ment methodology. Important quality and The Eco-Indicator Programme (The Netherlands) functional aspects are identified via inter- The Eco-Indicator programme has resulted views with stakeholders, while the most in a screening LCA procedure for design important environmental aspects are identi- purposes. The idea is to have a single fied using simplified LCA. All aspects are number for each unit process and material, subsequently related to the technical proper- reflecting the cradle to grave impacts. In ties of the components in the product, and having single numbers for each unit process, options for improvements can be analysed it is not necessary to establish process trees, taking both environmental and market collect emission data and agree on allocation considerations into account. rules. The LCA-work is thereby simplified significantly, but the methodology gives no The Life Cycle Design Project (U.S.A.) freedom to work with other data sets, e.g. on The Life Cycle Design Project in the USA different technologies. The results of the resulted in a Life Cycle Design Guidance programme and the methodology has been Manual (Keoleian and Menerey, 1993). The published by Goedkoep et al. (1996) and is core of the project is the framework of continuously being updated. formulating 5 conceptual requirement matrices on environmental, performance, The Materials Technology Programme (Denmark) cost, legal and cultural aspects of the design In the Danish Materials Technology Pro- process in relation to the whole life cycle. gramme a methodology for screening The formulation, identification and weight- potential life cycle impacts during the ing of various design requirements are development of materials and products was highlighted as crucial points in a successful developed (Schmidt et al. (eds.), 1994). The project, in conjunction with a well organized methodology and the accompanying paper environmental management system. The database can be used for preliminary calcula- second phase of the project is a number of tions of the contribution to global and demonstration projects, the results of which environmental impacts as well as qualitative are currently being reported. Further infor- screening of potential health and ecological mation can be obtained from the U.S. EPA. impacts and waste management options. The methodology pinpoints potential hot-spots in Strategies for Industrial Production in the 21st the life cycle and gives the basis for compari- Century (Germany) sons with existing technologies. As a part of the German research programme “Strategies for Industrial Production The EDIP project (Denmark) in the 21st Century” an iterative screening The Danish EDIP-project from 1991-1996 LCA methodology has been developed and involved five Danish companies in collabora- used in product development (Fleischer & tion with the Institute for Product Develop- Schmidt, 1997). The aim of the methodology ment at the Technical University of Denmark is to produce results in time to be useful and other centres of knowledge. The aim of during product development and to facili- the project was to give the design team at the tate the communication between the LCA companies access to methods and tools practitioner and the product design team. supporting the introduction of environmen- The starting point is qualitative (or semi- 36 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

quantitative) information on key issues and The use of environmental claims will prob- subsequent iterations may include selected ably decrease along with increasing con- data or even all data. The system boundaries sumer environmental awareness of the are enlarged step by step in parallel with the consumer and the introduction of formal- product development, but the level of detail ized methods for marketing environmentally is only increased if it delivers valuable preferable products. information for the decision making process. The method is also described in Christiansen Environmental declarations (ISO Type III- (1997). labelling) The most recent ISO-proposal for a defini- 3.2.2 Marketing tion of environmental label or declaration is Marketing is the traditional way of communi- (ISO 1997e) cating product properties and capabilities which are consistent with the consumer’s communication of a product environmental expectations and demands. As the level of claim that may take the form of statements, environmental consciousness is increasing, symbols, or graphics on product or package more attention is being paid by the con- labels, product literature, technical bulletins, sumer to the environmental properties of advertising, publicity, etc. goods and services. This is being used (and misused) by many companies to attempt to Environmental declarations may be a tool in increase their market share, and develop- eco-marketing to transfer the results from a ment of criteria and guidelines for environ- life cycle investigation of a product (either as mental marketing has a high priority. a life cycle inventory or a life cycle assessment) to the individual decision-making At least four different kinds of environmen- process of a consumer. The concept is in tal marketing can be distinguished: principle similar to that of declaration on food products, but is not yet fully developed. • Environmental labelling If a similar concept is developed, the definition of environmental declarations could be • Environmental claims “Quantified product information labels in which the findings of an LCA are reported • Environmental declarations under a set of pre-established indices”.

• Organization marketing The general idea is to give a (graphic) presentation of a pre-set number of environ- Environmental labelling (ISO Type I-labelling) mental impacts, e.g. by using a bar diagram. Discussed in the section Public Policy Mak- The main difference in relation to ecolabels ing. is that environmental declarations are neutral, i.e. they contain no information on Environmental claims (ISO Type II-labelling) whether the product is worse or better than An environmental claim is presently defined other products fulfilling the same service. by ISO (ISO/DIS 14021 and ISO/CD 14022) Two (or more) environmental declarations as a can on the other hand illustrate the actual difference between products, and for en- label or declaration that indicates the vironmentally conscious consumers this can environmental aspects of a product or be a valuable supplement to just choosing service that may take the form of statements, between labelled products. A graphical symbols or graphics on product or packaging presentation can be very suitable for this labels, product literature, technical bulletins, purpose, but great care must be taken to advertising, publicity or similar applications. avoid the possibility of misinterpretation, especially when the consumer is comparing Environmental claims are often uni-dimen- different products. sional and related to the “Environmental issue of the year or month”, e.g. “Lead-free The use of LCA is thus a prerequisite for gasoline”, “Phosphate-free detergent”, “CFC- environmental declarations. Standardisation free hair spray” etc. Very few of such environ- efforts have been initiated by ISO (ISO T mental claims are based on a LCA, and in 207/SC3/WG 1) and include requirements many cases the claim focuses on irrelevant on methodology, transparency, external issues, while failing to address those issues review, comparative assertions, labelling which are important in a life cycle perspec- components, administrative guidelines, and tive. procedures governing the accreditation and Applications of LCA 37

Table 3-2 Differences between environmental declarations and ecolabels.

Parameter Environmental declaration Environmental labelling

Type of LCA Detailed inventory and impact assessment LCA used to pinpoint key - or simplified LCA? features

Type of assessment Neutral Positive (evaluation by experts)

Number of products with All (in principle) Only the best 10-30% of the declaration or label product group

Target group Wholesale dealers Professional buyers Consumers in general Environmentally conscious consumers

Information level Complex Simple

Information content Bar diagram and/or numbers suggested Label

Comparative assertion possible Yes, with two or more declarations available No

Updating With product changes Variable, but the criteria are renewed every three years in many schemes

conduct of Type III labelling practitioners. As organizations implement the necessary policies for certification they are also encour- A main obstacle to the success of environ- aged to formalize the implementation of mental declarations may be that huge LCA procedures and life cycle thinking amounts of information, e.g. a whole LCA, is through the environmental management to be conveyed in just one picture, under- system. standable by the consumer. Firstly, a large amount of work is necessary to establish life The EU Environmental Management and cycle assessments of a wide range of con- Auditing Scheme (EMAS) (Council Regula- sumer products from several suppliers. tion (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993) Secondly, it will most probably require a states in Annex I.D. “Good management highly informed consumer to fully under- practices” that stand and use the environmental declara- (....) tion, and the success of environmental declarations thus depends on educational 2. The environmental impacts of all new efforts as well as the actual environmental activities, products and processes shall be documentation. assessed in advance. (.....) Table 3-2 presents some of the main differences between environmental labels and The ISO 14001 states in section A4.2.1 environmental declarations. “Environmental aspects” that

Organisation marketing The process is intended to identify signific- The classical marketing of environmental ant environmental activities associated with performance has mainly been orientated activities, products and services, and is not towards products as described above. How- intended to require a detailed life cycle ever, with the increasing number of compa- assessment. Organisations do not have to nies being certified according to ISO 14001, evaluate each product, component or raw EMAS or BS 7750, some marketing initiatives material input. They may select categories, are being directed towards the environmen- products or services to identify those aspects tal capabilities of the company per se. It most likely to have a significant impact. should be noted that the BS 7750 has been (.....) superseded by EMAS and that the ISO 14001 standard may supersede the EMAS in the future. 38 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

EMAS makes no explicit links to LCA and • Environmental charters there are some very basic differences: EMAS is a management system and site-based, while The handbook thus addresses some of the LCA is product-oriented. EMAS also focuses same concepts as discussed in this chapter. on continuous environmental improvement, However, the level of detail is significantly not on actual or potential impacts. There is, higher, and the handbook may be very useful however, an implicit link between EMAS and for many SMEs wanting to integrate environ- LCA in that participating sites are encour- mental issues in their work. aged to think holistically about their activities - but no guidelines are given as to which There are several motivating factors behind time or spatial dimensions are appropriate the decision to integrate environmental from the point of view of product steward- issues, many of which are interrelated, e.g.: ship. A thorough introduction to EMAS has been developed by SustainAbility for EPE • Consumer demands (European Partners for the Environment). This introduction can be found at EPE’s • Compliance with legislation homepage (http://www.epe.be/epe/emas/ new/emashome.html). • Community needs for environmental improvement How LCA will be implemented in environmental management is thus not clear. One • Security of supply obvious choice would be to make a LCA of a typical product in the company’s product • Product and market opportunities range and use this as a starting point for discussions with suppliers and for informa- The environmental performance is thus tion to the customers. Both issues are readily changing from being a mandatory property documented in an environmental report as of many products (all regulatory require- outlined in the EMAS. ments shall be fulfilled) to being a strong positioning property on the market. LCA - 3.2.3 Strategic planning or, perhaps, rather the Life Cycle Approach - Integration of environmental aspects in is in this context a very important tool. It can strategic business planning is becoming a be used both in relation to existing products common feature in many companies. The (do they fulfil current and near-future handling of environmental concerns is often environmental demands from the consum- formalised in an environmental manage- ers?) and to identify market segments to be ment scheme like EMAS (Environmental opened for environmentally benign prod- Management and Auditing scheme) or the ucts. Some basic product strategies in rela- ISO 14001 Standard, but many companies tion to environmental performance and still handle the issues on a case-to-case basis. market potentials (Hanssen, 1995) can be seen in Figure 3-2. A recent publication from the European Environment Agency (CCEM: Environmen- LCA information can provide decision- tal Management Tools for SMEs: A Hand- makers with an understanding of the envi- book (1997)) gives an overview of the ronmental pros and cons of their products following tools: and services. The challenge for both external and internal LCA-practitioners in a • Environmental policies company is to present the results of a LCA study in a way that can be fully understood • Environmental management systems by the top management. Many business managers are not educated in environmental • Environmental auditing issues like ecology and environmental modelling, and educational programs should • Environmental performance indicators therefore include the top management as well as other employees at all levels. • Ecobalances To achieve maximum confidence in the • Life cycle assessment strategies derived from using LCA, fine detail in approach is preferable. However, • Environmental labelling many business decisions cannot wait, and simplified LCAs with an emphasis on prob- • Environmental reporting lem identification and differences between Applications of LCA 39

Figure 3-2 Basic product strategies in relation to environmental performance and market potentials.

products on the market will in many cases be techniques with systematic step-by-step sufficient. In the longer term, more system- procedures and/or computational algo- atic LCA-activities within a company will help rithm; often used to support a concept”. in building up a database of information, Many of the programmes are thus inter- suitable for decisions on all levels of activi- related and cannot be easily distinguished ties. from each other. Also, many companies are combining several concepts and tools in 3.2.4 Conceptually related programmes order to meet their goals for improvement of LCA cannot be used as the only decision environmental performance. support tool in environmental management. The term Conceptually Related Programmes Life cycle management (CRP) has been used by SETAC to describe a The concept of Life cycle management has wide range of approaches to environmental recently been described (Environment management used to support environmental Canada, 1997). The basic idea in Life cycle decision making. management is to establish a thorough knowledge of the environmental burdens of Most CRPs are not very accurately defined. the products manufactured by the company The SETAC workgroup on Conceptually and use this for improvement actions. The Related Programmes has divided them into process includes employees at most levels of two groups, i.e. Environmental Management the company and starts with an identification Tools and Environmental Management of all unit processes at the production site Concepts (de Smet et al., 1996). The Envir- and an analysis of the related in- and out- onmental Management Concepts have been puts. In the next step up- and downstream defined as “ideas for achieving sustainability processes are examined. The results from originating in specific professional discip- the process can be used to establish an LCA, lines” while the Environmental Management but it is more important that the results are Tools have been defined as “measuring used to minimize the environmental bur- 40 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

dens. This is done by using a set of tools In relation to LCA, dissemination of the tailored to meet the needs of a given com- results from cleaner production programmes pany, e.g. design for the environment, may prove to be a valuable source of infor- pollution prevention strategies, waste audits, mation with regard to both specific processes green procurement etc. and products.

Product Stewardship Industrial ecology Product Stewardship is defined as “the Industrial ecology can be defined as the responsible and ethical management of a network of industrial processes as they may product during its progress from inception interact with each other and live with each to ultimate use and beyond”. The purpose of other, not only in the economic sense but Product Stewardship is to make health, safety also in the sense of direct use of each others and environmental protection an integral material and energy wastes (Ausubel (1992), part of designing, manufacturing, marketing, quoted from de Smet et al., 1996). distributing, using, recycling and disposing of products. The concept was developed by Industrial ecology is concerned with the the chemical industry in 1987 in order to evolution of technology and economic reduce the risks associated with chemical systems such that human activities mimic products at all stages of the life cycle, but mature biological systems as regards being today Product Stewardship is also applied to self-contained in their material and resource complex products and services. The relation- use (Allanby (1994), quoted from de Smet et ship to LCA is obvious, a major difference al., 1996). Its object of analysis is industrial being that the environmental impacts are processes rather than products and it empha- not aggregated over the whole life cycle sises the need for greater synergy, i.e. the (http://www.py.iup.edu/college/chemistry/ potential for reduction in environmental chem-course/TOC1.html#CMA’s). impacts by linking different manufacturing process via their waste streams and encourag- Cleaner Production ing cyclic flows of materials. Cleaner production is defined by UNEP (United Nations Environmental Pro- Programmes where industrial ecology has gramme) as the continuous application of an been implemented tend not to have a direct integrated preventive environmental strategy relation to LCA. However, companies enter- to processes and products to reduce risks to ing industrial ecology programmes should humans and the environment. For produc- expect an improved environmental profile of tion processes, Cleaner Production includes their products as they are reflected in an conserving raw materials, and reducing the LCA. This requires that the allocation quantity and toxicity of all emissions and procedures used in LCA are developed wastes before they leave a process. For further in order to handle the complex waste products the strategy focuses on reducing streams between several industries in a impacts along the entire life cycle of the sensible manner. product, from raw material extraction to the ultimate disposal of the product. Evaluation of Environmental Performance The concept of environmental performance A Cleaner Production Programme (CPP) was evaluation is being developed for use in an established in 1989 by UNEP (United Na- Environmental Management System to tions Environmental Programme) (http:// quantify, understand and track the relevant www.unepie.org/cp/home.html) to increase environmental aspects of a system. The basic world-wide awareness of the cleaner produc- idea is to identify indicators (environmental, tion concept, help industry and governments operational and management) which can be develop cleaner production programs, foster measured and tracked to facilitate continu- the adoption of cleaner production and ous improvements. ISO (ISO/TC 207 /SC4 facilitate the transfer of cleaner production /WGs 1-2) is currently developing a standard technologies. The Programme works with (ISO 14031 Evaluation of Environmental experts world-wide, transfers information, Performance) to be published mid 1998. holds training sessions, publishes technical reports and supports demonstration projects. Technology assessment Technology assessment (TA) can be defined LCA is not a formal demand in the UNEP as the assessment of the impacts of introduc- programme, but an Expert Seminar was held tion of new technologies. The major differ- in Amsterdam in 1993 to facilitate the ence between TA and LCA is that in technol- integration of LCA and Cleaner Production. ogy assessment a wide range of economic, Applications of LCA 41

social and environmental aspects is taken substance (or group of substances) through into account, whereas in LCA only environ- the material economy, giving the opportu- mental issues are addressed. LCA can thus be nity of identifying environmental improve- regarded as an integral part of technology ments related to the substance. The model- assessment. ling and data collection approach is in many cases quite similar to that used in LCA, Overall Business Impact Assessment except that the substance flow is not being A new concept, Overall Business Impact related to a functional unit. SFA may thus be Assessment (OBIA), was introduced by a useful data source for LCA (and vice versa) Unilever at the SETAC Case Study Sympos- but its main application is to identify envi- ium in 1996 (Taylor & Postlethwaite, 1996). ronmental policy options, e.g. by showing Instead of focusing on single products or which flows might be restricted in order to product systems, the OBIA assesses the reduce the emissions of a substance or a totality of the effects of all the individual material. Most SFAs are limited to specific products produced by a business on an geographic boundaries, e.g. the national annual basis, as measured by LCA, together level. with the effects associated with factory and office operations, as deducted from conven- Energy and material analysis (EMA) tional environmental audits. The proposed Energy and materials analysis is to a large OBIA-methodology permits the screening of extent similar to the inventory phase in a several “what if” scenarios, i.e. investigating LCA since it quantifies all materials and the environmental effect of changing critical energy that enter or exit the system under parameters and variables in the system. study. One major difference is that EMA does not necessarily involve the whole life Environmental impact assessment (EIA) cycle of a product or a service, instead EIA is an activity directed at the identifica- focusing on one specific phase or production and quantification of the impacts of tion process. Another difference is that the people’s actions on human health and well- results from an EMA is not explicitly trans- being and at the interpretation and commu- lated into potential environmental impacts. nication of information about these impacts. EIA is generally used during the planning Integrated substance chain management (ISCM) phase to investigate changes to the environ- Integrated substance chain management is a ment at a specific site caused, for instance, by decision support tool in which the life cycle construction projects. The level of detail in approach is combined with economic an EIA is often higher than in LCA because considerations in order to analyse and aspects like concentration of emitted pollu- reduce the overall environmental impacts of tants and duration of exposure are taken substance chains (VNCI, 1991). The method- into account. EIAs can thus be used to ology focuses on (potential) actions and supply precise data to site-specific LCAs and questions like “What is the total effect of as control reference in generic LCAs. substance A on the environment?” are not answered within the framework. Instead the Risk Assessment (RA) 80/20 rule is applied (“what 20 percent of RA is not one unique tool but rather a elements account for 80 percent of the number of tools developed to investigate the total?”) in order to answer action-orientated potential risk to human health or the en- questions like “What would be the environ- vironment from specific situations like mental and economic impact of installing a transport of dangerous goods or the use of recycling system for substance A?”. The specific substances. In all cases, RA includes environmental part of the methodology is at least two steps which also are used in many thus conceptually very similar to a simplified LCAs, namely hazard identification and LCA. According to VNCI, the methodology exposure assessment. The exposure assess- can also be used for products, services, ment may yield valuable information on companies, regions, etc. emissions from a given activity and the hazard identification may be of help in the MFA refers to accounts in physical units, e.g. impact assessment, depending on the meth- in terms of tonnes, comprising the extrac- odology used (http://intwww.eea.eu.int/ tion, production, transformation, consump- frproj.htm). tion, recycling and disposal of materials, broadly defined. The concept is thus similar Substance flow analysis (SFA) to or combines other CRPs like substance The objective of SFA is to make an inflow flow analysis, integrated substance chain and outflow balance of one particular management and energy and materials 42 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

analysis (http://oasis.leidenuniv.nl/ development has not been given, it is ob- interfac/cml/conaccou). vious that LCA or a life cycle approach must be used to ensure that actions towards a Hybrid models more sustainable future will have the desired Many LCAs published today must be consid- effect. LCA as a specific tool can ensure this ered as hybrid models since they not only in some cases, while LCA as an approach or make use of the LCA framework but also as a strategic tool can give directions but not take into account one or more issues from the whole answer, and must therefore be conceptually related programmes. Such applied along with other tools such as risk hybrid models may prove to be of great value assessment, environmental impacts assess- because they make it possible to address ad ment, cost-benefit analysis and others. hoc-problems in the context of a life cycle approach. One such example is the Danish The main governmental applications are report “Development of environmentally friendly cookers and stoves” (see Box) • Product-oriented policy (Schmidt et al. (1996)), where an LCA is made along with elements from material • Deposit-refund schemes, including waste flow analysis (MFA), technology assessment management policies (TA) and risk assessment (RA). The government sponsored study was primarily directed • Subsidies and taxation, and towards the cooker industry, but the results can also be used in green procurement. • General (process-oriented) policies

3.3 Public policy making The government’s role in product publicity is mainly to facilitate and support, and this Sustainable development has been included can be done by increasing the available as a major item on most governmental information to both individual consumers agendas since the 1992 Rio summit. Al- and institutional and governmental buyers. though a precise definition of sustainable The present chapter focuses on the product-

Environmentally friendly cookers and stoves

The Danish EPA initiated in 1995 a study assessing which cooking technology (gas/electricity, glass ceramics/induction) had the least environmental impacts. The study used a cooker with glass ceramic top plate as the reference product and investigated the outcome of possible changes in technology.

Some of the results are of a general character for an energy consuming device operating in Denmark:

• The energy consumption in the use phase constituted more than 95% of the total energy consumption during the usable life,

• Almost all global and regional impacts were related to the energy consumption, while the local impacts were related to the production of raw materials,

• Gas technology was less demanding than electricity in terms of consumption of primary energy, but gas had a greater impact on indoor climate and human health. Gas burning will generate concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in kitchens of a magnitude similar to that causing an increased incidence of respiratory

diseases in children and asthmatics. Therefore, gas technology with less emissions of NO2 and no increase in CO-emissions should be developed,

• Better measurement standards for cooking efficiency were necessary in order to compare different technologies,

• Most materials in a conventional cooker are recycled in Denmark today. Glass ceramics are not recycled, and future development should focus on recycling technologies or development of new materials for cook tops.

The finding, that gas technology may have a greater impact on human health, would not have appeared, if the assessment has been based on “conventional” LCA-methodology, e.g. by using equivalence factors for impacts on human health in stead of a specific toxicological assessment. This stresses the need for more flexible approaches, in which expert judgement may play an important role in LCA. Applications of LCA 43

oriented policy as this is the most promising ing product or workers safety and signifi- area in relation to LCA and the life cycle cantly affecting the properties which approach. A broader survey of life cycle make a product fit for use based government policies can be found in Curran (1997). The EU labelling scheme has undertaken a large amount of work in establishing a 3.3.1 Environmental labelling common framework for criteria development An environmental label (“ecolabel”) can be as well as in the development itself. seen as a “seal of approval” for environmentally benign products and can therefore be The EU ecolabelling scheme has so far attractive for marketing purposes. Ecolabels resulted in criteria for 12 product groups: at the same time convey information to the consumer in a simple but yet objective way, EU-ecolabelling criteria have been devel- enabling individuals to include environmen- oped for tal concerns in their own decisions along with considerations on e.g. economy and • Washing machines quality. • Soil improvers The general objective of national and supranational ecolabelling schemes is to make • Kitchen towels products with less environmental impacts visible to the consumer. The success of an • Laundry detergents ecolabelling scheme is thus to some extent dependent on the number of product • T-shirts and bed linen groups with an ecolabel (see appendix 3.1 for details). • Paints and varnishes

The EU Ecolabel (“The Flower”) • Dishwashers The EU Regulation (Commission Regulation No 882/92) seeks to: • Toilet paper

• Promote the design, production, market- • Double-ended light bulbs ing and use of products which have a reduced environmental impact during • Single ended light bulbs their entire life cycle • Copying paper • Provide consumers with better information on the environmental impacts of • Refrigerators products, without, however, compromis-

Examples of ecolabels in individual countries and in supranational institutions http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel/gen.html

Germany: The Blue Angel The Netherlands: Stichting Milieukehr

Spain: AENOR Greece: ASAOS

France: AFNOR Luxembourg: Ministere de l’Environment

Israel: Green Label Program Brasil: Departemento de Certificacao Gerente

U.S.A.: Green Seal Canada: Environmental Choice Program

Japan: Ecomark Taiwan (ROC): Green Mark Program

Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland: Nordic ecolabelling scheme (“The Swan”) http://www.sis.se/Miljo/Ecolabel.htm

All EU-countries: European Union Ecolabel Award Scheme (“The Flower”) 44 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Other ecolabelling schemes is becoming common practice in many A number of official and private ecolabelling countries. Public procurement accounts for schemes are in evidence all over the world a large share of the overall market and can today (see box). The nature of and criteria thus be an important factor in the develop- for private labelling schemes is often ob- ment and marketing of environmentally scure, while official schemes like the Nordic friendly products. “Swan”, the EU “Flower” and the German “Blue angel” explicitly demand that the Both national and supranational organisa- award of the label is based on the life cycle tions have formulated policies on green approach (Type I labelling). procurement. OECD have issued “Council Recommendations on Improving the Envir- The German ecolabelling scheme “The Blue onmental Performance of Government” Angel” released the first set of criteria in (C(96)39/FINAL), which advocates that 1978 and in 1997, criteria had been devel- Member Countries should oped for about 88 product groups. The Nordic ecolabel scheme (“The Swan”) has so ... “identify goals and set targets and time far developed criteria for about 43 product frames for optimising the use of energy, groups, the Canadian scheme covers 47 water and materials in day-to-day operations, product groups, the Japanese 68 product in particular through reduction, re-use, groups and the Taiwanese 26 product groups recycling and recovery measures” and (http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/ecolabel). ... “establish and implement policies for the The relationship between LCA and ecolabelling procurement of environmentally sound Some industries have pointed out that LCA products and services within governments”... cannot be used as a scientific methodology to integrate the inherently diverse and The Danish Environmental Protection complex trade-offs of environmental product Agency has formulated the following objec- issues; or the often conflicting judgements of tives for the public “green” procurement in criteria-setting stakeholders. However, in Denmark (Miljøstyrelsen, 1996): many labelling schemes, all important stakeholders are members of the working To decrease the environmental impacts, group for each product, ensuring that all including energy related impacts, from relevant issues are raised and discussed in public production and consumption, and detail. Furthermore, the criteria for a given product group are revised on a regular basis, To urge all other parts of the society also to giving the possibility of using updated LCA- use resource and environmentally friendly information in the new criteria. The iterative products and production methods. procedure also gives the possibility of changing scoring systems or qualitative criteria into Other nations have published objectives of a hurdles as the level of information increases. similar nature.

As far as industry is concerned, the proc- In those cases where an official ecolabel edure of achieving an ecolabel does not exists for the product in question the obvi- include actually performing an LCA of a ous choice is to demand products fulfilling product. Instead, the overall environmental the criteria for the ecolabel. Public procure- performance of the company and its sup- ment organizations can then make their pliers should be of such quality that the cri- choice without time-consuming evaluations teria for achieving the ecolabel can be met. and comparisons of all incoming offers.

