They also have to comply with diverging schemes in order to compete with their multinational counterparts. Having a common methodological reference will thus facilitate them to reduce complexity and cost. • Investors: Along the same line, investors can better target their decisions by having a consistent reference to the sector and a common ground for assessing how companies perform. • Policy makers: These benefits also relate to governmental actors and policy makers. By knowing the environmental performance of stakeholder groups they can better identify gaps, allocate resources and incentivize consumption of reliably greener alternatives. They can apply this information in policies, e.g. by setting environmental limits for products or by linking economic instruments to environmental performance so that in the long term they can support the sustainable development goals


by setting environmental limits for products or by linking economic instruments to environmental performance so that in the long term they can support the sustainable development goals. In practice, it is very difficult to use EPDs for comparisons of products, because a meaningful comparison requires that the declarations include all stages of the life cycle, use the same environmental indicators, and are based on LCAs with the same scope, methodology and data quality. This means that they should be based on the same Type III declaration scheme where a specific set of product category rules has been defined. Despite the challenges, there are more and more initiatives for criteria harmonisation. Such are the aforementioned for the building sector and the broad EU initiative discussed in Sect. 24.5.1. Across countries, there are several recognition arrangements occurring not only in Europe (see Sect. 24.3.4) but also in North America, Asia and elsewhere (DigitalEurope 2015)

24 Environmental Labels and Declarations

Hauschild et al., LCA: Theory and Practice


24.5.1. Across countries, there are several recognition arrangements occurring not only in Europe (see Sect. 24.3.4) but also in North America, Asia and elsewhere (DigitalEurope 2015). 24.5.1 EU’s Product and Organisational Environmental Footprints (PEF/OEF) In 2011, the European Commission started working on methodology harmonisation for Product Environmental Footprints (PEFs) and Organisational Environmental


Footprints (OEFs) which are the EU Commission’s term for the impact profiles resulting from LCAs, i.e. similar to Type III based environmental declarations for products or organisations (EC 2016f). Rather than suggesting a new approach, the idea was to build upon well-established, verified and broadly used methods, standards and guidelines, such as ISO 14040-44, ISO 14064, PAS 2050 and WRI/WBCSD GHG protocol (ISO 2006b, c; EC-JRC 2010; BSI 2011; WRI/WBCSD 2016). Two years later the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and Organizational Environmental Footprint (OEF) Guides where released under the “Single Market for Green Products Initiative”. The aim of these voluntary initiatives is to provide a common methodological basis and support a single metric for a single market. PEF relates to single products (i.e. goods or services) while OEF refers to an organisation comprising a well-defined portfolio of products and/or services


PEF relates to single products (i.e. goods or services) while OEF refers to an organisation comprising a well-defined portfolio of products and/or services. The latter can be calculated using aggregated data (thus, it is not required to have individual PEFs and sum them up to get the OEF). Both apply common rules, which further allow to explore synergies between the organizational and product levels. PEF/OEF are life cycle based and cover 15 impact categories in the ILCD method (see Chap. 10). Still, in line with what was discussed in Sect. 24.3.1 the choice of impact categories to communicate could further be tailored to each product category and sector so that consumers can more easily grasp the information (EC 2016e). The release of the PEF/OEF guides was followed by a 3-year period (2013– 2016) of testing and refining of the method on the basis of 26 selected pilot case studies within different sectors


The release of the PEF/OEF guides was followed by a 3-year period (2013– 2016) of testing and refining of the method on the basis of 26 selected pilot case studies within different sectors. An additional intention is to complement them with product category and sector specific rules to facilitate streamlining of the LCA and ensure comparability between similar products and sectors. The pilot studies are also investigating strategies for communicating life cycle environmental performance to business partners, consumers and other company stakeholders. From a policy point of view, PEF/OEF are considered to strengthen existing product instruments such as Ecolabel, Green Public Procurement and Ecodesign. ISO Type I labels can also benefit since PEFs can consistently inform on the most relevant environmental impacts and life cycle stages. The possibility for benchmarking will additionally allow to refine existing labels based on market performance


The possibility for benchmarking will additionally allow to refine existing labels based on market performance. PEF/OEF also have a place in the bigger framework of circular economy, which is the strategic vision for European economic development (EC 2015). Overall, regardless its European focus, the initiative has attracted global attention given the global nature of the economy, the importance of the European market and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Yet, such a broad harmonisation attempt does not come without challenges. Critics undermine the comprehensiveness of the approach, i.e. within the PEF framework one could still get different results for the same product, which jeopardises the principles of consistency and credibility. They also question the suitability of PEF for consumers, who would still lack the competences that would enable them to weigh different environmental impacts and their trade-offs


They also question the suitability of PEF for consumers, who would still lack the competences that would enable them to weigh different environmental impacts and their trade-offs. Additionally, the attempt to make the methodology more feasible may lead to lower accuracy and meaningfulness, e.g. PEF includes only selected parts of the spectra of Environmental Labels and Declarations


problems, which is not always sufficient. New developments take place both on product system modelling level, e.g. with consequential LCA, and on a LCIA level, e.g. with endpoint modelling. Once consensus is reached on such methodological choices, the PEF/OEF methodology will constantly need to be updated in order to keep up with methodological developments that improve the reliability of LCA results. Despite the drawbacks indicated, the PEF/OEF address the need for harmonisation and take a step towards it. Rather than redundant tools that add complexity, PEF and OEF are conceived and further refined as tools that act in synergy with existing schemes. BSI: PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services (2011) CEPACEC: Certification scope and procedure for the environmental labelling products in China. In: China Environ. United Certif. Cent. http://www.sepacec.com/cecen/ (2016)


In: China Environ. United Certif. Cent. http://www.sepacec.com/cecen/ (2016). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 Danish Consumer Ombudsman: Environmental and ethical marketing claims. http://www. consumerombudsman.dk/Regulatory-framework/dcoguides/Environmental-and-ethical-marketing (2016). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 DigitalEurope: Ecolabels—criteria harmonisation and recognition arrangements. http://www.digital europe.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&Entry Id=951&PortalId=0&TabId=353 (2015) EC: Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, The European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions on the sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. Brussels (2008) EC: 2011/263/EU: Commission Decision of 28 April 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to detergents for dishwashers (notified under document C (2011) 2806). Off. J. Eur


Off. J. Eur. Union 111, 22–33 (2011a) EC: Regulation (EU) no 305/2011 of the European parliament and of the council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union 88, 5–43 (2011b) EC: 2014/312/EU: Commission Decision of 28 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for indoor and outdoor paints and varnishes (notified under document C(2014) 3429). Off. J. Eur. Union 164, 45–73 (2014a) EC: Consumer Market Study on Environmental Claims for Non-Food Products. Brussels (2014b) EC: Directive 2014/24/EU of the European parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing directive 2004/18/EC. Off. J. Eur. Union 94:65–242 (2014c) EC: Circular Economy Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm (2015) EC: EU Ecolabel criteria development and revision. In: EC-Environment


Eur. Union 94:65–242 (2014c) EC: Circular Economy Strategy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm (2015) EC: EU Ecolabel criteria development and revision. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/ecolabel/criteria-development-and-revision.html (2016a). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 EC: How to apply for EU Ecolabel. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ ecolabel/how-to-apply-for-eu-ecolabel.html (2016b). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 EC: Single market for green products initiative. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/eussd/smgp/index.htm (2016c). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 EC: Green public procurement. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_ en.htm (2016d). Accessed 30 Jun 2016


EC: Questions about the product environmental footprint (Pef) and organisation environmental footprint (Oef) methods. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/ pdf/q_a.pdf (2016e). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 EC: Single market for green products-policy background. In: EC-Environment. http://ec.europa. eu/environment/eussd/smgp/policy_footprint.htm (2016f). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 EC-DG Energy: ENER/C3/2012-436—market study for a voluntary common European Union certification scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings (2014) EC-JRC: International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed guidance, 1st edn. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (2010) GECA: Good Environmental Choice Australia-Certification Scheme Rules (version 15). New South Wales (2015) IISD: Global Green Standards-ISO 14000 and Sustainable Development


New South Wales (2015) IISD: Global Green Standards-ISO 14000 and Sustainable Development. Manitoba (1996) ISO: ISO 14024:1999 Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling —Principles and Procedures. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1999) ISO: ISO/IEC Guide 28:2004 Conformity Assessment—Guidance on a Third-Party Certification System for Products. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2004) ISO: ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2005) ISO: ISO 14025:2006 Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type III Environmental Declarations —Principles and Procedures. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006a) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (ISO 14040)


ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006a) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework (ISO 14040). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006b) ISO: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines (ISO 14044). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006c) ISO: Environmental Management—The ISO 14000 Family of International Standards. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2009) ISO: ISO/IEC 17065:2012 Conformity Assessment—Requirements for Bodies Certifying Products, Processes and Services. ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2012) ISO: ISO 14021:2016 Environmental Labels and Declarations—Self-Declared Environmental Claims (Type II Environmental Labelling). ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2016) LEED: LEED. http://leed.usgbc.org/leed.html (2016)


ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2016) LEED: LEED. http://leed.usgbc.org/leed.html (2016). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 Rubik, F., Frankl, P.: The Future of Eco-labelling: Making Environmental Product Information Systems Effective. Greenleaf Pub, Sheffield (2005) UN: Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable development. In: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), p. 343. United Nations, Rio de Janerio (1992) UN: Johannesburg declaration on sustainable development and plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable development: the final text of agreements negotiated by governments at the world summit on sustainable development. In: World Summit on Sustainable Development, and United Nations. United Nations Department of Public Information, Johannesburg (2002) UN: Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. In: Sustain. Dev. Goals


United Nations Department of Public Information, Johannesburg (2002) UN: Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. In: Sustain. Dev. Goals. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/ (2016). Accessed 30 Jun 2016 UNEP: Ecolabelling—as a potential marketing tool for African products (an overview of opportunities and challenges). http://www.unep.org/roa/docs/pdf/Eco-labelling-Brochure.pdf (2016) UNOPS: A guide to environmental labels for procurement practitioners of the United Nations system (2009) Environmental Labels and Declarations


Wenzel, H., Hauschild, M.Z., Alting, L.: Environmental Assessment of Products, vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin (1997) WRI/WBCSD: Greenhouse gas protocol. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/ (2016). Accessed 30 Jun Author Biographies Jeppe Frydendal Working with LCA/LCM since late 1990s in industry, university, consultancy and ecolabelling. The focus and interest has always been to disseminate life cycle thinking to companies ensuring that they convert LCA knowledge to real life environmental improvements. Co-author of the UNEP Business Guide on Life Cycle Management. Lisbeth Engel Hansen Participated in some of the first Danish assessments of materials in a life cycle perspective. Has since the early 1990s been involved in development of life cycle based ecolabels both methodological and in practice, among other things as a board member of GEN. Participate in the development of the ISO standards on ecolabelling


Participate in the development of the ISO standards on ecolabelling. Alexandra Bonou LCA expert and modeller focussing on ecodesign since 2009. Has worked on integrating life cycle thinking and environmental target setting in organisations of the private and public sector. Interested in life cycle management, product development, social life cycle assessment.


Chapter 25 Cradle to Cradle and LCA Anders Bjørn and Michael Z. Hauschild Abstract Cradle to Cradle (C2C) offers a positive vision of a future, where products are radically redesigned to be beneficial to humans and the environment. The idea is not to reduce negative impacts (as in LCA), but to increase positive impacts. This chapter presents the C2C concept and its relationship with the circular economy, the C2C certification and examples of C2C certified or inspired products and systems. This is followed by a comparison of C2C with eco-efficiency and LCA. Because of their important differences, we conclude that care should be taken when combing C2C and LCA, e.g. using LCA to evaluate products inspired by C2C. We then provide an in-depth analysis of the conflicts between C2C and LCA and offer solutions


using LCA to evaluate products inspired by C2C. We then provide an in-depth analysis of the conflicts between C2C and LCA and offer solutions. Finally, we reflect upon how LCA practitioners can learn from C2C in terms of providing a vision of a sustainable future, creating a sense of urgency for change and communicating results in an inspiring way. Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, one should be able to • Explain the Cradle to Cradle® (C2C®) concept and its three key principles,1 • Outline the C2C certification scheme, • Provide examples of C2C inspired or certified products, • Discuss similarities and differences, complementarities and conflicts between C2C and LCA. A. Bjørn (&)  M.Z. Hauschild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: anders.bjoern@polymtl.ca A


Hauschild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department of Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: anders.bjoern@polymtl.ca A. Bjørn CIRAIG, Polytechnique Montréal, 3333 Chemin Queen-Mary, Montréal, QC, Canada 1Cradle to Cradle® and C2C® are trademarks of MBDC, LLC. Used with permission. © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_25


25.1 Background Imagine a world in which industry, yes, every factory and every building is as wasteful and as useful as a cherry tree in full bloom. A world, in which buildings – just like trees – use the sun’s energy, produce nutrients and oxygen, provide living space for other creatures, cleanse water, purify the air and even change to adapt to the seasons. A world without environmental pollution or waste, where only products with materials that are beneficial to both man and the environment are manufactured. A world, in which materials are of such high value that they flow in specially designed material cycles. A world, in which humans can actually be pleased about the benefits their consumption has on the environment. A world, in which humans are freed from and no longer have to live under the restraints and limitations placed on them by always having to save, reduce and cut down on certain things for the sake of the environment


That is exactly the kind of world that the Cradle to Cradle® design concept opens up to all of us. – Excerpt from Michael Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle Vision (EPEA 2013) The words above do not resemble those of an ordinary engineering discipline. But then again, the Cradle to Cradle concept is by no means an ordinary engineering discipline. 25.1.1 History Cradle to Cradle® (C2C) is based upon the idea of imitating nature in the approach to sustainable product and system design. The first use of the term Cradle to Cradle is generally attributed to the Swiss architect Walter R. Stahel in the end of the 1980s (PLI 2013). The term originated as a reaction to the newly emerged idea of companies being responsible for their products and systems from “cradle to grave”. Stahel argued that the “cradle to grave” perspective was merely reinforcing the existing linear economical model and relied on end-of-pipe solutions


Stahel argued that the “cradle to grave” perspective was merely reinforcing the existing linear economical model and relied on end-of-pipe solutions. He argued that the really sustainable solution was to use durable goods in a loop from “cradle back to cradle” in a circular economy (PLI 2013). At the turn of the century, the German chemist Michael Braungart and US architect and designer William McDonough further developed the C2C concept and provided examples and guidance for its use in the design of products and system. In 2002 this work was compiled in the book “C2C—Remaking the way we make things” (McDonough and Braungart 2002). A decade later “The Upcycle” was published (McDonough and Braungart 2013). This sequel to the 2002 book clarifies the theoretical basis of C2C, addresses some common misconception and provides additional examples of how the concept can be applied to the design of products and systems at various scales. A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


25.1.2 Influence The C2C books have broad scopes and address a variety of topics, such as environmental science, product and system design, organizational theory and philosophy. The books are written in a visionary, provocative and popular style and have consequently reached an audience beyond the sole fields of civil engineering and product design. Apart from attracting a large numbers of readers, the C2C concept has had a number of concrete impacts on business, civil society and policy. The trademark C2C is owned by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (MBDC) located in North America and the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA), located in Hamburg has the license to use it. The C2C Product Innovation Institute (California) has the license to certify products according to the Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTMProduct standard, i.e. the C2C certification scheme


The C2C Product Innovation Institute (California) has the license to certify products according to the Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTMProduct standard, i.e. the C2C certification scheme. These institutions have moreover trained consultancies around the world to assist companies in going in a C2C direction and/or complying with the certification requirements. This has resulted in a number of products and system designs based on the concept and C2C certified products (see Sect. 25.4). Some environmental NGOs are also praising the concept for its positive agenda and a few are even entirely dedicated to moving the world in a C2C direction, such as the Danish CradlePeople. Also, Cradle to Cradle has inspired the financially secure Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) to promote the idea of a Circular Economy, defined as a restorative or regenerative industrial system by intention and design (EMF 2012)


This charity has since 2012 published a series of comprehensive reports and books with the overall aim of convincing business and policy-makers that a strategic transformation from a linear to a circular economy is not only possible, but also in their enlightened self-interest, as it can increase the wealth and resilience of companies and societies (e.g. EMF 2012, 2015a, b). Direct influences of Cradle to Cradle and Circular Economy on policy have initially been modest, but in 2015 the European Commission adopted an “EU action plan for the Circular Economy” (EC 2015a). The declared aims of this action plan is to “contribute to ‘closing the loop’ of product lifecycles through greater recycling and reuse, and bring benefits for both the environment and the economy” (EC 2015b). The plan includes among other things common EU targets for recycling, economic incentives for producers of recyclable products and measures to stimulate industrial symbiosis


The plan includes among other things common EU targets for recycling, economic incentives for producers of recyclable products and measures to stimulate industrial symbiosis. 25.2 Key Principles of C2C C2C aims for positive impacts on the environment, including humans. To achieve this, three key design principles must be followed: Waste Equals Food, Use Current Solar Income and Celebrate Diversity. Cradle to Cradle and LCA


25.2.1 Key Principle 1: Waste Equals Food According to the C2C concept, humans are not inherently harmful to the environment. Rather than considering environmental impacts as unwanted, but inevitable, consequences of human activities, they should be seen as symptoms of design failures. Waste, understood as a physical flow with no use for anyone and therefore no economic value, is such a symptom of design failure. Waste is a phenomenon unknown to nature in which materials are continuously cycled between different ecosystem species. The waste of one organism becomes food for another organism. Waste equals food. The very concept of waste should therefore be eliminated and the focus should instead be to design “healthy emissions”, meaning that the emissions that inevitably result from industrial processes should be engineered as resources to be taken up by other industrial processes or ecosystems


The focus should thus shift from trying to reduce the amounts of emissions to designing emissions with beneficial effects (either for organisms in nature or for other industrial processes). This applies to emissions occurring throughout the life cycle of a product and also to the product itself when it reaches its disposal stage. To ensure that such emissions can undergo recycling in continuous loops without loss of quality, materials should either be defined as technical or biological nutrients, see Fig. 25.1. The (short) definition of a biological nutrient is “a product usable by defined living organisms to carry on life processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates, energy management, and other complex functions” (PII 2016). Analogously, a technical nutrient can (in short) be defined as “a product capable of “feeding” technical systems” (PII 2016). Feeding may be in the form of dismantle and reuse, physical transformation (e.g