ISO is developing a standard for Type I However, as criteria for ecolabels have only labelling (ISO 14020 Environmental Labels been developed for relatively few product and declarations - General Principles). The groups, it is often necessary to choose work is expected to result in a committee another methodology if new product groups draft in mid 1998, but it is already clear that shall be included in programs for green a description of the LCA methodology to be procurement. The major problem in this used will be an important part of the stand- context is to develop criteria which ensure ard. that the products have a good environmental performance, and at the same time give the 3.3.2 Green procurement responsible persons a tool which enables Taking environmental aspects into considera- them to choose between a number of prod- tion in public and institutional procurement ucts with different environmental features. Applications of LCA 45

materials or energy. LCA can in this connec- In Denmark, this is done through a steering tion be used to prioritise actions (which committee of some of the major areas constitute the largest problem) and stakeholders, i.e. industry, relevant govern- also to choose the best option(s) from an mental agencies, and the big institutional environmental point of view. The latter has consumers. A simplified LCA is performed been the focus of many published LCAs on the product group and the key features especially on paper and plastics. Detailed are pinpointed and ranked according to assessments can be found in Dalager et al. their estimated importance. The result is an (1995) and Finnveden et a.l (1994), and a environmental guide containing brief number of case studies have been published background information on the environ- in Finnveden & Huppes (eds.), 1995. mental impacts of the products in questions and a page with the 5-10 most important The treatment of waste management in LCA questions to be answered by the supplier. For poses some of the same problems as for some product groups the guide only consid- other phases of the life cycle, e.g. with ers qualitative aspects, e.g. product/technol- respect to allocation principles and time ogy characteristics or aspects relating to the frame. The main reason for this is that environmental policy of the possible suppli- several kinds of waste will be mixed before ers, while for other product groups quantita- the waste handling process starts. Character- tive information on e.g. energy consumption isation of waste thus becomes an important is also requested from suppliers. The project issue when establishing an inventory. A more organization ensures that quick updates are serious problem is that the fate of different possible whenever new and relevant informa- waste fractions in a landfill is unknown at the tion is available. moment, and therefore this management option cannot be analysed in detail. A In other procurement organizations the number of theoretical problems and their number of environmental questions is possible solution is addressed in Finnveden considerably higher. The Swedish NUTEK- & Huppes (eds.), 1995. agency (http://www.nutek.se/home_page_- eng.html) have for example developed Packaging policies detailed questions on the environmental The most prominent governmental use of performance of office supplies. The criteria LCA has been in the field of packaging. LCAs are based on national and international eco- on milk packaging (cartons, glass or plastic and energy labels as far as possible, but the bottles), beer bottles and beer cans, impact of final interpretation and ranking of more PVC from packaging etc. have in many than 100 questions about environmental countries been used as a decision support in performance lies with one or a few persons the political arena, although the LCAs have in a procurement department who do not seldom given an unequivocal answer as to necessarily have an adequate environmental which system is environmentally preferable. education. The situation becomes even more complicated when comparing LCAs of similar 3.3.3 Other governmental applications product systems functioning in different LCA can give valuable information in the countries (see for example Christensen, development of general (product) policy 1992). Differences in the outcome can be strategies. Examples are choice of fuels for caused by differences in geographic bounda- electricity generation, assessment of bulk ries and conditions, data quality and assess- transport by train, ship or road, and assessment methodology. Opposing claims in ment of waste management options, e.g. best earlier LCA studies have, however, been environmental treatment of specific types of healthy for the development of LCA in waste, environmental impacts of new recy- helping to ensure that LCAs are properly cling techniques for plastics. undertaken through the use of recognised/ accepted methodologies and data, and that Waste management they are properly interpreted and reported. Using LCA-methodology in waste management is an obvious choice for both govern- LCAs of packaging options almost always ments and industries. It can be argued that initiates a debate on the objectivity of LCA examination of one phase of the life cycle when published. The main reason is that the may lead to wrong conclusions, but waste packaging industry has strong vested eco- handling can actually be seen as a produc- nomic interests, and a change in a packaging tion process in which discarded products are concept, e.g. from glass bottles to aluminium used as raw material for production of new cans may cause several companies to signifi- 46 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Environmental evaluation of packaging options for beer and soft drinks

The Danish system for beer and soft drink packaging is traditionally based on reusable glass bottles with a return rate of about 95%. Earlier investigations have shown that this kind of system may be environmentally superior to other systems - e.g. aluminium cans. In 1992 the Danish EPA initiated a new LCA study on beer packaging, because the EU packaging directive required that LCA was used to assess which packaging options is environmentally most sound in order to promote or restrict.

The new study was barely a Life Cycle Inventory of glass bottles aluminium cans and steel cans. The results were accordingly not appropriate to pinpoint the best alternative from an environmental point of view. It was, however, possible to use the survey to determine where in the life cycle of the different systems the largest contributions to essential environmental parameters were expected, and then use this information as a decision support. The uncertainty of the data is considerable, e.g. for energy consumption the uncertainty has been estimated to 30% plus differences in the outcome of possible allocation principles.

The results show that the different options (e.g. glass bottles (reusable, one-way), aluminium cans and steel cans with aluminium lid) behave very differently with respect to environmental aspects. Thus, the discussion about which system to prefer must take at least three weak points of the study into account:

1. No assessment methodology has been used - only an inventory has been established

2. The inventory is associated with large uncertainties for essential environmental parameters

3. Each packaging option has its good and bad sides in comparison with the others.

There is no doubt that better data and a sound assessment methodology would enhance the use of the results. However, due to the inherent differences of the system options, subjective weighting of the environmental aspects in the evaluation phase will always have a large impact on the final decision.

cantly slow down their activities whereas decision support tool are environmental other companies will expand. Other partici- taxes, integrated life cycle management and pants in the debate can be supranational deposit/refund schemes. An LCA can in bodies (e.g. the EU Commission and the these cases be used to analyse the environ- World Trading Organisation) and NGO’s mental consequences of a change in human pursuing environmental goals without behaviour, and the efforts can be directed economic considerations. Two examples on towards the most favourable solutions. this kind of application is the Danish study on beer and soft drink packaging (see Box) (Pommer & Wesnæs, 1995) and the German 3.4 Future applications study “Eco-balance for drink packaging” (Schmitz et al., 1996). It is anticipated that LCA or the life cycle approach can and will be integrated with Given the weaknesses of LCA, e.g. that the other decision support tools in almost all valuation phase can never be 100% objec- areas where environmental issues are impor- tive, it is not surprising that such debates tant. The amount of LCA-relevant informa- often occur. The recommendation from the tion is increasing, giving the possibility of Nordic LCA-project (Lindfors et al., 1995) is extending LCA into new production areas as that several assessment methodologies well as all the application areas mentioned in should be used in the LCA, thereby improv- this chapter. With the increasing amount of ing the necessary decision support. Future information, the applications of LCA will refinement of the database and standardisa- become more varied and the results will be tion of LCA-methodology will decrease the more precise. But it is worth remembering uncertainty and thereby improve the validity that there are only few situations where LCA of the results. However, it should be remem- can be used as the only decision support bered that LCA is only one of several deci- tool. sion support tools and that aspects which are not included in a LCA may be of equally LCA should also be an integral part in the great importance. development of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as suggested by OECD. EPR can Other areas for decision support for instance be employed by governments as Other areas where LCA has been used as a a strategy to transfer the costs of municipal Applications of LCA 47

waste management from local authorities to systematic data collection and maintenance those actors most able to influence the if they are to survive as a quantification tool characteristics of products which can be- for assessing the direct and indirect environ- come problematic at the post-consumer mental aspects and potential impacts stage. Design for Environment, Risk Assess- throughout the life cycle of a product. ment and LCA can give input from different angles to the decision makers, ensuring that The ability to apply and use LCA in the sub-optimal solutions are not implemented. future is critically dependent upon the ability to actually do authentic LCAs. This Finally, the integration of life cycle ap- requires that the necessary facilities, i.e. proaches and environmental management agreed methodologies and, especially, data, systems is seen as a potentially key area for are available. As is shown in the following further development: Environmental man- chapters, both methodologies and data are agement schemes require that indirect becoming more precise and better docu- environmental aspects are considered and mented. This, together with the develop- that requirements are communicated in the ment of the ISO LCA-standards, warrants product chain i.e. to suppliers and custom- that the future use of LCA will be even more ers. Life Cycle Assessment and other life beneficial than the current experience cycle approaches and tools will require more shows. 48

Appendix 3.1: Environmental labelling

Concepts for the development of cleaner This framework will not be described in products are described elsewhere (LCA and detail, while the six phases in criteria devel- product development) along with an intro- opment is described below: duction to governmental strategies (primarily ecolabelling) used to promote the most Phase One (preliminary study) has the objec- environmental benign products (Public tive of allowing the Commission, the Com- sector applications). Ecolabels can be seen as petent Bodies and the Consultation Forum a means of conveying information to the to consider the feasibility of establishing the consumer in a simple yet objective way, product group and ecological criteria, enabling individuals to include environmen- including an indication of what is available, tal concerns in their own decisions along with the nature of the market, including indus- considerations on e.g. economy and quality. trial and economic interests and structures, the perceived environmental issues, what Environmental labelling schemes have been needs to be done, the advantages of the initiated in many individual countries and as product group being labelled and some of international activities in the Nordic coun- the problem areas. tries and in the EU. The framework and procedure for criteria development differ Phase Two (market study) has the purpose of from scheme to scheme, and the criteria for assembling information on the nature of the the product groups are accordingly widely market in more detail, including the distri- differentiated. bution of different types and sub-types of product, the market shares held by manufac- The two ecolabelling schemes described in turers and by main brands on an European the following section are rather similar in Union and Member State basis, and imports organization and procedures. However, it is to the Community. remarkable that the EU ecolabelling scheme has only produced criteria for eight product Phases Three and Four (inventory; impact groups while the Nordic ecolabelling scheme assessment) have the aim of carrying out an has produced criteria for 43 product groups inventory and then an assessment of the during the same period. impacts on the environment, using internationally recognized methods, in an objective, Like all other “serious” ecolabels both qualified and representative manner, on a schemes feature LCA as a very important “cradle-to-grave” basis. element in the setting of environmental criteria. The difference in the number of Phase Five (setting of criteria). The main developed criteria can perhaps be attributed elements of this phase are to determine the: to differences in the complexity of the LCA methodology applied. Another possible • most important environmental impacts, explanation is that the perception of the based on results of phases three and Nordic ecolabelling scheme by the Nordic four, and identify the accessible areas of industry and consumers has been more economic and technical development favourable than the EU ecolabelling scheme. which are the most relevant to the A market success for a labelled product will environmental impacts; be quickly reflected in the wish for ecolabelling of more product groups. • applicable criteria and define the level required for each criterion with refer The EU ecolabelling scheme was initiated in ence to the Policy Principles document; 1992 by Council Regulation EEC No 880/92. The procedural guidelines for the establish- • necessary test methods and certification ment of product groups and ecological procedures and consider solutions for criteria are set out in the Commission qualitative and other related issues. information on ecolabelling (No 6, 1994). The formal framework is described in 11 Consideration should also be given to how points, identifying the role of national and the visibility and effectiveness of the criteria EU bodies participating in the procedure. can be evaluated. Environmental labelling 49

Phase Six (presentation of a draft proposal 1995), the following recommendations on for a Commission decision). The Lead the setting of criteria are given: Competent Body will present the final report to the Commission which will then put into Ecolabelling criteria can be derived from operation the formal procedures required by different parts of the LCA-process: the Regulation: • Product or technology characteristics • Internal Commission procedures • Hurdle criteria: results of inventory • Presentation of the draft decision on the analysis and results of classification/ establishment of a product group and characterisation ecological criteria to the Consultation Forum and Regulatory Committee • Scoring systems: results of a structured valuation step • Formal procedure for a Commission decision. Hurdle criteria are in general to be preferred because they are transparent and give a Guidelines for the application of life cycle clear guide for product improvement. assessment in the EU ecolabelling Pro- Product or technology characteristics can gramme were issued by the Groupe des only be used as criteria if they are validated Sages in 1994 (de Haes et al., 1994). The carefully in order to confirm whether they objectives of the guidelines are to support correspond to substantiated environmental the Member States in establishing impacts without impacts elsewhere or inhibit- ecolabelling criteria which are based on a ing development towards future cleaner methodology that is both scientifically sound technology. Scoring systems can only be used and workable in practice, and to improve if other types of criteria appear to be technic- uniformity in the methods applied in differ- ally impossible or undesirable, and weighting ent Member States. The key conclusions and factors in a scoring system should be deter- recommendations from the Groupe des mined by an authorized body, not by the Sages are: LCA-practitioners themselves. The criteria should be validated on their comprehensibil- • Life cycle assessment can make a signifi- ity for all parties involved. cant contribution in providing a scientific, unifying and transparent basis for The Nordic ecolabelling scheme (“The the EU Ecolabelling Programme. Nordic Swan”) was initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers and is common to • It is central to this Programme because it Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland (and compares different products on the basis in the near future also Denmark). The work of their common function. in the various countries is co-ordinated through the Nordic co-ordination body • It relates environmental impacts, at all which decides on a set of common rules for stages from cradle to grave, to both Nordic Environmental Labelling (http:// market changes and technological www.sis.se/Miljo/Ecolabel.htm). improvements. The objective of the Nordic Ecolabelling • It is a methodology still in the process of scheme is to promote development, produc- development, requiring additional tion and marketing of products with a research and systematic data collection. reduced environmental impact in its entire life cycle. The objective is also to improve • Therefore policy makers, competent the flow of information to the customers on bodies and practitioners must remain the environmental impacts of products. aware of the current capabilities and limitations of LCA and should support its The co-ordinating body determines matters continuous development. such as the product groups and the criteria that shall apply to environmental labelling. • It should be clear, however, that LCA is The decisions taken in the co-ordinating only a decision support tool; it cannot body must be unanimous. Draft criteria are replace actual decision making. drawn up by inter-Nordic expert groups with a balanced composition of experts from In the report from the second phase of the environmental authorities and organisations, work in the Groupe des Sages (de Haes et al., commerce and industry etc. The criteria 50 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

work can also be carried out nationally. The also be paid to the total market share of the secretariat which is responsible for the work products expected to fulfill the criteria. then decides how the work should be carried out. The other countries shall be kept 5. Criteria are laid down within “a product informed of the work, e.g. by receiving group”. This is defined, as appropriate, in preliminary criteria drafts. The other coun- relation to the system’s objectives. In general, tries also have the right to appoint their own products with the same range of use form a experts as observers. group, regardless of type. This is the case when it is considered desirable to reduce the The General Agreement for Nordic Eco- use of one type of product in favour of labelling states the following conditions for another of identical/similar utility for the criteria development: consumer. An example is the choice between plastic and paper as a raw material for a 1. Relativity. The label shall be awarded after product. a comparative evaluation. On the basis of the comparison, a level is defined for criteria, In some cases it would be more practical to and the products that exceed this level will label products within the same product type. be awarded the label. This could be done when a majority of products of a certain type need to be im 2. Standards shall be set high, in any case proved with a view to the environment. higher than the strictest official rules in one of the Nordic countries. Criteria should also 6. Criteria are laid down so that the greatest be made so strict that no product is awarded benefit is achieved in relation to the objec the label at the moment if it is known that tives. Priority is thus given to: product development could make products satisfy the criteria within a short time. a. The product’s effects on the environment, qualitatively and quantitatively. 3. Life cycle. The whole product’s life cycle (procurement of raw materials, manufactu- b. The consumer’s need for information. ring process, use, refuse) shall serve as the basis for comparison. c. The potential for bringing about changes in the market. 4. Environmental aspects. Attention shall be paid to environmental problems throughout The criteria proposal is circulated for com- the product’s life cycle that shall form the ment before being finalized by the Nordic basis of the choice of a limited number of co-operating body. The consultation time is aspects on which environmental labelling is usually 4-6 weeks. When the criteria have based. These important aspects include the been authorized, companies may apply for use of energy and resources, discharges into licences within the group. Licence applica- the air, water and soil, noise and odor tions and licence issuing is handled by the pollution; and refuse/recycling. In order to secretariats of the various countries. correctly formulate criteria, attention must 51

4. Methodological framework

This chapter describes the methodological illustrated by the following examples: when framework for life cycle assessment. The doing the impact assessment it can become target audience includes LCA practitioners, clear that certain information is missing and other environmental professionals with a which means that the inventory analysis must strong interest in environmental assessment. be improved, or the interpretation of the Figure 4-1 show the different phases of an results might be insufficient to fulfil the LCA. The whole life cycle assessment also needs required by the actual application interacts with the direct applications. which means that the goal and scope definition must be revised. As shown in Figure 4-1 the life cycle assessment framework is described by four phases: 4.1 Introduction • goal and scope definitions The principles, procedures and methods of • inventory analysis LCA are presented based on the terminology and structure of the ISO Environmental • impact assessment Management Systems, tools and standards on LCA: • interpretation • FDIS/ISO 14 040: Environmental mana- The double arrows between the phases gement - Life cycle assessment - Princi- indicate the interactive nature of LCA as ples and framework ISO (1997a).

Figure 4-1 Life cycle assessment framework - phases of an LCA (ISO, 1997a). 52 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

• DIS/ISO 14 041.2: Environmental the LCA i.e. clear and explicit statement of management - Life cycle assessment - study purpose and goal, reference to the Goal and scope definition and inventory methodology used (e.g. definition of the analysis. ISO (1997b). functional unit, the system boundaries, and the allocation criteria etc.). These require- • CD/ISO 14 042.1: Environmental ments can be summarised as a need for management - Life cycle assessment - transparency in the study i.e. the above- Life cycle impact assessment. ISO mentioned conditions shall be clear to the (1997c). readers of the LCA report.

• CD/ISO 14 043.1B: Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - 4.2 Technical introduction Life cycle interpretation. ISO (1997d). Over the past 20-30 years, life cycle assess- Selected parts of the standard have been ment has been used by many organisations included where appropriate. Please note that and companies throughout the last 20 - 30 the standards on impact assessment and years either for internal or external use. For interpretation are still under development the most part, however, the lack of interna- and discussion i.e. the quotations shall be tional consensus or standards on environ- regarded as preliminary statements as mental assessment or life cycle assessment, consensus in ISO has not been reached yet. has rendered the results non-comparable The quotations from the standards are and variable. Beginning in 1990, several supplemented by other literature references organisations - including SETAC (Society of on LCA, such as: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry) and from 1993 ISO (International Standards • Nordic Guidelines on Life-cycle Assess- Organisation) - began striving to develop ment and Technical Reports (Lindfors et consistency in approach to the emerging al., 1995a;b;c); field. These efforts produced a number of guidelines and draft standards on different • Report from Hankø, Norway on LCA in: aspects of life cycle assessment, with varying Strategic management, Product develop- degrees of success. The development of LCA ment and improvement, Marketing and methodology in Europe has been further Ecolabelling, and Government Policies promoted and supported by, among others, (Christiansen et al., 1995); SPOLD (Society for the Promotion of LCA Development). • SETAC Working Group Reports 1996-97: Simplifying LCA, Enhancing inventory Figure 4-2 illustrates the technical framework methodology, Impact assessment, Case for life cycle assessment developed by SETAC studies, and Conceptually related pro- in 1993 (Consoli et al., 1993). This terminol- grammes; ogy presented has been developed further since then, as reflected in the list of defini- • LCANET workshop background and tions given below and throughout the summary papers 1996 on: Positioning following text. and application of LCA, Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis, Impact 4.2.1 Definitions assessment and interpretation, and During the work funded by the Nordic Databases and software. Council of Ministers to prepare a Nordic guideline for life cycle assessment, the Below we present a methodological frame- SETAC definition of LCA (Consoli et al., work for a detailed life cycle assessment. This 1993) was modified (Lindfors et al., 1995c): can be considered as a tool box from which individual components can be selected, “A process to evaluate the environmental depending on the particular application. burdens associated with a product system, or activity by identifying and quantitatively In summary, there is no one way to life cycle describing the energy and materials used, assessment. The technique can be applied and wastes released to the environment, and with different levels of sophistication, as long to assess the impacts of those energy and as the life cycle approach to assessing choices material uses and releases to the environ- is retained. Life cycle thinking is the key ment. The assessment includes the entire life issue. Irrespective the chosen level of sophis- cycle of the product or activity, encompassing tication there is some basic requirements to extracting and processing raw materials; Methodological framework 53

Figure 4-2 Technical framework for life cycle assessment (Consoli et al., 1993).

manufacturing; distribution; use; re-use; potential impacts throughout a product’s life maintenance; recycling and final disposal; (i.e. cradle-to-grave) from raw material and all transportation involved. LCA ad- acquisition through production, use and dresses environmental impacts of the system disposal. The general categories of environ- under study in the areas of ecological mental impacts needing consideration systems, human health and resource dep- include resource use, human health, and letion. It does not address economic or social ecological consequences. effects”. The ISO terminology will, whenever possi- The ISO/FDIS standard in Life Cycle Assess- ble, be used in this guide. The terminology is ment (1997a) gives the following definition: presented in appendix 4.1.

LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a 4.3 Goal and scope definition product, by Goal and scope definition is the first phase • compiling an inventory of relevant inputs in a life cycle assessment containing the and outputs of a system; following main issues:

• evaluating the potential environmental • goal impacts associated with those inputs and outputs; • scope

• interpreting the results of the inventory • functional unit and impact phases in relation to the objectives of the study • system boundaries

LCA studies the environmental aspects and • data quality 54 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

• critical review process set up as part of the ecolabelling criteria to be used by e.g. the ecolabelling board The definition of the goal and scope is the critical parts of an LCA due to the strong The goal definition determine the level of influence on the result of the LCA. In the sophistication of the study and the require- Nordic guidelines on life cycle assessment ments to reporting. Transparency is essential the following minimum decisions and for all kind of LCA studies. The target group definitions that need to be made are listed of the LCA study is also important to have in (Lindfors et al., 1995c): mind in the choice of reporting method.

• the purpose and intended application The goal can be redefined as a result of the findings throughout the study e.g. as a part • the function of the studied systems(s) of the interpretation. and a defined functional unit 4.3.2 Scope • the studied product group and chosen The definition of the scope of the life cycle alternatives, if relevant assessment sets the borders of the assessment - what is included in the system and what • the system boundaries applied detailed assessment methods are to be used.

• the data quality needed In defining the scope of an LCA study, the following items shall be considered and • the validation or critical review process clearly described: needed • the functions of the system, or in the case The different needs are described in detail of comparative studies, systems; below. • the functional unit; 4.3.1 Goal The definition of the purpose of the life • the system to be studied; cycle assessment is an important part of the goal definition. • the system boundaries;

The goal of an LCA study shall unambigu- • allocation procedures; ously state the intended application, including the reasons for carrying out the study • the types of impact and the methodology and the intended audience, i.e. to whom the of impact assessment and subsequent results of the study are intended to be interpretation to be used; communicated. • data requirement; The goal definition also has to define the intended use of the results and users of the • assumptions; result. The practitioner, who has to reach the goal, needs to understand the detailed • limitations; purpose of the study in order to make proper decisions throughout the study. Examples of • the initial data quality requirements; goals of a life cycle assessment are: • the type of critical review, if any; • to compare two or more different pro ducts fulfilling the same function with • the type and format of the report required the purpose of using the information in for the study marketing of the products or regulating the use of the products The scope should be sufficiently well defined to ensure that the breadth, the depth and • to identify improvement possibilities in the detail of the study are compatible and further development of existing products sufficient to address the stated goal. or in innovation and design of new products LCA is an iterative technique. Therefore, the scope of the study may need to be modified • to identify areas, steps etc. in the life while the study is being conducted as cycle of a product where criteria can be additional information is collected. Methodological framework 55

Lindfors et al. (1995c) summarises the single specific or average, measured or esti- points mentioned in the ISO standard in the mated data, acceptable age of data etc.) following issues to be used in the scoping procedure: • specific data dependent on the included impact categories • product group The data quality goals can be changed • studied alternatives during the study e.g. in the interpretation phase. • system boundaries 4.3.3 Functional unit • impact assessment boundaries Definition of the functional unit or performance characteristics is the foundation of an • data quality goals LCA because the functional unit sets the scale for comparison of two or more prod- The product or product group in focus has ucts including improvement to one product to be described in detail in order to identify (system). All data collected in the inventory alternatives to be included in the study. The phase will be related to the functional unit. alternative products or product groups have When comparing different products fulfill- to be described in detail too, in order to be ing the same function, definition of the able to define the system(s) boundaries. The functional unit is of particular importance. definition of the system(s) boundaries are important in the data collection phase One of the main purposes for a functional because the system(s) boundaries determine unit is to provide a reference to which the the amount of the work to be done. Impact input and output data are normalised. A assessment include a number of different functional unit of the system shall be clearly impact categories and impact assessment defined and measurable. The result of the methods. The impact categories have to be measurement of the performance is the chosen from a default list of categories reference flow. described in the chapter on Category definition. The impact assessment boundaries limit Comparisons between systems shall be done the number of impact categories to be on the basis of the same function, measured considered. If necessary, the scope can be by the same functional unit in the form of revised during the study to include new or equivalent reference flows. exclude some of the already chosen impact categories. The data quality goals depend on Three aspects have to be taken into account the overall goal of the study, and include when defining the functional unit (Lindfors assessment of the level of: et al., 1995c):

• accuracy, precision and representative • the efficiency of the product ness of individual data sets (e.g. site-

Table 4-1 Definition of the functional unit and expanding system boundaries.