Feeding may be in the form of dismantle and reuse, physical transformation (e.g. plastic remoulding) and chemical transformation (e.g. plastic depolymerisation). It should be noted that materials in the technical cycle are therefore free to take part in any product, as long as they Fig. 25.1 The technical and biological nutrient cycles. Image Copyright© MBDC, LLC. Used with permission A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


maintain their value. It is even encouraged to increase material value as they cycle from product to product. This process is termed ‘upcycling’, which is also the title of the recent C2C book (McDonough and Braungart 2013). Materials harmful to the environment or humans are accepted as technological nutrients in C2C if they fulfil the above definition and as long as they do not end up in the environment and as long as humans are not exposed to them. Some materials may qualify as biological nutrients, but also be able to take part in the technical nutrient cycle until a critical point, where their quality is too low to be of any value in the technical cycle. At this point, they should enter the biological cycle. For example, paper produced from wood can undergo recycling by pulping. This process, however, leads to the rejection of the fraction of the wood fibres that have become too short to be of use


For example, paper produced from wood can undergo recycling by pulping. This process, however, leads to the rejection of the fraction of the wood fibres that have become too short to be of use. When a wood fibre becomes too short due to pulping and no other industrial processes in the technical cycle can use it, it can no longer be characterised as a technical nutrient. Because wood fibres also qualify as biological nutrients the rejected wood fibres can therefore enter the biological cycle through, e.g. anaerobic digestion, composting or spreading of ashes following incineration, provided that they are not contaminated (see below) (MIE 2011). Products composed of biological nutrients, such as wood fibres in paper, are inherently degradable. They should therefore naturally be ‘consumed’ by the consumer, who may choose to nourish his or her garden soil with the biological nutrients contained in the worn out product (e.g. a piece of textile)


a piece of textile). By contrast, products composed of technical nutrients, are per definition not ‘consumable’. Their value to the user is the function they provide, not the materials they are composed of, which means that they may, potentially, be leased rather than sold to the users. Products composed of technical nutrients should thus take part in Product Service Systems (PSS). In PSS, users pay for services (such as the ability to watch television 500 h per year for 5 years) rather than products (a television). For the consumer this has the advantage that they are guaranteed the quality of the service (if the television malfunctions or breaks down, the supplier is obliged to fix it) and that they do not have to bother with disposing the product when it is no longer useful (e.g. taking an obsolete or broken television to the recycling centre). For the company engaging in PSS has the advantage that they maintain control over the materials embedded in the products


taking an obsolete or broken television to the recycling centre). For the company engaging in PSS has the advantage that they maintain control over the materials embedded in the products. Products may thus be designed with durability in mind and for easy replacement of individual parts. Modular designs may also be advantageous since parts of redundant products may be fed into new products as resources. The potentials of PSS as driver of environmental improvements are obvious: It can ensure cleaner fractions of used products, to a higher extend designed for disassembly and ensure a higher recovery fraction than for non-PSS goods, where the continuous cycling of technical nutrients to a large extent relies on the good will of consumers. The distinction between the biological cycle and the technical cycle is also at the core of the circular economy, and so is the distinction between consumers and users


The distinction between the biological cycle and the technical cycle is also at the core of the circular economy, and so is the distinction between consumers and users. A key message in the C2C concept is that biological and technical nutrients should not be mixed beyond easy separability, as this creates a risk of a product that Cradle to Cradle and LCA


neither fits the biological nor the technical nutrient cycle. Such a product is termed a monstrous hybrid and can never truly be recycled and the result is a “downcycled” product of lower quality and value (McDonough and Braungart 2002). Moreover, the separation of biological and technical nutrients in the recycling process is technically complicated and often requires high inputs of energy and chemicals, which may cause damage if emitted to the environment. The authors use ordinary cellulose-based office paper as an example of a monstrous hybrid, since it is composed of biological materials (cellulose fibres) as well as technical materials (e.g. coating agents, dyes and inks). Therefore, it can neither be part of the biological cycle (the chemicals are persistent and possibly toxic to the environment) nor the technical cycle, at least not indefinitely (cellulose fibres are shortened during the pulping process)


Attempts to recycle ordinary office paper thus inevitably results in downcycling. Recycled office paper has a lower functionality than virgin office paper. To compensate for the mix of biological and technical nutrients its recycling process requires additional input of virgin wood fibres and chemicals for bleaching and de-inking the pulp, which are emitted from the recycling plant causing damage to the environment. 25.2.2 Key Principle 2: Use Current Solar Income The second key principle dictates that the energy required to fuel a continuous-loop C2C society must all originate from “current solar income,” defined as photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, hydro, and biomass. All these energy sources are effects of solar radiation on Earth’s surface (except geothermal energy, which originates from nuclear processes in the core of the Earth). The solar income must be ‘current’. Otherwise, fossil fuels would be permitted since they are ‘old’ solar income


The solar income must be ‘current’. Otherwise, fossil fuels would be permitted since they are ‘old’ solar income. This key principle is inspired by nature since all processes occurring in nature are fuelled by current solar income. It is important to note that there are no quantitative restrictions on the amount of energy used throughout the life cycle of a C2C product or system. The quantity of energy used is considered irrelevant as long as the energy quality (i.e. energy source) meets the requirements of current solar income (McDonough and Braungart 2002). 25.2.3 Key Principle 3: Celebrate Diversity Avoiding one-size-fits-all designs is the main point of the last key principle. Products and systems should be designed with respect for local cultures, economies, and environments. Ecosystems differ with respect to structure, processes, function and the services they may offer to humans, depending on varying natural conditions (e.g. climatic and geologic) across the globe


Ecosystems differ with respect to structure, processes, function and the services they may offer to humans, depending on varying natural conditions (e.g. climatic and geologic) across the globe. Similarly, the organisms populating A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


the ecosystems each fulfil a specific task and biologists generally agree that a high diversity of species (biodiversity) lead to more robust or resilient systems. Consequently, products and systems designed by humans should: “draw information from and ultimately “fit” within local natural systems ... express an understanding of ecological relationships and enhance the local landscape where possible ... draw on local energy and material flows ... take into account both the distant effects of local actions and the local effects of distant actions” (McDonough and Braungart 2002). The third key principle also encourages that one should ‘become native’ and realize one’s role as a species among other species. Members of ecosystems are dependent on receiving, transforming and passing on nutrients to each other


Members of ecosystems are dependent on receiving, transforming and passing on nutrients to each other. Therefore the aim should not be to reduce impacts on the environment, as suggested by the eco-efficiency concept, as this would result in isolation from other species (McDonough and Braungart 2002). Instead we should exchange nutrients with the environment and integrate it into our system designs (e.g. through the use of green roofs for storm water management and constructed wetlands for waste water treatment). On a more philosophical note, the authors advocate the abandonment of the mental image of ‘mother nature’, which we feel guilty about hurting. Instead nature should be perceived as a companion that we may learn from and support (Tobias 2010)


Instead nature should be perceived as a companion that we may learn from and support (Tobias 2010). 25.2.4 The Cherry Tree Metaphor C2C proponents often use the metaphor of a cherry tree to sum up the three key principles: “Thousands of blossoms create fruit for birds, humans, and other animals, in order that one pit might eventually fall to the ground, take root, and grow...although the tree actually makes more of its “product” than it needs for its own success in an ecosystem, this abundance has evolved...to serve rich and varied purposes. In fact, the tree’s fecundity nourishes just about everything around it”. Rather than being eco-efficient the cherry tree is being eco-effective. C2C translates this into doing the right thing rather than doing the thing right. Thus, eco-effectiveness is focused on achieving the right goal, as opposed to eco-efficiency, which is focused on optimizing the means to achieving some predefined goal


Thus, eco-effectiveness is focused on achieving the right goal, as opposed to eco-efficiency, which is focused on optimizing the means to achieving some predefined goal. 25.3 C2C Certification Program Since 2005, companies have been able to apply for a product-level C2C certification. The certification program was initially administered by MBDC in the US and by EPEA in Europe. Since 2010, the non-profit California based Cradle to Cradle to Cradle and LCA


Cradle Products Innovation InstituteTMhas also been licensed to carry out certifications. The institute trains and certifies consultants around the world, who assist companies in complying with the certification requirements. 25.3.1 Certification Criteria The certification can be awarded to products at five levels; Basic, Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum, of which the criteria for Platinum are the most strict (PII 2016). It should be noted that not even a platinum awarded product guarantees a ‘true’ C2C product, i.e. one that fulfils all three key principles for all aspects. Rather, products awarded a certification should be seen as ‘on the path’ to C2C. The progressive nature of the certification also urges for stepwise product improvement from a lower to a higher certification level. The certification criteria cover five categories. For each category, a number of criteria must be met, depending on the level of certification


The certification criteria cover five categories. For each category, a number of criteria must be met, depending on the level of certification. The overall certification level of the product is determined by the category with the lowest achievement level (PII 2017a), see example in Table 25.1. Below an illustrative selection of these criteria for version 3.1 of the certification program (PII 2016) is presented. Material Health The applicant must obtain an overview of all homogenous materials in the product and materials or substances present at a concentration of 100 ppm (parts per million) or higher must be reported (Bronze and above). Additionally, banned chemicals (e.g. some metals, flame retardants and phthalates) must be reported at any level


Additionally, banned chemicals (e.g. some metals, flame retardants and phthalates) must be reported at any level. After receiving the material list the certifying body evaluates all materials according to their human and environmental risk potentials and to the recyclability of each material and award a colour score (red, yellow, green, grey and banned) for each material following their classification methodology. The higher the certification level, the lower the allowed red and grey (unknown) material content in the product. In addition, Gold- and Platinum level applicants must also demonstrate compliance with Cradle to Cradle emissions standards. These define maximum Table 25.1 Example of C2C certification scorecard Certification criterion Basic Bronze Silver Gold Platinum Material health X Material reutilization X Renewable energy and carbon management X Water stewardship X Social fairness X Overall certification level X Based on PII (2017b) A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


values for the off-gassing of problematic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the product in its use stage. At platinum level process chemicals must also be assessed, among which no red chemicals are allowed. Material Reutilization The applicant must demonstrate that the product has successfully been designed as either a technical or a biological nutrient (or both if the materials are easily separable, thus avoiding the creating of a “monstrous hybrid”). Furthermore, applicants must be in the process of developing a plan for end of life product recovery. At Gold-level a “Well-defined nutrient management strategy” must be in place and this plan must be implemented at Platinum level. A minimum nutrient reutilization score is required within each certification level. The score is a weighted average of the percentage of the product considered recyclable/compostable (weight of 2) and the percentage of recycled/rapidly renewable content (weight of 1)


The score is a weighted average of the percentage of the product considered recyclable/compostable (weight of 2) and the percentage of recycled/rapidly renewable content (weight of 1). A material may be classified as recyclable based on its inherent qualities, independently of the existence of an infrastructure for its recovery. Renewable Energy and Carbon Management Applicants must supply information on the quantity and sources of electricity and on-site emissions used in the “final manufacturing stage” of the product. The industrial processes covered by the final manufacturing stage in the certification program varies across product categories, see PII (2015). For all levels, except Basic, an applicant is required to present a strategy for supplying the energy needed for the final manufacturing stage of a product through current solar income (photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, hydro, and biomass)


At Gold-level at least 50% of the energy required in final manufacturing must come from current solar income (5% for Silver and 100% for Platinum). Finally, for the Platinum level the embodied energy associated with the product from Cradle to Gate must come from current solar income. To increase the share of energy from current solar income, it is allowed to purchase specified renewable energy certificates documenting that the electricity used comes from renewable sources. Water Stewardship For all levels except Basic, a facility wide water-audit must be conducted, meaning that all water flows associated with product final manufacturing are fully characterized. For Silver and Gold levels, there are furthermore requirements to characterize and optimize product related chemicals in effluent to develop a strategy for supply-chain water issues for tier 1 suppliers. At Platinum level, all water leaving the final manufacturing facility must meet drinking water quality standards


At Platinum level, all water leaving the final manufacturing facility must meet drinking water quality standards. Social Fairness For all levels, applications must perform a streamlined self-audit related to fundamental human rights and any identified issues must be addressed by management procedures. At Bronze level this self-audit must be more thorough and for Silver level and higher applicants must fulfil criteria related to social conditions at suppliers (e.g. through purchasing fair trade materials or FSC certified wood) or initiate local social projects. At platinum level a facility level audit must be completed by a Cradle to Cradle and LCA


third party following internationally recognized standards (such as SA8000 or BCorp). A study of the application of the five certification criteria to an aluminium can, belonging to the technical cycle, found that the main learnings for the company manufacturing the cans were (Niero et al. 2016): • Material health: substances even at ppm level, often originating from additives giving the desired functional properties to the base material, have an impact on recyclability. • Material reutilization: ensuring recyclability, e.g. through a change in lacquer, is a prerequisite for achieving the volumes of recycled aluminium required for a high recycled content of new aluminium cans. • Renewable energy and carbon management, water stewardship and social fairness: these certification criteria require interventions at the company’s (and to some extend suppliers’) processes, rather than in the design of the aluminium can


25.3.2 Certified Products As of March 2017, 482 certifications were in place (PII 2017b). These cover more than 482 individual products, since more than one of a company’s products may be covered by a single certification, if they are materially very similar (e.g. a series of textile products only differing in patterns and colours). The distribution between certification levels was: 3% Basic, 44% Bronze, 35% Silver, 18% Gold and 0.2% (one product) Platinum. The five largest product categories were Building Supply and Materials (177), Interior Design and Furniture (158) Home and Office Supply (44), Packaging and Paper (27) and Fashion and Textiles (21). It can be seen that the certifications cover both products of a business-to-business and business-to-consumer nature. 25.3.3 Comparison of Certification Program with Type 1 Eco-labels The term eco-label may cover a wide variety of schemes (see more in Chap. 24)


25.3.3 Comparison of Certification Program with Type 1 Eco-labels The term eco-label may cover a wide variety of schemes (see more in Chap. 24). In Europe the most recognized and widespread labels belong to what ISO-14024 classifies as Type environmental labelling (ISO 1999): ‘a voluntary, multiple-criteria based, third party program that awards a license which authorizes the use of environmental labels on products indicating overall environmental preferability of a product within a particular product category based on life cycle A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


considerations.’ The Nordic swan and the EU flower are examples of Type 1 labels (NEL 2016). When comparing the C2C certification scheme with Type 1 labels, an obvious difference is that the C2C scheme applies uniform criteria across product categories, whereas Type 1 labels define specific criteria for each product category. The Nordic swan (Type 1) currently contains 56 product categories (e.g. copy and printing paper, cleaning products and computers) (NEL 2016). From a consumer perspective applying uniform criteria means that the same criteria apply for all C2C products (e.g. using 50% current solar income in final manufacturing for all Gold certified products), which makes the criteria easier to understand. However, it also means that products in product groups composed mainly of homogenous materials may relatively easily be granted a C2C certification and that the opposite may be true for other product groups


A C2C label guarantees that the company behind it has gone through the trouble of becoming certified (including the often demanding task of identifying all substances present above 100 ppm), but it does not guarantee that a product has a better environmental performance than its competitors within a given product group. In fact, many criteria, especially those at Basic level, are related to intentions rather than the actual performance of an existing product. By comparison, Type 1 labels are based on the LCA concept of the functional unit, which is used to define and distinguish between the many product categories. Therefore the performance of existing products is all that matters for Type 1 labels. Criteria for each Type 1 label product category are defined and continuously redefined so only a fraction (typically around one third) of the market is able to fulfil them


Criteria for each Type 1 label product category are defined and continuously redefined so only a fraction (typically around one third) of the market is able to fulfil them. Another important difference is that Type 1 labels are based on a life cycle perspective with eco-efficiency as its underlining concept. The C2C certification is also based on a life cycle perspective, but with a focus on the processes within the applying company and the end of life stage. Criteria related to upstream processes at suppliers are included only at the highest certification level (i.e. platinum). In addition, the C2C scheme has a strong focus on the chemical content of the product itself and how this may affect the users and the recyclability of the product. In comparison, Type 1 labels are typically more focused on the inputs and outputs of processes in the life cycle


In comparison, Type 1 labels are typically more focused on the inputs and outputs of processes in the life cycle. It should be noted that eco-efficiency and C2C concepts differs considerably with respect to their approach to a sustainable production (see Sect. 25.5). However, as noted in Sect. 25.3.1 C2C certified products are by no means ideal C2C products and in fact the scheme has many similarities with eco-efficiency based Type 1 labels, such as the Nordic swan, meaning that it is just as focused on doing “less bad” as it is on doing “more good”. 25.4 Examples of C2C Products and Systems The C2C concepts and certification has inspired a number of products, systems and initiatives. This section presents six examples: three certified products, a C2C inspired system, a C2C-based product concept and a C2C inspired company Cradle to Cradle and LCA


network. Note that the three certified product examples all have been on the market, but may not be so anymore (or may not have renewed certifications) at the time you read this, due to the dynamic nature of consumer products. 25.4.1 C2C Certified Technical Product: Returnity© Upholstery Textile Returnity is an example of a C2C Gold certified series of upholstery products designed to fit into the technological cycle (PII 2017b). The textiles are manufactured by Austria based Backhausen and are reportedly 100% recyclable through a process of chemical hydrolysis, where the nylon polymers are broken down into monomers, which are then fed into the production of new nylon products. In this process downcycling is avoided as the resulting nylon monomers are neither reduced in quantity nor quality


In this process downcycling is avoided as the resulting nylon monomers are neither reduced in quantity nor quality. Backhausen has organized a take back system, so when the upholstery has reached the end of its useful life, the user may report it by email, after which the product is being transported from the user to the recycling facility. 25.4.2 C2C Certified Biological Product: Trigema© Clothing Trigema is an example of a series of C2C Silver certified clothing products (t-shirts, trousers, pyjamas, etc.) designed to fit into the biological cycle (PII 2017b). Trigema is a German-based company, who has designed their certified series to be “completely safe for humans and the environment”. Trigema is made of organic cotton