Waste treatment Treatment of municipal household waste with or without biological treatment of the organic fraction can be considered as a service system. The system treats waste and produces biological fertilizer (compost from aerobic or anaerobic degradation of organic material) and energy (biogas from anaerobic degradation). Different systems can be compared by including “avoided” emissions from producing energy and fertilizers in the scenarios including biological waste treatment. As an alternative the system boundaries for the basic scenario as well as the alternative scenarios including biological waste treatment can be expanded so that they all produce the same amount of energy and fertilizer. In this case calculation with “avoided” emissions is of no current interest. 56 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

• the durability of the product that the inputs and outputs at its boundary are elementary flows. However, as a practical • the performance quality standard matter, there typically will not be sufficient time, data, or resources to conduct such a When performing an assessment of more comprehensive study. Decisions must be complicated systems e.g. multi-functional made regarding which unit processes will be systems special attention has to be paid to by- modelled by the study and the level of detail products. to which these unit processes will be studied. Resources need not be expended on the If additional functions of one or other of the quantification of minor or negligible inputs systems are not taken into account in the and outputs that will not significantly change comparison of functional units then these the overall conclusions of the study. Deci- omissions shall be documented. For examp- sions must also be made regarding which le, systems A and B perform functions x and releases to the environment will be evaluated y which are represented by the selected and the level of detail of this evaluation. The functional unit, but system A also performs decision rules used to assist in the choice of function z which is not represented in the inputs and outputs should be clearly under functional unit. As an alternative, systems stood and described. associated with the delivery of function z may be added to the boundary of system B to Any omission of life cycle stages, processes or make the systems more comparable. In these data needs should be clearly stated and cases, the selected processes shall be docu- justified. Ultimately, the sole criterion used mented and justified. in setting the system boundaries is the degree of confidence that the results of the Waste treatment systems are an example of study have not been compromised and that processes with different outputs (e.g. energy the goal of a given study has been met. and fertilizer). When comparing different systems, inclusion of the produced amount Wastewater treatment is an example of a of energy and fertilizer is an example of process that often is omitted when defining handling of different by-products in the the system boundaries definition of the functional unit. This is also an example of changing the system bounda- 4.3.5 Data quality ries to get a more logical system to investi- The quality of the data used in the life cycle gate, see Table 4-1. In the actual case the inventory is naturally reflected in the quality system has been expanded to avoid calcula- of the final LCA. The data quality can be tions with avoided emissions that could lead described and assessed in different ways. It is to negative emissions in the calculations. important that the data quality is described and assessed in a systematic way that allows 4.3.4 System boundaries others to understand and control for the The system boundaries define the processes/ actual data quality. operations (e.g. manufacturing, transport, and waste management processes), and the Initial data quality requirements shall be estab- inputs and outputs to be taken into account lished which define the following parameters: in the LCA. The input can be the overall input to a production as well as input to a • Time-related coverage: the desired age single process - and the same is true for the (e.g. within last 5 years) and the minimum output. The definition of system boundaries length of time (e.g. annual). is a quite subjective operation and includes the following boundaries (Lindfors et al., • Geographical coverage: geographic area 1995c): geographical boundaries, life cycle from which data for unit processes should boundaries (i.e. limitations in the life cycle) be collected to satisfy the goal of the study and boundaries between the technosphere (e.g. local, regional, national, continental, and biosphere. Due to the subjectivity of global). definition of system boundaries, transparency of the defining process and the assump- • Technology coverage: nature of the tions are extremely important technology mix (e.g. weighted average of the actual process mix, best available The initial system boundary defines the unit technology or worst operating unit). processes which will be included in the system to be modelled. Ideally, the product Further descriptions which define the nature system should be modelled in such a manner of the data collected from specific sites Methodological framework 57

versus data from published sources, and ology is still being developed in order to whether the data should be measured, make it more applicable to describe the calculated or estimated shall also be consid- different environmental data used in a life ered. cycle assessment.

Data from specific sites should be used for 4.3.6 Critical review process those unit processes that contribute the In other uses of environmental standards, majority of the mass and energy flows in the certification of a system or product or systems being studied as determined in the accreditation of the measuring laboratory is sensitivity analysis ... . Data from specific sites applied. In LCA it is not yet clear what to should also be used for unit processes that certify: The study, the individual practitioner are considered to have environmentally or the company of the practitioner. There- relevant emissions. fore, a variation of the peer review set-up used in scientific journals is used as de- In all studies, the following additional data scribed below. quality indicators shall be taken into consideration in a level of detail depending on The purpose of the critical review process is to goal and scope definition: ensure the quality of the life cycle assessment. The review can be either internal, external or • Precision: measure of the variability of the involve interested parties as defined within data values for each data category ex- the goal and scoping definition. pressed (e.g. variance). The critical review process shall ensure that: • Completeness: percentage of locations reporting primary data from the potential • the methods used to carry out the LCA number in existence for each data are consistent with this international category in a unit process. standard;

• Representativeness: qualitative assessment • the methods used to carry out the LCA of the degree to which the data set reflects are scientifically and technically valid; the true population of interest (i.e. geo graphic and time period and technology • the data used are appropriate and reason coverage). able in relation to the goal of the study;

• Consistency: qualitative assessment of how • the interpretations reflect the limitations uniformly the study methodology is identified and the goal of the study; applied to the various components of the analysis. • the study report is transparent and consistent. • Reproducibility: qualitative assessment of the extent to which information about the (...) methodology and data values allows an independent practitioner to reproduce If an LCA study is to be critically reviewed, the results reported in the study. the scope of the critical review should be defined during the goal and scope definition Where a study is used to support a compara- phase of the study. The scope should identify tive assertion that is disclosed to the public, why the critical review is being undertaken, the above mentioned data quality indicators what will be covered and to what level of shall be included. detail, and who needs to be involved in the process. The data quality can be described systematically by using data quality indicators. Each (...) data quality indicator can be assessed by using a scale from e.g. 1 - 5, where 1 denotes Internal review the best quality (Weidema, 1994b). An A critical review may be carried out intern- example of a data quality index for a data-set ally. In such case, it shall be performed by can be (1,3,2,1,1) indicating that precision is an internal expert independent of the LCA high, the completeness is medium etc. study.

The methodology to describe data quality (...) systematically is still quite new. The method- 58 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Figure 4-3 Example of a simple flow sheet to be used as support in the data collection.

Expert review 4.4 Inventory analysis A critical review may be carried out externally. In such a case, it shall be performed by Inventory analysis is the second phase in a an external expert, independent of the LCA life cycle containing the following main study. issues:

(...) • data collection

Review by interested parties • refining system boundaries An external, independent expert is selected by the original study commissioner to act as • calculation chairperson of a review panel. Based on the goal, scope and budget available for the • validation of data review, the chairperson selects other independent qualified reviewers. • relating data to the specific system

“Interested parties” also include stake- • allocation holders. The review process can be undertaken in parallel to the LCA study and The different issues will be described in corrections can be made continuously (in- detail below. The description will be based process critical review). Otherwise the on the terminology defined by ISO; see critical review can be made on the final draft appendix 4.1. This section includes a short with the possibility to make corrections presentation of software tools that can be a before finishing the report (end-of-process useful help in structuring and calculating the critical review). In some cases it may be inventory data. The inventory analysis and relevant to publish the critical review report the tasks to be fulfilled can obviously be along with the LCA study. supported by a flow sheet for the considered Methodological framework 59

product; an example of a flow sheet can be The qualitative and quantitative data for seen in Figure 4-3. Each of the different inclusion in the inventory shall be collected phases can be made up from different single for each unit process that is included within processes e.g. production of different kinds the system boundaries. The procedures used of raw material to be combined in the for data collection may vary depending on material production phase. The different the scope, unit process or intended applica- phases are often connected by transport- tion of the study. Data collection can be a processes. Reuse do often involve a cleaning resource intensive process. Practical con- process. straints on data collection should be considered in the scope and documented in the Compilation of a proper process diagram is report. crucial to succeed the LCA study i.e. to be sure to include all relevant processes etc. Some significant calculation considerations The process diagram do also have a function are outlined in the following: in the reporting of the LCA while it improve the transparency of the study. • allocation procedures are needed when dealing with systems involving multiple 4.4.1 Data collection products (e.g. multiple products from The inventory analysis includes collection petroleum refining). The materials and and treatment of data to be used in prepara- energy flows as well as associated environ- tion of a material consumption, waste and mental releases shall be allocated to the emission profile for all the phases in the life different products according to clearly cycle, but also for the whole life cycle. The stated procedures, which shall be docu- data can be site specific e.g. from specific mented and justified; companies, specific areas and from specific countries but also more general e.g. data • the calculation of energy flow should take from more general sources e.g. trade organi- into account the different fuels and sations, public surveys etc. The data have to electricity sources used, the efficiency of be collected from all single processes in the conversion and distribution of energy flow life cycle. These data can be quantitative or as well as the inputs and outputs associ- qualitative. The quantitative data are impor- ated with the generation and use of that tant in comparisons of processes or mater- energy flow. ials, but often the quantitative data are missing or the quality is poor (too old or not Data collection is often the most work technologically representative etc.). The intensive part of a life cycle assessment, more descriptive qualitative data can be used especially if site specific data are required for for environmental aspects or single steps in all the single processes in the life cycle. In the life cycle that cannot be quantified, or if many cases average data from the literature the goal and scope definition allow a non- (often previous investigations of the same or quantitative description of the conditions. similar products or materials) or data from trade organisations are used. A number of “Inventory analysis involves data collection European trade organisations have pub- and calculation procedures to quantify lished or plan to publish “cradle-to-gate” relevant inputs and outputs of a product data that include information on inputs and system. These inputs and outputs may outputs for materials through production of include the use of resources and releases to semi-manufactured product to final products. air, water and land associated with the system. Interpretation may be drawn from The average data can be used in the concep- these data, depending on the goals and tual or simplified LCA to get a first impres- scope of the LCA. These data also constitute sion of the potential inputs and outputs from the input to the life cycle impact assessment. producing specific materials. When doing a detailed LCA site specific data must be The process of conducting an inventory preferred. Average data are often some years analysis is iterative. As data are collected and old and therefore do not represent the latest more is learned about the system, new data in technological development. requirements or limitations may be identified that require a change in the data- The result of the data collection can be collection procedures so that the goals of the presented in an inventory table as shown in study will still be met. Sometimes, issues may Table 4-2 with an example from the material be identified that require revisions to the data published by the Association of Plastic goal or scope of the study. Manufacturers of Europe (APME). 60 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Table 4-2 Inventory table presenting “Gross inputs and outputs associated with the production of 1 kg of PVC averaged over all the polymerisation processes” (Boustead, 1994).

Unit Average1

Fuels Coal MJ 6.96 Oil MJ 6.04 Gas MJ 15.41 Hydro MJ 0.84 Nuclear MJ 7.87 Other MJ 0.13

Total fuels MJ 37.24

Feedstock Oil MJ 16.85 Gas MJ 12.71

Total feedstock MJ 29.56

Total fuel plus feedstock MJ 66.80 (48 - 89)

Raw materials Iron ore mg 400 Limestone mg 1600 Water mg 1900000 Bauxite mg 220 Sodium chloride mg 690000 Sand mg 1200

Air emissions Dust mg 3900 Carbon monoxide mg 2700 Carbon dioxide mg 1944000 Sulfur oxides mg 13000 Nitrogen oxides mg 16000 Chlorine mg 2 Hydrogen chloride mg 230 Hydrocarbons mg 20000 Metals mg 3 Chlorinated organics mg 720

Water emissions COD mg 1100 BOD mg 80 Acid as H+ mg 110 Metals mg 200 Chloride ions mg 40000 Dissolved organics mg 1000 Suspended solids mg 2400 Oil mg 50 Dissolved solids mg 500 Other nitrogen mg 3 Chlorinated organics mg 10 Sulfate ions mg 4300 Sodium ions mg 2300

Solid waste Industrial waste mg 1800 Mineral waste mg 66000 Slags and ash mg 47000 Inert chemicals mg 14000 Regulated chemicals mg 1200

1. The average values cover a broad spectrum different values representing different technologies. In many cases the actual range of e.g. emissions is more applicable when comparing site specific data with “average” data. Methodological framework 61

When making a detailed LCA the inventory Reflecting the iterative nature of LCA, tables are invariably detailed, intricate and decisions regarding the data to be included complex whereas the inventory tables shall be based on a sensitivity analysis to required in a streamlined LCA may be more determine their significance, thereby simple if stated in the goal and scope defini- verifying the initial analysis (...). The initial tion i.e. focus on selected emissions as e.g. product system boundary shall be revised in carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen accordance with the cut-off criteria estab- oxides. lished in the scope definition. The sensitivity analysis may result in: The applicability of data-sets for specific products i.e. site specific data in life cycle • the exclusion of life cycle stages or sub- assessment depend on the format of the systems when lack of significance can be data. In order to ensure the applicability of shown by the sensitivity analysis industrial data SPOLD has initiated a project with the aim to develop a standard format • the exclusion of material flows which lack for data sets to be used in LCA and with the significance to the outcome of the results second aim to ensure consistency in registra- of the study tion of data in a database. The structure of the extensive SPOLD data format consists of • the inclusion of new unit processes that five parts (SPOLD, 1996): are shown to be significant in the sensitivity analysis A Data identification; Data sources and The results of this refining process and the treatment. sensitivity analysis shall be documented. This analysis serves to limit the subsequent data B System model (Sub systems; Cut-off handling to those input and output data rules; Co-products and allocation which are determined to be significant to the rules; Energy models; Transport goal of the LCA study. models; Waste models; Other assumptions; Other information). 4.4.3 Calculation procedures No formal demands exist for calculation in C System structure life cycle assessment except the described demands for allocation procedures. Due to D1 Data 1: Inputs (Known inputs from the amount of data it is recommended as a technosphere; Known inputs from minimum to develop a spreadsheet for the nature) specific purpose. A number of general PC- programs/software for calculation are avail- D2 Data 2: Outputs (Known outputs to able e.g. spreadsheets/spreadsheet applica- technosphere; Known outputs to tions (EXCEL/Lotus etc.), together with nature). many software programs developed specially for life cycle assessment. The appropriate D3 Data 3: Other program can be chosen depending on the kind and amount of data to be handled. D4 Data 4: Balances 4.4.4 Validation of data E List of references The validation of data has to be conducted during the data collection process in order The SPOLD data format will be available by to improve the overall data quality. System- downloading from WWW (http://ipt.dtu.dk atic data validation may point out areas /~ap/icc/). where data quality must be improved or data must be found in similar processes or unit 4.4.2 Refining system boundaries processes. The system boundaries are defined as a part of the scope definition procedure. After the During the process of data collection, a initial data collection, the system boundaries permanent and iterative check on data can be refined e.g. as a result of decisions of validity should be conducted. Validation may exclusion life stages or sub-systems, exclusion involve establishing, for example, mass of material flows or inclusion of new unit balances, energy balances and/or compara- processes shown to be significant according tive analysis of emission factors. Obvious to the sensitivity analysis. anomalies in the data appearing from such validation procedures shall result in (alterna- 62 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

tive) data values complying with the data The reference flow or functional unit shall quality requirements as established (...). be defined in order to describe and cover the actual production/function of the For each data category and for each repor- considered product e.g. by number of hours ting location where missing data are identi- the actual machinery is in action per week or fied, the treatment of the missing data the actual emission of wastewater from the should result in: process. If this is not the case it will not be possible to relate data to the actual product. • an acceptable reported data value; 4.4.6 Allocation and recycling • a “zero” data value if justified; or When performing a life cycle assessment of a complex system, it may not be possible to • a calculated value based on the reported handle all the impacts and outputs inside the values from unit processes employing system boundaries. This problem can be similar technology solved either by:

Data from similar processes or unit processes 1. expanding the system boundaries to do often have a lower overall data quality. include all the inputs and outputs, or by This can be reflected in the data quality index for the specific data-set. 2. allocating the relevant environmental impacts to the studied system 4.4.5 Relating data The fundamental input and output data are When avoiding allocation by e.g. expanding often delivered from industry in arbitrary the system boundaries there is a risk of units e.g. energy consumption as MJ/ making the system too complex. The data machine/week or emissions to the sewage collection, impact assessment and interpreta- system as mg metals/litre wastewater. The tion can then become too expensive and specific machine or wastewater stream is unrealistic in time and money. Allocation rarely connected to the production of the may be a better alternative, if an appropriate considered product alone but often to a method can be found for solving the actual number of similar products or perhaps to problem. the whole production activity. Since the inventory is intrinsically based on For each unit process, an appropriate reference material balances between inputs and flow shall be determined (e.g. one kilogram of outputs, allocation procedures should material or one megajoule for energy). The approximate as much as possible such quantitative input and output data of the unit fundamental input-output relationships and process shall be calculated in relation to this characteristics. Some principles should be reference flow. kept in mind when allocating loadings. They are general and thorough enough to be Based on the refined flow chart and systems applicable to co-products, internal energy boundary, unit processes are interconnected to allocation, services (e.g. transport, waste allow calculations of the complete system. This is treatment), and to recycling, either open or accomplished by normalising the inputs and closed-loop: outputs of a unit process in the system to the functional unit and then normalising all up- • The product system under consideration stream and downstream unit processes accord- seldom exists in isolation; it generally ingly. The calculation should result in all system includes unit processes which may be input and output data being referenced to the shared with other product systems. The functional unit. Care should be taken when study should identify these unit processes aggregating the inputs and outputs in the and deal with them according to the product system. The level of aggregation should procedures presented below. be sufficient to satisfy the goal of the study. • The inputs and outputs of the unallocated Data categories should only be aggregated if they system shall equal the sum of the corres- are related to equivalent substances and to ponding inputs and outputs of the similar environmental impacts. If more detailed allocated system. Any deviation from mass aggregation rules are required, they should be and energy balance shall be reported and justified in the goal and scope definition phase of explained. the study or this should be left to a subsequent impact assessment phase. • Whenever several alternative allocation Methodological framework 63

procedures seem applicable, a sensitivity 3. Where physical relationship cannot be analysis shall be conducted to illustrate established or used as the basis for the consequences of the departure from allocation the inputs should be allocated the selected approach. between the products and functions in a way which reflects economic relationships Allocation can be necessary when dealing between them. For example, burdens with: might be allocated between co-products in proportion to the economic value of the • Multi-output “black box” processes, i.e. products. when more than one product is produced and some of those product flows Any deviation from these procedures shall be are crossing the system boundaries. documented and justified.

• Multi-input processes, such as waste Some inputs may be partly co-products and treatment, where a strict quantitative partly waste. In such case, it is necessary to causality between inputs and emissions identify the ratio between co-products and etc. seldom exists. waste since burdens shall/are to be allocated to the co-product only. • Open-loop recycling, where a waste material leaving the system boundaries is There shall be uniform application of used as a raw material by another system, allocation procedures to similar inputs and outside the boundaries of the studied outputs of the systems under consideration. system. For example if allocation is made to useable products (e.g. intermediate or discarded On the basis of the principles presented products) leaving the systems, then the above, the following descending order of allocation procedure shall be similar to the allocation procedures is recommended: allocation method used for such products entering the systems. The allocation proced- 1. Wherever possible, allocation should be ure may vary the allocation factor from 0 % avoided or minimised. This may be to 100 %. achieved by subdividing the unit process into two or more sub-processes, some of Lindfors et al. (1995c) suggest allocations which can be excluded from the system should be based on the following guiding under study. Transport and materials principle mentioned in descending order: handling are examples of processes which can sometimes be partitioned in this way. • natural causality or an adequate approxi- For systems which deliver more than one mation product or function, or involve recycle streams, allocation may be avoided or • economic/social causality e.g. expected reduced by including further unit pro- gain or gross sales value cesses thereby expanding the system boundaries so that inputs, outputs or • physical parameters as allocation para- recycles remain within the system. meter e.g. mass of outputs, energy content of the output, exergy content of 2. Where allocation cannot be avoided, the output, area of output, volume of output, system inputs and outputs should be molar content of output or arbitrary partitioned between its different products numbers (100/0 % or 50/50 %) or functions in a way which reflects the underlying physical relationships between The 50/50 % allocation method is recom- them; i.e. they must reflect the way in mended for simplified LCA because the which the inputs and outputs are changed method ensure that information on “key by quantitative changes in the products or issues” is not lost. This method can be used functions delivered by the system. These in allocation of environmental loadings “causal relationships” between flows into caused by primary production, waste man- and out of the system may be represented agement and recycling processes. by a process model, which can also represent the economic relationship of Recycling of products implies that the the system. The resulting allocation will environmental inputs and outputs associated not necessarily be in proportion to any with the manufacturing of a product and its simple measure such as mass or molar recycling are to be shared by more than one flows of co-products. product system. 64 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Any system in which recycling occurs, can ing or equivalence factors are also presented usually be described as one of three different where found appropriate. models: The impact assessment can be expressed as a A. If sufficient information is available as to “quantitative and/or qualitative process to the proportion of recycled product that is characterise and assess the effects of the used in another product system (the environmental interventions identified in export ratio), an open-loop recycling the inventory table” (Heijungs & Hofstetter, approach can be chosen. Open-loop 1996). According to these authors, “the recycling is actually a special case of impact assessment component consists in allocation (...). principle of the following three or four elements: classification, characterization, B. If sufficient information is available on the (normalisation,) and valuation”; normalisa- proportion of recycled product that is tion and valuation are sometimes merged. used in the same product system, a closed- Valuation is proposed changed to weighting loop recycling approach can be chosen. by ISO (ISO, 1997c) and this terminology The recycled product replaces an amount has been adapted by the SETAC-Europe of the virgin product. working group (Udo de Haes, 1996a). The terminology is presented in appendix 4.1. C. If sufficient information is available about how many times the same material is The framework for life cycle impact assess- recycled (whether or not within the same ment is defined as follows (ISO, 1997c): product system), the “virgin” environmental inputs and outputs of each product cycle may be divided by the number of The life cycle impact assessment framework cycles which these material will undergo. and its procedure should be transparent and The result will be added to the other provide the flexibility and practicality for this environmental inputs and outputs of each wide range of application. A large range in single product cycle (“cascade recycling”). the levels of effort and intensity of the This model would comprise a sequence of analysis are possible with life cycle assessment models A and/or B. for different applications. In addition, impact assessment should be effective in Claims regarding recycling shall be docu- terms of cost and resources used. mented and justified and be based on actual practice rather than theoretical possibilities. Life cycle impact assessment is composed of several individual elements. These are The detail and complexity of the allocation category definition, classification, characteri- procedures to be used depend on the level zation, and weighting. of sophistication of the actual life cycle assessment. The distinction into different elements is necessary for several reasons: 4.5 Impact assessment • Each element represents a different specific procedure; Impact assessment is the third phase in a life cycle assessment containing the following • All elements are not required for all main issues: applications; • category definition • Methods, assumptions and value-choices can be made more transparent and can be • classification documented and reviewed; • characterization • The effects of methods, assumptions, and value-choices on the results can be • valuation/weighting demonstrated. The elements are explained in relation to Depending on the goal and scope of the the Draft ISO standard CD 14042.1 (ISO, study and on the application of the study all 1997c). The different impact categories are or parts of the elements can be used. described briefly with reference to detailed descriptions of the methodologies. Weight- Methodological framework 65

4.5.1 Category definition • Human toxicological impacts The life cycle impact assessment involves as a first element the definition of the impact • Photochemical oxidant formation categories to be considered (ISO, 1997c). This is a follow-up of the decisions made in • Acidification the goal and scoping phase. Based on the type of information collected in the inven- • Eutrophication tory phase the boundaries defined in the goal and scoping may be redefined. • Work environment

The aim of this section is to provide guid- The impact categories are described in ance for selecting and defining the environ- details in appendix 4.2. mental categories. 4.5.2 Classification Numerous environmental categories have The life cycle impact assessment includes as been proposed for life cycle impact assess- a second element classification of the inven- ment. Most studies will select from these tory input and output data (ISO, 1997c). previous efforts and will not define their own categories. The selection of categories The classification element aims to assign should be consistent with the goal and scope inventory input and output data to catego- of the study. This selection should not be ries. used to avoid or disguise environmental issues or concerns. The completeness and The assignment of inventory data is the extent of the survey of categories is goal and simplest or minimum level of life cycle scope dependent. impact assessment. This can be used to identify and flag issues associated with The impact categories are selected in order inventory input and output data. At this to describe the impacts caused by the consid- stage, there is an implicit assumption of ‘less ered products or product systems. A number is better’ and excludes several important of questions have to be considered when considerations such as differences in potency selecting impact categories (Lindfors et al., or environmental persistence. 1995): Classification is a qualitative step based on • Completeness - all environmental prob- scientific analysis of relevant environmental lems of relevance should be covered by processes. The classification has to assign the the list inventory input and output data to potential environmental impacts i.e. impact categories. • Practicality - the list should not contain Some outputs contribute to different impact too many categories categories and therefore, they have to be mentioned twice. The resulting double • Independence - double counting should counting is acceptable if the effects are be avoided by choosing mutually in- independent of each other whereas double dependent impact categories counting of different effects in the same effect chain (e.g. stratospheric ozone dep- • Relation to the characterization step - the letion and human toxicological effects as e.g. chosen impact categories should be skin cancer) is not allowed. related to available characterization methods The impact categories can be placed on a scale dividing the categories into three The impact categories considered are: (four) different space groups: global im- • Abiotic resources pacts, (continental impacts,) regional impacts and local impacts. The grouping is • Biotic resources not unequivocal for all the impact categories exemplified by e.g. environmental toxicity • Land use which can be global, continental, regional as well as local. The impact categories is often • Global warming related directly to exposure i.e. global exposure is leading to global impacts, • Stratospheric ozone depletion continental exposure is leading to continental impacts. Some of the impact categories • Ecotoxicological impacts are strongly correlated with continental, 66 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The “Leiden list” SETAC “default list”1 “Nordic list” ISO preliminary list Scale/comments SETAC-Europe (1992) Udo de Haes (1996b) Lindfors et al. (1995c) ISO (1997c)

non-renewable abiotic resources energy and materials abiotic resources global

scarce, renewable biotic resources biotic resources global

water

land land land use local

global warming global warming global warming global warming global / climate change

depletion of depletion of stratospheric ozone global stratospheric ozone stratospheric ozone depletion

human toxicity human toxicological human health, human toxicity global, continental, impact toxicological excl. work regional, local environment

human health, non- toxicological excl. work environment

occupational safety human health impacts in local work environment

environmental toxicity ecotoxicological impacts ecotoxicological impacts ecotoxicity global, continental, regional, local

photo-oxidant formation photo-oxidant formation photo-oxidant formation photochemical oxidant continental, regional, formation (smog) local

acidification acidification acidification acidification continental, regional, local

eutrophication eutrophication (incl. eutrophication eutrophication continental, regional, BOD and heat) local

COD (chemical oxygen local demand) discharge

effects of waste heat local on water

nuisance (smell, noise) odour local

noise local

radiation local, regional

space requirement local

final solid waste regional, local (hazardous)

final solid waste regional, local (non-hazardous)

casualties local

habitat alterations local and impacts on biological diversity

1. The SETAC “default list” also mention some “flows not followed up to system boundary: input related (energy, materials, plantation woods etc.) and output related (solid wastes etc.)”.