Trigema is a German-based company, who has designed their certified series to be “completely safe for humans and the environment”. Trigema is made of organic cotton. Little information is provided on how the product should be disposed of, but composting, anaerobic digestion and incineration with recovery of nutrients from ash are all in theory viable options that ensure that the biological nutrients (the cotton, dye, etc.) of the product returns to the soil. 25.4.3 C2C Certified Technical Product: TerraSkin© Mineral Paper TerraSkin is an example of a series of C2C Silver certified mineral paper products designed to fit into the technological cycle (PII 2017b). The TerraSkin company mainly operates in the US and their factory is located in Asia. TerraSkin is composed of 75% CaCO3 powder from limestone and 25% high-density polyethylene (HDPE) binder. It is applied both as graphical paper and packaging paper and has A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


some qualitative advantages over cellulose based paper since it has a very smooth surface and is water and tear-resistant. Currently TerraSkin does not fulfil the first key principles of C2C. This is because no dedicated post-consumer waste management system exists. TerraSkin may be disposed of through plastic municipal collection schemes covering high-density polyethylene (HDPE), where it will be transformed to plastic lumber and consequently take part in, e.g. benches, roadside curps or playground equipment. This represents downcycling since the HDPE content in TerraSkin has acquired reduced functionality, quality and thus economic value. 25.4.4 C2C Inspired System: Ford Motor Company The C2C inspired initiatives at the Ford manufacturing site in Detroit, US, offer an example of how the C2C concept may be applied to large scale systems (MBDC 2011)


After having operated for almost a century, the soils at the factory were heavily polluted and Ford was concerned about how to comply with stricter stormwater regulation related to the Rouge River that received water leaching from the soils. The solution was to use green spaces (lawns and green roofs) in combination with replacing impervious paving with porous paving for improved storm water filtration and retention. To reduce the problem of contaminated soil Ford has initiated a number of small scale phyto-remediation experiments, in which polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are taken up and broken down by plants. Finally, the installation of photovoltaic cells to cover part of the factory’s electricity consumption has been proposed. Other than solving their initial purpose (stormwater retention and filtration, absorption and neutralization of pollutants) the initiatives have reportedly also lead to increased biodiversity at the factory grounds


25.4.5 C2C Product Concept: Running Shoes for Rent Concept The last example is not an existing product, but a product concept presented in (McDonough and Braungart 2002). The concept illustrates how biological and technical nutrients may be integrated in the same product and provide different functions. In the running shoe concept, the sole should be composed of biological nutrients, with the aim of releasing beneficial nutrients to the environment with each footstep through abrasion. In contrast, the upper part of the shoe would be Cradle to Cradle and LCA


composed of technical nutrients. This opens up for the possibilities of replacing the sole of the shoe as it wears down and even to lease the upper part of the shoes out in product service systems. 25.4.6 C2C Inspired Network of Companies: Carlsberg Circular Community The Carlsberg Circular Community is a cooperation platform launched in January 2014 featuring the brewing company Carlsberg and a selection of global partners (e.g. packaging suppliers) aiming to rethink the design and production of traditional packaging material. Inspired by the C2C design framework, the stated objectives of the Carlsberg Circular Community is: “to rethink the design and production of packaging material and develop the next generation of packaging products that are optimized for recycling and reuse while retaining or improving their quality and value” (Carlsberg Group 2015)


The initiative aims both at modifying standard packaging to fulfil C2C certification criteria and at developing new packaging types, such as the Green Fiber Bottle, which is an idea of creating a beer bottle made from sustainably sourced wood fibres. 25.5 C2C Compared to Eco-efficiency and LCA As alluded to above, C2C has a very different approach to environmental sustainability than eco-efficiency and the related measurement tool LCA, although many similarities also exist. Table 25.2 summarizes the main characteristics of C2C, eco-efficiency and LCA. Table 25.2 shows that C2C, eco-efficiency and LCA have quite different characteristics. In a position paper on the ‘Usability of Life Cycle Assessment for Cradle to Cradle purposes’ the problem of combining the use of C2C and LCA is summarized as: ‘Measuring a qualitative plan for creating a beneficial footprint by using a quantitative instrument designed to measure an existing environmentally damaging footprint’ (MIE 2011)


Consequently, the position paper recommends that LCA is not used as a sole means to assess environmental impacts of C2C Certified products. Below we elaborate on some conflicts, and possible solutions, between C2C and LCA that one should be aware of when trying to combine the concepts. A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


Table 25.2 Main characteristics of C2C, eco-efficiency and LCA Characteristic C2C Eco-efficiency LCA Aim To inspire the creation of products with a positive impact on humans and the environment To reduce negative environmental impacts per product, service or unit of GDP To systematically quantify all environmental impacts from life cycles of products and systems Targets Mainly industrial designers and CEOs Business (eco-efficiency was publicized by the World Business Counsel for Sustainable Development) (WBCSD 2000) Depend on the goal and scope definition. Often CSR department at companies Vision of sustainable society Follow the three key principles Large reductions in negative impacts per unit of GDP compared to today “to a level at least in line with the Earth’s estimated carrying capacity” (WBCSD 2000) No explicit vision of society as a whole, since reducing impacts from the delivery of single functions is the basis of the method Absolute guidance for product development? Yes


Always follow the three key principles to the extent possible No. Achieving increases in eco-efficiency requires case-specific analysis No. Achieving increases in eco-efficiency requires case-specific analysis Life cycle approach and coverage of environmental issues The designer must carefully choose the material composition of a product to obey the three key principles and plan for the fate of the materials through multiply life cycles (“cascades”). No environmental issues are covered explicitly because no negative impacts are assumed to happen when the three key principles are followed A life cycle perspective is encouraged. The types of environmental impacts covered depend on the assessment tool and the case Designed to quantify impacts of product life cycles. The LCIA step aims to cover a comprehensive list of environmental issues (see Chap. 10). The goal and scope definition of an LCA determines which issues to include (see Chaps


The LCIA step aims to cover a comprehensive list of environmental issues (see Chap. 10). The goal and scope definition of an LCA determines which issues to include (see Chaps. 7 and 8) Includes the idea of positive environmental impacts? Yes Not explicitly. Reducing negative impacts is the focus Potentially (see Sect. 25.6.3) (continued) Cradle to Cradle and LCA


25.6 Conflicts and Solutions When Combining C2C and LCA 25.6.1 C2C Prioritizes Qualitative Aspects—LCA Measures Quantitative Aspects Eco-effectiveness is often presented as “doing the right thing”, whereas eco-efficiency is “doing the thing right”. In pursuing the right thing, C2C is Table 25.2 (continued) Characteristic C2C Eco-efficiency LCA Quantitative? Partly. However, qualitative aspects precede quantitative aspects. E.g. quantity of energy used is irrelevant when the right quality is obtained (current solar income). Quantities of emissions are also irrelevant as long as they are the right emissions (‘the right material, at the right place at the right time’) Yes Yes Driver of innovation? The stated goal of C2C is to stimulate radical innovation (“remaking the way we make things”)


However, not all C2C certified or inspired products appear to be radically innovative, perhaps because it is very difficult to follow the three key principles completely in today’s world The idea of doing more with less environmental impact has been driving energy efficiency improvements for decades (e.g. LED lights) Depends on the goal and scope definition of an assessment. However, LCA is often applied to existing products on the market, since the LCI of a product not yet developed is often difficult to predict during the product’s development Values intentions? Yes. Since C2C calls for radical redesign, defining a plan for such a process is valued, which is reflected in the certification system No. Only actual increases in eco-efficiency are valued Intentions are not valued by themselves, but a scenario analysis can be used to quantify the projected outcomes of intentions A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


primarily using a qualitative approach. Values and principles come before quantitative parameters. For example, the quantity of energy used throughout the life cycle of a product or system is irrelevant from a C2C perspective as long as the quality is right (current solar income). This approach is reflected in the C2C certification scheme where there is no restriction on the quantity of energy used throughout the life cycle. However, it should be noted that, despite of the second key principle, the certification allows for a share of the energy use originating from sources other than current solar income. Also, the energy related certification criteria only cover the “final manufacturing stage” (except for the platinum level, for which upstream processes are covered), which will often only account for a modest share of the total life cycle energy consumption, especially for products consuming energy in the use stage


This allowable fraction ranges from 0% at Platinum level to 95–100% at Silver, Bronze and Basic levels (of which 82% of all products currently certified belongs to). Moreover, from a consequential LCA-perspective (see Sect. 8.5.3) purchasing renewable energy certificates (which is credited as using current solar income in the certification scheme) will only have a positive impact on the LCA results if the purchasing leads to an increase in the installation of renewable energy capacity (e.g. more solar cells and wind turbines). If this is not the case, the marginal energy sources are the same as if no certificate had been purchased and the purchasing of certificates should have no impacts on the LCA results. A C2C certified product may therefore, in theory, score relatively badly compared to a reference product in an LCA, because the certification scheme does not encourage energy efficiency


A C2C certified product may therefore, in theory, score relatively badly compared to a reference product in an LCA, because the certification scheme does not encourage energy efficiency. Another conflict between C2C and LCA arising due to the former’s focus on quality is that the quantities of materials are not considered, as long as they are designed as technical or biological nutrients. This means that C2C does not (actively) support the idea of dematerialization, which may lead to relatively material-intensive products. This is not a problem per se, but if the energy to produce the products is not current solar income (see above) or if the infrastructure to ensure the recycling of the product (be that in the technical or biological cycle) is not in place (see Sect. 25.6.2) it may result in a relatively bad LCA performance


25.6.2) it may result in a relatively bad LCA performance. Finally, it can be argued that a focus on quantity of emissions and resource use is crucial in a world with a finite resource base and emission absorption capacity and a growing demand for goods and service. Section 25.6.4 will further explore these issues. 25.6.2 C2C Values Intentions—LCA Values Measurable Outcomes When scrutinizing the C2C certification criteria it becomes clear that many of them, especially at the lower levels, relate exclusively to intentions. This is in line with Cradle to Cradle and LCA


C2C being characterized as a qualitative plan (see Sect. 25.5). Hence, the Basic certification level can largely be achieved solely by a combination of documenting the existing characteristics of the product and stating intentions for improving it in the future. LCA does not value intentions. Therefore, a product that has obtained a C2C certification without having undergone any change in elementary flows of its life cycle in the process scores exactly the same in an LCA as the product assessed before being awarded the certification. On a more general note, designers wanting to design a product to fit into the technical cycle often face a paradox: When introducing their novel products to the market they cannot be sure that it will remain in the technical cycle due to the lack of recycling infrastructure


However, if they decide to wait for such an infrastructure to be established before introducing their product, they may have to wait for a long time, because the construction of the infrastructure is often driven by demand in the form of products in need of new recycling technology. Consequently, the designer may choose to market the product, in spite of the lack of infrastructure, in hope that such an infrastructure will eventually be feasible to establish because of the volumes of the product that have entered the market and possibly other products fitting into the same infrastructure. In such cases, intentions of recycling the product may in time lead to its recycling. This can be captured in an LCA, depending on its goal and scope (Bjørn and Hauschild 2013), but LCA results based on assumptions of a future recycling system are inevitably more uncertain than results based on modelling an existing system


25.6.3 C2C Operates with Positive Environmental Impacts—LCA Operates with Negative Environmental Impacts A central perception in C2C is that the environment can be “benefitted” from the addition of nutrients. This is used as an argument to integrate nature into human designs instead of aiming to conserve nature through the separation of human and natural processes. LCA, on the other hand, separates the environment from the economy abstractly via its ecosphere/technosphere distinction. The ecosphere is composed of a number of environmental compartments that respond with a negative impact when concentrations of chemicals, or other indicators of the ecosystem state, are increased marginally as a result of the environmental exchanges of a product system. The technosphere may contain organisms of natural origin, but they are highly manipulated and hence not considered part of the environment. A pot plant is an example of this


The technosphere may contain organisms of natural origin, but they are highly manipulated and hence not considered part of the environment. A pot plant is an example of this. The positive impacts on the quality of the pot plant soil from the addition of biological nutrients are not classified as benefits to nature in LCA, because the pot plant belongs to the technosphere. Instead, LCA can account for the negative environmental impacts that have been avoided if the biological nutrients added to the pot plant displace the use of synthetic fertilizer. This accounting A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


practice falls within the general scope of LCA of quantifying negative impacts on the environment (whether caused or avoided) with the aim of reducing these. One could argue that positive impacts on the ecosphere ought to be captured in LCA by spatially resolved characterization factors, which take into account that nutrients that end up in ecosystems that are naturally nutrient poor can increase the number of species and their populations within that ecosystem. However, because LCA aims to conserve natural conditions as much as possible, an increase in the number of species and their populations is generally not considered positive, at least not if it happens at the cost of a reduced number of original species, adapted to nutrient-poor conditions, and their populations. For example, the endpoint LCIA model of freshwater eutrophication adopted in the ReCiPe LCIA methodology (Huijbregts et al


For example, the endpoint LCIA model of freshwater eutrophication adopted in the ReCiPe LCIA methodology (Huijbregts et al. 2015) derives the marginal damage from an increased phosphorous concentration from a set of monitoring data that excludes data from nutrient-poor locations (less than 0.1 mg phosphorous per litre freshwater). This exclusion is intentional as the authors “do not account for a potential overall increase in species richness due to an increase in P for oligotrophic situations” (Struijs et al. 2010). Because of the conservation ethics underlying LCA any change in natural conditions, even if they result in more species and higher populations, are considered negative, because changes essentially lead to cultural landscapes


The conservation ethics can also be defended from a biodiversity perspective, because an increase in local species (and genomic) diversity through the addition of nutrients may come at the expense of a reduction in regional or global species (and genomic) diversity. The species thriving in a nutrient-poor environment may become threatened or go extinct, if the practice of adding nutrients happens at a large scale, which is the case in many regions of the world due to modern agriculture’s reliance on synthetic fertilizer (Steffen et al. 2015). In some cases, LCA can actually handle genuine positive environmental impacts (not just reduced or avoided negative impacts). This applies when the function of the studied system(s) is to restore a previously manipulated piece of land or aquatic system (technosphere) to a natural state (ecosphere)


This applies when the function of the studied system(s) is to restore a previously manipulated piece of land or aquatic system (technosphere) to a natural state (ecosphere). For such a study, an example of a functional unit is “reintroducing 0.5 m of top soil and natural vegetation during no more than 5 year to 1 ha of eroded land”. In this case, the result of the LCIA will still be expressed as negative impacts for a number of impact categories. It would then be up to the decision-makers to decide whether the ecological benefit of the functional unit outweighs the negative impacts quantified by the LCA of delivering the functional unit (e.g. from treating potential pollution at the site and from extracting and transporting top soil from another location). The above points mean that one must be very specific about the type of environment to be benefitted when trying to evaluate a C2C product using LCA


The above points mean that one must be very specific about the type of environment to be benefitted when trying to evaluate a C2C product using LCA. What exactly is meant by “benefit”? Is the benefit intended on a manipulated environment that in LCA would be characterised as part of the technosphere? Is the benefit supposed to increase species diversity in naturally nutrient-poor environments? Can the benefit be considered an obligatory or positioning property, meaning that it may be captured by the functional unit of an LCA study (see Sect. 8.4)? Cradle to Cradle and LCA


25.6.4 C2C is Positive Towards Material Growth: LCA is Not In line with C2C proponents not supporting the idea of dematerialization at the product scale, they also do not support it at the economic scale. Rather than decoupling negative environmental impacts from GDP, C2C advocate a “positive recoupling” of the relationship between economy and ecology, which is argued to support future economic growth (Braungart et al. 2007). This stand can also be inferred from the 2002 book: “The key is not to make human industries and systems smaller, as efficiency advocates propound, but to design them to get bigger and better in a way that replenishes, restores and nourishes the rest of the world” (McDonough and Braungart 2002). The C2C argument is that as long as resources are circulated within continuous loops, then the amounts of resources circulating and their rate of circulation does not need to be restricted


The C2C argument is that as long as resources are circulated within continuous loops, then the amounts of resources circulating and their rate of circulation does not need to be restricted. Also, when accepting the premise that the introduction of biological nutrients to the biological cycle is beneficial to the environment (see Sect. 25.6.3), then the introduction of even more biological nutrients are seen as even more beneficial. This obviously conflicts with the perspective in LCA that impact is proportional to the quantity of elementary flows, which increases with the increase of product flows and other flows that are internal to the technosphere. Currently this argument holds for all products, inspired by C2C or not, because societies generally do not respect the three key principles in C2C


Currently this argument holds for all products, inspired by C2C or not, because societies generally do not respect the three key principles in C2C. In other words, in today’s world an increase in products inevitably results in an increase in consumption of renewable and non-renewable resources, CO2 emissions, and other emissions that occur due to the lack of closed material loops. Would increasing consumption, as argued by C2C proponents, then be unproblematic in a perfect C2C world, i.e. one with no violations of the three key principles? Probably not, when considering that economies having an increasing consumption historically have coincided with the accumulation of materials in societal stocks, such as buildings and infrastructure. This conclusion was also reached by the European Environmental Agency (EEA 2011) for the European economy as a whole: “even maximum recycling cannot cover all EU demand for resources


This conclusion was also reached by the European Environmental Agency (EEA 2011) for the European economy as a whole: “even maximum recycling cannot cover all EU demand for resources. This is due to the accumulation of goods in a growing EU economy, for example in the construction sector, which acts as a long-term store for materials, making them unavailable for recycling for many years”. So even if 100% recycling, i.e. no waste generation, is achieved in a materially growing economy, the accumulation of materials must be compensated by a supply of virgin resources, as illustrated in Fig. 25.2 (when disregarding the theoretical option of obtaining resource from other economies that are materially shrinking). This situation is fundamentally unsustainable because it will eventually lead to resource scarcity


This situation is fundamentally unsustainable because it will eventually lead to resource scarcity. This scarcity is further driven by the increasing need for minerals going into the renewable energy infrastructure (windmills, photovoltaic cells, transmission cables, etc.) needed to fuel increasing material throughputs (Kleijn and van der Voet 2010). A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


A growing economy may also cause scarcity of renewable resources because the planet has a limited (short term and long term) capacity to produce biomaterials through photosynthesis (Running 2012). This became evident when increased use of biofuels from especially corn caused food prices to increase dramatically in 2007 thus resulting in food scarcity for the poorest (Partzsch and Hughes 2010). Moreover, biodiversity is generally lower in managed biological systems (agriculture, plantations, etc.) than in natural systems. An economy with a growing intake of biomaterials, therefore, threatens to reduce biodiversity. 25.7 Learnings from C2C to LCA Experts and Practitioners So far, mostly C2C’s shortcomings have been addressed by scrutinizing the concept from the perspective of LCA. However, C2C does point out some thoughtprovoking weaknesses of LCA and the underlining concept of eco-efficiency