Table 4-3 Selected lists of impact categories; references are given in the list. Methodological framework 67

regional or local conditions i.e. some locali- different impact categories and also pre- ties are more predisposed to certain impacts sented in tables when found appropriate. than other localities. Certain lakes in Scandi- Characterization is mainly a quantitative step navia can be mentioned as examples of based on scientific analysis of the relevant localities that are more predisposed to environmental processes. The characteriza- acidification than lakes in other parts of tion has to assign the relative contribution of Europe. The time aspect is also important each input and output to the selected impact when considering certain impact categories categories. The potential contribution of e.g. global warming and stratospheric ozone each input and output to the environmental depletion with time horizons on 20 to 500 impacts has to be estimated. For some of the years. environmental impact categories there is consensus about equivalency factors to be To date, consensus has not been reached for used in the estimation of the total impact one single default list of impact categories. (e.g. global warming potentials, ozone Therefore, the relevant impact categories depletion potentials etc.) whereas equiva- may be selected from a preliminary list of lence factors for other environmental examples. A number of suggestions for lists impacts are not available at consensus level of impact categories with reference to the (e.g. biotic resources, land use etc.). scale in which they are valid are shown in Table 4-3. Consensus about handling the 4.5.4 Valuation/Weighting impact categories has mainly been obtained The previous element, characterization, for the global impacts. Development of results in a quantitative statement on differ- methodologies for the other categories is still ent impact categories e.g. global warming, being discussed in different expert groups stratospheric ozone depletion and e.g. within the framework of SETAC. ecotoxicological effects. Comparison of these categories is not immediately possible. 4.5.3 Characterization Therefore, the life cycle impact assessment The life cycle impact assessment includes, as includes as a fourth element a valuation/ a third element, characterization of the weighting of the impact categories against inventory data (ISO, 1997c). each other (ISO, 1997c).

The characterization of characterization is to Weighting aims to rank, weight, or, possible, model categories in terms of indicators, and, aggregate the results of different life cycle if possible, to provide a basis for the aggrega- impact assessment categories in order to tion of the inventory input and output within arrive at the relative importance of these the category. This is also done in terms of the different results. The weighting process is indicator to represent an overall change or not technical, scientific, or objective as these loading to that category. The result of various life cycle impact assessment results characterization is that the combination of e.g., indicators for greenhouse gases or category indicators represents initial loading resource depletion, are not directly compara- and resource depletion profile. ble. However, weighting may be assisted by applying scientifically-based analytical Each category should have a specific model techniques. Weighting may be considered to for the relationship between the input and address three basic aspects: output data and the indicator. The model should be based on scientific knowledge, • to express the relative preference of an where possible, but may have simplifying organisation or group of stakeholders assumptions and value-choices. The repres- based on policies, goals or aims, and entativeness and accuracy of each model personal or group opinions or beliefs depends on several factors, such as spatial common to the group; and temporal compatibility of the category, with the inventory. The relationship between • to ensure that process is visible, the inventory input and output data and the documentable, and reportable, and category indicator is normally strong (or within reach). The relationship between the • to establish the relative importance of the indicator and the endpoint(s) is usually results is based on the state of knowledge weaker and may be mainly qualitative. about these issues.

The impact categories are described in detail Weighting is a qualitative or quantitative step in appendix 4.2 and the equivalence factors not necessarily based on natural science but are described in the sub-chapter on the often on political or ethical values. Weight- 68 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

ing has previously been referred to as valua- scientific experts, of governments or interna- tion. Weighting methods have been devel- tional bodies. The credibility of a panel, oped by different institutions based on according to Volkvein et al. (1996), can be different principles (Lindeijer, 1996): improved by using:

• “Proxy approach” 1. “LCA-experts from different societal groups as panellists. • “Technology abatement approach” 2. Peer reviewed sets of valuation criteria, • “Monetarisation” rules for their application, a transparent ranking technique. • “Authorized goals or standards” (“Dis- tance to target”) 3. Documentation of the arguments leading to the final valuation.” • “Authoritative panels” (“Societal approach”) The present methods - with some still under development “as a method” - are described Proxy approach briefly in Table 4-4. In this approach one or several quantitative measures are stated to be indicative for the The different methods focus on different total environmental impact. Energy con- impacts as can be illustrated by case studies sumption, material displacement and space in which the different methods have been consumption are examples on using this tested. approach. 4.6 Interpretation Technology abatement approach Interpretation is the fourth phase in life The possibility of reducing environmental cycle assessment containing the following burdens by using different technological main issues (ISO, 1997d): abatement methods can be used to set a value on the specific environmental burden. • identification of significant environmen- This approach can be applied to inventory tal issues data as well as impact scores. • evaluation Monetarisation This approach can be described with the • conclusions and recommendations following premises: The different elements are explained in • “utilitarianism (values are measured by relation to the ISO standard. The ISO stand- the aggregation of human preferences) ard on interpretation is the least developed part of the standard and therefore the de- • willingness to pay/accept is an adequate scription below is expected to be revised measure of preferences when the standard is finally approved.

• values of environmental quality can be Life cycle assessment interpretation is a substituted by other commodities” systematic procedure to identify, qualify, check, and evaluate information from the This approach can be applied to inventory conclusions of the inventory analysis and/or data as well as impact scores. impact assessment of a system, and present them in order to meet the requirements of Authorized goals or standards the application as described in the goal and Environmental standards and quality targets scope of the study. as well as political reduction targets can be used to calculate critical volumes for emis- Life cycle interpretation is also a process of sions to air, water, soil or work environment. communication designed to give credibility The targets or standards can be formulated to the results of the more technical phases of by national or local authorities, within a LCA, namely the inventory analysis and the company etc. impact assessment, in a form which is both comprehensible and useful to the decision Authoritative panels maker. The authoritative panel can be made up of lay people, of societal group panels, of Interpretation is performed in interaction Methodological framework 69 Table 4-4 Different methods for weighting different impact categories (adapted from Lindeijer, 1996).

Method Methodology Characteristics/comments Reference

Energy requirement Equal energy requirement Proxy Franklin MIPS Equal material displacement Proxy Schmidt-Bleek (1994) SPI Equal space consumption Proxy, Technology Abatement energy Equal space consumption including energy Technology Cramer et al. (1993) for abatement of environmental burden Abatement costs Equal modelled costs for abating emissions Technology, monetarisation, Kroon et al. (1994) according to national goals authorized targets Abatement costs/ Equal costs for abating emissions, most Monetarisation, authorized Tellus Institute (1992) The Tellus system human toxic emissions abatement costs standards extrapolated from characterization factors via lead (combining carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic substances via PEL values) DESC Equal projected generic costs for abatement Technology, monetarisation, Krozer (1992) of Technology, monetarisation, burden accor- authorized targets ding to national goals derived per impact category The EPS system The EPS system is based on “willingness to Monetarisation, technology. Steen & Ryding (1992); pay” to restore the concerned effect to The willingness to pay/the Boström & Steen (1994) their normal status. The concerned effects weighing will be different are biodiversity, production, human health, from country to country. resources and aesthetic values. The “Molar” method Equal critical volume scores, the volume of Authorized standards Schaltegger & Sturm (1991) each medium weighted according to their mole density The Critical volume” Equal critical volume scores weighted Authorized standards Kohlert & Thalmann (1992) method subjectively The “Critical surface Equal critical immission volumes Authorized standards Jolliet (1994a) time” method weighted subjectively The “Ecoscarcity” Equal scores over proportional distances Authorized standards Ahbe et al. (1990) approach to political targets The “Effect category” Baumann et al. (1993) method Distance to target Equal scores of distances to political Authorized targets Corten et al. (1994) targets optionally additionally weighted subjectively NSAEL Equal scores of overshoots of sustainable Authorized targets Kortman et al. (1994) targets optionally weighted subjectively The “Eco-indicator 95” Equal scores of distances to science-political Authorized targets Goedkoop (1995) method targets contributing to the equally weighted safeguard subjects 1 on a million human lives, 95 % of ecosystems and human health complaints due to smog Iso-utility functions Equal panel scores on relative (negative) Panel Tukker (1994) utilities of actual impact scores Iso-preference Equal panel preferences for elasticities approach in relative impact scenarios Panel Heijungs (1994) Delphi technique Equal expert panel scores on actual impacts Panel Wilson & Jones (1994) Questionnaire Equal industry/science panel scores on Panel Nagata et al. (1995) impact categories Panel questionnaire Equal societal group panel scores on Panel Kortman et al. (1994) impact categories Structured dialogue Panel agreement on weights based on Panel Weidema (1994a) argumentation Argumentative Societal group consensus on the inter- Panel Schmitz et al. (1994) evaluation pretation of product systems comparison with inputs from normalisation, environmental problem weights by a political panel and a sensitivity analysis Export panel Equal interpretation of product systems Panel Volkwein et al. (1996) prioritisation comparison using a qualitative valuation of normalisation data and expert panel scores on the criteria time, space and hazard 70 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

with the three other phases of the life cycle LCIA is conducted. assessment. If the results of the inventory analysis or the impact assessment is found Significant environmental issues are found to not to fulfil the requirements defined in the represent the most important results of the goal and scoping phase, the inventory study in accordance with the goal and scope analysis must be improved by e.g. revising definition. the system boundaries, further data collection etc. followed by an improved impact The identification step include structuring assessment. This iterative process must be and presentation of relevant information: repeated until the requirements in the goal and scoping phase are fulfilled as can be • results from the different phases i.e. described by the following steps: presentation of e.g. data from inventory analysis in tables, figures or diagrams etc. 1. Identify the significant environmental or presentation of results of the impact issues. assessment

2. Evaluate the methodology and results for • methodological choices completeness, sensitivity and consistency. • valuation methods used 3. Check that conclusions are consistent with the requirements of the goal and • role and responsibility of different scope of the study, including, in particu- interested parties lar, data quality requirements, predefined assumptions and values, and Depending on the complexity of the LCA application oriented requirements. study the significant environmental issues of

the considered system can be e.g. CO2, NOx,

4. If so, report as final conclusions. If not, and SO2 or they can be e.g. global warming, return to step 1 or 2. stratospheric ozone depletion, ecotoxicological and human toxicological impacts etc. This procedure has to be repeated until 3 is fulfilled. 4.6.2 Evaluation The second step, involving three elements, is The aim of interpretation is to reduce the firstly to conduct a qualitative check of the number of quantified data and/or state- selection of data, processes etc. e.g. to ments of the inventory analysis and/or discuss the possible consequences of leaving impact assessment to the key results to out information, secondly to apply a system- facilitate a decision making process based atic qualitative or quantitative analysis of any on, among other inputs, the LCA study. This implications of changes in the input data reduction should be robust to uncertainties (directly as data uncertainty and indirectly in data and methodologies applied and give caused by methodological or epistemological an acceptable coverage and representation uncertainties), and thirdly to discuss the of the preceding phases. variations identified in the frame of the goal and scope, e.g. the data quality goals of the 4.6.1 Identification of significant environmental study. issues The first step in the identification is the The objective of this step is to establish selection of key results in a prudent and confidence in the result of the study, based justifiable manner. on the preceding LCA phases, and on the significant environmental issues identified in The objective of this step is to structure the the first step of the interpretation. The information from the inventory analysis and - results should be presented in such a form as if additionally conducted - from the life cycle to give the commissioner or any interested impact assessment phase in order to deter- party a clear and understandable view of the mine the significant environmental issues in outcome of the study. accordance with the goal and scope definition. The evaluation shall be undertaken in accordance with the goal and scope, and Environmental issues are inputs and outputs should take into account the final use of the i.e. results of the inventory phase and study. environmental indicators i.e. the results of the life cycle impact assessment phase if The interpretation made at this stage shall be Methodological framework 71

reinforced by the facts and calculations • to assess if the significant environmental brought forward in at least the three follow- issues, previously identified as the most ing elements: important ones, are found to exceed the acceptable variations stated in the goal 1. completeness check; and the scope of the study.

2. sensitivity check; By conducting a sensitivity analysis, the stability of those parameters are checked. 3. consistency check. The sensitivity analysis can be done by and supplemented by results of: making a kind of “what if” scenario, where the value of different input parameters are • uncertainty analysis and changes systematically. A more proper way to do sensitivity analysis is to change the input • data quality assessment parameters systematically by using simulations (e.g. Monte Carlo simulations). The methodology for the above mentioned elements in the evaluation step is only Consistency check developed to a limited degree. Below com- Consistency check is also a qualitative proce- pleteness, sensitivity and consistency check dure. are described briefly. The objective of this element of the evalua- Completeness check tion step is to conduct a thorough check on Completeness check is a qualitative proce- the consistency of methods, procedures and dure. treatment of data used throughout the study.

The objective of this first element in the The procedure has to test whether methods evaluation step is to ensure that the signifi- etc. have been used consistently and espec- cant environmental issues previously identi- ially within comparative studies. The follow- fied adequately represent the information ing items are subjects for consistence check: from the different LCA phases (inventory analysis, impact assessment) in accordance • regional and/or temporal differentia- with the goal and scope defined. tions

The procedure focus on the information • system boundaries collected in the inventory phase. In many LCA studies there will be some data sets that • allocation methods are unavailable or incomplete i.e. there will be a data gab unless necessary resources are • differentiation between foreground and used to improve the data set. The complete- background processes ness check has to decide whether it is necessary to complete the data set. If the data set • valuation/weighting methods is important according to the defined environmental issues, the data collection can The completeness, sensitivity and consistency be improved or the goal and scope defini- check can be supplemented by the results of tion can be revised. uncertainty analysis and data quality assessment. Both are performed throughout the Sensitivity check study as they are closely related to the Sensitivity check involves a systematic proce- individual data and calculations. The conclu- dure for estimating the effects of variations sions of the uncertainty analysis and data in parameters to the outcome of the study quality assessment are important in the with the aim to establish a required degree process of interpretation of the data and the of confidence in the results of the study results of the calculations. relative to its overall goal. 4.6.3 Conclusions and recommendations The objective of this step is: The final step of the interpretation is more • to review the results of the sensitivity or less similar to the traditional concluding analyses and uncertainty analyses that and recommending part of a scientific and were performed in the different phases technical assessment, investigation or alike. (inventory analysis, impact assessment), and The aim of this third step of the interpreta- 72 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

tion is to reach conclusions and recommen- Boström C-E, Steen B (1994). Miljöbe- dations for the report of the LCA study or lastningsindex för emissioner av stoft till luft. life cycle inventory study. Framtagning av miljöbelastningsindex för stoft och använding av dessa vid värdering av This step is important to improve the report- öked stoftrening vis stålverk. IVL Rapport B ing and the transparency of the study. Both 1152. Sverige, Göteborg: IVL. are essential for the readers of the LCA report. Boustead I (1994). Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. Report 6: Polyvi- The results of the critical review of the study nyl chloride. Brussels: APME/PWMI. shall also be included when presenting the conclusions and recommendations. BUS (1984). Oekobilanzen von Packstoffen. Schriftenreihe Umweltschutz, Nr. 24. Bern: Bundesamt für Umweltschutz. 4.7 References (chapter 3 and 4) Centre for Corporate Environmental Man- Ahbe S, Braunschweig A, Müller-Wenk R agement (CCEM). Environmental Manage- (1990). Methodik für Oekobilanzen auf der ment Tools for SMEs: A Handbook (1997). Basis ökologisher Optimierung. Prepared for the European Environment Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 133. Bern: Agency. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Land- schaft (BUWAL). Christiansen K (1992). From PVC and alternatives to milk packaging. In: Life cycle assessment: Inventory, classification, valua- Albritton D, Derwent R, Isaksen I, Lal M, tion, data bases. Workshop report, SETAC, Wuebbles D (1996). Trace gas radioactive Brussels. forcing indices. In Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Christiansen K (ed.) (1997). Simplifying Maskell K(eds.). Climate change 1995. LCA: Just a Cut? SETAC EUROPE LCA Cambridge University Press. Screening and Streamlining Working Group. Final report, March 1997. Andersson-Sköld Y, Grennfelt P, Pleijel K (1992). Photochemical ozone creation Christiansen K, Grove A, Hansen LE, Hoff- potentials: A study on different concepts. J. mann L, Jensen AA, Pommer K, Schmidt A Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 42(9):1152-1158. (1993). PVC and alternative materials. Working Report no. 18. Copenhagen: Antonsson A, Carlsson H (1995). The basis Danish Environmental Protection Agency. for a method to integrate work environment in life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Christiansen K, Heijungs R, Rydberg T, Production 3(4). Ryding S-O, Sund L, Wijnen H, Vold M, Hanssen OJ (eds.) (1995). Application of life Baumann H, Ekvall T, Eriksson E, Kullman cycle assessments (LCA). Report from expert M, Rydberg T, Ryding S-O, Steen B, Svensson workshop at Hankø, Norway on LCA in G (1993). Miljömässige skillnader mellan Strategic management, product develop- återvinning/återanvänding och ment and improvement, marketing and förbränning/deponering. Reforsk FoU ecolabelling, governmental policies. Østfold Report 71. Sverige, Malmö: Stiftelsen Research Foundation report 07/95. Reforsk. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, Fava J, Bengtsson G, Berglund R (1996). Life cycle Franklin W, Jensen AA, de Oude N, Parrish assessment including the working environ- R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay B, ment. Summary of methods and case studies. Séguin J, Vigon B (eds.) (1993). Guidelines IVF research publication 95859. The Swedish for Life-cycle assessment: A “Code of prac- Institute of Production Engineering Re- tice”. Society of Environmental Toxicology search, IVF. and Chemistry (SETAC) (SETAC Workshop, Sesimbra, Portugal, 31 March - 3 April 1993). Bjørnsen J, Hanssen OJ, Møller H (1995). Life cycle assessment of a mud gas separator Corten FGP, vd Haspel B, Kreuzberg GJ, Sas for offshore operations. AMAT AS, HJW, de Wit G (1994). Weighting environ- Sandefjord, Norway. mental problems for product policy, phase 1 (in Dutch). Delft, The Netherlands. Methodological framework 73

Cramer J, Quakernaat T, Dokter ... (1993). Fleischer G, Schmidt W-P (1997). Iterative Theory and practice of integrated chain screening LCA in an Eco-design tool. Int. J. management (in Dutch). TNO Apeldorn, LCA 2(1):20-24. The Netherlands. Goedkoep M, Demmers M, Collignon M Curran MA (1997), Life-cycle based govern- (1996). The Eco-indicator 95. Pré. ment policies. Int. J. LCA 2(1):39-43. (Downloadable from http://www.pre.nl).

Dalager S, Drabæk I, Ottosen LM et al. Goedkoop M (1995). Beyond distance to (1995). Miljøøkonomisk analyse af genan- target. In Christiansen K, Heijungs R, vendelse kontra forbrænding af papir og Rydberg T, Ryding S-O, Sund L, Wijnen H, pap. Miljøprojekt nr. 294. Miljøstyrelsen, Vold M, Hanssen OJ (eds.) (1995). Appli- København. cation of life cycle assessments (LCA). Report from expert workshop at Hankø, de Smet B, Hemming C, Baumann H, Cowell Norway on LCA in Strategic management, S, Pesso C, Sund L, Markovic V, Moilanen T, product development and improvement, Postlethwaithe D (1996). Life cycle assess- marketing and ecolabelling, governmental ment and conceptually related programmes. policies. Østfold Research Foundation Draft. report 07/95.

EEC (1993). Commision Directive of 27 Grisel L, Jensen AA, Klöpffer W (1994). April 1993 adapting to technical progress for Impact assessment within LCA. Society for the 18th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC the Promotion of LCA Development on the approximation of the laws, regula- (SPOLD). Brussels. tions and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1993). A proposal of dangerous substances (93/21/EEC). OJ L for the classification of toxic substances 110, 04.05.93, p. 20 (Annexes in OJ L 110A, within the framework of LCA of products. 04.05.93, p. 1). Chemosphere 26:1925-1944.

Environment Canada (1997). Life cycle Guinée JB, Heijungs R, van Oers L, van de management. A guide for better business Meent D, Vermeire T, Rikken M (1996). decisions. LCA impact assessment of toxic releases. Generic modelling of fate, exposure, and Finnveden G (lead author) (1996). Part III: effect for ecosystems and human beings “Resources” and related impact categories. with data for 100 chemicals. RIVM report In: Udo de Haes (ed.). Towards a methodol- no. 1996/21. ogy for life cycle impact assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Habersatter K (1991). Oekobilanz von (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. Packstoffen Stand 1990. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 132. Bern: Bundesamt für Finnveden G, Andersson-Sköld Y, Samuels- Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL). son M-O, Zetterberg L, Lindfors L-G (1992). Classification (impact analysis) in Hanssen OJ (1994). Sustainable product connection with life cycle assessments - a development. A draft method description. preliminary study. In Product life cycle Review version. Østfold Research Founda- assessment - principles and methodology. tion, Fredrikstad. Nord 1992:9. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Hanssen OJ (ed.) (1994). Proceedings from the workshop on methods for environmental Finnveden G, Huppes G (1995). Life cycle management and sustainable produkt assessment and treatment of solid waste. development. Hankø, Fredrikstad, 23-24 Proceedings of the international workshop march 1994. Østfold Research Foundation, September 28-29, Stockholm. AFR-report 98, Fredrikstad. Stockholm. Hanssen OJ (1995). Sustainable manage- Finnveden G, Steen B, Sundquist J (1994). ment of product systems - an integrated Kretslopp av pappersförpackningar: method for life cycle assessment and man- Materialåtervinning eller energiåtervinning? agement of product systems. Østfold Res- IVL Rapport B 1128. IVL, Stockholm. earch Foundation, Fredrikstad. 74 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Hanssen OJ, Rønning A, Rydberg T (1995). Heijungs R, Hofstetter P (1996). Part II: Sustainable product development. Final Definitions of terms and symbols. In: Udo de report from the NEP project. Østfold Res- Haes (ed.). Towards a methodology for life earch Foundation, Fredrikstad. cycle impact assessment. Society of Environ- mental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) - Hauschild MZ, Olsen SI, Wenzel H (1997a). Europe. Brussels. Human toxicity as assessment criteria in the EDIP-method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H Hirschhorn JS (1993). Weaknesses of LCA as (eds.). Scientific background (in prepara- a tool for environmental management. Paper tion). London: Chapman and Hall. presented at UNEP Expert Seminar “Life Cycle Assessment and its Application”, CML, Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997a). Global Leiden, June 9 - 10, 1993. warming as assessment criteria in the EDIP- method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). ISO (1997a). Environmental management - Scientific background (in preparation). Life cycle assessment - Principles and frame- London: Chapman and Hall. work. ISO/FDIS 14 040, 1997.

Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997b). ISO (1997b). Environmental management - Stratospheric ozone depletion as assessment Life cycle assessment - Goal and scope criteria in the EDIP-method. In Hauschild definition and inventory analysis. ISO/DIS MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). Scientific background 14 041.2. (in preparation). London: Chapman and Hall. ISO (1997c). Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle impact Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997c). Photo- assessment. ISO/CD 14 042.1, 1997.01.15. chemical ozone formation as assessment criteria in the EDIP-method. In Hauschild ISO (1997d). Environmental management - MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). Scientific background Life cycle assessment - Life cycle interpreta- (in preparation). London: Chapman and tion. ISO/CD 14 043.1B, 1997.06.17. Hall. ISO (1997e). ISO/TC 207/SC 6 comments Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997d). Acidifica- and proposals regarding definitions of terms tion as assessment criteria in the EDIP- used by ISO/TC 207/SC3. ISO Document method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). ISO/TC 207/SC 6 N103. Scientific background (in preparation). London: Chapman and Hall. Jelnes JE, Schmidt A, Wilhardt P (1994). Screening for potentielle sundhedseffekter. Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (1997e). Nutrient Kapitel 6 i Schmidt A, Christiansen K, enrichment as assessment criteria in the Pommer K (eds.). Livscyklusmodel til EDIP-method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H vurdering af nye materialer. Metoder, (eds.). Scientific background (in prepara- vurderingsgrundlag og fremgangsmåde. Det tion). London: Chapman and Hall. Materialeteknologiske Udviklingsprogram, Rammeprogrammet for integrerede miljø- Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H, Damborg A, og arbejdsmiljøvurderinger. Søborg: dk- Tørsløv J (1997b). Ecotoxicity as assessment TEKNIK. criteria in the EDIP-method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). Scientific background Jensen OK, Schmidt A, Jensen AA (1994). (in preparation). London: Chapman and Screening for potentielle miljøeffekter. Hall. Kapitel 7 i Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Pommer K (eds.). Livscyklusmodel til Heijungs R (1994). Valuation, a societal vurdering af nye materialer. Metoder, approach. In Integrating Impact Assessment vurderingsgrundlag og fremgangsmåde. Det into LCA. SETAC-Europe, Belgium. Materialeteknologiske Udviklingsprogram, Rammeprogrammet for integrerede miljø- Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, og arbejdsmiljøvurderinger. Søborg: dk- Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Sleeswijk TEKNIK. AW, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, de Goede HP (1992). Environmental life Jolliet O (1994a). Critical surface-time: an cycle assessment of products. I Guide; II evaluation method for life cycle assessment. Backgrounds, 1992. Leiden: CML. In Integrating impact assessment into LCA. pp. 133-142. Methodological framework 75

Jolliet O (1994b). A structure of impact Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, assessment for LCA: Impact category and Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning serial/parallel impacts. SETAC Impact A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995a). LCA- assessment workshop Zürich, 8.-9. July 1994. Nordic. Technical Reports No. 1 - 9. TemaNord 1995:502. Copenhagen: Nordic Jolliet O (lead author) (1996). Part IV: Council of Ministers. Impact assessment of human and eco-toxicity in life cycle assessment. In: Udo de Haes Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, (ed.). Towards a methodology for life cycle Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning impact assessment. Society of Environmental A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995b). LCA- Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) - Nordic. Technical Report No. 10 and Special Europe. Brussels. Reports No. 1 - 2. TemaNord 1995:503. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Jolliet O, Crettaz P (1006). Critical surface- time 95, a life cycle impact assessment Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, methodology, including exposure and fate. Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning Presented at the workshop of the EU con- A, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (1995c). Nordic certed action on harmonization of life cycle Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord assessment in agriculture. Lyngby, Denmark, 1995:20. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of 15.-19. January 1996. EPFL-HYDRAM, Ministers. revised version, paper 2/96, August 1996. Miljøstyrelsen (1996). Handlingsplan for Keoleian GA, Menerey D (1993). Life cycle offentlig, “grøn”, indkøbspolitik. Udkast, 16. design guidance manual. Environmental april, 1996. requirements and the product system. EPA600/R-92/226. USEPA, Cincinatti, Ohio. Møller J, Førde JS, Vold M, Hanssen OJ (1995). Environmentally sound product Keoleian GA, Menerey D (1994). Sustainable development of sports underwear. Project development by design: Review of life cycle Report OR.41.95. Østfold Research Founda- design and related approaches. Air and tion, Frederikstad, Norway Waste Vol. 44: 645-668. Møller S, Schmidt A (1994). Råstofforbrug. Kohlert C, Thalmann WR (1992). Kapitel 2 i Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Optimierung von Verpackungen hinsichtlich Pommer K (eds.). Livscyklusmodel til ökologischer Gesichtpunkte. Blich durch vurdering af nye materialer. Metoder, Wirtschaft und Umwelt 9:44-49. vurderingsgrundlag og fremgangsmåde. Det Materialeteknologiske Udviklingsprogram, Kortman JGM, Lindeijer EW, Sas HJW, Rammeprogrammet for integrerede miljø- Spengers M (1994). Towards a single indica- og arbejdsmiljøvurderinger. Søborg: dk- tor for emissions - an exercise in aggregating TEKNIK. environmental effects. IVAM ER/CE/ Infoplan, Min. VROM Publications Product Nagata K, ..... (1995). Study of the analytical Policy nr. 1994/12, Zoetermeer, The Nether- method of total ecobalance for industrial lands. chemical products (II). Department of Food Science and Engineering, Tokyo University Kroon P, Ybema JR, Slanina J, Arends BG of Fisheries & Waseda University, Tokyo, (1994). Weighting factors for air emissions Japan. (in Dutch). ECN R 94-006, Petten, The Netherlands. Nedermark R, Wenzel H (1997), Resource consumption as assessment criteria in the Krozer JR (1992). Decision model for Envi- EDIP method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H ronmental Strategies of Corporations (eds.). Scientific background (in prepara- (DESC). TME, The Hague, The Nether- tion). London: Chapman and Hall. lands. Nichols P, Hauschild M, Potting J, White P Lindeijer E (1996). Part VI: Normalisation (lead authors) (1996). Part V: Impact assess- and valualtion. In: Udo de Haes (ed.). ment of non toxic pollution in life cycle Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. In: Udo de Haes (ed.). Towards a assessment. Society of Environmental Toxi- methodology for life cycle impact assess- cology and Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. ment. Society of Environmental Toxicology Brussels. and Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. 76 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

OECD (1996). Extended producer responsi- Schmidt A, Christiansen K, Pommer K (eds.) bility in the OECD area. OECD Environment (1994a). Metoder, vurderingsgrundlag og monographs No. 114. OECD/GD(96)48, fremgangsmåde. Livscyklusvurdering af nye Paris. materialer, dk-TEKNIK, Søborg.

Olesen J, Schmidt A, Petersen A (1997). Schmidt A, Drabæk I, Midtgaard U (1994b). Synliggørelse af produkters miljøegenskaber: Integrated environmental and occupational QFD og iscenesættelse af udviklingsprojekter. assessment of new materials - the Danish Arbejdsrapport for Miljøstyrelsen Nr. 4, 1997. Materials Technology Programme (MUP). National Institute of Occupational Health, Pedersen F, Tyle H, Niemelä JR, Guttmann Copenhagen. B, Lander L, Wedebrand A (1995). Environ- mental hazard classification. Data collection Schmidt-Bleek F (1994). Wieviel Umwelt and interpretation guide for substances to be braucht der Mensch ? Germany, Berlin: evaluated for classification as dangerous for Birkhaüser Verlag. the environment (2nd edition). TemaNord 1995:581. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Schmitz S, Oels H-J, Tiedemann A (1994). Ministers. Eco-balance for Drink Packaging. Federal Environmental office, III 2.5, revised edition Pommer K, Wesnæs MS (1995). Miljømæssig / June. kortlægning af emballager til øl og læske- drikke. Arbejdsrapport fra Miljøstyrelsen Nr. Schmitz S, Oels H-J, Tiedemann A (1994). 62, København. Life-cycle assessment for drinks packaging systems. Texte 19/96 Umweltsbundesamt, Potting J, Møller BT, Jensen AA (1997). Berlin. Work environment and LCA. LCANET Theme Report. SCS. Statement of qualifications, Scientific Certification Systems, Oakland, 1994. Pyle JA, Wuebbles D, Solomon S, Zvenigorodsky S (1991). Ozone depletion SETAC-Europe (1992). Life-cycle assessment. and chlorine loading potentials. World LCA Workshop, Leiden 2-3 December 1991. Meteorological Organisation: Scientific Society of Environmental Toxicology and assessment of stratospheric ozone: 1991 Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. Global ozone research and monitoring project. Report no. 25. Geneva. Solomon S, Albritton DL (1992). Time dependent ozone depletion potentials for short Rasmussen E (1997). Working environment and long-term forecasts. Nature 357:33-37. as assessment criteria in the EDIP method. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). Scientific Solomon S, Wuebbles D (lead authors) background (in preparation). London: (1995). Ozone depletion potentials, global Chapman and Hall. warming potentials and future chlorine/ bromine loading. In Albritton DL, Watson Rønning A, Hanssen OJ, Møller H (1995). RT, Aucamp PJ (eds.) Scientific assessment of Environmentally sound product develop- ozone depletion, 1994. World Meteorologi- ment of offshore coatings. ISBN: 82-7520- cal Organisation, Global Ozone Research 215-9. Østfold Research Foundation, and Monitoring Project - Report No. 37. Frederikstad, Norway. Geneva: WMO.

Ryding S-O (1995). Miljöanpassad SPOLD (1996). SPOLD data format (rev. produktudveckling. Industriförbundet. 1996.04.10). Society for the Promotion of Schaltegger S, Sturm A (1991). Methodik LCA Development (SPOLD). Brussels. der ökologishen Rechnungslegung in Unternehmen. WWZ-Studien nr. 33. Steen BA, Ryding S-O (1992). The EPS Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Zentrum der environmental counting method. IVL, Universität Basel, Switzerland, Basel. Gotenburg, Sweden.

Schmidt A, Christensen BH, Jensen AA Taylor AP, Postlethwaite D (1996). Overall (1996). Miljøvenlige komfurer og ovne. Business Impact Assessment (OBIA). Presen- Miljøprojekt Nr. 338. Miljøstyrelsen, tation Summaries, SETAC EUROPE 4th København. Symposium for Case Studies, Brussels, 3 December 1996. Methodological framework 77

Tellus Institute (1992). The Tellus Packaging Weidema BP (1994a). Product Life-Cycle Study. Boston, MA, USA. Impact Assessment as a communication issue. In: First Working Document on Life- Terwoert J (1994a). Proceedings of the Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology. Workshop Life Cycle Assessment and the SETAC-Europe WIA workshop 8-9 July, ETH, Working Environment. Chemiewinkel of the Zürich, Switzerland. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Weidema BP (1994b). Qualitative and Terwoert J (1994b).Workshop paper Life quantitative parameters in product impact Cycle Assessment and the Working Environ- assessment. Pp. 29-35 in Udo de Haes et al.: ment. Chemiewinkel of the University of Integrating impact assessment into LCA. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Proceedings of the LCA symposium held at the 4th SETAC-Europe Congress, April 11- Terwoert J (1994c). Occupational health 14, Brussels. from cradle to grave. Feasibility study of the integration of the work environment in Life Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (eds.). Cycle Assessment (LCA’s) of products. Environmental assessment of industrial Chemiewinkel of the University of Amster- products. Volume 1: Tools and case studies. dam, The Netherlands. Chapman & Hall, London. (Expected release April 1997). Tukker A (1994). Iso-utility functions as a tool for valuation in LCA. In: First Working Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Rasmussen E Document on Life-Cycle Impact Assessment (1996). Miljøvurdering af produkter. Methodology. SETAC-Europe WIA workshop Miljøstyrelsen og Dansk Industri, 8-9 July, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland. København.

Udo de Haes (ed.) (1996a). Towards a WICE (World Industry Council for the methodology for life cycle impact assess- Environment) (1994). Design for Environ- ment. Society of Environmental Toxicology ment. Paris. and Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. Wilson B, Jones B (1994). The Phosphate Udo de Haes HA (lead author) (1996b). Part report. Landbank Environmental Research I: Discussion of general principles and & Consulting, London, UK. guidelines for practical use. In: Udo de Haes (ed.). Towards a methodology for life cycle Zweers A, Van der Horst TJJ, Timmers G impact assessment. Society of Environmental (1992). The eco-design programme. Interim Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) - report of the pilot phase of the eco-design Europe. Brussels. programme. TNO Product Centre, Delft.

Udo de Haes HA, Bensahel J-F, Clift R, Økstad E, Larsen JA, Hanssen OJ (1994). Fussler CR, Griesshammer R, Jensen AA Environmentally sound product develop- (1994). Guidelines for the application of life ment of carbon lining. Project Report cycle assessment in the EU ecolabelling OR.30.95. Østfold Research Foundation, programme. Groupe des Sages. Final report Frederikstad, Norway. of the first phase. Leiden.

Udo de Haes HA, Bensahel J-F, Clift R, Griesshammer R, Jensen AA (1995). Res- earch needs in life cycle assessment for the EU ecolabelling programme. Groupe des Sages. Final report of second phase. Leiden.

VNCI (1991). Integrated substance chain management. Leidschendam.

Volkvein E, Klöppfer W, Gihr R (1996). The valuation step in LCA. Part II: A formalized method of prioritisation by expert panels. Submitted to Int. J. LCA. 78 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Appendix 4.1: Terminology

Terminology used in life cycle assessment as one product versus a competing product defined by ISO (ISO, 1997a; 1997b; 1997d) which performs the same function. and SETAC Europe (modified from Hei- jungs & Hofstetter, 1996). The list is prelimi- Completeness check Process of verifying that nary, as ISO work is still in progress. information from the different phases (inventory analysis, life cycle impact assess- Abiotic resource Object that can be extrac- ment ) are sufficient for interpretation to ted from the environment to serve as an reach conclusions input for the product system, and is distinguished from a biotic resource by its non- Conclusions and recommendations Conclu- living nature. sions summarise the identification and evaluation of significant environmental Allocation Partitioning the input or output issues. Recommendations are those features flows of a process to the product system that arise directly from conclusions, given under study. the goal of the study.

Ancillary input Material input that is used by Consistency check Process of verifying that the unit process producing the product, but the interpretation is done in accordance is not used directly as a part of the product. with the goal and scope definition, before conclusions are reached. Areas for protection Broad social values with respect to the environmental policy (e.g. Co-product Any of two or more products human health, ecological health, biodiver- coming from the same unit process. sity, intergenerational material welfare, aesthetic values). Data category Classificatory division of the input and output flows from a unit process Biotic resource Object that can be extracted or product system. from the environment to serve as an input for the product system, and that is distin- Data quality Nature or characteristics of guished from an abiotic resource by its living collected or integrated data. nature. Effect A specific change in human health, in Characterization Second element within eco-system or the global resource situation as impact assessment succeeding the classifica- a consequence of a specific impact. tion element and preceding valuation, in which analysis/quantification, and aggrega- Elementary flow 1) Material or energy tion of the impacts within the chosen impact entering the system being studied, which categories takes place. has been drawn from the environment without previous human transformation 2) Characterization factor (exposure factor, Material or energy leaving the system being effect factor, exposure-effect actor, equiva- studied, which is discarded into the envi- lence factor) A factor which expresses the ronment without subsequent human trans- contribution of a unit environmental inter- formation. vention (such as the atmospheric emission of 1 kg CFC-11) to the chosen impact catego- Energy flow Input flow to or output flow ries (such as global warming and ozone from a unit process or product system depletion). measured in units of energy.

Classification First element within impact Environment Entire surroundings and assessment, which attributes the environmen- conditions in which individuals, populations tal interventions listed in the inventory table and organisations operate and interrelate. to a number of selected impact categories. The surroundings include air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna and humans Comparative assertion Environmental claim and extends from within an organisation’s regarding the superiority or equivalence of location to the global system. Terminology 79

Environmental aspect Element of an organi- biodiversity etc.). This means that all steps in sation’s activities, products or services which the cause-effect chain are impacts while can interact with the environment. effects are the chosen endpoints.

Environmental index Resulting score repres- Impact assessment (life cycle impact assess- enting the perceived harmfulness to the ment) Quantitative and/or qualitative environment, obtained by quantitative process to characterise and assess the effects weighting as a result of the valuation element. of the environmental interventions identified in the inventory table. The impact Environmental intervention (environmental assessment component consists in principle flow, environmental burden, stressor, ele- of the following three or four elements: mentary flow) Exchange between the atmos- classification, characterization, (normalisa- phere (the “economy”) and the environment tion,) and valuation. including resource use, emissions to air, water, or soil. Impact category (problem type, environmental problem, environmental theme) Chosen Environmental issue Inputs and outputs level in the cause-effect chain of the consid- (results from the LCI) and - if additionally ered environmental effect type, relating conducted-environmental indicators (results somehow to the areas for protection. The from the LCIA), which are defined in impact score profile gives the scores for the general terms as being important in the goal impact categories. and scope definition. Impact score Contribution of a product Evaluation It is the second step within the system to one impact category. life cycle interpretation including completeness check, sensitivity check, consistency Impact score profile (environmental profile) check, other checks. List of impact scores for all impact categories. Feedstock energy Gross combustion heat of raw material inputs, which are not used as an Indicator A simplification and distillation of energy source, to a product system. complex information intended as a summary description of conditions or trends to assist Final product Product which requires no decisions. additional transformation prior to its use. Input Material or energy which enters a unit Fugitive releases Uncontrolled emission to process - material may include raw materials air, water or land. and products.

Functional unit Quantified performance of a Interested party Individual or group con- product system for use as a reference unit in cerned with or affected by the environmental a life cycle assessment study. performance of a product system, or by the results of the life cycle assessment. Goal and scope definition Activity that initiates an LCA, defining its purpose, Intermediate product Input or output from a boundaries, limitations, main lines and unit process which requires further transfor- procedures (see above). mation.

Impact The consequences for health, for the Inventory table List of environmental enti- well-being of flora and fauna or for the future ties added to and taken from the environ- availability of natural resources, attributable ment (environmental interventions) through to the input and output streams of a system. economic actions which are directly caused by processes within a product system. It is the Impact vs. effect Most of the environmental main result of the inventory analysis. problems treated in present characterization methods are quantified at the level of envir- Life cycle Consecutive and interlinked stages onmental impacts (e.g., ozone formation, H+ of a product system, from raw material deposition, ozone depletion, rise of radiate acquisition or generation of natural re- forcing). Environmental effects are the sources to the final disposal. chosen endpoints within these impact chains (e.g., reduced human health, reduced Life cycle assessment Compilation and growth of crop, dying of plants, reduced evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the 80 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

potential environmental impacts of a prod- Raw material Primary or secondary material uct system throughout its life cycle. that is used to produce a product.

Life cycle impact assessment Phase of life Recycling, closed loop Recovery of material cycle assessment aimed at understanding and on the same factory that produced the evaluating the magnitude and significance of material. This kind of recovery require a the potential environmental impacts of a “take back” arrangement. product system. Recycling, open loop Recovery of material - Life cycle interpretation Phase of life cycle but not on the same factory as produced the assessment in which the findings of either material. This kind of recovery require a the inventory analysis or the impact assess- central collection of used material. ment, or both, are combined in line with the defined goal and scope in order to reach Sensitivity analysis Systematic procedure for conclusions and recommendations. estimating the effects on the outcome of a study of the chosen methods and data and Life cycle inventory analysis Phase of life cycle uncertainty therein. assessment involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs, for a System boundary Interface between a given product system throughout its life cycle. product system and the environment or other product systems. Normalisation An optional element within impact assessment which involves relating all Transparency Open, comprehensive and impact scores of a functional unit in the im- understandable presentation of information. pact score profile to a reference situation. The reference situation may differ per im- Uncertainty analysis A systematic procedure pact category, and is the contribution of a to ascertain and quantify the uncertainty certain period of time to the problem type at introduced in the results of a LCI due to the hand. Normalisation results in a normalised cumulative effects of input uncertainty and impact score profile which consists of nor- data variability. It uses either ranges or malised impact scores. probability distributions to determine uncertainty in the results. Output Material or energy which leaves a unit process - material may include raw Unit-process Smallest portion of a product materials, products, emissions and waste. system for which data are collected when performing a life cycle assessment. Practitioner Individual or group of people that conducts a life cycle assessment. Valuation/weighting Last element within impact assessment following the characteriza- Process energy Energy input required to a tion/normalisation element, in which the unit process to operate the process or results of the characterization/normalisa- equipment within the process excluding tion, in particular the (normalised) impact production and delivery energy. scores, are weighted against each other in a quantitative and/or qualitative way in order Process flow diagram Chart containing label to be able to make the impact information led boxes connected by lines with directional more decision-friendly. This is an element arrows to illustrate the unit process or sub- which necessarily involves qualitative or system included in the product system and quantitative valuations which are not only the interrelationships between those unit based on natural sciences. For instance, processes. political and/or ethical values can be used in Product system Collection of materially and this element. The valuation can result in an energetically connected unit processes which environmental index. performs one or more defined functions - in the ISO standard, the term “product” used Valuation factor Factor in the evaluation alone not only includes product systems but element transforming the impact score also can include service systems. profile in an environmental index.

Production and delivery of energy The Waste Any output from the product system energy input into processes which extract, which is disposed of. generate, process, refine and deliver process energy. 81

Appendix 4.2: Impact categories

Description of impact categories Deposits such as mineral ores are considered The different impact categories mentioned to be limited resources because they are not in the preliminary ISO list supplemented renewable within a relevant time horizon. with relevant other categories e.g. “work According to US Bureau of Mines the environment” will be described briefly below mineral deposits can be divided into known with examples on potential effects: deposits and not yet found deposits. The known deposits can be divided into ap- • abiotic resources proved deposits and supposed deposits and the not yet found deposits can be divided • biotic resources into hypothetical and speculative deposits. The known deposits constitute a reserve that • land use is profitable to extract and a reserve base that is marginal, profitable or sub-economic • global warming to extract (Møller & Schmidt, 1994). For a number of minerals, metals and fossil fuels • stratospheric ozone depletion the “reserve to use” ratio can be used in the assessment of the actual impact category • ecotoxicological impacts (Lindfors et al., 1995). The weighting factor

Wij can be expressed as: • human toxicological impacts 1 G W = _ = _ j ij U R • photochemical oxidant formation j j

where Rj is the reserve of mineral j and Gj is

• acidification the current global consumption and Uj is the reserve to use ratio. • eutrophication Biotic resources • work environment Abiotic resources cover one subcategory (Finnveden, 1996): It shall be stressed that international consensus not has been reached for treatment of all • funds e.g. fauna (fish etc.) and flora the impact categories, and that the description of different approaches can not be The biotic funds can be harvested in a non- considered as complete but as selected sustainable and a sustainable way. As an examples. example, harvesting of forests can be mentioned. In many areas (e.g. rain forests in the Equivalence factors for relating relevant tropics) the harvest of the wood is faster than inputs and outputs to the impact categories the growth, leading to resource depletion or will be presented in tables. References to increased competition between species. In more detailed descriptions of the impact other areas (e.g. softwood forests in Scandi- categories and practical uses of the different navia) the harvest of wood is slower than the categories will be given, where possible. planting and growth of trees. Overuse of environmental resources may also influence Abiotic resources ecosystem e.g. the species or genetic diver- Abiotic resources cover three subcategories sity, leading to irreversible loss of genetic (Finnveden, 1996): material.

• deposits e.g. fossil fuels, mineral ores, Land use aquifers, sediments, clay, peat, gravel etc. Land use and transformation can be seen from two perspectives (Finnveden, 1996): • funds e.g. ground water, lake water, soil • land as a resource for humans, i.e. area • natural flow resources e.g. air, water, for e.g. food production solar radiation and ocean currents • land use related to ecosystem and land- 82 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

scape degradation, landscape fragmenta- total photochemical formation of ozone by

tion, desiccation, habitat alterations and oxidation of gas i, and POCPCO express the impacts on e.g. biodiversity formation of ozone by oxidation of CO.

Land use and transformation can be a GWP for known greenhouse gases are shown reversible effect, but within small to large in Table 4-5. time frames. The potential greenhouse effect of a process Global warming can be estimated by calculating the product Global warming - or the “greenhouse effect” of the amount of emitted greenhouse gas - is the effect of increasing temperature in per kg produced material and the potential

the lower atmosphere. The lower atmos- for greenhouse effect given in kg CO2- phere is normally heated by incoming equivalents per kg for each gas. Finally, the radiation from the outer atmosphere (from contribution to the potential greenhouse the sun). A part of the radiation is normally effect from each gas has to be summarised. reflected by the soil surface but the content This calculation procedure can be expressed

of carbon dioxide (CO2), and other “green- mathematically as:

house” gasses (e.g. methane (CH4), nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), chlorofluorocarbons etc.) in Potential greenhouse effect (kg CO2-eq.) =

the atmosphere reflects the IR-radiation i GWPi x mi resulting in the greenhouse effect i.e. an increase of temperature in the lower atmos- If a specific time horizon cannot be chosen phere to a level above normal. The possible and justified in the goal definition it is consequences of the greenhouse effect suggested to estimate the greenhouse effect include an increase of the temperature level based on GWPs for 20, 100 as well as 500 leading to melting of the polar ice caps, years (Lindfors et al., 1995c). resulting in elevated sea levels. The increasing temperature level may also result in Stratospheric ozone depletion regional climate changes. Decomposition of the stratospheric ozone layer will cause increased incoming UV- The potential global warming or greenhouse radiation leading to impacts on humans such effect is normally quantified by using global as increased levels of e.g. skin cancer, cata- warming potentials (GWP) for substances racts and decreased immune defence, but

having the same effect as CO2 in reflection of also impacts on natural organisms and heat radiation. GWP for greenhouse gases ecosystems e.g. plankton in the South Pole

are expressed as CO2-equivalents i.e. their region, where the decomposition of the effect are expressed relatively to the effect of ozone layer is already significant.

CO2. Global warming potentials are developed by the “Intergovernmental Panel on The stratospheric ozone layer occurs at an Climatic Change” (IPCC) for a number of altitude from 10 - 40 km, with maximum substances (Albritton et al., 1996). GWPs are concentration from 15 - 25 km. The maximal

normally based on modelling and are generation of stratospheric ozone (O3) occur quantified for time horizons of 20, 100 or in the top of the stratosphere at the altitude 500 years for a number of known green- of 40 km as a result of a reaction of molecu-

house gasses (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs, lar oxygen (O2) and atomic oxygen (O). The HCFCs, HFCs and several halogenated reaction depends on the UV-radiation used hydrocarbons etc.). in the decomposition of oxygen and the availability of other molecules used in the Hauschild & Wenzel (1997a) suggest model- absorption of excess energy from the decom- ling and quantification of GWP for indirect position process. effects of e.g. VOCs of petrochemical origin by using their photochemical ozone creation The decomposition of ozone is enhanced by potential (POCP) as shown in the following the stratospheric input of anthropogenic formula: halogenated compounds (e.g. CFCs, HCFCs, halons etc.). Ozone depletion potentials POCP gas(i) (ODP) have been presented by the World GWP(O3)gas(i) = GWP(O3)CO POCPCO Meteorological Organisation (WMO) for a number of halogenated compounds (Solo-

where GWP(O3)gas(i) express the GWP of mon & Wuebbles, 1995; Pyle et al., 1991).

tropospheric oxidation of gas i, GWP(O3)CO The ODPs are given as CFC-11 equivalents

express GWP of CO, POCPgas(i) express the i.e.: Impact categories 83

Table 4-5

Global warming potentials (GWP) given in kg CO2-eq./kg gas (Albritton et al., 1996).

Substance Formula GWP, GWP, GWP, Life time, 20 years 100 years 500 years years

Carbon dioxide CO2 1 1 1 150 Methane CH4 62 25 7.5 10 Nitrogen dioxide NO2 290 320 180 120

Tetrachloromethane CCl4 2,000 1,400 500 42 Trichloromethane CHCl3 15 5 1 0.55 Dichloromethane CH2 Cl2 28 9 3 0.41 Chloromethane CH3 Cl 92 25 9 0.7 1,1,1-Trichloroethane CH3 CCl3 360 110 35 5.4

Tetrafluoromethane CF4 4,100 6,300 9,800 50,000 Hexafluoroethane C2F6 8,200 12,500 19,100 10,000

CFC-11 CFCl3 5,000 4,000 1,400 50 CFC-12 CF2Cl2 7,900 8,500 4,200 102 CFC-13 CF3Cl 8,100 11,700 13,600 640 CFC-113 CF2ClCFCl2 5,000 5,000 2,300 85 CFC-114 CF2ClCF2Cl 6,900 9,300 8,300 300 CFC-115 CF2ClCF3 6,200 9,300 13,000 1,700

HCFC-22 CHF2Cl 4,300 1,700 520 13 HCFC-123 CF3CHCl2 300 93 29 1.4 HCFC-124 CF3CHFCl 1,500 480 150 5.9 HCFC-141b CFCl2CH3 1,800 630 200 9.4 HCFC-142b CF2ClCH3 4,200 2,000 630 19.5 HCFC-225ca C3F5HCl2 550 170 52 2.5 HCFC-225cb C3F5HCl2 1,700 530 170 6.6

HFC-23 CHF3 9,200 12,100 9,900 250 HFC-32 CH2F2 1,800 580 180 6 HFC-43-10me C5H2F10 3,300 1,600 520 21 HFC-125 CF3CHF2 4,800 3,200 1,100 36 HFC-134 CHF2CHF2 3,100 1,200 370 12 HFC-134a CH2FCF3 3,300 1,300 420 14 HFC-143 CHF2CH2F 950 290 90 3.5 HFC-143 CF3CH3 5,200 4,400 1,600 55 HFC-152a CHF2CH3 460 140 44 1.5 HFC-227ea C3HF7 4,500 3,300 1,100 41 HFC-236fa C3H2F6 6,100 8,000 6,600 250 HFC-245ca C3H3F5 1,900 610 190 7

Halon 1301 CF3Br 6,200 5,600 2,200 65 Sulfur hexafluoride SF6 16,500 24,900 36,500 3,200 Carbon monoxide CO - - - months non-Methane VOC - - - - days-months

Nitrogen oxides NOx - - - days 84 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

modelled stratospehic ozone depletion due to compound i against potential toxic or inhibitory effects ODP = 1 modelled stratospehic ozone depletion due to same quantity of CFC-11 but also burdening the surroundings.