However, C2C does point out some thoughtprovoking weaknesses of LCA and the underlining concept of eco-efficiency. These weaknesses and their potential solutions should, in the authors’ opinions, be addressed by LCA experts and practitioners in their pursuit of a sustainable world. 25.7.1 Avoid Perfectly Optimized Wrong Systems First of all, eco-efficiency and LCA are more focused on the means to achieve sustainability than on how a sustainable future might actually look. The guiding principle is reductions of environmental impacts per functional unit, but the complex dynamics between the different functions making up a society is poorly captured in LCA and to a large extent excluded from the system boundaries of an assessment for pragmatic reasons. This may lead to what C2C proponents sarcastically terms “highly optimized wrong systems”. Such a situation arises when in the pursuit of eco-efficiency systems or technologies that are inherently unsustainable, are optimized


Such a situation arises when in the pursuit of eco-efficiency systems or technologies that are inherently unsustainable, are optimized. LCA generally tells you what is greener in today’s non-ideal world, while C2C tells you what is green in Stock: 100Gt 100% Resource: 5Gt/year Stock: 105Gt 100% Stock: 110Gt 100% Resource: 5Gt/year Resource: 5Gt/year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Fig. 25.2 Illustration of how resource input is required in a materially growing economy that recycles 100% of its resources Cradle to Cradle and LCA


an ideal future. Often, both things cannot be pursued simultaneously. This is because an ideal future may never be realized if products and systems are optimized according to what is greener in today’s non-ideal world, since this optimization of “wrong systems” could serve to lock societies into an unsustainable trajectory. Solid waste incineration is a good candidate of a “highly optimized wrong systems”. When optimizing the incineration process the efficiency of the flue gas cleaning and the conversion of the chemically stored energy in the waste into heat and electricity are increased. This increases the eco-efficiency of the system. However, for a large part of the solid waste fractions currently incinerated, the practice is inherently unsustainable


This increases the eco-efficiency of the system. However, for a large part of the solid waste fractions currently incinerated, the practice is inherently unsustainable. Non-renewable materials are lost (for instance petroleum-based plastics), decreased in quality due to contamination (for instance metals), or chemically transformed into a form where they can hardly be utilized (for instance the decrease in bioavailability of phosphorus (Thygesen et al. 2011)). Furthermore, investments in capacity for waste incineration necessitates that plants operate for several decades into the future. This decreases the incentive to install capacity for recycling, clearly conflicting with the aim within the circular economy concept of closing material loops. Moreover, state-of-the-art recycling technologies may perform worse in an LCA than state-of-the-art incineration, because more efforts have gone into the optimization of the latter than into the former


However, as noted above, recycling technologies may have the potential to become the environmentally preferable waste management option if given the chance to develop and mature. The scales may also tip to the favour of recycling due to the tendency of decreasing average environmental impacts per unit of energy consumption as a consequence of increasing shares of renewable energy in energy mixes of most nations. This means that, in time, environmental impacts associated with energy consumption in the recycling processes becomes smaller and, in parallel, the environmental impacts associated with average grid-electricity production and district heating that are superseded by energy production from waste incineration (in an attributional LCA) becomes smaller and less advantageous to replace. An idea for how to avoid the risk of perfectly optimized wrong systems is to embed a vision of a sustainable society, whether inspired by C2C or not, into the background system of a LCI model


An idea for how to avoid the risk of perfectly optimized wrong systems is to embed a vision of a sustainable society, whether inspired by C2C or not, into the background system of a LCI model. This would mean that background processes would reflect the vision of a sustainable society and thus reward product systems that are designed to fit such a vision. For example, the electricity mix could be composed of 100% renewable sources. Challenges of such a strategy are the choice among competing visions of sustainable societies and the translation of such visions to future models of the thousands of unit processes commonly made available in commercial LCI databases. For example, what modes of transport (private cars, busses, trains?) will exist in a sustainable future and how will these be fuelled (biofuels or electricity or hydrogen produced from renewable sources?)? These challenges are discussed in Chap. 21 on future-oriented LCA


21 on future-oriented LCA. In other cases it may be more appropriate to carry out a straightforward qualitative assessment, where a product system is evaluated based on the extent to which it fulfils a range of sustainability conditions (such as “being completely based on renewable materials” or “not relying on fossil fuels in use stage”), as proposed by Ny et al. (2006) and de Pauw et al. (2015). A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


25.7.2 Improve LCI Modelling of Material Quality and Multiple Life Cycles In a life cycle inventory model, the fate of products and their material components in the technosphere is usually treated as an issue of multifunctionality (see Sect. 8.5). For example, a recycling facility provides the co-function (in addition to managing waste) of delivering recycled materials and this co-function is typically handled by performing system expansion or allocation (see Sect. 8.5.2). However, in doing so, it is difficult to capture the difference in quality between the original material and the material leaving the recycling facility (that may have been “downcycled”). Typically, this quality issue is handled quantitatively in LCA by applying substitution factors, that take into account that a certain amount of virgin material is needed to make up for a loss in quality (e.g. a factor of 0.7 for paper recycling)


a factor of 0.7 for paper recycling). The problem with this approach is that the value of a recycled material depends on which new product the material will take part in. For example, a certain alloy composition of recycled aluminium may be seen as an advantage in one product and a disadvantage in another product. Also, current modelling practice of recycling processes typically does not account for subtle differences in material inputs to recycling or recycled materials (e.g. differences in alloy elements present and their concentrations), which can be decisive for the value of recycled materials in a new life cycle. To overcome these weaknesses, LCI modelling practice needs to improve the representation of a material’s constituents, considering (1) intended heterogeneity (e.g. in the case of coating or metal alloys to improve functionality) and unintended heterogeneity (e.g


in the case of coating or metal alloys to improve functionality) and unintended heterogeneity (e.g. a packaging material becoming “polluted” with food during the use stage), (2) how heterogeneity affects material recyclability (for example, some plastic recycling processes cannot operate if impurities exceed a certain threshold), (3) the composition of recycled materials. It may also be feasible to consider multiple life cycles in the LCI modelling, which could be aligned with the C2C idea of planning for a “cascade” for a material (see Table 25.2). If doing so, the functional unit should cover all the functions that a material deliver to the planned life cycles, rather than the function on the first life cycle, as is currently common practice (Niero and Olsen 2016). 25.7.3 Avoid False Sense of Sustainability Progress LCA results are generally interpreted in a relative manner (see Chap. 2). That is, calculated impacts are compared with impacts from other human activities, e.g


2). That is, calculated impacts are compared with impacts from other human activities, e.g. different products in a comparative assessment and/or background impacts (per person) in a reference year through the normalization stage of LCIA. Therefore, LCA results do not provide any information on the seriousness of an impact, understood as its size compared to the carrying capacity of affected ecosystems, i.e. Cradle to Cradle and LCA


their capacity to generate resources and absorb pollution (Sayre 2008). If carrying capacities are exceeded, the structure and functions of ecosystems may fundamentally change, leading to the disappearance of species and loss of ecosystem services. Past increases in global consumption of products and services have resulted in the exceeding of several carrying capacities at various scales and this trend is projected to continue (WRI 2005; Steffen et al. 2015), as discussed in Chapt 5. This means that “better” at the product level is not necessarily “good enough”. In other words, presenting individual products and services as “green” or “sustainable” because they have an incrementally lower environmental impact than reference products and services may create a false sense of sustainability progress, and in some situations qualify as “greenwashing” (UL 2010)


C2C does not contain the concept of carrying capacity, because C2C aims for positive impacts, rather than limiting negative impacts to levels that nature can cope with, and because calls for the integration of nature and societies. Yet, C2C’s ambitious absolute guidance (the three key principles) encourages radical changes in the ways we produce and consume, creates a sense of urgency, and offers a positive vision of a sustainable future to aim for. This may serve as a wakeup call for some societal actors who have not previously been engaged in environmental issues. LCA practitioners can learn from the absolute perspective of C2C in the interpretation stage of many types of LCAs


LCA practitioners can learn from the absolute perspective of C2C in the interpretation stage of many types of LCAs. In a comparative LCA it is important to note that “better” is not necessarily “good enough” and to put the environmental impacts of the studied product system(s) into a wider sustainability framing, whether such a frame is based on C2C or the concept of carrying capacity, as integrated in normalization references (Bjørn and Hauschild 2015). 25.7.4 Emphasize Positive Impacts and Opportunities When Communicating Results LCA informs decisions on how to reduce negative environmental impacts. As argued by C2C proponents the idea of doing less of something bad (two negative terms combined) may be psychologically demotivating. Doing more of something good sounds more appealing, which undoubtedly contributes to the wide interest in C2C


Doing more of something good sounds more appealing, which undoubtedly contributes to the wide interest in C2C. The idea of making an effort to create a “delightful diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, water, soil and power—economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed” is simply more inspiring than the old mantra of reducing negative ecological impacts, accompanied by terrifying images of drowning polar bears, suffocated fish and birds covered in oil. Can LCA practitioners adopt a positive framing of the need for sustainable development, while still being honest about the many unsustainable trends facing the world, the enormity of the challenge and the insufficiency of incremental improvements? We would have liked to answer this question by “yes, of course!”, but at this point we can only come up with a couple of fuzzy suggestions. A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


Firstly, a closer connection between the functional unit of LCA and happiness can be created, as proposed by Hofstetter et al (2006). This can serve to motivate the task of maintaining or creating (the conditions for) happiness, while minimizing or completely abolishing the “unhappiness” imposed on other living creatures (human or not) by the provisioning of product systems. Perhaps more importantly, a closer connection between what is assessed in LCA and happiness can make stakeholders reflect upon whether a product system is really needed in the pursuit of happiness. Maybe another product system or activity fulfilling a completely different function and having a radically lower environmental impact can be just as good, or better, at creating the conditions for happiness? In the illustrative example of Hofstetter et al