ODPs are presented in Table 4-6 for CFCs, One way of assessing the potential HCFCs and halons. ecotoxicological effects of chemical substances is to use the criteria for classification The potential depletion of stratospheric of substances as “Dangerous for the Environ- ozone as an effect of certain process can be ment” (indicated by the symbol N) (EEC, estimated by summarising the ODPs: 1993):

Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (kg • biodegradation

CFC-11 equivalents) = Si ODPi ´ mi • bioaccumulation Ecotoxicological impacts Ecotoxicological impacts depend on expo- • aquatic toxicity (acute/chronic) sures to and effects of chemical and biological substances. The potential effects on • terrestrial toxicity ecosystems depend on the actual emission and fate of the specific substances emitted to Criteria already exist for assessing biodegra- the environment. An effect factor is pro- dation, bioaccumulation and aquatic effects posed in the following formula for effect whereas no formalised criteria have been scores (S). developed for terrestrial toxicity. Guidance to the actual assessment procedure can be nm = mnm n found in Pedersen et al. (1995). Si Ei Fi Mi A number of different methods addressing M is the emission of a substance i to an initial chemical fate, route of exposure and toxico- medium n (air, water or soil), E is effect logical effect into account have been devel- factor for a substance i in the medium m oped: (air, water, soil or food chain), and F is fate and exposure factor for a substance i emitted • Quantitative approach with partial fate to an initial medium n and transferred to analysis (Lindfors et al., 1995; Finnveden compartment m. et al., 1992)

The fate of chemical substances depend on: • MUP-method (Jensen et al., 1994)

• degradation rate (aerobic/anaerobic, • EDIP-method (Hauschild et al., 1997a) hydrolytic/photolytic) • The “ecotoxicity potential approach” • bioaccumulation (Guinée & Heijungs, 1993; Guinée et al., 1996) • evaporation • The “provisional method” (Heijungs et • deposition al., 1992)

The degradation rate will affect both the The present methods are described briefly in possibility of the substance to reacting the Table 4-7. target organism and the kind of toxic effect. Readily degradable substances can show International consensus on specific methods acute toxic effects depending on the degra- for assessing ecotoxicological impacts has dation type and rate in the actual medium, not yet been reached and development of whereas substances which are not readily some of the methods is still in progress. It is degradable can bioaccumulate in the en- therefore recommended to use different vironment and/or show chronic toxic effects. methods when assessing potential ecotoxi- The rates of evaporation/deposition will cological impacts for a specific data-set. affect the transfer of substances between the different mediums e.g. air, water, soil or food Human toxicological impacts chains), e.g. in aeration of leads to evapora- The impact category “human toxicological tion of volatile substances from the water, impacts” is another of the most difficult and thereby protecting the biological proc- categories to handle. Human toxicological esses in the wastewater treatment plant impacts depend on exposure to and effects Impact categories 85

Table 4-6 Ozone depletion potentials (OPD) given in kg CFC-11 equivalents/kg gas (Solomon & Wuebbles, 1995; Pyle et al., 1991; Solomon & Albritton, 1992).

Substance Formula Life time, Total ODP 5 10 15 20 30 40 100 500 years years years years years years years years years

CFC-11 CFCl3 50±5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CFC-12 CF2Cl2 102 0.82 ------

CFC-113 C CF2ClCFCl2 85 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.78 1.09

FC-114 CF2ClCF2Cl 300 0.85 ------

CFC-115 CF2ClCF3 1,700 0.40 ------

Tetrachloromethane CCl4 42 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.23 1.22 1.20 1.14 1.08

HCFC-22 CHF2Cl 13.3 0.04 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.05

HCFC-123 CF3CHCl2 1.4 0.014 0.51 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02

HCFC-124 CF3CHFCl 5.9 0.03 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02

HCFC-141b CFCl2CH3 9.4 0.10 0.54 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.13 0.11

HCFC-142b CF2ClCH3 19.5 0.05 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.07

HCFC-225ca C3F5HCl2 2.5 0.02 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02

HCFC-225cb C3F5HCl2 6.6 0.02 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.03

1,1,1-Trichlorethan CH3CCl3 5.4±0.4 0.12 1.03 0.75 0.57 0.45 0.32 0.26 0.15 0.12

Halon 1301 CF3Br 65 12 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.7 10.8 11.5 12.5

Halon 1211 CF2ClBr 20 5.1 11.3 10.5 9.7 9.0 8.0 7.1 4.9 4.1

Halon 1202 CF2Br2 ~1.25 12.8 12.2 11.6 11.0 10.1 9.4 7.0 5.9

Halon 2402 CF2BrCF2Br 25 ~7 ------

HBFC 1201 CF2HBr ~1.4 ------

HBFC 2401 CF3CHFBr ~0.25 ------

HBFC 2311 CF3CHClBr ~0.14 ------

Methylbromid CH3Br 1.3 0.64 15.3 5.4 3.1 2.3 1.5 1.2 0.69 0.57

Table 4-7 Different methods for the assessment of ecotoxicological impacts.

Method Effects concerned Criteria/comments Reference

Quantitative approach 1) Acute toxicity EEC criteria for degradability. Lindfors et al. (1995)/ with partial fate analysis 2) Acute toxicity for not Finnveden et al. (1992) based on EEC directives readily degradable compounds 3) Potential bioconcentration 4) Potential bioconcentration for not readily degradable compounds

MUP-method 1) Acute toxicity EEC criteria for classification Jensen et al. (1994) 2) Potential bioconcentration of substances as dangerous 3) Biodegradability for the environment (EEC, 1993).

Quantitative approach 1) Acute, aquatic toxicity Critical volume. The fate analysis Hauschild et al. (1997a) with partial fate analysis 2) Chronic, aquatic toxicity includes evaporation, deposition, 3) Chronic, terrestrial toxicity and degradation. The ecotoxicity 4) Acute toxicity to wastewater factors are based on PNEC for treatment plants acute aquatic, chronic aquatic and terrestrial toxicity, and LOEC for micro-organisms in wastewater treatment plants.

The “ecotoxicity 1) Terrestrial ecotoxicity Guinée & Heijungs (1993)/ potential approach” 2) Aquatic ecotoxicity Guinée et al. (1996)

The “provisional 1) Terrestrial ecotoxicity The provisional classification factors Heijungs et al. (1992) method” 2) Aquatic ecotoxicity for ecotoxicity are derived from

NOEC or LC50 multiplied by a safety factor. The classification factors are expressed by m3 water/mg substance and kg soil/mg substance leading to results as m3 polluted water and kg polluted soil . 86 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

of chemical and biological substances. The methods when assessing potential toxicologi- potential effect on humans depends as for cal impacts for a specific data-set. ecotoxicological impacts on the actual emission and fate of the specific substances Photochemical oxidant formation (smog) emitted to the environment. Photochemical ozone formation is caused by degradation of organic compounds (VOC) The human toxicological effects can be: in the presence of light and nitrogen oxide

(NOx) (“smog” as a local impact and “tropo- • acute toxicological effects spheric ozone” as a regional impact). The biological effects of photochemical ozone • irritation can be attributed to biochemical effects of reactive ozone compounds. Exposure of • allergenic reactions plants to ozone may result in damage of the leaf surface, leading to damage of the • genotoxicity photosynthetic function, discolouring of the leaves, dieback of leaves and finally the • carcinogenicity whole plant. Exposure of humans to ozone may result in eye irritation, respiratory • neurotoxicity problems, and chronic damage of the respiratory system. • teratogenicity The reaction can be described in a simpli- A number of different methods trying more fied way in terms of four steps (Nichols et al., or less to take chemical fate, route of expo- 1996; Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997c): sure and toxicological effect into account has been developed. A screening procedure 1. Reaction between organic compounds can be used to focus on the most dangerous (VOC) and hydroxyl radicals (OH) to substances which can be assessed by using a form organic peroxy radicals more detailed procedure (e.g. Hauschild et al., 1997b). 2. The peroxy radicals react with nitrogen oxide (NO) to form nitrogen dioxide

• Critical volumes (BUS, 1984; Haber- (NO2) satter, 1991)

3. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) react in the • The “provisional method” (Heijungs et presence of sunlight to form nitrogen al., 1992) oxide (NO) and oxygen atoms

• The Tellus method (Tellus Institute, 4. Atomic oxygen reacts with oxygen (O2)

1992) to form ozone (O3)

• The MUP-method (Jelnes et al., 1994; The photochemical ozone formation can be Schmidt et al., 1994b)) quantified by using photochemical ozone creation potentials (POCP) for organic • The “toxicity potential approach” compounds. POCPs for organic compounds

(Guinée & Heijungs, 1993; Guinée et al., are expressed as ethylene (C2H4) equivalents 1996) i.e. their impacts are expressed relative to

the effect of C2H4. POCP-values can be • The “critical surface-time (Jolliet calculated in different ways as proposed by 1994a;b; Jolliet & Crettaz, 1996) Andersson-Sköld et al. (1992) and by Heijungs et al. (1992). Andersson-Sköld et • The EDIP method (Hauschild et al., al. (1992) give the POCPs for three different 1997b) scenarios:

The present methods are described briefly in 1. Maximum differences in concentration Table 4-8.

2. Ordinary Swedish background (NOx) International consensus on specific methods during 0 - 4 days for assessing toxicological impacts has not

yet been reached and development of some 3. High NOx background during 0 - 4 days of the methods is still in progress. It is therefore recommended to use different Heijungs et al. (1992) provide POCPs Impact categories 87

Table 4-8 Different methods for the assessment of human toxicological impacts.

Method Effects concerned Criteria/comments Reference

Critical volumes Water and air pollution The critical air volume are based on MIK-values BUS (1984)/ (“Maximale Immissions-Konzentration”) or MAK- Habersatter (1991) values (“Maximale Arbeitsplatzkonzentration”). The critical water volume are based on (Swiss) directives for emissions into surface water.

The “provisional Human toxicity (not The provisional classification factors for human Heijungs et al. (1992) method” specified) - exposure by toxicity are derived from TCL (acceptable air, water and soil concentration in air), AQG (air quality guideline), TDI (tolerable daily intake) or ADI (acceptable daily intake). The classification factors are expressed by kg body weight/kg substance.

The Tellus method Carcinogenic potency Classification factors for carcinogenic potency is Tellus Institute (1992) Non-carcinogenic effects expressed as “isophorone equivalents” and for Combined non-carcinogenic effects as “xylene equivalents”. Classification factors for the combined effects are derived from permissible exposure levels for the two effects.

The MUP-method Irritation The method is based on exposure estimated. Jelnes et al. (1994)/ Allergenic reactions The method cover a screening LCA with Schmidt et al. (1994b) Organotoxicity qualitative results. Genotoxicity Carcinogenicity Neurotoxicity Teratogenicity

The “toxicity Guinée & Heijungs potential approach” (1993)/Guinée et al. (1996)

The “critical Jolliet (1994a;b) Jolliet & surface-time” Crettaz, 1996)

Quantitative approach Acute toxicity (inhalation) Critical volume. The fate analysis include Hauschild et al. (1997b) Acute toxicity (oral intake) evaporation, deposition, and degradation. The human toxicology factors are based

on LC50/LD50, LCLo/LDLo (Lethal Concentration/ Dose Low) or LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse

Effect Level) for test animals, or LCLo/LDLo,, NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) or LOAEL for humans with partial fate analysis

calculated as the contribution to ozone Lindfors et al. (1995a; 1995c) in the Nordic formation at peak ozone formation based on guideline for life cycle assessment. If the average of data from three different loca- inventory data do not make it possible tions in Europe. POCPs according to differ- calculating total POCP based on weighting ent models are given in Table 4-9. factors due to lack of information on the composition of the VOCs, it is suggested that The photochemical ozone creation potential the data be aggregated in the following of certain processes can be estimated by subcategories: summarising the POCPs for the VOCs:

1. Nitrogen oxides NOx

POCP (kg ethylene equivalents) = Si POCPi ´ mi 2. Hydrocarbons (HC) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) A method considering only POCPs for VOCs is not sufficient to describe the impact 3. Carbon monoxide (CO) category. A possible approach can be to divide the category in two subcategories: one 4. Methane (CH4). category for nitrogen oxides (aggregated as

NOx) and one category for VOC (aggregated Acidification with POCP as weighting factor using an Acidification is caused by releases of protons appropriate scenario or all the four above in the terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. In mentioned scenarios) as proposed by the terrestrial ecosystem the effects are seen 88 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Andersson-Sköld et al. (1992) Heijungs et al. (1992)

Compound Maximum Ordinary Swedish High NOx Average for Range difference in background concentration three European concentration during 0-4 days during 0-4days locations

Alkanes Methane - - - 0.007 0.000-0.030 Ethane 0.173 0.126 0.121 0.082 0.020-0.300 Propane 0.604 0.503 0.518 0.420 0.160-1.240 n-Butane 0.554 0.467 0.485 0.410 0.150-1.150 i-Butane 0.331 0.411 0.389 0.315 0.190-0.590 n-Pentane 0.612 0.298 0.387 0.408 0.090-1.050 i-Pentane 0.360 0.314 0.345 0.296 0.120-0.680 n-Hexane 0.784 0.452 0.495 0.421 0.100-1.510 2-Methylpentane 0.712 0.529 0.565 0.524 0.190-1.400 3-Methylpentane 0.647 0.409 0.457 0.431 0.110-1.250 2,2-Dimethylbutane - - - 0.251 0.120-0.490 2,3-Dimethylbutane - - - 0.384 0.250-0.650 n-Heptane 0.791 0.518 0.592 0.529 0.130-1.650 2-Methylhexane - - - 0.492 0.110-1.590 3-Methylhexane - - - 0.492 0.110-1.570 n-Octane 0.698 0.461 0.544 0.493 0.120-1.510 2-Methylheptane 0.691 0.457 0.524 0.469 0.120-1.460 n-Nonane 0.633 0.351 0.463 0.469 0.100-1.480 2-Methyloctane 0.669 0.454 0.523 0.505 0.120-1.470 n-Decane 0.719 0.422 0.509 0.464 0.080-1.560 2-Methylnonane 0.719 0.423 0.498 0.448 0.080-1.530 n-Undecane 0.662 0.386 0.476 0.436 0.080-1.440 n-Duodecane 0.576 0.311 0.452 0.412 0.070-1.380 Average - - - 0.398 0.114-1.173

Halogenated hydrocarbons Methylene chloride 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000-0.030

Chloroform (CHCl3) 0.007 0.004 0.003 - -

Methylchloroform 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000-0.010

Trichloroethylene 0.086 0.111 0.091 0.066 0.010-0.130

Tetrachloroethylene 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.005 0.000-0.020

Allyl chloride (CH2CHCH2Cl) 0.561 0.483 0.667 - -

Average ---0.021 0.003-0.048

Alcohols Methanol 0.165 0.213 0.178 0.123 0.090-0.210 Ethanol 0.446 0.225 0.317 0.268 0.040-0.890 i-Propanol 0.173 0.203 0.188 - - Butanol 0.655 0.214 0.404 - - i-Butanol 0.388 0.255 0.290 - - Butane-2-diol 0.288 0.066 0.216 - - Average --- 0.196 0.065-0.550

Aldehydes Formaldehyde 0.424 0.261 0.379 0.421 0.220-0.580 Acetaldehyde 0.532 0.186 0.615 0.527 0.330-1.220 Propionaldehyde 0.655 0.170 0.652 0.603 0.280-1.600 Butyraldehyde 0.640 0.171 0.597 0.568 0.160-1.600 i-Butyraldehyde 0.583 0.300 0.677 0.631 0.380-1.280 Valeraldehyde 0.612 0.321 0.686 0.686 0.000-2.680 Acroleine 1.201 0.832 0.827 - - Benzaldehyde - - - 0.334 (-0.82)-(-0.12) Average --0.443 0.079-1.263

Ketones Acetone 0.173 0.124 0.160 0.178 0.100-0.270 Methyl ethyl ketone 0.388 0.178 0.346 0.473 0.170-0.800 Methyl i-butyl ketone 0.676 0.318 0.666 - - Average ---0.326 0.135-0.535 Impact categories 89

Andersson-Sköld et al. (1992) Heijungs et al. (1992)

Compound Maximum Ordinary Swedish High NOx Average for Range difference in background concentration three European concentration during 0-4 days during 0-4days locations

Esters Dimethylester 0.058 0.067 0.046 - - Methyl acrylate - - - 0.025 0.000-0.070 Ethyl acetate 0.295 0.294 0.286 0.218 0.110-0.560 i-Propyl acetate - - - 0.215 0.140-0.360 n-Butyl acetate 0.439 0.320 0.367 0.323 0.140-0.910 i-Butyl acetate 0.288 0.353 0.345 0.332 0.210-0.590 Average ---0.223 0.120-0.498

Olefins Ethene 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Propene 0.734 0.599 1.060 1.030 0.750-1.630 1-Butene 0.799 0.495 0.983 0.959 0.570-1.850 2-Butene 0.784 0.436 1.021 0.992 0.820-1.570 1-Pentene 0.727 0.424 0.833 1.059 0.400-2.880 2-Pentene 0.770 0.381 0.965 0.930 0.650-1.600 2-Methyl-1-butene 0.691 0.181 0.717 0.777 0.520-1.130 2-Methyl-2-butene 0.935 0.453 0.784 0.779 0.610-1.020 3-Methyl-1-butene - - - 0.895 0.600-1.540 Isobutene 0.791 0.580 0.648 0.634 0.580-0.760 Average ---0.906 0.650-1.498

Acetylenes Acetylene 0.273 0.368 0.291 0.168 0.100-0.420

Aromatics Benzene 0.317 0.402 0.318 0.189 0.110-0.450 Toluene 0.446 0.470 0.565 0.563 0.410-0.830 o-Xylene 0.424 0.167 0.598 0.666 0.410-0.970 m-Xylene 0.583 0.474 0.884 0.993 0.780-1.350 p-Xylene 0.612 0.472 0.796 0.888 0.630-1.800 Ethylbenzene 0.532 0.504 0.621 0.593 0.350-1.140 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene 0.698 0.292 0.868 1.170 0.760-1.750 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.683 0.330 0.938 1.200 0.860-1.760 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 0.691 0.330 0.989 1.150 0.740-1.740 o-Ethyltoluene 0.597 0.408 0.637 0.668 0.310-1.300 m-Ethyltoluene 0.626 0.401 0.729 0.794 0.410-1.400 p-Ethyltoluene 0.626 0.443 0.682 0.725 0.360-1.350 n-Propylbenzene 0.511 0.454 0.531 0.492 0.250-1.100 i-Propylbenzene 0.511 0.523 0.594 0.565 0.350-1.050 Average ---0.761 0.481-1.258

Other Methylcyclohexane 0.403 0.386 0.392 - - Isoprene 0.532 0.583 0.768 - - Dimethylether 0.288 0.343 0.286 - - Propylene glycole methyl ether 0.770 0.491 0.497 - - Propylene glycole methyl ether acetate 0.309 0.157 0.143 - - Carbonmonoxide 0.036 0.040 0.032 - -

Table 4-9 Photochemical ozone creation potentials different organic compounds 90 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

in softwood forests (e.g. spruce) as ineffi- the value of the utilisation of the aquatic cient growth and as a final consequence ecosystem. dieback of the forest. These effects are mainly seen in Scandinavia and in the The primary effect of surplus nitrogen and middle/eastern part of Europe. In the phosphorus in aquatic ecosystems is growth aquatic ecosystem the effects are seen as of algae. The secondary effect is decomposi- (clear), acid lakes without any wildlife. These tion of dead organic material (e.g. algae) effects are mainly seen in Scandinavia. and anthropogenic organic substances. The Buildings, constructions, sculptures and decomposition of organic material is an other objects worthy of preservation are also oxygen consuming process leading to damaged by e.g. acid rain. decreasing oxygen saturation and sometimes anaerobic conditions. The anaerobic condi- Substances are considered to have an acidifi- tions in the sediment at the bottom of lakes cation effect if they result in (Hauschild & or other inland waters may furthermore Wenzel, 1997d): result in production of hydrogen sulfide

(H2S) which may lead to “bottom up” inci- • Supply or release of hydrogen ions (H+) dents and liberation of toxic hydrogen in the environment sulfide to the surrounding water. The possible effects of the emissions leading to • Leaching of the corresponding anions eutrophication depend on the receiving from the concerned system waters i.e. some recipients are sensitive to nutrient supply while others are not. The potential effects are strongly dependent on the nature of the receiving ecosystem e.g. The effects of eutrophication of terrestrial

nitrogen oxides (NOx) can be fixed in the ecosystem are seen on changes in function ecosystem due to uptake in plants. This and diversity of species in nutrient poor problem can be managed by using two ecosystems as heaths, dune heaths, raised scenarios as suggested by Lindfors et al. bogs etc. and they are caused by atmospheric (1995a). In the two scenarios the acidifica- deposition of nitrogen compounds.

tion potential from NOx and NH3 are calculated as zero and as the theoretical maxi- Lindfors et al. (1995c) present two methods mum value respectively. Lindfors et al. to calculate the eutrophication potential: 1) (1995c) recommend that the following a separate aggregation method and 2) a

substances should be considered: SO2, NOx, scenario-based approach. The separate

NH3 and HCl but also other substances aggregation method divides the loadings in having a proton releasing effect have to be four subcategories to be calculated sepa- considered (i.e. other sulfur compounds and rately: other acids). The acidification potential

(AP) can be estimated as SO2 equivalents or 1. Organic material to water measured as + as mole hydrogen (H ). The acidification BOD5 potentials for acidifying substances are given in Table 4-10. 2. Total-N to water as kg N

The potential acidification effect of a given 3. Total-P to water as kg P process can be estimated by summarising the acidification potentials for the actual sub- 4. Total-N to air as kg N stances: In the scenario-based approach the eutrophi-

Acidification potential (SO2-equivalents) = i cation category is suggested to be divided

APi x mi into two subcategories considering aquatic ecosystems and terrestrial ecosystems, respec- Eutrophication tively. The reason for using the scenario- Eutrophication (or nutrient enrichment) of based approach is to take the conditions of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems can be the receiving ecosystems into account, caused by surplus nitrogen, phosphorus and because P is the limiting factor in some degradable organic substances. Eutrophica- circumstances and N is the limiting factor in tion can be defined as: enrichment of other. It is assumed that only the limiting aquatic ecosystems with nutrients leading to factor contributes to the eutrophication and increased production of plankton algae and therefore, the aggregation can be done in higher aquatic plants leading to a deteriora- the following subcategories: tion of the water quality and a reduction in Impact categories 91

Table 4-10 Acidification potentials for acidifying substances (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997d).

Substance Formula Reaction Molar weight AP

g/mole kg SO2/kg

Ý Ý + 2- Sulfur dioxide SO2 SO2+H2O H2SO3 2H +SO3 64.06 1 Ý Ý + 2- Sulfur trioxide SO3 SO3+H2O H2SO4 2H +SO4 80.06 0.80 Ý + - Nitrogen dioxide NO2 NO2+½H2O+1/4O2 H +NO3H 46.01 0.70 Ý + - Nitrogen oxide NO NO+O3+½H2O H +NO3 +3/4O2 30.01 1.07 Hydrogen chloride HCl HClÝH++Cl- 36.46 0.88 Ý + - Hydrogen nitrate HNO3 HNO3 H +NO3 63.01 0.51 Ý + 2+ Hydrogen sulfate H2SO4 H2SO4 2H +SO4 98.07 0.65 Ý + 3- Hydrogen phosphate H3PO4 H3PO4 3H +PO4 98.00 0.98 Hydrogen fluoride HF HFÝH++F- 20.01 1.60 Ý + 2- Hydrogen sulfide H2SH2S+3/2O2+H2O 2H +SO3 34.03 1.88 Ý + - Ammonium NH3 NH3+2O2 H +NO3 +H2O 17.03 1.88

Table 4-11

Eutrophication potentials (EP) for different scenarios as O2- or PO4-equivalents (Lindfors et al., 1995c).

Substance N to air P-limited N-limited N-limited + N Maximum Maximum kg

kg O2/kg kg O2/kg kg O2/kg to air kg O2/kg kg O2/kg PO4-eq./kg

N to air 20 0 0 20 20 0.42

NOx to air 6 0 0 6 6 0.13 NH3 to air 16 0 0 16 16 0.35 N to water 0 0 20 20 20 0.42 - NO3 to water 0 0 4.4 4.4 4.4 0.1 + NH4 to water 0 0 15 15 15 0.33 P to water 0 140 0 0 140 3.06 3- PO4 04600 461 COD 0 1 1 1 1 0.022

Table 4-12

Eutrophication potentials (EP) as total-N, total-P or NO3-equivalents (Hauschild & Wenzel, 1997e).

Substance Mw g/mole EP(N) kg N/kg EP(P) kg P/kg EP kg NO3/kg

- NO3 62 0.23 0 1 NO2 46 0.30 0 1.35 - NO2 46 0.30 0 1.35 NO 30 0.47 0 2.07

NH3 17 0.82 0 3.64 CN- 26 0.54 0 2.38 Total-N 14 1 0 4.43 3- PO4 95 0 0.33 10.45 2- P2O7 174 0 0.35 11.41 Total-P 31 0 1 32.03 92 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

1. Total-N to air (terrestrial effects) In contrast to the assessment of human toxicological effects caused by environmen- 2. Total-P emissions and emission of or- tal emissions, assessment of the effects in the ganic material to water work environment requires information on actual concentration levels. Information on 3. Total-N emissions and emission of concentration levels in the work environ- organic material into water ment is normally not included in the inventory. 4. Total-N emissions and emission of organic material into water and N The non-chemical effects caused by heat, emissions to air noise, monotonous working conditions e.g. repetitive work can be: 5. Total-P and -N emissions to air and water and also emission of organic material to • Hearing impairments water (assuming that both N, P and organic material contribute) • Psychological damage

The eutrophication potential (EP) can be • Pain in muscles

expressed as O2 - or PO4-equivalents and is presented in Table 4-11 for a number of • Pain in joints substances. Hauschild & Wenzel (1997e) have calculated EP as total-N, total-P and Accidents may result in bodily harm or acute

NO3-equivalents; Table 4-12. toxicological effects caused by accidental leakages etc. The human toxicological The eutrophication potential of a certain effects in the work environment differ from process can be estimated by summarising the the effects caused by emissions of the same eutrophication factors for the organic substances from the production to the material, P- and N-containing substances: external environment, resulting in substantial effects on a few persons, whereas human

Eutrophication potential (O2-equivalents) = toxicological effects in the external environ-

i eutrophication potentiali x mi ment are characterised by small effects on many persons (Bengtsson & Berglund, The eutrophication can also be expressed as 1996). 3- PO4 -equivalents. In this approach, no differentiation is made between ecosystems A number of different methods to assess limited by different nutrients (Lindfors et al., work environment in relation to life cycle 1995c). assessment have been developed and they have been presented and compared at a Work environment workshop arranged by LCANET (Potting et The impact category “work environment” al., 1997): covers the same effects as mentioned in the subchapter on human toxicological impacts • Chem-methodology (Terwoert, 1994a; b; supplemented by non-chemical effects. The c) human toxicological effects caused by exposure to biological or chemical sub- • EDIP-methodology (Rasmussen, 1997) stances can be: • IVF-methodology (Bengtson & Berglund, • Acute toxicological effects 1996)

• Irritation • IVL-methodology (Antonsson & Carlson, 1995) • Allergenic reactions • MUP-methodology (Jelnes et al., 1994; • Genotoxicity Schmidt et al., 1994b)

• Carcinogenicity • PVC-methodology (Christiansen et al., 1993) • Neurotoxicity • STØ-methodology (Bjørnsen et al., 1995; • Teratogenicity Møller et al., 1995; Rønning et al., 1995; Økstad et al., 1995) Impact categories 93

Table 4-13 Different methods for assessment of work environment.

Method Effects concerned Criteria/comments Reference

Chem-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates Terwoert (1994a; b; c) Physiological and effect registration. The method covers Chemical a screening LCA with qualitative results. Biological Risk of accidents

EDIP-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates Rasmussen (1997) Chemical and effect registration. The method covers Risk of accidents a detailed LCA with quantitative results.

IVF-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure measurements Bengtson & Berglund Physiological and estimates and effect registration. (1996) Psychological Chemical Risk of accidents

IVL-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure measurements Antonsson & Carlson Physiological and estimates and effect registration. The method (1995) Psychological covers a screening LCA with qualitative Chemical and quantitative results. Biological Risk of accidents

MUP-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates. Jelnes et al. (1994); Chemical The method covers a screening LCA Schmidt et al. (1994b) Risk of accidents with qualitative results, combined with a scoring methodology.

PVC-methodology Physical The method is based on exposure estimates. Christiansen et al. (1993) Chemical The method covers a screening LCA Risk of accidents with qualitative results.

STØ-methodology Chemical The method is based on exposure estimates. Bjørnsen et al. (1995); The method covers a detailed LCA with Møller et al. (1995); quantitative results. Rønning et al. (1995); Økstad et al. (1995)

The present methods are described briefly in Table 4-13.

International consensus on specific methods for assessing work environment has not yet been reached and development of some of the methods is still in progress. 95

5. LCA Information Sources

The following sections gives an overview of 1200 Brussels, Belgium Tel. +32-2-772.72.81, some of the most important sources of Fax +32-2-770.53.86 or E-mail 100725.3525@ information about LCA. The overview is not compuserve.com. Editor is Roland Clift, complete, but is meant as a starting point for Centre for Environmental Strategy, Univer- companies, institutions and individuals sity of Surrey, Tel. +44 1483 259 047, Fax +44 wanting to enter the area of life cycle assess- 1483 259 394, E-mail [email protected]. ment, or to maintain and extend already existing knowledge. SETAC-US LCA News The SETAC-US newsletter highlights envir- The following information sources are onmental topics, SETAC activities, employ- described: ment opportunities, and meetings of interest. A special section is devoted to LCA. The • Newsletters and Journals bimonthly newsletter is mailed to SETAC members, but can also be ordered from • Books, Reports, Proceedings, etc. SETAC, 1010 North 12th Avenue, Pensacola, FL 32501-3370, U.S.A. Tel: +1 904-469-1500, • LCA Software Fax +1 904-469-9778, E-mail: [email protected]. The newsletter (Jan 1997 and forward) is • Internet Facilities also available on the Internet: http://www. setac.org/news.html. When contemplating ordering information sources from the overview it should be borne APME Communique in mind, that recent publications generally The newsletter Communique primarily are of a much higher quality than books and contains information on packaging news reports from the beginning of the nineties as from the plastics industry. It is published by they supposedly reflect the international the Association of Plastics Manufacturers in development in the area. However, no Europe (APME) and can be ordered from further assessment of the quality of the APME, Av. E. Van Nieuwenhuyse 4, Box 3, B- information sources is given in the overview. 1160 Brussels, Belgium Tel. (32-2) 672 82 59 Fax (32-2) 675 39 35

5.1 Newsletters and Journals with LCA CSA Environmental Update Content The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) publishes the Environmental Update news- A number of journals and newsletters with letter three times a year. The newsletter LCA content have appeared during the last primarily addresses environmental manage- few years. Most publications have other ment and can be ordered from CSA Corpo- issues as the main content, e.g. ecolabelling, rate Communications Fax (416) 747-4292. waste management and cleaner technology, but they also feature LCA-news and/or Ecocycle articles on LCA on a regular basis. Newslet- The newsletter Ecocycle is published bi- ters and journals must be considered as key annually by Environment Canada and information sources to recent developments contains information on development of life- due to their short production time. A list of cycle management tools and product policy. journals addressing environmental issues The newsletter is free of charge and can be (not only LCA) can be found at the Internet ordered at Tel. 1-819-997-3060 or Fax 1-819- at http://www.lib.kth.se/~lg/ejourn.htm. 953-6881 or E-mail [email protected]. The newsletter is also available through the 5.1.1 Newsletters Internet at http://www.doe.ca/ecocycle. SETAC-Europe LCA News The newsletter is published bi-monthly and EPA LCA Project Update is send to all SETAC-Europe members. The The EPA LCA Project Update Newsletter is newsletter is free of charge and its possible to designed to provide information about be added to the mailing list by contacting ongoing EPA LCA-related projects and SETAC-Europe, Av.E.Mounier 83, box 1, upcoming activities. The publisher is the US 96 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air and Waste Office of Research and Development, LCA The journal is published monthly by the Air Research Program. The newsletter is avail- and Waste Management Association, One able through the Internet and can also be Gateway Center, Third Floor, Pittsburg, PA received in a paper version by sending a 15222, USA. request to Keith Weitz at Research Triangle Institute (E-mail: [email protected] or Fax +1-919- Environmental Impact Assessment Review 541-7155). Environmental Impact Assessment Review is a quarterly publication for planners, engin- ESU-INFO eers, scientists, policy makers and administra- The newsletter is published by The Energy- tors committed to improving the theory and Materials-Environment Group (ESU - in practice of environmental decision making. German Gruppe Energie-Stoffe-Umwelt) at Lawrence Susskind is senior editor and the ETH in Switzerland. The newsletter is journal is published by Elsevier Science primarily for costumers of the “Ökoinventare Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the von Energie-systemen”, but also contains Americas, New York, NY 10010. information on new publications and projects. Information: Rolf Frischknecht at Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Institut für Energietechnik at ETH in Zürich (ET&C) at Tel. +01 632 12 83 or E-mail: ET&C is a monthly publication of SETAC [email protected] and is distributed for free to members of SETAC. The journal is dedicated to further- Integrated Environmental Management ing scientific knowledge and disseminating The newsletter primarily gives information information environmental toxicology and and advice on environmental issues for chemistry, including the application of these management. Published by Blackwell Scien- sciences to hazard/risk assessment. With tific Publications, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 SETAC being a main forum for the develop- 0EL, UK. Tel: +44 865 206 206. ment of LCA methodology, the ET&C journal frequently features articles on LCA. ISWA Times The journal can be ordered from SETAC ISWA TIMES is a quarterly newsletter of the PRESS, 1010 North 12 Avenue, Pensacola, International Solid Waste Association. The FL 32501-3370, USA. Tel: +1 904 469 1500, newsletter is designed to keep members and Fax: +1 904 469 9778, E-mail: setac@setac. other professionals informed of relevant org, Internet: http://www.setac.org. issues, e.g. legislation, environmental auditing, and risk analysis. Publisher: ISWA Gen- International Journal of Environmentally Con- eral Secretariat, Bremerholm 1, DK-1609 scious Design & Manufacturing Copenhagen K, Denmark. Tel: +45 3391 4491. The International Journal of Environmen- tally Conscious Design and Manufacturing Warmer Bulletin aims at providing a medium for the dissemi- Warmer Bulletin is published six times a year, nation of accurate information about the the main content being information on impact and the short-term as well as the long- sustainable waste management and resource term effects of design and manufacturing on recovery. The bulletin is published by the the environment. The journal is published World Resource Foundation, Bridge House, four times a year by ECM Press: PO Box High Street, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1DP, UK. 20959, Albuquerque, NM 87154-0959, USA. Tel: +44 1732 368 333. E-mail: At the homepage http://ie.uwindsor.ca/ [email protected], Internet:http:// ecdm/journal it is possible to read abstracts www.wrfound.org.uk. of articles from the Journal.

5.1.2 Journals Journal of Cleaner Production International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment The quarterly journal aims to encourage The journal is a forum for scientists develop- industrial innovation, new and improved ing LCA-methodology, LCA practitioners, products, and the implementation of new, environmental managers, governmental cleaner process technologies as well as agencies and other ecological institutions governmental policies and educational and bodies. The journal has ISSN 0948-3349. programs essential for ensuring continuous The editor-in-chief is Walter Klöpffer, C.A.U. progress towards sustainability. The ISSN No. The journal can be ordered from Ecomed is 0959-6526. It can be ordered from Elsevier Publishers. Tel. +49-81 91-125-469, Fax +49- Science Ltd, The Boulevard, Langford Lane, 81 91-125-492. Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK. Fax: +44 LCA Information Sources 97

(0) 1865 843952. Homepage: http://www. found under the heading “Miscellaneous elsevier.nl/locate/jclepro. references”.

Waste Management & Research Environmental Assessment of Industrial Products. The journal is a bi-monthly publication Edited by Wenzel H, Hauschild M and Alting issued under the auspices of ISWA, the L (1997). Volume 1: Tools and Case studies International Solid Waste and Public Cleans- and Volume 2: Scientific Background. ing Association. The journal publish papers Chapman & Hall, London. on all aspects of solid waste management, but the main focus on the discussion of Towards a methodology for life cycle impact solutions to problems that arise primarily assessment. Udo de Haes HA (ed.) (1996). with municipal and industrial solid wastes. Society of environmental Toxicology and Publisher: Academic Press, 24-28 Oval Road, Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels. London NW1 7DX, UK. Homepage: http:// www.hbuk.co.uk/ap/journals/wm.htm. Miljøvurdering af produkter (Environmental assessment of Products). Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Rasmussen E (1996). Dansk Industri. (In 5.2 Books, Reports, Conference Danish). ISBN 87-7810-542-0. Proceedings, etc. Life cycle assessment and conceptually related The development and use of LCA has been programmes. Draft. de Smet B, Hemming C, documented in a large number of reports, Baumann H, Cowell S, Pesso C, Sund L, books and proceedings from workshops and Markovic V, Moilanen T, Postlethwaithe D conferences. Many publications must be (1996). considered as “grey” or “yellow” literature, i.e. they have been published without a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - Quo vadis? scientific peer review and without proper Schaltegger S (ed.), Braunschweig A, Büchel identification possibilities, e.g. a ISSN- or K, Dinkel F, Frischknecht R, Maillefer C, ISBN-number. Despite these shortcomings Ménard M, Peter D, Pohl C, Ros M, Sturm A, the publications still hold important infor- Waldeck and Zimmermann P (1996). Swiss mation and are included in the overview. Priority Programme Environment of the Swiss National Science Foundation Synthesis. The section on books, reports and confer- Birkhäuser Verlag AG. ence proceedings is divided into the sub- sections “Methodology issues”, “Data sources Life Cycle Assessment as an Environmental (paper)”, “Standards”, and “Miscellaneous systems analysis tool - with a focus on system references”. Please notice that books in boundaries. Finnveden G (1996). Licentiate either subsection also may contain informa- thesis at Applied Electrochemistry, Depart- tion which is relevant in another subsection. ment of Chemical Engineering and Technol- The lists of references are in reverse chrono- ogy at Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, logical order and with the title of the refer- Stockholm. AFR, Swedish Environmental ence given first. In doing so, we believe that Protection Agency, Sweden. it will be easier to find the documents that are of special relevance to the reader. SETAC EUROPE LCA Screening and Stream- lining Working Group. Final report, Draft 3. 5.2.1 Methodology issues Christiansen K (ed.) (1996). The reports listed in this section reflect to a certain extent the historic development of Research needs in life cycle assessment for the EU LCA-methodology, starting with the early ecolabelling programme. Udo de Haes HA, SETAC report “A technical framework for Bensahel J-F, Clift R, Griesshammer R and Life Cycle Assessment” and ending with the Jensen AA (1995). Groupe des Sages. Final most recent methodology suggestions. report of second phase. Leiden

As outlined in the chapter on the methodo- LCA-Nordic Technical Reports No. 1 - 9. logical framework no consensus exist on how Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, to treat a number of environmental effects in Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ, Rønning LCA, but the reports may give a valuable A, Ekvall T and Finnveden G (1995). overview of the ideas generated during the TemaNord 1995:502. Copenhagen: Nordic development of LCA methodology. It should Council of Ministers. ISBN 92 9120 608 3, be noted that a number of other publica- ISSN 0908-6692. tions addressing methodology issues can be 98 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA-Nordic Technical Report No. 10 and Special ment in the EU ecolabelling programme. Udo de Reports No. 1 - 2. Lindfors L-G, Christiansen Haes HAU, Bensahel J-F, Clift R, Fussler CR, K, Hoffmann L, Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Griesshammer R and Jensen AA (1994). Hanssen OJ, Rønning A, Ekvall T and Groupe des Sages. Final report of the first Finnveden G (1995). TemaNord 1995:503. phase. Leiden Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. ISBN 92 9120 609 1, ISSN 0908-6692. A Conceptual Framework For Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Fava J, Consoli F, Denison R, Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Dickson K, Mohin T and Vigon B (1993). Lindfors L-G, Christiansen K, Hoffmann L, Workshop Report. SETAC and SETAC Virtanen Y, Juntilla V, Hanssen OJ., Rønning Foundation for Environmental Education, A, Ekvall T and Finnveden G (1995). Nord Inc., Sandestin, Florida USA, March 1993 1995:20. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: a “Code of Practice”. Consoli F, Allen D, Boustead I, de Miljöanpassad produktudveckling (Environmen- Oude N, Fava J, Franklin R, Jensen AA, tally Sound Product Development). Ryding S-O Parrish R, Perriman R, Postlethwaite D, Quay (1995). Industriförbundet. (In Swedish) B, Séguin J and Vigon B (eds.) (1993). Report of the workshop organised by SETAC Overview of the scientific peer review of the in Portugal. European life cycle inventory for surfactant production. Klöpffer W, Griesshammer R, and Life cycle design guidance manual. Environmen- Sundström G (1995). Tenside Surf.Det. tal requirements and the product system. Keoleian 32(5):378-83. GA and Menerey D (1993). EPA600/R-92/ 226. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Life cycle assessment and treatment of solid waste. Proceedings of the international workshop Septem- Weighing up the environmental balance. Anon ber 28-29, Stockholm. Finnveden G, Huppes G (1993). APME/PWMI, Brussels, (editors) (1995). AFR-report 98, Stockholm. Ecoprofiles of the European polymer industry. Life cycle assessment. A comparison of three Report 7 Principles of plastics recycling. Boustead methods for impact analysis and evaluation. I (1993). APME/PWMI, Brussels) Baumann H and Rydberg T. J.Cleaner Prod. 2(1):13-20, 1994. Life cycle assessment: Inventory, classification, valuation, data bases. Workshop report from the Metoder, vurderingsgrundlag og fremgangsmåde. workshop in Leiden 2-3 December 1991. (1992). Livscyklusvurdering af nye materialer (Methods, SETAC-Europe, Brussels. Assessment and Procedures. Life cycle assessment of new materials). Schmidt A, Christiansen K Life-Cycle Assessment Data Quality. Fava J, and Pommer K. (eds.) (1994). dk-TEKNIK, Jensen AA, Lindfors L, Pomper S, de Smet B, Søborg (In Danish with English summary). Warren J and Vigon B. Workshop Report. SETAC and SETAC Foundation for Environ- Allocation in LCA. Proceedings of the European mental Education, Inc., Wintergreen, Vir- Workshop on allocation in LCA at CML, Leiden ginia, October 1992 24-25 February, 1994. Huppes G and Schnei- der F (editors) (1994). CML, Leiden. ISBN Eco-balance methodology for commodity thermo- 90-5191-078-9 (CML). plastics. Boustead I (1992). Brussels: APME/ PWMI. Integrating impact assessment into LCA. Proceed- ings of the LCA symposium held at the fourth Product life-cycle assessment: Inventory guidelines SETAC-Europe Congress 11-14 April 1994. Udo and principles. Batelle and Franklin Associates de Haes HA, Jensen AA, Klöpffer W and (1992). RREL, EPA/600/R-92/036. Lindfors L-G (editors) (1994). SETAC, Brussels. Product life cycle assessment - principles and methodology. Lindfors, L.G. (editor). Nord Impact assessment within LCA. Grisel L, Jensen 1992:9. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copen- AA, Klöpffer W (1994). Society for the hagen, 1992. Promotion of LCA Development (SPOLD), Brussels. Environmental life cycle assessment of products. Heijungs R, Guinée JB, Huppes G, Guidelines for the application of life cycle assess- Lankreijer RM, Udo de Haes HA, Sleeswijk LCA Information Sources 99

AW, Ansems AMM, Eggels PG, van Duin R, For databases in electronic format, please de Goede HP (1992). I Guide; II Back- refer to the reference above and to the grounds. CML, Leiden. section on LCA software.

Resource and environmental profile analysis: A European database for corrugated board life cycle life cycle environmental assessment for products studies. FEFCO, Groupement Ondulé, and and procedures. Hunt RG, Sellers JD and Kraft Institute (1996). Paris. Franklin WE (1992). Environ Impact Assess Rev 12:245-269. Ecobalance of Packaging Materials (1996). Schriftenreihe Umwelt 250, BUWAL, Bern. Eco-balance methodology for commodity thermo- plastics. Boustead I (1992). APME/PWMI, Ecological profile report for the European Alu- Brussels. minium Industry. Boustead I (1996). Brussels: European Aluminium Association. A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessment. Fava J, Denison R, Jones B, Curran MA, Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. Vigon B, Selke S and Barnum J. SETAC and Report 9 Polyurethane precursors (TDI, MDI, SETAC Foundation for Environmental Polyols) (1996). Boustead I. PWMI, Brussels. Education, Inc., Washington, January 1991 Vergleichende ökologische Bewertung von Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990. Anstrichstoffen im Baubereich. von Däniken A Habersatter, K. Schriftenreihe Umwelt. Nr. and Chudacoff M (1995). Schriftenreihe 132. BUWAL, Bern, 1991. Umwelt Nr. 232, Band 2: Daten. BUWAL, Bern. Methodik für Öekobilanzen auf der basis öeko- logischer Optimierung. Ahbe S, Braunschweig A Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. and Müller-Wenk (1990). Schriftenreihe Report 8: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Umwelt Nr. 133, BUWAL, Bern. Boustead I (1995). PWMI, Brussels.

5.2.2 Databases (paper) Transporters miljöpåverkan i et livscykelperspektiv. One of the most prominent problems in Eriksson E, Svensson G, Lövgren G et al. LCA is the lack of available data for many (1995). FoU 126. Stiftelsen Reforsk, Malmö. raw materials, intermediates, energy technologies and transportation modes. The A life-cycle inventory for the production of petro- following section identifies some of the most chemical intermediates in Europe. Franke M, commonly used data sources, but it should Berna JL, Cavalli L et al. (1995). Tenside be remembered that many of these are Surf.Det. 32(5):384-96. rather old and that they therefore may be of limited value. A life-cycle inventory for the production of oleochemical raw materials. Hirsinger F, Schick The limited value is caused by two factors, K, and Stalmans M (1995). Tenside Surf.Det. i.e. the information does not necessarily 32(5):420-32. reflect today’s technological level (some data are collected in the early 80’es), and the A life-cycle inventory for the production of deter- procedure for data collection and presenta- gent-grade alcohols. Hirsinger F, Schick K, and tion is most probably not in accordance with Stalmans M (1995). Tenside Surf.Det. the requirements outlined in the SETAC 32(5):398-410. Code of Practice or in the ISO standard. A life-cycle inventory for the production of sulphur An overview of available life cycle data and caustic soda in Europe. Postletwaite D, sources can be found in “Directory of life cycle Schul W and Stalmans M (1995).Tenside inventory data sources. Hemming C (1995). Surf. Det. 32(5):412-8. SPOLD, Brussels”. This book gives information on databases in both electronic and European Life Cycle Inventory for Detergent book format. For each data source there is a Surfactants Production. Stalmans M, description of the accessibility (price, hard- Berenbold H, Berna JL et al (1995). Tenside ware requirements) and the content in terms Surf.Det. 32(2):84-109. of both included commodities, fuels and services and data quality (geographical Eco-profiles of the European Plastics industry. scope, timeframe, original data source, data Report 5: Co-product allocation in chlorine plants. checking, etc.) Boustead I (1994). PWMI, Brussels. 100 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Eco-profiles of the European Plastics industry. Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir- Report 6: Polyvinyl chloride. Boustead I (1994). onmental Labelling-Self Declared Environmental PWMI, Brussels. Claims-Symbols (ISO CD 14022). ISO/TC 207/ SC3/WG2. Öekoinventare für Energiesysteme. Frischknecht, R., Hofstetter, P., Knoepfel, I., Ménard, M., Environmental Labelling-Self Declared Environ- Dones, R., and Zollinger, E. (editors) (1994). mental Claims-Testing and verification Method- Bundesamt für Energiewirtschaft, Zürich. ologies (ISO WD 14023). ISO/TC 207/SC3/ WG2. Mineral commodities summaries 1993. U.S.Bureau of Mines (1993). U.S. Bureau of Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir- Mines, Washington. US Government print- onmental Labelling Type I - Guiding Principles, ing office 337_168, 70638. and procedures (ISO CD-2 14024). ISO/TC 207/SC3/WG1. Eco-profiles of the European Plastics industry. Report 2: Olefin feedstock sources. Boustead I Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir- (1993). PWMI, Brussels. onmental Labelling Type III - Guiding Principles, and procedures (ISO pre-WD 14024). ISO/TC Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. 207/SC3/WG1. Report 3: Polyethylene and polypropylene. Boustead I (1993). PWMI, Brussels. Evaluation of Environmental Performance (ISO CD 14031). ISO TC 207/SC4/WGs 1-2. Eco-profiles of the European plastics industry. Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Report 4: Polystyrene. Boustead I (1993). Guidelines (ISO FDIS 14040). ISO TC 207/ PWMI, Brussels. SC5/WG1.

World resources 1992-93. World Resources Life Cycle Assessment - Life Cycle Inventory Institute (1992). Oxford University Press, Analysis (ISO DIS 14041). ISO TC 207/SC5/ New York Oxford. ISBN 0-19-506231-0. WGs 2-3.

Livscykelanalyser för förpackningsmaterial/ Life Cycle Assessment - Impact Assessment (ISO Packaging and the Environment. Tillmann A, CD 14042). ISO TC 207/SC5/WG4. Baumann H, Eriksson E. et al. (1991). SOU 1991:77. Miljödepartementet, Stockholm. Life Cycle Assessment - Interpretation (ISO CD 14043). ISO TC 207/SC5/WG5. Oekobilanz von Packstoffen Stand 1990. Habersatter K (1991). Schriftenreihe Um- CEN-standards (drafts) welt. Nr. 132. BUWAL, Bern. Terminology, symbols and criteria for life cycle analysis of packaging. CEN/TC261/SC4/W1 5.2.3 Standards Standards for Life Cycle Assessment and its Canadian LCA-standards (final) applications are still under development. Life Cycle Assessment, Standard CAN/CSA- The references given below are to standards Z760, 1994. on different levels of completion (FDIS = Final Draft International Standard, DIS = Life Cycle Review (supporting CAN/CSA-Z760), Draft International Standard, CD = Commit- 1994. tee Draft, WD = Working Draft) and to the name of the Subcommittee (SC) and Design for Environment, Standard CAN/CSA- Workgroup (WG) developing the standard. Z762, 1995. Please refer to your national standard organisation for further information. The Canadian standards can be ordered from: ISO standards (drafts) Standards Sales Environmental Labels and Declarations - General Canadian Standards Association Principles (ISO CD 14020). ISO/TC 207/SC3/ 178 Rexdale Blvd WG3. Rexdale (Toronto), Ontario Canada M9W 1R3 Environmental Labels and Declarations - Envir- tel 416-747-4044, fax 416-747-2475 onmental Labelling-Self Declared Environmental Claims-Terms and Definitions (ISO DIS 14021). 5.2.4 Applications of LCA ISO/TC 207/SC3/WG2. This section contain a number of other LCA Information Sources 101

papers and reports which are of interest with cycle design and related approaches. Keoleian respect to different applications of LCA. GA, Menerey D (1994). Air and Waste Some of the reports also include a descrip- 1994;44: 645-668. tion of the methodology used. Many reports of similar content and quality are missing in Proceedings from the workshop on methods for the reference list. The main reason for this is environmental management and sustainable that they are not publicly available. Please product development, Hankø, Fredrikstad, 23-24 refer to the database of LCA actors for more march 1994. Hanssen OJ (editor) (1994). information on LCA projects etc. Østfold Research Foundation, Fredrikstad.