(2006) it is proposed (hypothetically) that the activities of gardening and going to a weekend house on the country side might be equally good at creating conditions for happiness, even though they provide much different functions. The former activity obviously has a much lower environmental impact. Secondly, LCA may be framed within a larger struggle against business as usual. LCA can inform this struggle since it can show the gap between the required reductions in environmental impacts (e.g. to avoid exceeding carrying capacities) and the actual reductions taking place. The struggle against business as usual is also about social justice. During the last three decades political and economic systems have failed at reducing environmental impacts (most impacts have increased) and have increased income inequality within and between nations


Therefore, it could be motivating for LCA practitioners and their audience to position themselves as agents of change in the struggle for an environmentally sustainable and just world. In the words of Naomi Klein: “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we are ever gonna get to build a better world?” (Klein 2014). Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z.: Absolute versus relative environmental sustainability. J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 321–332 (2013). doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00520.x Bjørn, A., Hauschild, M.Z.: Introducing carrying capacity based normalization in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1005–1018 (2015) Braungart, M., McDonough, W., Bollinger, A.: Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions—a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean Prod. 15, 1337– 1348 (2007)


J. Clean Prod. 15, 1337– 1348 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003 Carlsberg Group: Carlsber Group CSR Report 2014: Growing Responsibility Together (2015) de Pauw, I.C., Kandachar, P., Karana, E.: Assessing sustainability in nature-inspired design. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 8, 5–13 (2015). doi:10.1080/19397038.2014.977373 EC: Closing the loop—an EU action plan for the Circular Economy. COM (2015) 614 final. European Commission (2015a) EC: Implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. European Commission (2015b). http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm EEA: Earnings, jobs and innovation: The role of recycling in a green economy. EEA Report 8/2011. European Environment Agency. ISSN: 1725-9177. Copenhagen, Denmark (2011) Cradle to Cradle and LCA


EMF: Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: An Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes (2012) EMF: Delivering the Circular Economy: a Toolkit for Policymakers. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes (2015a) EMF: Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes (2015b) Hofstetter, P., Madjar, M., Ozawa, T.: Happiness and sustainable consumption—psychological and physical rebound effects at work in a tool for sustainable design. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 105–115 (2006) Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., et al.: ReCiPe2015: a life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level report I : characterisation factors (2015) ISO: ISO 14024:1999. Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling —Principles and Procedures


Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling —Principles and Procedures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (1999) Kleijn, R., van der Voet, E.: Resource constraints in a hydrogen economy based on renewable energy sources: an exploration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 2784–2795 (2010). doi:10. 1016/j.rser.2010.07.066 Klein, N.: This Changes Everything. Simon & Schuste, New York (2014) MBDC: The Making of the Next Industrial Revolution at Ford Motor Company. McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, Charlottesville (2011) McDonough, W., Braungart, M.: Cradle to Cradle—Remaking the Way We Make Things, 1st edn. North Point Press, New York (2002) McDonough, W., Braungart, M.: The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability-Designing for Abundance. North Point Press, New York (2013) MIE: Usability of Life Cycle Assessment for Cradle to Cradle Purposes—Position Paper. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Utrecht (2011) NEL: Product Groups


Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Utrecht (2011) NEL: Product Groups. Nordic Ecolabelling (2016). http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/criteria/ product-groups/?p=1 Niero, M., Olsen, S.I.: Circular economy: to be or not to be in a closed product loop? A Life Cycle Assessment of aluminium cans with inclusion of alloying elements. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 114, 18–31 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.023 Niero, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Hoffmeyer, S.B., Olsen, S.I.: Combining eco-efficiency and eco-effectiveness for continuous loop beverage packaging systems: learnings from the Carlsberg Circular Community. J. Ind. Ecol. (in review) (2016) Ny, H., Macdonald, J.P., Broman, G., et al.: Sustainability constraints as system boundaries—an approach to making life-cycle management strategic. J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 61–77 (2006) Partzsch, L., Hughes, S.: Food versus fuel: governance potential for water rivalry. Food Ethics (2010)


J. Ind. Ecol. 10, 61–77 (2006) Partzsch, L., Hughes, S.: Food versus fuel: governance potential for water rivalry. Food Ethics (2010). doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_10 PII: Guidance for Applying the Final Manufacturing Stage Requirements in the Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Product Standard, Versions 3.0 and 3.1 (2015) PII: Cradle to Cradle Certified(TM) Product Standard Version 3.1. Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (2016) PII: Overall Product Scoring. In: Get Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM. Cradle to Cradle Prod. Innov. Inst. (2017a). http://www.c2ccertified.org/get-certified/levels PII: Cradle to Cradle Certified Products Registry. In: Cradle to Cradle Prod. Innov. Inst. (2017b). http://www.c2ccertified.org/products/registry PLI: Cradle to Cradle. In: Prod. Inst. (2013). http://www.product-life.org/en/cradle-to-cradle Running, S.W.: A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012)


In: Prod. Inst. (2013). http://www.product-life.org/en/cradle-to-cradle Running, S.W.: A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012). doi:10.1126/science.1227620 Sayre, N.F.: The genesis, history, and limits of carrying capacity. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 98, 120–134 (2008). doi:10.1080/00045600701734356 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., et al.: Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (Washington D C) 347, 736 (2015). doi:10.1126/ science.1259855 A. Bjørn and M.Z. Hauschild


Struijs, J., Beusen, A., Zwart, D., Huijbregts, M.: Characterization factors for inland water eutrophication at the damage level in life cycle impact assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 59–64 (2010). doi:10.1007/s11367-010-0232-z Thygesen, A.M., Wernberg, O., Skou, E., Sommer, S.G.: Effect of incineration temperature on phosphorus availability in bio-ash from manure. Environ. Technol. 32, 633–638 (2011). doi:10.1080/09593330.2010.509355 Tobias, C.: Exclusive interview with Dr. Michael Braungart: Businesses should do more good, rather than less bad. In: eco-business.com—Asia Pacific’s Environ. Bus. community (2010). http://www.eco-business.com/news/2010/oct/25/businesses-should-do-more-good-rather-less-bad/ UL: The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition. Underwriters Laboratories (2010) WBCSD: Eco-efficiency—creating more value with less impact. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000) WRI: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being


World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2000) WRI: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Synthesis. Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC (2005) Author Biographies Anders Bjørn Part of the LCA community since the early 2010s. Main focus is interpretations of sustainability and integration of sustainability targets in LCA to enable absolute sustainability assessments. Michael Z. Hauschild Involved in development of LCIA methodology since the early 1990s. Has led several SETAC and UNEP/SETAC working groups and participated in the development of the ISO standards and the ILCD methodological guidelines. Main LCA interests are chemical impacts, spatial differentiation and science-based boundaries in LCIA. Cradle to Cradle and LCA


Chapter 26 LCA of Energy Systems Alexis Laurent, Nieves Espinosa and Michael Z. Hauschild Abstract Energy systems are essential in the support of modern societies’ activities, and can span a wide spectrum of electricity and heat generation systems and cooling systems. Along with their central role and large diversity, these systems have been demonstrated to cause serious impacts on human health, ecosystems and natural resources. Over the past two decades, energy systems have thus been the focus of more than 1000 LCA studies, with the aim to identify and reduce these impacts. This chapter addresses LCA applications to energy systems for generation of electricity and heat


This chapter addresses LCA applications to energy systems for generation of electricity and heat. The chapter gives insight into the LCA practice related to such systems, offering a critical review of (i) central methodological aspects, including the definition of the goals and scopes of the studies, their coverage of the system life cycle and the environmental impacts, and (ii) key findings of the studies, particularly aimed at identifying environmental hotspots and impact patterns across different energy sources. Based on this literature review recommendations and guidelines are issued to LCA practitioners on key methodological aspects that are important for a proper conduct of LCA studies of energy systems and thus ensuring the reliability of the LCA results provided to decision- and policy-makers. A. Laurent (&)  M.Z


A. Laurent (&)  M.Z. Hauschild Division for Quantitative Sustainability Assessment, Department for Management Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstorvet 424, 2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark e-mail: alau@dtu.dk M.Z. Hauschild e-mail: mzha@dtu.dk N. Espinosa Department of Energy Conversion and Storage, Technical University of Denmark, Frederiksborgvej, 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: nieves.espinosa@ec.europa.eu N. Espinosa Product Policy Bureau, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Inca Garcilaso, 3, 41092 Sevilla, Spain © Springer International Publishing AG 2018 M.Z. Hauschild et al. (eds.), Life Cycle Assessment, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_26


26.1 Over the past decades, energy systems have increasingly received attention from stakeholders, including from high policy-makers, due to the combination of four major factors. Although different trends can be observed across countries, energy demand is expected to keep increasing worldwide, hence putting an increasing pressure on the supply side. The total primary energy supply, which amounted to 560 EJ globally in 2012, is thus expected to increase by 20–35% by 2040 (IEA 2015a). Conventional fossil resources are still anticipated to absorb that increase although depletion issues, in particular of conventional oil resources, have been widely acknowledged. As a result, initiatives to find alternative resources to fulfil the services that are currently relying on petroleum products have emerged (e.g. electric transportation to replace fossil-fuelled ones; see Chap. 27)