Projekte mit Bezug zu Ökobilanzen und Resource and environmental profile analysis of Lebensweganalysen. Scheibe U, Neitzel H children’s diaper systems. Sauer BJ, Hildebrandt (1997). Fachgebiet III 1.3, CC, Franklin WE et al. (1994). Environ Umweltsbundesamt, Berlin. Toxicol Chemistry 13(6):1003-9.

Iterative screening LCA in an Eco-design tool. Eco-balance for drink packaging. Schmitz S, Fleischer G and Schmidt W-P (1997 ). Int. J. Oels H-J, and Tiedemann A (1994). LCA 2(1): 20-24. Umweltsbundesamt, Germany.

Miljøvenlige komfurer og ovne. Schmidt A, The Phosphate Report. Wilson B and Jones B Christensen BH, Jensen AA (1996). (1994). Landbank Environmental Research Miljøprojekt Nr. 338. Miljøstyrelsen, and Consulting, London. København. (In Danish). Design for Environment. WICE (World Industry Overall Business Impact Assessment (OBIA). Council for the Environment) (1994). Paris. Taylor AP, Postlethwaite D (1996). Presenta- tion Summaries, SETAC EUROPE 4th Development of a pollution prevention factors Symposium for Case Studies, Brussels, 3 methodology based on a life-cycle assessment: December 1996. Litographic printing study. Tolle DA, Vigon BW, Becker JR et al. (1994). EPA/600/R-94/ Sustainable product development. Hansen OJ, 157. USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. Rønning A and Rydberg T (1995). Final report from the NEP project. Østfold Re- Improved environmental performance of products. search Foundation, Fredrikstad. Halocarbon substitution, packaging development and life cycle assessment. Rydberg T (1994). Application of life cycle assessments (LCA). Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, Gothenburg. Christiansen K, Heijungs R, Rydberg T et al. (eds.) (1995). Report from expert workshop Resource and environmental profile analysis of at Hankø, Norway on LCA in Strategic children’s diaper systems. Sauer BJ, Hildebrandt management, product development and CC, Franklin WE and Hunt RG (1994). improvement, marketing and ecolabelling, Environ Toxicol Chemistry 13(6):1003-1009. governmental policies. Østfold Research Foundation report 07/95. Sustainable development by design. Keoleian GA and Menerey D (1994). Review of life cycle Life cycle screening of food products. Weidema design and related approaches. Air and BP, Pedersen RL and Drivsholm T (1995). Waste Vol. 44: 645-668. ATV, Copenhagen. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil or rapeseed oil Miljømæssig kortlægning af emballager til øl og methyl ester as substitute for diesel fuel. Friedrich læskedrikke. Pommer K, Wesnæs MS (1995). A, Glante F, Schlüter C et al. (1993). UBA, Arbejdsrapport fra Miljøstyrelsen Nr. 62, Berlin. Copenhagen. (In Danish). Green products by design. Choices for a cleaner Decision support system for environmental sounder environment. U.S.Congress (1992). OTA-E- purchase of catering materials and products for 541. OTA, Washington, DC. inflight services. Christiansen K, Hoffmann L (1995). Prepared by Krüger Consult A/S for Integrated substance chain management. VNCI - SAS and Danish Agency of Environmental Association of the Dutch Chemical Industry Protection. (1991). Leidschendam.

Sustainable development by design: Review of life Resource and environmental profile analysis of 102 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

high-density polyethylene and bleached paperboard hods need any transformation before gable milk containers. Sellers VR, Sellers JD, they can be used to investigate a differ- Rolander ST et al. (1990). Franklin Associ- ent geographic scenario? ates, Kansas. • Interpretation. Can the software help you in the interpretation of the LCA, e.g. 5.3 LCA Software by performing a “hot-spot” or sensitivity analysis. Is a statistical module included? Many institutions and companies have developed software for use in LCA. The • Reporting. Do the reporting facilities obvious reason for this is that large amounts meet your needs, e.g. exporting to other of data have to be stored and processed in programmes for further treatment (word any LCA and that computers are the natural processing, spreadsheet). tool for this. Some programmes have been developed to perform a “complete” LCA, i.e. For a discussion of data quality and data- both Inventory, Impact Assessment, and bases, the following paper is of interest: some kind of Interpretation is performed, whereas others are only able to perform the Life cycle assessment: data quality and databases Inventory part of the LCA. practitioner survey. Vigon BW and Jensen AA (1995). J.Cleaner Prod. 3(3):135-41. Most of the developed software tools are commercially available at prices ranging An overview of LCA data sources (both from about 1500 ECUs to more than 10.000 paper and software) tools can be found in: ECUs. Free demo versions are available for many programs, but they are most often of Directory of life cycle inventory data sources. limited value for potential buyers due to Hemming C (1995). SPOLD, Brussels. limitations in capacity. As the software represents a substantial investment, potential Two reports have evaluated some of the buyers are advised to collect as much infor- commercially available software tools: mation as possible from the developers and compare this to their own needs. An over- LCA software review. Rice G (1996). A review view of commercial software tools is pres- of commercial LCA software, with specific ented in Table 5-1. Some essential issues to emphasis on European industrial applica- consider are discussed in the following. tions. University of Surrey.

• The database should contain life cycle Evaluation of life cycle assessment tools. Menke information on a large amount of raw D, Davis GA and Vigon BW (1996). materials, chemicals, energy scenarios Environment Canada, Ottawa. This report and transportation modes. Consideration can be downloaded for free from http:// should be given to system boundaries www. ec.gc.ca/ecocycle. (do they describe the same system as you are going to investigate?), representative Commercial software programs ness (average or site-specific data), The thirty-seven software tools for life cycle specificity (e.g. number of emissions), assessment in the table were identified by and data quality (e.g. age). The database Menke et al. (1996). With the rapid develop- should also have the possibility of storing ment in this LCA area, new models may have and using own data as well as a future emerged, and some of the listed models may common data format. Please note that have been released in newer versions. For the many software databases are solely more specific information on price, data based on paper reports which are consid- content and methodology please refer to the erably cheaper. vendor or the reports mentioned previously.

• Inventory calculations. How are the life cycle modelling facilities? Is the software 5.4 Internet addresses able to use different kinds of allocation rules in the calculation? The amount of information on the World Wide Web is increasing with an incredible • Impact assessment. Which method(s) are speed. This is also true for information on used for impacts assessment?. Are they in LCA, and the Internet facilities listed below accordance with the requirements in the will in a short time only contain a fraction of ISO standard?. Do the evaluation met- all relevant addresses on WWW. Users of LCA Information Sources 103

Table 5-1 List of commercially available life cycle assessment tools (Adopted from Menke et al., 1996)

Name Vendor Version Cost, $K Data Location

1. Boustead Boustead 2 24 Europe Phone +44 403 864 561 Fax +44 403 865 284

2. CLEAN EPRI 2 14 U.S. Phone +1 415 960 5918 Fax +1 415 960 5965

3. CUMPAN Univ. of Hohenheim Unknown Unknown Germany

4. EcoAssessor PIRA Unknown Unknown UK

5. EcoManager Franklin Associates, Ltd. 1 10 Europe/U.S. Phone: +1 913 649 2225 Fax +1 913 649 6494

6. ECONTROL Oekoscience Unknown Unknown Switzerland

7. EcoPack2000 Max Bolliger 2.2 5.8 Switzerland

8. EcoPro EMPA 1 Unknown Switzerland Phone +41 71 300101 Fax +41 71 300199

9. EcoSys Sandia/DOE Prototype Unknown U.S.

10. EDIP Inst. for Prod. Devel. Prototype Unknown Denmark Phone +45 4295 2522

11. EMIS Carbotech Unknown Unknown Switzerland

12. EPS IVL 1 Unknown Sweden Fax +46 314 82180

13. GaBi IPTS 2 10 Germany Phone +49 7021 942 660 Fax +49 7021 942 661

14. Heraklit Fraunhofer Inst. Unknown Unknown Germany Phone +49 89 149009 89 Fax +49 89 149009 80

15. IDEA IIASA (A)/VTT (SF) Unknown Unknown Europe Fax +358 (0) 456 6538

16. KCL-ECO Finnish Paper Inst. 1 3.6 Finland Phone +358 9 43 711 Fax +358 9 464 305

17. LCA1 P&G/ETH 1 Not Avail. Europe

18. LCAD Battelle/DOE Prototype < 1 U.S.

19. LCAiT Chalmers Industriteknik 2.0 3.5 Sweden Phone +46 31 772 4237 Fax +46 31 82 7421

20. LCASys Philips/ORIGIN Unknown Unknown Netherlands

21. LIMS Chem Systems 1 25 U.S. +1 914 631 2828 +1 914 631 8851

22. LMS Eco-Inv. Tool Christoph Machner 1 Unknown Austria

23. Oeko-Base II Peter Meier Unknown 5.5 Switzerland Phone +41 1 277 3076 Fax +41 1 277 3088

24. PEMS PIRA 3.1 9.1 Ave. European Phone +44 0 1372 802000 Fax +44 0 1372 802238 104 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Name Vendor Version Cost, $K Data Location

25. PIA BMI/TME 1.2 1.4 Europe Phone +31 70 346 4422 Fax +31 70 362 3469

26. PIUSSOECOS PSI AG Unknown Unknown Germany

27. PLA Visionik ApS Unknown Unknown Denmark Fax +45 3313 4240

28. REGIS Sinum Gmbh Unknown Unknown Switzerland Phone +41 51 37 61

29. REPAQ Franklin Associates, Ltd. 2 10 U.S. Phone +1 913 649 2225 Fax +1 913 649 6494

30. SimaPro Pré Consulting 3.1 3 Netherlands Phone +31 33 461 1046 Fax +31 33 465 2853

31. SimaTool Leiden Univ. Prototype Unknown Netherlands

32. Simbox EAWAG Unknown Unknown Switzerland

33. TEAM Ecobalance 1.15 & 2.0 10 Europe/US +1 301 548 1750 +1 301 548 1760

34. TEMIS Oko-Institut 2 0.3 Europe Phone +49 761 473130 Fax +49 761 475437

35. TetraSolver TetraPak Unknown Unknown Europe

36. Umberto IFEU Unknown Unknown Germany +49 40 462033 +49 40 462034

37. Umcon Particip Gmbh Unknown Unknown Germany

38. Öekobilanz von Packstoffen BUWAL EXCEL-files 0.25 Switzerland

WWW will quickly be able to browse for Environment Canada. http://www.doe.ca/ additional information sources, and at the ecocycle/. same time the number of links will increase. SB Young Consulting (CA): http:// The following addresses have been chosen www.io.org/~lca. because they contain a number of links specifically related to LCA, or because the Society of Environmental Toxicology and organisations are central in distributing LCA Chemistry, SETAC (US): http:// knowledge. www.setac.org/fndt.html.

Centre of Environmental Science, CML, Thomas Gloria, Tufts University (US): http:/ Leiden (NL): http://www.leidenuniv.nl/ /www.tiac.net/users/tgloria/LCA/lca.html. interfac/cml/lcanet/hp22.htm.

EcoSite (UK): http://www.ecosite.co.uk. 105

Appendix 5.1: Database on LCA Organisations

A database has been developed in Access 2.0 Furthermore there is a total list of LCA by dk-TEKNIK and the information referred contact persons for each organisation. to is version 2.0 c Beta. The database is available on EEA homepage: http://www. LCA Publications eea.eu.int Publications on LCA by the organisations, during the last five years, are listed in this Content section. The database contains information on more than 180 organisations and on more than LCA Projects 410 contact persons working with life cycle Projects on LCA, which the organisation has assessment. participated in, are described by titles, content, possible partners and funders and The building of the database is in five parts period for the project. for each organisations: LCA Software • Organisation Information In this section LCA software developed or used by the organisation is shortly described. • LCA Contact Persons Other user possibilities • LCA Publications There is a printing function for each of the five sections and one for all the information • LCA Projects in the database.

• LCA Software There is a search function on organisation and the list is alphabetic on names. Beneath each of the five part are shortly described. Furthermore each organisation has an internal number and it is possible to go to Organisation Information the previous and the next organisation Each organisation is given by name and number and thereby find the wanted organi- address including phone and fax number, e- sation. mail and homepage address. The type of organisations are in the categories: Aca- Updating demic, Consultancy, Governmental, Industry, There will probably be an updating of the Institute and Non Governmental Organisa- database version 1.0, but at the present time tion (NGO). there is no agreement on the updating.

There is a searching facility on name and Enclosed address of the organisation. Screen prints from the database.

For each organisation there is a short description called Organisation Profile. There is information on the type of LCA’s the organisations work with and their experiences. In this part the date of the latest updating is noted.

LCA Contact Persons This section contains information on the full name, titles, direct phone and fax numbers and e-mail address. For each person there is a short Curriculum Vitae on key qualifications, experiences and memberships relevant for LCA. 106 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Appendix 5.1.1: Screen prints from the database Appendix 5.1.1 107 108 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Appendix 5.1.2: Print examples on organisations

Organisation Name: Focus Area: dk-TEKNIK Energy and Environment Inventory, streamlined and screening methods, impact assessment, work environment, Address: advanced materials, paper products, building 15, Gladsaxe Møllevej insulation, energy systems, textile products, plastic products, industrial products, con- City: sumer products, product development, Søborg company documentation, ecolabelling criteria, quality function deployment, suppli- Postal Code: ers demand, environmental management, DK-2860 waste management and incineration.

Country: This text was updated in April 1997. Denmark Contact Name: Phone Number: Allan Astrup Jensen +45 3969 6511 E-mail Adress: Fax Number: Research Director +45 3969 6002 Title: E-mail Adress: [email protected] [email protected] Direct Phone No.: Homepage Adress: +45-3966 2011 ext. 454 Coming in 1997/98! Direct Fax No.: Organisation Profile: +45-3969 6002 dk-TEKNIK Energy and Environment were founded in 1918 as an independent, non- Personal CV: profit laboratory and consultancy. dk-TEK- Member of the LCANET Board, 1996- NIK is a technological service institute approved by the Danish Ministry of Business Member of EC Groupe des Sages on LCA and Industry. and Ecolabelling, 1994-

dk-TEKNIK offers tailor-made LCA-solutions Member of ISO TC207/SC5/WG4 on Life to its customers, depending on their needs. cycle impact assessment, 1994-. The solution may include implementation of commercial LCA programmes or develop- Member of SPOLD Board, 1992-95. ment of specific software, e.g. as specialised spreadsheets. Member of SETAC-Europe LCA Steering Committee, 1991-. Chairman: 1995-. dk-TEKNIK is internationally active in harmonisation and standardisation of LCA. Member of SETAC organising committees for LCA Workshops in Leiden, Holland, dk-TEKNIK is hosting the Danish Boilers December 1991, Sesimbra, Portugal, April Owners Association and is part of the Danish 1993, Wintergreen, Virginia, October 1993 Centre for Biomass Energy. Main activities and Sandestin February 1995. are: Energy management and auditing, fuel efficiency, combustion and cleaning technol- Member of SETAC-Europe Workgroup on ogy, measurements of air quality, air emis- LCA impact assessment. sions, odour and noise, air pollution modelling, environmental management, environ- Member of Danish EPA Committee on LCA. mental impact assessment, product life-cycle assessment and ecolabelling. Organizing of LCANET workshop on „Inte- Appendix 5.1.2 109

gration of work environment in LCA“ in Fussler C.R., Griesshammer R., Jensen A.A. Copenhagen, October 1996. (1994) Guidelines for the application of life- cycle assessment in the European Union Organizer of LCA sessions at SETAC-Europe ecolabelling programme. Leiden: CML, annual Congress in 1994 and 1996. September.

Participated in SETAC Life cycle impact Jensen A.A., Hansen L.E., Jensen O.K. and assessment workshops in Sandestin, Florida, Werther, I. (1993)Textile products. Keyfea- February 1992. tures 3. Draft version - Restricted use. dk- TEKNIK June. LCA Publications: Schmidt A. (1996). Environmental Guidance Jensen O.K., Hansen L.E. and Jensen A.A. to public buyers. Photocopying machines. (1993) Textile products. Impact assessment Information and background. Project for the and criteria for eco-labelling. Draft. dk- danish EPA. December 1996. TEKNIK for the Danish EPA, December.

Møller B. Torgius (1996). Environmental Schmidt, A., Jelnes, J.E., Hansen, L.E. et al. Guidance to public buyers. Copying paper. In: Lindfors, L.G. (editor) (1992) Health Information and background. Project for the Impacts and Life Cycle assessment. Product danish EPA. December 1996. life cycle assessment - principles and methodology. Nord 1992:9. Nordic Council of Jensen A.A., Møller B.T., Søborg L. and Ministers, Copenhagen. Potting J. (1996) Work Environmental Issues in Life Cycle Assessment, LCANET Summary Stranddorf H.K., Schmidt A., Hansen L.E., Report, Draft, Copenhagen. Jensen A.A., Thorsen M. (1995) Thermal Insulation Products for Walls and Roofs. Potting, J., Møller, B.T. and Jensen, A.A. (1996) Work environment and LCA, Stranddorf H.K., Hansen L.E., Schmidt A., LCANET Theme Report. Draft, dk-TEKNIK, Jensen A.A et al. Establishing fo Key Features November. (and Criteria) Covering Full Life Cycle for Thermal Insulation Products for Walls and Jensen A.A. and Vigon B.W. (1995) Life cycle Roofs Based on LCA. dk-TEKNIK, Soeborg. assessment: Data Quality and Databases Practitioner Survey. J. Cleaner prod. 3(3): LCA Projects: 135-41. LCA Guidebook for European Environment Agency (EEA) 1996 - 1997. LCA database Fava J, Jensen A.A., Lindfors L., Pomper S., and a LCA Guidebook Report. dk-TEKNIK. De Smet B., Warren J., Vigon B., eds. (1994) In co-operation with SustainAbility (United SETAC, Life-cycle assessment data quality: a Kingdom). conceptual framwork. Workshop report, Wintergreen, October, 1992. Pensacola: LCANET Theme report on Work Environ- SETAC. ment and LCA. Report on workshop in Copenhagen, October 1996. Grisel L., Jensen A.A., Klöpffer W., Lindfors L-G., eds. (1994) Integrating impact assess- An Environmental Informative label based ment into LCA. Brussels: SETAC-Europe. on Life-Cycle Assessment. Project for the Danish EPA. 1996-1997. Schmidt, A. and Drabæk, I. In: Midtgaard, U. (editor) (1994). Integrated environmental Environmental assessment of selected and occupational assessment of new materi- garments. In co-operation with Danish als - the Danish Materials Technology Pro- Technological Institute, Clothing and gramme (MUP). National Institute of Occu- Textile. A project for the Danish EPA. 1996- pational Health, Copenhagen. LCA Software: Udo de Haes H.A., Bensahel J-F, Clift R., The database for the LCA Guidebook is 110 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

developed by dk-TEKNIK. 1996-1997 Who Needs it? Market implications of sustainable Lifestyle (1995). SustainAbility dk-TEKNIK offers tailor-made LCA-solutions and Dow Europe. to its customers, depending on their needs. The solution may include implementation of Company Environmental Reporting (1994). commercial LCA programmes or develop- SustainAbility and UNEP ment of specific software, e.g. as specialised spreadsheets. The LCA Sourcebook (1993). A European Business Guide to Life-Cycle Assessment, Organisation Name: SustainAbility, SPOLD, and Business in the SustainAbility Ltd Environment. ISBN 0-9521904-0-0

Address: Organisation Name: 49-53 Kensington High Street Tauw Milieu bv

City: Address: London 11 Handelskade, PO Box 133

Postal Code: City: W8 5ED Deventer

Country: Postal Code: United Kingdom NL-7400 AC

Phone Number: Country: +44 171 937 9996 The Netherlands

Fax Number: Phone Number: +44 171 937 7447 +31 5700 99911

E-mail Adress: Fax Number: [email protected] +31 5700 99666

Homepage Adress: E-mail Adress: - -

Organisation Profile: Homepage Adress: SustainAbility Ltd. was formed in 1987 and is - an internationally respected, award-winning environmental management and sustainable Organisation Profile: development consultancy - offering specialist Independent consultancy in the field of services in corporate environmental policy, environmental research, with approximately strategy, management systems, product life- 500 people employed. The organisation was cycle management, auditing and verification, founded in 1928. The company houses one communications and reporting and training. of the largest environmental laboratories in Throughout, SustainAbility focuses on the the Netherlands. Tauw milieu is a full daugh- „Triple Bottom Line“ of sustainable develop- ter of the Tauw Holding group, which ment: economic prosperity, environmental employs approximately 1000 people. quality, and social equity. Tauw Milieu has carried out a number of Focus Area: projects in the field of environmental man- Applications, business usage, ecolabelling, agement, like EIA (Environmental Impact stakeholders views. Assessment), environmental auditing and LCA. This text was updated in March 1997. Focus Area: LCA Publications: The department for environmental manage- Engaging Stakeholders (1996). The second ment has performed LCA´s on a wide variety international progress report on company of subjects, for example catering systems, environmental reporting. SustainAbility and packaging, copying paper, water treatment UNEP. techniques, soil sanitation techniques, waste Appendix 5.1.2 111

treatment, etc. Also a lot of ecolabelling Feasibility study Ecolabel converted paper projects were carried out, both for the Dutch products (1996) (In English). Client: The ecolabelling body (e.g. paper products, cat European Commission. litter, floor coverings and refrigerators) and the EU (e.g. cleaning products, cat litter and Dutch ecolabel for envelopes (1995) (In paper products). Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). This text was updated in December 1996. Dutch ecolabel for hard surface floors LCA Publications: (1995) (In Dutch) Client: Stichting Nijdam D.S. (1996) Ecolabel Converted Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for Paper Products. Feasibility Study. R ecolabelling). 3449165.W02/DSN. Dutch ecolabel for paper labels (1994/95) LCA of zinc roof gutters, review and update (In Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (I English, German and Dutch) (1996). (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). Client: The Dutch zinc industry. Dutch ecolabel for coffee filters (1994) (In Product study Dyes „Dyes, How green are Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch they?“ (1994/95) (In Dutch). Client: Minis- competent body for ecolabelling). try of VROM1, Directorate IBPC (Industry, Building, Products and Consumers). Dutch ecolabel for listing paper (1994) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch Product study „Dyes and Pigments“ (1990/ competent body for ecolabelling). 1991) (In Dutch). Client: Ministry of VROM1, Directorate Substances and Risk Control. Dutch ecolabel for files and ringbooks (1994) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting LCA of water treatment techniques (In Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for Dutch and English) (1995). Client: Norit NV ecolabelling). (producer of granular activated carbon). Dutch ecolabel for copying paper (1993/ LCA of watersoil remediation techniques 1994) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting (1994) (In Dutch). Client: RIZA2. Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). LCA of gutter systems (1994) (In Dutch). Client: RIZA 2 Feasibility study Dutch ecolabel for ovens (1993) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting LCA for a starch product vs polypropene Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for (1993/1994) (In Dutch). Client: Ministry of ecolabelling). VROM1, Directorate IBPC. Dutch ecolabel for cooling- and freezing Product study into plastic water bank rein- apparatus (1993) (In Dutch). Client: forcement materials (1994) (In Dutch). Stichting Milieukeur (Dutch competent Client: Ministry of VROM1, Directorate IBPC. body for ecolabelling).

Product study into xerographic paper (LCA European ecolabel cat litter, final report and environmental performance indicator (1995) (In Dutch). Client: Stichting case study) (1992/1993) (In Dutch) Milieukeur (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). Recycling Polystyrene Cups Makes Sense! (1992). Kunststof en Rubber 2 [Crockery/ Dutch ecolabel studies for the following Plastic/Recycling]. In Dutch. product groups (1992) (In Dutch): -refrigerators; cat litter; showerheads. Client: Publications on Ecolabeling: Ministry of VROM1. First draft LCA floor cleaning products (1996) (In English). Client: The European LCA Projects: Commission. European Ecolabel bed matresses. Client: the Greek ministry of the environment. First draft LCA sanitary cleaning products (1996) (In English). Client: The European European Ecolabel toilet cleaning products. Commission. Client: The European Commission. 112 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

European Ecolabel floor cleaning products. Dutch Ecolabel cotton towel dispensers. Client: The European Commission. Client: Stichting Milieu (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). Dutch Ecolabel offsetpaper. Client: Stichting Milieu (Dutch competent body for LCA of waste treatment systems. Client: A ecolabelling). large waste treatment company.

Dutch Ecolabel papertowels. Client: Stichting Milieu (Dutch competent body for ecolabelling). 113

Appendix 5.1.3: Total list of organisations in the database version 1.0 (next 5 pages) 5 sider tabel i separat dokument 5 sider tabel i separat dokument 5 sider tabel i separat dokument 5 sider tabel i separat dokument 5 sider tabel i separat dokument 119

Acknowledgement (LCA Guide)

This report has two authors from Sustain- • The scientific critical review was made by Ability Ltd, and five authors from dk-TEK- Dennis Postlethwaite, Merseyside, UK. NIK. At the start of the project Kim Chri- Further, comments to the methodologi- stiansen and Leif Hoffmann were employed cal chapter were received from Willi by Krüger Consult A/S. Later, Krüger Con- Owens, Proctor & Gamble, Cincinnatti, sult A/S was taken over by COWI Consulting OH, USA. Engineers and Planners A/S. However, after a few months at COWI the two authors • The draft report was circulated for peer moved to Sophus Berendsen A/S and dk- review to the EEA Scientific Committee TEKNIK, respectively, and the responsibility and the EEA National Focal Points. of finishing their project parts was transferred to dk-TEKNIK. Torben Bruun Hansen • The project was wisely coordinated by from COWI is thanked for a flexible coope- Ingvar Andersson, EEA. The website ration. version and paper copy was coordinated by Florus Both and Rolf Küchling, EEA. A number of other people and organisations have helped with this publication at various • The final layout of the paper version was stages. Their contributions are greatly made by Folkmann Design & Promotion. appreciated: • The organisations listed in the database • The web-version of the report was made have been contacted, and they have by Peter Holt Nielsen, and the organisa- provided corrections and amendments. tion database programming and layout were made by Peter Bengaard Hansen and Jakob Geertinger, dk-TEKNIK.

• Peter Hindle from the Society for Pro- motion of LCA Developments (SPOLD) has actively participated in the project.